2 ms·

Your position is music should be free, or if you disagree with the price you can just decide what that price should be on your own terms?

JoshTriplett 15y ago
Bits can and thus should get copied for free. That includes copies of music or anything else. The original creation of those bits need not occur for free, as evidenced by the various crowdfunding platforms or other such mechanisms. The person with useful bits can decide how they'd like to distribute those bits, including if they'd like payment for those bits; they should have no control over copies of those bits.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  > including if they'd like payment for those bits; they should have no control over copies of those bits. These are contradictory no? What if I as an artist say that my wish is that no one should have a copy of my mp3, or listen to my music I produced without paying me for it. If you copy the music without paying for it you are directly going against the artists wishes correct? He produced this music and he'd like to get paid for it... edit: Since I can't reply below. Come again? So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? This makes no sense and sounds like some crazy argument just to justify copying music without paying anyone.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Not contradictory at all. I said that the artist can choose to require payment to obtain the original bits; I also said they should have no control over any copies of those bits.
    - bira 15y ago
      (English isn't my mother language, forgive my writing errors) Just because you can copy paste a file and then share it easily with the world, it doesn't mean those bits came to life for "free". Maybe for you, the filesharer but whoever produced the first bytes you are (not) enjoying, the writer, the musician, the production team, they all have paid a price to produce it. They spent time and money learning the how-to and getting good at it, time and money they could have spent creating other forms of value to trade for other people's value. You say that because there are no reproduction costs, does it make it a free meal for everybody? Not according to the cook, that could have decided to pay for it and give it away (open-source, everybody's happy) but decided to put it for sale on the market expecting honest buyers to choose it if the price and the quality is right. "Is this a good deal? Is the value I'm getting worth the asking price?" That happens all the time, for every kind of product. "Is this custom Challenger worth the 50k the car dealer is asking?" If you can't afford a car or don't think the price is reasonable, would you steal it just because in any case you won't end up paying the costs spent to create it? Somebody will, though. A few weeks ago I discovered on Youtube a master at playing the guitar whose stage persona is known as Buckethead. His music teared me up inside (Check out "Soothsayer"...). I could not but think "Damn, I need to send some money to this guy as a BIG ASS THANK YOU MAN!". By giving him my money I'm encoraging him to keep doing what he is doing the way he's doing. I want him to keep making music. What struck me is that Buckethead has been playing the guitar for almost 30 years now. He's spent dozens of hours playing it. Without people "thanking" him with their hard-earned money, he would have probably had to work a 9-to-5 job to make ends meet and then maybe play the guitar. He would have had less time and energy to play it "as a hobby", he would have never got so good nor ever seen a reason to record his music ("Dude I'm playing for myself") and distribute it to the world. A lot of people would have never been touched by his music, myself included. That would have sucked. The world would have been a poorer place, I would have. Being able to enjoy art makes us all richer, so why not make artists we listen to happy by providing them the means they need to keep their art-creating business alive. Why should I crowd-fund somebody I don't even know? I just buy his music if I like it and want to listen to more than a few times. It's simpler than messing around with crowd-funding platforms. You pay later instead of funding first. If artists can't profit from their art, only the already-rich, philantropic artists will eventually be able to produce or sponsor "free" music. What if I couldn't afford to spend 20/30 bucks to see him live once a year or 40-50 USD for the 3-4 albums of his I love to the point I want to own? Should I be pissed at him because he's not playing for the glory, living on food stamp, maybe working another job not enjoying his life as much as he's doing while expressing himself the way he feel, 24.7? Hell no. Instead of looking for ways to "game" the system, I am (and we all should be) always looking to provide more value to other people, making more money so I can choose wisely how to spend it for stuff that makes my life worth the ride. Our levels of consumption and production need some kind of balance. So stop making up excuses. If you can't afford something, ask yourself if you really want the thing or not. Don't confuse your lack of money with lack of motivation. Be ready to work your ass off and pay the price.
