It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Resonant
Even if songs were purchased online, individually or through a service such as Rhapsody or eMusic, the majority of those proceeds do not go to the artist. The artists get pennies. There are instances where I will support a musician and buy their album, say if it were self-released (in which case, it's almost always cheaper). The best way to support an artist is to see an artist or to buy other merchandise, not by digitally buying their music. If I like and listen to an artist enough, I will buy a physical copy of their album, in vinyl if I can (not because I am pretentious, but because it's closer to owning tangible art than a CD).
Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
...plus, how is it that blu-ray discs and most dvd's nowadays have copyright protection coded in to prevent this, yet cd's have absolutely none? It's because the record labels stand to profit much much more by suing the pants off of idividuals instead of investing in technology to prevent it in the first place.
Originally posted by mnmcandiez
This isn't 1960 anymore, no one is buying records...welcome to the digital age. If you are signed to a label, you literally get pennies of that cd purchase.
As of July 23, 2010, Rihanna has sold approximately 5,563,000 album units in the US. She has sold over 10 million records in the UK.
Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Ookie
because say you have just one hit album and its sells for decades why should you suddenly not get paid for it after a set time? If an artist paints a painting and its sold 40 years later don't they deserve the money?
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez
If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?
Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.
It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?
This is so wrong.
What are they thinking?
Its time for the Supreme Court to work for free.