Should music be free? Thoughts on piracy?
/mu/ is certainly biased in that the sharethreads are bastions of piracy
Though by extension of what I just said, sharethreads are where forgotten or unknown albums find revival.
Filesharing keeps music alive.
>>64417129
actually the best and most self.confident artist give their music away for free anyways
for example
>pic related
all other pigs try to make a business out of it
>>64417194
bones also does this
he says that you shouldn't have to pay to just hear his music
I feel as if no one is the original creator of any art. As humans we don't have the ability to create anything on our own accord. We are all just channelers of "inspiration" and God/spirits creates through us.
Every album, every movie, every photo, every painting, anything really is just channeled art. The world's a stage and everyone's an actor.
How dare any artist/musician/writer/etc. put their name on a creation and declare they created it and therefore should be compensated for it when they only channeled it!
How dare they be allowed to copyright or patent any of their work for profit! What fools are they! Art in any form should be free for all to enjoy in whatever way one wishes. Nothing is original. Everything is inspired & channeled!
Let it be known that musicians/artists only have the ability ever a channel, nothing is truly their own original creation. Therefore they have no rights to the music that came out of them, the same goes for all creations!
Artists have huge inflated egos and need to deny themselves. Only God and higher spirits can create through us. We are simply puppets on a stage.
anyone can make music from their bedroom these days. it's not like making a blockbuster movie. the rest of that money is for shilling, which works.
sites like spotify provide a real service that uses resources and need to be funded to exist. a musician does not need to be a career celebrity. no artist needs to be. that is what is being imposed on us in the name of fair compensation.
i make music and i would never charge anyone for it. i make it because i enjoy making it. i'm not making it to feed myself first. that's ridiculous
>>64417194
nigga what about bach and handel
>>64417311
>bach and handel
welp, the didn´t live in capitalistic times
Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Kanye West - Net worth of $100-200 Million each
Beyonce & Jay-z - Net worth of $1 Billion
Prince - Net worth: $300 Million
Grimes - Net worth: $4 million
Radiohead - Net worth: $35 million
Madonna - Net worth: $700 million
Obviously these mainstream musicians aren't struggling despite their music being shared.
File sharing is probably the best thing to happen to music distribution since the vinyl record. Anybody who says otherwise is attempting to put a price tag on art. I pay for music often to support artists because in contemporary America, sure, that's how they make a living. But that's flawed. Nobody should expect to make a career from art, and ultimately most of the music I hear is pirated and I never end up paying for it.
>>64417515
but they could earn more.
also thief is allowed, if nobody gets seriously hurt?
what is that for an understanding of court law?
>>64417615
>they could earn more
They could also retire and be set for life. They have no need to make any more money than they've already made. It's not like they're giving it away and doing amazing good works with their money. They're just being spoiled rotten.
>>64417647
>They have no need to make any more money
that´s not how business works
>>64417678
So it's all about "business"? I thought musicians were all about the love of "music/art" and sharing their love of music with each other without a price tag.
That's the problem with these musicians of today, they are never happy or ever satisfied. They don't know when to quit. They will continue to create new shitty music that doesn't satisfy or make a lot of money...until they end up dead in an elevator like Prince. When was Prince's last great album? Sometime in the 80s yet the man tried to make himself relevant over & over again, but he's never been since the 80s.
Piracy decimated indie labels.
Why would anyone gamble and invest money to promote a niche musician when his potential fanbase will most likely just pirate him?
>>64417515
ye is $50 million in debt didn't you hear
>>64417855
That's only his problem if he's amassed that kind of debt. He could of afforded a banker.
Art shouldn't be "free."
The only reason this board supports piracy is because the user base is 99% teenagers and broke college students. No one here pirates out of some moralistic motivation ("I'm, like, sticking it the record industry, maaaan"), but because they're cheap as fuck.
It also takes one of hell of an entitled mentality to want artists to produce your entertainment for you for free. So they're supposed to work tirelessly on a record (or movie, or videogame) for months or even years while also holding down a full time job to support themselves just you can be spoonfed something for free?
Yeah, yeah, piracy will never send the megastars into bankruptcy, but as someone else said, it pretty much decimated Indie labels, forced middling bands into exhausting touring situations to compensate, and also forced your favorite "indie" and "obscure" artists to change their sound or sell out in some other fashion to get noticed by a record label.
I don't understand how supposed music "fans" can be so myopic to not see how piracy is ultimately a flawed idea, and if everyone pirated everything, then there is no "industry."
>B-B-But w-we would still how the true indeh artists making music in their bedroom out of love of the art and releasing it for free on Bandcamp!
Yeah, and most of the material from bedroom and garage artists sounds like absolute shit. Not necessarily musically, but on the mixing and mastering side, since these bedroom artists don't have the money to actually rent a studio and hire people who know what they're doing to record their work.
Art and commerce have always been inextricably tied to one another. Get the fuck over it.
Yes, all culture and information should be free for everyone to enjoy.
>>64418394
>Art shouldn't be "free."
well, i think you should have the possibility to pay or to take it for free.
>>64418394
I agree 100%
>>64417368
>capitalistic times
Wew lad
>>64417227
no-one would pay to hear bones' music in the first place
maybe apart from you, fuckboy
>>64417255
what
>>64418394
Yeah it's a fair shout that there are a lot of bands embracing the not-for-profit mentality out of pure necessity, and not out of desire.
I know a lot of fantastic punk bands that tirelessly tour and destroy themselves who would love to make a bit of profit off of the record that they pretty much make a net loss on.
>>64417129
>Should music be free?
Yeah because writing, recording and producing a song takes no effort at all. How dare the bastards ask for money for their work, it's just a stupid song.
Go bang on trash lids if you want free music.
>>64418476
That's a stupid idea
>>64417855
So what? He can move his lazy ass and go on tour.
