Join the legal Music campaign

I know many small progrock bands and also some small progrock mailorder services that suffer from the fact progheads download music illegally  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.

Edited by erik neuteboom - May 16 2007 at 14:32

Frank Zoppa wrote: Looking around at many recording artists I don't see many that are poverty stricken. How many have you actually seen? For me they are grossly overpaid and want even more. If they do have problems financially maybe they should get a proper job like everyone else has to. I wonder if there's any way that you could be more offensive ... no, I don't think so.

Sorry, but you're not worthy of ... even my anger. Just get out of this place, it's full of people who appreciate music and think positive.

Certif1ed wrote: Frank Zoppa wrote: Looking around at many recording artists I don't see many that are poverty stricken. For me they are grossly overpaid and want even more. If they do have problems financially maybe they should get a proper job like everyone else has to. Now that's the kind of sucky, bigoted and blindfolded attitude we need to fight. Not every artist is born rich, and it tends to be the pretty ones that attract the big piles of cash, while talented people slave away. Imagine if Mozart had got a proper job because he was short of a bob or two (which he constantly was)?

A very narrow minded, somewhat naive point of view.

Now reread what you wrote and look at it this way...

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

Hmmmmm..nice, where in Wales?

Frank Zoppa wrote: prog-chick wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Frank Zoppa wrote: Looking around at many recording artists I don't see many that are poverty stricken. For me they are grossly overpaid and want even more. If they do have problems financially maybe they should get a proper job like everyone else has to. Now that's the kind of sucky, bigoted and blindfolded attitude we need to fight. Not every artist is born rich, and it tends to be the pretty ones that attract the big piles of cash, while talented people slave away. Imagine if Mozart had got a proper job because he was short of a bob or two (which he constantly was)? FRANK ZOPPA...... have you read Nick Barrett's post? £7,500PA is not grossly overpaid (by ANY standards)....... proper job? could you BE any more insulting? Nick and I run toff records together, we work (on average) 6 days a week, from 7am until about midnight..... sometimes more, I also work at a part time job to help out financially.... I can't commit to a full time job becuase of the workload here at Toff. We do this becuase we are PASSIONATE about what we do, we are passionate about this all consuming music business. We also believe in the goodwill of the fans to buy the music that they love. You totally miss the whole point. Toff Records would make more money if music was downloaded illegally. If 100 people illegaly downloaded an album and 100 people didn't. Which catagory would you think you would get more sales from?? Obviously the people who listened to it - Unless the quality of the album is sub-standard. A ragga artist called Shaggy kickstarted his carrer and shifted 11 Million units from the right DJs illegaly downloading his music in the late 90s. Did home taping kill music in the 80s? No ofcourse not. The more someone hears music the more they will buy!! But to still have the buy now listen to later [in 2007] will mean that you will always struggle to get your £7500 PA

You assume that the people who illegally download will buy the CD if they are satisfied. I have never met anybody who does this. They all laugh at me if I suggest doing this.

You all are doing EXACTLY what I asked you not to do.

Frank Zoppa wrote: [QUOTE=Certif1ed] [QUOTE=Frank Zoppa]why should you buy music you haven't heard before

I do my part in trying to keep things legal by buying CDs instead of illegal downloads (will download legally and if for free - like off official band websites)

I would try to introduce my friends to prog but they would certainly download it and then I would become part of the problem by suggesting them to listen to the band.

TheProgtologist wrote: You all are doing EXACTLY what I asked you not to do.   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?

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!

Rocktopus wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: You all are doing EXACTLY what I asked you not to do.   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? 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!