• 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

#441
DeathFromBelow said:
And to put it down to bad parenting? I don't buy it. Most people who download illegaly are otherwise law abiding well adjusted citizens, downloading is not a borderline anti-social personality disorder.
Click to expand...

AaronVonRock said:
The voice of reason. It's nice to see some people putting things in a proper perspective.
Click to expand...

No one said that people who download music illegally were anti-social. The only reason this thread has gone on so long is that some people keep trying to justify what they are doing. Everybody either does it or has done it. The difference is that the honest ones know and admit that it's stealing. The others are trying to create this swirling cloud of BS to obfuscate the real issue which is that taking something without paying for it is stealing.
 
#443
DeathFromBelow said:
Yep, it's as simple as that.

And once again, I'm not saying file sharing is right, but this whole idea of assigning anyone who downloads music with some sort of character flaw or personality disorder is just wrong.
It's an oversimplification of the entire problem, and anyone who is interested in actually solving the issue are shooting themselves in the foot by pulling the "kids these days" card at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

No, once again I never said that about downloaders, I said it about those who promote it and dedicated themselves to cracking software and so forth. I've worked with a few of them.... not exactly socially compatible folk for the most part.

And it was the person who seems to be defending downloading who was first stating that the sub 35 crowd just do this downloading without thinking about it, just accepting it as ok, who defined the group of young people, not me.

I pointed out accurately that if in fact these sub 35 folk arent aware that it's illegal (which I don't believe) then there is clearly a problem with the education they're getting from us older folks (I'm only 44 mind you).

Please get your sources straight guys if you're going to start saying this side said that.
 
#444
dkelley said:
No, actually he misunderstood what I wrote, as my response to this quote of his explained. There is reasonable perspective from my posts.
Click to expand...

Well, in fact, I did mean it more as a general observation of the attitude of several posters in the thread, not you in particular. I actually didn't notice Your distinction between suppliers and end-users before just now.

So I stand by what I wrote.
 
#446
dkelley said:
No, once again I never said that about downloaders, I said it about those who promote it and dedicated themselves to cracking software and so forth. I've worked with a few of them.... not exactly socially compatible folk for the most part.

And it was the person stating that the sub 35 crowd just do this downloading without thinking about it, just accepting it as ok, who defined the group of young people, not me.

I pointed out accurately that if in fact these sub 35 folk arent aware that it's illegal (which I don't believe) then there is clearly a problem with the education they're getting from us play folks.

Please get your sources straight guys if you're going to start saying this side said that.
Click to expand...

See above.

And I never claimed that Young people are not aware of the fact that file sharing is illegal, rather that is is seen as a negligable offense, just like we saw copying cassettes when we were kids.
 
#449
DeathFromBelow said:
See above.

And I never claimed that Young people are not aware of the fact that file sharing is illegal, rather that is is seen as a negligable offense, just like we saw copying cassettes when we were kids.
Click to expand...

What a lot of people don't know is that the blank tape companies actually paid a royalty to the big record companies to offset potential losses due to people making copies for friends. None of that money trickled down to the artists, but it did make taping legal.
 
#451
Here's an article from Rolling Stone that was published 5 hours ago. It echoes what I was saying that social media may replace record sales as a way for musicians to make money. I really believe it is no longer required to sell prerecorded music (in any format) in order to build an audience and make money as a musician.

Invalid Link Removed

Using the broken window analogy, I was trying to think of an example where a business let their product be taken for free for over 10 years through their own negligence, then finally corrected their mistake, and were still able to stay in business by expecting consumers to start spending money on their product again. Someone who is 15-20 years old has had access to free music for most of their lives. It's a challenge to expect that generation to pay for something they've been getting for free. It's an equal challenge to expect someone who is from Generation X or Y to start paying for music again after they've been getting it for free for so long, too. When I was younger, I taped songs off the radio, made copies of friends tapes, made copies of their CDs, and now I download. Only the technology has changed. I still sometimes buy music, but not nearly like I used to.
 
#452
lowfreq33 said:
What a lot of people don't know is that the blank tape companies actually paid a royalty to the big record companies to offset potential losses due to people making copies for friends. None of that money trickled down to the artists, but it did make taping legal.
Click to expand...

Yup, the artists were taken care of to some extent at least... and nobody can honestly defend the point that the music business didn't try it's best defense against illegal sharing without royalties returning to the rightful heir. I recall incredible attempts to stop it, including the law coming to artist's defense in the closure of one of the primary early p2p sites, Napster.

The attempts were made, there weren't viable ways to monetize internet downloads in those days, so the damage was done despite the best available defenses.

Remember that there was virtually no online financial transaction system back then... I worked with MasterCard as a developer and the online transaction business wasn't capable of supporting small one time transactions despite our interest in doing this.

Whoops... I forgot, sorry. I'll stay on the sidelines lol :-)
 
#453
How short some memories are. The music industry made a huge effort to stop piracy. Metallica v. Napster, RIAA attempted to prosecute thousands of people for illegal downloading, they just made the mistake of going in with too heavy handed an approach without having their legal ducks in a row. And the (guilty) public and the media were huge crybabies about it, using the same tired "They're rich, they don't need it" arguments that are still being used today, including this thread. The truth is those suits were about protecting the rights of people throughout an entire industry. Singers, songwriters, studio musicians, audio engineers, producers, arrangers... Not to mention the thousands of people employed throughout the industry at record labels, performance rights organizations (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC), management firms, booking agencies, duplication houses, distributors... Most of those employees being middle class workers with families to feed. It doesn't just affect the big labels and big stars... It affects them last. The little guys, the spokes on the wheel, are the first to suffer, and can least afford it. When you pirate music, movies, or software you ARE literally taking food out of people's mouths.
 
#456
lowfreq33 said:
How short some memories are. The music industry made a huge effort to stop piracy. Metallica v. Napster, RIAA attempted to prosecute thousands of people for illegal downloading, they just made the mistake of going in with too heavy handed an approach without having their legal ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

You and others are correct that the music industry did initially try to stop downloading music for free. And they botched it. Filing massive lawsuits against American students and housewives didn't work. That was years ago and file sharing has become more widespread post-Napster. The window is still broken.

If your interested in the perspective of someone who created and runs one of the largest file sharing sites out there, read the post on the homepage of isoHunt, "10 Years of isoHunt, past and future". I think some will agree with the opinions expressed and others will be spitting mad. Either way, it's food for thought.

Link Removed
 
#458
FerK said:
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. Invalid Link Removed And true.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's happening in visual arts, writing (see '50 Shades of Absolute Trash' and fanfiction), etc. Photography has been destroyed by high quality tech and low skill people.

You also need to look at it like this: look at who is winning Grammys (which is a pretty respected structure). Jack White, Alabama Shakes, The Black Keys are only some examples of bands that are wholly re-treading and yet get huge accolades.

As an aside, I enjoy Jack White and Alabama Shakes (and a little Black Keys) but the reality is they bring nothing new to the table.
 
#459
bkbirge said:
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.
Click to expand...

You asked a question, then built a straw-man logical fallacy.
 
#460
michael_atw said:
You asked a question, then built a straw-man logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

No strawman, we are talking about illegal filesharing. You can't talk about only the music industry because it doesn't happen in a bubble and that ignores why it is happening.

Plus I am genuinely interested in the question though of course I have my opinion as I stated.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back