Don’t dare do as System of A Down suggest. They don’t want you to actually “Steal This Album“. They need you to buy it.
Like many new CDs, their new album is copy-protected with Key2Audio, some new form of copy protection that means that your CDs don’t play in your CD players, DVD drives or PCs, and if you don’t like it, you don’t get your money back.
No other industry would have the arrogance and ignorance to sell faulty products to the public and then deny us the right to use them or even get a refund.
EVERYONE IS A THIEF
In their eyes, every single consumer is a thief. Irrespective of the fact that people buy millions of records every day. Despite the fact that everyone who buys a records can download it and then burn onto a CD without any cover art, packaging, or extras. (just the new ‘no-frills’ packaging of the new System Of A Down album)
Yet people still go out and buy the record. It’s something people still want to do. But why should we buy CDs when they don’t play on our PCs? When they don’t work? Why should people buy ANY CDs when they don’t play in CD players? Selling faulty products isn't going to sell more CDs. It's going to sell less.
About a third of people I know don’t actually own an audio CD player. They play it on their PC or their DVD player. If they buy CDs that don’t play - CDs that when placed into your PC might crash the computer so completely it needs to be taken apart by engineers to prise the CD out - they’re not going to buy CDs again.
GUILTY WITHOUT TRIAL
Why, when the most sophisticated anti-copying devices can be defeated with a felt pen run around the rim of the CD, does the industry persist in excluding and insulting its customers?
Anti-copy protection is costing the industry sales. It’s that simple.
The industry is clutching at straws here. It’s not the fact that MP3 and file sharing devices exist that causes the lack of CD sales. CD-burning is the new home-taping.
It hurts me to agree with him, but for once, Bono was right:
Bad music is killing the music industry.”
BAD MUSIC IS KILLING THE INDUSTRY
In their race to outlaw everyone from doing anything they can’t control, the industry is treating us all as criminals. Failing to grasp the real reasons why CD sales are plummeting. Looking for a scapegoat for its own stupidity.
Because the Music Industry ISN’T giving the public what it wants. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, baby.
Every time the industry launches some new boyband, all it is a shortsighted profit-geared moneyspinner in a business run by accountants. And it costs the industry a fortune. Which means we pay to be peddled rubbish we don’t want or need.
There just aren’t that many people who are so keen on music they have to go out and buy a record every week. CDs are poor value for money - £13.99 for (at most) 80 minutes of music. And DVDs, which hold up to 6 hours of video, cost £17.99 or less. The industry is failing the customer.
THE MUSIC FACTORY
No longer will the industry allow steadily selling bands like U2 or REM to come up through the ranks. They’ve got to make a return on their album or they’re sacked. They’ve also got to make enough profit to pay for every band the label signs that don’t make any money.
For every ream of faceless, meaningless commitee-written crap that’s thrown at the shelves, there’s a great band plugging away in obscurity. A great band that could, if only the industry wasn’t focused solely on prising pocket money from teenagers and bored middle-aged mothers, become the next great rock band.
CORPORATE SUICIDE
A market will only buy what it wants. Declining CD sales mean we don’t want the music they try to push us in the shops.
MP3s are the best form of publicity there are. You don’t need to be told what you like by MTV, ITV, or Radio 1. You can download it yourself. Power truly goes to the people. And that’s what frightens them.
And with a proper business model for MP3 downloads, the industry can prosper. Why not allow PC-users to download their own ‘watermarked’ tracks, legally, for a fee of say 50p per song?
The industry need not worry about home taping then. There’s no revenue to be stolen. You buy the song. And it can be any song. No need to worry if it’s deleted, out-of-print, hard to find. It’ll all be there for 50p a throw. Everyone wins. The public get to choose anything they want. And the industry still gets royalties.
But the problem is the industry is scared. It still wants to sell us shiny little overpriced discs, own the means of production, dictate the market to us. It won’t succeed. For everyone with a CD burner owns a factory.
TECHNOLOGY IS DEMOCRACY : THE END OF THE DINOSAURS
It’s time for record companies to realize that their days are numbered. Their time is running out. Adapt and survive. Evolve or die. The companies are dinosaurs. Slow to react, stupid, and in danger of extinction.
Bands will market the music directly to the public. Pay a fee, get the song. No record company. No middle man. No bloated corporation stealing from the artist and the public.
The Electronic Revolution is here, and technology always wins. It’s up to the record companies to decide now if they want to live or die. Because we’re going ahead anyway, with or without their permission.
Speak The Truth (or You'll Never Be Tkn Seriously)
Not true. Firstly, major labels are merely experimenting with these new copy protection systems, so in no way are they being used on 'many' new CDs. Secondly, they will play in the vast majority of CD players. Thirdly, if you don't like, you can get your money back, just like you can for any CD that you buy at any retailer worth their salt.
"No other industry would have the arrogance and ignorance to sell faulty products to the public..."
Not true, as the industry in question is not selling faulty products in the first place. The new copy-protected CDs are intended to operate the way that they do - they are not 'faulty'.
"...everyone who buys a records can download it and then burn onto a CD..."
Not true. Only a small minority of people have the time, inclination and know-how to download music from the Internet, and of that small group, only some will have access to a CD burner.
"...when the most sophisticated anti-copying devices can be defeated with a felt pen run around the rim of the CD..."
Not true. Just one of the many copy protection systems being experimented with suffered from that kind of vulnerability. Naturally it won't be used again.
"Anti-copy protection is costing the industry sales. It’s that simple."
Not true. When only a tiny minority of CDs are being released with protection on them, the exact effect on sales are completely unknown at this point.
"CDs are poor value for money - £13.99 for (at most) 80 minutes of music. And DVDs, which hold up to 6 hours of video, cost £17.99 or less."
Not true. The standard RRP for DVDs is £19.99, and for that price you will be very lucky to find a disc containing anywhere near 6 hours of playable media. But anyhow, people generally listen to a CD many more times than they watch a DVD. Comparing two different type of media is not sensible though - there's a lot more to their price than their physical cost and maximum play time.
"They’ve also got to make enough profit to pay for every band the label signs that don’t make any money."
Not true, because if all the artists manage to do that, there won't be any artists left that need covering. The whole point is that you just need one success in ten (say) to nine failures, and the reason that only one in however many manage to succeed is because there just isn't room for any more. There are more records being released now than ever before. People only have a certain amount of money available to spend on live and recorded music.
"You don’t need to be told what you like by MTV, ITV, or Radio 1. You can download it yourself."
Not true. Without any media you won't know about what's available, and where/when to get it. Without the filtering process, you'll quickly lose patience of having to seperate the bad from the far rarer good.
"Why not allow PC-users to download their own ‘watermarked’ tracks, legally, for a fee of say 50p per song? The industry need not worry about home taping then. There’s no revenue to be stolen."
Not true - you seem to have forgotten about the 50p per track income. Watermarking on its own won't stop piracy.
" ...the industry... ...still wants to sell us shiny little overpriced discs"
Not true. The industry sells us discs that we want for the CD players that we already own, and if they are over-priced, why do something like 100,000 copies of an album need to be sold just to recoup the production, marketing, distribution and retail costs, and the artist's royalty advance.
"...own the means of production..."
Not true. Most pressing plants are independent companies, as are recording studios, equipment manufacturers, design agencies etc. Record producers/engineers etc. rarely sign up with labels for the longterm. Labels generally outsource most of the production.
"For everyone with a CD burner owns a factory."
Not true, because factories manufacture, not reproduce products that they have no rights over.
If you want to call yourself a journalist, Mark, you should try reporting the truth.
Truth is objective. Now for facts.
Now facts are just objective.
1.
