It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The proper way to deal with Pirates, How Iron Maiden found its worst music pirates.

page: 3
93
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Skush
So, if you want Maiden to perform where you are then make sure you steal as much of their music as possible? Is that the way it works? Righty'o


Seems to be the general consensus. Pirates are good for the economy and make artists actually work for their money.




posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
First off, bands don't make money off the cds. Just cents per cd. That is why it is mostly the music producers, and not the bands themselves, come after piracy.

They make their money off of concerts. If they made their money from cds, they wouldn't need to tour for years on end.

More power to Iron Maiden. They played their hand really smart. Here is hoping they get another 30 years of success.

Those of us in the 80s and 90s copied many casset tapes and cds. If you really liked the band, you bought went out and bought them, because you wanted the cover art and the lyrics in print.

When albums were popular, how many pictures do you see of people with headphones on, listening to the album and looking a the cover and the sleeve?

Sleeve art was just that, art. I remember bands winning awards for some of their covers. Some would create controversy and get them even more attention. (appetite for destruction) being one.

I remember growing up and staring at the Beatles "Revolver" album, trying to find all the little things to see in that cover. The first Where's Waldo.

That is something that the new generations won't get to enjoy. To see what a band could bring not only through music, but through literal art.

I have heard that there is a resurgence in albums just for that reason, people want to see the cover art and have something to look at. That and music is almost too perfect and clear, and people feel that the analog sound Is more soulful.

But the one poster is right, from the time that music could be mass produced, people have copied it. You copied it off the radio, you copied it from your friends. Friends would make compilation tapes of your favorite songs as a gift to you.

The other problem was that the musicians controlled their material less. So people got sick of paying exuberant prices to have one or two good songs on the album, and not care for the rest.

So nobody wants to buy the whole thing for one or two songs. This is where mp3s have an advantage, you only have to buy the songs you like.

So why is suddenly the music industry can't survive?

They can. They just don't want you to think so. Now movies are a different discussion.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Great article, but this transformation and direction of music has been changing quickly for about the past 3-5 years and even longer and anyone especially independent artists already are saavy about this.

The indie label has such advantages over even the Iron Maidens and old established artists, they found that they had to either change or not unless they have an established name and fanbase, disappear.

There are so many dynamics as to why pirating changed the music industry possibly for the better , before torrents there was Napster and Gnutella, also before there was protools and other recording software, low cost laptops either Mac or PC, there was ADAT tapes, huge analog mixing boards, multimillion dollar studios and hardware gear, all costing huge sums of money for production.

You did not have to buy entire albums with 10 crappy songs and 1 you wanted, remember the days when they knew this back in the late 80's and they would sell cassettes with 1 or 2 songs? and who could forget 45's from the 60's and 70's, artists were putting out EP's in the 90's with 2 or 3 songs , the labels were understanding that people wanted only 1 song in some cases but they never saw the illegal file sharing coming until it was too late for them.

The big money in contracts also decreased, so the artists were not getting offered multi million dollar contracts, because even the big labels understood their own cost for production was actually going down because of technology, more producers and engineers that they could hire for even less money and produce entire albums.

Now anyone with the talent and drive and not only that, can put together albums, build a fanbase and make money for hundreds of thousand of dollars that the big labels used to invest in studios, production and hardware, then create enough buzz that an establish label may want to sign them, if that is what they are aiming for.

So once this reality set in , the labels were trying to figure out how the Little Johns, the Eastside boys, Cash Money Millionaires were able to make virtually millions of dollars without them, in certain regions, these were some of the true innovators and acts that were rich and started the whole independent aspect of making millions of dollars with their own methods, and not being in the pocket of a major record label.

I used to go to all kinds of music conferences in NYC and the East Coast when I was producing music in the mid to late 90's, I used to hear the label execs, lawyers etc, from all of the major labels spelling out the change that was coming circa 1999-2000, and also how piracy might affect the current way they were doing business, because people were not buying albums and songs, that income stream was drying up.

The labels saw that they were losing control of their own destiny and they were now competing with independent record labels that could be successful without them and their control over them, so the labels started looking at BDS scans, etc to see what music was getting lots of airplay that was not being produced by them, then they started coming up with imprint and 360 deals where they would invest money in these small labels but at the same time own a stake in their overall success.

I could go on and on even from one of my most recent attendance at ASCAP (American Society of Composers and Publishers ) events where they constantly drill home what it takes to make it nowadays, they also talk about piracy but think about it, sales is only one part of the total packing of an artists success and income, tours and publicity are two other driving forces so , I think they understand piracy may hurt their bottom line, but they are saavy enough to know that this is also promotion and they must find other ways to make income streams.

There are more ways now than what used to exist, to make money off of music that is streamed or broadcast from the internet and there is more willingness for publishers that pay royalties and performance monies to allow credit for certain streaming, therefore creating new ways to make income from their music.

So is the digital millennium act a huge deal for today's artist? to me not really because many of them are products of the generation that benefited from being able to get music for free and not be forced to buy songs they did not want, but they also understand that there is a new dynamic in how to succeed and make money from being an artist or a band, I am glad old acts understand this, but hey, they already made their mark, they're just proving that in order to be successful they had to change with the times.

The people that had a big problem with pirating are the big record labels and they are the first to initiate many of the actions against it, it is not the independent labels and small timers, they have always given away music for free promo.


edit on 25-12-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminawty
 


Exactly, the only ones that viewed it as wrong were the labels that are more or less like parasites using their artists as hosts...but yes, pirating as odd as it may sound, does help artists see, what is it that the public really likes from them.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
One of the things I like about the jam band scene is that the bands encourage fans to tape and distribute their shows freely. So if you want to listen to a song you can download it legally. But as people have said earlier in this thread, the real experience is watching an artist perform live.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
but this mp3 thingy was a proper "glitch in the matrix" no ?
I cannot think of a similar example of a technological innovation that costed that ridiculous amounts of profits to such a huge industry ever.

god, i loved napster



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Iron Maiden is usually a band which stays ahead of the curve. I remember when they released a CD once which came with a free computer game. It was a really nice package overall. It has extra pictures, full liner notes plus a pretty cool game to go along with the great music. Fans really respond well to things like that.

These days, for a band to survive touring is where it is at. Touring is money in the bank with little fuss. A band can make a lot of money by maintaining an active touring schedule. You can sell mech, including CD`s, directly to the fans. And if you pull off a really good live show, the fans will be having such a good time they many of them will not mind buying a few items to support the band they love.

I think that music lovers are far more sensitive to the connect they can have with an artist or band. When I go to live shows here in Tokyo these days, the fans expect to be able to connect with the band in some way or they feel slighted. Artists who jump into the crowd, talk to the crowd or simply bring a few fans on stage for some fun on stage antics are deeply loved by their fan base. Maybe it is just a sign that music lovers are returning to preferring a live show to just buying a CD and chilling at home.

I have always loved going to live shows and actually seeing the bands play live and act a fool a bit. The bands which put on a good live show are the the bands which survive for decades.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Actually fans can download concerts -- they're called bootlegs. Lots of soundboard recordings of concerts out there, and apparently the artists don't feel like they're worth releasing even though fans seem to be interested in them.

Nonetheless, hats off to Iron Maiden for using a little business sense, and making lemonade of their piracy lemon.

Given the outrageous price of CDs -- and worse still -- commercial digital downloads, is it any surprise that people are getting their tracks from alternative sources?

As to how piracy is stealing from musicians, I don't believe the Beatles own the rights to any of their songs anymore. Michael Jackson owned them at one time, and then had to sell them in order to pay off the parents of the boy with which he had a pajama party. Piracy is mostly stealing from big entertainment corporations that have bought the governments of various nations in order to make updated, very onerous and extreme copyright laws. Don't have a lot of sympathy for the devil. Sorry.

Back before vitrolas, musicians could only make money performing, and so it may be that way again. Technology happens.

As for piracy destroying record/cd brick-n-mortar musics stores, that may be partly the case but legal, commercial downloads are doing even more to kill them. Is piracy killing books stores? Certainly not as much as Amazon and other various online book merchants.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Skush
So, if you want Maiden to perform where you are then make sure you steal as much of their music as possible? Is that the way it works? Righty'o


Is this really any different from the days of yore when bands were more likely to go to towns where they got a lot of airplay, and put on concerts there?

Aren't torrents and other filesharing services a more democratic way to make content known to potential listeners than rely on the gatekeepers, i.e. payola-based radio stations that primarily play a very limited number of songs/artists being strongly promoted by record companies?



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
This is another fine example that trust South Park and you can't go wrong.

If your material is good people will still go to your concerts and by your stuff.


edit on 26/12/2013 by mandrake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
A lot of good points being made. However, I just wanted to point out that a hell of a lot of "mom and pop" independent record stores were driven out of business. These used to be important in helping break new artists and the majority of these people including the employees were making an honest living and not screwing the customer the way the major labels were. Maybe they would have been gone no matter what but it was sad to see a lot of folks who loved music lose their livelyhood like that.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

SubTruth
reply to post by benrl
 





Either the music industry scum bags will change or the will go extinct. They are greedy evil scum bags every last one of them. Artists need to manage and sell themselves. Why do you even need a manager or record label anymore. They are like cassette tapes in the early 90s. They are on the way out.
edit on 25-12-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)


Funny seeing comments like these, the masses care even LESS about anything save for what is spoonfed.

All of this is controlled, is going EXACTLY as planned, and people are trying to believe that this is changing because of technology.

If anything, it has brought GREATER control over what people consume.

See any kids listening to things not found on the mass-marketed media ?? Barely, case is closed.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I wish I had the actual number, but having been in the industry for quite a while, the real value of bands and their music are concerts, merchandise and license rights. The music, CDs, downloads, etc. are very minor producers of income. In my opinion, the ability to hear some band's music is the advertisement, the purchase is the other products.

Now...with non-bands (eg. Rap, Pop, etc.) they have adapted. They sell you on the personality, not the music. The personality is the seller of the product which is mostly merchandise.

In today's music world, you design an artist, make them up, dress them up, give them an attitude, get them exposure and make them famous. And somewhere along the line...music gets made. I'm not being a smart-ass here, this is a tried and proven business model.

But personally...I like the model from the 1970's. Prove yourself with your music and then profit.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
To me, the notion of pirated music has several aspects.

I agree that stealing, music or otherwise is wrong and only works against me and others, in the long run.

Then again, sharing is something beautiful, and that's what uploaders do, no?

You could also turn the question around and ask how long music companies will be allowed to steal from people? I remember buying Lou Reeds "Transformer" back in the days on vinyl. After playing that record about a zillion times it was all scratched up and I had to buy it again. Then, during the short interlude of cassette players, I bought the record on cassette for my Walkman. That cassette didn't last of course, do anyone remember tape salad? Then the CD came along, and of course I bought the record on CD. I bought it again when someone lifted it from my CD collection, and I bought it again when I offered it as a B-day gift. Now I'm supposed to do what? Buy it a seventh time in MP3 format? Perhaps the record label could tell me how many more times I'm supposed to pay for the same music in my life time, so that I can set up a special savings account to pay for it.

Maybe the internet has caught up with this practice and simply pried the stealing tool out of the hands of the Industry, only to hand it over to the consumer. Perhaps the internet has done more so, perhaps it has engaged an artistic revolution, in which artists do not any longer make astronomical amounts of money on recorded music. Poor Britney and Justin, does that mean they actually have to work for a living? I feel that a musician who loves his/her art can still make a living out of performing and touring, and he/she gets to do what he/she loves doing, which is more than you can say about the person working night shifts in a car factory. Some will of course continue to get incredibly rich thanks to the Internet viral effect, even artists with little or no talent at all can still get rich by selling their souls to the Music Industry. Korean rapper Psy can retire comfortably, now when he had his 4:13 minutes of fame on Youtube.

So far, internet piracy has done this for me: It has allowed instant access to music that I couldn't even find in record stores, and was perhaps only available on hard to find Japanese bootlegs imported at a hefty sum of money, if available at all. It has opened my eyes on music (and a lot more) that I didn't even know existed. Lots of artists that I now cherish and support financially I discovered by "borrowing" some of their music. What goes around comes around.

Have your music stolen, and you will get something back. For sure.
edit on 26-12-2013 by Heliocentric because: With changing seasons tiny buds wake up and yawn spring is in the air.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

ParasuvO
...the masses care even LESS about anything save for what is spoonfed.

All of this is controlled, is going EXACTLY as planned, and people are trying to believe that this is changing because of technology.

If anything, it has brought GREATER control over what people consume.

See any kids listening to things not found on the mass-marketed media ?? Barely, case is closed.


No question that a great many people listen to what is spoonfed them, but in this day and age, anyone with a computer, tablet or smart phone can listen to anything they want to. Some people and corporations carry a lot of sway on what is mass marketed, but they don't control what people can listen to. With all the websites, such as bandcamp, that help independent artists/bands to market their music, as well as all the music blogs, artists have more chance at developing an audience/fan base than when they had to try to get heard on the radio.

Admittedly, with so many artists/bands and sources to find music, it's hard for an artist to get heard above the "noise" of the internet, but there are fewer barriers than in the past. It's just that listeners/consumers have more choices than ever before.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Why re-buy Transformer in mp3, when you can get it in lossless format, i.e. FLAC/ACE/Wav, etc.?

But I hear you loud and clear about having bought many an album in various formats over the years and wondering why one should have to pay for it yet again, especially now that it is at a higher price and the marginal cost to produce that digital copy is just about nil.

There's also the scam that record labels have sold relatively poor sound quality CD's and every five or ten years come up with some new remastered or deluxe version of many long-running albums.

The big music companies want to limit what devices you play your music on, and in effect let you rent the music you download. Well, if you bought an lp copy of an album and that is all scratchy now and what not, why should you be able to return that for a fresh, new digital copy? Record companies want to have it their way and make consumers pay, pay, pay, but technology has turned the table against them. Boo f'n hoo, Sony, Warner Bros, etc.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 

So called piracy is sales promotion and public relations. Maiden used it smartly, Fans benefit as also Maiden. Good work!
Something bout music and money:

If you wanna do music, do it, maybe you are good, and you will do some money. If you wanna make money, do something else, look for a Job, and do your Music. Course music is music, and money is money! How many very, very good musicians make no money, but are happy? Because they make music, not business!


Btw: I´m from the Finance Agency Germoney/Finanzagentur Deutschland, not a country, as many people would believe, it´s a corporate group, and I just hope that my english is not too bad...



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 

Way better reaction then the idiots from Metallica



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Love this story, its great to see artists do things the right way.

The movie industry is even worse. Put in any DVD or blu-ray, and it takes 5 minutes to even get through the non skippable screens, disclaimers, warnings and previews. Put in a digital copy in .mp4, .mkv or such, and you're watching the movie as soon as you hit start.

...Makes me wonder EVERY SINGLE TIME, why I would want to play a paid-for copy versus a digital copy. It really infuriates me that to support a label or artist, you get an inferior piece of media compared to the usual "downloaded copy"



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
A metric I would like to see is download and purchase breakdown for the average consumer. I bet there are those who have made large numbers of vinyl and CD purchases as well as downloads. Are there people who basically never buy and live of world of free download only.

I am surprised the industry isn't blaming those who sell portable digital listening devices for their woes.



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join