4 ms·

Not that I really care, but I'm sick of some of the bogus pro-filesharing arguments. Downloads don't equate to lost revenue? Maybe not exactly, in that not al

Not that I really care, but I'm sick of some of the bogus pro-filesharing arguments. Downloads don't equate to lost revenue? Maybe not exactly, in that not all downloads represent a lost sale, but my monthly CD budget went from about $50 to $0 after Napster came out. I know I'm not the only one.

axod 17y ago
I don't think a lot of it is a matter of being pro-filesharing or anti. It's about recognizing the changing market. Culture has shifted. Once people marveled at how they could listen to a recording of a singer so it was just like having them perform in their own house! They placed a large value on that. They were happy to pay to buy the latest album. As things have moved on, people just place far less value on being able to have the ability to listen to particular songs on demand, and expect it to either be free, or nearly free. After all, selling musical recordings is a pretty recent fad. It's not like some age old industry is being killed here. In some ways it's similar to the ringtone fad. In the late 90s ringtones were massive and people were willing to pay a few pounds for each ringtone. Few years later and people aren't prepared to do that anymore. It seems like the new model will just be 'Give away recorded music to promote live shows'.
- lucumo 17y ago
  > As things have moved on, people just place far less value on being able to have the ability to listen to particular songs on demand, and expect it to either be free, or nearly free. That's fine. I don't think anyone wants to deny consumers their right to decide the amount they want to buy for. What people disagree on is whether you should then get it, if you're not willing to pay the price for it. > After all, selling musical recordings is a pretty recent fad. It's not like some age old industry is being killed here. That isn't relevant, of course. Age doesn't say anything about the quality of an industry. Some very old industries have died (deservedly), while very young industries are thriving deservedly. > In some ways it's similar to the ringtone fad. In the late 90s ringtones were massive and people were willing to pay a few pounds for each ringtone. Few years later and people aren't prepared to do that anymore. Wow, the UK must be way ahead of the rest of Europe! :-) It's still a big fad here. Not a few pounds, but about a euro or so...
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  Your grandparents were buying recorded music. It's not some new fad. The reason we expect music to be free, or nearly free, now is because of filesharing. If Napster and its spiritual descendants had never existed, people would still be buying music more or less like it was 1999.
  - redcap 17y ago
    Don't know about your grandparents, but I'm sure that my grandparents mostly listened to music on the wireless. Buying records was a new trend for them (compared to their parents).
  - axod 17y ago
    My grandparents were buying sheet music and playing and singing the songs themselves.
anigbrowl 17y ago
So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy? I don't - the only music I've ever downloaded is stuff I've already bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases multiple times, and lost via lending/ moving house/ abandoned storage etc., or which is unavailable due to being out of print. And have you ever tried taking a crackly LP, snapped tape or delaminated CD back to the store for replacement? Unless you just purchased it, of course not. Library maintenance is (rightly) the user's problem. It helps that I don't listen to much top 40 stuff, obviously. But as a one-time DJ with a music budget of $500/month, and one with a self-imposed prior ownership test for what I download, thumbs down to your complaints.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  >So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy? No. I'm just saying it means less money for the music industry, which is not contingent on whether or not I feel guilty. >I don't - the only music I've ever downloaded is stuff I've already bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases multiple times, and lost via lending/ moving house/ abandoned storage etc., or which is unavailable due to being out of print. And have you ever tried taking a crackly LP, snapped tape or delaminated CD back to the store for replacement? That's nice, but do you really doubt that many or most filesharers are skinflint pirates like me?
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I see your point, though I'm only concerned about the artist rather than industry. Do you use any of your estimated $600/yr savings to attend concerts? The point being that I personally feel music is most effective (commercially) as advertising for live performance. Or am I being naive?
    - rsheridan6 17y ago
      I never really went to shows much, so no. That's just me, but if there were a general trend of pirates spending more money on going to shows, the clubs would be booming, but AFAIK they're not. From what I understand (no source here but talking to older scenesters), fewer people go to shows now than they did back in the day. If the total amount of money going to shows has not increased, then artists are just having to compete harder for a slice of the same (or smaller) pie by giving away something that they used to be able to charge for to promote themselves. It may be the rational thing for an artist to choose to do now, but the overall situation is worse for them than it was back then. It's sort of analogous to how investing in capital goods for a commodity business like textiles ends up benefiting the customer, not the producer (though other producers have to invest too or they are crushed). Sometime between stints at rehab about 10 years ago Courtney Love suggested downloads + tips as a substitute for the record industry as we know it. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.... If there had been an free itunes-like service that made it convenient to tip, I would have gone for that (I use the past tense because I'm old and busy now and haven't listened to much new music lately).
aw3c2 17y ago
Well, my CD money spending went from ~3/year to a good ~20 for each of the years during OiNK's Pink Palace times (fantastic music filesharing site). Now it is at ~1/year because I do got fed up by the music mafia and rather look for genuinely free music (Creative Commons etc).
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  The record industry's post-Napster decline gives a hint about the relative magnitude of file-sharing's positive and negative impact on the record industry. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article4160553.ece http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sect... Short answer - it's negative.
gojomo 17y ago
Your point may be valid, but I find it amusing that you're essentially saying: "I know filesharing is awful because I do it so much."
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  Whereas the usual opinion is "filesharing must be OK because I do it so much."

axod 17y ago

I don't think a lot of it is a matter of being pro-filesharing or anti. It's about recognizing the changing market. Culture has shifted. Once people marveled at how they could listen to a recording of a singer so it was just like having them perform in their own house! They placed a large value on that. They were happy to pay to buy the latest album. As things have moved on, people just place far less value on being able to have the ability to listen to particular songs on demand, and expect it to either be free, or nearly free. After all, selling musical recordings is a pretty recent fad. It's not like some age old industry is being killed here. In some ways it's similar to the ringtone fad. In the late 90s ringtones were massive and people were willing to pay a few pounds for each ringtone. Few years later and people aren't prepared to do that anymore. It seems like the new model will just be 'Give away recorded music to promote live shows'.

lucumo 17y ago
> As things have moved on, people just place far less value on being able to have the ability to listen to particular songs on demand, and expect it to either be free, or nearly free. That's fine. I don't think anyone wants to deny consumers their right to decide the amount they want to buy for. What people disagree on is whether you should then get it, if you're not willing to pay the price for it. > After all, selling musical recordings is a pretty recent fad. It's not like some age old industry is being killed here. That isn't relevant, of course. Age doesn't say anything about the quality of an industry. Some very old industries have died (deservedly), while very young industries are thriving deservedly. > In some ways it's similar to the ringtone fad. In the late 90s ringtones were massive and people were willing to pay a few pounds for each ringtone. Few years later and people aren't prepared to do that anymore. Wow, the UK must be way ahead of the rest of Europe! :-) It's still a big fad here. Not a few pounds, but about a euro or so...
rsheridan6 17y ago
Your grandparents were buying recorded music. It's not some new fad. The reason we expect music to be free, or nearly free, now is because of filesharing. If Napster and its spiritual descendants had never existed, people would still be buying music more or less like it was 1999.
- redcap 17y ago
  Don't know about your grandparents, but I'm sure that my grandparents mostly listened to music on the wireless. Buying records was a new trend for them (compared to their parents).
- axod 17y ago
  My grandparents were buying sheet music and playing and singing the songs themselves.

anigbrowl 17y ago

So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy? I don't - the only music I've ever downloaded is stuff I've already bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases multiple times, and lost via lending/ moving house/ abandoned storage etc., or which is unavailable due to being out of print. And have you ever tried taking a crackly LP, snapped tape or delaminated CD back to the store for replacement? Unless you just purchased it, of course not. Library maintenance is (rightly) the user's problem. It helps that I don't listen to much top 40 stuff, obviously. But as a one-time DJ with a music budget of $500/month, and one with a self-imposed prior ownership test for what I download, thumbs down to your complaints.

rsheridan6 17y ago
>So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy? No. I'm just saying it means less money for the music industry, which is not contingent on whether or not I feel guilty. >I don't - the only music I've ever downloaded is stuff I've already bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases multiple times, and lost via lending/ moving house/ abandoned storage etc., or which is unavailable due to being out of print. And have you ever tried taking a crackly LP, snapped tape or delaminated CD back to the store for replacement? That's nice, but do you really doubt that many or most filesharers are skinflint pirates like me?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I see your point, though I'm only concerned about the artist rather than industry. Do you use any of your estimated $600/yr savings to attend concerts? The point being that I personally feel music is most effective (commercially) as advertising for live performance. Or am I being naive?
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    I never really went to shows much, so no. That's just me, but if there were a general trend of pirates spending more money on going to shows, the clubs would be booming, but AFAIK they're not. From what I understand (no source here but talking to older scenesters), fewer people go to shows now than they did back in the day. If the total amount of money going to shows has not increased, then artists are just having to compete harder for a slice of the same (or smaller) pie by giving away something that they used to be able to charge for to promote themselves. It may be the rational thing for an artist to choose to do now, but the overall situation is worse for them than it was back then. It's sort of analogous to how investing in capital goods for a commodity business like textiles ends up benefiting the customer, not the producer (though other producers have to invest too or they are crushed). Sometime between stints at rehab about 10 years ago Courtney Love suggested downloads + tips as a substitute for the record industry as we know it. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.... If there had been an free itunes-like service that made it convenient to tip, I would have gone for that (I use the past tense because I'm old and busy now and haven't listened to much new music lately).

aw3c2 17y ago

Well, my CD money spending went from ~3/year to a good ~20 for each of the years during OiNK's Pink Palace times (fantastic music filesharing site). Now it is at ~1/year because I do got fed up by the music mafia and rather look for genuinely free music (Creative Commons etc).

rsheridan6 17y ago
The record industry's post-Napster decline gives a hint about the relative magnitude of file-sharing's positive and negative impact on the record industry. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article4160553.ece http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sect... Short answer - it's negative.

gojomo 17y ago

Your point may be valid, but I find it amusing that you're essentially saying: "I know filesharing is awful because I do it so much."

rsheridan6 17y ago
Whereas the usual opinion is "filesharing must be OK because I do it so much."