West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Classics => Topic started by: Lunatic on November 02, 2008, 07:43:16 PM
-
http://raptalk.net/website/content/view/1027/77/
Article..
Many have argued whether or not music downloading has had a positive or negative effect on the music industry. The easy and simple answer would draw one to say that the effect has been negative because downloading takes away from sales and ultimately takes money out of the artists' pockets. However, a deeper dive into the topic suggests that some artists sure have benefited from having their music downloaded.
The more and more music downloading has come to the light and become popular, the more we have seen artists accept and understand it and since that has had happened, we've seen an abundant of artists releasing music for free; especially on the west coast.
A perfect example of this is Dr. Dre protege Bishop Lamont. Lamont has been signed to Interscope Records for over two years now, still awaiting the opportunity to put out a debut album. However, Lamont has been able to stay relevant and keep his fans interested in his music and anticipating his debut album. How can one do that while not even putting out an album? Lamont released three albums for free in the year 2007 alone. Before artists accepted downloading, when had you ever heard of an artist putting out an album for free, let alone THREE in one year? Lamont saw these three albums gain thousands and thousands of free downloads, keeping fans interested with new music and gaining new fans along the way.
So before you claim that downloading is completely negative and doesn't help the artists at all, see and understand how such artists as Bishop Lamont has found a way to benefit from it.
-
I try to bump this again; (since it´s related) take your time and read.... ;)
Dollars and Sense: Second Edition (Friday June 13th, 2008)
http://www.dubcnn.com/blogs/dollarsandsense/
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=183781.msg1877570#msg1877570
(http://www.dubcnn.com/blogs/dollarsandsense/dubcnn.jpg)
People like free, but will it translate into sales?
By Eric Engelwood
So I had my iTunes on shuffle trying to come up with something to write about when it dawned on me:
The West Coast is at the forefront of marketing in the music industry. iTunes played me Crooked I’s Hip-hop Weekly #19.
That track was followed up by Bishop Lamont’s City Lights, which was followed up by Problem’s I’m toe up remix.
The West Coast is putting out quality music for free, so how will artists make money?
Will this tactic of "free music" pan out or will we see another generation of angry West Coast rappers shunned by the industry?
Think about it for a second: Crooked I put out 52 weeks of free music. That’s nearly four albums worth of free music.
Bishop Lamont has put out three album quality mixtapes in a little over a year.
Artists regularly put fully mixed and mastered tracks on Dubcnn, Lyay.net and countless other media outlets for free.
This is a brand new way of marketing and it’s time for artists to take advantage of this new model. Welcome to music 2.0.
Artists are building grassroots fanbases , but are they utilizing them accordingly?
In order to succeed, touring, direct to fan sales, and other revenue streams should be examined.
For every artist that puts out a track for free, there should a plan to make money behind it.
Will that track get that gets the club jumping translate into touring money?
Can you license that song about your favorite booze to the booze company for a commercial?
For the New West artists reading this -
Imagine for a second that you NEVER made a cent from selling a physical CD or a track online.
How would you make money from your music?
If you can list three things off the top of your head then you’re in good shape.
If not, get brainstorming. Like I said in my last blog post: Throw some sh*t at a wall and see what sticks.
Think about different ways of monetizing your music in other ways than just selling tracks or CD’s.
The music industry is going through a sea change, but with the right angle the West Coast can come out ahead.
The sooner artists realize the way of making money in the music industry has changed,
the sooner they can come up with new ways to get their paper.
Well,the move Prince did was pretty genius;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)
n June 28, 2007, the UK national newspaper The Mail on Sunday
revealed that it had made a deal to give Prince's new album, Planet Earth,
away for free with an "imminent" edition of the paper, making it the first place in the world to get the album.
The date chosen was July 15, 2007.
This move has sparked controversy among music distributors and has also led the UK arm of Prince's distributor, Sony BMG, to withdraw from distributing the album in UK stores.[31]
The UK's largest high street music retailer, HMV decided to stock the paper on release day due to the giveaway.
How about XXL and/or The Source do the same?
And let advertisers pay the bills. I'm sure advertisers would pay up.
