From time to time, friends have suggested talking about music on the blog. I like the idea, just haven't introduced it here before. The following email from Don is just the doorway into music talk that we've needed. Please let him know what you think:
I've got an ethical dilemma (albeit a small one) that I've been thinking about and I'd like to get the views of your blogosphere. Maybe you could post this and get their opinions.
As some of you may know, I take kind of a hard line on the "sharing" of music, as the kids say. While I have no love for the rapacious and short-sighted record companies, it still seems to me that not liking a system is not a good enough reason to steal. However flawed it is, it is right now the only way to compensate artists for their work.
I have been collecting music for many (many!) years. Long enough that some of the stuff I own is no longer available. It's not Public Domain, just out of print. Some of it can be found on the used market (which I have no problem with) but some cannot.
Anyway, here is the dilemma. I want to introduce someone (OK, it's Christine) to one of the groups that she couldn't purchase even if she wanted to. I know I could loan her my CDs but I don't really want to be without them. In this case, is it OK to burn copies and give them away?
Here's an additional thing to think about - with music now available by the song, is it still OK to make "mixtapes"? Was it ever?
Don
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Thanks for the forum, Christine.
Well, kids? What do you think?
Don, you and your morals need to join us in this millenium.
That is all.
Oh, also, I love you :)
Don, I totally understand and respect your position, but I am not as strict as you are. To put it in vegetarian terms: you're a vegan, I'm only ovo-lacto. I but songs from iTunes. I buy new cd's from my favorite artists (heard that Liam Finn yet? picked up the new Mudcrutch, Don?), but I gladly have borrowed and burned from my family and close friends. Usually stuff I wouldn't have bought anyway. I know, I know, they all say that.
I have no problem with the "mixed tape" update of "mixed disc." Mixed tapes are usually shared within a small group of friends and often lead to an interest in (and further music purchasing of) a band or artist. Right now, I am listening to a disc Ben gave me just tonight. (Thanks, Ben, kinda like this Modest Mouse!) Mixed tapes are almost an art form in themselves (you've seen High Fidelity, right?) And if not for a certain potent mixed tape made by my own Jim in December of 1989 (see post below), who knows where I would be today?
I have no qualms about burning something that you can no longer even pay the artist for (see loose morals above), but if you do (and I totally respect that), and if you don't want to loan me your only copies, what about making me a "time sensitive" copy that I can listen to for a few days, promise not to import or burn, and return to you?
You'd just have to trust me.
Radio Free Christine
(December 1989)
SIDE A
Things We Said Today--The Beatles
Ultimately Fine--The BoDeans
The Other End (Of the Telescope)--Til Tuesday
Here Comes My Girl--Tom Petty and the HB's
This Must Be the Place (NM)--Talking Heads
Mystery Achievement--The Pretenders
Bitch--The Rolling Stones
Please Don't Go--Stevie Wonder
If You See Her, Say Hello--Bob Dylan
Bring on the Night--The Police
Lovable--Elvis Costello
I Fall Down--U2
The Comedians--Roy Orbison
SIDE B
Showdown at Big Sky--Robbie Robertson
Graceland--Paul Simon
We Are the People--John Mellencamp
Oh Darling--Supertramp
Got a Lot on My Head--The Cars
How Can I Resist Her--Split Enz
Cuyahoga--R.E.M.
Without You--David Bowie
Peggy Sue Got Married--Buddy Holly
A Little Is Enough--Pete Townshend
Wonderful Tonight--Eric Clapton
Make No Mistake--Keith Richards
Happy Xmas (War Is Over)--John & Yoko
I'm firmly in the questionable morals camp. I've burned and exchanged mix CDs with friends and have no hang-ups about doing so.
I'm not making a profit off it or mass distributing it. I'm making copies or mixes and giving them to a few people I think would like the music. I've already paid for everything I'm sharing, and who knows, maybe someone will be interested enough to buy more of an artist's work?
Now, if I loaded up, say, a small aircraft with a few million copies and flew from state to state dropping them upon the masses...
OK guys, I'm not trying to be difficult or ornry but...
where's the line?
Is it's OK to make 1 copy for your boyfriend, why is it wrong to make 100?
(I love these discussions, even Martha's)
Your right, Don. It's very difficult to draw the line. Your situation with impossible-to-get music is as close to the line as you get. There are also bands who encourage sharing/downloading for free. The Grateful Dead are a great example. The band Korn released a free song on the web called "Steal this Song", you can't get it anywhere else. I'm sure there are other bands who feel the same way, and you can share their music guilt-free. I also think you can burn that disc for Christine.
What are these lines you people speak of?
I think it all boils down to money. Artists are mad that music is so easily copyable/downloadable due to mp3s, so you don't HAVE to buy the whole CD anymore like you used to. So, in the spirit of blame-shifting, I'm going to say the musicians shouldn't be mad at ME, the downloader, they should be mad at the inventor of the mp3 player. Yeah.
Sorry for no segue into the rant. That is all.
Ooh. Also: If they aren't doing it for the money, aka they're just doing it to "get their music out there" they shouldn't care if you download. If they DO care, they're not in it for pure artistic reasons and we're just, um, *insert hippie crap rhetoric* yeah! Freedom! Music for the masses!
The only issue I have with the above argument, Martha, is that if musicians can't make any money off of making music, then how can they spend the time making the music? Time is money. If they have to work a job to make money and eat, when will they have time to create, practice, and record this awesome music for the masses?
*says the girl who has about a gigworth of music that Yancy casually loaded onto her computer when he rebuilt her hard drive*
I actually think that this dilemma will eventually sort itself out. The image of the rich, glamorous rockstar is going the way of the dinosaur, and it appears that artists are making most of their money by touring these days and by selling their music to their most diehard fans and not even worrying about the rest. Take Radiohead, who made their new album, "In Rainbows," available in a variety of formats. To buy digital copies of all the songs, fans could name their price, including "free." "I'll pay 0.00 dollars for this, Radiohead. Thanks." To buy a physical CD, it was the standard CD price. To buy the deluxe collector's vinyl with all kinds of bells and whistles, it was $80.00 or something like that. I don't think Radiohead's doing too badly with that. What allowed them to do that was the fact that they ditched the record company and recorded the album themselves. Maybe more artists will try to secure their own means of recording so that they'll have control over their masters and how their music will make it to the listener.
~Lisa
Nice addition, Lisa! I was hoping you'd put in your thoughts.
coming in a little late here. for me, i guess the first question is what the dilemma is actually about - is it art, is it item of necessity versus one of luxury??
if i own a dvd and have you all over to watch it, share snacks and beverages and discuss it, am i then violating? what about if i watch it and we pass it around and then discuss? is that different? what about when jimmy there gets sloppy and drops a whole beer (or coke) on his shoes and soaks thru so i loan him a pair of socks - is Hanes pissed that he didn't have to go out and buy his own pair?
where do you draw the line w/ property that you own and want to share w/ friends?
i think that w/ art forms and every other piece of anything, we can choose to share or buy the full version/copy/whatever if that's what we want. how has music gotten this ideal that their product is different than anything else?
But you're a poet, H. What if you published a small book of poetry and only a few people bought it--the rest photocopied it and scanned it? How are you supposed to make money to keep writing poetry? Are you supposed to just give your art away?
We run into the same thing in the homeschool community. All of us homeschoolers are on a budget, and there's all this great curricula available. It is tempting to just "go in" on all of the good stuff with friends and copy it or burn it, but most of it has been written and created by other moms and dads like us. They should get reimbursed for their intellectual property if I'm going to use it weekly to teach my children. I'd be angry if everyone just stole my stuff.
good point, Christine. i was thinking more of the larger artists but it probably doesn't make a huge difference. i think if only a few people bought my book and the other millions (woo hoo!) were trying to get copies of it, then my stuff is good and wanted and b/c of technology today, i'd have to look into other ways of marketing myself. and since every library would want a physical copy of my book and many bookstores would carry - if only a few copies - i'd probably be doing ok.
i can see how the line between struggling to get by as an artist and living as you think your life "should" be might dictate a lot of it but what it comes down to is that if people want to read, listen to, watch, etc your stuff, they'll find a way to do it. you can be honored and find other ways to make the money you need off it (i'd want to do appearances - like was mentioned w/ touring, book signings, online writing classes, t-shirts w/ quotes, etc, etc). i think being in the angry, fighting mode would alter my art and everyday life.
maybe i'd feel different if i were already famous??
And your point about socks--copying a CD or whatever is really quite different than lending someone a pair of your socks, because in the case of the CD, you still have your CD to listen to or whatever while your friend has a copy to listen to simultaneously somewhere else. With the socks, you can't be wearing them while they're on loan to your husband. Until we get a copy-and-paste feature for things like socks, that won't be an issue.
Ok. Seriously. What does Tom Petty make? Eleventy billion dollars a year? Anyone ever heard the term "Starving Artist"? If we don't steal their music, what else do they have to complain about? Wardrobe malfunctions? The wrong colored M & M's on the tour bus? The way I see it, it's almost a civic duty! We owe it to these musicians to give them something VALID to complain about. Come on people... UNITE! I want their job. Really, I do. I want to be able to say... "You know, I'd love to go to McD's with you tonight, but I've got a gig." Now THAT would be worth 500 illegally downloaded songs. Maybe 501.
Thanks for all the viewpoints, guys.
Christine, you can have your blog back now.
Post a Comment