How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?

[deastman]

I just wanted to add one thing to this discussion. Regardless of whether pirating music is right or wrong, anyone who believes that the major labels are just innocent victims should read "Confessions of a Record Producer" by Moses Avalon.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

[shamann]

What will motivate me to make another one?

I don't follow this line of thinking. What motivated you to make the first one? Given the pittance reward that you've outlined for the amount of effort, it sure doesn't sound like you did it for the money. And if you're putting ten years effort in to a less than minimum wage, perhaps you might want to reconsider your business model.

The point that's being missed in a lot of posts is that most of us think stealing is wrong. But so what? Where does that get us? And all this talk of losing music without commerce shows such a lack of understanding of what music is and how it fits into the human way of life.

The concept of the "music industry" has done as much harm to music in the past 100 years as it has done good. I wince every time I hear someone say "I would like to make my living writing music, but the pirates are killing my dream."

I would like to eat daisies for a living, but a lot of good that has done me.

[greendoor]

Short answer is, yes - I would be pissed if other people were making money out of my music without my permission. But here is something to think about:

If you heard your song played on the radio - would you be pissed that thousands of people were hearing your song, and possibly taking cassette tapes of it? I don't think so - i would think you would be very happy, and would expect to make a lot of money from your concert shows and t-shirts. MP3 downloading is really not that different. I still think that if people really like your music they will buy the DVD and go to your concert. So you don't make videos and don't do concerts? Well that's your choice. Ideally, music shouldn't be about money - but being realistic, quality entertainment requires time and money, and people have to eat. But being more realistic - there is only room for a few at the top. Just because any bedroom wannabe can make a CD now, doesn't mean the world owes them anything. It's still a long way to the top if you wanna rock'n'roll ...

[androidlove]

Ideally, music shouldn't be about money

I'm all for the big socialistic commune. But as long as we're being typical humans, I'll trade tunes for cash any day.

[HongKongTain]

What's being MISSED, I think, is that whether my music is GOOD (good enough people will pay for it) or whether my music is BAD (so bad that I'd be lucky if my mom even listens to it) -- either way, it's MY MUSIC.

And if I don't want people to have and listen to my recordings without paying me, then NO ONE has the right to steal them. True, I will still make music, even if no one listens -- but that doesn't negate the fact that I have the right to be compensated if that's the way I want to do things.

The notion that I'd be THRILLED to know so many people "like my stuff" would be quickly negated right around the time I realized that if even HALF those people were paying me, I could buy myself a nice dinner or two. Or thousand.

See? I'm not being "greedy" or "corporate" or ruining the "purity" of creative endeavor -- I'm just saying that if I did something, and people are digging it, why shouldn't I have some reward for that?

Greendoor, you're right -- the world DOESN'T owe bedroom wannabes anything -- UNLESS THEY WANT TO LISTEN!!! Then, for the love of all that is holy, PAY THE SCHMUCKS!!!! And don't steal.

It's only fair.

[_starcraft_]

I'm actually not too worried about it. Here's why:

1. I think freedom of information is a great thing.
2. Music IS information.
3. Records-labels make money by controlling information-flow ("copyright").
4. Information flow cannot be controlled nowadays, unless you want a big-brother/know-all-see-all/data-worldpolice.

So unless we WANT that bigbrother scenario we have to give up the old concept of copyright.
I want to earn some money from my music, and I do, but freedom is the bigger good.

bleeb's 2 Eurocent

I personally see most music as enterteinment ( if u consider a britney tune informative then good luck to u) but whatver u wanna call it ....at the end of the day its the resulkt of someones time,skills and efforts which in the capitalist world is considered WORK and which should be remunareted through currency if it meets a request.if all informatiuon should be free all jounalists should work for free. software should be free. web designers should be starving. artists robbed of their paintings without givin them any right to sell them.
freedom is also respecting other ppls work.....it should be up to the content creator whever he wants to share his work for free or not. freedom of information means exactly this. means u r allowed to say anything u wanna say without being censored or obstructed... .....not that u can force words out of ppl which do not want to communicate with you .

we reahced the absurdity of paying for food and health care ....but not paying for extras like enterteiment.
big brother? do u complain in the real world? if u steal at the local supermarket u complain cos cameras caught u and got arrested? i bet if there was no police and controls in the real worlkd u wouldn't even find an onion left in any supermarket and u would be here writing and defending the right for free food. (wqhich anyway makes more sense than "free eneterteinment").
have fun.

[munchkin]

What's being MISSED, I think, is that whether my music is GOOD (good enough people will pay for it) or whether my music is BAD (so bad that I'd be lucky if my mom even listens to it) -- either way, it's MY MUSIC.

And if I don't want people to have and listen to my recordings without paying me, then NO ONE has the right to steal them. True, I will still make music, even if no one listens -- but that doesn't negate the fact that I have the right to be compensated if that's the way I want to do things.

The notion that I'd be THRILLED to know so many people "like my stuff" would be quickly negated right around the time I realized that if even HALF those people were paying me, I could buy myself a nice dinner or two. Or thousand.

See? I'm not being "greedy" or "corporate" or ruining the "purity" of creative endeavor -- I'm just saying that if I did something, and people are digging it, why shouldn't I have some reward for that?

Greendoor, you're right -- the world DOESN'T owe bedroom wannabes anything -- UNLESS THEY WANT TO LISTEN!!! Then, for the love of all that is holy, PAY THE SCHMUCKS!!!! And don't steal.

It's only fair.

So if you were out in the street busking and some people put money in your hat while others walked away without paying for your performance would you complain?

This is how the concept of paying for music developed. It's only in the last 100 years that recorded music has existed. Why should the principles be any different? If people like your music enough they pay you, if not they don't. I think that music is about a relationship between the musician and the audience. If the music reaches the audience and moves them in some way then they will want to reward the musician. I think this is why musicians develops a fan base who remain loyal.

Thinking of music as a product is unnatural and not how an audience understands it. They hear music in terms of feeling and emotion.

[munchkin]

In fact, it may be the height of arrogance to ask money for any songs you've written. People should offer you money if they like it.

I get your point completely that people will ALWAYS make music and ALWAYS make paintings, etc... That's true.

But really -- even if I AM "arrogant" enough to put a price on my song, what right does someone have to say, "Nope -- I'm gonna TAKE it and use it for FREE"? Maybe that's not what you're suggesting, so sorry if I am mis-reading you... ?

I mean, even if they only "use" it by listening to it a few times and forgetting it... Don't I still have the right to decide about my own work, whether I should be paid or not? If you don't want to pay, then FINE, you don't get to listen!!

But anyway, this isn't about "a song I've written" -- it's about a RECORDING I'VE MADE... seems a difference to me. The song, in and of itself, may be more "ethereal" and non-tangible in some sense -- but when I make a RECORDING of it, DUDE, that is my property, and I have the right to be paid for people using it, if I choose to be so arrogant...

Well, at least that's what I think...

So when someone plays your song on their guitar to a group of people sitting around a camp fire do you consider that lost revenue?

I assume you've received some payment for your music? How much is enough? If you don't make enough one month is that due to piracy or because your audience likes your output less? These are the vagaries of being a musician. Dealing with the popularity or lack of popularity of our output.

There is no guarentee that a musician will make a living out of music. This is a reality that existed long before P2P and hometaping and still exists today.

[peejunk]

I;m just currently going through this exact scenario. One of my tunes was pirated and used for a tv commercial. It appears that company has no knowledge and it's entirely the fault of the advertising agency.

Funny thing is I really wouldn't have wanted any money for them to use it but it would have been to have been asked. I've learned quite a bit about the current industry stance on copyright law and such. I'll legally pursue the problem as long as it remains financially viable. However, I'm prepared to let it go if I just get an apology

I wouldn't let it go. Not because I would be hurt and would find I need compensation, nor because I'm an oportunist. I would just love to see an advertising agency suffer, at least financially.

Need I say I loathe advertizing

[bleebsen]

I'm actually not too worried about it. Here's why:

1. I think freedom of information is a great thing.
2. Music IS information.
3. Records-labels make money by controlling information-flow ("copyright").
4. Information flow cannot be controlled nowadays, unless you want a big-brother/know-all-see-all/data-worldpolice.

So unless we WANT that bigbrother scenario we have to give up the old concept of copyright.
I want to earn some money from my music, and I do, but freedom is the bigger good.

bleeb's 2 Eurocent

I personally see most music as enterteinment ( if u consider a britney tune informative then good luck to u) but whatver u wanna call it ....at the end of the day its the resulkt of someones time,skills and efforts which in the capitalist world is considered WORK and which should be remunareted through currency if it meets a request.if all informatiuon should be free all jounalists should work for free. software should be free. web designers should be starving. artists robbed of their paintings without givin them any right to sell them.
freedom is also respecting other ppls work.....it should be up to the content creator whever he wants to share his work for free or not. freedom of information means exactly this. means u r allowed to say anything u wanna say without being censored or obstructed... .....not that u can force words out of ppl which do not want to communicate with you .

we reahced the absurdity of paying for food and health care ....but not paying for extras like enterteiment.
big brother? do u complain in the real world? if u steal at the local supermarket u complain cos cameras caught u and got arrested? i bet if there was no police and controls in the real worlkd u wouldn't even find an onion left in any supermarket and u would be here writing and defending the right for free food. (wqhich anyway makes more sense than "free eneterteinment").
have fun.

*sigh* you didn't follow my train of though at all.
No matter what you think about Britney Spears, her MP3s are still a bunch of 1s and 0s, which is information to me. Be it entertaining information, it's still information. Food isn't. Police isn't.

My point is: we are on the dawn of the information era. Information could never be send around the globe as easily as today. This HAS implications to some things we considered normal for the last couple of hundred years, copyright being on of them. Thanks to the internet the replication of data cannot be controlled, unless we build an organisation who does just that. This is a scenario I'm far more afraid of than losing my income, even ALL my income. I don't want some kind of organization judging the bits that leave and enter my house on a regular basis.

This is not about not paying for that information, it's about that the information flow cannot be controlled like it could be 30 years ago. Since I like that, I HAVE to accept it's consequences.

it should be up to the content creator whever he wants to share his work for free or not. freedom of information means exactly this.

No, freedom does NOT mean that somebody else controls ANY aspect of it. This is where I lost you...

[kaden]

But what is the difference between someone stealing YOUR artistic output (catapults), and someone stealing a musician's (songs)? You both spent hours on it, you both feel proud of it... It's just that YOU end up with wood and steel (or whatever) and the musician just gets an .mp3 file which is easier to take.

The difference? I'm making something that people are willing to give me money for. If you're not getting paid money for what you make, you're either making the wrong stuff, or trying to sell it to the wrong people. I did a *lot* of market research, and found a very hospitable demographic to market into. I worked at it, because I knew I had too: What I do is odd enough to alienate the traditional 'fine art' world, more sophisticated than folk art...I'd never support myself as an artist trying to schmooze myself into prominence within any of the traditional artistic communities, so I worked, and evolved and adapted a nicely functioning post-modern business model.

Where people pay me.

If they ask for plans, I send 'em my master diagrams...they're welcome to build their own. I'm writing DIY articles for Make magazine, actually. If the best you can do is say 'I wrote a Song, give me money', well, good luck, and lemme know how that works out for you.

Adapt, or die...

K

[insaneacyde]

To me the true pirates are the industry people

Oh grow up please. I hate it when people post with no idea of the industry as a whole and how much soo many labels are struggling now. If I steal your car does that make the car company the real pirate for not offering sufficient car security.

No it makes the car co.'s terrorists for charging such ridicolous prices for cars eg. in SA a simple bottom of the line car R75 000 second hand! Thats about $13 000 wtf? And then petrol... lets not even go on about tyres, brakes etc f**king daylight robbery! Now wether someone robs you in instalments or in one go it's still robbery

Before the internet and file sharing, nobody saw the industry as pirates, people simply loved music and buying music.

Before the internet record co's sold quality music, at REASONABLE PRICES.

The music business has always been a business. Producers and artist putting in hard work, you do a job you get paid. You create something beautiful that people want shouldn't you recieve something in return.

what like 00.97c is something worth defending?? get real!

Art and money have ALWAYS gone hand in hand, from todays music to great painters of the past, their very lives depended on a paycheck, leonardo da vinci whoever!.

Most of the great artists did not make enuff to buy a chicken, people (like the people who own record co's)waited for them to die so that they could make all the profit.

[warp x]

Interesting topic
I just checked the web, took me 1 minute to find some of my songs on the p2p networks. I make my living writing and playing music, so actually I should be strongly against any form of piracy. On the other hand, some people might listen to my work this way, and then buy the CD, so I guess it is some form of promotion......?
Anyway, as long as it's about individual people listening to the music, I don't care so much, but I also found that my music has been illegaly included on some compilation CD's. It's a different thing when it comes to company making money off my music


my €0.02

[georgelegeriii]

One last thing.. the most important thing: if artists can't make a living, software developers can't make enough of a profit, due to piracy, then I guess we all don't get the cool music / software / art, because people will stop making any.

And then we ALL loose.

Take care, George

Wrong. People are making music all the time without getting a dime and have done so since the dawn of man, and they will never stop. Painters will always paint whether they can make a living at it or not, so that sort of logic is erroneous. In fact, it may be the height of arrogance to ask money for any songs you've written. People should offer you money if they like it. If they don't, then what does that tell you?

Sure, I agree that if you like it enough to STEAL it, you should buy it...

But do you think that YOU should do what you do to make a living for free? What is your day job? Isn't it worth the money you make to do it (well maybe it isn't but you know what I mean)?

Yes, people will always make music, and art, but due to the amount of time they get to work at it, I highly doubt that the quality would be what it could...

Do you agree with this statment then:

If I practice playing guitar 1 hour a day, 2 times a week, I can be as good as, say, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, Prince, Jeff Beck, Eddy Van Halen, take your pick...

If you answered no, I made my point: one can not expand and grow as an artist UNLESS they have the time to learn, discover, practice...

They get this time by MAKING A LIVING. If you give away your music/art/ software, you HAVE to do something else to pay the bills. This takes away time from learning, discovering etc.

So while I agree that people will always make music, or art, or even shareware or free ware, I highly doubt anyone would ever take the time to develop Dark Side Of The Moon, The Mona Lisa, Logic Pro, make an Apple or PC Computer, create a car, make a lightbulb, or many of the other things we all take for granted.

That's what I mean.

George

[pooshka]

And if I don't want people to have and listen to my recordings without paying me, then NO ONE has the right to steal them.

i think the point is...

"so whatcha gonna do 'bout it when they steal from you?"

come here and whine like this?

all i mean is - from the day one of human history we couldn't completely control other people, and that included people doing things that you don't want them to do - even if they do these things to you personally. What it all comes down to is - there will always be people who want to do things otherway, regardless of what you or society in general think about it in terms of ethics/legality/whatever else. Either you have power to stop it yourself, or you can relay it to some third party (government/police) to protect you from these people.

i think this is really the issue being raised here by some people - ok, you can argue all you want whether it's right or wrong, but what's the point of all this arguing unless you have means of actually stopping piracy/p2p sharing - otherwise all this just end up as either

1) "oh please don't steal music you guys"

or

2) "how could you?! this is like sooo illegal and sooo not right!"

eitherway, it's not gonna have impact on people who do it. :p