File sharing - this time it's personal

[vocalnick]

Not sure if this is the right forum...


My stance on downloading has always been fairly lenient... in theory. I can see the logic behind the arguments - people who download wouldn't have bought it in the first place so there's no sale lost, at least you're building your audience, etc. etc. I've honestly never thought it was as big a problem as various groups are making it out to be, and I've been reasonably confident in that stance.

But I just found someone sharing our new album on Rapidshare.

While my theoretical stance still sounds ok in one section of my brain, there's a goodly portion of me who is currently livid that someone has taken the music that we spent years of our spare time and thousands of our own dollars crafting, and in a manner of minutes they've compressed the living shit out of it, chucked it in a RAR file, and made it available for free. They're not even paying for the hosting! :lol:

At least it means they like it I guess? Part of me thinks this is just the 21st century version of making a tape for someone. I both gave and received home-made cassette copies, and in most cases it resulted in a purchase of the Vinyl (or later, CD) eventually. This is qualitatively the same action, although somehow the ubiquitous nature of a website makes it seem like much more of a violation. But perhaps someone who wouldn't have purchased the disc on faith will love the material and go pick one up. Perhaps a thousand will do that... *shrug*

I don't know... just musing/venting a bit. Has anyone else undergone a change in moral direction when it turns out to be their work being exploited? I feel rather hypocritical :Confused:

[Tim Armstrong]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/tarmadilo/downloading.jpg

Cheers, Tim

[vocalnick]

Thanks Tim, that's really given me some good points to think about.

[MacGregor]

e.

But I just found someone sharing our new album on Rapidshare.



See how things change once you see yourself on the other side?

But anyway, for people 'not-so-known' (means not top-100 in
the charts just to say a number, Bob surely knows better numbers)
it doesn't hurt sales, it's free advertising.
Of course things change dramatically once you're a well known
artists, but I would worry about that once you'll be there.

IMO the best way to make people want to buy your album
(besides the quality of your music) is to give them something
special (booklet with photos, lyrics, maybe a coupon to save a
dollar with their next purchase, the possibilty to win
something, you get the idea...), something that can't be
copied and spread via networks.

Mac

[vocalnick]

See how things change once you see yourself on the other side?

Don't get me wrong - I've never been pro file share, and I get the impression that's what is being inferred here. Absolutely not the case. I've just seen it as one of those things we're going to have to live with, like cassette taping before it.

But anyway, for people 'not-so-known' (means not top-100 in
the charts just to say a number, Bob surely knows better numbers)
it doesn't hurt sales, it's free advertising.
Of course things change dramatically once you're a well known
artists, but I would worry about that once you'll be there.

For sure. That pretty much sums up my initial stance actually. I guess it was just an interesting process to note my reflexive mental flip upon discovering the site in question :)

I think I'm not making myself very clear... hmm...

[CaptainHook]

I totally understand where you're coming from..

And in this country, having a gold record means you're
more likely to be in debt, than actually making money.

So when you see people saying to each other online "they must be
rich they're on tv, so it doesn't matter if i download their
album", it makes you wonder if you'll actually survive
through this at all.

[leester]

Groovr - Do you currently have your album easily available and EASY (google) to find?

Do you have it available on your own website in a superior digital format? (One you'd be happy with)

For the "fans to be" you should make it all too easy to go legit with a superior product. Might even consider a package like "download only, download plus physical, physical only" with different prices on the ALBUM.

Back before the internet daze, if I got a tape I liked, it was usually very easy to go pick up at the store. Sometimes it meant a trip to a specialty store. As a lot of those stores are gone these days, it leaves the burden of availability / accessibility on the artist.

Don't drop the ball. If there's a lil 'buzz' around it and it's getting downloaded, that is a GOOD thing. Just be prepared to take advantage of it. That buzz won't likely last forever ya know.

Now, where can I download your album? :D

Seriously, I've bought more albums in the last 2 years than I had in the previous 5 or more since the original FTP / Napster heyday. In all that time I've picked up a handful 'commercial' releases. (Stones 40 licks, new Trey, new Mule(s), new Jerry Lee Lewis - renewed a Floyd DSOTM, and that's it.) I've bought 20-30 "nobody" releases, but only because they were reaaaalllly easy to find after a nod on NPR or a click of the mouse from a recommendation.

Not saying I'd buy yours (who knows?) but I'm tellin' ya how my consumption and purchase habits have changed. If I heard your song(s) and liked most or loved at least one of 'em, I'd be searching on the net, and you'd have about 5 minutes of my wallet's attention. If my wallet couldn't find you...

lees

(PS - if available, I'll pay an extra $2-3 for the option to download mp3s while waiting for my CD in the mail, as opposed to paying $6 for an overnight delivery)

[vocalnick]

Groovr - Do you currently have your album easily available and EASY (google) to find?

Do you have it available on your own website in a superior digital format? (One you'd be happy with)

We're distributed through a small label, and yeah... google our name and our own site is hit #1. Our distribution covers most online vendors, both physical CDs and downloads, including iTunes (although this is still propagating in some cases - it's only early days). We're also available legally for download in ogg and flac format on a site which comes up 4th in a google of our band name. Legitimate availability is not a problem :)

Now, where can I download your album? :D

:lol:

You can pick it up here (http://www.mindawn.com/albums/2372?PHPSESSID=bf03a) in ogg format for $6.99 or in lossless flac format for $8.99, but I would strongly encourage you to visit our website (http://www.thethirdending.com/media.shtml) first, where you can listen to a sampler, a full album track, and view three live clips before making your purchase decision.

Or you can click on the 6th google link down on our name search and just grab the .RAR for free :lol:

Not saying I'd buy yours (who knows?) but I'm tellin' ya how my consumption and purchase habits have changed. If I heard your song(s) and liked most or loved at least one of 'em, I'd be searching on the net, and you'd have about 5 minutes of my wallet's attention. If my wallet couldn't find you...

I totally understand what you're saying, but I honestly believe we have all those bases covered fairly effectively. At the end of the day you're right - if people are ripping & uploading it, then that means people are liking it, and our preliminary legit sales are reflecting that (within the limited realms of our little niche at least), so it's all good... To be honest, we were expecting to encounter something like this at some stage, it was just an interesting experience to actually see it for the first time. New for me - probably not for most of you hardened industry types ;)

I really appreciate your thoughts on this, thank you :Thumbsup: :)

[Bob Olhsson]

FWIW Napster put one of my small label clients out of business and eliminated many of my clients' ability to earn a living from their music.

File "sharing" is only potentially profitable to people on the verge of selling hundreds of thousands of copies and to a bunch of Silicon Valley investment bankers who have literally made millions off of selling stock in companies purporting such activities are about to become a new legal "business model."

[Tim Armstrong]

Thanks Tim, that's really given me some good points to think about.

Sorry, I went for the cheap laugh.

3-4 years ago I did download a bunch of songs from file-sharing sites. 95% of them were songs I already had on vinyl (and lost when a flood destroyed my record collection), and others were rare out-of-print songs, but a few were things I didn't already have and could've bought.

But it didn't take me long to think about the ethics involved, particularly after conversations with recording artist friends who were seeing and feeling the effects on their livelihood.

So, in answer to your question, my conversion wasn't a direct result of my own work being exploited, but rather from my realization that others were being directly affected...

Cheers, Tim

ps- I still think the picture above is funny, but yeah, it didn't really add to the discussion here!

[vocalnick]

I thought it was funny too- I was going for a deadpan response rather than disdain :)

[leester]

Well you've certainly got all the bases covered. I even give you bonus points for having a FLAC version available. (Which I prefer)

I'll go check 'em out sometime today.

I think I'll also do a side-by-side comparison of something else that struck my fancy yesterday. "John Butler Trio" (IIRC) has a whoop-ass song playing on NPR, and I'd heard them live on World Cafe a week or so ago playing the same song. Acoustic Wah... and banjo... Anyhoo, I'll see if their ducks are in a row, or if it's a major PITA to get their album.

But that's how it happens for me. Hear something I like, investigate, then go.

One that didn't make it (in time) for me? K.T. Tunstall. Smoked when I first heard it, and at the time I just couldn't get my hands on it. Lucky me... it ended up on every station all day anyways. :lol:

I had another thought too... IF your files are already being shared, is the ID tag proper in them? In other words, did the dipshit who ripped and smashed 'em bother to identify you properly? Would it be any worse if YOU replaced those 'shared' files with ID tags that had the website URL in the titles?

Just tryin' to think outside the box a lil bit.


lees

[vocalnick]

I think I'll also do a side-by-side comparison of something else that struck my fancy yesterday. "John Butler Trio" (IIRC) has a whoop-ass song playing on NPR, and I'd heard them live on World Cafe a week or so ago playing the same song. Acoustic Wah... and banjo... Anyhoo, I'll see if their ducks are in a row, or if it's a major PITA to get their album.

It's very easy to get their stuff down here in Aus, just walk into a retail store. I couldn't speak for the overseas market though.

I had another thought too... IF your files are already being shared, is the ID tag proper in them? In other words, did the dipshit who ripped and smashed 'em bother to identify you properly? Would it be any worse if YOU replaced those 'shared' files with ID tags that had the website URL in the titles?

A worthy thought indeed. Might be worth the $6.99 just to find out (or I could just ask the distributor, but that would be putting logic into the equation..)

[leester]

HEY! I know you... err, at least I know I've seen that "Digging In The Dirt" clip before, and you sound familiar.

Listening to your sampler now. :Coolio:

Nice textures - and ya gotta love that organ. In just a few minutes you've made it to my 'maybe' pile.

lees

[leester]

Uh - $8.99 for FLAC via PayPal was too easy to pass up.

You're doing it right IMHO.

Now... I spent the money, if I could only figure out how to download.

I'll be back to bitch if I don't figure it out. :Coolio:

[vocalnick]

Haha, well don't complain to me, we just play the tunes :Razz:

I must admit, I've never used that download service, but it's supposed to be fairly good. I know our last statement showed a reasonable number of digital sales, so it can't be too difficult :)

Seriously, thanks for that - I'm glad you like the stuff :)

[leester]

I got it figured out. And it works fine with Mozilla. :Coolio:

If I could change anything, they have an option to select files but the only option for those is to "download all selected as ZIP" which means I can't listen on the way in.

In the meantime, I grabbed 2 while waiting for the 365 MB dowload, and it's been steady 90-100, and I only expect 750-1500 of that. I'm actually impressed with their website (www.mindawn.com for those interested) in that they have the Toop 5 list, and the "users who bought this ALSO bought.."

Anyhoo - it would be nice on that page (since zip ain''t doing anything but making it one large file) to be able to check 'em all and get one at a time. Musictoday.com (IIRC) does it that way, but I don't think it works outside of IE.

Still, not to steal the thunder from your thread, but really - you got some solid tunes that were played / tracked / mixed / mastered very well from the two I've heard from FLAC.

It kinda helps that I dig this stuff... like Hoobastank meets Pink Floyd doin' a tribute to Alice In Chains who's reading charts for unreleased Steely Dan... err something like that.

Complex arrangements that aren't taxing to listen to.

I grabbed Digital Sunrise ahead of the zip hoping it was the one I liked most in the sampler. Some sweet stuff going on all around, and it could very well be that organ that makes it all stick for me. Kinda classic Danny Louis if you could call it that.

Nice all around. You readin' this one Mixerpuppet? Get the FLAC, you'll dig it. :Coolio: But Heaven forbid you doing your own homework. :D

lees

[vocalnick]

Anyhoo - it would be nice on that page (since zip ain''t doing anything but making it one large file) to be able to check 'em all and get one at a time. Musictoday.com (IIRC) does it that way, but I don't think it works outside of IE.

Thanks for the constructive feedback on that process... As I said, we're not really in control of the process, but it is run by the folks distributing us, so I'll drop them a line and let them know your thoughts. They've been very open to deal with so far, so you never know :Razz:

Still, not to steal the thunder from your thread, but really - you got some solid tunes that were played / tracked / mixed / mastered very well from the two I've heard from FLAC.

I think the thread kinda fizzled out already as far as "on topic" goes :Razz:

like Hoobastank meets Pink Floyd doin' a tribute to Alice In Chains who's reading charts for unreleased Steely Dan... err something like that.

I love that... mind if I quote you? :Razz:

[leester]

HOLY SH*T!!!

Quote that!

Tungsten Blues >> Can You Hear Me

TB is friggn' BAD. Need some air when it's over, and "Can You Hear Me" does it right.

Yes, I'm a very happy camper. The Listener in me says Yes Yes Yes!

I need my own thread.........

lees

[leester]

Falling



Now that cape is behind me, I got back to it kinda eagerly.


The chorus would benefit from Chris Cornell singing it... but hey. :Coolio:


This is the song I heard a piece of and got chillz.

Nice work, all of ya.

lees

[vocalnick]

Yeah, I never was entirely happy with the way the vocals on that came out. Chris Cornell would be an interesting choice, but I can hear that working.

OTOH, it would put me out of a job, and I don't have his number, so I might pass :Razz:

Glad you're still enjoying it :)

[vanityaffair]

I wrote a paper in college on this very topic, and there are MANY MANY studies backing up both sides of this issue. IMHO, filesharing should be an ethical decision. In my college days, I will admit to downloading an ASSLOAD of music thanks to college LAN servers. However, what I downloaded were albums/bands that I would never, EVER, EEEEVVVVVEEEERRRRR have purchased with my own money. So from that aspect, everything seems (sort of) kosher.

The crux of the problem occurs when bands who are living off their records get utterly screwed by leaks, with or without the press that comes with them. Money management on the part of the bands is partially to blame here (would Metallica have brought their lawsuit against Napster if Reload and S&M had sold as many copies as Load and the Black Album?), as well as providing a good product (Metallica reference again, St. Anger????). The alternate downside happens when bands market themselves either poorly enough or far too much that the kids who buy the records are too lazy/poor/disinterested to actually spend money to hear these bands.

The bands who capitalize the most off of filesharing and internet buzz are the bands who tour endlessly, making their money off ticket prices and merch sales at shows rather than relying on sales, which were on the decline well before Napster anyways. This is especially apparent in the case of major label artists (think the top 10 labels around), who are given limited budgets for tour support, advertising, and promotion, and are given ENORMOUS sales quotas, not to mention they have to pay back every cent spent on them by the label. Thus, the more they push for their record to succeed, the deeper in debt to their owners they are.

Filesharing is simply a double-edged sword, and I look at it on a practical and ethical basis. I purposely ignore the legality of the issue, since filesharing in its many forms has been illegal since waaaay before shawn fanning got his brilliant idea to create napster.

So who's to blame? Artists, for not working hard enough? Fans, for not having spines/disposable income? Labels, for setting ridiculously high album prices and expecting the public to pay anyways? A little bit of them all, however I would place the most responsibility on the labels. Their parent companies all expect them to operate on a bottom-line numbers-only business model, rather than selling MUSIC.

[seagate]

Sooo, Groovr, what's the Rapidshare download link!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know that you can report them to Rapidshare!
True they'll pop again, but why make it easy for em, eventually Rapidshare might ban the IP address and the account is they have one.