A whole generation has grown up with filesharing. But does that mean it’s OK for DJs to steal the music they play, and with which they presumably intend to make money from playing?
We have a series of articles and videos called the Ten Commandments For Better Digital DJing. It goes through some basic guidelines for beginners, and one of the commandments is: Don’t Steal Music. Please, let me reprint a comment somebody wrote under that video:
“But I want every song in the world! I don’t have the money for that, and I have far far too many songs that I really, really want. Anyway I would never pirate underground producers.”
And here’s another one:
“I disagree that having a copy of music not paid for is stealing. The artist has already been paid for that performance (assuming they charged to begin with). Just as I don’t get paid for the work I do today more than once I don’t believe that it’s unethical for an artist to not get paid many times over for a single task performed. Whether it’s writing a song, performing a song, or hanging dry wall.”
I am actually flabbergasted by these people.
How did we get to here?
Now don’t get me wrong, The music industry ten years ago was broken, and needed a revolution, and online music made that revolution inevitable. I actually believe it was the convenience of online downloading and filesharing that brought in the great age of music piracy. If I can’t get a tune except by illegal means, the thinking went, as a DJ I am going to use those means. I get that. I did that.
Servies like Spotify let you listen to music on demand. The artists get paid, and you only need buy what you really want.
But the music industry has caught up, at least a lot. Many (the majority?) of tunes are self-released nowadays, or on vanity record labels that belong to the producers. The DIY ethic that CD Baby, TuneCore et al make possible means that you can produce a track and have it in all the major stores without a record label getting a sniff. And that’s exactly what many artists are doing.
So is it OK to steal that music?
There are ever-more innovative systems for getting money back to music makers. Spotify, Rhapsody etc all have mechanisms so when you listen, you get paid. There are more just around the corner, especially for DJs (watch this space). For small amounts of money, you can discover and buy a lot of music – legally – in great new ways.
And music has become cheaper, too. Stripped of the physical medium, if you shop around right you can get tunes for a fraction of what they used to cost on vinyl (anyone remember import treble-packs? Ouch.) Artists often give their music away for free often online nowadays. There’s never been a more exciting time to build a legal music collection.
It’s the attitude more than the act
Now, even in today I am not against playing free and loose with where your music collection comes from. It’s dog eat dog out there, and DJs live or die by their music collections. I understand that. But I am against the attitude that music theft it’s a victimless crime, that somehow digital gives people the right to just go right ahead and steal away.
The attitude that says just because you can do something, it means it’s alright. The belief that someone else has paid the artist (who exactly?), or will pay the artist, but that that person doesn’t have to be you.
These people aren’t just taking the tunes for personal use, they’re taking them to perform with…
The attitude that says it’s up to you to decide if the music is “underground” enough for the artist to deserve your money.
To me, shows a total lack of respect for the artists and the scene, and the worst thing is, that these people aren’t just taking the tunes for personal use, they’re taking them to perform with (and presumably to therefore at some point get paid themselves).
I don’t believe there are many DJs who don’t have music they haven’t paid for in their collections – whether giveaways, promos, rips from rare streams or whatever. But I would like to think (and it’s certainly my experience among digital DJs) that most have lots of paid-for music to, and that they would rather pay for a tune and help the producer than steal it.
But our commenters make me wonder how true that is.
Is this is generational thing?
Now, I’m old enough to remember vinyl, then CDs, then digital. I’ve been through the “spending all your money on physical music” phase, the “ain’t piracy great!” / Napster phase, which preceded the current “let’s pay the producers and keep our scene sustainable phase”, which is how I see things now.
Music piracy has always existed, but has digital ushered in a more aggressive ‘can’t pay, won’t pay’ attitude?
But I suspect some of our commenters haven’t. I suspect they’ve grown up with digital. And I also kind of suspect there’s a generational thing here. But if those commenters are truly indicative of how the majority of people feel about music theft nowadays, it doesn’t bode well for the future.
I’m all for any kind of digital revolution, and I don’t lose much sleep for the record labels. But I pity particularly the producers who just want to make a little money each time they release a tune (a tune that may have taken them a month to produce), but who don’t due to people like those who I quote above.
In the words of one such producer from the comments under the video: “I really hope that one day you decide to start producing yourself, and realise how it feels to see the music you worked so hard on, on a torrent.”
So back to my original question. I’m asking for your beliefs, I’d like to know the code you choose to live by: Is it now OK for DJs to steal music? Please let’s thrash this one out in the comments.
Now go to:
10 Commandments For Better Digital DJing, #9: Don’t Steal Music
What Exactly Is A DJ/Producer?
Want to escape the bedroom and play in public - fast?
Our 1000s-selling How To Digital DJ Fast video course shows you how.
Learn to DJ Free - email course plus bonus PDF book
Sign up for our weekly email course for beginners now...
Trouble choosing a controller? Visit the web's #1 guide!
DJ Controllers: The Ultimate Buyer’s Guide 2013.
Tags: music piracy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
I think you are right when you say it partially a generational thing. Most people 25 years old and younger grew up in a digital world where downloading music was easy and free. It was also illegal, but when everyone is doing it that loses some of its power too. Also, these young people (like myself) don’t have much money to buy all the music they want and cheap alternatives like spotify weren’t available either.
In the last few years things have improved and there are a lot of cheap legal alternatives out there. This will probably make sure the current generation grows up with an ethic that promotes the use of legal alternatives, especially cheap/free services like spotify.
AS for myself, I’ve been downloading music illegally between the ages of 15 to 24 and only recently I’ve decided that I will buy all my tracks from now on and start buying my old favorites that I’m still using in my sets. This also has to do with the fact that I’ve graduated and got a job now, which makes it easier to spend 30-100 euros a month on music.
[ link ]It’s just plain wrong! Also, it doesn’t cost a lot to buy MP3′s these days (not like pay £7/£8 for vinyl), so if you do pirate stuff you are are just being tight.
Supporting your chosen ‘scene’ or genre also includes supporting the artists who make the music by paying for the tracks they make, not just DJing them in a club.
Finally actually paying for your favourite artists’ music means he/she can carry on making music that you enjoy.
[ link ]I think the real problem that is hard to grasp in the digital media age is that making a copy isn’t stealing. No one has had their property taken from them. Let me just make a disclaimer saying that I fully want artists to be able to make money off their music, but selling it isnt the answer anymore. Look at Pretty Lights or Bassnectar, people who give away their music and remixes for free, and yet they are still somehow touring the world playing major festivals all without trying to get you to pay $3 a track for a digital medium. When It was CD’s and physical media it almost made sense – almost. I mean the cd’s cost something, the printing for the insert, the case, the shipping, the storage, on and on, but nowadays if I want to buy an artists music, it cost me the same amount of money to get a digital copy that cost them pennies (if that) in bandwidth. This is just one reason why piracy is so rampant.
I know several artists that sell music on the major download sites, and what they get is a pittance compared to whats taken by the distributor and the label.
Wanna support your favorite artist? Go see them at a show, or tell your friends about them so there is enough hype to get them in your city.
[ link ]Also I’d like to point out that this same blog suggested that good way to gain bookings (this is where the actual money is kids, none of your favorite artists are making their real money off the downloads) was to release bootleg remixes of other peoples work. Yeah you worked on it but at the same time aren’t you guilty of using another persons intellectual property, marketability and branding for your own gain?
Article I am referencing: http://www.digitaldjtips.com/2011/02/djs-make-mash-ups-not-mixtapes/
[ link ]Mashups etc that are not made for commercial gain rather to show off your skills as an artist are, in our view, fine. Just like mixtapes were before them. Now, if you start selling them, that’s a different story.
[ link ]Agree 100%. (jumping to mashes for a bit, but it touches almost the same subject, really)
I do re-edits, remixes & mash-ups all the time for my own DJ use, some I prep so that I can just play them live with a track or two + acapellas etc, some I make in my studio, but I never post them anywhere without the original makers’ permission or try to gain anything else than dancefloor movement that particular night at that particular party. It’s not my property and it’s not my place to decide “to give that (old) track new exposure”, like often the excuse is.
When I started up, I didn’t piggyback on someone else’s name… I busted my ass to make music, I toured and played every freaking tiny corner store gig I got in the beginning, did zillions of interviews, gave my 24/7 to it, and more. The people, many of them very significant to my career, who were involved, got their $ & % as agreed & deserved (sometimes maybe more
.
Really irks me when I see one of my tracks, or anyone else’s, really, taken and mashed with something without the slightest thought of decency to ask how the original creator feels about it. No moral or legal thinking to it whatsoever. The minute you question it, you get all kinds of “freedom of art blaa blaa”, “hey old fart, I’m doing you a favour” etc responses and you end up looking like the bad guy. F*cking for real?
I’m not saying there’s no talented people among the mashers… There is, but it’s the “I’ll take this hot-in-this-moment Avicii track and that SHM track and mash them so I automatically get thousands of listens on SoundCloud” people that really could get their thinking straight and do the work that everyone else is doing.
[ link ]Phil, yeah, if you don’t sell them, you don’t get commercial gain, but it’s fine to gain name and “cred” with them and get booked to play or remix based on them? Surely that’s financial gain, just not direct that the original makers could go after.
[ link ]Good point. But then again all DJs do is layer stuff over other stuff, and that’s all mixtapes ever were, and by extension (to me anyway) that’s what mashups really are. But there’s a fine line, as you illustrate. I think using them in your own sets is more acceptable than posting them on YouTube, but then again it depends how good you are at ti! Look at Earworm, for instance.
[ link ]Using them live in your own sets IS ok, as it’s a one-off party for that limited crowd within those walls, that’s what DJing is, mixing music together (be it 2 tracks or a track + beats or acapella or whatever and you can think of a produced mash-up as a prepped version of this), but the minute you make it public ie. post it online to SoundCloud, YouTube, what have you, you’re infringing copyright and using the original creators’ name to your advantage without permission. Has nothing to do with how good you’re at it. Car thief can steal a car if he’s really good at it? Or if material vs. immaterial theft/usage is brought to the table at this point, think of ANY crime or morally questionable thing and justify it by doing it really well? Fixing stock market? Cheating your spouse?
