They deserve to be recompensed for their work, the same way anyone else does for any more tangible work, and with similar amounts of money for similar amounts of effort,
Than we agree. Thanks, it's good to know I have a friend out there.
Everything else you said was assumption, but I'll let that slide.
By taking it are you intending to permanently deprive the owner?
You are in fact depriving them of just reward for the years of hard work it took to create that art, as well as re-reimbursement for the money they spent to create the recording.
Attempting to disguise your theft with semantics only makes you appear less intelligent.
Seems like this concept has gotten fuzzy. I hope this simple three step Q and A clears things up for everyone.
1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago? Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.
2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment? Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives. It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.
3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing? If so, did you take it without paying? Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself. Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.
If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.
1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago? Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.
2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment? Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives. It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.
3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing? If so, did you take it without paying? Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself. Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.
If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.
Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea and that everyone should be forced to stay until they turn 18 simply because of some imagined "emotional trauma" they might suffer has NO BUSINESS TEACHING CHILDREN! Some kids are simply smarter than others and some develop much faster. It would be a crime to hold them back and effectively punish them for being smarter and achieving more.
The only thing you get by holding back intelligent people is a bunch of extremely intelligent anti-social people who are frustrated and don't give a shit. I know first hand.
Sorry, but I did not want the iPad to be overcomplicated and overpriced. The U1 looks like it'll break first week. And good luck getting it fixed. It's not like Lenovo has stores just down the road where I can take their proprietary machines. I'd take an iPad in a heartbeat over this.
If that were true and streaming services actually made a profit then the last thing they would do is pull out. It's a simple business decision; if something doesn't turn a profit you stop doing it.
You can't run a business like that. Sooner or later they will turn off the lights, your employees will get tired of their pay checks bouncing and your mortgage company will foreclose on you.
So if you consider wanting to make enough to at least pay your bills "greed," color me greedy.
Close, but not exactly. The real problem is that when a song plays on a streaming system it plays to a very limited audience. Usually just one person. Bottom line is, it pays a heck of a lot less.
The simple fact is, record labels are just businesses exactly like any other. They market a product and make enough money off the sale of it to pay their bills. If they were making money off streaming you can be damn sure they would continue with it regardless of who has control.
They're leaving because they aren't making a profit. Simple as that.
Seriously guys, I know you like to think everything in the world is a big horrible conspiracy against you personally but they're just trying to keep their doors open and make sure their employees pay checks don't bounce.
To put it another way, if NBC became a porn network you can bet Comcast would stop carrying their programming. On the other side, if you setup a porn server you can bet they'll disconnect you.
And because they own the wire, they do in fact have a right to do that. As a customer you are paying for the privilege of using their property.
As a customer you also have a right to give your money to someone else who doesn't restrict you. As I said, that's what I do.
If Linux works for you, than you should use it. Whatever gets the music out of your head and into some stored format the fastest is what you should use.
I use a Mac because I can buy a brand new one turn it on and write music immediately. When I'm ready to do a demo I plug in my Firewire interface and open Garageband. It just works. Right out of the box. No tweaking required.
While Linux is fantastic (and I've used it in various forms since 1993) until it reaches that level of user experience I will not employ it as my primary desktop.
I'm sorry, but the whole idea that we should pass laws making the Internet completely unrestricted is contradictory. Laws by their very nature are restrictive. The laws passed on broadcast TV and radio attest to that.
But assuming it would be possible to pass such a law, it will never happen because any such law would by its very nature violate the rights of the service provider. Can you imagine passing a law which says I can broadcast anything I want over Comcast's cable infrastructure? It would never happen. Because they own the infrastructure, they have a right to decide what goes over it.
Likewise, if they refuse to carry a show I want to see I have a right as a consumer to go with a different carrier.
Bottom line is, if they own the wire, they have a right to set rules on how it may be used. If you don't like the rules they set, go with a different provider. That's what I did.
You do realize that it costs money to create and market an album, right? It also costs money to put a concert together. You can't loose money on both or there's no show anymore. So if nobody's buying albums and concerts are still selling out then ticket prices are going to go up until such a point where they find the highest price while still selling exactly the number of seats available.
News stories don't just materialize out of thin air; someone HAS to pay for the reporter's salaries, the news van, etc. If the stories are paid for by advertisers (big business) and government subsidies, what quality of investigative journalism do you think you're going to get?
Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions. Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we're getting exactly what THEY pay for.
Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then.
I use Mac's exclusively for the same reason. While the initial investment is higher, I have saved more than I could ever calculate by having a machine that simply works every time I turn it on. I wish everything in the world were as reliable as my Mac.
I'm a musician, BTW. A songwriter. Most of the songwriters and musicians I know prefer Macs for the same reason.
For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party. Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party? I assure you, he would not. Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.
As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true. While the percentage is certainly lower, 40% of a million dollars is far greater than %80 of $100,000.
As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard. If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc... when do you have time to make music? Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion. I may have totally missed your point here though.
I still remember the day I wrote the web proxy rule that cut me off from several websites I enjoy.
Wow! You gonna be OK?
J/K
Something does need to be done about the fact that illegal distribution is becoming the norm. Someone has to pay for the music to be produced and if the consumer refuses to do so then the only thing available will be corporate sponsored jingles and free music made at home by hobbyists.
The irony of the "free music" push is that it's actually making the big record companies more powerful while at the same time making it harder for the independent artists it claims to support to make a buck.
I was simply agreeing with the statement that big record companies treat artists like cattle. They always have unfortunately. And as long as there's good looking naive kids out there who can sing, they will continue to do so.
So your opinion is based on a ten year old letter from a rich pop star who suffers from clinical depression and heroin addiction?
I did read it BTW I’m not impressed. She rambles aimlessly from one point to another and doesn’t seem to realize she’s contradicting herself. She says that she would be the first person to file a lawsuit against Napster for infringing her Copyright, then she says that illegal distribution is helping her sell more albums... huh?
Not that I’m disagreeing with your point. Lots of artists sign stupid contracts, and I agree that the record companies should be taken to task for offering those contracts. They do in fact take advantage of young artists and their naive dreams. Record companies do in fact often operate as con men.
Slashdot Mirror
They deserve to be recompensed for their work, the same way anyone else does for any more tangible work, and with similar amounts of money for similar amounts of effort,
Than we agree. Thanks, it's good to know I have a friend out there.
Everything else you said was assumption, but I'll let that slide.
By taking it are you intending to permanently deprive the owner?
You are in fact depriving them of just reward for the years of hard work it took to create that art, as well as re-reimbursement for the money they spent to create the recording.
Attempting to disguise your theft with semantics only makes you appear less intelligent.
Furthermore, the fact that you think artists are somehow obligated to give you that enjoyment for free is sickening.
So if you refuse to pay for the creation of that music you enjoy, how much longer do you think there's going to be music to listen to?
The fact that you consider the enjoyment of music to be valueless is simply sad. You are what's wrong with the world today.
Seems like this concept has gotten fuzzy. I hope this simple three step Q and A clears things up for everyone.
1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago?
Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.
2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment?
Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives. It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.
3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing? If so, did you take it without paying?
Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself. Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.
If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.
I hope this clears things up for you:
How to determine if you have stolen something.
1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago?
Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.
2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment?
Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives. It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.
3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing? If so, did you take it without paying?
Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself. Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.
If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.
THANK YOU. I weep for the future of a world where the hard work of creative people is considered valueless.
Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea and that everyone should be forced to stay until they turn 18 simply because of some imagined "emotional trauma" they might suffer has NO BUSINESS TEACHING CHILDREN! Some kids are simply smarter than others and some develop much faster. It would be a crime to hold them back and effectively punish them for being smarter and achieving more.
The only thing you get by holding back intelligent people is a bunch of extremely intelligent anti-social people who are frustrated and don't give a shit. I know first hand.
Sorry, but I did not want the iPad to be overcomplicated and overpriced. The U1 looks like it'll break first week. And good luck getting it fixed. It's not like Lenovo has stores just down the road where I can take their proprietary machines. I'd take an iPad in a heartbeat over this.
Actually, from what I've heard it pays WAY less.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/
Looks like a simple business decision to me.
If that were true and streaming services actually made a profit then the last thing they would do is pull out. It's a simple business decision; if something doesn't turn a profit you stop doing it.
To put it another way; would you invest $100,000 in something that only pays out a few hundred? Lady Gaga did:
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/
You can't run a business like that. Sooner or later they will turn off the lights, your employees will get tired of their pay checks bouncing and your mortgage company will foreclose on you.
So if you consider wanting to make enough to at least pay your bills "greed," color me greedy.
Close, but not exactly. The real problem is that when a song plays on a streaming system it plays to a very limited audience. Usually just one person. Bottom line is, it pays a heck of a lot less.
The simple fact is, record labels are just businesses exactly like any other. They market a product and make enough money off the sale of it to pay their bills. If they were making money off streaming you can be damn sure they would continue with it regardless of who has control.
They're leaving because they aren't making a profit. Simple as that.
Seriously guys, I know you like to think everything in the world is a big horrible conspiracy against you personally but they're just trying to keep their doors open and make sure their employees pay checks don't bounce.
The fact is; they do.
To put it another way, if NBC became a porn network you can bet Comcast would stop carrying their programming. On the other side, if you setup a porn server you can bet they'll disconnect you.
And because they own the wire, they do in fact have a right to do that. As a customer you are paying for the privilege of using their property.
As a customer you also have a right to give your money to someone else who doesn't restrict you. As I said, that's what I do.
If Linux works for you, than you should use it. Whatever gets the music out of your head and into some stored format the fastest is what you should use.
I use a Mac because I can buy a brand new one turn it on and write music immediately. When I'm ready to do a demo I plug in my Firewire interface and open Garageband. It just works. Right out of the box. No tweaking required.
While Linux is fantastic (and I've used it in various forms since 1993) until it reaches that level of user experience I will not employ it as my primary desktop.
I'm sorry, but the whole idea that we should pass laws making the Internet completely unrestricted is contradictory. Laws by their very nature are restrictive. The laws passed on broadcast TV and radio attest to that.
But assuming it would be possible to pass such a law, it will never happen because any such law would by its very nature violate the rights of the service provider. Can you imagine passing a law which says I can broadcast anything I want over Comcast's cable infrastructure? It would never happen. Because they own the infrastructure, they have a right to decide what goes over it.
Likewise, if they refuse to carry a show I want to see I have a right as a consumer to go with a different carrier.
Bottom line is, if they own the wire, they have a right to set rules on how it may be used. If you don't like the rules they set, go with a different provider. That's what I did.
You do realize that it costs money to create and market an album, right? It also costs money to put a concert together. You can't loose money on both or there's no show anymore. So if nobody's buying albums and concerts are still selling out then ticket prices are going to go up until such a point where they find the highest price while still selling exactly the number of seats available.
This is high school economics.
News stories don't just materialize out of thin air; someone HAS to pay for the reporter's salaries, the news van, etc. If the stories are paid for by advertisers (big business) and government subsidies, what quality of investigative journalism do you think you're going to get?
Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions. Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we're getting exactly what THEY pay for.
Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then.
Fair enough. Guess it's been about 10 years since I bought a ticket to a show. I really didn't realize they were charging that much these days.
Nice to know the pirates have made music more accessible by driving up concert ticket prices.
Listening to music just entices them to spend $200 a ticket to see the live performance on stage.
Holy shit! Do the bands you go see shoot gold confetti out over the audience or something?
I can't think of a single person I know who has $200 to spend on a concert ticket.
I use Mac's exclusively for the same reason. While the initial investment is higher, I have saved more than I could ever calculate by having a machine that simply works every time I turn it on. I wish everything in the world were as reliable as my Mac.
I'm a musician, BTW. A songwriter. Most of the songwriters and musicians I know prefer Macs for the same reason.
For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party. Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party? I assure you, he would not. Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.
As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true. While the percentage is certainly lower, 40% of a million dollars is far greater than %80 of $100,000.
As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard. If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc ... when do you have time to make music? Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion. I may have totally missed your point here though.
I still remember the day I wrote the web proxy rule that cut me off from several websites I enjoy.
Wow! You gonna be OK?
J/K
Something does need to be done about the fact that illegal distribution is becoming the norm. Someone has to pay for the music to be produced and if the consumer refuses to do so then the only thing available will be corporate sponsored jingles and free music made at home by hobbyists.
The irony of the "free music" push is that it's actually making the big record companies more powerful while at the same time making it harder for the independent artists it claims to support to make a buck.
I was simply agreeing with the statement that big record companies treat artists like cattle. They always have unfortunately. And as long as there's good looking naive kids out there who can sing, they will continue to do so.
So your opinion is based on a ten year old letter from a rich pop star who suffers from clinical depression and heroin addiction?
I did read it BTW I’m not impressed. She rambles aimlessly from one point to another and doesn’t seem to realize she’s contradicting herself. She says that she would be the first person to file a lawsuit against Napster for infringing her Copyright, then she says that illegal distribution is helping her sell more albums ... huh?
Not that I’m disagreeing with your point. Lots of artists sign stupid contracts, and I agree that the record companies should be taken to task for offering those contracts. They do in fact take advantage of young artists and their naive dreams. Record companies do in fact often operate as con men.
So I agree with your fundamental point but
One word. Monsanto.
Who would know better than Pat? He's been hand in hand with the forked one for years!
I can't believe people still follow this mentally ill old man!