Blogger arrested over leak of Guns N' Roses songs.

[El Roranous]

The sad unfortunate truth is that it is very VERY hard to make it in the music business. Most artists never make it past the poverty level during their careers. I think most artists only get a cent or two from each CD that sells. For as long as I can remember the only real way for an artist to make money in music is to put on show after show or to get endorsed somehow. That's is really why you see Rock stars sometimes trying to sell you Mountain Dew or a certain type of drum stick. They have to make money somehow. The only people who really get famous and rich are the ones that see world wide success- like Metalica or even Blink 182. However, different professions make a whole lot more! Somehow Rap artists make ungodly amounts of money. I can't explain that one.

 

[wofford29]

I think Radiohead should be the example to everyone in the industry, with their latest album.

 

[OK SITHLORD]

The sad unfortunate truth is that it is very VERY hard to make it in the music business. Most artists never make it past the poverty level during their careers. I think most artists only get a cent or two from each CD that sells. For as long as I can remember the only real way for an artist to make money in music is to put on show after show or to get endorsed somehow. That's is really why you see Rock stars sometimes trying to sell you Mountain Dew or a certain type of drum stick. They have to make money somehow. The only people who really get famous and rich are the ones that see world wide success- like Metalica or even Blink 182. However, different professions make a whole lot more! Somehow Rap artists make ungodly amounts of money. I can't explain that one.

Talk'n ^^^^ to a beat is now the gold mine i guess.

 

[screamingmetal]

Oh yes, the POOR artist. Yes, it's "stealing", but I have never been on the side of the artists on this one. So a few people "steal" some songs....so what? You're still rich off your ass mr artist.

I don't agree that stealing is "ok", but it does piss me off when rich music artists get bent out of shape about a little file sharing. I am sure Metallica was really going to have a problem putting food on the table due to Napster several year ago.

I see, so stealing from a rich person who can take the loss is okay, but stealing from the poor is not?
It's still taking something without paying, which is completely against the law as it should be.

Evil record companies do take too much album profit from the artists, but they're within their rights. It's really up too established Artists with enough money and clout to fight back at them. Also as SovereignStudio said before, they're a necessary evil for upstart bands.
I don't particularly like G&R but they are fully within their rights on this one.

 

[Jen]

Oh yes, the POOR artist. Yes, it's "stealing", but I have never been on the side of the artists on this one. So a few people "steal" some songs....so what? You're still rich off your ass mr artist.

I don't agree that stealing is "ok", but it does piss me off when rich music artists get bent out of shape about a little file sharing. I am sure Metallica was really going to have a problem putting food on the table due to Napster several year ago.

It's usually those rich artists who have the money to pay for lawyers to fight against people who steal their music. Their motives may seem self-serving, but in the end they are creating laws and cases that are beneficial to all musicians/artists - especially those who can't afford to fight back legally.

You make more money than I do, Jason, so is it okay if I steal from you? Wrong is simply....wrong. My two cents.....

 

[Darth Cruel]

I have never really been able to understand the whole idea of paying millions of dollars to an entertainer for entertaining while laborers that break their backs make so much less.

I look at it like this:

If every entertainer were removed from the Earth today, we would live on...easily. We would all just find new ways of entertaining ourselves. And we wouldn't miss a step.

Now say that every construction worker was removed from Earth suddenly. Our infrastructure would deteriorate faster than people could re-learn to maintain it and we would end up taking big steps backwards as a society before we started advancing again. And the recovery would take decades.

And still...the workers who build a bridge do not collect a royalty every time someone uses the bridge. But entertainers demand royalties every time a song that they sat around drinking alchohol and doing drugs while they wrote it gets played or changes hands.

These priorities are as backwards as politics.

Am I wrong?

 

[El Roranous]

I have never really been able to understand the whole idea of paying millions of dollars to an entertainer for entertaining while laborers that break their backs make so much less.

I look at it like this:

If every entertainer were removed from the Earth today, we would live on...easily. We would all just find new ways of entertaining ourselves. And we wouldn't miss a step.

Now say that every construction worker was removed from Earth suddenly. Our infrastructure would deteriorate faster than people could re-learn to maintain it and we would end up taking big steps backwards as a society before we started advancing again. And the recovery would take decades.

And still...the workers who build a bridge do not collect a royalty every time someone uses the bridge. But entertainers demand royalties every time a song that they sat around drinking alchohol and doing drugs while they wrote it gets played or changes hands.

These priorities are as backwards as politics.

Am I wrong?

Respectfully, yes, I think you are semi-wrong. I think you can't undervalue either type of worker because each serves it's purpose in our society. Furthermore, an entertainer makes so much money because of the demand for their talent...well in most cases. Take for example maybe the Beatles. Many say they revolutionized rock and roll. We owe a lot to some artists for revolutionizing and furthering their fields of art. Most entertainers though live in poverty. I once thought they made tons of money as well but even those in bands that are famous don't make more than your average worker. I remember a story that one of my favorite bands told- they said that their songs were on the radio and they were playing shows across the country but when they came home they still had to live together in a derelict house. Even though they may seem famous most have to use any money that comes in to keep the band going on the road and promoting. Some really barely survive and only keep doing it just because they love it. In most cases a regular office job pays more money and has more advantages than being a traveling entertainer. You don't have to give up months of your life away from home or from your family.

On the other hand, I don't honestly understand why Brittany Spears or some one like Paris Hilton make so much money. It should be actually based on talent and not just the gossip they create. But that in itself is an example of just how badly people need to be entertained.

 

[RJMacReady16]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/dos9ws2Q8j0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/dos9ws2Q8j0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[The Ween]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/dos9ws2Q8j0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/dos9ws2Q8j0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Buckethead is doing a good job covering up Axl's rotten singing.

 

[The Ween]

https://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/709

 

[RJMacReady16]

Buckethead is doing a good job covering up Axl's rotten singing.

I honestly didn't think it was that bad....

*hides behind cover*

 

[The Ween]

I honestly didn't think it was that bad....

*hides behind cover*

Hands above the covers!!

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

Ugh....the problem i have with the arguments about file sharing is that the people who think that trading a song on the internet is really breaking a copy right law would have to apply that thought to everything on the internet.

These same people have no problem putting avatars and sig pictures (pictures that are copy righted by the way) on their personal account or paste pictures all over the boards. Again these images are copy righted but the photographers or graphic artists are not getting paid every time someone uses their images.

I also find it amusing that the 3 to 7 cents that an artist would make from a song being downloaded is somehow ruining these artist financially. How many people look at 3 cents and think man now if can save a million of these i'll be rich?

Most of the stuff traded on the internet are songs not albums - although albums do get traded - this is not where the money is. Also free music was a great way to discover new bands - notice how bands with nothing offer their music for free on their sites and bands with much sue their fans.

I'm all for artist getting theirs but stopping file sharing is not the way. The idea that people won't buy an album if they downloaded it is ridiculous - just look at Radiohead, and NIN. Both released albums for free or whatever you wanted to pay and then released salable version that did extreamly well.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Seems that Guns 'N' Roses=Metallica now...what a bunch of whiny babies

 

[The Ween]

Ugh....the problem i have with the arguments about file sharing is that the people who think that trading a song on the internet is really breaking a copy right law would have to apply that thought to everything on the internet.

These same people have no problem putting avatars and sig pictures (pictures that are copy righted by the way) on their personal account or paste pictures all over the boards. Again these images are copy righted but the photographers or graphic artists are not getting paid every time someone uses their images.

I also find it amusing that the 3 to 7 cents that an artist would make from a song being downloaded is somehow ruining these artist financially. How many people look at 3 cents and think man now if can save a million of these i'll be rich?

Most of the stuff traded on the internet are songs not albums - although albums do get traded - this is not where the money is. Also free music was a great way to discover new bands - notice how bands with nothing offer their music for free on their sites and bands with much sue their fans.

I'm all for artist getting theirs but stopping file sharing is not the way. The idea that people won't buy an album if they downloaded it is ridiculous - just look at Radiohead, and NIN. Both released albums for free or whatever you wanted to pay and then released salable version that did extreamly well.

I agree. That's why I posted a link to that South Park episode. It has where the boys are arrested for using napster. It has a great message in it. IMO