Poll - Do you downloading music ?

[Greyskull]

I would like to know if you do or don't, and why.

Thanks

[VillageIdiot]

Yes... but mostly to try before I buy.

If I like a band I will definitely buy the album- I'm not one of these guys with 15gb of mp3s who never buys any music.


Also, the grammar error in the thread title is hillarious. I'm laughing my ass off right now... :):):)

[hot_rats!]

regardless of if you think its wrong to download or not your gonna have to buy the new radiohead cd. there are almost 5 versions of each song on kazaa now, freakin brits should make up their minds on how they're gonna play their songs. kazaa is great for downloading live performances though.

[TheWizard]

kazaa is used only to download videos for me...

[Greyskull]

I think that downloading music is straight up piracy.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is WRONG !

I haven't ever downloaded music. I won't ever download music. I condemn all of my co workers who do steal it.

What if you put out an album but only 1 song was "good"...would want that song given away and swapped over the internet, earnig you ZERO revenue for your hard work and vision ?

I know I wouldn't want that.

I think I am definately in the minority on this one. Good.

[The User]

I buy all my music on vinyl.
Sometimes i will download the songs on the records i bought, burn them to CD to listen to them in the car or on a walkman.
I Also download songs that are unavailable here.

[3v3+Z]

Okay, if you intend to read this whole thing, you're gonna be here a while, so get comfey! Go download some music to listen to on your journey, but NOT JOURNEY! Might I recommend something by the band Negativland? Just copy and paste that name into your favorite file sharing program and listen to whatever pops up.

...and now, ladies and gentlemen, our FEATURE PRESENTATION...

I've seen CDs in stores for as much as $20! It may even be higher by now. I tend not to bother going into those stores that have them THAT overpriced. The CHEAPEST I usually see a new CD -- unless it's on sale -- is around $12! Even THAT's way higher than it should be! (Sidenote: I will not say "$11.99" or "$19.95" or whatever! $19.95 IS 20 bucks! Period! Add tax and you're paying more than that anyway. Round up! Don't let 'em play that mind game with you where "$11.99" makes you FEEL like you're only spending 11 bucks! I know y'all aren't stupid, but obviously that technique works to SOME degree, otherwise they wouldn't do it in EVERY store! Anyway, back to the point...) Commonly, CDs are $15, $17, $19...! 19 bucks for ONE CD????? Who's stealing from WHO??????

One day I heard (talk radio host) Tom Leikys make the following point (and I'm not quoting, I'm going from memory): When movies started coming out on VHS tapes, they were RIDICULOUSLY overpriced! Some were upwards of $100!!! So what happened? Piracy went through the ROOF! So the prices went down gradually until it got to a point where it wasn't worth the time and energy to pirate these video tapes for most people. So anyway, if CDs were $10, which they SHOULD and COULD be EASILY, I would go to the store and buy CDs rather than taking the time and energy to download and burn them! But as long as CDs are $15, I've got all the time in the world to download and burn stuff!

I was listening to him say this in my car on the way home from buying a DVD. It was "Weird" Al's movie, "UHF". (Don't judge me. That's a funny-ass movie!) This was a new release! (An older movie, but newly released on DVD.) The movie is about 90 minutes long or whatever -- standard movie length. CDs are 80 minutes MAX! And this movie had SEVERAL full length audio tracks, counting different languages, audio commentary, etc.. Some -- maybe all -- of these tracks were in stereo. They might have even had SurroundSound. I don't know. I don't feel like looking it up. And it had VIDEO, obviously! And it had a bunch of other extras; outtakes and so fourth. AND it was a TWO SIDED DISC! The widescreen version on one side, pan & scan on the other. Wanna guess how much all this cost me? Brand new? Not on sale? TEN BUCKS!!!!!! I sh¡t you not! I shopped around. That was the price it was going for EVERYWHERE! So why should the SOUNDTRACK album for this movie cost me 50% MORE THAN THE GODDAMN MOVIE??????? Good thing I don't want the soundtrack! (Although "Let Me Be your Hog" STILL kicks ass!)

I DO buy CDs, by the way. (Mostly used, but still...) I find file sharing to be an INVALUABLE tool in helping me to decide which CDs to get! I can't STAND commercial radio or eMpTy-V! (That's another topic for another time.) I'll hear songs that I like -- usually only once -- on various non-commercial stations, or sometimes I'll just READ about a band and get curious about them. That's where file sharing SHINES! You can download some of their music to check it out before you go spend money on 'em! Of course, it was a LOT easier to find the more obscure stuff back in the heydays of Napster and AudioGalaxy, but whatcha gonna do?

Are you sick of reading yet? Anyone even make it this far? Well, my part of this show is just about over, But I do have a link (http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html) to an essay which I highly recommend! (It's different than the one I posted a link to in another thread.) It's written by the band Negativland, and it's about why CDs are so expensive. "Reproduction of this essay is strongly encouraged", as they say on the sight. And go download some Negativland to listen to! Just remember there's no "e" in the middle of Negativland. I shoulda said that first so you had something to listen to while you were reading all this sh¡t. I think I'll go correct that problem right now. This is gonna look pretty silly when you get back down here, though. Oh well.

Now GO DOWNLOAD SOME MORE MUSIC!!!

[Welladjusted]

i generally use internet radio like launch more than kazaa or whatever, but i do download. cd's cost waaay too much, so i wanna hear it before i buy it. most of my mp3's are off the artist's website, oddly enough

[UGB]

I voted 'yes' but I only download music that's intended for downloading. I have at least 30+ songs on the net that I have put up for downloading. If I didn't think it was ok, I wouldn't do it.

[3v3+Z]

Originally posted by Greyskull
What if you put out an album but only 1 song was "good"...?

THEN YOU DON'T GET MONEY!!! What if you make a chair that only has one good leg? People won't buy it! And people won't feel bad about not buying it. If you can only manage to put one good song on an album, perhaps you're in the wrong line of work. Perhaps you shouldn't be relying on your music for income.

Of course, there IS a bit of a problem with the length of CDs, and the demise of singles. A lot of classic albums are about a half an hour long. It's a lot easier to come up with 30 minutes of quality music then it is to be consistently good for 80 minutes. As a result, a CD released today could have as much great material as an album from 35 years ago, but the old recording will be 100% good, whereas the new recording will only be about 40% good. So that looks bad.

And because singles are almost completely dead, one hit wonders have a harder time then they used to. I guess all you can really do at that point is to "sell out" your hit. Get it into movie soundtracks, compilation albums, get it in a commercial for cars or sneakers, sue a rap artist...

I don't know. I need sleep.

[wihaga83]

thanks .....that's piracy.... you should buy the album !

nuff said

[540SLTD]

3v3+Z,

If you think that CD's are over-priced, you have a right to not buy them but you have no right to steal the music. If someone offered you a guitar for twice the price that it's worth, you wouldn't buy it but it wouldn't give you the right to steal it.

You can't say that the record companies are robbing you. You don't need their music to survive. You have a choice to not buy it.

And your not just hurting the "rich record companies". Scum like you are putting employees of record stores out of work. It especially puts the weaker small independant record stores out of business allowing the multi-national record chains to collect the spoils so you may actually be contributing to the problem.

Your just using "fuzzy logic" to justify your despicable immoral behaviour. It's like a bank robber trying to justify his actions by saying, "I'm just reclaiming what society has taken from me".

I don't know what you're doing on a musician's forum because a true musician would never think the way you do.

The only music I've ever downloaded was music that was made available for free by the artist's themselves.

[joeinthebox1980]

download habits: i usually download rare tracks, live tracks and singles that i usually cannot get here in the US or are very expensive. most of the time, i download stuff to get a good sample of the album... then more often than not, i buy the album and delete the mp3s. i do not share mp3s with other people.


i brought up this topic a while ago... and i still find it incredibly fascinating... i wasn't sure if it was the right time to bring it up again, but i'm glad Greyskull did.


why do people download music?
because CDs (from major labels) are expensive and a lot of albums these days only have one track that is of any worth. that's the simple fact.


the solution?
major record labels should lower the cost of CDs, offer more on the CD (music videos, bonus stuff) and ARTIST DEVELOPMENT. the artist will last much longer if developed properly... then major labels won't be spending/wasting money on finding the "next big thing" and always being behind on the trends.

major labels should also stop wasting money on middlemen who are paid to get songs on to major radio stations.

now, for most major bands... they don't make money off of album sales. their money comes from touring.

(of course, for local bands, i encourage everyone to buy the CD because most local bands make their money on CD sales)

albums are a more a promotional tool rather than something that brings in the money.

is downloading songs any different from taping music from the radio? isn't that piracy as well?

i think this mp3 trend will force record labels to rethink and revolutionize long standing standards regarding the music industry. they will realize that music/songs is NOT a commodity and that people WILL have the right to have these songs for free.

mp3s will become a promotional tool. much like playing songs on the radio are a promotional tool. then the labels will need to make the CDs more attractive, the mp3s will get people to buy CDs.

with mp3s as a promotional tool, more exposure goes to the bands, then bands will be able to play more shows... that's where the real money comes in. (since that seems to be the issue surrounding mp3s - money)

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
And your not just hurting the "rich record companies". Scum like you are putting employees of record stores out of work. It especially puts the weaker small independant record stores out of business allowing the multi-national record chains to collect the spoils so you may actually be contributing to the problem.
then CDs need to be cheaper so more people will want to buy CDs. the record label needs to find ways to save money and not waste money on huge contracts for Mariah or Robbie Williams and focus on putting out quality music at low prices.


Your just using "fuzzy logic" to justify your despicable immoral behaviour. It's like a bank robber trying to justify his actions by saying, "I'm just reclaiming what society has taken from me".
i don't think it's really a moral issue.

we have to realize that the major labels put up free music all the time on TV and radio. so is listening to the radio "despicable" and "immoral behaviour"? because we are essentially robbing music from the radio... especially if i tape it....

[jacobhimself]

bah.....

ah ****.....ill get hell for this, but i am one of those guys who downloads almost all of his ****in music. the only cds i buy are the ones by bands i love and believe need my support. i think the last cd i bought was Ramones Loco Live, i got it like 6 months ago. i think i would buy a lot more cds if they were cheaper. has anyone noticed that metallica cds are like 24 ****in bucks? not even the double ones, just your regular cds (reload, justice etc....). i still buy them because metallice rules, but for ****s sake......

[Joe D. Stortion]

I will admit, I do have over 300 MP3's. This is down from over 800.

Why did I delete over 500 MP3's from my computer? Other than the fact they were devouring valuable disk space and slowing down my PC.

I'll tell you why, I began to miss the materialistic pleasure of owning CDs. I've bought 5 CD's in the past two months. I own over 300 CD's.

I've downloaded maybe 2 MP3's in the past four months. I think last time I downloaded an MP3 it was "Rat Bat Blue" by Deep Purple. A song I've not seen on any CD... but I'll admit to not really looking too hard. I'll probably hunt it down though. We'll see.

-Joe

[540SLTD]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
we have to realize that the major labels put up free music all the time on TV and radio. so is listening to the radio "despicable" and "immoral behaviour"? because we are essentially robbing music from the radio... especially if i tape it....
I find it hard to believe that you don't realize that music on TV and on the radio is not free. Advertisers pay for it and you pay for it by hearing the ads. It's hardly free.
Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
mp3s will become a promotional tool. much like playing songs on the radio are a promotional tool. then the labels will need to make the CDs more attractive, the mp3s will get people to buy CDs.
mp3s are already used as a promotional tool. The Satriani mp3s that I downloaded were available free on his website. That's his choice to give certain songs away. It's also his right to sell songs make a living for himself and support everyone who works for him down to his technicians and trickling down to the small independant record store employees.
Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
they will realize that music/songs is NOT a commodity and that people WILL have the right to have these songs for free.
Who are you to judge whether music is a commodity or not. The day that people can have all music for free is the day that music will die because artists will not be able to support themselves through their craft.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
I find it hard to believe that you don't realize that music on TV and on the radio is not free. Advertisers pay for it and you pay for it by hearing the ads. It's hardly free.
obviously, it's not completely free. there are costs involved in everything.

what i am saying, is that you do not have to physically give a radio station a dollar to hear a song on the radio.

you are not specifically paying the radio station or TV company to hear a song. with CDs... you ARE paying specificially for an album.


mp3s are already used as a promotional tool. The Satriani mp3s that I downloaded were available free on his website. That's his choice to give certain songs away.
yes, SOME artists are using mp3s as a promotional tool to drive album sales. however, my point is that record labels are trying to fight mp3s and the downloading of music on P2P networks while they are trying to embrace mp3s as well (by offering samples of music on their web sites, etc.).

however, my point is that the major labels won't get too far with that sort of mentality. they need to just accept the fact that people will download music and they need to just lower the cost of CDs to sell more albums.


It's also his right to sell songs make a living for himself and support everyone who works for him down to his technicians and trickling down to the small independant record store employees.
listen... IF the record companies stop wasting money on lawyers to stop mp3s, if the record companies stop signing one-hit wonders, if the record companies stop dropping millions of dollars on signing bonuses for mariah and robbie williams, if the record companies refuse to pay to play, basically, if the record companies stop wasting so much damn money...

then they would be able to develop artists, make more quality albums, make albums cheaper, offer more features on CDs, and then drive record sales and then help keep indie record stores in business. simple as that.


Who are you to judge whether music is a commodity or not.
from the perspective of the major record labels, music is viewed as a commmodity. they are units that must be sold to line their pockets with money.

i personally don't think music should be viewed as a commodity.


The day that people can have all music for free is the day that music will die because artists will not be able to support themselves through their craft.

what?!

i think you fail to remember that people started playing music as merely a way to express themselves, entertain and pleasure the ears of the masses.

making music was never related to money.

even if artists were dirt poor... they still made music.

the music will NEVER die... no matter what.

[guitargeek 456]

Originally posted by TheWizard
kazaa is used only to download videos for me...

What kind of videos eh?

[thelefthand]

You are talking about two different types of musicians. Most musicians make music for the love of music. They don't sell it, etc.

Other musicians are musicians as a means of survival. If you have ever sold anything, be it a CD, a promotional sticker, a t-shirt, or made money for playing live, you have made you or your band a product and fit in this category. This is were the term "sell out" comes from. You are selling your band to consumers if you do things like this. And in most countries, getting a product without the consent of the seller, is theft.

And yes, recording songs off the radio is also theft. The recording industy didn't like home tape recorders, dual cassette decks, etc. Just as they don't like home CD burners, etc.

[540SLTD]

joeinthebox1980,

What I meant is that high quality music will die. I thought that would be obvious but I guess I was wrong. If people can't support themselves with their art, they won't be able to devote their lives to it because they have to eat. It should be quite obvious that the quality would suffer.

And whether we pay directly for a CD or pay for it by listening to an ad makes no difference. If you really need to be literal, then time is money: the time spent hearing a commercial.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
joeinthebox1980,

What I meant is that high quality music will die. I thought that would be obvious but I guess I was wrong. If people can't support themselves with their art, they won't be able to devote their lives to it because they have to eat. It should be quite obvious that the quality would suffer.
i assure you that "high quality music" (whatever that really is) will NOT die.

there are many poor artists, poor musicians, who write amazing songs, amazing music, etc.

i guess you are saying that without making money off of your art/music that your art/music will automatically suffer.

people who truly love art, truly love music, will continue to create whether they can eat or not. whether they have money or not.

some of the best music is created under the most trying circumstances.


And whether we pay directly for a CD or pay for it by listening to an ad makes no difference. If you really need to be literal, then time is money: the time spent hearing a commercial.
but that's not the point... the point is dollars and cents. the actually amount of dollars and cents that *i* pay to hear a particular song.

i don't pay a dollar to hear a song on the radio... hence it is essentially free. (i mean, you can argue that it costs money to download mp3s, but that's all semantics)

i pay dollars to buy an album.

the issue here is mp3s... if i'm not mistaken, you are stating that mp3s are evil because people are not purchasing them to support the artist.

i am arguing that mp3s are not too different from listening to music for free on TV or radio and recording them.

but that's not the point... the point is that record labels need to change their attitudes, in order to compete with mp3s and make CDs popular again.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by thelefthand
You are talking about two different types of musicians. Most musicians make music for the love of music. They don't sell it, etc.

Other musicians are musicians as a means of survival. If you have ever sold anything, be it a CD, a promotional sticker, a t-shirt, or made money for playing live, you have made you or your band a product and fit in this category. This is were the term "sell out" comes from. You are selling your band to consumers if you do things like this. And in most countries, getting a product without the consent of the seller, is theft.


okay, i agree with that.

however... i think we must realize that the face of the music industry is drastically changing because of the mp3s.

i think CDs will still sell, esp. for local bands.

however, for major bands... the CD sales are not where the money comes from. it's the touring. that's where a lot of the revenue comes from for a lot of bands.

i think the major labels should stop expecting CD sales to be a mark of success or a main source of income.

it's the touring. and ultimately that money goes to the band, which is better for all of us musicians!


And yes, recording songs off the radio is also theft. The recording industy didn't like home tape recorders, dual cassette decks, etc. Just as they don't like home CD burners, etc.

exactly.

the music industry did not collapse on themselves when tapes, cassette decks, etc. came out... and they're not going to collapse because of mp3s and CD burners. technology will always progress and those major labels will find ways to survive.

[540SLTD]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
people who truly love art, truly love music, will continue to create whether they can eat or not. whether they have money or not.
What is so hard to understand here. I'll try to be more literal. If you don't eat, you die. To eat you need money to pay for food (unless you want to steal that too). If you can't sell your music, you either have to get a day job or beg for money so you can pay for food and shelter. Whatever time you spend at your day job or begging in order to make ends meet to survive, you cannot devote to your art. Less time creating= less high quality work. It's as simple as 2+2=4. Sure people will always create, but we will not benefit from the highest possible quality of work.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
What is so hard to understand here. I'll try to be more literal. If you don't eat, you die. To eat you need money to pay for food (unless you want to steal that too). If you can't sell your music, you either have to get a day job or beg for money so you can pay for food and shelter. Whatever time you spend at your day job or begging in order to make ends meet to survive, you cannot devote to your art. Less time creating= less high quality work. It's as simple as 2+2=4. Sure people will always create, but we will not benefit from the highest possible quality of work.

i completely understand what you are trying to say... but i'm saying that high quality music is possible even if you are poor.

even if you have to get a day job, people can still work their butts off and still make great music. it's about dedication.

i think you are assuming that just because people download mp3s, musicians will not make money off of record sales, they will not be able to create music because they don't have money to survive and focus on their music/art, and the quality of music/art will suffer.

what i am saying is that the downloading of mp3s is NOT the end of the music world, even in terms of "high quality music."

musicians - even those who have to work day jobs - are still capable of making great, high quality music. in fact, i'd argue that sometimes having to work is better for songwriting and your music rather than working on your music 24-7 because then perspective can be lost.

but i digress...

basically, what i am saying is that musicians and the music industry will survive and find a way to adapt to this mp3 craze. music doesn't have to be sold in the form of compact disc, artists make more money selling their music in the form of live performances.

monetary success in the music world does not have to depend on record sales (especially for major label recording artists). the touring is where the money is at... and that's what artists should focus on, not trying to sell another unit/album, because most of that money goes to the producer, engineer, record label and not the artist.

mp3s are not the death of high quality music. if anything, the mp3s will hurt the major labels and almost force them into focusing their efforts on actually developing artists for the long-haul.

[540SLTD]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
monetary success in the music world does not have to depend on record sales (especially for major label recording artists). the touring is where the money is at...
You have this part up-side down. Bands go on tour to promote newly released CD's. Their concerts often end up in the red financially.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980

however, for major bands... the CD sales are not where the money comes from. it's the touring. that's where a lot of the revenue comes from for a lot of bands. A quick question: who usually funds the tour? One more: don't bands usually go on tour "to promote thier record" or something like that?

i think the major labels should stop expecting CD sales to be a mark of success or a main source of income. There is not too many other ways for a recording label to gauge success except for the sale of recordings. Nor is there too many other ways a recording label to make money, other than selling recordings.

the music industry did not collapse on themselves when tapes, cassette decks, etc. came out... and they're not going to collapse because of mp3s and CD burners. technology will always progress and those major labels will find ways to survive. It doesn't matter if what collapses when or not. Someone comes along and cuts my finger off and says, "You aren't going to die from it; just bandage it up and move on," doesn't make them right.

[jacobhimself]

i love how two people took the time to say they had no opinion..

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
You have this part up-side down. Bands go on tour to promote newly released CD's. Their concerts often end up in the red financially.

record labels spend tons of money paying the producer, engineers, cover art, actual compact disc production, etc. then the band has to pay the managers, A&R reps, etc. however many points from the album.

basically, the band only gets a small percentage of actual album sales. most albums never end up making money.

bands tour to make money for themselves, and also promote the album so that they can get a very small cut of the profits and make sure the album sells so studio time and production costs can be paid for.

this is usually what happens with major label bands.

tours go in the red when things are being run inefficiently... but if managed properly, tours are what makes the band the money. just ask U2 or the Stones or McCartney, etc.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by thelefthand
There is not too many other ways for a recording label to gauge success except for the sale of recordings. Nor is there too many other ways a recording label to make money, other than selling recordings.
merchandise. selling songs to commercials, movies, etc. a small cut of concert profits.

and maybe these major lables should stop expecting to make money and just put out music because it is good... but of course, sicne it's a business i doubt that will happen.


It doesn't matter if what collapses when or not. Someone comes along and cuts my finger off and says, "You aren't going to die from it; just bandage it up and move on," doesn't make them right.
see... i think that mp3s are not necessarily cutting off the fingers of the music industry or a major band or major artist.

[Greyskull]

What about non major artists on indie labels ?
They are the ones who suffer most.
What about them ?

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
merchandise. most bands recieve 100% of the profit on merchandise. well, the smart ones do. selling songs to commercials, which is that much different from selling songs to people? The band gives the record company the right to record the music and (ususally) find distribution for the music. Record sales in Best Buy and Circuit City count as distributing the music. CD's, licensing to commercials, movies, etc.

and maybe these major lables should stop expecting to make money and just put out music because it is good... but of course, sicne it's a business i doubt that will happen. I like how your ideas make no sense. You think recording companies shouldn't expect to make money? You think they should fund music recording, hire distributors, promote a group, all just because one person thinks it is good? And should not research what people like/dislike based on the ales of the product? Do you even know what economics is?


see... i think that mp3s are not necessarily cutting off the fingers of the music industry or a major band or major artist. What if you came by and stole a pinch of food off my plate? The point is that wrong is wrong. The degree of the crime might determine the punishment, but it doesn't determine the illegality of it.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by Greyskull
What about non major artists on indie labels ?
They are the ones who suffer most.
What about them ?

my opinion is completely different with indie bands on indie labels.

i think that people should always support their local bands by buying their albums, paying for their shows, buying their merch, etc.

but, like i've been saying, major labels can stand to take all sorts of different measures to make CDs and their artists more appealing rather than blaming it on the mp3s.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
my opinion is completely different with indie bands on indie labels.

i think that people should always support their local bands by buying their albums, paying for their shows, buying their merch, etc. Why?

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by thelefthand
I like how your ideas make no sense. You think recording companies shouldn't expect to make money? You think they should fund music recording, hire distributors, promote a group, all just because one person thinks it is good? And should not research what people like/dislike based on the ales of the product? Do you even know what economics is?
well, i admit that that idea wasn't very feasible.

obviously major corporations are going to expect money on their investments.


