Take THAT Music Industry!

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
yeah, but they are downloading them illegally. for free.

so it IS hurting the artist. i could understand it if they were ligitimately downloading them, at a small cost.

and since when do you have to buy full albums? they still sell singles for christs sake >_>
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
3,913
Best answers
0
Location
Texas
they dont make a single for every song on the cd, they never have.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
Mad_AxMan said:
Recording

* £249 (£211.91 ex vat) per week day - 10am to 6pm
* £299 (£254.47 ex vat) Saturday/Sunday/Bank Holiday - 10am to 6pm
* £169 (£143.83 ex vat) per half day (not weekends) - 10am to 2pm / 3pm - 7pm



taken from the link you supplied... so, as i said, its about £1500 for a full week, maybe more. but on top of that, you also have to pay for the mixing down and mastering, that is a sepperate fee.

from your link:

CD Mastering

* £20 per track (£17.02 ex vat)
* £5 per CD copy (£4.25 ex vat)
* £30 per long-burn Master Hi-Res CD for mass duplication (£25.53 ex vat)

theyve got some nice recording equipment in there, however id never use their instruments (except the roland td6 kit, those are actually not that bad...)

so now devion, is it really bull****?
It's included.

And you can burn you own cds, like I said.(And suppose your with 3 or 4 people(band) 1500 quid aint THAT much)

Also you just have to sell 1500/15=100 cds to covering most expenses.

If you ask maybe 5 euro less people more people would buy >_>, thats the whole point.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
Devion said:
And you can burn you own cds, like I said.(And suppose your with 3 or 4 people(band) 1500 quid aint THAT much)

Also you just have to sell 1500/15=100 cds to covering most expenses.

If you ask maybe 5 euro less people more people would buy >_>, thats the whole point.
1.) (And I stress this!) It does not take a week to make a CD.
2.) Who's going to buy our CD if we have the mp3's on our website? If no one does...we're out 1500 bucks.
3.) If we ask 5 bucks less we don't even get to break even on our hard work...we'd have spent 1500 to make back 1000.

Devion, how long do you think it takes to make a full album? Because it doesn't take a week. Hell, not even one song takes a week.

I know a band who made a 6 song CD that took almost 16 months (they took their sweet time, since they were getting a deal from the guy doing it for them). It cost them over 10,000 dollars even with the huge deal (including free mixing and mastering).

They afforded it by selling CDs, t-shirts, stickers and such.

Regardless making a quality album for a set of self-sufficient musicians in a group can take anywhere from half a year to multiple years.

This is another reason why record companies favor the docile solo artist--along comes some hot young girl, for example, who is easy to market. They teach her some basic singing (musicians take note that most female solo pop starlets do songs in A), put her in some hot pants, and the record industry's already got a ton of songs written by professional songwriters (there is a reason why Lindsay Lohan's song 'Rumors' sounds like you could hear it in perfect placement on Britney Spears' last album--written by the same people). Many times the music is already recorded, or is quickly recorded in a rough draft by a live group. This takes less then a week for an experienced professional band and studio crew for one song, and usually half a month for a full album's worth (maybe you've heard of people who want to be 'studio musicians' ? Well, these are them). They change the words accordingly to make sense if the 'artist' doesn't fit to them (an example being that wholesome Hilary Duff ain't gonna be singing about being up in the club, her image isn't right for it). Then they get the starlet in there, do the vocal work, and get her out. They then record the real high end multitrack version of the song and use that vocal track. For about a month they do this with each song, the grand total amount of time it takes for a new pop diva starlet to come out is a mere two months or so of recording time, which my your math above Axman, is $12,000 ($1500 per week x 8 weeks). For the millions upon millions of dollars they are going to get back, this is a small amount of money for a record company to throw around (and this is assuming they don't use their own studio or studio musicians...which means that theoretically they can do most of this part for free in many cases). They then put all the extra money into promotion and touring for the album...and rake in more than a thousand of times that much money for their trouble.

I still don't think being in a few people's mp3 playlists doesn't make a successful musician at all. In fact by definition playlists are sometimes full of UNsuccessful musicians--those one shot songs that you wouldn't be caught dead paying money for.

Either way...it's not cheap to make an album, or even one song, which at bare minimum time to get a song of professional quality, would take at least a week...

...so think of it like this. $1500 bucks a song, then. And that's cheap, and assuming everything goes perfect during the recording, too.

You don't go in there, play your part, and press a button and ding your CD pops out ready to go. You have to bust your ass for like four hours to get the right sound, then you have to set the levels (takes FOREVER), you have to play the perfect run on your part (could another four hours right there, for some guitarists), then everyone else in the band has to do the same thing. Then it gets cleaned up, decisions are made, changes are made, and based on how 'workable' the tracks you get down are...they may have to be thrown away and the whole process restarted from scratch. Of course that is AFTER the whole repeatedly trying hundreds of different effects loop combinations, microphone input alterations, and mixing changes...and of course it's horribly frustrating, and almost every band I've been in has had horrible fights during recordings.

A 5 minute song can take an eternity in there. Nothing ever goes right in a recording environment. Only the most dedicated people with the highest end equipment can really make a beautiful, professional recording.

So really it's not that simple, Devion.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
meh, im siding with you more and more each post, pride, but a song takes however long the band wants to spend on it... meh brings up Nofx again, this is taken from their website (www.nofx.org), on their information for "**** the kids" EP only released on vinyl, being teh hardcore fan i am, i bought a record player just for the things they only released on vinyl :p

Fat Mike said:
This was the funnest recording ever. The band all came to San Francisco because I booked two days at razors edge. I told them we were gonna record a 13 song 7" in one day. The cool part was that no one but me knew any of the songs. I'd teach 'em one and we would put it on tape the first time we made it through with out any major **** ups. It's sloppiness in pure form. You can't fake that kind of sloppiness. We recorded all 13 songs in about four hours, then we spent about four hours mixing. So the record kinda sucks, but it sure was fun making it. I think we might try it again some time.
meh, they did the same in 2001 as well with the EP "Surfer"

Fat Mike said:
This recording was just like "**** the kids". Two days in the studio, 14 sloppy songs to prove it. My favorite is the birthday song cuz I'm so ****in sick of hearing the same stupid birthday song on everybody's b-day. We all got one, whats the BFD. So please, next time you go to one of your relatives big day, sing em this song, and you probably won't get invited to the next one. Good plan.

First 500 on colored vinyl.
My fav nofx album, and most peoples favs/ most popular, and infact probably the most well known is Punk in drublic, and that took them 3 weeks:

Fat Mike said:
So we wanted to go back in to West Beach with Donnel, but it turns out now he's in rehab, and obviously is in no shape to record us. So Mr. Brett tells me to call his friend Ryan Greene. So I call Ryan and he records what is probably our best record. It turns out Ryan has really long hair and knows a lot of metal bands, but he's pretty cool anyway. We record at west beach, but mix at EMI. This record takes about 3 weeks, which is about as long as we've ever spent on any record. We had a bunch of weird people come in to play steel drums and flaminco guitar and stuff. We covered a Mark Curry song too, which a lot of people don't know. (Perfect Government) . This record turned out to be our best selling record. Without any radio or video play, it ended up going gold. Pretty neat.
However, in their latest albums such as Pump up the Valuum, and War on Errorism, they are much cleaner, more precise sound:

Fat Mike said:
This album took ****in' forever, even longer than decline. we started in december of 99 and finished in february 00. of course we took the holidays off and we went on a three week tour in jan. we recorded like 22 songs, but we scrapped 8 of them. we'll finish them some other time. the title track "pump up the valuum" got cut from the album. that's wierd. we gave it to epitaph for punk o rama 5. there's another song called "san francisco fat" that is gonna go on the next fat comp. the vinyl on the album is clear, and limited to some number. i guess a lot of the songs on this record are about drugs. i guess that's because we like drugs and like singin' about them even more. well our drummer doesn't like them so much. he did so much of em he had to quit seven years ago. but he's not writing the lyrics. am i rambling, i feel like i'm rambling, any way, i like this album. there's no ska, no reggae, no jazz, just punk and punk and a little polka. i don't feel the need to ever play a ska song again, but ya never know. yes, i definitely think i am rambling.
Well i know they are a punk band in all, im just illustrating the fact that you can spend however long you want in a studio, it just depends on how refined you want the sound.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
your right, it does only take as long as you want to spend on it.. but in fairness, a lot of NoFX stuff sounds pretty unprofessional (the early stuff).
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
SaiyanPrideXIX said:
1.) (And I stress this!) It does not take a week to make a CD.
2.) Who's going to buy our CD if we have the mp3's on our website? If no one does...we're out 1500 bucks.
3.) If we ask 5 bucks less we don't even get to break even on our hard work...we'd have spent 1500 to make back 1000.

Devion, how long do you think it takes to make a full album? Because it doesn't take a week. Hell, not even one song takes a week.

I know a band who made a 6 song CD that took almost 16 months (they took their sweet time, since they were getting a deal from the guy doing it for them). It cost them over 10,000 dollars even with the huge deal (including free mixing and mastering).

They afforded it by selling CDs, t-shirts, stickers and such.

Regardless making a quality album for a set of self-sufficient musicians in a group can take anywhere from half a year to multiple years.

This is another reason why record companies favor the docile solo artist--along comes some hot young girl, for example, who is easy to market. They teach her some basic singing (musicians take note that most female solo pop starlets do songs in A), put her in some hot pants, and the record industry's already got a ton of songs written by professional songwriters (there is a reason why Lindsay Lohan's song 'Rumors' sounds like you could hear it in perfect placement on Britney Spears' last album--written by the same people). Many times the music is already recorded, or is quickly recorded in a rough draft by a live group. This takes less then a week for an experienced professional band and studio crew for one song, and usually half a month for a full album's worth (maybe you've heard of people who want to be 'studio musicians' ? Well, these are them). They change the words accordingly to make sense if the 'artist' doesn't fit to them (an example being that wholesome Hilary Duff ain't gonna be singing about being up in the club, her image isn't right for it). Then they get the starlet in there, do the vocal work, and get her out. They then record the real high end multitrack version of the song and use that vocal track. For about a month they do this with each song, the grand total amount of time it takes for a new pop diva starlet to come out is a mere two months or so of recording time, which my your math above Axman, is $12,000 ($1500 per week x 8 weeks). For the millions upon millions of dollars they are going to get back, this is a small amount of money for a record company to throw around (and this is assuming they don't use their own studio or studio musicians...which means that theoretically they can do most of this part for free in many cases). They then put all the extra money into promotion and touring for the album...and rake in more than a thousand of times that much money for their trouble.

I still don't think being in a few people's mp3 playlists doesn't make a successful musician at all. In fact by definition playlists are sometimes full of UNsuccessful musicians--those one shot songs that you wouldn't be caught dead paying money for.

Either way...it's not cheap to make an album, or even one song, which at bare minimum time to get a song of professional quality, would take at least a week...

...so think of it like this. $1500 bucks a song, then. And that's cheap, and assuming everything goes perfect during the recording, too.

You don't go in there, play your part, and press a button and ding your CD pops out ready to go. You have to bust your ass for like four hours to get the right sound, then you have to set the levels (takes FOREVER), you have to play the perfect run on your part (could another four hours right there, for some guitarists), then everyone else in the band has to do the same thing. Then it gets cleaned up, decisions are made, changes are made, and based on how 'workable' the tracks you get down are...they may have to be thrown away and the whole process restarted from scratch. Of course that is AFTER the whole repeatedly trying hundreds of different effects loop combinations, microphone input alterations, and mixing changes...and of course it's horribly frustrating, and almost every band I've been in has had horrible fights during recordings.

A 5 minute song can take an eternity in there. Nothing ever goes right in a recording environment. Only the most dedicated people with the highest end equipment can really make a beautiful, professional recording.

So really it's not that simple, Devion.
So you are saying that you practice during the recording studio etc?

Thats then just dumb, you should get your act together before you go into the studio.

I mean if what you are saying is true, then how can a band perform good live?

About the part of mp3, maybe your mp3 list is full of that kind of artist, but my playlist is already filled 75% of music I own.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
devion. do you know how long it took metallica to record the black album?

your right, bands should have their act together before they go in to record. but when your in the studio, things change, more idea's start to form. the technicians tell you something doesnt sound right, so you change it.. but because of that 1 change, a dozen other things need to be changed.

recording IS a long an arduous undertaking, and you DO have to do a lot of practice while your in there. (not to mention warming up both yourselves, and your instruments... and before you tell me thats stupid, go read up on valve amps and guitar string/drum skin tensions).
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
Devion, there is no way we're going to be able to explain this to you in a way you will understand unless you yourself have had to do it...

The only answer I can give you, straight up, is 'it's not that simple.'

Actually NoFX are a really good band, I think. I played bass in a NoFX/Offspring hybrid band for three years and I was Fat Mike Jr., heh. We used to cover "Leave It Alone" and another song, I think it was called "Sticking in my Eye" or "Stick it in my Eye."

(I write it NoFX because that's how we pronounced it in that band, "No F-X", heh)

NoFX is a perfect example of the record industry suppressing the stuff that isn't mainstream enough. If this were 1991 instead of 2005, NoFX would probably be bigger than Green Day as far as singles and radio play goes.

Great undercredited band. If there were more bands like NoFX, punk music wouldn't have the bad rap it does among the more snobbish musicians around here.

Sorry for going off the offtopic... :0\

You make a good point, Davidskiwan. It is a matter of how long you want to spend in there. But it also matters greatly what kind of songs you're talking, and how many. I'd have to hear the albums to tell, but I bet the songs on the one that was recorded super quickly are less complicated. They've also been playing together for years and years, so that helps. And the recording was done live (as in, they all played together) instead of the meticulous multitracking way.

Unfortunately a lot of musicians drain the fun part out of things and it quickly becomes precision meticulously hard work. Otherwise it ends up being a pretty big waste of money. The fact that they could do this is a testament to how good a band they must be.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
yeah, the quicker recorded stuff is definately more simple, and they arent as good a quality... they're more of a novelty, and sorta more of a tribute to punk, and they're definately all live recordings. I think they only multitrack on their more serious albums on certain songs, because ive read them saying how the singing took forever, and stuff like that on a few album sleaves. I woulda loved to hear you play leave it alone =P

That being said, these days people dont like the "rough stuff" and its more required to have more polished tracks, hence why i can see if any band starting out these days would have to put a lot more time in if they wanted a good result. More time costs more money =\
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
naw, i like the nitty gritty... but the way i see it, if your gonna record an album, make sure its done to the best possible quality.

if your gonna record a live show, play your heart out, and if there are mistakes, there are mistakes, cos at the end of the day, thats what playing live is all about.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
Mad_AxMan said:
yeah, but they are downloading them illegally. for free.

so it IS hurting the artist. i could understand it if they were ligitimately downloading them, at a small cost.

and since when do you have to buy full albums? they still sell singles for christs sake >_>
I was mistaken with the recording costs, but to get back to the point downloading isnt the reason that artist arent selling as much as they want(yeah, WANT), downloads are sometimes even positive.

Some reading material,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/2/34995041.pdf

Very new research, 8 June 2005 :p
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
104
Best answers
0
Errr... is that study supposed to help your case...? While it may state that digital media creates new market opportunities (which just about everyone here will agree with), it also states that illegal downloading is a burden to the music industry (pages 19 - 20).







That's a pretty impressive drop. In fact, it's the biggest drop on the chart. Gee, I wonder why?


Ok, lets take it on the letter,I'm not stealing since I dont TAKE his property, I'm mere copying it.(And I'm not sharing os there goes your copyright)
No, you're not stealing the song. What you're stealing is the artist's right to sell, produce, and distribute that song. By making a counterfeit copy of a song, you're infringing on an artist's right to production, thus are breaking copyright. Doesn't matter if you're not sharing because you still knowingly copied a copyrighted song.



Devion, there is no way we're going to be able to explain this to you in a way you will understand unless you yourself have had to do it...
Quoted for truth. I have no idea how he continues to argue.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
Half-Unit said:




That's a pretty impressive drop. In fact, it's the biggest drop on the chart. Gee, I wonder why?
Ah, then that makes what I heard about downloading boosting sales wrong. With this new little tidbit of info now in my head, I'd say that I'm about 100% convinced to quit downloading MP3s almost altogether. (I'm still going to download two-three songs that aren't the singles on a CD of a new band to see if I want to actually purchase the CD)
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
That graph doesn't conclusively prove anything.

The height of music sharing (Napster) was in late 1999, and Napster was 'shut down' in mid-2000. That's when that graph's sales start actually going down.

Also--what else happened during the period sales went down? A relatively large recession which lasted for some time. Also note that graph show worldwide sales, not just the US's.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
it doesnt conclusively prove anything, your right, but its still proof none the less.

and really, devions arguments make less sense every time he posts. im convinced hes arguing 1. for the sake of it. and 2. because he cant be bothered to pay for something.

the stupid thing is, the argument about only liking 2 songs on an album isnt even valid. if you only like 1 or 2 of them, then chances are, those are the ones which are released as singles. SO GO AND BUY THEM!!

i can honestly say, ive never regretted buying an album. and i own a lot of them >_> maybe thats cos i actually think about what im buying before i buy it though. its also amusing to me to see that most of the people whove posted here that they download music for free, also spend about $90+ on shoes.

thus proving they are completely retarded when it comes to how to spend money >_>
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
3,608
Best answers
0
the only cd i ever bought that is legal that contains music in my house is the 8mile soundtrack (just sits there on the shelf wnating to be played)

i do agrre though , My brother is asking me why i buy legal games now , & i always tell him "cause i wanna play online , the companies arn't idiots that can't tell your'e using a crack or a generated key"

however on music , well i hardly ever listen to music cds , just the radio. I wonder now if anyone in the music industry still makes money anymore with all the piracy that happens these days (better not take a burnt copy of a cd to a star siging , they'll pwn you for it :eek:)
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
SailorAlea said:
That graph doesn't conclusively prove anything.

The height of music sharing (Napster) was in late 1999, and Napster was 'shut down' in mid-2000. That's when that graph's sales start actually going down.

Also--what else happened during the period sales went down? A relatively large recession which lasted for some time. Also note that graph show worldwide sales, not just the US's.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, Alea! :0)

All joking aside, I wouldn't really take the graph as worth two damns in my case, because my firsthand experience as a once-struggling-now-retired musician (sad to be retired at 22, but I just got sick of beating a dead horse) speaks for itself. Like I said...2000 dollar investment, 900 dollar recording...months of planning and hard work...and I get ten bucks of gas money for the trouble.

The graph is a handy reference point but not conclusive, as Alea said. The only way it would BE conclusive is if it somehow showed mp3 downloads per year...which is impossible. Best we could get would be 'number of average kazaa downloads in a day during year [x]' and even that's a stretch.

However, it doesn't prove the pro-side any more than it does the con-side. I'd agree with the arguments about the times napster was officially shut down, but fact is there are plenty of new ways to get music, even then--remember Audiogalaxy, or the early WinMX?

Bottom line: people continued to download music despite napster being gone, as is obvious to anyone who knows what a 'torrent' file is, or has had to remove coolwebsearch spyware from their computer (go Kazaa!).

So what does this graph show? A decline in sales. This, we can NOT debate; there is clearly a decline in sales present in this graph.

However napster's closing seems irrelevant to the graph, if you ask me, as all that accomplished was giving us MULTIPLE NEW DATA FLOWS AND FILESHARING METHODS to choose from in order to get the music. If anything, Napster closing made filesharing worse...Napster's databases could've been policed, to a degree, to not allow searching of certain files, etc, since they were the only big program at the time. By going under they just opened the door for multiple other fileshare programs (and the beginning of spyware and adware, while we're on the subject--do you really think someone who made a program that helps you steal for free wouldn't be all about swiping your cookie data and selling it to spam companies via spyware?).

Bottom line I see is this:

People continued to download mp3s (probably moreso than ever since it got publicized so much; people who knew **** about computers saw people on the news going, 'people can get napster, type in my song's name, and get a perfect sounding copy for free' and probably went straight to their computers to try it out).

If you ask me, that spike in new methods of filesharing is what caused the decline, not Napster's absence. it blew up then...that was napster x10, after they finally went under.

Conclusion: People continued downloading mp3s and the graph shows a decline as time wears on.

This leads me to lean toward the idea that mp3 downloading has affected the sales. Of course this is largely assumptive but it seems reasonable and logical to me.

Then again I'm in a thread trying to explain why I deserve 10 bucks for my 9000 dollar investment to make an album, a debate which I thought would be pretty open-and-shut...heheheh.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
SaiyanPrideXIX said:
Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, Alea! :0)
Hey, the music I listen to is on Digitallyimported.fm, a legal shoutcast network. :p

Anyway, I do agree with you--the closing of napster led to Kazaa, which was more rampant and not just music sharing, which attracted the MPAA. Kazaa(as least Kazaa Lite, which most people used, I believe) was shut down.

Now the era of bittorrent began! But bittorrent isn't as widely used as Napster/Kazaa were--why? Because it's harder to use. Bittorrent isn't really user friendly, not at the "AOL Level" of difficulty Napster/Kazaa were at.

Anybody and their grandmother was using napster. Not many people know how to mess with their routers if BT doesn't work off the bat, or where to get the torrent files.

In any case--it's pretty hard to get music now. Kazaa/Napster were useful because they allowed you to search a mass of people for that particular song. You have to find someone with a tracker up and seeding the file to get your song--extremely unlikely. Bittorrent sucks for music! DC++ is a lot better, but it suffers from the same thing WinMX did--can't really download one file from multiple sources. There's a few Kazaa-like clones around--Ares/Limewire/etc, but the RIAA/MPAA have been pretty effective in shutting out the non-computer literate from easily downloading music.

In any case, since the RIAA have made total asses out of themselves in bringing frivolous lawsuits against old ladies, dead people, and twelve year old girls, I've completely refused to buy any CDs from record labels. Only physical CDs I buy now are the ones DJs have outside the booth of their mixes. :p
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
Half-Unit said:
Errr... is that study supposed to help your case...? While it may state that digital media creates new market opportunities (which just about everyone here will agree with), it also states that illegal downloading is a burden to the music industry (pages 19 - 20).







That's a pretty impressive drop. In fact, it's the biggest drop on the chart. Gee, I wonder why?




No, you're not stealing the song. What you're stealing is the artist's right to sell, produce, and distribute that song. By making a counterfeit copy of a song, you're infringing on an artist's right to production, thus are breaking copyright. Doesn't matter if you're not sharing because you still knowingly copied a copyrighted song.





Quoted for truth. I have no idea how he continues to argue.
1. Read the whole thing, instead of just picking a graph and seeing something drop.(Or read the conclusion :tired: )

2. I'm not the one uploading, so if I download, I'm not doing anything illegal(under dutch law) and also I'm not STEALING, since stealing requires me to take something, with the person I'm getting from it, taking damage of it.

3. That's was about the cost of recording, mistakes are human?

On point 1 I will continue.

As the article clearly says, that economical issues are the big factors that sales are going down.

EDIT: Also Half-Unit, if you show one graph sohw them all @ 111 a graph goes up.(Digital music sales and subscribers to online music services)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom