Knott- 07.18.11

I just think this is a simplistic way of looking at it. I don't think anyone denies that there do exist circumstances in which leaks harm artists, at least nobody I'm aware of. It's almost certainly the norm. Most arguments I hear that seek to justify illegal downloading centre around mid- and long-term exposure as opposed to immediate revenue from the record in question. Your last sentence is a generalization, basically.

Satellite 07.18.11

has anybody ever argued otherwise?

anarchistfish 07.18.11

I buy CDs for all the best music I download anyway, especially for more obscure artists. Are people really more likely to download illegally if the album has been leaked early rather than after its release date though?

MaskAtTheMasquerade 07.18.11

lol i've never argued otherwise.

Knott- 07.18.11

But you do say "leaks take money out of the pockets of the people who make the music happen" as if that's a universal truth when there are definitely bands, however small a proportion it may be, who do benefit from the illegal downloads culture. Also I don't think the first sentence makes sense. You need something after the second dash.

Satellite 07.18.11

http://badsandwichchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/07/boo-fucking-hoo.html i couldn't put it any better than this

Sanders 07.18.11

"I know a lot of people around don’t believe me when I occasionally argue that leaks – and the culture whereby people think they’re entitled to all the free music they want – so don’t take my word for it." Is this sentence missing a word or two, or am I having a dyslexic moment? Also, I agree.

AliW1993 07.18.11

I agree with this. As well as taking money from the artist's pocket I also think that leaking totally kills the anticipation ahead of a new release.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"""Are people really more likely to download illegally if the album has been leaked early rather than after its release date though?" Yes, because you can't buy an album before it's released." yes but people who download illegally generally do it because they don't want to pay. surely if someone were to download illegally a leak they'd also be likely to buy the record upon release, because they have just as much an ability, if not more, to download illegally then.

Satellite 07.18.11

"Hey, I used to be allowed to shit my pants, and then some lady would come along and wipe my ass and put new pants on me. I used to shower in a room full of ten year old boys, I used to be able to eat cupcakes all day and never gain a pound. There’s A FUCKING MILLION THINGS that change on this earth, every day, and some are a real bummer (not being able to just eat cupcakes) some are the result of taking responsibility for yourself (shitting my pants) and some are just what fucking happens when shit changes (I’m no longer ten). This situation with music is really all three, but humans are at our best and most innovative when we adapt. There’s never been an exciting discovery made from complaining about the way things used to be." - Brendan Kelly

anarchistfish 07.18.11

It's quite hard to justify taking away someone's source of income though

anarchistfish 07.18.11

If people don't download illegally post release even if they have the ability though, they must have their reasons. are there figures to support this?

Satellite 07.18.11

how is that retarded? as far as i'm concerned whining about something that's not ever going to change is the epitome retarded.

Satellite 07.18.11

*epitome of retarded haha

clercqie 07.18.11

I believe there was a study once that the ones who download music a lot, are also the ones who spend the most money on CD's, merchandising etc and thus support the industry the most monetarily... That said, I try to support the bands I love, but I would know a lot less music if it not were for illegal downloads or streams on youtube or so...

Satellite 07.18.11

"It’s very hard for young, up and coming artists to make a living from their music. People uploading their music months before it is commercially available are not doing them any favours." nobody forced them to choose that career. if in 2011 they don't realize that leaks are a permanent part of the music business then they're fucked.

Dismantle 07.18.11

well this is completely pointless. Rename this "guy whines about leaks"

Knott- 07.18.11

Nah, I wouldn't build 'policy' around it, although I can't tell if you mean that in a personal sense or a business strategy sense. Either way - of course not. But that's kind of my point: shit like this is either justifiable on a case-by-case basis, or it isn't. And for the record, I rarely think that the arguments people put forward in favour of leaks and illegal downloads in general are their actual reasons for doing it. But I think personally, I'm done with people expecting to get rich off music. As Kelly says, the fact of the matter is now that music is free. It's obvious most artists aren't going to like that producing a record isn't going to rake in as much money as it used to do. But at the same time, I think it levels the playing field. I'm not saying this is WHY people do it, but leaks and illegal downloading mean people find out about bands they'd never normally hear. I find it fascinating that the first thing you hear about a band now can be their debut record. What that means is that the CD becomes the product, not the recorded song. Obviously, declaring a free-for-all on downloading music would be stupid, but you aren't going to stop it. To that same end, you aren't going to stop people leaking albums prior to release date. So yeah, the industry has to adapt, and I have no problem with that at all. It's still possible to make a living off music; it's still even possible to get rich off it, if you're accessible and lucky enough. But illegal downloading widens the marketplace a huge amount, and it's ridiculous to expect that when people have access to 1000 new albums a day, as opposed to 100 new albums a week, those albums and the artists that made them can hope for the same amount of money. They might hope for the same share, but the pie's not getting any bigger.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

the annoying thing is is that in an ideal world, all music would be available to everyone for free because it's availablility is unlimited. but it would only work in a world without money where people exchange needs and services. money restricts people. so in a capitalist world you get situations like this. /socialist rant

Knott- 07.18.11

"My band just put out our first record, and I think we've given out more records than sold. If we play a show and a kid says, "Man, I've got like, 6 bucks", we just give him the damn thing. I've been in really tight fiscal situations before, and I love that even though this kid has 6 bucks in his pocket, he's willing to give it to us. With that, if we really know the kid only has that 6 bucks, we'll just give it to him, fuck it right? He came out to the show, had a beer maybe, and hung out with us. Here is the record man, see you next time. " Basically I think most artists should be like this. Also yes I'm taking a pragmatic approach to this issue not an idealistic one.

Knott- 07.18.11

I would personally never, ever leak a record that came into my possession. I think that goes without saying. I don't know enough about anything to make a decision with such a huge potential impact. I actually couldn't live with myself.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

Whatever damage is done to the artists will be made up 10 fold in ticket sales by there statement being publicized. Morally there is no argument FOR stealing anything up to and including music off the internet. The only person loosing any real money are the labels and fuck them. They've been fucking us for years and are simply reaping what they've sewed. Does that mean some innocent bystanders will get hurt sure. I guarantee you the vast majority of the money being lost isn't to the artist. You are posting a typical label statement that would be made by any label about any leak.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"The only person loosing any real money are the labels and fuck them. " that's not really true haven't there been bands that have had to quit music cos of lack of funds?

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"haven't there been bands that have had to quit music cos of lack of funds?" Always

Dogget 07.18.11

Yo Satellite the problem with that article you've linked is that all things the guy compares illegal downloads to are slanted. It's not the same as horseshoers going out of business due to cars coming along, unless cars provided a service where people could have their horses professionally shoed for free without having to leave their desk. On the other hand like clercqie said apparently illegal downloaders do spend more: http://youtu.be/FIwFk72XcyY#t=08m00s

Masochist 07.18.11

"The only person loosing any real money are the labels and fuck them. They've been fucking us for years and are simply reaping what they've sewed." Only major labels. But this is an independent label...the kind responsible for getting their artists' names out to the public in a broader range than the artist themselves are probably capable of. A very privileged few artists become big solely on word-of-mouth (OK Go would be an example, because of their music videos); most of them depend on the record label to advertise their band, get bigger gigs than the band themselves could book without help, and get their name out there. Even if the band weren't directly losing money off of album leaks, no money to the label = less adverts/big gigs for the band = less money for the band.

natey 07.18.11

Yes, "leaks cost money kids" But I like leaks, I care about leaks. i could care less about the commercialisiation and promotion of music. i could care less about people earning their living promoting and selling music. and I'm a composer producer and band member but leaks have nothing to do with the real meaning in music, so I'm really not ashamed of leaking and file sharing, at all. i don't donate the money i have to starving kids in africa and i don't donate it to kids making music in Europe and I don't donate my money to independent label ceos promoting innovative hip hop. in a world of leaks purchases are like donations. i like listening and making music and money is just a commodity that everyone's after

someguest 07.18.11

Well I'm glad a lot of you are ready to throw your obsession under the bus at any moment in time to keep some money in your pocket, which you claim not to care about.

Dismantle 07.18.11

No musicians deserve my money. Unless it's for a show, but that's different.

natey 07.18.11

do innovative musicians deserve your money more than starving africans or me or Barney? it sounds like you're getting off because you "support" musicians etc, but realistically I don't think you can actually take any pride in that

killrobotmusic 07.18.11

The only way this problem can be "solved", IMO, is either if music technology changes drastically or if the structure of the music industry changes (which it may very well be doing, though the archaic model is still fairly prevalent).

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"Only major labels. But this is an independent label" If it isn't an "independent label" owned or funded by a major label then that would make it one of the casualties I mentioned. There have always been and always will be bands that have to pack up the van and hump it to another state to play a shit gig so they can split $250 between all five of them and if they are no good or can't hack it then yah they fail... this is nothing new. There are so many groups I listen to and pay to see that do self promotion and happen to be good it's crazy to me that anyone would take up that banner for the labels. I guess we've gotten to the point where the labels are the good guys now? Does it now seem like we are beating up on them?

someguest 07.18.11

Somebody needs to create a line of code which which allows importing but not uploading. I'm sure it could be embedded into the compact disc.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"i could care less about the commercialisiation and promotion of music. i could care less about people earning their living promoting and selling music" how much could you care less

sexualsoybean 07.18.11

I dont care. I go to shows and thats how they make their real money anyway.

Knott- 07.18.11

"No musicians deserve my money. Unless it's for a show, but that's different." Well, you're a fucking idiot.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

that's how they make their real money /now/ although it is good in that this could make them tour more than they might've before things like bandcamp are coming in to deal with the changes

someguest 07.18.11

Yeah, it's pretty funny how most of you are dissing intellectual creativity when there's always comments complaining how it's missing in posts here.

Voivod 07.18.11

Before the leaks, the only ones who knew about the true quality of music per record, were the music journalists, who sold shit for the price of gold not-to-few times. Before the leaks, there wasn't a SINGLE minor record store in Greece (the countrly i'm residing atm) that offered discount on old records. As for the big mall records stores: All prices were steadily above 18 euros with no discounts for older records again. That good. Now with the leaks, all minor and big mall record shops have discounts not only on older but on new records as well. All big mall record shops that kept the old "raise your hands, this is a robbery" prices were closed. Now people don't wait for a "music journalist" to tell them if the record of their favorite band is really good. They listen to it, and if they like it A LOT and have the common decency, THEY BUY IT, otherwise the don't buy it, as it goes with ANY PRODUCT that fits or doesn't fit the needs of its potential customer. The days where companies and artists could just suck off easy money from the fans are over. Besides, There are a lot of scientific papers from Academia researchers in many journals of Political Economy that prove that the downloading is not guilty for the low sales. Blame bad music instead.

DiceMan 07.18.11

No musicians deserve my money. Unless it's for a show, but that's different. This is stupid as hell and it's so obvious that it is completely unnecessary to explain why.

Emim 07.18.11

"Yes, because you can't buy an album before it's released." This is it right here.

natey 07.18.11

yeah, but you look like an idiot too unless you explain why, so it is kind of necessary to explain why, or atleast try to

Emim 07.18.11

"As for the big mall records stores: All prices were steadily above 18 euros with no discounts for older records again. That good." There are still a few places that do that around where I live (California), and it's bullshit. 18 euros is horrendously high, though.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

@Voivod... that was beautiful. Albums can be over priced to the point you can't afford them or stolen freely. When the labels are in the picture those are your options. When the group provides their download for charity on the other hand... I give. I gave to BtMI!... I gave to Pretty Lights... I own all three Wolfgang Parker album that I payed for because he is a local artist. One I have chosen to champion for since 1998.... these people get my money. They aren't greedy, they just want to do what they love and make a living doing it and that I respect.

Masochist 07.18.11

"I guess we've gotten to the point where the labels are the good guys now? Does it now seem like we are beating up on them?" My point was that if you cut off money to the label, you cut off money to the bands on that label, as well. There are only a few record labels I actually care about, but a lot of bands...and the unfortunate truth is, leaking albums and not buying them (which a lot of people, myself included sometimes, actually do), does affect the actual musicians in the end. "If it isn't an "independent label" owned or funded by a major label then that would make it one of the casualties I mentioned." If all the hundreds of those non-major-label-funded indies were to become casualties, all we'd have left are major labels. Don't know if that's a positive or wanted side-effect.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"There are still a few places that do that around where I live (California), and it's bullshit. 18 euros is horrendously high, though." In Euro - Europe stuff like CDs, games and DVDs are horrendously expensive. Whenever I visit France they have things like Opeth CDs for 21 Euros

Emim 07.18.11

Wow, that's ridiculous.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"My point was that if you cut off money to the label, you cut off money to the bands on that label, as well." Are you under the assumption that the money musicians get from the labels doesn't eventually get payed back and even eventually become their own money. Labels are not altruistic wise men that just want to see art in the hands of the little people. They make their gold sovereign and then some in return for giving the musician a little (and sometimes more than a little) boost and help to make them noticed.

someguest 07.18.11

Who cares. Those of you who only download on the basis of "having no money" will continue to have no money. You're not getting away with anything. Poor choices come in multiples.

clercqie 07.18.11

"Wow, that's ridiculous." It's a case of 'get used to it', really...

natey 07.18.11

I don't understand how we take pride in and feel justified in ourselves for caring about the well-being of musicians we like to the point of condemning others who don't care about the well-being of musicians we like as much as other people. and I say as much as other people because that money could be put elsewhere where it would be a lot easier to justify and condemn people for not doing the same methinks. i care about sounds in the musical world, not what artist i'm helping buy an iced coffee or bottle of water.

natey 07.18.11

"Who cares. Those of you who only download on the basis of "having no money" will continue to have no money. You're not getting away with anything. Poor choices come in multiples." touche

Knott- 07.18.11

But, bizarrely, you seem to think the sounds can and will continue to exist if people stop paying for music.

Masochist 07.18.11

No, I know bands make most of their money from ticket sales and merchandise...though they do still make a portion of money from each album they sell, too (though not as much as they should). My point is, a label gets them bigger gigs and more merchandise and such...less money to the label means less money to spend on getting artists bigger gigs, and less on merchandise, which means less for the artists themselves. Also...I'd love for music to be free, but unfortunately, I'm also for seeing musicians perform their music in front of audiences, and that will always cost money (art SHOULD be free...it just never has been. From DaVinci to Chuck Berry to La Dispute, it never has been...not totally, anyways).

natey 07.18.11

bizarrely you seem to think sounds will stop if people stop paying for music there was music before people payed for it and there still is music even after people download

anarchistfish 07.18.11

If everyone followed my system, everyone would be a winner

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

Most independent aritsts I've heard speak on the matter have said the opposite of this - that paying for digital music is outdated model. I can only speak for myself, but I'm exponentially more likely to purchase a tangible copy of an album or buy tickets to see an artist live after listening to their album for free whether it be via stream, torrented download, or YouTube.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"bizarrely you seem to think sounds will stop if people stop paying for music there was music before people payed for it and there still is music even after people download" how do you expect people to professionally and continuously make music if a) they aren't making any money from it and b) they have no money to spend on making music?

Masochist 07.18.11

"I can only speak for myself, but I'm exponentially more likely to purchase a tangible copy of an album or buy tickets to see an artist live after listening to their album for free whether it be via stream, torrented download, or YouTube." If it's an artist I know I'm going to buy the album from (but want to hear early to, say, write a review), I'll download a leak and then buy the album. If it's an artist whose work I've never heard but am really interested in, I'll check YouTube or a stream of the album. If I enjoy it enough, I'll download it from Mediafire...and then, if I end up really enjoying it, I'll buy the next album I get by them. That's how it works for me.

natey 07.18.11

1. they like everyone else can find money by doing things, musical things if they're lucky but i've never made much money playing music but playing music has been more rewarding to me than working at Gap and Tops 2. The ideal isn't people "professionally" and "continuously" making music 3. the ideal is already here, music exists and people love listening to and playing it.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

@Masochist So we are clear, I agree with everything you are saying to a point. I just cannot believe in a system that screws the artist and the customer. I do not like nor have I ever liked middle men getting their greedy over-sized share. Elvis did not make his wealth off of his record sales I have no idea why anyone would think that any new artist will now. The system has never been set up in the artists favor until they get to the point of profitable venues. The label being responsible for getting them there is questionable.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

so you'd rely on people making music as a hobby?

omnipanzer 07.18.11

I assume that was for natey fish?

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

Yeah, now they're even sticking their greedy fingers into bands' merch sales and concert revenue.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"I assume that was for natey fish?" yeah

omnipanzer 07.18.11

They will find a way to get their money... they always have. I just hope we can find enough people to defend them because they are obviously being unjustly villainized by people like me.

Knott- 07.18.11

"Hey Hot Topic supervisor, can I have 6 months off to tour Europe with my band?" "Of course."

natey 07.18.11

well that's a different discussion i think but real music literally comes from hobby's and passion and fun

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"If everyone followed my system, everyone would be a winner" I lol'd

anarchistfish 07.18.11

no but they would I spend just as much money on music as I would if I couldn't download illegally, yet I get all the music I want, I discover new and obscure bands, my money goes towards my favourite music (i.e. the artists I think deserve it most) and I get only my favourite music on CD

Voivod 07.18.11

Yeah, now they're even sticking their greedy fingers into bands' merch sales and concert revenue. Yeah, and they are using these HORRIFIC talent shows like "______(Place country name) you've got talent". They sign the winners of these "contests" HORRIFIC contracts that dictate the profits of the record company from the artist's live performances. ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"well that's a different discussion i think but real music literally comes from hobby's and passion and fun" no not really music as a hobby is too unreliable and they'd never go on tour

omnipanzer 07.18.11

No, just the cheesy infomercial nature of it, I assumed it was intended.

Voivod 07.18.11

I spend just as much money on music as I would if I couldn't download illegally, yet I get all the music I want, I discover new and obscure bands, my money goes towards my favourite music (i.e. the artists I think deserve it most) and I get only my favourite music on CD this

Dogget 07.18.11

The music industry is as healthy as it's ever been, it's the record industry that's dying

natey 07.18.11

"no not really music as a hobby is too unreliable and they'd never go on tour" well then if your goal is to see artists on tour then it would make a lot of sense to support them with money, but someone else might not care if that artists tours so telling them to support them is kind of pointless i just think the whole consumer aspect of music is very modern and based around a lot of secondary and (journalistic) parasitic commentary on music that is very pointless. it worked before file sharing and money was a huge part of it, but it's "beside the point", the point being music, not artists being able to tour. if you make the point getting artists on tour and giving them the ability to be in nice studios all the time then you're just zooming in a lot further then i would and that's fine, but you can't expect to be able to yell at and be condescending towards other people for not doing the same because you're zoomed in so much!

anarchistfish 07.18.11

almost every fan of music likes going to see bands live

natey 07.18.11

so what

TheMadnessLetters 07.18.11

While I sympathize with the idea that leaks hurt the music industry, especially smaller bands and labels, its difficult for me to truely feel bad about downloading music for the same reason that I cant feel bad for professional athletes. Both music and sports, while entertaining, are highly non-essential parts of society. While I know all of us would be severely impacted if the music industry were to ever spontaneously collapse (which it never could or would, but work with me here) its loss would not have any serious global consequences beyond possibly a slightly higher depression/suicide rate. The world would keep on spinning and things would continue as before, albeit much more drab. For this reason I cant fathom how musical artists, especially big name, highly profitable musical artists can bitch and moan that they arent making as much as before. I for one am not going to lose any sleep from downloading an album instead of lining Bono or Metallica's already overstuffed pockets. At what point are we goingnto stop makingnitna moral war and start looking at leaks and downloading from a realistic and pragmatic standpoint? Is it wrong to steal music? Absolutely. Its just as much a crime though for labels to charge inordinant amounts of money for a single CD. Even digital downloads have been increasing in price (iTunes realizes they have us by the balls for the most part, fuck you Apple). I have no problem paying for music or supporting artists if Im paying a fair price for the product Im buying. $20, $18 $15, even $12 are hardly fair prices. Its also not impossible for labels to price things fairly and still be profitable, look at Dischord Records, $5 and $10 albums and theyre still profitable. Artists have to work more on publicity and self promotion, but if they arent willing to get off their asses to get known and make money, then I have no problem that they fail. A career takes work, and reality is if you want to succeed in the music industry and make a living as a musician, you have to do more than just write an album and play.

TheMadnessLetters 07.18.11

The internet works both ways, people are always going to dowload, free sure as hell beats even $5 or $10 dollars for an album, but the internet provides an unprecedented advertising venue that artists can and need to take advantage of, more so than they already have. Its more than possible to survive as a band, even with leaks and downloading, but bands have to work at it. Im also curious, what your response is to bands like Yellow Ostrich, Cloudkicker, and La Dispute who offer their music freely. That seems to me to be the natural progression of the music industry, since all of those bands are profitable (perhaps not livably so, but thats more a matter of audience size more than anything else I think) mainly due to the fact that their music has little to no overhead, as I think it should be. Just my two cents, sorry for the essay.

sniper 07.18.11

They do it because it's available. Downloading an album post-release is a choice not to pay; downloading it pre-release is a choice not to wait. this

dcha 07.18.11

Over the course of a music career, the exposure of an artist through illegal downloads pays for itself.

sniper 07.18.11

which is completely irrelevant to albums leaking pre-release.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"Over the course of a music career, the exposure of an artist through illegal downloads pays for itself." the question is whether a small band can actually get big without collapsing exposure isn't the problem, funds are

Dismantle 07.18.11

knott sorry i made you butthurt but its the truth

SeaAnemone 07.18.11

"the question is whether a small band can actually get big without collapsing exposure isn't the problem, funds are" wouldn't that separate shitty bands from less-than-shitty bands, though?

Acanthus 07.18.11

I always enjoy bands that produce their own records far more than any "label" that produces/promotes them. With the internet having such a large variety of places where you can listen and legally/illegally obtain music I find it inevitable that people will leak and complain about said leaks. I do believe however that the music industry is ponderously slow in regards to the internet and the change it's brought (meaning the labels, not the artists). Often when I hear of labels complaining, being "indie" or major labels I really can't help but imagine and old man who is stuck in his ways. I am positive that an artist can use leaks/free music to their advantage, and the ones who do always bring a smile to many a fans face. As for a few things mentioned earlier; I, like Knott, would never leak an album that came into my possession. I dislike downloading an album leaked before the release date, it just feels wrong in some sense. I do however download music, but I also stand behind the idea that because of this downloading I spend more money on quality music than I normally would. I could care less about "greedy" record labels, if the artist is doing what they enjoy and want to be with a label cool, if they become annoyed they can always leave and self produce work (taking their fan base with them).

anarchistfish 07.18.11

""the question is whether a small band can actually get big without collapsing exposure isn't the problem, funds are" wouldn't that separate shitty bands from less-than-shitty bands, though?" not if they no-one's making money and coming from a sputniker that's quite an odd statement. isn't "the best" music pretty obscure vs the mainstream?

SeaAnemone 07.18.11

"and coming from a sputniker that's quite an odd statement. isn't "the best" music pretty obscure vs the mainstream?" popularity doesn't affect how good music is what are you even talking about

Dismantle 07.18.11

lol fish

anarchistfish 07.18.11

popularity correlates with finances generally

omnipanzer 07.18.11

popularity doesn't affect how good music is what are you even talking about" Of course it does... the Ke$ha is going to be great. I don't even need to hear it to know that.

SeaAnemone 07.18.11

"popularity correlates with finances" ok but I'm not talking about making 50m and 100m I'm talking about making enough to get by and having to quit

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"I'm talking about making enough to get by and having to quit" That has been the dilemma for all bands since the beginning of bands. To the best of my knowledge the ability to get gigs at bars hasn't changed in decades. If you are good enough perhaps you can get on the ticket with other bands at slightly larger venues and so on.

ZippaThaRippa 07.18.11

Perfect link Satty

Wolfhorde 07.18.11

Popularity CAN affect how good music is, it doesn't necessarily have to. But since "popularity correlates with finances" at least the impact of popularity is the equipment you are able to use. It's pretty clear if you have a really fucked up financial situation and no contacts in the business whatsoever your equipment choices will be rather small. That being said, having good EQ obviously isn't enough - the result is made by proper musicians.

Adabelle 07.18.11

I like how the use of the word 'kids' is an accurate reflection of the mental age of the Sputnik community..

Acanthus 07.18.11

"I like how the use of the word 'kids' is an accurate reflection of the mental age of the Sputnik community.." I don't consider this to be accurate in the least; true the older members like to have their fun but there's some great intellect here.

Adabelle 07.18.11

Maybe, I mean, you do occassionally come across threads where users aren't being complete douches.

Acanthus 07.18.11

I'd say that this thread is relatively "douche-less" though the topic is bound to rile up users.

Adabelle 07.18.11

That is very true!

Wolfhorde 07.18.11

Also, it's not just Sputnik - it's the "measles" of the internet. People are going to be not serious most of the time. And hell, why not? And I pretty much agree with Acanthus, behind all the "douchyness" how you call it, or "fun" how Acanthus said there is some great intellect and knowledge here.

Acanthus 07.18.11

I always enjoy my time spent here, heck I even learn a thing or two on most days.

natey 07.18.11

"I like how the use of the word 'kids' is an accurate reflection of the mental age of the Sputnik community.." I read kids as condescending, finger-shaking at those of us with our fingers unashamedly in the cookie jar. otherwise it was a pretty objective blog

Wolfhorde 07.18.11

Musically there is a lot of interesting things going on here, and there are some really talented reviewers. And without the news I wouldn't have been to the Russian Circles/Boris concert at the beginning of this month.

Acanthus 07.18.11

I really enjoy the music news as well, it's hard to get everything in one place but they do a good job.

Adabelle 07.18.11

I apologise for my generalisation (: And there, I added a smiley for extra friendliness..

Synesthete 07.18.11

the argument "it doesn't matter that i don't pay for music because artists make all their money from ticket sales" is pretty funny. perhaps artists could have a chance to make money off of the actual music if people still paid for it.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"perhaps artists could have a chance to make money off of the actual music if people still paid for it." If labels didn't take a vast majority of the profit from said sold music I might think you actually had a point no matter how eloquently stated.

Dogget 07.18.11

Major labels might not be feeling the hit of illegal downloading as badly if they didn't have a roster of artists who are entirely dependant on production teams to write their songs and make them sound good, and marketing teams to promote them and get them fans.

Slum 07.18.11

kids cost money, leaks

Synesthete 07.18.11

labels take almost all the money, in almost all cases. as far as i know, that's true. but no matter how small the percentage of profit a band receives, the band still has a right to that payment, and refusing to pay isn't something you can easily justify. and to natey who was saying he doesn't like to donate money to labels, etc. how would that be donating? it's simple payment for a good. taking something like that without paying is commonly called stealing. i'm not trying to sound dramatic, it just mystifies me how many people think withholding payment is something other than stealing

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

Do you pay to listen to the radio?

Synesthete 07.18.11

radio isn't being sold. of course it's a different thing when hearing the music is free. but when bands are trying to sell their music its not up to the buyer to decide how much to pay for it. a business has something to sell, they decide the price.

ZippaThaRippa 07.18.11

Who cares about justification. If you asked some kid to justify why he was downloading an album illegally he'd probably just look at you funny. It's not bout fucking justification it's about people wanting to hear music. If you can get said music for free easily, why pay? So people stop paying. The end. No amount of justification will ever change that fact. Yes it's stealing. And it's going to happen.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

When not offered for free by the originating musician is stealing. I think generally speaking everyone knows this despite what they say. That doesn't mean they won't attempt to justify it. I agree that artists deserve the money that they for all intent and purposes should be getting for all of the music that people would have purchased had they not stolen it. I think the overwhelming point here is that in this day and age that is no longer a viable revenue stream e.g. The rules have changed and will not be changing back anytime soon if ever.

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

No, it's the same thing, just in one case the record label is deciding what I listen to and the other is me deciding what I listen to.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"Do you pay to listen to the radio?" You do if it is satellite or cable based radio. If it is terrestrial radio then the income comes from advertisers.

Synesthete 07.18.11

i'm not expecting it to stop. i'm not whining that it happens. but when people speak as if they have a right to download, as if they've done nothing wrong, it's just not true.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"No, it's the same thing, just in one case the record label is deciding what I listen to and the other is me deciding what I listen to." Fuck Clear Channel! Bro fist.

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

"You do if it is satellite or cable based radio. If it is terrestrial radio then the income comes from advertisers." There are plenty of free satellite radio programs. The revenue also comes from labels paying to have their music played which is stupid, in my opinion.

Acanthus 07.18.11

Radio will never be as great as listening to your favorite artists imo, downloading trumps radio.

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

"Fuck Clear Channel! Bro fist." Yeah, this was basically my point lol. Bro fist.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"but when people speak as if they have a right to download, as if they've done nothing wrong, it's just not true." There are arguments that say otherwise but I am inclined to agree. Having been avidly collecting music longer than the average sputnik user has been alive I'd say the labels have more than gotten enough of my money but do I probably owe some reparations to a few bands, yah probably.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"but when people speak as if they have a right to download, as if they've done nothing wrong, it's just not true." so how, in my case, have I done anything truly morally wrong?

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

I'm sure I spend considerably more on music than the average American, and downloading and listening to a broader spectrum of music for free has only further augmented the amount of my income dedicated to tangible music and concert tickets. So to say I'm taking money out of anyone's pockets is complete and utter bullshit.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

Are you downloading content without the artists permission or without paying the required fee?

omnipanzer 07.18.11

^ that was @ Fish

anarchistfish 07.18.11

yes +what AoD said I do download illegally but the fact is I still spend the exact same amount of money that I would be able to spend if I weren't. no-one's truly losing out

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"I'm sure I spend considerably more on music than the average American, and downloading and listening to a broader spectrum of music for free has only further augmented the amount of my income dedicated to tangible music and concert tickets. So to say I'm taking money out of anyone's pockets is complete and utter bullshit." I think Synesthete is being strictly literal in which case he is correct. That is not to say that there are not alternate points of view. You may be shorting them on income they technically should be receiving based on the sale of the album but more than making it up to them with the purchase of a concert ticket and shirt. I feel this is a far better deal for the band than to properly pay for the album any day of the week.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

I think Synesthete is just taking issue with the entitled nature of the statements being made and I can understand that. I may however be putting words in his mouth. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

Yeah, exactly. This way the band is getting more of my money. Bands (particularly independent bands) need to rethink they way the conduct business in the modern era to keep most of their own income.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

I could not agree more Aod. It's kind of what I've been saying but this is kind of a hellacious thread to get through at this point lol.

Acanthus 07.18.11

It does cover many subjects, though I think Knott's earlier argument(s) and a few others really provide the gist of it.

Synesthete 07.18.11

Fish I'm not really sure what your case is. My opinion though is that downloading a song for free when it wasn't offered as a free track is morally wrong, the same way stealing a candy bar from a gas station is wrong. it's not a huge thing, but if you've got the choice to either pay or take without paying, the right thing to do is pay.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

"Fish I'm not really sure what your case is. My opinion though is that downloading a song for free when it wasn't offered as a free track is morally wrong, the same way stealing a candy bar from a gas station is wrong." it's not though. a candy bar is a solid, finite thing. digital music isn't. you have to look further into things rather than just passively look at something and saying it's morally wrong. it's like saying everything illegal is morally wrong. it's just too much of a sweeping statement

omnipanzer 07.18.11

The amount I have to spend on music is finite. Had I never downloaded any albums there are some musicians that would have never gotten exposure to either myself, my friend-base or anyone I've ever rec'd some of those groups to on Sputnik.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"a candy bar is a solid, finite thing. digital music isn't." It is intellectual property though js.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

yeah but that's irrelevant

Acanthus 07.18.11

The debate on whether intellectual property is a finite thing is a really long one, I've never cared enough to choose a side.

Athom 07.18.11

I can't even remember the last time I clamored for a leak. Then again, I don't really anticipate new releases anymore.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

downloads are infinite. if you download an album that you would never have bought in the first place, or that you will buy in the future, nothing is being lost.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

"yeah but that's irrelevant" I don't agree and if you ever create anything that other people covet and could make you a living I doubt you will maintain that point of view for very long ;^) Everyone deserves to be compensated for their time... for your own sake don't ever forget that.

Synesthete 07.18.11

"I'm sure I spend considerably more on music than the average American, and downloading and listening to a broader spectrum of music for free has only further augmented the amount of my income dedicated to tangible music and concert tickets. So to say I'm taking money out of anyone's pockets is complete and utter bullshit." you couldn't choose to spend the money you do on music without also stealing some? would it be alright to steal a pizza as long as you become a regular customer later on? you're going to tell me it's a terrible analogy but it's really the same kind of thinking. you can't pick and choose when you want to pay for something that another person put work into, even if you think it's better for them in the long run. thats not up to you, its up to the person selling something.

omnipanzer 07.18.11

Your points would be better made siting digital consumer products e.g. software, photography etc.

Acanthus 07.18.11

@ Synesthete - I think that looking at something like this with a black/white moral outlook will get you nowhere in regards to something like this. While morals change from individual to individual this is more along the lines of a meme than a moral issue.

Synesthete 07.18.11

"you have to look further into things rather than just passively look at something and saying it's morally wrong." How you can know how passively I came to my opinions is beyond me.

anarchistfish 07.18.11

""yeah but that's irrelevant" I don't agree and if you ever create anything that other people covet and could make you a living I doubt you will maintain that point of view for very long ;^)" in the argument of it being infinite it is yeah I would be annoyed but the fact is actually pay for the music I enjoy the most so I don't feel guilty about it. yes, /technically/ I'm stealing but the bands would be no better off if I didn't download illegally. in fact they'd probably be worse off. I discovered Converge via illegally downloading Axe To Fall, for example. I now own that on CD and I have a Converge band tshirt. I probably wouldn't have bothered checking them out if I couldn't do that

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

"you couldn't choose to spend the money you do on music without also stealing some? would it be alright to steal a pizza as long as you become a regular customer later on? you're going to tell me it's a terrible analogy but it's really the same kind of thinking. you can't pick and choose when you want to pay for something that another person put work into, even if you think it's better for them in the long run. thats not up to you, its up to the person selling something." Maybe you trust people to make a complete cohesive album worth spending money on. With the exception of a select few artists, I don't. My point is that I'm putting money in the pockets of artists that I definitely wouldn't have otherwise.

Synesthete 07.18.11

if you don't trust the artist to make a good enough album, i don't see why you would get the album at all. if an album sucks, you don't steal it, you just don't get it. that's how i see it, anyway. i realize my opinions go against those of just about everyone else here. i'm trying to vent my frustrations on larger issues of objective morality, the root issue for me isn't even about music or bands. this isn't sputphilosophy or whatever though so i guess i'll cut it out.

Apollo 07.18.11

This in an intensely interesting debate. Personally, I haven't bought a single record in almost three years. Before that though, from the time I was 13-22, I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars buying CD's, band merch and spending money on concert tickets. I have donated money to worthy causes to help musicians (i.e One Love For Chi)...after this amount of money spent, I do not feel bad in the slightest downloading music. I still go to concerts (often) and and constantly getting my friends into new music (at which point, when ______ comes to town, ________ now has that many more fans going to the show who may never have heard about them). There is nothing wrong with downloading records, as long as you support the band live. That is where bands make thier money. I know my argument is not perfect, but its what I've come up with..until someone convinces me otherwise that's where I'm at.

AngelofDeath 07.18.11

"if you don't trust the artist to make a good enough album, i don't see why you would get the album at all. if an album sucks, you don't steal it, you just don't get it." But you don't know whether or not you're going to like an album without hearing it lol.

Acanthus 07.18.11

I'm sure no one is annoyed at you for having a differing opinion (I'm not at least), I can't help but feel that objective morality won't disappear anytime soon. The advent of the internet and various technologies have made changes in the ways people think, even if they are unaware of it.

Spec 07.18.11

Did someone say leaks were good for artists?

Acanthus 07.18.11

I think it might have been said that overtly yes.

natey 07.18.11

@Synesthete "and to natey who was saying he doesn't like to donate money to labels, etc. how would that be donating? it's simple payment for a good. taking something like that without paying is commonly called stealing. i'm not trying to sound dramatic, it just mystifies me how many people think withholding payment is something other than stealing" I called it donating because I was attacking people who feel morally superior for paying for music when it's available illegally for free. I was saying that if they want to feel really good about themselves they should donate that money to charity or starving orphans in Africa or people really in the crunch and keep on stealing music. because to me music isn't about payment, it's about listening and performing and composing. it was a very weird arguement,

natey 07.18.11

i was kind of appealing to good and bad you can do outside of simple laws (stealing not stealing)

DaveyBoy 07.18.11

Interesting article Dave. I think it's important for people to not forget that the comments made were specifically in relation to pre-release leaks... & not just general downloading post-release. I guess a lot of labels & artists make a lot of their sales money from 1st week sales, as can be seen my the many albums that debut at #1 these days & then practically disappear the next week. * Except Adele who is a throwback in more ways than one.

Deviant. 07.18.11

Just going off topic slightly: both albums mentioned in the post are awesome. But don';t ask how I heard them

DaveyBoy 07.18.11

Deviant's real name is Benjamin.

pizzamachine 07.18.11

I think you just broke Benjamin.

natey 07.18.11

@DaveyBoy in original blog: "leaks AND the culture whereby people think they’re entitled to all the free music they want "

Deviant. 07.19.11

This has probably already been mentioned (I haven't read the whole thread) but saying that a leak will jeopardize sales is kinda irrelevant to the fact that there will always be people who choose to download all their music illegally as opposed to buying it, whether that be from a leaked release or an album that fails to leak and only ends up online after its physically released and someone uploads it from the actual cd. Most people who choose to download certain albums (aside from the already mentioned group of people who just don't buy music at all) will undoubtedly end up buying it anyway (providing they like it of course)

DaveyBoy 07.19.11

Fair call Natey... There is enough in the blog to suggest that the argument extends. I guess I was just trying to read between the lines at the main point. And I don't necessarily disagree with Dev either. It would be interesting to know the extent of a detrimental effect a pre-release leak would have though. It would obviously depend on the album to a large degree.

Parallels 07.19.11

I know this is different than leaks, but sharing music online is the main reason I'm into the artists I like today. My favorite artists and albums I've purchased near entire discographies, and if I like the album enough to keep in on my computer, I will 90% of the time go and buy it.

Parallels 07.19.11

Typo, oops. Anyway, my CD collection went from less than 10 to nearly 300 in less than 2 years because of downloading music online.

Deviant. 07.19.11

"The availability of these records online for free has meant a rush release of the digital version of Toddla’s record, which, after the years of work put in, will seriously affect the ability to make any kind of financial return from commercial release. " I don't quite understand how this would affect sales really. Unless there were some type of financial investments involved that would able to be accessed around the time of the original release date.The decision to "crash" production so to speak, and bring forward the release date to try and "combat" the leak is purely up to the label and artist. As far as I remember James Blake did nothing when his album leaked 3-4 months in advance and I doubt affected sales at all

Deviant. 07.19.11

*doubt that affected sales at all

anarchistfish 07.19.11

"This has probably already been mentioned (I haven't read the whole thread) but saying that a leak will jeopardize sales is kinda irrelevant to the fact that there will always be people who choose to download all their music illegally as opposed to buying it, whether that be from a leaked release or an album that fails to leak and only ends up online after its physically released and someone uploads it from the actual cd. Most people who choose to download certain albums (aside from the already mentioned group of people who just don't buy music at all) will undoubtedly end up buying it anyway (providing they like it of course)" I said something like that but people disagreed

Phil 07.19.11

Isn't the biggest reason why most labels don't give a lot of the money to the bands from their CD's is because they have to pay the engineer/producer/distributor and then get some money for themselves to ensure they can pay the promoters/people that make the merchandise for their tours? Surely, its a chain reaction. The more sales that a band gets the bigger tour they'll get.

Aids 07.19.11

this is a great thread, the level of intelligence involved in the discussion is actually quite high, which is really really weird considering what website we're using here just my two cents: I would never leak an album and I think it's sad when a band has to change their entire promotional strategy at the drop of a hat, but at the same time, the fact that albums regularily regularly leak is a large part of the reason that I consume so much music and pump hundreds of dollars into the industry every year. If it wasn't for file-sharing and leaking then I would probably listen to about 10% of the music I currently do and spend like 0% of the money on music/shows that I currently do. Seriously, I buy so many CDs/vinyls/concert tickets/merch, those fuckers owe me so much free shit haha so I download their music before I buy it. Sorry but I'm not gonna spend money on something without knowing it won't be awful. I realize that not everyone who is a part of this music sharing culture that we're all apart of spends close to as much money as I do on music, but people like me simply would not exist without "illegal" file-sharing, and it's people like me that are the reason the industry is still making any money at all.

Aids 07.19.11

fuck me we need an edit function on blog posts, there's so much wrong with that post haha oh well

Electric City 07.19.11

dave theres something about everything you post that makes me feel like im being scolded

qwe3 07.19.11

but dude corporations are evil

Calculate 07.19.11

Yeah I've got high hopes for that thundercat album. I don't fuck with leaks, I don't care if I hear it first or not.

Calculate 07.19.11

Y'all probably make your own band tees

Aids 07.19.11

dude, I rip their songs onto blank disks and sell them to fifth graders. I get paid for the musician's work. Stupid fuckers.

Acanthus 07.19.11

Making your own band tee's is legit, love the look of a spray painted logo on a shirt.

North0House2 07.19.11

I never even touch leaks. I don't even listen to singles or anything either. I wait until the album drops in its entirety so I can soak it all in. That's just me, though. I hate listening to a single song, I have to listen to the other songs that go with it.

eternium 07.19.11

Great, another illegal downloading argument. My input: If I didn't download for free then I wouldn't have the vast majority of what I do and those "super obscure bands" would have never been visited. If I was in a band I would rather people hear my music for free than not at all. If they like it enough they'll at least go to a show.

Liberi Fatali 07.19.11

@North0House2, but if the entire album leaks....

ReturnToRock 07.19.11

What Eternium said. I was in a band and I was/am going to upload our one demo for free. I'd rather have some people listen to it without paying than keep it exclusively in the band's inner circle.

omnipanzer 07.19.11

There is plenty of evidence that indicates artists feel leaking is a good way to hype an album or to retaliate when they disagree with their label. It is an option that 15 years ago didn't exist. Despite the title of the thread this is not a black and white issue. there is as much evidence to support your statement as their against it Dave.

omnipanzer 07.19.11

P.S. I know it's already been stated but I just want to plainly say that the list title is a dick move sir.

AggravatedYeti 07.19.11

Dave one day I would like to see you write an article arguing the merits of the opposite point of view to what you've expressed here.

ScorpionStan 07.19.11

Iluvatar: heard of a site called myspace? The argument that "i can't buy an album until i know how good it is first therefore i need illegal downloading" is complete bullshit. What did people do before computers? Break into record label offices and studios to steal album tapes so they could "make an informed decision?" Artists today provide the music consumer with PLENTY of avenues to hear their music prior to buying an album: official website, myspace, facebook, youtube, etc. If you can't decide whether or not you like an artist based on what THEY THEMSELVES provide you, then you are simply a selfish prick. It's like telling the pizza delivery guy "thanks for the pizza, but i'm gonna wait to pay for it until i know the pizza's good enough."

anarchistfish 07.19.11

"The argument that "i can't buy an album until i know how good it is first therefore i need illegal downloading" is complete bullshit" no u

anarchistfish 07.19.11

"It's like telling the pizza delivery guy "thanks for the pizza, but i'm gonna wait to pay for it until i know the pizza's good enough." " omg this is a genius idea they should introduce it it would improve the quality of pizzas for sure

omnipanzer 07.19.11

"The argument that "i can't buy an album until i know how good it is first therefore i need illegal downloading" is complete bullshit. What did people do before computers? Break into record label offices and studios to steal album tapes so they could "make an informed decision?" " Your point was invalidated like 25 posts ago and I'm not going to waste the time to give you the cliff notes, scroll up.

ScorpionStan 07.19.11

My point is this guys: before downloading ever existed, artists somehow found ways to sell LOADS of albums. So #1--illegal downloads and leaks obviously aren't necessary components of making profitable music, and #2--the public doesn't need to hear an album before buying it in mass quantities. Before downloads, hearing 1 or 2 songs on the radio = enough information for a consumer to purchase an album. Nowadays, hearing 3 or 4 songs on a myspace playlist + looking up live clips, interviews, and music vids on youtube + reading extensive online reviews of the band = MORE than enough information to make a purchasing decision. You guys seem to think that illegal downloading is the savior of music or something, like music was dead before illegal downloading. Well the way i see it, music has been fine for a few centuries without illegal downloading. Give me one valid reason why music NEEDS illegal downloading. Cuz i've read this whole thread and there hasn't been one yet.

cfbassist 07.19.11

i do think record labels and musicians need to give up on the idea that cd's will be the bulk of their income, and i also think bands that have focused more on their live shows are now becoming the most profitable bands around... take a band like lotus or umphrey's mcgee, not only are they selling out a lot of their shows, but they are also making between 10 and 15 bucks selling high quality recordings of each show, now while you won't sell hundreds of thousands of each show, i guarantee that at least half of the people at each show are going to buy the show (just part of the culture), along with people that didn't go but want to hear it... add the idea of sold out shows, plus soundboard recording sales, to the fact that bands of that type and popularity can pull in $30,000 for a music festival, and do multiple music festivals a weekend, and you are talking some good money... no record labels involved, mainly just the band management/booking and the band crew sure you aren't making millions like "rockstars" or getting any of the celeb status, but you are going to have a good living

cfbassist 07.19.11

sorry if that came off as disjointed or nonsensical, smoked a bit too much before i typed it

eternium 07.19.11

Because bands like Snapcase made so much money off of their music before someone was able to download it illegally..

Knott- 07.19.11

Stan: while all your points are valid, at the same time you overlook the real issue which is the size of the market. Bands made money back before downloading their albums illegally was possible, sure, but it was much harder for an up-and-coming, little-known band to do so. The Internet expands the scope, which has positive and negative impact: it opens up the chances of music being heard, but it also saturates the market to the extent that the proportion of albums that people can afford to pay for diminishes. These are, sadly, facts.

anarchistfish 07.19.11

"Give me one valid reason why music NEEDS illegal downloading." exposure

anarchistfish 07.19.11

"the general reluctance of anyone in America to spend money in the post-9/11 climate means the "money dumps" of yesterday wont be so full" why do americans blame everything on 9/11?

anarchistfish 07.19.11

ohhhh I seee they never clarify that over here

iarescientists 07.20.11

http://torrentfreak.com/suppressed-report-found-busted-pirate-site-users-were-good-consumers-110719/

TMobotron 07.20.11

I don't think that just because the quoted person in this blog post is the head of an independent label, I should believe he's totally correct. I think the general consensus among people is that leaks/illegal downloads are bad for musicians. However, as many people have referenced/linked, there are studies that show that illegal downloads (or at least illegal downloaders) help musicians more than hurt them. Isn't it entirely possible that he actually just believes the sales will be hurt, but isn't actually sure? It seemed to me more like the article was attacking the leaking of the record, and expressing a disappointment over what he expects to happen. He might also be getting future benefits from the situation that he's overlooking for the short-term changes. I would actually argue that he's under-qualified, especially when compared with economic analysts or well-founded case studies, to make any sort of judgment call on what the outcome would be. Now of course there are arguments that illegal downloads DO hurt sales overall, and I'm not qualified enough to say whether this is true or not- but there's a large enough split opinion over the issue for me to assume that sales aren't negatively affected by illegal downloads that drastically. So even assuming that sales do overall go down, there's still a question of a beneficial shift in sales or other money exchanges. What I mean is this: in 2009 Jay-Z released The Blueprint 3. Jay-Z, a huge name in commercial hip-hop, absolutely dominated radio play with Empire State of Mind (at least where I'm from). If people don't have the option of downloading the album before its release, then that track would be enough for many of them to buy the album (and surely it still was why a large amount of people purchased it). Now, if people DID download it and give it a listen after hearing Empire State of Mind, they would realize that the album pretty much sucked big time and hopefully not buy it. It's what a lot of lazy and overly-successful artists do. They release a few good tracks to the public and just shit out an album knowing fans will buy it because of what they HAVE heard.

TMobotron 07.20.11

Alternatively, lesser-known bands that actually PUT WORK into an album, and come up with something creative all the way through, may get more people to listen from the downloads, may get more hype from reviews/blogs/etc, and will likely gain more fans in the long run. Would I buy a Toddla T album if I couldn't download it? Not a cold chance in hell. Would I buy it if I could download it? Maybe. Admittedly probably not, but if I liked it enough I would. Would I go to his show after downloading it, buy some merch, or possibly purchase his next one? Very, very likely (if the album I heard was good). TL;D fucking R: Album sales may overall be down because of illegal downloads. They also may not, but if they are- I'm willing to bet it's the shitty artists that release half-assed albums who get shafted after people hear their poor releases without buying them, as opposed to quality artists who will gain fans, potential sales, and potential concert attendees from having a much larger pool of listeners. In fact, these artists may very well benefit quite a lot from it. Of course there will be cases where it doesn't work like that, and that's a shame. But I think one of the most important factors to take into consideration when looking at today's state of the music industry is that it's forcing artists to make good, consistent albums to gain fans and sales, and to attack the entire culture of free downloading is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

ScorpionStan 07.20.11

@ Knott: "Stan: while all your points are valid, at the same time you overlook the real issue which is the size of the market. Bands made money back before downloading their albums illegally was possible, sure, but it was much harder for an up-and-coming, little-known band to do so. The Internet expands the scope, which has positive and negative impact: it opens up the chances of music being heard, but it also saturates the market to the extent that the proportion of albums that people can afford to pay for diminishes. These are, sadly, facts." Trust me Adam, i've considered these things. But i still fail to see how these facts justify or warrant illegal downloading. The sad facts are also that it is extremely hard in this economy to make our auto, media, insurance and house payments. But does that make it ok for us to evade payments, doctor our taxes, cheat our way into more money, etc.? The morality of this won't matter to some people i realize, but let's not pretend that this is completely ethical. Cuz it's not. But beyond the morality issue, the argument here seems to be that illegal downloading helps people make good purchase decisions so that they know where to put their money in this wide spectrum of music today. However, the internet provides a way for the artists to LEGALLY display examples of their work on sites like Myspace. I fail to see why that wouldn't be enough information for a person to figure out whether or not they liked the band and wanted to buy an album. @ Anarchist: "Give me one valid reason why music NEEDS illegal downloading." exposure I don't mean to offend but that's kind of ridiculous. As already stated, it seems obvious that Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube do a fine job of "exposure" already...don't really see what makes illegal downloading necessary beyond those sites. @ Iluvatar: I don't think anyone's saying illegal downloading is the overall "bane" of music sales. Most music consumers aren't gonna waste their time or hard drive space hunting down illegal torrents anyway. The killer of music sales was the drop in album sales, and the killer of album sales was iTunes.

Deviant. 07.20.11

Because if I wanna check out an album that I've read about that sounds like it might be interesting, I don't want to have to sit down at a computer and stream the 2 tracks that the band has decided I need to hear. In fact, it doesn't even matter if they choose to put the whole album up. I wanna be able to have that album in my pocket so I can chuck it on on during the ride to and from work if I feel like it, play just 1 or 2 tracks while I'm on my lunch break and heading off to get some food

omnipanzer 07.20.11

"But beyond the morality issue, the argument here seems to be that illegal downloading helps people make good purchase decisions so that they know where to put their money in this wide spectrum of music today." That wasn't the issue... you're making it THE issue although it has been mentioned. I think most agree that it is a compelling reason to take the risk though. "before downloading ever existed, artists somehow found ways to sell LOADS of albums." The point that has already been made is that this is not the same market and should not be held to the same standards. If you really want an answer to that then for the sake of discussion lets pair that down. Lets say record sales in the 80's. In order to make those loads of record sales regional label execs had to get song X by band Y played on local radio stations for certain demographics. If they were able to do so then sales would be made to that region and someone would get a fat check for getting that done. The label would also attempt to get a video on MTV however that amount of air time on MTV is finite and only a select few would make that cut. Of course preference is going to go to the larger labels because they bring in the most high quality acts and lets assume some palms get greased. Videos and politicking cost lots and lots of money. Do I really need to continue to spell it out for you? This is a completely different world and the largest damage being done is to record labels bottom lines. Is this an entirely moral code of conduct, no of course not but I'll sleep just fine at the end of the day. It is because of their skill and love of their craft that I'm willing to go that extra mile and get money to them as directly as possible. My money gets as close the the artists pocket as possible and I have a hard time feeling bad about that.

omnipanzer 07.20.11

"He might also be getting future benefits from the situation that he's overlooking for the short-term changes. I would actually argue that he's under-qualified, especially when compared with economic analysts or well-founded case studies, to make any sort of judgment call on what the outcome would be." Business changes all the time. One avenue of income closes and you need to find a new avenue this is business 101. "Before downloads, hearing 1 or 2 songs on the radio = enough information for a consumer to purchase an album. Nowadays, hearing 3 or 4 songs on a myspace playlist + looking up live clips, interviews, and music vids on youtube + reading extensive online reviews of the band = MORE than enough information to make a purchasing decision. " Agreed but I have no reason to confine myself to such a limited option and will not. "You guys seem to think that illegal downloading is the savior of music or something, like music was dead before illegal downloading." Until a 10 years ago finding someone who knew half as many bands as I did was extremely rare. I assumed it was because people just didn't have the time, inclination or willingness to set aside the money or to spend as much time pouring through albums at the record store as I did. I would say the the ability to download albums has drastically changed the "average" music consumer and I don't find it at all to be a bad thing. was it dead no, stagnant absolutely.

Wolfhorde 07.20.11

Also there are people that simply don't have the money, especially students of higher schools when a CD costs about 20-50€. (At least in central Europe)

anarchistfish 07.20.11

"@ Anarchist: "Give me one valid reason why music NEEDS illegal downloading." exposure I don't mean to offend but that's kind of ridiculous. As already stated, it seems obvious that Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube do a fine job of "exposure" already...don't really see what makes illegal downloading necessary beyond those sites." you're not gonna go on a band's website if you don't already know about them though. and how do a lot of bands get known? word of mouth. people checking them out cos they can't lose out, liking them and spreading the word.

Deviant. 07.20.11

And I'm not gonna download an album by a band I've never heard either......

anarchistfish 07.20.11

that's kinda what I was saying

anarchistfish 07.20.11

wait what. I'm confused nvm

Deviant. 07.20.11

You said that that a byproduct of leaked albums is exposure for an artist/group right? How? Why would I download an album by a group I've never heard or heard of, unless someone told me about them or I stumbled across their facebook/myspace page or caught a video of theirs on youtube. Illegal downloads provide no exposure whatsoever to a group

anarchistfish 07.20.11

I'm talking about illegal downloading since this discussion is pretty much including both now. My point is that there are a lot of bands who I would probably never have bother checking out if I had to pay to but are now some of my favourite bands. I've now bought their stuff and spread their word about them. Listening to albums in bits over the internet doesn't have the same effect.

Deviant. 07.20.11

I'm also talking about illegal downloading. So, are you saying that you just randomly download albums by bands you've never heard of?

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

So if I go to a blog and illegally download an album that looks interesting to me, then review said album here and expose the band to 100's of new fans that wouldn't have heard it otherwise, would that provide exposure for them? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

anarchistfish 07.20.11

"I'm also talking about illegal downloading. So, are you saying that you just randomly download albums by bands you've never heard of?" I pretty much download albums by bands that I've only just heard about that I /might/ like

Deviant. 07.20.11

Yeah, that's not "exposure"

anarchistfish 07.20.11

I also go through bandcamp and download tonnes of free albums at a time by bands I've never heard of before.

anarchistfish 07.20.11

yes it is because I then spread the word about them eurgh why can't we edit blog posts?

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

"Yeah, that's not "exposure"" what's the difference?

Deviant. 07.20.11

How is stumbling across a download link exposure? It's not; websites, reviews, interviews - that's exposure. Tell someone about a band "hey, these guys are awesome you should check them out"; you're potentially exposing them to a new artist. Typing in "band name" "album name" mediafire into google and clicking on the download link isn't exposure

sniper 07.20.11

i think listening to music is exposure to said music dev.

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

Whoops, thought you were replying to me : P what about my instance? "So if I go to a blog and illegally download an album that looks interesting to me, then review said album here and expose the band to 100's of new fans that wouldn't have heard it otherwise, would that provide exposure for them? Hypothetically speaking, of course. " that

Deviant. 07.20.11

Yes, but I'm talking about the artist and how they get their name out there

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

wait what? I'm misunderstanding something here...

Deviant. 07.20.11

A review provides exposure for a group yes, because you're ultimately "spreading the word" so to speak. It might not be as effective as say, publishing on Rolling Stone, but it still gets the job done. Even if it is on a much smaller scale

anarchistfish 07.20.11

exposure or not, I still think my way is justified

Deviant. 07.20.11

"Yes, but I'm talking about the artist and how they get their name out there" @Sniper "A review provides exposure for a group yes, because you're ultimately "spreading the word" so to speak. It might not be as effective as say, publishing on Rolling Stone, but it still gets the job done. Even if it is on a much smaller scale" @ Eric

sniper 07.20.11

if they get hyped on a blog or on here or on a board or w/e and kids mediafire their material its still exposure though. no one googles random combinations of things they think might be band or albums and downloads them. if someone is d/ling music its because they've already gotten some exposure somewhere.

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

And yes, I'm saying that when I illegally download an album then write a review for the album and provide exposure to the band, then exposure is ultimately stemming from illegal downloads.'

Deviant. 07.20.11

"exposure or not, I still think my way is justified" I'm not saying that it's not justified I just find it strange that would just download random album with no prior knowledge of the group. If I cam across a link for a group that sounded interesting, I would go to youtube and check out a track

Deviant. 07.20.11

"And yes, I'm saying that when I illegally download an album then write a review for the album and provide exposure to the band, then exposure is ultimately stemming from illegal downloads" But why did you illegally download the album?

Vesper 07.20.11

I did not read through this massive thread completely, but it seems musicians are just increasingly having to deal with what visual artists have had to deal with for years. Only those who can afford to pay and/or desire the physical copy buy works of art (if they can be bought), and everyone else (most people) can't afford it. Exposure for artists to the public has traditionally been through museums and galleries, but I don't shouldn't even need to get into the politics of who gets shown in what place and how highly controlled it used to be (much like big record labels). With the Internet, however, images are copied and proliferate. People link things on their blogs, Facebook, etc. so artists, whose images would otherwise have little chance of discovery, unless hosted on a gallery site, are passed along. They make no money from this Internet telephone, but it does give them many more chances for someone to see their work and support them, much more than just having their legitimate website and affiliated representation would. This is especially huge for less famous artists whose work has no chance of ever being seen in the MoMA or musicians whose music will never be played on the radio or will ever play Madison Square Garden. And not all support has to be monetary. The support I receive from people who appreciate what I do, even if they can't afford to buy my work, is just as important. I'm sure many artists and musicians would agree. Most artists don't have any illusions of being the next Picasso. It's about time musicians stop hoping they'll be the next Beatles and just apply for that second part-time job like the rest of us poor fucks who think it's worth it to create what you want. And maybe then you'll get somewhere.

Deviant. 07.20.11

"if they get hyped on a blog or on here or on a board or w/e and kids mediafire their material its still exposure though. no one googles random combinations of things they think might be band or albums and downloads them. if someone is d/ling music its because they've already gotten some exposure somewhere." Apparently Anarchist does! Hence my discussion with him

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

"But why did you illegally download the album?" because of the initial exposure given to it by the blog that piqued my interest

anarchistfish 07.20.11

Having to pay for music blocks a band's name getting spread, basically. When you look at the big picture

Deviant. 07.20.11

"because of the initial exposure given to it by the blog that piqued my interest" Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. The download is just the by-product of the exposure

anarchistfish 07.20.11

"Apparently Anarchist does! Hence my discussion with him" I didn't say that. I download loads of albums because I can. I wouldn't if I had to pay, so the band would have much less of a chance of having me enjoy them and spread their name. It all adds up

Deviant. 07.20.11

"Having to pay for music blocks a band's name getting spread, basically. When you look at the big picture" No it doesn't at all

anarchistfish 07.20.11

either way. I'm not going to buy the CD for something I haven't heard and enjoyed first people who download illegally and don't return anything to the artist are another thing

sniper 07.20.11

"Having to pay for music blocks a band's name getting spread, basically. When you look at the big picture" this is stupid. "I download loads of albums because I can. I wouldn't if I had to pay, so the band would have much less of a chance of having me enjoy them and spread their name. It all adds up" i'm sorry but you have written 2 reviews on here and that hardly counts as exposure for albums you've downloaded. unless you spend all your time telling people you meet to listen to hundreds of bands you heard because of downloading (and you don't, you spend all your time here), then you're really just deluding yourself thinking you're doing bands any favors by downloading their music illegally. if you spend money on shows and merch that's cool, but don't pretend you're "spreading the word."

Vesper 07.20.11

What about bands that limit the number of copies of releases or their releases are difficult to find? If only those who are able to buy it could listen to it, that certainly stops people from hearing it. This might just be a symptom of obscure metal releases, but I would certainly be unable to enjoy a good portion of my music, since there are no copies of a particular album available for purchase, so I have to resort to downloading it.

anarchistfish 07.20.11

""I download loads of albums because I can. I wouldn't if I had to pay, so the band would have much less of a chance of having me enjoy them and spread their name. It all adds up" i'm sorry but you have written 2 reviews on here and that hardly counts as exposure for albums you've downloaded. unless you spend all your time telling people you meet to listen to hundreds of bands you heard because of downloading (and you don't, you spend all your time here), then you're really just deluding yourself thinking you're doing bands any favors by downloading their music illegally. if you spend money on shows and merch that's cool, but don't pretend you're "spreading the word." I wasn't talking about reviews, I was talking about word of mouth. And if everyone does it it adds up. And I do buy CDs, merch and go to shows anyway so I shouldn't really be the centre of this argument.

SeaAnemone 07.20.11

"Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. The download is just the by-product of the exposure" isn't it cyclic though. the exposure via download generates more exposure. all i'm saying is that illegal downloading generates more exposure (even if the download happens because of exposure in the first place)

sniper 07.20.11

yeah the hype machine grows exponentially as more people download and re-post.

psykonaut 07.20.11

doing a 25 page research paper on the effect of piracy on the music industry last semester does wonders in making you no longer give a fuck

anarchistfish 07.20.11

lol what conclusion did you come to?

Jips 07.20.11

what is have to say is fuck the morality of it all, i tend to think that morals are built by societal norms anyway. what is really going on here is economics. basic economics tells us that there is two ways to make money. one is to sell a product, the other is to provide a service. music is experienced by means of a product or service but in actuality is neither. providing a service or selling a product is the only way to make money off of music. in the good old days before the internet and mp3s the only way to listen to music was to purchase an album or pay to go to show or whatever. but what was being purchased was never just music but an object or experience. the problem is a mp3 really isnt an experience nor is it a tangible object, but in todays market they are being sold as products. purchasing a mp3 provides no tangible experience or emotional connection. no one gets excited to log onto itunes to buy the newest motorhead album in the same way that that they got excited about peeling off the plastic from their copy of Ace of Spades in 1980. this is the simple reason people dont buy music like they used to. it has nothing to do with leaks or illegal downloads. in general it is no longer a rewarding experience, if it was people would still buy. personally i have downloaded the fuck out of music for most of my life, but i guarantee i spent more dollars to the industry than the average consumer twice my age. i will still spend my money on music products and services when the pay off is worth the price of admittance. I pay the premium membership fee to rhapsody every month, not because i now feel like im paying for the music and not stealing it, but because the service fee is more than worth the convenience of access to their library. I buy am more than willing to pay 30$+ to own my vinyl copy of a mars volta bedlam in goliath because it was beautifully packaged and has fantasic art that looks badass on the wall, and because the marbled lps look fucking cool on the turntable when im stoned. if the industry focused more on capitalizing on these types of services and products they would be doing much better than they are doing trying to peddle digital music at the same premiums that they used to be able to charge in a time when it was more convenient to pay than to pirate. look at dvds, the reason that they are still selling is because most people still use dvd players, and for most the price of a dvd is worth paying over the hassle of DLing a movie and burning a disc.

Deviant. 07.21.11

"isn't it cyclic though. the exposure via download generates more exposure. all i'm saying is that illegal downloading generates more exposure (even if the download happens because of exposure in the first place)" Not really, because as I've been saying unless you're just downloading random albums without even knowing who the band is you're not being exposed to the group by simply clicking on a link. You're downloading that album because some review, or article, or interview caught your eye and got your attention and piqued your interest in the group. That's how you were exposed to the group, you've just downloaded the album as a result. If you then go and do something similar, write a review of the album then yes, it is a cycle of sorts. But how a person reacts to that "exposure" isn't

TMobotron 07.21.11

Dev, you're right that clicking a link isn't what's exposing people to the group- it's the blogs, reviews etc. And yeah downloading the music isn't adding any exposure either. I think the argument they're trying to make is that they do expose the band through word of mouth, potential reviews, or any other method AFTER downloading. Sure it's usually not exposing the band a ton. But I think the idea is that they would have never had the opportunity to do so if they weren't able to download the album, because they wouldn't have bought it, listened to it, or been able to spread any word about it because of that. So regardless of how small the exposure they've given the album is, it's being compared with zero exposure at all if they couldn't download it. Also in response to sniper's post to Anarchist: "i'm sorry but you have written 2 reviews on here and that hardly counts as exposure for albums you've downloaded. unless you spend all your time telling people you meet to listen to hundreds of bands you heard because of downloading (and you don't, you spend all your time here), then you're really just deluding yourself thinking you're doing bands any favors by downloading their music illegally. if you spend money on shows and merch that's cool, but don't pretend you're "spreading the word."" There are tons more ways someone can spread the word on here than just reviews. I've only written 1 review on here but I'd like to think I've spread a lot more exposure than that represents. I'm simply not a writer so I don't do that. Shit I don't even read reviews on here anymore usually but i still am on here all the time. Soundoffs, lists, recs in lists, comments praising it, and even just giving the album a good rating all benefit the artist, and honestly recommending the artist in a list where people are asking for recs works as well as any review IMO. At least it would for me. And I'm surprised you think it's that weird that he might be spreading his music so much with his friends. I love sharing music with friends. I do it all the time, any time I hear an artist I like or think that person would like I send it on over to them, and they do the same back to me. It's definitely more important to me than doing it on sputnik.

TMobotron 07.21.11

Continued, had no idea I wrote that much whoops: You say: "you're really just deluding yourself thinking you're doing bands any favors by downloading their music illegally", but I think he is. He even mentions in his post that he never would listen to the albums otherwise, and I know what he's saying. There are TONS of bands I would never check out if I couldn't download their music. So he's making the possibility of him going to their show, buying merch, and giving them exposure (even if it's small), which he otherwise would be doing none of if not for illegal downloads.

Deviant. 07.21.11

"And yeah downloading the music isn't adding any exposure either. I think the argument they're trying to make is that they do expose the band through word of mouth, potential reviews, or any other method AFTER downloading." I agree but it's not like you have to download it either

taylormemer 07.21.11

You just wait. I have a post to dwarf all others.

Deviant. 07.21.11

Fyi: I tend to drift off after about 1000 words so just keep that in mind

taylormemer 07.21.11

Damn.

taylormemer 07.21.11

Oh wait, should be ok. Just have to deal with this dumb character limit. What is it 2,500 or soemthing?

theacademy 07.21.11

downloading doesn't really help bands but it doesn't really hurt them either. it's really not the downloading party's fault; its the industry. bomb it!

Trebor. 07.21.11

Bomb The Music Industry puts up there albums for free and they ask for donations Awesome

toxin. 07.21.11

It kind of sucks that the people more inclined to buy music are the ones who listen to the radio crap (or at least I feel that way), while the people who listen to Indie/obscure stuff are more likely to be knowledgeable about music enough to know ways to download for free. At least, that's how I feel about it, but I have no data to back it up

theacademy 07.21.11

other guilty parties besides downloaders: 1. journalists 2. internet service providers 3. record labels 4. tech manufacturers (e.g,, apple) (mainly for software locks + drm, not for actually manufacturing the devices)

anarchistfish 07.21.11

I don't think I was very clear with the 'spreading the word' thing. My point is that if you tell people about these bands, they then will continue telling people and it will grow and grow

omnipanzer 07.21.11

"I don't think I was very clear with the 'spreading the word' thing. My point is that if you tell people about these bands, they then will continue telling people and it will grow and grow" AKA word of mouth ;^)

Liberi Fatali 08.20.11

An interesting follow up to this thread of topic (shown to me by klap): http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/32690/watch-the-throne-gets-no-apparent-sales-boost-from-anti-leak-campaign

taylormemer 08.20.11

Yeah, I saw that the other day. Interesting indeed.

iFghtffyrdmns 08.20.11

hmm, quite interesting indeed

Voivod 08.20.11

excellent article

Liberi Fatali 08.20.11

Well it is hardly scientific. But it is an interesting conjecture nonetheless.

theacademy 08.20.11

urgh stop bumping this thread this is one of dave's most embarassing blog posts (nothing tops the odd future one tho hahah)

Voivod 08.20.11

Well it is hardly scientific Yeah. I have read several scientific papers in journals relevant to Political Economy, which provide proof that leaks neither boost nor devastate sales. Of course for every paper that states the above, there is another that proves that sales are hindered by leaks, so go figure how "scientific" is that rivalry...

Liberi Fatali 08.20.11

@Voivod, papers such as? Or at least which journals?

Voivod 08.20.11

It's been a while since i've read those papers and they mainly involved torrents... Journal of Political Economy is for sure one journal, i don't remember the rest though... Maybe it would be useful to make a list in my account with some of these papers... I will look them up in due time.

Voivod 08.20.11

Journal of Political Economy is issued by Elsevier Publications.

Liberi Fatali 08.20.11

Do you mean the European Journal of Political Economy?

Voivod 08.20.11

Yeah this is the one from Elsevier. Sorry for my little memory lapse.. The other one is the "Journal of Political Economy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Political_Economy I found those papers by google-ing "peer-to-peer - and - record sales" You will find a lot of material floating on the net, in terms of first draft paper.

Liberi Fatali 08.20.11

I was going to say, I don't think I've ever read anything about music leaks, file-sharing, torrents or the like in JPE which I keep up with somewhat. Will have a hunt around for the articles you're alluding to though.