|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:43 pm 
Kappa962 wrote: When you say stealing, it may technically be a correct usage of the word. However, the connotation is that it is the same as stealing a car, which is ridiculous. (Even though it may have similar negative results.)
Specifically, all sorts of amazing music has been created without the benefit of copyright law. There is more than one mechanism that can be set up in order to compensate the people who need compensation. The present version of copyright law does seem to work to some degree, but it may not be the best means, especially in the changing world we live in. It certainly is not a necessity. Well I'm not so sure that the connotation is ridiculous. I would actually prefer that my car is stolen (I have insurance for that) than to have my means of paying for the car taken from me. As for the other mechanisms that can be set up to compensate me and others in my line of work, I'm all ears! I agree that there are gaping holes and inconsistencies in copyright law, but without those laws I can guarantee you that an awful lot of very talented people would change professions on the spot. We really don't need more lawyers, do we (speaking of necessities)? |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:13 pm
I think I mostly agree with you. It seems like most arguments about this are people on one side saying "copyright law does helpful things; we'd be totally screwed if all those laws went away" and people on the other saying "copyright law is jacked up, get rid of it" I agree with both sides. I think copyright law vs anarchy is a false dichotomy. The discussion should be about how can we best improve and change copyright law in order to let it better serve the art and the artists. I think maybe the large numbers of people copying music is instumental in forcing people to think about this topic. The current system is somewhat broken, but the solution certainly isn't copyright anarchy. I guess that's why I feel the terms we use are important. When we call copyright infringement stealing, it implies that copying and freely distributing music is morally equivilent to stealing, but that is not the case. I think a system could be set up whereby copying and freely distributing music would be lawful, but other mechanisms would still create an environment where artists are paid appropriately. However, I think stealing a car will always be wrong, regardless of legality. I don't have any answers, but I think it is good to frame the discussion in such a way that useful answers might be likely to be found. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 | Posts: 440 | Location: Indy
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:20 pm
I freely admit I am throwing around the term 'filestealing' (trademarked by yours truly  ) in order to engender exactly the discussion we are having.
Wouldn't you admit it is a bit more accurate in connotation than the term 'filesharing'? That sounds like something we all encourage our toddlers to do. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:42 pm
Okay Mr. Gibbs. What name should I use to address you, by the way? I think that I would be interested in listening to you in a debate, because really, I've only publicly heard from whiney teenage brats who are used to getting everything fast and for free, (why can't i have music for free? It isn't fair!"), top executives, ("We are enforcing the law.") and artists, ("I'm all for the fans, but stealing is not cool!"). But I think you, as a producer, might be more relatable to the everyday crowd. As cool as you are, you aren't a "rock star", you aren't a stuffy CEO, and you aren't a pubescent "me me me" kid. And it directly affects your income, not just a down the line thing like stockholders, and in many cases, the artists. On another note, if music is an industry, and tangible forms of music like CD's, Vinyl's...etc are a product, then we can confirm that they are at the end of their PLC (product life cycle). Typically that means that customers have found substitutes (digital), the wide range of smaller companies have dwindled to a few large companies, (like Warner), and profit margins are significantly reduced. So, really, the only difference between CD's and other products that are losing sales due to customers finding substitutes, are that customer's are finding illegal substitutes. That doesn't solve the "to download, or not to download" question, but I think it could point to a possible solution. |
|
|
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:54 pm
cynlovescandy wrote: Okay Mr. Gibbs.
What name should I use to address you, by the way? I think that I would be interested in listening to you in a debate, because really, I've only publicly heard from whiney teenage brats who are used to getting everything fast and for free, (why can't i have music for free? It isn't fair!"), top executives, ("We are enforcing the law.") and artists, ("I'm all for the fans, but stealing is not cool!"). But I think you, as a producer, might be more relatable to the everyday crowd. As cool as you are, you aren't a "rock star", you aren't a stuffy CEO, and you aren't a pubescent "me me me" kid. And it directly affects your income, not just a down the line thing like stockholders, and in many cases, the artists. On another note, if music is an industry, and tangible forms of music like CD's, Vinyl's...etc are a product, then we can confirm that they are at the end of their PLC (product life cycle). Typically that means that customers have found substitutes (digital), the wide range of smaller companies have dwindled to a few large companies, (like Warner), and profit margins are significantly reduced. So, really, the only difference between CD's and other products that are losing sales due to customers finding substitutes, are that customer's are finding illegal substitutes. That doesn't solve the "to download, or not to download" question, but I think it could point to a possible solution. You could call me the Mahatma, or your royal highness. Emperor of the Domain will do in a pinch. But my name is Richard. However I'm also now a cool (thanks for that) historical demographic anomaly. I love a good debate! You set up the forum and the opponents and I'm there. I would say you have very neatly summed up this subject from a business perspective. My guess is you are a businessperson of some sort yourself, yes? |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Ribbs wrote: cynlovescandy wrote: Okay Mr. Gibbs.
What name should I use to address you, by the way? I think that I would be interested in listening to you in a debate, because really, I've only publicly heard from whiney teenage brats who are used to getting everything fast and for free, (why can't i have music for free? It isn't fair!"), top executives, ("We are enforcing the law.") and artists, ("I'm all for the fans, but stealing is not cool!"). But I think you, as a producer, might be more relatable to the everyday crowd. As cool as you are, you aren't a "rock star", you aren't a stuffy CEO, and you aren't a pubescent "me me me" kid. And it directly affects your income, not just a down the line thing like stockholders, and in many cases, the artists. On another note, if music is an industry, and tangible forms of music like CD's, Vinyl's...etc are a product, then we can confirm that they are at the end of their PLC (product life cycle). Typically that means that customers have found substitutes (digital), the wide range of smaller companies have dwindled to a few large companies, (like Warner), and profit margins are significantly reduced. So, really, the only difference between CD's and other products that are losing sales due to customers finding substitutes, are that customer's are finding illegal substitutes. That doesn't solve the "to download, or not to download" question, but I think it could point to a possible solution. You could call me the Mahatma, or your royal highness. Emperor of the Domain will do in a pinch. But my name is Richard. However I'm also now a cool (thanks for that) historical demographic anomaly. I love a good debate! You set up the forum and the opponents and I'm there. I would say you have very neatly summed up this subject from a business perspective. My guess is you are a businessperson of some sort yourself, yes? Richard, Emperor of the Domain, Is it that obvious? 
Marketing, just graduated from Cal Poly, SLO. |
|
|
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:15 pm
Ribbs wrote: I freely admit I am throwing around the term 'filestealing' (trademarked by yours truly ) in order to engender exactly the discussion we are having.
Wouldn't you admit it is a bit more accurate in connotation than the term 'filesharing'? That sounds like something we all encourage our toddlers to do. That is exactly why I am uncomfortable with the present copyright system. We all encourage kids to share, but then we make it illegal to share music. Maybe it's a necessity, but it definitely doesn't feel right. Looking at the free software movement, you can see that there definitely is a viable system for creating content, compensating producers of content, and still allowing people to make a copy for their friend, free of charge. I don't know if that model will translate into music, but I think that would be awesome. I doubt if many people would have guessed that it would work for software, but it definitely has. Richard Stallman, the primary philosopher of the free software movement refuses to use any non-free software on moral grounds. Quote: I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. He also makes an interesting point related to the moral quandry modern copyright law leaves us in. Quote: Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor (which they are) is naughty or shameful. I don't know that I agree with his philosophy totally, but he really makes me long for a world with a better copyright system, and the success of the free software movement makes me think that it is possible someday. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 | Posts: 440 | Location: Indy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:22 pm
I think Richard Stallman is more than a bit off the mark. I hear what he is saying, but from a practical standpoint it does not work in a capitalist society. Again, I'm all for socialism/communism if done right. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - something like that, right? But musicmakers cannot exist in a communistic bubble in a capitalistic sea. Wish it were so. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:53 pm
All of his ideas in the exact form he introduced them may not work, but they were certainly the seed of a successful model of software development within the context of capitalism. There is a lot of money in free software even though it can be copied with no restrictions. Google runs on free software. Firefox an excellent browser, used by enormous numbers of people, and it is free software. Some of Stallman's ideas definitely have merit within the context of capitalism....The free software model is working. His ideas may have some problems, but they have done some amazing things for software, and I think similar ideas could some day do some amazing things for music. Or maybe not. I'm not married to the idea, but I do think we should be honest about the advantages and disadvantages of our current system and try to find ways to make it work better, not just for people who create music, but for everyone. For me, the free software movement is more an inspiration for how much improvement can happen, rather than an exact model for what should happen. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 | Posts: 440 | Location: Indy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:05 pm
Fair enough. _________________ http://richardgibbsmusic.com/ http://www.woodshedrecording.com/ |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:26 pm
Luke's Mom wrote: I was disagreeing with your statement that no one would be interested in hearing from you. (In support of Eisley). Your fogie factor is -2. Unless, of course, you cut your hair. It is very subversive and somewhat frightening. Kids and old hippies love that.
Have to cook for the Luke. Creamed pepper sauce, sirloin tips, proscuitto foccatta, summer squash with dill butter, corn (grown on the next farm over), and carrot cake. He will be in a bad mood because the Sox lost and he was at Fenway. What a great discussion. Thanks. Man, Luke's mom! when I was in a bad mood, my mom would make spaghetti. or maybe she would make mcdonalds or pizza hut 
you made me so hungry. and jealous. and now guilty. _________________ guitarfreak217 wrote: Everyone, listen to Leigh. She knows what's up. theantrider wrote: My jaw hurts and I have an ulcer. That's what spending time with Kylee gets you |
|
|
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 | Posts: 6183 | Location: Lake Jackson, TX
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:34 pm
Sharing is good. When you have something good, it's good to share it. But when it isn't yours to share, it's not good. I would love to share my neighbors tomatoes with my friends... but I wouldn't go over their fence and pick their tomatoes without their consent. Even kids know that they can't share something that isn't theirs. I recognize the fact that there are benefits to filesharing for everyone. I also can see that there could be a system where filesharing is not illegal, and could work. But until then, when the property is not mine, I shouldn't act like it is. |
|
|
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:50 am
Dinner was delicious and Luke is on his way to NY this morning to meet up with the band. On topic (?): Distribution of profits is the backbone of pure capitalism. The problem (as I see it) with the current major label business model, is that there is no profit in CD sales for ANYONE but the high up executives, and, (in the short run), for the public share-holders. The trickle down economy is not in play here. If I, as a fan/friend of Eisley wanted to spread the word and the music (legally) I would have to buy many, many copies at retail prices and give them away. I have no way of getting copies for free or at cost. Proprietary distribution is in play here. There is only one little shop in my town square. They sell ice cream, candy, and little gifts. I heard the Cranberries over the store sound system. There were 10 people in the shop, lingering, listening and enjoying the browsing. Now, in the old Coca Cola business model, I would immediately pull out my Eisley sales kit, filled with samples, write-ups, framed photographs to hang in the shop, and maybe a tin sign that says 'EISLEY LOVES ICE CREAM! I would sign up the shop to buy 50 copies. The publisher would make money, the band would make money, I would make money, the store would make money. Everyone is motivated to sell copies. Instead, I have to give away one of my expensive copies, hope that the owner loves it and plays it constantly. I have to hope that enough people take note of it, ask the owner who it is. I have to hope that the spotty distribution by WB has stocked the local mega store. I have to hope that the person who heard the CD in the ice cream store actually gets to buy a copy while it is still on their minds. Unlikely. Life goes on and they forget. Sometimes you have to look at the past in order to figure out the future. I think the future for musicians is complete independence. Every band has its own label. It will be up to them and their fans to sell their recordings. In order for that to happen, every one has to have a piece of the pie. Success should be predicated on a superior product and fairness in profit distribution. BUT..here's the problem. An Eisley rep cannot walk into a Walmart and sell copies of their latest release. Those mega stores have exclusive and non competitive contracts with mega corporations. Once upon a time, the anti monopoly laws saved this country. I think that needs to happen again. Sorry about the ramble! |
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 | Posts: 420 | Location: Cranberry Bog, MA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:43 am
The key is that record companies and artists have to understand that the distribution mechanism has changed totally. With the advent of recording technology years ago, a day like this where essentially a copy of the song is worthless was inevitable. The record industry, however (much like the newspaper industry until very recently) was wayyyy asleep at the wheel, and now they are paying for it bigtime. The industry's lawsuits, in the name of protecting artists, really is just hanging onto an old business model, something which is just not sustainable. They are trying to imbue value onto something which does not have value anymore. There are too many ways to get songs free or cheap for the cost of music to ever be more than what ITunes charges, if that. The