Promo copies of the SOAD album are protected by K2A. Not sure about the 'retail' version.
2.
The industry is trying a myriad of ways to copy-protect CD's on many many titles. Far more than you might think. There are lists available elsewhere on the net, but it's certainly more than a 'tiny minority'. I'm sure you know where those lists are.
3.
CD's that don't play in CD-Players ARE "faulty", irrespective of the industry's intentions. The Industry is delibrately selling products that DON'T work. That makes them faulty in the eyes of the consumer.
4.
Just because only some people do it doesn't mean only some people can. Anyone with a PC, a phone line, and a CD Burner can make their own CD's. Everyone CAN do it if they want. Not everyone wants to. And surely that's proof that we're not the criminals the industry makes us out to be.
5.
Anti-copy protection is costing sales in a more sophisticated method than you may comprehend. People who copy CD's do so for friends who often go out and buy them 'properly' later on. People who download music from the Web also often use these to see if they're going to like the album or the band. Anti-copying measures directly impact on sales and profile.
6.
As for DVD's, look in your high street. I can get 9 hours of playable media on a 2-DVD set of many new releases for between £15.99 to £17.99. Less if I use cd-wow, or similar retailers. You're looking in the wrong shops.
The public, of which we are ALL members, tend to compare media. However unfairly they're looking at a 'bang to buck' ratio, and if they can get 9 hours of audio&video for £15.99-17.99 or 80 minutes of audio for £13.99, it's obvious which one provides better 'value'.
7.
People don't have to listen to, or take their cue, from the established media, anymore. Does that frighten you? Good. We're fed up of being told what to like by corporations.
8.
The Industry often sells us discs that often don't work for our CD players. Think of the economies of scale - more sales at less cost, still equals more sales and therefore, potentially much more profit. It's only if the profit / sales ratio is unequal that it doesn't work.
9.
As for CD Burners, I can make 400 CD's a day if I want with my CD-Burner. I reckon that makes me a factory.
10.
And if I make and burn the music myself - either recorded by myself or people who give me permission to distribute their work, then I am my own record label.
A couple of good points in there, but generally outweighed by industry-fed opinon purporting to be 'truth'.
Those are Facts. Not opinion. If you don't agree with it, that's fine.
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
2. There's a list here. Apparently there are something like 100 known 'bad' CDs on the market. Far more than 100 CDs are released every week. So as I said, a tiny minority are protected.
3. The technical specifications have changed over the years - there are different 'book' standards, so if people are using very old CD players they will have problems. However, the majority of the public will have no trouble playing these new copy-protected discs, and if they do, they can always get a refund.
4. You seem to be forgetting that a lot of people don't have PCs and/or Internet access, let alone CD burners, and that isn't necessarily through choice. Anyway, the point is that you only become a thief when you actually obtain a copy of the music without the owner's permission. There is no truth in your assertion that the industry thinks everyone is a thief. They've never claimed that anyone owning a PC with 'net access and/or a burner is automatically a criminal.
5. What you're saying may well be true, but nobody knows for sure. Anti-copy protection may also be doing what it is designed to do - encouraging people to buy legitimate copies of the music that they wish to own instead of stealing it. If you really feel that artists/labels are wrong to protect their own property, perhaps you should also be ranting about the security blinds outside branches of HMV after closing time, or the CCTV cameras in Virgin Megastores etc.
6. I am a member of the public, and when I compare things, I compare what I am actually going to get out of what I am buying. If I buy a DVD, I will probably watch it once in full shortly after getting it, then it will go on the shelf with the rest and probably get watched a handful of times over the next few years. If I buy a CD, I'll listen to it a couple of times shortly after getting it, then it will probably get 15 or 20 listens over the next few years (at a rough guess).
What you're forgetting is that the media on DVDs/videos has generally already been shown at cinema or on TV screens before being made available in the shops, and so money received from sales may well be simply bonus income for the owners of the works. However for recorded music, aside from radio previews, the release in shops is the premium way to get hold of the material. In the same way that you spend £6ish to see a film at the cinema, or £15ish to see a band play new material live, you pay £11ish (average UK CD price as surveyed in 2001), or often less if you order online, for a CD of an act's newest material, that you can listen to as many times as you like, and will probably play far more times than you will with any DVD. It's superb value for money in my book, and as I've said, average sales of the release will amount to a high enough income to justify the costs of the release and actually make it profitable, which is the reason why it's out there in the first place.
7. OK, people don't have to 'listen' to the media (although I don't recall when they ever did 'have' to do that), but the vast majority of people do still read newspapers, magazines, watch TV etc. Will Young etc. have proven this quite effortlessly. Does he frighten you?
8. I own a lot of CDs (thousands). I've only ever bought two genuinely faulty discs, both of which I've been able to exchange for working versions. I don't what you're getting at with your economies of scale argument - artists/labels have every right to profit from this. If it weren't for economies of scale, CD/DVD players would still cost £1,000 minimum, PCs would be more valuable than sports cars, CD burners would never made it to the home/consumer market.
9. That's nice for you, but what do you have to put on them? Do you own any material that 400 people actually want?
10. Sure. So what though?
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
The thing with albums bands (Like SOAD!) is that their fans are a lot more loyal, and you don't need to piss away much money on PR and advertising. Pop acts need a lot spent on product differentiation (i.e. trying to 'construct'a press profile and a personality for an artist who basically sounds the same as all the other boybands/girlbands/schmirlbands) Interesting parallels with trying to convince people to buy one brand of washing powder or family hatchbacks.
Albums bands sell many records on reputation and their 'sound' ... and once such a a band has 'broken', they are much more profitable than singles acts. The difficulty the accountants have is that 'breaking' an albums band is much more of an intuitive art than a precise economic science.
I'd love to agree with Mark's anarcho dreaming of people taking it into their own hands and forming their own Dischord stylee companies... the punk ethic... but the depressing thing is that, more than any other time I can remember, the broadcast media appears to have no mind of its own, and tends to be as sheep-like as the record companies themselves.. This leads to a whole new paradox. If you can only get sales figures from music that you ALREADY sell, how can you know what the potential sales figures are for an artist who DOESN'T fit into your current genres (most 'great' bands would be described as just that)? If you have an effective monopoly over the market, then how can you be market led?
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
The thing with albums bands (Like SOAD!) is that their fans are a lot more loyal, and you don't need to piss away much money on PR and advertising. Pop acts need a lot spent on product differentiation (i.e. trying to 'construct'a press profile and a personality for an artist who basically sounds the same as all the other boybands/girlbands/schmirlbands) Interesting parallels with trying to convince people to buy one brand of washing powder or family hatchbacks.
Albums bands sell many records on reputation and their 'sound' ... and once such a a band has 'broken', they are much more profitable than singles acts. The difficulty the accountants have is that 'breaking' an albums band is much more of an intuitive art than a precise economic science.
I'd love to agree with Mark's anarcho dreaming of people taking it into their own hands and forming their own Dischord stylee companies... the punk ethic... but the depressing thing is that, more than any other time I can remember, the broadcast media appears to have no mind of its own, and tends to be as sheep-like as the record companies themselves.. This leads to a whole new paradox. If you can only get sales figures from music that you ALREADY sell, how can you know what the potential sales figures are for an artist who DOESN'T fit into your current genres (most 'great' bands would be described as just that)? If you have an effective monopoly over the market, then how can you be market led?
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
Re: CD-Burners.
Techophiles..
Re: CD-Burners.
I bought a mitsumi one for that, and it is a little beast.
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
"As for DVD's, look in your high street. I can get 9 hours of playable media on a 2-DVD set of many new releases for between £15.99 to £17.99. Less if I use cd-wow, or similar retailers. You're looking in the wrong shops.
The public, of which we are ALL members, tend to compare media. However unfairly they're looking at a 'bang to buck' ratio, and if they can get 9 hours of audio&video for £15.99-17.99 or 80 minutes of audio for £13.99, it's obvious which one provides better 'value'."
Sorry, but that's bollocks.
The average film is what, 2 hours long? Unless I *really* love a film, I'm not going to watch it more than a few times a year. The rest of the audio / video you're talking about is in the form of extras, out-takes, interviews and trailers, none of which the average person will want to watch more than once.
While I do think all forms of entertainment media are overpriced (games, CDs, DVDs, books), the replay value of a CD is undeniably far greater than the rest (unless it's a shit CD) so we're getting more value for our dosh... especially with many new releases coming with links to exclusive online content such as extra tracks, that, unlike DVD extras, you will re-use.
My stance on all of this is starting to change. MP3.com, Launch.com, the CD on the front of Rock Sound, the myriad of music channels, samplers given out at gigs, downloads and streams on band sites and store sites like CDNow.com... it's getting very easy to sample new music now.
I'm the first to admit I've found a lot of new music through illegal MP3s and went on to buy loads of CDs, but it's not the only way anymore. And with the price war on CDs starting to heat up (Tescos have just made an announcement), I can see why record labels are struggling to grab back as much as they can... payrises and over-rated ex-Take That dancers don't pay themselves.
Re: Truth is objective. Now for facts.
You may buy a film and only watch it a few times. Some people watch films from their collection every night - when I'm in, I always have a film on. And Look at it : the Manic Street Preachers CD has 20 songs on it. The DVD is £16.99 and has 44 songs on it.
The U2 CD has 16 songs on it. The DVD has 22 or 23 songs, as well as three documentaries, about 5 other videos, and commentaries for £16.99.
Films tend to have the film, at least one commentary, trailers, deleted scenes, documentaries (the Star Wars one has 20 documentaries on it), and other leftovers. Even "Jay & Silent Bob" totals 8 hours of viewing.
Anyway, the basic jist of the article is that CD's should be playable in CD players on any platform and the labels should realise that this isn't going to go away with tehir draconian measures. They can succedd by working with the media, not against it.
Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
i spent a small fortune on CD's
have a burner, as well as my new iPod
I do not use my conventional cd player any more but rely on my computer to make my music available to me as and when i want it.
That said i do down load some track but if i really like an album ive loaded i still buy it cause i'm a fan & i like pacaging, sleevenotes, artwork, bonus dvds etc.
the only cd's i wont but are file protected ones... cause i'd never get to play em.
Dinosaurs Will Die!
see the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it, that sarcasm, let it burn
I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart, I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart, then someone shouts - thats what they get!!
For all the years of hit and run and all the piss broke bands on VH1 - where did all their money go? Don't we all know
to the parasitic music industry, as it destroys itself
WE'LL SHOW THEM HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO BE
Music written from devotion, not ambition, not for fame,
zero people are exploited, there are no tricks up our sleeve
We're gonna fight against the mass appeal, we're gonna kill the seven record deal, make records that have more than one good song
the dinosaurs will slowly die and i do belive no one will cry - i'm just fucking glad i'm gonna be there to watch the fall of the prehistoric music industry, three feet in la brea tar, extinction never felt so good
whatveer happened to the handshake, or deals that no one could break, what happpened to integrity
it's still there it always was, for playing music just because - a million reasons why dinosaurs must die!!
bravo, NOFX
Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
It sounds like a music utopia, doesn't it? A world in which we merely go online and pay 50p for any track we want. No more tearing your hair out over that ever-elusive Fugs album from 1960-whenever, just type the title and artist into a search engine and it's yours. But as far as discovering new music is concerned, Truth Teller is correct to say that the vastness of the web makes finding good, new music a daunting task. Of course, I'm sure Truth Teller - who appears to be a music industry representative - would love to be the one who does all this work for us. But that doesn't seem 'democratic' - how can we be sure we are REALLY getting to hear the best music? (I mean the 'best' music in terms of what would give us overall satisfaction: familiarity of genre/sound, yet with enough innovation to keep us interested etc.) Of course, Truth Teller will claim that his or her work still retains an element of 'democracy' in that his/her company is in direct marketplace competition with other companies. The problem with this (although it is a very separate issue, and too big to deal with here) is that record companies create the marketplace just as much as they respond to it: thus, they are merely responding to themselves, the music industry is like the dog which licks up its own vomit.
For over ten years now, I have relied on small independent record stores to hear new music. I imagine many other DiS users have done the same. But the small indie store is threatened by the internet and this misconceived notion that new technology is delivering musical democracy. Of course, small record stores also have to be discriminating in the music they choose to sell (possibly even more so than the big chains). But the difference is that the system is more democratic: those who seek to make their own music (perhaps by burning their own CDs) can deal with such stores directly. Additionally, this is a healthier state of affairs than the idea of uploading your music onto the internet and becoming an international megastar overnight (indeed, such fantasy is, rather than being some punk, DIY-style revolution, actually just a ploy to get us to buy into the internet) because the commitment is much greater (i.e. physical, and costly, production of, say, a batch of CDs rather than just an impulsive uploading of six hours worth of material). Greater financial and personal commitment from those who fancy themselves as musicians, I believe, counter-balances democracy with quality.
But despite my belief that the indie record shop represents the best way we can keep a vibrant music scene going, such outlets are themsleves threatened by the internet: specifically, online shopping. As the means of music production become so much more accessible and genre-diversification becomes an integral feature of the music scene, taste inevitably diversifies and it is hard for small shops (indeed, any shop) to cater for everyone. Hence, we turn (and I admit I have done it) to e-commerce. This, in turn, puts greater pressure on small record shops, many of which (at least, in Scotland, where I live) have gone bust over the last few years. Inevitably, magazines such as The Wire (which caters to my taste) face similar pressures due to, dare I say it, websites like DiS (consequently, as a good example, The Wire has recently put more popular acts such as Radiohead and Sonic Youth on the cover - a tactic hotly debated in the letters page). In a few years time, cutting-edge music may reach a crisis point as it reaps the consequences of all this.
Anyway, rock on The Liars!
Re: Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
There's several reasons...
1. MVC and their vicious loss leading until all local shops are shut - which in a small town like weymouth, people don't think (on mass, at least) about supporting a local shop, let alone the local economy.
2. Shopping "Malls" and supermarkets... these came long before mp3 was a threat on the.com horizon.. homogenized, glocalisation, and all those kinda evil things.
3. The Mid-90s... yeah, i wanna blame a point in time. The music press went shit. Mtv became a much bigger thing in this country. Cheesey pop totally took over. Nu-metal sold its soul and became readily available everywhere - the shop i used to work in used to be the only place in town, outta a whsmiths and john menzies, where kidz could get the new KoRN-Deftones-Incubus single, for instance. Or Nirvana back catalogue. Same goes for Travis, Coldplay, any NME-buzz bands, etc..
4. Major labels bought up and mass marketed fewer and fewer acts and cut the prices of their back catalogue to all the major chains - making indie's seem really expensive.
5. The shear lack of bands to believe in and want to share with every kid in your town.
6. The closure of many local venues, killing off any pockets of underground scene.
The good thing is, it's all starting to get better and find new ways and means. The further stuff has been pushed under the ground, the more we've all gotta get along and resurrect it - and not so that things can be sold out too soon and not have a chance to develop or become interesting....
Blah, blah... i've gone on far too long!
Sean
Re: Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
But having thought about the issues some more, I believe that genre-diversification (and consequently taste-diversification) has also been a key factor. As a result of cheap new music production technology, the choice facing us, as consumers, is vast. And likewise, as long as money and fame are not their main aims, musicians can now easily find a niche in the market. The result has been an explosion in the number of new releases. This situation actually benefits chain stores who can purchase in bulk at a national level, whilst distributing thinly at a local level. Small, locally-owned stores cannot do this (unless, of course, they enter into cooperative agreements with other similar stores round the country - I am unaware of any such cooperatives in existence, but I could be wrong). The difficulty is that the sense of community to be found in small indie stores is lost within the blank, characterless MVC-type stores. Speaking from my own experience, I no longer hear about new music from a local store owner who knows me and my tastes personally, instead I read magazines like The Wire (hence, my worry that the world of publishing is soon to face a similar fate).
I do agree with your point that by the mid-nineties, corporate culture caught a whiff of the money to be made in this country in alternative music. And I also agree that the music press "went shit", however, I think what actually happened there was a realisation that by merging coverage of classic rock (Bowie, Beatles etc) with palatable alternative rock (Nirvana, Pixies etc) publications like Q would do well. The result was the inevitable market decline of both the Melody Maker and Select. On the brighter side, I believe that such a strategy on the part of Geffen, MTV, Q, and all the other usual suspects is short-sighted, as it fails to anticipate greater taste and genre-diversification (see above). Indeed, it's interesting to look at how, rather than investing in new talent, major labels have sought to cash-in on genre-diversification by merely repackaging classic rock back catalogues - for example, did you know that Nick Drake is the 'new' PJ Harvey? (Such bizarre marketing is surely proof of how desperate the major labels have become)
I think your point about the sheer lack of bands to believe in is something threatened by the internet and MP3. The imagined utopia of paying 50p for a song download would result, I believe, in a much greater emphasis on individual tracks rather than artists. Lots of bands can produce one fantastic standout song, but most struggle to sometimes fill half an album. This emphasis on tracks rather than bands and their LP output also threatens live music. Remember that the rise of the rock concert in the 1960s (as opposed to live bands merely playing at 'dances') coincided with a much greater emphasis on the bands themselves and their LPs (rather than singles). The commitment that comes from seeing a band play live and paying £10 for their LP will be lost if we run our music scene in cyberspace - so I agree with you, we must resurrect our live scene once again.
Re: Steal This Album.... (or Death of The Music Industry)
It's been really cool to see whats happened with At the Drive-In and I guess on a bigger scale, Incubus too. People have had to get their whole back catalogue and really want to see all the sides of the band. Mostly down to being more interesting than most bands and in atdi's case the lack of waiting for anything new to come out, for obvious reasons..
The biggest problem with mp3s is that anyone can put out an mp3, there's no quality control, cus let's face it, labels get it right some of the time (both big and small - who get it wrong more times than right!) and for the majority of people with their REM 'Automatic..' and Nirvana 'Best Ofs' they're never going to want to find a band via mp3s - it's too much like effort and you need to have a nerdy player or sit at your computer allday to listen to stuff. Plus there's the problem that most people see mp3s as being a bit crap and that they have to be free, cus they have been free before - kinda like being a relationship with someone and then them telling you that it's £10 a blowjob and £50 for sex from now on. Unless it's really good and you can afford it, you're not gonna pay, especially not when you can get it free elsewhere (sorry to use a crap sex analogy!)
I'm quite glad shit bands like Staind and Puddle of Mudd are the ones losing out, because it means although they'll sell more records in decades to come when their fans getting it free now are earning and buying whatever format there is, in the short term, they're not gonna get paid and probably get dropped and disappear. Whereas the likes of your meanwhile back in communist russia's and múm; people know there's a value to the music, the packaging and people wanna support the labels busting a gut to release stuff, rather than the big corps gutting culture of any worth with their other acts.
Not sure where this debate stands with bands like Muse and the Cooper Temple Clause who cross both these boundaries tho. Interesting. If not kinda nerdy and boring.