Why bother being in a band and why bother trying?

Drew_TNBD

imalone said:

guitarfishbay said:

Since digital media (a want) can be stolen (stolen is the operative word)

No, it's not. I pay for music, I'm happy to do so. Copying without paying reduces the chance the artists get paid for what they do. But it's not stealing, there are many things that cause injury to other people that are not stealing. If I walk past a busker without giving them money I'm not stealing from them, if I walk past a market stall and take a couple of apples off it I'm stealing.

Those comparisons absolutely do not work, because when you borrow an album from a friend or download a pirated copy, you are getting an experience for free. If you walk past a busker they have VOLUNTARILY put themselves in a position where they ACCEPT that some people will get that experience for free.

The same cannot be said for artists and their albums. Not every artist wants to give their music away for free. By taking a "copy" (cute way of saying you download torrents of albums) you are directly contravening the artists wishes.

Now if you want to download music for free from artists that have made it known that they are more than willing for you to do so, then I have no quarrel there. Some artists do take this position. Others do not. If you take their art brought about by their craftsmanship and they've said they are not comfortable with that, then yes... you are stealing. End of story.

I know you want to feel like you're in the right and that it's a brave new world and music is free now and these grumpy artists should join the 21st century... but it's really just modern day entitlement spoilt brat culture that you're using to justify your theft. That's how I see it.

Snap

copying or downloading copyrighted music, without permission is theft, end of. That's the whole purpose of copyright FFS - as in the right to chuffing copy!

Drew (loooong time no talk etc btw), this thread has prompted me to listen to your latest album on Spotify, and its streaming right now, this minute. And I will listen to the whole lot. It's dead good mate, and sounds crisp too, nice mixing and producing fella. Really like it.

The whole production, mixing and mastering side of recording is hugely undervalued unless you have a feel for, and understand, the level of skill needed to do them well. I have been arsing around with home recording for perhaps 20 yeras, more, and I struggle massively with all that. It requires firstly, the right setup and gear, and secondly - and this is the killer - a load of listening and creative sklls that take a long long time to master. Which is kind of obvious, and why people like Ethan Johns, Tony Visconti, Flood, RIck RUbin (insert legend) are the legends they are.

imalone

Drew_fx said:

imalone said:

guitarfishbay said:

Since digital media (a want) can be stolen (stolen is the operative word)

No, it's not. I pay for music, I'm happy to do so. Copying without paying reduces the chance the artists get paid for what they do. But it's not stealing, there are many things that cause injury to other people that are not stealing. If I walk past a busker without giving them money I'm not stealing from them, if I walk past a market stall and take a couple of apples off it I'm stealing.

Those comparisons absolutely do not work, because when you borrow an album from a friend or download a pirated copy, you are getting an experience for free. If you walk past a busker they have VOLUNTARILY put themselves in a position where they ACCEPT that some people will get that experience for free.

The same cannot be said for artists and their albums. Not every artist wants to give their music away for free. By taking a "copy" (cute way of saying you download torrents of albums) you are directly contravening the artists wishes.

Now if you want to download music for free from artists that have made it known that they are more than willing for you to do so, then I have no quarrel there. Some artists do take this position. Others do not. If you take their art brought about by their craftsmanship and they've said they are not comfortable with that, then yes... you are stealing. End of story.

I know you want to feel like you're in the right and that it's a brave new world and music is free now and these grumpy artists should join the 21st century... but it's really just modern day entitlement spoilt brat culture that you're using to justify your theft. That's how I see it.

Like I said, I pay for stuff. Stealing is the wrong word. It's always been the wrong word. You don't like my busker analogy, but the stealing one is even more broken. But carry on with your rant if you like.

TTony

CabbageCat said:

Clarky said:

a building Co wouldn't just give away houses, so why should bands be expected to give away their music?? 

People do give away their music. If one builder was giving away their houses for nothing then the builder charging £££ for it might not get as much custom as he hoped.

The worst thing is people who give away guitar discussion forums for free.

monquixote

I think the point is that illegally duplicating a copyrighted work isn't the same thing as taking a physical good without the consent of the owner. 

To my mind they are both unethical behaviours, but not exactly the same. 

Cirrus

guitarfishbay;356234" said:

I had to bow out of a debate on another board on this very issue... some vocal posters were saying 'you can just get a basic computer, reaper, and record DI - an album doesn't cost much to make.'

Right... but how many hours does it take to arrive at the point where you have the skills to make it good?  

And how many hours does it take to write, refine, and rehearse material to the extent where it is good enough and the performances are sharp enough to release? 

And then how long does it take to record it, edit it, mix it, refine it?  

Therein lies the problem.  

People see a product and go 'this is what physical things you need to create the product, so this is how much it should cost'.

So in stating that as the 'correct' formula for calculating the price they have already erased 'time' as a valuable thing (..watch it fly by as the pendulum swings..), because they don't want to value it or pay for it.

The issue is, music (and all art) doesn't have intrinsic value. There's no easy way to tell people it's worth something the same way you know people will value food, shelter and physical things. 

Art will always be created by those who have a deep seated need to create. It'll always be lead by the heart and sometimes the head will manage to keep up and figure out how to make people pay you for your creation. In the past artists were mostly paid by patronage and commissioned works paid for by people who wanted a specific thing and placed a value on getting what they wanted. That is SO different to an artist making something of their own volition and then going out into the world looking for people who value it.

The record industry only became a thing because it was a marriage of new technology and a social movement of which music played a prominent role. It mattered to people. There was a wave of cutting edge of music through the 20th century that took people along with it. Now that wave seems to have died down, new music isn't as vital to modern culture it's just pleasant background noise to most. Couple that with the blanket availability of free music and you can see why people don't have much time or money for new stuff.

Which IS annoying when like many of us here I have to create. I love the art of songwriting, production, mixing, performance and sadly my heart is much stronger than my head so I'll do it even though it's a total loss financially.

For my band's last album I spent two weeks of full time work collating demos, turning snippets of ideas into songs and producing basic demos with acoustic guitar, vocals, harmonies and midi drums/ bass where I had ideas for those.

Then 6 months of actual band work arranging the songs and doing pre-production.

Then three 4 day bursts recording drums and bass

Then endless sessions doing guitar and vocals.

Then probably 4-5 hours mixing per song

Then a day at a mastering house.

Plus all the on-the-side stuff: working with someone to design artwork, organise cd replication etc.

Oh yeah, and the whole getting a degree in music technology plus learning how to record mostly despite that degree.

The investment in time and money was enormous, but I never thought I was doing it for anyone other than myself.

For the follow up album we're doing at the moment, we're partially fan funding it. So far we've raised a little over £2000. The patronage model seems like it could work, it's just going to be at best self sustaining in conjunction with other revenue streams vs being handed vast wads of cash to blow in stupid ways while society marvels at your god like stature.

Grunfeld

Drew_fx said:

Grunfeld said:

...But music IS digitally reproducible and therefore it is free.  (Whether one wants it to be is another matter.)  So, as a musician, one is not going to earn a living trying to sell something which is free.

Is my take on it.

So morality, ethics, and scruples just doesn't even enter into it in your view?

They absolutely do enter into it -- they enter into everything, in my view. 

[Personally I pay for everything, but this wasn't about me.]

I was just thinking what today's musicians are up against:  the end product of recorded music is, de facto, free.  The only thing that obliges people to pay for it is conscience.

Where it seems to be working for musicians are with
(a) things like bandcamp, where the prices are cheaper and so seem reasonable... it's not "free" but it's not too expensive either.

(b) where the artist has worked to create the appearance of a personal connection with their audience -- the use of blogs, twitter, and so on.  If you're a fan, and you see the work going into a project, and maybe even help fund it, I'd imagine you're much less likely to take the finished product without paying something for it.

Bucket

Clarky said:

a building Co wouldn't just give away houses, so why should bands be expected to give away their music??

Jesus Christ, so much this.

Bucket

Drew_fx said:

Those comparisons absolutely do not work, because when you borrow an album from a friend or download a pirated copy, you are getting an experience for free. If you walk past a busker they have VOLUNTARILY put themselves in a position where they ACCEPT that some people will get that experience for free.

The same cannot be said for artists and their albums. Not every artist wants to give their music away for free. By taking a "copy" (cute way of saying you download torrents of albums) you are directly contravening the artists wishes.

Now if you want to download music for free from artists that have made it known that they are more than willing for you to do so, then I have no quarrel there. Some artists do take this position. Others do not. If you take their art brought about by their craftsmanship and they've said they are not comfortable with that, then yes... you are stealing. End of story.

I know you want to feel like you're in the right and that it's a brave new world and music is free now and these grumpy artists should join the 21st century... but it's really just modern day entitlement spoilt brat culture that you're using to justify your theft. That's how I see it.

And all of this too.

Snap

monquixote said:

I think the point is that illegally duplicating a copyrighted work isn't the same thing as taking a physical good without the consent of the owner. 

To my mind they are both unethical behaviours, but not exactly the same. 

Actually, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same. Theft, pure and simple: taking something belonging to someone else, without permission. We can do it in the comfort and safety of our own home, without confrontation, so it seems different, acceptable, but its just the same really.

Damien Hirst does a painting, then has prints done of the original, done for sale. I meet a bloke down the pub, who's got a load of the prints, take one off him for nowt. That's theft, not from the bloke in the pub, but from the artist. Bloke in pub is a thief too, and worse.

Same deal for illegal downloads. Exactly the same, people just seem to have difficulty accepting it. Pretty straightforward really.

monquixote

Snap said:

monquixote said:

I think the point is that illegally duplicating a copyrighted work isn't the same thing as taking a physical good without the consent of the owner. 

To my mind they are both unethical behaviours, but not exactly the same. 

Actually, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same. Theft, pure and simple: taking something belonging to someone else, without permission. We can do it in the comfort and safety of our own home, without confrontation, so it seems different, acceptable, but its just the same really.

Damien Hirst does a painting, then has prints done of the original, done for sale. I meet a bloke down the pub, who's got a load of the prints, take one off him for nowt. That's theft, not from the bloke in the pub, but from the artist. Bloke in pub is a thief too, and worse.

Same deal for illegal downloads. Exactly the same, people just seem to have difficulty accepting it. Pretty straightforward really.

OK so if I copy one of your CDs what don't you have that you had before?

Drew_TNBD

monquixote said:

Snap said:

monquixote said:

I think the point is that illegally duplicating a copyrighted work isn't the same thing as taking a physical good without the consent of the owner. 

To my mind they are both unethical behaviours, but not exactly the same. 

Actually, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same. Theft, pure and simple: taking something belonging to someone else, without permission. We can do it in the comfort and safety of our own home, without confrontation, so it seems different, acceptable, but its just the same really.

Damien Hirst does a painting, then has prints done of the original, done for sale. I meet a bloke down the pub, who's got a load of the prints, take one off him for nowt. That's theft, not from the bloke in the pub, but from the artist. Bloke in pub is a thief too, and worse.

Same deal for illegal downloads. Exactly the same, people just seem to have difficulty accepting it. Pretty straightforward really.

OK so if I copy one of your CDs what don't you have that you had before?

The chance for one extra sale. Simples. You're robbing people of chances to sell their wares.

digitalscream

Snap said:

Actually, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same.

No, they aren't. I suggest you look up the difference between the legal definitions of "theft" and "copyright infringement".

monquixote

Drew_fx said:

monquixote said:

OK so if I copy one of your CDs what don't you have that you had before?

The chance for one extra sale. Simples. You're robbing people of chances to sell their wares.

But that's not the same. 

If I take your physical CD you've lost the chance of a sale and the physical value it cost you to get the CD produced if I duplicate your CD you've only lost the possibility of a sale and in actual fact you have only reduced the probability, or even potentially increased as when i did illegally download music back in the Napster days (haven't done it for 10 years BTW) I used to delete anything that was crap and buy the CD of anything half decent.

I don't disagree that it's unethical, but I don't think it should be considered the same in law. To me it's the same as the difference between buying a Chibson and putting a brick through a guitar shop window and making off with a Gibson. Both unethical and rightly illegal, but not equivalent. 

imalone

Snap said:

monquixote said:

I think the point is that illegally duplicating a copyrighted work isn't the same thing as taking a physical good without the consent of the owner. 

To my mind they are both unethical behaviours, but not exactly the same. 

Actually, in the eyes of the law, they are just the same. Theft, pure and simple: taking something belonging to someone else, without permission. We can do it in the comfort and safety of our own home, without confrontation, so it seems different, acceptable, but its just the same really.

No, and very specifically in the eyes of the law they are not, they are different laws and statutes. What about this is difficult to understand. Why not call it GBH or fraud? Those harm people are illegal too.
Oddly, some forms of intentional copyright infringement are criminal offences (not all), while patent and design infringement are civil. Trademark infringement is civil, though there are criminal offences relating to falsely claiming a trademark.
Lets put it another way, if you are taken to court because you copied something and charged with theft you will be not guilty because someone in the prosecution has been an idiot.

Also, your prints example misses an important step. Exercise for the reader to see if you can spot it.

guitarfishbay

Edit : I'm confused here, I'm not a lawyer.

So if you steal a CD it is stealing.

If you copy a CD it is copyright infringement.

If you take a digital file without paying (when it was supposed to be paid for) what is that legally?  Is it copyright infringement, in law?

CabbageCat

guitarfishbay said:

Edit : I'm confused here, I'm not a lawyer.

So if you steal a CD it is stealing.

If you copy a CD it is copyright infringement.

If you take a digital file without paying (when it was supposed to be paid for) what is that legally?  Is it copyright infringement, in law?

Maybe if the file is literally taken - the original owner no longer has it - it is theft. If it is copied then it's a copyright thing.

I think the nub of this rather weird argument is that some people seem to be of the opinion that if people refuse to call piracy theft then they are condoning it. Imalone has been talking perfect sense but people don't appear to be interested in that.

guitarfishbay

CabbageCat said:

guitarfishbay said:

Edit : I'm confused here, I'm not a lawyer.

So if you steal a CD it is stealing.

If you copy a CD it is copyright infringement.

If you take a digital file without paying (when it was supposed to be paid for) what is that legally?  Is it copyright infringement, in law?

Maybe if the file is literally taken - the original owner no longer has it - it is theft. If it is copied then it's a copyright thing.

I think the nub of this rather weird argument is that some people seem to be of the opinion that if people refuse to call piracy theft then they are condoning it. Imalone has been talking perfect sense but people don't appear to be interested in that.

That isn't a fair statement.  If his response to me was 'this is how it works in law' rather than a statement that looks like it could be fact or opinion, then I would have responded differently.

It wasn't until Digital Scream posted about theft and copyright infringement that I twigged, maybe I'm slow, but also sometimes it is just a communication/miscommunication thing.

I wouldn't have asked for clarification otherwise, as I wouldn't have been aware.

Danny1969

These days you have to accept your unlikely to make much money from sales ....... The right or wrong is immaterial that's just the way it now

I'm involved with a lot of projects and the guys who make money don't spend ages recording mixing and mastering ....... I wish they did but they don't
One band I know paid me to track a local gig live then it had a quick independent mix from another guy ang then the CDs were duplicated The album was in profit after about 30 cd sales
Another band I'm involved with are with high roller records in Germany who release on vinyl .... You can still make money from that

Live music is where your main income comes from these days . I can run the studio by subbing it with repair work but all my wages come from live work

thisisguitar

I think the cost of using an ISP should double and something similar to PRS set up to distribute the extra money amongst content providers. Youtube and others make millions selling advertising that is sold on the back of largely illegal streams of content, and even Spotify as a business model doesn't really support artists (Lady Gaga got paid next to nothing in a year that she had the most streamed song). See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/spotify-1-million-plays-108-return-1944051.html

1 million plays £108.

The real problem is record companies took the piss when they had a stranglehold, and because musicians could afford to drive a car into a swimming pool and do all the drugs they wanted, the public assume you can afford for them to take your music for free. 

I talk about buying music to the kids I teach, it never crosses their mind to pay for it.