Band Actually Promotes The Fact That Its Album Was Leaked (Against Its Wishes)
from the ways-to-respond dept
Earlier this month, we wrote about how the author Stephenie Meyer reacted when a manuscript of her latest novel was leaked online. She punished the fans, by saying that she would stop working on the book. This seemed like an odd move to us, and we said so. Some in the comments accused us of being unfair in suggesting that anyone ought to figure out ways to use such a leak to their advantage, but it does appear that some are doing exactly that.Eric Samson writes in to let us know that he just received an email from the Canadian band The Dears, talking about how their album was leaked -- against the band's wishes -- but, since it was out there, the band wanted fans to know it was there. Seems like the right response:
email between a friend of ours and us:If it's going to happen and there's no way to stop it, might as well learn to take advantage of it.
On 15-Sep-08, at 8:17 AM, ******* **** wrote:
It's out there.
On 15-Sep-08, at 8:15 AM, Murray Lightburn wrote:
i heard.
On 15-Sep-08, at 8:15 AM, ******* **** wrote:
Your album leaked this morning.
-----------------------------------------------
So there you have it, friends: our new album and finest work to date, still not due for several weeks, is out there. While we are 100% appreciative that people care enough, The Dears are still pretty old-school. This was not exactly our intention and to be honest, even though it's kind of cool, we can't help feeling a little bit devastated. We were always aware of the inevitability, as we are living in the modern age. In fact, we don't expect anyone to empathize at all. Nevertheless, you now have these options:
a.) download it now.
b.) wait and buy it later.
c.) both.
If we may have any say in the matter, whatever option you choose, we truly hope you enjoy it. We are excited and terrified all at once. Please give it a proper listen, maybe at least four times to start because it is pretty massive, intricate, layered. Much love, much care, and about 16 hours a day for so many, many weeks (months?) went into the making and delivery of it. We work hard for our patrons. In addition, we are not even certain of the quality of the files out there are like but we do know that the official version (out on OCT 20/21 worldwide) is of the utmost quality, mastered by the great Bob Ludwig. The sleeve and lyric book in the packaged version are also very cool so we really do trust that you'll pick it up when it is released formally.
Eternally Grateful,
THE DEARS
PS... Hope to see you...
Sep 30 Canada Waterloo, ON The Starlight w/ Gentleman Reg
Oct 1 Canada Hamilton, ON Casbah w/ Gentleman Reg
(and a long series of tour dates)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And who the fuck are The Dears?
Wait, don't answer that. I don't really give a fuck. "Pirating" (do they even really understand what pirating is versus just freely copying?) would be giving their crap (wahtever it is) too much fucking credit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rebecca
(most of my music comes from artists who are at least semi-okay with piracy - Newgrounds is good, with its 'take what you want unless you want to use it for non-personal use, in which case ask nicely and the artist will probably agree' attitude)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Poor dears....
From a business standpoint, I understand the argument that leaking an album can actually help promote and sell the album, and I also understand that most bands don't really see much actual revenue from their records in the first place.
However, from the tone of the Dears message, it sounds like they weren't really thinking of the business side at all. They had just spend countless hours writing, producing and recording a work of art, and now they were being deprived of the opportunity to present it as a finished product the way they wanted it to debut. They don't even know what version was leaked, or what the quality of the files might be.
This site and others like it spend a lot of time focusing on what effects piracy and leaks such as this one have on the Industry, or on profitability, and other business concerns. Yet, what about the artists right to have some say in how his art is presented, or at the very least debuts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
>And who the fuck are The Dears?
Meyer is an author, and The Dears are a Canadian band. both of those things are mentioned relatively prominently in Mike's post.
>"Pirating" (do they even really understand what pirating is
>versus just freely copying?) would be giving their crap
>(wahtever it is) too much fucking credit.
the only times the word "pirating" appears on this page, post or otherwise, are in your comment.
apparently, the only word you were able to focus on in this post, is one that doesn't actually appear in it. i congratulate you on your complete failure at literacy, and your subsequent ignorant belligerence. i hope it brings you everywhere you want to go in life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right on Joh6nn!!!
Being a musician I am taking careful note of all this "leaking" and such. Dang! I thought leaking was what you did behind the bus before the gig!?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
>we don't know who they are. Sure, we know who they are in
>the context of the story, but WHO are they?
Stephanie Meyer is lady who wrote the Twilight book series.
which was just turned into a movie. she she actually is kind of well know. and has been for the past several years.
and regardless of the fact if they are well known or not. the point of the story is that there are ways to use the leaking of your product to your advantage[the band] and disadvantage[the writer{she could of just used it as a teaser. but what ev. shes got bank now cause of the movie}]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
there is still hope...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
common sense!
ok so its out we would have preferred it wasn't but it is!! (in case so every1 who never heard of us b4 check out our music).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. Release dates are artificial in a digital market. They were necessary in the physical market to give maximum exposure to a product, because physical shelf space was limited and skewed towards the week's new releases. This no longer happens with digital products, so there's no reason why an album cannot be available to buy as soon as the master is approved. The only reason is "marketing" - i.e. trying to get people to want to buy the albums - which makes no sense if people already want to do so.
2. Any digital product can be copied, and will usually be available on a pirate network the moment the CD is released, usually sooner. Why not let people buy the album instead of artificially creating a situation where the pirate version is available to download but the official version cannot be bought (as per the article)?
3. Not every download is a lost sale. Many people who download also buy the official CD when available (assuming they like it). Even those who don't buy the CD will often buy concerts tickets and merchandise, as well as introducing their friends to the album, who may then go on to buy those things as well.
Now, apart from the fact that it doesn't look like The Dears are offering a way to buy the album now (a very stupid move IMHO - physical delay is inevitable, but why not put the album online now?), they seem to be getting most of the above points. They're also not exactly a household name, so even this "bad" news is good publicity for the band as per the first comment here.
I wish more bands would realise that such leaks are inevitable, and there are many ways to leverage them to gain more fans rather than alienating them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Sure, we know who they are in the context of the story, but WHO are they?"
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=THE|DEARS&sql=11:knfuxqlkld6e~ T1
It appears they've been together for 13 years and this is their 6th album, so they're not rookies. It's not the type of music I like, but I support their wise marketing decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
common sense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very Cool of Them
It sounds as if they are ready to accept the changing face of technology, promotion and business.
Thanks for the story! I must include it in my future posts on copyright infringement and piracy...what a great example...I hope they make millions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've actually taken the effort to check them out now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
perspective
Uh ... you only had to work 16 hours a day for a few weeks (months?), at most? That's not something I'd brag about -- sorry to break the news, a lot of people work 16 hour days for years...and some work 12 hard hours the majority of their lives ... I'm not saying what you produced isn't great, isn't art, isn't worth it ... I'm just saying your comment seemed a little whiny and a bit lacking of perspective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A tale of two responses
Bummer for Stephanie. She can continue to torture her loyal fans until she loses them for all I care. That was a great example of a bad response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poor dears....
For those who appreciate and care about the value of the artists' presentation, the downloads will not be enough, as the end of The Dears email hinted. An for the rest that don't care about the presentation, why would the band care what they thought about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YOU poor dears
How many of you hater commenters are actually musicians? You know how to play more than you stereo? You can create a melody, match lyrics to a tune, write sheet music, and play your hearts out? 1? 2 of ya?
Musicians, for the most part, cannot help themselves. They have it in them and it has to be played. They WILL give their music away for free if they had to - they *want* to play. But you talentless fucks who drop judgement calls on their abilities to whether their muic fits within your narrowly defined focus are the real cancer.
Stop your immature ragging on about how you want all your music for free and how they suck.
Do something creative and come back when you shat upon yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: YOU poor dears
I did, however, see plenty of comments about how this response by the band may have created new fans among those people who were previously unaware of their existence. Hence, more people who may actually pay the band money.
I also see some comment about how, since the leak has happened anyway, the band might as well leverage that for more support (as The Dears have done) rather than whine and threaten not to work any more (Stephanie Meyer). I also personally suggested that the band might want to offer the digital download for sale now rather than wait, so people want to pay money can do so.
Go back to your playpen, intelligent people are discussing reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: YOU poor dears
Oh, that's right, you said I should pay to hear it.
If you want to make art for art's sake, but share it for money's sake, don't expect to make money off of it. K?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leaked or Banned
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well Done
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
and I thought the point was that the band decided to take advantage of a bad situation .... my bad, I'll try harder next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poor dears....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ignorant belligerence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: YOU poor dears
awwwwwww, that says so much.
Let's set up a welfare system then. Let's allow these poor souls to just work a fraction of the time a normal human does. But let's give them payment for their "art" for their entire lives plus 70 years ? Is that fair ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: YOU poor dears
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Read the article and then the thread next time. You'll see a lot of people going "oh, I'd never heard of this band before but I'll check them out now". You'll see none of the venom nor shaking of heads that accompanied recent negative moves by Guns N Roses and Metallica on the same issue.
This "poor band" has just gained a potential rise in their fanbase by accepting the realities of today's market. If they lose anything, it's due to them not making the album available to buy immediately, instead of forcing people to wait weeks before allowing them to hand over their money. I bet they could have made thousands by simply posting their album to iTunes/Amazon/eMusic/whatever.
(For anyone wanting to check them out, they are on eMusic here:
http://www.emusic.com/artist/The-Dears-MP3-Download/11578235.html
and you can preview them on last.fm among others;
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Dears
I'm not a fan nor affiliated with either website, but I thought they deserved to be advocated. Unlike AC, who is one of those people who simply wails and gnashes their teeth at injustice instead of actually doing anything positive...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
>both of those things are mentioned relatively prominently
lol, way to miss the point of the post, Captain Obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fake? Real?
Look! Marillion did it too!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7606029.stm
Although they released their own album. They didn't come up with any story of a 'leak.'
This is about as genuine as these 'leaked sex videos.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fake? Real?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fake? Real?
Marillion willingly released their new album for free, in exchange for email addresses to use for promotion to those who downloaded it.
The Dears' album leaked 1 month before it's available for sale, with nothing in return (except, possibly, a bit of goodwill thanks to their level-headed response).
Notice any difference? Anyway, even if this is some kind of promo stunt, it's definitely a better move than recent RIAA attempts to "safeguard" the material and suggests that increasing numbers of people are actually understanding the market they work in. That's a good thing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: there is still hope...
This statement sure did put an entirely new spin on the blog's message.
You think it's okay for fans to hack servers and steal music to put all over the internet?
You think it's okay for fans to hack servers and steal books to put all over the internet?
To me, it's the fans who are crying foul and taking advantage of technology to screw over these artists who work hard to give people like you entertainment, hopefully while making a living at it.
It seems fans expect everything for free (maybe reading Mike's blogs all the time) and now they're making damn sure they get it by whatever means necessary.
Now I'm truly understanding the concept of DRM and why it's there.
It no longer stands for "Digital Rights Management".
Now, it means "Don't Release Me".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: perspective
You make it sound like this is the only source of income for the band - a lot of indie bands I know also hold down full or at least part time jobs to fund their music.
You also make it sound like they are trying to make their entire life's earnings off of this one album. I can assure you that's not what they are getting at.
You forget that long before they went into the studio, they probably spent a year writing and rehearsing these songs.
Lastly - all that time in the studio costs money...on average about $100 an hour or more. So even if they worked on this for a month, it probably COST the band close to $35000 (not including art design, printing etc). to get to this point. So all they are hoping to do at this point is recoup their costs.
When you read these stories, try to understand that not ever band makes money off what they do. They very often do it because they love it and are just trying to not lose money doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Understanding guys
As a musician I work friggin hard to produce my product for our following - and we're a cover band - we don't write most of our own material.... So you think these guys did this as a stunt...
When a band releases or leaks their own material, its mostly little by little - that gives the fans a little taste of what coming, but it sucks when someone steals the matial puts it up somewhere - talk about stealing thunder... they release dates are there because the media machine bands have whether large or small, needs the time to ramp up...
For the most part I love buying CD's and OWNING the material .. I don't download unless the band is hard to find or something, I like supporting the bands I cover cause they did all the work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: perspective
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well DEARS I hope you don't mind the good folks out here downloading and sharing your music for free, because after all it's their right to do so. If you don't like figure out a different way to make money off your music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: there is still hope...
Let's look at what WSO420 actually was actually saying (albeit a little less eloquently than he could have done):
"I will continue to BUY the albums that I love because they are worth it and I WANT TO SUPPORT THE ARTISTS who created it... but give me my $15 worth when you release an album."
