Should music be free?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I want to apologize to apoppin for personally calling him a thief.

In retrospect it was not the best thing to do, and insulting him personally gained nothing.

I have not changed my opinion that taking music and software for free, and/or distributing it on the net is wrong. However, I made the mistake of getting caught up in the debate and allowed my emotions to take over from my intellect.

Again, I apologize.

Accepted . . . and thank-you!

I'll also retract my statements about you that were decidedly not nice and I do apologize about my heated and rude personal comments - although I was offended at being labeled a thief, my hasty words were unnecessary in any debate . . .

However, I agree to disagree with you. I believe that "previewing" music with an eye to buying is inherently not wrong and is just one tool consumers have in making an informed choice as "fair use". I also believe that the current system is horribly flawed and needs restructuring.

I was an early cassette adopter. The cassette was a far more logical and hi-fi choice as a recording medium. 8-tracks were early adopted for cars - playback only. However, I also remembering buying a stereo cassette recorder in 1971 - they were popular in the home although they did not become universal in cars (replacing 8 tracks) in the late 70s. Example: I had a used 67 Chevy with an 8Trk built in and I bought a brand new Pinto in 1974 with an add in Craig cassette deck and a Hi-quality Blaupunkt cassette deck in a brand new 1976 Porsche I bought. Finally I got true audio hi-fi in my 1978 Fiat with a Concord (later bought by Alpine) cassette deck and ADS (home/box) speakers behind the seats (along with a nice amp).

Our viewpoint is different - neither of us is necessarily "wrong" on the 8-tk vs cassette debate. I just adopted cassettes before you. They were available in the earliest 70s.

EDIT: Heck, I had Quadraphonic stereo on LPs in 1974 (along with a hi-quality Teac cassette deck). I don't think most of you remember how hi-fi cassette recording became in the mid/late 70s with the 3-head Nakamichi and Tandburg decks with both Dolby B and DNS noise reduction. They could make superb copies of both LPs and later CDs that could not be easily destinguished on even a good hi-fi system.

 

[KKiller]

Originally posted by: 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.

So basically you're saying.. despite how badly the industry screws us.. we should maintain pristine honestly. Are you an idiot or what?

 

[KKiller]

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.

What if only one company made bread.. and they charged you $1000 per loaf, would that be fair? Would you be justified in stealing a loaf? According to you "no". After all, in the free market anyone is free to set their price.

What this analogy has to do with the music industry, is that you have to realize that it's a monopoly or at best a oligopoly. Prices are ridiculously high therefore. In this environment, "stealing" is justfied to some degree.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Without reading the majority of the thread and contributing to the Scoorb effect, i'm going to base my argument on what KKiller just said. Ever consider LEGAL means to fight the machine? So you think they're corrupt. Hell, screw the "think" part. Lets just say they ARE corrupt. Just because they ARE corrupt justifies anyone and everyone, from you to a bum using a computer in an internet cafe to Bill friggin Gates, to download legally copyrighted music online, in effect, committing theft? That justifies illegal music piracy? That's like someone saying that the LAPD CRASH team in Rampart Division is corrupt, but instead of using the legal system or a legal way to end the problem, you go out, buy an M-16, go to their houses at night, and shoot the officers. Is that justified under your pretty little plan?

What Nefrodite (sigh, agreeing and disagreeing with he/she/it in different threads...) is trying to say is Theft isn't justified just because the music industry is corrupt. Maybe this concept is a bit above your level, but not everything is free in this world. Everyone's trying to make money. Except when something new comes around, and people start getting music for free, they take it for granted and expect their music to be given to them. If you want free music, move to NYC, and sit in the Subway all day. Walk around the streets. You'll find plenty of people asking for donations who just play for the hell of playing, because they love the music. You might find people like that all over the country. But the rest of the music industry would like to be compensated for what they (well...some of them, the real musicians, not the no talent ass clowns of the music industry) put into their music.

Edit: for KKillers 2nd argument, he/she/it is comparing a monopolistic bakery to the music industry, and saying that it is justified to take bread if they're charging 1 grand a loaf. On the same note, s/he/it says that music is the same way.
DUDE.Get real. Music and bread are NOT the same. Music is an art, you do NOT need music to live, as much as you think you couldn't live without your favorite CD. It's an option. *sigh*

 

[KKiller]

Originally posted by: Stark
I spent $80 last week on 5 Beatles CDs: Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Abbey Road, and Let It Be.
Sure, I could get most of the songs through kazaa, but I like having the actual disks in my collection. I don't mind giving Paul and Ringo more money, even though they have plenty.

There are very few "artists" that are popular today I would spend money on.

Interestingly you're giving your money to Michael Jackson who owns the rights to these CDs. Do you think he deserves your money? After all the true creators of the CD are long dead and can't enjoy any of the fruits of their labor.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KKiller

Originally posted by: Stark
I spent $80 last week on 5 Beatles CDs: Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Abbey Road, and Let It Be.
Sure, I could get most of the songs through kazaa, but I like having the actual disks in my collection. I don't mind giving Paul and Ringo more money, even though they have plenty.

There are very few "artists" that are popular today I would spend money on.

Interestingly you're giving your money to Michael Jackson who owns the rights to these CDs. Do you think he deserves your money? After all the true creators of the CD are long dead and can't enjoy any of the fruits of their labor.

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are dead? Michael Jackson deserves payment for something he owns, yes.

 

[KKiller]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Without reading the majority of the thread and contributing to the Scoorb effect, i'm going to base my argument on what KKiller just said. Ever consider LEGAL means to fight the machine? So you think they're corrupt. Hell, screw the "think" part. Lets just say they ARE corrupt. Just because they ARE corrupt justifies anyone and everyone, from you to a bum using a computer in an internet cafe to Bill friggin Gates, to download legally copyrighted music online, in effect, committing theft? That justifies illegal music piracy? That's like someone saying that the LAPD CRASH team in Rampart Division is corrupt, but instead of using the legal system or a legal way to end the problem, you go out, buy an M-16, go to their houses at night, and shoot the officers. Is that justified under your pretty little plan?

What Nefrodite (sigh, agreeing and disagreeing with he/she/it in different threads...) is trying to say is Theft isn't justified just because the music industry is corrupt. Maybe this concept is a bit above your level, but not everything is free in this world. Everyone's trying to make money. Except when something new comes around, and people start getting music for free, they take it for granted and expect their music to be given to them. If you want free music, move to NYC, and sit in the Subway all day. Walk around the streets. You'll find plenty of people asking for donations who just play for the hell of playing, because they love the music. You might find people like that all over the country. But the rest of the music industry would like to be compensated for what they (well...some of them, the real musicians, not the no talent ass clowns of the music industry) put into their music.

Edit: for KKillers 2nd argument, he/she/it is comparing a monopolistic bakery to the music industry, and saying that it is justified to take bread if they're charging 1 grand a loaf. On the same note, s/he/it says that music is the same way.
DUDE.Get real. Music and bread are NOT the same. Music is an art, you do NOT need music to live, as much as you think you couldn't live without your favorite CD. It's an option. *sigh*

So okay... you acknowledge that they are corrupt, and screwing consumers right? According to you, I should have to play fair and buy music at their inflated costs and in the meantime, I can try lobby politicans and try to set things right with the music industry. So basically, I have to play fair and watch them punch me in the gut, right?

 

[alphatarget1]

how do you define "theft" anyway? If I get XM, hook it up to my stereo and recording it onto a CD, is that considered as theft since I paid for the radio service and I have every right to retrieve data from my XM?

Yes I agree downloading mp3s from the internet is a theft-to some degree. When you download a file you're basically downloading music encoded in mp3, useless without an mp3 decoder. encoding something from a CD is lawful since they don't own the encoded data on the mp3. Since you own the encoded data (because you/the software you purchased created it), you have the right to distributed it whichever way you want.

that's my twisted way of thinking. of course, without the music there you can't encode anything and no matter how you argue, you're still reproducing the artist's work.

Amusedone is right, if you don't want to pay for the CD, don't! no one is forcing you to buy it. I never bought a CD in my life and i probably never will. I only listen to the radio or watch MTV.

 

[eplebnista]

Should music be free?

No.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: element®
You know I'm sure during the boston tea party, there were some fools saying you shouldn't throw tea in the harbor. "It is not YOUR tea" they might complain, "You don't own it, so you have no right to destroy it!".

This isn't about stealing. This is a revolution. This is a message to the RIAA. We are saying no more! No more screwing over the consumers AND the artists! No more paying the artists $0.50 -$1.00 per CD while they collect most of the rest.

Stealing isn't right, I'm sure most of us can agree on that. But this isn't about stealing. This is about standing up to those who would abuse the power they have over the industry, whilst not contributing much in the way of creative art to said industry.

C'mon you don't seriously believe that do you?