Join the legal Music campaign

Melomaniac wrote: People will probably realize how wrong they were in downloading illegally when no more recording artists will be around to make that which we love so much...   It's just so human and predictable to learn when it's too late.

Apart from the BIG names, I believe that accounting records will show that it is mainly the record labels that are being "hurt" financially. You don't have to go too far down the success ladder among musicians to find one that can claim to not be satisfied with his royalties as determined by the label. And for the labels, illegal downloading is just a ready made excuse to blame for declining sales. There is no mention whether CD sales boosted the totals when they were brought out in the 80s (buying Zep IV & Floyd the Wall for a 2nd or 3rd time), then the big trends that have also contributed to higher sales - Hair Metal, Michael Jackson, Grunge, Pop Punk, Boy Bands, Chick slut dance whatever. And of course, the never ending re-packaging of perennial sellers in various remixes/remasters/expanded/XXth anniversary etc editions. It would seem logical that if you're selling the same album over & over again, there comes a point that there is nothing new to offer to entice the consumer to buy it an Nth time. I'm an AC/DC fan, but having bought the LP, cassette, 16 bit original CD issue, then the 20 bit remasters, I quit buying the latest remasters after I picked up Highway to Hell and saw no difference from the previous "remaster" . I did see Malcolm Young quoted as saying that the latest ones were "louder", but then I do have a volume control on my stereo.
So you come to the point where you're relying on new releases for those big numbers & all of a sudden they're not delivering the 10 000 000 copies any more for a blockbuster, but just 4 000 000. But no one wants to admit that the market is so split among many niches, and that the "mainstream" hits just aren't there anymore. The next big trend will not be a BIG trend. It is the niche, it is the acts that are consistently selling 100 000 or more of all their albums & able to build a long term career in music by making sure that their fans are respected, i.e. releasing the music that the band wants to do, not the accountants & consultants. Could you see a suit telling Phish that they would need a 3 minute "hit" single to become successful ? Or a radio programmer telling Robert Fripp to make his band sound more like Tool to get a little bit of airplay ?
So it's quite easy to say that illegal downloads are bad or theft. But don't tell me that most musical acts are getting shafted any more than usual by the labels. "cause if they're signed to a major, chances are that the corporate lawyers spend more time putting up roadblocks on any attempt to collect back royalties than ensuring that the actual "music makers" are properly paid what is owed them.
Again, I'll mention the Bob Lefsetz news letter. When you read that a guy like Steve Lukather who's been in a successful group like Toto,  gets most of his income from session work & concerts, you wonder how many albums you need to sell to get a penny out of the company pockets.
So if you're arguing about whether it's right or wrong, at least know who is really being hurt. Then check out Chuck D's opinion as to whether Public Enemy are better off as being independant or under a major label's thumb. Prog or not, the guy speaks to the reality of things.

"That's the same as software is it - if you obtain a copy of, say, Microsoft Vista from an illegal source, then that's fine because it helps Microsoft spread their software around?

That's the same as software is it - if you obtain a copy of, say, Microsoft Vista from an illegal source, then that's fine because it helps Microsoft spread their software around?

Edited by Certif1ed - May 18 2007 at 15:00

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.  But they're not (so long as the downloading is not coupled with selling 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.    The only person you can "steal" music from is a retailer.  When you download, you try before you buy.  It's that simple.  And more exposure = greater sales to artists.  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.  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.  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.)    Keep whining, corporate shills.  The 21st century is here and there is nothing whatsoever that you can do about it.

Rocktopus wrote: I still want to discuss why many get so hateful and totally loose perspective on this topic.

Where am I getting hateful? I'm totally cool, and not angry in even the slightest way. And I don't understand your criticism of my posts ... please show me where the contradiction is, and I'll try to post an intelligent answer.

prog-chick wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37967 We get worked up...... becuase it makes a VERY big difference to record sales. So much of a difference that some bands could be talking about quitting even whilst this debate is going on.

I was mainly challenging Mike's posts.

I don't know about the correct number of sales, loss or anything. I sympathize with all the good people working in music that suffers.

I still want to discuss why many get so hateful and totally loose perspective on this topic. It seems like some people think that everyone in the world could have bought as many albums as themselves. But unlike themselves, all these other people from strange little countries and kids from everywhere, decided to become (bloody) thiefs and hurt poor artists instead.

^^ I'll answer again:

The difference is that even if the downloader ends up buying the same number of albums as the non-downloader, the downloader will have listened to many more albums which he/she didn't pay for. Of course you can reason that they wouldn't have had the money to buy those albums, but once you permit this reasoning it can be abused easily ... then you can simply decide that you don't have the money to buy any CD at all, and you simply sample indefinitely without ever buying anything.

I'd like to point out again that today there are many ways to legally sample an album before buying it ... you don't have to download it illegally to get an impression of what it sounds like.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 18 2007 at 10:39

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Rocktopus wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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.   Well, if you are correct about that Mike, and it all evens out. What's all the fuzz about then? Law? What holds up in court? Is that it? Seems to me that following your logic , the downloader ends up buying the same amount of albums. Only difference being  that him or her's monthly musicbudget will be spent more wisely. Because now they've already heard the albums they are considering. (This is not saying thast this yargh person the good guy or anything) My point is that the artists which the user sampled but did not end up buying albums from are damaged by the downloading. It doesn't even out ... I merely gave an example from my own experience which may not be representative at all. And even if the number of albums is the same (downloaders compared to non-downloaders) then still the downloaders *listen* to more albums ... one point I'd like to make is that whenever you're listening to an album but did not pay for it (and the artist didn't make it available for free) then you're taking something from the artist without paying for it. You can make up for it by purchasing the album later ... but hand on heart - most downloaders only purchase a small percentage of the albums they "sample".

I'll ask again.

let's say its correct that people that download albums ends up buying the same amount of albums he or she would have done, if they weren't downloading. Why bother getting so worked up about this issue? This sounds mostly like a positive thing. So what if they listen to more albums than the would have done, if they couldn't have spent more money than they do, anyway. I know its illegal, but forget the law and all that for a while.   

Rocktopus wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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.   Well, if you are correct about that Mike, and it all evens out. What's all the fuzz about then? Law? What holds up in court? Is that it? Seems to me that following your logic , the downloader ends up buying the same amount of albums. Only difference being  that him or her's monthly musicbudget will be spent more wisely. Because now they've already heard the albums they are considering. (This is not saying thast this yargh person the good guy or anything)

My point is that the artists which the user sampled but did not end up buying albums from are damaged by the downloading. It doesn't even out ... I merely gave an example from my own experience which may not be representative at all. And even if the number of albums is the same (downloaders compared to non-downloaders) then still the downloaders *listen* to more albums ... one point I'd like to make is that whenever you're listening to an album but did not pay for it (and the artist didn't make it available for free) then you're taking something from the artist without paying for it. You can make up for it by purchasing the album later ... but hand on heart - most downloaders only purchase a small percentage of the albums they "sample".

MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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.

 
Well, if you are correct about that Mike, and it all evens out. What's all the fuzz about then? Law? What holds up in court? Is that it? Seems to me that following your logic , the downloader ends up buying the same amount of albums. Only difference being  that him or her's monthly musicbudget will be spent more wisely. Because now they've already heard the albums they are considering.

(This is not saying thast this yargh person the good guy or anything)