Thursday, April 06, 2006

The case for P2P music sharing & downloads

I re-read the post twice. Yup, here's a musician who says it's OK to share music online:
No doubt some people will feel the same way about my new record, Ocky Milk, and that's fine too. These "unconvinced" listeners will at least listen, even if they don't buy. That may not matter to the RIAA, but it matters to me as an artist. And even if these people don't buy this record, they may buy another one, or they may come to a live show, or they may pay for a track off iTunes or E Music.

Or, you know, one of these downloaders may have sex with me, or give me a column in a magazine, or ask me to come and give a talk at an art school, or collaborate on a project, and that will lead to, you know, marriage, or a surprise twist in the career path, or something equally amazing. "Peer-to-peer" can mean much more than just sharing music.

Full post can be read here (alerted by Myrtle Peacock).


  1. whats your opinion on this, Ivan? i know P2P is more about piracy than the public domain, but i've always been under the impression that librarians want information to be free, so i'm sure you have some thoughts on this. Did you read it twice out of disbelief, or agreement?

    my point of contention is not so much that music should be free and screw paying the artists (or should that be record companies?) but that the punishment for downloaders are incredibly disproportionate to the crime. all this demonisation and vitriol is really due more to lobbyists then artist rights, really. its not really about the music (or literature, of film) anymore, innit?

  2. Hi Billy, I don't know enough about P2P to comment. But to answer your question -- I just read it as it was: a musician expressing his opinion. It was a refreshing view, I must say.

    I can't speak for all librarians. My own view re: freedom of access is that while librarians are advocates of access to information, we also respect copyright laws and information privacy. Access to information cannot be at the expense of the law. We can try to influence a change in the law, but not break it. That's my opinion.


Join the conversation. Leave a comment :)