What happens if no-one pays for music?

[Beanzy]

I think it's like any evasion of payment. It happens because it is possible and because people think they are only taking from the corporations. The interaction is between the 'little ol' me with all my hard earned cash' and the big amorphous corporations. People can justify criminal behaviour because they are able to depersonalise the 3rd party being wronged. It may help if artists and their representatives can overcome that barrier between them and the people who obviously want what they do.

I think if people could see that their money made a difference or where it went they would be more inclined to be honest. If you know your ten bucks gives $6 to the corporation but $4 of that goes on development and future productions or whatever then you may be more likely to justify it as worth paying. At the moment people just see they can get the beneifit now 'free' if they steal. They don't see any consequences, or just wilfully ignore questions of right and wrong as the party being wronged is opaque and impersonal.

[Mandobart]

I know the original thread was not about busking, but I've enjoyed reading the various takes on it. I've lived in some larger cities (San Diego, Orlando, Seattle, Chicago) and seen some great buskers who appeared to enjoy it, and may have done well enough to make it worth their while. Except for the drunk/drug influenced ones they were mostly pretty good. Nothing appeared degrading to me, except again, those that were desperate for the cash and often said so. I've seen some real sorry cases, notably in Las Vegas, of true derelicts sprawled out on the bridges spanning the strip who were beyond degraded, picking at broken down, untuned instruments and squawking about spare change. So what do the actual "artist" or "musician" buskers call the down-and-outers banging on a guitar as a means to hustle more change than a simple sign around the neck will bring in? Is there any tension between these groups? Are they separate groups or just different points on a scale?

[Mandobart]

... the woman's bike would be out in her yard with a "For Sale" sign on it, but out on the sidewalk would be an unlimited number of exact replicas available free of charge.

I think this is a big part of the justification people feel for free downloads. These folks would never go into a store and steal a CD, but when what they take is a digital file over the 'net, which does nothing to diminish the remaining available product (an endless supply of the exact same file) it doesn't feel like stealing. I am very picky on who I'll lend tools to. If every wrench, screwdriver, plumbing torch, multimeter, etc. that left my shop was immediately replaced by a brand new unused carbon copy, I'd probably be much more liberal in lending them out.

So it's not the theft of an actual product, it's the denial of what is considered a justifiable wage for the creation of the original product. It costs the artist/studio no more to create a digital album sold to 10 people or to 10,000 people. I'm not defending piracy, just trying to think about why people who don't consider themselves thieves would do it.

[mandolirius]

The other thing to keep in mind is that not every act of piracy represents a lost sale. I have downloaded things only because they were available. I didn't want them badly enough to actually pay for them. Had they not been available as a free download, I'd have simply done without.

[eadg145]

I've been following this story, but outside the 'Cafe. I hadn't noticed that FIVE PAGES (!) of commentary had spawned in a single day, but that certainly reflects the attention it's getting elsewhere too, in my experience. I just want to add (at this late time, perhaps), that it would be a much better discussion if folks read the original Lowery article here:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...gs-considered/

(if you haven't) rather than the somewhat reheated and editorialized reworking of the story on Salon.com. Lowery isn't a grammatical wizard, but he's a working musician with experience and he makes a very reasoned set of arguments. I thought that much of that was lost in the cover discussion in the Salon article, which I'd only seen today after noticing this thread.

[Larry S Sherman]

I heard about the op article from a friend that owns several used-CD stores, who was upset by the young downloader's attitude. This I find ironic because the artists are not getting a cut from the CDs he sells. In fact his whole business is based on making money off the work of artists that he is not compensating. But he is not a pirate.

Conveniently perhaps, because I prefer mandolin music to corporate music, I can often buy CDs and newly released vinyl directly from the artists at live shows, their websites, CDBaby, Bandcamp, etc.

I try to reward the artists by buying their concert tickets, buy merch directly from them if I can, and get involved if they initiate kickstarters such as Cahalen & Eli (NFI from anyone I've linked).

I think if you support the music you like you can keep it going. But I won't cry if the big record companies become obsolete and fail. They're doing nothing for me anyway.

Larry

[Bigtuna]

The ultimate solution is for young consumers to understand that intellectual property is as tangible and valuable as the iPod they carry in their pockets.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Bertram Henze]

I agree with those who think they'll never get the genie back in the bottle. Eventually, someone will invent a new bottle and the fun will start all over again.

I think the cirlce of new bottle inventions will run ever faster. Someone is bound to build a factory.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Marty Henrickson - "..Is there a model to put more of this download income into the artists' pockets ?".I think it's very unlikely. IMHO,the record companies & the owners of the download sites will still endeavour to cream off as much cash as they can get away with at the expense of the musicians.Should we be surprised ?,no !.Record companies have been exploiting musicians since back in the days of 60's Rock 'n Roll. Bands selling hundreds of thousands (if not millions)of records,being payed a weekly allowance of 'not very much',while the record producers were making $/£ millions.
I'm sure that there must be (must ??) bands out there playing music that i'd buy if they were recording,but i don't know of any.It seems that the days of record companies seeking out & promoting really good bands has long gone,apart from the Boy & Girl bands that started the rot (IMHO). Where are the good new 'Guitar based' bands of the Dire Straits type ?.I don't hear much evidence of any on the UK radio stations. Personally,i feel that at least in the UK,the music scene is pretty poor with regard to the choices that us 'older folk' have in the way of music to buy. Until the record companies realise that there are millions of people NOT buying music,because there's nothing for us to buy,then they'll carry on loosing money - so be it,
Ivan

[Fretbear]

Never mind....

[Fretbear]

Never mind......

[Bertram Henze]

Bands selling hundreds of thousands (if not millions)of records,being payed a weekly allowance of 'not very much',while the record producers were making $/£ millions.

From an economic point of view, music is a third-world country with a scenic landscape. The best we can do is dance for tourists.

[Larry S Sherman]

From Marty Henrickson - "..Is there a model to put more of this download income into the artists' pockets ?".I think it's very unlikely.

Bandcamp and Kickstarter campaigns are two modern examples that put the artist in the driver's seat.

Larry

[250sc]

I like the music/third world country analogy. lol

[OldGus]

When a question is asked it is often times good to ask an equal but opposite question to help get an honest and well rounded view point. What happens if they make absolutely sure that everyone pays for music? It's got to be some form of oppression. Both ideas are extremes, although I ultimately like the free music idea much better. Real world scenarios are never going to be 100% efficient in the transfer of energy or wealth. People need to accept that. To demand 100% or very nearly 100% is vanity in my opinion. This idea has the hatred of freedom lurking in it's shadows. Isn't music supposed to be about freeing ones spirit and relaxation not restrictions and oppression? A friend of mine was in the local coffee shop recently and they told them that they don't allow cover songs when they have someone preform because playing covers is illegal. If this happens or is happening you can say goodbye to traditional music played in public. Don't most bands get their start playing covers and well established bands play them on occasion to mix things up? Doesn't everyone learn something from someone else at some point? Is it even possible not to? Who owns all this "property" called knowledge and how are you going to tally every bit of information for financial gain? My friend has a good term for this: money whoring.

[Dusepo]

The best way to see what happens when nobody pays for music is to see what happened in Russia before 1990 or what is currently happening in Cuba. Under both systems, music went straight into the public domain. I love Cuban music, and the effect seems to be that songs are re-made and re-played by various bands, much like classical and folk songs are in our culture (I should add that I live in the UK so it may be different in America). The counter-argument to this is to say that it makes music less original, but you have to wonder if that's really the case, given how much music nowadays is 'sampled' from previous things anyway.

It does, however, encourage a vibrant live music scene when bands can no longer rely on CD sales. I have never been to Cuba, but I get the impression that access to the internet is less there. I would expect that would reduce 'piracy'.
There are pros and cons. I'm looking forward to see how things turn out. I just hope they don't turn to increased control/censorship in a futile attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Fretbear]

Control is an illusion; you (supposedly) can't play covers in a coffee house, because someone or something is not getting it's cut, but you can download the originals for free, which we would stop you doing if we had any way that we could, but we can't, so let's start to try to make it about moral-fiber, which will be as successful as the church's kick at that can, or the brain-dead "solution" to the war on drugs being "just say no..."
I just saw an old Bill Maher (that was downloaded) where he is crying about having his "Religilous" stolen by downloaders; his personal property, ideas and sentiments are to be "preciously" respected, even when they consist mostly of kicking down and exposing as non-relevant any ideas that he deems to be unworthy and wants to put in his cross-hairs....classic.....there is the whole illusion of relative freedom in a nutshell.

[mandocrucian]

Q: What happens if no-one pays for music?

A:

• The glaciers and icecaps melt.
• The air becomes toxic with pollution.
• The oceans die.
• The plankton is dying.

“It's musicians. Soylent Green is made out of musicians. They're making our food out of musicians.
Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food.
You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
Soylent green is pickers!"

[wildpikr]

From an economic point of view, music is a third-world country with a scenic landscape. The best we can do is dance for tourists.

Hopefully appreciative, generous big-tipping tourists!

[Bertram Henze]

Soylent green is pickers!"

[otterly2k]

I don't think it is beyond imagining that a system could be created that would require download sites to pay a fee to the license holders/artists. In the age of electronic banking and paypal, etc. this can be (and is) done simply and seamlessly. Will there always be hackers who can get around it? Probably. But a little regulation of this marketplace could go a long way, imho.

I also think that artists educating their fans about this issue could go a long way re: public awareness of the issue.

I don't think the problem will be eradicated anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it can't be addressed/improved.
It'd be great to have some experienced PR people work up some campaign buzzwords...

Fair trade music?
Cruelty-free downloads?

I think in order to make an impact, there must be involvement of many branches, including the artists. I'm reminded of the leadership of Bonnie Raitt in bringing attention to the degree to which blues artists had been ripped off, exploited and uncared for... and her efforts to rally other artists to begin to remedy that.

[250sc]

Q: What happens if no-one pays for music?

A:

• The glaciers and icecaps melt.
• The air becomes toxic with pollution.
• The oceans die.
• The plankton is dying.

“It's musicians. Soylent Green is made out of musicians. They're making our food out of musicians.
Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food.
You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
Soylent green is pickers!"

This burger tastes like beer and cigarettes.

[catmandu2]

I've been following this story, but outside the 'Cafe. I hadn't noticed that FIVE PAGES (!) of commentary had spawned...it would be a much better discussion

Unfortunately, it does take time before we cafe-ites reach the...meat of the matter

[Bertram Henze]

I don't think it is beyond imagining that a system could be created that would require download sites to pay a fee to the license holders/artists.

It is happening. Due to a lawsuit the German publishing rights collector GEMA had with YouTube, lots of Youtube videos used to look like this these days:

[JonZ]

Woodstock.