Well, leaving aside the argument that the wealthy usually have better taste in art than the pedestrian, a patronage system would not mean that an artist would receive his support just from the wealthy. Instead, it could be a lot of little donations from fans.
UnuMondo
I’m gonna disagree here. I have Garth Brooks mp3’s on my computer and it’ll be a cold day in Hell before I own a Garth Brooks CD.
Considering the this topic is coming because people are downloading music without paying I think your idea of fan’s donating money when they could get it for free is unrealistic.
The problem is that the farmer thinks he’s entitled to sell everybody an apple, and if only 65 people want an apple this year, he goes crying to the AFAA (Apple Farmers’ Association of America) about how apple piracy is killing his business, when in fact, he is killing his own business by selling rotting, worm-ridden apples for $18 each.
If I buy an apple from this farmer, eat it, plant the seeds and grow my own apple trees, and give away my own apples, have I stolen from the farmer?
Nonsense. You do realise that a great deal of the people downloading music are doing so to see if it is worth listening to, and if they like it they go out and buy the albums and see the band in concert? If the artist has any talent, people are willing to go out and do what it takes to support him or her. CD sales were up during the Napster period. I know that I have bought a ton of CDs after hearing artists for the first time on Napster or Gnutella.
UnuMondo
Nonsense. You do realise that a great deal of the people downloading music are doing so to see if it is worth listening to, and if they like it they go out and buy the albums and see the band in concert? If the artist has any talent, people are willing to go out and do what it takes to support him or her. CD sales were up during the Napster period. I know that I have bought a ton of CDs after hearing artists for the first time on Napster or Gnutella.
UnuMondo
Nonsense. You do realise that a great deal of the people downloading music are doing so to see if it is worth listening to, and if they like it they go out and buy the albums and see the band in concert? If the artist has any talent, people are willing to go out and do what it takes to support him or her. CD sales were up during the Napster period. I know that I have bought a ton of CDs after hearing artists for the first time on Napster or Gnutella.
UnuMondo
Nonsense. You do realise that a great deal of the people downloading music are doing so to see if it is worth listening to, and if they like it they go out and buy the albums and see the band in concert? If the artist has any talent, people are willing to go out and do what it takes to support him or her. CD sales were up during the Napster period. I know that I have bought a ton of CDs after hearing artists for the first time on Napster or Gnutella.
UnuMondo
Nonsense. You do realise that a great deal of the people downloading music are doing so to see if it is worth listening to, and if they like it they go out and buy the albums and see the band in concert? If the artist has any talent, people are willing to go out and do what it takes to support him or her. CD sales were up during the Napster period. I know that I have bought a ton of CDs after hearing artists for the first time on Napster or Gnutella.
UnuMondo
Whoa, sorry about the multiple post, which is odd considering I only tried to post it twice (receiving each time a “Document contains no data” error message).
UnuMondo
Whoa, sorry about the multiple post, which is odd considering I only tried to post it twice (receiving each time a “Document contains no data” error message).
UnuMondo
Some people may be doing that But the vast majority of people are downloading music because it beats paying for it. To say otherwise displays an amazing almost willful naiveté.
Cite? Relying on just downloaded files to enjoy music is not terribly fun. You can’t take it with you anywhere (yeah, there are portable MP3 players, but look at the sales of those compared to the number of file-sharing users), the sound quality sucks because most people only encode to very low bitrates, and people like liner notes.
UnuMondo
Read the comments on any Slashdot article about music, and you’ll see hundreds of people who illegally download music but are willing to pay for it, on reasonable terms.
$18 for a copy-protected CD-shaped disc with no liner notes, where 4 songs are good and the other 6 are worthless filler, is not reasonable.
$20 per month to download 10 tracks that can only be played on a Windows PC, and not burned to CD or copied to a portable player, is not reasonable.
Truly, this is a Field of Dreams opportunity. The customer base is there, they’re just waiting for the right product. And every time this subject comes up on that site, there are a few common suggestions. For example:
Set up kiosks that allow customers to mix their own CDs for a buck a track. With today’s technology this wouldn’t take any longer than a photo booth. I believe this has been tried in a few areas.
Set up a web site allowing users to download MP3 files for 50 cents a track, ideally with a stated percentage of that price going to the artist. I, for one, would gladly sign up for this. The problem is that every industry attempt has fallen short - too expensive, too restrictive.
Piracy is a crime on the seas that typically involves material theft and injury.
Theft deprives an owner of property.
What we’re discussing is unlicensed copying. Not piracy. Not theft.
To add…
If I purchase a CD and the music is mine, I have the right to copy it, resell it, whatever. If I’m only purchasing a license, then I have the right to download it in any form I like (wav, ogg, mp3, whatever), including if I own the original copy on cassette tape instead of CD (which was the primary purpose in our house of Napster–much faster and easier than dubbing our cassettes to digital).
Nitpick:
OSS is copyrighted, as opposed to public domain stuff, which has no copyrights.
The reason for it is simple - it prevents unscrupulous people from merely packing and selling this software as if it were their own.
While we are on the subject, I see that copyright is an necessary evil for precisely the same reason. Particularly with music. Now music can be digitally recorded and reproduced with no loss, you need some ways to keep the parasites off.
Cite yourself. You have not given any cite for saying people go online to look for stuff to buy except for your personal claim that you download music to see what is out. My cousin donwloads stuff and does not go out and buy most of the stuff she still listens too. Neither do my coworkers that download music.
Portable Mp3 players are very cheap and many people have them. You can burn regular CDs with downloaded MP3s. Liner notes!? I don’t read liner notes. My wife doesn’t read liner notes. My friends don’t read liner notes. They are not saying to themselves “I have all this good music but my life would be complete only if I had the liner notes.” Please.
You do not have the right to copy it and give or sell the copy to other people. That is pretty much reserved for the copyright holder.
No, but you do have the right to compile tracks you like and share those with friends. In the case of file-sharing software, you are sharing music with like-minded afficionados.
UnuMondo