Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Interviews
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Martin Orford August 2009
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMartin Orford August 2009

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 12:34
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by BigBoss BigBoss wrote:

the label does the grunt work of selling an album, they make money, the artist makes money, if the album is downloaded instead of stolen, then the label goes out of business (SPV) and the artists retire (Martin).  simple economics, no grey areas.
It is the simple economics that people are perhaps unaware of, or maybe just ignoring.
 
The financial models for small labels are different to those of the large labels. When sales decrease income decreases, the larger labels can affect profit by adjusting their overheads, cutting staff,  promoting their big sellers and cutting losses on the less popular artists, reducing their roster, not signing risk acts and limiting their exposure.
 
Smaller labels cannot do this - a proportional decrease in their income affects them disproportionately, they do not have any leeway in reducing costs, a slump in sales affects not just their profit, but their ability to pay royalties and creditors, it also reduces their ability to in investing in new releases.
 
So while music fans gripe and complain about "the majors" it is "the minors" who are suffering more, and in our narrow (niche) genre, most of our artists are with the smaller labels.


So commercial enterprises that put out music should be subsidized ? Can we include DIminished 5th Records then (http://www.diminishedfifthrecords.com/main.htm#) ?
The minor labels also compete with video games, PCs, laptop, cell phones, home theater and other entertainment options available now that weren't really around or as prominent 10 years ago. Add to that the many vanity releases, andagain the local acts that now can self-release their product.

If I'm buying 3 a Wii console ($250) & the attendant $150 of games, and my annual entertainment budget is $1000(or a $20 CD every week), can any of you see that I am not spending $1000 on the releases or acts that you want. Not even those that I might like to get ?
See the following list of purchases in 2009
legal downloads
Voivod - Infini
D.O.A. - Northern Avenger
Marillion - Happiness is the road
Marillion - somewhere else
marillion - anoraknophobia or marbles (one I bought the used CD, the other download, both put onto a blank CD, can't remember which )
Wishng Well - ostara

new :
EPs / LPs
Varsity Weirdos - self titled
Varsity Weirdos - fly me to the moon
Fear of Lipstick - Indie Band
Fear of Lipstick / The Creeps - split EP
Fear of Lipstick - EP II
The Strawmen - Jack Rabbit

CDs
Drive-By Truckers - the Fine Print
The Mars Volta - octahedron
Indukti -idmen
Eric's Trip - Long Days Ride 'Till Tomorrow
Saga - Contact live in Munich (DVD/ CD)
Steve Earle - Washington Street Seranade

CDDVDs not available locally even on special order
Pendragon - COncerto Maximo
King's X - XV

used CD
Phideaux-doomsday
Fragil-avenida larco (i wish I could meet the guy who sold this Lp to SPin-It. I guess he comes in about twice a year and disposes of the craziest sh*t)
John Coltrane - Sun Ship
Probot
Napalm Death - the code is red
Jelly Fiche


used LPs
Jackson Hawke - s/t
Hammersmith - It's For You
Anthony Philips- goose and geese (whatever
Patrick Moraz-story of I
Chris Squire - fish out of water
COntraction - COntraction
Abel Ganz - Gullible travels
Madden & Harris - fools paradise
Domenic Troiano- s/t
Erik Satie - Socrates
Erik Satie - Piano Works
Cano - tous dans le meme bateau
cano-eclipse
cano - spirit of the north
Morse Code - marche des hommes
morse code - procreation

Still on gotta buy list
Steve Earle - Townes
Drive By Truckers  - Live in Austin (CD/DVD)
Matadors - debut
Social Distortion - debut (plus Spin-It has their Orange County live DVD for rent)
at least that I can think about now

not counting some that I've bought used & traded or sold back (oops,. already I forgot one - Zolar X)

add to that that I've rented about 20 DVDs ... now who is it that you want me to buy with the rest of my money ?
Now, I'm considered a music freak among my friends. If I'm the average, are you wondering why most aren't able to buy everything they want to ? Maybe because they have so many more choices than they used to 10-20 years ago ? And if they do, should they feel guilty that bands they would love to support, like IQ or Pendragon , just happen to have a lower priority than other purchases ...?

It's not our fault that you can't make a living at it. Too bad. But some people are. Which is great if you like the Drive By truckers or Los Lobos.

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 12:23
Firstly Pendragon are doing ok, (you might have noticed!)

Secondly I used to run a corner store actually,  a successful one, it didn't mean I turned a blind eye to shop lifters though!  Musicians have a right to PROTECT their earnings and income surely?
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 11:40
Originally posted by Wilcey Wilcey wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Typical royalties are 10-20% ... that is of the net revenue, not the gross - so we are talking $1.20 per CD - which is then split between composer and the band, and the band share is then further split to the individual band members... let's assume a 4-piece band with equal composer/performer royalties  - 40¢/member/CD... the average earnings in the USA is £20,000/anum - total number of album sales required to earn a living for each band member - 50,000...
 
 


And that is required each year for a living, most bands are unable to release a yearly album if they do all their own admin, production etc etc..........

It's not much of a money spinner is it? Shocked


Wilcey, if I own a corner store that does not make enough money for me to support my family, is it shameful that I need to think about finding another job ? Am I the only one who sees that like most everyone else on this planet, you don't have the final word on what you might have to do to earn a living ? If you choose an occupation, including the arts, no one owes you a living. There is no entitlement to success, no matter what level was enjoyed in the past. And too often, this is what seems to be the impression - Poor Nick / Martin - they want to make music but they can't make money at it. Like f**k people, how many bands do you know that would like to be able to make music their full time career but can't ? Should they feel entitled to this too ? Or are there criteria that are to be met ?
There are bands that started at the same time as IQ & Pendragon that are still out there and making a living despite the killer illegal downloads. Why them & not IQ or Pendragon ? And there are bands that never even came close to enjoying anything close to the success that either band enjoyed or enjoys. Should they feel cheated ?

SO next time someone shows you a chart of P2P vs CD sales decreases, ask them to show you the dollars spent on other entertainment options. Tell them to compare how much was spent on Video games in 1996 to what was spent in 2006 ? How many Rockbands, Guitar Heros, even Pro Tools / Cubasis et al that were sold back then vs today ? Are the LPs, EPs, CDs manufactured by little indie labels or vanity labels all accounted for ? Iron Giant manages to self finance each of their releases. They still have full time day jobs. Their sales, mostly regional , have not suffered from P2P. Drive By Truckers have managed to ESTABLISH a viable career during the exact same time period when P2P exploded. Phish achieved its' biggest successes during the time of Kazaa's peak.  Bands like Pearl Jam that can no longer rely on radio to play new stuff (and PJ haven't needed that for years) have just managed to sell close to 200 000 copies of their latest album in its' first week out. And they can still tour to great crowds.
Are many selling fewer albums ? Heck, most are. But again, is it just P2P or is it that the pie is getting shared by many more musical acts, and surprise surprise, people are also spending it elsewhere .

To summarize - the bands that can make a living (see above), do. Those that can't, make excuses.

How many units are the Arctic Monkeys moving lately ? What about the Kings of Leon ? Why couln't Saga sell out a 400 seat venue in its' home country, in the prog capital of Canada ?

Or is the truth too hard to swallow ?
You can talk about morality all you want. But not being able to do what you got use to, or not being able to do the same as others seem to be able to do despite facing the same obstacles you do really doesn't do much to support your excuses.  i.e. if they can, why can't you ?


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 09:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Typical royalties are 10-20% ... that is of the net revenue, not the gross - so we are talking $1.20 per CD - which is then split between composer and the band, and the band share is then further split to the individual band members... let's assume a 4-piece band with equal composer/performer royalties  - 40¢/member/CD... the average earnings in the USA is £20,000/anum - total number of album sales required to earn a living for each band member - 50,000...
 
 


And that is required each year for a living, most bands are unable to release a yearly album if they do all their own admin, production etc etc..........

It's not much of a money spinner is it? Shocked
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 05:09
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

you know, if the studies that show that illegal downloads do not account for a major part of the decrease in CD sales, but you wish (reasonably or not) to disagree, take a few moments to consider the experience of other musical acts ...
The Harvard Study showed that downloading was directly proportional to sales - the more CDs sold the more the artist got downloaded - not the most stunning or surprising conclusion in the world, I don't need a doctorate in economics and embark on a 17 week survey to have worked that one out  - but apparently I do need one to spin that into downloading isn't harming CD sales.
 
The Canadian survey said there is no correlation between downloading and CD sales [According to the study authors, "the analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased. That is, we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole." ] - yet the conclusion of that report, and its subsequent reporting in the press states: "there is a positive correlation between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchasing"
 
The conclusions of the other (European) studies are that people who P2P d/load are more likely to buy CDs than those who buy downloads - well no sh!t sherlock!, those that don't have already spent their monthly entertainment budget on d/loads, of course they won't be buying CDs.
 
As Shawn has stated, statistics and surveys say what you want them to say, you interpret the data to hear what you want to hear.
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

You know, the ones that are still able to make a career of it, despite no major label financing or contract, no radio airplay (on the major chain stations, anyway), no back catalogue of gold or platinum albums, no opportunities to even open for super star acts ... you know , the ones who have fans that WILL pay for albums, merchandise, tickets etc.
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


Give me a list of prog acts that believe that illegal downloads and the supposedly related implosion of CD sales & major record labels are the reason why they can't make it financially. Even better, add an explanation as to what level of financial comfort they expect to get or want from their music.
How many do you need before admitting a problem exists - Martin Orford has been very candid here, Nick Barrett has given numbers, Andrew "Mac" McDermott quit Threshold on the eve of their "Live Reckoning" tour because he couldn't afford to tour and support his family.
 
Most artists at our end of the music spectrum have day jobs to support their music making, none of them expect to make a living out of releasing albums and touring. What they are doing is subsidising their chosen profession, and using that to subsidise your enjoyment of their labours - what they expect is to be paid fairly for what they sell, not to have it taken away from them and given away free to garner someone's advertising income.
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


Then, give me a day or two and I will find you more acts that are able to support a career in music despite the obstacles presented by today's reality. They may also feel their music deserves to be heard. But most aren't spending their time whining about P2P. They're out there WORKING to earn their fans' devotion.
Of course you can, and so can I - every band is in that position, even those who can see the effect of P2P are still out there promoting themsleves and trying to make it work - none of these bands are sitting back and crying into their beer, they are spending money their money providing product for you to enjoy - none of this WORKING comes free - advertising, mail-shots, promotional work, marketting all costs money that they fund themselves - you don't see P2P networks and Bloggers feeding back any revenue into that system to help the bands, yet they bitch about leaches on their system.
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


Social Distortion released their debut LP in  '82, one year before IQ. They had the misfortune of not being a british neo prog band when that genre was big in the U.K. . But they are still around. They make albums. They tour. I've mentioned Drive By Truckers. Our local Acadian rock n roll (and so much more in their musical stew) still manage to get together and tour every two or three years, pulling in about 40,000 over about 20 shows during a summer tour. Iron Giant, a local stoner metal band are still playing part time since 2001 . three albums later, eh.
I am struggling to see the relevance of any of this - Social Distortion were a Punk band riding the wave of British Punk Rock explosion, nothing to do with Neo Prog and the British Neo Prog scene - they signed to a Major label (Epic) and subsidiaries of Major labels (Arista, BGM, Enigma); The Drive By Truckers are a relatively successful Alt Rock band; Acadian rock bands have a limited (and to some extent captive) audience; ... I can't find anything about iron Giant - let's try The Sword or Head Of David...
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Cayouche , a guy who brought back old time country & western music, has managed to sell 90,000 copies of his four albums. There is not a small town in New Brunswick and parts of Quebec that he cannot pull 400 people and break bar records. And this going on 15 years. He must be doing fine, 'cause he paid cash for his Harley ! Which he brought over to France when he did a short tour this year. Sloan, from Halifax NS. They started their own record label because they no longer wanted to be owned by a major. SO now, they sign distribution deals, and do well in Canada. Not millionaires, but musicians with a career behind them, and likely one for years to come ... if they want it.
Okay let's crunch some numbers - 90,000 CDs over 15 years is 6,000 CDs per year - average artist royalty rate on CDs is $1.40, let's be generous and say his net income from each CD is $2.00 - that's $12,000 per year - a new Harley in France is somewhere in the region of 10,000€ or $14,000 ... add to that the cost of shipping it back to Canada (frieght, import duty,etc)...
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:



I await the list of the unfortunate artists that have seen their entitlement stolen, and will wonder why others still manage to get paid for their work ...
How many artists do you believe get paid for their work?
 
Purchase price - cost of retail - cost of distribution - cost of promotion - cost of manufacture - cost of recording - mechanical royalties - label precentage = artist revenue
 
if we assume that retail, distribution and manufacture costs are a fixed percentage of each CD sold, (not strictly true since CDs are not made, distruted and sold to order) and the artist does not get paid until all the cost of promotion, and recording are paid-off (that is true of recording contract releases and self-funded releases).
 
Retail cost = $18
Cost of Retail, including markup = $5
Cost of Distribution, including markup = $5
Cost of Manufacturing = $2
 
net revenue = $6/CD
 
Cost of recording - $15,000
Cost of Promotion and marketting, running a label - $9,000
 
initial outlay - $24,000
 
therefore 4,000 CDs need to be sold to recoup costs - after that the artist will begin to see royalty payments. And this is ignoring any returns (ie unsold CDs returned by the retailer and distributor back to the label)
 
(all these figures were gleaned from the Interweb, but having seen the industry from a fairly close proximity, the numbers look reasonable - the band I worked with sold >5,000 albums and never saw a penny in royalties)
 
 
Typical royalties are 10-20% ... that is of the net revenue, not the gross - so we are talking $1.20 per CD - which is then split between composer and the band, and the band share is then further split to the individual band members... let's assume a 4-piece band with equal composer/performer royalties  - 40¢/member/CD... the average earnings in the USA is £20,000/anum - total number of album sales required to earn a living for each band member - 50,000...
 
 
The bottom line is that a lot of artists in our niche market do not earn a penny from CD sales.
 
Originally posted by Wilcey Wilcey wrote:


Here in the UK the Musicians Union did a study, 98% of paid musicians earn less than the average wage. 92% earn less than national minimum wage. I should imagine, on welfare benefits, Martin's total income is pretty much similar to a lot of musicians we discuss here on PA. 
What?
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2009 at 02:08
Not wishing to talk down your petty vindictiveness, but surely it depends on how you define a 'significant sample' of a CD; many on line retailers do provide the 30 second samples of each song on an album you refer to.

Those do not adversely affect sales unless there are some people out there who are able to record those samples, invite their friends round & say "hey - I've got the new IQ album & it's only 3 minutes long"

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 23:51
Well this was an interesting thread.
 
Here's the problem I had with the interviewee: Maybe this reflects a personal flaw, but I feel entitled to a significant sample of a CD before I buy it. Without it, there's no way for me to know whether or not I will like it at all, and if the label does not make it available, I will certainly attempt to find something on Youtube, even if those videos are often of dubious legality. I think the thing in the past of having to buy something blind was really stupid, and it's extremely frustrating that people try to go back to that, as if a single song or 30 second samples could have any negative impact on sales.
 
So basically, while my sense of justice is outraged by people downloading things they love to and never paying for them, my petty vindictiveness wins out. ;-)


Edited by Henry Plainview - October 01 2009 at 23:53
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 22:20
Well, I do think it's important to educate fans, to let them know that if they don't toss the creators some money, no new material will be forthcoming, but I really think any serious fan understands that. What's also important is to build goodwill and give fans incentive to pay - Trent Reznor has worked very hard on connecting with and listening to fans and the results really speak for themselves. Yes, NIN were a fairly established band before file sharing became ubiqituous, but it's been proven that you can rise to prominence even if you started after that point.

That's not to say that there aren't people who have gigabytes of MP3s and have never paid a penny to anyone, but that kind of person has always been around, it's just been made easier for them to freeload. I had friends in the 80s who never bought an album, but simply taped everything off friends. I find both behaviors equally reprehensible, but I don't think that they're enough to warrant the measures taken (and asked for) to combat file sharing, especially in light of the fact that the supposed harm keeps not registering when the subject is researched.

One thing that surprised me on visiting IQ-HQ, is that they really only sell the CD and the CD/DVD combo, when they should be offering downloads and merchandise as well, all crucial revenue streams, especially this early in the new album's life cycle. I know I'd love to get a poster of the great sleeve of Frequency, especially if I could get one that was autographed.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 22:05
still, why would one or some bands be able to survive this "assumed" harm, while others can't  ?
I suppose the band's fans are to blame for not seeing the value of their music ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 21:56
Yet, nearly all niche genres have seen a resurgence and greater overall market share since the advent of file sharing. The amount of Prog released in 2008 easily dwarfs the entire output of the genre from 1970-1975, I would wager.

The total market share of the majors has dropped from 90% ten years ago to about 70% at this point, and it would be very surprising if it somehow turned out that the internet wasn't a large part of this shift.

Yes, of course smaller labels have tighter margins, anyone with even a modicum of sense realizes that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the internet has harmed creators (or even smaller labels) as a whole - that's what's at issue here.

It's easy and convenient to blame the demise of a label like SPV on file sharing, but since the all independent studies point to other outcomes - at least for those who adapt to the times - I'd say you'd need very strong proof to prove a causal link. Hunches and feelings are all good and well, but pragmatic appraisal of the reality at hand is much more likely to yield positive results.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 21:43
you know, if the studies that show that illegal downloads do not account for a major part of the decrease in CD sales, but you wish (reasonably or not) to disagree, take a few moments to consider the experience of other musical acts ...
You know, the ones that are still able to make a career of it, despite no major label financing or contract, no radio airplay (on the major chain stations, anyway), no back catalogue of gold or platinum albums, no opportunities to even open for super star acts ... you know , the ones who have fans that WILL pay for albums, merchandise, tickets etc.

Give me a list of prog acts that believe that illegal downloads and the supposedly related implosion of CD sales & major record labels are the reason why they can't make it financially. Even better, add an explanation as to what level of financial comfort they expect to get or want from their music.

Then, give me a day or two and I will find you more acts that are able to support a career in music despite the obstacles presented by today's reality. They may also feel their music deserves to be heard. But most aren't spending their time whining about P2P. They're out there WORKING to earn their fans' devotion.

Social Distortion released their debut LP in  '82, one year before IQ. They had the misfortune of not being a british neo prog band when that genre was big in the U.K. . But they are still around. They make albums. They tour. I've mentioned Drive By Truckers. Our local Acadian rock n roll (and so much more in their musical stew) still manage to get together and tour every two or three years, pulling in about 40,000 over about 20 shows during a summer tour. Iron Giant, a local stoner metal band are still playing part time since 2001 . three albums later, eh. Cayouche , a guy who brought back old time country & western music, has managed to sell 90,000 copies of his four albums. There is not a small town in New Brunswick and parts of Quebec that he cannot pull 400 people and break bar records. And this going on 15 years. He must be doing fine, 'cause he paid cash for his Harley ! Which he brought over to France when he did a short tour this year. Sloan, from Halifax NS. They started their own record label because they no longer wanted to be owned by a major. SO now, they sign distribution deals, and do well in Canada. Not millionaires, but musicians with a career behind them, and likely one for years to come ... if they want it.

I await the list of the unfortunate artists that have seen their entitlement stolen, and will wonder why others still manage to get paid for their work ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 21:39
Originally posted by BigBoss BigBoss wrote:

the label does the grunt work of selling an album, they make money, the artist makes money, if the album is downloaded instead of stolen, then the label goes out of business (SPV) and the artists retire (Martin).  simple economics, no grey areas.
It is the simple economics that people are perhaps unaware of, or maybe just ignoring.
 
The financial models for small labels are different to those of the large labels. When sales decrease income decreases, the larger labels can affect profit by adjusting their overheads, cutting staff,  promoting their big sellers and cutting losses on the less popular artists, reducing their roster, not signing risk acts and limiting their exposure.
 
Smaller labels cannot do this - a proportional decrease in their income affects them disproportionately, they do not have any leeway in reducing costs, a slump in sales affects not just their profit, but their ability to pay royalties and creditors, it also reduces their ability to in investing in new releases.
 
So while music fans gripe and complain about "the majors" it is "the minors" who are suffering more, and in our narrow (niche) genre, most of our artists are with the smaller labels.
What?
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 20:22
You're right Tea, I'm too lazy to go down that road with you. 

As I just mentioned, my interest is on the moral side of the equation, not the sales figure side, which matters not to me.  If people want to pirate their music, or pirate their satellite TV because they've concocted a reason that makes it "OK", fine.  I'm not saying you support that, I'm speaking generally. 


Edited by Finnforest - October 01 2009 at 20:28

Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 20:09
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Tea, No, I'm just saying the "facts" are likely questionable and subject to debate to some degree.


What part of the studies I linked to do you feel is questionable? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm actually surprised at how consistent the results are, even with a differing array of methodologies and approaches.

Like I said, it gave me pause when Shawn claimed that IQ had been hit hard. It made me question a lot of assumptions and conclusions I've reached in these last few years, based on readings of Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, Rasmus Fleischer and others, while often discussing this issue in depth with friends and my wife. I was really troubled by this piece of information (just ask my wife, who was really not in the mood for a serious talk yesterday morning), and I was wondering how this could be, when it seemed to me that IQ would be exactly the kind of band that would be benefitting from the effects of digital/download culture.

Well, the rest is, of course, history at this point. Shawn has made one rather sad attempt at recovery and no one else has volunteered any kind of contrary information, or even really tried to make a counter argument based on anything but a very visceral reaction to the idea that some people out there might be getting entertainment and art they haven't paid for. Of course, as has been said time and again, that's not at all what this debate is about (or should be about, at least).

I've noted multiple times that I do not condone simply partaking of culture without giving anything back, yet have been dismissed as someone who "tries to make stealing seem less bad" or similar canards.

So, what conclusion should I draw here? Because the one that seems closest to me is that those who think that non-commercial file sharing should be stamped out at any cost are too lazy to read up on the issue and/or make their case based on anything but shouting "Thieves!". Anyone care to prove me wrong?


Edited by Teaflax - October 01 2009 at 20:09
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 14:38
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Stoney, so now I'm close-minded?  Awe man, you never called me that in all this timeCryWink
 
 
Unless you know my arguments and reject them with good reasoning, then I guess you are, at least about this. I say now that you may call me a theif, but my response would be maybe I should be, or at least it doesn't matter if I am. It may seem nonsensical, but that might only be because you choose to use the word theif. Or you flat out reject my reasoning (which I haven't even offered in this thread, because I presume it will do no good and no one cares.)
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 14:34
Tea, No, I'm just saying the "facts" are likely questionable and subject to debate to some degree, but since I dont' care to get involved in that part of the debate, I'm conceding to your spin of the studies.  I'm more interested in the moral side of the issue, obviously. 
 
Stoney, so now I'm close-minded?  Awe man, you never called me that in all this timeCryWink
 

Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 14:11
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Sorry Stoney, i know you find it objectionable, but I don't believe in sugarcoating the term, because that just enables those folks who wish to believe what they are doing is not wrong.  I won't be a part of that. 
 
I don't use the word to "end arguments", that's unfair.  You guys can add another 80 pages to the thread if you like.  Wink
I can live with being called a theif. It's harder to live with wanting to communicate ideas to people with minds completely closed to them.
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 13:09
So, you disagree with the facts? Well, that's certainly your prerogative. It just seems like it would make for a pretty difficult life in the long run.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 12:59

Well, we'll agree to disagree on those well spun conclusions.  Wink


Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2009 at 12:44
Martin and others can argue that all they want, but the facts prove them wrong.

So, unwarranted resentment and anger, unconstructive demonizing of anyone who doesn't feel the same way and false statements or several well-researched studies, already proven ways to handle the situation as it stands and new pro-active solutions? The choice seems pretty simple to me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.139 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.