Basebuck
In Texas..
Any thoughts or opinions on this.
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Basebuck
- Start date
I've been doing it for aittle over a year now. Mostly music from the 60"s and 70's. Pay $.49 or so per song. It's just me, but I don't believe that it is fair to the artists for them not to collect their share.
There is a tv com. where this young girl is bragging about getting arrested for downloading songs without paying. She seems proud of it. Something is wrong with that. The website she was promoting was iTunes.com. I checked it out, but wasn't impressed.
That is my opinion (of which I have a few
).
There is a tv com. where this young girl is bragging about getting arrested for downloading songs without paying. She seems proud of it. Something is wrong with that. The website she was promoting was iTunes.com. I checked it out, but wasn't impressed.
That is my opinion (of which I have a few
).
Upvote
0
If you are after free music you would be amazed at the 'library' of music available from the Columbus Library system. Find what you want through their online catalog, have it send to the nearest branch and away you go. I am sure it is similar in other cities.
I agree artists should be paid for their work, but you can really go off on a lot of tangents on that argument.
First, current lawsuits have nothing to do with the artists getting their share. It is all about the way music is distributed and the record companies staying in the chain. If artists downloaded thier muisc directly without the middle men they could do it for a dime a song and be way ahead of what they make today. What is happening with sites like iTunes is that the major players are tring to maintain control and force artists to go through them for distribution.
I also have a hard time feeling sorry for groups like Metallica not getting every dime for their creative efforts. One hundred years ago the greatest talents had to perform live to be paid. If you could sneka inside the fence you could listen for free.
As technology has evolved those same artists have benefited enormously - but they didn't create that technology. Now that continued evolution is providing ways for folks to sneak in again. Wrong? Depends on how you want to look at it. Why should a musician get a million bucks for recording a CD one time while a teacher is only reimbursed for the time they spend in the classroom or your local fast food chef get paid minimum wage for the hours they spend in front of the grill? We can talk about legality, but I have to snicker when folks try to make it a fairness or morality issue. These folks aren't going broke. Shania Twain will be able to feed her family this week. What she is losing is that last half million or so. Boo hoo.
Many of my favorities artists are lesser known acoustic musicians (John Gorka, Lucy Kaplansky, Greg Brown - the 'new' folk music you hear at Six Strings - best kept secret in Columbus). Many of these folks love what is happening - it is one of the ways news of their music spreads. When I invite a friend to a concert and they have never heard of the artist I often burn a CD for them. They frequently attend the concert and often buy additional music. How is that a bad thing for anybody?
I agree artists should be paid for their work, but you can really go off on a lot of tangents on that argument.
First, current lawsuits have nothing to do with the artists getting their share. It is all about the way music is distributed and the record companies staying in the chain. If artists downloaded thier muisc directly without the middle men they could do it for a dime a song and be way ahead of what they make today. What is happening with sites like iTunes is that the major players are tring to maintain control and force artists to go through them for distribution.
I also have a hard time feeling sorry for groups like Metallica not getting every dime for their creative efforts. One hundred years ago the greatest talents had to perform live to be paid. If you could sneka inside the fence you could listen for free.
As technology has evolved those same artists have benefited enormously - but they didn't create that technology. Now that continued evolution is providing ways for folks to sneak in again. Wrong? Depends on how you want to look at it. Why should a musician get a million bucks for recording a CD one time while a teacher is only reimbursed for the time they spend in the classroom or your local fast food chef get paid minimum wage for the hours they spend in front of the grill? We can talk about legality, but I have to snicker when folks try to make it a fairness or morality issue. These folks aren't going broke. Shania Twain will be able to feed her family this week. What she is losing is that last half million or so. Boo hoo.
Many of my favorities artists are lesser known acoustic musicians (John Gorka, Lucy Kaplansky, Greg Brown - the 'new' folk music you hear at Six Strings - best kept secret in Columbus). Many of these folks love what is happening - it is one of the ways news of their music spreads. When I invite a friend to a concert and they have never heard of the artist I often burn a CD for them. They frequently attend the concert and often buy additional music. How is that a bad thing for anybody?
Upvote
0
KillerNut
Banned
We are getting to the point where we are going to have the need for the government to subsidize the musicians and other artists in order to keep moving forward as a society in that way.
Copying and unauthorized distribution will slowly kill the industy so it is not profitable. Once that happens their will be no more distribution, and therefore no more stars and mass distribution of music. Therefore we will not get to hear the best of the best, (if that is what we are hearing now). People will shy away from music even more than they do now. Ideas and colaboration will become less.
I really believe that it is in the better intrests of the nation to stop this.
Copying and unauthorized distribution will slowly kill the industy so it is not profitable. Once that happens their will be no more distribution, and therefore no more stars and mass distribution of music. Therefore we will not get to hear the best of the best, (if that is what we are hearing now). People will shy away from music even more than they do now. Ideas and colaboration will become less.
I really believe that it is in the better intrests of the nation to stop this.
Upvote
0
"Therefore we will not get to hear the best of the best"
I feel the exact opposite. The most direct result of what is happening is more people are exposed to more music.
I am certainly not suggesting or expecting that the current practice be legalized. But it is not the end of muisc as we know it. 'The Best of the Best' is commonly what the music giants and MTV tell us is good to begin with. What commonly keeps folks from being exposed to broader ranges of music is the $17.00 price tag - not the armies of talented musicians who are giving up in despair because Kazaa keeps them from making a living. 90% of the music I enjoy can't be found on a download site to begin with.
I feel the exact opposite. The most direct result of what is happening is more people are exposed to more music.
I am certainly not suggesting or expecting that the current practice be legalized. But it is not the end of muisc as we know it. 'The Best of the Best' is commonly what the music giants and MTV tell us is good to begin with. What commonly keeps folks from being exposed to broader ranges of music is the $17.00 price tag - not the armies of talented musicians who are giving up in despair because Kazaa keeps them from making a living. 90% of the music I enjoy can't be found on a download site to begin with.
Upvote
0
I have been doing this for years now and to tell you the truth I do nto feel bad about it whatsoever. Boo hoo, Metallica will only make $20 million this year, poor them. Now if there is a little known band (such as O.A.R. which everyone should hear) that I like I buy their CD simply b/c if I don't they may not make another one. And alot of the songs I download are live versions, covers, or other songs that I can not buy on CD. I also agree with Oh8ch that downloading gets the little guys name out there so when they tour people will go see them. As a side note if anyone needs a place to download KaZaa lite, I have it. It got shut down b/c of some anti-trust law or something or other and you don't get the massive amounts of spyware with it.
Upvote
0
Oh8ch is right. We hear what the powers-that-be want us to hear...period. A lot of the music that comes out now is pure shit, yet it sells tons because that's all that is made available to us. You'll probably never hear really talented guys like James Katz because he doesn't have a high-powered producer. MTV acts like they play these "new, cutting edge" bands, but guess what...those bands don't get the MTV airtime until big name producers jump into their food chain. Music companies not only take the lion's schare of the profits from CD sales, but also from artists' tours. For example, say that Blink182 brings in $250,000 in ticket sales one night at a stadium gig. You know that TicketMaster and the record company will get well over half between them. Concessionares have to pay big time (booth fees, royalties per item, etc.) to sell shirts and shit. That's why you pay $25-$30 for a ****ing $5 T-shirt. A record compnay can make over a million dollars on a sold-out large venue. Some bands play 100 gigs in a year, earning eight figures for their record company after expenses.
I've never downloaded a single song from a downloading service (they put spyware shit on your computer), but I almost never buy CDs anymore because anyone making a 2000% profit on an item deserves to be boycotted.
I've never downloaded a single song from a downloading service (they put spyware shit on your computer), but I almost never buy CDs anymore because anyone making a 2000% profit on an item deserves to be boycotted.
Upvote
0
LoKyBuckeye
I give up. This board is too hard to understand.
I've downloaded music for various reasons... sometimes I already own the cd but don't have it on my hard drive and it easier to just download the song. I've used it to hear bands that I'm not sure if I'd like.... take OAR, someone recomended them on BN so I downloaded a couple songs to see if I'd like them. Since then I have bought all their CD's and have become a really big fan.
I don't think it's that big of a deal if you download a song every now and then... now if you have 5000 songs on your computer that'sa little different IMHO.
I think I might start an iTunes account... for those who use it, do you like it?
:osu:
I don't think it's that big of a deal if you download a song every now and then... now if you have 5000 songs on your computer that'sa little different IMHO.
I think I might start an iTunes account... for those who use it, do you like it?
:osu:
Upvote
0