What if you came by and stole a pinch of food off my plate? The point is that wrong is wrong. The degree of the crime might determine the punishment, but it doesn't determine the illegality of it.

but i don't see mp3 downloading as stealing. i think it's a reaction against the major record labels and the way they're trying to charge high prices for artists that are only capable of one-hit, maybe two. it's a reaction against these major labels that waste so much money on ridiculous contracts and what not.

i think of it as, WHY are people downloading mp3s so much? there has to be a reason WHY. if people are pushed to this point of "stealing" (as you call it), you have to wonder what pushed them to that point.

[joeinthebox1980]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Why?

because indie labels are more repsectable than major labels. indie labels work harder, they don't waste money, they relate and connect to their artists and their fans.

local bands are work extremely hard to make some money, get their name known, etc. you should support your local musicians.



don't get me wrong... i don't exclusively download mp3s. i probably have more CDs than mp3s. i delete mp3s when i buy the actual albums. i don't share my mp3s with other people. i usually download live tracks, or relatively obscure electronica singles.

but all i'm saying is that mp3s is not the monster that some people make it out to be.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
because indie labels are more repsectable than major labels. indie labels work harder, they don't waste money, they relate and connect to their artists and their fans. Modern "major" labels and companies weren't blessed into being "major" labels. I don't see why you justify taking music from a successful company (a "major" label) but not taking music from a not-as-successful one. All of a sudden you are Robin Hood or something, only "stealing" from the successful.

local bands are work extremely hard to make some money, get their name known, etc. you should support your local musicians. And many signed artists worked hard to make money and are working hard to make money. I support all musicians, not just my fellow local sell-outs.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by joeinthebox1980
but i don't see mp3 downloading as stealing. i think it's a reaction against the major record labels and the way they're trying to charge high prices for artists that are only capable of one-hit, maybe two. Don't you think some people steal food as a reaction to not being able to buy food?

i think of it as, WHY are people downloading mp3s so much? there has to be a reason WHY. I think people do things that make them happy. if people are pushed to this point of "stealing" (as you call it), you have to wonder what pushed them to that point. "Pushed to steal"? Nothing has to push anyone to illegally download songs. Maybe people just like to get things for free and know that they probably won't get caught? Who is really out there downloading songs to one-up big business?

1. Downloading mp3s is easy (a few clicks here and there),
2. it is not time-consuming (it might take a while to download, but what work do you have to do?)
3. Seems anonymous (because it is over the Interent; people think they are faceless online)
4. Is painless.
5. Seems like such a small thing. (Even if it is stealing, everyone seems to know someone with more illegal mp3s than himself. "So I'm not the worst one.")

[fiveways]

I only buy music on vinyl. So, if you don't release on vinyl, there is a good chance that I will have it, if I like it, in mp3 format.

Why? I don't know. I just real dislike CD's. I would rather buy a tape then a CD. I have no reason for this. I just dislike CD's.

Also I could never have enough money to hear all the music I want to. Unless I win the lottery. Then I will buy it all, until then, I will download. Also, there are enough out of print stuff poping up that I have wanted to hear for years. Or I download albums that stores do not carry around here and I don't really feel like waiting 6 months for the special order to come in. I'll buy the vinyl off them when they are touring. If they don't have vinyl I'll buy a shirt or something.....

Oh yes, I would like to also point out that I bought most my CD's used. Guess how much the band got from me at that point. $0. Any different then me downloading the album? Not really, at least in my mind (I also buy most vinyl used.....).

I also believe that more people should be willing to give music away for free. I have a deal with a minor label....know what? I'm also giving it away for free....why? Because I love doing it, and with or without a record deal I would still be writing and recording music. And I want everyone to hear it. So there you go. Music is not a job to me, it is what I love to do. The day I think about it as a way to make a living is the day I will stop doing it, or will sit down and really think about why I play my instrument and why I write songs.

[fiveways]

Originally posted by thelefthand

1. Downloading mp3s is easy (a few clicks here and there),
2. it is not time-consuming (it might take a while to download, but what work do you have to do?)
3. Seems anonymous (because it is over the Interent; people think they are faceless online)
4. Is painless.
5. Seems like such a small thing. (Even if it is stealing, everyone seems to know someone with more illegal mp3s than himself. "So I'm not the worst one.")

And some people just want a chance to hear music that they may not be able to find in a store in there area. Maybe it is a out-of-print album that is a lost classic. maybe it will make them a better player or write. Or will give them a alternative way to think about music.

Not everyone downloads commercial ****. I don't. I don't want that crap anywhere near my vinyl, tapes, or harddrive. Some people download to expand there horizens. Something that the local record stores seem very against.

[thelefthand]

The why not sign up for a pay-for download mp3 service?

[fiveways]

Originally posted by thelefthand
The why not sign up for a pay-for download mp3 service?

Will it have what I want?

I doubt it, I don't buy ANY music off major labels new. So I doubt it will have what I want to hear on it. So unless every indie label gets together and starts a service like this, I am out of luck.

I think we should attack mixed-tapes next. And used record stores, and for that matter used video and book stores. LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE LOOSING MONEY!!!!

Show me a pay for mp3 service that has what I want on it, and show me a break down of how much the artist gets from said service....and I will think about it.

In all honesty, I think indie artist suffer less over this ordeal then major label artist. Most music downloading is by passive listeners who want the big singles. I still buy piles of vinyl. Most people I know who like indie type music still buy piles of stuff.

[Clayton38]

I'll just agree with what Maynard Keenan said... artists are losing so much money by making videos and touring and all that stuff that people are just going to have to quit making music for a living if CD sales don't increase. I don't download music because of one thing... I want to support the artist, but I completely agree that there is a large grey area that exists because large companies feel they have the right to charge people a lot more money for a CD than they should pay. I think the biggest problem is that the middle man is getting in the way of the artist and their fans. I think theres a solution that will pan out eventually. Bands will find a cheaper, smaller middleman when the industry starts to fold in on itself. There will be websites popping up all over the place that will allow artist to put out a few MP3s and sell their CD's for far less because they will be making a much larger margin of profit. Without having to pay all the useless hacks that come along with modern recording, marketing, distributing, etc. If you look at the fact that bands are making downwards of five cents per CD, the bands will probably be able make a lot more money with less marketing just from the fact that the band will be able to sell CD's for five bucks and still make fifty cents to a dollar. MC Hammer made a lot of money because he refused record companies and sold CDs out of the back of his car. You'll have to have a large following of course, but if your'e talented enough there shouldn't be any shortage of fans. I personally think it sounds awesome. I'm not really one to say whats wrong and whats right, I just know that when my old band was being scouted by labels... mainly Epitaph, it really disheartened me. All they care about is money... and even though I kinda knew that, it really sucks to be one of the guys getting "raped".

[fiveways]

Originally posted by Clayton38
I'll just agree with what Maynard Keenan said... artists are losing so much money by making videos and touring and all that stuff that people are just going to have to quit making music for a living if CD sales don't increase. I don't download music because of one thing... I want to support the artist, but I completely agree that there is a large grey area that exists because large companies feel they have the right to charge people a lot more money for a CD than they should pay. I think the biggest problem is that the middle man is getting in the way of the artist and their fans. I think theres a solution that will pan out eventually. Bands will find a cheaper, smaller middleman when the industry starts to fold in on itself. There will be websites popping up all over the place that will allow artist to put out a few MP3s and sell their CD's for far less because they will be making a much larger margin of profit. Without having to pay all the useless hacks that come along with modern recording, marketing, distributing, etc. If you look at the fact that bands are making downwards of five cents per CD, the bands will probably be able make a lot more money with less marketing just from the fact that the band will be able to sell CD's for five bucks and still make fifty cents to a dollar. MC Hammer made a lot of money because he refused record companies and sold CDs out of the back of his car. You'll have to have a large following of course, but if your'e talented enough there shouldn't be any shortage of fans. I personally think it sounds awesome. I'm not really one to say whats wrong and whats right, I just know that when my old band was being scouted by labels... mainly Epitaph, it really disheartened me. All they care about is money... and even though I kinda knew that, it really sucks to be one of the guys getting "raped".

Good. Video Killed the radio star. The internet killed the rock and roll star. About time. I would love a world without rock stars and MTV.

(Sorry for being slightly harsh. I just HATE music videos.)

I bought a record at a show this weekend. They said it would buy breakfast for one of the members. That made me smile.

[VillageIdiot]

I get mp3's to try before I buy.

If I like, I buy.

If I don't like, I don't buy.


I suppose it is like I am taking a temporary loan from the record company till I get the cash to fork out for an album, but meh- I don't feel that cut up about it.


The thing that makes me buy CD's is mp3's themselves.

1) They are crap quality. Because they cut out the "useless" frequencies when they are encoded, you lose a lot of the depth that is on a CD. Songs thus sound ****.

2) My computer sound system is pretty average. My stereo is awesome by comparison. I want to hear my CD's in full working glory at high volumes.

Thus mp3's are good for convienience, sampling and they "hey check this out" factor, but they are no good in the long term.

That's why I will always buy CD's.


As a side note- independant studies have actually shown that the drop in record sales is actually quite small- like 7 or 8%. And that has other factors involved in it too- so mp3's aren't the big bad industry wrecking machine we all think they are.

[guitargeek 456]

Artistic integrity is all well and good but sometimes more pressing concerns like food and shelter come first, thats why I only download music by bands that are succesful and rich and don't deserve my money. But I prfer to buy my Mudhoney etc. C.Ds so that they get some reibursement for bringing joy to my life.

[daveyboy]

. . . . thats why I only download music by bands that are succesful and rich and don't deserve my money.

Exactly !

Like Jimmy Page (God Bless him)

I mean the guy is God!

But does he really need another $20 bill outta my pocket so I can hear the almighty Song Remains the same? Hardly.

Therefore, I download old classics, and rare live cuts of the like.

But I do think that downloading music from an independent band just starting out is completely wrong. I refuse to download any new music. I actualluy go down to my local indie record shop at least twice a month and just pick up like 4-5 cd's of any kind, any style. Give the small guys a chance. Once I find a bass player and drummer, we're gonna be there, right?

[thelefthand]

So you steal/download muisc only if you know the artisit can afford to be stolen from? Honsetly, that is f*cked up. No one can afford to have his work taken illegally from him.

[nobody]

I think it's interesting how people can claim ownership of the sequence and timbre of sound waves that pervade the air.

Intellectual property is already a fuzzy issue, in and of itself. So, there isn't a clear-cut correct way to look at this issue. I see many valid points being raised, but no clear objective being reached.

My opinion is similiar to FiveWays, I download stuff that is virtually impossible to find. Out of print, live recordings etc ... and I buy in-print stuff at shows, mailorder etc ... I never buy major label recordings, at all ... well ... except a few choice artist like Sonic Youth, The Flaming Lips et al.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
I think it's interesting how people can claim ownership of the sequence and timbre of sound waves that pervade the air. Writers claim ownership of a few figures written on paper. What's the point? And what we are talking about isn't owning sound waves, but owning the recording of sound waves.

My opinion is similiar to FiveWays, I download stuff that is virtually impossible to find. From my experience with Kazaa, Morpheus, etc, rare recordings are nearly impossible to get a hold of in mp3. It is much easier to go to cdnow.com or something for things like that. And if you can only get this elusive music in mp3 format, why don't you go to mp3.com or similar site?I never buy major label recordings, at all ... well ... except a few choice artist like Sonic Youth, The Flaming Lips et al. So why do you buy Sonic Youth and Flaming Lips CDs?

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
And what we are talking about isn't owning sound waves, but owning the recording of sound waves.

And the difference is _ ? Plus, I didn't say soundwaves were owned, but the sequence and timbre of soundwaves were owned.

From my experience with Kazaa, Morpheus, etc, rare recordings are nearly impossible to get a hold of in mp3. It is much easier to go to cdnow.com or something for things like that.

Well, that's easily explained by the fact that you don't listen to the same music I listen to. I find live and OOP stuff on Kazaa, Soulseek and a few others all the time. For example, I found a long OOP Bark Psychosis album on Kazaa. This album is absolutely NO WHERE to be found for purchase and I had looked for years.


And if you can only get this elusive music in mp3 format, why don't you go to mp3.com or similar site?

Well, mp3.com usually only has mp3s from currently active bands that choose to put some of their stuff there. MP3.com is NOT the same thing as the P2P networks.

So why do you buy Sonic Youth and Flaming Lips CDs?

ummm... I like the music.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
And the difference is _ ? Plus, I didn't say soundwaves were owned, but the sequence and timbre of soundwaves were owned. That one is music and the other is recorded music.

Well, that's easily explained by the fact that you don't listen to the same music I listen to. I find live and OOP stuff on Kazaa, Soulseek and a few others all the time. For example, I found a long OOP Bark Psychosis album on Kazaa. This album is absolutely NO WHERE to be found for purchase and I had looked for years. Then how did this band's recordings become loaded onto the p2p sites?

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
That one is music and the other is recorded music.

What's the difference? What makes music "recorded" vs. just being music? Do you mean it's captured on some media? How does the human memory play into this? Is there a distinction between biological media and magnetic/optical media? Can music be owned just because it can be recalled from some memory? What if, in the future, human memory can be recalled, would that aspect of human memory be "owned" by an external entity?

See, this isn't a black and white issue. There are a lot of questions still needing analysis.

Then how did this band's recordings become loaded onto the p2p sites?

It's P2P networks. Sites aren't be peer-to-peer by the very methods on which they work. Anyways, music exists on P2P networks because another user on the network is sharing that music. Obviously, the user ripped and encoded from an orignating media.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
What's the difference? One is "hard" and one is "intangible". Recordings and copywrights are real concrete things. Music is a general term, be it copywrighted, live, random sounds of machinery What makes music "recorded" vs. just being music? Do you mean it's captured on some media? Yes. How does the human memory play into this? Is there a distinction between biological media and magnetic/optical media? Biological media? I think "media" refers to the intermediate stage of the transition of a thing. If the "media" is biological and "in" the brain", then it isn't really in a transitionary state. It has arrived at the destination, the brain. I don't know what you mean by biological media. (Remember "media" in this sense means "medium".)Can music be owned just because it can be recalled from some memory? Music can be owned because of the legal creation of it. This is copywright law. What if, in the future, human memory can be recalled, What do you mean? would that aspect of human memory be "owned" by an external entity? If you are saying what I think you are saying...you are saying that someone memorizes a piece of music, stores it in his brain, and then converts his memory into electronic information. Firstly, this would require an extreme form of technology and an extremely accurate memory, to somehow memorize every detail of tone, of even a 5 second clip of sound.

Also, you don't seem to understand the process of expressing art. An artist makes a song. Artist copywrights song, thereby having legal claim to the song. Decides to present song to public for "consumption" (can be free or fee). Artist may also record the song, because it is his and may do as he pleases with it. (Also, if someone could do this "brain-downloading" we would never need musical instruments again; we'd only need to imagine the music and upload/record.)

If someone memorizes enough of the music to constitute the "song" inquestion, and goes home, converts the memory (which, additionally, is subjective; could be a problem in accurately remembering everything) into electronic information and sells or distributes the new electronic information without the consent of the artist, then I would have to say this is a violation of the right's of the artist. Sounds like bootlegging.


It's P2P networks. Sites aren't be peer-to-peer by the very methods on which they work. Anyways, music exists on P2P networks because another user on the network is sharing that music. Obviously, the user ripped and encoded from an orignating media. So someone, somewhere has an actual hard recording of the songs, then takes them and distributes them with or without the consent of the artist?

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nobody
What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One is "hard" and one is "intangible". Recordings and copywrights are real concrete things. Music is a general term, be it copywrighted, live, random sounds of machinery

Too vague. What does "hard" and "intangible" mean? How is music general and copyright not?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the human memory play into this? Is there a distinction between biological media and magnetic/optical media?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biological media?


Yes. "recorded" means captured on some sort of media. Media is just memory that can be recalled. Humans and animals have facilities to capture, store and recall things (music, pictures etc ..) from their memory (biological media). Why wouldn't the same logic apply that what's stored in human memory could also be copyrighted? According to you music that is captured on media can be copyrighted.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can music be owned just because it can be recalled from some memory?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Music can be owned because of the legal creation of it. This is copywright law.


That's circular thinking. What makes music a copyrighted "legal creation"?



If you are saying what I think you are saying...you are saying that someone memorizes a piece of music, stores it in his brain, and then downloads his memory into electronic information. Firstly, this would require an extreme form of technology and an extremely accurate memory, to somehow memorize every detail of tone, of even a 5 second clip of sound.

Regardless, the same principles apply.



Also, you don't seem to understand the process of expressing art.

I fully understand. I've been doing it for many years.


So someone, somewhere has an actual hard recording of the songs, then takes them and distributes them with or without the consent of the artist?

Not necessarily. Artist themselves are capable of distributing thier music on P2P networks. All because it's on Kazaa or whatever does NOT mean it's instantly copyright infringment. That's a big part of the legality issue of shutting down P2P networks, all because P2P networks can be used for illegal activity doesn't mean all the activity is illegal.

[thelefthand]

Before we go on, allow me to point out that "memory" is in the imperfect brain. Something can't be "media" if it is a "memory". "Memory" is the subjective recall of information. "Media" is the stage of transport of something. In this case, music is put into the media of a recording and transported to a brain. If we take the (subjective) memory of a man and directly implant it into another man, it must be passed through some medium anyhow, that medium likely to be something electronic, unless we are talking about mind-reading. Are we talking about mind-reading?

"Media" is the means of transport of a thing. "Memory" is the subjective recall of a thing. Your memory isn't a means of transporting a thing. And if we could transport memory, the memory itself wouldn't be the "media". We would have to use some sort of electronic means, which would serve as the media.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
That's circular thinking. What makes music a copyrighted "legal creation"? Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Please explain.
Not necessarily. Artist themselves are capable of distributing thier music on P2P networks. All because it's on Kazaa or whatever does NOT mean it's instantly copyright infringment. That's a big part of the legality issue of shutting down P2P networks, all because P2P networks can be used for illegal activity doesn't mean all the activity is illegal. I never said artists do not put there stuff up on p2p's or give away free music. I said that someone has a hard recording of the music first and then puts it on p2p networks. So somewhere, there are CDs of the recordings you could not find.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Before we go on, allow me to point out that "memory" is in the imperfect brain. Something can't be "media" if it is a "memory". "Memory" is the subjective recall of information. "Media" is the stage of transport of something.

Wrong. Digital storage media is memory. Memory, the word itself, is not subjective. Memory is the process or the device on which learned or stored information can be recalled or reproduced.


In this case, music is put into the media of a recording and transported to a brain. If we take the (subjective) memory of a man and directly implant it into another man, it must be passed through some medium anyhow, that medium likely to be something electronic, unless we are talking about mind-reading. Are we talking about mind-reading?

Not at all. I'm not even talking about whether this memory can be transferred to another media. What I'm talking about is the actual "stuff" that makes music. It's a sequence of sound waves. Whether this is represented as 1s and 0s on a CD, or magnetic energy on a tape or as synapsis in the brain ... makes no difference. How can this representation of an arrangement of sound waves be somebody's property? Can they sue for trespassing if I happen to hear it when they didn't want me too? What if I hum it out loud? is that an illegal broadcast because somebody is claiming rights to that particular arrangement of notes or soundwaves?

remember, I'm just questioning the whole notion of owning music.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Please explain.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can music be owned just because it can be recalled from some memory?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Music can be owned because of the legal creation of it. This is copywright law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's circular thinking. What makes music a copyrighted "legal creation"?



It's circular because you said "Music can be owned because of the legal creation of it." well, legal creation is ownership. This is like saying "it's a car because it is an automobile". So, the question becomes what does "legal creation" mean in regards to music? Or something to that effect.




I never said artists do not put there stuff up on p2p's or give away free music. I said that someone has a hard recording of the music first and then puts it on p2p networks.

You asked "So someone, somewhere has an actual hard recording of the songs, then takes them and distributes them with or without the consent of the artist?"

I just wanted to clarify that this isn't always the case. And is an unknowable.


So somewhere, there are CDs of the recordings you could not find.

Of course, but they aren't available for me to purchase in CD/Vinyl/Tape format. The only format available happened to be MP3 which is obtainable through the Kazaa file sharing network. Regardless, I didn't steal anything as there isn't any "loss" to the "owner". All the copies of that album that were made through the label have been sold and the band made all their money on that investment. Theft can only occur if damage (monetary loss) can be proven. In the case of the Bark Psychosis album, they didn't lose anything as there was nothing to be lost, since the album has long been out of print and is unavailable.

[The User]

I cant believe you people. 'You cant own soundwaves?' Shut the f*ck up. No..really. Shut up, take a step back and look at what you are saying.
On this forum, we are all guitarists of various styles, talents and opinions. We make music. We like music. Many of us would like to make a living in music. You want to download all your music? You are killing the music industry. No...really....you are. Rockstars are not dieties, they are people...they have bills to pay and families and the like, just like everyone else. They have jobs- their job is to write record and tour behind music. If you like their music, you buy it, and a few dollars go to them as income. Thats how it works. If you download it, no money goes to the artist, and they figure 'f*ck this....ill go be a plumber'. And then they dont make any more music.
As for the f*ucking idiot who said you cant own soundwaves, this is not philosophy. Shut up and go outside...the sun is shining.

[fiveways]

Originally posted by The User
I cant believe you people. 'You cant own soundwaves?' Shut the f*ck up. No..really. Shut up, take a step back and look at what you are saying.
On this forum, we are all guitarists of various styles, talents and opinions. We make music. We like music. Many of us would like to make a living in music. You want to download all your music? You are killing the music industry. No...really....you are. Rockstars are not dieties, they are people...they have bills to pay and families and the like, just like everyone else. They have jobs- their job is to write record and tour behind music. If you like their music, you buy it, and a few dollars go to them as income. Thats how it works. If you download it, no money goes to the artist, and they figure 'f*ck this....ill go be a plumber'. And then they dont make any more music.
As for the f*ucking idiot who said you cant own soundwaves, this is not philosophy. Shut up and go outside...the sun is shining.

Anyone who would say "**** this" and go be a plumer over money should probably be looking elsewhere IMHO. Some write music because they love it. They tour because they like it. Not all musician expect to make money from there music.

I think we should allow bands to dictate what they want to be down with there music. Most don't mind people downloading there music.

And philosophy is a very important part of music to many people. Have a read through Glen Branca interviews to see how much philosophy he talks in them. Or any composer of that style.

Some of us have accepted the fact that we make marginalised music and will never make a living off it. I think both Nobody and I have at least. So why not look into the concepts behind it and go from there.

And the sun isn't shining here......It is snowing, a perfect day to stay in and bitch.

[Clayton38]

Dude, guys... go to www.aperfectcircle.com and listen to Maynard Keenan's explanation on why he doesn't support Napster and such. Even from an artist's point of view it's very simple. If people don't buy the CD's, the bands can't make a profit... which means that people are just going to have to quit making music for a living. I think that you can add as much philosophical and moral bullsh-it as you want, but it comes down to that. Your'e hurting artists if you don't buy their CD's.

[nobody]

Originally posted by The User
I cant believe you people. 'You cant own soundwaves?' Shut the f*ck up. No..really. Shut up, take a step back and look at what you are saying.

I'm sorry, but I think I'm doing a little more thinking about this than you have proposed I do. I'm trying to bring into question the concepts and ideas surrounding the music biz. The first question is obviously about the actually ownership of music.



As for the f*ucking idiot who said you cant own soundwaves, this is not philosophy. Shut up and go outside...the sun is shining.

interesting. But the simple fact is IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy is the industry of ideas, how on earth do you think music gets created, recorded and performed without philosophy? It was Thomas Edison's philosophy that even allowed for such things as copyright in order for creators and inventors to make money of their creations.

Your hostile tone speaks volumes. Are you always aggressive to those that you don't agree with?

[fiveways]

Originally posted by Clayton38
Dude, guys... go to www.aperfectcircle.com and listen to Maynard Keenan's explanation on why he doesn't support Napster and such. Even from an artist's point of view it's very simple. If people don't buy the CD's, the bands can't make a profit... which means that people are just going to have to quit making music for a living. I think that you can add as much philosophical and moral bullsh-it as you want, but it comes down to that. Your'e hurting artists if you don't buy their CD's.

Not to be a asshole, but in all honesty, why would I want to listen to a artist I do not have that much respect for discuss his opinion on music? He doesn't want people to download music because he wants to keep a life of producing a album every 5 years. A typical musician who did that would have to have a real job in the mean time, and we all know how musicians HATE to have real job and have to learn to balance a real life and music.

I would hate to do music as a job...think about it. You have to view your guitar as work. You have to be creative at any given time. You have to think in terms of "if my playing is not good enough I can't make a living". Myself, I'd rather a real job, a minor recrod deal, and the ability to take time off and tour once a year. I have that.

[nobody]

Originally posted by Clayton38
Your'e hurting artists if you don't buy their CD's.

I don't agree. As a musician who has toured and has released a CD, all the money we made was from playing shows. I mean we would make $300 a gig just to show up and play. Do you know how many Cds we would've had to sell to make that much money?

And then this assumes that the artist are actually seeing any money from their cd sales at all. Most new signees to major labels NEVER see a dime from CD sales, due to the nature of recording contracts.

[fiveways]

Originally posted by nobody
I don't agree. As a musician who has toured and has released a CD, all the money we made was from playing shows. I mean we would make $300 a gig just to show up and play. Do you know how many Cds we would've had to sell to make that much money?

And then this assumes that the artist are actually seeing any money from their cd sales at all. Most new signees to major labels NEVER see a dime from CD sales, due to the nature of recording contracts.

Even arena rock bands agree with that.

There is a excellent book called "Confessions of a Record Producer" that has a breakdown of how bands make money. I suggest it to everyone on this board.

[thelefthand]

Do musicians own their own music? The law says yes. Do they have a legal right to protect their music? Yes. Should I own the rights to all of Hendrix's songs? Should I be able to use Hendrix's music in **** films, or cartoons, or "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" just becasue I want to? Should I be allowed to make an album of Hendrix covers and call them my own?

[GrungeGod]

Yea, I download music, but I buy records too....where's the happy medium?

[Clayton38]

Okay fiveways, I agree with what you said... but the simple fact is that these artists are the ones in the spotlight of the discussion, and even though he may be doing it so that he can keep his album every five years life, hes making a lot of sense about the way it affects the industry. I don't really agree with the fact that he can do that either, and I don't want to be in a position where music is a job... but some people do, and theyr'e the ones getting hurt.

Nobody, you may be able to go make money off your shows... but take into consideration the fact that you don't have to pay for buses, a crew, lights, sound, catering, etc. Your'e music is on a MUCH smaller scale than the people I'm refering to. In this particular case, the production of these concerts and events is costing so much as to LOSE the artist money. Now, the simple fact is that you have to sell an incredible amount of records to break EVEN, so if some person gets the MP3's and gives them to his friends... it means a lot of money doesn't get to the artist. So what happens then? Simple, you don't ever tour again. Now that HURTS an artist on many levels.

Iv'e done my fair share of touring and stuff, so I know what you mean about making more money for shows than CD sales, but I guarantee that if you want to put on a great production, that will change drastically. Now, if theres an issue about "Why do you have to put on a great production instead of just playing"... I don't know. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but thats another issue entirely.

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
Wrong. Digital storage media is memory. Memory, the word itself, is not subjective. Memory is the process or the device on which learned or stored information can be recalled or reproduced. Was there something wrong with my definitions of "media" and "memory"?
Human memory is subjective.
No one's memory can "reproduce" something.
I repeat: memory is not a media. A memory is the recall of information. A media is not the recall of information. A media is the means of transition for a thing. Sound waves travel through mediums, like air or the ground, or speakers, or a recording, or an mp3 file. Sound can't travel through memory. The mediums for communicating ideas are talking, typing, dancing, playing guitar, painting, etc. I don't see why you are either denying your dictionary or trying to use computer jargon as a definition.


I'm not even talking about whether this memory can be transferred to another media. Is that what you always say? What were you talking about then?What I'm talking about is the actual "stuff" that makes music. It's a sequence of an intentional artisticlly exclusive arrangement of sound waves. and ideas.

Whether this is represented as 1s and 0s on a CD, or magnetic energy on a tape or as synapsis in the brain ... makes no difference. How can someone's memory of sound be the music itself? Is my memory of the smell of cookies, actually cookies? What if remember what they look and taste like? Am I eating cookies right now? I wish I was. Some Archway Rocky Road cookies. Man, that would be sooo awesome. And some chocolate milk. Hell yeah. And I'd spray whipping cream on the side and dip the cookies in it. And maybe have some vanilla ice cream on the side. And some strawberries. Cause they rock. Wait, no strawberries. Yeah, lose the strawberries. Put M&M's in the ice cream. Yeah...How can this representation of an arrangement of sound waves be somebody's property? I don't know. Maybe no one owns anything at all. But the fact is that someone has claimed the music, and the government supports the claim. Can they sue for trespassing if I happen to hear it when they didn't want me too? Trespassing? Are we talking about land or chattel or property or what? What if I hum it out loud? Are you going to record it?

remember, I'm just questioning the whole notion of owning music. Okay.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Was there something wrong with my definitions of "media" and "memory"?

yes. they were out of context. I used media and memory in a certain context. Maybe I transposed them. I'll check.


I don't see why you are either denying your dictionary or trying to use computer jargon as a definition.

First, by getting bound in semantics you have lost all the premises of my argument. You can replace my usage of "memory" and "media" with whatever suites your fancy, just argue the content of what I'm saying.

Secondly, I am using dictionary definitions.

intentional artisticcly exclusive arrangement of tone, . and ideas.

Not necessarily. I find "music" in a lot things that aren't an intentional or artistic. Like generator hums in the basement of a hospital. The distanced and reflected sounds of a car alarm or construction crew.

Music can only be defined by the listener and the only tangible aspect of the "stuff" of music is some sequence of some sound or sounds.

How can someone's memory of sound be the music itself? Is my memory of cookies, actually cookies? Am I eating cookies right now? I wish I was.

Great questions. But I didn't say someone's memory is the music, I said music is a sequence of sound waves, which happens to be a measurable and quantifiable thing.

But the fact is that someone has claimed the music, and the government supports the claim.

True and I don't really argue that creators shouldn't have claims to their creations, but I question the notion of intellectual property and extremes at which it is taken.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Was there something wrong with my definitions of "media" and "memory"?

Sorry, I transposed "media" and "memory" in a few spots, shoot me. It's immaterial. It doesn't change the meaning or the conclusions of which I've drawn.

The human brain is the medium on which information in the form of human memory can be recalled from. (recall is in the form of expression by the human)

Various forms of information storage devices is the media on which various forms of information representations can be recalled from. I.e. CD, DVD, CompactFlash et al. (recall can be executed by various methods)

Does this clear everything up?

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
First, by getting bound in semantics you have lost all the premises of my argument. You can replace my usage of "memory" and "media" with whatever suites your fancy, just argue the content of what I'm saying. Well. please refocus your argument for me.

Not necessarily. I find "music" in a lot things that aren't an intentional or artistic. Like generator hums in the basement of a hospital. The distanced and reflected sounds of a car alarm or construction crew.

Music can only be defined by the listener and the only tangible aspect of the "stuff" of music is some sequence of some sound or sounds. Hmm...my dictionary, and www.dictionary.com defines music first as the specific arrangment of sounds. About six entries later, my dictionary dictionary.com say that music is aesthetic sounds (like the noisy hum of a generator, a mind-stabbing car alarm, or the sound of sweaty men simultaniously scratching their crotches and cutting the sidewalk.) but that this use of the word "music" is poetic.

Great questions. But I didn't say someone's memory is the music, I said music is a sequence of sound waves, which happens to be a measurable and quantifiable thing. What? I thought you were typing as if the memory of music was a recording of the music?

True and I don't really argue that creators shouldn't have claims to their creations, but I question the notion of intellectual property and extremes at which it is taken. [/B] "The notion of intellectual property"? I'm sitting here staring at bracket-quote-bracket...bracket-/quote-bracket, wondering what the big deal is.

[nobody]

Originally posted by Clayton38
Nobody, you may be able to go make money off your shows... but take into consideration the fact that you don't have to pay for buses, a crew, lights, sound, catering, etc. Your'e music is on a MUCH smaller scale than the people I'm refering to. In this particular case, the production of these concerts and events is costing so much as to LOSE the artist money. Now, the simple fact is that you have to sell an incredible amount of records to break EVEN, so if some person gets the MP3's and gives them to his friends... it means a lot of money doesn't get to the artist. So what happens then? Simple, you don't ever tour again. Now that HURTS an artist on many levels.

I don't disagree but has it been demonstrated that mp3 downloads actually hurt the paychecks to artists?

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
The human brain is the medium on which information in the form of human memory can be recalled from. (recall is in the form of expression by the human) Jesus Christ! It's like we are talking to different languages! Let's say that memory is like a closet. You can store things there. Can you use your closet to transport things? Is your closet a medium?

Various forms of information storage devices is the media on which various forms of information representations can be recalled from. I.e. CD, DVD, CompactFlash et al. (recall can be executed by various methods) Media, media, media! A CD is a medium for transporting information. A CD is a means of storing information. That doesn't mean media and memory are the same. It is a medium in order to deliver the information to a destination, brains. It is a memory because it can store information. Mental firings and human memories and synapses are memories, but not media. What's more, a human memory is imperfect. If you hear a rock show and can hear the music clearly in your mind, it is wrong. If you record it, you hear people next to you screaming, moving, etc. A human memory cannot be thought of as a legitimate means of recording, because it is not a recording of sound. It is a recall of an experience.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Well. please refocus your argument for me.

Nah, I'm not going to turn this into one of "those threads" :)


Here's what transpired:
How can someone's memory of sound be the music itself? Is my memory of cookies, actually cookies? Am I eating cookies right now? I wish I was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great questions. But I didn't say someone's memory is the music, I said music is a sequence of sound waves, which happens to be a measurable and quantifiable thing.

What? I thought you were typing as if the memory of music was a recording of the music?

That is correct.

"The notion of intellectual property"? I'm sitting here staring at bracket-quote-bracket...bracket-/quote-bracket, wondering what the big deal is.

huh?

[thelefthand]

Originally posted by nobody
That is correct. Then is my memory of cookies a recording of the cookies?

huh? I mean that intellectual property includes quoting people, and giving credit to people that say things, come up with ideas, etc. Are you questioning why we have to quote people?

[Greyskull]

Originally posted by 540SLTD
If you think that CD's are over-priced, you have a right to not buy them but you have no right to steal the music. If someone offered you a guitar for twice the price that it's worth, you wouldn't buy it but it wouldn't give you the right to steal it.

Right on !

Downloading is bad for the artists, because they get screwed.
Yeah, you pay a lot for a CD...that's why they let you check the CD out before you buy it.

I should have done that before I spent money on Nickelback...

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Jesus Christ! It's like we are talking to different languages! Let's say that memory is like a closet. You can store things there. Can you use your closet to transport things? Is your closet a medium?

My definitions are correct.

Merriam-Webster:
Medium: (4) : something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may be stored

you can't discount my usage in computer terms, as that is what we are talking about (CDs etc .. ) and my usage of this lingo in the context of the human brain is completely legitimate.


Mental firings and human memories and synapses are memories, but not media.

But the brain on which this occurs is the medium.

What's more, a human memory is imperfect. If you hear a rock show and can hear the music clearly in your mind, it is wrong. If you record it, you hear people next to you screaming, moving, etc. A human memory can not be thought of as a legitimate means of recording, because it is not a recording of sound. It is a recall of an experience.

So, a legitimate recording can only be defined by how exacting it is copied from the original? Do you have a percentage on which this line is drawn?

As far as being a recall of experience ... As far as we know "human experience" is stored in the brain. I see no difference between the storage of an experience as processed by the brain through the senses to the brain, than the storage of exprerience through electronic means. They are both capturing the same exact thing. The experience is the same, the only difference is the methods and devices utilized to capture that experience and how they are recalled.

Sure, humans express everthing through subjectivity filters and it usually comes out different, but so does broken tape decks or VCRs.

[nobody]

Originally posted by thelefthand
Then is my memory of cookies a recording of the cookies?

Yes, but it is recorded in a format only understandable by the human brain.

I mean that intellectual property includes quoting people, and giving credit to people that say things, come up with ideas, etc. Are you questioning why we have to quote people?

No-no. Context, my friend. We are talking about music, everything I've been saying is on the context of music.

[jacobhimself]

see.. this is why thers so much controversey out there. the definition of recording, stealing and downloading are all so general. i mean, if i go to someones house, and breathe the air coming from their airconditioner, technically i stole it. theres so many formalities and loopholes in the law, this debate will go on for years.

[thelefthand]

If we can't define what we are talking about, then we can't talk about it.

[guitargeek 456]

Originally posted by nobody


As far as being a recall of experience ... As far as we know "human experience" is stored in the brain. I see no difference between the storage of an experience as processed by the brain through the senses to the brain, than the storage of exprerience through electronic means.


Because the brain is an organic material and is also by defenition private propety and cannot be distributed, as the 'speaker system' of our body is ineffective for such purposes.

I support free downloading but this argument is silly

[nobody]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guitargeek 456
>>Because the brain is an organic material<<

Irrelevent. Do you know that they are working on bacteria data storage? http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/012903/Data_stored_in_live_cells_012903.html


>>and is also by defenition private propety<<

So are the 1's and 0's that exist on MY harddrive.

>>and cannot be distributed<<

Not right now, but in the future I don't see any reason to think this is true.

>>I support free downloading but this argument is silly<<

It's not an argument for downloading. It is an argument for the questioning of the ownership of music.

[thelefthand]

Like I said, we don't have definitions for these terms to work with. Debating now is going to do nothing, except expose us to certain ideas that could be, and in all likelihood are, completely inaccurate. I don't want to go down the wrong road. We have to know what we mean by things like "music", "sound", "ownership", "rights", "property", "theft", "memory", "media", "being" and "duplication". Nobody and I have so far contended the meanings of about four or five of these. We aren't going to get anywhere in this discussion unless we know what we are talking about.

[G6add9]

I don't mind paying a buck per song, at all.

[danj]

oh man, 3 year old topics are sweet...
just a little outdated...
kazaa anyone???

[iamacar]

i download piles of music

but i also buy any really good albums (overpriced as they are) but they are normally from small stores like avalanche or buy em second hand (cheaper :D)

[AmericanId3ot]

Like someone said before, I try before I buy. I can't tell if I like a song by 30 seconds. That's not enough for me. I'll download and see if it's worth me spending my hard earned cash on. If not, then I delete the songs and be done with it.

However, if it's a band I know I like then I will not hesitate to buy their records.

[legend]

I like buying CD's. I like the artwork and stuff like that. If i can afford it, and it's available, i'll get the vinyl of a great album as well as the CD.
I always offer to donate to indie labels if i buy a bootleg or something off the net, or offer to send them a copy. Indie labels can have a really rough time, it's the least i can do.

[SGROCKER0791]

99.9% = Buying CDs
0.01% = Download to just listen to a song or two I like.

I don't mind buying CDs.