"I for one hate the new album "Death Magnet" by Metallica... and yeah I listened to it before the release... IT SUCKS. I would rather spend my hard earned money supporting a band like the Dears without ever having heard a single note"
In other words, he's saying he previews the albums before he buys them. He doesn't spend his money on albums he doesn't like after listening to them, preferring to help out the acts that he does like. He also doesn't give money to bands who are apparently anti-fan (Metallica) rather than pro-fan (The Dears), giving money instead to those who are interested in promoting good music.
Now, notice something there, which you wilfully ignored. Nowhere did he say he expected all music for free. He admitted downloading albums but then also bought some of those albums. Instead of ending up with a copy of Death Magnetic, which he apparently loathes, he will now end up with an album he enjoys, and considers good value for money. Instead of paying Metallica good money for a product he doesn't like, he may now listen buy an album who he's encouraged to follow and buy further material from. Everybody wins - except Metallica, but they have obviously dug their own grave here with this particular person.
You see the difference? Well, knowing your usual responses probably not... Here's my responses to the rest of your ill-judged little rant:
"You think it's okay for fans to hack servers and steal music to put all over the internet?
You think it's okay for fans to hack servers and steal books to put all over the internet?"
Notice you say "fan" both times. Not "pirate" nor "anarchist", but "fan". Fan is short for fanatic, a person who follows, enjoys and promotes the product, be it a book or album. Why do you suppose it's OK to alienate these people? Why do you think an artist can still complain about lost sales if they do so?
"To me, it's the fans who are crying foul and taking advantage of technology to screw over these artists who work hard to give people like you entertainment, hopefully while making a living at it."
Most fans have been battling against the whims of the music industry for decades, and that battle has increased over the last decade. The record industry has been hell-bent on first trying to ban products that customers want (MP3 players), then trying to artificially restrict not only the location they can buy the music in, but how and where it can be played back. Of course the fans are going to fight this! The record industry has seen the writing on the wall for a decade, they only have themselves to blame if they continue to refuse to offer this, while the "pirates" do. it's not "screwing over the artists", it's taking back control of music from the RIAA labels, who - surely this doesn't surprise you - do NOT have the artists' best interests at heart either. read up on how the industry has been run for the last few decades if you don't believe me.
"It seems fans expect everything for free (maybe reading Mike's blogs all the time) and now they're making damn sure they get it by whatever means necessary."
Please read my comment, the posts above yours, and many other threads. Nobody is saying this. In fact, The Dears seem to have won over a lot of people who has never heard of them before this incident was reported. People who may now buy the albums, who would never have bought (or even heard) the music if they had not been able to preview it for free.
"Now I'm truly understanding the concept of DRM and why it's there.
It no longer stands for "Digital Rights Management".
Now, it means "Don't Release Me"."
That would be nice. If the only music released was the DRM-free type, the industry, artists and customers would be a lot better off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
Buying music is a bit like buying fruit - to some extent it's a gamble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not about "free", it's about utilising the market successfully. Artificially withholding a product for a month while it's available elsewhere for free neither makes sense nor fits into the above description.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So it's not that simple - I'm pretty sure you can buy this off the arts and crafts site (their label) but most people will look for it on one of the other sites that they are used to using.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Dumbasses - when are those artists going to learn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
DRM is the thing that will not work. Thanks to eMusic and other DRM-free stores, I've gone from buying maybe one or two CDs per month, to buying at least TEN every month. I did use to "pirate", now I don't.
The reason? Reasonably priced, unrestricted music downloads. Unfortunately, not everyone has the relatively independent tastes I do, so the RIAA needs to offer something worthwhile as well. The current mainstream market is a mess, mainly thanks to the RIAA's early attempts at controlling customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Physical production and distribution take time and money. While people are waiting for that to happen, the pirated copy is already out there.
Digital releases should not be delayed. If they have a digital master, it should be available to digital stores (within the timeframe specified by that particular store, at least). The Dears' press release suggests that no version will be released until the 20th October.
For a CD, this makes sense. For digital downloads, you're encouraging people to go to the pirate sites by not giving people the opportunity to buy.
Oh, and it looks like the new album is being released on Dangerbird Records. There's no option to buy the album digitally there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you read anything I said?
