Do you pay for food that you haven't eaten yet?
Do you pay for gas that you haven't used yet?
Why do we have to pay for anything?
Why won't Dingwall give me an ABZ?
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
Do you pay for food that you haven't eaten yet?
Do you pay for gas that you haven't used yet?
Why do we have to pay for anything?
Why won't Dingwall give me an ABZ?
I personally believe that it's quite simple; music file sharing where music is being illegally copied absolutely hurts the musicians that wrote, rehearsed, recorded, paying for everything along the way out of pocket, with the intention of selling it.
All of those that try to rationalize doing so, are no different than a common thief.
If a band/artist chooses to freely give their music away, that's obviously different.
Flame away
All of those that try to rationalize doing so, are no different than a common thief.
If a band/artist chooses to freely give their music away, that's obviously different.
Flame away
I wonder how many music creators download free music compared to the general population. I also wonder how many of them pirate music making software to create their music.
Of all the musicians I know very few still buy music, unless they collect vinyl such as myself. And they all use pirated software. And a lot of these guys are in signed international acts.
Definitely one of the least credible statements made in this thread thus far. What musicians are you talking about, precisely? It seems as if a lot of people, out of ignorance or convenience - I'm not sure which - will restrict their definition of "musician" to encompass only a relatively small portion of the "musician spectrum". I've noticed that many will talk as if they think all musicians are members of indie rock bands. They seem to completely disregard solo artists (who often rely on hired musicians for both recording and performing), sidemen (who rely on concert bookings/touring) and session musicians (who rely on studio dates) - not to mention musicians who perform all kinds of other duties (t.v., theatre, composing, arranging, etc.). The whole recording industry has been affected by file sharing. It's not the only reason that there's hardly any studio work left or that tour budgets have largely declined (for example), but it's one reason; and here you are suggesting that musicians are being hurt only because they're allowing themselves to be hurt?
Really? I've seen plenty of examples of how musicians are financially hurt by people giving away their products without consent and without charging for it and sending part of the profit back to the musician. That IS the model of how to do business, after all, and it's a model that you seem to feel is flawed. How exactly is it wrong to sell your product for money or expect others to sell it for money and reimburse you for your owed amount?
Ps I've acknowledged and embraced the contemporary distribution methods, I am happy about successes in the current industry, and posted as much. It doesn't change how naive your view is... so I'll try to explain in details here how a real working guy does things, and then you tell me what this mythical rip cord is.....
Have you ever heard of the American federation of musicians? Ever been paid for your contribution through music to film and audio recording? I have... It's part of my income. It continues years after the product is released as customers continue to use the product according to the rules and regulations under which it was released.
If there is free unapproved sharing of the movie or album, I don't get my royalty cheques.
How do you suggest I get paid in that case? I can't tour to support my work.... I was a hired hand who gets paid according to industry standard royalties because I'm credited on the album or film.
How can I open my parachute when the chute was already provided by the afm and I pulled it by paying my membership dues and working my ass off on the gig for which I was hired?
Your concepts show a complete lack of knowledge about how most musicians and actors and dancers actually make money outside of teaching and bar gigs.
It's a career for many of us... we support our children with our hard work and lifetime commitment to being highly trained and skilled specialists at our instrument or other form of fine art.
Personally I took private music lessons from age 1 (thanks mum) to age 25, mostly with people charging close to a hundred bucks a lesson. I put more years of hard work into being a musician than doctors do into being GPs. My family and I spent six digits on my lifetime of musical education, experience, auditions across north America, membership dues, and instruments.
How again have I not pulled my rip cord?
What an ignorant statement you made to a forum full of REAL professional musicians.
I have a dedicated website, work as a session player, write my own stuff for my own albums. I still need a day job because it's too hard to make real money in this business.
I've toured, gigged like crazy, joined bands that were supposedly going somewhere. I've taught, done movie soundtrack work, even acted a bit. I've networked online, composed music for mobile games, and the list goes on and on of the virtual rip cords I keep pulling.
Tell me how that makes up for money I didn't earn from work that was freely distributed without permission by people like you....
I'd say the person's who rip other's material and publish it, primarily. Web sites who allow it should be pushed to close such accounts as well, and punished if they don't seem to do that.
Sad, if true. So who do you know in signed international acts? I've met several over the years.... they can afford to pay and do. I see the opposite happening.
A little of both. I'm genuinely curious at the demographic breakdown of musicians filesharing vs the general population but I don't really expect anyone knows except via anecdotal evidence which says squat.
But I'm also making a statement that if those people bitching about file sharing do it themselves for any file, not just music, then they are part of the problem.
Illegal downloads of any IP, whether it be music, music creation software, movies, books, comics, android apps, porn, you name it... it's all part of the culture now.
It's a bit disingenuous to shed crocodile tears over our little corner going up in flames while many of those people shedding tears turn around and pour the gasoline and light the fire in other areas.
that's true. But at least it isn't disagreeing the with concept that illegal file sharing and downloading is a big problem for the REAL music industry.
You're right of course, many people have reaped the benefits of illegal file sharing. Myself included. However I do buy the album or product if it's available... I use file sharing to get out of print stuff like main squeeze by Chuck Mangione which I already own on vinyl. I know many people like me.
I also distribute my own demos and music I don't expect to get money from.
Well, I'm mainly talking extreme metal and hardcore punk here, so nothing mainstream. And within these genres DIY has always been a "thing" and noone has ever really given much thought to financial gain through their work, so my situation probably differs from yours.
Ok. Only thing is that someone has to pay for this to happen, and if you ask me, the criminal system have much bigger fish to fry. Not to mention the privacy issues that would arise when targeting end users.
Going after users is fruitless, you want to target the suppliers. Inform end users, yes, punish, no.
You should go after those who enable the file sharing; if it's not uploaded you can't download it, right?
You should go after those who enable the file sharing; if it's not uploaded you can't download it, right?
One, change the prices of the music to reflect what consumers are willing to pay, while remembering that most downloads are not lost sales, those are ears you didn't even have without the download. You're not the person in charge of setting the price? Stop working for the ones that don't pay attention and protect your interests.
Two, go the route of any number of musicians that put their music on their own sites for free, and make an album package worth buying almost independently of the music included. Again, you're not in charge of the distribution model? Stop working for those who aren't protecting your interests with economics instead of law, especially when the law is largely subject to popular vote...
Eh, yeah... I never said if I think it's wrong or right, just telling it like it is.
And for the record, I'm pretty sure I spend more money on music than most other people in this thread, I'm a total vinyl-addict, and I've never downloaded a single song in my life. And I buy most of my records brand new, I'm no thrift store hipster. Heck, I don't even download porn...
wow. Must be nice to get to choose to only work for people who are charging some as yet undisclosed lower price for retail releases while still getting hired and supporting your family.
Again, how exactly can I do this? What releases can you demonstrate as real world examples where this works?
I mean besides those 4 or 5 well known established huge name bands like radiohead etc who rely upon success through the traditional record industry releases that made them rich so they could afford to nearly give away "In Rainbows" and similar extreme examples that has no relevance to real working musicians....
Heck, I don't even download porn...
I'm not sure if streaming it real time should be considered different from downloading it... lol
J/K
