Do you steal music???

[Mike Flynn]

I don't disagree; that would be a good thing. But not all musicians are performers. Some are songwriters and composers. I think James Horner is a brilliant musician and I love his work, but I'm never gonna be able to support him by buying tickets to his concerts or shirts with his name on it. I agree there's way too much mime/lipsync garbage out there, but a great musician who needs to be supported if you enjoy his/her work may not be a performer. So......?

Gotta run and perform...later.

Hi Marcus - and everyone else - I know and I agree...see below

Just to add something else I heard recently as well is that some labels are now taking a different approach by actually funding the band in terms of setting up a really good website, and paying for rehearsal time etc - but putting very little into actually producing a CD - in an information age a band's database is almost as important a commodity than a gold disc...the gold discs are still nice though.

Also in terms of composers and songwriters - these are the REALLY LUCKY ones in the industry - as their music, whenever it's performed, earns them money through publishing and broacast rights - these are NOT dependent on sales. So if a tune is a hit on the radio the artist might get only a fraction of the money the songwriter themselves will earn a ton of cash - there are hundreds of examples of bands splitting up when the one guy in the band starts making ALL the money and the others are only paid their paltry 'wages' instead of tens of thousands of dollars/pounds that the guy who wrote all the tunes gets.

Movies and adverts are also classic cases of a way to get a lot of money for writing music - the smartest musicians, composers and bands know this - I know a guy who is a one man downbeat/ambient dance producer - called Bonobo (check his albums out, they are superb) - ONE of his tunes got used by British Telecom for a major advertising campaign - they only used about 20 seconds of the song - and they paid him roughly $200,000...! Films and adverts have a symbiotic relationship with music - thus there will ALWAYS be a demand for fresh and exciting soundtrack music.

There are many ways to make money from music - some less desirable than others - the choice is down to the individual - the time has also come for the music industry to actually impose some quality control on its acts - i.e. stop siging crap bands!!! And stop wasting money on unimaginative and formulaic acts that just try and serve up the same old style - there is a frighteningly poor appreciation of music out there - in the UK at least - and it's because the general public aren't challenged by the music they are sold, hopefully this newly democratised age of listening will bring about a broadening of perspectives and actually stimulate curiosity in listeners, instead of stifling it.

Mike

 

[bigbeefdog]

There's a guy on the street. He's got a CD burner with him on his table, and he's burning CD copies for people and is giving them away for free to passersby. Do you feel comfortable taking a copy from the guy if it's one you already own at home? That is the exact situation you're describing-the ease of the internet doesn't change the action. And it doesn't change the fact that the CDs the guy on the street is handing out are illegal copies, and taking one is taking an illegally made product, whether you own your own legally purchased copy of it or not.

To be frank, I don't see any difference.

Oh, I understand that, under the letter of the law, making my own copy is legal, while taking a free copy from the guy on the street is illegal (at least on his part, and likely also on mine). That part is easy.

But I'm hard pressed to come up with a *logical* reason why making my own copy is less damaging to the artist, et al, than simply having the guy on the street do it for me, for free.

Either way, a copy is created (the copies presumably being identical, in quality and content, in both scenarios), no money changes hands, and it ends up in the CD player in my office.

Which begs the question - who was damaged by my decision to accept the "convenient" copy, when the alternative would have been to *legally* create my own?

Bryan, you're demonstrating what I said earlier.... that this issue is extraordinarily complex.

I think the gallery analogy is pretty fitting. You are allowed to make copies only for yourself, and only from the material you have purchased-copyright laws are pretty specific about it. If you obtain a copy from any other source other than your own product, then you are indeed taking someone else's copy. Again, it's the ease of obtaining these copies from the internet that have blinded people to what they're doing.

We do part, here (at least with respect to the analogy).

Taking their copy, no... their copy still hangs in their gallery. *Copying* their copy, yes.

Although I don't condone illegal downloading, I cannot equate the taking of a physical object (e.g., the rightful owner *of that copy* now no longer possesses the object) to the making of a copy of that object. In the latter case, the artist would certainly be damaged - but the owner of that physical copy would certainly not be.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Which begs the question - who was damaged by my decision to accept the "convenient" copy, when the alternative would have been to *legally* create my own?

The public, because it promotes the idea that obtaining illegal copies of music is alright. Because it's this exact "convenience" that has blurred people's perception of right and wrong. Because it gives the notion that the people making illegal copies are doing nothing wrong. This thread is a reminder that this is more than a notion-it's a reality; people ARE obtaining illegal copies all the time with little to no remorse-some even think they're doing a good deed by screwing the music industry.

It may not be fully logical, but very little is.

 

[bigbeefdog]

The public, because it promotes the idea that obtaining illegal copies of music is alright. Because it's this exact "convenience" that has blurred people's perception of right and wrong. Because it gives the notion that the people making illegal copies are doing nothing wrong. This thread is a reminder that this is more than a notion-it's a reality; people ARE obtaining illegal copies all the time with little to no remorse-some even think they're doing a good deed by screwing the music industry.

Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I can assure you that my perceptions are not blurred; if I haven't paid for a copy of a work, I have no right to own one.

But seeing you go from the guy-on-the-street hypothetical (which you posed) to "some even think they're doing a good deed by screwing the music industry" is stunning.

With all due respect, I don't believe that something, anything, should be illegal because of the ideas it promotes in others.

Sorta like me asking you if you had donuts for breakfast this morning, then excoriating you for promoting the idea of donut-eating. Telling you that this gives the notion that diabetics who eat donuts are doing nothing wrong, while being unable to suggest any harm or foul you've done by eating breakfast.

You'd look at me like I just stepped out of the drunk tank.

Methinks we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

It may not be fully logical, but very little is.

When we're talking laws, ethics, and penalties for violators, it kinda has to be.

Appreciate the dialogue, though - good food for thought for me, and hopefully for others reading.

 

[heath_the_great]

i do to a degree....if i find a band that i might of heard 2-3 songs of that i dont mind i might download a few other songs to see wether its worth buying the album, and if it is, i go out and buy the album...if its not i keep the songs i downloaded....

but in saying that i also download 'rare' and live recordings of bands i do like...or i download film clips and live videos....like ive found some interesting led zeppelin bootlegs and prince.....i mean, live stuff thats bootlegged, IMO thats not stealing, cos the artists isnt selling those recorded versions...and also if you pay big bucks for the big bands you'd wanna take something with ya without forking out half the pprice of a ticked on a t-shirt

but you know what i think is pretty wierd...is that you have sony whinging about downloading music, then they produce the hardware to create and download bootlegged music....

but downloading music was inevitable.....its gonna happen..do what prince has done, embrace it, sell music online, sell private copies of all your songs for a hefty price to allow the purchaser to do whatever they want with their own copys....but dont song writers loose the ownership rights of their songs after 25 years anyway? its all on the prince rave un2 the year2000 dvd......but really...do most the bands that whinge about their music being downloaded need more money anyway? hell id be honoured to have my music downloaded

and really...is touuring to earn money so bad...id love it...

 

[heath_the_great]

copywrite laws allow you to create physical or software backups of any media or software you have legally purchased and are still in ownership of the origional purchased copy and are not selling the backups for a profit....

so legally, you are allowed to 'chip' your playstation or playstation 2 so you can create backups of your games to play on your system or lend to a friend legally as long as you have the copy which you have purchased

 

[bigbeefdog]

copywrite laws allow you to create physical or software backups of any media or software you have legally purchased and are still in ownership of the origional purchased copy and are not selling the backups for a profit....

You can't give the backups away, either.

Nor should you....

 

[c-ba55]

Are you serious? That's one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've ever heard regarding music. I'm not trying to be insulting either-it really is.

Well no, not really. But just about. Nobody good ever got into music for the money. Who would we be losing? P-Diddy, Master P, J-Lo, Mariah Carey, Will Smith, Destiny's Child. Big money (as currently implemented) is ruining the ability of quality music to receive exposure, and is actually harmful to culture and society. Radically seeking to destroy the status quo is heroism.

