Piracy
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72487
Printed Date: July 18 2025 at 05:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Piracy
Posted By: cphil
Subject: Piracy
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:09
| The illegal distribution or copying of recordings , books etc. It is much more than that, it is CRIMINAL. the millions who do it without blinking an eye , steal from artists but cry crocodile tears when someone breaks into their houses and take their stuff. progbands don't have top 10 hits , so they are hurt the most by unlawful piracy . |
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:13
Boo hoo...
Do you know what crocodile tears are? When people break into ones house REAL tears ensue! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:14
|
Yeah, and with these illegal songs on PA the record sales must have dropped! Don't make me laugh.
Every marked with lack of innovation dies down. We've now entered the information age in which people need a reason to buy things. The music industry has wasted it's opportunity to get the masses really interested in quality music. Instead nowadays 70% believes there's nothing more then a pop-song. If the music industry would bring back high quality music and introduce it to the masses and made the packaging worthwhile this would not be a problem. |
Posted By: cphil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:39
| I really don't care if people copy and distribute pop or rapp , nobody wants to hear or discus it in 10 years time. I'm talking about rock music. 2 weeks after the release of Glasshammer's "IF" I found a download on the web. There is nothing the music industry can do, close the illegal sites down and they appear somewhere else - impossible ! |
Posted By: cphil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:41
| I really don't care if people copy and distribute pop or rapp , nobody wants to hear or discus it in 10 years time. I'm talking about rock music. 2 weeks after the release of Glasshammer's "IF" I found a download on the web. There is nothing the music industry can do, close the illegal sites down and they appear somewhere else - impossible ! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:44
The Beatles prove that wrong. It is interesting that your outrage only extends as far as Prog Rock and it's somehow a non crime for other genres. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
cphil wrote:Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 05:59
|
The two biggest mistakes the music industry ever did was to charge an insane amount of money for a CD. In the UK, the price of a CD was once close to £ 15 whereas the record labels got close to £ 9 when selling it to the record stores. It cost at most £ 2 to manufacture and pay the band for each album. Not even drug dealers operated with that type of profit margins. But probably their biggest mistake was going digital instead of staying analog. That opened up the can of worm we are seeing today. And you are right; the situation is impossible for everyone involved. The only solution is to force the listener to pay for every time they listen to an album by keeping the album as the property of the artist/record label and then stream it down each listener through servers and the operating system on their computers. That is the only viable solution to free music. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:21
| Yarr. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:24
Me Hearties! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:24
|
I think that it's morally wrong to download music for free when those involved in the making of the tracks actually want you to pay for them. Period. If you disagree and you think that the music isn't worth the money they ask you to pay - fine, then don't make that deal, and listen to some other stuff. Sure - especially when it comes to the tracks that PA offers, I can see that they can serve as an incentive for people to go out and buy the music. However, that doesn't always follow - people might also go and download entire discographies for free. My point is that once you decide to disrespect the artists, you're on a slippery slope towards devaluing music. And it doesn't matter how much you're spending on CDs, vinyls or legitimate downloads - if you also engage in file sharing, you are undermining the business models of those artists. Once again, like I said above: If you don't see music as a business in that way and refuse to accept the price these artists - or the record companies the artists chose to represent them - are asking you to pay, then don't - but also don't listen to these tracks. Have your cake, or eat it - not both. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:44
How many bands can unequivacly say they've been ruined by Piracy? I think it's around "0". Marillion released some albums using the people who bought it to fund it. This pretty much proves it's possible. I saw a documentry recently where a member of Marillion was on a panel which were against a new law being passed in the UK. Basically a sort of anti-anti piracy (well, you couldn't say that they're pro-piracy). Devin Townsend has been quoted saying things like "if you want to download my music, download it. The important thing is that you hear it". I think that people who winge about piracy stealing all their moniez are usually the record companies - you don't hear it that often from bands. I think sometimes it can get out of hand usually with mid-range bands (big enough so that someone has uploaded their album, just small enough so it can damage them a bit), but I am of the opinion that only a small percent of these downloads are lost profits. Usually, if a band makes a really good album, they will be rewarded thusly. Obviously, there'll be a couple of cases where bands just fail through no fault of their own, but usually, it can be tied to lack of advertising, or lack of quality. To be honest, I think the ultimate proof that piracy isn't that big of a deal is the fact that there are LOADS and LOADS of bands around at the moment. The amount of bands around doesn't seem to have changed since piracy become "easy". You have to remember, piracy's been around for longer than you might think. I recomend you read this article about previous reactions; http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html The people who have a real right to whine about piracy are independant game makes. The makers of Machinarium did a study that showed the 85-95% of all of the owners of their game were pirates. Can many bands show statistics even nearing that insane level? I don't think so. So what did the makers of Machinarium do about it? They put the game on sale for 75% less and sold 17,000 copies in a week.  Lots of people are still buying music. Check out these articles; http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/ These studies seem to suggest a lot of pirates are just music fans who can't afford all the music they want. So yeah, pirates buy the most music. Piracy IS NOT going to kill the music industry. Well, that's that rant over. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile 
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:48
But it's not as cut-and-dry as that. "if you don't buy music you're a heartless b*****d" approach can't really apply to everything. As those studies I show seem to prove, file sharing does not devalue music at all, with many "pirates" still paying for loads of music. Of course, this argument could go on forever, because, as you say, there is an intrinsic morale wrongness in downloading music. But studies seem to suggest it really isn't affecting things that much. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:50
|
I think he means devalue as in one doesn't appreciate the music as much if it's free. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:58
I agree completely. I also think that this is the most reasonable way to look at this. It is fundamentally a moral issue, after all (which tends to make many arguments to the effect that some artists still are able to make money irrelevant, depending on your moral view of course). I have written several articles on the issue, but none of them in English so far. However, as far as I understand it, PA's policy is that advocating illegal file-sharing is not allowed on the forum which makes probably will lead to this thread being closed and removed. |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 06:58
Yeah, I suppose thats a pretty fair point. If you're not paying for it, it probably won't like it as much. But then again, how many people loved "Part the Second"? And also, doesn't that point also apply if you have loads of disposable income? I dunno. There's no way to prove it, really. If you get an album as a gift, does it seem crappier? Well, I think all my points still stand. @SouthSideoftheSky Well, I'm not promoting piracy. I think that certainly, if you can afford it, you should always buy music. But I'm just addressing the whole over-reaction to the consequences of file-sharing. I do think it's morally wrong, though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:05
Revolver by The Beatles is a pop album. Let's all downlaod it, quick!
Firefox is free. Most websites are free to look at. Let's start paying for them (yes, there is a word called "DONATE") and see if we will appreciate them more. ------------- 
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:22
|
I heard that it's rare in the metal community for a band to be full-time musicians. You usually need another job to support the music-making. Sometimes it's a good thing because you get to write about a wider range of topics. Iron Maiden's singer once worked as a plane pilot or something, which helped him write "Aces High" (a song about airplanes). That's cool. Not that Iron Maiden needed the money. The singer simply wanted to be a plane pilot, I believe. Edit: I looked it up, and it turns out the song was not written by a plane pilot. Nevermind. Also, instead of asking people not to download, I encourage people to upload. I admire YouTube users who upload rare live footage and music videos and interviews and such. Those things are usually not available for sale, so upload them all you can! It's also cool to be able to watch Rush Live in Rio whenever, wherever, on YouTube, without the need for a DVD or a DVD player. Imagine if every song was available on YouTube. I'd like to see that happen. (I edited it several times, just in case it's in violation of the rules) -------------
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:30
Good Rant. This certainly is and was the case with me. To be honest the Record industry has dug there own grave with me. I remember the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that. But the industry was charging far too much for its records so I would buy stuff my friends didn't have and tape their collection.
What other industry has charged people for buying the same thing several times - and charged too much each time. First vinyl, then tape, then crap quality CD, then good quality CD, then CD with other versions added. Chickens coming home to roost me thinks. However, I still buy the CDs I really like and listen to other stuff on Spotify youtube etc. I don't download stuff cos I've never been impressed with the quality.
I do feel sorry for the artists. But if they make music people like then they will be able to sell their music and tshirts and people will come and see them.
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:33
This not my quote, can you edit it please?
|
Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:37
Isn't that a bit like saying: I remember the 'Smoking Kills' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that as there are people who smoke who are still alive. The argument cannot be that downloading totally kills music, the argument must be that it kills some music. It is plausible to think that in the absence of illegitimate downloading, the music available in the world would be different in some way; some artists would probably be here that are not. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:42
I actually addressed that in the post - so I'm not at all trying to simplify the matter. What I object to is when people say "I'll download this and that although I know that the artist disagrees, but the ends justify the means, ultimately this promotes the artist, everybody's doing it anyway, and look at my collection of 1000+ CDs that I spent a lot of cash on etc". That all makes sense to some degree, but at the end of the day you're still ignoring the artist's wishes. I think that this is wrong - but that's not the same as calling people who do this "heartless b*****ds".
The business model needs to change - and ultimately it will. I think the best thing you can do to speed that along is to support artists who are trying different approaches now. Let Steven Wilson continue torching iPods and villify mp3 ... IMO that's completely beside the point. The musical content of a mp3 track and the vinyl version are completely equivalent from an artistical point of view. People tend to see more value in an actual physical disc than in a file on their hard drive because the concept of listening to music without having a physical medium is new to them - not because listening to a vinyl is actually a superior musical experience compared to listening to the mp3. The content is the music - the sound that comes out of the speakers when you listen to the music - not the plastic disc that's revolving. The artwork, booklet etc. is part of the music - and when you buy new albums as mp3 from Amazon, they come with digital booklets, and the cover art is embedded in the files. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:44
|
In the 70's when we were huge music fans but money was scarce, one would buy the original LP and all the other friends would record it on cassette tape. Each one of my group of close friends would have maybe 50 original LP's and a huge bunch of cassettes with the 50 albums of each of the other guys.
So not that much has changed.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:50
I would put it this way: There are people who think that music should not be something you have to pay for - no matter how much time and money went into producing it, you should not have to pay for a download since there is no actual cost involved in duplicating the file. This is the idea that needs to be opposed. I'm all for artists who offer their music for free (hey, you can listen to my demo track for free on last.fm  ) - and I doubt that people automatically devalue music when there's no price tag attached to it. They should simply respect the artist's right to decide whether you can download it for free or not, and that it's because there's value in musical content and not just the medium that it's recorded on.------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:54
Except that when it comes to illegal file sharing, suddenly you have millions of "close friends", thousands of cassettes and each of your millions of friends has thousands of LPs. What has changed (and I think that the statistics which the music industry provides are not faked or exaggerated) is that overall much less LPs are actually purchased by people, so the ratio between purchasing and copying has changed by several orders of magnitude. EDIT: Consider the hypothetical situation: "When I want to listen to an album, I check whether one of my close friends has it - if so, I make a tape of it, if not, I'll buy it". Apply that to the 70s and to today, and you'll understand the problem. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:55
Not really, I was going on about the Industry then and now. I think they were trying to make us feel guilty that taping was killing music as a whole. At the time I don't think it even 'killed' individual artists. The industry was worried about its profit margins. When in fact it was just a way young people got music they couldn't afford. Why would an artist want the price of its music so high that their audience couldn't listen to it no point recording anything. In fact the people who make bands popular in the first place are usually the young and skint. They make a band popular and then older richer people start to buy .
Like I said I feel sorry for the artists especially those on the lower rungs. ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 07:56
Name one artist that was undeniably destroyed by piracy. I can't think of any. Maybe there are a couple, but certainly not many. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:02
|
Isn't piracy a different issue from illegal downloaders? Piracy has been around since the pre-digital days. It's making hard copies and selling them off dirt cheap as if they were legitimate versions the album or a movie.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:03
This. I just think it is easier to measure now. That said, i download music, but i try to buy as much as possible, if it's good.
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:07
There are two kinds of piracy: A) The pirate profits from the act of pirating, much like a drug dealer selling drugs, B) Nobody is making money off the downloads. People share stuff because they believe in sharing stuff. You're referring to A. We were talking about B. Go figure.
Sure. I was quoting you on a different matter. I was saying that Firefox is free, websites are free, so should we donate to them in order to not "devalue" it? I think it's just a legal and moral issue, and it has nothing to do with "people don't appreciate music as much when they get it for free" -------------
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:12
(Regarding an earlier comment) Do you really think someone who has 1000+ cd's but donwnloads some is bad? See, in my opinions, if he's still downloading some, he should be completely in the clear. He must just love too much music to reasonably purchase. @Quoted Bit Consider this. Have you ever bought anything second hand? When you really think about it, you might as well have stole it as far as the artist is concerned. But no one villifies second hand purchasing - I bet that happened more in the 70s' than now. And yeah, I don't think that's how pirates think (if I can download it, I will) or else no one would buy anything (studies show that isn't true). And seriously, several orders of magnitude? You think that if 1500 people bought an album, about 1500000000 people will have pirated it? That's a bit of an over statement. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:44
|
Here's my two cents... Piracy can be good or bad, pending on the person who engages in the activity. I know plenty of people who will go and download full discographies without thinking about it twice, and THAT is wrong. They will never use piracy to "sample" a band, and will simply get all the music they need and leave the band in the dust. Although I rarely will ever download anything, I've found it as a good sampling method that has given me exposure to bands that I never would have heard of otherwise. For example... my friend sent me a copy of Edge of Sanity's Crimson on a rapidshare link and said that I'd really like it. I downloaded it, and found it AMAZING. Within the next week I had the album, as well as other EoS releases, on order from Amazon. This is an example of when piracy isn't a bad thing. I'm now a Dan Swano fanboy, and religiously purchase every new release coming from him. ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:53
|
I actually think the piracy of these days is a lot better than it used to be. I mean, how many people get keelhauled now? ------------- 
|
Posted By: cphil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:56
| Many musicians die penniless with only their music as their legacy. But even that is stolen from them. First the industry bosses , then the heartless thieves on the internet.Piracy is theft and it is Wrong. Will the problem ever be solved. NOT IN OUR LIFETIME ! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 08:59
Is downloading theft? Is it permanently denying the artist of something they own? Do many musicians die penniless? You have proof? Are you in fact the member of a band who is on his uppers?We need to know. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:07
Yeah, the only musicians I've heard of dying penniless are; A) Crap or B) Drunks/drug addicts Also, piracy isn't really theft in the tradition sense. I've heard it being compared to stealing bread from a baker, but that would only really work if it were some kind of magial "infinite bread" which regenerated as soon as someone ate a bit of it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:25
|
I buy Cds when i can
I prefer the packaging and the music is better quality
However of course the downloads are here and are free and everybody helps themselves.
Itunes are still legal as are other download engines you pay for
i have a dowloader I donate to and I feel OK with that.
Youtube is the one to worry about - you can listen to just about any album in its entirety these days
Well to be honest this is not a bad thing as if the album is excellent from what yo hear you are more likely to buy the album. This is how I discovered and purchased the Cds of IQ, Astra and Magma.
Its interesting that the only album I could not find anything on is the new Magma 'Ehmettre' or something - its not there at all - not that it worries me as I have it but I wonder why THAT album is not on youtube.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: cphil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:42
|
If an artist sells 50 000 units (it rarely happenes to new and unknown ones ) and pirates own 100 000, there surely must be something wrong with this picture. So , Pirates don't steal they just promote the artists for free. All the illegal copies on servers and hard drives are just file sharing. I get it now. ------------- Have the courage to live. Anyone can die. |
Posted By: Deleuze
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:52
|
I think it encourages the artists to make shows...as an artist I would give my music for free ( but sell t-shirts and stuff )
------------- 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:54
Nick Barrett of Pendragon came close, I believe he had to remortgage his house to keep going. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 09:58
Is it provable that illegal filesharing is to blame? Andy Partidge of XTC went broke years before file sharing existed. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:04
That's interesting (me being an XTC fan) How so fair canine? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:07
|
The availability of information for free is something everybody must get used to live with.
Those who made road maps might say that ViaMichelin or Mappy (I don't know if they exist everywhere, they are common internet route planners in Europe) are "piracy to them", since people can have now for free what they used to sell. The same for travel agencies, you can now book hotels in every corner of the world online from home. Photo-developing shops have virtually lost all their work with digital photography and domestic photo printers. And the same with some many other things. That's the way it is, for good and for bad.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:09
All that i remember is that some time in the eighties or maybe early nineties.....God time is weird, I just can't recall now......that he had to sell his house and move back in with his mum. Poor album sales maybe or bad record or management deal? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:24
Too bad, I know that his income must have been solely record sales (as XTC stopped touring entirely circa 1982) and there was talk of the band having to make a hefty payout to a former manger at one time after a law suit or somesuch. -------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:26
That must have been it then. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:46
Prog-centric mindset much? "Non-rock music isn't worth being compensated for, so download away!" If I didn't disregard your opinion at the first post, I did at this one. Not that I agree that downloading = stealing all the time (and have repeatedly argued against that opinion), but grow and open mind, man. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:02
|
I, personally have not downloaded a song in my life, unlike my friends who download discographies. There was actually a funny situation I had with them a couple hours ago... Friend one and I are at friend two's house. Friend one wants to play CoD but doesn't have it.. Friend Two: Why don't you just pirate it online? Friend One: No, it's immoral. Me: You, [friend one] download entire discographies from bands and don't feel a thing, but you feel bad taking away $50 from a multi-million dollar business? I'm neutral, I think it is a great sampler, but I think that unless you have no money to buy music, you shouldn't use it very often. P.S. Friends One and Two DO have enough money to pay for music. Oh, and OP look at my avatar ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:04
Well, I could argue it's cause Pendragon just aren't that great.
But, if there was no file sharing, they still might only have sold 55,000. The other 45,000 might only have it because it's free. In fact, they may have only sold 40,000 thanks to losing the sales caused by the people who got it for free telling their friends about it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:16
In this case, yes. I have seen figures of how many copies of Pendragon albums and DVDs have been illegally downloaded and therefore represent lost revenue. |
Posted By: Jörgemeister
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:39
|
I created a poll for this subject yesterday and it was closed, but i guess its ok if it doesnt have the options to choose and vote huh? now kill me for this:  ------------- |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 13:02
BUT NO! That's wrong! Pirated Copies =/= Lost Revenue I'll just quote my freaking self.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 13:08
 Isn't that hypocritical? Have to be honest...this comment makes me want to completely disregard everything you've said/will say. Such a big fuss about the piracy, yet pop or rap you don't care if it happens to? You don't like those genres, neither do I at all, BUT it is the artists work and they would also suffer from illegal downloading. But you don't care because "I dont like those, Im talking about rock here" Kinda narrow minded of you. Peace |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 13:10
Same here. Ridiculous statement. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 13:44
|
We've had this discussion a number of times, but it is always really interesting, and i will add my tuppence worth again. The vast majority of music i get these days is downloaded. However, i pay for every single one of them, legally, and above board. In fact, I've had a huge splurge recently on a pile of new stuff. I find streaming on stuff such as Last FM quite useful in order to try new stuff before I physically buy it. I never use bit torrent sites, for both moral and PC security issues. However, previous contributors have made reference to the old days of taping vinyl LPs amongst friends. Yep, guilty as charged. It's always happened, and, in reality, file sharing is really only a modern day equivalent of this. You will never really stop it, and, as ever, it is the moral stance of the user which decides the day. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 14:24
Wait, so you don't use torrents to download free albums? That's a bit amoral, since you are - by CHOICE - inflicting server costs agaist the band! EDIT: Also, you mentioned the whole vinyl copying thing again, but I'm again going to point out - have you ever thought, that second hand selling/buying is just as bad for the bands? When you think about it, buying a CD second hand is just as bad, if not worse, than dowloading illegaly. After all, if you buy second hand, you get the full-quality album, booklet etcetera. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 14:37
|
I honestly think that bthe internet has done far more good than bad for Progressive Rock. Loads of people wouldn't have even heard of most of these downloaded bands if it wasn't for communities like ours. So some download..some download and buy..and some just buy. At the end they all spread the word and the bands become more known. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 14:43
Yeah, I agree 100% Also notice it is bigger name artists that tend to have a beef with it (Metallica for example) Lots of small/local artists don't have a problem and often put their stuff up for free download. Because the whole file sharing thing IS a great way to help spread the word. If you like it you can still buy expensive merchandise and go to concerts. Also, you may even end up buying a CD or 2 still!  Not that it matters because apparently its only bad if someone does it for rock. Any other artist can burn in hell for producing crap in the first place right OP? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:35
Since that last poll thread will now drop like a rock, I'll restate myself. I don't think I'll ever warm up to them except for the occasional freebie. I did a pay to download of Porcupine Tree's Futile. Now that was worth it as it came with printable booklet art, just two sides, but at least it had a track listing, credits, etc. I, of course made my own CD from it and put it in a case, even printed out a label for the CD. I've done the freebie download of NIN's The Slip and had to get a hard copy. I've done the name your own price download of In Rainbows, probably paid too much as again I went out and got a hard copy. Most of the taping I did of LPs were my own albums, although I did have a few copied to cassette from friends or the library. And I've bought more that a few used CDs and LPs. But the majority of my stuff these days is new and original sale should have resulted in some artist compensation. Also, I buy directly from the artist's web site whenever possible. I am no pirate though, arrgghh. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:38
Eh? I don't use torrents full stop. Second hand selling has always existed, since the dawn of time. You'll never stop it. It's also perfectly legal. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:39
Couldn't agree more ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:40
... except that someone's already paid for it the first time around. There's a guaranteed sale behind the item, whereas wanton internet theft occurs dozens, hundreds and even thousands of times. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:41
Same here. I have recently converted a pile of old vinyl to digital, but I've already paid over good money for that. As for the new stuff, all honestly paid for. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 16:09
Using Torrents to download free albums is better for the artist as it stops them having to pay for server costs. I wasn't being serious - it just seems a bit daft to completely disregard torrents when they can be a far superior way of downloading things. I know second hand selling is legal. That's kind of the point. I'm just saying it's just as bad for the artist, if not worse, than downloading illegaly. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 16:17
The point is, when you buy a second hand album, exactly £0 goes to the artist. I can sort of see your logic, but it doesn't really make much sense. It's not as if artists want you to sell it on. It doesn't do them any good (well, exept in the form of advertising, but that is achived during file-sharing as well). Somebody's already paid for a downloading album the first time round - sure, it goes to more people, so I guess you could say it's worse, but if you imagine around 1/4 (just a random guess) of albums 10 years old have been sold on again, that's an artist losing 25% income! And there's no "but he might still buy it" about that. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 16:18
|
Just like back in the day of taping music off the FM radio....the airwaves are free right?
Anyhow it will never stop, Only thing that can be done is for all music labels to only issue digital copies to music subscription service providers. And for them to block all CD's from ability to upload....mehh...it will never stop. -------------   
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 16:26
It's absolutely worse. Those are lost sales that were never made, whereas each used album is still purchased once beforehand. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 16:32
| Yo ho, blow th' man down! |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 17:07
Seriously? Someone's saying that AGAIN? Gah. Context = 50,000 albums sold, 100,000 illegally downloaded.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: The Neck Romancer
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 18:41
|
Most artists hate piracy, but the smaller acts would rather have people listening to their music illegally than people not listening to it at all. |
Posted By: mahavishnujoel
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 20:39
|
we all have different opinions, morals about this situation. I have downloaded albums by many bands including bands i found out in this site. why? because it's the only way i could find out if I was going to like the music before spending 16$ on a CD that it would be possible that i wouldn't like it. i grew tired of buying CD's and then when listening to them i would cry in pain for spending the money on crappy music. what did i do? i downloaded albums from bands that people recommended or that i read about. the ones i liked i bought them (yes, genesis king crimson, magma, ayreon, dream theater, rush, etc...) the ones i didn't like i erased them. does that make me a pirate??? i don't thinks so... i don't have a wooden leg or a big black eye patch just my opinion who suffers? certainly not the artist nor me why? i discover new bands almost every day if the artist does good music i buy it with a smile on my face if the artist does a crappy job i press delete and save big money... my two cents forgive my English it's not my first language peace ------------- Me, I'm just a lawnmower - you can tell me by the way I walk. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 20:45
| T'will be th' plank fer ye! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 21:07
Have you checked your shoulder for a parrot matey? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 21:33
You buy a CD - the tax man gets their cut of the sale, the record store gets their cut, the distributor gets their cut, the record label gets their cut, the artist gets their cut and the songwriters get their cut and everything is good with the world.
The retail sequence involved is the record label sells it to the distributor, who sells it to the record store, who sells it to you. In theory the artist and songwriters get paid at stage one of this process - they get paid by the record label on the CDs they sell, they do not get paid again for the CDs the distributor sells or again for the CDs the record store sells to the consumer - they do not get paid three times just because the CD is sold three times between manufacturer and consumer - for every CD manufactured and sold they get paid once, and only once.
You listen to it and decide later to sell it on eBay. Someone buys that CD and you post it to them - they now own the CD and you don't and it is no longer in your possession. eBay gets their cut, the post office gets their cut and you get your cut and everything's good with the world. You're down a few quid on the deal because you didn't get full-retail on the resale, but that's okay, that's how the secondhand market works and you knew that when you decided to sell it.
Now you say the Artist loses out because he didn't get his cut of the resale. Well, no. He's already been paid for the sale of that particular CD and he cannot get paid again for it. There is only one CD and only one owner and it isn't you, even though it was your money that technically paid the artist. In that respect you are no different to a retail store or a distribution company, you're just one that loses money on every transaction.
The central point of your (specious) argument is that if you hadn't sold that CD then the secondhand buyer would have had to go to a record store and buy a brand new CD - so the artist would have been paid twice. The difference there is not only have they now sold two CDs, but two owners are now enjoying listening to them instead of there being only one CD and one owner. However, you sold your CD, you cannot listen to it ever again. This is the same as selling a used Ford Mondeo - once you've sold it you can't use it to drive to work any more, there is only one car and only one owner (and the Ford Motor Company doesn't receive a cheque in the post from the resale either).
Now suppose you bought that CD and made a digital copy for your personal use (transfer to an iPlod for example) - that's perfectly legal in most countries (a bit grey in the UK - technically you still need the copyright owner's permission to make a "fair use" copy). Once you sell the original CD the digital copy becomes illegal - you can no longer claim fair use for that copy since you no longer own the original CD. Legally you should delete the copy when you resell the CD - legally and morally, if you still want a digital "copy", you should go and buy a download.
Suppose you didn't sell that CD but uploaded or torrent-ed that perfectly legal "fair use" digital copy - once you do that it all the copies become illegal - the multitude of downloads that result from that are all illegal, they are not "fair use" personal copies any more and the artist does not get paid a penny for any of them. That some of those downloaders may or may not go out and buy a legal version is completely irrelevant.
_________________________________________________________________________
I'm fully aware that 55,000 downloads is not 55,000 lost sales - the actual maths is irrelevant - you could argue that it matters not whether it is 55,000 copies, 1 copy or none - whichever way you look at it the artist does not get paid so it makes no difference how many copies are made. If he does not give specific permission then every copy is illegal and no amount of spurious statistics and studies can change that, even if they do show that some unknown and unprovable percentage of those downloads do get converted into actual purchase. If the artist wants to give his work away for free then it is his choice not yours, if he wants people to share it then it is his choice not yours. He is perfectly justified in claiming that those 55,000 copies are potentially 55,000 lost sales because 55,000 people are enjoying the benefits of his labour without receiving any compensation. If some made-up number of those do eventually buy that still does not justifiy illegal downloading - some other made-up fraction of those would have bought anyway even without downloading. ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 22:59
It used to be difficult early on to convert CD ( as in wav) to mp3. I have two multimedia Iron Maiden CDs which cannot be converted to mp3 ( I prefer converting with a real player because Itunes takes too long) but which can be ripped to Itunes (from where I can listen to them wherever I carry my laptop). The record labels are probably not going back to that under pressure from the electronics or software industry . The legal position anyhow is very clear, there is no point debating on it. At a larger level, it is however not the only problem faced by the music industry. 20-30 years back, you did not have such a huge variety of computer games or internet forums to keep you distracted, so with fewer avenues to pass time, some people would have spent some time (and in turn money) on music. Now, they don't have to, so unless you really like music, there are always other things to do. I know that people I used to discuss music with a few years back are now too occupied with work to follow the scene. The other big issue is distribution. Since I have never been abroad, I can't comment on how things are over there, but even well known titles can be difficult to get in India. I have to spend a lot of money to acquire prog CDs (because, barring bands like JT, most of them are not available here and have to be ordered online with exorbitant shipping). I do, but how many would do that? Do you reasonably expect many people to do that?For how long are labels and artists going to live in this utopian dream world and keep ranting about downloading and doing nothing about the problem? If album CDs are not available as easily as groceries in a supermarket store, this problem will persist, that's all. As someone pointed out once, it's actually costlier and more inconvenient to order directly through the artist. I meant to order both Gentle Giant DVDs directly from the band but instead went through CD universe where I saved at least $10 a DVD. If you don't reach out to the audience, most won't be interested in following music (which is why eventually most people 'settle down' and lose touch with it) and the few who want to would be frustrated in their efforts. And then, Steven Wilson will write songs ranting about the IPod generation 'coz he has nothing better to do. |
Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 00:14
I thought you were alright at first until I read this.
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 00:18
| DARRRR, PARROT! |
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 00:35
[This is a bookmark, note to self: I have read everything above.]
If any band did that, the file sharing community would simply stop listening to them, and go on downloading other bands. There are already an infinite number of albums available on file sharing networks. If you block new CD's from being uploaded, people will simply listen to old CD's.  Warner Bros. was able to delete all torrents of some of their TV shows (for example, Xiaolin Showdown). The result? (my guess is) People didn't go out and buy those TV shows. They didn't even bother to watch those shows on TV (which is free). They simply downloaded other TV shows. Or, maybe they already had 300 hours of TV shows on their hard drive. So they would just watch what they already got. I believe more than 90% of people who download torrents would not have bought the music either way. In a world without file sharing, those people still would not buy those albums. They would listen to what they already had, go to YouTube, listen to Last.FM and Live 365 (tons of great music for free), or listen to the vast number of free podcasts. I mean there is so much free + legal audio content, that for most people it's unecessary to pay a dime. All attempts to block file sharing = futile indeed. The more you block, the less units you sell LOL -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 04:23
|
Many people try to rationalize their illegal file sharing activities by saying that they only use it to sample the albums so they can find out whether they want to buy them. Well, this might have made sense ten, or even five years ago. But today? Most artists offer samples on their homepage, or on their myspace profile. When you go to Amazon.com or eMusic.com and an album is available there, you can listen to 30 second samples of each song, taken not from the beginning of each track but from interesting parts, and you can listen to those samples consecutively. This gives you a very good impression of what you're going to get. If you now say "nah, I need to listen to the whole album repeatedly before I'm able to make a decision" my response is: This kind of usage requires that you buy the album. The artist(s) worked very hard to make it, and its purpose, its intended usage is for people to listen to it. If you want to do that, you need to PAY THEM. The 30 second samples, or full samples of some tracks - those are what you are supposed to listen to before you make the decision. If those aren't enough to convince you, then you should move on to other albums.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 04:59
| I think it's entirely reasonable to d/l before you buy. I mean there are so many things recommended here, it's ludicrous to insist you pay for each and every single one without any idea of whether you'll enjoy it. The problem is people who never buy at all no matter what. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:02
| Mike, the legal principle of what you say cannot be questioned but you don't appreciate what would happen, especially given how scattered the music scene is today and how many bands and artists there are, if everybody just moved on to another artist. That would only disadvantage smaller bands even more. This is basically what I asked in my earlier post: do labels and artist want to talk about the legalities or are they interested in addressing the larger issue? Maybe the time is ripe to admit that in the present scenario, smaller bands can only post their music on myspace and perform live in the hope of gradually building more mileage and cannot hope to subsist only on album sales? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:35
Let the bands decide for themselves how they distribute their music - they created it and they own it so allow them to control it. Pirates forcing their idealism on any band is no different to a big-business record label taking control of their music; downloader's dictating to these bands how they distribute their music is no different to a record label dictating what kind of music a band should produce. If you want to support the smaller artists, then support them. If you want something for free, then seek out those artists who permit free downloads of their music. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:38
What about movies? Is a short trailer enough, or do you need to sample the whole movie to decide whether you should have to pay to watch it? IMO it's ludicrous to insist that you need to be able to listen to every album out there for free, and as many times as you want, before you make the decision of which artists to actually pay for their efforts to create the music in the first place. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:47
This might be the biggest post ever.
Well... First off, I'm not an idiot. I realise it's bad for the artist. I reaslise (now) that downloading is worse. I'm just drawing a loose parallel. Also, how can we guruantee that the person selling the second-hand CD will buy a new CD? Not at all. Nevermind a new CD of the same artists. I don't buy it personally. I don't see how that is any good for the artist. I have read it. I'm just going to address some issues.
No, my point was that SOMEONE has bought that CD at some point - unless they got it for free off of the artists are something.
How many people do you really think consider this?
But that's besides the point. If they're selling it, they've probably already listened to it as much as they want. It seems very unlikely to me that he's going to sell it then buy another copy later. He's either sick of it, or is keeping a digital copy anyways.
But now the CD has been listened to two times, as opposed to once.
Downloading has to be either completely evil or perfectly fine. I don't think so. I think it's a pretty grey area. Obviously, it's bad for the artists. There's no getting around it's consequences. It's bad for the record company, in the first hand. All I'm trying to suggest is that it's not as bad for artists as people seem to think. They get advertising. Fans. Loads of stuff. Perhaps those pirates who are 10x more likely to buy are the only true fans. Maybe they wouldn't have become fans if it weren't for file-sharing. We'll never know - the only way to find out would be to create an alternate universe where everything was exactly the same except file-sharing doesn't exist. Obviously, second-hand selling isn't as bad. I just don't think it's for the reasons you've used. It's just because it happens only once or twice with each CD, and is probably less likely to happen with entire discographies.
The point is NOT the maths. I just straight up made up those numbers. The point is, that there has NEVER, EVER been an amount of downloaded albums where 100% of downloads where lost purchases. It's very silly to suggest that. The point is, a lot of those people probably downloaded it just because it's free. They wouldn't have bought in otherwise. Obviously, it's still illegal. I'm not arguing about what is and what is not illegal. That's pretty clear. My other point is that the artist might actually be getting more sales for illegal downloading. There is no way to prove that illegal downloading is the cause of drops in sales. There are so many other variables. It's impossible to say. Without illegal downloading, the sales of records might have decreased even more due to less advertising. I would say certainly on some bands/genres (mostly underground ones). My absolute final point is this. This is a small point. Yes, it is artist's choice if they want to give away their albums for free. BUT it's not as cut-and-dry as that. Like I said before, Devin has been heard saying he'd rather people download his music that never listen to it.
So why doesn't he put it up for free? Well, isn't is obvious? Because then less people would buy it. Since it's up for free and there's absolutely no perceived morale consequence he'll get less sales. Clearly, it's still wrong to download his works when you can afford it, but it's cases like this which show it's not as black and white as a lot of people seem to think. I don't want this to be any more than a debate. I want to point out that it's very clear that downloading illegaly is wrong. I'm sorry if I'm coming across like a bit of an arse, but it's a very interesting debate in my opinion. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:55
I am sorry but I only expressed my views on the subject and I am not forcing any brand of idealism on anyone, I am only recognizing harsh realities. In the present situation, bands are not going to have an easy time commercially making music and if indeed as you say, they are already living with it, what are we talking about anyway? The rule of law is very clear anyway and there's nothing to comment on it. And I have also not insinuated anywhere in these posts that I demand stuff for free, I have only stated that the distribution model is awful and albums are never available easily in stores. That at least is the situation I face, I am happy for the sake of those who don't. Please don't put words in my mouth, I certainly wouldn't expect this from you of all people. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:11
Well said. Unfortunately, this is a contentious topic on this website and most people will insist on seeing this in black and white. Just as I have been alleged here to be demanding music for free when I finally get time to play my four new acquisitions.  Labels should care more about people who really want to purchase music and make it easier for them to acquire it because the masses who bought albums by the millions in the 80s have found new toys with play with and will never come back in quite the same numbers for a long time. And it's not as if I am not aware of the problems they would face in trying to make it more accessible for purchase; it is easier said than done. But there is no other solution I can think of. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:20
My suggestion for a small band would be to record their music on their own, without any big company, and to make it available on last.fm for free. If the music is good, that will give it a lot of exposure, and they even might make a few bucks that way (artists get compensated as people listen to free last.fm tracks). In any case, today it's illusory for a small band to make a living selling albums - even if those interested in the music did pay for the CDs or downloads. So artists might as well consider the possibility of having day jobs, at least in the beginning, and make their music available for free. There's other options, too - for example they can make it available at a bargain (e.g. less than $5 for the whole album as mp3), or - and I think this is a really good idea - ask for donations on their website and annouce that by donating fans make it more likely that the band will continue to exist and create more music. In short: I agree that it's not possible for small bands to subsist only on album sales, and I think that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it's bad for bands who try to do that and fail, but IMO that's because the business model is flawed - rather than engaging in futile attempts to make fans support it, trying to change it is a much better idea. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:25
I am not very clear about the details, but didn't Marillion successfully appeal to the fans for support in the mid 90s? There are underground bands here that make a decent living off live shows, go about their day jobs/college and don't even contemplate recording and releasing an album for sale. So, yes, the business model is flawed. One of my very good friends is a prog rock/metal fan and very knowledgable about music and is not going to easily find musicians to perform with him for shows in India. He has a job as a guitar/vocal instructor and is quite happy last time we touched base. Without music consistently capturing the imagination of a huge fanbase on the scale it used to in the 80s, the old model is not viable. |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:39
Well, it's probably possible - I bet a couple of recent bands have done it. But I have to agree that usually if bands want to stay afloat they have to get clever with their advertising/sales and stuff. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 07:02
great post!
i need to know
Where did Devin Townsend post on progarchives???
thread??? I want to see that! -------------
|
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 07:30
He didn't post on Progarchives, I was just quoting him. Sorry for the confusion! On a lot of forums, it'll just say the persons name in the quote-box. It was actually from an interview with Sputnikmusic. Link: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/feature.php?id=5741 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 07:40
I guess that the key is to look at music as art, and consider the money you can potentially make from selling your works of art as a bonus. But again, it's the artist who should make that decision - if he decides to consider his works as commodities with price tags, then we should, too - and not try to circumvent the payment. Instead of doing that we should try to support the artists who emphasize the art over the business. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 08:15
I have not advocated that anywhere, so I don't know why this is being brought up repeatedly. I have simply said that the model being what it is, listeners, especially those in countries like mine, will find it difficult to acquire music unless they listen mostly to popular music and that smaller bands will find it difficult to make much out of album sales. This is the reality, whether people want to accept it or not and bands should work out how they are going to pursue a career in music considering all this. The larger change of music's social relevance fading and listeners getting fragmented is what has led to the present situation. |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 09:19
I loked his username up and theres 2 Devins but none are him
makes sense
why would Ziltoid darken this domain? -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 12:19
Nah.
Sorry? Don't recall implying you were an idiot - quite the reverse - you are using fairly reasonable argument to justify your position, but I just think it is flawed that's all.
I never claimed that the seller of the CD would buy another CD - he is free to use the cash to buy whatever he likes - toothpaste, food, a pair of socks. The artist sold a CD, he got paid for it - it doesn't matter how many consecutive owners it has after that - what it doesn't have is two or more simultaneous owners.
I never said secondhand sales were good for the artist, they are neither good nor bad.
Most albums are available for illegal download long before the go on sale to the public. How they get there is immaterial, but the one thing that implies is: no one paid for that "seed" copy.
Other than that I fail to see what point you have made - just because 55,000 downloads resulted from one legitimate purchase doesn't validate any of the downloads.
I'm a realist - none of them do.
Never said they'd buy another copy - seems like a dumb proposition to me - I see where you are coming from here, but you have wandered down the wrong track completely.
Eh? I really don't get that comment:
The sale of a CD does not restrict or limit the number of times it can be played or the number of people who can listen to it.
I think it is the artists choice whether they use free downloads to advertise an album or not. No one should be making that decision arbitarily on behalf of the artist - let them decide how good or how bad it is for them.
I don't think secondhand selling is bad or good - it does not benefit the artist, but it does them no harm either - they have been paid for that particular CD - it doesn't matter to them who finally owns it. Whether that's one CD or an entire discography is irrelevant.
No one has suggested that so no one is being silly about it. The bottom line is 55,000 people now possess a copy of the album that they didn't pay for - if downloading didn't exist they would have to buy a copy if they wanted to possess it.
The notion that those 55,000 people wouldn't have bought the album is a specious argument.
And my point is that the illegal downloaders have no right to dictate to the artist how he "markets" his album. You cannot produce hard numbers to back up this claim either - it is a guess, and an unsubstantiated one at that.
However, reading the full transcript of what Townsend said in the context he said it, it is not carte blanche for anyone to go and download his entire discography. I think you have interpretted that quote how you want to interpret it.
But if that is what he really means then that is Townsend's choice and his opinion - you cannot take that and apply it to every artist. Unless you go and get a similar statement from every artist who has ever been illegally downloaded you cannot make any point using Townsend's quote. But as I said, read it again - it's not what he means, he does not say that people should illegally download it.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 13:00
But surely, it follows that it's bad. Imagine if they somehow completely outlawed second-hand selling of CDs (obviously this is impossible - just a theoretical situation). People who would normally have bought the CD second hand would now have to buy it first hand - which would definitely mean more money for the artist, right? I can't see how second hand selling has any positive side-effects not equivalent to those caused by illegal downloaded (albeit on a far more inflated level with downloading, which means it is worse).
Yes, that's a good point - a lot of album leak. I know it doesn't really matter since that one legitimate purchase would go to the 55,000 downloads. I was just again equating it to second hand selling. But what you've just said is the main difference I see between second hand sales and downloading illegaly - whereas second hand CDs go between 2-10 different owners, 1 download might go to 55,000.
But to me, that seems like the entire crux of your argument - the belief that the second-hand seller will now be forced to go out and buy another copy, thus earning the artist more money.
Like I said before - they don't really. An artist coming out and allowing people to download his work for free has a completely different effect to them doing it anyways. There is simply no way to repicate it legally.
But it's not all about the bottom line. There's more too it. I'm not going to explain it more because I'd just be repeating myself to be honest. Yes, I know it would just be a certain amount of those 55,000 that wouldn't have bought it. I'm interested if there are any studies suggesting what percentage of illegal downloaders would have bough it. But it is an important point. Like I said, you simply cannot prove the album would have sold less were it not for illegal downloading. I can't prove the opposite.
Like I said before - people downloading illegaly =/= artist allowing people to download the album legally.
I addressed that it's just a guess. There is no way to show either way.
I don't think I've interpreted it wrong. Obviously, he doesn't want you to download his entire discography... he'd rather you didn't. That's kinda of the point. It's the difference between saying "I don't mind that much" and "LOOK! They're all free!". But yeah, Devin isn't really the point - even if I have intepreted him wrong, there must be another artist out their with a similar opinion. But yeah, your second part is entirely true. This cannot be applied to anyone else. I think it just shows why some artist might not want to put their discographies for free download, but might not feel that bad about other people downloading it for free. Obviously, that's all just guesswork really. In the end, you are right really with your points. Illegal downloading is wrong and no one should do it. I just think it might not be as awful for the industry as people believe, is all. I understand most of what you say, and you've made a lot of good points, but it just seems as if you are seeing it as it looks on the surface, and I think there is more depth and intricacies to it than you seem to think. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 13:22
As a side note: This is even legal in some countries - Germany for instance. You can make a private copy of a CD any time, and then sell the CD. You can also make a copy of a CD of a close friend - and this copy is and will always be legal no matter what that friend does with the original. So in theory, I could sell my 1000+ CDs, keep the mp3s and use the 5000 EUR to buy another 500-800 albums on mp3.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 14:02
And nowhere in my post did I say that you were demanding stuff for free, or even that you we obtaining stuff for free. In fact I never refered to your personal situation at all. I purposely avoided that since once we get into that area this thread will close. We are discussing on general terms at some non-personal level and that excludes making judgemental comments about anyone.
I did not addresss anything in your earlier post regarding album availability in stores because if we dispense with the physical CD and just talk about legal downloads vs. illegal downloads - their distribution models are the same. So now the availability of physical CDs in record stores does not enter into the equation and shipping costs from online download stores are zero. But I wasn't interested in that argument and I'm still not, I picked up on your comment on how this affects smaller bands and that was the sole issue I addressed.
Ah, no. I'm not accepting that. The words you typed were yours and the words I type are mine - I may inadvertantly misunderstand what you have said, but I will never deliberately misrepresent what you say. Since you know what to expect from me then you know that I would not post like that. ------------- What? |
Posted By: mahavishnujoel
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 14:29
as you said most artist not all of them put the music as sample in their own website. as for amazon samples... 30 seconds from a 9min or a 21min song is hardly a sample more like giving a single rice to a starving kid... and no those 30 seconds are not enough i remember when trying to find out who genesis where i listened to the samples of Selling England and i absolutely hated it... so i decided to listen for myself and by the second track I already added the album on my list of purchases. if I had relied on the samples i wouldn't be the proud owner of all of gabriel era genesis albums as for the artist working very hard to make this music i understand being a musician myself i would be mad if somebody downloaded my albums and never pay for them but i would rather have people buying my albums because they like them instead of buying and realizing the album was crap... like i said before this my opinion and is the way i find my music and ever since i have used this method i have bought even more albums and not disappointed by any of the ones being from a small island in Caribbean not a single prog or even good rock or jazz or wathever acts come to play here live making exposure to new music almost entirely impsossible if it wasn't for the internet. in my entire lifetime only to concert have featured prog bands (rush,drem theater) both of them being their first and only time in the island. which by the way only has one store with prog music and only if it's some yes and genesis rush and dream theater. so every album i buy comes not only it's original cost but a hefty shipping fee and the fear the album making it to my house damaged(which has happened many times) peace ------------- Me, I'm just a lawnmower - you can tell me by the way I walk. |
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 17:03
|
less albums are being sold obviously but the problem is the people that are doing all the complaining as somebody has already mentioned are big bands like Metallica who earned and still earn plenty from album sales but happen to have lost maybe 20% of their vast record sales and to a band like this it has no effect. The fact is smaller bands who would be effected by downloads don't tend to rely on album sales anyway Live Performance is where all their money is and they gain a larger audience from word of mouth (some possibly coming from downloads) and sell enough merchandise, including albums at the concert to survive and make a profit -------------  
|
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 17:19
Not 100% true, there are some bands in the industry who aren't able to perform live at all or very little but still release albums. Bands that make music in their free time (around work schedules) have a much harder time getting the time to perform with all the different band members schedule. Deluge Grander is one such band and Dan Britton talks about this difficulty in the "Romantic Warriors" DVD that was released earlier this year.
|