illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[vociti]

I don't agree with either side. There needs to be a middle ground. If the music cost less, way more people would buy it and not illegally download something. The music will never cost less while there are big businesses running it. And people will never stop downloading if prices remain where they are. Therefore, it's a big cycle and nothing will change.

Why are record companies greedy? They are taking the financial risk. Just like an venture capitalist that is funding a new business idea for a huge % of the overall company. Those who take the bulk of the risk should receive the bulk of return. It is so expensive to get a band to the point of being on MTV, etc. Record labels have no choice. Studio time is super expensive. Producers are super expensive. Marketing is super expensive. It has to be done right or it's a complete waste of money. It's no different than starting a business of any kind. It's expensive and you have to do it right which, I hate to say it, cost $$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[the tourist]

Why are record companies greedy? They are taking the financial risk. Just like an venture capitalist that is funding a new business idea for a huge % of the overall company. Those who take the bulk of the risk should receive the bulk of return. It is so expensive to get a band to the point of being on MTV, etc. Record labels have no choice. Studio time is super expensive. Producers are super expensive. Marketing is super expensive. It has to be done right or it's a complete waste of money. It's no different than starting a business of any kind. It's expensive and you have to do it right which, I hate to say it, cost $$$$$$$$$$$.

Studio time isn't THAT expensive. Unless you're spending 6 months in the studio. A lot of bands that would do that have home recording studios.

Anyway, I have friends who recorded a very professional album. It cost them $5000 for two weeks in the studio and the thing sounds massive. (www.myspace.com/sirenssister) So to make an album that sounds great DOESN'T cost lots of money unless the bands screw around in the studio.

And also, you mention risk. How much of a risk is a band like U2, for instance? Is there even a chance the record companies WON'T make 50 million off of one of their albums? No. No chance at all. But will they give U2 any bigger of a cut of their own art? No. No chance at all.

And about your comment that it takes a lot of money to get a band on MTV, it sounds a bit like payola to me. Somewhere some music executive has decided "I want this band to be big, so I'll pay out a lot of money to get them on your mtv and radio." Why not let the DJ's chose what they want? Why not let people decide what they like? Why decide for them?

 

[vociti]

Studio time isn't THAT expensive. Unless you're spending 6 months in the studio. A lot of bands that would do that have home recording studios.

Anyway, I have friends who recorded a very professional album. It cost them $5000 for two weeks in the studio and the thing sounds massive. So to make an album that sounds great DOESN'T cost lots of money unless the bands screw around in the studio.

And also, you mention risk. How much of a risk is a band like U2, for instance? Is there even a chance the record companies WON'T make 50 million off of one of their albums? No. No chance at all. But will they give U2 any bigger of a cut of their own art? No. No chance at all.

And about your comment that it takes a lot of money to get a band on MTV, it sounds a bit like payola to me. Somewhere some music executive has decided "I want this band to be big, so I'll pay out a lot of money to get them on your mtv and radio." Why not let the DJ's chose what they want? Why not let people decide what they like? Why decide for them?

Well, you can't judge quality from Myspace. Myspace compression method...is not good. However, it does sound good like many un-signed bands. 5000$. You're right. You can have decent recordings done for much less. However, not at a LA or NY studio. Did they have a experienced producer and mixing master? Was it mastered in a high quality mastering studio. Would it stand up to what you see and hear on tv and radio. You think so, their current fans think so, would the masses think so...who knows. If I see them on either radio or tv, and the label let them keep the recording done at 5k, you are right. However, almost all the music you see on tv or radio cost $$$ to produce. This includes fine tuning the song writing and recording mix/quality. There are so many techniques and tricks that turn good songs in to marketable songs. Like your friend's band. If you think it sounds good now. It could probably sound better if they had access to industry insiders. I know it sounds crazy, but it's true. I have seen it over and over again. Unsigned bands with decent material. An experienced producer and studio makes them into multi-plat artist.

Also, if you could compete with radio/tv quality music at a price like 5k, marketing and publishing is so expensive and that will be impossible to change.

Again, u2 is in a different category. I don't care how big a band is, they should still get paid. They may not have much risk now, but they did in the past. Big risk. Pop Mart almost destroyed them remember.

Also, why decide for us who we listen to? There is a big difference between what people listen to and what is marketable. There is TOO much music out there. Thousands of bands. It would be impossible. And most of it is not good. Spend some time on garageband.com / myspace and see for yourself. I've come by some good music, but most of it is uhhhh. If an unsigned band has good enough music, and some business sense, they can get to the top. Most bands think their music is good enough to be marketable to the masses, but it's not. For those of us that like to discover new music, that's why Myspace and Garageband exist. From those mediums, if the music is good enough, there will be opportunities to reach the heights of mtv and radio.

 

[the tourist]

Yes. They had a professional producer. Martin Feveyear. Look him up. Listen to the clips on iTunes. And I believe they had it mastered in LA. But what does it really matter? It's as high quality as anything out there.

 

[vociti]

Yes. They had a professional producer. Martin Feveyear. Look him up. Listen to the clips on iTunes. And I believe they had it mastered in LA. But what does it really matter? It's as high quality as anything out there.

Then nothing is stopping them from being on the radio and MTV/VH1. I wish them the best!

 

[the tourist]

Then nothing is stopping them from being on the radio and MTV/VH1.

Except big businesses. Because you can only get onto those stations/the radio with big businesses behind you. Unless it's the "Sunday Night Local Band Music" show. The Industry is screwing over some of the most talented artists out there. It's not even about good music/good art anymore. It's about sales. Good thing U2 isn't a new band now. They never would've released another album after October. And THAT is why I think the way things currently stand, the big business companies really need to fail. And that's why I look the other way when I hear about people downloading.

 

[vociti]

Of course it's about sales. It's a business. Remember, good music can't be judged. There is some s&*t out there that I can't believe people like, but they do. Doesn't mean it's bad music, even if I think it's no good. There are so many factors that industry leaders take in to consideration when it comes to deciding who makes it, and who doesn't. Some is based of music theory, some is based of research, etc. There is a whole process to it. I think publishing is a big deal. Every band needs a professional marketing department. To get your music out to ad agencies, etc.

Music is like beauty in that it's in the eye of the beholder. However, some major industry exec new that Nickelback had good enough material to make profit from. And they were right. And why is it that you don't hear music like Nickelback, U2, Linkin Park, Coldplay, on local sites? Because it's a team of people that make them who they are. Make them sound like they sound. It's not all done by the artist or the original song by the artist. It can always be better.

There is just too much music out there to let it become unorganized. Just like college sports vs. professional sports. Many can play college, only a few go pro. I'm sure there are pleanty of good players that could play pro but for one reason or another, don't make the cut for 'pro.' It's the same with music. You may have a decent fan base, but that doesn't mean you will sell albums at Best Buy or sell tickets at major concert venues.

One other thing. You think U2 would have been over after October? What did you mean by that.

 

[the tourist]

One other thing. You think U2 would have been over after October? What did you mean by that.

October was a commercial failure. If a band has a commercial failure as their second album these days, they get dropped.

 

[Axver]

I don't wish to re-engage in the general debate of this thread, but Bono himself has said that in this day and age, U2 never would have made it past October as they would have been dropped swiftly by a record label and forgotten. Even in the early 1980s, they were fairly lucky - the album's comparatively good performance in The Netherlands helped, and that's a major reason why U2 have such a strong connection with the country.

 

[vociti]

ah, I gotcha. Very true. However, things were also less expensive and there was no illegal downloading. They new back then that a million albums + sold = $$$$$$$$$. Getting a band to do a million these days, not too easy. It's amazing how much damage illegal downloading does. If things were still the same, labels could take more risk, even on a band where an album didn't do so well. And if it didn't cost so much to live now adays, everything, everyone, could charge less for everything. It's amazing how things like expensive food, real estate, gas, insurance, entertainment, effect everything. I mean, the cost to own a small place in LA is a complete joke. It's funny how one thing can effect so many other things totally unrelated.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

My point is there is enough outlets to get a preview of the album before downloading it illegally or buying it.




I agree, but they would also have a much harder time getting their music out there and funding tours.

thats not true.. they would make the same amount of money if not more if the record companies were not there.. I am 100% there would be a company to help fund a U2 tour..

if U2 sold 16 million copies of their album from their website and sold it for $8.. you do the maths
sure there would be some moneys they need to fork out for certain costs but in the end I think the band would be better off.. it's just U2 are on a contract and they need to stick to that they are part of the old school of thinking..

so many great artists are not given fair chances because they don't make big bucks cause their songs aren't instantly catchy, like arcade fire etc..

Shame on the music industry and the record labels for letting things get so plastic

 

[BVS]

thats not true.. they would make the same amount of money if not more if the record companies were not there.. I am 100% there would be a company to help fund a U2 tour..

If you would have read the context you would have known that statement was NOT about U2. It was about the industry in general. Yes, this model would work for bands that already have a strong fan base, but not for bands starting out and that was my point.

 

[Popmartijn]

I agree that the artists need to get paid. What I find horrible, though, is that out of every $10 disc sold, the artist only gets 14%. The companies really need this to happen to them for being so greedy. The companies are what need to go away.

Keep in mind that most CD are being sold wholesale (so from the label to the shops) for around 7 to 8 dollars. Everything you see above it is generally the mark-up the shop adds to it.
Artists get (with your numbers) about 14% of the list price (which is usually around $17 - 19 IIRC), so about $2.5.
So the record company has a mark-up of around $4.5 - 5.5. This includes the overhead costs, storage costs (warehouse), cover for those artists whose costs they don't recoup and profit. There might be more costs too.

Just to give a very rough estimate of what goes into the price of an album.

 

[Popmartijn]

And also, you mention risk. How much of a risk is a band like U2, for instance? Is there even a chance the record companies WON'T make 50 million off of one of their albums? No. No chance at all.

Yes, there is. One word: Pop.

But will they give U2 any bigger of a cut of their own art? No. No chance at all.

They do. U2 has (reportedly) one of the highest royalty rates in the music industry. Earlier, someone mentioned a royalty rate of about 14% for many artists. It is believed that U2's royalty rate is about 25%. That's a huge difference.

And about your comment that it takes a lot of money to get a band on MTV, it sounds a bit like payola to me.

Partly, yes (probably). But it also costs a lot of money to make a video (or the idea has to be so good that MTV and the like will disregard any lo-fi qualities). And promotion (advertisements, interviews, promotional gigs) also cost money.

Somewhere some music executive has decided "I want this band to be big, so I'll pay out a lot of money to get them on your mtv and radio." Why not let the DJ's chose what they want? Why not let people decide what they like? Why decide for them?

True, an executive probably saw the potential (artistic and/or commercial) in an artist and gave it his backing.
As for your first question, ask the radio industry (a different industry than the recording industry we were talking about earlier) why there are so many strict formats and playlists, why DJ's can't chose what they want.
And the people can certainly decide what they like. But how can they make a choice? As mentioned in another post, there's so much music out there you need a filter.

 

[Snowlock]

I said it was a SIMILAR technology. From what I've read the filters actually scan the "DNA" of the files so you or I couldn't change the mp3 without actually fucking with the content.

The hacking issue is something completely different. Anything can be hacked, theoretically NASA could be hacked into, it isn't a reason to not implement.

Hacking isn't a completely different argument. The argument is how to save the music industry. Either prevent piracy (by legislation or technology or both) or change your business model. If we can't stop people from smoking pot through legislation, you certainly aren't going to stop people from downloading. And as for technology, you can change the DNA of a file easily, and we do it today with various programs that are out there. What would make the ISP filter code any different? Someone downloads the freeware decoder, encodes it as an MP3 and off it goes again.

You need to understand that to make the security effective, you have to spend money. If you spend a lot of money to make something super secure, are you gaining any profits? If you pass the expense on to the customer by raising prices, are you going to gain any sales, which is what this is all about anyway.

NASA spends millions (probably billions) on security each year. Good luck trying to get that level of security out of the recording industry or an ISP so it's not really much of an analogy.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

There are still a lot of assumptions being thrown around, but can we all agree that this is pretty funny?...

TorrentFreak
A group of musicians calling themselves ‘The Overdub Tampering Committee’ (TOTC) have just made a rather unusual announcement. For the last 3 years TOTC have been downloading newly-leaked albums from the internet and using them to create new versions of the tracks. They added their own instruments, and used additional production techniques in the style of the original recording, to create a subtle remix of the original.

Within hours, they then re-released the slightly modified albums back onto file-sharing networks and BitTorrent sites such as OiNK and The Pirate Bay. “If you illegally download music on the internet the chances that our work is in your collection is very, very likely! In fact, you might have a whole lot of us!”, they claim. In fact, ‘Polluting’ P2P networks with this music didn’t end the spread. TOTC have seen their works spread as far as radio stations. No prizes for guessing where they got it from.

Full article here.

 

[BVS]

Hacking isn't a completely different argument. The argument is how to save the music industry. Either prevent piracy (by legislation or technology or both) or change your business model. If we can't stop people from smoking pot through legislation, you certainly aren't going to stop people from downloading. And as for technology, you can change the DNA of a file easily, and we do it today with various programs that are out there. What would make the ISP filter code any different? Someone downloads the freeware decoder, encodes it as an MP3 and off it goes again.

You need to understand that to make the security effective, you have to spend money. If you spend a lot of money to make something super secure, are you gaining any profits? If you pass the expense on to the customer by raising prices, are you going to gain any sales, which is what this is all about anyway.

NASA spends millions (probably billions) on security each year. Good luck trying to get that level of security out of the recording industry or an ISP so it's not really much of an analogy.

Yes most of what you say is true. But my point is that hacking isn't a reason not to pursue certain models, otherwise, Amazon, online gambling, anything that exchanges money would stay off the internet.

No, you do not change the DNA of a file, if you do it's no longer that file. This technology that I was reading about claims it still can gather the proper information even if the file was changed from a jpeg to a giff, or an mp3 to a wma.

I'll try and find the article.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

What's the "DNA" of a file?

 

[BVS]

What's the "DNA" of a file?

I am by no means an expert, but it's how they explained it in this article. The way they explained it that you can tinker with an mp3 of let's say 'With or Without You', you can turn it into a WMA or you can change the title, etc but it will still remain the song 'With Or Without You' that would be the DNA, once you tinker with it to the point where it's not the song 'With or Without You', than you've changed it's DNA.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

I am by no means an expert, but it's how they explained it in this article. The way they explained it that you can tinker with an mp3 of let's say 'With or Without You', you can turn it into a WMA or you can change the title, etc but it will still remain the song 'With Or Without You' that would be the DNA, once you tinker with it to the point where it's not the song 'With or Without You', than you've changed it's DNA.

but what if you encrypt or compress the file?

 

[BVS]

but what if you encrypt or compress the file?

They claim it's still detectable. Compressed I can see, that should be pretty easy, encrypted I'm not sure how they deal with that...

 

[ybab gnuthca]

They claim it's still detectable. Compressed I can see, that should be pretty easy, encrypted I'm not sure how they deal with that...

The purpose of cryptography is to hide the contents of the file. So if they are claiming that they can actually tell from a file encrypted with the use of strong encryption algorithm, that this is U2's With or Without You, then they are not speaking the truth. Furthermore, if the file is distributed via bittorrents, it is divided into thousands of small pieces which are received and uploaded in a random order.

They can download the file themselves, using bittorrent, decrypt it and see what it contains, of course. But I can't see how you could be able to detect what file it is just by "listening" to data traffic on a torrent network.

 

[MrBrau1]

the answer is coupons and tee shirts.

If artists give away coupons and tee shirts with their records, the industry will be saved.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Don't know if you're sarcastic, but that's the way the music business has to take sooner or later. Offer something that any consumer can't just copy for free.

We've seen the return of vinyls in recent years. That's no coincidence.

 

[MrBrau1]

Don't know if you're sarcastic, but that's the way the music business has to take sooner or later. Offer something that any consumer can't just copy for free.

We've seen the return of vinyls in recent years. That's no coincidence.

you mean offer the consumer who wants music something other than music?

That's actually not bad.

Record companies could move into the lawn care business.

Lawn care is the future of the record business.

 

[the tourist]

you mean offer the consumer who wants music something other than music?

That's actually not bad.

Record companies could move into the lawn care business.

Lawn care is the future of the record business.

You win. You win. You win.

 

[Bonoscoolness78]

I know a good number of folks who are aspiring musicians. Most download as well.
they also work in the spaghetti factory or do freelance web-design on the side.

that's just the way it is.
You can talk until you're blue in the face about "stealing" and new-fangled protection in the digital medium but fact is - unless you support the greater evils of clearchannel and DRM - people who love music truly are accepting that making a go of it in the musical arena is changing.
You probably won't make it overnight...but you still certainly can. There's no lack of new artists who are living very well off.

All this apocalyptic talk is way over-hyped.

Whether or not radioheads intentions were altruistic or not doesn't matter. That format is the future.
If you don't think so you're living in a dream world.

 

[BVS]

Whether or not radioheads intentions were altruistic or not doesn't matter. That format is the future.
If you don't think so you're living in a dream world.

What do you mean that format is the future? You mean everyone placing it on their own website with a choose your own price?

 

[Bonoscoolness78]

What do you mean that format is the future? You mean everyone placing it on their own website with a choose your own price?

yes.
when it comes to online downloading, that's all an artist can do. No doubt it will evolve. But I think a general format of buying music directly from the musician on the musicians website is DEFINITELY going to take hold. People will still download your music for free. But fans and friends of the band will use that to support their favorite band.
I can imagine that most diehard Radiohead fans paid something for their latest album. If U2 did the same, everyone on this site would do the same.

And lets not kid ourselves. You have to be fairly well established as a musician to have your music on peer-to-peer sharing programs. I have 4 friends who have been in a band for almost ten years, have released 3 albums, yet you cannot find any of them anywhere for free.

Once you get to the size of your typical successful indie band that is garnering good reviews touring is their bread and butter.
But not even touring is necessary.
Look at the Silver Jews! They've been around FOREVER and they have rarely toured. Yet they have consistently produced great albums. Once you are signed you got a good ten years in you guaranteed if you make good music; regardless of whether you tour or not.

 

[BVS]

I do think more artist will sell directly from their own websites, but this still doesn't solve the problem.

If you don't tour bigtime or aren't a big name you are still screwed.

Those that are purely songwriters are screwed. Those that don't or can't tour are screwed.

I still think there needs to be a way to actually pay the artist!!!

I'm not sure what the solution is, but something has to be done. Tax those that host torrents and are sharing with torrents, create different packages for internet usages(charge more for those that download music), or some type of combination...