The albums would get world wide distribution in news stands all over the world.
This could also be a option;
In Rapper’s Deal, a New Model for Music Business
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/arts/music/03jayz.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1_r=1&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
By JEFF LEEDS Published: April 3, 2008
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/02/arts/jay190.jpg)
LOS ANGELES — In a move that reflects the anarchy sweeping the music business, the superstar rapper Jay-Z, who released his latest album to lukewarm sales five months ago, is on the verge of closing a deal with a concert promoter that rivals the biggest music contracts ever awarded.
Jay-Z plans to depart his longtime record label, Def Jam, for a roughly $150 million package with the concert giant Live Nation that includes financing for his own entertainment venture, in addition to recordings and tours for the next decade. The pact, expected to be finalized this week, is the most expansive deal yet from Live Nation, which has angled to compete directly with the industry’s established music labels in a scrum over the rights to distribute recordings, sell concert tickets, market merchandise and control other aspects of artists’ careers.
As CD sales plunge, an array of players — including record labels, promoters and advertisers — are racing to secure deals that cut them in on a larger share of an artist’s overall revenue. Live Nation has already struck less comprehensive pacts with Madonna and U2.
In Jay-Z, Live Nation has lined up with a longtime star who, after toiling as a self-described hustler on the streets of Brooklyn, earned acclaim as a rapper and cachet as a mogul.
Live Nation’s core business has revolved around major rock and country tours, and with Jay-Z it is making an unexpected foray into hip-hop. The company is also placing an enormous wager on a performer who, like many others, has experienced declining record sales. (Last year’s “American Gangster” sold one million copies in the United States; “The Black Album,” from 2003, sold well over three million.)
But the arrangement would also position Live Nation to participate in a range of new deals with Jay-Z, one of music’s most entrepreneurial stars, whose past ventures have included the Rocawear clothing line, which he sold last year for $204 million, and the chain of 40/40 nightclubs.
Jay-Z, 38, whose real name is Shawn Carter, owes one more studio album to Def Jam, where he was president for three years before stepping down in December after he and the label’s corporate parent, Universal Music Group, could not agree on a more lucrative contract.
His first undertaking with Live Nation is his current 28-date tour with Mary J. Blige, his biggest live outing in more than three years. After that, Live Nation envisions integrating the marketing of all Jay-Z’s entertainment endeavors, including recordings, tours and endorsements.
“I’ve turned into the Rolling Stones of hip-hop,” Jay-Z said in a recent telephone interview.
The deal answers a question that had been circling through the rap world for months: Where would Jay-Z take his next corporate role? As part of the arrangement, Live Nation would finance the start-up of a venture that would be an umbrella for his outside projects, which are expected to include his own label, music publishing, and talent consulting and managing. Live Nation is expected to contribute $5 million a year in overhead for five years, with another $25 million available to finance Jay-Z’s acquisitions or investments, according to people in the music industry briefed on the agreement. The venture, to be called Roc Nation, will split profits with Live Nation.
The overall package for Jay-Z also includes an upfront payment of $25 million, a general advance of $25 million that includes fees for his current tour, and advance payment of $10 million an album for a minimum of three albums during the deal’s 10-year term, these people said. A series of other payments adding up to about $20 million is included in exchange for certain publishing, licensing and other rights. Jay-Z said Live Nation’s consolidated approach was in sync with the emerging potential “to reach the consumer in so many different ways right now.” He added: “Everyone’s trying to figure it out. I want to be on the front lines in that fight.”
The popularity of music downloads has revolutionized how music is consumed, and widespread piracy has contributed to an industry meltdown in which traditional album sales — composed mostly of the two-decades-old CD format — have slumped by more than a third since 2000. (The best seller in 2007, Josh Groban’s “Noël,” sold 3.7 million copies, compared with 9.9 million for the top album in 2000, according to Nielsen SoundScan.)
That has further pressured record-label executives to rewrite the economics of their business and step beyond the sale of albums in an attempt to wring revenue out of everything from ring tones to artist fan clubs.
Jay-Z said that his future as an artist could involve elevating the role of live performances, long a mixed bag even for popular rap acts.
“In a way I want to operate like an indie band,” he said. “Play the music on tour instead of relying on radio. Hopefully we’ll get some hits out of there and radio will pick it up, but we won’t make it with that in mind.”
Though sales for Jay-Z’s tour with Ms. Blige have been strong since it began on March 22, with almost all the early dates resulting in sold-out arenas, it is unclear when Live Nation could carry out other aspects of the deal. (Jay-Z said that he hoped to deliver his final album for Def Jam later this year.)
Critics of Live Nation, which lost nearly $12 million last year, predict that it would be difficult to turn a profit on the arrangement, given the continuing decline in record sales and the mixed track record of artist-run ventures. Shares in the company have suffered since October when Live Nation negotiated a reported $120 million deal with Madonna.
Michael Cohl, Live Nation’s chairman, said he was not worried. Though he declined to discuss terms of the Jay-Z arrangement, he said it did not require an increase in record sales to be profitable. “He could be doing more tours and doing great,” Mr. Cohl said. “There could be endorsements and sponsorships.” He added, “The whole is what’s important.”
He cited Jay-Z’s forays into a host of other businesses as a model for Live Nation. “What he’s done has kind of mirrored what we want to do and where we think we’re going.”
Some executives at major record labels have privately portrayed Live Nation’s artist deals as overly expensive retirement packages for stars past their prime.
Others disagree. “I’d much rather be in the business of marketing a superstar who cost me a lot of money than taking the 1-in-10, demonstrably failing crapshoot” of signing unknown talents, said Jeffrey Light, a Los Angeles entertainment attorney, referring to the traditional record company model.
But the dimensions of the competition could change if Live Nation begins vying for the same emerging artists that the labels hope to sign. Live Nation is negotiating with a Georgia rock act, the Zac Brown Band, after apparently wooing it away from an offer by Atlantic Records, according to music executives briefed on the talks.
Jay-Z, for his part, suggested that the string of stars to exit the major-label system would also signal to younger acts how to plot their careers. He said that rising artists will be thinking: “ ‘Something must be happening. Madonna did it, she’s not slow. Jay-Z, he’s not slow either.’ ”
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album, this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
-
A perfect example of this is Dr. Dre protege Bishop Lamont. Lamont has been signed to Interscope Records for over two years now, still awaiting the opportunity to put out a debut album. However, Lamont has been able to stay relevant and keep his fans interested in his music and anticipating his debut album. How can one do that while not even putting out an album? Lamont released three albums for free in the year 2007 alone. Before artists accepted downloading, when had you ever heard of an artist putting out an album for free, let alone THREE in one year? Lamont saw these three albums gain thousands and thousands of free downloads, keeping fans interested with new music and gaining new fans along the way.
Bishop Lamont doesn't have much of a buzz outside of the audience that we belong to.
-
A perfect example of this is Dr. Dre protege Bishop Lamont. Lamont has been signed to Interscope Records for over two years now, still awaiting the opportunity to put out a debut album. However, Lamont has been able to stay relevant and keep his fans interested in his music and anticipating his debut album. How can one do that while not even putting out an album? Lamont released three albums for free in the year 2007 alone. Before artists accepted downloading, when had you ever heard of an artist putting out an album for free, let alone THREE in one year? Lamont saw these three albums gain thousands and thousands of free downloads, keeping fans interested with new music and gaining new fans along the way.
Bishop Lamont doesn't have much of a buzz outside of the audience that we belong to.
but u can't argue that putting out those free albums has been positive for his fan base
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album, this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
It's certainly interestiing how these big companies value their losses. Like I would buy a 50 Cent or Jay Z albums if I couldn't download them...umm no. I got much of average music on my hard drive that I would never pay for, I maybe listen to those albums 1-2 times a year.
-
off course the album sales wont increase,but I´m sure there´s a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
Tell me this honestly. How much do you really think they would give to the artists? They fuck them over allways so why not in this case?
More money to the big industry people again.
-
off course the album sales wont increase,but I´m sure there´s a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
Tell me this honestly. How much do you really think they would give to the artists?
They fuck them over allways so why not in this case?
More money to the big industry people again.
Some money is better than nothing... or?
Right now it´s "us" that´s fucking the artists,and "we´re" giving them nothing. :P
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
off course the album sales wont increase,but I´m sure there´s a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
But you got me confused with;
it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
ehhh? why do people download? :P :P :laugh:
let me formulate it differently; the fee is meant to counter downloading.
it's like punishing a kid for skipping school, without paying any attention why the kid skipped school in the first place.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
are you kidding thats retarded
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
are you kidding thats retarded
No I ain't kidding... I'm just throwing out ideas,not saying that's necessary the right way. ;)
I posted some other ideas above; (Prince and Jay-Z) (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=199635.msg2021998#msg2021998) , but no one picked up on that or really contributed with other ideas :P :P :-\
-
solutions on how the record business can start making money again:
-use the album more as a marketing tool then the final asset.
-actually promote the album beyond a few weeks, throw the
artists on promotional tours and get them out to the fans.
-bring back artist development, actually keep an artist long enough
to build a healthy fan base.
-stop being scared of the digital age, focus more on digital
sales of the album and make it easier for people to pay for it.
-keep the artist in the right markets, don't try and make
every band out to be the next U2, or every singer to be
the next modanna.
-INNOVATION: whens the last time any of yall bought an
album with really dope presentation(cover, promo, videos, etc etc)
-stop focusing on first week album sales. they don't matter.
some albums may not blast off right away, but they will eventually.
-once again, stop giving everyone such huge budgets.
stop spending so much, before you know revenue will come in.
-digital singles, digital singles, digital singles, focus focus focus.
-and last but not least, PUT OUT QUALITY PRODUCT.
no ones buying any albums right now cuz they all fucking suck.
stop saturating the market with so much bullshit. get better
a & r who actually do the research, and look for mainstay
style artists instead of one hit wonders. or sign the one hit wonders
to single deals as opposed to album deals. make it quality though.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
off course the album sales wont increase,but I'm sure there's a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
But you got me confused with;
it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
ehhh? why do people download? :P :P :laugh:
let me formulate it differently; the fee is meant to counter downloading.
it's like punishing a kid for skipping school, without paying any attention why the kid skipped school in the first place.
There's a lot of reasons why kids skip school.... :P
and probably just as many reasons why people download illegally. :P
So I ask you again why do people download? (since it ain't a solution) :P
sure, i just brought up the example to get my point across ;) so don't focus too much on the example itself ;)
by the way, i wasn't dodging your question; i guess i just misinterpreted it ;)
i thought you didn't actually want me to give reasons for why people download.
i thought you had a different meaning with that question ;)
anyway, yeah there are several reasons why people download, such as: there are a lot of sources for downloading music so it's an easy way to obtain music+ it's free so you save a lot of money
-
Damn Lunatic... you let these 2 nitwits take over your thread?
-
Damn Lunatic... you let these 2 nitwits take over your thread?
yeah what are you going to do about it, start a petition ;D
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
off course the album sales wont increase,but I'm sure there's a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
But you got me confused with;
it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
ehhh? why do people download? :P :P :laugh:
let me formulate it differently; the fee is meant to counter downloading.
it's like punishing a kid for skipping school, without paying any attention why the kid skipped school in the first place.
There's a lot of reasons why kids skip school.... :P
and probably just as many reasons why people download illegally. :P
So I ask you again why do people download? (since it ain't a solution) :P
sure, i just brought up the example to get my point across ;) so don't focus too much on the example itself ;)
by the way, i wasn't dodging your question; i guess i just misinterpreted it ;)
i thought you didn't actually want me to give reasons for why people download.
i thought you had a different meaning with that question ;)
anyway, yeah there are several reasons why people download, such as:
there are a lot of sources for downloading music so it's an easy way to obtain music
+ it's free so you save a lot of money
those reasons is obvious :P....
who is going to pay for it?
-the record company
-the artists themself
-consumers
-sponsors
?
you mean literally? for the so called "loss"?
-
Positive effect that has been brought is obviously exposure to artists that noone would normally fuck with cuz they hadnt heard of them and wouldnt want to risk their own money by buying a cd that could potentially contain crap!
However at the same time people giving away freebees and mixtaping it up alot more has seen that alot of crap is whats left to be put on albums and also alot less care is being put in by artists and labels cuz the artist thinks 'why should I try to make a classic if people arent gunna buy it/just gunna d/l it?" and labels think that they are losing all this money by d/l instead of focusing on the newly exposed artists... there needs to be a smart solution that I cant even think of right now (if I could I would become a fucken rich man haha!) Becoming an independent artist seems to be a solution for many right now cuz they get a better cut but the sales dont seem to add up fanwise as far as I have seen...
I seem to have brought up more problems than solutions :P :P but this is an outlet so im also curious to see some peoples solutions to all these problems,
PEACE 8)
-
I download because I'm sick of paying for a subpar product. I spend my money on artists I support. CDs can't be returned after they are opened, so I make sure the music is worth my time, just as I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
off course the album sales wont increase,but I'm sure there's a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
But you got me confused with;
it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
ehhh? why do people download? :P :P :laugh:
let me formulate it differently; the fee is meant to counter downloading.
it's like punishing a kid for skipping school, without paying any attention why the kid skipped school in the first place.
There's a lot of reasons why kids skip school.... :P
and probably just as many reasons why people download illegally. :P
So I ask you again why do people download? (since it ain't a solution) :P
sure, i just brought up the example to get my point across ;) so don't focus too much on the example itself ;)
by the way, i wasn't dodging your question; i guess i just misinterpreted it ;)
i thought you didn't actually want me to give reasons for why people download.
i thought you had a different meaning with that question ;)
anyway, yeah there are several reasons why people download, such as:
there are a lot of sources for downloading music so it's an easy way to obtain music
+ it's free so you save a lot of money
those reasons is obvious :P....
who is going to pay for it?
-the record company
-the artists themself
-consumers
-sponsors
?
you mean literally? for the so called "loss"?
yeah..... so called?
ok ;)
yeah i said so called, as i think the claims by the labels that they've lost a certain amount of money, is not equal to the actual loss (as i stated before)
-
I download because I'm sick of paying for a subpar product. I spend my money on artists I support. CDs can't be returned after they are opened, so I make sure the music is worth my time, just as I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive.
what if you got a sampler with 30-60 sec of each track to listen to first?
Sometimes it takes a day or two in different environments to make my final decision. Occasionally it takes a little bit for an album to grow on me.
-
well it's simple.
when somebody downloads an album,
this doesn't automatically mean that a digital or physical purchase was lost.
don't listen to the major labels
How about charging a extra 1000$ yearly to everyone with a internet connection?
That should cover some of the loss the music and movie industry suffer.
nah man, that's not fair.
why not?
well like i said, one download is not equal to a loss of an album purchase.
you can say that downloading is 'stealing' though.
besides, it's not fair to make every internet user responsible for the projected loss.
it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
I would argue that it would solve part of the problem.
Then everything could be out in the open.
I might be wrong though :P ;)
it could make downloading a lot less attractive.
but it only compensates the labels; it wouldn't necessarily lead to an increase of album sales.
so again, it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
off course the album sales wont increase,but I'm sure there's a way to figure out number off downloads.
So they can divide the money to the artists. Same with movies and TV Shows.
But you got me confused with;
it's not a solution for why people download in the first place.
ehhh? why do people download? :P :P :laugh:
let me formulate it differently; the fee is meant to counter downloading.
it's like punishing a kid for skipping school, without paying any attention why the kid skipped school in the first place.
There's a lot of reasons why kids skip school.... :P
and probably just as many reasons why people download illegally. :P
So I ask you again why do people download? (since it ain't a solution) :P
sure, i just brought up the example to get my point across ;) so don't focus too much on the example itself ;)
by the way, i wasn't dodging your question; i guess i just misinterpreted it ;)
i thought you didn't actually want me to give reasons for why people download.
i thought you had a different meaning with that question ;)
anyway, yeah there are several reasons why people download, such as:
there are a lot of sources for downloading music so it's an easy way to obtain music
+ it's free so you save a lot of money
those reasons is obvious :P....
who is going to pay for it?
-the record company
-the artists themself
-consumers
-sponsors
?
you mean literally? for the so called "loss"?
yeah..... so called?
ok ;)
yeah i said so called, as i think the claims by the labels that they've lost a certain amount of money, is not equal to the actual loss (as i stated before)
it could be that the numbers ain´t right..... ;)
but whatever the numbers are,this is a problem. ;)
So you´re just going around the problem :laugh:
So come up with something better :P ;)
i wasn't dodging on purpose, i was just checking whether i understood you correctly :laugh: ;)
besides, how can i come up with something better , while i haven't even provided a possible solution yet :D ;D ;)
i may do so later though ;)
-
at the rate things are going artist are forced to look on the bright side of the downloading issue because its no way to actually combat it
-
We’ll see. In order to make me come out and deal with this bulls**t, ya know, it’s going to cost. It ain’t no avenue to get paid f**king with this s**t because you can get it for free, ya see? Why do you do it, for free? You get f**ked twice making music these days. The record company f**k you the first time, and then the people that listen to your shit f**k you the second time dude. There’s no way for the artist to get paid unless you can afford to sell eight million records [chuckle].
AllHipHop.com: What about shows; show money?
I mean, f**k show money. F**k the show money. You need fa sho money. You need mechanicals, you need to make as much money as these god damn corporate offices is making. It’s your talent. You wrote that s**t. F**k them god damn concerts n***a, give me my motherf**king money. All them god damn records, you sold them god damn records, you need to, “Here.”
You making songs now and they just popping up on the Internet. N****s is downloading your s**t for nothing and the light bill is due. F**k. That’s why I say I’m gone. I gotta find something else to do. It’s not feasible to stick around. It ain’t no money in it. It’s like selling rocks and motherf**kers ain’t smoking no more. Everybody selling. All the dope fiends got clean and they selling rocks to nobody.
(scarface)
-
We’ll see. In order to make me come out and deal with this bulls**t, ya know, it’s going to cost. It ain’t no avenue to get paid f**king with this s**t because you can get it for free, ya see? Why do you do it, for free? You get f**ked twice making music these days. The record company f**k you the first time, and then the people that listen to your shit f**k you the second time dude. There’s no way for the artist to get paid unless you can afford to sell eight million records [chuckle].
AllHipHop.com: What about shows; show money?
I mean, f**k show money. F**k the show money. You need fa sho money. You need mechanicals, you need to make as much money as these god damn corporate offices is making. It’s your talent. You wrote that s**t. F**k them god damn concerts n***a, give me my motherf**king money. All them god damn records, you sold them god damn records, you need to, “Here.”
You making songs now and they just popping up on the Internet. N****s is downloading your s**t for nothing and the light bill is due. F**k. That’s why I say I’m gone. I gotta find something else to do. It’s not feasible to stick around. It ain’t no money in it. It’s like selling rocks and motherf**kers ain’t smoking no more. Everybody selling. All the dope fiends got clean and they selling rocks to nobody.
(scarface)
With all due respect to Scarface, he needs to get with the program. These are the days of old anymore. Artists can't just release a record and expect to sell a million copies in the first month. Everyone is a damn rapper these days, so it has to be the hustle that seperate those who will make it and those who won't. Scarface gets fat ass royalty checks every month for radio spins of 20 year old songs and he talks like he's starving. If he wants to stay musically relevant and get more money, he'll do like every other rapper and perform shows. Fans who go to shows pay $20+ and they tend to buy merchandise like shirts. A small 3000 person venue would make for a pretty good takeaway minus club fees and liquor license.
-
Scarface gets fat ass royalty checks every month for radio spins of 20 year old songs
are you sure ?
scarface is not so commercial....
-
Scarface gets fat ass royalty checks every month for radio spins of 20 year old songs
are you sure ?
scarface is not so commercial....
