Woman fined to tune of $1.9 million for illegal downloads

[wellard]

And now I will start on the castrated sound that the industry has fostered upon us for the last 20 years and made worse by the mp3 format.

Where is the leadership in the music industry in taking the product to new levels of quality?

Film has had the progression from crap vhs video to full high definition video with almost cinema quality surround sound blue ray disc's that people will happily pay tens of thousands of dollars to purchase equipment to enjoy. All at the same time the film industry was and is suffering from massive piracy issues. The result is the film industry is thriving.

The music industry has gone from bad to worse in music reproduction standards. How anyone can listen to mp3 of a classic album and get enthused by it is beyond me.

It's up to the music industry to force change and unite to promote a better quality standard just like the film industry has, one that expands the pleasure of music not dulls it down for the sake of cheap convenience.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by wellard Yorick - I'm not just talking vinyl but CD as well.

Yeah but the art on vinyl was so much bigger and more creative.
Sonically vinyl covers more than CD too... so... VINYL FTW!!!

[wellard]

Originally Posted by Yorick Yeah but the art on vinyl was so much bigger and more creative. Sonically vinyl covers more than CD too... so... VINYL FTW!!!

So agree with ya baby

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by wellard And now I will start on the castrated sound that the industry has fostered upon us for the last 20 years and made worse by the mp3 format. Where is the leadership in the music industry in taking the product to new levels of quality? Film has had the progression from crap vhs video to full high definition video with almost cinema quality surround sound blue ray disc's that people will happily pay tens of thousands of dollars to purchase equipment to enjoy. All at the same time the film industry was and is suffering from massive piracy issues. The result is the film industry is thriving. The music industry has gone from bad to worse in music reproduction standards. How anyone can listen to mp3 of a classic album and get enthused by it is beyond me. It's up to the music industry to force change and unite to promote a better quality standard just like the film industry has, one that expands the pleasure of music not dulls it down for the sake of cheap convenience.

They can't though mate. People just won't buy a Vinyl record when they can get an mp3 in a second online. Convenience rules for people who listen to music on their small computer speakers.

I would print up vinyl for example, but it's expensive. You can only do a run of 1000. I don't even know 1000 people with record players, so it would be a money pit.

Besides, then I'd be "forcing" people into buying all my songs instead of the one they want. So crappy mp3s it is.

The last thing I put out, an electronica CD: "Refraction", I didn't even print up CDs. Just straight to iTunes.

[Yorick]

Wellard I would love to print this on Vinyl: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...63520&s=143441

But I can't justify it... Gotta a young daughter to feed, clothe and house.
If you want to pay for the pressing, I'll give you a cut of sales....which would make you like a record company...

[wellard]

LOL I hear you

But it is not up to the small guy to change from the bottom up it is for the industry to lead from the top.

Vinyl is not the way foreword - and I am not sure what is - but I am willing to pay $30 for an album or even more but I want better quality sound than standard CD. Yes I will pay for the equipment, whatever that will be, to play it once the product available has reached a critical mass.


Yes I do have some of my CD ripped to mp3 format because of it's convenience outside of the home but anyone who is listening to mp3 music ONLY has no idea how wonderful music can be and what they are missing out on.

Wonder why I don't like mp3 - try watching a movie famed for it's artistic camera work on a crappy old vhs video tape, playing on a black and white TV while wearing smudged and dirty glasses that belong to someone else -
It's just the same as listening to a mp3 song.

Yet the record industry is condoning this castrated product, no wonder the general population does not love music with the same passion as we once did.

Music industry heal thy ways !!!!

[Lord of Alcohol]

Originally Posted by Yorick Led Zeppelin for example never released singles.

Just to be an ass I am pointing out this is incorrect

Immigrant Song and the B side.... Hey Hey What Can I Do (never on a Led Zepplin vinyl album)

On the main topicI think the fine levied was way too high. Its actually so high that instead of paying a fine that will hurt (say $5000 for example) they'll just say the hell with it and not pay a dime instead of something a little more realistic.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Yorick The problem is with your perception, not the value. Do you go to a concert and pay only to hear the song(s) that you like, or, no matter what songs are played, or are you "forced" to pay to hear the whole thing? (not sure how that "forced" thing works... did they hold a gun to your head to buy the album?) Shift your mind for a bit and try and understand, that for many artists, the concept of splitting an album into single songs is an anathaema. Led Zeppelin for example never released singles. The "single" was initially only ever one song from an album, sent to radio to promote the album. The recording industry was about creating and selling albums. Which were only 8 songs or so. 45 minutes. A record of a 45 minute set of 8 songs where the artist was able to explore more of who they were. One single song doesn't come close to expressing what the entire album can. Let me use another examples. Do you buy a book by the page? or by the chapter? Some chapters are duds. the movie of "Lord of the rings" for example, left out the chapter on Tom Bombadil. But do you have the option of buying "the Lord of the rings" book at a reduced price without Tom Bombadil? Can you only buy the bit where they go into Moria or are you "forced" into buying the whole book? The reality is many people bought an album which only had one song they liked. In time, other songs GREW ON THEM. This is an industry fact. Album tracks created longevity in an artist. Singles were instantly accessible but appreciation faded, while album tracks, while initially harder to listen to, created loyalty singles rarely did. So now, to feed their family, an artist would probably have to make every song a single or it won't sell. Where is the innovation? Where are the risks? What incentive is there to make an exploratory song that may push the musical boundaries which NO-ONE WILL BUY because they don't initially like the little snippet iTunes plays? Piracy killed the golden goose.

I'd disagree here, and say that your perception is also getting in the way understanding this. The examples you gave are all valid, but still do not discount what I already said.

I go to a concert because I really like the artist. I have never and will never pay to go see someone just because I like one of their songs. I would have to be really in love with their music to attend them in concert. Otherwise, once they perform my song and are done doing so, i'd be bored for the rest of the night. I basically would have to be a fan of their music to want to pay tickets to see them live and exclusive. I think most people do it this way too. I am sure you do also? Concerts are hardly a sampling-ground for music unless the tickets are free.

Examples.
I would see the Beatles in concert (if I could now), because I know and like pretty much all of their titles. But, I wouldn't go see Kanye West just because I like "Love Lockdown", because the rest of his stuff is rap and/or shit IMO. Yet, I really like that one song. So I like the fact that I can choose it and it alone when shopping. I haven't bought any albums of his and I do not intend to.

As far as being forced to buy an album I think you missed the point. Nobody is forcing me. But if I want the song individually, before the internet was worldwide, I would have to pay for 14 other songs I knew nothing of and didn't want. Bottom line, this has been long overdue and a long time coming. And furthermore, this is a good thing.

Your point about music growing on you is very true. I too know it well, and have had that happen as a result of my being "forced" to buy albums when I wanted singles. But, this is not the point. There have been many times the music did not grow on me, and I spent money on something I wouldn't listen to. I was still being asked to take a risk, just because I wanted a single product. If that risk is free, it becomes less of a problem (e.g. Free track) and more of a sampler. But when i'm being asked to accept and pay for other stuff bundled into the deal, it's iffy. And I think this is why the online age 1-upped the music industry.

As far as artists feeding their family by making every song a single that won't sell, well this is the point. They don't have to anymore. Thanks to the internet, iTunes, Youtube and the like, lone songs AND albums are both viable and successful now. No more paying for packaging, or cases or CD's. Just record your song, upload it and get paid if people download it. If they don't, then what did you lose? Not nearly as much as you did back in the day when a music career flopped. This is good for artists, it gives them a platform that was previously created only by big record companies. A platform to have your music instantly downloaded by strangers all over the world. They may like you or they may dislike you but you're "out there" really quickly.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Lord of Alcohol Just to be an ass I am pointing out this is incorrect Immigrant Song and the B side.... Hey Hey What Can I Do (never on a Led Zepplin vinyl album) On the main topicI think the fine levied was way too high. Its actually so high that instead of paying a fine that will hurt (say $5000 for example) they'll just say the hell with it and not pay a dime instead of something a little more realistic.

Not an ass, I was wrong.

While formed, they didn't release any singles in their native United Kingdom - focusing on the album as art. The USA was another matter though, my apologies, though I'm not sure how much consent was involved in those releases.

The point being that they viewed the album as everything, and singles with disdain.

But thanks for the info Pauly.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I'd disagree here, and say that your perception is also getting in the way understanding this. The examples you gave are all valid, but still do not discount what I already said. I go to a concert because I really like the artist. I have never and will never pay to go see someone just because I like one of their songs. I would have to be really in love with their music to attend them in concert. Otherwise, once they perform my song and are done doing so, i'd be bored for the rest of the night. I basically would have to be a fan of their music to want to pay tickets to see them live and exclusive. I think most people do it this way too. I am sure you do also? Concerts are hardly a sampling-ground for music unless the tickets are free. Examples. I would see the Beatles in concert (if I could now), because I know and like pretty much all of their titles. But, I wouldn't go see Kanye West just because I like "Love Lockdown", because the rest of his stuff is rap and/or shit IMO. Yet, I really like that one song. So I like the fact that I can choose it and it alone when shopping. I haven't bought any albums of his and I do not intend to. As far as being forced to buy an album I think you missed the point. Nobody is forcing me. But if I want the song individually, before the internet was worldwide, I would have to pay for 14 other songs I knew nothing of and didn't want. Bottom line, this has been long overdue and a long time coming. And furthermore, this is a good thing. Your point about music growing on you is very true. I too know it well, and have had that happen as a result of my being "forced" to buy albums when I wanted singles. But, this is not the point. There have been many times the music did not grow on me, and I spent money on something I wouldn't listen to. I was still being asked to take a risk, just because I wanted a single product. If that risk is free, it becomes less of a problem (e.g. Free track) and more of a sampler. But when i'm being asked to accept and pay for other stuff bundled into the deal, it's iffy. And I think this is why the online age 1-upped the music industry.

My point still stands in that you are perceiving the individual song recording as a divisible entity, whereas many artists did not. I repeat, consider the individual song as you would a chapter in a book.
Consider as an obvious example, an album like "The Wall" if it makes it easier. An album that indeed tells a story, with various versions of a song recurring, and a sense of story progression throughout.

It is not your right as the consumer to demand an artist hack off a piece of their work so that you can purchase it for less than what they are asking for the whole work. Would you do that with a painting?

"Oh just give me Mona Lisa's smile, I don't like the eyes or background or hair or anything"

If you wouldn't see a concert in knowing one song, why would you buy an album for the one song? Because you made a decision. I didn't "miss the point", I was making my own point: Namely, that you decided that the one song was worth parting with $15 for, including taking on the risk that you would not enjoy the whole work.

This proves that the song was not actually worth $1. A strong song was worth $15 or more as it would sell the whole album.

If I recall correctly, many early acts only had one single off an album, and people would buy albums by the truckload. The single on the radio was the equivalent to the 30 second sample you get on iTunes... a promotional taste of what the album may be like.

Imagine if your children expressed to you how frustrating it was that they were forced to buy the whole song. They couldn't just buy the vocal or the drum track, or the bassline! Imagine their incredulity when you tell them "well in my day artists recorded a whole song because they wanted you to hear all the instruments together, not separately".

THAT is the difference in perception I am talking about. Certain artists never conceived of their songs NOT being heard in the context of an album. Songs would FLOW into one another. Much time was spent on deciding which songs came where and how much time fell between each track. Like deciding on paragraphs on a page. Or scene fades in a film. The artist was your DJ for 45 minutes as much as anything else. Instead of 45 minutes, you now give them 3. If that.

I repeat imagine just buying scenes from film...

As far as artists feeding their family by making every song a single that won't sell, well this is the point. They don't have to anymore. Thanks to the internet, iTunes, Youtube and the like, lone songs AND albums are both viable and successful now. No more paying for packaging, or cases or CD's. Just record your song, upload it and get paid if people download it. If they don't, then what did you lose? Not nearly as much as you did back in the day when a music career flopped. This is good for artists, it gives them a platform that was previously created only by big record companies. A platform to have your music instantly downloaded by strangers all over the world. They may like you or they may dislike you but you're "out there" really quickly.

Completely incorrect.

1.Back in the day, the record company paid for everything. They took all the risk if a record flopped, even paying the artist an advance on sales so they could go full time to record and promote the CD. Plus the record company did the promoting and booking, so the artist could focus on making music.

NOW, so many artists have to be business managers, record companies, booking agents, producer, engineer, multi-instrumentalist, publicist, etc. plus financing the recording, pressing and marketing of their own records. What do you do for a job? Let's say you're a shoe salesperson in a store.
Now imagine if all of a sudden you were asked to do everything.

* Design the shoes, manufacture the shoes make the machines to make the shoes, grow the cows for the leather, kill the cows, make the leather, grow the rubber trees, make the rubber, design your own advertisements for print and radio and TV, do your own market research to test the advertising, be the store-man, manage the store, greet customers, do the banking, do the cleaning and repairs, build the shop itself, lay the bricks, paint the ceilings, make the paint, make the paintbrushes and of course fund everything while NOT being paid until you see shoes start to sell.

Who has time for this? Well maybe rich amateur kids. So if you want to see music made by rich amateur kids instead of talented seasoned professional specialists, then this scenario is your ideal.

2. Yes every song needs to be a single. As people are only buying single songs, not albums, with their exploratory album tracks. This could lead to bland monochromicity and regurgitated predictability, as singles appeal to what is already popular, while album tracks move in front of what is popular.

3. Why would people buy music from artists they've never heard of? There's so much great music sitting on iTune that no-one will buy because they've never heard it. There's also a lot of badly made music. Sifting through it all is impossible. But then that's what record companies did. They found talent, and marketed it to people.

4. The "packaging" etc. is small fry compared to the actual recording. A run of 1000 or more CDs can cost a little over $1000 depending on the artwork and other variables. The real cost is in recording it.

Do you rent studios for $1000 per day or buy all the computers, speakers, instruments and gear? Who will operate? You? Or the engineer you're paying $500+ per day to record you. And can you play all the instruments or are you paying your drummer $400 per day? Or maybe you're paying Timbaland $80,000 to lay down a beat for one song. And who will mix it? Top mix engineers can cost $45,000 and up for an album. Others may only charge $1500 per song if you get a talented but unknown professional. Or the backyard guy who just bought some gear might charge you $200.

Factor in a year or more spent getting the songs together, rehearsing or recording or becoming proficient enough to do a competent job on your instrument or the recording, and you're looking at a very very expensive and time consuming enterprise. How much is your time worth? How much are you paid per hour now? Factor that into the cost.

Consequently you do NOT do it for the money. Nor for "what the public want", but for what's burning in your soul. What you need to express and create.
So, when someone comes along and demands to hack some of that expression apart for less than $1 it gets kinda insulting.