      - jarek 15y ago
        Supporting musicians can be done in ways other than obtaining copies of their work in a format you don't want by paying off middle-men you don't like. You have obviously found one by donating money to some guy on youtube, and there are many others. No one in this thread is against supporting musicians.
  - jarek 15y ago
    > Come again? So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? This makes no sense and sounds like some crazy argument just to justify copying music without paying anyone. No, you as an artist can offer the product for purchase and/or download ("original" as in it comes from you). Real fans and People Who Want To Support Musicians can then buy it from you. People Who Suck And In Res0nat0r's Opinion Steal Music can copy one of the original copies.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    > So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? You can expect to get paid for creating your album in the first place. And once you stop thinking of it as "I sell one copy for $19.95 and everyone copies it" and start thinking of it as "Fifty thousand people all agree to buy it for $19.95 if I create it", it makes a lot more sense.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      How are fifty thousand people agreeing to pay $19.95 for it, if they've downloaded it for free instead? Note: I'm counting people that downloaded the album instead of buying it as lost revenue, because they value it enough to listen to it, so they should be rewarding the creator for the value they've derived from it.
      - JoshTriplett 15y ago
        > How are fifty thousand people agreeing to pay $19.95 for it, if they've downloaded it for free instead? They haven't. They've agreed, in advance, to pay $19.95 for the creation of the album. You then create the album. You take all the payments of $19.95. Then you put the album up for download.
        res0nat0r 15y ago
        Why would I want to pay 20 bucks to an artist I don't know and haven't heard before? Pretty sure that is not how new bands are able to get off the ground and make it. You need to put out a CD and tour (and make revenue off both) to keep doing the same.
        JoshTriplett 15y ago
        > Why would I want to pay 20 bucks to an artist I don't know and haven't heard before? You wouldn't. Release some samples first. Play at venues. Make a name for yourself. Make people want more. Why would you want to hire a hacker you don't know and haven't seen work from? Either you take a chance on someone who looks good on paper without seeing any of their work, or you look for someone who has already demonstrated their ability. The same thing applies to artists.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Bits can and thus should get copied for free. That includes copies of music or anything else. The original creation of those bits need not occur for free, as evidenced by the various crowdfunding platforms or other such mechanisms. The person with useful bits can decide how they'd like to distribute those bits, including if they'd like payment for those bits; they should have no control over copies of those bits.

res0nat0r 15y ago
> including if they'd like payment for those bits; they should have no control over copies of those bits. These are contradictory no? What if I as an artist say that my wish is that no one should have a copy of my mp3, or listen to my music I produced without paying me for it. If you copy the music without paying for it you are directly going against the artists wishes correct? He produced this music and he'd like to get paid for it... edit: Since I can't reply below. Come again? So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? This makes no sense and sounds like some crazy argument just to justify copying music without paying anyone.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Not contradictory at all. I said that the artist can choose to require payment to obtain the original bits; I also said they should have no control over any copies of those bits.
  - bira 15y ago
    (English isn't my mother language, forgive my writing errors) Just because you can copy paste a file and then share it easily with the world, it doesn't mean those bits came to life for "free". Maybe for you, the filesharer but whoever produced the first bytes you are (not) enjoying, the writer, the musician, the production team, they all have paid a price to produce it. They spent time and money learning the how-to and getting good at it, time and money they could have spent creating other forms of value to trade for other people's value. You say that because there are no reproduction costs, does it make it a free meal for everybody? Not according to the cook, that could have decided to pay for it and give it away (open-source, everybody's happy) but decided to put it for sale on the market expecting honest buyers to choose it if the price and the quality is right. "Is this a good deal? Is the value I'm getting worth the asking price?" That happens all the time, for every kind of product. "Is this custom Challenger worth the 50k the car dealer is asking?" If you can't afford a car or don't think the price is reasonable, would you steal it just because in any case you won't end up paying the costs spent to create it? Somebody will, though. A few weeks ago I discovered on Youtube a master at playing the guitar whose stage persona is known as Buckethead. His music teared me up inside (Check out "Soothsayer"...). I could not but think "Damn, I need to send some money to this guy as a BIG ASS THANK YOU MAN!". By giving him my money I'm encoraging him to keep doing what he is doing the way he's doing. I want him to keep making music. What struck me is that Buckethead has been playing the guitar for almost 30 years now. He's spent dozens of hours playing it. Without people "thanking" him with their hard-earned money, he would have probably had to work a 9-to-5 job to make ends meet and then maybe play the guitar. He would have had less time and energy to play it "as a hobby", he would have never got so good nor ever seen a reason to record his music ("Dude I'm playing for myself") and distribute it to the world. A lot of people would have never been touched by his music, myself included. That would have sucked. The world would have been a poorer place, I would have. Being able to enjoy art makes us all richer, so why not make artists we listen to happy by providing them the means they need to keep their art-creating business alive. Why should I crowd-fund somebody I don't even know? I just buy his music if I like it and want to listen to more than a few times. It's simpler than messing around with crowd-funding platforms. You pay later instead of funding first. If artists can't profit from their art, only the already-rich, philantropic artists will eventually be able to produce or sponsor "free" music. What if I couldn't afford to spend 20/30 bucks to see him live once a year or 40-50 USD for the 3-4 albums of his I love to the point I want to own? Should I be pissed at him because he's not playing for the glory, living on food stamp, maybe working another job not enjoying his life as much as he's doing while expressing himself the way he feel, 24.7? Hell no. Instead of looking for ways to "game" the system, I am (and we all should be) always looking to provide more value to other people, making more money so I can choose wisely how to spend it for stuff that makes my life worth the ride. Our levels of consumption and production need some kind of balance. So stop making up excuses. If you can't afford something, ask yourself if you really want the thing or not. Don't confuse your lack of money with lack of motivation. Be ready to work your ass off and pay the price.
    - jarek 15y ago
      Supporting musicians can be done in ways other than obtaining copies of their work in a format you don't want by paying off middle-men you don't like. You have obviously found one by donating money to some guy on youtube, and there are many others. No one in this thread is against supporting musicians.
- jarek 15y ago
  > Come again? So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? This makes no sense and sounds like some crazy argument just to justify copying music without paying anyone. No, you as an artist can offer the product for purchase and/or download ("original" as in it comes from you). Real fans and People Who Want To Support Musicians can then buy it from you. People Who Suck And In Res0nat0r's Opinion Steal Music can copy one of the original copies.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  > So I as an artist should only be expected to be paid for one sale of my digital album? You can expect to get paid for creating your album in the first place. And once you stop thinking of it as "I sell one copy for $19.95 and everyone copies it" and start thinking of it as "Fifty thousand people all agree to buy it for $19.95 if I create it", it makes a lot more sense.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    How are fifty thousand people agreeing to pay $19.95 for it, if they've downloaded it for free instead? Note: I'm counting people that downloaded the album instead of buying it as lost revenue, because they value it enough to listen to it, so they should be rewarding the creator for the value they've derived from it.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      > How are fifty thousand people agreeing to pay $19.95 for it, if they've downloaded it for free instead? They haven't. They've agreed, in advance, to pay $19.95 for the creation of the album. You then create the album. You take all the payments of $19.95. Then you put the album up for download.
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        Why would I want to pay 20 bucks to an artist I don't know and haven't heard before? Pretty sure that is not how new bands are able to get off the ground and make it. You need to put out a CD and tour (and make revenue off both) to keep doing the same.
        JoshTriplett 15y ago
        > Why would I want to pay 20 bucks to an artist I don't know and haven't heard before? You wouldn't. Release some samples first. Play at venues. Make a name for yourself. Make people want more. Why would you want to hire a hacker you don't know and haven't seen work from? Either you take a chance on someone who looks good on paper without seeing any of their work, or you look for someone who has already demonstrated their ability. The same thing applies to artists.