Thoughts on filesharing and musicsharing

File: 1443824760978.jpg (28KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x333px

>>68320370
Music is free now, only puritans buy music nowadays

>tfw P2Ping since 2001
>tfw torrenting since 2008

>buying music

>>68320370
>real fan
A real fan is someone who feels the music.

>>68321836
This. Simple as that.

Music should have nothing to do with money. Any artist who gets butthurt about pirating is not a real musician. You want money? Go on tour, sell merch, be the kind of band that people want to support financially. Don't expect people to pay for the privilege to listen to your music.

File: s-l300.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>implying everything is not already my property

>>68320370
It's really not considered theft anymore. Any decent label or band marketing on their own, will take piracy into account and drive sales to alternative sources like bandcamp, streaming sales, vinyl, merchandise, or touring.

>>68320370
Hell, it's even a good way to promote your band. The more people that know about you and enjoy your music, will go to see you live and buy merchandise. It's a win win.

Property is theft

If I pirate music and like it I will support them, if I don't like it I just won't listen to it again.

>>68324569


So if I fuck your mother and I don't like her pussy, then I don't have to give her any money?

Tha'ts nice.

https://soundcloud.com/tyler-cetura

If I was a musician I would care more that people are listening to my music

File: 1464172525330.jpg (20KB, 147x132px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 147x132px

>>68320370
taste is taste and business is business. piracy is having taste while ingoring your business.

>>68324726
kys faggot

File: FB_IMG_1473587741788.jpg (57KB, 856x907px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 856x907px

>>68322401
>>68323738

>>68324665
Is your mum trying to sell her pussy, though? Maybe that's how you were born.

>thepiratebay
>2016

>>68320370
It's theft, plain and simple

>but it's not theft since we're not physically stealing anything :^)

so it's more like counterfeiting, big deal. You're still acquiring something for free ad not exchanging anything for the artist's time and effort and labour and even his/her own money.

>>68322326
>privilege
>being this much of an entitled millenial

Music predates the internet, kid.

>>68322679
>and drive sales to alternative sources like bandcamp, streaming sales

why do any of those things when you just get it for free from Mega? Getting something for free is always better than paying it for it. Right?

>>68323713
live shows and merch sales don't bring in much revenue, merch sales were done to help cover the costs of live shows and the live shows themselves were only done to promote album sales

>>68324774
You would also care about being able to pay the rent and eat food and producing your next album.

>>68322401
op is a spook

>>68325442
For the record, I am totally a hypocrite. I absolutely think that pirating music is awful and terrible but I probably have more torrented music than I have legally-bought.

There are so many albums that I downloaded with the "oh I'll support them if it's good" mentality, and the album was amazing, and I just never paid for it because then I can save money & that's great for me.

>>68320370
I usually buy music if the artist isn't very well known and I actually want to support them. For example, you probably haven't heard of Ray Barbee but he makes some good jams and I own both of his albums. I don't have the money to support every artist I like so I'm not going to spend money on someone who I already know is relatively well off.

The constructs of copyright and intellectual property ownership is not a realistic way to treat ideas. Ideas once expressed become part of the common mentality, music once expressed becomes part of the common environment.

I think the idea of intellectual property will naturally have to be modified to accommodate the way people exchange ideas and music and information.

The old copyright model – the person who creates something owns it and anyone else that wants to use it or see it has to pay them – has expired in the same way that around the world you’re seeing structures and social norms [lapse] that were standard for many years.

It’s going to take a lot for the business to catch up to where the audience is, in the same way it takes a while for the church and the laws to catch up to where the people are.

But there is no longer the possibility to exclusively control music through copyright.

I think the term ‘piracy’ is absurd. Piracy is people boarding a ship with violence and killing people and physically stealing material goods….

Equating somebody downloading something on his iPhone with that is preposterous.

I reject the term "piracy." It's people listening to music and sharing it with other people, and it's good for musicians because it widens the audience for music. The record industry doesn't like trading music because they see it as lost sales, but that's nonsense. Sales have declined because physical discs are no longer the distribution medium for mass-appeal pop music, and expecting people to treat files as physical objects to be inventoried and bought individually is absurd.

The downtrend in sales has hurt the recording business, obviously, but not us specifically because we never relied on the mainstream record industry for our clientele. Bands are always going to want to record themselves, and there will always be a market among serious music fans for well-made record albums. I'll point to the success of the Chicago label Numero Group as an example.

There won't ever be a mass-market record industry again, and that's fine with me because that industry didn't operate for the benefit of the musicians or the audience, the only classes of people I care about.

Free distribution of music has created a huge growth in the audience for live music performance, where most bands spend most of their time and energy anyway. Ticket prices have risen to the point that even club-level touring bands can earn a middle-class income if they keep their shit together, and every band now has access to a world-wide audience at no cost of acquisition. That's fantastic.

File: units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg (300KB, 2616x1314px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 2616x1314px

>>68325442
>You would also care about being able to pay the rent and eat food and producing your next album.

Most smart musicians have day jobs and can support themselves.

Look at these graphs. The graph on the left depicts album revenue, but the graph on the right depicts how many units were bought/downloaded. Basically, people are spending way less money to listen to music, but they're also listening to way more music.

If you're a real musician you don't make music primarily to make money. You make music because you love doing it and believe in it and want to spread it to as many people as you can. So downloading music is good for actual artists who aren't just in it for the cash.

>>68325758
My b - the graph on the RIGHT is album revenue and the graph on the left is units bought/downloaded.

>>68325675
>>68325724
>>68325758

>You want to make money? Just work a day job and also be on tour 360 days of the year! It's that easy! :^) Music is meant to be free! Copyright is a sham!

>>68325912
More like move to a city, play local venues, get a following, play better local venues that pay you, get a bigger following, and then when your following is big enough go on tour and make real money. Not that hard.

opinions don't really matter. nothing can reverse time. this is happening and artists and the music industry will have to adapt.

in fact, with streaming that has already happened. people still pirate and there are lots of reasons to dislike streaming, but it's clearly the way things are heading. go to any band's website now and you'll find spotify and apple music links before you see a place to actually buy an album.

>>68325442
>live shows and merch sales don't bring in much revenue, merch sales were done to help cover the costs of live shows and the live shows themselves were only done to promote album sales
"were" is the key word there. live shows cost more than albums. to the audience they are more of an investment. the way bands go about it these days, streaming can be seen as promotion for shows.

>>68325912
>Just work a day job and also be on tour 360 days of the year!
as that steve albini quote said, touring can be quite lucrative. chances are if you can't even make a living touring, your album sales wouldn't have made you a living either. remember the size of audience has increased. people who pirate are not the same as lost customers. most young people simply can't afford to pay individually for all the music they listen to. if they couldn't get it easily for free/cheap via piracy or streaming they wouldn't listen to it at all, you can't count that as lost sales

>>68325970
>Just become a rock star bro, what's the problem, not hard at all :^)

>>68326086
how much money do you think someone who can't sell tickets would make from selling albums if there was no piracy?

>It's the "going on tour and selling merch is a gold mine" meme again

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/11/25/band-just-finished-28-day-tour-made-much/

Thousands of album would be lost to the public consciousness in only one generation without file sharing. This may be hard for some of our younger friends here to grasp but there are plenty of worthwhile albums out there from decades past that are not available on all of the major streaming services, nor are they available to be purchased through physical or digital marketplaces. There is zero incentive for Spotify or Amazon to carry obscure Haitian funk album #692.

Filesharing liberates now deceased, underappreciated artists by giving them a voice and a vehicle into the future.

>>68320370
>a real fan
A fan is someone who serves something, dating back to the girls who were made fan monarchs in (was it Egypt? I can't remember, you get the idea).
Liking something is a choice made by an individual based in their conditioning. A person likes something because they either find it attractive or perceive that being seen liking it will make them look better/more attractive. That's how all of that works.

Pirating music is making a free copy of of some music that harms no one unless you were otherwise going to buy it.

I'd not be inclined to consider myself anyone's fan outside of a very select few individuals, but I enjoy works in every medium and I very rarely pay for anything unless it's physical. I go to shows, I buy the odd limited edition thing.

It's not theft, also, because theft requires something to have been taken, filesharing is duplicating and outlawing it would make owning a photocopier a felony.

If you actually pay for music by dead artists you are a complete retard.

>>68326150
again, how much money do you think a band as well known as pomplamoose would have made from cd sales 15 years ago?

also $48k between 6 people for a month is a very decent salary, even if you take the money they lost directly and exclusively from their salary they would each still be making $72k for a year

>>68325675
Yep. Copyright only retards the progress of society. The fact that art written 70 years ago are still owned by someone is fucking ridiculous.

>>68326130
There are plenty of "studio" musicians who barely toured if even at all during their career, Burial, Brian Eno, Steely Dan, Kate Bush, hell even the Beatles.

That's on top of producers and composers.

>>68325912
It worked for every underground band before the Internet.

>>68326328
>negative 11 thousand dollars a month is good.

>>68326435
Only because then they'd be able to properly get paid for their music.

File: 1467375462444.png (73KB, 500x337px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x337px

>>68320370
Imo depends on the artist/situation.

>>68326218
see:

>>68325442
>so it's more like counterfeiting, big deal. You're still acquiring something for free ad not exchanging anything for the artist's time and effort and labour and even his/her own money.

>>68326426
With the exception of Burial (who almost certainly has a day job) those are huge artists. If they toured, they would have made a lot of money. I'm talking about how little bands who do tour and don't make money would have made from sales. Comparing some shitty band that can't sell out a show to The Beatles isn't really fair.

>>68326457
You fucking idiot. They accounted for their salaries in the calculations. Take away that $11,000 from their $48,000 and that's still $37,000 between six people. That's above the average salary by a nice amount. Who the fuck spends $20 a day on food anyway

It's like wasting your money on bottled water when you have access to a tap at this point. You won't stop it by appealing to people's morals, ever since Napster it's been ogre.

>>68326206
Best point made in this entire thread.

>>68326086
I meant it's not hard to figure out, not that it's not hard to do successfully. It's never been easy to be a successful musician, ever.

And again, if you're a "musician" and "successful" to you means "making money" instead of "doing what you love because you love it," the music you're making probably isn't that good anyway.

>>68326495
Don't tell me what to say, mate.

I'm an 'artist' (I hate saying that), who works in art and not an unrelated field that needlessly borrows titles to feign some assumed value when the word 'performer' makes more sense. But if they intend on using the term 'artist', then they are obliged to behave like one.

In making art there requirements. You have an idea, you figure out what the best way to communicate that idea is and then you do so without superfluous elements. There's no motive other than in conveying the idea, that's the sole purpose. If you can make money then that's great, but that's a bonus.

If you complain that an audience took in your work and didn't pay then you're not likely to have deserved to have been paid to begin with. I pay to see acts that I respect. I pay for physical media from acts that I respect that I think might need my money. It's very rare for anyone to pay for my work, my work doesn't exist in a form that's really sale-able.
To be fair, music has that advantage. The gallery is free in and there's generally an obligation to hand out free booze too. A concert is pay at the door and pay for your drinks too. They're lucky they get as much as they do.

>>68326586
re-read the article before getting upset and calling me names.

that "salary" was paid to other people but themselves, out of their own pocket.

>We also knew that once we hit the road, we would be paying our band and crew on a weekly basis. One week of salaries for four musicians and two crew members (front of house engineer and tour manager) cost us $8794. That came out to $43,974 for the tour.


>Add it up, and that’s $135,983 in total income for our tour. And we had $147,802 in expenses.

>>68322326
>merch, CDs, hotels, gas, food etc obvs don't cost any money
kek

>>68326825
>other people but themselves
>our band and crew
>four musicians and two crew members

you're just confirming what I said. the salary was part of their expenses. you can take the loss of money they had directly out of their salary and they'd still be making $31k between the six of them (excluding their very nice per diem).

>>68320636
>torrenting since 2008
so laaate

With internet speeds and storage space increasing, it's only a matter of time before people are able to download _huge_ amounts of music for free. Like downloading a full record label's catalog, a decade's worth of recordings, or the complete music collections of services like spotify.

>>68326867
Why are you subtracting the net loss of the tour from the salary of the hired musicians and crew members? That doesn't make any sense.


The two owners of the bands, they're the one who lost 11k $ at the end of the month.

>>68327001
Ok, my bad. They should have made it more clear they aren't part of the band. Besides, hiring four additional musicians to play a two-piece bands' songs is retarded. Even more so if you're paying them all way above the average salary, putting them in above average hotels etc.

My point still stands, though. If you split the salary and per diems between eight people and take away what they lost, that's still $4,500 each for a month (still over the average salary).

>>68327137
>My point still stands, though. If you split the salary and per diems between eight people and take away what they lost, that's still $4,500 each for a month (still over the average salary).


Except that they, the original two-piece band members, paid for themselves.

They didn't make $4,500 for that month, they made negative $ 11 thousand.

>Besides, hiring four additional musicians to play a two-piece bands' songs is retarded.

Like other anons have said, perhaps even you, you have to find a way to sell tickets and draw people in. A full live band is more exciting than a two-piece.

> Even more so if you're paying them all way above the average salary, putting them in above average hotels etc.

Those musicians and crew members, as other anons have said, need to make money. if they're going to be take away from their full time day job or other occupation then it better be worth their while.

Or hell that monthly $5000 might be the most money they make once they go back to stocking shelves at wal-mart.

>>68320370
Someone's gotta pump money to the music makers

>>68327320
>Except that they, the original two-piece band members, paid for themselves.
>They didn't make $4,500 for that month, they made negative $ 11 thousand.
Re-read what I said. I know they didn't take a salary. What I'm saying is that if they did, they could have made an average salary without making a loss. They paid the band and crew $48k, take away $12k for the loss and you have $36k. Split that between eight people instead of six (adding the two original members) and they all make an average salary. That's a lot for a shitty YouTube band, and a hell of a lot for a shitty YouTube band with four unnecessary extra people to pay.

>Like other anons have said, perhaps even you, you have to find a way to sell tickets and draw people in. A full live band is more exciting than a two-piece.
Potentially. I could understand adding two members, but tripling the size of the band on your first tour is ridiculous. You work up to that. Besides, I don't know how much of a draw that really is in an immediate sense. Especially true for this band specifically which made a name for themselves with stripped down videos of the two of themselves playing,

>Those musicians and crew members, as other anons have said, need to make money. if they're going to be take away from their full time day job or other occupation then it better be worth their while.
Which is why you don't pay for another four of them

>Or hell that monthly $5000 might be the most money they make once they go back to stocking shelves at wal-mart.
So you're agreeing they should be happy with the salary?

>>68327501
For big artists its the Jews. For smaller ones its playing shows and selling merch. Download whatever the fuck you want to.

>>68327528
Clearly
I view my streaming subscription as a form of charity XD

>>68327528
Also
>Bandcamping small acts
>Buying Vinyls from artists I truly appreciate

>>68327512
>they paid the band and crew $48k, take away $12k for the loss and you have $36k. Split that between eight people instead of six (adding the two original members) and they all make an average salary

>take away $12k for the loss and you have $36k.

what

what what

Why are you doing this again, the loss comes after all expenses and income, it doesn't come into the band's salary, it comes after. The band's salary isn't net profit that offsets the "loss" what the hell

>>68327754
It's theoretical. They could all have taken a salary of $4,500 for the month and not have made a loss

File: images110LJFO8.jpg (7KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 299x168px

>>68320370
>even streaming is lousy, downloading illegally is crap

>>68327798
>They could all have taken a salary of $4,500 for the month and not have made a loss

what

no

>they all

The crew & musicians didn't make a loss, the band did.


I'm repeating myself again. You should read up on economics, profits vs expenses, gains vs loss, etc. You're beyond theoretical

>>68327865
Jesus christ, this isn't hard. The band could pay the musicians $4,500 each, take $4,500 each themselves and not have made a loss, instead of paying the musicians the $8,000 they actually paid them

Again, it's theoretical. Of course they can't retroactively change their salaries or ask the musicians they hired to account for the loss. I'm just making the point that they made a $12k loss because they paid a bunch of extra musicians too much, not because touring is inherently impossible to make money doing

Being a real fan isn't defined by how rich you are

>>68327929
They could have also not found musicians talented enough willing to work for that price. They could have had not hired any musicians at all and not attract as many people to their live shows. Plenty of ifs and buts.

Like I said before, touring is not a goldmine, far from it.

1. download the file
2. listen to the music
3. decide if good or no
3a. (if no, delete)
4. consult bank account
5. choose retailer to surrender money to
6. (optional) feel regret

>>68327969
And we've gone over this as well. Six musicians for a two-piece band's first tour is ridiculous. Especially since their fan base is made up mostly of people who had been watching videos of the two of them playing on YouTube. They could have gotten two extra band members instead of four, put on a good show and taken $7,500 each. Or just toured as the two of them, as they are known to fans, and made a relative shitload between them. Their choices are the issue.

>>68327929
That's such a weird thought process to go through and such a stupid way to ruin an already stupid thread.

For your supposition to work, they'd have to know exactly how many people they'd draw on tour - which would requires foresight. Additionally, they'd have to hire someone willing to work for far less and typically you have to pay a set musician more than they would be earning otherwise to get them to tour with you so you'd need to get some fresh out of college amateur which would defeat the purpose of hiring a legitimate musician in the first place...

So there's no point even making that argument, even from a 'hindsight is 20/20' perspective. Seriously, use your head mate.

>>68325758
Are you a musician?

>>68328048
>For your supposition to work, they'd have to know exactly how many people they'd draw on tour - which would requires foresight
It would also require foresight of that nature to decide that adding four unknown members to a two-piece band would increase the audience. Again, this is a band that got popular playing videos of the two of them on YouTube. The audience knows that's what they're in for

>Additionally, they'd have to hire someone willing to work for far less
Or hire two people instead of four and pay those two the original salary. Or no musicians at all.


>So there's no point even making that argument, even from a 'hindsight is 20/20' perspective. Seriously, use your head mate.
Nope. If this case is going to be used as evidence against touring as a legitimate way to make money, then I'm definitely going to criticize what specifics we have of their decisions.

You're right about foresight, though. Which is why jumping straight to six members on the first tour was a bad idea. They could have used that tour to gauge audience reactions to two (or four) of them, and used that as reference for future tours.

nah dude i love the musician so much im willing to risk a meaty fine for them

>>68325442
>Music predates the internet, kid.
Burning a mixtape for your bud was theorigin al p2p fag. Filesharing is not immoral or unethical

>>68320370
Yeah it's stealing and it's bad. There's no way to sugar coat it or rationalize it, but nevertheless, it's become a norm in our society, especially those who love listening and exploring music. It's just not something that can fit our budget, but doesn't make it something we should expect [free music]. Doesn't mean I'll stop because I love music and I seriously am not going to spend money on every release.
At the same time, the question it comes down to is what is the intent of the artist? I don't feel being a musician should be treated as a full time job. It's an art. Pursuing art is not the best paying job, but it's not pursued for the money. It's for the enjoyment of art and making music for the people. Artists should be paid for their work so yes, I should be paying for it when I'm not.
I don't agree with this attitude that artists are required or deserve to be paid just for putting out a release. Money should be determined on the quality of work. It has become so expected because of the rapid commercialization of music.
Musicians should not make music expecting to make a salary off it.

>>68328164
I only see this case as an example of how often bands don't profit from touring. I know plenty of bands personally, I know of very few who have made money off of touring - a lot of them live in house share's in ropey areas so they can afford studio space to practice in and get all their clothes at swap shops. They make music for the music.

You don't need foresight to try and do something cool or make your live act more extravagant for your audience. That's called having an idea. You'd need to literally be able to see into the future to know how much money you'll have made at the end which you're using as the basis for your argument.

I don't know where you sit on the spectrum or how many individual people have very factually explained this to you already. What I do know is that you need to learn how to think and how to analyse things. And also a little self-awareness, because you seem to be one of those "I said something so I'm right regardless" idiots.

>>68328216
so not only do you not pay for itself you offer something that wasn't your and you stole to others. no...no self important totally self centered young person here....Kek

>>68328216
Sure, if you had a fucking million friends and left your tape recorder on all day.

>>68328297
>You'd need to literally be able to see into the future to know how much money you'll have made at the end which you're using as the basis for your argument.
>What I do know is that you need to learn how to think and how to analyse things. And also a little self-awareness, because you seem to be one of those "I said something so I'm right regardless" idiots.
I don't know how to make it any clearer. When you tour, you make choices with money. If you could have potentially made reasonable choices that would have brought you a profit, then the game is not rigged. That's all I'm saying, I just used band and crew salaries because they were the easiest "choice" to dive into.

With hindsight, I'm definitely happy to say they were wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that their example of making a loss doesn't have to be representative of touring as a whole.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20 etc., but come on, turning a two-piece band that played as a two-piece band to their primary audience of YouTube watchers into a six piece band is excessive. Maybe you're right that the two of them couldn't have put on a good show, that doesn't mean you have to jump straight to tripling the size of the band.

>>68328324
>Sure, if you had a fucking million friends and left your tape recorder on all day.
How is the scale relevant?
>>68328314
>so not only do you not pay for itself you offer something that wasn't your and you stole to others. no...no self important totally self centered young person here....Kek
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

>>68328265
>It's an art
> It's for the enjoyment of art and making music for the people
>Artists should be paid for their work
>Money should be determined on the quality of work
As someone who makes art as a career I find all of this very offensive. Whenever anyone writes "[something that is already its own thing] is an art" I get annoyed. "An Art", the worst. A completed work can be considered a work of art, a medium or process is not "an art", that's just insulting and makes out that the word 'art' just means 'a thing'. Don't do that, please.

Generally speaking, if you can sell it and you're alright with selling it then you're ok, if you can get commissioned or whatever then you're not making art anymore, you're doing some specific craft-work. If you win a grant then you're living the dream.
Music is its own category and lumping it in with art - which is, again, a profession unto itself - is counter-intuitive. You don't pay into see art, the pay is always having an audience and getting critiqued. You pay for it, generally. Musicians charge their audiences because they're entertainers. Music belongs to entertainment, in the case of the acts this thread refers to. You buy your ticket and attend. You buy a recording to take home. Physical media have always been mainly decor, it dates back to buying paintings to impress your pals. You buy records and dvds to show people your exquisite taste is the selling point, it's the idea. If you music is files on a computer there's not much point paying for it, considering that.

>>68328470
>How is the scale relevant?

idk is losing 5 dollars the same as losing 5 million dollars?

>>68328460
And I should add, there's a very nicely sized middle ground between having a literal crystal ball and going on tour with blindfolds on.

>>68328523
>idk is losing 5 dollars the same as losing 5 million dollars?
theft is theft. filesharing isn't theft

filesharing exists, this is happening now. Like some other guy said, musicians have to adapt to this situation an don't the other way around, you can't hold common people who download and share music illegal accountable for anything because no amount of moral anguish on le self centered millenia xdd will make a difference

Is it wrong to listen to the radio and never buy an album? You can call a radio station and request them play a song everyday and you'll never need to pay a cent.

You can't steal a performance. You can't steal a recording. You can steal a physical CD. You can steal music by claiming it as your own.

Don't forget, music was originally free. It wasn't until CAPITALISM came along that music started costing money. You would pay to see the performance at a performance space and donate money to the band and composer, then along came record labels.

>>68320370
I download it first to see whether it is worth buying an album. If it's an artist I like, because I tend to listen to primarily indie artists, upon release I download their album because I'm not sure whether I would have time to buy their album upon release. Once I make time, then I go buy their new release.

Since I live in LA, I'm able to buy most of the albums I like from Amoeba, especially because I'm a sucker for still buying CDs and at low prices. Like most people, I don't want to spend money on an album that is shit, so I rather download first to see whether it is worth paying money for the album.

Plus, a real fan will go see the band on tour anyway.

ITT non musicians try to justify theft from musicians yett get upset if said musicians don't produce more material for them to steal.

>>68329258
>theft

Downlading music hurts the big labels. Artists make their money from shows and merch. If youre a fan and want to support them then go to their shows and buy merch directly from them.

>>68328646
amazing argument

>>68329467
>implying

Yes, yes, and yes. EOT.

It's all funny isn't it?
Music is made by artists.
Not buying music is illegal but convenient and almost standard for today.
Buying music gives most of your money to middlemen and record companies but also in large amounts can support an artist a lot and increase their popularity.
These days, becoming popular in music is through filesharing as opposed to trading vinyls and CDs or seeing local performances.
Artists who do live shows and sell merch make up for it but not by a lot.
The inclusion of older albums surfacing among the internet is opening up influences but strangulating up-and-coming artists.
Artists who don't perform or sell merch will suffer immensely.
Music is at a technical point where everything is sonically possible.
The broadness of a computer's capabilities makes it impossible for an artist to settle on a sound and for cultures to grow around the instrument.
The lack of monetary incentive and the increasing difficulty in becoming recognized is causing many artists to give up.
People in general are becoming overstimulated and therefore work less harder in creating good and lasting content.
The only big albums of 2016 were created by artists that have been well established for at least a decade.
No new genres, overwhelmingly great artists, or cultures are being created.
In the face of having every great artistic creation from the beginning of man at their fingertips, people are becoming stubborn and afraid of trying new styles or artists, leading to a pessimistic society of nostalgia, complaining, and neo-conservatism all from behind the safety of their screens.
People are getting used to saying instead of doing (myself included). Those who "do" don't correctly (BLM).
In recent years, the job market of the western world is caving to outsourcing and automation.
Extremism is on the rise as well as overpopulation.
Suicide and depression are increasing.
Emotional and cultural commitment are dead.
End of the world I suppose.

>>68320370
What is "illegal music?" How did you know it was illegal before you download it?

>>68332126
It was a long read but pretty accurate.

>>68332151
If the artist doesn't publicly state it is "Free to Download" and if it is a copyrighted "work" then you can pretty accurately determine that downloading it is illegal.

>>68332196
I didn't want to make any arguments, just state the truth from both sides and how their is no real solution from where we stand. I don't want to make myself or anyone depressed but it's the truth. No one has any fucking clue what needs to be done and even if we did we wouldn't do it anyway unless there's some magical event to change everything.

File: GoodTokePupper.gif (2MB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x360px

Would illegal filesharing exist in /mu/'s /leftypol/ fantasy world?

>>68332240
That's not what OP said. He asked about downloading illegal music.

So, how can music be illegal before it is downloaded?

What has the music done wrong? Or is the creator / artist at fault here.

>>68332257
But how would we feel like lawless badasses with unlimited freedom otherwise?

It MUST continue to exist.

I feel guilty if I'm at a show of a band I love and haven't bought a physical copy.

But then thoroughout my life I've only wanted one to have an album autographed, and she didn't have a white marker, anyways. But we shared drinks, so that was okay.

>>68332562
what did you mean by THIS

people eventually get as much freedom as they can handle

none

>>68332721
really makes those electrons travel down my axones(declined in the accusative in accordance with the fact that it is the object of a preposition of directional movement)

>>68328481
you are such a fucking faggot dude kill yourself

>>68320370
But how am I supposed to discover obscure bands if I can't download their shit?

>>68332721
Nah. That's the difference between those who succeed and those who don't.

The former don't think.

>>68329193
>It wasn't until CAPITALISM came along that music started costing money
Before recordings existed the only way you could hear music is if you payed to see someone play it or if you played it yourself. You've ALWAYS had to pay to hear music until very recently you dumb teenage piece of shit.

>>68321836
This, but I will probably start buying vinyl to collect and to support artists that I love, once I graduate

>>68324665
I mean, you really don't. If one is dissatisfied with the service/product, then why should be subject to paying? I'm not saying you should just throw a fit over everything and not pay for shit, but why should I support bands that I have heard that I then think suck, just like you shouldn't have to pay for shitty pussy

File: eb55wZD.png (56KB, 322x280px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 322x280px

>>68322401

>>68325442
Pirate when you wanna listen,

Pay when your paycheck comes in.

I see literally nothing morally wrong with this.