ARTISTS would not suffer, entertainers would. Fans don't want to steal from real people. When there is a real connection between an artist and a fanbase, the fanbase will support the artist. When there is an artificial and superficial connection, the entertainer is just marketing-created and doomed to disposability. Being supremely replaceable, the going pay rate for them is basically zero. The record company only pays them anything because the fans want to see some evidence of bling and high lifestyle. From the record company's perspective, enriching the entertainer is just a marketing expense.

 

[Norwegianwood]

people ARE obtaining illegal copies all the time with little to no remorse-some even think they're doing a good deed by screwing the music industry.

I just wonder, when you say that I "screw the music industry", do you mean in a financial or in a "stealing intellectual property" kinda way? I might not be doing a good deed when I check out new music over net. But look at it this way: I buy more records now than before I got into internet. But uh, I forgot - that doesn't matter to the music industry, they just worry about their "intelectual property".

If you still can't believe poeple are that bad, then get over it! Yes I am that evil and I got no morals what so ever. Infact, you better keep that comic book in a safe place the next couple of weeks....

 

[bigbeefdog]

Well no, not really. But just about. Nobody good ever got into music for the money. Who would we be losing? P-Diddy, Master P, J-Lo, Mariah Carey, Will Smith, Destiny's Child. Big money (as currently implemented) is ruining the ability of quality music to receive exposure, and is actually harmful to culture and society. Radically seeking to destroy the status quo is heroism.

ARTISTS would not suffer, entertainers would. Fans don't want to steal from real people. When there is a real connection between an artist and a fanbase, the fanbase will support the artist. When there is an artificial and superficial connection, the entertainer is just marketing-created and doomed to disposability. Being supremely replaceable, the going pay rate for them is basically zero. The record company only pays them anything because the fans want to see some evidence of bling and high lifestyle. From the record company's perspective, enriching the entertainer is just a marketing expense.

I don't care for some of the artists you mentioned either..... but

 

[dave_clark69]

The thing is, people say the artisits get no money when you download, that is true. When you buy a CD, the artist gets like £1 (give or take). But what happens now when you legally download music via 'Itunes' or 'MSN Music' etc. The money basically goes to the company, then even less goes to the artist.

IMO i dont think the artists care all that much really. If they are just selling songs to make money then they deserve it. However if you were to ask any artist, they only disagree with downloading music because it isn't showing them at their best. I remeber an interview with Radiohead, they did a preview of There There. they just didn't like people downloading it because it wasnt ready to be released and was of bad quality recording.

I know lots of people who illegally download. They think its ok because no one really is losing out. its not like in a shop, you steal a loaf of bread, thats gone. On the internet it can be copied and duplicated.

 

[c-ba55]

Copyright is an arbitrary law, it's not part of the ten commandments or the magna carta. Let's suppose it was actually the law that all audio recordings were public property, and it was literally impossible to sell recordings for more than a nominal convenience fee. What music would the world have then? I'm not interested in the "music industry" so much as the music itself.
Just a thought experiment.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I
If you still can't believe poeple are that bad, then get over it! Yes I am that evil and I got no morals what so ever. Infact, you better keep that comic book in a safe place the next couple of weeks....

What comic book?

 

[dave_clark69]

You see i know a person who has downloaded illegal copies of software. Now yes, that is wrong, he shouldnt do it. However, does the company lose out on a sale?

It's the same with music downloading. Do the people who download music lose the record company a sale?

If people want to stop downloaders, i think they should alter laws and make it so that the ISP can be liable. The ISP's won't want to get done for allowing users to download, so they will be hot of the case to catch the people who download.

Why do you download music? I use Itunes because its easiest when using an Ipod IMO, i legally download the music because i have no need for a CD and case. Why do you download? is it because of the price of the music.

 

[Marcus Willett]

And really, anybody that's driven out of the music-making business because they're not making enough money, their music can't be that good.

Do you make your living in the music business? If so, I'd be curious what you do. If not, then it would be accurate to say that you literally do not know what you are talking about. The suggestion that commercial success=quality is laughable. You think VHS is superior quality to BETA? You think Windows is the superior OS out there? Your statement astonishes me and I can only conlcude you have never worked in the business, because I you ever had, you would not make such a statement. I guess Britney is producing some of the highest quality music these days.

 

[c-ba55]

Do you make your living in the music business? If so, I'd be curious what you do. If not, then it would be accurate to say that you literally do not know what you are talking about. The suggestion that commercial success=quality is laughable. You think VHS is superior quality to BETA? You think Windows is the superior OS out there? Your statement astonishes me and I can only conlcude you have never worked in the business, because I you ever had, you would not make such a statement. I guess Britney is producing some of the highest quality music these days.

No, my point is the opposite. Not that commercial success = quality, but that by reducing the economic incentive to make music, you would not reduce the quality of music. You would instead distill out the chaff. Windows and VHS won by marketing superiority, the same way Brittney wins. The public in all three cases, loses. So to the extent that you destroy the system that encourages that in favor of one that promotes true quality, you are doing a public service.

I am a mathematician by trade. I didn't get into it for the money, I got into it for the beauty of it all. But I do it now for the money and try to get some artistic satisfaction where I can. I am not a first-rate original contributor to the future of mathematics; I am just a practitioner. 95% of the people that are first-rate original contributors have ABSOLUTELY no interest in money. There are though, some money-driven mathematicians doing great things. They specifically set out to do the sort of math that would lead immediately to profit. This is more like mathematical engineering. Some cool techniques will come out of it, but nothing of fundamental importance.

 

[dave_clark69]

Good point Marcus. but then again, how do you actually manage superiorority? Its true Windows isn't all that stable, its very buggy. OSX is more stable. Less people use OSX though. Think about polotics, all parties are the same really, just different views. How do they measure their success; by the amount of votes they get, making it the most popular party.

 

[Marcus Willett]

If you still can't believe poeple are that bad, then get over it!...Infact, you better keep that comic book in a safe place the next couple of weeks....

LOL! I'm the one with the comic book!
And yes, people are that bad. Most of them are morons. Sorry, but that's what I think. Exceptions? Sure, and I seek them out. But this thread has proven to me that people will do whatever they want and come up with some rationlization after the fact. Like I said a while back, sometimes you just have to go with what you know in your heart is the right thing. Don't agree/care? OK then.

I will present 3 axioms I feel cannot be denied.

1) It is damn tough to make a living in this business. I know of what I speak, been doing it for 20 years.

2) Artists struggling in this business are without question not HELPED by illegal downloading. (clarification- illegally downloading songs without their permission and never pruchasing said songs)

3) You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. There's no standing around and just being an observer in life...that is an illusion. Like it or not, you are accountable.

 

[c-ba55]

As an example of working within the new economic framework, the guy that writes and maintains Bittorrent (one of the biggest methods of file-sharing) puts it out there for free and includes a "please donate if you think this is worth something" message. Doing only this, he manages to support his family.

And 100% of his revenue is obviously exactly from the "thieves."

 

[Marcus Willett]

Good point Marcus. but then again, how do you actually manage superiorority?

True. I'm all for the free market and letting the chips fall where they may. But I also believe in old fashioned ideas like right and wrong. And I am a HUGE opponet of this pervasive idea of entitlement. (rant coming)

You (the unbiquitous you) aren't entiled to much of anything. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. OK, but that's it. Nobody OWES you ANYTHING. You want something? PAY for it! Why is that such an odd concept to people? "Well, in this case it doesn't hurt anybody...blah, blah"-barf!

Maybe I'm a dying breed, but as far as I can tell, right and wrong are not dependent on the consquences. Maybe there aren't any. So what, it's still wrong. I've been trying since this thread started to get a simple answer to a simple question, and NOBODY that supports illegal downloading will step up to the plate and answer the question:

Why should you be entitiled to anything (that's not a right) free of charge. Please explain, and justify your answer. Any takers?