An Important Read for Music Fans

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Not all downloads are lost sales. People have huge collections of songs that they will never listen to again.

This is exactly the point, IMHO. I once downloaded a disc from a popular female artist (well, popular in the indie sense of being name-checked on here a lot, not in terms of huge sales.) I listened to it, didn't like what I heard, and deleted it. I never would have bought the thing without hearing it, and since I didn't like it, I didn't keep it.

My downloading it and deleting it was "stealing" in the same way borrowing a book from the library is stealing. That's the way I see it, and a musician complaining about it is never going to change my mind.

On the other hand, if a person never buys any music, and just downloads everything they listen to from file sharing sites, of course they should feel guilty.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

'Stealing' music is all about the hunt.

I remembe getting caught up in the thrill of hunting down stuff (I really dug Audio Galaxy). I don't really know how or when my attitudes changed, but now the only music i download is stuff I pay for or live recordings officially or unofficially sanctioned by the artist. If I want a song,I will spend the $.99 on iTunes for a download. It doesn't make me a righteous guy, but I find I feel better about my relationship with music that way.

I remember having a rather spirted conversation with a dear, departed friend of mine. He was roundly castigating me for 'stealing music' and I lamely made the arguements that all downloades partake of.

The irony was we were having the debate while he was at the copy machine making copies of sheet musci.

[Shakey]

Yo La Tango just tweeted: "Dear Emily White, someone around here can show you where to buy our records now. ps we just stole your bike."

[Doug C]

I remember getting into a rather heated discussion with a late friend of mine of the generation before mine. He was indignant at my downloading of music for free (and rightly so.) However; the majority of our discussion occurred while he was standing at the copier making copies of sheet music.

He never saw the irony of our discussion.

I remember having a rather spirted conversation with a dear, departed friend of mine. He was roundly castigating me for 'stealing music' and I lamely made the arguements that all downloades partake of.

The irony was we were having the debate while he was at the copy machine making copies of sheet musci.

Do tell.

[Vacant Horizon]

It could be one of those things that just goes back and forth forever.

 

I don't have an iPod, iPhone, nor do I mess with Mp3 files. I figure if I did, I would be more inclined to snag tracks instead of buying cds.

 

i really need to get back to this. i find i've enjoyed music far less since its all become computer-centric. to decide what to listen to i look at a screen, not the music shelf.

[Vacant Horizon]

i bought the new rush, because i have this idea that i'm a rush completist. i bought it knowing full well that the last two albums were essentially unlistenable (song writing and horrid production/mastering). well, the album is all but unlistenable. i can't get bast the first two songs. i got caught in the buzz and got screwed by marketing, brick-walled mastering and hope against hope. i should've downloaded and listened first. i just don't have the will to 'get into it' the way i've forced myself in the past with bum CD purchases. imo, this is part of the issue at hand.

[brownie]

If you buy a CD and make a copy of that CD for friends, that's stealing. (Let them listen to the album and then go buy it).

The way I see it, if I make a copy of a CD for a friend (who would never have bought it in the first place, or even listened to it), and that leads them to become a fan of the artist, purchase subsequent concert tickets, and purchase subsequent recordings, then I have supported that artist.

[Kim Bodnia]

While making a copy to a friend may seem trivial, copyright law only allows for copies that qualify as "fair use".

 

"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" (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html).

 

The Internet allows for an infinite number of copies, copyright doesn't. I may not like this law. I'm actually of the opinion that sharing does help the industry in selling more records (because more people are exposed to the content therefore increasing the chances of a purchase) but the law exists.

[mpolak21]

Yo La Tango just tweeted: "Dear Emily White, someone around here can show you where to buy our records now. ps we just stole your bike."

 

Damn I came in here to post that. It's Tengo, btw, but their name has been misspelled hundreds of different ways even at their home club of Maxwell's.

 

I try to support independent labels and artists. I have done a ton of illegal downloading in my day, but I'd say about 80 percent of the records I downloaded where albums I had purchased and just didn't take with me to college and was too lazy to rip. A lot of the illegal stuff I have are either studio or live boots or complete discographies of bands like The Who, The Stones, The Beach Boys, etc. people who aren't going to be all that harmed by a loss of a sale. Now I do a lot of music purchasing with itunes and I know artists don't get paid a whole lot from that, but I feel better giving the people whose music I love something. I agree with Lowery's take and I personally purchased CVB's classic Telephone Free Landslide Victory on both CD and LP.

 

Poor Emily White, that kid was just trying to write a blog had no idea she was going to start an internet shit storm.

 

--Mike

[Ghost of Electricity]

As a listener, I have certainly downloaded material from the usual sights, Sometimes those downloads have lwed to a physical sale, sometimes not. understaanding of the law in the country where I live is that it's illegal to upload material, but not to download. So whether or not I've broken the law is unclear- local law? I don't think so. International law? well, not sure what the reciprocal agreements between the countries are. American law? How can I break American law when I'm not on American soil? Not sure about that.

 

Regarding Sec. 107 "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" that's an awfully broad definition open to interpretation. (As the law tends to be) Sometimes I seek out music to "fill a gap" in my knowledge, as I did with the Kinks a year or so ago. That's a type of research, granted probably not the type of research intended but a type of research nonetheless.

 

I've stopped downloading and usually do that kind of research on places like Youtube now. Mostly I can find what I'm looking for, sometimes I can't because of copywright infringement. Just yesterday I had a Badfinger song going through my head so I found it on Youtube, opened the Wikipedia article on them and played a few tracks while I read. A tragic story of a band being screwed by the record business, which ended in suicides of two of the band members. If I were to seek out and buy a Badfinger record today, it would not benefit the band members or the family of the deceased, but it might benefit the people who screwed them. I'll just listen on you tube.

 

As an active musician, the whole download culture is a bit of a head scratcher. We just released an ep on a local independent label, there was no exchange of money involved, basically we just put their logo on the disc to give it legitimacy, they put us on the website to raise their profile, and the thing was done. When it came time for the digital release (today incidentally) the label suggested a freebie download, which we agreed to, the other six being sold at the usual rate. We'll see if this "standard" model produces results.

 

I have tried other models- my previous band released the entire catalogue on a Radiohead-style "take what you want pay what you want" basis. Several hundred people downloaded and to this date a sum total of zero people have paid.

 

Either way though, the musician in me wants people to listen, and if someone does that then I'm satisfied. I have a day job and harbor no illusions, but if I depended on it for my livelihood it would be another story.

 

Which brings me to my point about digital download culture: that as music has become easier and more affordable to make/produce, more people are doing it. It's a double edged sword for musicians because it empowers you but at the same time there is such a glut of material out there that it's more difficult to get people to listen with attentive ears. Law of supply and demand--the music is devalued, often to zero.

 

This is what the industry is struggling to deal with and adapt to.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Soon it will all be moot anyway: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18449939

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Do tell.

What can I say...one day, you'll be an old man too.

[Doug C]

Ha ha! I'll be 49 on Friday. I was just messing with ya, no offense meant.

[LouieB]

On the other hand, if a person never buys any music, and just downloads everything they listen to from file sharing sites, of course they should feel guilty.

Can I ask again? Did this intern do this or did she borrow CDs from her college radio station and friends and rip them into her hard drive. Nowhere did it say or did I miss it. Those are two very different actions in my opinion,

 

LouieB

[tinnitus photography]

Can I ask again? Did this intern do this or did she borrow CDs from her college radio station and friends and rip them into her hard drive. Nowhere did it say or did I miss it. Those are two very different actions in my opinion,

 

LouieB

 

well there was mention of a friend borrowing her ipod and loading it up w/ 15 'gigs' of Big Star, Velvets, and YLT.

 

 

i interpreted the 'gigs' to be gigabytes, not live concert recordings.

 

 

c'mon...11,000 songs and 15 cds?

[lost highway]

Can I ask again? Did this intern do this or did she borrow CDs from her college radio station and friends and rip them into her hard drive. Nowhere did it say or did I miss it.

 

She said she ripped cds inside her college radio station on her laptop. I am pretty sure this is technically illegal, and also ubiquitous and unpunished. Another example of an irrelevant law that is not enforced.

[bleedorange]

My only problem with the original piece is that there is no solution offered. It merely comes across as whining and pleading with people to buy music (and not from Spotify, which is legal). But the toothpaste has already been squeezed out of the tube. There is no going back. People have been downloading free music for fifteen years.

[LouieB]

She said she ripped cds inside her college radio station on her laptop. I am pretty sure this is technically illegal, and also ubiquitous and unpunished. Another example of an irrelevant law that is not enforced.

So a college radio station, which means the CDs came to the station for free anyway (probably) because record companies send out promos to such places in the hope that their music gets played. So they were free anyway, she probably had little or no money to buy these and she took advantage. This is a major mountain of a a reasonable mole hill. So maybe she shouldn't have done it, but as has been pointed out a few dozen times here, it is common practice by nearly everyone. There is every indication she feels guilty about it and will start buying more music in the future. Her music buying days are still ahead, when she has a job and the income it provides and less opportunity to "rip off" these artists whose record companies probably sent out these CDs for free anyway.

 

I mean really.....someone gives me a CD and says check this out and I load it onto my computer and then to my iPod and carry it around maybe listening and maybe not? Goodness, what is wrong with that. Admittedly maybe 500-600 CDs is a bit excessive but really. These kind of articles keep the internet buzzing for a few days. I got links to it on my Facebook page from musician/record company friends a few times. I get it - buy my records...I do buy your records. Sometimes you give me free records too or free downloads and I take them. It primes the pump.

 

LouieB

[Shakey]

Louie, you're missing the whole point of the article. Did you read it? Seriously?

 

Yes, he's using her as an example, but who cares if she stole the music or not.....the article is really directed at every kid / adult out there today who does steal music because they can....because there is no police to stop them. And because they've been stealing for so long, and now its just the norm. How dare we ask people to NOW stop STEALING.

 

My guess is if there was a restaurant near you that was on the honor system, i.e. you simply leave money in a box on your way out.....you would pay for your food for a while, but once you saw others just walk out without paying, you'd begin doing the same thing. And soon everyone would do that. And eventually if that restaurant ever started enforcing payment, everyone would bitch and whine and cry about how unfair it is.... and that the french fries weren't that good..... And you'd go down to MacDonalds and buy from them.

[LouieB]

OKay so maybe I didn't read every word. So sue me. I do know what the point is. Some poor student got found out that she ripped a bunch of CDs into her hard drive and so she came clean and some famous musican ripped her for it. She is simply a proxy for all those people stealing music from all sorts of sources. I get that. Ripping people for stealing music is a perfectly legit reason to blog, but he used someone with a name and a story and THAT is what is interesting, not that lots and lots and lots of people go to sharing sites and take stuff.

 

There is just a real lot of grey area here. I have been collecting records for many decades. I have bought cut-outs, bootlegs, promo copies, used copies, new copies, copies from artists themselves at shows, been given CDs of shows, download free cuts from label websites, etc.(I don't do shows off of websites ever really, because I am not that interested or adept.) I have ripped a few CDs into my hard drive and listened on my IPod. Each format and transation has its own legal and ethical dilema including both artists dead and alive, some famous and some not. Do I sometimes feel guilty about it? Sure. Do I buy enough new music to not feel too badly? Pretty much.

 

I totally understand the ethics of taking free food and free music. Each day is an ethical connundrum for everyone. I am mostly hung up on something that has nothing to do with the issue- the efficacy of making an example (although I guess she agreed to it so that makes it okay) of one poor student who did the wrong thing. I am all in favor of supporting both living and dead artists. I don't think it matters. My point in the last post was that (to use your analogy) that the food was given FOR FREE in the first place. (That is a supposition, but I am going with it.) So the record companies left themselves open to people taking it FOR FREE. Music critics and record stores and papers and radio stations and all sorts of outlets get free records from artists and labels. Often those freebees end up back in retail outlets and the rest of us get them. It is all part of the grey market. Ask any store that sells used records. Once free food is given out that free food is fair game. If artists NEVER wanted to give out anything free those sorts of things wouldn't happen. But promos are as old as the record industry too. And I have never been in a single used record store that hasnt been willing to resell promo copies for real money. Me and a million other people own promo copies that say "NOT FOR SALE" on them.

 

Vincent Van Gogh sold exactly one painting in his lifetime. His paintings are now worth millions on the secondary market and used world wide in advertising and books., Poor dead Vincent has been getting ripped off for decades. So it goes.

 

LoueiB

[tinnitus photography]

OKay so maybe I didn't read every word. So sue me. I do know what the point is. Some poor student got found out that she ripped a bunch of CDs into her hard drive and so she came clean and some famous musican ripped her for it. She is simply a proxy for all those people stealing music from all sorts of sources. I get that.

 

actually, she came right out and blogged about it, well before Lowery had even heard of her. She wrote a blog in response to someone ripping all their cds to a cloud service and then selling them. she made the point that she's got all that, but doesn't even have anything to sell.

[lost highway]

My guess is if there was a restaurant near you that was on the honor system, i.e. you simply leave money in a box on your way out.....you would pay for your food for a while, but once you saw others just walk out without paying, you'd begin doing the same thing. And soon everyone would do that. And eventually if that restaurant ever started enforcing payment, everyone would bitch and whine and cry about how unfair it is.... and that the french fries weren't that good..... And you'd go down to MacDonalds and buy from them.

 

This analogy doesn't work because number one it's a physical good, and number two it's a public market and not the privacy of someone's laptop. These two things change people's behavior significantly.

[tinnitus photography]

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120619lowery

[PopTodd]

This analogy doesn't work because number one it's a physical good, and number two it's a public market and not the privacy of someone's laptop. These two things change people's behavior significantly.

So the question then becomes:

How does one change the online/download experience into a public market? A place where behaviors are witnessed by the public at-large?

 

Make it so that it's an honor system... but names of purchasers/downloaders are displayed for all to see, along with donation amount?

Or is that too much of a privacy intrusion?

[PopTodd]

And now, a response from Travis Morrison (formerly of The Dismemberment Plan):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-morrison/hey-dude-from-cracker-im_b_1610557.html

 

And:

Then David Lowery' date=' a 51-year-old former alt-rock star[/quote']

OUCH!