Author Topic: Downloading Music and Rights  (Read 67558 times)

judd stephens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #100 on: April 22, 2009, 06:48:29 PM »


In order to more clearly illustrate the problem, imagine a situation where a CD is released and Citizen #1 buys one CD, duplicates it, and sells the original to Citizen #2, who also duplicates it, and sells it to Citizen #3, and so on. 

Eventually, every citizen in the country has a copy of the music, and every single one of them can say "but I paid for a copy," and yet only one copy has been purchased new, generating revenue for the artist, label or rights-holder.  Does this make clearer how duplicating the music before passing it along is just as detrimental to the artist, as if everyone just downloaded it illegally and never bought anything?

Assuming that the intention of citizen 1 is to have a copy, and recoup part of his money, if he can't duplicate it, then he probably won't sell it.  Hell would he even buy it then in the first place?   And if he can't sell it, what makes citizen 2, who's obviously looking for a bargain, buy the new cd? 

What about this cool used record store 9dragons mentions... how many cd's and labels would he have found and consequently supported if people decided to keep that music rather than sell it, knowing they shouldn't copy it? 

What if I buy a new Hypnos cd, copy it, resell it so I can use that recoupped money to help finance the purchase of another new Hypnos cd?

It looks like if anything downloading is much more detrimental in that people aren't going to wait for the used cd they want to come down the pike.  Unlucky citizen # 2000 is probably just going to download rather than wait for that process to unfold...maybe you're talking about if this existed but the other didn't kind of hypothetical here...


judd stephens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2009, 06:52:38 PM »
Very interesting. I guess that makes sense on a strict legal /copyright level. It somehow seems weird though. It feels (there is that word again) as if one should own the data for oneself if one legitimately purchases an album, even after the hard copy is subsequently sold.

If you don't like the CD enough to keep then why would you want a copy of it? ??? From my understanding when you purchase a CD and you make a copy of it to another format you are media shifting, which is legal. The idea is you make a copy so you can play it in the car or your ipod. If you then sell the CD or vinyl, or cassette, then you are not entitled to have that shifted copy of it because you no longer have the original media.

Hmmm, so if I lose the original copy or it's stolen, or wears out, then I have to erase the shifted copy?  Guess so...

michael sandler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2009, 06:56:07 PM »
Is listening to some music that you're not going to end purchasing because you didn't find it good enough that much of a crime? It could be considered as a "spiritual crime" perhaps, but if some guy meets Steve Roach tommorow and tells to the man "Hey, I've downloaded most of your music and I was deeply affected by it, it changed the way I see music" do you think he'll be mad at him? I don't know, I can't speak for the man.

I can't really speak for Steve, but I feel pretty certain he would be shocked to have someone tell him this.  If someone told me they were "deeply affected" by my work, but they had never bothered to purchase a single CD, I'd think here's a pretty selfish person who not only doesn't purchase most of their music, but doesn't even support the work that really means something to them.

I honestly CAN see how people can rationalize pirating the newest Britney Spears album or whatever... she's already a millionaire, how much of a difference will it make if I buy one copy, the major labels are giant evil corporations anyway, etc. 

I can even see how people can take a "try before you buy" attitude, downloading a lot of material and buying legit copies of the stuff they like most.

But the idea that people can rationalize pirating the music of an indie artist or label that's bringing in so little money as to barely break even, one of their favorite artists or labels... how does that rationalization go, exactly?  The $12 is more important to me than it is to him, besides they didn't actually SEE me download it so there's no proof, anyway the record industry is so corrupt you have to fight against ALL commercial releases, or what?

I know you were just offering an example, but I'd say you probably shouldn't walk up to Steve Roach or anyone else and say "Your work deeply affected me but not enough that I was willing to sacrifice anything at all in order to obtain it."

I recall a fan asking Neil Peart a question in Modern Drummer magazine, and in the course of the question the fan said he had bootlegged a concert, and Neil blasted him with both barrels. He did answer the question though.

Just my 2cents on the meaning of art and what that has to do with any of this: nothing. Steve Roach's music is product. That's not a bad word. It simply means something produced with the intent of generating financial profit. So it is no different than a box of cereal. You have to pay for Froot Loops, and you have to pay for The Magnificent Void.

I hope no one takes offense that I refer to Froot Loops as "product."  ;D

MikeS

judd stephens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2009, 07:05:35 PM »

I recall a fan asking Neil Peart a question in Modern Drummer magazine, and in the course of the question the fan said he had bootlegged a concert, and Neil blasted him with both barrels. He did answer the question though.

Just my 2cents on the meaning of art and what that has to do with any of this: nothing. Steve Roach's music is product. That's not a bad word. It simply means something produced with the intent of generating financial profit. So it is no different than a box of cereal. You have to pay for Froot Loops, and you have to pay for The Magnificent Void.

I hope no one takes offense that I refer to Froot Loops as "product."  ;D

MikeS

Nope, it's far more offensive that you compare The Magnificent Void with Fruit Loops... ;D

michael sandler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2009, 07:16:34 PM »

I recall a fan asking Neil Peart a question in Modern Drummer magazine, and in the course of the question the fan said he had bootlegged a concert, and Neil blasted him with both barrels. He did answer the question though.

Just my 2cents on the meaning of art and what that has to do with any of this: nothing. Steve Roach's music is product. That's not a bad word. It simply means something produced with the intent of generating financial profit. So it is no different than a box of cereal. You have to pay for Froot Loops, and you have to pay for The Magnificent Void.

I hope no one takes offense that I refer to Froot Loops as "product."  ;D

MikeS

Nope, it's far more offensive that you compare The Magnificent Void with Fruit Loops... ;D

I knew I was gonna get it for that...

jkn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2816
  • cake or death? cake please.
    • View Profile
    • Relaxed Machinery
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #105 on: April 23, 2009, 07:05:59 AM »
But what about Fruity Loops?   Oh - wait - they changed it to FL to sound more legitimate at some point... ;-)
John Koch-Northrup .: jkn [AT] johei.com .: owner / artist .: http://relaxedmachinery.com .: http://twitter.com/jkn .: http://flickr.com/johei

LNerell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
    • Personal website
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #106 on: April 23, 2009, 09:18:05 AM »
Hmmm, so if I lose the original copy or it's stolen, or wears out, then I have to erase the shifted copy?  Guess so...

Good point, I have no idea. Lots of gray area here.
Take care.

- Loren Nerell

mgriffin

  • Hypnos Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7188
  • Life is a memory, and then it is nothing.
    • View Profile
    • www.hypnos.com
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #107 on: April 23, 2009, 09:32:55 AM »
Hmmm, so if I lose the original copy or it's stolen, or wears out, then I have to erase the shifted copy?  Guess so...

Good point, I have no idea. Lots of gray area here.


I would say no -- in Judd's example, he purchased a copy and owned the rights to it.  If the physical disc is lost or stolen but he still has the mp3 rip, I'd say he retains the right to keep listening to it -- even to burn an audio CDR from the mp3 files if he wants.  Why not?

That's very different from selling the CD used, but keeping a high-quality rip or a CDR copy.
[ Mike Griffin, Hypnos Recordings ] email mg (at) hypnos.com | http://hypnos.com | http://twitter.com/mgsoundvisions

cromag

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Just slightly off-topic
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #108 on: April 23, 2009, 10:22:30 AM »
Hmmm, so if I lose the original copy or it's stolen, or wears out, then I have to erase the shifted copy?  Guess so...

Good point, I have no idea. Lots of gray area here.


I would say no -- in Judd's example, he purchased a copy and owned the rights to it.  If the physical disc is lost or stolen but he still has the mp3 rip, I'd say he retains the right to keep listening to it -- even to burn an audio CDR from the mp3 files if he wants.  Why not?

That's very different from selling the CD used, but keeping a high-quality rip or a CDR copy.

I am not a lawyer, but this is an area of some interest to me.

First, the RIAA has, in the past, argued that you don't have the right to "media shift."  That argument was moot -- they already fought and lost that battle in the '70s, with cassette recorders -- but a major part of their market was (re-)selling CDs to people who wanted to "upgrade" from perfectly good LPs, so they gave it a try.

In an interview on NPR last year (I think -- I can find it if I have to) they argued that if you had made MP3 or other copies of a CD, and the CD was subsequently lost or stolen, then you should have to destroy your copies.

I think that copyright law trumps them on this.  In this case it seems to me that "media shifting" is the same as making an archival copy.  The purpose of an archival copy is to safeguard your investment if the original is lost.

In the case of theft, it's even more clear.  You cannot lose title to property through theft.  If you bought the CD it's your CD -- even if it's stolen, it's still your CD and you have a right to the music.



As a hobby (which I haven't had time to pursue nearly as much as I'd like) I record LPs to digital files, clean them up, and burn them to CD -- and some songs wind up on my MP3 player.  I keep the source LPs safely in my basement, just in case.
Science News, Vol. 175, No. 9, April 25, 2009, page 1 -- "New mapping of the human genome shows none of us are normal."

Wayne Higgins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
    • Oenyaw
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #109 on: April 23, 2009, 11:06:06 AM »
So, if I buy a CD for $18, copy it to a blank disc, sell it for $3, keep all of the receipts, can I keep 5/6 of it? ;D

OR....
If I buy a cd($22), burn it and then sell it($6), and then buy it on vinyl($28), should Eric Clapton send me $16.

You know I have owned in my life time (2 examples) Grand Funk Railroad "Closer to Home" on cassette, cd, and now the three copies on vinyl and King Crimson "Larks Tongues in Aspic" on 8-track, cd, remastered cd, cassette, and now the three vinyl copies.  I could argue that if Capitol records and Atlantic (WEM, EG, ect) would have gotten the pressings right the first time, I wouldn't have to keep buying them.  Nick Mason once said that a possible reason for "Dark Side Of The Moon" selling so well was that many people who bought it wore it out and had to buy a second copy.  Should they all get their money back?

Besides, it's not like Mark, Don and Mel got more money from the multiple copies.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 11:15:42 AM by Wayne Higgins »
So, I'm a "Sr Member", huh?  In June it's SENIOR DISCOUNT TIME!!!
http://oenyaw.net/
http://oenyaw.blogspot.com/

9dragons

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • The Viatorium Press - Dedicated to the Weird
    • View Profile
    • The Viatorium Press - Dedicated to the Weird
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #110 on: April 23, 2009, 12:09:03 PM »
I am curious to ask the musicians out there, which of the following two situations do you think is preferable (if you had to choose one):

1) I buy the hard copy release when it comes out, new, paying full price (direct from the artist or otherwise), decide I don't want to keep the hard copy for whatever reason, then rip it and sell the hard copy.

OR

2) I pay for a legitimate download from Itunes, Amazon, etc.


I don't know what it's like to be a musician with an album out (though I am working with a musician to put an album out, so I will get an idea very soon), but from the perspective of the musician, I think I would prefer option number 1. It gets somebody buying my actual physical album, then subsequently gets it into a place where it might not normally be found (like a used record store or someone buying off of Ebay thousands of miles away), thus hopefully sparking more awareness of and interest in the product. Like a mini advertisement.

To answer Loren's question, I usually sell and album when I no longer like it or listen to it, or if I am in need of money (and sometimes in need of money because I spent too much on music). There are occasions however when the packaging is so crappy, so little effort has gone into it, that if I like the music enough I might rip it and sell the original. In this case, the artist has put so little effort or care into the packaging, why should I care? And why should I keep such an ugly thing around? I could have just bought the download but at least in ordering the hard copy I gave myself the choice. After all, on the net, we don't get to really see the packaging before hand.

Again, I just don't see this resell thing affecting ambient or underground music in a big way.

From the consumer perspective, I most definitely prefer number one. I have bought a maximum of two downloads in my life, and though I like both albums, I never listen to them because a download just isn't really real to me, as I listen to my music on the stereo, so like to go through the ritual of touching the actual album, opening up the packaging, instead of just looking at an anonymous burned cdr. The way I see it, I pay somewhere around $15-$20 for a hard copy cd, including tax and shipping and whatnot, and if I sell it for whatever reason, I get $1-$4, which means I have "lost" $10-$15. So if I ripped from the original, then sold it, I am still paying more than if I had bought the download. Now, Mike's dystopian vision of everyone buying everyone else's used copies and the artist getting nothing kind of made sense to me, but needs further clarification (and since Mike is a label owner and distributor, I should probably defer to his experience...), because  in the case of ambient or other underground music, I see the extra promotion of the cd going back into the retail stream as outweighing the detriment that another person buying the used cd (thus no more money for the artist) would cause.

I have actually sold some of my ambient cds to the local record store, and there are a couple specific ones that still haven't sold after I think two years. I think most people buying ambient or underground music are buying it from the online distributors.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 12:17:53 PM by 9dragons »

Paul Vnuk (Ma Ja Le)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • Paul's Myspace
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #111 on: April 23, 2009, 12:24:00 PM »
Well...#2 is legal, #1 is not. I guess I don't understand why everyone is trying to look for loop holes and justification.

If you want a hard copy buy the CD...if you only want a digital copy buy the download. Seems pretty simple to me. When it is ambient music or something I consider that sound quality is worth it, I buy the CD. If it was something like say the new U2 or Depeche Mode album, I BUY the 256k files from Amazon or iTunes.

Paul
"I liken good ambient to good poetry ... enjoyable, often powerful, and usually unpopular" APK

ffcal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #112 on: April 23, 2009, 12:58:36 PM »
I don't have a problem with #1, and could see how it might be a form of indirect advertising.  I think there is danger that putting too many restrictions on what consumers can do with their music may ultimately backfire by leading to even more declining sales (e.g., the DRM debacle).  I agree, though, that it is a trade-off in that having more used copies of your CD circulating around may ultimately put a dent in your CD sales.  Still, I think the greater risk of lost sales comes from the circulation of unauthorized digital copies.

I am fortunate that there are great record stores in the Bay Area like Amoeba, and still like go there to look for obscure CDs.  I think it's somewhat impractical to expect someone to hang onto a CD if they only like/want to keep a single track or two (and/or dislike the actual packaging).  Also, what if they simply want to throw the CD away and go digital?

Forrest

judd stephens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #113 on: April 24, 2009, 12:04:07 AM »
Well...#2 is legal, #1 is not. I guess I don't understand why everyone is trying to look for loop holes and justification.

If you want a hard copy buy the CD...if you only want a digital copy buy the download. Seems pretty simple to me. When it is ambient music or something I consider that sound quality is worth it, I buy the CD. If it was something like say the new U2 or Depeche Mode album, I BUY the 256k files from Amazon or iTunes.

Paul

This is gonna be one of those crazy posts...  if you hate math, you're gonna hate this for looking complex and boring.  If you're a mathmetician, you're also going to hate this because it's gotta be flawed somehow ::)  enjoy  ;D  Just read the bottom little paragraph if nothing else.

You already mentioned that it's okay to question a law in a democratic society, and looking at the consequences of breaking the law is one way of doing that.  Where is the harm being done of breaking this law?  Who can benefit from breaking the law?  Can they be compared in any way?  Those are some of the scenarios that being touched upon. 

There are other musicians here who seem to have a more nuianced opinion than just "the law is the law and it should never be broken unless it's life or death".  Some have conceded that if it doesn't harm the musician, as in affect their sales of music, or "doesn't hurt the scene", it's okay, and the intent of the law is not betrayed. 

I'm still not sure if ripping a cd and selling it is harmful.  There seems to be so many unknowns and variables that it's hard to assume one way or the other that it's good or bad. 

To make a really simple math equation- this is going to be difficult for me, but simple in terms of trying to solve the bigger problem, please bear with...  Let's say I as Citizen 1 have  90 dollars to buy cd's, and I decide to buy new cd's, rip them, then sell them.  For simplicity, let's say each new cd costs 12 dollars, and every time I re-sell, I gain 6 dollars back - sometimes it really would be more, or less, but probably more.   In this case I also reinvest the 6 dollars back into new cd's- I had 90 dollars to start with, and any money from sales go back to buying new music. 

On this model, I can buy 14 new cd's, until I run out of money.  Now let's say I follow the law and don't rip the cd's, and therefore I don't sell them (because if I can't rip and sell, I have to hold on to the cd in order to archive).  If I only buy new, without recoupping money, then I can only buy 7 new cd's with my budget.

Okay now to citizen 2, who has bought some of my used cd's.  Let's say citizen 2 likes bargains, and has a smaller budget, so every other cd he buys is a new, then a used, and so on.  His budget is only 60 dollars (this is over a period of time most likely- I'm not sure that part matters right now).  In the buy-rip-then resell model, citizen 2 resells both the new cd's and used he bought, recovers 6 dollars for the new, and 4 dollars for the used, so he gets 6 dollars back on his 12 dollars, and only 2 dollars back for the used.  Based on this he's able to buy a total of 7 new cd's (and 6 used).  If he didn't rip and consequently didn't re-sell, his budget would allow him to buy 5 new cd's.

As you can see the 2nd tier was a much lesser margin of new cd's bought, and the "further down you get", the situation maybe reverses itself, so that following the law generates more new cd's?  I can't really fathom that part.

Basically the bottom line is this:  if you follow the law, your budget can afford less new cd's, but there's less used cd's in the market, which encourages a higher percentage of new cd purchases.  However, breaking the law by ripping a newly bought cd and reselling it generates money to buy more and more new cd's, but also fills the market with more used cd's.  Which is worse if any? 



 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 12:13:41 AM by judd stephens »

Wayne Higgins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
    • Oenyaw
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #114 on: April 24, 2009, 06:41:34 AM »
 :D

As a musician who did put out an album, and then find a copy of it in a used rack:  the first feeling was, "Damn, I guess they didn't like it that much", followed by "I'm glad they didn't just throw it away", finally "I hope someone else buys it."  Once, I even autographed the used copy so that the guy in running the used store could tell people it was autographed and sell it.  So, from this musicians standpoint, once it was bought, it was bought.  If they copied it before they sold it, so what.  What pissed me off was to find that the guitar players little brother made a few cassette copies of it and gave it to his friends.  I ate his diner one night before he came home for that!

One more question.  Lets say you buy a record from the SST label (let's say Husker Du "Zen Arcade", produced by Spot (who never received any money for his work and lives in a mobile home outside Austin) and sell the cd after burning it.  The SST label no longer exists due to those "four guys from Ireland" who decided they didn't like a particular single that was released by Negativeland on the SST label, consequently putting SST out of business.  Do you send the money to Negativeland, Spot, or those four guys who used to live in Ireland but decided to move out of the country when the laws of the country changed so that royalties were subject to taxation.  Why do I put up such a ridiculous post, because it's a ridiculous subject.  Believe it or not, people who buy cds faithfully sometimes have horrific money problems and are in a situation where they need money for groceries, and they have decide to sell a bunch of cds.  Before they sell the discs, they make copies so that they can listen to the music at a later date and then, by some good fortune, they get a bit of money, get out of the bad financial situation and buy back hard copies of the discs that they loved but were forced to sell.  Jesus Christ, its the record companies that are going to make the money anyway.

While I'm ranting, why don't the companies offer the people who bought the cd when it came out a percentage buy back policy when they remaster the cd because the first printing sounded like shit?
So, I'm a "Sr Member", huh?  In June it's SENIOR DISCOUNT TIME!!!
http://oenyaw.net/
http://oenyaw.blogspot.com/

Ekstasis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #115 on: April 24, 2009, 02:15:15 PM »

I thought I'd respond to this one, because I'm ostensibly almost part of your generation (I'm 32) and because I find this kind of talk of alternate ethics and cultural/technical appropriation sneakily narcissistic and worth bringing up.  I'm not going to harp on the ethics issues because this part of the argument is clear: if you don't conform to common laws, even if you're right (and I don't believe you are), you are still "jumping somebody else's train" so to speak.  You shouldn't steal what doesn't belong to you, and the end does not justify the means.  The art you are creating and the enjoyment you are having are based on somebody's labor—labor they expected to get paid to do, to feed families and pay taxes and drive compact cars to work to support their art.

I think the more interesting thing to discuss is a not-so-subtle implication of entitlement (which is absolutely generational), and also the argument that these things should be made free (software, the world's music supply, etc.) so that you can create art with total freedom and artistic abandon, and thereby advance art and human culture through your own efforts.  Am I misreading what you're typing there?

Ignoring the fact that protecting intellectual property (and I'm not talking RIAA here) has undoubtedly benefited more artists over the years than it has suppressed (first example that springs to mind is the terrible case of the creators of Superman), there is the plain fact that all artists prior to today's generation managed to somehow create great art, music, films, and culture without every part of culture at their disposal (and ignoring that limitations might create better art than a lack of limitations would).  Perhaps we are moving more toward an art culture of synthesis, where you take preexisting things and make new things from them ... somehow, I don't think so.  Guys who sample old records are still making rap and techno, etc.  Not exactly great leaps forward in terms of advancing art now that both have been around for 20+ years.

What baffles me a bit is the implication that this New Art to be created is so Necessary and so Important, in this age of cultural overproduction (let's admit it—do we really "need" as much ambient music as we already have?), that it is somehow okay to overthrow the current structure where people are able to earn money for their artistic pursuits—which may not work, since the advent of the internet, but which is able to change to work better over time, if run properly—to have that imaginary art to come that will change the earth?  And you need 8000 LPs and 15000 books to do it, and you need them for free?  Surely, with talent and effort, 8 LPs and 12 books would be enough ... how much did Picasso have?  And how much of those 8000 and 15000 can you truly digest and use, given that you, like most of us, are probably not a genius?

Really, it just sounds, to me, (and I don't know you guys at all, of course), that you only want to do what you want to do, you want instant gratification, and you don't want to have to take the necessary steps (paying for music and software and media) to do so.  I think this magical future art is just an excuse—I'm still waiting to see it.

You sound like a true capitalist, music = money and money = music right ??? :D
Instead of focus so much of the money, maybe it is better to focus and put the energy and time to create good music ???
You all capitalists on this forum all agree how wonderful the capitalistic system and the free market is, yet you have no concrete solutions to the problem ? :)
you really think you can force people to buy for music again, when they have got it all for free for that last 10-13 years ? hehe in your dreams, file sharing is here to stay, and there is no turning back.

Cheers :)

*snore*

Ekstasis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #116 on: April 24, 2009, 02:23:32 PM »
I also resent the woah is me attitude of, if I did not "steal" software for free, I would not be able to create music. Boo Hoo, if it is that important to you, get a second job for 6 months and save up to buy the software. If someone wants to play guitar is it ok to steal one as it is their fundamental right to be a musician? You are right, this is 100% generational. A generation who has grown up never being told no, or that there are rules or boundaries or ethics other than your own. In know this is a generalization, but sadly not far from the truth.

...and Bill please start a new topic as I am very interested in your discussion.

PV


Yet another capitalist, who think money is the solution to all the problems in the world.
For me it is obvious, that we do not have the money to buy what we want, is an political problem.
Since I have no money to buy anything that I want, and considering I only live ONE time, I will really do not give a fuck.
Since I have no money to give these capitalists They will not lose any money on me.

I think it is right of him to download music software, I do the same.  And since he create and release music he does still contribute to the society even though not in dollar bills.  Maybe if the world did allow us to have more money we would actually be able to buy what we want ?
The whole capitalistic and monetary system is not made to make us rich, it is only made to enslave nations...




Ekstasis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #117 on: April 24, 2009, 02:33:34 PM »
Here it is: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

http://tiny.pl/zc8v

Obviously, personal limits come into play, too.  Do I really "need" 2500 sci-fi paperbacks?  Why, yes, yes I do.   ;D

What a total crap philosophy, when it comes to music the more the better.  Thanks to file sharing my music taste is more precise and personal then ever,  cause the immense music to choose from. What you are actually saying here is that we should slow down the musical development?

But of course if we speak about music and development there comes to a point where music might become uncreative and mass produced.  However this will happen sooner or later, think in 200 years, will "creative" music exist then ? or will all ideas have been tried ?
I think the human expression in music is limited to a certain degree. I think in the future, I am not sure the main driving force as it is now is to create "new" music that has never been done before, I think it will more be a more personal non-compromising human expression, where we do not give a fuck about being "creative" or creating something "new", where we only care about the pure expression and flow of the music, which I think is the right attitude when creating music.




Ekstasis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #118 on: April 24, 2009, 02:46:23 PM »
I don't disagree with the suggestion there's a sort of glut of ambient music in recent years.  I really can't keep up with everything coming out recently, so I mostly  try to keep track of the work of artists in the following order:

I find there is no problem to keep track of the ambient scene, cause it is very small, not many releases if you compare to other genres I listen to.
Metal is a big problem, maybe 300 albums per month to go through one by one...on one year it becomes a lot of music.

However, this is once again where file sharing and internet is important, I would never be able to to get through all this vast amount to music which I discover each year if it wasn't for ftp servers and file sharing.  If we should follow your model, I would be able to buy maybe max 10 albums per month,  which I did before internet....

Personally I buy all "5 star" albums almost that I find to me important for me personally, these albums is what is my identity and my personality on both and mental and spiritual level.  The main reason why I buy an cds at all is  because of the CD QUALITY. MP3 quality is NOT enough, ESPECIALLY not for ambient music.  I do not by cds because of charity, as consumer the only thing you really care about is what you will get for your money, I know each time I buy a cd I will get rip off, the label will take most of the money, the artist will get very little. I have no real interest to support labels, as I have said that many times already which many people still try to ignore I have no interest to support these capitalists, and I can't really understand why most people seem to think it is OK that the artist only get 7% of the money, that is NOTHING.



Ekstasis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #119 on: April 24, 2009, 03:19:38 PM »
Is listening to some music that you're not going to end purchasing because you didn't find it good enough that much of a crime? It could be considered as a "spiritual crime" perhaps, but if some guy meets Steve Roach tommorow and tells to the man "Hey, I've downloaded most of your music and I was deeply affected by it, it changed the way I see music" do you think he'll be mad at him? I don't know, I can't speak for the man.

I can't really speak for Steve, but I feel pretty certain he would be shocked to have someone tell him this.  If someone told me they were "deeply affected" by my work, but they had never bothered to purchase a single CD, I'd think here's a pretty selfish person who not only doesn't purchase most of their music, but doesn't even support the work that really means something to them.

I honestly CAN see how people can rationalize pirating the newest Britney Spears album or whatever... she's already a millionaire, how much of a difference will it make if I buy one copy, the major labels are giant evil corporations anyway, etc. 

I can even see how people can take a "try before you buy" attitude, downloading a lot of material and buying legit copies of the stuff they like most.

But the idea that people can rationalize pirating the music of an indie artist or label that's bringing in so little money as to barely break even, one of their favorite artists or labels... how does that rationalization go, exactly?  The $12 is more important to me than it is to him, besides they didn't actually SEE me download it so there's no proof, anyway the record industry is so corrupt you have to fight against ALL commercial releases, or what?

I know you were just offering an example, but I'd say you probably shouldn't walk up to Steve Roach or anyone else and say "Your work deeply affected me but not enough that I was willing to sacrifice anything at all in order to obtain it."

Of course as you are an label owner I can understand that you try to affect the opinion in your own interest, but I really do not think that Steve would react that way at all, I think he would feel the same just if you bought the album. Maybe he would say that he would recommend the CDs cause of the better sound quality, which in fact is true. Even the best Mp3 format Lame 3.97 and Lame 3.98 does not sound 100% transparent in studio headphones/good ears, the difference is of course very subtle, but ambient music is an analytical experience, where you focus on the details and on the forms of sound... so 100% transparency is important for me if I listen to ambient music.

I do not think Steve is an money grabbing capitalist in costume and briefcase. And why he is able to live on his music also has to do with his non-capitalistic lifestyle, from what I know he live in the desert a quite minimalistic lifestyle, he spend most of the time in his studio... I do not think he have 3 sports cars etc...

I think if you are going to be a musician in this capitalistic world, you must be prepared to live a very minimalistic and sparse lifestyle, you need to sacrifice a lot...do not expect to be rich on creating music..in best case you might receive some pocket money to buy food etc.

I have been living in existence minimum for the past 4 years and I am not really complaining, and you really do not need much to surrive, to pay the bills, yet I have a quite "normal" living standard, but this is mainly because I live in one of the best welfare countries in the world, if I did live in USA I would probably live on the streets now under a bridge.
I can buy the food I need, however I need to prioritize , I can't buy shit I do not need, like expensive clothes and sports cars etc, but to be honest, as the non-capitalist I am I really do not need all that shit, I think all this materialistic welfare is not what bring us true happiness and satisfaction.

However if I would want to live an higher living standard, I would still never take a full time job, at least not in the long term, I know most people do work fulltime until they are about 65 years old,  I think I would rather cut my throat then take a full time job for like rest of my life. However to get the money I need to pay for the basic needs like rent and food you do only need to work maybe a couple of days each month. The rest time of the month you could spend on music, this is basically my plan for the future as an musician, I would as little involement with the soiciety as possible so that I could focus on the music, and I am not going to enslave myself in fulltime job just to buy "social status" things that I do not really need...

I think how you rationalize pirating music is really up the person to decide, if it is worth to pay for the music at all.  All this morale philosophy dilemmas of not paying to music is obviously not an universal rule, we all have our own morale and norms to follow from our own perspective.

Personally I follow the the "try before buy" rationale, since I buy all 5 star cds because of the sound quality, at least I try to do so. But I think there is about 240, 5 star cds that I can't live with out, but then there is about 3000 more that I find important and very good, but that I can't spend the money on. So to find what I like I really need to download and go through many thousands of album to find what I seek...this is what I spend most of my awake time to, to discover new music...I would not spend more money if I did not file share, maybe I would spend less even, since most of the favorite underground music I listen to I would NEVER have discovered if it wasn't for file sharing.

However I would prefer and digital FLAC download with HIGH QUALITY artwork and 24 Bit soundquality (which is the standard sound resolution in studios nowdays).
But If I am going to buy Flac albums the prices should be lower, considering the labels take about 93% of the money, 7% of an orginal album is an reasonable price, so we are talking about $1.20 for one album in 24 BIT FLAC. Of course you would have the right to stream the album before you buy it, you should know what you buy, and not just trust sensational label advertisement who does always describe albums as the most sensational music ever, this is only words, I need to listen before I believe it.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 05:17:00 PM by Immersion »