Weirdie wrote:
Sean Brennan wrote:
It's the same thing as filesharing in that, like you just said (which was argued about endlessly in the past and caused big fights here, where I said YouTube was indeed harmful) people DO use YouTube like a radio station and listen to the music there - for free.

I still think it's too extreme.   Why must people be deprived of listening to music for free AT ALL? Then we could also agree that people have no right to read a book for free or to look at a painting reproduction for free?


No one is depriving anyone of music. But why should your desire to listen to music for free be more important than my need to feed myself and pay my rent and be able to work?


Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?

Ok, if art belongs to the people, then where are the state run subsidies that are paid by the people supporting the artists? Are you willing to pay extra taxes so that you can listen to free music? Art doesn't magically appear, at no cost. It's cost a LOT of money and time to create. If you want art for free, that's fine- but then you need to be paying all artists a salary to create that art.

What's SO wrong in listening to something on YouTube (it's not people's fault that there's nothing worth listening on official radio channels!) to call these people criminals?

To clarify, YOUTUBE calls these people criminals, as does ESTABLISHED LAW. When you upload music to YouTube that you do not own the rights to it is an illegal act. You get three strikes with YouTube if you're caught uploading music that is not your own. Once you have three strikes your account is suspended.

Again, if you want to listen to music on YouTube then where are the royalties to the artists that actually support the creation of the art you like to listen to? If you continue this behavior then no artist will have an income and there will be no music to listen to on YouTube or anywhere else (except Rebecca Black type manufactured pop "artists").

And if people think it's alright to listen to music for free, then why aren't they ALSO requesting that music on radio, acting as advocates for the bands they deprive of income, writing to magazines, etc, demanding media coverage (the only thing that helps bands aside from their income)? When they listen to music for free, they obviously do one thing- satisfy themselves at the expense of the artist. The LEAST these people would do is send the artist a few bucks, promote the fuck out of the band, write to magazines and radio on the bands' behalf, etc. NO ONE does this.

Not only art consumers are wrong, the whole system is wrong, this world is wrong where art is considered to be a luxury item like another pair of shoes, or a diamond ring, or a car...

Like it or not, art is not an essential need for living, like food, water, shelter. That was OBVIOUSLY my point. If people were stealing food and water to survive, I can understand. When people steal music, they do so out of greed only. And that act HARMS the artist, so not only is the person stealing music greedy, they are also cruel (and possibly sociopathic) because they do not care about the harm they cause others. They care only for their immediate satisfaction - no matter the cost.

As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.

Wow, where have you been? I've addressed this VERY point literally dozens and dozens of times over the years. Here we go again:
1. Not all artists perform live.
2. Not all artists WANT to be FORCED to perform live in order to earn a living.

ALSO- you're asking the artist to be paid for only ONE aspect of his job- live performance (if indeed that artist performs live), and NOT the creation of the art. Creation of the art is the more expensive aspect and provides the bulk of an artist's compensation. So you're telling the artist to take a MASSIVE, and I mean MASSIVE pay cut, just so you can listen to free music. And you think that's fair? As I've said in the past, touring pays LESS THAN POVERTY WAGES.

That's like me insisting that you only get paid IF you ride a bus to work, and then you only get paid for the time you're on the bus. All the rest of the time you're actually AT work, you are not paid. It's the SAME THING.

For example, when LAM performed on 4 shows with Mindless Self Indulgence and The Birthday Massacre in the USA a couple of years ago, The Birthday Massacre (who was 2nd on the bill after the headliner Mindless Self Indulgence) was paid $500 per show but had to pay $500 per day for their tour bus and driver. The only way they were able to feed themselves is if the local promoter provided food (and often that's a bag of chips) or if they sold some t-shirts at the show. This is TYPICAL (and actually a better deal than most bands get). When they had a day off they lost $500.

Merchandise sales at concerts only occur at concerts (and are NOT the huge pay off you seem to think, they only cover costs normally, they don't provide much profit, if any). But AGAIN- not all artists tour or want to be FORCED to tour in order to earn an income (as miniscule as it might be). Do you force the book writer or painter to come and read or paint in front of you? Why force a musician to do this? Unlike books and paintings, music is easily shared and easily enjoyed in ways that books and paintings cannot be (like on an iPod as opposed to sitting down and reading a book or hanging a real painting on the wall- authors and painters are usually paid for those creations, which thus far, are not easy to duplicate and share. Musicians however are not compensated).

But don't worry, I'm not gonna start a fight, and I'll not argue any more.   Just wanted to pass an opinion...

It's best when opinions are based, not on a desired belief, but on reality.

Sean


Last Edited By: LAM Mar 24 11 10:12 AM. Edited 3 times.