Dark times are coming

[KQX]

Dark times are coming. As the elder of our village once said: “The signs are everywhere”. Nothing will be the same. Obviously I’m talking about the end of free (and easy to get) music. I wasn’t worried about it before (actually I was, I even posted a topic a few months ago about the same thing), but now I’m seeing so many forewarnings. On TV, Internet, and I was especially surprised when I heard a radio host say: “And you can get the song you just heard for 99 cents at…(then he mentioned the URL which I forgot on purpose)” So I guess radio hosts will start mentioning that all the time now.

I’m sure free mp3s will be accessible even in the dark future but I’m sure it won’t be as easy. What’s gonna happen? What will we do? What are the alternatives? What are the consequences? Will they really destroy our computers if they “find” illegal mp3s? When is this going to happen? We need to stick together in these hard times.

 

[Gunslinger]

Well, think about this from the perspective of the artist. If you so appreciate his/her/their music, how right do you feel about stealing their work? You may say that one little file ain't gunna hurt the band, but with peer-to-peer downloads, and hordes of people with the same mentality, it *is* going to hurt them.

I think it's very sensible that they're now allowing you to download songs for 99 cents. This is an appealing alternate for folks who just want to hear one track instead of buying the entire CD. I mean, how much is 99 cents is going to hurt you? That's like twenty sticks of gum or one temporary tattoo. Besides, it's not like the artists are getting top-dollar for their records; the recording company gets a healthy slab out of it, too.

And, in a way, you're hurting the quality of the music. If everyone just goes ahead and downloads a pirate version of the upcoming Fallout Three, you can bet there won't be a Fallout Four. With the company already going FUBAR, sales are going to be the motivators for the people producing the game. If you download Fallout Three and think it's a great game, how great would you feel to find out that Black Isle can't make another sequel? I, for one, would feel like trash.

And don't think this is a beginning of a "dark age". Yeah, I hear on the news how the lawsuits are popping up and how there's going to be crackdowns. Virtually everything is free game in the Internet; there's pirated magazines, music, games, and invansions of IP addresses and of e-mails. But there just has to be a stop in it soon.

You've got to be more emphatic on this. Corporate dictators aren't going to feel this, because their pockets are deep. No, it's the musicians, game developpers, and publishers who are losing their livelihood.

Would you want someone to lose their livelihood just cause you're too stingy to cough up 99 cents?

 

[Malky]

I stopped burning CD's a while back. It's really rediculous, you know...

Although, it's one thing if it's like, a Metallica CD, or the Rolling Stones or something...they take baths with money. Most of the music I listen to, however, is made by independent artists that don't have radio or television exposure, and aren't on major record labels. It's wrong to steal from those artists, because they need our help....even if it costs 19 bucks to order their album from the record store because they are to naive and corporate to carry them.

-Malk

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

I havent bought a CD in years and i might not ever buy one again. For 3 reasons....

1. Im poor.
2. The majority of musicions (pretty much all of them that i listen to) are rich.
3. Music isnt worth buying anymore. I cant think of one CD that i own that is worth the 15 bucks i payed for it. I only like a few tracks off each CD, especially with the new stuff out today. I know what your thinking, people like me make it hard for indepenent new musicions to make it in the industry. Well i say tough shit. Musicions, even the not so successfull ones, get to play music and get paid for it. Thats better than a lot of chumps out there who will work their whole life at a shit job.

P.S. I would never call musicions 'Artists'. Thats like a garbageman calling himself a waste management engineer.

 

[Mohrg]

I actually agree with Prez...well a few of his points.

Mohrg

 

[alec]

el_Prez]I would never call musicions 'Artists'. Thats like a garbageman calling himself a waste management engineer.

Hehe, good one.

Anyway: I still download mp3s because I think musicians shouldn't be in the music business for the money in the first place. If you only make music because you want to get rich real soon, you're a faker. I always hoped that free mp3s would sift the wheat from the chaff. Yeah, I'm a dreamer.

 

[Mohrg]

In all honesty, if I was lucky enough and good at some form of music, I'd do it just for the money!

Mohrg <----Lacks music appreciation!

 

[Gunslinger]

Anyway: I still download mp3s because I think musicians shouldn't be in the music business for the money in the first place. If you only make music because you want to get rich real soon, you're a faker.

Think about what you just said real carefully, mein freund. By your merits, just about everyone who enters a profession they actually enjoy is a faker. Be realistic here; people *have* to make money by the skills they start life with. It'd sure be swell if Monet could have just started to make his paintings on the spot but, no, he joined the military service to make ends meet.

And not all artists are in it for the money. Art Alexakis of the Everclear adamantly refuses to make a recopy of "So Much For The Afterglow", despite the fact that he can make more cash if he cops out. And the band isn't doing that well; it ain't dying but they're not exactly living Hollywood. The idealistic Zach de la Roche recently released a free song download but, of course, it's a song filled with idealisms. And Zach, having spent some considerable time on RATM, can afford to do just that.

Then, as a humble example, there's me. I want to be a writer. I've submitted about a total of fifteen short stories and poems to different publications this year. Finally, my highschool decided to publish a Western I wrote. I received a personal check for twenty-five dollars. This was since the start of summer and I haven't checked it in yet. But the minute I cash it in, the second I receive money for my work, I would be a faker, right?

You said that "musicians shouldn't be in the business for the money in the first place". That's all well and good. But, unfortunately, some artists can't go around with the simple purpose of playing gigs with their friends and then explode into a Beatles' sensation.

But if these artists book tours and make albums, they're fakers. And that justifies downloading their songs. Hell, Stephen King is doing alright, isn't he? And his hardcover books range in thirties. Well, fuck that! Instead of simply (now get this) *not* buying his book, I'll just download it off some newsgroup.

 

[welsh]

end of the world and defense of copyrights

I am with gunslinger on this one.

I have a lot of students who down load files and defend it and think that any prosecution is a violation of some rights they have.
They say, the freedom of the internet? The idea of sharing, isn't that what the internet is all about? What about the right of students, who are poor (love that one when the kid drives an SUV) to be free of consumer tyranny.

Bullshit. If you want it, pay for it.

The idea of copyright law and patent law is that the artist has the right to the rewards of his labor. You add something to the world, if people value you it, they should pay you for it. This rewards invention, innovation, creation. That's a social good.

That's not to say that people don't do things for free, and that's wonderful. Lots of great stuff is done for altruistic reasons.

But in this world, to be happy at what you do and be rewarded for it is what most people call success.

If you are not willing to shell out 15 bucks for a crappy CD, don't buy it. Or join BMG and get it cheap. But don't be a freeloader.

I am not saying that a lot of music these days isn't crap. I am saying that there is a market mechanism that happens when you pay for something. It means that something has value, that its worth money.

If you do something that people think is beneficial, or important, than they should reward you for it. If its crap and no one is willing to shell out bucks, then don't quit your day job. Imagine if you had a job, worked hard for a night behind a stove, or put down a brick wall, and someone said, hey great job, but fuck you if you think I'm paying.

No, the law has a rule that says "no unjust enrichment."

I know a few writers, some very good writers, who work hard, bullshit jobs, so they can make their art. Most writers are struggling and many don't reach the point they can live off their work. They work as office assistants, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, so they can earn enough money that they can live while pursuing their art. Many writers never make it. If they never could expect reward for their art, many wouldn't do it. If they couldn't ever free themselves of the bullshit job they do to eat so they could do their art full time, then a lot of books or other artist creations would never get done.

You are right, there are a lot of folks working crappy jobs. But there are a lot of folks working crappy jobs so they can turn their talent into success. Least you could do is not fuck em over, don't you think?

Imagine if Stephen King had never gotten the royalties for his short stories (and most of the stories were written in magazines like Gallery) or if someone could steal the rights to Carrie. How many books might not have been written?

At one time the Hong Kong movie industry was huge, the movies were great and the world paid attention. Then the movies lost tons of money because people were bootlegging them on video. The Hong Kong industry took a dive because it wasn't worth it to invest in movies anymore when have the profits were pocketed by those who could sell videos of recent releases for a fraction what they paid for, and rational, individualist hong kong consumer basically screwed himself out of good Hong Kong movies.

So understand this too. When you don't give value (money) in return for something you value (music) and your behavior is repeated by millions (HS and college students downloading music) then you basically screw the pooch you love so much.

Just because a person is successful, and therefore rich, in creating art doesn't justify the theft of what he has a right to. That kind of moral relativism from someone who is basically stealing another's creation for personal benefit is laughable.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

I dont think freeloading will ever stop. Do any of you guys remember Scour? It was one of the first during the Napster era only you could download whole movies and other files. Scour went down, then Napster, and now we have kazaa (wich might go pretty soon) and Direct Connect.

Is this REALLY stealing? Yeah of course it is. Your getting things that are for sale on the market for free. But i stick with my previous statement... Tough Shit. I have it hard too, i work full time at wal-mart unloading trucks to try and pay this semeseter's tuition. On top of that i have to work hard for football so maybe those motherfuckers will give me a scholarship. money is tight, i got bills to pay, and im not gonna shell out 15 bucks for something that i could get for free. The stupidity of that overides my consious saying 'these guys deserver to get paid for their work'.

now....

I know a few writers, some very good writers, who work hard, bullshit jobs, so they can make their art. Most writers are struggling and many don't reach the point they can live off their work

you see... thats just it. Writing (along with making music) is enjoyment for people. People like to create stories or music mainly for their own pleasure (obviously its also cool when other people enjoy your work). Its a hobby. And if your REALLY good at it, you can make some money. Its the same thing with playing sports. When your a kid you play basketball a lot. You do this solely for the purpose of your enjoyment. You play basketball all through high school and get a scholarship to college. You keep playing and make it to the pros. Now you actually get paid for playing a game. But if you didnt make it to the pros, would you quit playing basketball all together because you werent getting paid for it?

 

[alec]

Think about what you just said real carefully, mein freund. By your merits, just about everyone who enters a profession they actually enjoy is a faker.

No, mein freund, I recommend you read my post again. I'm talking about musicians.

I received a personal check for twenty-five dollars. This was since the start of summer and I haven't checked it in yet. But the minute I cash it in, the second I receive money for my work, I would be a faker, right?

Oh God, mein freund, you're a writer? I recommend you learn to read first. I was talking about MUSICIANS!

You said that "musicians shouldn't be in the business for the money in the first place". That's all well and good. But, unfortunately, some artists can't go around with the simple purpose of playing gigs with their friends and then explode into a Beatles' sensation.

Mein freund, you are a MORON! Learn to read and than: read a book about the Beatles and the hard time they had in Germany.

Oh, and mein freund: your musical taste sucks bigtime. Everclear? Jesus Christ...

 

[Brother None]

Ha! Charming...

As one of the links in the great chain of events going from the factory to the consumer in the music/film industry, I can say this for sure: PIRACY IS KILLING US. To think otherwise shows a complete misunderstanding of the way our economy works, people (with or without families to feed) are losing jobs because a bunch of frikkin' kids decide it's their right to pirate music rather than buy it, and that REALLY pisses me off.

Piracy is basically stealing. People like to seperate the two in their minds. There is no justification for this, you're stealing a product, even though you're not actually taking anything that exists materially.

"But CDs are too expensive!" So? Swiss watches are expensive. Do I steal them? No, I don't buy them. If I'm not capable or willing to pay for this product, I have no right to own it, this is true for everything (with the possible exceptions of those things that you need to survive, like food).

"But the people in the business are rich!" Guess again sonny, the top men are rich, the rest are poor as hell. And who gets hurt when you decide to rip some CDs? Not the top managers, they're way too rich to even feel it and they get paid no matter what. But what, then, do they do to compensate for their losses? Oh, hey, look, there go another 1000 jobs...

"But the artists/musicians hardly get any money from the CDs!" No, no they don't, rather than that all the money goes to the musicians, it's spread out into all sorts of industry; from factory works to truck drivers to salespeople, all these people make just a little bit of money from the train that you in the end pay for as the consumer. That's the way Western economy works...

Why do people think ripping is alright? I'm not sure, but it does show how relative morals truly are, and that humanity is not a moral race. The moment "everyone is ripping", apparently it's allright to rip.

What's more, the police can't catch you, because they don't have the right to raid your house. Even better! Apparently, the moment you're out of the power of the law, you're no longer morally responsible either. Isn't life grand?

*spits on the ground*

I'm not worried about the end of ripping. That's like being worried about the end of crime. It's not going to happen and if it happens it'd be a glorious day for humanity. But as it is, I'll cheer anything done against illegal ripping...

 

[atoga]

The southern states were displeased even after 1832. As a result, in 1833, a sectional crisis, called the Nullification Crisis happened during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. South Carolina's Ordinance of nullification. As per the ordinance, it was by the power of the state, the Federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were declared unconstitutional in November 1832. As a result they were null and void within the 'sovereign' boundaries of South Carolina, because the reductions provided for in the Tariff of 1832 were too less for South Carolina. Due to the precarious economic situation during the 1820s, South Carolina was the state which had particularly borne the brunt of the economic down turn. The result was that by 1828, the politics of South Carolina increasingly revolved around the issue of tariffs. In Washington, the president and the vice president differed on the issue. John Calhoun, the vice president, later quit his office to defend the nullification process. In 1833, a bill authorizing the president for usage of military forces against South Carolina was passed as a preemptive measure. Consequently, negotiations led to a tariff satisfactory to South Carolina being passed. Finally, South Carolina repealed its Nullification Ordinance in 1833 on March 25.

 

[Kilus]

I don't about you guys but the source of most of the MP3s in my town are mainly from a couple of guys with cd burners and a CD ripper and a collective collection of CDs from them and friends. Surprising people are more or less buying the same amount of CDs they would of without MP3s. Most people buy new releases that interest them and mainly just get MP3’s of older songs.

 

[welsh]

I am against pirating, but I think that there are a couple possible points raised by the other side.

(1) Piracy might be immoral, but it is rational. If you can get something of value for free, then its rational to do it. IF you can do that without moral scruples, that's just easier. It is right, no. But there is a duty on the industry to protect what is yours. Just as there is a principle of unjust enrichment, there are rules such as trespass and adverse possession that require someone to act on their rights to make them enforceable. SO the music industry is scaring the kids, is probably a smart thing. A few litigations against pirates and I think a lot of kids will think twice about pirating.

(2) Somehow we need to figure out the difference between sharing and stealing. This has market value as well. For example some bands have a history of promoting the swapping of music because its seen as advertising. Grateful Dead concerts were made popular in part because people used to swap bootlegs and the Dead didn't seem to mind.

But I think the counter argument is still stronger. People are losing jobs over this. Indeed, as Kharn points out, a lot of the money doesn't go back to the artist. For example a lot of the earlier rap artists were one hit wonders and didn't make much from the contracts that had because they got screwed in their contracts. WHat if they didn't make any money because their music got pirated?

 

[Kilus]

Try to scare kids is the dumbest move. You can't beat Piracy in the court room. When RIAA sues someone they become a bad guy to lots of people. And do you feel better stealing from a bad guy or just some dude on the street?

Also the napstar issue was really counter productive to RIAA. They pretty much told eveyone free music was on the net. When one of my sisters got their computer and the internet one of the first things they asked me was how to get free music.

 

[welsh]

well

Well, I remember a job before I went back to school. There are a lot of greymarket good sold in Nj (basically phoney good sold under legitimate trademarks) and the plan was that there would be this big market and then the federals would be called in to seize the products and arrest the the dealers. It was like shooting fish in a barrel for trademark owners. Big payoff that day.

If they can track you down to your PC and kids have received warnings, then they could be slapped with serious criminal fines and civil penalties can be nasty. Then I think you could see some terror among the kids who steal this music and maybe people will think twice. Will people stop it altogether- doubtful. Will some, probably and that will make a difference.

Unpopular, you bet. A lot of people will be pissed that the industry is going after individuals and not just the companies that support file transfers. But then, anytime you take away something people think they should have for free, they are going to get pissed.

But then the people who lose their jobs or profits are already pissed off.

And what are we talking about really? All this means is that you can't free ride on others anymore. But hey, remember the saying, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Now you just got to pay what you should have been paying for in the first place.

 

[Gunslinger]

Blade Runner, can you keep the rancor out of your posts and maybe, at the same time, still carry out a logical debate.

I had originally said "By your merits". Now, if you had overlooked that small bit, I might seem overly judiscious in my last post and look like I'm just throwing out a completely different example. But "By your merits" also means "with that mentality" or "using that viewpoint". So, I know you're talking about musicians (give me some credit) but I'm just giving you another angle to look at the situation. All you did was insult me and repeat a German addage.

So let me reiterate. Stealing music, or downloading it, is the same as hauling away a hardcover book. Musicians and authors both earn money by their creativity. Musicians compose their songs while authors publish their books. Both gain a very pathetic percentage of the actual cost of either the CD or the book. Now, is that too much of stretch, using an author as an example of the same plight a musician is facing?

 

[Malky]

el_Prez]P.S. I would never call musicions 'Artists'. Thats like a garbageman calling himself a waste management engineer.

Obviously you don't understand what it feels like, or what it means to pour your heart and soul into a piece of music (which is indeed a piece of art). I'm a musician, and I take great offense at that comment.

Although, the way it sounded, it seems like that was directed toward most mainstream, commercial, "company created", musicians.

-Malky

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

it was direcet at the mainstream. However i dont think music is art. Its music. Maybe theres another word for music that you can use to make it sound better (i.e. Literature as opposed to writing). Beethoven was a musician, Rockwell was an artist. Anyways thats my oppinion, yours may differ.