the ethics of file-sharing in experimental music

[simon reynell]

Recently an IHM contributor contacted me to buy the new batch of Another Timbre discs. He said that he knew that he liked them all because all 5 were already on Soulseek, even though they’d only been released one week before. Though I’m grateful for both his honesty and his honourable nature in paying for something he could have taken for nothing, his email nonetheless depressed me. Of course I know that file-sharing is commonplace, but in the past I have chosen to simply close my eyes to it. But thinking about it over the past couple of weeks, I’ve decided that I want to understand the issues around it more deeply, and I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts about the ethics of it in this tiny corner of the music world.

In a brief discussion about it on Facebook, Matt Milton came up with the observation that: “File-sharing is late capitalism at its most baroque: commodities are on the one hand endlessly craved and hoarded, and on the other endlessly despised and undervalued.” I agree with this perspective, and regard unauthorised file-sharing as an activity that is unfair and harmful both to the labels and the musicians whose work is effectively being looted. Though a few individuals might go on from downloading an album to actually buying it, I’m sure that this is a small minority, and I think that file-sharing makes the survival of labels specialising in experimental music more difficult.

On the other hand I’m perfectly aware that such moral opprobrium isn’t going to stop the practice. It’s a fact of life that musicians and labels will have to learn to live with and adapt to. In a few years I’m sure that virtually all labels will distribute primarily or exclusively through downloads rather than physical products; it’s only a matter of time. Ecologically this will presumably be better for the world. And financially from the musicians’ point of view at least, they will be no worse off, as they very rarely receive any significant income from CD releases.

So why am I reluctant to embrace the brave new world of digital distribution? Am I simply clinging on to a fetishism of physical objects? Judging from the number of promos that I get sent, a lot of musicians still want their music to be released on CD – but why is this? Is it because net releases usually don't get noticed or reviewed as much as CD’s, and will this change over time? If physical sales decline to the extent that it's unviable to produce CDs in an area of music like this, would musicians prefer release on CDR, or simply go to downloads? In 10 years time what percentage of us will still have a CD player? I’m certain there are forms or types of experimental music that are better suited to digital than physical distribution, but are there also releases which will always feel best in the CD format? Would file-sharers contribute anything if labels put an ‘honesty button’on their website asking for contributions from those who’d made unauthorised downloads - or would this be like shops in the UK leaving honesty boxes out for the looters currently running amuck? And would file-sharers be more likely to contribute to such a scheme if they knew that their money was going directly to the musicians concerned rather than the label?

Lots of questions, and I’m interested in answers and thoughts from file-sharers and non-file-sharers alike.

[Antoine]

My 2 cents:
I'm grateful to file-sharing as it made/makes me discover many things, not only music but also people/ideas. An unvaluable benefit. Some years ago, I didn't have the money to buy records; now I can, and I do, and I think everyone who buy a record can see where the money goes. Trust me, nobody needs to be judged through honesty button systems, everyone has his own consciousness and deal with it.

Since a few years, I'm also running a (little) label. The CDs I'm releasing are not selling a lot, but I've always thought that it would be even worse without file sharing. I have no clue about that, just a feeling.

I don't really get the perspective of opposing the two approachs, I just see them as complementary ways to spread the music. I can't think at another aspect that matters to me, but spreading, sharing.

My personal view about the money: of course, it helps financing the next release, but it should only be at the service of the quality of the production, the quality of packaging, not the number of releases.


PS: excuse the bad english, this post sounds especially awful/incoherent to me.

[fslmy]

To be clear, I doubt the volumes of people downloading Another Timbre releases on soulseek are very high. It is rather similar to someone buying the release and lending the cd to a friend (except rather conveniently lending it to 10 friends) who probably wouldn't have bought the release anyway.

people still buy the cds and so... people can keep making them. i don't see this changing any time soon

[Adrian]

