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
There IS some worthy music out there by bands who care, like muse (aside from their fm radio hit).
The world isn't so screwed up.
But it is sad how it went to this business model through illegal and morally corrupt behavior by the ignorant masses rather than through a business plan that was legitimate.
File sharing reeked of an ignorant and spoiled sense of entitlement when it started, and those who claim there was a forgivable demise of the music industry in the 90s still exhibit stereotypical personality quirks indicating a sense of entitlement.
Fwiw... a sense of entitlement is an insult, for those who have been accused of this before but actually believe they ARE entitled.
Sorry... just a little bitter still about it all...
The world isn't so screwed up.
But it is sad how it went to this business model through illegal and morally corrupt behavior by the ignorant masses rather than through a business plan that was legitimate.
File sharing reeked of an ignorant and spoiled sense of entitlement when it started, and those who claim there was a forgivable demise of the music industry in the 90s still exhibit stereotypical personality quirks indicating a sense of entitlement.
Fwiw... a sense of entitlement is an insult, for those who have been accused of this before but actually believe they ARE entitled.
Sorry... just a little bitter still about it all...
LOLOLOLOLOL. "Progess" is theft? When gasoline and cars are free, then that is a valid comparison..
"A product is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it." Isn't that what capitalism teaches us? So if people are willing to pay zero, then it's worth zero.
I don't think that is true though. People do want music, if there was no way to get it for free people would pay.
It's because it's made available for downloading with minimal risk of detection that people "steal" it instead.
It's because it's made available for downloading with minimal risk of detection that people "steal" it instead.
No way to get it for free? Seen all the posts in Band Management complaining about the willingness of bands to play for free or even pay to play? It's headed that way with distribution of recorded music. At most, the tiny fee for convenience for iTunes and sites like it covers the technical support. An unknown band will be lucky to ever cover production cost that way. You also get nothing but exposure for making it available to Spotify or Pandora.
Sorry you couldn't get to the Metallica position before the game changed, but that's the only tier of bands that can reasonably expect a profit from an album release. Shoving your stuff onto a website and Youtube for free or iTunes for pennies is now part of that "paying your dues" cliche.
Sorry you couldn't get to the Metallica position before the game changed, but that's the only tier of bands that can reasonably expect a profit from an album release. Shoving your stuff onto a website and Youtube for free or iTunes for pennies is now part of that "paying your dues" cliche.
Sure, the game has changed already, I know, but that doesn't mean people think music is without value. I do believe they would be willing to pay if they had to, but since so many abuse the system and upload copyrighted material it is of course not possible anymore.
I think it is absolutely a factor. The downloaders are essentially boosting the revenues of Live Nation. Way to stick it to "The Man", guys.
They have to use logic to steal. And to get away with such, depending upon the circumstance. One just needs to realize that they can not normally be persuaded with regular empathetic arguments.
Yes, logic combined with a feeling of superiority and entitlement, also known as personality disorder.
Wow, if I ever become a successful celebrity rock star later on in my life I think some of my posts here might be regarded as insulting to my potential audience lol... I shouldn't be calling the ignorant masses ignorant. They don't know enough to understand that my use of the word ignorant isn't an insult, it's an opinion about their level of education.
Aww damnit... I did it again... shot myself in the foot
Haha I guess it's ok.... I'll never be anyone but a noname session player because I don't embrace the stealing of music and therefore can't succeed in today's music industry.
LoL
You respect my opinion even though I'm a creepy religious fanatic? Gee, thanks.
Your ability to refuse to understand a point of debate is simply astonishing; I refuse to believe that you are as obtuse as you present yourself to be. Moreover, your insistence on responding to counterpoints to assertions you'vemade with glib little personal smears like this one is disappointing.
Aren't you the one who posted this:
I stated, as I have done consistently, that infringement is essentially theft and quoted an example of how it violates an ancient moral code. Perhaps I should have quoted the Code of Hammurabi to avoid ruffling your religious sensitivities, but I went with the ten commandments because more people know about that one.
