New Interview

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

If not wanting to wrap Roy Orbison up in clingfilm makes me narrow minded, then narrow minded I am

Now or while he was still alive?

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Now or while he was still alive?

Roy died in 88, when the fiction was written, I do not know.

I don't think I want to know when it was written

Click if you dare

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It makes total sense. I download a CD, I start to take a liking to the artist, I buy their records because I want the artwork, additional media, lyric book and the fact that I want to support an artist that I like.

Yes, but that doesn't mean illegally downloading the CD was the right thing to do in the first place. You could have and SHOULD have bought it and if you didn't like it, give it to someone else or sell it.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Look at downloading as an extended form of the radio. Only I get to listen to the entire thing as opposed to the single...

No. Because it isn't. Radio stations play music they have payed for the legal right to play.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

And in case you haven't noticed... People are still buying music. Money is coming in. It's just going into the pockets of more people as opposed to a select few.

Yes, but by all accounts considerably less. And the fact that some / most people take the honest route doesn't excuse dishonesty from others.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Do you hear Stratovarius complaining?
Symphony X?
Vitalij Kuprij?
Mark Boals?
Yngwie malmsteen?
Tony macalpine?
Planet X?

Who DO you hear complaining?
Metallica
Puff Daddy
JayZ
Etc...

Than you have artists such as NIN and radiohead, who rather than fight reality, they embrace it.

So what you have here is the copyright holders exercising their right to determine how people access their work. The ones you hear complaining are the ones whose right is not being respected. If some artists choose to give away their music free that's their choice - if they don't choose to make it freely available that's also their choice. I don't see how this justifies anything other than the copyright holder's right to control who has access to copies??

[Evil One]

It always starts the same way. I am in the garden airing my terrapin Jetta when he walks past my gate, that mysterious man in black.

'Hello Roy,' I say. 'What are you doing in Dusseldorf?'

'Attending to certain matters,' he replies.

'Ah,' I say.

He apprises Jetta's lines with a keen eye. 'That is a well-groomed terrapin,' he says.

'Her name is Jetta.' I say. 'Perhaps you would like to come inside?'

'Very well.' He says.

Roy Orbison walks inside my house and sits down on my couch. We talk urbanely of various issues of the day. Presently I say, 'Perhaps you would like to see my cling-film?'

'By all means.' I cannot see his eyes through his trademark dark glasses and I have no idea if he is merely being polite or if he genuinely has an interest in cling-film.

I bring it from the kitchen, all the rolls of it. 'I have a surprising amount of clingfilm,' I say with a nervous laugh. Roy merely nods.

'I estimate I must have nearly a kilometre in the kitchen alone.'

'As much as that?' He says in surprise. 'So.'

'Mind you, people do not realize how much is on each roll. I bet that with a single roll alone I could wrap you up entirely.'

Roy Orbison sits impassively like a monochrome Buddha. My palms are sweaty.

'I will take that bet,' says Roy. 'If you succeed I will give you tickets to my new concert. If you fail I will take Jetta, as a lesson to you not to speak boastfully.'

I nod. 'So then. If you will please to stand.'

Roy stands. 'Commence.'

I start at the ankles and work up. I am like a spider binding him in my gossamer web. I do it tight with several layers. Soon Roy Orbison stands before me, completely wrapped in cling-film. The pleasure is unexampled.

'You are completely wrapped in cling-film,' I say.

'You win the bet,' says Roy, muffled. 'Now unwrap me.'

'Not for several hours.'

'Ah.'

I sit and admire my handiwork for a long time. So as not to make the ordeal unpleasant for him we make small talk on topical subjects, Roy somewhat muffled. At some point I must leave him to attend to Jetta's needs. When I return I find he has hopped out of my house, still wrapped in cling-film. The loss leaves me broken and pitiful. He never calls me. He sends no tickets. The police come and reprimand me. Jetta is taken away, although I get her back after a complicated legal process.

There is only one thing that can console me. A certain dream, a certain vision...

It always starts the same way.

© Ulrich Haarbürste

Suddenly the nutters on this site doen't seem quite so bad.

[Adje]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Stealing something you you cannot afford and do not need is greed.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Onlly I'm not steling it, am I. I'm merely checking it's content to see if it's good enough to buy. That's not greed, that's not cheap but it's smart.

Didn't know what to do with the entire Robin Hood comparisson, but it was fun to read LOL

BTW I'm not here to defend piracy. I just make use of it's possibilities. I also cross the streets on a red light when there's no traffic. Call me immoral

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Suddenly the nutters on this site doen't seem quite so bad.

Lol, what a terrific story. And you have been so bold as to share on this particular thread a copyright reserved story

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

If not wanting to wrap Roy Orbison up in clingfilm makes me narrow minded, then narrow minded I am

See my earlier points on finding out if an artists music is for you.
You do not need to download. There is no need to download.

I do that as well. These days a lot more than often than not actually.

Not much of a difference IMO.

Putting songs on yt without consent is copyright infringement as well. By this logic it's perfectly fine for me to go to letmewatchthis to watch all my movies. I don't have a copy, I just streamed it so I could sample it.

Now, I want to see how you justify that. Than I will use simplistic logic to tear it apart.

If you have a vast collection, but don't listen to it all, and still buy as many CDs you used to, would it not make more sense to buy the albums you want to listen to and not download the ones you are not going to listen to?

DL to sample, buy if I like.

I will clarify. Sometimes I will listen to them once, and never again. Some I had interest in listening to, but never got around to it and some came as part of collections.

I also used to buy CDs that I would listen to once, dislike it, and never look at it again. Now every CD that I buy is awesome. They don't get the opportunity to sell me something that I think sucks.

You can look at the moon as a giant ball of cheese, but it doesn't make it so.

You got me.

No coming back from that one.

This makes no sense.
Why does the fact that everyone in the music industry gets their work ripped off to an extent balance things out so more people get more money?

They don't. Money gets generated through the music itself andother means and it filters through to the smaller guys.

Don't tell me i've given you a moment of revelation :mrgreen

:


not even close.

Yes, you get to hear a much wider range of music and artists, but do you need to dowload their entire works if you've heard a decent sample and decide you like them.






Let's see, I found Meat through a TV ad for Woolworths, Roy Orbison when my mum gave me some of his tapes the day he died, Joe Cocker when he brought out Unchain My Heart and I saw the vid on music TV, Guns N Roses because I was 15 once .......

I found good music by accident mostly, not because a shadowy orginazation was wafting it under my nose

So did I. But even with word of mouth I would never have found many artists.

Do these artists not have ANY of their work available without downloading it?
Do they have nothing on youtube that you can form an opinion on wether you want to buy their product?
Because if they haven't, quite frankly, it's their own bloody fault

See above.

Most of the stuff that I downloaded was from years ago. I agree that yt is far easier these days, but there is little difference between putting on yt and having a digital copy on my hard drive.

No.
Mostly because I have no idea who any of them are

Smaller bands need a fanbase to get them going, so are much less likely to complain about being ripped off.
They are too busy being glad someone cares enough to listen.

Artists like Meat have served their time. They are good at what they do, and they are well known for it. They've worked hard for what they've got so good luck to them.

You don't, but I do.

These artists are not being ripped off. The average Indy band/artist makes far more money now than at any point.

If I was losing the kind of money those guys are losing, I might complain myself.

Boo hoo. I made 3.5 million this month instead of 5.

Good for them, but it doesn't change the law's position on what an artist is due.

Whose law? In Canada it's legal to download music and movies.

Did you know that it's technically illegal to be gay in many US states?

They can have a few over zealous, ridiculous court cases designed to scare the average US citizen, but the fact is that pirating laws are nearly unenforcable.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I do that as well. These days a lot more than often than not actually.

Wrap Roy Orbison is cling film?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Not much of a difference IMO.

There's a HUGE difference between listening to a song and saving an artist life's work to your computer.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Putting songs on yt without consent is copyright infringement as well. By this logic it's perfectly fine for me to go to letmewatchthis to watch all my movies. I don't have a copy, I just streamed it so I could sample it.

Now, I want to see how you justify that. Than I will use simplistic logic to tear it apart.

I didn't say I was defending the copyrighted material on youtube, I was saying that it's better to watch a vid once and make a decission wether to buy the album or not than to download the whole damn lot for keeps.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

DL to sample, buy if I like.

I wonder if the movie theatre near me will let me come in, watch a movie, and then let me decide wether to pay after i've seen it based on how much I decided I like the film?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

They don't. Money gets generated through the music itself andother means and it filters through to the smaller guys.

I am not getting this at all

Say 10% of all music is illegally downloaded, and say each CD sells for £5.


Meat = Popular artist = 90 albums sold + 10 dowloaded = £450

Fishcake = Not well known = 9 albums sold + 1 downloaded = £45

So they have both lost money, and i'm not seeing any spreading of the wealth.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

So did I. But even with word of mouth I would never have found many artists.

It's one thing to find them, it's another to steal their work.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Most of the stuff that I downloaded was from years ago. I agree that yt is far easier these days, but there is little difference between putting on yt and having a digital copy on my hard drive.

See above.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

You don't, but I do.

These artists are not being ripped off. The average Indy band/artist makes far more money now than at any point.

God forbid they make a few quid

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Boo hoo. I made 3.5 million this month instead of 5.

Losing 1.5 million a month, i'd be crying myself

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Whose law? In Canada it's legal to download music and movies.

UK law.
See the link I posted earlier.
It's one of those rare times I find our law makes sense

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Did you know that it's technically illegal to be gay in many US states?

Are you really comparing your struggle to download albums you don't need to the struggle of gay people who have to fight for their right to be treated with dignity and respect by the law and society?
Because if you want me to choose what I think is more of a violation of human rights, I know which one i'd pick.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

They can have a few over zealous, ridiculous court cases designed to scare the average US citizen, but the fact is that pirating laws are nearly unenforcable.

Unfortunate, but true.

Anyway, I don't think we're are going to change each others minds on this, and this is starting to get a bit like this so feel free to have the last word

[Evil Ernie]

Okay, I'm done debating in this thread. This is like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

You guys can go to back to agreeing with each other.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

No.
Mostly because I have no idea who any of them are

You have never heard of Yngwie Malmsteen?

[Evil Ernie]

This article pretty much sums up everything.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...industry-facts

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Sarge

You have never heard of Yngwie Malmsteen?

He was actually a 'dead ringer' for ML in the early 2000s. I thought, "cool, ML grew his hair back."



http://blog-imgs-52-origin.fc2.com/r...0603215232.jpg

[olblueeyes]

I have a black and white view of this issue. If I wish to own a piece of music, I pay for that privilege. I do not agree with the argument that because I have not taken the original that it is not stealing. It is stealing. The fact is, I live in a country where piracy is considered theft (and rightly so).

Someone put their blood, sweat and tears into producing that piece of art form. Anyone who decides they should be entitled to have a copy of that without paying for it is wrong. I have to pay to have a print of a painting - why should music be any different just because it is in digital form? People can justify it to themselves however they want but it amounts to the same. The internet has bred a generation of people who feel they have a god given right to take things just because there is a means of obtaining it - they don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by olblueeyes

I have a black and white view of this issue. If I wish to own a piece of music, I pay for that privilege. I do not agree with the argument that because I have not taken the original that it is not stealing. It is stealing. The fact is, I live in a country where piracy is considered theft (and rightly so).

Someone put their blood, sweat and tears into producing that piece of art form. Anyone who decides they should be entitled to have a copy of that without paying for it is wrong. I have to pay to have a print of a painting - why should music be any different just because it is in digital form? People can justify it to themselves however they want but it amounts to the same. The internet has bred a generation of people who feel they have a god given right to take things just because there is a means of obtaining it - they don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

is a digital copy of the painting okay?

[olblueeyes]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

is a digital copy of the painting okay?

Very good Ernie - but I believe I indicated the answer to that. :)

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by olblueeyes

I have a black and white view of this issue. If I wish to own a piece of music, I pay for that privilege. I do not agree with the argument that because I have not taken the original that it is not stealing. It is stealing. The fact is, I live in a country where piracy is considered theft (and rightly so).

