Xor, you've hit on a couple of things I find to be valuable about file sharing/mp3s. In particular, the whole "exposure" thing. Yeah, a lot of artists are happy just to have someone appreciate their work. Also, as Merc sort of brought up, you also have to factor in that a lot of downloads are done by someone who would never by a cd by any given artist if they only like a song or two. So in that situation, there's not really a 'loss' since there wouldn't have been a purchase to begin with.
My main gripe is this reasoning is probably not the motive behind the majority of downloads. Instead, downloading has supplanted purchasing for a lot of folks. In an ideal world, all art would be free and fans would support artists. I don't think that's happening today, at least not on a large scale.
As for intellectual property, I find that to be more of a black & white issue. If you create something physical or otherwise, it is yours to exploit, whore, give away, whatever you would like to do with it. Should books be distributed freely? How about video games? After all, recording an album and developing software aren't all that different fundamentally.
Alright, so maybe I'm an ardent capitalist, whatever. I'm a musician myself and while I've made small amounts of cash, I've never tried to live on it. I do see the benefit file sharing can have in exposing lesser-known musicians to a wider audience, but if nobody in this newly found audience buys your album when they can just download it for free, what good is this exposure? Live audience? That's negligible. Can anyone here honestly say they went out to see live music based on discovering the artist through mp3 distribution?
Double-edged sword, I think.
MP3's
RE: MP3
no but i plan to see ben folds.....
Anyway I bought the new system of a down CD because its a good CD... I downloaded it onto my computer, and now I'm burning it for friends.... Thats the same thing isnt it? minus the internet....
Anyway I bought the new system of a down CD because its a good CD... I downloaded it onto my computer, and now I'm burning it for friends.... Thats the same thing isnt it? minus the internet....
-
Archangelus
- Posts: 4286
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:01 pm
- Contact:
RE: MP3
1) Re: UndeadMerc's Post
I have an issue w/ your teacher's idea. Let me put it in a parallel that most adults could relate to. All of us pay taxes (in the US at least) and a portion of our local income tax goes to the school system. Many adults who don't have kids in the system (more applicably are the people who will NEVER have kids in the system) argue that it is unfair that they are being taxed to pay for a system they don't use. Same thing here. Let's pretend that I don't do any file-sharing period. Why should I be forced to pay money for files that others are downloading that I don't benefit from? Who cares if I could do it? That's like saying, I should pay money to the WuTangClan just because I could listen to their music, even though I hate it.
Now, before anyone goes all philosophical, yes, there are some caveat arguments to the school system thing that society benefits, yadda yadda yadda, but it was a good example in principal with the same common argument.
2) Downloading MP3's Morality
I honestly have very little issue with downloading MP3's, and let me explain why. For years, artists have been getting huge contracts which were a (large, but not majority) fraction of what the studios were getting for the sales of the CDs and other related materials. They didn't seem to care that they were charging anywhere from $13.99 - 16.99 for a CD on which I only wanted one or two songs off of and that only cost them about .25 - .50 to manufacture. Their argument then was that they had to have that type of profit margin, because for every Madonna or Mariah Carey, there was the garage band that they paid upfront money to and sold 100 albums of.
But what happened when illegal file sharing took off and every Pink, Undead, and Xor was doing it? "Oh, we're hurting. We're not making as much anymore. We've lost like 10% of our money. Boo Hoo." Is that enough? Nope. On top of it, the record companies slashed their prices of CD's to try and get people to buy them again. Now, the prices are $9.99 - 13.99. A little more reasonable, but still high in my estimation. To top it off, the US government ruled against the major music studios that they were colluding on the prices of CD's and were required to actually shell some cash out to the consumers. Too little, too late, but thanks for trying FTC!!
Now that illegal file sharing is starting to slow down, and the fact that "technically" buying online through iTunes is more expensive than buying the CD and ripping it yourself, the studios have started to inch the CD prices up again. On top of it, any major artist will tell you, they make their money touring. They get a larger portion of the take and merchandise sales on a tour. Sure, if you are a HUGE name star, you get the fat contract, but for most artists, touring is where it's at.
3) MP3 = Real Purchases?
Well, I can honestly say that there are a number of artists that I never would have listened to or considered buying a CD of if it wasn't for the MP3. Switchfoot and Shinedown are examples for me. I grabbed some songs first and liked them so much that I bought the CD's so I could convert them into higher quality MP3s. When Switchfoot's new album comes out in August, I'll be buying it. Same thing with Harry Connick Jr. I grabbed some Christmas Music one year because I like his stuff from all the Nora Ephron films, and my wife and I ended up going to a specific "Harry for the Holidays" concert.
4) Parting words (for this topic)
I 100% understand what you are saying Kilroy. To me there is a balance. I believe artists should be rewarded for the work that we enjoy, but that it should be reasonable and in line with my opinion of the satisfaction that I get from that work. In the past, we did that by purchasing the artist's CD. In many cases, that was ridiculously high for me in comparison to how much enjoyment I got from those one or two songs, but now as more methods are coming out to do song-by-song purchases, it becomes easier for me to justify "rewarding" an artist for the works I like. I personally still think $1.00/song is high, but it's a hell of a lot better than $16.99 for a CD where I only care about 2 songs.
I also don't think it is fair that there are artists out there that suffer because of people that never buy the CD. In fact, those bands could end up w/o a contract if CD sales lack, regardless of how popular their music might be from downloads.
For me, a perfect world would be free downloads of the songs, but I'll gladly pay for my ticket to go support that performer in a live show.
Just my two shiny pennies....
-Arch
I have an issue w/ your teacher's idea. Let me put it in a parallel that most adults could relate to. All of us pay taxes (in the US at least) and a portion of our local income tax goes to the school system. Many adults who don't have kids in the system (more applicably are the people who will NEVER have kids in the system) argue that it is unfair that they are being taxed to pay for a system they don't use. Same thing here. Let's pretend that I don't do any file-sharing period. Why should I be forced to pay money for files that others are downloading that I don't benefit from? Who cares if I could do it? That's like saying, I should pay money to the WuTangClan just because I could listen to their music, even though I hate it.
Now, before anyone goes all philosophical, yes, there are some caveat arguments to the school system thing that society benefits, yadda yadda yadda, but it was a good example in principal with the same common argument.
2) Downloading MP3's Morality
I honestly have very little issue with downloading MP3's, and let me explain why. For years, artists have been getting huge contracts which were a (large, but not majority) fraction of what the studios were getting for the sales of the CDs and other related materials. They didn't seem to care that they were charging anywhere from $13.99 - 16.99 for a CD on which I only wanted one or two songs off of and that only cost them about .25 - .50 to manufacture. Their argument then was that they had to have that type of profit margin, because for every Madonna or Mariah Carey, there was the garage band that they paid upfront money to and sold 100 albums of.
But what happened when illegal file sharing took off and every Pink, Undead, and Xor was doing it? "Oh, we're hurting. We're not making as much anymore. We've lost like 10% of our money. Boo Hoo." Is that enough? Nope. On top of it, the record companies slashed their prices of CD's to try and get people to buy them again. Now, the prices are $9.99 - 13.99. A little more reasonable, but still high in my estimation. To top it off, the US government ruled against the major music studios that they were colluding on the prices of CD's and were required to actually shell some cash out to the consumers. Too little, too late, but thanks for trying FTC!!
Now that illegal file sharing is starting to slow down, and the fact that "technically" buying online through iTunes is more expensive than buying the CD and ripping it yourself, the studios have started to inch the CD prices up again. On top of it, any major artist will tell you, they make their money touring. They get a larger portion of the take and merchandise sales on a tour. Sure, if you are a HUGE name star, you get the fat contract, but for most artists, touring is where it's at.
3) MP3 = Real Purchases?
Well, I can honestly say that there are a number of artists that I never would have listened to or considered buying a CD of if it wasn't for the MP3. Switchfoot and Shinedown are examples for me. I grabbed some songs first and liked them so much that I bought the CD's so I could convert them into higher quality MP3s. When Switchfoot's new album comes out in August, I'll be buying it. Same thing with Harry Connick Jr. I grabbed some Christmas Music one year because I like his stuff from all the Nora Ephron films, and my wife and I ended up going to a specific "Harry for the Holidays" concert.
4) Parting words (for this topic)
I 100% understand what you are saying Kilroy. To me there is a balance. I believe artists should be rewarded for the work that we enjoy, but that it should be reasonable and in line with my opinion of the satisfaction that I get from that work. In the past, we did that by purchasing the artist's CD. In many cases, that was ridiculously high for me in comparison to how much enjoyment I got from those one or two songs, but now as more methods are coming out to do song-by-song purchases, it becomes easier for me to justify "rewarding" an artist for the works I like. I personally still think $1.00/song is high, but it's a hell of a lot better than $16.99 for a CD where I only care about 2 songs.
I also don't think it is fair that there are artists out there that suffer because of people that never buy the CD. In fact, those bands could end up w/o a contract if CD sales lack, regardless of how popular their music might be from downloads.
For me, a perfect world would be free downloads of the songs, but I'll gladly pay for my ticket to go support that performer in a live show.
Just my two shiny pennies....
-Arch
RE: MP3
damn captitalists....
on pjs question... yes i do think that the US owns the interent (seeing as how we invented it and all...)
the UN tried to "change" the ownership to a "global" ownership sort of like a UN for the internet but... we kinda killed that idea (thank god. think if france got partial control of it
[no offense to any french descent out there])
on pjs question... yes i do think that the US owns the interent (seeing as how we invented it and all...)
the UN tried to "change" the ownership to a "global" ownership sort of like a UN for the internet but... we kinda killed that idea (thank god. think if france got partial control of it
[no offense to any french descent out there])<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/ ... opesig.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/ ... 519979.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">
-
Starscream
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: Hamilton, ON
- Contact:
RE: MP3
Software piracy is simple. I like it, I buy it. No issue at all. I buy my games. My music... um... I bought a CD last millenium. I listen to radio and streamed internet music. When I got my mp3/cam phone... I had to actually search for music for it because I had none. Pretty funny.
"Victory is made of the ashes of one's enemies."
RE: MP3
i came in kinda late there... didnt see the page 2
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/ ... opesig.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/ ... 519979.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">
-
EightyFour
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:34 am
- Location: California
Well no one owns the internet, the internet was created by the people that use it. If no one used it, it would still be mostly phone lines running around still. Now I don't speak for the invention of it, but the ownership, lets please get that sright right of the bat. If a company in the United States owns a routeing server than it is there's, like MaBell. If French company owns a router, than as far as I know, it's there router and they can use it as they please. The internet is just a series of serveral computers all hooked together.
The whole thing about the mp3's download talk and people thinking the musicans suffer, well it's not as hyped up as you would think. Metallica is a special case because with a name like that they can push and pull with there company a bit to get more of the pot. Most musicans get 2 cents for every $15 to $20 dollar CD you buy, like I said, if your big enough you can pull more than 2 cents your way. But most of that money gose to pay for concerts, memorabila, recording, etc.. Most artist don't see alot of that money, the money they get is from going out on tour and doing the concerts and other such.
If 50% of America bought your record ( and that's asking a lot) you make $3,000,000 and I'm talking total population here from Mr and Mrs married 60 years to the guy that just got born, 50% of that.
The thing I well say for the oppisite side of the subject is that record companys stop making as much money, they have less power to endorse, and that favorite band of yours that you like so much, you may have never heard of if it wasen't for the bussiness of music.
Less money means they have to pick the cream of the crop.
And lastly, wow, Drakkan asks if anyone knows where he can get some music and everyone shoots off into 10 different political discustions, wow.
Talk about crazy.
The whole thing about the mp3's download talk and people thinking the musicans suffer, well it's not as hyped up as you would think. Metallica is a special case because with a name like that they can push and pull with there company a bit to get more of the pot. Most musicans get 2 cents for every $15 to $20 dollar CD you buy, like I said, if your big enough you can pull more than 2 cents your way. But most of that money gose to pay for concerts, memorabila, recording, etc.. Most artist don't see alot of that money, the money they get is from going out on tour and doing the concerts and other such.
If 50% of America bought your record ( and that's asking a lot) you make $3,000,000 and I'm talking total population here from Mr and Mrs married 60 years to the guy that just got born, 50% of that.
The thing I well say for the oppisite side of the subject is that record companys stop making as much money, they have less power to endorse, and that favorite band of yours that you like so much, you may have never heard of if it wasen't for the bussiness of music.
Less money means they have to pick the cream of the crop.
And lastly, wow, Drakkan asks if anyone knows where he can get some music and everyone shoots off into 10 different political discustions, wow.
Talk about crazy.
-
Undead_Mercenary
- Posts: 2914
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:01 am
- Location: Barrie, Ontario
Well technically, his answer has correct, just not specific. He likes to be as vague as possible.
Arch, I know very well that there are flaws to my teacher's plan, and what you said was the first thing I told him : "Why should Bob here pay an extra 10$ or whatever if he doesn't want to download music?" LOL I really wish I had him beside me now to reiterate what he said, but I believe it might have been along the lines of different connection plans. You get a certain amount of bandwith per month depending on the plan you purchase (I'm just going by memory, so I may just be putting words in his mouth).
So if you're the type that just uses the Internet strictly for email, information and communication, you could get a cheaper plan that had less download capabilities. Want more, pay more. That's pretty much the gist of it. Of course people could still get away with downloading music form the cheaper plan (because the cap would still have to be around 1 Gig).
I really don't know all the details, because you can still have the people that download a lot, but not to get music. What happens there? I don't know. If I get a chance, I'll email my teacher and ask him about it again.
Arch, I know very well that there are flaws to my teacher's plan, and what you said was the first thing I told him : "Why should Bob here pay an extra 10$ or whatever if he doesn't want to download music?" LOL I really wish I had him beside me now to reiterate what he said, but I believe it might have been along the lines of different connection plans. You get a certain amount of bandwith per month depending on the plan you purchase (I'm just going by memory, so I may just be putting words in his mouth).
So if you're the type that just uses the Internet strictly for email, information and communication, you could get a cheaper plan that had less download capabilities. Want more, pay more. That's pretty much the gist of it. Of course people could still get away with downloading music form the cheaper plan (because the cap would still have to be around 1 Gig).
I really don't know all the details, because you can still have the people that download a lot, but not to get music. What happens there? I don't know. If I get a chance, I'll email my teacher and ask him about it again.
Açieeed! style by 
