Slashdot Mirror
Musicians on Internet & Filesharing
reverseengineer writes "A Pew Internet & American Life survey asked (large PDF) 809 artists and 2,755 musicians, songwriters, and publishers about how they use the Internet, and whether it has been beneficial or detrimental to their success. Results (larger PDF) are quite interesting, with near 50-50 splits on a variety of questions involving fair use and filesharing. A quote from Pew's summary: 'Across the board, artists and musicians
are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more
money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work
from piracy or unlawful use.' Here is the NY Times summary [ Free registration blah blah ] of the survey."
Yes the internet is a great way to distribute music. However this does not mean its OK to download music without the creators permission. It is their choice where and how their creation is made available, not yours.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The artists that lose big are the big artists - but most artists are struggling. The big challenge for 98% of artists isn't combating theft, but rather getting their name and work known enough to be in demand. Personally, I believe that any artist looking to get recognized would be wise to put their work out on the peer-to-peer network, with links to their websites in the filename info. Unfortunately, people like the RIAA (who represent the other 2%) who are making this kind of thing difficult.
Its legality cannot be discussed as long as it is always refered to first and formost as ILLEGAL filesharing.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
I think you can reasonably accurately predict (with some exceptions of course) where an artist falls on the "Internet Good" or "Internet Bad" debate based on how famous they are.
Those that are already famous want to wring every cent out of the fame they've worked hard to get and therefore loathe the Internet's ease of file sharing.
Those looking to become famous love the Internet's ease of file sharing because it enables more people to be more easily exposed to their music.
I'm a big tall mofo.
So this is a little bit about what the artists believe the effect of filesharing has been on them, but I'm sure it's hard for anyone to really know. This doesn't tell us too much about what the actual effect of filesharing is on the artist. So many factors change over time how could you attribute your increased/decreased success to any one factor confidently?
The real question is if idealogue file-swappers will respect the wishes of those who DON'T want their material being swapped around on P2P networks.
If you don't respect the wishes of those people, you violate the idea that this is for the artists. That includes Metallica, even if you hate Lars Ulrich. You can't pick and choose your moralities.
I don't get why copyrights don't matter in P2P articles but they matter in "GPL source code theft" articles.
The concept of trying to poll certain musicians to reflect what all musicians as a whole think about the internet seems flawed. Considering how many genres music spans, how could you get an accurate reflection? How many punk bands made it into this poll?
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
Movies are a different animal than music and it seems reasonable to protect them. Movies require huge investments by the studios compared to music. Movies also are the only product of actors. I can see recorded music serving primarily as an advertisement for musicians live shows. Movies aren't performed live, the movie is the only product (excluding merchandising). If people started sharing video recordings of plays, I would see no problem with that. With plays, the main product is still the performance in the theatre.
"brxref
Music "piracy" usually only hurts the suits at the recording companies. I have a hard time feeling too sorry for them. They're making their living by charging artists for advertising and distributing their work, and the internet makes that very low cost or free. The business model has changed, and the recording industry has not changed with it. A band can now make a very professional recording all on their own, advertise it, and distribute it for next to nothing. The suits just haven't realized it yet.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Simple: for the promotion.
Recording labels' job is to promote and get the music distributed.
Now go turn on the radio. Find some music. Who's playing? Score one for the record labels.
Many bands feel it's easier to let the big boys promote them while the band gets a big paycheck, rather than do all the dirty work themselves and possibly not reach as big an audience thereby getting a (much) smaller and less reliable paycheck.
The vast majority of these artists have signed over control of their IP to a second party - ones whose opinion of the Internet and filesharing are well-known by now. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. The artists' opinions for a poll/survey are one thing, but that is not generally reflected in the contractual agreements they voluntarily execute.
I suspect that over the long term, rather then having 1 megastar for every 1000 aspiring artists, you will have many different niche artists of middling fame, known to their fans though not beyond.
Those that are currently struggling anyway really have nothing to lose from filesharing, and plenty to gain.
But the mega star types will have an eroded fan base as the fans find music more directly in line with their personal tastes. And artists who peaked early will not be able to coast on their old glories for nearly as long. Songs that would have made them hit big will not sustain them as long as people will just buy one copy when they hear it the first time, and probably just grab copies after that. Or just rip their original to new mediums as the medium changes.
END COMMUNICATION
Like promotion. I can get on the phone to radio stations and maybe one by one convince them to give my music a listen. Maybe some of them will even play it on the air (once or twice). A big record company gives a push to their artists that can actually get something on the playlist.
Or touring. Yeah, small bands can tour a lot and do all right. But what if, god forbid, they want to get *off* the road for a little while? Road life is hard - give a listen to the big established acts about the rigors of the road then imagine doing it without the fancy tour bus, without hotel rooms (sleeping on people's floors).
And booking. Booking even a short tour (1 - 2 weeks) is hard. You need to call each club over and over to finally book the gig. A booking agent makes that so much easier.
Bottom line is that it can be done without any of that support structure, but it's hard as hell which is why so many people are willing to sell their souls to big record labels in return for the exposure and some of the perks.
The artists are given temporary control
To anybody who participates in the creation of a recording or other work of authorship, how is life plus 70 years "temporary"? It sounds more like a prison sentence for a double murder than an acceptable bargain to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
If p2p application makers are held responsible for illegal file-swapping, should not gun makers be held responsible for the illegal use of their products?
I stole this signature