First of all - you can buy it right now (arts and crafts records...you can buy the mp3s, the cd's, double vinyl - the whole shooting match, right now) - but most people (as you've just illustrated) don't go to the band website or the record label site to find their albums - they probably go to itunes or amazon or something like that.
Second - I was just pointing out that the most popular outlets for digital sales (itunes, amazon etc.) have a process to add items to their catalog that takes about 2 weeks or more. So most people looking for the album that day, wouldn't find it. This isn't the band's fault, it's just the way itunes works.
Lastly - if you want to buy some of the really cool stuff (the double vinyl album set with the bonus tracks for instance)...it takes time to get those shipped to retailers.
This is why bands have release dates...so that they can be sure that all the places that someone might go to find their music have it on time. It's project management, and that's probably why they weren't nuts about the files being released this early.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Humble retraction
You're right. They should at least have the files available for sale.
silly band.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: perspective
This is indicative of a losing strategy. In general, it seems a better idea would be to use some business modle by which you don't spend money you haven't made yet. just a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: perspective
Most business ventures are at their core, a bit of a gamble. You risk in the hopes of a reward. You invest time trying to sell a service, then you deliver the service and get paid. You manufacture a product in the hopes people will buy it.
Music isn't much different.
risk and reward is the basis of commerce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
On the Metallica side of the coin. I like the new one. I think it's awesome of them to stream some of it online before release. That's one thing, as a fan, that I was hoping for. BTW, I Own 'em All....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
I'm talking about those band who don't chose to give everyone their music for free
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that's my point, again. Yes, if people want a physical release like a vinyl or CD, they will need to wait. That's fine - there are real, physical, logistical reasons why this is so, and those people who want such a release will probably not be swayed by the availability of a digital version.
For the digital release, it's stupid. Look at the dates above. The band's own press release states that while the album was leaked on the 15th Sept, people need to wait until 20th Oct to buy the album. That means there's a 5 week gap where the free pirate digital copy is available, but the legal to buy digital version is not. That is simply stupid. Yes, I accept that online stores will have certain delays between submission and sale, but 5 weeks? That's just the time between the leak and the release - how many more weeks has the master been sitting on someone's hard drive unavailable for sale before the leak even happened?
"This is why bands have release dates...so that they can be sure that all the places that someone might go to find their music have it on time."
No. Bands have release dates so that they can market the album before release. This is only a good move in the physical market, where shelf space is limited and skewed towards new releases. In the digital arena, it's idiotic, especially when a pirate copy is available before that date. Release the album, let the people who want to buy it now do so, and then market towards those who didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
Why do you automatically assume that Band B will lose money, even though the end result (music online for free) is the same for both bands?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
My point is that people like you make the assumption that free music = lost income, while every week there's a new example of a band that managed to make money without depending on selling the music. If you actually read this site properly, the only thing that's ever said is that this is no longer a way to make money and the industry needs to change in order to leverage other income streams.
Yet, you and people like you always seem to parse that as "we want all music for free", even though that's the opposite of what's really said here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
Are those who don't agree with you part of the "you people" crowd?
You win
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article4160553.ece
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there is still hope...
Digital sales - as evidenced by the exact article you linked to - are rising. Other areas of the music industry - such as merchandising and concert sales - are also rising. The only part of the music industry that's having problems is CD sales (even vinyl sales are rising!).
The problem is that the major labels have made shifting plastic discs their major model. they have spent much of the last decade fighting digital sales, so have to play catch up. Sales of digital files aren't catching up quickly enough to balance the loss in demand for CDs. this is as much due to the industry's attempt to first block, then artificially control digital sales as it does with the actions of consumers.
Again, leverage the things that aren't selling to shift those that are, and everyone's happy. Fail to do so, and you end up with the DRM mess that's put many people off buying anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
When a market changes and you refuse to change with it, the results are your fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would it not be more accurate to say:
"When a black market develops to copy your music without paying you and you cry "foul", the creation of the black market and the results as it pertains to your music are your fault."?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Either you believe that you should buy music that is for sale or don't.
Either you believe that giving away music is in the best interests of artists or you don't.
At the end of the day, I think what we'll see is that music recordings will be free, but there won't be as many made. The bands that continue to form will do so in spite of the fact that there's no money in it. The really good ones will charge prohibitively large sums to see them in concert.
And then people will complain that music has become elitist and that only the rich can see a concert.
