>All this D/L talk won't even matter anymore in a few years.
>Right now, there are dozens of website on which you can LEGALY
>stream every single album for free (Deezer, Spotify ...). So,
>are we entitled to get a taste of the music before we buy it ?
>Apparently yes. What's even more interesting is that you can
>suscribe to those website for like 15 $ / month and get an
>complete access to all of their catalog on your smartphone.
>Which means you can LEGALY listen to 90% of the music being
>released for FREE on your smartphone.

In fact, we've put up streams to our shit PLENTY of times. Nothing wrong with a free listen.


>
>Why do you think music is different from other goods ? It
>actually isn't. If you could dematerialize any other goods,
>they would also be subjected to the same treatment (look at
>movies, TV shows, and soon books). It's the job of of the
>industry to give the consumer a reason to buy the physical
>object or the mp3, and that too takes some creativity. So back
>to my point, shitty food get bought because you don't have the
>means to taste it before you buy it. If you buy it one time
>and you don't like it you won't buy it a second time. Clothes
>? You try them before you buy them. Of course you can't use
>that analogy with cars and other capital goods, but Im sure
>you got the point : it's the means that are different.


I agree with that part of it too.


>
>As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before
>they actually released their album ?

nope. and I have NO idea where you're getting that from. If you're talking about an advance, then that has to be paid back. An advance is just a loan from the record company against future earnings.

How much of that album
>sales money really finish in their pocket ?

not a whole lot. Which is why we're having this discussion. If an artist gets a dollar per unit ( and I'm talking about albums here), then he's luckier than average.



Im talking about
>artists who are on major labels. Today you got major artists
>who start crying when their album only do 100K because of the
>leaks and because of us : mean consumers. 100 000 albums ?
>Really ? Thats a ridiculous amount of records, it's more than
>1 000 000 $ of gross revenue.

GROSS revenue. And like we KEEP saying. out of that 100k, sold, lets say the artist has a 'good' deal and gets 1 dollar per unit. He's getting $100k. Your manager gets 10%. Right off the top. And what if you have an agent too? that's another 5-10% Don't forget, You gotta pay taxes on it. and remember those videos you wanted? and the big ass poster in Times Square? Guess who pays for that...

oh, and we're talking about a solo artist. If you're a band, you're gonna split all that shit by 5. Good luck with that...


Is it really that expensive to
>produce an album today ?
>

Hell yes.


>The music system is actually not that bad economically.

what are you basing that on? Numbers are down all across the board. and what do you mean by "music system"?



I
>mean, you have a market where one is able to buy ONLY what he
>really wants/need/like with pretty much all the information
>needed (which means your money really goes where you want it
>to go).

I can dig that. i think iTunes was an amazing invention. Nobody's sayin otherwise.

But at the end, it doesn't matter if this system is
>healthy or not.

again, what are you basing that on? and shouldn't ANYTHING that is expected to survive be healthy? ( you're confusing me with your use of the word "system". )



AraQual is right, it's a reality, more and
>more people are going to get a taste of your music before they
>buy it.
>

nobody's arguing against that. We're talking about the notion that artists don't need to be paid for releasing music. Re-read the original post.