how-to block ads
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to bent
Re: Only ONE needs to WIN...
I am a musician. I have been writing music for quite a while now. I know many musicians, especially unknowns who rely on every penny of sales, what endorse file trading completely. Keep in mind for independent labels and artists there simply is no viable outlet to promote their music outside of their own local scene. File trading has actually lead to strong sales for these people.
The thing about intellectual property (or just about any business) is there is a level of "giveaway" that has to be accepted. Even before file trading people would pass CDs to each other and make copies. The end result? Some of those people liked what they heard so much that they bought the album for themselves. So in turn sharing brings gains to the market.
Alternately you will always have those people who will only get what's free for them. They have always existed and always will. In the past those were the ones who would tape off the radio or a friend's record. Now you have Kazaa, but the end is the same for them. They would rather have teeth pulled then spend money on IP. You can't stop this. It's just the cost of doing business.
Luckily the "try before you buy" crowd outweighs the "you'll take my money out of my cold, dead hands" crowd significantly. This is evident from the actual sales gains in the industry in spite of large increases in P2P users. User benefit by finding new music they wouldn't be able to in a Top 40 controlled media environment. Artists benefit because their music is heard when it wouldn't be and more album sales came from it. Retailers and record labels benefit from increased sales as well.
So there is a perspective that says file trading is actually beneficial to the music industry. The major labels don't agree with that. Not because they are losing money, but because they are losing control over which acts get exposure (like the ones they have complete IP control over). I have studied this issue a while and my stance hasn't changed after considering all the arguments. | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
4 edits | SRFireside you have it absolutely correct. I listen to a lot of streaming radio, what is offered on the Clear Channel controlled airways these days is not worth my time. If I hear something new I will first see if the artists I am listening to have a website. Most that do also have sample tracks available for downloading. If I like what I hear I will purchase it. There are other musician would do not have a website in these cases I will try to find them on a P2P so I can listen to some of their music. If I like what I hear I will track down where their works are for sale. Before I purchase anything I make sure the artists are in control of their music and not slaves to some fat cat label.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
| |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
2 edits | reply to SRFireside
And I agree with you that file sharing and word of mouth on the internet can be a very good way to get exposure and recognition for an indie band. But if you are an already successful artist, and are already making money from the sales of your art, there is no reason that you shouldn't be protected from people making unauthorized copies of your work.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away.
I'm not a fan of major labels, or the shit music they put out. I support my local music scene by buying the CDs and merch of bands that I like. If I got a copy of one of their albums off of the 'net, I'd feel bad that I was taking cash out of their pocket.
said by SRFireside  :Alternately you will always have those people who will only get what's free for them. They have always existed and always will. In the past those were the ones who would tape off the radio or a friend's record. Now you have Kazaa, but the end is the same for them. They would rather have teeth pulled then spend money on IP. You can't stop this. It's just the cost of doing business. The big difference now is that it's not people letting one or two of their friends copy a CD onto tape. It's people uploading copyrighted material hundreds if not thousands of times. Each time they upload a song to another user, they are creating an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. That's illegal. Not only is it illegal, IMO, it's also wrong.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Transmaster
said by Transmaster :SRFireside you have it absolutely correct. I listen to a lot of streaming radio, what is offered on the Clear Channel controlled airways these days is not worth my time. If I hear something new I will first see if the artists I am listening to have a website. Most that do also have sample tracks available for downloading. If I like what I hear I will purchase it. There are other musician would do not have a website in these cases I will try to find them on a P2P so I can listen to some of their music. If I like what I hear I will track down where their works are for sale. Before I purchase anything I make sure the artists are in control of their music and not slaves to some fat cat label. Theres also a big difference between an artist making a few tracks from their album available for free download to promote their art, and someone taking their whole album and making it available for free download.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. | |
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to bent
What I constantly want to know is why anyone feels that an artist/author should be paid infinite times for their x hours of work, while everyone else in any other job gets paid once for their x hours of work?
Can you explain that?
Why not just have companies that want to sell music or whatever pay the musicians a salary or hourly wage like everyone else? And then sell the products like we sell toothpicks or whatever.
