Jump to content

OT: Are legal downloads fair to artists ?


musicdog400

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Today I legally burned (through Rhapsody) the first CD of Miles Davis Bitches Brew. The charge was .79 * 2 = 1.58

 

Somehow that doesn't seem fair to Miles (though he probably isn't that concerned at the moment....), especially considering the depth and complexity of the first two songs.

 

Perhaps the answer is for artists to chop up their works in 3 minutes pieces, for the CD index, so they count as more songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How can you tell what's "fair" just by the amount you're paying? You need to know how much the artist is actually making to know whether it's "fair" or not. Perhaps his estate makes more from the downloaded tunes than from packaged discs?

And of course, once you found out the amounts, what is "fair" is debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by squealie

Very little of the recording industry is fair to artists.



If people make even $1 off of music they wrote, they should be grateful. It's not like anybody owes them anything. I don't understand how artists (Courtney Love springs to mind) could have the chutzpah to criticize an industry that makes them rich and that they are 100% willing participants in. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Silent Heart



If people make even $1 off of music they wrote, they should be grateful. It's not like anybody owes them anything. I don't understand how artists (Courtney Love springs to mind) could have the chutzpah to criticize an industry that makes them rich and that they are 100% willing participants in.
:mad:



really? if im getting screwed it doesn't matter if it's 100 million or 100 billion, im still getting screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Silent Heart



If people make even $1 off of music they wrote, they should be grateful. It's not like anybody owes them anything. I don't understand how artists (Courtney Love springs to mind) could have the chutzpah to criticize an industry that makes them rich and that they are 100% willing participants in.
:mad:



No one owes them anything? What do you think a copyright and publishing rights are for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Silent Heart



Well yes, but in what sense are artists getting screwed (assuming their labels aren't actually doing anything illegal)?

 

 

something can be unethical but not necessarily illegal but there's always wiggle room though. im sure some of those contracts are unconscionable contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Silent Heart



If people make even $1 off of music they wrote, they should be grateful. It's not like anybody owes them anything. I don't understand how artists (Courtney Love springs to mind) could have the chutzpah to criticize an industry that makes them rich and that they are 100% willing participants in.
:mad:



When a VERY high percentage of Gold and Platinum selling artists end up OWING the record companies money, something is unfair.

The recording industry functions in much the same way that loan-sharks do.

That's the point I was speaking to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Silent Heart


I don't understand how artists (Courtney Love springs to mind) could have the chutzpah to criticize an industry that makes them rich and that they are 100% willing participants in.
:mad:



Actually, they're not willing participants.

Record companies are pimps. In the music realm, us ho's can't get stability without finding a pimp.

The pimp then beats the {censored} out of us and tells us we owe THEM money.

You can't do it alone, even when you are established. Remember Pearl Jam boycotting Ticketmaster..... well uh when was their last tour?

If you play guitar and have sex for fun... you're fine alone. If you want to make money from it, you need to find a dirty assed pimp.

Worse, there use to be lots of pimps, but over the last 15 years, the pimps have had major wars and now only a handful, the worst and meanest, of the pimps are left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Dark Angel



Actually, they're not willing participants.


Record companies are pimps. In the music realm, us ho's can't get stability without finding a pimp.


The pimp then beats the {censored} out of us and tells us we owe THEM money.


You can't do it alone, even when you are established. Remember Pearl Jam boycotting Ticketmaster..... well uh when was their last tour?


If you play guitar and have sex for fun... you're fine alone. If you want to make money from it, you need to find a dirty assed pimp.


Worse, there use to be lots of pimps, but over the last 15 years, the pimps have had major wars and now only a handful, the worst and meanest, of the pimps are left.





Strap on that git-tar and go make me some money, bitches!ImageMainIndex.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Dark Angel



Actually, they're not willing participants.


Record companies are pimps. In the music realm, us ho's can't get stability without finding a pimp.


The pimp then beats the {censored} out of us and tells us we owe THEM money.


You can't do it alone, even when you are established. Remember Pearl Jam boycotting Ticketmaster..... well uh when was their last tour?


If you play guitar and have sex for fun... you're fine alone. If you want to make money from it, you need to find a dirty assed pimp.


Worse, there use to be lots of pimps, but over the last 15 years, the pimps have had major wars and now only a handful, the worst and meanest, of the pimps are left.

 

 

Maybe the present copyright system is actually unethical, and music requires a different approach? It seems to me that giving a band huge sums of money (for those that DO get rich) and supporting their egos so that they can progressively destroy their lives is more unethical than pirating music.

 

Unfortunately I can't see a good way of supporting new and existing talent on 'reasonable' income outside of record sales and tour/merchandise income, even without the big labels greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Bob Savage



Oh no, artists deserve nothing. Only people who produce tangible goods like hamburgers and stuff should be paid for their work.

 

 

I'm not saying that illegal, copyright-violating downloads are good. I'm saying that assuming everything happens legally, there is no reason for artists to complain about anything; they should be flattered that anyone cares to listen to their music at all. Is it bad if people beat up the owner of a hamburger stand and steal his hamburgers? Of course. Does he deserve customers to go there are buy his hamburgers? Of course not. Are customers being unethical if they take advantage of coupons or their powers of choice as free consumers? Of course not.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Silent Heart


Is it bad if people beat up the owner of a hamburger stand and steal his hamburgers? Of course. Does he
deserve
customers to go there are buy his hamburgers? Of course not. Are customers being unethical if they take advantage of coupons or their powers of choice as free consumers? Of course not.



 

 

This isn't even comparable for many reasons, unfortunately, I don't have the time to go into it right now so maybe somebody who's good at pointing out false analogies will pop in.

 

Time to do some mixing... adios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...