Is "file-sharing" basically a nice way to say "stealing"?

Actually, you reminded me of one other indie artist that is against downloading. Yet, her cds are at the library. Hmm...

 

I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

Tiny/small/large all lose money and restrict their output.
When something is restricted it means there is less of...
...less of = people losing out.

 

I don't understand how grass roots music can work. Unless every person who writes or even listens to it has a fair part in its distribution, the organizing of shows, the handing out of flyers- so long as one group of people are doing this I fail to see how a 'grassroots' movement is anything over than ignored structuralism.

 

LOL

That's some funny shit there...

My position is that if you are part of a select group that only allows certain people into it (ie the music industry) then it is wrong, and shouldn't be supported and that grassroot artists (of whom anyone can be a member by just picking up an instrument and playing music, UNTIL they choose to remove themselves from that group) should be supported directly by those who like their music.

You got your views all fucked up and ass backwards...

 

How come no one has taken me up on that argument, anyways?

Is borrowing from the library a nice way of saying stealing?

How is file sharing anything other than a worldwide library?

 

There will always be hypocrites. But that's the problem

Bob says he just wants to write and have his music heard. Great. But then Bob is offered a million pounds to do the same thing, more or less

so he shaves off his beard, swaps the sandals for high heels and is eventually singing and dancing like he is madonna and somebody had spiked his drink with a couple extra tablespoons of sugar.

Industry VS Human Nature

 

Grass root music is music that came from the grass (or land)... from people doing it for the joy of doing it... If they can make money while doing it GREAT... nothing wrong with it...

If they become all about the money (by joining a label and whoring themselves out for the mighty dollar) then they are not a grass root artist...

There is no structure to it, there are no fees to be paid, there are no royalties due... You like their music, you give them money. You don't like their music, you don't give them money....

 

I don't think so.

 

Speaking for myself... because we are already on the same side and I agree that it is the same thing.

The difference is that the libraries are supported by the government, so different rules apply.

Lol, I would be disappointed in you if you said anything else...

 

Lets forget the labels such as "grass-roots", please.
Any person wishing to produce material in any shape or form and make money from that needs help. The less help the less that is produced. Simple, really.

 

No, but even if it's profitless, people still need to adhere to structure. Plus, who really makes music for no profit? People who do that, are probably playing music as a hobby. I play open night mikes for people, after all.

We need to pay bills.

 

Then you are against all controls on manufacturing as well?

If someone wants to produce something and make money, they should be helped, regardless of the way they choose to do that?

That is what you just said isn't it?

 

Where did I say they couldn't make money or profit?

When artists are making money and/or profit from their work, that is good!

When 99 additional people are making money and/or profit off of an artists work, that is NOT good...

 

No. Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting it is as finite as that.

 

Okay so who chooses the criteria at which point it goes from someone who needs support and someone who doesn't?

 

So you would rather not pay and stop the 99% of people make money on somebody else's creation, and see the artist get nothing also?

I see you point, it's a good one, but so long as an artist isn't getting paid you might just have to sacrifice your morales. And in smaller cases, other people do make money off of somebody else- but it is deserved. If you want your music pushed to further people, it's your decision to do so and paying a marketer is as fair enough as anything else.

It's both of their jobs. The major labels are the bastards.

 

Not really. One copy gets shared over a bunch of people. It's not like the government pays the artist extra because the library is using it.

I can share DVDs and music all I want without breaking any laws, as long as it's from the library, or I donate it to the library. Yet file-sharing is breaking copyright?



Fuck, the MPAA's been impersonating an officer for decades, you sure don't hear as much about how immoral that is.

 

What are you disagreeing with?

 

YES, A thousand times YES.

If the choice was to support NO artists, or to support those who are part of the machinary, then YES, I would choose to support NONE.

However, there IS a choice.

You can give your money to the artists that actually are about their music, and whom don't decide to give away 90% of their effort to support a bunch of fucking leeches.

 

Perhaps it's time to say: don't hate the player hate the game.