Uno3whO
join:2002-07-23
Sandy, UT
| reply to boogie74
Re: That's a funny, if ineffectual way around it
First of all, I know that people make money off of these concerts...that is precisely the point I was trying to make. If you would have read the comment I replied to you would understand that. I think that you are a sucker, too, for complaining all the time about P2P networks. Just because you aren't able enough to benefit from the P2P networks doesn't mean that it is wrong for others to use it. How do you think the music gets there in the first place? From people BUYING the albums!! I don't think it is a big deal for people to trade and share their music when millions of people are buying the overpriced cd's everyday anyway. And, I didn't call him a sucker for buying music, I buy music. I called him a sucker for being totally oblivious to the fact that these millionaire artists make millions from each tour. Get your shit straight before you respond. |
|
cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
|  reply to ravital
HR>I'm glad we agree. It's not an "entitlement" if that's what you mean. At the same time it's hard to ignore the fact that so many of us would gladly pay for it if there were a legal way to get exactly what we want for a reasonable price. [/QUOTE]
Thank You Very Much!!!! Nuff Said!!! |
|
cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74  :
said by Cyron :
Do you know how much a Madonna concert ticket costs? If I support an artist, I do it buying concert tickets, and there's now way in hell I'm paying $85 dollars for a general admission ticket.
Despite what you wish to believe, the money from concert ticket sales isn't cash that goes to the artist. Bands go on concert for one thing and one thing only: to promote record sales.
Did you honestly believe it was just coincidence that concerts always tend to focus on ONE album- the latest one out? And they play the CRAP that some hate! Oh, they'll play some of their best stuff to motivate the audience- but out of the 10-12 songs (at most) that are played, at least 7 to 9 of them will be from the same, newest album (usually the title of the tour, no less).
In closing, concerts aren't for making money from ticket sales- they're for promoting record sales.
Boogie
let me add to that by saying "BS" you want us to think they go to all that trouble, travel, and frigging headache for nothing??? you think we are as old and feeble minded as she is? get a life |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to Uno3whO
said by Uno3whO :
Don't give me that bull---t about the money not going to the artist. They do not drive around the country for free, out of the kindness of their heart, to only promote their album sales. If that was the case, then why do we pay for the concert? Why are more popular artists more expensive than others? Where does that money go? I think you're comment is ineffectual, if anyone's, and you can continue paying ridiculous prices to help promote this bitch's new album....sucker!
Are you assuming that the venue gets nothing, that the tour sponsor gets nothing, that the local technical crews are volunteer and that the band is paid nothing from the venue itself?
My point is simply that bands have concerts to promote themselves and sell albums- not to sell tickets per se.
I find it odd that you call someone willing to pay for music instead of stealing it (who also has differing musical tastes than you) "a sucker."
Boogie |
|
Uno3whO
join:2002-07-23
Sandy, UT
| reply to boogie74
Don't give me that bull---t about the money not going to the artist. They do not drive around the country for free, out of the kindness of their heart, to only promote their album sales. If that was the case, then why do we pay for the concert? Why are more popular artists more expensive than others? Where does that money go? I think you're comment is ineffectual, if anyone's, and you can continue paying ridiculous prices to help promote this bitch's new album....sucker! |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
The rest of my subsequent post was directed at the droves of people here on DSLR that hold the opinion that they are entitled to obtain music without paying for it because of the following empty if not completely false reasons:
I'm glad we agree. It's not an "entitlement" if that's what you mean. At the same time it's hard to ignore the fact that so many of us would gladly pay for it if there were a legal way to get exactly what we want for a reasonable price. |
|
ComputerGod
join:2002-10-13
Marietta, GA
| reply to spaijkull
I like to try and then buy as well. I will download a song or two or five, if I like what I hear, the album comes into my collection. If not, the songs are deleted and life goes on. I was recently turned onto some old Theatre of Tragedy, downloaded it, then bought that album. Had I not sampled the new album, I would have very mistakenly purchased a brit-pop cd which is a vast difference over the metal they played in the album I now own. Evolution is not always good. |
|
spaijkull
Speed Is The Key To A Good Sexlife
join:2001-10-25
Sweden
| reply to EFudd
I hope we can copy the f*ck out of all music out there right now. I dont think music is a commodity like any other and the bands that are put together just to earn a lot of cash deserve to go under (Spears and Nsync come to mind). If I want to pay for music I will. I am not paying first and listening later. Last year I spent 600 dollars on Cd's that I liked. I try - then I buy - if I feel it is worth the money. Hopefully we can end this blatant commercialism and get some real frickin artists that produce music for fun and have a real job on the side. I am also extremely happy to hear that Madonnas website got hacked today. Haha, she picked the wrong group to mess around with.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum |
|
sharkbyte0
join:2000-09-07
Lansdale, PA
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
It's wrong, you know it, so quit complaining about reasons why you should be allowed to do it.
Read carefully. I'm only going to waste my time once.
Intellectual -1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Property - 1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes
Since you are such the model of intellectual rigor; explain to the audience, in pratical terms; how an individual, or an entity, could own an intellectual concept, otherwise known as an idea?
How long could an individual, or entity prevent this idea from being stolen and being reproduced, once the idea is presented publicly?
How long can an idea, especially a popular one, be contained or restricted, when presented publicly?
What political and economic systems can possibly be successful in limiting a publicly expressed idea for an indefinite period of time?
Answer these questions, and I might just continue wasting my intellectual property on you.
Have a good one.
Regards
Shark... |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to boogie74
quote:
My response to these attitudes and more is simple: Yes, people as a whole will try to get away with as much as they can at any one given point of time. Does that mean that it is still ok?
Boogie
sure download away the riaa has done stuff to drasticlly tip the scales in thier favor to keep getting repeatative pay. for instance the ability to sample a track created 20 years ago. yeah you gotta pay for stuff like that.
the riaa is defunct and the people know it. now trying to get the goverment to understand it is a different animal.
it's a game of cat and mouse and the riaa is trying to stop the game. they play these games in software piracy as well. they change key check alagorythms froms version to version or they update the methods to make it stronger.
it's done all over. my tax's should not be tied up in courts and stuff due to the riaa trying to maintain it's strong hold on the people who create music. these people like madonna are nothing more then corporate shills. they are told what to say and when to say it in fear of their cash cows being slaughtered for meat.
it's all in the game of life. it's a cat and mouse game. if the riaa wants to protect it's media go right ahead but be it known people won't stand for it and will stop buying it if they get out of hand.
did microsoft stop selling win xp when it was under scrutiny for it's piracy protection ??? no they stepped up and acted on what they new. so they let the updates take care of it, while also being non invasive now.
imagine that a company actually trying to protect it's cash cow the right way by building security and not tieing up peoples money in court. why doesn't the riaa do the same ??? why spend our money we can spend theirs.... |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by boogie74 :
So get real, grow up, and realize that despite how much you think that the RIAA and the artistic world is a combination of the Nazi Third Reich, the Taliban and the Iraqi Baath Party, they are all looking to pay for the food on their table and they deserve a living too. It's wrong, you know it, so quit complaining about reasons why you should be allowed to do it.
All that because I had the nerve to correct you and point out that many performers do concerts in order to make money from concerts, and not just to promote an album or any album? Don't know what cross you bear, but I don't want any part of it.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-20 02:43:28]
Actually, your post happened to be the one that I hit "reply" on. I wasn't intending my post to be directed at you for solely responding to me.
I agreed with your post. The rest of my subsequent post was directed at the droves of people here on DSLR that hold the opinion that they are entitled to obtain music without paying for it because of the following empty if not completely false reasons:
1. Music today sucks.
2. Artists make no money from album sales anyways
3. P2P networking would expand DSL deployment.
4. The RIAA is a huge international conspiracy to fill our minds with "Boy Bands" and "New Pop Culture"
5. CD's are way overpriced at $30-75 per CD (I buy CD's for about $11, btw)
6. "I don't like all the songs on the CD, so until they find a way to sell me songs at $0.50 per song, I'll download them for free"
7. Madonna sucks.
My response to these attitudes and more is simple: Yes, people as a whole will try to get away with as much as they can at any one given point of time. Does that mean that it is still ok?
Boogie |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
So get real, grow up, and realize that despite how much you think that the RIAA and the artistic world is a combination of the Nazi Third Reich, the Taliban and the Iraqi Baath Party, they are all looking to pay for the food on their table and they deserve a living too. It's wrong, you know it, so quit complaining about reasons why you should be allowed to do it.
All that because I had the nerve to correct you and point out that many performers do concerts in order to make money from concerts, and not just to promote an album or any album? Don't know what cross you bear, but I don't want any part of it.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-20 02:43:28] |
|
HarleyDMan
De Oppresso Liber
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Woodville, AL
| reply to boogie74
I guess when you look at it purely at the root of the problem, it's basically a "right or wrong" thing according to the law of the land, not according to your conscience. As long as there is a way to "beat" the system, some will do it and justify it anyway they can whether it's right or wrong, legal or illegal. As soon as technology comes up with a way to control the media swappage over P2P, there will be another venue available to beat the system all over again.
The point of it all is whether you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning and sleep well every night based upon what you did in between. Human nature will never change, nor will the power of money of those who wish to control it. All the pontificators arguing the supposedly finer points are just wasting their time.
--
*Stan* | Dell 2.4 Ghz, 256 SDRAM | XP Pro with all maintenance & SP | 3 XP Home Clients | ICS | 4.0.3.9 SPB | Linksys BEFW11S4 | 1 Belkin USB 802.11b Wireless. | 2 CAT5e Clients | |
|
room200
join:2000-09-08
Chicago, IL | reply to Maxo
And actually, the voice IS an instrument. It's in the family of woodwinds. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
So get real, grow up, and realize that despite how much you think that the RIAA and the artistic world is a combination of the Nazi Third Reich, the Taliban and the Iraqi Baath Party, they are all looking to pay for the food on their table and they deserve a living too.
Boogie
P2P isn't squeezing any artist dry of any money they would get from record sales, concerts, endorsements or whatever. The RIAA has no case regarding file trading making them lose money. As a matter of fact indy labels are getting a nice and steady increase in sales. Regading concert tours yes an artist with a large label will make tons more touring than they would on CD sales. Your milage may vary with indy labels as they tend to have a higher royalty rate for the artists and, as you said, touring venues may not be as profitable depending on the act.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
ComputerGod
join:2002-10-13
Marietta, GA | reply to EFudd
In light of that, the rest of her work should be considered charity. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to ravital
Let's all check reality with what we're talking about here. Ticket sales for concerts at a local bar or college auditorium for an independently recorded band along with concerts from HUGE name, old material bands like the Rolling Stones, Barbara Streisand, Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, Paul McCartney, and Barry Manilow are NOT the same as album promotion tours.
But you are claiming that it is ok to obtain music by downloading it from a P2P and reimburse the artist by going to a concert once or twice every 5 years instead.
When a painter paints something, he/she does it to sell it. Whether that artist hires someone to promote the art or he sells it himself on e-bay is not the point. He would NEVER tell you that it's ok if you sat down and copied it for free (no matter how talented you are). He would never allow you to make millions of color photo-copies of it (even at your own expense) so you can distribute it to others (neither friends nor strangers). His motive is to SELL it to you for a PROFIT. He may go out on "tour" and show his art to people at museums, art shows, etc, but this is in an effort to SELL more of his art!
You can complain that you only like HALF of the painting that he made (the other half is ugly and you plan on cutting it off). But he won't just give you the corner of the canvas you happen to like. You HAVE to buy the whole thing. After that, you're welcome to cut it up as you like. But you AREN'T welcome to make copies of it to distribute to your friends- because they shouldn't have to pay for the art too.
So get real, grow up, and realize that despite how much you think that the RIAA and the artistic world is a combination of the Nazi Third Reich, the Taliban and the Iraqi Baath Party, they are all looking to pay for the food on their table and they deserve a living too. It's wrong, you know it, so quit complaining about reasons why you should be allowed to do it.
Boogie |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to MrTangent
I hate to break this to you, but U2 made over 75 million in touring last year alone. Paul McCartney, playing less than 20 shows made over 20 million (that's over a million per show profit). Ticket prices for the biggest acts average well over $100, so bands like U2, the Rolling Stones, and Madonna make a killing. Even bands whose concert tickets average under $40 dollars (Widespread Panic, The Allman Brothers) make millions touring.
I know the ticket venues and Ticketmaster get a large chunk of ticket sales and concessions, the artist still profits much more from concerts than record sales.
You were right that touring is used to promote album sales. Which is why the RIAA includes mandatory tour details in all of their contracts. The recording industry doesn't pay a dime for touring anymore (most tours now get a corporate sponsor), so any boost in record sales is pure gravy for them. |
|
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| reply to MrTangent
Madonna once said, once you make so much money it looses its meaning. I learned a valuable lesson that day.
Now she does this. I have again learned a valuable lesson. Money still has meaning to her.
--
Do you SetiAtHome |
|
ComputerGod
join:2002-10-13
Marietta, GA
| reply to MrTangent
Just because she is already a millionaire does that mean she should cease her pursuit of generating revenue? Yes, she is being rather stupid for taking this avenue in dealing with her bottled up angst against those who do not value her music as much as she would have them to. It is also a bit ridiculous to suggest that someone who has already accrued large amounts of money should become careless as to how the product of their life's work is acquired. I do think this tactic will have an adverse effect on those fans who are on the receiving end of her beratement, but that is obviously an acceptable risk to her.
I hardly think you would like for it to be said that you are already making 40,000.00/year, and are able to meet your expenses so you don't "need" any further compensation. Is anyone really in a position to say that X amount of income is sufficient for any one human, and anything above is negligible? I know that personally, as my income has increased, so have my tastes and standard of living. Even Bill Gates can live beyond his means. |
|
