The Music Industry Makes Me Mad!

[Amelia G]

you asked what it meant to be FILTHY RICH didnt you?

Good point. That would indeed be both filthy and rich.

[Tequila Zaire]

Are you saying that legal objections or technological restrictions that prevent you from recording mp3s onto your mp3 player from CDs that you purchased is what you are rejecting? Or is it more complicated than that?

A while back a few CD's were released that prevented them from being played on computers...things like that I feel go too far. Mp3's for me anyhow serve the purpose of being able to get a good quality recording with a file size that is manageable. I take the albums I have bought and turn them into mp3 files...or buy entire albums already in that format.

Thing is I prefer them made through a certain codec or ripping program to get that quality I like...so I put in the work. Just like when people made mix tapes using certian equipment and metal tapes...all that good stuff.

So when I buy a CD I want to have the freedom to use it as I see fit...I don't want to share it online...but I want to be able to share it with my various electronic devices. I don't want their to be restrictions of what players I can and can't use and what formats I can and can't use.

So it's really two fold...the programs used to protect CD's from being pirated are killing consumer rights as a result..this is a serious issue raging in the PC gaming arena where publishers are putting more and more restrictions on being able to make 1:1 copies...a practice used to make backups of software and games...now made illegal and nearly impossible as games REFUSE to install or function if it even DETECTS such programs on your system...that is going WAY too far.

Digital media is not forever and I want to protect my investment of time and energy...and $$$....so making copies of my rare stuff would be nice. Sadly one cannot and how convinient is it that the major "solution" to this is to "buy another copy".

I don't want to to make 30 copies of a game I jsut bought...jsut one and I can't even do THAT anymore. CD's are a horrible way to store things for long term use...and back up HD's do crash. It's getting so legit uses of such programs and hardware is being villified due to the parinoia of media developers.

[Tequila Zaire]

did not work for prince.

Didn't it? He was releasing his own albums and tracks for quite some time...one can say it was not till he signed on again with a major label that his album became a "hit" again...but that I feel has more to due with inside politics and backroom deals than the viability of self distribution and an online only strategy.

[Jax]

On some levels, that can be the case. Some bands cost record labels more than the band actually ever makes. Some bands break even, expense wise, and some successful bands make a great deal of money. A record label speculates on a band, puts up a lot of money to support them and hopes to make it back. Unfortunately, some bands feel that every dollar they make should go directly into their bank account, and not pay for the tour bus rental, the art department that designed their posters, t-shirts, CD, website, etc. They feel they shouldn't pay for the publicity department that booked them on all the radio shows, that got them written up in all those magazines. All of a sudden, they feel that they are big rock stars and that every one else should have been working for love and art. There was a structure there that put them in that position.

A record label is nothing but a big loan to a band. They give you money for these things to help you out and hopefully make money back. So the bands arent making money if they dont break even, the label is either making or losing money.

[Tequila Zaire]

A record label is nothing but a big loan to a band. They give you money for these things to help you out and hopefully make money back. So the bands arent making money if they dont break even, the label is either making or losing money.

Anyone else amazed the record industry lasted THIS long? It sure sounds like it's all on a wing and a prayer at times...

[Jax]

Anyone else amazed the record industry lasted THIS long? It sure sounds like it's all on a wing and a prayer at times...

Exactly. record labels go with gut feelings. You either have potential or not. If they see it, they will do anything to make you something people will enjoy so everyone makes money. Why do you think only about 1% of bands can actually do it for a living, and not worry about money. Its also incredibly hard to get a deal nowadays because of the costs and chances. Most labels want to see 20,000 record sales on your own and a steady tour before theyll sign you.

[Tequila Zaire]

Exactly. record labels go with gut feelings. You either have potential or not. If they see it, they will do anything to make you something people will enjoy so everyone makes money. Why do you think only about 1% of bands can actually do it for a living, and not worry about money. Its also incredibly hard to get a deal nowadays because of the costs and chances. Most labels want to see 20,000 record sales on your own and a steady tour before theyll sign you.

Hopefully bands can deal directly with their fanbase in the future...at least in terms of developing a relationship where album sales directly equal supporting the band. I think that gets lost and it feels as though the only place the money goes is in the pocket of those suit wereing monkey idiots at the RIAA...it may not be true but it FEELS that way.

I'd much rather pay my $10 to $15 for an album if I know most of it goes to the band...not 1001 middlemen.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

As an artist I had a very exciting reaction to some of my art. I used to do some paper mache masks and kept a devil one in my car so people could see it. It was not my best piece, but it did have huge horns which was new for me and open some new potential for my work.

Imagine my happiness when I discovered a fan wanted to get my wotk out and expose it to other people. This fan took direct intiative, avoiding sales negotiation and using a direct art sharing system. Now some people may look at this as someone breaking into my car and stealing from me, but what I am hearing here is that I should just be happy people are giving my work exposure. After all, the reason I made the piece was to create the piece, not to sell it. I had to ask my self why I create things, to make money or to have the public see them. Thank you roving art fan for showing such interest in my work. I can't call it stealing because art belongs to everyone, although you also mistook my gym bag, a mag light, my copy of Faust and all the change in my change holder for art, I can only assume that was because you were very excited about my works.

