What?

eoin5 · 03-02-2009 10:10am #1

From the times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5627039.ece

What do ye think? I'd say its last gasp attempts by a record company to put a leash on a cloud. This three strikes thing is hilarious too.

The industry would be so much better without anything like a large record company.

JimiTime · 03-02-2009 11:03am

eoin5 wrote: »

From the times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5627039.ece

What do ye think? I'd say its last gasp attempts by a record company to put a leash on a cloud. This three strikes thing is hilarious too.

The industry would be so much better without anything like a large record company.

I suppose the question is. Should you have to pay for music? If the answer is yes, then illegal downloading should be stopped. If no, fight on.

I kinda side with No. As a musician myself though, I know the amount of money I put into the craft, as well as the time. I can't help feeling though, that their would be a much better standard of musician, if 'rich and famous' weren't carrots on sticks. I don't know where I'd draw the line.

Kingcalumn · 03-02-2009 11:51am

The problem here lies with peoploes image of 'the rich n famous' musician, bathing in money. However the reality is that record sales do not put them in this position. A typical major label split is 75:25 in favour of the band. This means that the fat cats sitting in one of the 4 majors are really making the cash, and are the ones hurting from illegal downloads.

The artists making music should be paid for it - its only fair, whats not fair is the wedge being taken by the record compnaies. The way acts line their pockets is through live shows - are bands like Rolling Stones really worth up to €130 a ticket, or Bruce Springsteen €100? Probably not, but the fact that they lose so much to the record companies(especially that huge acts now dont need them - theyd sell the records anyway), they want to make as much as they can.

What to do:

Punish people for illegal downloads - they should be paying an artist for their work. However, the artist should get more, and record label less, thus making music cheaper, and perhaps lower concert ticket prices.

eoin5 · 04-02-2009 3:13am

Kingcalumn wrote: »

What to do:

Punish people for illegal downloads

The morality battle is endless on the subject but I'm just thinking about the weird situation between the law, the big labels, and the ISPs at the moment. What are these label guys doing?

How would you punish downloaders? The people who are going to get busted with this probably wont feel they are being punished for sharing or downloading music but for being careless enough to get caught. Three times caught...

Its like sticking a single post in the middle of a field and telling people you cant walk across the field and then anyone that walks into the post three times gets punished.

I think eircom are going along because they think they might frighten people into using less bandwidth or also just to appease the record crouds. I doubt theyre going to actually catch many people.

The history of this battle is pathetic and its getting worse, the large labels have completely lost legitimacy in the digital audio storm. Bands are thriving on the internet without any help from a label. Didnt they lose this battle ten years ago?

I cant make sense of it. Is it a dying whimper or what?

JimiTime · 04-02-2009 3:28pm

eoin5 wrote: »

I think eircom are going along because they think they might frighten people into using less bandwidth or also just to appease the record crouds. I doubt theyre going to actually catch many people.

I certainly don't think the former is the case, and definately the latter. That internal communication about the drug fuelled rock stars could be seen as Eircom aiding the pirates rather than eircom just providing a service which is being abused. Eircom saying that they are going to try catch illegal downloading is only bad for them. People will just move to BT, Perlico etc etc, and avoid Eircom. I think Eircom were backed into a corner in this.

eoin5 · 04-02-2009 4:38pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly don't think the former is the case, and definately the latter. That internal communication about the drug fuelled rock stars could be seen as Eircom aiding the pirates rather than eircom just providing a service which is being abused. Eircom saying that they are going to try catch illegal downloading is only bad for them. People will just move to BT, Perlico etc etc, and avoid Eircom. I think Eircom were backed into a corner in this.

Yea that makes more sense. Something like threatened legal action maybe.

iamhunted · 04-02-2009 5:06pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose the question is. Should you have to pay for music? If the answer is yes, then illegal downloading should be stopped. If no, fight on.

I kinda side with No. As a musician myself though, I know the amount of money I put into the craft, as well as the time. I can't help feeling though, that their would be a much better standard of musician, if 'rich and famous' weren't carrots on sticks. I don't know where I'd draw the line.

personally i find it much more complicated than that. as a musician you need to make sure three things happen:

1) People hear your music
2) People like your music
3) People buy your music

1) is what radio does traditionally for labels. Downloading is now doing that for people on the web. if someone pirates your music I'd look at that as first off a compliment and secondly an indication that people are hearing your music.

Plus being digital, you can make one copy and sell it a zillion times. Just because people download stuff, doesnt mean they wont buy it. it does mean though that theres a chance if they download your material and like it that they'll want to hear more and before you know it you have a fanbase.

Everything is changing and money isnt the be-all and end all and I say that as a musician myself.

iamhunted · 04-02-2009 5:07pm

eoin5 wrote: »

I cant make sense of it. Is it a dying whimper or what?

I think it is.

nyarlothothep · 05-02-2009 4:32pm

downloading for free is stealing, its the same as walking into a store and walking out with a cd you didn't pay for. The problem as I see it is the frankly obnoxious prices , 20.99 for an album is robbery and the way the profits are distributed as has been pointed out. Until these things change, I don't really see a major issue with downloading for free and I do think the measures in place are typical of domineering corporate behaviour.

xseanx · 05-02-2009 5:19pm

Downloading music, is wrong.
I must admit it,
We are basically taking a pay cut from the artist,
they gotta make a living aswell.

JohnGl · 05-02-2009 6:30pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

downloading for free is stealing, its the same as walking into a store and walking out with a cd you didn't pay for.

No. That is what labels may want you to believe, but it is not the same at all. Stealing a physical product involves taking something that people have spent money to produce, transport, display in the shop, etc. It is like stealing a phone, a car, whatever.

Downloading a track is like going to the library and photocopying a book. Nothing is physically lost.

I'm not saying that it's fine, but it is certainly not the same thing.

In many cases, the person would not have paid for what they downloaded anyway. That's why there is no way to measure exactly how much money is lost from illegal downloading, and anyone that says they can is full of ****.

DerKaiser · 05-02-2009 6:50pm

Music is a craft and artists deserve to charge for their craft, most people don't realise what artists go through to get to 'bathing in cash', it requires harder graft than the people with regular jobs who regard musicians as work-shy louts in this country particularly.

Huge acts don't suffer so much from download/piracy, but picture the young band, first record contract, probably the happiest day of their lives after all the graft and they pour themselves into the album, get into debt with the record company for a recording advance and then fcukheads come along and steal their music and they make sod all money from it and end up being dropped and sued for the recording advance. Not cool, I've never downloaded a single song and I never will.

eoin5 · 05-02-2009 7:54pm

DerKaiser wrote: »

Music is a craft and artists deserve to charge for their craft, most people don't realise what artists go through to get to 'bathing in cash', it requires harder graft than the people with regular jobs who regard musicians as work-shy louts in this country particularly.

Huge acts don't suffer so much from download/piracy, but picture the young band, first record contract, probably the happiest day of their lives after all the graft and they pour themselves into the album, get into debt with the record company for a recording advance and then fcukheads come along and steal their music and they make sod all money from it and end up being dropped and sued for the recording advance. Not cool, I've never downloaded a single song and I never will.

The reality is that there is no way of effectively guarding against illegal downloading. Getting into heavy debt with a label betting on people to be non-fcukheads a good way to throw away all your hard work. The illegal downloaders are a phenomenon that must be factored into the equation if you want to make money.

Welease · 05-02-2009 8:52pm

JohnGl wrote: »

No. That is what labels may want you to believe, but it is not the same at all. Stealing a physical product involves taking something that people have spent money to produce, transport, display in the shop, etc. It is like stealing a phone, a car, whatever.

Downloading a track is like going to the library and photocopying a book. Nothing is physically lost.

I'm not saying that it's fine, but it is certainly not the same thing.

In many cases, the person would not have paid for what they downloaded anyway. That's why there is no way to measure exactly how much money is lost from illegal downloading, and anyone that says they can is full of ****.

Sorry but respectfully that is a load of ****... An artist (or owner of the work) has the right, and only they have the right to decide how their music is distributed. If they choose to sell it for 10 Euro or 1,000,000 Euro or give it away free, it is their decision.. It is not your right to decide how you want to get it (i.e. free download).. if they wanted it as a free download they would have made it available in that format..

Secondly.. theft does not have to only involve a physical item.. Theft can exist with intellectual property, copyrights, digital medium etc.
And btw.. an album actually costs money to make.. and photocopying a book is also illegal as far as i know (permission to reproduce must be requested)

xseanx · 05-02-2009 9:47pm

JohnGl wrote: »

No. That is what labels may want you to believe, but it is not the same at all. Stealing a physical product involves taking something that people have spent money to produce, transport, display in the shop, etc. It is like stealing a phone, a car, whatever.

Downloading a track is like going to the library and photocopying a book. Nothing is physically lost.

I'm not saying that it's fine, but it is certainly not the same thing.

In many cases, the person would not have paid for what they downloaded anyway. That's why there is no way to measure exactly how much money is lost from illegal downloading, and anyone that says they can is full of ****.

Your wrong.
Even if you look, on most books it will say please do not photocopy.

JohnGl · 06-02-2009 4:13am

Welease wrote: »

Sorry but respectfully that is a load of ****... An artist (or owner of the work) has the right, and only they have the right to decide how their music is distributed. If they choose to sell it for 10 Euro or 1,000,000 Euro or give it away free, it is their decision.. It is not your right to decide how you want to get it (i.e. free download).. if they wanted it as a free download they would have made it available in that format..

I did not say they do not have the write to prevent copying, please reread my post. In fact, I said "I'm not saying that it's fine". They can of course decide to sell something for 1 gazillion euro if they want. I did not say it was my right to download anything.

Welease wrote: »

Secondly.. theft does not have to only involve a physical item.. Theft can exist with intellectual property, copyrights, digital medium etc.
And btw.. an album actually costs money to make.. and photocopying a book is also illegal as far as i know (permission to reproduce must be requested)

Again, if you would care to actually read my post, I did not say that downloading was not a form of theft. I said it is not the same thing as physical theft, which it is not. Physical theft generally involves stealing both intellectual property and physical property.

xseanx wrote: »

Your wrong.
Even if you look, on most books it will say please do not photocopy.

No, I am not wrong. I never said it was fine to photocopy a book. It is generally illegal to do so, and I never claimed otherwise.

Kingcalumn · 06-02-2009 12:11pm

John GI - I think the problem with what you said is that you made light of the severity of illegal download. It is the worst kind of theft as it is irretrievable, and can rapidly spread - limewire is an example of this. Artists work to create the music that we all love(or hate!), but they have to be paid for that, and we have no right to just take it because we dont want to have to pay for it.

The flip side to this argument, and one that I posted earlier is the cut they get. In a previous post, it was put that they can charge what they like for it. In theory, yes they can. In reality, most artists need a record company. The record company agrees a price with distributors, at the moment its around £7, and the artist gets a slim cut of this, usually 25%. The only benefit the major label brings them is free advertising and contacts.

What this the encourages the artist to do is charge high prices for gig entry, as the record company has, in most cases(although this led to radiohead going solo...) no leverage over your gig receipts. They see it as an opportunity to make some huge cash, and well...they do! Example - Muse last year in Marley Park took in round €1 million euros for themselves, which would equate to about 500,000 record sales, thats supposing they are on a 25% cut.

What Id propose is - artists getting a better cut from album sales, people stop downloading illegally and pay for your music adn finally gig prices come down, and the people can make a saving on gig entry to compensate the alien feeling of paying for their music!!!

JohnGl · 06-02-2009 12:27pm

Kingcalumn wrote: »

John GI - I think the problem with what you said is that you made light of the severity of illegal download.

Maybe, that wasn't the intention.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

It is the worst kind of theft as it is irretrievable, and can rapidly spread - limewire is an example of this.

I don't agree that it is worse that physical theft.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

Artists work to create the music that we all love(or hate!), but they have to be paid for that, and we have no right to just take it because we dont want to have to pay for it.

Sure, I have not be arguing against that.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

The flip side to this argument, and one that I posted earlier is the cut they get. In a previous post, it was put that they can charge what they like for it. In theory, yes they can. In reality, most artists need a record company. The record company agrees a price with distributors, at the moment its around £7, and the artist gets a slim cut of this, usually 25%. The only benefit the major label brings them is free advertising and contacts.

For now, but labels are becoming less and less important. This really is the crux of the matter. If the current trend continues, we won't really need the big label any more. That is why they are fighting so hard to hang onto their archaic business practice of selling little plastic discs. Does anyone have information that shows any of the money obtained from legal action against downloaders actually going to the artist?

Kingcalumn wrote: »

What this the encourages the artist to do is charge high prices for gig entry, as the record company has, in most cases(although this led to radiohead going solo...) no leverage over your gig receipts. They see it as an opportunity to make some huge cash, and well...they do! Example - Muse last year in Marley Park took in round €1 million euros for themselves, which would equate to about 500,000 record sales, thats supposing they are on a 25% cut.

While there is clearly a connection between record sales and gig prices, it is not as clear cut as that. Other countries have the same problem with downloads, the UK and the US for example, but have a far lower average ticket price. Look at prices across Europe in general, we are getting screwed for the most part. The whole chain is taking a larger cut here, it is not just artists trying to cover their downloading losses.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

What Id propose is - artists getting a better cut from album sales

Unlikely to happen.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

people stop downloading illegally

Not going to happen.

Kingcalumn wrote: »

pay for your music adn finally gig prices come down, and the people can make a saving on gig entry to compensate the alien feeling of paying for their music!!!

I don't think they'd come down as much as you're hoping.

iamhunted · 06-02-2009 3:00pm

JohnGl wrote: »

For now, but labels are becoming less and less important. This really is the crux of the matter. If the current trend continues, we won't really need the big label any more. That is why they are fighting so hard to hang onto their archaic business practice of selling little plastic discs. Does anyone have information that shows any of the money obtained from legal action against downloaders actually going to the artist?

spot on

Welease · 06-02-2009 5:56pm

JohnGl wrote: »

I did not say they do not have the write to prevent copying, please reread my post. In fact, I said "I'm not saying that it's fine". They can of course decide to sell something for 1 gazillion euro if they want. I did not say it was my right to download anything.

Again, if you would care to actually read my post, I did not say that downloading was not a form of theft. I said it is not the same thing as physical theft, which it is not. Physical theft generally involves stealing both intellectual property and physical property.

No, I am not wrong. I never said it was fine to photocopy a book. It is generally illegal to do so, and I never claimed otherwise.

Well explain to me.. what was the point of your post? (and I dont mean that in a nasty way

).. if you are not supporting it (or condoning it), then the content of your post seemed to be that there is no physical item involved... and thats it (even though its still illegal)..

Regarding your position that it's the record companies wanting to protect their archaic practices of releasing vinyl/cd's.. In some cases yes, in others they have embraced pay (or even free) digital downloads.. they key point is they and only they have the right to decide on the distribution channel.. there is no difference physical or not.. downloading via a non supported channel is theft..
It almost irrelevant if the artist makes any money that is recouped, as they don't necessarily own the rights..

JohnGl · 06-02-2009 7:38pm

Welease wrote: »

Well explain to me.. what was the point of your post? (and I dont mean that in a nasty way ).. if you are not supporting it (or condoning it), then the content of your post seemed to be that there is no physical item involved... and thats it (even though its still illegal)..

The point of the initial post was to correct someone that said copyright theft is the same as physical theft. It's not the same thing. The amount of money lost due to illegal downloading can not be calculated.

Welease wrote: »

Regarding your position that it's the record companies wanting to protect their archaic practices of releasing vinyl/cd's.. In some cases yes, in others they have embraced pay (or even free) digital downloads..

Yes.

Welease wrote: »

they key point is they and only they have the right to decide on the distribution channel..

Yes. At the same time, illegal downloading is not going to go away any time soon. Their time and money would be better spent coming up with alternative solutions and ways to work with online distribution rather than these ridiculously ineffective lawsuits.

Welease wrote: »

there is no difference physical or not.. downloading via a non supported channel is theft..

Yes and no, everything is not that black and white. What about for example rare CDs that have gone out of print? Perhaps the composer is now dead, and no one is looking after their estate. Is that still theft? What about illegally downloading a CD that you have bought previously?

Welease wrote: »

It almost irrelevant if the artist makes any money that is recouped, as they don't necessarily own the rights..

I don't find it irrelevant at all. They are trying to spin these lawsuits and shady deals (such as the one with eircom) as protecting the artists, when they couldn't care less about the artists.

Welease · 06-02-2009 8:53pm

JohnGl wrote: »

Yes. At the same time, illegal downloading is not going to go away any time soon. Their time and money would be better spent coming up with alternative solutions and ways to work with online distribution rather than these ridiculously ineffective lawsuits.

Yes and no, everything is not that black and white. What about for example rare CDs that have gone out of print? Perhaps the composer is now dead, and no one is looking after their estate. Is that still theft? What about illegally downloading a CD that you have bought previously?

I don't find it irrelevant at all. They are trying to spin these lawsuits and shady deals (such as the one with eircom) as protecting the artists, when they couldn't care less about the artists.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because you seem to want to miss the central point, in that noone else should have the right to dictate how the copyright holder has to do business.. If it costs them business, then it costs them business..

- The lawsuit is hardly rediculous if a) they won and b) ISP's will start clamping down
- It is pretty black and white (in most cases it's covered by law).. CD out of print.. as i understand it.. it's out print.. no you can't make your own copies to distribute.. dead composer.. again if the copyright holder doesnt make it available, noone else has the authority to do so (until it lapses).
- They can spin it anyway they want.. If I remember correct from that article only McGuinness was saying it denied artists money (and in his case that is true U2 own the rights to their music). Either way it's irrelevant, the owner of the copyright has either composed the music, or paid (in the case of record companies) to own the music.. it's not up to anyone else to decide how to distribute that material..
- lol at "shady deal"

how is it a "shady deal" to stop the distribution of stolen material?

It's still theft which ever way you want to slice it

JohnGl · 06-02-2009 9:20pm

Welease wrote: »

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because you seem to want to miss the central point, in that noone else should have the right to dictate how the copyright holder has to do business.. If it costs them business, then it costs them business..

I don't think I have missed the point, I have not disputed that.

Welease wrote: »

- The lawsuit is hardly rediculous if a) they won and b) ISP's will start clamping down

It's ridiculous because prosecuting a few people will not solve the problem. ISP's will not be able to clamp down on it. I couldn't really be bothered to go into the technical details, but the whole thing is a game of cat and mouse that the ISPs cannot win in the long run, which is precisely why they do not want to get into it.

Welease wrote: »

- It is pretty black and white (in most cases it's covered by law).. CD out of print.. as i understand it.. it's out print.. no you can't make your own copies to distribute.. dead composer.. again if the copyright holder doesnt make it available, noone else has the authority to do so (until it lapses).

Yes ok, legally it is quite black and white. What I was really talking about is right and wrong, which is completely different.

Welease wrote: »

- lol at "shady deal" how is it a "shady deal" to stop the distribution of stolen material?

Where to start...

1. The '3 strikes' system that they are trying to bring in has been explicitly rejected by the EU court. They brought it to court in the UK where it was also turned down, and there is no reason to think that it would not have been rejected by any court here.

2. They don't even need any proof to start disconnecting people, it is entirely at the say-so of the music industry people. They accuse an IP address, they get a warning or are disconnected. No trial, no evidence.

3. It will not stop the distribution of stolen material.

Welease · 06-02-2009 10:00pm

JohnGl wrote: »

It's ridiculous because prosecuting a few people will not solve the problem. ISP's will not be able to clamp down on it. I couldn't really be bothered to go into the technical details, but the whole thing is a game of cat and mouse that the ISPs cannot win in the long run, which is precisely why they do not want to get into it.

I assume you also favour the disbanding of the Garda then?.. because the fight against law and order has always been cat and mouse

I am well aware of the technical side (I have 20+ years experience in IT

), but when we allow illegal activies to go unchallenged because of "difficulties", i think we are in serious trouble.

JohnGl wrote: »

Yes ok, legally it is quite black and white. What I was really talking about is right and wrong, which is completely different.

Are you serious?

You can honestly be trying to argue that copyright holder's trying to enfore their ownership is wrong?

af_thefragile · 06-02-2009 10:59pm

The record labels want you to believe that downloading is a crime and its stealing from the musicians where as successful musicians make enough money through live acts and their dedicated fanbase who buys their albums. The only losers here are the record labels who ironically seem to be getting cut off completely from the music industry as musicians now can directly project their music through the internet without the need for any record labels marketing them. And this is what majority of artists want anyway. They want a music industry where the artist can communicate directly with the audience without the means of any middle men.

Downloading music only increases artists popularity. That is a fact. I wouldn't have known over half the artists i listen to if i wouldn't have had downloaded their album to check them out. And its not just that i'm leeching off the artists here. If i really like the artist's music, I buy their album and also go to their gig. So i do support the artists i'm a fan of.
I don't have the money to go into HMV and buy albums of every other band i hear of only to not really like the band after i've gotten their cd. If i was to buy albums to check out any band then i'ld only majorly be supporting the record label cuz if i wouldn't like the music then i wouldn't bother buying anymore albums and go to the band's gigs.

What happening this way (by the "download culture") is that people are getting easy access to wide variety of musicians and its left upto the people to decide which musicians they're gonna like enough to support. Which musicians they're gonna by albums of and go to gigs of. They're no longer being driven by the media (radio, magazines and tv) which is controlled by the record labels. So its the record labels who're at loss here. Hence they're the only ones making a massive deal about the whole downloading issue while many musicians like NIN and Radiohead (and a few not major acts like Saul Williams, Autolux, Dick Dale to name a few) have realised the fact that people are gonna download music whether you stop them or not and therefore don't go around chanting "downloading is stealing" and instead are giving away proportions of their music for free so that more people will listen to them.

Hence you've seen NIN's recent album, The Slip being downloaded more than 1.4million times from their website. Such figures would give record label heads major heart attacks but NIN has still managed to make good money by releasing a limited set of 250,000 copies of the album and people are buying them even when they already have the album downloaded for free! This is because they respect the band and they'll buy the cd and go to the band's gigs to support the band. The money goes where its deserved to be gone.

Don't listen to the record labels. Download music and support your favorite bands by buying their CDs, passing them around to your friends and going to their gigs.

Welease · 06-02-2009 11:19pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

The record labels want you to believe that downloading is a crime and its stealing from the musicians where as successful musicians make enough money through live acts and their dedicated fanbase who buys their albums. The only losers here are the record labels who ironically seem to be getting cut off completely from the music industry as musicians now can directly project their music through the internet without the need for any record labels marketing them. And this is what majority of artists want anyway. They want a music industry where the artist can communicate directly with the audience without the means of any middle men.

Downloading music only increases artists popularity. That is a fact. I wouldn't have known over half the artists i listen to if i wouldn't have had downloaded their album to check them out. And its not just that i'm leeching off the artists here. If i really like the artist's music, I buy their album and also go to their gig. So i do support the artists i'm a fan of.
I don't have the money to go into HMV and buy albums of every other band i hear of only to not really like the band after i've gotten their cd. If i was to buy albums to check out any band then i'ld only majorly be supporting the record label cuz if i wouldn't like the music then i wouldn't bother buying anymore albums and go to the band's gigs.

What happening this way (by the "download culture") is that people are getting easy access to wide variety of musicians and its left upto the people to decide which musicians they're gonna like enough to support. Which musicians they're gonna by albums of and go to gigs of. They're no longer being driven by the media (radio, magazines and tv) which is controlled by the record labels. So its the record labels who're at loss here. Hence they're the only ones making a massive deal about the whole downloading issue while many musicians like NIN and Radiohead (and a few not major acts like Saul Williams, Autolux, Dick Dale to name a few) have realised the fact that people are gonna download music whether you stop them or not and therefore don't go around chanting "downloading is stealing" and instead are giving away proportions of their music for free so that more people will listen to them.

Hence you've seen NIN's recent album, The Slip being downloaded more than 1.4million times from their website. Such figures would give record label heads major heart attacks but NIN has still managed to make good money by releasing a limited set of 250,000 copies of the album and people are buying them even when they already have the album downloaded for free! This is because they respect the band and they'll buy the cd and go to the band's gigs to support the band. The money goes where its deserved to be gone.

Don't listen to the record labels. Download music and support your favorite bands by buying their CDs, passing them around to your friends and going to their gigs.

Do you honestly believe the stuff you write?

- Copyright infringement is illegal.. FACT.. it's not record companies making it up.
- It's amazing that all the artists who want to communicate freely with the internet public and don't want record companies as you put it, actually signed contracts with record companies. Care to explain this, if they could have just put it up there for free in the first place?
- If you don't have the money for an album.. then you don't get to own it.. Life sucks.. get a helmet or get a better job.. illegal copying isn't ok because you can't/don't want to buy albums
- NIN/Radiohead can give their stuff away free.. good for them.. it's a business model that has been proven to work.. BUT it still doesn't give you the right to steal other people's work..

I am amazing at the crap people spout to justify stealing other people's copyrighted material (and i don't mean that comment to be directed offensively at you AF).. There are copyright laws in place, they are pretty simple and explicit, and it the owner of the material wanted you to have it for free, they would have made it available for free.. end of..

af_thefragile · 07-02-2009 12:12am

^No matter what you say the fact is that millions of people around the world are getting their music for free and no matter what anyone does, people will get their music for free.

Yes, downloading music is copyright infringement. But people are gonna do it whether you like it or not. The record labels cannot stop people from downloading music. That is a fact too. Many artists are coping on to this and therefore there are lesser and lesser artists who're interested in getting signed by major labels. There are more artists now who'ld rather get signed by an independent label while being given the freedom to make the kind of music they want to rather than get hooked into a tight contract with a major label and let them dictate your musical direction.

I'm a musician myself and although i don't have any music right now i would love to see people downloading my music. At least that way my music is being herd by a wide audience. More people listen to my music, more people are gonna like it, more people are gonna come to my gigs and i'll make money through the gigs and selling cds to the few fans who really appreciate my music. And that way i'ld get more money than a record label would pay me for my hard work and also i wouldn't have any fears of getting screwed over by a record label.

There are tons of independent artists out there and the number of independent artists is increasing quite steadily. The major record labels have only ended up getting themselves confined to the few popular artists you'ld frequent hear on the tv and the radio and read about in magazines.

Even many big bands like Tool, NIN, Radiohead and many many more have only ended up giving distribution rights to record labels while they're keeping all the production rights. So they produce their music at their own expense and only sell their music to distributers so that it can end up in stores. The record labels have little to do with the bands musically.

And again, if i like the band i'll buy their album. That simple.
If i don't like the band, then i wouldn't be listening to their music so its gonna make no difference to the band anyway whether i download their music to give them a try or just not bother even giving them a chance cuz i don't feel it worthwhile to buy their album.

The majority of people who'ld be listening to the heavier (non pop) music is the teenagers and students who're not gonna have the money to buy albums of every other band they come across out there to listen to them. People have always shared there music. Even before the days of the internet, people have passed around cassette tapes and made copies of their favorite albums. Music is no longer a luxury that can only be accessible to the wealthy who can afford it. There was a major revolution with the introduction of cassette tapes which has made music more accessible to everyone. The bands know this. They don't mind cuz they're making money from gigs and albums sales to their fans. The record labels don't like this cuz people aren't wasting their money buying albums of every crappy artist they put out there in the market.

Hence again, its only the record labels and those crappy artists who're at loss here. They good ones still have their ever growing fan bases who buy their cds and go to their gigs. The artists are getting (or not getting) the money they deserve. Its a fair market which is not being dictated by a couple of super wealthy record labels. It leads to the best musicians becoming the most popular by the choice of the audience listening to them (rather than the media telling them) and music becoming accessible to everyone regardless of their wealth!

Bands who're in for the music (and not the money) know this. They have their copyrights so that other artists don't rip their music off (not because people will download their music for free). They sell their music (rather than giving it off for free download) cuz they deserved to be paid for their hardwork depending on how good a job they've done.
If they've done a **** job then no one will buy their music and this will either lead them to work harder or find another job and there will be less **** music around to listen to (unlike the 80's). If they've done a great job, then they've created a healthy fanbase who'll support them by buying their cds and going to their gigs.

I don't know if you're a musician yourself or not cuz if you were then you'ld realise this yourself.

Its more a matter of using logic and common sense than trying to bog yourself down with endless laws.

eoin5 · 07-02-2009 1:06am

Welease wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the stuff you write?

- Copyright infringement is illegal.. FACT.. it's not record companies making it up.
- It's amazing that all the artists who want to communicate freely with the internet public and don't want record companies as you put it, actually signed contracts with record companies. Care to explain this, if they could have just put it up there for free in the first place?
- If you don't have the money for an album.. then you don't get to own it.. Life sucks.. get a helmet or get a better job.. illegal copying isn't ok because you can't/don't want to buy albums
- NIN/Radiohead can give their stuff away free.. good for them.. it's a business model that has been proven to work.. BUT it still doesn't give you the right to steal other people's work..

I am amazing at the crap people spout to justify stealing other people's copyrighted material (and i don't mean that comment to be directed offensively at you AF).. There are copyright laws in place, they are pretty simple and explicit, and it the owner of the material wanted you to have it for free, they would have made it available for free.. end of..

I think afs viewpoint pretty much describes the way the markets going. Bands and record companies have nothing to complain about if they release an album and it ends up getting downloaded illegally en masse by interested people who want a listen. Its a predictable result of their actions, why complain when you walk into a brick wall while staring at it.

JohnGl · 07-02-2009 1:22am

Welease wrote: »

I assume you also favour the disbanding of the Garda then?.. because the fight against law and order has always been cat and mouse

No, but I would like to see serious reform in the legal system, but that's another matter entirely. We can't fix every problem, so it's about weighing up the cost to fix it with the reward and impact on society.

Welease wrote: »

Are you serious? You can honestly be trying to argue that copyright holder's trying to enfore their ownership is wrong?

Depending on context, yes. You are trying to make everything black and white, which it is not (morally at least). As in the example I gave, if I go and a buy a CD, is it not fine that I can download it at a later date?

Do you think we should go after kids who make a mix tape/cd for friends? They may as well have downloaded it. So this is wrong too?

How about copying a cd that you bought, making a copy for the car or whatever? A senior music industry executive in the US recently declared that this was also copyright infringement. Again, I think the word ridiculous is appropriate.

Kingcalumn · 07-02-2009 1:43am

If only we lived in a world where vinyl was the only means to listen to music, this thread wouldnt exist....

Nervous Wreck · 07-02-2009 2:27am

You wouldn't steal a handbag......

What?

Comments