|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
OT: illegal downloads
OT: illegal downloads
Page:
1
2
conjob
41 posts
Apr 15, 2010
10:08 PM
|
this thread has been created so that harpninjas search for the best big walter album isn't overrun by another topic.
here is my explaination of why i choose to download music for free when it is avaliable (from another thread):
just because you take something for free doesn't mean you would buy it. this is why record companies figures for how much artists lose as a result of so-called illegal downloads are grossly overinflated, some studies even suggest that artists actually benefit from illegal downloads because people are exposed to thier music, more likely to come to thier concert or buy releases that they can't find for free.
i have tens of thousands of dollars worth of music on my i-pod. i simply wouldnt have most of it if i had to pay for it so for the artist the choice is have me hear your music for free or have me not hear it at all. i am a financial supporter of my local community radio station, i buy local releases and releases by less known artists (half because of conscience and half because i CANT find free downloads of the work of artists who are not already making a pretty good living). i frequently attend live concerts of big and small bands.
all things considered my expenditure on music this way is roughly the same as it would be if i only used paid avenues (i don't want to get into the legal illegal issue except to say it is not clear cut).
so the results of me "illegally" downloading copywrited material are as follows
1)i am exposed to more music
2) local and less-well-known bands get the money that i spend on music
3)richer, more well known bands recieve less of my money unless they tour near me
4)more of my money goes directly to artists and less goes to middle men
i do not consider people who choose not to download torrents etc for moral reasons as wrong or stupid, on the contrary i applaud anyone listening to thier conscience, my conscience just tells me something different on this topic.
----------
conjob
|
Aussiesucker
598 posts
Apr 15, 2010
11:00 PM
|
conjob> some of your logic I do agree with. However with the choices we have today why would you bother to download something that you are not prepared to pay for? I for one have never downloaded anything free unless it was offered as a sampler. I have paid for everything and I still have more music than I need & can ever listen to.
I did object to in the past having to purchase an album in order to get one or two tunes however with Itunes now this problem is solved.
Perhaps, maybe I might consider it a right to get free something I already owned on vinyl and had paid the royalties. Like a 12inch vinyl album cost ca $30 and had about 1/2 the content of a CD so how much were the record companies creaming? Wouldn't feel guilty at all as I already own the tunes in a different format.And I have stacks of them that never get played as it's no longer convenient but a lot is great stuff.
But in principle I think the Musician or artist has every right to insist on payment and demand that those offering illegal downloads be brought to justice fined and put out of business.
|
nacoran
1669 posts
Apr 15, 2010
11:41 PM
|
I personally think we need a better system for figuring out how to give money to artist for the work they do. The model was based on a distribution cost framework that is out of date, but I still believe artists need to be paid. There are models out there that give you access to huge swaths of music at a reasonable price. Microsoft offers a service where for $15 a month you can stream all the music you want from their entire catalog. You also get to download a certain number of songs a month to keep. The war on piracy creates far worse problems for privacy rights. $15 a month is a lot for some people. The socialist in me would like to see a graduated tax of some sort, followed with a system that gives artist that money back based on how much people listen to there music (or use their software or whatever) but at least that model gives something back to the community and everyone, not just people willing to steal, gets something out of it. Even a socialist has to justify that the tax creates a greater good to the society than the cost of the tax.
There is also the add supported model, like Pandora.
Short of that though, I have to agree, it's stealing. Would bands make more money giving their music away and using it to promote concerts? There is some evidence to say they might, but as the people producing the work they should have the right to decide.
As for touring being the only source of revenue for bands, the Beatles didn't tour for the last few years they were together. Their music was simply too complicated and produced to reproduce on stage. Sgt. Peppers might be the greatest rock album ever made. On a tour only model it would have never been made (although I suppose they could have merchandised all the costumes!)
That said, if artists want to treat their music as a license instead of something you actually own, which is a big argument in the industry now, I think they should have to update you for a reduced cost to newer formats. Like Aussie, I've got old vinyl (and tons of tapes). I don't think I should have to pay to get digital copies of them, at least if they insist on calling it a license instead of a piece of property. The same argument is going on in publishing right now with the Google book deal.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
Kyzer Sosa
360 posts
Apr 15, 2010
11:42 PM
|
if someone printed my artwork off of the internet and framed it to put in their house, Id be pissed. Pay me bitch...I made it, and no, it's not free.
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
conjob
43 posts
Apr 15, 2010
11:59 PM
|
I kind of agree with a lot of whats been said here and am not going to argue back and forth (also thank you to aussie, narocan and kyzer for not implying bad motives on me just because you disagree).
my point is not a right/wrong one. i am simply stating that 90% artists are better off as a result of my actions and the 10% that arent are very rich.
some examples:
charlie mussewhite came to sydney and i saw him. i had heard a bit of his music but mainly went on recomendation. i downloaded all of his albums that i could find and listened to them in the days leading up to the concert to increase my enjoyment of the concert. i wouldn't have paid for these albums if i couldn't get them for free. right? wrong? i don't know, i dont know what charlie would say either.
i've seen les claypool twice, once in vancouver where i knew about half the songs, a second time in sydney where i downloaded the albums i hadn't already bought. same as abouve and i enjoyed the 2nd concert much more. pretty sure les wouldnt mind but can't be sure
i downloaded two lupe fiasco albums after hearing him on the radio. a few months later i paid $90 a head for 2 tickets to see him.
i have bought some of adams cd's which i relistically would not have chosen over a dead greats albums on a limited budget.
so right wrong asshole selfish or otherwise i think i improve the music industry and benefit musicians.
----------
conjob
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 12:01 AM
|
Ant138
408 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:00 AM
|
I agree with Kyzer, its not right. I will hold my hand up and admit i have lent C.D.'s to friends in the past without thinking about it or when i was a kid,friends copying an album onto cassette for me. But more often than not i would go out and buy that album at some point.
I Don't download anything for a couple of reasons,
1) Its not fair to the person who spent alot of time making that Music.
2) I love looking at Album Artwork, Liner notes, Pictures etc.. I love to have the complete package not just a computer file. I fell in love with music by spending hours just looking at 12" Album artwork or gatefold sleeves when i was a kid.
I have friends who constantly download Music and they don't even listen to it, their computers are constantly working overtime downloading, they file the music and go on to download the next album, all the while they've got TONS of music stored, when i ask them what a certain album is like they usually reply "i Don't know i've not had time to listen to it yet but i've copyied it"
The whole thing does not make sense to me. I would prefer to buy one Album at a time as and when i can afford it,sit back and enjoy it.
Call me old fashioned.
----------
|
conjob
44 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:03 AM
|
Ant i agree about the liner notes etc and i have hard copies of most of my favorite cds/records
----------
conjob
|
Ev630
264 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:05 AM
|
"i am simply stating that 90% artists are better off as a result of my actions and the 10% that arent are very rich."
Is that a fact? Got a link on that?
|
conjob
45 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:10 AM
|
google it there are several well resourced studies by different economists and universities that i couldn't be bothered finding, but short answer no that figure is one that i estimated
----------
conjob
|
Ev630
265 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:22 AM
|
Pulled it out of your arse, then conjob?
Ant138 - I'm old fashioned, too.
|
nacoran
1672 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:23 AM
|
Ev- It's 3:00 and I have no idea where the links are, but I read everything I see about this stuff. There was a band in South America that was sending advance men out to give away free copies of their music in cities a few days before their shows and they, although relatively unknown, were selling out everywhere. Of course, if everyone does it, it loses it's value quickly. Just like the record companies estimates of their losses are bloated estimates of the value of free music can get bloated too.
Personally, I like the model of giving away my music. I'd like it to reach as many people as it can, but I also like having that choice. I'd also love a cut of revenue sharing from advertising if anyone can make money off advertising during my music. I don't mind people getting it for free, but if there is a way for them to get it free and for me to get paid I'm in. But again, I like that it's ultimately my choice to give it away.
Buying tickets to a big show is expensive. One of the reasons it's so expensive is bands need to make money there because they aren't making what they used to on music sales. If someone downloads 10 free albums without buying any and someone else buys two albums, which one of them has money to go to the show?
I ultimately think we will have to go to some mandatory tax or fee. It's to hard to police piracy and protect civil liberties at the same time. The economic advantage of stealing is just too great when it comes to digital content.
That said, I think all concert tickets should be auctioned off. It would maximize bands profits and squeeze out the ticket scalpers.
So there you have it, my solution music piracy is one part imposing socialism and one part dismantling it in favor of pure capitalism. I am all 37 flavors.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
Ev630
266 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:29 AM
|
I have no problem with free music. If the artists decide that's the strategy they want to adopt. I just can't abide theft.
This is why Kim Wilson in his blues unit and with the T-Birds, is selling CDs at concerts only. So he can get some money for his investment.
To expand on my response to conjob above, because I don't want to appear to be picking a fight (I'm not) but if you "can't be bothered" to substantiate your claims regards the impact, why should I be bothered to believe you?
|
conjob
46 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:45 AM
|
@Ev my 90%10% was in reference to my own actions, as stated in my first post most of my "spare" money goes to music the question is who gets it?
if i file share then it seems evident that its the artist who arent big enough for me to steal from them (eg. kim wilson)
as for the wider repercussions google "illegal downloads impact" or something similar. my sources are hard copies at the library as i studied this as part of an economics degree
----------
conjob
|
Kyzer Sosa
363 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:48 AM
|
Touring, as I said in the other thread, is where the money is for professionals, and yes, soon enough, we'll see artists selling their CD's out the back of their cars soon enough. Kim's on the right track, Jack...
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
phogi
398 posts
Apr 16, 2010
3:42 AM
|
I've been pretty clear about my position on this stuff. Basically the same as EV630. Conjob, while you idea is worth thinking about, ultimatly it fails the sniff test. You said in an earlier post that you end up spending about the same amount on music a you did before, but a few things don't match up:
1) Inflation. Is there any inflation in how much you spent? Are you measuring by percent of income or dollars? If you measure by dollars, and suppose everyone has your position, then the artists, every year, get less and less for recordings AND live performances because the spending will be fixed to 1997 dollars.
2) You have tens of thousands of dollars of this pirated music on your ipod.
The free music argument is interesting. Free music is how people have most often been exposed to music. Radio. Walking by a bar. Overhearing someone playing. But each of the past venues found a way to keep theft quite moderate, and to pay the artists. Not always well, but at least something. Now theft is the norm, simply because there is not sufficient means to control it.
The system has to change. The first thing that has to change is that people need to stop justifying theft. I don't favor a tax model - that is a bag of worms that will make artists subject to political whim. All that is really needed is for things like pandora to grow up. Some kind of license fee (that is hidden to the user) that allow access to the majority of the major stuff.
Oh, and it should tell you something, that piracy has led to some artists effectively taking their recordings off the market. Why should they put their wares out where people will just rip them off?
|
phogi
399 posts
Apr 16, 2010
3:45 AM
|
Just saw your torrent posts. I feel, and I bet most here feel, that those links should be deleted. Admins, you have the power to do the right thing. Maybe conjob will do it for you. Forum members, speak up if you agree.
|
arzajac
148 posts
Apr 16, 2010
5:48 AM
|
Phogi: Whether the links to the torrents are deleted are not, it's irrelevant. Torrents are easy enough to find.
Should the artist get paid? Yes. Does Big walter or any of his loved ones getting any significant portion of royalties from the sale of his music? Probably not.
Does downloading Big Walter from the net for free really have a net negative impact on record sales? Probably not. Just google "Download Dissobedience" and you will find a project (one of many) about that topic. There is a fact list that backs up the claims that "illegal" downloads have not cut into record sales. I believe Steve Jobs made that point publicly a few years ago when he pitched to the major record labels the idea to relax restrictions and permit iTunes to sell non-DRM music.
Steve Jobs (CEO for Apple) should know since they keep track of a lot of your personal information from your iPods. I don't own an iPod.
The *real* problem here is that the industry has a lot more control than it should have. Existing copyright laws don't work for everyone all the time. A solution to this is called Create Commons.
Creative Commons is a method of using existing copyright laws more efficiently. The premise is that *all* creative works are based on previous creative works. The more that Copyright law restricts the use of existing cultural works, the less our culture can develop - A very, very small number of people get to decide what we listen to, what we watch, even how we enjoy these works. Our cultural identity is in their hands.
Here's a practical example of using Creative Commons. Imagine if a few of the American Idol finalists got together and had a jam. They put together a few tracks and released them on the internet. Using Creative Commons, they specify how the music is to be used. For example, the terms and conditions could be
1. you can always obtain and listen to the music for free.
2. you are not allowed to redistribute it under different terms.
3. they may even specify that the music can be remixed and reworked by others if they preserve the same terms on the modified work.
(This specific license is called CC-BY-SA, or "attribution, share-alike")
In this hypothetical example, it's in their interest to get their music out so that more people can get to know them and vote for them to keep them into the competition. However, if they used full-out copyright to "protect" their work, their music would trickle out instead of being able to "go viral" or torrential...
Now, that's just one example...
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 5:52 AM
|
Buddha
1622 posts
Apr 16, 2010
6:29 AM
|
I'm all about sticking it to the man and everybody else.
I download music, software, movies and I especially enjoy maxing out credit cards and not paying them back. I figure credit cards allow me to buy shit I couldn't normally afford so I'm doing the companies that I buy from a favor because I'm normally out of their demographic range but now I get to skew they data. Yep there ain't nothing like fucking the man.
This weekend, I'm going to test drive a new SUV and not return it. They have so many at the lot and I wouldn't normally be able to afford one so the car companies are in a win win situation because I guy like me would never normally buy one but I get the joy of having a new car and they get my opinion on how to improve their shit.
If you want to be a badass harp player like me then you need to be an outlaw too.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
kudzurunner
1340 posts
Apr 16, 2010
6:53 AM
|
I feel strongly that conjob's links should be deleted--IF the Big Walter recordings that they link are protected by copyright.
But according to the Terms of Use claims that Torrentz makes each user sign, the Torrentz service is NOT to be used to transmit any copyrighted material. Or, more precisely, any material for which the users are not copyright holders.
So that settles it, right? All we're talking about trading is non-copyrighted material. So what's not to like?
I'm sure that conjob isn't advocating that we break the law, is he? Please don't disillusion me. I'm sure that the Big Walter recordings he's given us a link for are in the public domain.
That's right, isn't it, conjob? Please clarify this. I'm confused. Please make crystal-clear what you're advocating here. All the talk about your conscience is beside the point, as is the silly talk about "so-called illegal downloads." Torrentz requests a $35 fee for three years' use, so they're not giving anything away for free, and they require a legal representation from every user that nothing illegal is being done.
Please be as clear as possible about what you're advocating here. Have you paid your money and joined Torrentz--the site for which you've given us links for Big Walter downloads in another thread? Have you downloaded those recordings? If so, are they in the public domain? Or are they, for example, also available from iTunes--in which case, I can assure you, they're not in the public domain.
I'm tired of equivocations, double-talk, and lack of clarity. Please be clear about what you're advocating. Are you suggesting that the members of this forum break the law? Or are you suggesting that there's a way that, for a modest fee, we can easily download lots of non-copyright-protected blues?
Or, a third possibility, is Torrentz a fee-for-use site that has made arrangements with, for example, whoever holds the copyrights on the Big Walter material you've linked, so that they're actually paying royalties, very much the way iTunes does?
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 7:04 AM
|
Buddha
1625 posts
Apr 16, 2010
7:11 AM
|
Conjob,
As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday.
My name is Buddha, a merchant in Phoenix, AZ. I have been diagnosed with Esophageal Cancer which was discovered very late, due to my laxity in carrying for my health. It has defiled all forms of medicine, and right now I have only about a few months to live,
according to medical experts.
I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone not even myself but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focus on my
business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it.
Now that God ! has called me, I have willed and given most of my properties and assets to my immediate and extended family members and as well as a few close friends. I want God to be merciful to me and accept
my soul and so, I have decided to give arms to charity organizations and give succour and confort to the less priviledged in our societies, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth.
So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the Algeria and Malaysia and I have also given money to people like Buzadero and Kyzer Sosa. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this my self anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization and to the less priviledged in Bulgaria
and Pakistan, and Africa they refused and kept the money to themselves.
The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of twenty four million dollars that I have with a Security Company in Europe for safe keeping. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and disburse it to some charity organizations and to the less privileged like EV630.
Please send me a mail to indicate if you will assist me in this
disbursement.
I have set aside 10% for you for your time and patience.
While I await to hear from you, may God be with you and your entire family.
Remain blessed.
Buddha.
|
Buzadero
345 posts
Apr 16, 2010
7:18 AM
|
Now that you're taking care of this yourself, does this mean that you won't need my account number and SS#? Because, if you don't, I have an opportunity from a very polite man in Africa.
----------
~Buzadero
Underwater Janitor, Patriot
|
GermanHarpist
1357 posts
Apr 16, 2010
7:41 AM
|
Youtube is full of copyrighted material. Does that stop anybody from using it extensively?
In that sense copyrighted material was posted and distributed over this forum countless times.
Times are changing. It's the wild west, baby! Everything is allowed that won't get you shot. And believe me, up to the very big players, that's how people think. There's no black and white in this business.
----------
YT
|
Nastyolddog
554 posts
Apr 16, 2010
7:56 AM
|
Yo Bro
so the results of me "illegally" downloading copywrited material,?????
Do you illegally download copyrighted music
or do the Artistists allow there Material to be Stolen
by not putting safegards in place to stop there work from being Downloaded or stolen,
so is it realy being Stolen or illegally downloaded if you can access it with out any demands for fees to be paided to download,
there may be a signe at the door saying you must join the club,
but if you can walk past the signe with out being asked to join why bother no ones stopping you,so it must be Ok:)
PS no i don't illegally download music:)
|
GermanHarpist
1358 posts
Apr 16, 2010
8:16 AM
|
"PS no i don't illegally download music:) " same here.
----------
YT
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 8:18 AM
|
kudzurunner
1341 posts
Apr 16, 2010
9:03 AM
|
Just for the record: I don't illegally download music. I never have. I use iTunes, and I pay the 99 cents or $1.09 for every cut I purchase.
During the 1980s, when I was actively acquiring lots of stuff, I paid for pretty much every album I owned. I spent lots of money at Tower Records and Colony Records. I considered it an investment in my future.
Sure, some people traded cassettes of harmonica rarities and other things that it was impossible to find on LP or, later, on CD.
I still have all those albums.
I know too many musicians who are scuffling to make a living to think about trying to score their music for free.
Many of my YouTube lessons rely on snatches of copyrighted music, or even most of a track--in the case of the five lessons on "Whammer Jammer," or the four lessons on "Watermelon Man."
I consider that use of copyrighted material to be fair use. I do NOT simply upload an entire copyrighted track to YouTube, as many people do with impunity. It pisses me off when I see that. Instead, my use is strictly for teaching purposes, NOT ordinary listening purposes. I'm working with the track, playing over it, etc.
In a handful of case, such as when I ended a lesson with Muddy's "Got My Mojo Working," YouTube's copyright-track-sniffing software has nailed me. I don't like that, but I don't begrudge them that--except when I look at how many people are uploading entire tracks, rather than a 45-second snippet, and NOT adding any value by way of teaching commentary, as I do.
|
arzajac
149 posts
Apr 16, 2010
9:03 AM
|
(Edit: I was writing this while Adam was posting the above message... Never mind...)
Adam,
By the letter of the law, most of your YouTube videos violate someone's copyright. And so do most of your non-free lessons (which are great, BTW!)
By encouraging us to watch your youtube videos, are you encouraging us to do something illegal?
Similarly, every time someone performs (i.e. sings) Happy Birthday in public, they are violating copyright if they do not pay the royalty to Time Warner.
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 9:05 AM
|
Buddha
1629 posts
Apr 16, 2010
9:05 AM
|
I subscribe to don't ask, don't tell.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
mr_so&so
305 posts
Apr 16, 2010
10:28 AM
|
It's pretty much impossible to stop people from copying and making available copyrighted material. This has been going on for decades. The Internet has only made it easier. Personally, I don't download music or movies, etc. that I have not paid for. I do feel free to make a copy of, or convert to a different format, material that I have paid for, e.g. ripping CDs, saving a copy of streamed materials for off-line consumption.
I find that I am more deliberate about my choices when I pay for things, and am more of an "active" listener/consumer of those artistic media that I buy. E.g., if I don't immediately enjoy a blues CD that I've purchased, I listen to it a few more times and give it a chance to grow on me, or give myself a chance to learn to appreciate what is going on.
I work at a University, and have seen the ethos of the students change over the years. Now they think that it is OK to take anything they can get their hands on, and don't worry about where it came from. We of the older generations may not like it or agree, but that is the new world order.
I hope that the Internet can ultimately bring the artists closer to the consumers. If Adam's adventures with the Internet become a trend, then more consumers will feel a personal connection with the artists they like, and will gladly pay those artists directly for the wares that artist chooses to sell.
|
OzarkRich
193 posts
Apr 16, 2010
11:12 AM
|
So how do you determine if it's illegal or not? I've downloaded free tracks from Document Records, for instance, with the assumption that they own the copyright. Who's at fault if it's illegal, the uploader or downloader? who gets prosecuted, if anyone?
Can you tell I know nothing about this stuff? :)
----------
Ozark Rich
__________
##########
Ozark Rich's YouTube
Ozark Rich's Facebook
|
saregapadanisa
166 posts
Apr 16, 2010
11:40 AM
|
I find myself in the schizophrenic position to agree with both Conjob and Phogi. In other terms, I feel that this discussion is trapped in moral issues, when I don't see any default of moral with both person.
At the very beginning of the railway in the 19th century, european lawmakers proposed that a guy should walk on the tracks before each train waving a red flag to warn people. Here we are today with music downloads : whatever the steps you take, the train will overrun you. Some pragmatism might help.
First, what is music to you ? I own hundreds of Cds, cassettes (yes, still have), Minidisc... I roam libraries. I would buy a cd for the only reason that I have never heard of it before. When I travel, I go to music shops and ask for whatever the clerk thinks is worth listening and come home with bagloads of cds from Vietnam, Ethiopia, Iran... that I can't even read the title.
And I download. Music that I couldn't even find anywhere else. And music I could easily buy. Remember the time when you could actually listen to the records in the music shops ? I spent days listening to whatever was available. And I just did that yesterday at home : downloaded the brand new Jeff Beck cd, listen to it once (not even until the end actually), and deleted it.
Strictly from this point of view, what downloads brought to me is a new world of possibilities and understanding.
Second, the economy, stupid. I totally agree with Conjob on one point : I still spend the same money on music. And the point that this money goes more directly to the musicians is no nonsense. Still, it's a shame that the artists don't get money from downloads. Why can't they ? Just because the Majors want to stick to an obsolete business model to deseperatly keep their share of the cake, and because policy makers stick to that view and are behind of times, as usual (or influenced by the lobby, put it as you wish).
Business models are not perpetual rules, neither in times (the model established by the record industry is rather recent) nor in space (just look outside the western world where healthy music scenes are not driven by cd sales).
As a reminder, radio has been the main music purveyor for decades with a business model based on free avaibility for the audience.
You all know what artists get on the price of the cd. And, Phogi, the point on Kim Wilson only selling his cds during his concerts is not relevant : as soon as he sells a cd, it can be copied ; the point is only that, by selling his cds himself, he gets the money, instead of a shameful fraction of it.
And, as one put it, itunes is cheap. So true. But one obvious point, money goes : 1-Apple 2-producer.
Even the big royalties earners, like Madonna or Shakira, have moved ahead. They signed with Live Nation, not Warner or Universal.
We live in a time when the production of recorded music has never been so easy (and affordable), when marketing is achieved by non-conventional means, when redistribution to artists could be straighforward, when general awareness of the diversity of music has dramatically widened. And still, we still feel bad for not paying their share to an industry that doesn't provide the service.
Most obvious example for all of us : Adam Gussow (sorry to point at you, Adam). Honestly, how many of us here had only heard his name only 3 years ago ? I did buy his cds and would go and see him perform whatever the price, but how much royalty does he gets (he mentionned it in an other thread) : peanuts. What he gets now (recognition and opportunities) has nothing to do with the industry (and in his case, rely on his mere generosity). And same could be said of full time touring professionals, they will never make a living with royalties. My point is : the record industry model is in many (many many) case irrelevent, unfair (redistributionwise) and osbolete.
And Adam, your youtube vids do break the law, plain and simple. Not only your lessons but also your performances of copyrighted material. And thank you for that. The law doesn't say nothing about teaching added value (fair use is an other matter) or doesn't consider the value of prescription (just think about how many people did buy the cut after watching you). The fact you rightly consider it fair has nothing to do with it. It just tells how far behind the rules are.
By the way, Youtube is a whole schizophrenic story in itself. Those people opposing illegal download and meanwhile using Youtube where 90% (just a guess, but not absurd) of the material is copyrighted and downright illegal dive in the pond of the great hypocrisy. And, once more, they do it in genuine fairness. I'd like to hear them akwnowledge that.
(Let alone the fact that YT is owned by Google, making big money by basically only having you connected to their services, and not paying a cent of royalty).
Back to moral : it's a shame that artist don't get fair money from downloads (including the youtube kind).
Nacoran is spot on : global licence is the way to go, the technology is there, it's easy to monitor (more so because, once it's there, downloaders won't have to hide), and it will cut the middlemen's share dramatically and allow the artists to get fair money. There's no politic stand in there, just economy, fairness and pragmatism. And maybe aknowlegment of where the society stands today, like it or not.
As for me, I still buy plenty of cds, go to live shows, give to buskers... I can afford. At the same time, although I don't tell them, I'm proud to see my kids discover musics that they could never have reached by legal means (i.e. by paying, they could not afford). They're exposed to more diversified music that I could dream of at their age. I know they will be music consumers in their own right when they earn money, but for now I am just glad to let them open a whole world of curiosity and possibilities. Call me an utopist, but I feel the world would be better for that.
Everything is out there for the artists to get their fair due and for our kids not being outlaws. And meanwhile policy makers are still waving that red flag on the railway tracks, asking us to bail out a partly obsolete industry. Petition !
|
Stickman
297 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:47 PM
|
"i have tens of thousands of dollars worth of music on my i-pod. i simply wouldnt have most of it if i had to pay for it"
I'd drive a FERRARI if I didn't have to pay for it.
I should be allowed to steal a Ferrari from the factory beacuse:
1) I would be exposed to a badass car (and blonde chicks)
2) local mechanics who specialize in Italian sports-cars would get my business
3) Richer people than me would be jealous and go out and buy a Ferrari
4) More of my money goes directly to Ferrari and less goes to middle men (wait a minute? well.....3 out of 4 aint bad)
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 12:52 PM
|
Buddha
1634 posts
Apr 16, 2010
12:58 PM
|
Stickman, did you read my post? If you want to be rich like me, you have to max out your credit cards by buying whatever you want. You don't have to pay it back because we can just use ConJob's argument to fight any future law suits.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
Kyzer Sosa
366 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:00 PM
|
or file bankruptcy and sit on all your cool new stuff.. it only lasts 7 years, then you can go out and do it all over again...
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
MichaelAndrewLo
296 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:05 PM
|
It seems many people posting on this thread are getting pissed off cause of how the world should be, could be, needs to be, they want to be, on and on. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, people download music, legally and illegally, the huge majority will never and simply couldn't be prosecuted. Smoking weed is illegal. No matter how much you get pissed that people still smoke it, or wish they shouldn't or couldn't, it's always going to be smoked. Might as well pay attention to how the world actually is and adapt instead of complaining how you want it to be. And relying on a "moral" change to pump more music into buying CD's, well, that's just plain wishful thinking.
|
Stickman
298 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:09 PM
|
Yes Buddha I saw it. I Just want the car....and the blonde chicks.
and Michael who is getting pissed?
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 1:13 PM
|
Buddha
1635 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:11 PM
|
If you know where to look, you can get blonde chicks for $20. I had me a few last night.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
MichaelAndrewLo
297 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:12 PM
|
@ stickman
"i have tens of thousands of dollars worth of music on my i-pod. i simply wouldnt have most of it if i had to pay for it"
I'd drive a FERRARI if I didn't have to pay for it.
I should be allowed to steal a Ferrari from the factory beacuse:
1) I would be exposed to a badass car (and blonde chicks)
2) local mechanics who specialize in Italian sports-cars would get my business
3) Richer people than me would be jealous and go out and buy a Ferrari
4) More of my money goes directly to Ferrari and less goes to middle men (wait a minute? well.....3 out of 4 aint bad)
Well, the Ferrari is made for each individual buyer, just like a live performance! Which you are forced to pay for (unless your willing to sleep with the band members)! How bout a picture of a ferrari? You can download that for free on the internet. Just as you can a free copy of a musicians music.
|
Stickman
299 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:13 PM
|
Hey Buddha! I would like to order a bunch of Lotus haps one in each key. I'll pay by credit card. or better yet, I'll write you a check.
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
|
Stickman
300 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:15 PM
|
So it is not stealing if you can download it?
If an author spends years researching an writing a book and somebody posted it in the web then we should all download it for free?
could I then turn it in as my Masters Thesis?
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 1:21 PM
|
Kyzer Sosa
368 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:21 PM
|
i have downloaded thousands of dollars worth of music too, several gigs worth, in fact...maybe...6-10 years ago, but my hard drive failed and despite the best efforts of a professional, all data was lost. It was up to me to take care of it, put it on an external drive or something, and i didnt give it any care or respect because all it cost me was the time to search it out.
I dont advocate it because im just not the same person that i was then...my morals have changed, not just about music but art too...hell, any form of art/creativity, etc...and im not interested is sitting in front of my computer for hours seeking out music i might not ever even listen to. id rather play.
but MAL is right, there is NO STOPPING the juggernaut that is music piracy.
I used to run to my father, as a child, and poke myself in the arm, whimpering to him: "dad! it hurts when i do this!" his reply? well... dont do that. same applies for musicians trying to make a dollar... change up yo shit or deal with what this world does.
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
Buddha
1636 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:22 PM
|
why Lotus harps? If you're going to do a con job then why not go for the best?
I have been working on a new electronic harmonica. It will be available for downloading later today. It plays like nothing is there. AMAZING!!!
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
Stickman
301 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:22 PM
|
but MAL is right, there is NO STOPPING the juggernaut that is music piracy
that doesn't make it right.
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
|
MichaelAndrewLo
298 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:25 PM
|
Here's one definition of stealing:
To get or take secretly or artfully
Then yes, many millions people are simply master cleptos! practicing their chosen art of sonic accumulation!
|
Kyzer Sosa
369 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:25 PM
|
another thing: can you name a musician who has their music stolen regularly, one that would say it was hurting their lifestyle, that isnt already loaded? i mean, who stole Kings of Leon two years ago? no one. is their music being stolen now? definitely...BUT because of their success, theres no doubt theyre rolling in more cash than anyone here.
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
Stickman
302 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:26 PM
|
@ Buddha, because I didn't know the name of your top shelf harp off the top of my head and a quick search didn't turn up your website. Sorry I should have requested the best. How about some lessons too. I won't pay for them but will probably go to your concert next time you play in Hampton VA.
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
|
Stickman
303 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:27 PM
|
theyre rolling in more cash than anyone here.
Why do people assume all musicians are rich?
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
|
Kyzer Sosa
370 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:27 PM
|
that doesnt apply MAl, and you know it... stealing can be by force as well, which is much more the case with music piracy.
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
Kyzer Sosa
371 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:28 PM
|
kings of Leon? have you seen the numbers theyre pulling in at concerts? it leaves little doubt as to their financial situation.
----------
Kyzer's Travels
|
earlounge
24 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:34 PM
|
I have several cover videos on my Youtube channel that are considered "Playalongs" in the bass player community. I play along with the full track mainly for others to visually learn how it goes. This is similar to what Adam does when he analyzes songs, but it is much more blatant copyright issue.
Most of my vids are flagged as "Matched Third Party Content", but they still are available on the site. Youtube has a deal with most major record companies giving them payment for a blanket license. Most of my vids that fall under this blanket have an ad to actually go and download the songs I play along to.
There are exceptions. Warner Music Group has not signed a deal with Youtube and there for you can not use their songs. Some of my vids with WMG songs are blocked, but some of the artists on WMG have actually given out "Fan Licenses" to allow their music on Youtube.
For example: I was contacted by the Web Sheriff for a cover I did of a Van Morrison track. I was instructed to put a little blurb in the video description that had a link to Vans myspace page, and with that I can leave it up. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMQ_fOAsbM
I got very concerned about my copyright issues, but my account says it is in good standing and any videos that are blocked can be left up because the status may change as new deals with WMG come about.
Point being... Youtube has taken care of most of the copyright issues. If they didn't then you technically would have to turn off the TV and any music playing (including the radio) anytime you are filming anything bound for Youtube. This includes your home videos of Jr that you wanna share with Meema via the internets.
----------
Benjamin Earl
NOONE3NOONE - My Youtube
Benjamin Earl - My Bio
|
Stickman
304 posts
Apr 16, 2010
1:58 PM
|
Kyzer
After they pay for the venue, advertising, Transportation for the band, transportation for equipment, Transportation for crew and Entourage, Lodging for everybody, The cut from Ticketmaster, PAYROLL, manager, equipment rental, I imagine there is a promoter to pay and/or a booking agent, Insurance, damages, user fees and permits to buy. I bet there all kinds of added fees and surcharges from all the millemen and a thousand other things I don't know about, my bet is I make more than the average member of kings of Leon
would love to hear from BBQ or Walter who knows people from touring band and what they bring home after expenses.
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 2:09 PM
|
Post a Message
|
