news flash: kids pay big bucks for song theft. lady freedom smiles

[gex_gex]

originally posted by Musicguy
Maybe, I decide as an artist that I want to have free material available so that you can get an idea of what my music sounds like. That doesn’t mean that I should be expected to make my entire catalog available for free. I should have the right to determine which material I want to give away and which material I would rather not.

However, in the past there have been instances where an artist was unable to make a portion of their catalogue free to download, because they did not own the copyright to their own material - I believe it was the Offspring who were once threatened with legal action after they proposed offering their new album for free download.

The copyright holder and the creator of the work are not always the same person, and in cases like that, I couldn’t give a fuck what the copyright holder thinks.

The law would seem to be on my side in this regard.

Of course the law is on your side. I have no doubt that when I download music I’m breaking the law. I don’t see my crime as being very great (great meaning large or immense, I use it in the pejorative sense) and I truly believe that when I download a song, I am not adversely affecting anyone that I care about. As I’ve said, if I download music that I like, I buy it.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
**
Patronage is just fine (although be aware that Mozart lived in poverty but still created art). In fact, I’ve argued for it on the SDMB before. Since upper classes have better taste in art, it would be a good idea to allow just them to decide which artists survive and which don’t. The current problem consists in using the government to decide that, which results in a lot of crap music and makes things very inconvenient for listeners.

UnuMondo **

All the government is saying is that artists have a right to control the distribution of their work. I’m sorry if that is “inconvenient” to your desire to enjoy music without paying for it.

Can you please explain how providing protection to an artists creative works is somehow the reason why all of this crap music exists? I thought it existed because there was a demand for it and people were willing to pay for it. If they weren’t, do you really believe the record companies would waste their time?

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
**And how about this word: “imprisonment”? Have you heard that one?
**

Yeah, Fuck Terrorists, let’s go after the real threat, kids with computers!

Musicguy, if you tell us who you are and what songs you wrote, i can tell you if i own CDs you are on or just have songs on my hard drive (which i will then delete) or neither. And i have bought CDs after listening to MP3’s, i have a stack of Asian CDs now i wouldn’t have owned if it weren’t for MP3s. I do prefer to give money to the artists by concerts, since they get more of it that way.

[Dead_Badger]

Originally posted by UnuMondo
Patronage is just fine (although be aware that Mozart lived in poverty but still created art). In fact, I’ve argued for it on the SDMB before. Since upper classes have better taste in art, it would be a good idea to allow just them to decide which artists survive and which don’t. The current problem consists in using the government to decide that, which results in a lot of crap music and makes things very inconvenient for listeners.

Even by the standards of this thread, this is a mindbogglingly weird paragraph. Firstly - the “upper classes” should decide what artists are paid? What the hey? Are you, who in your very next sentence decry the government’s apparent power in deciding what we listen to, suggesting that in fact it should instead be the choice of private citizens with money? Whatever happened to, you know, people buying what they want from a range of music? Y’know, the way it works at the moment? As for your assertion of a correlation between money and taste, I refer you to the looks of the average Rolex, Elton John’s shirts, J-Lo’s boyfriends and any number of horrific Bentley-alike cars. Sheesh.

As for your assertion that the government somehow decides what we listen to, this I find even more astoundingly freaky. When I go into a CD shop, is there a minister standing behind me, directing me to purchase Britney? No, there is not. To the best of my knowledge, there is not even government subsidy of Britney. I’m awfully sorry to break it to you, but Britney is popular because people like her music and her tits. If this offends your sense of taste and art, tough. People want Britney, and people are therefore going to be provided with Britney because it is economic to do so.

Could you perhaps elaborate upon this mysterious mechanism whereby the shadowy government decides what artists “make it”?

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by gex gex *
**However, in the past there have been instances where an artist was unable to make a portion of their catalogue free to download, because they did not own the copyright to their own material - I believe it was the Offspring who were once threatened with legal action after they proposed offering their new album for free download.

The copyright holder and the creator of the work are not always the same person, and in cases like that, I couldn’t give a fuck what the copyright holder thinks.
**

The only way an artist can lose control of their work is by signing that control away. Nobody forces you to sign a contract. Perhaps Offspring should have read the contract a little more carefully.

Having said that, I have never once stated that the record industry is a pure and wonderful thing. I think they have the resources and ability however to do some things more effectively than the artist could do on their own. I also think that they take advantages of the artists naivety for their own gain. But it is a business and they are in the business of making money. If an artist so chooses, they are under no obligation to sign with a major label. They are perfectly capable of trying to market and distribute their material on their own. Many do and are successful at it.

I guess I just don’t see “The record companies are evil” as a valid justification to deprive an artist of what is rightfully theirs when you illegally download their work. There is nothing wrong with saying “This artist is signed to X Records and I don’t want them to have my business so I am boycotting them”. But the idea of a boycott is that you make a decision to deprive yourself of something in order to make a statement. If I boycott Nike because I don’t agree with their business practice, isn’t the better option to give my money to someone I feel is more deserving, rather than illegally obtain the product I am boycotting through some other means? I guess it really just comes down to morals.

But you see, most people that I know aren’t trying to make any kind of statement. They are simply trying to get as much free music as they can. I know too many people that have downloaded gigs of music and burned them to CD’s simply to avoid having to pay for it. They like the music just fine. It’s just that at some point they determined “why should I have to pay for something that I can get for free.” Yes, there are always the exceptions who purchase what they download. My experience is that they are the minority though.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**Musicguy, if you tell us who you are and what songs you wrote, i can tell you if i own CDs you are on or just have songs on my hard drive (which i will then delete) or neither. **

While I can respect that this information would be valuable to the conversation, I still would feel more comfortable retaining my anonymity on this message board. I hope you can respect my feelings on this.

I can say that what I have written does not fall under the"mainstream pop" catagory. It is what could best be described as “world music”, perhaps most closely identified with Jazz. It has received a decent amount of attention on the Jazz stations but is by no means commercial. Having said that, people have been enjoying it enough to purchase it.

**
I do prefer to give money to the artists by concerts, since they get more of it that way. **

I can understand that and in most cases it is true. The problem is that many times the sonwriters aren’t neccessarily in the bands that you go to see. You are supporting the performers but the songwriters will receive no compensation from your attendance. Not a big deal unless you are a songwriter.

[Bill_H]

UnuMondo wrote

Oh, and knock it off with the “the law is on my side” rhetoric. We all know about copyright laws, it’s just that some of us don’t care, so you are only wasting time endlessly typing your legal spiel.

Good one. The law is just words, just like your words. The difference between “law” words and your words is that the law is authoritative, agreed upon by society, and put through an extensive process to ensure it’s fair. Your words are the blabberings of an individual who wants something that doesn’t belong to him and doesn’t want to pay for it.

Next time you’re pulled over by a cop, go ahead and argue that speed limits are wrong. Tell him to “knock it off with his ‘the law is on my side’ rhetoric.”

And your notion that people should be forced to work for free is so silly to not deserve a response. I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem with the government deciding that what you currently do for a living should be done for free. Not your freeware hobby, your chosen profession.

[Dead_Badger]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
Yeah, Fuck Terrorists, let’s go after the real threat, kids with computers!

Yeah, Lord knows we can only concentrate on one type of crime at a time.

[Tars_Tarkas]

While I can respect that this information would be valuable to the conversation, I still would feel more comfortable retaining my anonymity on this message board. I hope you can respect my feelings on this.

I can say that what I have written does not fall under the"mainstream pop" catagory. It is what could best be described as “world music”, perhaps most closely identified with Jazz. It has received a decent amount of attention on the Jazz stations but is by no means commercial. Having said that, people have been enjoying it enough to purchase it

Unless you are Miles Davis i probably don’t have any of your albums or MP3s. Or if you wrote for a bunch of 20’s 30’s 40’s artists and have songs that only appear on 45s and 78s that i had to rip from Dr. Demento shows and other sources (i’d buy them if they existed in a format i could find anywhere, old songs like “Hair Parted in the Middle” and some 20’s African Lion song whose name i don’t know are cool)

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
Next time you’re pulled over by a cop, go ahead and argue that speed limits are wrong. Tell him to "knock it off with his ‘the law is on my side’ rhetoric."

Musicguy isn’t a police officer, fucktard.

**

And your notion that people should be forced to work for free is so silly to not deserve a response. I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem with the government deciding that what you currently do for a living should be done for free. Not your freeware hobby, your chosen profession. **

Nice strawman. I did not say that people should be forced to work for free. I said that the government should not take undue measures to ensure they make money. It’s fine by me if they are supported by patrons.

As for my day job, I essentially do it for free. That is, my work makes no profit, and I am supported by patrons. That’s life for millions of researchers in the humanities.

UnuMondo

[whatami]

originally posted by UnuMondo
Since upper classes have better taste in art, it would be a good idea to allow just them to decide which artists survive and which don’t.

Am I the only one that finds this comment arrogant?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
My projects are utilities to take advantage of Unicode on *nix platforms. I’ve also written software to make the transition to Linux easier for classicists.

And the thing is, you’ve made a conscious choice to release your software in the way that you have. Your choice. For whatever reason (and I’m certainly not knocking your reason) you are OK with sharing your software. Kinda like I’m OK with sharing low-res jpg files of my photos, and I’m OK with people printing out these low-res pictures on their home printers.

We both made a choice and decided that it was OK for people to do this with our work.

But, do you think you can speak for all creative people out there, and decide that just because you want to give it away, they should too? I certainly don’t think I should speak for all photograpers, who would not want to share their photos as much as I do. (Though I think I’m pretty conservative in my “sharing” preferences, there are obviously photographers that are even more conservative.)

Since upper classes have better taste in art,

What? That’s a bizarre, snobby and classist thing to say.

The current problem consists in using the government to decide that, which results in a lot of crap music and makes things very inconvenient for listeners.

Count me in with DeadBader on this one. What the hell are you talking about?

See, I think some of the attitudes expressed on this thread (and elsewhere) make some of you sound like vultures or parasites. Yeah. That’s right.

As I semi-ranted about on another thread just recently, some of you are eager consumers who want to consume, consume, consume. You have a big appetite for it. You are eager to get more. You feel entitled to consume more, more, more. You love the stuff.

But, on the flip side, apparently you feel some sort of contempt for the people who produce the thing you so eagerly want to consume. I dunno why all of the time, but I do have a theory, based on my personal observations: some people think that creative folk have it “easy”, because they are “talented”. (And to some people, “talented” means that “you were born with it, you have done nothing to earn it or deserve it, and you certainly did not have to practice or work to get good or better at it. You just had it from the git-go.”) So, since some of us “talented” folk have it so easy, (since, by default, our “talent” means that we don’t really “work”, since it’s so effortless) we have a lot of nerve expecting to get (get this!) paid for it!

And see, this is screwed up. For one thing, most of us creative folk work very hard, struggle a lot, and were not born with “talent” right out of the box. It took a lot of education, sweat, discouragement, and effort. It’s work, not a game. And just like anyone else who works hard, we want to get paid for the work that other people want to consume. We don’t see why all of you who are so eager to gobble up what we produce should seemingly treat us with such contempt. So much contempt that you don’t even think we should get paid like “normal” people. (“Normal”, in this case meaning, not having to rely on patronage, not having to “hope” people decide they want to pay, maybe, sorta, if they’re in the mood to pay. Meaning, we supply you with something that you value enough to want to keep and use, and you, in turn, pay us for it.)

So, when some of you act as if such a rather mundane expectation is beyond unreasonable, I have to conclude that you are something akin to vultures and parasites.

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Dead Badger *
**Yeah, Lord knows we can only concentrate on one type of crime at a time. **

The poster you quoted was speaking not of law enforcement in general, but of imprisonment. Prison populations in the United States are absurdly high, because the government chooses to imprison people for essentially minor offences. Even if you believe these offences are truly wrong, one has to question the wisdom of putting minor offenders into a place where the risk of becoming a major offender with an unsavoury social crowd is quite large.

UnuMondo

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *

**
Nice strawman. I did not say that people should be forced to work for free. I said that the government should not take undue measures to ensure they make money. It’s fine by me if they are supported by patrons.
**

Speaking of strawmen, the government is doing no such thing. There isn’t and never has been any assurance by the government that an artist will or should make money. The market does that. The purpose of copyright is that the artist has control of the distribution of their work. Trust me, there are plenty examples of copyrighted material that have never made a dime.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**Unless you are Miles Davis i probably don’t have any of your albums or MP3s. **

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no, I’m not Miles. If I were, I wouldn’t be on this message board. I would be busy de-composing.

(sorry)

[musicguy]

yosemitebabe,

I think you summed up the current attitude beautifully. Thank you for that.

[Bill_H]

UnuMondo wrote

Yes (Musicguy), you should look at (your profession) as a hobby.

It wasn’t a strawman. It was your words. You don’t have the right to decide that he must work for free so you can enjoy his fruits without paying for it. Fortunately, the law – representing the collective morality of our society – completely disagrees with you.

As for my day job, I essentially do it for free.

That’s just a lie. Fortunately, you corrected yourself in your next sentence, admitting that you are indeed compensated for your efforts. As every working person should be. As Musicguy should be.

[yosemite]

Thanks, musicguy. I really needed to get that rant out of my system, too.

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by Sterra *
**I actually don’t really like music so I don’t download many mp3s online. While I have downloaded a few mp3s most of them are because the creators wanted them to be downloadable to the public because they wanted to sell that music and make a profit on it. What I do do is watch anime online and one thing you will find is that the majority of sites where you find anime will stop the downloading if the creators ask. They don’t because they know that the large majority of anime watchers in America will never buy an anime before watching it.
**

Oh really?

Then I assume you can show us some cites for the “fact” that they know American anime(Japanese for Screeching Wildebeest In Heat) watchers will buy an anime video after they watch a STOLEN copy that they STOLE off the Internet.

Can you share that with us?

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
Fortunately, the law – representing the collective morality of our society – completely disagrees with you.

(Ignoring the fact that laws don’t always reflect the will of the people, for example in the Sonny Bono bill…)

Wrong, the law is based upon a collective morality of the time it was enacted. File-sharing has arrived and is here to stay, nearly all college students with laptops file-share, and I’m noticing that they continue file-sharing after leaving college. Older people file-share as well, even my mother file-shares now. “Collective morality” is very much in flux.

[/QUOTE]
**Fortunately, you corrected yourself in your next sentence, admitting that you are indeed compensated for your efforts. As every working person should be. As Musicguy should be. **
[/QUOTE]

Idiot. I never said musicguy should under no circumstances be compensated. Rather, he should be compensated only if someone out there with money thinks his work is any good.

That you appear to be intentionally misunderstanding posters marks you as a troll.

UnuMondo