Fun Stuff > BAND
The whole downloading music thing...
valley_parade:
If EitS want to put one of their EPs up for download, and I don't have the money to go to a show and buy it from them, damn right I'm gonna download it.
I think my whole excuse for downloading instead of buying is "I AM A BROKE COLLEGE STUDENT".
ALoveSupreme:
I love that that quote is from Throwdown. I don't think I would even bother stealing an album of theirs (it is a very well worded quote, though).
Anyhow, a friend of mine for a 400 level course made a documentary on music piracy, and it pretty much stated the same thing. Who's really losing in music piracy? Not anyone that you give half a shit about.
pilsner:
Everyone who thinks that we should band together and find Tommy a job where he gets paid by the word, say "aye". I think copy this well worded deserves to be on the music blog *ahem* especially if I get to do a point/counterpoint with Harry as my proxy. Harry, you don't know me, but I'm a superb debater and an excellent ventriloquist.
There have been a number of studies that have shown no correlation between music downloading and the decade long decline in CD sales that the industry has been suffering through. (Source: CNet; Ars Technica; MSNBC citing conflicting studies with the RIAA commissioned study showing, unsurprisingly that downloads do hurt and that you should go out and buy 20 copies of the new J-Lo album right now.)
Nevertheless, I respectfully differ with Tommykins over the right and propriety of musicians to expect to be paid for their art on a per album business and to want to make a living from their music. Paying someone to amuse, entertain, challenge or educate you does not devalue the amusement, challenge or education in itself. Wanting to be paid to amuse, etertain, challenge or educate doesn't mean you can't mix art with the craft. Believing that your audience owes you the lifestyle of U2 or Metallica is arrogant. However, believing that your audience owes you a certain quantum of money in return for the privilege of listening to your art, that's not arrogant. If you feel obliged to pay the plumber, the electrician and the locksmith for their services, why not the people who just provided you with a pleasurable, meaningful and inspiring bunch of sounds? Just because it's art doesn't mean that it can't also be a (very, very important) service. If it helps, think of musicians as people making food for your soul. You pay for food, right?
Furthermore, I am very dubious of Tommy's implication that bands tend to worsen when they become financially solvent. Personally, my top 20 favorite live musicians are all professional. They make a living doing what they do. They all sound awesome (to me). And with only a few exceptions, I got into each of them when they after they had become professional musicians.
I think we as a community of music hobbyists have to distinguish between our dislike of the Big Music/Big Label business dynamic and our opinions about our moral obligations to buy the albums of the musicians we like and listen to. Sure, buying an artist's CD at Virgin doesn't put much money in their pocket. Perhaps this is a reason to not buy the CD at Virgin, but it is not a reason to decline to buy the CD at all. Personally, I try whenever possible to wait to buy the CD at a concert and download after the album leaks. If I can't go to the concert or the merch table is ridiculous, I order off the (indie) label's or the artist's website. I definitely have not paid for every album I own, but I hew to this system as strictly as I can, especially for live and touring musicians. My goal is to, whenever possible, put as much money as I can in the artist's pocket. Frankly, beefing up merch tables at concerts could really help.
Spinless:
Most (if not all) statistics and 'facts' published by the RIAA and other such parties are VERY exaggerated, twisted and distorted, assuming they're not outright lies in the first place.
Tommy and Pilsner talked very well about the artist, so I'm going to talk about the industry, and specifically, lawsuits.
A common misconception is that filesharing is 'music piracy' or 'theft'. Now, I don't pretend to keep up to date with the english language, but in order for a theft to occur, property has to exist in the first place right? Theft is taking something physical from it's original owner and thus depriving them of that object, or profit they might make from the object. So, filesharing is not theft. Yet people are still afraid of 'stealing' music? Well...no...they're not...
You see, one argument for the lawsuits that people keep getting hit with is that they are an effective deterrent from illegally downloading music. Much like the idea that filesharing is theft, this is also a lie.
Every single day, more and more people are logging onto filesharing networks. The more people log on, the less likely you are to be slapped with a lawsuit. While the RIAA, IFIAA or whatever will likely say 'The lawsuits have vastly reduced the number of filesharers in the US and worldwide' the opposite is true. Infact, since the lawsuits started, the number of filesharers has increased from around 2 million to 15 million worldwide, with more than half of these people living in the US.
Now, the recording industry is reporting a steady decline in sales each year since filesharing became the 'big thing'. They're attributing this loss of sales to filesharing. What they don't publicize is that they distribute less and less CDs to stores worldwide each year. Nearly up to 150 million CDs worldwide. It is this 'loss of sales' that has been blamed on p2p networks.
Apparently filesharing is KILLING the music industry, which lets be honest, is an industry that *should* have died back in the 80s, like the British RIAA equivalent the BPI promised back in early 80s with this advertising campaign:
The recording industry is reporting a loss of "billions" in sales, and quite frankly, this is so absurd and ridiculous, mostly for reasons already stated in this thread, and indeed in this post that I'm not even going to address it.
Filesharers are not criminals, they have not done anything wrong. There is not a single person worldwide who has been found guilty in a court of law for "filesharing" or even "illegally downloading music". Why is this? Well...it's not illegal. It's frowned upon, but none of the things that the RIAA is slapping lawsuits on people for seem to be illegal. They HAVE however broken many laws regarding people's privacy and invaded on a lot of people's rights in order to get money from these alleged "criminals".
It's a well known fact, the major label music industry is comprised of nothing but complete and utter bastards, and they are doing nothing to change my mind. Actually, I read a report that since parents have been wisening up and stating they can not be held accountable for their children infringing copyright laws, the recording industry has now started targetting children.
That's right. After suing the poor, the elderly AND the deceased, encouraging people to drop out of school to pay up and using scare tactics and harassment in order to get money from people, they are now directly suing minors.
Spinless:
--- Quote from: tommydski on 14 Oct 2007, 15:31 --- If they decided to buy into the current system, I regret that I suffer from an incredible lack of sympathy that people are downloading their music rather than lining the pockets of a huge corporation. I want change and I think the best way to do it is to force the majors out of business.
--- End quote ---
Are you making the assumption that all bands on majors decide that they're going to get fucked? I have a lot of sympathy for a lot of artist because face it, most are pretty much tricked into signing horrible contracts that guarantee they'll end up owing money to their label. It doesn't mean I'll put money into the corporation's pocket, but I don't feel somewhat bad for the artist who's been thoroughly screwed right in the ass, it doesn't matter if they asked for it, they definitely didn't expect it to be that big. In cases like this, I doubt the artist cares at all about people downloading their music, most would be encouraging it, they'd just be angry at the label. Not their fans.
(Remember folks, not every band that's on a major is in it to turn a profit. Majors really can help to create a better album or help you reach a wider audience. Remember who the 'enemy' is, it's not the bands on the major label)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version