Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Join the legal Music campaign
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedJoin the legal Music campaign

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 09:40
"Try before you buy" relies on trust between the copyright holder and the downloader that has not been granted by the copyright holder nor demonstrated by the downloader.
 
The fact that the RIAA has persued civil prosecutions demonstrates that a law has been broken in that they can demonstrate "fair use" has not been met.
 
The RIAA is for the USA, other countries have their own governing bodies and laws, downloading is legal in some, but not all countries. Uploading of copyright material is illegal in all countries.
 
For your Utopia to exist there has to be a mechanism that permits the copyright holder to grant this permission and for the downloader to demonstrate that the download has subsequently been either paid for or deleted. At present this mechanism does not exist .
 
Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright which offers greater flexibility to the Artist, in that they can stipulate the level of permitted copying. /edit: the weakness in this system is that there is no way for the Artist to monitor this activity, i.e. there is no way for the downloader to demonstrate he has kept within the terms of the agreement.

 © All rights reserved.



Edited by darqdean - May 18 2007 at 09:44
What?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21430
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 09:35
LOL actually it was my internet connection which broke down while I was submitting the post.
Back to Top
TheProgtologist View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 09:29
Mike liked what he said so much he had to say it twice.....Tongue


Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21430
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 09:28
*duplicate post - removed*Wink

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 18 2007 at 09:34
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21430
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 09:24
Originally posted by yargh yargh wrote:

"Illegal downloading of an album is theft (I believe the official definition is theft of intellectual copyright ) just the same as the physical theft of a CD from a store - either way, the artist loses out on any royalties they would have gained from the legal (ie paid for) download or Joe Public buying their CD on the high street.

No difference."
 
I am an attorney and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Intellectual property misappropriation and "theft" (larceny) have nothing in common, are not prosecuted the same way and are simply not the same "crime."  In fact, downloading music "illegally" is not even a crime -- if it was, the RIAA would be turning their private investigations over the police. 

Most file sharing applications work on a peer to peer basis ... when you're downloading a file you automatically offer the file (or parts of it if the download isn't yet complete) to the public for downloading. So even if you immediately move the file to a private, not shared folder once the download is complete, you still offered the file for uploading. So please keep in mind that most people are never "only" downloading.

But they're not (so long as the downloading is not coupled with selling copies like I explained above it may not be coupled with selling copies, but with distributing copies); they are suing people in civil court and offering settlements.  It is absolutely amazing the obscene levels of greed that artists and recording labels have, and their staggeringly arrogant campaign to brainwash the public into analogizing actual theft and copyright misappropriation is appalling.  That there are people stupid enough to swallow it is, unfortunately, no great surprise.

Ok, I have to say that don't sound like any lawyer I ever met ... you rather sound like an ultra left wing socialist.
 
The only person you can "steal" music from is a retailer.

Sorry, but this is nit-picking to the extreme. Infringement of copyright might not be called "stealing", but it has similar ranges of punishment. Theft, fraud, copyright infringement ... those are all similar crimes (you take away something from another person or company).

When you download, you try before you buy.  It's that simple.

It's the simplest and most common *excuse" for downloading, but it's not a valid defense in court.

And more exposure = greater sales to artists.

Sure, most downloaders claim that the downloads introduced them to so much new stuff ... and of course they buy some of these albums. But from my own experience a couple of years ago and from what I know from friends, I'd say that you only buy like 20% of what you download. I think it's safe to assume that hadn't you downloaded anything you would probably have ended up buying the same number of albums. In the end the number of albums you buy each month is much more determined by your budget than by your free access to albums.

I heartily encourage everyone to get as much free music as you possibly can, "legally" or no, so that you can be the most informed consumer possible.

Most bands offer free samples today. You don't need the full album to decide whether to buy it or not ... you also wouldn't request to be able to read a book in full before you purchase it.

I am not advocating that music be downloaded and sold.  I am not advocating downloading for the purposes of building your own electronic musical library in lieu of ever buying a CD.  But the disgusting, shrill, self-serving whining from the artist/label lackeys in here simply must be stopped by reason, logic and an awareness of the world we now live in.

If anything needs to stop then it's people claiming that music should be free. It can't be ... musicians need money to live, and to pay for the studio and other necessary expenses (or they make a contract with a music label which then gives them that money). Of course some artists are incredibly wealthy ... but 99% of our favorite prog artists are not.

These people are the first to want every benefit of participating in commerce and the free market and are very quick to call their music "product," yet they don't want their consumers to treat their wares like a consumer would treat any other product (the ability to try before you buy, to return it if you don't like it, etc.)

Sorry, but like I mentioned above most artists offer free sample tracks, which is more than you can ask. But what puzzles me the most about most people in favor of illegal file sharing is that you draw a conclusion like "they're not offering free samples -> I'm entitled to get these free samples against their will". If you insist on hearing the full album before buying it and they don't make it available to you ... then just don't buy it!
 
Keep whining, corporate shills.  The 21st century is here and there is nothing whatsoever that you can do about it.

The only one who's whining here is you, because you think that musicians should spend their time composing and recording music for free and then give it to you. They are not, which drives you mad ... and I'm feeling so, so sorry for you. CryWink


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 18 2007 at 09:37
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 08:20
Illegal downloading of an album is theft (I believe the official definition is theft of intellectual copyright ) just the same as the physical theft of a CD from a store - either way, the artist loses out on any royalties they would have gained from the legal (ie paid for) download or Joe Public buying their CD on the high street.

No difference.

+++edit+++

Appears Cert and I had the same idea at the same time; only Cert's post had more words - he's an intelektooal!

Edited by Jim Garten - May 18 2007 at 08:35

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 08:19
Originally posted by Philéas Philéas wrote:

Not speaking in favour of illegal downloading, but I see a misconception here: Downloading can't really be compared to stealing a physical object from someone, as the files downloaded are copies.

Let's say an artist records an album, 100 CDs are made. Somehow the music is leaked onto the internet as mp3 files. People download the mp3 files and listen to them. The CDs remain, nothing has been stolen. What could have happened though is that the artist has lost some money if some of the downloaders didn't buy the album. The CDs however, were not stolen, only copied.

If I go into a store, grab a CD and run, the store has one CD less. There's a difference between illegal copying and stealing.

Remeber: I am not endorsing illegal downloading, just explaining why I don't think one can compare downloading an album to stealing an album.


 
 
 
It's fairly simple really - the property of the artist is the music, not the digital file or physical album, which belongs to you and you alone unless you trade it, sell it or otherwise dispose of it.
 
It's called Intellectual Property: Just as you wouldn't quote from a book or another website and claim the material to be your own, music is not yours to re-distribute unless you wrote it.
 
Stealing the CD is stealing the physical media and packaging as well as the intellectual property of the artist - so you would actually committ two crimes in stealing a CD.
 
As with computer software, the bit that belongs to you is the physical media that contains it, not the stuff on it, which might have cost millions of dollars to develop and market. This belongs to the company or individuals that created it.
 
Copying music or software in order to maintain a backup (in case the original becomes damaged) is permissible - although some companies are trying to make this illegal. I do not believe it should be, as I believe it's a right: CD's can get damaged and unplayable - why should I pay for the content twice?
 
Copying music or software in order to re-distribute it is quite obviously wrong - if someone wants a copy, they should buy it so that the creator of the work gets paid what's due to them.
 
If you receive a copy you haven't paid for, then the creator - quite obviously - does not get paid for it. Instead of selling 1,000 copies, they have only sold 999 copies - and so it goes on.
 
By not paying them for their product, you are stealing from them, the same as if it was something tangible - and that's the crux of the argument for Intellectual Property law as I understand it.
 
 
In the case of a leak, then the copyright has been breached, and anyone exchanging or receiving copies may be prosecuted if caught.
 
 
More and more frequently, digital media is watermarked these days, and there is technology that allows it to "phone home" through various media players if it detects an invalid license. The technology is young, but it will evolve.


Edited by Certif1ed - May 18 2007 at 08:24
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 08:01
I think you'll find that anomally covered by a little thing called copyright law........

Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 07:57
Not speaking in favour of illegal downloading, but I see a misconception here: Downloading can't really be compared to stealing a physical object from someone, as the files downloaded are copies.

Let's say an artist records an album, 100 CDs are made. Somehow the music is leaked onto the internet as mp3 files. People download the mp3 files and listen to them. The CDs remain, nothing has been stolen. What could have happened though is that the artist has lost some money if some of the downloaders didn't buy the album. The CDs however, were not stolen, only copied.

If I go into a store, grab a CD and run, the store has one CD less. There's a difference between illegal copying and stealing.

Remeber: I am not endorsing illegal downloading, just explaining why I don't think one can compare downloading an album to stealing an album.




Edited by Philéas - May 18 2007 at 07:59
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 04:01
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

 YouTube is a bit of a grey, on which it was known in the past that some copyright material was published without the author's consent.
 
I believe that Google now own YouTube and are doing everything in their powers to keep it legal, so I try to use my common sense with material posted there.
 
The stuff on YouTube is typically of a very low quality, and streamed - it's a nice taste of the product, but in no way as good as the real thing - and once you've seen it, the file remains where it is - not on your hard drive.
 
 
File sharing is much more clear cut - the rules are obvious: If it's yours, feel free to share it (check out my music LEGALLY AND FOR FREE  - the password is ProgArchives, as this song is available ONLY to members of this site due to it's proggy nature Wink. There's more on my MySpace page, but it's not as proggy).
 
If it's not yours - ie, you didn't create the actual music, then sharing it is illegal.
 
It's not about how we feel - if the Recording Industry ASS. catches you, then you're nicked, fair and square.


thanks, my understanding was a bit ambiguous
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 03:55
 YouTube is a bit of a grey, on which it was known in the past that some copyright material was published without the author's consent.
 
I believe that Google now own YouTube and are doing everything in their powers to keep it legal, so I try to use my common sense with material posted there.
 
The stuff on YouTube is typically of a very low quality, and streamed - it's a nice taste of the product, but in no way as good as the real thing - and once you've seen it, the file remains where it is - not on your hard drive.
 
 
File sharing is much more clear cut - the rules are obvious: If it's yours, feel free to share it (check out my music LEGALLY AND FOR FREE  - the password is ProgArchives, as this song is available ONLY to members of this site due to it's proggy nature Wink. There's more on my MySpace page, but it's not as proggy).
 
If it's not yours - ie, you didn't create the actual music, then sharing it is illegal.
 
It's not about how we feel - if the Recording Industry ASS. catches you, then you're nicked, fair and square.


Edited by Certif1ed - May 18 2007 at 04:00
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 01:14
so, how do you all feel about musical "sharing" - swapping cd's with a friend or posting a video on Youtube or something like that (I am in no way insinuating that I personally partake of this)
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 01:10
Amazed to find this re-opened this morning!

Good post Yface1 !
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 18 2007 at 00:52
Fantastic post Yface1! ClapClapClapClapClap
 
Here's an example: Magellan. Their new album, Innocent God, is available online-only, for ordering and also for downloading, IF YOU PAY. That means, you're paying the artist (Trent Gardner0 and he's receiving his due share for the work he's done.
 
Why did he get out of Inside Out and got into this more internet-oriented deal? Maybe there are some other reaons, but for sure he should've felt displeased with his "numbers" in terms or records sold.
 
Now, he controls what happens to him, financially. He controls what albums are sent by mail (like I did, I bought a hard copy in cd) or over the internet. You know why? Because he's not only a musician...THAT'S HIS JOB.
 
