• 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.

File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

#281
rocksmoot said:
What do the numbers have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Actually those YouTube numbers for Psy have a huge significance. He has the most watched YouTube clip ever and has made a lot of money off of that. That's how a lot of acts are getting compensated now, through the number of YouTube views. More views equal higher advertising fees for advertisers to have a promo clip or banner ad on the page.

Since digital music can be had for free by anyone who owns a computer or mobile phone, the number of units of prerecorded music sold may no longer be the measuring stick for successful bands. The number of YouTube views, Facebook likes, and Twitter followers will continue to carry more weight and will open new paths for musicians to be compensated for their work.

Like others have said on this thread, working bands can still make money playing live. You can't digitally duplicate the experience of attending a live music performance. You can't digitally copy a t-shirt, baseball cap, belt buckle, sticker, or any other type of band merchandise.

Bands and musicians that adapt to these changes will continue to thrive. Those who don't will have a tougher time at it and continue to complain about "those blasted kids with their downloading".
 
#282
Heres what one of the guitar players (former guitar player) of a band I like said in the comments of a youtube video of a song of his someone had posted.


Hey, just chiming in here on this "debate" about proceeds and supporting the band. I played guitar on this record, and personally financed 1/3 of the recording costs, and paid for 1/2 of the Derek Riggs album artwork. I have not, to this day received one penny from any of this. And that's OK, it takes a lot of investment to get something going, but don't assume that paying for music helps out anyone but the record labels. Buy merch DIRECTLY from bands, at shows or from their own merch site. Peace.
 
#283
JellinWellen said:
Heres what one of the guitar players (former guitar player) of a band I like said in the comments of a youtube video of a song of his someone had posted.


Hey, just chiming in here on this "debate" about proceeds and supporting the band. I played guitar on this record, and personally financed 1/3 of the recording costs, and paid for 1/2 of the Derek Riggs album artwork. I have not, to this day received one penny from any of this. And that's OK, it takes a lot of investment to get something going, but don't assume that paying for music helps out anyone but the record labels. Buy merch DIRECTLY from bands, at shows or from their own merch site. Peace.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and who's paying for that tour and that merch in the first place? Chances are it's the record label. There are plenty of idiot musicians who get into deals with record labels and then blame the labels for recouping their expenses. That's how record labels work and it's totally legitimate. If you don't like the conditions of the deal don't sign. And how many morons are going to read that "don't assume paying for music helps out anyone but the record labels" and not consider that plenty of artists do make money from the sale of their music?
 
#284
AaronVonRock said:
Bands and musicians that adapt to these changes will continue to thrive. Those who don't will have a tougher time at it and continue to complain about "those blasted kids with their downloading".
Click to expand...

Continue to thrive? I have to ask, did you ever make a living as a musician? I think a lot of us here would love to know what your experience as a professional musician is...
 
#286
funkytown said:
It's not theft it's fair use. perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Sure. We have all kinds of legal theft. Goes back again to the question of legal vs moral. You can buy a cd for 10 bucks and then give it to 5 friends legally. But dont fool yourself into thinking you didnt deprive that artist of 50 bucks. I see nothing wrong with loaning out a cd but I dont kid myself into believing I hold some sort of moral high ground.
 
#287
http://music.yahoo.com/news/grateful-dead-songwriter-hits-road-rare-tour-100837009.html

From the article...
Hunter, 72, will start a solo U.S. tour September 26 in Huntington, New York, after recovering from a spinal infection, with a larger tour possible in the spring. A drying up of royalties as free music flourishes on the Internet, reflections on his illness and a desire to perform all contributed to the decision to hit the road.

"Has publishing gone belly-up? It certainly has," he said in a rare interview. "But I wouldn't be doing it if the pleasure of doing it weren't foremost."
 
#288
bkbirge said:
http://music.yahoo.com/news/grateful-dead-songwriter-hits-road-rare-tour-100837009.html

From the article...
Hunter, 72, will start a solo U.S. tour September 26 in Huntington, New York, after recovering from a spinal infection, with a larger tour possible in the spring. A drying up of royalties as free music flourishes on the Internet, reflections on his illness and a desire to perform all contributed to the decision to hit the road.

"Has publishing gone belly-up? It certainly has," he said in a rare interview. "But I wouldn't be doing it if the pleasure of doing it weren't foremost."
Click to expand...

So it's just fine to screw artists out of what they are due since they love doing it. Okay.

Edit: Misinterpreted the quoted post. I'll amend my comment to say,

And it's NOT fine to screw artists out of what they are due just because they love doing it.

:)
 
#290
AaronVonRock said:
Actually those YouTube numbers for Psy have a huge significance. He has the most watched YouTube clip ever and has made a lot of money off of that. That's how a lot of acts are getting compensated now, through the number of YouTube views. More views equal higher advertising fees for advertisers to have a promo clip or banner ad on the page.

Since digital music can be had for free by anyone who owns a computer or mobile phone, the number of units of prerecorded music sold may no longer be the measuring stick for successful bands. The number of YouTube views, Facebook likes, and Twitter followers will continue to carry more weight and will open new paths for musicians to be compensated for their work.

Like others have said on this thread, working bands can still make money playing live. You can't digitally duplicate the experience of attending a live music performance. You can't digitally copy a t-shirt, baseball cap, belt buckle, sticker, or any other type of band merchandise.

Bands and musicians that adapt to these changes will continue to thrive. Those who don't will have a tougher time at it and continue to complain about "those blasted kids with their downloading".
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not arguing that marketing strategies like free music and social media promotion don't work, of course they do, and smart business people will execute smart business strategies and perhaps as a result, they may even prosper.

If I choose to publish a song for free, all well and good. But suppose I choose to retain a certain part of my catalog for box-set vinyl sale only, and some schmuck rips it to digital and posts it on ScrewTheArtists.com. In this case, I didn't make the choice, the schmuck did. He and everyone who subsequently grabs it are stealing my property.

You can call this whining, you can call it unrealistic of me, you can label me anything you like, it doesn't matter even a little bit. My rights are mine, given to me by my creator, and they aren't subject anyone else's re-interpretation of them. The number of thieves simply don't matter.
 
#292
Let's try another tack. Your position seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong about this AaronVonRock, that since free music is a smart business strategy, file sharing of all music is okay.

My position is, even if selling music is a poor business strategy and will ultimately be doomed to failure, and even if every single musician on the face of the planet gets fabulously wealthy by offering their music for free, stealing music that is not offered for free is illegal, unethical, and immoral, and constitues a violation of the rights of the stupid business person. It's not a crime to be a stupid business person. It is a crime to steal a stupid business person's assets.

Edit: I find it incredible that I have to explain this simple principle again and again.
 
#294
These things you call crimes are only social stipulations. They are intangible concepts defined by humans. Laws did not exist until we made them and it is us who consider it immoral or unethical to disobey laws. Is there anything wrong in anarchy, a lack of government, law? Yes, because we have been raised to think that that is the right way to do things (with a government, justice system, etc...) Couldn't a socialistic system succeed in the music industry? That's how American football generally functions, why not the same for artists and musicians?

random food for thought :)
 
#300
SidMau said:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?cli...1c.1.26.mobile-gws-serp..5.8.1162.bK2H_gYFN1I
Click to expand...

Your model is pretty funny. There's no socialism between the teams and the fans that are buying the merch and tickets. No fan is stealing the experience of a game without compensation to the performers.

Based on your link, if we were to do the same thing as musicians, I'm still waiting for my redistribution of wealth from Peter Gabriel, Sting, Rush, etc. The consumer would still have to pay.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back