Elton and Lily take stand against filesharing

PJGARDEN

facepollution wrote:

P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?

Very good point!! To answer the question, they're not going to fall. Ticket prices will rise as long as people keep buying.

facepollution

musicismylife78 wrote:

So cd prices and ticket prices have been rising through the years, even without this downloading this. They rose, year after year.

I dunno, I think there's been a fairly steep rise in the last couple of years. Obviously you have inflation and stuff, but I guess bands are taking advantage of tours as a way of making money.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Someone here mentioned that a way to stop filesharing is to put anticopying software on the cd. Its been tried before, a few years back many cd's came with anti copying devices on them. And people got pissed. I think another issue is, the fundamental idea, I have posted about 5 times without a response now is, its one thing to be against someone downloading a torrent from BTTorrent. its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?

Yeah the anticopying software was rubbish, and uttely pointless - there will always be people who are one step ahead of the game.

In terms of your question about copying cds for people, personally I see nothing wrong with it at all. I've gotten around 15-20 of my mates to come along to see the band Alter Bridge (no I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on my tastes!) multiple times, after burning them cds. The majority of them have now gone out and bought their records. So through me 'breaking the law', I have gotten Alter Bridge album sales, and ticket sales. From a moralistic stand point, I've apparently done wrong, but in terms of supporting the band (the thing I actually care about), I've done pretty well.

JordyWordy

musicismylife78 wrote:

its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?

Legally, that is stealing. This was a big part of the appeal for the industry when CDs were developed - harder to copy a CD than a cassette, so they thought. The cassette bootlegging industry was the problem in the 1980s, now it's online. There were international reports done about it then. The internet has made it worse, but this problem is not just due to the internet, it happened long before that.

So, you buy a copyrighted CD. The Copyright holder is legally the only person allowed to make copies of that CD (yes, even down to individual CDs sold). So, making a copy of the CD is a breach of that copyright, even if its just for friends/family. Obviously in that case, no one's going to prosecute anyone. The rule was developed to stop the guy who would buy one copy of an album, and repeatedly copy it, or sell it. In digital terms, this translates as a third option (after the two you suggested): Buying an album, uploading onto a server, and allowing others to copy it. (they have to have this rule so the guy cant defend himself by saying he bought it).
This is how Copyright law is designed to nail uploaders.

Personally, I think that sharing on music blogs is particularly beneficial for smaller bands. The blogs put up one or two tracks by artists, who get exposure to different countries & markets that wouldnt be possible otherwise. More often than not, you cant find material by smaller groups/local groups on torrent sites anyway. And newer bands are usually cheap enough, you can buy it from them directly too sometimes.
Music blogs are how I heard of most musicians I've bought something by in the last few years.

Uploading entire ablums/catalogues though, I do think is totally wrong. I download anyway though...I never upload, but i do download a fair whack of stuff. I studied this for a long time in college, and i still have no idea what the solution should be! Ultimately i think that its fair if record companies take the hit, its a fair & competitve market, theyve done the least to try and figure out a solution. Whereas artists, listeners and copmanies like iTunes have moved on, record companies havent really brought anything innovative to the table in 10 years except to whinge. good bands still succeed, and in that way nothing has really changed over the years.

facepollution

Digital Twilight wrote:

Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.

Yeah, but where is it written that artists deserve to make vast amounts of cash? For all you or I know, many vaguely mainstream artists could make a perfectly decent living. And if it doesn't work out, they could do what the rest of us do, and move on to the next job. Lily Allen just bought a fucking island, and she's totally a product of the downloading age. Save the moral 'you don't have the right' stuff, it's absolutely null and void in this day and age. People feel they have the 'right' because the record lables did nothing ten years ago to protect their artists - oh, and there's next to nothing the record labels can do about it. No sooner will they put in some anti-piracy measure, before some tech-savvy bod will have worked out a way around it. I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't understand the sentiment you are clinging to, but it's so outdated it's unreal.

facepollution

JordyWordy wrote:

good bands still succeed, and in that way nothing has really changed over the years.

Aint that the truth, ask Kings of Leon if downloading has caused them any sleepless nights - bear in mind their most recent album came out a year ago now, and it was only one place behind Backspacer this week in the UK chart.

JordyWordy

musicismylife78 wrote:

And no one has mentioned this: in the past vcr's were opposed by tv and media companies because they felt that people could tape shows and obviously it would be free to do so.

Thats a great point. The development of things like Digital TV, recording features whereby you "store" recordings without being easy to copy/sell it off , they're all great & innovative changes by broadcasters & media outlets. Particularly clever is TV on Demand, pay a really small fee and you can watch thousands of hours worth of tv series of your choice that will be updated. All are clever, different ways of doing BS and preventing filesharing somewhat. The time for cinema releases to become available on DVD has also dropped hugely. The record companies by contrast, havent come up with half as many clever or sustainable ideas that respond to where technology is going.

It's interesting too that artists are the ones who have come up with different types of Business models & methods ...Radiohead, NIN, even PJs Target deal. I wonder how long it will be that a band can make it as big as any of those without the help of a record company? Or will it be common practice that once a band reaches a point where they can be a sustainable BS without a record co, they'll go it alone.

JordyWordy

facepollution wrote:

Aint that the truth, ask Kings of Leon if downloading has caused them any sleepless nights - bear in mind their most recent album came out a year ago now, and it was only one place behind Backspacer this week in the UK chart.

Word. and the fact that pop charts are far more cluttered with industry shit (which i guess is driven by public demand for things like Xfactor & pop idol), shows that there is still a part of the market where record companies have a total monopoly. How many of those kinds of musicians will ever release an album without a record company? lol.

facepollution

JordyWordy wrote:

Word. and the fact that pop charts are far more cluttered with industry shit (which i guess is driven by public demand for things like Xfactor & pop idol), shows that there is still a part of the market where record companies have a total monopoly. How many of those kinds of musicians will ever release an album without a record company? lol.

Yeah I hear that. Although I must step in and say that I don't think it's impossible for those kinds of shows to find amazing talent. Adam Lambert who was runner up on this year's American Idol, is an incredible singer - maybe the best I've heard in the last five years or so (I'm a sucker for singers who can hit all those crazy notes!).

musicismylife78

Digital Twilight wrote:

Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.

we all do what we have to do. I am a music fanatic. its my religion. So I go to alot of gigs. My t shirts are by and large band t shirts. I have posters of bands on my walls. So, yeah I buy merchendise. And what I think hasnt been talked about is, as far as artist takes, buying merch gives the band more profit personally, than buying a cd at a store. The band gets a bigger take off the pie with merch.

I go to concerts all the time, I buy alot of merch. And I will often rave to people about new bands, which i think is a main way people hear about new bands. I will say "this band changed my life". I cant think of better praise I could give than that.

We all do what we have to do, as I said. Ed recorded bootlegs of the Who and others illegally as a kid.

I think the problem comes in when the unspoken idea is : you arent a real fan unless you buy cd's. Thats b.s. Plain and simple.

Music is my only real expenditure. I am not like other kids my age. I dont own a car. I dont make car payments. I am not married. Dont have kids. My splurge is music and art. Music, books and movies.

I have a right to free music, because, the record company overcharges for cd's, the current system as it exists is exploitative and it makes no sense to continue to support an exploitative situation. The answer to slavery wasnt to keep buying cotton, it was to overturn the entire system and civilization that made it so, blacks were forced to work these awful and gross and illegal situations. Bands dont get a fair take as it is, so my buying a cd as opposed to downloading isnt going to make a difference. Lastly, music I think should essentially be free. Charge money for shows, and merch. But why charge for something that most people nowadays can get for free.

Trent Reznor said it best. Why not spend a ton of time on your website, sprucing up the website, and then also making alot of merchendise and all that. Why spend time thinking about the physical cd sales.

As I said, I volunteer at a local music venue very frequently. The cd sales, as in bands who have the cd for sale at the gig dont sell a ton of actual cd's. Thats based on my experience of volunteering regularly at this venue for a year and a half. What I have noticed, is merchendise sales though, always are pretty steady and consistent. People always are buying stickers, or posters or shirts.

The point is, it makes more sense to buy products like that because 1) the band gets more money in the exchange, and 2) its a walking billboard and advertisement for the band. If I buy a t-shirt, I go everywhere with that t-shirt on, all with the bands name on the front.

musicismylife78

with any band its all about getting as many people to hear your music as possible. Thats the goal of every single band in history, except for maybe Fugazi.

But the point is, buying a cd from a band isn't going to alter that one way or another.

I think its beyond cool as well, that the current downloading era, has forced bands to try new things in terms of releasing music.

I have said before, I have an aquaintance I went to college with, he started playing music just for fun in his dorm. Anyways, his music has really taken off, he is in a band, they are doing well, and on his website he has all 3 of his albums for free. And every release gig he has played for those 3, he has given the cd's out for free.

That to me, is pretty smart thinking. It recognizes the current paradigm in music, and it plays off it.

Realistically, I dont think they are on a label at the moment, but what do they lose by doing that, giving the stuff out for free? They are getting the music in the hands of people reguardless of if its free or not.

musicismylife78

I think maybe a rule should be put out there. Download for free, but in exchange, you must join a street team, or buy merch, or go see a gig or something.

That I think is fair.

As it stands, those who are anti downloaders are fighting a losing battle. No way in hell, anyone, is going to stop people from getting music for free.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

Good point, I think many people who dont download act like those who do, are criminals and scum. I personally dont download because I hate the artists. I dont even necessarily download because I hate the multibillion dollar companies who are a bunch of wusses. I download, because I love music plain and simple.

I have a massive cd collection, massive collection of cd's I downloaded. I dont do it because I love stealing. I do it because my life is meaningless without music. I do it, because I dont think people have a right to charge 18 bucks for a new cd. As I said, if I have 100 bucks, makes much more sense to buy 3 or 4 spindles of 50 blanks, than to go to a store and get 5 cd's at most at 18 bucks a pop. Just common sense.
?

I have a massive car collection. A massive collection of cars I stole. I don't do it because I love stealing, I do it because my life is meaningless without a Mustang in the driveway. I do it, because I don't think people have the right to charge 30 grand for a Mustang.

Do you know how crazy it sounds? You feel you have the RIGHT to free music.

Also, I haven't seen you analyze the cost breakdown of the CD. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Digital Twilight

keeponrockin wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

Good point, I think many people who dont download act like those who do, are criminals and scum. I personally dont download because I hate the artists. I dont even necessarily download because I hate the multibillion dollar companies who are a bunch of wusses. I download, because I love music plain and simple.

I have a massive cd collection, massive collection of cd's I downloaded. I dont do it because I love stealing. I do it because my life is meaningless without music. I do it, because I dont think people have a right to charge 18 bucks for a new cd. As I said, if I have 100 bucks, makes much more sense to buy 3 or 4 spindles of 50 blanks, than to go to a store and get 5 cd's at most at 18 bucks a pop. Just common sense.
?

I have a massive car collection. A massive collection of cars I stole. I don't do it because I love stealing, I do it because my life is meaningless without a Mustang in the driveway. I do it, because I don't think people have the right to charge 30 grand for a Mustang.

Do you know how crazy it sounds? You feel you have the RIGHT to free music.

Also, I haven't seen you analyze the cost breakdown of the CD. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Thats what i was getting at but when he said 'i have a right to free music because...' i mean shit. There so much wrong with that sentance it's a bit daunting in where to begin to be honest. Know any good philosophers?

Im not completley against downloading because its not all bad but 'I have a right to free music' is 100% evil. Its the same values and morals people live by claiming benifits all their lives. I'm entitled to x because of y. BULLSHIT! The fact is you download music because you can. You can get away with it. If you could steal ipods or bread or ben and jerrys ice cream for free and never get caught you would and you'd justify it to yourself in one way or another. Have a REALLY good think as to what 'I have a right' actually means. Think about it one word at a time.

Rhinocerous Surprise

facepollution wrote:

Digital Twilight wrote:

Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.

Yeah, but where is it written that artists deserve to make vast amounts of cash? For all you or I know, many vaguely mainstream artists could make a perfectly decent living. And if it doesn't work out, they could do what the rest of us do, and move on to the next job. Lily Allen just bought a fucking island, and she's totally a product of the downloading age. Save the moral 'you don't have the right' stuff, it's absolutely null and void in this day and age. People feel they have the 'right' because the record lables did nothing ten years ago to protect their artists - oh, and there's next to nothing the record labels can do about it. No sooner will they put in some anti-piracy measure, before some tech-savvy bod will have worked out a way around it. I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't understand the sentiment you are clinging to, but it's so outdated it's unreal.

This is the most interesting point for me. Maybe a lot of artists won't make as much money if filesharing becomes de rigeur, but as long people pay for the music they do enjoy - which I don't think anyone would, or should, object to doing - it could actually create a better environment for deserving artists to survive outside of record companies. By way of comparison, it could be like the modern equivalent of patronage back in the Renaissance - if an artist is good enough, people will give them money to create art. But stopping people from getting acquainted with the art in the first place through prohibitive pricing is doing no one any favours.

The reality is, people don't mind giving money to bands they like - and the artists themselves are capitalising on this, but the record companies are lagging embarrassingly far behind the curve.

musicismylife78

I find it sort of interesting how some of you are ganging up on me. The millions of others who download arent on this board, but I am, therefore, some of you feel you can put me through the ringer and make me sound like I am a bad person. My whole point is, I dont think the fines for filesharing are accurate and accetable. I have given the example, of a mother of 4 getting a 1.6 million dollar fine, and no one responded. Whats an acceptable punishment and fine? Cause I sure as hell dont think 1.6 million is acceptable. And also filesharing in the big picture, is low low, or SHOULD be low low on the priorities list of police and law enforcement. We have bigger fish to fry than fining Suzy or Johnny Whats Their Name, millions because they downloaded the new Neil Young CD.

I also think we all operate on our own moral and ethical views. Almost everyone is against murder and rape, and for good reason. But what about jaywalking. Or crossing the street when the walk sign isnt white yet? How about going as I said before, its midnight, its a highway, and their are very few cars around, and you put on the gas and go a 5 mph above the speed limit. All of those are illegal, and I think if most of you were honest, we all have done. Maybe not habitually, but once in awhile. How about its 1am, deserted road, no cars around, and you make a turn and you dont put on your blinker? How many of you have done that? Again this is illegal stuff, but most people have done it, so its no big deal to most people.

All I am saying, is that the penalty for downloading is poppycock. And I am also saying that its silly to waste time on this message board berating me for being no better than a common thief, because people are gonna continue downloading.

Its such a waste of time for all the antidownloaders to even harp on it. By telling people, "Dont download", thats not gonna stop anything. Lars Ulrich tried to stop fans, he was unsucessful. Orrin hatch and others have suggested major jail terms for downloaders...downloading continues. Massive fines and British government scare tactics....and downloading continues.

Its such a silly fight to even have. If you dont like downloading...dont. Simple.

musicismylife78

ultimately its a question of what is more supportive of an artist, financially, and in terms of word of mouth. Buying a cd at a store where the artist gets a dollar and change. and thats it. Or buying a t-shirt with Jay-Z's picture on the front and the words Jay-Z on it, and buying a ticket for his show in Seattle, and telling all my friends how great Blueprint III is. To me, their is no question what is more beneficial to Jay-Z's bank account and to his fan base and to getting his music more exposure.

You show support for an artist by buying merch, tickets for a show and spreading the word.

What have you done by going to a store and getting a cd? You gave an artist 1 dollar and change. Wow! Amazing.

musicismylife78

if you buy a cd you are essentially supporting the slave system that is operational in the industry. Thats how I look at it.

The artist deserves more. In respect. In money. In assistance and guidance.

Support for the current system of paying artists peanuts just doesnt cut it. I am surprised so many of you are so willing to buy into it.

I dont really give a damn what you all say, I think an artist deserves more than 1 dollar and change, for their works of art. And I dont think they deserve to be treated as they are treated. I think the less money someone like Irving Azoff has, the better.

The question becomes what is a bands music worth to you? Or a band worth to you? What is Vitalogy or Murmur or Californication worth to you?

The way to show support of that art which I assume if worth more than 1 dollar and change to you, isnt that you guy buy a cd from a store. Because things arent gonna change for the artist they are gonna continue making measley sums as long as the current system is intact. Only when things change do they get a better way of life.

Why anyone would continue to pour money into a corrupt and worthless and exploitative relationship with artist and label is beyond me.

As I said, what do you do if you feel a certain company is sexist or treats their workers badly. One thing you DONT do, is continue on shopping there as if everything is kosher and copasetic.

Rhinocerous Surprise

To be honest, I don't think people specifically take umbrage with you downloading music, so much as your sense of entitlement, Musicismylife78. Most people who download acknowledge that it's a less than perfect solution to a broken industry, and a reality that needs to be adapted to in some form. Whereas you seem to think that it's your innate right to own all music ever for free, as long as you can rationalise it in some way.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

I find it sort of interesting how some of you are ganging up on me. The millions of others who download arent on this board, but I am, therefore, some of you feel you can put me through the ringer and make me sound like I am a bad person. My whole point is, I dont think the fines for filesharing are accurate and accetable. I have given the example, of a mother of 4 getting a 1.6 million dollar fine, and no one responded. Whats an acceptable punishment and fine? Cause I sure as hell dont think 1.6 million is acceptable. And also filesharing in the big picture, is low low, or SHOULD be low low on the priorities list of police and law enforcement. We have bigger fish to fry than fining Suzy or Johnny Whats Their Name, millions because they downloaded the new Neil Young CD.

I also think we all operate on our own moral and ethical views. Almost everyone is against murder and rape, and for good reason. But what about jaywalking. Or crossing the street when the walk sign isnt white yet? How about going as I said before, its midnight, its a highway, and their are very few cars around, and you put on the gas and go a 5 mph above the speed limit. All of those are illegal, and I think if most of you were honest, we all have done. Maybe not habitually, but once in awhile. How about its 1am, deserted road, no cars around, and you make a turn and you dont put on your blinker? How many of you have done that? Again this is illegal stuff, but most people have done it, so its no big deal to most people.

All I am saying, is that the penalty for downloading is poppycock. And I am also saying that its silly to waste time on this message board berating me for being no better than a common thief, because people are gonna continue downloading.

Its such a waste of time for all the antidownloaders to even harp on it. By telling people, "Dont download", thats not gonna stop anything. Lars Ulrich tried to stop fans, he was unsucessful. Orrin hatch and others have suggested major jail terms for downloaders...downloading continues. Massive fines and British government scare tactics....and downloading continues.

Its such a silly fight to even have. If you dont like downloading...dont. Simple.

To the Mothers, tough shit. They knew what they were doing was illegal, and if they get caught, they should face the consequences. If I get caught jay walking, I'll man up and face the consequences.

Musicismylife, direct question. IF the artist got all $20 from the CD, and I mean every cent, would you go buy all the music you've stolen?

musicismylife78

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

To be honest, I don't think people specifically take umbrage with you downloading music, so much as your sense of entitlement, Musicismylife78. Most people who download acknowledge that it's a less than perfect solution to a broken industry, and a reality that needs to be adapted to in some form. Whereas you seem to think that it's your innate right to own all music ever for free, as long as you can rationalise it in some way.

I dont see how acknowledging anything solved anything. The problem isnt that people download. its that, as I said, its the artist not being paid overall by those in power for their art. Thats the failing. Downloading has little to do with it. If I buy Jay-Z's cd right now, it doesnt help him at all, in fact as i keep pointing out, it perpetuates a slave system that is inherently evil. So I dont feel entitled to anything. What I do think is entitled, isnt to me, its to the artist. And my buying cd's from here on out isnt going to change that. I am talking a massive dismantling and overhaul of the current industry system and installing a new one, where the artist and label get 50 50 earnings. How is buying a cd going to bring us closer to that needed reality?

Again, you guys seem to be all about the artist, but only when its suggesting people dont download. Whoever, posted that breakdown of cd sales, showed us, artists are being ripped off, not by us, but by who they work for. When I or others suggest a new way of doing things, a new system, no one responds and no one takes it seriously.

One way in which I am moral, or try to be moral, is if I dislike a company I refuse to spend money there. For instance, Nike, is a company I hate. I hate their labor practices, I hate their sweatshops and I hate the fact they seek global domination. So, as small as this act is, I refuse to buy their products. I know, my own act wont topple Nike. But in this analogy, all of you are essentially suggesting that I continue buying Nike because if I didnt buy Nike, those Taiwanese laborers who get paid 50 cents, wouldnt get paid anything unless I buy the new Air Jordans. Thats crazy and insane. The solution isnt that. its to work to force Nike to close sweatshops, to try and do as much harm as possible to the company