...
Doing good. Going to see Stone tomorrow night. Never seen him actually front a band... only in Pearl Jam and Brad. Should be interesting... I'm looking forward to it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Yes... you are right. In China, for example, it's a business. You invest in the CD/DVD burners and the blank CDs... the Printers and the jewel cases... buy one copy... and make thousands of copies for sale. It's a business.
To the Chinese... it is legal. To the ones who own the copyrights in their home countries, it is not.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Yes... you are right. In China, for example, it's a business. You invest in the CD/DVD burners and the blank CDs... the Printers and the jewel cases... buy one copy... and make thousands of copies for sale. It's a business.
To the Chinese... it is legal. To the ones who own the copyrights in their home countries, it is not.
then the record companies should be jumping right on that. surely tis illegal to breach copyright. if not, it should be.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
then the record companies should be jumping right on that. surely tis illegal to breach copyright. if not, it should be.
...
They are... along with the movie studios, software companies (including MicroSoft) and gaming companies. But, it is difficult... especially when the legit copies for the Asian Markets are also being made there. Even Nike is having problems because they contract out to thousands of smaller vendor shops. It's a free for all over there.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I rarely ever download music, though, I have quite a nice collection of music I didn't pay for (got it from friends). I still buy cd's regularly.
But I think it's something you can't stop. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak.
But if artists can't make money buy selling discs, they might tour more, play live more... which is kind of nice.
Anyway, I don't really care.
I agree that there are so many search engines out there that "give away" free music. They usually wind you up into a promotion trial, "the free", after that you have to pay. Careful now, if you don't disconnect at the end of the trial period, you could end up paying.
As I stated 20 bucks a pop is alot. and bands get little if any of that cash. Record labels wouldnt care about downloading if artists took home 90 percent of that. artists take home little of it.
So how is downloading a bruce album stealing money from bruce?
Its stealing money from greedy multibillion dollar conglomerates who could give a crap about us.
Stealing is justified in some circumstances. And this is one of them.
If bands were going to take home a huge slice of that 20 bucks it would be different. as it stands they wouldnt take home much of it, if you bought a cd.
What about libraries or vcr's? You can go to a place and borrow a book and read it without paying money to the author. Isnt that stealing? And why arent you pissed off about that? How about taping tv shows on DVR or whatnot. Isnt that taking money away from potential profits that tv companies could make when future dvd's come out? More significantly most libraries have copy machines. it would take an entire day to do it, but you feasibly could copy literally any book you wanted to.
I dislike many things about modern society. Very few things piss me off more than hyposcrisy.
Either you are for or against something. Either you are against taping the simpsons and Lost on tv because that is stealing (back when VCR's came out, that was the argument, that it was stealing. Look it up. Sound familiar?), or you are for stealing and copying of everything.
There is no middle ground.
For me, i am for copying of all media. The movie studios and tv studios are the same as the record companies. They screw the actor, artist, musician and take home the profit, while throwing pennies at the writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians etc...
The self declared nobility of "Screwing the Maaaaaan" amazes me. You are not out to change the world with your ideas of justified theft. Simply you are the greedy one yourself, in that you think your money is so precious that you are beyond civility. What's next are you gonna spout the familiar "rules are made to be broken" or "they're holding us down"? Simply put you're a selfish, greedy thief with no concern but for yourself. FTW BRO!!!!
You men eat your dinner
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Than any man ever seen
..
You are rationalizing your actions. You even refer to it as 'Stealing'... to which I responded... Stealing is bad. Leastwise, in my book stealing is bad.
...
I generally download my music, give it a few listens : if I like it, I buy the album, if I don't I delete it. What is that called?
And generally, when I buy I buy used copies (except for a few of my favorite bands which I buy new) off of ebay so in the end neither the artist nor the major gets my money. But I don't really feel like I'm stealing either.
when I buy I buy used copies (except for a few of my favorite bands which I buy new) off of ebay so in the end neither the artist nor the major gets my money. But I don't really feel like I'm stealing either.
THIS is what the recording industry fears and loathes more than anything else: Selling used CDs. And this is why, despite their whining, RIAA, et. al actually LOVE iTunes and sites like that. Have you ever tried to resell something you've bought off iTunes. They'll laugh at you.
Alot of times, what I'll do is buy something used off ebay, rip it to 320Kb mp3, and then resell it to the local used CD store (or vice versa). I may or may not make money off the deal (usually I lose a couple bucks) but in the end, I've paid what I thought the music was ACTUALLY worth.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
I download a lot of music and I feel no guilt, for reasons I have posted here many times and so will refrain from going into but I'll say one thing, there are a shitload of bands and artists who HAVE received my money as a direct consequence of my "illegal" downloading of their music, after I went to see them live or shelled out cash for hard copies when I fell in love with their releases. Money that would never have seen if I hadn't heard their music in the first place.
I think we view this in the same way. I've discovered a ton of new bands by pirating albums I never would have given a listen to if I'd had to pay for the music. If it's crap, it's crap. But, if it's good, there's a good chance I'm going to try to go see them if they come to the area. I will be supporting the bands in the future by going to shows, buying merchandise, etc. I look at it like I'm taking a free sample from the artist in the hope that I'll get into their art and purchase goods from them in the future.
I wish I was as fortunate, as fortunate as me.
__________________________________________________________
Shameless beer-related plugs:
Instagram/Twitter/Untappd: FtMyersBeerGuy
I can't believe some people still don't get how completely redundant the argument about downloading music is.
Personally I will download and if I like it I will buy it as soon as I can afford it. I also go to quite a lot of shows and buy merchandise.
Of course we all have our different opinions but they change nothing. You can make all your moral judgements about all the 'bad' people who download music illegally, but you won't stop people doing it.
The record industry has changed for good, there is no way back. No legal action, fines, legal download sites etc are going to stop people from downloading music illegally. The smart move, is to work out how to move forwards and start working with music listeners rather than trying to villify them at every opportunity. That's why I have so much respect for someone like Trent Reznor who truly gets it. He's really doing his best to make his music as accessible as possible, and creating more unique and interesting options for people - and it seems to be paying off.
I read a few articles on how artists only get 1-2 pounds out of the 8-10 pounds from an album they sell. And the rest just goes to rich people getting people richer.
I believe its best to support bands in other ways i.e going to their concerts and buying their merchandise. Or even just spreading word across internet etc.
I had a pretty massive argument with a friend of mine about this. She nonchalantly said that music is overpriced and I completely lost it and started ranting on about how people like her have no concept of the time and effort song-writing takes and cannot truly judge its worth.
...)
i don't really download music anymore as it has become harder to find with any actual quality. That being said, you must realize that regardless of how high music is priced, the artist gets very little from actual CD sales. Its the record company pocketing all that cash. So your argument here means about a hill of beans as far as i'm concerned. Atists make their money from touring and mechandise sales.
Furthermore, when i WAS downloading music quite a bit, i never downloaded anything i would have payed for otherwise, but, did actually go out and buy some things i wouldn't have had i not heard it via the auspices of download first.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I can't believe some people still don't get how completely redundant the argument about downloading music is.
Personally I will download and if I like it I will buy it as soon as I can afford it. I also go to quite a lot of shows and buy merchandise.
Of course we all have our different opinions but they change nothing. You can make all your moral judgements about all the 'bad' people who download music illegally, but you won't stop people doing it.
The record industry has changed for good, there is no way back. No legal action, fines, legal download sites etc are going to stop people from downloading music illegally. The smart move, is to work out how to move forwards and start working with music listeners rather than trying to villify them at every opportunity. That's why I have so much respect for someone like Trent Reznor who truly gets it. He's really doing his best to make his music as accessible as possible, and creating more unique and interesting options for people - and it seems to be paying off.
The truth is the truth..and it appears you see it in this regard.
Evolution and natural systems don't follow man-made morality. What is ... is.
Those who adapt to 'what is' will find ways to innovatively keep relevent and prosperous, while those who rigidly depend on ideology will fall away. I don't make the natural law...I merely humbly acknowledge, respect it and adjust accordingly...
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So who is it that pays for all this touring that is so profitable to the musicians? You know, the roadies, the venue fees, transportation, promoting shows, scheduling, hotel rooms, stage equipment, etc?
Just curious, I really don't know how this shit works. But, I do know that for a show to go off, a lot of people need to get paid. [source: Wayne's World II]
Are these band expenses, record label expenses, both?
I download music, and I don't justify it by saying I'm stealing from people who can afford it, or deserve it. I'm stealing, and it's wrong. But I do because I'm broke, and there's a lot of music I can't afford to buy to see if I like it. But if I like an album, I'll always try to buy a copy of it, and I'll always buy new releases from bands I like (unless it's Chris Cornell ).
Bottom line: if you're pirating music, just fucking own up to it, and don't hide behind the "record companies are RICH!!!" excuse. Like Jeremy said, odds are, most artists that are in it for the love of the music would probably prefer you heard their music illegally, and liked it enough to support them from that point on, than not hear their music at all.
On an unrelated note: Hi Angelica!
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Dude!! I totally LOVE you, and miss our girl ...and the hysterical echo chambers!!!!
on an unrelated related note, it's not stealing in Canada!! As a matter of fact, our Supreme Court has likened it to borrowing and copying, as from a library!
(okay..I DO also hear your point... )
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Dude!! I totally LOVE you, and miss our girl ...and the hysterical echo chambers!!!!
on an unrelated related note, it's not stealing in Canada!! As a matter of fact, our Supreme Court has likened it to borrowing and copying, as from a library!
(okay..I DO also hear your point... )
I miss her too... oo... oo...
I guess the library thing is a fair comparison - if I get a book out from the library, and love it, I'll probably buy it sooner or later. But most libraries rent out CDs too, right? Why is it that people are more likely to rip that music to their PC than photocopy the book? Because it's easier?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Of course we all have our different opinions but they change nothing. You can make all your moral judgements about all the 'bad' people who download music illegally, but you won't stop people doing it.
Of course we are all aware that it happens, and that basically nothing is going to stop it (short of deleting the internet), and here we have a case of something that does happen but shouldn't. I'm not arguing that we should go back to "the way things were", where buying CD's/vinyls was the only way, the internet has given people freedom to explore, and that is a good thing in many ways. My problem is that so many people (like yourself, it would appear, though I don't want to jump to conclusions) basically think that because so many people do it, the morality/immorality argument is invalid, rather than, as it actually is, being valid but ignored.
The record industry has changed for good, there is no way back. No legal action, fines, legal download sites etc are going to stop people from downloading music illegally. The smart move, is to work out how to move forwards and start working with music listeners rather than trying to villify them at every opportunity. That's why I have so much respect for someone like Trent Reznor who truly gets it. He's really doing his best to make his music as accessible as possible, and creating more unique and interesting options for people - and it seems to be paying off.
I like that artists are shunning the major labels mroe and more these days, its a good way for the industry to evolve.
That being said, you must realize that regardless of how high music is priced, the artist gets very little from actual CD sales. Its the record company pocketing all that cash. So your argument here means about a hill of beans as far as i'm concerned. Atists make their money from touring and mechandise sales.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic here seems to be that, because artists get paid shit all from record sales anyway, the music that is sold on the record is worthless anyway?
It seems possible you may have misinterpreted my original statement, that someone who has (in my opinion) little appreciation for the work that creating music takes, cannot be a fair judge of price.
A quick example to illustrate my point: When a "unknown" (as in: not famous) painter sells a painting, he sets the price as a combination of materials used and time taken.
Obviously with music it is a little different because musicians generally intend to sell more than one copy of each song...
And finally something to ponder ('cause god this has been a long post...):
You could buy... how about a pair of socks, for £2 ($4) or thereabouts, and it'll last for what 5-6 years max, before they get holes in them or are in some way ruined? You can buy a song, that could "last" you the rest of your life for £0.79 ($1.58) off iTunes. Someone is getting ripped off somewhere, and I'm not entirely sure its us (though it sure as hell aint the record label either)...
Enjoy,
Edd
P.S. I don't want to be seen to be putting people down or anything, I'm really just trying to further discussion.
I guess the library thing is a fair comparison - if I get a book out from the library, and love it, I'll probably buy it sooner or later. But most libraries rent out CDs too, right? Why is it that people are more likely to rip that music to their PC than photocopy the book? Because it's easier?
Yeah, and I think the Supreme Court of Canada compared downloading to taking music out of the library, taking it home and copying it, and that that is an entirely legal process.
I used to always side on the 'stealing' argument side, thinking there was no justification for doing so, until the Supreme Court threw a wrench in that argument! Since then I've come to see how some of our laws are becoming antiquated based on that lines and borders across the planet are quickly vanishing on all kinds of levels, and that it will continue to happen at a rapid pace. For example, the minute something goes on the internet, we've lost 'possession' of it. To me, the question is more how to dynamically, and perpetually adapt, rather than trying to find a way to set it in stone rigidly, which is our typical patriarchal control-centred, and often anti-life way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As I stated 20 bucks a pop is alot. and bands get little if any of that cash. Record labels wouldnt care about downloading if artists took home 90 percent of that. artists take home little of it.
So how is downloading a bruce album stealing money from bruce?
Its stealing money from greedy multibillion dollar conglomerates who could give a crap about us.
Stealing is justified in some circumstances. And this is one of them.
If bands were going to take home a huge slice of that 20 bucks it would be different. as it stands they wouldnt take home much of it, if you bought a cd.
What about libraries or vcr's? You can go to a place and borrow a book and read it without paying money to the author. Isnt that stealing? And why arent you pissed off about that? How about taping tv shows on DVR or whatnot. Isnt that taking money away from potential profits that tv companies could make when future dvd's come out? More significantly most libraries have copy machines. it would take an entire day to do it, but you feasibly could copy literally any book you wanted to.
I dislike many things about modern society. Very few things piss me off more than hyposcrisy.
Either you are for or against something. Either you are against taping the simpsons and Lost on tv because that is stealing (back when VCR's came out, that was the argument, that it was stealing. Look it up. Sound familiar?), or you are for stealing and copying of everything.
There is no middle ground.
For me, i am for copying of all media. The movie studios and tv studios are the same as the record companies. They screw the actor, artist, musician and take home the profit, while throwing pennies at the writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians etc...
You make it sound as if these poor artists are forced to sign their record deals. It is done via freewill, and in most cases, the artist receives an advance when they execute their deals. The record label is taking a risk when they sign a band, since most bands are not profitable in the long run. Not sure how savy you are in terms of investing, but the riskier the venture, the more upside the investor usually requires A band that signs a record deal gets an advance, which they do not have to pay back unless their records sell a bunch of copies, and since the band usually doesn't have the resources to record/release/promote their own record, they give up much of their potential earnings for the shot at becoming huge as well as receiving some dough upfront.
The movie business is much different....I have a client that earned over $40 Million in one year when the movie he wrote/produced/directed did fairly well......I will never accuse the huge movie studio of stealing from him!
There are plenty of small record labels that will pay a huige royalty rate, but in exchange, the band usually gets a tiny advance, and the marketing/promotion is minimal.
Artists such as Bruce usually receive about 15% of the adjusted suggested retail list price of their cds, so when you download his music, you steal from him, his manager, the cd retailer, the person who delivers the cds to the store, etc. You also steal from the rest of us who play by the rules because we pay higher prices to make up for the profits lost to illegal downloading.
Not really sure this is the right place for this, and its probably been discussed before, but I had a bit of a dilemma recently (in my search for ancient soundgarden bootlegs), where i had part with my moral code for a while in order to get hold of them.
Basically, I'm pretty much totally against (in the majority of cases) acquiring music without paying for it. I had a pretty massive argument with a friend of mine about this. She nonchalantly said that music is overpriced and I completely lost it and started ranting on about how people like her have no concept of the time and effort song-writing takes and cannot truly judge its worth.
I also accused her (and people like her) of causing major damage to the music industry, as I'm sure you know, the prevalence of illegal music downloads means labels (major and minor) make less money and are subsequently becoming less and less willing to back new acts.
Personally I feel this to be the cause of the desolate, stagnant and unimaginative music that dominates the majority of today's markets.
So thats basically how I feel on the matter (and I'm feeling a little bit of self-loathing for indulging my SG addiction in this way), what do you guys think about this?
Edd
P.S. On the upside, if you take a look back in the history books, we're about due another future shaping musical revolution. (50' rock and roll, 70's punk, 90's grunge, 2010's who knows?) (I know there are others, but those illustrate the point best and are the most important to me...)
I still believe that a major part of the downfall of the music industry is the way they are packaging the music. People don't have a reason for buying the music anymore. You can say I'm crazy but years ago people seriously couldn't wait to buy an album when it came out, not just for the music but what came with the music. The cover art that you could actually see, the lyrics that came with it and possibly a poster or book. People collected albums and still do. How many people collect cd cases? If they marketed it correctly and packaged a cd the same as they packaged the lp, I'll bet they start seeing sales go up.
Major record companies are deciding what kind of music people should be listening too-look at country music or american idol. Content, style, tone, everything about a song is being controlled.
Independent artists get no coverage in the mainstream outlets, and without the internet many would never be heard.
I look for music, I fucking spend hours finding good music that isnt played through the regular channels. If I find something I like I find a way to support that band. I buy the album.
As for pirating music. Its not pirating music., Its sharing music, the more songs available to people the better. If a person likes a certain artist they can buy their album.
This bullshit about 'stealing' music is a form of censorship. They not only want to be able to decide how the music sounds that we hear, they want to control what music we can BUY. They want to control the options.
It gives us an illusion of choice. Don't let them get away with this.
I still believe that a major part of the downfall of the music industry is the way they are packaging the music. People don't have a reason for buying the music anymore. You can say I'm crazy but years ago people seriously couldn't wait to buy an album when it came out, not just for the music but what came with the music. The cover art that you could actually see, the lyrics that came with it and possibly a poster or book. People collected albums and still do. How many people collect cd cases? If they marketed it correctly and packaged a cd the same as they packaged the lp, I'll bet they start seeing sales go up.
We don't live in that kind of society anymore,(unfortunately). People just don't tend to stop and look around cause they're constantly on the go. I could go on and on with that topic, but back to the original question...
In some cases, the only way to get some music is to get it by pirating. For example, there was a punk band in the early 80's called Tales of Terror who put out one record in their day. All these years later, that album has never come out on CD or cassette, and the only way I got to listen to it was because someone had the original record and downloaded it to their computer with some record player to computer adapter. ( I think they talk about one of these adapters in the movie Ghost World).
My problem is that so many people (like yourself, it would appear, though I don't want to jump to conclusions) basically think that because so many people do it, the morality/immorality argument is invalid, rather than, as it actually is, being valid but ignored.
I stated my belief, I'll try before I buy. If I don't like what I download I don't listen to it. Even if I keep it on my PC, I'm not gaining anything because I'm not listening to it. And if I do like it, I will buy it as soon as I can. I don't believe you can put a price on music itself - how does one truly value a song in monetary terms anyway? I buy it because I want the physical product with the artwork.
The moral argument might be valid theoretically, but it's no longer relevant in reality. Therefore the time has come to move on, and work out what people are prepared to pay for. What the record companies should be doing, is conducting market research on a massive scale, to work out what it is people want. I think NIN's idea with Ghosts was brilliant - you could get a free sample of some of the songs, a cheap download of the whole album, a cheap 2 disc set, a more expensive collector's edition or a super-delux signed copy - and Reznor made an absolute fortune out of it, proving that people are prepared to pay when it's on their terms.
that's it. Huge bands have that available to them, smaller and medium bands have to struggle to even make ends meet. But if it weren't for the internet, and file sharing, most of these small and medium sized bands have NO chance of growing.
The internet is a worldwide audience for bands. And it seems to me only whiney huge bands like Metallica are the ones upset over file sharing.
without the internet and file sharing I would have very few artists to pick from, and that is probably fine with a lot of record execs, but I have spent money supporting the bands I do listen too...and I think that's typical. Its about exposure, which they are trying to limit, imo.
If a person likes a band they support that band, and it really is as simple as that.
Comments
If it's not illegal.. then, it's legal. That's the difference.
...
By the way... how are you?
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Doing good. Going to see Stone tomorrow night. Never seen him actually front a band... only in Pearl Jam and Brad. Should be interesting... I'm looking forward to it.
Hail, Hail!!!
doesnt necessarily make it right though.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Exactly. At one time, it was legal in Germany to gas Jews.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes... you are right. In China, for example, it's a business. You invest in the CD/DVD burners and the blank CDs... the Printers and the jewel cases... buy one copy... and make thousands of copies for sale. It's a business.
To the Chinese... it is legal. To the ones who own the copyrights in their home countries, it is not.
Hail, Hail!!!
then the record companies should be jumping right on that. surely tis illegal to breach copyright. if not, it should be.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
They are... along with the movie studios, software companies (including MicroSoft) and gaming companies. But, it is difficult... especially when the legit copies for the Asian Markets are also being made there. Even Nike is having problems because they contract out to thousands of smaller vendor shops. It's a free for all over there.
Hail, Hail!!!
The self declared nobility of "Screwing the Maaaaaan" amazes me. You are not out to change the world with your ideas of justified theft. Simply you are the greedy one yourself, in that you think your money is so precious that you are beyond civility. What's next are you gonna spout the familiar "rules are made to be broken" or "they're holding us down"? Simply put you're a selfish, greedy thief with no concern but for yourself. FTW BRO!!!!
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Than any man ever seen
And generally, when I buy I buy used copies (except for a few of my favorite bands which I buy new) off of ebay so in the end neither the artist nor the major gets my money. But I don't really feel like I'm stealing either.
THIS is what the recording industry fears and loathes more than anything else: Selling used CDs. And this is why, despite their whining, RIAA, et. al actually LOVE iTunes and sites like that. Have you ever tried to resell something you've bought off iTunes. They'll laugh at you.
Alot of times, what I'll do is buy something used off ebay, rip it to 320Kb mp3, and then resell it to the local used CD store (or vice versa). I may or may not make money off the deal (usually I lose a couple bucks) but in the end, I've paid what I thought the music was ACTUALLY worth.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
__________________________________________________________
Shameless beer-related plugs:
Instagram/Twitter/Untappd: FtMyersBeerGuy
Personally I will download and if I like it I will buy it as soon as I can afford it. I also go to quite a lot of shows and buy merchandise.
Of course we all have our different opinions but they change nothing. You can make all your moral judgements about all the 'bad' people who download music illegally, but you won't stop people doing it.
The record industry has changed for good, there is no way back. No legal action, fines, legal download sites etc are going to stop people from downloading music illegally. The smart move, is to work out how to move forwards and start working with music listeners rather than trying to villify them at every opportunity. That's why I have so much respect for someone like Trent Reznor who truly gets it. He's really doing his best to make his music as accessible as possible, and creating more unique and interesting options for people - and it seems to be paying off.
I believe its best to support bands in other ways i.e going to their concerts and buying their merchandise. Or even just spreading word across internet etc.
i don't really download music anymore as it has become harder to find with any actual quality. That being said, you must realize that regardless of how high music is priced, the artist gets very little from actual CD sales. Its the record company pocketing all that cash. So your argument here means about a hill of beans as far as i'm concerned. Atists make their money from touring and mechandise sales.
Furthermore, when i WAS downloading music quite a bit, i never downloaded anything i would have payed for otherwise, but, did actually go out and buy some things i wouldn't have had i not heard it via the auspices of download first.
Evolution and natural systems don't follow man-made morality. What is ... is.
Those who adapt to 'what is' will find ways to innovatively keep relevent and prosperous, while those who rigidly depend on ideology will fall away. I don't make the natural law...I merely humbly acknowledge, respect it and adjust accordingly...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Just curious, I really don't know how this shit works. But, I do know that for a show to go off, a lot of people need to get paid. [source: Wayne's World II]
Are these band expenses, record label expenses, both?
Bottom line: if you're pirating music, just fucking own up to it, and don't hide behind the "record companies are RICH!!!" excuse. Like Jeremy said, odds are, most artists that are in it for the love of the music would probably prefer you heard their music illegally, and liked it enough to support them from that point on, than not hear their music at all.
On an unrelated note: Hi Angelica!
on an unrelated related note, it's not stealing in Canada!!
(okay..I DO also hear your point...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I guess the library thing is a fair comparison - if I get a book out from the library, and love it, I'll probably buy it sooner or later. But most libraries rent out CDs too, right? Why is it that people are more likely to rip that music to their PC than photocopy the book? Because it's easier?
It said "Life is nothing but a dream."
I've spent so many years in question
To find I'd known this all along.
Guilty as charged I suppose, though I've only brought it up once :P
Of course we are all aware that it happens, and that basically nothing is going to stop it (short of deleting the internet), and here we have a case of something that does happen but shouldn't. I'm not arguing that we should go back to "the way things were", where buying CD's/vinyls was the only way, the internet has given people freedom to explore, and that is a good thing in many ways. My problem is that so many people (like yourself, it would appear, though I don't want to jump to conclusions) basically think that because so many people do it, the morality/immorality argument is invalid, rather than, as it actually is, being valid but ignored.
I like that artists are shunning the major labels mroe and more these days, its a good way for the industry to evolve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic here seems to be that, because artists get paid shit all from record sales anyway, the music that is sold on the record is worthless anyway?
It seems possible you may have misinterpreted my original statement, that someone who has (in my opinion) little appreciation for the work that creating music takes, cannot be a fair judge of price.
A quick example to illustrate my point: When a "unknown" (as in: not famous) painter sells a painting, he sets the price as a combination of materials used and time taken.
Obviously with music it is a little different because musicians generally intend to sell more than one copy of each song...
And finally something to ponder ('cause god this has been a long post...):
You could buy... how about a pair of socks, for £2 ($4) or thereabouts, and it'll last for what 5-6 years max, before they get holes in them or are in some way ruined? You can buy a song, that could "last" you the rest of your life for £0.79 ($1.58) off iTunes. Someone is getting ripped off somewhere, and I'm not entirely sure its us (though it sure as hell aint the record label either)...
Enjoy,
Edd
P.S. I don't want to be seen to be putting people down or anything, I'm really just trying to further discussion.
Then run.
Yeah, and I think the Supreme Court of Canada compared downloading to taking music out of the library, taking it home and copying it, and that that is an entirely legal process.
I used to always side on the 'stealing' argument side, thinking there was no justification for doing so, until the Supreme Court threw a wrench in that argument! Since then I've come to see how some of our laws are becoming antiquated based on that lines and borders across the planet are quickly vanishing on all kinds of levels, and that it will continue to happen at a rapid pace. For example, the minute something goes on the internet, we've lost 'possession' of it. To me, the question is more how to dynamically, and perpetually adapt, rather than trying to find a way to set it in stone rigidly, which is our typical patriarchal control-centred, and often anti-life way.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You make it sound as if these poor artists are forced to sign their record deals. It is done via freewill, and in most cases, the artist receives an advance when they execute their deals. The record label is taking a risk when they sign a band, since most bands are not profitable in the long run. Not sure how savy you are in terms of investing, but the riskier the venture, the more upside the investor usually requires A band that signs a record deal gets an advance, which they do not have to pay back unless their records sell a bunch of copies, and since the band usually doesn't have the resources to record/release/promote their own record, they give up much of their potential earnings for the shot at becoming huge as well as receiving some dough upfront.
The movie business is much different....I have a client that earned over $40 Million in one year when the movie he wrote/produced/directed did fairly well......I will never accuse the huge movie studio of stealing from him!
There are plenty of small record labels that will pay a huige royalty rate, but in exchange, the band usually gets a tiny advance, and the marketing/promotion is minimal.
Artists such as Bruce usually receive about 15% of the adjusted suggested retail list price of their cds, so when you download his music, you steal from him, his manager, the cd retailer, the person who delivers the cds to the store, etc. You also steal from the rest of us who play by the rules because we pay higher prices to make up for the profits lost to illegal downloading.
I still believe that a major part of the downfall of the music industry is the way they are packaging the music. People don't have a reason for buying the music anymore. You can say I'm crazy but years ago people seriously couldn't wait to buy an album when it came out, not just for the music but what came with the music. The cover art that you could actually see, the lyrics that came with it and possibly a poster or book. People collected albums and still do. How many people collect cd cases? If they marketed it correctly and packaged a cd the same as they packaged the lp, I'll bet they start seeing sales go up.
want to be enlightened"
Independent artists get no coverage in the mainstream outlets, and without the internet many would never be heard.
I look for music, I fucking spend hours finding good music that isnt played through the regular channels. If I find something I like I find a way to support that band. I buy the album.
As for pirating music. Its not pirating music., Its sharing music, the more songs available to people the better. If a person likes a certain artist they can buy their album.
This bullshit about 'stealing' music is a form of censorship. They not only want to be able to decide how the music sounds that we hear, they want to control what music we can BUY. They want to control the options.
It gives us an illusion of choice. Don't let them get away with this.
We don't live in that kind of society anymore,(unfortunately). People just don't tend to stop and look around cause they're constantly on the go. I could go on and on with that topic, but back to the original question...
In some cases, the only way to get some music is to get it by pirating. For example, there was a punk band in the early 80's called Tales of Terror who put out one record in their day. All these years later, that album has never come out on CD or cassette, and the only way I got to listen to it was because someone had the original record and downloaded it to their computer with some record player to computer adapter. ( I think they talk about one of these adapters in the movie Ghost World).
I stated my belief, I'll try before I buy. If I don't like what I download I don't listen to it. Even if I keep it on my PC, I'm not gaining anything because I'm not listening to it. And if I do like it, I will buy it as soon as I can. I don't believe you can put a price on music itself - how does one truly value a song in monetary terms anyway? I buy it because I want the physical product with the artwork.
The moral argument might be valid theoretically, but it's no longer relevant in reality. Therefore the time has come to move on, and work out what people are prepared to pay for. What the record companies should be doing, is conducting market research on a massive scale, to work out what it is people want. I think NIN's idea with Ghosts was brilliant - you could get a free sample of some of the songs, a cheap download of the whole album, a cheap 2 disc set, a more expensive collector's edition or a super-delux signed copy - and Reznor made an absolute fortune out of it, proving that people are prepared to pay when it's on their terms.
The internet is a worldwide audience for bands. And it seems to me only whiney huge bands like Metallica are the ones upset over file sharing.
without the internet and file sharing I would have very few artists to pick from, and that is probably fine with a lot of record execs, but I have spent money supporting the bands I do listen too...and I think that's typical. Its about exposure, which they are trying to limit, imo.
If a person likes a band they support that band, and it really is as simple as that.