There are 2 choices, 5 votes for Sent1nel's debate

AP and the Music Industry

When editing my account here on AP, I clicked the "select background music" button and read the following disclaimer --

"Because of music industry regulations, you unfortunately can't upload your own music. We've assembled a collection of free music here. Choose 'edit account' when the music you want is playing."

I understand that this is done to protect AP. Regardless, what is your opinion on Cyber Property Rights and, in particular, sharing music?
  • Time for a Revolution
    There was a time when the movie industry was convinced that VHS would destroy the industry. They survived that, and the music industry will survive the bit-torrent revolution.

    We've reached a point, in my opinion, where we will either move forward into a fantastically innovative future, or will cling to a past system that worked, but is now outdated.

    We need to re-evaluate our ideas on music. Up to this point, music's primary role (especially in American society) has been a commodity. Many bands or groups hand-tailored their music to appeal to the masses. This is especially true in pop music, but was fairly common even in the underground rebel scenes (metal, punk, and indie, for example).

    And this is not without reason. A musician's livelihood was (and is) dependant on record sales. To be able to put other distractions (such as a part time job at the local cafe) aside and focus on their music, they had to be succesful. The only real methods of "distribution" were radio and CD's (or records). To be heard bands had to attract a record label, and to do that, they had to show potential to be a profitable investment. That was the only way to work up a large following, the only way to reach a large audience.

    That, coupled with the high cost of recording and producing, meant that even if a group didn't want a large audience but perhaps wanted a quality recording, they had to tailor their music on at least one album to the masses.

    Today however, with relatively cheap and effective recording technologies, and massive peer-to-peer networks (like the bittorrent trackers), a band can reach a world-wide audience without ever stepping into a studio, with a fairly high production quality, if they are willing to spend a little bit of time. Music is no longer dependant on record sales to be successful. A band with a somewhat abstract, strange, or even incredibly offensive sound can still be heard by the people who appreciate it without having to deal with a label.

    Record labels are becoming obsolete. While there is still value in good sound engineers and producers, their is no reason for a band to release an actual CD anymore. I think Radiohead proved (or at least supported) this with the release of In Rainbows. For those who are unaware, they placed their album on their website, and allowed fans to choose their price for it. That was quite a successful album, I believe (*coughcoughUNDERSTATEMENTcoughcough*).

    I think most of the public is ready to see more artistic, less commercialized music. Music that doesn't rely on sales. People are ready to pay and support a band they love. And they will.

    Also, partly in thanks to eBay, people are beginning to realize the real value of tickets. People will pay hundreds of dollars for a ticket to a popular band. And as a result, I think they should be able to expect a great show. Theoretically, the cheap availability of music will lead to a refinement of the stage show. I think we will (or should) see artists' main revenue shift from recorded to live music.

    This is the direction music is going in. The people who combat this are clinging to an outdated past. Yes, pirated music will destroy the record industry. But the music industry will continue, with a huge boom in electronic sales (amps, mics, recording technologies, sound boards), and an even bigger boom in live shows.

    Its time to change. Lets see artists produce music that doesn't sell the audience but engages them. Lets see them step up the showmanship. This is the future of music.
    60%  Voted for by Johnny Horrorshow, Malachi Nightbreeze, Sent1nel.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • The Musician and the Geek
    As both a musician (bass guitar) and a computer geek (Information Security), I am personally torn on this issue. While understanding that musicians want to be paid for their work, I also don't want to pay $20 for a CD only to find out I don't like the band. Services such as iTunes have helped in this regard by allowing users to hear samples and buy songs individually, but why buy something you can EASILY get for free? Even using Google, one can find hundreds of .mp3s readily available for download.

    To the point: I believe it's ethically wrong. It is stealing property, albeit bits on a drive, and has real-world affects on the artists. The implications of mass illegal-downloading are great. One may argue that a few people doing it isn't a problem, but through reducio ad absurdum, we can see that within time, musicians will become unable to create the music we've come to love because there will be no money in it.

    Edit: GreenHrt and I were just discussing this in person. What if you could could copy a Ferrari? The only people to complain would be the auto industry. People seem to have a negative opinion of stealing only when they lose what's been stolen. If they still have it, like with files, they don't seem to care.
    40%  Voted for by Sent1nel, GreenHrtPaleMoon.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →