File Sharing is good for American music

[ultrafilter]

@Tarrsk

…and my band, while not successful even in the broadest definition of the term, has gotten far more exposure by making our demo tracks available for free on Myspace than we ever would have attempting to sell them using the traditional business model.

Is that what we’re talking about when me mean file sharing? Or are we talking about P2P networks where entire albums propagate like viruses? The two are very different.

If it’s the first, the argument is academic; go to the website of any minor label, or any band that doesn’t have radio singles, and you’ll find a handful of songs for download. That’s obviously good for anyone looking into alternative or underground music–after all, no one’s going to hear it on the radio.

If it’s the latter, that’s much more contentious. I think that I–and a bunch of other people here–tend to assume this second notion when we hear the phrase “file sharing”, and that does seem to be what the OP had in mind.

[ultrafilter]

Y’all might be interested in this thread I started about Korn’s new deal with EMI.

[Scott_Plaid]

I would, but for heck’s sake, it’s Korn!

[Ms2001]

@msmith537

But lets not pretend that we are doing anyone a service by file sharing. At least not intentionally. We download files for two reasons - it’s free and we can.

Well, there’s a difference between downloading and uploading. The folks who go out of their way to make songs available to others, by putting their music collection in their shared folders, seeding torrents for days after they’re finished downloading, or posting albums to Usenet… I’d say they are doing a service for their favorite bands and their fellow music fans, or at least trying to.

[Tarrsk]

@ultrafilter

Is that what we’re talking about when me mean file sharing? Or are we talking about P2P networks where entire albums propagate like viruses? The two are very different.

If it’s the first, the argument is academic; go to the website of any minor label, or any band that doesn’t have radio singles, and you’ll find a handful of songs for download. That’s obviously good for anyone looking into alternative or underground music–after all, no one’s going to hear it on the radio.

If it’s the latter, that’s much more contentious. I think that I–and a bunch of other people here–tend to assume this second notion when we hear the phrase “file sharing”, and that does seem to be what the OP had in mind.

It’s both. The goal is that people will initially download the music from our website, and eventually it’ll show up on various file-sharing networks (assuming people like it, which is a whole 'nother debate ;)). We aren’t talking about a few free tracks, incidentally- every song that my band has recorded is put online for free. Admittedly, these are basically garage demos, although thanks to modern studio software, they’re quite listenable, and should we ever go to a studio to record a full album, we wouldn’t just toss the whole thing up on the internet. However, should the album get tossed onto Kazaa or whatever, I don’t really care. It really is, as previously stated, free advertising for the real cash source- shows and merch.

I will grant that I’m one of those folks that Argent Towers was describing: I have no illusions about making a career out of music. It’s something I do because I enjoy it, first and foremost. Any money that comes out of it is pure gravy… albeit wonderful, delicious gravy that can be used to buy stuff.

[jimpatro]

Buying a CD for just one song, at least for me, has always been about getting to know a band’s music. Their range, their varying arrangements, songwriting et al.
So actually while one song catches my ear, it’s just a catalyst to exploring their sound. Those who complain about having to buy a “whole” album for one song just seem like casual, Top 40 types to me.

Regarding illegal downloading, or more precisely encouraging it, is just rationalizing, back engineering, legitimizing an illegal, unethical activity to appease one’s conscience. Just because something is easy doesn’t make it right.

[Sam_Stone]

Again, the morality of downloading is clouded by the fact that the record labels use the long arm of government to give them power and control.

For example, if a song was supposed to go into the public domain five years ago, but didn’t because some lobbyist managed to bribe/cajole/pressure the government into extending the copyright, is it still unethical to download it? Illegal, sure. But unethical?

In Canada it’s even murkier, since our government caved in to the record industry and instituted a tax on blank recordable media, with the proceeds going to pay for ‘losses’ to the record industry from Canadian downloaders. I buy a lot of blank CDs and DVDs, but they’re not used for copying music. They’re used for archiving my software, storing backups of our family pictures, making copies of legally purchased music for use in the car (fair use), etc. And yet, I’m taxed on every one. So is it still unethical for me to download music? Can the record industry have it both ways?

Or what if the artist is cheated out of all his royalties by a record company employing shoddy/illegal accounting tricks to make sure their ‘expenses’ always cover the artist’s royalties. Still unethical to download the music?

What if I can’t hear the music I like on the radio because the record industry behaves like a cartel and forcibly restricts what stations can play? And what if they shut down alternative legal distribution networks like internet radio by forcing them to pay exhorbitant royalties, just so they can maintain control of distribution? Still unethical to download the music?

What if a record company locks up the back catalog of an artist, never issues reprints, and holds the copyright indefinitely? Still unethical to download that artist’s music?

What if the only legal copies of music available have such restrictive digital rights management that I can’t exercise my legal fair-use rights under the copyright law? Still unethical to download a hacked copy if I own the original?

There’s no black-and-white here, mainly because the record industry employs such sleazy tactics and is in bed with government to a degree almost no other industry can manage.

[Ms2001]

@jimpatro

Regarding illegal downloading, or more precisely encouraging it, is just rationalizing, back engineering, legitimizing an illegal, unethical activity to appease one’s conscience. Just because something is easy doesn’t make it right.

OTOH, just because something used to be difficult doesn’t mean it has ever been wrong.

I don’t know of anyone who believes computers or P2P technology made file sharing OK; personally, I’d say sharing copies of songs has always been OK, whether it took the form of sheet music, cassettes, burned CDs, or MP3 files. Technology has just made it possible to do so on a larger scale and with less effort.

[lorinada]

Ever since P2P became popular, I’ve been saying (on these boards and elsewhere) that the reason music filesharing has become so popular is becuase too many CDs are rushed to market with 1 or 2 listenable songs and 10 or 10 crappy filler songs yet they still want $20.00. I’ve been saying for a long time thta the answer would be to go back to singles, and charge, for instance, 99¢ apiece for them. This, in effect, is what they have done with the new Napster, iTunes and the like. I’m not sure of the new Napster’s popularity (being the dinosaur-lover that I am, I still have Win98 and therefore can’t use Napster) but clearly iTunes is wildly popular.

Maybe the whole filesharing argument is becoming moot?

I, too, wonder about the question dalej42 raised about out-of-print music.

And what about downloading songs that you in fact have already purchased? I used to do this frequently before I found a good, free ripper and installed a CD burner.