Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
some of you are going to like this http://latestdisgrace.com/2010/speak-out-fuck-you-pay-me
He's 100% totally right but in a narrow sense obviously it's missing a point - there's a culture of downloading for free that's not going away and complaining eloquently about it being unfair isn't any help to anyone whatsoever.
On the other hand it's justified cos it's funny (and the pix are sick).
Lots of people are freetards.
But it's not quite as simple as "Do you get your gas, groceries or weed for free?" They're finite, (non-replicable) resources (yes, you can grow food and weed, but to argue on point would be to miss the point somewhat). 1 download != 1 lost CD sale.
Also, "The pay what you want model championed by the likes of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails is a sham." thing can be argued (when talking about mp3s) if you take the point of view that they were established acts that can afford to treat those things as promo for CD releases and live tours. But as far as pay what you like for a CD goes, this forum's very own m-dizzle (of the band Alt Track) have sold their album on that basis, and (I believe) it's worked out fairly well for them.
'Music' and 'the experience of "consuming" really great music that genuine fans want to engage with' are not the same thing. The former is reduced to almost zero value because of ubiquity, market forces and freetards (see: spotify, for starters). The latter is something that will always have value (see: the almost inexplicable continuation of vinyl sales, for starters).
[usual disclaimer about not ever using p2p and spending as much as ever on music goes here]
now buy my records:)
+ unsubtractable guilt
x by frustration that comes from the above
rationalised into superiority.
Whine whine whine. I make music and I'd happily give it away for free.
at all. It was more of a bitch.
Although I disagree with the NiN/Radiohead bit, I don't think the system was a 'sham,' (obviously it's not something most bands could do). In the case of Radiohead, for a popular and well respected band the whole point was that lots of people would have payed for the record, and lots of people would have downloaded it illegally anyway. By making it free they made lots of people think about the 'value of music' and (if I'm correct, Radiohead geek as I am) they made more money from In Rainbows that any previous album.
They should do a test in the UK. I don't know what the outcome would look like but I know that most of my friends do download music illegally, yet they wouldn't say that music isn't worth paying for. They just don't really understand what they're doing is wrong as they wouldn't steal a whole album, just a couple of songs.
then when people refuse to pay for it, I'll say "What the fuck? People think air isn't worth paying for?! Don't they know they need this shit to EXIST?" And then I'll ignore all the flaws in the analogy because they don't render the point any less valid. And then I'll ignore TheWza's response because likewise.
Although some companies have already tried to sell bottled air. But the air is there. For free. An infinite amount. Always. Everywhere. Without limits. Noone buys gas to breath as part of their daily routine. But...
If you'd have said bottled water, instead of bottled air, you might have been on to something. Especially if you were putting your point forward 20+ years ago.
Water is effectively free (inside your home). And very ubiquitous as a free thing (even outside of the home). But there is a convenience to bottled water. When you buy bottled water, you're not buying the water. You're not even buying the bottle. They're free, too, once you've bought your first one (i.e. the bottle is re-usable). With bottled water you're buying the *convenience*. The bottled water companies and shops can bottle up and transport the nominal product at a rate that means you can't be arsed to.
Let's stretch the almost fixed bottled stuff analogy back to breaking point by defining it further...
Let's say that water is music in general (i.e. effectively free. It's in your home by default if you have an instrument/tap in your house.). Coke is (pre-internet) signed, pre-recorded music (i.e. not freely available 'on tap'/broadband). Beer is live music (we actually pay a premium to consume it on a private premises because that setup can't be recreated at home).
If someone really had installed a 'coke tap' in our houses, people would *still* pay for the convenience of coke on the go.
No-one can ever install a 'live-music-venue-in-you-living-room' tap.
Let's really fuck with our analogy and look at films. The 'cinema experience' is much more recreatable in your living room than a gig. But then we realise that cinema != a gig. Theatre = a gig.
What have we learnt from all of this?...
A. 1 paid for download does not have the 'value' of 1 CD sale.
B. 1 dodgy download != 1 lost CD sale.
C. I'm a man that values quality , so I still buy CDs.
D. Coming back to the bottled fluids analogy, I'm an alcoholic, too.
E. Analogies rarely help you get to the root of a problem.
music fans don't have infinite money, so supply and demand, if the price is free the demand will increase massively, loads more albums will be listened to than if they were £10 each so loads more bands will find an audience because of this, it may seem bad to them that theyve got a big audience but alot wont be buying their records so they wont make the same amount of money as a band of a similar profile in the past, but theyve got to understand that there is a good chance that if it weren't for the dowloading that that audience wouldn't be there in the first place as they may not have been the lucky ones people chose to buy the albums of, if we went back to a time where the only way to listen to an album was by buying it then a much smaller number of lucky bands would find an audience, it would be a winner takes all situation where a small number of bands would achieve greater success compared to now where a large number of bands achieve moderate success, so it is a trade off larger chance of making it but ultimately less money to be made. But having said that I still think this is pretty interesting http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ (artists actually make more money now) I know people on here at the time said it was skewed by huge multi night residency type acts but I think the same skew would have existed in the record sales of the same mega artists in the past so is comparable, I know personally I was into a handful of bands pre broadband but now i've got into countless bands through downloading and any band I genuinely like I end up buying records, gig tickets and normally a tshirt and I think that is pretty common, there will obviously be the causual music fan that will never buy anything but they probably wouldnt have bought much in the past either. I know it is bad for record labels but they aren't as important as the used to be since the cost of recording now have plummeted and there are many more routes for promotion. Also I think it is good creatively, Im sure many of todays best acts were prolific downloaders themselves in the past and the cross pollination of ideas can only be good for music. Think people going into the music industry should just accept that it has changed, somethings for the better some for the worse
and what has worked in the past doesn't work anymore, things are probably better for live acts and electronic musicians are worse affected, but things have changed and its no good just wishing things were like before they need to adapt, find ways of performing live and creating artifacts that people want to own.
And that 'music fans don't have infinite money'. But the thing is, they don't have an infinite amount of time either. So there's a limit to how much demand can go up.
Increased demand might come close to filling the hole left by lower prices - 'proper' music fans that want to support artists are always gonna be around. But super-low prices are highly unlikely to exceed any overall losses caused by freetards. The music fans prepared to pay up have always been spending pretty much all they can on music. That might've been on a few albums here and there in the olden days, and it might be on loads of cheaper stuff now, but total spend by music fans is unlikely to rise by much from this point in. CD albums are already pretty cheap - they're usually around £6-8 quid new and often less than a fiver, second-hand, after 6 months. And accounting for inflation over the past 20 years, that's pretty good.
Giving away music is all very well, but it should be done on the artists' terms. Yes, big record companys were running a racket for a couple of decades or more. They deserve our contempt. But freetards deserve all the scorn they get, too.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, there is really no need to download 'preview try-before-you-buy copies' of releases.
I wasnt really saying increased demand will make up for the loss,ignoring money and more about fanbases, my point was more that the amount of acts 'appreciated' now just wouldn't be sustainable if things were like the past where people had to choose carefully what they bought, then the number of acts that could get a decent number of listeners would fall drastically
i'll just leave it at that
is pretty fucking rich coming from someone demanding 'fuck you, pay me'. He can fuck off. Oh you made some music? I don't care. I'm not going to pay for your shitty hobbies. If your music is truly life-changing it'll find an audience and in turn generate revenue. I doubt this will happen for this guy though. He seems like a fucking bellend.
It's really odd to me that this accusation is leveled at downloaders when "an undeserved sense of entitlement" is exactly the reason record companies are sinking. Still demanding £14 for a plastic disc in 2010? What a joke. How about high-bitrate files and lower prices? How about a bit of common sense?
AND WHAT KIND OF STUPID FUCK STEALS IMAGES FROM THE WEB TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT ABOUT RIGHTS-OWNERSHIP???
your lady gaga's etc. live it up in their mansions, while endless groups who create niche music complain that they sell less records than they 'deserve' to.
only difference is, now someone might actually be listening to their shitty little band, as there is a forum by which people can easily find, appreciate and redistribute their music.
the value of music was wrong before. given that the value of music is subjective, there is nothing to say that paying £14.99 for a CD at fucking Virgin in the 90s was any more reflective of that musics true value.
things change... home taping didn't kill music, and neither has illegal downloading. there will always be money to be made if people appreciate your artistic endeavours - the more people who appreciate it, the more money you'll make.
so the idea that someone doesn't think music is worth paying for doesn't depress me (beyond the death of the record store :( ), and probably shouldn't depress most musicians either.
things have come along way since the band photo on a fruit of the loom. im sure bands especially when they are starting out dont feel disrespected as the downloaders provide them a fanbase that allows them to tour and probably sell them records (i buy most of my records at gigs im sure alot of other people are the same). I remember when wavves first came out and he was complaining at people who hadnt bought his ep, i remember thinking it was ridiculous how this kid who was now touring the world on the back of a couple of cassettes didnt realise what downloading had done for him
that has successfully adapted to the piracy issue without having to beg the government to interfere with people's internet connections. Steam, iPhone games, PSN and Live Arcade: all good examples of how to use positive strategies to encourage spending. Ease of use, speed, convenience, intelligent pricing, free/premium models, blah blah. Even PC gaming isn't fucked, and that's wide open to piracy.
For one thing, gaming has a history of being very technology dependent.
For another, DRM works if there's no easy way to circumvent it. The music industry was still trying to sell CDs at the same time as punting on DRM'ed up digital downloads. Didn't work. Yes, PSOne games were an absolute piece of piss to copy and play. But note how that was at the same time as Sony were trying to gain hardware market share. And how they've progressively cracked down on the ability to copy games.
Re: PC Gaming - I'd like top see a health report for the sales of non-technology dependent PC only games in comparison to console versions. How many 'wide open to piracy' PC only games are developed that aren't also available as a console version? Might as well bung out a PC version if it's easy to create a port and you know it's not gonna eat into sales of the console version.
'The music industry' could've attempted to copy the games industry, gone into lockdown, stopped making CDs, and tried an exclusively DRM-laden download only setup. But it didn't because 'the music industry' doesn't operate in the same way as the games industry.
Yes, games sales are probably eating into music sales, but the business model for games is flawed when applied to music.
Nothing to learn from games; that whole approach of saying they're different industries and mediums so nothing applies to both is fallacious. They're both disposable income purchases that are strongly linked with new technology (MP3 players, online stores and pricing models etc).
Copyright protection technology has only been vaguely useful this gen, where you have a semi locked down system that's currently phoning home and updating itself, allowing online play and the PSN/live arcade. If Sony could have locked down the psone, they would have done so: if open hardware was a ticket to success in Korea, every single manufacturer would be doing it.
It's steam that presents the really interesting case, though. All those games are available to download on the pirate bay or whatever. But a magic combination of ease of use, clever marketing and canny pricing structures has made it incredibly successful; instead we have the iTunes store as the poster child for music, with it's fixed (high) prices and dodgy client software.
I didn't say music has "Nothing to learn from games" and "they're different industries and mediums so nothing applies".
