A devastating response to the "free music" generation.

[dj150888]

And that brings me back to my original point. You guys aren't getting great music (which to my mind implies both quality and scale) because you aren't paying for it. They don't get promotion because promotion costs money, often more than the cost of recording the album. That's what record companies really do, they front the money so the music just doesn't get made, it gets a real shot at getting heard because, as I'm sure you know, musicians tend to be insecure nut jobs and the last thing they're good at is promoting themselves. So even if it's good, music that isn't getting heard isn't going to move the culture forward. So yeah, it's your fault. Pay for music, especially the good stuff so there's enough money for record companies can do their job and musicians can do theirs.

I'm getting lots if great music. Its not my fault you're too lazy to look for it. The nature of the music industry now means that we don't HAVE to be spoonfed whatever trash the big companys shove down your throat. No matter how specific your tastes, its never been easier to find something that you will love.

As someone who supposedly loves music, is it not important enough to you to take a few minutes to look through what's available to find the great albums?

Why does an album have to "move culture forward" to be great? Who made that rule up? If Stevie had released the exact same album, but it only had the promotion to achieve a fraction of those sales, it would still be a great album.

 

[notverygood]

Does anyone else notice lately that any thread going over 3 or 4 pages ends up with youth bashing? They're thieves, lazy, bad musicians, etc. I would think the millions of "illegally recorded" cassette tapes decaying in our landfills proves that boomers and early gen-x people loved their "pirated" music just as much. They didn't have the internet and social media to help them, though. Of course it's not right, but please stop pretending that the teenager version of yourselves would not have been downloading music. There were just as many bad bands then as today. Without youtube though you didn't have to see them. It's one thing to discuss the new future of music, and how it will affect bands today. It's another to pretend that all music's ills started in 2000.

 

[Jhengsman]

That was not all pirated, It was just changing to a mobile format without buying an additional copy. Standard stereo decks did not even have jacks to record and the double cassette deck with a high speed record came when buring CDs was just starting

 

[Pacman]

Does anyone else notice lately that any thread going over 3 or 4 pages ends up with youth bashing? They're thieves, lazy, bad musicians, etc. I would think the millions of "illegally recorded" cassette tapes decaying in our landfills proves that boomers and early gen-x people loved their "pirated" music just as much. They didn't have the internet and social media to help them, though. Of course it's not right, but please stop pretending that the teenager version of yourselves would not have been downloading music. There were just as many bad bands then as today. Without youtube though you didn't have to see them. It's one thing to discuss the new future of music, and how it will affect bands today. It's another to pretend that all music's ills started in 2000.

The major difference is that with cassettes, you didn't get an EXACT high quality copy. You got a very noticeable generation loss. Did it effect sales? Probably, but because of the loss, it didn't have the same impact digital copies do.

 

[Emilym80]

Ok, a few points...
I am a member of the "Free Entitlement/Culture etc Generation", like Emily, though I am a few years younger than her. I am yet to leave high school. I work a part time job and get paid minimum wage. I spend almost all of my money on music that I try to download directly from an artist's website or buy from a CD shop or merchandise, gig tickets etc. I'm not trying to make out like I'm morally superior, just that not everyone in my generation/age group is a good-for-nothing rotten pirate. I have 1,200 songs and I've paid for every single one... So I don't think we should completely give up hope yet. There are other people like me of my age group. Though we're definitely the minority. Anyway, this reminded me of an article I read about a guy who has been able to make a significant amount of money off his music without touring or record label support. I don't like his music but he seems pretty business savvy and it's an interesting read.
Invalid Link Removed
I'd like to believe that he isn't the future of music and bands can still get successful like they did in the late 60's/early 70's- through word of mouth, radio play and album sales/touring, a la Rush and Led Zep and all those bands that have endured through the years and become somewhat iconic... But that just doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

 

[beggar98]

My problems with illegal file sharing:

1. There is still a ton of money changing hands, but none of it goes to the artists. This is not about a "free exchange of ideas", this is about people looking to profit off of others work without compensation. PirateBay makes $14 million per month. Kim Dotcom is a BILLIONAIRE, though thankfully he's an incarcerated billionaire. Sean Parker is worth $2.5 billion. Google, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. all make huge sums of money by supporting illegal file sharing. Invalid Link Removed

2. The notion that there's nothing that can be done about it. There is. It is a crime, and ISPs should be involved in fighting it. They should readily hand over the IP addresses of downloaders, and the FBI should prosecute these criminals. The ISPs like to say they are for the "free exchange of ideas" and they don't want to "limit free speech", but see what they're saying when it's they're software codes that are being freely traded. The RIAA shouldn't have to sue anyone. If someone steals your car, the cops do what they can to figure out who did it and the DA does what they can to put that person in jail. Imagine if your car was stolen and it was up to you to find out who took it, and then you needed to find a lawyer and sue them to get your own car back.

3.Musicians who download illegally. Worst people in the world. I can only hope that all your gear gets stolen and you can no longer make music, because that's what illegal downloading is doing to THOUSANDS of professional musicians every year.

 

[notverygood]

The major difference is that with cassettes, you didn't get an EXACT high quality copy. You got a very noticeable generation loss. Did it effect sales? Probably, but because of the loss, it didn't have the same impact digital copies do.

It had less effect, but not because of the loss. Because it was somewhat inconvenient. That is the only reason it wasn't as widespread. You had to go to the store and buy cassettes, and then find someone who had what you wanted. Quality loss didn't matter because we didn't know any better. Let's face it, what we did was stealing just the same. In Mick Fleetwood's autobiography he stated that the Tusk album was ripped off the radio enough to make a dent in it's sales. Roger Waters said the same about one of PF's albums in the book Comfortly Numb. We were no better than our kids. They just have better tools.

 

[fingerbun]

My problems with illegal file sharing:

2. The notion that there's nothing that can be done about it. There is. It is a crime, and ISPs should be involved in fighting it. They should readily hand over the IP addresses of downloaders, and the FBI should prosecute these criminals.

We've actually recently had that tested legally in Australia, where a consortium of music studios sued a major ISP to make them responsible for copyright enforcement. The ISP won the case, though in this instance the studios wanted the ISP to remove internet access for people it identified as pirating. Summary in the link below:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...od-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html

 

[pmchenry]

"Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change..."

Spoken like someone who's generation has fallen out of touch. Morality and principles are a wholly relative thing, ever changing and evolving(old people hate that word, too) and to say something is evil simply because it asks you to reevaluate the way you look at a situation is close-minded fear mongering.

The free exchange of ideas is a GOOD thing that has benefited countless people around the world. Artists that have freely and voluntarily released their work on sites such as The Pirate Bay have enjoyed extraordinary success that they would not have otherwise had a shot at(3 such artists have topped the charts in Europe already).

Furthermore, the statistics used in the article are incredibly misleading. Notice he uses the term "revenue" instead of "profit". The technology age has vastly lowered the cost of running a record label, both in terms of labor and materials. As such, prices have dropped to stay ahead in an ever competing e-marketplace, but while revenue is now lower, profits are at an all time high!

Every study that's ever been done regarding electronic piracy has shown that it increases sales in the long run because it leads to consumer confidence in a product that they've already tested. Even Microsoft business group president Jeff Raikes has publicly decried "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else..." Since when has Microsoft been in the business of anything other than profit, profit, and profit???

It's just nonsense from a generation that couldn't keep up with a rapidly evolving world.

 

[DeadGoonz]

3.Musicians who download illegally. Worst people in the world. I can only hope that all your gear gets stolen and you can no longer make music, because that's what illegal downloading is doing to THOUSANDS of professional musicians every year.

From way atop your moral pedestal you have over looked your own moral short comings. Wishing ill will and misfortune on people you do not know and will likely never meet shows us that your moral compass is in need of some calibration.

FYI, I have had all my gear stolen when I was in my early twenties, long before file sharing was around. To you that is simply karma taking a pre emptive strike on me. Well I recovered from that and slowly purchase new gear. So by your logic I have paid my dues and I can download at will because my "future" moral short comings have already been adjudicated.

 

[fingerbun]

"Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change..."

Spoken like someone who's generation has fallen out of touch. Morality and principles are a wholly relative thing, ever changing and evolving(old people hate that word, too) and to say something is evil simply because it asks you to reevaluate the way you look at a situation is close-minded fear mongering.

The free exchange of ideas is a GOOD thing that has benefited countless people around the world. Artists that have freely and voluntarily released their work on sites such as The Pirate Bay have enjoyed extraordinary success that they would not have otherwise had a shot at(3 such artists have topped the charts in Europe already).

Furthermore, the statistics used in the article are incredibly misleading. Notice he uses the term "revenue" instead of "profit". The technology age has vastly lowered the cost of running a record label, both in terms of labor and materials. As such, prices have dropped to stay ahead in an ever competing e-marketplace, but while revenue is now lower, profits are at an all time high!

Every study that's ever been done regarding electronic piracy has shown that it increases sales in the long run because it leads to consumer confidence in a product that they've already tested. Even Microsoft business group president Jeff Raikes has publicly decried "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else..." Since when has Microsoft been in the business of anything other than profit, profit, and profit???

It's just nonsense from a generation that couldn't keep up with a rapidly evolving world.

Why is it out of touch to regard morals as constant? In this case, to regard stealing as wrong?

An artist choosing to give away their work on Pirate Bay doesn't make it right to steal another artist's work.

I'd like to see your studies showing piracy is good. I've not seen one. Look at your Jeff Raikes quote again...."IF they are going to pirate..." is about it being unavoidable, not good.

 

[beggar98]

From way atop your moral pedestal you have over looked your own moral short comings. Wishing ill will and misfortune on people you do not know and will likely never meet shows us that your moral compass is in need of some calibration.

FYI, I have had all my gear stolen when I was in my early twenties, long before file sharing was around. To you that is simply karma taking a pre emptive strike on me. Well I recovered from that and slowly purchase new gear. So by your logic I have paid my dues and I can download at will because my "future" moral short comings have already been adjudicated.

That's not really how morality works, but, hey, if it fits your needs...

 

[beggar98]

"Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change..."

Spoken like someone who's generation has fallen out of touch. Morality and principles are a wholly relative thing, ever changing and evolving(old people hate that word, too) and to say something is evil simply because it asks you to reevaluate the way you look at a situation is close-minded fear mongering.

The free exchange of ideas is a GOOD thing that has benefited countless people around the world. Artists that have freely and voluntarily released their work on sites such as The Pirate Bay have enjoyed extraordinary success that they would not have otherwise had a shot at(3 such artists have topped the charts in Europe already).

Furthermore, the statistics used in the article are incredibly misleading. Notice he uses the term "revenue" instead of "profit". The technology age has vastly lowered the cost of running a record label, both in terms of labor and materials. As such, prices have dropped to stay ahead in an ever competing e-marketplace, but while revenue is now lower, profits are at an all time high!

Every study that's ever been done regarding electronic piracy has shown that it increases sales in the long run because it leads to consumer confidence in a product that they've already tested. Even Microsoft business group president Jeff Raikes has publicly decried "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else..." Since when has Microsoft been in the business of anything other than profit, profit, and profit???

It's just nonsense from a generation that couldn't keep up with a rapidly evolving world.

Please name the three artists who gave away their material via Piratebay who have topped the charts in Europe, and which charts they topped.

This isn't about a "free exchange of ideas". Anyone who buys into that line of thinking is being played. If Google is so in favor of this free exchange of ideas, why haven't they made their algorithm publicly available yet? If Megaupload is so in favor of free intellectual property, why would they Invalid Link Removed? If file sharing isn't a for-profit enterprise, why did a Swedish advertising company buy Pirate Bay for $7.8 million? This is not about the free exchange of ideas, this is about tech companies getting rich off the backs of content creators without compensating them.

 

[pie_man_25]

this was actually a VERY interesting read, it's going right on my facebook

 

[Kwesi]

That's not really how morality works, but, hey, if it fits your needs...

That is almost exactly how morality works. Perhaps not in this particular case but the idea was what is and isn't morally sound is subject to change over time. Less than a hundred years ago, homosexuality was considered immoral and only recently in modern society is that being challenged. I do agree that illegally downloading music is theft. Plain and simple. So is getting burned CDs from your friends or sharing your iTunes library. I've done it all for years but stopped downloading in the last 3 years (from non-major label artists) because it felt right to me. That said, there is no could reason to condemn all p2p file sharing because its done plenty of good as well.

 

[fishdreams]

I visited a gig a few years ago which did the 'suggested donation" thing of $10,- . I saw about 25 people there, I heard them talk "I have no money. I cant pay...blablah...hey what you're doing afterwards? I was thinking of getting a bottle of wine at d'agostino and grab a movie".

Total take at the gig: $22,- So would they steal that bottle of wine and sneak into the movie cinema afterwards without paying too? But of course not!

I think that is the real issue. If someone says I steel both the files and the computer out of the Apple store, that at least is consistent. I really don't see how one can defend grabbing music for free while at the same time bending over backwards to pay $2300 a year for the Mac, smartphone and G4 plan.

By the way, I always wonder how many musicians in cover bands who "only play when I get paid" make a point of ensuring that the composers/songwriters of the tunes they play get paid their due, also. (yeah, i know-it the venue's responsibility. so boycott the venue if you're serious about this)

 

[beggar98]

That is almost exactly how morality works. Perhaps not in this particular case but the idea was what is and isn't morally sound is subject to change over time. Less than a hundred years ago, homosexuality was considered immoral and only recently in modern society is that being challenged. I do agree that illegally downloading music is theft. Plain and simple. So is getting burned CDs from your friends or sharing your iTunes library. I've done it all for years but stopped downloading in the last 3 years (from non-major label artists) because it felt right to me. That said, there is no could reason to condemn all p2p file sharing because its done plenty of good as well.

Mistakes of the past should not be used to defend mistakes of the present. Society as a whole is a terrible arbiter of morality, masses are too easily swayed by fear and greed. That which is socially acceptable is not necessarily morally right. For example, Germany 1933-1945.

Why do you still steal from major label artists?

 

[Kwesi]

Mistakes of the past should not be used to defend mistakes of the present. Society as a whole is a terrible arbiter of morality, masses are too easily swayed by fear and greed. That which is socially acceptable is not necessarily morally right. For example, Germany 1933-1945.

Why do you still steal from major label artists?

Then who or what decides how moral an a took is if not society? The way I see it morals are different from person to person but there's alot that most folks can agree on.

I steal from major label artists for the same reasons anyone else does, I believe they can afford it.

 

[ubermiguel]

Thought experiment: I illegally download albums I would never actually pay real money for (i.e.: want to hear an album before deciding if I like it or not). Did the artist suffer because of it? Am I stealing?

 

[beggar98]

Then who or what decides how moral an a took is if not society? The way I see it morals are different from person to person but there's alot that most folks can agree on.

I see morality as absolute. There is right and there is wrong. Certainly there are situations where one moral imperative collides with another, but I can't see how that could possibly apply to stealing music.

I steal from major label artists for the same reasons anyone else does, I believe they can afford it.

Not sure anyone with even a basic grasp of right and wrong could possibly see how that is morally justifiable. Where do you draw the line? Do you make sure the band has recouped their recording costs yet and are actually profiting from the recording? What about when a major label buys an indie label, is the indie label's catalog then fair game? How is that the fault of the artist?