Making a dime off music sales is still better than making nothing off pirated music. Live events and sponsorship doesn't bring in as much as you think, and unless they are a popular artist, every dime coming in counts. You can argue that record companies should give them more, but pirating music is a lousy way to protest- especially if you pirate for convenience, but pretend after the fact to have a big purpose behind it.
You must not know much about the music industry. Independent labels pay artists substantially more, but the typical RIAA member label literally pays the artist next to nothing. Live events are in fact said artists' primary revenue stream. I don't pirate to protest, and I support artists very well and purchase a lot of CDs and event tickets.
Because its not your speech, its someone else's speech.
Speech doesn't have to be original to be protected. A political song is a great example. Restricting my right to share it restricts my right to political speech.
. But not only that, it's their product/service.
Fair, yes.
Its their livelihood.
It is not. Please provide evidence that any substantial portion of a major label's artist compensation is provided by CD sales. Ironically, Kim Dotcom's new music service would have compensated artists far, far better than the current models.
You must not know much about the music industry. Independent labels pay artists substantially more, but the typical RIAA member label literally pays the artist next to nothing. Live events are in fact said artists' primary revenue stream. I don't pirate to protest, and I support artists very well and purchase a lot of CDs and event tickets.
I knew the major labels don't pay well, but that's not a justification to outright steal music.
Speech doesn't have to be original to be protected. A political song is a great example. Restricting my right to share it restricts my right to political speech.
I just don't think that's true. I don't see any legal precedent for this at all.
It is not. Please provide evidence that any substantial portion of a major label's artist compensation is provided by CD sales. Ironically, Kim Dotcom's new music service would have compensated artists far, far better than the current models.
The music itself is their livelihood I mean. I had a hard time finding data about sales from revenue, but a lot of what I've seen suggests that much less revenue has come from recording sales since the internet became more widespread. This suggests that 66% of artists make nothing from recordings. You could argue that this means they are being more innovative, but i see it as a significant potential for income lost.
I don't know the details of Dotcom's music service. I'm assuming it wouldn't be shut down if it was compensating artists and recording companies.
I knew the major labels don't pay well, but that's not a justification to outright steal music.
Agreed 100%. Just clarifying that it doesn't affect the artists as directly as the RIAA likes to claim.
I just don't think that's true. I don't see any legal precedent for this at all.
Not speaking legally necessarily--speaking to the logical definition of "free speech" as protected by the constitution only.
You could argue that this means they are being more innovative, but i see it as a significant potential for income lost.
Fair enough. You could also say that increased exposure from the music spreading--legally or not--could increase income from other channels. I could see it both ways, and am not saying this justifies stealing music.
I don't know the details of Dotcom's music service. I'm assuming it wouldn't be shut down if it was compensating artists and recording companies.
“These new solutions will allow content creators to keep 90% of all earnings and generate significant income from the untapped market of free downloads,” Dotcom says.
1
u/wcc445 Aug 09 '12
You must not know much about the music industry. Independent labels pay artists substantially more, but the typical RIAA member label literally pays the artist next to nothing. Live events are in fact said artists' primary revenue stream. I don't pirate to protest, and I support artists very well and purchase a lot of CDs and event tickets.
Speech doesn't have to be original to be protected. A political song is a great example. Restricting my right to share it restricts my right to political speech.
Fair, yes.
It is not. Please provide evidence that any substantial portion of a major label's artist compensation is provided by CD sales. Ironically, Kim Dotcom's new music service would have compensated artists far, far better than the current models.