| Article: |
A Musician's Take on File Sharing, DRM, and Copyleft Licensing | |
| Subject: | Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves | |
| Date: | 2003-06-11 16:37:27 | |
| From: | anonymous2 | |
|
Response to: Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
|
||
|
That's rubbish. It's a flawed assumption to assume that someone who downloads then doesn't purchase would have purchased in the first place. There is no loss of sale if no sale would have been made.
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.
-
This whole topic
2003-06-28 12:15:07 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I am an out of work musician. Yes P2P etc blah blah blah affects my remuneration. But it affects it in both positive and negative ways. There will always be 1 in 1000 P2P etc users that act as a bootlegger. Besides that, the rest of the P2P is usually only positive. Like the saying in our business goes, "The only bad publicity, is NO publicity." Therefore, the ONUS is on the Record Producers. Not the P2P Producers. More to the point from the musicians point of view are many other factors. The no smoking rule in public places has got to be the #1 deterant at the moment. I wouldn't go to a club I can't smoke in. Just my opinion but the truth is, P2P and format changes are NOT enough of a factor. Let's talk about CLUBS that do not have LIVE entertainment. I can listen to whatever I want in the comfort and privacy of my home. When I go out, I want to see some LIVE talent, not listen to some DICK DJ that thinks they've got their crap together all that. My opinion is 90% POSITIVE, 10% NEGATIVE for file sharing in general. But I'm talking music. Movies, sorry, I only need to see a movie ONCE. Therefore, the math is simple.
-
Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
2003-06-28 11:57:22 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
You are all a bunch of ignorant monkey fucks. I have heared all this talk about a "revolution" in the music industry, but no comments on how this is to come about or how it is to work. How is the artist(s) supposed to pay for his or her recording, distribution, and promotion without a record label? How is he/she supposed to profit from it when their music can be downloaded for free? If someone could please enlighten me on how this is supposed to work, i might change my mind on the subject.
I am a musician and i have spent the last eight months in a studio recording. I have done this at my own expense. I have spent every ounce of free time that i have in my music. Believe it or not, it is EXTREMELY hard work. I play 3-4 shows a week, and have been doing so for the past 3 years. I put everything that i have into this, and would like to one day reap the benefits of my struggle.
This would be utterly impossible if people could recieve the fruits of my hard work for free over the internet. How does a musician win in this situation? He can't.
Maybe i'm different from most people, but when i listen to a song on the radio, i can tell if the band is worth a shit or if its not. Therefore, i don't buy CDs with one or two good songs on it. Your argument about that is just an excuse for wanting to get your shit for free. I don't buy one ounce of that argument.
People, believe it or not, we live in a capitalist society. The concept of capitalism implies that if you want goods, services, or entertainment, you have to pay for them. I agree that CD prices are too high, however, I remember them being much lower before napster hit it big. It is true that many labels own all of the rights to the artists (which i definitely do not agree with), but that is not true in all cases.
I guess my argument is, if you guys get your way and get all of your music for absolutely free ... what then? After you've choked the life out of the music industry, where does new music come from?
Way down the road, when the bands that you love start to get dropped from their record labels, where will your music come from. I promise you will be singing a different song then.



