AMBR
Metal Grandma
THAT is an excellent idea. It's true, downloading is never going to go away. The challenge is to adapt and utilize it to help sales and promotion. More ideas such as this are needed in place of all the bitching.
P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO
- Thread starter MEGALOUD
- Start date
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
People upload music illegally to torrents because it's near impossible to trace the source of the illegal upload. The record labels or diehard supporters of the band should take this to their advantage by flooding the torrents with virus-laden mp3s that corrupt the downloader's computer or mp3 player. People woudn't know if a download is free of a virus or not, but could still sample music freely, without worry of a virus, from the band's official website, MySpace page, internet radio, band promo CDs, or label sampler CDs.
If a pissed-off illegal downloader could somehow identify the source providing the virus-laden mp3s in a torrent and take them to court for financial damages to their computer hardware, the downloader would first have to prove that their illegal downloading activities that led to obtaining the mp3 (and virus) is actually legal in a court of law so that they don't incriminate themselves in the course of their legal action.
If a pissed-off illegal downloader could somehow identify the source providing the virus-laden mp3s in a torrent and take them to court for financial damages to their computer hardware, the downloader would first have to prove that their illegal downloading activities that led to obtaining the mp3 (and virus) is actually legal in a court of law so that they don't incriminate themselves in the course of their legal action.
eaeolian
Division Guitarist
In metal, generally, yes. Does it have to, though? I know many acts in other genres that MAKE money touring clubs. How do you get a metal band there?
On points 1-5 I agree 100%. As with promos.....some labels are starting to finally wise up...adding in voiceovers, and how AFM does the whole CD in 1 track with fade ins/outs. Sure it still leaks but at least its not superior quality and perfection of an album.
Which brings me to #6 suggestion you made, I love the intentions however I would never pay for any mp3 under 192 bitrate. Not because I dont wanna support artists......hell you know me better than anyone how much I spend on CD's and also promoting bands, and giving them exposure. My problem is I cannot stand compressed low bit mp3's.......its fucking irritating the same way growl vocals are to me. After 20 seconds or so I exit the song no matter how good it may be. That damn swish swoosh sounding compression drives me nuts......Im mind boggled how so many arent bothered by it like I am.
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
Not really. You know, for instance, how many independent actors complain about having people taking pictures of their show (Broadway, for example)? People are going to do it. Take pictures- bootleg video etc. As long as people can find a value in free art, they will try to provide as much of it as possible. That was the point I'm making here.
"Painting a picture costs what, a 100 dollars tops? The average album costs 30,000 dollars to make. "
Don't make me laugh. If you know what you're doing you can easily spend a thousand dollars (or even nothing) on making an album. Opeth's Ghost Reveries was approx $50,000 dollars to make ( believe I read that somewhere... don't quote me on it though). If you think every other album is around that number you are out of your mind. I could record a great sounding album for very little just like I could spend 5,000 dollars creating a piece of photography. Just for thinking that painting a picture will always cost around 100 dollars shows how incredibly un-informed you are.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
Nobel idea, but sadly the fact remains that $3 is $3 more than the $0 for high-quality mp3 which, at this point in time, is always an option for the user to choose. With 1262 metal releases waiting to be sampled, and people wanting to conservatively sample say, 100-200 a year by download, then that's a $300-$600 option people are going to weigh against the $0 option.
rockyracoon
...
I don't download anything(legal or not) without checking it for viruses, malware,etc first. So I'd have to imagine that a simple precautionary measure would insulate others from what you're talking about.
Additionally, would you simply tell the virus to only infect the guilty downloader? Various circumstances could find that virus hurting other, non-downloading folks. I really don't think some sort of internet vigilante justice is any way to solve the issue.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
True, but what about the persons who obtain a legit copy of the CD a month or two after the release date, rip it to mp3, and upload it to a torrrent? Proponents of illegal downloading will always justify their actions by saying, "it's going to be leaked eventually," and therefore there is nothing wrong with downloading simply because it's something that's inevitable.
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
Yes, really. In fact, most indie labels give bands LESS royalties because they need as much money as they can get. If you've read any books on the subject, they will tell you to be very careful when it comes to signing with independent labels since they will not distribute royalties and mechanical rights evenly (in other words, a lot of them actually pay BELOW industry standard). With merch, unless there is an outside variable taking a percentage off the sales (which is the EXCEPTION, as I stated earlier... not the rule), the band will see 100% profit. Now- I'm not slagging the indie label. It's not their fault that they do what they do- you have to start somewhere as they say. However it's simply fact that in order to continue, a major label will pay more royalties to bands (GENERALLY. I'm not speaking on behalf of EVERY LABEL).
What? I'm sorry, but this view is a product of ignorance. Complete ignorance. Just like there is underground metal, there is underground hip hop, and visual art. To say that all paintings sell for hundreds or thousands is preposterous. And even *if* art isn't created equal (definitely some truth to your statement), that has nothing to do with my point- which was that what all art has in common is that what we get out of it is purely mental. We don't necessarily need that physical package to make us happy. So if people can get that enjoyment for free- some will. It simply amazes me that so many of you can't grasp this concept.
eaeolian
Division Guitarist
lasercd
Man Behind The Curtain
Ken kicks back with an ice cold Diet Coke (Atlanta processing plant), fresh bag of organic lightly salted tortilla chips, and some Trader Joe's green tomatillo salsa.
Let the show continue...
Let the show continue...
Oh absolutely. That was just in response to Glenn about the advanced promo releases. Obviously once any official released retail is available....it eventually leaks.
Like so many have said the problem isnt going to go away........now its a matter of figuring out how to embrace the technology.
Harvester
The Promoter
I think a mindset has to be changed about the process and what you are paying for with my suggestion. You are not paying a couple of bucks for a true release. You are paying $2 bucks to get an advance listen at something you would not get through conventional means for another few months or would not bother to at all. That's why you are only paying $2 as opposed to $10 for the real thing. A sampled rate of 128 may indeed irritate the elite audiophiles, but the intent is once again not the finished product you purchase once the disc is released. I would also claim that audiophiles such as yourself are in the minority when it comes to downloading in the first place. You are getting $1 off your purchase by paying purchasing the advance listen.
To tie this response in with Todd's point, I agree that that $0 is going to appeal to the essentially everyone. However, if only 1,000 people worldwide paid $1 for the advance listen, it's $1,000 in the band's pocket that would not have gotten with the current system. That may not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but that money really could be used towards touring.
For example, would a true Pagan's Mind fan prefer to download and listen illegally for two months to a promo ripped online at 192 kps with tons of voice-overs, clipped endings, etc OR pay $2 for a 128 rip without all of that crap AND then get $1 back when they purchase the cd. Obviously, the casual fan and the free download proponents will not care, but it is a way of generating a few bucks and allowing the fans to suppor the artist without being penalized with waiting a few months to hear what everyone else has already heard because they downloaded it already.
Just to remind folks, I'm not saying this idea is perfect by any means or will appeal to everyone. However, it is something that few have offered: an alternative.
eaeolian
Division Guitarist
It's an interesting idea, and I'd probably jump on it since I'm a big "early adopter" type, but you do realize that the 128K version would be available for download approx. 20 minutes after it was available on the site, right?
Lance, I understand your frustration as well as other labels. But the FACT is it will NEVER EVER STOP!!!!!! It's too easy for people to trade music. If P2P's stopped(not that it will), emailing files will always be a factor as well.
The Fiddler
Just Do It.
No, it's not going to solve the issue, but it's going to deter some non-tech savy from doing it. A new virus first needs to be identied by a virus program before they can figure out a way to zap it and add the virus to their list of virus definitions. How many people would be infected from the next Maiden, Metallica, or Sabbath release before the anti-virus provider detected and solved the problem? More than just a few I'm guessing. Just as downloaders claim you can't ever completely stop downloading, there is also no way that the downloader can stop every virus thrown their way.
Just think about the chaos, financial damage, and press coverage an introverted, "pissed off at the world" computer hack could create for themselves by lacing torrent supplied mp3s with a virus from the next new release by Metallica, The Eagles, Madonna, etc. The effect could be potentially huge, and RIAA is certainly not going to defend the downloaders in court. If illegal activity lead to the virus, who is going to defend that illegal activity in court when a downloader tries to recover damages from a hack who can't be identified?
Why should an adventerous hack take on Mircrosoft when they have multi-platinum artists to unknowingly serve as a vector for their virus and fame?
Mynock
French Toast
I was about to suggest the idea of getting some of the price off the actual release if you got the "advance listen" thing, but you did
The big problem with cd samplers, no matter how good each band is, it's only ONE song. No matter how good that one song is, it could be the one and only good song from the album (worst case scenario here obviously). Same for myspace pages and all, bands are obviously gonna pick what they think is their best song(s).
At least an idea similar to Glenn's gets you the entire thing and you're not stuck with a stinker with 8 filler-shitty songs out of 10.
KingsGene
God of Thunder
I posted this in another thread, but here's another artist's take on it....Porcupine Tree's main man Steve Wilson:
"This is the worst time in history for the music industry. Everyone agrees on it, artists and labels - everyone involved.
I believe that ultimately what will happen is that recorded music will become something no one will pay for. People will expect to get it for free, even now a lot of people don't think about buying music, just to download it. Recorded music will become an advertisement for the live show. I already see it in Porcupine Tree concerts, where the attendances keep on growing, and the record sales as well, but not in the same proportion.
People get to know the band from downloading on the internet for free but they pay for the shows. This has a positive side, because it means that bands who play real instruments, and can manage a good live show will survive, and the kind of manufactured artists like Britney Spears won't. These are interesting times.
Also, music is much more available now days, it's getting more and more into people's life, especially that almost everyone has an Ipod now."
Read more at: http://www.alternative-zine.com/interviews/en/110
Note that PT has already taken what I think is the right steps. They work with an online store, www.burningshed.com , where they sell quality legal downloads at different price levels, i.e mp3 and FLAC, along with special items not available elsewhere. However, their audience of audiophiles is different from the casual fan, I would think, so this might not work for all.
Burning Shed also states that "all rights remain with the artists whose music we release and significantly more profits go directly to the artists than with sales generated elsewhere."
"This is the worst time in history for the music industry. Everyone agrees on it, artists and labels - everyone involved.
I believe that ultimately what will happen is that recorded music will become something no one will pay for. People will expect to get it for free, even now a lot of people don't think about buying music, just to download it. Recorded music will become an advertisement for the live show. I already see it in Porcupine Tree concerts, where the attendances keep on growing, and the record sales as well, but not in the same proportion.
People get to know the band from downloading on the internet for free but they pay for the shows. This has a positive side, because it means that bands who play real instruments, and can manage a good live show will survive, and the kind of manufactured artists like Britney Spears won't. These are interesting times.
Also, music is much more available now days, it's getting more and more into people's life, especially that almost everyone has an Ipod now."
Read more at: http://www.alternative-zine.com/interviews/en/110
Note that PT has already taken what I think is the right steps. They work with an online store, www.burningshed.com , where they sell quality legal downloads at different price levels, i.e mp3 and FLAC, along with special items not available elsewhere. However, their audience of audiophiles is different from the casual fan, I would think, so this might not work for all.
Burning Shed also states that "all rights remain with the artists whose music we release and significantly more profits go directly to the artists than with sales generated elsewhere."
lady_space
Porno kitty
Not quite... you still have to pay for the merch. After you hit the break-even point, then, yes your statement is basically true, but only after that point, and if the venue is not taking a cut. (From what I've read, more and more places are trying to demand that.)
The folks I know don't usually make money off playing in general and my understanding is that that's not uncommon, especially for anyone not headlining a big tour. So if you don't sell merch, you don't make a dime and even can wind up taking a loss pretty easily. We won't even discuss the fact that most of these guys have "real" jobs and have to take vacation or leaves of absence to tour.
I've talked about my views on downloading before till I'm blue in the face. Zod does a good job relayinmg pretty close to my viewpoints, so I won't rehash. The "genie out of the bottle" is the most apt description of the situation I've ever heard. Everyone had better figure out how to work with it.
Shaye
Harvester
The Promoter
Yes. However, those that would do that are in the same classification as the ones that don't give a shit in the first place. This alternative provides the fan that supports the band the option of hearing the disc at the same time as everone that illegally downloads. Right now, those fans are alienated and penalized because they are trying to do what is right and hold off for the new release.
Plus, the bands make a few bucks off it as well.
Similar threads
