Why Aren’t You Paying for Music?
On a personal level, I have witnessed the impoverishment of many critically acclaimed but marginally commercial artists. In particular, two dear friends: Mark Linkous (Sparklehorse) and Vic Chestnutt. Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their incomes collapse in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.
Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance. On March 6th, 2010, Mark Linkous shot himself in the heart. Anybody who knew either of these musicians will tell you that the pair suffered from addiction and depression. They will also tell you their situation was worsened by their financial situation. Vic was deeply in debt to hospitals and, at the time, was publicly complaining about losing his home. Mark was living in abject squalor in his remote studio in the Smokey Mountains without adequate access to the mental health care he so desperately needed.
I present these two stories to you not because I’m pointing fingers or want to shame you. I just want to illustrate that “small” personal decisions have very real consequences, particularly when millions of people make the decision not to compensate artists they supposedly “love”. And it is up to us individually to examine the consequences of our actions. It is not up to governments or corporations to make us choose to behave ethically. We have to do that ourselves.
David Lowery, a co-founder of the rock band Cracker, and a lecturer in the University of Georgia’s music business program, posted a letter to NPR “All Songs Considered” summer intern Emily White in response to a blog post she wrote where she admitted that although she had about 11,000 digital songs in her music library, she had probably only bought 15 albums in her lifetime.
Emily argued that she ripped most of her music through albums given to her college radio station, where she works as a DJ. She was also given 15 gigs of music from a boy who had asked her out to senior prom, and streams a lot of music using Spotify.
Lowery gives Emily a very thorough and convincing response. In addition to some of the ethical issues he raises regarding ripping music from CDs you didn’t buy, or accepting massive amounts of music from friends, he also points out that companies like Grooveshark often stream music without getting permission from artists. Lowery says that Spotify has also run into trouble when it comes to fairly compensating the artists they stream.
And perhaps this is Lowery’s strongest point:
“$2,139.50 = 1 smart phone + 1 full size ipod + 1 macbook. Why do you pay real money for this other stuff but not music?”
[via]
Photo: Shutterstock/Spectral-Design
I buy almost all of my music on itunes, but i have to admit i feel like a dope for doing it. mostly because i don’t know where to go anymore to download music illegally.
it means that my library of current music i like is much smaller than it was in the napster/limewire days.
@redheaded&crazy I either buy records or buy mp3s from Amazon or iTunes these days. I agree that doing this limits my library in a way it wasn’t when I was in college during the file-sharing heyday, but I think that I like it better this way. I feel better about supporting the artists, and a more manageable and constrained library lets me pay more attention to the music I buy, and I end up enjoying it with more depth than when I just had everything because I could.
@thewurst I found a way to listen to endless streaming music for free — somebody seems to be broadcasting it unencrypted over the FM radio spectrum. Fancy that!
(It’s mostly garbage, though.)
I just re-downloaded spotify, because I was jonesing for some Strokes. I also use NoiseTrade a lot, but never “tip” really. And sometimes I download live sets from NYCtaper/similar sites. But in general, I buy everything–usually through Amazon’s $5 (or $2.99, or whatever) deals. I also have started trying to buy vinyl at shows–not that I want to put record stores out of business, but if I can choose between helping the artist directly or helping a shop I tend to support the artist.
That said, I understand why people illegally obtain music/movies/whatever media you prefer. If I could download a car, I would, you know?
“David Lowery, a co-founder of the rock band Cracker”! That’s kind of like introducing Paul McCartney as a co-founder of the band Wings.
CAMPER VAN BEETHOVEN FOREVER!!!
Music-storing/playing technology is way ahead of the economic structure of selling writing and music right now. When media is completely free with zero to near-zero obstacles in the way for consumers to obtain it, you can’t be high and mighty about telling people to “do the right thing” and pay for it even though it’s incredibly easy to obtain for free. As a writer and musician myself, it’s simply part of playing the game today. It’s not inherently bad that musicians’ only sure way of getting paid for their work is through live performance; it’s just different, and probably less lucrative for more people. Deal with it.
@John C. Calhoun@twitter Another way of asking the question, “Am I being ethical?” is simply “Is it OK to be a jerk?” If you believe the answer to the latter is “yes,” well good on you. But the real point is rather more simple: Laptops wear out, storage media turn obsolete, internet connections are expensive–people pay all this money for crap all the time (cable TV, texting plan), but not for music. You’re giving your money to Apple, to Starbucks, to Verizon, etc., all the while holding that people who produce the actual product should “deal with it.” Did someone say false consciousness?
@Boribon It’s a false choice to say that when one spends money on an Apple product, they could have spent that on music. (FWIW, I, personally, subscribe to “crap technology” principles, but that’s neither here nor there.) My point is that what is “right” now isn’t necessarily what was “right” thirty years ago. Thirty years ago, asking someone to abide by copyright law meant asking them to not expend tremendous effort to copy and distribute these media. Now? Every middle class home has a $200-$700 computer and access to free storage on Google Play, or enough storage on the out-of-the-box hard drive. You’re effectively asking them to abide by the honor code because there are virtually no obstacles to illegally downloading music. So, my point is that when it’s unfeasible to enforce a copyright law, even one with good intentions, creators can’t fight that tide. Adapt. Newspapers are dying — but looking at it on a long enough timeline, we can see that business model was but a short detour in the history of the written word. Selling recorded music is a dying business, although much slower. The business model is screwed because the tide of technology moved too fast. Beethoven didn’t have to record his music to make a living as a composer and musician, but it was a completely different economy, then. Musicians have to figure out something else, now. Turn free distribution and free downloading into a positive. I don’t know how, otherwise I’d be doing it, but someone will figure it out.
@John C. Calhoun@twitter As far as ethical claims go, I’m with you entirely, since the “pity the poor artists” argument is too sentimental to hold sway.
What I am saying, however, is that free downloading is not a free lunch; someone IS getting money–and a lot of it–but it’s the people doing the packaging: hardware, access fees, subscription fees, etc. I would rather give that money to people, like you, who make the music. That’s why I believe the “it’s there, it’s free” claim is just too easy to volley around. This may sound sentimental too, perhaps, but to me, this is a clear “tragedy of the commons” case (which you’re probably familiar with already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
What irks me to no end is the belief–and I don’t believe you really subscribe to it–that one might say “oh well, downloads are free, good for me,” and then proceed to pay and pay once again computer manufactures whose products become obsolete in 2 years, pay, every month, internet subscription plans (1000+ dollars a year in many cases). (AND then there’s willingness to pay dearly for frivolous things like cable TV all the while uttering pieties about the death of print.)
That’s why I don’t ultimately believe that spending money on Apple products vs. spending money on music/local art scene whatever, is a “false choice.” Since 2000 I’ve gone through five laptops (2 of them Apple) and 2 iPods, 1 apple adapter, 3 Apple batteries. That 10.000 dollars (yes, $10.000, since European sales tax is 25%), could have done a lot of good to other companies than Apple, Dell, IBM. Some people change their hardware far more often than I do. Do I think that people who buy new hardware 2-3 times a year pay for their music/news? No, I do not.
It’s not just about it being easy. It’s an ethical viewpoint; I will choose to pay for these goods and services, but not these goods and services, and that music / artists don’t have to be paid. Doesn’t that bother you as an artist? It sure as hell bothers me. Are you making a living? If you’re not, maybe you could be. If you are, you’d be making a better one. People are refusing to pay you for your work!
FWIW, I worked in music publishing for a number of years and generally speaking, people have no clue when it comes to how important those licensing fees and royalties are for a musician’s ability to make a living.
I was JUST reading about this and talking about it on a music message board. Lowery addresses White’s issue of convenience (“I just want what I want, when I want it,”) with mentions of iTunes, etc., but plenty of bands also have their own web pages or bandcamp pages where you can not only listen before you buy, but sometimes you can also download for free (my band included). I may also be a dinosaur, but downloaded music doesn’t appeal to me. I always prefer to have a physical copy in one form or another, because no matter how much care you take with them, files can get corrupted, hard drives can crash, Apple can decide to simply remove the files from your computer (seriously, see their iTunes Store agreement) etc., but I have LPs from the 60s that still sound great.
It’s not that complicated: someone gave you something, so you should I’ve them something.
That said, almost all digital music is of really shitty quality. And the record labels often do dumb shit like stagger format releases so that the vinyl comes out two months after the digital release. And since I don’t want to pay twice for the same product, I end up illegally downloading the new Regina Spektor because I can’t wait until August for the vinyl (I promise I’ll pay for it then, Regina! Loooooove yooouuuuu!) Or some really awful shit happens like the new Saul Williams drops digital-only so I buy it on iTunes but then six months later I see the vinyl in a record store and feel like an idiot. It’s a mess out there.
lowery used terrible reasoning and made a weak argument. it only seems somewhat compelling because he’s correct that listeners should support artists. exploiting the suicides of two troubled people who can’t represent themselves is horribly cowardly and shitty.
he made exactly two decent points out of the many he could have made. one, you support corporations by downloading, just different corporations than you do by buying cds or downloads. two, it wouldn’t kill you to spend $20/month on music.
@karrrren So what are all the other points he could have made?
“Why Aren’t You Paying for Music?” Because I don’t have to. Yes, music has value, just like a MacBook or an iPhone. The difference is I can’t download a MacBook or an iPhone from the comfort of my home in less time than it takes to microwave a frozen pot pie.
Is it unethical? Hell yeah. But I also think it would be foolish for me to pay iTunes for something I can easily obtain at no cost. I’ve said this before, but ethics are a luxury that most people can’t afford.
@MuffyStJohn Not really a great point considering it’s absolutely free to own no music. Voila, cheap ethics!
@steponitvelma Ethical and yet totally unrealistic! Funny that.
@MuffyStJohn Yes, exactly! Making ethical purchases isn’t something everyone has the choice to do, and this idea of “voting with your wallet” sure seems to leave a lot of people disenfranchised.
@MuffyStJohn At what income level can you afford to behave ethically? Surely there will always be non-downloadable pot pies to buy with money otherwise spent on music.
Ethics are not a product with an identifiable cost, they are the standards that govern our interaction with other people.
@Saaoirse But this isn’t the difference between buying a shirt at forever 21 and buying it someplace american-made, it’s the difference between buying a shirt and stealing a shirt. I think that is an important distinction.
@MuffyStJohn You pay for the Macbook, for the internet connection, etc. Ethics really has nothing to do with it. You make a decision to spend on the things that make rich people richer. Let’s play with some time-honored metaphors here: you’re driving an expensive car, on a toll road, playing $$ for gas. But the radio is on–for free!
@MuffyStJohn My old-lady response: Assuming you have the money for hardware, you can hear all kinds of music for free, on the radio, on Pandora, whatever. Singing by yourself or stealing are not your only two options.
…which I now see Boribon basically said as well. Good one!
What’s a typical iPod these days, 160gb? That’s more than $30,000 worth of iTunes singles.
Clearly NOBODY is paying for most of their music…
It’s not really the choice between buying the music and downloading the music for me…it’s a choice between downloading the music or not having/listening to the music. So then I won’t know about the music, won’t support the musicians by going to shows, etc. etc. I think that’s more of an economic reality: we’re in a shitty, shitty economy and a lot of people can no longer even afford to buy music, so yes, the musicians will suffer, as do the rest of us.
I guess I understand how someone might steal music and pretend it’s not stealing, (by telling themselves that the artists will make up the difference in concert tickets and t-shirts, or even just simply refusing to think it all the way through) but it’s really hard for me to understand how one can actually acknowledge it as stealing and then attempt to justify it. My head hurts trying to understand this.
Artists are making an actual product. By working. And then you are consuming that product. By stealing. How is this even open to argument?
Yes, when the economy is bad and people can’t afford art, then artists will make less money too. I don’t think anyone is suggesting it should or could be otherwise. But are you actually saying that artists should get no money for their product and then you should get their product for free? Because why, exactly? Because you want it?
@AnnieNilsson Exactly! I’m going to add to this only the hippy notion that actually my heart also hurts at the contortions people go through to justify this.
Also, at least go to the fucking library, and have them buy the disc for you. Sure, it doesn’t rack up to a lot of money for the artist, but damn.
@AnnieNilsson Thank you! This is what I was obliquely trying to get at above.
I downloaded lots of music illegally back in high school and college when I had no money/the music couldn’t necessarily be obtained legally very easily. I pay for almost all my music now, and it’s not an excuse, but I wouldn’t be buying a lot of the music from the artists I buy it from now if I hadn’t already heard a lot of their older stuff by downloading it illegally or getting it from friends.
@Amanda@twitter Good point!
I guess I’m a little late here, but why not throw in my two cents: I was recently at a festival, interviewing musicians of varying levels of success. Every single one of them, from the tiny local bands to the ones you’ve undoubtedly heard, said they are in no way upset by people downloading their music without paying for it, and acknowledged illegally downloading music. Once again: this is from people who make their livings off the music they create.
I’ve told friends, “Hey, I stole your album from another friend, because I’m broke right now. It’s really good,” and they appreciate it. I’ve had friends tell me outright, “I can’t afford to buy your album, I’m just gonna steal it from our other friend,” and all I can say is “Yeah, that’s cool, tell me what you think of it.” The only person I know who’s offended by this is over the age of 50 — that doesn’t make him wrong, but I do think it says something. The music business is changing — no, it HAS changed. By and large, bands DO NOT make money off recordings. Recordings are what enables them to tour, which is how the vast majority of bands I know actually make money.
On the other hand, I suppose, is the fact that if I like a record, I will buy it — if a physical copy exists — and I spend a FUCKLOAD more than $20 a month on music.
Related, an amazing old blog post by Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy that spells out exactly how much bands on major labels actually get paid: http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/
@ranran: That link really is amazing.
@ranran I’ve been getting free downloads of albums with the purchase of concert tickets. Which is awesome, but – I would buy them anyway! I would be happy to give Fiona Apple and Regina Spektor MORE of my money!
@ranran Yeah the whole “They’re working, you’re STEEEEALING” debate really fails to acknowledge such things as: the radio, club play (for certain kinds of music anyway), used album sales, friends sharing albums, the role of live music, composers vs. songwriters vs. performers, libraries, and why so many musicians give out their music for free (at least on a limited basis). Also, mixtapes.
To say that the argument “you, music consumer, have a moral obligation to the artist to make sure they are being paid before listening to their music” oversimplifies things is, I think, an understatement.
Now, I’m off the art gallery, where I will PayPal $0.15 to each of the artists after I look at their paintings. Then I’m going to mail checks to Jonathan Franzen, now that I’ve finished reading my borrowed copy of Freedom, and the Patty Hill estate, for my share of the public performance of “Happy Birthday to You” I participated in on Saturday.
I feel like this post is blaming the little people. If someone is keeping wealth from artist it’s more likely to be the people at the top. In my experience if an artist is new I usually have to buy their music or they give it away online for free. Most music that’s illegally downloaded comes from the well off artists. I can never find music from obscure bands and I just end up buying their music. But i refuse to do the same for artist like beyonce that do just fine without my purchase.