There are different definitions but they don't affect this situation. It's like talking about the death penalty in a British court, just because other people use it doesn't mean it will be put into effect.
UK File sharers to be "cut off"
This topic is locked from further discussion.
We got off-topic, and started talking about piracy in general. But I agree, piracy is not theft under British law.There are different definitions but they don't affect this situation. It's like talking about the death penalty in a British court, just because other people use it doesn't mean it will be put into effect.
skelebull3000
I don't really know how I'd be able to say for certain that you wouldn't be needing it given the chance that you might wake up or something. Either way - although in this case it doesn't really matter, you are still being deprived of your property and as such it's still a bad analogy. Just because you weren't intending to use it in the near future doesn't mean you're not being deprived of it when it's taken from you. When I woke up you could have just given the book back, so in that sense there is no way that I would have been deprived of the book through your actions. The analogy fits.Yes, but had you wanted to use the book, you wouldn't have been able to - as such, you're being deprived of it. To be deprived of your property doesn't require you to intend to use it.[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.MetalGear_Ninty
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] How would I be deprived, if you used the book when I purposefully wasn't reading it. Say if you read it any time I was sleeping or something like that? The bottom line is that you cannot do something with other people's property which is contrary to their decisions.MetalGear_Ninty
Property is based on the idea of depriving another person of something in the first place; hence "La propriété, c'est le vol" (property is theft). When you lay claim to ownership of a pen, you're doing nothing more than instating an exclusive right of use. The idea of property stems from the idea of exclusivity and unshareability (:?). However, what we're arguing about is intangible and one person's use doesn't infringe in any way on another's. Intellectual property recognises this, which is why when you buy any electronic media, you're doing nothing more than entering into a licence to use. Since the licence is not a limited object, it's not property and can't be involved in theft. VandalVideo could probably tell you much more about the legal status of copyright violation but try as you might, you can't turn copyright infringement into theft.
On a side note, maybe I've missed something, but what's wrong with someone using your book while you're not looking if they could cause no damage to your book to the extent that they don't even leave a fingerprint? The only argument I can think against that is that you feel they would be trespassing on your right to deprive them of knowledge.
IP is property. The word property is inherent within the term IP. People still own IPs which makes it wrong for other people to take elements of their authority away from them. What's wrong with the guy in the book scenario is that he used the other guy's book without permission, plain and simple.But that's where the whole system breaks down: Intellectual property is not really a form of property at all and it's subject to a whole different set of laws and rights. The only thing intellectual property and standard property have in common (apart from a word) is the idea of monopoly. If I take a rock from the ground, I own a piece of something limited and because I can bash people on the head with it, nobody's going to try to take my rock from me (ug!). This, AFAIC, is most likely the origin of physical property.When I whistle a tune, though, why on earth should I be able to dictate who can and can't whistle the same tune? What am I going to claim ownership to when other people's whistling deprives me of nothing but the right to cry out "Oi, that's my song, I thought of it first!!1!1!"? What governs IP is nothing more than a set of rules to guarantee compensation for your work and credit to your reputation, and there's no reason to even use the word "property".
Re. the book scenario: I'm not sure you're going to find a crime like "touching somebody else's stuff without permission", but I can see why you might be aggrieved at paying $50 to do something which Joe Bloggs is doing for free. Just don't pretend that you're upset out of concern for the author.
I don't really know how I'd be able to say for certain that you wouldn't be needing it given the chance that you might wake up or something. Either way - although in this case it doesn't really matter, you are still being deprived of your property and as such it's still a bad analogy. Just because you weren't intending to use it in the near future doesn't mean you're not being deprived of it when it's taken from you.Funky_LlamaWhen I woke up you could have just given the book back, so in that sense there is no way that I would have been deprived of the book through your actions. The analogy fits.Yes, but had you wanted to use the book, you wouldn't have been able to - as such, you're being deprived of it. To be deprived of your property doesn't require you to intend to use it. In what sense? i can't use my book when I'm sleeping, and I could have read it immediately after I woke up.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
Property is based on the idea of depriving another person of something in the first place; hence "La propriété, c'est le vol" (property is theft). When you lay claim to ownership of a pen, you're doing nothing more than instating an exclusive right of use. The idea of property stems from the idea of exclusivity and unshareability (:?). However, what we're arguing about is intangible and one person's use doesn't infringe in any way on another's. Intellectual property recognises this, which is why when you buy any electronic media, you're doing nothing more than entering into a licence to use. Since the licence is not a limited object, it's not property and can't be involved in theft. VandalVideo could probably tell you much more about the legal status of copyright violation but try as you might, you can't turn copyright infringement into theft.
On a side note, maybe I've missed something, but what's wrong with someone using your book while you're not looking if they could cause no damage to your book to the extent that they don't even leave a fingerprint? The only argument I can think against that is that you feel they would be trespassing on your right to deprive them of knowledge.
