Author Topic: Downloading Music and Rights  (Read 43118 times)

Wayne Higgins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
    • Oenyaw
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #120 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: 586
  • The Viatorium Press - Dedicated to the Weird
    • View Profile
    • The Viatorium Press - Dedicated to the Weird
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #121 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: 358
    • View Profile
    • Paul's Myspace
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #122 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: 864
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #123 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: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #124 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: 616
    • View Profile
    • Oenyaw
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #125 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #126 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #127 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #128 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #129 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #130 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 »

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #131 on: April 24, 2009, 03:32:57 PM »
Unfortunately, it is true however. According to the law, the minute you sell a cd, you no longer have the rights to own said CD and it is actually illegal to burn it to your library and sell it. Again, it does not matter what you think or feel is right, the law is the law.

PV


No, what we feel and think is important. The law isn't some god-given commandment that people should accept a priori, it is a social contract made in order to hold society together. But, law is always imperfect, because society progresses and changes every minute. I believe we should debate rather than blindly accept everything that is imposed towards us, because either these things that the law is supposed to protect by supressing certain actions now might be invalid (hypothesis) or need to be reconfigured to fit recent developments. In our case, we all know we're "breaking" the law by illigally downloading music, but when someone ends up buying it shortly thereafter, how is any damage done? Why should we conform to the status quo when essentially our actions do not harm anyone, and instead offer us roads towards self-expansion? Would it REALLY cause any problem to anyone if we download an album that is our of print and can't be found anywhere else, rip a cd that we have bought from the artist (and then sold for an equal price), or download an album that we have already ordered from the artist as a preview (I think that was the case with Immersion, if I'm not mistaken?) I'd like an honest response concerning this...  


I agree with you there, regarding this I think social disobedience is in place...
This is actually what is happening right now, the law is not in phase with the general opinion of the people.
The alternative is to shut down internet, or let the state to supervise every step we make in our digital life.

This poll was recently asked in one of the biggest newspapers in Sweden
The question is if non-comercial file sharing should be legal. 90% is usually representative number
on all similar polls that I have seen.



In Sweden, the Swedish Piracy Party is soon becoming the third biggest party in Sweden, each day they get about 500 new members, so I would say
that within 14 days They will be bigger then "C".



« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 03:34:29 PM by Immersion »

Stellar Auditorium

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #132 on: April 24, 2009, 03:36:48 PM »
Immersion, I think I'll write a few words in response to your posts, mainly because I think the gap (generational, ideological, etc) between the rest of the people that post here and yours is so huge, that is seems impossible for a conversation to happen at this point. You're mistaken in some things you try to present as facts: it's very rare that musicians get such a low percentage of the sales, which is actually the policy of corporate labels and not small/medium size independent labels such as Hypnos. These kind of labels treat the artist in a much fairer way, because they want to give incentive to the artist to sign with them. Besides that, the size of the independent scenes is so small, that BOTH artists and labels can hardly make a living, the earnings are pocket money comparing to a "real" job, and very often these people spend equal and perhaps even more hours per day to this than they would (and they do, of course) at a regular job (do you think that an ambient 1000 copies cd release gets sold right away? It might take even years, if ever). So, I think you should perhaps re-think the concept of "charity" that you seem to look into with contempt: spending 10-15 euros or dollars to buy a recording of an artist (or even label) you are very fond of not only achieves you a personal connection to them, but it ensures that they'll be motivated to continue to produce excellent art in the future, as so many times we have said in this thread. Of course you can't buy everyone's album, but at least try to support these that are truly "important". Which should perhaps also include the labels that made their music known to you, and spent a lot of money (which might not get back) manufacturing the product and promoting it. And all of this hardly has to do anything with illegal downloading.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 03:40:03 PM by Stellar Auditorium »

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #133 on: April 24, 2009, 03:45:54 PM »
I think there are lots of aspects and sides to the discussion and I have to admit I'd not thought about second hand CDs in that way....so lots to learn from.

I think my issue with the 'everything for free' comes from the perception that only by taking from others can everything be free and only in a wealthy and 'civilised' society are things organised in ways that make it possible to act on. Immersion said himself that if everyone in his country chose not to work it would collapse (I think thats what you meant).

Take it right back to basics - you find yourself on a desert island - how you going to survive? You've got to put your arse into it cos nothing is going to come for free. Even in modern society, someones effort has gone into making everything that might be taken for free - even the torrent websites need someones effort to exist.

There is an anarchist philosophy of (cant remember the exact quote) each from their means and according to their needs - but this was always based on co-creation. Some people grow food, others eat that food so they can make the clothes the farmers wear while working type of thing. The idea never envisaged swathes of society just sitting around and eating food made by others, wearing clothes made by others because they can. Accepted response of general population to such people was not pleasant....

I suppose, across generations, we may be talking about different ideas of respect, freedom, utopia - and I have had a long history of this type of discussion, including direct action/court cases and prison sentences based on those beliefs and even now they inform my work in that I put a lot of energy to help disadvantaged people left behind by the capitalist society.

I know I could not survive on my own and I would prefer not to take from people unless they are giving something away out of respect for them.



I think if you start as an artist, you could not expect anything in turn, you ask how the artist is going to survive on music, I think maybe you have wrong expectations, to survive on music is only a dream, and a reality for a very few.  To be a musician is not a work, it is not a way to make money as I see it. If you need to pay the bills and get food on the table and still want to be and free/independent music you should take some part time job, maybe a few days each month. Or come up with some other idea.
If you accept to live in an lower living standard you really do not need an full time job, a full time job would of course be an total disaster for every creative musician, freedom I think is an important element for every musician, as I have said before, it is an lifestyle.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 05:19:50 PM by Immersion »

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #134 on: April 24, 2009, 03:57:12 PM »
Immersion, I think I'll write a few words in response to your posts, mainly because I think the gap (generational, ideological, etc) between the rest of the people that post here and yours is so huge, that is seems impossible for a conversation to happen at this point. You're mistaken in some things you try to present as facts: it's very rare that musicians get such a low percentage of the sales, which is actually the policy of corporate labels and not small/medium size independent labels such as Hypnos. These kind of labels treat the artist in a much fairer way, because they want to give incentive to the artist to sign with them. Besides that, the size of the independent scenes is so small, that BOTH artists and labels can hardly make a living, the earnings are pocket money comparing to a "real" job, and very often these people spend equal and perhaps even more hours per day to this than they would (and they do, of course) at a regular job (do you think that an ambient 1000 copies cd release gets sold right away? It might take even years, if ever). So, I think you should perhaps re-think the concept of "charity" that you seem to look into with contempt: spending 10-15 euros or dollars to buy a recording of an artist (or even label) you are very fond of not only achieves you a personal connection to them, but it ensures that they'll be motivated to continue to produce excellent art in the future, as so many times we have said in this thread. Of course you can't buy everyone's album, but at least try to support these that are truly "important". Which should perhaps also include the labels that made their music known to you, and spent a lot of money (which might not get back) manufacturing the product and promoting it. And all of this hardly has to do anything with illegal downloading.

I am not saying that ALL labels gives 7-12% of the profit, what I say is that it is the norm, I aware the smaller labels often gives a better deal for the artists, but they still take the majority of the money in most cases. This is why I am fighting to get rid of the labels and the middle hand, and build a new better working distribution for future generations of artists. That is why I am saying we need no labels in the future, we need no labels in the future that will steal the money from the artists. The artist deserve the big majority of the money, the labels are the real thieves in my opinion. I would feel way more motivated to buy music If I did know the money did get the the artist, If I buy from Steve Roach and Robert Rich I can feel kind of confident that the money goes directly to the artist.  This is why I recommend every artist on this planet, to create their own label... and sell them to some kind of online distribution, to create your own label and print your own cds is not such big deal anymore, everyone can start an own label... I know I would definitely do that, I would refuse to let myself to get used by some money horny labels who want to steal my money.

Regarding the whole charity thing.... I am not sure that I agree..That I spend time listen the music should be enough... .and as I have said...if the artist has their own label..I am more motivated...But I do not think that money is the ultimate way to show your appreciation, a long "fan mail" I think would make every artist more happy and satisfied then 15 dollars, of course this is highly relative depending on the individual, but personally I would feel this way.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 04:00:01 PM by Immersion »

Stellar Auditorium

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #135 on: April 24, 2009, 04:11:11 PM »
I think if you start as an artist, you could not expect anything in turn, you ask how the artist is going to survive on music, I think maybe you have wrong expectations, to survive on music is only a dream, and a reality for a very few.  To be a musician is not a work, it is not a way to make money as I see it. If you need to pay the bills and get food on the table and still want to be and free/independent music you should take some part time job, maybe a few days each month. Or come up with some other idea.
If you accept to live in an lower living standard you really do not need an full time job, a full time job would of course be an total disaster for every creative musician, freedom I think is an important element for every music, as I have said before, it is an lifestyle.



The problem is that the quality of the music we are listening today is a product of this "capitalist" system, or the commercialization of music, in other words, and will be deeply affected if the current system collapses, and professional musicians stop to exist. It's not so much about the artistic impulse, I'll actually agree on you on that most musicians do not create their art under the basic premise that they want to make a living out of it (which is still a great factor, let's not forget). There are also many things that come between the process of creating the art and you, listening to it at home. Professional studios for example, will vanish; why should someone pay a huge amount of money at a professional studio when it's impossible to get the money back? Or why should someone continue to massively produce expensive hardware processors and consoles if everyone's working with free, low quality vsts? Or actual instruments? Or pretty much everything that is a part of the music industry? Everything will dwindle or even vanish, and without professional musicians, the quality of the music will never be the same. We'll have instead of one Steve Roach, a million of Steve Roach wanabee composers writing mediocre music in their bedrooms with mediocre means in their free time, and exchanging mp3 files via myspace or something. Think about it.

That is why I am saying we need no labels in the future, we need no labels in the future that will steal the money from the artists. The artist deserve the big majority of the money, the labels are the real thieves in my opinion. I would feel way more motivated to buy music If I did know the money did get the the artist, If I buy from Steve Roach and Robert Rich I can feel kind of confident that the money goes directly to the artist.  This is why I recommend every artist on this planet, to create their own label...

Oh, and about the evil-label thing. Just remember that not all artists have either the money or the time to produce and promote their releases. That's what a label is supposed to do: to take in their hands all the menial work that has to be done while the artist is left to do what he/she does best: create art: It would be much better if the relationship between artist and label was improved, rather than totally severed. I feel a lot of independent labels are actually going in the correct direction concerning this, most of these people are working hard and receiving much less in return. Which means that what they're doing is very helpful to the artist, and at the same time there is a fair relationship economically between them.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 04:25:56 PM by Stellar Auditorium »

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #136 on: April 24, 2009, 04:26:58 PM »
I think if you start as an artist, you could not expect anything in turn, you ask how the artist is going to survive on music, I think maybe you have wrong expectations, to survive on music is only a dream, and a reality for a very few.  To be a musician is not a work, it is not a way to make money as I see it. If you need to pay the bills and get food on the table and still want to be and free/independent music you should take some part time job, maybe a few days each month. Or come up with some other idea.
If you accept to live in an lower living standard you really do not need an full time job, a full time job would of course be an total disaster for every creative musician, freedom I think is an important element for every music, as I have said before, it is an lifestyle.



The problem is that the quality of the music we are listening today is a product of this "capitalist" system, or the commercialization of music, in other words, and will be deeply affected if the current system collapses, and professional musicians stop to exist. It's not so much about the artistic impulse, I'll actually agree on you on that most musicians do not create their art under the basic premise that they want to make a living out of it (which is still a great factor, let's not forget). There are also many things that come between the process of creating the art and you, listening to it at home. Professional studios for example, will vanish; why should someone pay a huge amount of money at a professional studio when it's impossible to get the money back? Or why should someone continue to massively produce expensive hardware processors and consoles if everyone's working with free, low quality vsts? Or actual instruments? Or pretty much everything that is a part of the music industry? Everything will dwindle or even vanish, and without professional musicians, the quality of the music will never be the same. We'll have instead of one Steve Roach, a million of Steve Roach wanabee composers writing mediocre music in their bedrooms with mediocre means in their free time, and exchanging mp3 files via myspace or something. Think about it.

I can agree with you that the capitalism is the product of what we have become, the whole technological development etc, is a product of the capitalism, however thanks to the digital world and software the rules have totally changed, you no longer need hardware in your studio, in future everything will be software and will surpass hardware.... Also with time, there will be so much free open source vsts and audio tools that no one needs to pay anything anymore.  I do not understand the logic why because of no money is involved the product quality would be low ?....there is no evidence for that.  your logic must be based on an short-term perception... In the future the whole humanity will work together in open source projects on an non-commercial basis, this has been proven that this is the most creative and best way to create software....prove me wrong... I think is the right path to go. I think you must think in long term into the future...see beyond the problems in this time...

Professional studios will vanish for sure for many reasons.. but they will always exist, there will always be a need for bands to record in studio.
However, I think in future the majority of artists will record at home with software, then send it do  mixing and mastering studios.





Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #137 on: April 24, 2009, 04:27:33 PM »

In our case, we all know we're "breaking" the law by illigally downloading music, but when someone ends up buying it shortly thereafter, how is any damage done?

Well, yes it is ok to question laws and even work to change them. Every democratic society is based on this. You work to change the law and voice your opinion, not break it because you disagree. It not like you are homeless and stealing food for your very survival...you are stealing music because you think it is somehow intrinsically owed to you. The reason it is wrong is that now you are keeping something which you have sold the rights too. If you want it cheaper...you go buy it used and save some money. But the fact that you paid $15 new and could only sell it used for $5 is unfortunately irrelevant. Again you are simply justifying your actions to fit your own paradigm and thus telling me you are entitled to keep the music, even though you are selling the hard copy CD. If you just wanted it digitally in the 1st place...buy the download.

This just keeps coming down to: I want to own what I want, I deserve it and it should fit my personal model economy.

PV

There is no democracy without revolutions :)
That is the exact reason why social disobedience is what I suggest. That is also the reason why 91% of the people think file sharing is an human right.
You can talk all you want about laws etc etc, in the end it is really up to the people to decide what they think is right.

"This just keeps coming down to: I want to own what I want, I deserve it and it should fit my personal model economy."

This one I totally agree with.

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #138 on: April 24, 2009, 04:33:26 PM »
REMEMBER THIS:
The BIG winner in this downloading p2p (etc) frenzy is the BIG internet companies who simply sell access to downloadable files by bandwidth. They are the new capitalists. They of course WANT plenty of free stuff available to download. It's straight money to them.   

Same for chinese and russian music download sites that charge a dollar or two per album ... they are riding on the backs of other people's labour. They are what the modern internet leads to and they are the scammers -- they are getting paid for the "free" albums and programs you download

You make it sound like the only reason why internet exist is because of illegal file sharing ?
Internet can be used to other things aswell.

Luckily I do not live in usa, so I do not pay for what I download, we have no traffic limit etc.
In Sweden we have actually very reasonable price for internet access, to call them greedy or capitalists in not right.

I pay like 40 dollars each month for 100 mbit internet connection, it is worth every penny.... Next Year I got 1000 Mbit :)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 04:35:45 PM by Immersion »

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« Reply #139 on: April 24, 2009, 04:35:14 PM »
I would bet that there's not one person involved in this conversation who has not made a copy of a disk (or made a mix-tape) for a friend, downloaded some rare obscure out-of-print LP, or otherwise broken copyright laws.  We've all broken a law at one point or another, some of us more often (and severely) than others.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try aspire to a higher standard.

Well everyone besides Paul Vnuk he reads the bible and would never file share cause he know what will happens if he do:)