music repercussions of shutting down megaupload, mediafire, etc.

[jules]

So many people get their music through these free download sites. Many buy after, most do not. Since these sites have been being shut down, the spreading of newer or unknown bands will come to a radical halt. I would venture to say that pitchfork and the like will suffer a lot as a lot of people won't be able to check out even a fraction of what they would normally check out on a monthly or weekly basis, which will in turn hurt these aspiring artists.

 

I am starting to think that this will actually really hurt a lot of bands in terms of getting exposure or blowing up. Probably most bands, minus the big ones, but I guess that is what they want? Personally, I think I would rather have 1000 people download my album for free than have 10 people buy it. But I think the record companies would rather have 10 people buy it than 0. So there you go.

 

Thoughts?

[awepittance]

i dont see things like media fire as an actually effective means to spread the word about a relatively unknown musical project.

 

If its on pitchfork you've already climbed the top of the mountain so to speak, if the band cared about exposure they would make at least 1-2 songs available for stream or download on their own.

 

I can't really subscribe to the idea that mediafire actually makes someone who wasn't going to spend money on a band before all of the sudden decide to support them

 

Soulseek and even what.cd i think are more effective in terms of that, both of those still exist

 

 

being unable to get them on these one stop shopping websites like mediafire will just make it a little bit more difficult and time consuming to download a record that is for sale. I Dont see any bad coming out of that, if people really need to download a whole album before buying it to make sure the like it i still don't understand that. With things like spotifiy and most good labels and webstores giving you substantially long previews, the argument makes no sense to me, it only does if you apply it to a very small percentage of music out there

[vamos scorcho]

maybe there will be less shitty music and the good stuff will stand out

[jules]

im saying pitchfork because tons of people read about a band on pitchfork and then dl the album via one of these sites to see if it is good. if those means are not available, only a fraction of those people are going to buy it.

[awepittance]

if the band has never been heard about before and pitchfork reviews one of their albums, that will give them a substantial amount of 'political capital' to use to promote their work for at least a few years. I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

 

people like Niel Gaiman and Seth Mcfarlane who would probably be more obscure now if it not for bootlegging benefit immensely from the phenomenon you are thinking of, but i honestly dont think very many unsigned or just signed electronic artists do. I could be wrong. To me you already have to be at a certain level of fame for bootlegging to become a net benefit for you rather than something that actually prevents you from making money.

 

edit: and for me as a musician who tries to sell records and as a label owner i can't separate 'feelings' from this.

[zkreso]

I also don't get the feeling that most people look for a band's album on such websites immediately after reading about them for the first time. What seems more likely is that they check out a couple of tracks on youtube, soundcloud or the label's website. It is much more convenient and faster than tracking down the album and waiting for the whole thing to download (very slowly), and it gives you a good enough idea of the music that it will either convince you to buy it or pirate it - which is where mediafire et. al. first come in.

[gunnar]

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

 

seems pretty reasonable to me. you want to make sure your money's well spent.

[Guest]

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

I don't need to hear an album in it's entirety, or even in part to buy it if it's someone I know that I really like, but I can't even count the number of times I've bought an album specificaly because I got hooked on it after downloading it, when I wouldn't have ever bought it otherwise. and yeah a LOT of music consumers can't afford to buy very many albums.

[Ivan Ooze]

maybe there will be less shitty music and the good stuff will stand out

yeah like the good stuff on the radio or tv

i think shutting it down would be a disgrace

[Guest couch]

Smaller bands and musicians do not have the resources to distribute their music widely via physical means.

 

 

maybe there will be less shitty music and the good stuff will stand out

Not when Sony/BMG decides what to put out and what not to. Not based off musical merit but by how marketable it is.

[Guest Enter a new display name]

The main repercussion would be I couldn't say "LEAKED" anymore. :(

[Guest Drahken]

I'm not bothered by new music being less accessable. Most of the artists I enjoy make it possible to hear most of the album before buying, and offer their stuff in a way that I'm inclined to purchase it.

