Collective fund for downloaders

[beesonthewhatnow]

My point is that once you start copyrighting stuff like electronic copies of songs, or the concepts expressed in a book, where do you stop?

I still don't see your argument here, surely it all comes down to if you think people should be rewarded for creating something you enjoy. You say music should be free, I don't see how this is possible in anything other than a fantasy utopian society.

 

[In Bloom]

I still don't see your argument here, surely it all comes down to if you think people should be rewarded for creating something you enjoy.

Who is rewarded though?

You say music should be free, I don't see how this is possible in anything other than a fantasy utopian society.

You thow a lot of words around, like "utopian" or "idealistic," but you never explain why the ideas you dismiss as "utopian," like the gift economy, which is the basis of my argument here, are unworkable, you merely assert it and throw in a few adjectives.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Who is rewarded though?


You thow a lot of words around, like "utopian" or "idealistic," but you never explain why the ideas you dismiss as "utopian," like the gift economy, which is the basis of my argument here, are unworkable, you merely assert it and throw in a few adjectives.

Who is rewarded - In the present system, the band, providing all other record company expenses have been met. Which they won't be if nobody pays for the CDs of gigs.

As for the "utopian" comment, you explain to me how a "gift ecconomy" will work and I'll listen.

 

[Dubversion]

Yeah, because people who download never go to live shows, ever

you clearly have fuck all idea about how the industry works to be fair, In Bloom, and you have a very naive notion of bands making lots of money from live shows. Radiohead do, Metallica do, most bands don't. It's a complex situation but basically unless you're already successful and can name your price / conditions, gigs can cost the band money, especially if they have to buy onto a support slot.

 

[Dubversion]

They do, but they don't, and I don't regard "stealing" copyrighted material off the internet as any different from stealing from the ASDA or buying dodgy cigs down the pub, what's the difference, other than a lot of whining from the record companies because they're not used to it happening to them on this sort of scale?

fucking ridiculous comparison.

if you steal some fags from Asda, the tobacco company has already been paid, and the cost incurred by Asda goes on everyone's shopping bill.

If you download music, no royalties are generated for that purchase, so the artist gets an even smaller slice of fuck-all than they would have done otherwise.

I seem to be arguing both ways here - i download a lot, and don't have a problem with it, because of the way the industry is set up against the artist. But i still think In Bloom has a naive view of WHY the industry is wrong and how artists generate the little income they do.

 

[In Bloom]

fucking ridiculous comparison.

if you steal some fags from Asda, the tobacco company has already been paid, and the cost incurred by Asda goes on everyone's shopping bill.

If you download music, no royalties are generated for that purchase, so the artist gets an even smaller slice of fuck-all than they would have done otherwise.

Isn't that kind of predicated on the notion that I would have bought said album if I couldn't download it? I'm pretty skint, I don't buy much of anything atm, I never would have got into a lot of the bands I am into if I didn't download, and I'd be much less likely to go to one of their shows.

I seem to be arguing both ways here - i download a lot, and don't have a problem with it, because of the way the industry is set up against the artist. But i still think In Bloom has a naive view of WHY the industry is wrong and how artists generate the little income they do.

You're entitled to your opinion. There's no shame in being wrong, anyway

 

[In Bloom]

As for the "utopian" comment, you explain to me how a "gift ecconomy" will work and I'll listen.

Oh bollocks, I've done it now

I've got enough essays due in at the mo , give me a little time to respond to this one as a quick response wouldn't do justice.

 

[Dubversion]

Isn't that kind of predicated on the notion that I would have bought said album if I couldn't download it? I'm pretty skint, I don't buy much of anything atm, I never would have got into a lot of the bands I am into if I didn't download, and I'd be much less likely to go to one of their shows.

i agree, which is why the BPI suing some skint mum for her daughter downloading a few albums she'd never have been able to afford to buy is obscene.

so surely your comparison to shoplifting is even more flawed then?

 

[gentlegreen]

One particularly good reason to neither download illegally or legally is that MP3s are shit quality compared to a proper CD.
Someone recently thought they were doing me a favour by giving me an audio CD he'd made from downloaded MP3s

Stealing is stealing

 

[Dubversion]

One particularly good reason to neither download illegally or legally is that MP3s are shit quality compared to a proper CD.
Someone recently thought they were doing me a favour by giving me an audio CD he'd made from downloaded MP3s

depends on the bitrate, but let's not have THAT row again.

 

[In Bloom]

you clearly have fuck all idea about how the industry works to be fair

Fair enough, you know more about the specifics of the industry than me. However, I just regard it as, at least, more reasonable to charge for admission to a live show than for the priveledge of downloading a file that is already in existence and is not costing the company or the artist anything to distribute.

 

[Dubversion]

Fair enough, you know more about the specifics of the industry than me. However, I just regard it as, at least, more reasonable to charge for admission to a live show than for the priveledge of downloading a file that is already in existence and is not costing the company or the artist anything to distribute.

but if the band make fuck all (or lose money from a gig) and stand a chance of making even a few pence from an album purchased, your argument dies on its arse

Also bear in mind that the band may not need cash money as much as sufficient sales to convince the label to keep them signed, so that they can release a second album etc etc etc.

You REALLY haven't thought this through.

 

[In Bloom]

One particularly good reason to neither download illegally or legally is that MP3s are shit quality compared to a proper CD.
Someone recently thought they were doing me a favour by giving me an audio CD he'd made from downloaded MP3s

Don't really want to derail this, but I'd just like to say that unless you happen to be a fruitbat who has been magically granted human intelligence and the power to type, I don't believe for one second you can tell the difference in any meaningful way.

Stealing is stealing

Exploitation is exploitation.

Eggs is eggs.

Crime is crime is crime.

Do you have a point?

 

[Dubversion]

Don't really want to derail this, but I'd just like to say that unless you happen to be a fruitbat who has been magically granted human intelligence and the power to type, I don't believe for one second you can tell the difference in any meaningful way.

nonsense (again) and it depends on the bitrate (again).

 

[In Bloom]

but if the band make fuck all (or lose money from a gig) and stand a chance of making even a few pence from an album purchased, your argument dies on its arse

Also bear in mind that the band may not need cash money as much as sufficient sales to convince the label to keep them signed, so that they can release a second album etc etc etc.

You REALLY haven't thought this through.

Part of the problem with music today is the grip of the record companies. If music moved away from CD sales and more towards live shows it'd be no bad thing, IMO.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

not necessarily.

I've posted THIS more times than is healthy, but that's because it's bang on the fucking money.

Makes for disappointing reading but yeah you're right it is bang on the money, particularly the balance sheet at the end .

 

[gentlegreen]

Don't really want to derail this, but I'd just like to say that unless you happen to be a fruitbat who has been magically granted human intelligence and the power to type, I don't believe for one second you can tell the difference in any meaningful way.

You can if you've taken care of your hearing and have one of these :-

and one of these :-

and a pair or two of these :-

 

[Dubversion]

Part of the problem with music today is the grip of the record companies. If music moved away from CD sales and more towards live shows it'd be no bad thing, IMO.

You're not listening, are you? most bands make fuck all from live shows.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

In Bloom - you say you don't have a problem nicking from a supermarket.

Would you steal from a small familly run corner shop?

What about if said corner shop did OK and they opened a second one? How about a third? At what point does it become acceptable to steal from them?

 

[Dr. Furface]

Isn't that kind of predicated on the notion that I would have bought said album if I couldn't download it? I'm pretty skint, I don't buy much of anything atm, I never would have got into a lot of the bands I am into if I didn't download, and I'd be much less likely to go to one of their shows.

For the millionth time, this is PRECISELY the point. The music biz will do all it can to brainfuck suckers into thinking that if they download music for free that they're ripping artists off, but keep totally schtum about the promotional opportunities that downloading offers THEM for nothing. Would the Arctic Monkeys album have become the fastest selling new release of all time if it hadn't been for the advance buzz enabled by filesharing their promos etc? Would it fuck. It's always the same old song - they want it all their way and can't bear the thought that some of us might be getting something for nothing. Repeat the industry mantra - 'the consumer must be exploited to the max.' Fuck em.

 

[In Bloom]

You're not listening, are you? most bands make fuck all from live shows.

I was talking more in terms of quality and variety of music readily available, actually. Though it's easier for the bands to control their affairs in general if they're not dependent on big studios and shitloads of unnecessary levels of production, surely?

 

[In Bloom]

In Bloom - you say you don't have a problem nicking from a supermarket.

Would you steal from a small familly run corner shop?

What about if said corner shop did OK and they opened a second one? How about a third? At what point does it become acceptable to steal from them?

At the point where they start exploiting the working class for profit.

 

[In Bloom]

You can if you've taken care of your hearing and have one of these :-

and one of these :-

and a pair or two of these :-

I neither know nor care what any of that is, but it looks really expensive.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

At the point where they start exploiting the working class for profit.

Which is when exactly?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I was talking more in terms of quality and variety of music readily available, actually. Though it's easier for the bands to control their affairs in general if they're not dependent on big studios and shitloads of unnecessary levels of production, surely?

So, you want bands to be free of record companies and big studios. So you want them to take control of their own affairs and take their sound on the road for everyone to hear.

Please explain how they are going to find the money to do so - have you any idea of the costs involved for even a small scale tour?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

shitloads of unnecessary levels of production

I'm curious as to what you mean by this...

 

[gentlegreen]

I was talking more in terms of quality and variety of music readily available, actually. Though it's easier for the bands to control their affairs in general if they're not dependent on big studios and shitloads of unnecessary levels of production, surely?

I'm surprised you actually bother to download any music at all then

.

 

[gentlegreen]

I neither know nor care what any of that is, but it looks really expensive.

Actually it wasn't really - about 2 grand - in reasonable proportion to what I paid for my CDs.

Probably insignificant compared to a 20 a day tobacco habit for instance.
(actually I could get almost the same kit together in a year for what I'm currently spending on Tesco ready-made smoothies
(I also don't take holidays)

It's an exageration really because anyone with reasonable hearing should be able to tell the difference with any reasonable off-the-shelf hifi.

As I'm sure Dub could explain far more eloquently than me :-

Different music places different demands on low-bandwidth digital formats. A lot of samples used in modern music are of a lower quality than 128k MP3 ... dubby bass is especially kind to the technology, in a side by side test I seem to remember thrashy punk was actually preferred via MP3.

A lot of music I listen to though is very demanding on the equipment ...

I have recently digitised the first Renaissance Mix CDs for my MP3 player and I can assure you the sound from my CD player is remarkably superior to that from my Creative Live! card which feeds into the same amp and speakers.

.

 

[pk]

So artists should spend hundereds, if not thousands of pounds on time, effort, equipment etc etc for no reward? Are musicians a special type of human that can exist on air or something?

The equipment is tax deductable if you're registered.

 

[In Bloom]

Actually it wasn't really - about 2 grand - in reasonable proportion to what I paid for my CDs.

2 fucking grand?

What would you call expensive?

Probably insignificant compared to a 20 a day tobacco habit for instance.
(actually I could get almost the same kit together in a year for what I'm currently spending on Tesco ready-made smoothies
(I also don't take holidays)

It's an exageration really because anyone with reasonable hearing should be able to tell the difference with any reasonable off-the-shelf hifi.

As I'm sure Dub could explain far more eloquently than me :-

Different music places different demands on low-bandwidth digital formats. A lot of samples used in modern music are of a lower quality than 128k MP3 ... dubby bass is especially kind to the technology, in a side by side test I seem to remember thrashy punk was actually preferred via MP3.

A lot of music I listen to though is very demanding on the equipment ...

I have recently digitised the first Renaissance Mix CDs for my MP3 player and I can assure you the sound from my CD player is remarkably superior to that from my Creative Live! card which feeds into the same amp and speakers.

.

I suppose it probably does come down to the type of music you listen to, really, personally, I can't hear any real difference between, say, the Manics on CD and the Manics on WMA or MP3.