Filesharing: ruining it for all of us (DB forum thread)

isolated · #1 03-15-2012, 09:51 AM

This, today from Ethan Iverson's blog.

Ronan Guilfoyle had addressed the same topic, but from a slightly different angle here, and again today.

None of these posts can solve the problem, of course, but I don't think it can be said enough.... Ethan and Ronan's last sentences pretty much sum it all up.

**Chris Fitzgerald** · #2 03-15-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

People might argue that the selling of music is finished, and a new way to distribute music must and will be found, but until such time as we the musicians agree to give our music away for free,the guys who upload this stuff are thieves and fences, and the people who download it are thieves.

Yes.

damonsmith · #3 03-15-2012, 10:16 AM

OK, I will get flamed for this for sure, but, the only recording I have of Iverson I downloaded for free, Billy Hart's new ECM. It is so boring I'd be pretty pissed if I paid for it!
It is a bummer for those of us who remember money from "record sales", but complaining about it isn't going to help. Just like cassettes and used record stores (the musicians & labels don't get anything from used albums), it is just the next step, we have to deal with it.

CrewsControl · #4 03-15-2012, 10:26 AM

Boy, I sure would like to continue to get paid for that web server I installed 10 years ago.

I deeply dislike the hysterical claim that copyright infringement is theft. It isn't. If it were, laws against larceny would be sufficient, as they are for every other kind of theft. Perhaps if copyright advocates rhetoric was a little less hysterical, it'd be more persuasive.

neilG · #5 03-15-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrewsControl

Boy, I sure would like to continue to get paid for that web server I installed 10 years ago.

I deeply dislike the hysterical claim that copyright infringement is theft. It isn't. If it were, laws against larceny would be sufficient, as they are for every other kind of theft. Perhaps if copyright advocates rhetoric was a little less hysterical, it'd be more persuasive.

Copyright infringement is illegal no matter what you call it. And equating a web server with intellectual property and copyrights is moronic. You don't see the difference?

CrewsControl · #6 03-15-2012, 10:54 AM

No, I don't. Work is work. A job is a job. Why should some workers continue to get paid for a job that has long been completed, and most others don't? But it even goes beyond that. IP workers' descendants continue to get paid for work their ancestors completed before they were even born.

isolated · #7 03-15-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damonsmith

OK, I will get flamed for this for sure, but, the only recording I have of Iverson I downloaded for free, Billy Hart's new ECM.

Yes, Damon, you should get flamed for this, especially since you have a post in this very same forum about a new record you have out that seems to have a price attached to it....

isolated · #8 03-15-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrewsControl

Boy, I sure would like to continue to get paid for that web server I installed 10 years ago.

I fear you may be missing the point here. To quote Iverson:

Quote:

But even if I wasn't on All Our Reasons, I'd want Billy's ECM debut to have the best shot it could. Billy, 71 years young, deserves to make a popular record as a leader and have the label and the industry be interested in whatever his next move is, whether I'm involved or not. If no one buys the record because it is uploaded everywhere on the internet, generating interest is going to be that much harder. [Emphasis added]

I'm pretty sure nobody's made anything approaching the sums of money you might be thinking of from the sales of their ECM records (or any other jazz/improvised music recordings) with the possible exception of Mr. Jarrett, and even then, I'm not so sure.

damonsmith · #9 03-15-2012, 12:19 PM

Funny, I hadn't read it when I posted, I didn't know the whole article was about that album!

I am on both sides of it, I got a small check for downloads recently that could pay some bills, I am also still able to make cds and not lose money.

In earlier times, so many of my peers just didn't buy cds and just didn't hear the music. In this case, I'd have never bought it because I'd have put it down after picking it up in the record store because of Iverson's name!

I think the other side to this is the greed behind the digital store and distributors trying to get cd prices (which were inflated to begin with) for downloads. Not OK. Emusic had a good model but the big labels forced them to change it.

Once fair pricing for downloads is in place I think they will find more people willing to pay. I still pay for lots of downloads as it is.

The Lemon · #10 03-15-2012, 12:26 PM

I think Bandcamp's format is the next logical step. Many downloads on there are "Name Your own Price"; some with a minimum price, some without. Even on albums one can download for free, many people still pay what they think is fair.

**Damon Rondeau** · #11 03-15-2012, 12:47 PM

I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other, but I think musicians and the music "biz" should lift their heads up a bit and think historically, think big picture. The period in which there has been a recording business -- even a sheet music business -- that provided any kind of income for musicians (let alone a living) is relatively short. Yet time and technology roll on and the economy adapts. Why should the music biz (or the film biz, or the ______ biz) be able to freeze a relative moment in historical time and say it should be this way forever? What's more special about content creators than, say, machinists?

Adaptation. Technologically and legally. That's the future. The genie's out and you can't put it back.

Back in the heyday of Napster, The Atlantic Monthly did a very good historical overview of the music biz. It's right here: The Heavenly Jukebox. I haven't read it in years, and I'm sure it's antiquated in some ways, but it sure seemed relevant 11 1/2 years ago.

NOTE: Something strange is going on with that link to N-A-P-S-T-E-R -- it's being inserted by the TB site software, not by me. Further, sometimes it's there and sometimes it's not. Me no understand!

damonsmith · #12 03-15-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Rondeau

Adaptation. Technologically and legally. That's the future. The genie's out and you can't put it back.

Agreed, and I have said this before but a bigger problem is people not caring about your music and NOT being able to find that album in file-sharing areas would have been far worse news!

In this case, as listener, I actually gave him a chance he'd have never have gotten after the unforgivable (to me as a listener) TBP when $15 was at stake! Even still it took Hart and Street to get me to bother.

CrewsControl · #13 03-15-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isolated

I fear you may be missing the point here.

Didn't miss a thing. The gripe is that bad sales will not gain him exposure to record execs. Meanwhile his music is out there and being enjoyed, giving him lots of exposure to music fans.

/shrug

hdiddy · #14 03-15-2012, 01:24 PM

Yup. The old music and movie business model is dying and there's plenty of people out there who want to cling on to how it's always been - mainly because it lines certains peoples pockets fairly well and without much trouble while true artists are getting the scraps they leave behind. Damon's right, the gears have been in motion for quite some time.

The important points is that music is never going away. And people will always want new music as old music gets stale. Also, live performance can every really be replaced, though as nice as it is sitting at home watching something on a DVD. Dont' get me wrong. I love Charlie Parker and his recordings, but I would much rather take a night out to see Chris Potter than sit at home to intetionally listen to Bird. I can hear Bird just about any time I want now.

Hell, you don't even have to steal things anymore and DL them. Just look at Spotify or Rhapsody. Both can be used free of charge without consequence. Napster is so 10 years ago. Download and steal using stuff like BitTorrent? Why bother?!?

CrewsControl · #15 03-15-2012, 01:40 PM

FWIW, I only download, rip or steal music that can't be bought anymore, because it's out of print. Absolutely no one is being hurt by that, even though technically I am a dirty thief, according to some people. Most of my music purchases these days is through SoundHound. I hear something I like, I identify it with SoundHound, and click the Buy button to purchase it from Amazon. I do check the album, too, if the song is a track from an album.

newbold · #16 03-15-2012, 01:44 PM

Back in the day, nobody used to pay $100 a month for cable and a further $60 a month for high speed internet and another $80 for a cell phone. Paying off all of those gadgets and material goods bought on credit racks up and where's the money left over for records and books?

While I agree with the article, I will probably find music on my hard drive for the coming years that I did not purchase. Chances are I wouldn't have purchased that music if I weren't able to have had those files put on my drive, but if my having it to listen would translate into making an effort to buy a concert ticket or future record or share my experiences in listening with another person, that's more spent than previously possible.

Here's to being able to afford the things that help artists pay the bills and help recoup serious artistic investment.

ksandvik · #17 03-15-2012, 01:45 PM

After a short blip of record selling business we are back to the starting point 100 years later. Musicians play shows that cost money and the audience attends as they like the shows and the unique experience.

**Damon Rondeau** · #18 03-15-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

People might argue that the selling of music is finished, and a new way to distribute music must and will be found, but until such time as we the musicians agree to give our music away for free,the guys who upload this stuff are thieves and fences, and the people who download it are thieves.

I'm almost down with agreeing with this statement but I feel there's a crucial element missing. Are we saying the seller -- any kind of seller -- has no responsible role in this situation? What would we say about a seller who leaves his wares out in the public market overnight, or -- worse -- 24/7 with no protection? No locks. No security guard. No "beware of dog" sign. No nothing. (You can talk law all you want but I'm talking de facto here, not de jure.) We wouldn't want to blame these takings on him, but wouldn't we tell him to get with the program and lock it up? Particularly if this has been going on for *decades* now (cassette dubs, mix tapes)? I think the people who take from this seller are acting immorally and, ultimately, against their own interests, but I'm not so sure "thief" is the right word for them. "Persons taking illegitimate advantage of a situation that shouldn't exist" is more apt in my way of looking at things, but I guess "thief" is catchier.

TroyK · #19 03-15-2012, 03:51 PM

I don't advocate stealing from musicians.

That said, the model is outdated. Whereas we used to listen to the radio, hoping to hear our favorite song and then buy the record if we thought it was too good to wait around in hopes of hearing again. Radio is now interactive. I can legally and ethically for free use the tools on Rhapsody, Spotify, Slacker Radio, etc to search for music I'd like to hear and I can still buy the CD if I'm moved to, but I can also save that search and do it again any time I want.

I buy CDs from musicians I know or who's show I'm at. I buy a lot of used vinyl or CDs, which is perfectly legal, but doesn't put any money directly into the pocket of anyone except the shop I bought it from. Maybe once or twice a year I order a new CD on Amazon or something. Recently I picked up a Leo Parker album that I really wanted to check out and had no faith I would ever stumble upon a copy of.

It was a lot differnet in the '50s-80s. We need a new model. The old one doesn't really apply anymore.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to even start the ASCAP/BMI shutting down struggling venues thing over a jazz trio playing a Cole Porter song in their otherwise original set (or a newstand owner for listening to the radio within ear shot of his customers because he has a boring-ass job and likes music).

That's got nothing to do with protecting musicians, though that's usually the battle cry. But it is a different thread that usually ends badly, so disregard.

damonsmith · #20 03-15-2012, 04:00 PM

I mainly buy and sell cds at shows. My review aside, that Hart cd will sell fine at gigs and festivals.
The record stores are not happening in Houston, so I pay for downloads & order from the interweb, from the musicians if I can.
If the person is dead, doesn't make their music available in digital form or if wouldn't buy it but have a mild curiosity, I'll get it from soulseek.

I understand my music is subjected to the same behaviors and I accept it and continue to put more out into the world understanding this is system at hand.

I spent about $20,000+ on cds and lps just to hear the the history and the contemporary state of the music I play - most didn't. I'd say I'd prefer more knowledgable musicians doing serious, professional research than everyone getting paid for every listen.