Fuck Neil Young, Southern Man don't need him anyhow.

3, 2, 1...

Here's Danny!

Neil should put his money where his mouth is, and offer all his CD-quality discography for free. He can be the trial run of how many people actually then still pay for his "30-minute per download" tracks.

Southern Man don't need him anyhow.
#1 | Posted by glasshouse

Holding an opinion even Skynyrd doesn't hold anymore.

#4 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-02-02 10:38 AM

Did they tell you this?

Neil Young is actually right. file sharing will never go away. Like radio and recording devices. You cannot uninvent the internet and file-sharing.

They might as well start having Friday nite album nite and let everyone download for free...like back in the heyday of radio.

The trick is vinyl, album art, liner notes, lyrics sheets, posters, stickers, rub on tattoos...like in the 70's. Kiss Alive II didn't sell because of the music; it was for the extra crap.

It may finally get down to the basic premise that performing music is the primary way for musicians to make a living. My fondest wish would be talented enough to make a living that way, I doubt I'd complain if I could only make a few million.

Neil of course makes sense .. it IS accepted as perfectly OK to acquire melodies via radio .. so why not via digital 1's & 0's

Pity none of the piracy sites I get my tunes from offer Neil Young but then again they don't offer any of Danforth's masterful talent either

I remember in the early days of piracy. My brother had a tape recorder which he held up to the speaker of our radio. Circa 1964.

Yep it's the same thing Danni just a little more high-tech.

9--'Cause listening on the radio does not result in owning the recording. 'Cause radio stations pay money to the record company and often to the publishing company. The two--listening on the radio and downloading--are, by definition and impact, very different things.

The question is about "monetization." Does downloading and P2P result in decreased sales for record companies and therefore less income for artists? (The other big issue is that record companies have the system set up to fleece artists anyway...)

The question is about "monetization."

No, the question is about whether or not you can prevent it from happening. If you can't it will continue so you need to adjust your business model. I'm not saying it is right, just that it is the reality.

"Pity none of the piracy sites I get my tunes from offer Neil Young..."
#10 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Wow. What kind of lame sites do you steal from?

The question is about "monetization." Does downloading and P2P result in decreased sales for record companies and therefore less income for artists? (The other big issue is that record companies have the system set up to fleece artists anyway...)
#13 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2012-02-02 10:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It was their choice to fight the tech. Now it's been established in a way that they didn't control. The user is not entirely to blame. The solution will have to be complete and eternal supervision of the entire internet.

"Holding an opinion even Skynyrd doesn't hold anymore."

Hard to hold an opinion when your hands are burnt off.

9--'Cause listening on the radio does not result in owning the recording.
'Cause radio stations pay money to the record company and often to the publishing company.
The two--listening on the radio and downloading--are, by definition and impact, very different things.
#13 | Posted by pragmatist

Hey hey, my my,

Rovkanroll can never die!

It may finally get down to the basic premise that performing music is the primary way for musicians to make a living. My fondest wish would be talented enough to make a living that way, I doubt I'd complain if I could only make a few million.
#8 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-02 09:43 PM

"if the above scenario is LEGAL, why would capturing 1's & 0's be naughty?"

It has to do with the difference between a copy and a recording. A copy is indistinguishable from the master, where as a recording loses fidelity with each subsequent generation.

In this way The VCR was tolerable to the copyright holders, it was a recording, as each generation lost fidelity its dispersion didn't permeate the market place. Whereas with a copy, each generation does not lose any fidelity. On top of that, the ability to transfer this copy in the digital domain is literally friction and mechanically free. So one copy could possibly destroy the marketplace for the copyright holder.

As someone that develops products on the digital player side I don't take any POV, I just try to stay on the right side of the law.

I listen to AM only .. The only real problem I have with AM is that it's dominated by the deceitful Ad Council
#20 | Posted by redlightrobot

" if the above scenario is LEGAL, why would capturing 1's & 0's be naughty? "

It has to do with the difference between a copy and a recording.
A copy is indistinguishable from the master, where as a recording loses fidelity with each subsequent generation .. one copy could possibly destroy the marketplace for the copyright holder.
#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris

b) a 40+ year history of recording radio & TV's didn't destroy the marketplace for the copyright holder

Back in the late 60's / early 70's, a lot of FM stations would hold what Donnerboy called 'album nights'. They would play an entire album side start to finish including the inter-track silences, do a spate of commercials and then play the other sides. All the Cassette tape manfacturers made special length tapes just for those 'album nights'. The stations would promote the albums to be featured all week long so you could get ready.

I don't remember as much bitching about piracy back then but the practice was widespread and most of my friends took advantage of it. With a good receiver and cassette deck you could get a remarkably good copy. (Not up to today's digital standards, of course but about as good as copying direct from fresh vinyl to cassette.

I listen to AM only .. The only real problem I have with AM is that it's dominated by the deceitful Ad Council
#20 | Posted by redlightrobot
try 740 am Toronto, evenings .. 50,000 watt clear-channel .. over-air or internet
music from your youth .. few ads
#22 | Posted by L_E_Light at 2012-02-03 12:13 AM

I mostly stay on 620AM for the "Air America" crowd, and only recently have tuned back into Coast2Coast 1120AM. I'll give 740AM a listen via streaming now that I'm on better wifi.

It's not that commercials are "bad" per se, but the Ad Council make insidious, outright evil ads that pass right by 99.99% people. They have always rubbed me wrong, mainly for their wrong, subliminal messaging.:/

C-30 C-60 C-90 Go!

16--I didn't take a stand, just pointed out some reasons.

18--I'm not at all sure that recording radio for personal use is legal. TV is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Again, radio stations pay a fee. TV is different, but if you're talking about, say, a Hollywood movie on TV, similar licensing issues exist. And you keep going back to the 1s and 0s. Digital or analog is not part of the legal. Digital is problematic 'cause it's easy to create professional-quality dupes--no matter how many generations of recording you have, the quality is the same. Not like when we duped tape to tape to tape, and each level got successively worse. (Andrea described this very well.) Please note that I am not defending record company actions here; you asked why it's different, and I told you.

23--You're assigning a position (legal, moral) where one was not given. Both Andrea (as I understand her post) and I (certainly) are speaking to the difference question you had, not entering the larger argument. Try to read, LE. Again, from what I've heard, no one has proven that personal P2P (as in not selling) hurts the market; in fact, evidence has suggested the opposite. Privacy for profit is a different story.

Oops: "Privacy for profit" should be "Piracy for profit." Fuckin' English teachers...

Pity none of the piracy sites I get my tunes from offer Neil Young but then again they don't offer any of Danforth's masterful talent either

#10 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Go to Pirate Bay. They got everything.

Neil has always been sush hard line anti-record company guy. What would you expect from a guy that writes "That's why we don't wanna to be good" from Prisoners of R&R? That title says is all! Or that unexplainable Arc release. That had to be a joke on the record company! I'm sure the Metallica guys are fuming.

Crisis

Did they tell you this?
#5 | Posted by glasshouse

It's old news. Really old news. Look it up.

Neil has always been sush hard line anti-record company guy.

#29 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS AT 2012-02-03 09:41 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Which has always baffled me. "How dare they promote my concerts, produce my records, and ensure the records get to stores!!! Fucking shitheads, expecting a cut of the take for making me famous."

Andrea and Prag good points on the recording quality.

Not sure if it is an issue or not but I always kind of figured that availability had something to do with it as well.

AKA I want to "own" a copy of Nirvana's Pennyroyal Tea (deliberately picking a less played title here) back in the 80's (yes i know Pennyroyal Tea didn't come out till the 90's shut up I'm making a point here) I would have had to listen to the radio for days to hear it have a tape queued up and ready to hit record the moment it came on. Now I go to any number of pirate sites search Nirvana Pennyroyal Tea and 82 seconds later I have it.

"Which has always baffled me. "How dare they promote my concerts, produce my records, and ensure the records get to stores!!! Fucking shitheads, expecting a cut of the take for making me famous.""

Which shows exactly how little you know about record companies' practices. They don't TAKE a cut; they GIVE a cut. The royalties on record sales are TINY, and companies do their best to limit those royalties for recording artists. (Also, production costs are, by and large, paid for under a loan deal whereby artists pay back those costs through deductions from royalties.) And generally speaking (more than generally; I'm being generous), record companies don't promote or organize concerts; that is the business of concert promoters. Totally different. Musicians make their money on merchandising, with such sales usually happening at concerts (or now, via websites). Wilco, after something like 9 albums, recently walked away from their record company and created their own label. Smart, but they needed a serious following before they could do that.

#33 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2012-02-03 07:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Do you know why the artist only gets a small piece of each album sale? Because until the artist does his own promotion, his own studio work, his own record production, his own merchandising, his own delivery and his own bookkeeping, he has only done a fraction of the work. The artist would be nothing without the backing of all of the dozens of people who got his product out to the people. No musician ever got rich without standing on the shoulders of "the industry". Remember Nerdcore Rising up above? It had a point which a lot of folks seem to have missed; without the help of all those "evil record execs" musicians cannot rise above "hobbyist" and into stardom because that takes an awful lot of work which, if done yourself, leaves no time for actually composing and performing music.

It's pretty easy to "walk away" and create your own label once you're already rich, but gee gosh how many of those ostensible "indie" labels end up hooking into larger conglomerates like EMI when they find out that shit's a lot more complicated than they thought.

The fact is, Pragmatist? You don't know jackshit about the entertainment industry, and the opening line of your post made me literally laugh out loud.

.... Persecuted to Death?

**** I read somewhere thast Neil Young was the biggest private land owner in California!!!

And do you know what the entry hurdle is for making big bucks on concerts/ That's right, you have to have high selling albums.

Okay, Sohei. I know nothing about the music industry. I only worked in it (small stuff, I'll admit, but enough to know a few things; have you ever read a recording contract? your continued assertions would suggest that the answer is no). No biggie, man. Reread what you wrote. The record companies deserve their cut? Their cut? I'm not saying you don't have a point with record sales, but to suggest that they deserve their little cut is inane. You have it backwards: they give only a tiny percentage to the artist. Musicians are smarter now than they used to be about cutting deals, but record sales are no cash cow for the artists. To ignore the fact that companies make money hand over fist, taking the lion's share and paying for studio time, engineeers, producers, equipment, etc., is just, well, blind ignorance. Never mind that you said record companies promote concerts: pure inaccuracy. Revel in what you think you know, Sohei. Accusing me of ignorance on this one is highly ironic. I never said artists could do it alone; if you think I said that, you need to add reading comprehension failure to your ignorance.

Whatever, it's not worth arguing with you. Those who want to know the truth can do research on their own and see how manipulative and greedy record companies are in regard to their talent. Can that talent do it alone? Of course not. But do some have a right to be pissed at how they've been treated? You bet your ass. Do record companies need to keep so much of the money that the artist earns for them in order to make money and keep doing business? Of course not.

"if the above scenario is LEGAL, why would capturing 1's & 0's be naughty?"

It has to do with the difference between a copy and a recording. A copy is indistinguishable from the master, where as a recording loses fidelity with each subsequent generation.
In this way The VCR was tolerable to the copyright holders...

If that's true, then why do copyright holders tolerate TiVo and other DVRs?

The real issue isn't downloading/copying/capturing 1's & 0's. The only time anybody ever gets sued for "downloading" music is when they're also uploading it for mass distribution.

I'd actually have sympathy for the music industry going after people who mega-upload 24/7 if they hadn't gone after individuals who didn't know they were also uploading a (possibly blank or corrupted) file while they were downloading it.

The other issue here is this isn't just about music and entertainment media, but trying to control the free exchange of information (which is what promotes innovation). Corporations want to stifle competition after they become successful and governments at all levels want to stifle dissent or anything which might affect their power over people's lives. Just look at how proposed legislation like SOPA and PIPA (which is probably a done deal) give governments the power to shut down any web sites because of content.

I agree that piracy spreads the word about a musician. More people buy tickets to their shows and buy more of their crap. I'll bet many of those fans will buy legit albums for the better sound quality and as Kanrei mentioned the cool artwork. They may lose a little upfront but it all comes back in the end.

The fact is, Pragmatist? You don't know jackshit about the entertainment industry, and the opening line of your post made me literally laugh out loud.

#34 | Posted by soheifox

The fact is, Shitfox, it is you who doesn't know "jackshit" about the entertainment industry.

.

youtube is the new radio.