It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[Tim C.]

Or if I claimed a Jamerson bass performance as my own...

You would look like a complete idiot and everybody would shun you.

 

[McHaven]

I love the people so worried about torrenting in this thread have the music least likely to be torrented.

 

[Roy Vogt]

I guess the thing that bums me out is that there's a whole contingent out there that thinks it's totally OK to take music or information from someone and give it to to a thousand strangers. That's not emailing an mp3 or dubbing a copy for your friend. What's sad to me is that there are so many justifications for taking someone's intellectual property and doing whatever they want with it no consideration for the wishes of the creator.
"It's not wrong if I want to do it...."
IMO that takes you down a Rabbit Hole you may not want to go down. If you apply it in every aspect of your life it certainly would be disastrous.
There are so many ways to check out new music for low cost or no cost that are fine-there's monthly subscription services like Rhapsody, sites like www.lastfm.com and Pandora, there's even a lower tier of ITunes. Every one of the million bands on MySpace has a player with their songs. You've always got Youtube, although the audio sucks.
What I haven't had one person mention in this debate or discussion of my point of view is personal ethics (with the exception of PhatBastard-Thanks, Man. Glad you like my music ) and a sense of Right and Wrong. That's really sad, IMHO

 

[Roy Vogt]

where i run into a dilemma is stuff that is not available any other way than downloading......ie an out of print record.....is the artist hurt if someone makes me a copy.used copies do not pay royalties

I'd think that would be an exception. It's worrisome, however, when it's available and the Artist still has an income stream from it.

 

[Roy Vogt]

Yeah, that was a real head scratcher.
Love your stuff Roy, but your rebuttal leads me to believe you're not as on top of this, technologically, as I thought.

No one here is saying "stealing" CK stuff is right. Just that she's (due to technological ignorance and attitude) dealing with it all wrong. This is really very simple.

That rebuttal was in sarcasm, and not meant to be an accurate representation of how I think or talk. I never call anyone "Dude", for example That's why I apologized in a later post. Sarcasm on my part just adds heat with no light to this discussion.
Again, thanks for appreciating (and liking) what I do and seeing that my issue is about the "stealing" aspect of this. Carol is 72, she's not up on this stuff-I can guarantee you that.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I'd think that would be an exception. It's worrisome, however, when it's available and the Artist still has an income stream from it.

even if i could figure out how it works i still like to own the disc......it seems the i pod generation is more concerned with the number of songs crammed in than the sound quality of the actual songs

it's the world we live in i guess.....now days our sports heroes feel cheating is part of the game , long as you don't get caught.colleges report alarming numbers that cheat on exams,so i guess the end result will be an increase in the stock brokers who will cheat their clients,doctors who may not be up on all the material,etc.....

 

[JimmyM]

As pointed out already, that analogy is grossly misleading (not purchasing something is like setting a car on fire?) and often made dishonestly. The point is this. Stealing physical property is wrong because it hurts people. Illegally copying digital property is said to be wrong by analogy: the copying results in loss of profit for the artist. What my example intended to show is that the analogy is NOT OBVIOUS. It is simply not obvious, especially given that there are studies that (claim to?) show that music pirates buy more music than non-pirates, that pirating music per se results in a loss of profit by the artist. If it does, I think we can all agree that that's not right. But it simply does not follow that you lose money if I copy your music unless we make a whole host of other assumptions. Therefore it does not follow immediately that you are hurt (it is an open question). Therefore, it does not follow that it is wrong (it might be, but how do you know? It's an empirical question).

if someone takes money out of my pocket, it hurts. unfortunately, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point, and i think there are a lot of reasons why the music business is going down the crapper way before downloading (like crap music), but still, there's no way anyone can say that it's right.

 

[Pablo Fanque]

I guess the thing that bums me out is that there's a whole contingent out there that thinks it's totally OK to take music or information from someone and give it to to a thousand strangers. That's not emailing an mp3 or dubbing a copy for your friend. What's sad to me is that there are so many justifications for taking someone's intellectual property and doing whatever they want with it no consideration for the wishes of the creator...

Not only that, but people justify it based on the "outdated business model" under which the music industry operates. Apparently, it's outdated to expect record companies and artists to receive the proceeds from the dissemination of music which is produced and distributed at a substantial cost.

The "business model" may be outdated and times might have changed, but intellectual property laws have not. If I write an original composition, I have rights in it, including the right to be paid for its use, distribution, etc.

It's very simple for me. I understand the attraction of not paying for music. When Napster hit the scene and in my ignorance of copyright law, I had a field day. I also have paid THOUSANDS of dollars for recorded material, including the $25 I dropped this afternoon. Hopefully that makes up for some of the free stuff I got back when I didn't know any better.

 

[Deep]

Just a little side thing here. How much of this falls through the cracks every day?
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Pilgrim]

Carol is 72, she's not up on this stuff-I can guarantee you that.

While it's unfortunate that Carol's communication was not on target. IMO she has earned a LOT of slack from every musician. She is a giant when it comes to her musical contributions!

 

[SMASH]

There are two very different ideas being mixed together here.

Right or wrong. Legalities vary by country, but morally it's wrong without the artists permission. Simple. Even in the case of Metallica, who ironically grew to prominence thanks to tape trading, which Lars did prolifically, which is the old version of downloading & sharing.

Loss of revenue? A download does NOT necessarily equal a loss of revenue.

Some download to get digital copies of things they already own on VHS, casette, vinyl, even CD. I do, but I wouldn't buy another copy nor should I have to. Some people download out-of-print materials. Many download just to brag how many gigs they have of movies and music. They have literally thousands of hours of material they will never even view or listen to. I know several people like this. They would never buy that stuff at a price, so while it's still wrong for them to do so there is no revenue lost. In these categories I believe we have a significant majority of downloaders.

Then there are those actually taking for free something they would otherwise buy. I've done that too. When I like it, I buy it. Then I attend the tour, buy the shirt, bring friends with me, buy drinks at the venue, etc. Often I'll even hand a band member $20. The net effect is an increase in revenue for all parties. When I don't like it, I delete it - I haven't large enough hard drives to store stuff for the heck of it. I consider all this the equivalent of DIY radio/MTV - not morally right perhaps (though legal in my country), but again no revenue is lost.

In the old days some of those bands whose music I delete *might* have bought a CD of then never listened to them again, so they did perhaps lose a tiny bit of revenue (more likely only the label and store lost revenue) but the upside is that bands more deserving (not releasing what I think is crap) will get that money I saved instead, which on the whole makes me more of a music consumer (by not getting burned spending limited entertainment dollars on something with a cool cover, one hit wonder, or hype like I did as a kid) so the net effect to the music industry is again a positive.

That leaves a very small minority, I believe, that is actually stealing from artists at all or from the music industry in aggregate. They're downloading stomthing they'd have otherwise bought, and they are not attending gigs and spending more there since they have extra entertainment dollars thanks to free downloading.

Also it has yet to be proven that downloading has negatively affected sales. I've seen credible studiues that show increases in sales of recorded music when the economy was still booming, as you'd expect, and overall incraeses in money made in the live music arena. Then factor video games, home theatre, all the indie bands that can now record and distribute music for cheap in indie stores and at shows which are never counted in SoundScan figures (I spend at least $1000 a year, and a few close friends spend much more than that, per year on CD's that will never be counted by the RIAA), etc. and it's impossible to say what is affecting sales.

People rejecting logic and balance, instead preferring to exaggerate, rationalize, and be polarized, will never lead to understanding or progress. As someone said, it is the way it is now so what's to be done?

It reminds me of the BS "argument" that people playing for free are taking food out of the mouth of pro musicians. Yeah right. Pure extremity and a total rejection of common sense. A crappy 3-pc acoustic cover act is going to affect the sale of Nickelback, Jeff Beck, or Immortal albums, tickets, and shirts. Mahavishnu Orchestra could reunite and tour profitably, if only people would buy tickets to their gigs instead attending open mic nights. How many people paying up to $5000 for tickets to the Canada / US gold medal hockey game would instead prefer to just go watch a beer league play hockey for free? Are Little League players afftecing A-Rod's salary? Are girlfriends and wives putting strippers and whores out of business? Get jailed last night - do you want a good lawyer that'll cost you something or some free advice from an online forum?

Point being, it ain't as simple as the knee-jerkers would like to make things. Nothing ever is.

 

[zenrad]

While it's unfortunate that Carol's communication was not on target. IMO she has earned a LOT of slack from every musician. She is a giant when it comes to her musical contributions!

Y'know, I'm not put off by cantankerous older folks, or the stuff that older folks do. I'm good friends with a number of older folks so I can understand their attitudes and viewpoints and cut them slack for just making it around the Sun more times than I have if nothing else.

Here's one reason I think older folks are awesome...there used to be an older man and his wife living next door to us here. Leo was a wonderful and interesting man, and we basically "adopted" him and his wife as sort of surrogate grandparents, and would have them over to the house all the time and for every family party. One day Leo was standing in the doorway watching the kids play and he just farted - no excuse me, no mention of anything, he just farted and that was that, like it never happened.

I thought how awesome that was - think about it. Here I am, holding my gas out of politeness for all my life, but when I turn 85 I'll just let one go whenever I damn well please and so what! I'm not talking about stealth farts, I mean an honest audible rip.

The point is - so what if Carol is abrasive. She has a right to express herself as she sees fit and no one has to read her comments if they don't like them. She has lived for long time and contributed much to the arts and she's going to do it the way she wants and will fart in the doorway if she chooses to.

 

[baalroo]

Here's one more monkey wrench to throw into the mix: Buying USED CDs.

Until recently I spent A LOT of money each month buying music, but in order to save myself some money I always bought my CDs at places that resold CDs. One day I was discussing music piracy and the merits of the "loss of revenue for the artist" argument when I realized that IF DLing ALBUMS IS "STEALING" THEN SO IS BUYING CDs USED. I promptly quit buying CDs used because I realized I was simply throwing money down a hole and the only people profiting was the reseller. So, if you buy your CDs used you might as well just DL off the net because either way you are listening to the artists work without paying them for it. thoughts?

 

[mccartneyman]

Here's one more monkey wrench to throw into the mix: Buying USED CDs.

Until recently I spent A LOT of money each month buying music, but in order to save myself some money I always bought my CDs at places that resold CDs. One day I was discussing music piracy and the merits of the "loss of revenue for the artist" argument when I realized that IF DLing ALBUMS IS "STEALING" THEN SO IS BUYING CDs USED. I promptly quit buying CDs used because I realized I was simply throwing money down a hole and the only people profiting was the reseller. So, if you buy your CDs used you might as well just DL off the net because either way you are listening to the artists work without paying them for it. thoughts?

No different than buying used books, I reckon. The writer of the should already have been paid by the publisher. I don't know if any author ever expected to be paid for sales of used books.

 

[Roy Vogt]

No different than buying used books, I reckon. The writer of the should already have been paid by the publisher. I don't know if any author ever expected to be paid for sales of used books.

I think that's probably right. The initial sale paid the artist.
I was thinking about what someone said about Vic being part of the "good ol' boy major label system". Granted, Bela and the Flecktones have been on Warners and CBS/Sony but Bela got his start as a solo Artist and a member of The Newgrass Revival on Rounder, a large Indie label.
Vic's CDs from A Show of Hands to Live in America were on Compass, a small label started by a friend and former student of mine, Garry West and his wife, Jazz Banjo Artist Allison Brown. Their model is that the Artists OWN their own masters and Compass leases them for a specified period of time. Garry and Allison started their label because they wanted a forum for Allison's music and then started collecting like-minded Artists (Jeff Coffin, Todd Phillips, and of course, Victor Wooten). Sure they are there to make a profit, but somehow I don't see folks like this as The Evil Empire.
After a foray on Vanguard, another large Indie, for Soul Circus, Vic's ended up on Heads Up, a large indie label started by a Jazz trumpet player and Jazz fan. Several of my other friends, including bassist Gerald Veasley and Jimmy Haslip of the Yellowjackets are on the label. With Stanley, Marcus, The Jaco Pastorius Big Band and SMV on there as well it's sort of a Bass Player Paradise.
The Yellowjackets were label-less and did their own release on Mint Jams, and Jimmy told me it was the first time they actually got royalty payments every month since they were paying themselves! I think they could have continued indefinitely that way, so Heads Up must have something for them.
The true wave of the future, IMO, will be bands like O.A.R. who OWN every facet of their business, from the semis who haul their production to the CDs on their merch table and the download cards for sale. You still have to have a profit stream to make this work, however, so money has to change hands at some point for them to continue.

 

[baalroo]

No different than buying used books, I reckon. The writer of the should already have been paid by the publisher. I don't know if any author ever expected to be paid for sales of used books.

right, well the person who originally bought the track and uploaded it to the P2P paid for it as well (except most major label releases get uploaded to the private trackers for free download directly by the label, but that's a whole other conversation). What you're saying is that it's ok to read the book or listen to the album without paying the artist as long as you pay SOMEONE for it. I really don't understand your argument at all. Either the artist deserves payment for their work by EVERY PERSON WHO LISTENS TO IT or they don't. If you buy used media you are a pirate, end of story.

 

[baalroo]

Are you saying that if I buy a used book off ebay I'm a pirate?

If yes...ok, but what if I don't read it? Potential pirate?

based on the argument that is being laid out here (from the people who disagree with me), it seems quite obvious that YES, they believe you are a pirate (or potential pirate). You are reading the book without paying the artist for writing it and that is their definition of a pirate. Don't like it? Take it up with the people here arguing that side, not me. IN FACT, you are paying someone else to AID YOU in circumventing the proper channels of payment to the artist, so you're actually participating in the buying and selling of "stolen goods" rather than just sharing freely, so you might want to watch out, these guys might consider you to be WORSE than a pirate if they actually think about it for too long.

the entire point of buying used CDs and books is to circumvent having to pay the full retail cost to the artist, when you should be fully aware that you are stiffing the artist the money they "should have made"(to use the oppositions phrase) from the sale of said book or song. The ONLY difference between buying used and filesharing is that a 3rd unrelated party is making money off the you stiffing the artist in one, and in the other no one gets paid for the work. Which sounds worse to you? Unfortunately, in [y]our[?] culture one version (arguably the shadier one) is considered "ok" and one is not.

 

[baalroo]

I haven't been following this thread, but I don't see how anybody can actually believe someone else is a pirate if that person buys a used book. The artist or whatever was already paid his cut for that particular book.

Now if I were to make copies of the book and sell them without the proper permission, contract and payment arrangements, that would be wrong.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any logical sense at all. Can you clarify WHY you believe this to be the case? isn't the person who buys the used book reading the artists work without paying the artist? isn't that the same as making a copy of it for someone? either way, both people have now read the artist's work, and only one person has paid the artist for it. Either it's ok to read her work without paying her, or it's not, what's the importance of the chosen medium?

 

[Tim C.]

either way, both people have now read the artist's work, and only one person has paid the artist for it. Either it's ok to read her work without paying her, or it's not, what's the importance of the chosen medium?

Let's take it to another extreme. I buy a CD, then sell that CD for a little less than what I paid to a friend. They sell it to a friend, who then sells it to a friend, who gives it to a friend, who sells it on eBay, etc. Nobody makes a profit because used CD's don't sell for new prices.

Let's say a thousand people happen across this CD and listen to its contents - yet the artist was only paid once for its initial sale. Are those thousand people all criminals and thieves? I should hope that nobody here thinks so.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any logical sense at all. Can you clarify WHY you believe this to be the case? isn't the person who buys the used book reading the artists work without paying the artist? isn't that the same as making a copy of it for someone? either way, both people have now read the artist's work, and only one person has paid the artist for it. Either it's ok to read her work without paying her, or it's not, what's the importance of the chosen medium?

once the first guy buys the book it is his to sell if he pleases.....there is no contract upon purchasing a book or cd,real or implied that you must keep it forever,or destroy it lest someone else read it