Someone put their blood, sweat and tears into producing that piece of art form. Anyone who decides they should be entitled to have a copy of that without paying for it is wrong. I have to pay to have a print of a painting - why should music be any different just because it is in digital form? People can justify it to themselves however they want but it amounts to the same. The internet has bred a generation of people who feel they have a god given right to take things just because there is a means of obtaining it - they don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I agree with this absolutely. I learned to save for what I wanted, to prioritise, and to wait. I expected to be paid for my work, for use of materials I had designed. I expect to pay for the fruits of others' labour, or creation. Piracy is defined as theft here, and in my view too, it is. Only the designer/producer of the material can decide to give it away. Without that decision being made, you are taking something to which you are not entitled if you do not pay for it. That there may be a means to aid you doing that does not give you the entitlement.

Caryl

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by olblueeyes

The internet has bred a generation of people who feel they have a god given right to take things just because there is a means of obtaining it - they don't.

Yes. Fine. So far we've established that people download stuff of the internet, regardless of applicable laws, because they can, even though there are people who think they shouldn't, for a bunch of reasons. The real question is not whether this is good or bad, but what to do to change things in a way that benefits everyone. Lamenting the way things are has never been the solution to anything.

The industry should innovate. Make obtaining music online so easy that "pirating" it just isn't worth the effort. As mrs. Kroes (the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda) said about ebooks (a industry that faces much of the same problems as the music business) "Piracy is fostered by [the] impossibility to buy legally."

If I can't buy a digital single because of some random lines on a map, I'll download it for free (e.g., the "If I Can't Have You" EP). If I buy a CD, and there's a bunch of digital-iTunes-only bonus tracks that I cannot buy because what music fan uses Linux anyway and I bought the damned overpriced deluxe edition so why isn't it in there to begin with ("Frying Pan" live from HCTB), I'll download 'em. If I can't buy 'em, I can't buy 'em. Don't come complaining to me if I download your music that isn't available for buying. Complain to the record companies. Have them fix the situation.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Yes. Fine. So far we've established that people download stuff of the internet, regardless of applicable laws, because they can, even though there are people who think they shouldn't, for a bunch of reasons. The real question is not whether this is good or bad, but what to do to change things in a way that benefits everyone. Lamenting the way things are has never been the solution to anything.

The industry should innovate. Make obtaining music online so easy that "pirating" it just isn't worth the effort. As mrs. Kroes (the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda) said about ebooks (a industry that faces much of the same problems as the music business) "Piracy is fostered by [the] impossibility to buy legally."

If I can't buy a digital single because of some random lines on a map, I'll download it for free (e.g., the "If I Can't Have You" EP). If I buy a CD, and there's a bunch of digital-iTunes-only bonus tracks that I cannot buy because what music fan uses Linux anyway and I bought the damned overpriced deluxe edition so why isn't it in there to begin with ("Frying Pan" live from HCTB), I'll download 'em. If I can't buy 'em, I can't buy 'em. Don't come complaining to me if I download your music that isn't available for buying. Complain to the record companies. Have them fix the situation.

Man speaks wisdom. Solutions and compromises rather than beating a dead horse.

Look at what Louis CK, Jim Gaffigan and (soon) Joe Rogan did with their latest comedy specials. They produced them and put them on their websites for $5.

True, some people download it, but Louis CK made $1 million in 2 weeks. He made it so cheap that even filthy down loaders paid up. Over 200,000 paid downloads (more now).

It would be shortsighted and greedy for him to be concerned over the other 50,000 people who downloaded it for free.

[olblueeyes]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

If I can't buy a digital single because of some random lines on a map, I'll download it for free (e.g., the "If I Can't Have You" EP).

I can see the argument for that scenario. I found it frustrating that I couldn't buy that because of iTunes and them not allowing you to access a track that is commercially available just because it is on their USA site. I don't think that kind of thing necessarily loses artists money though, unless it's people who can buy it legally (i.e. those in the territory where it is available to purchase) but are just choosing to take it for free.

