Creative Commons
I recently attended Yale’s Rebellious Lawyering Conference and had the pleasure of listening to a panel called “reclaiming culture.” It was one of many amazing panels and events that I saw, but I think it is particularly interesting for artists, musicians, and creative persons.
On the panel was Glenn Otis Brown – founder of http://www.CreativeCommons.org , Nelson Pavlosky – Co-Founder of http://www.FreeCulture.Org, and Siva Vaidhyanathan – New York University professor and author on free culture.
I know that some of you may be familiar with the free culture movement, but I’d like to draw your attention to Creative Commons Licenses. CC Licenses allow an artist to waive specific rights that are automatically created whenever she creates something tangible (a recorded piece of music, a sculpture, a scientific breakthrough, etc.). Modern law creates a copyright with very strict rules as soon as the thing is created. It is still up to you, whether or not you use the copyright to bring a suit against whoever is using your “intellectual property.” You may choose to not bring a suit, but this method doesn’t assure a potential user that you will not sue. Without knowing whether using someone else’s work will result in a lawsuit, many potential creators are discouraged form using other’s work at all. However, CC Licenses are typically placed on a website for all to see, and can be linked from a website that contains the licensed work.
In music sharing, music corporations use copyrights to shut down the likes of Napster, sue teenagers, and team up with Pepsi to sell mp3s. Diebold tried to use copyright law to sue websites that posted internal memos about the inadequacy of their electronic voting machines. Even though they lost in court, it is an extreme example of how far copyright law has gone into restricting free speech.
To learn more about how trends in copyright law are threatening free speech, culture, expression, and creativity visit freeculture.org.
To those musicians, writers, photographers, inventors, thinkers, etc., consider using creative common licenses for your work. It is free and easy and allows you to control what rights you want to keep and what rights you wish to waive. Creative Commons licenses give those who wish to use your work the peace of mind of knowing exactly what you will allow to be done with it, without losing those rights you want to hold on to. For example you can allow anyone to freely copy your music, but not allow a television show to use your songs without consent.
I love this idea because it puts the law into the hands of the creator; and allow others to use that work and know that what they are doing is legal and ethical. It is a true form of DIY law. To obtain CC Licenses on your work go to creativecommons.org
I wish I could have attended this conference session. I imagine it was quite interesting. I love Creative Commons. In fact, I use their service on the images I’ve uploaded to Flickr.com (some of which were previously copyrighted by the newspapers I worked for). In any case, I definitely like how you can select the way in which you want to copyright your creative work. I’ve noticed several blogs now contain the CC licensing as well.
I’m confused as to why songwriters would want to give up their right to sell their work. Currently, the illegality of downloading copyrighted music without paying acts a deterrent to at least some people. By registering for a CC license, you’re only licensing others to download your music without compensating you. How does that benefit the person(s) who spent lots of time and money creating that music? Who is going to pay for a record when the artist is giving them away at the click of a mouse? I don’t get it.
Another related concern of mine is the rationalization that goes hand-in-hand with illegal downloading. For example, people often justify downloading a song by claiming that the other songs on a record are less good than the song they initially like. “Why should I pay full price if I only want one track?,” they say. So I guess a songwriter has to write an album of IMMEDIATELY classic material these days, or he/she doesn’t deserve compensation. Whatever happened to allowing album to grow on you after being originally drawn to the artist by a single song? Apparently, musicians don’t get that chance anymore. Don’t like every song upon first listen?? F-it, just steal the song you do like and move on. Next thing you know, people are downloading MULTIPLE songs from an album without paying instead of just one. It’s a slippery slope. So I could write half-an-album’s worth of instant classics and people could still rationalize not paying me a dime. Again, I just don’t get it.
How any musician can go along with this is beyond me. By doing so, we devalue our own hard work and talent. How can a musician make a living without a product that the public values?
The beauty of a cc license is that you choose what rights you want to waive, if any. There are many reasons to make your music free to download. (Plublicity…remixing…wanting your art to be used and shared easily)
If you are concerned about making a living through music then you automatically have a copyright. If you are concerned about expression to as many people as possible and the effects your work has on cultural progression, then you may choose to use a creative commons license. In other words, its not about the money.
”…expression to as many people as possible and the effects your work has on cultural progression.”
Sounds great, but once the bills start rolling in, these concepts are put into their proper perspective. Money is freedom, without which artistic expression can never be more than a hobby. If it becomes impossible for a musician to make a living in music, the quality of music will rapidly decline. That’s reality. Getting things for “free” isn’t.
