Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
i laugh at both sides. consumers are idiots for illegally filesharing, and the labels are idiots for their stubborness in adapting new technology to their marketplace. i feel sorry for no one but the artists
|
I'm not sure I understand this stance. For one, it seems that artists are actually benefitting from filesharing. If they can adapt to the new system (see Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, etc) they have everything to gain from this. Further to that, it was filesharing that started the whole thing. If nobody had engaged in filesharing the labels wouldn't be under pressure like they are now and we'd still be using the same broken system that was in place before Napster reared it's head.
Filesharing is a medium. New media, when technology advances sufficiently to support them, demand to be used. Once computers and internet connections became fast enough to allow it, filesharing was an inevitability. It can't be litigated out of existence and it simply cannot be stopped. Further, there's no reason why it should be; filesharing networks are becoming the new radio stations, allowing bands to get exposure and build followings like they never could before. Look at the explosion of indie bands making good lately. Modest Mouse, Death Cab for Cutie, Arcade Fire, Bedouin Soundclash, the list goes on. Where a scant five years ago mentioning Pavement in a room full of people garnered nothing but blank stares, you are now almost certain to have at least a few people know what you're talking about. These bands are thriving and doing far better than they ever could have prior to the advent of a way to get their music out to the larger public efficiently.
I would argue that nobody deserves pity in this case, except perhaps the thousands of people who have been sued by the RIAA and forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for crimes they may not have committed. The Big Four are reaping what they've sown, the consumers are doing what consumers always do and the artists have a chance at more success than was ever possible under the old system (discounting the top 5% or so, who as often as not achieved that status due to label practices rather than on their own merit anyway). The future of music may well be the punk DIY ethic taken to it's extreme, with bands forming small collectives and releasing their music online without any major label involvement whatsoever. At worst, I could easily see a large split in the power structure, with a large number of small labels producing music instead of a few very large ones. This is still better for everyone involved, since it promotes a healthy level of competition and gives the artist more choice in who they sign with, meaning they'll get a better deal than would otherwise be possible.
But, y'know, that's just my two cents and then some.