And the way in which music is linked to new tech is different to how it applies to gaming. The medium and the tech that plays it is infintely more subtle in it's effect on the actual music, compared to it's effect games. So music style and output is largely (although not exclusively) independent of the tech that is being used.
The games industry has sold itself on numerous iterations of cutting edge tech. There's usually been some sort of quantum leap in gaming style in roughly every other 'generation' of consoles that allows some drastic leaps in what a game is.
Vinyl* -> CD -> mp3 isn't really comparable to NES* -> PS One** -> Wii*** (and all the rather more incremental generations inbetween).
* MASS market cartridge gaming with non-ridiculous gfx.
** 3D games on disc.
*** A posh Gamecube in terms of grunt, but with a new-fangled control system and on-board with the downloads.
If tech does affect music, it's much more to do with the tech that's used to MAKE it rather than to DISTRIBUTE & play it back.
One of the reasons Nintendo held out on cartridges with the N64 (aside from loading times) was cos of piracy. They virtually nailed DRM on Gamecube. The PS2 and Xbox were widely chipped, but less so than the PS One. And how many people use pirated PS3/360/Wii games? It's only ever been heading in one direction.
Anyways.... people don't traditionally collect games in same way that they do/did with a music collection. Trade-ins are a massive part of the games sales business. Also, the back catalogue for games has always been worth so much less than in music (although I appreciate that download sales of older games on newer consoles is now a thing). The music industry loves the churn that chart fashions can induce, but it's not nearly as great a churn as in gaming.
..are pretty much what you're getting if your record collection is purely MP3s - you'll never hear that record at it's best (like it’s ‘premium’ vinyl version). An MP3 is a horribly compressed file, what happened to the musos of my youth that would spend a fortune on separates and leads with gold plated plugs?
I make records and the difference in sound between the MP3, CD and vinyl versions I put out still amazes me. Vinyl always has the warmest, the 'best' sound in my opinion, followed by CD which is still hugely superior (especially in bass) to the awful MP3. I feel sorry for the people that only have MP3 record collections, they're missing out on how good the record could actually sound. Are people just not as fussy anymore? Or have they got used to their music sounding 'empty' and so don't expect anymore?
I was talking to someone who runs a big label, massive bands on it, and they said they don't even bother mastering most the music they put out now, as there's no point when everyone hears it as an MP3 through shitty headphones.
For me personally, there's nothing better than a day spent playing 7" after 7" digging out ones you haven't heard in 20 years, looking at the sleeves, listening through decent speakers. I just can't get the same pleasure flicking through itunes.
There's got to be other fans like me still?
Or an audiophile vs 'normal person' vs 'tinny portable radio' thread.
Or a 'cynical compression when mastering most music nowadays' vs 'proper mastering' thread.
You'll note from what I've said elsewhere in this thread how I feel about the issue at hand - paying for music when the artist wants to be paid.
Yes, low-bit rate mp3s are a pretty bad listening experience.
No, I don't dispute the high quality of sound reproduction that vinyl can achieve. The same goes for CDs - my personal choice for most purchases.
But high quality bitrate mp3s are virtually indistinguishable vs a CD. 320Kbps or even 256Kbps are absolutely fine for all normal listening circumstances (i.e. any time other than double blind tests to find out whether they're fine, at which point you'll find out that they're fine - http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html ).
I appreciate the vinyl I have as an artifact. Same goes for CDs. There's something of value to be had in a physical thing. But to argue for it on grounds of quality is at worst wrong and at best loses sight of the issue at hand.
MP3s at 256/320 bit rates (or variable equivalents) are indistinguishable from CDs, even to music professionals being tested on professional equipment (that is, the environment which would be easiest to expose a difference in). Any difference you think you're hearing is a placebo from your fancy for physical objects.
There IS still a difference in quality and there ARE many people who can tell the difference. I know and have met many engineers/producers who can tell, almost instantly, whether they are listening to a 256/320 MP3 or a CD/WAV. Probably being quite pedantic...but I reckon it would be more accurate to say that they are nearly indistinguishable or something.
Personally though I do struggle to hear any difference at all between 256/320 and CD. Sometimes I can occasionally hear a slight difference with 256, it often feels a bit more 'washy' in the hi frequencies, but possibly my ears playing tricks on me who knows.
Is that feeling of superiority you so desperately need worth the few grand you've spent on CDs?
An intensely shallow and insecure trait, no doubt, but I can live with that being my one and only character flaw.
food, clothes, books and other stuff for my kids.
He's said he doesn't spend what he did on records. Nowt wrong woth that.
He hasn't said he fills that gap with illegit free downloads. Yet.
If he's condoning illegit downloads, it's an intimation missed.
I'm working on the basis that the non-spending on music isn't being coupled with illegit free downloads cos I've no reason to suppose that that's what is being done.
Eg: Spotify might be filling the gaps. That may or may not be your favoured business model or way to consume music. But it's a music industry approved model, so there's not really any scope (aside from philosophical high-ground moralising) for saying it's not okay to maintain a spend on records if you're hapy with Spotify and are spending your ex-music-centric dosh on "food, clothes, books and other stuff for my kids" (or, indeed, videogames or iPhones).
Ta, Wza. But of course I download music, and all the time. Used to buy a lot of music, but round about 2 years ago now, I radically reduced the amount of CDs I bought and eventually stopped buying them altogether.
And, yes, brightonb, I was responding to your Q about what people now spend their money on. My decision to stop buying CDs and start downloading them instead directly coincided with a significant drop in income, a massive increase in debt due to relocation expenses (for family reasons) and the ongoing/increasing cost of supporting a household that includes two young children.
As to whether "that makes it okay", the question makes no sense to me, especially seeing as I wasn't presenting it as a justification, but just answering your query. I don't see downloading as a moral issue, so I don't see a need to justify it. I *do* see feeding and clothing my kids as a moral issue: that's an obligation on me that far outweighs most other perceived obligations.
I guess one response to the above is that if a person can't afford to buy music then they don't deserve to be able to listen to it, or that they deserve to listen only to the amount of music they can afford to buy. That's one position, I guess, but Zapsta's already destroyed the economic basis to that argument, which means all that's left is the morality of regulating a person's access to music/art/culture in proportion to a person's net wealth.
*the morality of regulating a person's access to music/art/culture (THAT THE ARTIST EXPLICITLY REQUESTED REMUNERATION FOR) in proportion to a person's net wealth.
Copyrighted music/art/culture != music/art/culture.
There's plenty of public domain music/art/culture to be enjoyed. Or you could make your own.
Ha! You could apply that to anything. The morality of regulating my access to posh restaurants. The morality of regulating my access to gigs. The morality of regulating my access to fancy clothes. Fuck it lets give it a go, state owned music, free access to all. Simon Cowell could be in charge. I reckon we're on to a winner.
But, I think he's hit the nail on the head. All the people that used to buy music have got dull by doing the whole marriage and kids thing. There's not many of us left, we're slowly becoming the lone old(er) person at gigs as our friends opt for a night in in suburbia with 'the kids'. The new load of teenagers that should have replaced us never 'got' the need to actually own a record and if you've never done something you're never going to miss it.
I saw a man in a record shop last year having to explain to his girlfriend (who i assumed was about 18) what a vinyl record was.
"oh it's mary chain's upside down"
"no, I mean WHAT is it??"
"...A record?? It's a vinyl record, you know, put it on a record player..?"
No you couldn't, because it isn't possible to copy those digitally.
I've got way less disposable income than I had as a teenager and student so - whilst I don't download music for free, I don't buy anywhere near as many albums as I used to. And to be honest I don't regret that at all. Maybe 3% at most of the records I used to buy were actually things I then went on to listen to on a regular basis and I'd buy shitloads of things that I'd end up not really listening to at all.
Whatever else you criticise illegal downloading for, I certainly don't blame people for not spending fuckloads of money on CDs that end up sitting on shelves unused.
I thought I was a bit scattergun with my purchases and feel like I've got more than I can reasonably listen to on a regular basis. But 3%! That's a major whimsical tastes/bad choice purchasing trend going on there.
As someone's touched on above, the fact that the internet and changes to recording technology now mean pretty much anyone can make and release an album means the market is utterly flooded, and in most cases flooded with things that wouldn't have got made. And far more is released than anyone can possibly afford to buy, especially if you used to buy things to try it out and see what it's like. So if there was still the 1990s market but with the current amount of things being released that'd be unsustainable.
That doesn't justify downloading, and ultimately however you dress it up you're taking something for free that you should be paying for but the whole idea some people have that all the small bands in Britain would be making money were it not for downloads isn't really the case.
56% of U.S. Internet users think that music isn’t worth paying for.
This is because they can get it for free. 56% of US Internet users don't think it's worth paying for something they can have for free.
I don't think it's worth paying for tap water in restaurants. I don't think it's worth paying for The Metro, Shortlist etc. I don't think it's worth paying to read the books I get out of the library.
If tap water wasn't free, and I had to pay a small charge to buy it, then assuming I was keen to have some water, I would think, yes, this is worth paying for.
If the government cuts funding for libraries and they start charging per book, and I want to read a book, I'll think "yes this is worth paying for."
That's all that's happening here.
I'm not going to wade too deep into the rest of the moralistic argument except to say that I agree with robluvsnic RE "the morality of regulating a person's access to music/art/culture in proportion to a person's net wealth." It seems to me that anyone who is too happy to suggest that people should be paying for things rather than downloading is implicitly endorsing the current socio/political/economic order. And I'm sure a lot of them don't really mean to.
You don't have the money to pay for CDs/legal downloads whatever? Fine, you can still have access to all the records you want, but you have to stream them, legally, for free.
(I'm assuming you have the money for broadband - but you're posting on here)
You want to get better quality and portability? Decide whether it's worth paying for or not.
Otherwise it's not an 'entitlement to culture' issue. It's just a 'I don't have to pay for this so why should I?' issue.
I was attempting to speak in principle though, as the author of the original article and various people above have done.
For what it's worth I rather agree with you, except I think you're missing the point a bit with quality and portability. It looks like pretty much everyone in "more economically developed countries" (horrible term but whatever) is going to have some kind of mobile internet device in the relatively near future, equally network speeds are only going to increase - there'll be no need to significantly limit the quality of streaming music pretty soon, any more than people consider limiting the quality of Excel spreadsheets now.
Spotify, grooveshark et al are rather flawed at the minute. Loads of things I might want to hear are missing, Spotify's adverts are horrifically un-targeted in a way that many people find unacceptable etc etc etc.
They're not really up to it.
What I imagine will happen is that one of them, or some similar service will become dominant. This service will need to be endorsed by the government. Money would be collected from a tax on broadband providers - who will pass this on in a relatively small increase in broadband cost (and/or a reduction in their profit), and perhaps some minimal advertising (- it'd need to be fairly minimal to avoid creating a great incentive to pirate). Payment will be sent to rightsholders through PRS or some similar body.
It's anachronistic that Chris Moyles can play pretty much any recorded piece of music and pretty much everyone who wants to listen can listen and pretty much everyone who should get paid gets paid, whilst some kid in their bedroom can just as easily choose their own piece of music, listen to it just as easily and yet the rightholders aren't compensated. To expect that kid to pay when he doesn't have to will, in many cases (at least 56% of the time in the USA), be too optimistic. Trying to force him to pay with crude legal threats ignores both the technological difficulty in catching him and the number of people involved, which is only increasing.
And to a large point... point taken. But...
You're looking to the future (which is fair enough).
But right now, system as it is, spotify/grooveshark as you say aren't up to it.
And you have 2 choices: you can spend your hard-earned, reward the people behind the music you love or you can steal it and not.
I'm not finger pointing and I'm not going to call you on it (I've downloaded a few things I couldn't find except for 50quid imports on amazon marketplace) but trying to say 'well in the future...' doesn't work. Right here, right now, you've made a choice "I want this thing. I only have a limited amount of cash. THis thing I want I can obtain for free, so I'm going to take it."
"...service will become dominant. This service will need to be endorsed by the government."
"Endorse"? What do you mean by that? A government sanctioned music streaming service at the expense of all others and legislation against all others? No chance.
"and/or a reduction in "broadband providers" profit"
For serious? You expect for one second that broadband providers are gonna accept a small hit to their profits for the privelige of providing the pipes that allow a third party streaming service to exist? They wouldn't.
"Payment will be sent to rightsholders through PRS or some similar body."
How do they know who to pay? By accurately monitoring how many listens each track gets? That already happens on Spotify and We7 etc. In a world where Spotify exists, what possible justification do you have for charging a tax to pay for something that's already provided free by the industry? You must be talking about non-legit, non-PRS-counted streaming. If so, I'm gonna make and release 75,000 marginally different shitty tracks and so that I can put my hat into the ring and claim my piece of the random PRS handouts from this broadband tax bounty. If they're not monitoring individual plays then they must be doing it by the number of tracks that you have available, right? Wrong. Broadband tax to pay for music is a bullshit idea. Where does it stop? An extra bit of tax to help out authors who are being ripped off by texts being made available online. A bit more tax to pay for films? A bit more to pay for copyrighted artworks that are being replicated online without the rightsholders permission?
A broadband equivalent of the license fee, to cover music. Maybe also films tv and books, sure, why not. All monitored from legal streaming (or downloading, like I say, that matters less and less) websites. If these were excellent(like spotify isn't), people would have almost no incentive to pirate.
Below you seem to say that the only real reason to pay for music is courtesy. A point I don't really disagree with. However, an increasing number of people are being discourteous. Calling them rude seems unlikely to change their behaviour. Excellent legal provision, funded by an unavoidable charge on broadband access would.
and imposing a tax to pay content creators immediately legitimises all copyright infringement. Which doesn't trouble me personally, but it's a 'moral' high ground I think the content holders would be keen on publicly taking. Could be wrong about their position though.
You know which side of the 'pay for it' argument I'm on, but I'm vehemently against a broadband tax.
In the same way that the tax on CD-Rs that some countries have is laughable.
"A broadband equivalent of the license fee", "maybe also films tv and books, sure, why not."
Because I don't do illegit DLs of albums that the artist is asking me to pay for, and I don't and won't pay for downloads (until they stop making CDs or vinyl and DVDs of virtually everything at a 'reasonably' competetive relative prie, and I'm not left with a choice otherwise).
What level should the tax be set at? My parents buy 3 CDs a year, if that, and aren't interested in downloading or streaming. I showed em spotify a few months ago - they've probably not used it since then.
If the record industry wants to do blanket licensing for download access to everything ever then they've been able to do that off their own backs quite easily at any point in the last decade. But they haven't, and they won't. Cos what happens when I've downloaded every top 40 album from the last 50 years in my first 3 months? I cancel my subscription. 'There'd be a cap', you say? That'll not stop anyone who currently indulges in illegit downloads from carrying on regardless. So it'd have to be streaming. Which is what Spotify is. That's what the industry has accepted to be their best attempt at an answer for now. And though it might not be perfect, the free version is pretty damn good value for money. The fiver option ain't too shabby either. And if you've not got enough bought music to take on the go, or don't want to pay for music any other way, then the tenner option isn't awful value. Anyone who routinely downloads albums in Spotify era is a willful leech.
Your analogies are either irrelevent or wrong.
The water analogy has been covered upthread.
The Metro is marketed as a freeshee. The owners are consenting to their content being distributed on a model completely subsidised by advertising.
Re: Libraries - The Public Lending Right (PLR) program compensates authors for the potential loss of sales from their works being available in public libraries. These payments are made out of tax revenues because libraries were/are deemed to be of benefit to society. Governments administer this type of scheme in various different ways - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right
"It seems to me that anyone who is too happy to suggest that people should be paying for things rather than downloading is implicitly endorsing the current socio/political/economic order."
Let's not turn this into a political crusade. It's just that some of us on here have a truckload more respect for the copyright of artists than others seem to. This isn't an issue about government. It's not even an issue about theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft. Which is why so many analogies thrown about are completely pointless.
The whole thing comes down to whether an artist gets paid what they're asking to be paid in exchange for you 'consuming' their work. If you don't think what they're asking is a fair price, then let them know by shunning their work. Don't be a hypocrite and say their works not worth it, and then go ahead and 'consume' it anyway.
I'm genuinely quite surprised at some of the responses on here.
I think anyone illegally downloading music should at least accept that what they're doing is kinda shady - keep doing it by all means, I don't have a huge moral objection personally and I've done it too occasionally, but for fuck sake don't delude yourself that it's totally 100% okay.
Getting pissy about someone pointing this out in a mostly tongue-in-cheek way = LAME.
but I did read the article. That was enough.
100% agree. I don't illegally download. If you do, you're a bit of a I'm-alright-Jack cunt. Like wot that bloke wrote.
...and the fact that you can now with music just means that people do. It makes me think that many people are fundamentally mean-spirited. I have not read an argument that justifies downloading artists' work for free, in instances where they haven't given permission, to date. It isn't right. It ISN'T. Yes, I know it can be done. Yes, I know it'll never be possible to stop it ever again and that many of the "new business models" that you see exist because of this fact. But it does not, and will never, make it right.
...present me the grounds, one by one, on which downloading artists' music for nothing without their permission is acceptable, and I'll rebut them all.
on charity. Rebut THAT.
is because moral reasoning does not deal with possibilities ("can"), only moral necessities ("ought"). I.e. One *ought* to do this (even if one doesn't really want to), and one *ought not* do this (even if one really wants to).
No one, afaik, is arguing that people *ought* to download, only that people *ought not* download. The burden of presenting a moral argument, thus lies with those arguing that one *ought not*.
In an Enlightenment/post-Enlightenment world, there is only one moral justification *for* doing something that you want to do (though less and argument than an idea or value): freedom. In the absence of a strong moral argument *against* exercising one's freedom, the moral justification for doing something you want to do is simply, "because you can and you are free to do so". Again: the burden of proof, so to speak, lies with those wishing to present the case of moral necessity.
Not indulging in copyright infringement in a world where personal repurcussions are highly unlikely is largely reduced a question of courtesy.
And basic courtesy is all the moral justification I need *for* respecting the wishes of someone who has created something and asked for it to be used in a particular way as opposed to *not* respectinfg those wishes.
On the rare occasions I infringe copyright*, I'll admit that I'm being a bit of a git for not directly requesting permission from the rights holder. And if someone wants to call me on that then I'll hold my hands up. I'll just say that 'yeah, I'm kinda on the make cos I wanted it and I either don't have any respect for those rights and/or dealing with the rightsholder was more hassle/expense than I was prepared to do'. I won't come out with some convoluted philosophical getout clause as to why you're not allowed to point the finger.
*e.g. a) availability led: downloading a commercially unavailable radio session or live set by an artist that I've invariably already bought stuff by, or b) a technical infringement: buying, selling or ripping CDs.
are talking in terms of moral necessity. As a rule, when I respond to someone's question/point, I am responding only to their question or point, and not seeking accuse anyone else of anything. Damian claimed, "I have not read an argument that justifies downloading artists' work for free", and then invited people to present such an argument. I've explained that that's not how moral reasoning works, and this remains true regardless of whether I routinely download the entire back-catalogue of major labels, or am the most vehement champion of intellectual property rights — or, indeed, whether I enjoy eating babies for breakfast.
In making this point about moral reasoning, then, I'm not — in this (and that) particular post — naming anyone *specifically* as doing anything. All I'm saying is moral reasoning deals with necessity, universal law, and not with mere possibility. Moral reasoning works towards establishing the universal imperative (do this don't do that) and not towards statements such as "it's okay to choose to do this or not", and this is because the latter is presupposed by moral reasoning as the natural state of affairs.
So, I'm not trying to "come out with some convoluted philosophical getout clause as to why you're not allowed to point the finger". Of course you're allowed to point the finger! Go for it. If anywhere in anything I've said suggests that I'm arguing the *moral necessity* (as distinct from the pragmatic futility) of refraining from criticising those who fileshare, then I rescind the remark in question. Point as many fingers as you like. Point your toes as well, if you so choose. You're completely free to do so, just as I'm free to interrogate and reject the "logic" of such complaints (something which I choose to 1 time out of every 10, just for the sheer hell of it).
Now: the on to the far more interesting issue: whether the critical position on filesharing can be imagined in terms of of courtesy. It's a great proposal, and very productive in terms of trying to shift the terms of the debate. I have some doubts about whether the courtesy argument can escape the sphere of the moral imperative whilst retaining the ethical dimension nevertheless, but I can certainly endorse an argument that doesn't seek unilaterally to regulate everyone's conduct. And, in any case, I have no objection to people not wanting to fileshare, no more than I have any objection to people not wanting to drink, or not wanting to read books. Go for it. You're free to do so, and you don't need my permission. Hopefully, though, you can respect my decision to drink and to read books, even if you don't care for them...
Drink and read books all you like.
I'm pointing the finger at someone who appears to be boiling this down to a black and white 'I can so I will' option.
I'll honestly need it discussed in terms that avoid a comparison of the relative hierarchy of 'moral reasoning', 'necessity', 'universal law', 'universal imperative', 'moral necessity', and 'sphere of the moral imperative'.
I'm pointing the finger at someone who doesn't mind not respecting the wishes of musicans but isn't so happy to admit as much in plain language.
Music is pretty cheap, all told.
I don't mind not respecting the wishes of musicians.
Now, back to the substance of the point: there is now relative hierarchy of 'moral reasoning', 'necessity', 'universal law', 'universal imperative', 'moral necessity', and 'sphere of the moral imperative'. They are all terms for capturing the essence of moral reasoning. What Damian asked for was arguments justifying (i.e. morally) filesharing. My point — expressed infinitely more clearly and succinctly by WhiteLightWhiteCity below — is that that's not the way moral reasoning works.
To reiterate: I don't mind not respecting the wishes of musicians. I don't let this fact stop me from introducing philosophical precepts into whichever arguments/debates/BANTS I feel like.
That's all I needed to hear. All else is excuses.
"Freedom justifies that" - WhiteLightWhiteCity
Is that what you mean? If so, oh dear. A circular philosophical discussion about the definition of a word. I'm not interested in playing that game, thanks. Ahm oot.
If you wanna play freedom-centric games without me though, try falsely shouting fire! in a packed theatre, or bomb! in an airport, and see what freedoms you turn out to have.
is overridden by the public safety requirement. That is a reasonable limitation on free speech. It's not as wordy as you seem to imply, it's just that you need to establish a reasonable limitation on people's actions if you are to legally coerce them into taking or not taking certain actions (sharing music in this case).
You can't keep on adopting a philosophical argument and then relying on flaws in legal structures when that's not the point being discussed.
without justifying it.
You need to justify why an action *isn't* acceptable, if you want to curb it.
He said it himself, when something is free, legitimate or not, Americans will take advantage of it as much as possible. What's wrong with that statement though is that it's not just Americans but human beings in general seeing as we have a survival instinct and naturally try to take as much as we can when we can. Does that justify stealing music or make it okay? No. It does however make it reality and aside from the obvious life isn't fair, asking people not to take something for free from people they don't know with no consequences never has worked and never ever will work.
Some of the points in that article are certainly valid but you can't just completely look past the multitude of problems with the music industry. Simplifying it to fuck you pay me sounds funny in a rant but is not helpful at all unless the author's intentions is merely to prove that stealing music is wrong though I don't know how anyone could argue that stealing isn't wrong.
We live in a capitalist society that is essentially everyone out for themselves. Everyone has to make things work their own way and the onus is not on music fans to solve this problem. If your business model is not attractive to your market and unprofitable to you then you need to find a way to make it profitable. If Walmart isn't doing so well then it's not our fault. That might seem less broad then music but we really are talking about the music industry and not music. I recorded a song yesterday and gave it to friends for free. I heard someone busking when I went to the store earlier. The sales of CD's /Lp's/Cassettes/mp3's/8tracks/blahblah are only one tiny part of music as a whole, one that's only been around for 100 and some odd years. If this type of industry is to continue existing, like I said artists/managers/labels need to make that happen. Stealing music and the failing music industry are not mutually exclusive but they also aren't completely tied together. If the music industry wasn't losing popularity before piracy became rampant, it may not of even become rampant.
I might be a little biased because I do doors at shows a lot, work a bit with a local label and put on shows the odd time but ime most musicians have very unrealistic expectations about music earnings anyhow. I've worked doors for 8 hours before and agreed to walk away from the show with no money whatsoever to appease the bands and they still weren't happy with their pay. I WORKED doors and they got a large group of people to listen to their music and got paid hundreds of dollars. Sounds kind of wrong doesn't it? The most I ever take from a show is I assure you, much less then minimum wage and the reason I do it is because I like listening to music and getting young people excited about local bands. If this can work for me with little tangible payoff, I know bands can do it too as long as they actually care about music.
I don't get paid any money for making music,I have a 9-5 and I certainly don't make money from shows because I don't play them so how do I make music then? This idea that musicians who aren't getting paid for their work can longer make it is ridiculous at best. Most musicians I know work 9-5's as well because they don't expect to make a living off of what is essentially an artistic pursuit. It should be it's own reward first and foremost. I'm not saying musicians shouldn't get paid anything but not as much as many of their 'false entitlements' would lead them to believe. A new business model for selling music should abolish giant leaching labels, pay the artists more realistically and espouse of this idea of making billions off of music.
So I help out the music 'industry' in my spare time as much as I can for almost no monetary gain. I find time to do that despite having a full time job and I'm expected to fork the very little bit of money I do make living in poverty over to music as well? Stealing is wrong but is that right? It's not so black and white, never will be and all we can all do is try to make it work out the best we can and those who are serious about making art will be separated from those trying to capitalize on it for monetary gain more then ever.
But I have one thing to point out:
You willingly give your sub-minimum waged time in order to do what you do. It's your choice.
Artists having their copyright infringed is non-consensual. And as I've said above. If you're not prepared to pay the asking price, the best way to let them know is to not pay it. They'll end up getting paid what they get paid and deciding on a course of action based on their own personal circyumstances arising from that income. Some might not be bothered about playing for peanuts, some might decide to jack it if they're not getting the income they're entitled to (most of the latter probably wouldn't be missed anyway). But to not pay what the artist is asking for and then go ahead and 'consume' it anyway is to be hypocritical.
Bands offer their CDs to whoever might want to buy them (via labels and shops). People can buy them, if they like. You're trying to dictate what the people who have bought the CDs are allowed to do with them once they've bought them, after the initial transaction with the industry, which is not something that the band is really privy to.
That statement can be applied to a multitude of possible future actions. Let's ignore the ins and outs and the letter of copyright rules for a mo.
1. Selling that bought CD on to someone else is different to...
2. lending the CD to a friend to take a copy of, which in turn, is very different to...
3. ripping a CD and selling the CD, which in turn, is very different to...
4. ripping a CD and uploading the CD for anyone with an internet connection, and sufficent inclination, to download.
They're all forms of copyright infringement. Some more hypocritical than others.
I can't see anything wrong with #1. No lost sales at all. The person that sold the CD has given up their option to 'use' their purchase.
You can argue that #2 is opening someone up to the music that wouldn't otherwise have bothered to even listen to 'em, or you could argue that it's a bit off. But there can't be anyone in the land who hasn't done this at some point, so it's hard to say every one of us is flat-out wrong.
#3 is cheeky. You sell something on, but keep the ability to 'use' it. That's cheeky and you know it.
#4 is pretty much a downright rude and an obvious attempt to circumvent the rights and wishes of the majority of artists by the person at either end of their internet pipe. It's a slap in the face of anyone with a (c) on their disc and hasn't said "yeah, go ahead".
when it's actually the only option that represents a lost sale, in that it's the only option in which it has been demonstrated that a person (aside from the original owner) is willing to purchase the CD.
You say that #4 is a slap in the face of everyone with a copyright who hasn't said "yeah, go ahead". You haven't made a case for the copyright's existence, nor for the requirement to obtain permission from the seller post-purchase as to what can be done with that purchase. As such, there's still no reason for that original purchaser not to do as they please.
I deliberately sidestepped that issue so as to get beyond legal rights and wrongs that won't always coincide with moral rights and wrongs.
The reason for not freely distributing someone else's work is one of courtesy. They've asked you not to that doesn't have to be 'legally enforceable copyright', but it usually is. You can choose not to respect that. Just like you can choose to or not to give me a slap in the face for being a pious arsehole if you ever meet me. I'd prefer you didn't. But there's little I can do if you're absolutely determined to assault my chops with a wet kipper. Manners and courtesy is what it boils down to when you have the means and coplete free reign to meet or go against the wishes of someone else.
I've accepted elsewhere that 1 paid for download does not have the 'value' of 1 CD sale and that 1 illegit download != 1 lost CD sale. #1 is not a lost sale. It's a case of utility from a physical object. Of supply and demand. The artist doesn't make any money from the sale. They may lose out on a full-price new sale. But that's the nature of non-perishable physical objects. The artist has already made their sale. The original purchaser doesn't want the item any more. Someone else can acquire that object at a price they're willing to pay.
Which brings us back to copyright if you wanna focus on that. Re-sale is against copyright, strictly speaking. But no-one takes that aspect of it seriously because purchase and resale of physical objects is a centirues old practice. If this supposed legal right was in any way enforceable, Amazon marketplace would get shut down.
Copyright in the world of the intertrons has largely been reduced to a request of someone's wishes rather than an assertion that's properly legally enforceable from all angles. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. If it turns out the world can be relied upon not to be a bag of disrespectful fuckers. Unfortunately...
"I don't really have a case, but... please?". It's also fallible because it implies that the artist's wishes are known in every case. Some bands don't have a problem with their music being shared. Some do. Am I supposed to write to each one and ask? Do I also ask if they mind if I listen to the album at my friend's house? Do I also ask if they mind if I borrow it from my friend? And what do I do ifI hear their songs, like them, and buy a ticket to their gig? Cause that shouldn't have happened if I'd been forbidden from hearing their songs without purchase, so the band shouldn't really have ever seen that money. Point being that the line is preposterously unworkable, on top of the fact that after you've put something on sale you don't get to say what happens to it afterwards. There's no justification for a copyright system for music at all.
"Re-sale is against copyright, strictly speaking. But no-one takes that aspect of it seriously because purchase and resale of physical objects is a centirues old practice."
And you think we *should* take sharing seriously? Is it just not old enough yet?
- More like 'you knew before listening to it that I wanted paying, you are deriving enjoyment from it, so you're a bit of a scrounger if you don't pay up... please'.
>"Do I also ask if they mind if I listen to the album at my friend's house?"
>"Some bands don't have a problem with their music being shared. Some do. Am I supposed to write to each one and ask?"
- If they haven't personally (from their webpage or wherever) linked you up with a free rip of their stuff, or you haven't explicitly heard/read them say they couldn't care less, then yes. Write to them all. Collate the answers and report back. Get a good colour photocopy of some stamps to make it cheaper.
>"Do I also ask if they mind if I borrow it from my friend?"
- See #2 in the above post.
>"And what do I do if I hear their songs, like them, and buy a ticket to their gig? Cause that shouldn't have happened if I'd been forbidden from hearing their songs"
- Who said anything about getting rid of radio, myspace, all bands' homepages, spotify, We7, listening posts in record shops, the preview track button on huners of websites, receipts for purchases you don't like...? No-one.
>"And you think we *should* take sharing seriously?"
- Just as hardly anyone on here has suggested that p2p-ing music is a particularly morally positive thing to do, I haven't suggested that there's much we can do to "take it seriously". I said my piece in the second reply to this thread and haven't deviated from that position. i.e. "Lots of people are freetards." I've never suggested that there's much that can realistically be done to stop them.
>"Is it just not old enough yet?"
- Not yet. But I'll keep you posted and let you know when downloading stuff for free when someone would prefer you didn't becomes full of win.
If my friend gives me a copy and you wish he couldn't, tough.
I note that you've basically resorted to name calling - "scroungers", "freetards". You're both David Cameron and someone who makes fun of the disabled. Come on Wza, you can do better.
If I go fly-tipping and you wish I hadn't, tough.
Copying an album is an almost invisible action which doesn't register with anyone, has no negative effects and widens the album's cultural penetration.
Not a match.
A bit of littering or light fly tipping is an almost invisible action which doesn't register with anyone, has no negative effects and widens nature's cultural penetration.
Not a debate.
Like if I'd said "Adults are mature and capable of making reasoned decisions and so therefore they are allowed to buy alcohol but children are not mature and not capable of making reasoned decisions and so therefore are not allowed to buy alcohol" and you replied and said "Children are mature and capable of making reasoned decisions and so therefore they are allowed to buy alcohol but adults are not mature and not capable of making reasoned decisions and so therefore are not allowed to buy alcohol".
For anyone else watching, TheWza has swapped the materially importants words in the sentence around, seemingly implying that a true sentence with the words swapped is *also* a true sentence! Not a logic I'm familiar with, but perhaps someone can explain that one?
