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

I'd like to reiterate that whatever you think about the morality of the situation, it still doesn't change the fact that everyone is going to torrent anyway, and solutions are going to have to be in marketing strategies.

AKA why bother?

Marketing strategies my ass. You find me a single way that anyone can take a group of people bent on skirting the law in order to obtain content in anonymous ways without paying for it, and turn that into something you can make money with. The only people getting rich with that scenario are assfucks like Kim Dotcom.

  On 4/16/2014 at 11:46 PM, Mellow U said:

AKA why bother?

 

Marketing strategies my ass. You find me a single way that anyone can take a group of people bent on skirting the law in order to obtain content in anonymous ways without paying for it, and turn that into something you can make money with. The only people getting rich with that scenario are assfucks like Kim Dotcom.

Musicians and labels are already taking action to change marketing strategies. Odd Future did this; they sold merchandise and gave away mixtapes for free. There are absolutely ways you can make money off of people "skirting the law...to obtain content without paying", and that's a good thing because if your statements here were correct then there really wouldn't be much of a solution because yes, there is not much point in trying to get people to stop downloading music. It isn't going to happen. The problem needs to be approached differently by labels, even if downloading is unethical. I posted more about it a couple pages back.

Actually, here's a point: since when have musicians ever made a decent amount of money on album sales? From what I understand, it's the labels that take most of that money. Isn't it playing live that has always been where musicians make the most?

If you're giving in, then you're giving up.

  On 4/17/2014 at 12:22 AM, Mellow U said:

If you're giving in, then you're giving up.

Giving in? Do you mean us listeners, or the labels and musicians?

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

I'd like to remark that when I said that present-day technology doesn't allow for certain types of intellectual property, I didn't say it in any optimistic way - I mean that being a musician is a bit like being a typewriter technician or a carriage driver these days. I don't imply at all that music should be free if certain types of music are to keep existing under capitalism, just that, as you know, capitalism doesn't quite work and it has hiccups like that.

  On 4/16/2014 at 10:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

well maybe he'd create something even better but it'd just take longer..combined his talent +with working's man life for inspiration, whatever. you can't really tell with things like that, it's not a preplanned thing. some create beautiful stuff with pirated fruity loops, some create poop with a full fledged orchestra and tons of money and effort.

 

Yeah maybe it just takes longer - thus denying him the ability to devote more time to creating beautiful art, and denying his fans the opportunity to hear it.

Some create with pirated fruityloops - but it still takes time. Time is a commodity. Ask your profs when they are able to publish more - when they're teaching, or when they're on sabbatical. Then tell them they should be doing this for free, cause it's just a hobby. I mean how do you quantify what sociological thought brings? Is there a specific number of policies that have to be created before an idea from a sociologist is worth money?

 

that's not really the point of my example. it's possible that we denied him the ability to create a much more beautiful art by giving him a ton of money and time to do whatever. there's no sensible way of quantifying inspiration and art making. time is a very little factor here.

academy has much more specific rules, goals, qualifications needed etc. there's nothing to compare between those fields.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

1. I don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music. it's a way of discovering and experiencing music and as such is cool with me. in any case, it's something that is more or less free and easy which means there's no sense arguing against it.

 

2. i don't, however, see much substance in the case against paying artists for making art. a couple of ideas have been put forth on this topic that I'd like to comment on.

 

3. first of all, the notion that musicians do not "traditionally" earn a living from their work as musicians is fallacious. I think a mere cursory glance at the wikipedia pages for a random selection of notable composers, musicians, producers, etc will make this completely obvious. it would also be useful to include social organizations like guilds and unions in such a discussion, as well as the variety of spinoff jobs that might present themselves to an accomplished and knowledgable musician (transcription, sound design, whatever).

 

4. I also think that the reasoning against paying for a "copy" is specious. it's 2014. look around. I mean, literally look around you at all the things in your life that are copies, replicated, completely un-unique commodities that you pay for all the time. the hardrive full of music is a copy. did you refuse to pay for it as such? nah.

 

5. another thing i find a bit strange is this notion that music transcends the marketplace or is somehow so subjective that it is inherently exempted from it. again, it's 2014. global capitalism is in full maniacal swing right now. there is absolutely nothing that can't be bought and sold. of course, the "true" value of music goes beyond the dollar amount ascribed to it but so what? that's not an argument against paying for something. if it were, we would hardly have a marketplace of any kind.

 

6. furthermore, it's simply inconsistent to exempt music artists from the capitalist paradigm on such grounds. many perfectly financially viable and established commodities, institutions, professions, etc have an inherently subjective value; not to mention the fact that art, music, literature, etc are already part of the market. whether some one has a lush time doing art, or whether or not taste is involved in some aspect of its appraisal are by no means factors that determine the justification of art as work. whether you're a full on capitalist or a Marxist or whatever, this is the world we live in, the actual world in which the art is made, produced, etc. to relegate the artist to some transcendent sphere, or some nebulous realm of subjectivity is a pointless exercise imo. still gotta pay bills at the end of the day.

 

7. finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

 

8. the fact is, there are all kinds of different artists and some of them might be able to function at a high level of creative work even with a day job, while others may require different circumstances to embark on such endeavors. and of course, there are even specific works that quite obviously require way more time, energy and dedication than can be adequately achieved while simultaneously committing the time to a completely separate job. philip glass for instance was able to compose and perform ensemble music for several years while holding down various full time gigs like plumbing and cab-driving, but when he took up work on his first opera he and the work required massive financial assistance (which included grants and donations as well as various assistance from the French government) and the accompanying free time which were absolutely essential to complete the work. even then his first opera plunged him into over $90,000 of debt.

 

9. the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

 

10. it seems obvious to me that downloading is in itself not wrong but as a feature of the current paradigm of financial support (or lack thereof) for artists it presents a number of serious challenges. it's cool that it provides such a vast array of avenues to explore, that it affords new artists and labels the chance to pursue independent careers, etc. but it sucks that our society marginalizes artists and that most of us who wish to pursue such a career find ourselves forced to be cogs in some endless machine of bullshit day jobs. I'm afraid there are no clear answers and solutions will arise from a combination of intuition, integrity, and truly deep and innovative thinking.

seems like you continue the tradition of misreading and misunderstanding the arguments and basically address some strawmen and cover everything with tldr thinking it's a good rebuttal.

2. no one said this (afaik), people were going against the current accepted ways of paying the artists.

3. who said that ?

4. but no one was talking about just a copy of anything, but of music, which costs literally nothing. i don't understand why was it so hard to grasp.

5, 6. well it only seems inconsistent because we're not dealing with other professions here, but i can talk just as well about proper evaluation of others. you can technically rape everything into being a commodity, but why would you do that with music? don't we want something better ?

7. no it's a completely realistic notion which doesn't even need explaining giving the countless examples in history. one might have better ideas with more free time, for others some kind of constraint might be actually beneficial. there's no set law about this.

8. creative work is a bit of an oxymoron imo, like do you think aphex twins have some schedule: 9:00AM-13:00PM - driving a tank in the countryside while yelling "cunts" at cows; 13:00-18:00PM - being creative.

yes some shit took time and turned out great, but you can't really induce some law out of this, like every single artists in existence needs to be showered with time and money to achieve greatness.

9. as above, no one said this.

    Quote

A Day in the Life of a Musician

Erik Satie

 

An artist must regulate his life.

Here is a time-table of my daily acts. I rise at 7.18; am inspired from 10.23 to 11.47. I lunch at 12.11 and leave the table at 12.14. A healthy ride on horse-back round my domain follows from 1.19 pm to 2.53 pm. Another bout of inspiration from 3.12 to 4.7 pm. From 5 to 6.47 pm various occupations (fencing, reflection, immobility, visits, contemplation, dexterity, natation, etc.)

Dinner is served at 7.16 and finished at 7.20 pm. From 8.9 to 9.59 pm symphonic readings (out loud). I go to bed regularly at 10.37 pm. Once a week (on Tuesdays) I awake with a start at 3.14 am.

My only nourishment consists of food that is white: eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, veal, salt, coco-nuts, chicken cooked in white water, mouldy fruit, rice, turnips, sausages in camphor, pastry, cheese (white varieties), cotton salad, and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). I boil my wine and drink it cold mixed with the juice of the Fuschia. I have a good appetite but never talk when eating for fear of strangling myself.

I breathe carefully (a little at a time) and dance very rarely. When walking I hold my ribs and look steadily behind me.

My expression is very serious; when I laugh it is unintentional, and I always apologise very politely.

I sleep with only one eye closed, very profoundly. My bed is round with a hole in it for my head to go through. Every hour a servant takes my temperature and gives me another.

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 6:52 AM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

 

 

the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

I'd like to remark that when I said that present-day technology doesn't allow for certain types of intellectual property, I didn't say it in any optimistic way - I mean that being a musician is a bit like being a typewriter technician or a carriage driver these days. I don't imply at all that music should be free if certain types of music are to keep existing under capitalism, just that, as you know, capitalism doesn't quite work and it has hiccups like that.

yes I understand and I agree with you. ; )

  On 4/17/2014 at 11:22 AM, eugene said:

 

    Quote

A Day in the Life of a Musician

Erik Satie

An artist must regulate his life.

Here is a time-table of my daily acts. I rise at 7.18; am inspired from 10.23 to 11.47. I lunch at 12.11 and leave the table at 12.14. A healthy ride on horse-back round my domain follows from 1.19 pm to 2.53 pm. Another bout of inspiration from 3.12 to 4.7 pm. From 5 to 6.47 pm various occupations (fencing, reflection, immobility, visits, contemplation, dexterity, natation, etc.)Dinner is served at 7.16 and finished at 7.20 pm. From 8.9 to 9.59 pm symphonic readings (out loud). I go to bed regularly at 10.37 pm. Once a week (on Tuesdays) I awake with a start at 3.14 am.

My only nourishment consists of food that is white: eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, veal, salt, coco-nuts, chicken cooked in white water, mouldy fruit, rice, turnips, sausages in camphor, pastry, cheese (white varieties), cotton salad, and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). I boil my wine and drink it cold mixed with the juice of the Fuschia. I have a good appetite but never talk when eating for fear of strangling myself.I breathe carefully (a little at a time) and dance very rarely. When walking I hold my ribs and look steadily behind me.

My expression is very serious; when I laugh it is unintentional, and I always apologise very politely.

I sleep with only one eye closed, very profoundly. My bed is round with a hole in it for my head to go through. Every hour a servant takes my temperature and gives me another.

 

lol I love this. I've had it hanging in my studio for several years. Erik Satie was amazing.

I don't have time to read everything unfortunately so maybe this has already been said.

I often look for pretty rare stuff, limited editions and stuff like that. I can't find these records anywhere digitally, and when by miracle I can find a physical copy, it costs sometimes hundreds of dollars. I can't afford that. So I pirate the thing. That's it. You want me to pay? Provide me what I want at an affordable price.

The world of piracy if FULL of aficionados that want to make others discover music they like. If you know where to go, you can pretty much find everything. Is that a bad thing? I don't really think so.

An other thing, I don't really see why I should pay for records where the artist or the band is dead since several decades. The person who had the merit of doing the music won't profit of my money. The cash will go in the label's pockets. So why should I pay? The label has already made profits upon profits on the record.

Now, for the little and recent artists, I prefer paying. And most of the time is perfectly affordable. I'm not saying I do it all the time, but I try my best. And the big advantage with services like bandcamp is that you can choose the quality of your digital files. That's not a thing you can do all the time with pirated material.

Also, downloading an entire discography from a legal website is a fucking pain in the ass. In 3 clics I can have the entire discography of hundreds of artists with a torrent.

Oh, and the other day I was thinking about the Caustic Window LP thing, and I came to the conclusion that this is maybe the future of music: artists will organise this kind of campaign with their new album, and say "okay, I need this amount of money to cover the costs of production and have a decent amount of cash to live properly. Once we reach this amount of money, everyone who paid will have its personal copy. Then, do what you want. Leak it etc."

Why not, I mean it is pretty difficult to imagine but why not.

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:25 PM, Woozz said:

Oh, and the other day I was thinking about the Caustic Window LP thing, and I came to the conclusion that this is maybe the future of music: artists will organise this kind of campaign with their new album, and say "okay, I need this amount of money to cover the costs of production and have a decent amount of cash to live properly. Once we reach this amount of money, everyone who paid will have its personal copy. Then, do what you want. Leak it etc."

 

Why not, I mean it is pretty difficult to imagine but why not.

yeah, this is the ideal method imo as well. it creates a more direct link between the fans and the artists, some kind of patronage i guess.

i mean charging money for the ability to listen to your music/a copy of it is maybe alright in a capitalist sense but it is kinda cheeky on a bro-to-bro level. like does it really make sense to keep paying the artist after he covered the "costs" (however you quantify it) about 3 times already, for example.

how do you earn your money eugene?

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:56 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:25 PM, Woozz said:

Oh, and the other day I was thinking about the Caustic Window LP thing, and I came to the conclusion that this is maybe the future of music: artists will organise this kind of campaign with their new album, and say "okay, I need this amount of money to cover the costs of production and have a decent amount of cash to live properly. Once we reach this amount of money, everyone who paid will have its personal copy. Then, do what you want. Leak it etc."

 

Why not, I mean it is pretty difficult to imagine but why not.

yeah, this is the ideal method imo as well. it creates a more direct link between the fans and the artists, some kind of patronage i guess.

i mean charging money for the ability to listen to your music/a copy of it is maybe alright in a capitalist sense but it is kinda cheeky on a bro-to-bro level. like does it really make sense to keep paying the artist after he covered the "costs" (however you quantify it) about 3 times already, for example.

 

OK, at your job or whatever you do for a living, once you've done something once and have been paid by your employer for it, you can no longer get paid for that task, because you know, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your idea is sound though - just imagine if I went to the store, bought milk - and never had to pay for it again since I already paid for it! Brilliant!

  On 4/17/2014 at 11:18 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

1. I don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music. it's a way of discovering and experiencing music and as such is cool with me. in any case, it's something that is more or less free and easy which means there's no sense arguing against it.

2. i don't, however, see much substance in the case against paying artists for making art. a couple of ideas have been put forth on this topic that I'd like to comment on.

3. first of all, the notion that musicians do not "traditionally" earn a living from their work as musicians is fallacious. I think a mere cursory glance at the wikipedia pages for a random selection of notable composers, musicians, producers, etc will make this completely obvious. it would also be useful to include social organizations like guilds and unions in such a discussion, as well as the variety of spinoff jobs that might present themselves to an accomplished and knowledgable musician (transcription, sound design, whatever).

4. I also think that the reasoning against paying for a "copy" is specious. it's 2014. look around. I mean, literally look around you at all the things in your life that are copies, replicated, completely un-unique commodities that you pay for all the time. the hardrive full of music is a copy. did you refuse to pay for it as such? nah.

5. another thing i find a bit strange is this notion that music transcends the marketplace or is somehow so subjective that it is inherently exempted from it. again, it's 2014. global capitalism is in full maniacal swing right now. there is absolutely nothing that can't be bought and sold. of course, the "true" value of music goes beyond the dollar amount ascribed to it but so what? that's not an argument against paying for something. if it were, we would hardly have a marketplace of any kind.

6. furthermore, it's simply inconsistent to exempt music artists from the capitalist paradigm on such grounds. many perfectly financially viable and established commodities, institutions, professions, etc have an inherently subjective value; not to mention the fact that art, music, literature, etc are already part of the market. whether some one has a lush time doing art, or whether or not taste is involved in some aspect of its appraisal are by no means factors that determine the justification of art as work. whether you're a full on capitalist or a Marxist or whatever, this is the world we live in, the actual world in which the art is made, produced, etc. to relegate the artist to some transcendent sphere, or some nebulous realm of subjectivity is a pointless exercise imo. still gotta pay bills at the end of the day.

7. finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

8. the fact is, there are all kinds of different artists and some of them might be able to function at a high level of creative work even with a day job, while others may require different circumstances to embark on such endeavors. and of course, there are even specific works that quite obviously require way more time, energy and dedication than can be adequately achieved while simultaneously committing the time to a completely separate job. philip glass for instance was able to compose and perform ensemble music for several years while holding down various full time gigs like plumbing and cab-driving, but when he took up work on his first opera he and the work required massive financial assistance (which included grants and donations as well as various assistance from the French government) and the accompanying free time which were absolutely essential to complete the work. even then his first opera plunged him into over $90,000 of debt.

9. the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

10. it seems obvious to me that downloading is in itself not wrong but as a feature of the current paradigm of financial support (or lack thereof) for artists it presents a number of serious challenges. it's cool that it provides such a vast array of avenues to explore, that it affords new artists and labels the chance to pursue independent careers, etc. but it sucks that our society marginalizes artists and that most of us who wish to pursue such a career find ourselves forced to be cogs in some endless machine of bullshit day jobs. I'm afraid there are no clear answers and solutions will arise from a combination of intuition, integrity, and truly deep and innovative thinking.

 

seems like you continue the tradition of misreading and misunderstanding the arguments and basically address some strawmen and cover everything with tldr thinking it's a good rebuttal.