My entire argument is based on my defending my personal right to dispense with the result of my own labor in such a manner as I see fit, irrespective of any law (the presence of which must be illegal in light of my rights) and irrespective of the opinions of a vocal majority. You have yet to even address this point as far as I've seen.
Presumably you find it easier to dismiss this type of reasoning as the ravings of a religious fanatic. Slapping derisive labels on people with whom one disagrees rather than addressing the debate on its merits is the identifying characteristic of the intellectually bankrupt, IMHO. A lot of people who argue your position are pretty fond of that tactic. That pesky, noisy and completely irrlevant majority again.
I suppose that in an age of ethical elasticity a person who asserts that he possesses certain inalienable rights as a self-evident truth would sound like a religious fanatic to folks who think that only an ever-shifting majority has the legitimacy to decide what is currently right or wrong. Based on many of the statements you've made in this thread, I would place you firmly in the latter camp.
To sum up, IMHO you've not done a thing to establish your original assertion that musicians aren't harmed by file sharing. All you've managed to accomplish, again IMHO, is to demonstrate the utter lack of merit in that notion and in your conviction (if that word can even be applied to a moral relativist) that stealing intellectual property is just fine since, gosh, like, just everyone is doing it.
I started participating in this debate in the previous thread (Last time you paid for music), and read every post in this thread as well. My newest conclusion is quite simple: not only it is illegal to share music files that are commercially available, but it's this musician's community feeling that it does hurt musicians. Period. The vast majority of TB members make money out of their music (to whatever extent). 14-pages of musicians saying file-sharing hurts them in the previous thread, and 20 pages in this thread do nothing but confirm it. File-sharing hurts musicians trying to make a living out of our art.
It's also clear that the "old" music-industry landscape must (and will) change dramatically. It's also a fair assumption that our expectations for the medium-term future should be bleak. Someone posted an eye-opening article about how "everyone can be a musician" now, how "hobby musicians" can produce a high quality product that eats market share from commercially available music, and that competition among musicians hurts each band's business as much as file-sharing. I encourage everyone who hasn't read it to check it out. Last time you paid for music And true.
It's also clear that the "old" music-industry landscape must (and will) change dramatically. It's also a fair assumption that our expectations for the medium-term future should be bleak. Someone posted an eye-opening article about how "everyone can be a musician" now, how "hobby musicians" can produce a high quality product that eats market share from commercially available music, and that competition among musicians hurts each band's business as much as file-sharing. I encourage everyone who hasn't read it to check it out. Last time you paid for music And true.
Rather, we're seeing dozens of people come in and make the same argument over and over, refusing to counter or even acknowledge anything offered to the contrary to their posts, and they seem to have given up on making a point and gone to circular logic before any "debate" even started.
File sharing hurts musicians *if they let it*, the same way you can go skydiving and choose not to open your parachute. Pull the cord, people.
File sharing hurts musicians *if they let it*, the same way you can go skydiving and choose not to open your parachute. Pull the cord, people.
I'm not registering my opinion about whether file sharing hurts musicians, or whether it's right or wrong. I see that on highly polarized subjects like this people tend to cling to their positions, nobody really gets persuaded one way or another.
I noticed the band Pomplamoose came up with a smart technique. They add a video blog (vlog) at the end or beginning of a lot of their songs on YouTube. Nobody wants to hear that chatter on their ipod so a downloaded mp3 is fairly useless unless the person knows how to edit it out. For the YouTube viewer, however, it's entertaining and lets you feel you are getting to know the band.
Their Kung-Fu is strong.
I noticed the band Pomplamoose came up with a smart technique. They add a video blog (vlog) at the end or beginning of a lot of their songs on YouTube. Nobody wants to hear that chatter on their ipod so a downloaded mp3 is fairly useless unless the person knows how to edit it out. For the YouTube viewer, however, it's entertaining and lets you feel you are getting to know the band.
Their Kung-Fu is strong.
Me too. I interpret Desirsar's post to mean the onus is on the musicians to do something about it though, and I'd like to hear what that is.
And by that do you mean people who run file sharing sites, or people who download from such sites for personal use?
You do realize that your post may very well elicit yet another "good day, sir"?