[devil13]

Imagine my happiness when I discovered a fan wanted to get my wotk out and expose it to other people. This fan took direct intiative, avoiding sales negotiation and using a direct art sharing system. Now some people may look at this as someone breaking into my car and stealing from me, but what I am hearing here is that I should just be happy people are giving my work exposure. After all, the reason I made the piece was to create the piece, not to sell it. I had to ask my self why I create things, to make money or to have the public see them. Thank you roving art fan for showing such interest in my work. I can't call it stealing because art belongs to everyone, although you also mistook my gym bag, a mag light, my copy of Faust and all the change in my change holder for art, I can only assume that was because you were very excited about my works.

actually thats called getting jacked. if you are stupid enough to leave anything of value(either cash or emotional vallue) in a car unlocked thats usually what will happen. If you want to protect your work that badly you might as well not leave it where people can steal it. hell if you really want to protect it never show it, take pictures of it or let anyone else take pictures of it, and dont even talk about it because someone might steal your idea. better yet you might as well not do any art at all because of the posability of someone stealling your style. and dont worry I wont tell anyone that you stole the idea for the mask from someone else(because you were not the first one to ever do something like that). but you know what? stealing from atists is ok, I mean all the great atists took from other artists in one form or another Monet wasnt the first one to paint in that style. he took ideas from others.
my point is stealling is going to happen even if you really try to keep it safe but me sharing files with you is not theft. I could e-mail you all my CDs is that theft?

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I could e-mail you all my CDs is that theft?

Good question. According to webster's dictionary yes.

Music may not be tangible goods, but neither is labor. If I fix your car do you not have to pay me? Don't want to pay for someones music? Make your own damn music. Or find someone who is giving away music.

Likewise it may have been stupid for me to leave my work in my locked car, but that does not excuse someone stealing it. If I leave it on my front porch that does not excuse someone stealing it. Things don't become community property just because there is easu access to them. I think part of the problem I have with illegal file sharing is the perception that because it is easy and low risk that makes it ok. By that logic me robbing the elderly or children should be ok. I have more respect for an honest thief who at least understands he is doing wrong than someone who spends time trying to excuse thier actions.

And the arguement that nothing is original isn't really a new one either. Monet may not have been the first to paint in the style he used, but that does not make his work nessisarily dirivitive. He may have used some of thier concepts, but he did not take thier goods or services. He made something new. Now if you were sitting at home doing covers of your favorite bands, I am hard pressed to call that stealing since you will have to recreate the work based on theories. This is especially true if you are using there music to create something new. But actually copying thier work so you don't have to pay for it is a little bit different.

[devil13]

Good question. According to webster's dictionary yes.

Music may not be tangible goods, but neither is labor. If I fix your car do you not have to pay me? Don't want to pay for someones music? Make your own damn music. Or find someone who is giving away music.

Likewise it may have been stupid for me to leave my work in my locked car, but that does not excuse someone stealing it. If I leave it on my front porch that does not excuse someone stealing it. Things don't become community property just because there is easu access to them. I think part of the problem I have with illegal file sharing is the perception that because it is easy and low risk that makes it ok. By that logic me robbing the elderly or children should be ok. I have more respect for an honest thief who at least understands he is doing wrong than someone who spends time trying to excuse thier actions.

And the arguement that nothing is original isn't really a new one either. Monet may not have been the first to paint in the style he used, but that does not make his work nessisarily dirivitive. He may have used some of thier concepts, but he did not take thier goods or services. He made something new. Now if you were sitting at home doing covers of your favorite bands, I am hard pressed to call that stealing since you will have to recreate the work based on theories. This is especially true if you are using there music to create something new. But actually copying thier work so you don't have to pay for it is a little bit different.

I know it was a lil extreame of me to say but no more extreame than you comparing people who file share with someone who robs old ladys. it was meant to be that way. I have the right to go buy a CD and record it for my own use but If I give it to you is that a crime? or if I trade it for a CD that you recorded is that a crime?

[ForrestBlack]

I know it was a lil extreame of me to say but no more extreame than you comparing people who file share with someone who robs old ladys. it was meant to be that way. I have the right to go buy a CD and record it for my own use but If I give it to you is that a crime? or if I trade it for a CD that you recorded is that a crime?

If you trade it after you made yourself a backup, yes, it is a crime. You are duplicating the value, having your cake and eating it too. You are not inventing new value, you are undermining or reassigning yourself the value rightfully held by the artist and the company that supports them.

[devil13]

you are undermining or reassigning yourself the value rightfully held by the artist and the company that supports them.

the Co. that supports them only cares about one thing and thats money. they dont really care about the cunsumer or the artist. thats why they are doing this

yet another battle the music industry is having with illegal filesharing networks.

