×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the carry-a-tune dept.

Music 308

dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

308 comments

GOOD IDEA. FUCKING COMMIES. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048229)

PWN3D BY STALIN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048244)

TENDERCRISP BACON CHEDDAR RANCH IS ON TEH SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048271)

YES, & TEH SPOKE IS IN UR ANUS LOLROLOFFOLE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048357)

&nbsp

P2P actually does help artists (5, Interesting)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048249)

If you look back, even major label artists get helped by P2P. Case in point: Radiohead. Their 2000 album Kid A wasn't promoted in any way, however a copy was leaked onto Napster before it was released. Millions downloaded it, and sales went right through the roof. The same thing happened a few years later with Hail To The Thief, which sold more copies than the previous two combined.

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (5, Informative)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048285)

btw, there's a RealAudio clip of band member Colin Greenwood defending P2P right here [greenplastic.com].

Musicians want people to share *some* of their... (4, Insightful)

turnstyle (588788) | about 9 years ago | (#12048411)

But musicians only want people to share the specific tracks that they want people to share.

Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.

It's misleading to say that musicians favor P2P without considering what portion of their catalog they'd like to be shared.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048286)

Quite frankly, P2P availability and CD copy-protections are a disaster for the media companies.

I will never buy a copy-protected CD especially if I can get the CD on P2P. However, if the CD is unprotected I will buy it.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (2, Interesting)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048312)

Heh, well, of all my ~20 CDs, none of them have any kind of copy protection on them, or at least they ripped cleanly on my Linux box.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (1)

Lisandro (799651) | about 9 years ago | (#12048304)

Ditto. Said it a millon times before, but the only artists hurt by P2P downloads are the ones with the hot-must-have-single-of-the-week. Why would you shell $X for a CD when you can get the new Britney Spears song off the net and delete it when you grow tired of it?

I bougth 12 CDs so far this year. 10 of them i listened first as P2P/BT downloads, and it's music i wouldn't have given a chance otherwise.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (5, Informative)

cliffy2000 (185461) | about 9 years ago | (#12048306)

I seem to recall that Radiohead released Pablo Honey (with the huge single "Creep"), The Bends (with the huge single "High and Dry") and OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time PRIOR to Kid A being released.
But that's not what made that (IMHO, disappointing) album sell, it was the P2P leak. Correlation != causation, foo'.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (5, Informative)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048373)

(I actually bought Pablo Honey and it's the worst album I've ever heard in the entirety of my lifetime, my love of Radiohead notwithstanding, but anyway...)

The point is that the band did NO advertising for the album besides it being leaked on P2P. There were no singles, no music videos, no posters, no TV ads, nothing besides maybe a few displays in record stores. Precisely dick.

I also point you to this quote from Wikipedia:

The record industry assumed the album was now doomed to failure since fans already had the music for free. Instead the opposite happened and the band, which had never hit the US top 20 before, captured the number one spot in Kid A's debut week. With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success, [a journalist] declared this was proof of the promotional powers of file trading and of word-of-mouth generated by the Net.

There you have it.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (1)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | about 9 years ago | (#12048561)

With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success

How about the fact that it's just really good, original music?

Re:P2P actually does help artists (1)

Lisandro (799651) | about 9 years ago | (#12048567)

I remember liking "Lurgee" and "Ripcord" from that album. OTOH, you had attrocities like "Anyone can play guitar" aswell.

Radiohead got much better with "The bends" and "OK computer"... after all, it seemed to me that they just wanted to prove they could do any other style of music they wanted. They succeded - now get back to the old stuff, please? :)

Re:P2P actually does help artists (2, Informative)

angle_slam (623817) | about 9 years ago | (#12048568)

Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable of sources. The simple fact is that OK Computer was one of the best reviewed albums of all-time. The hype for Kid A was through the roof in music mags because it was their first album in 3 years. They also appeared on Saturday Night Live. I have no idea how you think they did no publicity.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (1)

Satan Gave Me a Taco (867050) | about 9 years ago | (#12048546)

OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time

That's somewhat of an exageration (great album though). IIRC they sold about 4 million copies, didn't Michael Jackson sell 50 million copies of Thriller? Not that sales are in any way an indication of quality... just saying.

At least admit you are semi full of shit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048341)

I personally own about 47GB worth of music in MP3 format. I will never buy the album now. I got more music then I know what to do with before napster closed the virousa hole.

Would I have bought the CD's otherwise. Yes, a lot of them. No to some of them.

I am sure that the most downloaded artists need all the help they can get. I mean without p2p I woudl have never heard of Eminem or Britney Spears.

At least recogonize that in some cases p2p is detrimental to artists and I will have a fuck of a lot more respect for you.

NOT FLAMEBAIT ---- HONESTY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048442)

This is far from flamebait. This guy is being honest. /. a culture that punishes honesty.

what a bunch of tards you mods are.

If you need help. This is flamebait. The parent is interesting.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (1)

Ytsejam-03 (720340) | about 9 years ago | (#12048342)

It does help the record industry make money.
Agreed, it does. It also helps independent artists make money without the major labels, which is why the majors hate it.

If we're lucky, P2P and internet radio will make the major labels completely irrevelent. There's lots of great independent music out there.

I don't get your logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048347)

Yes, and imagine how high the sales would have been WITHOUT the loss incurred by P2P. The sales went through the roof even with P2P, which speaks for a good album, but there must have been a significant number of people who downloaded the CD but never bought it. Without P2P some of those people would have bought the album.

Or are you actually trying to imply that P2P improved the sales? I don't get your logic.

Re:I don't get your logic (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048399)

Yes, and imagine how high the sales would have been WITHOUT the loss incurred by P2P. The sales went through the roof even with P2P, which speaks for a good album, but there must have been a significant number of people who downloaded the CD but never bought it. Without P2P some of those people would have bought the album.

Well, yeah, of course there were probably some who just downloaded the album but didn't buy the CD, but my point is that Kid A was released with no marketing whatsoever. Radiohead had never been in the US top 20 before and Kid A went directly to number 1 within a week of its release. This with no marketing whatsoever. Given the lack of advertising, the sales could have been vastly worse.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (3, Informative)

AnonymousJackass (849899) | about 9 years ago | (#12048364)

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.
It helped the record industry make money from you, and many others that do the same as you, but honest people such as yourself are in short supply. That's the problem. If everyone used P2P just to get free samples with the intention of going out and buying the full product later, the record industry would have no reason for being upset.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048394)

One of the people the RIAA sued tried this in court.

She said she only downloaded the music to sample it and deleted it all within 24 hours.

the judged basically laughed in her face and the RIAA won.

the lesson is breakign the law is illegeal, regardless of whatever moral argument you have to convience yoursel fit is OK.

Re:P2P actually does help artists (5, Insightful)

Monkelectric (546685) | about 9 years ago | (#12048382)

Record companies know that p2p helps their sales, but it messes up their CONTROL OF THE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL. Why would we need sony music at ALL if bands can sell their albums directly to you?

Also it takes the control of popular culture out of their hands. I recently downloaded an album from a cool south american folk/electronica band. Is that *EVER* going to be on MTV, VH1 or Clear Channel? I think Not

You're an EXCEPTION (1)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048396)

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.


Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards? Have you been to a college campus lately or talked to other young people with high-speed connections?

It's admirable that you use P2P in that way, but don't pretend your personal experience suddenly signifies that P2P piracy is a good thing for the music industry.

One may as well argue that stealing GPL code is good for the software industry. If I like CherryOS, I may check out PearPC! Retarded arguments all around.

Great... (5, Insightful)

Havenwar (867124) | about 9 years ago | (#12048254)

Now if only someone ever listened to what the artists said...

Or to indie artists in general.

Re:Great... (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 9 years ago | (#12048332)

The problem is that the music companies are generally seen by the populous as representing the artists and trying to nurture the artists/protect them from evil. Thus it becomes very easy for the record companies to put out its own selfish views and call them helpful to the artist, rather than actually listen to what the artist says. I linked to a RealAudio interview between a musician and a record company boss further up this thread, listen to it and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Great... (1)

yuriismaster (776296) | about 9 years ago | (#12048401)

This is sadly true...

Of course, media spins on the RIAA cases + the broad success of iTunes (which doesn't need RIAA) will start to turn RIAA from the protector to the oppressor.

We /.'ers know RIAA is 'ebil', but we need to let the populace know. Media is a powerful tool, and we need to get this kinda stuff posted to more major news sites (nbc, cnn, etc)

Only then will the masses become enlightened.

Okay, following your logic (1)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048428)

Following your logic, have P2P copyright infringers asked permission from every single artist from whom they copy music?

Or do you really mean, "If only we all listened to the indie artists without contracts who are giving permission for P2P distribution because they need the publicity...and ignored the rest."

Why do people think they're entitled to anything that can be pirated? It's like people argue from a position of inherent "right" to pirate music. Can I pirate Doom 3 just because I can? If John Carmack tells me not to, does that make him a greedy person? Can I infringe the copyright of the GPL too?

Re:Okay, following your logic (1, Interesting)

Havenwar (867124) | about 9 years ago | (#12048564)

Okay Hairy Nutsack, listen up... (got your attention? good. No hard feelings, I know nothing about your nutsack, just wanted to open this up in the same sort of overly aggreavted tone you started in, so that you feel right at home.)

I believe I am entitled to anything that is legal to do, and I will fight tooth and nail for any right I enjoy that is being taken from me. I would fight just as hard for the freedom of speech of that was being threatened, or the freedom to urinate in nature, or the freedom to fart in your general direction.

A "right" as you say, is simply anything that is not forbidden. So yes, there is - at least in sweden - an inherent RIGHT to download copyrighted music without compensating teh artists. This RIGHT will be taken from us, because not enough people listen to what the artists think, and what the general populace thinks, and way to many people listen to what the MAJOR CORPORATIONS thinks...

Now my idea on this is that teh major corporations should either change their business model or just collapse and die. They say they loose tons of money - fine, I am very happy. In this age the major corporations that have been between artists and consumers is no longer needed, any artist can easily create music with computer aid and justa s easily sell it or give it away for free. They can book shows and make ads for themselves, and no corporations are needed.

So, they say they go bankrupt due to our pirating... GREAT. I have never been happier. I just wish the governments would stop making new laws only aimed at restricting new technology so that major corporations can still make money the "old way" instead of changing.

Now when it comes to Doom 3 or the GPL, what you are suggesting is not legal, and therefore not a right. It's a crime.

Please keep yoru facts straight.

Easy communications empowers the individual (5, Interesting)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | about 9 years ago | (#12048268)

The media distribution companies, whether music labels, movie producers, or stock photography corps, all understand that when communication becomes much easier among individuals their business model suffers. The only service they really offer is making media easy to find and get. The internet has done that for everyone now, and frankly, I'm surprised it is taking this long for individual artists to get on board. One of the problems that still is being worked out is open, well supported formats for sharing information. Look what RSS did for blogging and what it is doing to traditional journalism. Imagine what similar formats and application to support them can do for other individual producers of content.

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048301)

incorrect. the labels hype things and market them.

that is their function (a pretty crappy one in my opinion)

they are a hype machine

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (1)

Casca (4032) | about 9 years ago | (#12048462)

Thats what he said, they make it easier to find stuff. Considering there are thousands of albums released every month now, how do you make it easy to find one? You hype the hell out of it. Make it stand out, make it easy for people to find...

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (2, Insightful)

denissmith (31123) | about 9 years ago | (#12048421)

Exactly. The P2P piracy "crisis" has never really been about intellectual property rights, or compensation for the artists, it's really about preventing the artists from finding easy and reliable ways to get directly to their listeners. In short, it is about control, but not control of the music, control of the artists themselves. Some artists did get it early, some got a snow job from their labels and bought it.

iTunes (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048476)

Yes, and now that we have legal music services like iTunes and Napster, what's the point of P2P piracy again?

Even indie artists like those mentioned in the article could easily offer their music for free on iTunes. In fact, iTunes offers free downloads weekly, which is the same "free advertising" Slashdotters love to reference in these discussions.

At .99 a song, how can anyone justify P2P piracy anymore? If nine bucks for an entire album is still too much, then clearly your incentive for piracy is not a "communications movement" to "empower the individual," but is basic human nature--wanting something for free so you don't have to pay for it. Even chimpanzees in social experiments will try to swipe a banana if they learn they don't have to give something back in return.

Sorry to be so harsh. I guess I just tired of the whole "we're so noble" act. Just admit what's going on. We're pirating music so we don't have to pay people for it. Because we're lazy and don't feel like stepping foot in a store and paying money. And we're too cheap to go to iTunes and pay .99 for a song that we know has been provided (illegally) to us for free on a P2P network. Just admit it, you know?

