Just for the record, I found John Williams’ theme to Jaws after a few seconds of searching on iTunes. I didn’t find the theme to Gilligan’s Island, but I’m almost positive you can find it on one of those “TV Theme” compilation CDs. (I collect film scores so I am more aware of this stuff.)
Personally, just speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem finding alternate copies of music I already own. If I own a CD and it’s buried in some box and I can’t find it, I don’t think it’s necessarily evil to download the exact same piece of music. But I don’t have a problem ripping my CDs to MP3 so I don’t usually do that.
I think that’s a separate issue from downloading stuff because you don’t want to buy it. It might not be (technically) a separate issue to the RIAA, and I understand that they can’t know that occasionally someone will download an MP3 of something they’ve already bought, but I don’t think the download-only-what-they-own folks are doing anything that terrible.
As far as music that only has one “good” song on it—well, that’s the breaks. Personally (she says with a tinge of smugness), I don’t buy a whole lot of music that has a majority of crappy tracks on it. I’m not accustomed to that. I guess it’s the weird-ass stuff I listen to (Aaron Copland and Jerry Goldsmith don’t do that much bad stuff in my opinion). However, my dad was a big collector of the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius, and he (my dad) was so devoted to Sibelius that he’d buy a $50 two record album just because it had one new, never-before-recorded piece by Sibelius. So I figure, if you want that one piece bad enough, you’ll pay what you have to pay to get it. Though of course it would be much nicer if they had a payment scheme back then where my dad could have downloaded just the new stuff by Sibelius and not had to get all the repetitive stuff along with it.
If anyone has the dope on this, I’ve always been unsure, as well, how it works.
If I understand it, a host (Oprah, Al, Rush, etc.) get signed to a distributor and/or production company, then that company is the one to market and syndicate to the broadcasters.
Take Al Franken (please ) Whomever markets his stuff would go to ClearChannel, Westwood One, and any others I’m forgetting. They’d pitch the idea, then see which ones are interested. Of those interested they negotiate payment, number of stations, etc.
My thinking is that people that download shit they already own are part of a very slim minority. It’s not very difficult to encode your own mp3s, and that’s what people should technically be doing. I have no problem with downloading something you own or bought, I just think the majority of people that say this are full of shit.
What about people who have bought the shit on cassette tape or phonograph record? People who might not have the necessary equipment to pipe the outputs from their older stereos into their sound cards? Surely they far outnumber those who aren’t sure how to rip a CD. A minority, maybe, but certainly not a slim minority.
These people are probably in the minority also, but I’m one of them.
For instance, my vintage LP of John Addison’s Swashbuckler had a skip in it. So I got another copy (full price, naturally). That also had a skip in it. So you can damned betcha that when an Internet friend wanted to share some ripped MP3s from someone else’s non-skippy LP of Swashbuckler, I went for it.
The RIAA may not like this and technically, this might not be according to Hoyle, but when I pay $15 for something, whether it be LP, CD or tape, I figure that I can have an MP3 of it as well. Sure, I could hook up my turntable to the Mac and figure out how to rip and LP, but it’s such a hassle and seems quite unneccessary, when someone else has already done it.
Surprisingly, I do have some flexible sentiments about copying music and other Intellectual property. But there’s defintely a limit. And I’m sick of the leeches!
Okay, still tired, I’m trying to not get sucked into this again! World Eater, back to you . . .
Fine with me, what I’m saying is this is a very small minority. I somehow doubt all those little kids downloading Korn are just backing up their Vinyl copies. :rolleyes:
[hijack] CanvasShoes, send me an email. I’ve had the same problems ripping stuff to CDs and I might be able to help you.
My email should be available; I just checked it out and it said it was.
Well, i’m not sure it’s really on point for this discussion. Preventing file sharing still doesn’t guarantee anyone a profit, because there’s no guarantee that people will buy enough of any particular CD or song to make it profitable.
Where i think that Heinlein quote might be more applicable is in relation to last year’s decision to extend copyright protection for certain works of art etc.
Quote:
If they want us to pay for the music AND the media, then damnit, get it INTO The stores, or onto the internet.
I made quite clear that I meant IN the format that people are finding easier and more convenient to use. Also, I made quite clear that most singles are NOT “already in the stores”.
Quote:
Have stations in Sam Goodies, where people can plug in their mp3 players and d/l songs for a buck, or whole albums for 12.99 (or whatever the pice is, again, I usually only buy them at Pawn Shops, where they’re usually only 5 bucks or less and never had a bum CD yet).
Absolutely, and I’ve continually made the point about how one of the main reasons people download is for convenience. In the example above, I was merely suggesting one way that they could join in with the whole technology thing, I was NOT suggesting that it be the only way.
One reason I suggested the above, was as a way for them to show “okay, we’re now providing our product on current modern media. As others have mentioned, people still like the covers and liner notes.
They (the music industry), are the ones who are whining about losing the money. If it truly ISmoney, that’s the bottom line for them, then they’d be smart to join in the marketing their products through current technology.
Quote:
They, the RIAA and musicians are all whining and moaning about how this technology is “stealing” their work.
Right, and has what they’ve been doing worked? No.
And is sueing teens for paltry amounts, going to get them the millions they say they’re losing? (for the sake of the argument, it could be true that they are losing that much.)? No.
So what could they do, if they’re motive is TRULY to get back their money? Well, they can either get WITH the program, technologically speaking, or they can keep whining and being heavy handed and sueing people that wont’ in any way help their bottom line. Which remember, is why they keep claiming that they’re BEING the way they are in the first place.
Errrg sorry, stepping off of my soapbox. And again, as for the more obscure songs, on many of them I’ve searched in vain for the whole CD, and many are too old, or too obscure, or too much of a “one hit wonder” to have been put in that format. On at least 20 of those types of songs, I only had luck finding them at Kazaa.
Well, they can come and look at my CD holder. The songs on purchased CDs match those on my computer. If they can find the long dispersed or dead musicians from the few that I DON’T have purchases for, I’ll be more than happy to erase them, or buy them if the singles actually exist. And if they truly believe that it’s going to increase their bottom line, they can sue my temp worker/unemployed butt. Good luck replacing their millions lost there.
Quote:
I can name two, one I actually did buy new, back when they cost 20 bucks, it’s TLC the only good song on the entire CD is “Waterfalls”. The rest is just horrible.Salt and Pepa, same thing, only I bought that one at a garage sale (funny how hip hop and rap seem to make up the majority of Pawn Shop and garage sale fodder). It had ONE good song “Push It”. The rest was terrible.
[quote]
Both of these had singles available, which you could have bought for a fraction of the price of the album. As far as the rest of the album being terrible, an important distinction to remember is that you found them horrible, not they were horrible, like it’s some type of fact. There are millions of people that managed to enjoy many of the other songs tracks on the albums.
[quote]
No, they were NOT available, did you not read my post? I looked all over the place for singles, and there were none. I called AND visited all of the record stores in Anchorage.
Whether it’s just some people that find them terrible or not, one shouldn’t have to buy something one doesn’t want, in order to get something else. You don’t have to buy ugly shoes (which again, is subjective) in order to get a nice pair of slacks, and so on and so forth. Besides which, on those two, the point is moot, I DID end up having to purchase them, so again, I DO own the actual CDs for songs that I’ve then downloaded.
Quote:
Well, that’s very nice that YOU make sure you do that. But what an artist may thing is “THE BEST” stuff, the audience may NOT agree on. Just because you record music doesn’t automatically imbue you with impeccable taste in all things musical.
rrrruuuuh? Exactly WHERE do I “rant” about how all of today’s music is crap, and how people need to start writing better music etc? What I DID say was that the pay for mp3 sites have limited selections and crappy music, I did NOT say that they ONLY had crappy music, NOR that all of the crappy music they did have was necessarily all “Today’s” music. The good music they have, I already owned. Sorry I didn’t make that clear enough before.
Another thing you’re not the only “musician” in here. I’ve been singing since I was three, both church and school choirs, yes including performing. Played two instruments, one all the way through high school (played in pep and sports bands), and I started dancing at 10 and continue dancing and teaching dance and exercise today. I like most genre’s of music (not all that crazy about jazz or opera, but otherwise pretty wide open). And yes, including many from hip-hop, and even a few complaint rockers.
I have an excellent sense of timing, tone, tempo and an “ear”. I may be slightly pickier about music than other people, but don’t just dismiss what are valid complaints about the marketing section of the music industry, as some old fuddy duddy dissing “today’s music”. It’s not.
? Where did I say only TODAY’S music is crap? There are a lot of albums that have iffy material. One old old song I like (and I own the CD for that one as well) is the only good song on the album. The rest aren’t truly horrible, but they’re pretty medioce. Hell, look at any Café Society thread on music, you’ll find the same artist both revered and hated. And I never in any way said that anyone needed to “start writing good music” I have specifically, and CLEARLY stated that the industry needs to make choice, as in singles, available to the public on mp3 format. Again, IF it’s truly that it’s the bottom line that is the problem. I don’t happen to think that they really are losing “millions” I think it’s a control issue. As in, they don’t have control, so they’re sueing because they “want to be right” NOT because they are truly worried about such losses.
Quote:
Again, while the ARTIST may be laboring under the delusion that every thing he does is pure gold, that does NOT make it so.
I didn’t say that they WEREN’T “doing their best”. But anyone hearing some of John Couger’s later albums knows mediocrity when they hear it. Though I’m quite sure that he worked very hard, and did his level best to produce up to his previous type of music.
Again, my point is not, I personally am fighting for my rights to illegally d/l. I’m saying “look, it (people in love with and using technolofy) is HERE”. It IS being done" and here’s why: If you, the musicians and music industry are truly wanting to get your money, then comply with what the consumers have said they want. That being the convenience, internet speed, choice of SINGLES, and reasonable price FOR those singles and so on. If it’s not money you want, and you simply want to “be right” and regain control of the media, dream on."
I am NOT saying that it’s right, I’m talking about what exists and what is logical. It isn’t logical to close the barn door after the horse gets out, and then to pile locks and bolts on top of it.
Quote:
And it’s not about “Oh, two songs on this album are genres that that customer doesn’t necessarily care for.”. It’s about quality, plain and simple. Are you trying to say, that if a musician manages to get 11 songs (or however many) on an album, then that, merely by virtue of him having worked hard and gotten them there necessarily means that it’s ALL the BEST, most wonderful music in the world?
Fine, saying the rest of the music on some alums sucks was horribly BAD of me, so spank me.
As to the rest, no, that’s NOT what I’m saying. I’m saying that consumers (all billion of us, not just little old me), want choice. If they WANT that one song, in the form of a single from Dogpukebreath the extreme metal rocker, but can’t stand the other 10, they WILL get it. If it’s easy and convenient to d/l it from the internet, they will. Some of them, like me, will hunt it down in a pawn shop after someone realizes how “not to their taste” the rest of the album is (funny how that seems to happen with the same sorts of albums) and buy it for just that one song. So, IF the music industry, in their dubious wisdom, deems that they want all of their money. And since this technology, of downloading and mp3s IS here to stay, if they had the brains of a gnat, they’d start marketing accordingly.
Again, I wasn’t saying it’s right or wrong of people to download. I’m saying that they are, and was lining out just one example of a reason with the “2 good songs” example. Now, perhaps you, as a working musician, thinks that that’s silly. You’re not the teenager working your ass off in a hot sweaty McDonalds, making minimum wage. Or (sorry teens,not meaning to keep using you as examples), a widowed mom making do on minimum wage. Musicians, however hard they work on the album, are not the be all and end all of what the consumer considers “good” and “good enough to buy the whole album”.
And again, I am NOT saying that this means that the musician is under any obligation to try and make “better music” or to give his music away for free. However, if he/she wants to make money, get down off the high horse and sell the singles as well.
Dont’ want to solve this and make the money? Don’t. It’s no skin off the teeth of the consumer. And again, judging from the lives of musicians based on the lifestyles they show us? I doubt that the supposed loss of “millions” is really happening.
One final thing. The making singles widely available is not something new, it was done quite a lot in the “old days” with 45s.
Quote:
Even if an album has 1 good song, and the rest aren’t necessarily horrible. In what other industry does the customer have to accept mediocre product along with the good? What industry is there where all the product is 100% good?
[quote]
Um,NO you can’t. Find me the SINGLE for the Vega Boys “How to Dance”. No? How about the single for “Sing, Sing, Sing”? Not that single either? How about the Cartoon’s “Hot Potato”?(and trust me, I spent 5 hours going to, or calling every record store in Anchorage looking for JUSt those songs).
Huh…whatdya know. You just made one of my points FOR me. “Weird ass music”??? Wait, weren’t YOU the one who said that music is subjective? And that every musician put out a “good product” and that it’s not the musicians fault if the consumer has crappy taste and so on (paraphrased). Also, did you even listen to any of the songs I listed? How do you even know that they’re “weird assed”?? (I’m teasing and making a point here, not ranting at you).
Quote:
How about the theme song for “Gilligan’s Island”? Or the theme from “Jaws” (both of which I used on a CD for my water aerobics class). Didn’t see that one either. Not the single. They did have several TV themes CDs, but not ones which had the themes I needed on one CD, and not for a reasonable price either.
No, I’m being quite honest, as an aerobics instructor (and trust me, I’m not the only one in the US, and FAR from the only one who compiles her own workout CDs), it’s well within the scope of normal instructor choice to use these types of singles, yes along with more modern songs as well. I’m trying to make a point here. One ASIDE from the others. And that is, not every human who downloads mp3s is either "stealing " it. Remember, most of my mp3, I have CDs as well, or doing it for some evil “let’s screw the artist” reason.
Obviously I’m not the only one who likes the Cartoon’s “Hot Potato” to name one “weird ass” song. After all, it’s available online, and it frequently gets downloaded from my computer as well.
Quote:
The price and the product aren’t meshing for the consumer, so guess what? The consumer is going elsewhere. According to the RIAA, people AREN’T buying, well, THEY’VE got two choices, they can shut up, or they can PUT UP.
This is what I’ve been saying all along. Make a venue, a TRUE venue for legal downloading for pay. There isn’t one currently available (well, last time I looked at the beginnin of last Fall’s semester there wasn’t). If the music industry wants their money, then MARKET to us. Otherwise, quit whining. They haven’t made the slightest effort to join in the market. All of their efforts and resources are going to petty lawsuits.
Quote:
The one in which you lined out the “degrading tape” scenario? Yes, I did. All that means though, is that with the old “Filesharing” (so to speak), all that means is that less music was “stolen”.
And my point is, that if they were to focus on marketing their products in the current technology, that would be reduced.
Quote:
Again, the music industry’s beef is with people taking advantage of current technology.
Well, they’re the only ones who can correct that, and it’s not going to happen by sueing and prosecuting people. Again, as I’ve said ALL through this thing, they need to market within THAT technology. What they’re doing currently is fighting the technology.
Quote:
No one’s arguing that different TYPES of music may appeal to different people. I’m sure there are plenty of people who like lima beans too. But when you go to a fine restaurant, you aren’t forced to pay for lima beans in order to have the rest of your steak dinner.,
When you order a dish at a restaurant you pay for the meal, which usually comes with more then one thing on the plate.
Quote:
and if you want apple pie for desert instead of chocolate, you can have that too. For a price.
You can have anything for a price, even your very own Gilligan Island & Jaws theme mix CD signed by Rupaul.
Quote:
If a person likes musical steak, but doesn’t like musical lima beans or chocolate, why should they be forced to buy the lima beans and chocolate too?
Jeez, don’t pop a vein, it’s JUST a silly analogy.
Quote:
The ball is in their, and the artists’ court. They can sue a small percentage (and how much really are they going to get from a 19 year old in jersey who works at Mcdonalds for instance?), but they’re not going to stop the tide. Time for them to learn how to surf it instead.
Who said that their finincial losses were “fictitious”? Not I. You totally missed my point. I said that if the finincial part was what was TRULY what was bugging them, then their solution would be specifially targeted to regain that loss. If their target is to scare people into stopping the downloading, I’d say that’s equally as ridiculous as trying to recoup losses from people who can’t pay.
Sueing ordinary citizens for paltry sums isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, other than to make MORE people angrier at their highhanded attitude, and have more of a "who cares " attitude about them. “Scare people to stop downloading”
Um, yeah, like the revenuers “scared people from making moonshine” and tickets “scare people from speeding”.
It seems like every time this debate comes around, the question of PROMOTION of lesser-known music is completely ignored. Looking through my CDs, the vast majority (over 90%) are artists that I first heard of online, and first listened to by downloading mp3s. Had I not been able to do so, I guarantee I wouldn’t have bought most of them. I don’t have friends that listen to the same music, I’ll never hear any of it on the radio, and I don’t buy CDs if I’ve never heard anything from them.
So, setting aside the assumptions that people download to avoid paying, and without trying to analyze the copywrite laws (again and again) can someone explain what’s wrong with the above scenario? Or do anti-filesharing people think this is acceptable because most (or maybe all) is eventually being paid for?
Well, for starters I don’t particularly want to set aside the assumption that people download to avoid paying, since I think it’s mostly true. I’m happy to take your word that you don’t, though. So, what’s wrong with what you did? Well, not that much. However, it’s still not a great argument for making sharing legal, as there are many other ways you could have heard that music; borrowing from friends, listening in a shop, etc. etc. No-one has music tastes so eclectic that you literally can’t hear anything without going online. I agree it’s a highly convenient way to do it, but as the legal stores improve their catalogues I think it’ll become easier and easier to do without breaking the law.
No, previewing isn’t that bad, and if you really are only previewing, fine. However, it’s notable how whenever this debate comes up, everyone’s a previewer with tastes more obscure than Captain Beefheart’s collection of 1950s silk-lined ham coolers. I’m sure you’re not lying, Ooner, but I know that nobody “previews” hundreds of gigabytes of music at a time, and that’s what people are sharing on the networks, most of it commercial radio fodder. Nobody needs to preview Hey Ya, and yet it’s downloaded like there’s no tomorrow. No matter how many “oh, but” scenarios one cares to raise, sharing popular music to avoid buying it is the main use of filesharing networks.
Oh, and cheers World Eater, this is definitely the first time I’ve been accused of wisdom. Wish I could say the same about having issues…
The example of only using file-sharing to preview was an exaggeration. I didn’t mean to suggest that I ONLY preview obscure music, just saying that is what makes up the vast majority of my music (things I’ve later purchased). I completely agree and understand that file-sharing is mostly used for avoiding paying for music, and that most of the people that do so have a computer full of stolen radio hits. I’m just trying to remind people that not everybody is downloading Hey Ya. (Side-note: I hadn’t heard Hey Ya until I downloaded it, months after it was a “hit”) I think a lot of people are using it to download music they haven’t heard before, much of which they later purchase.
The argument that there are “lots of other places to hear it” doesn’t really work all that well for me. At least around here, you can hear just the new stuff at a chain record store like Tower, and just the stuff nobody wants anymore at a used record store. The best place would probably be Barnes and Noble, where you can look up and preview about 30 seconds of each song. But I don’t want to drive to Barnes and Noble just to listen to something I quite possibly don’t want. I download and delete a lot, it’s far more convenient than going to the store all the time, and I can get a better idea of what the product is.
I have absolutely no doubt that file-sharing costs big radio acts money. Possibly lots of it. But what do you think the effect of file-sharing is for bands that don’t get radio airplay? I suspect that file-sharing for them is a welcome tie-in to internet word of mouth advertising that increases their fanbase and sales. Using myself as an example, even with music on my computer I’ve downloaded and not purchased, I think it’s obvious that file-sharing can easily lead to higher record sales for a lot of musicians. And I don’t like being called a thief when I’m about a grand lighter than 6 months ago from buying CDs. I guess the real solution to fixing the file-sharing problem is getting people who download to go out and purchase as well. I don’t think pay-per-track downloading is it. I’d probably just listen at Barnes and Noble every now and then and purchase far less.
I think instead of asking “how do we stop filesharing” or “how do we make downloading music a profitable business” we should be trying to figure out how to get people who download to eventually BUY. Filesharing could be a huge marketing tool but nobody seems to think of it that way at all.
Good point, some of my “weird ass” (:D) downloads, have become such favorites of mine, that I’ve looked for and purchased not only that artist, but like artists. (the “Sing, Sing, Sing” song for one, I went looking for, and purchased other albums from that era, on CD).
I’ve never heard Hey Ya, at least I don’t think I have. After the semi-recent pit thread about the song, I tried to go download it, just TOO preview it to see if I had heard it before.
But, I couldn’t find it, So, Outkast is safe from bankruptcy.
) Whomever markets his stuff would go to ClearChannel, Westwood One, and any others I’m forgetting. They’d pitch the idea, then see which ones are interested. Of those interested they negotiate payment, number of stations, etc.