Then how do you explain artists who give away all of their music for free?
They'd be quite pleased that I possess all of their music. Do those artists
not count in the moral abacus you are so quick to tally? What would be the
tipping point where you would consider file sharing to no longer be
"immoral" and simply consider it "the way most music is now disseminated"?
I understand all artists want to have the freedom to determine the value of
their creations however when your medium is infinitely reproducable and
impossible to regulate ...I wouldn't put too much stock into its
profitability unless it is something many, many people want.
Given the astounding number of artists who offer their wares as "pay what
you want" (Including $0) on Bandcamp, (Or how about this old chestnut
<
http://www.wisp.kaen.org/>) as well as many who may not offer their music
for free but do not mind the free publicity, I struggle to grasp how this
is a black and white issue. I have seen firsthand artists swelling their
fan base through the use of file sharing, or by simply hosting a place
where fans can go to download most of if not all of their music. I have
seen these people succeed. Your quip regarding "rationalization" echos the
sentiments of a musician ill-prepared to succeed in the modern music
economy, or perhaps simply a bitterness towards change, which is not
terribly uncommon. Clearly we can all agree that copy infringement is
illegal - although it appears that's where the agreement ends.
The nature of how information is disseminated is rapidly changing. I'm
certainly not advocating that people not try to monetize their efforts,
however I find it silly that people still tow the moral line, insisting
that somehow our world would be a better place without file sharing. If
your product is desired by others they will most certainly share it with
others if they are able. Perhaps you want that, perhaps you don't. To
believe you have been cheated or deprived of something because enough
people noticed what you were doing and shared it is obstinate in this day
and age. It is much more a sign of success and future opportunity for those
with the foresight to take advantage of it.
Once again I'll say: Markets are amoral.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Sham Beam <sham.beam@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted 22 lines On 10/21/2014 7:48 AM, Connor Higgins wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 7:48 AM, Connor Higgins wrote:
>
>> Why should I even bother having this conversation when folks like Jared
>> come in and smash the metaphorical house of cards we've already
>> established. Yes, Jared: Piracy is a criminal act. What I'm asking is if
>> piracy is currently aiding the promotion of new and upcoming artists.
>>
>>
> So what if it does? Those new artists have chosen not to distribute their
> music via torrents and file sharing sites.
>
> Most people think of themselves as good and moral. I think attempts to
> rationalize piracy as something that ultimately helps artists is more
> likely a way for pirates to reconcile their knowledge that they are doing
> something against someones will with being a moral person.
>
> If you met your favorite muso in a bar would you mention you downloaded
> their entire discography?
>
>
>
>