The publics attitude on piracy

[elser]

My personal view is that there's nothing wrong with people making mixtapes and mashups for each other in a social context; home tapers have been doing this for decades, and it's a form of free promotion that helps artists and helps music, but we shouldn't confuse MP3 files with music as the artists intended it to be heard. We need to establish a level of quality for which the writers and performers must be paid, and get the public to agree. That shouldn't be too hard, right?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that because MP3 files are relatively poor quality that they should be allowed to be shared freely?

I agree that making mixtapes and giving a friend a copy of something is a natural thing to do and helps not only to promote an artist but it also creates a music culture of which we are proud to feel a part of. And those are good things, but the big file sharing networks can't be construed to be the same thing. Maybe it is technically and by legal definition but we all know that what file sharers are doing isn't just sharing music with their friends, it's happening on a massive level and doesn't fit the spirit of 'sharing', it's more like stealing.

This is why we have judges who are actually human rather than some computer interpreting the law and passing out rulings. The language of law is limited, we need to understand the spirit of the law as well as the wording.

[billg1]

The idea that Mp3 files are inferior to the point of having no value based on not being how the artists wanted their song heard doesn't make sense. I agree mp3's suck, but there are countless artists who do not release any physical product and receive payments for downloaded mp3's. It's never been about what format an artists wanted but about what the consumer purchased based on any number of factors, usually convenience. After all, that's why we had 8 track players (an awful way to listen to music, not to mention probably the clunkiest format ever), but for a short time it was considered the best way to listen to music in a car. I had one and it wasn't.

It shouldn't matter if music is distributed on vinyl, CDs, Mp3, or wax cylinder the artists still deserve to be paid for the music.

Artists who feel as if their music (in one form or another) should be free contribute to the mentality that leads to illegal downloading. A consumer who can't hear or doesn't care about the difference of various mediums just assumes the music has no worth.

I've crossed the line to where downloaded sales of my music is greater than physical CDs and some of that (not all) is in the form of mp3's. I'm not gigging live and though the money from sales isn't much, it's steady, I always need it, and it's appreciated.

Even though most of us are compelled to do what we do regardless of financial rewards, a lot of the best music comes from people who have the TIME to devote to writing/recording. Earning money from musical efforts is what guarantees the creation of great records. Take away the professional freedom to create that comes from being compensated for your work and all that will be left are amateurs sitting around in their home studios making mediocre recordings aftrer they come home from their day jobs. There's nothing wrong with music as a hobby, it's a great hobby. But when the music industry becomes fueled by hobbyist instead of professionals the bar for fantastic recorded music will be lowered.

Sorry for the rant.

[elser]

Sorry for the rant.

I thought that got right to the point.

[mojobone]

A A consumer who can't hear or doesn't care about the difference of various mediums just assumes the music has no worth.

You're right, Bill, part of my argument is emotional; anybody that'd stoop to stealing my music is somebody I wouldn't want for a fan. (not sure if I'm paraphrasing Mark Twain or Groucho Marx, there, heh)

Aggregating massive quantities of digital music files online and charging for advertisements on your site while allowing the public to download any and everything gratis does not constitute personal use, is my opinion. Also, that if I'm offering music for sale, I expect a premium for lossless formats like FLAC, and including stuff that adds value, like credits, tracklists, artwork, etc.

Looked at in a certain way, free music has been with us for a long time; it used to be called radio, and the various stations degraded the music by varying amounts-they still do, right up to the point where they lose either listeners (signal too degraded by overmodulation) or advertisers. (not reaching enough listeners) Hmmmm, maybe we're onto something, here.....

[Len911]

Right and wrong is cultural. It seems there are two cultures clashing, people who don't think it's wrong, and artists who want to be paid. On another post, an artist was bemoaning his cheaply pitiful royalties, but he also was listed somewhere where people could donate money to him on paypal. I thought that seemed like a great idea. It sure seems better than $.0000002 per download. Maybe itunes should have a donation section, where people could listen or download for free and just make donations. But then what if the artists actually made more money than the $.99 downloads and everyone switched? Capitalism can be so baffling at times,lol! I wonder how the St. Louis Bakery is doing on their pay what you want plan? It makes you wonder what would happen if churches, in lieu of taking offerings started charging admission, if they would do better or worse? I don't really think I'm convinced of the idea myself, I might hear a song that I really love and donate $20 or so and the standard pricing allows me to feel I've made the maximum contribution in a much more financially sound measure.

[t4mh]

Ok! Good discussion! I agree with the way this is going but stopping it is gonna be hard. Two points.

1 - I watch my grandkids downloading music. They don't know anything different AND they don't know that what they're doing is stealing. They aren't old enough to really have a concept of money, work, what have you. They know there is a store, say Walmart, where CDs can be bought but why would ya? I visit with their parents about this and they will tell anyone, hey if I could get an electrician for free I'd do it. We all would. So as long as its allowed, it will be done. I personally don't know anyone today, I don't know a huge amount of people for that matter, that actually pays for music online from anywhere. None, zip, nil, nada.

2 - All people really want to do is download a track, dump it on their mp3 players and listen to it. They may also do some file swapping with their friends but again, all they want to do is listen. We all have music posted publicly on a variety of websites for listening and promotion, whatever. But at the core its listening. If you smart enough with a computer all of that can be downloaded or in effect stolen. Should we, composers, stop posting our stuff publicly and take a stand?

Just askin
Keith

[fusilierb]

.

[elser]

Looked at in a certain way, free music has been with us for a long time; it used to be called radio, and the various stations degraded the music by varying amounts-they still do, right up to the point where they lose either listeners (signal too degraded by overmodulation) or advertisers. (not reaching enough listeners) Hmmmm, maybe we're onto something, here.....

Radio has never been free. The artists that provide that music get compensated by their PRO's. And broadening the rules for licensing may be the solution to the whole problem. In a sense we pay for it as well by tolerating the commercials and degraded audio quality and listening experience. But the artists who provide music for radio do get paid for it.

Right and wrong is cultural.

Different cultures have different definitions of right and wrong but that doesn't mean right and wrong have no meaning. At one time it was considered right and acceptable for one race of people to enslave a different race of people or if one country decided to invade another country and take it by force, then it was considered acceptable by the world in general that the dominating country had the right to reign over the losing country. But most cultures have grown past those ideas; if you'd like to make a case for world domination and the enslavement of blacks I would enjoy reading your argument.

Ok! Good discussion! I agree with the way this is going but stopping it is gonna be hard. Two points.

1 - I watch my grandkids downloading music. They don't know anything different AND they don't know that what they're doing is stealing. They aren't old enough to really have a concept of money, work, what have you.

I think that's the point of the whole thread. Many people don't understand that it's stealing, that is something that has to be learned. They don't take into consideration the skill and effort, experience and education and investment that go into making high quality music.

I make my living from playing live gigs but I put about a third of my income back into my studio so that my music will sound better. I spend my days practicing instruments about 3 hours, ear training drills 20 minutes to an hour, composing and producing anywhere from 2 to 10 hours, browsing the web for music related topics or reading music related books and magazines 8 to 10 hours per week. And I do this all in the hopes of being able to earn more money making music. If the money isn't there to be made than I and others like me will give up and we'll let some hobbyist making his own songs from loops in Garageband to provide the world with music. And then we will definitely have a world of
degraded audio.

OK is there anybody I haven't pissed off, get in line. Jus kiddin

[Len911]

Right and wrong is cultural.

"
Different cultures have different definitions of right and wrong but that doesn't mean right and wrong have no meaning. At one time it was considered right and acceptable for one race of people to enslave a different race of people or if one country decided to invade another country and take it by force, then it was considered acceptable by the world in general that the dominating country had the right to reign over the losing country. But most cultures have grown past those ideas; if you'd like to make a case for world domination and the enslavement of blacks I would enjoy reading your argument. " (oops! I messed up the quotes)

I agree that since right and wrong is cultural that it doesn't mean it has no meaning. It used to be in the U.S. at the start of the industrial revolution we used child labor, but since Sinclair Lewis' book it has been much frowned on and we have laws now, but we call less affluent nations wrong when they use child labor to make tennis shoes, or pick blue berries, which is a lot less morbid than the dangerous jobs we allowed children to do. I don't have a case at all to make for world domination or the enslavement of blacks. I don't believe all cultures have moved past "those" ideas. Some nations allow gay marriage, some think all gays should be killed, and nations like ours are just beginning to debate gays in the military. It was Mormon culture at one time to have more than one wife. I am not passing any judgement, I am just saying that right and wrong is rooted in culture rather than reason necessarily. How can one "prove" culture? And if I had any culture, of course I would be right!lol!

[k o star]

Buying Records & CDs when growing up was Super fun!!
Poor kids these days are totally missing out..

K