Argh! Is this stealing? Piracy, Ethics, etc.

[Monica]

http://www.pandora.com/ is another great one.

I use Pandora.

The difference is that the artists and record label heads, etc. know in advance that this will happen and are happy to let it happen. Permission is given, whereas it is not in digital music copying. Although it is a great point to bring up!

Are you saying the permission is what makes the difference? What about books? We've all loaned books to others. If another person reads a book we bought, is that stealing from the author? Authors know that their books will end up in public libraries, but have they given explicit permission for us to loan their books?

For that matter, what about buying used books at garage sales or used book stores? Or buying used cds or dvds? Used anything? Are we robbing the artist by buying the item used instead of new? How many of us have purchased used books, cds or dvds on amazon.com?

...And yet copying does diminish the sales that would otherwise be earned, hurting the artists themselves on some level.

That's true in the case of someone routinely downloading instead of buying, but it's not necessarily true in many cases.

Serious fans of certain artists tend to support their artists. For example, I'm a serious fan of Peter Gabriel, Radiohead, AFI, Sonata Arctica, and a few others whose new releases are anxiously anticipated, and I would buy the cd even if someone gave me a copied version, simply because I feel strongly about having all their works in my collection, and I want to support the artist who has brought so much joy into my life with their music.

otoh, I have lots of music that was given to me by others who downloaded it, and my enjoying that music does not in any way reduce their sales, because I would not have bought the music anyway! In many cases, if my friend had not given me a copy of the music, I would not even have known they existed!

Before the digital age, there were 'pirate' vinyl albums and 'bootleg' vinyl albums. I had a boyfriend who owned a used record store, and he never carried any pirated albums, because they clearly replaced the originals, but he proudly carried bootlegs, which were illegally recorded live shows. Why? Because no one but the hardcore fans ever bought bootlegs! The quality was typically poor, but the hardcore fans wanted them anyway. It did not rob the artists because the hardcore fans already owned everything the artist had ever done; they just wanted more.

I think there is still an honor system in place among the serious fans. Those who are able to buy the official releases do, and those who are unable to because of financial reasons wouldn't have bought it anyway, so there's no harm done. And those who browse the torrents for cool, obscure stuff wouldn't have found that stuff in the stores anyway.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people downloading the new Metallica album instead of buying it. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that the diminishment of sales might not be as drastic as it seems at first glance.

Ali said earlier that in some instances, bands have to produce three good albums before they can even start to see revenue.

I would modify that to say "bands have to produce commercially accessible albums before they can even start to see revenue."

As a connoisseur of non-commercially-accessible, even obscure music, I think the best music is usually NOT what makes it to the radio/mainstream. In fact, I am forever asking people to please not judge an artist by their hits, but to give their obscure works a chance. Good examples are Judas Priest, Scorpions, Blue Oyster Cult, and Peter Gabriel. These are all known for their hits, but I personally consider their hits to be their worst songs! They have so many other songs that have far more depth than what was played on the radio & vh1.

And this is my main complaint about the music industry: that it is an industry at all. Artists are not free to create art for the sake of art; they must create what sells or get dropped from the label.

Case in point: Peter Gabriel. He was the vocalist for the prog-rock band Genesis in the early 70s. As soon as they started having a bit of commercial success, he left, for myriad reasons, not the least of which was personal/family issues, but the commercial success was definitely a factor, as portrayed in the lyrics from a song off his first solo album:

Climbing up on Solsbury Hill
I could see the city light
Wind was blowing, time stood still
Eagle flew out of the night
He was something to observe
Came in close, I heard a voice
Standing stretching every nerve
Had to listen had no choice
I did not believe the information
(I) just had to trust imagination
My heart going boom boom boom
"Son," he said "Grab your things,
I've come to take you home."

To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut
Turning water into wine
Open doors would soon be shut
So I went from day to day
Tho' my life was in a rut
"Till I thought of what I'd say
Which connection I should cut
I was feeling part of the scenery
I walked right out of the machinery
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" he said "Grab your things
I've come to take you home."

When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free
Watched by empty silhouettes
Who close their eyes but still can see
No one taught them etiquette
I will show another me
Today I don't need a replacement
I'll tell them what the smile on my face meant
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" I said "You can keep my things,
they've come to take me home."

Everyone thought he was nuts leaving Genesis at the height of their fame, but he never regretted it. He grew as an artist, without the pressure of a band, while the band went on to become a commercial success. (Serious fans like me prefer the Gabriel era of Genesis to the pop fluff they became later, but I digress.)

As unjust as that is, is that not the agreement that is made with the artist's knowledge? They know what they're getting in to by this point, I can't accept that they are being victimized in the same way that some have portrayed it. (not necessarily anyone here).

Such is the musical genius of Peter Gabriel that he actually made a few hits intentionally, just so he could earn enough $$ to open his own recording studio and be free to create whatever kind of music he wants. After his hits, did the unthinkable: he made soundtrack albums! This was commercial suicide, but he didn't care. He wanted to focus on composing serious music instead of fluffy hits, and that's what he did. He also got more involved in humanitarian work, which further delayed releasing new music, much to the dismay of his fans (including me, ha!).

Peter Gabriel is gifted enough to know how and when to play the game, but not all artists have the ability to create a hit at will just to keep the record companies happy. Too often, the artist's creative expression is compromised.

Another case in point:

Boston. Their debut album in 1976 was considered a 'perfect' album - absolutely brilliant! It was a huge hit and got a lot of radio play. It took them several years to write that music. Well, the record company demanded a repeat performance! They weren't free to create something new and different, but were expected to duplicate the first album, since it was a known success. Hence, instead of being ART, it became formulaic. Boston had no choice but to oblige, and produced another album that was basically just a rehashed version of the first. The mainstream didn't know the difference, but fans of their first album lost respect. Boston became a joke, which was a shame because their first album really was masterful; quite a classic.

This has happened with many other bands. Blue Oyster Cult was a heavy metal band in the 70s. But as soon as Don't Fear the Reaper became a hit, they were expected to produce more of the same. So their subsequent albums all had Reaper clones, with Buck doing the vocals instead of their main singer, Eric, only because Buck had done the vocals on Reaper.

The serious fans consider this criminal! Because the talent of the artist is curtailed.

Just because someone knows they're being victimized doesn't mean they're not being victimized. I've read enough rock star autobiographies (and met some in person) to know a bit about how artists have been routinely exploited by the record industry.

Certainly reform is needed, but I am undecided as to whether pirating music is the proper avenue.

Agreed.

Wouldn't the better route be from the bottom up, instead of the top down? I.e. the musicians themselves boycott RIAA affiliated record labels or other organizations that are unfair and thereby spur change. Why is it that the music fans are the ones that are helping the artists, instead of the artists helping themselves?

They are. The big names like NIN, Radiohead, and Peter Gabriel have already been mentioned. But I know of many, many underground artists who have never released their music on cd and will never be on itunes, but they have multiple releases all the same. They probably won't ever hit the big time, but they are creating ART! Some of the most exciting new music won't ever get any airplay.

Both have the ability to bring about change, but one is harmful and one is not. Likewise with music industry reform, one is illegal (copying digital music files) while one is not illegal (musicians standing up for themselves and giving their business to fair companies).

It's a great start, but I don't think it's quite that simple. As with sonograms, DNA testing, and other medical screening technologies, technology has surpassed humans' abiility to ethically utilize it. Certainly a harmless solution is preferable, if we can figure out how to do it. But how to undo the freedom that comes with technological advances?