How Do YOU Feel About File-Sharing Music/Video

[Robert****]

The contention I take with that quote is that he's telling me to buy his music because I'm supposed to know what it's like as a musician. That's not how markets work. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about my life; is it my job to care about his?

He had some decent points, but it was all from a point of view that just seemed like he was clinging to what he has known in the past.

Markets don't work at all if they are based on theft, do they?

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.

Here is another view from another fantastic (but unknown to the masses) musician, Gary Willis -

http://www.garywillis.com/pages/rest/rant.html

With the overwhelming acceptance of unpaid downloading, it really isn't going to matter whatever new, convenient, ethical delivery system is provided. People seem to be determined to get their music for free. Fringe musicians like myself are facing an ethical vacuum that really calls into question the sacrifices necessary to continue a life of artistic creativity weighed against the sobering austerity that the marketplace participants are asking us to accept.

[marnold***]

To me, the worst problem here is the musicians are suffering from illegal downloads. Most of them NEED their record companies to help them get their music out there. It's not about the "record companies can afford it anyway" - without them, many artists would be starving.

Quote from a Scott Henderson, full time musician and one of the greatest guitar players on earth:

But I wonder how much of that is relevant anymore. I say "I wonder" because I obviously am not an industry insider in any way shape or form. Is getting a recording studio relevant with the recording technology that is available today? Is there a need for an ad in a magazine? Instead, is there just a need for the proverbial paradigm shift? Or are we just propping up an increasingly archaic system simply because "that's the way we've always done it"?

It reminds me of when cars first came out. People who made horse-drawn buggies, etc., tried to get legislation passed to preserve their industry. The same argument was made: think of how many people will lose their jobs!

Maybe it will be like it was at the time of the great classical composers. You either found a rich patron (or the church, I suppose) and wrote what he wanted or you wrote for yourself and starved.

[Jx2]

i think there is a need for promoting a album regardless of who you are. if that ad is not in a magazine it needs to be somewhere. I dont think just posting it to your facebook, twitter, or whatever will do you true justice. You really need to be able to have the resources to reach the masses.

[Eric***]

But I wonder how much of that is relevant anymore. I say "I wonder" because I obviously am not an industry insider in any way shape or form. Is getting a recording studio relevant with the recording technology that is available today? Is there a need for an ad in a magazine? Instead, is there just a need for the proverbial paradigm shift? Or are we just propping up an increasingly archaic system simply because "that's the way we've always done it"?

I don't know how it would work these days, but I will say that I read a bio of Wilco in which they said their third album (Summerteeth, 1999) died pretty much because the company wouldn't promote it. Before that, I thought records succeeded or failed on merit, but now I give a lot of credit to the publicity machine. It doesn't make me feel good to think that the music I picked out was still shoved in my face, but it's the reality of it.

That said, that example was 11 years ago, so things may have changed.

[Eric***]

Markets don't work at all if they are based on theft, do they?

It's a matter of whether you push people into illegal behaviors because you're asking more than the market will bear.

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.

I believe he said "...first try to make a living as a musician." If that's his reasoning for people buying music, he's in for a long battle.

It's kind of saying the same thing, but why doesn't he go get a job doing something else if he doesn't like the way his industry is going? Ridiculous numbers of people switch jobs and industries all of the time because of the future of their jobs. Are musicians suddenly sacred? Sure, I want to keep good music flowing, but I'm not going to support him because he whines about what it's like to be him. I'll do it because I want good musicians and writers to remain in the biz.

Here is another view from another fantastic (but unknown to the masses) musician, Gary Willis -

http://www.garywillis.com/pages/rest/rant.html

This is probably true for some, but for me personally, I'll pay if the system and price is right. I am not without morals, but this guy needs to know that there's always a threshold for consumers. People won't put up with any level of treatment just because you say so. He's facing the same thing: a threshold of whether it's reasonable to continue in his profession.

This whole discussion reminds me of Gail Wynand's epiphany in The Fountainhead: that his "power" was really just a product of whoring himself out to what society wanted anyway.

[deeaa*]

I'm so enjoying this thread :-)

It's very hard for me to draw the line here.

It's entirely legal to borrow or copy a friend's CD.
It's entirely legal to borrow and copy a CD from the library.
There is a specific tax paid for empty cassettes, CD's and now even hard-drives that goes to the rights organizations such as ASCAP, BECAUSE everybody knows these will be used to copy copyrighted materials.

It's also legal to save your copies on the net. It's legal to download said files.
Where it becomes illegal is when that happens clearly en masse, deliberately offering that data for download, or spreading the data actively.

Arguably also when you actually listen/enjoy said data it's illegal. Although I don't think that would stick in courts...because where do you draw the line - when it isn't a friend's MP3 rip he sent for you and when was it a professional pirate distribution???

Same difference, when I use a camera to show a book to students via a video projector. Nothing wrong with that. It's very hard to say - if I now capture the images to my laptop so I can show the same in a room with no capture camera - is that illegal?

It certainly gets illegal at least if I send the captures to my students so as they would not have to buy the book. BUT it's hard to draw the line even there.

After all, our company pays thousands and thousands per year for 'rights to copy copyrighted material' and then we have guidelines how much we can copy and how to use the copied material.

It's just plain impossibly complex and getting more and more so.

My vote goes to all that kind of stuff being free, and instead the price should be included in the SYSTEMS you use them with.

I pay hundreds a month for Internet access and various Internet services already. Why not divide a part of it to give to ASCAP etc. who in turn give money to musicians and film makers? I would be happy to pay, say 10 bucks or 20 bucks a month for right to watch/D/L anything I wish.

[deeaa*]

I thought records succeeded or failed on merit, but now I give a lot of credit to the publicity machine. It doesn't make me feel good to think that the music I picked out was still shoved in my face, but it's the reality of it.

I can't seriously think anything like Lady Gaga or most of the top-ten material would ever make it past selling just a handful unless it was VERY heavily marketed.

It's all about marketing. Even the best band in the world won't get any further than their home town unless huge amounts of money went into marketing.

Unless the marketing machine keeps pushing something into people's faces, people forget it real quick.

I knew these guys in a local band who got picked up by a BIG record label, and they were all the rage when their first album came out. They were on TV, mags, everything, the talk of the whole country. BUT he expained this to me.

They felt the WORST thing ever to happen to their band was to be picked up by the company for a multi-record deal. Because then they had this insane thing that they expected them to sell X thousand CD's in the first 6 months. Once that didn't quite happen, well, the label just pulled all advertising. Took just a couple of months, and then nobody remembered them any more. They made hugely better music by then, having toured and all for months, but nada...no support from the record company.

They just simply calculated; if this band sells x much in x months, it's worth putting more money into it. If not, well, we have a 3-album contract, and we don't have to _make_ the albums, which cost...but we can keep the band in check in case it gets popular later.

So the band was stuck in a limbo; bound by contract they had no means or permission to release any material, and the record company didn't want to spend any more money in the band; they had made enough profit but felt they were better off getting fresh bands.

Needless to say, after a few years the band split. They got tired of playing gigs and getting feedback like 'man you were great, I had thought you'd split way back'...but lacking any new material...

Sad, but it's just a fact people need several listens, several times they come accross a band in some way, before they get interested. And most often, even in case of great bands, if something seemingly even more interesting pops up, well, it's easy to forget the first one.

[Robert****]

It's kind of saying the same thing, but why doesn't he go get a job doing something else if he doesn't like the way his industry is going? Ridiculous numbers of people switch jobs and industries all of the time because of the future of their jobs. Are musicians suddenly sacred? Sure, I want to keep good music flowing, but I'm not going to support him because he whines about what it's like to be him. I'll do it because I want good musicians and writers to remain in the biz.

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"?

[deeaa*]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"?

Well, doesn't that happen everywhere? When a neighborhood goes bad, the first thing to go are nice stores and such?

I would definitely pack it up and move elsewhere, or maybe indeed find another job...maybe put up a company to catch shoplifters for profession :-)

[Heywood Jablomie]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"?

Not a good analogy, IMO. A store is a controllable environment, at least to some reasonable extent, meaning that there's something actually doable about shoplifting. Cyberspace and millions of "shoplifters" is a different matter.

[Robert****]

Not a good analogy, IMO. A store is a controllable environment, at least to some reasonable extent, meaning that there's something actually doable about shoplifting. Cyberspace and millions of "shoplifters" is a different matter.

Exactly - that is what this whole topic is about, yes? The environment is different, but the end result for the "store owner" is the same - loss of income.

[Eric***]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"?

Well, I'll let the other responses speak to the analogy you put forth, but I will clarify a bit. I am not saying that I want people who make good music to stop doing so. It was a minor point that when people b!tch and moan about pirating, why don't they do something about it instead? Most people, faced with an unfavorable circumstance, will usually either get out of the situation or work to make the situation more positive. IOW, quit whining and do something about it or get out.

There needs to come a point where people in music understand that irrevocable changes have taken place. Perhaps we can make the best of it and find a new way to do business with a marketplace that is willing to pay for music (I know I am). Just don't use yesterday's model. Pick yourself up off the floor and quit kicking and screaming about how it used to be. If you truly do hate it so much, then maybe it is time to find a new job!

[Eric***]

My vote goes to all that kind of stuff being free, and instead the price should be included in the SYSTEMS you use them with.

I pay hundreds a month for Internet access and various Internet services already. Why not divide a part of it to give to ASCAP etc. who in turn give money to musicians and film makers? I would be happy to pay, say 10 bucks or 20 bucks a month for right to watch/D/L anything I wish.

That's a good point; I would do that.

I'm sure people will say why it won't work, but hasn't that part of it (what won't work) been discussed at length already?

[deeaa*]

Yeah - it already works in so many forms anyway.

You can get pay-TV and record the shows/films as much as you like, for a fixed fee. You can listen to the radio and record the songs, you pay for it in taxes; at least we also pay for TV licences that are used to support the public TV channels; we also pay for the cable runs and the electricity used...

There is little difference in music as opposed to films on TV and such, isn't there? Why not use it in the same way?

There will always be people who want to buy a fine CD or whatever box with graphics, posters, info, whatnot, from their favorite band...for the rest, I really think the radio/TV example would work the best. Spotify in the front line.

So musicians will suffer...big deal, there's musicians around more than there ever was...starve, then, or get a real job. Some will anyway be eligible for government grants, get patrons...like it was hundreds of years ago.

Then, and only then, we can perhaps get rid of this record-lable-forced stuff and only the best musicians will survive and rise to fame, not because they're marketed, but because they're GOOD.

[marnold***]

After all, our company pays thousands and thousands per year for 'rights to copy copyrighted material' and then we have guidelines how much we can copy and how to use the copied material.

It's just plain impossibly complex and getting more and more so.

This is where I run into problems as a pastor. It is almost impossible to know whether or not you are violating copyright law. My church body came out with a hymnal supplement including an electronic version. The problem is that to use the electronic version you not only have to a) buy the electronic version and then b) pay an annual fee to a company that takes care of the rights. The extra problem then is that the content of the supplement is under two different companies which means two different sets of fees. God himself only knows how much of those fees actually makes it back to the people who deserve it.

Technically speaking (and I can't even be 100% sure of this since the law is so convoluted), we are violating copyright laws by taping our services for our shut-ins. It probably falls under the category of "performance." But how do you deal with that? No lawyer will give you a definite answer without being on retainer and even then there's no guarantees.

I want to obey the law--I really do! I want to make sure that the people that produced this stuff are properly compensated. But the law is such that it is almost impossible to know. Yet if someone wanted to get uppity about it, the fines (to say nothing of lawyers' fees) would bankrupt the congregation several times over.

[Jx2]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?

[Eric***]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?

Um...yeah I skipped it. Sorry. I find giant paragraphs to be a little much to read, particularly if they're not real succinct. Sorry, it's just how I've conditioned myself for online forums.

All I will say to your argument is that you can say it's unfair all you want, but it's what we've got. Right or wrong, that is the new starting point for the music industry. I'm sure it will work itself out eventually -- music has lasted an awfully long time so far.

[Spudman***]

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.

Scott does make a good point about this, but currently the folks that provide those services have been the robber barons of the music industry. They have taken a too large share of the artist's money. Now who can trust or afford those companies to distribute and promote?

It's either going to come down to the artist doing more, or a new industry will arise that will do this for substantially less money than the record companies have charged the artists in past years. The big question, other than the obvious pirating issue, is, will this be an effective promotion and distribution method?

[Jx2]

It does seem alot of artists are building their own studios. Zakk Wylde said he built the Bunker and can do everything but promotion related stuff there. Ozzy also built a studio in recent years as several other artist. It seems the issue is more for the smaller upstart bands.

Maybe what needs to happen is bands supporting bands. Im not sure how it all worked but Led Zeppelin signed Bad Company to the Zoso label correct? So they had to promote the band. Maybe Zakk, Ozzy and Sharon and other well off bands with studios. Should form labels like Zoso. No knows what the labels have done better than the artists they did it to. So by doing this, in theory they would be more adapt to being fair. That could potentialy resolve that problem yet it does lil to nothing for the other topic at hand.

O yea Vinnie Paul Abbot has Big Vin Records as well.