Do you still use CDs?

[Bmore-coupe]

Better than most of what is out there right now, I actually enjoyed that track (and looked up a couple more from the album) but I probably wont buy it. I'm obviously not saying that there is NO new music worth buying, there are still talented musicians around, but it has been a while since I have found an ENTIRE album worth buying (Except I just re bought an old Faith No More album that had gotten scratched over the years, but that doesn't count as new music, they just f*** rock) . I remember eagerly anticipating new albums coming out, and would be at Best Buy on the day that they were released. I can't remember the last time that I did that.

[themadscientist]

I've been feeling old lately and wallowing in classic 80's stuff, quite pathetic really; it's 2012 whether I like or not.

[sndtgr08]

I just re bought an old Faith No More album that had gotten scratched

=

Please check out the link before I delete it.

<removed>

Now, go return that 1.3oz. piece of plastic you paid $15 for...twice....

[Towncivilian]

NO LINKS to warez!!

[zacmil]

I just re bought an old Faith No More album that had gotten scratched

=

Please check out the link before I delete it.

<removed>

Now, go return that 1.3oz. piece of plastic you paid $15 for...twice....

I'm assuming that was a link to a torrent or something to that effect? If so, that's just not cool. I may not always like the industry (honest, I generally hate any sort of giant, soulless corporate monstrosity), but it is, generally, a necessary evil. If the record company is making more money, then they're more likely to take a risk on an unknown group/artist. While the internet has definitely facilitated the success of independent artists, you can't argue that the resources of a significantly large record label doesn't help. Additionally, you are taking money from the artist. I know the whole argument that only a small portion of the profit goes to the artist, but the fact is that it is still some money. If the artist in question is somewhat popular, then this could come out to a significant sum of money.

If nothing else, stealing is stealing. Would you go out and just snatch a car off the lot because the manufacturer has too much money or the car is just too overpriced? I don't think so. Why should an album be any different? Personally, I feel like the internet has desensitized us, as a society, to crime. Many people have no qualms about pirating an album, but they would never take one off of a store shelf and attempt to walk out the front door. It is, however, essentially the same crime. It's a real shame.

Of course, if you're link was to something completely legal, then I offer my most sincere apologies for my unwarranted accusation and subsequent lecture.

[sndtgr08]

Sorry to any who took offence, Nico included. I think I made my point though and I was going to remove it myself. Thanks Moderator, You are very good and quick at your job. Kudos to you.

If nothing else, stealing is stealing.

Watch this video. It will simplify it for you.

http://youtu.be/Fw-MFeR8Frw

Your right, stealing is stealing.
But we are not talking about stealing.
We are talking about sharing.

[Jesda]

If nothing else, stealing is stealing. Would you go out and just snatch a car off the lot because the manufacturer has too much money or the car is just too overpriced? I don't think so. Why should an album be any different? Personally, I feel like the internet has desensitized us, as a society, to crime. Many people have no qualms about pirating an album, but they would never take one off of a store shelf and attempt to walk out the front door.

Well yeah. One gets you whacked in the head with a baton, so digital piracy is much easier. Imagine if you could steal food by downloading it.


I just got bacon.zip from RapidShare.

[sndtgr08]

not my pic, but in the spirit of the thread....

[Jesda]

Bahahahahahhahahahha

[zacmil]

Watch this video. It will simplify it for you.

http://youtu.be/Fw-MFeR8Frw

Your right, stealing is stealing.
But we are not talking about stealing.
We are talking about sharing.

Not quite. "Sharing" a piece of intellectual property, in this case an album, is essentially stealing. Yes, you may have purchased the initial CD, and I would argue that you have every right to create as many digital copies as you would like for yourself. You don't, however, have the right to make a copy of that album to distribute to others. If it were acceptable to distribute content like this, there would no reason for more than one copy of any media to ever be sold; one person would simply purchase it and then distribute it to everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the free distribution of media and ideas, but only if the person(s) who have ownership of the rights to said content consent to such distribution. If a band wants to give their music away for free, more power to them. If, however, they want compensation for the music that they have put time, money, and effort into creating, they should receive it.

[sndtgr08]

Not quite. "Sharing" a piece of intellectual property, in this case an album, is essentially stealing. Yes, you may have purchased the initial CD, and I would argue that you have every right to create as many digital copies as you would like for yourself. You don't, however, have the right to make a copy of that album to distribute to others. If it were acceptable to distribute content like this, there would no reason for more than one copy of any media to ever be sold; one person would simply purchase it and then distribute it to everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the free distribution of media and ideas, but only if the person(s) who have ownership of the rights to said content consent to such distribution. If a band wants to give their music away for free, more power to them. If, however, they want compensation for the music that they have put time, money, and effort into creating, they should receive it.

They way its set up is like a monopoly. And thats BS.
They limit the med companys to what? 10years? Then you can find the meds cheaper. alot of people die that could have lived in 10 years. Thats BS.
Make your money and move on.
You write a song and you expect money forever!?
LOL People who invent things that SAVE lives dont get crap, but you think Millionare music execs deserve more?
<Shakespeare laughing in grave > Oh the irony
It only stagnates the culture and the human race. Are they not artists? Maybe it should be more important that they be heard and seen?

Nope.

All Mighty Dollar:


Thus you get crapy album after crapy album.

[AppleBonker]

They way its set up is like a monopoly. And thats BS.
They limit the med companys to what? 10years? Then you can find the meds cheaper. alot of people die that could have lived in 10 years. Thats BS.
Make your money and move on.

Except how is a drug company supposed to recover their R&D costs if someone can just steal their work as soon as it's completed? Drug companies would lose money if they developed a drug and had a competitor steal the formula right off the bat. And then no one would develop drugs. Your argument is invalid.

[sndtgr08]

Except how is a drug company supposed to recover their R&D costs if someone can just steal their work as soon as it's completed? Drug companies would lose money if they developed a drug and had a competitor steal the formula right off the bat. And then no one would develop drugs. Your argument is invalid.

Waiting for someone to say that!!! When they make back 100 billion its faking REDONKULOUS! (the whole time others are dead)


MAKE A PROFIT AND MOVE ON, The term a med copany can hold a med should be directly proportionate to the cost to R & D and distribution + profit

After there term its a free for all, who can make it and turn a profit GO FOR IT! FREE TRADE! NOT MONOPOLY!

Same goes for the artist! He/she may even get More and less to the record labels that dont do shyt creative except snake others.

[AppleBonker]

So we should just limit everyone's profits on any given item? Good idea. I can definitely see that ending well.

[sndtgr08]

"It's impractical/impossible to control the distribution of information when it moves around like oxygen and water."
Jesda (c) 2012

What if The real inventer of the combustion engine had a copywrite on that "idea" and could leagly stop any other combustion from being made? Ever. Right from the start. Where would we be today? Forever is a long time to try and stop progress. 9/10 idiots in my county will tell you "ford" invented the car. Why? Cuz the man capitlized on someone elses invention. And then everyone stole it and made it there own and now we have 50 car makers. You can not keep and idea forever. You can wish for it. You can try for it. But it will never happen.

If its a good idea, it will surpass the man.

If its a good album, It will transcend the band.

[zacmil]

They way its set up is like a monopoly. And thats BS.

How, exactly is that a monopoly?

They limit the med companys to what? 10years? Then you can find the meds cheaper. alot of people die that could have lived in 10 years. Thats BS.
Make your money and move on.
You write a song and you expect money forever!?
LOL People who invent things that SAVE lives dont get crap, but you think Millionare music execs deserve more?

Comparing a piece of music to a medicine isn't quite fair. Bear with me, because I know I will do a terrible job of explaining this. A piece of music is a intellectual property, an idea. It is what it is, and if altered it is something new. There is no recipe or formula to create it. (I am just guessing on this next bit, so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me)The generic drugs I'm assuming you're referring to are created using some formula or recipe in which components can be substituted to create a similar product that is technically not the same.

<Shakespeare laughing in grave > Oh the irony
It only stagnates the culture and the human race. Are they not artists? Maybe it should be more important that they be heard and seen?

I agree, but how will they be heard and seen if there is no institution in place to distribute their music? I would argue that by removing the mechanism that facilitates the distribution of said material over vast distances, you are much more effectively stagnating culture and the human race.

Thus you get crapy album after crapy album.

I would argue that this is the result of piracy exacerbating the flaws of an imperfect system. Because record companies are bringing in smaller profits, they are less willing to invest money on artists that may be considered risky. In other words, they only invest in artists who sound like whatever is already on the radio.

All Mighty Dollar:

You've got me all wrong. Trust me, I am in no way obsessed with the acquisition of material goods. I simply acknowledge to underlying motivations of the society in which I live. If we lived in a--dare I say--less capitalist society you're argument for allowing the free-flow of art for art's sake would have some validity. I would even argue that, in many ways, that would be superior. We don't, however, live in such a society. Because so much is motivated by profit, we must do what we can to ensure that those "millionaire music execs" (not arguing with you there) are willing to invest in music that may be considered more artistic. I know that's a cynical way to look at things, but I'm sure that many would agree that there is some validity to it.

[sndtgr08]

Comparing a piece of music to a medicine isn't quite fair. Bear with me, because I know I will do a terrible job of explaining this. A piece of music is a intellectual property, an idea. It is what it is, and if altered it is something new. There is no recipe or formula to create it. (I am just guessing on this next bit, so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me)The generic drugs I'm assuming you're referring to are created using some formula or recipe in which components can be substituted to create a similar product that is technically not the same.

I agree, but how will they be heard and seen if there is no institution in place to distribute their music? I would argue that by removing the mechanism that facilitates the distribution of said material over vast distances, you are much more effectively stagnating culture and the human race.

I would argue that this is the result of piracy exacerbating the flaws of an imperfect system. Because record companies are bringing in smaller profits, they are less willing to invest money on artists that may be considered risky. In other words, they only invest in artists who sound like whatever is already on the radio.

Not directed at you guys, we are all on the consumer end, just discusing the points

Music to Medication, Was just using for analogy, its obvious the formula(SONG) is the cobination of teams(BAND) working OR a single indviduals work(LIKE MUSIC) is "OWNED" By somebody. you see the links now yes? either way, once produced, either can ALWAYS be reproduced.

"record companies are bringing in smaller profits" Not sure what you think small is. But the companys that are fussing and fighting to control what you see and hear are the top dawgs. Have you seen how much they make every year? There are small countrys that make less.

As for distribution? Its called the world wide web. Which is getting narrower every day. Which is how I come back to my earlyer point and ties into the last few comments. In there cusade to stem "piracy" they are restricting your rights. You are being censored. The #1 distibution source of information on the planet is the net, and they are atempting to take control of it, or at leaste tell you what you can and cant see, with no input on your part. Its like using a Sledge Hammer to pop a zit If you really want to support your favorite artists the you would go to there shows or send money directly. You know they dont get crap on a cd. And so they pump out crap tons of trash albums, and so we SHARE them so we dont waste our money on trash and the CYCLE continutes untill enough money gets into enough hands and your internet is censored.

I guess we all have to pick our part in the cycle.

[Jesda]

Well, there's copyright and there's patent law.

Patent law allows inventors to enjoy a period of time where they can exclusively create and sell their goods, important for drug companies that invest large amounts of funding into R&D. On the other hand, obscure patents tend to be abused, especially in software publishing, computer hardware, agriculture, and electronics.

Amazon patented one-click shopping in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
Issuing a patent for a mildly streamlined process seems a bit absurd.



Maybe a lawyer can chime in on this one?

[sndtgr08]

In 1993 the USPTO issued this patent for using a laser pointer to exercise a cat (yes, by moving the laser pointer beam around and having the cat chase it).

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html

[sndtgr08]

Holy moly I may be reading this wrong but It seems like the guy was trying to get a patent on "Way to Scam others out of there Patents"!

Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0270152.html

[zacmil]

Not directed at you guys, we are all on the consumer end, just discusing the points

Music to Medication, Was just using for analogy, its obvious the formula(SONG) is the cobination of teams(BAND) working OR a single indviduals work(LIKE MUSIC) is "OWNED" By somebody. you see the links now yes? either way, once produced, either can ALWAYS be reproduced.

I understand, I was just trying to say that it wasn't the best analogy. That's not to say I could come up with something better.

"record companies are bringing in smaller profits" Not sure what you think small is. But the companys that are fussing and fighting to control what you see and hear are the top dawgs. Have you seen how much they make every year? There are small countrys that make less.

I really probably should have included the word "assuming", but I believe that statement makes sense when read in context. My point isn't that record companies are hard-up for cash or anything, but that they don't make the profits they desire.

As for distribution? Its called the world wide web. Which is getting narrower every day. Which is how I come back to my earlyer point and ties into the last few comments. In there cusade to stem "piracy" they are restricting your rights. You are being censored. The #1 distibution source of information on the planet is the net, and they are atempting to take control of it, or at leaste tell you what you can and cant see, with no input on your part. Its like using a Sledge Hammer to pop a zit If you really want to support your favorite artists the you would go to there shows or send money directly. You know they dont get crap on a cd. And so they pump out crap tons of trash albums, and so we SHARE them so we dont waste our money on trash and the CYCLE continutes untill enough money gets into enough hands and your internet is censored.

I agree with some of what you're saying here. I've tried to make clear that I am very much in favor of fair use and the free sharing of ideas.

Yes, the internet is an excellent medium for exchanging ideas and content, such as music. However, the internet is a big place. My point is that record companies help a band/artist gain recognition on a large scale. They enable music to reach the mainstream audience who may not have the desire or knowledge to actively seek out and discover them on some obscure music blog. This means that more people will want to go see a band/musician in concert or send money directly. I'm trying to say that, while flawed, the music industry serves an important purpose and it is irresponsible to try and just do away with it. Unless we develop some other system to replace the music industry as we know it, I believe that, ultimately, it is the artist who will suffer.

[sndtgr08]

GO NICO!

[numbnuts240]

i listen to cd's daily. i will continue to buy cd's whenever i feel like getting a new one. as well as vinyl, but not cassette tapes. that's where i draw the line. i also don't download anything anymore. none of it has to do with any type of personal beliefs, i just don't download stuff.

[darkeagle]

Yes, I still listen to Cd's. Also, I listen to the radio when I don't have the song I'm looking for. Eventually, I buy it on iTunes, and play in the car after I put it on a cd.