Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: downloading music

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    58

    Default

    "I'd guess most people here are music heads and respect artists and do try before they buy. However, to believe that this is the case for everyone is pointless and holds no water. There's two generations below us, that don't pay for anything and do see why they should, they don't know what an LP is nor care, they talk about gigabytes not amazing basslines, they borg the fuck out of thousands of pounds worth of music, 500gig a time. Trust me, it's going to get so much worse because the major corps don't know what to do, it's fucked."

    Totally agree. Was working with a "teenager" and we started talking about the Sabbath. Told him first lp was one of my faves. He turned up the next day with a dvd with the entire catalogue ripped off a torrent for me. Nice gift but...

    Hope this discussion doesn't meander into intellectual property law. Life is too short. A crusty judge will make the decisions on these issues. UK Govt about to extend copyright to please Cliff Richard (actually makes EMI a more attractive target for a takeover, see todays business page). Business is business. "Artists" signing these contracts don't get any sympathy from me. I remember speaking to a member of a now successful 'indie' band, who told me he'd signed a publishing 'deal'. How much he'll lose over the next 50yrs for the sake of a few thousand pounds I hate to think. On the other hand Royal Trux really screwed Virgin ha!

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    If an artist literally loses money off every sale, because of how their record contract worked out, you are literally costing the artist money whenever you buy a record. Don't know how to make that any clearer.
    So, it's OK to steal from the label and IF the artist doesn't make any money - utter bollocks

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    they do not receive money from it, they lose money from it. What's more, your money contributes solely to the engine that perpetuates this cost to artists, by making the labels richer and the artists poorer.
    Who are they that make no money?

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    however, in terms of law, this is not "stealing" because it's all done under cover of the legal contract. So to you, is it perfectly ok, and you are not complicit even though it's your act that takes money away from the artist?

    (and takes money away much more directly than downloading, since downloads are not 1to1 replacements for sales)
    That's so drunk it doesn't even know it has legs, guff.

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    Clearly the larger issue is that you should not use the word "stealing" sloppily. Do you mean it as according to the law (which includes no protection for people who are bamboozled by people with more power from them)? According to law, which is politically and locally defined, and which can change according to political pressure? Before 2002 in the US it wasn't stealing to download materials written in 1978, and now it is stealing to do so. Does our outrage over theft simply switch on after 2002?
    The law is miles behind what is happening, in more ways than one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    I think the main argument here is a moral one.
    I hear "stealing is bad" but I'm not sure what people mean by stealing, because rules of ownership for the results of creativity are culturally (and subculturally) defined. This is so clearly obvious with respect to different norms in jazz, dub, dancehall, hip-hop, trad irish music, etc etc that it shouldn't even be up for debate. At some point, those definitions may be in conflict, and I don't think it's self-evident which side you are going to pick unless you just keep your personal definition regardless of the effect on others or their own wishes.

    being in law school, i'd just say that taking a strong moral stand on "the rule of law" with respect to copyright law would be ridiculous.

    I think some people are confusing a moral argument based in a certain vision of ownership with the admittedly convoluted realities of the industry.

    other people are confusing the interest of record labels with the interest of the artist. there are lots of different issues, depending on who the artist is and who the label is.

    for example, in many cases: 95% of the money from a CD sale supports the label so they have the power to (among other things) have their lawyers write shitty contracts that forces artists to make only 5% of CDs, force artists to change their style in conjunction with corporate interests etc etc etc. If you want to make a strong moral stand against harming the artist, how do you measure all of those harms? does the 5% you give to the artist outweigh all the other stuff?

    with indie labels, it's more complicated, as I wrote above. But it's simply silly to bring it all down to "stealing" or "not stealing." How you measure the harms and benefits is obviously more complicated than that.

    if you want to simply not go against the artists' wishes, that's great. But that too is a basically moral decision (especially as artists can be wrong, misinformed, or malicious). And I'd reiterate that the morality of participating in a larger system of exploitation is worth a thought as well.
    As a label owner and an artist I can state with some degree of fact, that you are talking shit.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    THE YABBA
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistersloane View Post
    I'd like Ripley to defend me in court, when that inevitably happens.
    But I'd want Martin Dust on my side in a fight

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistersloane View Post
    But I'd want Martin Dust on my side in a fight
    Haha But it just doesn't stand up to any of the facts of what is actually happening, there are no examples given and no facts - the whole of the post is built on sand.

    I've sat in meetings with small and large labels and I'm very aware of what is happening and the new "no pay" culture that is now around us all - they have no clue as to why they should pay the artist or label. Ripley's examples seem to be built around examples like the Bay City Rollers or S Club 7 - where the management had them over with the classic "some money or none" contract, this very rarely happens these days but if you are stupid enough to sign something without asking a lawyer, well....And I don't know an artist alive that has ever signed over 95%, ever.

    I'm more than happy to explain my stance and no I don't know what the answer is but downloading my tracks is hurting my artists and label, I know that for a fact.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    281

    Default

    i'd just say that taking a strong moral stand on "the rule of law" with respect to copyright law would be ridiculous.
    Thats an easy statement to make until its your tracks you find people sharing on soulseek. Especially if you have unsold stock sitting in a room gathering dust.

    Its the true indie labels that are suffering from sharing the most, even though you only treat them as a footnote in your post ripley. I'm sure that for most of the readers of this forum, those are the people that matter and the people we are worrying about - they aren't there to rip off the artists, most of the time they are the artists.

    I know what you are trying to say, I just get the feeling that you might be sending out the wrong message to certain other people reading the forum, people like the guy who started this thread.

    Not that anything anyone says on here is going to stop the P2P monster, and I think the musical world will be a sadder place when artists can only afford to do it as a minor hobby, and album artwork is a 150x150 pixel jpeg.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    But I dunno there just seems to be some actual solutions missing from all of this, setting aside the proletariat seizing the means of production anyway.
    I outlined some of what I believe the way forward in my first post. However in repsonse to John's post here are my proposed solutions:

    1. Only publish on vinyl to reduce the risk of electronic theft. An alternative might just be to release the paper based score of your tune.

    2. All music to be free and artists to make money on "other" merchandise (an example might be selling drugs at a concert).

    3. Once an artist has proved popular (over 100,000 downloads) then he may be granted an annuity which grows in relation to his popularity. I would be happy for this to be financed through the Council Tax (potentially we could have the rubbish collected just once a year as an offset).

    4. Let Ken Livingstone decide what to do (actually no. 3 above was his suggestion to me by email this morning).

    5. Turn off the Internet.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,207

    Default

    I dunno, I thought your previous solutions were "the music industry will be OK" and "we're still here after home taping" which kind of misses the point about there being a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.

    We did tapes for each other but were still jealous of whoever had the real thing. Now there is no real thing for many people. Flogging t-shirts is one way forward but that also increases people's overheads and they have to be designers and clothing salespeople as well as musicians.

    But yeah, some positive solutions, blu sky thinking all of that good stuff innit.

    I think another thing which troubles me is that music will increasingly become the preserve of people who can either do it with no overheads (acapella buskers) or people who have enough money stashed away to not care about overheads.

    The idea that someone like Russ D could make a bit of money out of records to be able to beef up his studio or Twilight Circus could go to JA and use studios there is basically a thing of the past.

    It would be fine for music to be free if musical equipment was free.

    Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kvarngärdet
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blubeat View Post
    1. Only publish on vinyl to reduce the risk of electronic theft.
    Thing is, there is already an infrastructure for releasing illegal vinyl rips as MP3s in place, so the artists kind of end up with the worst of both worlds: no compensation, and their music’s being recorded by an amateur through the line-in of a crappy soundcard and then compressed to an MP3.

    As I wrote in the record shop thread, I think there is a huge generational gap here, where many young composers sympathise with the thought of recorded music as some sort of public domain, and do not expect to earn a dime through their music-making (and thus treat is a costly—but rewarding—hobby), whereas the older ones are pissed off at what they consider greedy theft. I imagine this is more common in welfare-states, though.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kvarngärdet
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    It would be fine for music to be free if musical equipment was free.

    Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.
    The culture of piracy means that sequencers like Cubase are spread illegally, too. But you are right in that it probably means less opportunities for expensive band recordings.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Reading (A rotten town)
    Posts
    2,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.

    We did tapes for each other but were still jealous of whoever had the real thing. Now there is no real thing for many people.
    The only solution perhaps is to have a licensed bandwidth situation where all music is essentially free but "taxed" based on the identification of filetypes passing thru servers-- revenues being assessed in similar way to royalties for airplay now perhaps?
    Either that will develop or music will become increasingly polarised between the ultra-underground (essentially "gentleman musicians") and the hyper-marketing budget overground of an increasingly small range of trans-global mass appeal. The interesting stuff in the middle gets squeezed tho, of course...

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.
    Haha-nice try but remember the shit-storm Gutta kicked off by putting a few Dubstep MP3s on his site last year? Dubstep producers appear unbelievably paranoid about their stuff leaking...

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guybrush View Post
    Thing is, there is already an infrastructure for releasing illegal vinyl rips as MP3s in place, so the artists kind of end up with the worst of both worlds: no compensation, and their music’s being recorded by an amateur through the line-in of a crappy soundcard and then compressed to an MP3
    This is true, I've seen a few that had nearly 1000's of techno's smaller label releases, upload 50 gig to join or speak to the admin about "m£mbership"

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    I dunno, I thought your previous solutions were "the music industry will be OK" and "we're still here after home taping" which kind of misses the point about there being a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.
    Apologies, you are quite correct of course, my second post was the one that contained my thoughts on ways forward. How I felt that more services like Amazon's DRM free and eMusic.com would increase the growth of legal downloads. I also said I liked the delivery method of allofpmp3 - I did not say I approve of them or use them but the concept is exactly what I am looking for as a consumer.

    I think the point some of you missed when I laid out my stall - I am a consumer. I both download illegally and purchase legal downloads. If the music I wanted was more easily available online I would buy more. By encouraging consumers like me then you offset some of the theft from people who have no intention of buying.

    When I was a kid and I taped all my brothers records, recorded the old pirate Jazz FM sets etc I didnt pay a penny towards what I listened to but I built a love of music that has meant I have been a paying consumer for the last twenty years.

    Napster and my illegal downloading habits exponentially INCREASED the amount I spent on a wider selection of music.

    I don't beleive the industry has worked well to meet the demands of new audiences or even old audiences wanting materials delivered in a different way. iTunes is a case in point of poor delivery. 128k DRM? Fuck that. My money will go elsewhere but iTunes has one of the biggest selections which means I can't get it how I want so I might steal it. I know that's not "good" but if the service was there I would buy. if iTunes service was like allofmp3 - holy crap they would be getting megabucks from me.

    Also if I could signup to an artist/label page and subscribe to his new releases - for example I would probably buy everything on Hyperdub/DMZ/Blood&Fire/JahShaka Records then each time there was a new release my account would be debited and I would receive the high-quality-format-of-my-choice-non-drm tune - ideally released as asecure podcast so it would automatically synch to my iPod.

    What I am trying to do here is provide some ideas on how people might be ecouraged to buy more based on my own experiences and preferences.
    Last edited by blubeat; 22-05-2007 at 07:54 PM.

  13. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post

    Of course if you live in the relatively affluent west and own a computer and the music you make is composed entirely of sampled reggae records and generic sub bass this will not concern you.
    OPPPFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (Yorkshire Accent)

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Dubstep producers appear unbelievably paranoid about their stuff leaking...
    Which is a good thing!

    I like the concept that several dubstep producers were bandying around of promo's being tagged individually so that if anything get a pre-release leak its easy to work out who the individual was and get them blacklisted by every other dubstep producer from then on.

    Name and shame.

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guybrush View Post
    The culture of piracy means that sequencers like Cubase are spread illegally, too. But you are right in that it probably means less opportunities for expensive band recordings.
    But at some point the support and development will stop if no-one buys it and if so many people didn't steal it, maybe it would be a little cheaper? Just a thought....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •