Classic Rock Forums

Classic Rock Forums (https://www.crf2.com/forum.php)
-   Music Polls and Tournaments (https://www.crf2.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Downloading = stealing? (https://www.crf2.com/showthread.php?t=31610)

ShuffleItAll 11-04-2009 08:10 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Having these arguments/debates on here is becoming redundant. Everyone have already decided what they think and no one is ready to actually consider the worth of what someone with a different opinion is saying.

NDF 11-04-2009 10:06 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dkmonroe (Post 959052)
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 958890)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dkmonroe (Post 958843)
In any case, it's a faulty analogy because shoes that are not your size are completely useless, but the other 14 tracks of a CD that you don't like at first blush are still perfectly satisfactory product.

A perfectly satisfactory product that I don't want. A product is useless if I never use it. Shoes, tracks I don't like, both useless.

Quote:

And if you still aren't satisfied, you can just download the two tracks you like for a buck apiece at Amazon.com.
And why do you think NOW we can do that?

Quote:

There are choices galore these days.
These days yes, 10 years ago no. It all seemed to correspond remarkably well with the development of things like Napster.

Quote:

The main thing driving the desire to download is to get stuff for free.
Of course. If somebody offers something for free, people are going to take. Do you honestly think saying "oh, that's illegal" and trying to institute a punitive measure is going to have any long term affect? No one went around and starting putting VHS copiers in jail. It was too late, which is my point. In retro, it's so irrelevent to even talk about VHS copiers as ever having broken the law. This particular argument will become increasingly irrelevent over time as well. That is once we realize the world isn't coming to an end.

Quote:

OK, start NDF Records, record some artists, and give it all away on the internet.
There are artists who do that already and still pull a profit and stay in the top 10 of the Billboards doing it. How can that be if they are giving it all away?

Offering something for free is not a bad business model, especially when it gets exposure and brings people to your concerts which is where almost all artists get the majority of their money anyways.

I could respond to all this point by point but it would be useless. It isn't 10 years ago. Perfectly acceptable alternatives to illegal downloading exist if you care at all about playing by the rules and not breaking the law if you can possibly avoid it. You have nothing to complain about.

Do you have any albums being sold on torrent? If not, you really have nothing to complain about either. And it looks like the pollsters aren't convinced by your arguments as well. So there you have it.

Lynch 11-04-2009 10:18 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
I pose a question to the entire group. How about an album that is out of print? I don't care if it's from 5 yrs ago or 35 yrs ago.

Example, the band Cold Sweat released one album back in 1990 or so. The title went out of print a few yrs later. I had this on cassette as well as on CD. A 'friend' borrowed the CD at one point, and moved out of state not long after, never returning the disc. The cassette that I had got eaten by a tape deck (or melted, can't remember which).



Anyway, the ONLY way to find this title now is to get lucky on ebay or something similar, getting a used version or if REALLY lucky, paying through the nose for a supposed unopened disc. Either way, it's second hand.

Lets say I can find this same album on some filesharing site, torrents, newsgroups, whatever and I have the option of downloading it. Is it better or worse to download this album (that I actually purchased TWICE) or is it better/worse to buy it used for $25-50 dollars used somewhere? Either way, the band will not make a dime and neither will the record company. Is anyone out anything if I choose to download? Or should I take the "high road" and just not do anything, remembering it for what it was and never getting the opportunity to enjoy this album again?

Actually, does it even matter that I used to own two copies of it, or if I had never owned it at all? For that matter, why is "downloading music" such an issue when buying used LPs, Cassettes and Discs is rarely ever mentioned at all?

flipflop 11-04-2009 10:20 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShuffleItAll (Post 959058)
Having these arguments/debates on here is becoming redundant. Everyone have already decided what they think and no one is ready to actually consider the worth of what someone with a different opinion is saying.

You're probably right - I can count at least a handful who's obviously posted what they usually post on this topic without reading any of the previous posts :lol:

NDF: That's the weirdest argument ever! :lol: Well, almost as weird as roser's on page 1 :rofl:

NDF 11-04-2009 10:26 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by flipflop (Post 959097)
NDF: That's the weirdest argument ever! :lol: Well, almost as weird as roser's on page 1 :rofl:

Uh no.

flipflop 11-04-2009 10:40 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 959100)
Quote:

Originally Posted by flipflop (Post 959097)
NDF: That's the weirdest argument ever! :lol: Well, almost as weird as roser's on page 1 :rofl:

Uh no.

Because dkmonroe and/or myself do not have an album beeing leeched online we should just shut up because we're not personally losing money on illegal downloading?

Yeah, that is weird :lol:

the roser 11-04-2009 10:56 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
If by "weird" you mean you are unable to counter my argument because you lack an actual response so you just toss ad hominems around, then I thank you.:tongue:

ShuffleItAll 11-04-2009 11:05 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by flipflop (Post 959097)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShuffleItAll (Post 959058)
Having these arguments/debates on here is becoming redundant. Everyone have already decided what they think and no one is ready to actually consider the worth of what someone with a different opinion is saying.