IP is property. The word property is inherent within the term IP. People still own IPs which makes it wrong for other people to take elements of their authority away from them. What's wrong with the guy in the book scenario is that he used the other guy's book without permission, plain and simple.But that's where the whole system breaks down: Intellectual property is not really a form of property at all and it's subject to a whole different set of laws and rights. The only thing intellectual property and standard property have in common (apart from a word) is the idea of monopoly. If I take a rock from the ground, I own a piece of something limited and because I can bash people on the head with it, nobody's going to try to take my rock from me (ug!). This, AFAIC, is most likely the origin of physical property.When I whistle a tune, though, why on earth should I be able to dictate who can and can't whistle the same tune? What am I going to claim ownership to when other people's whistling deprives me of nothing but the right to cry out "Oi, that's my song, I thought of it first!!1!1!"? What governs IP is nothing more than a set of rules to guarantee compensation for your work and credit to your reputation, and there's no reason to even use the word "property".
Re. the book scenario: I'm not sure you're going to find a crime like "touching somebody else's stuff without permission", but I can see why you might be aggrieved at paying $50 to do something which Joe Bloggs is doing for free. Just don't pretend that you're upset out of concern for the author. But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.
Good, it serves them right.MetalGear_NintyI quite agree.....
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]But that's where the whole system breaks down: Intellectual property is not really a form of property at all and it's subject to a whole different set of laws and rights. The only thing intellectual property and standard property have in common (apart from a word) is the idea of monopoly. If I take a rock from the ground, I own a piece of something limited and because I can bash people on the head with it, nobody's going to try to take my rock from me (ug!). This, AFAIC, is most likely the origin of physical property.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] IP is property. The word property is inherent within the term IP. People still own IPs which makes it wrong for other people to take elements of their authority away from them. What's wrong with the guy in the book scenario is that he used the other guy's book without permission, plain and simple.MetalGear_Ninty
When I whistle a tune, though, why on earth should I be able to dictate who can and can't whistle the same tune? What am I going to claim ownership to when other people's whistling deprives me of nothing but the right to cry out "Oi, that's my song, I thought of it first!!1!1!"? What governs IP is nothing more than a set of rules to guarantee compensation for your work and credit to your reputation, and there's no reason to even use the word "property".
Re. the book scenario: I'm not sure you're going to find a crime like "touching somebody else's stuff without permission", but I can see why you might be aggrieved at paying $50 to do something which Joe Bloggs is doing for free. Just don't pretend that you're upset out of concern for the author. But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.MetalGear_NintyBut those artists, musicians. etc. will be selling their art. Just as jimmyjammer69 said, why offer protection to things that aren't for sale (ie. a whistled tune) ad would otherwise go unappreciated? If it was the case that someone made a painting and someone else copied the idea and was making money off it, I'd agree that's wrong. But if it was just being appreciated then I see no harm done. If they wanted money they would put it on sale.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Good, it serves them right.LJS9502_basicI quite agree..... Phew, I was starting to think I was the only one for a minute there.:P
But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]But that's where the whole system breaks down: Intellectual property is not really a form of property at all and it's subject to a whole different set of laws and rights. The only thing intellectual property and standard property have in common (apart from a word) is the idea of monopoly. If I take a rock from the ground, I own a piece of something limited and because I can bash people on the head with it, nobody's going to try to take my rock from me (ug!). This, AFAIC, is most likely the origin of physical property.
When I whistle a tune, though, why on earth should I be able to dictate who can and can't whistle the same tune? What am I going to claim ownership to when other people's whistling deprives me of nothing but the right to cry out "Oi, that's my song, I thought of it first!!1!1!"? What governs IP is nothing more than a set of rules to guarantee compensation for your work and credit to your reputation, and there's no reason to even use the word "property".
Re. the book scenario: I'm not sure you're going to find a crime like "touching somebody else's stuff without permission", but I can see why you might be aggrieved at paying $50 to do something which Joe Bloggs is doing for free. Just don't pretend that you're upset out of concern for the author.jimmyjammer69
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
Fads and memes are meant to be virulent, and thus spread easily, that is inherent within the meaning of the word 'meme'. Nobody makes money off fads, because it simply is not possible to do so, as any attmept to do so would dramratically limit the virulency of the meme.Also, I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be liberal with their property, just that they shouldn't expect others to give away theirs.The PC game modders may be happy, but they can't build great games using that philosophy. Nintendo, Rockstar or Konami wouldn't be able to make kick ass games, if they gave their stuff away, because quite frankly they'd be bankrupt. I'm afraid money makes the world go round. It is inescapable.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.AirGuitarist87But those artists, musicians. etc. will be selling their art. Just as jimmyjammer69 said, why offer protection to things that aren't for sale (ie. a whistled tune) ad would otherwise go unappreciated? If it was the case that someone made a painting and someone else copied the idea and was making money off it, I'd agree that's wrong. But if it was just being appreciated then I see no harm done. If they wanted money they would put it on sale. Well it can only be considered piracy if someone has the copyright laws to it. Nobody should have to start selling their music, books etc. to ensure that their IP is not used without their consent. They own that IP, they can do what they like with it, even if it does seem unfair.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But people have the right to have ownership of what they created. Just as you'd expect your physical property to be protected, then why shouldn't you expect the same protection to be afforded to your works of art. If artists were not afforded this protection, they wouldn't be able to commit their lives to making music literature etc. But the example like you gave with the whistling does take things a tad too far; I don't think copyright law would ever get that pedantic.MetalGear_Ninty
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
Fads and memes are meant to be virulent, and thus spread easily, that is inherent within the meaning of the word 'meme'. Nobody makes money off fads, because it simply is not possible to do so, as any attmept to do so would dramratically limit the virulency of the meme.Also, I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be liberal with their property, just that they shouldn't expect others to give away theirs.The PC game modders may be happy, but they can't build great games using that philosophy. Nintendo, Rockstar or Konami wouldn't be able to make kick ass games, if they gave their stuff away, because quite frankly they'd be bankrupt. I'm afraid money makes the world go round. It is inescapable.
Sharing is not wrong. Piracy is wrong because it breaks the law. There has long been a monopoly on publishing and distribution in the media world held by a few very wealthy and influential companies. The internet is a threat to this:
Digital distribution theoretically allows the author of a work to share it with the world instantly and without any middlemen. I think you'll agree that it is the author of the work who is valuable in the chain and everything else is superfluous other than to sell things people didn't know they wanted. For those who produce something for profit, the possibility will always be there (in fact, lower costs and a lower price mean many people can make much more through DD than through the old mode of publishing and distribution. The people most worried about piracy are not the artists (for games and movies, they're usually paid a small flat sum, not royalties), but those who feel most threatened because they know that the ease of DD makes them unnecessary.
For every crap popstar taking up three minutes of time on the radio, there are tens of thousands of talented musicians who don't have big-name endorsement desperate to be heard by the public. These few monopolising companies are paying billions in court fees to win the precedent setting cases which will govern your rights as a consumer, listener, seller, internet user etc. to protect their interests which are squeezing maximum profit (or loss upon sale) out of you as a buyer and the artist as a seller.
...erm, what was this topic about again?
Are you implying that all work that is shared is by artists that allow it? And second, if the artist is under contract they have to abide by the contract. No one is saying you can't create what you want and give it away. But we all know this isn't the reality. Music is being taken that is not intended to be free.Sharing is not wrong. Piracy is wrong because it breaks the law. There has long been a monopoly on publishing and distribution in the media world held by a few very wealthy and influential companies.
Digital distribution theoretically allows the author of a work to share it with the world instantly and without any middlemen. I think you'll agree that it is the author of the work who is valuable in the chain and everything else is superfluous other than to sell things people didn't know they wanted. For those who produce something for profit, the possibility will always be there (in fact, lower costs and a lower price mean many people can make much more through DD than through the old mode of publishing and distribution. The people most worried about piracy are not the artists (for games and movies, they're usually paid a small flat sum, not royalties), but those who feel most threatened because they know that the ease of DD makes them unnecessary.
jimmyjammer69
Are you implying that all work that is shared is by artists that allow it? And second, if the artist is under contract they have to abide by the contract. No one is saying you can't create what you want and give it away. But we all know this isn't the reality. Music is being taken that is not intended to be free. Good grief, LJ, no. I can't see where I've implied that. I'm saying (quite explicitly) that the strongest resistance to piracy comes from the record companies and not from the artist. I also understand full well that the artist is under certain contractual obligations and that he will have to face the penalties for breaking those.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
Sharing is not wrong. Piracy is wrong because it breaks the law. There has long been a monopoly on publishing and distribution in the media world held by a few very wealthy and influential companies.
Digital distribution theoretically allows the author of a work to share it with the world instantly and without any middlemen. I think you'll agree that it is the author of the work who is valuable in the chain and everything else is superfluous other than to sell things people didn't know they wanted. For those who produce something for profit, the possibility will always be there (in fact, lower costs and a lower price mean many people can make much more through DD than through the old mode of publishing and distribution. The people most worried about piracy are not the artists (for games and movies, they're usually paid a small flat sum, not royalties), but those who feel most threatened because they know that the ease of DD makes them unnecessary.
LJS9502_basic
Good grief, LJ, no. I can't see where I've implied that. I'm saying (quite explicitly) that the strongest resistance to piracy comes from the record companies and not from the artist. I also understand full well that the artist is under certain contractual obligations and that he will have to face the penalties for breaking those.jimmyjammer69Well that is opinion. I have seen no such statistics that artists are all for free music.
Since artists are signed by how much money the recording companies project they will generate it's important to artists to sell their music. It affects their career, contracts, concerts, etc. It's naive to believe that artists don't care if they are not compensated for their work. There may be a few well established acts that throw some free music out when they feel like it....but none of those bands would want the entirety of their career to non compensated.
Well they shouldn't be allowed to look at individual packets unless they have a warrant from a judge.
Well that is opinion. I have seen no such statistics that artists are all for free music.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Good grief, LJ, no. I can't see where I've implied that. I'm saying (quite explicitly) that the strongest resistance to piracy comes from the record companies and not from the artist. I also understand full well that the artist is under certain contractual obligations and that he will have to face the penalties for breaking those.LJS9502_basic
Since artists are signed by how much money the recording companies project they will generate it's important to artists to sell their music. It affects their career, contracts, concerts, etc. It's naive to believe that artists don't care if they are not compensated for their work. There may be a few well established acts that throw some free music out when they feel like it....but none of those bands would want the entirety of their career to non compensated.
The artist's income constitutes a tiny percentage of the retail price in most media. What I'm talking about here is how the industry will have to eventually adapt to a new type of market while referring back to the original debate about artists' likely attitudes to the no-lost-sales-revenue line of reasoning. The possibility that the industry may one day filter out those who are in it for the money from those who are in it for the love of music is no bad thing in my mind.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well that is opinion. I have seen no such statistics that artists are all for free music.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Good grief, LJ, no. I can't see where I've implied that. I'm saying (quite explicitly) that the strongest resistance to piracy comes from the record companies and not from the artist. I also understand full well that the artist is under certain contractual obligations and that he will have to face the penalties for breaking those.jimmyjammer69
Since artists are signed by how much money the recording companies project they will generate it's important to artists to sell their music. It affects their career, contracts, concerts, etc. It's naive to believe that artists don't care if they are not compensated for their work. There may be a few well established acts that throw some free music out when they feel like it....but none of those bands would want the entirety of their career to non compensated.
The artist's income constitutes a tiny percentage of the retail price in most media. What I'm talking about here is how the industry will have to eventually adapt to a new type of market while referring back to the original debate about artists' likely attitudes to the no-lost-sales-revenue line of reasoning. The possibility that the industry may one day filter out those who are in it for the money from those who are in it for the love of music is no bad thing in my mind.So? His income from the sale per CD...yes. But taken as a whole the sale of CD's reflect much more toward the artists worth.
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
jimmyjammer69
I disagree with that entirely. Serious art takes a lot of hard work, time, and often money. It's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to maximize your potential as an artist when you're working 50 hours a week at a normal job. So it is incredibly important that artists get compensated for their art well enough to enable them to concentrate on their art.
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with all art being amateur crap. People who make art for fun generally are NOT going to be as good as the people who devote their lives to it. And professionals sure as hell want to make a profit, because that's the only way they're able to be serious artists. If their art isn't paying the bills and putting the kids through college, then there's no way they can dedicate so much time and effort to it.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
MrGeezer
I disagree with that entirely. Serious art takes a lot of hard work, time, and often money. It's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to maximize your potential as an artist when you're working 50 hours a week at a normal job. So it is incredibly important that artists get compensated for their art well enough to enable them to concentrate on their art.
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with all art being amateur crap. People who make art for fun generally are NOT going to be as good as the people who devote their lives to it. And professionals sure as hell want to make a profit, because that's the only way they're able to be serious artists. If their art isn't paying the bills and putting the kids through college, then there's no way they can dedicate so much time and effort to it.
Musicians will always make money off their work, whether playing live or through record sales. I've already stated that I'm totally in favour of musicians making money off their work; what I am opposed to is the endless procession of samey, manufactured dirge which, thanks to the way the system works, stay at the top of the charts and receive constant airplay.I don't think it's at all fair to call all art "amateur crap"that comes from non-career artists. There's a lot of music coming from people who have real life stories to tell. If you know where to look, you'll find a host of fantastic bands who are in "the business" for something other than the money. Personally, I've heard more crap from people who have nothing to sing/write about other than their beeatches, gold rings and whatever they've been shoving up their noses/into their veins that week. People who are in music for the love of it will continue to be in it even if it's less profitable, while the Lady Gagas of this world will disappear. Shame that.
Possibly, but I think we're going to have trouble legislating in Asia.So this is only in the UK, why not north america. Also isn't Asia the biggest piraters
ASRCSR
I don't live in the UK, and I don't illegaly download things, so this doesn't really concern me. Interesting, though, how one would be cut off from the internet.Razor-LazorI'm not really sure what that means. Virgin already seem to suggest they're going to oppose (or maybe fail to enforce) that kind of practice as it will damage their business. I can't see this kind of punishment ever involving more than a contract termination and fine. Users will doubtless have an opportunity to reconnect later.
The artist's income constitutes a tiny percentage of the retail price in most media. What I'm talking about here is how the industry will have to eventually adapt to a new type of market while referring back to the original debate about artists' likely attitudes to the no-lost-sales-revenue line of reasoning. The possibility that the industry may one day filter out those who are in it for the money from those who are in it for the love of music is no bad thing in my mind.So? His income from the sale per CD...yes. But taken as a whole the sale of CD's reflect much more toward the artists worth.I'll be honest... I have no idea what you're talking about :?[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well that is opinion. I have seen no such statistics that artists are all for free music.