So how come only musicians have to let others download the products of their efforts? I've never heard that in other professions you have to let people benefit from you freely. A talking point: yes, music is an art. BUT IT'S ALSO A WAY OF LIVING. So let's stop pretending that we as consumers have the right to step on the rights of the creator of the music and benefit only on one side.
 
Someone mentioned that "the consumer is always right". You know what? That rule applies in the world of retail mostly, where a manufacturer produces an item, somebody else sells it, and the profits are shared (most of the percentage to the manufacturer, a little to the store). Of course, for a capitalist system to work, the consumer has the right to complain about any defects and to demand the best possible service. BUT I'VE NEVER HEARD NOR SEEN THAT INVOKING THE "CONSUMER'S ALWAYS RIGHT" THING A COSTUMER HAD THE RIGHT TO GET AN ITEM FOR FREE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT FOR THE STORE OR FOR THE MANUFACTURER. That rule helps the consume going...If the consumer's happy, he'll return. If the consumer's well-treated, he'll more than likely purcchase MORE. So in the end both the manufacturer and the store get BENEFIT. DON'T THINK THAT RULE (OR LAW) IS CREATED FOR THE SAKE OF CHEAP CONSUMERS< BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE MARKET. THE MARKET BENEFITS OF THAT, AND AS THE MARKET BENEFITS, THE ECONOMY BENEFITS.
 
It has NOTHING TO DO with music. What you say would be like going to the store, stealing an item, and if you're caught, saying: "hey! I have the right as consumer to try the product"!  Of course, they won't grant you that right, but the right to ride in a police car to a very special place.
 
Musicians are professionals. You love music? Then start realizing that music is another way of living, start by giving music the importance it deserves. When you say that "music should be free to download for the sake of the consumer" you're just degrading music to a third-rate hobby. SORRY MY FRIEND, IT IS NOT. Even Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, THEY WERE ABLE TO EAT THANKS TO THEIR MUSIC.
 
So now that we have internet, music suddenly is just a joke? Give me a break.
 
Downloading legally? OK!! I don;'t like it for musical reasons, but that's personal, there's no moral objections. Downloading just for your sake? VILE, VULGAR THEFT.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 21:30
Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

You all are doing EXACTLY what I asked you not to do.Angry
 
Why does every thread about downloading,even if the thread is dedicated to legal downloading,turn into an argument about the illegality of downloading????


And how is it possible to not see that coming? LOL

That Zoppa guy is the first one I've read here that can't seem to find one negative thing about illegal downloading.

That makes him the first person here who's just as narrowminded as the priveliged, well off fortysomething's who only see things in black and white, shouting: It's illegal! There's nothing to discuss! Bloody thiefs!
 
whenever you post and run like this I just have to laugh....LOL
 
Now how about explaining yourself adequately instead of making smart-ass comments..
 
 


When I jump in and out of this forum its my real life girlfriend I fear, not you. Haven't got more time tonight, but this is what I mean:

Pantagruelcruel's poll

Back tomorrow.

 
wasnt suggesting you "feared" me but you surely must know that this type of posting is pure "troll". Not suggesting you are a "troll" just that one could interpret it that way.
 
Thanks for the link. I understand your postion better now.
 
I dont understand why you have to make your replies personal and thus aggressive seiing as you are quick to point out this failing in others...Smile


I had no idea I was trolling or being aggressive (being a little rude, or pointing out stuff you thought were obvious is allowed, no?), really. I tried to be honest.

'The priveliged, well off fortysomething (+Everyone that's priveliged, of course. Based on reading similar threads there just seem to be a lot of judging going in this age group) should be careful before they say stuff like:

...In my opinion it is NEVER acceptable....  I can honestly say that if I hadn't been so fortunate, job wise, that I still would not have done it - purely on moral grounds.
 
