digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Inevitable March of Recorded Music Towards Free

techcrunch.com — The DRM walls are crumbling. Music CD sales continue to plummet rather alarmingly. Artists like Prince and Nine Inch Nails are flouting their labels and either giving music away or telling their fans to steal it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/14/2007, -4/+116as someone who writes music, downloads music, and pays for music (including live, CD's and downloads), this does sorta bother me a bit. I have a day job, and I'd love to quit, but the profit I make from music is nowhere near high enough. most guys I know now believe that live shows are the only way to survive. as far as recorded music, here's how I see it. If you can't afford to pay for it but you want to listen to it, then you can have it. but if you can afford it and you feel it has value, please pay. I like Radiohead's idea of allowing you to pay whatever you feel it's worth. that's the direction I'd like to go in. some guys might only give you $1, but some might toss $20 or more at you, you never know. One things for sure, the money going straight to the artist with no label is awesome.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47I stopped buying music en masse a long time ago (I've got several hundred CDs) and I stopped downloading a while back. There are only a few artists I'll give my money to for music and those artists tend to sell their CDs through their web site. I've always thought it'd be a great idea if you could choose to download some music from an artist and turn around send THEM the check. Record labels seem to unnecessary these days (as someone said in another comment for another article) and are only around to serve us the mainstream pop crap that fills the radio waves these days.
      I'll gladly pay $13-$20 for a CD if I knew the artist got to decide what to do with the money.
      • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Agreed. Some albums, I'd pay $50 or more for because they blow my ***** mind every time I listen to them.

        I don't want to give a dime to the incompetent, bureaucratic overlords of the music labels, though. They've served their purpose. Time to let the virtue of each album speak for itself, and create a real marketplace, egalitarian alternative.
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yeah I have to agree with you. When given an option to pay the artist directly what I feel is right for something I truly like I will usualy over pay just to support the artist be it a painting, music, book, or whatever. I feel more people are like this than not. At least I hope they are.
    • Speed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I like what illScarlett did with their new album. When they were preforming live at Warped Tour, they were selling the CDs themselves for half the retail price (this was also like a week before the CD even hit stores). Decent album, too.
    • Schroderr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8As I see it, recorded music should just be promotion for live shows. The smart ones gave their music away and packed their shows. Ala, the Grateful Dead.

      Recordings aren't enough. An artist should simply charge a yearly subscription and receive x amount of songs, first shot at tickets, and some other goodies. It's the record companies that screwed up. Remove them. The artist makes more money and the fan gets a more intimate experience.
      • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well people like me in the midwest, famous bands don't come our way often. Recorded music is the only way many of us would ever hear a lot of music.
    • Eeqmcsq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"...allowing you to pay whatever you feel it's worth"

      So it's kind of like a tips jar, where if someone really enjoyed it, they'd throw in a few bucks or more, but if they didn't then nothing is lost.
    • Liquidman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i think the way radiohead is doing it is great. I can't remember the last time i spent money on music other than cds to burn on before i got my ipod. I feel more inclined to pay the artist themselves because it's like a tip and no record label is getting their money. i hate the recording industry, they're scum.
    • uberkling, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"One things for sure, the money going straight to the artist with no label is awesome."

      Damn straight. The irony that even if you only wire the band $1 directly for the album, that's probably more than their cut from the $20 produced CD anyway. The only people that lose in that equation are the ones I don't really think the discerning consumer *or* the jaded artist really give that much of a crap about these days.
    • b0er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Can't afford" is pretty vague definition. You see, I "cannot afford" to buy music because I am spending my income to a house, a car, a nice computer, fast internet and all other *****. So I should be able to get music free, no?
    • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3All music should be freely downloadable, though in 'free to air radio' quality. All music clips should be freely downloadable, though in 'free to web' youtube like quality. DRM free and leveraging the exposure/advertising of the 'free web'
      The 'high quality' versions should be charged for. All monies should go to the artist. And the artist should pay the distributor be it a website, physical medium, or telepathic transfer. The rights should remain with the author.
      The problem is the studios are not the artist, they are incapable of the performance, and are getting the majority of the return for merely distributing copies. They are the true pirates of endevour.
    • jmshl92, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0just because music is free doenst mean there wont be good music. the sooner more artists unlike urself realize thats its for the art and enjoyment of other not the money and fame, the better this world will be. there is still millions of dollars available in this market. Pirating will just allow us to rid the industry of corp scumpaving the way for money to be made individually. Sharing is caring
      • relentless1914, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"just because software is free doenst mean there wont be good software. the sooner more programmers realize thats its for the fun and enjoyment of other not the money and fame, the better this world will be. there is still millions of dollars available in this market. Pirating will just allow us to rid the industry of corp scumpaving the -way for money to be made individually. Sharing is caring"...

        Sorry but most people who work hard to be really good at something they do have the right to attempt to make a living doing their passion. The problem here is that too many people try to turn other peoples work into a commodity. It is up to the artist and his/her designated representatives, (record label & distributor) to decide how much they wish to charge for their work, and it is up to the consumer to decide if they feel that price is worth paying.

