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
  #241
psalad - I love you man - you definitely have brought something to these conversations... perhaps misinformed, disinformed heavily biased and/or uninformed... but hey it's great to see how people out there, outside the industry actually think...

I love you man... but here goes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
There ARE positive sides to piracy,
like what? positives for who? not artists, musicians, software programmers, filmmakers, video game developers, etc...

positives for pirates only...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
IF it leads to a world where we aren't force fed garbage music,
who's force feeding anyone garbage music? I've been listening to so called "alternative" music for as long as I can remember at least 30 years now... not then and not now do I think anyone ever "forced fed" me anything I didn't want.

the fascinating thing about modern technology is that I can "change the channel"...

and there's this whole new thing called the internet with thousands, if not tens of thousands of new artists at places like soundclick, bandcamp, reverbnation, etc...

there's also these two sites you may have heard of called MySpace and YouTube where anyone can put up their own music and give it away for free... Willingly and Legally... Free! Yippie!

ironically though... new original music, outside of the label system, tends not to be the most popular... hmmmm... and even more ironically, the most pirated music is the most popular, funny how that works out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
IF large profits are taken out of the system
why are you offended by large profits. large profits benefit artists. more new fringe artists are developed when there's more disposable income. more risks are taken.

FWIW the only people I've ever seen be offended by profits are those who have never had one.

profit is a fundamental part of business. large profits come from success. many times that success comes from taking great risks - like on a developing artist.... play big, win big.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
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.
really? suits motivated by large profits are responsible for... The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Janes Addiction, Radiohead, Guns & Roses, Metallica, etc, etc... You may want to rethink this logic - I've yet to find an artist of this calibur on Soundclick, but maybe you will - these people have taken back music from the "suits and large profits," have at it!
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

Do you think Jimmy Iovine signed NIN and Dr.Dre because Interscope is a charity? Seriously? Clive Davis isn't working at a soup kitchen...

or maybe, did a suit loose interest in your band perhaps? just asking...

the whole us vs the suits thing gets so old and tired... no one has ever been forced to sign to a major label, artists can always so "no" to what is being offered and many do actually which is what lead to such a robust indie scene in the 80s and 90s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
It's like how there are positive things that happen to an ecosystem after a forest fire. You still fight the forest fire.

One more example, I worked in radio for 8 years and was laid off.. it was the best thing that ever happened to me, but it was painful all the same. I changed careers and am much better off!
good for you. not a bad antedote in and of itself, however the context in this conversation is different.

Displacement and change happens. Television ended the Golden Age of Holywood. But what's happening with piracy is not a transitional disruption.

What's happening now would be like if television networks could broadcast any previously made film without having to pay the copyright holders. If there was no law that stopped them from doing it.

That's the difference. Newspapers are loosing to bloggers. The music industry is NOT loosing to amature musicians on Soundclick... The music industry is having it's own product stolen and given away to profit another business of selling bandwidth or advertising (or both). Very different situation.

When someone can profit ONLY because they can illegally monetize something that someone else paid to make, than that is not transitional, it's illegal... it's called a fence... profiting from the sale or exploitation of stolen goods.

No New Business Model can truly emerge in an environment of completely lawlessness. So for all the talk of new business models, the first step is to manage piracy so that new models have a chance to survive.

again, try setting up a legitimate business in Nigeria... see how that works out.
Old 20th June 2010
  #242
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

We had prohibition of alcohol in the US for what, a decade?

They tried to change the laws but they didn't change the culture. So nothing actually changed. The law failed.

Changing the laws is all well and good but it's only one side of the battle. Musicians need to start having conversations with their fans about piracy, conversations where we humanize the problem. We need to create a PR plan around this that doesn't simply accuse people of being thieves, that is not based on that sense of entitlement. Musicians need to work to change people's perspective, we need to work on mindshift change of our audience. IF you start getting into an adversarial relationship with your fans (think: Metallica), then you give your audience a reason to be pissed off at you.

If you just change the law without successfully humanizing your campaign, you're making a mistake.
Old 20th June 2010
  #243
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DISCERN View Post
You're comparing an exploited worker to yourself as a dismissal of my post? Talk about a sense of entitlement.
It's very difficult for people to see the big picture.

This is flawed, but close enough for rock and roll. Put your salary in this calculator and see where you stand:

Global Rich List

You might be surprised.

Here comes the (tiresome) pre emptive strike... NO, NOBODY IS SAYING PIRACY IS JUSTIFIED. Neither is exploitation justified. It's all part of the BIG picture.
Old 20th June 2010
  #244
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

MAFG, you and I have been down the road too many times on that same discussion and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Even if it it wasn't so, it's a bit tiresome how you keep reframing my arguments. I'm offended by large profits... REALLY? That's just a stupid misread of my point. I can only conclude you're looking for a soapbox for yourself rather than trying to have a conversation.

Last edited by nuthinupmysleeve; 21st June 2010 at 02:14 AM.. Reason: fixing mistake
Old 20th June 2010
  #245
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
in light of all this, I have to disagree that Musicians and Artists should be accused of an overweening claim to entitlement.
I would rather point the finger at those at the highest levels who presume they should just forget about Music because it can't be factored in any longer as a viable, worthwhile or important Art-form. The reality really is that, the Marketeers believe they just can't make it pay any longer. It looks to them, more as those empty Cherry Vodka bottles which pepper the streets after a good night out. some even think it should sound that way too.
This is REAL, and something I've alluded to earlier. I expressed it differently, that music has lost it's value, but this is part of what I was talking about but from the other side.
Old 20th June 2010
  #246
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
MAFG, you and I have been down the road too many times on that same discussion and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Even if it it wasn't so, it's a bit tiresome how you keep reframing my arguments. I'm offended by large projects... REALLY? That's just a stupid misread of my point. I can only conclude you're looking for a soapbox for yourself rather than trying to have a conversation.
the word is is profits not projects - and just responding to your post. again in light of disagreement, you claim misunderstanding.
Old 20th June 2010
  #247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
If that's the way you're going to look at it, then labels don't make records and neither do producers.

And ad agencies don't make commercials the hire directors and production companies.

Ford makes commercials. They own them, just like the own their sales brochures. I'm sure the make films too - for training and sales.

What about if you make a cable, should you be paid for that labor?

It's an oversimplification to say that you should be paid for everything you make.

That's a totally different point from whether or not recordings should be sold.
Mike where on earth are you getting this from, when you work for a company and you perform labor, you get paid. When you are an artist making a recording, regardless of whether you have a record deal or not, there is at least a certain amount speculation involved, you're hoping to sell records, you're not entitled to money, unless the record sells. If someone get's access to your audio files and album cover and offers it for sale or for free without your permission that is STEALING, period
Old 20th June 2010
  #248
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
If someone get's access to your audio files and album cover and offers it for sale or for free without your permission that is STEALING, period
This is not true and depends on other factors.
Old 20th June 2010
  #249
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
SURE! Of course, nobody is saying otherwise.

You are NOT entitled to earn a living in music though, just because you have spent xxx years perfecting your craft. THAT is the entitlement I'm speaking of.

You are not entitled to be able to do the same thing and make the same money while the industry changes.
Sorry this is bull****, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING, other than if you do work at an agreed price that you get paid for that work. There is no argument about entitlement other than the point you're attempting to make which anyone who makes a living in this business will tell you is bull****. If you own a studio and you're not getting bookings, you're not making a living, regardless of whether you've done so you entire life or not. If you're a recording artist and you make a recording and it doesn't sell, you will not make any money off it.
The pirates on the other hand think they're entitled to take your work and do with it what they please, including illegally distributing it and selling it. THAT IS STEALING.
Old 20th June 2010
  #250
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
the word is is profits not projects - and just responding to your post. again in light of disagreement, you claim misunderstanding.
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.
Old 20th June 2010
  #251
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
The pirates on the other hand think they're entitled to take your work and do with it what they please, including illegally distributing it and selling it. THAT IS STEALING.
This statement is not true.
Old 20th June 2010
  #252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
Mike where on earth are you getting this from, when you work for a company and you perform labor, you get paid. When you are an artist making a recording, regardless of whether you have a record deal or not, there is at least a certain amount speculation involved, you're hoping to sell records, you're not entitled to money, unless the record sells. If someone get's access to your audio files and album cover and offers it for sale or for free without your permission that is STEALING, period
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there should be a rule here against quoting only partial posts. You've totally changed the meaning of what I wrote and my post addressed what you just wrote.


"You're arguing that "no means no." If the owner decides to restrict the use, then they should be able to do so. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I think that should be the case even if they have no intent to sell the item ever. If someone wants to give away their music, it should still be illegal for one person to give a copy to another if the owner says that all free copies need to be downloaded from one central location.


Suppose someone puts a video up on youtube. Should a third party be able to download it and then serve it from another site? No of course not. Even though the owner is intending to allow and unrestricted number of people to view it an unrestricted number of times, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have control over the distribution.


