Freecycle: 54 MP3 CDs

Nothing to see here. Move along please

Dibs

2nd

How about i'll copy them then pass them over to you EEI?

Wow! That's kind.

Let's say I will also copy them on the hard disc and pass them over to the next person.

Thar be pirates!

Yarr!
Hobo, they be yours.

I'd like to see McCarthy try this. He'd be bumping it for a month.

I'd like to join the party too and obviously will do the same as Hobo and EEI

Me too

I'd like to join the party too and obviously will do the same as Hobo and EEI

I bet it's 54 cds with BlueQuinn's own band.

^ as long as it's good music, I don't mind...

I bet it's 54 cds with BlueQuinn's own band.

I've not written enough.
I don't think there is anything with any of my bands on it

So anyway Hobo, where was you?

Right, Hobo now has these and will pass them on to EEI when he's done.
Cheers all.

EEI, am I still next in queue after you? Cheers

Sure.

Thanks mate.

Hate to be a stick in the mud, but this kind of thing really does destroy any chance of the next generation of great artists being found and developed. Not to mention that the British economy is slowly becoming more and more independant on our creative industries that are being eroded.

Obviously sharing around a few MP3's may be insignifficant in the grand scheme of things, but it's the expectation that music is free and that artists shouldn't be rewarded for their craft that is dangerous.

Sorry to rant, but perhaps once you have the discs, don't copy more to share around? I'm sure music karma will come around if so, and there will be a bunch of struggling artists who would thank you.

Ta!

*gets off soapbox

but Ed,
what if these CDs expose Hobo, EEI, and ExTra to bands they would never have heard of otherwise?
Perhaps Hobo, EEI and ExTra like some of these bands so much that they go support them the next time they gig in town, perhaps buy a t-shirt?

There are any number of talented musicians on here who have never made a single penny from record companies. Nobody except established million-selling artists see any recording royalties.

As it happens I either did buy or would never have bought most of the stuff on those CDs anyway.
And Hamster's right. I learned about, bought CDs, DVDs and gig tickets from bands I otherwise would never have heard of because people shared music.
To me MP3s are like radio, and I don't pay for that either.

Home taping didn't kill music. It just made it better.

Perhaps Hamster, but if you look at the economics and downward trends of the last few years there has been a major shortfall that has not been made up by sales of merch or tickets, and promoters don't develop acts in the same way record companies do, new bands and artists still need advances and A&R development to be able to get the most out of what they do, often these bands wouldn't be able to make music and develop a fan base without that support.

BlueQuinn, that's not really true and is a major generalisation. I work with everyday and small artists on a day to day basis that receive royalties, not many royalties these days, but they need them to survive. In fact many more would be able to devote their time to writing and recording if the general public understood that they should be rewarded for their work, instead of working 9 to 5 jobs to pay the bills and have music as a hobby.

It seems like everyone has the argument that giving away something for free is great PR because then someone will buy something... To a certain degree yes, if it's a concious decision by the artist, but when songs are raped from the artist without their permission and on a huge scale it is not a fair system. You wouldn't argue that a painter should allow people to steal his paintings in order that the theives friends might see the painting and encourage them to buy one...

Anyway, I'm really not trying to have a rant or tell you that you're bad people, because you're not, you're just music fans, however I did want to just suggest that sharing the songs further might be adding to a problem that will affect us all in the long run.

I talk at many events and give guest lectures at universities about the future of music, when I can find the time, because I'm passionate about it and honestly care about good music being made and shared. So I'm happy to have a friendly pint at some point and discuss the merits of both arguments as I recognise a forum isn't the best medium for such a discussion. : )

Also, I just noticed your comment about Radio, actually you do pay for radio either directly with your license fee for the BBC or indirectly by listening to adverts, same with Spotify, YouTube etc etc. And by using those services the artist and songwriters get paid royalties because those mediums need a license to play music, that license fee is then split between the artists and they are rewarded for their work, because those business models rely on artists to run their companies. That is a fair system, sharing music where the creator doesn't get rewarded, isn't.

Again, not having a go, just making you aware of how some of the system works so you can make the consious decision to share the MP3's or not. What you then decide to do is up to you. : )

promoters don't develop acts in the same way record companies do, new bands and artists still need advances and A&R development to be able to get the most out of what they do, often these bands wouldn't be able to make music and develop a fan base without that support.

That's not really true. It was the owner of CBGB who nurtured Television, The Ramones, Blondie, etc. It was the owners of the Rum Runner who nurtured the Duran Duran. Promoters are far more involved with nurturing talent than record companies. Record Companies go with safe bets, established artists or ones who have already built a fan base without the help of the record company. Or through the X factor - surely a blatant advert for Syco records and an obvious example of how they play with people's dreams, chew them up and spit them out. (Even if they win) Unless the artist has a really good lawyer the record company usually royally screws them.

You wouldn't argue that a painter should allow people to steal his paintings in order that the theives friends might see the painting and encourage them to buy one...

No, because that's a completely bloody stupid comparison. If you steal a painting you're removing the original. When you copy a song you're in no way depriving the artist of the original work. Just a couple of pence. It's not going into the studio and taking the master tapes is it? A more accurate comparison is by copying the work you are taking a photo, making a scan or a photocopy. Which harms the artist not one jot.

Also, I just noticed your comment about Radio, actually you do pay for radio either directly with your license fee for the BBC or indirectly by listening to adverts, same with Spotify, YouTube etc etc. And by using those services the artist and songwriters get paid royalties because those mediums need a license to play music, that license fee is then split between the artists and they are rewarded for their work, because those business models rely on artists to run their companies. That is a fair system, sharing music where the creator doesn't get rewarded, isn't.

The recording industry is, for most artists, a system where the creator doesn't get rewarded.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Do you really think artists make money from things like Spotify?
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Radio doesn't pay struggling artists either. When I was a DJ there was nobody counting all the songs we were playing. A bloke from the royalty people used to come in once a month and take a sample of what was on the playlists for that one day. Which was all the mainstream stuff usually, and pretty much assumed that was all that was played. I never played what was on the playlists, so I'm happy to say I did get a favourite band of mine at the time some royalties simply because I played their entire album on the day of release and that was the day the PRS-MCPS guy came in.

That album release had been fraught with difficulty because EastWest dropped them after recording it but before release. They had to pay EastWest to get the rights back. Then they released it on China along with a couple of singles. Then EastWest bought China and dropped them again.

Now I think you should support artists. If you like something you should buy it if you are able to. Go and see them play. Buy their T shirts if you really want. But I also think that sharing music is a good thing. It's exposure, and more than that, it's free exposure. I learned everything I know about writing music (which may not be a lot) by spending the last 30 years listening to music other people introduced me to. I'd say a good half of everything I own is not stuff I heard on the radio but stuff I heard from a mate or downloaded. Music should not be something only the wealthy can have access to.

If I was ever to attempt to sell my music for actual money I would be doing it independently, as detailed here
http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/the-self-released-album-101-the-basics/

No, because that's a completely bloody stupid comparison. If you steal a painting you're removing the original. When you copy a song you're in no way depriving the artist of the original work. Just a couple of pence. It's not going into the studio and taking the master tapes is it? A more accurate comparison is by copying the work you are taking a photo, making a scan or a photocopy. Which harms the artist not one jot.

I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison either. When you're selling a painting (generally speaking), the original is what you sell. You don't sell a photograph of it. With music the original masters are not what is being sold, the copies are whats being sold.

Painters make money by selling originals of their work, musicians make money by selling copies of their work. Again, I'm generalising here, but you get the idea. It's not a good comparison at all.

I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison either. When you're selling a painting (generally speaking), the original is what you sell. You don't sell a photograph of it. With music the original masters are not what is being sold, the copies are whats being sold.

Painters make money by selling originals of their work, musicians make money by selling copies of their work. Again, I'm generalising here, but you get the idea. It's not a good comparison at all.

You sell prints though.
And posters
And postcards.

Musicians also make money by playing gigs.
Songwriters also make money by licencing.
Both pay far better than mechanical copyright.