It's good that you understand this market reality. Many artists don't and waste away hours counting the imaginary money they think they've lost from downloading.mflorio wrote:I also know for a fact that others have illegally downloaded it, and while I'm not materially hurt by that fact (as I sell so few anyway)
Sorry for the confusion. I was merely responding to your statement "It is an idea that was labored upon by a craftsman in order to bring it into a presentable, tangible, marketable form."mflorio wrote:One statement that you made:
"It doesn't have to be tangible to be marketable. Downloading (illegal and legal) has shown that many consumers actually prefer the intangible form."
I just don't understand your reasoning here.
I was merely pointing out that something not tangible could still be marketable. I didn't mean to imply that the intangible form doesn't have value. My tendency toward notwelcome-retentive English nerdery told me that you intended for these to be coordinate adjectives. Usage of the comma in this way implies an "and" relationship between the adjectives. I'm guessing that you probably didn't intend it that way.
I could be completely naive about that. I guess I see giving people the benefit of the doubt as part of the whole "love your neighbor" package. I do have relatives, friends & acquaintances who do shamelessly go the download instead of purchase route. I politely decline their requests to copy my stuff. Even so, most people I know who collect music also pay for it. Maybe I just hang with the wrong crowd.mflorio wrote:I find your conviction that most people are of good enough conscience to actually pay anyway intriguing.
I guess I've always been the kind of person who believes that the moral conscience that God writes on the hearts of every person doesn't change with shifts in social mores. The majority of people will still recognize the wrongness of stealing music even when the cultural elite has accepted it as normal. Sort of like adultery. Every one "knows" that it is immoral, though the rest of the (western) world accepts it.mflorio wrote:But even if you are correct, that might not be the case in another 10 years or so,
Let's be honest. For the most part, the artists we talk about here don't make a living from their recorded work - major label bands with established fan bases (Rush, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd) and evergreen catalogs are obvious exceptions. The lack of "adequate" payment to make a living doesn't deter most "underground" artists from recording. People who make this kind of music aren't motivated by money. I don't think I've ever seen evidence that the marginal value of "lost sales" from downloading doesn't push an artist from able to make a living on sales of recorded music to unable to make a living. My experience is that musicians who are in it for the money end up as disappointed with their wealth as I am their music. Given the advancements in recording technology available to the average guy, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with low budget recordings.mflorio wrote:That's all well and fine, but don't expect to find much music really worth listening to, as most artists will just have to crank out low budget recordings in between their 'paying' day jobs.