[anoncowherd]

> That's all well and good, but when I need to stream music instantly Grooveshark has my back--no fee, no sign-in, no bullshit.

You're completely missing the point. It's irrelevant that you can get music for free, because it's not produced for free. It costs money to produce music and to arrange it to be available on Amazon or iTunes or where ever.

It's not unreasonable to expect you to pay for music. I don't mean to imply anything about "stealing", but you wouldn't walk into a supermarket expecting to just take stuff either. It's about someone producing something of value that you want.

[angersock]

And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

Look, I'll happily debate intellectual property structures and incentives and all the rest, but the thing--the big elephant in the room--is that everybody just wants to be able to push a button and get music.

At the end of the day, the core relationship is between the artist and the listener--everything else, be it recording or ticketing or distribution or whatever, is secondary fluff.

Grooveshark offers the most compelling experience to the user right now, regardless of how scummy (and I do mean scummy!) their business practices are.

[anoncowherd]

> And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

I do realize that people are selfish and just want everything for free, and that computers & the Internet enable them to circumvent having to pay for music.

That doesn't change anything about my point, though.

Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced? Again, it costs money to produce music and to make it available for purchase. I've downloaded music, just like everyone else, but as a genuine music lover, I've also happily paid for some 200 - 300 CDs back in the day, and those comprise roughly 95% of all the music I listen to.

Do you get it? It's alright to pay for music. It's downright expected by anyone producing it. There is no free lunch. There aren't many things of real value that you can expect to get for free. Open-source software is a rare exception, but that doesn't really apply on the desktop, so.. yeah. Think about this stuff. You need to see beyond yourself.

[angersock]

I ask again: so what?

Musicians don't need producers--in fact, this has been a role only recently filled in the 20th century. They don't need them to perform, they don't need them to record, they don't need them to make money. In fact, you can very easily find examples of producers doing more hard than good...just ask any fan of Streetlight Manifesto.

Technology, both in recording and broadcasting, has advanced to the point where we don't need these gatekeepers. The market will adapt to supply good-but-cheap recording gear for musicians who can't afford lots of studio time. The market will create cheap online labels--already has.

You didn't say a damn thing the artists, man. You just kept trying to find a way to fund the middlemen. People like you are what'll kill music, if anything.

[anoncowherd]

> I ask again: so what?

>> And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

Sure, you Just Want to listen to music, but that doesn't mean musicians/producers/record-companies should then just give it to you for free. This is what you're still missing.

I Want to have sex with hot women, but that doesn't mean they should then just automatically stop and spread their legs at me where ever I go.

> Musicians don't need producers--in fact, this has been a role only recently filled in the 20th century. They don't need them to perform, they don't need them to record, they don't need them to make money. In fact, you can very easily find examples of producers doing more hard than good...just ask any fan of Streetlight Manifesto.

Sure, traditional record companies are increasingly unnecessary, but people still need to somehow become aware of an artist's music - otherwise no one will buy it. In other words, there's still a need for "awareness middlemen" and/or advertising, even if home studios have made record companies unnecessary on the production side.

But see, when you declare that you just Want Stuff For Free, you're not making a distinction between those evil record companies and their poor abused slaves, the artists.

You can download the shit out of an independent artist's music, but he too wants you to pay for it. Gracing someone's music with the attention of your ears doesn't actually put food on his table.

There are songs available for purchase. If you want a particular song, you should pay for it, because the song has value to you. If you download it for free, you get something of value, but the music producer gets nothing. That's simply not a fair trade. To be more exact, it's not even a trade. It's you by-passing the trade.

[spacelizard]

>Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

I cringe whenever I hear someone express this sentiment, it's the equivalent of the nuclear option. Do you really think these companies are just going to get frustrated, pack up their toys and go home? No, of course not. It's the same reason I don't buy into these "starving artist" sob stories: no one can escape market forces. The fact of the matter is, that business landscape is extremely competitive and typically requires a large initial investment. It's always been this way. The one force that seems to be an equalizer is technology in general getting cheaper and cheaper, NOT the protectionism known as copyright.

[anoncowherd]

> Do you really think these companies are just going to get frustrated, pack up their toys and go home?

As I said, if the producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then they'll stop producing music. See, that would actually be the point where they'll just throw in the towel. If everyone thought that they're somehow entitled to receiving music for free, like the guy I responded to, then the only music you could get would be the musical equivalent of open-source.

> It's the same reason I don't buy into these "starving artist" sob stories: no one can escape market forces.

Oh believe me, I'm all for market forces. I'm not saying musicians should be entitled to making a living through music either.

> The fact of the matter is, that business landscape is extremely competitive and typically requires a large initial investment. It's always been this way. The one force that seems to be an equalizer is technology in general getting cheaper and cheaper, NOT the protectionism known as copyright.

Note that you're actually talking about business there. So am I.

I don't even support IP enforcement or patents etc, I'm just saying that if no one takes music producers up on their offer of voluntary exchanges of music for money, then all those who are producing it to make money will simply stop.

[spacelizard]

When the listener isn't paying, there will always be someone else to foot the bill: the artist. This is already happening on a wide scale. You forget the primary function of a music production company is to act as a bank for the artist, they'll sign a contract with anyone who is willing to re-pay a loan. The point I was making is that it's not things like Grooveshark discouraging those practices, it's cheap technology which has made it more cost-effective for artists to just avoid production companies all together.

And this is a GOOD thing. We don't need them. Those companies filled a needed economic role before when cost-effective recording and distribution was a problem, but it's not anymore. Keeping them around is just encouraging economic abuse, i.e. rent-seeking in the form of royalties and licensing fees.

[anoncowherd]

> When the listener isn't paying, there will always be someone else to foot the bill: the artist.

Yep, it's possible his music is just not good enough, and that he should pursue other ways of making a living. Market forces and all.

> You forget the primary function of a music production company is to act as a bank for the artist, they'll sign a contract with anyone who is willing to re-pay a loan

Well, I'm not sure it's that simple. They're expecting a return on their investment. If a new artist signs up and takes on a $1M "loan", but then proceeds to sell zero records, how will the loan get paid back?

> The point I was making is that it's not things like Grooveshark discouraging those practices, it's cheap technology which has made it more cost-effective for artists to just avoid production companies all together.

Sure, it's never been cheaper to make and sell music online. That's fine, but I was talking about the business side of things, where music producers really do expect/hope people to pay for it, because otherwise they wouldn't be putting it up for sale.

It's quite effortless to by-pass paying for music, but that doesn't mean the music you're happily downloading for free was meant to be free.

[aspensmonster]

>Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

No, I don't realize that. The overwhelming majority of music never makes any money because making money isn't the point. Making money is the point for a small contingent of entrenched players who carved out a market for themselves decades ago and are now seeing it disrupted. Far more artists fear obscurity and irrelevance than could ever fear piracy. Any residual coin they make due to any eventual popularity is just icing on the cake.

[anoncowherd]

> No, I don't realize that. The overwhelming majority of music never makes any money because making money isn't the point.

I do realize that music is a passion for musicians, but record companies are in it for a profit. They're businesses, and they're what I was referring to.

You're free to seek out indie musicians on CDBaby or whatever and then download the shit out of their music, but even they'd at least prefer that you buy it. That's why their music can be found online.

[epochwolf]

What I think you're missing is people don't believe them not paying for music causes harm. Even if they did, I suspect a large number of them simply won't care enough to pay.

[anoncowherd]

> What I think you're missing is people don't believe them not paying for music causes harm.

I'm aware of that. But I don't think the guy I originally responded to thought even that far. That's why I responded. He's just completely oblivious to the fact that people putting music up for sale actually do expect others to pay for it.

[icebraining]

Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

I doubt it, but if that is true, then there's a natural incentive to pay for music, and there's no need for copyright law; if people want music to be produced, they'll be forced to pay.