Boards

It really varies (for me at least) depending on a fans connection to a band.

For example, I really enjoy Interpol, but know they'll be fine if I download all their albums and sneak into their shows.

I also downloaded Pendulum's 'Hold Your Colour' ages ago after a recommendation. Didn't pay for it, but consequently saw them several times that I wouldn't have without having downloaded the album free in the first place.

Then there are unsigned/very small bands such as Post War Years and We Have Band that I think are great, but knowing they're releasing stuff on their own, I'll happily by their stuff on 12" in the hope that they are able to go on long enough to make a career of it!

Long and short of it, I don't think ethics (should) come into the purchasing or otherwise of music from major artists, but I guess when you really like an act you know isn't self-sustainable yet, there's no harm in throwing them a few quid.

end of argument.

but as you mention, I think its probably limited to a certain type of music fan. just going from conversations I've had with people I know.
its definitely become less acceptable to admit you illegally download.

we can place music listeners in 3 categories
1. always buys albums and is very high on their list of priorities
2. on the fence. likes to buy albums and support artists, but don't have the funds to buy all the music they have an interest in. they want to be certain beforehand that it will be a wise purchase.
3. will never buy
possibly a 4th is students who want to buy some music, but they have other needs that they rank above it, but they hope to buy music later on
depending on the size of group 2), it could work. i would like to think that it would, but it would require the music industry making quite the leap of faith. they probably are doing market research on this now.

I own 300 CDs, I've had a monthly emusic subscription for the past 2 years (€30) and I've bought 300 tracks from iTunes this year alone. And I'm a 19 year-old student.

But isnt the stastistic that for every 1 legally downloaded track, 20 are downloaded illegally. That's very difficult to combat, no matterhow many ethical music fans there are.

that Andy Falkous blog that ended up as an advert in the Guardian?

That it's okay to not pay for albums by bands you perceive to be successful enough already is a moral grey area; I think we can agree though that most bands playing below arena level, particularly new bands, are going to be affected by people not paying for their records.

Point is, every discerning fan knows that smaller bands need their support, and anyone who claims to be a 'fan' of a band whose album(s) they didn't pay for truly deserves, to quote Falkous, a punch square in the tits. In that sense there is definitely more stigma attached to it.

And, as Yesiamaduck said, the industry has adapted in impressively short time really to mean there's little excuse not to find some way of buying music affordably. What kind of cut the artists get from these relatively new means of consumption is another (very interesting) question entirely.

If people were restricted to only listening to music they had purchased then the number of bands being listened to would shrink massively because people have limited money, some smaller bands just wouldnt have ever been establish the fanbases they can now. When bands build up a bit of a profile they look around and think 'we aren't selling nearly as many albums as a similar profile band would have a few years back' but there is never any recognition that the file sharing may have helped them get that kind of profile in the first place, people just assume bands would have achieved the same recognition in the past when they wouldnt, they might not have been the lucky ones people chose to spend their limited amount of money on and therefore the'd have little fanbase(small success of lots of bands seems a lot more preferable to big success of relatively few bands in the past to me). So the downloading hurts small bands argument seems a bit lacking to me as without downloading they may have been even worse off.

And atleast some of the losses must be offset by increased audiences etc. I remember a couple of months ago someone posted that graph that showed artists actually earn more now largely because of increased gig revenues, people dismissed it and said it was skewed by mega artists massive residency gigs but I think that same disproportionate earnings of mega artists would have been present in past record sales and gig earnings so think it is fair to compare past to present. I really think it could be because the money is spread between more bands than in the past that it is percieved as such aa problem, because people look at a band in isolation and see they aren't earning as much as they would have without looking at the big picture, bands arent doing so well as there is more of them (and I'll always think more bands is better then less).

Don't get me wrong, I dont think people should download everything, I buy most albums nowadays (although to be honest more due to panic about the vinyl selling out than for moral reasons), I just think its weird that music, especially independent music, appears to have boomed in the period when there has been so much doom mongering, I think there are benefits as well as costs to downloading and think the 'illegal downloading music = artists suffer' is simplistic probably record label lobbiest propaganda. I still can't think of any band that I like, who appear quite successful but have had to call it a day because they can't afford it anymore.

it's human nature.

I'd feel more guilty about it if the majority of the cash wasn't going to people in suits who really don't give a shit.

just sayin' WHAT IF you're poor, k I'm poor :(. I work my ass off, struggle to pay rent blah blah class wars blah blah socialism but yeah so I steal ALOT of music, probably more in a day then most in a week, often Flac, DVD-A and so on too but when I can scrape enough together, I'll buy music on vinyl. Compact Discs, though fine sound wise (another topic altogether) come in shitty packaging and are not worth 15-20 Canadian Dollars. Jewel cases break after a week, and owning a circular piece of plastic and aluminum is imo not exciting. Digital downloads are even more overpriced. In the case of mp3's you're paying a little less for a lower quality version of the Compact Disc's audio and if you're buying Flac's you're not getting any tangible product. If the record company is not paying to press the digital file or ship it then there is absolutely no reason for it to be so expensive. Infact they are doing almost nothing aside from promotion and seeing as most effective promotion now is internet based and dirt cheap, putting up advertising costs can't even really be factored in. Digital music just costs what it does because it's based on a business model built on a physical product. My point is, I am in no way downloading music that I would buy if I didn't have the opportunity to steal it therefore I'm not causing a loss in sales. In the past few years I've bought 100 or so records (new so money went to the artists) and I've gone to shows and have never really spent the little extra money I've had on anything other then music. So I don't see how someone in my situation can be called immoral and I'm sure there are many others in this situation. When I was younger and lived with my parents, I bought over 4 or 5 years about 800 cds (god I wish I bought vinyl instead) and sold them all over a few months around 2005 to cover some school costs. I still buy vinyl when I can rarely afford to. So again, overall point is I've put as much money as my financial situation has allowed me into music and always will. I've not caused any loss of music revenues.

Record companies previously dictated the ability for bands to record, market, distribute recordings of musical performances but they're not needed any-more. Technological advances mean that these can be done by bands themselves or other forces. We don't need them any longer. Obviously they are in self protection mode through the legal constructs they've spent the last 4 decades building up but they know the game is up.

Outside the big mainstream artists no band makes money from selling recordings, they just get to pay off a bit of that advance the record company has given them and have the fortuity to make another record. We all know this. The whole 'buy a record, feed the artist' is a music industry propagated yarn.

The old business model of 80% of the revenue from records sold being diverted to the pimp is dead. A new model will come in time, we haven't got one yet, hopefully one where money spent on the enjoyment of a bands music will reside in the pockets of the musicians themselves.

The biggest lie being exposed is the concept that a recording of a piece of music is something that can be owned or possessed by a person for giving money to a third party or agent for the priviledge. We need to get past this idea, it's so outdated.