help with go team album

DamagedTrax

i lost thunder lightning strike a while back and recently bought it again but its got slightly differant versions of songs on it. especially bottle rocket. anyone know what this is all about. 2 versions?

loyatemu

they re-recorded some of the tracks for the US version after there were problems with sample clearance I think.

DamagedTrax

cheers mate thanks, musta been the uk one i originally had then cause it had a mercury prize sticker on it and the one i recently bought was from ebay. probably came from usa at some stage. off to hunt down tve uk release.

thanks again.

TO_ARTHUR!

Have you tried torrenting it?

DamagedTrax

not cool. i work in the industry, why dont i just rip up my wages every month instead.

Miguel_Sanchez

TO_ARTHUR! wrote: »

Have you tried torrenting it?

Have you tried not encouraging illegal downloading?

loyatemu

DamagedTrax wrote: »

not cool. i work in the industry, why dont i just rip up my wages every month instead.

you bought it on Ebay - how much money did the GoTeam make from that?

Miguel_Sanchez

loyatemu wrote: »

you bought it on Ebay - how much money did the GoTeam make from that?

Well they at least got the money from the first purchase of it.

MilanPan!c

Stealing is obviously wrong, but trying to legislate morality is pretty tough.

The eBay thing raises a great point; is it ok to illegally download a copy of a record, if the original was purchased? How many times can it be sold second hand before it's essentially stealing from a band?

At some point folks will figure this all out, but at this point there's a heck of a lot of grey.


By the way, it's kinda ironic that we're talking about stealing a record which has disappeared from shelves because the songs featred stolen samples.

Crazy.

TO_ARTHUR!

loyatemu wrote: »

you bought it on Ebay - how much money did the GoTeam make from that?

Yeah!

Most downloadable albums end up on the net from being purchased in places where the band/industry makes a profit from them.
Lebowski, Dude, the point you're making that the ebay method of acquiring an album is somehow better than downloading one is flawed.

Miguel_Sanchez

TO_ARTHUR! wrote: »

Yeah!

Most downloadable albums end up on the net from being purchased in places where the band/industry makes a profit from them.
Lebowski, Dude, the point you're making that the ebay method of acquiring an album is somehow better than downloading one is flawed.

At least you know if you buy a CD from Ebay someone has most likely purchased the album at some point. The same cannot be said for downloading the album illegally.

But while a downloaded album may have been legally purchased at some point it will be downloaded hundreds if not thousands of times compared to the at the very most 5 or 6 times a CD will be sold on secondhand.

There's a reason the record companies aren't chasing 2nd hand record shops and trying to force them to close.

darthcool

i remember when icky thump by the white stripes came out there were different versions of the tracks on the vinyl to the cd, different mixes and different vocals great incentive to buy all formats!

MilanPan!c

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

At least you know if you buy a CD from Ebay someone has most likely purchased the album at some point. The same cannot be said for downloading the album illegally.

But while a downloaded album may have been legally purchased at some point it will be downloaded hundreds if not thousands of times compared to the at the very most 5 or 6 times a CD will be sold on secondhand.

There's a reason the record companies aren't chasing 2nd hand record shops and trying to force them to close.

hate to contrary, but the riaa sued used record stores for years...

The impact may be lesser, but the reality is the same, buying second-hand records is stealing from artists...

And of course this is the real rub:

people that post music for download don't make money from it, typically... Used record stores make money from theft every single day.

Android 666

darthcool wrote: »

i remember when icky thump by the white stripes came out there were different versions of the tracks on the vinyl to the cd, different mixes and different vocals great incentive to buy all formats!

I actually would see that as a cynical way to get as much money out of their fans as possible but hey each to their own.

Miguel_Sanchez

MilanPan!c wrote: »

hate to contrary, but the riaa sued used record stores for years...

Oh there's always one. :mad:

The impact may be lesser, but the reality is the same, buying second-hand records is stealing from artists...

The impact is lesser which is my point. Ebay or Freebird allowing a CD to be bought secondhand is impacting an artist less than someone hosting an album for multiple downloads.

MilanPan!c

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Oh there's always one. :mad:



The impact is lesser which is my point. Ebay or Freebird allowing a CD to be bought secondhand is impacting an artist less than someone hosting an album for multiple downloads.

well... ask a band like the Beatles. How many of their records have been sold second hand? How much money have people made off of them, via second hand sales?

It's certainly a different world for bands, but honestly, good bands flourish, even though people d/l their records and the industry is adapting... bands from the 60s and 70s literally lost thousands and thousands and thousands of sales, and made a LOT of people a LOT of money, via re-selling records.

Miguel_Sanchez

MilanPan!c wrote: »

well... ask a band like the Beatles. How many of their records have been sold second hand? How much money have people made off of them, via second hand sales?

Yeah but what I mean is if an album is hosted somewhere potentially hundreds of thousands of people could download it. If a record shop sells on a record second hand, it's only going to one person at a time.

MilanPan!c

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Yeah but what I mean is if an album is hosted somewhere potentially hundreds of thousands of people could download it. If a record shop sells on a record second hand, it's only going to one person at a time.

No, I get that, but there's absolutely no guarantee that most of the records people download would EVER be purchased, no matter their online availability.

