Fun Stuff > BAND

Varg Vikernes (Burzum) released from prison after 16 years

<< < (10/13) > >>

Hat:
even if he did download music I don't really understand what your point would be Tommy.

I mean everyone knows you use the best justification available to you in order to pirate music and this is pretty high up there as far as reasons to not have to pay for music go.


--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 24 Sep 2009, 01:45 ---Well it was mostly to avoid veering wildly off-topic (especially into pretty well-worn) territory but also because if you looked even medium-hard you'd be able to find good explanations of why you are so, so wrong.

Actually you know what I am going to throw you a bone and just link you to The Lefsetz Letter. Bob Lefsetz is a music industry insider who's been doing it for about 30 years so he knows what he's talking about. He's a dinosaur and he's got very questionable taste in music and is overall ignorant of almost everything happening outside of the Billboard 200 but he's probably one of the most eloquent voices in articulating why the music business needs to change drastically.

--- End quote ---

I once got an assignment back where I'd done nothing but reference secondary sources and refer to other peoples arguments and the professor got a big red sharpie and wrote "NO CONTENT" over it like a big stamp and that is what I want to do to this post.

I mean I know you've argued about it before but at least give us a specific link to focus on here instead of a link to the front page of his website or something.

Sox:

--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 24 Sep 2009, 00:54 ---We've had this discussion before like a million times so I'm not really in the mood to repeat the salient points but suffice to say you're wrong.

--- End quote ---

He isn't wrong though. There are people for whom illegal downloading is an alternative to paying, rather than a separate entity. There are people who won't buy a t-shirt or go see a show.
Here, we support musicians that we care about, so it's easy for us to argue in favour of filesharing. We're part of a specialised market that allows for that kind of flexibility regarding 'illegal' downloading without presenting a moral quandary.

The top 200 billboard however is a completely different kind of monster. In this context, filesharing is as different as the circumstances surrounding the artists.
While a small band can and will benefit from filesharing, the billboard 200 crowds take a significant hit in sales. Perhaps it's partly because people realise how awful the music is now before they pay for it, but I sincerely doubt that. It's because they no longer have to buy the CD to enjoy the product. They will download the song, they will listen to it until they hate and then they won't buy the t-shirt.

That is a market significantly larger than the one that we are a part of and every day it's costing more money than you'll probably ever have in your life. While we can argue that people who affiliate themselves with the majors or are successful enough to chart don't deserve money, that is not what the debate is. The debate is whether or not illegal downloading can be theft. We can argue about the definition of theft all day, but basically...

If you have a product on your iPod that the artist probably intended for you to pay for and you didn't...
...they have lost money.

Not being able to afford music in the first place is not a factor in this argument because if you can't afford music, then you can't afford it, file sharing or no. These arguments apply to the people who could conceivably be paying for music but choose not to. I have a suspicion that a lot of people who use the "I can't afford music" argument have no problem spending money on shoes they don't need, so dismiss that argument every time you hear it. Not being able to afford something is not the same as spending your money on something else instead.

It's not about whether or not file sharing is appropriate. It's about when and where it is. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not it is stealing based on their own habits regarding the downloading of music.

BeoPuppy has decided that if he doesn't pay for music, then he is stealing it. Hats off to him for saying something that a lot of people here don't seem to want to say.

I steal music. Just like you.

Hat:

--- Quote from: Sox on 24 Sep 2009, 05:10 ---a small band can and will benefit from filesharing,

--- End quote ---

not as convincing a justification for music piracy as "I refuse to financially support nazi's" but I guess it works alright

seriously though if you think music piracy can never hurt a small band you are wrong, sorry. I am just really sick of smug people who actually use this to justify pirating independent or struggling artists' work. I know that is not actually your point here Darryl but you've kind of used it as a buttress for the rest of your argument so I am getting uppity here since it seems everyone just wants another music piracy backpatting thread instead of maybe discussing this complex moral issue.

Sox:
yeah, let's amend that to 'can and usually does'.
that's closer to what I wanted to say.

KharBevNor:
I don't think it's a complex moral issue. I think that copyright is a set of arcane laws designed almost solely to protect the rights of those who distribute, rather than the artists. Now that the distributors have become irrelevant those on the top are worried about the security of their rich arsehole mansions, private jets and cocaine. They're worried that they won't be able to make ridiculous amounts of money by bribing radio stations to play substandard content and then raking in the pocket money of a couple of million 13 year old kids. The idea that artists need to work through record labels is an utter lie. They need to work through record labels to become big rockstars and get to shag hollywood actors and go to the best parties, but greed, after all, is something we don't need. The fact of the matter is that record labels do not create value, they simply leach off the creativity of others. Others who they offer no job security and have no loyalty to. The gallery and agent system in the art world works very similiarly; the gallery cut is actually one of the biggest obstacles to people making a living out of traditional art.    

I say this as a dude who derives over 50% of his income from selling original works of art and music. Truth is, there are other ways of managing things. It is cheaper than ever to make extremely good music; anyone with a home computer, a few instruments, a lot of patience and a gram of talent can produce interesting results. Musical endeavours can be financed in numerous other ways; a lot of the bands I like make their money through a combination of merchandising, touring and selling 'boutique' limited editions of their work at inflated sums. If I had a higher level of output, and more fans, I would start a subscription service; for three quid a month I will send you, digitally (or for six quid a month, physically) every bit of music I make, and offer you discounted merch.  Supplemented with merch, limited edition EPs and the odd live show, that would be sufficient to live on, for me anyway, with about six hundred subscribers; 100 six quid subscribers and 500 three quid subscribers would come up to 21k a year, which is a decent wage.

I really need to get more popular.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page