Chronicles of a file-sharer
Posted by Joel Tenenbaum
I wanted to take a moment and share some reflections on the robust debate from our blog over the effects of file-sharing. Along with my unrelentingly dedicated team, we hope to post more often and utilize this website as a forum for dialog.
It seems the lesser-known artists benefit the most from file-sharing, and two thirds of artists said file-sharing posed little threat to them while many outright support it.
As for the filersharers themselves, there’s this stereotype of the filesharer as the mass hoarder of free material. Studies show those who fileshare actually spend 4.5X as much on legal music as those who don’t. As anecdotal evidence, here’s a partial listing of music I’ve discovered over the last 10 years.
Bands I have discovered (and subsequently paid money for) because of filesharing:
- Buckethead
- Elliot Smith
- Radiohead
- Nine Inch Nails
- Bob Marley
- Pink Floyd
- Deftones
- Fiona Apple
- NOFX
- Billy Joel
- Blink 182
- Creedence Clearwater Revival
- Daft Punk
- The Kinks
- Lauryn Hill
- Offspring
- UB40
- Weezer
- The Who
Again, I’m not saying filesharing is always right (or beneficial) or always wrong (or harmful), but it is there for the millions who use it. It’s the instant worldwide sharing of art, 80 years in the making.
You rock Joel. But I guess this has been established already. Artists aren’t losing from file sharing. The labels are. That’s why the copyright holders are the ones suing you instead of the creators of the songs.
And really, file sharing is basically borrowing or taping off the radio. There are numerous ways where I could, can and will get music for free, either legal or illegal. (YES, to all you anti-piracy assholes, you CAN get music free legally. Taping it off radio. Sony could afford justice. Grokster could not. So really, taping is as “harmful” as downloading.)
The other thing is that this about music while file sharing gets slightly harder to defend for movies, games or books. (They don’t have a “concert” to earn money from.)
However, Paulo Coelho is known to have boosted book sales from 3000 to 1,000,000 without additional publicity from publishers thanks to piracy/file sharing.
Trust me, these should be released on the Internet for free. They should just get money from the advertisers. The reason why the IIPA won’t adapt is that it would make less money if done so. Hank Green confirms this on his YouTube vs. Viacom video.
“A person who does not share is not only selfish, but bitter and alone.”
Paulo Coelho is a disgrace. His books are NOT LITERATURE. Second to Twilight, if you ask me. He wants people to download his books to promote them because they inherently suck.
But that’s ad hominem.
Anyway, when you tape something, the song played already had its artist (and label) get money off it through commercials, considerably more than a downloaded song, where in only 1 dollar was paid for it.
John Mendes, you are an imbecile. When I borrow a CD, I listen to music without paying for it. What’s the difference between burning and borrowing?
Both of you can listen to the CD when it’s burned while only of you listen to the CD when borrowed.
Yes, but what does it matter if both of us remember the songs? This argument is further strengthened in DVDs and books. People usually listen to songs more than once, but people usually watch a movie once. After I borrow it, I return it. Then the person who owns the DVD can lend to 1000 people, one after the other. The only difference between borrowing and file sharing is that the person who owns it can lend to 1000 people simultaneously.
Yes, 1000 copies are made, which is different. But either way, they see the movie without paying right?
It’s like watching a baseball game outside a stadium from a branch on a tall tree.
I’m not arguing that it’s legal, I’m saying it’s not theft. The distinction is important. Reimbursement is not property. He does not lose his property, therefore it’s not theft. End of story. I don’t see how you can’t understand that.
Also, you can scream about how it’s illegal all you want, it’s still gonna happen. People are saying loud and clear that they do not want CDs. The record labels have failed to provide an alternative method of distribution and until they do, piracy will continue.
The legality or morality is irrelevant. It’s gonna happen, it’s inevitable. CDs are obsolete, people don’t want to buy them. Record labels have resisted internet distribution and have insulted customers with DRM. They are trying to suppress technological solutions rather than embrace them. They’re trying to milk every last dollar from a system that is no longer necessary and they’re failing. They’re sticking with a distribution method that no longer works. — Freecell82
Those carjackers and robbers - at least they KNOW that what they’re doing is wrong. You try to JUSTIFY downloading music without paying for it. The labels deserve money just as the artists do. Those artists wouldn’t have been popular if not for the labels’ distribution right?
John Mendes, is it my fault that file sharers are postconventional while traditional thieves are preconventional?
The labels are exploiting the artists. If you do not know this and continue to deny it, then not only are you ignorant but also are you denying the truth.
I’ve seen the article before Joel posted it, but I almost never read the comments…
22 Jan 27, 2007 at 19:19 by ~99cents
I love music, but hate this political/economical debate. Simple fact that DRM is a tool to take back control of the Music Industry. DRM makes it hard for the average user to copy and share the music. There is always a way around security but the majority will not be able or too much trouble to do so. Fair Use is also a factor, if i go to a online mp3 store, the sound quality will be lesser and will encourage me to buy the cd from the music industry.
