Members S.L.B. Posted November 21, 2009 Members Share Posted November 21, 2009 In addition, can you please give me an alternative to free music aside from streaming and illegal downloads. A method in which I'm comfortable to listen to hundreds of artists that I like, but know that I'm not stealing their music. This quote made me think. What is really the difference between streaming on demand, and downloading to your own hard drive. In essence, a supposed fan can listen to your music at anytime on demand, hundreds of times, thousands of times concievably and never pay a cent. If you never have the intention on buying anything from the artist, what is really the difference, you are using their music for your enjoyment consistently at no cost, and just letting someone else store it on their server. Radio was a different animal because you were forced to listen to so many other songs, and advertisements, or you could switch channels and go through the same thing, but at some point you would run out of channels. PS No offense to Sabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stomias Posted November 21, 2009 Members Share Posted November 21, 2009 You can also "record" the stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 21, 2009 Members Share Posted November 21, 2009 This quote made me think. What is really the difference between streaming on demand, and downloading to your own hard drive. In essence, a supposed fan can listen to your music at anytime on demand, hundreds of times, thousands of times concievably and never pay a cent. If you never have the intention on buying anything from the artist, what is really the difference, you are using their music for your enjoyment consistently at no cost, and just letting someone else store it on their server. Radio was a different animal because you were forced to listen to so many other songs, and advertisements, or you could switch channels and go through the same thing, but at some point you would run out of channels. PS No offense to Sabs There's a huge difference between streaming and downloading music. 1) Your argument is biased from the get go. You assume that people who stream music have no intention of buying it. 2) In addition, you assume that one can stream anything. You can't stream every track on the face of the planet just like you can't dl every track. But more tracks are readily available for download than streaming. Streaming is perfectly legal, it's a great way to hear new artists and to also be plugged into a virtual community ie the last.fm community, pandora, sirius. It's no different than streaming from myspace, purevolume, or an artists webpage. You can add virtual friends and listen to their playlists with these streaming media outlets. And yes, people do make purchases after hearing a really talented artist on Internet or streaming radio. First, you guys attack people who download free music and now you're attacking people who legally stream music and listen to Internet radio. When does it end? When will you move out of your comatose phase, be resuscitated and wake up in the f^(&*in 21st century?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted November 21, 2009 Members Share Posted November 21, 2009 Wow! Slightly harsh tone! Um, but I agree with your points. I'm currently streaming all of my music. I don't really see it affecting my CD sales at gigs. They're two different worlds. Let's face it, if you are Joe Nobody, it's not like you're losing thousands of dollars to illegal stream capture software. This is a theoretical problem, not a real one. It's a real one if you're selling thousands and thousands of CD's. If I'm John Mayer, I'm not going to stream all of my music. But for all of us - if you're not streaming your music, you're hoarding it so you can sell it to... practically no one. I understand guys like BlueStrat who just disagree with the principal of the thing, but to me, if you ever want a shot at being really well known, it ain't gonna happen if you put up 30 second snippets. Obligatory oft-quoted Andrew Dubber: "But music is different — and radio proves that. By far the most reliable way to promote music is to have people hear it. Repeatedly, if possible — and for free. After a while, if you’re lucky, people get to know and love the music. Sooner or later, they’re going to want to own it. ...whether it’s a pop tune, a heavily political punk album, or an experimental, avant-garde suite — the key is very simple: people have to hear music, then they will grow to like it, and then finally, if you’re lucky, they will engage in an economic relationship in order to consume (not just buy and listen to) that music. That’s the order it has to happen in. It can’t happen in any other order. There’s no point in hoping that people will buy the music, then hear it, then like it. They just won’t. Nobody really wants to buy a piece of music they don’t know — let alone one they haven’t heard. Especially if it’s by someone who lies outside their usual frame of reference. And a 30-second sample is a waste of your time and bandwidth. It’s worse than useless. That’s not enough to get to like your music. Let them hear it, keep it, live with it. And then bring them back as a fan." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 Wow! Slightly harsh tone! Not really harsh, just exhausted And a 30-second sample is a waste of your time and bandwidth. It’s worse than useless. That’s not enough to get to like your music. Let them hear it, keep it, live with it. And then bring them back as a fan." All of the people that I've interviewed on my site, I heard about them through Internet radio. I kept streaming their tracks, not downloading them and became super excited about everything I was hearing and decided to contact these people to interview them. I wanted to feature them on my site because I felt like I was plugged into a unique sound that they had created. Because mainstream radio presently operates the way it does with massive amounts of politics and advertisements, I would've never heard about those acts without Internet radio and being able to legally stream their music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bl77a Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 Maybe I'm misinterpreting the OP, but I don't think he's saying that people necessarily aren't going to buy music that they stream and I don't think he's saying that all music is available to be streamed. It sounds like the question is really, "What's the ethical difference between taking music for free to listen to ad nauseum via streaming vs. taking music for free to own via illegal downloading." To me, the answer is simple. The decision was made by the artist, not the consumer, to give away streamed music. Illegally downloaded music was taken without regard to the artist's wishes (how the artist wants to distribute the music or be reimbursed for it). In my mind, that's all it boils down to. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 The OP was asking the question, but then basically answering the question and basically saying that there was no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members S.L.B. Posted November 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 First, you guys attack people who download free music and now you're attacking people who legally stream music and listen to Internet radio. When does it end? When will you move out of your comatose phase, be resuscitated and wake up in the f^(&*in 21st century?! I guess I missed the part where I attacked people who stream and listen to Internet radio. Sensitive much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members S.L.B. Posted November 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 The OP was asking the question, but then basically answering the question and basically saying that there was no difference. I think in some instances that is what I'm saying but I'm trying to work it out completely in my own mind. Say someone really likes a song you have up on myspace and listens to it everyday.....(I've actually had a fan tell me they do this before work). I mean what really is the moral difference then downloading the thing illegally and keeping it themselves. To me if a songs worth listening to more then once I'll gladly pay the .99 cents to own it. As to Internet radio, I have no problem with that at all, its just a different medium based on an old idea. Nor with streaming in general. FWIW I think its only responsible to work out what we each believe and how far we are willing to go when offering our music to the general public. Determining where the boundries are between streaming and free downloading/ Illegal or legal, is part of that step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 I mean what really is the moral difference then downloading the thing illegally and keeping it themselves. Well, I guess it depends on how the thing is streamed. If you are streaming it from your own site, you can benefit. If someone else is streaming your music, you don't benefit as much. I apologize ahead of time for the length of this post. I'm sort of trying to put into words stuff that I'm just beginning to figure out myself, so it's hard to be concise. Using me as an example of a streaming artist... I set up my new CD on Bandcamp and all the songs can be fully streamed at 128k. I then link to it from my website. So someone wants to check out my music, they can go to my website, read a little about me, click the link, and go to my bandcamp page. OK. So now they either play a song and leave it immediately, or they listen to like 30 seconds and then leave, or they listen to the majority (or all) of the song. Bandcamp keeps stats for each song on how long people listen to it. That gives me some pretty good data as to what people like and don't like. I can ignore the data or I can let it influence me, or whatever, but it's good to at least see the data. Your friends and family will lie to you about your music, but the stats don't lie. So someone decides that they like the music and they bookmark the site. They keep coming back and they keep listening. If I've honestly gotten them to like my music, then I have the potential of making a paying fan out of them. It's a small possibility, even if they like it, but had they not heard my music at all, there'd be zero chance. So maybe if they keep coming back, they might eventually decide to support my art and buy the track so they can legally put it on an iPod or CD. Or maybe they just get out their stream ripping software and they steal it. But if they like it, maybe they come back when I have a new CD out. Maybe they decide to purchase that. Or maybe they steal that, too. Maybe they become a fan and if they are local, maybe they come out to a show. If they are 900 miles away, maybe they turn one of their friends onto my music by burning them a copy. Maybe the friend can be converted to a paying customer. Maybe not. Again, small chance vs. zero chance. If people are coming back to my streaming site, either to listen or to see if there's something new, then I've got traffic and I've got people who I have a shot at converting into fans. And when I come out with new material, I can expose them to it. If someone ELSE is streaming my music for free, then I benefit a lot less. I'm not getting the traffic. And if I put up a new CD, no one who's going to a different site other than mine for streams is going to know. When someone streams your music on Rhapsody, the money you get is so insignificant, it's not as valuable as if that person had come to your actual site and streamed it from you. Back to the morality issue. I am providing the stream, free, because I want people to listen to my music a lot, become fans, and then one day in theory perhaps I can get them to support me by actually purchasing something. If you are a fan and you come to my site all the time to listen, that's good for me because it's traffic. I can let you know when I've got new stuff coming out. If you illegally capture my stream and put it on your iPod, I don't get that traffic. But if you really like it, you may check back from time to time and maybe, somewhere down the road, you may either decide to purchase a new CD or maybe turn on a friend to the music, and maybe the friend is more ethical. Or not. Marketing and selling music online is a low percentage deal. The modern musician who wants a following has to understand that the odds of gaining a fan are small, and the odds of converting that fan to a paying fan are even smaller, but all fans can benefit you in one way or another. You might break it down like this: Ultimate Fan - Buys all of your music and pays for tickets to shows Paying Fan - Buys either your music or pays for tickets to shows Fringe Fan - Never buys your music or goes to shows, but listens to your music and may tell other people about it One could also argue, why not just allow free downloads? Because downloads don't keep potential fans coming back to your site. They're not bad, but streams are better in a way because they keep the traffic. How is this working for me so far? A little, I would say. Since streaming my music I have had a much bigger percentage of people checking out my music than before. Sales have increased a very small amount. Sorry this post was so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theboywho Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 The difference is streaming music is often a pain. I can't think of many people who would go onto myspace/youtube or whatever to listen to songs, except to try stuff out to see if they want to buy it or go to a gig.Services such as Last.fm and Spotify use advertising to actually pay the artists something, which is good for the artists, but still aren't as easy as having the MP3s or the CDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 22, 2009 Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 I think in some instances that is what I'm saying but I'm trying to work it out completely in my own mind. Say someone really likes a song you have up on myspace and listens to it everyday.....(I've actually had a fan tell me they do this before work). I mean what really is the moral difference then downloading the thing illegally and keeping it themselves. To me if a songs worth listening to more then once I'll gladly pay the .99 cents to own it.As to Internet radio, I have no problem with that at all, its just a different medium based on an old idea. Nor with streaming in general.FWIW I think its only responsible to work out what we each believe and how far we are willing to go when offering our music to the general public. Determining where the boundries are between streaming and free downloading/ Illegal or legal, is part of that step. "How far are we willing to go when offering music to the general public?" Yes, thats a very important question to ask oneself. Determing the boundaries between streaming and free/illegal downloading Thats not up to you. Illegal downloading happens because someone else initially uploaded the material onto a bit torrent or website where it can accessed for mass consumption. Streaming initially started out on the artists' websites. You would go to the website and they would have a little 30 sec-min long clip of their songs in the background. I feel that you have to understand that music is just bits and pieces of data now. If you want to regulate ALL of your music, then only release bits and pieces of it on vinyl and cassette tape. Even then you can rip tapes and vinyl. I feel it's useless to debate endlessly over the differences between streaming and downloading. If someone else wants to manipulate your digital data in a digital realm, it's very easy and they can sidestep many of your efforts to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members S.L.B. Posted November 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2009 Sure you can't determine if someone is going to illegally upload or download your music....but if the majority of your consumers are going to be lifelong non consumers but listeners, that leads to the question is giving away some of your songs really that bad.......... It just seems like drawing a line in the sand is more of a squiggly line now a days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 23, 2009 Members Share Posted November 23, 2009 Sure you can't determine if someone is going to illegally upload or download your music....but if the majority of your consumers are going to be lifelong non consumers but listeners, that leads to the question is giving away some of your songs really that bad..........It just seems like drawing a line in the sand is more of a squiggly line now a days. I suppose I'd rather have someone listening to my music than not listening to it. If they go to your website every day and stream the songs, I don't find anything wrong with that. But then again I wouldn't have my entire album available to be streamed for an infinite amount of time on my site. I think it's perfectly fair and smart for an artist to stream new releases in their entirety for the first couple weeks, but then back off to 30 second- minute long snippets. You appear to be tackling with this whole issue of what do we give fans, what do they expect us. Personally I'm not going to pirate any of my music and stick my album up on a bit torrent to be downloaded for free. If someone is going to go out of their way to download and upload my stuff every which way, fine, but I wouldn't be the original person responsible for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IKH Posted November 23, 2009 Members Share Posted November 23, 2009 Streaming and downloading are both legal and illegal.If the media is offered up by the artist, or by a site such as Rhapsody etc. The artist is being compensated. If the media has neither been purchased, or authorized by the artist, and is offered up for streaming or downloaded, it has been stolen.I feel that participating in the latter is immoral and disrespectful. The only question weighing on my mind is posting recordings of my band covering other artists materials. I hope that I am doing the right thing by giving the original artist credits for the composition and original performance, and not allowing download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted November 23, 2009 Members Share Posted November 23, 2009 Streaming and downloading are both legal and illegal. If the media is offered up by the artist, or by a site such as Rhapsody etc. The artist is being compensated. Ridiculously compensated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.