Filesharing - Give us a chance!

[Vass]

2004 study, and if you read it closer you'll see that the vast majority are not full-time musicians- of course, the vast majority of artists are not full time musicians. One would think that an artist deriving the majority of their livelyhood would have stronger feelings than one that doesn't.

Also, the poll was taken by sending out emails to "musicians organizations" and putting banners on websites. So it suffers from self-selection bias as well, which could of course cut either way.

Regardless, it's still meaningless. Even if 99% of people give something away for free, or are comfortable with it being given away for free by someone other than themselves, the 1% that aren't are still entitled to their property.

What was interesting about the poll was that while artists were split on filesharing, 2/3 felt that artists should have complete control over their material. Seems to be a bit of a conflict there, unless I am misreading it in my admittedly very quick run through.

Vass

[jacksoncsplayer]

It seems like the whole industry is fucked up, no one is making any money anymore. Itunes, Tunecore, and snowcap seem to be the avenue of choice. I think it affects the 80's guys the most, very few album sales in the last ten years for those cats, and most spent foolishly while getting those fat ass checks. Lots and Lots of Coke!!!

[tooslowhand]

Hi guys, first post here... hope it doesn't suck!
To me, the vantage point that "if you can't afford it, you can't have it" seems a little simplistic when dealing with a "commodity" such as music. Knowing how much I love music, I would be hesitant to say that one's enjoyment of it should be limited by your financial standing. I wouldn't go as far as suggesting that anyone here is saying "poor people can't have music", because there are other media but let's be honest... when you really love music and you need to hear a song (IS it a luxury, if you are an avid lover of music?) waiting hours for it to come on the radio or listening to a bad copy on a website just won't do.
It's definitely true that the music business is just that, a business. But music in itself is not a business. Not to sound like a hippie, but it's communication of thoughts and feeling through rhythm and melody. If I were an artist, and I wrote a sad song, I would want everybody who felt sad in the world to have my song at their disposal. When they were feeling depressed about all the other "commodities" they couldn't afford, like the aforementioned gas and oil, they would still have my song and in that I would have achieved the ultimate goal of an artist... to connect with my audience. It's these people who will provide me with my best return on investment in the long run as they will be more avid followers of my career than may be someone who had money to burn just wanted to amass my CD to add to their "collection".
In other words, being a heavy metal musician I would want my song in the heads of every damned poor and/or disenfranchised individual out there because let's face it... those are the people who will camp out for your tickets. That is the type of "ownership" that I would want people to have in my music.
It isn't quite the same type of commodity as the usual type you pay money for. I paid a pretty penny for my DK1, and no, I am not prepared to give that up. But if there were a way I could let everybody enjoy the guitar and see how great it is without running the risk of wear and tear on it, getting it lost or stolen, and it would still always be there when I wanted to play it...
Yes, if you view a CD as a unit moved and a mere conglomeration of plastics and paper, then yes it is stealing and in a way no matter how you view it you should be paid for your creative output. But at the end of the day you have to decide what it is you're after as an artist and whether a short term loss may be worthwile in the long term goal of promoting "brand loyalty".

[UFORocks]

Is there a Cliff-Notes version?

All those numbers make my head hurt.

The sum of $300,000 budget - fees x half a million albums sold - more fees = about $40k left for for the artist at the end of the deal.

Then a year on tour to actually make the money they thought they were gonna get by selling 1/2 a million CDs.

Crap deal if you ask me.

[joelayres]

I'm back. And yes, in discussions I often enjoy arguing from the viewpoint of a relativist. It's fun that way because it's nearly impossible to be proven wrong.

But really, who are any of us to decide what is right and wrong for the rest of the world?

Who are any of us to even declare that absolute truth even exists?

Filesharing is clearly illegal. I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. But saying filesharing is right or wrong - I would LOVE to see a proof either way from someone here.

Hell forget right and wrong. Let's see one of you prove that filesharing has caused more than 1 artist to lose money.

Better to be thought an idiot
than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt

[SEEGERMANY]

"they think I'm here to talk about industry practices, and the possibilities that P2P networking and the mp3 format gives artists to independently promote their work, but I'm really here to put my twat imprint on the Hollywood Walk of Fame"

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

Why won't anyone answer the question?

If you can't afford it, why should you have it?

Please, give me an answer to that one.

One word: REPO

I have to agree that if you can't afford something, you should not have it. Look at how many homes have foreclosed. They got into something they could not afford now many have lost what little they had. Same with cars.

On the flip side, what about a Father who can't afford a lawyer? Should HE Lose Custody of His Kid?

Look at people with money who get away with shit you or I could not. Should OJ have his freedom because he had money?

[Vass]

Hi guys, first post here... hope it doesn't suck!
To me, the vantage point that "if you can't afford it, you can't have it" seems a little simplistic when dealing with a "commodity" such as music. Knowing how much I love music, I would be hesitant to say that one's enjoyment of it should be limited by your financial standing. I wouldn't go as far as suggesting that anyone here is saying "poor people can't have music", because there are other media but let's be honest... when you really love music and you need to hear a song (IS it a luxury, if you are an avid lover of music?) waiting hours for it to come on the radio or listening to a bad copy on a website just won't do.
It's definitely true that the music business is just that, a business. But music in itself is not a business. Not to sound like a hippie, but it's communication of thoughts and feeling through rhythm and melody. If I were an artist, and I wrote a sad song, I would want everybody who felt sad in the world to have my song at their disposal. When they were feeling depressed about all the other "commodities" they couldn't afford, like the aforementioned gas and oil, they would still have my song and in that I would have achieved the ultimate goal of an artist... to connect with my audience. It's these people who will provide me with my best return on investment in the long run as they will be more avid followers of my career than may be someone who had money to burn just wanted to amass my CD to add to their "collection".
In other words, being a heavy metal musician I would want my song in the heads of every damned poor and/or disenfranchised individual out there because let's face it... those are the people who will camp out for your tickets. That is the type of "ownership" that I would want people to have in my music.
It isn't quite the same type of commodity as the usual type you pay money for. I paid a pretty penny for my DK1, and no, I am not prepared to give that up. But if there were a way I could let everybody enjoy the guitar and see how great it is without running the risk of wear and tear on it, getting it lost or stolen, and it would still always be there when I wanted to play it...
Yes, if you view a CD as a unit moved and a mere conglomeration of plastics and paper, then yes it is stealing and in a way no matter how you view it you should be paid for your creative output. But at the end of the day you have to decide what it is you're after as an artist and whether a short term loss may be worthwile in the long term goal of promoting "brand loyalty".

It is a good post.

But.

Your argument falls apart with the poor, poor fan not wanting to just listen to the radio. First of all, I'm fairly certain that man has survived thousands of years without records & radio. He found music. If he couldn't find it, he made it. I heard an interesting argument the other day- Music took it's biggest shit with the invention of recording & the fretted instrument. Forgetting the latter for a second, think about the former- If you wanted music, you learned it, played it with people, for people.

And now a simpler argument- Someone who can't afford a fcking $1 download certainly shouldn't be able to afford even piece of shit $400 computer to play it on. They paid the fcking broadband they used to download, though, and they paid the electric, because they can't steal that, and they bought the IPOD. So spare me the "this is about giving music sweet music to the less fortunate".

And frankly, yeah, if they can't spend $1 for that magical song on ITunes, I guess they really don't love music all that much. Shit, at $5 an hour working crap minimum wage, they could work ONE EXTRA HOUR and get 5 new tunes.

But they don't want to. They prioritize their assets and labors elsewhere, and simply steal something that they want that they DON'T have to pay for. That's the choice.

But don't tell me they can't "afford" music. That's just horse shit. What about Pandora? You don't get it *exactly* as you want it, but damn, you get a customized station, for FREE! I guess that's not good enough for bratty "I want what I want and I'll take it if I can get away with it" folks.

Not attacking you...Was a great first post!

Vass

[thetroy]

Nah Bengal I can't prove much of anything, but I'm not really out to prove that "filesharing is OK."

I don't really have a stance on the "morality" of filesharing, I'm more of a pragmatist and just do what works for me.

For you guys with moral issues, it might not work for you and that's fine. But when you start claiming that it's wrong for others to do, you are placing the burden of proof on yourself.

[joelayres]

On the flip side, what about a Father who can't afford a lawyer? Should HE Lose Custody of His Kid?

If he can't afford a lawyer, how can he afford the kids?

[Bengal]

Hi guys, first post here... hope it doesn't suck!
To me, the vantage point that "if you can't afford it, you can't have it" seems a little simplistic when dealing with a "commodity" such as music. Knowing how much I love music, I would be hesitant to say that one's enjoyment of it should be limited by your financial standing. I wouldn't go as far as suggesting that anyone here is saying "poor people can't have music", because there are other media but let's be honest... when you really love music and you need to hear a song (IS it a luxury, if you are an avid lover of music?) waiting hours for it to come on the radio or listening to a bad copy on a website just won't do.

Welcome!

Your post didn't suck at all.

But we have to admit, we are talking about a $15.00 CD. Not a $500 dollar CD.

Those same kids you are trying to connect with to buy your tickets can afford a CD or two. 2 CD's are probably cheaper than most reguar concert tickets.

If you are an avid lover of music, it's still a luxery. As far as I know, no one has died because of no music.

ABSOLUT,
There are pro-bono lawyers. So that doesn't really apply.

The OJ thing, while it's not perfect and it rewards those with money, I have yet to see a better one. Should he have went free? In my head, No. Should we ditch the jury system because of it? No.

[thetroy]

Better to be thought an idiot
than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt

If you're implying what I think you're implying, then you're either the idiot or you're smarter than pretty much every post-modern thinker.

I'm betting on the former.

[Bengal]

Nah Bengal I can't prove much of anything, but I'm not really out to prove that "filesharing is OK."

Not to pile up on you but you said it's up to us to prove it's wrong.

When we reverse the table, you can't prove that it's only the corporations who suffer.

So what does that mean?

Fuck if I know.

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

If he can't afford a lawyer, how can he afford the kids?

many can afford to have a kid, BUT toss on a good lawyer on top of that, something has to give.

i can afford a family of 3 kids, got one going to collage. but if i was sued for some unseen reason and needed an lawyer. back to student loans for her to go to school.

[thetroy]

Not to pile up on you but you said it's up to us to prove it's wrong.

When we reverse the table, you can't prove that it's only the corporations who suffer.

So what does that mean?

Fuck if I know.

It's cool my only point there was that there is no table to reverse. I never said it's a "right" thing to do, just that it works for me and I have not been convinced that it's "wrong" yet.

It could turn out to be morally wrong and I could end up being condemned to live in eternal damnation, but I doubt it. I doubt any of us will ever really know what's "right" anyway.

That's why I just do my thing and try not to pass judgement on others. Most of the time there's no good reason to believe they're any less "right" than myself.