Since artists are signed by how much money the recording companies project they will generate it's important to artists to sell their music. It affects their career, contracts, concerts, etc. It's naive to believe that artists don't care if they are not compensated for their work. There may be a few well established acts that throw some free music out when they feel like it....but none of those bands would want the entirety of their career to non compensated.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
Take a look at the internet fad or meme. The creators of these aren't looking for profit, they're looking to spread their creations as far as possible. It's the same with talented musicians, story writers, film-makers etc. What they're looking for is not to deprive others of the use of their works - quite the opposite - but to watch something they've created and are proud of spread and occasionally be recognised as the author of the work. These works don't need protection other than protection from others capitalising on (i.e. limiting access to) their quality. The PC game modding community is another great example: these are usually pet projects and are done because people want to see their ideas realised, not because they want to make piles of money.
I do think that people contributing something to society should be financially rewarded, and very often they are, but with the advent of digital distribution, how can we justify paying off the millions of middlemen while the artist is paid a pittance? Sorry, kind of strayed off the point again, like with the whistling thing :P
jimmyjammer69
I disagree with that entirely. Serious art takes a lot of hard work, time, and often money. It's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to maximize your potential as an artist when you're working 50 hours a week at a normal job. So it is incredibly important that artists get compensated for their art well enough to enable them to concentrate on their art.
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with all art being amateur crap. People who make art for fun generally are NOT going to be as good as the people who devote their lives to it. And professionals sure as hell want to make a profit, because that's the only way they're able to be serious artists. If their art isn't paying the bills and putting the kids through college, then there's no way they can dedicate so much time and effort to it.
Musicians will always make money off their work, whether playing live or through record sales. I've already stated that I'm totally in favour of musicians making money off their work; what I am opposed to is the endless procession of samey, manufactured dirge which, thanks to the way the system works, stay at the top of the charts and receive constant airplay.I don't think it's at all fair to call all art "amateur crap"that comes from non-career artists. There's a lot of music coming from people who have real life stories to tell. If you know where to look, you'll find a host of fantastic bands who are in "the business" for something other than the money. Personally, I've heard more crap from people who have nothing to sing/write about other than their beeatches, gold rings and whatever they've been shoving up their noses/into their veins that week. People who are in music for the love of it will continue to be in it even if it's less profitable, while the Lady Gagas of this world will disappear. Shame that.
Then you're looking at the wrong music.
Meet the Spartans made a crapload of money at the box office, but that certainly doesn't reflect on the movie industry as a whole. And it's not any different for music. To imply that Lady Gaga is representative of professional music as a whole is simply laughable.
Bottom line is that ANY form of art is relatively expensive. Art doesn't just come from the soul or some **** like that, it comes from extensive training, practice, and access to resources. Photographic equipment is not cheap. Painting equipment is not cheap, and musical instruments and recording equipment are not cheap. If you want to make art, even only as a hobby, that money has got to come from somewhere. And it's a hell of a lot more difficult if you're spending so much time working to fund your art that you don't have time to WORK at your art.
Musicians will always make money off their work, whether playing live or through record sales. I've already stated that I'm totally in favour of musicians making money off their work; what I am opposed to is the endless procession of samey, manufactured dirge which, thanks to the way the system works, stay at the top of the charts and receive constant airplay.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
I disagree with that entirely. Serious art takes a lot of hard work, time, and often money. It's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to maximize your potential as an artist when you're working 50 hours a week at a normal job. So it is incredibly important that artists get compensated for their art well enough to enable them to concentrate on their art.
I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with all art being amateur crap. People who make art for fun generally are NOT going to be as good as the people who devote their lives to it. And professionals sure as hell want to make a profit, because that's the only way they're able to be serious artists. If their art isn't paying the bills and putting the kids through college, then there's no way they can dedicate so much time and effort to it.
MrGeezer
I don't think it's at all fair to call all art "amateur crap"that comes from non-career artists. There's a lot of music coming from people who have real life stories to tell. If you know where to look, you'll find a host of fantastic bands who are in "the business" for something other than the money. Personally, I've heard more crap from people who have nothing to sing/write about other than their beeatches, gold rings and whatever they've been shoving up their noses/into their veins that week. People who are in music for the love of it will continue to be in it even if it's less profitable, while the Lady Gagas of this world will disappear. Shame that.
Then you're looking at the wrong music.
Meet the Spartans made a crapload of money at the box office, but that certainly doesn't reflect on the movie industry as a whole. And it's not any different for music. To imply that Lady Gaga is representative of professional music as a whole is simply laughable.
Bottom line is that ANY form of art is relatively expensive. Art doesn't just come from the soul or some **** like that, it comes from extensive training, practice, and access to resources. Photographic equipment is not cheap. Painting equipment is not cheap, and musical instruments and recording equipment are not cheap. If you want to make art, even only as a hobby, that money has got to come from somewhere. And it's a hell of a lot more difficult if you're spending so much time working to fund your art that you don't have time to WORK at your art.
I paint, I draw, I play acoustic and electric guitar and I create electronic music. After the initial cost of equipment, all of these hobbies are inexpensive (unlike photography). You can't appreciate "amateur crap", I think mainstream music is largely tripe. If you believe that all of the music you like cost millions to make, then we have very different tastes. Besides, you're choosing to ignore that I think musicians should be free to make money off their music, I just don't believe that the multi-million dollar lifestyle that the current industry provides for the talentless singers it creates is conducive to making good music, but rather for creating excess fat on an industry in drastic need of a workout. But each to their own, eh?I paint, I draw, I play acoustic and electric guitar and I create electronic music. After the initial cost of equipment, all of these hobbies are inexpensive (unlike photography). You can't appreciate "amateur crap", I think mainstream music is largely tripe. If you believe that all of the music you like cost millions to make, then we have very different tastes. Besides, you're choosing to ignore that I think musicians should be free to make money off their music, I just don't believe that the multi-million dollar lifestyle that the current industry provides for the talentless singers it creates is conducive to making good music, but rather for creating excess fat on an industry in drastic need of a workout. But each to their own, eh?jimmyjammer69
Dude, it has nothing to do with "mainstream", and it isn't a matter of "millions of dollars".
I know people who are musicians on the side, while working at Wal-Mart and Red Lobster just to put food on the table. WHERE are these people supposed to find the actual TIME to perfect their craft? If you REALLY want to be good, you've not only got to put in the time for a hell of a lot of constant practice, but also the time for serious study. Time doesn't grow on trees. And with about 4 dozen wanna-be rockers in every college dorm and high school in the country, most people SUCK.
It's not even a matter of saying "most mainstream sucks", it's that most ARTISTS suck because very few of them are actually willing or able to put the time and effort into their art that it takes to be special. Where are you getting the idea that the best artists are those who don't care about money and just do it for the love? Those people are called HOBBYISTS, and the vast majority of them STINK.
And for that matter, the guy who's passionate about music yet still has to work 70 hours a week at a normal job would LOVE for you to buy his albums. Maybe then he won't have to get a second job.
But "costs" does NOT equate to just money. TIME is money, and it takes a hell of a lot of time and hard work to become any good. Good art DOES cost a lot to most artists, regardless of if they are world famous or making an album in their garage. And simply slapping a $5000 camera down in front of someone with no time to develop his skills is just going to get you $5000 garbage. Put a $10,000 guitar in front of a guitarist who lacks the time to hone his craft, and that $10,000 guitar is going to sound like crap.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I paint, I draw, I play acoustic and electric guitar and I create electronic music. After the initial cost of equipment, all of these hobbies are inexpensive (unlike photography). You can't appreciate "amateur crap", I think mainstream music is largely tripe. If you believe that all of the music you like cost millions to make, then we have very different tastes. Besides, you're choosing to ignore that I think musicians should be free to make money off their music, I just don't believe that the multi-million dollar lifestyle that the current industry provides for the talentless singers it creates is conducive to making good music, but rather for creating excess fat on an industry in drastic need of a workout. But each to their own, eh?MrGeezer
Dude, it has nothing to do with "mainstream", and it isn't a matter of "millions of dollars".
I know people who are musicians on the side, while working at Wal-Mart and Red Lobster just to put food on the table. WHERE are these people supposed to find the actual TIME to perfect their craft? If you REALLY want to be good, you've not only got to put in the time for a hell of a lot of constant practice, but also the time for serious study. Time doesn't grow on trees. And with about 4 dozen wanna-be rockers in every college dorm and high school in the country, most people SUCK.
It's not even a matter of saying "most mainstream sucks", it's that most ARTISTS suck because very few of them are actually willing or able to put the time and effort into their art that it takes to be special. Where are you getting the idea that the best artists are those who don't care about money and just do it for the love? Those people are called HOBBYISTS, and the vast majority of them STINK.
And for that matter, the guy who's passionate about music yet still has to work 70 hours a week at a normal job would LOVE for you to buy his albums. Maybe then he won't have to get a second job.
But "costs" does NOT equate to just money. TIME is money, and it takes a hell of a lot of time and hard work to become any good. Good art DOES cost a lot to most artists, regardless of if they are world famous or making an album in their garage. And simply slapping a $5000 camera down in front of someone with no time to develop his skills is just going to get you $5000 garbage. Put a $10,000 guitar in front of a guitarist who lacks the time to hone his craft, and that $10,000 guitar is going to sound like crap.
Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable.Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable. jimmyjammer69Not to get involved in your argument with MrGeezer....but if you find that an artist is paid too much for what you perceive the work involved entails....don't purchase their music. That way you aren't supporting them. But that is no justification for taking their work without compensation.
They deserve to be paid for what they do (just like any other job) whether you agree with how the money is spent.