There are no doubt a huge amount of people who have recordings of concerts that are commercially unavailable, yet would replace those recordings with an official release in a heartbeat were it released.

The HCTB 'Frying Pan' scenario I think is a bit different as it IS commercially available to us, just that you have to buy the album on iTunes to get it. Having bought several other copies of the album, I decided that for the time being I wouldn't pay 7.99 or whatever to obtain that one track. I wanted it but I accepted that it was part of that package so I would not have it unless I paid for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Yes. Fine. So far we've established that people download stuff of the internet, regardless of applicable laws, because they can, even though there are people who think they shouldn't, for a bunch of reasons. The real question is not whether this is good or bad, but what to do to change things in a way that benefits everyone. Lamenting the way things are has never been the solution to anything.

The industry should innovate. Make obtaining music online so easy that "pirating" it just isn't worth the effort. As mrs. Kroes (the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda) said about ebooks (a industry that faces much of the same problems as the music business) "Piracy is fostered by [the] impossibility to buy legally."

If I can't buy a digital single because of some random lines on a map, I'll download it for free (e.g., the "If I Can't Have You" EP). If I buy a CD, and there's a bunch of digital-iTunes-only bonus tracks that I cannot buy because what music fan uses Linux anyway and I bought the damned overpriced deluxe edition so why isn't it in there to begin with ("Frying Pan" live from HCTB), I'll download 'em. If I can't buy 'em, I can't buy 'em. Don't come complaining to me if I download your music that isn't available for buying. Complain to the record companies. Have them fix the situation.

Best post so far.

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by olblueeyes

The HCTB 'Frying Pan' scenario I think is a bit different as it IS commercially available to us, just that you have to buy the album on iTunes to get it. Having bought several other copies of the album, I decided that for the time being I wouldn't pay 7.99 or whatever to obtain that one track. I wanted it but I accepted that it was part of that package so I would not have it unless I paid for it.

Besides digital-only-exclusive-bonus-tracks being a bit of a personal pet peeve of mine, I can't use iTunes as it doesn't run on the operating system I use, so the whole "it's commercially available" point is moot for me.

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

This article pretty much sums up everything.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...industry-facts

That article doesn't prove anything. In fact all it proves is that singles sales are up but album sales are down. Also it's old news from 2009, also it's focused on the UK and not the music industry as a whole.

Now let me give you a fact that I discovered not long ago through research. In the year 2000 the music industry was worth around 1.2bn (not sure $ or £), last year it was worth just 700m. That is a fact that I found through research and proves that the music industry has been declining through many years.

It is also possible that total sales of albums and singles could go up in the number sold, but down in revenue, because singles are 99p whereas albums are about 4.99, so the advance of being able to just buy what songs you like rather than an entire album has had a significant impact I would argue. I can't say how much piracy has had an impact but with the growth of the internet and the ability of ever more advanced software which can even rip audio from youtube videos, it is safe to assume it has had some impact.

I'm not going to say whether it's right or wrong, but it is safe to assume the advances of the internet retailers and the advances in technology of software have had an impact. Sorry if I repeated myself there!

[jcmoorehead]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Do you hear Stratovarius complaining?
Symphony X?
Vitalij Kuprij?
Mark Boals?
Yngwie malmsteen?
Tony macalpine?
Planet X?

Totally off topic but Symphony X and Stratovarius, you have awesome taste.

[Mazda]

Though the industry changing has had a massive effect on record sales surely the increased volume of live shows and inflated ticket prices is more than making up for the lack of record sales for many artists including Meat? Meat is often quoted by saying he didn't make much out of the record sales of Bat 1 because of dodgy record deals and lawyers ripping him off and he even went bankrupt in the mid 80s. So surely the show ticket sales have always been a far more consistent way for him to make his living, ie. even when people buy everything legally it still doesn't always help the artists.

[Sue K]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Okay, I'm done debating in this thread. This is like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

Ohhh... I've done that ... once for two hours on a street corner and once alllll night long at a friend's house (me debating with a guy she was trying to get together with... lol ... my friend nodded out on the sofa) ... It was fun for awhile and then got tired and boring ... ahem ...