--
Opera 8.02(Build 7680); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 2.7;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 8/28/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to bent
said by bent :But if you are an already successful artist, and are already making money from the sales of your art, there is no reason that you shouldn't be protected from people making unauthorized copies of your work. Alanis Morissette
Paula Cole
Janis Ian
Ani DiFranco
Scott Page (Pink Floyd)
John Barlow (Grateful Dead)
Tom Petty
Brian Eno
DJ Spooky
David Bowie
They Might Be Giants
Terence Trent D'Arby
Ice T
Chuck D
Beastie Boys
Green Day
Pearl Jam
Sonic Youth
Phish
Smashing Pumpkins
Ween
REM
Heart
Spearhead
Colm O'Riain
These are just the names I could come up with at the moment of well-established artists who support P2P. It's not just the struggling artists who recognize the value of file sharing, but famous artists as well.
said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. The profit motive is far from taken away. People are still buying albums. Lots of them. Sales have been on a steady rise in spite of plenty of outside interference much more quantifiable than P2P. Just people are passing songs back and forth it doesn't mean the industry is onto collapse. That's the way the RIAA thinks.
said by bent :I support my local music scene by buying the CDs and merch of bands that I like. If I got a copy of one of their albums off of the 'net, I'd feel bad that I was taking cash out of their pocket. Good for you. No. Great for you. That's the way it should be. Regarding file sharing you have to look at it this way. If you never heard these bands before, found a few songs online, and liked what you heard... what is stopping you from buying the album? Over 80% of my CD purchases over the past five years are a direct result of music I downloaded from P2P networks. Just because a song was shared doesn't mean a sale is lost. On the contrary many indie labels would tell you about the massive increase in sales due to P2P.
said by bent : Each time they upload a song to another user, they are creating an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. That's illegal. Not only is it illegal, IMO, it's also wrong. The illegality of it is in question and so far the RIAA has yet to make a solid precedent for individual file sharing. Regarding morals that's solely on your ethics system. For me file sharing in of itself is not a problem at all. I love it when someone downloads one of my songs. It means the music is being spread. Now those people who never buy albums or go to concerts or do NOTHING to support the music they love... they are wrong. Those people who share thousands of songs, not caring about sharing the art and just doing it for bragging rights, they are wrong too. Like anything P2P can be abused. I'm against abuse. | |
skipon11
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to SRFireside
Well put SRFireside Finally I see some intelligence here! | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jp10558
said by jp10558 :What I constantly want to know is why anyone feels that an artist/author should be paid infinite times for their x hours of work, while everyone else in any other job gets paid once for their x hours of work? Can you explain that? Why not just have companies that want to sell music or whatever pay the musicians a salary or hourly wage like everyone else? And then sell the products like we sell toothpicks or whatever. Because we live in a capitalistic society where free market plays frst and foremost. Sounds like you want to live in a socialistic or communist society where you are given what you need and told what you get and what job you will perform and for how much too right?
Technically, you are 101% wrong. The artist made a single song, yes, but they sold it on a CD which is what is being sold. The song is protected by copyright. Microsoft and Apple spend X amount of time making software, should they be told how many times they should sell it ebfore it's free? No. They are able to see as many coppies as they want.
Your argument is flawed, to say the least. | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to bent
said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. As an artist and band member my "soul" motivation is to create art in a musical form, expressing nothing more actually than thoughts put into lyrical form, and my approach to creating art does not involve a profit motive.Cover the cost of gas back and forth to a gig,thrown in a couple of beers.I'll jam for free.
Playing on the local club scene.We practically play for free after expenses are met and the money split 4 ways.Yet there is no greater thrill or rush than getting the crowd physced and turned on , Songs that we play are free to whoever hears them. One can do what one wishes with the music.We'll create and play more 
quote:
then there is much less incentive for people to create that art.
IMO that is a myth, let me explain. If your only incentive to create art is money.Then that so called artist does not have much artistic ability, more of a love of money than music.I'm not impling musicians should not make money on their work.
One wanting to make a career out of an art form, with $$$ a main incentive should look elsewhere for a "job".Almost all great bands that became famous didn't do it for money, yet fame,fortune and stardom was a by product of art that just happened along the way.
Musical inspiration of bands they listened to was more influential than the prospect of money.Major acts today, didn't think they would be as succesful as they are.They didn't imagine it in their wildest fantasies.Today bands are getting into music thinking of money and fame first.
Then thinking secondly of the vehicle that can get them there.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
ChrisDAT
Google Keyword Compsysnyc
join:2002-02-26
Hollis, NY
|  Bingo
The "value" that a record label puts on "their" work is all about 99% of the "push" (read that money) that they have made in terms of advertisements, videos, and other "help" to promote what amounts to 99% talent-less artists (if you can even call them that).
Those "artists" (and I use that word oh so lightly), are not going to stand up to what amounts to a real sugar daddy for them, because they know that if they have to stand on their talent alone, they would not get very far at all.
What does that have to do with this discussion? -- everything -- the things people are downloading they would not pay for were they not offered for free, moreover, they can listen to them on the radio all they wanted and record them all they wanted were an easier (?) method not presented (p2p).
* I wonder what'll happen to Lil-Kim -- (I'm thinking Mike Tyson, not Martha Stewart).
I also have this crazy idea that the whole copyright issue has seen it's best days -- lyrics and music are copyrightable, a performance is not, and should always remain the intellectual property of the artist, no matter who "recorded" and promoted it for retail sale. This is the 21st century for crying out loud...
*** Change will come. | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan :said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. As an artist and band member my "soul" motivation is to create art in a musical form, expressing nothing more actually than thoughts put into lyrical form, and my approach to creating art does not involve a profit motive.Cover the cost of gas back and forth to a gig,thrown in a couple of beers.I'll jam for free. Playing on the local club scene.We practically play for free after expenses are met and the money split 4 ways.Yet there is no greater thrill or rush than getting the crowd physced and turned on , Songs that we play are free to whoever hears them. One can do what one wishes with the music.We'll create and play more quote:
then there is much less incentive for people to create that art.
IMO that is a myth, let me explain. If your only incentive to create art is money.Then that so called artist does not have much artistic ability, more of a love of money than music.I'm not impling musicians should not make money on their work. One wanting to make a career out of an art form, with $$$ a main incentive should look elsewhere for a "job".Almost all great bands that became famous didn't do it for money, yet fame,fortune and stardom was a by product of art that just happened along the way. Musical inspiration of bands they listened to was more influential than the prospect of money.Major acts today, didn't think they would be as succesful as they are.They didn't imagine it in their wildest fantasies.Today bands are getting into music thinking of money and fame first. Then thinking secondly of the vehicle that can get them there. You're right. I should have said "Intellectual Property" instead of "Creative Art." Remember that this isn't just about music, but IP of all kinds.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Because we live in a capitalistic society where free market plays frst and foremost. Sounds like you want to live in a socialistic or communist society where you are given what you need and told what you get and what job you will perform and for how much too right?
Funny ... because file-sharing via P2P is a LOGICAL OUTGROWTH of INNOVATION, the MOST DESIRED biproduct of CAPITALISM and FREE MARKETS.
Meanwhile, YOU are arguing for LABOR TIME THEORY in this particular instance, which is a RICARDIAN, and also MARXIAN notion.
What do you know, Fiberguy, you're wearing pink by accident! | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Wow! So, in your theory, which is wrong too, is that people can make money based solely on innovation? That may sound good to you and others on the surface, you are still wrong.
In this country, you can NOT profit off of the back's of others just because you were "innovative." Hey - I don't like that fact that car dealers close at 6pm on Friday & Saturday, and also they close on Sunday in my state. I think there is room to grow on evening sales on the weekend as well as Sunday sales. I am going to be innovative and start late night car sales in my area/state. Should I go plant myself on these car lots during the later hours and Sundays and sell the dealer's cars becuase I am being innovative by doing evening and late night sales? Is this innovation? or is it free market? Please tell me. I want to be right here.
Analgy - I came up with a new idea, and sold/did something with a product that wasn't mine to sell in the first place. Music sharing? The idea of distributing intellectual property that wasn't mind to do so in the first place.
In the world of music and movies? Want to know how to make it legal? You transfer the file to someone else, and destroy any copy that you have based on the purchased original. If you GAVE the song to other person and you no longer retain the original, then you can get away with music sharing, or music swapping. This is no different that if you actually sold your used CD or DVD movie.
Just because someone made a bi-product, ie: file sharing, on the internet to transfer or "share" songs doesn't make it right. Just because Napster found a cool use of technology doesn't make it free market. The owner of the product didn't give anyone the right to distribute the intellectual property in the first place.
Also, *I* didn't argue your so-called "labor time theory", actually I responded to some one else's argument that only so much time was put into the product that it's not worth what the artist makes on the product. The fact remains there is that it's not up to me or you or anyone else to decide what we will pay for a product directly, BUT, we can make the decision to buy or not. If enough people decided not to buy a product, THEN then the market place will dictate the price or value - but it's not the individule.
Wearing pink by accident? Nope.. not me. Sorry, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking, and yours is not the popular voice of this country. I hate to tell you this, but your way of thinking MAY be the popular voice here, but in the real world, it's not. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Should I go plant myself on these car lots during the later hours and Sundays and sell the dealer's cars becuase I am being innovative by doing evening and late night sales? Is this innovation? or is it free market? Please tell me. I want to be right here.
MEH! Wrong. You're not selling cars when you share music. No profit is lost directly. The person still has their original tapes that they paid for when they recorded. If they don't, they got duped.
These are profits yet-to-be-made which may or may not have been made if file-sharing did not exist. Your analogy is incorrect and wrong. The nature of art invalidates your very argument as I have proved in each of my posts here.
Want to know how to make it legal?
Are you arguing law or ethics? I mean, you're wrong on both counts, but which is it?
If its law ... well ... copyright was originally intended to make sure no one PROFITED off of a particular person's particular idea for a particular period of time. No one is profiting off of file-sharing. And thus, copyrights' intent is not being violated. Rather ... CORRUPT record labels are violating the spirit by purchasing those ideas through contracts that defy the intent of copyright and price gouging.
If its ethics, see all of my other posts. File-sharing is not morally wrong and may even be morally right. At worst, it is lying, but I am still thinking about that one.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking, and yours is not the popular voice of this country. I hate to tell you this, but your way of thinking MAY be the popular voice here, but in the real world, it's not.
Consensus, thank God, is not fact. Otherwise, the world would've been flat when the majority thought it was.
You did argue for LTV, which is not MY so-called theory, its Ricardo's so-called theory.
The fact remains there is that it's not up to me or you or anyone else to decide what we will pay for a product directly, BUT, we can make the decision to buy or not.
We're making the decision not to buy it. We're downloading something included within it that happens to not cost anything to make (music). If an artist was dumb enough to pay someone to record it, that's their own fault. Thusly, innovation has made the CD market moot. It hasn't made the music market moot. People can still sell their artwork. People can still sell tickets to their live show. Just like it worked for thousands of years.
When I support an artist, I am doing just that, supporting the artist. The artist is selling something essentially valueless in a capital system (see my other posts, I have proved this with logic). I say "hey my friend, I support what you are doing and here is some money even though you are giving me nothing of capital value and this is a wasted investment from the economic perspective."
sold/did
These two things are hardly extensionally equivalent.
The difference between you and I is a truly support artists. And that is a big part of why I support file-sharing. Apparently, you support corrupt people selling an outdated, worthless product. Which is why you don't support it.
Please read my posts before replying ... you will learn that is labels who allow the initial digitalization of artwork anyway by sending it to radio and via people who work for the label who "leak" the albums.
the labels wanted a cheaper cost-of-production then analog everything, so they made CDs. Well, they got a cheaper cost-of-production, all right. But instead of the profit gouging they were hoping for ... it did the opposite. Fixed things to the true cost-of-production. Sucks to be bloated. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| You aren't worth my time. I gave up when I even gave you the example how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost.
Live in your dream world. Go ahead and justify your desire to be a thief. You have proven NOTHING that is valid except in your world.
Don't worry, I won't respond to your posts any more. Have a good day. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative.
You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by broadbander :how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative. You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. No, I am not going to let you get away with that one and again try to put words in my mouth. I won't reply to you any more because you MAKE NO SENSE! I have read your other posts on this site and there you make no sense either. You are ALL OVER THE BOARD and can't stick to the point. Have fun! | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by fiberguy :said by broadbander :how a car, a physical piece of party is no different than intellectual property. Who are you to decide when profit is lost. |
Its pretty easy to decide. When someone goes from +14. to +13. b/c someone takes something from them and actually decreases their profit. When someone is at +14. and could potentially MAYBE go to +15., then that's speculative. You've stopped replying because you know you're philosophically, logically, ethically, economically and legally wrong here. And that's okay. Nobody's perfect. A few people have whooped me before. No, I am not going to let you get away with that one and again try to put words in my mouth. I won't reply to you any more because you MAKE NO SENSE! I have read your other posts on this site and there you make no sense either. You are ALL OVER THE BOARD and can't stick to the point. Have fun! Interesting. A sumbitted arguments in this specific instance that follow traditional ways of writing logic that have existed for at least one thousand and eight hundred years, and yet, they make no sense?
My reducto de absurdity, which is probably the hinge of my argument here, is hardly a new form of logic. I'm making sense in a way that people have made sense for 18-plus centuries. Don't like it? Study logic and come back with your own forms to prove my notions absurd.
___________
I think
That which thinks, by its very nature exists
___________
If A and B then ...
C ... I exist
Pretty simple stuff, my friend. | |
|
