Should Music Be FREE????

[stevieb19]

The sad thing is that out of the 117 people who voted "No" on the poll, a large percentage of them pirate music. It sucks that you want people to pay for your music but you don't wanna pay for other people's music.

BTW...Nothing is going to change until SOMETHING changes.

I pirate about 10% of my music collection. The rest I buy. I know I should buy 100% ... but hey, I've got a better rating than most people around here.

I am god huh?

All together now

[Ubiety]

how would musicians get money if music were free

Very few musicians get paid due to their private monopoly of their works. Most that make money from their music at all make most of the money from performing their works. Now, I'm not saying that no musicians makes money directly from their recordings, but very very few do, especially in contrast to how many that makes money from performing their own (or others) works.

Since all the costs for promotion, studio time and other investments is deductible from the artists royalties for the record companies, the artist usually ends up making little or no money at all while the record companies cash in. But it's not just that, almost no artists sell a lot of cd's. Only a limited/chosen few does.

The truth is spoken here.

[TotcProductions]

The sad thing is that out of the 117 people who voted "No" on the poll, a large percentage of them pirate music. It sucks that you want people to pay for your music but you don't wanna pay for other people's music.

BTW...Nothing is going to change until SOMETHING changes.

I don't pirate music.

[respirator]

Is this the august contest. Pirate music. Cool!!!

Oh. Sorry. Back to work zzzzzz

[TotcProductions]

Is this the august contest. Pirate music. Cool!!!

Oh. Sorry. Back to work zzzzzz

[whyterabbyt]

Is this the august contest. Pirate music. Cool!!!

Oh. Sorry. Back to work zzzzzz

Shouldnt that read 'Back to work, ARRRRRRRR' ??

[Cryogenic]

I'm not sure it's that easy, because that basically today has gotten us to a state where you're not allowed to publically share a copyright holders work with others freely.

And whats wrong with that?

I like to be able to whistle / sing whatever I want to whistle / sing. Or tell someone how a new tune I like goes. Etc.

Well there's a whole world from that, to "publically share a copyright holders work with others freely".

If not, i should be able to copy your application, just to show it to someone.

[stefancrs]

I'm not sure it's that easy, because that basically today has gotten us to a state where you're not allowed to publically share a copyright holders work with others freely.

And whats wrong with that?

I like to be able to whistle / sing whatever I want to whistle / sing. Or tell someone how a new tune I like goes. Etc.

Well there's a whole world from that, to "publically share a copyright holders work with others freely".

If not, i should be able to copy your application, just to show it to someone.

Indeed. But afaik it _is_ illegal to whistle/sing someones copyrighted work publically.

edit: if it's not I guess it _is_ legal to share for instance someones composition freely with others? I'm not talking about the recording of a work here.

[emdot_ambient]

Is this the august contest. Pirate music.

Talk Like A Pirate Day isn't until September 19th, so no way August's competition can be Pirate Music.

[fanfarecircuit]

i didn't read all this..so maybe i'm restating something...

i don't think it's a bad idea at all to have music be free. and it's plausible, if you think about it. the problem has always been the record companies that take advantage of artist and listeners because in the past they were the only means of distribution. with digital media it is quite possible for artists to eliminate the record company who takes the majority of income from any given song. let's say an artist gets a few pennies per album sold traditionally. now if the same artist sold digitally on their own downloads for each song, they would make 100% profit on each download. this would enable them to give away the majority of the album and maybe have people pay for a few songs. even if someone was only required to pay for 1 song to complete the album, that's $.99 in the artist pocket. more than they are getting for a traditionally sold cd. the problem here is copy protection. instead of distribution costs, you have DRM companies charging too much for protecting the music, but still not as expensive as traditional costs. subscription sites like emusic are not that expensive on the consumer end, but i don't know how the artist makes out. i guess the problem has always been not how to give away music to everyone, but how to take greedy businessmen out of the equation. if people could by a complete record download for under 5 bucks direct from the artist complete with digital artwork, i think everyone would be real happy with that. bring back the single and give that away. the final problem is that most music in the past has their copyrights held by the record companies, and they ain't letting go. free is too much to ask for. but direct sales through artists big and small at a much cheaper and consumer friendly price is definitely not out of the question. it just takes a few bold musicians out of contract to start the ball rolling (r.e.m.? 2 more records to go with WB).

[Max el Belga]

I am a bold and nearly bald musician; my music is and will be free.
Let record companies do what they're good at : milking cows !

I know them so long and they always complain how bad business is, driving in their expesive cars to their expensive buildings...
If their mouth would be at the end of their back, maybe something productive might come out of it.

If some of them might feel offended, then I'm glad, that was the aim...

If somebody here at KvR feels offended, then I apologize, 'cose I have an immense respect and admiration for the people here.


Max... .. .

[Ubiety]

free is too much to ask for.

Ah, the sense of irony!

[laputa_sync]

is irony one of the twenty one senses
???

[Chuck E. Jesus]

i didn't read all this..so maybe i'm restating something...

i don't think it's a bad idea at all to have music be free. and it's plausible, if you think about it. the problem has always been the record companies that take advantage of artist and listeners because in the past they were the only means of distribution. with digital media it is quite possible for artists to eliminate the record company who takes the majority of income from any given song. let's say an artist gets a few pennies per album sold traditionally. now if the same artist sold digitally on their own downloads for each song, they would make 100% profit on each download. this would enable them to give away the majority of the album and maybe have people pay for a few songs. even if someone was only required to pay for 1 song to complete the album, that's $.99 in the artist pocket. more than they are getting for a traditionally sold cd. the problem here is copy protection. instead of distribution costs, you have DRM companies charging too much for protecting the music, but still not as expensive as traditional costs. subscription sites like emusic are not that expensive on the consumer end, but i don't know how the artist makes out. i guess the problem has always been not how to give away music to everyone, but how to take greedy businessmen out of the equation. if people could by a complete record download for under 5 bucks direct from the artist complete with digital artwork, i think everyone would be real happy with that. bring back the single and give that away. the final problem is that most music in the past has their copyrights held by the record companies, and they ain't letting go. free is too much to ask for. but direct sales through artists big and small at a much cheaper and consumer friendly price is definitely not out of the question. it just takes a few bold musicians out of contract to start the ball rolling (r.e.m.? 2 more records to go with WB).

i didn't read all of this either...

[laputa_sync]

read?


swoosh!