Fun Stuff > BAND
Musicians suing fans?
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.
--- Quote from: tommydski ---downloading music benefits artists in the long run.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Moiche ---
--- Quote from: tommydski ---downloading music benefits artists in the long run.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: tommydski ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version