babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Does peer-to-peer file sharing hurt artists?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Does peer-to-peer file sharing hurt artists?
djwhathaveidone
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3757

posted 20 February 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for djwhathaveidone     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The major setback to downloading mp3s, in my opinion, is that the artist doesn't get compensated for his or her creativity. BUT, who is it really hurting, the artists, or the major record labels that are exploiting them? Here's some interesting info on the topic:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/artists/

Any comments?

[ 22 February 2003: Message edited by: djwhathaveidone ]


From: far and wide... | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It only hurts the 1% of artists who have major label deals, radio and video airplay, and huge committments for promotion and distribution from the label.

It helps those artists whose music is not going to make it to the ears of the general public any other way.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 27 February 2003 10:32 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ask any artist, probably most where they make their money. 95% of them will tell you that they make their money from from touring and corporate deals.

They might take home 0.8% of the value of a CD. For indy musicians, P2P is a god send, musicians get promoted through their abilities not their image.*

*The above statement does not apply if the artists own the label.


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 03 March 2003 08:57 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My SIL is a musician, an indy who owns her own label... She finds that, as one who doesn't get a lot of mainstream airplay (she's a folkie), she makes the majority of her living touring, and the majority of her CD sales are made at the concert hall. Word of mouth is a big thing for her, and trading mp3s are part of that. It's actually more of a benefit, in her case, than a detriment.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
seeshell
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3420

posted 05 March 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for seeshell     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've "found" so many artists from my friend's burnt cds and such that I just wouldn't have found without the sharing of such files. And besides POP music (which has it's place in the world too...) you don't hear much of anything else on mainstream radio. And I'm a lover of all music
From: the big smoke | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 05 March 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is one thing to distribute information over the internet so long as the interested parties are informed of such transfers and they endorce such transfers. This is logical, fair, and sensible.
It is quite another to distribute intellectual property against the creators wishes.

From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a libertarian, I'm surprised that you have a problem with doing it without the permission or knowledge of the creator, Dave.

I would think that a libertarian point of view on the matter would be that the when technology makes it possible for people to file share, then it's up to the industry to use technology to protect what they consider to be their intellectual property. If they can't keep ahead of the technology of the people who want to burn CDs, well, guess the market has spoken - there's a greater market for file-sharing than there is for CD buying.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 05 March 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Standard kleptocratic myopia: It is permissible for the anointed to freely distribute other people's property.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 05 March 2003 11:33 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First of all, IMHO "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. You can't own an idea, any more than you can own an emotion -- notwithstanding the claims of modern marketing gurus.

But that aside: living off the earning potential of property, intellectual or otherwise, is called capitalism. I'm not against capitalism per se, but I do think the "winner take all" ethos that it promotes needs to be tempered with social responsibility. As others have said here, copyright protection works to the advantage of big name artists and not to the average musician.

I think that copyrights should expire in a matter of a few years, maybe even months. Artists like Shania Twain and Michael Jackson wouldn't be quite as wealthy as they are; but I think that local artists and unknown talent would be better able to compete, and I think the musical scene would be much richer as a result.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 06 March 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing with quick-expiring copyrights is, you might wind up in a situation where everyone just holds off releasing albums until the copyright wears off, then everyone (and by everyone I mean record companies too) grabs and starts trying to sell everyone else's work. Anarchic, sure, but I'd rather not see the demise of the album versus the mix-CD, offered in a billion different versions, all of which aren't worth paying for.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 06 March 2003 11:16 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the contrary -- if copyright expired in, say, one year (just for round numbers), then the recording company that owned the copyright would market it like crazy in that first year, trying to convince you that your life will not be worth living if you have to wait for a whole year to get your very own copy. Why would they wait until they no longer have a monopoly and can no longer charge monopolistic prices?

On the other hand, I'm sure a lot of consumers would wait a year and buy cheap copies, and a whole lot of "knock-off" companies would spring up to supply the demand. You could buy high quality clones of major albums, and endless variety of "greatest hits" compilations or even custom CDs tailored to your individual tastes, for little more than the cost of duplication.

I think after a decade or so, consumers would wonder why we ever allowed the music industry to maintain their monopolistic practices for so long. It would be seen as totally unreasonable that you still have to pay royalties to the Beatles (two of whom are dead!), for the privilege of copying a recording they made forty years ago; and it would be just plain silly that if you want a copy of "Mean Mister Mustard" (barely more than a minute long) you have to buy the entire "Abbey Road" album.

The first-run companies would lose some business to the knock-offs, but they'd still have their clientele and they'd still be able to charge their exorbitant prices to those who could afford it. Kind of like you can buy cheap imitations of Gucci or Ralph Lauren styles -- and yet somehow Gucci and Lauren manage to struggle on.

(edited to fix a spelling error -- you can tell how much Gucci merchandise I've purchased in my lifetime... )

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Ron Webb ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca