(no subject)
This journal is very obviously dead, but this is something I feel people should see.
Ted Leo on file sharing. I pretty well agree with him.
"I'm really torn on file sharing. I have done it, I have benefited from finding some things that have been unavailable to me and that have opened up other doors for me to explore as a fan, and so I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but not to the extent that I feel it's my "right" to "own" a personal copy of something that someone else put sweat, thought, feeling, and money into -- the output of someone's true work -- without offering them something in return.
Two quick points: 1.) the notion that "music should be for everyone, and not owned" is tripped up by file sharing itself. If you're talking about having it out there in the ether, like just being broadcast on the radio or something, then that's one thing, but the very act of taking, keeping, and burning -- creating more hard copies of a hard copy -- means that you take into your ownership a version of this piece of work. So you're saying the artist and record label can't "own" it, but then you turn around and own it yourself? That shit ain't right. You're really just saying that you think you shouldn't have to pay for it. And to that, I say, if you ask nicely, you might get a copy, but if you think you have some entitlement to something, your request is falling on unsympathetic ears. 2.) As a promotional thing, it's great to have people passing your stuff around, and as an artist, it's awesome to know that people care. But when you exist in a world that sees you on tour 8 - 9 months out of the year, thus making it hard to hold down a different job, but you COULD, theoretically, be at least paying your bills with the work you do in your chosen field (that being, of course, making music), then it's easy to break down just what a dent excessive file sharing can put in your ability to keep doing what you're doing.
Check it -- Metallica are multi-millionaires. Who cares if they lose $100,000 to file sharing? I don't. But speaking for myself and my band, a few hundred downloads that aren't later backed up by purchases can be the difference between us paying rent or not. Ain't nobody in my band got health insurance, you know what I'm sayin'? I'm just talking about RENT. So yeah -- it hurts a bit, but I'm not going to tell people to not do it, it would just be nice if we could put all our cards on the table and forego some of the unproductive rhetoric that surrounds the issue. The RIAA can go fuck itself for all I care -- my interaction with that world is almost nil, and I really don't care if so-and-so has to put that last piece of bling they bought into hock. I'm just saying that there are people out there trying to do it righteously who could use a bit more support, and a good way to show it would be to give them something in return for what they give you. A musician can't download a guitar, you know?"
Ted Leo on file sharing. I pretty well agree with him.
"I'm really torn on file sharing. I have done it, I have benefited from finding some things that have been unavailable to me and that have opened up other doors for me to explore as a fan, and so I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but not to the extent that I feel it's my "right" to "own" a personal copy of something that someone else put sweat, thought, feeling, and money into -- the output of someone's true work -- without offering them something in return.
Two quick points: 1.) the notion that "music should be for everyone, and not owned" is tripped up by file sharing itself. If you're talking about having it out there in the ether, like just being broadcast on the radio or something, then that's one thing, but the very act of taking, keeping, and burning -- creating more hard copies of a hard copy -- means that you take into your ownership a version of this piece of work. So you're saying the artist and record label can't "own" it, but then you turn around and own it yourself? That shit ain't right. You're really just saying that you think you shouldn't have to pay for it. And to that, I say, if you ask nicely, you might get a copy, but if you think you have some entitlement to something, your request is falling on unsympathetic ears. 2.) As a promotional thing, it's great to have people passing your stuff around, and as an artist, it's awesome to know that people care. But when you exist in a world that sees you on tour 8 - 9 months out of the year, thus making it hard to hold down a different job, but you COULD, theoretically, be at least paying your bills with the work you do in your chosen field (that being, of course, making music), then it's easy to break down just what a dent excessive file sharing can put in your ability to keep doing what you're doing.
Check it -- Metallica are multi-millionaires. Who cares if they lose $100,000 to file sharing? I don't. But speaking for myself and my band, a few hundred downloads that aren't later backed up by purchases can be the difference between us paying rent or not. Ain't nobody in my band got health insurance, you know what I'm sayin'? I'm just talking about RENT. So yeah -- it hurts a bit, but I'm not going to tell people to not do it, it would just be nice if we could put all our cards on the table and forego some of the unproductive rhetoric that surrounds the issue. The RIAA can go fuck itself for all I care -- my interaction with that world is almost nil, and I really don't care if so-and-so has to put that last piece of bling they bought into hock. I'm just saying that there are people out there trying to do it righteously who could use a bit more support, and a good way to show it would be to give them something in return for what they give you. A musician can't download a guitar, you know?"