New Interview

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

He has a point there. It happened to me. Downloaded something to sample, spend a lot of money later on because I liked it a lot.

In all fairness, would you say you were in the minority or the majority?

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Which quite often happens to be uploaded by fans without the artists' permission, made by crappy camera-phones, etc. etc. etc.

I'm glad you knew what I meant despite the typo (I was wondering wtf I had written when I was reading your post ).
It's not the camera phone footage i'm talking about, it's the original promo vids for the singles. I've not looked for a while, but i'm betting I could go to youtube right now and find at least 80% of Meat's promo vids. And I believe that to be a low estimate.
I know that they are uploaded without the artists permission (that's perhaps another subject) but they are there so make an alternative to downloading an album (or discography).

Originally Posted by evil nickname

"That fat bloke can't sing and his music is shite."

If that's the review you read, and you trust the reporter, maybe his style isn't for you
It's up to the reader to decide wether to look further into the artist or not.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

They weren't going to spend money on an artist to find out what he's like, remember?

Again, you don't need to spend money to see what an artist is like on youtube. For one, there are the promo vids, but there are also lots of fan vids where they combine music from their favourite artist with something else they like. There was a very well done fan vid for the movie Ghost Rider featuring (in good quality) the original album version of Monster's Loose. I've also seen a very good one (don't remember the song used off the top of my head ) for Doctor Who clips.
Again, they're not official, and i'm not defending the fact they're up there, i'm just saying they make downloading completley unnecersary

Originally Posted by evil nickname

None of which will go back to the artist, so you might as well download it.

It's true that money on ebay doesn't go to the artist, I only offered it as an alternative to the illegal act of downloading the album
Also, I think there is something much more special about an official product with a good looking cover and a lyric book than a CD with the name of the album written on with a magic marker.
Either way the artist doesn't get money, but the person gets the taste they want without completly taking the piss and they have a good quality product.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

True. Still, they might not buy the music, but they might go to concerts, buy shirts, whatever.

Like I said to Stretch, if a plumber does a whole house, you don't pay him just for the sink.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Perhaps there is no need, but it is quite a lot easier and faster that going on eBay, buying an album and waiting for it to arive. Or going to a shop to pick up a cheap compilation.

Perhaps, but to be fair, I can't remember when I needed music that badly.
If I were starving to death and could download "food" yes, I can go with that. If i'm homless and getting soaked in the rain and could download "shelter" (and before someone says something about the homless having access to broadband............ ) I think I would do so, but this is music we're talking about. I like to think that music is a hugely important part of my life, but i'm not going to suffer for the lack of an album.
The people downloading illegally can afford a computer (obviously) so they can afford the album, and if they can't afford the album that week they are not going to have their health and wellbeing at risk.

Feeling the need that you need to possess right now illegally rather than maybe wait for a couple of days to own what you can live very comfortably without is more a case of greed and a well developed id.

I see why people download, but I don't think it's right just because it's easy.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Also, you could argue that the phyiscal formats are on their way out, especially for the younger people—O, god, I'm just 32 and look at what I just wrote—and that mp3s are easier. How many people carry around a discman and a stack of CDs nowadays? Conveniance is king.

You have a point here, and i'm fearful for the future or physical releases myself
But are Meat's songs not available from places where you pay track by track? (I have no idea as when it comes to downloads I am opinionated but not informed ).

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Yes, I know: iTunes. Spotify, what have you. Why still download illegally? I'll keep it at this: I cannot use iTunes on Linux, and Spotify is far from complete, and silly geographical restrictions when the internet is this global network. There's a lot of room for improvement in that department. As long as it's still easier to just torrent whatever you want, people will keep doing that.

I'm assuming this answers the question i've just asked before I asked it?

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Believe me, I'm all for artist making money with their art. I still buy a lot of CDs and LPs, perferably straight from the artist. Maybe because I can remember the time before the internet, when home taping was still killing the music industry.

But: the internet/filesharing has changed the game. The cat's out of the bag, and it's never going back in. I believe that instead of lamenting the change, artist and the industry should embrace it, and develop new ways of generating revenue. Perhaps by giving away their music for free if they choose to.

I'm at a loss to understand how bands can generate revenue by giving their music away for free.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

I'll keep it at this for now, cause I have six people coming over for dinner in an hour and a half.

Have fun

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by stretch37

well i'm gonna have to disagree

I didn't know who Meat Loaf was until I randomly saw the video for CHSIB on a random website and happened to play it. I proceeded to pirate Meat Loaf's discography and become obessed with him.

since then I've spent REAL money on 5 concerts, and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

Therefore Pirating MADE MEAT LOAF MONEY.

In this instance yes pirating made Meat some money, and it's exactly the same more or less what happened to me too!

I had a friend who had 100's of songs on his PC including bootlegs from various shows. He also had a HUGE draw with pretty much every official release at that time on CD and Vinyl. So I got into him by listening to these songs that he had on his PC.

Then years later I bought CHSIB which I absolutely loved, went to a few concerts etc. But I wanted more. I wanted to hear Meats performances from the 70's, 80's, & 90's, at shows that had never been and never would be released for everyone to enjoy. Obviously I had heard some of the stuff from my friends PC but I wanted them for myself. From there it just snowballed, I got the bootlegs of various shows from over the years, then got every single release ever done, plus the DVD's.

So while I would agree that in the vast vast VAST majority of cases people will continue to download things illegally, there are exceptions such as myself and Stretch.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by robgomm

I have to say that's exactly what happened to me too pretty much!

Same questions to you then

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Have you downloaded the complete works of any other artist apart from Meat?

Have you gone on to buy any of their new albums?

Do you ever plan on getting rid of the illegally downloaded Meat Loaf albums and buying originals?

If you dowload an album, decide you don't like it and never listen to it again, do you consider that album stolen?

[robgomm]

Artists complain an awful lot about losing money to piracy and unofficial video being taken. But would anyone agree with me that one of the things that could be done very easily is to release the board tapes they make at every show?

They could do this so easily as for example Meat has said many times he listens to the tapes after every show of his. When an artist does a show, if they made the board tape of the show available at say £5 for each show that would net them quite a bit of money. And it would negate the need for people to video and record the show and we wouldn't get the poor quality stuff being uploaded to youtube. It could even reinvigorate the music industry as a whole to some extent.

Just an idea?

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Same questions to you then

He he yes I do have every CD and DVD now bought with my hard earned cash

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by robgomm

I had a friend who had 100's of songs on his PC including bootlegs from various shows. He also had a HUGE draw with pretty much every official release at that time on CD and Vinyl. So I got into him by listening to these songs that he had on his PC.

So your friend had the hard copies, and he had the albums on his computer?
Did he download the albums on his computer from the internet, or did he upload his original CDs? (even with my limited knowlege on the subject, i'd say the second was more likely).

Even if he did download them, if he hadn't downloaded them I think it's safe to assume he would have uploaded the CDs to his computer, yes?

So even without an illegal download you would have heard Meat's albums on your friends computer, without the downloads you would have become a fan, so that leads me to think that downloads have had no effect on you discovering Meat whatsoever (feel free to correct me here).

Originally Posted by robgomm

Then years later I bought CHSIB which I absolutely loved, went to a few concerts etc. But I wanted more. I wanted to hear Meats performances from the 70's, 80's, & 90's, at shows that had never been and never would be released for everyone to enjoy. Obviously I had heard some of the stuff from my friends PC but I wanted them for myself. From there it just snowballed, I got the bootlegs of various shows from over the years, then got every single release ever done, plus the DVD's.

So apart from the bootlegs, which are not officially available (which means IMO they are not stricly the same topic) how many albums have you bought and how many did you illegally download?

If you bought all Meat's official releases since hearing (officially sourced) albums on your friends computer then you have discovered an artist through legitimate and legal copies of his work, and have proceeded to legally buy the rest of his available discography. Downloads don't enter the equasion.

If you have downloaded all Meat's albums yourself, you have discovered Meat through legitimate releases on your friends computer then decided to rip them off the internet rather than buy them (which would rather prove my point).

Originally Posted by robgomm

So while I would agree that in the vast vast VAST majority of cases people will continue to download things illegally, there are exceptions such as myself and Stretch.

Until you correct me about how i've understood what you've wrote, they look like completley different cases.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by robgomm

Artists complain an awful lot about losing money to piracy and unofficial video being taken. But would anyone agree with me that one of the things that could be done very easily is to release the board tapes they make at every show?

They could do this so easily as for example Meat has said many times he listens to the tapes after every show of his. When an artist does a show, if they made the board tape of the show available at say £5 for each show that would net them quite a bit of money. And it would negate the need for people to video and record the show and we wouldn't get the poor quality stuff being uploaded to youtube. It could even reinvigorate the music industry as a whole to some extent.

Just an idea?

It's an excellent idea.
(I can say that because I posted something very much the same on a convo many moons ago ).

The benefits (IMO) are, as you say, less bootlegs and amateur footage on camera phones and Meat would make a pretty pennt from it.

Also the fans get what they want, including official releases of concerts you yourself attended. That would be pretty great.

Everyone would be happy.

But this is more on bootleging stuff that is not available elsewhere, while I believe the convo is more inclined towards the illegal downloading of officially released albums

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Some responses:
Changing copyright law is complex because of all kinds of international treaties and the like. National legislators cannot simply say, "hey, this Intelectual Property-law needs updating. Let's do it."

Agree with you there!

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Also, the reality of what's going on with people downloading versus the philosphical way you think it ought to be and how to come to a new way of doing things in a way that benefits all parties: that's not going to be easy. At all.

Agreed again. However in both cases you are talking about changes in the future, not the current situation.

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Remember, in The Netherlands it's legal to copy copyrighted works for private practice, study and use. So in my case, there is no "illegal downloading".

I take it you are referring to the Copyright Act 1912 as amended, conveniently ignoring the bit in bold?

"Article 16b. — It shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the copyright in a literary, scientific or
artistic work to reproduce it in a limited number of copies for the sole purpose of the personal practice,
study or use of the person who makes the copies or orders the copies to be made exclusively for himself.
Where the work is one of those referred to in Article 10, first paragraph, under (i), including the score
or parts of a musical work, the reproduction shall furthermore be confined to a small portion of the work,
except in the case of:
(a) works of which, in all probability, no new copies are made available to third parties for
payment of any kind;
(b) short articles, news items or other texts which have appeared in a daily or weekly newspaper or
weekly or other periodical.
"

In other words, you cannot download a whole song or album UNLESS it is no longer commercially available and is not likely to be again in future.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by robgomm

In this instance yes pirating made Meat some money, and it's exactly the same more or less what happened to me too!

I had a friend who had 100's of songs on his PC including bootlegs from various shows. He also had a HUGE draw with pretty much every official release at that time on CD and Vinyl. So I got into him by listening to these songs that he had on his PC.

Then years later I bought CHSIB which I absolutely loved, went to a few concerts etc. But I wanted more. I wanted to hear Meats performances from the 70's, 80's, & 90's, at shows that had never been and never would be released for everyone to enjoy. Obviously I had heard some of the stuff from my friends PC but I wanted them for myself. From there it just snowballed, I got the bootlegs of various shows from over the years, then got every single release ever done, plus the DVD's.

So while I would agree that in the vast vast VAST majority of cases people will continue to download things illegally, there are exceptions such as myself and Stretch.

As Mouse has said, there is an important distinction to be made between pirated copies of official releases, and audience-made live bootlegs. The latter, in most cases, doesn't compete with material the artist has released officially. Even if bootlegs exist for shows which are later released, I don't know of any fans who wouldn't then buy an official recording because they already own the bootleg (assuming they are big fans of the artist). My own philosophy is that, while I have no problem with downloading bootleg stuff, which shouldn't be profited from (or, technically, even exist) anyway, I'll pay for anything/most everything that is officially released, because as a fan of the artist, I think it's the right thing to do.

I think selling copies of shows is a fantastic idea, and many artists already do this. However, some artists are a bit reluctant to release "raw" recordings that they haven't had a chance to listen to or have any "quality control" over. The answer in that case might be to release only select shows, but even that would require some work on the part of the artist and their team, and I'm not sure the profits would be all that substantial. Sure, there are diehards who would buy all or most shows, but I think most people might buy only the show they saw as a souvenir. It might curb bootlegging a little, but I don't think it will ever go away completely.

I do agree though, that people will continue to download pirated official material. I think that, especially to young people today, it's "the norm"- they don't know any other way. That's not to say I'm defending it. Unfortunately, I think artists do need to adapt to survive- it's just the way it is.

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Agreed again. However in both cases you are talking about changes in the future, not the current situation.

True. The current situation is what it is, and some artists and record labels are dealing with it better than others. It seems clear to me that things need to change: as I said, filesharing changed the game completly, and the idea that you can hold on to the old way of doing things seems completely naive to me.

Equating filesharing with theft is understandable from the the old perspective, but to a whole generation, it's the way the world works now. That's the reality of it. Complaining about it isn't going to change things, and sueing music fans for it doesn't seem to do the trick either. I strongly believe that there is a need for innovation in the entertainment industry.

Originally Posted by PanicLord

I take it you are referring to the Copyright Act 1912 as amended, conveniently ignoring the bit in bold?

"Article 16b. — It shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the copyright in a literary, scientific or
artistic work to reproduce it in a limited number of copies for the sole purpose of the personal practice,
study or use of the person who makes the copies or orders the copies to be made exclusively for himself.
Where the work is one of those referred to in Article 10, first paragraph, under (i), including the score
or parts of a musical work, the reproduction shall furthermore be confined to a small portion of the work,
except in the case of:
(a) works of which, in all probability, no new copies are made available to third parties for
payment of any kind;
(b) short articles, news items or other texts which have appeared in a daily or weekly newspaper or
weekly or other periodical.
"

In other words, you cannot download a whole song or album UNLESS it is no longer commercially available and is not likely to be again in future.

I don't know what version you've been looking at, the current Dutch text (translation) says no such thing. The bolded part looks a mashed up version of article 16b, sub 2. But that only applies to "a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical or book or the score or parts of score of a musical work and other works that are reproduced in these works."

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Speaking like that, in an interview laced with praise for rap, from my perspective, it seems that Meat is trying to be hip, to be something he is not, although I am the first to say that Meat is him and I am not, so Meat has more of an idea of what he is and what he isn't than I have, but it still sounds wrong from my perspective.

The phrase was kind of popular in the U.S. in the early '90's; it came out of a repeating sketch on the TV show "In Living Color", and was said by the character of Homey the Clown, played by Damon Wayans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0

I haven't thought of it in years, but I didn't see it as an attempt to sound "hip". All in your perspective, I guess.

[Evil Ernie]

ML is shortsighted. If it wasn't for file sharing half of his fans wouldn't be his fans.

But whatever, some people like to use over simplistic analogies. Or are trapped in the past. Or both.

[Fire Ball]

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

[JennaG]

Originally Posted by Fire Ball

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

I totally agree with you.

(Nice to see you back again, BTW )

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by Fire Ball

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

Any chance of you coming round and fixing our shower then? You could sing a song or ten while you're here as well

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Fire Ball

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

Yes he should I agree. Just because developments in technology make something possible doesn't make it right in my view, nor should difficulties stop us from tackling things that seem to have become the norm if they deprive an artist of his entitlement.

Caryl

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by Fire Ball

An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.

Be careful what you wish for.

[duke knooby]

in my head the plumber reference is much more applicable to the touring end of the music business rather than the recording end. When a performer tours or a theatre company puts on a show, they have to be there to earn their money... if they put on a good show, they'll get repeat business etc (much like a plumber)

the recording end of the business i see more as an engineer or an inventor lol. its more about intellectual property, for the recording artist, the work is done once behind the scenes, and the product is produced... for an engineer, it's like have a great new idea, and getting a patent on it. the work is done once, but the royalties could come rolling in for years

luckily enough, i have no idea what i'm talking about, and just thinking out loud lol

for the record, i dont do downloads, i prefer to support the artist and purchase their albums (but i'm very old school )

[Sue K]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Be careful what you wish for.

Why ? Most plumbers here in the States make dang good money ... ...

[duke knooby]

or to stick a modern twist on it, would it be like a performer investing money in a server thingy to release a cloud storage platform thingy... and some people paying to use the storage, and many many others just stealing the storage????

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by Sue K

Why ? Most plumbers here in the States make dang good money ... ...

How about working like a plumber then? I'd like to see the plumber who installs a toilet once a year or so and lives off royalties in the meantime. (... since flawed comparisons seem to be very popular in the course of this discussion... )

[Sebastian.]

Originally Posted by Sarge

How about working like a plumber then? I'd like to see the plumber who installs a toilet once a year or so and lives off royalties in the meantime. (... since flawed comparisons seem to be very popular in the course of this discussion... )

Most plumbers my way turn up and forget a part. Never known Meat to do a show and say "We'll be back next week, we forgot Paul!"

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

How about working like a plumber then? I'd like to see the plumber who installs a toilet once a year or so and lives off royalties in the meantime. (... since flawed comparisons seem to be very popular in the course of this discussion... )

But as the Duke pointed out (and I really wish i'd come up with the argument when I was having it out with the dude I was talking about earlier) it's not so much like a plumber who does the job and gets paid once for that one job, it's (to keep in the theme) more like the bloke who invented the toilet who makes money because nis creation keeps being sold.

[Sue K]

Originally Posted by Sarge

How about working like a plumber then? I'd like to see the plumber who installs a toilet once a year or so and lives off royalties in the meantime. (... since flawed comparisons seem to be very popular in the course of this discussion... )

ooops... as usual ... one of my appendages caught in the door ... hahaha ... I'll never learn ... lol ...

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by Fire Ball

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

Agree 100%!