Not to get involved in your argument with MrGeezer....but if you find that an artist is paid too much for what you perceive the work involved entails....don't purchase their music. That way you aren't supporting them. But that is no justification for taking their work without compensation.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable. LJS9502_basic
They deserve to be paid for what they do (just like any other job) whether you agree with how the money is spent.
I hear what you're saying, and in a way, I agree. Even if I don't think some acts do deserve to be paid for what they do, I think the popstar fatcats aren't the disease, but the symptom. What really gets to me is that the groups marketing these stars theoretically have the power to force ISP's to release confidential information and lock out their own clients. It's not like I'm being snipey for the sake of it; I can honestly see a fairer form of distribution which could be rewarding artists more representatively for their work, but what's standing in the way of that is a clunky old mechanism which refuses to lay down and die, and in the end it's all of us who have to suffer the erosion of rights and privacy.Good they should have started doing this ages ago.
In before some asian techno prophet 12 year old figures out a way to proxy their connection around the globe through loopholes in an undetected fashion.....
Oh wait...thats already happening....
Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable. jimmyjammer69
Dude, I KNOW musicians. I don't know where you are getting the idea that amateur artists of any kind don't have to actually hold real jobs, but they often do. There are people who have to work 60-70 hours a week just to pay their bills, never mind funding their art. And a few hours a week WON'T get you to the top of your game. I know people who THINK that's enough, and they also suck.
And your argument isn't even internally consistent. You talk about how the unpopular artist SHOULD be making millions of dollars (which is a weird position, seeing as how people aren't spending millions of dollars on their music). But the second that guy signs a contract with a major record company, he's somehow just another artist who is only in it for the money. Those two positions are certainly at odds with each other.
But the fact remains...if some unknown amatuer artist "should be selling millions", then why doesn't he just cut out the middle man, and make his millions without even bothering with the record companies? I mean, if the record companies actually don't do a damn thing to benefit the artist or to get the art to the consumer, then it's sort of odd that people still bother with them, isn't it?
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable. MrGeezer
Dude, I KNOW musicians. I don't know where you are getting the idea that amateur artists of any kind don't have to actually hold real jobs, but they often do. There are people who have to work 60-70 hours a week just to pay their bills, never mind funding their art. And a few hours a week WON'T get you to the top of your game. I know people who THINK that's enough, and they also suck.
And your argument isn't even internally consistent. You talk about how the unpopular artist SHOULD be making millions of dollars (which is a weird position, seeing as how people aren't spending millions of dollars on their music). But the second that guy signs a contract with a major record company, he's somehow just another artist who is only in it for the money. Those two positions are certainly at odds with each other.
But the fact remains...if some unknown amatuer artist "should be selling millions", then why doesn't he just cut out the middle man, and make his millions without even bothering with the record companies? I mean, if the record companies actually don't do a damn thing to benefit the artist or to get the art to the consumer, then it's sort of odd that people still bother with them, isn't it?
Where are you getting this stuff? When did I say amateur musicians don't need to have jobs? You KNOW musicians? Well, I guess that makes you the authority to say all amateur musicians suck... or maybe it's just your friends that suck at music. I can imagine that if they need to work 70 hour weeks to keep their heads above water, then they probably aren't going to have any energy to devote to their talents, but for those of us not living in sweat shops, life really isn't that hard.Did I say they should be making millions of dollars or SELLING millions of songs? In case you haven't worked it out yet, I believe that music is massively overpriced thanks to all the leeches attached to the musicians. Yes, I do believe that the vast majority of mainstream music is unimaginative crap, usually pumped out by people who've let go of all their artistic integrity to float at the top of the charts as they've been encouraged to do by the companies who are profiting off them. I don't get how there's any inconsistency whatsoever in there.
Seeing as this argument with you basically involves trying to explain how you've exaggerated, misrepresented or plain fabricated every view of mine that you're supposedly countering, there's really not a lot left to discuss. I think you understand perfectly what I'm saying and that in your heart of hearts, you totally agree, so let's end this little exchange of views right here :)
Mm, this. People shouldn't have the internet cut off for downloading stuff that they can't get through any other means. That doesn't make it right. Nobody is entitled to any piece of music, movies etc.[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] I agree that people who pirate directly (ie. torrent albums or movies they can easily buy in the shops) should be prosecuted. But there's such a massive grey area that they're going to end up punishing people who might not deserve it.MetalGear_Ninty
People have to learn to live without.
When you're 15 or 16 like yourself, and mommy and daddy pay for everything, you can afford to spend your allowance on movies and games, and it's easy to have a holier-than-thou attitude about piracy.
Grow up and you'll see that you have tons of monthly expenses (car insurance, health insurance, rent, electric, gas, cable, DSL/phone, student loans) that are much more important than paying for some meaningless piece of entertainment. Does that mean people should have to "live without" and be miserable? Hell no. And this is why people pirate. The greedy fatcats at the MPAA and RIAA can handle the losses. Most movies, games, and music cds suck these days anyway and aren't really worth paying for.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Just briefly, because this arguments getting sillywith the exaggerations (a 70 hour working week? a $10,000 guitar? seriously? I think you're well aware that genuinely talented musicians (not marketable stars) can easily put out good work from 3 or 4 hours of work per day and weekends). You keep choosing to ignore that I'm not talking about denying all income to musicians; I'm talking about the effects of piracy on the music industry as a whole. Currently, the musician is treated as one tiny cog in the mechanism, where in fact, he's pretty much the only essential part in making music and should be rewarded accordingly - getting nearer to 100% of sales income, even if that's 1/100 of the amount that big stars are making from big label sales. What I'm suggesting is that the people fighting against piracy are exactly those cogs unnecessary to music production itself, who are hanging on to a dying and unwieldy form of distribution and preventing the marketplace from adapting to what digital distribution could so easily be. On your talk of hobbyists: do you honestly believe that the best musicians are the richest? No,the richest are the most heavily marketed through massive over exposure in all forms of media. Granted, some of them might well once have been credible artists, but most of them are nothing but autotune products. Yes, I do believe that the best musicians are the ones who do it for the love and that no amount of love for money is going to turn you into a talented musician. You know who these real hobbyists are? They're the ones who buy "What Guitar?", "What Paintbrush?" etc. every month, spending mountains of cash in pursuit of their ridiculous dreams of big-money success, when they haven't got the raw talent to ever turn what they have into quality music. The millions of credible, talented musicians who should be selling milliions will, likewise, never make it because they've got the wrong parents, or too big a nose or brain or whatever else makes them unmarketable. jimmyjammer69
Dude, I KNOW musicians. I don't know where you are getting the idea that amateur artists of any kind don't have to actually hold real jobs, but they often do. There are people who have to work 60-70 hours a week just to pay their bills, never mind funding their art. And a few hours a week WON'T get you to the top of your game. I know people who THINK that's enough, and they also suck.
And your argument isn't even internally consistent. You talk about how the unpopular artist SHOULD be making millions of dollars (which is a weird position, seeing as how people aren't spending millions of dollars on their music). But the second that guy signs a contract with a major record company, he's somehow just another artist who is only in it for the money. Those two positions are certainly at odds with each other.
But the fact remains...if some unknown amatuer artist "should be selling millions", then why doesn't he just cut out the middle man, and make his millions without even bothering with the record companies? I mean, if the record companies actually don't do a damn thing to benefit the artist or to get the art to the consumer, then it's sort of odd that people still bother with them, isn't it?
Where are you getting this stuff? When did I say amateur musicians don't need to have jobs? You KNOW musicians? Well, I guess that makes you the authority to say all amateur musicians suck... or maybe it's just your friends that suck at music. I can imagine that if they need to work 70 hour weeks to keep their heads above water, then they probably aren't going to have any energy to devote to their talents, but for those of us not living in sweat shops, life really isn't that hard.Did I say they should be making millions of dollars or SELLING millions of songs? In case you haven't worked it out yet, I believe that music is massively overpriced thanks to all the leeches attached to the musicians. Yes, I do believe that the vast majority of mainstream music is unimaginative crap, usually pumped out by people who've let go of all their artistic integrity to float at the top of the charts as they've been encouraged to do by the companies who are profiting off them. I don't get how there's any inconsistency whatsoever in there.
Seeing as this argument with you basically involves trying to explain how you've exaggerated, misrepresented or plain fabricated every view of mine that you're supposedly countering, there's really not a lot left to discuss. I think you understand perfectly what I'm saying and that in your heart of hearts, you totally agree, so let's end this little exchange of views right here :)
Pot calling the kettle black, seeing as how you repeatedly misrepresented my posts in order to say that I was claiming that you have to be rich to be good (I have never said ANYTHING of the sort). So don't you dare try to point the finger at me and accuse me of intentionally misrepresenting your posts.
And as to the "selling millions" thing, your attitude is sort of strange.
Yes, I was wrong. I reread your post and it turns out you DIDN'T say that they should be making millions of dollars. Just that they should be selling millions of songs. I'm assuming that you really mean that millions of people are BUYING the songs, since someone who is prolific enough to have millions of songs to sell is going to be making nothing but crap.
But that's sort of a strange position. If a song costs a dollar, and someone who sells millions of songs should NOT be making millions of dollars, then exactly how much money do you think should be going to the actual artist? Weren't you the one who was previously complaining about how the majority of profit made from the sales of songs doesn't go to the artist?
So hey dude, suppose that I as an artist manage to cut the record company out entirely, and get my music available to millions of people all by myself. This is a pretty unlikely scenario, but it follows that it should be attainable if the record companies truly are worthless and do not in fact benefit me as an artist. So, supposing that when someone buys one of my songs or album that all of the money goes to me, the artist, how much money should I be able to make? If a million people purchase one song from me, then how much should that song cost?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment