Sir Mick Jagger is pretty much relaxed on illegal downloading, because the artists have always been struggling � long before the invention of peer-to-peer networks they were the record studios who were ripping them off. He actually admits the performers could never breathe free but a shot period of 25 years since the creation of recorded music.

Today record studios show themselves as the ones who want to defend starving performers, trying to look like the noble companies that are only aimed at protecting interests of artists and just a little money making in the process. However, it is widely known that record studios have a long and appalling history of stealing from musicians and doing all to cheat their financial success, the victims including The Rolling Stones.

Sir Mick Jagger, the Rolling Stones� frontman, admitted that at the beginning of their career the band members hadn�t receive any money from their records, just because record labels wouldn�t pay them. And not only them � they wouldn�t pay anyone.

Lots of other artists agree to his words. Kid Rock noted that at the time, they knew Otis Redding�s and Chuck Berry�s and Fats Domino�s stories of never getting paid. So it could be found rather ironic that the very same labels that used to steal from musicians for many years are now pleading them to ask other parties not to do the same to entertainment industry.

Talking about copyright infringement by illegal downloading, Sir Mick Jagger feels relaxed on the question. He still believes the threat of P2P can cause a considerable change which can only mean artists will not earn on music as much as before, but the musicians have been struggling for money for a long time in the history of recorded music. Sir Jagger says after recorded music was invented back in 1900, he can remember of only a short 25 years of performers doing well. But within the other years they kept struggled.

David J.Hahn, a freelance pianist, has concluded last year that the musicians have been in the world no less than humans have. However, the recorded music is quite a new invention, if we recall the music careers of Mozart and Beethoven

The point all the artists agree on is that it�s definitely not their job to mend a business model which can�t work properly. According to the results of a last year Harvard study, the number of recordings made in this century has at least doubled, which proves that music itself doesn�t suffer, but the current business model instead.


------------------
Bo pen nyang.

No surprises at all

Overhere in europe many musicians have either started their own labels or they live from the money they make with live performances.

Record companies are the big evil that try to keep prices as high as possible, cheeting customers out of their hard earned money. I refuse to pay almost $30 for a CD.

OR even 2$ for every song i digially download.

Thats why i love radio station.

Well, Sir Mick has already made HIS money, back WELL before Napster... for all those 'evil' record labels, it didn't prevent him and innumerable others from that period from becoming wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

I would be VERY surprised if his attitude was the same if he was trying to succeed today.

The thing is, it seems that everyone is resigned to the current attitude of it's OK to STEAL music. Is this what we envision for the future of ALL intellectual property? Hollywood is already sh*tting its' pants at the Rapidshare broadband theft of THEIR movies. Imagine how BAD movies are going to get (ha! you thought they were bad now?! wait...) when they only make 20% of their current revenues from them. You think Cameron could make an Avatar2 with five times LESS money?

If you want to look around and find SOMETHING for how bad you think current music is? Blame people who STEAL music. Don't listen to a rich old fart who already has HIS millions...

I listen to BBC Radio all the time, on my PC...great stuff...music, comedies, dramas, documentaries...the beauty o0f radio, of which I've always been an avid listener, is that you are not "attached" to a screen, and can go about other things whilst listening.

And, it's free.

Ian

Most young european artists have exactly this attitude. CD costs �20 and the musicians not even make �1 from every sail, more like 50 cents.

Current day artistst see there CD's more as a marketing attribute and make most of the money from Merchandise, live performancess and advertisments.

Most young rock musicians loath the record companies.


Even better, when young poluar dutch musicians where asked how many of their MP3 collection they actually payed for... most answered: none.

The current buiseness model has been cought by time...


Keep in mind that there is one company worse then the reccord companies, that is apple. for every itune they sale they make 70 cents where the racord comapnie makes 29 cents and the musicians 1 cent... Now how is that fair? ... And thats exactly where Mister Jagger was talking about.

BBC Radio is NOT free. It is payed for by the taxpayers of Great Britain. Take away that support (like the US tries to constantly do to PBS), and watch that quality and level of noncommercial excellence disappear...

The game has changed quite a bit in the music industry from Sir Mick's day. No-one had home recording studios back then, but sadly, just having a home studio (or working in a budget semi-pro studio) is no guarantee of quality. The current sad state of affairs vis a vis recording quality is a direct result of this. Back in Sir Mick's heyday, no-one batted an eyelid at a total studio buyout for a month or two to make a TOTL album. Of course, no-one brings THAT up when they are pillorying the music industry, but the sad fact is, without expensive studios, expensive studio production personnel, and lots of time and patience, the end result is badly recorded, rushed out albums that quite frankly, don't even come CLOSE to matching the quality of product from the Stones' best years.

You don't expect a great chef to make you as great a meal if you only pay him 10-20% of what you USED to... Why does anyone expect music to match its' zenith when the cost of making it has been decimated? I believe there's a direct correlation between current recording budgets and the appalling state of modern rock music. For all its' faults (and I'm not defending them), the music industry managed to make a bunch of drug-addled egomaniacs a LOT of money, and, oh yes, make some of the greatest music of the 20th century at the same time.

I just feel that, if we condone and become resigned to intellectual property theft, why not go the whole hog and make ALL property fair game? There's this really nice Porsche down the road I've got my eye on... what's so wrong with going down there and 'downloading' it? Hey, maybe Sir Mick won't mind if I 'download' a house or two of his?

True...much like CBC Radio here in Canada.

But, I haven't had to pay any fees to listen to BBC (other than pay for my Internet and PC, which I have to have anyway), so it is essentially free for me.

Ian

Property tax alone would cost you more than a house.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Every musician that thinks that the record company is ripping him off, charging too much for their music, whatever, has always had the opportunity to go out and create their OWN record company. Upon which they invariably find out that things cost a LOT more than they ever imagined. Look at any record label that WAS started by musicians... A&M, for instance. It ends up no different from any other label, paying only a small percentage of the profits back to the musician. Seems that running a label, promoting, finding and recording artists, getting the product to the stores with no guarantee whatsoever that anyone will ever BUY said product is nowhere NEAR the walk in the park that musicians like to pretend...