downloading music

frida

New member
Well... and what if sometimes its really impossible to get music anywhere else but download from inet and such programmes as soulseek are rather convenient for this. So why not use it )

As for the answer to the question, i use flashget by myself but you will find some more soft on this subject on this resource

Good luck;)
 

john eden

male pale and stale
My position is that downloading of soulseek (apart from the caveats above) is a bad thing. I see this as an opening point for discussion and it's good to see some people justifying their other positions.

The main issue is of course that in most cases this does not get discussed, people just take it for granted that they can gorge themselves on free music without thinking about the consequences. So as a benchmark I think my postion is the best starting point.

Most people just don't want to do the research into which labels are paying their artists and which are not.

This study (also by the Future of Music coalition, a very cool group of folks) suggests that at best, the artists they studied were divided on downloading, with 35% saying file sharing is not bad for them because of the marketing and promotion advantages (I know it was a biased sample of 2700 people, but it is significant anyway).

I'll try and read the study later but would be interested to know which countries the artists were from and the way in which they were sampled (email?). Even setting that aside it seems that 65% of artists think that file sharing is bad for them.
 

mms

sometimes
I'm sure you're right, but I am more concerned about the artists than the industry.

It is indecent - downloading music by people like Prince Alla, for example, when he is living in a wooden shack.

People I know have seriously considered giving up releasing music over the last few years...
lots of labour of love tiny labels i know are shutting shop or releasing less music, its funny how in some ways instant gratification of taking music for free has meant smaller labels having to act like bigger ones, working on marketing etc so their commodity is more visible and has more value, it's rather gloomy, esp as a strong underground is essential to music developing.

It's simply wrong to not pay people for the work they put into to music you enjoy.

Also its a real shame, maybe nostalgia wise for me when everyone has a record b4 its actually out on mp3, that rush people have to get it, it destroys something precious about timing, that first time you get something and open it and listen to it. There is a real value to that those times are very memorable.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Is part of the problem that there is still a myth among the general populace that any artist with a recognisable name is making the big bucks and can afford to lose a few sales, thus making the wholesale gorging on P2P largely guilt free?

I use soulseek but mostly for unavailable and public domain stuff - which it is amazing for. I also use it to check out music I haven't heard. I buy anything I really like and intend to keep listening to (if I can find it that is), partly to support the artists and partly to satisfy my acqusitional hoarding urges. I realise not everyone does but then I suspect that most of those people wouldn't have bought the music anyway.

I think the real trouble is the big record / marketing companies use their financial power to ensure that only 'their' artists ever get really noticed on a large scale.

Anyone operating in non-mainstream areas of music will generally accept that they will have to get by selling a few hundred vinyl records or by playing live shows - even then you are up against timid distros, nasty promoter rackets and a music press in the pocket of the biggies.

Bloody hell - good job I don't make music to make money.
 

ripley

Well-known member
It's simply wrong to not pay people for the work they put into to music you enjoy.

I won't reiterate this again, after this post. But I did just suggest it, and I'll restate:

that's an argument that works equally well against giving any money to the big record labels, because they do that all the time (not pay people for their work) and buying stuff off them perpetuates that system.

besides, some people put work into things because they want you to enjoy it and don't expect payment. is it simply wrong to respect their wishes?

regarding later comments:

I agree the industry is changing in lots of ways. As far as the middlelman goes.. When it's a middleman we like, like indie records shops and labels, there are some interesting issues:

I really love record shops and it's sad to see them going out of business.. that said I have 2000 records in my house and can't really pay more rent to store more of them, plus I already destroyed my back touring with a 75 pound box of vinyl.. my health insurance isn't good enough to cover that.

other middleman issues: I know many people who run small indie labels that they make no money on. Of course, lots of their costs used to be pressing vinyl/burning cds, storage, and distribution.. all of which are lowered by digital media and the internet.. for the ones who ARE doing for love, seems like they could do ok as a clearing-house marketing group, event promoter, other experience-based services. And there's always merchandise..

the question of how are artists going to get paid is the biggie. I just urge people to see that the status quo is NOT that all artists get paid via royalties.

And as soon as it's less than all, you're making an argument that is weighing costs and benefits to different groups of actors. If you're going to do that, do it consciously. It doesn't make sense to lump them all together. And that's how the majors, who really and truly do rip people off, get by, because they profit from that elision.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
Ripley, most of that doesn't make sense to me but lets deal with the first part.

It's OK to steal because they do, is that what you are saying?
 

ripley

Well-known member
Ripley, most of that doesn't make sense to me but lets deal with the first part.

It's OK to steal because they do, is that what you are saying?

no, that is absolutely not what I am saying, in any way.

If an artist literally loses money off every sale, because of how their record contract worked out, you are literally costing the artist money whenever you buy a record. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

they do not receive money from it, they lose money from it. What's more, your money contributes solely to the engine that perpetuates this cost to artists, by making the labels richer and the artists poorer.

however, in terms of law, this is not "stealing" because it's all done under cover of the legal contract. So to you, is it perfectly ok, and you are not complicit even though it's your act that takes money away from the artist?

(and takes money away much more directly than downloading, since downloads are not 1to1 replacements for sales)

Clearly the larger issue is that you should not use the word "stealing" sloppily. Do you mean it as according to the law (which includes no protection for people who are bamboozled by people with more power from them)? According to law, which is politically and locally defined, and which can change according to political pressure? Before 2002 in the US it wasn't stealing to download materials written in 1978, and now it is stealing to do so. Does our outrage over theft simply switch on after 2002?

I think the main argument here is a moral one.
I hear "stealing is bad" but I'm not sure what people mean by stealing, because rules of ownership for the results of creativity are culturally (and subculturally) defined. This is so clearly obvious with respect to different norms in jazz, dub, dancehall, hip-hop, trad irish music, etc etc that it shouldn't even be up for debate. At some point, those definitions may be in conflict, and I don't think it's self-evident which side you are going to pick unless you just keep your personal definition regardless of the effect on others or their own wishes.

being in law school, i'd just say that taking a strong moral stand on "the rule of law" with respect to copyright law would be ridiculous.

I think some people are confusing a moral argument based in a certain vision of ownership with the admittedly convoluted realities of the industry.

other people are confusing the interest of record labels with the interest of the artist. there are lots of different issues, depending on who the artist is and who the label is.

for example, in many cases: 95% of the money from a CD sale supports the label so they have the power to (among other things) have their lawyers write shitty contracts that forces artists to make only 5% of CDs, force artists to change their style in conjunction with corporate interests etc etc etc. If you want to make a strong moral stand against harming the artist, how do you measure all of those harms? does the 5% you give to the artist outweigh all the other stuff?

with indie labels, it's more complicated, as I wrote above. But it's simply silly to bring it all down to "stealing" or "not stealing." How you measure the harms and benefits is obviously more complicated than that.

if you want to simply not go against the artists' wishes, that's great. But that too is a basically moral decision (especially as artists can be wrong, misinformed, or malicious). And I'd reiterate that the morality of participating in a larger system of exploitation is worth a thought as well.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
I'd like Ripley to defend me in court, when that inevitably happens.

Except... she (and the "downloading community") have yet to come up with a way of:

a) Identifying artists who are OK with people downloading their work rather than buying it.
b) Reimbursing artists.

She is right that it is a moral issue, of course.

And she is right that theft is culturally defined.

But I dunno there just seems to be some actual solutions missing from all of this, setting aside the proletariat seizing the means of production anyway. ;)
 

hurricane run

Well-known member
"I'd guess most people here are music heads and respect artists and do try before they buy. However, to believe that this is the case for everyone is pointless and holds no water. There's two generations below us, that don't pay for anything and do see why they should, they don't know what an LP is nor care, they talk about gigabytes not amazing basslines, they borg the fuck out of thousands of pounds worth of music, 500gig a time. Trust me, it's going to get so much worse because the major corps don't know what to do, it's fucked."

Totally agree. Was working with a "teenager" and we started talking about the Sabbath. Told him first lp was one of my faves. He turned up the next day with a dvd with the entire catalogue ripped off a torrent for me. Nice gift but...

Hope this discussion doesn't meander into intellectual property law. Life is too short. A crusty judge will make the decisions on these issues. UK Govt about to extend copyright to please Cliff Richard (actually makes EMI a more attractive target for a takeover, see todays business page). Business is business. "Artists" signing these contracts don't get any sympathy from me. I remember speaking to a member of a now successful 'indie' band, who told me he'd signed a publishing 'deal'. How much he'll lose over the next 50yrs for the sake of a few thousand pounds I hate to think. On the other hand Royal Trux really screwed Virgin ha!
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
If an artist literally loses money off every sale, because of how their record contract worked out, you are literally costing the artist money whenever you buy a record. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

So, it's OK to steal from the label and IF the artist doesn't make any money - utter bollocks

they do not receive money from it, they lose money from it. What's more, your money contributes solely to the engine that perpetuates this cost to artists, by making the labels richer and the artists poorer.

Who are they that make no money?

however, in terms of law, this is not "stealing" because it's all done under cover of the legal contract. So to you, is it perfectly ok, and you are not complicit even though it's your act that takes money away from the artist?

(and takes money away much more directly than downloading, since downloads are not 1to1 replacements for sales)

That's so drunk it doesn't even know it has legs, guff.

Clearly the larger issue is that you should not use the word "stealing" sloppily. Do you mean it as according to the law (which includes no protection for people who are bamboozled by people with more power from them)? According to law, which is politically and locally defined, and which can change according to political pressure? Before 2002 in the US it wasn't stealing to download materials written in 1978, and now it is stealing to do so. Does our outrage over theft simply switch on after 2002?

The law is miles behind what is happening, in more ways than one.

I think the main argument here is a moral one.
I hear "stealing is bad" but I'm not sure what people mean by stealing, because rules of ownership for the results of creativity are culturally (and subculturally) defined. This is so clearly obvious with respect to different norms in jazz, dub, dancehall, hip-hop, trad irish music, etc etc that it shouldn't even be up for debate. At some point, those definitions may be in conflict, and I don't think it's self-evident which side you are going to pick unless you just keep your personal definition regardless of the effect on others or their own wishes.

being in law school, i'd just say that taking a strong moral stand on "the rule of law" with respect to copyright law would be ridiculous.

I think some people are confusing a moral argument based in a certain vision of ownership with the admittedly convoluted realities of the industry.

other people are confusing the interest of record labels with the interest of the artist. there are lots of different issues, depending on who the artist is and who the label is.

for example, in many cases: 95% of the money from a CD sale supports the label so they have the power to (among other things) have their lawyers write shitty contracts that forces artists to make only 5% of CDs, force artists to change their style in conjunction with corporate interests etc etc etc. If you want to make a strong moral stand against harming the artist, how do you measure all of those harms? does the 5% you give to the artist outweigh all the other stuff?

with indie labels, it's more complicated, as I wrote above. But it's simply silly to bring it all down to "stealing" or "not stealing." How you measure the harms and benefits is obviously more complicated than that.

if you want to simply not go against the artists' wishes, that's great. But that too is a basically moral decision (especially as artists can be wrong, misinformed, or malicious). And I'd reiterate that the morality of participating in a larger system of exploitation is worth a thought as well.

As a label owner and an artist I can state with some degree of fact, that you are talking shit.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
But I'd want Martin Dust on my side in a fight

Haha But it just doesn't stand up to any of the facts of what is actually happening, there are no examples given and no facts - the whole of the post is built on sand.

I've sat in meetings with small and large labels and I'm very aware of what is happening and the new "no pay" culture that is now around us all - they have no clue as to why they should pay the artist or label. Ripley's examples seem to be built around examples like the Bay City Rollers or S Club 7 - where the management had them over with the classic "some money or none" contract, this very rarely happens these days but if you are stupid enough to sign something without asking a lawyer, well....And I don't know an artist alive that has ever signed over 95%, ever.

I'm more than happy to explain my stance and no I don't know what the answer is but downloading my tracks is hurting my artists and label, I know that for a fact.
 

Dusty

Tone deaf
i'd just say that taking a strong moral stand on "the rule of law" with respect to copyright law would be ridiculous.

Thats an easy statement to make until its your tracks you find people sharing on soulseek. Especially if you have unsold stock sitting in a room gathering dust.

Its the true indie labels that are suffering from sharing the most, even though you only treat them as a footnote in your post ripley. I'm sure that for most of the readers of this forum, those are the people that matter and the people we are worrying about - they aren't there to rip off the artists, most of the time they are the artists.

I know what you are trying to say, I just get the feeling that you might be sending out the wrong message to certain other people reading the forum, people like the guy who started this thread.

Not that anything anyone says on here is going to stop the P2P monster, and I think the musical world will be a sadder place when artists can only afford to do it as a minor hobby, and album artwork is a 150x150 pixel jpeg.
 

blubeat

blubeat
But I dunno there just seems to be some actual solutions missing from all of this, setting aside the proletariat seizing the means of production anyway. ;)

I outlined some of what I believe the way forward in my first post. However in repsonse to John's post here are my proposed solutions:

1. Only publish on vinyl to reduce the risk of electronic theft. An alternative might just be to release the paper based score of your tune.

2. All music to be free and artists to make money on "other" merchandise (an example might be selling drugs at a concert).

3. Once an artist has proved popular (over 100,000 downloads) then he may be granted an annuity which grows in relation to his popularity. I would be happy for this to be financed through the Council Tax (potentially we could have the rubbish collected just once a year as an offset).

4. Let Ken Livingstone decide what to do (actually no. 3 above was his suggestion to me by email this morning).

5. Turn off the Internet.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
I dunno, I thought your previous solutions were "the music industry will be OK" and "we're still here after home taping" which kind of misses the point about there being a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.

We did tapes for each other but were still jealous of whoever had the real thing. Now there is no real thing for many people. Flogging t-shirts is one way forward but that also increases people's overheads and they have to be designers and clothing salespeople as well as musicians.

But yeah, some positive solutions, blu sky thinking all of that good stuff innit. :D

I think another thing which troubles me is that music will increasingly become the preserve of people who can either do it with no overheads (acapella buskers) or people who have enough money stashed away to not care about overheads.

The idea that someone like Russ D could make a bit of money out of records to be able to beef up his studio or Twilight Circus could go to JA and use studios there is basically a thing of the past.

It would be fine for music to be free if musical equipment was free.

Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
1. Only publish on vinyl to reduce the risk of electronic theft.

Thing is, there is already an infrastructure for releasing illegal vinyl rips as MP3s in place, so the artists kind of end up with the worst of both worlds: no compensation, and their music’s being recorded by an amateur through the line-in of a crappy soundcard and then compressed to an MP3.

As I wrote in the record shop thread, I think there is a huge generational gap here, where many young composers sympathise with the thought of recorded music as some sort of public domain, and do not expect to earn a dime through their music-making (and thus treat is a costly—but rewarding—hobby), whereas the older ones are pissed off at what they consider greedy theft. I imagine this is more common in welfare-states, though.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
It would be fine for music to be free if musical equipment was free.

Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.

The culture of piracy means that sequencers like Cubase are spread illegally, too. But you are right in that it probably means less opportunities for expensive band recordings.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.

We did tapes for each other but were still jealous of whoever had the real thing. Now there is no real thing for many people.

The only solution perhaps is to have a licensed bandwidth situation where all music is essentially free but "taxed" based on the identification of filetypes passing thru servers-- revenues being assessed in similar way to royalties for airplay now perhaps?
Either that will develop or music will become increasingly polarised between the ultra-underground (essentially "gentleman musicians") and the hyper-marketing budget overground of an increasingly small range of trans-global mass appeal. The interesting stuff in the middle gets squeezed tho, of course...

Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.

Haha-nice try but remember the shit-storm Gutta kicked off by putting a few Dubstep MP3s on his site last year? Dubstep producers appear unbelievably paranoid about their stuff leaking...
 
Top