Downloading
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55589
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 00:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Downloading
Posted By: Hercules
Subject: Downloading
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 03:55
|
Many of our favourite prog bands are struggling to make a living because their music is being copied and made available as free downloads so that people can obtain it without paying. Is it OK to get your music this way and if so, under what circumstances? ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Replies:
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 04:33
|
I'm not comfortable downloading something without the consent of those who own the rights. If for some reason an album isn't available anymore, then I'll simply listen to something else ... by new bands for example, who need the attention more than some 30+ years old obscure recording.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 05:45
|
Option 2. If the only way you can get an album is by forking out $40+ on ebay or Gemm, the artist isn't getting anything for it either way, so there's no point IMO (unless you want the hard copy). Otherwise, I think it's important that the artists get paid for what they're doing. This is an interesting discussion topic, but I fear it will be closed very shortly (even though no one ever posts links to illegally uploaded music or anything that could get the site in trouble  )
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 06:14
| I feel guilt for the days I once downloaded music .. I went through my whole collection and removed what isn't mine because I felt bad about it. |
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 06:15
|
I buy legal copies whenever available.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 06:21
I think it is and there is no possible reason to close it down. Given that we have lost many talented bands and artists (Martin Orford being one of the most recent) because they can't make a living, it's an issue we need to address. I NEVER download (don't like mp3s at all) and never will for ANY reason. I can understand the logic of doing it if there's no other way at all, but it's killing real music. Soon the only choice we have will be megastars who are wealthy and have industry backing and no hopers who do it for fun. Prog will die completely. A friend's son's band made a 4 track EP which cost roughly £800 for 200 copies to record and press. Before they had sold 100 copies (at £4 each), someone put it on the internet on a free download site (a member of a rival band, we think). Result - no more sales and a nett loss, despite it being damned good. They can't afford to do another and have quit recording. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
SckxyssPosted By: Pekka
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 06:49
|
With new releases there's very little point in downloading these days since everybody is at Myspace with free legal songs to listen to. Sometimes even entire albums. Just a while ago I got interested in Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks, went to their Myspace site, listened to the four first songs of Real Emotional Trash and bought it the next time I went to the music store. If I know I like an artist's previous work I rarely bother to listen to samples, I just go and buy the album if I see some interesting reviews. If there's no way to legally hear sample songs of older albums I sometimes ask a friend who has the album to send me a song or two, and more often than not I end up buying the album anyway. I voted for the second option. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA! 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 06:50
|
This thread will remain open until someone crosses the line. We don't forbid these kinds of discussions, but they never end well. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 07:54
Crosses what line? Never end well? I really do take exception to these comments. The purpose of this thread is to find out whether people think downloading someone's music for free without their consent is acceptable or not in any circumstances. It is also to highlight the consequences of doing so, which is that great musicians will pack up and that prog will suffer as a result. I absolutely am NOT condoning stealing. The topic was provoked by a conversation I had with Martin Orford a few weeks ago when ordering several albums from Giant Electric Pea, including his own "The Old Road", during which he said that this was his last recording because he cannot afford to do it anymore. Given that I think The Old Road to be amongst the best 5 albums I've ever heard, I am worried about the effect of downloading on the future of a genre I love. If that isn't a valid topic, then this site is a total waste of my time and I will go and find one where frank, open discussion is permitted. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Thandrus
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:04
|
Well, it's maybe the hardest question I keep asking myself... Most of my music is downloaded. I chose the third option here, because if I could afford it, I'd certainly by CD without any loss of sound quality... But when average salary in the counrty is 150$, it's kinda hard... Then, second, here you won't find any original CDs unless you're very lucky. Most of them are Russian re-pressing of doubtful legality. i don't believe that money from these sales go to musicians. Then, not sure that some rules about "piracy" exist in my country, especially for imported music., they just don't care. Then, if it's available somewhere, I think it's just silly not to use it, IMHO. Oh, wait, it's mp3, so close your years... Then I can say I'm addicted to music and art in general... For example If I bought CDs, I'd have listened to couple of dozens of albums, and it would really slow my development (musical or intellectual), I think. For example, if you can't go to the european and american museums, woy won be able to see Dalis and Picassos pantings... Is it justice?! Well there's a second side of medal... Musicians lose quite abit from their earnings. But, you know, i think that people who download music (especially from developing countries) won't buy CDs if you ban dowloading. Just because of absent finances. So i don't think that this would make musicians earn more. |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:22
|
I think bands should be happy people are taking interesting in their music by any means.I think everyone would choose to the buy the cd rather then download an mp3 but CDs can be expensive especially if the band is quite underground.I sympathise with people who download but I'd much prefer the CD.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:30
Usually such threads get closed when people encourage others to use illegal downloading. Which IMO is not strictly necessary, because the threads always also contain enough posts with contrary views. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: British Tradition
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:43
|
As a former downloader (I stopped cold turkey and am on a mission to buy all the CDs I have downloaded without listening to the downloads) it seems as though people who download regularly don't do it to listen to the music but do it for other reasons. Looking back I think mine was getting a large library. Every CD i've bought since then i've had to work for which in turn makes it far more special and often more enjoyable because one wants to put time into something one pays for. You also get (a lot of the time) fantastic liner notes and a choice of which master/remaster you want to buy whereas with downloaded CDs you get no information about the band leaving you somewhat detached from the product and you usually get the only remaster that is available and this may be the over compressed late 90's/00's version (Another reason why I think downloaders don't do it for listening pleasure). Also, for those who say they can't afford it when they can afford to rent/buy a house, buy food or even pay for the internet connection to tell everyone that downloading is okay most likely can. My Dad used to work every morning to buy an album every fortnight and these are the albums that mean the most to him. Sorry for going on but it's only once you get out of the downloading disease that you see how different and better things can be.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:49
|
Stealing is stealing, always will be. It's one of those real curiosities how people have convinced themselves that by doing it electronically they are someone better than shoplifters. They aren't. But it is so ingrained now that you can't get them to understand that. They just keep on making up justifications all day long, and all of them matter not. They're still stealing if they don't have permission of the artist and/or holder of the rights. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 08:54
I am with you 100% on this - I too have seen bands and artists suffer from illegal downloading. The PA stance on this matter is simple - no illegal activities,
Well, don't - they are not directed at you
Even though your are anti-downloading, there will be people responding to this subject taking the opposite view, giving reasons why they believe downloading is neither illegal nor wrong - which can be interpretted as promoting an illegal activity - however, that is seldom the reason why we are forced to close down these threads.
If you want to see how these discussions always end, search the forum and see the number of locked threads on this subject, (well, those that haven't been hidden anyway), discussions that have degenerated into little more than slanging matches - often it is not what is said that causes the thread to be locked, but how it is said that infringes site guidelines.
IF this thread remains within the guidelines it will stay open.
Unfortunately on this subject those that illegally download will always find justification for what they are doing - when they feel challenged or threatened they retaliate.
As I have said, personnaly I have nothing against discussing this topic - it's just the way these discussions always go that concerns me - it is an emotive subject where both sides get angry.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:01
|
^ What I often experienced is that those who engage in illegal downloading often get angry when others refer to it as "stealing".
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:12
|
When I was a student I had literally no other means of experiencing new music than to download it. I could only just cover my bills and had nothing spare to dish out on CDs. As a result of the bands I discovered through this means (most notably Cardiacs) I have subsequently spent a great many pounds on seeing them perform live. That's money I would not have spent had I not downloaded albums by them. Personally, mp3s aren't enough. The money I HAVE spent on CDs (when I can afford to) usually goes on albums I already "own" in mp3 format. I'm sure the same goes for a lot of other illegal downloaders like myself.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:15
But that's what it is when you take something from someone without their permission. Which is why its important to call it that. Why sugarcoat it? If they can't handle people calling them on it, the obvious action is to stop, not to worry about the term.  |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:17
| I have a huge collection of music that was paid for. I actually have a hard time getting my head around stuff that I have legally downloaded for free. I still have to have a hard copy. I can understand younger folks trying to get their hands on as much as possible but still, have some respect for the artists. They're trying to make a living here. I was young once and built up my collection the hard way. Many a used LP. I did occasionally cassette tape something from a friend that I didn't buy. Even back then, if I really liked something I still had to get an original. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:22
|
That's right. When you can't afford something, you wait until you can. Like anything else in our society. You save your money and eventually you can build a collection.. How did we get to.....if I can't afford something.....I'll just take it. And its OK because I might buy their stuff later if I like it. This topic drives me nuts.....and I can't discuss it without being completely blunt toward those who justify the actions....so, its best if I stay out of here. Y'all have fun now!  |
Posted By: progaeopteryx
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:25
|
I don't really have any significant comments to say about downloading in general. About the closest I can come to downloads is listening to streaming samples from an artist's web page, just to see if I like their music before considering a CD purchase. On another issue, I don't understand listeners that prefer downloads over actually having the CD. It seems like they aren't getting the full artistic effect of what the artist was trying to get at. Instead it would appear to me they are only getting a fragmented picture of the artist's message or intentions. An album is just not the same to me if it isn't listened as a whole, with the visual experience of the insert artwork (this was an especially better experience in the days of vinyl). And for audiophiles, it's a better listening experience than a compressed mp3 file. My only problem nowadays is that I wish I could buy more CDs than the handful I have done over the last two years, but economic times aren't what they used to be. Clearly, big tax cuts for filthy rich people don't do a bit of good, but that's another argument for another thread. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:29
Except that it's not stealing. The artist has lost nothing. It's copyright infringement. As for whether it's right or not, I've seen and made good arguments in both directions. The idea that it's killing music, however, is just foolish. There's more music now than ever before. Music is obviously thriving, not dying. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:31
Unless you buy directly from the copyright holder, the artist doesn't get any money from your purchase.
This just isn't true. Guess we can't discuss any news stories where someone did something illegal, then. After all, we're promoting their actions. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:32
|
http://www.emusic.com/album/Subterranean-Masquerade-Suspended-Animation-Dreams-MP3-Download/11383478.html - http://www.emusic.com/album/Subterranean-Masquerade-Suspended-Animation-Dreams-MP3-Download/11383478.html There's no excuse for not downloading legally!  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:33
Streaming is one of the best ways to gin up interest in your band these days. Those who want to enjoy music without paying for it should take advantage of that. When I was a young 'un we had this here thing called the radio, sure it had commercials, but we liked it, well not all that much. College radio stations were always the best to encounter stuff you hadn't heard before. Totally addicted to hard copies and love albums with good cover and/or booklet art, particularly lyrics in print for the vocal artists. I have cut down on new acquisitions, too. Partly for economical reasons, partly for space reasons. As you can see I can't possibly fit much more music into my signature. V  |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:36
You clearly weren't alive in the 70s - there's far less prog music around now. Music is not thriving. And copyright infringement IS stealing by any logic you can invoke; you take something and don't pay for it. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:36
This pretty much applies to me. I buy about 10 Cds a month. 7 or so are from emusic, and then I buy 2-3 albums (always ones that I've already downloaded). When there are alternatives to downloading (such as free streaming on last.fm; I've got a long list of albums I'm interested in that are available free on there), I use those. As it stands, though, music is currently one of the few industries where a great many artists don't allow you to "test-drive" (so to speak) the entire product. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:40
There's also far less classic rock. And far less classic punk. And far less jazz. And far less romantic classical. Etc. That's not a function of illegal downloading, that's a function of those genres going out of style. There was far less prog music in the 80s than in the 70s, but there was no illegal downloading then. "Music isn't thriving" in no way follows from "prog isn't thriving." If you look outside of prog, music IS thriving (by any logic you can invoke). I'm pretty sure stealing requires depriving somebody of something they wouldn't otherwise have, which downloading doesn't do. And if illegal downloading does qualify as stealing, then all that indicates is that our definition of stealing is too broad and covers more than it ought to, because illegal downloading is a world removed from stealing a hard copy of a CD. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:44
 |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:47
|
^ sorry about that ... haven't seen the message for quite some time at eMusic.com, but sometimes the artists/record companies are tied to national contracts. But I'm still quite sure that you'll find something in their database that you can download ... I guess you also know the chart at Progfreak.com, there you can also browse by emusic.com availability. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 09:52
|
Don't take it too seriously, I just found it ironic. I'm an avid emusic user, and I currently have 62 albums in my save for later, which should last me about 9 months (and that's ignoring all the albums that will get added to the list as I discover new bands that pique my interest). |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:03
|
^ I'd be glad if you rated them at PF ... that way I'll eventually discover them too (and add the link to emusic to the album). BTW: I currently have 130 albums on the save for later list - and I'm already on the 100 tracks/month subscription.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:07
|
I use too many music sites already, sorry man. I rate them all at RYM, though. Don't have the time/desire to rate them all at two different places. And I only have the 75tracks/month plan, unfortunately. At some point, hopefully, I'll upgrade. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:18
Speaking as someone who was I don't find there's less around now unless you have a very narrow definition of what is prog. As to whether or not music is thriving, I dunno. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:22
Simple:
BTW: Stealing copyrighted material is worst than stealing a CD, a CD has monetary value of 2 or 3 bucks, not more, if you want to talk about commercial value, lets say 15 to 20 bucks, if you steal one, it's shoplifting. Copyrighted material is invaluable, that's way you can be forced to pay US$ 125,000 per song.. Iván. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:25
even though no one ever posts links to illegally uploaded music or anything that could get the site in trouble ??? That's about as accurate as saying that Canada is the 51st State of America!!  I'd say it happens at least once a week, every week. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:34
True.
True.
If you don't download the album, the artist gets no royalties. If you do download the album, the artists gets no royalties. So no, the artist has not lost any royalties from you downloading the album. On the other hand, if you steal a CD, in order to sell another copy of that CD, they must procure another CD in order to sell it, which costs money. Therefore, they have lost something that they did not lose in the first case.
He wouldn't receive it if you didn't buy it in the first place.
You aren't stealing that money from him because he doesn't have it in the first place.
CDs contain copyrighted material. Therefore, stealing a CD is like downloading illegally, only someone actually loses money. Also, the idea that copyrighted material is invaluable just isn't true. If it were, artists would never let labels own their work.
So it's completely accurate, then.  |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:39
|
Other points to ponder. If I buy used, nothing new goes to the artist, but if I buy new and they are signed with a major record company, they don't get much. If I buy directly from their site they get the max. Please do that whenever you can. Show the artists you like a little love. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:40
If you don't buy hard copies directly from the artist/label, it doesn't matter whether it's new or used, the artist gets nothing from your sale. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:44
|
Can I just say that Hercules seems to have got himself rounded on for no reason. His only mistake was seizing on a post by a member that said the topic would be closed. Why he said this I have no idea. Hercules makes some good points and has no intention whatsoever of making trouble as far as I can see. |
Posted By: smcfee
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:48
This is utter nonsense. If you buy a label's CDs from a distributor/vendor, they will order more, and then the artist/label get paid. You are playing a mental shell game with money. It's all part of the same ecosystem. With 4,000 posts to your "credit" I think it's time to start thinking more before each one. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:55
This is not guaranteed. It might happen, but the money the artist gets still doesn't come from your purchase.
Personal attack, reported. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 10:58
|
smcfee the reference to Pnoom!s post count is completely irrelevant. If this thread dissolves into personal attacks again warnings will be handed out. |
Posted By: EvilGnome
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:01
Your previous posts seem to contend that the artists get zero compensation for record sales. Sell 1,000 copies of an album, get zero dollars. Sell 1,000,000 copies of an album, get zero dollars. I think most people are aware that artists generally don't get a commission for each copy sold, but to argue that there is no benefit to the artist for buying new is absurd. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:03
The point I'm making is that there's no guaranteed benefit to the artist for buying new, though I can see where that would be misinterpreted. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy new, and I'm not saying that it's more likely to support the artist, I'm just trying to hammer home that the only way to guarantee that you help the artist is to buy directly from them/the label. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:10
|
Hmmm, label sells to distributor, distributor sells to retailer, retailer sells to consumer, label pays band.
The system's worked since the invention of the wax-cylinder. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:11
IMO that's totally beside the point. The important thing is: The artist signed a contract with the record company, agreeing to how the albums will be sold. If that means that the artist doesn't get anything from the album sales ... then so be it. But as long as enough albums are sold, the record company might finance the recording of the next album, so the artist may get *something* from those album sales in the end. Long story short: If you decide to download for free what the artist (or their label) don't offer for free, you're infringing their rights. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:15
| @Dean and ProgFreak, I think my point is being blown way out of proportion/misunderstood, but it's not really important, so let's just drop it. |
Posted By: EvilGnome
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:16
The main problem with focusing on that aspect of the record industry is that it is too often used as justification for piracy. I think the more interesting points in the illegal downloading debate are that the biggest downloaders also tend to be the biggest buyers and that buying used offers almost as little benefit to the artist as downloading does. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:22
|
Despite the fact that I made that point in this thread, I actually wasn't tying it into the illegal downloading debate. I was adding an addendum to Slartibartfast's point about supporting the artists. No relation to illegal downloading, at least on my end. Regarding your second point, I agree. Over the past two years, I've bought probably 130 or so hard copies of CDs (which I guess works out to around 3-4 or so a month, but I didn't actually do the math). I've been downloading the whole time, and all but 10-20 or so were CDs that I had already downloaded. Unsurprisingly, of the purchases that I've regretted, nearly all have been from those 10-20. It's also worth noting that the big downloaders/buyers also tend to promote the bands they love. It's a thorny issue, to be sure. For the record, I plan on being a musician, and I also plan on letting people download my work free. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:30
-------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:30
I'm not criticising you - you were just posting something which I felt the need to comment on.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:33
Well, I'm just a part time hobby musician, but I also made the demo song that I recorded available for free (at last.fm, search for MikeEnRegalia). But I think that it's important that we let each artist make the decision how to make their recordings available, and respect it. I'm not saying that you don't ... I'm just saying. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:44
Hey, if you haven't tried illegally downloading a Ferrari, you haven't lived. I suppose you could try illegally downloading some Maserati must, but please, support the band. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Lev
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:52
|
I always download. I spend my money on the things that make music. Can't afford both.
------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:55
|
"Never - it's killing music" That is such nonsense, and I'm surprised so many people voted for that. You may say "never," but to say that it's killing music would be saying that the 00s have been worse than previous decades for music, which is laughable to me. Maybe for PROG, they're not so good, but I chalk that up to lack of good ideas and originality. Music now, is freer to be as innovative as possible. IOn the past, it was hard to make good music on the side and you'd always be f**ked over by big companies anyway. Now, someone can easily record their own songs, post them on the web with PayPal, and make all profit. There will be illegal downloading of course, but if the artist has good enough ideas, they'll probably make some money, at least. It will be harder to make a living being a musician in the future, but to say illegal downloading kills music is cynical and an insult to good musicians. If anything, it filters out sh*t music. Come up with a better argument not to download. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 11:58
|
A few notes from my side ... First, the genie is out of the bottle. Suing fans, closing down sites has not worked. Putting out sub-par albums, with one hit single (for mainstream acts) and 15 filler do not merit a $20 price tag. Prog and other niche genres may be exempt from that. Not because the quality is higher, just that there is less of a focus on getting one song on the radio. Second, after you get past the top tiers, most musical acts make no money off their albums. It is usually a cycle of the label advances the monies, you record, sales pay part of the advance, hopefully the tour pays the rest, and you have some left over for you. Indeed, touring is likely where most groups make their living. Even the ones on indie labels. Third, there is no study that directly correlates declining sales with P2P. The most realistic estimates I've seen say about 10%. Then there's the consideration of the benefits of getting your music out there, and possibly generating more ticket sales for your gigs. Fourth, the dedicated fan, the hard core, are where most bands will make their money. These people buy your albums, the special editions / box sets etc..., the T-Shirts, and other merchandise, along with attending your shows. So what about downloading - the answer that has been proposed for years is to find a way to monetize it. TDC offers unlimited playing of music for their cell phone customers. As long as you have a subscription, you have access to more than a million songs, including those from 3 of the 4 major labels. Other models are a monthly fee for internet access. You own the songs, you download what you want, when you want, how many times you want. No need to worry about losing your collection. You can get it back anytime as long as you have the subscription. The royalties are paid out to the artists based on the percentage of downloads or streaming. This is the model used by cable TV companies. You don't pay for each show you watch, you pay for the package. Cable TV and Pay channels make money, and the TV show producers, actors and others involved get paid based on their value to the services. AND, in most cases, you can still buy the physical product. There will still be those who steal. There will always be some. Most of those who currently do would likely prefer a secure (no viruses, trojans, mal / spy ware) where you simply locate, click, and access the music on the spot. ITunes is now the number one music retailer in the U.S. . This despite the fact that these same Web users could easily get the same music for free by stealing it. So, it is & has been the case that there are valid options out there. The only remaining part of the puzzle is who's going to be first. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:02
I voted that, and I stand by it. I think that illegal downloading is no longer necessary today, at least in many countries there are enough legal alternatives at a decent price. You're right that not every illegal download is "killing music", but illegal downloading doesn't exactly help the legal download portals either. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:16
The best argument is that it is stealing. Taking without consent, borrowing it, whatever. it's theft plain and simple. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:18
|
^ Yep, that one's harder to have a response to. If only it had been in the poll...
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:22
That's true for sure, but I wouldn't say legal downloading sites are necessarily entitled to success. Or rather, that legal downloading sites are now a part of "music" that is being "killed" by illegal downloading. Objectively, I think legal sites are beside the matter. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:26
Quite. I think that "ordinary" people do not like to be criminalised so as with speeding, parking offences, drink driving etc and illegal downloading you'll hear all kinds off crackpot excuses. There's so much rubbish surrounding the perceived free-for-all nature of the internet. Freely distributing your work for consumption and ownership has never been a sound business model, that's why artists want you to pay for their labour. If you were a farmer you wouldnt expect to have to give your produce away for free because people need to eat would you? |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:26
|
I do believe that the term stealing is not questioned. If it were that simple, no discussion would be necessary. The question is what do you do about it. ITunes has proven that people will use a legal service. The next step is how to further monetize the web access so as to draw more people into using services where the artists ( i don't care a fig about the major labels, they will screw their artists anyway) will get monies for their work. And the subscription model may just be the solution. Better to get $20 each per month from 2 million people than $0. Again, the cable TV example proves the case. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:27
Legal sites are what today is - and will increasingly be - used to make money with recorded music. If I was a professional musician today, I'd try to record my music myself and make it available as a download, charging a modest fee. In that situation, illegal downloading would be hurting me. I know that many people say that they only download illegally to evaluate the music and that they'd purchase it later, but I don't really believe that's true (they may purchase some CDs, but not all they download and enjoy listening to). I'm only trying to say: If an artist makes a leap of faith and publishes the music as a modestly priced download, downloading those recordings illegally is pretty much a slap in the artists' face, and effectively discouraging him from making music. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:57
|
admin note
Just a reminder for anyone advocting illegal downloading. Illegal activity is against the site rules, and anyone advocating it will be be in breach of those rules. Previous threads on this subject have had to be closed because of rule breaches, but we will also deal with individuals who do not respect our rules.
No finger pointing, just a timely reminder givent he popularity of this thread.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 12:59
That's a bit of a problem - this is a stacked Poll with three pro-downloading options and only one anti-downloading option - those of us who do not support illegal downloading only have one option to vote for, regardless of the actual wording (ie whether it's killing the business or not). ------------- What? |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 13:12
|
This is a difficult poll because I think it ignores an important scenario which I was discussing with my oldest friend just last week. Both of us were vinyl freaks, specifically prog vinyl freaks. Then along came the CD format, and both of us spent hard earned cash buying CDs which were duplicates of the ones that we already owned on vinyl. Now that CDs appear to be rapidly overtaken by downloads, is it right to pay once again in a new format for something you have already paid for twice? (I know that CDs can be burned onto computers, but there are scenarios, for instance a new compilation LP & etc. where you wouldn't do that). Further to that, a straight download can be far better quality than the old original CD. For the record, I download a great deal now (I think the sound quality on my MP3 player is simply stunning), even with the latest Marillion LP, which I downloaded from their website, and I have all their previous stuff (plus solo stuff) on CD. I always download legally, thus ensuring that the artist gets his/her/their rightful share of the fruit of their labours. Generally, aside from the point I made above about stuff you have previously paid for, downloading from bit torrent sites, and their like, is stealing, and I can understand artists getting very frustrated. However, equally, artists in some respects, and definitely governments such as mine in the UK, simply do not understand the internet which was MEANT and created for free traffic of information and other goods without censorship or heavy handed regulation. The traffic of such goods will never completely disappear, no matter how much people might rage against it. What is clearly required is a business model from artists and record companies that uses the internet and downloads to the industries advantage. I'll think on that point - if I get it right, it could be worth a fortune! ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 13:33
| One could easily say that the high seas should be without regulation and free to use and therefore Piracy should be tolerated... |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 13:54
as a former downloader, i can say that iTunes and others are taking the right steps. there's no problem with legal downloading, it's a little cheaper, artists get paid, everyones happy... the only problem is iTunes and others have limited selections whereas you find just about ANYTHING with torrents and such. now im not condoning illegal downloading, im just saying iTunes and other legal download sites need to step up to compete with their "competition" and maybe make it 49 cents per song as opposed to 99 cents, as i think that is what the average 3-7 minute song is worth, which would make most albums 5-6 bucks on iTunes ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 13:58
|
I have mixed feelings when it comes to downloading.
There are a lot of artists these days that deserve the support. They may be names that are thrown around this site a lot, but they aren't really all that well known otherwise and deserve some of my support. I usually get the albums from these people if I can.
I also buy the albums that I know are masterpieces and I will absolutely enjoy. Even if they're from big name artists.
But sometimes, usuall I've heard a sample of it and didn't like it terribly but still would like to discuss it in the forum because other people talk about it so much. I have limited funds too, and I doubt the members of Opeth are going to starve because I got a copy of "Damnation" for free.
I like Trent Reznor's attitude on this kind of thing, especially when the labels make a CD $30 because their biggest fans are there. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:00
Nope, because then they couldn't sell the ferrari you took to someone else.
I might be infringing on his property rights but I am not depriving him of anything.
I really don't care what the law says. The law should conform to what is ethical, and there is no reason (beyond self-preservation) to obey an unethical law.
But it does have a market value. And even if it doesn't, your use of the word invaluable is misleading (either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know), because when people say something is invaluable, they tend to mean that it's so valuable that you can't express it quantitatively. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:02
Obviously Ivan and I are still debating this, but I maintain that this argument is wrong, because it's not, in fact, stealing. The best argument, then, is that it's another form of infringing on a person's property rights (and not in the legal sense, because that implies that the law is infallible, which is a dangerous position to take).
But what if I could (cheaply, pretend it's the future) clone your apple. So I buy one, and then I can give as many away for free as I want. Should I be allowed to do that?
One could easily say that, yeah, this would be such a bullsh*t argument in favor of downloading. If it infringes on someone's property rights, it's wrong and gov't ought to protect artists against it. |
Posted By: smcfee
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:16
Thank you.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. I think that some of the biggest buyers also use downloads (and before that, CDRs, and before that, cassettes) to try albums, or parts of them, before they buy. I remember such exchanges with cassette samplers in the mail on RMP. But I don't think the inverse is true; many of the biggest downloaders are not buying anything. I do know some of the bigger traders on Soulseek to be customers of our label, and for that I am glad. But there are a lot of folks along for the ride, or who don't comprehend the link between buying a CD and keeping the ecosystem going. About the notion of "more music than ever being available", what you are seeing is not a result of downloading one way or the other, but actually the result of barriers of entry being lowered. So there are a lot of promising groups on MySpace who can put up a page and a few songs. Most of them will never get to the point of a polished CD without finding partners, and that becomes less likely if labels can't make a go of it. Without being able to sustain a catalog of such work it's hard to grow from potential to realization of that potential. It's the difference between some bright kids on MySpace doing avant-experimental work, and a group like Miriodor who have been able to build a body of work over 20 years through their association with Cuneiform. Like many groups, their best work did not come right away, and a supportive BUYING public was part of the PARTNERSHIP that made it possible. We make decisions about future projects based on how others sell. So every person who takes a free ride on one of our releases makes another one by that artist or a related artist less likely. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:16
|
It is theft ... comparing mp3 files to physical items is a specious analogy. If you download something illegally you deprive those who own the rights of the money they would charge for the download. "I really don't care what the law says. The law should conform to what is ethical, and there is no reason (beyond self-preservation) to obey an unethical law." So we should all decide which laws are ethical and which are not, and then only follow those we would agree with? Sorry, but illegal downloads are just that ... illegal. I'm not judging anyone ... and neither do I get angry about the whole thing. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it myself, and I would encourage anyone I met to try legal alternatives instead. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:35
Yes, with the understanding that if you're caught breaking a law, however unethical, you'll be punished. Or, if you're a more productive individual, you could campaign to have those laws revoked or get elected and help in that way. Of course, ideally, all laws will be ethical. Unfortunately, we don't have any perfect ethical theory yet, so that won't happen.
And in confederate times, freeing someone else's slave was illegal. Obviously that's a much more extreme example, but an immoral law is an immoral law, and there is no ethical reason why you ought to follow it. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:36
|
Also, this is just a note to everyone who likes free music and also supporting artists, listen to free streaming on last.fm. Every time you play a song via free streaming on last.fm, the artist gets paid. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:56
|
^ and why is that so ethical compared to the other legal download opportunities? Imagine you're a musician. You spend a lot of time of money recording something. Shouldn't it be your right to decide how you make this recording available to others? How is it immoral to forbid others to infringe your right? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 15:59
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
That's a good question to which I don't have an answer. A Lockean defense of property, for example, might say that no, you shouldn't have that right, at least in the case of downloading, because of the principle of leaving "enough and as good" for others. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:02
|
^ "A Lockean defense of property, for example, might say that no, you
shouldn't have that right, at least in the case of downloading, because
of the principle of leaving "enough and as good" for others." I hope you know that this essentially means that musicians can't make any money with their music, no matter how much time and money they spend on making it. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:12
|
Well, I don't buy into Locke (though that's not the reason). I was just presenting one possible viewpoint. Also, they could make money, because people will still buy music even if they can get it for free legally (see: Radiohead - In Rainbows). Still wondering what you meant by
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:22
|
^ nothing really. You were saying that you found laws which protect legal downloads (with a fee involved) unethical - people who try to circumvent the fees get prosecuted. This implies that you think that it's unethical to charge money for music downloads. I know the Radiohead experiment (I purchased the big vinyl box) ... essentially that boils down to free downloads together with the possibility of making a donation. I'm not saying that I dislike the idea ... I just think that most people would simply not donate anything. My solution for the whole problem would be to get the big record companies to introduce more flexible price models - with a worldwide distribution and the price models adjusted to the typical income level of each country. For example, I don't mind if people from Brazil download illegally, considering that CDs cost like 10 times more than they cost in the US or in Germany, compared to the typical income. Give people the opportunity to pay a reasonable amount of money for the music ... eMusic.com is a good start, but they need to be more flexible than the "pay the same amount of credits for each track" routine. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:39
No I wasn't.
Even if I did think what you said above, it wouldn't imply that.
But people did donate. That's the thing. If I could do that for all artists I like, I would spread around my money a lot more. For most, I would download it for free, and then make a donation based on how much I liked it. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:41
 |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:47
|
music's a luxury. everyone downloading it is unconscionably evil and greedy; it's the same with pornography - an entirely useless industry, and so one harried by leeches that it becomes unsustainable and unrewarding for all those involved you wouldn't download a carriage ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 16:56
| Laplace and Tony just won this thread. It should probably end now. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 17:48
| I can't afford music, so I listen to the same 20 bands over and over again. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 18:15
-------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 18:31
Nope, he's lost the time he's spent on me, which he now can't use to make money on someone else. So obviously I am depriving the doctor of something: his time. If you want to make analogies, please make ones that make sense.
This doesn't really address the fact that I'm not depriving the musician of anything (whereas I would be depriving the doctor and lawyer of their time). Moreover, I never said it wasn't a crime. I said it wasn't stealing. You're arguing a straw man.
Yes. And then I weigh the expected benefits with the expected costs (likelihood to get caught, etc).
Any society that has an unethical law ought to change that law, or it is directly acting against the interests of its citizens. Because it's acting against the interests of its citizens, any force it uses to enforce that law is an unethical use of force on its part. I have no ethical obligation to obey an unethical law, only (perhaps) a self-interested one. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 18:33
| I believe Folly just entirely won by this "If you want to make analogies, please make ones that make sense." alone, let alone the other stuff he said. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 19:04
|
The moral justifications for piracy annoy me as much as you, Ivan, but there are times when bending copyright laws is not stealing. For example, if I uploaded a King Crimson album onto Youtube, I would be directly defying Robby and would no doubt get a warning from Youtube shortly after, but what sales did he lose from the time it was up there? He even gained a sale, because I hate ITCOTCK but I didn't know Lizard was cool until then because there is not a single second of free legal music from King Crimson. The same goes for the streaming tracks on Last.fm, which I have trouble believing are entirely legal but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.
I don't see why downloading something that is impossible to find is a problem.
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 19:04
|
The problem with analogies is they only work up to initial the point of comparison, then they collapse - defeating an analogy is not winning the initial point, it is simply defeating an analogy ... and at some point every analogy can be defeated. A closer analogy (though still not an exact match - since an exact match analogy is no longer an analogy) would be the computer software industry. Try arguing with Microsoft or Apple lawyers about the unethical legality of software. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 19:53
That's not a problem with analogies. They only need to be the same in every relevant way. Yes, you can find differences, but so long as there are no ethically relevant differences, then the analogy works. So, a situation where you're violating someone's property rights without depriving them of anything would be a perfect analogy to illegal downloading, since it captures every relevant point that I was making. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:02
Sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:10
Only up to a certain point. (One of) the purposes of selling music is to recoup the costs of producing it - by not paying for the 'product' you are depriving the artist of that source of renumeration.
In the days of the major labels, poorly selling artists were effectively subsidised by popular artists- a label could afford to invest in 10 artists if 1 or 2 of them made it big - the losses made on the other 8 or 9 bands would be written off and their contracts terminated prematurely. With self-funding, self-releases and most indie labels that is no longer a viable business model - each album now has to pay for itself or the artist is out of pocket. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:20
|
I don't like MP3 or computer based music, I prefer hard copies of everything, this problem I have never had as I never have feel attracted to music stored in a hard drive.
About the issue, I think one's stealing if the artist really produces something for selling it... If a band uploads tracks to the web with no restriction, just to get known, is obvious that being downloaded is actually good for them.
Now, of course uploading tracks from a hard cd to a computer and then downloading them is ILLEGAL. remember, to those who say that downloading the tracks is not illegal because no right is being infringed: the track that you see on the internet didn't just "appear" there. Somebody copied it FROM A COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED CD OR HARD MEDIA (in many cases... except even MORE illegal cases of leaks of unreleased albums). So yes, you're breaking a law... Check the back of a cd... it clearly says "not to be copies, etc, etc , etc".
------------- 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:26
Did anyone disagree with that? But on the other hand, I'm sure that you don't think someone who watches a live video of a band on Youtube should be fined $125,000, even though that is technically just as illegal... ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:29
I agree that the internet makes it impossible to control these situations.... The question though was regarding the act of downloading which is illegal and could be hurting the artist's best interests.
We in prog though shouldn't be so anti-downloading (as much as I never do it), because many of our bands are not commercially viable any way, and if they want to get known, a few downloads here and there could lend a big hand.... usually, good fans end up buying the albums they first download.... at least those who still love real hard copies with booklets and prefer more than an ipod dock to listen to their music.... -------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:33
| I love hard copies, but it's not feasible for me to pay for hard copies of all I want to listen to, so I also buy off emusic, which allows me to get seven or so albums for what would otherwise get me 2-3. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:35
|
I think you are all just going around in circles. Those who steal won't stop, and haven't stopped because it is illegal. Those who don't steal have no effect or influence on those who do. Ranting about the artist losing money is hypocritical unless you question the current business model used by record labels, especially the major ones. There is a solid case to be made that many acts are able to make a living touring BECAUSE their music has been spread through P2Ps. Not all, but some. And those that can, are also able to finance their recordings without corporate interference as to what should be put out. This is not to say that some acts have not been negatively impacted. But, and this is a bit BUT ... there is rarely a mention of the increased competition for the consumer's dollar. To the ancient media like TV & movies, add DVDs, Video Games (which are in the midst of a boom period), the Web itself, along with products such as IPods, IPhones, and cellphones. THEN, add to the mix that sales were artificially boosted for a 40 year period by the explosion in the late 60s - the emphasis on LPs, the arrival of big money in the industry; then new formats - cassettes & CDs that had people buying Led Zep IV for the 2nd & 3rd time (assuming you hadn't bought it a few times before as your vinyl wore out), followed by an series of major "new" & massively popular genres such as Hair Metal , Grunge, Pop Punk, Boy Bands etc that eventually led to a music biz that acted like every other boom market known to man. Meaning - when the boom goes bust, everyone involved looks for the boogeyman to blame. Reality - music sales are back to normal, where they were until the mid 60s. A very few mega stars, some 15 minute Fads, a number of mid sized acts that have built a lasting career, a lot of smaller acts that make a living, and more that never quite get past recording a few songs, and playing a few gigs. Answer - forget the arguement if it's stealing or not, moral or not. It's not going away. Take some time to thik of a realistic option where the artist CAN get paid. Maybe not as much as Pearl Jam did in the 90s, or that Tull did in the 70s. But more than Hank Garland, Hubert Sumlin or others did in the pre-historic daysof the music industry. Subscription services. No DRM. You own the music. Burn it, upload it to your IPod, stream it on your computer, to your Stereo, delete it when you want more free space on your PC, download it just for tonight's party, order it up on a whim, whatever, wherever. It's happening in China, in Denmark, in Europe, and rumours abound that Steve Jobs is still pressing and will get this to happen in America within a year or two. It works for Cable TV, it works for Internet access, for phone services and the like. People paying less, but more people paying. And people will pay for a secure, handy, and readily accessible and simple way to do so. Whywait two days for a torrent download ? Why expose your PC to viruses, malware & Spyware through LimeWire and the like ? Heck even Amazon.com has started having daily sales on MP3 albums. Check it out. $9.99 for an album. Uh Uh. Today & today only $3.99. Or $1.99. How can they make money ? VOLUME !!!!!!! And that folks is what you should be fighting for. A way to give people a legal & reasonably priced choice, a way to get artists a cut of the action that they aren't getting today P.S. a cursory search of the web will net you articles as to how record labels tried to decrease royalty rates on CD sales back in the mid 80s (new media not included in old contracts) - an album's price goes up by $8-10, the artist's share goes from 74 cents to 81 cents. And the labels did the same thing for MP3 downloads. ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:38
Well most of us are old and as such have a fear of technology. ;-)
Once I realized I cannot tell the difference between a CD and a high quality MP3, I stopped caring about buying physical albums. Maybe I need to get better headphones, I don't know.
And for the record, the few times I have downloaded something that was available it resulted in a sale for the artist. I didn't even like Amputechture, but curiousity got the better of me... ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |