16Aug
112

In their recent edition, Rolling Stone Magazine has issued a thank you letter to the record label executives. Hopefully they’ll read it and get the bigger picture. It is a very wise and┬áconcise┬ánote that brings to light the changing nature in which individuals discover and spread music. Hats off to Rolling Stone for trying to get the RIAA and the music big wigs to open their eyes.

…seems like they sold out just like this guy.

AROUND THE WEB

Leave a Reply

POST COMMENTS

  • anonymous says:

    Nick-

    Have you ever borrowed a book from someone or lent someone anything at all. STOP IT. THAT'S STEALING!! How dare you read a story that someone took time to write and put on paper without paying for it! What an entitled generation you are.

  • Nick says:

    Sorry, it's still STEALING. The labels are idiots, etc, the RIAA are idiots, etc.. but the intellectual property that I create is MINE, and I should be able to decide whether or not I want to give it away. Of course I don't have that choice, because an entire generation has decided that they're entitled to STEAL. Period!

    • Dre says:

      Nick, nick, nick… were you born yesterday? Stealing is the name of the game. The banks have already whisked away millions. Credit card companies try to extract money any fraudulent way they can. The fed's in bed with the oil companies as they both cover each other's backs. Insurance companies are screwing millions of people out of the healthcare they need …. do I need to go on? are you so naive?

      • Dr. Dre says:

        So because other people don't have morals, you shouldn't either? That is you're right as human being, but don't make people feel bad because they still want to stand up for what is right. Even when no one else is.

    • Andrew Sinclair says:

      Actually, that's not true. An entire generation has decided that the old business model, of buying a collection of songs for the one they really want, is not something they want to do. Or to wait for a band to put together enough music to satisfy a music exec to actually publish the one song that is worth it. Oh, wait, that music exec signed you to an EXCLUSIVE contract, didn't s/he? So you can't explore other avenues to make money off your intellectual efforts. Unless, of course, you are an indy, which means you are free to explore the vistas of micropayments. But then again, I'm a boomer, which puts me out of the music mainstream…but I'm surrounded by children who lament they can't buy what they want in the format they want it. Do you sell your stuff in the modern formats, with a modern business model?

    • Brandon says:

      Have fun living your life alone and destitute with YOUR intellectual property dude.

      Or, you can be smarter about this and look at it like you look at a flower garden. You plant the garden in your front yard at your own expense for your own benefit, but passers-by get to see it and smell it and get benefit from it too. Are they "stealing" when they get some enjoyment from YOUR property? Of course not. It isn't stealing when people listen to but don't buy your music either. If somebody else was selling or profiting from your music, that would be much closer to being theft, but maybe you should put some of your creative energies into finding other ways to make money off your intellectual property instead of whining and dithering over people not following your business plan.

      • Kyle says:

        I think your garden analogy is a bit off. It's more comparable to planting a vegetable garden in your yard that you intend on growing and then selling the vegetables for profit. However, passers-by who walk buy and snatch something without paying you are similar to those taking mp3s from the internet for free. Sure, if they like that vegetable they might go tell ten friends, but then those ten friends are equally likely to come by and snatch a few veggies for free as well. Ergo, you've invested time and money into a venture that ended up being ravaged by the public.

      • David says:

        Thats a very nice analogy Brandon if filled completely with rhetoric. Observing someone's garden is not analogous to copying someones IP and listening to it when you want. Admittedly your saying create it for your own benefit but artists are often artists for the additional reason of financing a lifestyle, they dont just do art for art's sake. And whinning over someone not following your buisness plan? When I create something I should get to decide what to do with it. I dont want a song I create used in a BNP political broadcast. They aren't making money so its all good right? No.

      • Katie says:

        Actually Kyle, Brandon is more correct than you are. You are implying that when someone downloads music they are taking away from the artist and that the "vegetable" is no longer in the artist's possession but that isn't the case at all. If I like the artist's music I'll buy the whole album, if I really like them I'll go to a concert. I am not taking anything away from them by downloading their music. It isn't stealing because they still have the original. It's copying and sharing. Brandon's analogy is correct.

    • Mark says:

      I haven't bought a CD in 8 years, I pirate everything. Why would I ever pay? It's. Just. Too. Damned. Easy.

      Still go to concerts though.

      • Sean says:

        Well, the reason I pay for it is quality. I'll download an album and then, if I really like it, go out and buy the vinyl (preferably) or the CD.

        That said, I know it's not everyone's preference to own the media or even care about the quality.

      • Heidi says:

        Exactly. Radiohead is a great example of being progressive. Here ya go have a free download. i know your so anxious to hear it your gonna get it somehow anyway. but if ya wanna know the secrets of the actual album and see all the cool cd art, then buy it. and thats a BIG hell ya to a show when they come to town. I know i know, change is hard. But we have to accept it and figure out new solotions to helping musicians and struggling new bands make money. Maybe private investors?

      • noodles says:

        Most artists make the bulk of their money in ticket sales and merchandise. There is too much money sucked out in the recording process and by record companies to make any money on cd sales.

      • nat says:

        majority of file sharers dload to find new artists and then many – those with the cash that would have bought anyway go and get the physical media.My only question is why arent the labels selling DVD Audio or pushing the higher bitrate audio on physical media? I would file share / learn about the artists listen to a bunch and then go and buy the high quality media. Those who dload only dont have the money to spare to buy but thats ok because they will watch the artist when they play in concert or appear with an advertisement. Its called marketing – those that are too greedy to adapt to new models will FAIL!

      • Joe says:

        I haven't paid for music in many years. Pirating is too easy and convenient. I like music but I like having music and not paying for it. Free stuff is good. It doesn't bother me one bit that I am not paying for the music. I am 100% selfish and I'm cool with that. Here's to reaping the benefits of doing a bit of research and finding a free way to get something other people pay for. (I know deep down 99% of you agree with me… you just want to post something "hip" and artsy and blah blah). I win.

    • Uh no says:

      Stealing would be if I removed your work from your possession. Copying means your copy remains untouched. In my personal view, I would never hear your work even if it were given out for free so I don't think you have anything to worry about.

      • Bystander says:

        Nail on the head, sir. In fact, I'll go one farther. Copyright laws were created BECAUSE the justice system identified a difference between tangible property (eg: your horse) and intangible property (eg: your novel) and therefore needed new language to protect these works. Publishers/copyright holders/what-have-you only push the word "stealing" now because they think it makes more of a verbal impact.

    • TK says:

      Without people "stealing" there's a good chance no one would hear your crappy "intellectual property" and you'd remain a struggling artist forever. The internet has been a great place for musicians to spread their sound when otherwise they'd have to physically travel the world for the same results. This is the future, quit whining and embrace it.

    • Vdizzle says:

      Sorry, it’s still STEALING. The labels are idiots, etc, the RIAA are idiots, etc.. but the intellectual property that I create is MINE, and I should be able to decide whether or not I want to give it away. Of course I don’t have that choice, because an entire generation has decided that they’re entitled to STEAL. Period!

      ~Oh sorry…just stole your comment. Blame it on my generation.

    • Alex says:

      You're a Fascist. Studies prove that after they "sample" your music, they are 10 times more likely to buy your shitty production. Read the fucking article.

    • Russell says:

      Music is entertainment…. if i was walking down the street and some guy was playing his guitar, i will throw him a few bucks after i listen and decide that i like what he is playing. There is no way in hell i will give him the money up front and then hope for a good performance. Same goes for the intertubes

    • Josh says:

      Nick; Theft implies denying another the use of said property. Downloading is more properly defined as SHARING. Admittedly, artists can feel as though music downloads are a wasted revenue stream, however, not everyone who downloads a song would buy it. As stated in the note, people who download a song are more likely to buy the album and support the artist, thus actually bringing more revenue. I think the over simplification of ownership has resulted in many people feeling that data (arbitrary ones and zeros) can be theirs.

    • Paolo says:

      Of course that's what happens when you control prices at an artificially high level. When CD prices were $19.99 and $14.99 on sale, and there is a black market distribution channel with an extremely low barrier to entry (file sharing), the result is inevitable. There is clear value in the content, as the options are pay full price or risk being sued for $$ by breaking the law.

      • Foster says:

        Music is too expensive.

        How come I can buy the entire first season of Breaking Bad in Standard Definition from iTunes for $11.99. That is 7 episodes at 48 minutes each. 336 minutes of entertainment in total for $11.99

        That comes to a cost of $0.03/min

        But…

        If I go buy a new album. Lets say Mike Posner's – 31 Minutes To Take Off. 45 minutes of music for $7.99.

        The cost is $0.17/min.

        The music is 5.9 times more expensive than the video. The Mike Posner album would have to be $1.35 to as good a value as the first season of Breaking Bad.

        I understand that TV shows make money from advertising before they ever get released in stores, but when music is priced so high in relation to other forms of entertainment, it causes people to think harder about their music purchases.

      • J says:

        If that was the only problem. I used to buy tons of CDs. Long before itunes I started downloading albums because:

        - DRM was introduced I had trouble ripping CDs to mp3 and have no patience to keep swapping CDs in the drive.

        - Also due to DRM some CDs wouldn't play the car.

        - Even the CDs I could rip had no meta-info so, at the time, I add to fill in all the info for all the tracks manually. Downloaded albums off the internet have that already.

        This was so bad I found myself downloading many CDs I owned just because it was so easy and convenient. Then there was more:

        - Many CDs were not released at the same time worldwide, and I wouldn't feel like waiting.

        - Then some CDs had malicious software on it (Sony BMG and its famous rootkit).

        When itunes came up I was already really used to just download it for free. Nonetheless:

        - The itunes format used to be DRM protected too, which made me expect more problems playing files.

        - They're system wasn't Linux friendly which is what I use.

