File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

[Musiclogic]

I always laugh at these threads. They are always started by some "artist" who plays for the "art" and when you listen to what they call "their art".....if they have ever recorded anything at all....it's something noone would pay to listen to.

The internet came along 20 years too late. In a time when children were raised with an entitled sense of being, Libertine mindset, and no work ethic. They think playing 7 shows in 7 towns to crowds numbering in the teens is "going on TOUR". The "fix it in the timecode" mentality is their idea of prepped recording. Soloing over a Stevie Wonder song is "grooving", and tje menial task of learning songs for sets is beneath their PhD grade Noodling.

Musicians can barely make meager living anymore because of the "it should all be free" attitudes.

DJ's take all the free music, mock up mixes with it and get paid a lot of money to play the mixes of the music they stole from musicians, while the musician makes nothing for their work. DJ play all the clubs Bands used to play before the onslaught of file sharing.

Altruism is a great thing when it's honest. Otherwise, it's just theft.

 

[bass12]

Trying to make money off digital sales seems absurd to me. Digital music should be free; physical formats still sell. People still definitely pay for CDs, cassettes, and vinyl, whether b/c of audio quality or the tradition of holding someone tangible//the ritual of buying physical copies. Digital music is singularly a promotional tool/convenience (b/c sometimes taking physical formats places can be inconveniencing). Bands barely make money anyway//only make money from touring and merch sales. The expectation of people paying for digital formats is outdated and practically asinine.

This is, unfortunately, a typical mindset amongst teenagers today. Kids who haven't a clue about what it takes to support oneself as a musician or songwriter. Yes, people still pay for CDs (cassettes - well, in third world countries that might be worth mentioning), but in far, far fewer numbers than previously. Digital files are not solely promotional tools just because you think they should be. And you're right - most bands do hardly make any money from CD sales. But guess what, most bands make even less from touring and merch sales. Do you have any idea how much money it costs to take a band on tour? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to fill even a small room in a town that isn't your hometown, especially if you don't have a promoter working for you? And not all bands are in it together. What if you're a solo artist and have to hire your musicians to go on the road? Not only will you have to pay a flat fee for each musician, you'll also have to pay for transportation, lodging and probably per diems. So, if you're lucky you make enough to cover the costs of those expenses. Think there's any money left for you at the end? Very possibly not. But you hope that the tour has at least given you, the solo artist, some exposure. Maybe you'll sell some albums (in digital format) online and maybe you'll get some radio play. A few royalties might come in and then you do it all again, hoping that the last tour might have expanded your audience enough that you won't be as out of pocket at the end of the next one.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Invalid Link Removed is an interesting article. The author's main claim is "The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public."

I'm not sure I agree completely, but it's definitely part of the whole complex puzzle.

 

[dhsierra1]

Well, we don't share the same view when it comes to file sharing. It seems to be a polarizing topic. Since it's something that I'm interested in, I enjoy reading others' opinions on it. Thank you for providing yours. Namaste.

doesn't matter whether or not we share the same view, international law is the ultimate arbiter in the matter. I simply view file sharing as theft, laziness, and unearned entitlement.

And most countries' legal systems share the same view.

You do NOT see real innovation and new technologies come out of countries that have no IP protection in place. None.

 

[bass12]

I agree that digital music should be free (and it is.) Another crazy thing about digital sales is that companies have the nerve to charge $0.99 to download one song. So if I pay to download a 12-13 song album on-line, it's the same cost as buying a physical CD with packaging at a retail store. Outrageous.

You're right - it's absolutely crazy that one should have to pay a whole $0.99 for a song. I mean, that's almost as much as a cup of coffee in most coffee shops, or a half-hours parking in most major U.S. cities, or a chocolate bar, or a tip for one drink at a bar, or...

Do you have any idea how cheap you sound?

 

[rocksmoot]

Well, we don't share the same view when it comes to file sharing. It seems to be a polarizing topic. Since it's something that I'm interested in, I enjoy reading others' opinions on it. Thank you for providing yours. Namaste.

Your interest in file sharing seems to focused on stealing the work of others. You've made no attempt to provide any reasoning to justify your actions other than that you want to.

It's likely that some of the music you've helped yourself to was produced or developed by fellow TB'ers. I wonder what their perspectives would be?

 

[bass12]

Invalid Link Removed is an interesting article. The author's main claim is "The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public."

I'm not sure I agree completely, but it's definitely part of the whole complex puzzle.

I think a big part of the problem with free/pirated downloads is that it makes for quick saturation and a blasé attitude towards music. It's a lot more difficult to expect something to be treasured when it's so easily available and involves no monetary cost.

 

[AaronVonRock]

Invalid Link Removed is an interesting article. The author's main claim is "The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public."

I'm not sure I agree completely, but it's definitely part of the whole complex puzzle.

Good article with some great points. Definitely worth the taking the time to read it. Thanks for sharing. Ideas from the article that jumped out at me are:

"The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition."

"There is no shortage of genius works."

"I was actually surprised iTunes works at all, ever, for anyone — people paying $1 for something of zero marginal cost."

"Literally everyone is a musician if they want to be. Good for culture, bad for employment."

 

[bass12]

doesn't matter whether or not we share the same view, international law is the ultimate arbiter in the matter. I simply view file sharing as theft, laziness, and unearned entitlement.

And most countries' legal systems share the same view.

You do NOT see real innovation and new technologies come out of countries that have no IP protection in place. None.

While I generally agree with everything you've said, the above statement is false (just take a look at the Jamaican recording industry of the 60s and 70s).

 

[rocksmoot]

Competition is fine. Theft is immoral, unethical and illegal.

 

[dhsierra1]

While I generally agree with everything you've said, the above statement is false (just take a look at the Jamaican recording industry of the 60s and 70s).

no, it's true, your exception proves the rule, and that was a narrow window of time which is what happens under these circumstances.

If they had IP protection in place they'd be able to retire a bit more comfortably. Lack of protection kills the goose that lays the golden egg(s). People will always create and invent, we're primates and that's what primates do. It's a question of whether or not that's a sustainable situation.

Believe me, I'm no legalist by any stretch of the imagination. You can make anything legal if the will and opportunity is there regardless of how morally repulsive it might be (eg legalized slavery). But this is one of those situations where the law truly serves a good purpose because people can and do make a living from IP. I view it as most traffic laws: a good idea and worth following.

 

[bass12]

no, it's true, your exception proves the rule, and that was a narrow window of time which is what happens under these circumstances.

If they had IP protection in place they'd be able to retire a bit more comfortably. Lack of protection kills the goose that lays the golden egg(s). People will always create and invent, we're primates and that's what primates do. It's a question of whether or not that's a sustainable situation.

Believe me, I'm no legalist by any stretch of the imagination. You can make anything legal if the will and opportunity is there regardless of how morally repulsive it might be (eg legalized slavery). But this is one of those situations where the law truly serves a good purpose because people can and do make a living from IP. I view it as most traffic laws: a good idea and worth following.

I wasn't objecting to the general rule - I was objecting to the "none" part.

 

[dhsierra1]

I wasn't objecting to the general rule - I was objecting to the "none" part.

I stand corrected

 

[lfmn16]

doesn't matter whether or not we share the same view, international law is the ultimate arbiter in the matter. I simply view file sharing as theft, laziness, and unearned entitlement.

And most countries' legal systems share the same view.

So I guess if someone steals their car, they just have a difference of opinion with the thief and its all good.

 

[dhsierra1]

Namaste.

how about "kharma"? What goes around comes around, and I think it's safe to say it's generally accepted that file sharing is theft based on the bulk of international law and the comments here

 

[dhsierra1]

So I guess if someone steals their car, they just have a difference of opinion with the thief and its all good.

not too sure of many countries where that's possible unless the thief is in cahoots with the local authorities

 

[nshuman]

These debates are always funny.

The sad fact is that there is MUCH more competition, not from more musicians but from more mediums. Add to that the fact that disposable income is NOT infinite, and you have the situation we have now.

The argument that piracy hurts sales is true, but piracy has FAR less of an impact as people think. The truth is that people have limited disposable income. Anti-piracy propaganda always starts with the flawed (bordering on idiotic and definitely dishonest) premise that every single download is a missed sale. In reality, just like with movie and software piracy, you cannot invent money that was not there in the first place. A lot of music that is pirated would have never been bought because the people pirating it never had the money for it in the first place. Yeah, a song is just 99 cents. Big deal! Music has to compete with mobile plans, cable bills, data plans (mobile, home, etc), netflix subscriptions, clothing purchases, movie tickets, etc, etc, etc, and, YES, coffee at Starbucks.

The recording and movie industries are the true prima donnas of the piracy debate. Software piracy has been far easier for far longer than music piracy. Software piracy never had to deal with the hurdles faced by music fans. There was never issues with real time (elapsed time) recording, insufficient bandwidth vs size, expensive recording media, slow CPUs vs compression. The fact is that it was always relatively fast to copy software media or, eventually, download software. (I remember when MP3s first came out, when it was just a spec with a few examples floating around on the web and usenet, my friend and I had trouble finding a computer fast enough at college to actually be able to attempt proper playback.)

The software industry, of which I am a part of, realized a long time ago that a download is not a missed sale. You think that all those people with pirated copies of Photoshop had 500$ that they just decided to spend on coffee instead? Same with Office, etc, etc, etc.

People have to make choices. In an increasingly connected world, music has to compete with other stuff, plain and simple. And, all that pop crap, all that music that everyone knows will be popular for a mere few months and be lucky to still be played in dive bars twenty years from now will be a hard sell to consumers. So yes, a teen will decide to pick up a copy of their favourite video game instead. I buy a lot of music, but I buy stuff I like and that I know I will be listening to for a long time to come. I won't buy that catchy song that I kind of think is ok, I'll just listen for it on the radio and when it stops playing, I won't miss it.

Finally, I think people on sites like TB will have a very strong bias on this subject and unfortunately cannot look at the situation and still be rational about it. The reality is that people for whom music is a passion are usually big consumers of music. Older people here will remember saving to buy vinyls, 8-tracks (to play in their Camaro maybe ), cassettes, CDs, digital downloads. But, don't think that everyone else was doing the same for all those years. A lot of people did not want to spend all their money on those products and simply do even less today now that more mediums compete for their money. The market did not evaporate because of the internet, it just had to compete with newer products that, in many instances, turned out to be more interesting/of higher quality.

Anyway, take all this with a grain of salt

 

[felixxx]

how about "kharma"? What goes around comes around, and I think it's safe to say it's generally accepted that file sharing is theft based on the bulk of international law and the comments here

It is not generally accepted and it is not safe to say. Simply because file sharing is not stealing. Legal term is 'copyright infringement'. I wish people stop using the wrong terminology.

 

[dhsierra1]

It is not generally accepted and it is not safe to say. Simply because file sharing is not stealing. Legal term is 'copyright infringement'. I wish people stop using the wrong terminology.

wrong on the first point as far as US and EU law goes. Have you ever been involved in IP litigation?

As for the second, fine, I stand corrected on the terminology.

 

[AaronVonRock]

How is file sharing different from borrowing a book from a friend and reading it? Or borrowing a DVD and watching it? Or a CD and listening to it? In all cases, I enjoyed the product without paying for it. The artist, publisher, and movie studio did not make any revenue off of me. Did I steal their product? Am I guilty of copyright infringement?

What about buying used books and CDs? Did the artist and record label lose a sale? Is that illegal? That's what Garth Brooks and Columbia tried to argue in the 90s and they got laughed at.