I know, I know - Epic Broken Record. But at least I'm not going to bore you with where I stand on the subject, as I think that's been clarified on several occasions. What triggered this particular case of unrequested fission surplus is a feature in Saturday's Dagens Næringsliv, outlining how much CD sales have gone down over the last years, how selling downloads is just now becoming a player to reckon with, etc. In other words, things we have heard a gazillion and fifteen times before - no news there. What revs me up, however, are the blatant double standards and self-justifications which are perpetuated by the most ardent file-sharing protagonists. Specifically, it's stuff like:
"The record companies exploit the artists and only pay them a tiny percentage of the sales anyway, so we're really doing the artists a favor." Now why do these people have so much against math and education in general? If the argument is that the artists are being exploited and that they make way too less, how is illegally downloading their music going to remedy that? If an artist - that is; artist + manager + crew combo - makes ten percent of the sales from the first edition and perhaps a little more of the back end, then how would it improve the financial situation for the artist if the sum those ten percent are calculated from is significantly reduced due to people jacking the mp3's instead of buying the CD's? That's right - the artist also makes less, and the argument is void like the warranty of a 1991 Hyundai Elantra the second you drive it off the lot. Ten percent of less is not as much as ten percent of more.
"The artists should just put their music on the web and allow us, the fans to download it for a price hich more closely resembles what we think the product is worth." Yup; keeping up with a budget practice for an actual business - which is what the reality is for the decreasing number of artists who can live off of their music - becomes way easier when all your income variables are unknown. Good luck trying to apply this to other areas of life. The next time I'm at a guitar shop I'm gonna grab a vintage Gibson Les paul and leave what I think it's worth.......that would go over gangbusters. This applies directly to the personal income of the artists, so who are the fans to decide when an artist has made enough money, an argument which is brought up every time Lars Ulrich criticizes downloaders. Again, this would not fly in other areas of life. For example, I think that realtors and lawyers make way too much money. If they make any money at all, they make too much in my estimation. In order to ameliorate this, I would have to break the law but unlike what's the situation with jacking music, the odds of me getting busted are high. Besides, I'm thinking that if people get the choice between a) paying for a product and b) getting it for free while being anonymous over the internet, the fraction of the oppulation belonging to category a) is not going to be in the majority.
...rant over.
Posts
4 comments:
Although we may not share the same view of why CD sales has dropped, I do share your view on people trying to justify illegal download make up illogical reasoning. And hurting the artist at the same time.
"The artists should just put their music on the web and allow us, the fans to download it for a price hich more closely resembles what we think the product is worth."
I think this has been tried (Radiohead?) and, surprise, it doesn't work. It did get some downloads, but not much sale and the average price of that sale wasn't much either...
And this is totally different then artist offering something for free download. That's called promotion. Or the artist offering something directly from their webpage. Which I'm all for.
The next time I'm at a guitar shop I'm gonna grab a vintage Gibson Les paul and leave what I think it's worth.
You're going to take a dump at the counter?
:-O
This applies directly to the personal income of the artists, so who are the fans to decide when an artist has made enough money, an argument which is brought up every time Lars Ulrich criticizes downloaders.
Although the fact that Lars Ulrich looses a buck doesn't keep me awake at night, I agree that it's not up to the "fans" to know when the artist has made enough money. But what worries me is that the only really good research I've read, concluded that it was the small artist that actually lost money on illegal download. And that's where my sympathy (and most of my musical taste) are.
And this is totally different then artist offering something for free download. That's called promotion. Or the artist offering something directly from their webpage. Which I'm all for.
Absolutely. Not at all the same as when some douche uploads the entire back catalogue to an artist on WeAreDouchebags.org or whatever.
Although the fact that Lars Ulrich looses a buck doesn't keep me awake at night, I agree that it's not up to the "fans" to know when the artist has made enough money. But what worries me is that the only really good research I've read, concluded that it was the small artist that actually lost money on illegal download. And that's where my sympathy (and most of my musical taste) are.
Yup - I'm not losing any sleep over him either, but it doesn't work like that. And I hear you on the small and medium artists being the ones left holding the bag.
There have been some nasty issues where metal journalists have uploaded their demos with disastrous results for the bands in question, who didn't have much to go on to begin with. The label - Nuclear Blast if I remember correctly - managed to track down the perps and was in the process of suing them when the music journalists closed rank and basically threatened to blackball the label. Nice.
Piracy doesn't kill music. People do.
Lame, but I don't have any more comments to this post. For once we actually agree on a piracy post. And yet, I haven't spotted a single flying pig today.
...so you're currently residing in a "No Flying Pig" zone
Post a Comment