|
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Any thoughts on this topic?
Does anyone hear download music off the net via kazaa, napster, itunes, limewire, bear share, etc?
What do you think of the RIAA sueing people that do this? | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | I'm against downloading songs or movies, even with the ridiculous high prices of cds and tix.
That said, I've downloaded a few songs so that I can learn them for gigs, when I didn't need the whole cd, nor wanted a whole cd by that artist. Guilty as charged. I guess that's hypocritcal, but realistically I'm not in a position to buy whole cds at $15+ dollars a clip to learn one song, and then let it sit on the shelf. It would add up to hundreds of dollars. Luckily, most of what we play out, I like, so I have the cd. The local library is a good source too...they often get 2-3 new releases per month.
But I buy cds that I'm interested in listening to for enjoyment. And I especially won't copy/download material done by a local musician trying to make it (i.e. kaki).
Now, though, there are "pay" sites...apple has one which lets you make higher quality downloads from 5 major record companies for 99 cents a song. I will be doing that in the future if I need just one song to learn.
Call it boring, call me a moral bastid. It's hard work to record a song...you're blood and guts go into it, and on a musician's budget it's especially hard. I don't think most people have a clue what goes into it. They think you press record, play, and it's done. But, they'd probably be pretty pissed off if suddenly a week's work/pay (much less a year's work) was stolen from them after they busted ass and passionately put their soul into it. Just because it's accessable, doesn't mean you should steal it.
I, as an artist/musician, feel responsible to adhere (as best I can) to keep good karma and support the arts. The retail prices are high, but there is a choice to just not buy. It's not like you HAVE to have it...like stealing bread because you're starving.
On the flip side...it really sucks having had bought the vinyl of an album in the 60's/70's, then the 8-track in the 70's, then the cassette in the 80's, and now the cd. I'm sure the format will change soon enough, as the record companies are getting rich on me purchasing the same album 4 times in 3 decades!
I'll shut up now.
Johnny | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Ahh one of my favorite topics.
They say the artist looses, but in fact, they do not. It has been argued and proven over and over that someone who downloads a song "MAY" actually buy the CD. The people who download because they can't afford the CD, aren't EVER buying the CD!!! Artists receive money from RECORD SALES. If record companies really cared about artists, more and more would make cheap downloading available. Also there is limited information that downloaded music is actually helped some artists by getting the word out about them. There are many many artists now you have their own releases available for free as teasers to buy their CD.
Sharing MP3's are no different that copying a tape for a buddy, but this is widescale. The bottom line is that the more people hear about your music, the more music you sell.
I laughed when Metallica started this mess. The multi-million dollar corperation called Metallica was complaining because there were something like 20,000 (I don't recall the actual number) downloads of their songs that actually translated into about $2,500 with of sales revenue if each download was available for sale by itself. On the other side of the coin, several artists in recent years have been signed by major labels BECAUSE their music became so popular on download nets. (I need to look up the article on this, it was on the news recently).
The real problem is not sharing, but the fact that people feel the need to share and not pay. If you could affordably and conveniently download the music you wanted, the artists and record companies would become richer than their wildest dreams.
I find it really silly that they are going after downloaders because in many cases, when songs are long out of print, downloading and sharing is the only thing keeping those songs alive. I also find it ironic that the lawyers don't have a problem with USED RECORD STORES who re-sell albums and CD's over and over. The artists only sees a cut from the first retail sale. Here people ARE PAYING for a work and the artist and record company are TOTALLY getting ripped off and no one cares. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | I don't download because I'm not that technologically savvy. I use tapes in my walkman. Anyhow, when I buy music, I only buy used CD's like from half.com. As far as I know, once the CD was sold the first time everyone made their money. Like buying a used book. It keeps ideas in circulation. Why should a CD be different than a book? It's the mass downloading that's a cancer. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | an4340,
I was with you until the last statement about "mass downloading." Obviously someone bought the CD once to make it available. Why is this any different than you buying used CD, which no one but the used CD store makes anything off of, or copying a tape?
Keep in mind my opinion is that the record companies should concentrate more on getting music to their consumers affordably and conveniently than sueing their potential customers. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Interesting opinions. I have downloaded music some of it out of print, some of it live unreleashed music, some of it bootleg, some of it current stuff. Most of the time when it was an artist I wanted to become familiar with, I went out and bought the legit CD.
I personally feel this is a case of the technology not being in sync with the current market structure. The way music is currently distributed has been totally blown to bits by the way the public found a way to distribute it. The music mega giants have to find a way to tap into the file sharing.
Back in the day they were going to tax blank tape because it could be used for copying music and vhs tapes because it could be used for copying video. Well it was never done and those businesses thrive. This too will pass but I am sure without some revisions of how we purchase music.
Think of it this way. if you have ever performed a cover song in public and were paid for your performance you should owe the artist a cut. Has anyone every paid for this priviledge? I doubt it | |
| | |
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 27
Location: North Carolina | The other avenue is check out the local library. Mine has a CD collection that I borrow and I can listen to for free. | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | "File sharing" is theft. You cannot legally or in my veiw morally distibute something you do not own or have the rights to.
If you were a plumber and went round to someone's house & fixed their central heating or whatever & they decided not to pay you for your work you'd sue their ass. Downloading a songwriter's intellectual copyright without paying for it amounts to the same thing. If the originators of the art are not paid for their work "music" ultimately will be fucked. I'm tired of all the "it promotes unknown artists" bullshit. While the technology is as it is "File sharing" is just a free ride for cheapskates & freeloaders. I you want to enjoy someone's art then go buy it. Sorry for sitting on the fence on this one.
Al, music venues pay a license fee to have live performances on their premises, which allows the use of copyrighted material. Your argument doesn't work in this context, the owners of the copyright get payed. Use of cover material for recordings is a different matter and requires individual copyright clearance per song.
As far as music librarys go, you can listen for free, but you cannot legally copy, even for personal use, and you certainly cannot "share" | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Paul
you call the plumber and make an appointment and he comes to your house. Yes you are obligated to pay
There are many radio stations and internet radio stations that play music all day long. they are funded by their advertisers. The advertisers pay for the rights for these stations to play the music that you listen to. If you record it for personal use on the media of your choice how is that stealing?
I can see how it can be argued that a server that has 30,000 MP3s for sharing is a copyright infringement but I do not believe in the long run the artist suffers. although you may think it is bullshit I am a firm believer that the more the music is out there the better it serves the artist.
Radio is so damn commercialized these days that many artists have a hard time getting their music played and that is a fact. As for venues paying the fees for cover material...many of the venues I have played and do play barely pay the musicians and the help let alone and license fees aside from the ones that will immediately shut the doors.
Again, this is an issue of the technology being ahead of the industry. I can take you to a number of local "flea markets" that have bootleg cd's vhs dvd's cassettes etc on any given weekend. These are the people that need to be targeted not some private individual or college student who has no money. what purpose do these lawsuits serve but publicity? | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 19
Location: new jersey | My Son and I have downloaded songs that we wanted
to try and learn how to play. And funny but after
listening to the song from the artist we bought
their CD because we found we liked the group more than we first thought. We don't buy everyone we listen too. But quite a few I think it's a great
resource. Too Bad it's furture is uncertain at best. I quess Power tabs or tabs is next. If you figure out a song and it is exactly right and post it. I guess that would be the same thing someones going to say they can't sell sheet music.
And the group is not getting there cut. | |
| | |
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 1196
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana | Guys, I have a question on this subject. My old computer is not to good at downloading songs, but my good friend downloads hundreds of songs. With these lawsuits floating around, can you be forced to remove songs you have already downloaded from your computer? Thanks | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | I'd like to make a few points that are more questions than answers:
1. I, and many others, have over the years recorded radio, TV, songs that I might want to play, and videotaped many programs for my own enjoyment.
2. I also buy CD's of artists I like, and like many, snap them up when they are released.
3. Today's radio format almost guarantees that many artists will not be played at all, some new, some old. Is the Web a venue for these artists to either be found or, if already known, to be accessed?
4. I think the new pay per song, and I haven't tried them yet, is at least part of the answer.
5. An occasional taping or copying is probably not criminal, but, if every song on your CD's is downloaded and none is bought, you are stealing. The feeling that there is an entitlement to free music is no better than an idea that the Gov't should buy your groceries and pay your rent, does anybody in America believe in such an entitlement? Where could such an idea come from?
6. If such an idea exists, then at least there should be a move to get the Gov't to reimburse the cheated artists if such a right exists.
More questions than answers!
Bailey | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Originally posted by alpep:
If you record it for personal use on the media of your choice how is that stealing?
Al, recording from radio broadcasts for personal use may not be illegal, and at least the copyright owners are getting paid, as the stations have paid for the right to broadcast. What I have a problem with is the unregulated & wholesale distribution of copyrighted work, by persons who do not have the right to do so, to people who just want a free lunch.
Not only is it illegal, it is moraly wrong & is a cancer eating away at the music industry. I have no time for fat cat record execs, but musicians & songwriters, at whatever level, must be paid for their work. The vast majority of this payment is via royalties from SALES of their recordings. Downloading this work for free is effectively stealing their wages. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | The latest buzz is that the RIAA is sueing people that have vast collections of music on their computer for file sharing. This would probably mean mp3s in the thousands. I am not real sure how they will go about it and like I have previously stated they are really just testing the waters here.
taping for personal use is not and has never been a crime as I know it. It is the blatant reproduction and selling of thses works that is criminal. Sorta like when you get a video or dvd or a current movie way before it is commercially released or buying a cd of the latest cd for 2 or 3 bucks at the local flea market or junk store. This is and always will be illegal.
Some artists such as the dead, phish, etc incourage their fans to tape the shows and swap the tapes. Others strictly prohibit this activity. There is no consistency.
For example I always make copies of commercially released stuff for use in my truck. I feel it helps to prevent theft. I find nothing wrong with this.
I guess when I look at my vast collection of 78s, 45s lps cassettes beta vhs dvd cd 8 tracks and reel to reels and the thousands of dollars I have spent for these items, I feel no guilt downloading an mp3 version of say eric clapton playing crossroads which I already have in at least 2 formats that I paid for.
the sale of Used CDs lps dvds etc should also be banned if you follow the logic of the music moguls since they do not get a cut of the money on the resale.
I have a feeling this debate will go on for a long time but I sincerely doubt the big guys will go out of business, they are too entrenched in the marketplace | |
| | |
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 1300
Location: Madison, Wisconsin | I think Bailey has the right idea...Socialized Music :D I can see it now, small, localized, "music clinics" where anyone can go and get a shot of tunes to cure what ever ails them! | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | To hammer in a point, one that Al has been making also, is that there is a lot of COMMERCIAL buisness whos livelyhood is by all reasonable explanation illegal. These are the illegal copy people and the used record and CD people. But, for some reason, the industry has chosen to go after John (or Jane) Q, Customer.
I do not agree that downloading is stealing. If someone wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, then the artist has lost nothing, whereas, if someone hears a song, there is at least a chance it will be bought by someone. Artists make VERY LITTLE off of record sales for the most part. Some get decent deals, but for most artists tours and merchandise pay the bills NOT the records sold.
Although clubs SHOULD pay fees to have live music, most do not. They think they are when they get their license, but I don't see how a $150 a year music license for a club that has live bands 6 nights a week pays anything to anyone but the people that collect the fee which is the TOWN or CITY anyway.
Record companies need to realize they are in the software biz now, and need to get with the program. Personally I think the record company as we knew it is dead and gone. They are affectivly distribution and entertainment companies now. An artist can make a decent living off their own label and alternate distribution networks and really only need the capital of a record company to be a super-star. I think in the near future the "indie" artist will be the norm. Record companies no longer "find" talent and develop it. They either create it, or sell an artists existing work. Yes, on the rare occastion they will actually discover someone, but it is only for thier own PR because that is still what they are "perceived" to do.
On a side note, although not a fan of hip hop, they have the model of the future of music. It seems every successful hip hop artist realizes that his future is based on the new talent he/she can promote. Dr. Dre, Ememem, Fred Durst, all, as soon as they were succsessful, created their own machines to promote other artists. Country music used to do this more, again I'm not a fan of that either. Rock and Roll was all but founded on this model, but somewhere POP music happened, crossed over, and seemingly ended it.
Bottom line. You don't hear any up and coming artists complaining that their music is on MP3.com or Kazaa. They brag about it, they are proud of it comparing # of downloads and using it to get gigs. e.g. "Our latest song has been downloaded over 1000 times on Kazaa" Every download means another possible ticket sale, and another possible purchaser of a CD.
I guess the bottom bottom line is file sharing is out there, and here to stay. I don't think taking legal action against consumers is going to get anywhere and certainly not make the record companies look any better in the eyes of consumers. I think the record companies need to start being the providers as some have. For those of us on AOL, we already get the latest POP artists FOR FREE from the artists as they are released. But that is only TIme Warner artists, but it's a start. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 939
Location: Fort Worth, Texas | Quite interesting and entertaining thread. Just to add my 2 cents....
I don't download music off the Internet via such softwares as Kazaa, etc. Maybe one reason is I don't have (or want to)take the time to deal with downloading and offering up mp3s (allthough I'm not sure what is all involved). Maybe another reason is I don't like the idea of other computers accesing mine. I have downloaded a handfull of songs from the artist's web site that they have offered up, like from Wilco - which if you don't know the story behind "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" check it out some time.
I'm not sure who's side I'm on with this one. Have you seen the commercial running on
US tv from the RIAA showing all the people involved in the industry? It's not just the artist that livliehoods are made from CDs, DVDs, etc.
Maybe it's middle age kicking in, but I find myself buying fewer and fewer CDs - I have some friends that have burned and gave to me for this artist or that and I honestly have never listened too them. I get a lot of my "music fix" these days from playing in a band, going to the Kerrville Folk Festival, singing in the choir, etc. Most of my CD purchases these past few years have been artists I see and buy right from them, like at Kerrville - I bought a CD and t-shirt right from Limpopo and got to meet the band and all. Or finding a low priced CD to replace old vinyl.
Having been a fan of the Grateful Dead for years, I think one reason of thier growing fan base and deadhead devotion for 30 years was that they allowed taping at the performances and embraced thje sharing of those tapes - not quite like downloading copies of a released CD, but similar in nature.
Having started playing in a band around town here, we have come up against the BMI/ASCAP deal. We played in a litlle BBQ joint in a little town west of Fort Worth, they liked us so much they wanted us back once a month, then two weeks later they decided to quit doing live music. I'm pretty sure because they didn't want to pay the BMI fee. I don't know how much that is, but apparently prohibitive to some establishments.
I guess if my band recorded a commercial CD and 1000 downloads were made of a song off of it I would be humbled and pissed off. That would be money I could go out and get a new Adamas with!!
Carry on. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Good points, and I'm just stumbling one item you mention. "That would be money I could go out and get a new Adamas with!!" Geez at 5 cents a song (an average number of what an artist with a REALLY REALLY good lawyer can get) $50 bucks for an Adamas... I don't think so. Besides, would those SAME 1000 people all have bought, or even known about your tune? Remember those 1000 downloads include folks all around the world. Personally if I found one of my songs being downloaded on Kazaa that would be one of my arguments to try and get a record deal. "See... people like my stuff!!!"
I know this is my opinion, and many don't agree. I think that fact in itself, the minions of points of view, means something needs to be done that not only feeds the hunger for music, but also makes use of the virtually untapped resource for artists and the companies that support (term used loosely) them. | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | I think there is a BIG difference between a "new" band promoting themselves through free mp3 file sharing, and an artist who is established having their "cut" of a cd sale stolen from them.
How can you say that just because you were never going to buy a cd anyway, that you have the right to download it. Just because I have no interest in buying a Rolex watch doesn't mean that I have any right to steal one from someone...just because it happens to be laying around and available for me to take.
The fact is that an artist, who has no intention of using mp3 file sharing as a cheap means of promotion, still wants and deserves to get paid for their work. I think the convenience of file sharing makes everyone think it's ok.Generally, it's hard to get caught, so why not?
Al, I do agree with you that making another copy of a cd for yourself to keep in your truck is not wrong. I think the kind of "copying for personal use" that Paul is referring to, is copying a cd from a friend or the library, in order to not have to buy it for yourself, thus ripping the artist off.
Oddly enough, I was surprised long ago, to see a sign in our county public library over the copier stating that copying of sheet music is illegal, except for personal study. They keep the LARGE selection of sheet music in the reference section, which can not be taken out on loan, but can be copied. I wondered about that.
Johnny | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Oh, I forgot...
There has been mention of selling used cd's, and businesses that do so. Granted, this prevents the money from the sale of new cd going to the artist, but they did receive payment from the original sale.
If you were to prevent the sale of used cd's from happening, then the same principle would have to apply to selling everything else used. Garage sales around the world would be illegal, as would junk shops, and used guitar businesses. It just couldn't work that way, and woulnd't make sense.
J | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 939
Location: Fort Worth, Texas | Well, I could get a strap for my Adamas, anyway.
After I buy one from my day job income.... | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 398
Location: So. Cal. | Paul T. - I am with you 100%, it's stealing and it's illegal - END of discussion.
Al, if you own the original (e.g. a CD your bought) you are allowed to make copies as backups (same as software copyright provision). However, we don't own the music being played on the radio, therefore, we CANNOT make copies using the backup rule.
My kids asked me all the time: how can they download music - I tell them NO - you can transfer the CD you own into the computer, that's it!
I am a software developer, so I am sorry this hits a bit closer to home than some. The end does not justify the means, more people will hear your music if more people can get their hands on it - that's simple statistics. If more people were given free Adamas guitars, it'll be the most popular guitar too, but Ovation will be out of business soon.
Just me & my Adamas! | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 19
| Well, here's how I see it. People are going to download free music, there is nothing anyone can do about it. If the riaa continues to sue all the music downloaders then someone will come along and create some software that hides what you are downloading or encript the ip addressed where the files are going, or a hundred other different ways to get around it.
You can call it stealing all you want, but it is still going to happen.
I agree that artist should be paid for their music, but these artist are going to have to figure out that there money is in the performance of there art and not doing it one perfect time on tape and getting paid for life. Maybe that's how it has been in the past but maybe it should change.
Do the Rolling Stones tour because they love being on the road for 15 months at a time? No, they tour because some promoter (Sony I think it was) is willing to pay them 60 million (yes that's right 60 million) dollars to do it. Don't worry, the big artist get plenty of money to play a concert and the little artist doesn't make any money from the record companies anyway. I paid to see Cher in Las Vegas and it cost me $150. I'm sure that Cher got her fair share of that money.
Think of it this way, downloading music is like having your own radio station that plays just the song that you feel like hearing right then. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Every argument here makes some sense. I think technology has changed the climate that we operate in. The phone company solved the problem by allowing access to every phone in the world as long as the phone bill was paid. What if every song download cost 10 cents, 5 cents to the artist and 5 cents to run the system, somebody here said that is what an artist gets from a CD. It would create tremendous opportunities, I would spend all my time recording and placing songs on line, hoping for my 5 cents a song and the opportunity to tour if I became popular, where I would use the old technology to produce my own CDs that I would sell for $15 each, all of which would be mine (I would advertise these on my song site).
I see a new day dawning
I see riches on the way
All I have to do is get to pickin'
And hope people buy what I play
Bailey (copyrighted on the web) | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I didn't quite get your last post Bailey as that is how many many artists make a living. Not sure if you were spoofing, stating the obvious, or I missed the point. Although most sites don't pay the artist anything, there are places like soundramp that allow artists to upload music, it's shared, and A & R folks are always combing the site to see what songs are downloaded most. I think this is a step in the right direction.
I was thinking about this topic a little, looking for a solution of sorts I guess, and was thinking along the lines of artists that wanted to, could give permission for their material to be on Kazaa and the like... then I realized, as many of us forget... Artists RARELY own their recordings. They get a cut or % of royalties from the record company or producer that owns the recording.
I guess all of the solutions involve getting the artist closer to the consumer in the money-chain. Really in this day, record companies are little more than distribution housed for the most part. There are some dedicated "distribution" companies like CMC International which I think is the begining of the next wave. Up until recently, no matter how much capital you had, getting your music INTO a store or on the radio was nearly impossible without a record deal. That is slowly reverting to the old days where you can get your music heard, but it does take some money and patience, two things most artists do not have. Enter the record company and we are back where we started. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Miles
I am dead serious, if radio, TV and other outlets had to go to a central web source as I described, a modern day ASCAP, then as you put your songs on the site you might get played. It would take some FCC involvement, but the present system is dead or dying. The web is full of so called free music that could be distrubuted with payment to the artist. The FCC can't control the web but it can tell radio and TV how to get their music, they do already as Royalties are required when music is played.
The times they are a changing
Bailey | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Thanks Bailey, I see that.
I think it's a good idea too. A lot would have to change, but it's a conversation starter anyway. I think a big issue with radio play is simply that most radio stations have nothing to do with what songs are played. The record companies tell the stations what songs to play and how often, and that is mixed in with commercial demand. There are actually commercials that have requirements to be played before or after artists, or to NOT be played before or after certain artists, along with not before or after news and weather etc. etc etc..
In the DC area it's funny to listen to any of the music stations because although located in technically different markets, Baltimore and DC are in the same listening range. It is not uncommon, as in at almost any given time of day, you can hear the same song on more than one station at a time. It is my understanding that they all use the same software to derive their play lists. I used to commute 1.5 hour each way, and it was funny trying to "get away" from a song that you didn't like. It would be EVERYWHERE on the dial at the same time. It's to the point now that I don't listen to radio anymore for music anymore. I am looking forward to maybe getting XM Radio soon. It seems like the only place to hear a variety of music, or at least if not a variety, it's my choice of genre and artist. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | FYI for those who download. I guess the odds are one in 100,000 of them coming after you. But as the guy at the end of the article says, he knew it was illegal, and of course would not want to hurt anyone, but he did not think thru the consequences. Like when I was living in the suburbs. My train got to the station. Instead of going over a circuitis path and bridge, I decided to save 5 minutes to get to my car by hopping a fence, crossing the inbound track, then hopping another fence. This transit cop appeared out of nowhere chasing me with a gun. He told me that I had ignored a sign and what I was doing was dangerous for myself and others. I told him I would never hurt anyone etc blah blah, and he gave me a summons. I went to court with parole violaters, drunk and disorderlies, wife beaters and pled my case. I told the judge the same story, that I wouldn't hurt anyone, I was tired blah blah ... The Judge laughed, but told me he'd have to fine me $100. It's the law. So for you downloaders, it's theft, just don't get caught because when you go to court it's a pain in the a**. Oh yeah, I have record now so watch, out. If you want to have record too, go ahead. Oh yeah, when the police hear your explanition it sounds like blah blah wah wah like from the Peanuts cartoon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/28/technology/28TUNE.html?th | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Miles
You and many others including me, are marching with their radio dials, and refusing to listen to music that is forced by the producers but not requested by the listeners. The payola scandels are nothing compared to the control of OUR airwaves by record producers. Country music has degenerated into a form of cheap rock that isn't even good rock. I suspect the rock stations are the same. If people refuse to listen then it will have to be corrected, and what I proposed would solve the peoblem. If 20 people request a song, then the station finds it on the web and plays it, no record company involved. Somehow, we have to let the staions, AND THEIR SPONSORS, and the FCC, know that we are fed up with this parody of music selection by producers rather than CUSTOMERS.
I just saw that Napster is coming back with a pay per song Scheme.
Bailey | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | an4340,
Thanks for your post.. you reminded me of one very important point and that is downloading of music IS NOT ILLEGAL. Some may want it to be, some are sueing over it, some have been shut down because of it, but there is no law against it that isn't left up to interpretation. They are using the copyright laws that are long outdated, and in fact didn't cover the advent of music sharing on the internet. This is only PART of the problem. Lets say there WAS a law... well then... that law would only apply in the USA (or wherever the law was applicable) but wait... What if you download from an overseas site, or what about all the music downloaded overseas, or what about music that ARTISTS WANT SHARED (and there are artist who release music themselves on Kazaa and Morpheus.
The more I think about it, it's that the problem is in the interpretation of the current laws and even if current law is applicable, then its enforcement.
To use your example of crossing the tracks...
What if the folks who lived on both sides, got permits and all, and built a foot bridge across tracks. Nice and high for the trains to go under, all legal and approved by all parties Then, you cross using the bridge, you are still breaking the law. The sign states DO NOT CROSS.
Maybe that's not a great analogy, but I like it. DOwnloading is obviously up for debate, but I am more concerned that Consumers are being targeted by Record companies and the artists are STILL not going to get their due. The complaint should not be that people are stealing music, but moreover music is getting into the hands of 1000's of people and the artist is not getting compensation for that. NO matter what happens to the people sued, the artist STILL isn't going to get compensation, and I think that's the problem. | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Great point, Miles.
Johnny | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Paul H.
You asked a good question that wasn't addressed. "My good friend downloads hundreds of songs. With these lawsuits floating around, can you be forced to remove songs you have already downloaded from your computer? "
It really won't matter as they will own his house, and it's contents including the computer. The lawyers who started this (and I'm sure won't be giving any money to the artists) are going after 100's or even 1000's of dollars FOR EACH SONG DOWNLOADED.
After a little more thought on the legal side of things, I guess at some point, someone is going to have to find out if each song downloaded falls into the copyright infringement they are be sued for. There is afterall a lot of royalty free music to download too, and what about bootleg songs. Songs recorded at concerts... and just for fun lets say WITH THE ARTISTS PERMISSION as many artists do now... Someone is going to have to listen to each song a the defendants hard drive.
Hmm... (I'm just amusing myself at this point) If they are using records from the ISP's and you download a song, and the download fails, or the hard drive crashes or lets just say you delete it because you realized it wasn't the song you wanted. What a mess... | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | HOw about this for some food for thought???
I own probably 4000+ lps 300+ 45's 1000+ cd's 200+ pre recorded tapes and maybe 100+ 78's Now if I decide that I own "yellow submarine" for example, on both CD and LP but it is easier for me to download an MPS version than to find the cd and make a copy for myself am I in violation??? | |
| | |
Joined:
January 2003
Posts: 146
Location: Germantown, MD | And yet more food for thought, Al. What about someone who converts his CDs into MP3s for the sole purpose of having more music on a single disk so that he won't have to change disks while driving on long trips? I think it could be argued that the principle applying here is that one can make a duplicate copy of a computer application for backup purposes and can even install the app on two computers provided that the program won't be in use on both computers at the same time. The term "software" is sometimes used to describe music CDs, video and audio tapes, and video DVDs. . . .
It's pretty easy to imagine someone recording old LPs or audiotapes to computer, converting the resulting files to MP3s, and then deleting the original sound files, whatever format. The only way to track this down would be through ISP records.
I've heard copyright explained (with reference to books and articles)as the right to profit from copying. Seriously, if you have paid for a tune in any format, I don't think there would be a problem with making a copy in a different format--even if you owned it in CDA and downloaded the MP3 version to burn to your own CD. Hell, you might even be able to get away with downloading "Sympathy for the Devil" because you once owned the "Let it Bleed" LP, even though a girlfriend kept it when you broke up thirty years ago.
Bottom line: I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV or anywhere else, but it seems like enforcing this against individuals might be really difficult and expensive. RIAA can succeed against Napster and similar entities, but going after individuals is a different matter.
Peace,
John | |
| | |
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 147
| Al,
To be declared ‘not in violation’, you will need to mail a notarized letter of explanation together with a photo copy of the CD, an original receipt showing the name, address, phone number of the retail store, date of purchase and UPC code together with a self addressed stamped envelope to the RIAA.
Mike | |
| | |
Joined:
January 2003
Posts: 146
Location: Germantown, MD | Mike,
This sounds as if you're presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Peace,
John | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Good point Al, I think a lot of us do that. It's much easier for us to grab the mp3 off the net then to go find the CD, album or cassette that we know we have in a box someplace. This really does open a completely different can of worms.
I don't know how many copies you can make for your own use of music, and certainly that depends on if music on a CD is music or software data.
I just read that 4 college students settled for about $12,000 - $18,000 each with RIAA. RIAA initially wanted $100,000 from each. Now keeping in mind the artist is seeing NONE OF THIS money lets do some math.
If each student downloaded only 1000 songs (I'm sure it was more, but you'll see why I'm just using 1000 in the end.) That's 4000 tunes for lets say 4 x $15,000 or $60,000. I picked $15,000 cause it's in the middle of what the settlement per student was. Anyway, that works out to $15.00 per song. It was meant to send an example, but I really fail to see what example other than lawyers are greedy. In reality if the students were made to pay for these songs, at the artist royalty rate (which doesn't go to the artist either in most cases... but lets just say).. Each of the four owe about $50.00. Remember downloads are per/song, and royalties are paid per/album, so saying 5 cents per song royalty is really one helluva deal as that is closer to what is left to an artist per album. That's why artists tour. I don't agree with the royalty breakdowns by the way, I think THAT is something that really should be addressed by lawyers first. Artists get "screwed 18 way to sunday" (whatever that means). | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Originally posted by MSB:
Al,
To be declared ‘not in violation’, you will need to mail a notarized letter of explanation together with a photo copy of the CD, an original receipt showing the name, address, phone number of the retail store, date of purchase and UPC code together with a self addressed stamped envelope to the RIAA.
Mike
And how many of us keep all the original reciepts for EVERYTHING we own. That is very unreasonable. I think just producing an LP CD etc would be proof enough.
LIke I have said in the past this is an issue of the industry not in tune with the technology. Who started napster? some kid in a college dorm that thought it would be cool to be able to trade music with his friends. So like so many good ideas, it turned into a monster and then the suits figured there must be a way to tap into it and to make money. This is not a bad thing it is just a difficult thing to have everyone agree on.
Sueing the end user is like sueing the "john". It sorta makes sense but both parties are at fault.
Look at it this way. If you have a trampoline in your back yard and do not have a fence with a lock on it and some kids come into your back yard play on it and get hurt they can sue your insurance because you had an "attractive nusiance" on your property that was not properly fenced etc. If you have a gate and a lock and they climb over the fence or cut through the fence or break the lock then they are tress passing.
If the software is out there it is a attractive nusiance. Go after the websites and the people the wrote the programs. If you put up a fence with a lock (charge money for the downloads) then if some one hacks it you can go after them.
I know this is just rambling and all hypothetical. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Yet another aspect emerges Al, speaking of Napster.
The very original intent was the development of peer-to-peer or P2P file sharing technology. During the initial development the orignal group which included a few more people than the two that went on to found Napster, needed something to test with. It just seemed to make sence to send their mp3's back and forth instead of just some random documents. And the idea of Napster was born.
