But Joe (who is working at Wendy’s) obviously has a computer. And Internet access. He can afford that, but he won’t afford Britney’s new “song.”
The decision about what to afford and what not to afford has been skewed by what is now available for free. Years ago, before we could download songs for free, people who really, really wanted to hear something would have to find another way of doing it. Maybe they’d pinch pennies in some other way, and afford it. Maybe they’d get a friend to tape it, (and the tape would be lesser quality, and more apt to wear out from repeated wear). Maybe they’d tape it off the radio (also of lesser quality). Or maybe they’d save and save and save and just buy it.
But now, the decision is so much more simple. Because it’s easy to get it for nothing. And that frees up their meagre, limited budget up for something else. So, their decision to not buy the song is not made in a vacuum. It’s made because they can weigh their alternatives. And they decide that downloading it for free and using their few extra bucks on something else is the way to go. But they might not make that same choice if they couldn’t download it for free.
Another question: how many of you will buy individual songs from Apple’s Music Store when it ports over to Windows? (Should be later this year.)
I find that I am buying a lot of pieces of music that I ordinarily would not buy, simply because it’s so simple and convenient to cherry-pick just the music I want. Granted, iTunes’ selection isn’t that great yet, but I’ve found a lot of stuff that I want.
So, how many of you will do it? Or, will you find some rationalization to not do it, and just keep listening to the music for free?
IMO, it is the same thing that Microsoft wants to do - seize complete commercial control of a huge portion of the Internet.
Old people like me remember well when the Internet was very young, and it was ignored as being a “toy”, a “big BBS”, and “so hard to get to and use it was beyond the reach of most”. I saw Bill Gates speak in 1995 (via videotape) where he called the Internet a “toy” and summed it up as something that MSN/whatever it was called then would soon eclipse. Then, suddenly, this whole Web thing took off, and the traditional industries and business models were caught flat-footed.
File sharing was easy to predict and easy to stop early on with a good online business model. But Big Music and Big Movies are not interested in change, because change is risky, expensive, and risky. They have been raking in tens of billions of dollars with little effort because the public was trained to proceed cow-like to the CD stores and the movie theatres week after week.
But now, suddenly, there’s a threat.
What really is in the mind of a person who downloads MP3’s? Think about it hard. It is alleged that more than 60 million Americans have downloaded a copyrighted MP3. What conclusions can one draw from that, if in fact it is true?
60 million Americans are criminally-minded sneaks,
60 million Americans hate the atrists and want to see them suffer,
60 million Americans hate Big Music and are “fighting the power”, or
60 million Americans felt that the product was not worth the money, to the point of being far more cost than the market can bear.
Now, obviously those 60 million Americans are divided among those 4 (and other) groups. But surely most can’t be in groups (1) and (2), and I doubt that most apathetic people out there can pry themselves out of their mental bean-bag chair to fall into group (3). So does that leave us in group (4)?
And dealing with group (4) is hard for an entrenched industry to face. Because they have to admit that their pricing structure and business model are not working.
Now, I’m not saying that ethically speaking a person should fight an incorrect pricing structure by theft. That’s (hopefully) morally wrong in most people’s books. But it seems that Big Music either does not recognize the problem, or sees that from a cost-benefit standpoint, they will do better to continue to fight via lawsuits and “buying” of Congresspeople.
That is so true yosemitebabe - so very, very true.
Look, this is a true story, and it’s one which exemplifies the hurdles that honest, fair minded people have faced thus far in the on-line music debate.
About 14 months ago, recognising that to download music for free was the wrong thing to do, I foolishly signed up for a $15US per month service which was offered by EMusic.com - and I use the word “foolishly” because when I visited their site, they gave every impression that their catalogue of legally downloadable mp3’s was everything the RIAA could possibly ever ask for. But nothing could be further from the case. It took me about 1 week to discover the EMusic’s catalogue was about as comprehensive as bare concrete basketball court, and that they had no major artists on their books whatsoever.
So I decided to cancel my service. Ah ha! They got me. Seems that in my haste to sign up, I agreed to contract terms which entitled them to keep billing my credit card for $15 per month for 12 months - regardless of when I cancelled. No amount of emails could fix the matter. I had to cop it sweet.
Hence, my story is this… even in the case where people such as myself have consciously sought to do the right thing from a legal standpoint, we have still been ripped off by cunt service providers.
Maybe me, depending on what format the songs are in. I don’t care how many times Apple wants to preach to me that AAC is “better” than MP3, I can hear the difference. I don’t care for MPEG4 audio, at least not at the bitrates I’m hearing. It will also depend on the exact TOS involved with downloading the songs. I clicked for a while on Apple’s site just now, and could not find a single, consolidated legal statement of exactly what one can and cannot do with the songs. I’m sure it’s on there, but I didn’t see it.
How about I will “keep buying the music” or “get it from someone other than the likes of Apple”? Those are valid options too, and don’t involve me being a thief. :rolleyes:
Boo Boo Foo - I had a similar bad experience trying to download the Wallace and Gromit short films. There I was, credit card in hand, wanting to exchange money for goods and/or services, and then I started reading their disclaimer…and their rules…and I found out that I could not even play the shorts on my same PC if I re-installed the operating system, without paying them a new fee to do so (utter and complete bullshit, and it since has changed), and so I said “thanks for nothing”, and they lost a sale. Look, the new business model of Big Music and Big Movies - everyone loses except them. :rolleyes:
There is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of sound quality from a CD to an MP3 version of the track taken from the CD. This is not to say that a CD is of great sound quality, because it isn’t. The CD medium was force fed down consumers throats with the promise of a better medium. It IS a better medium than Cassette, and certainly more convenient than an album (and more durable) but it is LIGHTYEARS behind vinyl. So far as the history of audio medium is concerned, vinyl reproduces the sound quality of the artists’ work much more accurately because it was a direct cut of the music to a medium, NOT a digital representation of the music as expressed by a certain number of points on a wave as indicated with the use of an oscilloscope. You bring any CD to me you want, and if I can find a vinyl version, I’ll sit you down in front of my Krell and B&W 802s and watch your stunned amazement as the vinyl WALKS ALL OVER YOUR CD in this Pepsi Challenge. Magnetic tape wasn’t so bad except for additional noise and distortion that it introduced to the media. For informational purposes (an so that this thread can continue with its participants educated with media formats in mind) the quality of music being represented most accurately (read: sound quality) by the medium contained is scaled accordingly:
Vinyl
DAT (a bit below as it is still a digital representation but far better than CD)
reel-to-reel
CD
8-track
Cassette
This list’s order is of course debatable, but barely.
If you’ll notice the trend, the evolution of sound media has degraded over time (with the exception of DAT, which never caught on), yet the prices have gone up exponentially (far faster than the cost of inflation) All of this has taken place BEFORE the likes of Napster, or Kazzaa, or Morpheus. So just who is screwing who here?One could successfully argue that this decline in sound quality medium was intentional, much like the DVD medium not being embraced by studios in the beginning because they didn’t want near-reference quality copies of their films available to the public (not that DVD comes close to film, but that is another matter that I’ll leave to the wind). Technology has taken us backward in the past thirty years in this regard, not forward.
Now you can add me to that short list as well. I download an entire album all of the time for the express purpose of deciding whether or not it is worth the purchase, not because I want the fancy art, or the lyrics, but because I want the best available copy of my music for listening purposes, and quite frankly, if you cannot hear the difference between an MP3 and a CD track then you haven’t really listened or your hearing is in question. I suspect the former.
Hidden? I don’t know about you, but I prefer no surprises when it comes to my money.
I cannot tell you how many times I have bought albums from bands I have never heard of by browsing around downloading MP3s. The RIAA has profited from my browsing on my computer much more than they did when I browsed some store or a dial on the radio. And furthermore, this argument about the band getting ripped off is deplorable coming from the RIAA. You can go platinum and still owe the record company money. Let me say that again for those of you in the cheap seats: YOU CAN GO PLATINUM AND STILL OWE THE RECORD COMPANY MONEY!!! Ask 3DOORSDOWN, SOUNDGARDEN, HOLLY COLE, AEROSMITH etc. You can actually sell millions of copies of your music, and not make a penny. Who is ripping off who here? The argument about the sound engineers and technicians all making money off album sales is also silly. They are paid for their service. They do not make a portion off the sales. They are paid a salary. Answer the question, ‘Who makes the most money from an artist’s recordings and what percentage?’ then follow that up with, ‘Who’s ripping who off here’.
Columbia House CD club is set up exclusively to allow you to rip them off by making it difficult to get your rejected-pick-of-the-month club selection back to them in a timely manner. They also send you picks of the month more often than once a month as promised. Why? They also turn your account over to The North Shore Collection Agency (housed at Columbia House in case you were wondering) the moment you are late. Why? The reason is that Columbia House doesn’t want you to fulfill your obligation to them; they want you to rip them off. They don’t even want your social security number when you sign up so they could report you to the credit company when you default. How could this be? Columbia House (BMI and others as well) are taxed into oblivion because so much money moves back and forth through their company every year. A company that large needs tax breaks like every other company. What better tax break than to benefit from a write off from products that cost them nothing to produce? It costs approximately .18 cents to process one fully packaged CD. When you don’t fulfill your membership, they send you a few threatening letters, then they write you off. Do you think they write off the amount that it cost them to produce the CD (18 cents) or the 20.00 that the CD retails for? And since we are on the subject, how in the hell can a CD that costs 18 cents to manufacture retail for 20.00? The same reason a 3 cent 2-liter Coke costs you 1.25 in the grocery store. Everybody gets a hand in it and makes a profit from it. What percent of that 20.00 CD do you think the artist gets? You would be startled. Why are they having to go to court to claim bogus-reported royalties if they are making SOOOO much from the album sales?
This is simply a case where the guy that’s been screwing you for years, is getting screwed (very little) now and he is crying and kicking and screaming over it. Do two wrongs make a right? Nope. Does this make me no better than the bully? Probably. I’ve spent thousands on music, tens of thousands. I have bought countless albums hoping that it contained more than just one good song that I heard, only to be let down. Ask me do I give a shit about the new try before you buy craze. I love it. It saves me tons, yet it doesn’t hurt them because the money goes back into artists’ music that I discovered while browsing. They make the same money from me, but my selections are benefitting me more. I am no longer buying crap to get to the sweet center of what I like to listen to. And as far as my methods for obtaining my music and the RIAA feeling like they are being cheated? To hell with them, I’m owed.
The RIAA is screaming because they have gotten a glimpse of their endgame and they do not like it. Slowly, but surely, they are becoming extinct. More and more artists are discovering new ways to get their albums to the masses through internet resources and they are getting a bigger chunk of the pie because of it. The artists that are embracing this new technology are making more money, not less. The recording industry is falling from the hands of the corporations and into the hands of those that make the music. All monsters make hideous noises in their death throws. This monster will be no different. I say we join hands and sing happy songs to the melody of their thrashing, “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony…” music file sharing will never die as we have become to used to having it. For every effort to thwart there will be an equal or greater effort to maintain it. They know this and they are scared, and they are taking drastic measures to fight it. The smartest among them are currently looking into other options, because if you can’t beat them, join them.
I mentioned Apple because so far (as far as I know, anyway) it’s the most user-friendly music download service out there. But hey–if there is another equally user-friendly download music store out there, the question would apply for them as well.
As far as Apple’s terms, my understanding (as a customer) is that you can have the music on three different computers at a time. If you want to switch computers, just “deactivate” one and “activate” another. And it works with iPods. And you can burn 10 CDs of the same playlist. Note: same playlist. Change the playlist around a little, and burn 10 of that too. I think the possibilities for CD burning would be nigh onto endless.
Bottom line, my question was–if there was a decent quality downloadable music store where you could cherry pick which songs you wanted to buy, would you do it, or would you decide that you couldn’t “afford” it and listen to downloaded free music instead? (And I mean the collective “you,” not singling out anyone in particular.)
Gladly, as long as I could:[ul]
[li]Pay 50 to 99 cents per song - the digital album should be cheaper than the CD[/li][li]Download high-bitrate MP3 files that I can play in my car, DVD player, Rio Volt, other computers, etc. - no proprietary nonsense or time bombs[/li][li]Preview the whole song before buying it[/li][/ul]
Ah, that’s nice to hear. I’d like to have an online music store like that too.
Another question: If there was an online store like this, and you could pick and choose which pieces of music to buy, would you encourage others to buy the same songs themselves, or would you give them a copy of the one you bought instead? Would you allow the songs that you’d bought to be distributed on P2P so that others could download it and have it without paying for it?
(BTW, I’m not just asking Mr2001 this, I’d love to hear from anyone else too.)
17 USC 106 and 17 USC 501. Among the exclusive rights of a copyright owner are the rights to reproduce a work in copies (which covers downloading) and to distribute copies of the work (which covers sharing). Unauthorized creation or distribution of copies of that work is copyright infringement.
**
Yes, the rules are somewhat complex. But you still got them wrong.
It is often a mistaken belief of those advocating filesharing that it is the burden of the copyright owner to show that free copying is not fair use. It is not. Fair use is a defense to conduct that would otherwise be infringing. Since it is black letter law that unauthorized reproduction and distribution is infringement, it is the infringer’s burden to show that fair use applies.
The effect of the use on the potential market value for or value of the copyrighted work is one of the factors in the fair use analysis. But only one. Other factors include the purpose of the use (i.e. is it for private, noncommercial purposes, or for commercial purposes), the nature of the work, and the amount taken.
When the copying involves the entirety of a highly creative work (as is the case with copying music files), fair use is generally found when the copying is done for private personal convenience, such as taping a television program to view later and burning MP3s from a CD you own onto a Rio player or similar device to take it with you. Copying music onto your own iPod or making mix tapes for your car would also fall into the same category. The reason being that you are simply taking the copy you have and translating it into a more convenient format for purely personal use.
Making a copy available for others to use is not a private use, and is generally viewed more harshly and requires more justification. Making free unauthorized copies available (or deliberately placing the file in a place where free unauthorized copies are likely to be made) places those copies in competition with authorized copies, and will generally be viewed as a commercial transaction, even if no money changes hands. Certainly, it is not a private personal use of the kind that generally falls under the fair use penumbra.
So, already there are several factors in the fair use analysis that weigh against filesharing. The effect on the market is ambiguous at best. While proponents of filesharing often cite the statistic about CD sales being their highest when Napster was live, filesharing has, since then, become more widespread as more and more people have access to the higher speed Internet connections that make filesharing practical. And CD sales have slumped. The direct causal link between one and the other may not be possible to reconstruct perfectly, but it certainly would not shock any Econ 101 student that in the long term, it is difficult to compete on price with free.
But the position you advance, that lack of economic harm automatically means fair use is simply not the law.
See, I wouldn’t have that big a problem with the RIAA’s position, except that it seems to be “We know that file sharing is hurting sales, it has to be!”, when all objective evidence that I’ve seen indicates that the opposite is the case. I recall talking to Mary Prankster last year, and she straight out asked me to fileshare any copies of her songs I had ripped off of her CDs, because it increased her exposure and generated more CD sales, more knowledge of her music and more people coing to her shows. ( As an aside, I encourage any of the big music fans in this thread to check out her songs, she is, IMHO, the best lyricist to come out of Baltimore since Frank Zappa, and she flat out rocks, too)
Those of you interested in another article on the matter might want to check out what [url=“http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html”]Janis Ian has to say.
[/quote]
From that article, dealing with the free sharing of books of all things, a product that most consumers only use once, as opposed to music where it’s listened to again and again:
No, I think the real problem here is competetion. The RIAA and the major lables control, for the most part, that single, priceless commodity in the music biz:exposure. With p2p, they no longer control access and exposure! The real problem isn’t that p2p “deprives artists of their money”, the RIAA is doing that fine all by itself. The real problem isn’t that “It cuts down on sales” because every study I’ve ever seen shows that it dosen’t. P2p isn’t “driving mom and pop stores out of business”, that’s another thing the RIAA excells out with volume discounts for the major chains. No, what p2p is doing is giving the consumer the ability to shop and compare all of the music he wants to hear ( NOT what the record companies want to push ) and then purchase what he likes. There’s no room in that scenerio for a monolithic Big Brother style organization controling what people have access to, and they’re running scared. Perhaps Apple’s famous MacIntosh commercial from 1984 might have been more accurate if the tagline had been "In 1998, consumers will demand Napster, and you’ll see why the future won’t be like “1984"”
To be honest, it depends on what your definition of “buy” is. I ask that because I don’t think that the RIAA uses the same definition as the rest of us. IIRC, the sites that they have sanctioned for paying for downloads involve renting the song, not actually buying it. For $1 or whatever you download the song. You can’t make copies, and it deletes itself after 30 days. Again, that is my understanding of how it works.
Funny that you should mention Microsoft. What is their role in all of this? I’m running XP and when I put a CD in the drive to listen to music at my computer, a list of options comes up and one of them is to make a copy of the CD. If the RIAA wants to fight piracy it seems to me that this is exactly the type of thing that they should be going after.
I guess that the problem for me is that the RIAA has vague goals. They want to ensure that the artists get their royalties, yet allow member companies who have a long history of screwing artists. They want to stop piracy, but don’t actually go after the serious sources of privacy. And god help the person over there who thought that going after a 12 year old kid was going to be a good move PR wise.
It should be noted that artists of major record labels probably make more like a three cents to a nickel from every CD purchase if anything. Typically, the record contract stipulates that you have to pay back many exorbitant recording fees which can total several hundred thousands of dollars in addition to paying for the producers, marketing, outreach, cd production, etc.
Artists typically make a little more if they are on an independant label per CD sale. Oftentimes the major labels bankrupt bands because of this. The only bands that have any sway in this are the major multi-platinum types of bands like Brittany Spears(sp?), Metallica, etc. In this case they pull in so much money that it doesn’t quite matter if they get a shiny dime per album sale or three pennies.
This isn’t excusing file theft. It is pointing out that the real theft is coming from the RIAA.
Weirddave, every artist has the right to control distribution of their work, just like every property owner has the right to decide who gets access. Just because the guy next door lets the kids in the neighborhood play in his yard doesn’t mean that I have to let them play in mine. For some artists, particularly those that may be more outside of the mainstream, distribution through p2p may make commercial sense. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to accept it for their works.
Your book author example, while a nice anecdote, probably wouldn’t work as well if her whole catalog were available at the free site. Free works to give a taste, but if the publisher didn’t control distribution of the other works in her catalog, she very well might not see a dime. Put another way, if someone else puts her entire catalog on the free site, there may be a greatly heightened interest in her work, but no corresponding remuneration to her.
Your musician example is an example of someone who has an interest in putting her work out there for free, but she strikes me as an artist who makes more of her $$ from live shows rather than album sales. In that case, free distribution makes sense, since it’s the album that is being used to promote the show, rather than vice versa. But again, just because it works for Mary Prankster (who seems to play smaller venues like bars and clubs) doesn’t mean that Metallica (who has the fan base to play arena shows) has to adopt the same model. Popular bands like Metallica play big houses, making their live shows much much more expensive. For them, the tour promotes the album, so giving the album away for free doesn’t make as much sense.
Sure from some audiophile geek perspective, and you would be right, but if I encode an mp3 at 320k and play it for people, I bet 99% of them couldn’t tell the difference.
**
A lot more goes into a good sounding recording then the sampling frequency, and if properly done, 44khz is plenty.
**
Lightyears? :rolleyes:
From a technical standpoint the sound quality is better, but that’s like saying 5 billion dollars is better then 1 billion. The fact is they are both nice, and once a certain threshold is passed people could care less. After that, CD is superior in every other facet, ease of use, storage, features, etc.
**
First of all let’s grasp the concept of how music is recorded.
The equipment is set up for recording, mic placement, line levels, and room acoustics all can have an impact on the sound.
Once the music is being recorded, on the fly equalization, input levels, and the media being used can all have an impact on the sound
The recording is finished, we enter mixdown, a critical stage of bringing the whole song together. Effects such as compression are added, levels are tweaked, and elements such as guitars or vocals enhanced. At every one of these junctures, the recording can change for the better or the worse.
The final stage is mastering, in which a secondary mixdown occurs and overall song levels are uniformed. Heavy compression is added, and additional effects may be added as well. The way these tools are utilized will…wait here it comes…have and impact on the sound quality of the recording.
Lastly the material is transferred to the media.
What’s the point?
There are a hundred factors that go into making a quality recording, the media is one of them, and its number 97.
**
Who cares?
**
Well that and the media degraded over time because the tape would stretch, fast forwarding to the next song is a pain in the ass, and media would often jam in the player.
**
Let’s take a look.
**
Which format up there has a transport that doesn’t physically touch the media, increasing its lifespan and maintaining the sound quality it had from day one?
Which format up there uses a player that is less then $50 and can be found at an electronics or retail store in the country?
Which format utilizes instant navigation features and can be programmed to play the songs in custom order?
Which format is most practical to use inside and outside of my house, in my car, or in my boombox while I go fishing on a lake?
There is so much more then unperceived sound quality
**
bah, who cares.
**
Well on the one hand, the costs involved in making an album have risen, so it costs more, and on the other, they are screwing us, so it costs more.
**
Go ahead I’d like to hear what you have to say.
**
I wasn’t watching Saving Private Ryan at earsplitting levels in my 5.1 digital surround sound home theater with my huge flatscreen WEGA 15 years ago. I think this Xmas, I’ll take a huge technological step backwards into a plasma screen HDTV.
**
You are one of the few then, good for you, just realize no matter how you spin it, you are still doing something illegal
**
For all intents and purposes a correctly encoded CD is pretty damn good sounding. Is it CD quality? No. Do you think people care? No.
BTW I never intended my claim to be taken literally, or to have some audiophile nutjob call me on it.
MP3 is not CD quality, got it that?
**
Hidden meaning songs you like. I’ve bought albums where most of the songs sucked, and ones where I was suprised by some really good songs towards the end. It’s called a double-edged sword.
**
Well everyone needs some way to rationalize the things they do. I bet you tell yourself this before you go to sleep at night.
**
So what?
**
SO WHAT!?!?
**
Really? I want a name of someone that sold millions of albums and has not made a penny of it. Losing it all later doesn’t disqualify you.
**
Everybody.
**
Less albums selling, less albums will be made, less work.
**
Actually most of them own their own studios and rely on a steady stream of business.
**
This is a pathetic strawman.
**
What the fuck does this tirade have to do with file sharing? Sounds like something for the BBB.
**
Cite?
**
What does this have to do with filesharing?
**
Maybe so, but what you are doing isillegal…
**
…and you damn well know it.
**
[quote]
Does this make me no better than the bully? Probably. I’ve spent thousands on music, tens of thousands. I have bought countless albums hoping that it contained more than just one good song that I heard, only to be let down. Ask me do I give a shit about the new try before you buy craze. I love it. It saves me tons, yet it doesn’t hurt them because the money goes back into artists’ music that I discovered while browsing. They make the same money from me, but my selections are benefiting me more. I am no longer buying crap to get to the sweet center of what I like to listen to. And as far as my methods for obtaining my music and the RIAA feeling like they are being cheated? To hell with them, I’m owed.
The problem is you and the guy at the record label are one and the same.
**
:rolleyes:
Well I suspect the problem will outlive the RIAA, because some people will always want something for free.
Actually, no, he or she dosen’t. I refer you to a section of the othet article I quoted, the on where I screwed up the link (This one).
This monopoly is what p2p is threatening, not anything else.
I don’t know anyone who would prefer to read a book online rather than having the actual book in their hands ( notice that e-books haven’t exactly taken over the world ). Even if Ms. Lackey’s entire catalog were available online, and I read one of her books and liked it, I wouldn’t read the others online, I’d go out and buy them. Can anyone who is criticizing p2p give me one example of a scientific study ( double blind testing, reproducable results ) that shows people who share music don’t do this? I hear a lot of “Well of course people won’t buy music if they can get for free”, stated as if it’s a law of nature or something, but no proof. If that’s the case, why can’t it be proven?
Well, I never had the opportunity to talk to Metalica, so I couldn’t post about doing so, could I? In any event, given the state of the music industry as posted above, the number of big name acts that are able to make money on album sales in the current marketplace is vanishingly small. Given that fact, to claim that p2p should be banned because “Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business” ( quote from NARAS president Michael Greene ) is a flat out lie. It’s dishonest bullshit, and should be exposed for what it is.
A contract is a voluntary act, Weirddave. So what I said still holds. If an artist chooses not to sign with a record company, that’s their prerogative. If they do, well, then they’ve signed over rights.
And I don’t think anyone here is saying that p2p should be banned for those artists who voluntarily choose to use those networks as a method of distribution. But my point, which apparently sailed right over your head, is that those artists who do not choose to have their work distributed over p2p networks should not be forced to do so. Just because one artists chooses to do it one way shouldn’t mandate that choice for everyone.