...As for doing it because "it's free". Well you're a bloody thief and I'd like to see all people who steal in this way prosecuted!

This is a quite normal opinion on this topic here and unlike my post, not considered trolling.

Its ignorant, self righteous and it disgusts me.

Try and figure out how its possible to discuss a swedish jazz/fusion album with only 500 ex. printed in '74 and never reissued. With a 16 year old intelligent, kid from some country where there probably doesn't even exist a single original copy of that record. While you either bought your copy when it was brand new, or on ebay for 70 euros (which doesn't help the artist any more than a free download). Try and figure out how the kid got to hear it. You think he wouldn't rather own an original copy himself like you, if he could?
 
Do you want to stay friends or do you want keep judging, even see the kid prosecuted? A thief is a thief is a thief? No way! The world is not that simple a place. Some of you have no idea how many unfortunate youngsters who wisely stays away from all these discussions, you're hurting. This is your new friends. Your young, bright hopes for the future of prog.

(Downloading a new album you can easily find, and afford, is of course wrong)


Oh Oh, subjects with many shades of grey make for extended debates. I like black & white. And in this case, R makes the point well - judge not lest ye be judged. And remember that old french quote - the law in its' infinite majesty prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges.
P.S. If stealing is wrong go ask most musicians on their opinion of record labels' bookkeeping when it comes to paying our royalties, you know the money made that is supposed to go partly to the musician. For details, please peruse a few newsletters from Bob Lefsetz. Except for the top of the top, most never see a dime.
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Rocktopus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 18:49
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

You all are doing EXACTLY what I asked you not to do.Angry
 
Why does every thread about downloading,even if the thread is dedicated to legal downloading,turn into an argument about the illegality of downloading????


And how is it possible to not see that coming? LOL

That Zoppa guy is the first one I've read here that can't seem to find one negative thing about illegal downloading.

That makes him the first person here who's just as narrowminded as the priveliged, well off fortysomething's who only see things in black and white, shouting: It's illegal! There's nothing to discuss! Bloody thiefs!
 
whenever you post and run like this I just have to laugh....LOL
 
Now how about explaining yourself adequately instead of making smart-ass comments..
 
 


When I jump in and out of this forum its my real life girlfriend I fear, not you. Haven't got more time tonight, but this is what I mean:

Pantagruelcruel's poll

Back tomorrow.

 
wasnt suggesting you "feared" me but you surely must know that this type of posting is pure "troll". Not suggesting you are a "troll" just that one could interpret it that way.
 
Thanks for the link. I understand your postion better now.
 
I dont understand why you have to make your replies personal and thus aggressive seiing as you are quick to point out this failing in others...Smile


I had no idea I was trolling or being aggressive (being a little rude, or pointing out stuff you thought were obvious is allowed, no?), really. I tried to be honest.

'The priveliged, well off fortysomething (+Everyone that's priveliged, of course. Based on reading similar threads there just seem to be a lot of judging going in this age group) should be careful before they say stuff like:

...In my opinion it is NEVER acceptable....  I can honestly say that if I hadn't been so fortunate, job wise, that I still would not have done it - purely on moral grounds.
 
...As for doing it because "it's free". Well you're a bloody thief and I'd like to see all people who steal in this way prosecuted!

This is a quite normal opinion on this topic here and unlike my post, not considered trolling.

Its ignorant, self righteous and it disgusts me.

Try and figure out how its possible to discuss a swedish jazz/fusion album with only 500 ex. printed in '74 and never reissued. With a 16 year old intelligent, kid from some country where there probably doesn't even exist a single original copy of that record. While you either bought your copy when it was brand new, or on ebay for 70 euros (which doesn't help the artist any more than a free download). Try and figure out how the kid got to hear it. You think he wouldn't rather own an original copy himself like you, if he could?
 
Do you want to stay friends or do you want keep judging, even see the kid prosecuted? A thief is a thief is a thief? No way! The world is not that simple a place. Some of you have no idea how many unfortunate youngsters who wisely stays away from all these discussions, you're hurting. This is your new friends. Your young, bright hopes for the future of prog.

(Downloading a new album you can easily find, and afford, is of course wrong)

Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Back to Top
TheProgtologist View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 18:09
Great post.Thumbs%20Up
 
I will let this open and see what happens.


Back to Top
yface1 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2006
Location: Skatchwan
Status: Offline
Points: 206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 18:05
OK, to all. Basically I got a bit peeved that I couldn't out my own words into what was happening as I was at crummy, stupid work Cry  so I begged and pleaded (well, asked really) The Progtologist to let it re-open, if only for this last post, just so I could reply, answer and put my own thoughts and ideas into it. And the main reason, I felt left out! LOL

Anyway, here goes nothing. If it gets closed feel free to PM me and let me know if you think otherwise or whatever. If it stays open then carry on posting on topic without disgracing such an honest thread, please. And I did say please. Smile

Originally posted by erik neuteboom erik neuteboom wrote:

I know many small progrock bands and also some small progrock mailorder services that suffer from the fact progheads download music illegally Angry Progheads should be aware that they are destroying their own favorite category but unfortunately many progheads are more eager to get music for free illegally than thinking forward and supporting their favorite category.
And this is most of the problem. Most people out there have no real idea just how much thought, work and effort goes into the production of music. In fact, most people don't even have the common sense to think about it properly. And I'm talking about your everyday music fan who listens exclusively to pop of any form. Whereas, with Prog being such a small genre (well, it is if you take the entire world of music into account) its just so horrible to see so called prog-fans download music cause they can....


Originally posted by darqdean darqdean wrote:

Most recording artists are not millionaires.

Most have part time jobs that they use to finance their passion and their art.
 
Can you buy your favorite bands CD in the supermarket? NO
Can you buy them from Amazon? Probably, but they are on a 28 day delivery
Can you buy them from niche genre websites? Usually.
Can you buy them from the band website? YES
Can you see them headline in a 50,000 capacity arena? NO
Can you see them in a 5,000 capacity venue? Maybe
Can you see them in a dingy 500 capacity club? YES
 
if your answers match mine then...
 
Will downloading their songs for free "stick it to the man"? NO
Will it hurt the artist? YES
 
 Agreed. I have been to several shows featuring prog bands - some new and some that have been around for a while (Wishbone Ash) and all these bands were playing at venues where the capacity was 500max. Except Tool who played to about 750-1,000 people. But that's cause they are the exception to the rule (there's always one)  And as far where you can get CD's from - you look long and hard like I do for about 5hours a week to get some bargains and maybe pay some extortionate prices for some gems. But that's most of the fun! or should be...


Originally posted by Frank Zoppa Frank Zoppa wrote:

If, hypothetically, Mozart's music was available to download illegaly he would have become very wealthy indeed. His work would have had a worldwide audience for his music, not just the domain of the aristocratic. The fact that he had high level of quality in his work would have guaranteed that the sales of whatever hypothetical media we are using for this debate, would have been very high. He would have become very wealthy.
The record industry stinks to high heaven.
Would you buy a car you haven't seen? No you wouldn't so why should you buy music you haven't heard before
OK, with regards Mozart, if he was born in this day and age he would be a mega celebrity. Nobody with that much natural talent would simply been ignored. I mean, the guy was playing fluent piano at 6years old! It wouldn't have mattered if his music was downloaded or not, he would be rich, famous and have all the women LOL  BUT, your point is still invalid on that point alone as he woulda made his zillions through  sposorships, ads, live acts and no doubt the media would be paying him loads just to have his face broadcast. I mean, he wass an icon, not just a musician. he's a musical god, not just a human pianist. in other words, he could play better than any other player in the world. Fact. So, with that in mind - he wouldn't need a paltry income from download "sales" as he would already have the money coming in from elsewhere.
With regards to your comment on the car...  You're right, you don't buy a car without first trying it. But that is officially called a "Test Drive". You get a quick 20-30mins sample, decide if you like it then you do this: Decide to buy it and use it for a few years or leave it there.  The same should go with music. You should get a small sample (maybe a fuill track if the artist is nice enough) and from that you do this: decide whether or not to buy the full thing and add it to your collection. But with both examples, at the end of the day all you get is a sample and that's where it should end.


Originally posted by darqdean darqdean wrote:

Originally posted by Frank Zoppa Frank Zoppa wrote:

Originally posted by darqdean darqdean wrote:


Buy the CD, if you don't like it take it back. Simple as that.


Isn't that just as illegal?? I'm sure Toff records would go out of business very quickly if they were used as a library. With people like you buying all there stock just to return it.

Are you advocating paying for music listening to it then demanding a refund?? Are you not going to pay for listening to it?
Just what the world needs another self righteous hypocrit
You are much worse than any illegal downloader if thats the way you act
 
Please do not put words into my mouth.Angry
 
I am not advocating anything - I simply stated that if you don't like what you bought take it back.
 
Returning purchases is within your statutory legal rights. I have done this with one CD out of several thousand I have purchased over the years. That does not make me a hypocrit - it doesn't even qualify me as a descerning purchaser.

This is of particular interest to me as I'm in 2 minds. Yes you can take things back if they are not of your own satifaction but I wouldn't personally extend that right to music or movies in particular. I know it's legal but these days I would think it would be frowned upon by a majority including the Artists.
However, had you done this 10+years ago then there shouldn't have been any problem as the wave of computer technology wasn't around and people weren't distributing the files ilegally so... I would probably say your point is valid if it was outwith the computer craze that is happening right now.
 


Originally posted by Melomaniac Melomaniac wrote:

Originally posted by Frank Zoppa Frank Zoppa wrote:

why should you buy music you haven't heard before
 
Because that's how it once was, before the advent of the Internet... remember the 80's or early 90's ? Or are you too young (to care ?)
 
The most we could hear then was ONE song on the radio, and, when it came to prog, you didn't hear a single song.  Exciting times indeed, when you never knew what an album would sound like, when the simple act of discovery was a joy in itself.  You must be part of that BLANK generation Wilson and PT depict in Fear of a Blank Planet , the bored-to-death, everything-has-to -be-provided-for-me generation, nothing excites you, does it ?

Also agreed. And it's people like that who are out there who basically mis-use and abuse what is not there's in the first place. Although I am only 19 and have really only just got into music I am known to look at the wider picture and thus I can agree that, the thrill of seeing such minor things is astounding. Fair enough if you want all the info thats inside the booklet then scour the internet but having it in the palm of your hands knowing that you are holding a piece of musical history itself is a great feeling. Cover art, lyrics, exclusive playing of instruments, the thank you page(s), booklet art and more obviously, the quality, structure and original sound of the music. If only things could go back in time and I could really get the true feeling of "Not knowing" and simply buying an album because you do not know... Now that sounds like a much better feeling.


Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

OK, I re-read what I wrote, and I look at this way:
 
If I make something and people don't buy it, then I don't make any money. To date, I have made no money from my music - but I don't try as hard these days, since I have a family, etc.
 
When I was working on the circuits trying to make a crust from music by gigging every night, I didn't consider myself rich as I took my share of the night's takings and tried to find a floor to sleep on somewhere.
 
I didn't consider myself rich as so-called managers ran off with the kitty.
 
I didn't consider myself rich when I found a load of our tapes had got ripped off (stolen) one night - I cursed people who steal music as I still do.
 
 
Yes, the record industry stinks.
 
Stealing from the artists does not make it smell better.
 
You don't have to download illegally in order to hear music - there are streaming sites all over the place - here, for instance - and legal ways to get music for free - so that argument carries no weight whatsoever.
 
 
It's not a debate - this thread is about joining the legal campaign - I'm sorry I lost my temper; I should have just ignored your ignorant post.
 
 
If you think my point of view is narrow minded, then you might be right - but I have reason to feel this way.
 
If you think it's naive - think again about who the naive one is.

Heart-felt, to the point and I can honestly say I can respect you as a musician. So I applaude your outburst Clap
The record industry is probably the 2nd biggest piece of crap on the planet next to arrogant, ignorant internet thieves. Also (in case you re-read this) if you have any of your original material, Certif1ed then I would happily buy some off you just to try it out. Name the price and we can haggle. LOL Oh, and I'm being serious in case your wondering. Big%20smile



Originally posted by prog-chick prog-chick wrote:

Originally posted by yargh yargh wrote:

Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

"Please differentiate between FREE as in legally free and STOLEN, as in illegally free - it's not a hard distinction to make - and the principle's the same, except that with legally free downloads, the artist has chosen to have that greater audience.

 

I'd rather not make a distinction.  If artists have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new era, so be it.  I heartily encourage everyone and anyone to download whatever they want -- legally or illegally -- and then purchase the album if you deem what you have heard to be purchase-worthy.    

 


ok...... we are not being dragged kicking anywhere. We offer plenty of free downloads in a variety of places, to take yet more is disrespectful, rude and damaging.......and lets face it a tad on the greedy side.
We ask fair payment for fair goods. It's not unreasonable.

A tad?! That's the biggest understatement I have ever heard. It's wrong on so many levels and I don't really want to go repeating myself but it really is theft. Plain and simple. Samples, streaming, legal downloads or whatever are safe, effective ways to give both financial gain to the artist but also encourage other labels/bands/listeners to do the same if they don't want to buy a CD. Anyway, like somebody said earlier - you don't download books, consumer electricals or even food. So why music? Either way, it's.... oh nevermind.


Originally posted by prog-chick prog-chick wrote:

yeah, you know if musicians like give stuff away and get really famous, you know the mortgage company will say, "that's ok, you're famous, you don't need to pay"...... which'll be good cos we'll be SO busy answering the door to all butcher, baker, greengrocer etc who'll be delivering free food in honour of our fame that we wouldn't have time to pay them anyway!

What business school did you drop out of?

Sheeesh....... musicians (like the butcher, baker and candlestick maker) need and deserve to be paid for their product. (It's kind of how they fund the next product)




It's also called "The generation of Wealth. For anyone who thinks like Frank Zoppa and Yargh you should look into Economics a little bit and learn how The Generation of Wealth works. But, if you don't want to go out and buy a book, I'll give you the crash course online.....
You see something you like that belongs to someone, they set you a price, you give them what they asked for. You both get something to which you believe is of equal value.
So, for the people who can't read between the lines - by downloading for free (the illegal kind) you are simply saying that the music is worthless to you, correct?


Anyway, I've had my say. Agree, disagree, read it all or not read it all or only read after your names is printed, I do not mind. I am content that I managed to comment on things in a designated area. Progtologist, you may close the topic any time you wish. I thank you all for your time.
My entertainment dollar is burning in my pocket!
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:35
Originally posted by cuncuna cuncuna wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

I am pretty tired of these threads being hijacked,and do not feel so indulgent anymore.I think has gone far enough.


¿What do you mean by "hijacked"?. I saw a smilar comment on another thread (wich was also closed).
 
We'll buy you a new hat if you promise to behave....Tongue
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:29
Originally posted by cuncuna cuncuna wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

I am pretty tired of these threads being hijacked,and do not feel so indulgent anymore.I think has gone far enough.


¿What do you mean by "hijacked"?. I saw a smilar comment on another thread (wich was also closed).
 
He means that it has been taken over for other purposes.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.240 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.