Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?
from the this-promo-also-seems-to-be-anti-beard,-but-maybe-that's-just-me dept
Music Matters has just released the latest in its string of anti-piracy PSAs, most of which feature recording artists explaining how music has affected their lives. This one features some excellent animation, along with a nice selection of tracks, and it details one person’s lifelong relationship with the Beatles’ music. It closes by stating that loving a band is a shared experience that brings many people together. All in all, it’s a well done tribute that John Lennon certainly would have approved.
Of course, it’s tough to watch this promo, which celebrates “sharing” music, without feeling a bit like you’re being beaten over the head with an extremely heavy irony stick wielded by someone who has no idea how hard they’re swinging it. For starters, Unnamed Protagonist states that he first heard the Beatles’ music when it “floated through his window.” As picturesque as this scenario may be, the end result will most likely be dismayed gasps from the BMIs and the ASCAPs of the world, who hate to see a public performance go unpunished.
In fact, the video seems to be making the opposite point of the one it’s intended to make. It shows just how important sharing is to make culture culture. You’ve got really mixed messages here. The Beatles are a shared experience, but sharing it with others outside of the way they want you to share it is bad — even as the (nameless) person profiled clearly enjoys the Beatles in his own way. Like hearing it through the window. Or out in the street with his evicted belongings. Or surrounded by friends in an unlicensed open air venue.
On top of that, the Beatles seem like a really odd choice for such a PSA.
Whatever level a person’s love for the Beatles might be, it’s pretty tough to find much reciprocation from the band itself, which spent most of the last decade making sure that the only digital copies of their music available were illegal copies. The band also spent a fair amount of time shooting down licensing requests and otherwise making their catalog about as approachable as a badger covered in live hand grenades.
Between the Beatles’ “yes, we love you, too but only through very selective channels” and Music Matters’ “music is a good thing but only through selective channels,” the whole idea of music being a communal experience, one that relies on sharing, kind of gets lost. Even worse, because this is a Music Matters promo aimed at reducing piracy, the message shifts from “Music matters because it’s shared,” to “Don’t share music because, together, we can keep music from mattering.”
Filed Under: beatles, culture, piracy, psa, sharing
Companies: music matters
Comments on “Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?”
Honey Badgers Eat Hand Grenades
The band also spent a fair amount of time shooting down licensing requests and otherwise making their catalog about as approachable as a HONEY badger covered in live hand grenades.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
FTFY
Re: Honey Badgers Eat Hand Grenades
Oh my gosh. Whats that in his mouth?
Re: Honey Badgers Eat Hand Grenades
Thanks for the treat, stupid!
Re: Honey Badgers Eat Hand Grenades
What . . .did I just watch. o_O
You're a poet, TC
…as approachable as a badger covered in live hand grenades.
Poetry.
Re: You're a poet, TC
I didn’t realize Tim had written the post until I got to that line.
Re: You're a poet, TC
He’s an artist.
Maybe you should ask him what that feels like.
Re: Re: You're a poet, TC
We’re pretty certain you haven’t a clue, yourself.
Re: Re: You're a poet, TC
Yay! AC fallback #57 – if you can’t argue an actual point and are faced with working artists you can’t accuse of being pirates, insult them! Part of a series of 256, collect them all!
Re: You're a poet, TC
“as approachable as a badger covered in live hand grenades” FTW
I hope that the author of this piece paid his royalties for hearing Octopus’s Garden through his window without paying for it. Artists need to be compensated, you know.
Is that what those were about?
I watched a bunch of those Music Matters videos the other day, enjoying how they had new artists or anonymous people talking about the importance of older artists. Had literally no idea that they were supposed to be anti-piracy ads. If that’s their aim, they need to be a little less subtle.
Re: Is that what those were about?
Yeah, without the context of this article, I probably would’ve thought that this was a PSA about how we should introduce our children to music or get involved in the musical arts or something.
Based on the group’s reputation, I’m now surmising the idea of me sharing the music I made with everyone is not what they had in mind.
My theory...
making sure that the only digital copies of their music available were illegal copies.
Maybe they didn’t want people to have to pay for digital copies and they were pulling a fast one on everyone who would have wanted a piece of that particular pie.
Probably not but it amuses me to think so at the moment.
The point is that music and musicians matter, and require financial support just like every other person on the planet.
If they wanted their work given away for free, they would do it themselves. No one other than them has the right to make that decision.
And those that do think they have the right to make that decision for them, are assholes and lawbreakers.
End of story.
Re: Re:
Funny, then why doesn’t every other person on the planet have the right to milk money from their own work for 70 years after they’re dead? Oh that’s right, the copyright laws keep getting changed, just so that the publishers can continue making abusive profits from the works of others.
Sorry, the copyright law belongs to the public, and if they wanted their rights given away for free, they would do it themselves. No one other than them has the right to make that decision. And those that do think they have the right to make that decision for them, are assholes and lawbreakers.
End of story.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re just trying to change the subject. 70 year copyright length has nothing to do with all the new music and movies that are ripped off every day.
End of story.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure about that?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, my reply was very much to the point. You tried to make musicians out to be “just like every other person on the planet”, when, in fact, they have rights over their work that the vast majority of people do not. Most people have to actually keep working to earn a living, rather than continually collecting “financial support” for a single work. And yes, the length of copyright has everything to do with level of “financial support” that artist are entitled to.
Since you apparently couldn’t rebut, or really read, what I said, you then tried to make it only about “new music and movies”. (BTW, your previous comment, or even the article, had nothing to do with “new music and movies”.) If you now just want to make copyright infringement about that, then I would agree that copyright should be entirely about about new art. Just when does the art stop being “new”? I think 14 years sounds more than reasonable.
Oh, and since you apparently have not yet figured it out, the world is full of “assholes and lawbreakers”. I’m sure you’ve made copies of other people’s copyrighted work without permission, or any thought really. (Those damn copiers and DVRs are the work of the devil I tell you! [/sarc]) I’m sure you’ve driven over the speed limit and illegally parked too. So yes, you are just a dirty lawbreaker. Since the world is really just full of lawbreakers and assholes, the only way you can get them to pay you is that you have to actually give them a reason to. And no, just sticking copies on a store shelf isn’t enough (try advertising, or, heaven forbid, actually talking to people and acting like a respectable person that deserves to be paid). And lawsuits don’t work either. Sure, it might curtail piracy a little, but it’s not going to get them to pay you either. If fact, it’ll get some of your paying customers buy someone else’s work instead. Yep, assholes are like that.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Law enforcement does a rather good job of stopping speeders.
Everyone would drive at whatever speed they felt like driving were it not for the threat of being pulled over.
That’s actually how all law enforcement works; it doesn’t have to be 100% perfect to have a significant effect.
But you know that already.
It’s why Pirate Mike and his merry bunch of freeloaders have an aneurysm at every new development involving piracy and law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Funny they can stop speedsters but they can’t stop piracy that is just priceless 🙂
That is why you guys have an aneurysm every time the spreadsheet comes up because you dumb idiots are looking at the wrong place for the falling revenues LoL
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Is that why every time you look anywhere you see everybody pirating something like with the Britney Spears video uploaded to Youtube?
Oops! they did it again!
And you want people to believe law enforcement can reduce that?
Yah right LoL
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Law enforcement does a rather good job of stopping speeders.”
You haven’t been on an interstate lately.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Since you apparently couldn’t rebut, or really read, what I said, you just skipped off to law enforcement. And no, comparing speeding to noncommercial copyright infringement is ridiculous. Speeding causes accidents, damage to physical property, physical injury, and even death. It’s in everyone’s interest to stop drivers from speeding. Noncommercial copyright infringement doesn’t injure or kill anyone, and it’s not even theft. It’s really only in the interest of the labels who milk their living off the work of others to stop infringement. Leaches can’t live without a host, but the host is certainly better off without them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your argument reminds me of people who get so angry about how much money pro athletes make. The only reason they command huge sums of cash is because that cash is available. In the old days, only the team owners saw that money. Is that fair? Isn’t it the athletes the people want to see? If people weren’t spending millions on sporting events, those athletes wouldn’t make so much money. Just ask a WNBA player.
So, it’s not that musicians demand that they be paid over and over for a single work, it’s that the work is still generating cash, so the artists feel they have a right to a percentage of that cash. I agree with that sentiment. If the song isn’t getting licensed, or airplay, then the musician doesn’t keep collecting a check. People here seem to live in some fantasy world where, I don’t know, Del Amitri is still getting paid today for their airplay *in the 90s*. That’s not how it works.
And if you’re so pissed that you’re not still getting paid for work you did in the past, then you should have contracts in place that get you your money. It’s not illegal to help build a business and stipulate through a contract that you receive part of the profits for the lifetime of the business. That’s basically how silent partnership works. That’s what owning stocks is. It’s also what a trust fund is (*those* are people worth being angry at). You seem to be blaming copyright for contract negotiations. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Law enforcement does a rather good job of stopping speeders.
No – wanting to be safe and not use too much fuel is what stops most people – in fact the “do as I say but not as I do” aspect of law enforcement actually encourages speeding.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re just trying to change the subject. 70 year copyright length has nothing to do with all the new music and movies that are ripped off every day
No. It is you that is changing the subject – this thread is about the Beatles. All their music is at least 40 years old so the copyright term has everything to do with it!
Re: Re:
Haha
Re: Re:
No one other than them has the right to make that decision.
Well, except for their labels, who actually own the music, and can do whatever the fuck they want with it – artists’ wishes be damned. And I agree, they are assholes and lawbreakers.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s the artist’s choice to sign with a label. Not yours.
And saying some label did something wrong does not mean all do.
And it sure as hell doesn’t somehow mean that it’s ok for you to also do something wrong. No logic in that wishful thinking at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s the artist’s choice to sign with a label. Not yours.
Oh, so when we’re talking about fans sharing what they love, you’re all “music and musicians matter, and require financial support.”
But when labels screw them over for profit, you’re all “fuck ’em, they made their choice.”
I see how it is.
And saying some label did something wrong does not mean all do.
All major label contracts are standardized, and set up specifically to pay artists as little as possible. Businesses can do that when they’re members of a cartel.
And it sure as hell doesn’t somehow mean that it’s ok for you to also do something wrong.
Good thing I wasn’t saying it’s OK to do something wrong. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in statements like yours.
Frankly, I don’t believe for a second that you give a rat’s ass about music or musicians. If you really think music and musicians matter, and that artists deserve to get paid, you’d do everything in your power to bring down major labels. Instead, you’re buying into a crusade against fans sharing music, which does minimal harm to musicians, but mainly hurts those that exploit them.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Ask yourself who values music and musicians more: a record label exec, or some kid who downloads MP3’s? My money’s on the kid.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
But when labels screw them over for profit, you’re all “fuck ’em, they made their choice.”
Putting words in my mouth and lying about how I feel is just admitting you can’t win this debate.
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about major labels. As a proportion of damage, small and indie labels are the labels that have been hurt the most by piracy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Putting words in my mouth and lying about how I feel is just admitting you can’t win this debate.
This, from a guy who claims I’m saying it’s OK to “also do something wrong?” That’s rich.
And I’m not “putting words in your mouth.” I’m judging your intent by your stated opinions. If you do honestly care about musicians, you wouldn’t be so gung-ho about stopping fans from sharing music, you’d be supporting any way artists can make money outside the major (or even traditional) label system, since that system has always failed them.
As a proportion of damage, small and indie labels are the labels that have been hurt the most by piracy.
That’s a common claim from persecutors of fans sharing music, but I’ve yet to see any evidence it’s true. I know a few people at indie labels, and most of them are doing about as well as they ever were. (Even those that aren’t, haven’t seen their profits decline by 50% like the majors have.)
Got any numbers to back that up? Furthermore, got any evidence that whatever losses they have are due to piracy, and not (as with the majors) due to a shifting marketplace?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I know a few people at indie labels, and most of them are doing about as well as they ever were. (Even those that aren’t, haven’t seen their profits decline by 50% like the majors have.)
This is beyond a ludicrous statement.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Like, at all. Go get a subscription to Billboard or Soundscan table data and you will see how tragically incorrect you are.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Go get a subscription to Billboard or Soundscan table data
…which doesn’t track even half of the indie labels out there. In fact, it’s a pretty common complaint about Soundscan that they have always heavily favored major labels and chain stores.
Even so: according to Soundscan, “indie” label market share has been increasing, not decreasing – even before Nielsen revamped their ratings system this year. That seems to contradict what you’ve been saying.
But even if the numbers did show a decline, that doesn’t mean it’s attributable to fans sharing music – it is due to the shift from physical CD’s to single digital tracks, competition from video games or movies, the economy, and a dozen other reasons. Given all the turmoil that has happened in the music industry, fans sharing music is the least of anyone’s problems.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wow, you really are retarded, aren’t you? You’re talking to an independent musician who personally knows people at indie labels, and your rebuttal to his claim that indie labels are doing well is to tell him to check corporate data that doesn’t include most indie labels?
You are a frigging idiot, and a liability to your industry.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This, from a guy who claims I’m saying it’s OK to “also do something wrong?” That’s rich.
Your answer to the fact that musicians were being ripped off was that labels have done the same thing. Ergo, it’s no different than that.
You really think we’re not on to the same recycled rationales you people use for piracy? How cute.
And I’m not “putting words in your mouth.”
Yes, you are.
I’m judging your intent by your stated opinions. If you do honestly care about musicians, you wouldn’t be so gung-ho about stopping fans from sharing music,
I’m not at all against people sharing music. Sharing music means turning someone else on to a great band. “I bought this awesome album. Check it out. If you like it, you should pick it up too.”
That’s sharing. Stop trying to pimp the word ‘sharing’ to justify piracy. It’s disgusting and slimy.
you’d be supporting any way artists can make money outside the major (or even traditional) label system, since that system has always failed them.
The independent label system has not failed bands. It is those people and labels that have taken a chance on new bands. They’re the ones that have used their own money to get behind new acts.
Your opinion on these labels is pathologically twisted and sick.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Your answer to the fact that musicians were being ripped off was that labels have done the same thing. Ergo, it’s no different than that.
“It’s no different than that” is not even remotely what I was saying.
I just find it… interesting… that the people who claim to be sympathetic to musicians and music, are so quick to blame musicians when they’re fucked over by their labels – and so quick to defend the labels who do it.
It’s almost like this whole “anti-piracy” stance is really just a thinly veiled defense of the traditional recording industry…
You really think we’re not on to the same recycled rationales you people use for piracy? How cute.
You really think we’re not on to the same recycled rationales “you people” use to keep money in major labels’ pockets and out of artists’ hands? How cute.
I’m not at all against people sharing music. Sharing music means turning someone else on to a great band. “I bought this awesome album. Check it out. If you like it, you should pick it up too.”
In the age of the internet, “check it out” means “I’ll send you a link to some MP3’s,” or “I’ll link to a song this fan put up on YouTube.” Just as in the 80’s, it was “I’ll tape it for you,” and in the 90’s, it was “I’ll burn you a copy.”
Because people spend much of their lives online now, the internet is the modern equivalent of your living room, and sharing files is the equivalent of putting on a record for your friends. In fact, it’s easier than putting on a record. That’s the mentality of the “assholes and lawbreakers” you’re talking about.
Is it unlawful? Sure – just like taping songs off the radio is unlawful. Does it mean that the people who do it don’t care about music or musicians? Hardly.
Are they the first people you should target if you’re concerned about musicians getting paid? Not even remotely.
Stop trying to pimp the word ‘sharing’ to justify piracy. It’s disgusting and slimy.
Stop trying to pimp the word “piracy” to justify an attack on fans sharing music. It’s disgusting and slimy.
The independent label system has not failed bands. It is those people and labels that have taken a chance on new bands. They’re the ones that have used their own money to get behind new acts.
Well, I was mostly talking about major label deals. The indies are generally better (though of course many are just as bad – see e.g. Some Bizarre or Victory). Indies certainly have more musician-friendly deals than majors do.
If they didn’t, I wouldn’t have agreed to any of them.
Your opinion on these labels is pathologically twisted and sick.
Most of my friends are musicians; some run labels and own record stores (all indie and underground). I myself have a couple of releases out (none of which are money-makers, of course). If you think my attitude is “pathologically twisted and sick,” then I think it might be you that has the problem.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Oh, sorry, I forgot one thing. Part of what I was responding to, was this:
If they wanted their work given away for free, they would do it themselves.
If they wanted their work given away for free, they wouldn’t be legally allowed to do so, since they’re not in control of their own music. And if they didn’t want their work given away for free, but the label did (e.g. in promos or cutouts) – well, not only would the artists not have a choice, they would end up having to pay for those free copies as well.
It’s part of my overall point: If you really care about musicians and music, then people sharing music unlawfully is the least of your worries. (Hell, if you really care about musicians and music, you probably are one of those people sharing music unlawfully.)
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think you missed the point there. They are in control of their music. They can either sign with a record label or decide to give all their music away for free. That choice is up to them.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Ain’t nothing you can do, haha
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
up till a certain point, which is when the music enters the wild of the internet, at that point neither they nor their label is in control of it anymore no matter how much they kick, scream and throw a tantrum like a 5 year old insisting that they do while trying to have it removed from every single source ever
it’s going to continue to circulate and continue to be out of their control, they don’t like that? don’t release it, keep it entirely private and never give it to anyone = perfect absolute control over it
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I think you missed the point there. They are in control of their music.
I think you missed the point here. The very act of sharing that the PSA celebrates means that the Beatles were not “in control of their music.” It means that the people who shared it were. The guy blaring the music down the street didn’t pay a PRO; the protagonist who heard it didn’t pay to hear it. They got to enjoy the music for free – which is exactly what the recording industry is fighting when it fights piracy. Furthermore, it shows that this sort of sharing makes the music valuable.
If I didn’t already know that Music Matters was an anti-piracy organization, I would think this was an anti-copyright PSA – because that’s exactly what it’s celebrating.
They can either sign with a record label or decide to give all their music away for free.
That’s a false dichotomy. If they sign with a label under an industry standard contract, they are deciding to give all their music away for free – to the label. Furthermore, there are a myriad of ways to allow fans to share your music, without giving it away “for free.” For example, any of the CC-NC licenses will allow fans to share your music, but you can still collect royalties through BMI or ASCAP (or Jamendo) if you choose.
And if you choose not to let fans share your music – well, you’re acting against the very thing that’s celbrated in this PSA. Nowadays, that’s exactly what you’re deciding to do if you sign a typical recording contract. But I realize that most artists don’t have much of a choice in the matter, at least not if they want their music played on the radio or in mainstream media and they want to be let into the larger venues. So I don’t think it’s fair to blame them. But I am glad that this situation is changing rapidly, whether the labels want it to or not.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
My reply got stuck at the bottom.
Anyway, have fun Karl, pretending your proximity to what really goes on in the music world is any closer than your proximity to the rings around Saturn.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Haha
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Yeah, “what really goes on” *has* to be the experiences of a random AC, not the experiences of a named working musician who has contacts in the industry…
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
a named working musician who has contacts in the industry…
To be fair: if you’re talking about me, I’m hardly a “working musician.” Most musician’s aren’t – with a couple exceptions, the ones I know (even the ones on labels distributed by majors) have day jobs. I know about five or six people who make their living running a record label, I know most of the owners of the record stores around Boston, I know half of the local promoters, I know a couple small-time recording engineers, and I have worked in various music-related shit jobs (record store clerk, soundman at small venues, assembled boutique synths, etc).
Whether that means I have “contacts in the industry” is up to you to decide. But I’m not going to claim I’m anything but small potatoes.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Fair enough, I did exaggerate slightly for effect, although you’ve certainly done more than me in the industry. Either way, I’d trust your credentials over a guy whose entire argument seems to be “I know what’s *really* happening but I won’t identify myself or clarify, you just have to trust me”…
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
If you really think that signing away or giving away their music are the only choices, then you’ve lost the argument.
Better luck next time, peanut.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
or you know they could work for a change and do live gigs and some will end up with 200 million dollars in their pockets.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
blog ate my post, i’ll just summarize and be done with it
No U
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m going to share the shit of music, does that make you mad shillhole?
Ain’t nothing you can do about it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ha ha ha ha…oh you are serious!…ha ha ha ha
Re: Re:
What work?
The recorded plastic disc?
That is not work, that is past work that should never be billable again, just like everybody else inside society, when carpenters, secretaries and everybody else starts getting royalties for their past work for life + 95 years then I will agree with you, until then musicians should be paid like everybody else, show up do the work and get paid once.
Re: Re: Re:
So you want to be the guy that pays 50k or more right up front to the artist and then have the right to give away as much as you want?
Go for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haha
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you pay secretaries upfront?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
??
Secretaries get paid after they’ve completed their work.
Do you want to pay musicians after they’ve completed their work?
Fine. The price is 50k+, for labor, and production costs.
Knock yourself out, smartboy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Will they show up on time for the show?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
If their work is to come and play a cd on the club I’m not paying 50K for that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Nah, I’ll take the work of an actual talented musician who doesn’t want to price his music out of the market, wants people to listen to it and is capable of making money long term from other means. You keep the corporate idiots, I won’t miss them.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Do you want to pay musicians after they’ve completed their work?
Judging by the growing number of people who pay to see live performances, I’d say the answer is “yes.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would pay for a live show, I would pay for merch, but the music?
F. You!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And nobody cares what you think, freetard.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well then I don’t really need to care about what you think too LoL
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
poor shill, nobody likes you
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
AMEN
actually, i don’t care about YOU, copytard
Re: Re: Re: Re:
artists are not special snowflakes
i’ll say it again
artists are NOT special $%$#%#ing snowflakes, they do not “NEED” to be payed an unbelievable shitton because they can draw a stick-figure or sing in the shower nor lay around on their fatasses collecting their copyright welfare chec- i mean, “royalties” (PS. artist are NOT royalty either) for something they did once sometime way back when
maybe when people get out of this artist “royalty” mentality and wake up and realize how stupid copyright is maybe just maybe the world can start getting on the path to sanity, right now it’s about as sane as a loopy loon on the moon with it’s head screwed on backwards
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
More of the once-latent jealousy and resentment of artists rears it’s ugly face again.
We all know what lies at the root of this blog.
Despite Mike Masnick’s pathetic “I’m trying to make artists more money!!!” bullshit. “As long as it isn’t from selling music!!! That makes me mad!!! It’s why I get so incredibly angry whenever someone enforces their right to make money from their recorded work!!!”
This site is simply a cesspool of sociopathic, parasitic sewer fucks.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And the fact that they’re winning the fight just burns your ass up, doesn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Denial: a river in Freetardonia.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wit > You
And 500 million “thieves” and ever-growing sure as hell sounds to me like they’re winning. When you have a number greater than the combined population of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico demanding things a certain way, it will be that way, full stop.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m glad you reveal everyday just how much you hate consumers. Only lawyers and leeches of culture like you are so hateful. Good thing your time has ended long ago
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ah, so now you defend artists, whereas above you attack them. Amazing how convenient being an AC can be when people spot your hypocrisy, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you want to be the guy that pays 50k or more right up front to the artist and then have the right to give away as much as you want? Go for it.
I have – of course I don’t have to raise 50k all on my own
the internet enables people to club together to do it
Re: Re:
Have you heard of free-to-air radio? Only been around for 80-plus years and counting. You should try getting out from under your rock, occasionally.
Re: Re:
You got that from watching that video?
All I got from it is that music should be shared from one corner of the earth to the other because it brings the world together and makes everyone happy. That’s what culture is all about.
Is the guy ever once shown paying for the music? Would he be singing with millions of others if they all had to pay for the music? When all the Beatles are dead, what will be the point of still giving their corpses money? At what point can art just exist without corporate ownership?
How about instead of calling people names, we change copyright law so it makes sense, and then maybe people will have some respect for it?
Re: Re:
It’s their decision how to release it right up until the time they do. After that, all bets are off.
End of story.
Re: Re: Re:
If that’s your attitude, then I guess all bets are off as far as you having any say in how the wild west internet will be regulated.
Good luck with your approach.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
You people have learned nothing from 80 years of radio have you?
LoL
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeehaw?
short of turning it off completely i don’t see how anyone is gonna do that, even people in china have figured/are figuring out ways to work around net censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep screaming at the tide not to come in. One day it’ll listen!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If that’s your attitude, then I guess all bets are off as far as you having any say”
I’m tempted to add another sarcastic comment, but I fear you’re correct. Idiots who try to pretent the internet is some kind of wild west that needs to be tamed are the ones making the laws. They’re wrong, and are causing untold collateral damage in their attempts to tame the untameable, but sadly people who know reality are underrepresented in law…
Re: Re:
Amen.
Every musician should pursue legal restitution, if they don’t want people to listen to the music for free.
In my case as a genius musician and who will not allow anyone to listen to my music without specific, tangible payment, my parents are very lucky to get a free concert every night while I live in their basement. I have complete control and the best pair of fans on the planet.
Thomas Duncan
Musician, Senior Composer, Featured Soloist
The Thomas Duncan Radical Orchestra
If they truly believe that the Beatles should be a “communal experience”, then they should put those songs in the public domain–it doesn’t get any more communal than that. Besides, the Beatles obviously felt that the copyright at the time their songs were produced was enough of an “incentive”, so shouldn’t they be in the public domain by now anyway?
Music matters copyright music doesn’t.
Copyright is not bulletproof glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acX0ngnzAfk
If pirate snipers take aim at you, you are gone baby!
Tim, you have a very basic problem in your logic. The Beatles are a perfect example of what happens when an artist works hard to control their rights, their image, and their products. They are a wonderful part of our shared experience.
Whatever choices they make as a company does not justify piracy. That’s just an excuse. It wasn’t like their music wasn’t readily available at retail, and it wasn’t like people don’t know how to turn CDs into digital files for their own personal use (you know, fair use).
Your badger is a pirate, and hopefully the grenades will go off and make the world a better place for the rest of us. I am amazed at the lengths you will go to justify piracy.
Re: Re:
???
What you get murdered or die of cancer and loose all the rights to your own imaginary work that you can never play again if you didn’t pay the family of the guy who died of overdose(God bless MJ)?
Besides why would anyone pay you for something they get for free on the radio?
Musicians should get paid like everybody else when they show up for work and sing songs for others.
Re: Re:
The Beatles aren’t part of my culture, nor do I want them to be. I say the sooner the old guard dies off, the better off we’ll all be.
Re: Re:
“Whatever choices they make as a company”
They are lucky enough to at least own some of their music, but they don’t actually own most of it. Also, 2 of them are not in a position to make any choices whosoever since they’re, you know, dead. But keep fucking that chicken….
“it wasn’t like people don’t know how to turn CDs into digital files for their own personal use”
…and those people who didn’t wish to buy a CD? What possible reason was there to deny them the right to buy a product in the format they wished to buy it?
Re: Re: Re:
Paul, first off, you can keep the chicken fucking for yourself. Nice to know how you entertain yourself on your off moments. Perhaps you can make a website and profit from that!
The dead members of the Beatles (RIP) are ably represented on earth today by the heirs and successors. There are no issues here that do not also exist when the kids inherit their parents home or belongings. We don’t take the house back, we don’t revoke any long term leases, and we don’t remove any rights. Why would we do it to copyright holders?
What possible reason to deny people to buy other than a CD? It’s simple really: BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO. You cannot legally bind the producer of anything to bring it to you in a format you prefer, and you cannot take it from them anyway if they refuse. That my friend is just a nice self-justification for stealing, If you don’t want it on CD (and aren’t willing to take the couple of minutes it will take to turn it into MP3 files for your walkthing), but you would rather take those same few minutes to pirate it online, well, you already told me everything I need to know about your view of the world. Rob any little old ladies recently?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Perhaps you can make a website and profit from that!”
Already do, thanks! Nice to know you have some semblance of a sense of humour though.
“There are no issues here that do not also exist when the kids inherit their parents home or belongings.”
Nice that you think that. You’re wrong, as ever, but at least it gives a nice view into your fantasy world.
“We don’t take the house back, we don’t revoke any long term leases, and we don’t remove any rights. Why would we do it to copyright holders?”
Well… first of all, last time I checked, the builders, architects, plumbers and electricians don’t make money from their work 50 years down the line, let alone their children. Why are musicians special in this case? Also, the musicians signed a contract agreeing that their work would enter the public domain (which has been immorally extended at the great expense of less successful artists) – would you expect house owners to be able to ignore the terms of their deeds or mortgage?
“You cannot legally bind the producer of anything to bring it to you in a format you prefer, and you cannot take it from them anyway if they refuse.”
I’ve never said otherwise. However, they also lose the right to complain and try to change the law to meet their ideas of what’s right if sales are lost as a result. Nobody’s saying they don’t have this right, just that it’s fucking moronic to do so and an indication of how little the suits understand their own customer base.
“If you don’t want it on CD (and aren’t willing to take the couple of minutes it will take to turn it into MP3 files for your walkthing), but you would rather take those same few minutes to pirate it online, well, you already told me everything I need to know about your view of the world”
First of all, try to get the point through your incredibly stupid little head that I don’t pirate. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a criminal, and people can make perfectly valid points about how broken the business model is without having a direct stake. There are more than 2 viewpoints here.
However, if I were to choose to buy a CD, I would have to order online, probably from the UK as there’s not many decent retailers here in Spain (and most of them are overpriced), wait 1-3 weeks for delivery (the postal system here is terrible), rip the CD and then throw it in a box, never to be looked at again. Can you not see how incredibly inconvenient that is even for existing fans of the band, and why “piracy”, which takes literally minutes, is not a better option for most people? Why in God’s name would you make it *more* difficult for paying customers to consume your product? This is simply poor business, so don’t come crying to me when you think it’s losing you money. This is half the point usually made here – most of the arguments about “piracy” have nothing to do with price, and the music industry are idiots for not meeting their own customers demand.
“Rob any little old ladies recently?”
Again with the idiocy. You tell me – how is robbing little old ladies the same as copying a digital file, again?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, first off, you can keep the chicken fucking for yourself.
Did you pay South Park for that reference? If not, why are you so anti-artist?
We don’t take the house back, we don’t revoke any long term leases, and we don’t remove any rights.
The kids are free to inherit whatever their parents have already earned from the copyrights. Nobody is suggesting that we do otherwise.
And those “rights” were never granted to heirs in the first place. They were granted for the sole purpose of providing an incentive to create new works – for public use. Allowing copyright to be transferred by will does make some sense, but not to the degree that it happens today.
Really, the problem is not that copyrights can be transferred by will, but that they last far too long in the first place. They exist to give artists and publishers the opportunity to recover the costs of production, nothing more.
What possible reason to deny people to buy other than a CD? It’s simple really: BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO.
And who allows them to do it? That’s right – the public. Because they’re the ones that are supposed to benefit, not artists.
If “piracy” was still defined as commercial infringement – like it was throughout most of history – then this would really be a non-issue. But by calling fans sharing music “pirates,” the copyright owners have declared war on the very people copyright was supposed to benefit.
And, in the process, they’re trying to destroy the main thing that makes the music valuable – as this PSA shows.
Thank goodness the fans see right through this bunkum.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By heirs and successors I hope you mean Michael Jackson heirs and successors since he was the one who hold the rights for the entire Beatles catalog along with Sony.
Sir Paul McCartney was not sending Christmas cards to MJ I believe.
Also how many people do you see carrying a discman around?
WTF would anybody buy a CD?
Except for excentric people who like to collect things and have an unreasonable belief in the quality of such things like people who believe that cassette tapes are good quality, or that vynil has better sound even though it crackles a lot and it looses its form little by little every time it is played.
That’s a false dichotomy.
uh, no, it isn’t. However it appears you wish it was.
Why are you trying to complicate and misdirect a simple question?
Artists create the music, and then decide what they want to do with it.
They could keep it to themselves, give it away for free, or decide to go to a record label.
Why is that a difficult concept for you to wrap your head around, if you’re supposedly “a musician with releases and lots of friends at record labels”? Can you explain to us why that isn’t true?
And don’t again use the tired piracy debate technique of answering the question you wish you were asked, instead of the one posed to you.
Re: Re:
Haha
Re: Re:
“Artists create the music, and then decide what they want to do with it.”
Absolutely.
If they choose to hide it in a drawer, no one will ever appreciate it or even hear it.
Otherwise they make it public and people will do what they want with it.
That would be the natural situation, now justify any other approach.
Re: Re:
uh, no, it isn’t.
Nuh-uh plus infinity!
Why are you trying to complicate and misdirect a simple question?
Ironic that you haven’t actually asked anything. Just called people who share music “assholes and lawbreakers” who don’t believe that “music and musicians matter” and don’t want them to get paid.
In fact, you’re insulting the biggest consumers of music – and the PSA itself shows why.
Meanwhile you not only ignore, but defend and excuse, the exploitation of musicians by their labels, which is far worse for artists than file sharing could ever be.
But let’s get back on track. I’m just going to assume that the question is, “Why shouldn’t artists have absolute control over their art, and get paid every single time it is used?” And that is not a simple question.
The plain fact is that artists throughout history have always known that once the music reaches another person’s eyes and ears, the art is no longer “under their control.” And the tension between art, commerce, and culture has been going on long before copyright existed, and will go on long after it’s gone.
But since both the original post and the PSA itself were all about how sharing makes music matter, I’d say it’s you who are misdirecting the conversation.
Artists create the music, and then decide what they want to do with it.
And the moment it reaches the public, it’s no longer entirely under their control. And the less it’s under their control, the more valuable it becomes. That is the message this PSA is sending: music matters because it’s shared. That it is hypocritically used to attack fans sharing music is the entire point of this article.
They could keep it to themselves, give it away for free, or decide to go to a record label.
Again: false dichotomy – and I’ve already explained why.
The only ones who believe this tripe are label reps and other snake oil salesmen. “If you’re not signing with us, you’re just giving it away for free!” Everyone knows it’s total bullshit.
Can you explain to us why that isn’t true?
Well, I’ve been trying, but you haven’t been listening.
(By the way: “Us?”)
Oh, was it anti-piracy? Really? I understood it exactly the opposite way – it is a very good pro-sharing video clip! It points to sharing music and the whole experience right there!
Re: Re:
Watching that video, knowing it’s an anti-piracy advertisement, the message that I still got from it was that sharing music is important. Yes, indeed, music matters. I agree with that.
AC rebuttal
“This site is simply a cesspool of sociopathic, parasitic sewer fucks.”
So….what are you doing here, then? You, and others of your ilk, swim in the same cesspool; much like leeches who can’t survive without their sewer fucks. That would make you 1) a leech, and 2) an argumentative, low-brow parasite. I should know, my ex-girlfriend is just like you. I kicked her ass to the curb. It is one thing to express your polar-opposite opinion (which, in your case, is quite humorous, should you like mouth-foaming and eye-bulging insanity outbursts); it is quite another to verbally bash others for their’s.
Re: AC rebuttal
“Parasitic Sewer Fucks” would be an awesome name for a rock band.
Re: Re: AC rebuttal
Could be the name for the next “Angry Birds” too.
Re: Re: AC rebuttal
“Parasitic Sewer Fucks” would be an awesome name for a rock band.
Or the worst porno ever.
Extra! Extra! Pirates may win elections in Germany!
http://torrentfreak.com/german-pirate-party-on-course-to-election-win-110820/
Holly cow!
Pirates are starting to make a difference in some big economies now.
The next one could be the U.K. will the pirates win seats on the U.K. too anytime soon?
Is it really wise?
I dunno, talking about the Beatles as a wonderful experience sounds like BS to me. Perfect for anything anti-piracy.
This may be the greatest proof that cognitive dissonance is a real fact.
How else to explain people trying to stop others from sharing, pointing out how sharing is cool and benefit everyone.
LoL
The Beatles, indisputably, have to be the most ironic of choices for an anti-music piracy ad for the simple fact that they were being robbed blind by their label and countless others from virtually the inception of Beatlemania up to the present time. I support every provision that has been utilized in protecting the integrity of their catalog, and with the advent of internet and its attendant downloading capabilities, these provisions are even more essential for every artist, the Beatles being just the standard for everyone.
Unlike any musical act before them, the Beatles actually increased the record-buying population in the 60’s, with hundreds of thousands of young people wanting to own their singles and LPs rather than just hear them sporadically on the radio – people who otherwise would not have purchased records.
Aside from Great Britain’s crushing tax laws that guaranteed it impossible that every citizen could ever truly prosper or advance beyond their social class, the royalty rates from the Beatles’ records was distressingly low; however, EMI and Capitol Records were no different in that aspect than any other record label. It doesn’t change the fact that the Beatles lost untold millions of dollars through the various exploitative companies that illegaly profited from their image. And the group remained entangled in legal processes with their own label over copyright issues for decades after they disbanded (two of ’em right up to their deaths).
Because of strict copyright laws, we have been spared having to hear butchered bastardizations of their tunes to promote thousands of products and services in shitloads of inane tv, radio and ad commercials, or had to sort through countless inferior ‘greatest hits’ packages and cheap merchandise that these laws are designed to prevent.
Residuals and royalties should be discontinued once an artist passes as a matter of course; but to condemn the existence of their art to the public domain would only ensure that this art will be reduced in significance and historical impact and influence for future generations- that is, their true intent and importance will be ultimately diminished and all but forgotten, and every artist can look forward to knowing the work they’ve invested their lives into creating will eventually one day be just as worthless and meaningless as a used styrofoam cup.
Sure, I copy music all the time, because of the available technology- but 90% of what I’ve put on blank CDs, cassettes, 8-track videotapes, etc, has already been purchased by me at one point or another- if I had not bought it, the artist who created it would have given up long ago, the music itself being unavailable in any format because no one bought it the first time around, and we’d be missing out on some amazing stuff because it wouldn’t have been created otherwise.
