Interesting discussions on the internets...

It all started with a young blogger from NPR Emily White:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with

Then David Lowery ('Cracker' nowadays economics professor) replied to Emily White:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/#comments

David Lowery opened the debate...hundreds of comments...interesting stuff!

Some more on his subject:

http://jeffreywbishop.com/hi/?p=213

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... ry-screed/

and comments by Travis Morrison (Dismemberment Plan):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-mo ... 10557.html

So let's continue the debate

i'm setting aside some time to look into this, but i've got nothing at this point.

Emily is an idiot. however, things sounded well framed from David's perspective until he wrote:

"You could also write your Congressman and Senator and suggest they come up with some way to divert the flow of advertising money back to the artists."

an obviously small misstep after spending a few paragraphs on the fact that morality should come from individuals not governments.

but thanks for this, i enjoyed it while listening to a playlist on grooveshark.

It feels so exhausting to keep talking about this for some reason.

I think David Lowery's article is good at explaining the moral argument as to why paying for music is a good idea, but I don't think there's anything that can (or, more importantly, should) be done to stop illegal downloading altogether - the best you can do is try to educate people about making sure musicians get paid and hope you get through to some.

It's kind of unfortunate that the impetus for this debate (this time around) has been a kid who admits she's only bought a mere handful of albums and has downloaded tons of others, since it then becomes depressingly easy to pigeonhole everyone who downloads music as having that same attitude. While that's probably true for some people, it certainly isn't for me: downloading has exposed me to lots of music I would've been too hesitant to purchase otherwise, a great deal of which I've then gone on to purchase.

The argument that a download represents a missed sale for an artist is a fallacy. Take any band or artist I'm interested in hearing: I might try to find one of their records on a torrent site or blog and, if it turns out I really love it, I'll likely see if I can legally buy it (or some of their other work) somewhere. Were that system not available, I just wouldn't ever buy their work at all. If I checked it out on Spotify and they only got paid 10c, that's 10c more than the artist would ever have received from me otherwise.

It's genuinely infuriating that the music industry is actively throwing away sales at a time when they should be bending over backwards to try and encourage people to pay for music in any way that they can: I would absolutely buy a lot more music if it were widely available in a lossless digital format. There's plenty of stuff I know I would've pulled the trigger on but ended up not doing so because I would've had to wait for a CD to be delivered or settle for an MP3. It's frustrating, especially when FLAC downloads are plentiful on torrent sites - the only way to get the product in a way that suits me is to obtain it illegally, even though I would prefer to pay for it. Of course, my personal desires are no justification for illegal activity, but I wish it wasn't a conflict I had to deal with at all - shut up and take my money.

I sincerely recommend this other, more detailed piece by Lowery: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/201 ... full-post/ on the 'Free Culture' and the new model for artists.

And this other one from another blog, on the 'Spotify' business model: http://thecynicalmusician.com/2012/06/t ... the-cloud/

You care enough about music to spend a good portion of your free time discussing it on an internet message board. You dissect songs, and have a passion for music. You use that downloaded song or album as a reason to investigate further. You are an extreme. EXTREME minority. Most people hear a song they like and go download it with no intention of buying an album later on, or seeing them live, or anything else. If they like it enough, they might download the whole album illegally.. very few people care enough about the music (or the artists) enough to pay for something they aren't required to.

Thanks, I'll try to make time to read these later.


Sure, but I don't see how you can stop that without interfering with people's internet use to an unreasonable degree. Like I said, I think the best thing to do is try to educate those people who you can get through to and not let the rest get you down. People like those you've just described were likely never the kind of consumer who would've spent very much money on music in the first place, apart from buying the occasional single or greatest hits CD. It's those kind of people who I think something like Spotify works for (though I haven't read the link Jorge posted yet) - they get to hear music for free and the artist gets some monetary amount, no matter how small, that they otherwise wouldn't have received.

I think those examples given of musicians' incomes dropping significantly through dwindling album sales are quite moving but I'm also a little suspect about how much of that income decline is attributable to poor business decisions, poor management or just an overall reduction of interest in their work. Of course record sales are down for everybody compared to the 80s or 90s, but it's not like turning back time is a realistic option: even if you can educate a whole bunch of people about the ethical implications of illegally downloading music, their income still would probably fall short of whatever it was when they were at their height of their commercial appeal. Nobody gets into music because it provides a steady paycheck. That isn't to say I'm indifferent to their plight, I buy music and I think other people should too, I just don't think there's any viable solution other than trying to convince a few more people that it's a good idea too. I don't think there's any road back for a lot artists to make the kind of money they did in the 70s, 80s or 90s - at least, not just through making albums.

But perception is reality. What if society loses out on even one truely remarkable song because the person who would have written it sees all the theft and realizes he'll never be able to support a family as a musician?

I'm afraid I don't see your point - when has 'musician' ever been a job ideally suited to supporting a family? It wasn't before people stopped buying music either.

Some bands or artists are either incredibly talented or incredibly lucky and manage to make a comfortable living playing music; the vast majority aren't and either stop playing or supplement their income with other work. For instance, Steve Turner from Mudhoney sells rare records on eBay and (as far as I know) also does landscape gardening work in slow times.

it really isn't up to you to determine what type of life someone leads with their profession, though. I'd argue it is just as fair to pay someone for a service like gardening as it is to pay someone for providing music.

I have a hard time using this logic to justify piracy because it removes the responsibility from the listeners' shoulders and places it on the artist. Like, "hey man, don't complain. You should've known better." Right. But it has nothing to do with the fact that piracy is a pretty shitty thing to do to an author.

Oh, agreed, and I didn't intend to use it in that way - only as an example to disprove Skitch's false scenario where 'professional musician' was supposedly a reliable job before Napster and torrents ruined everything. There are much better and more nuanced arguments than that for why people should pay for music.

Also, perhaps it's just me, but I don't understand what Mecca is trying to say with his post.

pretty much the same thing platy is saying.

While I agree that she's not necessarily representative of all downloaders, I do think it's hard to deny that young Emily White seems like a pretty accurate poster child for a lot of the less attractive human traits which lie at the heart of why the current business model has had such a damning effect on the industry: She wants everything, she wants it now, she wants it at no expense or inconvenience to her, she sees no reason why she shouldn't be completely entitled to it, and she rationalizes it by making achieving some kind of Utopian, everybody-wins, unicorns-and-rainbows version of it sound as easy as taking a piss. "Hey guys, I have an idea: Let's just make it so I get everything I want, when I want, and so that the artists get all the money they need to make a living!" Well, hell's bells, why didn't I think of that! While we're at it, maybe we can drop some teddy bears and chocolates over Gaza and finally put a stop to all that pesky bickering! Thanks, E!

I don't oppose downloading 100%, and think the business has long been able to coexist with various forms of piracy (mixtape making, dubbing songs off the radio, CD burning) which, when used reasonably, can contribute to a culture that fosters growth rather than decline in the industry. That said, I don't think I've ever read a defense of piracy that hasn't sounded like (a) a transparent rationalization, or (b) plain old bullshit. I accept that the times they are a-changin' and all that, but I can't bring myself to value that above simple tenets of right and wrong. In virtually every debate of this kind that's come up in my lifetime--the Metallica/Napster fiasco included--I find myself siding with the artists.

For the record, I don't think I'm arguing in favour of piracy or against the interests of artists - it's more that I don't think you can have this kind of discussion without acknowledging the reality than it's not possible to turn back the clock nor to stop music piracy in any comprehensive way. Because of that, I find the great deal of opinion pieces taking an anti-piracy line kind of tiresome to read, since (though I agree with their general intent) my internal voice is constantly saying "sure, sure - but what are you going to do, call the internet police?" Merely saying "I support musicians and artists, not piracy" is admirable (and it's a statement I'd happily get behind) but ultimately rings kind of hollow without some reflection on what that means in terms of further action you'd like to see taken.

I think educating people, in the way the article and ensuing dialogue linked to in the OP does, is the only real thing that can be done at this point: buy music, don't be a jerk - but nobody can realistically stop you being a jerk if that's what you insist on doing. I still think there's more the record industry could be doing to try and mitigate the effects of piracy, like my FLAC comments above.

My only defence of piracy is that those who are making available pirated music are using technology in such a manner that it just plain works, simply and beautifully. What.CD is the most fantastic site imo and makes available some great music in an easy to obtain format. iTunes on the other hand, again imo, sucks dick.

If I could pay $50 a month to be a member of What.CD as a legitimate enterprise that shared royalties with artists on a proportionate download basis I would be on that in a flash.

As it is spotify just landed in Oz so now I pay $12 a month to be able to at least preview a truckload of stuff that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to. I feel much better about myself now, but still every day I find myself searching Spotify for stuff that's just not available. But when I check What.CD invariably there it is.

A conundrum for sure.

This one I found a bit more of a chore to get through, I'll admit I only skimmed quite a bit of it and will need to read the rest later.

One problem I have with some pieces like this is the starting point that musicians making decent money through selling albums was 'right' and today's situation where they make less is therefore 'wrong'; so much time spent pointing out 'here's how much money an artist made under the old model' vs 'here's the pittance they make now'. A lot of references to 'fair' compensation. I mean, I get it - for a musician, it sucks - but so fucking what? Go find a blacksmith and chat about yer troubles, buddy.

It was a pretty brief window there where a musician could record a piece of music and sit back and wait for the cheques to roll in - 1950 to 1999 or thereabouts? It was a blast while it lasted, I'm sure.

(I'm aware this post is significantly less thoughtful and more flippant than the others I've made in this thread.)

Steve Albini nails it.

Also, it's not really the creative community that's arguing the case either, it's the record companies and movie studios. All the noise is from the business, not so much the artists.

This is far, far from the truth. I'm dealing with it firsthand and have been for close to a year.


Steve Albini does not nail it. That is far from nailing it. I'm off to work now but will return tonight or tomorrow morning to rip that shit to shreds er, post a calm rebuttal. He should know better.