said by hemi427 :

---

put the money where it belongs.. with the musicians!

---

said by drslash :

---

That's great! I will buy from artists directly. Pooh on the RIAA!

---

said by pianotech :

---

The real question is, how long before they start getting ripped off too.

---

said by pianotech :

---

These are indie artists, no label, no RIAA. The real question is, how long before they start getting ripped off too.

---

said by Nightfall :

---

I will be very interested to see if music these musicians are selling on their own will show up on free P2P services. It will also be interesting to see how many people have them on their available to download lists. If the price is reasonable, like $1 per song, it will be interesting to see how much people are willing to shell out. Even if the money is going directly to the musicians.

---

said by firefox :

---

Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.

---

said by moonpuppy :

---

said by firefox :

---

Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.

---

Most artists now don't make money from their record sales. If you want to see something interesting, look for VH1's Behind the Music:TLC. These 3 women were selling millions of CD's a year and only got $50,000! Why? Record companies made them pay for their videos, their promotion, their studio time, etc. Plus, their manager and producer (Pebbels) was taking a massive cut. This is all considered the way the music business is run.

The ONLY way they could make money was by touring. That's where most of these artists make their money.

Now, if they do their own internet distribution, they almost certainly make more per song than if they go the conventional route.

---

said by Nightfall :

---

I think you miss the point.

The whole point of her statement isn't that the musicians will make more, but that their product will still be distributed for free. I know I have heard a lot of people state how much they are for the musicians and against the RIAA. Well, with this option, fans of the music can pay the musicians directly....but will it be successful? If the musicians complain, will they be blacklisted? Will people actually shell out money to buy music if it benefits the musicians directly?

My theory is that this isn't about "DOWN WITH THE RIAA" like some people say. It is purely about money and ease of use. P2P is so simple to use and it sure does beat paying for the product. Hurting the RIAA is just a small benefit. Everyone I know that downloads doesn't care about the RIAA. They just want the music for free.

So now we are back to the watch and wait portion of this soap opera. Will users buy? Will sharing still happen? Will this venture be a success? Stay tuned....

---

said by moonpuppy :

---

said by Nightfall :

---

I think you miss the point.

The whole point of her statement isn't that the musicians will make more, but that their product will still be distributed for free. I know I have heard a lot of people state how much they are for the musicians and against the RIAA. Well, with this option, fans of the music can pay the musicians directly....but will it be successful? If the musicians complain, will they be blacklisted? Will people actually shell out money to buy music if it benefits the musicians directly?

My theory is that this isn't about "DOWN WITH THE RIAA" like some people say. It is purely about money and ease of use. P2P is so simple to use and it sure does beat paying for the product. Hurting the RIAA is just a small benefit. Everyone I know that downloads doesn't care about the RIAA. They just want the music for free.

So now we are back to the watch and wait portion of this soap opera. Will users buy? Will sharing still happen? Will this venture be a success? Stay tuned....

---

And both of you are missing my point.

The fact has been that most musical artists do not make money from their record sales. They make it on touring. Most people won't go see a band they have never heard of but if they hear something they like, they will go see the band in concert where they make the money.

This goes beyond just selling songs on the net but advertisement and promotion. If the record companies don't like an album put out by the artist, they can "shelf" it and make them make another. Essentially, controlling what the artist puts out. By bypassing the labels, they can put pout whatever they want (good or bad) and get their music out.

Yes, they will probably be those who won't pay for music but getting into a concert for free is a lot more difficult.

---

said by Nightfall :

---

However...

My point is different from yours. I don't know what to expect or if it will be successful. One thing is for sure, the heavy P2P users are being called out to put their money where their mouth is. All this "down with the RIAA" talk doesn't apply now. Will P2P users purchase music straight from the musicians or will it be heavily shared and the musicians strike out once again?

---

quote:

---

The down with the RIAA talk does apply in that the RIAA is against artists doing this. How else will they make their money? Almost no artists had the means to distribute their music on a grand scale UNTIL the internet. Now, music can fly as fast as a connection can download it. No more deal makers and brokers trying to get their hands into the artists' pie. If it doesn't benefit the RIAA and its members, it is no good in their view.

---

said by moonpuppy :

---

said by firefox :

---

Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.

---

Most artists now don't make money from their record sales. If you want to see something interesting, look for VH1's Behind the Music:TLC. These 3 women were selling millions of CD's a year and only got $50,000! Why? Record companies made them pay for their videos, their promotion, their studio time, etc. Plus, their manager and producer (Pebbels) was taking a massive cut. This is all considered the way the music business is run.

The ONLY way they could make money was by touring. That's where most of these artists make their money.

Now, if they do their own internet distribution, they almost certainly make more per song than if they go the conventional route.

---

said by crowdx :

---

If the artist keeps tight control on the original product, i.e. no leaks from workers (most workers that leak stuff are pissed the the record companies anyhow), then the initial release of songs will have to make some money before everyone starts to share it.

---

said by UnKown :

---

i much agree with you. just by having banner ads the site should make money. or a monthly subscription of 1 dollar would make this fly. not a buck a song.

---