'ISPs don't work for the RIAA' → Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing

I am sorry but I don't record all that rap or pop bullcrap because those are clients. The RIAA can do all they want but I work for a independent label and the artists I know are just regular joes who enjoy music and want to get a small income from what they make and every time I talk to these artists in person because we are just talking about something that shares our interest usually the problem's with bills arise.

Then they go off in rants saying how morons talk on the net how piracy is not an issue and that basically they are getting robbed every time without being able to do anything about it and some have just quit and gone to work for a company or hotel.

So what burns me the most is you destroying people's dreams you worthless trash.

Now, this is not a flame but did you ever think that maybe...just maybe that there music sucks? Maybe they are nothing but a bunch of talentless idiots who only has you and a few other HS students as fans, all of which have zero taste in music. Yes, I know that sounds harsh but is just a possibility. Maybe it would be more fair to say that just maybe their music is not popular enough to be profitable. Hey, I don't know them and they may be great but I have to ask the question that if they are so great, why is it they settle for an indie label and complain they are not making enough money?

Dude, thank you for being honest I did not take that offensive because I know you just said the truth and reality to me.

Yes some of them don't have talent in my honest opinion but who am I to judge? I am simply a sound engineer not an artist, so my position is different.

Yes that is a possibility, which is why to label what is piracy, to what is actual loss or simply a crappy CD is really hard to calculate if at all.

They are simply complaining, as anyone else does to release some stress. It's fair to say that a sound engineer and a artist must connect so there is a level of understand on how they want to sound and how the engineer can understand what the artists want's and make a good audio recording.

But hey, we all complain and cry and kick our feet when we are stressed out, and there are other's who simply keep it in or have a poker face like myself about it. While piracy might affect these guys to a near minimum and by that I mean people exchanging there songs across there phones via bluetooth to some class mate. I am sure if these guys actually did some kind of talent as some other clients do people will enjoy there music. Some will support other's will download.

But even in a small scale piracy is still there and what could benefit the school or us in general will be gone.

But hey, I like people who are to the point and although it may seem harsh things like that are perfectly fine and don't waste my time debating or worrying about people "hurting" my feelings.

Even as a sound engineer some of them ask me if they think they got some talent or "what I think?"

I usually have jaws dropping because I either say you sound pretty good, I like the vocals or possibly how the drummer plays and adds to the lyric or beat in general. But if you plain out suck I will most likely won't be there to waste your time and obviously your money. I am going to flat out say what I need to say.

Sure it's harsh to those who have a dream of some sort, but why make them live a fantasy that will get them no where and let them choose another dream or something else they like? To me you are hurting someone more if you just don't flat out tell them what's wrong.

Sure, people might think your an asshole you could possibly make some people cry. But the truth hurt's, and if you are going to sugar coat it and add a little extra bull (cherry) on top you might as well just save it.

But thanks for being honest.

Hey, thumbs up to you for taking it so well. I do have one confession to make though. I did actually buy a CD two summers ago. The only reason I did is because it was indie and I bought it from the musician himself after seeing him perform in person.

I'll second that. I haven't heard a CD worth purchasing in a long while. True, there are the odd singles that are belted out by bands...but not enough to pay premium retail for an entire CD. I'll either wait for a rental, or buy those bands CDs cheap at a used CD music store.

so you have to resort to name calling to try and prove your point.
People are not willing to put out the money for a CD with maybe one good song on it anymore. People want to mix their own cds with the songs they like.
The gig is up. Consumers are just not willing to buy into the old business model.
There will always be people who will want to try and beat the system. Update the business model and the losses will go down.
The consumer in the long run decides the worth of a product not the producers of the product.

Well when most CD's have only one or two good songs out of 16, whats the point? Thats whu legal music sales are skyrocketing and singles and "best of's" are doing well.
People are getting tired of the filler songs, and its the artists and the RIAA who is to blame. A good musican will spread out his or her best songs over a number of albums, that why they can get the most money over time, but the rest of the songs suck, again one or two out of 16 are good. Its crappy but thats the way it is. Anyways, legal downloads are coming along nice and I dont see piracy putting a big dent into it as the RIAA claims.

I resort to name calling by how clueless some people can be. Usually if you don't hit someone hard there are just going to continue spreading the same crap over and over.

Also, consumer's can choose what they want, mix how ever they want. But not share it amongst a group of friend's. You can have a copy of your music for you. If you make a copy, give it to someone else, you are file sharing.

I never had a problem having a group of friends listening to one CD. Because it's all in one copy, but if you want to take it home, we want our money for that copy you just gave freely away.

The only issue here is you giving a exact copy of our product to someone else.

Now, the RIAA trying to milk you by having to pay for multiple copies on the same song for each device is another story.

Also if the consumer in the long run decides if the product is worth the cost. Then he she will buy, if not then they go empty handed, not with a copy of our product.

If supermarkets would get their heads out of their @sses and lower the price of steaks I wouldn't have to send my crackhead girlfriend in to shoplift my dinner. [/sarcasm]So does that mean you have heard music worth stealing? [/sarcasm]

You just went off on your same old tangent. You just refuse to see what is really going on. New business model is needed.
Not going to hash around the same old weak arguments with you. I think you post just to post.

The thing is you have to understand why copyright law came into being. It was put in place to ensure that artists are not exploited by people who profit from their works. The whole point of copyright law is to promote the proliferation of the arts. Not turn it into a commodity.

Now legally there is a very big grey area when it comes to file sharing. Namely because the work is being shared instead of sold (distributed for profit). The RIAA has pushed that doing so is copyright infringement, but copyright law doesn't make that an absolute. Fair use still dictates that non-profit distribution is allowed, but since the actual law mentions only educational purposes the RIAA runs with it and says if you aren't a school you are pirating works. They have yet to create a legal precedent that backs up that claim.

Since we are talking about an art form, which is meant to be proliferated even by copyright law's own admission, it is expected that it would be shared with no money changing hands (including royalties to the copyright holder). The fact that artists get to make money selling their wares without fear of others cutting them out of the profits is in of itself groundbreaking. You would be amazed at the abuses that happened before copyright law. As a matter of fact if artists back in that time heard about the bickering going on about people simply spreading their work around in a charitable fashion they would call the practice of suing them madness.

EVERY industry experiences losses, so it's disingenuous that the record companies would try and seek some sort of retribution for theirs. Especially when these losses can hardly be blamed on file sharing (I have found some interesting info showing the record labels themselves were to blame for much of those initial losses). The cost of doing business is accepting that potential sales will slip through the cracks.

Besides haven't you considering the possibility of the increase in sales due to sharing? Most independent labels can't get enough of the exposure their artists get from file sharing, and have the increased sales numbers to prove it. If file trading is killing album sales then why are current artists continuing to break sales records? Why are indie labels getting the best market gains they ever had?

One thing I have noticed with smaller artists who complain about P2P is that they normally aren't making good business decisions to begin with. They aren't maximizing their exposure at a time when it's easier than ever to do so. They aren't making their works readily available and/or not making smart moves in regards to organizing the business side of things. The bigger artists only seem to complain because their record label makes P2P the scapegoat for their lack of support for the artist.

In the end it's not the sharing of works that is the problem. It's the freeloaders who take advantage of the system (and they have been around LONG before the Internet). It's the businesses that fail to adapt to meet the needs of their own market as well as continue to have the exploitive mentality that makes them think they can squeeze every nickel they can. It's the lack of action taken from those who can truly capitalize on the technology. Remember what your parents used to say: sharing can be a good thing.

Nope. Just wait for the CD price to drop like a rock, or pick it up later at a used music store for cheap. One track doesn't justify a full retail CD cost. However, I might be willing to pay a couple of bucks for it.

Or they can legally copy said music off the raido, if it airs.

Because I believe if I am to use CD-quality music, I feel the need to pay for the CD it comes on. However, there are very, very few CDs worth the price of a full retail purchase (ie. $15). Most CDs only have one...maybe two tracks worth listening to, and that isn't worth the price. I simply wait for the market to take over, and pick myself up a copy of said CD once it hits the bargain bin at a music store.

As for why I don't use legal downloading? I think paying similar costs for lesser-quality product loaded in DRM isn't worth my dime. CDs have always been fine, and I don't need to worry about how many of my computers/devices the music's on.

How about the "best of" and anthology type CDs? You get nothing but the hits and at a good price. That is the only way I buy CDs.

If I post just to post I would not be here for the past three year's. Frankly as you can see I got a job and thing's to do. I only came here to share my point of view and it offends me when people speak as if they know it all.

Sure a new business model is needed, iTMS is a great example of that change. But frankly I am not going to waste my time arguing because you think what I am saying is pure fallacy.

Believe as you wish, but to break this down to the simplest form is that in fact you are stealing no matter which way you look at it.

There is a huge difference between radio quality and CD quality. But yes you can legally copy, I believe there was a huge war just like this but it was in regards to people recording radio on tape and calling it stealing.

This could or is the same issue all over again but probably for CD. If music is an art, or a form of expression it should have not been a business model to begin with.

That's about a 50/50 crapshoot, honestly. Sometimes a "best of" can be awesome, and have literally their "best of" songs. However, others will stray with the CD, again only including 2-3 tracks of good music, and the rest filled with the "best of" crap music filler.

Again, if a CD's worth the price, I'll buy it. For the other one-track temptations, I'll just wait for them to be offered at a better price.

I dunno. Many of these digital tuners put out "close-to" CD sound for me. Maybe my ears aren't picky enough, or my speakers not adequately fancy, but the difference between a good FM feed and a CD are small. There's certainly a difference, but the price is right for the quality you get. Much more so than a $15 CD for a single desired track.

I never said that. I said what I said because you just gloss over the points I tried to make and just go back to saying what you have already said.
I also do not believe in stealing.
Until there is a law that is clear and fair to the consumer as well as big business and there also is in place a fair business model ,I personally do not believe they are stealing.

CD quality is a direct recording and there is no compression which is why it sounds better and yes there is a difference because it's never been compressed and straight from the mixer.

Each file is saved in .wav or .aiff and burned to CD in that form. The compression you put is when you import the CD in MP3/AAC format.

Radio is 64kbps audio. Maybe for the average joe there isn't much of a difference but for a audiophile there is.

You can create your own iMixes on iTunes as long as the music is in the store and do it that way.

They go by "Christmas Essentials" or "Trance Hits" created by users. The business model provided by iTMS is flexible and the audio is cheaper because it's compressed and delivered online.

I am pretty sure you did say a new business model was needed.

Or are you simply referring about how I "think" you believe what I am saying is fallacy?