New Interview

[Vickip]

Originally Posted by Snafu

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!"

[Vickip]

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 absolutely agree. And it's nice to see you back

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by Snafu

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!"

*sucks air through teeth*

"This song is going to cost you, it's an old one so will have to be on special order, might have to replace the whole set list if I can't get hold of it"

"Any chance of a cup of tea, three sugars please, just going for a cigarette and a bacon roll, then we'll get started"

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by Vickip

I absolutely agree. And it's nice to see you back

I had a feeling our man would chip in somewhere soon, he's been keeping an eye on us for a while now! Welcome back, Meat!!!

[robgomm]

Sorry for any confusion my earlier posts caused, to clarify a couple of things:

I believe my friend had uploaded all his CD's onto his PC, as man he had every CD (and quite a few vinyls) in this big draw of his!, but i'm not sure where he got the various live bootleg recordings from, so I would presume he got them from the internet.

As I said I got CHSIB and went to some shows, loved all that. Then I wanted more so I downloaded various live bootlegs, presumably as my friend had.

Now I do have to be honest and say that the recordings I downloaded also included all of the albums released up to that time, it was just part of the package I downloaded. But two things to say about that, one I was more interested in the live recordings, and two I made it my focus from that point to get my hands on every official release, despite having already downloaded it, because I wanted the physical CD's in my hands, nothing is better than that, having that CD in your hands, reading the booklet etc.

So although I did get the albums as part of the package I downloaded I didn't think it was right of me to have those, so I set out to get every official release properly. So now I have bought every official release both CD and DVD. I hope that clarifies some things.

[Wario]

in regards to bootlegs, if its never gonna be officially released, why keep it locked away? IE: meat and his late 80s live recordings

Anyway this thread is actually pretty damn interesting!

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by robgomm

Sorry for any confusion my earlier posts caused, to clarify a couple of things:

I believe my friend had uploaded all his CD's onto his PC, as man he had every CD (and quite a few vinyls) in this big draw of his!, but i'm not sure where he got the various live bootleg recordings from, so I would presume he got them from the internet.

As I said I got CHSIB and went to some shows, loved all that. Then I wanted more so I downloaded various live bootlegs, presumably as my friend had.

Now I do have to be honest and say that the recordings I downloaded also included all of the albums released up to that time, it was just part of the package I downloaded. But two things to say about that, one I was more interested in the live recordings, and two I made it my focus from that point to get my hands on every official release, despite having already downloaded it, because I wanted the physical CD's in my hands, nothing is better than that, having that CD in your hands, reading the booklet etc.

So although I did get the albums as part of the package I downloaded I didn't think it was right of me to have those, so I set out to get every official release properly. So now I have bought every official release both CD and DVD. I hope that clarifies some things.

So you discovered Meat through legally sold media, you downloaded the live bootlegs (which is, as i've said, a different subject IMHO) which came with the albums (not your choice) that you chose not to use, and instead you bought all the albums legit, so bootleged studio albums have had no effect one way or the other as to how you discovered Meat or how you listen to/own his music?


That's a lot different from targeting someone's entire past discography and taking it for free.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Wario

in regards to bootlegs, if its never gonna be officially released, why keep it locked away? IE: meat and his late 80s live recordings

I agree, to an extent.

Admittedly, I own a couple of bootleged concerts. Not a vast collection, and most of them have a special meaning to me.

I don't claim to be in the right in owning those bootlegs, but nor can I say that i'm doing Meat any harm in owning them.
These are things that are not available officially, and if they ever were then the boots would go in the bin and be replaced by official releases.
It certainly can't be claimed that Meat has lost out on an official sale to me because i've made do with a bootleg rather than buy a song on official release

I don't know if i've mentioned this before, but I loved what happened with the Roy Orbison bootlegs.

He was able to secure the rights to 4 of the best quality and well known bootlegs, and they were then sold officially as a box set.
I would LOVE for Meat to do something like that

The fans got the music they wanted, while money went into Roy's pocket (where it was deserved) while he also got to have an effect on the bootlegging of his concerts.

Originally Posted by Wario

Anyway this thread is actually pretty damn interesting!

Very interesting

[Wario]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I agree, to an extent.

Admittedly, I own a couple of bootleged concerts. Not a vast collection, and most of them have a special meaning to me.

I don't claim to be in the right in owning those bootlegs, but nor can I say that i'm doing Meat any harm in owning them.
These are things that are not available officially, and if they ever were then the boots would go in the bin and be replaced by official releases.
It certainly can't be claimed that Meat has lost out on an official sale to me because i've made do with a bootleg rather than buy a song on official release

I don't know if i've mentioned this before, but I loved what happened with the Roy Orbison bootlegs.

He was able to secure the rights to 4 of the best quality and well known bootlegs, and they were then sold officially as a box set.
I would LOVE for Meat to do something like that

The fans got the music they wanted, while money went into Roy's pocket (where it was deserved) while he also got to have an effect on the bootlegging of his concerts.

exactly neil!

I would pay whatever if meat decided to say "hey, my late 80's shows were utterly fantastic. Why dont I pick a few shows from 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1993 that i think are my best and release them in their entirely!" - then out pops a boxset. Itll be sure to have the parental advisory sticker on, cause he cursed alot :)

If only :')

seriously hope meat takes note

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I don't know if i've mentioned this before, but I loved what happened with the Roy Orbison bootlegs.

He was able to secure the rights to 4 of the best quality and well known bootlegs, and they were then sold officially as a box set.
I would LOVE for Meat to do something like that

The fans got the music they wanted, while money went into Roy's pocket (where it was deserved) while he also got to have an effect on the bootlegging of his concerts.

Frank Zappa did something similar. He copied their artwork and everything.

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

So you discovered Meat through legally sold media, you downloaded the live bootlegs (which is, as i've said, a different subject IMHO) which came with the albums (not your choice) that you chose not to use, and instead you bought all the albums legit, so bootleged studio albums have had no effect one way or the other as to how you discovered Meat or how you listen to/own his music?


That's a lot different from targeting someone's entire past discography and taking it for free.

Good point it is slightly different, but I would say i discovered Meat through both legally sold media uploaded on to my friends pc, but also through illegal bootlegs my friend downloaded. So a bit of both really.

You're right this thread is very interesting and I applaud everyone for having a nice conversation about it

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by Wario

exactly neil!

I would pay whatever if meat decided to say "hey, my late 80's shows were utterly fantastic. Why dont I pick a few shows from 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1993 that i think are my best and release them in their entirely!" - then out pops a boxset. Itll be sure to have the parental advisory sticker on, cause he cursed alot :)

If only :')

seriously hope meat takes note

That would be frickin awesome. Don't forget to put the RAH show in there! He did such an INCREDIBLE AFL that night.

[CarylB]

You can get dizzy reading these threads at times But I think there's a difference between downloading for nothing music which is available to be bought, whether on a CD or now as a download, recording and putting bootleg clips from shows on YT, and getting hold of bootleg tapes/discs of whole concerts.

In the interview Meat was talking about the first. Personally I liked his analogies as I said, I agree with him, and it is something the industry needs to grapple with, because I think it must affect sales overall, and it is theft, does deprive the artist of income, and I do not and would not do this. As Mouse has said, if you can afford to get on-line, you can save to buy hard copy or downloads. And there are usually clips on the retail sites to get a feel for the kind of track or album you'll be buying.

Imo Meat's reasons for not wanting recordings made at concerts and put on YT are different. They are not legal, and whatever his reasons he is entitled to want that law upheld, and I respect that. His business, his choice. The fact that the law prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do doesn't negate the fact that it is law. That an artist seeks to have that law applied to his work, even if you disagree with his reasons for doing so, or think you know better than him, doesn't remove that right.

Bootleg concert tapes or discs are yet another issue. They too are not legal. But beyond that, I can fully understand any artist wanting to have some active control over the quality of work put out with his name on it. Meat's occupation listed on his profile is "making sure it's right". I think that speaks volumes

Caryl

[robgomm]

I cab't believe that with technology today it's not possible to make CD's or even digital download files uncopiable?

[Wario]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Bootleg concert tapes or discs are yet another issue. They too are not legal. But beyond that, I can fully understand any artist wanting to have some active control over the quality of work put out with his name on it. Meat's occupation listed on his profile is "making sure it's right". I think that speaks volumes

Caryl

yupp and if meat were to release live meteral from 1987 or 1993, thatd be just icing on a big cake

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Wario

yupp and if meat were to release live meteral from 1987 or 1993, thatd be just icing on a big cake

If Meat releases any material, live or recorded, I am ready at the baker's door. It's the only kind of cake I bring home

Caryl

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by robgomm

I cab't believe that with technology today it's not possible to make CD's or even digital download files uncopiable?

I'm pretty sure it is. The thing is, it's legal to make a copy of a CD you purchased for "personal use", for instance ripping it to your computer in order to listen on an iPod. I don't know if the technology is sophisticated enough to differentiate different uses, but then "personal use" would need to be more specifically defined.

iTunes used to sell tracks with copy protection, but they don't anymore- I'm not sure why that changed.

[evil nickname]

There used to be a time when audio CD's were "copy-controlled", like the European Couldn't Have Said It Better CD, for example—which due to the copy-protection isn't even a proper CD, just a plastic disc that contains music. In practice, the copy-protection scheme is trivial to circumvent and a minor annoyance at best. The Sony Rootkit scandal was the final nail in it's coffin.

Digital rights management with MP3's and other digital music has probably stopped because 99% of the customers (and a lot of vendors) don't want it. DRM restricts the way you can use the products you bought, like you can just play it on a limited number of devices, burn it to CD for an x-number of times—and then you can rip those CDs to DRM-free mp3s, etc. Basically, it's a hassle that places you deep into the clutches of whomever sells you the stuff. A company only needs to shut down it's licensing server, and as thanks for doing the right thing and paying for your downloads, you're stuck with a pile of useless data.

(And don't start complaining most of those links go to Wikipedia. Google it yourself if you don't like 'em.)

[Evil Ernie]

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

Nice to see ML say something positive on this forum.

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

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 tioo 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.



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."

Your source is obviously the official one so I happily stand corrected. Does this mean that you could photo copy a whole book in a shop or library as long as the copy is for your use only? That seems extraordinary!


Actually the book analogy is a good one. Presumably most people would agree that you shouldn't illegally download copies of books free when you should be buying them? I dont see why albums are any different.

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Your source is obviously the official one so I happily stand corrected. Does this mean that you could photo copy a whole book in a shop or library as long as the copy is for your use only? That seems extraordinary!


Actually the book analogy is a good one. Presumably most people would agree that you shouldn't illegally download copies of books free when you should be buying them? I dont see why albums are any different.

Oh and I agree that innovation is a much better answer than litigation.

[chairboys]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Nice to see ML say something positive on this forum.

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Does this mean that you could photo copy a whole book in a shop or library as long as the copy is for your use only? That seems extraordinary!

No, because that's where article 16b, sub 2 applies, and you may only copy a small portion of the work, unless “it may reasonably assumed that no new copies will be made available to third parties for payment of any kind”.

Originally Posted by PanicLord

Actually the book analogy is a good one. Presumably most people would agree that you shouldn't illegally download copies of books free when you should be buying them? I dont see why albums are any different.

Actually, the book industry seems to be going through exactly the same motions/making the same mistakes the record industry did some years ago. E-books are the new mp3s. Vendor/device lock-in, high price-points, not making buying your product through legit channels so easy that pirating the stuff isn't worth it…

[PanicLord]

I see, fair enough.

Here's an interesting question then imho lol... I have bought many CDs which I have then ripped onto my pc and copied to my iPod. On many occasions I have had a clearout when the shelf got full, selling the CDs. Now the official position is that I should get rid of the mp3s I made now that I no longer have the CD. I can't see why this should be the case. I paid my dues when I bought the CD. This gives me the right to access those songs and make a personal copy. what I then do with the physical medium is up to me and surely should have no impact on my personal copy? Unless I'm missing something?

[Evil Ernie]

IMO, famous musicians make enough money as it is. If I take money out of their pocket, I dont have any sympathy for them at all.

The exceptions would be smaller bands that are on Indy labels. I'll buy their stuff, because they can actually use the cash. An artist like ML or Aerosmith make money doing nothing but collecting royalty cheques from their vast catalogue. If you make any money whatsoever, you are extremely lucky. Same with actors, but IMO actors are even less deserving that musicians.

If they want to make money off of me than you tour. If you come to my area I will buy a ticket and some merchandise. Give me an experience that I cant DL. Oh and if you cancel a show, you make it up at a later date. Otherwise I will always hold it against you. THAT is an extreme disservice to your fans.