Hey, that green line is contagious!
“If it becomes impossible for a musician to make a living in music, the quality of music will rapidly decline.”
I completely disagree… I think a musician should be compensated for their art but to say if he/she weren’t their art would diminish in quality is not at all true. Look at Van Gogh. He never celebrated great wealth or even fame and created some of the best art this world has ever seen!
An obvious question for you Tony is what about the songs you’re writing right now? Are they just crap because you aren’t getting paid big bucks?
Check this out The Problem With Music
Van Gogh, while a brilliant painter, failed at essentially everything he attempted to do outside of painting. Unable to make a living for himself, he was supported financially by his brother, Theo. He even checked into an asylum voluntarily and therefore was able to devote all of his time to his art. So his situation was not exactly “realistic” and certainly his life is not one that another artist should attempt to emulate.
The point I was making is that if you’re not wealthy and have other responsibilities, you’re eventually going to give up on the serious pursuit of music a look for another way to better your situation. The harder it gets for a musician to make a living, the less likely it is that a struggling musician will stick it out. Overall there will be fewer people making less of an effort to create music – by necessity, not by choice – and the quality of music will decline as a result.
Finally, any none of the songs we’ve been working on has been heard by more people than you could count on one hand. Once the music is “out there” and if we play our cards right, I think both of us could make a few bucks. And I never implied that if an artist isn’t making money, their work is “crap”.
Haven’t had a chance to read the link above, just wanted to get in a few comments.
I’ve read Lust for Life, I know Van Gogh’s story fairly well…
By your theory an individual not making a living with music probably won’t make music for very long because it’s not self-sustaining… So all those folk/blues singers of the past? Or the songs of slaves, prisoners, etc… How do you explain some of the best music written?
The money industry surrounding music is akin to gift shops surrounding the Grand Canyon. Would the Grand Canyon cease to be amazing if those shops weren’t there? Would Niagara Falls lose its awe if it weren’t a travel destination in AAA’s tourist handbook?
To expand on your theory further… If the quality of music is truly a consequence of the success of musicians then why at this exact point in time do the things I hear on the radio suck so much?
I think some of the best music was made by both people making and not “making a living” off the art of music. I also think as a listener and genuine fan of music it’s our job to find and promote these people whether or not they’re attached to a major, indie, or no label at all.
I don’t care if you’re a brick-layer in Utah, if you love music you’re not going to give up a pursuit in writing and creating. Fuck the industry, I mean, what are we really here for? To live life, or to love life…
Tony, the issue in the free culture arguement is the opposite of what you are saying. The strict restriction of the use of music is actually hurting the quality of music. Aside from the one issue of downloading songs for free, copyright law has become so inclusive that even using a song or sound as inspiration for your own music may be illegal. If an artist is so concerned with making a living that she will monopolize her sound or style through copyright law, then her art has been isolated from the progression of art and culture.
If Paul’s Boutique were made today it couldn’t be released without multiple lawsuits. In my mind, hip hop has been on a steady decline since copyright law has become stricter and stricter. But its not just hip hop, there have been lawsuits over the sound of singers’ voices, the effects used on instruments, and other stylistic elements of music. These lawsuits are bound to hinder the quality of music. What if the first band to use reverb on a guitar had a copyright over reverb?
“How do you explain some of the best music written?”
Sure there are always exceptions, but from the court composers of Europeans monarchs of centuries past to the Beatles, the best music has been created by those who were well-paid or – and this is very important – HOPED they would someday be paid for their work. Furthermore, we live in an era when it is possible for an average person without advanced musical education to make money writing and performing music. This was not always the case.
“Would the Grand Canyon cease to be amazing if those shops weren’t there? Would Niagara Falls lose its awe if it weren’t a travel destination in AAA’s tourist handbook?”
I’m glad you mentioned this. These amazing geologic wonders are the result of enormous amounts of work accomplished (free of charge) via the Earth’s natural processes. On the other hand, to get people (artists) to do equally amazing things, there must be incentive because it takes an enormous amount of work to create art of a high-caliber.
“If the quality of music is truly a consequence of the success of musicians then why at this exact point in time do the things I hear on the radio suck so much?”
Because the industry caters to the wrong aspects of the business. But you know that there is plenty of good music out there that is neglected by the larger media outlets.
“Fuck the industry, I mean, what are we really here for?”
I’m here trying to make a living doing something I enjoy (music) so that I no longer have to do something 40+ hours a week that I enjoy far less. If I have the chance to better my financial situation AND make the music I want to make, why wouldn’t I?
Jeff, you imply that an artist can successfully “monopolize” an entire style of music? Please cite examples of this occurring. I’ve never heard of such a thing. When George Harrison got sued, it was because his song “My Sweet Lord” was almost identical to “He’s So Fine”. When the Verve got cleaned out, it was because they sampled the Rolling Stones without permission. Both cases were justified. But I’d like to know exactly which cases you’re referring to.
You and others seem to think that it’s taboo to talk about money and music together because it’s somehow not “progressive” enough to do so. Are you afraid of being labeled someone who is “all about the money”? Well, I know what I’m about, and I think it’s okay to ask to be paid for a return on my investment. Would I be happy if I never made a dime in the music business? Sure, but I’m not going to waive my rights out of fear of being labeled “greedy” or some such bullshit.
Lastly, with regard to hip-hop and any other style of music that utilizes sampling, I think you’re not a musician if you don’t perform your own music. I’ve never cared for the Beastie Boys anyway. If you need to sample, pay the original performer accordingly, unless they give you permission to do otherwise. And if you don’t, you deserve to get sued. You’re trying to connect being inspired with stealing, which is crazy.
“What if the first band to use reverb on a guitar had a copyright over reverb?” That would be completely absurd and will never happen.
“I’m here trying to make a living doing something I enjoy (music) so that I no longer have to do something 40+ hours a week that I enjoy far less. If I have the chance to better my financial situation AND make the music I want to make, why wouldn’t I?”
And if you couldn’t better you’re financial situation you wouldn’t make that same music?
I agree that money helps music get out to the masses but your points keep crossing. First I assumed you were talking about individual musicians not being as good if they weren’t paid. Then you corrected me and said that music in general wouldn’t be as good if it weren’t for money…
Both these points I think are dead wrong. The business of music has NOTHING to do with the quality of music. Look at it this way. Let’s imagine (as a hobby) I love balancing things on my head. A lot of people in my neighborhood begin gathering around watching me balance all kinds of household crap. A few weeks later the guy around the block is doing the same thing and he’s got an even bigger audience. Then all of a sudden it catches on and boom, everyone in the friggin’ world is either balancing or watching someone balance crap on their heads. Somewhere along the line a balancer started charging to view him in the act. Some guys are charging, some not. I just keep doing it, because I enjoy doing it. My audience has gone to the guy around the block because he’s doing cars and stuff but it doesn’t bother me because I DO WHAT MAKES ME HAPPY! So, am I not as a good as the guys charging? Is my hobby not as genuine or respectable because I don’t make money on it. Come on Tony! Music and money have NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER! Yes, money helped you hear The Beatles but it didn’t help all the artists those mop-heads ripped off in the process.
No one needs music to survive. It’s pleasurable to listen to, but it’s not a necessity. Therefore money hasn’t a thing to do with quality or the art AT ALL!
I’m happy that musicians are getting paid for creating music. I think it’s great that art has turned into a career for many. But to say it wouldn’t be as good or people wouldn’t do it because they have no prospects of making a living on it just cheapens the art and exploits the makers… How can you not see that!?
Here’s another point. Look at the art of film. Some films are done with huge budgets, some hardly any budget. Now rank ‘em. Is there any correlation between big budget and low budget in the quality of the picture? I don’t think so. Water World blew and Clerks was hilarious! Which did you enjoy more Memento or Titanic?
Oh yeah, and musicians have tried to copyright their sound… So the reverb comment isn’t absurd. And as far as the hip-hop thing goes I can see you view the issue as black and white but what about the gray areas?
What would you think if an artist was sued because they happened to use a similiar chord progression as another artist? And before you declare that being “absurd”, NWA was sued by Parliment’s copyright holder for sampling 3 notes of a guitar riff! We’re talking 1.5 seconds of sound here!
Where do you draw the line? When is it stealing? And by that token, you’ve probably stolen all kinds of riffs on your album so you better watch out when lawyers representing Television, The Beatles, Joel Plaskett, or The Strokes start knocking on your door…
“And if you couldn’t better you’re financial situation you wouldn’t make that same music?”
I never said that. I said if I had the chance to do BOTH, I would. My stance is that I wouldn’t waive my rights because that would nullify my chances of possibly making money via selling records.
“The business of music has NOTHING to do with the quality of music.”
Not true. Let’s use the example of the Beatles again. Had they never experienced the success they did first as a cover band and then as an original “pop” act, they never would have had the opportunity to create their later music. Hell, they didn’t even have to tour (or work day jobs, obviously) because they sold so many records and so much merchandise. They were able to experiment for as long as they wanted at the most expensive studios with the most expensive equipment available and they took advantage of that chance and made some of the best music ever. In short, unless the Beatles are already filthy rich, the White Album DOES NOT get made. That’s a fact. That holds true for all kinds of music that only got made because the artists had the freedom to experiment as a DIRECT RESULT of getting rich in the music business. That’s what I mean when I say the quality of music will suffer if there’s no way to make a living as a musician.
Of course there are always people who come out of nowhere and make great music. There are those who have little or no commercial success but who continuously churn out good (and bad) music because they simply love doing it. But that does not invalidate my argument.
“Yes, money helped you hear The Beatles but it didn’t help all the artists those mop-heads ripped off in the process.”
Many of the musicians who heavily influenced the British Invasion saw their own popularity skyrocket as a result. Sometimes it was simply because the Brits talked about them as influences, sometimes, though more seldomly, it was via collaborations. B.B. King is a perfect example of this. Sure, not every one did as well as he ended up doing, but to say none of the influential blues and rock pioneers benefitted from the later success of others would be inaccurate.
“I’m happy that musicians are getting paid for creating music. I think it’s great that art has turned into a career for many. But to say it wouldn’t be as good or people wouldn’t do it because they have no prospects of making a living on it just cheapens the art and exploits the makers… How can you not see that!?”
This is what is boils down to: Money creates freedom. Freedom allows for more creativity. I don’t think I can state it any simpler. Take away the money and the freedom and the result is that fewer people have the opportunity to expand their creativity.
The key, it seems, is have the ability to break into the business. Kevin Smith made Clerks for next to nothing and if he doesn’t become famous for that movie, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc. NEVER GET MADE. (That would have been ok as far as Dogma is concerned, if you ask me.)
So my question to Jeff would be, how does it contribute to the progression of art and culture, which you elevate above the idea of making money, if the the Beatles never made the White Album and if Kevin Smith never made another movie after Clerks?
“Oh yeah, and musicians have tried to copyright their sound… So the reverb comment isn’t absurd.”
Still waiting for examples of an entire “sound” being successfully owned by a single person/group.
If the Beatles lawyers showed up at my door, that would be totally sweet!! :) We discussed this last night, but to restate my opinion – if you use an idea as inspiration and create your own art as a result, you’re fine. If you steal an actual recording OR duplicate a previous recording so that they are almost indistinguishable (a la George Harrison), you’re in the wrong. Try to PROVE that I’m ripping off Television and compare that with trying to prove that NWA borrowed from Parliment. One is way easier than the other and that’s how you draw the line between what’s ok and what isn’t.
“That’s a fact. That holds true for all kinds of music that only got made because the artists had the freedom to experiment as a DIRECT RESULT of getting rich in the music business. That’s what I mean when I say the quality of music will suffer if there’s no way to make a living as a musician.”
What about the artists that end up making horrible albums after they get the cash? Your argument still has that gapping hole in it.
“Take away the money and the freedom and the result is that fewer people have the opportunity to expand their creativity.”
I work in an industry that requires me to be creative on average of 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, etc… Your logic is money equates to creativity.
Let me tell you something, creativity is not a commodity one can buy and sell off the shelf… I’ve came up with far better design on my own than at work. It’s not because I’m restricted at work but more because I really don’t want to HAVE to create. Call it divine inspiration or whatever, but just because money’s involved doesn’t mean I have an easier time creating something.
Think about this fact. I’m sitting at my desk with all the expensive, industry standard tools and processes at my fingertips yet I haven’t once created anything I’m as proud as what I’ve done at home with a pencil and paper.
Just because someone has the best studio and vast amounts of time to write doesn’t mean he/she is going to produce a great song. And for that reason I completely disagree with your assembly line theory to creativity.
I’m really having a tough time understanding how you view creativity. Do you see a correlation with time and effort versus which songs you prefer as far as the songs you’ve written are concerned? Which song is your favorite? Did it take a longer time or shorter time to produce? With my stuff, I can honestly say my favorite songs have nothing to do with how long I spent on ‘em…
“Try to PROVE that I’m ripping off Television and compare that with trying to prove that NWA borrowed from Parliament. One is way easier than the other and that’s how you draw the line between what’s ok and what isn’t.”
