Do you think it's okay to pirate music?
On one hand, if you pay for it, you can support your favorite artists. They do deserve money for what they create, right?
On the other hand, you may be broke and not have money to spare, paying for music. So you pirate it, you would have never bought it in the first place so it wouldn't even have affected an artists sales.
Personally i download a lot of stuff, but if i really like an artist, I'll save some money and pay for a record i like, usually on vinyl.
There are some musicians who have given the majority of their music out for free. For example, Death Grips. I can't find the exact quote right now, but Zach Hill stated that he believes in a digital world, information should be free. That's why they let you download their music for free.
They make their money from touring, and people buying physical copies.
Just interested in other peoples thoughts on this since it seems to me that with this new 'Tidal' streaming thing "First streaming service owned by artists" seems pretty greedy to me. I could be off here, but it just does.
Taylor Swift left spotify because she didn't feel like she got enough money from it, but she backs up tidal and supports it. Isn't she already a multi-millionaire? They're charging $20 a month for a streaming service, that's ridiculous.
Anti-piracy has been cracking down on a lot of things lately. It seems in the future it could crack down most of it. I've heard some people say they think torrenting will be non-existent in the next few years. I don't know if that's possible, or even if that's realistic. Maybe with the uprise of things like tidal, they will start taking down private trackers and become more strict with things like mega.
Thanks for reading my tl;dr blog.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this /mu/
I don't see the point of helping rich people who don't nothing to help poor people or even their fans like jay-z,kanye and the rest on that stage
deadmau5 is a troll so im sure he just joined up to say fuck u to spotify
If i can't fine the album or i have some spare cash that I would spend on ice cream. I'll support the artist
The "war" on piracy is even more ridiculous than the war on drugs. It will never stop and it should not stop.
>Taylor Swift left spotify because she didn't feel like she got enough money from it, but she backs up tidal and supports it
don't fall for this "muh artistry" bullshit. She's a label puppet and they wanted more money
they dont have any dead artists on tidal. it says in the fine print
Maybe it's because I have a business of my own but for the most part I believe in the system of buying the products you want. Just because you're online doesn't mean shit just automatically SHOULD be free. I don't even get why people say this. Just say you rather it be free because the paid options such dick. You'd seem like less of an entitled prick.
I pirate if there isn't an easier paid option to get the music I want. For bullshit yearly fodder releases I don't mind using a streaming service. It's legitimate and I don't have to fill my music folder up with a bunch of garbage.
That doesn't mean I'll stop pirating though. Tidal/Spotify will NEVER get a lot of music from artists I enjoy. A lot of foreign acts and what not.
>he thinks software shouldn't ALWAYS be free
the artist shouldn't make money by selling the art. this goes for books, movies, whatever. art is not a product.
for music's case, the artist should make money by providing their service as a musician. provide the music for free, and then accept donations. if people want the musician to make more music, they will donate.
it's not gonna be the fuckload of money some artists get, but if people want to hear the music, they'll pay to finance it.
Animal Collective is my favorite band. I've spent probably over $200 total on Animal Collective (records, DVDs, concerts). If music piracy didn't exist and I had to buy all my music, I would have never ever listened to Animal Collective.
All of this ethics is total crap. Technology has allowed for the consumer to obtain music in a way that conveniences them far more than previously. Quite frankly if the only thing the record companies can do about that is whine rather than accept things as they are and adjust their methods then they deserve to go bust. Its just bad business. No one does this with anything else.
Also boo hoo my fave artist can't become a millionaire anymore and live a life totally unrelatable to normal peoples lives. Good. That's nearly always the moment their art becomes crap (probably are exceptions but in most cases its true). I think if musicians want to put their music out they still will, if they want to tour they will, and if they can't stand the idea of not getting famous and being a celebrity then fuck them. If anything this has helped less famous artists reach people they never would have otherwise, even if everyone and their mum has an album out these days. More music means more good music. Music was played before you could sell it guys
Are you a musician? If so, you must know that creating a piece of (good) music takes craftsmanship, dedication and a LOT of time. If someone chooses to listen to what you have made, why not ask a small amount for hardcopies, or downloads? Think back in the early days, for instance folk musicians, they lived off their craft and they spent their entire lives perfecting it. Donations wouldn't work.
