Should music be free?

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

After this I will never give the music industry another cent of my money. They want to screw me and take away prettymuch the main way they advertise new music to me, plus some of my only musical entertainment here in Blacksburg (radio here sucks) then I will screw them right back and stop buying CD's. From now on I'll download off gnutella, kazaa, or whatever p2p program is popular that week and not even consider buying the cd. I used to download mp3's and then pay for the CD's that I thought were worth paying for... now I'll download anything I feel like and if I think it's good I'll download the entire cd's worth of mp3's and burn them myself.

And I don't need to hear any arguments about the musicians not getting paid... if they really cared about the consumer instead of just some paycheck they could have stood up and said something while the decision was being made (yes they did know about what was going on before the ruling)

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: eLiTeGoodGuy1
After this I will never give the music industry another cent of my money. They want to screw me and take away prettymuch the main way they advertise new music to me, plus some of my only musical entertainment here in Blacksburg (radio here sucks) then I will screw them right back and stop buying CD's. From now on I'll download off gnutella, kazaa, or whatever p2p program is popular that week and not even consider buying the cd. I used to download mp3's and then pay for the CD's that I thought were worth paying for... now I'll download anything I feel like and if I think it's good I'll download the entire cd's worth of mp3's and burn them myself.

And I don't need to hear any arguments about the musicians not getting paid... if they really cared about the consumer instead of just some paycheck they could have stood up and said something while the decision was being made (yes they did know about what was going on before the ruling)

maybe they agree with the music company or don't care. and because of that, your justified in stealing from them. um right.....


kmart/walmart probably sell goods made from child labor.. time for righteous aters to shoplift!!


your arguements are stupid..most simply. stop using their product entirely or your a hipocrite.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do you expect your favorite performers to get up in the morning and flip burgers all day, just to run home and jam in their garages with web cams rolling to entertain you all night, all for no pay?

Do you have any idea how much work is involved in getting good enough to compete on the highest levels of music?

Do you have a clue about what it costs to produce not only the disks, themselves, but the recordings, including the cost of the equipment and studio space, the artwork, the promotion, and all the other jobs involved in getting one song, or one album noticed, let alone sold?

Great idea, until the musicians, and everyone involved in the business of presenting their art, starve to death... MORON! :|

Of course, you are involved with the music industry. 😉

Please tell us - how much DOES it actuially cost to produce a successful album? Is it reallly worth the $16 the consumer finally pays?

And don't you think there is just a little greed and "fat" in the recording industry? And perhaps they are a little 'behind the times' in their business model?

And perhaps more than a little stupid in not using the 'net as a promotional tool?

And while you're at it, address the CORRUPTION and PAYOLA scandals they are prone to.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do you expect your favorite performers to get up in the morning and flip burgers all day, just to run home and jam in their garages with web cams rolling to entertain you all night, all for no pay?

Do you have any idea how much work is involved in getting good enough to compete on the highest levels of music?

Do you have a clue about what it costs to produce not only the disks, themselves, but the recordings, including the cost of the equipment and studio space, the artwork, the promotion, and all the other jobs involved in getting one song, or one album noticed, let alone sold?

Great idea, until the musicians, and everyone involved in the business of presenting their art, starve to death... MORON! :|

Of course, you are involved with the music industry. 😉

Please tell us - how much DOES it actuially cost to produce a successful album? Is it reallly worth the $16 the consumer finally pays?

And don't you think there is just a little greed and "fat" in the recording industry? And perhaps they are a little 'behind the times' in their business model?

And perhaps more than a little stupid in not using the 'net as a promotional tool?

And while you're at it, address the CORRUPTION and PAYOLA scandals they are prone to.

not to mention that good records have to cover the cost of failed ones. or did you think the failure fairy came and made everything alright after your record bombs😛


anyways, if you think an industry is corrupt,it doesn't justify theft.

 

[apoppin]

not to mention that good records have to cover the cost of failed ones. or did you think the failure fairy came and made everything alright after your record bombs😛

That is the problem with the way the music industry is set up. They are always looking for "hits" - the 'next big thing'. They don't care to support awesome (if less popular) artists - just their own industry.

IF they reorganized and used the Internet as a promotional tool (like many successful Indie labels are doing), there would be far less failures.

That said, I don't think music should be "free" and artists and producers should be paid. I am. however, attacking the music industry's faults, corruption and greed. If their business model was sound (pun) and up to date, they wouldn't have to run crying to lawmakers for help in protecting themselves.

EDIT: I am not justifying "theft" by the RIAA's corruption. But d/l'ing a song without paying for it is not necessarily "theft" any more than copying it off the radio is.

 

[AShadeOfClear]

XXX company is "bad" so i won't support this artist.

I disagree, XXX is always good. But on to more serious things..

 

[Nefrodite]

well then, you should be really complaining to the politicians to push for industry regulation. of course most pirates don't vote or are too busy pirating🙂


as for what artists? if you suck you bomb, i'm sorry😛 if the times not right for your record, yes you also bomb. but what can you do.. its a free market. i might think a film like AI is great, but many people disagree with me. its basically like that😛

EDIT: I am not justifying "theft" by the RIAA's corruption. But d/l'ing a song without paying for it is not necessarily "theft" any more than copying it off the radio is.

Edit: well the main difference being a radio copy is no where near perfect while an mp3 is basically indistinguishable if done right. especially when you download an entire album. try doing that off radio, you'll get so tired you'd give up after a few weeks😛

 

[Amused]

The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

Originally posted by: eLiTeGoodGuy1
After this I will never give the music industry another cent of my money. They want to screw me and take away prettymuch the main way they advertise new music to me, plus some of my only musical entertainment here in Blacksburg (radio here sucks) then I will screw them right back and stop buying CD's. From now on I'll download off gnutella, kazaa, or whatever p2p program is popular that week and not even consider buying the cd. I used to download mp3's and then pay for the CD's that I thought were worth paying for... now I'll download anything I feel like and if I think it's good I'll download the entire cd's worth of mp3's and burn them myself.

And I don't need to hear any arguments about the musicians not getting paid... if they really cared about the consumer instead of just some paycheck they could have stood up and said something while the decision was being made (yes they did know about what was going on before the ruling)

maybe they agree with the music company or don't care. and because of that, your justified in stealing from them. um right.....


kmart/walmart probably sell goods made from child labor.. time for righteous aters to shoplift!!


your arguements are stupid..most simply. stop using their product entirely or your a hipocrite.

You know, if it were possible to stop using their product completely I might consider it... too bad every single place I go has it all around me. Go to any store, mall, or restaurant... RIAA's products being played there. Watch TV, more music. Movies... more music. It's pushed on you wherever you go now. Music is a part of life, has been for a long time, telling me to "stop listening" is almost as ignorant as saying "stop breathing" or "stop eating". If artists agree with the music companies, like I said, that's fine with me. I'll download the songs I feel are worth hearing and not feel any qualms whatsoever about doing it. With one exception - indie bands. I can go out to a club or bar, pay $5 door charge, and hear much better music than what is coming out from the music industry lately. If they have a CD for sale (usually ~$8-$10) I will seriously consider buying it. I know that the money made from that CD goes right into the pockets of the band members, and usually covers the costs of materials, recording time in a studio, instruments, and STILL leaves some profit. I know 2 separate bands and have talked to them about how much making a CD costs when not mass producing 500,000 copies and also not having the discount that the RIAA has. An independent band can make a CD (if they get 1000 or more copies) for about $5 a CD, if not less. Anyways I'm getting off my topic here, if the music industry cares more about stopping anything they can't charge then I will not even stop to wonder if I'm keeping food off of someones table next time I download an mp3. And until they reevaluate the entire system I will not change my way of thinking. Of course I'm still waiting to hear even 1 single good argument as to why I should be paying for CD's. The big one I see being thrown around is "artists need to get paid so they can keep making more music." Yes that's true... but not from CD sales. Virtually 99% of the profits from CD's go right to the RIAA... the only time artists make money working for them is through concerts... that's where the artists make their money, and yes I do pay for many concerts, so in a sense I'm giving my money directly to the artist and cutting out the middleman.

 

[Nefrodite]

Personally, I don't feel music shoudl be paid for. The personal satisfaction of creating and having an audience for an artists music shoudl be enough reason to create music.

maybe i should refer you to a book by Karl Marx eh? doctors and surgeons shouldn't be paid anymore then a janitor. after all, if their heart is in the right place, they are doing it out of love and compassion, not money. this applies to all jobs, you must do it out of love and compassion, so all people should be paid exactly the same. yes, communism.

movie producers should have people donate milions of dollars of man hours/materials into creation of movies. and distribute these movies for free. communities should all pay to support a free theater. everything should be free!!


you...are a moron if you believe artists aren't in it for the money. i'm sure a ton of new innovated world changing music has come out of places like the former USSR and China right? right?? artists don't NEED money. you don't NEED money. hell, you don't NEED music.


MORON!!

 

[fr]

I just paid more than $30 for an album. It was worth it because I like the music. It was an import though.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

It's only theft if getting it robs the owner of something physical. By getting a song off gnutella you are not stealing anything from the owner since nothing physical changes hands. A copy of data is just that... a copy. The owners personal inventory has not diminished at all.

Do you have any idea how much work is involved in getting good enough to compete on the highest levels of music?

Not much in the "new" music industry. All it takes now is a pair of fake tits, a bit of dancing ability, and someone high up in the industry to recognize that you'd look good lip singing to a song. I know I'm not the only one to realize that the majority of new acts are lip singing, plastic surgeried puppets put on stage only to make a profit. True musicians are being overlooked more and more because they don't "look like a superstar." All of the old musicians looked like sh!t! It used to be about skill, when did that idea get flushed down the crapper? Watch Fox's American Idol if you want to see something that will make you want to vomit. Paula Abdul herself, a musician that started out looking like ass but with good talent who eventually made enough cash to buy her operations to look good, was in the judges booth telling people that "you're one of the best singers I've ever seen, but you just don't look like the person people want to see on stage." WTFH is that??? What happened to real music?

 

[AShadeOfClear]

The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

Look, I didn't want us to get dragged into a debate over whether or not its stealing. It is stealing, thinking in terms of our society's laws. But it may or may not be stealing on a personal level according to a person's views and philosophy.

I read an article that said downloading music is not stealing because our society is redefining what stealing is to exclude intellectual property. Pepole are changing the status quo, sending a message to the industry and letting them know that they will have to find some other way to make money. That article was written during the Napster days and obviously p2p has lost steam since then.

 

[Nefrodite]

An independent band can make a CD (if they get 1000 or more copies) for about $5 a CD, if not less. Anyways I'm getting off my topic here, if the music industry cares more about stopping anything they can't charge then I will not even stop to wonder if I'm keeping food off of someones table next time I download an mp3. And until they reevaluate the entire system I will not change my way of thinking. Of course I'm still waiting to hear even 1 single good argument as to why I should be paying for CD's. The big one I see being thrown around is "artists need to get paid so they can keep making more music." Yes that's true... but not from CD sales. Virtually 99% of the profits from CD's go right to the RIAA... the only time artists make money working for them is through concerts... that's where the artists make their money, and yes I do pay for many concerts, so in a sense I'm giving my money directly to the artist and cutting out the middleman.

oh yea, of course, $5 dollars a cd? i can beat that. i sell you a recording of my awesome skillz for 50cents + postage. why? because i have little production/distribution costs, and therefore i'll sell very little. your indi band sells very little because they invest very little. you understand? big music has costs that range from marketing to music videos. and no, 99% doesn't go to the RIAA, you are on crack when you say something baseless like that. the pie is cut many ways yes, but those people feed their families too.

do artists that sell well get paid millions? yes, do some that dont' sell that that well have gripes with the industry? ofcourse. are there some problems, yes, but for the most part, if you become a mega star, you get mega pay. mariah even got paid millions to end her contract early😛


and frankly, just because you hear RIAA music "pushed" on you by the "media" doesn't mean you have no choice but to steal it. thats the weakest arguement you could probably think of.

and really? until they change their ways to suit your fantasy ideal you'll continue stealing because its simply easy? ah yes thats the ticket.

 

[Nefrodite]

It's only theft if getting it robs the owner of something physical. By getting a song off gnutella you are not stealing anything from the owner since nothing physical changes hands. A copy of data is just that... a copy. The owners personal inventory has not diminished at all.

right, and i suppose patents are just stupid aren't they, after all its just an idea. i'm sure drug companies would spend millions developing new drugs out of the goodness of their hearts.

Not much in the "new" music industry. All it takes now is a pair of fake tits, a bit of dancing ability, and someone high up in the industry to recognize that you'd look good lip singing to a song. I know I'm not the only one to realize that the majority of new acts are lip singing, plastic surgeried puppets put on stage only to make a profit. True musicians are being overlooked more and more because they don't "look like a superstar." All of the old musicians looked like sh!t! It used to be about skill, when did that idea get flushed down the crapper? Watch Fox's American Idol if you want to see something that will make you want to vomit. Paula Abdul herself, a musician that started out looking like ass but with good talent who eventually made enough cash to buy her operations to look good, was in the judges booth telling people that "you're one of the best singers I've ever seen, but you just don't look like the person people want to see on stage." WTFH is that??? What happened to real music?

funny you complain about the quality of music as a justification to steal it. if its so cr@ppy you wouldn't want to steal it at all. and american idol? if the music system were free as you'd want, we'd all be judges of american idol, searching through hundreds of thousands of mediocre wanna be's. and frankly, the only reason those people are on american idol is because they weren't good enough to get a contract right off😛

 

[apoppin]

Edit: well the main difference being a radio copy is no where near perfect while an mp3 is basically indistinguishable if done right. especially when you download an entire album. try doing that off radio, you'll get so tired you'd give up after a few weeks😛

I can tell the difference between a CD and the MP3 even at a higher bit rate. Plus you get the Jewel case, liner notes and whatever else is included. Radio is going digital soon, btw.

The problem with radio - part of which is control by the music industry - is that way way too few artists and and albums are played. If the RIAA could see the Internet as another promotional tool, we wouldn't be having a problem. Their problem is with (greed) trying to control everything.

And d/l'ing a song off the 'net is not necessarily "stealing". Again it depends - there are the true pirates who never buy anything and just d/l album after album (we have heard from them today - in my view that is unjustifyable stealing). But I will never agree with the RIAA who would like to criminalize anyone who previews a song from the net.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear

The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

Look, I didn't want us to get dragged into a debate over whether or not its stealing. It is stealing, thinking in terms of our society's laws. But it may or may not be stealing on a personal level according to a person's views and philosophy.

I read an article that said downloading music is not stealing because our society is redefining what stealing is to exclude intellectual property. Pepole are changing the status quo, sending a message to the industry and letting them know that they will have to find some other way to make money. That article was written during the Napster days and obviously p2p has lost steam since then.

Bullsh!t. The artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.

This has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with morality.

This whole "philosophy" is just attempted justification for theft and the twisted sense of entitlement that seems to be running rampant in our society.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eLiTeGoodGuy1

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

It's only theft if getting it robs the owner of something physical. By getting a song off gnutella you are not stealing anything from the owner since nothing physical changes hands. A copy of data is just that... a copy. The owners personal inventory has not diminished at all.

More justification for theft.

Again, the artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: eLiTeGoodGuy1

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
The sense of entitlement in America today is simply amazing.

AShadeOfClear seems to want the entire world to be his little slave... entitling him to the fruits of their labor and talent for free.

Grow up. They can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you are NOT entitled to it. Having a copy for free is theft, pure and simple.

It's only theft if getting it robs the owner of something physical. By getting a song off gnutella you are not stealing anything from the owner since nothing physical changes hands. A copy of data is just that... a copy. The owners personal inventory has not diminished at all.

More justification for theft.

Again, the artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.

bingo, his philosophy is half baked. he should examine his premises carefully, as they don't really support his conclusion.

and yea the same arguement can be basically made by any shoplifter. i'm not robbing the maker of this product..after all, it gets absorbed into the costs of this evil mega store.... the original manufactuerer still gets paid, i feel so much better.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

oh yea, of course, $5 dollars a cd? i can beat that. i sell you a recording of my awesome skillz for 50cents + postage. why? because i have little production/distribution costs, and therefore i'll sell very little. your indi band sells very little because they invest very little. you understand? big music has costs that range from marketing to music videos. and no, 99% doesn't go to the RIAA, you are on crack when you say something baseless like that. the pie is cut many ways yes, but those people feed their families too.

Do you know anything at all about an independent band making a CD? The costs associated with it are huge for a group of a few people that are doing it because they actually care about making good music. The costs associated with Big Music making a CD? Just a drop in the bucket. What do they have to pay for? Recording studio time? They own the studios. Marketing? Clearchannel is part of the RIAA, they own the majority of the radio stations the advertise the music. Yes money is changing hands, but it's just being shuffled around inside of the RIAA. MTV airtime? Part of the RIAA. Pressing the CD/raw materials? Huge discounts from the plants that actually do the work. The cost of pressing the CD plus raw materials ends up trickling down to about $1-$2 per CD. Yes making a CD costs money, but when every part of that process is owned and operated by the RIAA it's like me taking the money out of my left pocket and put into my right. So no, I am not smoking crack. 99% of the profits do go to the RIAA. Read up on some of the articles that musicians have written in the past about the money associated with the buisness. Courtney Love had a very good one about a year and a half ago about how artists get screwed on the production of CD's. Quoted from her herself, artists only make $0.50-$1 per CD they sell. Hell, look at TLC if you want to see an extreme example. Back when they made the CD that had Waterfalls on it (multi platinum CD) they were paid $35,000 (thousand, not million) for their work on the CD. Counting the costs to make a CD in the RIAA, including EVERYTHING, even the money shifted from one part of the group to another it costslittle more than $5 per CD. Where does the rest of your $18 go for that CD? Right into the pockets of the CEO and other board members.

do artists that sell well get paid millions? yes, do some that dont' sell that that well have gripes with the industry? ofcourse. are there some problems, yes, but for the most part, if you become a mega star, you get mega pay. mariah even got paid millions to end her contract early

Why did Mariah get paid so much to end her contract early? Her CD's were still making money. It was because she wasn't making ENOUGH profit for the RIAA. They wanted to clear the space on shelves and make some more room during airtime to put in another commercial for some new band. Artists that sell well get paid millions from the concerts they play. Or the shirts they sell. Profits from CD's are crap for them. Even the big artists have gripes with the industry. Noone but the big wigs behind desks are satisfied. Why's that? Because they call all the shots, tell people what to record (so much for self expression through music), even tell people what to say and how to dress. If an artist doesn't like the way it works, they are shown the door and told to get the fsck out.

and frankly, just because you hear RIAA music "pushed" on you by the "media" doesn't mean you have no choice but to steal it. thats the weakest arguement you could probably think of.

I like how you try to twist my words around to make me sound like I said something I didn't. You told me that if I didn't like the system I should stop listening. I said that it wasn't possible to stop listening to music. It is something I enjoy and pay for it when payment is justified. I don't steal from the artists, they are paid when I go to their concerts. The only people I'm not paying are the people that don't deserve my money. Telling me my argument is weak and not justifying it is one of the weakest rebuttals I've heard in a while.

and really? until they change their ways to suit your fantasy ideal you'll continue stealing because its simply easy? ah yes thats the ticket.

I've already addressed this twice, if you can't understand the point I'll not make it a third time.

 

[apoppin]

More justification for theft.

Again, the artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





bingo, his philosophy is half baked. he should examine his premises carefully, as they don't really support his conclusion.

and yea the same arguement can be basically made by any shoplifter. i'm not robbing the maker of this product..after all, it gets absorbed into the costs of this evil mega store.... the original manufactuerer still gets paid, i feel so much better.

No, they are not the same justification. There is the d/l'ing of music as a PROMOTIONAL tool. Just because the RIAA doesn't understand it, doesn't make it theft. And yes, there IS theft when music pirates d/l album after album with no intention to pay.

Somehow it is a matter of "degree".

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

It's only theft if getting it robs the owner of something physical. By getting a song off gnutella you are not stealing anything from the owner since nothing physical changes hands. A copy of data is just that... a copy. The owners personal inventory has not diminished at all.

right, and i suppose patents are just stupid aren't they, after all its just an idea. i'm sure drug companies would spend millions developing new drugs out of the goodness of their hearts.

Pare stupid when they are applied to stupid things. It's funny that you should bring up the drug industry. You've heard of the corruption going in that circle, right? Companies re-inventing and re-patenting drugs so they can keep the patent for another 40 years (or 17, or whatever it is) and keep the prices incredibly high. They've already made their money back 10-fold, and instead of letting the patent become public domain like they should, they patent a drug that is the exact same chemical makeup, with an extra O2 mollecule or something in it. The drug does the same thing as before, no additional benefits, all the same side effects. The company then stops selling the old drug and only sells the new, so instead of getting some competition in the market by having other drug companies sell their version of the drug and lowering prices overall the original company keeps the prices high for another decade at least until they re-invent the same drug again.

Not much in the "new" music industry. All it takes now is a pair of fake tits, a bit of dancing ability, and someone high up in the industry to recognize that you'd look good lip singing to a song. I know I'm not the only one to realize that the majority of new acts are lip singing, plastic surgeried puppets put on stage only to make a profit. True musicians are being overlooked more and more because they don't "look like a superstar." All of the old musicians looked like sh!t! It used to be about skill, when did that idea get flushed down the crapper? Watch Fox's American Idol if you want to see something that will make you want to vomit. Paula Abdul herself, a musician that started out looking like ass but with good talent who eventually made enough cash to buy her operations to look good, was in the judges booth telling people that "you're one of the best singers I've ever seen, but you just don't look like the person people want to see on stage." WTFH is that??? What happened to real music?

funny you complain about the quality of music as a justification to steal it. if its so cr@ppy you wouldn't want to steal it at all. and american idol? if the music system were free as you'd want, we'd all be judges of american idol, searching through hundreds of thousands of mediocre wanna be's. and frankly, the only reason those people are on american idol is because they weren't good enough to get a contract right off😛

I did not say anything about the quality of music being a justification to steal it. Look at my post and stop twisting my words around. You'll notice that I quoted someone asking the question "Do you have any idea how much work is involved in getting good enough to compete on the highest levels of music?" My response to that was a mini-rant on the state of new artists. I'll also point out that in that response I didn't once even mention downloading/stealing/or even CD's in general.

 

[Nefrodite]

I like how you try to twist my words around to make me sound like I said something I didn't. You told me that if I didn't like the system I should stop listening. I said that it wasn't possible to stop listening to music. It is something I enjoy and pay for it when payment is justified. I don't steal from the artists, they are paid when I go to their concerts. The only people I'm not paying are the people that don't deserve my money. Telling me my argument is weak and not justifying it is one of the weakest rebuttals I've heard in a while.

um think logically. would "listening" refer to radio/tv/movies where the musics already been paid for? or would "listening" refer to downloaded mp3s where your only subjegating yourself by your own choice. your misinterpretation is the weakness, not my rebuttal.

Why did Mariah get paid so much to end her contract early? Her CD's were still making money. It was because she wasn't making ENOUGH profit for the RIAA. They wanted to clear the space on shelves and make some more room during airtime to put in another commercial for some new band. Artists that sell well get paid millions from the concerts they play. Or the shirts they sell. Profits from CD's are crap for them. Even the big artists have gripes with the industry. Noone but the big wigs behind desks are satisfied. Why's that? Because they call all the shots, tell people what to record (so much for self expression through music), even tell people what to say and how to dress. If an artist doesn't like the way it works, they are shown the door and told to get the fsck out.

thats just one case, and she still made out like a bandit. poor poor artist she is. and as for how an artist dresses and talks.. if one company doesn't like it.. fine. if it doesn't hurt the artist to act and dress odd, then another record company will snap them up and make money. its a free market last time i checked. if your good you'll get signed, if your not, you'll blame it on the record companies hating what you said and how you dressed.

Do you know anything at all about an independent band making a CD? The costs associated with it are huge for a group of a few people that are doing it because they actually care about making good music. The costs associated with Big Music making a CD? Just a drop in the bucket. What do they have to pay for? Recording studio time? They own the studios. Marketing? Clearchannel is part of the RIAA, they own the majority of the radio stations the advertise the music. Yes money is changing hands, but it's just being shuffled around inside of the RIAA. MTV airtime? Part of the RIAA. Pressing the CD/raw materials? Huge discounts from the plants that actually do the work. The cost of pressing the CD plus raw materials ends up trickling down to about $1-$2 per CD. Yes making a CD costs money, but when every part of that process is owned and operated by the RIAA it's like me taking the money out of my left pocket and put into my right. So no, I am not smoking crack. 99% of the profits do go to the RIAA. Read up on some of the articles that musicians have written in the past about the money associated with the buisness. Courtney Love had a very good one about a year and a half ago about how artists get screwed on the production of CD's. Quoted from her herself, artists only make $0.50-$1 per CD they sell. Hell, look at TLC if you want to see an extreme example. Back when they made the CD that had Waterfalls on it (multi platinum CD) they were paid $35,000 (thousand, not million) for their work on the CD. Counting the costs to make a CD in the RIAA, including EVERYTHING, even the money shifted from one part of the group to another it costslittle more than $5 per CD. Where does the rest of your $18 go for that CD? Right into the pockets of the CEO and other board members.

so, lets see, you hate the studios for having economy of scale. you only read biased articles by disgruntled musicians. you don't mention newer studios that don't stick it to the musicians. frankly if you can't get a lawyer and read up on your contract before signing, you almost deserve what you get. frankly its time for you to find a breakdown of costs of production. you think music videoss/advertisements pay for themselves right? distribution, now that costs nothing...

I've already addressed this twice, if you can't understand the point I'll not make it a third time.

repeating a bad arguement 3 times doesn't make it stronger.



and if you really cared you'd go after politicians for industry regulation. but really, you don't😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

More justification for theft.

Again, the artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





bingo, his philosophy is half baked. he should examine his premises carefully, as they don't really support his conclusion.

and yea the same arguement can be basically made by any shoplifter. i'm not robbing the maker of this product..after all, it gets absorbed into the costs of this evil mega store.... the original manufactuerer still gets paid, i feel so much better.

No, they are not the same justification. There is the d/l'ing of music as a PROMOTIONAL tool. Just because the RIAA doesn't understand it, doesn't make it theft. And yes, there IS theft when music pirates d/l album after album with no intention to pay.

Somehow it is a matter of "degree".

Thay are giving away of free Tide in the mail. Does this mean I'm entitle to free Tide at the Supermarket?

A cleaning lady offers a house cleaning for free as a promotion. Does this mean I'm entitled to all house cleanings for free?

A web developer offers a free website as a prize. Does this mean I'm entitled to all the fruits of his labor for free?

The point here is, the producer of the labor has the right to dictate how much to charge for the labor. If he decides to give it away, that's his choice. It does not make the rest of his labor free.

 

[Red Dawn]

More justification for theft.

Again, the artist is not working for free. He has a right to charge for his labor. If you're not willing to pay for the fruits of his labor, you are not entitled to it.

When they stop ripping us off we'll stop ripping them off. If I can buy my music by the song so I don't have to pay for some of this crap they bundle with their one or two good songs on their albums then owning the music will be affordable. Making us pay for crap is just as bad as us stealing their music.It's an equatable exchange. Those who are foolish enough to pay big bucks to buy an album full of crap and only a couple of good songs(many times only 1) make up for those who aren't and have no qualms about stealing it. Call it what you want Amusedone, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Start selling their product by the song and watch piracy shrink.Stop ripping us off and we'll return the favor..