So, because “it’s easier to prove” it’s more of a viable lawsuit?
“What about the artists that end up making horrible albums after they get the cash? Your argument still has that gapping hole in it.”
No it doesn’t. I’m not saying that every one who has made money in music continued to make great music. Where did I say that? My point is that without the opportunities that money afforded them, many artists would not have been able to do their best work.
“Your logic is money equates to creativity.”
Also incorrect. My belief is that money gives an artist the OPPORTUNITY to be more creative. It doesn’t guarantee anything as far as the quality of music and I never said it did. Nor is it necessary to the creative process. But refer back to my example of the White Album. My theory is the exact opposite of the “assembly-line” model. The “assembly-line” is what you end up with when don’t have the chance to experiment.
Personally, I can say that I won’t continue to toil away with music indefinitely at the expense of ever making more money. My job doesn’t pay well enough for me to say that I can be satisfied with it for much longer. So if I make no money in music I MIGHT have to do something that improves my standing, but which eliminates my ability to continue making music. And that’s fine with me. But there’s a chance that if I am able to sustain myself and my family via the music business, I might be able to write some excellent music that otherwise would not have been written.
“So, because “it’s easier to prove” it’s more of a viable lawsuit?”
Ummmm, yeah. That’s what a viable lawsuit is. If it’s impossible to prove, it’s not viable, right?
To respond to your questions about my songs/songwriting, I would say that every song is written differently. Some are written in a matter of minutes, some are an amalgamation of parts written individually over the course of months or even years. The ones I like best come from both categories. So there’s really no set pattern to the process.
I do know that probably 90% or more of my music was written during a period when I worked part time and didn’t have a family to support. Now that I have a wife, child, full-time job, and lots of bills to pay, I have less time to be creative, and my creative output has diminished proportionately. I may never have the chance to be as creative as I used to be again. As you might guess, my own personal experience really supports a lot of my aforementioned ideas.
“My point is that without the opportunities that money afforded them, many artists would not have been able to do their best work.”
Your points have been many:
“If it becomes impossible for a musician to make a living in music, the quality of music will rapidly decline.”
“Overall there will be fewer people making less of an effort to create music – by necessity, not by choice – and the quality of music will decline as a result.”
“The best music has been created by those who were well-paid or – and this is very important – HOPED they would someday be paid for their work.”
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t entirely disagree with these points. But if you take them all to the letter the entire independent industry would have never flourished or even existed. Yes, some of the best music came from The Beatles, The Stones, etc… But most of my favorite records came from independent artists barely making anything – or having ANY HOPE TO – off their records and also turning down contracts to make that elusive boat-load of cash.
Watch Jem Cohen’s documentary film covering the career of Fugazi titled Instrument and listen to Ian MacKaye. That film covers my point very well.
With this in mind, your argument, however sound you’ve convinced yourself it is, is not great.
“The ‘assembly-line’ is what you end up with when don’t have the chance to experiment.”
I can’t disagree more with this comment. Many mainstream artists have been victims of assembly-line production and creation of records because the added pressure creating it to the label’s specs’… Eminem complained constantly in interviews when his second album was temporarily shelved because it didn’t contain “a hit.” Fiona Apple is still trying to release a follow-up to her sophomore record, When a Pawn… but the label has indefinitely shelved the record do to its lack of “a hit.”
How is this helping an artist be creative? Forcing them to write a hit helps creativity? Sure, The Beatles had freedom but very few modern artists have anything like that anymore. Actually, Radiohead is the only mainstream band that comes to mind.
And without money you don’t have a chance to experiment? I experiment quite adaquately without being paid to do so… The reason people don’t experiment isn’t because of other responsibilities. If you’re a creative person you’ll find an outlet, no matter the time retraints, access to equipment, etc… Either the artist makes music his/her priority or all the money in the world isn’t going to help ‘em.
In conclusion:
Money has nothing to do with quality of, creation of, experimentation of, or anything relating to music.
Are you implying that I’ve altered my argument? I’ve had to restate it a couple times, using different words of course, but all those quotes are essentially saying the same thing.
“But most of my favorite records came from independent artists barely making anything – or having ANY HOPE TO – off their records and also turning down contracts to make that elusive boat-load of cash.”