I wrote a letter to my Congressman (it made me feel better) that instead of the industries embracing the ground breaking technology developed by a few college students, they were out to get every penny from them. I was seeing the efforts of the creativity of those founders being punished, and that's just sad. They basically perfected a technology that Microsoft, Novell, Cisco, and the other big players (including the #1 developer of online technology the porn industry... sorry but true) had been working on for years. Here's a thought Mr. Gates or even "CBS and Warner Bros, RCA and All the others" if you are listening. What about for every file downloaded, no matter the artist or service (Napster, Kazaa, Morpheous), you each add 1 penny, just one cent for each download, to help fund Health Insurance or other similar programs currently only available to only to signed artists. Maybe when you download a song, you can select what program you want the resultant penny to go to. Gee this would promote artists, promote record companies, get the music out and heard... everybody is happy, and the "donators" get huge tax writeoff's instead of spending money on Lawyers with nothing going to artists.
Here is a link to The History of Napster with some other really good info.
Life is a Rock, but the Radio rolled me!!
Yes I know all of the words... or I used too anyway. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | I still say the solution is a small price per song going to the artist (not the record producer). If lawyers are allowed to participate the technology will be ruined by litigation. I say a small fee is preferable to years of litigation, I'm not sure of the mechanics but that is what is being worked out as we speak. All of this activity is taking place on computers many of which, including mine, are more powerful than the Univac 1108 that ran General Atomic when I worked there in the 60's and 70's. I am positive that the bookkeeping can be worked out and that competition will keep the prices down. It, file sharing, has turned into a great technolgy, and only needs to be tweaked to advance it from the way to steal someones productivity to a glorious way to distribute music.
Bailey | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 299
Location: Netherlands | Doesn't anyone feel the music industry has developed itself like the dino's? In my opinion, if they don't adapt to the MP3 filesharing business, they will, sooner or later, become obsolete. It is so easy for recording artists these days to record to MP3 and distribute their own files (see MP3.com etc.).
Music industry mostly consists (in my opinion) of a lot of dead wood who cost a lot of money, making cd prices go up. Internet is a fabulous way to advertise in a friendly, yet cheap way, and more and more youngsters are getting this. Unfortunately, the music biz does not.
If record companies would focus more on quality and less on advertising in marketing campaigns it would be a lot cheaper to buy the cd's.
Some more thoughts: some have argued in this thread that downloading MP3's (in certain cases) is a violation of copyright laws. How many of them typed their message on a computer with only registered software on it?
I personally like MP3's. They make it possible for me to get into new music, listening and asking myself the question 'would i buy this?'. If the answer is yes, i buy it. If the answer is no, it's often because i don't like the music and i dón't see any use in keeping the file either. In that view, the record companies should be glad they have a lot of free advertising.
And another thing, more related to this board. I am also a member of groups.yahoo.com/gt-3/ where owners of the gt-3 effects processor got together mostly thanks to the bad manual Roland supplied with it. One of the guys (Barry Pearce) wrote a new manual for it, and the groups focuses on exploring the thing in fabulous ways. It has been going on for 5 years or so and new topics are drying up. Lately however, we have started to criticize each others sounds, songs, recordings etc. which were made with the GT-3. There even is a GT-3 station on MP3.com right now.
I could imagine an MP3-section on this board would be nice to share 'home-made' music and learn from each others Ovation-Playing skills.
Just some thoughts. Sorry if i don't get to the point too quickly, but i'm no native speaker of english.
Martin | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Bailey I'm withya on this, but there are some other issues with "The solution is a small price per song going to the artist (not the record producer)."
All of the idea's we've come up with, are not that difficult to impliment on their own, but they all seem to have problem areas. In this example the problem area is that in most cases, especially if there is a producer involved with the artist, the artist is in breach of contract to receive any money directly in the process of promotion. On the other hand, how does an unsigned artist get their money? Maybe they have to register, but then there is the issue of how do they split it up if it's a group. That's why I went for the more "give it to programs that benefit artists" approach.
At some point it would be interesting to go through this thread and just make bullets of all the issuies involved with this topic. Doesn't matter pro or con, just all the things to consider. Somthing that seems so simple really isn't. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | I reread that article from the Times (see previous post) and something called Peer-to-peer swapping is legal, and what's going on regarding the mass downloading, is that the record companies are making a case that the mass downloading is illegal with legal scholars mostly on the side that it is illegal. My gut says it's illegal, but, I guess once these lawsuits are sorted out we'll know for sure. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | according to tech tv people with as few as 5 songs on thier list have been cited.
I wish I could write code I would put up a site and call it the cyber juke box and charge for each download etc. there has to be a way to make money out of this instead of fighting join in and cash in. | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 299
Location: Netherlands | Here in the Netherlands there was an experiment sometime ago, you could burn your own CD and payed 1 euro or so per song in the recordstore.
It didn't work however because everybody is freeloading.
Martin | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | A lot of good thought rattling around here!
Miles, I oversimplified when I said "to the artist". The thought in my mind was that certain web sites would replace record/CD producers in that they would produce and record and promote promising artists the way record producers do today, but the product would be distributed over the web. The word "juke-box" seems very relevant, and that could be a facet of distribution, computers in bars plugged in to the web, when you put in your buck, up comes a search engine for any song you've ever heard. Or, a menu of song categories etc.. No CD exists the songs come right off the web like all songs do in this model imaginary world. If somebody heard Paul T. play on some tour, and he/she knows the song title and artist, out of the jukebox comes Paul T. or Alpep or who knows. This feature would have to be used carefully, an ancient Tiny Tim song played in a honky tonk in west Texas might cause a ride out of town on a rail with a suit of tar and feathers. | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 1380
Location: Central Oregon | I'm glad T.T. didn't Tiptoe Through the Tulips playing an Ovation Uke.
I have to say I really miss Johnny though.....
I don't really have an opinion on the issue at hand, but I can see one major problem with most all of the proposed solutions given- I don't think any of them left room for a lawyer to make money in one way or another. They will never stand for that.
Nils | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Nils
I could visualized a lawyer playing that Tiny Tim song in a west Texas honky-tonk. That certainly gives them a part to play in this scheme. The only variance would be that they might suffer that 19th century Texas custom of displaying societies dregs hanging from some prominent landmark, the honor of the ride out of town with the usual ceremony would not normally be given to those with an LLD. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Bailey,
There are already online only record companies, and several outlets like you descibed. I just read a brosure from DiskMakers (the people that repro disks) that you can actually have them distro your product after printing. In Europe, many DJ's in clubs no longer carry boxes of CD's or Albums ('cept for scratching) they just download the playlist. You can request really just about any song. Some use pay services to downloan, others just go find it. A networked jukebox it already in existance, but on a smaller scale in many resturants and hotels. For that choose to use it, the tools are already there. | |
| | |
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 34
Location: Yerington,NV | Way to go Paul! I could'nt have said it any better! | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Miles and all
It appears that the revolution has started and that the web may BE the future of music, it is up to us to make it happen. ALL of you board members think about it and propose YOUR solution. Some of them will be right and change the face of music distribution. Don't be afraid to propose the most wild ideas, we wouldn't have a laptop if every body thought a Univac 1108 was the final step in computer evolution. ( I worked in a company that had one and all the operators told us we would never be worthyn of that behemouth). | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 299
Location: Netherlands | And it's happening sooner&faster than we think.
Ever thought of typing in www.jukebox.com
Brings you to yahoo launchcast. you can put together your own music station and buy the titles you like. It's what I always play at work, sitting behind my computer.
Martin | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2003
Posts: 63
Location: Dallas, GA, USA | So, regarding the legalities of d/ling music, since you guys say that even if the material is deleted people are still being tracked down by ISP records, what is the average Joe to do if he downloaded some music before, but decided it's wrong to do so? He just sits back and waits for the letter in the mail? This is not about me specifically, but it's worth talking about. They're running ad campaigns telling us "Don't download music, it's stealing" but it seems that if a person saw the ads, stopped downloading, and deleted the music he could still be fined if they decide to target him. | |
| | |
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Just to clarify, if a recording is "deleted" i.e no longer available for sale, because a record company chooses not to make it available, that does not change it's copyright status. The only material that can legally be distributed, copied, or recorded without permission from the owners is that which is classified as "Public Domain" Material becomes public domain if the copyright expires, or a number of years after the death of the originator or copyright holder unless the rights are assigned. The really cool thing is that if you record a public domain song and claim "Trad.Arr" or "public domain" you get the songwriting royalties as if you were the original writer. Start hunting.
Or did you mean deleted from the hard drive? It's been a long day. | |
| | |
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Hey Paul
At my age all the songs I know are public domain. I intend to start a flurry of recording, folllowed by, I hope, great riches. I'm sure you all would buy a mandolin version of Sweet Adeline, done, of course, in two string harmony. Or Down by the Old Mill Stream in reggae style done on a Viper as Marley might have done. Sloop John B has already been stolen, but I visualize a rap version that will shoot right to the top of the charts and above like a roller coaster car that overshoots the highest hill and falls like your worst nightmare.
Bailey (now that I know the secret, I will buy up every vintage Ovation with my riches. Bid, and the world bids with you, bid high and you bid alone.) | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Two more thoughts came to mind....
1. Newsgroups. Still the place to get the best music and movies. Was around long before Napster and similar were born. Why is are the the customers of the file sharing technology the only targets?
2. I predict that within the next 6 months to a year, a Napster or Kazaa like site will be setup overseas in a country that does not care about USA laws like copyrights. The users will not be able to be tracked (that's easy enough now). Only then will the record industry finally see that they need to stop fighting the symptoms and cure the disease. In other words start providing affordable and uncomplicated ways to provide music, by single song, to it's consumers on the internet.
It's just a prediction, but it seems the only logical next step. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Miles
IS our trip to the islands still on??? | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2003
Posts: 63
Location: Dallas, GA, USA | Originally posted by Paul Templeman:
Just to clarify, if a recording is "deleted" i.e no longer available for sale, because a record company chooses not to make it available, that does not change it's copyright status. The only material that can legally be distributed, copied, or recorded without permission from the owners is that which is classified as "Public Domain" Material becomes public domain if the copyright expires, or a number of years after the death of the originator or copyright holder unless the rights are assigned. The really cool thing is that if you record a public domain song and claim "Trad.Arr" or "public domain" you get the songwriting royalties as if you were the original writer. Start hunting.
Or did you mean deleted from the hard drive? It's been a long day.
Yeah, I meant deleted from the hard drive.
I can relate to the long day thing. I think somebody crashed a turnip truck in front of the shop; I only dealt with about 3 intelligent customers all day... :) | |
| |
|
Music mp3 file sharing