legal music download site??? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/19/2008 04:32:22 PM · #26

Bands have become succesfull due to embracing the amount of file sharing that goes on. There is really no way to stop it and the bands that welcome it are the wave of the future. The Metallicas and Prince mentality just makes them look like assholes.

Take Radiohead for example. They put up In Rainbows for a donation of whatever you wanted. They also released the seperate tracks to 1 song so that the public could mix them and put it up for the world to hear. Did I mention that they sell out every show they put on?

The whole debate is purely financial, it has nothing to do with protecting someones art. Bands and record companies are mad because they aren't getting paid. There is a sure fire way to be paid if you are a musician... go on tour!

Downloading should be viewed as a way to reach the masses. How many people go to Radiohead shows because they downloaded In Rainbows for free? Its publicity at its best. Besides that people still buy albums. Ive bought albums that I downloaded first. Why? MP3s are the equivalent to low res photos. You want to hear the album in the way the band wanted it to sound you need to buy it.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/19/2008 04:51:10 PM · #27

Originally posted by Jaker:

I'm sorry, but as a musician and former recording engineer, this is a subject that I'm very passionate about. Blame whomever you want, and rationalize it however you want. Unless the artist puts it up for free, you're stealing it. Just because it's easy doesn't make it any different.

The problem is that buying a CD in a store for $17.99 may do nothing for the artist and only strengthen the beast we are trying to fight. The RIAA cares nothing for artist rights, only the industry. This is snipped from the RIAA wiki:

"In 1999, Stanley M. Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire," thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels.[15] Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change." Here's the link to the Wired story on the subject.

Basically my view is that outside the megastars no money from a CD gets to the artist. You support the artist by going to their concert and buying their overpriced T-shirts or buying the music from them directly. IF your argument for not downloading music is to support the artist, I believe you are deluding yourself.

Right now the RIAA and their ilk have suck a tight grasp on things the only way to effect change is to "stick it to the man". Groups like Radiohead are doing it from their side, peer sharing is doing it from the other.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/19/2008 05:14:16 PM · #28

Originally posted by NVPhoto:

To paraphrase the late Jerry Garcia on why the Grateful Dead allowed a whole separate section for "tapers" to make bootleg recordings at their concerts:

"Once we've played the notes we're finished with them."

Check out the site I posted earlier. AFAIK, the artists are in control of which tracks they post for free, and how much to charge for the tracks you pay for -- not unlike DPC Prints, it's essentially a gallery or Farmer's Market for recording artists.

If you like to buy discs, CD Baby is a distributor for independent artists.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/19/2008 05:18:16 PM · #29

Radiohead is an exmple of a MEGABAND that yes, did release there record on the internet, with the stipulation that you could pay whatever you want for it. What were the results? Most people downloaded it for free. I guess that's why it's for sale in stores now...

What you guys fail to take into consideration are the advantage to an atist in being on a major label. If there were no advantages, why would getting a contract be such a big deal????? Lets see, promotion, distribution, recording costs, Tour support, the list goes on and on. Does the label get the lions share of a Cd sale, yes they do. Depending on the negotiating power of the act and how the contract was writen, they may see a buck or three per CD sold. This is after paying the record compay, management, and everyone else affiliated with turning out the product.

How do you propose that artists put on these live shows that you are going to go to and show your support? Who is going to design and make the T-shirts that you are going to buy? Furthermore, how is the artist to put on these giant shows, if you the consumer doesn't know who they are?

Ther are some notable examples of bands or artists that have become mid level stars with no major label backing, but it's a pretty darn short list. You can't have pop music wihout someone willing to invest money to get the music to the people, and tell them what they like. That's the record company.

I'll be the first person to demonize the music industry and what it's done to destroy integrity and artistry in the music world. I'm a rabid music fan, and I have to look much harder to find music that interests me, and most of it isn't on the radio. But when I DO find and artist I like, I'mdamn sure going to pay them for the right to own and enoy their product.

You may complain about oil prices, and blame it completely on the big bad oil companies. Go to the gas station and take 3 gallons(cost of a cd), and you'll go to jail. As I said before. Rationalize it however you want. It's still stealing.

If want to get it for free, there will be a way. You can find anything you want on a torrent sharing site. But at least have the guts to say you just want it for free and don't want to pay for it. I can respect that.

Message edited by author 2008-06-19 17:26:43.

Nikon D200

06/19/2008 05:28:44 PM · #30

I can see Jaker's points, but I'm not sure it's illegal at all. There is an equally compelling argument that it's a matter of importing, similar to purchasing an item in a local retail store or buying online from Amazon.com for a much cheaper price.

There is a moral component to purchasing goods from shady sellers; recall people boycotting Nike for sweatshop practices. It's not illegal to buy Nike shoes, though, is it?

Russia isn't selling stolen/bootleg music, as far as I know. The RIAA gives it to them to sell. If the RIAA isn't getting paid like it should be so they can pass along revenue-sharing to the artists, then it's up to the RIAA to choke the distribution point until they are in regulatory compliance.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/19/2008 05:30:34 PM · #31

Originally posted by Jaker:

It's still stealing.

Not all free music is stealing -- the sites I posted are artist-controlled, and are an attempt to enable some degree of commercial success while bypassing the corporate labels.

Record labels send out promo discs -- artists post promo MP3 tracks ... and if you like one of the free tracks you download, go ahead and buy something from the same artist!

06/19/2008 05:37:03 PM · #32

Well, I'm under no illusion it's not stealing. I'm also under no illusion that your average artist gets $1-3 per CD. The average artist sees NOTHING from CD sales short whatever advance they got on their initial contract. The phrase "after paying the record company, management, and everyone else affiliated" is as crooked as it is in the film industry. Virtually no film in modern history has officially ended in the black. Why do you think actors negotiate for a % of gross instead of net? Because "net income" is subject to some serious book cooking.

Artists have in the past had only one option to get their music heard, play the syndicate's game. There was no other option in town. Now that the internet is open bands can go straight to the people and cut out the middleman. Perhaps they sell fewer CDs, but if you make $7/CD profit instead of $1/CD you only have to sell 1/7th the CDs.

Anyway, I know you are passionate about things. Just consider me as passionate about the evils of the RIAA. They themselves, or members, are guilty of spyware as DRM, price fixing, covertly trying to steal copyright control, being a monopoly, blah blah blah.

I realize it's a moral dilemma. Do you continue to deal with Idi Amin in an effort to aid the Ugandan people? or do you impose sanctions which may in the short term hurt the very people you are trying to help? There's not an obvious answer, but I've chosen mine.

Message edited by author 2008-06-19 17:38:20.

06/19/2008 05:37:48 PM · #33

GeneralE

I couldn't agree with you more. There are tons of sites that you can go to and either download music that the artist is distributing for free, and that has been an inovative way to get people interested in their music. That's how I discovered Jack Johnson WAY back before he had ever had a hit. I loved Brushfire Fairytales, bought one copy directly from his website, and then bough ANOTHER copy a year later when it came up for sale in Target. Why? Just to support an artist that I enjoy.

If the artist wants you to have it for free, it's a gift, and outside my enraged blatherings. :-)

06/19/2008 05:46:51 PM · #34

I've always found this an excellent and interesting read at howstuffworks.com

How a Recording Contract works

Since reading this I have had no moral misgivings about using Russian sites to buy my music. It is not even necessarily illegal and I am very unlikely to actually be financially affecting the band. I'm merely taking my little sharp stick and poking the RIAA in the eye.

Message edited by author 2008-06-19 17:56:42.

06/19/2008 05:57:52 PM · #35

Originally posted by Jaker:

You guys are misunderstanding my passion. My passion is for music and artists. If you can buy it directly from them, do so! I can't express how much I support that idea. It's GREAT!!! But please buy it from someone, so the artis gets something.

06/19/2008 06:00:09 PM · #36

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I can recommend some good sources if you want to read about how the entire industry really works. Both the good and the bad.

06/19/2008 06:01:45 PM · #37

Originally posted by Jaker:

I can recommend some good sources if you want to read about how the entire industry really works. Both the good and the bad.

Fire away. I'm always willing to read what people have to say.

06/19/2008 06:21:10 PM · #38

I'll hit you up when I get home. I've got a couple of really good ones that are geared towrds artists, and how to survive and build a thriving career.

I'm sorry if I've come across as a raving lunatic in this thread. It's just a hot button topic for me.

NVPhoto

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/20/2008 12:19:21 PM · #39

Radiohead made it clear that they were going to make it for sale after a period of "pay what you want". The fact that its in stores now and not free has nothing to do with people not paying for it, it was the plan all along.

Lots of bands make their music avail for free and still make a living. Phish and the Dead and pretty much the entire Jam Band genre has been trading live tapes and soundboard recordings for years.

If you are a no name band, making music free for the masses is the best thing you could do, its how you develop a fan base outside of your touring area. Give music away online = more fans at your shows = CD sales. Bands that covet their music and don't let anyone hear it without paying for it struggle to get noticed which means zero attendance at shows.

Don't get me wrong, I spend a lot of $$ on music whether it be CDs or tickets. I also download a ton too. My point is making music avail for free allows people to hear it which sells tickets and merchandise. I have been turned on to many bands via downloads that I spend way more on tix than I would ever have spent on CDs.

jonnienye

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/20/2008 01:15:51 PM · #40

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by KaylaSkye:
Zune Music

This is microsofts version of iTunes. But instead of paying .99 a song, you can pay $14 a month and get unlimited downloads. Which is a much much better deal in my opinion. I haven't actually used it so make sure to read the small print just in case =)

Good luck

Unlimited downloads that only work as long as you are paying the $14/month. As soon as you stop your subscription, the files no longer are playable...

so these downloads arent recordable to disc?

Message edited by author 2008-06-20 13:16:05.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/20/2008 01:38:45 PM · #41

Originally posted by jonnienye:

so these downloads arent recordable to disc?

Well, you can double check me because I don't know the specifics, but I highly doubt it.

This is in their terms of service:
You can purchase content from the Zune Marketplace. You can also choose to sign up for a Zune Pass subscription, which allows you to stream or download as many songs as you want on a subscription basis from the Zune Marketplace for a flat monthly fee. You can pay for a Zune Pass using a prepaid subscription card, or your credit card. As long as you continue to pay your subscription fee each month, you will have access to all the content in the Zune Marketplace that is made available on a subscription basis. If you do not pay your subscription fee or your Zune Pass subscription terminates for any other reason, you will no longer have access to any content you downloaded under your subscription.

and later....

You cannot burn subscription content and/or playlists containing subscription content to CD. However, you can separately purchase content from Zune Marketplace under the terms listed above in Section 14.1. Any purchased content would not expire when your subscription ends.

Message edited by author 2008-06-20 13:42:28.

kenskid

Nikon D700

06/20/2008 01:47:03 PM · #42

This site looks like it will be a legal download site soon.

Add based free music site

A friend of mine actually bought 250 bucks worth of stock.

Skid

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/20/2008 01:47:07 PM · #43

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by jonnienye:
so these downloads arent recordable to disc?

Well, you can double check me because I don't know the specifics, but I highly doubt it.

Essentially then what you are saying is that they should re-word their contract and call it a "Rental Agreement" as opposed to a "Purchase Agreement".

Ray

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/20/2008 01:49:54 PM · #44

What do people at a Grateful Dead concert say after they run out of pot?

......"what the F*** are we listening to !!!"

harrhhrrrr harrrhrhrhr

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by NVPhoto:
Bands have become succesfull due to embracing the amount of file sharing that goes on. There is really no way to stop it and the bands that welcome it are the wave of the future. The Metallicas and Prince mentality just makes them look like assholes.

Take Radiohead for example. They put up In Rainbows for a donation of whatever you wanted. They also released the seperate tracks to 1 song so that the public could mix them and put it up for the world to hear. Did I mention that they sell out every show they put on?

The whole debate is purely financial, it has nothing to do with protecting someones art. Bands and record companies are mad because they aren't getting paid. There is a sure fire way to be paid if you are a musician... go on tour!

Downloading should be viewed as a way to reach the masses. How many people go to Radiohead shows because they downloaded In Rainbows for free? Its publicity at its best. Besides that people still buy albums. Ive bought albums that I downloaded first. Why? MP3s are the equivalent to low res photos. You want to hear the album in the way the band wanted it to sound you need to buy it.

To paraphrase the late Jerry Garcia on why the Grateful Dead allowed a whole separate section for "tapers" to make bootleg recordings at their concerts:

"Once we've played the notes we're finished with them."

Check out the site I posted earlier. AFAIK, the artists are in control of which tracks they post for free, and how much to charge for the tracks you pay for -- not unlike DPC Prints, it's essentially a gallery or Farmer's Market for recording artists.

If you like to buy discs, CD Baby is a distributor for independent artists.

Message edited by author 2008-06-20 14:14:21.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/20/2008 02:02:49 PM · #45

Originally posted by kenskid:

What do people at a Grateful Dead concert say after they run out of pot?

"Well, I guess there's a first time for everything."

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/20/2008 02:12:07 PM · #46

LoL !!!

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kenskid:
What do people at a Grateful Dead concert say after they run out of pot?

"Well, I guess there's a first time for everything."

jonnienye