Re:iTunes (1)

soupdevil (587476) | about 9 years ago | (#12048578)

Hmmm... with cheap paperbacks at $1.50, how can anyone justify libraries?

The fact that a small minority of available songs are for sale in a proprietary, sonically-abridged, crippled format does not remove the need for people to share music. What if it's not on iTunes? What if it's not in a format I enjoy or can use on my listening device? What if I already purchased it in another format?

In a perfect world, the fact that people want to share a particular piece of information would be justification enough for the sharing.

The Beatles (5, Funny)

daniil (775990) | about 9 years ago | (#12048269)

The Beatles have ripped off every single band after them. That's about as Conservative as anyone can get.

How else would a staring artist afford music? (3, Funny)

demonic-halo (652519) | about 9 years ago | (#12048276)

How else would a staring artist afford music?

=)

Re:How else would a starving artist afford music? (1)

demonic-halo (652519) | about 9 years ago | (#12048302)

Re:How else would a starving artist afford music?

(I meant to say starving, funny what a difference a 'v' makes)

Re:How else would a staring artist afford music? (1)

kid_wonder (21480) | about 9 years ago | (#12048459)

Well, if he(she)'d quit standing around staring and write some freakin' music, maybe they could make some money for food.

What they hell is so interesting that they need to stare at it all day?

essentials (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048282)

Artists need money. Fortunately, audiences have money!

Artists don't need middlemen taking their money and screwing with their work. Fortunately, these days audiences don't need them either!

Re:essentials (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048305)

I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where P2P solves the problem of artists needing money.

Re:essentials (1)

UWC (664779) | about 9 years ago | (#12048515)

He's sure to advocate concert venues, merchandising (t-shirts, etc.), and purchasing of legitimately offered media. He could go on to mention the undeniable substance of having an officially-made CD with liner notes, cover art, and so on, or the possibility of releasing low quality or sample tracks over P2P and advocating the purchase of higher quality (maybe even lossless) media through official channels. He'd then go on to say that when artists recognize the needs of the fans and fans know that the artists actually benefit, offering DRM-free media would pose an insignificant problem.

That's not to say any of that is correct. It would take trying such methods to find out (does Wilco do such things? I've yet to listen to them or investigate that). I do know that I purchase the CDs of artists that I like. I also like the copyright notice of independent Righteous Babe Records: "Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing."

When you have clout like the Beatles... (5, Insightful)

Golgafrinchan (777313) | about 9 years ago | (#12048291)

'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.

I'm not sure that the Beatles are a good example here. By the time they started doing really revolutionary stuff on Revolver, they'd already had 10 #1 singles. I'd suspect that any artist who reached that point would have a lot more freedom in what they did.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles... (4, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | about 9 years ago | (#12048483)

Good point. The early Beatles were all about being managed. They started in Germany with the leathers, and came back and Brian put them in suits and made them mod.

They were as managed and as packaged as anything that comes from American or World Idol. The difference, of course, between them and Kelly Clarkson, is that they were brilliant musicians and songwriters.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles... (3, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | about 9 years ago | (#12048528)

The Beatles were steered by some sort of management comittee. Remember "Michelle"? The year it was released was 14 years after the year the name "Michelle" became the most popular name to give baby girls in Britain. Looking at the other Beatles albums, the pattern emerges. On the early albums, there is almost always a song using the most popular 14 or 15 year old girl's names in Britain, while on the latter ones, (basically after the Ed Sullivan appearance), there are songs using both these and the most popular US adolescent girl's names as well.

Anna, Julia, Lucy, Rita, Martha, Maggy (Mae), Penny, Pam, Honey, Sadie...

Beyond this, there's the required love song on every album, the required 3:22 long song for optimal AM play, and so on. Looking at when songs were actually recorded in studio, John and Paul uusually had to wait to record their favorites until someone in management was satisfied they had the required songs in the can.

Good idea, but... (4, Interesting)

rm999 (775449) | about 9 years ago | (#12048299)

Peer to peer has a lot of potential, but up to now it has largely been disorganized. There is no easy way to go through a list of all the music, and no way to know which of the 1% of the songs are legitimate.

This means that the chance someone will download some indie music off kazaa is close to 0. There needs to be a way for artists to advertise their own, legal music on these networks. There are already websites that allow this, like http://www.garageband.coc. I think free download websites like this are a much better way for indie artists to spread their name.

An Indie filmmaker's perspective (4, Interesting)

robyannetta (820243) | about 9 years ago | (#12048308)

To be honest, I don't use p2p utilities for any reason. However, I would love to distribute my films via p2p, but am afraid The Man (TM) will attempt to come down on me for distributing films over p2p. I don't have the kind of cash needed to defend myself against the faceless monsters behind the MPAA.

Its these threats that's keeping indies like me down.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (2, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | about 9 years ago | (#12048349)

Are you paranoid or just a dumbass? On what grounds would The Man squash the distribution of YOUR film (as in YOU own the copyright)?

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (2, Interesting)

robyannetta (820243) | about 9 years ago | (#12048485)

You're right... It's MY films.

I'm afraid of the automated emails that get sent out saying that it found me distributing movies via a p2p app.

I can barely afford making the movies, let along defending myself (successfully) in court.

THAT's what's keeping me down.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048526)

An automated e-mail carries no legal weight. It is not notice of a lawsuit, and the whole matter could be straightened out withoug involving the legal system.

You don't need to go to court to tell the RIAA that you own the copyrights to the films you were distributing, and that you were sent the e-mail in error.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (3, Interesting)

Ayaress (662020) | about 9 years ago | (#12048530)

Well, if you name your films after major ones, then, maybe. It'd be like the makers of Xfile getting in trouble because the automailer identified it as X-Files episodes. If you have unique titles, though, that won't happen. Those bots that search for people sharing movies search by title, not just if it's a movie or not. The MPAA may have more power than it should, but it doesn't have enough power to stop you from distributing something that's not owned by somebody they represent. Even a commercial movie not produced by an MPAA member company, the MPAA can't do anything about. The only risk to you distributing your own files via ptp is that a major lawsuit will take down the service you're distributing through, but in that case you could safely move to another service.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (3, Informative)

sahonen (680948) | about 9 years ago | (#12048351)

You have absolutely nothing to worry about. You own the copyright on your own film, and therefore have the exclusive right to say how it may be distributed. The MPAA has zero right to tell you how you may distribute your own film.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (1)

Handpaper (566373) | about 9 years ago | (#12048414)

If it's yours, you can distribute it in any way you see fit.

My sig referencences my brother's band, there are tracks available for download there. They can do this because they own their creations. They also don't mind their music being shared - see the copyright notice.

Seriously. (1)

Patrick Mannion (782290) | about 9 years ago | (#12048309)

P2P is a good tool. I've been thinking about it for a long time and told my dad the idea. He went, do you want to be poor? But still, it's a good way. It's free and isn't as a hassle as setting up a myspace, garageband or soundclick account.

This time, it's not just indie artists (4, Informative)

EvilStein (414640) | about 9 years ago | (#12048310)

That quote was seen on another article talking about the Grokster case. I read it the other day.

There are a few label artists that have filed amicus briefs with the court as well, the rock band Heart being one of them. They've been using p2p (the "weed" application) to distribute new material. Heart may not have any chart topping hits right now, but they've been around since the 1970's and have been a consistant solid touring act. Howard Leese (guitarist) still owns the "Bad Animals" recording studio up in Seattle.

Another 70's artist, Janis Ian, has also thrown her support behind p2p. After seeing older tracks winding up on p2p networks, they noticed that her older albums had in increase in sales.

p2p is great for indie artists, true, but it's also nice to see some longtime "major label" artists throwing their names behind it as well.

Will it stop? Doubtful. (2, Interesting)

mycro (633791) | about 9 years ago | (#12048330)

It seems that the majority of artists support file sharing until they get big. Some of the bigger bands support sites like purevolume, where you may (or may not) download an MP3, but listen to a song through flash instead. I would hope that artists who provide MP3s at websites would not get angry about file sharing. I don't see it coming to an end, because this is going to create a war between artists and fans, which is ultimately worse for the artist.

of course they support p2p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048334)

because they're poor and are a bunch of crooks

The most mediocre, conservative music... (4, Interesting)

soupdevil (587476) | about 9 years ago | (#12048338)

Yeah, that sounds just about like Terence Trent D'Arby.
I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.
A certain young artist from Sony just shot a $150,000 video, which will hit mtv2/vh1 next week. The original budget for the video was about $20,000, but after the song took off on the networks, the label delayed the album launch and put more money into the video.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (0)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12048387)

I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.

Yeah because no big names allow their music to be distributed by P2P right? Grateful Dead, Phish (remember these are two of the largest touring bands ever), and a recent notable Wilco (#1 alternative rock album), Los Lonely Boys (quite famous recently for whatever reason), etc.

Just because Ashlee Lipsynchson and various other talentless popular artists don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't help the "big" artists.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (1)

soupdevil (587476) | about 9 years ago | (#12048517)

My point was that it does help the labels determine which big artists to support.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (0)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12048535)

And my point is that it doesn't matter. No matter the size of the band P2P does nothing but help the artists gain popularity and distribution.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048391)

Just goes to prove that they're not scared of losing money, they're scared of losing control.

Any publicity is good publicity (2, Insightful)

caryw (131578) | about 9 years ago | (#12048339)

For an Indie artist P2P is essential for helping to distribute their art to the public. They usually do not have the means to host a web server for themselves for listeners to download MP3's. Several websites exist for independent artists to share their music such as SoundClick [soundclick.com] and (the late) mp3.com [mp3.com] which is nice when a potential fan already knows the artists' name and music. However in order to get introduced to the indie artist a listener must find his music somewhere. These days it definitely won't be on the radio or MTV, so that only leaves word of mouth or a BitTorrent amongst illegal ones on a P2P website somewhere. Speaking about Indie artists, check out DZK [soundclick.com], a talented artist I never would have found if not for P2P.
- Cary
--
Anyone from Fairfax County [fairfaxunderground.com] or Northern Virginia [novaunderground.com]?

Agenda of the Power Elite (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | about 9 years ago | (#12048344)

The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.

Yes, the problem is that the current economic-political structure doesn't want anything but 'mediocre, conservative music.' So, insightful independent artists such as Maitreya will continue to be ignored while the power elite continue to go after p2p.

Re:Agenda of the Power Elite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048370)

Righ. Go listen to the lyrics in any R&B or hip-hop album, and come back here and tell us it's "conservative".

Mediocre? Definiately. You won't get an argument out of me on that point.

Re:Agenda of the Power Elite (1)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048497)

Yes, the problem is that the current economic-political structure doesn't want anything but 'mediocre, conservative music.'


Funny, I just thought today's mainstream artists were lazy. And record labels are afraid to take chances on riskier artists, because they're afraid of piracy eating into their return investment.

Every generation thinks the youth's new music is "mediocre, conservative music." A lot of people don't realize how much they sound like old fogies complaining about their grandkids' music. A lot of people love today's music.

But hey, at least you got to use the phrase "agenda of the power elite" in a Slashdot post...no melodrama here!

It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (5, Insightful)

riptide_dot (759229) | about 9 years ago | (#12048346)

This from the perspective of an "indie" musician:

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

ProTools + P2P distribution + web advertising = no more RIAA requirement PERIOD.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (1)

Tjoppen (831002) | about 9 years ago | (#12048477)

The latest South Park episode seems relevant;

"We have to make Token believe he needs us, when actually he doesn't need us at all..."

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (1)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048542)


P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.


P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything

You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.

Besides, you don't need P2P piracy for distributing free music. iTunes offers free downloads all the time. Encouraging the use of networks that we all know is 95+% illegal piracy--as in, distribution of content without permission--is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed. You people wanted the record labels to embrace legal online downloading. I've been here for years, and have read post after post, editorial after editorial. Well, it's here in several forms, and now they're still not good enough.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio


Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap. Amateur recording engineers thinking they can just click through Pro Tools and get it done. You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on.

Do they really support it? (2, Interesting)

Glowing Fish (155236) | about 9 years ago | (#12048355)

Do Indie Rockers really support P2P? Or are they just saying they do, because its five years old now, and its retro-ironic to pretend you like it?

Doesn't change anything (1, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 9 years ago | (#12048371)

Yes, it's great that some artists want people to distribute their music in this way. They have given permission for people do that.

Most artists have not given that permission. Yet, most pirates don't respect that. Slashdot posts things like this to make it seem as though there's some supportive movement among artists for P2P piracy, but there is not. And in between all the "stolen GPL code" articles, arguing in favor of P2P copyright infringement is all the more silly and hypocritical.

Just my opinion. Nobody's ever validly justified infringing on artists' rights without their permission. It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free. That's all P2P piracy boils down to. It's not a cultural communications movement. It's human beings wanting stuff for free because people have made it easy to get. Basic human nature here.

Those artists who have given permission are cool. But the copyright holders who don't give permission also have the right not to, and if people want to pretend they have a moral ground to stand on, they'd respect the wishes of those people. But they don't. We instead get more ranting about the RIAA going after individual infringers (just like Slashdot suggested they do in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit), in between articles about GPL violations where people go after individual GPL infringers.

Though I know there are people who don't fall into this mindset here, I'll never understand the majority Slashdot position on this. By majority, I'm referring to both the position of the editors based on the stories they post, and the position of the majority of posters based on the upmods received for certain opinions that support the piracy mindset of entitlement to everything without giving anything in return...what we call "freeloading."

Mod parent WAY up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048403)

This should be read by everyone, regardless of whether or not you disagree. Anyone who mods him down only further proves his point.

Re:Doesn't change anything (0, Troll)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | about 9 years ago | (#12048487)

I've seen the parent post modded to a 3, then back down to a 2, within the span of minutes. This just goes to prove his point. His arguments hit the nail right on the head. This is they hypocricy that is slashdot.

Go ahead, mod me down. Like I really care. Makes the point all the more valid.

Re:Doesn't change anything (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | about 9 years ago | (#12048540)

Please remember that comment moderation points may go down as well as up.

There are mods who disagree with him. This does not make it a hypocrisy. The OP is confusing two different types of violations.

It's an interesting argument, not a good one.

Re:Doesn't change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048557)

I've seen the parent post modded to a 3, then back down to a 2, within the span of minutes.

You lie like a rug:

Moderation +3
70% Insightful
30% Interesting

Re:Doesn't change anything (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12048490)

It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.

Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.

Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.

I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.

Re:Doesn't change anything (2, Interesting)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | about 9 years ago | (#12048494)

The difference between music piracy and GPL violations is quite simple.

In the latter case, the company committing the violation is making a profit off the work of others, and in a way, cheating their customers.

In the former case, nothing is being stolen, and no one is being cheated, as many people would not have bought the CD or CD single to listen to the song(s) if they didn't download it.

It's about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That's just how I see it.

Re:Doesn't change anything (1)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | about 9 years ago | (#12048547)

What exactly is it about money that makes your argument valid?

If the point is to encourage the sharing of information, to better society, then why prevent someone from profitting (via GPL violations) to bring forth more innovations? How is that any less evil than say, Microsoft forcing you to license their product before you can develop code from it?

It all boils down to the mentality of, "I don't want anybody to succeed or profit". Basic human selfishness. "If I don't get rich, I don't want someone else to get rich."

Re:Doesn't change anything... actually, it does. (4, Insightful)

muel (132794) | about 9 years ago | (#12048549)

Does this mean you feel guilty when you hear a song on the radio? The whole point of "indie artists support P2P" is to find better promotional distribution now that the musical community has outgrown the limits of clamped-down radio. Major labels have always had a stranglehold on radio distribution, but now we're in a world where smaller artists and labels have the power, technology and distribution to receive just as much attention as the artist who suckles at ClearChannel or MTV's teat. P2P is a way to get people to hear imperfect copies of songs - much like radio, but with more control. Does this create freeloaders? Sure, just as cassette tapes did in the 80's, but even if it's to a grander scale, the tape-to-purchase ratio of the 80's is nowhere near the mp3-to-purchase ratio of today - you can make some serious money from downloaders, oftentimes through ticket and merch sales even more so than album sales. "Most artists have not given their permission" - that's not the case, because if someone releases a CD, they want it promoted. They want to be heard so they can make some goddamn money. Consider P2P distribution a "marketing expense" and it makes complete sense. It costs less to seed a torrent and give away a few free copies of an album than it does to whip up a huge batch of flyers, for crying out loud!

it's unfortunate (1)

kevinx (790831) | about 9 years ago | (#12048380)

I still think it is debatable whether people actually download indy music off of your typical peer to peer network. People go with what they know and have heard of; that's major label music. If peer to peer music sharing networks did a proactive job of advertising and rating/ranking indy musicians, it might spawn into it's own industry....... if that happens..... it'll somehow become controlled by those who are out for a profit.. and someday people will be having a discussion over some new technology that is destroying it.

Re:it's unfortunate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048478)

still think it is debatable whether people actually download indy music off of your typical peer to peer network.

We do.

If peer to peer music sharing networks did a proactive job of advertising and rating/ranking indy musicians

That's the artist's job, not the network's. In fact, I'm talking to the guitarist for a band from Spain on SoulSeek right now. I just bought 2 copies of every single 12" and 7" they ever pressed. (And paid for overseas shipping)

Guess who introduced me to that band? The guitarist did. He shares their entire discography and encourages others to do so as well.

This is no isolated example either, I can say the same thing about quite a few dozen underground bands; without P2P I'd have never heard of them.

I haven't bought an album for ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048390)

Everybody here seems to be extolling the virtues of P2P and how it increases sales.

I must be an exception then, because ever since I discovered P2P, I haven't bought a single CD. It's just way too easy to download a CD instead of going all the way to a record store, buy the CD and rip it so that I can add it to my music collection.

CDs contain so little music that listening to them is a pain in the ass. You have to be changing discs all the time and I like to have random background music 24h (yes, I like to have music playing quietly even when I sleep).

No Statues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048395)

There are no statues of committees

Re:No Statues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048427)

"" - Gilbert K. Chesterton

legit uses or no. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048412)

I really can't care less.

I will continue to STEAL all of my music until the record industry execs bend over and PERSONALLY kiss my ass and say they are sorry.

I never used p2p until they started treating everyone like a thief. So i started acting like i'm being treated. And given that they will NEVER apologize. I guess my music will be free forever.

Now this does not include independant artists. But since my tastes dont include any of those. And i've gotten 95% of all the music i ever wanted.

It's a moot point. The industry lost a customer who at one point spent $200-250 a month on music.

Good going guys!

reality check! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048457)

Hahahahaha!

It's so typical that people like you rationalize your criminal activity as some noble fight against an evil empire and even expect an apology from the victim for some imagined crimes.

At least be honest about it and say that you're infringing on their copyright because you like it.

I do.

Re:legit uses or no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12048488)

I agree - I'd like someone to kiss my ass pretty darn soon.....you free?

I Knew The Beatles And You, Sir... (1)

ExampleUserAccount (763086) | about 9 years ago | (#12048429)

It's true, Terence/Sananda was forced at gunpoint to write and release "Supermodel Sandwich". Here are some lyrics from that classic:
Supermodel Sandwich by Terence/Sananda
You're so fine what's your solar sign?
Yield the right of way she said without delay
Flame fame flame fame flame fame flame
Supermodel sandwich would you let me hang?
It's ironic that he invokes the Beatles. At the time he was quoted as saying that his album was better than Sargeant Pepper. His nonsense aside, p2p and podcasting are great for the indies. I bought two indie albums last week from http://albumlunchbox.com/ [albumlunchbox.com] that I could only have heard through the internet.

P2P is a great system for some (1)

wheelbarrow (811145) | about 9 years ago | (#12048518)

P2P works well for some artists and entertainment consumers. They are both making a free and voluntary choice. Likewise, some artists choose to release their work for pay and with restrictive DRM. Some consumers voluntarily choose to consume entertainment within those constraints.

Nobody, in either scenario, is compelled by force to do anything they do not wish to do. We already live in a perfect world with regards to P2P and DRM.

Whatever... (3, Informative)

AsnFkr (545033) | about 9 years ago | (#12048525)

While not opposed to P2P, indie musicians have the chance to put themselves out there without relying on virus/spyware/legally-scarry loaded p2p systems. You can get webhosting CHA_CHA_CHEAP (500 gigs transfer for $50 a month ain't hard to find..and 500 gigs is a SHITTON of mp3's) to distribute your songs on a website. The hot part is you have the chance to actually track how many hits you get and control what songs are available, not to mention create more traffic for your site giving you the chance to promote tours/shows/t-shirt sales all in the same swing. In fact, in a shameless plug....I'm *IN* a underground band that records and puts out our albums all DIY with full album distribution on our website.

This is our new album [atomicraygunattack.com]
And this is our "main" website. [atomicraygunattack.com]

In fact, within a couple of weeks we will have a music video on the site as well, with not only the ability to stream the video but actually download it in high quality to your hard drive. I don't get bands that don't offer these types of features. It's insane!

Rock Is Dead - Long Live Rock (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#12048577)

"guitar groups are on the way out." - Mike Smith, Decca exec, rejecting the Beatles 1/1/62 audition
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...