Members sabriel9v Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 You just made me spew diet Pepsi all over my monitor! As for diablorising's disparaging comments, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that an educated consumer base does not care about an artist's problems. That is educated about the facets of the music business. I feel some people really love certain artists and will support them because there's that respect that has evolved over time. For instance, you can allude to the Radiohead example. Half those people didn't buy tracks, but Radiohead's tour is gonna be huge. I know the numbers they're going to pull will be gigantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 Are you sure NONE of it was made in China? They're making everything these days . . . Oh, and "They might want to download some songs and then buy the albums afterwards."I'm pretty sure every relevant band(and millions of crappy ones) have myspace pages. I'm also pretty sure, on those myspace pages, they have 4 or more songs posted that you can listen to for free before you buy anything. That kind of makes the whole "try before you buy" excuse dissolve. Wow...so EVERY single song can be previewed and heard on myspace? I don't think so. People are downloading stuff that you can't find on myspace in addition to more popular hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Purplexi Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 Mp3's and downloading are just a convenient way to access a lower quality product with greater ease while destroying the recording industry. We may ultimately kill rock as it was briefly known. Read the writing on the wall. Tower Records on Sunset Blvd has closed it's doors. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 Half those people didn't buy tracks, but Radiohead's tour is gonna be huge. I know the numbers they're going to pull will be gigantic. But that would also indicate now badly they are being ripped off on the actual content sales, given the fairly small number of sales for a band that big. As I said earlier, music is becoming a manual labor job. Even if you have a really thick portfolio of good content, if you make almost all of your money touring, then if you break up or cannot tour for some reason, you are writing off most of your income. In a lot of cases it would be like a bad marriage held together for financial reasons, since the members couldn't go their own way without losing the touring benefits of their recognized current band. Or worse, you wrote all the songs, you leave or are forced out of the band, and your band mates continue to profit from your work via the tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 Wow...so EVERY single song can be previewed and heard on myspace? I don't think so. People are downloading stuff that you can't find on myspace in addition to more popular hits. You can preview almost anything that the bulk of people would be buying, on sites like iTunes, All Songs Considered, Amazon, MySpace, etc... And it's a fallacy to make arguments about preview of obscure stuff being a justification, since that's not close to the bulk of what all those kids are downloading. They are mostly downloading popular stuff that they probably have already heard, on the radio or elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 But that would also indicate now badly they are being ripped off on the actual content sales, given the fairly small number of sales for a band that big. As I said earlier, music is becoming a manual labor job. Even if you have a really thick portfolio of good content, if you make almost all of your money touring, then if you break up or cannot tour for some reason, you are writing off most of your income. In a lot of cases it would be like a bad marriage held together for financial reasons, since the members couldn't go their own way without losing the touring benefits of their recognized current band. Or worse, you wrote all the songs, you leave or are forced out of the band, and your band mates continue to profit from your work via the tour. In addition, as has been noted ad nauseum, Radiohead didn't make it by giving away free downloads. They made it the old fashioned way: through the power of a profit-driven record company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thedolaon Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 I feel some people really love certain artists and will support them because there's that respect that has evolved over time. +1:lol: there are bands (very few now) that I WILL buy merch and music from. IMO, i think it's smart to start being merch oriented too. Also, if there's a demand for a certain artist, they'll always make money, doesn't have to be superstar money. And my peers love clothes, and at the same token, the shirts need to be creative. And i do have respect for them and the artists i love. they talk to me too and they're good, not a copy of someone else in the genre or real bad quality. I've never downloaded anything illegally. If i lurrvve you and make me move emotionally, i'll buy something. if i hear a band "i like" i'll just go to their myspace and listen lol. I won't even bother with downloading illegal, cause i won't listen to it much anyway as much as the bands/artist i do like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thedolaon Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 They are mostly downloading popular stuff that they probably have already heard, on the radio or elsewhere. very very truewhat's also happening now with bands/artists that are unsigned that are making their way in their niche genres just aren't putting songs for download anymore AND i'm noticing more and more people asking when is the stuff on iTunes, b/c the music isn't availiable to them immediately. So if you're talented and good, and you have a demand, like we've said a million times, don't give away anything for free. I'm at this point where i'm deciding whether if i should make my close friends buy something of mine, a t-shirt or EP, if they want it one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 You can preview almost anything that the bulk of people would be buying, on sites like iTunes, All Songs Considered, Amazon, MySpace, etc... And it's a fallacy to make arguments about preview of obscure stuff being a justification, since that's not close to the bulk of what all those kids are downloading. They are mostly downloading popular stuff that they probably have already heard, on the radio or elsewhere. It's not a fallacy to make the argument about finding and streaming full tracks of obscure material. That was the core of his argument. That you can find anything on myspace...you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 +1:lol:there are bands (very few now) that I WILL buy merch and music from. IMO, i think it's smart to start being merch oriented too. Also, if there's a demand for a certain artist, they'll always make money, doesn't have to be superstar money. And my peers love clothes, and at the same token, the shirts need to be creative. And i do have respect for them and the artists i love. they talk to me too and they're good, not a copy of someone else in the genre or real bad quality.I've never downloaded anything illegally. If i lurrvve you and make me move emotionally, i'll buy something. if i hear a band "i like" i'll just go to their myspace and listen lol. I won't even bother with downloading illegal, cause i won't listen to it much anyway as much as the bands/artist i do like. As you can already tell, I have been somewhat empathetic on behalf of people who download. I download myself and can't deny that. However, I'm not in favor of people downloading whole albums and raping an artist's entire discography. If I download three or four of your songs I'll buy your cd and spread the word about you. Like right now I think White Denim is one of the best damn bands out there. On the same token, I won't charge my close friends for my cd. Why? Because the tracks that we'll give to our friends and fans at our shows are incomplete. Honestly, an artist can protect his or her media for a while until official copies are released. Then the hellhounds break loose. But all this stuff about albums being leaked prematurely seems a bit concocted to me. Why not leak incomplete tracks or fake ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 I was saying it's a fallacy to make that argument as a justification for the downloading situation, since the vast bulk of what's being downloaded isn't remotely obscure, and it's stuff that people already have heard or easily could preview or hear legally if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Emerging artists used to tour with a headliner. Some still do but not near as frequent. Even in Cali most of the hot spots are gone. A group would get some airplay, cd comes out and then the tour. Tours were sponsored and paid for by labels. The tour was to reinforce cd sales. Nothing more. today a Band comes out. Goes to myspace. Then 2 million pirate the cd and there is no $$$ capital to pay for a tour. Simple. That's why there are no big tours and coliseums booked each week. As for the industry, hundereds of jobs are lost each year to cut backs at every level. That means unemployment rising. Not just the top dogs. All the little $25k a year jobs and basic workers. Graphics people, record stores and their employees. finito People blame any company for profiting?? All companies have to have a profit. Companies have investments. Look how many artists never made the grade once debuted. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in a bad investment deal. Happens every day in every market. Pirateers don't give a {censored} about a concert or a t shirt, sticker, or coffee mug. That's a mainstream Kiss thing. Look at merch sales. Kiss, Zeppelin, Nirvana, Stones, and other LABEL productions are the sales winners. You have to have artist musical media sales to promote a tour. Labels are hardly fronting video production costs lest any big cd production studio works. Even the big artists are home studio and hiring pro engy's for mastering. Pirating has harmed the music from any artist pov, artist sales, or in terms of financial support for tours. The artists need to take the ball and denounce piracy or they are DONE! the expectation will only be free, and you can't beat that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 It's not a fallacy to make the argument about finding and streaming full tracks of obscure material. That was the core of his argument. That you can find anything on myspace...you can't. I don't think that's what he was getting at. "You can preview almost anything that the bulk of people would be buying, on sites like iTunes, All Songs Considered, Amazon, MySpace, etc.." However, I'd be hard pressed to believe that samples of anything produced in the past 6 years can't be found somewhere on the internet. You don't need a whole track to tell how a band sounds or whether their songs are any good. I know after 30-60 seconds if I'd buy their stuff. I think that's true for most people. And while you may buy after downloading, clearly the vast majority don't, or sales would keep at least keep some sort of pace with downloading. But illegal downloading vastly overwhelms sales in comparison. Again, as the father of three young adults, they have told me that if they get stuff from their friends, usually whole albums, they don't need to buy anything, and one album winds up on 10 or 20 ipods. A good many of those aren't downloaded legally. I know my kids don't download illegally (or I'm reasonably certain they don't, after the many conversations we've had about it) but that doesn't mean the stuff they get from their friends, friends' friends, and college roommates isn't. In fact, as my one son is a sophyomore in college, I'm pretty sure the 3000+ songs he has on his ipod weren't paid for by him, since he has no job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ddeerreekk Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 I'm a bit confused - how are the record companies and artists making money off of this free downloading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diablosrising Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Wow...so EVERY single song can be previewed and heard on myspace? I don't think so. People are downloading stuff that you can't find on myspace in addition to more popular hits. I never said every single song can be previewed on myspace, but it's the ultimate previewing tool. Why would you be previewing a song from a band that no one's ever heard of and doesn't have a myspace? I mean, if you're previewing stuff that obscure, you're probably just stealing it anyway. I mean, then it would fall under the "well, it's not in print because it's so obscure, so I'll just steal it" category. It should be up to the bands to decide what songs are up on the net for previewing. If you've never heard the material, how do you even know what to search for? We could go in circles here about how I can't prove what bands have what songs on their myspaces, and you can't prove people are downloading songs that aren't on myspace just for previewing. I think I was clear in my original point, though. Years ago, you could make a more valid argument for previewing material, because sites like myspace didn't exist yet. Now, there are so many bands on myspace that you're often previewing songs you DON'T want to hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diablosrising Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 As for diablorising's disparaging comments, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that an educated consumer base does not care about an artist's problems. That is educated about the facets of the music business. I feel some people really love certain artists and will support them because there's that respect that has evolved over time. For instance, you can allude to the Radiohead example. Half those people didn't buy tracks, but Radiohead's tour is gonna be huge. I know the numbers they're going to pull will be gigantic. I'm basing my comments on people I personally know. Not teenage, tech saavy people. Most of the people I know that pirate huge quantities of music don't go to concerts. They're older than you would imagine, too. They all have jobs and make enough money to pay for cds. All except one download very popular, readily available music. I've personally told these people, some of whom are family members, about the big picture of their actions. They give a "wow, I never knew that" response, then continue to download in large quantities. They've been educated. They just feel so disconnected from the people they're stealing from that they don't have any emotional attachment. Now that I think about it, only one person that I know steals a lot of music and goes to concerts. Everyone else I know that's dedicated enough to go see a band live buys their cd's. I also don't live in the middle of nowhere. I live in a large metropolitan area, so the people I know make up a very diverse sampling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 It seems like whenever I come to this forum now, the threads always go back to illegal downloading. What are you guys doing in your personal regiments to battle illegal downloading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 It seems like whenever I come to this forum now, the threads always go back to illegal downloading. What are you guys doing in your personal regiments to battle illegal downloading? Well, maybe if we whine and whine enough, someone will say "enough already" and fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Well, maybe if we whine and whine enough, someone will say "enough already" and fix it. It works for my wife! What are we doing to fix it? First, we're trying to directly reason with people who are doing it, appealing to their conscience and offering some logic as to why it is counterproductive. Since it is perceived as Luddite whining, it apparently isn't having much success. However, like it or not, that is the crux of the issue, and until people either want to stop stealing, or a consequence comes along that makes it too risky, it won't happen. You can have laws against all kinds of behavior, but the behavior still happens, even when the punishment is severe, like with murder or rape. But it is a small percentage of the population that does it, because it's a severe punishment. Until some sort of consequence can be devise that outweighs the desire of average people to steal freely, there isn't really much that can be done. No matter what model you come up with, as long as someone figures out a way to get around it and steal the product, it's useless. But I'll say this: so much for the "people are basically good" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HairyScaryMark Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Speaking as someone who is persuing a career in music and also only developed an interest in music when I started downloading it through napster. Only recently have good alternatives to peer to peer downloading became popular, in my opinion. Radio puts the choice of what you listen to in the hands of someone else and mainstream radio over-players the stuff which is already popular. Music TV is just as bad for this. We can try and get people to buy our downloads and there are some good services for it it but I don't think people should expect to make a living off their recordings. If I had to buy every song I downloaded I certainly would have not discovered half of the music I listen to today. I also think it is great that so many people actually listen to music and attend gigs at the moment. We should not take this for granted. The internet is a great tool to help specialist music scenes which could only previously exist locally on a much smaller scale. I believe I would not be working in music if it wasn't for internet downloading allowing me to discover a large range of music that I am passionate about. I already make money from music and I think anyone who wants to make a career in music must be willing to do a range of things (such as teaching) or else they shouldn't be working in music. It is quite convieinant to blame the internet for not selling CD's but in many cases the artist would have not sold all that many in the first place. Ocasionally I have even felt the band deserved the sale of their (new) CD to be low becuase they released low quality material and people got a chance to hear it before they wasted money on it. At risk of being the devils advocate. Nobody here has questioned the existance of copyright? Why should we own a combination of notes that we happened to come up with when someone else has probably played them before?The only proposed change I heard being asked for in the UK was to extend record copyright for the (already rich) artist's lifetime rather than 50 years. I remember people like Paul McCartny and Cliff Richard were cited as examples of people who would benefit from this. The record industry has got into peer to peer downloading too late. It might catch on like I-Tunes has but I guess we will have to wait and see. I think this is an example of how the 'consumer' is driving the direction of the market now, quite differnet from before. Think of music in the 1990s. Full of commercially orientated acts which are over-marketed and lacked healthy variation. Some of the major record companies are only beginning to get beyond this idea now. Don't get me wrong. I would rather people didn't steal music but I think too many people here take it for granted that they should be able to make serious money from selling recorded music. The reality is differnetly and I am personally happy that the listener now has complete freedom to discover many types of music that they would never realisticly hear before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 But that would also indicate now badly they are being ripped off on the actual content sales, given the fairly small number of sales for a band that big. As I said earlier, music is becoming a manual labor job. Even if you have a really thick portfolio of good content, if you make almost all of your money touring, then if you break up or cannot tour for some reason, you are writing off most of your income. In a lot of cases it would be like a bad marriage held together for financial reasons, since the members couldn't go their own way without losing the touring benefits of their recognized current band. Or worse, you wrote all the songs, you leave or are forced out of the band, and your band mates continue to profit from your work via the tour. This is one of the smartest things you've said in the forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Speaking as someone who is persuing a career in music and also only developed an interest in music when I started downloading it through napster.Only recently have good alternatives to peer to peer downloading became popular, in my opinion. Radio puts the choice of what you listen to in the hands of someone else and mainstream radio over-players the stuff which is already popular. Music TV is just as bad for this.We can try and get people to buy our downloads and there are some good services for it it but I don't think people should expect to make a living off their recordings. If I had to buy every song I downloaded I certainly would have not discovered half of the music I listen to today.I also think it is great that so many people actually listen to music and attend gigs at the moment. We should not take this for granted.The internet is a great tool to help specialist music scenes which could only previously exist locally on a much smaller scale.I believe I would not be working in music if it wasn't for internet downloading allowing me to discover a large range of music that I am passionate about. I already make money from music and I think anyone who wants to make a career in music must be willing to do a range of things (such as teaching) or else they shouldn't be working in music. It is quite convieinant to blame the internet for not selling CD's but in many cases the artist would have not sold all that many in the first place. Ocasionally I have even felt the band deserved the sale of their (new) CD to be low becuase they released low quality material and people got a chance to hear it before they wasted money on it.At risk of being the devils advocate. Nobody here has questioned the existance of copyright? Why should we own a combination of notes that we happened to come up with when someone else has probably played them before?The only proposed change I heard being asked for in the UK was to extend record copyright for the (already rich) artist's lifetime rather than 50 years. I remember people like Paul McCartny and Cliff Richard were cited as examples of people who would benefit from this.The record industry has got into peer to peer downloading too late. It might catch on like I-Tunes has but I guess we will have to wait and see. I think this is an example of how the 'consumer' is driving the direction of the market now, quite differnet from before. Think of music in the 1990s. Full of commercially orientated acts which are over-marketed and lacked healthy variation. Some of the major record companies are only beginning to get beyond this idea now.Don't get me wrong. I would rather people didn't steal music but I think too many people here take it for granted that they should be able to make serious money from selling recorded music. The reality is differnetly and I am personally happy that the listener now has complete freedom to discover many types of music that they would never realisticly hear before. You bring up some great points. 1) I feel that if you call yourself entering the music industry, it's important to be multi-faceted. You should know how to do more than just record a cd and release it. Anybody can do that. You have to know how to work the promo angles, touring angle, understand marketing, etc. There are so many different components involved in the music industry2) I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but if Apple can create an amazing software program like itunes, why can't Warner and Sony hire some techie kid to create a similar brand of software that is meant for legal downloading? They could market the hell out of it, put it on their site, their artists sites, and make it clear to consumers that if they want digital downloads, that software is available for that sole purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HairyScaryMark Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 You bring up some great points. 1) I feel that if you call yourself entering the music industry, it's important to be multi-faceted. You should know how to do more than just record a cd and release it. Anybody can do that. You have to know how to work the promo angles, touring angle, understand marketing, etc. There are so many different components involved in the music industry2) I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but if Apple can create an amazing software program like itunes, why can't Warner and Sony hire some techie kid to create a similar brand of software that is meant for legal downloading? They could market the hell out of it, put it on their site, their artists sites, and make it clear to consumers that if they want digital downloads, that software is available for that sole purpose. Thank you. I was scared I would get completely slated for saying such things. I still feel there is always a catch with the 'legal' music discovering options. I Tunes is good in a way but there are many issues. You are sort of stuck with their format, their quality types and I don't know and it does rely on people buying music through one website primarily. I am not aware if there are many free tracks on ITunes, maybe someone can tlel me but if there are the artist, manager or whoever actually has to add them that theirselves. Then there are issues with the I Pod itself. Many are similar to what is listed above. The first one I would point out is reliability. I know many people who are now on their 3rd or 4th I Pod despite them only being around for a few years. The new solid state ones should in theory last longer but it is too early too tell if that will be the case. Then myspace? Yet again, it relies on someone representing the band to put music up their legally and many people will add it unauthorised anyway. Some bands may have became popular partially thanks to myspace but the exact benefits as far as making money from music are unclear. As far as I undersrtand. Anywhere that is going to offer a mixture of free recordings and ones you have to pay for has to get authorisation from the record companies. This means that companies like apple and myspace are going to manage to do it but it has taken a long time for this new system to come out. Not downloading music at all? This inevitably means you will not discover the same range of music as you would if you download it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 Speaking as someone who is persuing a career in music and also only developed an interest in music when I started downloading it through napster.Only recently have good alternatives to peer to peer downloading became popular, in my opinion. Radio puts the choice of what you listen to in the hands of someone else and mainstream radio over-players the stuff which is already popular. Music TV is just as bad for this.We can try and get people to buy our downloads and there are some good services for it it but I don't think people should expect to make a living off their recordings. If I had to buy every song I downloaded I certainly would have not discovered half of the music I listen to today.I also think it is great that so many people actually listen to music and attend gigs at the moment. We should not take this for granted.The internet is a great tool to help specialist music scenes which could only previously exist locally on a much smaller scale.I believe I would not be working in music if it wasn't for internet downloading allowing me to discover a large range of music that I am passionate about. I already make money from music and I think anyone who wants to make a career in music must be willing to do a range of things (such as teaching) or else they shouldn't be working in music. It is quite convieinant to blame the internet for not selling CD's but in many cases the artist would have not sold all that many in the first place. Ocasionally I have even felt the band deserved the sale of their (new) CD to be low becuase they released low quality material and people got a chance to hear it before they wasted money on it.At risk of being the devils advocate. Nobody here has questioned the existance of copyright? Why should we own a combination of notes that we happened to come up with when someone else has probably played them before?The only proposed change I heard being asked for in the UK was to extend record copyright for the (already rich) artist's lifetime rather than 50 years. I remember people like Paul McCartny and Cliff Richard were cited as examples of people who would benefit from this.The record industry has got into peer to peer downloading too late. It might catch on like I-Tunes has but I guess we will have to wait and see. I think this is an example of how the 'consumer' is driving the direction of the market now, quite differnet from before. Think of music in the 1990s. Full of commercially orientated acts which are over-marketed and lacked healthy variation. Some of the major record companies are only beginning to get beyond this idea now.Don't get me wrong. I would rather people didn't steal music but I think too many people here take it for granted that they should be able to make serious money from selling recorded music. The reality is differnetly and I am personally happy that the listener now has complete freedom to discover many types of music that they would never realisticly hear before. You have so much of this ass backwards, I don't know where to start. I believe I would not be working in music if it wasn't for internet downloading allowing me to discover a large range of music that I am passionate about. Well, aside from the fact that millions of people have done it for hundreds of years before downloading was ever thought of, it is entirely possible to 1) listen to samples of music, b) listen to entire cuts without downloading. This isn't the lamest excuse for stealing I've ever heard. But it's close. I already make money from music and I think anyone who wants to make a career in music must be willing to do a range of things (such as teaching) or else they shouldn't be working in music. What a self defeating, steaming crock of {censored}. "Sorry, Radiohead had to cancel the gig. Their drummer has lessons to give and the guitarist is doing a clinic." Gimme a break. Yet another weak excuse for stealing: "I want what you have. I don't want to pay for it. If you want to make a living, do other stuff to supplement your income, or get out." You seem to be another self-loathing musician. I don't get it. Nobody here has questioned the existence of copyright? Why should we own a combination of notes that we happened to come up with when someone else has probably played them before? Why should anyone own dirt? They didn't make it. Why should anyone own anything? I don't know why I'm even responding. But here goes. Lennon and McCartney used many of the same notes as the worst flop song you could think of. It isn't the notes you own, it's the intellectual idea behind the notes. It is precisely because they are able to arrange those notes in such a way that they have a broad appeal to the public, causing the public to want to exchange money for the songs, that gives them value. It isn't anything that just anyone can do. Put simply, if nobody could copyright anything, what's the incentive to create? I could just steal bits of Let It Be, Get Back and Lady Madonna and call it my own. I wouldn't have to write anything. Tell you what: give us your reasons why there shouldn't be copyright. I'm dying to hear it. Occasionally I have even felt the band deserved the sale of their (new) CD to be low because they released low quality material and people got a chance to hear it before they wasted money on it. This much is true. But it doesn't have anything to do with downloading. You don't have to download {censored} to know it's {censored}. You can usually tell by the 60 second low bit-rate sample. I think this is an example of how the 'consumer' is driving the direction of the market now, quite different from before. You are right again, but this isn't a good thing. It would be if there were an equal and balanced relationship between distributor and consumer, but there isn't. The internet has taken control of distribution away from the producer. Therefore, the producer has to price not according to what his product costs to produce, or what it's value is based on demand, but solely on the basis that if he doesn't price it dirt cheap and get a little money for it, people are going to steal it anyway. It is an unbalanced relationship. The producer is at a terrible disadvantage. It's a bit like a farmer offering to sell his chickens for practically nothing to a chicken thief in hopes that he can make couple of bucks before he gets cleaned out completely. What he doesn't see is that the chicken thief isn't going to pay him anything. How long do you think he can stay in business? Don't get me wrong. I would rather people didn't steal music but I think too many people here take it for granted that they should be able to make serious money from selling recorded music. The reality is differently and I am personally happy that the listener now has complete freedom to discover many types of music that they would never realistically hear before. The reality is different precisely because people steal it. Yes, it's the reality. Doesn't make it right though, does it? And I'll say it one more time, in case you missed it: You don't have to steal music these days in order to listen to it. Please stop using "discovering new music" as a justification for stealing it. I just discovered how cool Land Rovers are. But taking one for a test drive is different than driving it off the lot and using it for a couple of months without paying for it. They aren't the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted February 2, 2008 Members Share Posted February 2, 2008 It seems like whenever I come to this forum now, the threads always go back to illegal downloading. What are you guys doing in your personal regiments to battle illegal downloading? Personally? Well, I'm involved in IP (patents) so I tend to be a bit less of a crusader (strong emotional response can kinda {censored} your perspective) and work more from an analytics, education type place Last year I got to be part of an instructional team for a class in US IP in Seoul - we got to address a number of cultural and legal differences across the IP spectrum. That was pretty cool - and I got a cool little laquered biz card box - hope to take the show to Tokyo next year Culturally, I try to join the conversation and work with a whole laundry list of distinctions that get disserved when folks think inductively (this is where being a "switch hitter" in terms of mode of thought has helped me. One big hurdle ther though is the strong emotional states as they tend to go "us or them"...but I'm used to it from my dev days and wifey has hipped me the the neuropsych behind it, so I don't take it personally) Actively, I'm a supporter of legal uses for technologies such a P2P file sharing (of both phonorecordings and other such as the Linux communities). The stuff I tend toward is relatively specialist, so at the present time network loading hasn't been an issue - I do try to maintain a sensitivity to that and it is something I plan to actively address at the appropriate time. I'm not ignoring it currently, but I'm a core technologies guy, not a network engineer (I'll leave that to the CSgen that came after me...it seems like they are all network engineers, "BIG O" means something entirely different to the computational comp sci guys than it does to the net pornogr...I mean communication comp sci guys )...but I digress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.