Downloading music

[misterfive]

If you pay for the album once you can listen to it anywhere and form.

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by misterfive

If you pay for the album once you can listen to it anywhere and form.

Exactly! Once you pay for a song on any music service, you can download it to your computer to listen to it multiple times, load to your smartphone, i-phone, i-pad, i-pod or whatever devices you choose to.

The libraries all over the US who subscribe to Freegal, must pay a hefty fee in order to provide the service to its library patrons. If there was anything immmoral about it at all, a public entity, such a a library, certainly would not be allowed to provide it. As I said before, Sony Music is a sponsor of it, so they obviously don't have a problem with it. And any other music company who allows the work of their artists to be provided, doesn't have a problem with it either.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by ricgough

I do still feel that copyright has always been infringed via cassette though - I think the major difference is that it was done in a localised way - at least someone of a group of friends would have to buy it then mates would copy/ share and lend - if you really wanted something you would buy it though - borrowing and copying albums was usually artists you were less familiar with and wouldn't spend the cash upfront in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you'd heard a friend's copy or on the radio for free first.

I believe also, at least in the U.S., there are royalty fees paid on blank cassettes (blank music CD's, too, I think) to help make up for the lost revenue.

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

Exactly! Once you pay for a song on any music service, you can download it to your computer to listen to it multiple times, load to your smartphone, i-phone, i-pad, i-pod or whatever devices you choose to.

The libraries all over the US who subscribe to Freegal, must pay a hefty fee in order to provide the service to its library patrons. If there was anything immmoral about it at all, a public entity, such a a library, certainly would not be allowed to provide it. As I said before, Sony Music is a sponsor of it, so they obviously don't have a problem with it. And any other music company who allows the work of their artists to be provided, doesn't have a problem with it either.

Legal doesn't mean Moral. And big labels supporting it doesn't mean they actually like it, it means they feel they have to co exist otherwise people are gonna do it anyway. Trust me i read a huge report where the majors justified their support of peer to peers and streaming services. They don't like it but they feel they have no choice but to push the market rather than follow. The indies feel bullied into co existing by the fans and the majors, they can't afford to but they have to in order to keep up.

Big labels can afford to build it into their business model, indie labels can't and they're the ones who bring all the diversity out there. But now even the larger indie's are starting to play the numbers game. No proffessional company in the industry likes peer to peer or streaming services, a huge survey recently compiled showed overwhelming contempt for these companies but feel unable to compete at the moment. The industry is scrambling to try to find a way to get rid of these sites, but the popularity of these sites is forcing the industry to act in a way it feels uncomfortable with right now

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

I believe also, at least in the U.S., there are royalty fees paid on blank cassettes (blank music CD's, too, I think) to help make up for the lost revenue.

same for the uk

[ricgough]

There is a school of thought that says Indie labels have been replaced by self-production (not a realistic option in the past) and social media promotion.

It is an interesting debate because there is a criminality issue here and then there is social and technological flux; potentially which renders traditional industry structures redundant.

I'm all for the protection of copyright and intellectual property, but how much of your argument (djfierce) is to do with this specific issue of legality and how much to seeing your own corner of the market shrinking through technically legitimate means - ostensibly a technically "protectionist" argument ?

Challenges from new technology and business structures is a vital component of the free market after all.

(Sorry, playing Devil's advocate a bit with this one but would appreciate your response!)

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by djfierce

same for the uk

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

Perhaps this is why an mp3 track can cost over £1... they add in some money to cover lost income from piracy and copyright theft?

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

That is why in The Netherlands they've just decided to charge a thuiskopieheffing (home copy surcharge, i.e., a 'tax' to compensate for the legal copies you may make for private practice, study or use) on PC's, mobile phones, memory cards, etc.

(Also, downloading copyrighted material, even from an illegal source, still remains legal in over here.)

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

Perhaps this is why an mp3 track can cost over £1... they add in some money to cover lost income from piracy and copyright theft?

There's talk about bringing that in, but it hasn't happened yet. The price is dictated somewhat by the publisher, they get a choice of low, medium or high price from the distributor. Some go low to encourage more sales, some go high to try to make as much as poss from low sales. That's why you see tracks of various prices, it also depends on the retailer, for instance the price band we choose, tracks are sold on amazon for 69p but the same track is 79p on itunes, that's the vendor choosing the price not us. If we chose the high band then our tracks could be over £1

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by ricgough

There is a school of thought that says Indie labels have been replaced by self-production (not a realistic option in the past) and social media promotion.

It is an interesting debate because there is a criminality issue here and then there is social and technological flux; potentially which renders traditional industry structures redundant.

I'm all for the protection of copyright and intellectual property, but how much of your argument (djfierce) is to do with this specific issue of legality and how much to seeing your own corner of the market shrinking through technically legitimate means - ostensibly a technically "protectionist" argument ?

Challenges from new technology and business structures is a vital component of the free market after all.

(Sorry, playing Devil's advocate a bit with this one but would appreciate your response!)

With respect, It's an incorrect school of thought
There have been so few self released artists to actually 'make it' that many really don't see it as a viable option still. The 'you can do it yourself' hype is taken up by artists at first because they believe they can, usually because they see someone doing well who is self published. But look deeper and you will always find they are funded and produced by an indie label on some level and sometimes even by a large label, why? Because the i did it myself in my bedroom story sells, because people like to think all the money they spend goes to the artist,almost always it does not. Just checking the release code against the bpi or prs tells you exactly who has a stake in that production, its usually a label of some description whether a full discreet deal, a production or just a promotion and distribution deal, there is a proffessional body fueling their success.
I'm not saying there aren't any self released artists, there are lots, its easier than ever to release your own music. The difficult part is paying for recording, mixing and mastering time. The costs of distribution (which are still there albeit smaller than before) and the knowledge time and contacts to effectively promote. Many radio stations, festivals, events, even internet bloggers and vendors will not deal with unsigned artists. I must point out there are some that will only deal with unsigned artists too but not enough to level it for unsigned.
The market isn't shrinking, in fact it's growing,those are official figures, people are consuming music much more than they ever did, what's shrinking is the revenue. Studio time is cheaper, meaning if i work as a producer only for a band, i probably get paid less for the 16hr day than an average person does for 8, it's a passion, no one on this side of the mic gets into this business for the money i can tell you that for sure lol. When i started working i said many times i just want to make enough money to afford to keep doing it.
I don't need to defend my corner of the market because i can happily tell you every person i produce and release have all previously hired me on producer only work, so why do they come to me when they can do it themselves? The most simple answer i can give you is that they found out the truth behind the self release option, a band i have just released are doing very well now having come back to me after a year and a half. I produced them a year and a half ago, they paid me for my time and went off to self release and promote their new album convinced they could do it. They tried for over a year before coming back to sign up to me on a promote and release deal. So what did they get? They got instant attention to their music and website, they got their music played in places they never could before, they got gigs they couldn't get before, access to film companies who produced top notch music videos for them.
The long and short of it is, that even though it took them a year, they realised they couldn't just put a track out there and wait for their facebook friends and twitter followers to buy it amongst other things. They realised there were places they just couldnt penetrate or have the knowledge how to use effectively. The market has evolved in a big way, that just means labels have to make sure there is a reason for artists to use them. The attitude has shifted in a big way, indie labels in particular see working with an artist as a partnership much more than the artist works for them attitude.
My posts are obviously business related as it's the environment i work in but mostly as a music fan and consumer based on how i like to consume music, i use sites like Last FM and Reverbnation but more for the use of finding artists i never heard of rather than the artist i like, i still buy music because on a moral level i believe its right, and i know first hand how hard it is for artists unsigned or on indies to move into a position of doing what they love on a regular basis.

I apologise for the long ass post, and i hope it makes sense but i'm typing during my break here at the studio lol

[Evil Ernie]

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

[bobbin]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

Lol classy, let me know when you open up a shop ill come and steal your stuff

[Mr. Happy]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

A lot of money and effort goes into recording those CDs. Just because you can get them free doesn't mean you should get them for free. I don't know how you can even try to justify you shouldn't have to pay for it, it's outright theft.

I know that's sort of a no shit statement, but I don't like disliking someone's post without saying something. I feel dirty afterwards >.>

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing?

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

[TheDoode]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing?

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

I'm not defending Evil Ernie, but what happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? Did we just forget about that again? I'll go on record and say that the majority of kids 19 and under do not pay for music anymore, in my opinion (and experience). Doesn't make it 'right', but that's the reality of what is happening. Music has been made so readily accessible for free that it's common practice amongst university students and school kids alike - most of them don't even think about it in the same way that we do; they take it as a fact: music is available to download for free. Great. Now what's for dinner?

And I don't think you should be questioning anyone else's morals when it comes to the theft of intellectual property...

[CarylB]

Noteworthy you quote and reply to me and not to Bobbin or My Happy ....

[TheDoode]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Noteworthy you quote and reply to me and not to Bobbin or My Happy ....

Your post was the first one that I read when I logged in. I don't have anything personal against you Caryl, and I've tried on numerous occasions to engage with you in a civil way. If you have a problem with that, PM me, and we'll talk and keep the thread clean at the same time.

[CarylB]

Thank you, but as I've said before, not again.

I simply posted my opinion, just as others did in the immediate posts before mine

I don't doubt that Evil Ernie's opinion is that he has a right to not pay for music because he doesn't want to. Like others, mine is that because it may be possible, it's not morally right. Just our view. And I explained why it was mine. I thought it was OK to say to him don't get sick .. who would want him to be that?

[TheDoode]

And then made the assumption that he would just 'rip' a concert from Youtube... rather than just watch it. It was the tone of your comment, really. For the sake of clarity Carly, do you believe it to be morally reprehensible to take a piece of intellectual property and use it without it being condoned by the owner or creator of the work?

[Monstro]

The topic of the debate thread and peoples views there should stay there, if it doesn't the whole board will be taken up with it.

Please keep to the thread topic

[CarylB]

I didn't assume, I said "perhaps". My understanding is that the topic here is about downloading music free as opposed to purchasing it, thus enabling those involved in its production to make their living. To deprive an artist of their living by taking a painting or sculpture rather than paying for it would be in my view wrong, yes. I am not going to play any off topic game of debating intellectual copyright and the sometimes dubious claims to own it.

[Sue K]

Go to work this week ... come Friday and your boss says, no pay this week... I decided just to use you for the work and maybe I'll do the same next week ... You'd demand pay or quit ... Imagine if all musicians did the same... QUIT... NO MORE MUSIC... FREE OR OTHERWISE ... yeah ...

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by bobbin

Lol classy, let me know when you open up a shop ill come and steal your stuff

Sure. If by stealing from me you mean making a neutered copy without me being immediately aware... and I get to keep the actual item for sale to somebody else

Originally Posted by Mr. Happy

A lot of money and effort goes into recording those CDs. Just because you can get them free doesn't mean you should get them for free. I don't know how you can even try to justify you shouldn't have to pay for it, it's outright theft.

I know that's sort of a no shit statement, but I don't like disliking someone's post without saying something. I feel dirty afterwards >.>

As I said. I not justifying why I download music. I just don't want to pay for it and it's legal in my country, so I can get away with it.

If it gets to the point where I can get concert tickets and tshirts for free, I'll do that too.

If it gets to the point where it's almost impossible for a musician (such as myself) to make money at what they do, than I'm all for it. You shouldn't do art for financial gain anyway.

Anything you get should be a mere residual of doing your art. Whether it's fame or money. The true reward should be touching people, so whether somebody 'steals' music by downloading it is irrelevant. Enough people will pay for products for you to make you money back, because in order to make it 'free' somebody has to make a purchase and not everyone is going to download the same torrent.

In a way the less an artist makes the better, because a) they do it for the art alone and don't worry as much about how marketable it is, b) A suffering artist tends to make better art.

Did it stop Van Gogh? did it stop JS Bach? No, it only made them better because they did it for themselves as an artist. They never thought "Oh, I need to make this part catchy so I can sell more copies of my sheet music."

If you really think about it, it's ridiculous that a famous musician or actor makes 50 times more money than the average person, yet their job is less stressful (I don't care what anybody says) and they get to do their art for a living. I understand the reasons, but if they lose money I have absolutely no pity.

The notion that if we don't pay for music the quality and quantity will go down is absolute trite nonsense. Even though the shit marketed to the masses kind of sucks, good music is still out there. You just have to seek it out and not listen to the outlets that the corporate masters have created to market the stuff that is scientifically designed to appeal to the wide, easy to please masses. The internet sets you free in your mind, your enlightenment and your wallet.

Originally Posted by CarylB

Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing?

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

I don't understand the part about not getting sick. And as I said, I'm not justifying anything. I just don't want to pay because I don't have to. To me it's like paying to listen to the local radio station or having to pay to walk on the sidewalk. I don't have to, so I won't. I COULD write a cheque to the city out of the kindness of my heart and volunteer to clean the toilets at my local radio station, but I'm not a sucker.

It appears that the people involved in the industry are still making music and making money. These days it is extremely cheap to record anything. It makes 'Bleach' by Nirvana @ $600 seem like a ripoff. Money is there to be made. They need to be more creative and THEY ARE.

The music industry may scream up and down about downloading, but they have experts that tell them how to market and sell their product in the 2000's. It may not be what it was, but the industry is still making tons of money.

You also cannot duplicate the experience of a concert by watching YouTube. So don't even try that.

If somebody is not making enough money by making music than they should get a second job. In fact that's what most musicians do. I'm supposed to have sympathy because the lucky rich ones are losing money and have to move from a 29 bedroom house to a 17 bedroom house? Gimme a break.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Sue K

Go to work this week ... come Friday and your boss says, no pay this week... I decided just to use you for the work and maybe I'll do the same next week ... You'd demand pay or quit ... Imagine if all musicians did the same... QUIT... NO MORE MUSIC... FREE OR OTHERWISE ... yeah ...

Weak example. That is something that I can file with the labour board and have resolved. If my boss doesn't pay up that he goes to jail.

What recourse do the people I'm downloading off have? Not a damn thing. Making art is not work.

Sorry to be blunt about it, but it's a very weak and far reaching example.

Saying that musicians would quit is like saying a hooker would stop having sex because nobodies paying for it anymore.

They would quit playing? And never play any shows? Or put anything on youtube? Or create something on Garageband and distribute it in the internet to see how people like it? Just because they're not being paid?

Sure.

In fact many will operate AT A LOSS because they love it so much.... like me.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by TheDoode

I'm not defending Evil Ernie, but what happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? Did we just forget about that again? I'll go on record and say that the majority of kids 19 and under do not pay for music anymore, in my opinion (and experience). Doesn't make it 'right', but that's the reality of what is happening. Music has been made so readily accessible for free that it's common practice amongst university students and school kids alike - most of them don't even think about it in the same way that we do; they take it as a fact: music is available to download for free. Great. Now what's for dinner?

And I don't think you should be questioning anyone else's morals when it comes to the theft of intellectual property...

Lol. I'm not sure what you think, but I'm over 30. I take the free music as a miracle from the One True Lord (FSM).

Also, I DO still buy CD's. I only buy slightly less CD's than I did before in the 90's, but I download 10 times thats now. So in other words my music exposure and intake has increased dramatically while only slightly lowering the amount of money that I invest in the music industry.

Originally Posted by CarylB

I thought it was OK to say to him don't get sick .. who would want him to be that?

You're alright Carly. This made me literally LOL.