Swedish Record Labels See Filesharing as Virtue
While the RIAA sues its customers, and blames filesharing for the decrease in record sales, a coalition of seven independent Swedish record labels explores alternatives that make use of the Internet and filesharing technology.
The increase in music piracy is a signal that customers want something that is simply not available. High quality, DRM-free music that they can buy online for a reasonable price. Filesharing is a virtue, and the coalition of Swedish record labels understands this, as they introduce The Swedish Model. They write:
We in the music industry have shown ourselves unable to follow in this change. Some of us have even waged war against those the music is recorded for – the listeners. The rift between producers and consumers has never been bigger. “The truth is that Internet has provided us with a fantastic grey scale of possibilities! Instead of fighting back we ought to obtain learning from the daily newspaper and the computer game industries. They early realized the superiority of the internet and developed new services there.
This sounds like music to our ears. We’ve said it over and over again here at TorrentFreak, The Internet has changed the way people interact with music. Music is more accessible, more popular and cheaper to distribute. Record labels should embrace filesharing and compete with piracy instead of fighting it, and it seems like that these Swedish labels understand that.
TorrentFreak spoke with Henrik von Euler of Flora & Fauna, one of the labels participating in the initiative. We asked him what he thinks the greatest benefits of filesharing are: “Well the first thing is pretty obvious, that you can reach much larger audiences more quickly,” he said. “You bypass many of the existing power-structures and communicate directly with the listeners. It is also a very direct medium where the step from production to consumption is extremely short which is good for creativity I think. In the old days you could have an album ready and have to wait like a year or so to have it released and now you can have your music up online the same day you get the master.”
Henrik told us that he has “no beef” with The Pirate Bay, but he admits that filesharing also has its downsides. “On a personal note I find it hard to choose what to listen to”, he told us “The vast number of sites, bands etc makes me feel stressed out, like I’m always missing something. Speed and accessibility is good because it is fast and accessible but also bad because everything turns more superficial and volatile.”
Henrik was also quite clear about the lawsuits that the RIAA has started agianst music fans: “It’s insane. It can only have bad consequences. I don’t see how they can think antagonizing the listeners will help them secure any of their much desired income.”
“This is great”, says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party Piratpartiet. “There are creative people who think ahead. These are labels constructing a new business model. The old dinosaurs lobby politicians, sue to the left and to the right and try to control the internet. There is room for the services of a label, few musicians want to do everything themselves. But the labels must serve their musicians and their fans, not the other way around. These new labels have understood that. The future belongs to them.”
The role of the record labels will change in the future, but not entirely according to Henrik von Euler, “I think the role of the label has started to change long ago. It moves towards a more creative role much more like the art curator or such like. And also, just because artists CAN do everything themselves from production to promotion, administration etc doesn’t mean that they actually want to.”
“On another note,” says Henrik “I must add that this is hopefully the last time I will answer questions about filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.
Previously: MediaDefender Parent Company Facing Liquidation
Next: RIAA Keeps Settlement Money, Artists May Sue
113 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Agreed completly.
Maybe the music industry will realise that us consumers already have enough coasters to last us a lifetime.
Yeah obviously file sharing is beneficial as far as convenience and paying distributors to get your music out there. You can cut out a lot.
But I want to see any of the coming 70 comments or so tell me a way to utilize file sharing in a profitable way to make it WORTH making music…
Nice read. Things are slowly shifting…
Totally agreed. If only there were more level-headed and sensible people like this!
I have often wondered when most of us have to work (that is get our hands dirty so to speak) in return for cash, and musicians can record an album then sit back and collect royalties.
When a carpenter makes a chair, he (or she) doesn’t get paid every time someone sits on it!
Sorry this is a little out of context here, but it needs saying!
you guys do relize that if the music labels make a new business plan that includes p2p that we might not be able to get free things from p2p in the future
[quote comment="299450"]you guys do relize that if the music labels make a new business plan that includes p2p that we might not be able to get free things from p2p in the future[/quote]
sure, but the money goes to the artist and they can hopefully see that we appreciate them and they will make more and better music
music can’t be compared to carpentry. the process is 100% different unless it’s some kid making ‘phat beats’ with fruity loops trying to get his music out there.
artists need to work with studios (which is a business in itself) along with buying their own gear, etc.
being a musician is a huge investment and if you aren’t getting paid for your work, which no one is, then why would anyone continue on?
someone propose a model.
People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”. Well for something that’s so damn shitty, people must like something about it or else they wouldn’t download it in the first place.
Secondly, I don’t care how cheap something is, if there’s a free alternative then the free alternative will always win.
People need to get their heads out of their asses. Piracy is stealing and there’s no way to justify it. I’m not like most people that sit around and make petty excuses for why I download games, movies, music, etc. I download it because I don’t want to pay for it. And yes I am stealing what I’m downloading. Do I care? Not at all. Fuck em. Get it while the gettin is good is what I say. I figure that there will always be enough people buying a game, movie, or album that the makers will see some sort of profit. The profit might be less (and in some cases A LOT less) than what it could have been if P2P wasn’t in the picture but again I don’t care about their profits they still have a lot more money than I do. Yes I realize that in the long run that lower profits mean less of a reason for game/music/and movie publishers to produce a large quantiy of quality material, but again I don’t care. Live for today baby. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.
And finally, with the exception of a few albums and a few games, 99% of the shit I download I wouldn’t have paid for anyway so I don’t feel as though I’m hurting the industry by downloading. It’s nice to have all my favorite hit’s from the 80’s in my music collection but there’s no way in a million years that I would have bought all those songs/albums. Had P2P not been there to make them available to me then I guess I’d just live without it.
The only exception to all this is sheet music. I do download a lot of sheet music for the piano through P2P. Had P2P not been there then I guess I would have bought most of it. It’s either buy it or learn it by ear.
The moral of this story is that people need to quit justifying P2P use. It is what it is. Stealing. And all your excuses and rhetoric will never change that fact. At least admit it and quit playing games.
[quote comment="299453"]music can’t be compared to carpentry. the process is 100% different[...]
artists need to work with studios (which is a business in itself) along with buying their own gear, etc.
being a musician is a huge investment” [...][/quote]
Yeah, right tell that to a furniture capenter. I bet you the education, “studio” and “gear” cost is vastly greater than that of a musician. And guess what the skill and creativity needed is probably at the same levels or higher than for the average musician.
I’d say your remark is bordering on ignorant.
okay try living as a musician with the state of the industry
a guitar that will sound good: at least 1k
microphone that will sound good: at least 1k
drums: multiple Ks
bass: at least 1k
a lot of pop artists don’t write their own music (no that’s not a bad thing.) but they have to get paid.
ONLY assistant engineers are $35/hour. at least. that’s the ASSISTANT. you also have the main engineer, the producer, studio manager, receptionist, and interns to pay.
you also have to pay for use of the million dollar consoles and hifi monitors.
I’m not downgrading the carpenter. if you make a chair, people aren’t going to copy it and then give them away for free.
if you make a song (which will prob take a week or so), it will get copied and distributed for free
so why continue?
[quote comment="299453"][...]someone propose a model.[/quote]
1) Spread you music.
2) Get fans. (if you deserve them)
3) Sell the fans what they want to buy.
I can’t understand why they always have to ask. It’s kinda obvious isn’t it?
It’s almost identical to the existing model only the net to catch fans is huuuughely more vast and there are less middlemen using p2p, torrents and such on the internet.
[quote comment="299474"][quote comment="299453"]
1) Spread you music.
2) Get fans. (if you deserve them)
3) Sell the fans what they want to buy.
[/quote]
what?
more like
spread music
maybe get fans
fans distribute your music for free.
even my FRIENDS who got my music distributed it for free. why would strangers pay and then not distribute it
All the good artists now a days arent interested in making money - they just want people to enjoy their music. Now that home recording and p2p have made it possible for these artists to bypass the labels, I don’t think labels are necessary any more. In the future, musicians will release their on material for little cost, and accept voluntary donations from downloaders.
As the cost of home recording continues to drop, I expect labels o eventually disappear.
@ comment #3: I think the industry could actually make money from giving away free music in torrents. By placing a small amount of advertising in the torrents income could be generated.
On the more radical side, an artistdirect torrent site could be set up, with advertising generating all the money… although it really would never get as much revenue as cds…
[quote comment="299471"]
I’m not downgrading the carpenter. if you make a chair, people aren’t going to copy it and then give them away for free.[/quote]
On the other hand, the carpenter actually has to put in the hours for every copy he makes, and musicians want to get paid for copies they can make for free. So maybe your point actually supports the notion that musicians expect to sit back and get paid, as opposed to the carpenter?
[quote]
if you make a song (which will prob take a week or so), it will get copied and distributed for free[/quote]
Right, and your potential customer base base grows, making the potential for selling them something they actually want to buy from you bigger. With no added cost on your part.
[quote]
so why continue?[/quote]
Yeah… bigger audience more fans… so why continue? Sigh!
…and btw most musicians aren’t mainly motivated by the money… quite obviously. Even though I can’t se why musicians motivated by money will have any real problems either.
@16: a fair idea
but it probably wouldn’t cover all the costs of recording/promotion.
@15: since ‘good’ is amazingly subjective, I don’t know if that will ever happen. home recording works for messing around and people who put loops together to create the entire style of music labeled Electronic. (partially a joke, but partially true.)
I think people don’t know what labels are for. they exist because people CANT promote their own music. they provide a huge service. the internet reaches only 12% of the world’s population. billboards, concerts, stores, tv ads, etc, reach a lot more people. the labels are needed and that’s why people sign to them in the first place.
no I’m not defending them. I’m just eager for a solution and want to hear some ideas.
@17: I’m kind of sick of the carpentry analogy because I’m not so familiar with the practice but my songs which aren’t QUITE professional, but are close, take around 10-12 hours to make per song.
the industry works because once you put in that time, generally speaking, you rely on labels and distributors to sell your work.
just because more people hear your music doesn’t mean they’re going to become a ‘fan’ or even consider buying it. think realistically.
The Carpenter comment intrigues me.
If I were to make my own chair design, and sell it, you can bet there will be limitations out there by the Indians / Chinese if it was a popular chair.
I wouldn’t be paid for every imitation made. Why can a music cd be protected from this exploitation and not anything else?
“High quality, DRM-free music that they can buy online for a reasonable price.” is not a complete sentence.
I love sweden! <3
[quote comment="299476"][quote comment="299474"][quote comment="299453"]
[...
]3) Sell the fans what they want to buy.[/quote]
what?
more like
spread music
maybe get fans
fans distribute your music for free.
even my FRIENDS who got my music distributed it for free. why would strangers pay and then not distribute it[/quote]
Your friends and your fans _HELP_ you distribute you music for free, no cost to you. They want you to get more fans. So that you can sell the fans _WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY_ from you.
Now it’s up to you to figure out what to sell them. (hint: it’s not exactly what they already got for free, but it might be very close to it. Additional hint: the term “added value” might help)
Ohh… and it’s also up to you to actually make music that is good enough to get you fans.
I have a prediction about the music industry. I think it will separate into 2 separate entities. One being the old style “pay or else” label and the new “listen and buy if you like” style. I also predict that the music lawsuits and the RIAA trouble will drag on for many years.
Its nice to think that the change in the air will come swiftly but in reality it will take quite a while before the major record labels manage to alienate enough people to seriously cripple themselves, and even when they do it will just end up with more lawsuits, more budget cuts until they finally die a slow and painful death.
on the bright site the file sharing age has taught me bout bands I never knew of, on record labels who don’t sacrifice quality of music for the almighty dollar. And I buy their albums and see them live as I know the fact I learnt about them from a music download does not make me a criminal in their eyes.
[quote comment="299444"]
But I want to see any of the coming 70 comments or so tell me a way to utilize file sharing in a profitable way to make it WORTH making music…[/quote]
Simple.
Combine a P2P filesharing network with a business model like iTunes.
Let users preview 30(give or take) seconds of a track, and if they choose to download the whole thing, bill them with a $1(give or take) microtransation. Give the majority of the profit directly to the artists, and then, here’s the kicker: divide the remainder evenly between wheoever maintains the P2P network and the user that just shared the track.
That way… If you buy a song, and share it with enough people, not only can it eventually pay for itself, it can actually start turning a profit for you.
Add a layer of(optional) social networking on top of that, like instant messaging, user profiles, chatrooms, and shit… Make the whole thing DRM-free…
You might not end up with the second coming of iTunes, but you’d end up with something that stands a fighting chance of survival against regular P2P.
Of course, your question was loaded and I doubt you were looking for a serious answer, because you seem to imply that the status quo under the RIAA somehow makes it WORTH making music, with is just a laugh and a fucking half, and paints you as a cockgobbling little stooge.
I wish i lived in sweden
I make my living, rent and expenses on gigs alone, i work hard and get some session work and gigs. i’ll release an album within the next year and I will personally upload it to torrent sites, why? because a bigger fan base means more money ay gigs. P2P helps musicians, i can get my music to lots of people, if they like the music and can afford to they can donate or buy the album with the artwork.
As for famous rich groups fuck them, they make million from tours and sell enough albums to have $100m homes anyway, so what do they need the extra sales from less fortunate people who rent? to pay for their 26th butler???
@22/17
“Your friends and your fans _HELP_ you distribute you music for free, no cost to you. They want you to get more fans. So that you can sell the fans _WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY_ from you.
