|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:21 pm 
DRMS_7888 wrote: uncreative wrote: I provided some of Eisley's material to about 5 people. 2 of them ended up paying for their albums even after getting them from me. That's 2 more sales that otherwise would not have happened. All 5 of those people will be going with me to the spring tour, and 2 went with me on the MM tour. That's 7 tickets that may not have been sold otherwise. I'm guessing what Ribb's is getting at is that you could have just bought music for those 5 people as a gift as opposed to copyright infringement. Did I break the rules? |
|
|
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 | Posts: 2890 | Location: Oregon
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:21 pm
i tried to read this all but could not the fact is kids have been raised to believe media is now free and to fight that is a losing battle bands like radiohead can give their album away for free and their empire still grows - in fact without a label the are ca$hing in more than ever now (yay for them) but of course bands like Eisley or yours truly cannot afford to do that, but how do you keep the empire growing? i tell people to download my record anyway in hopes they like it and at least come to a show and maybe buy a tshirt out of sympathy we work hard on packaging and bonus material so there will be extra incentive for a physical purchase and i say yes to a lot of movie and tv show and commercial syncs so when i get the check i can feed the cat or buy guitar strings (artistic integrity snobs are sharpening their axes now) it's not easy but it sure as hell beats working in an office everyday |
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2003 | Posts: 2261 | Location: Ames, Iowa
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:24 pm
uncreative wrote: DRMS_7888 wrote: uncreative wrote: I provided some of Eisley's material to about 5 people. 2 of them ended up paying for their albums even after getting them from me. That's 2 more sales that otherwise would not have happened. All 5 of those people will be going with me to the spring tour, and 2 went with me on the MM tour. That's 7 tickets that may not have been sold otherwise. I'm guessing what Ribb's is getting at is that you could have just bought music for those 5 people as a gift as opposed to copyright infringement. Did I break the rules? You broke the law. But, in terms of morality, people will tell you different things. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:07 am
DRMS_7888 wrote: uncreative wrote: I provided some of Eisley's material to about 5 people. 2 of them ended up paying for their albums even after getting them from me. That's 2 more sales that otherwise would not have happened. All 5 of those people will be going with me to the spring tour, and 2 went with me on the MM tour. That's 7 tickets that may not have been sold otherwise. I'm guessing what Ribb's is getting at is that you could have just bought music for those 5 people as a gift as opposed to copyright infringement. I think it's incredibly silly to pay for an album more than once, no matter how much you love the artist. Like I stated several times earlier in this thread, purchasing a physical album (or a copy on iTunes, eMusic, Rhapsody, Amazon, and what have you) gives me the right--or at least it should--to do with it whatever I want. If current copyright law does not cover the right to make copies and do whatever I want with them (short of selling them, of course), the law is in dire need of revision. And I meant what I said--there is no way that could be bad for the artist. It generates future revenue that would not have been there before. And for the people who listen once and don't like it and never buy anything the band does or go to a show, nobody loses anything. It's not the ideal way to do it (buying everyone a copy), but any band that expects their fans to buy ten copies of their album and carry them around on the off chance a friend wants one is being terribly unrealistic and, in my opinion, too demanding. theenvycorps wrote: i tried to read this all but could not
the fact is kids have been raised to believe media is now free and to fight that is a losing battle bands like radiohead can give their album away for free and their empire still grows - in fact without a label the are ca$hing in more than ever now (yay for them) but of course bands like Eisley or yours truly cannot afford to do that, but how do you keep the empire growing? i tell people to download my record anyway in hopes they like it and at least come to a show and maybe buy a tshirt out of sympathy we work hard on packaging and bonus material so there will be extra incentive for a physical purchase and i say yes to a lot of movie and tv show and commercial syncs so when i get the check i can feed the cat or buy guitar strings (artistic integrity snobs are sharpening their axes now) it's not easy but it sure as hell beats working in an office everyday My sentiments exactly, sir. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:09 am
I only read the first page of this, but I think you need to get over it. People are going to burn CDs for each other whether you like it or not. I did buy all of Eisley's CDs, but I burn CDs from/for my boyfriend all the time. I've heard a lot of bands say (ESPECIALLY bands just starting out) that they don't mind people downloading their music at all. It helps introduce a wide variety of people to them and will probably help them out in the long run. _________________ www.kailahandler.bandcamp.com |
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2005 | Posts: 1813 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:54 am
Thought I'd quote this so that newcomers to the topic can read Kim's thoughts without having to read through what...Page 9?: Kimbrtones wrote: 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.  I have burned an Eisley CD for someone before. That person ended up buying the two EPs and RN though, and she also came to two shows with me. I think that CD was worth it. I have also bought multiple copies and handed them out though (for Combinations, I bought 3 somehow). I've actually had a lot of success with telling people about them, playing their CD, and then just getting them to come see a show with me. I've gotten about 6 or 7 people into them that way. I don't like downloading music/burning CDs because I do think it steals from the band. That and I just think CD-Rs are ugly. I'm shallow like that. Or something. _________________ "I shall take the heart," returned the Tin Woodsman; "for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world." |
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 | Posts: 1374 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:39 am
I'd never read that post from Kim, before but I agree with her wholeheartedly! Even though it seems to be a two-way street, people have to be aware of a band before they can buy their stuff, if we as fans really love Eisely the way we say we do, it's up to us to take the high road, and go that extra mile by buying those extra CD's and giving them away to potential fans. I mean, I'm not going to scrimp on a few bucks and take a chance on losing something that means the very world to me!! I love Eisley and I'll do what it takes to ensure their survival and prosperity!! _________________ Mike=] |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 | Posts: 1453 | Location: Orlando, Florida
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:51 am
I went back and found my response to Kim's post, quoted in part here so I don't have to repeat myself using different words. Saellys wrote: Kimbrtones wrote: 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! If pirating a band's album hurts the band, no one can afford to give away an album for free, not even Prince. He didn't put a CD in the newspaper because he can go without getting paid for it. From what I can discern it was more of a statement than anything, that musicians should be looking for alternate ways to distribute their music that doesn't involve a corporation. And that's an attitude with which I wholeheartedly agree. Kimbrtones wrote: 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. I can't imagine how anyone here would get the idea that Eisley are rich, unless they're severely deluded about the music industry as a whole. Kimbrtones wrote: 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.) With all due respect, if I have a choice between buying extra copies of Combinations to convert people and using burned copies of the Independent Recordings EP, I'd use the free one. Of course, it's also not financially possible for me to buy everyone I want to convert a copy of the CD. But when the tools (Myspace, the Independent Recordings) are out there for free, I honestly can't envision a lot of people using the tools that cost money, particularly when so many stores charge obscene amounts for CDs and many Eisley fans don't live near a Best Buy or something comparable. Kimbrtones wrote: 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. Why is that a better bet? Burning a copy obviously worked on the person mentioned in the first post of this thread. The industry's in a sad, sorry state for sure, but not everybody is a mom like Kim who will go out and spend more on another copy of the album than the band will see (someday, maybe) in royalties. Here's an alternative for people who want to do everything 100% legally as defined by the RIAA, but can't afford to cart around a dozen copies of Combinations. Gather the people you want to convert to Eisley fandom. Go for a ride in your car, or sit around your room, and play the album for them. If they like it, great. If not, fine. Nobody has to spend money or theoretically steal from Eisley's future potential profits. That's how I turned three of my friends on to Muse a few years back. It worked about as well as burning copies has for other bands I introduced my friends to. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:38 am
Every chance I get I push the bands I love on other people. If they would like to hear what they sound like, I let them borrow my album, but I don't really ever burn whole CD's because it takes away from the awesome artwork and of course all the other reasons that have been said previously. My sister sometimes burns me albums, and if I like them, I go out and buy the album because I like to own albums and just have them in my hands. I know not everyone is like that, though. That's fine. I have two friends that aren't big on buying albums, because while music is a big part of their life, they don't like spending their money on all music related things. So, when it's their birthday, or any kind of holiday I make sure I buy them an album (maybe of an artist that is on a mix for them, or on a copy that was made for them). I know a band like The Smashing Pumpkins, I have copies of CD's that I keep in mint condition that won't ever be touched, and then I have the ones that I listen to and look at and open, etc. But that's just crazy ol' me. Sometimes people may not understand how important the little things are (like even buying a little button or something at a show, heh), so I think if we let our friends know, it'll get better for everyone. Maybe if you burn them an album, and they really like it, tell them to buy it or if you can, get it for them.
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Feb 2007 | Posts: 2907 | Location: Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:03 am
I loved this idea from Mr. Gibbs way upthread: Quote: I realize I am tilting at windmills here - clearly cds will very soon go the way of vinyl and cassettes. The answer lies in finding a way to monetize the internet. ITunes represents only a tiny drop in the bucket of downloads, but at least it is a drop in the right direction. This next bit will send shivers down the spine of those of you who think of the internet as a god given right and that information should be free. ISPs and the trunk line providers should be paying large licensing fees to copyright owners, which they should pass on to their customers. That's right, I said it - people should pay for music (and all intellectual copyright) as a built-in fee within their DSL or cable bills. Analogous to how you pay for music every time you enter a nightclub. Are you aware that nightclubs pay ASCAP and BMI money (which is then distributed to the copyright owners) based on average attendance in that club? You don't pay for it specifically, nor do you get to select what songs the dj plays, but those fees are basically built into the price of admission and beer. Any business where money changes hands and also plays music is supposed to (and usually does) pay for that music - why should ISPs be any different? Think about it.
Incidentally, the Songwriters Association of Canada has a similar proposal here: http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php As does Trent Reznor: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html But lots of people in Canada don't like the proposal: http://music.aol.ca/article/labels-slam-proposed-digital-music-tax/344 / Here in the US, the most recent news is that AT&T and NBC (among others) are speculating about blocking peer-to-peer sharing. See http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/09/att-may-censor-copyrighted-materi als-at-the-isp-level/ and http://haigmedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/at-considers-net-censorship.html I don't think that's going to be a good plan for anybody. But it seems to me, Mr. Gibbs, that these powerful interests would (or ought to) like your idea. Content creators or licensors like NBC, RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, etc., are all trying to figure out ways to get paid. Big telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon** are all opposed to "net neutrality," because they want to figure out how to charge more for the massive bandwidth-hogs. There ought to be a way to get everybody to the table on a plan like this, and then find a way of placating (paying off) any opponents. **Disclaimer: my day job is an attorney, and I've represented both of those companies on completely different issues; I don't know anything about their thinking on this, other than what's been publicly reported. |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2008 | Posts: 474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:48 am
StuartBuck wrote: Brilliant. You could calibrate the fee that the ISP pays depending on how much bandwidth its customers use per month, and then the ISP could make up its own mind whether to continue offering flat-rated service or tiered service to its own customers. The main problems that I can see are: 1) how do you get a reasonable estimate of which bands' songs (or whose movies, etc.) are being shared across the network; and 2) how do you get the legitimate sellers of online music (ITunes, etc.) to back off from opposing this plan.
Incidentally, the Songwriters Association of Canada has a similar proposal here: http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php As does Trent Reznor: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html But lots of people in Canada don't like the proposal: http://music.aol.ca/article/labels-slam-proposed-digital-music-tax/344 / I am utterly opposed to this idea, and have been since I first saw it a few years ago, when it was postulated about on BoingBoing or Metafilter or some such. And you left off the third major problem. There is no reason why my grandfather, who uses the Internet but never downloads any media whatsoever, should have to pay any extra for his service because of people who spend their days BitTorrenting the latest Blink 182 album. No ISP would keep offering the same rate if they're being charged more for their bandwidth usage, and a tiered plan is asking for trouble; it would turn out just like cell phone plans, with a few hundred people per month being overcharged for something they didn't use. I once had no choice but to pay Sprint double my usual monthly bill because they said I used the Internet on my phone the day after I got a new phone with Verizon. I spent two hours on the line with customer service and got stonewalled the whole way. That kind of thing would be ten times worse with an ISP. Proposing such a change in structure requires coordination and technology that simply doesn't exist yet, and probably never will because the ISPs stand to make more money by screwing the consumer over. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am
Sounds like the Candians are on the right track! _________________ Mike=] |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 | Posts: 1453 | Location: Orlando, Florida
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:55 am
Saellys wrote: There is no reason why my grandfather, who uses the Internet but never downloads any media whatsoever, should have to pay any extra for his service because of people who spend their days BitTorrenting the latest Blink 182 album. But even if your grandfather paid the same as he's paying today, some of the extra money paid by the teenager next door would end up in the pockets of bands like Eisley. That would be the objective, anyway. I think the idea is brilliant because in a digital world, there's not yet been a good way to get people to pay for the content that they're using (the alternatives are continually escalating DRM wars, or tracking down individual users and filing lawsuits against them, which I suspect most people resent). And without control over an income stream, fewer and fewer people will able to make a living in the music business. Ultimately, that means less good music being made, because most of the good musicians will have ended up as accountants, or nurses, or whatnot. |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2008 | Posts: 474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:03 pm
StuartBuck wrote: Saellys wrote: There is no reason why my grandfather, who uses the Internet but never downloads any media whatsoever, should have to pay any extra for his service because of people who spend their days BitTorrenting the latest Blink 182 album. But even if your grandfather paid the same as he's paying today, some of the extra money paid by the teenager next door would end up in the pockets of bands like Eisley. That would be the objective, anyway. I think the idea is brilliant because in a digital world, there's not yet been a good way to get people to pay for the content that they're using (the alternatives are continually escalating DRM wars, or tracking down individual users and filing lawsuits against them, which I suspect most people resent). And without control over an income stream, fewer and fewer people will able to make a living in the music business. Ultimately, that means less good music being made, because most of the good musicians will have ended up as accountants, or nurses, or whatnot. If the ISPs are getting charged more by the media companies, do you honestly think they'll drop prices for anyone? Even the low man on the totem pole is going to have to pay more, and I still believe a tiered plan can only go horribly wrong. Artists already have little to no control over an income stream. That's why the industry is changing so dramatically--because more artists want their profits to go to them, rather than some sleazeball executive for one of the Big Three. The only way to make sure that happens is to completely overhaul the way music is distributed to reflect the changing technology. The mainstream music industry has been behind the curve every step of the way and only now are they starting to catch up with where Napster was eight years ago and give people viable legal alternatives that may or may not be crippled with DRM. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:12 pm
Saellys wrote: If the ISPs are getting charged more by the media companies, do you honestly think they'll drop prices for anyone? Even the low man on the totem pole is going to have to pay more, and I still believe a tiered plan can only go horribly wrong. Again, I think companies are going to move toward tiered plans regardless; they're too fed up with 5% of the users taking up 70 or 80% of the network. Would they drop prices for any Internet users? Maybe not. But I doubt that they would raise prices either, at least not very much. Let's say that the various industries come together, and their best guess is that with all the illegal downloading going on, it averages out to $5 per month per user, and that ISPs will have to pay the RIAA (or ASCAP or BMI) 2 cents per Mb (just making up the figures here). So now the ISPs can decide, "Do we want to start charging every customer $5 more per month, or do we want to charge more to the few people who downloaded 20 gigs last month?" I am skeptical that an ISP would take that first option. After all, if the ISP already had enough monopoly market power to charge your grandfather an extra $5 per month without causing him to cancel service, then why wouldn't it just go ahead and do so right now? Why wait to get that free money? Conversely, if the ISP is not charging your grandfather that much right now, then the ISP must have figured out that if it does so, either 1) the cable or DSL competitor will underbid it, or 2) enough people like your grandfather will cancel service altogether that it's not worth it to raise the price. I'm just guessing how this would all play out. Maybe ISPs would indeed figure out a way to raise prices across the board by at least a little bit. But I still think it might be worth it, if that means more artists like Eisley can be fairly compensated for the many MP3s that are being illegally shared right now. Quote: Artists already have little to no control over an income stream. That's why the industry is changing so dramatically--because more artists want their profits to go to them, rather than some sleazeball executive for one of the Big Three. The only way to make sure that happens is to completely overhaul the way music is distributed to reflect the changing technology. What does this specifically mean? If you have the Radiohead model in mind, even Radiohead apparently could only get a small minority of downloaders to actually pay for their album, and I fear that even getting that much won't be realistic for the vast majority of bands with less name recognition. Too many people are getting used to the notion that music is just free like TV; thus, just as TV is supported by advertising, someone has to come up with a way to make sure that musical artists get compensated. |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2008 | Posts: 474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> bootleg copy.
Page 19 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
|
|
