how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

ok there's the confusion, this is how i see it

case 1: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

case 2: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

i see it like that cause when you purchase a cd, you're purchasing one copy of the music, and have the right to make one backup. when you purchase the rights to make digital copies all willy nilly you typically receive the masters that the work was recorded on, not a cd, which contains drm and many other measures to prevent copies being made, so by copying a song onto itunes you're completely disregarding the artists intent and their right to control their content.

this is the contradiction in your logic that i see.

There's not a contradiction, because you're applying your and the RIAA's logic to mine.

I don't think an artist should have the right to dictate how a consumer digests the art they have purchased the right to view as long as that method is restricted to personal use. In the same token, I think somebody should be able to, if they want to, transcribe Harry Potter novels onto rolls of toilet paper for their own reading.

But EVEN IF there was a discrepancy there, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you decide to destroy copyright just because of an issue over rights to digital copies?

Of the two unfavourable scenarios, one being zero copyright, and the other being legislation wherein making digital copies of purchased art is illegal, which one is more damaging? In one, the profitability of art is decimated. In the other, the consumer simply has to purchase art in their favoured medium.

Originally Posted by yoav

your concept of 'the right to have art' is ridiculous.

Really? You don't think the art on a CD is the same as the art on an exact MP3 copy?

You have to be purposefully stupid not to recognize my point.

[Rye]

here let me sum it up.

Music industry has been gettin fat by ripping off artists and public alike for years

downloading is fukin them back

they inturn are fuking artists even harder instead of cutting from the top

sharing music is what gets music around, makes bands famous. Shit to the letter of the law its illegal to even play a cd at a party or any gathering.

digital age came, recording costs plummeted, production costs of final product plummeted. cost of final product rised.<< fukin us and gettin fattter.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

so in your logic if you pay to see a movie in a movie theatre, you've actually purchased the rights to see it again, as many times as you want, for free?

No, because what you do when you purchase a movie ticket is rent a seat in the theater for a certain block of time, where a particular film will be shown. I think you know this but you want to keep arguing.

Yoav, I don't think you will understand this until the day the shoe is on the other foot. You still think that because it's being done by so many people all over the world, that it must be okay, that we no longer have value to our products because there's so many of them out there. Bob is completely right in every point he has made. I don't know if it's boredom or blinders that keep you from seeing that and continuing this argument.

If digital copies had no value, the woman in the article would never have been convicted and fined. The Napster guy would not have been sued. Kids all over the country would not be getting C&D letters. If there was no value to the art, the entire industry would shut down because there would be no value to anything they put out, except for the cost of the disc.

I can make a copy of any music I purchase. I can put the copy of the song on my ipod, transfer the same copy to my portable hard drive, even burn the copy of the song to a physical CD. This way when one storage device is no longer functioning, I still protect my purchase and retain my product. The moment I give you the disc, or the hard drive, or my ipod, I am now the pirate, and you the thief, because my purchase did not give me the right to distribute to anyone else, and you did not purchase the item at all. Just because I gave it to you does not mean it was okay for you to take it. I know it goes on all over the place, but that does not make it okay. The end.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by hercircus

As a musician myself I support other artists and buy my music either cds or from itunes, HOWEVER, as a musician I could care fucking less if someone was stealing my music, in fact I would just be happy that people wanted to hear my music. Musicians are really greedy and already make way too much money, and that was never supposed to be the purpose of being a musician. Musicians are "artists" and artists do what they do because they love it, not for the money, unless they are sell outs. Not to say that anyone's complaining about making millions to do something they love to do, but then really it just becomes a matter of greed. These days because artists aren't making as much money off of album sales, they make up for it with concert prices and merchandise sales. Concert tickets these days, depending on the band, are going anywhere from $30-$800 a pop and merchandise is always overly expensive. It is outrageous and far more than you would ever spend on a cd right? so I wouldn't worry about the bands financial situations, they have far more money than any of us do so really what do they have to complain about?

HOWEVER, from a listeners standpoint I understand that it isn't fair that some of us do pay for music while others get it for free because they're stealing it, and I think that is the biggest point about pirating anything and as to why I do pay for my music. In conclusion I believe it's more unfair to the others who are buying their music as opposed to being unfair to the musicians themselves.

I appreciate how you as an artist are indifferent to music theft, but that does not mean the system as a whole is flawed because you (or other artists) don't care either way. I've said it here before: the system that is in place may be out of touch with the rapidly advancing digital era, but the answer to how to change the system does not lie in stealing or illegally distributing music just because it is more convenient. Legislation is in place for ways to change the system. Such a process is lengthy, but it is there for a reason. Clearly the industry is using the legislative options by going after the people who violate the rights to the product they own.

[Rye]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I appreciate how you as an artist are indifferent to music theft, but that does not mean the system as a whole is flawed because you (or other artists) don't care either way. I've said it here before: the system that is in place may be out of touch with the rapidly advancing digital era, but the answer to how to change the system does not lie in stealing or illegally distributing music just because it is more convenient. Legislation is in place for ways to change the system. Such a process is lengthy, but it is there for a reason. Clearly the industry is using the legislative options by going after the people who violate the rights to the product they own.

bs, its exactly they way to shake shit up. when digital recording came out they were like fukin right costs are way down we dont need to spend a 10th of the money producing a record now we are gonna make so much more cash... not ahh it costs us less were gonna drop the prices or pay or artists more.
Now its gone and bit them in the ass.

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by Rye

bs, its exactly they way to shake shit up. when digital recording came out they were like fukin right costs are way down we dont need to spend a 10th of the money producing a record now we are gonna make so much more cash... not ahh it costs us less were gonna drop the prices or pay or artists more.
Now its gone and bit them in the ass.

You're not fucking over the big cats by stealing/pirating (maybe a little). You're hurting the ones on the bottom of the totem pole, the recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, producers, session players, and artists. These people don't make a killing to begin with, and when the album/product they help produce is no longer profitable, their income drops as well. Rye, you're a hardcore and punk fan right? I hope none of those 22,332 songs are from independent artists and labels, because you're fucking these people over 10x worse than RIAA artists.

You're also wrong about digital recording and the drop in production costs. You're still buying 'studio time' when you record and that's not likely to drop just because the tools have improved. Sure amateurs can cut pretty nice sounding records on a home built DAW nowadays (much better than those shitty ADAT machines, which were digital too), but most professional bands (artists that produce music for a living), and not just top 40 artists, still record in professional studios. These studios still cost millions of dollars. Just head over to Gearslutz.com and check out the 'High End' section. You'll be surprised at the costs involved into putting together a pro-level studio. Gear alone will easily put you over a couple $100k, then factor in room designs, acoustic treatment, and operating costs. Multi-million dollar studios haven't disappeared. Neither have the costs of marketing and promoting an album.

Originally Posted by hercircus

as a musician I could care fucking less if someone was stealing my music, in fact I would just be happy that people wanted to hear my music. Musicians are really greedy and already make way too much money, and that was never supposed to be the purpose of being a musician. Musicians are "artists" and artists do what they do because they love it, not for the money, unless they are sell outs.

Do you make a living off of your music? If not, then your singing in a band is just a hobby. Perhaps one day you'll 'make it', which I take to mean writing and producing music becomes your sole source of income. When that happens I bet you'll be pissed when your livelihood, and not million dollar homes and cars, but actual ability to pay rent on a month to month basis, rests in the hands of people who think they're on a crusade to take down 'big evil corporations'. This will be at your expense, and should you decide to remain independent, then let's really hope you have a lot of generous fans and not ones who assume you're making "way too much money".

[hercircus]

Originally Posted by golgi body

Do you make a living off of your music? If not, then your singing in a band is just a hobby. Perhaps one day you'll 'make it', which I take to mean writing and producing music becomes your sole source of income. When that happens I bet you'll be pissed when your livelihood, and not million dollar homes and cars, but actual ability to pay rent on a month to month basis, rests in the hands of people who think they're on a crusade to take down 'big evil corporations'. This will be at your expense, and should you decide to remain independent, then let's really hope you have a lot of generous fans and not ones who assume you're making "way too much money".

No I am not a rock star obviously, but what I'm getting at is that musicians make a lot more money than just from their album sales. The point I was trying to make is that music is a form of art and if your a real artist then you will suck it up and take what you get. There are thousands of big bands out there that have their music stolen every day and they still live in their big mansions and drive their fancy cars because they make up for all that money by playing concerts and selling merchandise. Back in the 80s and 90s no one really had computer access to download music so they were forced to buy albums, however concerts and merchandise were also a hell of a lot cheaper. So to make my point I don't really see how it is effecting them. As far as I'm concerned, the bands that are making such big deals about this are just greedy.

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to pirate music, I'm just saying that it's wrong for different reasons, from a consumer's standpoint in it being unfair to other consumers who are paying for music.

A real artist would be happy that their music was getting out there and that people actually want to listen to them.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by hercircus

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to pirate music, I'm just saying that it's wrong for different reasons, from a consumer's standpoint in it being unfair to other consumers who are paying for music.

A real artist would be happy that their music was getting out there and that people actually want to listen to them.

Copyright applies to all art, not just music. Far fewer people will be able to spend years of their lives writing novels if everybody stole their shit and told them they should be happy anybody read it. No one would sink millions of dollars into movies. What, Peter Jackson? You want to make a faithful cinematic recreation of a beloved book series? Good luck getting anyone to pay for it.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Rye

my brother works in probly the top studio in LA right now been in the bussiness many a years, i know all about the costs of production and shite, digital age reduced costs greatly, both in equipment cost and time. no longer does it cost millions to outfit a studio, you say 200k? thats chump change compared to cash that was spent in the past.

Also if you read my other post i said we are fukin the company but inturn they are just passing the fuking down the line instead of trimming the fat. Pay? Fuck the amount of cash that is thrown around in the music industry is fukin ridiculous. The stories of wasted cash are unbelievable.

as far as indpendant bands I listen to I support my bands by going to their shows and buying their merch.

hey dont get me wrong I totally get the its illegal to download etc etc and the rights of the artists but music industry has been fukin the public for too long. Between overpriced records, ridiculously fukin outrages prices for shows etc... shit needs to change.

See, you fucking agree with us.

Stealing music, by downloading MP3s with no intention of purchasing them, hurts the RIAA.

Why?

BECAUSE IT HURTS THE FUCKING ARTIST.

Once the RIAA is dead and gone, sharing MP3s (with no intention...) will ONLY hurt the artist.

I've already told you the most effective way to bring down the RIAA.

STOP LISTENING TO RIAA-BACKED MUSIC.

You'll fucking decimate them.

You dumb fucks are just too chicken shit to do what's needed.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.

you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.

i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.

bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.

i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.

you continue to misunderstand. When you go to see a movie, you are taking in the visceral experience of the art, not just occupying a seat. You are not just paying for velvet and air conditioning. You are not paying to look at the film canister with the studio's label. You are watching a movie - ART.

and again, the legality of making a copy of music, film, painting, etc. lies in the DISTRIBUTION, not the copying. My copy for my personal gain is acceptable and legal. It's the same as photocopying important documents, papers for my classes, family photos, etc.

I just think you are so hung up on the knowledge that not having this ease of obtaining materials is so detrimental to your comfort, that you are swimming upstream to fight it. It really is so simple.