 

What does suck though is the plethora of old classics and obscure stuff, many long since out of print/availabiltiy, that were available thanks to avid collectors who didn't mine sharing. With storage sites like that potentially waning it might be a lot harder to find. Most of the old music heads that shared their collections did so because of the simplicty and one-off nature of using sites like ML. You don't find a lot of that on torrents or p2p, who really wants to bother with the hassle (or potential risk).

 

I think thats what bothers me most about the music industry. I don't really mind trying to protect and profit off of current music while its still fresh or popular. But it is a damn shame to see music disappear into obscurity and unavailibility because the people holding the reigns don't want anyone to enjoy it without paying sticker price on decades old tunes.

[beerwolf]

I'm not bothered by new music being less accessable. Most of the artists I enjoy make it possible to hear most of the album before buying, and offer their stuff in a way that I'm inclined to purchase it.

 

What does suck though is the plethora of old classics and obscure stuff, many long since out of print/availabiltiy, that were available thanks to avid collectors who didn't mine sharing. With storage sites like that potentially waning it might be a lot harder to find. Most of the old music heads that shared their collections did so because of the simplicty and one-off nature of using sites like ML. You don't find a lot of that on torrents or p2p, who really wants to bother with the hassle (or potential risk).

 

I think thats what bothers me most about the music industry. I don't really mind trying to protect and profit off of current music while its still fresh or popular. But it is a damn shame to see music disappear into obscurity and unavailibility because the people holding the reigns don't want anyone to enjoy it without paying sticker price on decades old tunes.

 

Great post mate. Sums it up for me too.

[Freak of the week]

I'm not bothered by new music being less accessable. Most of the artists I enjoy make it possible to hear most of the album before buying, and offer their stuff in a way that I'm inclined to purchase it.

 

What does suck though is the plethora of old classics and obscure stuff, many long since out of print/availabiltiy, that were available thanks to avid collectors who didn't mine sharing. With storage sites like that potentially waning it might be a lot harder to find. Most of the old music heads that shared their collections did so because of the simplicty and one-off nature of using sites like ML. You don't find a lot of that on torrents or p2p, who really wants to bother with the hassle (or potential risk).

 

I think thats what bothers me most about the music industry. I don't really mind trying to protect and profit off of current music while its still fresh or popular. But it is a damn shame to see music disappear into obscurity and unavailibility because the people holding the reigns don't want anyone to enjoy it without paying sticker price on decades old tunes.

 

Good post. If something is out of print, that means artist can't get any more profit out it, unless artist himself anonimously sells his out of print stuff directly, what is again a whole different story, and, in my opinion, generally not the case. That means that all the second hand stuff sold for example on eBay, that's out of print, is priced according to seller's wishes, and seller will profit from this potential (and, as we all know, something incredibly huge) overpricing, not the artist. However, there still remains a question whether an artist plans to re-release something in the future or not. I personally believe that if some release would, as you say, disappear into obscurity without the Internet and sites like Megaupload etc., it is definitely better for it to be put on some file-sharing site so that others can enjoy it and be able to preserve the music for the generations of fans to come.

[Kanakori]

I'm not bothered by new music being less accessable. Most of the artists I enjoy make it possible to hear most of the album before buying, and offer their stuff in a way that I'm inclined to purchase it.

 

What does suck though is the plethora of old classics and obscure stuff, many long since out of print/availabiltiy, that were available thanks to avid collectors who didn't mine sharing. With storage sites like that potentially waning it might be a lot harder to find. Most of the old music heads that shared their collections did so because of the simplicty and one-off nature of using sites like ML. You don't find a lot of that on torrents or p2p, who really wants to bother with the hassle (or potential risk).

 

I think thats what bothers me most about the music industry. I don't really mind trying to protect and profit off of current music while its still fresh or popular. But it is a damn shame to see music disappear into obscurity and unavailibility because the people holding the reigns don't want anyone to enjoy it without paying sticker price on decades old tunes.

 

This. You can only find some stuff as old and used vinyls on amazon for absurd prices, some artists are even dead aldready.

[Candiru]

There are so many sites like mediafire, rapidshare, depositfiles, UL, etc. etc. Not to mention the countless other ways of sharing music and movies. Then the ways that haven't been invented yet.

 

Honestly this is like the "drug war". They're fighting a battle they can't win and they are extremely butthurt. Listen to this loser:

 

 

Hollywood thinks Congress is on their leash: Motion Picture Association of America President Chris Dodd just threatened to cut off Hollywood campaign contributions to any member of Congress who doesn’t pass his Internet-censorship legislation.

 

After Congress shelved the controversial PIPA and SOPA bills, Chris Dodd told Fox News:

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

- demandprogress.org

 

One less reason to support Hollywood. Fuck 'em sideways.

[awepittance]

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

I don't need to hear an album in it's entirety, or even in part to buy it if it's someone I know that I really like, but I can't even count the number of times I've bought an album specificaly because I got hooked on it after downloading it, when I wouldn't have ever bought it otherwise. and yeah a LOT of music consumers can't afford to buy very many albums.

 

id like to think otherwise but i think you're in the minority.

 

I also don't get the feeling that most people look for a band's album on such websites immediately after reading about them for the first time. What seems more likely is that they check out a couple of tracks on youtube, soundcloud or the label's website. It is much more convenient and faster than tracking down the album and waiting for the whole thing to download (very slowly), and it gives you a good enough idea of the music that it will either convince you to buy it or pirate it - which is where mediafire et. al. first come in.

 

i pretty much agree with everything you said except for the downloading slowly part, sometimes it downloads insanely fast and it makes the act feel that much more pleasurable. What.cd and oink and sometimes even rapidshare (if you pay) have faster downloads than boomkat, bleep.com, beatport and juno records combined

[BobDobalina]

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

I don't need to hear an album in it's entirety, or even in part to buy it if it's someone I know that I really like, but I can't even count the number of times I've bought an album specificaly because I got hooked on it after downloading it, when I wouldn't have ever bought it otherwise. and yeah a LOT of music consumers can't afford to buy very many albums.

^ this, though I'll add that I'm old enough to have bought an album (okay, cassette) only to find out that every song on it besides the one good one I heard on the radio sucks massive balls.

 

I'm also a big fan of public libraries, yet I don't hear that harry potter tart bitching about them cutting into her millions. You can also borrow cds and dvds from them nowadays, go figure.

[joshuatxuk]

I also don't get the feeling that most people look for a band's album on such websites immediately after reading about them for the first time. What seems more likely is that they check out a couple of tracks on youtube, soundcloud or the label's website. It is much more convenient and faster than tracking down the album and waiting for the whole thing to download (very slowly), and it gives you a good enough idea of the music that it will either convince you to buy it or pirate it - which is where mediafire et. al. first come in.

 

Exactly. I was a huge p2p whore back in college, using a university hub on DC++ to aquire literally hundreds, if not thousands of albums I never fully listened to. That harddrive crashed ages ago (karma imo) and it's fine, because the artists I found I loved, and actually bought releases of, were ones I heard on the local college/community radio, through friends, internet aquaintences, online browsing, etc. After that, I went through another phase of using rapidshare, megaupload, etc through music blogs. Grew out of that too. I torrent rarely now, but other than that, I stream. Whether it's youtube, soundcloud, or even turntable.fm, that's what I do, and likewise the blogs and online music sites I frequent now link to streams first and foremost. As far as anger over megaupload being shut down, the most ignorant and stupid comments you'll see are the same dumbasses who comment on youtube asking for mp3s of video uploads, or bitch on comment boards on leaked album blogs (like say, nodata.tv) if a copy is removed per copyright owner request. Those people are just superficial idiots, and they're the folks the RIAA and MPAA love to cite. They're the same ones who think copyleft and "free music" is a-ok, without really thinking about how dangerous and insulting that is to small-time artists who should have the right to sell their music and legally protect their work...but that's another discussion. My point is the music implications of megaupload as far as the artist-fan relationship are negligible, and sites like pitchfork have already moved past the mindset of people seeing an album review and downloading the whole thing to listen to - it's the legal aspects that are so troubling about megaupload being shut down.

 

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

I don't need to hear an album in it's entirety, or even in part to buy it if it's someone I know that I really like, but I can't even count the number of times I've bought an album specificaly because I got hooked on it after downloading it, when I wouldn't have ever bought it otherwise. and yeah a LOT of music consumers can't afford to buy very many albums.

^ this, though I'll add that I'm old enough to have bought an album (okay, cassette) only to find out that every song on it besides the one good one I heard on the radio sucks massive balls.

 

I'm also a big fan of public libraries, yet I don't hear that harry potter tart bitching about them cutting into her millions. You can also borrow cds and dvds from them nowadays, go figure.

 

^I think I might the generational cutoff for that as well, went through a few "holy shit I actually bought that album" moments when going through some CD cases I had from high school. The mention of the Harry Potter franchise is an interesting one, albeit the money made was in other media. See Rowling, who probably wants more kids to read her books for free than buy them, is the actual author. The kicker about all of the megaupload uproar is the fact that those who want to kill file-sharing sites aren't the actual artists, they're the publishers. Anyone with any knowledge of the record industry knows that the profit mostly goes to everyone but the actual writers and composers. With a few exceptions, when you see a major label pop star, especially hip-hop stars, living extravagent day-to-day lives, it's all the labels dime. If a major label can buy and hassle it's way to dominate a market, it will. That's why some of the most eggregious sampling controveries, like the Timbaland/chiptine flap or the "Ice Ice Baby" riff, were made on major label releases. They thought they could get away with it, and when they got caught, it was a drop in the bucket for settlements out of court. The song "Lion Sleeps Tonight" is easily the most momental example of corporate greed and copyright exploitation, with such a long history they made an entire documentary about it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGZB7s5qLg8

 

Point is, I don't think this will affect independent artists much...yet. The next battle is streaming services and digital music stores. I'm sure everyone heard about the Megabox angle The big studios and labels are still staving off the inevitable fact that there's little appeal to their model of selling and distributing films and music. They've already merged TV and music - think about how much television time is relevant to any Top40 artist, especially the big names like Beiber, Lady Gaga, Kanye, etc. I think film is a different story, so I'll stop there...BUT anyway, point is, the major label is about to officially become a dinosaur, and the people who make the big money off of it - the producers, A&R, talent scouts, etc will be out of a job. So watch out for cloud and streaming services and digital stores being investigated or curtailed. Call me paranoid, but I'm worried about some kind of plot against things like Spotify and Bandcamp developing. They can't stop DIY art and distribtion IRL, but power and money can and will motivate some to keep such ethos out of the digital realm as much as possible. Hopefully we'll win out when it gets really ugly.

[Kanakori]

 

[marf]

im too old to even consider this might be a problem

[Kanakori]

That doc is not about the internets....

[chenGOD]

Someone mentioned public libraries. You guys do understand that authors are compensated for having their books in the library yes?

[xyrofen]

I do not understand this so-called music fan mentality of needing to listen to an entire album all the way through before they buy it. Is that another way of saying you can't afford to buy very much music?

I don't need to hear an album in it's entirety, or even in part to buy it if it's someone I know that I really like, but I can't even count the number of times I've bought an album specificaly because I got hooked on it after downloading it, when I wouldn't have ever bought it otherwise. and yeah a LOT of music consumers can't afford to buy very many albums.

 

id like to think otherwise but i think you're in the minority.

 

Most albums I've purchased, I'd had downloaded prior. Some good examples would be Draft 7.30, Geogaddi, Hangable Auto Bulb, Cavalcade of Glee and Dadaist Happy Hardcore Pom Poms, Huge Chrome Cylinder Box Unfolding, and Horsey Noises. Some albums I've wanted to purchase when I go into stores, but they never have them (examples being: The Blurring of Trees, Do You Know Squarepusher?, Cautella, Brownout.

 

I'd like to hear something in its entirety prior to purchasing it.

[chenGOD]

Do you know squarepusher?

Cautella

The Blurring of Trees

Brownout

 

You're not gonna get Cautella or Browout on physical format, unless you're buying second hand.