I cannot believe this thread has gone this long without the obligatory internet forum joke posts.
I'll step up since no one else has..
I'll step up since no one else has..
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet
- Thread starter YL_Bass
- Start date
Yes, thanks. I'm an IT guy. I've been on the Internet since before AOL was invented, when you used a dialup connection through a BBS and you were charged by the minute
As for your other question, depending on the situation you could be an accessory to a crime. Sometimes all you need to be doing is standing nearby. Laws are complex, precisely because there are other colors than black and white.
I think I mentioned earlier that I make my money via live gigs and merchandise.
But the reality is other than the last 60 years artists haven't had the ability to enjoy this buisness model. I don't think we can expect it to remain.
If anything I think it will weed out the pretenders. If we're lucky we'll be left with a purchasing group that appreciates music enough to buy it to support artists.
And if you look at statistics that is most likely what is happening. Pop artist sales are down for the recording industry (other than the hit machine which is Disney, aim at a audience too young to pirate and you still make money) as is the rest of the industry. Whereas artist profits are up. I know this is true for me at least, before using facebook for marketing my band did not make nearly as much money as it does now.
When the phonograph was invented people said "this will destroy artists, how will they make money on their live performances". It didn't. I don't ever think we can expect a buisness model to remain stagnate. People who can't keep up with the curve are going to end up neo-luddites and those who can will make more money than ever on an individual level.
But seriously, no one expects the prophet forcalling doom to have a solution for said doom.
Edit: Sorry forgot the copyright question. I think copyright overall needs reform but not removal. I think it's gotten a little out of hand when you can patent a human gene you discovered. Music copyright is great, but it needs to cut out the label as the protected one. No investment is a safe one, and labels shouldn't expect music to be.
When something is downloaded illegally, it's because somebody made the choice to download that material illegally. And if somebody wants something badly enough, they'll find it eventually.
A gun store owner should not be punished if somebody buys a weapon and uses it to commit murder. The gun store owner did nothing wrong. It was the murderer who made a choice and did an action.
In the case of the Google execs in Italy - are they the ones who abused that boy? Did they videotape it? Were they present when the abuse took place and decide to do nothing to prevent or stop it? What are the guilty of, exactly? Did they even post the video themselves? I don't understand how they were accountable for any wrong-doing.
This is a complete fabrication, but most of it I agree with.
Isn't that why you seek out a teacher in the first place? And you "hate" that about her? If you want to "deviate" then maybe you're better off playing along to mp3's and not wasting her time. Or your time.
No, the part I hate is when she trashes people with insults.
Especially people who admire her. I don't think she realizes how harsh she can come across at times.
For instance, a fellow TB'r told her that he would play what ever they want in the studio, if he was getting paid for it.
She told him that he had no character or integrity, and that was why he couldn't be a success. Ironically he is a pretty successful bassist with a fairly big name singer.
another case:
I was having a very cordial discussion in her forum with another TB'r concerning her new SRX. I love the SRX. Carol endorses the SRX. The other person really liked the build but had some trouble finding a the tone she wanted. Carol basically acted like the other TB'r was either brand new to playing, or a moron eventhough the TB'r has been playing for quiet a while and is very knowledgeable about equipment. When the end result was that the SRX just wasn't what the TB'r was looking for in a bass, Carol deleted the whole thread. It is a shame because there was some other info in the thread Carol shared to help avoid injuries...but all of that disappeared too.
That's an example of behavior I'm talking about hating.
No i don't think she is who you go to in order to work on your metal techniques.
Personally, I'm greatful for everything she has taken the time to share with me. I also want to point out that she is still a working musician, still performing gigs as of the last time I heard from her. So she's not somebody hanging on to glory days and living with a cat. She's still gigging as well as teaching, and running her business. I find her inspiring to still be doing all this at her age, and doing it well at that.
Believe me, I wasn't responding to him in order to protect you
Good to know
This is exactly the problem.
FWIW, they were found guilty because the video was found to be in violation of their policy, they were notified but waited months to remove it.
I understand that we live in a world where people stepped over a person in a store who fell to the floor and passed out. No one called 911, but someone did take out his phone to take a photo of the dying woman.
We live in a world where people witnessed a man get run down in traffic by a hit and run driver, and walked by as he lay in the street, no one called 911 although many stopped to look.
We live in a world where two transit cops watch a teenage girl beat another girl inches away from them but say nothing or do nothing to stop it because "it's not their job" to do that.
No one is to blame, no one assumes responsibility, no one understands or cares about their role as a member of society.
I guess my viewpoint makes me out of touch. All I can do is what I still think is right, and try to teach my children the same and maybe others by example.
Like I said it has nothing to do with them. Check out Italy's justice system and tell me if anything doesn't make sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Criminal_Procedure
also from the national post.
But perhaps that is what its Italian critics want. There is much speculation that, in a country where most private media is owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and public media is controlled by the government, the real motive is not to defend the dignity of a disabled child, but to crush a competitor. The New York Times reports, 

there is a strong push to regulate the Internet more assertively than it is controlled elsewhere in Europe. Several measures are pending in Parliament here that seek to impose various controls on the Internet. Critics of Mr. Berlusconi say the measures go beyond routine copyright questions and are a way to stave off competition from the Web to public television stations and his own private channels and to keep a tighter grip on public debate.
So an appointed prosecutor has the weight of both convicting you and proving your innocence. The same person.
Just saying, this is Italy, hardly the rest of the world.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
If an artist or author has a truly original work and anybody actually wants to read or listen to it, they'll make money in some fashion and get recognition for being a creative, original mind.
If all they're doing is copying other musician's output and trying to appeal to a crowd which we already know in fact does not like to pay for music, then I can't see how they can complain.
Guess what - if you (hypothetically) are in an emo band making the same music that one hundred other emo bands make and you're targeting an emo audience that hates the very idea of paying for music, you're not going to make much money.
I know alot of newer musicians and whatnot complain that they don't make the kind of money that bands did back when rock was still a newer music genre, but let's get real for a minute - when was the last time a new band did something that was qualifiably "great" in comparison to the sixties or early seventies?
Uh, "don't suck"? Play music people actually want to listen to? If a band wants to make money, they need to target an audience that has money. That audience is not teenagers.
I won't pretend I know the right answer to your questions, whatever that means. But here are some issues for you to consider:
Artists do perform their works as a form of charity. Look at radio. Look at (earlier) MTV, VH-1, BET, Myspace. Might this have something to do with the increasingly common perspective that music is/should be free?
Artists do give their works away for free. Look at Trent Reznor/NIN. Look at Radiohead. Does this only work for artists who are already established? I don't know. But even up and coming bands "give their tracks away for free" on their Myspace pages. Is this a viable general business model? Sometimes. Does there have to be one business model for all artists? Should all music be traditionally copyrighted? What about Creative Commons licenses? Can the average consumer tell the difference?
Whether or not copyright laws should exist or be enforced, it's clear that what, if any, business model will arise from the ashes of the existing one is an open question. There is a lot of experimentation and doubt. But it's increasingly clear that digging your heels in will not make the problem go away. If the existing laws are not working, is the solution going to be to make stricter, tougher laws and pour money into enforcing them? (Maybe we should make murder twice as illegal -- that'll cut the crime rate! It worked for Hammurabi...)
And by the way, just so it's out in the open, this discussing is turning into a lot of bait-and-switches. Turning around from a moral argument to a practical one means you're no longer arguing about the same thing. They are both important discussions, but they are not the same.
If the gunstore owner allowed a gun to wind up in the hands of a criminal or helped a person get a gun knowing they would murder someone with it, yes, he is responsible and should be punished.
If you help drive someone to my house so he can steal something, you should be punished, even if you do not enter my house or personally steal anything.
Even if a bartender serves drinks to someone obviously drunk, and they leave the bar and kill someone while DUI, the bartender can be punished. The bartender didn't drink or drive, but because he knowingly served a drunk person, he is responsible for the results of his decision to serve him.
It seems that is the core issue, people wanting to avoid responsibility for the results of their actions.
as i stands right now, the owner of torrentfreak could sue the pants off her for slander and id imagine getting her website traffickers to mail him could also get her sued for something. she needs to calm down.
I think this a pretty twisted view on how the world works. Should walmart be convicted too because they sold someone the kitchen knives that someone used to kill someone?
How about the manufacturer of the knife? In the end people still need knives I mean blame has to stop somewhere.You're not out of touch at all. The world is a screwed up place.
But I don't think the government is in any position to fix it, either. Hell, as far as I can tell all it does is make things worse by often times subsidizing bad behavior. Look at what happened last year with the bankers and Wall St. execs. Government is not a role model for good behavior.
My point was that the gun owner specifically did not know the person was going to use the otherwise legally sold product to cause harm.
I didn't suggest that knowingly and willingly transporting a criminal should not be punishable.
If a person wants to get drunk and then drive, they're going to -with or without the bartender's help. At least in a bar, the bartender can alert the police that one of his customers is trying to drive while intoxicated.
+1. It stops with the individual. Don't eat a thousand Big Macs and sue McDonald's for making you heavy.
There are alot of great bands with great musicians, the problem is they don't get heard because they aren't "pretty" enough.
The big labels want to have a model on the stage and that's where they put the money.
Kids today(since they proabably are the ones supporting this model) need to demand more from the bands they want to see. Especially live acts. I still find it hard to believe people can and do buy tickets for a concert knowing that the artist lipsincs. Demand more for your money.
Don't expect free music, but demand real music performed live.
What if the bartender sold the DUI guy his first three drinks, then his sober buddies came to the bar and bought drunky his next three? Maybe the bartender should be punished for letting other people buy drinks for others(?), but is he guilty of manslaughter?
What if I link to a site that on Monday I thoroughly vetted and has no illegal material, and they post some mp3s on Tuesday. Am I supposed to know this? Am I responsible for it? How often do I have to check to see if they have anything illegal there? Every day? Every hour?
I agree with you that people want to avoid responsibility for their actions (edit: and that this often is wrong and/or results in wrongdoing). I think the difference between you and me is that I think the question of who is responsible for what is sometimes very complicated and that intelligent people (and even governments!) can reasonably disagree.
Two words gratuitously mashed into one: Nickelback. Big $$$ and ugly as hell. The frontman looks like a Simpsons character. There are alot of bands making money that don't look like Disney's pre-made people.
It isn't about good looks - it's about finding the right audience that are actually consumers and not just downloaders.
Ok...I'll tie it together.
These analogies are real world laws, not my opinion, and I hope point out that knowingly participating in theft of property(or any crime) however indirect is punishable behavior.
When torrent sites provide links to torrents to download something illeagally, they are knowingly assisting in theft.
If, as CK said on her forum, this guy provided the same type of link in his blog then he is assisting in theft. He knew that information would be used for illegal downloading when he posted it. Saying he doesn't know would be akin to a drug dealer saying he didn't know people actually "used" the drugs he sold...gee that's bad.
Therefore he deserves whatever venom she wants to spew at him, being blowing steam for a few days or hiring a team of lawyers.If, as CK said on her forum, this guy provided the same type of link in his blog then he is assisting in theft. He knew that information would be used for illegal downloading when he posted it. Saying he doesn't know would be akin to a drug dealer saying he didn't know people actually "used" the drugs he sold...gee that's bad.
I'm not going to try to justify illegal downloading.
But I'll say this. If CK is so adamantly opposed to anybody ever illegally downloading her intellectual property, she needs to abandon selling CD's or books because there is NOTHING she is going to do to stop those materials from being disseminated for free download.
She should move to a paysite, similar to what porn companies use, that allows her material to only be accessed at her actual website and has anti-copying measures in place.
Sending out nasty emails and empty threats isn't going to do a thing. And sticking to stone-age business models isn't going to get you anywhere in the year 2010.
