Anyone actually pay for their music?

[quote name='berzirk']Ah, fair enough. My apologies if I misunderstood. Everybody starting out in entertainment has it rough. The most talented don't necessarily make it all the time. The hardest working ones have more success, at least that's how it seems to go in stand up comedy.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, economy of scale. The Hold Steady may sell out 1,300 capacity venues and get 10% of people to buy some merch, but that doesn't compare at all to the 25% of 60,000 people that go to a Metallica show. You don't really get into the territory of volume vs margin because you don't have the one to compete with the other in terms of the huge acts.

Also, the three highest paid women isn't their actual paycheck. That's revenue generated by products with their name attached. It's a safe assumption that they make 10-15% of that tops. It's also safe to assume that Harry Fox is making 20-30% of that listed total on each one.

Saying that the $2 won't hurt them is obviously true. On the other hand, your $10 iTunes album probably makes the artist $0.0025. Who it does hurt is the guy that works in the pressing factory that assembled a good 2,500 copies of Born This Way. As the physical medium continues to shrink, both through legally and illegaly obtained digital formats, that's jobs that are being lost. It hurts the session musicians who are the nameless people in the studio that play everything for scale and rarely if ever receive royalties. And like I said before, it hurts the consumers of "real" music since the market share dwindles that much more every year until they're all going to be Amanda Palmer self releasing stuff on bandcamp.

The only reason I can find to download something is if it's an out of print deal and used copies have that "rare" quality which makes them sell for 2,000% MSRP. And concert boots too if you're into that kind of thing.
 
Maybe to encourage some people to buy music AmazonMP3 is having a crazy sale on albums for $5 a piece in all genres so you are bound to find something or don't everyone is going to do what they want in the end but I wish some people would stop making excuses just say they like to steal or it is easier to steal instead of trying to rationalize it or make an argument.
 
[quote name='iamsobroke']Money made by top 3 women artists last year

Lady Gaga ----- $88,000,000

Taylor Swift---- $45,000,000

Katy Perry ----- $44,000,000



I'm just using them to point out examples, but I doubt they would need our additional $2 from buying their CD, MP3 albums. Download it for free.....[/QUOTE]

Thats a bullshit justification, look be a man and just say you steal it. Oh they already have a lot so its ok for me to steal their stuff. Because you know you wouldnt buy the music even if they were a struggling basement band.

I barely listen to music I rock NPR and Sports talk. When I do want to jam I just access the over 10 thousand god damn apps and services that are floating around for free. Or unlimited download for like 8 bucks a month.Its just like PC gamers, they bitch all the time about how companies add DRM to everything and choose not to bring certain games out...but the very second they do everyone just robs them blind.

Seriously, why are you still stealing music now a days? What more do you want them to do for you? Music fans are the worst, you hate Justin Beiber? Then maybe you should stop stealing so much music, then maybe the band that you do like will have enough money to get bigger and more well known.
 
[quote name='headpiece747']Maybe to encourage some people to buy music AmazonMP3 is having a crazy sale on albums for $5 a piece in all genres so you are bound to find something or don't everyone is going to do what they want in the end but I wish some people would stop making excuses just say they like to steal or it is easier to steal instead of trying to rationalize it or make an argument.[/QUOTE]

They do that every month. Usually around 40 albums or so. Some old and some newer stuff.
 
[quote name='Thongsy']They do that every month. Usually around 40 albums or so. Some old and some newer stuff.[/QUOTE]

I found out more info it is not the normal 100 albums a month like normal they are trying to compete with the Google Music $5 sale. So there are thousand of albums on sale right now.
 
I haven't for years and years but now that I have a disposable income I find myself doing it more.

There are a few artists who I will always buy their stuff since they release it as DRM free FLAC and I feel I need to support that.

But really, I don't download music either. If I want to listen to something new, Pandora or Youtubeing it is good enough for me. I'm not really that in to most music.
 
[quote name='nasum']
Also, the three highest paid women isn't their actual paycheck. That's revenue generated by products with their name attached. It's a safe assumption that they make 10-15% of that tops. It's also safe to assume that Harry Fox is making 20-30% of that listed total on each one.[/quote]
How do you figure... all three of them not only have huge tours and tons of tv performances, they do interview circuits (100% profits) and additional products/endorsements. I believe the numbers.

The only reason I can find to download something is if it's an out of print deal and used copies have that "rare" quality which makes them sell for 2,000% MSRP. And concert boots too if you're into that kind of thing.
Everyone has their own reasons. I prefix that I also buy some songs/albums. My justification is as follow... If I was to 100% buy then my budget would readjust i.e. going to concerts would be drastically reduced. Personally I would rather support the artist by going to shows vs the production companies that mass market their CD. Thus, why I made the choice the way I did.

As for the rest...
To say, even the low guys, aren't making money. You got to be joking. They still have enough to sustain themselves without secondary income. Of course they aren't all banking Metallica money... the mass hasn't also been playing as long as Metallica has with as many hits as they have had. If they weren't making a ton, some of those guys wouldn't be giving away their albums/mixtapes for free (i.e. the Cool Kids gave away their newest studio album this year).

I thought the goal of musicians was to be heard.

Lastly, I leave it like this...
What is the difference between recording a cassette from the radio/friend's cassette on their boom box back in the days vs today's digital copies... The IP debate really came about from Napster yet IP was already been taken. VHS to VHS anyone...
 
Its always great when a non artist tells you how much money you have based on watching mtv. Its something that all artist will have to deal with when they choose their line of work...people and their gross assumptions about what a "artist life" is, especially in music.

Lordopuss, I love ya bro but you dont know what the hell you are talking about. When you choose a line of work at is in the realm of creativity you choose a life of shit and struggle for an extremely long time with the potential to be rich but more than likely be just barely making it.

No non artist will never know how many hours and how much money it takes to produce something even half way decent and even if it is it probably wont make you half as much as you put into it. I often work 60 hours a week while only getting paid for roughly 25 of it. I have 3 jobs to support my creative endeavors, so do all of my friends who are in my line of work. You cant understand how much effort it takes to what they do. Its hard to make an album if you dont have money to pay for studio time (about 1k an hour by the way) or gear, or tech to run the gear, venues, gas to get to the venues, time, etc etc....all the while they also need to pay rent, gas, food etc. Seriously do you think things just fall out of the sky? Jimmi Hendrix had to pawn his guitar like 5 times through out his career.



Just because they are well known doesnt mean they are rich most of these guys are barely making it. Most of them dont complain about the money per say but it does make us IRATE when some non artist trivializes what we do. Also just because they give away a cd doesnt mean they are rich, most likely it was because it was cheaper than going to a DC. Or they are getting paid of website hits or any number of things...hell they could be doing just for the PR.

I also love when people use THE MOST well known successfully people has their barometer for how well they think these guys are doing. Louis CK? Metallica? For everyone 1 semi successful person there are about 200 ones that fail every day. Its like saying, "well the economy isnt bad, look Donald Trump is doing fine." Do you know how long it takes to really make that much money?


Lastly, the VHS copy point is stupid as fuck and people need to stop using it. Listen no one could copy SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND VHS and disturbed them to the ENTIRE WORLD with no cost to themselves so its really apples to non existent oranges. Are you serious? How does giving 1 or 2 copies to you friend equal letting 10 thousand people access material. Hell at least back in the day you had the buy the 2nd vhs tape to dub....digital you dont even have to do that.
 
[quote name='headpiece747']I wish some people would stop making excuses just say they like to steal or it is easier to steal instead of trying to rationalize it or make an argument.[/QUOTE]

This is all it comes down to.

It doesn't matter how much an artist makes or doesn't make, it doesn't matter what the record companies are doing, it doesn't matter how many concerts you pay to go to.

An MP3 that costs money that is then illegally downloaded/pirated is theft or whatever you want to call "digital theft" since many pirates insist nothing is actually being stolen. The end result is you've gained something and whoever should have received money has gained nothing from you when they should have, so its not like its a "victimless" crime or however you want to put it.

Either you're cool with stealing all your music, some of your music, or none of your music, and it doesn't matter why. 90% of what has been said in this thread is just an attempt at rationalization instead of those who steal/pirate just admitting that's what they do even though its not the "right thing" to do.
 
I do. I used to buy CDs, but I got tired of the pains in the ass that go along with the phyiscal media. So I now buy MP3s from Amazon. I admit I pirate some stuff, but it's definitely not how I get the majority of my music.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Instead of reading what I wrote just watch the greatest rant of all time regarding not paying people for creative work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE[/QUOTE]

Hmm, maybe Ellison should get a certain percentage of profit from sales in that case. You can pay a guy for an interview, but if the DVD bombs then that would make me seriously question whether there was "value" in the creative work outside of the artist's asking price.

Of course Ellison is established and can do all the legal wrangling involved with being "hot shit." I especially liked the sense of entitlement when he said somebody could sell their car to buy his work. Why be an artist when you can be a dope peddler? ;)
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Instead of reading what I wrote just watch the greatest rant of all time regarding not paying people for creative work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ozWI-Ls9Y[/QUOTE]

Ah Harlan.

I respect his honesty and like how he has fucked over James Cameron twice.

But that second clip - he sounds like a bully who enjoys beating on the little guy even after he's made his point.

For a scifi writer, it seems like the guy doesnt have the first fucking clue about how social media works.

Still like his writing so whatever.
 
I buy vinyl. A lot of vinyl. I hate CD's with a passion. I own an iPod though, and its nice and I use it frequently, but nothing beats vinyl.
 
[quote name='advanced']I buy vinyl. A lot of vinyl. I hate CD's with a passion. I own an iPod though, and its nice and I use it frequently, but nothing beats vinyl.[/QUOTE]

obligatory resident hipster post
 
[quote name='kodave']It doesn't matter how much an artist makes or doesn't make, it doesn't matter what the record companies are doing, it doesn't matter how many concerts you pay to go to.

An MP3 that costs money that is then illegally downloaded/pirated is theft or whatever you want to call "digital theft" since many pirates insist nothing is actually being stolen. The end result is you've gained something and whoever should have received money has gained nothing from you when they should have, so its not like its a "victimless" crime or however you want to put it.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe the reality is that it's bigger than a simple black and white issue where there is a right and a wrong.
 
I get CDs of music I really enjoy. Other than that I just stream whatever I want to listen to. I'm not the person who likes to buy mp3s (though I rip all my cds to mp3 for my itunes) of my music so if I'm going to get music digitally I'm not putting down money.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']How do you figure...[/QUOTE]

I don't know really, maybe years of having been in the music industry and knowing the scam? Mechanical royalties don't pay nearly as much as people seem to think, the $65 concert ticket for Lady Gaga does not put $65 into her pocket, a $5,000,000 album advance is just that, an advance, which needs to be paid back through sales before mechanical royalties (which again pay less than you think) kick in and so on and so forth.

It's cute that you're trying to justify it, but you're fucking wrong in your logic and morality. You're a thief, plain and simple.

[quote name='some dumbass']
Lastly, I leave it like this...
What is the difference between recording a cassette from the radio/friend's cassette on their boom box back in the days vs today's digital copies... The IP debate really came about from Napster yet IP was already been taken. VHS to VHS anyone... [/quote]
1.) dubbing from the radio, at least the artist gets paid their one millionth of a cent in MR for it having been played on the radio.
2.) dubbing from another cassette and VHS-VHS was adressed already, the economy of scale of a 1:1 is much different than 1:10,000,000 who can download your torrent.
 
Yep thanks to Amazon's mp3 store which I've been using a lot lately. Its easier/faster than torrenting, doesn't afflict my OCD since everything is tagged and titled properly, and its generally not too bad price wise for a whole album. Alot of times its less than .99 per song (usually $6.99 per album) which I'm ok with for digital media.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ah Harlan.

I respect his honesty and like how he has fucked over James Cameron twice.

But that second clip - he sounds like a bully who enjoys beating on the little guy even after he's made his point.

For a scifi writer, it seems like the guy doesnt have the first fucking clue about how social media works.

Still like his writing so whatever.[/QUOTE]

Now remember in that second clip he sent both AOL and the kid many C and Ds to take down his writing. The kid in this case did what most kids on the internet do..."fuck you, you cant find me I am on the internet." Then he found him and ran him through the ringer.

Everyone is tough shit until they cant hide behind a user name anymore.


He knows how the internet works and he seriously doesnt like it. He has no problem with information being free, but stories, books, articles, etc are not information they are the product of someone work and thus can not be stolen and spread around all willy nilly just because you are on the internet. Hell he even said that he wouldnt mind giving it away for free but its his/the owners decision....you cant just steal someone work and expect them to be alright with it just because it the internet.

He explains all of this in the clip I provided.

Ironically it is not him with the sense of entitlement after all ITS HIS WORK I would assume a person is entitled to his own work....as he said its this generation who has the sense of entitlement. They somehow just decided that they should be provided with everything they want for free just because its digital.

Its as true now than ever and if you are not an artist yourself you will never understand how under valued everything you do is. As he said, why am I an asshole for wanting to get paid for my work? Doctors get paid. Cashier monkeys get paid. The guys who go get carts get paid. Accountants get paid. Plumbers get paid...the list goes on and on. So why should someone like him have to give away all of his work? You went to business college so you can get some high dollar management job? Why doesnt the fact that I went to Broadcasting, Production and Film school count? I paid my 40k tuition just like you did. I have to pay it back just like you do. But because some kid decided it should free I should just shrug and say all info should be free? Piss on that, I cant pay my rent with fucking youtube views. When this is how you make a living and how you feed your family and pay your rent its a different story. When I put up a video and it gets enough hits to earn me money...if I see it ANYWHERE else without my say so I will have my lawyer contact you...why should I miss out on money just because you are talented or creative enough to come up with your own content.


Seriously, what do you guys do for a living? I want to show up there and demand services for free just because I think they should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would buy more if the mp3s weren't compressed so much. I'm sure they would still make a fortune selling lossless audio for the same price. Songs from itunes sound like crap, they're fine on your ipod or the gym but even with average speakers you can hear the difference.

I have felt bad in the past when I've really only wanted one album from a band that I couldn't find for sale and had to DL their whole discography through a torrent to get it. Woops, didn't mean to get your entire life's work for free!
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Yep thanks to Amazon's mp3 store which I've been using a lot lately. Its easier/faster than torrenting, doesn't afflict my OCD since everything is tagged and titled properly, and its generally not too bad price wise for a whole album. Alot of times its less than .99 per song (usually $6.99 per album) which I'm ok with for digital media.[/QUOTE]

I just wish they were consistent with their prices. I listen to a lot of jazz/improvised music and alot of the time there's only 2-4 tracks per album. (Each song being 15+ minutes long)

Amazon will then charge $7-$9 for the digital album instead of the $.99 per track price.
 
[quote name='nasum']I don't know really, maybe years of having been in the music industry and knowing the scam? Mechanical royalties don't pay nearly as much as people seem to think, the $65 concert ticket for Lady Gaga does not put $65 into her pocket, a $5,000,000 album advance is just that, an advance, which needs to be paid back through sales before mechanical royalties (which again pay less than you think) kick in and so on and so forth.[/quote]
Of course, she doesn't make all $65 of her ticket price. But it is safe to say she alone banks around $30/ticket. Note, tickets for stops got as high as the 100s. She performs at venues like MSG (capacity up to 20,000). Let's take her Monster's Ball tour stop at MSG... 74,410 tickets were sold. We are looking at her banking: $2,232,300 for one show. Monster's Ball tour had 201 shows. You can only imagine the amount she pulled in.

Note that is just the tour. She still gets royalties for singles/cds/dvds sales and airplay. Again, it doesn't even factor all the interviews where she pockets mostly everything.

Lastly... what do you do in the music industry?

It's cute that you're trying to justify it, but you're fucking wrong in your logic and morality. You're a thief, plain and simple.
I never denied it. Quick question, do you pay your state taxes on Amazon purchases? My guess is not... Everyone does questionable practices.

1.) dubbing from the radio, at least the artist gets paid their one millionth of a cent in MR for it having been played on the radio.
2.) dubbing from another cassette and VHS-VHS was adressed already, the economy of scale of a 1:1 is much different than 1:10,000,000 who can download your torrent.
It was still wrong either way and plenty of the "100%" payers participated in these practices.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Of course, she doesn't make all $65 of her ticket price. But it is safe to say she alone banks around $30/ticket. Note, tickets for stops got as high as the 100s. She performs at venues like MSG (capacity up to 20,000). Let's take her Monster's Ball tour stop at MSG... 74,410 tickets were sold. We are looking at her banking: $2,232,300 for one show. Monster's Ball tour had 201 shows. You can only imagine the amount she pulled in.[/quote]
I'd be amazed if she personally gets $10 from that ticket. Backing band, backing dancers, road crew, stage production amortized over the tour, outfits, sound guy, venue cut, catering, etc... That you don't realize your own math is pretty amazing. So she makes $2mil at one stop on the tour but somehow or another only "made" $88mil on the year with 200 gigs? The hell kid? Eighty million or four hundred million, which is it?
20,000 capacity venue sold 74k+?!

Note that is just the tour. She still gets royalties for singles/cds/dvds sales and airplay. Again, it doesn't even factor all the interviews where she pockets mostly everything.
Agent fees for booking publicity, travel for all the interviews/media, again mechanical royalties are miniscule though you seem to think they're not, so on and so forth

Lastly... what do you do in the music industry?
More like did. Booking agent, promoter, musician (performing/session/commercial), producer, engineer and that's just in the last few years. I have an AAS degree in music business as well as an AVID certification for Pro Tools A/V Suite.
I quit it all and became a mild mannered accountant because I got sick of the racket. That and your average musician is a talentless egomaniac with an incredibly low IQ.
As for the rest, I plead the 5th. Long and short of it is that I know the inside of this and you're guessing.

I never denied it. Quick question, do you pay your state taxes on Amazon purchases? My guess is not... Everyone does questionable practices.
I do not since 99.9% of what I buy is used and is therefore non taxable as the money goes to the individual, there's that accountant thing coming up.


It was still wrong either way and plenty of the "100%" payers participated in these practices.
dubbing off the radio isn't wrong as the radio has paid for broadcast rights. If you dub off the radio and then sell the dub, now you've broken the law.
 
I think he was referring to all of her MSG dates, combined. And the first leg of that tour supposedly cost $3 million more to put on than it actually made.
 
[quote name='camoor']Honestly I just listen to internet radio anymore. If I want to hear a particular song I'll dial it up on youtube.

I wouldn't mind paying for a handful of songs that I love, but I listen to music on so many devices that it's not worth figuring out.[/QUOTE]

This!
 
[quote name='dodgeme']Hell no. If I did I'd be out like $10k. I don't value music that much. I'll just listen to the radio if they started making a big deal about downloading it. Although I do buy Vinyl's but thats a different story.[/QUOTE]

You don't value music but have $10,000 worth.... makes complete sense.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']You don't value music but have $10,000 worth.... makes complete sense.[/QUOTE]


Exactly, I love the logic. People dont want music to stop being made they just dont want to pay for it.

I wish I could just decide that cars are not of value and then just take one from a dealership. Same thing right?
 
Haven't stolen a song since 2003. I would still steal but the viruses aren't worth it, rather listen to the same old shit I guess.
 
I pay if I enjoy it as I just think it's shitty not to. That's one positive thing about piracy though that people dont talk about much is how it can increase sales. I may listen to it free at first but if I like it I'll buy it. Without piracy and the internet I may never have known they existed. I realize many/most may not do that so piracy still overall hurts artists.

If an entire CD is good I'll buy it in one form or another. Like Nirvana Unplugged, Brand New Deja Entendu, Taylor Swift, Bush Sixteen Stone and Blink 182s Dude Ranch off the top of my head were good albums all the way through imo so I make it a point to support those.

If there's like one good song on an album though they can go fuck themselves.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']I pay if I enjoy it as I just think it's shitty not to. That's one positive thing about piracy though that people dont talk about much is how it can increase sales. I may listen to it free at first but if I like it I'll buy it. Without piracy and the internet I may never have known they existed. I realize many/most may not do that so piracy still overall hurts artists.

If an entire CD is good I'll buy it in one form or another. Like Nirvana Unplugged, Brand New Deja Entendu, Taylor Swift, Bush Sixteen Stone and Blink 182s Dude Ranch off the top of my head were good albums all the way through imo so I make it a point to support those.

If there's like one good song on an album though they can go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE]


The flaw in your broken logic is that you can preview every song under the sun through the over 20 thousand apps available and guess what....its legal.

Again, like someone else in the thread mentioned you people are just finding ways to rationalize stealing music. Period. There is a legal way to do EVERYTHING that you guys want but you refuse to do it because you are standing by bullshit morals.

Why is it so hard? Just buy the damn music, if you dont want to buy it use the thousands of free apps. You not only want to have and eat the cake you want ownership of the entire cake fucking factory.

You can pay 8 bucks a month and have unlimited access to every song on the planet, streamed to every device under the sun...again I am not for SOPA but what more do you want these guys to do? Songs only cost 99 cents now you can get an entire album for 5 bucks on a off day.

Being one of like 4 actual artist here on CAG the disturbing thing I have found out from both this and the other thread is this.....no one is saying that artist should stop making content they just want that content for free.

You care nothing of the fact that it takes hundreds of people who all put in their time at college or internships etc and cost upwards of millions of dollars to produce. You are basically saying that my/our entire life work is worthless but at the same time you would never take a dollar less to do whatever the hell you do for a living. I basically should just entertain you for the rest of my life with my only payment being your satisfaction. Call me when MasterCard starts taking satisfaction as payment and then we might be able to work something out.

Why are BMWs not free, they are certainly not adding anything to advanced the human society? I want one, I dont want to pay for it, what would happen if I just took one from the dealership? Who gives a shit that they have to pay the designers, the builders, the plant workers, the guards, the light bill, water bill....all that means nothing. Anything with 4 wheels can get you to where you are going so a BMW is just entertainment thus should be deemed worthless and acceptable to take as many as I want. Plus I certainly wouldnt which one I liked so I will just keep taking them and when I find one that I like I will just pay for that one....but I am still keeping the ones I have.
 
I pay for my music. I did the napster/torrent about 5-8 yrs ago but I don't buy often but I haven't downloaded illegally in lot of years.
 
Didn't go through the whole thread so sorry if someone already said this, but the OP is slightly flawed in that it's based on buying songs at $0.99, which if you buy full albums it's usually much less than that ($8 for a 12 song album, for example).

I download MP3s and if I like an album enough, I buy it on vinyl. CDs are useless to me because I rip them to my computer/ipod and then never look at them again. Records, though, sound so much better and having the large cover art and inserts feels way more like a finished product to own vs a CD book stuffed into a generic case. There have been a few times when I've bought albums on Amazon MP3 because it was a good price, I couldn't find it anywhere else (which was surprisning!), or the MP3 version was available weeks before anything else.

Even if I don't end up buying the record, I'll try to go see bands when they come through town and support them on tour.
 
I buy CDs for bands I really enjoy (Devo, They Might Be Giants, Hollywood Undead), otherwise I usually grab the mp3 I'm looking for from Amazon, or iTunes as a last resort. But yes, I pay for my music.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']The flaw in your broken logic is that you can preview every song under the sun through the over 20 thousand apps available and guess what....its legal.[/QUOTE]
And one of the best/easiest to use of those 20,000 "apps" that I know of is illegal. I'll use whatever is most convenient at the time whether legal or illegal makes no difference to me.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Again, like someone else in the thread mentioned you people are just finding ways to rationalize stealing music. Period. There is a legal way to do EVERYTHING that you guys want but you refuse to do it because you are standing by bullshit morals.[/QUOTE]
There is no arguing the legality of it. It is illegal. According to the law, I should not do it. Morally though I feel no need to rationalize anything and I disagree with what the law says. There's simply nothing wrong with it imo assuming you pay for it if you enjoy it. If you pirate to pirate then that imo is wrong and should be (fairly) punished.

[quote name='Soodmeg']You can pay 8 bucks a month and have unlimited access to every song on the planet, streamed to every device under the sun...again I am not for SOPA but what more do you want these guys to do? Songs only cost 99 cents now you can get an entire album for 5 bucks on a off day.[/QUOTE] That all sounds pretty fair. I haven't heard of whatever app this is that charges $8 a month though.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Being one of like 4 actual artist here on CAG the disturbing thing I have found out from both this and the other thread is this.....no one is saying that artist should stop making content they just want that content for free.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Soodmeg']You care nothing of the fact that it takes hundreds of people who all put in their time at college or internships etc and cost upwards of millions of dollars to produce.[/QUOTE] You may not believe it, but I do care. If I enjoy the work you've done I should pay you for it.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Why are BMWs not free, they are certainly not adding anything to advanced the human society? I want one, I dont want to pay for it, what would happen if I just took one from the dealership? Who gives a shit that they have to pay the designers, the builders, the plant workers, the guards, the light bill, water bill....all that means nothing. Anything with 4 wheels can get you to where you are going so a BMW is just entertainment thus should be deemed worthless and acceptable to take as many as I want. Plus I certainly wouldnt which one I liked so I will just keep taking them and when I find one that I like I will just pay for that one....but I am still keeping the ones I have.[/QUOTE]

A BMW or any car has some key differences though. First it's a physical thing that would be missed in itself if I just stole it. A song can be endlessly duplicated with no tangible loss to the owner. Let's pretend I could duplicate a car though out of thin air by using the original owners car. Would I be wrong to do so? Yes imo if I (or anyone else) gained anything by doing so. I may decide I dont like a car, but if I used it to get from point A to B it's still served it's purpose and that is something that should not come free.

Music on the other hand I could listen to and not like. It has not served it's purpose at that point imo and in that case I see no reason to pay money for that. You've given me shit music and I've given you 3 or 4 minutes of my life in exchange, which is an overly generous payment.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']And one of the best/easiest to use of those 20,000 "apps" that I know of is illegal. I'll use whatever is most convenient at the time whether legal or illegal makes no difference to me.[/QUOTE]
Sad but that's the way society thinks now adays. I'll do whatever makes me happy, who cares who I screw along the way. You should care because the "legal" ways to get music give the developer money usually from advertising dollars. So just because it is free for the consumer, does not mean that the music wasn't paid for you. The illegal sources do not generate money for the developer. Which means less music that you like in the future.


There's simply nothing wrong with it imo assuming you pay for it if you enjoy it.
The problem is that's not the way life works. I don't get to go to the movie theatre and decide that I didn't like the movie and would not pay to watch it. I watched it, I have to pay for it. I don't get a refund. I don't buy a game online and decide that it wasn't worth anything so I get to send it back, I'm stuck with it or I can resell it for a percentage of what I paid for it. I don't get to go to the hair dresser and decide that the hair cut sucked so in fact they get nothing today. Realistically, how much money would people pay you if they get to decide how much value you add to whatever you do? I'm sure you'd get some as some people in this thread buy songs, but I'd bet more than 50% would decide that they should get your work for free. You don't get to use a service and then decide you should get it for free.

Just curious, do you go the other way then? Do you decide a group is really worth it and despite the fact they are asking $.99 for a download, you feel inclined to pay them $3 for the song?

A BMW or any car has some key differences though. First it's a physical thing that would be missed in itself if I just stole it. A song can be endlessly duplicated with no tangible loss to the owner. Let's pretend I could duplicate a car though out of thin air by using the original owners car. Would I be wrong to do so? Yes imo if I (or anyone else) gained anything by doing so. I may decide I dont like a car, but if I used it to get from point A to B it's still served it's purpose and that is something that should not come free.
Congrats, you know the difference between a good and a service. Problem is people that provide services still need to get paid. My wife performs a service, her only income is people paying her for her expertise. They get no tangible good. Now it is true, that if one additional person were added to her business and didn't pay her anything, nothing would really change in her business. But this is her job, her livelihood. She needs to make money to pay the bills, mortgage, pay business expenses like rent, electricity, other workers etc. If half of her people decided not to pay her she'd flat out go out of business. That's the way business works you need an income stream or the service goes away.

Same way with video games. All video games are digitalized. Sure you can get a disc, but the value is in the game code which can be reproduced infinitely with a minimal cost (network fees still cost money). Does that mean you only pay for the video games that are worth it or have you not yet found a way to steal the video games that you enjoy?

Speaking of goods, there is always a service (or labor) component to goods that are sold to. Do you go buy a car dealership and say, there is only $10,000 worth of steel in this truck so that is all my paying? I'm not paying for the machines that form the steel because I don't get more steel from those machines. I'm not paying for the assembly line workers because they don't give me more steel. I'm not paying for the plant or management because they don't give me more steel. Only $10,000 because that is the value of the steel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']Why is it so hard? Just buy the damn music, if you dont want to buy it use the thousands of free apps. You not only want to have and eat the cake you want ownership of the entire cake fucking factory.

You can pay 8 bucks a month and have unlimited access to every song on the planet, streamed to every device under the sun...again I am not for SOPA but what more do you want these guys to do? Songs only cost 99 cents now you can get an entire album for 5 bucks on a off day.[/QUOTE]

Why is it so hard? I want to buy a song once and own it DRM-free forever, I want that handled by an account I can login to anywhere and download/play from as many times as I need to, no matter how many computers I own in my lifetime, no matter how many devices I want to upload it on. That's what P2P sites offer, and one thing in business I know is that you better as hell offer a better product then the free one if you expect to sell (look at bottled water). I know some sites conditionally offer some of these conditions, but I don't have time to wade through a site, figure out which mp3s have drm, which can't be accessed from the cloud, which can only be downloaded x number of times, etc.

Gamers don't accept shit like starforce, why should music lovers accept crap DRM?
 
I'm old school all the way. I still buy CDs. I would buy vinyl if I have a record player.

Sorry...mp3s sound like shit to me.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why is it so hard? I want to buy a song once and own it DRM-free forever, I want that handled by an account I can login to anywhere and download/play from as many times as I need to, no matter how many computers I own in my lifetime, no matter how many devices I want to upload it on. That's what P2P sites offer, and one thing in business I know is that you better as hell offer a better product then the free one if you expect to sell (look at bottled water). I know some sites conditionally offer some of these conditions, but I don't have time to wade through a site, figure out which mp3s have drm, which can't be accessed from the cloud, which can only be downloaded x number of times, etc.

Gamers don't accept shit like starforce, why should music lovers accept crap DRM?[/QUOTE]


MP3s sold from iTunes and Amazon don't have DRM anymore and haven't had it for a while. What you talking about?

And the cloud is a good thing. It doesn't mean you HAVE to access the music from the cloud. It just means you have the ability. Like if I have my collection of DRM free music on my laptop and my iPhone and want to access it on my work computer, I load up Amazon's Cloud Player through my browser. It is simply another option of accessing your DRM free music, not a requirement.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why is it so hard? I want to buy a song once and own it DRM-free forever, I want that handled by an account I can login to anywhere and download/play from as many times as I need to, no matter how many computers I own in my lifetime, no matter how many devices I want to upload it on. That's what P2P sites offer, and one thing in business I know is that you better as hell offer a better product then the free one if you expect to sell (look at bottled water). I know some sites conditionally offer some of these conditions, but I don't have time to wade through a site, figure out which mp3s have drm, which can't be accessed from the cloud, which can only be downloaded x number of times, etc.

Gamers don't accept shit like starforce, why should music lovers accept crap DRM?[/QUOTE]

MP3s haven't had DRM for ages. I can't speak to the cloud stuff as I don't give a rats ass about that. I'm fine just downloading once. Backing up the files on all my machines and being good to go. I've never once lost an MP3 file as I keep mine on all my computers (home and work), a portable hard drive I use for general back ups as well as whatever MP3 players I'm listening to the files on at the current time.

I'd agree that cloud stuff should be able to be logged into from anywhere and downloaded an unlimited number of times (if that's not how it works). It's silly for it not to work that way since you can buy the song DRM free from Amazon and iTunes etc. and make as many copies you want of it for all your devices anyway.

But I don't think a lack of that (or any of the other BS excuses people have offered here) justifies illegally downloading songs though. If the cloud services don't fit your needs. Then just buy the song elsewhere and manually put it on all your devices, or even still buy the CD and rip to MP3 like I still mainly do (which gives me a hard back up of my mucic along with all the digital copies).

My main beef with people who pirate is how they tend to brag about it and/or offer bullshit justifications. People who are committing legal and moral wrongs should just keep quiet about it IMO. Hopefully as piracy laws change we'll see copyright holders start scouring forum and busting knuckleheads who openly confess to piracy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hopefully as piracy laws change we'll see copyright holders start scouring forum and busting knuckleheads who openly confess to piracy.[/QUOTE]

Color me surprised. That is a very ignorant comment from a guy who usually acts as the voice of reason.

PS - the other stuff you said makes sense, but the last line left me shocked...
 
Why? Break laws and openly brag about it should get knuckleheads caught and punished.

It's bad enough to disregard laws, but even worse to go around openly admitting to doing so on public forums. There are already numerous cases of hard crimes being solved from stupid criminals discussing their acts in social media etc. No reason that can't be applied to copyright law violations.

All that said, I don't support the huge, unrealistic fines etc. The laws need tweaked so that the punishment fits the harm. i.e. fines that are the MSRP value of the illegally downloaded material plus 25% or something.

In any case, I was surprised to find you were a person who pirates stuff. Much less someone who does so and tries to rationalize/justify it.

But piracy is just a sore point for me. I'm 100% opposed to it in any scenario and never think it's ok or in anyway justifiable. So it's not an area where I'll ever be any voice of reason really. It's wrong, it should be a criminal misdemeanor with small fines as outlined above, and a lot more needs to be done to police the internet and punish those breaking the law.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Why? Break laws and openly brag about it should get knuckleheads caught and punished.

It's bad enough to disregard laws, but even worse to go around openly admitting to doing so on public forums. There are already numerous cases of hard crimes being solved from stupid criminals discussing their acts in social media etc. No reason that can't be applied to copyright law violations.

All that said, I don't support the huge, unrealistic fines etc. The laws need tweaked so that the punishment fits the harm. i.e. fines that are the MSRP value of the illegally downloaded material plus 25% or something.

In any case, I was surprised to find you were a person who pirates stuff. Much less someone who does so and tries to rationalize/justify it.

But piracy is just a sore point for me. I'm 100% opposed to it in any scenario and never think it's ok or in anyway justifiable. So it's not an area where I'll ever be any voice of reason really. It's wrong, it should be a criminal misdemeanor with small fines as outlined above, and a lot more needs to be done to police the internet and punish those breaking the law.[/QUOTE]

Eh - I don't pirate stuff. For music I listen to internet radio and youtube a song occasionally.

I'm just saying - the RIAA suits were a total fiasco (suing dead people, grandmas for downloading gangsta rap, etc) therefore it doesn't take an IT whiz kid to figure out that tracking down forum posts to users would be remarkably problematic and error-prone. Social media is a little different, but I don't know how fruitful that would be.

I'm also not a fan of having record companies fining every youtuber who sang happy birthday or did the electric slide.

Also consider - I like visiting turntable.fm but I understand it operates in a legal grey zone. If they outlaw it tomorrow does that make anyone who visiting the site "fair game"? That doesn't seem like justice to me.

One last thing - you are talking criminal charges in your post. That's a whole different ballgame then civil court, and the burden of proof is typically higher then "supposedly bragged about it on the internet". Frankly your post sounds a little bit fascist.
 
Bragging about it on the internet wouldn't be cause for conviction. It would be reasonable suspicion to start an investigation of that person and try to identify them and gather hard evidence that they are illegally downloading copyrighted material. Of course we need lots of advances or changes in online privacy laws to make such investigations more feasible.

And here are a lot of gray areas for sure. I'm really only talking about pure piracy. Downloading and/uploading of of copyrighted materials.

Things like streaming sites I'd only put the legal burden on those uploading them. The people visiting them aren't obtaining an illegal copy of the material, so it's not much different than hearing a song on a legal streaming radio site or whatever. The illegality is the site owner streaming it without permission from the copyright holder, and that's who would be punished.
 
There is no practical way to enforce this kind of law. It's easy to track pirating already, but it's never worth the money, time, and effort to bring a 15 year old to "justice," who doesn't have a penny to his name. And when you consider all the side effects of pirating (a widely debated issue), I think it's understandable why people have allowed it to persist this long.
 
That's probably the sad reality of it, the internet is just so big and anonymous that it's near impossible to enforce laws about digital theft beyond shutting down sites providing illegal downloads. But new ones will pop up, and P2P is a bigger problem anyway.

With this transition to digital goods it would be a pretty shitty time to be a content creator of any kind IMO. People talk about touring etc, but most groups playing local clubs etc. are lucky to even break even on that stuff, and now have a harder time making money through album sales since everything gets pirated at a much greater rate than when people had to hassle with making tapes and burning cds.

Only way I can see piracy possibly helping is for the few bands that get downloaded and discussed enough to generate buzz and attract a label that can give them the money and resources to get in bigger venues and do full tours etc. And I'm not convinced that's happening any more often with downloads than it did with just busting ass touring in a van regionally and selling cds at shows in the past. The hardcore music fans into the indie scene will find good local bands with or without internet downloads.

Really the only area I see the digital revolution being good for creators are e-books. Since anyone can self publish now anyone has the chance to make some money on their books, not just those who can get a publisher to invest in putting their book out. But that's still a double edged sword as the few that succeed that way will end up losing sales to piracy once they become known.


In any case, the only feasible solution really is finding some way to change the culture that thinks it's perfectly ok to illegally download things. Find someway to change that and make people realize why it's wrong to steal digital goods. And that may not be feasible in today's me, me, me world where people don't care about anything other than what's best for themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Really the only area I see the digital revolution being good for creators are e-books. Since anyone can self publish now anyone has the chance to make some money on their books, not just those who can get a publisher to invest in putting their book out. But that's still a double edged sword as the few that succeed that way will end up losing sales to piracy once they become known.[/QUOTE]

Digital actually seems to be working out pretty well for media besides music, and that industry only has itself to blame.

Put it this way: I don't see videogame companies complaining about the boatload of DLC revenue and I don't see any change in the amount of big-budget pics Hollywood puts out every year.

There's a great movie on Netflix instant demand called "Copyright Criminals" - they go through the sordid history of sampling vs music label lawyers and point out that the music industry would rather repeatedly shoot itself in the foot then open up to new business models. It's a fucking sad industry.
 
The music industry has definitely fucked it self repeatedly.

But at the same time, part of it's just the nature of the medium.

DLC is unique to video games, not much of an equivalent for digital music.

Digital movie theft hasn't became as widespread as most people want to watch on their big screens rather than a computer (and most people don't have a pc hooked up to their TVs), the files are huge and take a while to download etc. So for most it's just not worth the hassle when rental is so cheap with Redbox and Netflix. I suppose music companies could do more on that front--but their already streaming sites, subscription download sites etc. that are pretty damn cheap....

E-books are just relatively new, still have DRM etc., but I think they'll get hit hard with piracy once they get more market share, eventually lose DRM etc. Probably not as much as music though. Probably just not much interest in reading among the pirate crowd as their is for music, movies and video games.


So books and music have it tougher as they don't have the DLC options of games, and don't have the current "hassle barriers" that movies have. Authors may end up with it worse though, since musicians at least have tours and merchandising to fall back on if piracy cannibalizes their album sales. Authors have nothing but book sales. Maybe signing appearances I suppose, but only big name writers will make any real money on those.
 
bread's done
Back
Top