User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 122

  1. #21
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocap View Post
    well this isn't really relevant, but i don't even think these musicians should be making so much money.

    it promotes industry -- the worst thing to happen to art [and particularly music] since industry began.

    the fact that you can make millions off a single album is the reason for bands like linkin park, the backstreet boys, every rap 'musician' and lady gaga -- the ones who have no business marketing themselves as musicians.

    it's because of industry that talents like Rush and Opeth are mostly ignored now.
    I'm not sure how the forum decided to remove you from my block list, but in any event--

    Musicians don't make any money, bud. 99% of professional musicians (and I mean professional level, touring, performing acts, not just session players or random kids jerking off in the garage) are not anywhere near the millionaire mark.

    You hear about million dollar contracts and all this shit but those are just loans--bands are businesses selling music/live performances and record labels are investors who want to see a positive return on their investment.

    And being that 95% of commercial music releases actually LOSE money, the bands don't stand to make a whole lot in the first place. Even the successful ones still have to pay for all the production/recording fees, hire a road crew, buy equipment, pay for transportation and food for all their gear and personnel, pay the venue a big cut, pay their management a big cut, pay for any lights or background images or other visual decorations, and still gross enough to pay back all LOANS they got from the record company, with interest.

    Even "big names" that most people know are rarely making that kind of outrageous money, after all expenses are considered. Don't let gross intake figures or big record sales fool you.

    Look up an article called "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini. You can sell 250,000 records on a major label and still end up making less per hour than you would have working at McDonald's.

    btw, Rush is still one of the highest grossing acts every year they tour. It's because they've spent a long time building a solid and widespread market. And here I thought good musicians weren't allowed to be popular!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #22
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    The penalty is absurd. It basically said they are trying to make an example of her. The article said the jury was angry at her for her continued denial. That punishment mentality has little to do with justice.

    Evidently she made the songs available on Kazaa for others to download, so it wasn't just a personal download. In that way it wasn't equivalent to shoplifting, because she also was a supplier. She had (and might still have) the option of settling with the record company for $3500. For making a couple dozen songs available for free to an unknown number of people, that amount is in the realm of reason, I think.

    Edit: The question of intellectual property is a difficult one because all information relies on the assimilation of other information. Cutting off access limits creative flow, but at the same time not acknowledging ownership of personal design also cuts off creative flow. It's funny being on the downside of both as the struggling artist because you need people to pay for your work, but also need access to information to grow which also costs money. The grand hope is that the internet can help cut out the middle man, increase access, and increase direct pay to the creator of the intellectual/creative property.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  3. #23
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    And your internet will be fine. It's not a Chinese buffet where you just take whatever you want. There will always be free content because of ads and because individual users post content. But downloading copyrighted creative works is not going to be free. They're made by professionals who do it for a living and deserve to be paid for their work. The internet is not a secret stash hidden away somewhere. It's the real world extended.
    I truly hate that attitude. I don't want your "real world" in here. But considering how people are using the Internet these days (and it's not a fringe phenomenon among clever geeks who deserve the privilege of free stuff anymore), I'll grudgingly accept it as true.

    Fine, I'll pay for it. What I do have a problem with, is the kind of mechanisms they might use to enforce it. Like monitoring everything that happens on the Internet, or changing protocols to filter material, for instance.

    I don't have a real problem with them using normal search techniques to find individual offenders and websites. That's like catching a criminal in the real world. It's about them trying to redesign the web to ensure the security of their content that might potentially be posted on it.

    That kind of design, if it could be used to enforce content restrictions, could also be used in censorship and other undesirable applications. I want to make sure they don't end up using this excuse to put in place a nigh-impossible to bypass infrastructure for information regulation like they have in China.

    I guess the thing is, I just don't like the idea of living in a totally closed-off world where you don't have the option of doing anything wrong. For instance, if you go into a store in real life... you know that if you found the right situation and set up, you could quite possibly steal something and get away with it. Granted, I wouldn't, but it would somehow freak me out to think that I had absolutely no chance of getting away with it if I tried it, or that I didn't even have the option of trying. It takes away my feeling of my will being important. It's no longer my own choice to be fair, or to avoid an unwise choice that could land me in a lot of trouble.... it's imposed on me. I need to feel like the reason I'm doing good and playing fair is because I CHOOSE to, not because the alternative is almost impossible. It's important for me to be able to think to myself, "Wow, I really want that. I could take it if I wanted to, but there might be consequences, and it would be unethical. I choose not to."

    Does that make sense?

  4. #24
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Policing physical property is one thing, but controlling virtual information that's being shared on the net is completely too Orwellian for me. It's not even clear that it hurts sales, there are conflicting studies.

    All hail the Swedish Pirate Party!


  5. #25
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    The idea of music as a commodity is changing. If you can't control the method of distribution, there is no market place, and therefore nothing to sell.
    The only area left where a musician can make a little money (notice I did not say 'make a living') is through live performance, like a travelling minstral. Of course, this is the original method of (musical) commodity: the performance is the valued good, not the sound alone.

  6. #26
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Oh, and one more thing...

    I think it's kind of sorry that I had to grow up having music freely available with no strings attached, and then all of a sudden they slam down and tell us we've got to pay for it. I suppose I'm not angry because of fairness, I'm angry because I'm used to having something, and now it's not available so easily anymore.

    The biggest impact I can show... would be posting songs or lyrics on this website, for instance. Right now, we can post YouTube links and share the ideas and feelings associated with various songs freely. If they clamp the binders on... well, now I can't use music to share and compare my impressions with people on the Internet very easily. It's no longer an easy situation, and it will pretty much put an end to music association threads and such. It closes off your ability to use music as a form of communication, because they copyrighted it and made it private/restricted. Maybe they have that right, but it seems... confusing and cruel to me for them to care more about money than about people sharing, identifying with, and contemplating the tone and message of their song. It doesn't seem like those are the kind of people that should be writing music anyway... you know what I mean?

    You keep talking about justice, but... it's like everyone who makes that argument fails to see or acknowledge the meaning in things other than justice. Music maybe treated as a commodity, a physical good, but the way people relate to it is really more like a language. Treating music like a commodity fails to acknowledge that aspect of it... that it's a form of expression that people in turn use to express themselves and their situations, something that people latch onto.

    Ironically, it would make real life a much better venue for such things than the Internet. You'd have one device in the room, and someone who owned the CD or something could easily share it with everyone else during that moment. The question is... should THAT be illegal? Because in a sense, that's the idea behind what we do when we share music links and such, but we're considered to be sharing data rather than just an experience. Where should one draw the line between the data, and the experience/knowledge of the data?

  7. #27
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Im totally with the people complaining about how ridiculous it is. Even 3k for 24 songs is insane, considering the sheer mass of illegally downloaded shit out there right now.

    I own, legally, maybe 1% of the songs I have because 1. They're foreign and impossible to find to buy, 2. I only like 1 song from a CD and I'm not paying 20 bucks to listen to 1 song, or 3. I bought the CD, but then it broke so I just downloaded it illegally. I do that one a lot more than I ought to lol. I'm just subject to think that if I want to pay for music, I want to pay for a whole CD I enjoy, or for a concert to see them play live the things I heard on the radio or on the computer. If I can hear it on youtube for free, I'm gonna download it for free, that's the bottom line. When I can afford to, I'm always in support of artists of all kinds.. but I'm not going to go bankrupt because Usher came out with a new song.

    A fine for theft like one you'd get from a store ought to be sufficient. If you get caught doing something illegal, you pay the price for it, but that price shouldn't be "Let's use you as an example for everyone else even though your offense isn't as bad as many other offenders out there." I don't like the whole "This is an example of what could be!!" method. It's overkill on the offender, and usually doesn't work imo.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  8. #28
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    $80,000 per song? That's some mighty expensive stuff. That's one more piece of evidence the jury system is a farce.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  9. #29
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    $80,000 per song? That's some mighty expensive stuff. That's one more piece of evidence the jury system is a farce.
    Yeah and it looks like all she downloaded were artists like Gloria Estefan and Journey. Charging any amount of money for those songs is a crime against humanity.

  10. #30
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Yeah and it looks like all she downloaded were artists like Gloria Estefan and Journey. Charging any amount of money for those songs is a crime against humanity.
    Yeah for Journey.........they should be paying the HomeGirl.

Similar Threads

  1. Was I being too harsh? :(
    By SecondBest in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-27-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. Piracy and File Sharing
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 01:22 AM
  3. Taking MBTT too seriously
    By snegledmaca in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 02:16 PM
  4. Last Five Files in Your "My Documents" Folder
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO