Weirdie wrote:
Sean Brennan wrote:

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.

Totally agree! That's why I said that the system itself is vicious.


Well, the "system" (or act) that is "vicious" is the people stealing from musicians, destroying their lives and livelihoods. You're saying that because the government doesn't pay for the stuff you want to take for free, then that's what is "vicious". Hmmm....


I'm talking NOT about those who upload music (and I've never tried to defend them!), but about those who watch Youtube. These people are not the same. For example, I watch youtube, but I've never uploaded a single song anywhere and I'm not planning to do so. From moral point of view, people watching videos online do nothing different from listening to radio or watching TV. These listeners/watchers can't even know which files are put there legally and which ones not. And they pay nothing to those who upload files, thus don't support illegal uploading...

You're not doing something equal to watching TV or listening to the radio, where the artists are compensated for the braodcast of their work. You're watching illegally uploaded content where the artists are not compensated (and THEN, to compound the problem, you're saying there's nothing wrong with it, perpetuating the idea that it's acceptable to do this, just like the people who filehsare have spread the false idea that it was acceptable to fileshare). The least you could do is listen to the music on LastFM, where the artist will get 12 cents or something after a year.

You're saying that since someone else breaks the law then it's acceptable for you to benefit from that crime since you didn't actually commit the original act of uploading the music. That's the SAME thing as people who download music that was illegally uploaded by someone else- since the person who downloaded it didn't actually upload it, then the person who downloads it supposedly isn't at fault. but that's a false argument.

That's the same argument as if I said that I found a guy's wallet on the street and since I didn't steal it originally from the guy and drop it on the street, then it's acceptable for me to take all the money out of that wallet and use his credit cards to buy things for myself.

Again, it's just my perception, and here's no need to argue at all.

We're not arguing.

Weirdie wrote:
Sean Brennan wrote:
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.

........
You got me wrong. I DO know that you don't like to tour, as well as some other musicians. I don't say that you have to.

Actually you just did and quoted yourself, which is why I wrote what I wrote. Also, many musicians DO NOT tour, not simply "don't like to", but actually DO NOT, CAN NOT or have no ability to tour, or their music is not the type you take on tour.

And I'm not asking or requiring anything. Actually, I'm not talking about MY preferences at all! I only said that in current situation - in reality - it seems impossible for a musician to earn a living unless he/she performs live. And it's not even my personal opinion, but an opinion of some other musicians (they're probably more lucky than Birthday Massacre, since they get decent payments and their expences such as transportation are fully covered by concert organizers).

Well this should illustrate to you how bad things are- that musicians you know are even saying that the only way possible to earn money is to tour, because no one buys CDs (and fans do not do what they can to help compensate. Fans just take). But again, this means a band has to be on tour 365 days per year in order to earn a steady income, PLUS no band earns adequate pay when touring. I guarantee you that these musicians are only making enough money to sustain their touring. But they probably aren't making even the money you make in your job OR even the money the average person who is earning a minimum wage is earning! Plus they aren't paying into social security, they aren't building a record of employment for future jobs, etc. Again, touring for most indie artists either costs money (in other words, you LOSE money when you tour), or you make under-poverty level wages.

Touring is NOT an option or solution.

Sean