I have been buying a lot of releases in this field of music over the past 2, 3 years, most of them on cd, and I have no pirate downloads.
I don't know anyone that would be interested in hearing the music I love to listen to, so I don't upload any music (can't be bothered); and if I did know such a person I would probably give them a 'mixtape' with info about where to find the music if they like it.
In more popular/mainstream music the story is slightly different where I will very occasionally, at most once a year, share one or two songs from a band with someone to introduce them to something a bit better than the top 40.
Just as occasionally, someone will want to give me an illegal copy or a download of something - which I actually hate, a blank cd in a paper sleeve without any info or artwork. If their discription sounds interesting I'll try to find some soundclips online, and when I like what I hear I'll buy it.
I will always want the actual cd's, preferably purchased from either the label or the musicians themselves.
Even within the small area of music that I love there is so much worth having - and I buy much less than I would given unlimited funds - but not paying for it is not an option. [I do wish I could control myself a bit more sometimes though... ]

[jon abbey]

people still buy the cds and so... people can keep making them. i don't see this changing any time soon

this is still true for Another Timbre, but I could give you a long list of quality labels in this area (and I did on a similar thread a year or so ago) that have folded because people don't still buy the CDs (among many other general and specific reasons for each, of course).

and even more than that, the CDs that are still being made are quite often shoddier on every level, again at least in part because of weak sales and thus minimal budgets for future releases.

[lukaz]

Just for the record i was the person from Simon's initial post. And i would like to declare here myslef publicly that i am a big buyer and a big downloader at the same time. I would agree that in last couple of years the community on soulseek regarding this music has shrinked and mostly it is a small community whos files are not totally available to all the people using soulseek. I would rather suggest that the shrinking here goes well w also the narrower intersted in this music in last couple of years (which can be seen for example in the concert attendance, etc ... 'the good ol' improv' and freejazzin' are in those regards in much much better conditions ... (and here i think lies the importaqnt question why is that? ... why for example music considered here mostly as EAI lost much of the audience and 'the good ol' improv' and freejazzin' didn't- why a lot of the people who were enthusiastic about it then lost their interest but didn't lost the interest for both of the mentioned ones?) ... as for the sales from my experiance w L'Innomable label it is the same all the time, maybe the list of distributors is smaller, but that's it ... but of course L'Innomable is much smaller (and cheaper) operation than Another Timbre or Erstwhile ... and i didn't notice that slsk did any damage to it (althou since they do appear nearly a week after they re released there i feel then that i am than in title to download from slsk users as much as i want if they have some of ours releases among their files ).

[Joda]

I live like it's still the 90's and just don't fuck with mp3s or file sharing of experimental music at all. I know of folks who 'preview' works in mp3 format before purchasing, an act which I don't participate in but which I would not condemn, however it seems senseless to me to settle on a mp3 download of CD or LP of experimental music that is still in print because, as Jon points out, it is an area struggling to produce quality documents and also to compare the sound quality it's like apples and oranges.

addenda: that said, I tend to miss out on the novelty aspect of much that is discussed on this board, but I do wonder how many folks here talk about mp3s when it comes to those year end lists?

Nonetheless, I spend a good deal of time getting to know my collection at what might be considered a glacial pace.. Also it's worth noting that many of the contemporary discs or records I end up with often come through trade, playing shows and/or meeting people at shows and I really like this form of ecomonic exchange.

[barry]

To be clear, I doubt the volumes of people downloading Another Timbre releases on soulseek are very high. It is rather similar to someone buying the release and lending the cd to a friend (except rather conveniently lending it to 10 friends) who probably wouldn't have bought the release anyway.

people still buy the cds and so... people can keep making them. i don't see this changing any time soon

yeah, you are totally wrong. illegal downloading is hurting the labels big time, no matter how small the numbers may seem to you.

[billygomberg]

addenda: that said, I tend to miss out on the novelty aspect of much that is discussed on this board, but I do wonder how many folks here talk about mp3s when it comes to those year end lists?

chances are, if it makes my year-end list, I've bought it (some in mp3 format if I just didn't want to hustle up for the vinyl, which accounted for one album for my 2010 list).

do I download pirate music? yup. does this regularly lead to purchases? yup. Am I in a constant crisis about where to put all my CDs? yup.

I'm eternally curious about music, as a musician and a listener, and some sounds I just want to hear - I want to know what it's about...research and reference, something I don't have that much of a budget for. is this totally ethical? no, but my preference is to support the labels who put out the work I really love to listen to, and listen to repeatedly.

I have seen most of my CD releases pirated. Yeah I'm kind of sad/cranky about this, but I don't know what I could materially do about this. I feel it more for the labels who have put in the effort than for myself.

Silver lining is that I hope more people are listening to my music.

[mudd]

cds are as obsolete as vinyl records or cassettes. they are inefficient, over-priced, and all too often unappealing. as of today the main reasons to buy cds are specifically to support the artist or to collect/obtain the art object. that's probably a harder-line statement than how i really feel, but if it's not true already it's not far off. legal downloads through bandcamp, itunes, or wherever will eventually overtake the first of those reasons. music releases might end up like prints or even paintings, available for the wealthy collector but otherwise completely replaced by mp3s as postcards.

that leaves some pretty open questions about how artists might get compensated for their creation and what exactly the label's role would be in a download-focused market but it doesn't really address the ethical question proposed above. should a listener be confined to consume only the music they can afford? i dunno, i can confine myself that way but i can also afford quite a bit of music.

m

[jon abbey]

why for example music considered here mostly as EAI lost much of the audience and 'the good ol' improv' and freejazzin' didn't- why a lot of the people who were enthusiastic about it then lost their interest but didn't lost the interest for both of the mentioned ones?

this is a totally different topic and probably should be a different thread, but I'd like to know what you're basing this on. it's hard to compare live shows, since the aforementioned 'good 'ol improv' and 'freejazzin'' tend much more to be grouped in geographic communities than EAI.

[lukaz]

i agree Jon that this is off topic but not quite. I just based my observations in following the scene not only here in Slovenia but wider (concert-wise), even from talking w a lot of musicians. You know that the EAI community on slsk was couple of years much bigger and the spread of downloads (interest) were much wider. Also the downfall of interest for this music from the point of reviews in the magazines, the move to blogs, etc ... tells something more than for example the chance in editorial policy in The Wire for instance. I know a lot of people who still are buying and downloading music, going to concerts, etc ... who were really enthusiastic about Erstwhile and EAI in general but just lost their interest, while they obtain interest in 'different forms of improv'. I don't know the answers to this but it sure exist out there and should be questioned i guess.

[barry]

should a listener be confined to consume only the music they can afford?

this is where i get stuck. i have trouble seeing this as somehow someone's right to free music, just because they can't afford it. how is recorded music different than any other commodity? do you have the right to free gas because, fuck, i cant afford $3.60 a gallon?

[billygomberg]

cds are as obsolete as vinyl records or cassettes. they are inefficient, over-priced, and all too often unappealing. as of today the main reasons to buy cds are specifically to support the artist or to collect/obtain the art object.

this is an opinion that I hear often, especially from some of the label owners that I know. and yes, buying a disc is how I intend to support artists and labels. I'm not that big on mp3 downloads, but I'm warming to it.

that leaves some pretty open questions about how artists might get compensated for their creation and what exactly the label's role would be in a download-focused market but it doesn't really address the ethical question proposed above. should a listener be confined to consume only the music they can afford? i dunno, i can confine myself that way but i can also afford quite a bit of music.

m

this is a slightly different issue, and I don't know if label owners and musicians are open to discussing this. For everything I've released, my compensation is copies of the release itself. Any cash money I earn off of my work is still mine to go out there and earn by getting cash in hand from selling my releases myself. The labels whom I have worked with, and the others whose owner/operators I know, are not boasting huge profit margins, and the goal is mostly to be able to keep releasing music.

To this end, I have, and seek, full-time, regular dude employment. This is the only way for me to fund my own music, as well as continue to give Jon Abbey my money. I don't expect it to change, much less in the US, where "arts funding" is a punchline.

[mudd]

i think music is pretty different than gasoline. for one thing it doesn't break down to smaller molecules after i use it, so i could easily use it again or give it to someone else to use. and i can make a mathematically identical copy for effectively zero cost.

on the other hand why isn't music like famous paintings? nobody complains when i download a jpeg of the mona lisa. i can walk to the rothko chapel and enjoy great art as much as i like and pay nothing.

m

[barry]

i think music is pretty different than gasoline. for one thing it doesn't break down to smaller molecules after i use it, so i could easily use it again or give it to someone else to use. and i can make a mathematically identical copy for effectively zero cost.

on the other hand why isn't music like famous paintings? nobody complains when i download a jpeg of the mona lisa. i can walk to the rothko chapel and enjoy great art as much as i like and pay nothing.

m

for one thing, the identical copies are not zero cost, unless you are talking about illegal downloads. and secondly no one cares if you download a jpeg of the mona lisa because the artist is long DEAD. you could also walk into my living room and enjoy my music any time you like. if you want to leave with a copy, it will cost you, and rightfully so. the creators and distributors of music are still very much alive and in need of making some kind of living from, or at very least, make some of their investment back on the making of the music.

[Joda]

on the other hand why isn't music like famous paintings? nobody complains when i download a jpeg of the mona lisa. i can walk to the rothko chapel and enjoy great art as much as i like and pay nothing.

That's a good point. I don't download or listen to mp3s of experimental music for the sake of sound quality (mostly, packaging and context are important as well), I have no moral objection to it. Which is pretty much how I feel about painting. A number of my favourite painters I know only from reproductions, but I would jump at the chance to see the real thing. When I have had the opportunity, I do, and it's made a world of difference (Gustave Moreau is a good example). I see music as the same, mp3 is fine to check something out, even enjoy it and inquire further, etc.- but never to be confused with the real thing. I've never gained any money from releasing music anyways, so I don't feel as though I'm being cheated by file sharing, but I do think our ears are.

[jon abbey]

i agree Jon that this is off topic but not quite. I just based my observations in following the scene not only here in Slovenia but wider (concert-wise), even from talking w a lot of musicians. You know that the EAI community on slsk was couple of years much bigger and the spread of downloads (interest) were much wider. Also the downfall of interest for this music from the point of reviews in the magazines, the move to blogs, etc ... tells something more than for example the chance in editorial policy in The Wire for instance. I know a lot of people who still are buying and downloading music, going to concerts, etc ... who were really enthusiastic about Erstwhile and EAI in general but just lost their interest, while they obtain interest in 'different forms of improv'. I don't know the answers to this but it sure exist out there and should be questioned i guess.

interesting. I have an intentionally cloistered world and circle of interaction, but I don't really see any of this from my perspective.

[mudd]

a large percentage of file-sharing is lossless these days, joda. waveform to waveform there is no difference in quality. in presence, propriety, and good will there is a lot of difference though. i honestly feel better about listening to an original tape that sounds like shit and is nearly overwhelmed on playback by the gears of the tape deck even if the mp3s i downloaded for free sound much better. but that's my own personal feeling and i can't guarantee anyone else would feel the same.

and barry i don't really understand why you say a copy would cost. maybe i should have said 'no additional cost'? ripping a cd doesn't cost me anything except wear and tear on my computer and a few watts of power to run it.

i also think you are missing the point about the mona lisa. it isn't because da vinci is dead, i don't think there are any paintings that would generate an uproar over free digital downloads. because it's the unique essence of the original that is agreed to be valuable. a reproduction would only be worth the price of reproducing. the existing model in music is that those reproductions are distributed for a price that more or less arbitrarily divides the cost of the original production over some number of reproductions. it's this model that i am questioning, not the essential value of the music. there is no motivation for the consumer to share that cost other than a nebulous moral obligation and a rare desire for the physical object. if the CD is in direct competition with free mp3s, it can't win.

i guess that model is used some in visual arts too, but typical the prints are signed and numbered and the proportion of the essential value is more or less explicit. it's also more arguable that reproductions cannot be exact in most visual arts, but there are enough counter-examples to that.

i'm worried my position is coming across as combative, so i guess i'll restate: musicians should be compensated for their creation, not for the distribution thereof. once compensation is accounted for, free distribution is in everyone's best interest. except label owners, but i think usually gallery curators still take home pay checks.

m

[jon abbey]

i'm worried my position is coming across as combative, so i guess i'll restate: musicians should be compensated for their creation, not for the distribution thereof. once compensation is accounted for, free distribution is in everyone's best interest. except label owners, but i think usually gallery curators still take home pay checks.

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.