Well, how about you come over here and work for me. Not for charity, but for my benefit.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter AaronVonRock
- Start date
Well, how about you come over here and work for me. Not for charity, but for my benefit.
After reading.. well, most.. of this thread, I have to confess to being conflicted on the subject. I think the whole thing boils down to personal integrity ( or ethics, or morality, or whatever). Personally, I have no problem buying a CD or DVD, or downloads, or whatever, of something I want- if it's available. People certainly should get paid for their work. If it's for sale, but you rip it off, yes, that's stealing. And, I don't do that. However..
What if it's not commercially available? Do I simply do without, even though I could get it by file sharing , or copying from a friend? I know, doing without is the (probably) the legal thing to do, but is it really wrong to copy something that was available, but isn't, any more? Two examples:
1. The Fleetwood Mac album popularly known as "Dog and Dustbin". The 12 songs on the original LP are NOT available on the expensive CD version. You get 7 or 8 of them, plus a lot of sound checks, studio chatter, and other dreck. The only way I can get the real thing is to pay someone a collector's price for the album (which doesn't benefit Fleetwood Mac, because the LP isn't in print, either), or assemble the album from a file share site. Which I did. I want the 12 songs, not inane chatter. I get all of that I can stand at work - for free.
2. British Sci-Fi movie "5 Million Years to Earth". Again, not in print any longer, either VHS or DVD. Do I do without, pay the greedy weasel on Amazon $350.00
for his DVD, or copy my brother's DVD? 2 guesses, and the first doesn't count.
Again, I have no problem paying for music (or anything else), if it's available. In fact, I have bought several CDs and DVDs that did finally become available, after I copied them elsewhere. Otherwise, I do what I have to, to get what I want. If you want my money, have something to sell me. Otherwise, you leave me no choice...
What if it's not commercially available? Do I simply do without, even though I could get it by file sharing , or copying from a friend? I know, doing without is the (probably) the legal thing to do, but is it really wrong to copy something that was available, but isn't, any more? Two examples:
1. The Fleetwood Mac album popularly known as "Dog and Dustbin". The 12 songs on the original LP are NOT available on the expensive CD version. You get 7 or 8 of them, plus a lot of sound checks, studio chatter, and other dreck. The only way I can get the real thing is to pay someone a collector's price for the album (which doesn't benefit Fleetwood Mac, because the LP isn't in print, either), or assemble the album from a file share site. Which I did. I want the 12 songs, not inane chatter. I get all of that I can stand at work - for free.
2. British Sci-Fi movie "5 Million Years to Earth". Again, not in print any longer, either VHS or DVD. Do I do without, pay the greedy weasel on Amazon $350.00
for his DVD, or copy my brother's DVD? 2 guesses, and the first doesn't count.Again, I have no problem paying for music (or anything else), if it's available. In fact, I have bought several CDs and DVDs that did finally become available, after I copied them elsewhere. Otherwise, I do what I have to, to get what I want. If you want my money, have something to sell me. Otherwise, you leave me no choice...
It's not a matter of believing the RIAA. It simply is a fact. The legality is not determined by the RIAA, but by law.If you believe the RIAA thats illegal, but why would anyone believe them.
Ok- I know the RIAA and other heavy-weight IP owners do maintain a healthy lobby in DC, so they definitely have input into IP law, but the law that's on the books is not solely determined by the RIAA.
The point may be moot, but it is NOT the point of this thread, whose title is "File sharing doesn't hurt musicians". The point we are making is that it unequivocally hurts musicians. Being able to find another work-around to the problem by touring more, or selling more merch, does not mean that file sharing doesn't hurt musicians.
Well, for one thing, that was then and this is now. If they had wanted to make that music badly enough, they would have done it without the getting rich incentive.
For another, musicians can charge for their personal appearance and that is how you can make money. As a musician who does not make money, it is irrelevant to me and I continue to see the recording industry as just a sideshow to the actual music that is going on in this world.
I make music because it is what I do. I find the recording industry and their paranoia about profits to be an impediment to pretty much all artistic progress, and agree that they are doomed. Whether you think that's a deserved doom or not doesn't matter: they add no value to the musical conversation we are having amongst ourselves, and are increasingly not part of that conversation. I just don't care anymore.
Gasoline automobiles hurt whip and buggy manufacturers too.
Sometimes progress is mean. There is exactly zip anyone can do about it, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
You think you're freaking out now? Wait until the retail sector notices we're printing our own 3-d models for everything, and no longer need to run to the store to purchase a toaster or screwdriver, since you can just fab any small item right in your house.
This is the way of progress, friend. I'm sure we will all manage to roll the changes. But they are coming, and they are coming so fast now it's going to be a little overwhelming here shortly.
I don't really believe that - you don't live isolated from influences from music and musicians that the music industry markets, do you? I'm sure you have listened to, and continue to listen to a lot of commercially produced music, and whether you want to think so or not of course it adds value and influences also to your own music. Or are you saying there are no commercial artists that have influenced what you do?
The analogy between the car and horse-drawn buggy fails, because in that case consumers were simply purchasing a new product.
In this case, they are using something they purchased to illegally duplicate an existing product. Since it is IP there is no good analogy to physical items. But IP is increasingly the only meaningful thing left, for the very reasons you mentioned.
Physical commodities become less valuable in and of themselves once 3D printing comes online- but the spec/design of the product becomes, if anything, even more valuable. Without that you can't 3D print anything. But it will be much easier to sell, duplicate, and distribute these IP objects than it would be to duplicate and distribute the physical items themselves. Does that make it right? Does might really make right? That's kind of what you're saying.
I do feel that IP rights need to be protected. But I also get that the powers that be, the RIAA, Disney, et. al. have abused their influence on the lawmakers such that they have seriously distorted previously balancing mechanisms in IP ownership.
For example, notice how nothing ever enters the public domain anymore? Why did I have to pay $17 for a CD of Sticky Fingers?? That music, and the CD itself, should be in the public domain by now, given how copyright was originally conceived.
I still think that the idea that ideas are inherently free and can be taken for one's pleasure without compensation to the originator is a dangerous precedent. You are in the process devaluing any IP you yourself may create in the future.
Some new balance needs to be struck, but if that balance is that IP is just free for anyone, then I think we will all suffer in the end.
Check out "Who Owns The Future" by Jaron Lanier for much more indepth exploration of why the data/IP matter. He is someone who used to feel the coming of the net should make information (data, including IP) free, but has now back-tracked because of the realization that when all the content is free, the people with the best server infrastructure simply gain too much control and power.
I think it probably is ridiculous to have that expectation these days, especially given human nature and the fact that so many people will happily grab all sorts of stuff without intending to ever pay for it, and then very easily convince themselves that they're entitled to do so. "File sharing" is a misleading euphemism, in my opinion, as it's not really sharing - all participants get the full version of the file and nothing is shared out. "Freeloading" is a more accurate name for it.
I also agree that technology these days has made it much more difficult to make money selling recorded music. As a result, less money gets spent on producing most of it, in terms of unit costs. There are some positive aspects to this, but on the other hand, many albums considered to be classics simply could not be made using the production models available today.
You can't take goodies away from a grabbing crowd once they're out there. Political policy has shown this to be true time and time again. So as far as an entitled Millenial is concerned, "Why would you PAY to listen to music?!" (since it's been "free" for so long?)
My response to that notion would be an encouraging of historic study and discover for yourself what's missing in today's product compared to anything recorded earlier than about 1998?
Hint: It's NOT "quality" - You don't reap a fair musical experience through an iPod or any other device swashing things down to AM-grade MP3.
My response to that notion would be an encouraging of historic study and discover for yourself what's missing in today's product compared to anything recorded earlier than about 1998?
Hint: It's NOT "quality" - You don't reap a fair musical experience through an iPod or any other device swashing things down to AM-grade MP3.
how can you tour more if you are having to work a full time job to make money to pay bills?
you can't. you dont' have the time. you are too busy working a job.
music just flat out sucks these days. there's not really any new bands out there. back in the 90's there were new bands popping up left and right and always something new and interesting. the only good bands i know of are ones that have been around a long time and since they are long time "huge" bands they make enough money to keep doing music for a living. the average bands can't make as much money and are forced to just stop playing and get a real job so they can no longer pursue their passion for music.
personally i hate mp3's and i don't even listen to them on my phone or an ipod or anything. i still have cd's. i have over 100 of them i bought during my lifetime. i still listen to them because they are better than any music being put out these days by miles. every now and then a band will put out a new album and i'll buy it on amazon or whereever.
heck most of the time i listen to music is in my truck. the mp3's never sound as good as a cd. if i'm at home i can just listen to music on youtube for free. i guess you could listen to youtube in the car through your phone if you wanted too.
have you looked at ticket prices for concerts these days? they are expensive. i haven't been to a concert in over a decade. it just costs too much these days.
we used to go to concerts for $10-$20 and be right up front near the stage. now they are $50-$100 for a ticket way in the back. no thanks.
basically whoever goes to a concert these days is paying for a ticket and the price of a cd when they buy the ticket.
you can't. you dont' have the time. you are too busy working a job.
music just flat out sucks these days. there's not really any new bands out there. back in the 90's there were new bands popping up left and right and always something new and interesting. the only good bands i know of are ones that have been around a long time and since they are long time "huge" bands they make enough money to keep doing music for a living. the average bands can't make as much money and are forced to just stop playing and get a real job so they can no longer pursue their passion for music.
personally i hate mp3's and i don't even listen to them on my phone or an ipod or anything. i still have cd's. i have over 100 of them i bought during my lifetime. i still listen to them because they are better than any music being put out these days by miles. every now and then a band will put out a new album and i'll buy it on amazon or whereever.
heck most of the time i listen to music is in my truck. the mp3's never sound as good as a cd. if i'm at home i can just listen to music on youtube for free. i guess you could listen to youtube in the car through your phone if you wanted too.
have you looked at ticket prices for concerts these days? they are expensive. i haven't been to a concert in over a decade. it just costs too much these days.
we used to go to concerts for $10-$20 and be right up front near the stage. now they are $50-$100 for a ticket way in the back. no thanks.
basically whoever goes to a concert these days is paying for a ticket and the price of a cd when they buy the ticket.
we used to go to concerts for $10-$20 and be right up front near the stage. now they are $50-$100 for a ticket way in the back. no thanks.
basically whoever goes to a concert these days is paying for a ticket and the price of a cd when they buy the ticket.
Have you heard of a concept called inflation?
there is also the monopoly called Live Nation Entertainment (formerly Tickmaster and a few other companies they swallowed up in merger-mania). There's one of the biggest reasons why live music revenues grew so much over the last 10 years or so. How about all those service charges, too?
M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y. Can you say that? See, I knew you could!
Edit: worth looking at their 10-K filing for 2012, gross revenues of US$ 5.8 billion, up from US$ 5.0 billion from 2010. Vast majority of sales are for concerts. Worldwide.
M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y. Can you say that? See, I knew you could!
Edit: worth looking at their 10-K filing for 2012, gross revenues of US$ 5.8 billion, up from US$ 5.0 billion from 2010. Vast majority of sales are for concerts. Worldwide.
Yes. But unless you live in Weimar in the 20s, there is no way it accounts for the astronomical price hike in concert tickets.
I have here a ticket stub for the 1st rock concert I saw in 1983.
$17.95 in 1983 dollars comes to $37.84 now according to the BoC's inflation calculator. You'll get similar numbers on the US. (Approximately $42).
GT
I agree with your sentiment, but on the other hand I'm sure you are missing out on a lot of music. I like prog rock, and there aren't as many new bands in the genre as in other, more "mainstream" genres (e.g. indie rock, pop, blues). My last 10 purchases or so are all indeependent bands that I "discovered" surfing the web. Check out Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Youtube. I'm sure you'll find dozens of new bands you'll love. They are usually on the opposite end of the spectrum from big labels, and not as easy to find. But they are out there.
You meant 1000s, I guess ?
Man...a half-decent MP3 has much higher audio quality that streaming off YouTube. Your average Amazon download purchase is higher quality than YouTube.
a MP3 is better than an cassette (rememer those ?). Once the walkman came out it wasn't better than an Ipod. and Ipod just let you have your favorite noise everywhere with you. It isn,t about audio fidelity and feeling like the band is around you, it just let you be in your own bubble.
I buy CDs and covert them to whatever format iTunes use because of conveniance and I can use the highest setting so it is exacly like the CD but of course on the Ipod it doesn't exacly alike, it is compressed and well with little headphone it can't be alike.
Listening to a MP3 on my computer, I can't tell the difference between that and a CD.
I buy CDs and covert them to whatever format iTunes use because of conveniance and I can use the highest setting so it is exacly like the CD but of course on the Ipod it doesn't exacly alike, it is compressed and well with little headphone it can't be alike.
Listening to a MP3 on my computer, I can't tell the difference between that and a CD.
True, YouTube sounds like ass, but their focus is on videos. I don't know why people would go there for music and expect good quality.
