If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for downloading them instead of buying them?

nabisco if ppl take you up on that I think that makes you an accessory to the eventual crime

If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for buying their records on the internet instead?

If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available new where you live, is there any excuse for buying them used instead?

If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for buying mp3s (which artist see barely a fucking thin dime from) from the iTunes store instead?

If a tree falls on someone's head and I make a recording of the sound of air escaping from the aformentioned crushed skull would anyone download it from me on slsk?

no i prefer your earlier tuomas-related soundscapes. you fell off after the first three.

What faith is this that makes your brother pay for software? I have a sense that within certain religious contexts, it could be seen as forbidden to pay for non-physical goods, like the realm of the ethereal is reserved for The Creator, and His Word will not be prostituted by sale @ 99cents per Black Eyed Peas mp3.

Also there could be some precedents in anti-usury commandments:

"St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to "double charging", charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. Aquinas said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the person using the wine to actually drink it. Similarly, one cannot charge for a piece of cake and for the eating of the piece of cake. Yet this, said Aquinas, is what usury does."

For mp3s, there is no thing to be charged, only the use of it. From a biblical POV, it seems reasonable to charge for the download service itself, but attaching prohibitions on an mp3's use afterwards would be same as 'double charging'

He's Mormon, and he's going by the basic 'don't steal' commandment without, uh, getting all Phariseed out abt the specifics thereof?

"Excuses are the tools of the weak and incompetent they are the skins of liars stuffed with irrelevance, therefore I will not use excuses."

with you know some addendum from me like 'p.s. I am an ass'

I totally got a pirated copy Kings Quest from a Mormon. It was sweet. (The corruption of the Mormon, the game wasn't that fun)

King's Quest is incredible!

He's really in the minority tbh.

I pay for music more now, than I did before mp3s existed because back then I just made everyone else make me tapes of their albums so I didnt have to buy them. I have a box full of 100s of taped copies of albums, but since mp3 times, I subscribe to emusic, or I'll buy cds - sure, I do have a bit of stuff I havent paid for but its other ppls CDs ive ripped directly; I dont use BT at all.

If all the channels to distrubute mp3s were stopped, ppl would just go back to making copies and sending them to people like we used to, shurely.

Music is doomed. Once it became possible to make a copy of a song for free in 10 seconds without leaving your chair and store tens of thousands of them in your computer, the game was over. Film is eventually doomed as computer storage capacity increases, and if the Kindle ever catches on, books are doomed too.

I doubt that we will ever convince the majority of people who illegally download to stop doing it, but I can think of two things which might curb it a bit:

1. $0.99 may not sound like a lot of money when you're talking about buying a song or two, but in quantity it adds up; lower prices could only help. Rather than giving iTunes around 30% (is that correct?) of the profits merely for providing a storefront (yes, I know it's a little more complicated than that), why can't there be a similar website which only takes maybe 5% of the profits? In a business with instant distribution and no need for physical stock, artists shouldn't have to give away that much of their profit to a label or store anymore. If the storefront were more Ebay-like, with the artist doing all the work of posting their songs and setting their own prices, they could lower prices to $0.75 or less and still make as much money as before.

2. There should be a website that allows you to stream ANY song or album of your choosing on demand, charged to your account as micropayments of some number of cents per minute (considerably less than the $0.99 per song purchase price), with a monthly price cap so you would never pay more than, say, $19.99 per month. The price has to seem reasonable to the listener if you want to ween them away from illegal downloading. As a benefit for the artists, royalties would be much easier to determine than they are for radio--it will be known exactly how many plays each song received and at what price.

Keep in mind that I know nothing about economics or downloading and am talking out my ass.

"Music is doomed"
I dunno, I'm pretty amazed that Finnish rap exists in the first place, though I'm wondering how it could possibly have proliferated outside of some kind of file trading (either tapes or mp3s)
Is there a protectionist Finnish music rule like 50% of radio/music TV must be devoted to Finnish artists?

Yeah I'm all for subscription sites or paying for downloads - esp if I know the artist gets a hefty cut, or even the full cut if they're offering it themselves.

I'd much prefer that to some kind of arbitrary fee added to my monthly ISP access costs. That can't work. What would it apply to? Music? Games? Movies/TV? Software? What if I dont use the internet to get any of those things, do I get to not pay it?

But people have always and will always be able to make a copy of something and give it to a friend. They can shut the internet down all together and that isn't going to change.

why can't there be a similar website which only takes maybe 5% of the profits?

Kristin Hersh has been involved with something like what you're talking about, CASH Music: http://cashmusic.org/

You're not, like, ridiculously talking out of your ass, Hideous, but there are loads of complications to take into account with some of those -- for instance, the secure transactions that'd be needed to track and bill every single access-transaction in some big click/play music library can actually cost more than whatever fraction-of-a-cent rate you'd want to charge for the click itself

(^^ from what I hear that is actually a big issue for that stuff, technologically and legally)

I spent decades going from town to town spending $10 here, $25 there on 45s by X Ray Spex, the Weirdos, Chain Gang, etc and for what? Not just to hear their cruddy masterpieces. I find I spend much more time listening to music - rather than amassing rarities - than ever before in life, now that it comes in mp3 form rather than in a Malcolm Garrett designed picture sleeve. Furthermore, the 'not super rich' parameter is a red herring - what's right or wrong with being super rich? I will enjoy purchasing the new remaster of 'Goats Head Soup' tomorrow - I can't tell you how many times and in how many forms I've paid for Rolling Stones, David Bowie, etc. music and will continue to do so gladly - because it tickles me to think I can contribute to keeping Mick Jagger very, very wealthy in all his preening pompous assitude like I have been doing for the past forty years. Finally, I'm pretty old-fashioning in thinking you will create music if you must and if you don't, you must not. There are many examples. Judee Sill, for one. Or Madonna, for another.

PS Hooray for:

stealing music from the internet (is lots of fun) and everyone does it

― cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

If you're broke but want to get some cool prints from a local painter, do you wait until you have enough cash or just go ahead and steal them?

I read that as "cool points" and thought you had a crush on a local painter.

I'd much prefer that to some kind of arbitrary fee added to my monthly ISP access costs. That can't work.

Yeah, the idea of that fee is like when they tried to add a tax onto blank cassettes.

But people have always and will always be able to make a copy of something and give it to a friend. They can shut the internet down all together and that isn't going to change.

True, there will always be people who won't want to pay for music--if you're going to be in the music business, you probably have to accept that as a baseline reality. But compared to the good ol' home taping '70s and '80s (copy an album in real time? How quaint!), there must be exponentially more people stealing music nowadays. Home taping wasn't exactly "killing" music like the record companies claimed, but I think illegal downloading is at least "seriously injuring" music unless and until some new business models are found.

...for instance, the secure transactions that'd be needed to track and bill every single access-transaction in some big click/play music library can actually cost more than whatever fraction-of-a-cent rate you'd want to charge for the click itself

― nabisco, Friday, May 29, 2009 1:09 AM (52 minutes ago) Bookmark

As we continue moving into online banking, automatic payments and the like, I think we're slowly creating the infrastructure needed for a micropayment system. Eventually, the credit system may turn into a sort of public utility and everyone will have an account and a monthly bill--your electronic credit life would be hooked up to a meter just like your electricity.

Setting up this whole computer credit infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive (as I imagine setting up the power grid back in the early 20th century was), but once it's up and has recouped some of that original cost, single-access transaction prices could go down. (Of course, they won't--this is business after all.)

Again, I'm talking in very broad strokes here, and I just may be an idiot. Not a complete idiot. But an idiot nonetheless.

Eventually, the credit system may turn into a sort of public utility and everyone will have an account and a monthly bill--your electronic credit life would be hooked up to a meter just like your electricity.

this is one of the main indicators and fears of the end times. We will have bar codes in our necks and then the rapture.

There was an interview with Trent Reznor that digg.com did recently where he goes over the new business models NIN and similar bands have been trying. It was quite illuminating - on one hand, he pointed out that Saul Williams made more money selling his album direct downloads online (as it cut out the middlemen) than he might have in an oldschool model, even though I think he sold less units than he might have otherwise.

But on the otherhand, Reznor admitted that NIN (and I guess Radiohead, dont recall wether he mentioned them) mainly worked with this model as they have a massive established and computer-savvy fanbase. I think he conceded to an extent that new bands would struggle this way. I guess because marketing and distrubtion have gone out the window?

My bf has his works up on Bandcamp, where you can choose to give away or set a price for your music. He's made a little pin money, but only on one "name your price" ep he's offering. Another where he said "set price for high quality or free for low quality" everyone just downloaded the low qual, so he gave up on the idea.

my friends' have had a coupla tapes and cdrs out on labels like n0tnotfun and digitalis and they usually just give me a copy of their stuff and I'm able to find rars of their tapes on teh blogs or on slsk for ipod listeningz, I'm pretty sure they like that that stuff's out there.

but having said that they do all have jobs and aren't poor.

now ok i can respect somebody (somebodies?) like grizzly bear for putting their new album up on amazon for $3.99. that's a smart move, even if it's just for the first week or something. boost the sales, maybe get on the charts (how are the charts dealing with massive discounting? i wouldn't want to be billboard right now). based on the songs i got for free off the MUSIC BLOGZ, i'm afraid i'm not actually into grizzly bear enough to pay $3.99. but i definitely wouldn't have paid more, so it's not like they're losing anything.

Grizzly Bear just got a really good write-up in SPIN, so if there is a market that buys downloads but ignores the blog culture, they have a window of good sales potential.

The charts at one point were penalizing acts for selling cd singles really cheap, back in the cd single days. I remember buying an Outkast radio edit cd single for 10 cents or something dumb. who knows what happens to charts these days. I hope nobody cut and pastes that information.

"Furthermore, the 'not super rich' parameter is a red herring - what's right or wrong with being super rich? I will enjoy purchasing the new remaster of 'Goats Head Soup' tomorrow - I can't tell you how many times and in how many forms I've paid for Rolling Stones, David Bowie, etc"

i've been thinking about this lately, as i'm in the process of releasing a pop album in indonesia, and the financial rewards for having a smash hit record are noticeably smaller than they are in the states. and i was thinking that one of the driving forces behind america and england's excellent music scenes is the notion that if you have a hit record you can make gazillions of dollars and live like a king/queen. it's not the only consideration obviously, but i think i hightens the mystique of being a rock star and attracts talented people to the field in higher numbers than if all you had to look forward to by being famous was a life on the road and a lower-middle class lifestyle (which of course is what 99.999% of all artists have to look forward to as a best case scenario)

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

You might actually see an increase in quality, as the field would probably be crowded with less mediocrity and garbage.

http://hemasunder.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/censorship.jpg

yeah you guys this shit is real, the government came into this thread and denied people their right to free speech, we have to take this v. v. seriously

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

oh you mean like giving bankers ridiculously huge salaries made our banking system so great?

Or our healthcare system so awesome or our sports so fantastic. . .

Still, the quality of our MPs are set to nosedive soon.

sports are pretty rad IMO

Sure, but it's hard to argue that the quality has been improved by outlandish salaries.

well, i would argue that i think the current system is better than the old system when the owners basically paid and treated the players like shit and held them to unfair contracts.

I think illegal downloading is at least "seriously injuring" music unless and until some new business models are found.

i have way too much to say about this topic to even start typing about it in any orderly fashion (i would like to draw a flow chart), and am totally pro-downloading in a couple of different ways, but the thing above seems kinda selective, like a lot of the arguments do - i think the idea that it's injuring music, rather than possibly financially impairing a specific strata of musicians, is wrong. is there any way to gauge the effect of sales dropping against the whole marshall mcluhan wiring of the world opportunity for people to hear music now, to hear groups who never would have left their neighbourhood or shores before? the internet has kindled a love of music and an idea of its breadth in people. new models probably are needed but it's still like the radio being invented or something monumental.

I don't think downloading is injuring music.

I do think downloading is injuring musicians.

The biggest change I can see coming out of this is the majority of future musicians whose music will be consumed by the mainstream will come from people who are not 100% dedicated to being in the entertainment industry; you will see more "hobbyists" (for lack of a better term) with day jobs who take the time and energy to do the things they want to do but still need to follow other professions in order to make a living. Hell, I see it already with pretty much every single person I know who is actively pursuing a career as a professional musician except for the people playing with major symphonies, and even there they are also deeply into music education. The whole concept of "making it" is going to be radically different because the payoff that lets you focus exclusively on being a musician is going to be even rarer than it is now.

It's a bit like the number of foreigners in the Premiership, it's only compressing the middle, not the top surely? I mean, if you're Coldplay/Duffy/Kings of Leon you're probably still doing pretty fucking well for yourselves I'd imagine?

"well, i would argue that i think the current system is better than the old system when the owners basically paid and treated the players like shit and held them to unfair contracts."

Totally agree.

But I still don't think it's improved the quality of the games (any of them.)

i mean, to be honest i can't even say wrt to sports because i think that even the relatively lower paid era when i was a kid was still pretty glossy compared to the "old days", like it's not like the showtime lakers were slaving away in obscurity and poverty...

i just wanted to say that because people get so bent out of shape about sports contracts and stuff and it's like, well, this much money is generated, and i'd always rather it go to the players than the owners. not like it's gonna go to the salvation army or something if lebron takes a paycut

I'd rather games be marginally affordable frankly to most people, frankly.

Not blaming the fact that the aren't on the players though.

no doubt, i mourned having to finally give up my season tix to the vikings but it had just grown from like $580 a year to like nearly $900 i think

Also frankly.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6518&edition=1&ttl=20090529172832

i buy stuff by people I care about. this amounts to about seven different artists. I don't really download anything new now either.

if you ask anyone who runs an independent label if downloading is hurting their sales, in my experience, they will say yes. they sell fewer items now than they used to. it's not because, across the board, their roster has gotten worse or less worthy. they physically move fewer items. the degrees of bitterness about this are kind of across the spectrum. Our label (Silber Records) spends a fair amount of time hitting rapidshare and stuff and getting items removed. But he's said the worst thing are the russian mp3 sites which charge for music and never pay the labels (though it's doubtful anyone is actually buying that stuff from there, it is annoying to see it).

"ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music."

"oh you mean like giving bankers ridiculously huge salaries made our banking system so great?"

no, the bankers in the case are the managers/label owners/a&r jerks who make loads but dont really contribute much... and their loss has always tempered my moral indignation at the concept of free downloads (well that and the free lunch) but the truth is the economy hurting record sales just means the scumback manager types are moving into live shows and starting to take a bigger cut of THAT. and wheras before pretty much all the cash from the live shows went to the musician and his team, now, like, live nation or whatever wants a cut...

but yes, i do think the vast rewards available really does attract a certain amount of actual artistic talent. probably a fair number of musicians/groups/producers etc that you love were suckered into the life by the dream of being a rich rock star, doncha think?