How Much of Your Music do You Buy?

Fraggle Rocker

07-08-03, 08:01 PM

I buy all of it. Out of about 2,000 CD and vinyl albums about three of them are bootleg. However, I haunt the used record stores and probably more than half of our stuff was purchased there. The record companies launched a campaign against that about five years ago, until downloading became a bigger problem.

I would suggest that you young people don't lose a lot of sleep over it. When you're not making good money it's hard to shell out sixteen bucks for a CD, or even twelve at Costco. When you're older and you have a good job and you don't have nearly as many hours to spend on recreational web-surfing, you'll be buying your music like I am.

But I have to address the argument that you're taking money out of the pockets of the artists you like. That is an uncomfortable, hypocritical position to be in. You should understand that out of the retail price of a CD, the performer gets maybe one dollar and all the songwriters represented get maybe one dollar to split between them. Another dollar or two goes for production costs: the engineers, the gofers, the office staff, the people who set up the studios and bring the donuts, that's all they get. The rest of the money is split between the record company corporate execs and my all-time favorite class of parasites: the advertising industry. The former perform a service but they are vastly overpaid for it. The latter should be taken out and shot.

I wish they would set up some kind of an escrow fund with a registry so that every time we download a song, or buy somebody else's discarded CD, we can send in a quarter and have it go to the artists and songwriters. Who would object to that? 25 cents per song. Wouldn't that be nice.

Ghassan Kanafani

07-08-03, 08:13 PM

Hey ZERO

Yes it is ripping off the aritists yes it is stealing from them , so ?

Im soooooooooooooo happy to see that peoples like you are paying up for your stupidity , they should charge you even more then they do . 100$ for a single PAY PAY PAY goddamn BAITA thats your job you capitalist slut .

In the meanwhile let us laugh at the rest of your pussy-consuming friends who pay up for their stupidity as well . Good thing artist get robbed in any way possible .

Music=FREE . Nothing those greedy idiots can do about it . We have Kazaa for singles we have Mirc for albums , we have FTP & FXP , we have Release-groups & Carrier-groups .

Hey , if morality doesnt stop you , what will ?
:D

And nobody's gonna stop making it because pussy-consumers like BAITA YARICHIN pay up for damages . I like to thank all peoples for buying cd's , thanks to you I can have it for free . Yea

I could afford every album I own , I just dont wanna give them any money for their services .

http://www.cards4asia.com/images/standardImage/laugh.gif

poll is silly , owning isnt the same as paying for it .

:rolleyes:

PS : Obviously this rhetoric goes for those who object me ripping off those socalled artists , if you have no objections yet buy cd's for whatever reasons thats fine with me as it keeps mine free .

Thank you

If I would becoming old and lazy (what I am ?) Id pay kids I know from the neighbourhood to DL my albums rather . See thats a good deed already creating income . LOL

testify

07-08-03, 08:27 PM

Let's take a look at what would happen if "Music=FREE":

1. Music production companies go out of business
2. Artists can't afford to keep a management - management is fired
3. Artists can't afford to maintain their equipment - artists sound like shit ALLL the time
4. Artists can't afford to go into a studio to record an album - no more albums
5. Artists can't afford to live - every musician becomes a drunk homeless slob
6. You get pissed off because there is no more music to download

Ghassan Kanafani - Doesn't sound like a good thing goes it?

I like to thank all peoples for buying cd's , thanks to you I can have it for free . YeaShall you suffer and burn in hell for eternity and die a horrifying death.

Ghassan Kanafani

07-08-03, 08:42 PM

Testify

It seems you're one of them consumers arent you ? Just be fair about it and say yes I buy , you do seem to care that in fact you are buying for me !

Let me thank you again for that , and it seemed you didnt get that point rightaway with your music=free unfolding of horrific effects . You see its just free for us who are not willing to pay for it , for those who wanna pay prices should be trippled !!!

Seems like you're dying to pay up , and thats very good .

But let us check the effects :
1)music production companies are a rip off and nobody needs them . Today artists can do everything themselves .
2)artist shouldnt have management in the first place
3)artist dont sound like shit all the time , well maybe the ones you know do .
4)yes they can afford to record an album as its not that expensive .
5)they are already drunk slobs , and there is good care and facilities that prevent one for becoming homeless . PS he can also get a job . Oh I forgot he's probably so stupid he just dies when there's no money coming in for a month .
6)Id buy then

Sounds like a great thing then . But you already new that as you actually curse me into hell LMAO
Shall you suffer and burn in hell for eternity and die a horrifying death.

http://intersaint.org/acid/_G_Laugh.gif

testify

07-08-03, 09:38 PM

1)music production companies are a rip off and nobody needs them . Today artists can do everything themselves .

Artists are going to represent themselves when it comes to public appearances, mixing their albums and tendng to their own luxuries? HAHAHAHAHA. I would love to see any big musician take care of his/her whole schedule for one week. Even if they could do it, they sure as hell wouldn't have time to make music.

3)artist dont sound like shit all the time , well maybe the ones you know do .
4)yes they can afford to record an album as its not that expensive .

My point was that artists don't sound like shit because they have money to buy/maintain their equipment. Can you guess what kind of crap musicians would play on if they didn't have any money. Pots/pans would replace drums, ukulele's would replace guitars and who knows what other kind of crap would be used in place of the EXPENSIVE stuff that todays artists require to put on a show. Yeah, and that comment you made in #3 kind of sounded like a burn to the music that I listen to. For all you know it's the same music you listen to. So just watch what you say.

Ok, it's cheap to record an album but it's certainly not cheap to get it out to the fans. Imagine a disgruntled musician, not getting paid for their work. Do you think they would want to do tours? Do you think they'd want to do special appearances? Do you honestly believe that they would want to make music?

I pay for my music because I choose to support the bands that I enjoy listening to. I realize that it's not only their job but their LIFE as well. If my $14 or $15 will keep them wanting to make music, then it's worth it

5)they are already drunk slobs , and there is good care and facilities that prevent one for becoming homeless . PS he can also get a job . Oh I forgot he's probably so stupid he just dies when there's no money coming in for a month .

I can't say for sure, I don't know how many musicians have a post-secondary education, but a lot of them don't even bother getting one because they love making music so much. They can't see themselves doing anything else. So...we'd have a crapload of dead musicians, with no music. All because someone figured all music should be free.

The reason I was cursing you to eternal damnation was because you are the kind of person that ruins it for the reast of us. You are the kind of person that sits at home, leeches off of everyone else and doesn't do a damn thing. Actually, I hope you continue to live your life like that, because I don't know how you could possibly be satisfied with yourself living your life like that.

testify

07-08-03, 09:46 PM

I do not think that music should be free, but I do think that it could be cheaper. I buy almost all of my music. I know that I am handing over so much of my money to those music industry execs, but at the same time I know that the artists that get that single $1 can support their families and themselves. If they can buy a big house and fast cars THAT'S GREAT because they deserve it! Their skill, hard work, and dedication to the fans, all compiled into one album, is what I get back after paying my $15. That's money well worth it. I feel good when I know that I am supporting an artist for their hard work. If I come across an album (by downloading) that I don't like, I won't buy it. If I do like it, and I feel that the band/person deserves my $15 I'll go out and buy the album. It's as simple as that.

spookz

07-08-03, 09:55 PM

i wish porf, our great "liberator of culture" would come and tell you guys off!

;)

Ghassan Kanafani

07-08-03, 10:12 PM

Artists are going to represent themselves when it comes to public appearances

What public appearances are there where they cant represent themselves ? They're no damn government they're just some peoples making music why do they need peoples representing them like that ?

mixing their albums

Yes they mix albums themselves or have a friend do it who knows the deal have you ever experienced or read about how that stuff goes ? Or do you think everybody has their own studio & mixing crew ?

tendng to their own luxuries?

Most bands have little luxury to begin with

would love to see any big musician take care of his/her whole schedule for one week

And wouldnt they ? Because they are lazy sons of bitches for having somuch money , I dont care if they dont feel like doing trouble for what they love , obviously they dont love it enough , so screw them .

Music doesnt end if nor begins with them

Even if they could do it, they sure as hell wouldn't have time to make music.

Well obviously they do as there are plenty bands who do absolutely everything themselves , some even sell self-burned cd's .

My point was that artists don't sound like shit because they have money to buy/maintain their equipment. Can you guess what kind of crap musicians would play on if they didn't have any money. Pots/pans would replace drums, ukulele's would replace guitars and who knows what other kind of crap would be used in place of the EXPENSIVE stuff that todays artists require to put on a show.

What are you talking about man bands dont usually starve in Africa there is enough cash to get some equipment get a damn job . Pots & pans ? How crazy are you ? Do you think you need to be a millionaire to buy some damn drums and a guitar ? By your logic all those thousands of bands that worked harded to pay for their drumsticks dont even exist , well guess what they do .

Yeah, and that comment you made in #3 kind of sounded like a burn to the music that I listen to. For all you know it's the same music you listen to. So just watch what you say.

Like I care , I obviously burn down the artists I listen to as well since I call them greedy & lazy .

Ok, it's cheap to record an album but it's certainly not cheap to get it out to the fans.

Can I send you my album or not ? Can you pay for it or not ? Are you aware of all the possibilities we have these days ? It may not be cheap , but it surely can be done all by themselves for much cheaper than is done today buy billion-dollar industries .

Imagine a disgruntled musician, not getting paid for their work.

I dont need to imagine them I know a few

Do you think they would want to do tours?

They cant wait

Do you think they'd want to do special appearances?

What special appearences ? They need to make music not have a chat on tv for commercial-money

Do you honestly believe that they would want to make music?

If they dont wanna make music for the love of making music they obviously shouldnt have started to begin with as in my view it would be a very bad business . Yes those who love to would still make music .

I pay for my music because I choose to support the bands that I enjoy listening to.

You pay everybody you support ? Yea thats the way to support something nowadays ........ pay for it . LOL

I realize that it's not only their job but their LIFE as well. If my $14 or $15 will keep them wanting to make music, then it's worth it

The thing is its not their job at all in the first place but their lives , and they're lives is worth more than a lousy buck you give them for it to become just a job

Thats all it is today , hell no I wouldnt wanna work for free either , but an artist WOULD make music for free if he's for real . Obviously the ones you speak of wouldnt be .

I can't say for sure, I don't know how many musicians have a post-secondary education, but a lot of them don't even bother getting one because they love making music so much.

They love making music for not getting an education but they dont when they have to work for their love ? Yeah ...... thats perfectly clear .

They can't see themselves doing anything else. So...we'd have a crapload of dead musicians, with no music. All because someone figured all music should be free.

Obviously not since today there are peoples who make music for practically nothing simply because they aint got a deal , they're not dead and still playing .

The reason I was cursing you to eternal damnation was because you are the kind of person that ruins it for the reast of us.

Yes I am and I love doing it , can you believe that shit ?

You are the kind of person that sits at home, leeches off of everyone else and doesn't do a damn thing

I leech only those who I dont want having things . You wont find them in my home .

Actually, I hope you continue to live your life like that, because I don't know how you could possibly be satisfied with yourself living your life like that.

Thats the funniest thing Ive heard all week , but then your hopes are the same as mine with the difference that I do know how to be satisified .

I come across an album (by downloading) that I don't like, I won't buy it.

What gives you the right of downloading & listening to their music before you buy it as they ask of you ? What makes you think that you can that , its THEIRS isnt it ?

testify

07-09-03, 12:55 AM

Before I go on my next rant I would like to point out that I am refering to bands that enjoy making there music and have NEVER shown that they make music purely for the money. These bands include: Deftones, Incubus, Rage Against the Machine, Tool, Our Lady Peace, The Chemical Brothers, Gob, Pennywise, Cypress Hill, The Tea Party, Sevendust, Weezer, The Goo Goo Dolls, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys, etc. etc.

Yes they mix albums themselves or have a friend do it who knows the deal have you ever experienced or read about how that stuff goes ? Or do you think everybody has their own studio & mixing crew ? They participate in the mixing. It COSTS money to get someone to mix an album to help the band get it to sound the way they want it. This is NOT FREE.

Most bands have little luxury to begin with True, some of the above bands I mentioned choose not to live their lives with the richies, but that doesn't mean they don't have the money to spend.

And wouldnt they ? Because they are lazy sons of bitches for having somuch money , I dont care if they dont feel like doing trouble for what they love , obviously they dont love it enough , so screw them . Being a musician (at least for the above bands) is a FULL TIME JOB. They do not have the time to manage their own schedule ie. book plane tickets, book hotel rooms, schedule a concert. They are not lazy, they are just busy MAKING MUSIC. In your last post you said that music artists had very little luxury, but you also said that they are "lazy sons of bitches". Do they not go hand in hand?

Well obviously they do as there are plenty bands who do absolutely everything themselves , some even sell self-burned cd's . These bands you are talking about obviously have such as small fan base that they don't ever actually leave the garage.

It looks like you were refering to small time bands. I was talking about BIG TIME bands that live music, breath music and shit music. They don't have time for a second job. They focus on ONE THING...music.

Are you aware of all the possibilities we have these days ? It may not be cheap , but it surely can be done all by themselves for much cheaper than is done today buy billion-dollar industries . Please don't start contradicting yourself. First you say music should be free, next you say it's not cheap.

and time to quote myself:Do you think they would want to do tours? I think I was temporarily on crack when I typed that. Sorry 'bout that one. :rolleyes:

You pay everybody you support ? That's how you support someone when they are giving you a product. You exchange currency for that product. Sure I can yell "Woooo! Deftones rule!" in the silence of my basement, but I would rather have them know that they have my support. Sure I could send them an email (or even a letter *shudder*) but when I tell them that they should start giving away their albums they would probably tell me to shove it up my anus.

Visualize a band starting out for the first time. They put out 10 songs on the internet to download for free. They are SO DAMN POPULAR. But oh! Something's wrong! They are BROKE. So the 5 members of the band go and get two jobs each (they aren't very educated so they have to work at both 7-11 and McDonalds). Next thing you know they put out a new song probably once every year because they have to make time for everything else. Two years after their first album they depart because of "creative differences".

Then visualize another band that is starting out for the first time. They get a record contract and make the best music anyone has ever heard. Each member of the band is allowed to focus on the music that they make because they don't have to have a second or third job. So they put out their album and each member of the band makes 5 million dollars. They are happy because they know that the fans enjoy the music that they enjoy to make. They go on a world wide tour and have a great time, focussing on the music and the fans. Their album goes platinum. They put out an album every second year after that for the next 20 years.

What gives you the right of downloading & listening to their music before you buy it as they ask of you ? What makes you think that you can that , its THEIRS isnt it ? You know how you can go into an HMV and ask to listen to an album to see how it sounds? That's what I do, except I do it in the safety of my own home, away from greedy thiefs like you. :D

Ghassan Kanafani

07-09-03, 01:52 AM

bands that enjoy making there music and have NEVER shown that they make music purely for the money. These bands include: Deftones, Incubus, Rage Against the Machine, Tool, Our Lady Peace, The Chemical Brothers, Gob, Pennywise, Cypress Hill, The Tea Party, Sevendust, Weezer, The Goo Goo Dolls, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys

Look I dont want to burst your bubble but these guys are HUGE business . RATM would be an exception as they were quite political . Ofcourse it is NEVER purely for the money not even the Backstreet Boys is purely for the money , but obviously cash is a
huge implication , are they producers or are they a product ? I say most are rather the latter . That doesnt mean they're fabricated , but it means alot of things besides authentic music comes along with it .

Hey I wouldnt do it purely for the money if I was in RHCP , but you can very well believe it that MILLIONS is whats getting off my ass . If you believe this is different with them than you're being very naive .

They participate in the mixing. It COSTS money to get someone to mix an album to help the band get it to sound the way they want it. This is NOT FREE.

It can be free , but in general is it not expensive , what would be the cost ? At best u pay rent for the studio , at worst you mix it at home with your PC . You can afford nice mixing for very little .

Thing is its gonna cost Cypress Hill alot more because they simply dont give a fuck about some extra bucks , they dont want some shitty studio they want best of the best at any price . Hey you dont need a Les Paul to play a guitar either .

True, some of the above bands I mentioned choose not to live their lives with the richies, but that doesn't mean they don't have the money to spend.

Most of the bands you mentioned are severely loaded and have very nice villa's & everything .

Being a musician (at least for the above bands) is a FULL TIME JOB

And thats how it should be payed . Instead its a product thats for sale for sick prices to make amazing profits .

They do not have the time to manage their own schedule ie. book plane tickets, book hotel rooms, schedule a concert. They are not lazy, they are just busy MAKING MUSIC.

Making music=NOT book plane tockets/hotel/schedule etc

book plane ticket : 5 min
book hotel room : 5 min
schedule a concert : couple of hours

What are you talking about ? Most of the time they sit on their asses having a blast with alcohol and prostitutes .

In your last post you said that music artists had very little luxury, but you also said that they are "lazy sons of bitches". Do they not go hand in hand?

This goes very well hand in hand as the lazy sons of bitches would be those bands you mentioned while artists with no luxury would for instance friends of mine in bands who have day-time jobs . Those are the ones you see playing for 15 peoples in some ugly waste and selling self-burned cd-s for 2$. Those are not Deftones .

These bands you are talking about obviously have such as small fan base that they don't ever actually leave the garage.

It looks like you were refering to small time bands. I was talking about BIG TIME bands that live music, breath music and shit music. They don't have time for a second job. They focus on ONE THING...music.

What does make you think just because they have all this personell and agencies and what not that they breath music , and small-time bands who tour their asses of to make a living and seel some cd or 2 are not breathing music ? They are breething it somuch they practically do it for free , its just not yet the level of street-musician , I say THAT is truly breathing music

Do you think it is the quality that seperates one from the other ?

Those bands have plenty time for a job the thing is they dont ned a job because they are loaded .

Please don't start contradicting yourself. First you say music should be free, next you say it's not cheap.

I consider production-price + salary to live reasonably free enough .

but when I tell them that they should start giving away their albums they would probably tell me to shove it up my anus.

Why should you tell them that ? I dont tell them that , its up to them how they should do things . Thing is Im not gonna pay for it , thats all .

Next thing you know they put out a new song probably once every year because they have to make time for everything else. Two years after their first album they depart because of "creative differences".

Oh no not a band gone :rolleyes:
Anyways creative differences do accur and them not having time is up to them as well , 7-11 doesnt take ALL your time .

Then visualize another band

Im not really getting the point with this one

You know how you can go into an HMV and ask to listen to an album to see how it sounds? That's what I do, except I do it in the safety of my own home, away from greedy thiefs like you.

the except would be obviously a problem as they probably have not authorized such a thing , afterall it IS their music so how good your reason might be , by your logic , wouldnt it be up to them to decide weither you can listen and home or at some store ?

Anyways what made you think I go to those stores ? LOL Im not actually stealing it from there :p

testify

07-09-03, 03:08 AM

Yeah that's a good point, why would you ever go to the store. It is legal though to go listen to music in an HMV and not necesarily buy it.

You're making it very hard for me to respond to some of your statements because, mainly, I just keep laughing at them. FOr instance:

You can afford nice mixing for very little HAHAHAHAHA

AND

What does make you think just because they have all this personell and agencies and what not that they breath music , and small-time bands who tour their asses of to make a living and seel some cd or 2 are not breathing music ? They are breething it somuch they practically do it for free , its just not yet the level of street-musician , I say THAT is truly breathing music HAHAHAHAHA...my main point was that it takes time for big-time musicians to make their music and tour. I wasn't saying that small-time musicians aren't dedicated to their music, instead I was saying that big-time musicians don't have time to go work at 7-11 or any job for that matter.

Making music=NOT book plane tockets/hotel/schedule etc I will take this in the context that you wrote it, not the context that I think you intended. You are RIGHT! Making music has NOTHING to do with booking plane tickets, hotels or scheduling anything. That's why musicians get someone to do it for them.

Those bands have plenty time for a job the thing is they dont ned a job because they are loaded . Wow! I mean WOW! You must think being a big-time musician on tour is so damn easy. I mean, I haven't toured around with a band and actually checked out how it is, but I'm sure it's anything but easy-going.

I consider production-price + salary to live reasonably free enough . Ok, let's see. FREE = $0. [Production-price] + [Funds to Stay Alive] must be less than [Overall Income]. Since [Overall Income] = FREE and FREE = $0. Thus [Production-price] = $0 and [Funds to Stay Alive] = $0. Thus we have a dead musician with no album.

Im not really getting the point with this one You really didn't get the point of that at all. I was trying to show you the differences between a musician who has music as a full time job and a musician who needs to get a second job at 7-11. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't happen all of the time, I was just trying to point out that there ARE 24/7 music artists out there.

Heh. I read your post over again. Don't try and take offense by this question, but curiosity has gotten the better of me: How old are you?

*edit* Actually it's ok if you take offense,I probably would with a question like that. The question still stands though.

Ghassan Kanafani

07-09-03, 04:34 AM

You can laugh but if you would have ANY knoweldge on how to mix & remix for an album to be a of acceptable quality you would know that it can cost very little .

Your point : They need money to mix CD's
My point : Not much

Get it ?

my main point was that it takes time for big-time musicians to make their music and tour. I wasn't saying that small-time musicians aren't dedicated to their music, instead I was saying that big-time musicians don't have time to go work at 7-11 or any job for that matter.

Your idea of not having time to work as being a big-time musician is a real joke and I already responded on it . You obviously have no idea whatsoever of how the musicindustrie works , I am sorry to bring it down to you like that but what you think is that those artist you mentioned are hard-working honest peoples who have no time for anything as they are busy being big-time .

Are you joking me ? Sure there is one or 2 crazy guys who practically live in a studio , others just live on drugs all day .
Oh my you seem to be quite on the delusional wagon on this one .

I will take this in the context that you wrote it, not the context that I think you intended. You are RIGHT! Making music has NOTHING to do with booking plane tickets, hotels or scheduling anything. That's why musicians get someone to do it for them.

No my point was rather that you say they are busy making music all day and then you come up with non-music making things .

Wow! I mean WOW! You must think being a big-time musician on tour is so damn easy. I mean, I haven't toured around with a band and actually checked out how it is, but I'm sure it's anything but easy-going.

Well small bands tour alot for cash while big-timers dont do shit because they are lazy from all their $ . Before you know it they might hire somebody to do the whole damn show as well .

Ok, let's see. FREE = $0. [Production-price] + [Funds to Stay Alive] must be less than [Overall Income]. Since [Overall Income] = FREE and FREE = $0. Thus [Production-price] = $0 and [Funds to Stay Alive] = $0. Thus we have a dead musician with no album.

Ok lets see YOU dont obviously understand that what you quoted: I consider production-price + salary to live reasonably free enough . means that FREE would not be necesarily equal to 0 . Then it seems Im nicer than I looked at first because Id give them 2$ for an album .

I was just trying to point out that there ARE 24/7 music artists out there.

Unfortunatly for your point they werent in any of the bands you mentioned .

Heh. I read your post over again. Don't try and take offense by this question, but curiosity has gotten the better of me: How old are you?
*edit* Actually it's ok if you take offense,I probably would with a question like that. The question still stands though.

LOL who are you kidding Im old enough not to listen to the damn Deftones , please I bet you're a minor....... or there's something really wrong :bugeye:

Anyways what is your point with it ? Can I choose ? I guess its gonna be between intellectual capacities & grammatical writing skills right ? Wel I go for latter because I dont even think you could fool yourself into such a misconception :rolleyes:

(Q)

07-09-03, 01:22 PM

Allahs/Jihad/Ghassan bleats:

Yes it is ripping off the aritists yes it is stealing from them , so ? … Good thing artist get robbed in any way possible … Music=FREE . Nothing those greedy idiots can do about it … I like to thank all peoples for buying cd's , thanks to you I can have it for free . Yea… I just dont wanna give them any money for their services … whatever reasons thats fine with me as it keeps mine free … you do seem to care that in fact you are buying for me… so screw them … Like I care , I obviously burn down the artists I listen to…

Have you ever witnessed a more pathetic example of a low-life parasitic leech?

Can I choose ? I guess its gonna be between intellectual capacities & grammatical writing skills right ? Wel I go for latter because I dont even think you could fool yourself into such a misconception

You mean like this:

No my point was rather that you say they are busy making music all day and then you come up with non-music making things

Oh yeah, you’re the intellectual type. :rolleyes:

You obviously have no idea whatsoever of how the musicindustrie works

I must say, I had a very good chuckle at your attempt to describe the industry.

testify

07-09-03, 02:31 PM

Ok, LOL, HAHA. I know I sometimes don't make a lot of sense with what I say, but I'm sure I make more sense than Ghassan. Sorry dude, (Q) hit it right on the dot. I just can't take someone with so many grammatical errors seriously.

wet1

07-09-03, 06:18 PM

I must confess that I did not write this article. It comes from another site. However it does bring up some interesting points you should read...

Date: July 8, 2003 @ 12:17 PM
Actually, file sharing is legal, according to the Audio Home Recording Act.

From a comment posted on Slashdot:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.ht ml [cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.ht ml [cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993 -01/0018.html [cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.ht ml [cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

That being the case, let them sue us!!! They will LOSE.

Ghassan Kanafani

07-09-03, 06:37 PM

Testify
I just can't take someone with so many grammatical errors seriously

And I cant take some anglo-centric deftone-kiddo that serious , so this would be the end of our discussion . Let me finish with wishing you health so that you can work hard to pay for all those cd's that keep mine free . Shuqran Habibi
:)

Q

Why dont we open a thread especially for you where you can complain about me so that you dont have to follow me around like the stalking 60 year old baboon that you are and making off-topic points .

And now you even take my words out of context and quote them together ? Surely shows how pathetic you are , lol .

a low-life parasitic leech?

If you and barbarian buddies are the ones being sucked dry Im very happy with it .

Oh yeah, you’re the intellectual type

Im definetly not of that type you couldnt be more correct . Good thing Im aware of what you consider intellectual and how that is made your into your stock of intellectualism you call type ...... I rather call it one big pile of vomit .

I must say, I had a very good chuckle at your attempt to describe the industry.

You imagine things to *chuchkle* about ? Oh well at least your improving last time you were imagining things and cried about it . In anyways dont get to active old man we dont want you dead yet . Aber einer diesen tagen ........

Go chuckle on untermensch , and dont forget to pay up .

La revedere prieteni mei dragi , sper ca intro zi o sa ne revedem la dracu in pizda mamei voastre .
:)

spookz

07-09-03, 06:41 PM

actually they plan to nab people if they are redistributing their digital copy thru p2p. riaa will not jail me on mere possession of mp3's on hd.

?

*stRgrL*

07-09-03, 06:46 PM

I'd like to download ALL my music, but the absense of my computer kinda makes it difficult:(

Ghassan Kanafani

07-09-03, 06:50 PM

Wet1

I was only aware that it was legal up untill the point that you own the original recording , at least thats eems to be (I believe) the deal here in EU .

If it indeed it is so that it would be merely limited by non-commerciality , then I do not necesarrily see how private comes in . Private obviously is never possibiliy as you have it through someone else always , it is always a share .

I did know that if you are releasing mix-cd's (or even actual compilations) and not sell them but spread them for free , this is at least accepted in USA . I know companies do this as well , according to the law it would then be illegal but it seems accepted as well .

In any ways is the interaction between legality and actual preventing or punishing capability is simply not a realistic one .
It really doesnt matter weither its legal or not , as in both cased nobody can do much about it . The case against napster for instant was such a farce for the actual file-sharing system . Napster was like fase 15 in the system , hordes of peoples have done thigs on a professional level before it even comes near napster .

And what happened with kazaa , wasn that totally blown off because kazaa uses that "piece from here piece from there" system (whats it claled) or something ? Oh well as long as we have release & carrier groups its all not even remotely relevant what happens with such programs .

Fraggle Rocker

07-09-03, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Wet1If it indeed it is so that it would be merely limited by non-commerciality , then I do not necesarrily see how private comes in . Private obviously is never possibiliy as you have it through someone else always , it is always a share.No, "private" has a very specific and narrow definition in this context. It is the opposite of "public."

If you make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, even a brand new friend that you didn't know two hours ago, it is a private transaction. If your friend plays that duplicated CD at a party that is private, even if there are 200 people there, then it is still private use. The definition of a "private gathering" is not exactly intuitive in the U.S., but essentially it means that people have to be invited because they know somebody who knows somebody who knows the host, or that it is a private organization and only members and their guests are allowed to attend. So if your friend plays the CD at his father's country club dinner where only members and their friends are admitted, it's still private use.

If, on the other hand, your friend plays the CD on the beach, in the park, at the bus stop, in the subway station, in school (a "public" school) or in the mall, those are public places and he is no longer complying with the definition of "private" usage and performance.

Most of the regulations I've seen prohibit only "public performance for profit," so if your friend plays it on the beach but doesn't charge people a dollar to come to his beach party, he's still cool.

As for the rest of this discussion, geeze you guys, how about chilling out a little bit? We live in a civilization and an era in which the dominant philosophy is actually economics. Acquiring, investing, saving, and spending money are things that everyone has to think about practically all the time in order to survive. Musicians and other artists are creatures of their era, and we can't hold that against them. If they weren't they might go off and write operettas and lute music that nobody in this civilization and era would want to listen to.

If you want music with electric guitars and lyrics about nuclear weapons and corporate greed you have to make peace with the rest of the culture that makes those things possible. Life is a package deal.

testify

07-10-03, 12:22 AM

If you want music with electric guitars and lyrics about nuclear weapons and corporate greed you have to make peace with the rest of the culture that makes those things possible. Wow, I feel stoned, but at the same time not really. I know it's not what you're saying, but it is still REALLY funny: In order to have music with corporate greed and nuclear weapons I should make peace with the corporate bastards who make way too much money and the global leaders who threaten each other with nuclear weapons every day.

Hmm, come to think of it there isn't much music that is pro-nuke and pro-war. Well...there probably is, but I havn't heard any. I know for sure there is pro-greed music EVERYWHERE. Oh well. My stoned moment is done. hehehe :p

Ghassan Kanafani

07-10-03, 12:25 AM

Fraggle Rocker

Your post has made a difference in my perspective dealing with the private/public matter .

I was aware of that understanding of private/public , but obviously I failed to put it in the actual context of this situation .

Very stupid of me really .....

Thanks ;)

We live in a civilization and an era in which the dominant philosophy is actually economics

Do you not think that within the logic of my argument that entire aspect of economic philosophy to be running everything would be considered a problem ? So I mean beyond the music-industry ?

I agree with you I cant hold it against them from your surviving point of view , replace them with any other and 99/100 would do the same . The thing however is this entire era you speak off , and when there are artists as you speak that deal with political issues I really think that they should set the tone within their own surroundings first , and they really fail to do that .

I understand your position that they need to cooporate to make themselves heard , but oftenly as the cash grows so does the drive and little political comes out .

If they would actually use their earnings to do political things my opinion on the matter totally changes . Then I know my buck goes to a cause I support not one I despise .

testify

07-10-03, 12:46 AM

hmm. So if the money from a record goes towards a cause that you support you will happily pay for music?

Ghassan Kanafani

07-10-03, 01:03 AM

Ofcourse

I might even buy if their music would suck .

Whats your point ? Did you think I might have some principle for not paying for music by definition ? You see the person and his product do not have to relate to each other other than one is creator and other is whats created . Its all about the person if I wanna pay , its all about the music if I wanna listen .

testify

07-10-03, 01:49 AM

I think working at a job is a worthwhile cause, do you not?

Ghassan Kanafani

07-10-03, 03:11 AM

Why would that have to be so ?

Zero

07-10-03, 11:47 AM

GK, go suck some mother cock. Or wait, do you have enough intelligence to tell which way is "up" on a cock?

How the fuck would artists make enough money to make their job worth it? How the fuck would they distribute it?

If there were a way for artists to make money, and distribute their CD's without the record labels, I would support that way.

Now GK, suggest a good solution. Or go lick your mother.

airavata

07-10-03, 01:04 PM

Zero, if you've got a problem with GK discuss it with him. Any ignorant jerkoff can say what you're saying. :rolleyes:

Closet Philosopher

07-10-03, 03:10 PM

The bands mentioned earlier have no shortage whatsoever of money. They probably do party too much, and own vilas. When most of those bands started out, they needed record sales to keep them going until they got BIG.

I was watching an interview done with the band Tool, where they talked about music online, ans topics like that. At some point, they mentioned that it takes sales of about 500 000 records for a band to break even. They have to pay for touring, recording, mixing... and all the other stuff they need to be a band. They also said their their music is not yours to give. I think they deserve every penny of what they earn, even if a large chunk of it goes towards vilas, and parties.

I think that music should be a little less expensive, but you forgot to mention one thing about where the $ from an album goes. A lot goes to the store itself that sold the album, also a few dolars goes to the musucians pockets, and promotion. Ahh yes... the vast land of music, art that should not be given for free.

testify

07-10-03, 09:31 PM

Zero

07-10-03, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by airavata
Zero, if you've got a problem with GK discuss it with him. Any ignorant jerkoff can say what you're saying. :rolleyes:

I encourage those who would hurt record labels with all my heart. I despise those who would hurt artists in their path for free music. The latter has higher priority, I must say.

testify

07-11-03, 12:47 AM

I encourage those who would hurt record labels with all my heart. I despise those who would hurt artists in their path for free music. The latter has higher priority, I must say. I couldn't agree more.

Eyemarten

07-20-03, 01:17 PM

As a musician, I would rather that more people trade music. File sharing provides an outlet for local and indie music, that previously only existed in tiny circles, to be heard by a much larger worldwide audience. All of the music that I have been a part of has been paid for through gigging. Live shows pay for quite a bit more than you might think.
Most musicians see little to no $$ from the RIAA, etc.
Most money is made through touring and merchandising.
Go out and support your bands(live shows & CD's at shows), buy used CD's if you must, but stop supporting the RIAA and Labels which benefit from their greed.
Bands like Metallica who paved the way for the lawsuits have only succeded in causing their fanbase to dwindle. I for one will not ever buy, or for that matter download, another Metallica song. This is not to say that I DL'd any Metallica songs, but to say that even if it were free I would not be interested. I suspect that I'll never hear the new album by them....and you know what? It does not keep me up at nights. There are plenty of other artists who are out there, some who (gasp) sympathize with their fanbase.
Without labels and the RIAA, what would we have? A system in which musicians stand on their merit/ability and not on the promotional blitz, negotiation skills of their managers, the whim of the record companies and MTV.
Without the RIAA and the Major Labels, we would have no Brittany Spears, Avril Lav...?, Backstreet Boys, etc.... Throwaway pop music would cease to exist as the masses stopped being spoonfed crap.

GuitarToadster

07-21-03, 02:33 AM

I buy all of my music.

I am also a musician.

I feel that those who argue that p2p MP3 sharing should be illegal don't REALLY know much about the music industry or how much a band makes from CD sales.

A band with a generous contract might score $0.60 per CD but the record industry does not count all the CD sales (only about 85% or 85 of every 100 CDs) and THE BAND pays for studio charges.

Once the producer and band manager and the reserves are subtracted from the totals... A band could make $311,000 off of 500,000 CD sales. The label will rake in $3.50+ Million from those same sales. Then divide that $311,000 between each of the band members and you might have a good amount of cash (depending on the number of band members).

Touring and merchandising is where the musicians make their REAL money.

Not many people talk about THE FACT that MP3s are compressed versions of the original file. So, during compression you lose MUCH quality. Consider this...

A high quality MP3 = 328 kb/s
A wav file (CD original) = 1,411 kb/s

Big difference, go listen on a good stereo system, not your junky MP3 player.

So, in my opinion an MP3 is, by far, no substitute for a CD.

Musicians should be happy that their files are being swapped online, it may mean more CD sales. Unless, of course, they sell garbage albums... Pop Music anyone?

YoungWriter

07-21-03, 06:46 PM

schedule a concert : couple of hours

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*catches breath*

Wow....that's one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

I'm not going to pick your posts apart. Apparently, others are doing that for me. But this I gotta go into:

I actually am involved in the local music community in my hometown of Indianapolis. You can find my articles at Indianapolis Music Net (http://www.indianapolismusic.net) under Matt "YoungWriter" Stone and Matt Stone.

I've interviewed and talked to many bands and band members. Keep in mind, these are local places, like bars and all ages venues such as The Emerson (http://www.emersontheater.com). Scheduling a concert does not take "a couple of hours." Just off the top of my head, the band needs to (assuming they are the headliner):

1. Make a date and double check it with the venue and sponsor (if there is a sponsor).
I suppose this shouldn't take too long, but if you're on a lenghty tour with other artists, you have to also
a. Make sure it's okay with the other artists
b. Make sure another band/show isn't playing that same night.
c. Possibly combine the shows.
2. Ticket prices. Many venues have a standard ticket price, but your gig might call for a higher or lower price
3. Estimate the amount of people to show up
4. Oh yeah, convince the venue and the promoter you're good enough to play (sending in demos, meeting them, promo packets, etc...)

Along with planning a concert, you need to discuss stage set up. For local bands, most have very little stage setup because it takes enough time getting every band's equipment on and off the stage.

I could go on, but I won't.