File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

[dhsierra1]

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/Submit
noun
1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"

I'd call it stealing based on the definition of infringement.

We still beating this dead horse? It's clear that humans are more than capable of rationalizing any action they want to. Hey, it's all good, man.......

 

[dhsierra1]

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

How does Somalia and Afghanistan sound to you? Lots of anarchy there, be my guest

 

[bass12]

It doesn't make it ok or not ok, it just makes it not "stealing".

It seems there are people here getting really hung up on the "literal" meaning of the word "theft". I guess you can't really "steal" someone's idea, for example, but we have, as a society, generally agreed that using someone's idea without permission in certain cases constitutes an unethical action. You can continue to argue about the "real" meaning of the word "theft" but I honestly don't see the point given the context.

 

[blue4]

American football is socialistic? In what way?

He's probably referring to the shared media money. It keeps small market teams viable. Without it we would probably have to watch New York play Dallas every Sunday. That's the only thing I can think of.

 

[blue4]

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.

If it was like the NFL, every musician would make the same amount from any TV deal. So Sting would get the same amount that Peter Gabriel gets despite having a bigger audience or tv market.

 

[funkytown]

It seems there are people here getting really hung up on the "literal" meaning of the word "theft". I guess you can't really "steal" someone's idea, for example, but we have, as a society, generally agreed that using someone's idea without permission in certain cases constitutes an unethical action. You can continue to argue about the "real" meaning of the word "theft" but I honestly don't see the point given the context.

Agreed.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

As far as I know, stores that use "lead-in" items (also known as "loss leaders") have the ability to decide for themselves what items they will use. You don't go into a Best Buy and take a 54" Plasma screen and walk out without paying because you've decided it's a "loss leader".

If you've ever worked retail, you probably haven't done it recently....

To use Best Buy as an example since I worked there as recently as 2 years ago, I can verify this as a current selling model. There are many items they run at normal prices and LOSE money (PC sales to be specific) when they sell just that. So how do they recoup money? Protection plans, services, accessories, software, and tying it with something that they do have lots of markup on (Say, a new CD player for your car to listen to all those CD's you'll be burning now). So this is a valid example, but there is much more cost incurred to manufacture and design a computer than to record a song. I've heard many amateur chaps on here record stuff in their garages that could go on a store-bought CD and not sound any different than the "pro" stuff. Since an album is a lower price point than a computer and it's just copied intellectual property or art, it's much more reasonable to see it put out as marketing or advertising. Like someone noted with the Danzig model...if they want an HD audio CD with liner notes, pictures, all kinds of extras and a "making of" DVD included...get them to pay for that.

 

[blue4]

It seems there are people here getting really hung up on the "literal" meaning of the word "theft". I guess you can't really "steal" someone's idea, for example, but we have, as a society, generally agreed that using someone's idea without permission in certain cases constitutes an unethical action. You can continue to argue about the "real" meaning of the word "theft" but I honestly don't see the point given the context.

My only point is that it's funny to listen to people who spent their whole youth making mix tapes for their girlfriends, trading cassettes and CDs, taping songs off the radio, copying VCR tapes, and all the rest now getting angry at their kids for doing the exact same thing only with better technology. They didn't care when it was Fleetwood Mac getting ripped off ( Mick F addresses this in his book, pg 219 about millions of people taping Tusk off of a promo radio broadcast). But now, when it's them that could be affected, well now the young people are immoral thieves who have no regard for God given rights. It's stealing now, and it was stealing then.

 

[HolmeBass]

I was talking with a coworker yesterday who downloads everything (music, movies, TV shows). He just turned 60. He said he's finished paying for the same music over and over. First, he bought music on LP. Then, the same titles on cassette. And then, the same titles again on CD.

I did the same thing in the late 80s/early 90s when I transitioned much of my massive cassette collection to CD. Now when I travel, I can fit most of my music collection on a hand-held device. There's no way I'm spending all of that money again just so I can have the luxury of transferring it to MP3. Fool me once...

Well, if you own a copy on vinyl or cassette or CD that you payed for, you are allowed by law to have an electronic backup of that work.

So those recordings you can download from wherever you like/trust for free and use as you will.

Although if you have the CD, how hard is it to rip your own MP3's?

 

[HolmeBass]

If I take a photograph with my digital camera of an original painting for sale at an art gallery, then print out the photo, and then hang it on my wall, is that considered stealing? What if I give a copy of the photo to my friends? Are they stealing, too?

That's basically what file sharing is.

Yes, that is copyright infringement! You get it. Good.

 

[FretNoMore]

Nope, you guys need to read up on copyright laws.

It's quite OK to print someone's photo and hang it on your wall at home, and it's actually also OK to copy a CD and give it to a friend.

It is however not OK to publish said picture or CD online and make them available to the whole world. That includes using someones picture in your blog, or publish an MP3 or video of someone's song on YouTube.

 

[HolmeBass]

At the Frist Art Museum in Nashville, cameras are forbidden and if you start taking pictures of the exhibits the docents will ask you to leave. Not sure about a hole in the wall gallery in East Nashville, but would be interested in whether someone could go into the British Museum and the Renaissance Masters exhibit, whip out an Iphone and flash away. Anyone know?

In the British Museum, almost everything is in the public domain, so you can take photos. Flash photos, however, are strictly forbidden because they degrade the items on display.

 

[Febs]

Nope, you guys need to read up on copyright laws.

It's quite OK to print someone's photo and hang it on your wall at home, and it's actually also OK to copy a CD and give it to a friend.

Citation, please.

(Edit: the reason I ask is because I believe that this is patently incorrect. Assuming that you are in the U.S., copying a CD and giving it to a friend is a violation of the exclusive rights granted by section 106 of the Copyright Act. I am not aware of any decision that has ever held it to be within the Fair Use exception in section 107 of the Act. If you have any court decisions to the contrary, however, please let me know.)

 

[knumbskull]

SO, now anyone who puts more emphasis on "making it" rather than "making quality art" is no longer welcome among us? Man, class warfare has crept into just about everything, hasn't it?

Most of the entire rock music genre of the late 70s through the 80s was driven by people who really wanted to make it. So they wore, sang, played, and ate whatever increased their chances of getting a deal. I don't blame them at all. Some good music came from it. A lot of good times came from it. And a lot of money was made for the original bands AND cover bands back then. (Don't even get me started on how the grunge movement literally KILLED live music on the local level. Nobody wants to celebrate and have a good time listening to a cover band imitating bitching about some guy from Seattle's problems.) The current country music market is no different from the glam rock scene of the 80s in my view. Country artists and musicians are sporting skinny jeans and converse Chucks and playing pretty much rock music in order to make it. I love some of the music, and don't fault them at all for doing whatever it takes to provide for their families.... or even...... dare I say it...... just get rich.

So I, for one, have no problem with "bandwagon lame duck" musicians who will change the way they act, dress, or even perform in order to make a good living doing what they love. More power to them and best of luck. Congrats to the ones who pulled it off.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....
I have no problem with YouTube or other services where you can listen/watch but not take with you. But once you get music that you can take with you on CDs or through digital files, I think you should pay for it.

interesting post, thanks, especially the perspective on grunge and modern country.
i realise this is a bit late as the thread has moved on, i've had a busy weekend! however I'll try and respond to some of your points:

- it isn't a "class war" thing (not this time ). much of my favourite music has been made by rich, successful bands, actually a lot from the era you mention. and yes, i realize they were able to do so because of the "old" industry business model. but things have changed.

- I have no problem with musicians who want to make it - i have a problem with musicians for whom that's *all* they want, to the exclusion of quality. it fills the airwaves with soulless, calculated song-adverts. so by all means wear a sparkly shirt, get fake sleeve tattoos, and endorse a soft drink - so long as you're making music that has some thought and passion behind it.

- i don't think music should be free. but the genie is now out of the bottle and we all have to adapt to it. and i've seen/heard some amazing bands who have pretty much ditched out of the "music business" and still make money and great music, by concentrating on making something that is good and people *want* to pay for and own. which is good.

- like it or not, making music IS about "making quality art" ...i don't mean everyone has to be Lou Reed or Brian Eno - cheesy pop music is an art in itself - but if there's no good product then where would we be?

 

[lowfreq33]

If you've ever worked retail, you probably haven't done it recently....

To use Best Buy as an example since I worked there as recently as 2 years ago, I can verify this as a current selling model. There are many items they run at normal prices and LOSE money (PC sales to be specific) when they sell just that. So how do they recoup money? Protection plans, services, accessories, software, and tying it with something that they do have lots of markup on (Say, a new CD player for your car to listen to all those CD's you'll be burning now). So this is a valid example, but there is much more cost incurred to manufacture and design a computer than to record a song. I've heard many amateur chaps on here record stuff in their garages that could go on a store-bought CD and not sound any different than the "pro" stuff. Since an album is a lower price point than a computer and it's just copied intellectual property or art, it's much more reasonable to see it put out as marketing or advertising. Like someone noted with the Danzig model...if they want an HD audio CD with liner notes, pictures, all kinds of extras and a "making of" DVD included...get them to pay for that.

You're missing the point. The store chooses what to use as a loss leader. Customers don't just walk in and take their pick.

 

[FretNoMore]

Citation, please.

Search the web.

I'm quite sure the first part is true, downloading and printing a picture and hanging it on the wall of your home is considered personal use and considered OK pretty much everywhere. (Unless the picture was first unlawfully published online, that is). I deal with that in my photography business.

I'll have to go back on the copying of the CD to a friend or family member though, that differs between countries and is I understand it not OK for instance in the US. It is where I live, and content creators are indirectly compensated by a tax on writeable media such as magnetic tape, blank CDs, MP3 players, hard drives etc that can be used for such copies.
.

 

[Febs]

Search the web.

You made the claim. Back it up.

 

[Bassdirty]

....it puts a bigger demand on an artist to release a quality disc instead of the hit single and 11 tracks of **** (Anybody else buy the Spacehog record?). ....

Guilty. That was a great song though


Good thread btw..I'm gonna sit over here and finish reading before jumping in (this time).

 

[dkelley]

This thread has gotten interesting in the past couple days

 

[HolmeBass]

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.

It's one thing to borrow a CD, listen to it, and return it. Quite another to make a copy and listen to it in perpetuity, and especially to then distribute other copies to other people.