I think this argument is asinine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
On a personal level, I have witnessed the impoverishment of many critically acclaimed but marginally commercial artists. In particular, two dear friends: Mark Linkous (Sparklehorse) and Vic Chesnutt. Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their total incomes fall in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.
|
There is no other explanation? Really? The writer lost me at that point. Even reading the article, he mentioned both those artists suffered from depression before killing themselves. Perhaps their illness contributed to their falling income? But no, it had to be downloaders.
And there are statistics in that article that really seem cherry picked to prove a point. Commercial radio in the US has undergone a massive shift to being controlled by a few companies (ClearChannel et al) which seem to push a smaller group of artists. Comparing to 1999 when many people would purchase a full album since singles were relatively rare at the time. I personally have a number of CDs I haven't listened to in a long time because I purchased it on the strength of one song and the rest were sorely lacking. Also, the conversion to the MP3 format can be done by simply ripping your own music while I know back in 1999 I was still in the process of replacing some of my cassettes. Also in the interim there are a lot more things wanting my entertainment dollar - there are more cable channels, MUCH higher speed internet, more video game consoles, just more competition for the leisure dollar.
And I also have a hard time reconciling the argument when you hear about how easy it is to self produce now days. How some
recent albums are closing in on historic sales records.
I don't want to imply that it is fine for people to take music and the creator never get a cent. If they make the music they should be paid. But the hyperbole in many of the arguments makes it difficult to take them seriously.
There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.
I'm sorry, they need to be way more realistic than that.