Using P2P, TORRENTS, FTPs for sharing music. Is it 'wrong'? - what say you?

  On 4/15/2014 at 12:03 PM, eugene said:

but you see there is something distorted about how it works, a musicians makes a tune spending particular amount of time and energy on it but the labels charge money for every copy, and expect people to pay an unlimited amount of money for what was a limited effort.

 

 

this.

the thing is you don't pay the artists for making the music, you pay them for releasing it. Making music is something a musician does automatically regardless of everything. But actually taking the time to group their works into a cohesive whole AND maintaining an identity is the real work. And as such one should expect to be paid for it.

(only counts for those who can actually be called 'artists')

FFS.

Interesting cowinkydink - bleep are having sprawling digital sale at the moment, tons of albums available in lossless for $7 apiece.

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:02 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:04 AM, Deer said:

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

"I'll only fuck you when I want sex, but I won't commit to a monogamous relationship"

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:01 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:02 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:04 AM, Deer said:

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

"I'll only fuck you when I want sex, but I won't commit to a monogamous relationship"

 

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:01 PM, Joyrex said:

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:22 PM, gmanyo said:

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

  On 4/15/2014 at 12:10 PM, manmower said:

I do it all the time, to get files for stuff I buy on vinyl for instance, or even for CDs. Why waste my time and wear out my CD drive when someone has already done a perfect rip.

 

I don't buy the 'try before you buy' excuse anyway, with all the streaming options available there's hardly any need to download a local copy of a release if you're just checking it out.

 

are there labels selling vinyl and cd albums without digital copies?

Some of the "logic" in here... sweet jebus.

  On 4/15/2014 at 6:44 PM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:01 PM, Joyrex said:

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:22 PM, gmanyo said:

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

 

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

 

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

 

This, basically. The fact that the internet has reduced media-based art forms to data has helped usher in the rationalization that piracy is a victimless crime, and that artists will continue to create art no matter how awful their living conditions may be, so where is the hurt in picking the fruit off the tree when the farmer isn't looking?

And anyway, the big difference that I think posters like Eugene are missing, is the clear-cut line between making music for money and making money with your music. They are not the same thing, and anyone who can do something well should never do it for free.

lol.. you goddamn hippies. gimme some o that unlimited moneys for my digital vinyls! I'm not greedy, just gimme 1/1000th of those unlimited funds pls eugene, don't play games with me I know you have it somewhere.

as a matter of fact I see people around me who's senses are dying because of a lack of money. they start accepting what could be a calling as a hobby, conceding to shitty jobs with better pays and awesome pension plans.. hobbies sort of equate to having a drug habbit in most peoples mind. "oh it calms him down but other then that it's pretty much worthless". no respect.. getting a sense of worth from what you love doing is what it's about for me. that keeps me going. good vibes and comradery go a long way, but still. money in it's most noble form can buy you a freedom to develop as an artist you can not get any other way.

personally I'm jumping through hoops to keep myself into it. I do this because I know it's rewarding. but I will start to slip if I can't put time into it. the way I live my life now, I don't see myself doing it forever.

I truly love the good vibes I get from time to time. and it helps for a while. but it just doesn't do much for me if I can't pay to fix my soundcard, or if I have to see the dentist but I'm affraid of the bill. people forget quickly if you haven't put out something in a while. sensory rot starts to set in.. dem rusty vibes equate to corrosive sounds. I don't want to look for approval either, I just want to work on my ideas. having the time and money gives me a freedom, an ease of mind that I can't get from the best of vibes..

even going so far as decided to use even go want to do look more like? you know? has anyone really been?

  On 4/15/2014 at 7:32 PM, Mellow U said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 6:44 PM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:01 PM, Joyrex said:

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 5:22 PM, gmanyo said:

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

 

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

 

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

 

 

This, basically. The fact that the internet has reduced media-based art forms to data has helped usher in the rationalization that piracy is a victimless crime, and that artists will continue to create art no matter how awful their living conditions may be, so where is the hurt in picking the fruit off the tree when the farmer isn't looking?

 

And anyway, the big difference that I think posters like Eugene are missing, is the clear-cut line between making music for money and making money with your music. They are not the same thing, and anyone who can do something well should never do it for free.

 

Keep in mind, I absolutely agree that professional musicians and even record labels should make money. That is why I buy music instead of torrenting it. Most of the reason I have considered torrenting some stuff is so that I might get into an artists and actually end up giving them more money (I would probably delete something if I didn't like it, and buy it if I did, but that's just me).

I think labels and musicians should think, and in fact have thought, about changing marketing strategies. Every time there's some change in the system - for example, VHS and recording shows - all the companies that just get mad about it and try to stop it end up in the dust, and the ones that adapt end up on top. The thing is, people are evil. If they can get something for free easily, even if it's wrong, they will. Just like how if companies can take advantage of their customers, they will. It's not right, but it's a fact. Any action taken that can limit people in their downloading abilities, like bandwidth throttling, isn't effective and/or ends up being just as unethical as downloading itself. Perhaps this is a double standard - to limit corporations in what they do wrong but leave the masses unaccountable - but it still doesn't change the fact that that's how it's going to work.

I guess my point is, whether you like it or not, we live in a different age from before. People are going to steal, and there's no way of effectively and ethically stopping this. If professionals and companies want to start making a profit, they're going to have to change how they operate. Until then, I will personally try to hold to an ethical way of getting music, but I can only speak for myself (and music and other media are hardly the only things affected by this).

people will keep doing what they've been doing. These threads always just turn into a cavalcade of "my philosophy is morally superior to yours and here's why"

I like tapes.

o______o

/derailing

Tell you what I don't like, stuff that's vinyl only and not available to purchase digitally (I know it goes against the watmm grain but I'm not a fetishist of physical formats). It's 2014, take my money already.

// fully off tracks & plowing through a confield

Get a job, and buy the music. Can't afford the music? Don't listen to the music.

Why is this being made to be so complex? =/

lol

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:18 AM, luke viia said:

lol

No. That really is all there is to it.

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:19 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

*adds stepheng to mental list of asshole watmmers*

That's a bit harsh man. I just think the artists deserve to be paid. These are people that have completely changed my life. Why shouldn't I pitch a couple hundred dollars for their discography/lifetime of work? Really, I work one or two days to pay them for a lifetime of their work. I don't see what's wrong with that.

I don't get it.

edit: that's a bit quick to throw me into the asshole category as I've always admired your mentality and supported your music. Funnily enough, I've probably even paid for some of it (though I can't recall exactly)

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

Many people who do things that are wrong become very good about lying to themselves so much so that they believe that their owns lies are truths. Many people develop the ability to reconcile something morally wrong as being correct merely because it serves their interests. This can be seen throughout society, but is most easily recognizable in the right wing media.

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:33 AM, luke viia said:

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

 

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

 

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

 

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

 

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

Of course I agree with most of your points.

But there is an obvious degree of separation between those artists that are hobbyists, and those that are professional, career musicians (no offense).

Yes, you helped me with my 2nd year calculus problems, as thousands have could (I'm still very grateful, don't get me wrong). But did you create some sort of new line of mathematics? The answer is no. And the artists that deserve to be paid, I can equivocate to entrepreneurs, people ahead of the game. And they deserve funding to continue on their path.

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:34 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Many people who do things that are wrong become very good about lying to themselves so much so that they believe that their owns lies are truths. Many people develop the ability to reconcile something morally wrong as being correct merely because it serves their interests. This can be seen throughout society, but is most easily recognizable in the right wing media.

Which side of the fence are you advocating?

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:39 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:33 AM, luke viia said:

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

 

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

 

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

 

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

 

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

 

Of course I agree with most of your points.

 

But there is an obvious degree of separation between those artists that are hobbyists, and those that are professional, career musicians (no offense).

 

Yes, you helped me with my 2nd year calculus problems, as thousands have could (I'm still very grateful, don't get me wrong). But did you create some sort of new line of mathematics? The answer is no. And the artists that deserve to be paid, I can equivocate to entrepreneurs, people ahead of the game. And they deserve funding to continue on their path.

So you have personally qualified who it is that "deserves to be paid." Welcome to the pirate side. :P

I hardly equate helping someone with a math problem as being the same as compensation for someone providing you with unending pleasure.

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:41 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I hardly equate helping someone with a math problem as being the same as compensation for someone providing you with unending pleasure.

Exactly my point!

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:41 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I hardly equate helping someone with a math problem as being the same as compensation for someone providing you with unending pleasure.

I was only using it as an example against Mellow U's often repeated proverb about "never do anything well for free," and it makes that point just fine. That mentality is capitalist garbage if you ask me, and I just don't subscribe to it.

I won't lose sleep over affording my favorite artists a couple hundred dollars for their LIFETIME of work that they have graciously shared with us, only asking in exchange that they receive some moneys so that they can continue on their path unhindered by jobs at fucking burger king (no offence to any BK watmmers).

It's absolutely ludicrous in my humble opinion to deny them of the petty $18 per album, when they spend years on an album.

How entitled is it to think otherwise?

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:43 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:41 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I hardly equate helping someone with a math problem as being the same as compensation for someone providing you with unending pleasure.

 

I was only using it as an example against Mellow U's often repeated proverb about "never do anything well for free," and it makes that point just fine. That mentality is capitalist garbage if you ask me, and I just don't subscribe to it.

 

You're right, to a point. But skills are saleable. Welder, manager, investor, musician, chef, stripper, drug dealer.

All the same philosophy.