Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Slick]

Check out this article, it's about Canadian artists banding together to support music sharing. Basically, Broken Social Scene, Barenaked Ladies, Blue Rodeo, and others all got together and said no to proposed legeslation that would make Canada's laws closer to that of the states in regards to internet file sharing; presently it's legal to share and download to your hearts content hear in the great white north, as long as you don't pay anything for it, and these artists think it's a good thing, as do I.
I think the internet is in a large part responsible for our indie-rock-renaissance we've got going right now, and I like to think we all go and see these guys play live and buy CD's from the shows, where they're cheaper and go directly to the artist.
The only ones loosing out are the big labels, because the music scene is thriving and the musicians still seem to be eating. Maybe we don't actually need them that much.

Vive le renaissance, let's keep pirating and keep music alive in our generation, in our style.

[Bunnyman]

I wouldn't be into most of the artists I bought CDs from if I didn't pirate them first.

Extrapolate.

That's all I have to say.

[jcknbl]

I agree its definitely good for bands (at least relatively unknown ones) to make their music available for free download. Its certainly stupid to sue fans and the RIAA is just fucking nuts. I also find the arguments about keeping the poor culturally disenfranchised fairly convincing. Further, criminalizing music sharing is a shitty solution to a problem the requires creativity and innovation (that is, finding ways to make money off music other than selling music).

None of that though, justifies piracy. Its like tobacco, prohibiting possession would obviously be a terrible idea but that doesn't make smoking any better for you.

[Oli]

Downloading bands music is OK. Provided you don't sell it on.

However if you really like a band I think buying a few of their CDs (at shows or whatever) is only fair. It pays the band (aswell as merch and ticket sales).

At the end of the day though the music is the artists property and they have the right to let you get it free or not. That's only fair.

[Slick]

The music is their property, true, and if they all got together in support of suing music fans I think I'd download less, and problably buy less as well.
Mass scale downloading is not something I condone; my friends with extra hard drives full of pirate music are doing it wrong, as I reckon. Downloading is great for elusive or elsewise unavailable tracks (i.e. Grow Up and Blow Away: entire album), and for sampling, but without support these people can't eat.

[Thrillho]

I would sue my fans if I knew they were downloading my shit for free instead of buying my goddamn CDs.

[Misereatur]

tommydski, that is exaclly what I wanted to post.

I download music, but I also buy (my record collection is over 200 CDs, it would be more if CDs would'nt cost so damn much).

[Garcin]

As far as I'm aware, file sharing of copyrighted material has never been per se legal in Canada.  There have been a number of rulings dismissing labels' suits against individual downloaders, and a strong basis to believe that the downloading of copyrighted materials for personal use is legal.  However, to the best of my knowledge, uploading copyrighted materials with the intent of allowing others to copy it, even for personal use, has always violated copyright law.  If you have seen something to the contrary, please let me know.

downloading music benefits artists in the long run.

I'm going to quibble with that, Tommy.  File sharing benefits artists most who do not possess a large, devoted fanbase that will buy every new album regardless of reviews; do not get much play on radio or MTV; tour often; and tend to produce albums with consistently good songs, or else concept albums.  E.g. a typical indie artist.

Conversely, file sharing does not have any benefit for a singles oriented artist  with wide radio and television exposure, a devoted fanbase, that does not get a substantial proportion of income from touring and concerts.  E.g. a typical big four artist.

The point is that you, and I, and pretty much everyone else on this forum wouldn't care if all the big four pop artists died in a fire, music-wise.  Because we don't listen to that shit.  So we don't have much sympathy for the fact that file sharing happens to be losing them money.  

There used to be a whole industry based on the theory that one song with a lot of publicity and exposure would motivate thousands to buy a $10 - $20 CD with that track, two remixes of that track, one other mediocre track, and 10 other tracks of pure shit.  These are the artists who lose out -- because most teens are unwilling to shell out $15 on a CD to hear one song they like, which they have already heard about 1000 times already on TV, radio, and in adverstisements and movies, when they can get it immediately and for free on a bittorrent.

You don't even have the "don't do it because it's wrong" empathy motivation to buy from these labels, because by and large the artists are mega-multi-millionaires, whereas (somewhat ironically) their audiences tend to lack purchasing power.

All of which is to say that suggesting that file sharing benefits artists in general is as far as I can see more self-serving than it is true.

[Jedit]

downloading music benefits artists in the long run.

I'm going to quibble with that, Tommy.  File sharing benefits artists most who do not possess a large, devoted fanbase that will buy every new album regardless of reviews; do not get much play on radio or MTV; tour often; and tend to produce albums with consistently good songs, or else concept albums.  E.g. a typical indie artist.

Conversely, file sharing does not have any benefit for a singles oriented artist  with wide radio and television exposure, a devoted fanbase, that does not get a substantial proportion of income from touring and concerts.  E.g. a typical big four artist.

I'll take your argument a step further and say why.  Record royalties to an artist are disgustingly low; Janis Ian once said that in more than thirty years of recording she never received a royalty statement that didn't say she owed the company money, even when Between the Lines went platinum.  The real money is in touring, and the more people who have heard your stuff the more people will buy tickets.

This is why the RIAA (Rapacious Idiots Abusing Artists) are the ones who do the suing, and not the bands - Home Taping Is Killing Their Profit Margins.  Those greedy cocksuckers are the only ones being seriously harmed by downloading.

[Thrillho]

i suspect you are kidding, senor.
if not...ask yourself if you shouldn't reconsider why you make music.
i don't believe you would put effort and emotion into music all the while thinking 'i am creating music so those with a pre-determined amount of money can enjoy it'. that doesn't sound like something that would concern a creative person. you'll notice that jeph doesn't charge us for looking at his comics.

downloading music benefits artists in the long run.

it allows people who would otherwise not hear music to hear music of any genre, without the blessing of those who use music to try to sell you things. since i will not listen to the radio, watch television or read mainstream press because advertising offends me, i must hear songs elsewhere. the perfect place for this is the internet. of course, i still buy records i like unless they are on a major record label.

even if a person doesn't buy an album after downloading it, maybe they will benefit you in some other way. maybe they recommend it to one of their less internet savvy friends and they buy it. maybe the original person hasn't given you money towards the album but then attends a show and buys a shirt. maybe he does this every time you come into his town for the rest of your career. maybe he just writes about it on his blog and that gains you three new fans. so, from this one 'illegal' download you might have generated hundreds of fans indirectly. maybe this takes a year. maybe it takes one week. who knows?

What I make my music for is irrelevant; if I'm making music for a living I still have to eat, and if people aren't buying my music, then I won't get any money.

[TrueNeutral]

Well, that depends. As far as I know, artists don't get that much money from record sales anyway, mostly relying on shows and merchandise.

I might be wrong though.

[Thrillho]

Well that may be so, but if your fans don't give enough of a damn about you to buy your records then what're they doing at your shows?

[TrueNeutral]

True.

There's never any interesting show I can afford to go to anyway, so I have to buy records to compensate.

[Luke C]

Downloading bands music is OK. Provided you don't sell it on.

However if you really like a band I think buying a few of their CDs (at shows or whatever) is only fair. It pays the band (aswell as merch and ticket sales).

At the end of the day though the music is the artists property and they have the right to let you get it free or not. That's only fair.

True.
Often if I hear band on tv/radio or whatever or a friend recommends them to me I usually download a couple of tracks first to see if I like them, if I do I'll buy the album. If I REALLY like them then I'll but their whole back catalogue. Which is kinda expensive if a band has had a few albums!

[Thrillho]

What I make my music for is irrelevant; if I'm making music for a living I still have to eat, and if people aren't buying my music, then I won't get any money.

fair enough.
but like i explained before, file-sharing could make you more money in the long run due to exposure.
if it was the case that no-one in the world was buying records anymore, you might have a point. since this isn't the case, i don't really see it.

Well that may be so, but if your fans don't give enough of a damn about you to buy your records then what're they doing at your shows?

finding out if they like your music?
participating in the spectacle of live music?
accompanying a friend that does like your music?

That's not my point. If they're attending the show as 'one of your fans,' and are singing along to every word just because they've illegally downloaded it, then screw them.

I dislike this whole 'downloading leaked albums before they come out' thing. I'd rather listen to it when the artist/label wants me to listen to it.

[Slick]

Leaked albums do not appeal to me at all. If you're dying for it and know you'll like it that much, grab the shiny new CD as soon as it comes out. You should respect the artist there. As well, the reason for staggered release dates is so that the artist can tour in suport of the new album when it comes out, but the internet is changing that, probably for the worse.
And for not giving enough of a damn to get the record, fans need to eat as well, and if it comes down to going and seeing you live once, meeting fellow fans, and enjoying your presence, or having one compact disc of your music, I'll take the live show anyday. It's not a matter of giving a damn, it's a matter of preference, and live shows trump studio albums in almost every case for me.

[Der Golem]

Well that may be so, but if your fans don't give enough of a damn about you to buy your records then what're they doing at your shows?

There are hundreds of artists I would love to see live and thousands of artists that I would go see if they came to my town. However I am in no position to buy all those albums. So, I download. And buy if I feel I have reason to do so.

I love the Pixies, went to a show an bought a T-shirt, yet I own none of their albums. All I'm saying, appreciation of music is not equal to the amount of money you are willing to spend on it.

[Thrillho]

Well obviously this does all depend on the band and the person.

All your points are valid. But there are still loads of people who I'm damn sure would be able to afford to buy the CDs, who don't just want to see a band live, but just don't buy them. And it's them who make me sick.

[Rubby]

The big four are the people that are suing though. The artists don’t do it (with a few exceptions) because they’re not the ones making money off album sales. The record companies are essentially a group of investors who lend the band the money to make a recording and promote it. When the money comes back in from record sales it goes to investors, not the artists. It’s kind of like some investor purchases a lot downtown to build a skyscraper. Obviously the investor needs a construction company to erect the building, but he’s not hiring a crew to showcase their architectural talent because he’s such a good guy, he hirers them as a means to an end. Once the investor pays the agreed upon fee to the construction company, whatever money comes in from renting space in the building is profit. This is how every big business works. There is not empathy for the artists; they are simply the labor power used by this particular segment of the market. If I were to walk into a candy factory and steal a crate of candy, it’s not the person manning the assembly line that looses out; it’s the big guy who is trying to generate capitol from his investment. I know this kind of talk sounds harsh when dealing with a beloved cultural art form like music, but this is the way it works. The reason so much emphasis has been placed on live shows in these kinds of arguments is because it’s an independent venture not sponsored by a higher power. In this sense the artists themselves become the ones making the investment, making an agreed upon payment to the promoter and venue and collecting surplus profit. In the past, the situation was a win-win phenomenon, where the record companies collected profit from record sales while at the same time giving the artists “free” promotion for the live shows where the artists collect the profit. Downloading however, essentially allows the artists to cut out the middle man and promote the shows themselves. It’s not a hindrance to the artists because the recordings that are made under the investment of big name record companies don’t actually belong to the artists. The rights to perform the songs are the artist’s properties, but recordings made under a contract are completely owned by the investors lending the money to record the songs.

[qtownstegy]

Music should be seen as an art form, and if people want to pay you for it then that's a bonus. I'm sick of hearing pop bands bitching about losing money from record sales being down. Take it as a hint that either your music sucks or it costs too much to buy your shit.

Music is an idea that should be shared; not necessarily controlled, but if the artist wants to be a prick then his/her music better be good, otherwise no one is gonna fork over $15-$20 to listen to shit. They also better not be surprised when their popularity drops.

[E. Spaceman]

While I certainly agree with Tommydski, I think that music-as-business is also a valid course of action. Not one I like and certainly not one I would ever take (my lack of talent spares me from the decision).

[Kai]

Shit, man, if I was making music I would want to be able to eat. If you download it, at least like, make me a fucking sandwhich or send me some pop tarts or something. Seriously.

[Slick]

MP3 + mailing address = toasty sandwich for you!

[Thrillho]

Look, I don't get paid to make music or anything. Music is my passion, it's my life. Listening to it, writing it, writing about it, analyzing it.

But if it was my job, then I'd naturally want to get paid for doing my job well.

Surely SOMEONE here can see my point of view.

Taking aside all exceptions, all this crap about someone who might just like live music or might buy your CD after seeing your show or any of those perfectly legitimate reasons for seeing the band and liking them without owning the CDs, EVERY SINGLE DAMN ONE.

There are people, who will think 'shit, I can get it for free, why the fuck should I buy it?' and it is these people, not all those exceptions, that I dislike.


And I know that labels delay a release by however long, hence me saying 'band/label' rather than just 'band.'

[Thrillho]

the post right above your last one is me seeing your point of view.

if dynamite kid sees his music as a business venture then fair play to him.
he is doing something i could not do, good luck to him.

that isn't irony, i wish you all the best.

It's nothing to do with me seeing it as a business venture.

[Garcin]

I agree broadly with what you have said.  It should be the artist's choice whether or not a musical work can be obtained and kept without purchasing it.  If the artist wants to be paid for her art, then that decision should be respected.  I don't see this as very controversial.

Music should be seen as an art form, and if people want to pay you for it then that's a bonus.

Music as art and music as business is a false dichotomy.  I think that some of the people posting in this thread have some rather romantic and ill-conceived notions of what art is.  As I mentioned in another thread, a conventional understanding of "art" involves the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.  (Cribbed from Merriam-Webster's!)  In no way must this conflict with earning money, or creating art in a way that is profitable.  There is no reason why the profit motive has to so derail the artist's creativity that the music ceases to qualify as a creative expression in the first place.

[Jedit]

Look, I don't get paid to make music or anything. Music is my passion, it's my life. Listening to it, writing it, writing about it, analyzing it.

But if it was my job, then I'd naturally want to get paid for doing my job well.

Surely SOMEONE here can see my point of view.

Of course we can.  OTOH, if a musician wants to be paid well they should take it up with the bloodsucking scum who release the records.

[Kai]

Look, I don't get paid to make music or anything. Music is my passion, it's my life. Listening to it, writing it, writing about it, analyzing it.

But if it was my job, then I'd naturally want to get paid for doing my job well.

Surely SOMEONE here can see my point of view.

Note: I was totally agreeing with you. I would love to be able to eat if I was doing this professionally.


Yes, I pirate music. I pirate it like crazy. I try to buy cds and whatnot when I can, and if a group I love is coming, I will totally do what I can to see them.

Plus there's always the availability issue. Walk into any cd store and ask for a Sopor Aeternus album or a Current 93 album. It's pretty hard.

[E. Spaceman]

I agree broadly with what you have said.  It should be the artist's choice whether or not a musical work can be obtained and kept without purchasing it.  If the artist wants to be paid for her art, then that decision should be respected.  I don't see this as very controversial.

Music should be seen as an art form, and if people want to pay you for it then that's a bonus.

Music as art and music as business is a false dichotomy.  I think that some of the people posting in this thread have some rather romantic and ill-conceived notions of what art is.  As I mentioned in another thread, a conventional understanding of "art" involves the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.  (Cribbed from Merriam-Webster's!)  In no way must this conflict with earning money, or creating art in a way that is profitable.  There is no reason why the profit motive has to so derail the artist's creativity that the music ceases to qualify as a creative expression in the first place.

I fully agree with you, however I would like to note that the quote you used was not mine.

[Garcin]

Sorry dude, fixed that.

[Thrillho]

Look, I don't get paid to make music or anything. Music is my passion, it's my life. Listening to it, writing it, writing about it, analyzing it.

But if it was my job, then I'd naturally want to get paid for doing my job well.

Surely SOMEONE here can see my point of view.

Of course we can.  OTOH, if a musician wants to be paid well they should take it up with the bloodsucking scum who release the records.

It's not about being paid well - and bloodsucking scum? They release the damn things at all, don't they? - it's about the principle of some cunt being too lazy - or just too much of a cunt - to buy my goddamn album.

[Unosuke]

If your fans truly cared about you, then they'd want to support you by buying your stuff

[Thrillho]

If your fans truly cared about you, then they'd want to support you by buying your stuff

EXACTLY.

How have I not been able to just say that? That would've saved so many posts.

[Unosuke]

its the standard code of the pirate, download everything, then, if what you downloaded turns out to be awesome, go buy it.

[Thrillho]

See the problem there is that loads of pirates will keep the stuff that's okayish in full on their computer without a second thought, which isn't really fair.

[Kai]

See the problem there is that loads of pirates will keep the stuff that's okayish in full on their computer without a second thought, which isn't really fair.

Like me. Because honestly, for me to buy an album from every artist that I were to pirate at the rate that I do pirate, I would be pretty, pretty, pretty far in debt.  Not fair? Yeah. But I can not unfortunately buy a record from every artist ever, so I go with whatever's the most appealing.

[qtownstegy]

Exactly! Why pay $15-$20 for 1 song? Now if every song where a single and cheap and the consumer were allowed to hear a song once then decide to purchase, that would be amazing, but imposible, and I know that.

I know people want to be paid, but consumers want to be entertained for their money. I have bought more CDs in the past month than I have in a year because I've heard a few songs from an album and liked them. I just bought 2 from Thornbird, a band from California, because they played at my university. I liked a few of their songs so I bought 'em.

[Jedit]

Exactly! Why pay $15-$20 for 1 song? Now if every song where a single and cheap and the consumer were allowed to hear a song once then decide to purchase, that would be amazing, but imposible, and I know that.

Impossible how?  iTunes does one half of this already, and streaming radio can do the second.

[Thrillho]

See the problem there is that loads of pirates will keep the stuff that's okayish in full on their computer without a second thought, which isn't really fair.

Like me. Because honestly, for me to buy an album from every artist that I were to pirate at the rate that I do pirate, I would be pretty, pretty, pretty far in debt.  Not fair? Yeah. But I can not unfortunately buy a record from every artist ever, so I go with whatever's the most appealing.

So do what I've done. Stop downloading. Start buying things you already own. And then only buy new stuff.

[KharBevNor]

...no.

[El Opium]

Edit:
So I can't pay collector scum $50 on ebay for OOP releases? Should I throw away my record player because most of the vinyl on the market is used? Is Amok just trying to rock the boat? What if musicians aern't in it to make money and only play on the occaisional weekend?
Seriously, telling people to only buy new stuff comes close to supporting censorship, and most smaller record shops do the majority of their business in used goods.

[amok]

I can't afford to buy all the music I listen to but in my mind I justify it by going to gigs whenever humanly possible, as artists make more money this way anyway.

I'd quite happily send £2 or whatever to a band for downloading their album, which is more than they'd get from my buying the CD, I just don't make enough to keep up with exorbitantly overpriced albums (but that's a different rant).

[AceGun]

I didn't notice how much music I was downloading until I lost my broadband connection at the beginning of this school year.  My CD purchases fell greatly as well, since I will rarely ever buy a CD without hearing it first.

Now that I got a job just sitting at a computer all day, I can scour the internet for free samples and my CD purchases have greatly increased.  I will usually download about 12 CD's whenever I spend the weekend at my parent's though.

As far as the artists losing money, I've actually met bands that I loved but had never actually bought any of their albums.  I have felt so bad that I've given a few of them $5 out of my pocket just so I don't feel guilty.  It's a lot more than they'd ever make off of a single CD (depending on their label, of course).

[jose]

I don't really care enough about any singular artist to feel bad for hearing their shit without buying it.  until the market conforms to my needs (unlimited downloading of EVERYTHING for a set price, royalties given based on ratio of downloads etc) I will continue to download at will and prey that the riaa doesn't sue me

strangely enough no one seemed to care that 99 percent of my cd collection was used even though that doesn't support artists (except maybe in some abstract way that it props up indie record stores)

[alyosha]

I was a pirate until Kazaa destroyed my computer with cookies.  Since then, if I hear something I like, I'll buy the song off of iTunes.  If I like 3 songs off an album, I buy an album.  There have been a few exceptions to my rule of three, when I'd buy an album after 1 or 2 songs, but I normally stick tot hat rule.

If I dont have enough to buy the album in the store, I'll download it from iTUnes in full-- this usually saves me 6-10 dollars per album, and then I have the album in both CD format and mp3 format.

When I used to pirate, I'd mostly pirate what I aready had in cassette format, very obscure music, or live tracks.  I had one rule, which I still stick to:

If an artist is new, or struggling, I'll buy the album.

That said:

The biggest drawback to Piracy, or even to legal downloading, is that artists have forgotten the art of making an album.  They write singles, put a few good ones on an album in a random order, and fill the rest of the album with filler.  Why?  because singles are what sell nowadays.  There used to be a time when you'd go into a record store on a release date, and the album would be sold out.  Maybe i just listen to crappy music, but I can't remember the last time that happened.

On top of that, independant record stores are disappearing at an enormous rate, because ALBUMS ARENT SELLING.

As to music as art/money making:

Even the "purest" artist needs to buy equiptment.  COuld Monet have painted if he hadn;t the money to buy paint?  Basically, by paying for music, we are putting money back into the industry so that artists can afford instruments/accessories, Labels can afford to hire promoters, studios can afford recording equipment, etc.  Without these things, the music would never get to us.

[amok]

then just don't buy albums by bands that release singles.
how many great bands are there that still have singles i wonder?

Yeah, there was a great article by some really famous pop artist (I forget who - might have been Courtney Love?) justifying piracy on the grounds that it makes artists "afraid of their own filler". If a pop act makes an album of 3 catchy singles and 8 tracks of monotonous shit, people will preview the mp3s and won't buy the albums. On the other hand, if a band releases a solid album, then chances are a good proportion of those who download it will buy it or otherwise reimburse them. I'll have a nose around, don't seem to have it bookmarked.

[Thrillho]

Edit:
So I can't pay collector scum $50 on ebay for OOP releases? Should I throw away my record player because most of the vinyl on the market is used? Is Amok just trying to rock the boat? What if musicians aern't in it to make money and only play on the occaisional weekend?
Seriously, telling people to only buy new stuff comes close to supporting censorship, and most smaller record shops do the majority of their business in used goods.

I didn't mean only new music, mate. I meant only buy new music, as in purchase music you don't own rather than downloading illegally.

[alyosha]

then just don't buy albums by bands that release singles.
how many great bands are there that still have singles i wonder?

Yeah, there was a great article by some really famous pop artist (I forget who - might have been Courtney Love?) justifying piracy on the grounds that it makes artists "afraid of their own filler". If a pop act makes an album of 3 catchy singles and 8 tracks of monotonous shit, people will preview the mp3s and won't buy the albums. On the other hand, if a band releases a solid album, then chances are a good proportion of those who download it will buy it or otherwise reimburse them. I'll have a nose around, don't seem to have it bookmarked.

That's a good point.  I never thought about it that way...  Hrm.

[amok]

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index4.html

It was Courtney Love. The part I paraphrased is on page 5 but the whole article is a great read.

[Storm Rider]

i have always gone on to buy every album i have downloaded unless it sucked.
then i deleted it.

if you can convince me of why i shouldn't do this i will stop.

I do more or less the same thing, except I haven't bought all of the albums yet. I'm working on it though.