To avoid spending endless hours debating illegal downloading we decided to write this.
First of all everyone must accept as fact that illegal downloading, bloggers that upload entire albums for people to download for free and torrents doing what they refer to as "sharing music" is really a disaster for the artists financially.
There is a direct link between the increased illegal "free" downloading and the decreasing amount of music being sold. That is a fact. No matter what arguments downloader's like to use to justify what they are doing, the facts are there.
Here are some typical arguments from those who think it is a good thing to offer other's music for free (not many have thought about the fact that it is other's music - they created it). Under these you will find our response.
1) We are only doing the bands a favour, making them more known.
Well, in a way, yes. They are more known to people who don't pay for
the pleasure of listening. They are not getting better known to the people who buy the music. These are usually not visiting these places - blogs, torrents etc -
where the stolen music is found. They have other ways to find out about new music they want to buy and listen to.
2) It is only the evil record companies who lose money.
Hmmm. Let's think some about that statement. Let's see. Most record companies pay the artists an agreed royalty per sold CD, so if the music is given away for free then it must be that the artists will get paid less. So therefore it is also the artists who lose money from this.
And let us think some more. If the record companies don't get any money from CD sales they can not afford much promotion, so, hmmm let's see...oh, then the bands will not get exposure to their potential audience, they won't know about the artists work. This must lead to the fact that if people buy the CD's they are helping the artists to get better known.
This maybe leads to: So, if the record companies work to make the artists better known and pay them for their work...can it then be that they are actually helping the artists? Could it actually be that the artists like to work with the record companies? Could it even be that most of the people running these evil record companies are doing it because they love the music and want to do something good for the artists by making to possible for them to have their music released
without needing to take care about all the administration work? Can it also be that the artists are happy about the fact that the record companies invest money - and thereby are taking financial risks - in their music? Well, it seems that the record companies working this way are not so evil after all, but we do recognize that there has been abuse in the past by the large and established labels, this isn't true typically with the smaller labels, however this is still no justification, it is for the courts to decide.
3) The record companies are stealing my money when they charge me $18
for a CD. It only cost them $1 to produce a CD.
Is that so? Is that the actual cost for a music album? Let's have a look at the costs.
The CD does cost about $1-$2 to press.
But there is some thing's that must be done before one can press the CD.
Something called "Glass master" costs about $800.
The mastering session normally costs between $1000 and $2000.
Creating the artwork for the booklet and CD can easily cost $2,000 to $5,000
Mixing costs from $5,000 to $10,000
What about the recordings?
To rent a high quality studio with a professional sound engineer is what all artists dream of.This gives them the opportunity to focus on the performance.
Here the costs can be between $5000 up to $100000...or more.
So, therefore many bands buy their own equipment and do it by themselves.
Sometimes with a very good result but most often the end result would
have been even more enjoyable if they could afford to rent a studio and
pay a professional studio technician.
And there are more costs involved. In most countries one must pay for
publishing rights.
And...to pay the bands of course also must be considered as a cost.
Promotion copies being sent out are another cost. Advertising is another cost.
So, what are we looking at here.
Well, for the first pressing it is more like $6 per CD.
And then they are sold to distributors at $7 or $8 + shipping costs.
The distributors then sell them at about $11 - $12 + shipping costs.
So, when retailers sell these at $16 - $18 they do not earn very much per CD.
The band gets some little and the record company earn almost nothing
on the first pressing.
For the second, third etc pressing there is some money coming in, but
many releases do not sell enough to do these pressings. Considering
that the staff at the record companies need to get paid to make a
living these titles are losses, so the ones who do sell a bit more
must make enough to make ends meet.
Where is the greediness? Where are those evil people who run the business?
Can it be that it's the illegal downloaders who have invented these characters to justify their immoral and illegal actions when they are taking the music, getting pleasure from it without giving anything in return for it? Because this is what they do! They enjoy the work of the artists, who are helped by their record company, without giving anything in return! Is that being a fan? Is that a good way to show appreciation?
Oh, and a CD costs less now in real dollars than they did 20 years ago, if you adjust for inflation, they cost a lot less.
4) How shall I know what to buy if I can not download and listen to it first?
Well, this makes some sense. There are a few out there who use free downloads for this purpose and that is of course perfectly ok, but also a slippery slope. However these people make up about 1% of the people downloading, so we are forced to say:
"Sorry, there are too many people out there stealing the artists
work so we can not allow it".
On the other hand, there are plenty of opportunities to find some of the songs from the albums available as legal free downloads on the artists and record companies websites. Labels and artists are trying to let you try before you buy in as reasonable manner as possible, but to give away entire albums does not work, people just are not likely to pay for something that they've already gotten for free.
Former IQ keyboardist Martin Orford says: "Just imagine going into a supermarket and eating whatever food you like as you go round. If challenged
you can just say that you're trying before you buy and if any of the products
appeal to you then you might consider spending money on them one day.
Of course the supermarket would quite rightly take you to court."
The same must apply to music.
5) I live in a poor country and can not afford buying CD's
The world is far from perfect. Life is not fair. Most of us on this planet wish it was differently. But it can not be right that the record companies should be the one's
responsible for changing the future of this planet. The arguments for "giving something back to the artists for enjoying the music" can in this case be applied as: Even if you live in a country with a bad economy, please at least do what you can, after all, you're paying for your internet connection so it can't be that bad. Buy at least a couple of downloads and take the music that is put up legally. These two things together should give you many hours of music pleasure. The
artists would very much appreciate if you do what you can to support them. And perhaps you would feel good about it yourself, knowing that you are a true fan. Artists and fans should work together.
6) It's just data, I'm not stealing a physical CD
Well, let's say that I electronically get in to your bank account and empty so I can use the money to buy things I can't afford. It's a similar principal again, I didn't actually steal your wallet or purse and the money in it, I just moved some data out of your account and in to mine, which is only fair because I can't afford all the things I want, so you should help me. Pirates like to say this isn’t a fair argument, but it is exactly the same, you’re being deprived, electronically, of money/income.
7) Oh yea? Well what about when people taped albums and shared them?
There is a significant difference in ability and cost to make a cassette copy of an album and give that to some friends, you’re going to be limited in how many you could realistically do, let’s call it 20 copies. If those people make copies and hand them out, the quality degrades with each generation, you can only go a few times. With a digital copy and the internet, you make a perfect copy (more and more people are using CD quality fidelity now, which also destroys the “I’m just checking it out” argument) which can be downloaded millions of times by millions of people, if only 1% of those people are prevented from purchasing because they were able to get it this way for free, that’s a lot of sales.
To sum up, we don’t want you to put our material up for “sharing” without our permission
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments:
"To sum up, we don’t want you to put our material up for “sharing” without our permission"
You can be sure, i dont share YOUR material :)
i checked the artists, i dont have any of em, for me PAP artists POP artists
Regards
-naha
What's the reason for deleting old staff never reissued? Many blogs never mess with your staff. Come on speak openly.
Take care,
Lisa
We're deleting our own stuff, but we are far from the only people out there doing this, I've run across blog comments from early last year of people complaining of their material disappearing. I imagine it is a combination of people making complaints, the upload timing out, and/or mistakes at the hosting service.
So you have material on your blog with the copyright holders permission? If not, it doesn't matter if it was never reissued, it isn't yours to give away.
Record companies need to work with the bloggers and P2P networks, not against them. Many prog bands such as Porcupine Tree and Flower Kings owe most of their popularity to file sharers. I think a donation system would be one way to recompensate artists, and even if only 10% of people who downloaded made a donation, an artist would still make more money through the proliferating
nature of file sharing than through conventional channels, where this kind of music sees very little exposure at all. Most of the bands on this blog are unknown bands, and are making fast enemies of potential fans (and customers)
You're throwing out "facts" and figures as though you have something to back it up with. Show me where PT and TFK have verifiable increased sales from file sharing? I know for a fact that TFK sales are down, not up, from a few releases back.
We've suggested lots of ways to work together legally, the problem is, with a few exceptions, that when push comes to shove, the bloggers really only want to pirate.
The fact that you are angered at a band because they don't want you to get an illegal copy of their music and would prefer you used a legal channel to sample it is frankly amazing.
"You're throwing out "facts" and figures as though you have something to back it up with. Show me where PT and TFK have verifiable increased sales from file sharing? I know for a fact that TFK sales are down, not up, from a few releases back."
-Demonstrate how TFK's slagging album sales are directly attributable to file sharing? Looks like you're throwing out some unsubstantiated "facts" yourself. I defy you to tell me how else, other than file sharing, that these bands, and many others, owe their blossoming careers to.
"We've suggested lots of ways to work together legally, the problem is, with a few exceptions, that when push comes to shove, the bloggers really only want to pirate."
-Maybe it's time for progressive rock record labels to be as "progressive" in their approach to music distribution as progressive rock musicians are in their approach to music.
"The fact that you are angered at a band because they don't want you to get an illegal copy of their music and would prefer you used a legal channel to sample it is frankly amazing."
-No anger here. File sharing and blogs are a great way for a musical group to build a relationship with their fans and potential customers. That you've chosen to bulldoze over my ideas without thoughtfully considering them only demonstrates your anger, not mine.
The problem is that no amount of information will turn you from your opinion. Bands like Flower Kings got noticed initially from the PR being done by the band and labels that got them on all sorts of message boards and mail lists, the blogs had nothing to do with it, they were late to the party, the advent of the rise of the blog also cooresponds with the drop in sales, there are all sorts of metrics and information sources that substantiate this.
As progressive labels we're being as creative as can be done, we've got physical, we've got online, we've got stores, we've got digital, dozens of digital outlets, we've got myspace and youtube and mail lists and forums. What we don't have is a viable business model that involves paying to produce an album and give it away. It cannot be made up on touring other than in rare cases. It cannot be made up by saying "please pay us what you think it is worth", even in the case of radiohead, that turned out pretty poorly.
Use the blogs to point to legitmate sources, don't pirate it. Point to review sites, I've bought hundreds of CD's without hearing a note, based on reading reviewers who I've found represent my tastes. The argument that the entire album must be listened to, over and over again to make a decision is ridiculous.
You're not presenting any ideas here, you're throwing out vague points with no viable underpinning, you're saying that by standing up for ourselves, we're making people like you mad.
I am not angered so much as indifferent, and perhaps a bit bemused. However, they are tainted by association with your effort. As a direct result, I am uninterested in sampling them by any means.
