Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

The Black Flag · Feb 12, 2004, 12:49 am

I havn't read this entire thing yet, so this might have already been said, but here goes: The perfect way to get people to buy cds instead of d\l songs here and there...quit putting out absolute crap! The talentless dumbasses all over mtv are just fads, and those people who actually listen to them arn't going to spend a whole lot of money on fads...well, some of them anwyay, but if they would just quit paying talentless idiots to do stupid shit with nothing more than a drum machine and a few loosely rhyming\rythmic lyrics, then maybe people will actually put money into it.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 12, 2004, 02:28 am

Screw advertising, screw distribution (if you can't burn CDs onsite, you're not trying hard enough), screw extraneous costs. If you want people to come back and buy CD albums, make 'em 5 bucks each like they should be.

The Black Flag · Feb 12, 2004, 04:40 pm

Oh yeah, that to ^^. forgot about how cheap those motherfuckers are to make.

TheColdTruth · Feb 12, 2004, 07:34 pm

Already I don't buy from people who put copyright protection on their cd's. Why? Because I can't convert them (rip them) onto my hard drive and save them so that if the cd I bought breaks, I can just burn another cd to replace it, rather than buying a new one, and listen to their music on my hard drive without having to change cd's constantly. If you think mp3's should have MORE copyright protection than now, you sir, are an imbecile.

Mozart1220 · Feb 12, 2004, 08:18 pm

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah already suggested a virus that would destroy the computers of those who download illegaly. his endorsment alone should suggest how ludicrous the idea is. Besides, wouldn't Norton or othe virus detection programs detect and eventually eliminate it?
The problem can be partially solved by doing two things. One, sell CD's at a reasonable price. $10 is not too much to pay. Two, release the "out of print" stuff alot of people are looking for. That's the only stuff I download anyway, stuff I can't find commercially. People like to listen to more than MTV's "flavor of the month".
As long as there are people who want the music, there will be ways to get it for free. It's legal to record music from the radio and TV. Why is a computer any different? Content. Radio and TV are only playing what the record companies want us to hear. They don't want us listening to artists that they have already dumped.

Stigmata66 · Feb 12, 2004, 08:25 pm

I pay for the vast majority of my Cd's and i can rip them onto my hard drive and shar them at my free will because I paid for them. The artist owns the rights but I own his CD.

Mozart1220 · Feb 12, 2004, 08:39 pm

I like to make compilation discs for my car. I never take my Cd's out of the house. If I want portable music, I make a copy.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 12:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TheColdTruth)
Already I don't buy from people who put copyright protection on their cd's<hr size="1" /></blockquote>There are exploits to get around that, but they depend on how new your burner is.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220)
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah already suggested a virus that would destroy the computers of those who download illegaly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>And the idea was shot down just as quickly - that's destruction of private property, a taboo in this country. Besides, we can't distinguish between legal and illegal mp3s.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66)
The artist owns the rights but I own his CD.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Actually, the artist leased his rights to the record company, and the record company owns the rights to distribution for the duration of the lease. Some contracts are worse, where the company owns the rights until the copyright is up. It is the case, however, that you own the CD. It also should be legal to make backups (so long as you don't play the original and the backup simultaneously), but you may not distribute.

thinkfull · Feb 13, 2004, 12:07 am

The problem with all of this is that you mostly seem to beleive that the record companies are correct when they tell you that downloading is stealing. I'm an (aspiring) musician, and from my buisiness perspective, free publicity is what I most need right now. Most listeners are unaware of sites like IUMA or others offering underground music for free, at the request of the band. If you've ever heard of Rufio, it's because of the IUMA.

Art is for the people, not for the profit.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 12:35 am

The record companies are correct. They own the rights. However, the rights are morally wrong. They overcharge without equally compensating (or advertising) the artist; they stifle new creativity with copyright laws. Then again, artists themselves have mixed feelings on filesharing, so I hold my tongue until I get a feel of the situation.

spat · Feb 13, 2004, 10:19 am

Maybe we should look at why other types of media don't suffer from this problem.

Well, Xerox technology has been around for nearly a century, but the publishers haven't been plagued by it.

Also, I believe when crime is as widespread as this we should ask ourselves why ??

During the 20's significant amounts of crime were created due to prohibition. If a majority of people feel they should be able to do something perhaps it shouldn't be a crime to begin with. After all, if a minority of people forces a majority to obey them, isn't that wrong ??

Governments (and thus law) are a social contract. People have agreed to live by certain rules to their mutual benefit. It seems in this case the record companies have abused those rules and are now reaping what they have sewn. After all, the artists who created the music in the first place see a very small portion of the profits from the sale of the music. Most of their money comes from concerts and other merchandising.

I think technology has obsoleted the record companies and they are in their death throes. What they are doing is the equivalant of buggy manufacturers fighting cars around the turn of the century to keep their market share ('course the buggy manufacturers didn't realize what was happening, and they didn't have "industry" orgaizations that border on monopolies).

In at most a couple decades, the music will be distributed on the internet for free (like broadcast TV and radio, and they manage to make a profit). The record companies will be reduced to advertising like the rest of madison avenue and the artists will pay them for promotion instead of signing away their lives into indentured servitude to the record companies. People will continue to pay $$ for merchandise, and concerts, and companies will pay $$ for product promotions and life will go on.

Will anyone really be upset if rock stars go back to making only 10x what musicians (and most other artists) have made throughout history ??

If they are in it for the art they will be happy to have people appreciate their art, and should make a comfortable living doing it. If they are in it to get rich, they they probably weren't much in the way of an artists to begin with.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 13, 2004, 11:13 am

You've made a case for music, but still not as yet to software which does require a license to run. Unless you've all turned into communists suddenly, where no copyright or patenting exists for an individual...or have you?

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 12:49 pm

Spat, not everybody owns a printing press and a book binder, and that much paper costs money. However, CDs are cheap and CD burners are plentiful.

Pooeypants, we already have free mp3 players, free cd burning software, and plenty of people willing to produce various means to fileshare/expoit copy protection/create all manner of helpful tools related to the field.

Now, as for the communist thing, let me repeat what I said earlier: Record companies don't fairly compensate their artists, and their copyright laws stifle creativity. All artwork is derivative work, nobody lives in a bubble.

Artists' rights mean nothing when they can be bought or sold. If Michael Jackson can own the right to produce Beatles albums (which means Ringo Starr doesn't), then I've no reason to believe that the rights that are expounded upon by the record companies are in any way sacrosanct.

JohnLockeRocks · Feb 13, 2004, 02:01 pm

I have to admit, a lot of the stuff that's out on MTV right now really, really sucks. All the music sounds the same to me, and the only good thing about it is (maybe) seeing some half-naked, anorexic chick dancing around. No offense y'all, but I'd just as soon not buy anything that's out right now (that's popular, anyway). Even if any of it sounded decent, the CD's are what, twenty bucks a pop? Screw that! Most of the stuff I listen to I've discovered over the 'net, and normally you can buy the CD directly from the band for ten dollars or so, and everyone winds up happy.

How do you stop trading on Kazaa, Imesh, etc.? Price the CD's in the stores decently (like Universal's started to do, so ten bucks, maybe). Combine that with a "no-tolerance" policy towards trading sites. If people can get their music at a fair price, there's no reason to use a file-sharing service, and they can be fairly penalized.

TheColdTruth · Feb 13, 2004, 05:05 pm

Uhm. Xerox is a lot of work, and for the typical book, costs more to copy than just buying the damn thing. However, with books now being digitally ripped onto PDF files and put up on P2P progs like Kazaa, they are ahving a bit of a problem. :X

spat · Feb 13, 2004, 05:38 pm

My point exactly.

The reason there is filesharing is because the record companies are trying to take too large a chunk.

If books cost $1000 a piece for a paperback then people would be xeroxing them left and right.

Laws only work when the vast majority of people respect them and their purpose. Drug laws don't work because so many people don't respect them or recognize a purpose for them that only a tyrannical police state could hope to enforce them.

The same will happen with filesharing. 99.9% of people respect an artist's right to profit within reason from his or her work. They don't respect a record companies right to profit from an artist's work while relegating the artist themselves to indentured servitude.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 13, 2004, 08:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (spat,)
My point exactly.

The reason there is filesharing is because the record companies are trying to take too large a chunk.

If books cost $1000 a piece for a paperback then people would be xeroxing them left and right.

Laws only work when the vast majority of people respect them and their purpose. Drug laws don't work because so many people don't respect them or recognize a purpose for them that only a tyrannical police state could hope to enforce them.

The same will happen with filesharing. 99.9% of people respect an artist's right to profit within reason from his or her work. They don't respect a record companies right to profit from an artist's work while relegating the artist themselves to indentured servitude.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But you're hurting capitalism, are you sure you want that?

thinkfull · Feb 16, 2004, 09:43 pm

What I see file sharing doing is bringing music back to where it was before the phonograph was brought out. Not so much in the sense that only a live show will exist, but that it will remove corporate acts. Someone will not be able to make millions of dollars off of the production values of a song. We will be back to artists representing themselves, and only those truly interested in making art will do it.

To me, this is ideal, because teachers do deserve to be paid more than entertainers.

I can't blame the record companies for their capatalist methods, or couldn't until they started sueing people, but they need to fall if music will continue moving forward as art. Art really does belong to the people at it's base level.

floridian · Feb 16, 2004, 10:37 pm

Viruses are platform specific bits of code. While some platforms are very susceptible to viruses, other platforms (Mac,Linux/Unix) do not allow data files or programs masquerading as data files to be executed.

In other words, this would be one way to speed the decline of Microsoft.

Feb 17, 2004, 03:07 pm

There isn't a 'need' to download (steal) music. You not wanting to pay X dollars for a CD does not entitle you to that CD.

I loved this bit:

"If the record companies would charge less, I'd stop stealing from them."

Good lord, you're admitting to being a thief and blaming the people you're stealing from!

Have the guts to say that you like stealing music. Stop trying to dress it up as some sort of Universe-endowed right.

Feb 12, 2004, 12:49 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
The Black Flag Molten Ash Location: thomaston, GA Posts: 132	I havn't read this entire thing yet, so this might have already been said, but here goes: The perfect way to get people to buy cds instead of d\l songs here and there...quit putting out absolute crap! The talentless dumbasses all over mtv are just fads, and those people who actually listen to them arn't going to spend a whole lot of money on fads...well, some of them anwyay, but if they would just quit paying talentless idiots to do stupid shit with nothing more than a drum machine and a few loosely rhyming\rythmic lyrics, then maybe people will actually put money into it. Whenever citizens are seen routinely as enemies of their own government, writers are routinely seen to be the most dangerous enemies. --E.L. Doctorow

Feb 12, 2004, 02:28 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Screw advertising, screw distribution (if you can't burn CDs onsite, you're not trying hard enough), screw extraneous costs. If you want people to come back and buy CD albums, make 'em 5 bucks each like they should be. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 12, 2004, 04:40 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
The Black Flag Molten Ash Location: thomaston, GA Posts: 132	Oh yeah, that to ^^. forgot about how cheap those motherfuckers are to make. Whenever citizens are seen routinely as enemies of their own government, writers are routinely seen to be the most dangerous enemies. --E.L. Doctorow

Feb 12, 2004, 07:34 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
TheColdTruth Alive Location: Sandusky, Ohio Posts: 100	Already I don't buy from people who put copyright protection on their cd's. Why? Because I can't convert them (rip them) onto my hard drive and save them so that if the cd I bought breaks, I can just burn another cd to replace it, rather than buying a new one, and listen to their music on my hard drive without having to change cd's constantly. If you think mp3's should have MORE copyright protection than now, you sir, are an imbecile. If it works, and it's stupid, it's not stupid.

Feb 12, 2004, 08:18 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah already suggested a virus that would destroy the computers of those who download illegaly. his endorsment alone should suggest how ludicrous the idea is. Besides, wouldn't Norton or othe virus detection programs detect and eventually eliminate it? The problem can be partially solved by doing two things. One, sell CD's at a reasonable price. $10 is not too much to pay. Two, release the "out of print" stuff alot of people are looking for. That's the only stuff I download anyway, stuff I can't find commercially. People like to listen to more than MTV's "flavor of the month". As long as there are people who want the music, there will be ways to get it for free. It's legal to record music from the radio and TV. Why is a computer any different? Content. Radio and TV are only playing what the record companies want us to hear. They don't want us listening to artists that they have already dumped. Big Jr is watching you!

Feb 12, 2004, 08:25 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	I pay for the vast majority of my Cd's and i can rip them onto my hard drive and shar them at my free will because I paid for them. The artist owns the rights but I own his CD. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 12, 2004, 08:39 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	I like to make compilation discs for my car. I never take my Cd's out of the house. If I want portable music, I make a copy. Big Jr is watching you!

Feb 13, 2004, 12:00 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TheColdTruth) Already I don't buy from people who put copyright protection on their cd's<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>There are exploits to get around that, but they depend on how new your burner is.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220) Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah already suggested a virus that would destroy the computers of those who download illegaly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>And the idea was shot down just as quickly - that's destruction of private property, a taboo in this country. Besides, we can't distinguish between legal and illegal mp3s.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66) The artist owns the rights but I own his CD.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Actually, the artist leased his rights to the record company, and the record company owns the rights to distribution for the duration of the lease. Some contracts are worse, where the company owns the rights until the copyright is up. It is the case, however, that you own the CD. It also should be legal to make backups (so long as you don't play the original and the backup simultaneously), but you may not distribute. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 12:07 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
thinkfull Sedimentary Rock Location: Undisclosed location Posts: 3	The problem with all of this is that you mostly seem to beleive that the record companies are correct when they tell you that downloading is stealing. I'm an (aspiring) musician, and from my buisiness perspective, free publicity is what I most need right now. Most listeners are unaware of sites like IUMA or others offering underground music for free, at the request of the band. If you've ever heard of Rufio, it's because of the IUMA. Art is for the people, not for the profit.

Feb 13, 2004, 12:35 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	The record companies are correct. They own the rights. However, the rights are morally wrong. They overcharge without equally compensating (or advertising) the artist; they stifle new creativity with copyright laws. Then again, artists themselves have mixed feelings on filesharing, so I hold my tongue until I get a feel of the situation. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 10:19 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
spat Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	Maybe we should look at why other types of media don't suffer from this problem. Well, Xerox technology has been around for nearly a century, but the publishers haven't been plagued by it. Also, I believe when crime is as widespread as this we should ask ourselves why ?? During the 20's significant amounts of crime were created due to prohibition. If a majority of people feel they should be able to do something perhaps it shouldn't be a crime to begin with. After all, if a minority of people forces a majority to obey them, isn't that wrong ?? Governments (and thus law) are a social contract. People have agreed to live by certain rules to their mutual benefit. It seems in this case the record companies have abused those rules and are now reaping what they have sewn. After all, the artists who created the music in the first place see a very small portion of the profits from the sale of the music. Most of their money comes from concerts and other merchandising. I think technology has obsoleted the record companies and they are in their death throes. What they are doing is the equivalant of buggy manufacturers fighting cars around the turn of the century to keep their market share ('course the buggy manufacturers didn't realize what was happening, and they didn't have "industry" orgaizations that border on monopolies). In at most a couple decades, the music will be distributed on the internet for free (like broadcast TV and radio, and they manage to make a profit). The record companies will be reduced to advertising like the rest of madison avenue and the artists will pay them for promotion instead of signing away their lives into indentured servitude to the record companies. People will continue to pay $$ for merchandise, and concerts, and companies will pay $$ for product promotions and life will go on. Will anyone really be upset if rock stars go back to making only 10x what musicians (and most other artists) have made throughout history ?? If they are in it for the art they will be happy to have people appreciate their art, and should make a comfortable living doing it. If they are in it to get rich, they they probably weren't much in the way of an artists to begin with.

Feb 13, 2004, 11:13 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	You've made a case for music, but still not as yet to software which does require a license to run. Unless you've all turned into communists suddenly, where no copyright or patenting exists for an individual...or have you? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 13, 2004, 12:49 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Spat, not everybody owns a printing press and a book binder, and that much paper costs money. However, CDs are cheap and CD burners are plentiful. Pooeypants, we already have free mp3 players, free cd burning software, and plenty of people willing to produce various means to fileshare/expoit copy protection/create all manner of helpful tools related to the field. Now, as for the communist thing, let me repeat what I said earlier: Record companies don't fairly compensate their artists, and their copyright laws stifle creativity. All artwork is derivative work, nobody lives in a bubble. Artists' rights mean nothing when they can be bought or sold. If Michael Jackson can own the right to produce Beatles albums (which means Ringo Starr doesn't), then I've no reason to believe that the rights that are expounded upon by the record companies are in any way sacrosanct. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 02:01 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
JohnLockeRocks Junior Member? Hah! Location: Houston, TX Posts: 54	I have to admit, a lot of the stuff that's out on MTV right now really, really sucks. All the music sounds the same to me, and the only good thing about it is (maybe) seeing some half-naked, anorexic chick dancing around. No offense y'all, but I'd just as soon not buy anything that's out right now (that's popular, anyway). Even if any of it sounded decent, the CD's are what, twenty bucks a pop? Screw that! Most of the stuff I listen to I've discovered over the 'net, and normally you can buy the CD directly from the band for ten dollars or so, and everyone winds up happy. How do you stop trading on Kazaa, Imesh, etc.? Price the CD's in the stores decently (like Universal's started to do, so ten bucks, maybe). Combine that with a "no-tolerance" policy towards trading sites. If people can get their music at a fair price, there's no reason to use a file-sharing service, and they can be fairly penalized. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Do you make things better where you live, or do you screw things up and live in the suburbs?

Feb 13, 2004, 05:05 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
TheColdTruth Alive Location: Sandusky, Ohio Posts: 100	Uhm. Xerox is a lot of work, and for the typical book, costs more to copy than just buying the damn thing. However, with books now being digitally ripped onto PDF files and put up on P2P progs like Kazaa, they are ahving a bit of a problem. :X If it works, and it's stupid, it's not stupid.

Feb 13, 2004, 05:38 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
spat Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	My point exactly. The reason there is filesharing is because the record companies are trying to take too large a chunk. If books cost $1000 a piece for a paperback then people would be xeroxing them left and right. Laws only work when the vast majority of people respect them and their purpose. Drug laws don't work because so many people don't respect them or recognize a purpose for them that only a tyrannical police state could hope to enforce them. The same will happen with filesharing. 99.9% of people respect an artist's right to profit within reason from his or her work. They don't respect a record companies right to profit from an artist's work while relegating the artist themselves to indentured servitude.

Feb 13, 2004, 08:02 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (spat,) My point exactly. The reason there is filesharing is because the record companies are trying to take too large a chunk. If books cost $1000 a piece for a paperback then people would be xeroxing them left and right. Laws only work when the vast majority of people respect them and their purpose. Drug laws don't work because so many people don't respect them or recognize a purpose for them that only a tyrannical police state could hope to enforce them. The same will happen with filesharing. 99.9% of people respect an artist's right to profit within reason from his or her work. They don't respect a record companies right to profit from an artist's work while relegating the artist themselves to indentured servitude.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But you're hurting capitalism, are you sure you want that? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 16, 2004, 09:43 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
thinkfull Sedimentary Rock Location: Undisclosed location Posts: 3	What I see file sharing doing is bringing music back to where it was before the phonograph was brought out. Not so much in the sense that only a live show will exist, but that it will remove corporate acts. Someone will not be able to make millions of dollars off of the production values of a song. We will be back to artists representing themselves, and only those truly interested in making art will do it. To me, this is ideal, because teachers do deserve to be paid more than entertainers. I can't blame the record companies for their capatalist methods, or couldn't until they started sueing people, but they need to fall if music will continue moving forward as art. Art really does belong to the people at it's base level. Ah, in such an ugly time, the real protest is beauty.

Feb 16, 2004, 10:37 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
floridian Molten Ash Posts: 84	Viruses are platform specific bits of code. While some platforms are very susceptible to viruses, other platforms (Mac,Linux/Unix) do not allow data files or programs masquerading as data files to be executed. In other words, this would be one way to speed the decline of Microsoft.

Feb 17, 2004, 03:07 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	There isn't a 'need' to download (steal) music. You not wanting to pay X dollars for a CD does not entitle you to that CD. I loved this bit: "If the record companies would charge less, I'd stop stealing from them." Good lord, you're admitting to being a thief and blaming the people you're stealing from! Have the guts to say that you like stealing music. Stop trying to dress it up as some sort of Universe-endowed right.