Sax on the Web Forum banner

Paying for Music

14K views 62 replies 19 participants last post by  buddy lee 
#1 ·
#2 ·
What exactly do you want to discuss ?
My repeated and recurring observation is that the so-called music industry (sont des mots qui ne vont pas bien ensemble) shares the main responsibility of it's own failure. And it tries to make us (citizens/consumers/fans) feel guilty, how ever it can.
Why is it a computer hardware company that had to invent iTunes ?
Why isn't just any piece of music recorded some time between the end of the 18th century and now just available at any place of the world ?
Why isn't the good old LP sleeve information available together with the downloadable/streamable music ?
How come the industry still expects us to "buy" something which is immaterial ? Shouldn't it simply be licensed ?
Shall I continue ?
These are the questions the music industry should address (plus many others), instead of trying to push this or that dumb "artist" like in the good old "Thriller" days (sorry, Mr Jackson, I didn't mean it against you).
The 21st Century will be of the pull logic, the providers should primarily worry about providing, not pushing.
Many of us are ready to pay for the music they enjoy. I paid some music 3 times: LP format, CD format AND download. Nobody tried to contact me to refund previously paid rights...:tsk:
So, who's bad ?
 
#3 ·
A week or so i posted (buried in a thread on Panora) a link to a graphic showing how much music musicians need to sell to make minimum wage.

Here is another posting on the economics of the music business. http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

Please discuss.
Genius. I can't tell you how many times I have argued online with people who just don't get it. Downloading songs off the internet is stealing, period. People make the argument that, "It's no different from 1985 when we used to pass copies of cassettes around our circle of friends," but it is because now that circle of friends is a billion strong.

It's a joke and something has to be done about it.

Edit: I'll continue. I've found that most people who refuse to buy music have never written/produced/released their own original music and therefore have no frame of reference for what's involved or how it feels to have something you've created and spent thousands of dollars on/months or years of time creating just available for anyone to take for free (unless the artist WANTS it to be available for free, that's different). The artist should be allowed to dictate this, period.

In my opinion, anyone who doesn't understand this or has a myriad of excuses for why they download music from torrents when it's readily available for sale online (itunes, amazon.com) are thieves, pure and simple. I haven't downloaded a song that I could buy in 20 seconds online since 2002. So a song isn't a loaf of bread, that doesn't mean someone doesn't own the rights to how it's distributed. Bottom line: if the artist doesn't have the song available for free download from their own site, and you don't buy it, you've stolen it.
 
#4 ·
Genius. I can't tell you how many times I have argued online with people who just don't get it. Downloading songs off the internet is stealing, period. People make the argument that, "It's no different from 1985 when we used to pass copies of cassettes around our circle of friends," but it is because now that circle of friends is a billion strong.

It's a joke and something has to be done about it.
For the record I spend about 100 euro's a month on cd's. That's not the problem, why the hell should I feel sorry for downloading music(which is still legal here) when a lot of musicians are more then happy to sign away the rights to their own works.
 
#6 ·
Also, I have no problem with sites that stream songs that have paid for the licensing in order to do so. I would also be all for a website that offers something like "Pay $10 a month and download all the songs you want" as long as this website pays licensing to the artists it hosts. I'm surprised really that this type of thing hasn't happened yet.
 
#14 ·
Bottom line is that, whatever one might feel one way or the other, downloading "free" music without the consent of artist and/or label is theft, plain and simple, and should be prosecuted as such. The worst offenders appear to be students, who instead of investing in building a legitimate library of music (complete with liner notes -- where much can be learned about context), just randomly snag whatever they can steal from BitTorrent or other peer-to-peer networks. The irony is that music students themselves are ensuring a future where they cannot hope to sell their own music. Karma, I suppose -- but it damages many others.
 
#15 ·
Why not do with music what is all ready happening with visual art, and that is, allow for 'fair use'? Fair use means you can use someone elses art for your own purposes as long as you don't change it, but the more salient point being that art is splattered all over the 'net with people freely viewing it as many times as they want. Why should music be any different?
 
#25 ·
That is not the definition of fair use in the US. The US copyright law is an attempt to balance the rights of content creators with the benefits to society of free flow of information. The US copyright law defines the doctrine of fair use. (see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). Stealing music for one's own personal pleasure is not included:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
 
#16 ·
The visual art analogy breaks down because digital images of a painting or sculpture are different from (and inferior to) the original. In music, the digital copy is basically the same as the original, notwithstanding compression issues. In this scenario, what is the incentive for the artist to invest in artistic production and distribution? And, why only art? Why shouldn't my lawyer or dentist work for free? Why should physical goods cost anything? Don't I deserve to have whatever I can take w/o being caught?
 
#19 ·
I was referring to digital art or any art actually, sometimes video, which is copied and or d'l'd from websites and used for purposes other than that which the artist intended. To an extent, it's okay to do this, according to copyright laws - it's called 'fair use' - and I don't understand why music should be any different.
 
#20 ·
The magic word here is possible, there is no way to prove that that person was going to buy it in the first place. It's not like stealing an apple, you can only sell an apple once but you can sell a song an infinite amount of time without extra costs. I'm saying it isn't bad I'm just saying that it's not the same thing.
 
#21 ·
The OP posted a link I was about to post here myself.

All I can say is "amen."

After having performed on albums that wiped out the savings of two local artists in their (self-)production, I simply cannot fathom the mindset expressed here that what Miss Emily NPR did was NOT stealing, nor the notion that somehow the musicians brought it upon themselves because they do not have omnipotent powers to prevent secondary distribution of bits and bytes.
 
#22 ·
The OP posted a link I was about to post here myself.

All I can say is "amen."

After having performed on albums that wiped out the savings of two local artists in their (self-)production, I simply cannot fathom the mindset expressed here that what Miss Emily NPR did was NOT stealing, nor the notion that somehow the musicians brought it upon themselves because they do not have omnipotent powers to prevent secondary distribution of bits and bytes.
I think you misinterpreted my statement. I never said that it's the musicians fault that their stuff gets downloaded illegally. I said that they shouldn't complain about losing money this way when they are so happy to sign away the rights to their own music.

Also this picture explains why it's not stealing.
 
#24 ·
People who support stealing, SORRY I mean "copying", music probably don't realize that they're basically the reason why all we get on the radio anymore is Justin Bieber and his clones. Record companies don't make as much money as they used to = playing it safe = only signing artists they know without a shadow of a doubt will sell = edgier (better probably) music never gets heard.
 
#26 ·
The record companies are the problem, they didn't see the internet as a viable opportunity and now they are too late. I can believe that most of you complain about people downloading music at home and don't care that you get ripped off by record companies.

Look at this chart and how much an artist makes of selling their songs on itunes.

 
#27 ·
But you don't get that record companies can promote the artist on a scale that I can't dream of doing myself! It's a trade-off of mammoth proportions! You keep talking about doing it yourself, but my lord you just don't understand that it's not as easy as putting a video on youtube and becoming Adele. Now, record companies wouldn't touch a band like mine with a 1000 foot pole because we're not "viable" in this market. 15 years ago, maybe they would have. But hey, at least now I get to keep 100% of the 50 CDs we sell at live shows a month. Hooray!
 
#28 ·
My band is on itunes, spotify, pandora, jango, last.fm, etc etc etc. But you've never heard of us. Maybe if we had a few million dollars of promotional muscle behind us, you would. That's what record companies can do for an artist. Then you can turn that into a headlining tour, make millions off of ticket and merchandise sales and at that point you don't even care anymore that you get 10% of the album sales and the record company gets 90% (or whatever it is).
 
#31 ·
It IS theft! When spies steal military secrets, and traitors leak sensitive information, the original is still in its place, as with a download. It's that the information has been pilfered by those with no right to it. Support for this behavior for free goods comes from an entitlement mentality, where this generation thinks everything they want should be given to them free. Well, the fruits of that are always a sharp decline in quality. Now we have Beiber and Gaga. Thanks illegal downloaders!
 
#38 ·
Come on, stop with the semantics. If you make a copy of something, and the artist who spent the time and money to create it doesn't want you to do so, you're stealing it. It's theft. I understand 14 year old kids who have no concept of anything other than "I want it so I'm going to take it" not getting this point, but I assume you're an adult who can appreciate the concepts being driven home here.
 
#45 ·
I'm trying to be a realist. I don't think friends copying a CD and giving it to their other friends is the major problem. As I said, that has been going on since the creation of blank recordable cassettes and dual cassette decks. It's when you have websites that take that circle of 3 friends and turn it into a circle of a billion friends that it becomes a problem that you can feel.

That's why I think if the sites are shut down, and the sharing becomes harder to accomplish than it is to actually buy the music, the industry will begin to recover.

Wait, if you like to have physical copies of things then why would you download songs (free or not) anyway?
 
#47 ·
I'm trying to be a realist. I don't think friends copying a CD and giving it to their other friends is the major problem. As I said, that has been going on since the creation of blank recordable cassettes and dual cassette decks. It's when you have websites that take that circle of 3 friends and turn it into a circle of a billion friends that it becomes a problem that you can feel.

That's why I think if the sites are shut down, and the sharing becomes harder to accomplish than it is to actually buy the music, the industry will begin to recover.
I hope it will be used as an incentive for projects similar to the on drakesaxprof talks about.

Wait, if you like to have physical copies of things then why would you download songs (free or not) anyway?
I don't download music, I buy about 4 cd's a month(I'm 25 btw).
 
#53 ·
You guys can moan about it, be outraged by it, dissect it, compare it and de-construct it and wring your hands about whether it's stealing or not, but in the end people are still gonna do it. It's the 21st Century and in the digital age musicians and other artists have got to find a way to adapt. Hey, it's the Darwinian thing to do.
 
#55 ·
My last three releases on Independent label Ninja Tunes are Vinyl only...However people have told me they've downloaded them. Most of my regular income comes from old re issued catalogue and radio play PRS. The receipts from new music done in the last few years are pretty low....

Best way to make money... If you were in an iconic band in the 90's..reform and clean up for a few years on the festival circuit. The money at that level is phenomenal.
No money at the middle or bottom levels playing original music. Play for free or buttons. Doesn't matter if you are full time or weekend warrior.
 
#57 ·
Let me put my HiFi hat on and come from another direction. I want to buy music, I always have. Nowadays, I want to buy in a digital format (as well as vinyl) but higher quality than Apple or MP3 format. The other week I tried to buy a studio master quality of a Charles Mingus album, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. The site was in America, I am in The Netherlands, the site detected where I was and I got a message they only sell to U.S. based customers. I saw the same album in a UK site, both UK & Netherlands are in the "common market", but I got the message, this is not available to download in your country. I tried to buy numerous hi-res downloads from a site in France - Not for sale in your country yet! I want to listen to music, I want to pay for it, but, if I want to listen to certain music, I have to buy it in a lower quality than I want. Who is forcing me to go to "illegal" sites to download in the format I want (not that I will)? The record company, the tax man, gvmt, or all three!!
 
#58 ·
Where do people get the idea that they are not paying for any downloaded content?
I certainly have to pay a monthly fee to my Internet Provider and I know that Since the 1980`s I have been continually paying the hardware developers to provide me with a machine capable of ever improving content delivery.

The crux of the matter is that almost 100% of internet users access some form of downloadable content and that it is the job of the ISP`s and the Computing industry to provide it.

Some folks here may like myself have been in this from the start and "get it". We were promised a golden age back then and "Boy have they delivered".

Some people may believe that it`s time for some payback from the content delivery industry . They after all are the ones making the huge money . I kind of think this would be the correct route but I can`t see it any time soon.Can you folks?

It`s generally believed that the World Wide Web. and the rest of the Internet was vastly developed on the back of Hardcore Porn delivery. Now we see that Pornographers are becoming like musicians in that they can`t support themselves due to a decline in revenue. The content delivery has been taken over by sharing sites and Amateur production. Does that sound familiar?

Really.This subject could provide the material for a Thesis it just gets deeper and deeper:twisted:
 
#59 ·
Where do people get the idea that they are not paying for any downloaded content?
I certainly have to pay a monthly fee to my Internet Provider and I know that Since the 1980`s I have been continually paying the hardware developers to provide me with a machine capable of ever improving content delivery.

The crux of the matter is that almost 100% of internet users access some form of downloadable content and that it is the job of the ISP`s and the Computing industry to provide it.

Some folks here may like myself have been in this from the start and "get it". We were promised a golden age back then and "Boy have they delivered".

Some people may believe that it`s time for some payback from the content delivery industry . They after all are the ones making the huge money . I kind of think this would be the correct route but I can`t see it any time soon.Can you folks?

It`s generally believed that the World Wide Web. and the rest of the Internet was vastly developed on the back of Hardcore Porn delivery. Now we see that Pornographers are becoming like musicians in that they can`t support themselves due to a decline in revenue. The content delivery has been taken over by sharing sites and Amateur production. Does that sound familiar?

Really.This subject could provide the material for a Thesis it just gets deeper and deeper:twisted:
Did you really just say that the fact you pay for internet access means the music you're downloading for no cost really isn't free? This is the craziest defense I've seen yet, congratulations.

Let me take this a step further- I paid for gas to fill up my car today so I could drive it to your restaurant, therefore I should just be allowed to eat from your restaurant for free. Hell, I even buy a new car every few years in order to keep up my access to your restaurant. I've been paying for your food in this way for YEARS.
 
#61 ·
That's one hell of a convoluted way of thinking about it. I don't see how you paying $40 per month for internet access and having to buy a new computer once every 5 years gives you the right to download a piece of music I created for free, but whatever. The fact is, you're $40/mo doesn't end up in my bank account, so how can you take what's mine for free?
 
#62 ·
Buddy I`m completely with you . but I don`t think it`s convoluted to try and highlight who the real rip-off merchants are. Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are behind this stuff. They are getting wealthier on the back of peddling freely downloadable Porn , Games, Music, and Movies through their conduits/machines.

Of course. They make sure they get paid for the end-users pleasure
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top