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

[wingmanborge]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

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.

+ 1
I do believe that people can and will pay even when its just a small sum - and that way acknowledge that artists need money like the rest of the world.

[MrSidecar]

While I have not read the whole thread, let me say that I don't consider filsharing as half as evil as Spotify.

Why is this? Spotify takes money from users (if they don't have the free account) and earns money on commercials. The absolute minimum of this money ever reaches an artists' wallet: Per stream, you earn 0.34 us CENTS. Real life numbers here: To earn one Dollar, you need 300 streams. Now THAT's taking advatage of an artist's work and product. (Not even taking into account that this is only true if you are as artist also the producer and distributor of your own work, that means, if there is no record company in the middle, who of course takes its share). At the same time, the paying customer gets the illusion that what he's a part of is somehow ethical. It's not.

Being an artist, I think those cassette-tape kids that fileshare music in the end don't do much harm to my sales, while this predatory money-machine called Spotify is the embodiment of bogus.

Best
Sidecar

[beggar98]

Originally Posted by MrSidecar

While I have not read the whole thread, let me say that I don't consider filsharing as half as evil as Spotify.

Why is this? Spotify takes money from users (if they don't have the free account) and earns money on commercials. The absolute minimum of this money ever reaches an artists' wallet: Per stream, you earn 0.34 us CENTS. Real life numbers here: To earn one Dollar, you need 300 streams. Now THAT's taking advatage of an artist's work and product. (Not even taking into account that this is only true if you are as artist also the producer and distributor of your own work, that means, if there is no record company in the middle, who of course takes its share). At the same time, the paying customer gets the illusion that what he's a part of is somehow ethical. It's not.

Being an artist, I think those cassette-tape kids that fileshare music in the end don't do much harm to my sales, while this predatory money-machine called Spotify is the embodiment of bogus.

Best
Sidecar

But as an artist, you can choose to keep your music off Spotify if you want to. That's why I think illegal downloading is worse: the artist has no choice in the matter. If an artist chooses to put their music on Bandcamp with a "pay what you like" policy, that's their choice. If an artist only wants to release their work on vinyl and charges $500/copy, they have the right to do that. At the end of the day, the artist deserves the right to choose how their work is made available. Illegal downloading takes away that right.

[damonsmith]

This is the center of my argument. It isn't great news, but it is the hard truth. The only actual choices are to release music into a file-sharing world or not. Therefore, when you do, I believe you are giving implicit permission for file sharing.
Shutting the barn door after the horse is gone isn't going to help anyone, so learning to live in this world is the best use of our time - rather than moaning about it.

Originally Posted by beggar98

But as an artist, you can choose to keep your music off Spotify if you want to. That's why I think illegal downloading is worse: the artist has no choice in the matter. If an artist chooses to put their music on Bandcamp with a "pay what you like" policy, that's their choice. If an artist only wants to release their work on vinyl and charges $500/copy, they have the right to do that. At the end of the day, the artist deserves the right to choose how their work is made available. Illegal downloading takes away that right.