how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[j2x]

Originally Posted by dzagama

I'm not sure if I agree with you, but what purpose do publicists serve? What purpose does anyone who provides a service serve? With sufficient time, anyone can be taught to perform any service.

That's not what I'm talking about. The internet has opened the door for anyone to put themselves and their product or their art into the hands of millions at the literal push of a button. Marketing and publishing aren't going to serve the same purpose that they did even five years ago because of the boom of New Media; social networking et all.

Execs and big publishing companies need to realize that all their overhead isn't going to translate into the same huge profits anymore. They are not offering an exclusive service anymore.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

That's not what I'm talking about. The internet has opened the door for anyone to put themselves and their product or their art into the hands of millions at the literal push of a button. Marketing and publishing aren't going to serve the same purpose that they did even five years ago because of the boom of New Media; social networking et all.

Execs and big publishing companies need to realize that all their overhead isn't going to translate into the same huge profits anymore. They are not offering an exclusive service anymore.

Yeah, I get the part about the Internet being a game-changer. I don't see record companies suing people independently publishing their material.

Like I said. Bands that sign with the RIAA know, very well, the nature of the machine they are assimilated into.

Is copying the music of RIAA-backed artists your version of "tough love"?

And when people use terms like "big publishing", what does that mean? A company gets big by being successful. Should companies exhibit piety?

[dzagama]

The argument people pose for stealing music is more applicable to academic publishing.

Academics are not trying to make money selling copies of their papers.

Musicians and authors, are.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by dzagama

The argument people pose for stealing music is more applicable to academic publishing.

Academics are not trying to make money selling copies of their papers.

Musicians and authors, are.

more reason to market and publish yourself using new, modern tools so that you, the artist, keep your profits instead of receiving pennies on the dollar.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

more reason to market and publish yourself using new, modern tools so that you, the artist, keep your profits instead of receiving pennies on the dollar.

d00d, we agree on that. I'm not a big fan of major-label music... so... why steal major-label music?

Perhaps the better solution is to educate artists on contract law (or whatever it's called).

ps. I finally worked up the attention span to read through the entire thread. Most of my points are redundant. BUT. why the FUCK are people happy with some bullshit, government-interventionist TAX as a solution to a problem that the free market solves quite efficiently?

fuck Canada.

[scottperezfox]

according to the model of $80,000 per song. (article here ») I owe about 400 million dollars.

But the truth is that I owe them something much harder to quantify. You see, if it wasn't for downloaded music, I never would have learned about so many different artists, and even categories, that I currently listen to. Music has meant a lot to me over the years, but I can only afford a fraction of what I now consider most dear. So I owe them everything, in a sense.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

um, though I hate replying to your pity retorts, I must point out that companies like Google, Microsoft, and Adobe are monetizing freely distributed products and services. There IS a new model for producing a product and giving it away for free while STILL making money, as Keith and Chemda are proving every day.

The thing you fucking thieves don't seem to realize is the following:

It's perfectly fine if you get things for free, provided that people give them to you for free.

If people ask money for their product, YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT PRODUCT.

END. OF. FUCKING. STORY.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT.

IF YOU GET IT WITHOUT PAYING, YOU ARE A DISGUSTING THIEF.

It's exceedingly clear that all this bullshit you bastards talk is just an excuse to steal in that 1) you do not boycott things that are not free, thus indicating that you do not want the market to change and are acting accordingly; instead, you have decided to steal, and are demanding that the market react accordingly; 2) NONE OF YOU MAKE SHIT.

The only people talking about a "renaissance" are worthless shits who make nothing, and the people who actually make art are bitching about pirates and TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THEIR STUFF.

The VAST majority of game developers, musicians, authors, filmmakers, and all other artists DO NOT WANT TO GIVE YOU THEIR SHIT FOR FREE. They are not talking about a renaissance of thievery, they're asking for you to pay for their product, same as always.

If any of you worthless turds actually believed half a shit of what you spout, you still wouldn't steal.

Originally Posted by j2x

I was referring to the next generation of Web Apps that Google, Microsoft, and Adobe are pioneering. Software that cost the company big bucks to develop, but which is being made free to the consumer. There are alternatives to the old revenue generating methods. New Media, like KATG, is taking advantage of this, too.

1) Different mediums. Not sustainable through the same means. You cannot put advertising in an LP, or anything else that would yield revenue over repeated use.

2) KATG is the ONLY product ANYONE has mentioned that is both successful and started out free.

3) So what? Those people are giving stuff away for free. That's nice. That doesn't mean shit for the people who do want you to pay, even if they are the minority (which they're FAR, FAR, FAR away from being). They have a right to refuse to give you their product unless you pay for it, and you only have a right to REFUSE TO BUY IT, NOT TO STEAL IT.

Originally Posted by j2x

Bands should make money off of merchandise, concerts, and ad space on their website. Please tell me, what purpose do publishers serve, other than lining their own pockets? It seems like artists can market and distribute themselves, especially if they're really good. They don't need a lot of capital to stamp thousands of CDs any more, so what's the point?

Funny how no musicians are saying this, you fucking idiot.

Originally Posted by j2x

Try not to let Crusty the Troll get to you- he's just pushing your buttons so he can jerk off to your angry responses.

How many times have you been backed into a corner because of how stupid you are? And yet I'm the one doing something wrong here?

Go back to being condescending to somebody for doing something unsafe while riding a fucking motorcycle, you fucking idiot.

I have a problem with people stealing, and I'm a bad guy? Fuck you, you intolerable douche.

This is the bottom line: If this "renaissance" is a reality, it will happen without you fuckers stealing shit. But you guys know that isn't the truth. The market isn't going to change because of the potentials of new media; if it changes, it'll be only because of excessive stealing.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by scottperezfox

according to the model of $80,000 per song. (article here ») I owe about 400 million dollars.

But the truth is that I owe them something much harder to quantify. You see, if it wasn't for downloaded music, I never would have learned about so many different artists, and even categories, that I currently listen to. Music has meant a lot to me over the years, but I can only afford a fraction of what I now consider most dear. So I owe them everything, in a sense.

With the vast amount of review sites and streaming tracks online, there's no reason for you to steal.

Did you buy the albums after you downloaded them? If not, music doesn't really mean shit to you, and you're a thief, and you hate art.

[cbooty]

Was Ghandi a thief for "stealing" salt?

A few parallels as there is zero unit cost for both and the only value each has is what's afforded by laws the majority of people find unfair.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

This is the bottom line: If this "renaissance" is a reality, it will happen without you fuckers stealing shit. But you guys know that isn't the truth. The market isn't going to change because of the potentials of new media; if it changes, it'll be only because of excessive stealing.

If the "market" is defined by the consumers, then it changed long ago when media became freely distributable online and CD sales were eclipsed by digital online sales. The only part of the equation that's behind is the big labels. Even the most conservative musicians have adopted some form of online retail.

I don't think I've ever advocated theft, but I am a huge proponent of New Media and the inherent shift in monetization. Those who are going to succeed are going to be those who flexibly adapt to the new paradigm.