 

2. no one said this (afaik), people were going against the current accepted ways of paying the artists.

 

3. who said that ?

 

4. but no one was talking about just a copy of anything, but of music, which costs literally nothing. i don't understand why was it so hard to grasp.

 

5, 6. well it only seems inconsistent because we're not dealing with other professions here, but i can talk just as well about proper evaluation of others. you can technically rape everything into being a commodity, but why would you do that with music? don't we want something better ?

 

7. no it's a completely realistic notion which doesn't even need explaining giving the countless examples in history. one might have better ideas with more free time, for others some kind of constraint might be actually beneficial. there's no set law about this.

 

8. creative work is a bit of an oxymoron imo, like do you think aphex twins have some schedule: 9:00AM-13:00PM - driving a tank in the countryside while yelling "cunts" at cows; 13:00-18:00PM - being creative.

yes some shit took time and turned out great, but you can't really induce some law out of this, like every single artists in existence needs to be showered with time and money to achieve greatness.

 

9. as above, no one said this.

2. this discussion is about whether or not to pay the asking price for art.

3. you said this on page 2: "i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done"

4. no one is struggling to understand that you're singling out music from the accepted practice of paying for copies, you simply have not made a coherent case as to why.

5. talking about other professions provides context and in context your position becomes untenable. 6. we may want something better than the capitalist model, yes. but for now we have capitalism.

7. we agree that some artists or artworks need time, and some can function properly with constraints.

8. I believe you are obviously wrong about this. creative work is work. end of story. whether that work operates within a set schedule or not is a secondary issue. if you're genuinely interested in learning about this i suggest you look at philip glass's book "music by philip glass" in which he discusses the nature of work on his first three operas as well as his own rigorous schedule for composition which takes place only in the mornings until 1pm.

furthermore, your point about not making laws is one i agree with. so I'm not sure how you've managed to "rebut" two of my poits by agreeing with me.

9. in fact, people regularly say such things and have done itt. please read your own posts.

  On 4/17/2014 at 3:03 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 11:18 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

1. I don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music. it's a way of discovering and experiencing music and as such is cool with me. in any case, it's something that is more or less free and easy which means there's no sense arguing against it.

2. i don't, however, see much substance in the case against paying artists for making art. a couple of ideas have been put forth on this topic that I'd like to comment on.

3. first of all, the notion that musicians do not "traditionally" earn a living from their work as musicians is fallacious. I think a mere cursory glance at the wikipedia pages for a random selection of notable composers, musicians, producers, etc will make this completely obvious. it would also be useful to include social organizations like guilds and unions in such a discussion, as well as the variety of spinoff jobs that might present themselves to an accomplished and knowledgable musician (transcription, sound design, whatever).

4. I also think that the reasoning against paying for a "copy" is specious. it's 2014. look around. I mean, literally look around you at all the things in your life that are copies, replicated, completely un-unique commodities that you pay for all the time. the hardrive full of music is a copy. did you refuse to pay for it as such? nah.

5. another thing i find a bit strange is this notion that music transcends the marketplace or is somehow so subjective that it is inherently exempted from it. again, it's 2014. global capitalism is in full maniacal swing right now. there is absolutely nothing that can't be bought and sold. of course, the "true" value of music goes beyond the dollar amount ascribed to it but so what? that's not an argument against paying for something. if it were, we would hardly have a marketplace of any kind.

6. furthermore, it's simply inconsistent to exempt music artists from the capitalist paradigm on such grounds. many perfectly financially viable and established commodities, institutions, professions, etc have an inherently subjective value; not to mention the fact that art, music, literature, etc are already part of the market. whether some one has a lush time doing art, or whether or not taste is involved in some aspect of its appraisal are by no means factors that determine the justification of art as work. whether you're a full on capitalist or a Marxist or whatever, this is the world we live in, the actual world in which the art is made, produced, etc. to relegate the artist to some transcendent sphere, or some nebulous realm of subjectivity is a pointless exercise imo. still gotta pay bills at the end of the day.

7. finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

8. the fact is, there are all kinds of different artists and some of them might be able to function at a high level of creative work even with a day job, while others may require different circumstances to embark on such endeavors. and of course, there are even specific works that quite obviously require way more time, energy and dedication than can be adequately achieved while simultaneously committing the time to a completely separate job. philip glass for instance was able to compose and perform ensemble music for several years while holding down various full time gigs like plumbing and cab-driving, but when he took up work on his first opera he and the work required massive financial assistance (which included grants and donations as well as various assistance from the French government) and the accompanying free time which were absolutely essential to complete the work. even then his first opera plunged him into over $90,000 of debt.

9. the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

10. it seems obvious to me that downloading is in itself not wrong but as a feature of the current paradigm of financial support (or lack thereof) for artists it presents a number of serious challenges. it's cool that it provides such a vast array of avenues to explore, that it affords new artists and labels the chance to pursue independent careers, etc. but it sucks that our society marginalizes artists and that most of us who wish to pursue such a career find ourselves forced to be cogs in some endless machine of bullshit day jobs. I'm afraid there are no clear answers and solutions will arise from a combination of intuition, integrity, and truly deep and innovative thinking.

seems like you continue the tradition of misreading and misunderstanding the arguments and basically address some strawmen and cover everything with tldr thinking it's a good rebuttal.

 

2. no one said this (afaik), people were going against the current accepted ways of paying the artists.

 

3. who said that ?

 

4. but no one was talking about just a copy of anything, but of music, which costs literally nothing. i don't understand why was it so hard to grasp.

 

5, 6. well it only seems inconsistent because we're not dealing with other professions here, but i can talk just as well about proper evaluation of others. you can technically rape everything into being a commodity, but why would you do that with music? don't we want something better ?

 

7. no it's a completely realistic notion which doesn't even need explaining giving the countless examples in history. one might have better ideas with more free time, for others some kind of constraint might be actually beneficial. there's no set law about this.

 

8. creative work is a bit of an oxymoron imo, like do you think aphex twins have some schedule: 9:00AM-13:00PM - driving a tank in the countryside while yelling "cunts" at cows; 13:00-18:00PM - being creative.

yes some shit took time and turned out great, but you can't really induce some law out of this, like every single artists in existence needs to be showered with time and money to achieve greatness.

 

9. as above, no one said this.

2. this discussion is about whether or not to pay the asking price for art.

3. you said this on page 2: "i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done"

4. no one is struggling to understand that you're singling out music from the accepted practice of paying for copies, you simply have not made a coherent case as to why.

5. talking about other professions provides context and in context your position becomes untenable. 6. we may want something better than the capitalist model, yes. but for now we have capitalism.

7. we agree that some artists or artworks need time, and some can function properly with constraints.

8. I believe you are obviously wrong about this. creative work is work. end of story. whether that work operates within a set schedule or not is a secondary issue. if you're genuinely interested in learning about this i suggest you look at philip glass's book "music by philip glass" in which he discusses the nature of work on his first three operas as well as his own rigorous schedule for composition which takes place only in the mornings until 1pm.

furthermore, your point about not making laws is one i agree with since it's exactly the argument i made in that paragraph. I'm not sure how you've managed to "rebut" two of my poits by agreeing with me.

9. in fact, people regularly say such things and have done itt. please read your own posts.

double post, feel free to delete one of these

oh snap, i must withdraw my point 3. my apologies. I misread Eugene's. he said

"i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done"

which I misread as

i don't mind musicians making a living from music [it’s] just not the way it's been traditionally done."

so no need to pursue that tangent.

that's a stupid analogy jr, you produce music only once (for a particular recrod), but you have to produce milk every time anew in order for it be useful. we're not paying for the idea of milk extraction, bottling, transportation etc but for the effort itself.

@messiaen, i'm a teaching/research assistant in the uni.

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:56 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:25 PM, Woozz said:

Oh, and the other day I was thinking about the Caustic Window LP thing, and I came to the conclusion that this is maybe the future of music: artists will organise this kind of campaign with their new album, and say "okay, I need this amount of money to cover the costs of production and have a decent amount of cash to live properly. Once we reach this amount of money, everyone who paid will have its personal copy. Then, do what you want. Leak it etc."

 

Why not, I mean it is pretty difficult to imagine but why not.

yeah, this is the ideal method imo as well.

 

No it's not. Because all I will do is let everyone else contribute to reach the desired level, then wait for it to appear on the net somewhere to download. It doesn't automatically mean people will stop downloading and start contributing.

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:27 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 10:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

well maybe he'd create something even better but it'd just take longer..combined his talent +with working's man life for inspiration, whatever. you can't really tell with things like that, it's not a preplanned thing. some create beautiful stuff with pirated fruity loops, some create poop with a full fledged orchestra and tons of money and effort.

 

Yeah maybe it just takes longer - thus denying him the ability to devote more time to creating beautiful art, and denying his fans the opportunity to hear it.

Some create with pirated fruityloops - but it still takes time. Time is a commodity. Ask your profs when they are able to publish more - when they're teaching, or when they're on sabbatical. Then tell them they should be doing this for free, cause it's just a hobby. I mean how do you quantify what sociological thought brings? Is there a specific number of policies that have to be created before an idea from a sociologist is worth money?

 

that's not really the point of my example. it's possible that we denied him the ability to create a much more beautiful art by giving him a ton of money and time to do whatever. there's no sensible way of quantifying inspiration and art making. time is a very little factor here.

 

And there's no sensible way whatsofuckingever of justifying the idea that with other commitments and a longer time period, you'll get a better result than allowing someone sole concentration on a project. It's such an ass backward thought process.

Eugene: I would argue that academia is very much relevant-here you have people being paid for developing ideas. Often times they are able to continue thinking about those ideas while teaching because the class is relevant to the idea.

For musicians, working in a factory, or in a restaurant is not the same kind of environment as a studio.

Yes you could argue inspiration, but the same could be said for inspiring ideas in academia.

The comparison is apt, because both music and ideas are non-tangible results of labour.

  On 4/17/2014 at 4:55 PM, b born droid said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:56 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 1:25 PM, Woozz said:

Oh, and the other day I was thinking about the Caustic Window LP thing, and I came to the conclusion that this is maybe the future of music: artists will organise this kind of campaign with their new album, and say "okay, I need this amount of money to cover the costs of production and have a decent amount of cash to live properly. Once we reach this amount of money, everyone who paid will have its personal copy. Then, do what you want. Leak it etc."

 

Why not, I mean it is pretty difficult to imagine but why not.

yeah, this is the ideal method imo as well.

 

No it's not. Because all I will do is let everyone else contribute to reach the desired level, then wait for it to appear on the net somewhere to download. It doesn't automatically mean people will stop downloading and start contributing.

 

preventing piracy is not the goal of this method, technically no one needs to contribute with current methods either, just wait for someone to leak and that's it.

  On 4/17/2014 at 5:08 PM, b born droid said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:27 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 10:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

well maybe he'd create something even better but it'd just take longer..combined his talent +with working's man life for inspiration, whatever. you can't really tell with things like that, it's not a preplanned thing. some create beautiful stuff with pirated fruity loops, some create poop with a full fledged orchestra and tons of money and effort.

 

Yeah maybe it just takes longer - thus denying him the ability to devote more time to creating beautiful art, and denying his fans the opportunity to hear it.

Some create with pirated fruityloops - but it still takes time. Time is a commodity. Ask your profs when they are able to publish more - when they're teaching, or when they're on sabbatical. Then tell them they should be doing this for free, cause it's just a hobby. I mean how do you quantify what sociological thought brings? Is there a specific number of policies that have to be created before an idea from a sociologist is worth money?

 

that's not really the point of my example. it's possible that we denied him the ability to create a much more beautiful art by giving him a ton of money and time to do whatever. there's no sensible way of quantifying inspiration and art making. time is a very little factor here.

 

And there's no sensible way whatsofuckingever of justifying the idea that with other commitments and a longer time period, you'll get a better result than allowing someone sole concentration on a project. It's such an ass backward thought process.

 

but there's no way to to guarantee that with concentration you necessarily get better results when it comes to art either. you might be more technically proficient if you have more time to practice something but that does not guarantee art quality in any way.

you people have some silly idea of how art is created, like it's some kind of recipe that if you follow will guarantee perfect results.

  On 4/17/2014 at 5:22 PM, chenGOD said:

Eugene: I would argue that academia is very much relevant-here you have people being paid for developing ideas. Often times they are able to continue thinking about those ideas while teaching because the class is relevant to the idea.

For musicians, working in a factory, or in a restaurant is not the same kind of environment as a studio.

Yes you could argue inspiration, but the same could be said for inspiring ideas in academia.

The comparison is apt, because both music and ideas are non-tangible results of labour.

academia teaches you skills, thinking within specific theoretical limits, building up upon previous thinkers and there's generally and idea of what would constitute success in academic world so you can work towards it, it's a very much closed and limiting field as opposed to music which can be done by anyone without any requirements (how well it'll turn out is a different matter).