Paying For Online Music....

[J201605]

So Time Warner is the reason for all the retarded adaptations of happy birthday at chevys, chilis, etc.? They WILL be brought to justice!!!

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

They didn't sing me happy birthday at Emeril's Atlanta :angry:

Not sure if this is related, though. Food was awesome.

 

[lubidog]

Telco, you make it sound like it's a bad thing that people expect to make money out of music.....

How dare they, how dare they not exist purely for your pleasure! If there were no musicians our lives would be crap! I am the saviour of your miserable souls!

@Saehn, I don't wanna go over this endlessly, but... Of course, you can't 'steal' music, but if you have a 'cd'(yes, I know) on your ipod that you would have bought and paid for but got for nothing, and if you play it a lot and enjoy it then the money that you would have paid has not been paid and the musician has given you something for nothing and so on and so on... It is theft in all but name!

The point is, we who download music for nothing shouldn't persuade ourselves that we are justified. Of course we aren't. There is a place for downloading, I am sure that some companies use Oink for pre-release testing etc. And I know that people who do download tend to have more bought Cds than others etc. But all this shite about music should be free etc is shite. And if you enjoy what the Bitmap Brothers have done, you should pay for it. It shouldn't be up to your sense of good will etc.

Also, don't you mean the Stamper Brothers DCGM? They have left Rare, but I thing the Bitmaps are still going Indie...(?)

 

[saehn]

@saehn, I don't wanna go over this endlessly, but... Of course, you can't 'steal' music, but if you have a 'cd'(yes, I know) on your ipod that you would have bought and paid for but got for nothing, and if you play it a lot and enjoy it then the money that you would have paid has not been paid and the musician has given you something for nothing and so on and so on... It is theft in all but name!

The point is, we who download music for nothing shouldn't persuade ourselves that we are justified. Of course we aren't. There is a place for downloading, I am sure that some companies use Oink for pre-release testing etc. And I know that people who do download tend to have more bought Cds than others etc. But all this shite about music should be free etc is shite. And if you enjoy what the Bitmap Brothers have done, you should pay for it. It shouldn't be up to your sense of good will etc.

I understand, we simply have different opinions. It isn't as though this is an absolute right/wrong issue. But to present a compelling case for your viewpoint, you're going to have to do more than dismiss my perspective as 'shite'. Give counter-arguments, rationale...

Have a look at the response I wrote to WarmFluffyUK, it more fully presents my perspective. I'll give you an example: if you look at and enjoy a copyrighted painting, should you pay the artist? If you memorize a copyrighted poem, should you pay the poet? What about a copyrighted sculpture?

Some people want to support commercial artists. They go to shows, buy tangible products, collect CDs. That's their choice. Music has existed for thousands of years prior to the music industry. If commercial music ended, we'd still have people creating and distributing music just for the joy of it.

I often think that capitalism dirties everything it touches.

 

[gp32rich]

If it was true that musicians made more from touring than CD sales wouldn't it be true that all musicians would tour and not release CD's?


Okay. That was a little extreme and there's a lot of background overheads that are 'required' to support a musician in the business (managers, producers, engineers, studios, etc) that the CD's do support so the musician can get a good crowd at a concert and make their money.

The problem with media corporations is musicians no longer need all that support to throw a few tracks on the internet to drum up support for a concert.
That is why they're so paranoid about piracy.




I completely disagree with anyone making the obscene amounts of money that some have made. (whether they be musicians, actors or sportsmen) and I don't mind ripping off those.

 

[lubidog]

*sigh*

Do you realise that my full time job is as a musician? Your argument I understand, but really it belongs to the dark ages. I hate this whole attitude that what I do as a living I should do just for 'the love of it' and not expect to be paid! Why shouldn't I be paid when I spend hours and weeks working on something?

Before the recording industry, there was only live music, obviously. Now, do you think that we should perform concerts for you for free? Should I give up hours of my life practising and memorizing just for your pleasure? Of course not. And although I work in the classical sphere, I can promise you that very few recorded musicians make money from there recordings. The whole cost structure and the awful 'paying back' for all the initial out costs is crippling, and that goes across the whole musical spectrum.

Yes, it is complex and not just right or wrong. But your basic argument seems to be that 'expecting' to be paid for music is fundamentally wrong, and we should be simply grateful for receiving money is wrong. If I sing, I expect to be paid, whether it's in a live concert, or a cd I have made. You have NO RIGHT at all to expect to be able to hear my work, either by a recorded medium or in a live situation for nothing. You should pay me, or not hear me. (I know, you don't wanna hear me etc, but you understand what I mean).

If your argument were to be taken to it's conclusion, there would never be ANY music recorded. Why would anyone make a recording, just to give it away. There would be no radio, because a live radio station couldn't exist. How would you know what music and which bands you liked if you couldn't get to know them via recordings, so there would be no concerts. (I know there were concerts and performances before recorded music, but back in those days there was only one genre of music, and that was 'music'. Classical and pop didn't exist! And the players were paid, believe me!)

I download music, but I understand that I need to support the industry, because I love music and want my favourite bands to continue. If they make massive amounts of money because they are talented, then so what? In my sphere, no one makes money. But this inference that I should do it for pleasure, like Telco said, and get a proper job is....shite! YOu want a life devoid of artists? A grey boring existence? Or do you want a life full of music and colour, then pay he people that give you this richness. And your painting analogy-do you think these great painters painted in their spare time? Nope, they were all full time artists. You can go to an exhibition and enjoy their work any time you want to, (Probably paying to enter...) If you want to enjoy the picture every day, if not go home without it. In the same way you can turn on the radio and hope to hear your favourite song. If you want to have the chance to own a copy, and enjoy the song whenever you wish BUY IT!

Do you believe that computer coders should code for you for free? It's the same thing, believe me!





Now, I am off to download a few cds, and to feel really guilty about it!

 

[saehn]

It would be too long to quote each of your points and reply to them, so I'll try to summarize.

Paragraph #1. I do understand you to some extent, and hope that your fans support your art. Art produced for public consumption isn't a negotiated sale, it's a gamble. That's why I said you can't expect money, but that you can hope for it. It's not like selling a tangible item (other than the CD sale).

#2. I'm not saying that concerts should be free, they're held on private property. We pay for admission.

#3. You can only expect payment for the exchange of goods/services via a negotiated sale. If you publicly communicate via mass distribution of CDs or radio, that's the gamble I mentioned earlier.

#4. Internet radio exists for free. There are pirate radio stations that play music simply because they like to. You don't see more of it simply because it's illegal. I find out about music through clubs or friends. Musicians aren't always paid. You must know that some of them have always performed just because they love it.

#5. Well, I'm not arguing from TelcoLou's perspective. If you want to try to sell your work, that's up to you. Music wouldn't cease to exist if the music industry ceased to exist. Art existed before commerce. If I wanted to enjoy a picture every day, I'd download a copy of it or take a picture of it. If I wanted to physically own it, I'd purchase it. Same with music.

#6 Computer coders often do code for free. I run Ubuntu at home. I'm pretty sure that you run emulators on your GP2X. Between that and the fact that you download music, I don't think even you really believe your perspective. Otherwise, wouldn't your actions agree with your beliefs?

Would you like it if we had the technology to "scramble" music (on the radio, live, etc.) so that only paying customers could hear it via descramblers in their ears? Or, what if each album was sold with a contract stating that only the purchaser could listen to it, and that non-purchaser enjoyment was a breach of contract. Might as well go all the way with the commodification.

I'm an artist, too. I sympathize with your perspective. But it's not my profession because it's too much of a gamble. Also, I don't think I want to sully it with commercialism. In my opinion, you commercial musicians have to figure out some way to make money outside of the music industry middlemen, and also concentrate more on selling physical products (CDs case with extra content) and/or physical experiences (shows, etc.). Everything else is too much of gamble; some people want to pay for music, some don't. The downloading of music isn't going to go away.

 

[lubidog]

It would be too long to quote each of your points and reply to them, so I'll try to summarize.

Paragraph #1. I do understand you to some extent, and hope that your fans support your art. Art produced for public consumption isn't a negotiated sale, it's a gamble. That's why I said you can't expect money, but that you can hope for it. It's not like selling a tangible item (other than the CD sale).

#2. I'm not saying that concerts should be free, they're held on private property. We pay for admission.

#3. You can only expect payment for the exchange of goods/services via a negotiated sale. If you publicly communicate via mass distribution of CDs or radio, that's the gamble I mentioned earlier.

#4. Internet radio exists for free. There are pirate radio stations that play music simply because they like to. You don't see more of it simply because it's illegal. I find out about music through clubs or friends. Musicians aren't always paid. You must know that some of them have always performed just because they love it.

#5. Well, I'm not arguing from TelcoLou's perspective. If you want to try to sell your work, that's up to you. Music wouldn't cease to exist if the music industry ceased to exist. Art existed before commerce. If I wanted to enjoy a picture every day, I'd download a copy of it or take a picture of it. If I wanted to physically own it, I'd purchase it. Same with music.

#6 Computer coders often do code for free. I run Ubuntu at home. I'm pretty sure that you run emulators on your GP2X. Between that and the fact that you download music, I don't think even you really believe your perspective. Otherwise, wouldn't your actions agree with your beliefs?

Would you like it if we had the technology to "scramble" music (on the radio, live, etc.) so that only paying customers could hear it via descramblers in their ears? Or, what if each album was sold with a contract stating that only the purchaser could listen to it, and that non-purchaser enjoyment was a breach of contract. Might as well go all the way with the commodification.

I'm an artist, too. I sympathize with your perspective. But it's not my profession because it's too much of a gamble. Also, I don't think I want to sully it with commercialism. In my opinion, you commercial musicians have to figure out some way to make money outside of the music industry middlemen, and also concentrate more on selling physical products (CDs case with extra content) and/or physical experiences (shows, etc.). Everything else is too much of gamble; some people want to pay for music, some don't. The downloading of music isn't going to go away.

Dunno why I am rising to your bait, but do you know how angry it makes me when you infer that I should get a proper job like you, cos you are purer in your 'art' because you 'do it for the love of it'?

You are obviously living in an idealised world. Do you think you should be running Ubuntu on a pc that you DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR? Should factory workers make your pc "For the love of it?"

Of course not.

You pay for admission, but you should pay for the poor buggers that turn up and play for you, not to mention the sound, stage and tech crew! Do you think they do it "For the love of it"? No money, no concerts! Or just amateur concerts....

How would there be any internet radio if no one made any cds? What would they play? Tell me, I want to know! If no one paid for the cds, there would be no internet radio, believe me!

Point 6, this is the meat of it. I am saying that musicians, like all artists and ALL PEOPLE THAT WORK should be paid. Do you really believe that this is wrong? Or do you think that if art is paid for then it becomes 'sullied' Your last comments, about you being an artist but not sullying it with commerce is really arrogant. You probably don't like Opera, but that is what I do. I am sorry, but when someone goes to see a performance in a big Opera house, the amount of work gone into what you see could not be done on a part time, amateur basis. We want to make something wonderful, not half-arsed by self deluding amateurs putting a couple of hours in after work. And if you want to hear the best voices then you have to pay them a but more etc. Capatalism meets Art, but it was ever so.

You would have no music in your life if no one paid musicians. That is all. You may believe in your lofty ideals, but you are wrong. Musicians must be paid. In point 6 you said I can't believe in my argument. I do, I just feel a lttle guilty when I download a cd and don't pay. But I put so much of my money into this industry because if no one did, there would be no cds to listen to. Music and art have survived for thousnds of years. But amateur artists make amateaur art, believe me.

So pay up or feel bad!

 

[saehn]

Dunno why I am rising to your bait, but do you know how angry it makes me when you infer that I should get a proper job like you, cos you are purer in your 'art' because you 'do it for the love of it'?

I don't think that, nor did I infer it.

You are obviously living in an idealised world. Do you think you should be running Ubuntu on a pc that you DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR? Should factory workers make your pc "For the love of it?"

No, it's a physical thing. I expect to pay for physical things.

You pay for admission, but you should pay for the poor buggers that turn up and play for you, not to mention the sound, stage and tech crew! Do you think they do it "For the love of it"? No money, no concerts! Or just amateur concerts....

I assume that is all included in the price of admission.

How would there be any internet radio if no one made any cds? What would they play? Tell me, I want to know! If no one paid for the cds, there would be no internet radio, believe me!

That's kind of a weird thing to say. I know there needs to be music in order to play music. Music would still be produced even if the commerical music industry disappeared. Also, I'm not saying that people should stop selling music or CDs.

Point 6, this is the meat of it. I am saying that musicians, like all artists and ALL PEOPLE THAT WORK should be paid. Do you really believe that this is wrong?

Art is different because it's communication. Unless it's commissioned, there's no contract of sale between the creator and the consumer. If you want to support an artist's continued work, then pay him. Makes sense to me, I'm not arguing that. "Should be paid" is where we disagree. "Might be paid" is more correct, unless you have a contract of sale. Think of street musicians. We can listen to their music without dropping a coin in the hat. It's a gamble.

Or do you think that if art is paid for then it becomes 'sullied' Your last comments, about you being an artist but not sullying it with commerce is really arrogant.

What I mean is that if I'm making the art I want, I'm true to my vision. If it sells, great. But that can lead into commercial art created to make money, and that is often hollow and devoid of life. That's just my opinion about my art, and I know it doesn't apply to everyone.

You probably don't like Opera, but that is what I do. I am sorry, but when someone goes to see a performance in a big Opera house, the amount of work gone into what you see could not be done on a part time, amateur basis.

I like some of the music in operas, but not the drama communicated through non-English languages.

It makes sense that you charge admission to a private event. That's what I was referring to by "physical experiences (shows, etc.)".

We want to make something wonderful, not half-arsed by self deluding amateurs putting a couple of hours in after work. And if you want to hear the best voices then you have to pay them a but more etc. Capatalism meets Art, but it was ever so.

You would have no music in your life if no one paid musicians. That is all. You may believe in your lofty ideals, but you are wrong. Musicians must be paid. In point 6 you said I can't believe in my argument. I do, I just feel a lttle guilty when I download a cd and don't pay. But I put so much of my money into this industry because if no one did, there would be no cds to listen to. Music and art have survived for thousnds of years. But amateur artists make amateaur art, believe me.

That's just not true. My two best friends are musicians, and I like their art better than a lot of commercial, professional artists. Don't you know people that create things solely for the joy of creation? Look at the homebrew category in the GP2X archive. Nobody's making money there.

So pay up or feel bad!

I feel fine, lubidog. I've enjoyed discussing the subject with you.

 

[TelcoLou]

Whee! :lol:

I don't know how qualified I am to take place in this discussion, as most of the music I like is against everything mainstream, etc. I never paid more than $15 to see a show either, and that was with 10+ bands on the bill

I've bought demo tapes many, many many² times back in the '80s after seeing a band I really liked ... they produced the tapes themselves and I knew the money was going directly to the band.

.... you know, tapes .... cassette tapes ... yeah; feeling old now

 

[lubidog]

Why this pride about not paying much for music? Does that make you hard, eh? EH???

Mean bastard!

 

[Nova]

So pay up or feel bad!

Paypal ok?

 

[declaration]

People who believe that music would not be produced without the record industry are deluded beyond belief.

Music was played centuries before we learned how to record sound. It would continue to be made, recorded, and distributed even if absolutely no-one was willing to pay for CDs.

Why this pride about not paying much for music? Does that make you hard, eh? EH???

Mean bastard!

It shouldn't shock you that some people try to justify their actions.

Not everyone can be as hypocritical as you.

 

[lubidog]

People who believe that music would not be produced without the record industry are deluded beyond belief.

Music was played centuries before we learned how to record sound. It would continue to be made, recorded, and distributed even if absolutely no-one was willing to pay for CDs.

Why this pride about not paying much for music? Does that make you hard, eh? EH???

Mean bastard!

It shouldn't shock you that some people try to justify their actions.

Not everyone can be as hypocritical as you.

I know that music was produced, played etc before the recording companies you goat! But the performers were paid for it! People paid and and people played! And if the recording industry stopped tomorrow then music would continue OBVIOUSLY! But people wouldn't make recordings. Not like today. And I like listening to recordings made by brilliant and dedicated artists. And they NEED PAYING!

Why are you lot so against paying for music? Why should a musician not be paid? Live in the real world, if you enjoy music or games, then the people that provide you with these need to earn a living! WHat the hell is wrong with this?


And I know I am a hypocrite. I am happy to admit it. I just don't have my head in the sand like some of you good souls!

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

[quote post='503489' date='Feb 8 2007, 08:05 PM']

However you badge it to make yourself feel ok about it, downloading for free is technically theft.

It's not. Technically, it's copyright infringement. Theft is removing the property of another person and possessing it for yourself.

Your previous posts indicate that you play emulated ROMs on your GP2X that you've never purchased. Do you consider that theft as well?

Tell me: if I browse through a friend's library and memorize a copyrighted poem, is that wrong?
[/quote]
Yes I play roms that I didn't previously own, But most I play I actually do own, and I play them because I bought them originally when I was a girl, It's a retro thing hon. I don't really play much on my 2X that I didn't buy because I wouldn't have it originally if I hadn't bought it. Did that make sense?

 

[saehn]

Yes I play roms that I didn't previously own, But most I play I actually do own, and I play them because I bought them originally when I was a girl, It's a retro thing hon. I don't really play much on my 2X that I didn't buy because I wouldn't have it originally if I hadn't bought it. Did that make sense?

I definitely understand the retro appeal. However, to voice strong feelings about copyright infringement for music and but then not apply that to another form of copyright infringement... it's conflicting.

That being said, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with playing old ROMs. Play on!

 

[TelcoLou]

'Pick and Choose' piracy at it's worst :lol: I love it!

 

[trooper]

Just to put a spanner in the works,

What about all though`s Aboriginal, African tribes and other third world countries that have their native songs recorded/sampled and used in commercial musical productions to make money for the developed countries of the world, Do they see any of the profits, Mmmmmm i doubt it. :rolleyes:

Large music companies being hypocrites themselves.

Trooper

 

[declaration]

People who believe that music would not be produced without the record industry are deluded beyond belief.

Music was played centuries before we learned how to record sound. It would continue to be made, recorded, and distributed even if absolutely no-one was willing to pay for CDs.

Why this pride about not paying much for music? Does that make you hard, eh? EH???

Mean bastard!

It shouldn't shock you that some people try to justify their actions.

Not everyone can be as hypocritical as you.

I know that music was produced, played etc before the recording companies you goat! But the performers were paid for it! People paid and and people played! And if the recording industry stopped tomorrow then music would continue OBVIOUSLY! But people wouldn't make recordings. Not like today. And I like listening to recordings made by brilliant and dedicated artists. And they NEED PAYING!

Why are you lot so against paying for music? Why should a musician not be paid? Live in the real world, if you enjoy music or games, then the people that provide you with these need to earn a living! WHat the hell is wrong with this?


And I know I am a hypocrite. I am happy to admit it. I just don't have my head in the sand like some of you good souls!

People would definitely still make recordings.

Albums are art, not just revenue providers. People would produce albums for the art, knowing they could make a living out of T-Shirts, merchandise, and tours.

I bet you people banging on about piracy have no qualms about second hand album stores where the original artist gets no money for their product sold. Thats like paid-for warez! But that's not illegal, so the sheep think it's ok.

 

[nickspoon]

I bet you people banging on about piracy have no qualms about second hand album stores where the original artist gets no money for their product sold. Thats like paid-for warez! But that's not illegal, so the sheep think it's ok.

Hmm, the second-hand scenario is a bit tricky. On the one hand, the product has been paid for, so with copies sold from the second-hand store, the artist has received reward for this. However, the product can be sold on a theoretically unlimited number of times, so it's just like paid-for piracy. But, when selling your CD, you no longer physically own it. The ability to listen to that CD has been passed on. So, if you wanted one day to listen to your CD, you would be paying the artist.

Anyway, I don't believe that musicians should be obliged to work for free, in the same way as nobody else is. Some of them do it because they want to or they enjoy doing it, and they want their work to be listened to (which is like the homebrew scene really), but most do it because they want to make a living, maybe out of something they enjoy, which they are entitled to be able to do.

And for the record, a lot of free music is just as good as the commercial stuff, if not better than most of that homogeneous crap.