• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

...
It is embarrassing to read the twisted, tortured, attempt at logic that some people use to try to justify stealing someone else's work.
...

Absolutely.

The simple truth is people want things that evidently has a value to them, but they don't want to pay for this value or acknowledge the work that has gone into creating it. Some even seem to belive they are somehow entitled to get it for free and get angry if you want to get paid for your work. Mindboggling thinking.
.
 
It's theft, pure and simple. Imagine if after a week of work somebody 'downloaded' your paycheck because they believe whatever it is you do to eke out a living says 'It should be free"
Wounder how that's gonna float when I go to my Lamborghini dealer and try that load....

"But officer it should be free"


Seriously, pay for it if you want it. How long to you think it's going to be before they slap such encryption on a CD that it makes it impossible to listen to due to having to unlock a song over and over again. That or people just stop releasing things and say screw you?

:D
 
I haven't been closely following this thread, and bottom line of the whole subject for me is that I either accept that things have changed, or lose... but that doesn't mean that I believe music should be free.

I remember being able to play a gig with the hope that we could walk out of the gig with a couple of hundred more than the gig paid, if we wow-ed them enough with our performance. I played with a woman who sold her cds for $20, and just about every wed night she'd sell at least 10 cds in a french restaurant we had a steady gig at. The Nerve used to walk away sometimes with nothing, but often times with an extra $60 - $150. That extra $$$ goes a long way on tours. CD release parties we'd make a lot. Alas, them days are gone.

People argue you shouldn't have to pay for music without hearing it. People used to hear it at the gigs. Then buy it if they liked it. And they're forgetting that it was much, MUCH easier to get people to buy your original music, than it is to get a club to pay decently for an original band. Been in the game a long time, and played all over the world, in some pretty happening groups and places too. To walk out of an original gig with more than $75 per person in yer pocket takes more time, work, and investment than any other job I could possibly imagine. And it in fact rarely even happens.

No thanks to all the musicians who support file sharing. So much easier to sell music, than have to support ourselves through these other means.

But I accept that those days are gone, and realize that to sit around insisting that people pay for my music is a losing battle. I've come to start accepting the music I make on a spiritual sort of level. I have enough money to do all I need to do in life, and most of what I want. Pretty content here. I will keep working, producing music, putting it out to the world, and let the powers that be decide the rest. I'm finding myself happiest like this.
 
I haven't been closely following this thread, and bottom line of the whole subject for me is that I either accept that things have changed, or lose... but that doesn't mean that I believe music should be free.

I remember being able to play a gig with the hope that we could walk out of the gig with a couple of hundred more than the gig paid, if we wow-ed them enough with our performance. I played with a woman who sold her cds for $20, and just about every wed night she'd sell at least 10 cds in a french restaurant we had a steady gig at. The Nerve used to walk away sometimes with nothing, but often times with an extra $60 - $150. That extra $$$ goes a long way on tours. CD release parties we'd make a lot. Alas, them days are gone.

People argue you shouldn't have to pay for music without hearing it. People used to hear it at the gigs. Then buy it if they liked it. And they're forgetting that it was much, MUCH easier to get people to buy your original music, than it is to get a club to pay decently for an original band. Been in the game a long time, and played all over the world, in some pretty happening groups and places too. To walk out of an original gig with more than $75 per person in yer pocket takes more time, work, and investment than any other job I could possibly imagine. And it in fact rarely even happens.

No thanks to all the musicians who support file sharing. So much easier to sell music, than have to support ourselves through these other means.

But I accept that those days are gone, and realize that to sit around insisting that people pay for my music is a losing battle. I've come to start accepting the music I make on a spiritual sort of level. I have enough money to do all I need to do in life, and most of what I want. Pretty content here. I will keep working, producing music, putting it out to the world, and let the powers that be decide the rest. I'm finding myself happiest like this.

Truly excellent post! I 100% agree. I'll keep trying to find ways to make money at my original music, but other than the stuff I write on commission I see little way to make money with my original music these days. I do it other ways, session work, arrangements and compositions for others, wedding gigs.

I make much more as a classical musician playing 300 year old material than on bass guitar unfortunately.
 
It's theft, pure and simple. Imagine if after a week of work somebody 'downloaded' your paycheck because they believe whatever it is you do to eke out a living says 'It should be free"
Wounder how that's gonna float when I go to my Lamborghini dealer and try that load....

"But officer it should be free"


Seriously, pay for it if you want it. How long to you think it's going to be before they slap such encryption on a CD that it makes it impossible to listen to due to having to unlock a song over and over again. That or people just stop releasing things and say screw you?

:D

Your example is very extreme, but why not encryption? You can't leave your bike unlocked and expect it to be there when you get back in my neighborhood.
 
Rather, the idea that it's stealing is an artificial construct, and a law is passed to enforce that construct. If there really are millions pirating, perhaps enough for a majority, swat that hornet's nest a few times too many and they may just vote away that law...

You've put your finger on the difference between individual rights and laws. It is my right, independent of any law, to own and retain control of personal property and to not have to surrender it without compensation. It doesn't matter if everyone else on the planet wants my stuff, it's mine to use as I see fit.

To be sure, artists will and do lose their property against those kinds of odds, but their right to that property is real, and the millions of people that help themselves to it are the moral equivalent of a looting mob.

In the US this principle is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in other places it's known as one of a human being's Natural Rights. The fact that none of you seem to get this, or if you do, don't care, is a pretty scary thing to me. If you're not on the side of individual rights and liberty, you're part of the mob.
 
Your example is very extreme, but why not encryption? You can't leave your bike unlocked and expect it to be there when you get back in my neighborhood.

I'm in favor of encryption as well, if it's execution is consistent with IP protection and the fair use doctrine. To me that's an engineering problem rather than a question of whether or not it's the right thing to do.
 
I thought you said "I'm done with this thread" !

Actually the answer to my question is- you can't. Blame the mishandling of the mp3 and the emergence of the Internet, and the RIAA's inability to deal with it. So now we live in a world where MP3s that cost too much, and CDs that cost too much. Supply and demand has been ignored. Also the culture of audio fidelity is all but gone. The CD and liner notes aren't as important as to the older generation.
The Internet is a heck of a thing.
 
I thought you said "I'm done with this thread" !

Oh, that's right, I forgot. :)

Actually the answer to my question is- you can't. Blame the mishandling of the mp3 and the emergence of the Internet, and the RIAA's inability to deal with it. So now we live in a world where MP3s that cost too much, and CDs that cost too much. Supply and demand has been ignored. Also the culture of audio fidelity is all but gone. The CD and liner notes aren't as important as to the older generation.
The Internet is a heck of a thing.

I disagree that things cost too much. The price of an "album" of music has been pretty static for many years. As a previous poster said, an album is 12-13 dollars, which I remember paying for a CD pre-internet in the late 80's or early 90's. Adjust for inflation and music is probably as cheap as it's ever been. Twelve bucks for an album is a hell of a deal for music that I'm going to enjoy for years to come, and it's the least we can do to respect the artists who produced it.

The only real difference between pre-internet generations and the current generation, IMHO, is that they couldn't get music for free easily before the internet. It sickens me that artists like Joe have had to throw in the towel in the face of the looting mob.
 
I'm not encouraging file sharing. But Honestly if you really believe so strongly that it should never be done/allowed, maybe you should never use youtube again? So much music is available for free on youtube. You should stop using it all together or else you will be funding musical piracy by making youtube Ad money so they can continue operating.
 
I'm not encouraging file sharing. But Honestly if you really believe so strongly that it should never be done/allowed, maybe you should never use youtube again? So much music is available for free on youtube. You should stop using it all together or else you will be funding musical piracy by making youtube Ad money so they can continue operating.

Well said. I personally don't use YouTube. I don't see the difference at this point between YouTube and any other piracy site, so I agree with you completely. I don't use Google either given their position on privacy.
 
I'm not encouraging file sharing. But Honestly if you really believe so strongly that it should never be done/allowed, maybe you should never use youtube again? So much music is available for free on youtube. You should stop using it all together or else you will be funding musical piracy by making youtube Ad money so they can continue operating.

Good point. Is using the YouTube search engine to listen to music that far removed from file sharing? If I want to listen to Queens of the Stone Age, I can enter "Queens of the Stone Age full album" into YouTube and listen to entire albums without paying for them. I could even post a link to the YouTube clip in this thread and give everyone a chance to listen to the albums, too.

What kind of greedy, dishonest lowlife would do something like this?
 
Good point. Is using the YouTube search engine to listen to music that far removed from file sharing? If I want to listen to Queens of the Stone Age, I can enter "Queens of the Stone Age full album" into YouTube and listen to entire albums without paying for it. I could even post a link to the YouTube clip in this thread and give everyone a chance to listen to the albums, too.

What kind of greedy, dishonest lowlife would do something like this?

You said it, brother.
 
Unless it's sanctioned by the artist the album should not be there in the first place. The primary lowlife is the person who unlawfully publishes other people's material.

YouTube is great for those who want to promote themselves, there's of course nothing wrong with publishing your own creations.