Ever since Napster came around, people have discovered that an alternative to record stores exist: You don't have to pay for music anymore!
And artists should be grateful this technology exists. Bands like Metallica have no idea how much good the free mp3 business could potentially help the music industry, if used and taken advantage of correctly.
I had heard of the band Audioslave from friends, but obviously I'm not going to just go out and buy their album without any idea if they're good or not. I'm sorry but $15 is too much to spend blindly. So one day a friend of mine gave me mp3 files of all their songs that I uploaded into my iTunes. I now had all their music for free. I was never planning on buying a CD, so really, Audioslave didn't lose any money.
That's not the justification though. That's not why I think downloading music is good. The story doesn't end there. Turns out I absolutely LOVE Audioslave's entire catalogue. A couple years later, I still love them enough to the point where I actually went out and bought their first album simply because I wanted the actual CD to play in my car, my bathroom CD player, my DVD player, and so on.
The music was so qualified and well-done in my eyes that even though I had already pirated the music, I went out and bought it anyway. But I never would have bought it if I didn't get the music for free, because if it wasn't free, I wouldn't have spent the money on it. Things are getting more expensive (gas, anyone?), and we really don't want to waste any more money than we have to, and let's face it, buying music is a waste. Music doesn't physically do anything or fulfill some actual bodily need.
The RIAA cannot change reality, and the reality is that people enjoy free music. Or at least cheaper music than $18 for a CD. Any CDs I buy are purchased used from eBay or Amazon, which is completely legal but supports the artist 0%. Why is this legal but Limewire isn't? The ONLY difference is that someone else is actually getting some of their money back for what they paid, which could actually be considered a little profit for the re-seller. If anything the RIAA should consider this WORSE.
So how do we make everyone happy? Using a system we've been using for years: Advertisement.
Haven't you ever wondered why you get to listen to the radio for free? It's because you aren't listening to it for free. You are paying for it, just not in a way that is in the traditional "you give me money I give you stuff" format. You pay for radio by listening to the advertisements.
Put your album on your band's website as a completely free download (or at the very most, charge something like $5), and have a bunch of ads on the site. Anyone who wishes to download the album is forced to watch a few minutes of commercials. You don't have to be annoying with it and make them sign up for a bunch of useless crap newsletters that people just delete anyway, just have them watch some commercials, and every time an album is downloaded, the artists receive, from the companies featured in the advertisements, the amount of money they normally would have anyway if the record was bought in a store.
(For anyone who doubts that this would ever work, do some research on how Google makes any money giving you all those awesome programs for free.)
"I'm very positive about the Internet, Napster. I think it's a tremendous tool for reaching many more people than we ever could without it. When you release music you want it to be heard by people. Artists really want to have their music heard. They want to have their creation heard by people. Nothing is going to do that better than Napster. I can't tell you how many kids have come up to me and said, 'I downloaded a couple of tunes off Napster and I went out and bought the album.' Or they say, 'I want to come see you play.' I don't really make money off of record sales anyway." - David Draiman
Some bands have taken some pretty interesting action against Digital Rights Management in the recent decade: Switchfoot, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts I-IV and The Slip albums being some of my favorite examples.
With this plan, we get free music, and artists get paid. I don't care if I have to watch five or even ten minutes of commercials, it's better than paying for it. I guess the only entity that doesn't get paid here is the record companies. Good riddance. If you really think that because you're suing people for downloading music, that one day everyone will wake up and think "Hey... you know... this music downloading thing... it's just wrong. We should all stop doing it," and then everything will go exactly back to the way it used to, everyone will stop downloading, and everyone will resume with buying overpriced music, then you're naive and deserve extinction.
"Personally, I would like people to support artists. After all, we as artists dedicate our lives to producing the best music we can. It's been a painful process for me personally (to see the changes in the music industry). But should I be angry at the audience that wants to hear music so much, an audience that is so passionate about hearing it they go online to get it two weeks before the music debuts? No, I want them to be that way." - Trent Reznor
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
still get the music for free.
I wrote a blog a while back along these lines, but about radio and not about downloading. It was called Radio (Ain't) Free America: http://progressiveu.org/104323-radio-aint-free-america
What I discussed was that people want choices, not stunted playlists promoted by a record company. In my city, people PAY to support a public radio station that plays 20-30,000 songs, versus the 120 played on Clear Channel stations. People like seldom hearing the same song twice and they LOVE not having to sit through commercials. I realize this is almost exactly opposite your thesis, and I suppose it could be argued that people will just find a way around the commercials, as they have with television and tivo, but I still think your plan might work, at least until some other system is devised. I mean, I sit through the commercials on ABC.com when I want to watch Lost. I could wait for it to come out on DVD and Netflix it, but I am impatient, so I will sit through commercials. People might be willing to do the same thing for a music file they get to keep. Because there is choice involved. On the radio, there is no choice...you sit there and hope you get to hear a song you like, and they shove ads down your throat.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well that's the thing. I don't mind at all paying for music that is WORTH the money. Like this radio station? I'd probably be one of the supporters, voluntarily. What I don't like is, without free downloading, being forced to buy a CD that you cannot return just to find out if the songs are good or not. You have no idea until it's already too late.
Some CDs I have bought even AFTER illegally downloading all the tracks. Because the music was so compelling to me, that I just had to have it in CD format so I can play it in the DVD player in the living room, the CD player in the bathroom while showering, etc.
I do wish the samples were longer, though, as sometimes they choose a really dumb part of the song that doesn't really give a good sense of the entire package.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well when I do need to download a song legally ("All My Life" by the Foo Fighters was nothing but low-quality everywhere on Limewire) I go with Amazon. They aren't iTunes/iPod specific, and the tracks are completely DRM-free. You pay $1 for a high-quality mp3 to use however you want, and that's what you get.
Good to know. I've never used that service, because i LOVE my pod! So iTunes works for me. It does require an extra step when attaching sound files to powerpoints or videos, though. So I will keep your words of wisdom in mind!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've heard that Wal Mart also sells MP3s now.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I changed some things around in the article and added some content towards the beginning. It begins in the third paragraph.