RSSArtists Split on Internet File Sharing
By Ed Oswald | Published December 6, 2004, 11:32 AM
Artists and musicians mostly agree that unauthorized file sharing should be illegal, but a large majority believes file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all. That's the finding of a survey released Sunday by the Pew Internet polling organization.
The study could potentially be seen as a positive by either side in the file sharing trial in Australia, where record labels have sued Kazaa creator Sharman Networks for alleged rampant piracy occurring across its network.
The survey found that 52 percent of artists think unauthorized file sharing should be illegal, compared to 37 percent that feel it should be legal. When asked who should be prosecuted for breaking copyright laws, only 15 percent believed that the individuals were to blame, whereas nearly two-thirds believed the file sharing companies should bear the responsibility.
67 percent of respondents also believe that file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all to them, but were evenly split as to whether or not file sharing is a net good or bad for their profession.
i think if thay go after use for downloading then thay need to go after microsoft and apple becouse thay have progames that copy to you have to make a copy of your cd you buy to put it on your ipod or other player i have not herd no one tolk about this .
Score: 0
|It is legal to have backups of your music, movies. It is not legal to share them w/o permission. Also what sucks, but is understandable, is lets say you bought a cassette tape of your favorite artist but now cassette is out and cds are in. Just because you bought the cassette tape doesn't entitle you to trade in your tape for cd, you'd have to do the work to transfer it to cd yourself. Same with OGG/MP3... format via filesharing. Lets say you pay for 1 song each from itunes or whereever. Now you have the music, but you are not entitled to have the cd art... you'll have to pay for the music all over again by buying the cd.
Score: 0
|Sharing music is not bad at all. The industry is not losing money from this. They're not making the money they wish they made. If I don't make $500 dollars tomorrow, I didn't loose that money, I simply didn't earn it.
As noted earlier, many people found completely new music because of sharing.
Turn on the radio and you hear music. How does the radio differ from sharing? The radio station shares music with thousands of listeners. If you say its for promotional purposes, then the music industry completely ignored the untapped potential of music file sharing. Instead of fighting it, they should embrace and utilize it.
I downloaded Rammstein long time ago by accident and now own all their cds and DVDs. Rammstein wasn't available for legal downloading for a long time. iTunes only recently adopted it. I've downloaded this one song for free because someone was sharing, and the corporate got about $100 from my pocket. Lower the prices of music, make it easily and conveniently available, and profits will soar.
You also have to look at the majority of people's income. Families that can afford $500 computer certainly is not going to liberally waste 3-4 hours work to buy a 2cd set when other expenses are present. To enjoy music, you need lots of it for different moods and tastes. The high prices of cds is what pushes people away from buying at the store and towards ease and convenience of downloading.
Stop listening to the bull* that the RIAA and technology backwards people are saying about music sharing. Its here to stay and they need to learn to tap into the technology to work for them.
Score: 0
|"Turn on the radio and you hear music. How does the radio differ from sharing? The radio station shares music with thousands of listeners."
And pays a fee for each song each time it's played... I don't disagree with most of you're saying, but let's keep the facts straight, at least.
Score: 0
|Unauthorized File Sharing IS Illegal. It probably does hurt the big money makers, at the same time - helping the less known artists. Sharing allows others to "test drive" albums - you dont buy a car if they wont let you test drive it. CDs are quite affordable compared to cars, but investing 20 bucks in to something you dont know if you'd like or not is a gamble. $1/song services suck because... say you like the album, well you already bought it, but now you dont have the cd art or liner notes or lyrics... So you'd have to buy it again!
You are always going to have those that copy and distribute music/movies, The real gripe is how easy the internet is making it to do so, but that's what digital formats are for - mass production, distribution, and quality made easier.
Hey if the artists gave their work away, they could charge $30-$70 for a one-time performance... Oh wait, they already do!
Here's a thought, drop the cd/dvd prices to $5 or $7, then we can buy more with less concern about price, you'll probably get nearly the same revenue.
Score: 0
|Well, I tend to agree...if CDs were dropped down to say...about $12-$15...I could live with that...and maybe $15-$20 for a double CD..right now $30 or more is way too high...for any artist.
To tell the truth...most of the New groups I listen to, if it wasn't for filesharing..I never would have heard them. If I like the song or even the whole CD...I don't mind going out and buying it..thats cause I know it's worth it....but spending $23 on CD that has only 1-2 good tracks..that Bites.
If Wal-Mart keeps up it's treand all CDs will be $10-$12...of cource they are all edited & you have to buy them somewhere else....lol
Score: 0
|Your Local Library is an example.
I have been donating every cd that I didn't care to keep to the library instead of selling on half.com How do you like them apples?
Score: 0
|File Sharing? What's to share?
010010000100100100001110001001
000010101001001010010010100101
110010010001010101010100100101
000101001000100101000100100010
100101010010101001001010100101?
Honestly, if one were to listen to all the music ever composed in the world they'd have wasted their entire life. Perhaps if musicians (if they call themselves that these days) could stick to performing locally? Enough of this world domination crap. We all know that Number 1 *insert title here* in the music industry means s*** all to those with 10% brain functionality.
I can't believe people would be so stupid as to sell something via one of the worlds most exploited mediums. Just cut the noose and let us keep the apples. ;-P
Score: 0
|"Honestly, if one were to listen to all the music ever composed in the world they'd have wasted their entire life. Perhaps if musicians (if they call themselves that these days) could stick to performing locally? Enough of this world domination crap. "
I call myself a professional musician. I do not have any albums for sale, nor do I have a recording contract, but I've written music, and have recorded music in a professional recording studio. Making money off of the music you make has nothing to do with world domination, it is not a govenment conspiracy--I have dedicated 12 years of my life to playing the bass guitar and writing music, and I practice and play at least 20 hours a week (which is nothing compared to successful musicians/bands). I could work a part-time job if I wanted, but I don't. Why the hel1 should anyone be allowed to redistribute songs I wrote without my permission? File sharing is not in itself the worst part, though. I play contemporary christian music, and many songs that I play I heard from other churches, musicians, etc. I found out recently that there is a church in Germany that somehow obtained a copy of one of the songs I helped write. I gave some CD's of my music away to good friends, and one of them had the audacity to copy it and give it to someone else. I never intended to make money off these songs, but I also had no intention of giving them away to the world either. I realise that this may not be the best example since I never intended to make any money or become famous--but many people devote their entire lives to writing music! Why should it take hours upon hours of hard work to lay down the tracks for a song perfectly, and some boso steal that work and distribute it to all his friends in minutes? I gave away the CD's, but it cost over $100 every hour I spent in the studio. Music is way more than one's and zero's--write your own music, and see if you don't change your mind about file sharing.
Score: 0
|Funnaaay!!! ;-)
Score: 0
|And who will Authorize it?
Anyways - "Here's a thought, drop the cd/dvd prices to $5 or $7, then we can buy more with less concern about price, you'll probably get nearly the same revenue."
Makes far more sense. Haven't they worked it out yet the consumer is king not the record companies. They need to wake up. Adam Smith and the hand!!!
Score: 0
|You are quite different... not wanting anyone but a few to have/enjoy your creations, and I can relate... My girlfriend is into photography, and she doesn't really want it out to public, not as much as you though, for she is working on a webpage containing her works. I really dont understand that much.
Anyway, you provided the first comment i have ever read/heard reguarding this issue that didn't care about $ from your work, still being anti-sharing. I say, If you dont want your work to be public, but limited to friends and family, I respect that. I dont understand why you don't want others to have it - especially if you are not concerned about profit nor do i need to understand.
Those that do want to be popular or others to enjoy their work, filesharing is great opportunities for them. As you mentioned, I don't really think your case fits into the above, profit market. I enjoyed seeing your side of it though :-) cheers
Score: 0
|if people make good music, they make money. when they make s***e music, they make less money! simple as that. and i think that filesharing is a plus, because it allows people to be introduced to new types or new artists. if it weren't for filesharing, i'm sure i wouldn't know half the artists i do now, and you can buy their cd's if you really like them :)
Score: 0
|Not true at all. Most good bands make little money. Look at bands like Opeth or Porcupine Tree, great bands, great song writers, great muscians, but not household names or wealthy. Britney Spears, can't sing, writes very few of her own songs, super wealthy. Why? Because she is hot, not because she makes good music.
Score: 0
|ahh well, i was kinda just usuing a general example.. like Lola Ray. i would have never known or heard about their album if it weren't for the internet + file sharing. and i own it now :)
Score: 0
|If you are going to sue File Sharing networks because individuals are sharing copyrighted works then you might as well sue the government for allowing the internet.
Score: 0
|I Agree. On another point, no law will convert the masses unless they win mindshare. Mindshare from students and low/middle-class people is not likely when they see MTV Cribs showing off the "artists" multi-million dollar homes with unbelievable comforts. Most people just don't buy the argument that it's hurting artists or record companies in the slightest.
Score: 0
|Screw the RIAA!...that's all I have to say today.
Score: 0
|err..the post before sounded like it's maybe time to switch to decaf for a few days. Musicians earn their
money, which enables them to continue to make new music, buy selling their CDs,. & yeah, there are *some* megabuck "artistes", who flash tha' blingbling, etc, but noone I know listens to their
"music". I go for the small bands that have something interesting to say, and sadly, the Industry doesn't know they exist. So it's up to their fans to support them if they want to continue to enjoy the music they make. Pure & simple.
Score: 0
|