Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
A devastating response to the "free music" generation.
- Thread starter Benjamin Strange
- Start date
Spotify compensation is a sticky issue. Some claim to get as much as $.06 per play, which is very fair. Some independent artists claim to only receive about $0.002/play, which is pretty lame. Spotify is (understandably) secretive about the deals they've negotiated with different labels, both major and indie, but there are a lot of musicians unhappy with their cut.
There are a lot of Invalid Link Removed, so take a look and find one that works for you.
You made this an us&them issue. You're very clearly in favor of stealing from musicians, I think artists should be paid for the work they do. I can only hope some new technology will be invented that will rob you of your livelihood.
And just saying "this is not true" does not actually refute a statement. The fact is that there is no viable option for enforcing anti-pirating laws because the people working on the other side are smarter than the authorities.
When the authorities caught up to direct download sites, simple peer sharing replaced them. When the authorities went after the peer sharing servers, torrent's made them obsolete. When movie and record companies started setting up dummy clients to track torrents, peerblock made them useless. They try to block the actual torrent file hosts and an ever changing web of proxies makes their attempts futile.
I have no doubt that someone will come with a way to really put a dent in torrent traffic, but the beauty of technology is that when that happens, a new format will be developed and the authorities will have to start all over.
So, you can't win. "My kind" is always a step ahead of you.
When the authorities caught up to direct download sites, simple peer sharing replaced them. When the authorities went after the peer sharing servers, torrent's made them obsolete. When movie and record companies started setting up dummy clients to track torrents, peerblock made them useless. They try to block the actual torrent file hosts and an ever changing web of proxies makes their attempts futile.
I have no doubt that someone will come with a way to really put a dent in torrent traffic, but the beauty of technology is that when that happens, a new format will be developed and the authorities will have to start all over.
So, you can't win. "My kind" is always a step ahead of you.
I regularly pay for albums for the artists I support. The only thing that has changed in that aspect is that now I no longer have to shell out $15 for an album because it happened to have one good song on it that I had heard and the rest was, unbeknownst to me, complete crap.
I support local music especially, much of which is on bandcamp for name your own price. But I pay the musicians because I want them to keep writing new stuff which I will like, not because I think they have an implied ownership of their songs once they've been written.
<Edit> In addition, you seem to think that indie artists are hurt the most by this, but it's been my experience that indie artists are the tracks that you can't get for free... they're not popular enough to have regular seeders on any of the major filesharing networks.
What you're basically saying is that it's okay to steal because you can get away with it. Lovely......
It's never okay to take bread of someone else's table.
Maybe. But maybe you'll be the next one the RIAA successfully sues. Someone will be next. Someone will be the next Kim Dotcom and spend a couple decades in prison for pirating.
No, actually I'm saying that no matter how many times you call it stealing, it doesn't make it so. And the argument is pointless, because the writing is on the wall. Jumping up and down and yelling "this is wrong" is far less constructive than adapting to the new system and making it work for you.
Legal isn't the same thing as right, and ethics are a constantly evolving and relative field. The idea that the "wrongness" of file sharing is set in stone is the biggest lie spread by the other side.
You're good at ignoring the point of somebody's post, aren't you? Please go back and read the message that you quoted, beyond the first sentence. Use the brain you have. Then reply to me. Thank you.
EDIT: Do you know what makes someone a professional musician? Filling out your tax forms and putting "musician" in the slot where you write job. Have you ever gotten paid for playing music? You are a professional musician. Good for you. I have, and I could simply write down musician in the tax slot and go about my business, or not. Again, look at what is THERE. how many places can you go hear music on any given night? THAT'S what matters.
Ohhhh, so you support musicians...by stealing from them? Wait, no, you support musicians you like by stealing from musicians you don't like? Man, this is confusing... Maybe you support musicians by stealing from record labels? None of this is making much sense...
Indie and smaller artists are adversely affected, but not as directly. If U2 never sells another record, I'm pretty sure Bono will still be able to pay his mortgage. But the money labels made from U2's catalog used to go to sign, record and promote new bands. There's a much wider gap now between an independent band and an established act, and a much longer road from promising regional draw to national act, mostly because the step from regional to national is very expensive, and without label support it can take a lot longer to make that transition.
It is also much more difficult for even nationally known bands to make a living. I saw a great documentary a couple weeks ago called "The Other F Word" which was mostly about guys from the SoCal punk scene growing up and dealing with having kids and mortgages and whatnot, but they touched on how the loss of income from recording means bands have to tour A LOT more to make ends meet. Jim Lindberg, lead singer and founding member of Pennywise, quit the band rather than pursue the touring schedule (220 days a year!) that was required to replace the lost income from record sales. That's a guy who built a successful band, is incredibly well known and well respected in his genre, and he had to walk away from music because the new economic ruined his career.
It's pointless to argue with him because he believes it's ok to "steal" it because you can't be caught, and despite the fact the law says its illegal he doesn't believe it. So by definition he is a criminal and the best we can hope for is that the people who do this get caught, although that won't happen until someone smarter, as he puts it, figures a way to catch them. Until then those of us who are honest will continue buying our music to support the bands we like.
So not only do you think it is unstoppable, you actually believe it is morally right??? PLEASE try to justify that, I need a good laugh.
I read your whole response, it doesn't really apply.
Yes, you can still hear plenty of live music, so can I. Except for losing gigs to DJs, which is a separate issue, most bands can still book tours and play live as much as they want. They can't support themselves on touring alone, of course, but they don't have much of a choice because people stopped buying their albums. Are you willing to pay substantially more for live music to make up for the loss of recording income (probably about 50% more per show)?
Well, since I do go to shows, I guess I am, aren't I?
*shrug* I guess my experience is slightly more broad than yours, considering I like, listen to, and perform EDM / computer-instrument-based music as well as rock / physical-instrument-based music.
So someone spends time to write a song. Someone(s) spend time and money to record it, market it and make it available for purchase. Someone owns the idea. Someone owns the labor that went into creating it. Someone paid money to get it recorded and to market. They've asked that you pay for the right to use the product of their efforts. They legally, ethically, morally and any other -ly you wish to add HAVE EVERY RIGHT, in fact they DESERVE, to be paid for their work. You legally, ethically and morally have NO RIGHT to use the fruit of someone elses labor without their permission.
You take it without paying what they've asked. And that's somehow not stealing?
How do you justify your position. I'm dying to see the mental gymnastics involved here.
This is true but not really in dispute.
The technology makes it so easy for you to take other people's work and disregard any rights of ownership they may have, so that is what's going to happen.
That doesn't mean it's not stealing. It just means you can't practically be stopped.
A noble thief is still a thief.
So go back and look at some o the examples. All the internet examples......how many of them are really giving away stuff as part of for-profit activities. Even if you accept that there is altruism in there, there's also a hell of a profit motive. MySQL, for example, was always a for-profit tool. And we are starting to realise how much privacy we are giving up to data-mining companies like Google and Facebook.
Those drug companies who profit from the drugs they create. If the profits weren't there, so there was no reason to spend the money developing the new drugs, are we better off?
This is is not a "You kids get off my lawn post". I agree the horse has bolted, and I am following this thread because I'm interested in business models that are viable in the new world.
Nor am I saying the morality is black and white. I think it's more complex than that. Property rights, when honoured, do get exploited sometimes.
But I cannot let your "We've won" claim be seen as possibly implying "Therefore we were morally right" without putting the counter argument. You've won the same way that a criminal wins if I hand over my wallet because he points a gun at me.
Established legally? Yes, I guess so. But ethically? Not a chance in hell.
See the posts about transferable copyrights on the last few pages for example; there is nothing ethical about claiming ownership of someone else's creations. I fully support copyrights, but only if it applies to the artists directly. Any other person or company claiming to be entitled to a piece of the pie is only in it for the money; let's not be naive here, the music industry is ruled by businessmen, not musicians. And we all know how much businessmen care about ethics and morals when it comes to making money...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Anytime a record label or publishing company or anyone other than a creator has a right to something, it is always because the creator transferred that right to them, usually in exchange for money. If an artist cannot transfer their copyright, what value does it really have?
