"Please put paragraph breaks in. Makes it easier to follow what you are trying to say..."
Sorry. First time i've posted. Wasn't familiar with how/. handles it.
"I do go to concerts. I spend about $1000 per year on: concerts, musical theatre, movies, and sports. That is more than I pay to maids (4 visits per year, $100 per visit)."
That's great. Really, no sarcasm implied. I spend about the same. But when you pay to see a performance, you're entering a contract wherein you're paying to hear that specific performance, and nothing else. Paying for one hot dog doesn't justify swiping three more dogs when the vendor isn't looking.
"When I do something, I don't get paid after it is finished. Doesn't matter how many people use it. Yes, you my have my code in your computer RIGHT NOW."
Do I? Where? Just curious. I'm on a mac, so if so, that's very cool. Always glad to meet people who write for mac.
"But I don't get royalties. And that's ok with me... Now, the musicians do get royalties. I would think that 1 cent over a million uses is still 100,000 dollars. More than I make, anyway. And for this, do nothing."
You don't get paid royalties because you don't stipulate so in your contracts. Artists do. Now, you can agree to not support this system, by not using their product. The creator of a product has the right to stipulate how and where he gets paid for it. You as a consumer have the right not to buy that product if you don't like the method of payment or billing. What right you don't have is to take the product without agreeing to the sellers terms. That, is theft. Simple, really. You want the business model to be different? Cool. Just don't use the product until the seller is willing to change the model.
I don't think so. 100 years ago the only way to hear an artist was to be there. Or listen to someone else play the music. Works *were* commissioned. Certainly, no one made money on selling recordings -- there weren't any.
Sort of. Further back, successful musicians were supported by patrons, who housed and clothed and fed them. Which is what we do know, just not directly.
I don't mind people making money selling recordings... just get it into line with costs and reasonable profit. Or I won't buy. $1 per song is FAR too much. Given that 10 cents a song pays for royalties, encoding, distribution *and* profit."
"If you insist on pricing electronic recordings at $1 a song, and CDs at $15, I won't buy. [Note - WalMart - usually not known for generosity - sells some DVD movies at $4.88 CDN]."
Once again, that's fine. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either.
Look, my ire isn't directed at you personally. It's just that nearly every time this subject comes up, you hear the same tired arguments. And it really is a simple concept. If you don't want to pay a dollar a song, or ten bucks a cd, then don't use the product. Eventually the recording companies will be forced to make things more palatable so that you will buy the product. Or they'll go out of business and a new model will emerge. It's kinda the basis for our entire economy.
But taking the product against the creators express wishes is theft. Period. And if you do that, (and i'm not saying that you personally do this), but if you do, you're a thief.
Personally, I'm more than a bit tired of hearing people justify it otherwise. But hey, that's just me.
" We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site. We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights. While we suspect the recorded music industry would like to earn more from their music, we're in no position to judge the arrangements they might have made with Russia."
TANSTAAFL.
No moral objection to using the site? Then why in the article does it seem like you're doing acrobatic backflips to justify this? 6.8 cents per song? What ever happened to a fair day's wage for a hard day's work? And don't think that many of these musicians who are getting screwed by this deal don't work hard.
I am continually appalled at both the apparent conception that musicians (really) don't deserve to get paid as well as the idea itself that music ought to be free. Why? Why shouldn't these artists get paid for the time and effort? We pay bankers to handle our money, cooks to make our dinner, maids to clean our houses, but we can't pay artists who actually make our lives enjoyable? And every argument i've seen supporting cheap or free (read illegal) downloading of mp3s hides a desperate search for moral justification of outright theft. If you like an artist, and listen to his work, then you have a moral and artistic obligation to support their efforts. Period. This system of patronage extends back for countless millennia and is the basis for nearly every great masterpiece. If you don't think the music you're downloading is worth paying for, then why are you listtening to it? Or is it something more insidious? Have we finally become a race so selfish and cheap that we actually believe there might be such a thing as a free lunch? That somehow, we're privileged enough not to have to pay for what we use in this life?
No one wants to pay for anything anymore. And it's making the lives of those who make the stuff we use unbearable.
It's just a matter of time before somebody pays for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Please put paragraph breaks in. Makes it easier to follow what you are trying to say..."
Sorry. First time i've posted. Wasn't familiar with how
"I do go to concerts. I spend about $1000 per year on: concerts, musical theatre, movies, and sports. That is more than I pay to maids (4 visits per year, $100 per visit)."
That's great. Really, no sarcasm implied. I spend about the same. But when you pay to see a performance, you're entering a contract wherein you're paying to hear that specific performance, and nothing else. Paying for one hot dog doesn't justify swiping three more dogs when the vendor isn't looking.
"When I do something, I don't get paid after it is finished. Doesn't matter how many people use it. Yes, you my have my code in your computer RIGHT NOW."
Do I? Where? Just curious. I'm on a mac, so if so, that's very cool. Always glad to meet people who write for mac.
"But I don't get royalties. And that's ok with me... Now, the musicians do get royalties. I would think that 1 cent over a million uses is still 100,000 dollars. More than I make, anyway. And for this, do nothing."
You don't get paid royalties because you don't stipulate so in your contracts. Artists do. Now, you can agree to not support this system, by not using their product. The creator of a product has the right to stipulate how and where he gets paid for it. You as a consumer have the right not to buy that product if you don't like the method of payment or billing. What right you don't have is to take the product without agreeing to the sellers terms. That, is theft. Simple, really. You want the business model to be different? Cool. Just don't use the product until the seller is willing to change the model.
I don't think so. 100 years ago the only way to hear an artist was to be there. Or listen to someone else play the music. Works *were* commissioned. Certainly, no one made money on selling recordings -- there weren't any.
Sort of. Further back, successful musicians were supported by patrons, who housed and clothed and fed them. Which is what we do know, just not directly.
I don't mind people making money selling recordings... just get it into line with costs and reasonable profit. Or I won't buy. $1 per song is FAR too much. Given that 10 cents a song pays for royalties, encoding, distribution *and* profit."
"If you insist on pricing electronic recordings at $1 a song, and CDs at $15, I won't buy. [Note - WalMart - usually not known for generosity - sells some DVD movies at $4.88 CDN]."
Once again, that's fine. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either.
Look, my ire isn't directed at you personally. It's just that nearly every time this subject comes up, you hear the same tired arguments. And it really is a simple concept. If you don't want to pay a dollar a song, or ten bucks a cd, then don't use the product. Eventually the recording companies will be forced to make things more palatable so that you will buy the product. Or they'll go out of business and a new model will emerge. It's kinda the basis for our entire economy.
But taking the product against the creators express wishes is theft. Period. And if you do that, (and i'm not saying that you personally do this), but if you do, you're a thief.
Personally, I'm more than a bit tired of hearing people justify it otherwise. But hey, that's just me.
" We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site. We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights. While we suspect the recorded music industry would like to earn more from their music, we're in no position to judge the arrangements they might have made with Russia." TANSTAAFL. No moral objection to using the site? Then why in the article does it seem like you're doing acrobatic backflips to justify this? 6.8 cents per song? What ever happened to a fair day's wage for a hard day's work? And don't think that many of these musicians who are getting screwed by this deal don't work hard. I am continually appalled at both the apparent conception that musicians (really) don't deserve to get paid as well as the idea itself that music ought to be free. Why? Why shouldn't these artists get paid for the time and effort? We pay bankers to handle our money, cooks to make our dinner, maids to clean our houses, but we can't pay artists who actually make our lives enjoyable? And every argument i've seen supporting cheap or free (read illegal) downloading of mp3s hides a desperate search for moral justification of outright theft. If you like an artist, and listen to his work, then you have a moral and artistic obligation to support their efforts. Period. This system of patronage extends back for countless millennia and is the basis for nearly every great masterpiece. If you don't think the music you're downloading is worth paying for, then why are you listtening to it? Or is it something more insidious? Have we finally become a race so selfish and cheap that we actually believe there might be such a thing as a free lunch? That somehow, we're privileged enough not to have to pay for what we use in this life? No one wants to pay for anything anymore. And it's making the lives of those who make the stuff we use unbearable. It's just a matter of time before somebody pays for it.