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
Listen to Todd Rundgren on the issue;http://fora.tv/2008/12/10/Todd_Rundgren_Time_for_the_Music_Industry_to_Evolve
Basically, music is a service not a product.
Basically, music is a service not a product.
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
Sorry I have been off tb so my reply is late, but here you go. Illegal downloaders tend to buy the most music.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Invalid Link Removed
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/03/21/illegal-music-downloads-not-hurting-industry-study-claims/
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
I wonder if the OP is into house sharing, food sharing, etc. I'll need those because I'm not making any money from my recordings due to file sharing.
Seems to me, to be philosophically consistent, if you're into file sharing, you should be sharing all the rest of your stuff with everyone else.
In business there is a thing called a "lead-in" item, it is an item you lose money on selling in order to get people in the door and buying other things, that you do make money on. If this seems crazy to you ask any business owner, they work fantastic.
In this instance, your music is the lead-in item. You have got them in the store, now get them to buy a concert ticket and some merch.
The business has changed, sure bands make less off albums, more importantly the record companies make less since they are the ones who actually produce and profit off of albums, not artists. They also generally pay for the album to be created. While their profits and involvement have been going down, the actual cost to produce a record has dropped tremendously, so the need to have somebody write you a $100,000 cheque so you can finish a radio quality CD isn't as necessary.
Those articles are all quoting the same study are they not? That hardly establishes the claim as a fact. One thing I can tell you is that the majority of teenagers and people in their early twenties that I've talked to about the subject have considerable mp3 collections - and most of them claim to have never bought any music in their lifetimes.
"Radio quality" means nothing today. Try funding an album with top-notch studio musicians, an arranger, a producer, a good mixing engineer and good mastering without a good budget. Not going to happen. Sure, if you're some indie band it can be really cheap to produce a passable album but to produce the kinds of albums that I grew up loving? Those albums are a thing of the past and it's a damn shame.
And again, I think you're grossly overestimating revenue potential where concerts are concerned - at least for the vast majority of bands.
Whether I lose money or not is beside the point that my property has been stolen. My ability to make a profit on that property is not germaine to the fact that a theft has occurred.
None of this is relevant data, whether true or not. People who download music may well be more likely to buy music, take good care of their pets and give to charity. Unfortunately they are also criminals.
It's not pointless when people are stealing other people's property. How many burglaries take place every year in the US? Worldwide? Should we just say to hell with it and let 'em rip us off blind? Of course not.
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
No. All three are different, the first one is a 2009 UK study, the second one is a 2012 US one and the third one is a time article from 2013 referencing another source I believe.
The majority of people you talk to and an independent study are two very different things. You could just happen to hang out with a bunch of cheapskates. The biggest downloaders I know have record collections that would make you green with envy.
The fact is the game is changing, you can either adapt or be left behind. I am not going to argue these people are stealing, that fact is undeniable, I would hardly call the people criminals. Would you rather you sell 5,000 cds or have 100,000 illegal downloads? I would personally rather have the latter, that way I know I have 100,000 sets of ears hearing my art and if I wanted to tour, I would probably sell at least 25,000 tickets.
Calling this situation a "change in the industry" is a smoke screen for the fact that people have discovered that, for the music industry at least, no one is shooting looters, so the looters are running free. Call it what it actually is.
To your point, the viability of a given business model is an interesting discussion, but it's a discussion we're forced to have in the face of rampant thievery and the utter lack of political will to enforce intellectual property laws.
I never said I was a "free music" person and I think the artist should be paid if that's what they want. I don't know that they should be paid for a lifetime + 50 or 100 years and certainly not after their dead..
That is certainly your choice, and if you choose to make your product freely available, you have a right to make that choice. In that situation your are making a business investment decision to accept some initial losses with the hope of recouping those losses with increased ticket sales.
They are criminals because a) they are stealing my property, and b) it's against the law for them to do that. I will make the decisions I must to stay in business, but I choose not to embrace this new culture of lawlessness and disrespect for other people's property rights and I will continue to name it what it is.
Of course we can fight the current state of affairs. We as a society choose not to presumably because we have placed a higher value on the opportunity to get free stuff over the principle of personal property rights.
It doesn't really matter what a seller's attitude is; property is in fact being stolen. I may be a saint or a whore, but my property is still my property. The law protects people whether they are nice or not.
I'll be happy to do that when the rest of society reverts to defecating in holes and eating grubs because their feudal lord has taken the food crops as rent.
The fact that we don't live that way anymore is due in very large part to the embodiment in law of the principle that a person has the right to keep the fruits of their labor.
- Jan 27, 2010
- 4,141
- 471
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Genz Benz Amplification
What you're missing is that labels now get a percentage of an artists merchandising and ticket sales, which was unheard of ten years ago. In business this is called a 360 deal. They do this to offset the lower album sales due to illegal downloads.
You can argue all you want that "free" music only hurts the labels, but every cent the label spends has to be recouped before the artist sees a dime. This can include merch and ticket sales. So how is an artist supposed to make any money performing when the label gets that too?
Just pay for the music you listen to.
People didn't stop using buggywhips because widespread theft of buggywhips devalued the manufacturing of them, so your statement, while pretty funny, isn't really valid IMHO.
Music is still valued by society. People still listen to music and attend concerts. Technology has made the theft of music simple and easy, and as a result society is currently in the process of devaluing the rights of music producers (and movie producers and writers) because they like free stuff.
Whether society values my rights or not, they are nonetheless my rights, and they are not negotiable. Which of my rights will be next on the chopping block when society decides that it's time for a change?
There I copied your property . It's right above this in QUOTE tags
What was stolen from you?
