Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Thanks for putting me back on track - I got swallowed up in the whole piracy thing, too. Value is a tricky subject - but for the purposes of this thread we have to think of value exclusively in economic terms rather than any other kind. That said, sure, art and music as commodities are dropping in value. The whole technology thing - which is great - is also in a way devaluing the jobs of professional artist, musician, producer and recording engineer. I guess the only thing pros can do is give some kind of added value - better quality art, sound, production. Something that people are willing to pay for. I wonder how much longer people will pay for it. We have the opportunity now of producing very high fidelity recordings, but people listen to MP3s and seem to think they're fine.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Mech wrote:
At 3:43 PM -0700 10/7/09, Miko Biffle wrote:
> next: who should compensate them?
Whoever decides that they would like "the product" for themselves. This is basic commercial business ideology. Please don't suggest that what's mine should somehow be available to other's FOR FREE, without my authorization. That's called THEFT or PIRACY.
Wait a second: I think we're going off on a -- while perfectly valuable -- tangent, it is a tangent nonetheless. Not to drop the main topic entirely, I don't think the crux of the main argument has much to do with piracy per se.
Rather, I think we should remember that what we're truly dealing with is the simple and easy commodification of music and "art".
In recent years, technology has made it easy to produce music on one's home PC that is technically far superior to anything that was readily produced in professional studios only a couple of decades ago. This has enabled many, many, many, more people to realize their musical aspirations than has been possible at any other time in history. We all know that already, and I think very few of us view it as a bad thing.
The problem, however, is what happens to that music once it has been produced.
Well, a lot of it is put out there for free, as a labor of love. This, for better or worse, has created a glut in the market. You can download hours upon hours of high-quality music without ever even being asked for a cent in return.
So, the issue is not an audience that demands, "Give us your music for free or we will pirate it anyway." No, the issue is rather that the audience is saying, "If your music isn't free, then we'll just go download music from Joe over there, who *is* giving it away for free."
The argument deals with the de-valuation of music, not whether it's being "stolen".
And, like I said, the threads on piracy are valuable and should continue as a side-discussion. However, I believe that de-valuation of music (and "art" in general) is a more difficult -- as well as a more important and long-ranging -- issue. So I, for one, don't wish for that point to get lost in a wash of anti-piracy sentiments.
Thoughts...?
--m.
--
_____
"beyond this window, night is shuddering and the earth grinds to a halt
beyond this window, something unknown is watching you and me...."