| Right, I'm not interested in if you pay for music or download. I'm interested in the ethical debate around it. I pay for it myself a lot but find it unethical that it should for an example. My position of it is largely by the argument that 'the artist should be rewarded for hard work' is bollocks, making music still is largely recreation and you're lucky to get any money for your hobby. Get a real job if you want money and indeed I'm a musician myself. Secondly, to buy music is largely a hoax as you have not bought the music at all as you don't 'own' the music. To own some-thing more or less means that you can do any-thing you want with it provided you don't hurt others. Apparently of the music you just bought you can't even play it at a club then without paying more. You don't own it, you lease it at max. You own the case, the CD itself, but not the informational content on the CD. And of standard trite jewel cases and CD's most people have enough. Also, then you have the 'support the artist' argument, that's just fanboyism really. I have no need nor drive to support people whom I don't even know like most people. That I like one's music doesn't mean I like one as a person in contrast to about the entire planet. So really, no. Discuss. |
| I download everything. I own a lot of old LPs, that I had to download so I could listen to them in the computer (and other variations), but those don't count. However I am a fangirl and when I fangirlize I spend a lot of money supporting artist(s). And sometimes I buy an EP out of pity when I watch a debut show and they look really desperate to be listened. And stuff I just like to own, like the old LPs of Broadway musicals (which I collect, they are fun) Here it is illegal to download some songs and to show in public anything that you do not own. If you want to show a cd you can, but you have to own the original one. The fine is 15€ per downloaded track if you're caught passing them in a club, btw. ^^ |
 Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
| IMO, This is basically the same issue as paying for anime vs dling anime, only being applied to music. In terms of consequentialist ethical reasoning, arguments such as 'support the artist', 'the artist did hard work' are rendered null and void. Deontologists, of course, would argue that these arguments in fact point out that not paying for music/anime/whatever according to the artists' demands is unethical behavior. It's a matter of which philosophical paradigm you subscribe to. I'm willing to bet that 90% of people here are consequentialists, if they even believe in ethics and morals. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole issue of 'purchasing music' is that the artist has acquired a license, or copyright, and thus 'owns' the music as intellectual property. Therefore, acquiring music/anime/whatever without paying the original artist is theft not of the actual medium, but rather of the intellectual property. Anyways, that's a separate issue, as the legality of an action is not always correlated with the ethics of an action. |
 |
| If I hear a song being played on the street, should I be prosecuted if I haven't purchased it beforehand? |
| LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI |
khorven said: Discuss. ^ This is true, and I'd like to add that concerts are the only things I find worth paying money for, that way you actually see the artist work for their money. Also, what I find really awkward is these CD's that contain buttloads of different songs from different artists. How big is the chance that you'll like all of the songs on those collection CD's, and why would you pay for someone to grab some songs and combine them as a Top 40 or something? |
Chavez said: Live concerts are equally stupid, seeing the artists work for it or not seeing them doesn't make them work less. Paying to 'see the artist' is just fangirlism again. And music live is generally worse than on CD. You could argue for the venue atmosphaere but if you wouldn't go just as easily to the same room with just a tape playing instead of the artist in front of you then you are a fangirl idolizing people for the music they make.^ This is true, and I'd like to add that concerts are the only things I find worth paying money for, that way you actually see the artist work for their money. Also, what I find really awkward is these CD's that contain buttloads of different songs from different artists. How big is the chance that you'll like all of the songs on those collection CD's, and why would you pay for someone to grab some songs and combine them as a Top 40 or something? Most if not nigh all artists make albums not as an album but as individual tracks they put together later on. It's essentially the same thing with one-artist alba most of the time. |
khorven said: Also, then you have the 'support the artist' argument, that's just fanboyism really. I have no need nor drive to support people whom I don't even know like most people. That I like one's music doesn't mean I like one as a person in contrast to about the entire planet. So really, no. Thats a completely stupid statement that you wrote. Peope who buy music to support the artist buy it because they support the 'artist', not the person. You're just saying because you don't know the person in real life you ain't going to buy there songs. Its not just supporting the artist, you're supporting record labels. I've been pirating for 8 years and I've just recently heard Bow Wow is retiring from making music, so for the first time I'm going to buy he's new album - New Jack City II and will also buy Eminem's upcoming album. Respect. |
Flibbertigibbet said: And who says everyone should have a "real" job? Nobody. khorven said: Get a real job if you want money and indeed I'm a musician myself. |
Flibbertigibbet said: Then pay for the production of your album, people pay for swimming pools, people pay to be on a football club and then pay for the production of your album, what you like doing costs money, you earn money by doing what you don't like.It's not just getting money from your hobby. Records companies don't put out the artist's CDs for free, and most artists don't have the means to independently produce their albums. And who says everyone should have a "real" job? The people complaining that top executives earn to much, royal families earn too much, Bill Gates earns too much, strangely they shut up with the people they idolize for the music they make. |
-eWf said: And what the hell is the tangible difference between supporting a person 'as an artist' or 'as a person', the same person gets the money, no? I don't think any is obliged to pay for a luxury life for another simply because one likes to listen to music that other party makes.khorven said: Also, then you have the 'support the artist' argument, that's just fanboyism really. I have no need nor drive to support people whom I don't even know like most people. That I like one's music doesn't mean I like one as a person in contrast to about the entire planet. So really, no. Thats a completely stupid statement that you wrote. Peope who buy music to support the artist buy it because they support the 'artist', not the person. You're just saying because you don't know the person in real life you ain't going to buy there songs. Its not just supporting the artist, you're supporting record labels. Record labels can kiss my arse in hell. I feel even less about sporting some shareholders. Besides, if they stopped bringing out CD's in jewel cases... jewel cases are cases made from inferior plastic that breaks as you look at it, you realize just how cheap and easy-to break the material of jewel cases are? A typical example of people accepting some-thing because it's always been like that while it's simply absurd. Jewel cases are made of extremely inferior material, if you order them on line the chances are they already have a few broken parts if they arrive at your doorstep. I've been pirating for 8 years and I've just recently heard Bow Wow is retiring from making music, so for the first time I'm going to buy he's new album - New Jack City II and will also buy Eminem's upcoming album. Respect. I've been buying music for my entire life simply because I want some-thing to hold and I don't think it's a moral obligation to do at all. |