>Rihanna makes millions of dollars in a seven show tour
>somehow still involved in this
These big artists will make more money in one tour than most artists make in their entire career.
Not even saying that at least half of them don't even write or produce their own songs. They take part in 5% of the entire process of making and selling their CD, most of that consists of interviews.
I only buy music if the label that put it out is also behind several other artists that I enjoy, or if the artist is selling it themselves through bandcamp or a website or something. I don't mind paying $5 for a digital download if the artists gets most of it.
I hope the irony of the name isn't lost on anyone.
The music industry which has been fighting the tide of free digital distribution for two decades is now coming out with a service called Tidal which continues the tradition.
Do you work at the same time? What I'm talking about is not learning to comprehend music, but actually creating it.
>inb4 being a musician isn't a real job
Good luck with your study.
Google's already decided this issue for us. they've started uploading every album ever made onto Youtube. You can search an artist name, pull up a playlist of their discography and listen to their shit for free. The audio quality is about equal to a 320 mp3.
I am, and yeah I understand that it takes time. I'm in college, I have a full time job, and I honestly would kill for a chance to make music full time, but the music I make is not something to sell. I upload it for free. I wouldn't mind asking for money in exchange for a hardcopy, whatever it costs to make it.
And donations would work if people wanted to hear the music. Treating the music as a product just puts barriers around it, rather than simply donating the same amount of money to the artist for providing the music. If no one wants to hear the music, and it's just a personal outlet for expression from the artist, then the person who wants to hear the music has to fund it (the artists themselves)
They might work... Also why not do something because you want too. You can make money of playing shows, using your recordings like adverts as they are relatively inexpensive in this day and age. For example any other business would create an advert to promote their product, then if the ad was successful in letting people know that what they wanted was your service then they would purchase a product from you.
Only in the music world do people whine and moan about THEY'RE STEALING MY RECORD WAH WAH WAH WHY WON'T THEY PAID TO BE SOLD A PRODUCT because of how the business model previously work and they have precious expectations to hold onto dearly.
Any other business wouldn't charge anyone to see a commercial and if you suggested it to anyone they would think you were crazy.
Also this is so fucking true and it drives me mad.
I don't know how much of the pie iTunes takes, but bandcamp and such are pretty decent ways to buy music I think???
> rich people who don't nothing to help poor people
I'm sure you are very careful to find out how much for example, Beyonce has donated to charities.
>artists shouldn't make money
You are ignorant.
>If anything this has helped less famous artists reach people they never would have otherwise
If i only paid for music, i would have never been able to keep affording to do so, thus the less artists i discover.
Also, there have been many times i would download an album from someone i'd never heard of, listen to the album and grow to love it over a few months, then i'd buy their record online to have a physical copy. I'd also probably see them live.
If i had paid for music only, none of that would have happened. Therefore that musician would have less listeners and less money.
I do work at the same time. but let's face it even when I kiss ass and get a job. I'm still gonna be fucked paying off college debt and ty
I'm not knocking musicians but some these fuckers are like kanye are getting overpayed and still want more
>Beyonce has donated to charities.
Oh wow she donated some money to charity but still leads a hugely wealthy lifestyle. Its obviously for publicity/self esteem. Grow up anon all rich people do this
I agree with you on some points. But this way also turns the music industry into a democracy, the one who goes viral will get the most recognition, thus more donations, thus more money to go on tour/make merch. The popular ones always win. This makes it impossible for Joe on the corner and his guitar to survive, you know what I mean? It can't be good for newcomers.
How can you solely depend on donations until you can tour? This kills the underground music.
I thank the internet for all my knowledge of music. I can listen to the majority of music made in the world today literally right now.
It's morally wrong to give money to major labels. If you do this you're helping to promote another shallow, unoriginal, money-driven, self-obsessed pop star
If you can it's right to support local artists. But since I can have the music for free, I prefer to do this by buying merch (t-shirts, mostly) or at least buy the vinyl.
The music is out there for anyone to listen. Even "they" do it. Don't feel guilty for doing this, that's what the major labels want you to do. And don't forget, a major label is a bussiness and the only goal of a bussiness is profit.
You don't. You get onto a phone, and email venues.You save up money from a job or some other source of income to afford the travel expenses. Then play where ever you can and try and round up fans. Try and be able to get bands to lets you tour with them by getting your music as out theres are you can. Put it where ever you can, in films, internet, games, anywhere. Its not going to make you a lot of money at the beginning but hey. Even if it doesn't make a lot, you still get the adventure of travelling and the experience of playing tons of places and getting really good as a band. Also its an awesome thing to say 'I went on tour'. Its kinda like one of those cheap, shitty holidays people take when they're young like gap years or something, which should be bad but they're fun as fuck.
how would i possibly find the music if i couldn't listen to it? i'd never buy a ~$14 album just because someone recommended it to me, much less hundreds of them. i'd buy it after i listened many times and enjoyed the music so much that i want to support the artist
The popular ones are gonna win anyway, that's the whole point. Supply and demand, people want the pop hits, they'll pay for the pop hits. Joe on the corner isn't gonna make any more money by forcing people to pay $9.99 for his album rather than uploading it for free and letting people decide how much money they'll give him. If someone doesn't want to hear his music, they won't pay for his album at all. If it's free, they might actually be inclined to give it a shot.
If the album is free, people can share it freely, show their friends, spread the word. When there are no limits to sharing the music, the amount of people that can hear it is at its peak. Everyone in support of piracy (I'm not myself, but I'm in support of a change in the system) has mentioned they wouldn't have heard (and subsequently paid for) the artists music if not for free listening beforehand. Joe on the corner has a lot better chance in the free music scenario, don't you think?
I had mentioned later on in that post that they should make money through providing the service, just not for a product. It's a different transaction, but the artist gets paid money if people want to hear the music. I dunno if he read the rest.
kbps mp3 equal to a 320 mp3
Maybe you should actually listen to some of the files that they uploaded before arbitrarily typing random shit. The audio half of the vids are hq when you view it in 720p or higher. If you listen you can hear for yourself that its the equivalent of a hq mp3
I don't have to trust anybody. Those are just facts. Go to youtube and type in "willie nelson." A hashtag will pop up next to his name and if you click on it you can scroll down hus artist profile to an albums playlist and see for yourself. They've uploaded over 100 separate album folders of his catalogue. Same for Tina turner and Madonna and even more obscure artists too. Not saying its right. Not saying its wrong. I'm just saying.
the purchase of physical media isn't the purchase of the music itself, it's of the hardware that contains the music. you're buying the CD, the case, the booklet, etc. but not the art that is on the disk. the artist can make money by producing those things if they want. to deny them that would be to deny them the ability to sell anything physical, and that's not really the point I'm trying to make here
i've tried various means of listening to music - illegal (piracy), semi-illegal (spotify+piracy) and legal (youtube+cds). there's so much on youtube now that idk if we really need piracy anymore.
>there's so much on youtube now that idk if we really need piracy anymore.
I really, really, really hope this is bait.
nah a lot of music can be found either on youtube or on spotify. i mean sure you have to go hunting for an odd release once in a while but i haven't resorted to hardcore piracy in a long time. do you find yourself having to download a lot of stuff?
He's not wrong. In the past week or two Youtube has been uploading hundreds of albums by hundreds of artists in hq mp3 audio. Its all there waiting to be listened to. I've discovered oodles of albums there over the past few days its all been a dizzying blur.
Create a counter argument to:
>i think all art should be free
>artists should not profit from art
Really. Where shall we begin. Economics, human rights, political theory? Because that post touches on them all and comes across as the ramblings of someone who's never for a minute thought outside of his own wants.
Are you shilling for google or something? Youtube music in audio is compressed like fuck.
Especially when people upload it it, they have no clue how to do it properly.
There are even songs have had the pitch to them changed to avoid being taken down.
I mean jesus, getting music from youtube is like downloading an album in 98kbps.
There are much more efficient ways of getting music.
I fill out surveys daily for money and spend it on music. Devoting about an hour a day to it allows me to buy about eight albums a month and I use it to monetarily support my favorite artists without shitting on my wallet.
I also spend 25-50 bucks a month at my record store to buy physical albums. Of course I still like to support the artists but this is focused more on supporting the store and independt music itself. And when an artist I like comes to town I'll see them live.
If there's an album I want to hear but isn't available digitally and is something so rare I have no chance of finding it at my record store then I will pirate it just to hear it.
Just last night I downloaded The Spoils of War's self titled.
I guess what I'm doing isn't gonna make a huge difference but I like to think I'm helping in some way.
Also you didnt scroll up high enough.
and another point I'd like to make: if the transaction between artist/listener changed for money-for-product to money-for-service, all of the problems of IP theft and sampling issues would disappear too. obviously credits would have to be given to the sampled work, but once the music itself is free to listen to/share/distribute/manipulate, there is no financial loss from sampling a work (if credit is given). as long as the source material can be traced back to the original artist, then the listener can donate to them.
treating music like a product only creates a harmful, possessive attitude. let's say I save an online picture of the Mona Lisa and I doodle a moustache on it. option 1: I sell the online picture for $5.00, infringing on IP and blah blah or option 2: I share it for free and people who thought it was worth a donation can throw a few dollars my way. one of these makes complete sense.
they profit from the service of providing music, just not from the purchase of the music itself. it's exactly what record companies do: pay artists to make music. that's a service. then the record companies try to make their money back by selling an digital object (which is dumb). if we take the place of the record company, we pay for the service. that's how it should work, that's my point.
I've never heard anyone say this on /mu/... let alone about something I wrote. Thanks anon. You've restored my faith in the community of waifu loving faggots who don't stop saying the word meme.
I'm part of it damn it
Why has no one brought up how shit it would be with mobile?
At 320, I burn through data like crazy streaming from my phone at work. I cant imagine how much all this "High Fidelity Streaming" would burn.
An app called quick thoughts. It only pays out in iTunes gift cards (>2015 >itunes) but it's pretty reliable. If I could find one for Amazon I would switch to that but I haven't bothered looking.
The quality is worse but if I listen to something on youtube and like it I'm gonna find flacs of it and listen to it at its best. However youtube as a means of acquiring the knowledge about the artist or album surfaces useful
MORE OF THESE
MORE OF THESE
THEY CAN RETURN ONCE AGAIN WITHOUT BEING SUED TO DEATH
>mfw he shits of martin garrix for making boring edm that noone will listen too in 5 years....
Piracy truly is a victimless crime. What does the artist/label/production company lose from someone copying data? Money? No, the actual transfer of data doesn't somehow subtract from their bank accounts. They don't actually lose any property as they would with something like a CD theft. On top of that, most people who pirate admit that if it wasn't an option, they simply wouldn't listen to the music. There's so much music out there these days, and so much of it is actually free that you could live your entire life without listening to anything released for money and probably find some real hidden gems. What the issue of piracy comes down to is greed. Even though the big companies aren't really losing any money through piracy and are being hurt in no way, they feel that they're not making as much money as they should and want to criminalize anyone who isn't adding to their profits.
And I mean, just think about how stupid that is. Imagine you're out eating with a friend. Your friend likes his food and decides to share it with you. As soon as you take a bite, you find yourself slapped with a lawsuit for possesion of a product you don't own. Even though someone else paid for it and you're not costing the restaurant any more money by eating your friend's food, you're not actively paying them for it so they want to make you pay a huge fine or throw you in jail with killers, rapists, and officers/guards that don't care what you did and will treat you just like everyone else there.
As long as albums are a standard way of distributing music, there will always be a number of people willing to buy it because there will always be people with extra money to spend. If I did have the money to buy everything I listen to I probably would buy it, but it would be physical copies instead lf digital anyway, and it's not out of any notion of supporting the artist or the label, but rather because I would like to own a physical representation of a piece of art that I enjoy.
One of my friends recently purchased an album from some band he really liked. Can't remember who but anyway. He was considering downloading it then decided to drive to the closest record store and buy a physical copy for $20. He then walks outside and finds out he got a parking ticket. So that album ended up costing him $120.
I remember watching that advert and thinking I totally would if I could get away with it and if the owner of the original copy still had theirs. It's not even stealing say if its a car. Its just duplicating and if it were as easy as filesharing who wouldn't