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

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by fingerbun

I agree with all the suggestions you made for limiting the fallout of digital and I agree that complaint won't change things.

From a moral point of view though how is knowing about file sharing a reason for it to be morally right? Does knowing that burglary happens make it ok? Or am I missing your point?

Well, I for one feel like I am entering into an unspoken agreement that it will happen when I make an album. I think any artist who is really against it needs to not make records for the time being.
Making an album in the 21st century has to be about getting the music heard, otherwise you are just in for disappointment. Simple as that.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

Well, I for one feel like I am entering into an unspoken agreement that it will happen when I make an album. I think any artist who is really against it needs to not make records for the time being.
Making an album in the 21st century has to be about getting the music heard, otherwise you are just in for disappointment. Simple as that.

That's exactly how I approach it. I deal with a lot of colleagues who still haven't wrapped their heads around that, or are trying to figure out how to navigate it, but it's a tough battle, full of disappointment for sure.

[isolated]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

The bottom line is that nobody at ECM or in that quartet was unaware of filesharing at any moment of that project.
There is no right or wrong it is just a hard fact of making music right now.
Whining about it, trying to make people who engage in it out to be thieves, etc. isn't going to help the situation.

"Whining about it" is subjective, I think. The catalyst for Iverson's blog post was that the record was up on filesharing sites before it was even released. If someone other than the artist is making the record available to anyone with an internet connection before any single person has had a chance to purchase it - regardless of how they purchase it - what incentive is there for anyone to purchase it at all? Doesn't that strike you as wrong? Even slightly?

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by isolated

"Whining about it" is subjective, I think. The catalyst for Iverson's blog post was that the record was up on filesharing sites before it was even released. If someone other than the artist is making the record available to anyone with an internet connection before any single person has had a chance to purchase it - regardless of how they purchase it - what incentive is there for anyone to purchase it at all? Doesn't that strike you as wrong? Even slightly?

Let's look at the bigger moral picture.
Nobody broke into the ECM vault and stole the album.
The management at ECM decided to send out promos (probably digital) fully aware of the existence of filesharing and it leaked.
Adults made an informed decision that press and radio play was worth this risk.

Did I steal the album? Maybe. I see it as a more complex picture: I would not have bought the album if paying for it were that the only way to hear it.
So one hard fact is:
I did not, in ANY way deprive any of them of record sales.
In my case, the album got an extra listen it would never (and I mean NEVER!) have gotten before digital filesharing.

If I DL without pay a Mark Dresser or Barry Guy album it is depriving them of sales.
This is the sticking point for me: We need to continue to support artists we care about.

So, in the bigger moral picture, adults putting their music into a filesharing world are in a sense agreeing to that inevitable consequence, and we can only hope that we'll get some support through concerts, cd sales and paid downloads.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I understand everything that's being said. It still sounds like the justification is that since all the other kids are doing it, we might as well do it as well; i.e. - since we can't stop it, we should just all agree that it's "moral" now. Call it whining if you want, but I think that's an absolutely terrible way to redefine morality, and I refuse to participate in the practice of taking someone else's work illegally for free when I know damn well that their intention is to sell it to me for a modest price. No amount of circular justification, kindly, is going to make that "okay" in my eyes, much less "moral". YMMV, YMWCB, RBBB, etc.

[Rage1331]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

I understand everything that's being said. It still sounds like the justification is that since all the other kids are doing it, we might as well do it as well; i.e. - since we can't stop it, we should just all agree that it's "moral" now. Call it whining if you want, but I think that's an absolutely terrible way to redefine morality, and I refuse to participate in the practice of taking someone else's work illegally for free when I know damn well that their intention is to sell it to me for a modest price. No amount of circular justification, kindly, is going to make that "okay" in my eyes, much less "moral".

I think it stems from the whole "Since we can't stop it, we should just all agree that it's normal now."

I can't tell you how may times I've been told "that's just the way it is... any attempt to try and change the norm is futile. It's just a part of our society now."

[beggar98]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

Let's look at the bigger moral picture.
Nobody broke into the ECM vault and stole the album.
The management at ECM decided to send out promos (probably digital) fully aware of the existence of filesharing and it leaked.
Adults made an informed decision that press and radio play was worth this risk.

Did I steal the album? Maybe. I see it as a more complex picture: I would not have bought the album if paying for it were that the only way to hear it.
So one hard fact is:
I did not, in ANY way deprive any of them of record sales.
In my case, the album got an extra listen it would never (and I mean NEVER!) have gotten before digital filesharing.

If I DL without pay a Mark Dresser or Barry Guy album it is depriving them of sales.
This is the sticking point for me: We need to continue to support artists we care about.

So, in the bigger moral picture, adults putting their music into a filesharing world are in a sense agreeing to that inevitable consequence, and we can only hope that we'll get some support through concerts, cd sales and paid downloads.

The old "no harm, no foul" defense. In some ways, you're right. Most artists would look at getting their record into the hands of someone who would otherwise never hear it as worth the loss.

But you're also not really what Iverson was talking about, are you? He was talking about people who were logging on to filesharing websites for the purpose of downloading albums they wanted without paying for them. How many of these people ever pay for any albums anymore?

[damonsmith]

I am not really justifying it, I am just being dead honest about what the system is and finding my own way to work in it.
Like a lot of things, it isn't pretty (do you want to see sausage being made? I do, but that is beside the point!) but it is how it is.

If you choose to participate, you can't go in pretending it is 1989 or 1949 anymore.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

C I refuse to participate in the practice of taking someone else's work illegally for free when I know damn well that their intention is to sell it to me for a modest price.

Here is where I think things shift. You can't make recordings of music with that intention anymore. Period.

Also, the prices are not modest. In the bigger picture beyond jazz/improv, etc. the record industry is getting what is IMO, well deserved payback for gouging the public and artists for so long and as I have pointed out continue to do so with over-priced downloads.

[Hawkbone]

here's an article Canadian bands from the '90s enjoying digital era freedom - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News that touches on some of this discussion.

Canadian band Big Sugar also recently re-united and have expressed the same feeling of freedom from the suits.

The thing is though, these guys all made names under the old regime, and are now able to enjoy that brand recognition along with the freedom from label pressure. New bands have the same freedom, but will find it much harder to achieve widespread brand recognition. The playing field is level for all newcomers, and the audience is truly global, but with so many players in the field it will take a lot of touring, self promotion, word of mouth and luck to stand out above the pack and achieve substantial sales. Whether or not giving away free music is part of self promotion should be entirely at the discretion of the artist.

I find forums like TB are a great way to find new bands - listen to things suggested by other posters. I listen to digital music primarily (some of it copied from friends' collections), but if I like a band, I buy the CD. Local artists I will buy from anyway, just to support them.

e.g. A good friend released a killer album in 2010, so I've bought at least a hundred copies of it and pass them out as gifts - xmas, birthdays, karma gifts for those who do something nice for me, etc. rick lambe band | Portugal Cove-St. Philips, NL, CA | Rock | Music, Lyrics, Songs, and Videos | ReverbNation

He's also on itunes, cdbaby etc.

Anyway, my $0.02 worth on topic and a plug for my bud!

[MLysh]

"People do not appreciate that which they do not pay for." --G.I. Gurdjieff

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

Here is where I think things shift. You can't make recordings of music with that intention anymore. Period.

Because people have realized that they can break the law with impunity. I see that. I still think it's a sad statement in more ways than I can describe.

Also, the prices are not modest.....over-priced downloads.

I think they are perfectly modest. Six dollars for an album download is less than what I paid for an album back in the 80's, maybe even the 70's. As far as the downloads being overpriced, if you don't think it's worth the money, don't buy it.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Because people have realized that they can break the law with impunity. I see that. I still think it's a sad statement in more ways than I can describe.

Agreed. And I have a ton of albums out there, but it is the system, and and anyone putting out an album into this system needs to be clear about it and come to peace with it.
The worldwide society, which what we are talking about, isn't big on fairness and morality.

That is the downside, the upside is wider (worldwide in fact) distribution, and more possible listeners, and far lower manufacturing costs - i still make CDs but smaller runs. So it is an exchange, but we don't really get to choose. We can only choose to participate or not.

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

I think they are perfectly modest. Six dollars for an album download is less than what I paid for an album back in the 80's, maybe even the 70's. As far as the downloads being overpriced, if you don't think it's worth the money, don't buy it.

$6 is maybe on the high side of fair for an mp3 copy with no liner notes. $10 at itunes is not at all a fair price for compressed audio with no printing costs.
I am not against listening to compressed audio, but I don't feel like it is equal to CD quality in anyway, including costs. This will change fairly soon, though.

[damonsmith]

Here is the Hart album if anyone wants to check it out (for $8.99, highest prices yet on emusic!):
Download All Our Reasons by Billy Hart | eMusic

[kr0n]

Originally Posted by beggar98

This is where we disagree.

1. If an artist cannot sell/transfer their copyright, it loses most (if not all) of its value. How does an artist have FULL control if they can't sell what they own? What about songwriters who don't perform? What about film/tv licensing?

"Labels typically own the copyright in the records their artists make, and also the master copies of those records. An exception is when a label makes a distribution deal with an artist; in this case, the artist, their manager, or another party may own the copyright (and masters), while the record is licensed exclusively to the label for a set period of time."

Refer to the second part, distribution deal. No need to sell your copyright. But new bands do not get contracts like that, as far as I know. And with current US laws copyright lasts over 100 years which again favors corporations.

[

Originally Posted by beggar98

2. How much easier access do consumers need? I have iTunes on my phone and laptop. I can pretty much buy any music I want at any point in time from anywhere. I also have Spotify on my phone and laptop, so if I want to hear a song without buying it I can do that, too. The only thing that differentiates iTunes from Pirate Bay is cost, end of story.

Yeah, it's getting way better and we're almost there with digital distribution. In fact, it's a rapidly growing market. Except it sells more singles than albums. And since it's easy to distribute digitally, why do we need that big giant label to distribute?

Originally Posted by beggar98

I'm not real sure why you hate record labels so much. Maybe you were in one the bands Albini talks about here. You mention EMI, which is a major multinational corporation. But this thread started after an article about a record released on ECM, a small, independent label releasing music far outside the mainstream. The business model is to have a few hits a year (thank you, Mr. Jarrett) which cover the losses they take on records by people like Billy Hart- artists they believe in and see value in beyond potential profit.

I don't hate all labels. Like I said earlier I bet there are fine and honest companies out there. I only hate the ones out distorting the market, music and peoples preferences by pushing, limiting and denying exposure. Which is how they got that big in the first place.

But with file sharing, it is stupid to think that there is a way to stop it. It is just plain impossible. Just like it is impossible to stop thieving in general, or murders, or any illegal activity. I don't know how much you know about technology but it is just impossible... And even if you could stop it, which you can't, who can stop distribution of bootleg CDs, or cheap ass USB sticks with 32GB and is smaller than Jacos thumb. This is just the way it is. Add encryption and you got a bullet proof protection.

Now I gotta run.

[Kamuilija]

I just read the two first pages of the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something already said.

I think there are two opposite trends going on in the music selling business. On the other hand, everything's available at once - that makes music lose its "transcendency", y'know, being something "apart". When you can download not an album in a few minutes, but the whole discography of an artist, your relationship with music will certainly be different from the times you really had to look for the tune on radio and hope you find the album in the store if you liked it well enough.

But at the same time, people still need familiarity, need something to identify with, need comfort and aesthetics. There's something in a well done CD, with professionally laid-out covers of quality materials, with a booklet with photos, lyrics, etcetra, that you can't have in a mp3 file. Where I live, more and more quality music is being really thought of as a whole again, not just tunes on a CD. Jazz and contemporary folk bands publish their own albums or establish small record companies together with other bands. And people buy the records, the physical CD's, because in a changing unstable world, there is a sense on stability and comfort in a CD you bought straight from the artist, maybe had them sign the copy for you, that takes you back to the concert even years later.

I'm not worried about people getting paid for their work. People who love music create works that interest people who love music.

[Damon Rondeau]

We've spent some time in this thread talking about the concept of theft and whether filesharing/filetaking fits the bill. Here's an op-ed piece on that very topic in today's NY Times by a Rutgers law professor.

I'm happy to say TB'ers covered most of the main points on their own, thanks very much. But this fellow Green makes a point about the relationship between the legitimacy of criminal law and widely-held moral institutions -- I don't think we got that one, exactly. Seems to me that we are illustrating quite a gap there, though, when our conversation breaks along the lines of "it's theft, it can't be anything other than theft" and "it's something other than theft, some new kind of taking."

[beggar98]

Kind of waking up an old thread here, but some recent chatter on the subject got me thinking about everyone here's thoughts on this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/20...-to-begin-with

and the response here:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...gs-considered/

I know where I stand (I think most people here do as well). Anyone else have input?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by beggar98

Kind of waking up an old thread here, but some recent chatter on the subject got me thinking about everyone here's thoughts on this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/20...-to-begin-with

and the response here:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...gs-considered/

I know where I stand (I think most people here do as well). Anyone else have input?

This two statements, sadly, seem to explain the current situation very well.

[onosson]

I started earning a living in the music business in the early 90s, and I never expected it to last 5 years, let alone the 20+ that it has. When I started playing gigs, I quickly became aware from older musicians that we were being paid exactly the same money as they used to make for gigs in the 1970s. And over the past 20 years, I'm also aware that gigs these days generally still pay exactly the same - in fact, often even less.

I guess you could say that this knowledge has made me somewhat fatalistic about the music business. Personally, I don't feel that kids growing up today owe it to me or anyone else to buy music, and I don't feel that the world owes me the chance to make a career in music. It was and always has been a gamble, as pointed out in that open letter reply - but a gamble by the artist, too. There is no guarantee of return on investment, financial or otherwise, and I'm not sure there should be. Just my opinion.