Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I just spotted this [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1361103875' post='1981033'] When you make a living from selling copies, taking those copies wothout paying is theft. [/quote] [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1361403938' post='1985630'] Now that you mention it; I was at a record fair in Edinburgh, early 90's. I was there with a bootleg CD looking for the guy who sold it to me to try to get another copy. As I spoke to the guy he said to me "If you want to keep it put it away NOW!". I looked around & the place was being raided by the PRS and a large police escort. Out pf a decent sized hall with around a dozen+stalls within an hour there was one single table with 2 shoeboxes of CDs on it - all of the rest was lifted. The guy saw it as a hazard of his game & explained to me that owning a bootleg isn't illegal - copying & selling them is. [/quote] so there is a guy who makes his income, to some extent, no idea if its a living, selling copies, having those copies taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361407571' post='1985675'] Still all the stuff about recording doesn't work. People can pay for recording just like they can pay to have their house painted. Even if no-one pays to look at their nicely painted house, the painter still gets paid. Producing CD stopped being practical some time ago, same with vinyls, hard formats are no longer practical, its done anyway, because people like them as indulgence. There are a great many industry sectors existing on entirely impractical and unnecessary indulgence. I am absolutely convinced that the quality of music will go up once the studio polished turd is no longer a commercial prospect. [/quote] That analogy is a real stretch. Consumers pay for the product, the home-owners are the consumer that are paying for the service of having their home painted. Likewise, listeners are the consumers "paying" for the service of having music they produce enjoyed. Both consumers aren't getting any practical benefit for their money but they both gain pleasure from either having a nice home or music they enjoy. Arguing that bands are consumers to studios is true to an extent but they're not the end-consumer so it's not really the right comparison. Besides, I disagree about CDs anyway (I like how I posted to say that I was trying to be careful about what I was saying so I didn't get taken out of context then you pick up on the fact that I said CDs instead of recordings by the way). My band sells loads of CDs at gigs, as I said in my above post, it provides us with the majority of our funding to promote ourselves, get out and gig and get more recordings done (whatever medium they end up being sold on). CDs serve a very practical purpose for small bands in that a punter that enjoyed the gig is far more likely to buy a CD on the spot than remember the next day to get online and buy and download a track. The quality of music is nothing to do with the way music is bought and sold. I totally agree with you, the majority of chart music is about who looks best now, other people can write songs and bad singers can be auto-tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If the studio gets paid, the studio doesn't care how many records they sell, its nothing to do with them. The end product isn't even down to them, it can get sent to be mixed and mastered elsewhere, and there is some real art there, but oh look, no ongoing payments for the work. With the painting, does the house being a rental property or a home make any odds to to the painter's pay? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361409438' post='1985687'] If the studio gets paid, the studio doesn't care how many records they sell, its nothing to do with them. The end product isn't even down to them, it can get sent to be mixed and mastered elsewhere, and there is some real art there, but oh look, no ongoing payments for the work. With the painting, does the house being a rental property or a home make any odds to to the painter's pay? No. [/quote] I'm not even sure what you've managed to take out of context to hit that far wide of the mark in response to what I was saying. Why does someone have their house painted? Because they want it painted, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does someone get some music? Because they want the music, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does a band record their music? Generally for promotion and sales. Very practical reasons, they generally need to do it to keep going and being productive and progress as a band. You're trying to turn the band into the consumer which is far from the truth (I'm sure the majority of musicians enjoy playing but that doesn't make them a consumer). The band is more the equivalent of the painter. They're the people that put the time into the work that the last person in the chain wants for their own enjoyment. To further the analogy, the studio would be the place that sells the paint. The painter needs to go there to do the work but the shop doesn't care how much work he gets and they don't see a penny of his work, they got paid for their initial transaction and that's it. I think you're just playing devils advocate. You're trying to justify not paying someone for work that they've done under the understanding that they will get paid for it. Yes, it's not theft, there's no illegal downloads, people have their own morals which essentially they only have to answer to themselves for (and for the repercussions of) and everyone is individual so what's ok for some people, isn't ok for others. The underlying fact is that a lot of musicians do work very hard to put out music which the pay for helps support them. I'm sure even though you're trying very hard to take what I'm saying out of context and twist it, you must understand that fact. The responsibility of the consumer as an individual is to support the person producing the work they enjoy. A few people pirating music isn't a huge deal and I don't think piracy will be the downfall of recorded music, the problem would be if (literally) everyone did it. Whether you do or don't is your own choice. Anyway this seems pointless as I'm starting to lose sight of what your point even is apart from contradicting everything I'm saying, no matter what small detail you're having to find and pick up on in my posts to do so, so I'm going to duck out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heminder Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361407146' post='1985672'] I said funding [u]for[/u] the record industry (and I don't just mean labels etc, I mean anything that involves recordings). Recordings are funded by comsumers paying for them, for the majority of people, if that funding stopped then it wouldn't be practical for them to keep producing CDs. My band often makes petrol money from CDs as well as being able to produce more recordings, realistically we'd be crippled if we didn't have an income from recordings.[/quote] A recording is essentially an artist's portfolio. Artists don't have others pay for them to build their portfolios, they have to build it themselves. The same is true for visual artists: they don't have people pay them to build their portfolio of drawings so they can find work, and then get royalties every time someone glances at their work. They all get paid on commission per drawing. If you can sell some pieces at your gigs then great, more power to you. But if you think that others shouldn't have the right to make copies and share them [i]non-commercially[/i] with their friends, then that's simply absurd - and to be frank you don't deserve to have your material shared and propagated. Edited February 21, 2013 by heminder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361411011' post='1985694']to be frank you don't deserve to have your material shared and propagated.[/quote] That is way out of line. Disagree with my opinions all you want but don't question my integrity as a musician because of that. You have no right to say what I do and don't deserve professionally based on a single opinion I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heminder Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361411420' post='1985697'] That is way out of line. Disagree with my opinions all you want but don't question my integrity as a musician because of that. You have no right to say what I do and don't deserve professionally based on a single opinion I have. [/quote] Well you yourself are of the opinion that you don't deserve file-sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I state my opinions and I'll stand by them. I haven't posted anything personal about anyone on this thread. I've picked up on the way that Foxen is posting but that's directly in relation to his posts rather than him as a person. I haven't judged anyone that's posted and I definitely would never consider telling people what they do and don't deserve based on one thread, never mind one opinion. When have I said people don't deserve free music? My band's about to release a free download that anyone can get just by clicking the link, you're basing your whole judgement of me on one opinion. I'm not going to go back into the original debate because I said I'd leave it and I will but don't think because I've said I'll leave the conversation that you can post personal attacks on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361410695' post='1985693'] I'm not even sure what you've managed to take out of context to hit that far wide of the mark in response to what I was saying. Why does someone have their house painted? Because they want it painted, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does someone get some music? Because they want the music, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does a band record their music? Generally for promotion and sales. Very practical reasons, they generally need to do it to keep going and being productive and progress as a band. [/quote] Why does a band record their music? Because they want a recording. The specifics of why they want it don't matter any more than if someone wants their house painted so it looks nice for sale, or so it looks nice for rent, or so it lasts a bit longer in the weather. There are very practical reason to want your house painted, so its same deal as recording, but often, its done for vanity, even if that vanity blinds the artist to the fact no-one else cares enough to buy their record. Fact is the recording studio provides a service to the band like the painter provides a service to the homeowner. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361411937' post='1985703'] When have I said people don't deserve free music? My band's about to release a free download that anyone can get just by clicking the link, you're basing your whole judgement of me on one opinion. I'm not going to go back into the original debate because I said I'd leave it and I will but don't think because I've said I'll leave the conversation that you can post personal attacks on me. [/quote] All the stuff where you insist downloading should be illegal, or frowned upon is where you don't deserve your stuff downloaded. Since downoading is currently a free and unrestricted thing, demanding it be restricted is pretty good grounds to have that restriction applied to you. Its your personal opinion sure, so it can be applied to your personal situation, of being in a band that wants people to download your stuff, which is the thing you want restricted. Edited February 21, 2013 by Mr. Foxen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heminder Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361411937' post='1985703'] I state my opinions and I'll stand by them. I haven't posted anything personal about anyone on this thread. [/quote] Neither have I. If you're against filesharing then you don't deserve to have your files shared. That was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 So all the points I've made about "if a musician expects to get paid.." etc have washed over you both? My band makes recordings because it funds us to do more gigs, record more music that our fans enjoy and promote ourselves. If we didn't make money from recordings, we would have significantly less gigs, fans couldn't own our music (however they obtained it because we couldn't afford to record it) and we couldn't promote ourselves. My band also makes recordings because we enjoy it, we enjoy people listening to our music, enjoying gigs and generally the fun that everyone has surrounding our music so we ALSO release free downloads. Downloads that no one has to pay for, they can end up on torrents, anyone can copy them and do whatever they want with them. These are paid for DIRECTLY by the sales we get from our other music. I have never, not once, EVER stated that I'm against file sharing. I'm not, it's wonderful, it's been an absolutely essential tool in getting new music out and about for laods of bands, including mine. Even assuming (wrongly) I was, I've shared loads of things with friends by having them listen to my music, they didn't need a copy for me to share it with them. Telling me that I don't deserve to have my music shared doesn't just mean that I don't deserve it on torrents etc, it means that people shouldn't tell tell their friends about it, bring people to gigs, tell them to listen when it's on TV, show them CDs etc. That's crossing a line between standing your ground on your opinion and being offensive and wishing ill for the sake of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361406415' post='1985665'] This thread is about a law that is made up though, and how people should comply with it, even though it isn't a thing. [/quote] They always say there are two things one should never watch being made. Laws and sausages. This predictably slavish adherence to the convention that a law is an intangible and a sausage is 'merely' a thing is precisely what got us where we are today, i.e pissing on our own chips to prove a point, when all the world knows that the ideal condiment for chips is malt vinegar or - if one is a beastly continental - mayonnaise. If the consensual trend here is that urine tastes better than vinegar, then some of us are sadly missing the point that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. This being the case, I will have to duck out of this argument for some duck, ideally dowsed in hoisin sauce, an acceptable scratch substitute for which is an admixture of soy sauce and - you guessed it - honey, honey, kiss me, honey. What care I for the valueless transaction - it is the way of the future. What's yours (your music) is mine and what's mine (my cash) stays my own. Don't expect me to justify this carefully crafted opinion in the face of anyone else's petty, trifling morals, for I am - if not the James Dean of rural Oxfordshire - a law unto myself and terribly, [i]terribly[/i] special. Edited February 21, 2013 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361411011' post='1985694'] But if you think that others shouldn't have the right to make copies and share them [i]non-commercially[/i] with their friends, then that's simply absurd - and to be frank you don't deserve to have your material shared and propagated. [/quote] [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361411420' post='1985697'] That is way out of line. Disagree with my opinions all you want but don't question my integrity as a musician because of that. You have no right to say what I do and don't deserve professionally based on a single opinion I have. [/quote] If an artist decides that they don't want their material shared then they have a perfect right to express that opinion. In fact, the artist has more right than anyone else to express an opinion on sharing their work than anyone else has, regardless of whether they can stop their work being shared or not. This topic has divided people for a number of years now and neither the 'pro' or the 'anti' camp, most of whom aren't even musicians, are going to see their wishes granted for a long time to come. In the meantime, it should be beholden to us, the musicians, to carry on doing what we do best, producing music, and not stoop to the levels of mere.... mortals. Let's set an example and keep it civil guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361413088' post='1985710'] If an artist decides that they don't want their material shared then they have a perfect right to express that opinion. [/quote] But recording and releasing said material is a very strange way to express that opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heminder Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361413088' post='1985710'] If an artist decides that they don't want their material shared then they have a perfect right to express that opinion. In fact, the artist has more right than anyone else to express an opinion on sharing their work than anyone else has, regardless of whether they can stop their work being shared or not. [/quote] This is true. However, if they don't want it shared [i]at all[/i] then by following the logic of that opinion, they'd never release it into an environment where the sharing of culture is what is expected to happen. Here's one of many examples of a thriving industry where sharing is rampant and beneficial: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0[/media] Edited February 21, 2013 by heminder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361412977' post='1985708'] when all the world knows that the ideal condiment for chips is malt vinegar or - if one is a beastly continental - mayonnaise. [/quote] What if said Mayonnaise has garlic in it? I love chips with a bit of garlic mayo to dip in to. But they must also have salt and vinegar. Although loads of chip shops are putting the vinegar in spray bottles now, and then you cant taste it. Grrr! Oh, i'm on the wrong thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361413712' post='1985712'] But recording and releasing said material is a very strange way to express that opinion. [/quote] Only because it suits a particular viewpoint. Record company opinion is, obviously, that copying and sharing is wrong - they've expressed that in no uncertain terms. They still release music every other week - that doesn't make their opinion invalid no matter how hard an argument anyone throws at it. The problem at present is that technology has galloped way ahead of various copyright laws that were fit for purpose, but no longer are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361413712' post='1985712'] But recording and releasing said material is a very strange way to express that opinion. [/quote] There's a huge gap between wanting your music to be shared and wanting to give it away when you're needing to make money from it just to keep the band ticking over. Are you focussed more on gigging, recording or just playing for your own enjoyment? I picked up on it on the last page in heminder's post that he called his recorded music a portfolio. It makes sense thinking about it as that if you aim to get paid for gigs (i.e. the comissioned pieces) and the recordings are there purely as a promotional tool to aid that. It also fits in with some of the things you've said. Obviously it's different if you aim to profit directly from your recordings (as my band does, or at least to re-invest the profit from sales back into the band) as each CD copied is a potential sale lost. Assuming you see gigs as the earner, that's probably why we're not seeing eye to eye. Again of course it's different if you simply want a tangible memory of something you've done and enjoyed. If that's the reason you record music then I doubt you'd mind people sharing it either. Edited February 21, 2013 by ThomBassmonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361414552' post='1985717'] Record company opinion is, obviously, that copying and sharing is wrong - they've expressed that in no uncertain terms. They still release music every other week - that doesn't make their opinion invalid no matter how hard an argument anyone throws at it. [/quote] Depends on the label. one that released the Caricatures CD found it through file sharing, and ha no problem with ongoing digital distribution. Seems to be how modern labels work. A company in the business of distributing copies of material saying that copying and distributing material is wrong, apply that to other industries [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] Are you focussed more on gigging, recording or just playing for your own enjoyment? [/quote] I focus on making money. Its my upbringing/culture. I tend to enjoy doing that, and I enjoy playing. Recording is a bit of a ballache though, people listening to a gig will probably miss the mistakes, and I only have to hear each once, not so with recording. Not unfamilair with helping out with other bands recording in the studio though. How's it relevant? [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] you aim to get paid for gigs [/quote] The people who make money from paying gigs, for the most part, are playing in bands playing copies of songs. Except its called covers then. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] Assuming you see gigs as the earner [/quote] Ha, this part made me laugh a bit. I have been paid £20 (backline hire really) and one stick of juicy fruit (with instruction to not chew it all at once) from gigging. Edited February 21, 2013 by Mr. Foxen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361414353' post='1985715'] This is true. However, if they don't want it shared [i]at all[/i] then by following the logic of that opinion, they'd never release it into an environment where the sharing of culture is what is expected to happen. [/quote] Whilst that argument may stand up in a philosophical context, it falls flat on it's face from a commercial point of view. The 'environment' where the record industry makes it's money is the only environment where it can - and that environment has become one where sharing is seen to be a problem. Of course the music industry is going to release material into that environment - the alternatives are to either walk away from music altogether or lock it in a metal box and never release it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 This goes back to that thing where music existed before the recording industry existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361414794' post='1985719'] Depends on the label. one that released the Caricatures CD found it through file sharing, and ha no problem with ongoing digital distribution. Seems to be how modern labels work. A company in the business of distributing copies of material saying that copying and distributing material is wrong, apply that to other industries [/quote] Well your record label, and I dare say some others, have obviously adopted a business model that can support that sort of activity. However, to be perfectly realistic, there's no way that the large established labels are going to be able, or indeed willing, to adopt that same business model that only exists because of current legal vagaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361415329' post='1985726'] This goes back to that thing where music existed before the recording industry existed. [/quote] <sigh> I miss those days, I used to enjoy being a wandering minstrel singing bawdy songs for bread and ale... I got moved on from all the best places y'know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Good morning. I see that things carried on thought the night long after I succumbed to my slumber. I have to say, though, that I'm rather disappointed that, amongst all the moral wrangling, no one picked up on my point about file sharers being the ones that spend around 10x more on music than non-sharers. Perhaps this muddying of the clear moral waters is too much of an inconvenient truth to bear, but it does suggest that trying to prevent file sharing is a classic example of babies being thrown out with the bath water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockfordStone Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361440117' post='1985877'] Good morning. I see that things carried on thought the night long after I succumbed to my slumber. I have to say, though, that I'm rather disappointed that, amongst all the moral wrangling, no one picked up on my point about file sharers being the ones that spend around 10x more on music than non-sharers. Perhaps this muddying of the clear moral waters is too much of an inconvenient truth to bear, but it does suggest that trying to prevent file sharing is a classic example of babies being thrown out with the bath water. [/quote] i can see the point in this. ive downloaded albums in the past, then gone out and brought the back catalogue and seen the shows. its an easy access to new music, and ive spent sh*t loads on bands as a result of downloading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.