How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?

[insaneacyde]

I dont mind people stealin my music and listening to it if they enjoy it. I dont like people stealing it for commercial use. I think record co's and radio stations etc should pay out there asses for it though instead of a couple cents. Then again I've always seen nothing wrong with someone stealing an apple because they are STARVING. Finding loopholes here and there and cutting back here and there to turn a higher profit is f**king disgusting.
The record co.s are going down because they have always been ungrateful bastards. If your not madonna or britney your pretty f**ked.

[Quaternion]

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.

If I take a picture of you against your will with my digicam and post it on the internet, would you accept that without an argument?

[georgelegeriii]

i think the point is...

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

come here and whine like this?
:p

Hopefully educate people...

I still haven't seen one "Pro" p2p person answer my question about what they would do or how they would feel if someone stole from their home, or wether they would be willing to work for free because someone likes their work, and doesn't want to pay them for it?.

People need to be educated, that:

Downloading copywritten music/ art/ software IS stealing.
Some artists feel that it's is ok, so feel free to "borrow" their work then.


And simply ask them how they would feel if someone did the same to them in regards to how they make a living: how would you feel if someone thought you should work for free just because they think you do a good job...

How screwed up is that??????

George

[Quaternion]

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

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

I started the thread to gather opinions from other musicians about how they feel about their music, not to make an impact on pirates.

But it does have an impact on me. I still think that using warez is immoral, but hey, I might use them in the future, simply because I can!

Pooshka, I like your homepage. I will rip it including the sources and use it for my own purpose. Please don't argument, because you have no means of stopping me.

[Threshold Productions]

To be honest I think I like it. It's not the records I earn money from, it's the liveperformances.

The mp3s help spreading my name and well, it might make some labelbosses less superrich

[Sascha Franck]

I don't know how much downloadable music (through illegal channels that is) affects sales, and I'm not even that interested in the figures either.
What I do however know is that legit purchase of music is a rather expensive thing.

All through the last years, EACH step in the "music distribution chain" has become cheaper.
This starts when you buy your first guitar (or synth, or whatever). They're WAY cheaper than back then.
It continues when doing proper demos. Again WAY cheaper. I remember doing band demos which were recorded on an 8-track Fostex. Not even a synced Atari has been around in the socalled studio. Still, we paid a fortune for those demos.
It's still continuing when it comes to a better production, spreading demo files among A&Rs, doing some to-be-released recordings, getting them mastered, doing some video, getting the final product done (artwork, CD masters), distributing the work.
EACH of those steps has become SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, especially during the last 2 decades. Computers, the internet and whatever helped a great deal. But even hardware has become way cheaper. As said, these days I can get a highly reasonable guitar for half the price I paid back when I started.
Still, did CDs become any cheaper? Well, just recently they did, to a certain extent... but did the price increasments really reflect the overall situation? NO f**king WAY!

In addition to all that, record companies concentrated on either WAY big "safe" acts or "one hit wonders" instead of supporting individual artists.
I don't wonder people aren't going to support "their acts" anymore. I remember buying each and every released record of certain bands/artists. Hardly ever happens these days (and no, I'm not downloading things instead). Just because there's no identification happening anymore. Most music just leaves me cold. Well, it might actually catch my interest in certain areas, but identification? Hell no.

Back then, when I bought some new album (vinyl) it took at least some 2-3 visits at friends until I finally got home - "Hey dude, I just got this album, let's listen to it!". While listening we were watching the booklet, discussing the recording etc etc.
This just doesn't happen anymore. And it does happen even less with nowadays youngsters (at least that's my experience).

Bottomline: CDs (and legal downloads) are too expensive for what they offer. No wonder people are using P2P networks and the likes instead. And it's not something like a "technology fault".
There's MORE music available than ever before. There's technically "better" music too. And in addition, it's availabe cheaper due to reduced production costs. It's just that record companies seem to completely ignore all of those facts.

[_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.

*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...

and u surely didn't follow mine. also cos the only thing u quoted u quoted wrong.lol if anything u should have quoted the second half.
but nevermind.


cos something is made of 0 and 1s it should be free?? and if its made of atoms then it should be paid? and why should that be the case? money for starters comes today in the form of 0s and 1s .
freedom of information don't mean u're allowed to steal other ppls information without their consent.
means u're freely allowed to share with others YOUR information if u wish to . you may use other ppls information if they shared it. but u cant force ppl that do not want to share their info to do so.
or u want to have your personal info shared with all of us? ( crdit card hello:D)
go ahead for the freedom of information.

[BONES]

One of which was: if all the record labels on earth went tits up tomorrow, I don't think I'd miss them. There would be people who would miss them and I would not be included, in that particular group. I say this still while understanding that, had labels never existed, I might not have heard some of the music which I "love".

Then I think your priorities are completely f**ked up.

But I think that the digitally encoded music sharing which runs rampant now throughout the internet is not to be stopped.

That does not, however, mean that it must be condoned.

I think there is no way of interupting, regulating, stipulating, or controlling it, or putting a cork in it, at this belated stage, barring the utter and total demolition of the internet. I think it hardly goes without saying that this particular practice, now illegal, displays the will of an untold mass of millions.

I think you could probably have said the same thing about racisim and religious prejudice not too long ago. Do think it was wrong for people to fight the status quo then?

I don't mean, and I never will, that the numbers yield a black or white bearing on the practice being ethical. But since humans define ethics and humans are doing the downloading, the issue enters something more of a difficult arena.

They may be humans, but as far as I'm concerned, the're scum.

Downloading and copying music is different than stealing because it is known as intillectual property.. It is nothing physical. Sure, its not the right thing to do, but its nowhere near as severe as stealing hard-goods.. The analogy is flawed and unfair... When i download a song from someone else.. The band still owns that song.. They did not loose out on anything (Unless i WAS going to purchase it) and even then they only lost a POTENTIAL income, not physical inventory..

That is utter bullshit. It is simply a matter of degree. Its like saying "I only stole an old shitbox when I could have stolen that new BMW, so its not really that bad." - Unless it happenned to be your old beater that you were relying on to get you home.

every citizen who listens conscious to music is paying a monthly "music fee" which is trustfunded by an political independant music organisation. this organisation is directly supporting only specialised labels (so no majors are needed anymore) the labels are directly supporting the musicians..the listener can buy the music for a very low symbolic price (to measure the success), so there is no need to steal it...so there is more variety, no more majors, happy musicians and happy listeners... okay, there is also less competition, but music is defintely not getting better by commercial pressure..

Doesn't work for me on any level. I don't put any value on an mp3 of anything - I don't even want to waste my unlimited bandwidth downloading the shit. I buy CD's because an album has far greater meaning to me, both as an artist and a music-lover, than some bunch of files on a server.

You think it's illegal distribution of music because people aren't paying for it.

No, its illegal because it is being done without the express permission of the owner of the copyrighted work and the artist has no control over how its presented. i.e. compression, no. of songs and song order - these things may be unimportant to you but they matter a whole lot to me.

I'm saying that the people are paying what they think the music is worth.

Pig's arse, mostly they are doing it simply because they can. It diminishes the work in so many ways.

Bit of an ego-killer, but hey, suck it up...you're an adult.

And I hate your guts.

Markets change, son. The cause of the change is immaterial: Call it 'illegal', call it 'immoral', call it 'unamerican', call it whatever makes your feel better. It doesn't really matter how your righteous indignation chooses to manifest itself: the fact of the matter is that 'change is occurring

And as we constantly see, change is always for the better.

Further fuel for the fire: does anyone think that ethics is the primary concern of the music industry?

I would like to think that the relationship between us and our labels is ethical on both sides. And small, niche labels like ours are hurt far more by file-sharing than big labels.

Since when has ethics ever defined a market? When the RIAA issues a statement that they "believe that musicians have a right to be paid for the work", do you really think that their belief has anything to do with what is right or wrong? Or could it be that they do it to placate their commodity, getting the workforce on their side?

So it would be equally alright for a record company to hold on to an artists' royalties if they felt like it? Or is it only alright for consumers to act illegally for no other reason than because they can? I would fervently hope that most individuals could hold themselves to a higher standard than a multi-national record company.

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.

Thankyou.

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?

OK, let's look at the other side of that coin. What if it cost you $50 in public transport costs and your busking permit each time you played. Someone turns up one day, records your set and then starts selling CD's of your show from an adjacent park bench, without your permission and without ever throwing so much as a single cent in your hat. Then people start buying CD's from him instead of throwing money into your hat. How would that make you feel? Would you be flattered that he thought your show was worth ripping off? I don't think you would.

If people like your music enough they pay you, if not they don't.

Pig's arse. "I'd love to buy some CD's but I really want that new dress, what shall I do?" "I know where you can download that music you like for free." "Really? Now I can have both, yippee!" I know DJ's who get paid to play and have never bought a single CD or record in their f**king life. "Oh but I'm promoting the band, I'm doing them a favour." "f**k OFF YOU THIEVING c**t! I don't want you EVER playing anything of mine that isn't 100% legal, especially that 96k mono MP3, it sounds like shit and it makes us look/sound bad!"

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.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth....

In addition to all that, record companies concentrated on either WAY big "safe" acts or "one hit wonders" instead of supporting individual artists.

I strongly disagree with this observation. In the 80's, big labels would sign 10 bands, record an album for each of them and see who sold and who didn't. A lot of incredibly good bands got to release a full, commercial quality album with proper distribution that would struggle these days to get their demo listened to. Diversity was the first victim of declining sales, hence their current obsession with proven track records. It only gets worse for artists like us while it all gets easier for the big record companies.

I would be much happier being dudded by one of our labels than by some thieving c**t ripping our music and distributing it illegally for anyone who wants it. At least I can be 100% certain that the label would pay us if they could afford to. Small labels, the ones we should want to support, are the ones who are hardest hit by piracy as each lost sale has a big impact on their ability to promote their artists.
I know plenty of people in their 30's who used to buy CD's regularly but who haven't bought a single disc since they got broadband. That fact alone makes 90% of th ekrap written here utter bullshit.

[dystonia_ek]

Missed all this chatter but to respond to the original post - go ahead. I can't really afford to press more than 500 copies of anything, so I encourage copying - more stuff in circulation and doesn't cost me a cent.

[dystonia_ek]

But that's just me, I generally have issues with everything being reduced to its role in commerce.

Agreed.

[Lady J]

Hi,

there's much fuzz going on at KvR about cracked software and how unethical it is to use it.

What about pirated music?

I have encountered some of my tracks for illegal download on the net, and I have mixed feelings about it.

As a former DJ/Producer I know exactly how I feel. I love it.
Here's why...


When i released my first albimI learned about this thing called MP3 and my computer geek friend converted my demos of tracks to mp3 and posted them on my website. I was one of the first artists anywhere to offer free MP3s for download via the web. This at a time when I had my first album out and two videos on MTV US. What did this do for album sales? It made them higher than I ever thought they would be.

I looked at MP3s as an extension of the demo tape or mix tape. I would sell these 'back in the day' but on the back of each cover it would say "Please copy this tape and share the music with your friends." Drum n Bass was not that big in America then and I and others are credited to pioneering the sound here and spreading it around to the smallest burgs and towns. When the internet facilitated this purpose it only spread the music farther and suddenly kids in Iowa are getting down in a farm field to the likes of DnB beats. And suddenly MTV decides its a good time to do a whole show dedicated to electronic music. And suddenly I and many other bedroom musicians are the new rockstars.

I used to talk with Moby online all the time back then and he was intrigued by the whole downloadable music thing back then. Then a little thing called Napster was invented (the original one not the pay service) and suddenly i'm flying off to distant lands where I have a fan base who never was able to buy my album due to it being distributed only by Caroline. Suddenly I have licensing deals in Germany, Japan, Spain and you KNOW you are cool when you see your doing an instore appearance in Tokyo with your name in Kenji on a Japanese CD.

Times do change though but I feel music should be free, the other stuff should be paid for. I understand most kids today feel the same way that is why I have continued to offer my older music and newer stuff available for a free download. The only exceptions were when the record company put a moratorium on me posting MP3s just pending an albums release and 6 months after which I thought was fair.

I had a love hate relationship with my old label. They went out of business and three of my previous albums are out of print. The only way for people to get them is to buy one used or copy or trade MP3s. My 4th album had only a small limited release and as such it is a rareity. My 5th dance album is done and looking for a label while I record my first major LCD Pop album.

So when I see my tracks on the file sharing networks it makes me all warm and fuzzy because I know that my music is still out there and if I died tomorrow it would live on in the electronic data clouds over most cities.

[Stupid American Pig]

if someone pirated tracks right now, they would be disappointed, as my latest collection is 10-12 70% complete songs with lyric snippets at best.

Actually, I think that even if you get a major label deal, you arent going to make much if *any* money off of record sales. You will make money from publishing, licensing and performing live. So if piracy occurs its not that big a deal(as long as you play shows and or license out yer material). The only problem is that if piracy is *too* widespread and yer album is a huge loss, then the label may drop you. but if yer popular you will make out ok...

[Lady J]

if someone pirated tracks right now, they would be disappointed, as my latest collection is 10-12 70% complete songs with lyric snippets at best.

Actually, I think that even if you get a major label deal, you arent going to make much if *any* money off of record sales. You will make money from publishing, licensing and performing live.

Truer words have never been said on this subject.

The majority of an artist income comes not from recording but from touring, MERCHANDISING aand LICENSING..

i got more money for 15 seconds of a song I did for an an obscure compilation being used in the Zoolander DVD than I got as an advance on my whole 3rd album!

Thanks Paramount, pleasure doing business with ya.

I made more money in one week on tour with Moby than I did for my whole first album's royalties..


The Paramounts and Clear Channel of the world should have to pay their licensing fee but who am -I- to say what some kid in Bosnia, or Thailand does with my music. If they can't afford or have no access to it why shouldn't they be able to get it?

I am more pissed off at Fox News using some of my music in their "Hollywood Report" and not properly licensing it. Not the least of which because I HATE FOX NEWS!

Downloading is not a crime. It is a grey area at best in my book. If you arent bootleging my music in mass quanties then I am cool with you.
It just makes me more popular in those places and that only helps kick distributors in the bottom to get legit copies there at a reasonable price. I'm kinda a socialist.

[BONES]

If you look at the cost of doing live shows vs the cost of making an album, we've made 100 times more off CD sales than live performance.

[Stupid American Pig]

If you look at the cost of doing live shows vs the cost of making an album, we've made 100 times more off CD sales than live performance.

That has only recently come to pass though. Before home studios you couldnt make records cheap. Even if you count yer advance as payment for making the album, you wont make royalties until you recoup. This isnt a bad thing though, Im glad I have unlimited(by cost at least) studio time, I need it.