It used to be that you could buy a record for around $15, go see a concert for around $20 and get a concert shirt for another $20. Now the concert tickets are between $40 to into the $100's of dollars, concert t-shirts are $50 or more..but you can download mp3's off the internet for free..I'm not sure we're any further ahead. Unless you never go to see concerts...in which case, I feel sorry for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technology As Double Edge Sword
"To me, it's the fans who are crying foul and taking advantage of technology to screw over these artists who work hard to give people like you entertainment, hopefully while making a living at it."
The Fans are taking advantage of technology, eh?
In 1800, if a musician wanted to make a buck, they needed to compose and/or perform live constantly. In very basic terms, that's how musicians earned a living.
Then came along recording technology. Vinyl, tape, CDs, whatever. MUSICIANS TOOK ADVANTAGE of this technology to extend the reach of their music, and their profitability. They no longer needed to perform for their music to be enjoyed, they recorded it, and received more money.
Then came other broadcast technology. Radio, TV, MTV, Satellite. MUSICIANS TOOK ADVANTAGE of these to increase the reach of their music, to promote the recorded media, and to get royalties.
Recording equipment and mixing gear have gotten cheaper and cheaper. Not, all that's needed to record and do a high quality mix of a debut album is a freakin Mac. Technology has advanced, and MUSICIANS HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE of lower costs of production.
It seems to me that musicians have been taking GREAT advantage of technology. In the days of Mozart, a great musician like him would need a benefactor just to make a living. Is Britney Spears a better musician than Wolfgang? Somehow, technology has given musicians such phenomenal leverage that someone as mediocre as Nickelback can make thousands of times the riches of Mozart. Technology has multiplied their earning ability like an amplifier pumps up a guitar.
Musicians didn't do a thing to invent radio, TV, vinyl, or CDs, but by gum, they sure have taken advantage. BTW, I don't fault them for this; not one single bit! Why not take advantage? Technology changed, the world changed, and musicians benefited - as did the consumers who had much greater access to music.
But when the Internet age hit, and digital music file technology arrived, then suddenly technology worked differently - for the first time, it wasn't obviously to the great benefit of musicians (or the RIAA). The impacts of this technology are more ambiguous, and work both ways. They are disruptive, and new models are needed. That's scary, forces change, and is often unwelcome.
Well, I say tough @#$%. Technology was great when it made you all wealthy, but now that it has some negative implications, the RIAA and some musicians want to claw back at technology like it's some kind of demon. You can't have it both ways. Either pick up your violin and go play concertos for the Duke in the courtyard in the hopes that he'll toss you a schilling for this month's rent, or accept the technology of the day and deal with it.
Seems the Dears are getting in tune with the latter option.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rolling in it....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: rolling in it....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's completely inaccurate, and not what I implied. I'm simply saying that the market has changed, and relying on a model that longer works makes no sense. It's a simple fact that digital goods cannot be controlled to the level that physical goods can, because they're completely different. So why would you think that they can be sold the same way?
Legal or not, the tracks are going to wind up, for free, on the internet. That's not the fault of the artist by any means - it's a direct result of the basic nature of digital goods. And a business model that takes advantage of that basic nature makes more sense than trying to legislate the stability of the old model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would it not be more accurate to say:
"When a black market develops to copy your music without paying you and you cry "foul", the creation of the black market and the results as it pertains to your music are your fault."?"
No. Here's the (no so) subtle difference:
To address your first quote, markets change all the time. the vinyl market is not the same as the wax cylinder market, nor is it the same as the CD market. I'm sure most people would have little sympathy for those who chose to ignore the vinyl market because they were more interested in the piano roll market. Why, then, should we be expected to shed a tear for those who ignore the digital market, simply because the CD market seemed so lucrative once-upon-a-time?
To address your second "quote", no the *creation* of the black market is not the musicians' fault. However, the black market changes the playing field. It has proven utterly pointless and ineffective to fight said black market, so the sensible choice to counter this is to offer the consumer more. Offer higher margin items, or higher value items, to the customer rather than trying to sue them because they downloaded the leaked copy that came out 6 weeks before the CD.
There are many cliches stated about this situation, but they're all appropriate. Buggy whip makers went out of business, while those who changed their business to include automobiles prospered, even if it meant they were no longer in the buggy whip market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]