That’s fine, Randy, but lots of other people’s favorites would never have existed without the money involved.
You keep hammering away at the point that it is possible to make music without making money. Of course it is. I have never disagreed with that. That’s the case more often than not actually. But that doesn’t invalidate my argument.
What if your all-time favorite songwriter, whose songs you absolutely worship, is only in the business to get rich? What if he or she has a knack for songwriting but doesn’t really care much about artistic integrity? What if that person saw that they couldn’t make money and walked away from music, never releasing the songs that you are now so enamored with? For that person, money has everything to do with music and I can absolutely guarantee that many well-known and respected musicians have these traits. Don’t think so? If this were true about a famous musician, do you think they would let on?
In response to your conclusion:
For reasons already explained, I disagree.
Looks like you added some stuff to your post. The examples of Eminem and Fiona Apple illustrate things that have been going on for a long time. These artists should have negotiated a deal that gives them final say over all artistic matters. That might have meant signing with a different label altogether. They have only themselves to blame. Strictly speaking, the record companies have every right to demand music that they feel will sell well. They might be wrong about what will sell, but that’s not the issue. If they have a contract with the artist that gives them the right to demand “hit” material, they might as well do so. It’s up to the artist to negotiate that power away from the record execs. If they don’t they have hindered they own creativity so they shouldn’t complain.
We can sit here all day long and complain about the evils of the “industry”, but if the artists didn’t go along with it, there would be nothing to complain about.
The origin of this debate was copyrighting and file-sharing, etc. This is something that affects anyone who tries to sell records, on a major or an indie, no matter what the nature of their record deal is.
No, I wasn’t implying that your argument has changed. I was building to the paragraph that follows up the quotes (about independent artists).
I can see that neither of us is budging on our theories of money and creativity but I would like to make one last point. Your argument relies on artists such as The Beatles, Stones, etc… to stand. Yet, those artists existed before the height of music exploitation. Therefore, I feel you’re looking at this issue through modern eyes.
The Beatles would have never in their wildest dreams thought that they would have nearly single-handedly created a pop music industry with their songs. So your point about artists having “hopes” of one day making a living off their music is inherently flawed against your own example artist.
In essence The White Album was written because of The Beatles being disenfranchised and/or disillusioned with the music industry and the money hungry politics you speak so empowering of.
With, or without the industry I truly believe great music would not only exist but flourish. Musicians would still be free to create without “making a living.” You can’t affect the quality of artistic expression with money. Being an artist I’m disgusted with anyone thinking this could happen.
The things money does effect in music (or art in general) is distribution, promotion, etc… These are both positive and negative things. Promotion as we all know can be abused to sell crap records based entirely on hype. Distribution can both spread a new idea – which is a great thing – and homogenize an entire scene – which is a bad thing.
Yes, it looks like neither of us is budging. I don’t disagree with everything you say, but my one last point would be this. You say money can’t “affect” the quality of music. Perhaps you mean to say that no amount of money can make a bad songwriter write good songs because getting paid doesn’t change the ability of the songwriter. That’s very true. But money can affect the quality of music by giving the good songwriter the chance to make more music, a chance they might not have without money being involved. If one good songwriter is prevented from making more music for economic reasons, the overall quality of music will decline because that person will no longer be able to contribute to the world’s supply of music.
But let’s step away from the big picture so I can explain where I’m coming from. I do not have a skilled trade or advanced education. I was raised not to talk specifics about my or another’s income, but I’ll just say that my and my wife’s combined household annual income is less that $30K. With a child and a house, we struggle to pay the bills. And I don’t mean bills for luxury items. My options are to find a new job or look forward to a piddly yearly raise (that’s approx. $0.50 an hour) for the rest of my life at my current job. What does this have to do with music? For me, music is hopefully going to be that “new job” someday. If it doesn’t work out that way, I’ll have to look for another job that might possibly relegate music to “part-time hobby” status for me. Or I might return to school, in which case I wouldn’t have time for music.
So if by some chance Joe Schmoe really likes my songs, he’ll be disappointed to find out that I had to quit the serious pursuit of music for economic reasons. For him and me, money will have had a huge effect on the quality of music. And if I were to allow people to download my music for free, I would have virtually no chance to make any money via music.
That’s what it comes down to and hopefully it helps you top understand my perspective and that of the countless other like me. Am I complaining about my situation? No, I feel I’m a very lucky person overall. I’m just explaining why I would not willingly give up what little chance I might have to make money as a musician.