Every once in a while marijuana...advil... I am taking some claritin these days for allergies...

My logic is that with the inception of music being passed around on the internet, the world realized that it was going to be easier to download than to go to the store. People can get more music, more of the songs they wanted instead of whole albums, and it would be cheaper.

This was going to happen as cheaply as possible (in terms of both opportunity cost of putting in the effort and in dollars) regardless of who or what was doing this, the internet would find a way.

Because of Steve Jobs early on making iTunes a centralized and convenient resource for downloading an incredible amount of music, it has been highly used and direct profits from the sale of these songs have gone back through the system and to the artist.

15 billion songs have been transferred to users sitting on their computers that would have otherwise been obtained in other ways (and in many cases more freely) because Steve Jobs got a head start on the market.

Say what you want about my drugs but I have definitely spent MORE money in the past year on music because of itunes than less. You could drop 100 dollars in a sitting on albums and it would feel like nothing. This was definitely not the case 20 years ago. And any adult or person who wants the internet convenience while still supporting the industry they love can easily do this because of iTunes.

Really the part of the "industry" that has been hit harder is the giant record labels and biggest artists, since iTunes and the internet makes it a lot easier for smaller artists to distribute their music.(in some cases maybe too easy lol) The top has less control these days.

I thought about rehab. But then I said noo no noooo. :pimp:

the introduction almost made me not to continue reading your post.

i'm glad i read it cause you really do have a point.

There is one major flaw in your theory. Not everyone uses iTunes to get their music. Only people that are brainwashed by Mr. Jobs resorts to that. There are so many other venues out there to get the same music YOU are paying for free that people that know how to obtain them will most likely get them for free instead of paying for them through iTunes

How is that a flaw in my theory when that is exactly what I said? I was saying he is a bright spot for the industry on the internet, and when people go through itunes at least some revenue goes to the artists instead of none. Obviously the internet has other ways of transferring music, but that was my entire point. With the development of the internet music was going to get downloaded no matter what. Thankfully itunes has been successful so revenue is still generated to a certain degree where it otherwise wouldn't have been.

Read again what you wrote, your argument is that the INTERNET is killing the music industry, and that Steve Jobs is PART of the industry, which is true.

You sound like you are just angsty against the "Man", which is fine by me I feel the same way sometimes, but using iTunes =/= brainwashed. I like supporting the music I like financially, and I wish on top of being easy and convinient iTunes gave 99% profit to artists instead of 70%, but the world ain't perfect and neither am I.

I may have misread what you were trying to say but it's not that I'm angsty against the "Man". I just have major problems with Steve Jobs and I'm anti-apple.

I'm probably going to get hated for this, but I actually don't mind iTunes, and I admit to purchasing albums from it (a few weeks ago, actually). I think that it's a convenient way (and the only way for me at the moment) to obtain music legally. I'm guessing that most of the hate comes from the fact that iTunes used to sell 128kbps files only (which got upgraded to 256kbps a year or 2 ago)?

I'm suprised that Bon Jovi didn't rant about the other methods of downloading (like nearly everybody else in the mainstream).

I'd be fine with iTunes if the artist got a little more than 9c of every 99c track sold on iTunes. 50% of the money you pay for an artist's music through iTunes goes to Apple. Brilliant Capitalism it may be, and I respect Jobs for his intuitive understanding of business, but there's no way in hell I'm going to give that money to a company who repeatedly rape their fanbase through every orifice for as much money as they can squeeze out of them.

dont agree at all steve has brought music to everybody and made it easy to get

Because music was so difficult to find before iTunes! Steve Jobs is not responsible for the online market of music, he's responsible for perverting what might have been the perfect way to cut the cancerous tumor that is the Recording Companies out of music, to get the majority of all proceeds from albums to the artists who actually make them. Rather just making a profit out of it, he decided, as always, to make a killing, and create yet another business biased industry where hardly any of the money actually goes to the artists.

Yeah, maybe Bon Jovi overreacted, maybe he's being nostalgic for a day that's gone, but tbh, it doesn't make Steve Jobs any less of a complete wankstain for what he's done.

OK the hate for digital downloading because artists make less money is really starting to piss me off. I understand the dislike, I buy physical albums all the time and I would argue that record and cd stores are making a comeback over the past few years, but that's a discussion for another time.

The simple fact is, artists often make MORE MONEY off digital downloads of albums through iTunes, unless you count in the fact that as some have mentioned people used to buy albums just for one or two songs. Which is true, but outside of the big name major label bands that make plenty anyway, probably isn't often the case. It is true that labels make a much bigger chunk of the money, but artists make more money on iTunes and have to sell less than if they got a low end royalty deal - which is what any less popular or indie artist is going to get. The labels make much more money too, which when I am buying an album from any indie label, I am concerned about as well... I want the artist to get a fair share of the money, but I don't want the labels that consistently bring me quality music to not have enough money to promote and carry on.

And artists without a label on iTunes? They have to pay some digital distribution service out of their revenue, but iTunes still only takes 30 cents from each sale. So they make 69 cents off each download, minus what they pay for digital distribution.

So, think about all of this before you go spouting off about how iTunes is going to leave artists starving with no money. Steve Jobs provided a way for people to be exposed to much, much more music while shopping and put more money in independent labels and artists pockets. I will agree that there's nothing like going into a record store and shopping for vinyl or c.d.s, but if that's what you're complaining about it go do it. Any complaints are completely null and void unless the one complaining is actually actively going to record stores in a regular attempt to support them. Trust me, they are there. I've been to I don't know how many, they aren't going away anytime soon.