Lime is doing it's time.

Whatever doesn't fit anywhere else.

Lime is doing it's time.

Postby Greg H. » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:14 am

Dunno if you guys have heard, but Limewire got shut down recently. I mean, it's not going to stop file sharing, but Limewire WAS the most popular of them. Possibly over $1 billion dollars in infringement charges.

Torrent sites will probably be targeted soon too, as a ton of people use them to steal full albums, as opposed to the popular singles.
-
-
Anybody have anything to share? Limewire not required ;)
Lot's of people are discussing that it's government trying to "control the internet" on other forums. Thoughts?
Make Awkward Sexual Advances, Not War.
User avatar
Greg H.
Silver Member
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Quispamsis, N.B

Postby Crimson Chameleon » Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:18 pm

Questions?

Yeah. You say torrent sites will be targeted next because so many people steal albums by using them. Why/how is that different from using a torrent site to share full albums?

If I paid for a cd and now want to share it with my friends, is that illegal? If I buy a case a beer and decide to share a few of them with a friend will the government come after me for that?

Or I am an old guy who collected lots of vinyl back in the 70s and now I have decided to convert the records to mp3 and share them online.

Is it stealing or sharing?

I think that is the most important question to solve first: is it stealing or sharing?
User avatar
Crimson Chameleon
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:29 am
Location: Norton

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:22 am

I think it's a step that's been long overdue. This will most certainly lead to more legal action against those facilitating such easy abuse of protected material.

You can use the word "sharing" all you want, but when "sharing" material against the will of the creators of that work, who in our society are legally supported to protect that work, you are still in the wrong whether you agree or not.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Greg H. » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:16 am

Sharing on such a massive level that's been going on isn't the same as sharing with a few friends though. If I were to go to Moosehead Brewery in Saint John and share all the beer produced that day with everyone in the city, it would seriously damage the income of the company, and that could lead to the brewery being shut down.

Same with the music, I could share with a few people, but if I'm giving an album away to thousands, the artist is harmed.

Saying all this, I will admit to having downloaded torrents before, and a lot of times that is the only place to find rare bootlegs. Though I do make a point to buy hard copies whenever I can.
Make Awkward Sexual Advances, Not War.
User avatar
Greg H.
Silver Member
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Quispamsis, N.B

Postby Cryptowen » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:41 am

^Difference there is that something like beer is a physical product & the company must create each individual unit. A music recording is more like an idea & can be recreated (in digital format) an infinite number of times for virtually no cost.

Most of the albums I've torrented there would have been 0% chance of me buying before I heard them. Now that I have there is a slightly higher than 0% chance of me buying them (and sometimes I actually do!). I've heard the same from other people. That probably doesn't make torrenting right if you think it's wrong, but it actually can be positive as far as money making goes for artists below a certain popularity level (ie, bad for people like Eminem or Madonna, good for the obscure Nigerian metal band you would have never heard about otherwise).
User avatar
Cryptowen
Active Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:07 am

Postby Crimson Chameleon » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:18 am

Cryptowen wrote:^Difference there is that something like beer is a physical product & the company must create each individual unit. A music recording is more like an idea & can be recreated (in digital format) an infinite number of times for virtually no cost.

Most of the albums I've torrented there would have been 0% chance of me buying before I heard them. Now that I have there is a slightly higher than 0% chance of me buying them (and sometimes I actually do!). I've heard the same from other people. That probably doesn't make torrenting right if you think it's wrong, but it actually can be positive as far as money making goes for artists below a certain popularity level (ie, bad for people like Eminem or Madonna, good for the obscure Nigerian metal band you would have never heard about otherwise).


Agreed! I don't think it is beneficial to just generalise the entire online "sharing"/"stealing" phenomenon. We should be looking at individual cases, but that ain't gonna happen.

An mp3 is not a physical product. The music industry needs to adapt to the changes in technology that it seems to simultaneously embrace and struggle against, as opposed to making fans feel like criminals. The more I hear about the industry complaining, the more it makes me want to never purchase another physical album again. No sympathy for the industy.
User avatar
Crimson Chameleon
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:29 am
Location: Norton

Postby clinton » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:44 pm

either way, the way music is distributed and consumed is changing and if artists don't change with it then they'll be lost in the shuffle. There is a lot of postives and negatives in my opinion but one thing I do enjoy is the innovation in promoting music now.
"I came unarmed, they've all got knives, how can this song survive?" - Ron Sexsmith (Blue Boy)
clinton
Gold Member
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:35 am
Location: www.januarythroughdecember.com

Postby macrae11 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:30 pm

Clinton is absolutely right. Things are changing and some new paradigm needs to come into play, or the whole ship is going to sink. The problem with those of you promoting a "sharing" or try before you buy attitude are in the vast minority. Most people don't even have purchasing of the music they listen to as a thought in their brain. It's become a generation of people who think they're entitled to music. Sharing is giving a copy to a friend to try out to see I they would also enjoy the artist. Like Mat gave me a copy of a Missy Higgins CD, I loved it and went out and bought my own copy of that album and another one of hers. He also gave me one of a band from out west that I don't remember, and didn't dig so I chucked it. Sharing is not posting something online for anybody to use.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Postby Greg H. » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:31 pm

clinton wrote:lost in the shuffle.


Heh heh heh, pun unintended?

I'm not against change in the industry, I just don't want to see the whole market of music go digital. I remember getting my first CD when I was younger, and it was a really special day for me (It was the Pokemon 2000 soundtrack, and it is very much on my iPod.)

Strangely enough, I'm noticing vinyl starting to make a bit of a comeback too.
Make Awkward Sexual Advances, Not War.
User avatar
Greg H.
Silver Member
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Quispamsis, N.B

Postby Cryptowen » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:57 pm

macrae11 wrote:Sharing is not posting something online for anybody to use.


Are libraries sharing? I've also heard about this one website that buys vintage video games, rips them to digital format, & allows people online to play them - but limiting the number of players at one time to the number of copies the site owns (ie, if they have ten copies of one game then only ten people would be able to play the online version at one time). If there was something like that for music, would that be sharing?

In my experience a lot of the people who just download in bulk & never buy any albums/merchandise/concert tickets are the sort of people who don't have a real interest in music, & would otherwise just listen to whatever's currently big on mainstream radio.
User avatar
Cryptowen
Active Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:07 am

Postby clinton » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:04 pm

macrae11 wrote: The problem with those of you promoting a "sharing" or try before you buy attitude are in the vast minority.


Why is that the problem (if one even exists)? Lots of big name artists are encouraging downloading of their product knowing full well that they're not going to purchase it. They're banking on people going to live shows and a good number of artists are making their money that way. Dave Matthews comes to mind here (as an aside, I hate his music)

Then there's the whole licensing thing which is a massive money-maker in today's market. Artists like Greg Laswell, Mat Kearney, Trent Dabbs, or Inara George are all getting the bulk of their pay from licensing their music to television shows like Grey's Anatomy. Believe it or not, ring tones are a huge source of revenue for artists now too, albeit hip hop seems to be the money-maker here.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you really, but I do think that the morality issue is a played arguement that really straddles too fine a line to bother even getting in to.

Some of the basic fundamentals still hold true and that is that if it's good, people will hear it....regardless of how.

Disclaimer: I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of taking part in this conversation. I don't necessarily have a fully formed opinion on the issue and I see both positives and negatives in both arguements.
"I came unarmed, they've all got knives, how can this song survive?" - Ron Sexsmith (Blue Boy)
clinton
Gold Member
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:35 am
Location: www.januarythroughdecember.com

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:32 pm

The problem with the whole "sharing" attitude is, the users are trying to take the decision away from the artist about how their music is distributed.

Yes, some who have already made their millions have come out in favour of giving away their music, and that keeps being touted as an "if they can do it, why can't you", but it's not our decision to make, it's the artist's.

Many things I've experienced myself have proven to me that the issue isn't just people who wouldn't have bought music in the first place. When I was teaching music during the first few years of "sharing", I was amazed at how students went from having physical copies of CDs, to shelves full of CDRs of albums. When I deal with young kids in musical settings now, I laugh at how they can't believe people like me will still buy music instead of just "downloading" it. They can't believe I don't even have any way on my computer to do that.

I hear tons of analogies trying to persuade away from the fact that you are using a product against the will of the producers of that product. Libraries aren't copying books and giving them away, they're lending out the copies they purchase.

Music at the level we've become accustomed to listening to cost money to produce. If we as a society aren't prepared to purchase what we use for our own purposes, then we will all have to live with the results. The industry is in dire straits, and not just because of the bad decisions the RIAA and their cohorts have made.

I agree with Clinton about how exciting the Internet is as a place of promotion for musicians. You don't have to have a bunch of industry weasels tell you your music is viable anymore. Thousands/millions of hits can't be wrong. Unfortunately we are getting the good with the bad.

I'm also surprised by the lack of outcry about the millions being made by the third parties who are trafficking in these downloads. The ISPs and others who continue to profit from other people's hard work. If things continue to go the way they are, the free ride is gonna end some day.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Christian LeBlanc » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:25 am

Malcolm Boyce wrote:You don't have to have a bunch of industry weasels tell you your music is viable anymore. Thousands/millions of hits can't be wrong. Unfortunately we are getting the good with the bad.


You can look up "buy youtube views" on google to see some of that bad ;) (I wouldn't follow any links, b/c anything that sketchy is probably chock full o' bad spyware mojo; part of me is still impressed at someone's ability to adapt, at least!)

I know that everyone draws their own line in the sand on the topic of 'sharing,' but no amount of justification and reasoning ever changes the fact that stealing is stealing. I can respect someone who says "stealing this album is wrong, but I'm doing it anyway" more than someone who says "it's ok for me to steal this band's album because I've attended one of their shows, and their label is screwing them over anyway." Sure it's a grey issue, but it's a grey issue for the artists and labels to determine how much theft is helping or hurting them. It's not up to me to say that my theft is helping out an artist. It's pretty black and white from my position as a purchaser.

As for limewire, I'm sure that any legitimate uses of it have been grossly overshadowed by straight up grand theft autotune, meaning that the benefit of the doubt has been wrecked by people abusing the system.

I think the very fact that vinyl is still here indicates there will always be a place for physical copies of music.

And, finally, I'm excited by the changes that will have to happen. It puts the onus on the artists and labels to be more creative. Whether it means some sort of bonus that retailers give, or links to more material from the artists/labels, or special innovative and creative packaging, more promotional videos, etc, it means more options and benefits for the consumer willing to exchange their cash in return for goods and services.
User avatar
Christian LeBlanc
Silver Member
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:05 pm

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:00 am

macrae11 wrote:Like Mat gave me a copy of a Missy Higgins CD, I loved it and went out and bought my own copy of that album and another one of hers. He also gave me one of a band from out west that I don't remember, and didn't dig so I chucked it.

... and I bought those CDs (well I bought the Missy Higgins CD, and I dowloaded the other one on iTunes.)

clinton wrote:Disclaimer: I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of taking part in this conversation. I don't necessarily have a fully formed opinion on the issue and I see both positives and negatives in both arguements.

This is usually my job, but I've been away all weekend. You did a fine job covering for me though.

I for one am a bit divived. I don't feel right stealing music, but when it comes to TV shows I couldn't live without it. I don't have the time to live by TV network's schedules and I don't much care for comercials and such. That likely makes me a hypocrite, but I'm just being honest. Now movies is a bit of a grey area for me, I may indulge in the odd movie here and there, but I don't feel right about it.

Anyone else in a similar position?
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby RoadDog » Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:45 am

Just a general observation, the 'industry', as we old timers have come to know, has been on the downward spiral for decades, even before 'sharing'.

Sharing was initially done by direct ftp to ftp, then the napster kid developed a global peer to peer patch and away we went.

Someone at a party let Lars 'check out' Enter Sandman on an mp3 player - iPods hadn't even been a thought in Steve Job's head yet - and we all kniow where that ended up.

Prohibition didn't work for booze, and it won't work in this instance either, someone will find a way around whatever the government or industry decides to do, for some it will be their mission in life.

And since when has it been an artistic goal to become rich or even dare I say wealthy. That's not ART - it is BUSINESS. Make a living, sure, pay your bills, absolutelty, own a Bently, uhhh, well I think you see my point.

The most distressing side to this set of circumstances is that my children, and yours, may never be able to experience the ART as it was intended - as recorded, in full spectrum and dynamic range - for the most part, and there are always exceptions, mp3s sound like poo and are so inconsistant dynamically that it makes me sad.

:-|
A spider wanders aimlessly within the warmth of a shadow....
User avatar
RoadDog
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:11 am
Location: Rothesay, NB

Postby clinton » Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:41 pm

I hear about experiencing the album as it was intended. I lament the loss of album artwork due to the digital realm. I doubt I was ever be as fascinated by an artist I discover through a stream or download as I was holding a big cardboard record sleeve with Jim Croce's face plastered on it.
"I came unarmed, they've all got knives, how can this song survive?" - Ron Sexsmith (Blue Boy)
clinton
Gold Member
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:35 am
Location: www.januarythroughdecember.com

Postby Jef » Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:42 pm

I never used limewire much even back when it was relatively new and virus free. Mostly because of the quality (or lack there of) of MP3 compression.

Bit torrent downloading has proven to be way more reliable and gives you access to full length albums etc. at very high quality. Also, bit torrent file sharing (for now) is more difficult to prosecute since nobody is sharing a complete file. Only a very small sample of it gets shared at a time and all the small bits are re-assembled after they are gathered from many sources. So, technically, it's a loophole in the copyright laws.

Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
"I did what any good producer would do. I rolled a fatty." - Mixerman -
User avatar
Jef
Gold Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:00 am

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:27 pm

RoadDog wrote:Prohibition didn't work for booze, and it won't work in this instance either, someone will find a way around whatever the government or industry decides to do, for some it will be their mission in life.
To steal a quote, "Bank robbery continues... but is kept to a manageable level". The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.

As soon as it's easier to buy legit copies than "sharing", things will shift back to a more reasonable existence. The government and the courts have just been dragging their feet on this one. We know the providers have huge influence in Ottawa, and even more so in Washington. The free ride may be slowing down soon.

Jef wrote:Only a very small sample of it gets shared at a time and all the small bits are re-assembled after they are gathered from many sources. So, technically, it's a loophole in the copyright laws.
No. The "illegal" part of it is on the end where the person copies it and then uploads it. You downloading it just completes the cycle. No loophole there.

Guaranteed. They will be going after Torrents eventually.

Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:40 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.

That would then get into the net neutrality debate. If ISPs are able to control the content that's given priority (or that certain sites are being cencored) then it's a whole other kettle o' fish.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Jef » Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:14 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote:
Jef wrote:Only a very small sample of it gets shared at a time and all the small bits are re-assembled after they are gathered from many sources. So, technically, it's a loophole in the copyright laws.
No. The "illegal" part of it is on the end where the person copies it and then uploads it. You downloading it just completes the cycle. No loophole there.
You are right, about unauthorized uploading of complete files being illegal...but downloading torrent bits is not yet illegal in Canada.

Malcolm Boyce wrote:Guaranteed. They will be going after Torrents eventually.
...going to be difficult to enforce.

Malcolm Boyce wrote:
Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.
My point is that there is revenue being generated for the artists from downloading files and burning them to CD's. Not a lot of people are aware of that.
"I did what any good producer would do. I rolled a fatty." - Mixerman -
User avatar
Jef
Gold Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:00 am

Postby Christian LeBlanc » Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:27 pm

I needed to educate myself about the levies, so I thought I'd share, for anyone playing along at home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_co ... evy#Canada
User avatar
Christian LeBlanc
Silver Member
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:05 pm

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:18 pm

Drumwaiter wrote:
Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.

That would then get into the net neutrality debate. If ISPs are able to control the content that's given priority (or that certain sites are being censored) then it's a whole other kettle o' fish.
IMO, I don't see what's wrong with providers blocking sites and/or servers that are blatently offering content that is illegal in our location. This concept of the internet being above any regulation seems to be born out of some fear of big brother messing with your business. News flash... They already have their hands into everything, including your wallet.

Radio and Television broadcasters have been under strict regulation in both Canada and the US for decades. Do you suppose this discussion came up when they were discussing "censoring" the airwaves?

Jef wrote:
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Guaranteed. They will be going after Torrents eventually.
...going to be difficult to enforce.
If you can find what you're looking for to download, so can an ISP and then block it. It's a fact of life. And once again, they're not going to "stop" it, just make it difficult enough to deter, just like any other crime like theft.
Jef wrote:
Malcolm Boyce wrote:
Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.
My point is that there is revenue being generated for the artists from downloading files and burning them to CD's. Not a lot of people are aware of that.
If you think in 2010 the majority of illegal downloads are being burned to CDs so revenue is proportionally being generated back to the artists, check again.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Jef » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:34 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote:If you think in 2010 the majority of illegal downloads are being burned to CDs so revenue is proportionally being generated back to the artists, check again.
You're reading more into my post than was written. I didn't mention anything about the amount of revenue being generated. Also, not all CD's that are bought are used to record music, so actually the artists are getting a 'royalty' on CD's that are used for non music files as well. It's a win-win situation for the artists in that regard. As long as the levy remains on the recordable media, people should continue to load them up with downloaded material.
"I did what any good producer would do. I rolled a fatty." - Mixerman -
User avatar
Jef
Gold Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:00 am

Postby Christian LeBlanc » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:50 am

Jef wrote:Also, not all CD's that are bought are used to record music, so actually the artists are getting a 'royalty' on CD's that are used for non music files as well. It's a win-win situation for the artists in that regard. As long as the levy remains on the recordable media, people should continue to load them up with downloaded material.


It's win-win for the artists that are already doing quite well for themselves. The strugglers who are being legitimately hurt by theft* aren't being compensated for it; Drake and Nickelback are seeing that revenue instead. Not to say that they don't deserve it, as I'm sure their tunes are being stolen as well.

wikipedia wrote:The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan. This methodology has been criticized as favouring major-label artists at the expense of the long-tail. As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed.


I guess the point is that the levy can't possibly be fairly allocated, but it's better than nothing. However, this demonstrates the need for more than just a levy to be in place.

*(my argument ignores the strugglers who do benefit from theft, in terms of gaining a wider audience. There are still some who get burned, though, no pun intended...ah hell, pun intended :)
User avatar
Christian LeBlanc
Silver Member
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:05 pm

Postby Cryptowen » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:06 am

My thinking is, even if illegal torrent were totally halted, the big record labels would continue to decline because of the increasing ability for smaller independent groups to compete on an international scale. Already we have a ton of Indie groups getting almost as much attention as major label artists (and this would include everything from bands like Animal Collective to that autotune remix of the Double Rainbow guy). To me it seems like a lot of these smaller labels are more open to the idea of free internet distribution (not just torrenting, but things like full album previews, releasing multitracks for remixing, uploading songs to social media sites like Youtube or Soundcloud, etc.). I think it's still going to be possible to make money as a musician (maybe not millions like some have in the past), but those who don't adapt to the reality of the internet are just going to fall behind.
User avatar
Cryptowen
Active Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:07 am

Next

Return to The Coffee Shop

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

cron