Re: Re:
That’s a great post but I’d argue that if the Beatles music fell into the public domain after a reasonable copyright term of 25 years, say in the 1980s and 1990s, the historical importance of their music would never have diminished. Their place in history (and riches because of it) had long been established.
Yes, it might open them up to cheap commercial exploitation, but media companies have proven that plenty of the music they own the copyright too is not so precious that it can’t stand a little cheap commercial exploitation. They’ve built their business on it.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I feel like culture is at a standstill – that very little has progressed in music since the Beatles, and significantly little has happened since Nirvana. I wonder if that’s because extended copyright has locked down culture under corporate control, where the status quo rules, and anything and original new gets quickly assimilated and polished for mass consumption (or if unpolishable, discarded and ignored). Yes, rock and roll is here to stay. They never said that was a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s true that The Beatles’ place in history has long been established, as it has for a majority of the memorable artists from the 50’s and 60’s. But for the most part this recognition has come way too late to be of any financial benefit to the artist- with record companies, at least there were contracts and sales figures and bookkeeping that usually provided immediate monetary rewards for struggling acts, despite how unfairly they could be exploited as their popularity progressed.
But as much as I dislike most of the music and/or the artists of today, the rules and practices of the companies and recording studios have completely changed, due to both the advent of computers, the internet and downloading resources and the way music is becoming much less of a tangible product than previously, as the dramatic drop in CD sales is proving: now, the artists ‘drop’ new music, and the variety of ways that music can be listened to has made every traditional format (records, radio, tv) less essential or exclusive in providing or distributing. With so many newly-created Charts that measure sales for iTunes or Rhapsody downloads in mp3 and other non-material music devices, a new artist can conceivably be considered a superstar by the mainstream and at the same time have dismal sales figures and be on the edge of bankruptcy. Without at the very least “a reasonable copyright term of 25 years” as jupiterkansas suggests, and all new music being immediately available through the internet, illegally or otherwise, there are going to be more and more artists that simply cannot afford to “sell their souls” for rock and roll and still survive in a an entirely new competitive marketplace.
Music Matters?
Talk about presumptuous. Actually, it doesn’t “matter”. Anyway, I’m still waiting for their Grateful Dead PSA… that ought to be interesting.
“But for the most part this recognition has come way too late to be of any financial benefit to the artist- with record companies, at least there were contracts and sales figures and bookkeeping that usually provided immediate monetary rewards for struggling acts, despite how unfairly they could be exploited as their popularity progressed.”
I fail to see how greater copyright protection would change this. Surely longer/more restrictive copyright terms would benefit those labels who exploit the artists, not the artists?
“the way music is becoming much less of a tangible product than previously, as the dramatic drop in CD sales is proving”
Music is not a “tangible product”, never has been and never will be. For a short period of history, the most popular and convenient way to share music was to sell copies on plastic discs. This is no longer the case, and is unlikely to be again in the foreseeable future. So, ways in which musicians can make money that existed in the past (live gigs, bespoke songwriting/performance) and new methods have to be used instead of selling plastic. Deal with it.
“the artists ‘drop’ new music, and the variety of ways that music can be listened to has made every traditional format (records, radio, tv) less essential or exclusive in providing or distributing”
This is not a problem, unless you depend on those formats. The musicians get their music available to the widest possible audience, and there’s ways to monetise that.
“Without at the very least “a reasonable copyright term of 25 years” as jupiterkansas suggests, and all new music being immediately available through the internet, illegally or otherwise, there are going to be more and more artists that simply cannot afford to “sell their souls” for rock and roll and still survive in a an entirely new competitive marketplace.”
As often repeated here – this is only true if you think the only way to make money is the selling of copies of existing music. If you think that, you’re already a failure in the modern marketplace, no matter if copyright lasts 500 years.
Re: Re:
It is only proper email etiquette to offer a gracious acknowledgment towards such an impressive display of awesome and admittedly superior ‘Martial Art’-level C&P skills. I had heard that the Copy-and-Paste Technique was a forgotten art of the email dominion, giving way to the now commonly-accepted texting/twittering and IM’ing that doesn’t allow for such ancient indulgences.
It’s obvious you weren’t expecting another equally adept practitioner of the C&P Method of Defense By Literary Manipulations of Other People’s Words… were you??
Let’s dance, Sparky!
“Surely longer/more restrictive copyright terms would benefit those labels who exploit the artists, not the artists?”
OK, I take a pass on that one, I haven’t really thought out the copyright thing, moving on- as Bill O’Reilly said so eloquently: “It will not be mentioned again.”
“Music is not a ‘tangible product’, never has been and never will be. For a short period of history, the most popular and convenient way to share music was to sell copies on plastic discs. This is no longer the case, and is unlikely to be again in the foreseeable future.”
Excuse me, but if those “plastic discs” you describe are/were not indeed as literally ‘tangible’ as even a one-celled life form could interpret, I suggest you look up the word, already. The “short period of history” you naively think is going to continue beyond the next decade or so is the first time in history that music could be recorded and preserved on an audio document, like “plastic discs,” or “crazy tape-loop cartridge thingies” and of course those “icky-dirty digital watchamajiggers” and all that other archaic junk that is “unlikely… in the foreseeable future.” Statements like these, too lazy to make an effort to be explanatory and serving only to be contradictory in spite of the absence of logic to get away with it –written words that you can actually read on a screen, expose your clipped rhetorical statements that would otherwise be scented with an air of indignance and WTF condescension when spoken out loud.
If you think the ‘computer age’ is the whiz-bang, all-purpose answer for the world’s future, good luck to your exclusive little worldview. Hell, the LP record outsold the CD format last year, and you think they’re on the way out? Twenty-plus years of technology up their ass and they STILL can’t make a CD sound better than a high fidelity “plastic disc”! How’s that ‘brilliant new technology’ enhancing your life? And next time you’re swapping spit with a pimple-faced technogeek tell him I WANT A REFUND OF ALL THE ‘REAL’ MONEY I PAID FOR THE THOUSANDS OF “PLASTIC DISCS” YOU INSIST ARE NOT ‘TANGIBLE’, though I have a dozen or so boxes stored around my house that would take exception to your dumbass statement.
(You’re a goddamn republican, aren’t you? Yes you are, I know this!)
“So, ways in which musicians can make money that existed in the past (live gigs, bespoke songwriting/performance) and new methods have to be used instead of selling plastic. Deal with it.”
That first sentence isn’t a sentence at all, more of a thoughtless fragment that even your crude use of parentheses fail to divert horrendous attention from.
As for the advice to “Deal with it” – just exactly what do you think I need to deal with? I haven’t played a radio or purchased new music in the last 25 years- I’m a BEATLES fan, did you not get that part?? We have NO USE for music made less than 30 years ago! If you’re the young, vibrant republican spokesman of the new frontier, it seems like you’re the one who’s going to have to “deal with it.” Probably sounded too good in your head to not type it out, am I right?
Re ‘the artists ‘drop’ new music, and the variety of ways that music can be listened to has made every traditional format (records, radio, tv) less essential or exclusive in providing or distributing”
“This is not a problem, unless you depend on those formats. The musicians get their music available to the widest possible audience, and there’s ways to monetise that.”
Questions? Anyone?? Like maybe name one fucking “WAY” to monetise that??!!?? Not even one example?? That statement has no validity whatsoever, never has and never will. Deal with that, you ignorant punk.
Oh, and here’s another shitload of wisdom from on high:
“As often repeated here – this is only true if you think the only way to make money is the selling of copies of existing music.”
Apparently you haven’t studied many other options, either. Or do you just choose to keep ’em to yourself?
We’ll just have to deal with it, I suppose.
Re: Re: Re:
Erm, wow. I think you broke something here. When I saw this reply in my email updates, I thought someone had been spamming the forum and was having a good laugh… but then I saw quotes from me… Let’s go through a few points slowly, since you really won’t take a complex, thorough response (I’ll ignore the first few paragraphs, since I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about).
“Excuse me, but if those “plastic discs” you describe are/were not indeed as literally ‘tangible’ as even a one-celled life form could interpret, I suggest you look up the word, already.”
If you read what I actually said, I said that the plastic discs were the tangible thing, the music itself isn’t. Why tie the industry down to only monetising the discs when there are so many other options?
“The “short period of history”… is the first time in history that music could be recorded and preserved on an audio document”
…and if the recording industry are to believed, it’s disappearing fast. Horse drawn taxicabs, music halls and the telegraph were also things that enjoyed popularity, but don’t really exist in their previous forms, or only as a relic of history where they do. The phonograph was a good invention, but we’ve moved on even if you think that the pinnacle of invention was the 33.
“Hell, the LP record outsold the CD format last year”
I somehow doubt that outside of niche markets. Either way – citation please? I would love to see figures rather than baseless assertions.
“(You’re a goddamn republican, aren’t you? Yes you are, I know this!)”
You’re a frigging idiot for even suggesting this, if your previous diatribe wasn’t proof enough. Hint: I lean left politically and I’m not American, the latter clearly stated in many posts and my profile.
“That first sentence isn’t a sentence at all”
I suggest you re-read your own grammar before disparaging others. People in glass houses, and all that.
“just exactly what do you think I need to deal with?”
That recorded music doesn’t account for 100% of the music industry, that the preferred listening methods for millions aren’t ones you personally like and that your musical idols will never record another note. There’s probably more, you do sound rather bitter at where progress is taking you.
“Like maybe name one fucking “WAY” to monetise that??”
Re-read the last 5 years or so of articles on this very site, including my long history of comments here. Most such methods have been around for decades, and I mentioned some of them above. In the sentences you chose to ignore, before trying to attack me for words I didn’t say and political and national credentials I do not hold.
For the record, I also own over 800 vinyls, at least 500 CDs and at least 200Gb of legally obtained MP3s, among the many other options I choose to consume music (ranging from clubs and festivals to Spotify to blogs). Just as I have done for decades, and my music options have increased dramatically during the last decade, which I revel in. I would love to discuss real options, but tend to get called names and have people attack strawmen instead of attempting discussion of my actual points. As ably demonstrated by yourself.
The article that reported vinyl LP’s outsold CDs in 2010 (in the entire industry, not just “a niche market”) is from Rolling Stone magazine, exact issue unknown, but it had to have been in one of the last 4 or 5 issues (#1133 – 1137)
“citation please? I would love to see figures rather than baseless assertions.”)
I also prefer citations to “baseless assertions,” especially inane ones like: “The musicians get their music available to the widest possible audience…,” “and there’s ways to monetise that.” No ‘citation’ was supplied with those statements, either, which would make them – how you say? Aaahh yes — “baseless assertions? – so aren?t these unacceptable also, or does that only apply to anyone who isn?t you?
?I said that the plastic discs were the tangible thing, the music itself isn’t.?
Recording music onto plastic discs makes the music ?tangible?, just like reading a book into a microphone & putting it into audio book format makes that into a ?tangible? product.
So anyhoo, you?re wrong, I?m right, this discussion is old & I?m outta here.
Re: Re:
Well, I’ve been away for a few days but I really do have to continue this.
“The article… is from Rolling Stone magazine, exact issue unknown, but it had to have been in one of the last 4 or 5 issues (#1133 – 1137)”
Well, it is nice to have a citation, but I’m still not convinced. I don’t have access to those magazines, but a Google search didn’t turn up any reference to those figures or that article. It did, however, turn up the following, which makes me wonder if your memory is perhaps faulty. From RS magazine’s site, dated January 6, 2011: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/vinyl-sales-increase-despite-industry-slump-20110106
“Though overall album sales dropped 13 percent in 2010, sales of vinyl increased by 14 percent over the previous year, with around 2.8 million units sold.”.
Note, this does NOT say that vinyl outsold CDs, only that sales increased by a larger percentage than overall sales dropped. This is meaningless without actual sales figures and means nothing like you assert it does, if this was the article you had in mind. I have heavy doubts that these sales surpassed digital, let alone CDs, and will remain sceptical unless you can point to something that tells me otherwise, not just a random article in a single magazine I don’t read.
“so aren?t these unacceptable also, or does that only apply to anyone who isn?t you?”
Christ, I’m making assertions based on the thousands of articles here on this very site for starters, along with common, blinding sense. Take the things you’ve quoted from me: “The musicians get their music available to the widest possible audience”. Erm, yes, how do they not? “there’s ways to monetise that” – yes, including leveraging the exposure to get higher profit gigs, sell merchandising, get licensed for soundtracks, etc.
“Recording music onto plastic discs makes the music ?tangible?, just like reading a book into a microphone & putting it into audio book format makes that into a ?tangible? product.”
FFS, no it doesn’t. The CD is the tangible object. The music isn’t. I’m sorry that basic logic eludes you.
“So anyhoo, you?re wrong, I?m right,”
Another baseless assertion. Everything I’m reading suggest the polar opposite.