Musicians opinion on fileshare

[Tenorsaxer]

What do you all think of fileshare programs? I (a poor kid) use one and could listen to straight jazz for a week if i wanted to.

what's your opinion?

[Jazzophone]

I'm divided :?. As a musician, I hate it because the musicians get nothing out of the people who are enjoying their (ripped) music. They don't even know about most of the people who actually might become fans, but never pay them a cent because they grab all their stuff off of a fileshare program.

On the other hand, though, as an avid listener I love it because you can actually get exposed to other genres and artists and what-have-you a lot easier. I know I've really become fans of some artists, not necessarily jazz either, just because I downloaded some of their work off of a fileshare. Works both ways I guess, I'm not sure where the happy medium is (if it indeed exists).

I use it in real moderation. For the moment, that is the best compromise between the morals I can think of.

[Tenorsaxer]

I use it A LOT. I do not though, download up-and-coming bands/artists. I figure that at this point Coltrane, Parker, Getz, Gillespie, Gordon, Armstrong, Davis, Miller, Cole, Ellington, Holiday, Fizgerald and all the others are either dead or made all of their money already.

This is just how I do it.

[tyler_terlecki]

well, this is the way i see it,

before file-sharing, i would buy maybe one cd per year or sometimes less,

now, since i can check what the music is before i spend my well earned money, i now buy a cd a month about,

if i download something i like, i go out and buy it, if i dont like it, i just wont keep it.

[Tootles]

I think this is a touchy subject. I use it occasionally, I really don't see it stealling from the musician, but more the record company (who employ musicians I know). I think its good cuase more people get listen to great music. I am starting to venture out to become a professional musician, and I plan on using filesharing to get my music out and listened to. O should care more about money, as soon I think I will be starving, but honestly I just want to entertain. Be it on my first love Sax, or with the keyboard or my compositions. Its what I love, and what I want to do. So hopefully by people sharing my music, I will at least touch someone, and maybe when I get out there, they will come to my concerts... someday.

[Ritchie]

"file sharing" is not really the correct term in many cases. The word implies that several people share the music they legally own, but in fact usage and storage is multiplied without any benefit for those who created it (although I am aware of the fact that the lion share of the CD price goes not to the artists).

My opinion is, it is wrong if you use it to build a collection. If you use it like tyler (listen, buy if you like it, delete if you don't) I think its more like broadcast, and I don't have a problem with it. For myself, I don't use "file sharing".

[The Martin]

I think this is an excellent way to get to know musicians you never heard of...
I would never have bought CD's I own now if these services wheren't there.

On the other hand I know of people taking advantage of these services to the max. That is not the way to do it (IMHO).

[Wailin']

It's like making a tape from the radio...and there are also net radio stations that play artists that we want to hear...we record them.

Artists need to put out better music on their CD's rather than write 2 good songs on a CD with 17 or more songs for our hard earned dollar :lol:

[2thmechanic]

No matter how you slice it and dice it, if you take something that you are not entitled to, you are stealing. If the worst consequence of your thievery is that the composers, lyricists, musicians, and record producers cease to be motivated to create, then we all, payers and thieves alike, suffer the consequence. In my opinion, it ain't fair.
Dave

[paulwl]

I see it this way.

Don't fileshare if:

1. You would likely be denying a living artist, or the heirs of a dead one, their rightful take on a currently available commercial recording. Get your eyeballs out on the web, find that recording, and show that artist your support.
2. You would be denying an artist or hi/r heirs the right to control access to a privately made, noncommercial recording such as a concert tape or aircheck. If it has never been made available to the public, it's theirs to decide how, when, and to whom.

OTOH, if the recording in question is out-of-print commercial material that has limited market potential or is unlikely to be reissued by the rightholders (especially true of multimedia conglomerates too big to give a damn), I say go for it.
For a great example of a site of this kind (all streaming RealAudio, just to be on the safe side), check out http://www.redhotjazz.com . While you can, anyway.

[Riff]

If you're taking music to keep without paying I think it's stealing.

If you want to sample the music before you buy you don't need a file share program to do it. CDNOW.com, TowerRecords.com and others provide sound samples for many of their CDs so you can listen before you buy. Barnes & Noble bookstores and Borders bookstores also allow you to listen before you buy. Not to mention the airplay you hear on radio.

File share programs are also used to trade software which also deprives software developers of their rightful income. It's one of the reasons software prices are still so high. And as it relates to music, file sharing is the primary reason concert ticket prices have gone through the roof.

I don't use file share programs.

[Billy The Fish]

well, this is the way i see it,

before file-sharing, i would buy maybe one cd per year or sometimes less,

now, since i can check what the music is before i spend my well earned money, i now buy a cd a month about,

if i download something i like, i go out and buy it, if i dont like it, i just wont keep it.

Spot on ! That's exactly how I use it. I seldom get a chance to hear the sort of music I like elsewhere (I am not exactly a lover of mainstream music) so I use filesharing to try stuff out. If I like it I buy it, if I don't I delete it. Since I started using filesharing I have gone from spending around £30 a month on CDs to around £150 a month ! That extends to older music too - I don't subscribe to the "well the artist is dead so it must be okay" school of thought. I now own 23 different Miles Davis CDs for example, all after downloading them to give them a thorough listen first. The only exception is where I have tried to buy music that I have subsequently found is no longer commercially available, and therefore have to use fileshare to try and get hold of a copy (pretty rare trhese days but has happened once or twice)

If you want to sample the music before you buy you don't need a file share program to do it. CDNOW.com, TowerRecords.com and others provide sound samples for many of their CDs so you can listen before you buy. Barnes & Noble bookstores and Borders bookstores also allow you to listen before you buy. Not to mention the airplay you hear on radio.

All well and good if you like mainstream music (radio) and/or poor quality soundclips (web shopping samples). Take The Best Of The Monochrome Set as an example. The track 1 sample at CDNow.com gives you 30 seconds of abysmal quality recording, which does little more thn play the intro. That is pretty representative of my experience with these "sample" clips.

Billy The Fish

[aanz]

I was a big fan of Napster while it was around, it was a great way to pass those slow days at work. I'd think of an old chesnut and try to find it online, with amazing results I should add. My musical tastes expanded through discovery of artists and genres, and I bought many CDs I discovered online.

My CD collection is approaching 4 digits, with darn few that can be considered mainstream. I feel that the instigators of this anti-downloading movement (the music business, duh) is hurting because there is a glut of crappy music out there. Their argument is the same tired one they used 20 years ago when they wanted to ban the sale of blank audio cassettes- "they stealing our music!". As if the music ever belonged to a record company!
Harumph!

[UOPJohnny]

In my music business classes, we learn that studies show that those that download the most music purchase the most music. It's an interesting correlation.

Recently, the federal government issued 900 subpoenas to accused music-file sharers. That dorm is goin' DOWN! haha... obviously, we're leaps and bounds from really enforcing anything. Personally, I'm pretty against it.

[paulwl]

I was a big fan of Napster while it was around, it was a great way to pass those slow days at work. I'd think of an old chesnut and try to find it online, with amazing results I should add. My musical tastes expanded through discovery of artists and genres, and I bought many CDs I discovered online.

My CD collection is approaching 4 digits, with darn few that can be considered mainstream. I feel that the instigators of this anti-downloading movement (the music business, duh) is hurting because there is a glut of crappy music out there.
All the more reason Big Media doesn't want people doing what you did on Napster.
a) Old, noncrappy music takes sales away from new, crappy music.
b) The more people discover non-mainstream music, the more splintered the market becomes and the less market share will go to Big Media.
c) Taste, in general, is not a quality Big Media wants to encourage in consumers.

If you don't buy the arguments record companies use against burning, ripping, etc., consider what they don't really want to tell you... :?:

[Sigmund451]

Everyone has their own set of rationalizations. I think one important thing is that most people would never buy anything close to what they may share. Frequently, many artist hear a song that they want to work on but NEED to hear it to be able to really do something with it. In fact it may need to be heard in 5 or more versions by different artists to really UNDERSTAND the tune. There is no chance in hell that many of us are gonna go buy 5 CD's to hear a song.

There is another point that needs to be made. The music industry claims to be loosing millions or billions a year. Keep clearly in mind that they are making the assumption with their Enron style accounting that EVERY download is a lost purchase....no way guys, sorry. Check your math. It just aint that way.

In the end the recording biz will cut its own throat because they will realize that many people do go buy when they hear someting they have dl...afterall the quality is better and you get the entire album.

The other thing the biz is doing is trying to stop all of this and that will have a long term effect on artistic output in general. In the end when all information is private and owned it will become exclusive and increasingly unavaliable to those who may use it as an inspiration to formulate the new and inovative. We will then be stuck with rap forever!

I think they should spend their time going after the big fish rather than aspiring artists attempting to find something to offer through influence.

On another front (Visual Art) , even if you hate his work, Andy Whorhall's modern art would be impossible to create today. With today's laws and climate the lawyers wiould be swarming. Even if you dont "like" his work his art played an important part in influencing generations of artists.

In the end the laws of a capatolist "free society" are beginning, in the name of profit to impose opressive facist idealolgies. It may be an exageration but think about it. How can freedom exist when information is private, exclusive, and overcontroled?

-The sig

[KSQ]

In the end when all information is private and owned it will become exclusive and increasingly unavaliable to those who may use it as an inspiration to formulate the new and inovative. We will then be stuck with rap forever!

Seems to me rap would be the first casualty, since rap records can't get made without sampling! (Not that I'd mind.)

[DavidH]

My take...

I personally download music, mainly because I want to filter out in my mind what is crap and what is not. Record companies use worse and worse marketing schemes to get people to think that something is much better than it is. If I like the stuff I hear, I go buy the CD. If not, I delete it.

I think, in general, most avid (educated) downloaders are the same way. There's something about having the hard copy of the CD in your hand, with the insert and everything. It just feels better. Since napster years ago, my spending has gone higher and higher on albums. Mainly, because I'm easily able to discover those artists that the radio just doesn't play, because record execs aren't pushing money on the stations to play that stuff. So I get to be exposed to it, enjoy it, and buy it.

My main beef is how big of a business the "entertainment" industry has come. When kids say classical and jazz music "sucks", you know that something is wrong. Those companies can go to hell, and go bankrupt for all I care. The musicians will live on.

When I personally get good enough, I plan to sell my music directly, if I even charge for it. Set up a website, pay like a buck to download it, and I get all the money. Right now, you buy a $18 CD, and the artist gets just a few bucks. I personally wish I could just pay the artists directly, but I'm sure the record companies would find a way to make a profit off of that too.

I'm not justifying theft, but do realize that for me, it results in more CDs bought. I don't see how a record agency would see this as malicious.

[SelmerSaksMan]

I can understand how file share can hurt an artist, but I would have no need to use one if that artist put out an album that was more than 15 or 20 percent good songs. I have found a few, but not many, a dave brubeck cd, several john williams CD's, a 'trane CD, but thats it, everyhting else I HAVE to use fileshare, other wise I am throwing away about 300 dollars to get 20 good songs.

[Nefertiti]

This is just me thinking but it would seem to me that if I made a great CD and put it out for sale I would get a limited response to the CD. Most people have never heard of me and won't risk the money on a unkown artist. I know many artist who have made burning CD's and struggle to sell even 1000 of them. Now if I put this music out to share with the whole world and this thing is burning, then you have people all over the world who know my name and my music. I make my living from performing and teaching privately. I get more gigs. I get more students. Maybe I'm asked to perform in other countries by people who have heard my music. Before you know it most people in the sax community have heard my music and know my name. It seems like the only people this would hurt are people who are already at a place where they are well known and don't need the recognition and people that suck. I think the sooner the world embraces the concept of free music sharing the more true individuals will rise out of this commercial sess pool and be avilable to everyone. These individuals will then be able to make a great living from their reputations and name recognition. It would no longer be about the slick album cover and cool hair but more about the music. I can't tell you how many CD's I've bought over the years because they were packaged hip only to get it home and listen to music that is awful. Put everything out there and the cream of the crop will rise to the top.IMHO

[SelmerSaksMan]

I agree, all these people making millions a year shouldnt be bitcing. All these damn commercial to end priacy...Musicians are most heavily hit by file sharing, most people are not dumb enough to accept a little 4x4 screen with no music as the real thing, sure I have done it before, but only on movies that I am not sure about, that I don't want to waste money on in the theatre.

[k-ghost]

Downloading music without paying IS theft..

but i see many bright sides as well.
The major labels seem polarized toward making more of the same junk.. at least that´s music that doesn´t appeal to me :roll: . But then again, they are probably the ones taking the most punches from the "downloading industry".. todays boybands, and pop charts ( and by god i hope it´s a phenomenon that will soon pass ) seem to set the standard of what music is. the music industry being what it is. A machine driven by the sole goal of making money, are raising todays youth to spend their ( and future ) money on their product(s).. So why change horse when your winning the game. the way i see it´s a battle between goliath and david ( the sling being the metafor for computer and modem ).. So download your Madonna and Brittney Spears. But buy your Michael Brecker and Coltrane records.
Standards are good, so double standards must be twice as good

[Sigmund451]

The issue as to if filesharing is theft or not is more complex than you make it. It depends on what definition one uses to define ownership and yes, under the current heavily lobbied set of laws of ownership you are correct, it is theft... all rationalizations aside.

However, to call it theft in the absolute, one must first, I think, consider that it is not an object, it is information...theft of information, prior to the electronic age was Plagarism...and of course that is not what is happening in filesharing.

As I eluded to before, Copyright laws were originally created to protect artists, writer, etc...and their work so that they could reap the benefits of their labor. These laws were specifically TIME LIMITED for a specific reason. Those visionaries who created the laws knew them to be just but also recognised that there was an appropriate time that ALL INFORMATION SHOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE...ie the public domain.

They recognized that otherwise creativity would be stunted and culture as a whole would be hampered in its growth. NOW...we have more lawyers, an industry, political figures that can be lobbied for personal and special interest gain. AGAIN AND AGAIN copyright periods have been extended to protect the industry and keep exclusive the material that by the SPIRIT of the law SHOULD be part of the public domain...in fact some of it long ago.

I agree that information should be protected....but not shielded for infinity.

Yes by the letter of the law it is theft.
By the spirit of the law ....well I suppose you have to decide.

Its quite an unfortunate situation I think.

[k-ghost]

exactly..

The record labels need only to lose once in a court, then we are on a roll..
take that lars ulrich ( metallica ) !

[Big Nick]

Did I mention this in another thread?
Last year a record number of cds were sold in the UK.
Recording companies obviously should be promoting file sharing.

[k-ghost]

that´s intresting, i heard that record sales globally was going down. But if this is true then we have to investigate if the culprit is downloading or crappy music from a rotten industry..

[DavidH]

The figures showing a "decrease" in sales are misleading. They begin by projecting future music purchases based on the record sales climb beginning in the early 80's through the mid-90's, extend that peak to like 2010, and then say, "Oh, we never reached where we calculated we should, therefore music sales are down". Standard statistics practice to make things look like you want them to.

On another note, I'd encourage everyone to check out http://www.dmusic.com. This site promotes the artists, allows for free downloads of music, and you can buy CD's at very decent prices, directly from the artists. No added cost for marketing/agent/riaa/etc. I've already bought several CDs from there, and am very pleased with the music quality. Additionally, you can put your OWN music on there, and people may buy from you. It seems to be a decent service. Apparently they also have shopping-cart tools for your band's website (or so I hear). It's worth a look-see if you're sick of the RIAA... (http://www.boycott-riaa.com) :D

[michaelbaird]

The internet is the direction music is going in. If I were a record company executive I would be very worried. I see file sharing and musicians communicating over the internet as the wave of the future. You will either be on-line or in the bread line.

[TempestFLiGHT]

i agree with what Jazzophone said first.... divided. As a musician, I think it sucks for the artists since they're not getting anything out of it; as a listener, it's a cool way to get stuff.

[michaelbaird]

I think there is a way to turn it into a win win situation for the listeners and the musicians. I see the distributors and producers of music eventually being squeezed out of the business because of their lack of usefullness. I believe the internet is a direct way for musicians to promote themselves to the listeners and market their own music without record companies.

[werkinsnake]

Absolutly right michael!!! Internet file sharring also offers a way of free advertisement. Many people, (including myself) will download a ton of music online. However, there is just something about having the actual manufactured cd in your possession that makes you go out and buy the albums of what you burned. I also find that cds burned from computer files lack in sound quality. Blips and skips can occurr, and they are not something that I personally want to hear while listening to my favorite songs. People will spend money to purchase a cd of perfect quality. There are a few bands out there, DMB, Willie Nelson, and Grateful dead to name a few, who have realized this. They allow their fans to record their concerts, but they also release perfect quality live albums so that people can get the better sound. I firmly believe that file sharring helps artists as opposed to hurting them. It's a way of getting the music to the potential buyers ears for free, and as a result that person will go out and get the full album.

[wolfe]

No matter how you slice it and dice it, if you take something that you are not entitled to, you are stealing. If the worst consequence of your thievery is that the composers, lyricists, musicians, and record producers cease to be motivated to create, then we all, payers and thieves alike, suffer the consequence. In my opinion, it ain't fair.
Dave

I don't disagree that it is theivery, but somehow I don't think that we will ever see a time where people just don't make music. Music has been around for thousands of years and I don't see it going away. If a person is a musician, in my mind they aren't in it for the money, they're in it because they enjoy making music, so if someone really loves to create music, whether that's writing, performing, or recording, they will do it even if the monetary return is small. I have to say that I haven't seen anyone go bankrupt because their music was stolen.

[Vortex]

I think fileshare will work to the advantage of "good music". There is so much rap available through fileshare that eventually it will become so easily available (and boring) that the rappers will stop turning a profit and become a thing of the past. On the other hand, there are many artists that I discovered through fileshare that I would have otherwise not even known of - you hear their stuff for free, like it, go out and buy some albums, and you're hooked. Greg Osby describes a similar stance in an interview on his website www.gregosby.com. In this way it can be a very good thing, it's just a kind of socialist attitude towards music.

[tenor562]

I believe that filesharing is a good thing. Since I started filesharing, my purchased cd collection has tripled. Also, it's a good way to test stuff out. Then you buy the CD, if you actually like the music. I

"I think fileshare will work to the advantage of "good music". There is so much rap available through fileshare that eventually it will become so easily available (and boring) that the rappers will stop turning a profit and become a thing of the past."

I agree. If I download a horrible song that I thought was going to be good, I don't listen to it anymore and don't buy the CD. It eliminates a lot of trial and error in CD buying. And if anything drives rappers out of the music business, I support it.

-tenor562

[Chris S]

I've thought about this long and hard, from a 'professional music consumer' standpoint as well as a musician's standpoint. I've talked about it with a good number of composers, as well as jazzers, rock and rollers, etc.

I do use a filesharing program, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I like to try things on before I buy them (clothes, shoes, cars, houses, etc.). Same with music. If I like a CD and can find it, I will shell out the money to buy it.

From a composer's standpoint it doesn't really matter. Most composers only get one half of one cent per song per disc. So, if the University of North Texas Wind Symphony records your Symphony for band, and that disc sells 10,000 copies (that's probably a stretch), then you only get $50. The composers that I have talked to are really indifferent to it, as am I. Personally, I'd rather have 25,000 people listen to my music than to have 10,000 people buy my CD. More exposure means more commissions, and that's where a composer gets his bread.

Most other people I've talked to seem to hold a similar view.

I know of a few bands/people out there that give their albums away for free in mp3 format. Wilco did this with one of their albums, three weeks (I think) before it was released in stores. Their first weeks record sales were the highest in the band's history.

There's a lot more these days to a CD than just the music, the cover, album art, liner notes, etc.

If I like something I download, then I will buy it eventually.

The artists themselves don't make a whole lot of money off of CD's unless they pay for it themselves in the first place. Artists tend to make their money from tours and merchandise. The record company takes a rather large chunk of the price of the CD.

For those of you that are interested, I suggest you spend some time at www.lessig.org

And if any of you care to try a sharing program, I suggest SoulSeek. www.slsknet.org

Best,
Chris S

[Chris S]

And an afterthought...

The CD's that I do purchase I always try to buy used, not neccesarily because they're cheaper (that is nice though), but because the RIAA doesn't get a single dime of that money. I do not now, nor will I ever support theivery (I'm referring to the RIAA here). I've produced and engineerd a CD or two, and I know what it costs per disc, and it can only get cheaper as they pump out 100,000+ copies of a disc. $18, $20 is WAAAAAYYYYY too much for a CD. Granted, buying used doesn't give the artist any money either, but at least it doesn't support the fat cat lobbyists.

Best,
Chris S

[Vortex]

Is Soulseek still working? I remember using it a couple years ago and loved it, especially for albums that hadn't been released yet, but then it just seemed to stop turning up results so I switched to limewire.

[gary]

Maaaan the rationalisations abound! This is not complex. If you take something that is not yours it is stealing. How difficult is that to understand?

I had a brother-in-law once who was a dealer. In his spare time he and his wife and friends used to burglarize folks houses. Their rationalization? Everybody had insurance and these people will just get some money to go out and replace their stuff, anyway. So it's OK. Doesn't really hurt anyone.

[Chris S]

Is Soulseek still working? I remember using it a couple years ago and loved it, especially for albums that hadn't been released yet, but then it just seemed to stop turning up results so I switched to limewire.

SoulSeek does work fine, I've made a lot of very good friends there, as they have chatrooms to talk in.

As far as whether it's stealing or not.... like I said, to me it's the same as test-driving a car before I buy it. To date, I have purchased about 250 albums that I downloaded first (this over a span of about three to five years), and there are three that I'm still looking for (they're VERY rare, hard to find, out of print, etc.). Call it rationalization, call it theft, call it whatever you want, I call it being a smart consumer.

Chris S

[Chris S]

Interesting article regarding P2P:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050727-5139.html

Chris S

[paulwl]

Data point: file sharers buy more paid music than non-sharers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1536886,00.html). At least in the UK.

[Chris S]

Yeah. says pretty much the same thing as the article I posted.

I wonder.... the music industry says that sales are down, and they blame it on filesharing. What I wonder is this: is it possible that they just aren't offering anything that people want to buy? And this term, 'music industry' - what does it mean? Is it just the major labels? What about smaller labels, indie labels, jazz and classical only labels? I know I buy more music than ever, and a lot of my friends do too.

Interesting debate for sure.

Chris S

[paulwl]

Yeah. says pretty much the same thing as the article I posted.

I wonder.... the music industry says that sales are down, and they blame it on filesharing. What I wonder is this: is it possible that they just aren't offering anything that people want to buy?
Don't forget that the market is supposed to be perfect. They really don't think they are pushing sensational trash on people; they think this is all people want, and so they take care to give them only that. This is how you can control people's tastes without having to admit you're doing it.

And this term, 'music industry' - what does it mean? Is it just the major labels? What about smaller labels, indie labels, jazz and classical only labels? I know I buy more music than ever, and a lot of my friends do too.To the major labels, only they matter, and only they exist. The players have become so huge that the mass market is the only market they can afford to cater to. I think they're deep down afraid that people's tastes will start to splinter and diversify, because then they'll have to learn a new marketing model.

[Swampcabbage]

This is a general comment to those involved in file-sharing.

It's stealing. No discussion. If you want to get copies of peoples work then why don't you have the stones to just send them or the owners of their recordings an email and ask them to send you a cd? Why? Because you're a coward and a thief.

I know too many published musicians who've resorted to living lives unrelated to music just because so many people today think they are entitled to steal their music.

You are PART of the problem. Try and do something about it will ya?

[Swampcabbage]

Yeah. says pretty much the same thing as the article I posted.

I wonder.... the music industry says that sales are down, and they blame it on filesharing. What I wonder is this: is it possible that they just aren't offering anything that people want to buy?
Chris S

You can think of it this way. The less profits the companies make, the less they are going to be interested in taking chances and "developing" new artists. They KNOW Justin Timberlake is going to sell x amount of records. But, as long as entertainers are purely their bread and butter and people continue to do all their "checking out" new artists on fileshares, etc... there is no other way to really track potential attractions other than Myspace hits, America Idol votes, and box office sales.

If you want to see companies encourage adventurous or non mainstream music then do all you can to BUY it and make others BUY it. Don't just steal it and give it away hoping someone will gain interest.

[hakukani]

That's cool, I'd rather not buy any more recordings. I'd rather hear music live or over the radio--and believe me that while I'm not a MAJOR major contributor to Hawaii Public Radio (HPR still actually plays music, unlike many NPR stations), I will say that if I don't pledge early, the Comptroller gives me a personal call. I also contribute to other organizations that support live music.

If I'm studying the music, then fair use for education comes in, IMHO.

Commercial recordings support the music Biz, not the musician. Luckily, digital technology is rapidly making the middleman, who traditionally was necessary for distribution, unnecessary.

[heathdwatts]

I like sharing files because it gives me a chance to listen to tracks before I buy them in CD form. I really dislike the sound quality of mp3 files, so if I like the music, I will buy the CD. I like the physical product and the liner notes too. The mp3 gives me an idea of whether I'll like music or not and affects my buying decisions. I also read reviews, but not all CDs get reviewed.

I read a great article (actually an e-book about music marketing) recently that said one should plan to give away a million tracks to sell 1000 CDs. I'm not sure about their data, but it makes sense. If I'm offering new music and don't have a big record company marketing my music, the only way for people to become familiar with my music is for them to listen to it online or to download it. There are so many CDs available now that people aren't going to buy one unless they have read a good review, or heard the music. I'd love to be able to sell a lot of CDs, but I also want a lot of people to actually hear (and, I hope, like) my music so I can get some gigs.

[SuperAction80]

Commercial recordings support the music Biz, not the musician. Luckily, digital technology is rapidly making the middleman, who traditionally was necessary for distribution, unnecessary.


Ain't it cool?:) The people complaining the most are the producers and record company execs who have robbed musicians for decades. This new technology allows the musician to have more control over the distribution of their art. Apparently all of the musicians are catching onto this. Why else would musicians be posting their music on youtube and myspace?

BTW, even though Chris posted his message two years ago, I share his thoughts. The reason for declining record sales is not file sharing, it's that there isn't any "great product" being produced. The majority of popular music has been hip hop and country for far too long now, and people are getting tired of it. For crying out loud, Herbie won album of the year. Not that he didn't deserve it, but if this were 5 years ago the award would have gone to some "hip-hop artist". The cool thing is that record companies are scrambling to find the "new sound". IMO it's a great time to be an original songwriter/band.

[Spooner]

I have used Napster "On the Go" in the past and found it to be a pretty valuable place to find new music. It's a point of integrity for me to buy an album if I find that I like it though.

I'll typically rip a CD that I've purchased and put it away as an original source. That way I can make mix discs and more expendable copies and will always have the source to go back to. I think that some people don't realize that if you buy an MP3 on Itunes, you can only burn it to CD a finite number of times. I could be mistaken about this as well, but if your MP3device kicks the bucket and you have to download the song again, I think that you have to pay for it again (I'm not sure--that's just what I've heard).

Musically, P2P and the like are great because you can get exposure to things that you wouldn't normally hear. I do think it's important to be honest and pay for what you are getting though. If you like someone's music and use it in your life, you should support them so that they can make more of it for you.

[Swampcabbage]

And I still say. If you want to own someones music for free, then why not have the stones to send them a message asking them to give it to you?

Many artists already offere some of their product for free. If the independants (such as most, if not all, of the artists listened to by the majority of people on this board) wanted to give you their recordings then they would. WHy bother with CD's and mp3's.

The problem with all the justififcation of theft (and rest assured; that is what it is) around this topic I am saddened that so many just assume that this is what the artist want. It's really a strange pretzel logic. It's theft. It is stealing. It is dishonesty. Otherwise, why would the artist bother selling it in the first place. This is so obtuse.

[Swampcabbage]

I have used Napster "On the Go" in the past and found it to be a pretty valuable place to find new music. It's a point of integrity for me to buy an album if I find that I like it though.

I'll typically rip a CD that I've purchased and put it away as an original source. That way I can make mix discs and more expendable copies and will always have the source to go back to. I think that some people don't realize that if you buy an MP3 on Itunes, you can only burn it to CD a finite number of times. I could be mistaken about this as well, but if your MP3device kicks the bucket and you have to download the song again, I think that you have to pay for it again (I'm not sure--that's just what I've heard).

Musically, P2P and the like are great because you can get exposure to things that you wouldn't normally hear. I do think it's important to be honest and pay for what you are getting though. If you like someone's music and use it in your life, you should support them so that they can make more of it for you.

Cool. With that logic, maybe Theo will send me one of his mouthpieces for free and if I like it, I'll buy it. If not, I'll keep it and be able to tell people I have it and maybe try it every once in awhile for kicks. No re-stock fee or trial fee or NOTHING.

Think he'll go for it? What's the difference other than the price of the single unit?

[Pete Thomas]

A lot is down to what the owner of the music wants. It's absolutely fine for an artist to give away their music, but very wrong for people to assume that just because some artists are happy doing that then it somehow sets a precedent for anyone to take music from other artist who would prefer to sell their property rather than give it away.

We grow vegetables and sometimes give them away, it doesn't mean the greengrocer ought to.

Basically if someone owns something, the choice about what to do with it should be theirs I believe. Think about what copyright means: the right to make copies. Who has the right to make copies? The copyright owner or holder.

I must admit I have a bias in favour of the copyright owner, as I make my living from composing music. I give some of it away, but most of it I need to sell as that provides my income. What I give away is promotional, but it's my choice and my right to decide what I charge for.

[Spooner]

Swampcabbage--

You make a really good point.

I should clarify that that I haven't participated in any P2P filesharing. The Napster account that I had was a legit account and you were limited to only being able to use the MP3's downloaded in a PC or some kind of an audio player (they were write protected and you couldn't burn them to a disc). There was a monthly fee for the license rights and it was all above board.

If I found something that I really liked then I would buck up and buy the CD to own. If I didn't like it, then I'd get rid of it. I'm not at all saying that Napster and Itunes are the best arrangement or vehicle for getting music out there, but it is what's legitimately available for the time being.

I do feel like that kind of resource was pretty valuable to me as a musician because it exposed me to lots of different music that I wouldn't have found otherwise.

I really do hear what you are saying about the non-licensed P2P sharing however. Like I said before, it's great for exposure, but doesn't support the musician putting it out there.

[Swampcabbage]

And, like Pete Thomas says, it should be up to the artist whether they want to give away their music or not. Steve Coleman gives away a lot of his music, and I think it's great. I still make it a point to buy their music and support them even if they give it away. Just like if I want to see a show and I know the guys I will still pay for my ticket. I don't care if they're only going to get .10 on the dollar. Every little bit can help get them to another level.

[SaxxMan]

Very interesting points posted here...and I see both sides...

Yes, technically, this is stealing - but I will admit, I think charging $18.00-$25.00 for a CD is stealing - especially if all you want is one or two songs. The Record industry set this up...they refuse to give us (the consumer) any option of creating our own compilation CD of single (or various) artist hits. We can buy the whole package OR an over-priced single...And it's not like they don't have the technology to do it either...

As far as the artists go...I have heard several bands admit they like the huge exposure filesharing allows for their music to get out. The more people who hear their art - the more likely they will see increases in thier sales - AND status.

But my biggest gripe is with the whole copyright situation. Whether we think it's stealing or not, the fact remains filesharing is here - and growing. This is due to technology....Once a performance hits the digital format (especially on the internet), it's out there for any and all to have. It's so hard to enforce and regulate the whole class-action suit with Napster users was all but dropped.

I think we (the world) are going to have to re-think the idea of copyrighting and posting credit for original works - in any medium. Remember recently in the political primaries how Hillary and Obama were catching heat because not EVERY SINGLE WORD of thier speeches was ENTIRELY thier own thoughts...For the love of God, how can we say anything without quoting somebody's idea from the past. And as time rolls forward there's more and more "past" to credit. Same with music. When you buy a CD thinking you are paying the artist his "due"...is that artist going to give some of that money to the ORIGINAL ARTIST? Many many songs are covered from earlier artists, and sometimes even before the original artist is gone. What about thier profit? Or recognition?

I think eventually, the artists will get paid big bucks to perform LIVE, and once it goes "out there" on the digital waves, there won't be ANY compensation at all. Maybe CD's will be able to be cut directly from the artist for those that want that, but most will eventually find an acceptable quality download from the net. I'm not sure if this is the right thing or not, but I see it as inevitable.

[Jolle]

And I still say. If you want to own someones music for free, then why not have the stones to send them a message asking them to give it to you?
Answer : because you wouldn't even know they exist.

I have, for free, on my computer, recordings of numerous groups, pretty often more local bands, that I wouldn't have heard of if it wasn't for those people to people sharing.

You have a point : looking for the latest CD of Britney Spears on these things is ripping her off. (and frankly, I couldn't care less for these big shots).

Surprisingly finding out there is actually an Amsterdam Klezmer Band and it's actually terrific, is not ripping them off at all. In fact, it's those discoveries that made me look for their CD's online.

And finding all those old recordings that are re-issued already ten times because the rights are gone, and thus only make the music industry rich, well... Who's ripping off who in fact?

[SuperAction80]

Answer : because you wouldn't even know they exist.

I have, for free, on my computer, recordings of numerous groups, pretty often more local bands, that I wouldn't have heard of if it wasn't for those people to people sharing.

You have a point : looking for the latest CD of Britney Spears on these things is ripping her off. (and frankly, I couldn't care less for these big shots).

Surprisingly finding out there is actually an Amsterdam Klezmer Band and it's actually terrific, is not ripping them off at all. In fact, it's those discoveries that made me look for their CD's online.
And in FACT, producers do the same thing to find undiscovered talent. If they like what they hear, they search for the artists and sign them. Myspace made the process much easier.



And finding all those old recordings that are re-issued already ten times because the rights are gone, and thus only make the music industry rich, well... Who's ripping off who in fact?

I already touched on this one, but it's an important concept to understand. Look back to the entire line of MoTown artists. Study what happened to the Funk Brothers, and figure out where a majority of the money went.

This is a great time to be THE ARTIST! It's a terrible time to be the theif who preys off of them.

[ToddMartin]

...
Whether we think it's stealing or not, the fact remains filesharing is here - and growing. This is due to technology....Once a performance hits the digital format (especially on the internet), it's out there for any and all to have. It's so hard to enforce and regulate the whole class-action suit with Napster users was all but dropped.

I think we (the world) are going to have to re-think the idea of copyrighting and posting credit for original works - in any medium.
...


I agree SaxxMan. It's only going to get more interesting in other areas. Crude 3-D printers have already been invented. Soon we'll have replicators for home objects. Like that new dinnerware set at the mall? Download and print it out. Somebody posted a new mouthpiece design - print it out. Maybe pay more later for a high resolution, durable copy after a quick play test.

New opportunities are there to be capitalized at least for a short time. Right now if I enjoy a live concert I'd pay a premium for a recording of it, especially if it could be purchased on the way out and downloaded by the time you get home. Personalizing the digital content could be a way of selling more.

[Woody Reed]

This is a great time to be THE ARTIST! It's a terrible time to be the theif who preys off of them.

It's a really rough time for artists and a great time for the theifs that prey off them (i.e. the file sharers).

You may think your just hurting the labels, but that just isn't true. It goes way deeper. You mentioned the "Funk Brothers". They weren't the artists. They were hired studio musicians. The same complaint came in Philly a few years later. Most "side men" that I have known always felt taken advantage of. File stealing or not, that will always go on. Don't get me worng, I have the utmost respect for the music they made. It's just irrelevant to this issue.

There is a small token of royalties through the special payments fund of the AFofM for the players. But most dates these days are non-union (that's another issue), so there would be no royalty. The royalty people, writers, producers, and artists, have been deeply effected. With sales that are a mere hint of years past in all genres, who could that possibly be good for?

For musicians asked this question, it's generally been the same answer. If you are on the inside (writer, producer, artist), then you are usually against it. If your on the outside (been rejected for a deal, can't get songs covered, no radio play), then your usually for "file stealing".

The whole "great exposure" thing is a joke. People die of too much exposure.

[Swampcabbage]

Nef, I totally agree with this concept. however, i think it should be up to YOU to make that decision for you're music. Distribute it like Steve Coleman has released a majority of his catalog. But don't take away that decision from someone else.

This is just me thinking but it would seem to me that if I made a great CD and put it out for sale I would get a limited response to the CD. Most people have never heard of me and won't risk the money on a unkown artist. I know many artist who have made burning CD's and struggle to sell even 1000 of them. Now if I put this music out to share with the whole world and this thing is burning, then you have people all over the world who know my name and my music. I make my living from performing and teaching privately. I get more gigs. I get more students. Maybe I'm asked to perform in other countries by people who have heard my music. Before you know it most people in the sax community have heard my music and know my name. It seems like the only people this would hurt are people who are already at a place where they are well known and don't need the recognition and people that suck. I think the sooner the world embraces the concept of free music sharing the more true individuals will rise out of this commercial sess pool and be avilable to everyone. These individuals will then be able to make a great living from their reputations and name recognition. It would no longer be about the slick album cover and cool hair but more about the music. I can't tell you how many CD's I've bought over the years because they were packaged hip only to get it home and listen to music that is awful. Put everything out there and the cream of the crop will rise to the top.IMHO

[Swampcabbage]

Most of what I'm hearing from the "pro-sharing" camp are justifications of entitlement. You are entitled to NOTHING on this earth. Did you write and perform the material? Did you put up the money to have it recorded and hire arrangers, producers, laborers of all sorts to get it done? NO!

As far as the idea of creating compilations. You can buy most tracks for $.99 burn them to your cd and move on. Geez, what do want?

And finding a Klezmer band in most countries isn't that tough. Just make a few calls in reference to jewish wedding music, contact the leader and find out who plays around town. (If googling isn't too hard).

Do you realize how truly SPOILED we have become as a society? We expect our entertainment and art (just like everything else) the way we want it, how we want it, and when.

Okay, fine, you found a free download of a tune by some band you never heard before and are all hot for the discovery. Oooo we, good for you. Ever try checking out the "scene" for that? Or, once you heard the one song, did you contact the band, tell them that yes, you are buying their record with that song on it and you'd like to let them know that it's being pirated. Sure, there are lot's of groups that offer their music up for free. But, there are many who don't and feel very protective of it. Let them have the option.

If you're too cheap and lazy to go look for good music and put up a little bread to support it then maybe you don't value it as much as you think you do.

I remember saving my money to buy 1 record. Dead guy or not on it. And treasuring every note on it. Now, you can get 10 records for 20 dollars (emusic.com and it's legit by the way) and I barely have time to listen to it all. I suspended my subscritption just to try and catch up to it.

Seriously, listen to yourselves. It's purely based in selfish indulgence. You feel you deserve to be courted by these people who have put their heart and soul into music. They're supposed to bring you flowers and cd's and beg you to buy their records. Oh wait, you already have it and didn't pay a dime. (Well, except for the money that you spend on internet connections, computers, ipods, cdr's, tapes, flash drives, sd cards, etc...). We are willing to spend thousands on the gadgets but don't want to spend anything on the actual ART that is meant to sustain these people.

Go talk to some of the people who have tried to make their living in music for 20+ years and have copyrighted their material only to find it snapped up by file sharers. And those of you who steal music. What service are you willing to provide them for their hard work. How about going to the store for them and picking up some groceries, or give them an oil change, or fix their house, how about paying their rent or mortgage or buying some reeds for them. Cause you sure ain't supporting them the other way.

I know plenty of guys who do make it a point to go out and buy a record if they hear something and like it. Okay, I can kind of get on bord with that (like radio). But, it is more often abused or taken for granted than anything else.

I play in a band that is lead by a person who lives in the same town as one of the filesharing founders. My associate ran into this person at the grocery store and they started a conversation about this very topic. The guy was all psyched because of the free exposure he was giving all thes bands out there. My associate told him this little fact. "Hey, you know that's great for you, you're making money, but, the FACT is that as soon as this thing started my CD salse have decreased. Where I used to send 30-40 discs at a show; I sell 5-10 now. I wonder how many people come see my band once and then just go home and download it. So, since you are making out pretty well on this how about picking up my tab now; I have a wife and 2 kids that I am trying to support and you have a swimming pool."

He didn't pick up his grocery tab. Selfish, spoiled, entitled jerk. If you think your'e any different then you need a new mirror.

[Swampcabbage]

Whether we think it's stealing or not, the fact remains filesharing is here - and growing.

So is crack, cancer, diabetes, poverty, unemployment, and any number of things. Doesn't mean I have to think that it's a good thing.

[gary]

Quibbling and rationalising. These excuses for stealing other people's property are nothing more than that.

Any baboon knows you don't walk into a music store and stuff a couple of CD's under your jacket and not call it stealing. When you take something that does not belong to you it is stealing. What else would you tell your kids if/when you have them?

[hakukani]

...and how about these guys transcribing other people's property.

Sorry, I can't see the difference between writing down someone's else's composition or improvisation (which arguably is a composition recorded in real time), and 'stealing' a recording of those musicians.

Like Dolphy said, once you play it it's gone in the air...

[Swampcabbage]

...and how about these guys transcribing other people's property.

Sorry, I can't see the difference between writing down someone's else's composition or improvisation (which arguably is a composition recorded in real time), and 'stealing' a recording of those musicians.

Like Dolphy said, once you play it it's gone in the air...

Actually, there is a big difference. One is a finished recorded product that is created for the purpose of selling in order to provide a living. Once you've purchased that product, should you wish to transcribe it (is the solo copyrighted or just the song?) and perform it, it is included in the fees charged by ASCAP/BMI. Most copyrighted songs do not include the solos. However, Dophy's point, albeit idealogical, would've changed drastically had he considered his financial arrangements as being proportional to his life span then he may not have just given it all away. However, that is his point to make for him; not yours to make for him.

Feel free to share your compositions and recording and teaching knowledge for free (and yes, you already do). My only point is that clearly someone who has created a product for sale. We should respect that right.

[hakukani]

Okay, file sharing music is stealing, if the person doesn't want people to share their files (music).

The reality is that the law is unenforceable. IMO, having an unenforceable law is irrational.

Also, I think that people just won't buy the music, just like many people these days don't pay to go to concerts.

Musicians that try to sell their music are going to find it more and more difficult to make a living doing that.

You talked about entitlement before. I find it amazing the number of musicians who also think that they are entitled to a living playing music.

[SaxxMan]

So is crack, cancer, diabetes, poverty, unemployment, and any number of things. Doesn't mean I have to think that it's a good thing.
You're absolutely right...and remember, I did say it was stealing...

I'm not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's...:) I think each person has to decide for themselves where their morality is...and live accordingly.

I'm just making the point that technology is changing, and we are also changing as a result of it. For better or worse.

Yes, your friend used to sell 30-40 of his CD's, and is now only selling 5-10...and yes that might be due to filesharing - OR not...but I suspect it's more a result of the digitized technology on the internet in general. Surely he had to know professional musicianship was a tough road BEFORE anyone ever heard of filesharing...The arts always have been tough for the majority to achieve prosperity.

And it's not just music....most categories of book sales are down, magazine sales are rapidly diminishing. Even school textbooks are slated for all-electronic format in the next 10 years. Video sales and rentals, while still booming, have acknowledged a growing and serious threat from filesharing and streaming video sites. Newspapers, once seen as the pillars of society, are dying out...the list goes on and on...

I think ALL artists in the visual, print and audio mediums will experience a reduction of hard-copy sales as a result of this. If they want their slice of the pie, all they have to do, is re-align themselves WITH the new technology and find the profitable channels to still make money. And this is what ANY business person would have to do in order to maintain competitiveness in a changing market.

[MartinMusicMan]

I find it amazing the number of musicians who also think that they are entitled to a living playing music.
Thank you for saying that. I've known many excellent musicians, songwriters, composers, and performers who have to depend on something else to make a living. The advent of filesharing is NOT the cause of talented people not being able to make a living in the arts. Only a very small percentage of musicians, writers, artists, actors, etc. are able to support themselves purely from their creative pursuits. I have some very good artist friends (painters, sculptors). Filesharing has nothing to do with why they have to have some other way of making a living. I'm not defending filesharing, but it is not why many excellent musicians have to have other jobs to make ends meet. It's a false argument.

[Woody Reed]

I don't think argument or this thread is that musicians/artists deserve to make a living playing and performing. The argument is that intellectual property owners deserve to hold onto and control there creations. The epidemic decline in CD sales (this encompasses legal downloads) is directly related to file sharing and related technologies. It just can't be denied. Money is spent on the container (iPods, CPUs, CDRs, etc) and not the content (music, videos, etc). It's kind of like bottled water. People will pay $2 for the bottle when the water inside is virtually free.

[hakukani]

I don't think argument or this thread is that musicians/artists deserve to make a living playing and performing. The argument is that intellectual property owners deserve to hold onto and control there creations. The epidemic decline in CD sales (this encompasses legal downloads) is directly related to file sharing and related technologies. It just can't be denied. Money is spent on the container (iPods, CPUs, CDRs, etc) and not the content (music, videos, etc). It's kind of like bottled water. People will pay $2 for the bottle when the water inside is virtually free.

I don't believe an artwork, once created belongs to anyone. But that's just my belief.

[MartinMusicMan]

I don't think argument or this thread is that musicians/artists deserve to make a living playing and performing
No argument there. But I was arguing with this statement:
I know too many published musicians who've resorted to living lives unrelated to music just because so many people today think they are entitled to steal their music.
The epidemic decline in CD sales (this encompasses legal downloads) is directly related to file sharing and related technologies. It just can't be denied.
I won't deny it. However, I would quibble with the use of the word "epidemic" which implies that it is a problem that should be corrected. Instead, I would suggest that, because of filesharing and "related technologies," the CD is going the way of 78 and 33 and 45 rpm records and 8-track tapes and cassettes. We'll probably have CDs for a while longer, but eventually they will disappear, perhaps replaced by direct downloads to a player (computer, ipod, whatever), maybe broadcasting to the player, who knows? Others are much more in tune with the leading edge of technology than I am. I'm just observing a pattern of the evolution of audio recording media and distribution. Things change; media come and go. You can't lay the cause of the decline in CD sales solely at the feet of filesharing - it's just one aspect of changing technology and there's many other variables in play here. In the future, everything will be different. :)

[SactoPete]

I'll admit, when the whole file sharing thing first came along, I took advantage of it - but most of what I found was junk, poorly converted, with bad tags, etc. It did help open my ears to some new artists, and did result in me buying music that I otherwise wouldn't have.

But, with the bad quality etc., I ended up paying to get all of my own CDs converted to good quality MP3 for my iPod, and there's much better ways now to expose yourself to new music vs randomly hoarding illegal downloads. For example, I use Pandora.com quite a bit to listen to music while I work. When I hear something I like, I buy it... I only pay for a small portion of the music I hear actually - and I can pick and choose what I'll keep and add to my collection, which is great. I'm sure there's other internet music sites like it, with an engine that lets you "seed" songs or artists and it plays stuff you might like. Great stuff. And now, I end up spending about the same on new music as I have historically, but the "hit rate" for stuff that I like is a lot better, and I'm playing by the rules, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Pete

[Swampcabbage]

I don't believe an artwork, once created belongs to anyone. But that's just my belief.

So you're saying that not only shouldn't musicians and artists be entitled to make a living but that they should not have any means to make that living either, because whatever ANYONE does at anytime could be considered a work of art? (We can vist this argument via Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" if you wnat).

That may be nice in a world with free food, healthcare, shelter, clothing, etc... but, hardly realistic or applicable in our society. In fact, you are passing a dath sentence on anyone who dares to create anything that requires a large amount of time and effort as they would bhave no way to support themselves through their continued endeavors.

[hakukani]

I remember the same arguments back in the '80s. Only then it was about sampling. Now we have a whole musical 'style' that's based on sampling, and the legal aspect is downplayed, or maybe it's been solved.??..

I also remember that we were talking about downloading pictures and music, and that it was just a matter of time that we'd be using 'virtual' fax machines. Well, it happened.

We were pretty happy about it, because we thought that it would get rid of the idea that creating music would once again be in the hands of the 'people', and that we wouldn't have a specialized 'class' of musicians and artists. We'd somehow be on the same level playing field, and that the quality of music would be higher. The jury's still out on that one....

[Swampcabbage]

When you say "we", be sure to exclude me. I am one of the few who believe (and always have) that it takes time and dedication beyond that of the hobbyist and weekenders to actually great quality art that will not only set a tone for the next wave of art but actually inspire great artists of all kinds and thinkers as well. I don't believe that jazz would be anywhere near it's artistic abilities with out thorough dedication of it's artists. And so it goes. If you do away with the artist being able to make a living from their art then you will doom art. All you will have left is craftsman and hoppyists recreating past works (hmmm, seems pretty real today).

Sampling is rarely used for anything but entertainment. I'd be much happier hearing a live band play the "samples" live (and yes, there is still a copyright law on samples lasting over a period of 8 seconds, I believe).

[hakukani]

The 'we' was a group of musicians and artists that I was working with at that time.

There were no 'professional' artists until about 1600 or so. It is a relatively new phenomenon. Painters painted portraits, musicians were either court musicians, who were really entertainers or traveling musicians, whose job was more than music--it was to spread news.

The idea of a class of artists reached its peak during the 19th century, with the birth of the 'tortured misunderstood genius', that otherwise intelligent and resourceful people wasted their lives thinking that their only contribution could be to 'Art'.

I think what we're seeing as we come into the 21st century, is a backlash against the artistic excesses of the 19th and 20th centuries.

There will always be dedicated and talented people in the arts, but we now have the tools, and time (in the form of longer life spans) to make contributions to society in more than one form.

I predict it's going to become harder and harder to have just one 'career'.

[Woody Reed]

I won't deny it. However, I would quibble with the use of the word "epidemic" which implies that it is a problem that should be corrected.

I would be happy to back-up the use of "epidemic". By definition, it refers to a disease that exceeds the rate that is expected. That's what has happened because of file sharing. Keep in mind that file sharing covers a lot of territory. The basic premise is that there are so many options for people to obtain the music they want for free, that they no longer will pay for it. This does need to change. Songs are the intellectual property of their writers. The masters are the intellectual property of the master's owners (could be artist and label).

There are tons of excuses that people give for justification. They usually boil down to a "MTV Cribs" attitude of excess. Thinking "those people just don't deserve it". It's not about that. It's about intellectual property. Something that will have to be dealt with in the coming years and goes way beyond just music.

[MartinMusicMan]

The basic premise is that there are so many options for people to obtain the music they want for free, that they no longer will pay for it. This does need to change.
How do you change it?