Should music be free?

[AShadeOfClear]

Whether or not I am a thief is irrelevant. I think downloading the music and not buying the music are similar in that there is no purchase. It seems that as long as people buy CDs things will not change for the artists and for us cheap people.

The record companies what to make as much money as possible by paying the artist as little as they can and charging as much as they can for the CD. That's capitalism right, that's how our society works. THe only way to have change is to hit them where it hurts - their pocketbooks.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

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.

Again it is not the same as sampling music. And you have not addressed "promotion" and "degree".

The RIAA has sued bands who WANT to give away their work on the Internet.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Gee, that's funny. I thought my argument was "I'll download this, see how good it is, and if I like it and feel it's worth the money I'll go and pay for the full album." You ever go to any of the wholesale clubs and try some of the free samples they were giving out to promote new food items they were selling? By eating that free sample am I robbing the store of a sale, especially if that free sample caused me to go back later and purchase the item? Now imagine if the store stopped giving free samples, raised prices to 3x their original cost, and generally made asses of themselves in the process. You'd probably stop buying that product and continue on your way. A few days later you go to another store and they are giving out free samples of the same stuff. Is getting that stealing, evne if you don't plan on buying the item? I think not. My opinion has changed as of late due to the RIAA's deciding to tell their customers to their faces: "fsck you, we own you." I'm still taking my free samples, and I'm still paying for what I feel is worth the money. Stuff I don't feel was worth the money would not have gotten my cash in the first place. If the RIAA doesn't like it they can re-examine their buisness practice and discover why they are losing paying customers by the thousands every week.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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..

What gives you a right to have the music at all? How are they holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy their music?

You're not being ripped off, Red. They could charge a million dollars a CD and you still wouldn't be getting ripped off. YOU are not entitled to their music, nor are you entitled to a price YOU deem fair.

Your only choice here is to either buy the music, or not.

 

[apoppin]

Your only choice here is to either buy the music, or not.

That is YOUR only choice. You are not my conscience nor the moral police for me.

If I choose to preview a song off the 'net it is none of your business and you can keep your self-righteoius judgements to yourself.

 

[CocaCola5]

A song on a CD is not really THAT true song(as when heard LIVE) because 99.9% of stereo systems can't reproduce THAT song in all its original qualities and intent of the artist. When you buy a CD and playing it through your stereo you're getting a much down-graded representation of the song. Because of this, I think artists should make money from their concerts NOT from selling CDs, CDs should be like $3 or the price of the media and packaging.

 

[Red Dawn]

You're not being ripped off, Red.

You fscking a right I'm not being ripped off.

They could charge a million dollars a CD and you still wouldn't be getting ripped off.

No I'd be getting gouged if I wanted to buy it.

YOU are not entitled to their music, nor are you entitled to a price YOU deem fair

And if that's the case they aren't entitled to my honesty. I'm always happy to support someone who is fair and honest with my purchases. On the other hand, fsck those who are trying to cut a fat hog in the ass.

Your only choice here is to either buy the music, or not.

If they don't give me a fair choice then the only choice I have is to ignore their wishes and get it how ever I can. Whether it be through purchasing used CD's (actually a good choice) or risk the ire of peoople who flaunt their morality despite the odds of it making them a hypocrite by downloading MP3's. You want to call me a thief, fine, just make sure your house is in perfect order because the first sign of any moral flaws in your case will bring a multitude of incriminating accusations.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Originally posted by: 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.

You told me to stop listening altogether. I said that it is not possible. Weather the music has been paid for or not is irrevelant to that particular point, no matter where you go there is usually music of one form or another being paid.

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.

Yes she made out like a bandit because it was cheaper to give her a few mil and drop her, hoping the next act will make up that cost difference and bring in more profits than she could have. There are not many cases of an artist telling their recording company to go screw themselves and heading to another company. The few that I can think of are superstars that were basically guaranteeing profits and could write their own ticket. The big 5 companies that make up the RIAA are prettymuch close knit. When something like that happens in one company, the others find out and hold that against the artist when making their decision to take that person on. And like I said in an earlier post, if you're good or not is irrevelant nowadays. It's all about the look now.

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'm not excatly sure where to start on this one... I don't hate the studios for having economy of scale, I'm mad at them for having all those advantages and still demanding to stick it to everyone, even their own employees who write the damn stuff. And yes, when I said it cost ~$5 to make a CD I was including the music video in that cost. Advertisements are basically free since they own the radio stations. As for the contract, getting a lawyer is a non-issue. Even if the lawyer tells you exactly what the contract says the artists have no say in the matter. Their contracts explicitly state that anything that is recorded onto a CD is owned by Sony or whoever the artist is talking to. It also states what the artists are going to be paid and any benefits they will recieve. The contracts are non-negotiable and if the artist doesn't like what is in it they are once again shown the door and can head back to their normal job.

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😛

Not even going to start on this one.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Your only choice here is to either buy the music, or not.

That is YOUR only choice. You are not my conscience nor the moral police for me.

If I choose to preview a song off the 'net it is none of your business and you can keep your self-righteoius judgements to yourself.

If the author of the music does not intend for you to have a copy of the music for free, it's theft. You can call me all the names you like, but you wont change that fact.

If you want to "preview" the music, do it in a way the author wants you to. It's HIS choice how his music is distributed, not YOURS.

And yes, it IS my business. The more you guys steal, the more laws trying to stop that get passed. And guess who suffers? ME.

In fact, I blame your very attitude and actions on the pain in the ass that is XP activation. Not to mention the copy protection crap that's going to make playing a CD on a computer a pain in the ass in the near future.

So yes, it IS my business. Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

 

[Red Dawn]

Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

Yeah like the freedom to take it up the ass by price gouging middleman.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: apoppin
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.

My "involvement" with the music business is that I design studio electronics. I once was an aspiring singer/songwriter/musician. I learned that being good is just permission to be lucky, and some part of your art habit has to pay the rent, or you have to get a job.

Stealing the income from the artists isn't going to make it any better for them, regardless of other problems in the music business. All it does is compound the problem for those with the most to lose. That's like saying a corrupt traffic cop is an excuse for killing someone while driving drunk.

Make all the excuses you want. If you do it, you're a thief. :|

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

You're not being ripped off, Red.

You fscking a right I'm not being ripped off.

They could charge a million dollars a CD and you still wouldn't be getting ripped off.

No I'd be getting gouged if I wanted to buy it.

YOU are not entitled to their music, nor are you entitled to a price YOU deem fair

And if that's the case they aren't entitled to my honesty. I'm always happy to support someone who is fair and honest with my purchases. On the other hand, fsck those who are trying to cut a fat hog in the ass.

Your only choice here is to either buy the music, or not.

If they don't give me a fair choice then the only choice I have is to ignore their wishes and get it how ever I can. Whether it be through purchasing used CD's (actually a good choice) or risk the ire of peoople who flaunt their morality despite the odds of it making them a hypocrite by downloading MP3's. You want to call me a thief, fine, just make sure your house is in perfect order because the first sign of any moral flaws in your case will bring a multitude of incriminating accusations.

Nice one Red. Try turning the tables on me, huh? The only MP3s on my machine were downloaded legally from Mp3.com with the author's consent. And I only have about twenty.

I have no illegal software, or music on my machine, or in my house. You are welcome to come visit to see for yourself.

As for the rest of your post, it's disgusting. You act as if you are entitled to the labor of others. You are not. You sound like a spoiled little child who filtched cookies out of the cookie jar because your momma wont let you have any. You then blame your mommy for it instead of your fractured morality.

You are not entitled to a damn thing, Red, and you know it. I doubt you'd apply this kind of twisted morality to any other area of life. Only with music and possibly software because it's easy, and you have a large crowd here cheering you on.

 

[Chaotic42]

I would rather more money go to the artist, but I have no problems paying $16 for a CD. I'm very selective about the ones I buy, so I almost always get my money's worth.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

Yeah like the freedom to take it up the ass by price gouging middleman.

Again, why do you feel entitled to the music, Red? They owe YOU nothing.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

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.

I forgot to adress this part. Almost all the musicians out there are disgruntled. The two reasons being that they know they are getting screwed and they see that the new musicians are just fluff. Britney Spears provides me with hours of amusing quotes to read. I've got 2 choices to read when I want to hear what's going on in the industry... articles by musicians who are telling their side of the story and providing factual proof, or propaganda by the RIAA (check out this site if you want a laugh, lots of fluff with 0 facts to back anything up. Want a good example?

While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD, there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD

BS. They know exactly how much it costs to make a CD, they choose not to tell people because they don't want the real data to be distributed.

For the other point... point me to one studio that doesn't stick it to the musicians that is not considered "indie" or is not made up of a superstar that was so disgruntled with the industry they made their own studio and can afford to bring on 3 or 4 new musicians and not rape them for profits along the way. Neither of those types are part of the RIAA and are both groups that I don't mind paying for.

 

[apoppin]

So yes, it IS my business. Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

What a load of self-righteous drivel! You have not addressed any of my issues regarding "Promotion" or "degree". You have not adressed the issues of the RIAA being rotten to the core in their working to take away our freedoms of choice and privacy.

Previewing music by D/L'ing off the net hasn't cost anyone any money. You have swallowed the RIAA's propaganda hook, line and sinker. It is a fact that when Napster was at it peak of popularity, the Recording Industry was making it's most money off CD sales - now that Napster is gone, they are in a slump.

Explain that "paradox" if you can.

 

[Red Dawn]

Stealing the income from the artists isn't going to make it any better for them, regardless of other problems in the music business.

If you don't plan on buying it at their exhorbitant prices in the first place then you aren't taking any income from them. THe real thieves are the RIAA as they refuse to change the format to sell music because it's them not the Artist who will suffer. The Artists will still make the same amount, maybe more is they were allowed to sell their product per song because people who would not pay $20 per album would pay a couple of bucks for a Song. The people who buy Albums now despite the quality of the over all music will still be throwing their money away.

 

[Harvey]

Of course, if the only music you hear is MP-3's, you haven't a clue about how good a recording can be, and you deserve the crap you get. :disgust:

 

[apoppin]

Stealing the income from the artists isn't going to make it any better for them, regardless of other problems in the music business. All it does is compound the problem for those with the most to lose. That's like saying a corrupt traffic cop is an excuse for killing someone while driving drunk.

No it's not , , , yours is an EXTREME example. See my last post of CD sales vs. Napster and explain it if you can.


Doesn't anyone in the RIAA see their loss of a valuable promotional tool? That sampling music is not stealing?

EDIT:

Of course, if the only music you hear is MP-3's, you haven't a clue about how good a recording can be, and you deserve the crap you get. :disgust:

Agreed. That's why I PREVIEW my music and then BUY the CD. How the heck is THAT stealing?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

So yes, it IS my business. Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

What a load of self-righteous drivel! You have not addressed any of my issues regarding "Promotion" or "degree". You have not adressed the issues of the RIAA being rotten to the core in their working to take away our freedoms of choice and privacy.

Previewing music by D/L'ing off the net hasn't cost anyone any money. You have swallowed the RIAA's propaganda hook, line and sinker. It is a fact that when Napster was at it peak of popularity, the Recording Industry was making it's most money off CD sales - now that Napster is gone, they are in a slump.

Explain that "paradox" if you can.

I don't have to address anything except the morality behind it.

Obtaining a copy of the labor of another without permission or paying them is theft. You can attempt to wiggle around that all day, but you can't. You can point fingers at everyone but yourself, but it wont change a thing. You can attempt to obfuscate the issue with exceptions and loopholes, but it doesn't make it any less theft.

And the RIAA's actions are a direct result of YOUR actions. You have no one but yourself to blame for their attempts to protect THEIR property (however misguided those attempts may be).

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: apoppin

So yes, it IS my business. Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

What a load of self-righteous drivel! You have not addressed any of my issues regarding "Promotion" or "degree". You have not adressed the issues of the RIAA being rotten to the core in their working to take away our freedoms of choice and privacy.

Previewing music by D/L'ing off the net hasn't cost anyone any money. You have swallowed the RIAA's propaganda hook, line and sinker. It is a fact that when Napster was at it peak of popularity, the Recording Industry was making it's most money off CD sales - now that Napster is gone, they are in a slump.

Explain that "paradox" if you can.

i don't have a gripe with previewing. there is no problem with previewing really, its just those that justify NEVER shelling out no matter what because they can think of self righteous reasons for outright theft.



frankly how many mp3 pirates you know cut a check out directly to artists each time they pirate an album they like? yes basically never.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Stealing the income from the artists isn't going to make it any better for them, regardless of other problems in the music business. All it does is compound the problem for those with the most to lose. That's like saying a corrupt traffic cop is an excuse for killing someone while driving drunk.

No it's not , , , yours is an EXTREME example. See my last post of CD sales vs. Napster and explain it if you can.


Doesn't anyone in the RIAA see their loss of a valuable promotional tool? That sampling music is not stealing?

This is not the issue. The issue is the property of the artist being used or distributed without his permission. Whether it makes them more money or not, no matter how misguided it may be or not, the choice of how it is distrbuted is THEIR's, not yours.

 

[Red Dawn]

gain, why do you feel entitled to the music, Red? They owe YOU nothing.

No they don't. I never said they owe me anything. But then I owe them nothing.If they want to be fair then I owe it to them to be fair. If they want to gouge me then I give them zero consideration.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

So yes, it IS my business. Theft is EVERYONE'S business, because it costs us both financially, and with the loss of freedoms we have to endure.

By that statement alone you admit that you are doing something "illegal" (in the eyes of the RIAA).

Me downloading mp3's costs you nothing (and don't say increased CD costs, that's a load of bull. CD costs go up because the RIAA wants more cash in their pockets). Also, the "freedoms" you lose are only the ability to use a CD in a way that the RIAA deems illegal. Want to rip your CD to mp3 to use on your computer? Illegal. Want to listen to your CD on your computer? Illegal. Want to make a backup so the original doesn't warp when you leave your windows closed and the car hearts up to 110 degrees? Illegal. If you used your CD only the way they want you to, you wouldn't notice anything different than it was years ago.

 

[apoppin]

i don't have a gripe with previewing. there is no problem with previewing really, its just those that justify NEVER shelling out no matter what because they can think of self righteous reasons for outright theft.

Aha!!!! Then it IS a matter of degree. That's what I have been trying to say all along. The RIAA doesn't like my previewing because I won't take any more chances to buy an album based on the ONE song payola got on the radio.

And AmuisedOne would call me a thief for not following the RIAA's business model and deny me my preview.

And as I have repeated over and over, there are pirates and thieves who never buy anything if they can steal it - that (in my book) is not justifyable.