Congrats.  You're now popular enough to steal.  :-\

Great music is always popular enought to steal, but it doesn't pay the bills.

ahem...

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

David Lowery is a national treasure. thanks so much for posting this link. 

Thanks for the David Lowery link.  Fantastic article.  Everyone should read it.

Exactly!

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if some of you guys live under a rock. This has been going on for so many years now.

Forget the fricking torrents & p2p, that's old news. The file lockers are where most steal music. For the sake of it I did a quick search on Google for filelockers with black Tape For A Blue Girl ... it's all there, plenty! No torrent needed.

Sorry, but when are you guys going to wake-up? perhaps you really don't understand what is going on?

You seem upset. You are also apparently unable to read the article as an illustration of all forms of illegal distribution. Maybe step back a little, switch to decaf, count to ten or whatever it takes to help you see the bigger picture

In my opinion the bigger picture does not involve trying to re-hash a facet of the business (physical sales) that is obviously never going to be anywhere near as profitable as it once was. 

Think outside the box here, though you may not like it, focusing on things other than record sales might help your career a little more than whining about internet piracy for 12 years. Think forward, not backward. 

If your son has to eat than you should probably doing whatever you needed to do to get him fed. 

It's frustrating for the majority all of us who are involved in this industry as it stands however if survival means going out and swinging a hammer or find other means to feed your family then that's the reality, and one many of us are actively engaged in. 

+1 to the other comment.  If you're not popular enough to be torrented, you need to re-evaluate your strategy/music, cause NO ONE CARES!!!    

Your first payment comes in the form of "time" and I'm not gonna spend the "time" to even open a newsletter if I have no desired interest.  

Let alone spend the "time" to rip/convert to a format and share...

this is how we do it ya'11!

https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/artist-exploitation-calculator-internet-edition/

Cash money from Artists without having to PAY Artists! Get RICH yo! It's easy to make money from music, just give it away for free, and sell advertising around it!

ya boy!

I just checked The Pirate Bay. The torrent has 0 seeds and 0 peers.No worries.

Just 1 Black Tape For A Blue Girl album on streaming services. That's something to worry about. What if someone wants to listen to more tracks... ?

If you review the link above ("outspoken"), you will see that Mr. Rosenthal has been quite zealous in having his work removed from streaming services.

Me, I was astonished to see the name Black Tape for a Blue Girl.  I distantly recall buying an album under that name almost a quarter century ago, but I hadn't given any further thought to that name since then.

I know, but why does he leave just one album? To generate sales? This is the tactic that drives people to filesharing sites.

Funny cause the music metric co-founder (at today's New Music Seminar) said they have strong supporting evidence that torrent downloads have a direct link to sales figures.  

Considering he has 0 seeds and 0 peers, what are his sales figs?

I keep hearing about "strong supporting evidence" or "market research" that shows illegal sharing has an effect or positive impact to download sales.  Can someone please provide a link to this data.

Are they really correlated? or is it simply a fact that a song that is file shared thousands of times will also be a song that is purchased by thousands of others?

Did they provide you w/ the evidence or just tell you that they have it?

At first I was like "Damn!" and then I was like "Damn!"...

;)

Still, I can imagine the average non-technically inclined musician's eyes popping out of his or her head upon first seeing their work available on p2p -- I totally sympathize.

Maybe make music because you like music, then feed your son by getting a real job like a responsible father?

Paul, your headline posts have been getting more inflamatory and polarizing as of late, and the people you hurt are the musicians who listen to your dinosaur ramblings without knowing any better.

getting a real job like a responsible father

Hey asshole! That's just damn insulting!!!

Why do you hate musicians so much?

Not a proper job?

WTF???

Why is being a musician not a real job?

Being a musician? That ain't workin'. Maybe get a blister on your little finger. Maybe get a blister on your thumb.

Those who show so little respect for people who work in the creative space really need not distract the rest of us with your blue collar cynicism.

Hey that ain't work, those guys are just goofing around.  Well for the rest of us, those guys "goofing" around make the world a better place.

How insulting to attack someone by accusing them of being an irressponsible father.  It is those who take others work without paying who are the truly irresponsible ones.

Oh those young business people today can't catch the irony of quoting lyrics that were ironic in the first place

Hey Sam

I recommend MUSO TNT as a service that can semi-automate the DMCA takedown process to deal with torrents etc.

www.muso.com/

Seriously.  We are satisfied customers...

How far up your ass is your head if, in June of 2012, as the founder/president of a record label, you're just coming to the realization that people upload/download/pirate/illegally trade your music? What, did you think yours was the one and only label out there which was immune to this?

Not saying it's right, but jeez, get a clue, Sam.

so what is your point Mr Know-It-All?

Maybe the point is that this has been and is going on all the time and that this not really "News." News implies new story.

Maybe a real news story would be one in which somebody (maybe the author of an online news site about digital music) interviewed someone that had a solution (technological or political) or at least an opinion about proposed solutions.

They only 'solution' (thus far, anyway) is to offer something that can't be easily reproduced & shared with millions of people for free.

If it can't be easily reproduced and shared with millions then there would be no need for copyright law.  Copyright law was created tp protect works that are easily reproduced and shared.

bullshit. Have a look at the history of copyrights. It has nothing to do with digital. It dates back to the 18th century.

I did not say copyright had anything to do with digital. It has everything to do with the ability to easily make COPIES of works.

Through technological innovation, the ability to make copies of things has been getting easier and easier since around 1440 when Gutenberg made a movable type printing press.

RIP Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg

Ni argant le amadan

Yeah but only really printing presses could copy things efficently, so there wasn't many people to police. Copyright got fucked when computers and the Internet rolled around.

I guess it's a slow day for news.  This "news" is as if the New York Times ran a headline that said "Deniers concede that the world is indeed round."

SO TRUE.

I agree. see above

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk, but you just don't get it. Neither does David Lowery. Its pretty straightforward. Regardless or any moral or legal consequences, during the time around 2001 when the larger creative MP3 players that looked like discmen were released, there was NO LEGAL WAY to PURCHASE music files. That's right, in case you forgot, there was at least a 2-3 year blackout in the industry while the labels sued napster and did not legally distribute digital files. During that time, everyone got used to stealing music. Its is not personal. It was not even intentional. But now, more than ever, you have to shut up and accept that not every musician can be a star. Now is the time for musicians to understand the harsh reality that not everyone cares about their music enough to pay for it. Its called supply and demand. If your music is good, and its easy to buy, and you get the attention of a consumer, you might sell a little bit of it. But you must stop complaining and just accept the reality that there is no law that says you will make "x" amount of money. If you need to support your son, which I sympathize with greatly, you need to get another job. When our parents told us as children that we could do anything we wanted, they didn't promise you could do anything and get rich, did they? No. That's not how it works. Part of this is luck, its not just hard work, and it is not your god given right as an artist to make money. I have never heard of you before. I live in brooklyn. I studied music. I like new and local music. Ever stop and think that maybe you aren't some powerhouse pop act and maybe you can't make a living making music? In the end, music may not be a profitable enough endeavor to survive on. But times have changed. Think back to the middle ages - who supported music? Certainly not the COURTS! It was bankers, the church, the wealthy, and even then only the best made it. If you couldn't land a medici-rich backer you made no money. How is it different today? I actually applaud what's going on in the industry. Its called supply and demand. If you stopped whining for a second and looked at the facts you'd understand. There is more music being released now than ever before. There is plenty of money being spent in the industry as a whole. The reality is, there is only so much money consumers want to allocate to media spending and lets be honest, how much are you worth to them, especially during economically hard times? Being an artist is a risk, and being bothered by this shows you don't have what it takes to be a superstar. Stars don't give a shit, unless you are prince, who doesn't have to understand today's market, because his peak is long passed.

To Adam's post: LOL! You do sound like a jerk. I personally licensed a multi-song catalog by a former major label artist to eMusic for 99-cent downloads in 1999. So did Epitaph Records. Napster wrecked everything. There were other attempts too. The 2 or 3 year void was because Napster was illegal and if you sold one mp3 it showed up there for free and couldn't be sold again. Then came Kazaa, Limewire, etc. These illegal destroyers of my U.S. Constitution Right as an Author to control copy might better be seen as Treason. At the least it has been a Tech prejudice against music Civil Rights no less than the Ku Klux Klan.

It doesn't actually matter why you think there was a 2-3 year void, or what you licensed to eMusic in 1999, because no kids knew about eMusic, we didn't have credit cards to sign up with, and we certainly didn't get marketed to or educated about it because the labels and publishing companies didn't want us to know - they wanted us to keep buying CD's. And then they raised the prices of those CD's at the worst possible time. And instead of suing napster, the labels could have, right then and there, created their own legal little napsters and realeased all of their files that they owned right then and there. At that time, and I could dig up some facts if you want me to from my thesis paper in college, the jury was still out in terms of the public on free music. People were still willing to pay. But instead, the labels were afraid of letting those files out, figured we'd copy their files instead of napsters, and decided that not only would they not release MP3 files, they would try to prevent everyone else from sharing them too. Silly move, and all things that can't really be discounted and must be discussed when talking about this issue. What, was I supposed to magically know as a 16 year old in 1999 about eMusic? How would I have opened a bank account with a credit card before I was 18? Maybe you've forgotten that at that time teenagers didn't all have credit cards and cell phones?

Yes Adam you do sound like a jerk. A total fucking complete jerk, who is jealous and frustrated because you dreamed to be a musician and didn't have what it takes.

I studied music. I like new and local music. Ever stop and think that maybe you aren't some powerhouse pop act and maybe you can't make a living making music?

Adam it's not true that only "powerhouse pop acts" can make a living making music.

The people who succeed in a making a living making music that isn't necessarily mega-commercial rubbish are people who BELIEVE in what they do and people who are prepared to put up a fight to support their art.

People like Sam Rosenthal.

Not bitter failures like you.

We all know the background to free music on the internet, but at the same time there is absolutely nothing wrong with artists trying to point out to people the sheer injustice of treating music content as something of no value while being totally prepared to spend big bucks on technical devices on which to play this content. There is an illogicality here.

It's not a simple question of supply and demand because the supply chain has been skewed.

But because you don't get it, you find it necessary to snipe and insult from the ugly recesses of what might have been your soul. 

LOL its funny that I sound like a bitter musician by nature, but no, I've never even been in a band. I used to work in the record industry and it was a disgusting place, that's where my bitterness comes from. And of course I know that not only powerhouse pop acts can make a living, but these days $100,000/year won't house you in NYC and feed your kid or leave much left over, its just reality. And while there may be some "sheer injustice" involved in what is going on, there will be no "winning" this fight. Its a few complainers, who must sound way more bitter than me, against a few hundred million consumers. We decide as consumers what something is worth, not the courts or the copyright laws. And yes, it is as simple as supply and demand, because the supply chain is now COMPLETELY OPEN and music is available across all platforms, while the copyright laws have been diminished. I would argue that this is not only good for society, but a necessary part of the evolution of copyright. Do you study copyright law? If so are you familiar with the history behind it? Copyright law was invented in order to protect the creations of artists because there was an inherent NEED for more creation to happen. The idea was, if we want people to invest time and thinking and resources into being creative, which is good for society, then we need to protect those things that are created, and give those creators time to monetize on the idea. Back then it meant buying a HUGE and EXPENSIVE piece of granite if you were a sculptor. Or having a whole orchestra dressed, transported, and instruments made for them to perform. It meant buying paint, not at the corner store, and having giant canvases made by hand. These were huge expenses, much like the expenses a musician faced in the mid 1900's to make a record or a CD. You couldn't go out and buy a CD pressing plant, or a printer that made thousands of labels in a few minutes. You couldn't buy a labeling machine, nor could you advertise on facebook. Now fast forward to today. You can buy a computer, some software, some wires, and take classes on how to do everything yourself. What this has done is create an unnecessary flood of mediocre, unvetted, and arguably useless lineup of music to hit the streets in an uncertain market, which has allowed its traditional distribution channels to die and which slacked considerably in creating new channels. So look at it this way - the consumers are still here, they are still willing to spend money in some form or another, yet at every turn more crap is being shoved down their throats... now where does an average hard working musician like this guy fit in? Consumers decide. And regardless, I would never have known this guys name if it hadn't been for this article, and I never would have heard of his music. So even in whining he wins, because he just got some exposure. I live in brooklyn. Maybe I'll go see a show. But that's what he gets. He can't sit around and see that bit torrent lineup and think, "oh shit, there goes the money that those guys WOULD HAVE spent if they couldn't download illegally." WRONG. There is no proof of displacement of sales at all.

So are you saying that people who create software, text, photgraphs, music, video should just go find a job at costco b/c anything they create is or soon will be free online?

and copyright law can no longer promote the creation of new works b/c digital copying is so easy?

Since the majority would rather acquire copyright material for free then pay for it, majority wins?

Rule by tyranny of the majority? I think other parts of the constitution adress this concept

Actually no, I'm not saying any of that. In fact, so far, authors have done a fantastic job, and the publishing trade is a perfect example of success in this market, while the movie industry is an example of a failure so far. As soon as the publishing industry saw this coming, they acted. Instead of suing companies like sony for coming out with a book reader, instead of suing amazon from creating the kindle, they worked together to create marketing buzz, the infrastructure to deliver books and text in a convenient manner, and succeeded in transitioning. I see people with these devices all day long and it appears to be working just fine. I'm suggesting that the circumstances behind what happened to the recording industry, and it being the first to go through this, simply is what it is. There is a certain undeniable reality in the way things played out. I am not suggesting rule by tyranny of the majority, but its kind of too late to argue that for music.

Adam the only person I hear whining is YOU.

I don't know why you have this chip on your shoulder but you do.

Sam is passionately defending his art and his right to make an honest living from creating music that people obviously want, otherwise they wouldn't be free-downloading it. And if you researched him for just a second you would find he has been active since the early 80s and has a respected place in the underground "darkwave" indie scene, both as a label owner and as an artist.

So just stop fucking insulting him OK?

You admit you are bitter - you are coming from a very dark and ugly psychological place. And now you start bringing in the tired old arguments about copyright you have just exposed yourself as a freetard. Pathetic...

Steve, I don't have a chip on my shoulder. And I'm not insulting him at all. Maybe I'm being too straightforward in spelling this all out, but I don't need to be compassionate, I don't know him or you, and this is a forum where we can discuss the realities rather than throw insult or disgust around willy-nilly, so calm down please. I not only appreciate Sam and this article and all the comments, I really appreciate the dialogue, it seems important. Furthermore, just becuase he wasn't relevant to me and I didn't research him doesn't mean I can't comment on this very relevant situation to us all. I'm sure he has made many valuable contributions which I would respect, but that's not what we are discussing. Because if we are all going to move forward instead of sit around and be upset and complain, we should get back to the issues at hand about copyright. I in no way demonstrated that I was a "freetard" and those arguments are FAR from tired. In fact, they are becoming the reality right now. And here you are complaining and worrying instead of taking a risk and thinking ahead. Trust me all the people of the tech world are way ahead of you guys on this, but nobody will change the playing field or alter the business model to let new stuff happen. The record labels are holding on by a thread, and in a few years when they are all bank owned and have finally lost control, the laws can change. You can argue all you want about "freetards" and "tired old arguments" or you can look at the simple reality... the old business model is done. Its gone. Its out, and we have not created a new one. In addition, that value of art and copyright is, arguably, greatly diminished. Its pretty hard to get people to feel guilty about something that they just won't really feel that guilty about. People are clamoring to buy radiohead tickets, scalping prices are through the roof, there's insane demand there right now... just not for everyone. And to be clear, I'm not whining at all. I'm trying to give you a window into the mind of the average music consumer who knows maybe just a little bit more than the average consumer about the situation since I wrote a college thesis on it and worked in the industry for 5 years in different forms.

Here's my favorite passage and rationalization from Adam's post:

"Regardless or(sic) any moral or legal consequences"...

With that one statement, you sweep away the entire foundation of western civilization and with it, its accomplishments: The concept of individual property rights.  Ever ready any Aristotle?!

That's a handy phrase which I'll have to keep in mind anytime I want the world to be that which it is not or someone has something that I want and don't want to pay for.

"During that time, everyone got used to stealing music. Its is not personal. It was not even intentional." 

Bullshit, it was intentional.

Regardless or any moral or legal consequences, during the time around 2001 when the larger creative MP3 players that looked like discmen were released, there was NO LEGAL WAY to PURCHASE music files.

I've just realised the blatant fallacy in your argument - it was staring at me in the face - so obvious that I missed it!!

In 2001 is was perfectly possible to buy music files ON CDs!!!!

Subsequently the music file could be copied (aka ripped) onto a computer or an mp3 player.

Please don't overlook the fact that the audio files on a CD are digital music files (equivalent to Aiff or Wav).

So I can emphatically say yes in 2001 there was a LEGAL WAY to PURCHASE music files.

Oh and one thing I left out - I never see anyone mention anything about how this music must be purchased - with a CREDIT or DEBIT card. Think about all the kids out there who don't have access to a debit or credit card. They get cash allowance from their parents. Do you really think they signed up for some online bank that allows them to join and pay itunes? Heck no! They still buy CD's at walmart while their parents walk around buying useless crap that is marketed to them on TV. They go to the mall and buy them at Sam Goody, Tower Records, FYE, Strawberries.... OH WAIT.... that's right, those stores don't exist anymore... HMMMMMM..... don't forget about the partnership between retailers and record labels that just broke down, plain and simple? That wasn't the fault of file sharers, it was greedy and bad business practices that did it, I was right in the middle of it and watched it happen. Can't leave all this out either.

If these kids can access digital music via online or smartphone, that means mommy and daddy bought them the device.

Now I know it is hard for a lot of parents these days to pay attention to what their kids are doing, but if they allow their kid to download songs w/o paying for them and never wonder how Jr. got the latest top 10 hit for free on their laptop or iphone then there is no help. 

Maybe the parents could at least buy a subscription service for the little thief. at least some musicians somewhere might get a few pennies.

Well there you go, you just came up with a great marketing idea. And made my point even stronger - if people in the industry were inventive like you just were with that idea - and maybe decided to persue this down a likely road to a solution or making things better instead of pursuing avenues like complaining about how its unfair, they would get somewhere. Good idea man, hopefully someone sees that and thinks about how a campaign to go after parents who buy the devices and enable the purchasing can help. Because complaining about what you are owed so to speak won't get anyone anywhere. Either you accept the realities and move forward or act like the labels did 10 years ago and just cry and say it will all blow over... but it won't. Music continues to lose its value daily as it gets shoved down our throats, put in every advertisement, played in the background in every store, is always playing through our headphones, etc etc. I get enough music just walking around sometimes. You really think that my music purchasing or any consumer's can ever really catch up to the increase in music available for purchase and being released these days? I think that's a pipe dream...

Hey! Easy with the "useless crap being marketed" comment. That is un-American.

Many people are convinced to buy devices to get online to purchase other items online or at least rip some software, text, music or video at little or no expense or sense of shame.

or maybe post idiotic rants about how it's now OK to make copies of digital content because it's so easy and everyone is doing it!

That goes to the very heart of marketing

Its funny that my statements come across to you as "idiotic rants about its now ok to make digital copeis of content because its easy and everyone is doing it." If you were actually reading instead of just browsing, you might see there's more to what I'm saying than that. You are still ignoring a certain reality that there are way better options for disseminating information, such as music, in a mass form to the general public, and that the people in control are not the musicians. The musicians are getting screwed by the system 10 times worse than they get screwed by the consumer. The consumer knows this. Therefore they don't want to support the broken system of record labels who sue them and treat them like they are dirt rather than customers. Its a circle, and so far, one unbroken. So why don't you create a solution and help the artists take control, distribute better, and work better within the current system? Its absolutely no use sitting around and saying people like me suck or "don't get it" because I pay for spotify, I buy digital files on iTunes, and I ALSO download. Because for me sometimes its worth it and sometimes its not. Another great example - game of thrones on HBO. I don't have a large TV. I watch stuff on my computer screen. In order to watch HBO on TV I'd need HBO go. To get that, not only do I need to have cable tv, but I need to upgrade to the HBO package. But I cannot just purchase HBO, I have to get a package with a number of channels. Furthermore, to get it on demand, I'd have to purchase another $15 upgrade option. Seriously? And HBO is not licensed around to the market. So I cannot just go on iTunes or another paid site and buy the current episode, not even the next day or the next week. Finally, I resort to pirating Game of Thrones because its not worth the ridiculous amount of money it would cost to have all the services I need. This was the average experience of a teenager when I was in high school trying to get digital music files. Think about that. Now move on.

 "I resort to pirating Game of Thrones because its not worth the ridiculous amount of money it would cost"

Says it all

Yeah says it all, that the future of media companies who are greedy is bleak, while the future of those who innovate and attract consumer attention will survive. Its pretty simple. Too much product to spread too thin across not enough consumer interest and not enough consumer budget. Basic economics, and basic supply and demand. Now that we have options, its not easy anymore. That's what everyone is complaining about. And here people are blaming the consumer for not taking the moral high ground? Hey, this is greedy USA, don't forget. It works two ways. If corporations and businesses can do it to consumers, so can we return the favor when necessary. Companies can push, but consumers can push back as they please. Its not the place of the government to get involved. THAT is what is unamerican. The forefathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the way record labels and publishing companies use those copyright laws they put in the constitution to control the entire market and profit on all levels. That's not what copyright was intended for.

Or if you don't want to discuss it maybe we can compare notes? How much did you spend in digital media purchases in the last 30 days? Was it more than $40? Because I just spent $50 since the 1st of the month between netflix, spotify, iTunes tracks, and iTunes movie rentals and TV episode purchasing. I also paid $104 for Basic TV, phone and internet package. I then paid $124 for a cell phone with unlimited data options to be able to use my spotify application and access purchasing of iTunes files online, as well as to watch and listen on the go. So far that's $278 for this month and its only what, the 20th? How much more should I budget? Another 100? Another $200? Come on, who has this kind of money? Not millions of people. And I'm sure not the wealthiest or poorest american out there. Think about this dude. Do you spend that much? If so, do you want to spend that much or more? Its not as simple as the old days taht a $100 single purchase on a stereo or walkman and a few CD's got you what you needed. Its a completely different market and consuming world, do you really ignore that?

I believe the author and the person who is the subject of the article would be happy if everyone was like you and paid that amount for music either directly or indirectly.

Now go read DMN's next article:

(over 10 years since Napster)

Selling More Than 100 Downloads a Year? Then Consider Yourself Very Lucky

I am entertained by all your mistaken assumptions about me and Black Tape For A Blue Girl and Projekt. There is no reason to correct each misperception, since you'd just flame me because apparently you know my career, experiences, and the music industry Much Better than I do.

Black Tape For A Blue Girl has released 10 studio albums in 25 years and Projekt Records is up to release #285. Still in business after 3 decades in the music industry. Hmmmm? Why don't you pop over and buy a CD: http://www.projekt.com/ -- or are you a post-purchase/post-supporting-artists/post-modernist?

For the person who suggested I don't know about locker sites (let's go way way back to January 2012): http://www.projekt.com/Abuse-locker.asp

For the rest, I will point you to David Lowery's fine blog: 

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

My favorite part: Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!

Have a nice day, Sam

Sam, I appreciate you chiming in here and I think its honorable to defend yourself and put it out there. However, I still think it comes down to some very real facts. There is simply too much music for you to compete with. There are plenty of consumers still spending money in the industry. Look at my comments, if you have time, they are long. I spend as much as possible these days on media, and it still won't be "enough." Ok, I get it, you want and feel you deserve to make more in the industry. That is a legit feeling. You have paid your dues. However Its still a matter of supply and demand here. You are now competing with a lot of much less "vetted" music which is crowding the distribution channels. In addition, the paid sites like spotify have a horrible subscription rate, and if most people paid, the payments would go from almost nothing to something significant, that's the way their model works. In addition, it may be a sad realization, but a necessary one, that just like musicians all know when starting out, it is quite possible to never make enough money or become a "star." It appears you fall into this group. I'm sorry that its the case, but it is. So where do you go now? Where do other musicians in your shoes go now? Well its hard for me to say. But it seems pretty straightforward that music is becoming less profitable a carreer, and that's just a reality musicians need to understand. And personally, I think this is great. Because it will, HOPEFULLY, prevent a whole crop of potential new and shitty musicians not to spend their lives chasing a dream of profitable fame or whatever. Its just the reality that you are fully aware of, nothing is guaranteed. And you can be mad at this generation all you want, but none of us are interested in debating it. We are going to exist this way because for years the labels had us under control. They could have kept us under control, but things went awry. What do you suggest? I hear a lot of complaining and I don't see any reasonable solutions being projected. Can you please elaborate on what your ideal next move would be, where you want things to be instead?

but none of us are interested in debating it.

Really?  You seem VERY interested in "debating" it.

Or should I say you seem very interested in baiting musicians and artists with your peculiarly nasty bitterness and negativity.

You really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder, fella...

Well now, is this really news?

Upon looking for "Black Tape for a Blue Girl" on Rhapsody, Rdio, and Spotify. Guess what I found? Nothing. Now why not include them on Rhapsody? Rhapsody operates both a subscription service and an MP3 store. It as not found in either one. Don't like subscription serivces? Ok. I looked at 7Digital, a large digital store and found 1 single album. Why not offer more of their music for sale? A lot of people refuse to buy from iTunes and don't buy from Amazon. If you don't make music more reasonably accessible, most people won't go the extra mile to find it legally. This isn't a terribly difficult concept. When a product is too expensive or too hard to find, they buy a knockoff. When music isn't as easy to find or there are no alternatives available, they steal it. Like it or hate it, this is reality. Deal with it.

Seems to me, history has shown us there is only one effective strategy for combating piracy. Making the products/services being pirated cheap and/or available enough to make piracy seem less attractive.

I think Redbox is a good example, most people i know would rather pay the $1-$1.50 to rent a movie and not have to worry about pirating and the consequences. Compared to $20 for purchasing the DVD, $10+ to see it in the theatre, or even $5 or so per the old blockbuster model. Redbox has EMBRACED technology and the efficeiency that can come from it, and made their prices and business model reflect that.

When will the big music labels accept this? For those robbling as they read this and getting excited to post a reply regarding that model not working for music, i would like to site NIN and Radioheads success with free/pay what you want models.

Being a musician myself with ambitions to fedd myslef with my music, it's hard to side so heavily with the Consumer side of this equation, but honestly it's the only sane one. There is a false sense of entitlement regarding digiatl music works and there distribution which has been perpetuated by the Labels being drunk with power and overcharging per their monopoly.

In my oppinion the sharing of information as we have been is indicative of an evolutionary jump regarding how we treat each other.

Food for thought:

• How do you think Stuxnet & Flame ended up in Iran's top secret nuclear facilities?
• How do you think the scientist's internet connections and personal computers were traced and mapped?
• What is the average age and interests of young scientists and lab personnel?

Too many internet gurus, no common sense.