7 ms·

The point's been made that artists make so little from downloads and streaming that it literally isn't worth it for you to purchase from iTunes or Amazon downlo

by Radix 15y ago

The point's been made that artists make so little from downloads and streaming that it literally isn't worth it for you to purchase from iTunes or Amazon downloads compared to, say, buying one out of five albums on CD or vinyl. And maybe also purchasing merchandise directly from the artists website.

res0nat0r 15y ago
Either way, you should at least purchase the music via legal means.
- zotz 15y ago
  Speaking as a musician with a small body of work, I want people to download my songs, pirated or otherwise. If you want to give me money, send me some or come to one of my shows. I was involved with a label/mngt. company in the 90's and they just ripped me off. Don't give them any money by buying "official" records. Kill Hollywood: Pirate...download and direct your dollars directly to the musicians. Ignore the agents and the middlemen. They're parasites.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    How about letting each artist decide his/her own policy on if they want you to download their music for free or not? I see artists signed to major labels tweeting that they want you to buy their music. It isn't black or white.
    - zotz 15y ago
      I can bet the majority of musicians would opt for my method.
    - marknutter 15y ago
      But you're not understanding - the artist can't decide because piracy is unpreventable. It's over, just stop with them moral battle. The floodgates are open, and it will never close unless we all agree to compromise the internet. So it's either adapt or get a real job.
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        I'm not saying at all that the industry shouldn't make it easier to acquire works digitally at a decent price, but it still doesn't make it any moral issue, or inherently an 'art wants to be free' issue just because in the last 20 years you've been able to easily copy entertainment without fear of repercussion. People still deserve to be paid for their time and hard work, plain and simple. Note the followup post will be: 'Just go to their concerts! All is well!'. Since Ticketmaster screws me out of about 30 bucks for each pair of tickets I buy, should we be trying to sneak into concerts for free because 'the man' is doing things we don't like even though the artist is receiving some of the profits from a legal sale?
      - zotz 15y ago
        > So it's either adapt or get a real job. I'd rather adapt.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  Why? Give me a good reason. This is exactly what tomkin, the top-level commenter, meant (or at least my understanding of it). It's just "politically correct" to say/do that, but rarely does anyone ever ask why. So let me do just that. Because it's "illegal" to acquire it by other means? The law is not a moral authority by any means. At least it shouldn't be. Ideally, things are against the law because they are considered to be morally wrong. The other way 'round (something is morally wrong because it is against the law) is a similar fallacy as confusing correlation with causation. It just doesn't follow. There's a quite nice saying in Germany, frequently attributed to Berthold Brecht, that roughly translates to "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes obligation.". That's essentially the current situation - injustice is law. Piracy is but one of many forms of resistance. To calm our conscience? I don't think downloading music is wrong. In fact, I don't think sharing anything can be considered wrong in any way, and I must actually commend the content industry for managing to twist and pervert the public's perception of morality to such a degree. It's the most natural action a human being can undertake. And digital data isn't scarce - there's absolutely no reason not to share it. It's the refusal to share (and the active battle against it) that should be considered highly unethical. To support the artist? There're better ways that don't involve dead and obsolete business models (distribution of information, which is virtually cost-free today), such as going to see a show, or maybe buying their merchandise. I know some people who frown on donations because they argue that would make artists beggars, but I prefer to liken donations to tip money. Crowd-funding is slowly becoming more accepted and might face wide-spread adoption in a few years. I like this approach because it's essentially a service based model - the artist gets paid once to create something, and it can be freely used by everyone when it's complete - there's no monopoly rent on something that's not inherently scarce. And finally, accept the fact that not everyone is able to live off their art, and that's fine too. No one is entitled to succeed in a given job, and no one is entitled to protection of their business model if something comes along that makes it obsolete.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    Piracy isn't a moral resistance 'code'. It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'. How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first? They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.

by Radix 15y ago

res0nat0r 15y ago

Either way, you should at least purchase the music via legal means.

zotz 15y ago
Speaking as a musician with a small body of work, I want people to download my songs, pirated or otherwise. If you want to give me money, send me some or come to one of my shows. I was involved with a label/mngt. company in the 90's and they just ripped me off. Don't give them any money by buying "official" records. Kill Hollywood: Pirate...download and direct your dollars directly to the musicians. Ignore the agents and the middlemen. They're parasites.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  How about letting each artist decide his/her own policy on if they want you to download their music for free or not? I see artists signed to major labels tweeting that they want you to buy their music. It isn't black or white.
  - zotz 15y ago
    I can bet the majority of musicians would opt for my method.
  - marknutter 15y ago
    But you're not understanding - the artist can't decide because piracy is unpreventable. It's over, just stop with them moral battle. The floodgates are open, and it will never close unless we all agree to compromise the internet. So it's either adapt or get a real job.
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      I'm not saying at all that the industry shouldn't make it easier to acquire works digitally at a decent price, but it still doesn't make it any moral issue, or inherently an 'art wants to be free' issue just because in the last 20 years you've been able to easily copy entertainment without fear of repercussion. People still deserve to be paid for their time and hard work, plain and simple. Note the followup post will be: 'Just go to their concerts! All is well!'. Since Ticketmaster screws me out of about 30 bucks for each pair of tickets I buy, should we be trying to sneak into concerts for free because 'the man' is doing things we don't like even though the artist is receiving some of the profits from a legal sale?
    - zotz 15y ago
      > So it's either adapt or get a real job. I'd rather adapt.
slowpoke 15y ago
Why? Give me a good reason. This is exactly what tomkin, the top-level commenter, meant (or at least my understanding of it). It's just "politically correct" to say/do that, but rarely does anyone ever ask why. So let me do just that. Because it's "illegal" to acquire it by other means? The law is not a moral authority by any means. At least it shouldn't be. Ideally, things are against the law because they are considered to be morally wrong. The other way 'round (something is morally wrong because it is against the law) is a similar fallacy as confusing correlation with causation. It just doesn't follow. There's a quite nice saying in Germany, frequently attributed to Berthold Brecht, that roughly translates to "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes obligation.". That's essentially the current situation - injustice is law. Piracy is but one of many forms of resistance. To calm our conscience? I don't think downloading music is wrong. In fact, I don't think sharing anything can be considered wrong in any way, and I must actually commend the content industry for managing to twist and pervert the public's perception of morality to such a degree. It's the most natural action a human being can undertake. And digital data isn't scarce - there's absolutely no reason not to share it. It's the refusal to share (and the active battle against it) that should be considered highly unethical. To support the artist? There're better ways that don't involve dead and obsolete business models (distribution of information, which is virtually cost-free today), such as going to see a show, or maybe buying their merchandise. I know some people who frown on donations because they argue that would make artists beggars, but I prefer to liken donations to tip money. Crowd-funding is slowly becoming more accepted and might face wide-spread adoption in a few years. I like this approach because it's essentially a service based model - the artist gets paid once to create something, and it can be freely used by everyone when it's complete - there's no monopoly rent on something that's not inherently scarce. And finally, accept the fact that not everyone is able to live off their art, and that's fine too. No one is entitled to succeed in a given job, and no one is entitled to protection of their business model if something comes along that makes it obsolete.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Piracy isn't a moral resistance 'code'. It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'. How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to download for free and get their permission to copy their art first? They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price.