IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 6 lines >http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/member/culture/story/20247.html > >(The RIAA is about to eat it) > >David >

The RIAA's intentions of greed obviously/unfortunatly outshined the legitimate concerns. My biggest problem with the majority of MP3 arguments is that people somehow think this is a big music liberation movement. Countless journalist yammer on (not always well informed either) about how majors are fucking their artist on royalty percentages so why shouldn't these artist/consumers liberate their music, blah blah blah. Okay, well and good, but in my opinion if you're stupid enough to accept some huge recoupable advance (hello...it's called 'an advance') and settle for something absurd like 6 points on each record sold (and that's after recoubables...hello T.L.C) than you deserve to be screwed by your label. My dad who knows nothing about the music industry, after 12 drinks he could probably tell you that's a bad idea. As I read somewhere recently 'if someone offered you a credit card with 66% interest would you take it?" No one ever seems to point to the fact that there are labels that actually treat their artists properly and pay a decent royalty percentage, and that these labels/artists are getting fucked by people's ease of bootlegging via MP3. A quick scan of some easily accessible sites reveals that there is loads of our stuff up there for download. I'm not sure how to feel. If people are downloading Amon Tobin MP3's because they're curious about what he sounds like and then go buy the record than that's good. But I can't help but feel there is loads of new music consumers who see no problem in just downloading his whole record and feeling that's sufficiant 'ownership' (ie. the parameters of what constitutes 'ownership' are changing with new consumers). Well, that's fucked. Those people better have an extra room at their house for Amon or me or other Ninja artist to sleep in the first month the rent cheque bounces, know what I'm saying. Anyway, it's a bit frustrating but whatever. I'm still convinced that downloadable music will only compliment traditional forms of music buying, it will never replace. The internet didn't replace newspapers. VCR's didn't close down the movie theatres. Plus I still beleive that most people are deluded when they think the internet represents free enterprise. There is billions of dollars at stake here, so don't think that the equivilents of major labels and major chains won't rule it in a few years. That good underground record will become just as hard to find on the internet as it is to find in Wichita. Major companies will own the search engines, the ads, things will be implimented to send you to their site not the other ones...and I still maintain that the biggest problem with the internet is that their is no quality filter. Everyone thinks they're a star, so they're all going to get their 10th rate music up on line making the good stuff hard to find. Imagine if your record store decided to carry any piece of music that someone came to them with. Anyway, I'm rambling. If anything all the music luddites of the world will lead a massive vinyl revolution and I'm all for that anyway... Jeff

quoted 6 lines I'm not sure how to feel. If people are downloading Amon Tobin

>I'm not sure how to feel. If people are downloading Amon Tobin >MP3's because they're curious about what he sounds like and then go buy >the record than that's good. But I can't help but feel there is loads of >new music consumers who see no problem in just downloading his whole >record and feeling that's sufficiant 'ownership' (ie. the parameters of >what constitutes 'ownership' are changing with new consumers).

Not to argue or be a bitch, but which is better: 1) Someone who never hears of a certain artist and thus never buys thier CDs, or hears of but still doesn't 2) Someone who downloads a file of that artist's stuff, or even an album's worth of files, and listens and likes but still doesn't buy. I'm not sure, but it's not like the artist is losing any sales, maybe. Now i had an mp3 of Tobin's remix of Sakamoto on myhd for a long time, and i dug it some, but i never went out to buy it. Then i saw it used for cheap, so i purchased. Is that any better? Sharing mp3s on the net seems to me much less harmful than buying used CDs and promos, but no one complains about that. Half of the CDs i buy are used, and that's usually how i decide what to buy: "Can i find it cheap?" I know that when i buy used CDs, the artist gets no more money than she/he/they would otherwise, but i still feel no remorse for buying used CDs. should i? And if so, why doesn't the RIAA crack down on that?

quoted 1 line Well, that's fucked. Those people better have an extra room at their house

>Well, that's fucked. Those people better have an extra room at their house

for

quoted 2 lines Amon or me or other Ninja artist to sleep in the first month the rent

>Amon or me or other Ninja artist to sleep in the first month the rent >cheque bounces, know what I'm saying.

Not to make light of the situation, but i would gladly share my living space with a ninja artist (or office person) if the need should arise. E-mail me if you'll be in Minnesota anytime. :) _________________________________ Adam Roesch / roesch@augsburg.edu University of Idaho / Moscow / ID / USA Visit my Fila Brazillia/Pork Recordings fan site: http://dogbert.augsburg.edu/~roesch/pork/ "Because success needs killing" TRICKY

quoted 3 lines Those people better have an extra room at their house for

>Those people better have an extra room at their house for >Amon or me or other Ninja artist to sleep in the first month the rent >cheque bounces, know what I'm saying

i know im shaking in my boots

quoted 2 lines Imagine if your record store decided to carry any

>Imagine if your record store decided to carry any >piece of music that someone came to them with.

sometimes i wonder......kims video in the village has some fucked up shit down in that basement.

To follow...

quoted 18 lines Not to argue or be a bitch, but

>Not to argue or be a bitch, but >which is better: >1) Someone who never hears of a certain artist and thus never buys thier >CDs, or hears of but still doesn't >2) Someone who downloads a file of that artist's stuff, or even an album's >worth of files, and listens and likes but still doesn't buy. > >I'm not sure, but it's not like the artist is losing any sales, maybe. >Now i had an mp3 of Tobin's remix of Sakamoto on myhd for a long time, and >i dug it some, but i never went out to buy it. Then i saw it used for >cheap, so i purchased. Is that any better? > >Sharing mp3s on the net seems to me much less harmful than buying used CDs >and promos, but no one complains about that. Half of the CDs i buy are >used, and that's usually how i decide what to buy: "Can i find it cheap?" I >know that when i buy used CDs, the artist gets no more money than >she/he/they would otherwise, but i still feel no remorse for buying used >CDs. should i? And if so, why doesn't the RIAA crack down on that?

A used CD was at least bought once and some money went to the artist and the label, and then sold once more, maybe a few more times at the most. A CD that is bought once and then put online for tons of people to burn is fucked. The used CD market is barely an issue, as the way I see it is most people who sell CDs turn around and use that money to buy more music. Sure there are promos that get sold, but that's more of an exception, plus promos that have been sent from a label are already written off. The point of all this is that we're dealing with artists who sell well but not loads, so everythings counts when it comes to them being able to get out their next record. Some other things in regards to digital downloading that I forgot to put in original post... As it stands now it might be cheaper to put all your music on line and sell for like $.99 a track or something. But soon enough as things get bigger with overhead, keeping up with the new software (in the 'real world' a new format comes up every few years, in the 'computer world'...), compitation, etc... all of a sudden you've become the same as a label with a distributor and you're right back to where you started (having to pay approx.$15 a CD)...except no one leaves their house anymore and you have some sub-standard downloaded version without all the artwork and cool packaging. With a few exceptions, there are 2 kinds of people in the music industry. People with talent who can make wicked tunes, and people with a business sense who know who to get the stuff out there. I can't make a decent tune, and most of our artists wouldn't know where to begin in regards to selling their own music (or they would have to spend so much time doing it, there music would start to suck)...so either way you're looking at having to build up a base of people to compete...so all of a sudden you're stuck running a label, not just popping some tunes on the internet (good if you have the time, but....) Okay, and my biggest problem.... The rise of online buying dictates you either have to have a credit card or spend a lot of time at the bank. This is still highly inconvenient for most people. So someones going to invent some sort of virtual cash debit card kind of thing eventually. Before you know it, paper money is obsolete and government and marketing groups know absolutly everything you do know because they can trace your every buying move. I'm not involved in anything sketchy, but I still don't want people to know that much about me. Watch as you get thousands of junk e-mails from companies similiar to the one you just spent money at. Ever see what happens to your home mail box after you buy a TV or some other hi-ticket item on your credit card. It's no coincidence. Alright, I'm done venting.... Jeff