[ForrestBlack]

the Co. that supports them only cares about one thing and thats money. they dont really care about the cunsumer or the artist. thats why they are doing this

That is kneejerk demonization. I know a lot of people that run great record labels and I know they are very dedicated to the bands they support and the cultures that they feel a part of. It costs money to get advertising for your bands, it costs money to get equiptment, to get them out on tour, etc. That money has to come from somewhere, so an artistic project evolves into a business project in order to effectively exist. That does not mean that nobody cares about the art anymore.

If the 'consumer' spouts off about how it's ok to steal everything the artists and labels have worked so hard to create, well, I can tell you where you might get the feeling some of these people are a little frustrated with their so called supporters.

[Jax]

That is kneejerk demonization. I know a lot of people that run great record labels and I know they are very dedicated to the bands they support and the cultures that they feel a part of. It costs money to get advertising for your bands, it costs money to get equiptment, to get them out on tour, etc. That money has to come from somewhere, so an artistic project evolves into a business project in order to effectively exist. That does not mean that nobody cares about the art anymore.

If the 'consumer' spouts off about how it's ok to steal everything the artists and labels have worked so hard to create, well, I can tell you where you might get the feeling some of these people are a little frustrated with their so called supporters.

Very well said! Wether they want to buy CDs or not, because they think the label and 'mokeys in suits' are in it for the money to get rich, they are ONLY hurting the artists. Artists who are supposed to care about the people who are stealing from them. A label is nothing more than a bank really. A business loan for musicians. Musicians have to pay them BACK, so when a consumer steals from the artist, the artist cannot pay back the money owed. Now, why should artists feel the need to get closer to their fans?

[Tequila Zaire]

Very well said! Wether they want to buy CDs or not, because they think the label and 'mokeys in suits' are in it for the money to get rich, they are ONLY hurting the artists. Artists who are supposed to care about the people who are stealing from them. A label is nothing more than a bank really. A business loan for musicians. Musicians have to pay them BACK, so when a consumer steals from the artist, the artist cannot pay back the money owed. Now, why should artists feel the need to get closer to their fans?

They don't have too...but then they should not expect much respect or care from fans...music is far more emotional than other forms of entertainment and if you piss on your own fans...you will be eaten alive by them. Ultimately an artists fanbase IS their main audience. It's not as though random strangers show up at shows or buy albums...treat fans with respect and they will in turn treat you and yours with respect.

Take Metallica...they earned the hell they now have to put up with after they handed over names of file traders. Fucking gestapo fucks...even the CIA and FBI can't gather such personal info without serious oversight...these fucks did it with little more than bully tactics.

That's pissing on fans...

I have a file I want friends to read or listen too...I'm the pirate? Yet I was doing that before the age of the broadband connection without hassle...it's bullshit to make me and others criminals for acts we did long before the undustry caught up to it...sorry but me being some sort of great evil fuck for sending my friends a few MP3's is pathetic.

[Tequila Zaire]

If the 'consumer' spouts off about how it's ok to steal everything the artists and labels have worked so hard to create, well, I can tell you where you might get the feeling some of these people are a little frustrated with their so called supporters.

Given the "artist" and their "people" took the first shots and labeling anyone who engages in the practice a pirate or criminal...it's a bit hard not to take it personally...especially after buying their overpriced and obsolete CD's, shirts, concert tickets, and other crap....

"They're trading below average quality files of our music...THOSE BASTARDS!"....yeah..that's really evil. This from an industry that made it's money off of figuring out ways to screw artists out of their hard work...talk to those screwed over Jazz artists.

File sharing is about as damaging as a dead shark...it only LOOKS like it can kill you.

[ForrestBlack]

They don't have too...but then they should not expect much respect or care from fans...music is far more emotional than other forms of entertainment and if you piss on your own fans...you will be eaten alive by them. Ultimately an artists fanbase IS their main audience. It's not as though random strangers show up at shows or buy albums...treat fans with respect and they will in turn treat you and yours with respect.

And a department store needs the support of it's community, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't do what it can to protect against theft. Are you really saying the fans should be allowed to take everything and give nothing in return, but if you disagree you run the risk of them hating you as well? Theft is theft. Maybe thugs should get to rob the venue while the band is playing and take all the ticket revenue, I mean shouldn't the venue just do it for the love of art? There are lots of fans that respect the artists, there are many that don't understand that the filesharing systems are wrong. They buy into a bunch of BS rhetoric to justify their own selfish greed. If a band/label creates something of value and would like to get that value from their creation, are they greedy? If a 'fan' takes something of value without giving value and participates in massive networks designed to distribute that thing of value without properly rewarding the artist/label, who is the greedy one? The one that wants their rightful dollar or the one that wants something for nothing?

Take Metallica...they earned the hell they now have to put up with after they handed over names of file traders. Fucking gestapo fucks...even the CIA and FBI can't gather such personal info without serious oversight...these fucks did it with little more than bully tactics.

That's pissing on fans...