What you can guarantee with second hand shop is that SOMEONE is making MONEY from a band and its not the band.

Begin rant

To me, downloading is more like the radio for most folks.

And the radio is basically just one big info-mercial for the same 20 bands, over and over and over (e.g. how many times a day can Phantom play AC/DC? You'd be surprised.)

If the radio was awesome, people would steal less. Look at spotify; people LOVE IT! And it's legal and artists make money.

Really though, the future of music isn't gonna be about selling records, but about creating value, for fans, and using songs to sell that value.

IMO IMO IMO

/ramble

Android 666

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Look at spotify; people LOVE IT! And it's legal and artists make money.

They do in their holes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/18/sam-leith-downloading-money-spotify

Spotify users enjoyed more than 1m plays of Lady Gaga's song Poker Face – which earned Her Gaganess the sum of $167.

S.M.B.

He didn't say it made them a big sum of money.

MilanPan!c

Android 666 wrote: »

They do in their holes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/18/sam-leith-downloading-money-spotify

Spotify users enjoyed more than 1m plays of Lady Gaga's song Poker Face – which earned Her Gaganess the sum of $167.

Lyle Lovett sold 4.6 MILLION record and made 0$

So, Spotify is doing better for LGG than labels did for LL.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371651.shtml

Like I said, selling records only really makes money for labels... at least for the first decade of so of an artists career... if they're lucky.

But it's a GREAT way to promote yourself, so you can make money playing shows, etc.

EDIT:

As an extension of this, do you think LL is pro- or anti- downloading? I'm not saying, I don't know, but it's an interesting question I think.

AnonoBoy

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Lyle Lovett sold 4.6 MILLION record and made 0$

As an extension of this, do you think LL is pro- or anti- downloading? I'm not saying, I don't know, but it's an interesting question I think.

I dunno. But I bet he's pretty anti-agents .

Android 666

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Lyle Lovett sold 4.6 MILLION record and made 0$

So, Spotify is doing better for LGG than labels did for LL.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371651.shtml

He says he never made a dime have you got an actual breakdown of sales to show that's true.

MilanPan!c

Android 666 wrote: »

He says he never made a dime have you got an actual breakdown of sales to show that's true.

Of course not, but... he's certainly not the only artist to say the exact same thing:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

30 Seconds to Mars sells two million records, doesn't make a dime:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml

Warner Music's Royalty Statements: Works Of Fiction

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/1957497156.shtml

DamagedTrax

firstly:

i originally bought the album originally as did the ebay seller (or someone before him if its 3rd hand) so thats 2 sales right off the mark.

secondly:

some of you guys need to check your facts. the selling on of an album is 100% legal.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

firstly:

i originally bought the album originally as did the ebay seller (or someone before him if its 3rd hand) so thats 2 sales right off the mark.

secondly:

some of you guys need to check your facts. the selling on of an album is 100% legal.

Sorry DT, I know it's legal, but it's legal stealing... morally, it's stealing (in my book) as you don't need to pay the band or their label for the music they own.

I know that YOU bought the record and (we assume) the guy on eBay did, but c'mon, before the interweb, most USED record shops carried essentially new releases, second hand, and charged essentially new prices.

So instead of WB (or some indie label) making the $5, some guy completely unrelated to the artists made it.

I know it's legal; in my mind, because you're getting the music, and the label isn't getting paid, it's theft.

Unless the counter argument is cool?:

I paid for my downloads, and I assume the guy that uploaded them also bought his CD... so therefore, even thought the band/label didn't get a cent, it's not stealing...?

*PS - Being a bit of a devil's advocate here, to underscore the completely nonsensical and contradictory nature of this sort of legislative approach to media/art.

DamagedTrax

but given that im legally allowed to back up a cd and since i paid top whack for the original, im claiming my legal ebay buy as a backup :-D

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but given that im legally allowed to back up a cd and since i paid top whack for the original, im claiming my legal ebay buy as a backup :-D

I know man, it's totally legal... it's just a very MORALLY grey area, because the buyer doesn't ask you to prove you owned it at one point (for obvious reasons) and commercial concerns (i.e. used CD shops) make money off of artists/labels property, without giving the artists/labels a cut... which is their argument against downloading.

I mean, I'm pretty sure those sued by the RIAA weren't asked to submit a list of CD/tapes/albums they ever owned, so that they wouldn't be accidentally sued over those... they just got sued for everything they downloaded... but not the CDs they bought used, even though the artist/labels got exactly the same amount of money from both transactions:

$0.00

DamagedTrax

funnily enough, no-one gets sued for downloading. its the uploading you get sued for, bizarre as it may seem.

but we work in an industry thats morally corrupt, so buying a second hand cd that i've already bought before anyway (and is 100% legal) really doesnt breach my moral code in the slightest

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

funnily enough, no-one gets sued for downloading. its the uploading you get sued for, bizarre as it may seem.

but we work in an industry thats morally corrupt, so buying a second hand cd that i've already bought before anyway (and is 100% legal) really doesnt breach my moral code in the slightest

Strangely, that's started changing in the states. They've sued some folks for purely DLing recently.

Which surprised me.

And I hear ye, about your situation; I'm talking generally speaking though...