Quote:



I don't believe you actually think much before you write these things down...

You seem to be entirely unable to establish a logical and complete argument... leave the poor guy alone.

And no, if you think the major labels are looking out for the best interests of the musicians, then you're living in a dream world.

Aman and LawnGnome, I can certainly see both of your points -- despite the fact that neither seem to be able see each other's.

Aman - LawnGnome never stated that labels are looking out for musicians' best interests, merely that they represent them. This is often the case, as I understand representation is part of a larger package including marketing, distribution and publishing that fully signed artists receive.

LawnGnome - Aman has consistently sided with established legal precedent in the United States, which gives the RIAA permission to prosecute file traders, but not to prosecute those who have archival copies of music. The RIAA is not a legislative body, and as such has no influence other than lobbying power. I don't feel you've addressed his central point -- filesharing is illegal in the United States because it violates an established copyright of the material contained on the disc. Maybe you feel that you have, but it hasn't been clear to me.

My only issue is with Aman, really. I find it impossible to believe that you cannot profit on discs sold for less than $15. I professionally recorded an ep last summer, and the 2000 copies I've sold at $5 a pop, in addition to the touring opportunities those CD's have netted me, have allowed me to break even one year later. true, an EP constitutes five tracks, but twice as many would not double the price of the disc to me. Even if it did, I could sell them at $10 and break even in the same amount of time. Now, your acts might not tour, which would justify the higher price, but many major label acts that do tour also sell discs at $15. The actual replication of those discs was very reasonable with a full color 8 sheet insert in barcoded and wrapped jewel cases even at my quantity. The per unit cost obviously goes down the more you order, with many large run discs costing less than $1 per shipped to their final destination. I can't accept that $15 is still a reasonable price for CD's, but people still pay it. I guess if you can get it, more power to you.

Quote:



The acts I produce and record play gigs often. Being in Manhattan, there's always opportunities for them around here, and the sales of my products alone cannot guarantee them a sustainable career.

I should point out that it's not $15 to the record stores, but rather $15 for the website (MSRP). Part of my justification for putting a $15 tag on my product is for a few reasons: 1. I take very good care of my musicians, comparatively. The works are the intellectual property of the musicians, not myself. The album is guaranteed to never go "OOP" just because of poor sales. 2. The overall product. I use higher quality jewel cases and inserts than most (they have been proven to withstand more damage than the regular jewel case, and the inserts/booklets are not subjected to nearly as much moisture damage or other such damage). I will spend between 6 months to a year perfecting the sound quality of the product, and accomplish this without resorting to lazy mega-label tricks like huge amounts of compression. I've found that my products cost more to produce, per unit, than the average record label's. 3. (And most importantly) My demographic is a lot smaller than most other labels. I sell, produce, record, and write, very edgy music - stuff that only a very niche crowd buys. But, by keeping my prices generally competitive to more accessible labels and the quality of my product higher, I can guarantee that I will earn the proper amount that I need to continue producing.

It should also be noted that, again, my productions are not my main source of income. I do not look to earn a large monetary profit on my work, because I find that the work I do in this regard does a lot to further my name and my network of partners and friends' names. The work I do in the music industry is very loose and I basically consider myself an avant-garde music entrepreneur. Thusly, I could easily charge more if I were more in for the profit of the industry.

With the release of a full album you have gathering legal, marketing, distributing, and other such costs, which cause the price to not simply double relative to that of an EP. You wouldn't see me advertising an EP in the back of the latest issue of The Wire, after all.

Quote:



It seems like you go to great lengths to earn the money you charge for a cd, and that's excellent. I retract any possible hostility in my former statement, as it appears that your pricing scheme is well substantiated and, perhaps, justified.

Given the work that you do to ensure that the material you produce and distribute is of a high quality, can you defend majors who sell heavily compressed cd's in bifold paper booklets for the same price?

Quote:



You have a basic misunderstanding of what rights a copyright actually give someone. Copyright law only guarantees that an author has the rights to the reproduction, distribution and public display of works. It doesn't stipulate that an author can determine who may use their works privately. Dr. Dre or Metallica can't sue me for listening to their works. When someone downloads something, they are not stealing any right to copyright because the original copyright holder is still the sole holder of those rights. When you download something you're infringing on their copyright to reproduce the work, but under no circumstance are you stealing that right because they still have it.

Thats not to say that I think downloading is morally justifiable. If the copyright holders want to be dicks and not share their music thats their prerogative. They should know though that the current business model they are using to distribute their works is vastly outdated.

james, whether it is legally precise or not, stealing is really not ambiguous merely because the original owner retains that which was "taken;" the violator assumes the copy right in his act of downloading or uploading. Copyright is the law's best response to stealing as we all understand it; for hundreds of years, in fact. Have we ever found Shakespear's work confusing?

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

This is reversed but appropriate. One can steal while gaining nothing as much as one can be stolen from while losing nothing. The copyright distinction is rather a moot point, then.

It's stealing.
Regurgitating lame arguments in an attempt to justify it changes nothing.
It just makes you a deluded (lying) thief.
Take responsibility for your actions.

Quote:



James, I think you are mistaken. Two distinct copyrights are applied to recorded material on a disc - One applies to the physical product (the art, packaging, disc itself, etc.) and the second applies to the intellectual property contained on that disc. You correctly identified that copyright laws enable the holder to reproduce, distribute, and display their works as they see fit, but fail to see that most copyright holders do not license their material to be distributed over P2P. If you obtain material in an unlicensed fashion, you are circumventing their copyright. You are stealing it simply by demonstrating that they don't have it.

Sharing your music in internet is legal in my country, Spain. Remember that law is very different depending on countries, and USA has one of the more restrictive copyright laws in the world (for most of europeans, your DMCA is simply crazy and a serious blow to your liberties as consumers). So please, do not identify sharing music with stealing it. In your country may be, but certainly it is not in all the world. And I am talking about democratic world.

edit: and yes, there are specific legislature and court rulings saying that music downloading is legal in Spain, as well as there are in other countries.

Quote:



Music is different. If you think of buying music as the same as buying a car, I don't think you really love music. Paintings are also different. You can see a painting before you pay for it - you can't listen to an album before you pay.

Quote:



Ok then what should I do? Only listen to the same 100 albums I can afford?

Quote:



So you don't think it's unfair that you have to pay for crap music you'll never listent to? Maybe you do, but I certainly don't have the money to pay for bad music. If you think it's a dud, then you wouldn't believe that the band deserved your money for that album? Am I right?

The radio? **** me, that's genius. I want to hear music, not someone talking. And I want to hear the music I choose. I also want to listen to whole albums, not single songs.

Again, you're a genius! I'm sure the library's going to have a HUUGE range of CDs for me to listen to!!!!!! I guarantee you couldn't find 5% of my music collection in any library.

Rhapsody? Yahoo? Come on. We obviously listen to different music, because I couldn't find a quarter of the music I listen to in those things. And it would be in bad quality.

All your suggestions have 2 things in common. The first is that they're legal. The second is that none of your suggestions even give any money to the recording artists. Both the library and radio are free, and if those legal download services are so cheap the labels are going to get **** all money anyway, and the musicians even less.

Quote:



...Have you ever been to a live concert? You cannot compare watching a live video with seeing a band in the flesh. That's just ****ing stupid. And concert tickets are definitely not awfully expensive - you're making a big generalisation there. And plenty of bands offer their live videos on the internet FOR FREE would you believe?!!1! It definitely doesn't stop people from going to their concerts.

You ****ing idiot! T-shirts aren't art. There are plenty of these "fellows" who sell unauthorised merchandise already and I'm sure there have been for years. It still doesn't effect merch sales. People who buy expensive t-shirts at concerts do so, knowing that their money's going straight to the band.

After reading your posts I wouldn't believe you if you said you actually loved music.

Quote:



I suspect that music is different because it’s easier to take without paying for it. It’s easier to rationalize taking it without paying if there is no material object associated with it.

I guess you don’t like my example…what about someone who makes copies of a book? Does that work better for you?

I do love music…it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that I love it more than you, but that’s neither her nor there. I just don’t use my love of music to rationalize taking something without paying for it. I also don’t use it as an ad hominem slur to prop up an already weak justification for doing something that I know is ultimately wrong.


Quote:



Yes…but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Perhaps your love of music would inspire you to make a better living, so that you could afford more music.


Quote:



If you don’t like the CD you bought, then sell it…it’s not that complicated. It’s part of the bargain that you strike when you buy a CD…there’s no guarantee that you’re going to like it at all, or than you won’t grow sick of it in rather short order. I have churned at least three times the CD’s that I currently own at my local used CD stores, or eBay, or LaLa…if I don’t like a CD, I don’t keep it and move on.


Quote:



Those are your legal options. If you want more than that, you will have to pay for it. That’s not fair, but life’s not fair…we are not entitled to all the things we want just because we want them and can take them without paying for them.


Quote:



Yes, but concerts are expensive, and it’s art, and people shouldn’t have to PAY for that if they want it but can’t afford it, right?

You’re missing my point…you said (to paraphrase) well, they’ll find other ways to make money other than the CD sales. Well, I’m just making the point that one could potentially find ways to experience a live concert for free as well. That would, of course, also deprive the artist of revenue, and I was wondering whether you had a problem with that.

I guess my example doesn’t resonate with you…try this one: suppose that you could make exact copies of concert tickets and get in for free. Would you still buy tickets, I wonder? Or, knowing that this would deprive the artist of his money, would you simply attend the concerts for free as well?? I mean, you do love music, and that would make it OK, right?? Maybe you’d only pay upon exiting, and then only if you thought the concert was worth the money??

So…what would you do?? I have my suspicions, but I’d sure like to hear your answer.


Quote:



This might be a good time for you to check out the “Rules/Terms of Use” link at the bottom of every page. If you can’t discuss an issue without personal attacks, then don’t discuss that issue.


Quote:



Do you REALLY believe that sales of t-shirts by folks who pay nothing to the band don’t affect sales of t-shirts by the band? That’s pretty naïve if you ask me…it sounds like more rationalizing.

I am sure that, as you state, there are folks who insist on buying only the genuine article, so that the band can make their money. Of course, I’m sure that there are folks who buy CD’s instead of copying them for the same reason.

So…would you buy the genuine article, or the much cheaper unauthorized copy that gives no money to the band. Oh, and I mean the t-shirt, by the way.

Quote:



After reading your posts, I’m in no position to make such a determination about you…nor frankly, are you about me. This is just an ad hominem slap attempting to prop up an argument that says that because you love music that you are entitled to take it without paying for it…and, since I don’t take it without paying for it, I clearly must not love music. As I’ve shown, that “logic” can be applied to all shape and form of things that may be taken without compensating the artist. This is ultimately what happens when you take something offered for sale without paying for it.

BTW - I’d wager a lot that I’ve got more music that I own than you have in total. Not that we could draw any conclusions from that.

Heh, I take back what I said about you loving music, but I just get that feeling from your posts. I just realised we both have Chet Baker avatars.

Again, I think making copies of a book is kinda different to music, since musicians have more ways to make money (eg. concerts).

I'm making the best living I can right now. I'm a first year electrical apprentice so right now I'm earning about $200 US a week working full time...so I could buy maybe 10 CDs a week if I spent everything I earned. I don't see why I should be deprived of music now because I earn so little. In 5 years I'll be earning more than 10 times that amount and I'll be able to spend more on records. But I'm sure I'll still download music because I'm not interested in reselling crap records, and I doubt I'll still be able to afford everything I want to listen to.

Yep those are my legal options, but ignore legality. If I'm listening to CDs in a library, I'm not paying anything and the musicians aren't getting any money. So what's the difference between me downloading an album, and borrowing it from a library? The only difference is the law.

Like I said before - watching a live video can't compare to actually being at a concert. I'm sure you know that. They won't deprive artists of revenue because they're very different experiences. And again - not all concerts are expensive.

Hmmm hard question. I would pay for the ticket. :3

You're comparing t-shirts to cds, which are completely different. T-shirts are material things and music is...music. People who are real fans of the band will buy their records, go to their shows and buy their merch (if they can afford it). I'm sure 100% of the time a real fan of the band will pay the extra money for the genuine shirt, or not get one at all.

I was not saying that because you don't take music without paying for it that you mustn't love music, but I was saying that if you can't understand the need for poorer people to download music then you mustn't love music. Now I have a question for you - what if you or a relative suddenly got sick and you had to pay medical bills, and had to sell all of your music to pay for them. How would it feel to not be able to listen to all your records? Would you then start downloading music?

I'm sure you do have a lot more music than me. Hopefully I'll own that much music one day too. Sorry about the name calling and assholery of that last post, I'd just gotten some bad news before that post and was not in a good mood. (but c'mon, t-shirts and records are totally different!)

Quote:



Caveat emptor and deal with it, I suppose.

Quote:



How about because you can't afford it? Either get a job that pays more or do without.

What's with people today and the whole entitlement attitude?

Quote:



When you borrow from the library, the artist has been compensated for the copy for the music that you are borrowing and listening to. When you download an illegal copy, the artist has not been compensated for that copy.

Earlier, you made a point about how the artist is not compensated by music on the radio. This is flat-out wrong. Radio stations must pay royalties to broadcast copyrighted material.