savvy artists in this landscape, like Prince in particular, recognize this. That's why it's smart for Eisley to release their entire album on MySpace. Really, the idea of hearing "Combinations" first now is more important than actually having the songs. You'll get the songs, probably not for a high price. Where bands make their money is shows and selling schwag. The music is the lure to get the other stuff, and so they're happy to give it away free if it can fill the arenas. When Prince, in England, secured a fixed fee up front and just gave away his CD in a Sunday newspaper, he was acknowledging this reality. The goodwill of releasing the CD first en masse for free (as well as giving the CD away at shows) far outweighs the cost to him of lost sales. The future for a band like Eisley, I'd think, in a smart distribution marketplace would be to look at it this way. Suppose my target is to sell 500,000 copies. At $12 a print, that's $6 million and Eisley's take is probably $1 million. So if they could get, for instance, Blender Magazine to pay them $500,000 in exchange for giving the CD away in an issue (or an EP, or whatever), they can secure 1/2 of their expected take. It's a great hedge. _________________ I was young and foolish then, but old and foolish now |
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 | Posts: 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:37 am
For anyone to pretend that pirating a band's cd does not hurt the band, is deceiving themself. It does take away from that band...at least for now. I know there are all these changes and that no one knows the future, but for now...cd sales only help a band like Eisley. Of course Prince can give his away! 
But, for bands like Eisley, if you can afford to buy they cd, you should. Sales = future continued success. Everyone thinks that Eisley is rich and that they are rollin. Guess what? My kid's have seen very little return in dollars. Everything has been one big risk...for us, as well as for WB. It's the way it's played... if it flies...everyone wins the lottery...if it doesn't...eventually it all comes to an end. The only money Eisley has received are a few royalty checks. Yeah...that's right...a few royalty checks. They have been working at this thing since 1998 for little or no pay. We all try to laugh when an ASCAP check arrives and we open them, and it will be for $89.00. There have been a few that were for more than that, but not many. The funniest one was for $4.00. This time is critical for a band like Eisley. If you want to see them continue...buy their freakin album for 10 bucks! Buy more than one copy! (if it is financially possible for you.) I buy a copy everytime I go into a store that carries it. I keep that copy in my car or purse, and give it away to someone that has never heard the band, or I think would not go out and buy the album. Burning that person a copy and hoping that it turns into future sales for the band is not reality. Buying an extra copy and giving it away, hoping it will turn that person into a fan that will go to shows, and buy merch...that's a better bet...and that extra cd sell...did help the band. Of course I do this...I'm their mom...I want to see their dream fullfilled of being able to make a living at what they do so well, and what they love,and what they, and all of us in this family have worked hard, and sacrificed much since 1998. I also want to see them fly out of the nest...and they cannot do that in their current state...well, the girls can...if they marry a guy that can help support them. The whole arguement and justifications of pirating are silly. "Pirating" look up a definition. " a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization." I hear all the arguements of how it's suppose to "help" the band, but Eisley had 80 thousand pirated copies recorded for Room Noises. Thanks for yer help mateys! arrrgh! I don't know what the solution is, and I myself have been guilty of "pirating" songs...but...I knew/know that it is wrong and it does not "help" the band. One of the problems is, it's too easy and available to do without consequence. blah...that's my two cents...you guys are way smarter than me. Having said all of that gibberish...if you can buy the cd, please do, and buy one just to give away. Doing so, you will be helping to ensure that the band you love, EISLEY will be able to continue....And, maybe...just maybe these kids will start seeing a paycheck from their years of work!
P.S. if you can only afford one copy...we are grateful and thankful for that too.
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 | Posts: 3695 | Location: Tyler, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> bootleg copy.
Page 9 of 20 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
