WOW.

they should lock up the people that own the internet for allowing illegal file-sharing on their network

dw theyre appealing

oh my goodness

"Even if I had the money I would rather burn everything I owned, and I wouldn't even give them the ashes"

lolz

The BBC reported on how terrible it was that estate agents were abiding by their customer's wishes of only letting their houses be let out to certain races. They lambasted the estate agents for allowing this to happen.

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he said.

1) no there hasn't. there's been a perception that piracy is impossible to stop.

2) no it won't.

Downloading music is illegal?

"they should lock up the people that own the internet for allowing illegal file-sharing on their network"


^^Tell me you're trying to be funny

no i honestly think the internet is in a room somewhere and they should find it and put it in jail

Personally I think all music should be free. The artist makes enough money doing shows and touring and selling merch. The labels are really the only ones that profit of off album sales. Bands should just fuck them and release their music via Myspace and things like that.

so is pirate bay still gonna be up, cuz i havent been able to use it the these past few days =(.

Serious stuff. I hope these guys don't get ruined forever because of this. I guess I can see where the record labels are coming from, but trying to scare people into buying CDs doesn't exactly make them look like the good guys when downloading is such a popular way to obtain music.

It is almost certain that The Pirate Bay will keep on sailing, long after today's court judgement

Personally I think all music should be free. The artist makes enough money doing shows and touring and selling merch. The labels are really the only ones that profit of off album sales. Bands should just fuck them and release their music via Myspace and things like that.

My thoughts exactly. And this lawsuit is only helping the multi billion dollar labels. The labels that deserve the money aren't even benefiting from this lawsuit anyways.

^ Good point Lions. If anyone should get damages, it's the small record labels that need the money they get from every sale. Corporate labels suck.

Music shouldn't be free, but it shouldn't cost as much as it does. Artists deserve to be paid for the work they put into writing and performing, but record labels make far too many $$ ESPECIALLY in a digital age where music sold legally is often downloaded anyway (packaging/distribution not necessary.) The labels don't want to face up to the fact that people can't pay £13 (that's HMV's new, popular record price at the moment) for every record that they want to listen to. What's needed isn't totally free music, just a more sensible structure to the industry where artists make more than people in suits, music is released in an accessible, consumer-friendly manner and albums don't cost extortionate amounts.

The record companies are getting pretty scared that they don't have much of a future and are trying every desperate measure to cut their short-term losses rather than building for a more sensible structure with longevity.

Well the thing is, most bands get shafted anyways and they hardly make money off of record sales, etc, etc. IF anything the music should be released on a site, for very cheap HOWEVER the artist recieves ALL of the profit from their own music.

It was probably bound to happen.

Definitely. I mean, I've got no problem giving money to a label like Touch & Go, because they treat their artists well and they support a lot of great bands. But I do have a problem giving money to Geffen. And then if you buy off of Itunes, I think less than 5% goes to the artists. So yeah, the artists totally get screwed. And Strikey, I agree. They should definitely rework the system so that these artists don't get screwed. And then that helps even more, because less money to the major labels gives them much less power and influence over the industry.

As much as I agree with the fact that digital distribution will probably help artists, physical copies DO have something extra to them.

Of course they do but most consumers don't really care for that.

In the current climate and situation, music as an industry is just going to continue being fucked over. You can't stop or reverse downloading, and the more it happens, the less profitable recorded music is going to become. That makes labels less important. Music is breaking because of the internet and changing attitudes, and the labels - rather than accepting that and trying to stay relevant - are attempting to maintain their stranglehold on the industry. That'll work for a few years but there's no way to fully combat such a shift in dynamics as the one the music industry has seen without some compromises being made along the way, and the greed involved in most corners of the music industry dictates that's not the route they want to head in.

All true. We could have it both ways though. There are still many who buy physical copies, but there could be a new digital market for the now rapidly growing audience as well. The labels' sales would decrease, but not disappear altogether.

Exactly. Eventually the internet will break the industry and when that happens, the face of music will definitely change.

But that two-fold existence will only be able to evolve if labels accept they can't control every part of music. The tighter they hold on, the more they're going to lose in the long-run. It's kind of funny watching it happen.

Nagrarok: yeah, but you don't need labels to press a few copies for the people that want them. It's not that expensive to make a physical copy. When I buy a cd or vinyl, I do it because I want to give money to the band and I want the actual release itself. But the music itself should be free. And the indie labels are actually ok with that.

Well, major labels do have control over the mainstream. And they're afraid that they won't in a few years.

When I buy a cd or vinyl, I do it because I want to give money to the band and I want the actual release itself.

For those that think that music "should" be free, you need to wise up. There are gargantuan acts like Radiohead that have already had years of major label backing that could do it alone, but if a smaller band tried their approach to music sales they would fail. Less established bands NEED label support. Someone to pay for their recording costs, provide money to tour, advertise their album, and have the clout to get it on the shelves of major retailers. Smaller labels still pay tens of thousands of dollars per album on production costs (not including printing) and majors can pay hundreds of thousands for the same thing. Plus, the label shells out money for part of the touring expenses and many smaller bands wouldn't be able to make a living off of their touring in the first place if they had to pay for all of their tour expenses. So when you say that all music should be free and that labels should die off you really show your ignorance of the big picture. and yes, I agree with you that the bands/artists should get more per cd sale. But those that only buy CDs at shows, you do know that there's a good chance that even then the label is taking some of that money, right? it's called a 360 deal. Now I'm not supporting labels as a welcome force, but more as a necessary evil. I think the real reason they are all bent out of shape is not because of online file sharing per se', but over the fact that now with the advent of the MP3 that they can't continue the format wars that have lasted since the 70's where there was always some new medium to listen to music that creeped out, so that every decade people would rebuy their music to fit with the times. If you remember a few years ago, the RIAA tried to lobby that ripping a CD was illegal, the same time they put nasty root-kits on their cds. This was about the same time as iTunes started up. While many mainly saw it as a claim that ripped music was going to be shared, if you look closer, it would mean that all digital music would have to be rebought. Sorta like a CD and Cassette kind of world. One for portability, one for quality. Only the cassette has been replaced by a tiny digital file.

just my two cents.

I basically agree 100% with that.

HOLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Agreed, though, especially about the necessary evil part. I'm just arguing that labels need to recognise that the above is pretty much all true on order to avoid a collapse of some scale, because the current direction of the industry suggests that if record companies continue to try and control/own everything, things are gonna get fucked up.

Well that's another problem there, why the hell to people have to pay for recording, in all honestly that is ridiculous. Yes I understand that many new bands need financial support and a medium to circulate them into the mix and whatnot, but the labels are insanely greedy as made apparent by the horrifying lawsuits they are wielding against people.

Seriously though, think about what would happen if there was a standard community site like iTunes, but with music that cost ten cents a song, and every bit of it went to the artist. For every album they sell they get a buck. People wouldn't have to deal with expensive music AND they wouldn't have to steal things they couldn't afford. Also, the siteholder itself could make plenty of money with advertising and things like that if it became popular, so nobody would be losing right?

Unfortunately, this would slash CD sales pretty badly, and that would suck because I personally find great aesthetic value in a CD and artwork etc, but I think it would be a necessary evil...

They just don't see that they're self-destructive. They're not really building up a reputation by trying to ban downloading.

Well that's another problem there, why the hell to people have to pay for recording, in all honestly that is ridiculous.

...because the equipment, software and technical knowledge needs paying for.

Well not necessarily, I can record good quality audio at my school using their equipment for free, the problem is that someone wants to make money for letting you use a microphone and a big box, which sucks.

Wow, The Pirate Bay founders are fucking gods. I hope they get away, fuck these corporate nazis.

fuck this noise, if the pirate bay falls some other site will take its place

yo Zipper, sure you can fire up pro-tools and create something relatively decent without much effort, but producing an album is an insanely hard task for just a band (or a band member) to follow. Especially if you are going to act as an engineer as well. You are not only hiring a producer to hit the record button on the console, but to bring out the best in the music. He's like a neutral observer. If another band member tells you that so and so part sucks or needs to be recorded again or is flawed it comes out as personal, when a producer tells you to do so it's constructive criticism. Take a look at Thrice's Vheissu. While the music itself was written by Thrice, it was Steve Osbourne's love of dense effects that made the album what it was. Producers are grossly overpaid, but they really are needed. And then you have all the sound engineers that take care of the instruments, mics, and all sorts of stuff allowing it so the musicians can play and not have to spend hours of their day worrying about mic positions and shit.

also, where the hell did you see that the piratebay founders were locked up? I've read nothing about that. The only thing to happen recently was that the site was taken offline when the swedish gov't threatened their hosting service, but even that was shortlived because the site is back up. All of the stuff in your news article is over a month old.

why did my post get deleted?

i really dont get the people who think they're 'joining the fight against corporate america' by downloading illegal shit lol

yo redskyformiles i just wanted to point out that Thrice's following effort, the quadruple masterpiece known as Alchemy Index Vol. I-IV was recorded and produced by the band itself in their own home studio in orange county california.

my point is: bands can definitely record and produce their own albums if they have they have the determination and talent to do so

I know that, but do you know how they paid for that studio and kept themselves afloat during that time since they weren't touring? A label advance. And beyond that, The Alchemy Index's are not even close to a "masterpiece".

my point is: bands can definitely record and produce their own albums if they have they have the determination and talent to do so

woah! when the fuck did you become a contributor?

when last night happened

+ waior + klap4music

you're on the same level now.........................

i feel dirty...

klap4music more like krap4music boom roasted

quiet, klap definitely deserved it

spent the last 2 minutes thinking of a way to change djdorama into something offensive, got bored.

me too, adam, me too.

lol

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he said.

you know how they were able to afford that home studio? Because of plenty of years of being backed by a label.

preciiiiiiiisely

Maybe if there wasn't so much good music out there I wouldn't have to download illegally.
Think about that next time Sleepingdog when you decide to make a beautiful masterpiece!

much of Alchemy Index was made with garageband, a simple home studio recording software provided as a bundle with entry level apple computers

how could you master the recordings? outboard gear for you musicians and tech geeks

Ive listened to artists on myspace starting to make some amazing quality recordings with simple software

all i'm saying with technology advancing, you'll see that in a couple of years you can get all that produced studio sound that labels pay thousand of dollars for in compact personal recording software

much like technology is screwing with internet piracy, technology will again remove the need for expensive studios and overpaid producers (which at times can lead to disappointing sounding albums)

I buy an artist's CDs if I like what I've downloaded from them. I live in Ireland so copyright enforcement isn't nearly as severe as it seems to be in most countries of the Western World

But now you're talking about an art form vs. an industry, Benzum, and that's part of the problem. The way we talk about music, and the way major labels talk about music, differs so greatly because really we're hardly talking about the same thing half the time. The trouble is music as an art form wouldn't exist without SOME form of industry to back it up.

Urgh, issue is pretty complex. Interesting, though.

I love that anytime a news post about music piracy gets posted it gets at least 60+ posts. But yeah, the issue does boil down to art vs. industry. If so many people didn't need to get paid and if the equipment wasn't so expensive, this would be loads easier to solve. And when you talk about how major labels talk about music, it's is waaay different then we do. I always view it as an art form, they see a catchy band as dollar signs. Some people are just fucking greedy.

Wow epic disscussion lol

The trouble is music as an art form wouldn't exist without SOME form of industry to back it up.

Art doesn't require industry because it doesn't require consumers, just an audience.

And that trouble goes way big when you live in a third-world country.Here the prices for cd are often the triple of the ones in USA and that.
Downloading music is the only way to go here.Im certainly not going to pay 30$ for 13 songs......

"They were also ordered to pay $4.5m (£3m) in damages. "

lol, 'damages'. As always, this is childish and unnecessary. I pity the fool who believes that piracy will ever be eradicated. that's almost as stupid as saying that religion will someday not exist.

where do you live?

"You can't stop or reverse downloading, and the more it happens, the less profitable recorded music is going to become."

downloads help music sales, so

Well yes, OK, in its purest form, you're clearly right.

But 99% of the music you listen to wouldn't exist without some form of industry so if we're living in the real world, which I assume we are...

lol "pity the fool"

I could live without that music, I couldn't live in a world that sees emotion as lucrative. This "real world" you speak of seems like it needs a few changes.

South America,Perú.......

Speaking of downloading, is mediafire down for anyone else or is it just me?

yes, that's true, but once established downloads help significantly. what we need is a good combination of downloads and people buying records; i myself buy albums and special order ones that you cannot find.

also, the real world is kind of overrated, don't you think?

nah its down

Ideally, yes, all music would be removed from money.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that artists wouldn't be able to devote their lives to said art form if it didn't pay in some fashion. Love of music is an amazing thing to have driving you, but if you can't make a living out of it, you're fucked.

I fully understand where you're coming from but all you're really saying is, "well, the world should change the way it thinks and operates," which isn't all that useful a contribution to a proper debate lol

"Religion gives people reason and motivation"

so does music.

"Without that we'd be helpless and directionless"

not all of us. other than that, i agree about the music industry being all about figures.

FUCK! now I have to use crapidshare to get the new Paint it Black.

demonoid > tpb
but then again
blogs > everything
whatev

probably, but I want to eat.

you're entirely correct about that, but a lot of artist do more than make a living out of it, they become filthy rich. for certain people it's very profitable. i say we lower prices but allow for downloads. it basically boils down to: how much ass would it suck if we had to pay for all of our music and how small would my collection be?

Art is not the same thing as your typical career. It is totally randomized catharsis. And speaking from personal experience, it's not hard at all to balance a paying job and creativity. In my eyes, making a "career" out of art for the sake of paying the rent is rather disgusting.

"Music should never be about making money."

lol

scyther brings up an excellent point. if you chose to make it your career, then you are a damn fool. certain bands and artists are big enough to make it big, but not everyone.

I'm not about to go through 1300 posts so I'll just throw this right out there: this is OLD news, like...six months old. Check the date of the BBC article. I live in Stockholm and the news today have been about the site getting shut down and TPB had this to say: "The good people at the MAFIAA decided to sue. Not TPB, not the owners of TPB. Not even TPBs ISP. They decided to sue TPBs ISPs ISP".

This might've been said already but you know...I didn't see it anywhere.

At no point have I been arguing that money should play any part in the decision to make music, but if you want all your favourite musicians to spend half their lives making enough money elsewhere to live off while they play music, you're silly.

Do you honestly think Thrice's back catalogue would exist if the band were all working 9-5 day jobs around writing their music? Honestly?

No one is denying the fact that beautiful music can still be made without the need or intent for funds. but for many people they start out being in a band when they are young and while they still desire to make music, they have other obligations than just dedicating their lives to their craft like a wife, kids, a house. etc etc. when they get older. Me being 22, I'd leave everything I have in a heartbeat in order to be able to play music for people all over the country. But I'm pretty sure that if I was ten years older and had a family to look out for, I would try my hardest to fulfill my financial and emotional investments to them. I agree that if you are playing music for the sole purpose of money that you are in the wrong business and have no integrity, what I am saying is that I find no problem in trying to sustain a decent living with money made off of the music. hell, I don't think people realize how many of the smaller bands hyped on here still have day jobs, just so they can get by. Music is only lucrative if you're popular.

I'm pretty sure Thrice are well off, my friend. People who don't make it should quit. Also, they make money off of advertisements, little novelties such as tee shirts, concerts, etc. all the downloads and streaming people do act as a catalyst for spending money on those novelties. it helps promote the band more than it goes against it. that said; there should be no jail time or hefty fine for music downloading.

What do they release like an album each year? Its not that difficult, it would probably just take a little longer, and you'd have to wait an extra couple of months to get their new music. Think about all the weekends and paid vacations.

yo gyromania, labels now get a chunk of that too. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/08/360-music-deals-become-mandatory-as-labels-prepare-for-free-music/

Also, when you say that thrice are well off you should read their interviews. They say repeatedly that they wouldn't be a band anymore if it wasn't for the advances they get to record their albums from the record labels. They took that money and built their studio and made it so they could stay at home and record and be with family and financially support their families.

the only complication would be concerts. once said band is well established though, they would be financially able to tour, so that kind of defeats any barrier to making money.

Yeah I'm pretty sure it would take a band a fair while to release an album if they only wrote and recorded and produced and played gigs on weekends and paid vacations.

I'm pretty sure Thrice are well off, my friend.

redskyformiles: yeah, and that does suck. artists still make money though.

A ridiculous amount of useless, insubstantial art. And in times of money troubles I say write a song about it. If you can't sacrifice for your art, you shouldn't be calling it art, call it entertainment.

I'm strongly in favour of the internet's impact on the music business, but it's stupid to suggest no artist should ever be paid for their work, because it would reduce the amount of art in the world by a ridiculous amount.

no, i kind of just jumped into this without reading all the posts above, there were quite a lot of them. they should be paid, but they should also know where they stand as artists; how good they are at their craft, how much time they can devote, etc. they should, of course get money, but album sales are unjustifiable and i would be contradicting myself if i said i was in favor of fines and record sales.

also, I know I mentioned this earlier but can someone please change the name of this article. THEY WEREN'T LOCKED UP!

they were locked up in spirit.

YOU CANNOT CAGE OUR BELIEFS MOTHERFUCKERS

etc

btw, congrats on your promotion!

whats up im eating a fudgie the whale from carvel its so good

lol, depressing? your perception of what is depressing is far different than mine. we here at sputnik are realists. ALSO I JUST DOWNLOADED SOMETHING

thanx duuude

discussion hasn't been depressing, just complexxxx

to think, it never would have drifted this far if Zippermouth hadn't opened his ignorant mouth.

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that,"

LMAO, this verdict aint gonna change shit

What is an argument if not a stream of corrections?

what did he say?

"LMAO, this verdict aint gonna change shit"

a little late, dude.

nah, this has just been a battle of wits

contradictions?

no, i will not 'come on'

I think it is natural to at least expect something in return for what you put in. In music's case, I have no issue with paying for it, because in reality I consider it a a service if I can listen to something and get enjoyment out of it. So yes, you are essentially paying for the enjoyment: the entertainment. I would never go as far as expecting that a musician should have to be homeless because he or she were to accept that their entertainment value was worth nothing. And in my eyes, I don't really think that any musician does it for the money, at all. Those who do I think we can all agree fall short because their focus is on something that will never equate to the value of its so-called artistic origins.

Music should always be considered a live art form. It's more spontaneous in that regard. Recordings are great, but I think they are too heavily focussed upon. And notice the those who are receiving the damages out of these payouts are predominantly the distributors and not the artists. Just think - if we were still using Bakelite four our plastic and Edison hadn't invented the phonograph musicians would only be receiving their doe from their performance value. It's easy to take technological advancement for granted.

On the topic of a producer:
The producer has the most important job - whether they are a member of the band or not. You can always DIY a recording, and lets face it, those who do, can generate fantastic results ie - For Emma Forever Ago. Whether you are provided with a producer or are doing it off your own accord really doesn't matter. What matters is the angle of your point of view. It usually has to be neutral.

Fuck, all of the trackers are down

i dont even own a cd player in anymore. even the head unit in my car only connect to ipod/usb.

Thats too bad, CD's have better sound quality.

Mr Kennedy's statement is erroneous on both accounts and sounds exactly like a hopeless and desperate man starting to realize all to well he's fighting a battle against opponents he cannot see and will never be at the same pace with.

wow this has been a very productive discussion on this topic hahah cant believe it
i think everyone here has a good point
but i seriously cannot imagine a world where i have to purchase everyone of my music albums. i think everyone here has a passion for trying out new bands and discovering new upcoming talent which can only be made possible by pirating the music

Religion gives people reason and motivation. Without that we'd be helpless and directionless. The industry is obviously necessary but will never facilitate the art that is music because it's all promotion and figures.

^^
This just means that anything you say afterwards is meaningless.

To be honest, if a band signs with a record label it was there choice and there shouldn't be any complaining about how their music and such is treated. They should have known that before signing the label.

Isn't this article from April?? So apparently the site remains unhindered