Comments on: Music belongs to musicians, not you

By: Aztecson

Aztecson — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:00:20 +0000

The thing about downloaded music is that now there is now way to control it and regulate it, I believe that musicians and artist should get paid a flate rate if they have given permission to the record company. Most of the time it is the record companies that prostitute the artist without them knowing and they make billions off the music downloads and video downloads. Hey if I write songs these are my songs and I have the right to get paid for them if someone is going to post my music on say 50-60 download sites. For those of you that don’t feel this is right, then when you go to your job this week just give the company and your boss half your check back and let them keep it. The record companies make 80-99 cents for a downloaded song on some pay sites and the artist never see the 30 cent they are suppose to receive, for instance The Allman Brothers & Cheap Trick sued Sony Recods in 2006 because their music was all over the world on downloads and never got any payment. Now is it right for Sony to collect 850 million dollars for these songs after they have already made money on the artist from the start of the recording. In the making milions on a concert issue, well only most of the well known artist such as big headliners The Stones, Paul McCartney and such make billions on their tours. The rest of the smaller bands have so much to pay in road crews, rooming and board and transportation of all the gear and equipment that they are lucky to come out with profit. All in all the record companies are the biggest pain in the ass and screw artist as much as anyone in the business and this is said from experience, this is the reason now why there are so many independent lable and artist self recording and producing their own products. So if any of you write a song and it sells you best make sure that you sign a great royalty contract, and even then get ready to see your song out there hundreds of times making money for someone else who you never even knew!

By: mcovey

mcovey — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

THANK YOU

By: Ne007

Ne007 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I guess that leaves the RIAA out then too right? MAN..this IS a headline!

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well I would say people are bitter because the rich are getting richer and trampoling on the poor that they are pushing further into the poor house. Its easy for someone who can barely make ends meat to not feel sorry for someone making millions when they bitch their album got releassed early. Quite frankly thats the current market trend things are being released early or to the public. If an artist wants to survive they will have to start making their money from concerts and merchandise. Some artists can make millions from a single concert so I dont think its really too much to ask. How many jobs do you get paid to sit on your ass while the money comes pooring in?

By: Betamax

Betamax — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Just remember that that Flea dude (if I’m thinking of the right person -the lead singer?) wouldn’t hesitate to fVck the $h1t out of your GF/daughter/wife/sister based on the fame you afforded him by buying his music. That’s how I would justify it anyways…but I’m not even going to bother trying to DL it until I hear something I like.

By: john_jaxs

john_jaxs — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The rich will always get rich and the poor will always get poorer bottom line here is that artists and actors owe the public does that mean that their rights don’t mean anything no but it also means that they should not be sueing the public (or backing the RIAA/MPAA that sue the public) that makes them to be able to buy all the luxury the live in.

This article is a good article but like most articles it only focuses on one point of view without seeing the whole view.

By: axlman

axlman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’m so glad that I don’t listen to their crap! And Flea? HA HA! Oh look at me I’m a bass player I think I’m cool! Give me a break! The only albums that I would buy or support would be of bands that I actually like/love. Like the Old School GN’R albums or something like that! I wonder how much the RIAA would buy my GN’R Live Like A Suicide LP for? I mean since they claim that we “Don’t Own” what we buy!

By: Afn

Afn — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The whole p2p debate is about access and parity of access. Before p2p artists needed large releasing corporations to get product into the hands of consumers. Not anymore. No one robbed the RHCP of self expression. In the 1950′s this type of material would have been underground banned and not even allowed to be played in public. People are angry that artists produce less than one hour of material a year and expect to live off the royalties for life making millions for the few who get signed contracts while most of the people buying the albums are struggling to afford housing transportation and a better life. Until we have some universal access to information and universal income system this debate will never ever be resolved short of complete economic meltdown.

By: JayCross

JayCross — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

No the RIAA is definitely something that has to be considered. I chose not to focus on them here because this wasn’t so much about the RIAA as it was the band’s personal dissapointment over their music being leaked. Yes in the legal sense music “belongs” to the RIAA as well as the musicians. But that’s another debate for another time.

Also what exactly do the artists “owe” the public? Is the public forced to listen to their music give their patronage to movie theatres etc? No. I don’t think suing the listening/viewing public is a great idea. Not at all. But I don’t think the artists owe the public anything more than great entertainment. We have no moral right to their work any more than they have any moral obligation to let us have it.

Anyway I didn’t really want to enter the download vs. don’t download debate. I just think it’s a damn shame when a band’s new work gets released without their permission before they’re ready. From a creative standpoint that bothers me. I like the comments though I’m glad this spurred some talking.

By: mijam7

mijam7 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t think musicans should profit from music sales. Most musicans only gain a small percentage from the sale of a song anyway. The bulk of the profit goes to the record label. Look at the case of TLC who had to file bankruptcy at the peak of their popularity because the label stole everything that they earned.
If a musician can’t make money selling records then it is his or her responsibility to find a way to make money. Try touring or advertising. Honestly how many GOOD music groups are out there these days anyway?? For every one good song on any album there are 10 that suck. Why would I spend $75 dollars plus parking and service fees to go see a popular band that only has one or two good songs on every album? The truth is that the really good performers DO make money.
I grew up before MP3s. In those days we copied songs off the radio and listened to them just like people download them now. Musicans aren’t making money because they suck PERIOD!