Neil Young sez: "Piracy is the new radio."

[chris harris]

If people can't hear my music for free, how are they going to hear about it?

Just because it's free, doesn't mean anyone is going to hear about it.

That's a non-sequitur. I never said it being free meant anyone would hear about it. I asked how they would hear about it if it wasn't free. Your reply has no relevance.

How does whether or not it's free have any relevance to whether or not someone will hear about it?

They'll hear about it the same ways, whether it's free or not.

Besides, nobody is trying to prevent you from making your music available for free. So, maybe it's not any of the statements, but you yourself who are irrelevant to this discussion?

[chris harris]

Justin, I don't mean to suggest that physical distribution is dying. I hope not! I love (and release a lot of) vinyl!

But, compared to digital distribution, physical distribution is definitely trending the opposite direction. I know that vinyl sales have seen an upswing. But, does anyone really believe that this trend will sustain for more than a few more years? I wish it would. But, it won't.

CDs aren't completely dead yet. But, they will be soon. They're the only format sharply trending downward.

[ubertar]

If people can't hear my music for free, how are they going to hear about it?

Just because it's free, doesn't mean anyone is going to hear about it.

That's a non-sequitur. I never said it being free meant anyone would hear about it. I asked how they would hear about it if it wasn't free. Your reply has no relevance.

How does whether or not it's free have any relevance to whether or not someone will hear about it?

They'll hear about it the same ways, whether it's free or not.

Besides, nobody is trying to prevent you from making your music available for free. So, maybe it's not any of the statements, but you yourself who are irrelevant to this discussion?

My question was, and still is:
If people can't hear my music for free, how are they going to hear about it?

You haven't made any attempt to answer this question. You've thrown all kinds of straw men and side issues into the mix, but you haven't addressed this question. What does "the same ways" mean? That's entirely meaningless unless you actually state what it means.

To address this

How does whether or not it's free have any relevance to whether or not someone will hear about it?

more specifically:
If it's free, people have the opportunity to hear it, not just read about it. If people don't hear music, how could they know they want to, enough to pay for it?

[ubertar]

Ubertar, you have every right to distribute your music for free if you want. I think what you're missing here is that Chris and Bob want you to have the right to choose how you would like to distribute your creations. If you choose "free", then that's fine. Piracy however, takes that right away from everyone.

(PS - Also: Apple pays more than 60% of sales revenue to content producers. Megaupload pays 0%. So, Steve Jobs=Kim Dotcom? Not a very effective analogy. Maybe you can find a better one?)

Where did I say artists shouldn't have the right to choose whether to make their music free or not? I didn't say that. The reality, though, is that people will take it for free regardless of what you choose. I'm not saying that's good or right-- just that it's the reality of the situation.

My experience of megaupload it was a way for people to upload and download files. What those files were was up to the person uploading them. If there's more to the story, and it sounds like maybe there was, I don't know about it. I don't want to defend Kim Dotcom... I'm not all that interested either way. All I said was it doesn't bother me.
Unlike a lot of people, I don't have a very high opinion of Steve Jobs and Apple. I don't think they've had a positive influence on the direction of US and world culture. They sure have a shiny exterior though. But that's a whole other subject...

[ubertar]

So, maybe it's not any of the statements, but you yourself who are irrelevant to this discussion?

Ok, then... I'll just crawl into a hole and die. What a shitty thing to say, Chris.

[chris harris]

Jeez.... Talk about your non sequiturs....

[ubertar]

Jeez.... Talk about your non sequiturs....

We were talking about ideas up until then. There's a big difference between calling a statement irrelevant and calling a person irrelevant.

[chris harris]

People can hear all of my music, as well as the other bands on my label, legally, and for free, in a variety of ways, on the same computer that they would otherwise use to download it illegally. Bandcamp, Tunecore, Spotify, Soundcloud, Facebook, iTunes Store.... Hell, the possibilities are MANY. And, it's my choice whether or not to make them available in those places. You have the same choice.

You seem to be trying to say, "How will people hear my music if it's not available for free?" Your inclusion of the word "about" is causing the confusion for me. Just having your music available for free doesn't mean anyone will hear "about" it.

If you weren't "unimpressed" with Spotify enough to ignore that millions of music FANS prefer to consume and discover music that way, and you offered it there, and it interested me, I'd be inclined to share it with my friends, who might share it with their friends, etc....

[chris harris]

Jeez.... Talk about your non sequiturs....

We were talking about ideas up until then. There's a big difference between calling a statement irrelevant and calling a person irrelevant.

Well, I didn't suggest that you crawl in a hole and die. And to suggest that I said you were "irrelevant", without acknowledging the qualifier "to this discussion" just distorts what I meant and makes it sound way more personal than it was intended.

You've expressed a disinterest in the changes that are taking place. I'm just confused about your interest in the discussion. No one will ever stop you from giving your music away for free. And your disinterest won't stop the very real shift that is taking place.

[ubertar]

I'm not sure why I'm responding (or why you responded to me) if I'm irrelevant, but here goes...

I've got stuff on bandcamp too-- people can hear it there for free (streaming) and choose to buy it or not, either on cd or as a download. On the sites you mention, can people hear the music, or do they have to pay first? If they can hear it before paying, you're giving it away free. If not, who's going to take a gamble when there's so much other stuff out there? Are you really telling me you can't hear any of your music on all those sites without paying first?

To help clear up your confusion... I have low quality mp3s that readers of a music blog can download for free, and then they have the option to buy high-quality versions with or without a cd. If I didn't offer the free mp3s, the blog wouldn't be interested in just giving me free promotion. I like the music on that blog, so there's a good chance other people who like what I like will like my stuff too. So that's how people hear about my music in a way they wouldn't if it wasn't free.

The traditional promotional channels involve giving stuff away, too. Like radio. You give the radio stations a free copy, and people hear it free over the radio. Unless it's commercial radio, you don't make any money. Even if you're getting royalties, it's not the listeners who are paying-- they hear it free. Same for podcasts.

[chris harris]

If you distribute your music through iTunes, people using iTunes Match don't even have to purchase it from them in order for you to get paid when they listen to your music in their iTunes player. But I guess if you hate Steve Jobs or Apple for whatever reason, you've shut yourself off from an opportunity like that.

I distribute my music in a lot of ways that I don't personally use for discovering or enjoying music. I do it because it's smart. And I do it because I'm appreciative that people care about my music at all. I'm not going to try to dictate HOW they enjoy it. And I'm not going to suggest that one way of enjoying music is more valid than another. We're talking about people who ENJOY music!

[ubertar]

Jeez.... Talk about your non sequiturs....

We were talking about ideas up until then. There's a big difference between calling a statement irrelevant and calling a person irrelevant.

Well, I didn't suggest that you crawl in a hole and die. And to suggest that I said you were "irrelevant", without acknowledging the qualifier "to this discussion" just distorts what I meant and makes it sound way more personal than it was intended.

You've expressed a disinterest in the changes that are taking place. I'm just confused about your interest in the discussion. No one will ever stop you from giving your music away for free. And your disinterest won't stop the very real shift that is taking place.

The crawling in a hole and dying was metaphorical. If I'm irrelevant to this discussion, I may as well shut up. Basically you were telling me to shut up. It was a shitty thing to say. "I'm sorry, I got carried away" would suffice.

I'm not disinterested in the changes that are taking place... I don't give a damn about Kim Dotcom, though. That's history. And I don't have to subscribe to a vision of the future promoted by Apple, et. al.
I just don't see how you can stop people from copying music digitally and passing it to others. Maybe you can stop people from making money off of it, but you won't stop it from happening. Even if you put something out only on vinyl, someone can covert it to digital and give that away. I'm not saying any of this is right or good. It's just how it is, and it's not going to change. I'm not personally interested in signing up for Spotify, as a listener. That doesn't mean I think no one else should. I don't expect everyone to like the same ice cream flavors as me, either. If that's how people want to get music, and artists get paid, great. I have no interest in being on Facebook either, but lots of people like that-- that's fine with me. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, either.

[chris harris]

Yes, all of the options I mentioned allow you to hear music for free.
No one is trying to prevent you from giving away your music for free. My band makes 320kbps mp3s of our music available for free.

What is the point you're trying to make again? Nobody here is trying to make an argument against your right to offer your music for free.

[chris harris]

Got it.

[ubertar]

If you distribute your music through iTunes, people using iTunes Match don't even have to purchase it from them in order for you to get paid when they listen to your music in their iTunes player. But I guess if you hate Steve Jobs or Apple for whatever reason, you've shut yourself off from an opportunity like that.

I distribute my music in a lot of ways that I don't personally use for discovering or enjoying music. I do it because it's smart. And I do it because I'm appreciative that people care about my music at all. I'm not going to try to dictate HOW they enjoy it. And I'm not going to suggest that one way of enjoying music is more valid than another. We're talking about people who ENJOY music!

I said very early on in this discussion that while I have no interest in Spotify as a listener I have no problem with using it as an artist. The same goes for any other forum, including iTunes. I'm not going to buy any iAnything though. Other people can do whatever they want to do.