Ohh… and it’s also up to you to actually make music that is good enough to get you fans.”
well, _NO ONE WANTS TO BUY_ because it can all be free with a few clicks. it’s not HELPING me when it’s “hey check out this band” and proceeds to send the albums. those people then have no incentive to buy my work because they… have it already. target demographics often talk to each other, which then makes it even less of a chance that it will actually be bought. the only advantage is that it’s getting heard which is comforting for like.. a second. because music is free, they value it like it’s a starbucks drink or something. enjoy it/throw it out.
added value? …?
and how would you know what ‘most musicians’ are motivated by.. lol. I’ve yet to meet people who call themselves ‘musicians’ who aren’t motivated by money. otherwise it’s a hobby. even in small local shows, you’re playing to at least break even. there has to be the money involved or else no one would do it.
burgandy, you are confused. The recorded music IS the advertizing. We can stop this war real quick. Musicians get rid of the taliban^WRIAA regime. Tell us who we can donate to you on your website. Not just PayPal, please, there are better options free of charge in Europe. The best way to make ship loads of cash is playing on CONCERTS. THIS is how all musicians make most of their money, not the pathetic fee they get for sold CDs. There are, by the way, very few book authors who can live just from writing books and that’s perfectly normal. I really don’t see how anyone can expect to make a living from selling recorded music. The pop music hype is over. This isn’t the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Even if file-sharing would stop this moment, things would never get back as they were, also because the average person in first world has less and less money to burn. The internet however will not disappear and that’s a good thing for musicians and other artists because the distribution industry has lost its purpose. File-sharers do not even use any of the distributors’ services. If 90% of the price of a CD goes to the distributors’, how is it possible to calculate the net loss by just looking at file-sharing? Do you have to buy a bus ticket if ride your bicycle because you could have used the bus? I don’t think so.
[quote comment="299492"]@16: a fair idea
[...]just because more people hear your music doesn’t mean they’re going to become a ‘fan’ or even consider buying it. think realistically.[/quote]
If the “old” model was built on the fact that you sold copies to people who wouldn’t have considered buying the music after actually hearing it, then I’d say the “new” model is more fair, wouldn’t you?
I’m not sure that a future where people only buy what they really like is such a horrible thing, especially considering that the amount of money spent on entertainment is actually pretty constant.
It’s more like the money available for the entertainment industries to make is distributed in an more fair way than before in the “new” model.
@26
you’re a fucking idiot! if i wanted to be rich i wouldn’t be a professional musician, i would get a city job in an office!
28: the old model is just like- create, find someone(label) who likes what you created, use their money to record, let them promote/distribute. hope to break even/profit or you’re in debt.
not sure what the ‘new model’ is.
29: who said anything about rich? it’s for the passion. but you obviously have to earn enough to live which is getting harder for an increasing number of people.
[quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”.[/quote]
No they don’t, you just made that up.
Great article, I am extremely happy with what looks like is going to happen.
[quote comment="299520"]@22/17
[...]
added value? …?
[...][/quote]
If that’s what you got, even after I gave you more than one hint. I’d guess your response speaks for itself. Sigh.
12 (lol), you only need a mic when recording music but not during practicing. You could just add
Townhall: 1 million
but you only need it for gigs and you can rent it. You can even get sponsors to pay such events. Also I highly doubt your made up prices because nobody who starts making music pays that much for instruments unless they’re rich in the first place which is their problem. There’s also a second hand market - not just eBay - where you get things for a fraction of the original price in good condition. People nowadays are just not very good in managing their money because they are too used to buying everything 1st class (on credit), food from expensive supermarkets (seemingly cheap but actually poor quality -> expensive) although they cannot really afford such a life style in the long run. That’s not just artists of course except that some of them really believe you can get rich by having fun instead of doing mind-numbing daily work like the rest of us.
guarenteed it takes at least another decade for the riaa to recognize this which would be extremely bad
[quote=article]
“On another note,” says Henrik “I must add that this is hopefully the last time I will answer questions about filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.
[/quote]
Words of truth
[quote comment="299453"]music can’t be compared to carpentry. the process is 100% different unless it’s some kid making ‘phat beats’ with fruity loops trying to get his music out there.
artists need to work with studios (which is a business in itself) along with buying their own gear, etc.
being a musician is a huge investment and if you aren’t getting paid for your work, which no one is, then why would anyone continue on?
someone propose a model.[/quote]
Holy antiquated dinosaur no-changey attitude.
Artists can record themselves. They just need a small amount of education. You’d be surprised at the freedom that education provides. If they don’t want to educate themselves, and in turn actually contribute to lower production costs so as to bring down the artificiality of the price of their product, then screw ‘em when they get d/l’d and not purchased.
Many people who have dreams in the music industry are really trying to perpetuate the romantic notion of the business. The world has moved on and can get along just fine with out their record companies. Funny, it seems the artists are the only ones beholden to the whims of the lying titans. Boo frickin’ hoo.
[quote comment="299545"]Also I highly doubt your made up prices because nobody who starts making music pays that much for instruments unless they’re rich in the first place which is their problem.
People nowadays are just not very good in managing their money because they are too used to buying everything 1st class (on credit), food from expensive supermarkets (seemingly cheap but actually poor quality -> expensive) although they cannot really afford such a life style in the long run. That’s not just artists of course except that some of them really believe you can get rich by having fun instead of doing mind-numbing daily work like the rest of us.[/quote]
lol! I shop at like walmart and family grocery stores. it’s just… the gibson SG is called one of the best studio guitars for a reason, and I believe it’s circa 1k. a crappy bass=hum and hiss in recordings, muddy low end. good bass=clarity overall. balance.
what I’m getting at is you get what you pay for in music, generally speaking. making music IS fun! why is it mind-numbing?? my ‘made up’ prices were MINIMUMS.
[quote comment="299471"]okay try living as a musician with the state of the industry
a guitar that will sound good: at least 1k
microphone that will sound good: at least 1k
drums: multiple Ks
bass: at least 1k
a lot of pop artists don’t write their own music (no that’s not a bad thing.) but they have to get paid.
ONLY assistant engineers are $35/hour. at least. that’s the ASSISTANT. you also have the main engineer, the producer, studio manager, receptionist, and interns to pay.
you also have to pay for use of the million dollar consoles and hifi monitors.
I’m not downgrading the carpenter. if you make a chair, people aren’t going to copy it and then give them away for free.
if you make a song (which will prob take a week or so), it will get copied and distributed for free
so why continue?[/quote]
Quit living the rock star life, get a job, save some money and buy your shit. You sound like a kid who doesn’t want to do what is required to get where they want to be. If you can’t get those four things, you are going to be at the mercy of the industry’s raping and roaming hands.
If you were to learn the actual stuff of recording, you’d realize that you don’t HAVE to pay for a million dollar studio and crew to record. Unless that was your dream. In which case I can’t really help you.
my friend is a hobby musician and i can tell no fucking difference between his music and the music of those trying to make a living from it.
a commercial service will never be able to compete with p2p, for various reasons, and there is no such thing as a “reasonable price” that EVERYONE would agree with. Let people set it themselves by donating.
quote #6
I have often wondered when most of us have to work (that is get our hands dirty so to speak) in return for cash, and musicians can record an album then sit back and collect royalties.
When a carpenter makes a chair, he (or she) doesn’t get paid every time someone sits on it!
Sorry this is a little out of context here, but it needs saying!
——————-
this is the wrong way to think about the idea.
To use your analogy of a carpenters chair: No the carpenter doesn’t get reimbursed every time you use the chair, but you don’t pay the musician every time you listen to a song. The carpenter gets paid for every INSTANCE of the chair produced (ie: each person buys one, and uses it for an indefinite amount of time) just as the artist should get paid for every INSTANCE of the music sold (ie: each person buys an album and uses/listens to it for an indefinite amount of time).
It isn’t any different, and while the “production” of multiple instances of music is entirely automated (so to speak), a carpenter can have his chair mass produced. Similarly, you pay a premium for a high quality hand made item, you pay a premium for a live show.
Your analogy was fine, but the usage was misguided.
To anyone who says that there won’t be any musicians making music if it was all free are wrong. There a lot of people who would happily give away there music. Thet make it because it’s what they want to do and they love doing it, not because of the pay check. They would have regular jobs and do the odd event here and there. If an artist became popular on the sharing scene he would be able to hold bigger and more concerts. Simple as. The people still choose their popular artists and there is the recognition and satisfaction (along with a nice sum of money for some) for the artists to go home with.
Yeah, lots of musicians who aren’t extraordinarily successful. that may essentially boil down to meaning those bands don’t cater to any kind of large audience. that’s who the industry is setup to please.
yeah, I’m a kid. I’m in a recording arts degree program. my dad distributes records at an executive level. had 6 or so years of music lessons and played in bands for 4 or so. met several players in the industry.
I just don’t get how you all think free could = okay? music is a living for a lot of people. not just a hobby. from the poor jazz player to the heads of the majors.
obviously there would be music created if there was no industry. it would be entirely localized and a vast majority of it would be garbage. there would be a lot more inconvenience along with all that freedom. the industry exists for a reason. it just needs to change.
I am fully aware of the possibilities of home recording as I’ve been doing it for years and years at this point. there’s a reason why the things that come out of studios sound amazing and are produced by people in their 40s/50s. it’s a lifetime investment to be involved in music professionally. it’s the same reason labels aren’t (generally speaking) paying individual amateurs to record their own music. it’s the vast minority of cases that that happens.
free isn’t sustainable imo until I hear something real that proves it.
Living in Stockholm Sweden!
This kind of makes up for the shitty tax laws and present crappy government! LOL!
#43 is right, if there wasn’t a music industry, most music would be garbage. There wouldn’t be meaningful stuff like Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls for us all to enjoy.
[quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”. Well for something that’s so damn shitty, people must like something about it or else they wouldn’t download it in the first place.
[/quote]
Agreed, if you don’t find a decent percentage of good material by downloading via filesharing, you should really think about what you are doing. I always try to download things with the best quality.
What I am not willing to do is pay big sums of money for replicating and distributing information and supporting a distribution monopoly.
[quote comment="299460"]
Secondly, I don’t care how cheap something is, if there’s a free alternative then the free alternative will always win.
[/quote]
Not if the non free product includes everything the free product does plus something the free product doesn’t. (such as an efficent way to compensate the creators of the product)
[quote comment="299460"]
People need to get their heads out of their asses. Piracy is stealing and there’s no way to justify it.
[/quote]
No, piracy is bypassing a distribution monopoly which while intended to support artists, also causes huge inefficencies in the distribution of culture.
[quote comment="299460"]
I’m not like most people that sit around and make petty excuses for why I download games, movies, music, etc. I download it because I don’t want to pay for it. And yes I am stealing what I’m downloading.
Do I care? Not at all. Fuck em. Get it while the gettin is good is what I say.
[/quote]
Ok, not 100% sure about this. I could be wrong, but it reeks of the worst kind of attitude. You think it is immoral (stealing) and still do it. There are few things I like less than hypocrites.
Personally, I am fully aware that filesharing makes it tougher for some (the majority?) of artists to make money, but I don’t feel guilty about the for a single reason. I understand the economics behind it.
Unlikes stealing (ctrl+x), copying (ctrl+v) is not a zero sum game. Copyright is simply there to create a system to funnel money into the IP creting industries. I would probably support it if it was decently efficent, but it isn’t. The cost on a society for implementing copyright is simple enormous.
[quote comment="299460"]
Yes I realize that in the long run that lower profits mean less of a reason for game/music/and movie publishers to produce a large quantiy of quality material, but again I don’t care. Live for today baby. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.
[/quote]
Yup. Minor note. While the total number of works of art will be reduced, the total quantity of copies distributed does increase. Simply because copyright is an inefficency (monopoly) in the econmic system.
This is of course only true up until a point where there are so few good works of art that people can’t find something they want. We are however far far from that point as more material than ever is being produced, even with the huge amount of filesharing going on.
[quote comment="299460"]
And finally, with the exception of a few albums and a few games, 99% of the shit I download I wouldn’t have paid for anyway so I don’t feel as though I’m hurting the industry by downloading.
It’s nice to have all my favorite hit’s from the 80’s in my music collection but there’s no way in a million years that I would have bought all those songs/albums. Had P2P not been there to make them available to me then I guess I’d just live without it.
[/quote]
You are hurting it a little as you yourself admit. That isn’t a bad thing though.
As you say, having better access to culture old and new via free downloading is very good for you. As well as the millions and millions of people that have access to the internet.
[quote comment="299460"]
The moral of this story is that people need to quit justifying P2P use. It is what it is. Stealing. And all your excuses and rhetoric will never change that fact. At least admit it and quit playing games.[/quote]
I do admit that IP creators are hurt by my copying. I will however never call it stealing, because it simply isn’t.
It isn’t playing a game. As I have said a few time throughout my post. Stealing and copying are fundamentally different. One is a zero sum transaction, while the other isn’t.
[quote comment="299471
so why continue?[/quote]
If you don’t make a profit, don’t. There is more than enough music produced as it is. Very likely more than we as a society really need, so using an inefficent system such as copyright to boost the number of works of art produced is simply a bad idea.
Ok, someone is probably going to say, “We can’t have enough culture.”
That isn’t true. If the cost of producing the extra culture creates to high of an expense, it simply isn’t worth it. This is of course dependent on the base amount of culture produced, as well as the cost of creating the extra works of arts.
[quote comment="299524"]If 90% of the price of a CD goes to the distributors’, how is it possible to calculate the net loss by just looking at file-sharing?[/quote]
This just goes to show how inefficent the current copyright is. Those 90% could just as easily be counted as a societal win as we don’t have to waste resources on an inefficent distributor.
[quote comment="299535"][quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”.[/quote]
No they don’t, you just made that up.[/quote]
you just made my day, and its 8 30 am :)
thank you
@6 said:
“I have often wondered when most of us have to work (that is get our hands dirty so to speak) in return for cash, and musicians can record an album then sit back and collect royalties.
When a carpenter makes a chair, he (or she) doesn’t get paid every time someone sits on it!
Sorry this is a little out of context here, but it needs saying!”
They have more in common than you realize. A musician is only paid once for an album, per person who buys it–just as a carpenter is paid each time someone buys a chair.
People trying to compare material property with virtual property are at the same inteligence level as the people in the RIAA.
They are two things in completley 2 different worlds they dont even follow the same rules of existence.
Art was never designed to make income people decided “IT SHOULD”.
Art was never meant to replace a profitable job. Yet people decided it should.
People in most non art related jobs earn money by constantly working.
I dont even understand how u even dare to compare an idea with a phisycal product.
The entire copyright law was to bend the rules of existence for profit.
A phisical product costs resources to reproduce.A idea doesent.
Digital material is not a phisical product.It doesent cost resources to reproduce.
Finaly art is expressing your ideas its not a business.No matter how much u want it to be or how hard people try to make it.
People earn from art because we want to pay for it.Those that do art for our entertainment deserve to be able to live from it.As soon as they demand money for it they are in only for the profit.Thus they can … insert insult here. If u want money get a job.
Great news, how exactly will this new stuff work?
Ahh, let me QFT:
[quote]filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem[/quote]
One can only hope that it’ll get through enormously thick skullbone of other politics and businessmen around the world. :-)
People have copyed music for ages, people hear music in clubs yet they don’t pay to play a track. My comment before stated that artists would still make money from concerts, t-shirts and so on. Once they become bigger they get better equipment, experience and so on. They would still be able to make a living out of it. You can’t copyright sound in my opinion. It is never the same when played through speakers as it was played through any other speaker. The only thing that is the same is the digital data, but all that is is 1’s & 0’s. All I have to do converet my .cda files on my CD’s to FLAC and the digital signature is no longer the same. I then proceed to share away.
Please guys, don’t feed the trolls!
Surely you can spot the hired media-defender guns by their antiquated way of reasoning?
Everyone knows today, that only a few, select artists can make a living from recorded music; the vast majority have to either get a daytime job or make money from actually *doing* some music job — gigs.
And surely we all know that the music quality is not as good today as it was some decades ago? Even the record companies know it — why else would they spend so much resources creating all those “Best of…” collections, where they charge the fans once again for music they bought on vinyl years ago?
How about this outline for a business model: The artist sets up a website where people can donate money, and proceeds to make a recording when a certain amount of cash has been donated. Donors (especially ones contributing early, when the treasure chest is near empty)will then get some bonus, like a nice physical package of the music, or merchandise, or possibility to obtain good seats at a concert for a reduced price.
Every time you mass quote god kills a virgin..
Awesome quotes though ;)
[quote comment="299605"]quote
It isn’t any different, and while the “production” of multiple instances of music is entirely automated (so to speak), a carpenter can have his chair mass produced. Similarly, you pay a premium for a high quality hand made item, you pay a premium for a live show.
Your analogy was fine, but the usage was misguided.[/quote]
No his analogy is just fine and the usage correct, because he was talking about the actual work done, and getting paid for actual work. As opposed to getting paid over and over without any more work. And as you just said yourself, there is no work involved for the artist when making new instances to get paid for. IE. those artists expect to sit back and be paid without any additional work on their part. Which was his point.
lol @ baloo2. I don’t work for media-defender. I was probably one of the first to download their emails. I thought that whole thing was great.
great article, nice to see i’m living in a forward thinking country (in sooooo many ways).
how money do you think the RIAA and MPAA spend on lawyers per year? is it equal to, more or less than what would be needed to change their distribution systems to p2p?
but then maybe they don’t want to as the ‘cd’ is a cash cow which they want to keep alive as long as possible, who knows?
well they’re scrambling to figure out a new model as we speak. all the suing is trying to delay the majority of the public from stealing from them and it’s working, generally speaking. it’s also to try to get some profit back from all the stolen property.
the thing is like, okay, iTunes offers me a song for $1 at okay quality. torrents offer me full albums for free at usually better quality. that’s just unbeatable.
free isn’t sustainable though. something has to happen to fix what’s going on before EVERYONE thinks it’s okay to steal people’s work 24/7.
that attitude of most of the people who fileshare is just outrageous. they don’t know/care how the industry works and thinks because it’s just a 70mb download that it didn’t cost thousands of dollars and possibly hundreds of hours to make.
the music industry isn’t just a dream like you might think. it’s work. I know an engineer who stay in sessions for 52 hours straight. working. not sleeping, not smoking weed, working. this is not uncommon!
“the thing is like, okay, iTunes offers me a song for $1 at okay quality. torrents offer me full albums for free at usually better quality. that’s just unbeatable. ”
we get the SAME quality if not better for free.
sharing isnt stealing u fucking dumb shit. copy’ing isnt stealing either. you cant even prove that piracy have reduced the sales of albums. shit, if i like an album i fucking buy it. stop talking bullshit. filesharing is here to stay
lol?!?!?!?
how is this not stealing:
I made an album. it’s for sale. people want it. people buy it.
instead: I made an album. it’s for sale. one person buys it. everyone else gets it for free.
can’t prove piracy reduced sales? if piracy wasn’t happening, I would have something to show for the music I put out. that’s my proof. I put some out. was bought. then I kept coming across people who had it sent to them by someone because they didn’t feel like paying $10. hooray for lost customers. that’s on a miniscule scale with home recording.
imagine when there’s even less empathy for the people putting out the music so nobody thinks twice about DLing it.
time=money, yes? 12 hrs/song (probably more) *10 songs would hopefully = $ in sales. that’s the obvious goal.
with you sharing, time=free. how is it not stealing? lol I don’t understand your thinking. and the time=money thing is just one level of it all.
obviously it’s good that more people are hearing the music because that’s what it’s about, but it causes more bad than good.
@63
1) Filesharing isn’t stealing. Even if current laws say it is, it’s just a big mistake in the current laws and nothing else. Such shit happens, you know. Some 150 years ago slavery was legalized too.
2) If you made an album it doesn’t mean anything at all. You can own the original CD, no problem. But it certainly doesn’t mean that you own all of the copies and the whole world is in your debt.
3) You are a musician and you want money? Give concerts, set up a website to sell music to your fans. Umm… what? Ah, you want a Porsche. Well, you can continue to want it, we have no problems with it.
4) Time=money doesn’t work anymore. Learn to live with it. Or die, if you can’t, frankly noone cares.
5) Filesharing causes bad to exactly who? To fat pigs in record labels? Oh, I’m so concerned. To some crappy pop singers who can only lip-synch? Give me a break.
shit, howcome ur here and not being all busy with ur albums.
like i said, Copy’ing isnt stealing, u know that right.. ”
can’t prove piracy reduced sales? if piracy wasn’t happening, I would have something to show for the music I put out. ”
just because you or some other artist doesnt sell doesnt that mean that your music sucks and noone wouldnt even listen to it if it wasnt for piracy? when did music become all about money, u fucking sellout piece of shit.
and what.. i dont understand ur super advanced math about how time equals money and whatever. lol.. again, copy’ing isnt stealing m8. dont act dumb now. btw if u really are an artist please reveal urself. got some strange feeling ur this fucked up undercover from some riaa company. the battle against piracy is over. the pirates won.
I like money
[quote comment="299975"]
can’t prove piracy reduced sales? if piracy wasn’t happening, I would have something to show for the music I put out. that’s my proof.[/quote]
ROTFL!
Here’s my proof that you are the reason i’m not a millionaire. if you didn’t exist, I would have something to show for the the work I do. that’s my proof.
Really… that isn’t a proof, it’s not even coherent reasoning for Gods sake!
You can’t just postulate something and say thats the proof. Get a grip!
lol ignorance fuels the piracy struggle I guess. that’s like 9th grade math. maybe lower.
but no, once again, I’m not employed by some antipiracy company. what do you mean by ’sell out’? are you 10? I had that attitude when I knew nothing about what’s going on.
I’m not even employed. I’m in a recording arts degree program. I’ll be in the industry within a couple years. I’m trying to spark discussion amongst the people doing the actual stealing to see what can be done to fix what’s happening.
I work right now sometimes doing sidejobs as a freelance mastering engineer/recording engineer and I write my own music. what do you want to know?
what’s inane is that you’re assuming that my music is horrible but first of all, that’s subjective. second, irrelevant because I had sales regardless and people still copied and stole my music. it doesn’t matter how ‘good’ my music is because it still had a market and it was still copied and distributed illegally. this happens on a much larger level when it comes to labels.
there is no undercover when you’re trying to do honest things. lol.
[quote comment="299975"]
[...] I put some out. was bought. then I kept coming across people who had it sent to them by someone because they didn’t feel like paying $10. hooray for lost customers. [...][/quote]
Ok… To me that sounds just like people who wouldn’t have bought your stuff anyway. (didn’t feel like paying $10)
So why would that be a loss to you?
It might be basic math to you, but it’s more like failing grades in basic economics on your part as I see it.
fucksake u ignorant piece of shit. im not stealing when im copying. im not stealing when im downloading, im not stealing when im uploading.
why are u trying to beat a dead horse m8
Sweden is right now the best, what more can be said?
I’m just using MY music as an example. you guys are missing the point. it has nothing to do with my music personally.
it has everything to do with the attitude of the people. not feeling like paying $10 for a CD is what we do every time we go to mininova and get what we want. I don’t know many people in real life who actually buy their music.
it’s a loss because more people pirated my music than bought it just because they didn’t feel like paying. I asked them myself and got the answers. it had nothing to do with how ‘good’ the music was. I’m not even trying to draw the spotlight to my personal situation. it was just an example.
just because you’re not walking into a store and taking the CD and then distributing doesn’t make it not stealing. you’re just justifying using the available technology to commit crimes. lol.
“Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.”
This is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Filesharing isn’t something that can be fixed by suing people left and right. It is the next step in distribution, music on plastic discs isn’t the shit anymore. Until the record labels figure this out and start taking advantage of this fact they’re going to keep losing money. Adapt or die.
I’m just using MY music as an example. you guys are missing the point. it has nothing to do with my music personally.
we are just saying your music as an example.
“it has everything to do with the attitude of the people. not feeling like paying $10 for a CD” i dont want to pay 10usd for a cd i dont like, do u?
“just because you’re not walking into a store and taking the CD and then distributing doesn’t make it not stealing. you’re just justifying using the available technology to commit crimes. lol”
taking a cd from a store without paying is stealing, distributing a file on the internet isnt stealing u know.
yes it is. it says it right on the CD case somewhere. illegal copying/distribution of this CD is punishable by law or something to that extent.
they pirated my music because they DID like it. they’d hear it on myspace, and then ask a friend to send it who either pirated it from someone else or maybe bought it.
the only thing piracy was GOOD for in my case was putting my band in the mouths of a couple people it probably wouldn’t have reached. maybe like +a hundred myspace friends which in reality means what.. nothing?
“yes it is. it says it right on the CD case somewhere. illegal copying/distribution of this CD is punishable by law or something to that extent.” still not stealing.
“they pirated my music because they DID like it. they’d hear it on myspace, and then ask a friend to send it who either pirated it from someone else or maybe bought it.” now ur being arrogant.
“the only thing piracy was GOOD for in my case was putting my band in the mouths of a couple people it probably wouldn’t have reached. maybe like +a hundred myspace friends which in reality means what.. nothing?” what..we give u(just an example) free advertisement whats wrong with that. if they like ur music they will buy it so stfu m8. stop being ignorant
75: it’s stealing because when customers should be coming to me to buy my product, they’re taking it without paying.
arrogant? I didn’t make that up. I asked them myself. that’s what they told me. they would check out the myspace, and if they like it, ask a friend to send it to them and think nothing of it. I just lost a customer.
I’m so proud to be Swedish. :-)
I’m not Bolton: no you’ve got a listener and you’ve lost a fucking consumer. Deal with it.
[quote comment="299514"]I wish i lived in sweden[/quote]
Me too, all those fit blondes yum yum!
[quote comment="300114"]I’m not Bolton: no you’ve got a listener and you’ve lost a fucking consumer. Deal with it.[/quote]
QFE
[quote comment="299982"]@63
1) Filesharing isn’t stealing. Even if current laws say it is, it’s just a big mistake in the current laws and nothing else. Such shit happens, you know. Some 150 years ago slavery was legalized too.
2) If you made an album it doesn’t mean anything at all. You can own the original CD, no problem. But it certainly doesn’t mean that you own all of the copies and the whole world is in your debt.
3) You are a musician and you want money? Give concerts, set up a website to sell music to your fans. Umm… what? Ah, you want a Porsche. Well, you can continue to want it, we have no problems with it.
4) Time=money doesn’t work anymore. Learn to live with it. Or die, if you can’t, frankly noone cares.
5) Filesharing causes bad to exactly who? To fat pigs in record labels? Oh, I’m so concerned. To some crappy pop singers who can only lip-synch? Give me a break.[/quote]
;)
[quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”. Well for something that’s so damn shitty, people must like something about it or else they wouldn’t download it in the first place.
Secondly, I don’t care how cheap something is, if there’s a free alternative then the free alternative will always win.
People need to get their heads out of their asses. Piracy is stealing and there’s no way to justify it. I’m not like most people that sit around and make petty excuses for why I download games, movies, music, etc. I download it because I don’t want to pay for it. And yes I am stealing what I’m downloading. Do I care? Not at all. Fuck em. Get it while the gettin is good is what I say. I figure that there will always be enough people buying a game, movie, or album that the makers will see some sort of profit. The profit might be less (and in some cases A LOT less) than what it could have been if P2P wasn’t in the picture but again I don’t care about their profits they still have a lot more money than I do. Yes I realize that in the long run that lower profits mean less of a reason for game/music/and movie publishers to produce a large quantiy of quality material, but again I don’t care. Live for today baby. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.
And finally, with the exception of a few albums and a few games, 99% of the shit I download I wouldn’t have paid for anyway so I don’t feel as though I’m hurting the industry by downloading. It’s nice to have all my favorite hit’s from the 80’s in my music collection but there’s no way in a million years that I would have bought all those songs/albums. Had P2P not been there to make them available to me then I guess I’d just live without it.
The only exception to all this is sheet music. I do download a lot of sheet music for the piano through P2P. Had P2P not been there then I guess I would have bought most of it. It’s either buy it or learn it by ear.
The moral of this story is that people need to quit justifying P2P use. It is what it is. Stealing. And all your excuses and rhetoric will never change that fact. At least admit it and quit playing games.[/quote]
I think you’re missing the big picture here. The point is, there *won’t* be any more large companies to produce music and entertainment. There won’t be any gatekeepers above us that allow us to share ideas, but only if we have enough money. The newer model suggests that people will be sharing and creating for its own sake, not to create a multi-billion dollar industry which is still not satisfied. We, the consumer, will soon become the producers, and will be able to share ideas across the world, and improve upon other’s ideas. Have you ever hear of FOSS? There’s a reason there’s such a buzz about it, and its the fact that people all over the world have instant access to it that makes it develop at light speed compared to these mammoth corporations that are filled to the brim with filler and apathetic employees who only work to make a paycheck, not a better product.
Music and entertainment as a part of human culture started well before the MAFIAA, and will not stop when it is gone. If anything, they will be a spot on the human history timeline that we laugh at in the future: “Haha, we had our own culture for thousands of years, and then let big businesses sell it back to us for a hundred or so years before we realized what the fuck we were doing!” Fuck that, I refuse to buy back my own creativity.
http://guzel-msn-nickleri.blogspot.com/ ’s admininstrator loves sweden and torrent .!
to those arguing about whether distributing files illegally online is actually stealing… Does the technicality really matter? For an independent artist, file sharing can be both a godsend and a curse… while it can get your music heard across broad audiences, it takes a lot of money to make a record, a lot of money to tour, a lot of money to promote, etc. If you have a huge fanbase, but zero money, what are you going to do?
If a band who is unsigned is having their music distributed illegally over the internet, its taking valuable money away from the artist… money he/she will use to payback the costs of their record, to tour to support their record, and to promote their record in order to reach a broader audience.
If you take the money out of this equation, youre left with a group who has recorded an album, but has no means (aside from free distribution), of reaching a broader fan base due to lack of tour support/promotional capabilities. Furthermore, often this will put a band in debt due to the cost it of making the record in the first place. Of course, with a major label artist, this money and promotion comes from the label, so why its still vital for them to sell records in order to satisfy the record company, its not as vital as it is to an independent artist.
Basically, while as an artist I’d absolutely rather have a million people who love and connect with the music than 2 million who buy it but dont like it, its just impractical.
Im in an indie band that has just recorded our debut album… we’re definitely in debt from the recording process and pressing of our album, and we’re scrapping for money, trying to get whatever we can together to get out on the road and start getting a bigger fanbase.
I dont think illegal file sharing has played any sort of significant role in taking away from our sales… all im saying is that having sales is 150% vital to us. Without record sales, we will have to stop making music because we’ll be completely broke.
That being said, if any of you like muse, queen, franz ferdinand, or the cold war kids, check “Carlotta” out: http://www.CarlottaTheBand.com . Gawd… talk about shamelessness :p
sorry, did anyone else notice that this union of Swedish labels never really mentioned their plan? They call it “The Swedish Model”, but nowhere in it can you find an actual business model for how to incorporate file sharing into making money in the music business.
I completely agree that we need to incorporate it and I clearly see the distribution power of P2P. I’m just saying: this “Model” is more of a “we’re okay with P2P! Yay!” than a “here’s how musicians can actually make money whilst incorporating P2P”.
Or perhaps the idea is simply for musicians to begin to view their recordings as advertising for concerts. My friend’s band recently played in Moscow and he explained to me that, while they’ve made little or no money in record sales there, bands stand to make a killing on concert ticket sales because… well, you can’t replicate the feeling of a live show and distribute it on P2P. (save it, jerk: bootleg vids and audio of the live show don’t count. I’m talking about BEING there.)
So maybe musicians need to continue to focus on publishing–getting their songs played in films, advertising, TV shows, etc–and playing live shows.
>I’m in a recording arts degree
>program. I’ll be in the industry
>within a couple years. I’m trying
>to spark discussion amongst the
>people doing the actual stealing
Copying isnt stealing. You may be confident it is, since you are working and not getting paid as much as you’d like, but your business failure does not make copying stealing. Copying is copying. In real world, your extremist luddite opinion does not count. If people do not think copying is wrong, it isnt wrong. Its not very wise, business wise, to live denying simple facts of life.
>to see what can be done to fix
You wont fix anything. There will also be no “compromise” to be reached. Massive filesharing is here to stay. You’ll adapt to people freely sharing your work on the internet, or you will disappear. Living in denial may only hurt you in the long run.
>what’s happening.
Nothing is happening. People are using technology thats available to them the way they like. They exchange information. They communicate. You wont stop anybody from using technology in order to get money for manually delivering copies of music. You just wont. All you can accomplish is pissing people off, so they surely wont attend your future concerts, let alone paying you for useless plastic copies.
I’m sure you know that.
So just keep insulting the people you want to get money from. I’ve heard its working great for the RIAA. :)
[quote comment="300272"]>I’m in a recording arts degree
>program. I’ll be in the industry
>within a couple years. I’m trying
>to spark discussion amongst the
>people doing the actual stealing
Copying isnt stealing. You may be confident it is, since you are working and not getting paid as much as you’d like, but your business failure does not make copying stealing. Copying is copying. In real world, your extremist luddite opinion does not count. If people do not think copying is wrong, it isnt wrong. Its not very wise, business wise, to live denying simple facts of life.
>to see what can be done to fix
You wont fix anything. There will also be no “compromise” to be reached. Massive filesharing is here to stay. You’ll adapt to people freely sharing your work on the internet, or you will disappear. Living in denial may only hurt you in the long run.
>what’s happening.
Nothing is happening. People are using technology thats available to them the way they like. They exchange information. They communicate. You wont stop anybody from using technology in order to get money for manually delivering copies of music. You just wont. All you can accomplish is pissing people off, so they surely wont attend your future concerts, let alone paying you for useless plastic copies.
I’m sure you know that.
So just keep insulting the people you want to get money from. I’ve heard its working great for the RIAA. :)[/quote]
QFE.
if we follow up on how piracy is evolving in sweden its going to be free on the internet and the live concert is going to cost moneys. best idea ever.
[quote comment="300012"]
it has everything to do with the attitude of the people. not feeling like paying $10 for a CD is what we do every time we go to mininova and get what we want. I don’t know many people in real life who actually buy their music.[/quote]
Strangly the problem with the attitude of people seems to generate more money than ever for the music industry in total. So the people seem to spend more money on music than before. I guess they are cheap and egotistic in a weird way. Or maybe it’s just that the _recording_ industry have a failing business model.
[quote comment="300012"]
it’s a loss because more people pirated my music than bought it just because they didn’t feel like paying. I asked them myself and got the answers. it had nothing to do with how ‘good’ the music was.[/quote]
So they actually said, “I would have bought it if i hadn’t donwloaded it for free.” I cincerly doubt that. They might ha told you it is as good as other music they bought before, but thats not the same thing by a longshot.
I my ears thats like saying that you’d rather that people that haven’t got any more money to spend on music should avoid listening to your music. Then everything would be fine and dandy. Bizzare.
going no where as usual so I’m going to stop replying
>going no where as usual so I’m going
>to stop replying
You shouldnt have started commenting in the first place, since practically all of it was extremist bullshit. You cant force the world to spin the way youd like it to.
People need to realize, filesharing isn’t going away no matter how bad you think it is. Use it to your advantage or shut the fuck up with the whining.
For all those stealing music - may you be bummed to death for your pathetic attempts to justify it with a 15year old “anarchist” stlye of argmument . Get a grip on reality and be brave enough to say you are a thief not hide behind a childs rhetoric .
There’s only so many articles on the net that hired media-defender guns can spend their time on. After all they are so outnumbered they are like a piss in the ocean.
So obviously that Bolton guy has to leave for more urging pastures, what else was expected? I still can’t believe that so many people can be lured into feeding an over-obvious troll like that…
Copying itself is not a crime, but to prove that it is stealing, you’d have to prove intent, as well.
Since it is extremely hard to prove intent, It’s also very hard to prove copyright infringement, since whatever ‘evidence’ the prosecutor wants to use against you does not accurately prove the intent.
In order to enforce something as banal as copyright, you’d need to either know everything or live in an Orwellian society. Or be a hive mind. Since neither is possible, you can’t enforce copyright. Because in order to prove intent, you’d have to know the intent of the accused at the time of the infringement.
Assumptions go nowhere. Evidence can prove you were at the scene of the crime, but it cannot prove intent.
Until we can prove intent, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.
i dont make music to give to you retards becuase your all obviously fucking idiots from the statements your making here. not all just most of you…
[quote comment="300822"]i dont make music to give to you retards becuase your all obviously fucking idiots from the statements your making here. not all just most of you…[/quote]
wait..what.. sharing is here to stay, copying is here to stay, filesharing is here to stay, internet is here to stay. artists come and go .. fuck them
[quote comment="300801"]Copying itself is not a crime, but to prove that it is stealing, you’d have to prove intent, as well.
Since it is extremely hard to prove intent, It’s also very hard to prove copyright infringement, since whatever ‘evidence’ the prosecutor wants to use against you does not accurately prove the intent.
In order to enforce something as banal as copyright, you’d need to either know everything or live in an Orwellian society. Or be a hive mind. Since neither is possible, you can’t enforce copyright. Because in order to prove intent, you’d have to know the intent of the accused at the time of the infringement.
Assumptions go nowhere. Evidence can prove you were at the scene of the crime, but it cannot prove intent.
Until we can prove intent, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.[/quote]
they can only prove that ip adress x downloaded a file called blabla. not who did it=)
@10 An honest thief? How refreshing! Guess what? I’m honest too but I say downloading music isn’t illegal, and all your excuses and rhetoric won’t change that. So how you gonna counter me? You can’t. If you want to believe it ok but it’s only your opinion, not a fact as you assert. I could go on to spout many reasons for my views but I’m not going to. Don’t need to.
[quote comment="299444"]Yeah obviously file sharing is beneficial as far as convenience and paying distributors to get your music out there. You can cut out a lot.
But I want to see any of the coming 70 comments or so tell me a way to utilize file sharing in a profitable way to make it WORTH making music…[/quote]
You seem genuine, and since I don’t expect you to have read every post on this site, I’ll repeat what I’ve posted elsewhere, for your benefit.
It’s already been shown that it’s far more profitable to the musician to go through a Web site or set one up and offer their work for a small cost, rather than through middlemen who retail it for $20-$40 for blind sale (unknown content).
When people see the enterprising way you are going about it, and that you are avoiding these hated labels, and you yourself are NOT greedy; that is, you offer free samples preferrably in good quality, and most importantly, offer your albums for what people can AFFORD to pay or WANT to pay, say $1-$5. You have a system in place where they can EASILY pay and then download in good quality MP3 (VBR). That doesn’t mean giving it away free, as you could still make millions on an album, and why would anyone want or need more than that?
Publicity would be easy and people would be glad to pay it if it was good. Many artists have published their own music doing it the hard way, but now it’s easier than ever. If they can’t learn and implement these basics, it’s just laziness and perhaps they don’t deserve to make money. In any case if I were a musician I’d be happy to and feel privileged to have it distributed to and enjoyed for free to a worldwide audience.
There’s other distribution methods such as what Prince did with the newspaper. Although he gave it away for “free” he still could’ve made a lot from the deal if he’d wanted to. Not saying he did tho.
Sweden, making the world a better place, one step at ta time.
Go Swedes GO!
It’s obvious that the business model for the distribution of recorded music is changing. The biggest losers are of course the IFPI, who want to maintain the status quo of exclusive licenses and copyrights, which are manifestly unfair in that they generate money for people who don’t actually write or play music!
Any forward-thinking artist realises that if the IFPI/RIAA isn’t changing its practices in line with the Digital Revolution, then it’s time to sever links with record companies and go it alone.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Radiohead above. They severed links with the IFPI when they marketed their last album independently. Obviously, millions of copies of the album were shared free of charge, but the band still made money.
One of the reasons why music doesn’t seem very good value any more is that 90% of the cost of a CD album goes on advertising/marketing/legal fees/CD duplication etc etc. With the advent of P2P, a band doesn’t NEED a record company to do these things. In the age of the iPod, we don’t need CD jewel cases, billboard advertising campaigns etc. We can just look at a website that reviews music, and then get it for nothing via P2P.
To me, it’s fairly obvious that all digital media (including software) will be free of charge at the point of use in the near future. A “respectable” site like YouTube, iTunes, or MySpace will exist, wherein mp3s will be freely available, on the proviso that downloaders will see adverts. Bands will be able to sell merchandise, run forums and promote concerts on such a site. Accepting donations would also be apposite.
It just takes a few more major bands to leave the big companies for the End Game to begin.
wow…
I wish i lived in sweden
I will paste this news in my blog on the dating site ———— Tallmeet.com ——- And as a part-time model, I uploaded my best photos, the members there said I am amazing. here are many people like me. interested in?Just search the username, you may want to check them first.
I totally agree with number 10.
And i live in sweden too :D
Lessons Learned :
1. being a musician is a hobby, not a career. musicians who try to make a living selling recorded copies of their music (any medium) are dinosaurs or delusional.
2. if 10,000 people download your album for free and 5 pay for it, that’s because your music sucks, not because the business model doesn’t work.
3. the filesharing mob will cheer on any record company that puts their music online for free download, but will also not pay them a cent.
also, FYI people it’s not a business model if you don’t have a plan to generate revenue.
Example:
Step 1 - put music online for free download
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - profit!
….sorry, that’s not a business model, “new” or &