That's a totally different point from whether or not recordings should be sold."
Old 20th June 2010
  #253
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This is not true and depends on other factors.
I'd love to hear an explanation of this.

He's already said it was without permission, so I don't see how there's any scenario where it's not a copyright violation.
Old 20th June 2010
  #254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
Sorry this is bull****, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING, other than if you do work at an agreed price that you get paid for that work. There is no argument about entitlement other than the point you're attempting to make which anyone who makes a living in this business will tell you is bull****. If you own a studio and you're not getting bookings, you're not making a living, regardless of whether you've done so you entire life or not. If you're a recording artist and you make a recording and it doesn't sell, you will not make any money off it.
The pirates on the other hand think they're entitled to take your work and do with it what they please, including illegally distributing it and selling it. THAT IS STEALING.
You're right about this and the reason you have to keep writing it over an over again is because no one is arguing against this point with you nor have they been at any point.
Old 20th June 2010
  #255
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This statement is not true.
In what sense, that the law it breaks is a copyright law rather than a burglary or robbery style theft?
Old 20th June 2010
  #256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there should be a rule here against quoting only partial posts. You've totally changed the meaning of what I wrote and my post addressed what you just wrote.


"You're arguing that "no means no." If the owner decides to restrict the use, then they should be able to do so. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I think that should be the case even if they have no intent to sell the item ever. If someone wants to give away their music, it should still be illegal for one person to give a copy to another if the owner says that all free copies need to be downloaded from one central location.


Suppose someone puts a video up on youtube. Should a third party be able to download it and then serve it from another site? No of course not. Even though the owner is intending to allow and unrestricted number of people to view it an unrestricted number of times, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have control over the distribution.


That's a totally different point from whether or not recordings should be sold."
I'm not arguing anything of the sort, all I'm saying is when someone takes your recording and makes it available for either free or for sale, which I find even more offensive, without getting your permission, that is stealing. And actually the "for free" propagators of this argument are saying once you make the recording you have no say, look at the title of the thread.
Old 20th June 2010
  #257
Quote:
Originally Posted by DISCERN View Post
You're comparing an exploited worker to yourself as a dismissal of my post? Talk about a sense of entitlement. You have unrivaled employment opportunities. Not only can you earn good money, you also have a rather large choice of jobs when making that money... and you have an underlying government welfare system that will aiding you in eating, if there is no money. Most of the world doesn't have this at all.

Your analogy is flawed. You can't justify exploitation with further exploitation. The very reason this is occurring in the first place is due to the theft and exploitation committed by our society as a whole. We just have the choice to ignore it. We live in a finite world, with finite resources yet expect infinite economic growth. It is impossible, and it's the very reason the universal treaty for human rights is criticized by capitalists. Take from the poor to give to the rich. To maximize our surplus, we exacerbate their deficit... we just have the joy of calling it something other than "stealing", but it really is no different. Stealing from people who are already being stolen from?

I don't condone stealing in anyway, but I'm not going to shed a tear for you man. I can't. Not after the things I've seen and the people I've met.
I never compared myself to anyone, you my friend are reaching to an absurd degree, in a perfect world no one world starve and we all would have what we need, I'd like that world, but sadly that is not where we are now. And what this has to do with someone stealing the fruits of your labor is beyond me.
Old 20th June 2010
  #258
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
If true, so what - when markets force a shift in business models, things will change - this is one of them.
There was no "Market Shift" in file downloading. A MARKET is a group of people you SELL things to. A MARKET shift is something like people suddenly deciding they prefer polka instead of rock. So anyone who wants to sell to them has to deal with that. A massive group of people who just stop buying and start stealing is not a market (at least for the product they are stealing) and therefore there is no market shift to adapt to. The only real adaptation is to get out of the business of selling that product altogether and sell something else. If that was because there was some other superior product to sell because people no longer want the current product, that would be a market shift. But of course that's not what has happened.

The only actual market shift involved is the move to digital media. That is a legitimate market shift and I think that everyone has for a good while now been adapted to that shift. And if that was all that happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I guess if you prefer the mob coming by and shaking you down for protection money a market shift then the current situation might be a market shift. But most people would consider that just illegal activity that serves no one's interests but the thieves.
Old 20th June 2010
  #259
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 20th June 2010
  #260
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This statement is not true.
BS. I'm so sick of people rationalizing theft by trying to get into semantic arguements about how it's actually 'copy right infringement', not theft, which I assume is where you are about to go. If you do, then you are completely irrelevant to this conversation, since you are just an appologist for people who are stealing. When you are talking about making a mix tape CD for a friend, that I would call copyright infringement. But wholesale copying on a scale larger than legal sales is just freaking theft and if you try to rationalize that away with semantics then you probably are one of those people.
Old 20th June 2010
  #261
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
We had prohibition of alcohol in the US for what, a decade?

They tried to change the laws but they didn't change the culture. So nothing actually changed. The law failed.
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!

for your example to work, they would have been stealing the product that someone else made and reselling it a profit having no cost of production.

But that's not what happened, and in the end guess what - a lot of those bootleggers actually built legitimate businesses, and the government got a cut.

How much tax revenue do you suppose is being lost to piracy. The saying goes don't steal from the government... they hate the competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Changing the laws is all well and good but it's only one side of the battle. Musicians need to start having conversations with their fans about piracy, conversations where we humanize the problem. We need to create a PR plan around this that doesn't simply accuse people of being thieves, that is not based on that sense of entitlement. Musicians need to work to change people's perspective, we need to work on mindshift change of our audience.
this we can agree upon... again, it's about "in addition to" not "instead of", sure awareness, education, legislation, enforcement, new business models... all at the same time... not one thing, but everything at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
IF you start getting into an adversarial relationship with your fans (think: Metallica), then you give your audience a reason to be pissed off at you.
if they're stealing they're not fans. period. fans support, thieves take. I don't see any evidence that Metallica was damaged by Lars speaking out. Sure some funny net humor and diatribes by people who probably never liked the band anyway (most like depeche mode fans, lol).

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
If you just change the law without successfully humanizing your campaign, you're making a mistake.
maybe.... maybe not... humanzing is important, I certainly support that... but laws to protect compensation for human labor in the form of copyright are not a mistake...
Old 20th June 2010
  #262
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

The music industry is not the reason why for the most part only "garbage music" can get much exposure. That's the fault of the corporations who sponsor background music to sort out which people are likely to be exposed to their advertising. He who pays the piper is who calls the tune.

Killing the music industry will only lead to there being nothing but the advertising supported background music that everyone detests because only it would survive financially. We're already seeing this trend.
Old 20th June 2010
  #263
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
like what? positives for who? not artists, musicians, software programmers, filmmakers, video game developers, etc...

positives for pirates only...
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 20th June 2010
  #264
Lives for gear
 
Ken Walker's Avatar
The title of this thread is "Music should be free. If you don't want it "stolen" then don't record it." I wonder if the OP feels the same about other intellectual property.

How about "If you don't want your work plagerized, don't write it."...or "If you don't want your patent infringed upon, don't invent it."

Anyone who creates intelluctual property deserves to be compensated for such work if there is any demand for that work. I wish I had a dollar for every time this issue comes up in the law classes I teach.
Old 20th June 2010
  #265
Or, if you don't want your employer to make you work and then not pay you, don't get a job. They never apply their rules to themselves, only to others. They never go in and volunteer to work for free for the good of the motherland.
Old 20th June 2010
  #266
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Killing the music industry will only lead to there being nothing but the advertising supported background music that everyone detests because only it would survive financially. We're already seeing this trend.
This statement is not true...'nothing but' implies no other music will exist or be distributed...utter rubbish.
Old 20th June 2010
  #267
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This statement is not true...'nothing but' implies no other music will exist or be distributed...utter rubbish.
Well, if you consider 'distribution' to be putting your music up on a site where 1000 people might see it, then I guess you are right. But that's not really distribution. If you want that music to actually be well known and have a chance at the wider public, then that requires money and if the money isn't there, that won't happen.
Old 20th June 2010
  #268
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Well, if you consider 'distribution' to be putting your music up on a site where 1000 people might see it, then I guess you are right. But that's not really distribution. If you want that music to actually be well known and have a chance at the wider public, then that requires money and if the money isn't there, that won't happen.
I agree...but digital has altered models of distribution.
Old 20th June 2010
  #269
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
I agree...but digital has altered models of distribution.
Which affects people who are in the business of distribution quite legitimately, but that's not what is being discussed here.
Old 20th June 2010
  #270
Gear Addict
 
Jay Dee's Avatar
 

The mindset that says entertainment should be free, baffles me completely. I never have resented buying music, or a film, or a ticket to a performance, any more than I resent having to buy a sushi dinner or a massage, etc. etc... If I can't afford to buy something at any particular moment, I wait until I can afford it. Or I do without it.

Is this outdated thinking? Did I miss something that changed along the way?

If I want to listen to music for free, there's radio. Is it just a symptom of a larger epidemic of false entitlement perhaps?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump