...and then no one will be able to hear the content that I produce... and willfully want others to download

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from using the myriad legitimate sites like Soundcloud, Official.fm, Soundclick, Reverbnation etc etc to accomplish the same thing.

but at the end of the day, the end result is still the same. Illegal or "legitimate", SOMEBODY's getting paid. How much was your last royalty check from soundcloud?

Obviously you have a problem with people making money from their creative work and you want yours to be distributed for free. I certainly support your right to give your work away, I don't support your misperception that somehow you have the right to decide what happens to someone elses' work.

Furthermore, your position that the compensation model "sucks" still doesn't give you the right to make that decisions for others.

You, like so many others, feel "entitled" to download others work for free, because you do.  

Online piracy has been referred to as shoplifting, when in reality it is more akin to the mass mentality of looting. A justification that "makes it ok" for so, so many because it is constantly supported by individuals like yourself.    

 

people are no longer paying for music.  Philosophically speaking, people are paying for the convenience of access to music.  Music itself no longer has value.  It's an uphill battle to protect your material from piracy, and I commend your effort, but the time it takes to fight these small battles over and over does not seem to effectively use your resources.  I have no answer, but it seems a little like Sisyphus rolling the stone up the mountain...

"people are no longer paying for music.  Philosophically speaking, people are paying for the convenience of access to music. "  Very well, succinctly put.  But where you are wrong is speaking to the value of music.  Music has been DEvalued, but it does not mean it is NOT valuable, or that creators and rights holders do not deserve to be compensated. 

If there was no music, the access would also be devalued.  Keep on disabling creators from making a living, and that's what will happen.  Truthfully, there will always be music, but the quality will continue to dwindle.  So, when people who downoad illegally ask themselves, "Where is the good new music?"  they need to look at themselves in the mirror as the culprits. 

Kudos to Sam for speaking up.  Lastly, here is an excellent perspective from the other side:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165837/kill-internet-and-other-anti-sopa-myth

I hear this rant, all the time.  Take down this site, go after that site.    It comes from the wana be "Hipsters" who push their indi rock, their Pop Music.  

I'm in the EDM music world.  House music, Progresive, etc.  I am an Artist/Producer and Label Owner.  Two sites carry my music only, Itunes (signed directly with them..no middle man) and Beatport.  My label is very profitable...more so than most of these "INDI ROCK/POP LABELS" who bitch and moan about Pirated music.  

Yet, I find that less than 5% of my content is "Stolen".  I tour the world 10x over, the biggest clubs from Ibiza to Paris...yet less than 5% of the "Label" releases are stolen?   It's theft right, no.  But is it a cost of doing business YES!  Is the 5% riped off, if that cause I'm using round numbers, considered paid marketing? YES!

There are laws on the books and ways (As this author pointed out) to have you content taken down from "FREE SITES" and Rip-off sites.

These articles are getting tired and boring.  Reading them is like listening to two little old liberal ladies scream and complain about stupid shit.

You are confusing dude.  Unless you are totally bored, why are you here?  Get back to your sampling.

I always assumed it was these Mac-loving hipsters that were stealing the music and spending the money saved on braces and boat shoes. You'll like that, it's a statement as sweeping and useless as yours.

Dude, in your little world, ALL the content is stolen.  I doubt you have generated a single note of music that wasn't sampled or from a black box.

Soundcloud is walking a thin line between legit and yet another haven for infringing works that clearly do not belong there, like Frank Zappa for example.

Here is the truth:

Artist finds illegal situaiton.
Files takedown notice(if you can suffer the long forms you must file).
Files hopefully get taken down.
Person who put the files up issues a counter notice.
Files go back up.

What's next? An artist has to sue.

DMCA is fucked up and favors the tech world, not the artist.

Why not? If you want it up there for free download, then host it for free download.

The point is to protect those that do not want their work taken for free.

 

- Versus

This topic needs to be examined from another angle.

The solutions Sam proposes prevents the disseminiation of artist content. Dissemination is only a detriment to artists when the artist isn't adequately extracting value from the spread of their work.

Point being, the problem doesn't lie in eradicating services that enable the dissemination of content, but rather in creating new platforms that have checks in place so that the artist is extracting and aggregating the appropriate value from the spread of their work.

Sam mentions that users are rewarded for sending traffic to Megaupload. While this is true, aren't those same users also exposing the artistic work to new audiences? If those new "fans" form a lasting connection with the artist isn't there value in that relationship? Shouldn't the users responsible for contributing to the establishment of that new artist/fan relationship be rewarded?

Let's not rid the internet of delivery platforms, but rather figure out how all stakeholders in the process can benefit from the delivery - including web publishers who are driving fans/eyeballs to the artistic work.

This is an issue of rights. It doesn't matter whether you, me, or anyone else thinks that it is beneficial to the artist or not - it is purely a matter of whether the artist him/herself wants to do it. The most important part of any distribution is that the artist should be opting in to it, not having to jump through convoluted hoops to try and opt out.

The artist must have a right to choose what happens to their work. They can choose to sell the rights to a label, they can choose to sell it for themselves, or they can choose to give it away. And if they choose to give it away, well, good for them! There are countless ways for them to do so that are not only legitimate and legal, but also offer a far better experience for the consumer than locker sites - Soundcloud, Official.fm, Bandcamp, etc etc.

You can generate sound waves but you can't control whose ears they enter.

 

 

There are legitimate, licensed music services like Spotify, Rdio, MOG and others where sharing among paid subscribers and free users are allowed.

Putting megaupload in this catagory is completely disregarding the rights and protections musicians and the labels that release their music are afforded.

But a $5 a month subscription, don't be cheap and hide behind the DMCA and this idea that you are providing some benefit by sharing music illegallly with otther peopel that will magiclally go back and pay for what you illegally shared.

 

 

@andrew: yes, long lasting relationship. as in they illegally d'load the next album, and the next--and since you never travel to their town/country, they don't pay for concert tix or merch. so you gain a long-lasting fan that has never put their money where their ear is.

the most vociferous defenders of music for free are musicians who are still in the basement and have dreams of filling stadiums (my free songs are so good that no one will buy them but will come from around the country to see me perform).

Andrew Zarick, you write most eloquently. I wish I could eloquently write as well the opposite position of your's. That your examination "from another angle" is bullshit!

As the earlier posts mention, if the artist wants to distribute his stuff for free--and for the exposure--then he should be able to do it. No one is advocating the denying of that.

And as James replied to you: "The artist must have a right to choose what happens to their work."

It's their livelihood. Hands off! THE MUSIC DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU TO REPOST ONLINE!

It's not like the old days where you could make a mix tape of songs off the radio or from the albums you purchased. (tapes had an added surcharge built in to its price to pay the music industry a royalty for just such a thing as I've read back then). Or even in the early days of Quicktime when you couldn't rip a CD (which cost $10 ea back then) but you could make a "mix-tape" using early Quicktime to rerecord a copy of a song as a CD played in an external player because Macs had a sound input then. It took a lot of work and none of it produced a direct perfect copy as ripping does now. But you could at least make a CD of your favourite bits of an album and not the crap you didn't like. Also, it was prohibitively expensive to distribute illegally. Only a copy for yourself or for a friend was all that one could afford.

Years ago, whether before Napster or not, eMusic already had a business model that allowed people to discover new talent and PAY for listening privileges. There was no need for FREE files. Ever. Somehow artists were paid by eMusic, so arrogant upstarts pretending to be legit businesses like Spotify which pay next to nothing per play, get mostly a free ride--and they started off playing the songs without permission, then they paid up.

 

So, what's your solution?

Follow step 1D and you can be taken to court, and especially this bit "for fun, take down a page of Skinny Puppy or Rozz Williams albums. Consider it good karma".

Step 1D should read:
Download the file and verify it's breaking DMCA (failing to do so can land you in hot water if you're not the copywrite owner/have their consent to file a DMCA notice on the owners behalf).

By all means you can report abuse for infringing content that isn't yours, but filing a fake/improper notice makes you the criminal.

I agree. That bit should not have been in the (otherwise spot-on) article, even if it probably was said in jest. Your amendment is much better.

You have a very poor knowledge of the DMCA. A request for a music file to be taken down "in error" will not result in a prosecution or police coming to raid your house, as if you are a CRIMINAL.

The major case for false DMCA takedowns occured in federal district court, Online Policy Group v. Diebold.   

The law was meant to shield people from well-funded corporations using the DMCA to stifle criticism.

I agree with Nic. It's just bad advice. Sending scattershot takedowns to Sam's  "abuse@" list is NOT a good idea--  I think it's actually a violation of DMCA to issue frivolous takedowns like this just because he "longer waste[s] his time on separate emails to each site."

I like MegaUpload personally, However I also agree that their incentive for uploaders leads to illegal file sharing and this needs to be contained.

While I firmly believe that artists benefit from the wide spreading of their music. The artist needs to be able to control how that spreading happens. And be able to reap benefits that fit within their own personalized music plans.

Fans wanting to spread the greatest music in 22 galaxies is one thing. However uploaders wanting to find what is hot currently so they can upload it illegally to a site like Megaupload in order to reap financial gain is a totally differnet story.

controlling how something spreads on the internet doesn't sound logical to me for some reason . . . . 

Yeah, for some strange reason it makes billions for Google, every year...I wonder why...?

All I'm saying is you can cast the bait but you can't control who bites.

We are not in the business of phishing people. Watch out for that trillion dollar submarine with "GOOGLE" painted on the side.

I think that's the whole point. 

Artists who are creating the "Bait" are not casting it out - others are stealing the "Bait" from the artist and then uploading it to share with countless other thieves who steal it.

Do we expect artists to create for free? 

Would you work for free? 

Most artists I know have already sacrificed years to learn their craft and dedicate their lives to art. They love their work.  Even though there is very little promise of monetary reward or support benefits (no health plan, no 401K, no steady income, no guarantee of a #1 song, lol), artists continue to produce work that uplifts and inspires us all.  SOPA language may not be perfect yet, but the idea of the new law deserves to be considered.  Artists deserve protection from people who steal product.  It's the same as shoplifting.

get a real job then if ur unhappy with it all , i personally think without the internet and people downloading the stuff u will never get recognised in the 1st place so quit your moaning all these people who say were losing money cause people download our stuff is rediculous as most maybe all wouldnt buy it in the 1st place

I have run lots of tests where I take a vigilant approach to taking down files and other equally popular albums I just let sit idly by.  The end result every single time is, regardless of what I do, the first day of sales will be strong.  Then it breaks off.  If I vigilantly patrol the net and takedown releases as soon as they come up, my sales decline, but it's a long-term decline and in the process over a couple of weeks I rake in a lot of cumulative sales.  If I do nothing, it drops down to practically 0.  Taking down links isn't a political statement, it's a matter of survival and it wastes a shitload of my time.  Welcome to reality and sorry it doesn't confirm your utopian fantasy.

How about you get a real job, punk?

see.  now youlve gone g made rich masio angry.  get lem richa  lol

I saw the beginning of Sam Rosenthal's Projekt Records about 25 years ago when he raised the money through hard work and determination to produce his first vinyl album. It was more expensive back then to build a home studio or rent studio space, but he did it. He has been in business for all of that time since, supporting independent artists such as he was. I think he's already been "recognized" by the public that likes his music.

"Moaning?" He's not moaning. He's fighting for his rights to earn a living from the content he created or is legally allowed to distribute through his label where he does pay fair royalties to his bands and protecting their rights, too. I think if you were in the same position, people posting your work, you would be pissed, too. Your argument of not being recognized or people wouldn't buy it in the first place is the argument of someone who doesn't recognize the worth and hardwork that goes into the music's creation.

Making music *is* a real job if you take it seriously and devote your life to it. Please don't insult or denigrate musicians, without them there wouldn't be much music to listen to!

Yeah, because the Beatles and the Stones got famous because of mass illegal downloading????

Idiot!

I find some of the comments here absolutely hilarious. " If you're not on MegaUpload, you can't get discovered "

Really ???

You mean, where you are , you have no access to iTunes ( where you can hear 90 sec of each track), no access to AmazonMP3, no access to YouTube, no access to Pandora , no access to the artists website ( where you can often stream the whole album if he's using Bandcamp or Topspin ), no access to webradios, etc... ?

Your internet access provider only allows you to access MegaUpload and Pirate Bay ?

Give me a f***g break. Have at least some cojones , own up to being a cheap pirate and stop using 6 years-old kindergarden excuses.

Totally agree.

Well stated BULL!  I'm tired of people justifying their irresponsible actions via lame, flimsy excuses.

exactly !!!

Thank you.

I applaud Sam's bravery for speaking up publicly. 

Historically, it's taken brave actors standing up for unpopular positions to effect positive change in America.  It isn't an exaggeration to say that this chapter in the long battle for creators' rights - this time against digital platforms that, like their predecessors, enrich themselves at the expense of creators - is going to be a historic one that will require similarly brave voices to Sam's.

Sadly, because of the fragile nature of the livelihoods of artists and indie labels it's terribly risky for them to speak up publicly about about their feelings and the real effect of piracy.  Better to bleed slowly than jab a dagger into my own heart would be an appropriate metaphor.

The mob mentality and anger that is visited upon those who do speak up has resulted in voices who could be beneficial to this conversation to go silent to the detriment of the entire debate.  I hope I'm proven wrong in Sam's case because if the collective "you" of the blogosphere ever bothered to ask without presuming an answer you'd like, you'd find many more than you'd imagine who share the basic feelings expressed by Sam. 

Think I'm wrong?

Ever wonder why the overwhelming majority of your favorite artists and indie labels remain mum on the subject publicly except those who are taking the popular position?  

Don't you think it's telling that when a list of artists appear on a petition against anti-piracy legislation it's such a relatively short list?   

Ever wonder why so many independent labels who work so closely with artists you've grown up loving have, for the 1st time in the history of music, organized themselves and formed a trade group? 

You see, Sam and every indie label and artist that wants to be paid for the music they create are seeking a right they have.  They are NOT seeking to stop artists or labels who want to give their music away from exercising their right to do so.  If there are enough artists who want to give their music away to power MegaUpload, et al, great!  It can be accomplished very easily by those sites...they'd simply post a gratis license page that can be accepted by the rightsholders and enable (not 100% effective but at least acceptable) fingerprinting technology that prevents unlicensed content.  I wonder why they won't do that?  hmmm...   

I hope fans of music hear Sam and I hope other independent label owners and artists begin to feel safe to speak up and tell fans (and what passes for journalists these days) how they really feel.  We've only been hearing from one side for too long now while excoriating the few who dare to differ and that has hurt our ability to find a way forward.  For only when you truly listen and respect an opinion different from your own can you begin to have a real conversation about how best to move forward.   

 

Movie and music industry need to grow up and stop behaving like kids. You guys live in the medieval age and want everone watching and listening to movies/music also to live in the medieval age. You should learn to adapt to the advances in technology. Show your creativity in coping up with technology instead of behaving like cry babies.

Uh, because there's something so innovative about MegaUpload?!?!  Your argument is tired.  Every song that affects your life runs circles around the "innovation" of parasites who know how to post unlicensed music onto the web and then create a pyramid scheme to pay off people to get them to spread the illegal links.  

Most of us actually are more skilled than you when it comes to the internets. It's just that we use our skills for useful things, not to scam people, or rent botnets to spammers, or distribute child pornography.

Ok...if thats true, why such a fuss over customers sampling your music? Why don't you figure out other ways to increase your income? (both online and offline). After all, you are tech savvy right?

Yea, i get the whole wanting to get paid for your music thing because im an artist as well. But sitting around praying piracy goes away is a fools errand. You might as well belive in the tooth fairy if you think you're gonna earn more money whining about piracy...look how well that's worked for the majors:).

I don't have customers. I have listeners. You can't even tell the difference...

And you wonder why you're not making enough SALES huh?

Hahah. I'm an indie game developer and I support megaupload. Times are changing and the whole beauty of being an independent developer is to be able to react quickly to these changes. As a consumer there's no longer any reason to risk paying money for content that may or may not be to your liking. How many times have you bought an album and it's sucked?

People that pirate your content are not your customers. Those who love you will pay you, there just needs to be the business infrastructure for them to do it.

Paul, feel free to use this on DMN to educate the many musicians who don't know these simple tricks.

 

How to send a DMCA notice - the indie way

So, you want to stop a scam website example.com from using your work.

1. Go to networktools.com, choose "Whois", write the domain of the scam site inside the box and click on "GO!".

You will then be presented with the Whois information for the scam website. Inside that information is the name of the hosting company that the scam site is using.

2. Go to whoishostingthis.com, write the domain of the scam site inside the box and click on "SEARCH". Is the hosting company the same as the one you discovered at step [1]? Good.

3. Go to google.com, write the hosting company's name and search for it. Look at the search results and click on its website. Usually it will be the first result.

4. Browse around the hosting company's website, looking for contact information. You want to find their DMCA e-mail address, or their legal department e-mail address.Don't bother with sales or support if you find what you are looking for.

Can't find a DMCA or legal department e-mail address? No problem.

Look around for a live chat (most hosting companies have one on their websites to boost sales) and use it to ask the person on the line for a DMCA or legal department e-mail. Be polite and to the point. "I am looking for your DMCA agent's e-mail address, can you please give it to me?".

They don't have a live chat box? Don't worry. Find their support e-mail address and ask them there. Again, be polite and to the point.

5. After you got a DMCA or legal department e-mail from the hosting company, it's time for you to make a nice DMCA notice.

You will find lots of information online about how to write it. But it is very important to pay attention to the links you will include. You have to make sure that you will include a full and detailed list of all the links that are related to your material.

6. E-mail your DMCA notice to the correct e-mail address.

The hosting company will take down the links/pages, or make the scam site take them down, or even take down the whole site if the scammers can't be bothered to be honest with their own hosting company. This last scenario happens more frequently than you may imagine. That's why you have to be polite with the hosting company people. They see things like this all day long.

If the hosting company doesn't respond right away, don't freak out. They may be waiting for a response from the scammers. Hey, as far as they are concerned, they are their clients. They have a specific procedure to follow. So, emailing them every five minutes won't help things move faster for you. Give them 24 hours after sending your DMCA notice and then follow up.

If more than 48 hours pass and the scam site still has your material online, then either the hosting company is one of the very few companies that actually enjoy doing business with mafia gangs, or their client is trying to buy time. Follow up, be polite and to the point. Don't make threats, don't curse, don't scream at them. The law is on your side and if they want to continue to enjoy the benefits of safe harbor, they will comply with DMCA.

@the indie way

Why isn't there a company that already does this?

Or, IS there a company that already does this?  Seems like everyone needs it and a company could employ an army of people to simply send a bunch of cease-and-desists all day for anyone who pays for the service.

::MW

There are a few companies that offer this service, but it would be too expensive for indie bands/artists to become clients.

It is not that hard to do it on your own, once you understand how it works. Make your own DMCA notice template and just change the names, dates and links. And learn how to use Google Search.

But what if it is scaled with many clients, I'm talking thousands and thousands of clients and labels, artists, everyone?  Each paying let's say $99 a month.

I'm making this up as I go but thinking if it's possible to scrub the web every day.

::MW

It is very difficult to scale it. I know what you have in mind. But the way DMCA works, the way the scam sites operate, each artist needs their own DMCA strategy. You can't just cook one solution and serve it to all clients. Not for $99 a month, unfortunately.

What would work is musicians establishing close networks of friends who take care of each other. I send a DMCA notice to a scam site, then I look around to see if your albums are there, too. And I send you an email with the information, the links e.t.c. Next month, maybe you get the chance to do it for me.

100 different artists serving each one DMCA notice to a hosting company for the same scam site would result not just in their material taken offline, but also that the scammers would be looking for a new host.

Next month, you catch them on a different host. And so on. Until no US host wants to do business with them anymore.

Get my point? If you want to split the task, you have to take advantage of the number of music professionals, not the number of people a company could hire to send DMCA notices all day long.

You sound like one of the label. You need to realize that piracy isnt going anywhere. with computers getting more powerful and faster., you must be joking. Artists need to become entertainment entities., you need more then music in this day and age. Stop thinking about making money off your recorded music. the quicker you reapize this and stop tryingto fight it., the better off we'll all be. Think of all the tools you have at your fingertips! Get creative people., times have changed

So, are you offering your services or products for free? Let us know how we can have access to them!

What im saying is we have to embrace change, not just dismiss it because it doesnt pay enough. Its still in its infancy. Yes, different models need to be created around streaming so that its attractive to artists, but to just take your music down is not helping anything. 

Like i said times have changed, we need to look forward not think about how it was done before

dear mr. kim dotcom

you so creative.

... the above creatively brought to you (and paid for) by meagaupload.

Let me summarize that for ya: Stop expecting to get paid for your music. But please keep making you music that I don't plan to pay for.

"Artists need to become entertainment entities" is a cynical way to push the cost of the music (you don't want to pay for) onto some other consumer.

That's your strategy in a nutshell.

the facts: people ARE spending more on music each year... see the new reports by Soundscan and IFPI this month. record sales and income in the music business last year. because of growth of digital sales and royalties from services like spotify, youtube, the lot. people also spend more each your on concerts of bands they know because they could listen for free online. the amount of money spent on music is higher then ever. maybe those people who download for free are not the ones to focus on anyway since they won't ever pay and will find their ways of getting it for free. but they all have friends who do spend and they recommend stuff to their friends.

actually recorded music sales are down again. check your facts.  further they are down 64% since the advent of napster.  this is easily google-able.

Totally agree with cnb. Times have changed. Recorded music is nothing more than a 'business card' now.

People need art, artists need money, people don't have enough money.

A music album that will change your life forever costs less than $10 and you will have it in your hard drive as long as you are smart enough to backup hard drives.

Go buy a pizza for $10 and tell us how long it lasted and how much it changed your perspective.

Megabox: The reason why Megaupload was shut down by UMG and friends.

90% for artists

http://t.co/RW8QZvBa

If they could explain how this was all supposed to work, legally, then you'd have a point. 

Dotcom is a scam artist. This was never going to happen. 

Is'nt the point of creating art - the enjoyment and love of the creative process. And then being able to share the outcome with others. What stuck up twats would think they should make money out of creating art.

I do not agree with that at all. In order to keep creating the art, you need to be generating an income. Otherwise how are you living?

So i totally disagree with what you just said. 

I just think its too early to totally say no to streaming. Streaming is great exposure and let face it, millions of people are currently streaming music daily. 

if you think there's only one 'point' to making art then you're an idiot. People do it for lots of different reasons and, yes, sometimes money is a reason. Some amazing things have been made even though they were made to generate money, and some shit things have been made 'just for the love of it'

grow up

If someone wants to take the greater part of their day, every day, to troll the web, check google alerts and write takedown emails that's their right and privelege to do so. 

Megaupload, as corrupt as it's owners and founders were, is not the big picture. These sites will always exist in one capacity or another. 

They will shapeshift, transmorgrify, and reappear constantly. 

If Sam wants to play cyber whack a mole day in and out, that's fine with me. But p2p is not going anywhere, and while Kim Dotcom could be deemed a criminal, technically so are the 80% of the population that wittingly acquire music outside of purchasing it.  

Kim just monetized it, better, and for longer. 

I'm more interested in seeing what happens next. 

You try to make it sound like it is so difficult to send a DMCA notice. But in reality, it is very simple and easy.

From what the Author is positing, it's literally a daily affair, and one of a relatively futile nature.  If your time is worth something, than it factors into the investment into your art. If in the end you spend more time doing this type of admin, and don't see a return on that investment (however you see deem that value) it's not worth it. 

It's a relative set of variables that every artist or label has to figure out for themselves. 

Obviously Sam see's some type of return financially or otherwise to make his efforts worthwhile. Other people couldn't be bothered, or the benefit is negligible.  While of course some embrace it. 

Different strokes. 

 

Hi -- There's lots of things other people couldn't be bothered about. However, if every morning, you woke up to find somebody has stolen another item from your house, you'd get bothered about that, and look into stopping it.  And yes, it is a daily affair. And no, an artist shouldn't have to spend two hours a day policing the illegal use of their art.

I understand your stance but how can you compare physical theft with digital theft.One digital file can be duplicated infinitely at no loss of money but a cd will.I think that you're still stuck in the 80s and 90s but those are different times my man.I do not advocate downloading music  illegally and not paying for it but you should help elaborate a model that is fair for both the creator and the customer.

Stones Throw Records just launched a subscription service for their digital releases where users pay 10$ a month and guess what,I jumped on this offer quick!

Look at Reaper which I own a license,they came up with a great model where after 30 days,the software is uncrippled yet there is a nag screen that reminds the user that Reaper is not free.What I'm saying is that you should come up with a great plan and be willing to COMPROMISE and get to know who are your TRUE fans and build from that instead of worrying about who downloads your music illegally and I'm sure that you'll get great results:) 

Some good reasons on why MegaUpload was shut down.

Just start releasing everything on vinyl like you should be.  Problem solved.

Rosenthal is also anti-Spotify.

Projekt Keeps Fighting; Calls Spotify an "Unprincipled Concept...

He can choose to opt out of Spotify; illegal sharing gives no concern to the content owners desires.

Essential reading.

Some people here say 'Soundcloud has a better experience than file lockers why don't folks use that'. Huh? It's not true at all, from a consumer's point of view. Soundcloud doesn't offer zip-files of whole albums or several mp3's like the file lockers. Most music these days on Soundcloud is Flash streams per song (non-downloadable). A Soundcloud stream is of no use when you go jogging, sit in a train, on a plane, etc. I'd prefer Bandcamp where many bands give away albums as zip-files and let you decide how much you want to pay for it., from 0 to .. 

Are there still 'indie labels' who believe in selling downloads through things like iTunes? Nobody i know uses that. It's only a success in the US, not so much everywhere else. Consumers under 30 years old (who grew up with p2p) will keep downloading mp3's for free no matter what. Even though i happily pay for a Spotify subscription, i have several friends who just refuse that. Their only way of paying for music is by listening for free and paying for concert tickets and maybe a few t-shirts and lp's at shows. That's bad news for labels: if bands manage to 'get noticed' and shows themselves, they might only need a few freelancers - booking agent, webmaster, designer, marketeer - and no label with a contract anymore. It's more work for the band, yes, but it gives them more freedom and they can give away their digital music for free. Most starting bands are already doing exactly that... for them: more shows, more profit, less free downloads, less shows. 

PS why does it seem every 'indie label' is still run as a business that has to make profit? Why can't a indie label be run as a non-profit philantrophy organization with the main goal to support talent. Who can give me some examples of indie labels being run on donations by millionairs who support the arts in other fields but not in alternative pop music? 

i regularily ask people under 30 how they get their music and many more are now paying for music digitally, because a teacher, an uncle, a friend has informed them that if they want more (and more diverse) music to be made, their 99 cents helps. so their is a shift, and it's happening through being informed. most seem to be using itunes, cuz everyone has an ipod/iphone/ipad.

as for your statement -- "they might need only a few freelancers -- booking agent, webmaster, designer, marketer"... well, THOSE people need to be paid for their services. songwriting/recording is part of a musicans work. why shouldn't they be paid for it?

as for your "every indie label is run as a business" statement and should be run as non-profit... well, unless you're a trust-funder, or living off your parents, that comment doesn't make any sense.

 

hey yeah, why aren't more trust funders involved in donating to indie labels :-) maybe the next generation of rich people. it is a part of other areas in the arts world  

sure, the musicians get paid for gigs (mostly) and records (a bit less), then pay some other people for services they need and can't do themselves. in this scenario there's no need for a label IF the band manages to generate attention by themselves. some are doing it already. more will be doing so in the coming years. less middle men (labels) will be around. but it's a slow process. 

A technology to Opt Out would be a great solution actually. Not sure whose responsibility it is to oversee development of this tech. Difficult to argue against that.

totally agree with this article. not included are how the tech co's are also the ones getting paid. how else are you going to sell an expensive mp3 player if people have to actually also pay for content put on it? how are you going to get high-speed internet subscribers if they have to pay for the free music /movies that come through it?

for all the 'music is art is free' arguers... do you think tiger woods would've gotten so good if he'd had to work a 50hr/week office job to support his golf habit?

if you want great songs, why not pay the songwriters so they can write more? 

It's also worth mentioning another aspect to this. Myself (and many bands in our scene) hire small PR companies for the 3 months leading up to a release (or we do press ourselves for that matter). It WAS one of the best ways to get your album reviewed, and hopefully build aniticipation. 

But that whole concept goes down the toilet when as soon as you send your press kits, sites like Megaupload and PirateBay have the albums up. I'm talking within a week of sending press kits, aka 2.5 months before the album even comes out.

That's BS, and the artist has no control over it. So much for any anticipation, as all your press and reviews coming out are now just sending listeners to get the album illegally, with NO option of paying, for 2 months. By the time that "official" release date comes, it's almost a joke.

And the answer is what, "accept change?" No. Building something, whether it's a label, a reputation, or a house...depends on a solid business model and CONTROL. Control to operate how we want to, whether it's giving songs away for free or not. But it's our choice.

great points.  just because technology has made it easy to pirate and loot music, doesn't make it right or a reason to accept it.

what if it's suddenly easy to get all sorts of things for free...furniture, food, cars, etc...  there is control and consequences if you try to get those things for free (ie. steal from a store, police, etc).

so why is music/movie files thought of any differently????????

GREAT article.

Interesting and true article. Something to think about...motives are important...

these sites are out for money, not sharing.

Gotta agree with you. I'm just some guy tryin' to pay the rent and buy my son dinner. I try to remind music lovers that I'm people just like them, trying to survive in today's economy. The story needs to be told by those of us who feel the effects of illegal downloading. Sam

 

Sam, If its' ok I'll give you call.  We want to start compiling short 30 to 60 second videos or text about the challenges of making money and surviving with the online pirates scooping up whatever money there is to be made.

Thanks for starting the blog.  I love music, my life would be empty without it.  We support you....

Will Buckley

I totally concur. This "freedom" shtick is a smokescreen. Just before the original owners of The Pirate Bay went to jail, they were bringing in $115,000 per month. That British ass who has just been ordered to stand trial in the U.S. was earning 15,000 pounds per month in advertising. You can read my thoughts on the matter at http://mademers.com/globalindieauthor/2011/12/the-hypocrisy-of-piracy/.

Why can`t these sites have opt-out or opt-in lists! They are tech engineers. I am pretty sure they can monitor traffic within their service, effortlessly while referring to a list of copyrights that have opted-in or opted-out of their service.

they can.  they do not want to and have so far successfully blocked all legislation that would compel them to.  

several judges in different countries have dismissed the idea of black lists because it could lead to censorship to easily. first filter out lists of copyrighted words/files, then later of polical stuff, libel, etc. 

Rapidshare is the same as MegaUpload, almost as popular. But it has won 2 court cases, in Germany and the US. read up on that. what do you think, were those judges wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare

Being a musician and involved in the music industry and having been "hurt" by free downloading I appreciate the debate. However, we are not alone...the artists (painters) are also in the same boat, although at this stage not to the same degree. An up and coming artist friend was horrified to see one of his paintings hanging on the wall of an upmarket restaurant in another country. It turned out the original painting had been photographed by an unauthorised person in an art gallery where it was on show.The digital photo was sent to China...copies were made by painters in oils on canvas, also with digital ink on canvas.These are being sold through the internet.The seller was sneaky enough to make sure they only sold their copies in Europe.We are not alone other art forms have their problems as well. 

cipher

 

You are correct, anything that can be had for free online is taken.  Who will be the next victim?

Come on Mr. Rosenthal! This cannot be true! Are you actually playing Whack-A-Mole ? Makes you feel good maybe, but does it really help to increase sales? 

Looks like a waste of time to me. Why not try to beat them at their own game. Give the music away for free!! Be creative! Have you read this?

An In-Depth Case Study on the Pretty Lights + BitTorrent Partnership

 

"be creative" = "let me have your music for free, and find some other way to support your artists." I think I / my artists should decide what we give away, rather than the Megauploads of the world.

Thank You, Sam - this is most interesting and useful :-)

I just shared it via FB and Twitter, I think it's worth spreading...

Peace + good wishes,
- Michael - 

"I recommend you make this part of your weekly schedule"

I recommend that you don't.

"Your file will be gone within 24 hours. If not, file the complaint again with your next batch of illegal files. Because yes, you will be doing this same thing next week. And the next week. And the next week.... it's a never-ending process. The DMCA puts the burden on you. Thanks, Mr Senator."

Well of course the burden to protect your monopoly on distribution is on you. Who else? I mean, really.

The copyright industry is already acting like an spoilt child - getting everything they point at - including writing their own legislation and having tax funded policeofficers only working their cases - but is it enough? It will never be enough!

 

This is one reason why music doesn't pay any more unless you are top of the tree. Making music, any music is an art not a skill, the skill is learnt (not the other way round). For me it is an enjoyable art I love producing soundscapes and electronic ambient pieces, they are proving quite successful on soundcloud my artist name is Carbonates On Mars, yes I might be plugging myself here but that's because I want you to listen to my music for free, and not to line the pockets of uber rob dogs. I pay for the privelidge of using soundcloud so you can listen to my music as I'm sure other artists do. If anyone should make money from an art it should be the artist. My only dream is to one hear one of my pieces on an advert or as part of a film score.

Music for the masses not cash for the asses!

There are creative slutions to this problem.  Here is the best one I've ever seen:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeTja7JXK9A

Does anyone here have others we can share?   

This is a very uni-sided view. Of course artist should be treated fair, and their rights fully respected. But what about the many small artists which support free circulation of their art, in order to get a chance to get known? What about the many free songs given away by large labels for publicity. For file search engines especially, it is not possible to check all your links for possible copyright violations (we have about 800 Million of links to public files in our database).

I thought it had been established that artists who are interested in free circulation of their work can choose to do so and can implement it through their own methods.

Another problem with these discussions is that worthwhile points seem to be hurriedly shushed and obsolete comments like this point repeated.

We released our last album via Tunecore so it's on iTUnes and the usual sites. Very little income but iTunes and Amazon do pay decent amounts. Surprising to some of you, but true.

We also released in on Bandcamp on a 'name your own price' basis, where download numbers are very healthy and about one in ten chooses to pay, average about $5US which is more than we've ever got from CDs in shops. We're perfectly happy with this combination.

Hundreds of Russian sites are charging $0.10c a track. There is nothing at all we can do about it. We're certainly not going to waste even a second bothering about it.I'm staggered that the original poster here has the time to waste with trying to fight an unwinable and pointless fight. We live in an age where digital content CANNOT be controlled. Time does not flow backwards. So - adapt and survive. It is still entirely possible to make money despite illegal filesharing. Treat that as free advertising.

Watch out for those who try to discourage you from using DMCA. They are the same people who scream "we don't need SOPA, we have DMCA".

Don't listen to them. A DMCA notice takes just a few minutes to set up and send. Arrange to do it while you back up today's sessions, no big deal.

Artists should choose to offer their music for free & have every right to demand it taken down.

It's really that simple.

About the first paragraph: If there's so much money and will to pay money for content, why haven't the copyright mafia come up with this brilliant idea before Kim Dotcom? Napster should have put some more creative thinking into copyrightholders ages ago...

You trust your credit card with Kim Dotcom, despite the crimes for which he had been convicted in the past?

 

Especially since the rise of the mp3 there is an infinite oversupply of music. 99% of it is shit made by people who will dabble and never even invest hardly a dime in their own productions, yet they believe naively that people other than mom and some friends will actually pay for their crap. The music that is uploaded to criminally ad-generating torrent sites will usually be music that people are willing to pay for. The uploader who gets payed for illegally distributing these files has no incentive to post music for the sheer love of it.

In the end true fans of any band will have to decide wether or not they have a conscience listening and distributing and eventually destroying the artist they supposedly love. The only policing in the end will be the realization that, mainly with independent artists, the difference between wether not that nabd has a 2nd release can be determined by the fact that 90% of the 1st release was stolen. So that would be a 'no' there is no 2nd release.End of artist. So if you are a 'fan', fucking well buy a fucking album once in a while!

I myself believe that the end of the mp3 and indeed the end of the 'owned' file is duly upon us. One never really owns a file anyway. In the end ALL music will be stream only anytime via mobile, why clog up your computer with owned files if at anytime one can stream it. Basically back to radio, where most people did not buy albums or even singles just waited for there fave song on the radio, but now we have our own individual playlists solving that problem. The payment to the artist  for streaming needs to more, but in the end I don't give a rats if some owns my mp3s. I would rather my music be universally available for stream at anytime and get payed for the license. 10 times more people will discover your music if they don't even have to d/l it to hear it and that is fine with me. When a project is more artistically inclined I will just release vinyl.

 

..and one thing for sure, as much as i like bancamp and soundcloud, those fuckers ALSO NEED to start paying for STREAMING tracks!!

Great solution, just release on vinyl, love it.  Unless they're rap artists, I doubt the online pirates have seen a turntable, much less own one.......

An entire generation who has never owned an LP or visited a record store for that matter.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bCWay7k3E

 

This looks interesting, anyone using this service?

Muso.com allows you to track and remove illegal files in the fastest and most cost-effective way possible. We are the industry standard in protecting your rights online.

http://www.muso.com/home/

Please read this:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165837/kill-internet-and-other-anti-sopa-myths

It is possible to be anti-censorship, pro-commerce and anti-piracy at the same time.

most musicians that moan about piracy are unknown musicians anyways ones that will never make any decent money because you just arent good enough , pirates download known artists work who make millions anyways so there really not being harmed so al u musicians that think ur losing money because of people downloading stuff , i dont think so cause noone is downloading ur crap anyways haha

You can't even express yourself in basic English. I guess it's more important to download porn from MegaUpload than use an open source dictionary?

is that your input on this debate ? how to use an online dictionary man whats the point of you typing anything , didnt know i had to type to your standards get real i got your attention you read what i typed so you must of understood what i typed or you wouldnt of responded ........

Boy I thought I heard my share of BS from those entitled to download every thing for free, but you take the cake.

Or are you a comedian and I'm just missing it?  

Because for the most part, it is those without talent or a future that support illegal downloading.  You only believe it is the superstars because they are the only ones getting press in the media.

yeah thats it youve hit the nail on the head , all im saying is most people would download artists that are known more than what they would download any of te unknown artists chart music , top films and so on so im saying why are the unknown artists bothered megaupload and filesharing sites gives the unknown artists some sort of chance to get noticed from my opinion if you dont like my opinions then u dont have to who cares piracy will live as long as the internet is available if you dont like it then i suggest you change jobs and get something that is gonna pay you well stop winging about piracy its gonna be here all the time and you know that

 

Finally a cornel of brilliance.  You are so right, as long as someone can take something they love without paying for it they will.

Yes, piracy will never die, I get that.

Excellent information, Sam.  Thank you. 

It only seems like a win for consumers, but what it really does is foster a sense that music is insignificant and disposible among music lovers.  This attitude is slowly but surely eroding our modern society.

hillbillyculture.com

Re: I Run an Indie Label. And Here's Why I Support the MegaUpload Shutdown...

I asked my plumber to give me a sample of his work. I love watching him and I think that he is really good at what he does. He know all kinds of cool tricks and has products that save him time and seem to work much better.  He refused. I told him that I am an independent artist with a huge network of friends and fans and that I would spread the word of his excellent work, but he still told me that he advertises through his own resources. So I thought of a great idea - I would steal some of his products and ideas, print them out and sell them at a local swap meet, crediting him if course, and really helping him; I would be doing him a favor. This was cool because I was also able to make some money to spend for my efforts. Eventually I was able to not have to work as hard on my music! Well, he eventually caught up with me - I guess some of those products cost him money and experience and he was sore about it and didn't seem to care about any extra work that I was getting him. In fact now he says that people are not calling him as much because his tricks are now known by everyone. He is really ungrateful, and so I even called my lawyer to find out how I could protect my rights and my new livelyhood.  My lawyer seems to think that he should have no say in what I do to promote him, and that I should not be deprived of my ability to make my money. Strange thing though - he left his iPod in his truck when I looked in there - and it was full of my illegally donwloaded music. I just thought I would help him in the same way. How much illegally downloaded music do all of our professionals actually have?  Look - this is not about sharing music, which we want - this is about big entities finding big ways to make money by capitalizing on distributing stolen music - BIG difference. And to those who immediately want to write to protect the rights of these millionaire peddlers of unpaid goods or services - ask yourself at which point will this practice then spread to what YOU do for a living?  Free music? free books? free software? free movies? while someone is making money form them  ...you are attacking the SERVICE industry and when you have no service..... what will we become? Dependent on the State perhaps?   (Read "1984" you can probably d/l it from some scumbag in Russia) And the future...good luck to your children being able to pay their livelyhood and bills... (but they will have a loaded iPod!)

Actually, I coud care less about the entertainment industry.  This is such a diversive argument.  I care about the gifted ones, who will never be signed to the few remaining "labels", which are unfortunately run by accountants.

I want to make a stand for the truly talented outsiders, whose time and greatness would be better spent perfecting their craft and not working at Walmart.  You get that?

To boil this discussion down to us vs the entertainment industry is the same ploy you guys have been using for the past ten years to justify your position.

You need to find a new argument, because this is old shit.  Why not just be honest and say I can get it for free, so why should I pay for it.  At least that's real.

And yes, even those "smaller" artists signed to the big boys feel your pain.

Oh, and I hope that plummer solved your problem.

 

I think you misunderstood Phil's comment? If I'm not mistaken ee agrees with the same points you make.

His on-point highly sarcastic imaginary scenario also makes the point that it is indeed an attack on all industry or as he says the service industry in general. Great post Phil.

After carefully re-reading you are correct, I misinterpreted the post.  Thanks for the clarificaion

Apologies my friends........ 

Thank you for this. Well said, and I completely agree.

- Versus

Rosenthal, you live in the past. Here's why:

"Let's stop these sites from making money off our creations. Let's pull the plug." Your message here is not "Let's find a way to be more successful", but "Let's make sure others suffer".

This is great thinking for a government official or any other kind of overcompensating, insecure snob. Not so great for anyone why tries to bring beauty in the world.

Are you producing value? People will find a way to thank you. Are you producing crap that does not sell or is inconvenient to buy? Deal with it.

People will get your products for free not because they want you to suffer (the way you preach), but (a) because they have no money left after their other expenses; (b) because they don't want to use a credit card; (c) because it's way, way simpler to get your product through alternative channels.

You cannot sit on two chairs. Either you spend your days creating new things, or you spend your days trying to make somebody miserable. Choose one.

Don't change others, change yourself. As a Jew, you must know that.

Angry, greedy, rigid, proud, self-obsessed control freaks have been invariably failing throughout recorded history. If you don't change, you will go extinct. Future has no room for narrow-minded collaborators.

"Either you spend your days creating new things, or you spend your days trying to make somebody miserable. Choose one."

 

False dichotomy. One can spend one's days creating new things to make somebody miserable. 

(For example, almost everything on the pop charts).

 

- Versus

Hi,

I appreciate the articles and viewpoints offered.

However I found it a tad ironic that your complaint (justifiably so some might say) is that files are available illegally for download.

Despite this you provided a link to literally 1000's of Illegal Led Zeppelin download on the internet. You needn’t have linked to them to demonstrate your point, were all aware that illegal files are host, however by linking to them you’ve done the follow

1) Provided a conduit for people to access illegal Led Zeppelin Tracks (im sure their copyright would be infringed by such a link on your site, give the traffic here that could lead to a claim being made against yourself, in exactly the same way as that used to take down MegaUpload, who merely provided a conduit for exchange, which is what your link does)

2) Provided a backlink from your Blog to these illegal downloads. From an SEO perspective this increases its visibility in search engines and the more traffic that hits your blog and clicks that link the more visibility these illegal Downloads will have.

3) Potentially breached copyright yourself by providing this link then specifically attracting traffic tyo your site to read this articles, an ultimate offering the ability to download illegal files from your blog.

I dont want this comment to be taken in a facaetious manner, Im merely offering a perspective that the same article could achieve the exact same effect without that single Hyperlink to 100's of Led Zeppelin Downloads.

My opinion on illegal filesharing will remain reserved at present as the various levels of copywriter and content ownership vary from country to country and artists need to make themselves aware of local laws etc in order to protect themselves...However offering music for free ultimately resolves this problem as it doesn’t matter who hosts your music it was always free for distribution>

It comes down to the compromise of whether your ART is being done for the sake of ART of for making MONEY>>>

Van Gogh, one of the worlds most celebrated and famous contemporary artists, made no money at all from his ART while he was alive, yet is now held in high regard by the ART community.

So if your an ARTIST that is focussed on giving your ART to the world.. surely MONETARY BENEFIT is secondary.. therefore releasing your music for free is the best way to bring your ART to the masses... charging seems to be a matter of putting MONEY before ART.... take for example Radioheads recent "pay what you like" release which average sale price was 8.50 for an album. Despite the fact fans were able to download for free they valued the ART they were offered and chose to part with their money willingly, some paying over £15 for the album as they decided how much they valued the music and ART made available to them

Its easy enough to make addition MONEY from your art by offering Advertising to CORPORATIONS, instead of squeezing an already recession strained public from what few pennies they have each month, just to listen to your ART

If your ART is truly ART, let it speak for itself and the public will decide its VALUE for themselves, much has been the way for ARTIST of any capacity for centuries

Pied Piper Promotions

Unless they had a benefactor, most impressionist and post impressionist painters led very tough and challenging lives. Most died penniless and ended up as alcoholics or derelicts; many were just plan crazy.

Yes, Radiohead did experiemnt with a donation model for one release, but what you failed to include was that 2 in 5 people actually paid; so your average sale was closer to $3.

After their "experiment" radiohead went back to a standard sales model for their releases.

What is confusing is that you have a vast network of places to release your work for free.  What I don't get is your problem with someone else who wants to get paid.  

Its' just choice my friend and honestly because so many people have easy access to creating music as "hobbiests", we have a great deal of music out there that really isn't very listenable. 

There are plenty of sites where you can listen to music that is being streamed.  So why would you want to support a rogue site that is making money of someone elses work.  Isn't that the real question? 

 

It's on wikipedia so ummmm.... It has to be true, yea right.

I am a musician, and I download a lot of music illegally. If I find something I like, I buy the vinyl, and if that's not available or I can't afford it at the time, I buy the digital tracks via Juno. I support artists that I think deserve to be supported. I expect someone who listens to my album to do the same. Would it be nice to make a living full time from music? Of course. Do I care if people are downloading my music illegally? Not at all, at least far more people can hear it. 

There is SO much mediocre to low quality music on the internet. If I paid for everything I "tried" I would be broke, and have a music collection that's filled 50-80% with horrible music. Shutting down Megaupload changes nothing, and engaging in a useless comment thread debate about how to police the internet also solves nothing.

If as an artist you are so hell-bent on people paying for your music to the point where a HUGE number of potential listeners (who would otherwise download your music for free) are lost because of your anal drive to make the tiny amount of money that most non-mainstream artists would even if piracy didn't exist, then why are you even making music?

Fucken A. If your mind dreams up something very cool, and when losts pepole want to hear, see, read, etc., then the creator is the soul determiner of who gets to use their intellectural propertey. To help secure creators rights, make it difficult for thieves and counterfiters to get away with their crimes.

Consider using upgrades of earlier technologies to avoid using the Internet altogether. A snail mail cult of spreading quality music, who's listeners have the patients to wait for the next installment. Anything that shows up on the Internet is illegal.  This would require a law (if it doesn't already exist) that gives the creator exclusive rights to ALL aspects of marketing their music.  A target audiance.

Less is more.

Ban the bomb.

Igore 48

Anyone can give away their own copyright recordings / artwork / movie if they want to. That's not a problem. If they are the owner/creator it's their prerogative, and good luck to those who do it because they feel it will gain them some useful publicity.

The problem is that some individuals (AND sites like Grooveshark) illegally appropriate other people's work and share it without permission from the creators.

 

 

it's halerious when he uses Led Zepellin as an example, when in Real Reality Led Zeppelin were themselves sued numerous times for outright stealing songs from numerous artists including Sonny Boy Willimson, Howling Wolf, and so on.  And they (Led Zepellin) lost the lawsuits!

 Second, Led Zeppelin songs are 35~40 years old by now.  Haven't they made ENOUGH money already? Last time I checked, they were living good. Gimme a better more recent example, dude. Madonna? Please! Reanna? Britenny Spears? I won't pay a cent to any of them. Same as how somebody is sharing Star Wars. Poor George Lucas, not getting MORE money for Star Wars! The old copyright law was like 10 years, correct? if you havent made your money in the first 10 years you are NEVER gonna make any money.

Last, dude, that Reznor look went out with the 90s.  Get an update, ok?

This is ridiculous to think that musicians will stop being creative and making albums because they get their files stolen, they should be happy someone has considered stealing anything from them at all...I made some records and never made any money off them and I know esactly where the illegal files are and who distros them illegally without my permission. But I dont really care...because they will be back up in 72 hours anyway...First off if your a independent musican like myself you should have a regular 9 to 5 job to buy your equipment...So sorry that Mr Rosenthal and the rest of the "INDIES" here have to live off their label/iTunes + CD sales as a job. Maybe its time to get that 9to5 job like the rest of the world and come to terms that people paying for Bread and Circus entertainment is not going to happen anymore. I love music but I cant understand how artist and record producers see themselves as more important and should be paid gazillions of dollars because they wrote a song. Whitney Houston just died but you know every schemeing record company is gonna make a fortune off her death in 2 weeks time her record sales will be in the millions for sure, will she see any of that money, will her kids? Probably not...If you want to make music you have to come to terms with a few realities. 1. You may never in your entire music releasing career make more then 500 dollars. 2 You may never play a concert to more then a 100 people and make money for that concert good luck go sell hot dogs on the corner. 3. You may have hundreds of your litte fans on a facebook fan page but none of them have bought your CD and really dont care at all to buy it because half of them are your friends and want it for free, the other half maybe just a fan but would rather buy lunch and a beer then waste 10 dollars on your 45 mins of bread and circus distraction from the real world. 4. We are living in a economy that is not secure and will collapse soon. Why should I spend 20 dollars on your cd which doesnt do anything but pass the time when I may have to buy stock piles of food incase the whole system collapses... These are a few realities the INDIES should take note of. Buying music doesnt matter any more because there are plenty of free ways legal and illegal to get it. Spotify, Pandora, Youtube, PirateBay take your pick. Also it would be great if all these INDIE labels stop making CD, Vinyl and tapes. No one really needs to have more pollution and wasted resource destroying the enviorment on such meaningless keep sakes. Leave that to the 99 cents slave labor economy of china to make piles and piles of useless crap that will end up in american dumpsters. Digital is the way to go. Free is the Utopian future.

Ard,

Something I've been thinking about is the other aspect of technology that creates the possibility of legions of music hobbyists to make recordings without grinding out the hours of practice required to achieve mastery of their craft.

Unfortunately, greatness is almost always achieved through years of practice and hard work.  What makes the value of creating music anyless valuable than making coffee at Starbucks or changing oil at jiffy lube?  Pardon the Starbucks reference, cause I have feeling you grow your own beans.

"This is ridiculous to think that musicians will stop being creative and making albums because they get their files stolen, they should be happy someone has considered stealing anything from them at all..."

Not ridiculous at all. I can speak only for myself, but I am now holding off releasing much completed new material and watching the developments in intellectual property protections carefully. Meanwhile I do continue creating the music, but am only using it for live performance and licensing, and not release. If I were assured of proper intellectual property protections, I would release this material (by now, several albums' worth). I have heard other artists, from lesser knowns to famous (i.e. Prince) voice similar assertions.

No, I am not happy to have my work stolen. Should one also take it as a compliment to one's good taste and be grateful that one's home is burglarized?

Regards,

- Versus