File Sharing?

[allthumbs]

Greetings

How about a site to upload pdf files for sheet music, jpegs (photos, cartoons etc), data files for articles on various topics.


Cheers

[kilini]

Copyright might be an issue.

[SteinwayTony]

Copyright might be an issue.

Like, OMG.

[musik_man]

Like, OMG.

Have you ever written a non-sarcastic post?  just curious?

[stephane]

IMO filesharing is a very good idea on itself.

On the other hand, I believe PF is a good forum and I don' want it to become one of those sites where 9 out of 10 post are like "I need that or that partition"

So filesharing for sharing things like i.e. graded-pieces list, own created partions that you want to share, mp3 of own played songs, personal pictures or movies: Great

Filesharing for (illegal) distribution of all kind of copyrighted stuff (mp3, partitions,...): definitely not.

To avoid the later, I think a moderator checking these files is necessary. Else within a couple of weeks PF might start to degrade like many other forums. That would be such a shame. 

But as indicated above, I'm pro filesharing.

Regards,

Stephane

[rohansahai]

Filesharing for (illegal) distribution of all kind of copyrighted stuff (mp3, partitions,...): definitely not.

I don't think so. Classical music in any case is on a steady decline, and with such expensive cd's and general lack of interest in it, it may go down further. We don't want to contribute to this decline... at least some freedom should be there with sharing classical music files.....that's one way, the decline can be slowed (if not stopped). I definitely think that the art itself comes before copyright and other legalities.

[SteinwayTony]

I don't think so. Classical music in any case is on a steady decline, and with such expensive cd's and general lack of interest in it, it may go down further. We don't want to contribute to this decline... at least some freedom should be there with sharing classical music files.....that's one way, the decline can be slowed (if not stopped). I definitely think that the art itself comes before copyright and other legalities.

Wait...this is a joke, right? 

If you want to download for free, what do you suppose happens when everybody follows your lead?  How do you suppose more music gets recorded?  Seems to me that that would be a quicker way to screw classical music for good.

[SteinwayTony]

Have you ever written a non-sarcastic post?  just curious?

If you're really curious (which...I don't exactly understand), you can look for yourself. 


"Copyright might be an issue?"  Not exactly an fountain of knowledge you're defending there, is it? 

[rohansahai]

Wait...this is a joke, right? 

If you want to download for free, what do you suppose happens when everybody follows your lead?  How do you suppose more music gets recorded?  Seems to me that that would be a quicker way to screw classical music for good.

Well i'm not saying that all music should be made free, i'm simply saying that there should be more liberty with downloading classical music (maybe more free pieces per cd), cheaper cd's, quicker expiration of copyrights (a kind of 'public domain' recordings).

[SteinwayTony]

Well i'm not saying that all music should be made free, i'm simply saying that there should be more liberty with downloading classical music (maybe more free pieces per cd), cheaper cd's, quicker expiration of copyrights (a kind of 'public domain' recordings).

You don't really understand where this money goes.  The record companies don't charge $20 for full-price classical CDs because (well, at least only because) they want to suck as much money out of you as they can.  Maybe in pop music, not classical.  $20 includes artist and orchestra royalties, facility fees, state-of-the-art equipment, distribution fees, not to mention that you need to pay the artist and orchestras for their performances.  Really, when you consider that you get an hour of music, occasionally more, for $20, it's not a terrible deal at all, since compact discs last emphatically longer than LPs or cassettes.  For me, I'm more inclined to buy the CD because I being able to physically hold the purchase in my hand, and add it to my bookshelf.  I get scholarly program notes and flattering pictures of the artists.  Sort of like a receipt, only an aesthetically pleasing one. 

You suggest "more liberty with downloading classical music."  I hardly think that's necessary.  iTunes charges 99c per song, or you can usually get an entire album for $7.99.  Isn't that cheap enough?  At least that way you're still supporting (though, obviously, not as much) the artists and encouraging them to make more recordings.

I think your problem is that you're thinking only of yourself, and your wants, and failing to consider the bigger global picture.  Sure, you think, if I download a classical CD for free, nobody will be hurt.  And that's true.  But if everybody does the same, you can kiss goodbye any chances you had of hearing any more recordings from that particular artist. 

[musik_man]

If you think classical Cd's cost too much, buy Naxos.  The Orchestra's have the right to charge whatever they want.

[rohansahai]

You don't really understand where this money goes. The record companies don't charge $20 for full-price classical CDs because (well, at least only because) they want to suck as much money out of you as they can. Maybe in pop music, not classical. $20 includes artist and orchestra royalties, facility fees, state-of-the-art equipment, distribution fees, not to mention that you need to pay the artist and orchestras for their performances. Really, when you consider that you get an hour of music, occasionally more, for $20, it's not a terrible deal at all, since compact discs last emphatically longer than LPs or cassettes. For me, I'm more inclined to buy the CD because I being able to physically hold the purchase in my hand, and add it to my bookshelf. I get scholarly program notes and flattering pictures of the artists. Sort of like a receipt, only an aesthetically pleasing one.

You suggest "more liberty with downloading classical music." I hardly think that's necessary. iTunes charges 99c per song, or you can usually get an entire album for $7.99. Isn't that cheap enough? At least that way you're still supporting (though, obviously, not as much) the artists and encouraging them to make more recordings.

I think your problem is that you're thinking only of yourself, and your wants, and failing to consider the bigger global picture. Sure, you think, if I download a classical CD for free, nobody will be hurt. And that's true. But if everybody does the same, you can kiss goodbye any chances you had of hearing any more recordings from that particular artist.

I'm just giving ideas in which classical music (by the greats) can be made more accessible. What about the expiration of copyrights. For instance, horowitz, gilels, richter......all the 'golden age' pianists are long dead. The companies have made all the profits they could. There should be a procedure to make their recordings public domain after say 20-25 years of their death. Of course, it isn't wise to distribute the latest recordings, but the recordings of performers who are long dead should definitely be made public domain. Half of their performances were LIVE recordings too, in which the orchestra, the conductor, the pianist were paid for the concert itself.... the cost of which was reclaimed by the tickets.
Now, where 'thinking of myself' is concerned....i agree, since in my country, you do not get any piano/western classical cd's, apart from the very basic ones. Plus, you feel that $20 is cheap, it is NOT for a non-earning student, in an economically weak country who has to save for months just in order to think about buying a cd. Not that I don't want to pay for it at all ! But it is extremely frustrating to see the recording companies still charging big money for recordings they've already made loads of profits on, let alone cover the cost of production.
Coming back to my original point.....remember that freebies attract people more than anything else. It just might be the way to promote classical music more. You will get more casual listeners, who may go on to like it and end up buying more cd's of living artists. Lets face the truth.....right now only a small, selected class of people actually like classical.

[allthumbs]

Greetings

Greetings

How about a site to upload pdf files for sheet music, jpegs (photos, cartoons etc), data files for articles on various topics.


Cheers

Looks like I stirred it up a little about the recording industry. In my original post, I just wanted to share pdf sheet music files that were already in the public domain that I have downloaded from other sites. Also from time to time, I have come across articles from various sources that I have put in Microsoft Word format, including public domain music that I have scanned into my computer.

Just a thought.

Cheers

[SteinwayTony]

- Many historical recordings are remastered and reissued at budget prices.  EMI's Great Recordings of the Century (GROC) and Great Artists of the Century are two fine series.  Deutsche Grammophon's Originals is another.  These are generally low- to mid-priced discs, retailing around $13, but my Tower recently had a sale for EMI which made them $9.  Check www.towerrecords.com.

- If you're a non-earning student, that's fine, but first of all try not to whine about it (you have none of my sympathy, for example, because I work two jobs to pay for school), and second of all, resorting to piracy isn't the answer.

[rohansahai]

I think we are not reaching any proper conclusion because of the different circumstances you and I are in. You, i see, are in new york, usa, in a roaring economy. Paying 10-15 dollars for you isn't much of a deal because of the strength of your currency. AND, I do not really need your sympathy, and i'm not whining about it.... i simply accepted the accusation that i was thinking about myself by giving that reason. I'd like to see if you can get a 20$ per MONTH job in India, being 19 yrs old.
Even suppose if I were to work here, it would not even be enough to buy me a couple of meals let alone paying for education and cd's. A CD in india costs about 2 dollars , after converting the currency, and that is supposed to be pretty expensive here.
My point is simple (and you didn't really answer this). Why can't laws be there (for classical music only, mind you) that make a recording made by a particular performer public domain after, say 20 years of his death.
Take Horowitz for instance. At least all his early recordings <1970 (at least), should be made public domain and perfectly legal to share.
Again, I repeat.. classical music is fast on a decline and there have to be ways to bring it up again. What better than making the best pianists' of all time freely accessible. In that way, people may just listen out of curiosity and redevelop the interest which was there in the earlier part of the previous century. I would like to have your views on this point, rather than your sympathy for being a non-earning student.

[bernhard]

You are both wrong.

Rohansahai: Classical music is not in decline. Sure, it may not be as popular as we would like it to be, but in decline? Hardly so. Classical music is at the peak of popularity in history. Never in any historical period was classical music available to so many. Never the number of classical musicians being able to make a living from it was so large. Every year there are more pianists recording more and more obscure repertory, more and more composers composing new music. Where is the decline? Compare the situation in Beethoven’s time, where perhaps 300 or 400 people heard his 9th symphony performed once.

Stenway Tony: The price of a CD has nothing to do with the costs of its production. The price of a CD is simply the price the market is prepared to pay for it. A CD by Andras Schiff costs (in the UK) £18 simply because there is a market that is prepared to pay this amount to hear him. Meanwhile, you can for the same £18 buy 5 Naxos CDs. Clearly producing a Naxos CD cannot be five times more expensive. In fact, Naxos has a subsidiary called Marco Polo dedicated to obscure music. Since no one seems to be buying them, they recently had a sale at the local HMV and they were going for £1 each. Do you really believe they are having a loss? No. They are still making a profit. The industry is making obscene profits. CDs could easily cost in the region of £2 and still cover all the production costs plus everyone having a nice profit. But no. They want to milk the public for all they can. It is easy to stop piracy. Instead of selling a CD for £18, sell it for £5. They will still make an obscene profit. But this is not corporate thinking, you see. Take the ridiculous limitation of “zones” in DVDs. You buy a DVD produced in a zone A and it cannot be played in zone B. Now I ask, why this idiocy? It is just a scheme (= scam) to make more money. This irritates me, and makes me, an otherwise law-abiding citizen prepared to accept things that normally I wouldn’t. Here is just an example. Brazilian multi-instrumentalist Hermetho Paschoal went on TV and begged people to pirate his music because the producers of his CDs would not reissue them or  release them in enough numbers for “economic reasons”. These guys are not a bunch of nuns, and your arguments suggest you have been hypnotised by them.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Hmoll]

Also, Naxos pays artists an obscenely low amount of money to record music.

[musik_man]

Bernhard: The cost of a CD has plenty to do with it's cost of production.  Andreas Schiff probably costs a helluva lot more to hire than someone like Idel Biret.  If you look at a Naxos CD, you'll also notice that the covers are all very dull.  They saved alot of money on a graphics person there.  The sound quality on Naxos is also worse.  All of these things are done to lower cost so that Naxos can sell at a low price and still turn profit.  In the case of Marco Polo, some Naxos exec probably significantly overestimated the demand for rare music.  Naxos made too many CD's and ended up with a bunch of record stores carrying inventory that wasn't moving.  Seeing this, the stores slashed the prices so that they wouldn't take a total loss.  Sure they lost money, but they lost £1 less per CD than they would have if the CD's stayed on the shelves forever.

There are a myriad of costs involved with each CD.  The cost of paying the performer.  Royalties if the piece is still under copyright. The cost of the 100,000 dollar Steinway he might be playing on.  The cost of the equipment that gives a decent sound quality.  The cost of the engineer who splices out that wrong note at 3:46 on track 3.  The cost of the janitor who cleans the building.  The cost of the HR people who hired the engineer and the janitor.  The cost of the CEOs who run the company.  The cost of the building.  All of these need to be made up before the company pulls any profit.  The cost of physically producing the CD makes up very little of the overall costs.

The best analogy here would be drug companies.  Producing the average medicine costs about 80 cents a pill.  Why then are perscription drugs so expensive?  Because on average $900 million of R&D is required to get that drug to the market.  If they sold the pills at 90 cents a pop, sure they'd make more than the pill costs, but they'd have to sell 9 billion pills before they'd see a cent of profit.

Selling CD's at 5 pounds wouldn't stop piracy.  If someone is unwilling to spend 12 dollars on a CD, what makes you think they'd start paying when it cost 7?  People just need an excuse to rationalize stealing music.  Portraying the record companies as evil fits the bill.

If you really believe the stuff in your last post, there's only one reasonable thing that you can do.  Take every penny you have and invest it in record companies.  If they're making obscene profits, why don't you invest in them and set yourself up for a cushy retirement.

[rohansahai]

You are both wrong.

Rohansahai: Classical music is not in decline. Sure, it may not be as popular as we would like it to be, but in decline? Hardly so. Classical music is at the peak of popularity in history. Never in any historical period was classical music available to so many. Never the number of classical musicians being able to make a living from it was so large. Every year there are more pianists recording more and more obscure repertory, more and more composers composing new music. Where is the decline? Compare the situation in Beethoven’s time, where perhaps 300 or 400 people heard his 9th symphony performed once.

Bernhard: Someone has said, "When I was 25 years old, and went to attend classical concerts, I used to find myself among the older people in the audience. Now, when I am 55 and go to a classical concert, I find myself in the 'younger' group."
Classical music is on a heavy decline. You cannot compare purely the number of listeners from Beethoven's time with those today.Instead you should compare the percentages. Today, the youth is least interested in classical music. They won't be knowing who Mozart and Chopin were... and those who may have some idea won't be able to even pronounce the names correctly. Students in school laugh at the 'select' brand of kids who like Mozart over Mariah Carey or Britney Spears and they are all termed as 'geeks' and 'nerds'.  I just do not understand why you say it is not declining. Beethoven's funeral was attended by over 20,000 people. Can you expect the same(or even half of it) for a classical musican today?

Selling CD's at 5 pounds wouldn't stop piracy. If someone is unwilling to spend 12 dollars on a CD, what makes you think they'd start paying when it cost 7?

Exactly ! What i simply feel is that there have been so many great musicians who have been extensively recorded (in the 20th century) and are now long dead. These recordings (or ATLEAST the live ones) should be made available for 'free' in the public domain, so that you can have people who try it out simply out of curiosity... they might go on and like it and end up actually buying cd's of the present classical musicians. The recording companies have been selling them for years and have probably made enough profit out of it. I feel it will only help classical music spread its wings again.
Again I clarify: I AM NOT SAYING THAT RECORDINGS FROM THE PRESENT LOT OF ARTISTS SHOULD BE MADE FREE: IT WOULD BE AN INSANE IDEA TO DO SO BECAUSE IT IS THE SOURCE OF ARTISTS' LIVING. But, the artists who are loongg dead, don't need a living, do they ?

[bernhard]

Er.. you have basically repeated Steinway Tony's corporate business mantra that the price of the goods is caused by the costs of production. Therefore I refer you to my previous post where I said this is just brainwashing.

I will add this though: CDs are industrial, mass produced goods. As such, the moment mass production is into place the costs of production - no matter how high pale - into insignificance, and the price setting is done in reference to market, not to production costs. As an example, just look at the Start Wars franchise. Did it cost a lot to produce? Certainly. But it was an industrialised mass product. So the price to watch it was never set by the production costs, but by what the watching public was prepared to spend on a cinema ticket/DVD. Let us follow this with the actual numbers:

1977 – Start wars cost US$ 10 million to produce. In that year alone it generated US$ 290 million. That is a 29 fold profit.

1978 – Empire strikes back cost US$ 30 million to produce. The return was US$ 222 million.

1983 – Return of the Jedi cost US$ and returned US$ 265 million.

It is only if the marketing operatives are unsuccessful into luring the public into buying their industrialised mass-produced goods that you will see a price that actually reflects the production costs: the sales of unwanted stuff. In the UK we have such outlets both for books and CDs (mostly). There you can buy the same goods that in the next shop are priced at £20 by £2. And don’t kid yourself: they are still profiting for it It is simply not an obscene one. No one is having a loss – although they may say so to gather your sympathy.

Go to any supermarket and look at tin foods. You may see the supermarket own brand of asparagus soup being sold at a fraction of the price of a more famous brand. You may conclude that the more famous brand is better quality, maybe they invested more into a pleasing package, may be they use better chefs to prepare it, or the ingredients are more expensive. So, the production costs are responsible for the difference in price. Well, think again. Supermarkets do not manufacture food (with very few exceptions). They buy their asparagus soup in bulk from the same guys who have the more expensive brand. Since they buy it in bulk, they can sell it for a lower price. So basically in the shelves you will have exactly the same product under two different labels and two different prices. The food manufacturer makes a profit anyway, independently of the fact that you buy the supermarket brand or the famous brand. The price you are paying has nothing to do with the product per se, but on your perception of the product, cleverly manipulated by marketing operatives.

Recently Proctor and Gamble – a soap manufacturer – bought Gillete, here in the UK. This means that when you go to the supermarket you have an apparent bewildering range of choice in regards to soap powder for instance. In reality all you have is a choice of packaging. And the price is just what people will pay for it.

This is corporate mentality at its best (or worst). But most people would rather sleep through all that. If you would like to wake up and take a peep at the real world, get involved in management and marketing. Attend some of their seminars and training courses and have a look at their ethics and morality (or lack of). It is specially enlightening if you go to people in the food industry who consistently and falsely advertise their products as being the best thing for your health when it is nothing of the sort. A  good one I spotted at one point was from a company that dealt only with frozen food. Their add run: “Freshly frozen food!” Yeah, right, the freshness of frozen food. 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[i_m_robot]

self believes that if you charge someone to listen to your music

you are not an artist

a true artist bares its soul without the expectation of funds received

performing for cash has gotten way out of hand

and besides

if you are a musician and you dont want people playing, downloading and circulating your music

then you are stupid

because perhaps it might beable to reach someone who otherwise would have never gotten it

money and art shouldve never mixed

[allthumbs]

Greetings

Well, I don't know too much about the economics of business and marketing to give an intelligent comment, but enough to say that I agree with Bernhard.


But back to my original post, I still would like to have the opportunity to share public domain intellectual material (music, articles etc). With the coming of mp3's in this forum in its new format will be a welcome edition.


Cheers

[jeremyjchilds]

I think the answer to that qeestion has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of us like the forum the way it is. It was already mentioned about the problem of people asking for scores all the time...

Could you imagine the amounts or mid and low quality scores taht you would have to wade through? I would almost rather find them myself...

I also don;t think the sharing thing is going to happen, because a gold membership here costs money...why would administrators put themselves out of business.

As soon as I see a score that I need, I will pay the money because i appreciate the work of this site.

wow, that was some random thoughts

[allthumbs]

Greetings


I agree with you jeremyjchilds, now that I've thought more about it.

Also, since my last post, I've had a chance to look at the sheet music available as a Gold Member. I have to say that I'm impressed with the quantity and quality of the archived sheet music that I've seen so far.

So I guess that the desire to file share is no longer a priority as I can find most pieces that I want on this site (and a couple others).

Cheers

[stevie]

i no longer buy cds because i can get the music free online, in most cases.

but i WOULD buy them if there was no way to get them free, i do feel guilty, but the temptation is just too much, why pay for something when i can get it for free?

do i care more about the failing classical recording industry or my own livelyhood?

the answer is obvious, i will only live once, and i will take what i can get.

[sentimaple]

just FYI... The same CD from Deutsche Grammophon costs less than 8 dollars in Taiwan, but 16.98 in US.

[rohansahai]

just FYI... The same CD from Deutsche Grammophon costs less than 8 dollars in Taiwan, but 16.98 in US.

paying 8 dollars causes as much pain to the Taiwanese pocket that paying 16.98 does to an American one !!