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

  On 4/17/2014 at 7:41 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 7:08 PM, b born droid said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 12:27 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 12:47 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:00 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.

 

That's rich coming from someone who thinks that you'll basically end up with the same idea whether you spend 40 mins or 4 hours on something. To say that time doesn't have a fundamental effect on what you create is ridiculous.

You're arguing against yourself. You say time is very little factor, yet being given time somehow results in a poorer product*. Despite the fact that it varies from person to person, which makes one of the most basic variables in that whole scenario to be time itself.

*which might not be a guarantee but I'll happily put my life on the line that at the end of time when we're discussing the best albums, the majority have come from artists who have had that freedom to simply create sans (shitty) employment.

why is it so hard to follow an argument without projecting and making stuff up ? i mean it's little philosophical but not that complex really.

when did i say that you end up with same results regardless of time ? you might get something better if you spend 40 minutes on it without overworking it, for other people it might be the opposite on some occasions, but on others it might and so on. the point is it's arbitrary and hard to predict and quantify.

you've got shitty statistical logic as well, if it varies from person to person but the quality of the product remains the same (i guess that's your constant) then it means that it's not a significant factor, objectively speaking.

I've bought over 700 CDs over time, mostly for the rush, the backwardness of the act, etc. But I finally bought an iPod a coule months ago, which has lead me to listen to mp3s and download like a motherfucker. I prefer direct downloads to torrenting, especially since torrenting renders all other internet activity null... not that that's what this thread is about. A lot of the CDs i bought were used, so my buying them wasn't supporting the artist most of the time. Buying a new CD from some retail outlet doesn't really support an artist much either, rather it supports the labels that profit off their talent. The artist might see a few pennies from each of those purchases --it's really quite disgusting. I'm much more inclined to pay money on something I find on bandcamp because in that case i know it's going to the artist. And if an artist I love is touring nearby I'll usually pay $50+ to check them out, money which mostly goes to them and their road crew. By buying one ticket to a show I'm giving the artist more money than they'd see from me buying their entire discography from a retail outlet. If you want to support an artist, go to their shows, or toss them money via a site like bandcamp that isn't trying to make a big profit off them.

just some thoughts I want to add.

I think that music is the culmination of an idea and the drive to see that idea through by doing the work to complete it. that's what love for an idea does, it makes you do the work as a pleasurable experience. woorkkkk. can't stress that enough.

by forsaking your own need to give respect in the form of money - money you had to earn by working.. you start to lose grasp of the idea of work as something joyful. by denying an artist the acknowledgement that he was doing actual work, you are denying yourself the idea of work as something you could do for enjoyment.

eugene, you were mentioning that you think it's difficult to appraise how much an idea is worth.. and yes, especially in experimental or minimal types of music it can quickly become a shady deal who actually has good ideas, or who is doing the work. lot of bullshit out there, no doubt. but I really believe that you can hear it in the music if someone puts in the work, and good ideas just take you along. your taste should be your measure. if you want something, consider if you wanted it if you had to pay the price asked. totally changes the question.

  On 4/17/2014 at 8:34 PM, Zephyr_Nova said:

I've bought over 700 CDs over time, mostly for the rush, the backwardness of the act, etc. But I finally bought an iPod a coule months ago, which has lead me to listen to mp3s and download like a motherfucker. I prefer direct downloads to torrenting, especially since torrenting renders all other internet activity null... not that that's what this thread is about. A lot of the CDs i bought were used, so my buying them wasn't supporting the artist most of the time. Buying a new CD from some retail outlet doesn't really support an artist much either, rather it supports the labels that profit off their talent. The artist might see a few pennies from each of those purchases --it's really quite disgusting. I'm much more inclined to pay money on something I find on bandcamp because in that case i know it's going to the artist. And if an artist I love is touring nearby I'll usually pay $50+ to check them out, money which mostly goes to them and their road crew. By buying one ticket to a show I'm giving the artist more money than they'd see from me buying their entire discography from a retail outlet. If you want to support an artist, go to their shows, or toss them money via a site like bandcamp that isn't trying to make a big profit off them.

