If you were a musician and wanted to encourage file sharing, how would you propose you still get paid?

Someone has to come up with a file sharing program like Kazaa, but much more sophisticated, more like a database. It should operate fully by paid organizations through advertisements and the people managing the artists as well. You could incorporate special discounts and deals if you purchase products/services through those ad links or websites.

Perhaps when you search for an artist or song you can also have a link to be redirected to the artist's website.

You can also have the advertisements run (audio/visual) while you down a particular band's song.

Perhaps people could "earn" songs by watching the Ads and giving it a rating. (Eg: each ad you rate earns you a tune.)

Every time a song is downloaded the artist would get a cut of that revenue (paid by the company whose ad was viewed).

The more popular the artist the most sponsors you would have as more ads are viewed, and each time a song would download a different sponsor could pop up. Great marketing tool for companies too.

With quality being the selling feature, fairness and ethics is also incorporated into the transaction, and websites can be linked for promotional items so that everyone has earning potential.

I'm sure someone can come up with a concept to amass these ideas and make something happen.

The ads could be regional, linking to music, upcoming concert sales, or anything at all and would be designed with internationalizm in mind.

Kids like to carry their music around with them on Ipods and their cell phones.

Music stores could have KIOSKS which sell MP3s or they don't even have to be in the stores but in a mall, where people can plug in their media and download what they want.

They could purchase artist video clips and ringtones too or throw those in as bonuses, and have the buyer select which. That might be more enticing.

You can also create a unique and reloadable gift card for this very purpose which can be used in the kiosks as well as online music purchases.

Those would make great gifts and the card could be topped off anywhere, even online through a credit card.

Where there is a will there is a way.

Obviously money is made from concerts and endorsements and that will not change. Upcoming artists can make their own videos and there could be a new artist section that is free to upload too or for a fee. My son is 12 and is making music already on his computer. He's self taught (guitar) and pretty awesome at it. It would be nice to have a place it would be taken seriously perhaps even rated by listeners.

Would be a good place to scout talent too.

Just like in flirting - a bit of teasing is a good thing. If you have one or two songs available to file share people will want to buy the album to see what else is on it.

Then using either the band's website or another for-profit music download site people could pay to download and the band would get more than enough money out of the deal. Not to mention downloaded music is far better environmentally so you could promote the whole 'green' angle.

If you wanted to be really cutting edge - bought music could come with its own code (either imbeded or a series of numbers) that makes the purchaser eligible for give-aways or other special promos.

Most people want bands to earn a decent living. We know most bands starve for many years before hitting it big (I remember when your set consisted of a few bicycles suspended from the top of the stage. A few things have changed since then. lol).

The bottom line is if some creativity is used there are many possibilities where both the band and the music listeners can win. You've always struck me as some of the more intelligent musicians out there - I look forward to seeing how you use technology to your advantage (just like your post on here which is completely free advertising for the band and also benefits Yahoo)

But this is just my idealistic two bits. I'm a glass half full kind of gal.

You pose a very interesting question that I'm not sure can be answered. Although a lot of song out there are bootleg versions, and there have been countless efforts to put a stop to this problem, it still lingers. But I also feel that a lot of music on the web, comes from people who upload there own purchased copies, so they should have the right to do with it what they please. Now some may not like me for saying this but, what about a slight increase in ticket sales. I mean common, if someone really wanted to see a concert, they'll pay whatever they had to, to get that ticket. And I know that the price of a CD has come down so much from when I was a teenager to know, but there still a little on the high side for some. Make them a flat rate across the board and maybe more people would purchase instead of share. Also those companies that offer unlimited downloads for x amount of dollars for life or pur month, should give the artists a portion of proceeds. That's just my two cents, take it for what it's worth or ignore it if you want to.

Thanks for listening.

Release some good tunes free. Encourage the sharing. Not all of your songs of course. People like them. Then, let them listen to live streaming audio only the rest of the songs. Let them pay by song to download those. Of course, this will only work if people don't share those songs too. But I think you are asking the wrong question.

Everyone is sick of the big record companies. The post profit and still whine about downloading. They then go after ordinary joes for thousands of dollars. Some of these people couldn't afford to buy the cd in the first place at 15 - 25 dollars and they still want thousands in damages. They just look more evil every day. People have lost any sympathy they had for them and in fact they have created animosity with the court cases. **** people off and they will find a way to get back at you. The masses can be mean and nasty. Just ask the French aristocrates during the French revolution.

CDs also feel like a rip off when the record company releases 2 or 3 really good songs from the album and people love them. They run out to buy it and find that those were the only good songs on the album. The rest were filler crap. You can only screw people out of money so many times before it bites you in the ***.

Also, I'm a fledgling writer. When I burn my short stories, novels, etc to a CD, I'm paying record companies money for each blank cd i use and each cd burner i buy. Yet, I cannot charge them for buying looseleaf paper, blank paper, photo copy paper, etc. How do I know they won't make copies of my work and spread them around? They assume we are guilty for just existing. When someone buys a book and then lends to a friend to read, does the writer get paid for that? Yet you don't see writers screaming about that. If I can't share my work using a file sharing program to freely distribute it then what am I suppose to do? Oh yeah. Pay a big company to do it because the record industry is paranoid about the programs. Bah!

Just a few things first. I am old enough to remember 8trak tapes, LP's cassettes and now CD's and digital music. Back when cassettes were are the rage there was never any discussion about people PIRATING music and it was common place to make compilation tapes for traveling, or for your WALKMAN or whatever.

The whole file sharing issue has been so over discussed and dealt with so inappropriately on all sides of the debate that it is rediculous.

As an individual who has shared and will continue to do so, I have to say that I have been able to hear and learn to appreciate alot more music as a result of file sharing and as a result I have purchased a lot more music throught the various music outlets.

Everyone who shares files realizes that the quality is generally lackluster and deteriorates rather quickly eventhough it is a digital copy.

If I was a musician that wanted to encourage file sharing, I would strongly consider giving away the music for free and promoting far more concerts and merchandise. If the music is free than the discussion about file sharing is dead.

There is far more money to be made in concerts, merchandise and endorsements than there is in the distribution of music CD's.

The last time I checked, most musicians made music because they liked doing it, not to make millions of dollars, althought that is a nice added benefit.

I dont think its nearly the problem that is thought - I have downloaded a few tracks in my time but as a result have bought a lot of cds from artists that I would have otherwise never heard of. Its hurting the big labels as people are stopping listening to the pap that they churn out , I frankly cannot listen to the radio any longer as I have had enough of having the same 1 or two artists shoved down my throat.

Lots of people here seem to be under the impression that artists make there money from tours - this may be the case for mega established artists. but for up and coming and the majority of artists tours are a way to promote new albums and cost - not make money (and it comes from the artists deal , not the record company).

The issue is being made by record companies as they are the losers here , deservingly so as they sat onthere behinds and make money by reissuing on new formats rather than searching for new tallent or originality (too dangerous).

Now that the consumer has caught on and the format of choice is not under record company control its no surprise they are resulting to thug tactics as they try to desperately hold on - they are dinosaurs and will no doubt go the same way.

Artists that are willing to exploit the new way of things stand to do even better - if they can get airplay , and establish a decent following they can sell from there own website and make a lot more than the laughable (less than 10%) royalties from a cd (The rest goes to the corporate machine).

For file sharing the obvious system would be a top up where you put in funds for credit that then costs maybe 50C per track to download , or pay by filesize. The site administrators would then have to distribute the royalties to the right place.

The other alternative - and the easiest by far is take the money at the root. From the internet service providers. everyone would have to pay a little more for there access but it would end the argument. then it just comes down to fair allocation. again that could be in the form of a report generated by the fileshare software administration or the user themselves (a little open to abuse as if I started a band I could then fill in a report saying I downloaded a billion copies of my new singles so something would need to be embeded in the file sharing utility to generate the report)

From an interview where you discussed the subject, I know you are also promoting carbon footprint reduction at the same time and found a way to tie this to file sharing. I commend your resourcefulness and continuing effort.

I only have a suggestion for further improving overall health and climate. A lot rides on this, so please try to look beyond any self serving aspect you might see here.

I have concept for an activity and sport + other things as well. A number of them will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, having more activities and sport from which to choose will result in more people polluting less while fitness improves.

The problem is that I am not making enough money to afford even one patent fee. I need some way to get out of my rut without necessarily giving anything away.

A BNL linked activity sounds good to me. Very little could get you non-disclosure agreed details as long as I have a way to continue further development activities with autonomy afterwards.

This is not intended to be a set price sale, or any sort of complete rights surrender agreement. I am not a legal expert either, so I can only speak intentions.

Let me know what you think.

To the fans, this is something like hitch-hiking, so make my thumb noteworthy!

How bands win in the digital world.

1. Good Music = Fans

2. Tour, tour, tour to meet the fans and sell your merchandise - including ALBUMS!

3. Drop the record labels or create your own. Why do bands think they need any of the record companies anymore?

They will have to spend 90% of there time working the business end of things and 10% on the music. If they have good music, are making sales and don't want to do the business part, hire a good manager to do those things, don't sign to a record label that is not interested in you.

4. Radiohead.com >>> Need I say more? Fans WANT to give money to their favorite bands - fans know that record labels do not give them much. I would rather fork over $10 - $15 bucks at a BNL concert knowing it is going into your pocket because you bought 10,000 blank CD's at 50 cents each, printed the art and packaged it all for $3-4 dollars.

You stand to make $6-$10 per unit sold! Not the meager $1-$2 the record labels offer.

I could go on - the point being here is that I have no sympathy for bands crying about not making money. There has never been more opportunity for them to make money.

STOP listening to the record labels and their complaints, their business model is dead and they are trying to get bands to side with the losing team > THEIR TEAM not yours.

Bands are in great shape > Record labels are not.

Drop the labels, play great music, organize yourself and you will do better that bands have ever done!

Rock on!

PS - If you are a lazy band that thinks your music is so great an aren't willing to do the work. Sorry, the new business model doesn't work for you.

Get a real job? (Just kidding) Hey, I'm all for musicians having rights over the music they produce and sell. I think back to the days of records, where the medium was actually a physical product of the music, what with the sound waves carved in the vinyl and all. When you bought an album, you didn't just buy rights to listen to and own a copy of a song, but you bought a physical record that had to be stored on the medium you purchased. But a digital file is not physical anymore. It's kinda the same for books and such. I like the attitude of The Tragically Hip: I have heard it said that they don't care if their music is downloaded and copied, because nothing can match the energy of their live shows. I have caught some clips of the BNL on live tv and such, and I have to say that from what I saw, I would pay money to go to a show. I guess this puts pressure on artists to be musicians, and work at being skilled and talented enough to go in front of a live crowd and rock the house down. Perhaps this supports the integrity of music, by weeding out those who can put out a good studio album after a million takes and five months of mastering with pro tools, but can't get in front of a stadium crowd to save their life.

The big record labels took consumers for a ride over the past few decades. I hated buying an album only to discover that there were 2 or 3 good tracks (happened often). I felt ripped-off. Unfair though it may be, I think file-sharing, for some, may be a way to make up for that feeling.

I'm a fan of the "pay per song off the internet" formula and also of going to concerts. If I like an album and a band I'll buy their CD and buy tickets to their shows. But one thing that is not encouraging is knowing that only $1 (out of $20 or $25 for the CD) goes to the artists.

I'd say focus on shows and performances and selling your stuff via the internet for $1 a song with a collectors pack for those interested.

One thing is for sure. The old way of doing things just won't and can't work anymore. And trying to charge or sue fans is, as you (Barenaked Ladies) have said publicly on a number of occasions, just not the way to go. And as much as it is clear that this is a problem for artists, the ones really pushing this agenda are the big bad record companies who have our moron politicians under their thumb.

I always thought that music should be a hobby rather than a profession. A lot of good musicians have a job and do music in their spare time. Their music is only recognized in small circles because they did not want to get exposed to all the media and advertising frenzy. There are a lot of crappy bands and singers out there that became famous just because they had a good advertising. It is amazing what media can do. Take for example William Hung (the American Idol wannabe).

I always pay for good music if it's within reasonable limits (pricewise).

I think people are sick and tired of paying 20$ or even 15$ for a CD that has only 2 or 3 good hits while the rest of the songs are crap. And don't tell me that a CD is so expensive because you have to pay an army of people that worked to release the record.

If a CD that initially cost 20$ goes on sale for 5$ I just can't imagine what was the initial cost of manufacturing considereing that even at 5$ the CD store still makes a profit.