Says who? Scarface might not get consistant play on Cali radio, but I'd be willing to bet you a hefty amount that he is played constantly in the south. And he has made plenty of mainstream/crossover hits in his career to keep him paid. If the Luniz are still getting big paychecks from "I Got 5 On It", then Scarface is probably doing just fine.
-
it had a positive effect...it shows people don't wanna hear wack music.
-
I may do so later though ;)
patiently waiting..... ;) (part 2)
good luck with that :laugh:
Detox could come first
-
Related thread;
How Many Of Y'all...(Digital Download Related) (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=201099.msg2035059#msg2035059)
I may do so later though ;)
patiently waiting..... ;) (part 2)
good luck with that :laugh:
Detox could come first
you mean when 2PAC gets back from Brazil? (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=201704.msg2041418#msg2041418)
RIAA adopts new antipiracy strategy
http://www.rlslog.net/riaa-adopts-new-antipiracy-strategy/
(http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:N296SQB1WycXdM:http://www.ibiblio.org/thehill/issues/issue_7/images/RIAA.jpg)
The record industry has dropped its longtime legal strategy of targeting individuals suspected of sharing music files online and is working instead with Internet service providers to send warnings before considering a lawsuit.The new strategy, disclosed Friday, doesn’t mean the Recording Industry Association of America will stop filing lawsuits. However, legal action will be directed only at people who ignore repeated notices. The new tactic would have not affect on pending lawsuits. The RIAA told The Wall Street Journal that the industry was changing to a tactic that it believed would be more effective in reducing the amount of illegal file sharing that takes place on peer-to-peer Web sites.
The RIAA’s lack of effectiveness so far is reflected in the latest numbers from consulting firm the NPD Group. In the third quarter of this year, the number of people sharing music on P2P sites held steady at 14%, but the number of tracks shared rose by 23%. In the meantime, CD sales continue to plummet. Under the new strategy, the RIAA is working with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and ISPs on a number of voluntary online anti-piracy initiatives that would include service providers passing along RIAA copyright infringement notices to subscribers. Those people who ignore repeated notices would face the possibility of having their service reduced and possibly suspended before a lawsuit is considered. In return for ISP cooperation, the RIAA would no longer file lawsuits to force the service providers to turn over identifying information of suspected illegal file sharers.
TOP 5 Suspects Accused of Killing Hip Hop in 2008
http://www.youtube.com/v/qGPaalIZpjg&hl=en&fs=1
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2008/12/visiting-with-p.html
Prince will release not one, but three albums in the new year.
He's in final negotiations with "a major retailer" to distribute the music in physical form, and a highly interactive website will also provide an opportunity to buy.
He's not working with a record label.
"The gatekeepers have to change," he said several times throughout the evening.
-
^ it's been a month since the last reply. let the thread rest.
-
“I’ve turned into the Rolling Stones of hip-hop,” Jay-Z said in a recent telephone interview.
what a jackass. there's no Jay-z Magazine anywhere
-
Something in the right direction;
Adidas
presents Damani - "Congratulations Player"
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6527/damaniadidascvxo4.jpg) (http://www.zshare.net/download/55907129d41d43ed/)
-
you make a good point Raide, but it's not 10 bucks. cds are always more than that, around me at least. but if they were 10 bucks or less i may buy more.
now, i am the customer....the industry should cater to me. buying cds is not rewarded. the most practical music listening methods no longer involve cds.
i bought cds until very recently but eventually it became clear to me that downloading (legally through purchase or otherwise) was the way things were going...but my I.E. dwelling ass has yet to buy an ipod or anything like that....I got an external hard drive a while back but between ages 18-21 (i'm 21 now) as i'm sure many of you know...real life hits and i have practical ass broke college kid shit to pay for.
i've supported these artists for years, i have shelves of their records (some much whacker than others. i bought the wash soundtrack for god sakes) and they haven't done shit for me so I feel no guilt for downloading some of the shit, especially since it pisses me off that cats like dre leave so much desirable material unreleased and unconsolidated so once more...no guilt here.
i agree with Jrome, let the majors crumble. rich artists like dre will always have outlets for their work.
-T
;)