Using P2P, TORRENTS, FTPs for sharing music. Is it 'wrong'? - what say you?

[peace 7]

Well..... Lemme just say that Hasty Boom Alert changed my life, mang; an mp3 which I downloaded from a Hotline server back in ze day. After that, I went to a record shop and bought a load o' Mike P. If it weren't for that avenue of discovery, I could possibly be posting on tiestoisdabomb.com forums or whatever.

 

Art is not an experience that can directly sustain physical life. On the other hand, food, most definitely is. Food is something that possibly makes sense to trade a definite amount of effort (converted into moneys), into a definite amount of sustenance. Art, is ever-giving, until the work is destroyed or no longer accessible. Art is perpetual motion of magic.

 

People who download whole back-catalogs of an artist and just let it sit (people who DL and listen once, and the like)- they are not fans of the artist, nor do they care about the artist or have a connection. But the people who feel a connection with an artist and are fans of their work-- these people are different. Even if a fan pirates 100% of an artist's music, what the fan accomplishes from being a true believer in the artist's output, is something that money cannot buy.

 

Fans spread the beneficial vibez (for whatever emotional/spiritual purpose) to those who they share the music with and to those who they interact with (like on this forum). Through this communication, an artist's vision is spread. It is this spreading which I believe is most important with art; this spreading of Vision and Heart is an artist's highest purpose.

 

The modern world has taught us to keep the goods for only those deserving; those willing to cough up the cash. When it comes to art, The System realizes that without this arbitrary rule, there is no reason for The System to exist. The System does not exist to help artists- all these copyright laws and money involved- this shit exists to HOLD BACK the artist (and uphold values of greed), for without restraint, an artist's vision can spread fast. And this applies to all arts, as in the end- at the highest level of execution- everything in our lives becomes an art (food, learning, transport, body movement, etc.). By holding back artists, The System can replace a free-flow from those who actually have true aesthetic sense (the ease of flow of energy)...-- The System can replace this True Sense, with an arbitrary sense. And so- THIS IS A POWER ISSUE. By creating arbitrary rules to control, people who have no fucking sense whatsoever, can pick and choose art, to pretend that they have sense. This is exactly why the world is fucked-- because fucked aesthetics have been released into the world, by people with no True Sense; no True Heart.

 

These weak-hearted people released and enforce arbitrary bullshit rules into the modern world, because without these bullshit rules and bullshit money, they know that the world would ultimately be taken over by the people who should truly rule it-- artists of the heart (i.e. people with actual SENSE). At a very basic level, people with high aesthetics and True Sense (mind+body+heart connection understanding and being able to use related tools for maximum effect), make people with no sense, feel fucking stupid. No sense people feel stupid, because they just "don't get it". They don't get why feces in your eyes is a bad idea, they don't get why lemonade would be less appealing with added barnacle shells, they don't get why you shouldn't swing your newborn child around your head like a helicopter.

 

So going back to music piracy, I am all for it, because it has the potential to create fans, and fans are potential cosmic soldiers of light, who can help others experience something that actually came from the Heart-- instead of the mainstream bullshit contrived machine-made sonic-heartfuck that only has the intent of perpetuating The System of emotional/spiritual oppression; spreading to the masses the idea that greed is higher than Love.

 

As can be seen even in the pop music world-- good music with actual sense- this music will live on, through its true fans; spreading its magic through time and space. As for the forgotten hit albums-- these made money, but were probably of no use to True Sense in the long-run. There is a reason why classical music has lived for hundreds of years.

 

Alas..... a song cannot be remembered forever. But what can live on, are the vibez that spread to the people who experienced the music, who changed their Hearts and Minds due to the music, who acted in new ways from the music-- who helped make the world a better place because of the music.

 

Good music is magic. I believe good music should be spread; payment or pirated. And if the music spreads to tons of people...-- any artist who can create such music- being able to create for the world and truuuly connect with it and affect it positively... this is something that album sales alone cannot create. Being able to create such works is one of the highest privileges of humanity. Getting paid for that-- well, that's like having sex with your one true love on cocaine--- yah, it's fucking awesome, but at the same time, the coke is a slight insult to the epic exchange of energies that is going on behind the scenes. That coke+sex=seemingly one experience; but actually separate experiences happening at the same time. Same with getting paid for music.

[poblequadrat]

Technology has advanced beyond the possibility of intellectual property for anything but science (exactly the one thing where it's clear to everyone how and where intellectual property is harmful). This in itself isn't good or bad, but, as things are right now, some people are benefiting from it and some are actually being harmed. Sadly the Universals and Virgins of the world don't look like they're going down anytime soon. The petty feudalism of the indie scene might, though, which in some ways is nice.

 

As for what I do, mostly I take stuff out from the library and copy it. Seeing as how taxpayer's money goes to author's rights societies to pay for private copying rights (at least where I am; dunno about other countries), I think it's fair game. At one point, there was even a tax on all writable-writing media from printers to mobile phones to cover for private copying rights (which makes me wonder about why the main author's rights society was so upset about piracy, really).

When I really really like something and it's readily available I do buy it (I do have physical copies of Warp classics, etc.) and also really underground stuff too, but I barely have enough money to keep eating and pay the bills these days, so I haven't been buying anything as of lately.

[chim]

Feels a lot better buying it, provided as much of it goes directly to the artist as possible.

[Guest Akiak]

but you see there is something distorted about how it works, a musicians makes a tune spending particular amount of time and energy on it but the labels charge money for every copy, and expect people to pay an unlimited amount of money for what was a limited effort.

 

 

this.

 

 

the thing is you don't pay the artists for making the music, you pay them for releasing it. Making music is something a musician does automatically regardless of everything. But actually taking the time to group their works into a cohesive whole AND maintaining an identity is the real work. And as such one should expect to be paid for it.

 

(only counts for those who can actually be called 'artists')

[Mellow U]

FFS.

[BobDobalina]

Interesting cowinkydink - bleep are having sprawling digital sale at the moment, tons of albums available in lossless for $7 apiece.

[Joyrex]

 

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

"I'll only fuck you when I want sex, but I won't commit to a monogamous relationship"

[gmanyo]

 

 

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

"I'll only fuck you when I want sex, but I won't commit to a monogamous relationship"

 

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

[Nebraska]

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

 

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

 

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

 

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

[Nebraska]

I do it all the time, to get files for stuff I buy on vinyl for instance, or even for CDs. Why waste my time and wear out my CD drive when someone has already done a perfect rip.

 

I don't buy the 'try before you buy' excuse anyway, with all the streaming options available there's hardly any need to download a local copy of a release if you're just checking it out.

 

 

are there labels selling vinyl and cd albums without digital copies?

[Friendly Foil]

Some of the "logic" in here... sweet jebus.

[Mellow U]

 

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

 

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

 

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

 

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

 

 

This, basically. The fact that the internet has reduced media-based art forms to data has helped usher in the rationalization that piracy is a victimless crime, and that artists will continue to create art no matter how awful their living conditions may be, so where is the hurt in picking the fruit off the tree when the farmer isn't looking?

 

And anyway, the big difference that I think posters like Eugene are missing, is the clear-cut line between making music for money and making money with your music. They are not the same thing, and anyone who can do something well should never do it for free.

[foresense]

lol.. you goddamn hippies. gimme some o that unlimited moneys for my digital vinyls! I'm not greedy, just gimme 1/1000th of those unlimited funds pls eugene, don't play games with me I know you have it somewhere.

 

as a matter of fact I see people around me who's senses are dying because of a lack of money. they start accepting what could be a calling as a hobby, conceding to shitty jobs with better pays and awesome pension plans.. hobbies sort of equate to having a drug habbit in most peoples mind. "oh it calms him down but other then that it's pretty much worthless". no respect.. getting a sense of worth from what you love doing is what it's about for me. that keeps me going. good vibes and comradery go a long way, but still. money in it's most noble form can buy you a freedom to develop as an artist you can not get any other way.

 

personally I'm jumping through hoops to keep myself into it. I do this because I know it's rewarding. but I will start to slip if I can't put time into it. the way I live my life now, I don't see myself doing it forever.

 

I truly love the good vibes I get from time to time. and it helps for a while. but it just doesn't do much for me if I can't pay to fix my soundcard, or if I have to see the dentist but I'm affraid of the bill. people forget quickly if you haven't put out something in a while. sensory rot starts to set in.. dem rusty vibes equate to corrosive sounds. I don't want to look for approval either, I just want to work on my ideas. having the time and money gives me a freedom, an ease of mind that I can't get from the best of vibes..

 

even going so far as decided to use even go want to do look more like? you know? has anyone really been?

[gmanyo]

 

 

Yet he obviously has high-speed internet to pirate music... (priorities)

 

 

and enough hdd storage space to keep said files in large quantities

 

The biggest argument against this point is that I think many musicians themselves agree with Deer's point, but I also think that you can't really assume. If I knew an artist had this perspective I might torrent their album, then buy their other stuff if I liked it. I might subscribe to Spotify, but their programs sucks huge balls and takes up like 400mb memory at all times.

 

 

i personally would disagree that there are "many musicians themselves agree with deer's point". why? recording and releasing music actually costs money. you have to pay for using a recording studio, you have to pay the engineer and producer (unless you produce your own music). you also have to pay for the artwork (unless you go a DIY route in which case you pay for the equipment to make the artwork). if you're on a label (major or indie), then you're working with an advanced budget which the label is looking to recoup.

 

so if a musician is looking to build a fanbase, it's with the hope that sooner or later it will translate to dollars. of course it sounds noble to say musicians only create music so people can hear it, but do you come across music with the same nobility, or are you in the luxury of your home just clicking torrent links looking for something else to down?

 

what person, artist or not, doesn't want to be paid for doing what they love? it's the ultimate compliment for others to consider your work so good they see a monetary value in it

 

 

This, basically. The fact that the internet has reduced media-based art forms to data has helped usher in the rationalization that piracy is a victimless crime, and that artists will continue to create art no matter how awful their living conditions may be, so where is the hurt in picking the fruit off the tree when the farmer isn't looking?

 

And anyway, the big difference that I think posters like Eugene are missing, is the clear-cut line between making music for money and making money with your music. They are not the same thing, and anyone who can do something well should never do it for free.

 

Keep in mind, I absolutely agree that professional musicians and even record labels should make money. That is why I buy music instead of torrenting it. Most of the reason I have considered torrenting some stuff is so that I might get into an artists and actually end up giving them more money (I would probably delete something if I didn't like it, and buy it if I did, but that's just me).

 

I think labels and musicians should think, and in fact have thought, about changing marketing strategies. Every time there's some change in the system - for example, VHS and recording shows - all the companies that just get mad about it and try to stop it end up in the dust, and the ones that adapt end up on top. The thing is, people are evil. If they can get something for free easily, even if it's wrong, they will. Just like how if companies can take advantage of their customers, they will. It's not right, but it's a fact. Any action taken that can limit people in their downloading abilities, like bandwidth throttling, isn't effective and/or ends up being just as unethical as downloading itself. Perhaps this is a double standard - to limit corporations in what they do wrong but leave the masses unaccountable - but it still doesn't change the fact that that's how it's going to work.

 

I guess my point is, whether you like it or not, we live in a different age from before. People are going to steal, and there's no way of effectively and ethically stopping this. If professionals and companies want to start making a profit, they're going to have to change how they operate. Until then, I will personally try to hold to an ethical way of getting music, but I can only speak for myself (and music and other media are hardly the only things affected by this).

[Cryptowen]

people will keep doing what they've been doing. These threads always just turn into a cavalcade of "my philosophy is morally superior to yours and here's why"

[joshuatxuk]

I like tapes.

 

 

o______o

 

 

 

 

/derailing

[BobDobalina]

Tell you what I don't like, stuff that's vinyl only and not available to purchase digitally (I know it goes against the watmm grain but I'm not a fetishist of physical formats). It's 2014, take my money already.

 

// fully off tracks & plowing through a confield

[Hugh Mughnus]

Get a job, and buy the music. Can't afford the music? Don't listen to the music.

 

Why is this being made to be so complex? =/

[luke viia]

lol

[Hugh Mughnus]

lol

 

No. That really is all there is to it.

*adds stepheng to mental list of asshole watmmers*

 

That's a bit harsh man. I just think the artists deserve to be paid. These are people that have completely changed my life. Why shouldn't I pitch a couple hundred dollars for their discography/lifetime of work? Really, I work one or two days to pay them for a lifetime of their work. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

I don't get it.

 

edit: that's a bit quick to throw me into the asshole category as I've always admired your mentality and supported your music. Funnily enough, I've probably even paid for some of it (though I can't recall exactly)

[luke viia]

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

 

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

 

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

 

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

 

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

[Adieu]

Many people who do things that are wrong become very good about lying to themselves so much so that they believe that their owns lies are truths. Many people develop the ability to reconcile something morally wrong as being correct merely because it serves their interests. This can be seen throughout society, but is most easily recognizable in the right wing media.

[Hugh Mughnus]

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

 

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

 

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

 

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

 

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

 

Of course I agree with most of your points.

 

But there is an obvious degree of separation between those artists that are hobbyists, and those that are professional, career musicians (no offense).

 

Yes, you helped me with my 2nd year calculus problems, as thousands have could (I'm still very grateful, don't get me wrong). But did you create some sort of new line of mathematics? The answer is no. And the artists that deserve to be paid, I can equivocate to entrepreneurs, people ahead of the game. And they deserve funding to continue on their path.

Many people who do things that are wrong become very good about lying to themselves so much so that they believe that their owns lies are truths. Many people develop the ability to reconcile something morally wrong as being correct merely because it serves their interests. This can be seen throughout society, but is most easily recognizable in the right wing media.

 

Which side of the fence are you advocating?

[luke viia]

 

As an artist who hasn't asked for money for his releases for over 8 years (I consider this a realistic and useful model for getting exposure and networking with other musicians and peers), I can't agree that it's as simple as "get a job or don't listen" because I don't follow that model with my own tunes. I agree with gmanyo's point about Odd Future; I think that's a great way to get music to people.

 

As a weird side note: The only thing that got me to listen to Mellow U's music was that the Grainger release "Swamp Bike" was given to me as a promotion with another release I bought. I love that EP, but if the model was "pay for this or gtfo" I would have gtfo and never given it a chance, Mellow U would be out a fan, and I'd be out of some music that makes me happy. Just food for thought when demanding that all artists be compensated all the time. That said, it's important to qualify that I clearly prefer the free model to be voluntary, and if I respect and know an artist who is charging for a release, I am quite likely to go ahead and buy a digital copy (I don't collect records; never was much of a collector/fetishist with media). I don't actually listen to that much new music so this isn't as big a moral dilemma for me; I would not be supporting old rockabilly artists even I bought a copy of the compilations they made an appearance on back in the 50s; is my incentive supposed to be that I should be supporting the recording industry in that case?

 

This is all a bit off of the subject of p2p networking, but I wanted to expand on why I lolled at the idea that music should be paid for or unlistened. I'll keep giving my tunes away, seeking like-minded musicians who do the same, and sharing the hell out of their tunes.

 

My basic point is just that the pay-model often seems unrealistic and outdated to me, and I'm eager for other musicians to get on the trolley here.

 

And I most definitely disagree with the sentiment that "if you do something well, you should demand to be paid for it." I doubt you can agree with that sentiment either stephen; I helped you a few times with your math homework, we solved the problems, and I didn't ask for compensation, in fact I turned it down IIRC. Perhaps from now on I'll never be helpful without a dollar waving in my face, lol.

 

Of course I agree with most of your points.

 

But there is an obvious degree of separation between those artists that are hobbyists, and those that are professional, career musicians (no offense).

 

Yes, you helped me with my 2nd year calculus problems, as thousands have could (I'm still very grateful, don't get me wrong). But did you create some sort of new line of mathematics? The answer is no. And the artists that deserve to be paid, I can equivocate to entrepreneurs, people ahead of the game. And they deserve funding to continue on their path.

 

So you have personally qualified who it is that "deserves to be paid." Welcome to the pirate side. :P

[Adieu]

I hardly equate helping someone with a math problem as being the same as compensation for someone providing you with unending pleasure.