Flibbertigibbet said: Most of those musicians suck any way, but to each their own taste of course. If you want your musician to keep alive you can pay for it. Note that it only takes about 100 EUR nowadays to record your album in professional quality if you have zero studio skills yourself, make that 1 EUR if you do have studio skills. That's like paying a session bassist 100 EUR for an album because you have no bass skills.I wonder if that would have resulted in the prolific discographies of a lot of artists we have today. A lot of people also choose their career paths according to their interests, and are very capable of enjoying their jobs. Using generalizations to prove your point isn't like you at all. That's the problem of those people, imo people are free to earn money from what they like. Surely, but no one should be forced to pay for it if they don't want to. Information is intangible, music nowadays is a combination of 0's and 1's on your computer a certain line on a piece of vinyl, a certain pattern on a cassette. And you're apparently not allowed to have a line in your home that's similar enough to another if that other one was there first, also, information theory learns us it's legally quite dubious for instance:- You can re-make other's music for private use, but you can't sell it. - You cannot just download other's music. And what if you just say 'I re-made this piece of music flawlessly, this ain't Britney, this is I, and I challenge you to prove otherwise!'. It just shows the legal absurdity of it, it's like banning lolicon or emo, there is no legally feasible definition. Also, legend: Get the hell out of my thread, you're an idiot okay, accept this as truth and take powerful psychotropic drugs to counter it. |
| khorven tell me why the fuck you buy music then? and I don't wanna hear "some-thing to hold" crap either. |
| well, that's the reason, the music I buy usually doesn't come into a Jewel case but a splendid custom made luxerious cardboard custom sleevework usually with all graphics done by the artist himself as dark ambient artists tend to be graphics artists and illustrators too. They look splendid and are limited edition collector's items. I have several items which are welded together and limited down to 7 items. I 'll edit this later on with a picture. edit: http://picasaweb.google.com/temporalabstraction/CDCases# |
khorvenMay 5, 2009 4:22 AM
| I can understand that people buy things just to hold them or to have them. I do that too. But if that means a certain person will keep doing their job, why not use that justification as well? As for concerts, the environment of a concert is much different. It's not going to a concert to listen to the music, it is to "see" the music. I know some people are absolutely unable to understand this and that just means they have never been in a good concert. Even tribute bands are good in concerts (and in CDs are quite ridiculous most of the times). And there's always that stuff that you can't find anywhere online, but most of it isn't worth listenning to anyway. |
Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
ladyxzeus said: Or simply don't like social environments, call me absurdly strange but I am extremely annoyed when people get enthusiastic, energetic and happy. It has little to do with volume, I can stand screaming people perfectly and I like the ambience of loud machinery in factories and find it very relaxing, I just can't stand people being overly happy. I've been at some concerts where people were quiet and I thought 'Okay, good music, still not as good on CD though, but you don't get the visuals of that projector screen with it.. still not worth the trip and the outright boredom. I can't really stand doing only one thing at a time, I have to talk on the phone, write this message, listen to music in one ear, chat on IRC and watch a film in one corner of my screen or else I get bored.As for concerts, the environment of a concert is much different. It's not going to a concert to listen to the music, it is to "see" the music. I know some people are absolutely unable to understand this and that just means they have never been in a good concert. Even tribute bands are good in concerts (and in CDs are quite ridiculous most of the times). And there's always that stuff that you can't find anywhere online, but most of it isn't worth listenning to anyway. Nahh, not per se. Before the rapidshare blogs showed up the majority of the miusic I listened to one couldn't find on line. |
Aeiou said: Sooner or later, I'm sure you will be.If I hear a song being played on the street, should I be prosecuted if I haven't purchased it beforehand? I only buy stuff I really like, and yes, that is just for the fanboying "have it in my collection" part of me, which is probably also responsible for all the bloody Pokemon games I've bought. This goes for games as well, I often buy both games and music without ever taking the disc out of the box, as I've already pirated and played it. Ethics and morals hold no value, and are of absolutely no concern to me. I simply do what benefits me, and piracy does just that, at least unless the legal system starts becoming a real threat. |
Baman said: Aeiou said: Sooner or later, I'm sure you will be.If I hear a song being played on the street, should I be prosecuted if I haven't purchased it beforehand? I only buy stuff I really like, and yes, that is just for the fanboying "have it in my collection" part of me, which is probably also responsible for all the bloody Pokemon games I've bought. This goes for games as well, I often buy both games and music without ever taking the disc out of the box, as I've already pirated and played it. Lawl I am exactly like you. After I downloaded Crysis and finished it. I just loved the game and the graphics were epic. So I bought the game and still haven't opened it yet. Waste of 80 bucks but its part of my collection. |
gayman said: unless the legal system starts becoming a real threat. Funny is though that the Dutch supreme court aeons back acknowledged one small thing other countries refuse to acknowledge: 'If you hold people responsible for downloading things the one that offers it has paid no licences for you can hold people responsible for buying meat at a grocery store that wasn't produced to all correct guidelines.' The vendor takes care of the legal part, the buyer just buys and then is unconcerned. If some-one gives you a piece of bread on the street and it then turned out that she'd stolen it, are you then responsible? No, she is. The Dutch supreme court ruled that on the basis of discrimination prohibition, one can download any thing one wants safe for content that is illegal to possess and the uploaded has to worry about the legal rights. Strangely, other countries fail to recognise this very simple and undeniable piece of legal truth. |
khorven said: ladyxzeus said: Or simply don't like social environments, call me absurdly strange but I am extremely annoyed when people get enthusiastic, energetic and happy. It has little to do with volume, I can stand screaming people perfectly and I like the ambience of loud machinery in factories and find it very relaxing, I just can't stand people being overly happy. I've been at some concerts where people were quiet and I thought 'Okay, good music, still not as good on CD though, but you don't get the visuals of that projector screen with it.. still not worth the trip and the outright boredom. I can't really stand doing only one thing at a time, I have to talk on the phone, write this message, listen to music in one ear, chat on IRC and watch a film in one corner of my screen or else I get bored.As for concerts, the environment of a concert is much different. It's not going to a concert to listen to the music, it is to "see" the music. I know some people are absolutely unable to understand this and that just means they have never been in a good concert. Even tribute bands are good in concerts (and in CDs are quite ridiculous most of the times). A concert is, no matter what some wannabe-emos say, a social meeting for people to get excited about something, even if it does not make sense. If you don't like social environments with sweat, it's understandable. But for those that like it, it's awesome. So much of a social meeting that I go to concerts of unknown or hideous bands just for the fun of it. And sometimes pay for them. Call me absurdly strange. My country also has that law, but considers you as criminal in the case of download: you have the option not to download, even if you are not responsible for putting the song online. It's the same thing: I have the option to accept the piece of bread or deny it, so if when I accept it I'm doing harm to its original owner (who is now starving, poor thing) I am associated to the crime. Let's wait for the lawyer to dictate me the answer to this one. |
Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
ladyxzeus said: I know, but remember that not every-one likes social things.A concert is, no matter what some wannabe-emos say, a social meeting for people to get excited about something, even if it does not make sense. If you don't like social environments with sweat, it's understandable. But for those that like it, it's awesome. So much of a social meeting that I go to concerts of unknown or hideous bands just for the fun of it. And sometimes pay for them. Call me absurdly strange. ladyxzeus said: Yap, except you're not liable if no one told you the bread was stolen.My country also has that law, but considers you as criminal in the case of download: you have the option not to download, even if you are not responsible for putting the song online. It's the same thing: I have the option to accept the piece of bread or deny it, so if when I accept it I'm doing harm to its original owner (who is now starving, poor thing) I am associated to the crime. Let's wait for the lawyer to dictate me the answer to this one. The law works in that the customer may assume that it was legally done until proven otherwise (innocent until proven guilty) so if one encounters some music at some web server or through a p2p network the downloader may assume that it's legal until it's proven that it's not is the idea. Especially since a lot of music simply isn't copyrighted at all. No copyright notice from the original artist is public domain, remember that. |
| Oh my. A fiery type aren't you? khorven said: Right, I'm not interested in if you pay for music or download. I'm interested in the ethical debate around it. I pay for it myself a lot but find it unethical that it should for an example. My position of it is largely by the argument that 'the artist should be rewarded for hard work' is bollocks, making music still is largely recreation and you're lucky to get any money for your hobby. Get a real job if you want money and indeed I'm a musician myself. In case you haven't noticed we live in a capitalist world. The point is to make money with least effort as possible and effectively as well. Music is now an industry but it's also an art. The greatest goal for an artist is that he creates what he loves and at the same time that he can live off that art. It's not recreation, it's art (if you haven't guessed it by now). If music is just an recreation or a hobby there would not be schools for professional musicians. khorven said: Secondly, to buy music is largely a hoax as you have not bought the music at all as you don't 'own' the music. You did buy it but you didn't make it so you don't own it. khorven said: To own some-thing more or less means that you can do any-thing you want with it provided you don't hurt others. Apparently of the music you just bought you can't even play it at a club then without paying more. You don't own it, you lease it at max. You own the case, the CD itself, but not the informational content on the CD. And of standard trite jewel cases and CD's most people have enough. This is because people abuse their rights. If you would allow to air your music for free everywhere you will essentially loose profit which obviously is not good in the music industry. khorven said: Also, then you have the 'support the artist' argument, that's just fanboyism really. I have no need nor drive to support people whom I don't even know like most people. That I like one's music doesn't mean I like one as a person in contrast to about the entire planet. So really, no. Supporting artists does matter. You obviously didn't dwell a lot in the underground scene. Buying their music and attending the concerts helps them raise money for touring, rehearsals, recording etc. It keeps them alive and people feel better when they know that they contributed at least a bit to the band they like. This is the case in non profit music. khorven said: Or simply don't like social environments, call me absurdly strange but I am extremely annoyed when people get enthusiastic, energetic and happy. It has little to do with volume, I can stand screaming people perfectly and I like the ambience of loud machinery in factories and find it very relaxing, I just can't stand people being overly happy. I've been at some concerts where people were quiet and I thought 'Okay, good music, still not as good on CD though, but you don't get the visuals of that projector screen with it.. still not worth the trip and the outright boredom. I can't really stand doing only one thing at a time, I have to talk on the phone, write this message, listen to music in one ear, chat on IRC and watch a film in one corner of my screen or else I get bored. This is just ignorance. If I remember right you only went to one concert and assuming you act the same in life as here you had no fun because your head is stuck up in your ass about being a misanthrope. Concerts are supposed to be something where you go with your friends or at least people you know so you can have a good time while listening to a band you like and interact with them. Some bands deliver unique atmospheres while they play live which can't be felt just by listening them on a CD (this goes for both profit and nonprofit music, both have their own unique way of entertaining audiences). Yes the bands do sound musically better on a CD because they have time there to perfect themselves before recording. It's also an very inhuman process. Humans are supposed to make mistakes and music without mistakes is just automatized process of moving fingers therefore it is unnatural. |
khorven said: Indeed, There is so much bullshit and tyranny around these days, good thing to see someone is doing things in a reasonable way.The vendor takes care of the legal part, the buyer just buys and then is unconcerned. If some-one gives you a piece of bread on the street and it then turned out that she'd stolen it, are you then responsible? No, she is. The Dutch supreme court ruled that on the basis of discrimination prohibition, one can download any thing one wants safe for content that is illegal to possess and the uploaded has to worry about the legal rights. Strangely, other countries fail to recognise this very simple and undeniable piece of legal truth. There's also this idiotic EU directive about having to prove that any thing you bring with you on a plane is legally bought. Which would mean having to check people's computers, HDs and mp3 players and assume they have receipts for every movie, game and cd. Simply laughable. |
Burek said: Conservatories are really mostly aiming to teach people to become a music tutor, view people who went to a conservatory end up living from making music. And even viewer people that live from making music went to a conservatory. If you're going to a conservatory with the hope of living of making music you're naïve and taking a huge gamble. Living from making music is the skill of your marketer, and above all your and the latter's plain dumb luck.In case you haven't noticed we live in a capitalist world. The point is to make money with least effort as possible and effectively as well. Music is now an industry but it's also an art. The greatest goal for an artist is that he creates what he loves and at the same time that he can live off that art. It's not recreation, it's art (if you haven't guessed it by now). If music is just an recreation or a hobby there would not be schools for professional musicians. Also, you're making an is-ought fallacy 'we live in a capitalist world, therefore we should behave like it / sanction it' is a pretty obvious logical fallacy. WE SHOULD ALL HAVE A RELIGION. You did buy it but you didn't make it so you don't own it. This is because people abuse their rights. If you would allow to air your music for free everywhere you will essentially loose profit which obviously is not good in the music industry. Explaining why you don't own it doesn't take away from it that you don't own it.Supporting artists does matter. You obviously didn't dwell a lot in the underground scene. Buying their music and attending the concerts helps them raise money for touring, rehearsals, recording etc. It keeps them alive and people feel better when they know that they contributed at least a bit to the band they like. As I said before, hobbies cost money. Besides, most artist that go on and get angry if you download and sue you for it definitely are in the plus from making music. I'd at max help them to get even on it and even then it's a luck that you don't have to pay for recreation, swimming pool's cost money too.This is the case in non profit music. This is just ignorance. If I remember right you only went to one concert and assuming you act the same in life as here you had no fun because your head is stuck up in your ass about being a misanthrope. Concerts are supposed to be something where you go with your friends or at least people you know so you can have a good time while listening to a band you like and interact with them. There are none, that people listen to music with me doesn't make it a lot better, on the contrary if they yell through it.Some bands deliver unique atmospheres while they play live which can't be felt just by listening them on a CD (this goes for both profit and nonprofit music, both have their own unique way of entertaining audiences). Yes the bands do sound musically better on a CD because they have time there to perfect themselves before recording. It's also an very inhuman process. Humans are supposed to make mistakes and music without mistakes is just automatized process of moving fingers therefore it is unnatural. Unnatural is no argument. If man is to make mistakes then man is a poor artist. I have more standards than that and praefer to employ the perfectionist approach of tweaking and re-recording until it's absolutely perfect. Yes, as I said the view screen and images and all were nice but in no way worth the bloody trip in the train. The 'party atmosphaere' is just another manifestation of the subconscious human urge of the band wagon, people tend to think stuff is better if they see people enjoying it. That's how commercials on TV tend to work.Oh, lastly, that concert I went to, I was standing next to a couple of artists who went before, left no impression on me whatsoever, and I thought some of them were complete idiots with their finger signs, doesn't take away from their music and their music doesn't take away from their idiocy. Night would have been better for me if they just played the CD there, the quality would have been better and I would have had the view screen. And still it wouldn't be worth the trip in the train. Tried it once to my ideal conditions, the whole room quiet and sitting on the floor, four excellent projects, view screens and it wasn't worth it by a long shot. It was fun, okay, but listening at music is much more fun and much less boring. |
khorven said: The law works in that the customer may assume that it was legally done until proven otherwise (innocent until proven guilty) so if one encounters some music at some web server or through a p2p network the downloader may assume that it's legal until it's proven that it's not is the idea. Especially since a lot of music simply isn't copyrighted at all. No copyright notice from the original artist is public domain, remember that. It doesn't work that way. If you buy a piece of meat which you had no way of knowing was obtained illegally, naturally you are not to blame when you buy it. But if you illegally download something whose copyright status is easily obtained and known, you are to blame. Think laws. If you live in a country and break the law, you are penalized under the law. Argument from ignorance will not help you, unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that you were unaware of the legal framework of that country. As I said before, hobbies cost money. Besides, most artist that go on and get angry if you download and sue you for it definitely are in the plus from making music. I'd at max help them to get even on it and even then it's a luck that you don't have to pay for recreation, swimming pool's cost money too. Whether or not the creator of an IP enjoys it is immaterial. Fact is, he created something. He put it for purchase in a Capitalist context, in a specialized way that you may or may not agree with. Under the legal framework, you purchase it from him in a Capitalist way or you're breaking the law. Then if you don't like the way this goes, you either petition for a change in the laws, don't buy his music, or break the laws and take the consequences. Your choice |
| Peace through Superior Firepower! formosan said: Are you using some kind of advanced logic I don't know about? Have you decided to assign new meanings to English words? Are you just intentionally burning a straw man and knowing full well that you're changing the subject and misrepresenting a claim? |
| I used to pay for all of my music but now I can't be bothered when it's just a click away. Instead I spend alot more money on going to festivals or concerts. Which gives them more money than buying for a CD since most tickets range from £20 - £200 (if we're talking about festivals). Surely people make music because they want to make music, not because they want money. You couldn't really class them as an 'artist' if they're doing it purely for the money and not because it's a way of expressing themselves. |
 |
turkeymeister said: Nope, not really, if you are a buyer you have no obligation to go out of your way and check if it's legal. It's important that these things remain firm otherwise they spiral out of control.It doesn't work that way. If you buy a piece of meat which you had no way of knowing was obtained illegally, naturally you are not to blame when you buy it. But if you illegally download something whose copyright status is easily obtained and known, you are to blame. Think laws. If you live in a country and break the law, you are penalized under the law. Argument from ignorance will not help you, unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that you were unaware of the legal framework of that country. Take for instance the emo ban in Russia, there is of course no legal definition of the concept of emo, which means that some one has to decide it ad hoc. That person by deciding it then has the power to punish some-one, that power is pretty subjective, if that person doesn't or does like you makes a world of difference. If you give one person too much power, it might go well for a short while but in the end power enables one to draw more power (like saying, give me more power or I'll lock your sun up for being emo) and will evolve into a police state, kind of like what Russia is half way through now. Those things in that happen in countries which use such intellectual property laws such as people getting sued for criticism on the RIAA are alien here. Same with Scientology. Power corrupts, in your situation one has to conclude if there was a reasonable chance. One with too much power. It's extremely stupid that if you find a piece of information on the web you have to check the legal rights yourself before you can take it. Let's say I plagiated this texts from some-one else, then you are now being illegal because this text is already downloaded by your browser as you read if you are consistent in this. And what about background music for sites? That's downloaded to your chache and just saved there as an MP3 file without your control and a lot of people don't notice it and are unaware of it. If the music is copyrighted you've just downloaded it and you had to check first then? The responsibility for legal rights is with the party that offers the product, not the party that takes it. Whether or not the creator of an IP enjoys it is immaterial. Fact is, he created something. He put it for purchase in a Capitalist context, in a specialized way that you may or may not agree with. Under the legal framework, you purchase it from him in a Capitalist way or you're breaking the law. Then if you don't like the way this goes, you either petition for a change in the laws, don't buy his music, or break the laws and take the consequences. Your choice I would have hoped people have the maturity to not bring law into this. As I said I am not interested in who buys music and who doesn't, I buy myself, I'm interested in the ethics of it.People seem to still not be able to see ethics as loose from their own behaviour, I'm the only person in this thread who buys while he thinks downloading is okay. People who download seem to be for downloading and the reverse in this threat solely. |
turkeymeister said: But if you illegally download something whose copyright status is easily obtained and known, you are to blame. What if you don't agree with copyright laws? If I put something out in the world, it's no longer fair for me to determine who does and doesn't listen to it. We don't do this crap with merchandise. If you buy something, it's yours to do what you want with, short of disassembling it, then making more of it and selling them. People get all uppity about music because you can easily copy it. But what that means is that it's not worth anything in the first place. Like rare postage stamps or antiques, it only has value if someone decides it does. And music is not something people put as a top priority on the list of things they need to buy. You're selling to a crappy market. That's just how shit works. If you intend to make a living off of selling your own digital media, you'd better accept it. There are better ways to make a living, anyway. And good music will not cease to exist if people do it because they enjoy it and not because they want more cash to waste on their stupid shit. |
hikkyMay 5, 2009 9:04 AM
hikky said: Here here!And good music will not cease to exist if people do it because they enjoy it and not because they want more cash to waste on their stupid shit. Maybe then we wouldn't have all these generic bands that are blasting into the charts as much as we used to if they weren't payed so much to be generic. Not that I'm saying it's bad to buy CDs, quite the opposite actually. I have respect for that, but I personally don't have the money to waste on CDs. |
|
| I download more than 90% of my music, since it all goes to my ipod anyway...it's not worth me having the useless disk lying around afterwards. |
LolitaDecay said: Depends, excellent commercial talent is an art just as much. But commercial success is dumb luck as much as talent if not more. Making good music is talent and nothing more.Surely people make music because they want to make music, not because they want money. You couldn't really class them as an 'artist' if they're doing it purely for the money and not because it's a way of expressing themselves. Also, expressing yourself is arguably less artistic, expression yourself is easy, expression another is harder. Good musicianship means being able to do all fields well, it's like acting. A lot of actors can only act out themselves and that's just too easy to do. Get into a role same with musicianship. |
khorven said: Ah good point, actually. Never really thought about it like that.Also, expressing yourself is arguably less artistic, expression yourself is easy, expression another is harder. Good musicianship means being able to do all fields well, it's like acting. A lot of actors can only act out themselves and that's just too easy to do. Get into a role same with musicianship. |
|
| Muciscians, well famous ones already make enough money to live and more to blow on what ever they want, IMO the majority of illigal downloaders is barely enough to scratch their profits. So am not to botherd on buying any cds, or going to concerts, I only really go to them for the fun of it. But really I prefer to go to night clubs etc because, well they're cheaper and are, so to say, less crowded.. I would never pay over £200-300(leeds fest and download^_^) for a 3day festival... I understand why CDs are so expensive but I hate the fact that they are. If cds did cost around £5 I would be more keen to buy them. Like unsigned bands, their cds are much cheaper so am more prone to by them +I doubt I could find their songs online... x |
TiamatBunnyMay 5, 2009 9:19 AM
| Point is though, that all that is popular is usually both crap and overpriced because of this: Rarely, very rarely things get popular on their own momentum, what makes some-thing popular is generally advertisement. People aren't going to search usually, you bring it to them. This results into that every-thing that's popular is insanely overpriced, quite simply because the money from the advertisement campaign, the money they used to make you buy an overpriced product has to be earned back one way or another. 40% of the cost price of a new iPod is advertisement I estimate. With trendy sportswear it's even more absurd, most of those things don't have their own factories, they just stamp their logos on standard clothing and they are expensive not because they're good or because they can just afford it, they have to to earn back the huge advertisement costs. Result of this is that if you simply search you can get similar or even better products for a perkele cheaper price. My MP3 player is of the Creative Zen series, I'm sure a lot of people here will recognise it and a lot will remark the series as excellent and innovative. Point is that my player is in every functional way superior to to iPod of the same generation. Better sound card, more disk space, it can also read SD cards, it has a microphone (for memo's but it's actually quite good, I've recorded some vocals for an album on it and after some digital hiss remove up-touching), it can be hooked up to a TV to just play the video's on it in original size, it has an FM radio, it works on a standard USB cable, and it's seen as an external disk by your computer and praeserves your file system hiërarchy. You can recover all data from it with no more trouble than from a USB stick and it's not like apple that it tries to coerce you into using apple software. And Creative has out-of-court forced apple to pay a lot of money for ironically patent infringement on their innovations like the touch interface and the menu interface. And it costs 2/3 to 1/2 of the price for the product of the same generation? You don't see Zen adds on TV, so you don't pay for them. And the point is that it has to be better than other products to compete as the target group searches for these things, and doesn't buy it just because of advertisement. Also, there is the mekka |
Conservatories are really mostly aiming to teach people to become a music tutor, view people who went to a conservatory end up living from making music. And even viewer people that live from making music went to a conservatory. If you're going to a conservatory with the hope of living of making music you're naïve and taking a huge gamble. Living from making music is the skill of your marketer, and above all your and the latter's plain dumb luck. Also, you're making an is-ought fallacy 'we live in a capitalist world, therefore we should behave like it / sanction it' is a pretty obvious logical fallacy. WE SHOULD ALL HAVE A RELIGION. Everyone believes in something. You are also missing the point. The current world order is ran by money. The music industry therefore is about making money. By Music Industry I mean bands/people who live by making music (J. Lo, Justin Timberlake, Snoop Dog etc.). They may have side businesses but their primary profession is, in fact, music. This does not include artists that do this for other reasons. No, you own the CD, you don't own the music. There's a big difference in owning actual information and the medium to store it. Which is what I said. Therefore ideally you must abide by the copyright laws. Most people do not but people who own discos and similar places where music is played to the public must pay money to organizations like RIAA and similar to be able to play music. Explaining why you don't own it doesn't take away from it that you don't own it. What? As I said before, hobbies cost money. Besides, most artist that go on and get angry if you download and sue you for it definitely are in the plus from making music. I'd at max help them to get even on it and even then it's a luck that you don't have to pay for recreation, swimming pool's cost money too. I run two download blogs. I was never sued yet I have over 1000 visitors per day. I was merely approached by bands/labels who kindly asked me to remove their material because they do not agree with my views of sharing music. Actually I don't remember anyone ever being sued over sharing music over the Blogsphere. And besides if you are from USA for example it's definitely not profitable to sue an 18 year old kid from the other side of the fucking world. On the other hand I'm constantly approached by smaller labels and bands for promotional purposes. Which means obviously that not all people are here into money but that does not mean that it's just a hobby. Music is an form of expression, not a hobby. There are none, that people listen to music with me doesn't make it a lot better, on the contrary if they yell through it. It's a matter of taste. I'm saying what it means to go to a concert for most people. Socializing. Unnatural is no argument. If man is to make mistakes then man is a poor artist. Lets take metal for example because I remember you are familiar with it a bit more than the usual metalhead. Sarcofago, Kreator, Exodus, Venom, Bathory, Hellhammer (especially) and countless other bands played sloppy during the 80s. They didn't care if they are in the right notation nor if they are in tune. What mattered is the sound they create. Raw and noisy aggressive music that ripped people to shreds. Yet such bands are pioneers of music. Countless bands take influence from them and praise them as "cult" bands. Genres are called from their song names and are often targets of tribute albums. Being too perfect actually makes you; imperfect. You have it all there, yet that's not it. It does not have that artistic value. Sure it's mathematically precise timing and precise. Yes it's cool to hear but it has no imagination. It's just guitar wankery. Which is why Dream Theater or Behold The Arctopus will never be appreciated as much as some other bands who played a lot worse than them but made a landmark in music. I have more standards than that and praefer to employ the perfectionist approach of tweaking and re-recording until it's absolutely perfect. This varies from artist to artist and what type of music you do. Yes, as I said the view screen and images and all were nice but in no way worth the bloody trip in the train. The 'party atmosphaere' is just another manifestation of the subconscious human urge of the band wagon, people tend to think stuff is better if they see people enjoying it. That's how commercials on TV tend to work. As I said. It matters what kind of "energy" the band delivers. I'm not saying that all music is great when listened live but that does not also mean that all music sounds good when listened at home. Sunn for example are far more ethereal experience live and they also incorporate instruments that they don't include in the songs on the albums (like trombone for example). Venetian Snares delivers an unique berserk IDM atmosphere that can't be possibly felt when you listen to it at home. Ambiental music on the other hand is more interesting to listen alone. It's also satisfying for a band to see that they are noticed, that people came to their concerts and that people cheer when they play songs. |
| I feel lame to pay for anything that I can get for free. Never bought any music/movies and Call of Duty 4 was the only game that I bough in the last 3 years. Tough I feel that I'm kinda ripping them off. :[ |
 |
Aeiou said: If I hear a song being played on the street, should I be prosecuted if I haven't purchased it beforehand? That's not quite the same. If the street were able to play the music for you any time on demand in the comfort of your own home, then you should probably pay for it. I am on the moralist side, but because I'm a brat like 95% of this internet generation, I still download things anyways. I don't try to justify it though; I'm flat out stealing in most cases. No doubt about it. Everyone is; and justifying it is just like trying to justify shoplifting clothes. It's a dumb argument. -_- Even if the clothing company is an EVIL GREEDY CORPORATION WHO MAKES TOO MUCH MONEY, you're still shoplifting. In any case! I've curbed my stealing by buying music and programs for the last 5 years. I believe the new generation of marketing has it correct: cheaper soft content. (Soft as in not hard copies, so Ebooks, Itunes, purchasing games online, etc) I think this is the real direction the market should go! I do not like paying $20 for a CD (unless it's a small band that needs money, and I just want to help them, similarly to giving street musicians bits of cash), but I don't mind paying $.50 to $.99 for a song. Similarly, I hate buying $16 paperback books, but I don't mind buying the eBook for $2. I think companies/programs like iTunes have it right, for a number of reasons. Namely because if it's soft content, it SHOULD be cheaper (you still don't physically have the cd), and then also because it's heading away from the "evil corporation/industry" paradigm. Basically, if we keep having bands selling their stuff from MySpace for $.99, PLUS they can promote themselves from MySpace without the need for "THE RECORDING INDUSTRY" and some big producer to have their back, then the industry can be completely revolutionized and go back to "the old days" of music, complete with minstrels and lutes and shit. By that I mean, the folks who want to profit get to profit a bit, and there's no need for ridiculous middlemen companies. The same goes for why I really support the eBook/eReader/Kindle revolution for books. I want authors to have that same kind of revolution against "big industry publishers". I think this kind of thing would work well for comics as well, as the comic book industry has been stupid for a long time. (Now if only those ebooks could do color properly...) |
accelaMay 5, 2009 12:00 PM
  |
I believe in the concept of copyleft 1. the freedom to use and study the work, 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others, 3. the freedom to modify the work, 4. and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works. |
YupMay 5, 2009 12:15 PM
 |
thedarkestandy said: I believe in the concept of copyleft 1. the freedom to use and study the work, 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others, 3. the freedom to modify the work, 4. and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works. Sadly this will never happen on a larger scale. |
Burek said: thedarkestandy said: I believe in the concept of copyleft 1. the freedom to use and study the work, 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others, 3. the freedom to modify the work, 4. and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works. Sadly this will never happen on a larger scale. We should still try, it might eventually result in the larger scale outcome in the future. |
|
Burek said: thedarkestandy said: I believe in the concept of copyleft 1. the freedom to use and study the work, 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others, 3. the freedom to modify the work, 4. and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works. Sadly this will never happen on a larger scale. Yeah, I don't think so either. Not all programs are open source, not all companies are non-profit, etc etc There's no profit to be made, so why would people produce stuff? Before everyone gets started on the "ars gratia artis" thing, don't forget that people still need time to produce things. I get upset that people expect musicians to support themselves (w/ full time jobs and such) and have a normal life AND produce quality entertainment. If the guy has no time to make good music cause he has a different job to support himself/his family, then maybe we should pay him to make good music...? Of course there's gonna be people who can still produce music out there, living in poverty or whatever, or maybe they're just fortunate and have people willing to let them live in their houses for free, but there won't be -as- much. I'm pretty sure all my arguments fall on deaf ears though, so I think I'll just end it there. :( I feel really bad for the musicians that actually do get shafted by music theft. |
| |
accela said: Yeah, I don't think so either. Not all programs are open source, not all companies are non-profit, etc etc There's no profit to be made, so why would people produce stuff? Before everyone gets started on the "ars gratia artis" thing, don't forget that people still need time to produce things. I get upset that people expect musicians to support themselves (w/ full time jobs and such) and have a normal life AND produce quality entertainment. If the guy has no time to make good music cause he has a different job to support himself/his family, then maybe we should pay him to make good music...? Of course there's gonna be people who can still produce music out there, living in poverty or whatever, or maybe they're just fortunate and have people willing to let them live in their houses for free, but there won't be -as- much. I'm pretty sure all my arguments fall on deaf ears though, so I think I'll just end it there. :( I feel really bad for the musicians that actually do get shafted by music theft. 1: It's not theft, it's not property in the first place. The only "music theft" is taking a composition someone else wrote and saying you wrote it yourself, for your own personal gain. If you sing a song, do you own the sound waves as they fly off into the air? No, you don't. And you don't technically own anything. It's not like you "stole" your body from nature. 2: You don't deserve to make money from something simply because you put time into it. You can have hobbies, and actually put time into them, and still like them even though they don't come with a paycheck. Maybe if you're in such desperate need of entertainment you should make some music yourself. Music is not a tangible product that you can sell. People act like it is, but that was never going to last, and it shouldn't. You make money off of your time if people are willing to pay you for whatever you are filling your time with. If people do not want to pay for music, it means music has little to no monetary value. That's because it's not a commodity. Nobody needs music to live. Some people do want it, but not in the way that they want food or something else that is material and useful. And some people will even pay for it. But if not enough people want to pay you to do something, that means it's not an effective means of making money, plain and simple. In other words, you'd make more money in less time if you chose another profession, allowing you enough free time leftover to make music (Or mess around on internet forums) with. And I'm hardly weeping that it's hard to make 45 minutes of dubiously good music and pull in millions of dollars as you sit on your ass these days. Nobody deserves to earn a living. You have to accept how the system works and then make success happen for you... and reliance on peoples' pity is not a good business model. |
Burek said: So you now say that people should buy music just to support a certain market branch?Everyone believes in something. You are also missing the point. The current world order is ran by money. The music industry therefore is about making money. By Music Industry I mean bands/people who live by making music (J. Lo, Justin Timberlake, Snoop Dog etc.). They may have side businesses but their primary profession is, in fact, music. This does not include artists that do this for other reasons. I realize they are commercial companies and their end responsibilities lie to their shareholders. I just fail to see why people 'should' buy music because of this. That's almost like saying 'You have to buy an iPod and can't weld your own MP3 player together' Which is what I said. Therefore ideally you must abide by the copyright laws. Most people do not but people who own discos and similar places where music is played to the public must pay money to organizations like RIAA and similar to be able to play music. Fair enough, it's still a naturalistic fallacy though.I meant to say that people insinuate a lot that you own music if you buy it, in fact, you don't buy the music at all, you buy the CD, the medium to store it, you don't 'own' the music any more than if you downloaded it illegally. You haven't bought the music, you've bought yourself a legal right to play it for yourself and as a token of good will you then also get a medium which stores it. I run two download blogs. I was never sued yet I have over 1000 visitors per day. I was merely approached by bands/labels who kindly asked me to remove their material because they do not agree with my views of sharing music. Actually I don't remember anyone ever being sued over sharing music over the Blogsphere. And besides if you are from USA for example it's definitely not profitable to sue an 18 year old kid from the other side of the fucking world. well, these people aren't really in the plus a lot from making music now are they? I'm talking about the big guys that sue people because they feel they don't earn enough if earning a million each year for being a crap drummer like Ulrich. Blog's good though.On the other hand I'm constantly approached by smaller labels and bands for promotional purposes. Which means obviously that not all people are here into money but that does not mean that it's just a hobby. Music is an form of expression, not a hobby. It shows how it works though, the small bands love to get download for exposure but the moment they see it takes away from their profit, tadaa.Also, expressing oneself is a hobby, most children consider playing with clay a hobby. It's a matter of taste. I'm saying what it means to go to a concert for most people. Socializing. Lets take metal for example because I remember you are familiar with it a bit more than the usual metalhead. That's an argumentum ad populum though. Besides, those bands you named are mostly appreciated because of the slipstream effect, they were the first, they got popular, they stayed popular. I am not a metalhead exactly because of this, the music is extremely random and you hear from the music they had no idea what they were doing (kind of like dream theater, seriously) and had no idea where they would end up when they started. I'm not a metalhead and never was. I got into some more 'designed' forms of black metal and doom metal via dark ambient, which is also more designed and precise. Into dark ambient I got by re-inventing the genre.Sarcofago, Kreator, Exodus, Venom, Bathory, Hellhammer (especially) and countless other bands played sloppy during the 80s. They didn't care if they are in the right notation nor if they are in tune. What mattered is the sound they create. Raw and noisy aggressive music that ripped people to shreds. Yet such bands are pioneers of music. Countless bands take influence from them and praise them as "cult" bands. Genres are called from their song names and are often targets of tribute albums. Being too perfect actually makes you; imperfect. You have it all there, yet that's not it. It does not have that artistic value. Sure it's mathematically precise timing and precise. Yes it's cool to hear but it has no imagination. It's just guitar wankery. Which is why Dream Theater or Behold The Arctopus will never be appreciated as much as some other bands who played a lot worse than them but made a landmark in music. As I like to see it, most if not all music is evolution, they just try some random things and keep what sounds good. I praefer my music to be intelligent design. I know exactly where I end up when I start and like the music I listen to to be the same. Not an album which is made track by track but and album that has a clear direction and concept set out even before song writing began. I title my tracks even before I begin on writing the material, and my titles are not based on the lyrics. Generally the artists I listen to do the same. Maybe I just have higher standards than most people, who knows? But I find evolved music to be simply not interesting, it doesn't touch me and it never had. This varies from artist to artist and what type of music you do. I know, but this is how I work and this is the only way that I could possibly work and this is the only music I could really listen to so live concerts, unless the artist is actually good, sound uninteresting to me. Put me before a piano, pitch me an emotion and I'll play it out in one try and don't have to think in advance. Put a film on and I'll play the soundtrack as I watch the scenes go by. If you can't do this your songs are not your own but rather simply the product of a random factor.As I said. It matters what kind of "energy" the band delivers. I'm not saying that all music is great when listened live but that does not also mean that all music sounds good when listened at home. Sunn for example are far more ethereal experience live and they also incorporate instruments that they don't include in the songs on the albums (like trombone for example). Venetian Snares delivers an unique berserk IDM atmosphere that can't be possibly felt when you listen to it at home. Ambiental music on the other hand is more interesting to listen alone. Apparently Sunn O))) are quite the impressive act live it's been told. I never liked Sunn O))) that much on CD though, also, I don't share the bass-fetish most people have, I like trebble and hallow sounds like metallic screeches and feedback more.] thedarkestandy said: That's art libre through, not copyleft per se, art libre is a subset of copyleft with whom I completely agree. My work is generally under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence.I believe in the concept of copyleft 1. the freedom to use and study the work, 2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others, 3. the freedom to modify the work, 4. and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works. |
khorvenMay 5, 2009 1:53 PM
| This just turned too complicate for me... Have fun. Anyway, a discussion between E-lawyers will never bring out a conclusion on this issue. Truth is the copyright "laws" are not international (piratebay LIVES!) and, even if we don't agree or don't like, there are ways to jump around it. =) As for the rest, I'd rather die than having a Creative Commons License in any of my works of any kind. Meaning that no, you're not free to take anything I've ever done and change it and then distribute it. Not that anyone would do it (haha), but just in case... |
Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
| I really can't care if people take my work apart and make new things from it if they have to. The attribution part is just there for viral advertisement to me really. It's not needed but if I can get viral advertisement from it why not? |
| http://virb.com/nordvargr/posts/text/2629973 This is how it's done Let it be known that I am flattered that I am being bootlegged, but adding "new tracks" which I have not composed I do not like. Nordvargr is one of the few artists I respect as a person from what I've gathered from some mail conversations with him, excellent sense of sarcasm too, he doesn't like me back that much though I get the feeling but that's of course only more respect from me as I suck. |
| If i had a lot of money I would pay for everything. But i don't so i usually download though i don't really like to. |
| if it didnt cost me over 9000 to get the stuff i want, i would. |
 |
khorven said: http://virb.com/nordvargr/posts/text/2629973 This is how it's done Let it be known that I am flattered that I am being bootlegged, but adding "new tracks" which I have not composed I do not like. Nordvargr is one of the few artists I respect as a person from what I've gathered from some mail conversations with him, excellent sense of sarcasm too, he doesn't like me back that much though I get the feeling but that's of course only more respect from me as I suck. Omg, this one caught me off guard. O_O Anyway, I think the Creative Commons is as much as a personal option, to share with everyone and let's all be happy, as a marketing strategy. Tons of slaves mining around ideas and then get a bad paid professional to pick them, alter them and release them in the market. =) Too many years of tart drama. The copyright is a safety for the author in the means that nobody can steal it and go off winning prizes with your hard work. But copyrighted stuff of free distribution would be the "ideal". There are many like this, many bands that release the singles for free (usually more than enough of them). Even with books... Fossum's website is accessible to everyone, but you can only access some material after you buy her book. It's not everything, but better than nothing. |
Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
ladyxzeus said: Let's see now, lack of sleep, antipsychiatry attitude and claims to have had some bad moments with them, cynical (or correctly observed) view of the world. This is a surprise to you?Omg, this one caught me off guard. O_O ladyxzeus said: There's also a Licence which allows free spread but no derivatives. You can publish under NoDerivatives-Noncommercial-Attribution licence which could be just what you seek. This is no art libre any more as it doesn't allow for the full studying of it but it's still copyleft.Anyway, I think the Creative Commons is as much as a personal option, to share with everyone and let's all be happy, as a marketing strategy. Tons of slaves mining around ideas and then get a bad paid professional to pick them, alter them and release them in the market. =) Too many years of tart drama. The copyright is a safety for the author in the means that nobody can steal it and go off winning prizes with your hard work. But copyrighted stuff of free distribution would be the "ideal". There are many like this, many bands that release the singles for free (usually more than enough of them). Even with books... Fossum's website is accessible to everyone, but you can only access some material after you buy her book. It's not everything, but better than nothing. |
| It did, oh-Mighty. Anyway, I had never heard about the limitation of study before. You own a book, or an whatever, and you can't analyse it? Then what's the objective? |
Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |