Do you believe this? Artists MAKE MORE MONEY from FileSharing

Yeah, lots of possible sales to be plucked from torrent networks.

Some of this is probably fact to some degree, and much of it more of a rationalization of criminal activities. Any way you slice it, it's still thievery.

Let's legalize stealing.

Thieves spend money, support the local economy and create jobs lol.

First things first. First its illegal use of copyrighted material. Second, doesn't matter it's stolen material.

arctik monkeys did quite well by that as it spread their songs and thus more recognition.

I do agree with the others though, there is no way to justify stealing

well infact there are ways to justify stealing, but i still think its wrong anyhow

they think because ideepthroat and wifeysworld, Bangbus.. way back then those guys did benefit from p2p. But the reason they did at the time was p2p delivered very slow or broke off your download. It took forever to get a file, and out of frustration a lot of people simply went to the site and signed up. (that's my thought)

Now with these high speeds, it's different. People don't get frustrated because stuff downloads fast and is available pretty much everywhere.

I guess it's one theory. but at THAT time, some companies/amateurs did benefit from these "stealing methods"

Sebs

In other News :

Crack additcs are great for your community.
It is proven that crack addiction creates jobs.
In one local community 200 jobs were created last year and the list follows:

- 50 new police officers
- 2 more coroners
- 25 new prison guards
- 14 new orphanage workers
- 25 new social worker/rehab center employees
- 5 new gun store employees to handle new orders
- 4 new EMTs with special massive gun shot trauma training
- 12 new TV field reporters specializing in homicide coverage
- 13 new high school armed security jobs
- And 50 new city employees to process election applications for all the people who want to run for office claiming they can fix this shit.

I actually think the article is fairly accurate. File sharing and illegal downloading are running rampant, but you see very few artists saying anything. The reason is many artists don't make that much money from actual CD sales. They make it from radio play, concert tickets, merchandise and so on so it would be easy to see how many bands actually see more money with downloads.

If you have a band that sells 500K of their first record. They will have a nice tour and make some good bank playing live and make some nice money from radio play. They then come out with their second record. It only sells 400K copies, but it gets downloaded a million times. Chances are the band will get around the same amount of radio play, but they will play larger concert venues and sell more tickets and merch so the file sharing actually helps them. The one it hurts is the record company that usually gets nothing from bands tour revenue and merch sales.

It is illegal, but it is easy to see how many bands, especially smaller ones, actually benefit greatly from it.

Damn i cant stop laugh _)

Very good point. Also, back in the day, Windows Media Player had AUTO URL switching turned ON as default. At the end of very short clips, people would put a POPUP for Bangbus, etc. That default was fixed a while back....

Best response so far!

"Music from highly popular artists is widely available on filesharing networks. If pirates mainly download albums from these artists, they will have more money left to buy albums of less popular artists."

WTF logic is that?!!

Are there really leechers out there that make the thought process to selectively pirate stuff from the big names so they can help support the sales of the struggling musicians?

Fuck....pleeeeeze.

What parallel universe was this data obtained from?

I doubt his facts.If the album sales dont happen, then no big tour. Some one has to pay for the tour they just dont happen.

Tours are put on by promoters. A promoter works with the artist and the artist's management to determine what size venue they can fill and how much they can charge. The promoters either then pay the act a percentage of the ticket sales or a flat fee per show. Album sales really has nothing to do with it. If there is a demand for the band to play live they can put together a big tour. A couple of good examples would be the band Wilco and the band Phish (before they broke up) these bands sell an decent amount of records, but they get very little airplay and no video play and have little promotion other than word of mouth and album reviews in magazines. When their new albums come out they will debut high, but sink fast because they have a rabid fan base that goes out and buys it immediately or they download it. But when the bands tour they sell out places that normally are reserved for much higher selling acts. The reality is a larger percentage of their fans want to pay to see them live than the normal act. On the other end of the spectrum are people like Kelly Clarkson. She had several huge hit songs and a record that went platinum multiple times and she had to cancel her first tour and fully revamp it. They thought she could play 3,000 - 5,000 seat places in smaller cities and 10,000+ seat places in larger, but nobody bought tickets and she ended up playing 800-1000 seat places.

So really album sales has nothing to do with it. If a band sells 500,000 albums, but the album is downloaded 5 million times, they are probably going to do very very well touring. If the same band just sold the 500K but didn't have any downloads they will most likely be playing much smaller venues.

Yep. There seems to be a logical gap since it confuses maybe the BUZZ created by an "underground" mix being viralized through P2P and a record label-produced (and invested) CD.

Putting a band on tour that has low CD sales is stupid beyond belief.
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!