Can the illegal downloading culture be changed?

Posted by: Heath on 29 February 2008

I don't usually pop up on here too often, but I felt moved to have a rant, when in the space of a week, three people have said the same thing when I challenged them about their illegal downloads.

Their response was perhaps what you'd expect, 'well they're rolling in it' or 'they should be doing for the love of it, not money' FFS, for the love of it! Should they have a day job too, to support their love of music? And as for the rolling in it, I tried explaining that artist can wait years for money from record sales whilst the record company recoups its investment.

This fell on deaf ears, as did my suggestion that music may become less diverse as the major labels cut back their costs. Of course there are indie labels to provide diversity, but they cannot survive if their output is made freely available for no cost.

Part of the problem is the very nature of the download itself, as you don’t build up a physical collection, so the illegal download amounts to much the same as the legit one. There’s no pride of ownership, which many have in collecting all the works of a certain artist etc… Also the main reason I and most people on this forum don’t use mp3 downloads as a primary source for music is poor sound quality, but the vast majority of people find mp3 perfectly acceptable, even a poorly ripped one.

So how do you go about persuading people used to free music, to pay for it? Do we have to start showing videos of starving musicians in a Band Aid stylee? I’m at a loss, as my arguments were rejected by all but one person, who said that copies, illegal mp3s etc felt grubby, and she would always buy the original, saying that a tenner or less was good value.
Posted on: 05 March 2008 by Tam
I can use google just fine thanks. My point is that's not really how an argument works. If you make a claim it's up to you to back it up, not the other way round.

regards, Tam
Posted on: 05 March 2008 by Reid
Lest you all forget, before popular music/culture and modernity, music fell into two (rough) categories; High Culture (yawn) and Folk Music . The latter was always an oral form of culture and spread itself much like open source software does across the internet today. So the real question is:


When did it become ok to charge someone money for something that is inherent in their own culture and heritage anyway?


My record label activities, past present and future, will always offer the music for nothing. It sounds stupid, but when pressing 500 7" singles up costs so much that you only break even by selling every last copy at £4 each - which NEVER happens - there seems little point in pursuing physical format as a musical medium. Give me a USB stick, you can have master quality audio from my laptop in 30 seconds. FOR FREE.

Now, I know that bands need money to do what they do. After all, our music isn't made in a bubble, but in the "Western, post-modern, neo-liberal capitalist world". If people who LOVE music really wanted to contribute to the artist, they should become an active rather than passive audience. What means more, buying a record or putting up a band on tour for the night so they get to eat and not sleep in a rusty van? Buy some merch; they get some lunch money, you get to wear or use something they made just for the people who appreciate their music. Most importantly, GO AND SEE THEM PLAY. Its more real than recorded music, and you might even get to talk them to and discuss why they do what they do.

I don't know about anyone else, but all of the above excites me more than a trip into another faceless HMV. Let the majors all fall over, let people who make music decide how other people get to listen to it, and no one else.


-Reid.


P.S. That Music Culture degree DID come in useful for something after all!

P.P.S Anyone interested should read THIS interview with a band on Sub Pop called No Age. Their ideas on music and touring are pretty refreshing. They sure as hell wouldn't mind you getting their album via torrent!