| Author |
Topic: The MP3 Economy |
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
|
|
 |
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 17 Jun 2003 7:34 pm |
|
| Very interesting. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 17 Jun 2003 9:54 pm
|
|
Chas, I'm interested in your opinion on something.
First, is it just a mistaken notion on my part, or are artists consistently getting a worse deal from labels than they were, say, 25-30 years ago?
Second, if this is true, how much do you think this is due to the fact that success and fame have become so important to so many, that labels therefore know they have the upper hand and can pretty much get what they want from the deal? [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 17 June 2003 at 10:55 PM.] [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 17 June 2003 at 10:56 PM.] |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 17 Jun 2003 11:02 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| First, is it just a mistaken notion on my part, or are artists consistently getting a worse deal from labels than they were, say, 25-30 years ago? |
Jeff, I'm probably not the best informed person to answer this. From what little I know, it seems that there is less or no interest in developing an artist. They are expected to "blockbuster" from the start and/or require very little effort from the label to sell product. I can't speak about deals although there seems to be more awareness about the contracts, but it's coming at a time when the traditional way of selling product is changing.
I work with a band that's trying to get signed by one of the majors and the paperwork we've seen so far is pretty much what would be expected. One that we signed is a licencing deal for stuff we've already recorded. In return for them placing a song or more, we give up 50% of publishing. Our thinking was, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
I can't talk about the other stuff, but suffice it to say that what the majors have to offer is distribution and promotion, which costs a lot of money, and they want a good return on their investment whether it was risky or not.
Personally, I've been on Cold Blue Music for over 20 years. Cold Blue is a vanity label. What that means is I'm responsible for writing, recording, producing and mastering the music for my records/cds. I'm also responsible for delivering the finished master and the artwork to the label and I pay for the glass master and the pressing/packaging. So essentially I deliver 1500 cd's to Cold Blue which costs me, not including recording and equipment costs, between $8 and $12k depending on how difficult the mastering was and how complicated the artwork was. In return, I exist as a composer under the aegis of Cold Blue.
Cold Blue is responsible for distribution and promotion and we split the profits. I own my masters and the publishing. This is important because if there ever is any money to be made, this is where it will come from.
Right now, almost anybody with a computer and a minimum of equipment can put out a cd, and that is, in fact, what is happening. There is a blizzard of "product" so how does one get noticed and that's where the label is practically mandatory.
| Quote: |
| Second, if this is true, how much do you think this is due to the fact that success and fame have become so important to so many, that labels therefore know they have the upper hand and can pretty much get what they want from the deal? |
Success and fame have always been the hook. I've met a lot of people for whom being famous was their only goal in life and they were willing to do whatever it took to get there. The labels, and any business, for that matter, are not in business to be your friend. If they can get something for nothing, or a lot for a little, that's what they're going to do. There are countries where the artist is reverred, here, more often than not, the artist is just another commodity. |
|
|
|
Alvin Blaine
From:
Picture Rocks, Arizona, USA
|
Posted 18 Jun 2003 12:24 am
|
|
I just heard Sen. Orrin Hatch on the news saying how songwriters and artist are losing money and geting ripped off by the P2P file downloading. It looks like they are geting "ripped off" with the legit MP3 downloads.
Here is what Sen. Hatch wants to do about the "illegal" MP3 downloads.
____________________________________________
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday he favours developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.
The surprise remarks by Senator Orrin Hatch during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the battle by industry executives and lawmakers against illegal music downloads.
During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading.
_____________________________________________ |
|
|
|
CrowBear Schmitt
From:
Ariege, - PairO'knees, - France
|
Posted 18 Jun 2003 1:49 am
|
|
the Horror never stops ! 
------------------
Steel what?
|
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 18 Jun 2003 5:06 am
|
|
Yes, but stealing from your neighbor does not give him the right to wreck your car or burn down your house and get away with it.
Stealing is against the law and so is destroying someone elses property.
Sen Hatch..what are you thinking ?
How many MP3's are out there because the artist wants us to have access to it ?
I agree that something needs to be done but destroying a PC is not a solution..
(We'll just use someone elses PC )
Why can't you just make an MP3 " UN-Downloadable" and only " Listenable " ?
Kinda like a PDF file....with attached security options...
We can send a cruise missle from the North Atlantic into someones bedroom window in Iraq but we can't make an MP3 Un-available for download ?
tp
[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 18 June 2003 at 06:09 AM.] |
|
|
|
Gino Iorfida
From:
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted 18 Jun 2003 6:18 am
|
|
Another way to look at the "trading of MP3's" First off, what is the difference if I download an MP3, or dub a copy off of a friend's CD? nothing. WHat is the difference if I record a song as it is played on the radio, or I download an MP3? nothing.
The MP3 sharing services (you all know what they are), are great for folks like myself, playing in a country band that does a lot of the 'new' garbage that is out on the radio (it's what the people in the bars want to dance to etc). I would NEVER for a million years go out and buy a Toby Keith, Keith Urban, or Kenny Chesney CD. So to learn the songs, I'd either record the song off the radio, expect someone in the band to make me a copy of the song to learn, or what is easier, and more convenient for me, download the song, learn it, and then delete it (I have no need for it after I learn it... ti's bad enough the songs are overplayed on radio and I have to play them *laugh*).
Is ti hurting the artists that i'm downloading the songs and not buying the CDs? no, because I would find other means to hear the songs to learn... if anything, I may actually be HELPING them sell CD's... after all, the average clubgoer, hears say a Kenny Chesney song on the radio and thinks nothing of it, yet they go out to the bar with friends, is daancing to a song they are familiar with, having a good time, they now want to go buy the cd, because it will remind them of the night they went out for their friends birthday and had a good time etc... I guess folks can't see the other side of things when they are in govt. and only care in controlling eveyr aspect of our lives... |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 18 Jun 2003 12:20 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why can't you just make an MP3 " UN-Downloadable" and only " Listenable " ? |
To listen to data, the stream of bytes must reach a player. Any stream of bytes can be captured, and anything that can be captured can be stored.
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax |
|
|
|
Bill Llewellyn
From:
San Jose, CA
|
Posted 19 Jun 2003 6:53 am
|
|
The music industry will probably come up with a way to make CD's non-rippable in order to prevent unauthorized music distribution. My guess is file sharing types would likely step around this using digital-analog-digital dubs. That's where the CD (even a copy-protected CD) is played back normally to analog outputs (like the RCA jacks on a CD player) and that signal is re-digitized by a PC. The finished (WAV, AIFF) file is then compressed to MP3 and there you have a non-protected file. The sound quality would be just as good as today's directly ripped MP3s since the MP3 compression everybody already uses causes a lot more (and apparently acceptable) sound degradation than the digital->analog->digital (I'll call it DAD) dubbing process I just mentioned. My prediction is that if the music industry ever does make digital material non-copy-able, an underground DAD movement will arise and MP3 sharing of music of the same quality as exists today would remain. (Incidentally, some CD ripping software has this option already built-in.)
Please note that I am not promoting such an idea--I've personally never even visited any of the music sharing sites, ever. In fact, I have my own music online which I wouldn't want "Napstered". It just seems obvious to me that folks who maintain music sharing sites like what Napster used to be would have no problem making this leap to the "DAD" process to get around copy protection (or the possibility of computer destruction, as was recently proposed). Basically, I think the horse is out of the barn, for better or for worse....[This message was edited by Bill Llewellyn on 19 June 2003 at 08:33 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 20 Jun 2003 10:53 am
|
|
You're absolutely right, Bill. At some point, all music has to become an analog signal to drive speakers. The analog signal can easily be captured and re-digitized. No copy protection scheme in the world can ever prevent that.
The solution is to make music products that are worth paying for. For me, the manufactured CD, tray card and liner notes are valuable as a permanent storage media for the music I enjoy. A collection of MP3 CD-R's with homemade labels just doesn't have the same inherent value.
------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 20 Jun 2003 10:59 am
|
|
Bobby, yes I am aware of the data stream..My point was and is ..we are now at a technological evolution that these things should be possible rather than burning down your neighbors PC...
maybe it's time for an MP4 ?? |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 20 Jun 2003 9:30 pm
|
|
There should be away for at the last minute a file to be made CPU specific for playback when purchased. It will run on you registered computer, but not on others. Unless your a good hacker.
This may mean a small program on your comuter distributed by the online vendor that references the system on set up.
Then all down loads are keyed to that prgrams key code. They do it with software, why not sound files too.
I am sure there will be ways around it for the enterprising, but it would slow down a great amount of piracy. |
|
|
|
Bill Llewellyn
From:
San Jose, CA
|
Posted 23 Jun 2003 7:10 am
|
|
b0b,
Actually there are ways that can prevent analog duplication. The problem is that they are generally audible and considered to degrade the quality of the recording. An example is a technique that was being considered when DAT machines came out, wherein an extremely narrow notch filter was used to knock out one thin band of frequencies from the sound. If an appropriately equipped recording device sensed that this sliver of frequencies was missing from the incoming music, it would refuse to record it. Of course, that meant that some sound was being lost, and the resulting objections to the compromised audio caused the technique not to be implemented in the marketplace. But somebody somewhere may yet come up with a scheme for analog copy protection which does not perceptably degrade the sound.
------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Dedring
From:
Beacon, New York, USA
|
Posted 23 Jun 2003 8:08 am
|
|
| The fact is that copy protection is being put onto some new cds, but the only thing that prevents copying is not technological, but legal. I forget the encoding scheme, but "protected" CDs that will not play in Computer CD drives are being slipped into the marketplace right now. HOWEVER: every company that makes mp3 players has quietly said that they could quite easily make a software crack that would defeat the protection. The only reason they won't is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. DMCA says that making decryption technology is in and of itself a crime. This was the issue that came up with DeCSS, the DVD decrypting code written by a 15 year old a couple of years ago. The industry made a fuss, and everyone mirroring access to DeCSS was given a Cease and Desist order, but they only have force and effect here in the US. The fact that they expected to stop theft with a crypto-scheme that was cracked in 15 or 20 lines of code, by a high school sophomore is ridiculous. Frankly, if Rio can make a hack for CD burning, then a lot of people out there can, and will do the same. |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 27 Jun 2003 7:02 am
|
|
So, the music provider gets 40%?
IF that's "excessive profit" (I have no idea), then there's a clear opportunity for somebody else to offer a similar service while only receiving 20%.
Here's the chance for "unkowns" to band together and start selling their music online, it would seem.
Why somebody hasn't come up with a site like countrysongwriters.com or realcountrymusic.com and put LOTS of artists (unsigned ones, obviously) on there for download is a question I still have.
Heck, I've even thought about it myself. But, how much of the $1.00 per song (or $0.50 per song) would I need to make it worth my while?
*Somebody* needs to do it. |
|
|
|
Bill Crook
From:
Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance
|
Posted 5 Jul 2003 2:43 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| At some point, all music has to become an analog signal to drive speakers. The analog signal can easily be captured and re-digitized. No copy protection scheme in the world can ever prevent that. |
That is why all the RIAA and other schemes to prevent the copy of music is doomed to failure !! Onced a signal enters my house,It's mine. I,(if needed)can and will copy it for my own personal use,however,NEVER,have I ever used my knowledge of the many,many ways of defeating this "Copy Protection" schemes to copy total CD's or other works for resale or trade. Most of the junk nowadays, isn't worth the plastic to copy.....
My point is:
Copy protection by any attempt,software,legal,or damageing the product will never work because in order for it to be effective,it must be in a manner not obtrusive to the end-user. The first time a "Label" attempts to prosecute an average consumer for copying a song/MP3, the backlash will be so great that the "Label" and the singer will go down the tubes real shortly. (Case in point,Garth Brooks)
The only true copy protection device is used by the Industrial Software folks. While this works for those $1,000 to $150,000 and upward packages,Its not cost effective for the music stuff.
The war beween the "Labels" and the consumer can only be won by the consumer due to the fact there are too many smart folks to skirt around the "Protection" schemes. The Entertainment industry needs to realize that the only way to conbat this situation is to provide a good product at an acceptible cost.
And the war go's on  |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 6 Jul 2003 1:41 pm
|
|
Bill, your last paragraph should be written in stone...it's that profound.
As for what Orin Hatch says, John Q. Public is about as interested in copyright protection as congressmen are interested in term limits. |
|
|
|
Ron Randall
From:
Dallas, Texas, USA
|
Posted 9 Jul 2003 4:12 pm
|
|
And the next war will be XM satellite radio.
I noticed I don't buy CD's anymore. ('cept steel stuff). I was a big buyer of CD's. 10 to 12 a month. Now I don't buy any. Hmmmmm. |
|
|
|
Bill Hatcher
From:
Atlanta Ga. USA
|
Posted 18 Jul 2003 11:16 am
|
|
| Chas. Speaking of mp3s. I cannot find a site with some samples of your recordings to get an idea of what your work sounds like. Like to know before I buy. Please either email me some samples or tell me where I can find some on the net. Many regards, Bill |
|
|
|
Eric West
From:
Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 18 Jul 2003 12:16 pm
|
|
I'm still stuck on the "Public Library" thing.
Also on ABCs public airing of using a black felt tip to corrupt the "encryption band" of "secure CDs" making them then copyable.
There went a few million dollars worth of R&D.. I haven't heard where they got sued..
Coming back to the problem of "free enterprise". The Developers themselves are, have, and will always design and distribute new "cracks" for anything they come up with so they will get hired to build a better one. Military intelligence contractors have been doing that since they first cracked the enigma machine.
It's the nature of the beast.
As I've said before, tracing an analog waveform is different than copying a series of ones and zeroes.
The question is I guess, how much money should Willie Nelson be getting for "Crazy Arms".
I don't mind giving him a few bucks here and there, but i don't think I should have to do much jail time for listening to it.....
When the headline on Drudge read:
| Quote: |
| Bill want's jail time for MP3 Downloaders |
I thought it meant Bill Hankey.
It had me shook for a minute or two..
EJL |
|
|
|
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 18 Jul 2003 3:59 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Developers themselves are, have, and will always design and distribute new "cracks" for anything they come up with so they will get hired to build a better one. |
In one of my darker moments I began to wonder if Norton and McAfee are behind most of the new viruses.... |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 19 Jul 2003 2:33 am
|
|
I think I'll develop a new Operating system that everyone will want and , I'll offer it for $89, on a specific date.(Like Harry Potter Books) People will stand in line....
It will have a Start ICON and I'll use a famous band for my national sales promotion.
I will develop the Operating system only to the point where it "almost works" then come out with a new version, say 3 years later..everyone will want to upgrade because it will have resolved some issues that everyone wants resolved. But I won't resolve all the issues, I will save those for another version 2 years later. And so on and so on and so on...
regards
Bill |
|
|
|
