Anyway my whole thing... I guess, is that no one else gets screwed besides musicians in this.

1. the public get something for free so they don't give a fuck.

2. big business will move on to something else, don't think they wont find new ways of making cash off someone or something else.

3. most stores could sell other merchandise/ product if need be.

if a musician makes songs, you know dedicates their life to it, thats the one thing they do.
he or she is not a store, doesn't own a company... he/ she just likes to create.
how can he/ she afford to do that without some kind of financial payment for time and effort?

how do they afford to take the time to make you something nice without going without everything that you have and worked for?

Why should he/ she get nothing?
Why should you get paid for your time at work AND take his or hers?

If I suddenly decided not to pay for something and just make up some free spirited thinking along the lines of "all your time and effort should be free man" and take something i didn't build/ create/ spend a fuck load of time on would you be so understanding?

I think there are ways to let people/ artists make some money without having to fuck them over in the process.
We just haven't found it yet.

I guess thats my moral stand on downloads.

Bramble wrote:

Skronk wrote:Why would either situation come down to a moral argument, buying used, or downloading?

Well I think people who make the music should benefitt from it. Thats what brings up the moral question for me.

Example: I read that Bill Callahan is playing a free show as part of that night clubs at noon 'do. So I go "hmmmmm I don't have any smog. I really want to hear some" So I find his myspace and just listen to the songs posted, then I start listening to Smog on various myspace pages started by fans. I've been doing that for the last couple weeks. Today I said "enough, I'm buying Red Apple Falls right now" so I go to amazon and it dawns on me that the used copy I'm about to buy helps Bill out about as much as me listening to his myspace page every day.I decided to get the LP new, still from amazon though.

I'm also stoned, maybe I shouldn't buy music stoned.

did you go and see his show?

because that would have helped him more than buying Cd would have.

newberry wrote:I'm sure many people rip CDs they love and sell them.

you are? that's pretty subjective. Any evidence? and they still payed for 'em initially yeah?

sidenote: I work (when not traveling) as a volunteer at a community radio station. By law, we can only play from legit sources (and mp3s sound crap over the ariwaves), but unless the artist is Australian and registered with APRA, no one gets a cent - most cds come from station workers collections or are sent free by labels as 'promotion' . Would a band object to that? Does anyone?

you are? that's pretty subjective. Any evidence? and they still payed for 'em initially yeah?

No evidence. Instead of "I'm sure" I should have said "I'd guess." Maybe paid for them, maybe got them as gifts or free promos.

Would a band object to that? Does anyone?

Nope; I doubt it.

Andrew from tasmania wrote:

Bramble wrote:

Skronk wrote:Why would either situation come down to a moral argument, buying used, or downloading?

Well I think people who make the music should benefitt from it. Thats what brings up the moral question for me.

Example: I read that Bill Callahan is playing a free show as part of that night clubs at noon 'do. So I go "hmmmmm I don't have any smog. I really want to hear some" So I find his myspace and just listen to the songs posted, then I start listening to Smog on various myspace pages started by fans. I've been doing that for the last couple weeks. Today I said "enough, I'm buying Red Apple Falls right now" so I go to amazon and it dawns on me that the used copy I'm about to buy helps Bill out about as much as me listening to his myspace page every day.I decided to get the LP new, still from amazon though.

I'm also stoned, maybe I shouldn't buy music stoned.

did you go and see his show?

because that would have helped him more than buying Cd would have.

Its on July 28th so no, not yet. And its a free show put on by "an innovative partnership between the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, the Pitchfork Music Festival and the city's leading clubs and promoters"


I plan on going because I work in the South Loop and the show is is at noon, I don't think my attendance will help him more then buying a cd. Hes going to get paid for this show even if no one shows up, and a lot of people are going to show up. Its free, in the park.

Like I said I was stoned. I ended up buying the LP and I'm happy with the purchase. but the whole guilt thing was a little silly. my bad.

punk wrote:Anyway my whole thing... I guess, is that no one else gets screwed besides musicians in this.

1. the public get something for free so they don't give a fuck.

- Right.

punk wrote:2. big business will move on to something else, don't think they wont find new ways of making cash off someone or something else.

- Certainly. You could look at it as: finally big business will leave music/fans alone.

punk wrote:3. most stores could sell other merchandise/ product if need be.

- Yes; bootlegged albums/stickers/tees/hookahs, like they have done for years. I love mom 'n' pops but also can admit that many engage in this type of mild cheating. Pobody's nerfect.

punk wrote:if a musician makes songs, you know dedicates their life to it, thats the one thing they do.
he or she is not a store, doesn't own a company... he/ she just likes to create.
how can he/ she afford to do that without some kind of financial payment for time and effort?

-Two things: 1) musicians existed long before the advent of recorded music & its biz, and made cash by playing live, 2) Steve Albini (maybe you've heard of him?), for example, has always worked a day job to avoid depending financially on his music and therefore avoid compromising his music in any way. He made statements to this effect in all the little zines (also not money makers for their creators) that I read growing up in '80s Chicago. This idea/ethic made a big impression on me: whatever you love most, keep it pure by getting (most of) your money from something else.

punk wrote:I think there are ways to let people/ artists make some money without having to fuck them over in the process.

-Of course, and they've always existed. Play shows, sell tees or whatever else is not so easily copied, etc. Let's also remember that aside from a few upstanding indie labels, artists are rarely properly paid for album sales.

Quite simply, the game has changed a bit and bands will have to expect less money from album sales -- and if that is terribly upsetting, maybe they should re-examine their relationship to their own music.

As a fan, you cannot help a musician more than paying to get into their show, buying their records directly from them, and then playing those records for your friends. Whether or not you play it for your own personal enjoyment is in a separate realm entirely; it is the mindset where you evaluate the music as an impulse worth (or not worth) considering.

The discussions in regard to ebay, amazon, big business, downloading, burning, used record stores, and the promotional efforts of record labels has become downright silly. People who shop in real record stores are partaking in a much more intimate and sincere past-time than those who only shop online, and those who pay for an album have a more honest appraisal of art than those who get it for free.

Whether or not one chooses to spend their monies on something that they've already downloaded only says more about the relationship one has with the music than it does about the music itself.

Who am I to take issue when somebody makes a CD-R of an out-of-print
Spatula album to give to a friend? And who am I to take issue when a total douchebag spends legal tender on a Bedhead CD?

Who am I to take issue when somebody makes a CD-R of an out-of-print
Spatula album to give to a friend?

I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with this but that's a bit of a straw man argument. What if you're a fan of a Touch and Go band, and you download one or more of their albums without paying for them in any way (you don't buy the download, you don't by the CD, you don't buy the vinyl). Is that unethical, or not?

The only people i know who have mp3s / illegal downloads / cd rips / whatever as the majority of their collection would hardly buy music anyway. I know this is true because before any of the above options were common, they had little to no music or just a bunch of copied tapes. The people i know who always used to buy a lot of music still do, and get the stuff they care less about for free. I think this runs in tandem with the issue of audio quality as well.

To me, this means more music is being listened to by more people. The best thing about this is that the people i know who never cared as much about music (and still don't i suppose) are at least listening to more, and are slowly becoming more interested in going to see gigs.

I'm sure a lot of the mind bogglingly stupid statistics that illustrate a downtrend in sales are based on things like the fact that the massive artists are shifting less units than they used to.

Another point i haven't seen raised here is with regard to the second hand sales. I saw someone mentioned stores selling used cds/records helps their overall revenue and ability to stay open, which obviously is good thing. I think the same can be said for individual sellers though. I have sold many cds and records from my personal collection. More often than not i will use the money i make to buy new records. I'm sure i'm not alone in this practice.

newberry wrote:I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with this but that's a bit of a straw man argument. What if you're a fan of a Touch and Go band, and you download one or more of their albums without paying for them in any way (you don't buy the download, you don't by the CD, you don't buy the vinyl). Is that unethical, or not?

I am totally aware that out-of-print releases are an exception to the rule, but I find it hard to swallow that a "fan" would not bother to acquire the latest release, in commercial form, by a band they were a fan of.

At any rate, Touch & Go has several out of print titles that can only be owned via used record stores or downloaded copy. Either way, Touch & Go and the artist see no revenue.

I don't believe that being in the state of "not having purchased but listen to somehow" unethical in and of itself, as much as I consider the method of delivery (.wav, CD-R, listening to friend's LP) less satisfactory than ownership of the genuine article.

Surfrider wrote:The best thing about this is that the people i know who never cared as much about music (and still don't i suppose) are at least listening to more, and are slowly becoming more interested in going to see gigs.

These are the people who pay for entry into a show (or more likely, find a way to get in for free) and can't seem to shut up when a band plays. Presumably, this inability to care is what prevented them from spending their money on a record in the first place. These kind are a fucking nuisance.