Metallica didn't handle things well, and a lot of artists learned from that, which in turn created this whole BS system where artists give a lot of lip service to respecting fans and having no control over the legal entity protecting them. So everyone gets to hate the RIAA now, it's not the artists fault, blah blah blah. Artists know better than to stand up for what is rightfully theirs because this whole culture of theft holds the artists reputation hostage while it takes everything of value that the artist ever created. It's blackmail. Let me steal from you and if you call the police I'll hate you too? It's no wonder the RIAA wants to go after people so hard. The people earned it.

I have a file I want friends to read or listen too...I'm the pirate? Yet I was doing that before the age of the broadband connection without hassle...it's bullshit to make me and others criminals for acts we did long before the undustry caught up to it...sorry but me being some sort of great evil fuck for sending my friends a few MP3's is pathetic.

You must have some idea how many people are hiding behind that flimsy argument though. BitTorrent does not exist because you might want to show a friend a quick scene from a movie to answer a dialog question. People are perpetrating massive theft of intellectual property and you know that. Are they all bad? Potentially not, but at least 99.9% of the people downloading copyrighted music, movies, software, etc. from p2p networks have no good excuse other than they wanted it for nothing and they would otherwise have to pay the proper price for it.

[ForrestBlack]

File sharing is about as damaging as a dead shark...it only LOOKS like it can kill you.

If the industry were doing better, that might carry more weight.

It is theft. It is violating the rights of the artist and the label. You can talk about the way you want it to be till you are blue in the face, but it's still theft. All these silly excuses are just hollow justifications for theft, and it really offends me that there are so many people that think mob rule overrides the law. The laws are there to protect artists and their works. How can you feel that is so wrong?

Given the "artist" and their "people" took the first shots and labeling anyone who engages in the practice a pirate or criminal...it's a bit hard not to take it personally...especially after buying their overpriced and obsolete CD's, shirts, concert tickets, and other crap....

"They're trading below average quality files of our music...THOSE BASTARDS!"....yeah..that's really evil. This from an industry that made it's money off of figuring out ways to screw artists out of their hard work...talk to those screwed over Jazz artists.

Still, those are all flimsy justifications. Support a Jazz artist if you think they should be supported. You think something is overpriced? Don't get it. You don't have the right to just take it because you want it and you also want to keep all your money too. And you really don't have the right to distribute it for free, against the wishes of the people that actually DO have those rights.

[Tequila Zaire]

And a department store needs the support of it's community, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't do what it can to protect against theft. Are you really saying the fans should be allowed to take everything and give nothing in return, but if you disagree you run the risk of them hating you as well? Theft is theft.

Jumping to sucn an extreme though is the key problem. In this case you had this "theft" going on for quite a long time. It took place in a centralized area that indeed made it far easier to share than normally would be possible...was it abused? Oh hell yes. Once the genie was out of the bag though it was not going back in. The majority of file sharers were big music fans who continued to buy CD's, go to concerts, and do the normal stuff that was to be expected. The leetchers were the ones who took and never shared back...and given they never planned to even buy most of what they downloaded...they are not a factor. They are at least in my eyes that friend who always borrows your DVD's and CD's and never buys any himself. To make EVERYONE who uses sucha service a theif is what I have issue with since it dismisses them as the loyal fans they were and still are...how is it wrong to share the album of a band you like and want others to listen? Once peopel did that I sopped listening to the major lable hype and saw how craptastic many "big names" were (and still are)...that's what REALLY dropped in terms of sales. Yet now years later you have an entire core of music fans who listen to MORE music than ever and still buy CD's...not from major label supported stores but from the old used CD shops and online vendors. Why go to Tower when you can go to Amazon and save $5 to $10?

USED CD prices remaind constant and sales continue to keep many places alive...funny how that was never complaiend about when neither the industry nor the artist see revenue from Used CD sales.

File sharing saved the music industry from itself...the last decade did not exactly see a huge music movement or major quality work...it's been fun but far from revolutionary. It was the Boyband and Pop era of forgettable songs, forgettable albums, and loathesome commercialism...how can you expect to make money off something people don't value? Many who see file sharing as evil..don't even have files of their band on major networks. At this point few major P2P programs are even used as they once were...iTunes, AllofMp3, and their variations have picked up much more support.

What many see as "free" music is far from it...it all comes at the price of time, hardware, software, and volume...It's not longer the age of the single...most want entire back catalogs at ONE time. Their should be a way to balance this out...when you have people listening not to an album but an entire body of work you have more pwoplw intrested in an artist in the long term.

That's what need to be looked at ...the long term...not the short term illegalization of anything associated with this style of distribuation, networking, and now cultural norm.

Metallica didn't handle things well, and a lot of artists learned from that, which in turn created this whole BS system where artists give a lot of lib service to respecting fans and having no control over the legal entity protecting them. So everyone gets to hate the RIAA now, it's not the artists fault, blah blah blah. Artists know better than to stand up for what is rightfully theirs because this whole culture of theft holds the artists reputation hostage while it takes everything of value that the artist ever created. It's blackmail. Let me steal from you and if you call the police I'll hate you too? It's no wonder the RIAA wants to go after people so hard. The people earned it.

They RIAA took the first shot with using their lawyers and scare tactics that got people booted from colleges, tied up and hung un court, and viciously sodomized in terms of their bank accounts. They made it far more personal without paying attention to the fact THIS WAS GOING ON WITH THEIR BLESSING...they dismissed the Mp3, they dismissed alternative distribution, they killed alternate CD formats, they bullied CD prices to remain above $15...they did this FOR YEARS...long before napster and Kazaa. They fucked the consumers first...the consumers figured out how to get even. They started the war...and now they are gonna lose it. Artists are simply caught in the crossfire. If artists are so afraid to release their work in fear of it getting "stolen" then DON'T RELEASE ANYTHING...or is everyone forgetting that DIGITAL radio is the next battleground? Are artist this bloody stupid about technology?

All you need is a Digital radio feed running through a capture program and voila...instant FREE music. it's done today with streaming radio off broadband feeds...Where is the RIAA to denounce this practice? Where are artists denouncing digital radio that is $10 a month for unlimited hours of music?

How come they don't even TOUCH the broadband providers for a cut of the monthly fee? What is the real diffrence between subscription radio and file sharing when both can be abused for the same means?

Technology can't be intimidated like people can and unless artists and those who represent them understand this...then it's very hard for an end user like me to take pity. If they want to make $$$ then do so without making me a criminal in the process...

"Don't share my music!"...fine...I won't but don't tell me I can't share the music I fucking paid for...how much MORE do you want?...It's free advertising in the end...the RIAA and these artists never understand how this puts more asses in seats and boosts their album sales in the long run..Many have bought more diverse music and gone to concerts they NEVER would have gone too if not for file sharing. Don't these artists and suits understand their traditional outlets for promotion are no longer trusted? Do they still think Rolling Stone matters? or that shit rag NME? When you have more people trusting a BLOG than they do a journalist...maybe it's time to rethink the system.

You must have some idea how many people are hiding behind that flimsy argument though. BitTorrent does not exist because you might want to show a friend a quick scene from a movie to asher a dialog question. People are perpetrating massive theft of intellectual property and you know that. Are they all bad? Potentially not, but at least 99.9% of the people downloading copyrighted music, movies, software, etc. from p2p networks have no good excuse other than they wanted it for nothing and they would otherwise have to pay the proper price for it.

Thing is they do...many who download such stuff do not use it as their ONLY method...and tend to do so for more than devious means. Teens do it so they can see new movies they can't get into...people in countries the films are not released in do it to just SEE them (they even make their own subtitles)...and people like me...do it to have a portable copy to lust over untill the official DVD hits the streets...and while some do NOT pay to see it in the theatres...many do. What is getting lost is that media is not seen the same way anymore...I don't see an individual movie as the be all end all of it's genre and media...I see it as one example of it.

Having nearly 1000 DVD's makes it hard to see each one as special...appreciated and loved...yes...sepcial and holy...no. It's mass media literally taken to the extreme where like those MASSIVE feasts we drink and eat...we now do with out media...we intake movies and music like super sized food...appreciate it...digest it...move on...

That's how many see it now..as one MASSIVE beast to tame and create. Once that is a possibility...it's epic making. My refrence library before broadband was good...now I have nearly 3000 books in PDF forms (all available legitly)...we've made so much media as a civilization that the current creators seem to think they are the only ones who matter...

Most of the fight is for OLDER stuff...not the new stuff. People will of course trade what is popular...but tend to trade what is rare too. That is and remains the major attraction for many. Anyone can get The Beatles music legitly or illegally (like borrowing your friends Beatles collection)...but to find that rare Bowie live track...that takes some serious collector friends...

That's what P2P is at it's best...a really well connected friend that CAN be abused...but in the end does more GOOD than bad.

[Amelia G]

I think the whole thing has certainly become a vicious circle. The music industry has become very unpleasant to deal with and many of the people in it have become psychotically grasping. The music industry feels like the people do not give a fuck so why should they and they attack the very people who support them. This spurs fans to feel like there is no reason to buy music or even the ancillary items around it. The fans might like the music, but they do not want to be identified with the demonized people who got it out into the world. The music industry tries to bully journalists into saying what they want them to and presenting their acts the way they want. I don't just mean this is more of a pain in the ass for punk rock DIY people like me, but editors from Spin can lose their jobs if a band like Korn doesn't like the way they were presented. So real journalists are reluctant to cover music these days and the labels all have fake publications a la Roadrunner and Dancing Ferret and so the fans tend to feel the only thing they can believe is their ears. Which leads to more P2P trading in stolen intellectual property which leads to more dickish behavior from the music industry. And it goes round and round.

I agree with bre.star. The music industry makes me mad too. I just think it is a slippery slope to not acknowledge intellectual property as property when we live in an information age and some very powerful people could come down on everyone with the mighty restricting anvil of law if they feel threatened enough.

[Tequila Zaire]

If the industry were doing better, that might carry more weight.

It is theft. It is violating the rights of the artist and the label. You can talk about the way you want it to be till you are blue in the face, but it's still theft. All these silly excuses are just hollow justifications for theft, and it really offends me that there are so many people that think mob rule overrides the law. The laws are there to protect artists and their works. How can you feel that is so wrong?

Easy...DeCSS. That was the shot across the bow and for many..the first personal shot to the head. The MPAA got so ape shit over it that it sent threatening letters fileld with about as much legal mumbo jumbo as possible to ANYONE ANYWHERE SHOWING the DeCSS encryption code that was used NOT TO BREAK copy protection for malicious purposes...but to get DVD's to play on Linux boxes.

They didn't like that too much and envoked the highly questionable DMCA...how can anyone read that and not want to burn it? It makes technology tinkering, exploration, and reverse engeneering...illegal. It enacts rules on how technology and whatever it happens to be used for in a commercial venture OVERIDE anything and anyone else. DVD TECHNOLOGY should not be owned by Studio's...they should not dictate how to use technology in ANY FORM....they can protect their product all they wish...but once they cross that line where they want to ban and make illegal any action that COULD lead to something illegal you get into weird 1984 logic....

Technically if I burn a DVD I got onto a memory stick I've violated the DMCA...before it...no problem...did it with DVD's and LD's to VHS...was that illegal? Only if I sold em. Now even for my personal use it is illegal since the METHOD to do so is considered illegal now.

It's confusing, it's inane, and it makes tech enthusiasts rage with anger since this stuff is all but ignored and enforced cause people in general don't see the big deal...until it wakes up and arrests them.

When a 12 year old girl is taken to court and the "artists" don't do shit about it to say "Uh I think that may be a bit too far their (insert name of legal team)"

Are they forgetting without technology and without it's abuse and reuse they wouldnot have all the wonderful toys they have now? If the DMCA had been around in the 50's 8-track recording never would have been possible...or even if it hit in the 90's...forget protools...softsynths? Those would be illegal now too.

Still, those are all flimsy justifications. Support a Jazz artist if you think they should be supported. You think something is overpriced? Don't get it. You don't have the right to just take it because you want it and you also want to keep all your money too. And you really don't have the right to distribute it for free, against the wishes of the people that actually DO have those rights.

Don't charge for something that is not for sale then. You can't have it both ways either...you can't SELL as CD then say Uh...you can't do this, this, this, and this with it...and if inthe future soemthing is developed we don't like...you can't do that either with it. That's bullshit and wrong. It pissess on legit customers by makeing them out to be pirates. I do support the jazz artists I like...and I don't buy overpriced pop albums...but as an end user I HAVE RIGHTS TOO and thanks to the royal fucks who protect "artists" and their industry I no longer have the rights I once did.

You talk about mob rule being wrong...what do you think the RIAA and MPAA is? They use their lawyers to bully and abuse people into following the laws THEY choose to follow...in this case the DMCA that DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with consumer laws before it. Under the guidelines used TODAY...I no longer have my LEGAL right to make 1:1 backups cause under the DMCA it's illegal since the programs needed to do that conflict with it.

How is that not mob rule? It's the strong abusing the weak...and I'm suppose to feel bad for this industry? Fuck that man...year after year I have to deal with more intrusive copy protection, fewer end user rights, and "license agreements" that pretty much say THIS PRODUCT YOU JUST SPENT MONEY ON IS NOT REALLY YOURS.

You think we OWN anything anymore? "Buying a CD or DVD" is a lie...it's not even renting or leasing it really...it practicly remains the property of the original creator even in commercial form.

That is not fair...and that I do not support. I still buy DVD's and CD's...but damned if I don't go out of my way to practice the rights I "kinda sorta technically have until the RIAA and MPAA can fucke me out of them"...which from the sound of it will be 2006 or 2007 when the airwaves for television go fully digital...

And in an all digital world...the end user has next to no rights.

[Jax]

They don't have too...but then they should not expect much respect or care from fans...music is far more emotional than other forms of entertainment and if you piss on your own fans...you will be eaten alive by them. Ultimately an artists fanbase IS their main audience. It's not as though random strangers show up at shows or buy albums...treat fans with respect and they will in turn treat you and yours with respect.

Take Metallica...they earned the hell they now have to put up with after they handed over names of file traders. Fucking gestapo fucks...even the CIA and FBI can't gather such personal info without serious oversight...these fucks did it with little more than bully tactics.

That's pissing on fans...

I have a file I want friends to read or listen too...I'm the pirate? Yet I was doing that before the age of the broadband connection without hassle...it's bullshit to make me and others criminals for acts we did long before the undustry caught up to it...sorry but me being some sort of great evil fuck for sending my friends a few MP3's is pathetic.

Its a double edged sword. Wouldnt you then think the fans are pissing on the artists by downloading the music for free instead of buying the album?

[Tequila Zaire]

Its a double edged sword. Wouldnt you then think the fans are pissing on the artists by downloading the music for free instead of buying the album?

For me a fan is a person who actually supports the artist or scene buy buying albums, going to concerts, etc.

If all they do is leetch off people to get free stuff...then I wouldn't clasify them as fans...just parasites. They exist souly to mootch...and that's ok cause they never planned on parting with their cash anyhow. Plus it's hard to hate them since one tends to be related or friends of these people.

But if I were to download the latest Beck album and not buy it or go to a show...then yeah I'm pissing on an artist I like and I am not being a good fan.

But if artists makes me out to be a criminal for sharing files and disregard ALL the past albums I bought and such...then their is a problem. That gets me a bit red eyed since It's a cheap shot...I may not be a promoter buying them a friggin car but dammit...I did my part in making sure other people knew they were good.

[Amelia G]

Okay, I'm pleased for this dialogue to continue and I'm sure the topic will come up again and again, but I'd like to request that Forrest, Tequila, Jax, and devil13 all start a thread about something entertaining in a nonincendiary way about something they like before resuming this debate.

[Jax]

For me a fan is a person who actually supports the artist or scene buy buying albums, going to concerts, etc.

If all they do is leetch off people to get free stuff...then I wouldn't clasify them as fans...just parasites. They exist souly to mootch...and that's ok cause they never planned on parting with their cash anyhow. Plus it's hard to hate them since one tends to be related or friends of these people.

But if I were to download the latest Beck album and not buy it or go to a show...then yeah I'm pissing on an artist I like and I am not being a good fan.

But if artists makes me out to be a criminal for sharing files and disregard ALL the past albums I bought and such...then their is a problem. That gets me a bit red eyed since It's a cheap shot...I may not be a promoter buying them a friggin car but dammit...I did my part in making sure other people knew they were good.

I understand where youre coming from. But I still think theft is wrong. Maybe its those 'parasites' that ruined it for the fans. So you cant really blame the artists, labels, etc, when its the leeches that fucked everything up.

[Kidthorazine]

OK after reading all this ive figured its rant time so here we go...

All the musicians ive heard od that are against file sharing are people who rely on mainstream exposure on MTV and corporate radio for exposure. I think they are afraid that people will start hearing good music downloaded from the internet and stop listening to all the shit that major record labels put out. Further more the record labels are idiots for throwing all this money into law suits that arent going to a goddamn thing to stop filesharing they should have realized after napster that if you shut down one p2p network ten more are going to come along and replace it so while they whine about losing money from filesharing they are wasting twice as much trying to stop something that is never going to go away. Also as a musician (and i am a musician) I would be overjoyed to know that my music is being heard by so many people because i would know that if my music was good enough people would come see my shows and buy my records I wouldnt bitch and whine about my music not being distribted the way I want it to be as long as its being distributed and people have access to it because to me music is about personal expression and im goingto keep making it even if i have to work a day job to pay my bills and im not going to waste money trying kill something thats never going to die because quite frankly thats just stuoity not to mention it gives filesharing lots of free publicity

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I think something needs to be done for the sake of the discussion. It needs to be pointed out that there are many legal uses for p2p and other file sharing systems. Likewise there are artists who make some or all of thier work available for free. I don't believe anyone is argueing against that. The arguement is against copying the works of people who have chosen to sell thier work instead of giving it away. Maybe they are bad people. Maybe they should just do it for the love of the music. But you know, if someone came in and told me I should be giving my work away I would be upset.

[Morning Glory]

Right. I never buy music. because it should be free. you can go on and on and on about how much it costs to make this shit, consider that the only reason for that is the real parasites in the music bizz that want to fuck the ARTIST six ways from sunday and take thier cut out of YOUR art, that they never had anything to do with making in the first place.

like I said, I don't pay for music. every cd I buy is on the basis that I'm getting the music for free and my money is being donated to that artist. If I like you I'd hope that you'd care enough to come play for me, and I'd glady pay to see the artist perform live.

I laughed my ass of the other day when I walked by a music venue. Just thinking of the band playing inside, and all the money they make getting split off between the venue, the record company and a bajillion other people. Right out side that venue, as if saying fuck you in defiance, was a man playing a guitar. He didn't need a promotter, he didn't need a manager, He didn't even need an arena. All he needed was what he had. he played his music for the people that walked by- not the people that paid to see him and fuck all the rest- but anyone who would listen, and because of that very reason quit a few people we're dropping money into a hat. I laughed because this guy that wouldn't get a glance from the Holy Music industry knows what it means to make music, and at the end of the night he get's to keep every penny that he made on his own, and it's probibly going to add up to more than that sad caged band next door.

[Morning Glory]

I still don't buy into "intellectual property" it's bad enough that corporations own everything on earth, now they get to own thing's that aren't even real? it goes back to that stabbing over the sword from everyquest or whatever, if someone "steals" a virtual sword that's just a sequence of code should they go to jail for it? it's like if I stole a book from the store, and they told me I wasn't getting arrested for taking a book, but I was being charged with "intellectual property" theft for stealing the words in the book. You can't steal music, because it's just a sound. how can you steal a sound wave? that's like stealing air. You can't steal it because no one can own an infintesimle intangible thing. You can only own what you posses. like it or not you can wax intellectual property all you want and throw up a million rules and laws, but the laws of nature and logic still hold sway over all of it, and that is once you lose possesion of something, it's no longer yours. how is that music anymore yours just because you spent 3 hours recording it than the people that spent three hours downloading it? By that logic anyone who ever invented an idea is now the intellectual property holder. I dumped you, you wrote a song about it. ok, well that song may be yours, but I made those feelings that inspired it, so you owe me money to secure MY intellectual property.
it's the highest level of absurdity and a symptom that our society is collapsing into madness.

[karamae]

At least a quarter of my friends are in bands or run record labels, and I know a few people who own record stores as well.
None of them are huge corporations, and most of them are victims of file-sharing.
For these people, it is not a matter of millions of dollars. The money they make off of their sales helps them to break even (if that), pay for van repairs on the road, replace broken equipment, and if they're lucky, pay for their next record. Bands have to be doing <i>pretty well</i> in order to even live off of their music. At the same time, members of touring bands usually have to have pretty crappy jobs in order to be able to take time off to tour.

Everyone likes to hate on the rich, but fair is fair, and the same rules should apply to everyone. If I can get mad at people for stealing from my friends, I can't condone stealing from anyone else.

It is presumptuous to tell people that they have no right to profit off of their art. Making a living off of what you like to do is part of the "American Dream." Why should a real-estate mogul get to live like a millionaire, yet a musician is frowned upon for making the same amount of money? Both require dedication, time, and work.
However, I don't have an opinion on a good solution to this. The current attempts to curb file sharing are pitiful. I can only assume it will work out eventually.

[Morning Glory]

I agree. fuck the real-estate mogul. instead of file sharing, we should all land share.

[karamae]

I guess the crux of this discussion is that you are not a capitalist... however, I am, so I will agree to disagree.

[Morning Glory]

jesus was a communist

[karamae]

I'm not keen on Jesus.

[Morning Glory]

I know... I just wanted an excuse to sing a Reagan Youth song at the top of my lungs at 8 oclock in the morning.

[karamae]

Haha, awesome.

[Amelia G]

I think something needs to be done for the sake of the discussion. It needs to be pointed out that there are many legal uses for p2p and other file sharing systems. Likewise there are artists who make some or all of thier work available for free. I don't believe anyone is argueing against that. The arguement is against copying the works of people who have chosen to sell thier work instead of giving it away. Maybe they are bad people. Maybe they should just do it for the love of the music. But you know, if someone came in and told me I should be giving my work away I would be upset.

To me the argument is for acknowledging that copying the works of people who would choose not to have their works copied is theft.

I am not a musician, but I gives tons of my creative output away for no money out of the joy of creating and the desire to support my community. But, as a creative person, I feel that even stuff I do not charge for belongs in a context.

For example, I might give a magazine a photo for free for an article where they were going to say how great a friend of mine is. I think my friend is great and does good things for the community and I feel the magazine will reproduce my photo accurately so that it will look as I intended. I am happy to support my friend and the magazine for free. But I would be upset if someone scanned that photo out of the magazine and posted a sucky pixelated version of it to a file trading service so it didn't even look good and then some other person used it to advertise a racist skinhead site. There is no issue there of me losing money if I was giving my work away for free anyway, but redistributing it without my consent could destroy the whole point of my artistic work.

[Amelia G]

I still don't buy into "intellectual property" it's bad enough that corporations own everything on earth, now they get to own thing's that aren't even real? it goes back to that stabbing over the sword from everyquest or whatever, if someone "steals" a virtual sword that's just a sequence of code should they go to jail for it? it's like if I stole a book from the store, and they told me I wasn't getting arrested for taking a book, but I was being charged with "intellectual property" theft for stealing the words in the book. You can't steal music, because it's just a sound. how can you steal a sound wave? that's like stealing air. You can't steal it because no one can own an infintesimle intangible thing. You can only own what you posses. like it or not you can wax intellectual property all you want and throw up a million rules and laws, but the laws of nature and logic still hold sway over all of it, and that is once you lose possesion of something, it's no longer yours. how is that music anymore yours just because you spent 3 hours recording it than the people that spent three hours downloading it? By that logic anyone who ever invented an idea is now the intellectual property holder. I dumped you, you wrote a song about it. ok, well that song may be yours, but I made those feelings that inspired it, so you owe me money to secure MY intellectual property.
it's the highest level of absurdity and a symptom that our society is collapsing into madness.

If the authorities there had taken the concept of stealing a digital sword seriously, then one gamer probably would not have stabbed another. A Wild West mentality has a stabby downside.

[karamae]

Intellectual Property isn't just for corporations, its for everyone.
Just a few days ago there was a Livejournal group that had the audacity to not only steal one of Amelia G & ForrestBlacks photos, but to remove the watermark from it. The group members were completely ignorant to their mistake. Obviously, they had never created anything worth stealing.
People deserve to get credit for their work!