Posted by John Hunter on 12/25/06 08:14

I don't think it likely that you will ever agree with anyone that disagrees
because that would mean you might have to moderate or change your views but
I'll give you my take of another two issues that are core to the situation
in my view. In summary I think the current unfairness is an acceptable
temporary situation that will have a better outcome for all but the
industry.

Firstly an unacceptable cycle has to be broken otherwise it will remain. It
is the cycle whereby the industry exploits both the artist and the customer.
The situation has to be forced whereby artists receive a better share by
comparison by the industry. Use of companies like allofmp3 may in the short
term deprive both artist and company of revenue. However because of the
imbalance it is the company that suffers most, but they argue there case as
though they are fighting not for themselves but for the artist that they
have never in the past cared much for. The use of allofmp3 therefore might
force two things that otherwise would never happen. The first is that canny
artists build their own route to market that avoids the traditional
industry. This will benefit both customer and artists and harm the industry
that basically adds no value. The second is that the industry, currently
taking most of the revenue will have to be less greedy than it has been. It
is my view that none of these issues would have been forced without the
emergence of the net and companies like allofmp3 who are helping to force
issues that will in the longer term benefit both artist and customer but
curtail the industry.

The second issue is that since my supply of free music every week (I use to
get boxes of virtually every '45 and LP that was released by all the major
companies during the late 60's and early 70's) I have spend virtually no
money. Perhaps my CD budget was �50 per year. With the emergence of
companies like allofmp3 I now download everything I might like and spend
probably around �500 each year. The cost to the artists of origination is
the same irrespective of how much they sell. I think the new methods of
distribution at a lower customer cost will increase customer spending and
budgets. With the issues I outline in the previous paragraph resolved I
believe that the artist will take a small hit now during the transition but
then earn substantially more both per unit and in volume once they improve
their personal route to market as previously suggested. This will also mean
that true talent will have better routes to potential markets as customer
methods of finding them improve.

So in summary I think that using companies like allofmp is temporarily
harming both artist and the industry but that within a very short time it
would have forced a situation that will be to the benefit of both to the
cost of a rather fat and lazy industry. Not everything is always fare at
all times but I believe that for the sake of that end the current temporary
unacceptable situation is justified.



"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1166978492.671080.261520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Hunter top-posted:
>> Because not everybody believes everything the music industry says.
>
> Because not everybody believes what the industry says...what? What is
> your point? I'll reiterate what mine is - whether you're for or
> against music piracy, there's no legal or any other difference between
> downloading a song through a paid service like AllOfMP3 and through a
> file-sharing network except that one offers you the illusion of piece
> of mind and a credit card bill. Just because you paid for it won't get
> you off the hook. The assholes who run the music industry are full of
> shit, they do exploit artists and do overcharge consumers. That's
> meaningless in the case of a renegade entrepreneur who lets his
> customers think that they're getting the best of both worlds - that
> they're getting completely legal downloads and at the same time hitting
> back at the hated recording industry.
>
>> The
>> music industry is as unpopular with artists as it is with music
>> collectors -
>> both groups have a feeling of systematic exploitation - and things cannot
>> always be seen in terms of black and white.
>
> Which hasn't stopped defenders of AllOfMP3 from adopting a similar
> simplistic rationalization of that company's actions - they're not the
> music industry, and we pay them, so they must be okay. Personally, I
> don't like the movie industry - too many duds, too much attention to
> established stars who know that they can underperform in shitty movies
> as long as they can hold the attention of some asshole in US Weekly.
> That doesn't mean I can't catch a good flick now and then and pay to
> watch it.
>
>> We are at a mid stage with the opportunity for artistes to have a direct
>> relationship with
>> purchasers of their talent, which many are starting.
>
> Which is why you go to AllOfMP3.com? You want to foster a more direct
> relationship with that new Ska band in Orange County or that new metal
> act out of Clevelan...by downloading their music from some guy in
> Russia with money that those acts will never see? AllOfMP3 was
> intolerable enough before it became a touchstone for the entire debate
> over recording industry-artist relationship, a situation that
> AllOfMP3.com has nothing to do with other than to profit from it. Let
> me ask you htis, if you feel so bad for those poor, starving artists,
> will you then forward them the difference between what you pay on
> AllOfMP3 and what you would have paid for getting the music through
> industry-sanctioned avenues?
>>
>> The industry has done everything it can to ensure music purchasers are
>> shafted - from attempting to ban imports to artificially ensuring high
>> retail prices.
>
> Ummmm, you can add AllOfMP3 to the list of shafters that have had their
> way with you. Basically they're charging you for something you can get
> for free - music downloads.
>
>> I feel genuine concern for artists but not for the
>> companies - and artists now have the opportunity of breaking free from
>> them.
>
> which is why you're gonna send them the monye you saved by getting
> their music through allofmp3 rather than iTunes, right?
>
>> I say this from the perspective of someone who spent 20 years in the
>> music
>> industry - but now retired.
>
> Fine, I'll just download everybody else's music from now on, and make
> sure to buy your's from allofmp3 exclusively
>>
>> This is far over simplified - but it's what many feel.
>
> and if everybody else thinks it's right, it must be.
>

[Back to original message]