Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 11:20 PM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: particledots i think the fact that she was 'able' to download has zero relevance as to whether she would have bought them if that was the only other alternative Oh really? Let's take away the fact that she works at a radio station and therefore has access to a large library. Here is a person who cares a lot about music. If there was really not the possibility of downloading, don't you think she would have bought more than the 15 CDs she claims to have paid for now? I think she would have paid for hundreds of CDs. There's plenty of arguments to attack in that article, but the fact stands that people are getting material or immaterial benefits from the work of artists who are not getting paid, while if you'd ask them, they'd probably not be OK with that. Victor.

why do you think she would have paid for 100's of CDs just because she downloaded the equivalent?

dont answer...because i cant explain why i paid for 100's of CDs either, specially after i had already bought them on vinyl or cassette or DVD or bluray etc etc

whether the artist gets paid really seems to bear no relation to the fact that people are able to download 'stuff'...

however, as i said before...somebody, somewhere, somehow is making money in this equation...perhaps thats where the fingers should point rather than at the 'downloader'

out of interest...did you ever make cassette copies of music and then give the cassettes to people without paying the artist, record company, etc...if so, what is different about downloading music other than scale?

also...i wonder if you extend the argument that all music that you listen to should be paid for...and that those who host/broadcast/transmit the music and that the people who make it should be paid....i wonder how many people would be using macjams right now?

how much would you say is reasonable for someone to pay to listen to your stuff given the time and effort you put in to it? (thats not just aimed at you vic...but everyone on here)

By 'giving away' our stuff for free on sites like macjams, arent we all contributing to the notion that it's ok to not get paid for making music in someway?

personally it doesnt matter to me...i have never made any money at this game and i doubt i ever will...equally i have also never felt 'guilt' at listening to compilation tapes that people have made for me or music i have heard 'for free' on the internet

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:04 AM CDT

Timely topic; my opinion is there are 3 types of musicians and piracy affects each differently. 1) the for free/creative commons artist -- we don't mind being pirated and often encourage it to get recognized. 2) the self-supporting professional who needs sales to live -- piracy really hurts these people the most. 3) the recording industry professional who sold their sole to the devil -- the recording industry pricing/greed invites crime as cds are way over-priced, tickets to most shows are exorbitant and as we all know, big record companies are corporate-types whom only care about money, not art nor artists.

It's not a good time for artists or anyone trying to make a living who is not a member of the 1%, we live in an era of corruption.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:58 AM CDT

Quote by: particledots Quote by: VicDiesel Here is a person who cares a lot about music. If there was really not the possibility of downloading, don't you think she would have bought more than the 15 CDs she claims to have paid for now? I think she would have paid for hundreds of CDs. Victor. why do you think she would have paid for 100's of CDs just because she downloaded the equivalent?

Because she's a DJ and loves music. 11,000 tracks represents THOUSANDS of CD's not the 100's of CD's Vic is saying she probably would have bought. It doesn't make sense, in my opinion to say a college DJ probably wouldn't own a few hundred CD's worth of tracks. I owned a couple of hundred of them in college because I spent all my spare money on music. I wasn't a DJ, just nuts about music.

Quote by: particledots however, as i said before...somebody, somewhere, somehow is making money in this equation...perhaps thats where the fingers should point rather than at the 'downloader'

The people who profit in file sharing are the people who download files. Yes, there are sites that host illegal downloads and have advertising on them, but the majority of peer-to-peer sharing is done by individuals who trade pieces of files to each other via torrent clients. The technology enables file sharing of all types of files, both legal and illegal. The actual user decides how to use the technology, and when someone downloads a music file illegally, that person (aka 'the downloader") is the one who made the choice to take it without paying. No commercial entity is making money in that equation.

Quote by: particledots out of interest...did you ever make cassette copies of music and then give the cassettes to people without paying the artist, record company, etc...if so, what is different about downloading music other than scale?

The difference is that making mixtapes is LEGAL. Every piece of recordable media, CD-R's and blank cassettes that are sold, includes a 3% tax which is paid to ASCAP and goes into various funds to compensate composers, music publishers, recording artists, etc. There's nothing like that for digital downloads.

Quote by: particledots also...i wonder if you extend the argument that all music that you listen to should be paid for...and that those who host/broadcast/transmit the music and that the people who make it should be paid....i wonder how many people would be using macjams right now? how much would you say is reasonable for someone to pay to listen to your stuff given the time and effort you put in to it? (thats not just aimed at you vic...but everyone on here) By 'giving away' our stuff for free on sites like macjams, arent we all contributing to the notion that it's ok to not get paid for making music in someway?

I'm not Vic, but I don't think he's saying that music shouldn't be free. I think he's saying that it is up to the *individual artist to decide* for him or herself whether he or she wants to pursue music commercially or to give tracks away like we do, or some hybrid of the two (Pie, is an artist here like that. I suspect echoroom has plans of that sort, too).

How many technological advancements around the creation of music and recording would never have happened if there were no commercial incentive for their invention? How many great artists are going to go unheard now, because they can't get anyone to pay for their promotion? We are a bunch of DIY weirdos here and take it for granted that not every singer or composer or musican is great with the Internet or social media or figuring out how to do their own promotion. Would you really want Billie Holiday on eLance trying to hire some guy to design her website, anyway? That would probably not turn out so well...

Yes, the recording industry is effed up and they are the ones who screwed up the transtion from hard media to digital. A great deal of this would not be happening if the recording industry had gotten massive amounts of their catalog available for purchase digitally as soon as mp3's took off. The reason Napster was so popular was that you literally couldn't buy the tracks that people were trading. There was a massive incentive to d/l illegally, and I'm sure many people probably rationalized it by thinking they would buy the song, "if I could."

The publishing industry learned from this. They have made damn sure to make lots and lots and lots of books available for sale in Kindle and ePub format to remove the incentive to trade PDFs illegally. So far, there doesn't seem to be a Limewire for books. It's not because people don't read, but because it's easier and more convenient to just buy what you want inside the device. There was nothing like that when mp3's came along. I think the music industry might look a lot different right now if there had been.

There's nothing that will stop people downloading illegally now, but what bothers me most is that people seem to think it's okay to steal, just because the technology exists to make it easy and invisible. It is in NO WAY the fault of the individual artists and there seems to be very little compassion for the way this theft impacts them. It's difficult for me to understand, honestly.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:01 AM CDT

Quote by: BirdmanWayne94 I wanted to share it because I, admittedly, took part in illegally downloading a lot of music... reading this article reasoned out the wrongs in what I did. I feel ashamed... but now I leave you with the link to the article:

And Yeman, I am often very proud of you when I see the young man you have become. This is definitely one of those times.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:44 AM CDT

Quote by: ledebutant Quote by: particledots out of interest...did you ever make cassette copies of music and then give the cassettes to people without paying the artist, record company, etc...if so, what is different about downloading music other than scale? The difference is that making mixtapes is LEGAL. Every piece of recordable media, CD-R's and blank cassettes that are sold, includes a 3% tax which is paid to ASCAP and goes into various funds to compensate composers, music publishers, recording artists, etc. There's nothing like that for digital downloads.

i am sure a record company exec would take issue with this statement...remember the 'home taping is killing music' stickers....

while you may technically be correct that it is 'legal' to make a mix tape, what is the situation when i make a mix tape or CD and then give it to you? how is that any less legal than file sharing except that ASCAP has got 3% of the few cents that you may have paid to make the individual cd....using this argument, should ASCAP be getting 3% of what i pay to my ISP in the chance i might download something or stream something of youtube, hulu or the bbc....

i would argue that its also legal to download music files and almost anything else (including books/PDFs) if there is a source to download from....however if i then try to share what i have downloaded or even worse attempt to sell it for my own profit.....i can see how that is illegal

it appears this is a very touchy subject for a number of people with polarizing views....i think it is going to be one of 'those' threads where it might be wise just to acknowledge there are different viewpoints on this and never the twain shall meet....so i will make that acknowledgment now and wish you all well

oh...and me and michael 2 are toying with the idea of releasing a free cd....that is what we will do will be free...you might have to pay via your data plan or isp to download it or USPS if you want it mailed

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:49 AM CDT

streaming is taking over anyway soon every song in history will be available for a monthly charge. or it will be ad supported

dimm witness made 3 cents in streams last year. all I need to do is double that every year and by 2030 I can retire :-)

I will be 70. lol

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM CDT

Quote by: BirdmanWayne94 My brother sent me a very thoughtful article regarding music piracy written by David Lowery, an artist who seems to be aware of the ins and outs of the music business. I wanted to share it because I, admittedly, took part in illegally downloading a lot of music... reading this article reasoned out the wrongs in what I did. I feel ashamed... but now I leave you with the link to the article: The Trichordist: Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered It's a bit lengthy. But it's worth it.

I listen to almost no commercial music much less download it, and it has nothing to do with money. 3/4 of it they'd have to pay me to listen to. I get a glimpse every once in awhile when I happen in on an awards show or something. It usually only takes a minute or two to reaffirm. Not all but most I bump into is total crap and I am amazed the "artist" made it as far as they have. Seems these audiences are very easily led. I fear we have groomed an entire generation to total unawareness of real music talent. This is not 100% true but enough that I don't much listen anyhow. Ok Rant over....

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:37 AM CDT

The only time I will buy a CD is at gigs
or concerts .

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:18 PM CDT

Quote by: ledebutant I'm not Vic, but I don't think he's saying that music shouldn't be free. I think he's saying that it is up to the *individual artist to decide* for him or herself whether he or she wants to pursue music commercially or to give tracks away like we do, or some hybrid of the two

Thanks Lisa for an excellent post.

Yep. My main guideline is moral: you're not allowed to benefit from another person's work, unless that person has explicitly given you permission.

Of course there are millions of borderline cases, but that's the basic idea.

Quote by:particledots whether the artist gets paid really seems to bear no relation to the fact that people are able to download 'stuff'...

Can you offer any proof of that?

(And yes, cassette copying existed, but made only a minor dent in record company profits & artist salaries. The ease of downloading these days is different enough in scale that there's actually a qualitative difference: people who should be able to live off their trade can no longer.)

Victor.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:01 PM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by:particledots whether the artist gets paid really seems to bear no relation to the fact that people are able to download 'stuff'... Can you offer any proof of that?

of course i cant, but i would also highly doubt that you can proove that if the ability to download suddenly disappeared, all of a sudden people would start buying 'stuff' in the 11,000 plus quantaties mentioned in the article and that as a result the artists would benefit...

i would imagine that a large proportion of those 11000 songs on that lady's playlist have never been played...

i think you are correct in identifying the moral (rather than legal) component to this...i find it interesting how some people have used morality to bash this 21 year woman in their responses to her her original blog post in the most vicious way

the whole question of not being able to benefit from someone else's work unless given permission is interesting...what if the artists (the creators of the work) are ok with people 'benefiting' from their work and the record company is not...

as you say...millions of borderline cases...this isnt a clear cut issue....

all food for thought