You're probably right - I can count at least a handful who's obviously posted what they usually post on this topic without reading any of the previous posts :lol:

Yeah exactly, pretty much every argument in this thread is a copy from another thread on the same issue, and the answers to argument are the same, and coming from the same persons - on both "sides". There's just no point...

About the "out of print"-question above; I feel no guilt at all about downloading an album that's out of print - and I don't really think any artist would be pissed off about it. No matter how it works he/she wouldn't get any money and would hopefully just be happy that people wanted to hear their work - and was willing to spend time tracking it down. At least that's the way I'd see it.

butch 11-04-2009 11:14 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
I dont wanna go off topic here but this is how I feel about this. I never DL songs unless I buy one off of itunes. I get my listens from youtube, myspace, last FM, etc. I can listen to the songs without DLing them.

I realize not all songs are available this way but...do people really need to DL everything? Whats wrong with listening without DLing?

ShuffleItAll 11-04-2009 11:18 AM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
I wanna hear the full album. I almost always listen to full albums...

and most people wants to have it on their ipod/whatever mp3 device they're using/cell phone etc too.

dkmonroe 11-04-2009 12:00 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 959093)
Do you have any albums being sold on torrent? If not, you really have nothing to complain about either. And it looks like the pollsters aren't convinced by your arguments as well. So there you have it.

The question was asked, I answered it. My answers were challenged, I defended them. That's not complaining. And God forbid that people in general ever become truly convinced that the only proper reason to respond to an issue of right and wrong is because one's own ox is being gored. Or that poll results reliably signify the relative value of arguments.

dkmonroe 11-04-2009 12:21 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynch (Post 959096)
Lets say I can find this same album on some filesharing site, torrents, newsgroups, whatever and I have the option of downloading it. Is it better or worse to download this album (that I actually purchased TWICE) or is it better/worse to buy it used for $25-50 dollars used somewhere? Either way, the band will not make a dime and neither will the record company. Is anyone out anything if I choose to download? Or should I take the "high road" and just not do anything, remembering it for what it was and never getting the opportunity to enjoy this album again?

Actually, does it even matter that I used to own two copies of it, or if I had never owned it at all? For that matter, why is "downloading music" such an issue when buying used LPs, Cassettes and Discs is rarely ever mentioned at all?

Technically, ripping and downloading OOP music probably invokes the same legal problems as non-OOP music, but I personally don't see it as being as egregious. I still don't do it, though - I've frequently spent months and even years stalking OOP albums on Ebay and through other resources, trying to get those sorts of rare gems at a reasonable price. However, someone still holds a copyright to that material so legally there's probably no difference.

The reason buying used items isn't an issue is because it's legal to buy and sell used music. The artist/label is entitled to the profit of one sale of an individual unit and not more than that. Once the first purchase of the actual CD/LP/Cassette has been made, the artist/label have gotten everything they can get from that one item. Our copyright laws do not work in such a way as to give them a cut on subsequent sales of a used copy. I've had this argument with people on other boards and there are some who swear by the practice of only buying used what they cannot get new, and while that has an admirable aspect, I don't think that's it's something that everyone should feel morally obligated to do.

Zombeels 11-04-2009 01:58 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynch (Post 959096)
I pose a question to the entire group. How about an album that is out of print? I don't care if it's from 5 yrs ago or 35 yrs ago.

Example, the band Cold Sweat released one album back in 1990 or so. The title went out of print a few yrs later. I had this on cassette as well as on CD. A 'friend' borrowed the CD at one point, and moved out of state not long after, never returning the disc. The cassette that I had got eaten by a tape deck (or melted, can't remember which).



Anyway, the ONLY way to find this title now is to get lucky on ebay or something similar, getting a used version or if REALLY lucky, paying through the nose for a supposed unopened disc. Either way, it's second hand.

Lets say I can find this same album on some filesharing site, torrents, newsgroups, whatever and I have the option of downloading it. Is it better or worse to download this album (that I actually purchased TWICE) or is it better/worse to buy it used for $25-50 dollars used somewhere? Either way, the band will not make a dime and neither will the record company. Is anyone out anything if I choose to download? Or should I take the "high road" and just not do anything, remembering it for what it was and never getting the opportunity to enjoy this album again?

Actually, does it even matter that I used to own two copies of it, or if I had never owned it at all? For that matter, why is "downloading music" such an issue when buying used LPs, Cassettes and Discs is rarely ever mentioned at all?

I have a friend who believes that since you are paying for "intellectual property" once you've bought the album you have already paid for the rights for yourself to hear this music on any medium. This is the whole argument about intellectrual property. You are not buying something tangible like a pair of shoes or a car. You are paying for the right to access the music whether it be in a tangible form ie:CD, Vinyl, tape...etc or through electronic means...the internet.

If you've paid for it once, you own it forever.

Phantastico 11-04-2009 02:43 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 959169)

I have a friend who believes that since you are paying for "intellectual property" once you've bought the album you have already paid for the rights for yourself to hear this music on any medium. This is the whole argument about intellectrual property. You are not buying something tangible like a pair of shoes or a car. You are paying for the right to access the music whether it be in a tangible form ie:CD, Vinyl, tape...etc or through electronic means...the internet.

If you've paid for it once, you own it forever.

Give that man a gold star.
:thumbsup:

An issue the record companies have been dodging for years is the fact that they issue and reissue an album in multiple formats (LP, 8-track, cassette, CD, remastered CD, DVD, etc.) multiple times.

Some consumers (the hardcore fans) will buy it all, while others scratch their heads, wondering why they should fork over money for something they already have, if to just improve sound quality or get an extra song or two.

But the real stooge in all this was the artist. I seem to recall that early on during the CD boom, some artists weren't getting any royalties from CD sales because when they signed their record contracts, CDs didn't exist. No provisions were written into the contract, specifically citing CD sales, so guess what?

If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going on memory), the record companies were reaping the benefits of this technology big time because they weren't paying many artists (most likely signed before the CD arrived) a fucking dime!

Just another turn of the screw, huh?

Based on previous practices, I wouldn't be surprised that classic rock artists are not seeing a dime of any digital sales because that wasn't built into their original contract either.

On a related note, here's one example of how a deal between an artist and record label breaks down:

Advance: $250,000
Manager’s cut: $37,500
Legal fees: $10,000
Recording Budget: $150,000
Producer’s advance: $50,000
Studio fee: $52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase “Doctors”: $3,000
Recording tape: $8,000
Equipment rental: $5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $10,000
Catering: $3,000
Mastering: $10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $2,000
Video budget: $30,000
Cameras: $8,000
Crew: $5,000
Processing and transfers: $3,000
Off-line: $2,000
On-line editing: $3,000
Catering: $1,000
Stage and construction: $3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $2,000
Director’s fee: $3,000
Album Artwork: $5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $2,000
Band fund: $15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $500
Big blowout party for their friends: $500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $50,875
Bus:$ 25,000
Crew [3]: $7,500
Food and per diems: $7,875
Fuel: $3,000
Consumable supplies: $3,500
Wardrobe: $1,000
Promotion: $3,000
Tour gross income: $50,000
Agent’s cut: $7,500
Manager’s cut: $7,500
Merchandising advance: $20,000
Manager’s cut: $3,000
Lawyer’s fee: $1,000
Publishing advance: $20,000
Manager’s cut: $3,000
Lawyer’s fee: $1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]: $351,000
Less advance: $250,000
Producer’s points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
$40,000
Promotional budget: $25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000

Record company income:
Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 = $1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $351,000
Deficit from royalties: $14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $550,000
Gross profit: $7l0,000

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25

The band is now a quarter the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than $3,000,000 richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about a thrid as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never “recouped,” the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won’t have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked. “

Resource: Arists’ Royalties. CD Sales. Record Deals. Real Numbers?

Kind of makes you wonder who the real thieves are, doesn't it?

;)

NDF 11-04-2009 03:46 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
I think that's subconsciously how many consumers feel. We bought the album, sometimes 3 to 4 times over, if we download it off the internet then the thought of 'stealing' the music is a bit ludicrous.

This logic may be a little too weird for Judge Dredd however.

hightea 11-04-2009 03:52 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 959183)
I think that's subconsciously how many consumers feel. We bought the album, sometimes 3 to 4 times over, if we download it off the internet then the thought of 'stealing' the music is a bit ludicrous.

This logic may be a little too weird for Judge Dredd however.

while I'm against calling downloading illegal I would guess the bulk of people downloading stuff have never owned it. They may buy it in the future but hadn't in the past.

NDF 11-04-2009 03:56 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hightea (Post 959186)
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 959183)
I think that's subconsciously how many consumers feel. We bought the album, sometimes 3 to 4 times over, if we download it off the internet then the thought of 'stealing' the music is a bit ludicrous.

This logic may be a little too weird for Judge Dredd however.

while I'm against calling downloading illegal I would guess the bulk of people downloading stuff have never owned it. They may buy it in the future but hadn't in the past.

I guess i'm far off the mainstream. Probably 75% of the stuff I download I own or have owned in the past.

Phantastico 11-04-2009 04:21 PM

Re: Downloading = stealing?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NDF (Post 959183)
I think that's subconsciously how many consumers feel. We bought the album, sometimes 3 to 4 times over, if we download it off the internet then the thought of 'stealing' the music is a bit ludicrous.

This logic may be a little too weird for Judge Dredd however.

I think that was Lynch's point. He'd already purchased an album on multiple formats, and the record is presently out-of-print, which means the record company or artist wouldn't get anything from any copy he did find, so what's the harm in downloading it for free.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Hosted by: F5 / MVH Internet Services

Copyright 2005-2018, CRF2.com