Should music be free?

[IgorFL]

Well, as a student getting his Masters degree in musicology, I would say that the music business has gotten completely out of hand. It's more of an image business. If people want to pay for the schlock that passes as "music" today, that's their right and I'm sure the execs at Time/Warner, BMI, etc. won't be too displeased. Those types of people are all leeches anyway.

But, I don't have much sympathy for artists either. Their "talent" is very questionable, and very few of them have the knowledge of music necessary to teach simple harmony or history classes. They're lucky to be making any money.

 

[Red Dawn]

Would you pay 2 bucks for a cd?

In a Heartbeat. In fact I'd probably even buy DMB Cd's for 2 bucks..well maybe $1.50

 

[JellyBaby]

This thread is neat. We see personal ethics and beliefs of "fairness" going head-to-head with the absolute, immutable letter of the law.

Obtaining copyrighted music and enjoying it without paying is not legal. It may not be theft but it is illegal. But does that matter?

Some musicians tell fans to share their music. But the RIAA holds most rights to the material. The RIAA does not want you to copy anything you buy from them, period. But the artist's view differs. The concept of "fair use" differs. Does this entitle you to break the law?

Artists negiotiate contracts with the labels. They hook up with them willingly. So the RIAA has final say, correct? Yet some artists claim they really have no freedom to customize the deal and are virtual slaves to the whims of the record companies. Does this subservience entitle you to break the law?

Laws work best when all parties involved are treated fairly. As it stands today the popular view is that the law sides unjustly with the big labels. So people adjust their ethics and beliefs according to that view. Consequently they feel "in the right" doing things they otherwise wouldn't consider with other produts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

They say how great it is during promotional ads with an inplication you'll love it. You then get it home and it sucks ass with like one good song. So you should be able to take it back but can't. And that's exatly why people are taking mp3's, sampleing, then if they like will buy the album.

But they arew entitled to your money because they fooled you with deceptive marketing!

No, they aren't entitled to your money. And you're not entitled to their product.

There are plenty of music reviewers around to tell you if the CD sucks or not. There is also Radio. And finally, taste is subjective. What I may love, you may hate.

If you don't like their prcatices and don't believe they are fair in not letting you obtain copies of their product, don't freakin' buy it.

 

[apoppin]

Yea, youre wrong. Amused1 is correct. How is he full of it? I'm not judging you, I;m just pointing out that youre wrong.

quote
everything in the business world is previewable except music/movies

The reason theyre not previewable is because w/ music and movies people can copy it, therefore stealing, not previewing.

You just wake up?
🙂

You are agreeing that everything ELSE is previewable - except music (and movies). Now you are giving the RIAA's weak excuse that it CAN be stolen by copying therefore we can't preview it. Well, everything else CAN also be stolen.

Again, MP3s are not an exact copy of CDs. But they are sufficient to preview. Obviously a NEW model needs to be in place that would benefit both the consumer and the artists. BUT (the big BUTT) is the RIAA's resistance to any change.

And I'm out of here. Believe who you want to believe.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I don't have to show you anything. You haven't bothered to reply to any of the points I brought about previewing music other than the repeat the RIAA's mantra.

Finally, if you're going to advocate theft, I'm going to call you a thief, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, no matter how many fictitious "rights" you make up.

Well, then I will call you a small-minded and sel-righteous RIAA duped chump since you cannot coherently reply to a topic other than to create and defend "rights" of corrupt big business to trample on consumers - and there isn't anything you can do about my "right" of expression either.

Don't worry, I wont reply further to your demented ravings.

As opposed to the rantings of a spoiled little thief? Okie Dokey.

And you haven't made a single valid point about previewing music, other than you don't like the fact that they don't want you to, therefore you feel entitled to do it against their wishes.

No one here is "trampling on consumers." YOU want to trample on THEIR rights to distribute THEIR product as THEY see fit. YOU think they OWE you something. They don't owe you a damn thing. No one does. The quicker you learn that in life, the better off you'll be.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Finally, please show me where, anywhere, you are given the legal right to return a non-defective product.

Almost every single album IS defective!! They say how great it is during promotional ads with an inplication you'll love it. You then get it home and it sucks ass with like one good song. So you should be able to take it back but can't. And that's exatly why people are taking mp3's, sampleing, then if they like will buy the album.

Carbo, that's pretty sad.

Whether one likes or dislikes a CD is purely a subjective issue of taste. If the CD works properly, it is not defective.

Not sad, it;s called reality. If someone is not allowed to touch, feel, demo a product like movies, software, and music thier expetations will be unfullfilled once the products gets home. And without any recourse such as a return, they will continue to sample. Theives are the record companies who extort the public with a product you can't view without buying. Every single other product you can take back for not meeting your expectations why not music? I returned a fishing pole after a year casue it broke and you can'r even do that with a scrached cd?

Edit: also by you logic a company can sell rancid meat and veggies and you could return becasue the taste is subjective.

 

[Red Dawn]

Laws work best when all parties involved are treated fairly. As it stands today the popular view is that the law sides unjustly with the big labels. So people adjust their ethics and beliefs according to that view. Consequently they feel "in the right" doing things they otherwise wouldn't consider with other produts

Bingo.

If you don't like their prcatices and don't believe they are fair in not letting you obtain copies of their product, don't freakin' buy it.

I never said they owe me anything.

How about this A1. I have over 400 LPs on Vinyl but no Turnatable (hell I don't even have a high end Stereo system) Is it unethical to downlad the MP3's of those songs?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
This thread is neat. We see personal ethics and beliefs of "fairness" going head-to-head with the absolute, immutable letter of the law.

Obtaining copyrighted music and enjoying it without paying is not legal. It may not be theft but it is illegal. But does that matter?

Some musicians tell fans to share their music. But the RIAA holds most rights to the material. The RIAA does not want you to copy anything you buy from them, period. But the artist's view differs. The concept of "fair use" differs. Does this entitle you to break the law?

Artists negiotiate contracts with the labels. They hook up with them willingly. So the RIAA has final say, correct? Yet some artists claim they really have no freedom to customize the deal and are virtual slaves to the whims of the record companies. Does this subservience entitle you to break the law?

Laws work best when all parties involved are treated fairly. As it stands today the popular view is that the law sides unjustly with the big labels. So people adjust their ethics and beliefs according to that view. Consequently they feel "in the right" doing things they otherwise wouldn't consider with other produts.

Very fair points, JB (unlike the ramblings of the self-righteous "moral police" who would like to force us all into a B&W little box like they exist in).

However, the law has not had it's full say yet. There are still court issues to be decided. There is also the "conscience" that each of us is (supposed) to be guided by as well. Some things are "not legal" but they are not immoral.

My whole point is one of "reasonableness". However, I accept what is reasonable to one is not to another. However, I don't care to have one person's view of what is reasonable shoved down my throat. However, I also don't care if an idiot calls me a thief based on his personal misunderstanding of the way things really are.

I'd love to see major changes in the RIAA and the artists really benefit. I think if there were more "fairness", people would not "steal" music.

. . . and I'm really out of here for now. 🙂

 

[JellyBaby]

I think if there were more "fairness", people would not "steal" music.

I'm sure fewer people would violate copyright law if they perceived the market to be more fair, the laws pertaining to IP more just and artists happily fed. All I really want is fair use laws enacted and enforced once and for all.

But make no mistake, there are freeloading losers out there who simply take because they can. They adhere to no principals. They won't buy music because they can steal it. Alas, the RIAA sees all of us through that sorry monocular.

 

[spanky]

free would be nice, but i don't see it happening.

 

[Corn]

Well usually I wouldn't but when some asshat talks to me in a condescending tone as you are talking to me I might do it out of spite. Let's see, it upsets you that people also use pirated Windows XP. Well let me see if I can upset you a little more by downloading it and installing it on my W2k System. I know it isn't fair but it does piss of jerks who get on their moral high horse and talk down to others so hell it would be worthselling my soul just for that!

That's good for a laugh or two, Red. Since when does calling a thief a "thief" make someone a jerk? Do you feel the same need to steal from traders when someone exposes a troll ripping people off in the FS/FT forums? Doubtful.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Corn

Well usually I wouldn't but when some asshat talks to me in a condescending tone as you are talking to me I might do it out of spite. Let's see, it upsets you that people also use pirated Windows XP. Well let me see if I can upset you a little more by downloading it and installing it on my W2k System. I know it isn't fair but it does piss of jerks who get on their moral high horse and talk down to others so hell it would be worthselling my soul just for that!

That's good for a laugh or two, Red. Since when does calling a thief a "thief" make someone a jerk? Do you feel the same need to steal from traders when someone exposes a troll ripping people off in the FS/FT forums? Doubtful.

When the person they are calling a "thief" isn't a thief. When that "jerk" intends to impose his strict intrepretation of "morals" on other persons of conscience. When the self-righteousness gets sickening to "normal" responsible people.

And yes, JellyBaby - more "fairness" will not stop the determined thief - I already mentioned that these "true" pirates will continue to pirate, no matter what (most don't bother to make excuses for their actions).

 

[im2smrt4u]

No, but it takes some great music to get me to buy a CD nowadays. If CD's were cheaper, I would buy them all the time. That way I don't have to find the music and burn it myself, plus it will be better quality.

The CD's themselves only cost pennies. Almost everything goes back to the record company. If CD's were released at $10 and went down from there, I would buy much more music.

What is the worst is that most artists (usually the smaller ones) don't see enough of the money...

 

[GasX]

I am not going to read all 3 pages of this thread. Instead I will respond to the first post.

If you want free music you cheap self-centered little person with an over inflated sense of entitlement, then take some music lessons. The only thing that your lack of willingness to spend $16 means (in conjunction with the rest of your misguided rant) is that you should move to Cuba and join the enlightened communist masses.

 

[Red Dawn]

That's good for a laugh or two, Red. Since when does calling a thief a "thief" make someone a jerk?

When the person they are calling a "thief" isn't a thief. When that "jerk" intends to impose his strict intrepretation of "morals" on other persons of conscience. When the self-righteousness gets sickening to "normal" responsible people.

I guess it depends on ones own principles. To insist that someone adhere to your principles is no different that Jerry Falwell calling those who don't believe in his Religious bullsh!t as immoral and destined for the fiery pits of his Christian Hell.

MP3's are no different than listening to the music on internet radio except you can pick and choose exactly what songs you want to listen too and in what order. The Quality (or lack of Quality) is the same. When you buy a CD you buy a quality recording plus all the extra's that come with it (the Album Art, information about the song and group) With MP3?s you get radio like quality plus none of the other perks that cost you an arm and a leg plus all the filler material many bands throw together to make a full Album they deem worth $20 to $25.00.

All the information that has been gathered sends a different message than what the RIAA is putting out. The Record Sales are up as is the revenue. The trading and downloading of MP3's aren't costing the Artist and the Industry money; they just aren't able to capitalize on this trading of MP3's. Instead of fighting it they should embrace it. The reason they don't is because the RIAA themselves would be cut out of the equation (or wouldn't be able to soak the Artists and the customers themselves as much) If they were to sell songs by themselves distributed on MP3's the Artists would be able to realize more profit while the middle men and providers of the media would suffer because if given the choice, the public would do bypass paying for the Media (the CD's) and all that BS Album Art and Information that the RIAA charge so much for. It's time for a revolution in the Music industry and the RIAA are fighting it tooth and nail because they realize that their Golden Egg would soon disappear.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
I am not going to read all 3 pages of this thread. Instead I will respond to the first post.

If you want free music you cheap self-centered little person with an over inflated sense of entitlement, then take some music lessons. The only thing that your lack of willingness to spend $16 means (in conjunction with the rest of your misguided rant) is that you should move to Cuba and join the enlightened communist masses.

It's 4 pages.

And Cuba isn't really communist - it's a dictatorship.

And I am not willing to spend $16 either it is WAY overpriced for a music CD.

And who the hell are you to tell any citizen to move because they don't agree with you?

 

[Red Dawn]

And I am not willing to spend $16 either it is WAY overpriced for a music CD.

I will. My last purchase was the Pink Floyd Greatest hits CD and it was well worth the money, even though I had all their other CD's

 

[SWirth86]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

And I am not willing to spend $16 either it is WAY overpriced for a music CD.

I will. My last purchase was the Pink Floyd Greatest hits CD and it was well worth the money, even though I had all their other CD's

I would also pay 16 bucks for a cd. I bought Incubus' Morning View for 14, and SOAD's Toxicity for 15(After I had downloaded all their tracks and burnt it onto a cd). These are CD's that I love and know I will listen to a lot. I wouldnt buy Puddle of Mudd's CD because I know that I'm not going to listen to them that much. But I occasional do, so I have some of their MP3's on my computer. If their CD was 2 bucks(A high estimate of what they are actually getting), then I would own their cd along with many other cd's that i dont have now.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

And I am not willing to spend $16 either it is WAY overpriced for a music CD.

I will. My last purchase was the Pink Floyd Greatest hits CD and it was well worth the money, even though I had all their other CD's

Let me clarify . . . I mean generally. There are always the superb exceptions that are well worth the money. I considerd my last purchases - Bob Marley's 4 Disc set and Steely Dans' complete package well worth the money.

However, I generally wait for a new release to hit my record club (a few months later) so I can get a CD for around half-price.

 

[SuperTool]

I think the "honor system" we have now is fine 😀

 

[tm37]

Oh My GOD!:Q

Lets break down those arguements you people have for justifing your theift.

It costs to much (followed by They make to much profit) - Next payday Hope your boss says "you cost to much" and "You won't be getting paid" This is a free market where every other industry can charge what the market will bear. DO you have any idea what it costs Burger king to put that 1.49 soda in your hand? about a nickel. They should just give it away using your logic. Comapanies will attempt to maximize profits and they should. Why do you go to work? TO get paid when was the last time you turned down a raise?



The artists don't see very much of my money - Yes this is true BUT they did sign a contract. And for every band that makes it big selling millions of records the record companies have spent millions to sign artists that will never sell a single CD. Yes the RIAA has costs and bills to pay. Think the RIAA is bad listen only to independant lable music and buy thoose albums.


I'm only preveiwing it - Take a new job and after two weeks when you go to get you check how would you feel if they told you "sorry I can't pay you I was just preveiwng your abilities" You be pretty pissed I'm sure (I know I would). The fact is The owner of the property has the right to determain how that music is to be previewed, Many choose to use the radio and television to allow you to here the product FOR FREE. If you want to preveiw it LISTEN TO THE RADIO. I don't know how many artists I have DISCOVERED listening to that little box in my car.


I wouldn't pay for it any way so it's not stealing - This is my all time favorite excuse. Usually reserved for software this has broken into the music industry by storm with cheap CD burners and P2P file sharing. Basically you are claiming that because it holds no monitary value to you you should be able to take it for free. Because if you had to pay for it you wuld just do without. But it does hold value (you did take it after all) and then you determained value (giving it a big zero). While it may be easy to attempt to justify this way, it also doesn't hold water. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DETERMAIN THE PRICE OF A PRODUCT. Only weither or not to buy it, price to high do without it, but just because it is easy to steal doesn't make it right. Using your logic many products and services would be unavailible today. The market decides prices. If something is priced to high then people will not buy it, the producer can either lower the price or not sell any and if it is selling well than the producer can raise prices to MAXIMIZE PROFIT. You all talk as if profit was a bad thing, where as I am PRO PROFIT. I encourage every one to get what they can to charge what the market will bear. I recently told and interveiwer who was questioning my pay demands that they had no obligation to hire me BUT if they wanted me to come to work for them I would need to GET PAID.


Every thing in life is about choices and checks and balances. Could the record companies make more if you could get the music for free and "try it out" first. They might I don't know, BUT i do know that it is their choice not my to make. If I hear a song on the radio That I like I go to walmart and check out the CD, I can sample 3 or 4 songs right there and if it sounds like it might be good then I buy it. I take the chance that it may have ONLY ONE GOOD SONG. Or if the other songs sound like it may be crap I just get the single. I MAKE A CHOICE. Pirates on the other hand twist and distort morals in an attempt to "justify" their actions.

 

[SWirth86]

Quote
It costs to much (followed by They make to much profit) - This is a free market where every other industry can charge what the market will bear. DO you have any idea what it costs Burger king to put that 1.49 soda in your hand? about a nickel. They should just give it away using your logic

They shouldnt give it away. But I can buy 2 liters of soda for 89cents at a grocery store, which is coming closer to teh true cost of the soda. If I knew how, there probably is a way to buy from Coca-Cola directly for even cheaper. Part of the 89cents(or less) is going to the supermarket or coca-cola, but not as much as the Burger King. If artists released their music themselves, not through a record company, then we could pay 2bucks for an album, and they would make more than they did before. The recording companies would go out of business, which is what most people on this board want to happen. I would rather buy music from the artist than the recording company the same way I would rather buy soda from teh grocery store/coca-cola rather than Burger King.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Open Source Music = Music + Linux = Minix

Hey! What do yah know, Whats old is new again!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's good for a laugh or two, Red. Since when does calling a thief a "thief" make someone a jerk?

When the person they are calling a "thief" isn't a thief. When that "jerk" intends to impose his strict intrepretation of "morals" on other persons of conscience. When the self-righteousness gets sickening to "normal" responsible people.

I guess it depends on ones own principles. To insist that someone adhere to your principles is no different that Jerry Falwell calling those who don't believe in his Religious bullsh!t as immoral and destined for the fiery pits of his Christian Hell.

Utter crap, and I suspect you know it. I do not push morals on people who only harm themselves. But in trying to validate the theft of intellectual and artistic property, they ARE infringing on the rights of others. When this happens, you will hear me push what is only right.

You, nor anyone else, has any right or entitlement to the property of others. It's that simple. To validate any kind of theft simply opens the door for more kinds of theft.

The religious right tries to tell people how live in areas that infringe on no one else's rights. I do not, and you know that.

MP3's are no different than listening to the music on internet radio except you can pick and choose exactly what songs you want to listen too and in what order. The Quality (or lack of Quality) is the same. When you buy a CD you buy a quality recording plus all the extra's that come with it (the Album Art, information about the song and group) With MP3?s you get radio like quality plus none of the other perks that cost you an arm and a leg plus all the filler material many bands throw together to make a full Album they deem worth $20 to $25.00.

Crap again. You cannot take that song you play on internet radio where ever you please, unless you illegally copy it. When you buy a CD, you buy the agreement to have the right to use another person's artistic property, but not to copy and distribute it

All the information that has been gathered sends a different message than what the RIAA is putting out. The Record Sales are up as is the revenue. The trading and downloading of MP3's aren't costing the Artist and the Industry money; they just aren't able to capitalize on this trading of MP3's. Instead of fighting it they should embrace it. The reason they don't is because the RIAA themselves would be cut out of the equation (or wouldn't be able to soak the Artists and the customers themselves as much) If they were to sell songs by themselves distributed on MP3's the Artists would be able to realize more profit while the middle men and providers of the media would suffer because if given the choice, the public would do bypass paying for the Media (the CD's) and all that BS Album Art and Information that the RIAA charge so much for. It's time for a revolution in the Music industry and the RIAA are fighting it tooth and nail because they realize that their Golden Egg would soon disappear.

Irrelevant. It's not up to you to decide what is good or bad business practices for them, other than your right to not buy and use their product. This argument does not justify theft, although it tries real hard to do just that.