Downloading Music on The Internet (aka the great Napster Debate)

[Spud-Child]

This was a discussion that was going on in a different thread, but I thought this was more of an appropriate place for it....I'm about to burn some chocolate chip cookies if I don't get off the internet though, so I'm just starting the thread and will post more to it later.

[Solo]

Spud my man,

How you gonna stop it? It's like trying to stop the rain. So really it's a moot point. The floodgates have opened.

Like I said, the main thing I don't like is the record labels playing the victim. They deserve what they get for giving artists such a small share of their inflated profits.

And how is the Napster thing different from being able to copy movies or audio tapes?

[Solo]

Sorry, I just noticed when I read another of your posts. I guess it doesn't change anything...

[Spud-Child]

Solo...yep ya got me pegged...I am a 'chick'...though I'd prefer to be referred to as a 'broad' jk :D Anyhow, I obviously am not single handedly going to stop people from downloading music from the internet, and I honestly don't think that downloading music will be the end of the music industry, though it can be statistically proven that it harms the industry; starting at the top with the execs all the way down to the lowly interns. Where I do stand that it does make a huge impact is in the quantity of quality acts that will ever be signed and ever be successful in the mass market. If a starting musician can't get a cd sold because it's available for free then a label isn't going to sign them. Labels look at soundscan ratings, how many times a song is played on the radio, turnout to local gigs, and HOW MANY CD'S an independent artist has sold..not how many times a song has been downloaded; in determining whether or not to sign a new act. The only exception I know of to this was an act signed through Farmclub into Interscope, but when Farmclub went under this act was dropped...the parent label didn't want to hold the act based on internet downloads, and quite frankly, their fanbase knew their stuff was available on the internet so they weren't buying the cd's, hence the artist didn't make any money either. I fully support independent music, I buy cd's used quite often, which makes no impact in the music marketplace, but I will never ever download a song off the internet because I don't beleive in theft, I beleive in intellectual property rights, and I beleive an artist-no matter how small or how established has the right to be paid for their work.

[sunbear]

Hi Spuds!
Hi Solo!

I heard that people are more likely to buy a CD when they download it before they would if they have never heard the songs before.

Just a thought...

[Jayesh]

Spud,

Regarding the argument of free downloads hurting music, I think most artists dont make any money from the sales of CD's. Most of the money comes from concerts and gigs. That's how most musiscians start, by doing gigs. Getting a record is just a ticket for them to get popular.

So, doesnt the internet make it easier for artists to distribute music, and hence increase their popularity? people wont stop going to concerts because they download music! In fact, the fan base of the musisicans should increase if their music is freely available

Jay

[Spud-Child]

Jay and Sunbear, for the beginning musician the ways that they make money are performing small gigs locally and selling their cd's locally. I think artists are smart to put one or two tunes up on their websites for download, because it allows that exposure. Putting a whole cd up, or having someone illegally rip it for download however, simply hurts an artists revenues.

Yes, it is true that a lot of artists sign deals with labels where the label gets the majority of of the cd sales income. This isn't something that happens across the board, some artists have very good deals, and lets not also forget that labels also put up a lot of advance and promo money for an artist.

Bottom line is, if an artist wants their work available for free, and they haven't signed a contract disallowing it by law, then more power to them. The problem is most artists don't want their work freely available--it is an art that should be paid for, just as if it was a Monet or a Picasso. It should be the artists right to determine.

With the local musicians I have worked with I always recommend that they pick their two favorite songs or most radio friendly and put them on their site as an mp3 for people to listen to and download. It's enough of a taste of the sound for listeners to determine whether or not they want to shell out the $8-$10 to buy the album, without giving away the full product so fans have no reason to buy.