File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

[Roy Vogt]

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.

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?

 

[fishdreams]

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?

If you are in someone's else's space, the representative has the right to tell you if you can't take pictures or not.

Many performance places strictly forbid the taking of pictures. Even if the band itself asks you to photograph their show. I often shoot the pics for my wife's shows. Got accosted within seconds by one of their headset-wearing unionized workforce. Had that a few times at BAM Cafe Brooklyn. So what it is that you you are making a picture of, doesn't make a difference.

 

[sevdog]

When I was a kid (teenager). 4 kids could write songs, scrap together money for a van and hit the road selling shirts and records.

Good luck pulling that off now.

The fact that no one buys records (in whatever format) HAS NOT ONLY HURT THE MAJOR ARTISTS.

Hopefully, we're at a transition point but a progressive society should support the arts. I could care less about Gene Simmons mansion or Lars' art collection. But what about the 20 year old who can't even put gas in the van to make it to the next town?

 

[russpurdy]

Do you ever wonder if free downloads actually hurt music sales or if they just get music out there that people wouldn't normally buy?

There are alot of bands I wouldn't pay to hear but if the music is free i'll check it out. There are some bands I have listened to for free and really liked so I bought copies of their music. There are other bands that charge so much for music and have little or no way of previewing it so I pass them by.

 

[sevdog]

Do you ever wonder if free downloads actually hurt music sales or if they just get music out there that people wouldn't normally buy?

There are alot of bands I wouldn't pay to hear but if the music is free i'll check it out. There are some bands I have listened to for free and really liked so I bought copies of their music. There are other bands that charge so much for music and have little or no way of previewing it so I pass them by.

Of course this happens. And pretty often. But not often enough.

 

[Slough Feg Bass]

lots of music stores in my town have a a system where you can take the CD to the desk and preview it before you buy it.
Same with records.

 

[bkbirge]

lots of music stores in my town have a a system where you can take the CD to the desk and preview it before you buy it.
Same with records.

You still have music stores up there? Wow.


On another note, the high frequency with which this topic gets started and restarted seems to indicate that it's a popular troll item.

 

[wideload]

So the answer seems to be:
Put your music out for free at a severely limited resolution such as Youtube, and only sell the full-res versions yourself to eliminate the middleman.
And there will still be some sh**head who will steal from you by "sharing" your work. Bet they feel differently about someone entering their home to "share" their food or possessions. I also bet they think that what's theirs is somehow different than what is created by others.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

OK for all the people shouting "It's against the law!!!", keep in mind that intellectual property is an ethereal argument because it's theoretical ownership of an idea or work of art based on a proposed system to manage it and give someone ownership of it on the basis of...nothing lol. The question you have to ask yourself as an artist would be "Is this price justifiable?". My band is formulating a nice little demo CD to put together and "sell" at shows. 4 songs on it for $2/CD, which is just pocket change for most people. If people get it, rip it, and start giving it out for free...guess what? Somebody is doing advertising and marketing for me and they paid me $2 for them to do it. What they can't rip/copy/distribute is a t-shirt, tab books (not easily lol), a live performance in person, our beloved on-stage antics, getting to talk with us after a show, and other random merch or creative ways to make money. Honestly the aforementioned list are things that I find much more personally fulfilling than just a CD sale. Coming to a show means a lot more to me than just picking up our CD that a record label would pay us $1 if we are lucky.

Another option is what Radiohead did with one of their albums. Put it up online, tell the people that it is free to download and let them pay what they think it's worth or feel led to. IIRC, average amount paid was around $12. That seems like a pretty solid move to me, because it's more or less telling the fans you trust them and that you care what they think it's worth and aren't dictating it to them. When you consider you can get decent quality streaming audio from youtube music videos, pandora, and many other audio streaming sources then you can get "free" music many different ways. I don't see how having it on your computer is much of any different. W/e though...if you guys have bands then run them the way you want to, I'd rather a loyal fanbase than some album sales from fickle people....YMMV

 

[FerK]

Also, if you're resorting to calling others 'apologetics' (btw the word is apologists), you're coming across as compensating for a lack of substance in your argument.

Thank you for the correction. I'm afraid that, English not being my mother tongue, I make a mistake every now and then.

Regarding my arguments, you might want to check my previous 5 or 6 replies prior to this one last post. I just didn't want to repeat myself:

Aaron, a clear differentiation must be made between bands. The file sharing may not hurt some big-labels that much (certainly to a very noticeable level, but it might not make the industry crumble for the next 10 years). But the overall attitude of all-music-should-be-free is not a sustainable model for everyone.

I feel terrible when I see your black-or-white opinion on the value of music. In the previous thread you made your opinion clear in regards to how the industry should change (a sentiment that I fully share), but I'm surprised you don't realize that the musician must make money somewhere. Paying gigs are nowhere near enough for a 4-member band or bigger (unless you're a blockbuster...hardly ever the case for independent musicians). Let me ask you how you think this band will ever make a living without selling their albums ? They are a 7-piece, touring locally. Merch and gigs only ?

How about other genres ? Do you see the next Michael Manring living off T-shirts ?

And:

But then again, and just like I said before, that is NOT the solution. The conclusion of the whole article is:


My personal belief (and the reason of my personal boycotting the big labels) is that the corporate music industry must disappear, and make room for a totally different business, which is the small label/independent musician produced album (just like knumbs mentioned yesterday).

In this new industry landscape, a totally musician-centric one, most of the profit goes to the artist. The small label can offer single album contracts for production (mastering, engineering, print for a fee) or profit-sharing. Period. The multi-million contracts that slice sales profits to feed the marketing machine are doomed to die, and make room for the way "new" technology makes music available for people to discover on their own.

In this "new landscape" though...people still must pay for the music. The big difference with today is that once the production is paid off (and lets be honest...production of a full album doesn't need to cost a million), all sales are >90% profit for the musician.

But free music...the concept is impractical and insulting. Unless we all agree to condemn music making to the hobby realm.

 

[David Jayne]

I think the sensible way is to enforce the laws. I'd be content seeing some people get locked up. If I can go to jail for swiping a box of cereal or a candy bar, I should go to jail for stealing 5000 songs - especially if they are selling for $1 each.

It happens. Every once in awhile some college student gets convicted of illegally downloading 30 or 40 songs and ordered to pay gigantic fines which they never pay. It's pointless. Before it was shut down, Megaupload claimed to have 50,000,000 visitors per DAY. Fifty million. This is completely out of control and unenforceable.

 

[AaronVonRock]

It happens. Every once in awhile some college student gets convicted of illegally downloading 30 or 40 songs and ordered to pay gigantic fines which they never pay. It's pointless. Before it was shut down, Megaupload claimed to have 50,000,000 visitors per DAY. Fifty million. This is completely out of control and unenforceable.

Or the famous case of the American woman who downloaded 24 songs and was sued for $1.5 million by the RIAA and forced to pay $220,000. The RIAA made no friends with that move and probably did more to encourage file sharing than deter it. Anyway, it looks like individual lawsuits are a thing of the past. The article also says Megaupload was responsible for 4% of ALL internet traffic at it's peak. Amazing. The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in no matter how many ridiculous law suits are filed.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

Interesting article on legal tips for copyright infringement.
http://thompsonhall.com/copyright-infringement-tips-for-illegal-movie-music-download-cases/

Oddly enough, it seems the porn industry is the most aggressive in pursuing people who download content.

 

[tbz]

Another option is what Radiohead did with one of their albums. Put it up online, tell the people that it is free to download and let them pay what they think it's worth or feel led to. IIRC, average amount paid was around $12. .....

I'm wondering how you can miss the basic fact that Radiohead only developed the fan base, that paid for that album, because they were on a major label in the 90s. Said major label put hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in building the Radiohead brand. They paid to get them on MTV, they paid to get them onto major tours, they paid for a million things bands now cannot get funding for, especially if they're not signed.

No one starting out now can expect to get that much marketing money, even if they're the top priority of a major label, as the labels do not have enough money to build a band's brand like this. Due to illegal downloading.

Fan's don't grow on tress. Advertising costs money. If you do not have money to promote your product and build your brand you cannot, years later, sell your album on a website and make money, like Radiohead.

 

[bass12]

I'm wondering how you can miss the basic fact that Radiohead only developed the fan base, that paid for that album, because they were on a major label in the 90s. Said major label put hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in building the Radiohead brand. They paid to get them on MTV, they paid to get them onto major tours, they paid for a million things bands now cannot get funding for, especially if they're not signed.

No one starting out now can expect to get that much marketing money, even if they're the top priority of a major label, as the labels do not have enough money to build a band's brand like this. Due to illegal downloading.

Fan's don't grow on tress. Advertising costs money. If you do not have money to promote your product and build your brand you cannot, years later, sell your album on a website and make money, like Radiohead.

Exactly. A lot of people really have no clue how much work - not to mention money - is typically necessary to establish a band like Radiohead.

 

[Slough Feg Bass]

touring is still the best way to build a fanbase.

 

[Plectrum72]

Musicians have traditionally made their money through live performance. This is the way it's been for hundreds and hundreds of years. There was a very brief period of time in this where technology made it possible to make lots of money through recorded copies. Technology created it and technology took it away. We're simply going back to the way things used to be and the way they will be for the foreseeable future.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

If we were indeed going back to the way it used to be, then you would not hear any music outside of live performance and you would have to pay for it. Traveling minstrels, composers, orchestras, what-have-you did not play for free...nor could you take the music with you to hear whenever you liked.

 

[David Jayne]

If we were indeed going back to the way it used to be, then you would not hear any music outside of live performance and you would have to pay for it. Traveling minstrels, composers, orchestras, what-have-you did not play for free...nor could you take the music with you to hear whenever you liked.

You're right, I'd considered that, and it does make it tougher.
Should we lock up the coffee shop hacks, and the wannabe's playing for draft beers at the local bar? The guy playing violin in the subway?
Obviously not. But so far, it seems that people feel there's enough value in the music concert/club experience to pay for it, in some cases a lot, in spite of all the radios and iPods and torrents and fools on stools.

 

[bkbirge]

But so far, it seems that people feel there's enough value in the music concert/club experience to pay for it, in some cases a lot, in spite of all the radios and iPods and torrents and fools on stools.

And yet orchestras have been closing down all over the country for years.

 

[tbz]

touring is still the best way to build a fanbase.

That may have been true in the 70s, even the 80s. By the 90s market saturation made that simply false.

Having a major label provide you with hundreds of thousands of dollars of marketing money is the best way to build a fan base now. The market is saturated, if you can't get your band considered above the noise, by marketing, you won't sell millions of albums.

 

[dhsierra1]

the thread really has me thinking: damn, I really want a Herbie Hancock tee shirt