Yet Another Star Singer Doesn't Mind File Sharing
from the sensing-a-pattern dept
While there are still some popular musicians who argue against file sharing, we're seeing more and more realize that it's hardly the enemy that the industry has made it out to be. The latest is the singer Duffy, who apparently has quite the hit album out, selling over a million copies. However, in a recent interview, she noted that unauthorized file sharing is "amazing" and that she doesn't mind it at all if others are file sharing her songs. She points out that when she was growing up, it was often hard to get new music, and file sharing changes the equation: "I think it's got more positives because it basically gives people access, what's the harm in that? It's just making music a part of everyone's lives."This sort of thing is becoming more and more common -- so why is it that the recording industry (and the politicians it preaches to) insist that file sharing is destroying the recording industry, and it has to be stopped to protect the very artists who don't seem to have a problem with it?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: duffy, file sharing, singers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The answer to your rhetorical question is money, but you already knew that so ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Duffy - Mercy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$ $$$$$$$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's mine
@Steve: If you make a piece of furniture, you can only make and sell it once and the creation costs money. If you want to sell another, you make another, which costs more time and money. If somebody takes that piece of furniture without paying, you've lost that investment.
With digital music, it costs no more to sell a million copies than it does to sell one. Nobody's stealing anything from you if they copy an album, but you *might* lose the opportunity to make a sale to that person, assuming that they don't later buy the album, attend a concert or give you money in other ways. Hardly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's mine
Second, this shows the lie in the RIAA's claim of doing it for the artists: the artists don't mind file sharing, and many are coming out in open support of it.
Third, this underscores the fact that those who argue that artists can't survive rampant file sharing are missing something: if file sharing were hurting artists, they wouldn't be in support of it the way they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's mine
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled time and time again that copyright infringement does NOT equal theft. Theft is where I take something and you can no longer use it e.g. I steal your bike and you can no longer use it. Copyright infringement is where I make photocopies of a book at a library; sure I have a copy now but the library still has their original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's mine
In most cases, unless you're painting is hanging in a gallery for sale and you get a cut of the sales price, they bought your painting and you have no further influence on it.
If you composed the song you get the copyright to it which is then licensed by the likes of BMI/ASCAP/CAPAC or other licensing organizations and you get royalties.
If all you are is the composer you don't get a record deal at all unless you inhabit such places as The Brill Building.
If you and your mates are performers that's when you get your recording contract. And all any recording is is a performance, over produced that it may be. (And often is these days.)
It's that unique performance that the record company copyrights and distributes.
Should the performing artist wish then it makes some sense that, as Duffy does, to endorse sharing the music which has, in her case, increased the record sales.
In theory both she and the company she's under contract to ought to be happy. She is. The record company who, arguably perhaps, have sold more bits of silver plastic with bits and bytes on it ought to be happy too because they've sold more of their wares.
That record companies aren't strikes me as cutting your nose off to spite your face. Either that or a tacit admission that 95% of your catalogue is crap.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New, crappy, breaking out into the wild bands dont make any money from ticket sales, as nobody knows about them.
They try to sell albums at the door and such, but usually give away their music online also, so dont get many sales.
Though now that I think about it, there's to many wannabe musicians these days.
They all could be musicians, but musicians aren't as useful as, say, doctors, or garbage collectors.
Fact is that the music and film industry has had a huge image shift. (more so films). Its no longer a glamour, high-class position... in fact the word skank comes to mind when I think of most "stars" these days.
Where am I going with this?... Ah yes, we need drastic change in the industry.
The people currently running it are old, and greedy, and stupid. They will die soon, and then we will see change.
Same goes for land, cable based telecomms companies. Arf!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"New, crappy, breaking out into the wild bands dont make any money from ticket sales, as nobody knows about them."
If they're actually "crappy", they won't make any money as they don't deserve it. But, if they're good, people will get to know about them from the free music. Then, those people will tell other people, more people will see them live and they make more money. In other words, the same thing that happens right now, but without radio-style corporate control over the promotional channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you. It's just like any other profession in this world. Once you reach a certain age you are so entrenched into it that as new things and ideas come out you tend to keep doing the same ol' same ol'. As the industry marches forward you slowly falling behind, because you're so used to do things one way for so long. It's continued to make you money why would you want to change now to the new way of things that you're uncertain it will be the best way to make you money. So you keep doing what your doing yet again letting the industry get farther and farther a head of you until the new guy comes along. The new guy has been working in the new industry for a little while, and has some fresh new ideas to make the company money. Eventually sooner or later that new guy younger guy takes your position, because he knows about the new industry.
That's what happens the old keep doing their thing never really conforming with the times, and eventually they get replaced by those that have and will change. It's a never ending cycle just like life. You're born, you grow old and you die. Eventually those that are in the higher positions of the companies will get a hold of the younger crowd, and start replacing those that refuse to conform to today's society. Which is costing these companies more, and more money as the years tick away by their backwards thinking. That was the way they did things back in the day and it make them money hand over fist.
So eventually people of our generation will fill those positions and things will change it all takes time. Unless someone decides you through the boulder into the pond and makes some huge waves that force change. which is what your starting to see now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are saying that no "little" up-and-coming bands could ever make it big under a system without recording industry distribution and promotion, I think you are wrong. Alternatively, the most popular musicians will be those who:
1. Write the best music.
2. Interact well with their fans and build an online community.
3. Create peripheral merchandise that people want.
4. Perform a lot of live shows.
I think that would be vastly preferable to the current system, where the recording industry chooses who we get to hear and tells us what to like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you like what you DL your likely to buy it.
I sometimes download music for new or unknown artists to get a taste, if I like it I will get the offical CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No talented musician is worried about file sharing . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]