You painted a picture of me as "both David Cameron and someone who makes fun of the disabled." and you expect me to take you seriously?
The mechanics of my method of reply are sound.
What I was doing was equating fly-tipping & littering with leeching. You may not agree with that comparison, but I do, which is why I made it.
You do not equate children (and their ability to make reasoned decisions) with adults. And neither do I. Your convoluted explanation of the failings of the mechanics of my reply completely, misses the point (as you're so keen on saying say).
What I did was very simple. I merely pointed out that your presentation of opinion as fact without adequate proof was exactly that: merely an opinion.
I'm surprised such a simple straight-up replacement of concepts tripped you up.
If I can mirror a reply back at you, you haven't really replied.
You've equated them despite them being clearly fundamentally different. The existence of positive and negative attributes may be open to a degree of interpretation but it must still be rooted in fact, and you've not troubled yourself with that.
-Your words. Your opinion. I'll manage to survive the bizarre comparison somehow, I'm sure.
>"You've equated them despite them being clearly fundamentally different."
-Clearly and fundamentally, eh? How so?
>"...attributes may be open to a degree of interpretation ... you've not troubled yourself with that."
-Like all the 'factual' stuff you've (not yet) posted? Feel free to explain your grievances with my comaprison.
I accept you have a different opinion to mine.
But you keep trying to come up with new and ever more convoluted ways to say "you're wrong" without ever backing up your claims.
Fly-tipping is negative because people in the neighbourhood don't like living in a tip, and so are willing to spend money (via council tax) to eradicate the problem. This spending is solely destructive as it doesn't contribute anything to society, just eradicates the anti-social actions of others. People have a reasonable expectation of not having furniture lining the paths of their streets. No one benefits from having a broken fridge on their corner. Which refutes your statement that:
"A bit of littering or light fly tipping is an almost invisible action which doesn't register with anyone, has no negative effects ".
You've played your word-swapping game to state that:
"Leeching is a public nuisance which can inconvenience many, has negative effects and has no positive externalities"
Sharing music doesn't inconvenience anyone, especially given that they aren't aware of it. It doesn't have negative effects (aside from the pain from inadvertently listening to Coldplay/U2/[insert least favourite band here] and it *does* have positive externalities because people often gain enjoyment from listening to music which has been shared with them (and the bands often indirectly gain from wider audiences).
You can try swapping words again, but I don't think broken fridges experience 'enjoyment'.
No analogy is perfect, and most fall down after any small amount of critique. And as I've said elsewhere, "analogies rarely help you get to the root of a problem". So I'm not gonna defend this to the death or owt. I just wanted to highlight what I percieve to be some parallels between illegit DLing against the wishes of artists and people who freely litter. Chiefly that there's a belligerence at the heart of it. We don't seem to agree though, so how about we leave this one there?
"There's no justification for a copyright system for music at all."
Do you genuinely believe that? Copyright = a completely bad thing?
I wouldn't ever say that I'm 100% behind the implementation of copyright, but to 100% reject it is quite a bold claim.
What's the justification for copyright here? It's usually framed as the 'promotion of the useful arts and sciences' or something like that, but I don't see that music needs protection - it'll be produced regardless.
A balance of protection of the individual versus the benefit of society/the wider public.
There isn't any individual harm to protect; therefore there is no justification for restrictive copyright measures.
Presumably companies will be citing your post as evidence of their innocence when they decide to run an ad campaign that uses the fruit of someone's labour for their own gain without so much as crediting the author of the work.
And seeing as their are no rules anymore they fancied changing the lyrics to something diametrically opposed to the original meaning of the original.
Nobody owns a melody. Are you against all forms of parody, satire, imitation, remixing, sampling, etc etc?
(Main point: Music gets made without copyright. Therefore it doesn't require government assistance to encourage its production which comes at the cost of other expressive freedoms).
Creating so many unanswered questions.
>"Nobody owns a melody."
-Nice attempt to make things black and white, but I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated that that.
>"Are you against all forms of parody, satire, imitation, remixing, sampling, etc etc?"
-No. What have I said that would make you think I that I am?
>"it doesn't require government assistance to encourage its production..."
-Who said anything about talking about the government assisting it's production?
>"...which comes at the cost of other expressive freedoms"
It isn't. People don't own words, letters, colours etc. It's only through an unjustified legal imposition that this impression is given.
-No. What have I said that would make you think I that I am?
You've implied that you think someone *can* own a melody, which follows that they can control use of that melody, such as in parody, remixing etc. It's a natural corollary.
That's the justification for copyright. It doesn't wash. If you don't support copyright then this point is null.
Freedom of speech/information/etc. Obviously.
-No-one's claiming ^this. Arrangements of those constituents however...
>"you think someone *can* own a melody"
-Nope. Having a right to control the right to copy and distribute a melodic creation is NOT the same as claiming to own the constituent parts of that melodic creation. Aside from that, parody, remixing etc are different things yet again.
>"government assisting it's production? That's the justification for copyright."
-Protection of reproduction rights is a different concept to government assisted production.
>"Freedom of speech/information"
Call the waaaaahmbulance!!! Some nasty person wants to deprive me of enjoying something they made!!! My freedom of speech has been infringed!!! I'm gonna submit a freedom of information request that'll allow me to hear it!!!
...whether you're being serious or not is something I can't really make out. It's incredibly obtuse though. And seeing as I'm not disposed toward spending any more my of my time trying to nail down jelly, I'll leave it there and you can have the last word if you so wish.
but it's a bit rich to refer to my points as nailing down jelly when your responses are as evasive as this:
WLWC: "...comes at the cost of other expressive freedoms"
TheWza: "Which ones?"
WLWC: "Freedom of speech/information/etc."
TheWza: "Haha... Call the waaaaahmbulance!!!"
but it's a choice that's necessary for these bands to play because a lot of bands won't play for peanuts despite having no draw and maybe those bands don't deserve to be playing at all then but point is for these kinds of bands to even be able to play somebody has to take the financial hit so the existence of someone working behind the scenes for free or close to it is a contingent for these shows and also non-consentual.
I can't even begin to understand how frustrating it must be to sink yourself financially and emotionally into an artistic expression, only to have countless people take it for free and for armchair intellectuals to tell you that they're right.
But then I also read something recently with someone from a label who said that the freetards just aren't worth going after. 56% of Americans might think that music isn't worth paying for, but that still leaves 44% who are, so try and get to them. So, hey. DIY4LIFE or something.
It ain't just paintings mate.
it irritates me a bit when people try to justify it with a big spiel. if you want to steal people's music fair enough, just don't kid yourself that you're some kind of crusader.
Nice straw man.
and if that was the case then you'd be quite the crusader yourself.
that you died on the cross so that mediocre bands could play shows?
you died for our gigs.
who sank themselves financially and emotionally only for no one to hear their work because people could only afford to listen to afew bands and they may not have been one of them, there are positives and negatives to how things have changed, i'd have hoped for most people involved in artistic endevours would find people enjoying their work (and buying it where they can) as most rewarding
by sinking yourselves emotionally and financially? First of all you're making it sound like writing music is some horrible drudgery whose only merit is financial gain. As for financially, I know a lot of bands and even those doing awful for themselves are breaking even at worst. The only financial strain is recording and granted but buying gear is for you. I don't want to pay for some bellend to buy a 57 strat, where's my bloody 59 strat?
Armchair intellectuals? Far be it for some thought to obscure all the oversimplification and slogans in this thread.
Correct, the 'freetards' aren't worth going after because many really don't care enough about music to pay and many legitamely can't afford to pay but in both cases this does not equate to the artist losing money.
Armchair intellectuals. Your post wasn't replying to me but
I mean in the sense that recording is expensive, and dragging yourself around on tour is expensive. I mean from the number of bands that give up because financially they are exhausted, because their intial enthusiasm and credit lines run out.
And yes, armchair intellectuals. Both The Long Tail and the Wired Freeconomics piece are frequently cited, yet one is a well-selling book and I imagine the author got a decent rate for the other. They're pretty much entirely in an armchair position, as our people on here and in The Guardian and whomever else argues that artists should just be acceptant of the work they've invested in that is being taken for bobbins, in fragent disregard for the fact that it's *their* work and *they've* chosen to release it into a commercial marketplace and not give it away free on bandcamp.
Now, if you want to take "armchair" to be an insult, be that on your head, but they're certainly not in the trenches.
That last sentence was an unfinished other sentence that got lost on my phone's browser then decided to appear again when I posted. That's my fault but still a bit of a stretch to derive not worth replying to from not replying to me isn't it? I'm assuming that's where the confusion came from.
I don't see how you can accuse people you don't know of being armchair intellectuals when you have no way of knowing what their involvement in music is unless you're privy to each and every person's lives. I've explained that I'm pretty involved in my local music scene so I'm assuming that wasn't a dig at me and I'm not questioning the existence of arm chair intellectuals. I'm sure there are a ton of people who see the topic of music business in the 21st century as a great way to make a buck by writing a book but I'd give more credit to the people on these boards because it's quite possible that most of them do have experience with all this and know what they're talking about. Just seems like a bit of a straw man to me. Since we're all talking on a music board about ethics and law essentially, I don't see how some long winded replies are inappropriate.
Any hobby is expensive. If you're losing more money then you can afford to by going on large, long tours then clearly the demand for your band is not there and you shouldn't be going on those kinds of tours if you want to make a profit. I agree that recording is expensive, though less so then in the past but again if nobody is buying your cd's then you are essentially recording a document of your band for yourself so of course it should come out of your own pocket. If enough people buy your cd's then you're making money but as said before file sharing just doesn't seem to have an effect on that.
I dont think anyone would argue that people soley getting their music through illegal downloading is acceptable, so long as people buy whatever they can I dont think it is that damaging as articles like the initial blog make out. I wouldnt be surprised if people who download the most also buy the most which is why articles like in the blog annoy me
It seemed to be making out that the guy who wrote it makes music and he wants to earn some money from it.
I love the thought process that made you come back TWELVE HOURS after you'd already replied to this and say, "hey! wait! I've just thought of this really funny answer I could've given! Will anyone notice the delay if I just post it now..? It's totally worth it".
gotta give brightonb credit for this one.
A rare moment of levity and humour on his part.
please don't steal from M&S though! I work for them and they're a rare example of a 'nice' big company
Sometimes we'd get a customer that would get really angry and say something like 'this cd! it's cheaper in hmv you know!' They always struck me as absolutely tremendous cock-ends.
or at least I've never heard one.
If the artist hasn't given permission, it's stealing, not sharing. I buy a loaf of bread and give half of it to someone, that's sharing and I paid for it. Copying an audio file without permission is not sharing in any shape or form, it's stealing it.
A couple of people above have said things about the unreasonable expectations "small" artists have for making money. That's all well and good... if every copy of their music out there had been paid for and they still didn't earn enough to make a living then yes, that's their problem.
Looking above though, I'm at least encouraged a little though by the increasing number of people saying that nicking someone's music is wrong.
Oh, and the "student" argument I sometimes see... when I was a student, I couldn't buy music in term time. In my holidays, I did jobs and caught up on what I had been missing. Wish there had been Spotify then, I could still have kept in touch, so in one respect people are luckier. And albums are cheaper, although I accept that debts are much higher.
And so it goes on. I am yet to see a decent argument for taking music that you don't have permission to take...
introduced the whole loaf of bread thing and still fell into the stealing error. You have a loaf of bread and I take it: stealing. You have a loaf of bread and I use my star trek replicator to make a copy of it and then we both have bread and then Deanna Troi has sex with me: no stealing, but maybe copyright infringement.
In addition to the sex, hopefully the profligation of the concept of bread becomes more widespread thanks to it's increased prominence. The inventor of bread becomes annoyed that so many people are using his invention but not visiting his bakery. Something something but still his bakery sales are higher than they were before because more people like bread now. Something something it is all the same as being played on the radio. Something something spotify is as bad as downloading depending on your outlook.
released on the terms of the baker, are sufficient to appreciate the quality of the bread, rather than needing a free exact replication of the actual loaves he's trying to sell.
Something something spotify is as bad as downloading depending on your outlook, but it's 'industry approved', so that's their call.
and often more so the bigger artists. I've had/seen bands play shows that asked for no guarantee and then expected to be paid just obscene amounts for playing a small show in a small bar with very minimum earnings just because they've been so spoiled that they don't even stop and think anymore about overhead or ticket sales. The problem with your reasoning aside from the bread argument already covered above is that you're assuming that every one of those pirates copies of these artists records would have been paid for had they not been stolen. I know it's probably getting old and has been said again and again but these smaller bands often wouldn't even have half the audience they do if there music wasn't being pirated so rather then them having sold maybe a couple more cds, they have a much larger fan base so more people going to their shows and more merch purchases which makes bands more money then cd sales anyhow unless they're selling 5 digits.
I can accept people can and will download music for free and I can accept it brings better sales in the long-run and I'd sure as hell prefer people to be listening to my music for free than not listening at all BUT I absolutely hate the way the moral justification for it has become "well, you can make it back on increased merch sales".
I want to be in a band ;cos I want to be in a band. I do not want to run a t-shirt company, hence why I learned to play an instrument rather than how to design t-shirts. I utterly hate the way t-shirt sales have become a natural progression for independent bands. I fucking hate band t-shirts with a passion bordering on evangelical and find the idea of bands making money back by selling t-shirts and extended lines of merchandise far more uncomfortable than even the idea of a band selling music to an advert. At least the latter has some vague relation to the music itself.
Just as you can't force anyone to listen to your music.
I just find the whole "oh, it's alright, you can sell t-shirts" attitude really fucking condescending.
Just the way it's becoming this received orthodoxy that that's the answer, despite the fact band t-shirts have nothing whatsoever to do with music.
Whilst I'm on the subject if you're in a small band you don't make money through gigging either. You spent fuckloads on travel, taking gear etc. and barely make enough for everyone in the band to eat. I'm not complaining as I love gigging and love travelling for gigs and can afford to make a small loss on the occasions we do it by treating it as a fun thing to spend money on rather than a business transaction but the idea that makes small bands money isn't really true.
in fact on the contrary what used to happen was record companies would cover losses incurred by taking support tours so that bands could afford to do it - so actually for small bands the lack of record sales meaning record companies are less likely to take a punt on that is a harmful thing.
But small bands would do well to question why they have some sort of expectation to significant remuneration for strumming a guitar. The t-shirt thing is just a response to the belly-acheing about "where's my money coming from?".
"where's my money coming from?" bellyaching is coming from major labels.
I'd expect that it's more common (but by no means a given) for 'independently minded' labels and artists to have a more rational take on things. They're more aware of the worth of their 'product'. And they have more faith in the majority of their fans to have some respect for them. And they adjust their expectations accordingly.
They won't expect their songs to fund the private jet n cocaine lifestyle of top major label execs and the odd superstar they managed to crowbar into the consciousness of the pre-internet music buying public.
or even cd's / vinyl for that matter because they're also souvenirs in a sense that have little to do with the music and certainly aren't necessary to listen to the music. I understand about the whole merch thing completely, bands I've worked with never want to work their own merch table and if I'm not busy doing other things I'll usually do it myself. It's pretty disenchanting to go somewhere to play a show and essentially end up doing a customer service job instead I'm sure. That being said, I just feel like any band on tour who isn't selling merch is really doing themselves in because it's such an opportunity for profit and if the money from gigs is making you just barely break even then merch would push you into profit. Every job has things that we don't like about them so I don't see why being in a band should neccesarily be any different if in fact you want it to be a job that is recouping your expenses or making a profit. One of my hobbies is photography and ever cent I put into it is lost, I pay for film and developing and will never get any of it back but that's because I like doing it but I can also do it whenever and however I want. Just seems to me like with anything else you can either play music / make records however you want and lose a little money/just break even or you can run it like any other business and have some financial gain.
Go back to digital economy 101, and let me know when you're up to speed.
Here's the actual answer to your assertion that "There's no moral argument against sharing music":
Yes there is: it's called basic courtesy.
My parents were all wrong...
but "sharing (C) music".
Again though, courtesy? Wet.
I'd not tried it until this weekend but now have
1) 30 Elvis number ones for three quid.
2) 99 Jake Thackray songs for seven quid.
And they've got the Indelicates' debut for three quid too, which'd be a bargain if I didn't own it already.
If you're down to emptying your penny jar, there's plenty nuff value to be had on Amazon Marketplace where you get a tangible thing in return for your coinage.
All I do is upload 'em onto a computer and stick 'em in a corner. I've decided buying downloads cuts out the middle man.
Except I like that a CD is it's own inherent backup copy once ripped. And I like the cd towers that fill the best part of 1 wall of my living room. It's my collection. My library. Something I like to browse through for inspiration on what to listen to next. A physical manifestaion of my music collecting hobby (and i've riffed on this element at greater length on here before...). I struggle to feel the same way about a(n admittedly thoroughly convenient) hard disk of mp3s.
I mean obviously if something's ridiculously well-produced you're not going to get quite the same experience but with most recordings you'd need to be fairly obsessive to notice the difference. And given that I will ultimately rip it to MP3 anyway and listen to most music on fairly inexpensive headphones that side doesn't affect me directly.
Admittedly this migh make me a bit of a philistine.
If you're asking the question then that's the simple answer.
http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html gives more info (just read the Conclusions and Update at the end for a quick summary.)
If you can't be arsed clicking on that: 192 rips are normally taken to be "near CD quality" and adequate for in-car listening or A N Other non-picky scenario.
256 or above is advised for a decent rip.
I've ripped and listened to a few CDs as 64kbps mp3s a few years ago when I had a tiny capacity mp3 player. It was like an average non-chrome cassette. Not great, but just about passable.
Space isn't really a major issue these days so I go for 320 rips and am happy to call that archive quality. I've never bothered to properly try it, but there's every chance I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a 256 on my home equipment (that may change if I did a proper double blind listening test on decent equipment).
I think the problem with illegal downloading isn't just what it does to the artist - it's what it does to the downloader.
I have a mate who doesn't pay for music at all and is a bit of a compulsive downloader. He has gigabyte after gigabyte of music on his hard-drive that he's taken from the internet.
But does her listen to it? No.He listens to the same 2 smashing pumpikns records he listened to as a teenager.
I was talking to him about 'spiderland' the other night. "Oh yeah!" he says "I've got that!"
"WHat do you think, great isn't it?"
"Dunno. Think I listened to it once, can't really remember..."
The good thing about paying for stuff is it makes you value it, makes you listen to it. I didn't get into the new deerhunter LP much, but I kept plugging away with it, rather than listen to something else, because Goddamnit I paid money for that thing!
except for tracks that the artist gives away for free.
Can't get my head around it being okay to steal music. These people are professional musicians; they get paid for it, it's their job. Would I do my office job for free? No... How would I survive?
All the music I make myself gets put on myspace & reverbnation so I don't make a penny out of it, but I don't have a manager or label and I don't rely on music to earn a living. I accept that it's a hobby.
Got no clever angle on this either way.
get money for something therefore they deserve to get money for it
These people have asked to be paid, so if you want to listen to their stuff, have the courtesy to pay 'em. Otherwise sack 'em off.
See that bit at the bottom of the page?
"© 2010 DrownedinSound.com"
Ts&Cs, boss. Ts&Cs.
You'll have to clear that with sean first though, cos "you hereby agree that we may use any messages or content submitted by you on a royalty free basis and agree that we may use and alter the same in any manner whatsoever and you waive any and all moral rights in the messages and content submitted by you."
Or, "if you wish to cancel your registration you may do so at any time but no refunds will be payable".
That's exactly what I said, Cementimental. I might go and rob some books from Waterstones after work (ones that I can't get borrow from the library) - if some twat wrote them then I think I'm entitled to have them for free. Why should I pay for the fuckers,eh?
That's right, man, that's right. No one who creates music should ever be paid. I want them all to entertain me for free. Free gigs, free albums, the lot. Fucking musicians, how dare they try to have a career. Wankers.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but why should people who play music feel they ought to be able to make a career out of it?
Obviously things cost of money and expenses need to be met - and if gigs make a lot of money bands should get a slice of it. But I don't see any reason why anyone should feel they have any right to career and, to be honest, I wonder if music'd be any worse for it if anyone went into it thinking it wasn't a viable option.
OK - bands could not tour as much but you'd hopefully end up with less chancers chasing the latest trend and less wankers hanging around the music business hoping for a quick buck.
I work in a team that gets young unemployed people into work. I certainly wouldn't call it my calling or vocation in life though.
That's the point, though – this isn't always the case. Some bands will never be successful enough to turn [I make music] into [I make music for a living], just as not everyone who paints will sell enough paintings to quit their day job, not everyone who writes fiction will get a book deal, etc.
Not everyone who makes music will be successful enough for it to become the way they earn a living. And this would still be true without the development of file-sharing, illegal downloading and the rest.
is to stop paying the ones who currently do make a living out of it?
The best thing is to roll with the punches.
I said "why should they feel they ought to be able to make a career out of it?", not "why should they be able to make a career out of it". The questions are subtly different.
If bands genuinely have a product people want they'll make a career out of it. Most bands' problem, both before and after the download debate, is not enough people want their product enough for them to make a career out of it.
A consequence of the download issue is that even less people do now. That may or may not be fair but most new bands will form knowing the score is that people probably won't pay for the product and hence they can't make a career out of it. And what them having that knowledge, why expect anything otherwise?
There's scores of careers that people have suddenly found themselves effectively redundant due to improvements of technology. Blacksmiths, miners, cartwrights etc. have all found themselves in the same boat. Fair or not, once people stop wanting to pay for your product, you have to accept it's not how you're going to be making your living.
If that's the way it ends up eventually. It hasn't happened across the board yet though. So, at the moment, some are still paying and others aren't.
If people can refrain from being grasping sods.
"Most bands' problem, both before and after the download debate, is not enough people want their product enough for them to make a career out of it."
No-one here is defending the notion that The View should be as rich as Madonna.
The truth, unpleasant as it may be, is if peopel have a free and convenient way to access something and hence not have to pay for it, then a large number aren't going to pay for it.
So ultimately the question of whether bands have a product enough people want become whether they have a product enough people wnat to pay for.
if they were a bit more connected to the real world and had proper jobs and things. Certainly there's countless bands whose second albums have been fucked 'cos tours and tourbuses is all they had to write about.
It was a sincere reply. "You'd hopefully end up with less chancers chasing the latest trend and less wankers hanging around the music business hoping for a quick buck." Sounds pretty good to me.
And no, I'm not Iain Duncan Smith. I don't see what he has to do with this. Care to enlighten me?
they have any 'right' to have a career as such. But once they're getting paid for it, it is a profession like any other. They're providing a service (entertainment for people) when they play live, and a product when they release a song/album. You can't just say "Well, I'll pay for the service but steal the product". It's like going to a top chef's restaurant, taking a table, having a nice meal and then running off without paying.
THEREFORE MUSICIANS DESERVE TO MAKE MONEY OFF MUSIC IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE LAW OF NATURE AND SHALL BE EVER THUS REGARDLESS OF CULTURAL OR TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES
It's to the left of your A key, btw.
No-one's saying that we're happy to carry on subsidising Led Zep's private jets, MJ's theme park, the coke habit of Mr EMI or the high class hookers that Thom Yorke is so famous for.
And you know it.
Feel free to have another hissy-fit though. Toddlers' kerayzee antics are always a fun distraction for grown-ups who are tired of long conversations.
putting your reply in the wrong place...
whaling was once a viable commercial industry too but we still have soap and seafood don't we? People are afraid of change. They'll catch up eventually.
...i'm posting on the messageboard of a site which once had a front page editorial article praising the Chinese for their admirable handling of the internet and suggesting we do something similar to STOP ALL THE DOWNLOADING
I'M A COMPUTER
don't misunderstand or poorly paraphrase what i said. i said that the technology to stop sites that allow sharing is possible, and that stopping access, would take away the fact the cheapest place to get something is usually free. and in doing so, music may regain some kind of value in people's minds who think it should be free.
meanwhile, ISPs making shitloads of money market their services based on how much faster your can download music and movies (both legally and illegally - but have you ever legally downloaded a movie?!)
Large parts of this post: (c) Cementimental 2010
Just one quick question: what kind of Creative Commons license is it? One that allows me to sell 'em at a profit?
This post: (?) Copyleft, TheWza 2010, all wrongs reserved.
Cory Doctorow sheds a tear of joy
Yes, several times.
because — as the inflammatory rhetoric and blinkered attitude expressed by your post clearly show — there's very little chance that anyone will come out the other end thinking anything different.
It's all just rhetorical battle: protecting positions you've established well in advance, fending off attacks and launching counter-attacks, with not the slightest care for whether there might be something of substance to the other's viewpoint.
And — IN B4 U — that goes for both sides of the "debate". Although, I would argue, were it worth my fingers, that the anti-anti-downloading position is, in principle, more open to the other side than vice versa, simply by virtue of the fact that it is not seeking to prevent anyone from saying or doing anything.
but i've got to admit, i can still be surprised. Do you really make a point of stealing something every time you go to the supermarket? Or was that a joke and i'm being a bit thick?
Obviously they don't deduct the cost from their payouts from the money that goes to shareholders. If anyone's losing out financially, it'll be the people on the shop floor.
Never really done it much myself. Not too keen on shoplifting either to be fair. Don't think i'd like to bang on about it though.
What's the counter-argument then? If there's something irrefutably wrong with what we're saying, then point it out.
'Cause otherwise you just sound like a paranoid loon.
(I'm not a parent. Though even if I were, I really don't think it's *me* that's likely to have to worry about their child getting nicked for shoplifting).
also we should upgrade copying MP3s from 'Theft' to 'MURDER'.
cos in this thread http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4268874 your buddy CG/Gerogerigegege/Incapacitant/TAP/OTP was getting a little teary eyed an sentimental (or should i say, wait for it... Cementimental!) about people being not paying for music like in the good old days.
The thread linked to doesn't really make sense now because his posts were deleted. OH, THE IRONING.
by ^this-ing comebacks is is pretty good too.
i only came here fairly recently to spam noise gigs so i'm not up on all the olde dramaz yet.
and then suggest that people holding certain opinions ought to be banned. It's like, you're anti-authority, then you're totally totalitarian. You're a bit of a clown.
I also can't stop laughing at the fact that you honestly think that you're a "music-lover" and that people who listen to lots of music and talk about lots of music and go to lots of gigs and write about lots of music are not "music-lovers" because they don't all buy it on vinyl in Brighton.
into his cool kids club."
This argument as a whole has been done to death, and the thread has devolved into unresolvable opposing parties slinging turgid arguments at each other.
At least with brightonb's weird illogical and sometimes vaguely hypocritical asides it's partially readable. So basically, he's not boring.
Go watch a movie or something
Don't pay for it though. Films have no right to a be made on the budgets they are. It's a conspiracy. They should all be home movies.
You've Been Framed: It's the future.
Nice work Wza, if you hadn't missed the point. But SATIRE!
Calling someone boring in a debate is a non-starter. I've seen you get called boring in other topics for taking the time to construct a counter-argument and provide evidence. I was just saying to ARI_recorder that it was a pointless contribution in an honest discussion to chime in by calling someone boring, especially when you disagree with them but can't be arsed with the detail.
deleted it because it was apparent that you are much more interested in the act of arguing than what is being said. I think an honest discussion would have been worth having but that involves being able to see both sides of the argument.
Anyway I shouldn't have called you boring really, unnecessary behaviour. It just kind of slipped out. I thought that your reply to brightonb had just gone beyond a limit that I find acceptable that's all.
You seem to be finding what you're looking for on here, so that's cool.
I do have to laugh at 'being able to see both sides of the argument' though, 'cause I don't think anyone's giving my side any more consideration than I'm giving theirs.
I don't think anyone is any better off at all after this thread.
I blame Sean.
(our being people who hadn't posted in this thread and now I'm not even part of that group THANK YOU VERY MUCH), it's a really fucking boring debate. Pretty much every post in this thread is about a million lines long, ffs. Plus, this discussion is had on here on an almost weekly basis.
I've illegally downloaded about three albums in my life, but I was on the dole until recently. THANKS FOR MAKING ME FEEL WORTHLESS.
But the simple 8 word answer is ^here.
You missed off the bit about being less of a person if you're not buying those records.
decent people simply have to put up with the pissy attitude of people who can't bring themselves to muster a little respect for the wishes of others.
They couldn't give a fuck that they're indirectly shitting on someone, and that ain't gonna change.
The only way to deal with people for whom logic and decency doesn't register is with as much zen calm as can be summoned.
cause I think it's a minor shade of this whole debate, but since you keep bringing it up:
It isn't actually disrespectful or discourteous at all. Most bands are better off for having had people act as they please and share their content than if these nonsense rules had been strictly enforceable. Most bands would be worse off without a music-sharing culture.
If a band doesn't want you to shre your music but you paternalistically decide it's the best thing for them and so you're going to do it against (or not knowing theer wishes) then there's absolutely no way you can claim that isn't disrespectful.
It was more the paternalistic nature of the post and the whole "I know what's best for bands and I've got every right to do it regardless of what they think" aspect that irked me.
You can't not respect someone's wishes and then say you're not being disrespectful - that was the main thrust of my point. I don't feel that strongly about it but he's clearly wrong.
there is no real way of knowing unless it is something they have been vocal about it in the past, some bands may feel direspected others may welcome it, I wouldnt say it is disrespectful unless you know for sure in advance
if you presumed they'd prefer you to go for radio, myspace, spotify, We7, listening posts in record shops, the preview track button on huners of websites... before grabbing an illegit freebie download on the assumption that the act won't mind.
I think what's unpleasant isn't the fact music's available for free but that the musicians aren't entitled to say in the matter. Personally I think most bands are well advised to allow people to access their music for free but it should still be their choice and consent shouldn't be presumed.
My band's last album is on absolutely shitloads of Russian free download websites. Whilst I find this more amusing than anything else (I'm willing to bet the number of websites offering it far outstrips the number of individuals who've actually downloaded it), it's clearly disrespectful that someone's taken my music, ripped it and stuck it online without asking my permission, and far more so for bands that actually have music people actually want to download.
and those websites presumably make money from ads which isn't really on. There has been a few times when ive ordered something direct from a band, got it before its released then been asked on last.fm or somewhere for the mp3s and i've always said no, yet id happily download it if it were the other way round, yet dont think its so bad to download, faulty logic on my part.
I was going to say this^^
How many are actually saying don't steal our music? I'm sure there a few but I've spoken to many bands who say the fact that people are simply listening to their music, even if it is via illegal downloading, is good for them. I guess it comes down to how much bands actually make from CD sales, which in most cases is probably bugger all??
I've discovered so many more bands through downloading, many of which I will then buy their records, go to their gigs etc.
I'm not saying that it means all downloading is completely fine but it does show that todays download culture is something that should be embraced rather than the opposite.
The majority of bands that I've spoken to about this issue aren't that bothered by it.
No, proper releasing/touring bands that I've interviewed for websites/mags. I quite often ask them something regarding this issue, and the majority of the time thats what the say.
I got a lot of respect for your contributions to the many critical points you make in your engagements with CG on social, and usually I'm impressed with the arguments you make. But the above comment is either classic trolling or it shows a massive ignorance about how the music industry works.
If bands are truly not fussed about (c) or the enforcement of it. Why don't they go for a licence that is more in line with their wishes so we know where they stand? Cementimental was joshing (or was he?) about Creative Commons licensing, but does something like that not apply to bands who don't care about not-for-profit re-distribution?
is that - whilst I'm sure many don't have a problem with it - there is a culture where bands know they're going to get slated and shouted down if they speak out against free downloads (look at how Lily Allen was vilified last year for example).
I think most bands have learned to be very careful when expressing their views on illegal downloading for fear of alienating potential fans/coming across like Metallica or luddites.
So I would take the answers given in interviews by bands on the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I think in some instances that may be the case. But I do also think it's true that many many bands make shit-all from album sales anyway. (Although that could be completely wrong because I'm just assuming)
I don't really know where this whole debate can really go apart from;
Its happening. It's going to continue to happen. Find a way to embrace it.
Really can't see any other way around it no matter what peoples personal opinion of downloaders it.
But whatever, carry on its fun to read.
I would have thought that the more commonly-held viewpoint was that the artist makes the art, releases it, then they're basically detached from the reception of it - that is, they can't tell you what to think about it, when to engage with it, how loud to listen to it etc etc etc. Obviously some people might disagree with this, but... show your working really, as it's an impossible position I think.
On that basis, the wishes of the band aren't really something I think the audience is obliged to acknowledge, let alone obey and respect. If I've put my album on spotify and stuck it in HMV and all the usual outlets I'm not particularly fussed who listens to/buys it, am I? Any little kitten-kicker could come along with their fiver and walk out with a copy of the album. If it's been released to the world, then you've ceded control over what happens to the music and reactions/responses/actions in relation to it.
(Re the paternalism thing: I wasn't actually saying that you might share music *because* it's better for them; you'd do it because you personally wanted to listen to it. The aggregate effect however, is one in which the band is generally much better off than if it had been impossible (hypothetically somehow) to prevent all instances of sharing).
1. how loud to listen to music, with
2. whether to pay for it?
You got nothing
(Where are we going with this?)
You haven't established your claim that there is a moral claim against downloading. You've had about a dozen or so attempts at framing it in different ways, to no avail. You've now ceased responding substantively to my arguments, instead just name-calling or using the sarcastic "how pleasant", "that's nice" sort of rejoinder. I'm saying you've lost the argument, though I'm open to new arguments. I'm saying you got nothing because I think you've run out of them. You're parroting me because you've run out of them and that's what you're reduced to in this debate.
Yes I have. You might not agree with me. But I've made and defended my point. You've only managed to say I'm wrong because I haven't proved you wrong. Nice try, but no. It doesn't works like that.
"You've now ceased responding substantively to my arguments"
Chill yer boots. I'm at work doing a job of sorts in between leeching their time to indulge you in your philosophy debating practice sessions.
You'll get over it, petal. You're not immune to a spot of dishing it out thugh, eh? Calling me "Wet" for respecting artists wishes is pretty tame, but it's still borderline ad hominem. Meh.
I put the effort into my replies to coments in accordance with the merit I think those comments deserve. What about your lazy attempts to draw lines under things with the easy to roll out line of "you're missing the point"?
Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I get your point: Technology ain't going away. I think you're right. We all do.
And hardly anyone is suggesting that it's particularly realistic that illegit DLing can be 'cracked down on'. We know that can't practically be done.
But I (and others) are saying that just because something's there, it doesn't mean it should be used for all uses anyone sees fit. We're saying that you should have a bit more respect.
You seem exceptionally comfortable with putting copyright law and the wishes of the artist to one side, in favour of getting to "the point" by reducing the discussion to a philosophical one. That'll be because all practical and legal excuses have been covered and dealt with and you've been left wanting.
The philosophical argument is all you have to work with.
But you don't seem to be able to coherently defend that position.
"Yes I have."
Obviously we aren't going to reach agreement here. If you think you've proved your point, then please paste a link to the post that achieves it. So far I think you've come up with courtesy - was that it?
I know I'll get over name-calling, I didn't mention that in lieu of my feelings, I mention it because it's no excuse for an argument, which you well know. I was referring to your 'courtesy' argument as wet, not you. You seem like a thoroughly decent person.
"You seem exceptionally comfortable with putting copyright law and the wishes of the artist to one side, in favour of getting to "the point" by reducing the discussion to a philosophical one. That'll be because all practical and legal excuses have been covered and dealt with and you've been left wanting.
But you don't seem to be able to coherently defend that position."
I'm not looking to reduce the argument to philosophical grounds at all, I'm happy to debate it on all relevant grounds. I think copyright is misapplied here and is an unjustified intrusion of personal liberties. I think that practically speaking the notion that listening to an album on youtube etc is okay while to listening to an album on rapidshare is not is an unworkable and unprincipled distinction; and that music-sharing has enabled a net gain to bands. I think philosophically that I do not believe in restricting the ability of people to use, experience, remix and share in culture in any sense; and that artists who choose to publish their art do not retain control over the actions and opinions of other people who then interact with that art.
Show me the incoherence.
Pur-lease. That's all I've got to say about that.
Yup. In what I percieve to be a tendency towards a reductionist philosophical view when approaching this issue, that's all I 'm prepared to come up with. Take it or leave it.
I wonder how many of the people in this survey actually just thought "music isn’t worth paying for" you can listen to it on the radio for free or some equivalent, basically casual listeners thinking 'music isn't worth owning' in the same way as TV shows maybe aren't worth owning for a lot of people who are still fans of TV.
that people who are really passionate about music and have inspiration bursting to come out would do it anyway, regardless of making a career out of it or not, and if they had to have a job so be it, they´d play, write and record in their free time and this way only the really dedicated and passionate people would be doing it? would it make the art purer cos its done purely on the basis of passion and self motivation?
Yeah, granted. Amplifier have done that with The Octopus (out today after a three-year wait)- but if everybody just downloaded it, they'd be out THOUSANDS of pounds in recording costs, while their 'fans' still get to enjoy their product. That's bullshit. Luckily their fans have bought their album. It's about engaging with your fanbase so they want to pay...
but i actually can't believe some of the shit i'm reading in this thread. from people who i thought were intelligent
Let it shit all over this old lady's nicely manicured front garden. I didn't bother to ask if that's what she wanted, but I assumed she didn't mind. After all, it's good manure innit.
Her roses will come up a treat. More people will notice her garden cos the flowers will grow higher and poke above the hedge. She might even bag a nice gardening prize cos of my help. She might even be able to employ a gardener with her winnings.
My dog's done it on loads of old ladies gardens and none of 'em have ever complained. Why would they? A garden's a garden innit.
If their grandkids come round before the rain has had a chance to soak the shit away then that'll just motivate the kids to find another way to play whilst the garden is covered in dogshit. It'll do 'em good to find another way to do their thing.
I never used to do this kind of thing. But that was before I got a dog. Now I've got a little shitting machine it's great. I've seen more gardens in the past year of having this dog than I ever bothered to look at in the years before Fido arrived.
I mean, yeah there's gonna be the odd old dear that was used to having a dogshit free front garden, but, ykonw, it's tough innit cos I've got 'im now and there's no fucking way I'd ever give him up.
I have a gran of my own so I'm not being hypocritical. Got my own garden, too. And I'd be happy for people to bring their dogs along and shit on my front rosebed. But for some reason no-one wants to bring their dog round to my place. Wonder why...? I don't mind going and collecting a few bags of manure though. I'd tend to my own scraggy garden even if other peoples' lovely lawns weren't there to appreciate when I walk by and they were all just as scraggy as mine.
Anyway, anyone can cultivate a nice garden. A garden's a garden innit? Doesn't matter how much effort you've put into it - it's always gonna need manure so it can grow as much as possible.
I mean I like old ladies and stuff. But I like my dog more.
You heard the sound of the car so now you owe me £5 because running a car costs money. I paid petrol/tax/MOT and you paid nothing. You heard the sound my car makes against my wishes FOR FREE. I wished only for my select few customers to hear it despite the fact that it's very fucking obvious there's a whole world out there with ears. You have stolen from me.
I don't think these analogies help.
A car drove past me on the way to work and I heard what the driver was listening to.
E. Analogies rarely help you get to the root of a problem.
TheWza @Zapsta | 7 Nov '10, 13:20 | X | ^ This | Reply
Anyway... 300 POSTS. I'M OOT.
...emotionally or financially. Also it was not an analogy.
For being both correct and funny and concise in every post.
like this you come across more as a smug, belligerent and defensive twat than the presumably intelligent person I found myself nodding in agreement to earlier.
No wonder there's an 'anal' in it.
Whatever you call it, it was intentionally OTT and tongue in cheek.
(I'd already said that 'Analogies rarely help you get to the root of a problem.' two days previously. And repeated that same point when sixteen_blue apparently didn't clock that I wasn't taking things entirely seriosly by that point.)
Fair play to anyone who has managed to wade through all of this post bump, though.
because like Lady GAGA i feel a download is like air. It's nothing. I agree with the article and say it's about time people got mad. When illegal downloading atarted destroying the industry every artist and label and self respecting music fan should have stood together and cried foul. Instead when labels tried to go after those stealling music you had some successful bands and whiny privledged freeloaders screaming at the big, evil greedy corporate pigs and they inimidated them to back down. Because of this the music industry is in shambles, music is disposable and bands can't make a living anymore (or even re-coup costs) which means less great bands, less great music and practically no budgets given for ambitious albums. I think the labels need to get back together and like the movie industry start putting warnings everywhere about how illegal downloading will land you in jail, start prosecuting the fuck out of people and congress should pass a bill protecting the rights of artists. It should have never even got this far. If the movie industory can fight piracy and congress can bail out the auto industry then they can do something to fight the tide of entitlement, thieving cretins from destroying one of the most culturally important art forms.
yeah what we need is more WARNINGS and JAIL that will sort people out
Also what's up with being literally a fascist?
So many po faced essays.
The moral arguments for & against downloading are a huge red herring, it's like everyone arguing over the state of the stable door when the fucking horse bolted years ago.
Downloading is here to stay, you might as well argue about the ethics of earthquakes or bad weather. How about some practical insights into ways in which musicians might live & prosper in the internet age, instead of self-righteous hand wringing over what's so obviously a fact of life.
Yet another cock-eyed analogy!
you have no sense of time frame or what? Even if one ignores this, the comparison is repulsively ignorant, knee-jerk and offensive. Get off your high-fucking-horse and stop throwing everything you can to get across your argument.
your beef with people downloading is because society has a beef with paedophilia?
uhh...i don't know how to respond to that. is the the sort of thing you should be saying when your IP can be traced?
lets do it again
which cannot be made to no longer exist for any reason least of all your personal aesthetic/'moral' likes and dislikes
what i;m saying
cementimental: no i'm telling you that in practice it IS.
just like those who liked the modern sheet music industry, or the modern thatching industry or the modern telegraphy industry and all those entailed.
Aye. Project Gutenberg has some good stuff. And Kindle's DRM was cracked ages ago so, WOOHOO!, free books forevrz.
*Kindle goes in Wish List*
- blisters, 22 Jun '11
Well done on doing something financially beneficial to you, where practically nothing can be done to stop you, where you don't have to deal directly with the consequences, and for coming up with some flawed post-rationalisation as justification for it all.
"I'm not angry with you, just disappointed"
I don't have any sort of justification for any of this. Yes it's immoral to download, so I'm acting immorally. Perfectly happy to admit this. I'll also add that I'm a musician with released material out there in the world, so I lose out from DLing too.
My point is that none of this has any relevance whatsoever, and threads like this with everyone tut-tutting about it are just wishful drooling. Although I'm sure the righteous glow must be very satisfying. The problem needs a practical solution, DLing is not going to go away, and musicians (like me) are going to have to find some way to learn to live with it.
and musicians don't lose out from it
Had you asked about my profession? Or did I miss that question when I sent in my membership form to the brightonb club?
and spend more time chuckling at your suggestion that only investment bankers can understand the music `industry`.
Here's a puzzler for ya: Musicians aren't prospering, investment is low and getting lower, commercial risks are rare, AND YET: The whole thing is not `going to shit`, and to the contrary there's never been such an abundance and diversity of music produced.
Back to the drawing board huh?
rather than for the money?
``it would be all over bar a load of shite amateur bands effectively busking on the internet...``
Er, what do you think music as an industry actually is?
Interesting discussion about this
brightonb is not going to change anybody's mind.
Everybody shut up.
That isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.