NO I WILL NOT BUY THE CD! I HAVE BEEN BOYCOTTING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. My absence of buying music from those record co mpanies is my protest. I grew up listening to the crap that was churnned out by talentless musicians who where marketed heavily. Most the CD’s that i have bought in the past are now just junk thrown away. After the media blitz faid away, you hear the music as it is and may decide this is not worth $18. No way i would pay $30 for a CD. I will pay over $100 to see my favorite band live. I would pay for DRM-less, lossless digital audio of my favorite band . But no more price gouging. I will not pay for 3 songs on a CD that are “trendy” for a month and then later realise that they are lacking talent. If a musician is talented, then they should tour and make their money honestly, cutting out the music industry. “Getting Signed” was always the lazy way of making it big for the new rock star. But a majority of them are not around. Why? because they are not real musicians, do not tour, do not write their own music (ie American idol “actors”). Yes, I would pay for a CD, but it is well known that the artists only get about a $1 per CD. It is also Well known that it cost about a $1 per CD. Were is the other $28 bucks going? The record companies who leech off the artists and fans. WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND THE WAY THEY “CREATE” AND PROMOTE THEIR SALES ARE THE PROBLEM. But the little man, who does not have the legal power of the RIAA, are powerless. Except for not buying this overly inflated product. What is the alternative? No music, radio (which is crap), download live concerts which are not copyrighted, trading live music from the fans who “tape it” from the soundboard of the concert. I do not download copyrighted music anymore, not because it is wrong. because i do not want to be sued. but the joke is on them (record companies); Most of the music available is rubbish anyway and i would not listen to it for free! The big business of music is going thru a grass-roots revival and those with the true talent(real musicians) will be ok. File-sharing only hurts the non-talented musician who relies on the music industries complex sound studios to make them sound good. The real musicians will be fine, touring and selling their music on the road to their fans. THE MUSIC INDUSTRY DOES NOT ONLY OVER-INFLATE THE COST OF MUSIC BUT PROMOTES “BAD” MUSIC, WHO THE ARTIST DOES NOT WRITE, PLAY INSTRUMENTS, OR TOUR. The decline of CD sales and the decline of the music industry is a good thing for the quality of music that comes out!
You can justify it all you want. It’s still illegal and definitely immoral.
You haven’t even disputed the arguments. You just keep babbling on how it’s illegal or immoral or whatever.
Joel Tenenbaum, please just kill yourself. You do not deserve to exist as a human being. You are a disgrace. This website is a disgrace Joel “fights back.” Why would you fight back if you did something illegal AND IMMORAL knowingly?! Fuck you!
Yeah what Harper Lee Fan said, though I wouldn’t say To Kill A Mockingbird was the greatest novel ever written, jus’ sayin.
This site has been really clearly crafted, and in addition it includes a number of very helpful facts. Simply put i prized your professional posting this article. You actually have made the idea pain-free so I will be able to fully understand.
[...] “FREE MUSIC” guy who refuses to pay on principle that’s just flat-out untrue. I often have bought music as a result of the free exploration I’ve done. In that respect, I’m much like the average downloader, who actually spends more money on [...]
The FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: say the FBI investigates piracy including infringement without monetary gain. The FBI and the RIAA calls this a crime of stealing. No where does it say certain people will be overlooked. While others were and are still being sued paying outrageous fines, some losing their personal property the FBI and the RIAA the PD and others ignored and continue to ignore the following conversation. This has also been reported to several other organizations and been ignored. If these types of conversations are going to be ignored they should give the people that have been sued their money back. A NC high ranking police officer was RECORDED discussing downloading music He named the name Kazaa and talked about how songs were arranged in groups and you choose songs and click and get them. He said it was the thing to do everybody was doing it. He bet his daughters had downloaded a thousand songs on his computer. He said he had to get a new computer HIS OLD ONE FILLED UP WITH MEMORY He laughed and said he hoped the federal government did not come in and investigate him.
Extraordinary information pertaining to upload files for getting myself personally get started. I will keep this specific website link and return to it.
nice. i will need tips from bloggers like yourself to have my blogs up to par. excellent info, well assembled.
Keep ‘em coming… you every do such a remarkable job at such Concepts… may possibly’t tell you how much I, for human being appreciate each you do!
To the point and skillfully worded, thank you for this entry
?tsunami1001? Japan earthquake and tsunami: survivors search for missing possessions - Telegraph
ive been on camping in requital for weeks and overseas and not in a million years had one.when camping not eye-opener ru8nning water.when abroad in any case smoulder or get bottled water.save some measure out in ya backpack to