the ethics of file-sharing in experimental music

[concreteisland]

as of today the main reasons to buy cds are specifically to support the artist or to collect/obtain the art object.

Maybe a bit off topic, but how much of the money spent on a download goes to artist and label compared to the same release on vinyl/cd? I'm pretty sure that if the download is bought via one of the major distributors like itunes, amazon or emuisc they don't see much of it, so that buying a cd is a better way to support an artist. But how about sites like boomkat, fina-music.com or diogenes.greedbag.com?

[RFKorp]

I've been thinking about this thread a bunch since seeing the opening post and the continued discussion has actually helped clarify things for me personally a bit.

as a musician: I release music because I want it to be heard. Not because I necessarily want to be compensated (though that is a wonderful benefit when it happens). I'm increasingly likely to slap things onto the internet lately before even considering whether they are of a certain caliber worth setting aside and saving for future physical/sellable release. I also do not believe this precludes later release by other non-free/online means as long as the later release is a worthwhile repackaging/recontexting.

as a producer: I run a physical label because I believe in the value of an art object and the presentation of music in its appropriate container (which is not always by default on CD in pro packaging though I have begun releasing things as such lately). To cite an example, I greatly respect the catalog of Absurd for this reason as I'm pretty sure everything I have on the label presents a uniquely considered tangible aesthetic to match the music enclosed. And I believe there are many people who still appreciate such care in the creation of a physical object; who are eager to experience the music in this way, however the label feels appropriate to present it.

I agree, as Jon said, that there is great value in a label that actively curates and produces - and the tastes of the non-musician (or at least non-participant in the work itself) at the label helm participating in the structuring of the work's presentation. Collaboration is as key in production and distribution as it is in creation. And losing this feature of music consumption would be a loss. But I do not believe that the downfall of the CD format must necessarily take this down with it.

[sevenarts]

I've always been a big downloader, and I've also always been a big purchaser of music, although by necessity the latter is less true these days than it was when I was in college and spending any money I could scrape together pretty indiscriminately on CDs.

If not for (illegal) downloading, I think it's pretty safe to say that I never would have gotten into most of the music I listen to now, eai included. I listened to readily accessible rock and punk and stuff for years until some writing on more extreme music interested me enough to check some of it out. And I could check it out without spending money on it first (which I would've been unlikely to do) because of things like Napster and its many successors. In that respect, I've always thought that downloading is at least a potentially positive force that could increase the audience for less popular music. I have no doubt that downloading also greatly hurts labels and artists when people download things they otherwise would've bought - but a lot of people who download, download things they never would have bought anyway, and maybe some of them do go on to buy the albums they download. Impossible to know the relative percentages to gauge the overall effect (though in truth I'm sure there are more people NOT buying these days). I can only speak anecdotally, and I know I never would have bought any CDs by Merzbow or Philip Jeck (two of my earliest introductions to experimental music for some reason) if I hadn't been able to hear the music first and realize that I liked it enough to dig deeper. And that led to a lot of other stuff I've bought in the decade since. In a whole lot of ways, my taste as it exists today has been shaped by living in an era when downloads are readily available - who knows if I ever would have heard of, say, Keith Rowe if downloads (and the albums I liked and subsequently bought) hadn't led me deeper into experimental music?

So I think there's a real potential in downloading to expand the audiences for niche music. This used to get talked about a lot in utopian terms in the early days of file-sharing, and I'm not sure that particular prophecy has really been fulfilled, but the potential is certainly there to introduce people to types of music that otherwise they never would have heard, and wouldn't have taken a risk on a CD even if they happened to hear of it. Of course, even if that potential is fulfilled there's no guarantee that anyone's getting paid on the basis of that wider exposure, since so much depends on the honor system of people going on to buy the CDs of artists they like and want to support. What's clear is that there needs to be some kind of new system that encourages people to buy what they download, either paying directly for the dls (Boomkat et al) or getting a physical release. It's also clear that what that system might be is really hard to imagine.

[mudd]

I know this is intentionally simplistic, but to me the role of the label (ideally) is a crucial one, and I've thought that since long before I started Erst, back when I was just one of the bigger music consumers around. if all labels disappeared, I personally would probably be far less interested in music, as surprisingly few musicians seem capable of making great records on their own.

yeah more than being simplistic i was being a little obtuse - i actually have a lot of ideas about the role of today's label-owners in non-standard distribution environment. when cost isn't a barrier to music, filtering is.

and i agree very much with ed, free downloading has had a massive impact on the size of the audience for niche music. that's valuable but obviously no replacement for compensation.

m

[faster]

I download crap a lot, but none of it is substitution for buying records--it's stuff I just wouldn't have/hear otherwise, stuff I am curious about or want if it's free but not if I have to buy it. Also, I don't really care much about the right of people to be compensated for reproductions of their music. If you want to be compensated, playing the kinds of music we talk about here is about the dumbest possible way to do so.

What's more, the indignation is quixotic: even if filesharing didn't exist, music sales would still have almost no impact on the lives of the musicians who play this kind of stuff.

[bkudler]

I have to agree quite heavily on the point that downloading (illegal or not) in the end helps the micro-economy of weird music. Without illegal downloading I would never have gotten into this music. I don't illegally download much "EAI" or "experimental" stuff, but there was a time when I was burning CDs from friends and DLing stuff a lot. In one sense people made something and put money into it and it would be great if they could get their money back from it, but in the end I think ultimately the fact that I listen to the stuff is helping pump money into the small community. If I hadn't downloaded the erstlive releases (sorry Jon) I would have never gotten into this stuff in the first place and never have thrown down 15 bucks to see Keith Rowe play live or bought the numerous other Erstwhile (and many other labels) releases I have purchased. Money is fungible so in the end the records I "stole," lead to greater purchases later, so in the end illegal downloading made money for several artists and labels. Presently I have the view that I want to support people in this community, plus the records are somewhat difficult to track down online for me, so I almost always buy the discs. However, I have to say that some labels and artists make it so that pirating their music is very preferable to actually purchasing. In the case of the b-boim label, the stuff is packaged in cheap CVS jewel case with one thin paper insert that looks like it was made on a printer that wasn't set up correctly. IMO, the producer has to make SOMETHING preferable about purchasing over donwloading. With all the b-boim releases I just rip them to my computer and put them away somewhere. I still buy it and have never illegally downloaded a release from that label. I would gladly pay for a loseless download for 2 dollars --which seems more than fair-- than pay the 14 to get the thing shipped over here. I don't think I am alone in that and I can't understand why this isn't the case. But when you put out a cheap release --as many EAIers do-- you can not blame people for taking the stance that you didn't lose much money on this and this won't be used or seen as some great "art object" --a term I think is beyond stupid, but that's for another thread-- then why the fuck shouldn't I download it? In addition to this what really gets me about people saying downloading hurts small artists is that so many artists give their music --the actual CDS, tapes, or records-- away for free all the time!! If someone sets up a show set up for a musician, or helps out with something, or the artist is mildly friendly with someone a lot of times they will say "oh, take a CD." Then people complain that DLing is taking away from sales. It just seems to me that their is a situation set up where this group is the consumers and they should buy all the stuff, and this group is the creators and music passes freely between the creators as they trade their releases between each other or just give them to each other out of mutual respect. When this is the situation, complaining that the consumer group is saying "fuck that" and grabbing stuff for free then I just can't find any sympathy for the complainers.

[jon abbey]

one quibble with that:

If I hadn't downloaded the erstlive releases (sorry Jon) I would have never gotten into this stuff in the first place and never have thrown down 15 bucks to see Keith Rowe play live or bought the numerous other Erstwhile (and many other labels) releases I have purchased.

I never expressed a problem with people illegally DLing Ersts (it's a very complicated issue), but I do think in your case this is probably not true, since your older brother is into it and you would have been exposed at some point.

but this I think is important:

However, I have to say that some labels and artists make it so that pirating their music is very preferable to actually purchasing.

maybe not preferable, but almost as good as, and I think specifically relevant to the initial post. my philosophy with Erst has been the same since 1998: try to make CDs with music that merits many listenings (ideally music that necessitates many listenings), put a great deal of thought and care into the packaging, and sell them cheaply. I don't think the packaging has been as consistent as the music throughout the run of the label, but I've always tried my best and I think over the last few years it's been consistently very strong.

the problem is that it's a vicious circle for most labels: less people buy, so the amount of money the label can spend making discs goes down, so less people buy, etc.

[bkudler]

one quibble with that:

If I hadn't downloaded the erstlive releases (sorry Jon) I would have never gotten into this stuff in the first place and never have thrown down 15 bucks to see Keith Rowe play live or bought the numerous other Erstwhile (and many other labels) releases I have purchased.

I never expressed a problem with people illegally DLing Ersts (it's a very complicated issue), but I do think in your case this is probably not true, since your older brother is into it and you would have been exposed at some point.

Alright, you caught me. It's true my older brother's influence for sure helped me get into all of this. I was trying to just give a personal example to a situation that almost certainly happens pretty often.

[faster]

I think I overstated my position a little, but I'd still like to add that no small part of my ability to accept the (minor) losses the musicians might sustain is connected to my glee at the (major) losses sustained by the corporate content manufacturing industry.

[bkudler]

However, I have to say that some labels and artists make it so that pirating their music is very preferable to actually purchasing.

maybe not preferable, but almost as good as, and I think specifically relevant to the initial post. my philosophy with Erst has been the same since 1998: try to make CDs with music that merits many listenings (ideally music that necessitates many listenings), put a great deal of thought and care into the packaging, and sell them cheaply. I don't think the packaging has been as consistent as the music throughout the run of the label, but I've always tried my best and I think over the last few years it's been consistently very strong.

the problem is that it's a vicious circle for most labels: less people buy, so the amount of money the label can spend making discs goes down, so less people buy, etc.

This I can understand, but for the vast majority of labels it's more of a hobby than a financial necessity for the "head" of the label. I also think that with this kind of music if you put out a good product and promote it well people will usually buy, rather than DL. Although, I see your point.

[laughter_CS]

After reading David Keenan's file-sharing piece in the Wire last month and feeling incredibly pissed off about it (I've never paid much attention to Keenan in the past), I decided to write a response. I was going to shave it down a little and edit it, but before I could numerous people had found their way to my little blog. I feel like this fits here, so I'll post a link to it:

http://laughtrack.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... al-damage/

I'm glad to see that, to varying degrees, I agree with most of what's been said here. I'm also happy to find that many other people found experimental/outsider/fringe music the way I did; by downloading songs or albums and then searching the physical copies out.

Also, what Jon Abbey and others have said about creating high quality products is of the highest importance. I hate to say it, but having an object nearby... feeling it, seeing it, handling liner notes, thinking about the content provided with the music... that's all very important to me. I always listen to what I purchase more than the things I download, even if I dislike what I purchased. There are a few exceptions to this, and good music will always inspire me to buy music, but on the whole being in contact with or interacting with my favorite music is key.

If the physical copies are lackluster, or if it looks as though the label and artist put little care into it, then I'm less inclined to care about myself, or more likely to feel as though my money were wasted. I'd still pay for the music, of course, but in cases like that, a FLAC file would more than suffice.

[fslmy]

The discussion of physical object versus digital download got me thinking. I actually digitally convert everything I buy (cds, cassettes and vinyl) because that is my preference for listening, I value the physical object so highly that I do not want to destroy it with subsequent playings and would prefer my own humble transcription (which my ears can generally) not discern from the original. However I would still choose to purchase a physical object over a digital download! it just feels like money better spent, and with so much recycled packaging being used now I feel more at ease ethically.

I don't put my own digital transcriptions on the internet, however do I have the right to even make these copies for myself?

[jon abbey]

preference for listening, I value the physical object so highly that I do not want to destroy it with subsequent playings and would prefer my own humble transcription (which my ears can generally) not discern from the original.

I did this for hundreds of LPs in college and after, bought them, immediately recorded them to cassettes, then only listened to those. it's also the portability of the format, walkman back then for me and presumably an ipod or whatever for you.

[bryan]

I think I overstated my position a little, but I'd still like to add that no small part of my ability to accept the (minor) losses the musicians might sustain is connected to my glee at the (major) losses sustained by the corporate content manufacturing industry.

Yup. I also think of how the artists selling tons of copies on majors make their money on tour, not via CD sales. That said, I hardly have money to buy music these days but when I do make a purchase it becomes political - to support the musicians and labels that I hope can continue to do what they do, or at least feel like they are getting some financial return on their efforts.

The two main things I think of are that the system of music distribution broke down on a large scale without a viable alternative to fix it and that there is simply an avalanche of music that is impossible to keep up with, even if I only consider the stuff that is given away for free by the artists.

