Comments on: Digital Music: Who Benefits? http://opensourcesmall.biz/2005/05/digital-music-who-benefits/ The living site of the book by John Locke Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:57:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 By: Phill http://opensourcesmall.biz/2005/05/digital-music-who-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-23413 Phill Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:05:39 +0000 http://opensourcesmall.biz/?p=135#comment-23413 Yeah, I would agree that musicians proly make a majority of their money form live shows, but in my opinion (for what it's worth) that still doesn't make it right for people to steal or download or whatever their music over P2P newtorks. In reality 2 or 3 or maybe even 100 or 200 people downloading an album from whoever may not hurt the artist, but when you have THOUSANDS of people downloading their music then it may start to make a dent. And who is the judge of what is popular and what isn't? If some one thinks an album isn't worth buying because it only has 2 good songs, then don't buy it! Don't say the artist doesn't deserver their money because the rest of their album sucks! P2P networks can be great for publicity and getting your name out there and if you want to make your music available soley for free through P2P, more power to you (when I say "you", Im not saying you as in the writer). It just seems like a huge loss when artists go through hard work (even if you think the album is junk, they still put work into it) to produce an album with every intention of reaping the benifits of their hard work just to have it blow out the window because you're too cheap actually purchase the work. Anyway, interesting post. Yeah, I would agree that musicians proly make a majority of their money form live shows, but in my opinion (for what it’s worth) that still doesn’t make it right for people to steal or download or whatever their music over P2P newtorks. In reality 2 or 3 or maybe even 100 or 200 people downloading an album from whoever may not hurt the artist, but when you have THOUSANDS of people downloading their music then it may start to make a dent.

And who is the judge of what is popular and what isn’t? If some one thinks an album isn’t worth buying because it only has 2 good songs, then don’t buy it! Don’t say the artist doesn’t deserver their money because the rest of their album sucks! P2P networks can be great for publicity and getting your name out there and if you want to make your music available soley for free through P2P, more power to you (when I say “you”, Im not saying you as in the writer). It just seems like a huge loss when artists go through hard work (even if you think the album is junk, they still put work into it) to produce an album with every intention of reaping the benifits of their hard work just to have it blow out the window because you’re too cheap actually purchase the work.

Anyway, interesting post.

]]> By: Robert Jamison http://opensourcesmall.biz/2005/05/digital-music-who-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-4841 Robert Jamison Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:22:07 +0000 http://opensourcesmall.biz/?p=135#comment-4841 Great post. The recording industry was founded and persists because it used to not be feasible for an artist to record, promote and distribute their own recordings without a major outlay of cash for equipment, advertising and pressing. With the advent of the home PC and the Internet, is it any wonder that the recording industry is rapidly loosing relevance? They can no longer hide their exorbitant gouging of artists behind CD production costs. Of course, artists still need to be able to protect their copyrights, but remove the recording industry, and this becomes less of a concern since artists would recieve much higher percentages for their work that is paid for. If I knew that (for instance) the new White Stripes CD was available electronically and that the White Stripes would receive 100% of the purchase price, I'd be willing to jump through reasonable DRM hoops to get it. Hopefully, they'd also allow lower the price a bit. Great post. The recording industry was founded and persists because it used to not be feasible for an artist to record, promote and distribute their own recordings without a major outlay of cash for equipment, advertising and pressing. With the advent of the home PC and the Internet, is it any wonder that the recording industry is rapidly loosing relevance? They can no longer hide their exorbitant gouging of artists behind CD production costs.

Of course, artists still need to be able to protect their copyrights, but remove the recording industry, and this becomes less of a concern since artists would recieve much higher percentages for their work that is paid for.

If I knew that (for instance) the new White Stripes CD was available electronically and that the White Stripes would receive 100% of the purchase price, I’d be willing to jump through reasonable DRM hoops to get it. Hopefully, they’d also allow lower the price a bit.

]]>