Also, to me a mash-up is definitely not the same thing as a DJ mixtape, even if the way you put it makes it sound similar technically. If you make a 60 minute mix and call it Balearic Beats Part 8 mixed by Phil Morse or a mash-up named Swedish House Mafia vs. Avicii – Save The World With Levels (Phil Morse Mash-up), the first usually clearly has separate tracks despite the mixing parts playing together and people hear and understand that. The second one is… Umm, well, a production using someone else’s original work and slapping your name on it. When you upload it everywhere, there’s a person who just yesterday heard of and started liking SHM, who finds it and listens to it because of SHM name and thinks it’s a legit version and comes to your gig. Good for you, but it’s not like you actually earned that ‘like’, IMO.
I’ve heard “grumpy old man blahblah” comments etc… So be it, I don’t care, to me you just can’t justify deciding to benefit from other people’s work without their approval. I’ve had randomly mashes taken down (every umpteenth or so I come across, I don’t have time to hunt for them) and some people have been apologetic, some have attacked me and have had their circles of “scene” people throw virtual sh*t at me because I dared to question their actions. I mean, really, it’s laughable when a twit half my age starts “telling me how it is”, he’s doing me a favour, etc. It’s not about me losing money when someone mashes or remixes my track, it’s the principle, the lack of respect, that irks me greatly. And I know now I’ve already said way too much, some people out there are going to get their panties in a bunch.
[ link ]“There’s a person who just yesterday heard of and started liking SHM, who finds it and listens to it because of SHM name and thinks it’s a legit version and comes to your gig”
That makes sense, I guess if someone atributes it to you, but surely that bubble has to burst if a DJ has no real talent to back up mashups? But I take your point entirely on that one.
[ link ]I personally think that mashups are perfectly fine, and make a bunch myself. And on an unrelated note… Darude. Thank you for sandstorm. That is the single greatest song for getting kids (including myself) into dance music. I would go nuts when they played that at my summer camp dances.
[ link ]Darude, what is the proper way to clear a mashup? Do you tweet an artist and ask if they are alright with you posting the mashup on Soundcloud? What are the chances that an artist/group like Avicii or SHM will actually respond to an unknown producer, listen to their mashup, and say it’s ok? And if they say no or simply don’t respond do you never post the mashup? What if the mashup contributes to the evolution of EDM by doing something really unique or novel? You don’t want that to hit peoples’ ears?
[ link ]You seem to forget what it has cost the artists to make it where they are today. If no one buys their music then we won’t have any artist. Same with the remix services, If we don’t support them they won’t support us.
[ link ]Not true, there are some artists that simply make art for it’s own sake, and not for popularity or money, just take a look at how much talent there is on soundcloud. If you think music makers are only motivated by money you’re dead wrong, you’re thinking of commercial artists.
[ link ]I agree that paying for a copy isn’t the only way to remunerate artists. Paying a micro-amount per stream (the Spotify model) is a major new revenue model. There are others too, including an exciting one we’ll be covering next week. Point is though, the basic truth that an artist deserves money from his or her fans for the music they make is, in my view, unassailable – but it seems to be completely alien to some people.
[ link ]Another real problem that djs face that I would guess the majority of people don’t know (and another boost for piracy) is that Beatport, iTunes, etc all state in their Terms and Conditions that music purchased from their site is not to be used for any purpose, commercial or private, which by agreeing to you have basically agreed that you wont play the music you just bought to dj with.
[ link ]Yeah but spotify pay 0.4 cents per stream in the US, that’s 200 plays to get the same revenue as a purchase on iTunes, who on earth listens to their songs 200 times each!
[ link ]Yes, but it’s an additional revenue stream over and above that generated by purchases. We’re talking about SOME kind of remuneration, against theft.
[ link ]Saying that producers need to give their songs away for free and make money off concerts seems like a good idea…
.. except not everyone who is a good producer is very keen on the prospect of doing a lot of shows and travelling around the world. By buying their music, whether on a CD, vinyl or digital, you pay them for producing this great music. When you go to a concert, you are paying them for being there and performing. These two are very different.
This difference is very noticable with non-electronic music. Sometimes the songwriters are not actually part of the band or artist they write their song for. They only get paid a % of the music sales. Because they are not part of the perfomance, they don’t get a share of the tickets sold.
[ link ]Booking agencies don’t get a portion of the music sold either, or of the crazy long guestlist the venue usually allows either, this is a total strawman. This is about the artists being able to make money doing what they love, realizing a certain amount of piracy will happen , (think inventory shrink which every major retailer in the world accounts for) and everyone involved deciding if it is worth the time and effort they are putting in for what they are getting in return.
[ link ]Correction: Bassnectar away gives some of his music, but not all of it. Full “albums” of his original tracks are not free. It’s the choice of each artist, whether they want to give away some or all of their music. It’s not the up to the consumers to decide that because some artists are giving away their music, then all artists should do so and therefore they shouldn’t have to pay when the artists are charging. At least that’s true if you want to be ethical.
IAC, while it’s true that the many artists make relatively small profits from selling music these days and make most of their income from live performances, does *not* mean that it’s ethical to copy music that the artists is charging for, without paying for it.
If you really believe that it’s OK to copy all of any Bassnectar’s music, even the tracks that he’s charging for, then go ahead and get in touch with him and have the courage to tell him what you’re doing and why you think it’s OK and see what Lorin has to say.
[ link ]Producers don’t respect other producers. We love unauthorized remixes. Isn’t that stealing? The original artist doesn’t want the song remixed or in that way, but everybody else does so find the sweet version, download, and to the decks we go! Even if the artist likes the remix it will still take too long to make the remix official and by the time it gets released the club’s attention will have shifted to the next hot track.
Knowledge/Awareness of music resources. If you know where to dig you can get legal high-quality downloads of great tracks for whatever you feel like paying. If you limit yourself to iTunes, Beatport, etc. you have to pay to play and your style is somewhat limited too.
Closing thought: what if it’s actually sustainable now? I think the number of artists making music has been and will continue to increase. Small innovative music acts can gain exposure easily and the proliferation of quality touring/working (and thus getting paid) musicians is tremendous because of this. While it is unfair for legitimate producers to have their hard work stolen the trade-off is that they get to penetrate more markets to greater depth than they could have without the internet.
[ link ]I too am also old enough to remember vinyl, then CDs, then digital. I’ve also been through the “spending all your money on physical music” phase, the “ain’t piracy great!” phase and the “let’s pay the producers and keep our scene sustainable” phase. However I disagree that this is the current ideology.
For the past 5 years, underground music producers have accepted the decline of record sales, the pitiful margins from digital sales and have instead turned to making revenues from touring. This has been made even easier by the high volume of simple midi controllers, and DAW’s like Ableton enabling producer-cum-DJ’s to create a compelling ‘live’ show.
Unfortunately piracy is only going to increase with younger generations increasingly more adept at sourcing the latest tracks via torrents/blogs/zippyshare etc. Rather than complain about the state of the nation, artists should embrace the change and channel their efforts into making money in new ways.
Take a look at artists like Bassnectar or Nicky Romero, heavily pirated on the internet, they’ll be able to sell out 10000 capacity venues on tours all across the US & Europe – all through public appeal and marketing (much of this stemmed from illegal downloads & virality). If you asked their accountants, I would imagine 90%+ of their revenue comes from touring and associated merchandise sales. Grumpy old men need to stop complaining and start accepting the industry has changed, this is the world we live in, and if you can’t adapt, then you won’t survive…
[ link ]I am sure there are a lot of enthusiastic young producers as well as “grumpy old men” who would disagree with you! But that’s why I’m asking. So are you saying you happily steal your music?
[ link ]I think ultimately the point and premise of my response is that the question you ask is largely irrelevant…
Irrespective of whether or not it is ‘OK’ to steal music, digital piracy will continue, and it will continue to increase. The question we should ask therefore is not ‘is it OK?’, but instead, what can we do as DJ’s and producers, now this is the new normal. Hence my comment on producers now making their revenue through touring. If anyone can suggest a way to change this, there’s a lot or record labels that’d pay millions for their advice!!
[ link ]I would actually love to see something I produced actually go on a torrent. If people are “stealing” my song that would be totally fine by me, because that would mean they’re actually listening, and when that happens your name starts to gain traction and you start to get gigs. As a producer, the only kind of stealing I’m not ok with is someone claiming my track as theirs and profiting from it.
Music is a form of art, and money does not have to be the primary motivation for it to exist. Are we forgetting the street artists that make no money at all from their murals? Or the dancers that simply want to be seen? Some people make music because they can’t help it, so don’t worry, your precious music producers will still exist even if they’re (gasp!) not getting paid $2.49 every time someone wants to have a copy of their song.
For exactly how long in the span of human history have musicians actually been getting paid multiple times over for the same recording? Or how about this, how long ago was recorded audio invented? Gee whiz, how in the world was music created and proliferated before then? It’s only very recently (relative to human existence) that copyright law has even existed. Heck, digital audio is brand spanking new, and there was never a time when people were accustomed to purchasing digital music (unlike vinyl), it started off as a peer to peer download, THEN after trying very hard to sue their customers, the RIAA FINALLY caught on and sought to make money from digital media. “Oh gee, maybe sueing the pants off a poor immigrant single mother for sharing 3 songs wasn’t the message we wanted to put out there.” (that’s a true story by the way) The music industry, being the stubborn beast that it is, didn’t take digital music seriously, and instead of introducing it to the world, it let Napster do it for them. So if people are used to downloading mp3s, it’s simply because it’s a learned behavior, and those who feel too guilty about not paying for their tracks will be the ones to buy, and frequently, be the ones to shame those who don’t in an effort to justify their purchases.
[ link ]It’s a common feeling, and understandable. But maybe when you were on your 10th release, and and were relying on your music-making to make you a living, you’ feel a bit differently?
[ link ]I don’t see how what you just said refutes any of what I said, my point remains that music can still exist without a motivation for money, regardless if there are artists out there that rely on it for money (so therefore, if you were to hypothetically erase the ‘pay per song’ logic from history, there would still be music to DJ with). And why does the number of releases matter (again, let’s go back in history before there existed ‘releases’ and I can ask you again if music still existed)? Again you’re assuming the modern, commercialized channels of exposure.
[ link ]I don’t think it’s ever OK. The artist has spent a lot of time, sweat and creativity on that tune, and the $1.50 or $2 they ask as payment is really paltry compared to that. Sure, you may say that they don’t make money selling music, and that you’ll support them by buying merchandise or seeing them live, but that’s irrelevant. Buying music has more impacts than profit for the artist. One, if a release hits the charts on Beatport etc, it can gain the artist a whole new audience of people who wouldn’t have found it otherwise. Two, the fact that people are going to the effort of buying a song signals to the artist that people really like and value their efforts. If you want to encourage your favourite producer to keep making tunes, buy it! Nothing says “Keep going” like thousands of people around the world spending money on your song.
That said, the one time I think piracy is morally excusable is when you cannot legally buy the tune you want to. There is nothing more frustrating than getting to the checkout and being informed “Sorry, this song is not available in your region.” I want to legally buy your song, I’ve spent some time looking through online stores for it, but if there is literally no way of purchasing it, fuck it, I’m downloading it.
[ link ]That “not available in your region” part is something the music industry really does have to address.
[ link ]My problems are similar to the “region” issue. Mine are that my niche is 80s club tunes – and not the commericial/pop junk 80s. It’s New Beat and similar rare tunes and I can’t legally buy them digitally 95% of the time because they aren’t available for sale anywhere. Most of it is out-of-print and vinyl only and most don’t give up those vinyls. So, my only choice is to find other 80s collectors who have made vinyl rips of the tunes.
[ link ]P.S. – I also came from the days of vinyl, then CD (even tape on occassion when needed LOL) and spent many hours and $$$’s on music.
[ link ]I hear and read the justifications for stealing every time the subject comes up. The only thing that will convince these people that their arguments are worthless is standing in court before a judge, explaining why they have a half a million dollars in music on their hard drive (assuming a value of .99 per song) while they are making $10 an hour at Burger King.
Maybe we will have to get them the old fashioned way, like Al Capone. Instead of trying to convict them of the theft of a half million dollars of illegally obtained music, charge them with failure to report the acquisition to the IRS. Tax Fraud.
One of the things these thieves fail to recognize when they complain about the ‘dog-eat-dog’ DJ world, is their own contribution to that state of affairs. When they come into the market and offer bottom basement prices because they have virtually zero overhead, they are creating the environment they cite as the reason for stealing. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up, in this case it is true. It is also illegal. Unfair competition is a crime in most states. I am waiting for the day some legal DJ (or group of DJs) will go after the thieves who are stealing their livelihood by suing them in court.
If there are any record companies that would like to offer their legal resources, there might be some DJs who would take them up on the offer. Nothing is going to change until people start going to jail or losing their shirts.
[ link ]They tried that and it has failed completely.
This video will nicely explain how you’re view is ridiculous in a humorous way.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
[ link ]stealing is not making an ilegal copy
[ link ]when you steal you are taking the value away when you make an ilegal copy you are not paying, but the value remains
OK, but logically if everyone steals a copy, the value was zero in the first place. So therefore you’re saying all music is worthless, so nobody should pay for it?
[ link ]no that’s not what i meant to say
[ link ]That doesn’t hold water on a number of levels. First, tell that to the judge and see if he says ‘OK. My mistake. All charges dropped’ –
Second there is a concept called ‘dilution’. I made 2 million copies of my song and I value them at $1 each. The value of the 2 million songs is 2 million dollars. But wait, you and all your thief friends made a half million copies and passed them around.
Now instead of each song being worth $1, each song is now worth 80 cents. You have diluted the value of my property. That is stealing.
And you think if you make a copy, and transfer it to someone else, it is OK because you have not stolen a CD off the shelf of Best Buy. It is just a safer way to steal because there are no guards looking over your shoulder (you hope)
[ link ]I think what you are getting hung up on is that theft is not the same as copyright infringement. Theft is a crime punishable by fines and or jailtime, while copyright infringement is a civil matter.
I don’t want to sound like I pirate a bunch of music here, so I will state in advance that I purchase my music, but some of the uninformed attitudes regarding this topic really need to be straightened out if we are ever going to get this back to a workable business model.
[ link ]im not defending piracy, just making my legal point of view. Add another thing to debate: when someone puts a record on youtube saying that is just to promote the artist, it’s stealing? or copyright infrigeament? (sorry about my english)
[ link ]youTube has mechanisms in place to monetise such things (most countries) or just removes them (Germany), so YouTube is actually regulated.
[ link ]“First, tell that to the judge and see if he says ‘OK. My mistake. All charges dropped’”
[ link ]of stealing yes, copyright infregeamente NO!
While I agree that piracy is 100% wrong, I can reverse your example:
You created 2 million copies of your song and you value them at $1 each. The value of the 2 million songs is 2 million dollars that all goes well and end up to your bank account. But wait, your sales go extremely well (you sold out) and now you decide to “create” another 2 million digital copies of your song, which literally cost nothing to you (mind you that the initial production cost has been covered by the first 2 million batch release) and you still sell at $1 per song.
Now my copy of your song instead of being worth $1, will worth 50 cents!
But I paid $1 for it!!!
What I want to say is that your argument can’t stand in this debate.
I am against piracy 100% but I’m also against the “un-regulated” profit a product can have without counting the loyal end user WHO ACTUALLY PAID for it…
Your approach here is similar to a stock market model, but in the stock market when new stocks are going to be released the value of the existing stocks adjusts seamingly. Plus, existing stock holders have the chance to earn something from the new stock release!
If you are an artist that creates a digital product then this digital product “should” obey to some rules. You can’t just create countless copies of your product (with zero costs) and still bill it at the same price…
[ link ]Yes you should plan that with a batch of copies you should make your expences plus profit, but you can’t keep rolling out batches just for profit at the same price…
Why not? Let’s say there is a cost. Let’s say it’s actually a physical product and it costs $0.50 for each unit (it’s just an example). That means for every sale, it costs you $0.50, so you make $0.50, not $1. At what point do you start selling for $0.50 instead fo $1? Because your argument says at some point, you have to do that.
[ link ]But that’s the point… It’s not a physical product! A physical product will always have some cost to be produced, and based on that cost it will have a price that covers it’s production cost plus some legit profit as a percentage % of this cost.
On your example a “physical” track (if it would exist) it would cost $0.5 to be produced +100% profit = $1 end user price.(which BTW in terms of physical products is a damn good profit)
All I’m trying to say is that the above argument (that of ‘dilution’) can’t stand here since it can be reversed.
I’m 100% to pay the loyalties to the artsists/composers/e.t.c. How much this loyalties should be is another topic though!
And in order to anwser your question clearly, a “digital” track should have it’s price reduced once it’s sales cover the production cost plus a legit profit. (Put whatever amount from 20% to 100% you wish here)
A typical example:
Producer A needs $2000 to produce a track. Now if we put a legit 100% profit from this track, the track should be sold for $1 until it reaches 4000 sales. Afterwards it would have to lower it’s price to a merit 25% for the rest of it’s life as a product IMHO.
Physical products market follows the rules of Supply & Demand. However these rules don’t apply on non-physical products. That’s another thing to consider here. Music industry (not independed artists) try to use these rules by releasing some tracks on radio stations as promos while at the same time they delay the release on the “digital” stores in order to increase the “demand” so that they can sell the track on higher prices!
[ link ]Of course once the track gets finally released, the users will respond by increasing it’s supply through file sharing services (Torrents e.t.c.)
I’m not saying I’m ok with that, but that’s how it currently works.
And since the “producer” can produce copies at will with no costs at all in a 100% fully legal market (one ideal world that no piracy would exist) he could “regulate” the supply as he seems fit in order to always produce superprofits.
Back in the Napster days (i.e., 1999-2001), filesharing was kind of a victimless crime for me as a DJ.
Spinning with MP3s wasn’t possible. YouTube didn’t exist. Internet bandwidth was too low to allow for effective audio streaming. So, you may have d/l-ed a bunch of MP3s but you still visited record stores 1-2 times a week to buy the stuff you liked on vinyl. MP3 was merely a way to pre-listen, share, and to get some audio on your computer so you didn’t have to put on a record.
But MP3 wasn’t advanced enough at that time, not even for home listening. Codecs/encoders were *really* bad back then, bitrates were low, and incomplete/corrupt files were common on Naptster. Effectively, as a music lover, you didn’t just buy vinyl to spin, you might have also bought CDs for home listening due to their superior sound quality.
Bottom line: back then, I didn’t feel it hurts anybody when I illegally downloaded an MP3.
However, today is different–for obvious reasons. First, most stuff can be purchased online at reasonable cost. And the tracks which aren’t available as a legal download are typically easy enough to obtain legally as a physical medium. There’s a gazillion of online vendors of both new and used vinyl and CDs. That’s another thing which didn’t exist back in the day.
[ link ]You are 100% right. Good stuff man.
[ link ]well i think if i buy a track i think its ok to share it with my friends or whatever.. :/ i know i give my music and the music on my label after some time i give it out for free with the licence to share
so no problems there 
[ link ]That is not your decision to make though. It’s still stealing.
[ link ]Stealing Is NEWER OK!
I call my self a PRO DJ.
I did’t steal my MacBook pro, Vestax Vci-400, my first phonic mixer or my first 1200 or not my 7” and 12¨¨ vinylcollection.
I pay, everymonth about €180 from different promoservices.
DMC, CD pool, X-mix. Ultimix and TrackIT down (tidpro).
I have done about 1800 gigs. From the beginning i spet a lot mor money on music than I get payed. Bet Is all about an investment.
In this digital era is far to easy to call yourself a dj.
Ure not a dj beacuse of tons of digitaltunes.
This is one reason why many serius Djs are underpayed..
Not a problem in the bigger clubscenes. but I think 90% of all djing Is in smaller places. Smalltown clubs, bars , parties, weddings, mobilscene..
I’ve done them all….
-do you even steal your gear???
-”if you can’t afford a guitar and can’t sing.. u aren’t gonna be a rockstar”(by me)
Plaing in public with stolen music Is a crime and a betrade agins othe Dj..
It’far to esy
[ link ]You are a legend man. That is the attitude that will keep the scene alive!
[ link ]by this point of view, everyone is stealing doing demo tapes and put them to free download without paying royalties. Ok it’s a non comercial thing, but indirectly you are promotion yourself with intentions to get paid in the next gig…
[ link ]I don’t see it that way because you’re showcasing your skills to get gigs, and presumably you bought the music on your mixes in the first place…
[ link ]I personally buy most of my music…
[ link ]Hardstyle dot com
This isn’t a topic that will ever be debated away. There are those people out there who will never budge on releasing tracks for free and there are those who will not pay for music. You can argue that an artist wanting every last cent they can get is being capitalistic and you can argue that there really should be a way that the artists get paid, but you’ll never resolve it and I’m pretty sure Phil knew this when he posted the article.
I’ve dropped nearly $40,000 on music in my life and a lot of that was replacing CDs that got stolen while I was playing at shows, from my car or from my house (borrowed and never returned). I can’t honestly say that I’ve earned the money back on all those CDs (yet) nor paid off my DJ gear with what I’ve earned and I imagine there are a lot of other DJs out there that the music industry basically milks for cash.
Proposal: I honestly believe that a DJ adds value to an artist’s song when they choose a song made by the artist in their play list (they are part of the advertising chain). So noting this, I believe it might be fair for DJs to not have to pay to receive digital copies of songs (to determine when/if they’ll play songs) but when they play the songs in public (or streaming, but not in a bedroom during a practice session), the artists should get paid… at least a portion of what the DJ made. I honestly don’t see a problem with this as most DJ programs have history and I think both DJs and Artists alike can get behind this.
[ link ]I agree completely that DJs are promoting music by playing it, and that there is an argument for them to have “promo” copies. Indeed, there are a number of very well established services doing just that, with DJs required to feed back reactions to tunes. But I guess what I’m saying it is it up to the artist to decide if they want to offer tracks this way, and whom to, and the fact that this happens doesn’t mean everyone else can just take them anyway.
[ link ]Well while we are at it how about the ubundance of record pools out there? Would that be considered stealing since you are paying a monthly subscription? Though I have paid for all of my music I have thought about joining one but would I be getting my self in trouble?
[ link ]No, not if they agreements in place with the rights owners.
[ link ]…but then again, the Artists should also thank the DJ in some appreciable manner for playing the songs they did. Let’s remember that exhange is a two-way street and just because you make something doesn’t mean all the profits are yours… there are things called infrastructure and logistics… the song doesn’t sell itself, it requires packaging, distribution, promotion etc. Why should the artist get all the money for work other people did?
[ link ]Firstly, you should be getting paid for your DJ gigs, that’s where your money comes from – simple.
Secondly, you raised a point about promotion and exposure buy playing an artists tracks. If you post every single tracklist of every set you play, announce the name of every track over the mic etc then maybe you are creating awareness, but no one does that. Secondly, have you ever submitted a playlist to a performing rights association (eg GEMA in Germany, APRA in Australasia, PRS in other places, etc)? Artists are paid if they are a member and someone plays their music.
These things would cost you nothing but time and would actually create some benefit for the artist. But no one can be bothered. It’s easier to just steal it and forget about it and block out the person whose livelihood they are effecting.
[ link ]“announce the name of every track over the mic etc then maybe you are creating awareness”…
Are you kidding? I don’t have to. Do you realize how many people pull out there phones with Shazam or the Sound Hound app while I am playing. AND THEN click the link to buy the mp3!!
[ link ]Not trying to condone stealing but my issue with the digital music model is that it’s a bigger rip off than the physical model. For example back in the day a CD w/ 12 tracks would cost around $12, or $1 per track. That $1 included the music, along with large cost components for physical pressing, packaging, logistics & distribution, etc. With digital all those “other” costs go away & replaced with much much smaller costs needed to support that digital model (web support, servers, etc). So how is it a track is $1.29, i.e. more than physical media? Really people are just being fooled by great price point marketing because since you don’t have to buy a full album you don’t mentally recognize that you’re getting a worse deal than before.
Am I the only person that wondered about the pricing for digital tracks?
[ link ]Thanks for highlighting this. I bought a track yesterday from 2006 and it cost me £3 ($4.50/€4). Extremely excessive.
[ link ]Not an expert, as funny as it sounds, but like you said I really think that it could have to do with the fact that albums are not sold anymore (in large quantities), so the industry has adjusted the pricing model towards making profit off of single tracks, which indeed doesn’t look too bad at a buck a song for eg. As a DJ buying music I’d rather pay a buck a version that I want, than have to buy a vinyl or CD single with all the versions that I don’t need. That said, I’m sad that album as a format is less significant these days, and I don’t mean from financial point of view, but artistic and listener.
[ link ]I am completely in agreement with you here.
Phil and other people will likely come back with the argument that it is much cheaper than getting those deep cuts and import vinyls back in the day.
To a degree, I understand that.
I used to have to get albums from 4AD artists like Bauhaus and more obscure music like Death In June/Coil/The Legendary Pink Dots on CD for outrageous import prices from the UK and Netherlands.
Usually what would happen is one of us in the community would get the vinyl or CD and happily make copies for our friends.
Was that stealing? Would I have paid money to see Coil do a live show where I live, a T shirt, and anything they had at the merch table? You bet your sweet ass.
But for Beatport to sell me a bill of goods and tell me that I can buy a deep mix for 3 bucks a pop with a straight face? Bullshit.
I happily support artists. But refuse to buy from Beatport on principle. It makes Itunes seem like a genuine bargain, gestapo file restrictions and all.
[ link ]Not taking any digital stores side, our label uses most of the big ones, but have you noticed that Audiojelly now sells everything at a buck per track, WAVs, too? I don’t know if they have all BP for eg. does, but at least the distribution we use services all the main dance music stores, BP & AJ being 2 of them.
[ link ]I ventured into online legal mp3 sales back in 2005, & I’m happy to sketch the costs involved. I’m from Australia, & the business is Quarterpipe Records. We sell 320kps mp3 for Au $1.50
Our costs for digital distro breakdown as follows :
Artist royalty is 50c (legal requirement is about 14% of sale price here – but we try to be the ‘good guys’ & support our artists)
Credit card transaction fees are a sliding scale in proportion with the sale price – I think it’s about 36c for $1.50, then maybe about $2 for a sale of $15 and so on…
So from the remainder we have to rent server space, connection costs, maintain a web presence (domain registration), shopping cart etc etc and then make a profit too. So it’s not as sweet as you might imagine.
Having said all that I think the Beaport pricing for the upgraded files is a bit greedy. Ok so the files will be 4 or 5 times larger. I’m pretty certain the only cost to increase there would be server space. So that’s where Beatport are taking advantage IMHO.
[ link ]Lets start with the high speed dubbing era of cassette tapes.(this was the start of file sharing).Most people would go and buy a new cassette and would make a copy for a friend or friends ….we all did it back in the 80′s and 90′s but the record companys never never went after the manufactures of the high speed dubbing cassette decks or maxell for selling the blanks.Casey Kasem was our source for music with his top 40 countdown every sunday with blank cassetts in hand.(the start of the mixtape) then these where passed out to all our friends.
The start of free music by recording artists
and the number one touring band at the time was the grateful dead making millions off of merchandise and live concerts all while allowing taping of the shows for trade.Once in a while you got your hands on the holy grail dan healy sound board recording.
All these where traded freely.Never making a dime on records but found other ways to make income. They started the generation of tape friendly bands which continues today AKA archive.org live music archive and bt.etree and still continues with Pretty lights and other BPM artists today.
Used records where given away or where a dime a dozen at this time(literly 12 alblums for a $1)at garage sales,salvation army or other used item shops or they where passed down by generations of older brothers and family friends. Dj’s would still buy that rare recording or remix from their local shop keeping the music industry busy.
Next comes the napster age of music that changed the world.
No longer where we tied to records and cassetts that broke or were eaten by our decks thus making us go get new copys from the record store.Digital copys where here to stay making backups also did not entail grabbing a new copy from the record store.This started the death of the record shop !
We where also changing over to Cd’s at this time which was the new media and for me making mp3 disks that could hold half a record collection on a single disk instead of hauling around cassett boxes in the back of the car made my life enjoyable.Still at this time we where all still making that mix cd for our friends.
Because Napster and the internet was availiable to everyone (the birth of the mp3 player which took over the medium for holding music)their was no stopping this out of control train the record industry and the artists panicked because pandora’s box was now open and copys that where done on a small scale where now being traded by millions.This all came so quick and took them by surprise.
So where are we today…. record companys are no longer needed to make or distribute music,radio stations are now also not needed to hear new music and we have billions of choices.Pandora’s box is now pandora and we can now listen to anything we want and not pay for it.
I’m not endorsing illigal music downloading but with all the changes the train is still hauling ass and we have no way of stopping it.Anyone can Dj a party or just play pandora through a speaker with access to any song they want now.
Artists need to Adapt and change because making records is no longer the way to make $$ and bands that distrubute music for free are making millions while others cry poverty because records didnt sell.
Getting the music in the hands of the fans will make them a friend for life and will come back two fold in support by mechandise and live shows.I believe music tracks will eventually be givin out for free with the lossless sold within the DJ community.The napster generation is now your community leaders and polititions and have that mindset we are never going back to the days of the record shop.
[ link ]They were always proposing a tax on blank cassette sales though!
You actually agree with me: “I believe music tracks will eventually be givin out for free with the lossless sold within the DJ community.”. I’m arguing primarily DJs should be paying not stealing, unless the music is given to them with artist/label permission.
[ link ](I’m arguing primarily DJs should be paying not stealing, unless the music is given to them with artist/label permission)
We used to resell our old alblums,cassetts,8 tracks as used after making copys or maybe even gave them away.never a crime to buy a used record so why now…. I have my connections to getting used music its just in MP3 and loseless formatt now instead of physical ownership.
Ok phil lets take someone who gets tracks his/her tracks from promo pay site say they also pay for tracks direct from itunes or grabs some good remixes and mashups.
Now say this so person you become friends with and has a online site or blog and shares his record collection. he hosts it on a site to share with his friends.(need to subscribe to get access to tracks )
So going back to the old days of trading I grab the tracks from him am I illegally downloading music or trading like the old days of reel to reel, cassetts, Cd’s….. it hasnt changed its just out in the open now and they have termed it illegal downloading when it can just be tracked now and is more blatent.
I grew up in the trader community of music… barter is a reconized payment so say I have a great remix track (artist 1) I paid for it I’ll trade you for one of your tracks You bought (artist 2) i’ll host mine in the cloud and give you access to it (web address) and you can email me your track.My question to you is Are we now illegally downloading music or just trading.
Say I dont want your track and just give you mine what is it called then……….
If we are trading which I believe we are what if I do this with 100 people or 1000 where is the bar set that im now illegally distributing music or illegally downloading it.
[ link ]A producer (forgot who it was but I think it was Gramatik) once said that “your popularity shows by the number of people that are seeding torrents with your music”. I still think it’s cool to buy music especialy if you DJ with it, but artist, except for greedy ones, don’t really care, because if their music is good and popular they will get bookings and most of the income comes from bookings. Also statistics show that with the growth of piracy, the revenues from music (as well as films, books etc.) are still getting bigger. So that being said, I think piracy is great.
[ link ]Well, at least you argued your point well enough. But there’s a flaw: If revenues from music are rising, someone’s buying it. Why do you think you’re exempt?
[ link ]The more popular the artist the more they sell and the more they are pirated. Likewise the least poular artists/tracks are the least pirated. Some will buy, some will download without labels (artist only gets 10%). It’s up to the individual, whatever suits them.
[ link ]I think everything should be free, money is completely unecessary…
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
If I throw parties, I will do it for free, invite only, I do it only for the love of it…
Amateur – French, from Latin amtor, lover, from amre, to love
Why am I exempt? I’m not actually. This world is just full of wonderful music and I don’t nearly have enough money to buy it all of it. Maybe the people who buy music don’t know that with paying for the music they don’t really support the artist much, because the artist are covered with concert fees. Even the big DJs get most tracks, if not all, from promos or they get the tracks sent by their DJ/producer friends so they don’t pay anything even if they have loads of money to buy it from the stores. So if the music is made to be heard, why the big fuss about having to pay for it. I would actually pay for a CD with the album art, lyrics and stuff and if it was handed to me by the artist (or I don’t know from an employe from his independent label), because I would genuienly feel I contributed to the artist’s will to make more.
[ link ]Most people who make tracks don’t play concerts. They get money when you buy them. Or don’t get money when you don’t. “Maybe the people who buy music don’t know that with paying for the music they don’t really support the artist much, because the artist are covered with concert fees” is an assumption you make to justify taking for free, in my opinion.
[ link ]Most people? Really? I’m almost positive no artist whose music I download doesn’t do concerts and there are a lot of them on my disc. I don’t get why anyone would only produce to make money and not perform. In my view making music is to satisfy your need to create, make other people who listen to your music happy and why not making them even more happy by not making them pay for it. In this times, when many people download music for free (and this isn’t going to change), I can’t imagine how one can survive by only producing music. If Prydz, who’s afraid of planes, can do it, so should anybody else. At least that’s my view I’m not saying I’m right and anybody else who doesn’t agree with me is wrong.
[ link ]“This world is just full of wonderful music and I don’t nearly have enough money to buy it all of it.”
And this quote demonstrates the problem with the current “entitled” generation. You don’t automatically have a right to have everything you want. If you can’t afford every track you want then you don’t get every track you want.
[ link ]Although it’s not massively helpful to write off a whole generation of people because of this kind of content – there are plenty of young music buyers and plenty of old pirates!
[ link ]So in other words, music should be the luxury only the rich can afford? Nice.
I don’t see anyone converting me from my supposedly “wrong and evil ways” but I still enjoy thinking about it, especially as I have a philosophy class in school. Stealing is just a question about ethics and what I learned from philosophy is that you can’t really say who’s right or wrong or what is the ultimate truth. So thank you Phill and others for the discussion. Let me throw in a little praise for this great site with lots of insights and first-hand advice. Thank you. 
[ link ]Thats for the kind words, if philosophy clears your conscience when you steal something, that’s your call, but it’s still stealing.
[ link ]No it’s never OK to steal, especially if you’re going to use the music as a tool to entertain and get paid.
Fraud is fraud!
[ link ]Amen brother!
[ link ]Not to say I agree with downloading pirate music and the rest of it. But…
If I made a track and it ended up popular enough to find on a big torrent website I would be absolutely over the moon. That means people all around the world are listening to my music and not just because they bumped into it somehow on Beatport. They actually went on the internet and typed my name into a search engine specifically to find me. This may just come from lack of experience but if my music can bring pleasure to that many people I have completed my main goal as a musician. Forget the money. The amount of bookings you would get from having tracks that popular wouldn’t exactly leave you short of cash anyway.
In a way its almost good things are like this. The music industry has been pushed into focussing more on live performance than selling CDs. Probably one of the reasons the DJ industry is booming at the moment. This can only be a good thing.
[ link ]Do you write and release music?
[ link ]I buy my music to support any artist I enjoy listening to or perform, period. I also buy the music I would like to perform to ensure they are of the best quality sampling – too many torrents and blogs post their audio as “320″ or greater, but when the audio is downloaded and analyzed more often than not the sample rates or bit rates are not accurate, files that were 192 kbps converted up to look as though they were 320! Instead of hunting around for hours trying to find the perfect download from a bunch of dodgy sites with popup banners, and cumbersome advertisements I’d rather download it from beatport or junodownload, be done with it, and move on to the next track I am looking for. The only time I would steal a track would be if a track released elsewhere in the world but not available in here. Or maybe if an artist makes an exclusive but doesn’t release the track after almost year of playing it out on radio stations and internet broadcasts. Once it’s uploaded to the net via any medium, it’s ripped and copped – might as well make it a legit release and make some money off of it, otherwise you give your fans no choice but consume your product by illegal means.
[ link ]Good stuff man. Awesome attitude to have.
[ link ]A straight answer should be No, No and No.
Faceless crime will always be difficult to stamp out.
[ link ]Hi Phil,
first, i align with you stating piracy is something that always has been around. It actually happened/happens/will happen in many fields and for sure was/is/will be not limited to music only.
[ link ]I have to admit i’ve been in the same phases as you: Be it taping from radio broadcasts (where i always failed to press ‘record’ on time, so i missed the start of many great songs hahaha), to Napster and torrents and the like.
Thing is that some time ago i switched completely to pay sites like itunes/beatport and what do you have.
Reasons for this is the convenience i get (easy to find), the kind of guaranteed quality materials to download and space management (through icloud, (re-)downloads to multiple devices etc).
Next to that, paying artists just feels better…
Love it man, it does feel good!
[ link ]Making money off songs its just not the way to go anymore. Use the mp3s for publicity for your shows, and giving them away a la Bass Nectar. Live shows is where the money is at right now , theres no use trying to go to an outdated model, that doesnt work anymore.
[ link ]Do you produce music?
How long does it take you to finish a track?
How many shows do you play per month?
How much do you charge per show?
Do you rely solely on this money to live?
Are you dreaming?
Bassnectar is the exception, not the rule.
[ link ]Not every songwriter or producer tours. Ever. By choice, for whatever reason. They just need to accept that if they’re not touring and selling merch, their music is free for everyone to grab, as they only have their songwriting talent & desire, but no interest or possibility to perform live themselves?
[ link ]Real Darude?
Huge fan!
[ link ]1. I don’t steal, it’s just wrong.
2. With Twitter and Facebook, There is no excuse to not ask and purchase from the site directed to by the Artist.
3. Putting money in the hands of the Artist ensures they will be around to conitnue producing the tunes we love.
4. Is Piracy about the money or the distribution channels?
5. In the granular world that is being scuplted by technology, can we assume that the measures of success also have to change? Meaning, what is a valid price for a track? iTunes thinks that it is a dollar. Beatport says 3.00 or there about. That is counter-intuitive to the logic that DIY and Self publishing should be lowering costs. Price is set by the market, whatever we tolerate. I do not believe that theft is added into the costing equation.
So again, I do not steal becauase I believe it to be wrong, I simply don’t purchase unless I REALLY want it. For me, I just buy less music now.
Thanks for all you do at this site. It is a great place to come and read and exchange ideas with other similiarly minded people. Even if it is just similiarly minded when it comes to music.
[ link ]Awesome! Great attitude to have.
[ link ]I do agree that artists should be paid for their work as they’ve put time and effort into it, and I do generally now try and pay for music. However I still have an issue with the price of songs these days. While I do understand its far cheaper than vinyl days, as other users have rightly pointed out that was back when an actual physical product had to be produced. It cost money in printing and actually producing the vinyl however in the digital age once a song is made, that can essentially be infinitely reproduced at no additional cost, meaning the cost should be far lower. However if I want to buy a lossless file from say beatport, prices start from around£1.29 (EXCLUDING VAT!!!!) which isn’t much cheaper than people were paying for CDs. If I’m paying pretty much the same price as before, digital music doesn’t really seem like much of an advancement.
[ link ]For a standard dance (2 originals + 2 remixes) release the costs are as follows:
Remix Fees
Professional Mastering
Promotion (sending out to tastemaker DJ’s, radio stations, etc)
Administration (the running of the label)
Creative (Artwork, text etc for the release)
PR (getting blogs and/or magazines to review it)
Advertising (eg a banner ad on Resident Advisor)
Legal (the cost of contracts etc for artists and remixers)
Distribution (getting the music to the online stores)
Financial (the accounting of paying artists, distributors, tax, etc)
Probably loads more I’m missing too.
[ link ]Let’s not forget that many of the tracks released on Beatport are exclusive, and can’t be found anywhere else at the time of release. Exclusivity has always commanded a premium, and let’s face it, you don;t want to be playing the same tracks as everyone else, right?
[ link ]If you don’t respect the track enough to think it has any value, then why do you want it anyway? If the track is good, it has value to you, and therefore should be paid for in some way. I’m from the older generation as well so maybe I’m just a “grumpy old man” with my line of reasoning but I believe someone should be compensated for their blood, sweat and tears.
As far as the trading comments. We’ve all done that but it doesn’t make it right or legal. Making a copy and distributing it for or free or profit has always been illegal and just not prosecuted. “Trading” a file when you don’t give up the original file is not trading. It’s illegally distributing a copy. Selling an original into the used market and purchasing an original in the used market is perfectly legal as long as it is a legally purchased or acquired original copy.
I also disagree that we, as djs, provide a valuable marketing tool. The people that hear me play Interactive Noise are not going to go out and buy a bunch of Interactive Noise tracks unless they’re a dj. Most people will just wait to hear the next one I deem worthy of their listening pleasure. So Interactive Noise gets his money from me and I get my money from the venue who gets their money from the patrons. We all get paid and we’re all happy.
Respect the scene, respect the music, and respect your fellow djs and producers. We all have value and we all have bills to pay. Besides, most the people downloading torrents don’t listen to half the tracks they download. If you don’t have to give something up for it, i.e. money, your quality control goes down (another reason djs should stay away).
[ link ]If a producer or label want’s you to have their music for free they will give it out for free. If it is for sale digitally, they would prefer to receive the very meager sale price. IT IS NOT YOUR DECISION TO MAKE!
It is heartbreaking to have a new EP come out and see the hundreds of Google Alerts come streaming in for sites where my hard work is being given away for free, WITHOUT MY APPROVAL!
The “free promotion” argument doesn’t stand up either. Labels PAY GOOD MONEY to send promos to the tastemaker DJ’s that they want to have playing and promoting their music. It does nothing for them when you play the copy you stole at your friends house party. If you didn’t receive the promo email, then you HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED TO HAVE THE MUSIC FOR FREE!
Contrary to popular belief, it actually costs quite a bit of money for a label to release an EP. If they always lose money because no one buys their releases they will be forced to shut up shop. Most artists want to release music through labels; labels have a reputation, contacts, a distribution network, an identity and a sense of community. Not to mention all the gear the artist has paid for to actually write the music. IF YOU CONSTANTLY STEAL, THE MUSIC WILL NOT BE THERE.
At the end of the day, it’s not about money, it’s about respect. If you like the music, contribute a little bit back.
Please comment if you are an artist or label owner who does not condone people stealing their music.
[ link ]Dilby, word out of my mouth. 100%.
[ link ]My approach in this matter is plain and simple: If I like a song and if i would love to spin it, I buy it. Digital Music is VERY cheap nowadays…some of you guy remembering the vinyl days, buying the whole album but actually wanting just one song? Now the song is on only one click away.
[ link ]In my case its also a matter of respect. I want to support the artist I like. If I didn´t, who else would?
To me, there’s no point in stealing.
I look on blogs for new stuff to check out, and I honestly think the blogs have become blah.
I go on Beatport or Traxsource and I’ll quickly and easily add 10-20 tunes to my cart.
Yeah…I could then go on Soulseek or something to look for those tunes, but IMHO, it’s too much trouble.
PLUS…when you pay for stuff…you build the same inner scarcity we had in record shops. So rather than download 500 tunes that won’t mean much, you’ll whittle that long list to 20-25 tunes you really want.
That’s how you keep quality in your life and appreciate what you buy all the more.
[ link ]Pretty interesting to see all kinds of illogical justifications why stealing music is right.
[ link ]Then it should be easy for you to go and disprove them.
[ link ]if a producer gets paid only once upon the initial release we will end up with a system where only the guaranteed-big-sale-producers releasing strictly mainstream tracks. Look at whats happening with Hollywood. Every new movie is either a sequel or a remake by big name directors and actors. All the bestselling books are either LOTR or Twilight ripoffs while TV shows are infested with vampires zombies and reality shows. This shit is happening even though the creators get paid multiple times. Imagining what will happen if the creators gets paid only once upfront makes me shiver.
[ link ]Are you as passionate about people who make VHS tapes and VCRs being able to make a living as you are about people who make music? People don’t have “less respect” for VCRs now. The reason people who make VHS tapes and VCRs can’t make a living anymore is simply because the technology has allowed people to bypass these formats. Do you support the rights of VHS makers as passionately as you support the rights of producers, who are not able to make a living like they used to? The reason they can’t make a living like they used to is because the technology has allowed people to bypass buying music.
I’m curious to know if the people who are very passionate about producers getting paid for their work are also passionate about the labor rights of all workers. How much should your VCI-400 cost in a fair world? How much should the people who built it get paid by the hour? What about a Macbook Pro? Do you support the rights of the workers who built your Macbook Pro with the same passion that you support the labor rights of producers? Do you support the rights of those workers to get paid the same amount per hour that you expect a producer to get paid for their work? Do you support the rights of those workers to a fair minimum wage, as passionately as you support the rights of musicians (or anyone else) to be paid for their work? If this happened, Macbook Pros, and most current DJ gear, would obviously become completely unaffordable. Do producers, DJs, bloggers and anyone else involved in the music industry want this to happen? Or do they just wanna get paid and hope that the economic inequality of the world continues for their sake?
As I see it, we’re debating within the confines of a completely flawed system in the first place. It’s hard to take the conversation seriously when the idea of workers in our society being treated fairly is a complete joke. I agree 100% that producers should be paid a fair amount for every single piece of music that they want to be paid for. But I also think it’s delusional to have this conversation in a vacuum where the only variable is whether or not consumers pay or pirate. There’s a million things to talk about there, and we’re isolating the personal actions of individuals who just want some music. Why doesn’t the government subsidize musicians? Why are people resorting to the internet to sell their music, instead of selling it to their friends, family, neighborhood, at shows, etc? What is the artist who wants me to buy their music doing to compel me to buy it? Why put 100% of the responsibility and obligation on the individual downloader of songs instead of the distributor/maker of the torrents?
I’m at the point where I want to broaden the debate or not have it at all.
[ link ]well said… great point… where do we draw the line…
[ link ]I produce music and am just stepping from just free soundcloud downloads into the realm of actually doing it semi-professional.
Yes downloading music… we all have done it and we all will at some point and honestly you want to download some old track… go for it… the artists are dead or so rich they don’t need more money (i.e. beatles)
When it is a new track no matter who the artist is or how famous… pay him the respect that he worked and created this track you like by buying it even if it is for 10 cents. I t shows your appreciation and that you actually give this music a value and that is where this system lacks in the fact that music gets valued at 0.00 cents.
We work hard to create this so you can play it and that little bit of a Thank You should not be too much to ask. Especially if you have a gig and make money playing it there!
Just my 2 cents.
[ link ]People don’t buy things out of sympathy. Well…I guess some people do…
[ link ]I’d like to think that social mores regarding piracy are changing, and it looks as if the young generation (of which I am a part) is indeed beginning to lean that way:
(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/12122520595/why-mpaa-cant-win-hearts-minds-public-file-sharing-is-mainstream.shtml)
That being said there is an interesting dichotomy present in that piracy allows crowds to experience music that they quite possibly would have never heard before, and sometimes that can be life changing.
I don’t have any moral argument for piracy, nor do I think one exists. But I don’t believe it’s going away, nor do I believe the music industry is as close to being fixed (or fair to artists) as some may think.
[ link ]I am guided by three quotes:
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” – Leo Tolstoy
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” -Augustine of Hippo
“It takes less time to do a thing right than it does to explain why you did it wrong. ” – Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
I am a DJ from the old school of vinyl but just young enough to embrace the digital age. I have gone through the same spectrum – buy vinyl, download mp3′s and now purchase music.
I am also have 14 years as a senior sales and marketing professional for some of the world’s largest multinationals. I can tell you, despite anyone’s efforts to change people’s conscience – it won’t happen.
The opportunity lies in changing the model – subscription ala carte platforms, advertising supported streaming, and most importantly, other revenue streams for interested artistes, such as live streamed concerts and purchasing branded swag.
We can’t change people and trying to invest in policing is just too expensive and restrictive for genuine users. We need to let the model evolve. Look at hunters/fishermen “You’ll hunt your prey to extinction!”. They do it anyway. Solution – get them involved in releasing and protecting young prey. It’s starting to work in some parts of the world.
I don’t profess to have all the answers, but no matter how wrong stealing is, we won’t prevent it all, but technology allows us to change the game.
[ link ]There’s literally no reason to steal music anymore, with numerous EDM Blogs, soundcloud, DJ pools, and whatnot, it’s super easy to get free LEGAL high quality remixes, in many cases that are extremely close to the originals. As for the original mixes, there simply aren’t that many to need to keep up on because the same few songs stay popular for a while. You could easy spend $20 to $50 a month on the commercial stuff while keeping an eye on the legal free downloads and be kept plenty satisfied with music. Pirating is stupid.
[ link ]If those remixes are free, aren’t they bootlegs? And if that’s the case, you’re now talking about a fuzzy copyright issue (this site recommends doing bootleg remixes, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic). Either way, that only represents a very niche piece of the musical spectrum. And who’s saying people don’t download the legally free stuff? What point are you countering there?
Oh, and by the way, your presentation on a satisfactory level of music consumption is entirely subjective, do you really think what you just said is going to convince anyone to not pirate music? (Hmmm you mean just $20 -$50 a month can satisfy me, why you’re right, there really is no reason to download it for free)
And your last sentence is marvelously profound, I’m glad you threw that gem in. OH DARN, this guy thinks I’M STUPID! I better think twice about this whole downloading music thing!
[ link ]There are many aspects of the arguments in favour of illegal downloads that bug me, but what gets me the most is the sense of entitlement from some of those who make them.
It’s like these people think they’re born with the right to possess the product of someone else’s time, creativity, and effort. “It’s ok for me to torrent all these artists’ work because I can’t afford a couple bucks to pay for it myself.”
Yes, that’s right kids. You deserve to have it all handed to you on a plate.
[ link ]Yes, that’s right conservative adults, you can be as condescending as you want to the younger generation, after all, you’re entitled to it!
Really, you mean I can build a false sense of superiority simply by attributing any difference in opinion to an inflated sense of entitlement, and I don’t look bitter or presumptuous at all when I do that? That sounds great!
Ok, let’s step outside the bitter sarcasm game, and I want you to really think, are you really making a sound argument here? You say that people feel entitled to free music (actually you say they feel entitled to anything, but let’s not go there), but is that really the case (and how do you prove such a thing)? Also, what significance does a person’s attitude even have in the general trends of the ways in which music is distributed? Is all you’re really saying is that peoples’ counterarguments upset you? All you have to do is disprove them, really, lay your generational prejudices aside and simply answer back with a better counterargument.
[ link ]That said, there’s no doubt that the structure by which artists (musical, photographic and much more) are credited and rewarded for their work is in great need of structural change, just as the structure of the distribution of their work has changed.
[ link ]“To me, shows a total lack of respect for the artists and the scene, and the worst thing is, that these people aren’t just taking the tunes for personal use, they’re taking them to perform with (and presumably to therefore at some point get paid themselves)”
Allright. Then what is sampling for you? Do you think all the artists pay the original artists for their sounds? NEVER. No one could afford that. So isn’t that stealing too? Ins’t djing kind of similar? mixing two or more sources of sound and creating a unique piece of sound out of it?
“In the words of one such producer from the comments under the video: “I really hope that one day you decide to start producing yourself, and realise how it feels to see the music you worked so hard on, on a torrent.””
Then what do you think about GRAMATIK (https://www.facebook.com/gramatik?fref=ts).. he’s no unknown artist, has a lot of own HQ tracks and posts pirate bay links of his discography on facebook (just scroll down a bit on his page).
He fights for DIGITAL FREEDOM.. and he’s not alone.
Greets
[ link ]So someone who builds a work through the use of samples and a digital hoarder who steals 10,000 tunes via a torrent site are motivated by the same impulses and have the same morality? Not so sure about that.
[ link ]Don’t think so… I didn’t even compare them. Those thwo points were differnet questions:
1st: Is it ok that producers use samples of other people, mix them up and earn money buy that? (copy, transform, combine)
2nd: Why don’t you think listeners can decide themselves if they want to pay for the music they like and support their favouroite artists?
[ link ]Lets Agree to disagree… think personally think Paying for an original version is Crazy… artists , Record labels, ect. should be glad we (Djs) even play their joints at a club, Lounge, ect… at the end of the day I played a joint to 500+ , say out off those 500, 50 Decided to buy the single just because They heard it at the party and love it… in conclusion i would rather pay an underground producer making Club Edits Than pay Record Labels!
[ link ]I agree with Dj FeeNo… To an extent, we as DJ’s are doing free advertising by playing these songs at clubs, which lead to the greater public possibly buying the tracks.. maybe what should be considered, is that since a lot of DJ’s can use laptops for holding their tunes, and your laptop has the song name in it (pirated or not), that this name gets displayed in the club, so the crowd knows what it is, and now has the name to go and get it themselves, and it’s kinda like a disclaimer, like in Youtube, when people post mixes, and they list the song names to steer clear of being accused of copyright infringement…
[ link ]Question: Would I be wrong if I asked for some of my money back when I buy a digital track if it was something I bought already on a physical medium? I am paying for the same thing twice. Assuming of coarse I am not duplicating it. And speaking of which why am I limited to how many times I can download the same purchase? What if I reformat my computer and did NOT back up “my music” folder to an external hardrive because the agreement is not to do that. Again am I expected to pay for it again? Just food for thought if the shoe were on the other foot.
Too answer the question Phil – that is tuff. Even you are drawing lines when it is OK to make a mixtape. Who can determine the particulars. You are right each situation is unique and needs the individuals self honesty in its intent perhaps. Let’s be realistic. As soon as song is released to the public it is fair game. It is like leasing a car and the dealer expecting it to come back at the end of the lease in mint condition. That car is out there exposed and anything can happen just like a song released to the public.
ALSO – why didn’t the music industry take more precautions like the movie industry back in the napster days? I already know the answer to that question.
[ link ]I like cloud solutions -ie you buy a song and it’s kept in a cloud locker, and your copies are only ever local. That way you can’t accidentally “lose” it.
[ link ]Leaving aside the moral issues regarding stealing from artists who need to make a living, having to pay for your music is one of the best quality filters you can introduce to your track selection process.
[ link ]Yes! And that directly benefits your DJing – which is what we all want.
[ link ]If it is licensed, copyrighted, watermarked, has price tag on it, is intellectual property, was written, produced, remixed or performed by anyone else, it has a price and must be bought and used LEGALLY, especially if you are making money from someone else’s work.
My understanding is that Clubs and DJs should technically have an ASCAP or BMI license to play recorded music and restaurants should pay royalties to Radio stations for playing their programming in their establishments during business hours where customers are served in the US anyway.
I knwo a DJ who told me he was working in a New York nightclub a long time ago that was evacuated and shutdown with a legal order because they did not haveproper licensing and he was not even allowed to remove his personal equipment wihc wa in use at that moment. Is it worth that risk?
[ link ]First I would like to point out that we are all to blame for this mess, the consumer, the DJ, the record companies, the lawmakers, and finally the computer. We should all be in jail serving hard time.
I grew up from the era of records, big think chunky vinyl, with cool art on the cover, and have seen 8 tracks, reel to reels, CD’s, Digital Compact Cassette, Mini Disc, and finally the iPod become ‘The Format’, what I have noticed is complete degradation of quality with an increase in price for the same product.
Neil Young screamed murder when the CD was released and he was right, nothing compares to vinyl. It was a product worth having and cherishing. I didn’t have a lot of money when I began DJing, but I saved and sometimes did not eat, so I could have that 12″. In the end I made out ok, not having every song in the world. It allowed me to really focus on what I wanted to play as a DJ, because my resources were limited, my crate could only hold so many records, and my crib was only so big.
MP3′s are CRAP, they really are a poor excuse for sound and yet that is what we have become accustomed to. Whats worse is the music and the way it is forced down peoples throats. Any station in the world, especially in the US will play the same songs over and over because they have a relationship with the RIAA and in turn the Big Cats of the industry.
What most people don’t know is that most of these fat cats mortgaged the rights to their entire libraries(27,000 + songs) to banks like Bank of America for big loans so they could continue their G6 lifestyles. Except now they have these banks breathing down their necks talking about ‘where is my money?’. So the pressure to create is high, the pressure to sell is high, and what was once a work of art has literally become a product like buying a can of beans. This has a trickle down effect, people are not as dumb as they would believe.
On that note, no one ever thinks about the songs stolen from African American blues artists by cats like Elvis or Led Zeppelin. Every big Zeppelin hit was actually completely lifted from another song, if their albums were released today, their record company would be sued for every penny they had. These fortunes that run the industries today were built off of theft and piracy. So I say to the youth, download, steal, copy, paste, create, and share, because this is the model the big music industry cats have built. If you really like the artist, go to their show, buy a T shirt or a sticker even, that gives the artist more actual money in their pocket.
SO download, and continue to, until the Big Cats realize that it takes real talent, hard work and something worth holding that will cause people to buy, not manufactured reprocessed reconstituted pinto beans. An MP3 is intangible, sounds like crap and once downloaded can be shared as many times as they want. If the industry wants people to buy, then they must create something that is worth buying, worth holding on to, it has art work they can look at, stickers they can put on their lunch boxes, a video they can watch about the album being made, anything really.
In Japan, during the 90′s, a CD cost $40+, but that CD was better than any other version in the world, typically. It had extra songs, extra art, something different. The Unkle release by James Lavelle and DJ Shadow in Japan is now a collectors item, the CD is worth more than when it was released, because Japanese buy good products, period. and how could a little island like Japan be the 2nd biggest music market in the world, because the consumer has a high standard and the industry cats know that.
So finally, it really is up to people, DJ’s like you and me to decide what we will pay for and what we will download. I play on a beach, I play old school funk soul, Brazilian, Afrobeat, Hip Hop, Disco, Bollywood, Latin, Salsa, Moombahton, Jazz, with a little rock and 80′s mixed in. I buy the tracks I really like from Juno Download or Beatport because I live and work in a place where there are no Vinyl records and limited CD’s available. I buy this stuff because I want to see these producers make more of the same stuff so I have new funky groovy music to play and if I just rip it from Youtube, or download the torrent maybe that group will stop releasing because they aren’t making enough to live from their hard work. That being said, I do own a large collection of vinyl that I cannot have with me overseas. I have many white labels and rare releases that are completely unavailable to buy. In those cases I do download or rip from Youtube if I can find it, because I do own it, and I have paid for their work, why should I pay again and again, especially if its an MP3. Also I do not buy Top 40 if I have to play it for a gig, those songs have been hype-notised and played so many times on the radio that, like pavlov’s dog, people will respond like its the greatest song in the world. Unless the song is good and I like it then I will buy it. People forget that because of DJ’s like David Mancuso, DJ’s used to get the current top 40′s for free, as 12″ records. Because basically we are promotion tools for the song.
So basically all you young folks and young blood dj’s out their, you can download, go nuts, maybe you are poor as, use what you got to get what you want, right? Just remember that the more you download and the less you support the artists you like, the more crap music that will be pumped out of the Musical Industrial Complex, it is only your buying power that can change the industry we see today to something that it was really meant to be. Peeps making music they like for other peeps.
[ link ]One, I’d like to hear some of your mixes please!
Secondly, you’re saying music should be packaged to make it buyable, but I don’t necessarily agree with that. I don’t want packaging. I don’t want clutter. I want the artists to get some money when I play their digital music file. That’s why we’re so interested in alternative ways of remunerating artists in a digital age.
Thirdly, there’s a world of difference between fat cats and multinational conglomerates and the kid in his bedroom spending a summer making a world-changing dance track and putting it out there for sale. Why shouldn’t he get paid when people want to buy that track?
Modern digital distribution means artists can keep a massive amount of the money people pay for their tracks, bypassing labels entirely. If people pay, that is.
[ link ]A couple of thoughts:
Fortunately, the MP3 audio quality degradation issue is slowly but steadily declining, due to the availability of loss-less versions and inexpensive, high capacity, digital storage. As more DJs use loss-less files, the inferior sound quality of the compressed music will become more apparent and hopefully this will drive more DJs to turn to higher quality sources.
Re: Led Zeppelin plagiarism:
I can definitively settle one of the many Led Zep song stealing controversies: I knew Jake Holmes, who wrote and performed and recorded “Dazed & Confused” and I saw him perform it scores of times in NYC in the mid 60′s, long before Page & The Yardbirds came to NYC and heard Jake play it, when he opened for them at a show. Jake never got songwriting credit or a single penny from Page
, who has repeatedly lied about stealing it and made millions of $ from that track. I dare not write what I think of Page as a person but I’ll freely assert, that as a guitarist, he couldn’t even dream of carrying Jeff Beck’s dirty dishes 
.
[ link ]Love the story!
[ link ]I am not sure where I stand on this matter. First point, I am just over the generation of digital and there was a point in my life where I had to by CD’s, and I remember how expensive CD’s got. Jumping massively in price as the years went on. The worst part was, that most of the CD’s you would buy, would have 2-3 songs on it that you would actually want and the rest (which you are paying for) would be useless. I must say, that I feel there was a point when I felt that music labels and I suppose artists were charging to much for their music. I also feel that the exploitation from this is one of the contributing factors to the failure of music CD stores today, and why things like Napster came about… Another thing I recently discovered, is that when you buy songs from iTunes, you don’t actually own them, you actually more like lease them from iTunes. So if I was to die and in my will “give” my bought and paid for music collection to my family, then that makes them criminals, because it is not my music to give.. that’s not right..
But from a DJ perspective, the one problem that I have run into, is when asked to play a gig with music that you would never collect, let alone even buy. For example, you get asked to DJ a wedding, and you are expected to have music ranging from 80′s, 90′s, hip-hop, right up to current pop. Now my style of DJ’ing and the tunes that get me bumping are in none of these styles and as of a result, I have no idea on names of songs or artists but now I have to get songs together to play to pull off my gig. Where do I even begin? How easy is it, for me to go to a torrent site, type in best of 80′s.. and boom.. all my problems solved… the next thing, if I was to decide to pay for these songs, when I am expected to play for 4-6 hours (‘cos it’s a freaking wedding), then how am I to afford that many songs… even if songs are going at 99 cents per song, get 500 songs and I will have to fork out 500 bucks that I don’t have. My controller doesn’t even cost that much… and as it stand, if I had to pay for even half of my current collection, I would be bankrupt.. I say it is not possible to have the amount of tunes needed to be a DJ and have paid for every single song…
[ link ]A question I have… does it not work like this, that when you buy a song, you pay to have it, for your own personal enjoyment, but using it in a gig where you get paid is still illegal? So you own it, but you can’t make money from it?
Some different examples would be, buying a DVD movie and then renting it out. I know that their are disclaimers in the beginning of movies, where you cannot rent out your copy. Or buying a game legally and then renting it out. Is it not the same as buying legal music and then playing it at a gig? Naturally I acknowledge that DVD rental franchise companies buy a license to do so, but we as amateur and semi-pro DJ’s are not that.. So do the laws around buying music, work in such a way, that once you have bought a song, you can use it as you see fit, with no consequences?
[ link ]No, they don’t work that way generally. You buy it for personal use, and (usually) the venue needs a licence to allow music to be played publicly in its premises. In the UK, there’s a ridiculous licence called “ProDub” that DJs are means to also have if they rip CDs to digital and DJ with those digital copies, and there are equally other types of licence worldwide depending on the country you’re in. but generally in my experience, the responsibility for having a public music performance licence lies with the venue.
[ link ]What a bunch of lame ass excuses for piracy I’m reading here. Esp. the ones that talk about how happy they would be to see their own tracks being pirated all over the place. As if all of the tracks that you’re pirating are only from producers that are making a ton of money from big touring dates.
Most of the DJ oriented music that’s being pirated is from smaller time artists who may be trying to pay their rent and really need the money from digital downloads. If you were just starting out that $50 or $200 from Beatport or Juno might mean a lot and if it was your money that was being lost to piracy then you would have a very different attitude about seeing it on some torrent site.
If you’re pirating music at least have the balls to say that you’re doing and you just don’t care what the artist or anyone else things or the consequences of it. Don’t make sad excuses about how everyone does it and it’s the norm now, etc.
[ link ]The problem with most pirated music is that the quality is so poor it’s unusable when it comes to DJing. It might sound fine on your home HiFi but play it in a club and your reputation is at stake.
[ link ]To all those DJ’s who think it’s fine not to pay for their music do you also steal your equipment? Also, I guess you wouldn’t mind not getting paid by a promoter seeing as you haven’t really laid out any money of your own. To those who say they can’t afford to buy all the music they want, you need to pick out the best of what you can afford. Don’t expect to be given the fruits of life on a plate.
As you said in the article Phil, “it’s a dog eat dog world out there” this is the part that really kills me. I do download music but I have also signed up for a record pool (who knows whether artists are seeing any of my subscription fee) and I do make the point of buying what I consider must have tracks and tracks from favourite producers. However I’m fully aware that most of my competition is likely not buying music and it sucks. I don’t want to perpetuate it but if everyone else is doing it, it’s how to stay competitive. Even if I did buy every song legally and advertised that i’m a “legal” DJ it’s not like it matters to the masses.
I think another possible explanation for this entitlement to free music is possibly “shelf life.” When I see Top 40 songs I can’t stand the thought of paying for them. These songs will abuse ears day in day out for a month straight and be forgotten. These tracks are disposable. They lose their value when you know people will be tired of it in no time.
Let me be clear i’m not encouraging this and morally I don’t like it. As i’ve started to do more gigs and get paid good money for it, I started to feel really sick about downloading music. I guess my advice would be don’t try go cold turkey. If you’ve recently started making money from gigs start to buy some of your “can’t live without” tracks. Just my two cents.
[ link ]I believe that this is my first post in this excellent site.
I found really good arguments in “favor” and against “stealing” music, but I didn’t saw anybody mentioning DRM, copyrights and so on, and how they affect this problem.
In this case I believe that there are two sides “stealing” from the artists (in the following I’m talking about the general music, not only DJ scene)
1) There are the obvious person downloading a music in an illegal manner.
2) the middle-man distributors “stealing” a huge amount from the artist and also from the consumers.
If I pay 1 euro for a track and the store get 30%, the label gets 30% then how much is left for the artist? I’ve read reports of 10%, and sometimes even less if the album does not sell enough. Apparently this is a bit better with CD Baby, TuneCore?
As a consumer, I pay 1 euro for the track, 10 euros for an album. Because of DRM and other restrictions, I am not allowed to copy it. As far as I’m aware making a rip out of your CD is illegal in many places in the world, because you have to pay for the digital version and the ringtone (each one is a separate product).
The greed surrounding the music industry, whether it is consumers wanting every track available, or labels/distributors/vendors wanting a huge piece of the cake for their troubles, is the problem. If the music was cheaper and easily available, who would bother to steal?
Finally I would like ask for clarification – Anybody knows if the music bought from iTunes and other stores actually allows you to play it live (making money out of it) or if you are buying it only for your personal use? Are DJ’s a gray area when it comes to copyright operating under the fair use? What’s the difference between a DJ playing music X and youtube video using music X? If the “happy birthday” song is copyrighted in the USA, making everyone have to pay for it when they play it, wouldn’t this also apply to other music?
[ link ]I’m late to this article. Yet, this reminds me of my favorite musician: PRINCE!!! For years, he complained about the middle man. Also, he hates iTunes. Something about how they pay artists he hated. As for why he didn’t like his music on YouTube? He didn’t like YouTube making money of his music when he wasn’t. As for stealing, I’m not condoning it. Yet, if you’re broke or can’t find the song, I can understand.
[ link ]If a musician chooses to release their music in a format that can freely be copied, it is irrational of him to expect it will not be copied. It’s in a way like abandoned property. If a homeowner leaves a house vacant for months on end, with no locks on the door or fence, it is irrational of the homeowner to expect people not to squat.
In the field of ethics it is argued that a person only has a moral right to a certain behavior by others if they can reasonably expect virtually all of those people to comply, i.e. to consider the given behavior a duty. Is it reasonable to expect others not to copy music?
Given how easily an unprotected audio file can be copied, and how human beings’ brains are wired to place excessive value on free goods (see the book “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely), I argue such an expectation is unreasonable. As a consequence, the musician releasing unprotected music has no right to ask others not to copy it.
Musicians and producers who seek compensation from others for the experience of listening to their music should release them only as paid and protected streams, perhaps charging people a premium to be the first people to listen to them.
[ link ]Interesting argument, telling you aren’t prepared to put a valid email address or identifiable name to your views.
[ link ]I’ve searched my conscience over this one but now I’m clear about it – it’s not OK to DJ and make money out of music that you didn’t pay for.
Admittedly I’m fortunate in that artists and record companies send me CD’s and downloads because I write CD reviews and have an internet radio channel. I use some of this music when I DJ and I’m comfortable with that.
When I buy music specifically for DJing, it’s normally a download but if I buy a CD, I try to buy it new so that the artist makes some money from it. Many of the artists I like are not huge stars and I feel I have an obligation to them – I felt like that even before I made the small amount of money I make from DJing. My CD reviews and radio stuff don’t pay me a red cent by the way…
Maybe it’s a side issue, but I sometimes wonder whether a hard drive full of music ripped from CD’s that you buy but subsequently sell (I’ve often done this) means you really “own” the music or not. Like I said, maybe not relevant but I ask myself this question sometimes.
[ link ]As a working DJ I always pay for music,it comes out of what I earn as a DJ…. Its a business and that’s how it should be treated, pay for music and pay your tax because your a Proffecional,its 69p a song!,you don’t see tescos steeling the tins of beans that you buy and why should music be any different….. Just because it does not have phiscal form does not mean its not steeling and data theft is theft
[ link ]