It's nothing to me if I never hear them. I do spend my money elsewhere, and so I will.
I do agree with such arguments, but I believe there are some aspects you have not been told about.
In my country (which is sort of out of hand) most Prog Rock is way too exotic, people may find only imported CDs, if any, and for much more expensive than in any other place. Of course I can hardly afford it. Every time a travel I take advantage of the trip to purchase some CDs. I swear I've got plenty of good will towards the artists, but it is unfair that I cannot enjoy the music, which is a right of any human being.
And I sincerely wish I could make Prog Rock sell more over here, instead of being downloaded. Thanks for reading and for keeping the Anonymous option. I'll be waiting for your answer and I shall offer you my e-mail for contact.
So you come here, make wild claims, make vague assertions of solutions, but when pressed on both issues you wave your hands and say you're not interested. It is so typical.
I know that some countries it is very hard to get music, we export to a variety of eastern european countries but can't cover them all directly, however if you can order online, you can order from anywhere, you can order direct from us. If you want digital downloads, Mindawn sells CD quality ones for just $8.99, or there are lots of other services. You have plenty of options, you don't have to rely on units actually making it to your country physically and be in a store.
"Many prog bands such as Porcupine Tree and Flower Kings owe most of their popularity to file sharers."
Sorry, that's not really how it is. Both these bands have worked really hard to get popular. Both of these have released many high quality albums. They also have toured as much as possible - even if they lost money by touring - to make themselves more known.
Both FK and PT was doing fairly well before downloading became widely spread. They also work together with record labels who are helping them out.
Free downloading has been of no help to them. It's their own hard work and talent, and the fact that they are getting helped by their labels, that have put them where they are today.
Sorry, but downloading their work without paying for it is of NO HELP AT ALL.
hmmm...so people who download "free" music are depriving the record companys and inturn the artist... i doubt it... Artists are being done by the "fat" cats of the record companys mangers who get paid way to much money and then blame people using P2P to share copyrighted music for there dip in earnings.. if record companys had embraced the new ways the consommer uses technology and had continued, to this day. Then they would not be where they they are now. The record companys are there own worst enemies... and artist/consumers are releasing this...
The artists still have there big big houses, and many of them have obscene amounts of vehicles. So i don't see then being homeless anytime soon nor many give a good portion of there money to any charity... Artist get there money form touring and also any other merchandise sold. They also get an big cheque when signing up to there chosen record company.
The only people who saw the new ways in how people acquired music was the people themslevs and hence torrent sites etc were set up by the people to give people want there wanted...
If CDs cost less and record company fat cats got less money. Then maybe more might buy CDs.. And for those of us who rather download an album for example then the fat cats need to get there prices sorted out so that it is fair to all..
Record Companys are run by out of date, cigar smocking old boys who only see $$$ (£££ if your from the UK) and ways to get more money by any means they can get away with.
So the RIAA is set up to sue people because the record companys don't want to listen to the people, but would rather stay in the past and inturn upset the music lovers....
When EMI goes bankrupt that then will be blamed on the people who download music and dont pay for it...
"I think a donation system would be one way to recompensate artists, and even if only 10% of people who downloaded made a donation, an artist would still make more money through the proliferating
nature of file sharing than through conventional channels, where this kind of music sees very little exposure at all."
It's very nice that you are contributing with creative ideas.
Yet,
I can't see how this could be done. Perhaps you could consider buying the music as a "donation system"?
"Most of the bands on this blog are unknown bands, and are making fast enemies of potential fans (and customers"
They are making "fast enemies" among people who want it for free.
Not to potential fans and customers.
"Show me where PT and TFK have verifiable increased sales from file sharing? I know for a fact that TFK sales are down, not up, from a few releases back."
OK, their sales are down, and that's a fact. But you're saying that file sharing is badly affecting music sales, and that's NOT AT ALL a fact. Show me your statistics and scientific studies and I'll show other statistics and scientific studies saying that file sharing is REALLY NOT affecting sales. How can you be so sure that sales aren't down due to increasing dvd's sales and videogames sales, for instance? Dvds and videogames sales are growing, that's a fact, and every customer has a limited budget, that's another fact, so here we have a possible connection, aren't we? Maybe people is tired of prog music and hungry of dvds and videogames. Do you say it isn't so? Well, you have to demonstrate it.
Dear Pirate Killer you are blind. Few years ago world was changed by web and free internet. You miss it in your mind. All culture events made by artists are free, if you want have money from music you must find new way to earn it. Simply sell the CD does no effect. You must pay the artist for his art. Not to pay for selling his CD. All people agaist free music in web are leech on the health body of musicans. Thats are you! No comments please!
You guys are really a bunch of jokers, trying to build sand castles against the tide and really only succeeding at pissing people off with your lofty judgments and reactionary sabre-rattling. I'm in a young progressive band and we're perfectly fine with people sharing our music and copying discs/mp3s for one another. For an non-mainstream genre like prog or electronica, that is the new publicity, whether a bunch of money-grubbing old farts like it or not. Any artist who thinks that CD sales is going to pay his or her bills is out of their frigging mind. Money is made touring and selling shirts and crap during the tour. Get over yourselves and stop harassing people.
Some comments on "Some Comments..."
1) How on earth would you know if the bands aren't getting market penetration with cashed up customers? An increase in piracy does not necessarily equal a decrease in sales, just that there is more piracy.
As the generation who grew up with p2p starts getting real jobs and decent income, do you think they'll be turning to the "other ways" to find music, or will they just fire up LimeWire/BitTorrent/etc.?
2) Record companies are simply banks for musicians. They lend money to a band when they sign and expect to be payed back when the music starts selling.
Record companies are businesses, plain and simple. Sure there may be some arty types working in the industry but they get fired the day they start costing the company more than they're making it (except at executive level of course). No, they don't particularly give a shit about the artists OR the customers, so long as the money keeps coming in. It hasn't been flowing into the COMPANIES as much as it used to which is why they're all freaked.
3) Costs
There has been a noticeable decline in the quality of "professionally" produced music over the last TWO DECADES so lets leave aside the overpaid audio engineers for a second and ask why the artwork designer gets a flat fee instead of a royalty.
In fact, why does everyone EXCEPT the band take a flat fee? Because they don't give a shit about the product they're producing and have no interest in personally investing in it. And people wonder why there is so much crappy music out there!
4) There is sod all by way of legal sampler tracks out there. The people who do put them out are getting recognition and people DO pay for stuff they can get for free. Look at the bottled water INDUSTRY. Glass of tap water - As close to free as it gets. Bottle of water of similar quality - $1.50...and people buy it!
Physical theft is in no way, shape or form like copyright infringement. If you're making that argument, you don't understand the issues involved and should either learn about them or give up now.
5) If the people in poor, impoverished countries can't afford CDs then they can't afford CDs. You're never going to sell something to someone who can't afford it, so why bother making an issue out of it? They were never in a position to pay for it in the first place, so the worst case scenario is you pick up a few fans in Randomistan or where ever.
6) Again, you have little idea of the issues involved. "Electronic" does not equal "infinitely reproducible". You take money out of somebodies bank account, the bank account is ZERO money. You copy a song and there are TWO songs.
Seriously, if you can't do some basic math its a wonder you're able to buy groceries and pay your phone bill.
7) Oh, sorry. Seems you DO understand supply limits after all.
Now, if ten million people downloaded your album and only 1% paid for it, would you complain?
Just so we're clear, that is 10,000,000 / 100 * $2(?) = $2 million.
Yeah, I wouldn't be complaining either.
Get with it or get off.
As a matter of fact, there are countries where the amount of money that you can spend online per year is very limited , to suppossedly protect "national economy" (I'm from one of those countries, though I'm not the same who previously posted the country issue before) . It doesn't mean that I don't buy albums, I buy them (in fact I buy more original albums than a lot of people living in my country, given the extended music piracy here), but also download albums from very old and obscure bands (about 30 yrs ago, or more). I know it isn't legal, but in the practice I think those musicians (if still alive) aren't making a living nowaydays from sales from albums hardly known even by prog rock fans.
It's only my point of view not necessarily shared by other "downloaders". Regarding to recent music, I don't download albums from recent bands. If I like some of their albums, I'll try to purchase them. It also applies to my favourite artists and artists I'm more or less familiar too (given that I like their material) not matter what era they recorded their music.
Why if I never downloaded an album from these obscure (and very old) bands? Probably I would never have purchased an album from them either. There's a lot of albums that I'd rather buy before buying albums from obscure bands. But if I download an album from one of those bands, it's more likely than in the future I'll buy an album from them.
And bands like Porcupine Tree...tell Steve Wilson that don't worry, be happy. I buy PT albums from time to time, never download them.
And bands like Pendragon: don´t worry be happy again. I'm not interested in purchasing or downloading any of their albums.
It's only my point of view.
Why is it that downloaders only can resort in using strong language, flaming and not capable of having a "real" discussion.
Hanna Barbarian:
Good for you. You and your band choose the path youy are taking. But does that mean that other bands should do the same thing? Because you think downloading your albums is a good thing should that mean that Pendragon should allow the same thing to happen?
Downloading is a crime and the only reason people have the guts to do it is because the chances of getting caught are slim. None of them would have the guts to enter a cd-store and grab 3-4 cd's and walk out of it without paying.
Gert
"Money is made touring and selling shirts and crap during the tour."
Hannah, Good luck with making money by touring. BTW...what band are member of?
"Few years ago world was changed by web and free internet. You miss it in your mind. All culture events made by artists are free, if you want have money from music you must find new way to earn it. Simply sell the CD does no effect. You must pay the artist for his art. Not to pay for selling his CD. All people agaist free music in web are leech on the health body of musicans. Thats are you! No comments please!"
If the labels can not sell the music, how shall they pay the artist?
"All cultural events made be artists are free"
They are? Great! Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea. Next time one of my favourite bands come to town I'll just walk through the gates without paying.
You know, I really don't care if artists get nothing from selling CDs. I think the problem here is a caring problem. Anyway, I'll throw some of my money to small labels and steal and seed as much as possible (without listening to the stuff) of that pop crap.
Art wasn't intended to make money.
Dear Pirate Killer, etc
I for one, eagerly look forward to the day when all music that was ever recorded is easily available on the internet for free. I believe that this will allow musicians to more easily follow their artistic vision and also enable their work to penetrate the culture to a much greater extent then would happen otherwise.
I also believe that when all music is freely available on the internet, there will still be a market for CDs. By spending more time on making the packaging an integral part of the total artistic experience, by reducing the price of the CDs, and by coming up with innovative marketing techniques, there will still be enough of a market for people like you to make money.
"Art wasn't intended to make money."
Good to know. So according to you i can walk in a gallery and grab myself a Rembrandt and walk out of there stating: art wasn't intended to make money and i like this painting so i want this in my livingroom.
Please stop bulshitting around. These guys have every right to protect their work. They have every right to make people aware of the fact that they are stealing.
I see Shawn getting a lot of crap on his plate and for what? Protecting his rights? Of course he does protct his rights. You would do the same damn thing if your job and way of living was being attacked.
Some bull i have read the last days:
1) Artists are filthy rich because of their work.
- Maybe you should stop watching MTV. Maybe 1 or 2 % of them are rich but for the rest these people work their butts of to do their job.
2) Labels abuse music lovers rights
- Stop looking at the big labels only. Open your eyes please. The small labels are struggling. They always have had a hard time. The stupidest thing they could do is abusing the artists and those that love their kind of music? Why? Because they would be out of a job. Plain and simple. The prog-world isn't that big. Words go fast around.
3) I am poor and can't afford all releases.
- Open your eyes, nobody can buy all releases. There are tons of official ways to pre-listen albums.
4) Record-Companies are banks for bands.
You guys only look at the top 1-2% of artists that manage to have that sort of deal/success.
5) Touring brings in the money.
Now i am going to mention a name which will bring up a big, long bleh and ughh and other crap. Gene Simmons said that making money from tours is almost impossible. Mind you not for Kiss since they have an established fanbase. But even they won't bring out another new album. Why? Because the band can't get any profit from it any longer.
Yes i am aware of the brand Kiss and i am aware of all the hate Mr. Simmons gets. But one thing i know for sure. He knows how the business works and if a guy like him openly says that they can't bringout another cd and get paid for it it says enough.
Will stop here. I don't own a label, i don't write music. I am a music lover with over 5000 cd's, dvd's and vinylin our home. I want to be able to dig further with music. But for some reason a group of people steals and grabs everything they can. They spread hate (just check the sticker against Shawn for protecting his business. Yes downloaders are that insane) and above all think they are the modern Robin Hoods. Let me tell you this. If in 5-10 years time i see one whine of a person crying his eyes out about the fact that his music isn't available any more i will gladly point him to blogger-sites who managed too estroy other people's lives.
Gert
Art wasn't intended to make money? Who decided that and where exactly is that written in The Great Book Of Rules, you stupid person? Do you honestly think that the great composers like Bach and Beethoven would have composed their great canon of work if they hadn't had generous sponsorship from rich sponsors to support them? Of course not.
And many countries spend millions of pounds supporting the arts every year. So don't give me that crap about money being unimportant to music. Albums cost money to make and if that money supply dries up we'll all simply stop making them. We're not completely stupid, you know.
Musicians live in the real world where the bottom line is that you have to earn a living to make ends meet and keep a roof over your head. I'm not sure what fantasy world some of you downloaders live in but it's nothing whatever like mine.
And by the way how dare you say it's a caring problem! Why should we care anything for you when you already said you don't don't care about us?
Point 5 moved me to tears. So the life isn't fair, mostly because everyone is trying to exploit everyone else (sometimes more obvious sometimes less). And your answer to those who are at the bottom of this system is like "after all, you're paying for your internet connection so it can't be that bad"? Wow, that would like totally convince me to spend 10% of my months earnings to support some artist which is most likely quite well off only so i can feel better because i do the "right thing" (which means go by the IP laws the rich countries have pushed).
Anyway, most other points are fairly biased too imho from missing quotes for statistical claims to comparing stealing a (bank account) password which allows access to material goods to copying data which allows access to immaterial goods.
Of course the truth is still that artist want (and need) to get paid in the end, but imho it's not going to work out with the current copyright laws in the digital age.
Anonymous said :
3) I am poor and can't afford all releases.
- Open your eyes, nobody can buy all releases. There are tons of official ways to pre-listen albums.
Please tell me of these ways. Keep in mind it may take me 4 or 5 full listens to know wether or not I want to buy the album.
Also keep in mind that in the case of progressive rock a 30 second sample of a song may not be sufficient since many progressive bands make songs that fill an album side and have 40 parts.
Thank you.
Most bands have a myspace page, most digital download services have preview options, amazon has samples, the bands and label sites have samples, there are lots of internet radio stations you can request songs at, and it shouldn't take 5 listens to an album to decide to buy it, I know for myself I bought tons of albums from hearing a single song on the radio I liked.
First of all, the finances involved in making a record that you listed CAN be true...But it could also could A LOT LESS (and often does). Also, that money rarely has any influence on whether or not the music is good.
The vast majority of music I see on blogs is out of print, live, or unreleased, on cd at least. I'm glad SOMEBODY cares enough about these records to let them world hear them.
Here's another valid, but unmentioned point...Who really wants to buy classic psych/prog/garage on CD??? Well, not me. The blogs DO, however, make me scour local record stores/flea markets for original copies. Sorry, but I just don't care about having a collection of reissued cd's lining my home. CD's are NOT initmate or satisfying to look at or play.
Here's something else to think about...Most bands make next to nothing from records sales, especially when signed to a label. If you're a musician who can't pay his bills, PLAY MORE SHOWS, MAKE MORE MERCHANDISE, TALK TO YOUR FANS MORE, and quit expecting people to come to you.
I understand the concern, but you're completely unprepared to make even the slightest bit of change in terms of music blogs.
(don't "screen" this post out...)
Although my comment wasn't published, I repeat my question:
Who gave you the right to control all rights over Internet space?
Many of my recent posts had been deleted from my blog recently. I'd never experienced any complaint problems before - only after you guys started. I'm dealing with rare, oop staff - sure I don't carry the rights for these albums but how the people can listen to them or be aware of their existence without blogs?. Ebay with hundreds of bucks for original (if you are lucky)? Many bloggers don't deal with currently available product - why do you think that deleting links for obscure products will skyrocket the sales for your's Marillion & Yes clones? ;)
As it is stated in blogs all links will be removed upon the request of copyright holder (original artist or reissue label). Many of us just trying to share the great music non-available at the moment. But as soon as this or that title is available the link is removed & we redirect our visitors to the source.
Please publish my most as your discussion is taking in consideration available product only.
Take care,
Lisa
"You know, I really don't care if artists get nothing from selling CDs."
Thanks for letting us know.
"I think the problem here is a caring problem."
You are right.
You don't care.
excerpt:
Jason: Well Steven, since this is an interview that is going out to the internet community, is there anything you would like to say?
Steven: Well first of all, thanks! The Internet has really been invaluable to us. I don't think we really could have gotten this far without it. I'm not sure the band could have survived beyond the first record without the Internet. The problem we've always had with Porcupine Tree is getting the media to take an interest in the band. Because the music we play is perceived to be old fashioned or not commercial or not mainstream or whatever. We've always had a problem with media exposure. The proliferation of Internet sites and the information they have circulated has been absolutely essential. It has been the lifeblood of keeping the band going. I think that the best way to create a following for a band is word of mouth. The only problem with that is it's also the most time consuming. It takes a longtime to create a following by word of mouth and it would have taken an even longer time without the Internet. So I guess my message to all of the people in the Internet community is just a big thank you. I hope nobody feels like we've abandoned him or her or not given them enough attention. Sometimes we get accused of having sold out because we signed with a major label. I don't feel like our relationship has changed with our fans. I hope our street team members don't feel that way! We certainly value the street team over any other marketing tool we have.
Source
"Suffering is OK Arrogance is NOT!"
Have you any idea what a stupid remark that is?
If those are the two choices on the table I'll stick with arrogance, thank you.
It seems the one main justification I hear is that the recording labels are greedy, are crooks, they rip off the consumers and artists, etc.
Well...even if that is true, the fact is, when you're illegally downloading music, you're still STEALING. It doesn't matter who you steal it from, it's still ILLEGAL.
Say you end up robbing from some random guy. Turns out the random guy is a convicted child molestor or a serial killer. It doesn't matter who the victim is, whether the victim is a criminal or a corrupt corporation, that victim is still a victim of your theft nonetheless.
Say you embezzle money from a corporation that turns out to have engaged in criminal activities. To justify stealing money because the corporation itself has engaged in criminal activities is still STEALING.
I'm sick of all these thieves trying to justify stealing music just because the victim happens to be a criminal or done criminal things. I actually agree that the RIAA has engaged in ethically questionable or perhaps even downright illegal activity. But this is still NO justification for the theives to steal this music. By that very logic, I could go rob someone's house and justify my actions because that person stole from me.
Remember OJ Simpson? He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he was just trying to "get his stuff back." well, now his ass is rotting in prison.
A lot of music thieves out there have the same mentality as OJ when he tried to commit burglary to get his stuff back.
In the past few days several of the best music blogs have closed. At the same time we see this "Prog against Pirates" campaign. Is it just coincidence? I think not. Considering that you have published your "manifesto" on other music blogs, and other blogs have also complianed of you harassing them, I think it is safe to assume that you are in part responsible for their demise. Why are you doing this? Did these blogs post any of the bands you represent? You present yourself as wanting to engage in a debate about the validity (or lack thereof) of music sharing, and yet you have already made up your mind and are now attacking some of the very best music blogs, blogs that have nothing to do with the bands your company manages. What's up with that?
It's very simple John, we've explained this a number of times and in a number of places. The blogs will get shut down if they get too many complaints, some of them are going private once they get the complaints. We tried talking to lots of them first, and with a few exceptions the reaction was to put up MORE of our material, which of course results in us filing more complaints which then resulted in them closing.
It's easy to not get shut down, take off the copywritten material. We're only filing complaints on our own stuff, but there are about 10,000 albums represented here, a blog the other day had about 20 complaints filed against it as part of our represented group, so if it gets shut down, not only will our 20 be gone, but so will the others, and that is because the blog owners just won't do what is right.
"Why are you doing this? Did these blogs post any of the bands you represent?"
Yes.
Lisa, your comment was posted and responded to days ago, and you are wrong, most of these blogs are trying to be the first to get out an album before its release, case in point is the new Ayreon which was on the blogs at the end of November even though the release is in January. This happened with two of my releases back in September as well where they were on the blogs before we released it, and that is what sparked by interest and once we turned over one rock, there was just more and more problems of our material being posted.
I'm not going to answer your question again, you'll have to look through the comments to find where I answered it before.
That interview with Steven Wilson doesn't say anything about handing out his albums in CD quality on the internet for free. No one disputes that the internet is a powerful tool for promotion and has helped a lot of bands, but it helped them without giving away their albums.
The "pirateer" comments on this blog offer no credible defense for what they do, most are just attacks because they can't defend what they do, and some are just so plain dumb that it beggars belief. This one had me rolling on the floor laughing my head off.
All art should be free
That just doesn't even stack up. Does that mean in making my "free art", even as a part time musician, that I have an entitlement to go and demand from Yamaha some free synthesizers (£1,600 is the average cost for a decent current model) so that I can go and make my free art with free equipment? Can I go and ask Steinberg for a free copy of a sequencer (£600) so that I can record my free art for free? Oh, and I'd need a free computer as well with a good enough spec for running that sequencer, so I'll go into PC World today and ask them to give me that £1,000 machine for free because I want to make some free art for all the freeloaders who don't want to support the artists who actually want to make a living out of creating music for their fans. And that is just me as a part time muso, making music in my own semi-pro studio. Start looking at professional costs, like professional studio time, mastering, pressing, artwork, packaging, distribution, etc, etc. How can art ever be free?
The free art argument takes no account on how the brave souls who try and make a living from this are meant to live whilst making their free art. Are they entitled to free food, free mortgages, free cars whilst making their free art? If we live in such a world, then I'm giving up my day job right now so that I can live for free and make free art!
Even Rembrandt had to pay for canvases, oils, brushes and then put in the blood, sweat and tears for his art. Did he live for free even in his day?
Get real!!!
In this blog and numerous other discussions, I have never seen one credible argument for illegal downloading. The current thread on Melo's Prog Bazaar is a good example. It is now up to 28 pages with not one single credible argument/fact that says to me it's OK to illegally download. All the pirates can do is attack, because they are defending the indefensible .
The simple fact is piracy and illegal downloading/uploading is killing the music we love on a scale that home taping in the 70s/80s could never match.
If you have the copyright holder's permission to put stuff for free on your blogs then fine, nobody is disputing/attacking that. If you don't have it, then point to where people can listen legally to the music. You'd still be doing the "service" that you purport to offer, and in a manner that is supportive of the artists that you claim to "help". I laughed when I saw one comment saying that they post copyright material and will remove it if requested. Did you seek permission in the first place?
The "try before you buy, I need to listen to an album 20 times before I decide to buy it" is also absolute rubbish as well, and just doesn't stack up. Where's your sense of adventure?
I've brought albums just because 1) I liked the cover art 2) I liked the album name 3) a friend recommended it 4) a complete stranger recommended it 5) a record review recommended it 6) I liked the samples on their web site, 7) I liked a song played on Internet radio, 8) I liked a song on a magazine disk (e.g. Classic Rock) 9) "So and so" plays on the album, etc. etc. So on some of those methods, I've brought stuff without hearing a single note of the album, and quite often they have become my favorite albums. And yes, I’m talking prog rock albums here, not Britney Spears’ latest.
In 22 years of buying CDs (and about the last time I ever taped anything) I have probably brought 2 or 3 CDs that I don't like. I sold those on, and OK I lost a few quid in the process. But that's (to round it up) a £10 loss in 22 years and 500 odd CDs that I have brought. That’s a 0.2% loss, or less than the cost of a CD or a few pints of beer. Let's say an average net salary over the past 22 years is £10,000 (that’s just an example; go and do the math on your own income). So that’s £220,000 (22 X 10,000) of net income. So I’ve lost £10 pounds selling on CDs that I brought and I don’t like. That is 0.005% in 22 years of earnings. Now tell me that “try before you buy” saves you from the risk of losing shedloads of money if you buy something that you don’t like – unless you have extremely poor taste in music and are buying 1,000s of CDs a year!!
Now before all you pirates just respond with an attacking flame, calling me an arrogant jerk who knows nothing about nothing, here is a challenge to you: Put some thought into what you are trying to justify. Come up with a credible and rational free art business model that will work, keep the artists in equipment, clothes, food and houses, give you the music you love legally for free, and which will make you a millionaire because you copyrighted/patented the model and it becomes the savior of the music industry. I bet you can’t, because it’s certainly eluding a whole bunch of intelligent and compassionate people who are trying extremely hard to make a living supplying the world with wonderful prog music in a world where P2P/blogs and illegal downloads are robbing them of their income.
Calling people who are trying to support the music they love, so it is still there in ten years time, jerks just simply isn’t good enough!
So the challenge is there. Can you rise to it? Or are you just going to call me an arrogant jerk, or something like that, which will just reinforce the opinion that piracy is dumb and indefensible?
Cheers
Derek
I have been asking the pro-downloaders the following question over and over and never got a real answer, so I will ask again:
Why is it ok that you enjoy some artists work without giving anything in return by buying it?
To me this is the main question.
If bloggers really do it for the music and want people to show what sorts of music are available they should do it the legal way and work with the labels.
Gert
Well...even if that is true, the fact is, when you're illegally downloading music, you're still STEALING. It doesn't matter who you steal it from, it's still ILLEGAL.
no its not. sharing is not illegal
why isnt my previous comment published?
Private message for pirate killer:
http://musicwhatelse.blogspot.com/
I put up a link towards this blog here. Please let me know in case you want me too remove the link.
Gert
That's why you guys use the word "sharing" to try and blunt what you're actually doing, which is stealing. I suggest you read this story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml this has also been upheld on appeal
Hi Echoes,
Pretty impressive comment you made.
I agree in every single word.
/Hansi
This discussion is getting a little out of hand. As did my long comment.
I think that banning illegal downloading would have a small effect on the music industry. Especially a small effect on those modern day lesser known bands, who's audience, first off, is small, specialized, and does purchase the band's albums. A smaller band or individual can not blame downloading as the sole, or one of the main reasons for financial failure. Bigger acts may possibly be losing a lot of money, but do the big acts really even notice this? Music has been on the decline, because of other issues, for a long time. Exposure and television have a large part to play.
And, it might be hard for others to comprehend, but the fact is, downloaders have a DEEP LOVE for music. It seems this may be a fact that has been overlooked.
And, you'll say, "Then why not support what you love?" And downloaders will say, "I am." And, then the whole conversation goes in circles, again.
And, hansi, I've been thinking about your question: Why is it ok that you enjoy some artists work without giving anything in return by buying it?
Is buying the only way to give anything in return. Yeah, this sounds way off on first read for those against downloading. But, downloaders talk about the music, tell friends about it, we all have sat in our rooms before amazed over an album or a song. I don't want to sound rash, but do you think artists that have no idea about the feeling their music provokes have become a little jaded? Does their music just take another form to them? I mean, it's art, right? So, why do they do it in the first place? And making it big and rich is a small percentage of the answers. No one goes into the music industry with the intent to make money without knowing how to play a chord, right? I guess simply, and strangely, by listening to the album and enjoying it, downloaders are giving something in return.
So, yes downloading is illegal, but if it's rocking music, and has enough exposure to reach everybody, then artists will make money regardless of downloaders. If it's not good, it won't make money, and no one is probably downloading it anyway.
Not quite sure why you wouldn't allow my previous comment to be posted. It was perfectly civil. But no matter; others have summarized what was in my post.
You claim that we "blunt" what we are doing by calling it sharing. Sharing is what happens when one person has something and allows another person to partake - that's exactly what file-sharing is, hence its name. You have no more right to call it "stealing" than we do to call it "sharing". Calling it stealing is quite an exaggeration, as there is no guarantee that someone who downloads a song would've bought it the first place, were it not possible to download it. Unauthorized download does *not* equal lost sale.
And you seem to be convinced that 'illegal' and 'immoral' are synonyms. They most certainly are not - unless the Nazi Holocaust was morally acceptable.
Hello Andy,
I agree with some of the thing's you say, but I must say that just listening to the bands without buying any of their music is not to give anything in return.
I guess you are not a musician yourself. You know, to be able to create music we need quality instruments. And these are not for free. We also need all the usual stuff for living as somewhere to live, food clothes. We need some money to live.
If the audience wants us to be able to create our best stuff we need some money in return.
So, we need all the above things but we also need time. If we must work 8-10 hours daily to keep us alive there is not much time to create. Especially not what I would call "quality time". It's not optimal to create whe you're a bit tired after a days work.
This is the materialistic reasons.
The philosphic one, for me personally, is that I feel good when I have a proper exchange balance with my friends. And I tend to think about artists I like as "friends" even when I have never met them in real life.
I find it difficult to be friend with someone if I onle take. I need to give as well.
And when it comes to modern life and artists a great way to give and take is to buy the music I like.
Rotundbob,
Sometimes "illegal" and "immoral" are synonyms. Sometimes not.
To me illegal downloading is immoral, and it is illegal too.
I hardly believe that anyone in here - pro or against dowmoading - thinks that the Nazi Holocaust was morally accaptable.
Hi again Andy,
I have been thinking some more about your question "Is buying the only way to give anything in return?"
As I said, it is a good way. Very good. There are other ways too.
Here and there we find Music socities who are doing great thing's for the benifit of the music they love. They arrange concerts and festivals. This is great for bothe the bands and the fans. They run websites where they review their favourite music. A way to spread the music without giving it away for free. These are great things that comes to mind.
Perhaps you could add some?
You "sharers" are such “larks”!
Sharing is not stealing
I had to pick myself up off of the floor again and tape my sides back together after reading that one. But that is a “bald statement”; it’s not an structured argument for why you believe this to be the case. And that is what all the anti-anti-pirate comments seem to be. The anti-pirate comments provide a lot of sound reasoning. On the other side are “hollow statements”.
So, if a burglar decides to share some of your possessions, let's say a few of your (legal) CDs, and he takes it away from you, then you are saying that you won't object to that “sharing” and that you certainly won't call it “stealing”?
"Yes m'Laud, when I invited myself into Joe Bloggs' house, and helped myself to his TV and DVD home studio, it was because I had a deep felt desire to share in his property. I had no intention of stealing it m'Laud"
Hmmmmm. That wouldn’t get far would it?
Copyright is there to protect works of art, and it’s my understanding that in the eyes of the law, copyright theft is no different to physical theft. If I am wrong in that, then please enlighten me as to why that belief is wrong (and don’t just say it’s wrong, explain why it’s wrong).
If you don’t understand copyright, go and read the following, which is written in plain English and is a very good summary:
UK Copyright Law fact sheet from UK Copyright Service.
Specifically the originating artist has rights to control the ways in which their material may be used, and (under Para 7) it is an offence to “copy, rent, lend or issue” the work without the consent of the copyright owner. Now, I’m no legal expert, but to my simple brain, taking a song (from whatever media) uploading it onto something like a P2P stream (for example) has got to involve the acts copying and issuing. So, if a copyright owner gives you permission to do something, then it’s all clear and above board. If the owner doesn’t then it’s not and it’s breach of copyright law. How plain is that?
So, come one, let’s see a credible argument for why you believe that “sharing” an artist’s copyrighted material without their permission is not in breach of copyright law (i.e. stealing). And by that I don’t mean a single “sharing is not stealing”. Give us an essay which has a compelling, well structured and intelligent rational for why those against downloading are so wrong.
If you have the moral high ground and are in the right, then that shouldn’t be so difficult, should it?
Or alternatively, if you can’t do that, why not agree to work with the artists that you claim to love and help? If you like an album and want to “share it” then seek the copyright holder’s permission. If they give it, share it as much as you want in line with their wishes. If they say “no, we don’t want that, but thanks for the interest and please feel free to link to our samples” then respect their wishes. If you took that approach, it keeps everybody happy, and you would then be genuinely helping and breaking no rules on copyright.
Or is that too simple?
Cheers
Derek
PS:
If you go and read http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf
I would would say that "sharing" without the copyright holder's permission is a contravention of 23(d), and what this blog is about in that the artists are concerned that the extent of illegal file sharing is prejudicing their income.
"Good to know. So according to you i can walk in a gallery and grab myself a Rembrandt and walk out of there stating: art wasn't intended to make money and i like this painting so i want this in my livingroom."
Thats THE most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say.
Thats like saying, instead of downloading inferior quality (inferior compared to the digital master) mp3 tracks, I have just stolen the original digital "Master", from the band, so *I'm* the only one who now has this album. Nuts !!
Surely, this whole Art Should be Free, thing, would be more like going into a gallery and taking a printed poster-like "Copy" of the Rembrandt ?
Then, you have a copy, inferior to the "Master" original (a bit like a MP3, good, but nothing like a master), but good enough to look like the original. Nothing is "Stolen", as the Master original, is still in the gallery.
Copies of master art cost money too, it would still be stolen.
Have you noticed the increasing number of CD quality FLAC rips being "shared" or the 320kb MP3 files? These are as good as the original. The fact that a copy is preventing an original from being sold is the problem, it is simple economics.
you guys are such a bunch of pathetic losers. All you're spreading is nothing but misinformation and lies.
There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that downloading would hurt sales.
All independent studies have actually proven the opposite. Which makes you a bunch of illiterate assholes too then I guess. Or are you too stupid to use Google? Try a search for "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis" and stick THAT up yours.
The only studies that claim to prove that downloading hurts sales are the ones paid for by the music maffia... the guys you like to hang out with obviously.
Your "cosa nostre" is laughable. If you weren't such a bunch of wankers you probably would have something better to do. Like running a pathetic label claiming to rescue prog rock from the hands of Johnny Depp and his pirates. Illusions of grandeur! Has your mum read to much Disney to you my boy?
A flock of Selfrighteous pricks that's all you are. Just as well you take yourselves so serious, god knows nobody else does. For every blog you shut down 3 new ones will be launched. Even if only to keep you retards busy.
Guess who's having all the fun?
Hahaha...
Gotta go now, my upload just finished. oops ...
To : Nietzcshe
Well, we can assume the reason why shops are closing, and labels are breaking up is because they simply do not have the time to take care of all the orders that come in.
Atleast, the labels & bands & mailorders do something for the progg scene, compared to you who do...nada....
lol, you obviously have another definition of progscene
the reason why shops are closing, and labels are breaking up is because their business model is ridiculously outdated. It's as simple as that. They refuse to go along with evolution and deperately try to hang on to business as usual while the world around them has evolved and is using new technologies that require a different approach.
And they all got their heads so far up their asses feeling sorry for themselves that all they can do is whine and cry and take their own potential customers to court.
Selfrighteousness and blatant incompetence is all you represent.
This moral and ethical crusade against piracy and your claims to be protecting the artists is as credible as the maffia claiming to stand for and uphold family values!
All of the artists supporting this scam called progagainstpirates are insulting their very own fans. You're just as delirious as the suits at the RIAA. If you think this is going to make you any new fans, you better start looking for a job.
Shawn Gordon is not going to succeed where the billions of dollars of the RIAA have failed. It's grotesque to even consider he'd have a chance. All Shawn Gordon stands for is his own self interest. He's a mindless schmuck talking the talk, and there's plenty of idiots willing to lend this loser an ear. If he was really running a label he'd have far better things to do than chain mail rapidshare all day to have files deleted, or google to have blogs shut down.
It won't be too long before all of you will discover how this is going to backfire, you'll get all of this back sooner or later, and it will be: in your face! Your copyright fascism will not stand. You're all turning your very own customers into your biggest enemies.
In all your intellectual fraud you don't even seem to be able to make a distinction between piracy and sharing.
Some of you might have to look up the word PROGRESSIVE for a change. That is where prog rock came from, right? PROGRESSION is exactly what you are fighting. Why don't you rename progrock to what it really is then... CONROCK ... they don't come any more conservative than what you guys here stand for.
There is no way you'll ever win this battle. Because even if you possibly could win, it will be your very own customers and potential fans that have lost.
So what will you have gained in the end?
With all the record shops that have disappeared, where else are potential fans going to be able to hear your music? Not everybody lives in a big city with specialty record stores. And how many record stores that have survived allow people to listen before they buy?
You're missing the point completely. Instead of going after bloggers you would have gained a lot more if you would have tried to cooperate with them. They would have been a PR machine without equal. And it wouldn't even have costed you a cent. You never even tried to communicate. All you have proven to be capable of is to DICTATE, in pure fascist style.
Untill you have kissed enough ass for you to make it into Congress or the White House you will find out what PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER means, especially on the internet.
This campaign is the perfect example of the ignorance and arrogance that will bring the record industry to the grave... because it didn't deserve any better. Steve Albini has been right all along.
as someone that was relatively neutral on downloading, or at least thought that there was some degree of logic of promotion in the blogosphere, most of the bloggers responding do far more harm to their cause. "art is free" - why would anyone say that unless they fully expect never to pay for a single cd thus the "sharing" is "stealing" i'm assuming few of the bloggers actually have jobs or own businesses as they say things that a 5-year old would say rather than a responsible adult.
i had hoped for a reasonable give and take on the subject. there are somethings that i think could be raised like the copyright limits but when i see freshly minted cd's on the blogs - sad, so sad.
the blogs serve a purpose in extending the availability for oop stuff. i made numerous trades in my youth of taped concert recordings for 2nd and 3rd generation copies of hard to find gems that were locked up in the collectors market. the digital era renders the acronym "oop" moot but c'mon guys, the latest porcupine tree should not be on an any blog unless it was ok'ed by steve wilson or his representative.
sorry but most of the bloogers should read their statements and put themselves as the musician and see if they think if they were being helped by or being taken advantage of.
Nietzsche, that post is "really constructive", and typical of the "I can't defend what I do, so I'll call anybody who doesn't agree with me a wanker" form of attack.
Well, Nietzsche, that's not exactly what I call mature and intelligent debate, and you do yourself and your "sharing" cause more harm than good when mature and reasonable people read blogs like this.
Come on, the gauntlet is down. Stop flaming everybody, and come up with a structured and reasoned argument as to why people who are against illegal downloads are so wrong and why you are so right. But I bet you can't?
Go back and read all the posts in this thread. You'll find a lot of rationale from the people who are against downloading, and absolutely no substance, but a lot of flaming, from those who are for it, because they want to grab records for nothing.
Now that tells me something, I don't know what it tells you?
Nietzsche: let's deconstruct your arguments:
* Shops and labels are closing because of outdated business models.
- Selling goods is hardly outdated, when you go to the store, don't you give them money for what you are getting or do you walk out without paying?
- Shops and labels HAVE been updating, that's why you have digital distribution, online streaming, listening stations, computer based ordering systems so not everything has to be in stock. This sounds like updates to me, what is your specific business proposal to 'update' them to a 21st century business model in your view?
* We're protecting artists is like the mafia.
- All of us here are artists, some of us also own labels. Everyone wants it stopped otherwise we wouldn't be doing it, so your argument is not valid, just flailing about
* Shawn Gordon isn't going to succeed
- I've taken a very different tact than the RIAA, one of education initially and you can find my writings on the subject going back over 2 years where I was appealing to people to do the right thing, we convinced a few and finally since the RIAA has been so inept, we decided to work with others of the same mind. I'd say we've made a damn big impact, you're hard pressed to find any of my labels material anywhere now.
* This is going to backfire on us.
- Well, I know for a fact that my label, mindawn and several of the other labels have seen an INCREASE in sales the past few months since this started.
* Being progressive about selling.
- We have been, that's why there are sites like Mindawn that are focused on prog and address the common excuses for piracy.
* We can't ever win.
- We're doing the customers and fans a favor by encouraging them to be as legal as possible, I suggest you read http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml this has been upheld on appeal.
* Record stores survive because they let people listen first.
- I don't know that there is a correlation, but we're not against legally listening to the material, a listening station doesn't let you walk outu with the CD.
* We've tried to cooperate with bloggers, a few have done it, most tell us to fuck off, so we took the only available path. The bloggers cause this situation with their arrogance.
The rest of your comments are just too rambling to address. However, if you are so certain you have the answer, you should patent and license it out to the labels and make yourself millions.
Message for Nietzsche:
I suggest that you buy a dictionary and look up the word "fascism". I think you'll find that it has nothing to do with copyright owners defending their rights (and those of the artists they represent) against illegal abuse by internet criminals like you.
You don't want to buy a dictionary?
Oh I forgot, all bookshops and publishers are presumably fascists too, and of course all knowledge should be free just like all music. Better download one for free then.
Your view of the world is very strange and very twisted and I think you may well need urgent psychiatric help.
I'm not siding with record companies or filesharers (although I think that I can advocate sharing releases that have been horribly out of print and difficult to acquire for over a decade!) But I wondered what your stance on purchasing 2nd-hand music from independant stores, Amazon's marketplace sellers and eBay was, as surely this is as widespread (if not more) than the current state of MP3 illegality. I remember buying Tapes LPs & CDs 2nd hand years before PCs and internet connections were common in homes. Surely this scenario also means that artists and record companies are missing out on another sale. I love to buy music, it's half the point to own it and but to be honest, 99% of everything I buy has had a previous owner.
The point is that there is only ever one copy in circulation. Now if the person that bought it, copied it, kept the copy and then sold it, now we have more than 1 copy in circulation and the artist has only been compensated for one copy. So selling a used copy is fine, buying it is fine, I got a lot of stuff myself used when I was younger, typically stuff that couldn't be found otherwise, U.K. is a good example, they couldn't be found, but I found them at a used record store finally and I still have them and bought them again on CD. I've also culled my CD collection and sold stuff I don't like any more or never liked.
I think PirateKiller has done a very good deconstruction of Nietzsche's post.
Now the response will be really telling. Will it be telling us to go f**k ourselves and that we're a bunch of arrogant w****rs who know nothing about nothing, and we have it coming to us, or will we be told in a mature and intelligent debate why we are wrong?
I suspect the former rather than the latter, as the responses are pretty systematic so far.
Echoes:
History learned me that people like Nietzsche aren't here for the discussion, they are here to start more or less a troll-fight.
I also learned it's better to ignore them.
Gert
Hi, Gert
Normally I don't "bite" at the trollers, but I'm genuinely interested to see if an anti-anti-pirate can make a mature and reasoned argument on why they have a moral right to expect something for nothing, and why artists who have a reasonable expectation for a return on their art (assuming they do not want to give it away) are so wrong.
So far, apparently not! :-)
On this thread and the one at the prog bazaar, pro-musicians have given their perspective on how illegal sharing is hurting their ability to earn an income (on a scale that home taping never matched), and there is a risk that it is driving some dearly loved bands/artists out of the business. Amateur musicians like myself have given similar support/arguments based on their somewhat more limited experience: i.e. that even making music on an amateur level is not cheap, and I certainly am running at a loss comparing what I have invested compared to what I have had back, so my art is most definitely not cost neutral, therefore it can never be free! There are generally supportive comments from fans, and then you have the anti-anti-pirates who want to carry on freeloading and who can only just flame and dis people, because there is no credible argument for what they do apart from they want things for nothing, ergo they're right and artists are wrong.
We've seen some artists say they support the blogs and want to see their stuff given away. That's fine, that's their choice. And we've seen artists who don't want that, which should also be fine, but it seems some people don't want to see it that way because it doesn't fit their expectation of getting something for nothing.
So, I guess looking for a good reasoned argument as to why I am wrong in the views that I hold, is why I'm trolling the trollers. But so far nothing of substance. If that's all I produce from the trollers then I have in part achieved some of my aim. Any reasonable person reading this can see where the intelligence and maturity behind the debate is!
It's funny how some people can have an expectation, but cannot see why it is reasonable for an artist to have an expectation of their own which IMHO is far more reasonable especially as we are talking about something that the artist originated. If I have spend many thousands of pounds of my own money in order to make my art and I would like to see some small return on that if people like what I do, why is that unreasonable?
Here's an interesting analogy for you about the attitudes of the minority.
A few years ago I lived in a small and beautiful (so very popular) seaside village in Wales. The six week school summer holidays was always a nightmare due to the influx of holiday makers and illegal parking (by the inconsiderate few), because some people were not prepared to either pay £2 to park all day at the beach car park, or walk about 750 yards (past my house and possibly after dropping their family/beach gear down at the beach) from a free car park down to the beach. Sometimes my driveway would get blocked by some inconsiderate idiots who decided they had a right to park in front of my driveway (and so blocking me in) so they could go to the beach all day for zero car park fees and save their legs. When this happened I would try and catch the people returning, and I would start by asking for their address. They would look puzzled and ask why. To which I would answer that when I was next in their town and I wanted to park somewhere for nothing, I would then come and block them in as it seemed OK for them to do it to me, so it must surely be OK for me to do it to them. The funny thing is they never seemed to like that idea!
Occasionally we'd get people ask if they could park in front of us. Sometimes we said no as we had plans to go out. Sometimes we said yes if had no plans to drive (e.g. lovely summer barbecues, and being too pissed to drive anywhere that day). Some people took that no for an answer, and some people objected to that no and would start an argument as to how we could stop them parking there anyway! Erm hang on, it's my driveway and I have right of access to the public highway that overrides their right to illegally park (there were double yellow lines on the highway outside my house)!
The anti-anti-pirates remind me of those illegal parkers and their attitude regarding their presumed right to block me in compared to my rights to have access to/from my driveway.
So like other things in life, being for/against P2P really is an attitude thing, and some people have an appalling attitude towards something that most people consider reasonable.
Echoes:
Hehe that analogy reminded me of the place i grew up about 20 years ago. I live in the Netherlands and when i was a kid we lived near the "famous" windmills at Kinderdijk. I can still see my dad grumbling about how the heck he should get his car out...
Ok back on topic 8)
I think the whole argument is based around one thing:
Artists/Bands want to decide themselves what happens with their copyright music and don't want someone else to make that decision for them. Which imo is nothing more than fair.
Now i don't mind a discussion and i even don't mind people using strong language but for some reason the internet makes people say stuff which they in the real world never would use. Why? Because they are anonymous on the net and couldn't care less about a reputation.
I have simply seen to many flaming and i decided for myself to start ignoring them. The moment noone says something about their posts they have lost their fun and will be gone.
I have started up my own blog. If you want to see i can mail you the adress. It's a fresh started one since i had to deletemy old one due to a nice amount of "fanmail" from people who took part in the comment-discussions on silveRain.
I am not putting up music-files since i only will do that after i got permission to do so from a label/band. Maybe in the future who knows.
One thing i do agree with, from the pro-downloaders, is that the times are changing. Mindawn is a company that goes with it. Bands/labels have to adept. Afterall life isn't fair even if we want it to be.
Not saying that people can put up whole albums without permission but i do think that just using a shop in the middle of a city won't cut it any longer.
Gene Simmons said:
When the whole downloading started labels should have sued the first downloaders straight away and the problem wouldn't have been this big.
People, for some reason, are used to downloading knowing chances so far are still slim to be caught.
We have a school nearby our house and at lunchbreak they hang around it discussion the lastest news on how to get a download.
And these are kids more or less the possible future buyers of music.
How to stop the floodgates? I have no idea. I don't own a label, i can't sing or play an instrument (I could try it but the moment i start either the whole earth population decides to move to the nearest safe planet or more likely offer me a trip to that remote place). I am just a music-lover
Gert
Hi, Gert
You talk a lot of sense, and I hope your legal blog takes off and leads the way as to how a blog can support the bands.
The world sure is changing, but that doesn't give people the moral right to override copyright law against artists wishes because their wish is to have something for nothing, and the digital age makes it too easy to reach out and grab it.
And I think that most artists have responded as best they can with web presence (main sights, myspace, facebook, last.fm, etc.), samples (even complete songs), internet radio, etc. etc.
Good supportive blogs that respect artists wishes will also have their place, and I'm sure that artists will happily support legal blogs that respect their wishes. So if it's done right then everybody wins. Good luck!
Derek said: "So, come one, let’s see a credible argument for why you believe that 'sharing' an artist’s copyrighted material without their permission is not in breach of copyright law (i.e. stealing). And by that I don’t mean a single 'sharing is not stealing'. Give us an essay which has a compelling, well structured and intelligent rational for why those against downloading are so wrong."?
First of all, I never read from rights owners an essay with a compelling, well structured and intelligent rational for why copying something should be equal to taking away something. They just say "file sharing is stealing".
Would you say a squatter is a thief? Not every illegal action is a theft. I agree with you that file sharing is illegal, but I don't see why it should be seen as stealing.
Yes, I think that file sharing is breaking the present copyright law. No, I don't think that file sharing is stealing, and I don't think that the present copyright law is a fair one. To be fair it should find a balance between authors rights and public rights. A monopoly lasting 50 or 75 years since every single author's death is totally unbalanced in favour of authors rights.
"Would you say a squatter is a thief?"
YES!!
And so are illegal downloaders.
Hi, dicducfacfer
Yes I would say a squatter is a thief. I don't know much abotu the law in this case, but would you accept coming home to find a complete stranger has taken possession of your property? I wouldn't!
I think there is plenty of structured argument as to why file sharing (without consent) is stealing. In what I've written, I don't intend to reproduce the tomes of copyright law, so I have linked to it, and provided my point of view as an amateur musician who has the copyright law on my side. With what I have written and linked to, I think there is a strong argument that shows file sharing (without permission) is stealing in the eyes of copyright law.
The reverse is not true though. The "sharing is not stealing" crowd do not have copyright law on their side, so they have a bit more of a case to argue. Most posts here are just character attacks, which is why I ask for a bit more. At least your post is more constructive than the others, even if IMHO there is no compelling case to back your view. I'd like to hear more from you on why you believe the current laws are wrong.
You might not like the copyright law or think it's fair in the same way that I don't agree with a 70MPH speed limit on UK motorways (IMHO far too low - it's inappropriate speed that kills, not speed itself - and yes, I like driving fast!), but it is a law, and if I break it and get caught then it's a fair cop until the law changes.
Personally I think the copyright law is very fair. It is written in a flexible manner that even allows me to give my stuff away for free - if I chose to do so.
What is unfair about that?
I have some other experience of copyright. I write software librarians for the synths that I own. In 2001 I started them off as public domain. In 2005 I made them shareware (they were by then IMHO commercial quality). The move to shareware was not popular with some people and the level of interest dropped sharply when they went shareware (in reality all that meant was that I lost most of the dumb questions by the people who don't know how to read a manual!), and I haven't made my fortune in the shareware software market. But this software is my copyright and I can do as I see fit with it.
If I want a small return for people to benefit from the music I write and the software I write, why is that wrong? Personally I think it's very reasonable when I look at the investment I have made in money and time to do these things.
Sure, there are more altruistic people out there who like to give their stuff away for free, but that is their choice, and I don't question their right to do that. I myself use free software, but I also use software from authors like myself who want payment for their efforts, and if I want to use their software then I have paid what they want. I have paid full price for the music sequencer that I use for my music recordings, when I know I can go to a torrent stream and download a cracked copy of it. Why have I done the former and not the latter? Because if we all did the latter, there would be no sequencer market and no sequencers.
The general public do not have a right to force me to give things away for free if I don't want to do that, anymore than I have the right to demand that Britney Spears gives me her latest album for free (not that that I'd want it of course!).
If artists want to give their music away for free then I presume you have no issue with that. If artists want to control their releases to earn an income why is that wrong? Again, making music is not cost free. A pro-artist will rely on his music income to put food on his table, clothes on his back, a roof over his head, equipment purchases, studio time, pressing costs etc., etc.
And that is where the "sharing is not stealing, it should all be free" argument falls down.
I said in another post: If we lived in an altruistic world where I could live in comfort for free,, have all the equipment I need for free, and in return I had to give my work away for free. Well, I would give up my day job like a shot! But we don't live in such a world.
Hi again, Derek.
Would you call a squatter a thief in every possible situation? Yes, in your example a squatter is clearly a thief because he took away you house from you. But let's imagine a squatter inside an old public building that was previously long inhabited only by rats and beetles (no joke intended), maybe inside a nation where decent buildings are way much too expensive and there's no helping program designed for poor people. Would you call him a thief and would you prosecute him just the same as if he was inside your personal house? He's in an illegal position, but is he in an unethical position, too?
You see, reality is complex and a law should be well done to cover every possible situation. To me, our present copyright law (all the world is not-so-slowly adopting the U.S. copyright law model, so we can consider every possible copyright law is going to be like that) is seriously unbalanced and should be rewritten. Initially in the USA it was a balanced compromise: a monopoly consisting in a 14-years duration, and then all works would become of public domain. Now I think (maybe you too, from what you said in your previous answer) that public domain is very important for culture, so a law that says "all works will be in public domain only after 75 years since last author's death, and probably we'll delay that termination again and again just to make a favour to Disney corporation" is what I personally would call a theft: it's a theft against public domain. What would you say?
Here we could go on eternally with our battle of words, but the problem is changing the international copyright law in order to make it well balanced again, as it was in the beginning. That's what I think. In the meantime, I personally stopped to download illegal files - but I stopped to legally buy them too. I'm tired of people who say they have all rights and show no respect towards public rights. I'll give my money to people who respect my rights and don't use my money to lobbying politicians in order to enforce a nearly eternal copyright duration.
I remember back in the 70's, the RIAA types had the same gloom and doom message when the 'new technology' of cassette recording equipment became affordable for the regular Joe to buy and use. It didn't kill the music then, and the net won't do it today either.
The reason why this is so is that there are always going to be people who 'pay' and those who 'share'. The technology itself doesn't change that basic human equation.
Great music will always find a paying audience.
And the beat goes on.
The difference is quite obviously scale and quality. making a tape recording of a vinyl recording wasn't good quality to begin with, and there was a limit to how many anyone would make, maybe a dozen, and they couldn't re-tape it for someone else because the reproductive tape hiss would get too extreme.
Now we're talking about posting a perfect copy that is available to anyone that wants to download it, I haven't seen any download counts of less than 10,000 for any of my material at this point, that is a lot different than 12, but this is a typical pro-piracy redirect, it's been said and refuted many times already.
"we're talking about posting a perfect copy that is available to anyone that wants to download it"
So are you saying you wouldn't mind if you saw only imperfect (lossy) copies shared within blogs? That would make sense: you sell flac and ogg formats and you don't want to see them shared for free. But as a matter of fact you don't want to see all other lossy formats, too. You don't want to see 128 kbps mp3, and yet you'd never sell them. I think you have a nice contradiction here, haven't you? If mp3s are crap, why don't you let them be shared for free? If they are not crap, then you should offer them along with ogg and flac within your e-commerce. So you should make a decision, I think.
First I’d like to admit that some of my examples in the posts above and in this post may stray a little off the main point, but they do I think have a relevance to the debate. So please bear with me! I’ll tell you a little about my non-music internet contributions, so you can see that I have a broad perspective regarding the internet and how I chose to use it, including giving things away when I chose to do so. I’ll warn in advance that this post has become pretty lengthy! It will probably be my last lengthy one, as I need to get back to writing some music! And I’ve probably exhausted what I can say on the subject. I do hope that people will find relevance in some the points, so that writing these tomes was ultimately worth while in support of this blog!
Most of my comments here were stimulated in response to Dicducfacfer’s last reply to me.
So here we go, the problem with Dicducfacfer’s squatter analogy is its relevance to what we’re discussing. My music is a shiny new house for which I am the owner. I have not abandoned it to fall into decay. Good music is timeless, and with digital storage it will not decay. So in the same way that nobody has the right to take my house for nothing without my permission, there is no public domain right for somebody to take my music for nothing without my permission, until the period covered by copyright law elapses (personally I don’t agree with that time expiration, but that is the law). To use Dicducfacfer’s squatter analogy in the context of this blog, we are talking about (for example) 10,000 people gate-crashing your house and assuming it’s theirs by right.
Dicducfacfer states copyright law is unbalanced. As a creator of music (and other things), I personally cannot see how UK copyright law (what’s applicable in my case) is unbalanced (see all of my points in previous posts and this one), and perhaps Dicducfacfer misunderstands me on my views of public domain.
My local shop has a right to put on a “buy one get one free” offer. As a consumer, I do not have a right to walk into that supermarket and demand that they give me a “buy one get one free offer” because I want it. I can go in and ask (I’m not too bad at haggling), but I don’t have a right to expect the shop to bow to my demands. In fact in UK Law, all shop goods are “advertised as an invitation to treat”. The shop keeper doesn’t have an obligation to sell anything to you, so upset him by too much haggling and he has every right to tell you where to go, try and take it for nothing, and you’re breaking the law. I give this example because it shows that a producer has more rights than a consumer regarding controlling what/how he sells.
I love public domain and there’s some amazing stuff out there in the public domain. But the creator of such public domain items has a right to choose to put their stuff in the public domain. That is very fair to me. Consumers do not have a right (until copyright elapses) to expect a piece of work to be in the public domain.
There are things I have done that I have put in the public domain, and there are things I have chosen not to.
For example, I make patches for my synthesizers (a patch determines the sound they make). For most synths you have to buy these (or make your own), but the Yamaha EX5 (my main synth) via a web site that I help to run has one of the best free collections of patches for any synth. So, my friends and myself have made and given away hundreds of patches for these synths, and do you know what? For every thousand downloads, you probably get just one person coming back and saying thanks. You even have people (despite our release conditions prohibiting people profiting from our free releases) trying to sell them on ebay. Have you ever tried to stop an illegal sale that breaches your copyright on ebay? So my personal experience of public domain altruism and how the majority receive it is very mediocre. This tells you something about the response/attitude/expectation of the downloading majority to the altruism of those who do decide to give things away. You don’t get much encouragement!
I have also released songs into the public domain. A few years ago I organised (via that synth website) a “virtual” album for one of our synth patch contributors who became very ill. He had given all his patches away freely (his choice), so I organised a series of “albums” (each song had to use his patches). Each Christmas for about five years, our dear friend had the most amazing and generous present from the community (but out of 5,000 registered users, we probably had 20 contributors max – what does that tell you?). About a month after delivering our “present” to our dear friend, we made those songs publicly available. Whilst all contributors were happy to give their songs to our friend, some did not want their material publicly released. So we only publicly released the ones for which we had permission. Their right to withhold permission was stronger than our desire to release all the music.
Do you see my point? In that case, to release my song publicly was my choice (yawn). We respected the wishes of those who didn’t want that (yawn).
Now that I am more serious about my music and would like to get a small return against the investment and effort I have put into creating my music, my choice now is that my new music is not in the public domain, and if the public want more than the samples I make available, then the public will need to buy it. That is my choice (yawn).
I also contribute on three synth websites and have given hundreds of hours (many thousands of posts) of advice. That advice is free and on forums for all to benefit from. I chose to give that advice for free (yawn).
I repaired a failed display backlight on one of my synths the other day. As this involved complete disassembly and some soldering/modifications of the synth, and was very tricky, I wrote a guide on how to do the repair and that is posted on the net on one of my websites and linked to from several others. I chose to put that up for free. My choice (yawn).
Dicducfacfer refers to copyright time limits being an issue. Personally I’m not really for them expiring. After I’m dead and gone, I won’t be in a position to care (I think) about what happens to my copyright. But if I was moderately successful and my daughter was getting a modest income from my copyright, why should that stop?
In the same way, I don’t have an issue with Disney wanting to extend the copyright time limit. Yes, they are doing it for their megabuck profits, but at the end of the day they are a business and not a charity. And why should their work be automatically time expired into the public domain anyway? Why do you have an expectation that you have a right for things to be in the public domain?
But the fairness of copyright time limits is not the main issue here. I don’t think the majority of the illegal downloaders are waiting one day let alone 15, 20, 40, 60 or 75 years before they do their freeloading. Bands like Pendragon, IQ, etc. face a threat to their income from music sales right now due to the sheer scale and ease of digital piracy; they don’t face that threat in 15 or 75 years time.
You can probably see a recurring theme in my posts. I am heavily in favour of my rights as a producer of copyright.
I think I also have a broad perspective, because as well as being a musician, I am also a software author, document/guide author, a synth programmer and giver of advice. I am also responsible for generating intellectual property/copyright and protecting it in my job.
I have by choice given some of my personal output away for free and by choice I have also decided that some of my output will not be free. Those choices are mine and mine alone. Not one person on this planet has the right to expect my output for free and illegally mass distribute for free (or profit) without my permission. Period.
I’ve probably said all I can now on this, and I hope some of my slightly wider insights on the net and free/non-free releases are useful in support of the main reason for this BLOG.
In this BLOG and on the prog-bazaar thread on this matter, I have seen not one compelling reason to justify illegal downloading and distribution.
Cheers
Derek
Echoes:
Long read but worth the time! Well said makes stuff pretty clear.
Gert
1): This is a LIE. I buy cds. acually ca 70 % more than before I started to download music. And before I started downloading i purchased artists like Greenday and Gorillaz. The music in the radio and tv was the only music I had heard of. Now I buy artists like Fläsket Brinner and Gnidrolog.
4): Yes, how shall I? If I buy an mp3-file, I have already spent money on something I maybe don't like. And don't say that an mp3 don't cost much. Would you spend 1 $ each day for "a secret gift", that perhaps is a bag of poo? No. I bet you wouldn't.
$1 per day? Seriously? I loose that much change every day, that's not a risk. I have tons of albums I bought because of one song and didn't really care that much for the rest of the album. Besides, we've made the point about a bazillion times now, there are plenty of places to sample music without downloading it illegally. If you spent half as much time looking for legal places as pirate places, you'd find twice as much music.
Regardless of what any of you thinks, piracy is illegal, it is AGAINST THE LAW, nomatter what your views are. Just like when murdering someone, doesn't matter what you think, you will be PUNISHED. Even if you are very convinced that what you did was not wrong, it is still against the law and not for you to decide. Do you get the general ideea? ILLEGAL!
Knowing that it is illegal, you still continue to do it, you people aren't anything else than a bunch of pickpockets on a crowded street, trying to convince people that picking their pockets is not wrong.
"you people aren't anything else than a bunch of pickpockets on a crowded street, trying to convince people that picking their pockets is not wrong."
Hello, Anonymous,
This is the best metaphor I've seen. Amen.
Ever notice that the fox that cries the loudest is usually the one that stole the hen?
A query: what's the ethical position regarding buying music from charity shops / boot sales / record fairs / e-bay etc?
Sure as hell the creators aren't receiving royalties from these sources. Are these people ripping off artists as well? Should the sale of music be limited to licenced outlets from which the appropriate royalties can be collected?
As far as I can see the only difference is that the vendors are making a personal profit whereas bloggers are doing it for free.
Who's the more altruistic?
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm genuinely interested in wanting to resolve this conundrum.
This is an example of something I'd normally filter because this has already been discussed.
The artist made their money on the original sale, as long as only one copy is in use, then they have been compensated.
Hi Shawn
You keep saying that it's illegal to download or copy.
It's only illegal in certain jurisdictions, the US in particular, I'm told.
It's perfectly legal in other places, in Canada for example.
Best regards,
Marc (Canada)
You're leaving out the rest of the story, which is that it is illegal to upload the files and that Canada has imposed a tax on things like CDR's and iPods that supposedly goes to the artists (about the stupidest thing I can think of since you have no idea how to allocate it).
Hi Marc,
Have you ever seen a text on a CD with this, or a simular, message?:
"Unauthorized copying, duplicating, hiring etc prohibited"
I would pretty much say that both uploading and downloading is "unauthorized copying".
As long as the blog have no permission it is "unauthorized".
In other words: It is forbidden to "share".
Hello Marc,
I guess you have seen a statement like this one, or simular, on a CD.
"Unauthorized copying, duplicating, hiring of this recording is prohibited".
As long as the blog have no permission I would say that uploading and downloading is "Unauthorized copying".
It is not allowed.
It is a violation against the copyrights.
It is against the will of the band.
I am most pleased you have answered my question (I'm the anonymous who lives in a rather misplaced country. Brazil, if you'd like to know). Thank you, really. I'll get a bank account as soon as possible so I can order some CDs.
By the way, is there any chance of some sort of you re-editing Anglagard's CDs? I've read there are only about 5000 thousand copies for each album around the world, although, according to many people (very likely these 5000 lucky purchasers or downloaders), it is a great band.
Anglagard can be hard to find, I know they were on www.musearecords.com and one of their albums is available as a digital download at Mindawn http://www.mindawn.com/artists/Anglagard
I imagine copies might be floating around at some resellers as well, just need to look. A good source of links is at ghostland.com
hi
i agree with you BUT what about deleted material that is only available on vinyl?
if someone is exposed to a brilliant album that never came out on CD and can only be bought randomly in some second hand shop then surely it's a good thing to share it UNLESS the artist objects.
some albums have been reissued on CD (very few) after their 'rediscovery'
J
Hello Anonymous,
We appreciate your attitude. Thanks.
About Anglagard:
The reason why there two studio albums are out of print is that some of the band members want it that that way. I will not go into details here, but it is actually parts of the band that have decided this. Sounds strange? I agree.
The only available Anglagard albums at the moment is the live album "Buried alive".
J - we're not talking about that here, that is a corner case and doesn't apply to the great amount of downloading going on, and as Hansi just mentioned, some bands want their material out of print, that's their decision, not yours to make, and without asking the copyright holder, you don't know the answer.
Hi J,
The best thing to do is to contact the band and see what they say.
Perhaps they can agree on having it released again if they notice that there is a demand for their music.
This is what one should do with out of print material. Let the labels or bands now that their music is wanted.
Okay, I'll try this yet again - hopefully I won't get censored this time.
Quote by Pirate Killer:
If you spent half as much time looking for legal places as pirate places, you'd find twice as much music.
This goes to show one of the biggest roots of the problem right here: You, like most labels know nothing about file-sharing. If you did, you'd know that the statement I quoted was completely false.
Rather than take the time to study why people flock to file-sharing, labels just try to squash it. I applaud your label's move to lossless downloads. If I ever decide I like your music and your prices come down a bit, I may well buy from you.
But most of the labels you defend are not as "open-minded" as yours is. They're barely getting their heads out of DRM, and lossless downloads are still two or three computer-centuries away.
Let me make one thing crystal clear - if I'm going to pay for music, it will be lossless, and I will not pay for songs I don't want. Given today's level of technology, as you yourself have demonstrated, these requirements should be easily achievable.
And yet, only a minuscule fraction of music is legally available that way. Now, I can either allow myself to get ripped off and buy a lossy download or a CD with a dozen songs I don't want or... I can grab a copy off some unauthorized source. It may not be lossless, but at least it'll hold me over until something better comes along that's actually worth paying for.
Quote by Pirate Killer:
$1 per day? Seriously? I loose that much change every day...
I wish I could afford to lose $30 a month in change.
fuunny how some here get into semantics when their flimsy arguments fall short of any sense or plausibility.
making metaphors literal when some of you get backed into a corner. piracy is illegal and thats it. your depreciating the value of an art form and defecating on something sacred when you take it with no regard of the creator.
james brown sued every rapper in the 80"s because the growing trend of sampling music had gone way past the breaking point. de la soul had to pay him for his original music. what makes you so above the LAW?
THIEVES!
I thought redundant comments weren't allowed...
if idiots come in multiples than comments protecting the rights of ARTISTS should be repeated till they become melodies. maybe you'll STEAL those INTEAD. then maybe u'll get it through your thieving MP3 skull..
STOP ripping US OFF!! I'm sure BARACK will PASS a LAW when elected enforcing the COPYRIGHTS that so many users and software companies ignore.
these machines come after the FLESH. music is FLESH AND BLOOD turned into SOUND; when its GOOD.
Computers are obsolete with each generation and upgrade released. a SONG is eternal. this is why it stands no CHANCE against a non living, breathing engine. built only to disseminate information with no REGARD or REPESCT to the CONTENT it facilitates.
redundant enough?
What I want to know is why are the zealots your campaign has inspired attacking even the "found sound" blogs? Those blogs like mine that specialize in long Out-of-print obscurities and even public domain reords such as U.S. government tax-payer supported releases of PSAs.
The type of material I would post is ripped from 25 to 50 year-old records found in thrift shops, auctions, trash bins, etc. If there was any money to be made off those records at all, it was made long, long, ago, and my 25 cents to the Salvation Army was not shared with any surviving copyright holders. Why not shut down the used record stores and Thrift shops?
I'd find it very hard-to-believe that anybody, outside of somebody burning their own CDs of my download and trying to sell the bootleg, could stand to make money today off of something like say, "How To Buy Meat" put out in the early 1970s by the USDA.
Yet, this was one of the files that some zealot saw fit to complain to rapidshare about. along with about 80 other OOP or public domain records on my blog.
If I'm a pirate for sharing stuff that my Grandparents' tax dollars originally paid for, it's time to take down the flag in front of my house, hoist a jolly roger, and start the revolution.
Your grandparents tax dollars never paid to have an album made, so I don't get that comment.
People were filing complaints to rapidshare long before we started, I've run across blogs complaining of files being deleted from over a year ago, we only started in october and we're only dealing with our material. If someone else wiped out your blog, I guess that's a pain in the ass for you, but at the end of the day, you still don't have the right to give stuff away unless you have permission or the material is in the public domain, the danger of mixing free stuff with copywritten stuff is the free stuff can get hit at the same time if rapidshare does more than requested to someones account.
presumably you guys that think its ok to post OOP stuff (as you seem to keep mentioning this) think the sites that are posting fully available CDs(both download and phyiscal releases) complete with artwork done and released in the last 6 months and also take "donations" all totally without anyones permission are totally hunky dory as well. Because when i asked for my labels releases to be removed which most certainly were not OOP, I got the same kind of abuse as everyone on here.
Its not one giant social charity funded by the government just as Im sure the businesses you work in are not either. Maybe you should all go and work for free as well and we can all work on one big giant new social experiemnt where no-one gets paid but we all "share". Cant quite see it working because you see those who want everything for free are often the ones least likley to share when it comes to their own back pocket.
The world may well move on and new models become available that everyone benefits from, consumers and artists and labels but at the moment its at "limbo" stage and therefore people are taking for free without the creators realising any benefit.
I can accept it may well benefit some young bands who need the promotion and can make money from gigging and t shirts etc, please tell me how it remotely benefits bands that are now defunct, most of whom are not well off guys and apprecaite the extra income from their old releases.
I do not have an issue with downlaods being available (paid for or on some legal free model-and there are a few and more coming on line that are ad supported and approved by the copyright holders)
What I have a problem with is every Tom Dick and Harry thinking its their right and in some cases making money from it.
In the next few month some sites are coming on tap that i know of that will make lots of currently OOP material available as very high quality paid for downlaods--I can bet my bottom dollar though that the vast majority of people will want it for free--its human nature.
I've read complaints by prog-snobs making the argument that listening to a 45-second song sample is not long enough for progressive rock.
What garbage! I wonder if any of them has ever gone to see a 2-hour movie on the basis of a 30-second TV spot, or 3-minute theatrical trailer?
And you can listen to full songs for *1 penny* on Rhapsody and other services. What better way to try before you buy?
Post a Comment