"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[7 Strings of Hate]

No one charges me to look at a painting. If it want to own it, then sure. But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.

I think music should be the same. Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.

If i want to listen to something, I dont feel you should have to pay. If you want to own the disc and the product its self, then pay.

I dont feel too sorry for bands that are starving because record sales are down. People need to realize that being in a band isnt a real job for 99.9% of the time. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are CHOOSING to go into a field that is not going to make any money and they are doing it for arts sake instead of acting like being a musician is a legitimate job aspiration in this day and age. You just have to be like everyone else and have a real job to support yourself, and do your art on your own time and for yourself and not monetary gain.
THAT is the reality of the situation. You can hate it or love it, but thats the truth.


If you have a band that is lucky enough to have enough fans that buy records and merch to go on a tour, you should be greatful and not biting the hand that feeds by saying your not making enough money. Lots of bands tour with money from their own pocket like a vacation or something.

 

[SirMyghin]

I dont feel too sorry for bands that are starving because record sales are down. People need to realize that being in a band isnt a real job for 99.9% of the time. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are CHOOSING to go into a field that is not going to make any money and they are doing it for arts sake instead of acting like being a musician is a legitimate job aspiration in this day and age. You just have to be like everyone else and have a real job to support yourself, and do your art on your own time and for yourself and not monetary gain.
THAT is the reality of the situation. You can hate it or love it, but thats the truth.

While this paragraph reflects my view entirely, it doesn't succeed in decoupling the ownership of what the 'artist' creates. They still have the right to deny your access should you choose not to pay the admission. You can vote, but you have to do so with your wallet. Not take it, say screw you, and then not pay. The veto comes before acquisition, it cannot come after.

 

[Goro923]

No one charges me to look at a painting. If it want to own it, then sure. But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.

I think music should be the same. Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.

If i want to listen to something, I dont feel you should have to pay. If you want to own the disc and the product its self, then pay.

I dont feel too sorry for bands that are starving because record sales are down. People need to realize that being in a band isnt a real job for 99.9% of the time. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are CHOOSING to go into a field that is not going to make any money and they are doing it for arts sake instead of acting like being a musician is a legitimate job aspiration in this day and age. You just have to be like everyone else and have a real job to support yourself, and do your art on your own time and for yourself and not monetary gain.
THAT is the reality of the situation. You can hate it or love it, but thats the truth.


If you have a band that is lucky enough to have enough fans that buy records and merch to go on a tour, you should be greatful and not biting the hand that feeds by saying your not making enough money. Lots of bands tour with money from their own pocket like a vacation or something.

This 1,000%

My band has a "policy" of not charging anything for our music, only for the cost of the CD and cover/box. That means never charging for mp3s and the like. When we charge for physical demos or shirts we charge only enough to cover the expense of making them. Basically, we want our music to be available to everybody who wants to give us a listen and not have to shell out 10 or so bucks before they know what they're getting.

We know it isn't realistic to think we're going to make money off of playing music (especially if it's grindcore) the same way it's pointless to pay for digital files that you can get for free. If people like us enough, they can buy the physical copy with artwork and printed lyrics and/or a shirt (which, again, aren't a big source of revenue).

 

[ArrowHead]

But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.

With permission.

WITH permission.

That's an important thing to remember, because it really hurts the rest of your reasoning and argument.

 

[drgamble]

I'm not sure if anyone here actually read the article or just read the headline. If you read the article you will see that people that pirate music just happen to be more interested in music than the average joe and the numbers are misleading. In no way, shape, or form was the RIAA saying that pirating is good for business. I can tell you that piracy isn't good for anyone beside the new boss and the consumer. Who is the new boss? Google, Facebook, YouTube etc. When the SOPA thing was going on these companies had a very successful campaign in making sure that anti-piracy legislation never saw the light of day. I know a lot of people may think that it was started by some grassroots organization looking out for consumers to make sure the government didn't "break" the internet, but the truth is the large tech companies make a lot of money off of pirated music. The artists have and still are getting screwed. It used to be the record labels screwing us, now it is the big tech companies. I hope that the day comes that artists actually reap the benefits of their work instead of everyone else. These days if you are downloading for free, for the most part you are screwing the musicians because most of the major labels have disintegrated.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

With permission.

WITH permission.

That's an important thing to remember, because it really hurts the rest of your reasoning and argument.

Go to google images, type "Mona Lisa". Tell me your not looking at pictures of the mona lisa. Legally. For free. For current artists, if they dont put their work out there, no one will ever even know they exist.

This 1,000%

My band has a "policy" of not charging anything for our music, only for the cost of the CD and cover/box. That means never charging for mp3s and the like. When we charge for physical demos or shirts we charge only enough to cover the expense of making them. Basically, we want our music to be available to everybody who wants to give us a listen and not have to shell out 10 or so bucks before they know what they're getting.

We know it isn't realistic to think we're going to make money off of playing music (especially if it's grindcore) the same way it's pointless to pay for digital files that you can get for free. If people like us enough, they can buy the physical copy with artwork and printed lyrics and/or a shirt (which, again, aren't a big source of revenue).

And thats the thing to. If a band wants to make a disc and recoupe their investment, i have NOOOO problem with that. Hell, if a band asked that i paid $1 dollar for their album to recoup their investment, im more than likely to throw 5 bucks at them for goodwill. To recoup an investment, we are talking about tiny amounts spread over a few sales. Not fucking 30 dollars a disc like some of these places have the gaul to charge.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

most of the major labels have disintegrated.

Because its pretty much proven that they arnt needed. Technology has made them obsolete.

 

[ArrowHead]

Go to google images, type "Mona Lisa". Tell me your not looking at pictures of the mona lisa. Legally. For free.

With permission. Those sites are either hosting with permission from the rights-holder, or are doing so illegally. Just like the piracy debate.

So it's a great metaphor, you're just using it to make the wrong argument. One piracy doesn't justify another. As a painter, you have the right to control where and how your work is displayed. Legally. The same is true for musicians and their recordings.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

With permission. Those sites are either hosting with permission from the rights-holder, or are doing so illegally. Just like the piracy debate.

So it's a great metaphor, you're just using it to make the wrong argument. One piracy doesn't justify another. As a painter, you have the right to control where and how your work is displayed. Legally. The same is true for musicians and their recordings.

My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.

The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be

 

[wankerness]

My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.

The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be

I don't get this equating of music to "IDEAS" and "IDEAS SHOULD BE FREE, MAN." There IS a cost associated with the initial production of the music, and to think that musicians shouldn't be allowed to make more than "A FEW BUCKS FOR THE EFFORT" is just idiotic. Professional sports players, another kind of entertainer, make millions of dollars every year and no one seems to blink an eye. But, if a musician DARES to think that maybe their product shouldn't be copied and given out for free to everyone who wants it without permission, then OMG.

These arguments that there's no precedent for "sharing" being illegal are really odd to me too. I don't think it was ever OK to mass-manufacture copyrighted works and hand them out for free without permission, which is what you're doing when you use torrents.

 

[drgamble]

My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.

The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be

I wonder if we applied the "current" system to the rest of life. Basically, the current system is to not enforce the law. I don't know why someone is an asshole for charging for something that they have spent years working on. I guess that makes me an asshole for collecting a paycheck even though I enjoy what I do. This is why I didn't stay in the music business. I can make way more money working a regular job. How many more talented musicians are taking the same stance? It's like the old argument over CEO pay. Why does someone need to get paid $100,000,000 to run an already successful company? The response you will get is that it takes that kind of pay to attract top talent. This also goes down the line to sound engineers, music attorneys, recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. I applaud the musicians that stick their neck out and try to make music a career, I just think that we may be missing out on some of the talent because these people have decided to take their talent to another field that is more lucrative. It's called the music business for a reason. Nobody ever went into business to break even or lose money just for the love of it. The most successful musicians in history aren't necessarily the most talented musicians, but they are most certainly good businessmen.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

I don't get this equating of music to "IDEAS" and "IDEAS SHOULD BE FREE, MAN." There IS a cost associated with the initial production of the music, and to think that musicians shouldn't be allowed to make more than "A FEW BUCKS FOR THE EFFORT" is just idiotic. Professional sports players, another kind of entertainer, make millions of dollars every year and no one seems to blink an eye. But, if a musician DARES to think that maybe their product shouldn't be copied and given out for free to everyone who wants it without permission, then OMG.

These arguments that there's no precedent for "sharing" being illegal are really odd to me too. I don't think it was ever OK to mass-manufacture copyrighted works and hand them out for free without permission, which is what you're doing when you use torrents.

The simple fact is : for Athletes, the money is there. They draw in a crowd. Sponsers pony up dough. People pack the seats. People talk about the game the next day and buy team gear. There is MONEY changing hands. To live in some fantasy land where writing a song is supposed to bring you massive wealth just isnt reality.

If there wernt 1 gazillion bands saturating the market, and people were really into music, then there would be money there. But most people arnt music nuts and bands of all generas are a dime a dozen these days. The money just isnt there anymore. You can get all mad about it, but I didnt make it that way. Im just not expecting things to stay the same like many other people are.

Do i think musicians should beable to make a living? Sure. With a real job. Not with music There is nothing propritary about being in a band or writing a song. There for there isnt much worth in it anymore.

If people with real and legitamit jobs are having trouble making the bills, do you really think musicians are gonna be making big bucks?

 

[MrGignac]

what i dont get is: All of the media companies are up in arms about how pirating media is immoral. yet, these companies developed and designed all the software for pirating. when P2P first got big, the popular programs like kazzaa, limewire, napster ect.. were all legal freeware on cnet! which is owned by aol/timewarner. and came with detailed instructions and advocated file sharing. yet now these companies have spent millions on lobbyists to prosecute those they encouraged to use their own software. just my 2 cents

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

I wonder if we applied the "current" system to the rest of life. Basically, the current system is to not enforce the law. I don't know why someone is an asshole for charging for something that they have spent years working on. I guess that makes me an asshole for collecting a paycheck even though I enjoy what I do. This is why I didn't stay in the music business. I can make way more money working a regular job. How many more talented musicians are taking the same stance? It's like the old argument over CEO pay. Why does someone need to get paid $100,000,000 to run an already successful company? The response you will get is that it takes that kind of pay to attract top talent. This also goes down the line to sound engineers, music attorneys, recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. I applaud the musicians that stick their neck out and try to make music a career, I just think that we may be missing out on some of the talent because these people have decided to take their talent to another field that is more lucrative. It's called the music business for a reason. Nobody ever went into business to break even or lose money just for the love of it. The most successful musicians in history aren't necessarily the most talented musicians, but they are most certainly good businessmen.

Doing a job, physically contributing to society is vastly different than arranging notes in a pattern.
One is actually doing something, the other isnt really necessary.

You get paid because a job needs to be done. No one NEEDS music. Its an extra in life.

I dont think that makes them an asshole if they want compensation, i just think it makes them a little unrealistic in this day and age.

But the simple fact is, that the system IS getting applyed to music, but its NOT getting applyed to everything else. Dont shoot the messenger.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

If people think you should get compensated for art, then everyone should get compensated the same. Because art is subjective. But people like certian art more than others. So some art becomes more popular. Then it can be sold. Then it becomes a business. And that business is going through a tough time. Like all other businesses do. But those other business have had to roll with the punches. So will this one.


I wanted to be a ninja when i was little. Now that i'm older, there isnt much of a market for ninjas. I can be pissed off and bitch about it. But its not gonna change the fact that i have to deal with it.


I'm sure factory workers that lost jobs to automation years and years ago hated it, but instead of bitching for eternity about it they did what they had to and went and got other jobs. I suggest musicians do the same.
Then art will be pure again and be done for the joy of doing it.

 

[tedtan]

I don't know any musicians trying to get rich from music. But to think that musicians should make music part time, after working a day job to pay the bills, fails to take into account the fact that the day job doesn't always leave enough time to make music afterwards. And even if it does, how many musicians still have enough creative energy left to create?

The result - we as listeners miss out on a lot of great music that could have been because the musicians were/are too busy paying the bills to make music.

This belief that music should be free to anyone who wants it is a cop out spouted by kids whose mommies and daddies pay for their rent, clothing, food, transportation, school, etc. When you grow up, try making music after paying the bills. Then take it up a notch - try making music after paying the bills when you have a family to support and the bills are much higher.

Some can do it, but most can't. Do you think you'll be one who can? Are you sure?

 

[tedtan]

The simple fact is : for Athletes, the money is there. They draw in a crowd. Sponsers pony up dough. People pack the seats. People talk about the game the next day and buy team gear. There is MONEY changing hands.

The sponsors pony up the dough and the fans pack the stadiums because the league and team owners spent the money marketing it to begin with, and then, get this, MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE DISTRIBUTION. It doesn't jst happen simply because it happens.

there is nothing propritary about being in a band or writing a song.

There is nothing proprietary about swinging a hammer, washing dishes, doing someone else's taxes, etc., but last I checked people were still being payed to perfrom these tasks.

Why can't musicians be payed enough to make a lving performing shows? Oh yeah, because all the local kids will come in and play for free. The same local kids that want to download the music for free online. And how can they keep doing for free? Simple - their parents cover their expenses.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

But to think that musicians should make music part time, after working a day job to pay the bills, fails to take into account the fact that the day job doesn't always leave enough time to make music afterwards. And even if it does, how many musicians still have enough creative energy left to create?

This is called : Reality. It sucks, but its just the way it is. I dont like it, i just embrace it. Its part of growing up.

Why can't musicians be payed enough to make a lving performing shows?

Because thats the new reality. There is a market for people to swing hammers. People need houses to live in. No one lives in a cd.






Being a musican today is like attempting to be a homeless guy to to make more money and attempt to act like that be a legitimate career decision. Are there the occational homeless person that stumbles on a bag of money or has a rich relative that dies or finds a winning lottery ticket? Sure. But for the most part your not going to have a home or food and life is going to suck.
Theres just not much of a market for homeless guys.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

 

[flint757]

^^^^
Was..not....expecting that