The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.
Old 20th June 2010
  #271
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
Your ignorance is boring me...
I care about 'ordinary' musicians also, I am one. Markets exist 'as they are' - whether you like what they do is not the issue.

You need to get out more - have you ever traveled to foreign countries?? 'Laws' often do not have much to do with the way markets work.
Wow.
I'm constantly traveling (just came back from the U.S and UK) and I've been an ordinary musician for 30 years.
I don't think you know what you are talking about frankly.
Old 20th June 2010
  #272
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This is not true and depends on other factors.
Amazing. In what kind of twisted logic does that come from?
Old 21st June 2010
  #273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
I'm curious about this comment.

Do you not realize that people who pirate music/software/video very likely have jobs and hobbies? Pirates very frequently ARE musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers etc...
This is kind of a crazy argument.
It's akin to saying poor people benefit if they rob other people.
At least they can then afford food right?
Any 'musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers' who pirate other people's work are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are damaging the creative industries and reducing their (and other innocent parties) chances of ever making a living doing what they love.
As I said many pages ago, the trouble with the Gearslutz debates are that so many are not working in music as their main income source.
How would you ever justify..... no even claim positivity, from one aspiring artist stealing the work (and taking away income) from another artist.
It just beggars belief.
Old 21st June 2010
  #274
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
This is kind of a crazy argument.
It's akin to saying poor people benefit if they rob other people.
At least they can then afford food right?
Any 'musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers' who pirate other people's work are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are damaging the creative industries and reducing their (and other innocent parties) chances of ever making a living doing what they love.
As I said many pages ago, the trouble with the Gearslutz debates are that so many are not working in music as their main income source.
How would you ever justify..... no even claim positivity, from one aspiring artist stealing the work (and taking away income) from another artist.
It just beggars belief.
You need some serious reading comprehension classes. I was asking what his opinion was, not stating my own.
Old 21st June 2010
  #275
Huh, I can read fine.
You took issue with someone questioning pirating as a positive force, even for other creative people.
If you aren't putting forward your own view, why post to question someone else's view?

The clear implication of your text:

Quote:
if you say that it benefits pirates then you must admit that it benefits people of all walks of life and professions.
.......is that you believe pirating benefits other creative people.
Old 21st June 2010
  #276
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
This is kind of a crazy argument.
It's akin to saying poor people benefit if they rob other people.
At least they can then afford food right?
Any 'musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers' who pirate other people's work are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are damaging the creative industries and reducing their (and other innocent parties) chances of ever making a living doing what they love.
As I said many pages ago, the trouble with the Gearslutz debates are that so many are not working in music as their main income source.
How would you ever justify..... no even claim positivity, from one aspiring artist stealing the work (and taking away income) from another artist.
It just beggars belief.
or even worse, a thieves belief...
Old 21st June 2010
  #277
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
laws and market forces are in flux - rhizomes with temporary hierarchies...it will be interesting to see the musical/economic landscape in 30 years...
Old 21st June 2010
  #278
I think we should be concerned about the landscape in 5 to 10 years.
If creative people don't stand up for their legal rights, they can't complain if they are walked all over by those who are only interested in taking.
Old 21st June 2010
  #279
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustyreels View Post
I want to start by saying I respect all opinions here. Everybody is entitled to their point of view. I have no desire to see the old industry model come back. However, I think artist that work really hard to bring enjoyment, healing, and many other aspects of music that benefits individuals and society as a whole deserve compensation. Some artist would never reach the level they are at if they had to work other jobs. Musicians have to eat too.
Making quality music is expensive. I don't need to convince gearslutz that fact. We may know that better than anyone.
Music shouldn't be free. Not any more than a bartender workin for free. What motivation would a doctor have for giving up their prime years going to school and working ridiculously long hours to heal the sick. Should they do it for free?
Seriously???
I'm not going to pretend to know the answer, but I can't wait to rally behind the leader that offers a real solution.

i agree with this.
i still think there is hope in a new model label.
one that releases only great music that sounds great.
while it may take five to ten years, that quality if truly honored
and respected will create something with kinetic energy.
revenue is crucial.
i have had wonderful experiences over the past ten years with amazing
musicians who were far more married to their craft than any pursuit of money, but with the luck of landing themselves in a place where there
was in fact, budget, funding, capital, the opportunities for following the
muse were expanded and the food kept everyone's vibe in a great place.
like any pendulum that moves - even if it in fact has stopped moving -
the extremes develop the craft. it is amazing to work with artists who don't have phones and can barely pay rent and have still invested $400 in 2" tape
to make their records sound great.........i guess it is just different. it is truly
strange to be in an industry where something has lost its value.....
people are dancing to mp3s in clubs with ****ty sound systems cranked
into an overwhelmingly agitating experience........what other field has had such regression ?
things sounded better in public spaces in 1978 or 1981 when vinyl and great sound systems made sound an event, and made dancing easy.......

i think making people as aware as possible that there is a hi fidelity experience through hi resolution files would be helpful.......it is understandable that people should not want to buy mp3's. public spaces
should have amazing sound. it should be encouraged.



be well


- jack
Old 21st June 2010
  #280
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
laws and market forces are in flux - rhizomes with temporary hierarchies...it will be interesting to see the musical/economic landscape in 30 years...
The only way laws are fluxing is towards clamping down on illegal activity. Copyright law has not been revamped or retracted. It is still the law of the land, for incredibly obvious reasons that stretch back four hundred years.
Old 21st June 2010
  #281
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Huh, I can read fine.
You took issue with someone questioning pirating as a positive force, even for other creative people.
If you aren't putting forward your own view, why post to question someone else's view?

The clear implication of your text:



.......is that you believe pirating benefits other creative people.


I can't even fathom you got that out of my post.

I'll go ahead and do some formatting to make this clear for you.

Quote:
I'm curious about this comment.

Do you not realize that people who pirate music/software/video very likely have jobs and hobbies? Pirates very frequently ARE musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers etc...

It may not benefit the industry (which is debatable obviously ), but if you say that it benefits pirates then you must admit that it benefits people of all walks of life and professions.
Old 21st June 2010
  #282
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I don't either, and I agree with him. Does that negate my opinion too?

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe we'll look back in history to see a short blip where a small number of musicians got rich from their craft. Then it will go back to "normal."

As a musician, of course I would love to see it continue, but as someone who buys music, I find myself having less and less interest in ANYTHING the major labels are putting out. I'd rather go hear a few musicians playing together locally or even in my living room.
Then you should do that. Because many of us write music for a living.

TH
Old 21st June 2010
  #283
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
You haven't called me on anything, more so you are highlighting your own lack of ability to communicate. But I will attempt to clarify this with you, hope against hope...
MAFG, you are trying to start a fight, but I'm not biting.

I'll say this, there are several other threads where I've pointed out in painful detail how you took a statement of mine full of nuance, and turned it into something facile to more easily argue your point. Classic straw man tactic.

Since I have shown you this at least twice, AND you seem to not remember, then I'll just assume you're not interested in making arguments devoid of common logic errors.

As I've said, I'm certainly open to learning how to argue more effectively, and take constructive criticism well most of the time.
Old 21st June 2010
  #284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
I can't even fathom you got that out of my post.
You've posted that if pirating benefits pirates, it must then benefit other professions, some of which you list:
'Pirates very frequently ARE musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers'

Why bother posting unless you are trying to make a point that you personally believe in?
Your point seems clearly that creative people benefit from pirating software, movies and music.
This is where I disagree.
You say they benefit, I say they don't, and in not even benefitting themselves they are also taking others down with them.

It's a difference of opinion, so you don't need to post about how dumb I am, or how I can't read or understand any more.
Stand by your views and admit to what they are.
Old 21st June 2010
  #285
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

I blame this entire thing on politicians.

What has become commonplace in political discussions is to reframe your opponent's argument into a simple sound-bite statement, then make a simple sound bite friendly dismissive statement in response.

What ends up happening is it SOUNDS good on the TV news, but debate is not furthered in any way.

Instead, all the nuance is squeezed out the point in order make it easy to dismiss the argument. CLASSIC straw man.

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate man

I count at least three times in this thread people have engaged in this tactic. I'm too lazy to do a cut and paste job, and the people who are engaging in this quite frankly are the same people who lack the humility that is required to learn, so it would be a pointless exercise. I guess I'm hoping that people will reread some posts and see where it applies, then maybe change their behavior.

By all means... please DO point out where I have committed logical errors, I do realize I'm not immune (and am likely just as guilty as others).
Old 21st June 2010
  #286
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Why bother posting unless you are trying to make a point that you personally believe in?
Maybe he was ASKING a question? Did you REALLY miss that?? Please reread it without having an emotional response. I agree he could have posed the question better, but now that he explained himself, can't you see what he was trying to do???
Old 21st June 2010
  #287
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
again you are confusing the issues and circumstances.

if prohibition were the same as piracy there would not have been bootleggers, rum runners and moonshiners making and selling their own product!
Here you go again.

