Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:31 PM CDT

Quote by: Loob ... I listen to almost no commercial music much less download it, and it has nothing to do with money. 3/4 of it they'd have to pay me to listen to. I get a glimpse every once in awhile when I happen in on an awards show or something. It usually only takes a minute or two to reaffirm. Not all but most I bump into is total crap and I am amazed the "artist" made it as far as they have. Seems these audiences are very easily led. I fear we have groomed an entire generation to total unawareness of real music talent. This is not 100% true but enough that I don't much listen anyhow. Ok Rant over....

what he said

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:33 PM CDT

Quote by: ledebutant Quote by: BirdmanWayne94 ... I wanted to share it because I, admittedly, took part in illegally downloading a lot of music... reading this article reasoned out the wrongs in what I did. I feel ashamed... but now I leave you with the link to the article: And Yeman, I am often very proud of you when I see the young man you have become. This is definitely one of those times.

yes, indeed! way to go, Yeman!

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM CDT

Quote by: particledots i would also highly doubt that you can proove that if the ability to download suddenly disappeared, all of a sudden people would start buying 'stuff' in the 11,000 plus quantaties mentioned in the article and that as a result the artists would benefit...

Not in those quantities. But people really like music, and will spend money on it if that's the only way to get it.

To put it the other way around: if downloading suddenly goes away, they will not continue to spend essentially zero on it. And even with crooked record companies, artists will benefit from that expenditure, which they do not now.

Victor.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:26 PM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: particledots i would also highly doubt that you can proove that if the ability to download suddenly disappeared, all of a sudden people would start buying 'stuff' in the 11,000 plus quantaties mentioned in the article and that as a result the artists would benefit... Not in those quantities. But people really like music, and will spend money on it if that's the only way to get it. To put it the other way around: if downloading suddenly goes away, they will not continue to spend essentially zero on it. And even with crooked record companies, artists will benefit from that expenditure, which they do not now. Victor.

I dont disagree with that Vic, but i think that people who obtain an 11000 song collection would not even buy all the music they download and probably dont listen to a fraction of what they have 'obtained'...how do you find time to love and listen to 11000 songs?

the point i am trying to make is that although these people may love music, they may not love all the stuff they have obtained...so therefore if it wasnt accessible they would never have bought in the first place

this is why i cant make the connection that artists would benefit in a massive way if downloading was truly criminalised, although i am sure there would be some benefit to some artists

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:50 PM CDT

Quote by: particledots the point i am trying to make is that although these people may love music, they may not love all the stuff they have obtained...so therefore if it wasnt accessible they would never have bought in the first place

Yes, if music was not free they would not buy the stuff they don't care about. But they would buy the stuff they care about. And that benefits the artists.

Victor.

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:26 PM CDT

http://www.thenationocean.com/2012/06/new-record-label.html

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Friday, June 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM CDT

Quote by: particledots Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: particledots i would also highly doubt that you can proove that if the ability to download suddenly disappeared, all of a sudden people would start buying 'stuff' in the 11,000 plus quantaties mentioned in the article and that as a result the artists would benefit... Not in those quantities. But people really like music, and will spend money on it if that's the only way to get it. To put it the other way around: if downloading suddenly goes away, they will not continue to spend essentially zero on it. And even with crooked record companies, artists will benefit from that expenditure, which they do not now. Victor. this is why i cant make the connection that artists would benefit in a massive way if downloading was truly criminalised, although i am sure there would be some benefit to some artists

When the avenues for illegal downloading like Limewire and Megaupload are shut down, people go back to buying music. I don't think it makes any sense going after the individuals, but making it tougher to grab a free download does make a difference. People pay if it's the most convenient way to get what they want.

http://www.riaa.com/mobile/#blogdetail.php?id=292CA8F5-E6F5-750F-54F1-463F1F528E15

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Friday, June 22 2012 @ 11:32 AM CDT

Quote by: ledebutant When the avenues for illegal downloading like Limewire and Megaupload are shut down, people go back to buying music. I don't think it makes any sense going after the individuals, but making it tougher to grab a free download does make a difference. People pay if it's the most convenient way to get what they want. http://www.riaa.com/mobile/#blogdetail.php?id=292CA8F5-E6F5-750F-54F1-463F1F528E15

point taken, but again if people are downloading stuff that may be included in an 11,000 long playlist that they will probably never listen - ie they are downloading it just because its there and because they can - it is very unlikely that they will pay for that...they are only likely to pay for the stuff they really want...so instead of an 11000 strong playlist, they may actually end up with a playlist of less that 500...i can see how this would help for the 500 pieces of music music that may potentially be purchased, but what difference would it make to the other 10,500 songs...they will remain unpurchased, unlistened to and no one will be any better off

i agree lisa that the target should be different if this is really a problem that people were trying to fix...the limewires, napsters, bit torrents and the isps...etc etc should be the focus...not the downloaders who are using these services

but i am still not convinced that its even a problem...

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Saturday, June 23 2012 @ 07:41 PM CDT

Thank goodness we still have this subject to kick around or a bored old man would actually have to write another song.

I'll start with one man's theft is another man's shrewd business decision. Then I will concur that music shouldn't be a business and if that is your motivation to make money then go be a stockbroker. One should play and enjoy music because you love it, not because it makes you rich or gets you laid or any other motivation. If it makes you happy and/or you can make others happy with it then that is it's own reward.

Every advance in technology in the modern world has made changes to music and other forms of entertainment and communication. Before electricity you played music to entertain yourself, your family and nearby friends and aquanintances. There was no music business to speak of then except for sheet music. Most people just made up their own music or passed around old songs from mouth to mouth that had been around for centuries.

Then the avalanche started with movies, radio, tv, record players, eight track (yes they existed and I owned two), reel to reel tape, cassettes, music videos, computers, the internet, mp3's, iPods, iPhones, iPads, iGetsickofwordsthatstartwithi.

When rock n roll and radio top 40 started in the 50's it was mostly for kids. Adults didn't take it seriously unless they were condemning it for racial or puritanical reasons. Then some old man in a cheap three piece suit figured out he could promote it, market it and lo and behold make money off of it. Of course that money was to be reserved for him and not heaven forbid the kids who were actually making the music.

Thus began a very long history of the "music business" exploiting and stealing from musicians. Songs were stolen from a very long list of black and even a few white musicians who didn't understand "business" and/or copyrights and contracts. The airwaves were divided up and sold by the Federal government even though they were owned by "all the people". And so the "music business" prospered. It was owned and controlled by a few rich and powerful people and they decided who was going to be a "star" and made it so by marketing, payola, etc.

Not to say that some of the musicians didn't have talent or make money but it was usually in spite of the "music business" not because of it. There was a brief moment of rebellion in the 60's when a few people, even some bands, started to say that music should be "free". Of course that went by the wayside when most bands discovered that not only were they not getting rich by playing the music business game but actually were in debt to the very people who were making a great deal of money off of their music.

This was accomplished by one sided contracts that bands and artists thought they had to sign to get recognition. Actually most of them were stoned and didn't even know what they were signing, just that they were going to be "stars". Okay that's not fair, a couple of them weren't stoned.

Then there was the consumer. The bedrock supplier of all the goodies for the music business. I have been one of them. I listened to the radio stations, went out and bought the songs on vinyl, then eight track, then cassette, and finally CD's. Sometimes I only wanted one or two songs but had to buy a whole album to get it (remind anyone of cable tv?). You bought the package or you didn't get anything. The "music business" controlled. They were all powerful and ultimately they were greedy.

When technology advanced to where affordable home recorders were available that could record off of the radio they were mortified. It didn't matter that except for technology we would still be sitting around playing for our family and friends and they wouldn't have made any money at all. Oh no! This was theft of their ill gotten gains. This was the use of "illegal" technology.

Of course they tried to define what was legal or illegal by lobbying Congress. They failed on trying to outlaw home recording. It was deemed "time shifting". How could you be stealing something that was put over the airwaves for free (let's avoid commercials for this discussion).

Another thing they disliked is that when you bought music from them it then became your property. You could then turn around and give it or sell it to someone else. After the initial sale they lost control. This is the where the current "stealing music" controversy comes from. Everytime prior to the digital age that technology changed they had made money on top of money. I estimate that I have bought some songs seven or eight times. Buying another record when the first one got too scratched and then buying another copy of my favorites in each new technology as I eventually "upgraded".

Not many people remember this but the first mp3's that showed up on the internet before Napster were put out for free downloading by groups or individuals that were trying to promote themselves and figured out the internet could be a great way to do it. Kind of like what we do here at Macjams although most of us don't really expect to make any money from this and do it because we enjoy it.

But the music business howled when Napster arrived and became popular. This was far worse than home taping or selling used records or CD's. This was going to destroy the music business. Well good I say! About time! The music business didn't mind stealing from the ignorant, uneducated and merely stupid. The music business didn't mind stealing the airwaves from us and then selling them back to us. The music business didn't mind shoving third and fourth rate musicians down the public throat while so many of the good and great starved. The music business didn't mind charging twice what a CD should have cost.

But of course internet piracy has not destroyed the music business. It has simply taken some of the control away from them. Groups can now have their own web pages and direct market to the public. They don't need big business. The internet has opened up the number of groups and musicians that have a chance to grab some of the business pie. So as time goes on we will see fewer and fewer of the "super groups" that sell millions of records. You Tube by itself has given the "kids" of today the chance to discover not only the new music coming out daily but the music of days gone by.

Stealing and greed are, of course, morally wrong. No matter if you sit in a corporate office or in your chair in front of a computer. All I see around me is everyday people who have been sold out and exploited by their government and the ultra-wealthy groups who prosper no matter what. The economy continues to go down everywhere, not just in the music industry.

Most of us, and especially the un or under employed or retired people on low fixed incomes, are starting to feel the pinch of inflation brought on us by the creation of trillions of new dollars out of thin air in order to insure that those who brought on the mess do not suffer because of it.

In another year it will almost certainly not be whether I can afford to "legally" buy music, or a movie or a book. It will be whether I can buy food, keep the lights turned on and some gas in the car for as little driving as I absolutely have to do. In another few years after that, the other great evil power, The Health Industry, will take what little money I do have left.

Do I feel guilty that I have not done my part to keep industry and the economy alive?

Ha, hahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:An Opinion on Music Piracy
Saturday, June 23 2012 @ 07:43 PM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: particledots i would also highly doubt that you can proove that if the ability to download suddenly disappeared, all of a sudden people would start buying 'stuff' in the 11,000 plus quantaties mentioned in the article and that as a result the artists would benefit... Not in those quantities. But people really like music, and will spend money on it if that's the only way to get it. To put it the other way around: if downloading suddenly goes away, they will not continue to spend essentially zero on it. And even with crooked record companies, artists will benefit from that expenditure, which they do not now. Victor.

the netherlands checks in .... gotta agree