Yeah, this is a problem I have, too. I buy music from iTunes frequently, but I feel like the band never really sees it. Then again, if the label is good they should treat their bands well, and having good sales probably makes the label more inclined to keep releasing that artist and spending more money helping the artist release their next thing. I don't mind giving money to a label in support of an artist if the label is decent, like Warp.

  On 4/17/2014 at 8:34 PM, Zephyr_Nova said:

I've bought over 700 CDs over time, mostly for the rush, the backwardness of the act, etc. But I finally bought an iPod a coule months ago, which has lead me to listen to mp3s and download like a motherfucker. I prefer direct downloads to torrenting, especially since torrenting renders all other internet activity null... not that that's what this thread is about. A lot of the CDs i bought were used, so my buying them wasn't supporting the artist most of the time. Buying a new CD from some retail outlet doesn't really support an artist much either, rather it supports the labels that profit off their talent. The artist might see a few pennies from each of those purchases --it's really quite disgusting. I'm much more inclined to pay money on something I find on bandcamp because in that case i know it's going to the artist. And if an artist I love is touring nearby I'll usually pay $50+ to check them out, money which mostly goes to them and their road crew. By buying one ticket to a show I'm giving the artist more money than they'd see from me buying their entire discography from a retail outlet. If you want to support an artist, go to their shows, or toss them money via a site like bandcamp that isn't trying to make a big profit off them.

The sad reality is most bands that go on tours do so to recoup the advances the record labels give them for a release - in many cases, bands see little or no money from touring (which takes time away from making music), and it becomes indentured servitude in a sense (mind you this is not the case with all bands, but I've read articles that illustrate this sad reality). I'm sure with smaller and independent bands and labels, this isn't as much the case, though.

  On 4/17/2014 at 7:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 7:22 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).

Creating academic works can also be done by anyone (reference computer generated articles getting published in peer-reviewed journals) and again, how well it will turn out is a different matter.

Why not just admit you're a cheap SOB with a sense of entitlement and stop trying to construct arguments that have no merit to them?

Yes ^^

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:25 PM, eugene said:

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

Create me some music right this very instant. Good music too, I want at least Autechre or Aphex quality please.

Kinda relevant, but anyone have any idea how many musicians are actually able to earn a full-time living from it versus how money will never make it? While it seems like a rewarding career, I could never see myself going for it because I don't feel comfortable with highly variable, potentially unstable income. Just like a lot of U.S. college graduates who get degrees and find themselves unable to find a job in their field, it seems there is probably a lot of aspiring musicians who just won't ever make a consistent living out of it.

  On 4/17/2014 at 4:34 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 3:56 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 3:25 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!

 

The comparison does not work for that. You buy an album once, and listen to it 100 times? Still the same album. You buy a bottle of milk and drink it once? Welp, that's over, you have to have an other bottle of milk.

I'm curious; how much does music pirating actually hurt the artists? Not trying to imply anything, I legitimately want to know.

to legitimately answer that you need to know how many people would buy a particular album instead of downloading it for free if there was no such option. i don't know if someone did a survey like this.

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:27 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:25 PM, eugene said:

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

 

Create me some music right this very instant. Good music too, I want at least Autechre or Aphex quality please.

 

I'm still confused at this idea that you can instantly be a musician as soon as you decide to be one. Obviously someone can just bang on some tin cans whenever they want. But actual musicianship, artistry, takes several years to develop. As long if not longer than obtaining a degree.

There are likely thousands of musicians that have devoted a decade or longer to their music and aren't considered "artists".

This thread made me hate music.

rip

  On 4/17/2014 at 11:47 PM, eugene said:

to legitimately answer that you need to know how many people would buy a particular album instead of downloading it for free if there was no such option. i don't know if someone did a survey like this.

There have been a few...

  Quote

 

A total of 16,000 Europeans from five countries (Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the UK) had their browsing habits examined, and perhaps the most striking finding was that "the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in [the] sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available".

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/21/music-piracy-doesnt-hurt-sales

The full report is here: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf

There's also this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak (which finds that album leaks increase album sales after official release...)

And this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html (which finds that music pirates buy more music than those who do not download illegally)

@gmanyo: Check this paper out: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058 Lots of interesting graphs at the end, but the paper isn't too long anyway and reads pretty easily. I just skimmed over it this morning instead of continuing to post ITT, lol. The survey responses actually show that musicians are pretty split when it comes to opinions about file-sharing; both Milieu's concerns and my own philosophy toward the free model are represented by the respondents. (To give a more direct answer to your question, as a whole, the respondents made about 6% of their total revenue from recording sales. Most of the respondents were rock/pop and jazz musicians.)

I really wouldn't be surprised if most pirates actually bought more music than most people who don't pirate. I know I don't buy much music.

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:25 PM, eugene said:

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

Eugene, have you ever tried to be a musician? I've tried (and succeeded to a minuscule degree), and beyond learning skills of composition, recording, engineering, theory, and how to play an instrument or two, I also learned a lot about marketing, event organization and management, and financial management.

I suppose I'm not a full-fledged academic yet, though I have published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as shorter articles for think-tanks. I also TA/RA, and am well on my way to completing my masters degree (which is I suppose the basest level of academia, but I have no desire to do a Ph D, unless I win the lottery and can study at my leisure).

I can tell you from experience in both that they require equal amounts of work. It is easier to grade papers after a day of working another job though.

Yes academia has set up certain norms that have to be met to be considered an academic. To be a professional musician also has a set of norms, though I will admit they are somewhat more flexible and loosely defined than the norms for academia.

You didn't answer my question...

It's getting hot in here.

I took off all my clothes.

Really though, I just spent $70 I didn't actually have to import and obtain Yagya's newest album on triple-colored-vinyl. TAKE THAT, PIRACY!

  On 4/18/2014 at 1:09 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:25 PM, eugene said:

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

Eugene, have you ever tried to be a musician? I've tried (and succeeded to a minuscule degree), and beyond learning skills of composition, recording, engineering, theory, and how to play an instrument or two, I also learned a lot about marketing, event organization and management, and financial management.

 

I suppose I'm not a full-fledged academic yet, though I have published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as shorter articles for think-tanks. I also TA/RA, and am well on my way to completing my masters degree (which is I suppose the basest level of academia, but I have no desire to do a Ph D, unless I win the lottery and can study at my leisure).

 

I can tell you from experience in both that they require equal amounts of work. It is easier to grade papers after a day of working another job though.

Yes academia has set up certain norms that have to be met to be considered an academic. To be a professional musician also has a set of norms, though I will admit they are somewhat more flexible and loosely defined than the norms for academia.

 

You didn't answer my question...

 

you don't have to know absolutely anything of what you mentioned to be considered a musician. some will not consider you a musicians, but some will. i don't understand why this isn't obvious on a forum full of people who just pirate some vsts and come up with tunes and exchange them and stuff. i was obviously not talking about any professional musicians (whatever it means).

what question ? regarding me pirating and just coming up with justifications ? no, i pirate because i don't have much money and i don't feel like giving it to people who generally have much more of it than me (99% of the musicians i listen to). i don't consider myself entitled to anything, it's there and i grab it, if it weren't there i'd definitely not spend money on music.

  On 4/18/2014 at 1:37 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/18/2014 at 1:09 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/17/2014 at 10:25 PM, eugene said:

lol wat ? how does music teaches you skills ? or anything for that matter ? you can be a musician simply when you decide to, you can't really be considered a scholar and a member of academic community unless you follow very specific rules in your works.

Eugene, have you ever tried to be a musician? I've tried (and succeeded to a minuscule degree), and beyond learning skills of composition, recording, engineering, theory, and how to play an instrument or two, I also learned a lot about marketing, event organization and management, and financial management.

 

I suppose I'm not a full-fledged academic yet, though I have published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as shorter articles for think-tanks. I also TA/RA, and am well on my way to completing my masters degree (which is I suppose the basest level of academia, but I have no desire to do a Ph D, unless I win the lottery and can study at my leisure).

 

I can tell you from experience in both that they require equal amounts of work. It is easier to grade papers after a day of working another job though.

Yes academia has set up certain norms that have to be met to be considered an academic. To be a professional musician also has a set of norms, though I will admit they are somewhat more flexible and loosely defined than the norms for academia.

 

You didn't answer my question...

 

 

you don't have to know absolutely anything of what you mentioned to be considered a musician. some will not consider you a musicians, but some will. i don't understand why this isn't obvious on a forum full of people who just pirate some vsts and come up with tunes and exchange them and stuff. i was obviously not talking about any professional musicians (whatever it means).

 

what question ? regarding me pirating and just coming up with justifications ? no, i pirate because i don't have much money and i don't feel like giving it to people who generally have much more of it than me (99% of the musicians i listen to). i don't consider myself entitled to anything, it's there and i grab it, if it weren't there i'd definitely not spend money on music.

 

Generally speaking, in order to make music that is enjoyable, you have to know quite a few of the skills I mentioned - in order to be a professional musician, you generally have to know all of them, as Mellow U pointed out - it's even more important in this day and age. I think it's safe to assume that we're talking about professional musicians, especially in the context of the thread.

If you really didn't consider yourself entitled, you wouldn't pirate it, as most of the musicians you probably listen to are not giving away their music for free.

  On 4/18/2014 at 1:20 AM, Mellow U said:

It's getting hot in here.

 

I took off all my clothes.

 

Really though, I just spent $70 I didn't actually have to import and obtain Yagya's newest album on triple-colored-vinyl. TAKE THAT, PIRACY!

that is a truly delightful album though.

Eugene, saying that these people have more money than you have and because of that you don't want to pay them anything, is just insane. I don't even want to give reasons.

Also listen to Drukqs and imagine RDJ not spending days and weeks on not only coming up with a complex composition and great melodies, but also with playing with settings, instruments, samples etc. You cannot have that complexity and unique sound by simply using default settings in Fruity Loops. And in order to get your idea across exactly the way it is in your head, what you WANT it to be rather than what you're able to achieve with your instruments/software, you need to see through the settings and just know that in order to achieve that certain texture you're looking for you need to turn that knob by 10 degrees. You cannot do that unless you've spent years burying your head in software and hardware. It's like a musician thinking of a melody and playing it rather than thinking of his fingers and what to do with them.

There's this quote by somebody: “Art is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration”. I don't fully agree with it, sometimes the opposite ratio is fine too, but creating art is work to a huge extent.

And I don't think you'll hear the following excuse often when asking a band why album X turned out badly: “Well, the record company gave us too much time”.

Time does not equal quality, but there's a considerable correlation I'm 100% sure.

  On 4/18/2014 at 7:36 PM, HokusPoker said:

Eugene, saying that these people have more money than you have and because of that you don't want to pay them anything, is just insane. I don't even want to give reasons.

 

Also listen to Drukqs and imagine RDJ not spending days and weeks on not only coming up with a complex composition and great melodies, but also with playing with settings, instruments, samples etc. You cannot have that complexity and unique sound by simply using default settings in Fruity Loops. And in order to get your idea across exactly the way it is in your head, what you WANT it to be rather than what you're able to achieve with your instruments/software, you need to see through the settings and just know that in order to achieve that certain texture you're looking for you need to turn that knob by 10 degrees. You cannot do that unless you've spent years burying your head in software and hardware. It's like a musician thinking of a melody and playing it rather than thinking of his fingers and what to do with them.

There's this quote by somebody: “Art is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration”. I don't fully agree with it, sometimes the opposite ratio is fine too, but creating art is work to a huge extent.

And I don't think you'll hear the following excuse often when asking a band why album X turned out badly: “Well, the record company gave us too much time”.

Time does not equal quality, but there's a considerable correlation I'm 100% sure.

no it actually does make sense in not wanting give pretty rich people more money if you're kinda poor yourself, so you might as well do give those reasons if you want to have some sort of a dialogue.

it's probably the 5th time im trying to get this point across but here goes: is it possible that aphex would make a genius album of piano pieces like avril 14th? yes, quite possible, and it wouldn't require that time consuming tinkering. so what we have is that aphex had some ideas that according to you took some time to realize, but that's just what happened, it doesn't mean it's a law of nature of some sort. we don't know what kind of music he would come up with if he didn't have the time to do drukqs, it could be 50 times better than druqks of 50 times worse, and there's absolutely no way you can predict it. relying on past examples doesn't resolve this philosophical point. and of course that quote is complete bullshit because you can easily find genius stuff that's technically very simple and was made in short periods of time. if you don't realize that then we really have nothing to talk about.