i always look at it as not stealing from the record shops (via a loss of physical sale via an illigal download not a shoplifted CD)
nor the distributers
or the record label
but the artist themselves who when you look at it earn royalties which is kinda like working piece work
sure some get huge advances but loose the ownership of the recordings to the label because the label paid for the studio time, then to top it off took the money back in future sales
the band still own the songs other rights (unless penned by someone else)
as with iTunes and other digital downloads no one but the artist should be taking a slice as what have they done?
the business model is evolving but the business isnt
people want to download songs for a small fee and not pay full whack for an album where they might only like 2 songs, ive had many albums like that, even forcing myself to listen to it in its entirety doesnt make the others grow on me
we lack ethical lables
and once established artists are free of their contract they can post whatever new songs they like onto iTunes et all and reap every penny not the megre percentage that the fat cats leave them with for doing fek all in the publics eye
Nine Inch Nails is now self publishing after completing his/their contractual obligations and with his (trent reznor) widly reported anti lable comments re pricing he has stated hed much rather the band stole online than pay over the odds
he once asked why his CD's were still expencive even a few years after release and or why the austrailian release of year zero was massivly over priced
paraphrased record exec "your fans are rabidly loyal if we released it at $50 they would still buy it"
but i doubt his royalty cheque would increase that way, he probably gets paid the same rate regardless of the price of the album
nor the distributers
or the record label
but the artist themselves who when you look at it earn royalties which is kinda like working piece work
sure some get huge advances but loose the ownership of the recordings to the label because the label paid for the studio time, then to top it off took the money back in future sales
the band still own the songs other rights (unless penned by someone else)
as with iTunes and other digital downloads no one but the artist should be taking a slice as what have they done?
the business model is evolving but the business isnt
people want to download songs for a small fee and not pay full whack for an album where they might only like 2 songs, ive had many albums like that, even forcing myself to listen to it in its entirety doesnt make the others grow on me
we lack ethical lables
and once established artists are free of their contract they can post whatever new songs they like onto iTunes et all and reap every penny not the megre percentage that the fat cats leave them with for doing fek all in the publics eye
Nine Inch Nails is now self publishing after completing his/their contractual obligations and with his (trent reznor) widly reported anti lable comments re pricing he has stated hed much rather the band stole online than pay over the odds
he once asked why his CD's were still expencive even a few years after release and or why the austrailian release of year zero was massivly over priced
paraphrased record exec "your fans are rabidly loyal if we released it at $50 they would still buy it"
but i doubt his royalty cheque would increase that way, he probably gets paid the same rate regardless of the price of the album