        So that was a no go for me. On top of all that I also started losing any sympathy for record companies. I felt cheated. And I was cheated, as those DRM'ed things I bought that didn't work on my car, or computer, were sold to me as CD's, which they aren't (they really aren't, they don't even carry the CD's symbol on them). The rootkit trick was discusting. Then campainging agains P2P systems, which are used for many useful perfectly legal ends, as if it were the technology's fault. And finally all the ridiculous lawsuits asking insane amounts of money to kids for sharing some mp3's.

    • Ronald says:

      If you keep your intellectual property to yourself, what's the point of having that intellectual property in the first place.

    • HailtotheThief says:

      Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point, sir. I think what was being said had something to do with the old adage of having your cake and eating it too. Besides what we are talking about is art, or what should be considered art, and art belongs to the world; and before you make some asinine comment about artists not getting paid for their work because of "piracy" do some research on their real revenue sources, their concerts. Musicians make much more money from ticket sales than they ever will earning 0.07 cents per CD. As far as that entire generation of entitled thieves goes, people of all ages steal, the people who are whining are just the ones who made it easy enough for a child to do.

    • Snake Piss says:

      Artists get screwed harder by a record label who can afford a $500/hour lawyer over a 15 year old kid who digs music.

      I can tell from that fact that you wanna litigate art you are a boring person.

    • Jeremy says:

      Intellectual property is a morally corrupt concept. Obscurity will hurt an artist's bottom line much worse than piracy ever could.

    • Spanky says:

      Get with the times Dre.. People are going to steal Music Files whether you like it or not.. But those that try the song will buy the Music.

      Take Computer games, if I hadn't torrented the Total War Series, I'd of never found out about it, thus I'd of never bought the entire Total War Eras collection.. It's called Customer Loyalty.

      People who like it will BUY IT out of loyalty and satisfaction with the product.. The RIAA don't get that.

    • mick says:

      Hey Nick, it's fair. I'm sure you just stole your crappy chord progressions from someone else anyway.

    • James says:

      Sorry, it’s still STEALING. The labels are idiots, etc, the RIAA are idiots, etc.. but the intellectual property that I create is MINE, and I should be able to decide whether or not I want to give it away. Of course I don’t have that choice, because an entire generation has decided that they’re entitled to STEAL. Period!

      –I just stole your comment. Come and get me.

    • Brian says:

      I bet Nick that his comment is so egocentric that he doesn't realize that what he classifies as intelectual property only pertains to his stuff only. It's ok for him to want to control his thoughts but he's probably search out, watch, listened, downloaded and "stolen" other peoples outputs without thinking twice about it.

    • Carlos says:

      Then if we can see paintings in the internet are we stealing them?

    • Johnny Hatch says:

      Why dont all of you sit down and try write a song tonight. Then spend many hours more crafting and rehearsing it (did I mention the years before that learning an instrument).

      Then try put a band together. Go in the studio and spend a few grand recording. Spend days and months marketing, booking shows. Get in the van, set up all the gear (all this probably around working your day job).

      If there's a song that you like (and preview u all you want), and that song brings joy to your heart….Dont you think that 's worth giving the artist 10 to 25 cents? For this priceless happiness or emotion they have brought you.

      (And ya Itunes and others take their cut btw out of that .99).

      See ya sit down tonight and see if you can come up with any melody or lyric that anyone is going to give a shit about. That touches yourself and has the power to reach anyone else. Let us know when you got it.

      And btw, if you want to go the show, awesome, but you know what? that's a separate service from the song recording. Do you have any idea clue how much doing the shows are and how expensive it is to do the simplest tour. Not to mention then energy involved. The show is a separate cost its not included in the price of the recording.

      • No need to know my n says:

        Recording is still expensive because the producers are still using expensive equipment which is unnecessary now days. I have recorded 4 songs with a couple of my friends on one of their high-end multimedia laptops and not one of those 4 songs sound like it was recorded in a garage or room. It sounds professional. I have given these songs out for free because it didn't take much to record them once I got the lyrics down and the music was put to it. A few people have even given me money for the songs because they enjoyed them and I never asked for a dime from anyone wanting the songs.

      • Commsense says:

        Johnny Hatch, and other piracy police pricks:

        You have to listen to the music before you go to the show that the artist has "spent days and months marketing, booking shows" for. If you really were an artist, youd appreciate that people like your art, not be ungrateful that not everyone is giving you money. suck it up, use your talent for the sake of making people happy.

      • InvaderSiren says:

        See,the thing is I CAN sit down and write a song. I have a band, a very good one. And, you know what? I would be ECSTATIC if people downloaded our music, because it means they like our sound and will buy our merch and possibly go to concerts.

    • MGenest says:

      Nick:

      Keep it to yourself then. Nobody wants to hear your crap anyway.

    • DJ Tallboy says:

      Yeah…I'm sure some of the TAPES you bought in the eighties you NEVER shared with a friend! Luckily the music I spin is mostly created under a creative commons license so it's basically free to use as long as I do not make a major profit off of it. I agree with the letter. Listening to one track of a cd will make someone more likely to buy the cd release or the ep/lp! Can you be intellectually hoinest and think the the record companies pay musicians ANYTHING for their music? If that were the case many bands would stop touring. Unfortunately most have to tour to make any money at all due to the labels keeping almost all the profits from record sales.

    • Moomar says:

      While I understand how you feel you need to understand that property rights are not a static thing, they evolve over time and have since the idea was first thought up. Your model of intellectual property cannot survive the technological changes that have happened, so we need to change our conception of what those rights are.

      Instead of spending so much time and energy desperately grasping onto an outdated model, people have to adapt and come up with a new framework the earn a living from their art.

      Someday people are going to consider downloading music for free no more of a crime than a man walking down the street singing a Rolling Stones song.

      Adapt or die, my friend.

    • Your idea of intellectual property is as futile as your comment.

    • Reader says:

      Note: Artists and bands (except Metallica and you) love when people listen to their music. It's the labels that screw everybody over. They only give 5-7% of profits to the people who made the music. They also love preventing people from seeing if they like the music for free.

    • No need to know my n says:

      You're right intellectual property is yours. Perhaps you should keep it to yourself then and not share it in anyway. Sold or free. Once media hits public domain it's free game. So many people are so focused on file sharing a forget about the other methods of getting what you want. I can hook my tv up to my laptop and record any show I want and that obviously will work with audio as well.

      "Piracy" will never be beaten unless we eliminate all technology and we all know that will never happen either.

    • LlamaFace says:

      If you have never ever ever in your life made someone a mix tape or burnt a copy of a CD for a friend or relative, then I'll applaud your principles and your passion regardless of whether or not I agree with you.

      But I'm going to bet that you have.

    • Benjamin says:

      Wow, yeah, look at this definition of stealing "theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent." So when i supposedly download mp3's i am stealing, so the person who had the original song would not have it anymore and i would have it, please have a clear definition on the words you use, or else you look like an idiot.

    • Zoey says:

      You're stupid.

    • Ken says:

      What about the stealing the record companies do to the artists. Or is it the record companies who actually own the artists' intellectual property?

    • Adam says:

      @Dre you obviously don't have the right attitude about music then. Most bands don't care about the revenue (or at least not the ones I like). All they care about is people hearing their music, whether that be through P2P filesharing, buying an album, or simply listening to it in your friend's car. Bands like radiohead couldn't give a flying f**k about profit ( as demonstrated by their In Rainbows album which was FREE on their website). If all you care about is profit, you're not approaching music and what it represents with the correct attitude.

    • Colin says:

      Real musicians want their music to be heard by as many people as possible. We used to need labels to distribute the music, but we don't anymore. The good performers who have the talent and drive to make it will earn their money and reputation playing live shows. So we really don't need the labels or RIAA anymore. Besides, it's not like musicians have ever made enough money from record sales anyway.

    • DragonScoops says:

      Let's not pretend a truely original idea has ever come out of music. Everything is just borrowed and spliced from different genres to create new and exciting sounds. If you were a true musician/artist you would know that your ideas are not to be placed upon a massive pedestal for everyone to admire, they are to be spread around and fiddled with until the next new sound comes out. If you go out purely to make money from any music/piece of art you are missing the point of why music is there.

      Do aboriginals stand around shouting at eachother for playing the same drum beat? No. They share and expand (they mimic the calls of animals in the first place). The second you start hoarding your ideas (READ: stolen fragments of other ideas), you comercialise art and you might aswell be making another Lady Gaga album. I wouldn't have gotten into half the band I'm into now without Pirate music and every band who isn't balls deep on a major record labels penis will tell you pirate music is the way forward.

      You think way to highly of your so called 'intelectual property'. Was the space rocket made by one guy? No it was hundreds of people pitching in all from different backgrounds. Strength through unity. Rant over

    • Matt says:

      i agree 100%

    • Don says:

      Fuck you, Nick! It's not stealing. It's sharing!

    • Michael says:

      Well, while you are busy "not stealing" and buying a couple of albums, I am going to 10x more live shows than you are going to. Therefore, I am actually helping the musician survive, unlike you. So when that musician has money to continue touring and buying all of his necessities, I wonder who he thanks more, me or you.

  • oh nick says:

    who cares about your intellectual property, you are some internet nobody

  • aaron says:

    nick, you're an idiot.

  • Ross says:

    It's not stealing. It would be stealing if you took a physical copy of a CD out of a store, thus preventing the business from making profit off of it. Stealing would prevent a future purchase of said music. Get your words right, Nick. Copyright infringement.

  • Jeff says:

    If a band is good, they will make money off of touring. I would want to gain as much exposure via the Internet I could if I was in a band. Touring is where you make your money!

  • Rob says:

    re: Nick

    It's not stealing. You still have your property, you haven't been deprived of anything you would have had in the first place, and if anything you'd get fans who'd be interested in following you and your music, playing for shows downloads, t-shirts, etc. instead of being yet another of the endless rows of CD cases gathering dust at Best Buy.

    Entertainment is all about promotion, and the RIAA is all about trying to keep it's stranglehold on promotion through it's own antiquated pay-to-play and top 40 list systems. It doesn't control internet distribution, so it wants to kill it. They don't care about your music except as something to promote.

  • Hmmm says:

    Really? Once you sign on to a record label, it's not really yours to give away at that point, it's theirs (the record company).

  • tom says:

    Is this for real? Way to bite the hand that feeds you.

    Maybe record labels should stop advertising with them and only on internet sites. I'm sure they'll enjoy that.

  • Man I miss 1999 and Napster. Those were the days.

  • jason says:

    @Nick

    Stealing is the act of depriving someone of something, like a physical good.

    If someone is copying your work and sharing it, it is copyright infringement. You may or may not have lost a sale, you can't say for certain. But you can say that your works have been seen by someone and will definitely be seen by other people due to that person's sharing.

  • AJ says:

    This is true if people are going to buy a cd, they are going to do it to support an artist. But if they never hear the songs to know if they like an artist they aren't going to buy the cd. The radio plays the same songs over and over and by then no one wants those cd's, they want cd's of up and coming artist who need support, and cd's of music they know they like. with out p2p file sharing alot of music will never be heard by some people who may of otherwise gotten hooked on it. Bottom line is p2p filesharing was the best form of advertising for some bands. People are still going to steal music, but without programs like limewire not as many songs will be available and as R.S. said kids won't be able to seek out that new music.

  • James says:

    What is Rolling Stone doing talking about good music?

  • Really? says:

    @ Nick

    Is it really stealing? Intellectual property is a whole other ballgame.

    By your logic, If I take a picture of your child, I am guilty of kidnapping, right? Because I stole your kid.

    In reality I have a copy of your kid. Get real.

  • Ben says:

    It's a very large assumption to presume that record execs actually READ Rolling Stone…

  • Taha says:

    Way to go RollingStone! You really stuck it to those giant label execs!

    What a load of crap. RS readership is way down and this is the only way they can garner publicity anymore (aside from releasing covers w/ topless popstars).

    If your publication actually has a problem with an exec, how about calling them out on it. The music industry is a business and provides people with jobs. Some executives may be greedy, but most are just trying not to lose headcount.

    Here's an idea, RS, how about you start encouraging free downloads of your magazine before it hits newsstands and see how your sales do.

  • Yourallidiots says:

    You asshats can spin it all you want and come up with cutesy terms other than stealing, but the simple truth is your taking something that you have no right to take. It's the entitlement generation full scale in here, and it's depressing. For those that say, "How would I know if I would like the song/ artist without stealing it first?..der!!". It's called the preview button, if you like what you hear than you can decide whether or not to purchase it. Stop trying to justify your petty theft, what your doing is wrong regardless of what the statistics show. Stop feelin entitled to everything, go get jobs, and move your fat asses out of your parents basements.

    • mate says:

      lol, i own my own house and have a family and not fat. so FU buddy..

      Now that i have to live in this shitful world thats falling apart everyday with environmental disaster and media moguls suing the pants off poor/middle class people created by idiot fatass moralist conservative fuckwit baby boomers, ill be entitled to whatever i want.

      FU

  • Alec says:

    The artists who make the music get very, very little from the CD sales. Probably 10% (look it up on HowStuffWorks). This means if you stole the album and mailed the artist $5, they'd make far more money and wouldn't have to pay taxes on it. Instead, go to concerts, buy official merch, things that actually make the artists money and not the record companies.

  • sheila Kaufman says:

    I'm not actually an artist, I'm a lyricist, but I demo my own songs for other artists to get a sense of what I do, and what they might like to use. If that is then taken, stolen, what have I got left? If the general public want artists, including the ones who write the words they enjoy singing along with, to be able to continue to work, and to continue to eat as well, then stealing is just stealing, and paying is paying. Yes, it's great to get something for free, but you are taking something that can never be replaced, which is the time and creativity that went into the process.

  • Charlie says:

    If you didn't make crappy music then you wouldn't have to worry about people "stealing" your awesome music because you'd have sold out shows to make money. That's of course assuming you make music that's 1) worth listening to and stealing and 2) worth seeing live.

    • JB says:

      It's funny to hear all of these kids talking about the music industry as though they understand it.

      Bottom line, since the onset of "file sharing" record sales are at an all time low. Yes, this hurts the bigwigs much more than the artists. Yes, indie artists can benefit from viral file sharing. The question is, does that make it right? Anyone who is even remotely savvy in the music business knows how difficult it is to get by whether signed or unsigned. People today take a very expensive production without paying for it. The large majority never plan to reimburse the artist… those who say "if I like it I buy it" are simply dishonest. If you have the record and you like it, chances are you're not gonna go buy it out of good will.

      I'd like for someone to refute the simple fact that record sales are pathetically low these days. If file sharing really increases an artist's chance of selling a record, then what is going on?

      And concerts have always been a major source of revenue for the artist… what does that have to do with the fact that they can't sell a record?

      • Matt says:

        I agree at least in part with you JB. Many people commenting here have little idea of the music business, let alone what is involved in creating original music. Perhaps many comment out of a sense of guilt. But it's too late. In the early 80s, George Martin's response to the introduction of CDs was literally "what, you're giving everyone a MASTER copy of the recording, what the..!" Unfortunately human nature meant that people were going to take advantage of that. The writing's been on the wall since then as it was only a matter of time before the technology developed for consumers to copy. The recording industry didn't act to protect artists and neither did governments. That's the puzzling bit to me. Yes, creative musicians are suffering. Maybe the 20th century will be known as the only time in history when many composers & songwriters were actually able to make a good living from creating music. Dig more pauper's graves for future Mozarts!

  • Bob says:

    Don't worry Lars…I mean Nick. I wouldn't steal your shit if you paid me.

  • Hot Dog Harry says:

    Fuck you rolling stone. You're the most biased, musically ignorant source of "information" out there.

    I hope you go out of business in a shameful and embarrassing plunge.

    • jessica says:

      I you're a flower seller and you notice everyone is picking the same flowers growing free in nature you wouldnt acuse anybody off theft. You'd just realize that you're not going to get rich out of flowers.

      Ive been a musician for many decades working in bands with many talented musicians and composers. Before the internet the chances of being heard beyond your gig were minute. You could spend a fortune in a recording studio hoping someone would take it seriously. But the chances were like winning the lottery. Recording labels were making big bucks from promoting their choice of who should be at the top of the pile. Creating superstars. For the millions of other musicians in the world who were and still are paid a pittance for there efforts they continued because they either did so because they loved it or because they bought into the whole superstar culture.

      Most of the bands I knew that become involved with successful record labels were treated like shit and often ended in debt.

      With the internet comes huge liberation for musicians. Now we can all be heard. Along with countless others I have thousands of people downloading and listening to my music. We have feedback and appreciation. The only people complaining are the deluded flower sellers and the record companies who hopefully have had there day. F**k em I say.

  • StupidRIaa says:

    Sure its stealing. Just like when I buy a book and then decide to give it away. I bought it and I decide what to do with it. The RIAA has stolen that choice from me when it comes to music.

    How can authors of books possibly hope to survive? Easy, by not churning out junk, embracing new technology, and not giving their customers a giant F you when it comes to what they can and cant do with the stuff they already paid for.

  • rich airchess says:

    CDs does not have an apostrophe.

  • Josh says:

    Ever hear of myspace, purevolume, pandora, etcetcetcetc? All places you can find new music without OWNING it. That's the difference between exploring and stealing. With stealing you're actually taking someones work, putting it to disc or mp3, and then it's yours, so you have the convenience of listening to it anytime. You don't need to own music to hear it and appreciate it and eventually pay for it if you like it enough. Anyone that says you do is trying to justify their cheap-ass, thieving ways.

  • Miles says:

    Kudos to Rolling Stone magazine for printing such a controversial piece.

    I'm a major music fan. I torrent a lot, and if I like it, I buy it. Some people find this hard to believe, but that's their problem, not mine.

    The fact is that people are still willing to pay for quality experiences. The success of the film Avatar in the file-sharing age proves that. The problem for the music industry is that 99% of the stuff they put out is anything other than quality, and now people can try before they buy, they're unwilling to pay for rubbish.

  • Omegaphi says:

    Fuk you stupid waels and fuuk you dowfins and RRIA

  • Danny says:

    am i the only one that just borrows the cds from friends and buys them as well? Never really pirated, not cuz im against it cuz borrowing is technically still stealing lol, i just don't want to have to go through the trouble of finding the torrent with the best quality…but yea, if record companies are bitching about people pirating music, they need to wake up and realize that if the music is worth anything, they'll go out and buy the album

  • nibbles and bits says:

    …hell, if its one of my friends that gives me the mp3 its arguably fair use.

    I love how people think these business plans and laws made by man are some sort of unbreakable cosmic pact that absolutely cannot be broken. If I took your physical copy that would be stealing. Copying is just copying.

    Do you think all the information in the world should only be accessible by the monied classes? Ok, what about works of art and culture? Do you believe that the world is a better place with "total information awareness" for everyone on earth or do you think that way of thinking is dirty communist talk and if a poor African can't afford a text book they should just go wallow in ignorance and starve to death?

  • Ant2206 says:

    To JB: Please save your hyperbole. According to Billboard, album they're down 600,000 today compared to 1973, based on a scaled estimate. And that doesn't factor in digital singles sales, which are currently at 21.7 million per week.

    Whether you support it or not (and there are clearly moral arguments both ways), fileswapping is now the norm. And the companies that accept that and use it to their advantage will do well, while those that don't will fail.

    How do you use it? By listening to your fans. Changing your distribution model. Giving stuff out to generate goodwill (both Coldplay and NIN, whether you like them or not, did this very well). If it all sounds like too much work for record labels… then go out of business.

  • ok…yeah. like the musicians would make way more than the 15% agents make for them if they did everything themselves. BULLSHIT! ask a pro musician if he/she/they hates their record company. bet ya… my entire harry potter dvd collecti…on, my new couch, the bed i sleep on, my freestyle redline, aaaaaaaaaaaand a huge box of ramen, a professional musician will give their shirt off their back if their agent needed it. sounds to me like this is a classic note written by somebody who had no talent, and then is looking for something else to blame for their lameness other than themselves. right? bad habit to look into shit like this… it grows. turns into hate. then you yourself never lift anybody up cause you u think u might be scum. or, you become the starving artists who ends up embarassing themselves for the rest of thier lives by not seeing the truth in that maybe, as a musician, u fuking suck! lol like uncle ricco from napoleon (sp). if coach just woulda… dude. coaches DO NOT STEAL from those who perform. they benefit from by being probably more giving than the unfortunate lack of success by somebody, maybe talented, but also maybe a huge fuking dumb ass! record companies? lol ok. yeah. thier fault we don't buy cd's anymore. LMAO

  • WMDimes says:

    It is your intellectual property. If you don't release it, you own it and you can have it forever. if you DO release it, it's not yours anymore. You're doing it because you want money and attention. You can have your attention no matter what, but if you tack an arbitrary price on it and attempt to reign in how people use it, then you're fighting a retarded battle and you will lose. And there's nothing you can do about that, because this is a fucking paradigm shift and you're just going to end up tearing your own hair out.

  • Rick says:

    You can't buy the music, only the container. Buying the music is like buying purple or hot.

    If I go into a convenience store and put a bottle of Happy Springs water in my jacket, that is stealing. The Happy Springs company had to collect the water, bottle it, advertise it, and transport it to my location and sell it to the convenience store. That's expensive and it would be morally wrong to take it without paying in nearly all circumstances.

    What if the Happy Springs River runs across my property, is it stealing to fill my canteen? In my mind it is not morally wrong to take something that is (for this analogy) unlimited. It isn't stealing because I haven't taken anyone's property, nor have I impeded anyone's ability to sell their product.

    Technology has obviated much of what record companies do. Yes, many people will lose their jobs as the record companies change form to adapt to the new technology, but the change will happen. Ask the pinsetters, coopers, telegraph operators and milkmen about it.

    Musicians can still make a living performing music just like they have for hundreds of years. Those performances can then be put onto physical media which can be sold. When you buy a CD you are purchasing a container of those performances, that makes some sense. If I pay 50$ to see Radiohead in concert then I am paying them to get up on stage and perform. But paying for a computer file that costs $0 to copy an unlimited number of times, that doesn't make sense.

    In the end it is irrelevant. Because the "product" doesn't actually exist, there is no possible way to eliminate piracy without also eliminating legimate sales. This is one of those circumstances in which the defense will always be a step or two behind the attack. It's just a matter of whether it is the musicians that kill the record companies by striking off on their own, or whether the record companies kill themselves by killing all of their own customers.

  • cheezy says:

    this argument is so worn out it's worse than my underwear.

  • Rune says:

    Simple then

    don't put ur shit on the internet

  • Food for Thought says:

    Let's imagine a situation where a company manages to duplicate cars in such a way where they take the original that a different company makes, copy it at absolutely no cost, and readily distribute it to an eager public for free. Who would be foolish enough to continue to pay $15,000 for a new car when the same product could be had at no cost? Keeping with this logic, why should the situation change simply because I'm talking about $15 instead of $15,000?

  • No need to know my n says:

    Oh, one other thing. If this is such a big deal then why aren't the artists, or creators of said intellectual property, doing the suing. After all, they don't get much from the earnings when compared to the record labels and what not. That just proves that when you buy the media you are purchasing the medium on which the media if stored.

  • soamrines says:

    People who like it will BUY IT out of loyalty and satisfaction with the product.. The RIAA don’t get that.

  • anon says:

    RECENT???????????2002

    • Downrightdaft says:

      I've been a musician for 40 years and I'm sick of the 'IP' justifications and the analogies that're being put out to justify corporate greed. If you're a musician, make your money playing music, not by sitting on your butt on the beach in Bermuda or St. Moritz while selling copies of your music for years although you spent just a few weeks recording it. And for all you 'anal-ologists', here's are some analogies for you: Poetry's for free. Anyone can copy and distribute it. Sportsmen don't make money selling recordings of their last great performance.

      This isn't about music or musicians. This is about a dying leech of an industry that doesn't know how to let go. Try applying salt or fire

      • Somebody says:

        10 years ago, as a student with not much money, I spent about 5 times more money on buying CDs. Then MP3s came. It was just too easy to download and listen – and anyway I never liked that plastic dust catcher garbage in my home.

        In my opinion the record labels never understood the potential of the media internet, i.e., they never came up with a good platform to sell music.

        Nowadays with iTunes & Co. I spend more and more on music again. It's easy, mobile, good quality. However, I would spend much more, if it became about 50% cheaper.

        In fact most people don't care about these 'intellectual property' debates when it comes to music. Sooner or later the laws have to be adjusted to the crowd's opinion.

  • James says:

    I am a musician, and I completely support the swapping of this music. I still make money, I still have cd's to sell at shows.. BUT with this new trend I have seen more and more people coming to see my band play, thus giving me enough money to survive.. Anyone who is claiming to be an artist and is pissed because they are not making millions is not a true artist anyway. We're all on this earth here together, and i feel that I have a talent that needs to be shared with the world. In the end, its all of us who win.. The sharing of internet files is what we need to do away with the big enemy, the record companies..

  • Ryka says:

    gosh, i realize this whole comment thread has turned into a ridiculous argument about whether or not this is stealing and pretty much all of you fail to realize that the point isnt that its stealing. the point is that if you stop letting the kids steal the music than they're just going to stop listening to the music. they point is their just not gonna pay! so either let them file swap or stop making technologically saviee kids your target audience! you might as well just stop making music…

  • esh says:

    As a painter i say…who cares. If someone took a picture of one of my paintings and made a print, so what? the more exposure the better. it is the originals that have the value, and no one can do anything with any image of my work without permission. i used to record songs off the radio in the 90's. many of us did. they made blank tapes for the purpose of recording and COPYING music. what about cd burners and blank cd's? do you think that thought all those sales of blank cd's where by people producing and NOTcopying? do they not know we where coping each others cd's with them? a true artist is about the art of the creation. a performance artist is about the performance. singers want to sing, not make cd's and sell them. the cd is the exposure. the money has always come from the performance, they get paid to do interviews and apperances. they don't perform on award shows for free. the rec co's get the cd sales anyway. paid for or not the recording gets people to the show. if you suck, or if you rock…either way it's the show that gets you paid.

  • Sarah says:

    I'm 17, so yeah, I'm part of the generation that downloads music illegally. People these days, with their ipods etc etc want more and more music to be able to listen to. I think that's a good thing. Gone are the days where you would listen to the same LP over and over with your friends. Today people easily find new music, and yes, they download songs illegally. They also buy loads of merch, attend gig after gig, and tell all their friends about new gems they've just found. It's not about buying CD's anymore, artists know that. Most don't care. Good artists still get huge numbers going to their concerts and that's how they make their money. Teenagers and other people alike aren't going to spend the little money they have on music when they easily don't have to. For one thing they'd know a lot less bands that way.

  • megan says:

    the best way to support a band is to go to their shows. fuck the record labels, show your support by being there.

  • Jeremy says:

    Here is the issue that I have. The average CD is right around $15 brand new, most of the times there are only one or two good songs on it, money wasted. I'm better off downloading the songs I like. Artists don't make their money on the CDs, they make them on concert tickets. Average concert is $50. Tshirts are $30. Hoodies are $65. People buy them up by the thousands. With the profits they make from touring, they more than make up for some CDs being downloaded. However, I will buy the CDs of local musicians struggling to make it and I will buy the CDs of artists that I absolutely love. I will also buy the CD if it's actually worth owning. (love Franti live, but his CDs don't do it for me) Thank God for the internet so I can discover new artists and see what's actually worth the money before I spend it.

  • JL says:

    Okay, this whole "It is stealing" "It's not stealing" is completely ridiculous. Piracy is the term kids apply to feel cool about it. Piracy is theft. Downloading songs however is copyright infringement, and can be detrimental to an artist, however not always directly.

    People download music because it's free and super convenient. Nothing is going to change that now.

    Now, being a musician, I don't really care because trading of my music does get me heard more, but for the love of god, if you like my music, don't be a cheap ass about it. Pay $10 for my disc, or a shirt or something. Understand that some of us can barely survive as musicians without that support.

    Download from those assholes in the big four. Warner, Universal, EMI and Sony. They've justified it, whether it be trapping musicians in contracts, overcharging for music, or bullying file sharers.

  • grega says:

    Downloading music online is something very common now. I don't think there will be any change to this.

  • Cynic says:

    If music download is wrong from moral sense or from the sense of rules and regulations then this can be something not viable. But for fun and for an affordable music experience, this is the most practical option.

  • Tony says:

    We should all just start making our own music. Anyone pretty much can, well, if you have a passion for music. Possibilities are endless if you follow this shhhhiiizz right here.
    http://48a88eekwf7c-76l1eyhkdst49.hop.clickbank.n

  • Ryan says:

    Isn't there a phrase that deals with this? I believe it's something like "starving artist." Just deal with the fact that in the 21st century profits from things of beauty are no longer monetary but rather the knowledge that you're spreading joy throughout humanity simply for the betterment of us as a species.