| ||
| The Ovation Fan Club | ||
| ||
| Random quote: "I've always felt that blues, rock 'n' roll and country are just about a beat apart."-Waylon Jennings |
 Music mp3 file sharing
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Forums Archive -> The Vault: 2002-2003 | Message format | |
alpep |
| ||
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? | ||
| |||
| Strummin12 |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| an4340 |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| DPM |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
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" | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
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? | ||
| |||
| viking |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Legend-LX-Fan |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Bailey |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| willard |
| ||
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! | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Paul Wag |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Strummin12 |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Strummin12 |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Paul Wag |
| ||
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.... | ||
| |||
| playadamas |
| ||
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! | ||
| |||
| kb5zcr |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Bailey |
| ||
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) | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
| This message board and website is not sponsored or affiliated with Ovation® Guitars in any way. | |
| (Delete all cookies set by this site) | |