Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Copyrights and downloading etc


la mula

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

AIDS is a fact of life and not a hugely pleasant one, but moaning about it and wishing it would stop existing is not a solution. Nuclear weapons present a similar problem. These things exist and will not stop existing - people have to adapt to and manage the existence and associated risks of these things, or die. I'm not the only one that won't shed a tear at the eventual death of the major labels and distributors.

There are things to be optimistic about however. Piracy is performing an important role in changing the way things work and forcing people to think creatively. I think whining about it instead of embracing it and looking forward to new ways to distribute music is pathetic.

Also, no musician is in it for the money are they? ARE THEY?

Some of the sour faced bass guitarists I have seen in covers bands are probably in it for the money other than that I doubt many are. A point I was going to add to an edit in the previous post was to say that we 'could' get bogged down in these debates rather than diverting/using our energy to a more creative ends. Problems come along and get circumnavigated in time and change usually occurs. I know I jumped onto this thread with a particular argument and I stand by it but it certainly doesn't keep me awake at night nor do I jump up and down protesting about it. I have the good fortune of working for a service that keeps an eye on any changes and actively helps and encourages folk to develop their ideas and get support to do so and there are a lot of great ideas out there. Also, as a service we generally don't come across anyone, simply in it for the money. They would like to try and earn a living (make pocket money, break even) if possible though. Nothing wrong with that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if downloading kills the likes of Boyzone or whatever pish corporate parp is being fed to the young, I say its a good thing they don't make anymoney, I'd call that a revolution.

Sadly that's unlikely to happen. The very people who buy Westlife and James Blunt at Asda with their shopping are the people who are too stupid to work out how to download music. Sensible people who like decent music can work out how to get it for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly that's unlikely to happen. The very people who buy Westlife and James Blunt at Asda with their shopping are the people who are too stupid to work out how to download music. Sensible people who like decent music can work out how to get it for free.

I thought that was the reason why "piracy" was an issue...because the majors are worried about people stealing their shit.

I don't think that the likes of Domino are worried.

And, it's the morons trundling round asda that have kids who are computer savvy...remeber, they are all being groomed as we type!...I read it in the Daily Mirror....I think....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you support the infiltration of p2p networks by record labels/3rd party companies to gather information about people using them and then bring lawsuits against users? Some of these so far have included 12 year old girls, pensioners, and completely innocent people.

Ah yes "completely innocent", apart from breaking the law that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i download music in massive quantities. i dont really feel guilty. A download is not the same as a missed sale in my opinion. i download stuff that i would never ever have bought before, whereas now at least i might buy it. i dont tend to buy CDs unless its to add to or complete a collection, which is exactly what i did back in the days before i got broadband. these days i buy less because i have less of a surplus income left at the end of the month.

bottom line is, the majority of people in the world, if they can get something for free, whether through theft or not, and get away with it, would do it. and now that the technology has allowed for that to happen, things will have to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course I did, because you were wrong. You obviously misread my post. I think being *dead*, as one of their many wrongfully accused victims was, is a pretty good indication that they weren't sharing music on p2p.

It's pretty pointless if you're only reference is to exceptional cumstances. There have been cases where people have been wrongly accused of murder, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to seek murder prosecutions.

"Do you support the infiltration of p2p networks by record labels/3rd party companies to gather information about people using them and then bring lawsuits against users? Some of these so far have included 12 year old girls, pensioners, AND completely innocent people. Are you ok with intimidation tactics by what is essentially a cartel?"

What problem do you have with lawsuits being brought against 12 year old girls and pensioners? If they break the law, if they steal somebody else's intellectual property, they should face the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual property rights have been frowned upon ever since their inception. Look at Shakespeare and King Lear; his entire play drew its ideas from Geoffrey of Monmouth's personal account. I think that it is a pity that instead of seeking a compromise the law seeks rather to make examples of people (and their are several much more adequate means of prosecution). And it isn't fair! That's what the argument here consists of; two polar perspectives which would be better to take each idea and build a compromise. But if you're happy saying that intellectual property rights ought to be stiffly imposed then go for it. It just makes me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual property rights have been frowned upon ever since their inception. Look at Shakespeare and King Lear; his entire play drew its ideas from Geoffrey of Monmouth's personal account. I think that it is a pity that instead of seeking a compromise the law seeks rather to make examples of people (and their are several much more adequate means of prosecution). And it isn't fair! That's what the argument here consists of; two polar perspectives which would be better to take each idea and build a compromise. But if you're happy saying that intellectual property rights ought to be stiffly imposed then go for it. It just makes me sad.

o_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add some fuel to this particular fire:

Trent Reznor and Saul Williams Discuss Their New Collaboration, Mourn OiNK -- Vulture -- Entertainment & Culture Blog -- New York Magazine

An interesting wee interview I thought and very much relevant to this discussion.

Personally speaking, I download pretty much 90% of my new music now with some purchased through legitmate means (from the iTunes store etc) and some for free using other means. A lot of the time I will download an album on a wim and if I like what I hear I'll either purchase the real thing or buy it online. I can quite honestly say there is quite a few artists now that I would have never got into if it wasn't for the fact I was so easily able to download and listen to their music for free in the first place.

The music industry is simply going to have to adapt to all this or simply die. It can't keep blaming piracy for their increasingly inability to do good business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a personal and actually thought out perspective: Since the day that tape was invented, people have been pirating music by taping their mate's albums. It's been a fact of record label life from day 1. Did anyone really expect that people wouldn't share their music once it had evolved to digital downloads?!!? Come on!

Yes it is theft. Yes it is a breach of any number of rights. But it's hardly on par with breaking into someone's house, raping their dog and lifting their stereo.

All labels and distributors know this very well. It's the reason that legal music prices are so high. That's the real consequence of illegal downloads. It's the downloaders fault.

Musicians know full well that they'll never make a living from music sales. All musicians' real income comes from live shows, radio/TV royalties, Ad placement and public appearances for the over hyped ones.

Also despite what the bedroom engineers and Sandi Thom says, high quality recordings cost money to make and a high end studio to do it in. Don't bother arguing this point-heard it all before.

So the big labels simply have to attack p2p. They have no choice. One major consequence of cheap digital recording gear is that the demo market, which sustained small to medium sized studios has collapsed with the result that many studios have simply shut up shop.

Is this a fault of p2p? Not at all.

I think the current knee jerk reaction won't last. The big labels and players will still have the clout and the money to get their product way ahead of the rest of us. It's radio play that makes money and until that playing field is leveled, independent labels and acts won't get any more of a look in than we've had to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual property rights have been frowned upon ever since their inception. Look at Shakespeare and King Lear; his entire play drew its ideas from Geoffrey of Monmouth's personal account. I think that it is a pity that instead of seeking a compromise the law seeks rather to make examples of people (and their are several much more adequate means of prosecution). And it isn't fair! That's what the argument here consists of; two polar perspectives which would be better to take each idea and build a compromise. But if you're happy saying that intellectual property rights ought to be stiffly imposed then go for it. It just makes me sad.

The law itself doesn't seek to make an example of anyone. It seeks to protect the creator of a works' right to benefit (financially, artistically and so on) from the perspiration and inspiration he put into his work. This is only fair. If somebody breaks the law (and i think in most situations they are entirely aware they are doing so) by infringing the creator's rights they deserve to be stopped and punished for their wrongdoing. When these people are prosecuted they will of course have the opportunity to defend themselves and to argue any mitigating circumstances, if they are made an example of in public in this process then tought luck, they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place. It should also serve as a deterent to others, although I admit that in the case of illegal downloading the effectiveness of prosecution as a deterent is extremely questionable. Still, to suggest that the rights of the creator be compromised to spare the offender embarrassment is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i came onto the forum today to post a link to the article mentioned in the second post by elizabeth, she beat me to it, by a number of days it seems!

having almost sent myself to sleep reading everyone's old arguments of yesteryear, i can tell most people probably didn't read the link in question. it is a long article but worth reading and it is good because it is not so much an opinion as an appraisal of the current state of play. well, there is of course opinion in there, but really - it is stating the obvious.

there is an interesting quote that i am fond of, by R Buckminster Fuller:

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

interestingly i usually think about that quote in a futuristic sense but in the context of the music / record industry it seems to be applicable retrospectively. like it says on the interview with trent reznor / saul williams that Neil posted, OiNK filled a void that users remedied themselves, whether you agree with the legality or morality, it remains true.

it would be nice to think that the industry, including distrubution outlets, record companies, artists, etc. can evolve - i find it hard to imagine a total collapse where all label went bankrupt and all contracts with majors became void. but if that did happen, then so what? like stripey said - music on, over, through the internet is here to stay, period.

i was a heavy user of audiogalaxy (after the time of napster) but since then i have never really used the internet to download music except for one off tracks - usually old ones that i listen to out of curiosity! but i never download full albums. i am much more of an old tape style copier - i have been encoding my own mp3s since 1998 and since 2001 it changed to .ogg files, hence why my mp3 player is iaudioand runs rockbox! i borrow albums from friends and copy them, especially new ones of artists i haven't heard. i do buy cds as well, but i suppose i am an album behind buyer - i copy an album and if i like it i will buy the cd of the next album, usually.

i used to feel a little guilt over the fact that i have about 6 therapy? albums that i have copied but have never bought a cd of theirs, except for an old ep called pleasure death. i have listened to their albums thousands of times, too. however, i have been to see them about 6 times, only once in aberdeen and only once at a festival, in london - the rest travelling to edinburgh and glasgow. i reckon they have made more money from me buying tickets and remaining popular when gigging than the value they would have got from me buying cds.

if the notion of music sharing devalues a recording of music, then so what? if it encourages or even forces musicians to get out there and be actually be performers and really promote themselves, then that is a good thing. it has never been "easy" - in any day and age - to successfully make money from being a musician alone. i think if you are a musician you choose a slightly nomadic / unorthodox lifestyle, and if you want fair reward for your trade then earn it as hard as anyone else, instead of sitting at the bar nursing your spirits wondering why no-one buys your cds.

for me, when i lived in aberdeen i liked to support the bands that came to town that i liked. i saw thomas truax the second time he came to aberdeen and went to see him everytime after that. same with chris tt and gatechien. i bought cds from all of them. each of these gigs i went to were busier each time the artist returned.

i find it hard to have sympathy for RF Scott - nothing personal - maybe i have misunderstood what you have said or how you feel about these things. can i ask questions:

- regardless of the morality of music downloading, do you think prolific music downloading affects your label in particular?

- you say the margins are much tighter for local labels compared to major labels - agreed! but what is the point you are making? if you are doing it for the music not the money and you are losing money and continue to do so, then your label is a hobby - it is something you do because you love it and feel it is achieving something important if not for many people then at least yourself. if you are doing it for money and you are losing money and you continue to do so then obviously your business model needs rethinking. of course these are obvious points but if you are a business then there is no point being "good" to artists if it is at your own expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find it hard to have sympathy for RF Scott - nothing personal - maybe i have misunderstood what you have said or how you feel about these things. can i ask questions:

- regardless of the morality of music downloading, do you think prolific music downloading affects your label in particular?

- you say the margins are much tighter for local labels compared to major labels - agreed! but what is the point you are making? if you are doing it for the music not the money and you are losing money and continue to do so, then your label is a hobby - it is something you do because you love it and feel it is achieving something important if not for many people then at least yourself. if you are doing it for money and you are losing money and you continue to do so then obviously your business model needs rethinking. of course these are obvious points but if you are a business then there is no point being "good" to artists if it is at your own expense.

I'm not being rude, but for someone who has just implied that nobody has really read the link Elizabeth posted, you've missed my point entirely.

- I don't own a label

- I said nothing about local labels, just labels that aren't incredibly big. These are labels that aren't run as hobbies - people are employed by them, they do it full time. My point is, is that if everyone took the stance that 'if I download this album instead of buying it, it doesn't really matter, because one of the more dedicated fans will be buying a copy,' then these labels would be fucked, quite simple. Regardless if the label is a hobby or out to make money, they still need money to cover their costs! For a lot of people, running a label which would continually lose money with each release would be incredibly difficult to do. If everyone downloaded instead of buying, sooner or later, releases would be of poorer quality, or even worse, non existant. Sure, bands make money from playing live, but for the vast majority, this wouldn't be enough to finance a decent enough recording and promote it to the extent that happens now. The idea of a business model seems a bit bizarre too, I'm not sure I understand your point about that.

I've said it a few times in this thread - if people want to only download music without paying, that's up to them. It's when they use stupid reasons as some sort of justification that riles me. People download because it's easy, and it's there. Any notion of releases being too expensive (if you don't just walk into your neareset HMV and shop smart, you can get most new releases for 7 or so), 'labels' being greedy (using every single record label as one entity), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shavedslap

overpaid ... sing for your supper!!

It's a crazy world where music and football are higher paid than shit shovellers, what would you rather do??? should a mind numbing job be paid less than one which is a pleasure to perform??? should a ditch digger get paid every time a ditch is used or a road worker get royalties every time you drive?? Musicianship is a gift only the lucky few have and if you entertain then you'll get your supper!!! F%*k the royalties and the industry and maybe we'll reclaim music and all the corporate dross will dissappear.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a crazy world where music and football are higher paid than shit shovellers, what would you rather do??? should a mind numbing job be paid less than one which is a pleasure to perform??? should a ditch digger get paid every time a ditch is used or a road worker get royalties every time you drive?? Musicianship is a gift only the lucky few have and if you entertain then you'll get your supper!!! F%*k the royalties and the industry and maybe we'll reclaim music and all the corporate dross will dissappear.....

Funniest post in ages...:laughing::laughing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could just add one point to the issue of small labels - they're dealing with much smaller margins. An extra, say 50 sales of a record can be the difference between a record breaking even and being able to do another record or them losing money and having to re-arrange their schedule.

Now ,now that is a fair point but..........Distribution and actually getting the bands music to be heard is the biggest problem. It always has been the difference.

Funny though if you think about it. Take Sony , record label , dvd and film distributor makers of cassettes and mini discs and cdr's their players and recording hardware. There advertising is telling you that you can record and make your own c.d's. The very small print reminds you that you must own the material. What did they think we would do with the technology? Make our own little mix tapes? Keep them to ourselves? Nah they made a rod for their own back. They bitched about cassettes (ruined album covers with that stupid pirate logo) If it caused them to lose so much money then why do they keep on making the technology better and more available?

I download and i buy the album if i like it. I believe the artist should be able to make a living out of his work. Still once the touring costs and the video shoot etc , etc are taken away the poor bastards income is next to nothing. So what to do? I am not going to pay for a computer file of inferior quality. Perhaps the record companies need to be a little more selective concerning the acts they sign. 40 odd albums released a week? You need streaming and downloads to even have a small chance of being able to hear the sheer volume of music that is out there.

We love music but it is seen nowadays as a cheap commodity like tesco own brand baked beans. The record companies could save bucks if they stopped the endless re-mastering , expanded , deluxe versions of every album they own. Be like the Rhino label a download could never replace their product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The insanity of France's anti-file-sharing plan: L'État, c'est IFPI

I just found this on another forum, thought I'd share it with u guys.

Such a brilliant idea, I hope it spreads.

8-)

similar things are planned in america, it will never work though because when you violate users privacy by doing that level of packet inspection on their traffic, it incurs big costs for the ISPs and ultimately will drive p2p networks to increase their own security.

There are systems out there that can detect copyrighted material as it's going over then network, and at least one major US carrier has agreed to implement it. It's trivial to defeat this though, the p2p networks will adapt and always be one step ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...