The bottom line is that I don't see a good solution other than offering downloads for a low price (sorry.. I am old-school and won't pay $10 for a download) contrasted with limited (and pricier) physical releases. As it stands, I don't DL much experimental music and the DLing that I do goes against the majors. If there were low cost experimental music downloads to pull the trigger on, I would do so.

[smileymn]

I never feel good about it per se but I do a fair amount of downloading illegally (and legally), buying cds (new and used) and buying vinyl (new and used) and ripping CDs. I have a system that I'm using now that makes me at least feel the least personally guilty about it, which is that the local college in my area has a huge budget for the music library, and I make a lot of requests for albums, old and new, which the library purchases for the collection and then I burn them. I don't have the money to buy all the albums I request, but at the same token because I am interested in this music, and want to hear it, the library is purchasing these requests, and otherwise wouldn't have.

I've been thinking about the concept of buying CDs/LPs used, because you're paying for music and respecting it obviously by paying for it, but that money only goes back to whoever bought it initially, or bought it used...so does that help the artist/label still?

Also what about illegally downloading bootleg concerts, that will not be released, and were not meant to be released? I want to hear as many live concerts of an improvisational ensemble of a specific group of musicians, and if they only have one studio record, then of course I want to hear them live, especially if I have no local access to hearing them in person. There is also the difference of a live concert of say Miles Davis as a bootleg, vs. someone that is creating new music today, and how that is looked upon.

I don't really have any answers other than echoing some earlier statements that I am an infinitely curious person (and probably a packrat for information/data/music/books) and want to hear/know as many things I can that I am interested in, and never have the amount of money to equal that curiosity, so my system has always been using the internet and libraries (legally and illegally) for music, books, scores, etc... while buying what I can when I can (dropped $300 dollars today at some thrift stores/record stores).

[jon abbey]

I've been thinking about the concept of buying CDs/LPs used, because you're paying for music and respecting it obviously by paying for it, but that money only goes back to whoever bought it initially, or bought it used...so does that help the artist/label still?

this is a point that's often brought up in these discussions, but rarely answered correctly IMO. I'd say it depends, objects having a resale value makes people more likely to buy them in the first place so that helps the artist/label, but the aspect that is seemingly never discussed is that distributors often never pay labels and so it's quite possible that the used copy is essentially stolen. it's always best to buy directly from the artist/label if possible, but I guess that's pretty obvious to all.

[J.F.]

Also what about illegally downloading bootleg concerts, that will not be released, and were not meant to be released? I want to hear as many live concerts of an improvisational ensemble of a specific group of musicians, and if they only have one studio record, then of course I want to hear them live, especially if I have no local access to hearing them in person. There is also the difference of a live concert of say Miles Davis as a bootleg, vs. someone that is creating new music today, and how that is looked upon.

I know people who are into collecting inofficial live recordings (they don't say "bootleg") and as a concequence stopped buying official CDs entirely. I myself download inofficial live recordings sometimes to check out a new-to-me band or a newly formed ensemble by a musician I like. I admit... sometimes I get to hear a few live recordings and then already feel like having heard enough of that given band. Without dime etc, I might have bought a CD in the first place (then again there are a few bands I discovered through those inofficial live recordings and soon purchased the complete official catalogue).

When it comes to old archival "bootleg"-recordings (you mention Miles Davis): I recognised some archive recordings got officially released which circulated for years in collector's circles as FM-captures. Brotherhood of Breath comes into mind, I remember something similar in the John Coltrane and Don Cherry catalogue (that releasing policy actually might be pretty common in the jazz world?). So let's assume of those "newly released" recordings there already had been a few hundred or more "private" copies out there for years, in pretty good quality.

The latter point also touches up/downloads of o.o.p.-material: I remember one label kept saying "take down that transfer of that o.o.p.-LP from our label!" whenever a new rarity from its catalogue had been "re-released" or "shared" by something like inconstantsol. If I'm informed right, that label is now planning to offer (I guess commercial) downloads of parts of its back-catalogue. So those music-blogs activities in the field of out-of-print material sure can have a negative effect on sales of official re-releases (while I'm aware other musicians are completely cool about their old material being spread in music blogs).
One colleague of mine has an out-of-print-LP which has been uploaded in a popular music blog. And that's certainly not a good motivation for him to attempt an official re-release of that music. Those bloggers already took a lot of his control over his own material.

[drip]

man, to me some comments here sound almost like arguments from the big record companies.
the overall decline in record sales is part of a larger and more complex phenomenon. you just have to watch the news to get an idea why people might have stopped to buy as much records as they used to.
it's also kind of funny that here has been some disscussions going on if eai is dead or an dead end and in this thread it isn't really mentioned at all.
this "scene" is a pretty small one, with a huge number of labels and musicians. almost every week something interesting is released, many times in small editions. besides that, most musicians tend to have a huge output. discogs states keith rowe has 34 albums released, not counted are his participations in groups like amm or mimeo. so that's like 50 releases just from one artist.
if you don't live in a big city, chances are pretty small to preview the records you're interested in at your local record store. i can afford like one record per month and i would like it to be good. if labels won't find other preview options than 1 minute samples i don't see an other solution than using downloads for myself.

i'm also wondering how people say downloading records is disrespectful against labels and the artists, but don't seem to have a problem with downloads of records that are oop. isn't that the same way disrespectful to the labels and moreso to the artists, which may have chosen the edition of their releases with some thought?

for me the biggest problem is the increase of labels and musicians during the last years. there is way to much stuff out there and if people are interested in more than one genre, it's kind of natural that they expand their genre collection, while overall sales of one particular genre might decline, even if people buy more stuff than they used to

[simon reynell]

Some interesting points. For me sevenarts just about sums it up:

What's clear is that there needs to be some kind of new system that encourages people to buy what they download, either paying directly for the dls (Boomkat et al) or getting a physical release. It's also clear that what that system might be is really hard to imagine.

In an area of music with an audience as small as this, as more & more people abandon CDs in favour of ipods & downloads, we can’t be far off the time when most CD releases will not cover their costs. A few discs involving the star names (Tilbury, Rowe, Butcher, Toshi etc) may still break even, but CDs by other lesser-known musicians will need to be subsidised (if label owners can afford it….which I can’t). So in the medium-term future I think the move to download releases is inexorable, with perhaps a small number of CDR copies as well for those like me who still want a physical product, and for helping generate discussion and reviews, as download-only releases are most often simply ignored. It’s an open question whether people could be persuaded to pay a small fee for downloads if they knew the money was going to the musicians, or whether the assumption that download = free will have become too deeply entrenched.

for me the biggest problem is the increase of labels and musicians during the last years. there is way too much stuff out there and if people are interested in more than one genre, it's kind of natural that they expand their genre collection, while overall sales of one particular genre might decline, even if people buy more stuff than they used to

It’s another issue, but I really don’t see the increase in numbers of musicians and labels in this area of music as a ‘problem’. Shouldn’t we be celebrating such an upsurge of creativity? I think there’s more improvised and experimental music being made than ever before. Sure, it means that no one person can really get a complete overview of the music, and I’m sure most of us would agree that we don’t really like at least half of what’s being released, let alone played. But that’s a natural side-effect of the music developing and expanding. For me the scene is like a river delta that is forever forming new channels, some of which then re-cross and re-combine further downstream. But the general tendency is for the river to break down into smaller and smaller rivulets even as the overall flow of water increases. And that’s all fine, except that when a particular channel gets too small, it can no longer sustain CD production!

[drip]

for me the biggest problem is the increase of labels and musicians during the last years. there is way too much stuff out there and if people are interested in more than one genre, it's kind of natural that they expand their genre collection, while overall sales of one particular genre might decline, even if people buy more stuff than they used to

It’s another issue, but I really don’t see the increase in numbers of musicians and labels in this area of music as a ‘problem’. Shouldn’t we be celebrating such an upsurge of creativity? I think there’s more improvised and experimental music being made than ever before. Sure, it means that no one person can really get a complete overview of the music, and I’m sure most of us would agree that we don’t really like at least half of what’s being released, let alone played. But that’s a natural side-effect of the music developing and expanding. For me the scene is like a river delta that is forever forming new channels, some of which then re-cross and re-combine further downstream. But the general tendency is for the river to break down into smaller and smaller rivulets even as the overall flow of water increases. And that’s all fine, except that when a particular channel gets too small, it can no longer sustain CD production!

yeah, i agree completly with you. "problem" was just adressed to the issue of labels selling less records.
i do also like your metaphor of the river delta and i think it's quite fitting. it's a wonderful thing to have the possibility to discover all those fantastic records out there.