        I frequently read arguments from people who do not create content who feel that content creation is easy, and that the content is worthless, I'm not a musician, I'm an artist, and I will not allow my customers to determine the price for my work. I set the price, and if they are not willing to pay, then I don't do the work. They are free to go elsewhere and try to find a fool who is willing to work for peanuts. I see music the same way. Most musicians who I know would love to be able top focus full-time on music, but they can't because they can't generate enough revenue to feed their families unless they sign a record deal. Once a deal is signed, the artists are able to do music full-time. This is why the creativity is gone. If someone tells you to produce a certain type of music if you want a multi-million dollar contract, would you do it, or would you stick to what you want to do and stay broke? Get rid of the recording industry and you are making it harder for them...... I'm not a fan of the RIAA, and I don't buy any music, nor do I download music. I listen to what I already have, and lament about the days of higher quality and more originality....
  • ACrazyGerman, on 10/10/2007, -18/+8I download all my music first because my taste in music changes so much I will love a album one week next week delete from my computer. I am not gonna buy a CD for $10-$20 just to cast it away in a weeks time. But thats just because I am very picky with my music the moment I stop listening to it I get it off my computer and 95% of the time never listen to it again.
    • bingobongony, on 10/14/2007, -13/+11Yeah...that makes it right to steal it. Becuase you are, of course, ENTITLED to own music, as long as your tastes are picky.
      • Lyph5, on 10/14/2007, -5/+7No, that's not accurate. His example points out how music is over-priced for the most part.
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2There is NO SUCH THING sa "overpriced". It costs what the market has determiend it to cost. If it was overpriced, then sales would go down so much that profits would drop and they would be forced to lower prices.
          Just because YOU think that prices are too high does not make it so. I want to pay less for Filet Mignon too. But I can't. So I go without it most of the time.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"There is NO SUCH THING sa "overpriced"."

            Wow. Just wow. Did you read the article?
          • xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"No such thing as overpriced"

            What are you- a ***** record exec? Because I could only imagine an exec saying ***** like that. How much do you think it costs a record company to burn and sell a 20 year old album? Or even a 5 yo. album? Keep in mind that we as consumers can buy blank CDs for pennies. Once the promotion and basic costs are made back, (aside from the % to artists) it's all gravy for the record companies that are charging you 15 bucks for that 20 year old Metallica CD. Why haven't the costs of CDs gone down since they came out?
      • ACrazyGerman, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11Music is far to expensive just to buy and album you think MIGHT be good. I am getting dugg down because I like to listen to my music for a few weeks before I dump my money into it. If it's good I want to support the artist.
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Then you don't get to HAVE it. Period.
          An iPod is far too expensive to buy if you THINK you may prefer a Creative Zen. So I guess I should be able to steal it just in case.
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Getting a sample of music doesn't cost anything but the bandwidth. Swiping an iPod costs the retailer up to $400, depending on the model. I hope you see the difference in scale here.
          • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I do get to have it, and there is no prospect of anyone stopping me from having it. You are pissing upwind if you think otherwise.
      • Fordi, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6He said "download". That can mean by P2P or by iTunes, for all you know. Please don't jump to any conclusions.
    • ACrazyGerman, on 10/14/2007, -3/+5If I like the music I'll buy it but not after I listened to it for a few weeks.
    • norman619, on 10/14/2007, -11/+2This might be a shock to you but taking something w/o paying for it is stealing even if in this case it's making illegal copies(infringing). What you are doing isn't even remotely right. Buy it if you want it. If you get tried of it sell it.
      • williamdyer, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4Copyright is not the same as property. Copyright is government-granted monopoly for a limited term. Violation of copyright is far less than theft or real property.
      • xister, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3@norman: Go sell your story somewhere else, Mr. Copyright Lawyer...
    • Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So you're sort of a bipolar music consumer?
  • hiphoc, on 10/14/2007, -5/+13Yea, we got to work something out with this downloading stuff. The old label model is dead. I am glad, maybe the Radiohead way of doing things would work. This is ***** because the labels have been putting out ***** and promoting people to buy albums and come home to find ***** coming out of their speakers. But this can kill the golden goose as the term goes. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a indie artist to record a record, especially if u have to hire musicians. But one good thing is that most unsigned artists can tour or perform to make money. If you are a studio diva or studio gangsta and cant perform you are *****. That's why the labels are scared. A lot of their artists cant really sing or perform on an instrument. The garbage artists are gonna be weeded out in the next few years. I just home underground folks survive. Buy indie/underground and download major label artists. That's the best way to ***** the system. That will make the indie rise up and take over.

    Downloading is a great way to distribute music without getting your ass raped by a major label contract. But we got to keep working to make it profitable for indie artists. Imagine if Mozart had a record label? No too long, people dont want that
    • juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Tens of thousands of dollars to record an album? Nonsense. The only reason it costs that much is labels and ***** like that.
      • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Everyone is different. A really good vocal mic can cost me 1g, minimum 500$, really good 2000$. Computer/Mac fully loaded minimum 5G's. Pro Tools or Apogee rig 2 G's minimum. Now that's if you want semi-studio quality in your home. Labels spend hundreds of thousands if not millions recording an album. Yea, you can get things done with a MBox or MAudio system. But we are talking about really getting ***** done on your own there is an initial set up cost.
        • maninblac1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4A really good vocal mic has only very fine differences that can only be discerned when listening to uncompressed audio. I'm not saying a generic mic would do the trick, there is a quality factor in getting your transducers and impedances correct and aligned. But mp3, you could record your song in a nice sound dampend bathroom and not really notice it. As long as lossy encoding is around, most of the advantages of these great pieces of hardware are lost instantly.
          • xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree- Not to mention you could set up a decent studio in your garage for 2-3 thousand and get a great sound. Not impossible for an indie band that has day jobs.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3actually, if you look at the cost of the hardware compared to how many albums are made for the hardware, the cost is extremely cheap. the reason albums continually cost so much is because studio time is expensive. for home recording, the hardware is becoming a one time purchase as the majority of mixing techniques go towards software. so that's a one time purchase for as many records as you want to produce, which if you make a lot of albums, it's worth it.
        • ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You traded the Chevvy for a microphone?

          Ok, I can see that...
      • shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6True, its at most 3 to 5 thousand to complete a new CD, and $500 to press every 1,000 CDs. The labels just gouge the artists.
        • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Heh. When I had a band, we made do with a little over $500/album, and it was damned good quality - acoustically, not musically, I mean. We kinda sucked.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The lables rip off the artists with studio fees and the like. It's a joke.
        • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I think new artitst dont know how expensive studioi tme is. I know of major artists who block out days at a time in the Hit Factory and dont use the time.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How can they not know how much they are paying for studio time? That's amazing to me. I sure as hell would ask. New bands should be fully aware of this by now. It's been a huge sticking point for many artists for a while now.
    • itsbradman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Underground artists have survived forever without making $ off of their recordings and will continue to do so. The ability to distribute music online has done nothing but take $ away from the labels and the RIAA itself. The artists aren't losing out on this. Hell, most of the don't even own their music anymore after they sign to a label. The erosion of big label music is the best thing to happen to "real" music in a very long time.
  • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1I doubt music will be completely free, as there is still a lot of intrinsic value in it. I think we're in for a massive change in copyright protection, to shift to accessright, where people no longer purchase copies of protected works, but instead license access for varying degrees of time, at a particular sampling quality. The actual content format or method of distribution becomes irrelevant, and the only control needed is to ensure compliance with accessright licenses.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a non-profit organization provide a worldwide database of protected works, and manage individual's access to those works, hopefully in a way that protects the privacy of those involved. Then, IP enforcement would be a matter of cracking down on the largest offenders, and ensuring compliance with this system. As this shift takes place, it will be possible to reduce the actual licensing costs, given that cost of distribution is minimal, reach is much broader, and hopefully, many more people would find it worthwhile to participate with affordable pricing.

    Watermarking content to identify it in the accessright database would be the most common form of copy protection, and then compliance checking would ensure that you have a license for that work. With a more straightforward and automated system such as this, I think the market for content could actually be much larger than the inefficient and inconvenient system we currently use. People will still find ways around the system, but at least there would be a framework for providing at least the same convenience and usability as p2p currently provides, in a manner that rewards content producers.
  • indiefan, on 10/14/2007, -3/+45support bands by paying to see them perform
    • skellener, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3And paying them for their recordings.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Recordings will most likely become promotional tools.
    • ThetaDot, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3And what of the countless artists who don't tour?
      • indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10start touring?
        • ThetaDot, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Wow. Brilliant...
          • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, he is really insensitive to those Phantom of the Opera types who live in a cave and would be attacked by a torch mob if they toured.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2bury
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4if you can't adapt and start playing live, you die out. there was a time when "music artists" only performed live. there isn't anything that can be done on recording that can't be reproduced live today.
        • sherbertbones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Those 3 statements are completely false. Let me break it down by sentence:

          1) Tom Waits, Kate Bush, Scott Walker rarely or ever tour and are doing pretty well for themselves. Look at the Beatles too.
          2) I'm assuming you're referring to the 60's, and The Beatles never played live from mid-66's til their end.
          3) I'd love to hear Frank Zappa's "The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny" (musique concrete) or the Beatles' "Revolution 9" (similar type of musique concrete) played live...
    • MadScientist440, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0What about hip-hop artists? I have been to hundreds of shows, but have never found the sound of rap music to translate well to the live setting (with the exception perhaps of The Roots). There are plenty of rappers whose albums are very well produced, and are very enjoyable, but when they go on tour it's always ten guys on stage shouting unintelligibly with a recorded background track. Of course, the reverse is true for jam-bands such as Phish and Widespread Panic- their music is always better live. Then there is the issue of spending $70 to see a show, something that makes me less than comfortable, and keeps many fans away.
    • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But a lot of them suck live while having great studio sound...
      • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's because many artists can't actually sing and rely in the studio to make them sound good. Pitch shift, anyone?
  • sockpuppets, on 10/14/2007, -11/+5Someone make a cool "I steal music" t-shirt. I'd like to buy one.
  • wazzledoozle2, on 10/14/2007, -1/+33Add Radiohead to that list. On the 10th their new album "In Rainbows" will be available for download at the price of whatever you feel like paying- or nothing at all!!
    • juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Though that is cool, I don't think it's a good idea for all albums to be free. They need to make a profit somehow.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Try live performances. That's where they make the bulk of their money anyways. The record labels take the majority of the profits from the CD sales.
    • luke374, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Read the article before you comment ... it mentions that.
    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Although I like what Radiohead's doing, I think they should just have a minimum price, like a buck- at least that way they're getting something. Who would feel screwed if they bought an album for a buck and only liked one song? That's no worse than a trip to iTunes.
  • juicebag, on 10/14/2007, -3/+20I wouldn't mind paying for music if the band actually got my money, and if I wasn't supporting the RIAA. And if Tower Records didn't close and my local record store didn't burn down.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The band gets exactly what they're contract says they get. The contract they freely agreed to. I'm sick of this argument. Tower closed because people don't buy CDs anymore.
      • elwoodclarks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not exactly, Tower closed because "they ***** rip-off people off" as one of the Scissor Sisters said.
        • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is silly. CD prices haven't changed in 20 years and all of a sudden people stopped buying them conveniently in the same era downloading music became an option?

          Just admit it is downloading that put the hurt on CD sales.
        • juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, but I used to buy all of my music from CDs. I supported them.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Music artists are not lawyers, and the contracts they're given to sign are often given in a "sign now or no deal" manner. While that is illegal and predatory, most Artists don't realize it - nor do they normally know that they should record all negotiations to keep everyone honest.

        For what it's worth, that particular type of market failure is known as 'asymmetric information', or more colloquially as de facto fraud.

        Admittedly, there are a few exceptions to this rule - and those artists who *are* the exceptions make a good deal even with just a modest career.

        Meanwhile, Tower close due to overextension; they got their fingers into too many pies, and too few of them were profitable.
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3techcrunch needs to stop considering themselves knowledgeable if they think that it will ever be completely free.
    • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Go Britney! Never drop your prices!
  • Biohazard6601, on 10/14/2007, -8/+3free music legally? hell yeah
    thats like free advertisement with the internet. think concerts
  • zhulien, on 10/14/2007, -4/+22heck, if my business cannot make a profit and goes under, I don't try recoup my losses by suing people - perhaps the RIAA should just accept their business is going down and live with it.
    • toekneebullard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6But if you're business went out of business because everyone stole your product rather than buying, you would try and prosecute those people. I'm not siding with the RIAA by any means, but your analogy is pretty weak.
    • nastajus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ahh, but they're still getting an income. and as long they have some Cheese there waiting every day in they're office, then they can toil away in as many frivolous prosecutions until they are completely out of Cheese. Surely there must be people quitting or even maybe downsized, but there will be some stubborn people who won't realize it until they're the last ones fired themselves at the end. And then they'll try to sue they're former company, they're entitled to some benefits, even if they'res nothing left to dish out.

      I just read the book Who Moved My Cheese? -It has had an impact on me. I like it alot.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I may download a lot of music but I myself if I knew my favorite bands (of which I have all legally purchased albums) would get 100% of the profit I would not be opposed to paying the same or slightly more for their cd's it does piss me off though paying say $20CDN for Master of Puppets or Ride the lightning and knowing that Metallica might get $1-3 of that as the record label sucks up most of it which is BS Metallica are the ones who wrote the songs play all over the world deserve the recognition and the record labels are the ones getting the money what the ***** is up with that one?

    either make music free and charge like $200 for a live show per ticket or keep the same prices and make sure all money goes straight to the artist. only things record labels do is get a band off the ground once they are established and have at least one solid album under them they should have enough money to finance a second third etc album on their own easily considering average CD sales
    • Lyph5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If you think artists get $1-3 for album sales you're in some fantasy world.

      During recording the Label forces the artist to use the Label's studio (which they charge them after the fact) and the Label provides catering (which the artist is billed for after the fact). So that $10m contract ends with you owing the label money after your first two albums. And unless you get HUGE you're going to be paying the Label off once your one hit has been forgotten by the world.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3well, actually, the label fronts a band a bunch of money so that the band can go use a studio. you don't receive anything for your sales until this fronted money is paid off.
    • Speed, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Sorry, gotta digg you down. Free music or not, I would refuse to pay $200/ticket for a live show. For me to pay $200/ticket, they'd have to bring Elvis and Johnny Cash back to life and get them to preform together, with a reanimated John Lennon opening.
    • Professr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Damn, dude... It's called punctuation! Use it!
    • Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Punctuation makes things easier to read.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually, Metallica's got a contract deal that allows them to eat the internal organs of any lawsuit victim of the RIAA. True story. I hear Hetfield prefers livers.

      These are the guys who *told off* their fans for downloading music, remember.
  • skellener, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I still buy CDs of bands I like and will continue to do so. More and more I can buy them right from the band's website which is great. Why? Better quality, CD is a ubiquitous format and can play in anything, no DRM, can be resold if I ever get tired of it, songs can be ripped an re-ripped to whatever format I like and by having the CD it is my built-in back up. They can also be found rather cheaply at used record stores. I still find this the ideal way to collect and keep music I enjoy. I only use digital "pay" download for the the single I want without the album. I will always check Amazon now instead of iTunes since Amazon is DRM free.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2an alternate way to get single songs is (or was, anyhow) Winmx
  • blake213, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7What he fails to realize here is that digital distribution (in the form of mp3 downloads) is a *distribution* cost, not a *production* cost. Does anyone realize how expensive it is to record and produce a record? It can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So while bandwidth is cheap, you still have to factor in the cost of actually producing the music. Count in all the other costs not related to distribution, and the price exponentially rises.
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It does not need to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Talented people can record music very cheaply these days.
      • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You can record music cheaply, but you get what you pay for. Muffled and scratchy demo tapes anyone?
        • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"demo tapes"

          You've just pretty much shown when the last time you've heard a home-recorded track was. Computers are wonderful things, especially when they're hooked up to about $600 worth of mid-end DSPs and recording equipment.
    • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes. I know. It costs about $5000. Less if you are frugal.
      • JonDee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What are you talking about. It costs virtually nothing to record an album. If you are the type of musician that needs great equipment to sound good, then you aren't a musician at all. Today you can get the same quality from ***** cheap equipment and post work as you can from really expensive equipment and post work. I worked in a studio for two years, and it's was ridiculous what we charged per hour for the same service you can have at home, in your bathroom, with a laptop and a 30 dollar microphone. And really you don't need a computer at all. They sell old cheap 16 tracks at almost any pawn shop. If you are a talented musician you will have no need for some ***** producer with a million dollars worth of equipment.
        • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That is ridiculous. Ray Charles had a huge recording studio, a hundred piece orchestra at times, and all sorts of resources at his disposal. Are you saying Ray Charles is a phony musician?

          The rise of the PC has made garage band albums much easier to produce but there is a huge difference in quality between a band and a computer and a band with a professional studio and audio engineers. If you want all music to be recorded through a cheap 30 dollar microphone then you should throw out your HDTV and watch TV on an old black and white Zenith because after all, "there is no difference" lol.
          • xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It doesn't have to be a $30 mic. You can buy a $250 mic and get GREAT sound. Not to mention a basic set of ear buds or speakers (on the consumer's end) don't give a ***** whether you're using a mic that costs $50 or $5000.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Considerably less. I've got a friend who runs a recording studio that he paid less than $2000 in equipement for. He charges by the hour at a rate of $25, and makes a pretty penny at it. The local rap thugs love him for it.
    • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2ignoring "studio time", music costs as much as the hardware costs, but the more albums you produce, the more value you'll get out of that one time hardware purchase (assuming nothing breaks). so if you put down x amount of dollars on hardware, the cost is going to be x/n ... n being the number of albums you've produced. as you record and produce more, the cost of producing each album will have diminished. where the real cost comes from is the charge of studio time to use someone else's hardware.
  • zhulien, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10btw, when is the Government going to impose a mandatory tax to prop up my private company?
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1You mean to pay for greedy socialists who think music should be free.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You mean to bail out a failing business model.
  • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Someone gets it. With the internet, it's never music that is dying. It's the major labels, and they are fighting to the death. Futilely. Unless they do, for example, what Apple have done with iTunes, they will not survive. And I will gladly prepare for their funeral
    • Speed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Will we have to pay royalties for the music preformed at the funeral?
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We will all dance on their graves!
    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is exactly what is going on- the record companies (et al) don't want to evolve. They want the business model to stay the same and it just isn't going to happen. Change is inevitable- you have to go where the market goes, and work to profit in another way.
  • batmang, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Good. Maybe when music is free the artists wont be in it so much for the money, but for the love of music.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Likewise why don't you go to work tomorrow and tell your boss you will be working out of the goodness of your heart.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Ugh digg keeps double posting me today for some reason!
  • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I think all art should basically be donationware.

    I don't believe this should be forced -- such a thing would go against everything I believe in politically and economically, and would be immensely worse than the current system -- but I think it should be encouraged. And the only people who can encourage that are you and me, the consumers, by supporting the artists' explorations into this area.

    Lest anyone misunderstand, I'm a writer who intends on releasing everything he publishes under a CCL, with free PDF downloads, and I want to mail a copy of each book I write to anyone who writes me a letter and asks. I figure it benefits everyone involved, even if every single book I sell costs me $3 shipping and handling (or bandwidth cost) and I get nothing but good vibes in return. As happy as I'd be if I were a millionaire, I'd be ecstatic if people just read my books and didn't think they were flaming piles of ***** :-)

    *
  • seanhive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Instead of manufacturing a witty comment for the Digg community (sorry D:), I'll say what I really mean; great find, and great article. This has opened my eyes to something I honestly haven't thought of before. Some big changes might happen within the next 10 years. It may be the end of the "music industry" as we know it. The Radiohead story linked from this article is even further interesting. I'm going to show this to all my friends.
  • MaxwellTD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Personally, i download most of my music, theres no possible way i could pay for it all.
    However! I go to a lot of shows, and i buy a lot of merch, direct from the artist too.
    every now and then i will buy a New CD (about 1 a month) instead of downloading
    My dads band has put out almost all of there recordings for free.
    And my band plans to do the same.
    (i wear a different band t-shirt every day)
    • dynacrylic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's how I used to be. I would constantly go to shows and buy the band's merchandise, especially Mushroomhead related band(s) stuff. I haven't downloaded music in about 4 years though.

      I haven't bought a "new" cd since 10,000 Days. If more bands made quality inspiring music, I'd be buying more CDs.
      • CelloZach, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Then stop listening to music.
        • xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow- that was a steaming pile of logic if I ever saw it.
  • Jerky1312, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Prince didn't give away his music for free, he was paid by the newspaper, so that the newspaper could give away the music for "free". Prince is actually doing everything he can to remove his music off the internet for free. Source...
    http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2168 ...

    As for the article in general. I believe recordings of music should be completely free, as they were a promotional tool when they first came out. Artists back in the day (before recording technology) would perform shows live and earn their money in that sense. They could only advertise themselves via print ads and word of mouth, that is until recording technology came out. It was used to promote the musicians and it eventually became a source of income, when people decided they didn't need to go out to a live performance and just listen to the records instead. It wasn't as bad back in the day, but now the recording industry has become so powerful in their contracting, that they gain alot of control over the musicians and profit immensely from their work. The musicians (especially younger up and comers), believe their only chance at stardom and the big money is to sign that contract, which is for the most part true. Until that scenario changes, the recording industry will always have control of the music and the musicians. The internet is doing alot to help new artists, but the profitability for them is still with the labels, that is why you will see musicians who become popular online, will eventually sign with a label anyway. Things are changing, but at a very slow pace.
  • gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Artist have to make money somehow. I think the real push will be for a much more free-market digital distribution. Kind of like iTunes (although I'm not a fan of iTunes).
  • Joecool180, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Interesting this reaches the front page the same day the RIAA wins their first trial-by-jury banking them $220K.
  • thedigitalkach, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1This is retarded.
  • einfeldt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The decision in the RIAA case is just going to make the downloaders more angry. There is going to be hell to pay for this in RIAA land.
  • eternalsnows, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What a colossally lame opinion piece. Thank god some of the commenters on TechCrunch are taking the author to task. In the end I suspect Mr. Arrington is simply trolling for ad clicks, nothing more...
  • frogpelt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Inevitable?
    Free?
    This article is garbage. Music will be (legally) free on the same day that movies, software, books, art, etc. are all (legally) free.
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3But you can get all of that stuff for free already legally - Independent artists give away stuff because they don't have the money to promote it, so they use the art to promote themselves. That is basically the model he is describing for the majors.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Radiohead is an established band that can afford to give away mp3s of their music because they know that people will still buy the CDs and pay for concert tickets. An unknown band will find it difficult to reach that stage without someone investing in them for professional quality recording in a real studio and promotion so their songs get airplay. One day the internet may replace radio as the main place where people are exposed to new music, based on some sort of polling system for likeability, but until then bands need to rely on grassroots campaigns without investment from record labels or other sources (e.g. wealthy parents).
    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not true any more- Tay Zonday anyone? Youtube as a polling system? One song- millions of hits. Got him on Jimmy Kimmel and a lot of other gigs. If a traditional band had done this they'd be selling a good amount of music and be well known.
  • dennysivo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13"most unsigned artists can tour or perform to make money"

    rubbish.

    Have you ever tried this? It can take years to develop your act such that you can make money touring. Many acts actually pay to perform at cabaret shows

    "I wouldn't mind paying for music if the band actually got my money,"

    another fine myth. Standard deal is 2 bucks per unit sold going into the artists pocket. If you rip it instead of buying it you take $2 out of your beloved bands pocket. Prince and NIN don't give a ^%&* cuz they can already bathe in money.

    "if my business cannot make a profit and goes under, I don't try recoup my losses by suing people"

    no, but if they walk out of your retail outlet with merch that they've not paid for you tend to throw them in jail.

    "Maybe when music is free the artists wont be in it so much for the money, but for the love of music."

    so, we'd then no longer have professional artists. That's great. I can't wait to listen to your 5 year old cousins latest garage band smash hit. To do music well you have to dedicate a lot of time to it and often buy some pricey gear. Most musicians have a dream of having music be their day job. Are you proposing we take that away?
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I don't agree with making music free. Artists deserve pay for their work. Granted I do download music from time to time and listen to it to see if it is worth listening to. After that I usually buy the Albums. However I find it amusing that people want music for free yet expect to be paid when they work.
  • vostek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5From the mouth of a fellow musician, I can say this rings true. I've given my music away for the past 9 years. The first time I am going to attempt selling my music is when i release a DVD-ROM that includes all 14 albums of music I have made, in a lossless compression format, including remixes and unreleased tracks...for $20. In an age where free is the most commonly associated word with music, you got to have a lot of audacity to sell a SINGLE album for $20.
    • CelloZach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0From the mouth of a musician who's actually paying for gas to travel all over the place to try and build a fanbase and maybe (although unlikely) attract attention, I say bone up, my man!
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The problem is, years of digital piracy has created the illusion that music is worth nothing. Now, pirates believe that somehow what they are doing is ok because they wish music were free. Sorry, but it costs money to record and promote songs. There is no reason why it should be given away for free because some college kids don't want to pay for it.

    Three examples of highly successful bands is not an indication of a trend.
    • dslemons, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How about the tens of thousands of indie bands who do it every day for the love of music...
    • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The model is wrong. Geared towards the studio, and against the aritist and the consumer.
      If low quality samples (say mono, etc) were freely available, the promotion costs would vanish, and people would stop trolling the P2P minefield.
      Those who saw value in the music would then pay for harder to obtain quality. Production cost, and profit would come.
      It would only fail for those who produce rubbish and rely on hype. But so be it. Fair is fair.
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Music should either be free or nearly so. Concert tickets should rise to theatre level prices and only good musicians should make money. This principal has dominated community/broadway theatre for years. The experience is worth attending if it is good. This will weed out all the horrible music that has been abundant in the last 20-30 years.
    • Jagdwulfe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What would Gangster Rappers do for money then? ;)
  • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3why couldn't an artist just distribute free mp3s and then sell high quality recordings to those who wish to purchase it? sounds like it would work just dandy.
  • Kevin108, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4From the article: "government should step in and set a “fair” price of $5 - $8 per album"

    FUUUCK NOOO!!! The Government does NOT need to meddle in the free market any more than it already does! Do you want them to tell you how much you can sell your ***** on eBay for? How about at your next yard sale? Commercial entities are no different. Letting the government regulate prices is the quickest way to ruin our economy and destroy our country.
  • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It is scary that people here want artists to work for free out of the goodness of our heart.


    Like it or not art is a commercial entity. I'm going into graphic design and there is no way in hell I am going to design logos, ads, and package designs for free. I've got to eat it and it is my primary skill.

    This viewpoint of "doing art for free" is just degrading ourselves and continuing the belief by many in public that talent is a commodity, that having a brilliant mind and creativity is "just a hobby." I have had people put me down thinking being a designer or an ad man is not a job, that i should have been a lawyer or a doctor instead.

    It irritates me when people asked why I would charge hundreds of dollars for a logo saying absurd things like "what, don't you just draw it up?" if only life were that simple. You wouldn't ask a brain surgeon to work for free so why should we?

    Michaelangelo got paid handsomely for painting the Sistine Chapel and he deserved it. His skills were worth every dime the pope paid him. He would never have been able to survive or find the time to create such a beautiful thing if he had done it for free.

    Don't get me wrong, the RIAA is shady and the economic model does need to change, but asking bands to just give away music is not the answer.
    • Barkingshins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Don't kid yourself. Logos, ads and package designs are not art!

      Also, where do you get off comparing what you do (create even more corporate logo feces to pollute our landscape with) to anything Michelangelo ever did. You are not fit to sniff his farts sir!
      • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not art?

        Paul Rand is not a genius for coming up with the ABC, IBM, and AT&T logo?

        Steve Jobs paid him 100,000 dollars to create the logo for his Next company in the early 90s, obviously the "Great God" Steve Jobs would not pay that much money for a logo if he did not believe in the worth of an intelligent concept.

        And how is creating logos for corporations any different than painting propaganda for the church, does not mean you cannot appreciate it on a different level.
        • Barkingshins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, it's not art.

          Paul Rand is indeed a genius for designing the logos you have mentioned. Each of those iconic images is thoroughly burned into the collective consciousness of America. This is exactly what good logos are supposed to do and those examples have served their purpose well. They're still not art though. I would argue that Steve Jobs paid Mr. Rand $100,000 to create a visual identity for his new company, not to create a work of art.

          As for your last question, Michelangelo spent four years of his life, sixty feet in the air, on scaffolding that he designed and built, painting nearly 1500 sq. ft. of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. Nearly 500 years later, it is still regarded as one of the most impressive works of art ever conceived. Yes, he was compensated by Pope Julius II for his efforts, but the original commission was simply for portraits of the 12 apostles. Michelangelo himself chose to dramatically altar the design and created the much larger and more complex masterpiece that we now see.

          That is why Michelangelo was an artist and Paul Rand is merely one of many graphic designers helping to pollute our landscape with Budweiser ads ad nauseum.
      • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As another graphic artist I only have one thing to say: ***** you, *****!
        • Barkingshins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Is a simian response like that intended to somehow bolster your view on this topic? Well, at the very least, I hope you have helped yourself feel a little better.
  • aztak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0get a clue people infomercials work remember mtv

    mtv stopped showing videos sales went down

    mtv was a 24/7 infomercial for the lables
    • Feej, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2MTV's a music channel?? - Wow, what a concept!
      /sarcasm
  • Leadman584, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm a proud streamripper. Have thousands of songs on HD's. My 455 CD's are also in MP3 (insane preset). Most of the Music isn't (over 90%) available on disc. Tons of DJ's throughout the world, not only encourage you to download their work, but provide it free of charge, in you guessed it MP3 (insane preset, 32 to 320Kb/s VBR). The music I like, that is available, is purchased. These days, most are imports, the RIAA doesn't promote many bands I like.

    When folks hear the music I like, I'm often asked to order a few albums. I own a small shop, and charge a 10% premium for ordering these imports. Using Half.com and Amazon.com, the pricing is very reasonable. I got 5 Sonata Arctica CD's last week, and they are now in MP3 (insane preset) on my IPOD. I've already ordered 15 of this bands CD's for customers, and expect more.

    Saw Queensryche live last week. Blown away, I ordered the bands 2 CD's I didn't already own.

    Fans actually spend their money without regret.
    • chobbney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1MP3 sucks, what ever the bitrate (even if it is 'insane preset'). It has to be done if you're carrying round your music, but for home you should try lossless. Spending that much energy sourcing your music then reducing the quality by making them MP3s is - to my mind - crazy.
      But then, I really care about the qualityof the sound I get.
  • Kugo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have an analogy here. How about you're in the business of leasing horse drawn carriages. And then the horseless carriage comes out. What are you going to do? Beseech your government to prohibit automobiles?
  • chobbney, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I would love to buy an album direct from the artist - as long as it's lossless.
    Spending time creating something that sounds great in the studio and then selling it as ***** MP3 pisses me off. Some people want MP3 and some want lossless. Just offer us both and you're onto a winner.
  • b0er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Looks like the author is confusing "DRM-free" with "free". I think the musicians deserve compensation for their works (if they want any) and it is the consumers who need to provide that compensation. But after that the consumer should be able to use the content freely for own purposes. That means "DRM-free" but not "free" (as in "stealing").
  • rmeddy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have no problem paying for music I just think imho, that we need to get rid of the middleman (RIAA). I pirate just to stick it to those assholes.
  • nousplacidus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good live music can change your life. Here's hoping thats where this leads, because without the royalties bands will have to make their money from touring.
    • goettel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you greatly overestimate the cut artists receive from the big labels: somewhere between 20 and 50 cents per sold CD. If even a small percentage of people 'tips' artists for their free albums, their income might even exceed what they were getting while subject to corporate greed.
      • nousplacidus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously, in fact most artists make their money from their live shows as is. I'm just pointing out that this is a good thing.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Artists have a right to make a living too! That is why they should all GET A JOB!
    Your ART is something you do aside from your job, because you love it and maybe you want to share it.
    Get a JOB like the rest of us, to pay your rent.
    THEN do your art.
    We might give you money if we like your art...but don't become dependent on that!
    Nobody wants extra DEPENDENTS...to constantly demand energy from us!
    Get a friggin' job...and do your art on the side!
    It is a wise-ass thing to imagine that you can just do your art and the rest of us will support you.
    There are plenty of other artists...and EVERYBODY has SOME kind of creativity!
    So why should you think your creativity is special, and that the rest of us should support you?
    GROW UP....
    Art is cool, but an artist who takes personal responsibility and gets a job to pay their own way, is way cooler than another damn slacker-artist wise-ass, who won't do anything but PLAY their art or music!

    The rest of us like to PLAY too!
    Get over the ego trip of thinking you are somehow better or more special than the rest of us!

    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So by your logic, Salvador Dali, Picasso, Renee Magritte, Andy Warhol, Rembrandt and a million other artists were simply leeches on society's back?

      What a load of *****.
  • Hyperion1144, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah. Econ 201 and 202. Deal with it. The realities of this field are only slightly more flexible than those you would learn about in Physics 201 and 202. Sorry record labels. We just don't need you anymore. You are less useful than typewriter manufacturers.
  • lopla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If everyone would stop buying RIAA ***** label music then the artists would be forced to pull a radiohead and sell their own work. If they are worth a damn they'll do well. Let the RIAA crumble, do not keep their gravy train flowing ffs!
  • marksism, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Do you people not understand that it actually costs money to make music? Studio time, producers, being able to eat and pay rent while recording- all of that is usually fronted by the labels, who then recoup that through percentages on their sales. So, if the price of music reaches zero, and you're only supporting one part of the industry, then you'll likely see a drastic reduction in the amount of recordings. This may be partially offset by increased personal recording technology, but anyone who's been in a real studio knows that someone's garage with good noise-reduction software doesn't really compare. Touring is difficult and often not very profitable for smaller bands. A lot of tour support for starting costs often also comes from labels. Sure, Radiohead is one of the biggest bands in the world- they can afford to have people pay what they want. But a regional or smaller national band can't necessarily get on to the amount of touring to make money without label support, who need some profits from the recorded music to work. So yeah, the old model is dead- and likely with that the amount of quality music produced. Good job, guys.
  • goettel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hopefully the actual money Radiohead will make from giving away their new album for tip money is enough to convince other high quality bands (I'm sure there's one or two more out there) to go the same route.

    I'm getting it for €5, which is ten to twenty times more than the average cut per CD sale that artists receive from a label. If only 5% of people pay €5, and 95% gets it free, they will earn as much as they did while subject to label extortion, and every penny of the new income will be an expression of people's love for their music, instead of a cold cut by those who don't care about music at all.
  • mavedatthews85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I only buy albums from my favorite artists.

    1. Because I like to support them.

    2. Because I'm a music geek and a bit of a collector, so I like to have "official" copies for my favorite artists.

    3. Because no matter how you slice it, you're going to get better sound quality from CD than if you just download it - even if it's an "official" copy from iTunes or some other pay service.

    4. Most importantly: because (again) I'm a music geek. I'm always on the lookout for new music because who doesn't love to find a new favorite band? It's a great feeling. But I can't afford to pay for every new piece of music I want to listen to. If I download it and it turns out to be really good, I'll buy it. Simple as that.
  • TKMad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The main reason people steal things like music on a large scale is not because it is so easy, but because there is a serious perceived value difference in what the labels want to charge and what people are willing to pay. If the labels would make singles available for around $.50 each I believe that would effectively end the downloading.

    The fact that they make everybody feel like a criminal by adding ridiculous amount of DRM just pisses people off. I agree artists should be paid but since their music goes over the airwaves it should be the radio stations that pay them via advertising, not the listener. If you look at a statue in the park does someone run up and charge you $20? If they did nobody would do it again.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.