Internet wins, Music industry gives up and puts 25 million free songs up for download

[Colossal Spoons]

Ba'h, there is nothing worth downloading anyway, where have all the real bands gone?

So true. I haven't even downloaded a song in forever

 

[kainedamo]

I don't know about that. Call me naive, but to me it sends a message that if you steal from someone long enough they'll give up and just give you what you've been stealing. What's next? Movies? Video games? Software? Produce from the supermarket? Where does it end?

What is with the irritating moral high ground over music sharing??

Get off the high horse.

Music is played on the radio, and you don't pay for it. The music industry gets money from advertising revenue. And they get to promote their music through radio.

This is no different.

 

[kainedamo]

Please don't tell me you're one of those people who think it's okay to steal from record companies because they make soooooooo much money.

No, I don't watch South Park.

I seriously just wanna dive off a building head first, because slamming my head into a wall isn't enough to cope with guys like you.

Music sharing takes NOTHING away from record companies. Absolutely nothing. In fact, music sharing gives bands FREE publicity. FREE exposure. In fact, they oughta be paying p2p sites for the pleasure. Bands get free exposure which can only help them in the long run through concert sales and yes, CD sales.

Look at Radiohead. Long have Radiohead embraced the concept of music sharing, and they've actually profited succesfully with their latest album.

 

[kainedamo]

In fact, the argument can be made (or is this just plain fact?) that record companies have way too much power over what we listen to on the tv and the radio, which is why only **** music comes out and only **** music is popular. Therefore, p2p file sharing publicizes lesser known stuff, which can only be good for MUSIC.

These are the reasons why I just wanna smack guys that say, with this idiotic smug look on their face "I don't download music". You're basically supporting the *****ebags in the suits that are responsible for the music industry going downhill. It's all about image now. It's all about the sex and the ****ty rap and the emotionless pop and ****ty boy rock bands out there. If we can **** the guys in the suits over, we get to bring music back to being about music. You smug idiots.

 

[Erzengel]

I seriously just wanna dive off a building head first, because slamming my head into a wall isn't enough to cope with guys like you.

Music sharing takes NOTHING away from record companies. Absolutely nothing. In fact, music sharing gives bands FREE publicity. FREE exposure. In fact, they oughta be paying p2p sites for the pleasure. Bands get free exposure which can only help them in the long run through concert sales and yes, CD sales.

Look at Radiohead. Long have Radiohead embraced the concept of music sharing, and they've actually profited succesfully with their latest album.

You can rationalize it however you want Kaine. It's still stealing.

 

[kainedamo]

You can rationalize it however you want Kaine. It's still stealing.

Ridiculous. Listening to it on the radio isn't stealing. The big guys control the radio stations.

Really, what this is REALLY about, is that the big guys are threatened by p2p music sharing not because they consider it stealing, but because they can't control it. They can't tell you what to listen to or what's hip. YOU decide what's cool to listen to and they have no say in it whatsoever. That's what this is really all about.

A number of television channels are providing a backlog of television shows and films to view for free over the Internet. Why would they do this when surely they'd prefer if people bought boxsets of the shows?

Control. They want their brand names imprinted on ya.

P2P music sharing scares the **** out of record companies because they have no control over what you listen to anymore. That's all.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

There are alot of tunes and bands i'v never heard of, but run across by accident on the internet the other day I was looking for once upon a time in the west clips and came across this gem by a band called arcane fire [YT]Pyp34v6Lmcc[/YT] whoever made that video and used there music (probably without permission) inadvertently promoted them.

If I really like a music album or movie, I buy the retail, if there is an album with only one or two decent tracks, download, alot of stuff, movies included, are so rubbish, it's not even worth taking the time to illegally download.

 

[Erzengel]

Ridiculous. Listening to it on the radio isn't stealing. The big guys control the radio stations.

Really, what this is REALLY about, is that the big guys are threatened by p2p music sharing not because they consider it stealing, but because they can't control it. They can't tell you what to listen to or what's hip. YOU decide what's cool to listen to and they have no say in it whatsoever. That's what this is really all about.

A number of television channels are providing a backlog of television shows and films to view for free over the Internet. Why would they do this when surely they'd prefer if people bought boxsets of the shows?

Control. They want their brand names imprinted on ya.

P2P music sharing scares the **** out of record companies because they have no control over what you listen to anymore. That's all.

Then tape it off the radio. P2P music sharing threatens the music company because it's stealing.

You are taking music for free that usually would cost money. That's stealing. If you are saying it's stealing and saying so what that's one thing, but don't f'ing rationalize it like the record companies drove us to it.

 

[kainedamo]

Then tape it off the radio. P2P music sharing threatens the music company because it's stealing.

You are taking music for free that usually would cost money. That's stealing.

Maybe it is stealing. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's free publicity for some artists. I don't think I harm anyone by downloading music. I have 3 REM albums, but I still have a bunch of downloaded REM songs, simply because it's more convenient than ripping the whole CD onto computer. I bought 2 Pixies albums that I never would have bought if I never downloaded them. I went to a Slackers gig which I payed money to go to because a friend recommended I download them and I liked them.

You say you're taking something for free that normally costs money. If I lend a friend a video game, is he stealing? He isn't stealing from me, but by such loose definitions of stealing he's probably stealing from the game company 'cause he's not paying money to play the game.

If you are saying it's stealing and saying so what that's one thing, but don't f'ing rationalize it like the record companies drove us to it.

I feel that in a sense they have drove us to it.

I used to like the music played on the radio and on tv. But now no matter what music channel I turn to, it's all 99% pure ****. It's just about record companies and artists with big egos trying to get rich. I feel that music has become dilluted. Music stations rarely even play some older hits, even stuff from the 90's. I was playing some music for my 11 year old niece, REM, Queen, etc, and she had honestly never even heard it. While she's putting on this horrible Alvin and the Chipmunks rap song cover. Granted, she's only 11. But still. My older sister in her 30s, all she does is flick across back and forth to these ****ty rap channels.

There are certain artists that have benifted from music sharing - fact. Example, have you ever heard a Sigur Ros song on the radio or tv? Probably not. And if you have, probably only rarely. And yet their fairly succesful. I wouldn't say solely because of music sharing, but I say it helps. I remember reading that a band had only just released a song, or an album, but when they played a concert everyone there knew it - because obviously they downloaded it. If downloads = bums on seats at a concert, that can only be good for the artist.

If music sharing means we get more bands that are less interested in image and being rich and more interested in music, and it means artists with big egos and little talent get less money and the record companies have less and less control over what we listen to, I say that's a good thing. **** them.

 

[jaguarr]

Interesting to see some of the music conglomerates finally trying to find ways to evolve their business models. It will be interesting to see where this goes, eventually, as it's surely only their first attempt.

jag

 

[Avangarde]

So true. I haven't even downloaded a song in forever

I think the only stuff I ever downloaded was rare b-sides anyway, the hard to get song thrives in P2P. I would rather pay for a proper album release on CD to show support for my band, because I appreciate music and the art it is.

 

[Erzengel]

Maybe it is stealing. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's free publicity for some artists. I don't think I harm anyone by downloading music. I have 3 REM albums, but I still have a bunch of downloaded REM songs, simply because it's more convenient than ripping the whole CD onto computer. I bought 2 Pixies albums that I never would have bought if I never downloaded them. I went to a Slackers gig which I payed money to go to because a friend recommended I download them and I liked them.

You say you're taking something for free that normally costs money. If I lend a friend a video game, is he stealing? He isn't stealing from me, but by such loose definitions of stealing he's probably stealing from the game company 'cause he's not paying money to play the game.

Again trying to rationalize what you do. I don't care what you do. But call it what it is.

I feel that in a sense they have drove us to it.

I used to like the music played on the radio and on tv. But now no matter what music channel I turn to, it's all 99% pure ****. It's just about record companies and artists with big egos trying to get rich. I feel that music has become dilluted. Music stations rarely even play some older hits, even stuff from the 90's. I was playing some music for my 11 year old niece, REM, Queen, etc, and she had honestly never even heard it. While she's putting on this horrible Alvin and the Chipmunks rap song cover. Granted, she's only 11. But still. My older sister in her 30s, all she does is flick across back and forth to these ****ty rap channels.

There are certain artists that have benifted from music sharing - fact. Example, have you ever heard a Sigur Ros song on the radio or tv? Probably not. And if you have, probably only rarely. And yet their fairly succesful. I wouldn't say solely because of music sharing, but I say it helps. I remember reading that a band had only just released a song, or an album, but when they played a concert everyone there knew it - because obviously they downloaded it. If downloads = bums on seats at a concert, that can only be good for the artist.

If music sharing means we get more bands that are less interested in image and being rich and more interested in music, and it means artists with big egos and little talent get less money and the record companies have less and less control over what we listen to, I say that's a good thing. **** them.

Movies are $10.00 a pop here, I don't say f' that and try and download it either.

Most times you are talking $10-$14.00 for a cd. $14.00? If $14 is going to break you than maybe you should really re-evaluate your life or I just download it into my ipod for $1.06.

 

[lazur]

Not so fast. New update on this as of this morning (Monday, January 28) - posted 40 minutes ago:

http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2248278,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Qtrax off track after labels deny deal


Universal, EMI and Warner say no deal has been finalised with the new file-sharing site that claims to offers free music downloads legally.

The future of Qtrax, a new file-sharing website which promised legal downloads of over 25m music tracks, is in doubt today after three of the four major record labels denied giving the site permission to use their music.
Announcing the details of its new service at the Midem music conference in Cannes this weekend, Qtrax promised access to a database of over 25m tracks. Its owners described the service as a legitimate alternative to illegal file-sharing, claiming that money lost on sales would be recouped through advertising revenue.

Today, however, Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Warner Music have all said that no deal has been finalised with Qtrax, with the latter confirming that it "has not authorised the use of our content on Qtrax's recently announced service". The fourth major record label, Sony BMG, has yet to make an announcement regarding its relationship with the website.
Qtrax has touted its service as being "fully embraced by the music industry" in a press release but now faces being forced to climb down after seeming hesitation on the part of the industry.

The company's marketing executive Robin Kent admitted to the digital business website Silicon Alley Insider at the weekend that despite saying they had "the blessing" of all four major labels, "two of the four are more happy about it than the other two" and could not confirm any actual deals had been finalised.

Qtrax today responded to Warner's denial that an agreement had been reached between the two companies by saying: "We are in discussion with Warner Music Group to ensure that the service is licensed and we hope to reach an agreement shortly." Warner Music are expected to make a further statement regarding their position later today.

 

[Shoemeister]

Nah.

The interwebz will prove victorious.

 

[jaguarr]

Figured there was probably at least something fishy with that story. Nice find, lazur.

jag

 

[Avangarde]

Oooooh the curve ball. Some of the elements regarding advertising is still worth taking note for, who knows what they could do next for the future. We should keep an eye on this.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Yes, let's not forget about the poor, poor Record Industry.

Did no one else here see that episode of South Park?

That was a good episode. Metallica are such sell outs.

I remember when bands used to make money doing this stuff called touring. It was really great. The band would come to your home town and put on a concert. There'd be a show, really expensive beer, and you'd get to have a personal feel for the band. You'd also get to hear how they actually sound without digital help.

Personally I'm still downloading, I won't stop. Not rationalizing, I'm stealing music, big deal. Local bands I support, if you've got more than a million dollars in the bank, then you can take a hit better than me.

 

[jaguarr]

Seeing bands on tour and buying their merchandise is how I personally prefer to support my favorite bands, rich and famous or not so much. The money from ticket and merchandise sales goes largely into their pockets rather than the record companies, which is more than can be said about album sales. I'm very selective about the albums I buy and will usually check an album out online to make sure it's not comprised of a couple good tracks mingled with a bunch of shyte. If I like the album, I'll buy it. If not, I'll dump it out of my system and move on. It's a good system.

jag

 

[The Lizard]

I'll stick with iTunes for now. The cross-referencing feature alone is worth paying 99 cents a song to have.

 

[jaguarr]

I'll stick with iTunes for now. The cross-referencing feature alone is worth paying 99 cents a song to have.

That is a pretty cool feature. I find a lot of really cool stuff using Last.FM, too. You plug in keywords and types of music you like and it recommends stuff that you probably haven't ever heard of before and streams it for you so you can listen to it. It's a combination of internet radio and social networking. Very cool.

jag

 

[Avangarde]

That is a pretty cool feature. I find a lot of really cool stuff using Last.FM, too. You plug in keywords and types of music you like and it recommends stuff that you probably haven't ever heard of before and streams it for you so you can listen to it. It's a combination of internet radio and social networking. Very cool.

jag

That's a pretty funky little feature.

 

[turtlefocker]

Internet 1, Government 0

 

[jaguarr]

Internet 1, Government 0

It's got nothing to do with the government.

jag

 

[Avangarde]

 

[Mee]

It's got nothing to do with the government.

jag

George Bush doesn't care about music people.