There is ONLY ONE part of prohibition that I'm using for analogy, and that is that PUBLIC OPINION was not changed by changing the law.

That is IT. It doesn't matter how well prohibition matches or doesn't match in other areas.

So, laws got changed because people thought it would change behavior. Behavior did not change. That's the ONLY relevant point about prohibition.

Further, you write:

Quote:
humanzing is important, I certainly support that... but laws to protect compensation for human labor in the form of copyright are not a mistake...
AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! I never said do NOT CHANGE THE LAWS. You keep repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER.

So read this carefully:

I believe laws should be changed to discourage piracy in many different directions.

Is that clear enough for you?

Finally, whether you like it or not, people who are "stealing" your music ARE your potential customers. If you want to pretty much eliminate the entire market between 16 and 21 years old and dismiss them as "criminals," you are a foolish businessman. The CULTURE is the problem. It doesn't make it right, but treating them like evil criminals is counterproductive to getting them back to BUYING music. They need to be shown how it impacts people, while the laws are changed. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN TWO THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN.

If you continue to dehumanize these people as "criminals," then don't be surprised if they continue to dehumanize YOU as a rich fat cat. Damn. This is a good part of the reason the RIAA's campaigns have failed!
Old 21st June 2010
  #288
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Up until recently, most musicians in modern history were more like slaves... they were hired by the rich. Mozart. Wagner had money problems much of his life. Beethoven depended on art patrons to keep him afloat. Very different then the blip of time when artists became some of the highest income earners.
This is, for the most part, accurate (replace "slaves" with "servants"). Only since the 19th century with the emergence of the "virtuoso", such as Liszt, did musicians become really wealthy.
Old 21st June 2010
  #289
Firstly, the vast majority of working musicians are NOT 'really wealthy'
Secondly, and this continues to dismay me, people like you propose musicians retreat from the financial benefits that have been hard won over many years of struggle.
So what if musicians were 'slaves' a hundred or more years ago?
That was then, this is now.
Years ago women didn't have a vote and black American musicians couldn't play with white musicians.
Society develops (for the better hopefully).
And as such, we've by and large accepted worldwide that musicians are deserving of financial compensation for their work.
Old 21st June 2010
  #290
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You've posted that if pirating benefits pirates, it must then benefit other professions, some of which you list:
'Pirates very frequently ARE musicians, programmers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, game developers'

Why bother posting unless you are trying to make a point that you personally believe in?
Your point seems clearly that creative people benefit from pirating software, movies and music.
This is where I disagree.
You say they benefit, I say they don't, and in not even benefitting themselves they are also taking others down with them.

It's a difference of opinion, so you don't need to post about how dumb I am, or how I can't read or understand any more.
Stand by your views and admit to what they are.
Ok man, keep on thinking whatever you want. With each successive quote you've decontextualized my post further to make it fit the very strange concept you've dreamt up in your head.

I'm going to state one last time that I was not stating an opinion. I was asking another poster about the logic used in their post.

p.s. You don't need to hit the enter key after every single sentence.

p.p.s. You should also take note that I'm not the first (or second, or third, or tenth) person to say that you take things out of context or misunderstand very simple sentences. It's even occurred at least twice in this thread.

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
Old 21st June 2010
  #291
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Firstly, the vast majority of working musicians are NOT 'really wealthy'
Secondly, and this continues to dismay me, people like you propose musicians retreat from the financial benefits that have been hard won over many years of struggle.
So what if musicians were 'slaves' a hundred or more years ago?
That was then, this is now.
Years ago women didn't have a vote and black American musicians couldn't play with white musicians.
Society develops (for the better hopefully).
And as such, we've by and large accepted worldwide that musicians are deserving of financial compensation for their work.
Your ignorance bores me...
Old 21st June 2010
  #292
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Finally, whether you like it or not, people who are "stealing" your music ARE your potential customers. If you want to pretty much eliminate the entire market between 16 and 21 years old and dismiss them as "criminals," you are a foolish businessman.
The fact is they are engaging in unlawful acts.
They are also highly unlikely to become customers, as they are now habituated to accessing their music without paying the supplier.
Finally, we keep hearing about the RIAA and the fat cat labels, but continue to downplay the average musician and the crappy situation they've been pushed into by (let's face it) illegal downloaders.
Old 21st June 2010
  #293
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
Your ignorance bores me...
Your repeating of the same insult is boring is it not?
Please detail my ignorance specifically, and how you have superior knowledge in this area.
If you can't..... get out of the debate.

I'm also sorry, but suggesting musicians being paid fairly instead of being slaves is some kind of aberration that after a few decades has once again been put right, is quite honestly astounding.
Old 21st June 2010
  #294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
You should also take note that I'm not the first (or second, or third, or tenth) person to say that you take things out of context or misunderstand very simple sentences.
Of course it's easier to say I misunderstand the sentences of others than to answer my point with a valid answer.

So you have no personal opinion on who benefits from piracy? Just for the record.
Old 21st June 2010
  #295
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The fact is they are engaging in unlawful acts.
They are also highly unlikely to become customers, as they are now habituated to accessing their music without paying the supplier.
Finally, we keep hearing about the RIAA and the fat cat labels, but continue to downplay the average musician and the crappy situation they've been pushed into by (let's face it) illegal downloaders.
Dude, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to go ahead and eliminate a generation of people from your potential market, well, go for it. Not the smartest business decision you could make, but whatever. Talk about short sighted.
Old 21st June 2010
  #296
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Of course it's easier to say I misunderstand the sentences of others than to answer my point with a valid answer.
It might be easier, but bro', it's true. You have misunderstood me and/or misrepresented my point probably 3 times in this thread. It's OK though, it's everyone else with the problem.

BTW... I realize I don't always present my arguments in the best way possible. Hopefully we all have that humility.
Old 21st June 2010
  #297
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
MAFG, you are trying to start a fight, but I'm not biting.

I'll say this, there are several other threads where I've pointed out in painful detail how you took a statement of mine full of nuance, and turned it into something facile to more easily argue your point. Classic straw man tactic.

Since I have shown you this at least twice, AND you seem to not remember, then I'll just assume you're not interested in making arguments devoid of common logic errors.

As I've said, I'm certainly open to learning how to argue more effectively, and take constructive criticism well most of the time.
again... what's funny about that is - that whenever someone disagrees with you - you think (or accuse) that they don't understand you... passive aggressive as that may be - i don't think there is lack of understanding, as much as there is a lack of agreement.

now I'm accused of picking a fight after actually asking for clarification to what you think is being misunderstood.

Of course it's easier for you to say I misunderstand, and I am picking a fight than to answer my response with a valid clarification...

so you are not interested in having an exchange of opinions then? below is my request for clarification, my first response can be found here:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5514398-post251.html

Feel free to point out exactly how I'm misunderstanding you... here's my request for clarity again...

####

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Yea that is a typo... Thanks..

As for misunderstanding, I don't know why you keep on reframing my arguments in a facile manner. I have made it perfectly clear a couple of times and called you on it. I'm not the only one you've done it to either so I'm not taking it personally.
You haven't called me on anything, more so you are highlighting your own lack of ability to communicate. But I will attempt to clarify this with you, hope against hope...

this is your post, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
There ARE positive sides to piracy,

IF it leads to a world where we aren't force fed garbage music,


IF large profits are taken out of the system

and the suits lose interest,
and the musicians get to take it back.

Big if's, but it's possible good WILL come out of this.
care to elaborate on how I misinterpreted your post?

so then you do support large profits and "suits"? cause it looks like you're saying a benefit of piracy would be getting rid of "large profits and suits" which I responded too...

I also am failing to see how musicians are "taking it back" due to the "positive sides of piracy".


####
Old 21st June 2010
  #298
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
It might be easier, but bro', it's true. You have misunderstood me and/or misrepresented my point probably 3 times in this thread. It's OK though, it's everyone else with the problem.

BTW... I realize I don't always present my arguments in the best way possible. Hopefully we all have that humility.
misunderstood again...
Old 21st June 2010
  #299
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Please detail my ignorance specifically, and how you have superior knowledge in this area.
If you can't..... get out of the debate.
My apologies...I do not have the time or patience to explain things to you..I simply think you have not thought things through...there are many forces at work.
Old 21st June 2010
  #300
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Here you go again.

There is ONLY ONE part of prohibition that I'm using for analogy, and that is that PUBLIC OPINION was not changed by changing the law.

That is IT. It doesn't matter how well prohibition matches or doesn't match in other areas.

So, laws got changed because people thought it would change behavior. Behavior did not change. That's the ONLY relevant point about prohibition.
But his point was completely valid. The fact that laws may or may not change people's behavior doesn't make your analogy relevant, because in this case the behavior that didn't change was completely different. Something that was previously considered legal, was made illegal for moral reasons, and people resisted that. But they weren't trying to take something that didn't belong to them.

In the situation at hand, something that has been considered both illegal and immoral for centuries is now being done. So they just have no relationship whatsoever. Your argument could be used to justify genocide, much less file downloading.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump