Swapping is legal in Canada.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:42 am

TheCops wrote:not only was the audio quality lacking... and it does lack compared to a store bought cd... i was **** people, like me, out of money they earned through sacrifice, diligence, and hard work. (yes, even bad pop tunes are work.)

Umm....HOW? Most artists barely make 1% from CD sales if they're lucky. Where they make the most money is from actual concerts. I admit that I download music (granted, most of it can't be purchased anymore), however I do attend the concerts whenever they're in town. Sorry, I'm not a stupid lemming that just rushes out buying CDs just because of who made it. If I'm going to pay $20 a CD, damn near every song on that CD better be good instead of the typical 1 or 2 plus shitty filler material. Money doesn't grow on trees ya know.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:23 am

Exactly. I will not buy a CD unless I like every song on it. I might be prepared to pay for music on a per-song basis if I get it in high-quality format (MP3~256kbps) and in a format that is open (such as MP3). Not a format that requires dark magic to write to a CD-A, for instance.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:53 am

Its wrong, but I think its good for music in general.

We have too many "manufactured" artists in the industry these days. Christina Agulara, Brittany Spearce, all those boy bands. Did they go into it for the Music? I doubt it. Is â??touch me baby one more time,â?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 8:35 pm

There I thought this was a topic about married couples

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 9:46 pm

the "victims" sign the contract. would you sign a contract without understanding it?

you ain't fighting the record companies... you are not the 7th level dragon warriors fighting against the "man".... get over yourselves. you are rationalizing theft of monies that belong to the creator of a piece of work.

the record companies?

you blame the record companies for the quality of work that is being put out? i blame the idiot cattle that would bother with the "state" of chart music. the record companies target a prime market that is something like the ages of 16-26 last time i checked... that's a judgment issue on the consumers part not the record company.

you idiots give them power by trusting their output... clowns. go see an opera, go check out a local john mayer white-boy, go see a knob turning techno guy, go see a jazz sax player... just stop making up a bunch of excuses.

oh... will you build my website for free, please?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:36 am

So bash, cops...

would you be in favor of this bill? http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5182898.html

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:49 am

Legislation isn't the answer. That just pisses people off and gives them a rationalization for theft. I'd prefer to see a technology solution. Legislation would require a watchdog group, like the RIAA, and that defeats the dream of getting artists to the point where they can handle their own Internet marketing, sales and distribution, thereby cutting out the corrupt recording industry.

Entire albums could be so cheap if they came directly from artist to listener via digital download. Fans would like the price and artists could make a reasonable living, not millions of dollars. If the *star system* was killed, imo, the music would get back to being honest (and a helluva lot more creative) and the variety would be immense. Musicians now have an amazing set of software tools at their disposal to make studio-quality albums at home but it's the distribution and marketing stranglehold of the music industry that stops that music from getting out. The whole *getting signed* thing really just means *getting owned*. But if you don't get signed, you don't get heard.

Giving the music industry bigger teeth and greater authority to intrude on an artist's fanbase to shake them down is not in the artist's interests. In fact it alienates fans for an artist (case in point: the backlash against Metallica). What artists need is a safe method for distributing their works that isn't dependent on the music industry's entrenched distribution channel. Legislation won't provide that; only digital security will.

That's also why the music industry seems to be putting a greater emphasis on tougher copyright laws and expanded invasions of privacy than on digital copy-protection, imo. My guess is they realize that once the artists can produce, promote and protect themselves, there's not much reason to keep those bloodsuckers around.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:33 am

so in a sense, yes?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:39 am

In a sense do I agree with this proposed legislation? No. It's addressing the wrong end of the problem. You want ways to prevent people from stealing in the first place, not ways to hunt them down afterwards. Existing copyright law is sufficient. Copy protection is what needs to be expanded, not law enforcement.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:50 am

so you're okay with copy-protected CD's?

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:10 am

have either of you been helped or hurt by music swapping? i'm not talking stricly internet, have people taken money or put money into your pockets by recording your songs they hear on the radio and sharing the cassette tape with friends as well?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:57 am

Copy-protected CDs? Yes.

Hurt? No, this wasn't an issue when I was an active musician. Copying cassettes took much more effort than your average listener was willing to put in to be prevalent and the results were inferior. For that matter, even making promo tapes was a pain in the azz. It had be done in realtime, one at a time. Talk about getting sick of your own music fast.

I was in gigging bands, not really much opportunity of getting commercial airplay. The record industry pretty much has a monopoly on radio. Colorado is a small market with little chance of being *discovered* (at least it was back then). The studio stuff I've done was mainly to capture where we were before it got too stale and to get bar gigs. But there was always the hope...

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:34 am

kurupt wrote:have either of you been helped or hurt by music swapping? i'm not talking stricly internet, have people taken money or put money into your pockets by recording your songs they hear on the radio and sharing the cassette tape with friends as well?

i love music.
more than you can know... i've studied princes sign of the times and bob dylans live in 1966 more than any religious text. i have to play a guitar at least an hour a day or become real mean.

all i'm saying is... it's a skill, it's an art form. if i could download a copy of a house i wouldn't need the carpenter. it's that simple... your actions DO matter in life.

if you want to fight the “man”... support creativity in music not the marketing. if you think 18 bucks is too much for a cd (i don't agree) find a local guy to support.

just pay for it... or don't complain when someone rips off your services, whatever that may be.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:52 am

Copy-protected CD's infringe on my right to make personal copies of music I have purchased. Copy-protection attempts to make it impossible to rip tracks from a CD and put them on my MP3 player. Remember the whole "mix tape" scandal? Remember that the Supreme Court said that it's legal for someone to "rip" a song from the radio and put it on a tape?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:23 am

thank you for infringing on my fair-use rights just so you can get a few more bucks.

just because of that fact, i choose not to buy your CD. and i won't even bother downloading any of your music, even if it is halfway decent.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:29 am

ferno

you can have my half-drunk music... now what are your skills that i can have for free?

right click me

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:51 am

i kinda suck at web programming... but i'm glad you condidered me.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:08 pm

As I said above, I do think its wrong. But I am not sure your analogy works Cops.

i love music.
more than you can know... i've studied princes sign of the times and bob dylans live in 1966 more than any religious text. i have to play a guitar at least an hour a day or become real mean.

I doubt Ferno has such a passion for web page developing. While I am sure he can find it fun at times, I doubt he does it enough to make a living purely out of enjoyment. I am sure there are days where he has to force himself to get to the computer and do some work. To go more extreme, a lot of people really hate their jobs. They only do it to make a living.

On the other hand it seems like you would play guitar even if no one paid you. Its an art, its a hobby. Real artist don't have to drag themselves to work. Most of the artists I know, consider the money aspect of what they do just another plus, not the reason they do it. While most people seem to work to live, the great artists get to live to work.

So I guess it has more to do with: why should I pay you, if you get great pleasure out of doing it, and if you would be doing it anyway even if I didn't pay you? As opposed to: why should you pay me, if that is the only way you will get my services?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:15 pm

goober, actually i don't do any webpage design as an occupation. i drive for a living.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:54 pm

Copy-protection doesn't mean copy-prevention, it simply means the ability to limit and regulate how often the copies are made. I'm all for fair use and song recovery in case of loss or damage.

Goob, your logic is amazing. You appear to be saying that because someone has been fortunate enough to find a pursuit in life that they enjoy, they deserve no compensation. Work has to be pain to be considered work? Suppose Ferno loves to drive, should he not be paid for his time simply because he's not pissing and moaning about it?

Non-artists have some pretty bizarre ideas about what it takes to create an original work that's actually worth something. It takes alot of time, effort and focus. In a word: work.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:57 pm

why should I pay you, if you get great pleasure out of doing it, and if you would be doing it anyway even if I didn't pay you?

Because by paying him, you make it possible for him to spend more of his time doing it. By not paying him, you ensure that he'll only make what music he can in his spare time -- but if you and every other listener stepped up and bought his music if you liked it, you'd allow him to actually take the time to create more and better music.

Also, because it's just plain RIGHT to pay someone for the work they've done that you benefit from, unless they say otherwise. I don't have to give you some utilitarian reason for WHY it's right -- it just is. To answer the obvious objection, yes, I have offered to pay something to help maintain the DBB.
Take this analogy: I really, really like taking care of little kids. When I have the chance, I'll help out in the nursery at church, and I'd probably babysit anybody's kids if they asked me to -- but it's still RIGHT to pay me to babysit your kids, even though I'd do it for free. Also, by paying me, you make it easier for me to babysit your kids in the future, because I have a little more income so I can spend a little less time working and/or trying to decrease spending.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:04 pm

If downloading music is so bad, how come only three artists at most have complained about it? and why are those artists complaining yet putting out crap?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:12 pm

Goob, your logic is amazing. You appear to be saying that because someone has been fortunate enough to find a pursuit in life that they enjoy, they deserve no compensation.

No Bash, I have said twice that it is wrong up above (first sentence in each of my other posts). I was commenting on, and said so, the analogy that it would be just as wrong to rip off Ferno. That is where I disagree, I disagree in the magnitudes.

Using the waitress example. If my waitress hated her job but still did it 12 hours a day to support her kids at home and put food on the table, I would feel really bad if I came up short and couldn't provide a tip.

Now if there was someone whom truly loved being a waitress, had a passion for serving others, just *had* to spend at least one hour a day doing it or else she would become "real mean." And one day I found that I came up short on the tip, I wouldn't feel as bad, nor consider it as wrong. It probably wouldn't even phase me in the least, afterall, she gets an hourly wage, (contrast with concert revenues). However if I had the money, I would still provide the tip. Because as Lothar said, it is still just the right thing to do.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:44 pm

Note: I removed the waitress analogy since tipping is not compensation, it's a service gratuity, and I felt it risked muddying the waters.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:01 pm

lol! it's become the analogy thread! "i got it austin!"

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 6:21 pm

Gooberman wrote:Using the waitress example. If my waitress hated her job but still did it 12 hours a day to support her kids at home and put food on the table, I would feel really bad if I came up short and couldn't provide a tip.

So would I, considering that waiters/waitresses get paid below minimum wage because they are expected to make up the rest in tips based on the quality of work they provide. If someone were to do a good job serving me, I would leave them the same tip regardless of whether they were living hand-to-mouth or in the lap of luxury.

Gooberman wrote:Now if there was someone whom truly loved being a waitress, had a passion for serving others, just *had* to spend at least one hour a day doing it or else she would become "real mean." And one day I found that I came up short on the tip, I wouldn't feel as bad, nor consider it as wrong. It probably wouldn't even phase me in the least, afterall, she gets an hourly wage, (contrast with concert revenues). However if I had the money, I would still provide the tip. Because as Lothar said, it is still just the right thing to do.

This is where I think your brain takes a vacation. "She enjoys doing it, therefore I can feel less guilty about not providing a tip." Why must it be based on this foggy "everything is relative" concept that attempts to equate job happiness with money?

This waitress analogy is completely off-base. And to make things even more personally sensitive, I'd like to know what a standard tipping rate is where you live Goob. Up here you get scoffed at for anything less than 20%.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:31 pm

concept that attempts to equate job happiness with money?

No, it equates job happiness with the guilt of not being able to provide money. Lets be clear here, my stance has been throughout this thread that it is wrong not to pay (either one!). Given that, you have not made an argument as to why I should feel just as guilty so it is hard to respond. You should do so, and then proceed to insult.

I don't honestly believe that you would feel just as bad not tipping someone whom would be doing his/her job anyway, as you would someone whom is only doing her job just for the tips. In one situation you are negating them of the only reason in which they are there, in the other you are just not providing an incentive in which they desire. Arguing the utilitarian prospective, in one you are providing a greater displeasure, and so it is an act that is more wrong to do.

To respond to your question, I tip 15-20% based on bad or good service respectively. The cost of living is quite a bit different between New York and Arizona.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:51 pm

stop bitchin and i'll buy your music. deal?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:13 pm

Why does "feeling more guilty" amount to a greater wrong? I'm pretty sure there are things that are very wrong we feel very little guilt about, and things that aren't wrong at all that we do feel guilt about, so I don't think that's a good measure.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:23 pm

like?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:33 pm

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through this. You're an adult; you can think for yourself.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:19 am

Heh. I agree with you, Lothar. As soon as I read Goob introduce *feeling guilty* as the test for right or wrong I knew we were headed into Gooberman's Funhouse of Moral Relativity once again.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:22 am

cop-out

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:42 am

bash, wtf?

usually when someone feels bad they know they screwed up and therefore did something wrong.

are you telling us that when you screw up you don't feel bad?

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:04 am

i was asking bash and yourself copsy, becuase i dont know any musicians. i was wondering how much this really affects musicians on a not so grand scale. care to answer like bash did?

i already believe its wrong, and yes i used to do it, amd of there was any good music out lately i probably still would, but i don't really know if it actually hurts someone until i hear someone tell me it has. (someone besides metallica).

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:12 am

Ferno wrote:If downloading music is so bad, how come only three artists at most have complained about it? and why are those artists complaining yet putting out crap?

Probably because they're judging how fans like their tunes by how much it gets downloaded. If nobody wants to download a particular song, fans must think it blows more chunks than a drunk with an uber hangover.

Thats the thing though, whether or not you support song swapping, the RIAA is going about this entirely the wrong way. You don't sue your customers! Particularly potential customers that have downloaded the songs and do want to buy the CD. If you want people to buy more, lower the ★■◆●ing prices! If not that, make the damn things WORTH the high ass prices they ask for. For example, back when Journey released their "best hits" album, I jumped on that as soon as it hit the shelves. However, this wasn't because it had Journey on the cover, but because I had downloaded the entire contents of both CDs and decided that I liked enough of the music that it was worth the $17 price tag. $17 for 31 songs wasn't too bad of a deal, but if I'm going to shell out that kind of cash, I'm damn well going to see if its worth paying for. Thats where P2P comes in. Its an EXCELLENT medium for sampling what's out there as well as making sure a particular song you like on a soundtrack is there. Its also an excellent medium for aquiring songs that you can't get anywhere else. When was the last time you saw the soundtrack to "Gone with the Wind" on store shelves? If it wasn't made within the last 3 or 4 years, you're pretty much SOL. Even if its just lower-quality music, its still better than not being able to sample it at all.

(and before anyone starts bitching at me because I'm a 'thief', may I remind you that I bought the soundtracks to "The Lion King", "The Mummy Returns", "Shrek", "X-Men 2: X-men United" BECAUSE of P2P)

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:49 am

oops, looks like you might have to hold some other hands as well Mr.Lothar. Be careful with John Stuart Mill though, his body parts are known to fall off.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:02 am

we already have the medium for distributing music. add to that a chat system where the music artist can speak directly to the fan, and have a secure payment system tied into the P2P infrastruture for high quality tunes (320kbps, 24bit, 96khz.. mmm), and you have yourself a bonafide system that cuts out the RIAA completely.

that way the artist makes more, and the fan is happier. sell enough songs and you'll have enough to finance your own concert.

The RIAA knows this is it's achilles' heel, and it's fighing like mad to prevent this.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:31 pm

Precisely, Ferno, but that won't solve the issue of unauthorized copying. An arrow won't hit that heel until that is settled. Once artists feel they can protect themselves they will stampede away from the music industry's parasites that have been artificially inflating the cost of music (arguably the biggest rationalization for it's theft). People won't steal when the price is right, imo, or at least not enough of them to make it too big an issue. My concern is people are ingraining habits out of anger toward the masters which will be hard to break when the slaves are freed.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:24 am

so what if there's a few unauthorized copies floating around? if people think the music is good enough they'll pay. besides there is a difference between actual sales and potential sales.

because crying about potential sales is like crying over spilt milk.