Oh, and I suppose you also object to buying a book by Ernest Hemingway
and having to pay the bookseller full price for that? Since when did
anybody offer discounts because the writers or artist was dead? Or do
you think you're going to get an Andy Warhol work for less money
because he's dead? Grow up.

Yes, totally. That's what I like about the Dover publishing company.
They reissue books in the public domain and charge very little for the
prints (which they probably have to do in pretty small runs anyway
considering the relative obscure nature of their titles). I'm happy to
pay for a good or service, the good in this case being a physical object
like a book (or CD), but I have a problem paying for a "right" (or other
intangible). It's strange that "rights" can be bought and sold, even on
merely a grammatical level. I believe in ownership of property, but
ideas....hmmmm....not sure. To me, a musical composition falls into the
idea category.

And I think not being selfish with ideas is a big part of being humble,
mature, and "grown up".

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

In article writes:

And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make
money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just
plain wrong.

Make some sales, sure. Make a profit, maybe - a few do. Make a living
wage, also maybe but it involves a lot of hard work and a small
handful are successful.

Make a couple of million bucks for a few years? S'not gonna happen.
That requires "the music machine."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article
writes:

CDs cost about 60 cents to make

Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
you noting,

??? My equipment was free???

and having a living income so you don't have to work while
you're making that 60 cent CD.

I don't quit follow your logic Mike.

I'm just trying to figure out how you make CDs for sixty cents.
Obviously what goes on to them costs you nothing to make. How can you
do that without either free equipment or free studio time?

FYI, what I live on would be
starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
enterprise.

No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
responsibilities to others than yourself.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.

There may not be cash or eagle feathers or goat skins handed over
after a musical perfomance at a tribal gathering, but in nearly all
cultures that have integrated music into the culture, the musicians
have a special standing in the community. Sometimes they're fed,
sometimes they're housed, Sometimes they're even paid. Maybe what we
need is for the government to support the music industry. How'd you
like that?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?

Because the artist has to spend his time being an artist and doesn't
have time to run a record production and distribution company.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

That is one reason. The other reason is that it's no longer
neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record.

I think there is. Otherwise why would we be rading all these messages
here from people who complain that even after buying a couple of
thousand dollars worth of gear (not very much money) their records
don't sound like the commercial recordings they hear? The answer is
that those recordings cost a whole lot more to make because they're
made in studios which have been constructed for the purpose, with
equipment that's been selected from a large collection (all of which
has been paid for), the "artist's" music has been supplemented by
other musicians, writers, and arrangers, all of whom are paid a living
wage, the recording and mixing is done by not one artist in his
bedroom but by a team of engineers and producers all of whom are
making a living wage.

Many of these costs can be amortized when you're in the business and
use the same facilities and human resources close to full time, but
not when you're an individual with no established track record.

But kids mostly don't want to hear that sound anymore anyway. They
like acts like Moby, who just uses midi and sampling to cut and paste
stuff together. Same thing with most R & B and Rap music.

So why don't we hear much more of that sort of music produced by
individuals? And why doesn't it sell? It's a good hobby. Now I'm not
tuned in to this culture so maybe there really are individuals making
serious money at home producing such recordings. Educate me. Most of
the home made music that I see is from singer/songwriters (who pretty
much support themselves by touring, supplemented by CD sales).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 2/26/05 3:47 AM, in article 0JWTd.48002$uc.38929@trnddc03, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:

At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to
have sex by telling them it is wrong.

What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the internet)
or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of learn.


Ummm David, I'm applauding and holding the spotlight on your posts here but
you kinda wandered out into left field here with this particular analogy
(and thus someone's going to be able to tear it assunder and ruin your
overall point effectively but uselessly.. We need to keep winning here!)
since contrceptives ARE a real and solid answer to the Problem of
irresponsible/immature humans making new humans.

Hev wrote:

People aren't getting paid because of this outdated thinking.

If you don't pay for the music, that is why people aren't getting paid.
You want to make it fancier than that. But it isn't fancier than that.

--
ha

On 2/26/05 11:10 AM, in article
1109434228.2d6e14498a5461854a286d47c8ed89bb@terane ws, "Trevor de Clercq"
wrote:
It's strange that "rights" can be bought and sold, even on
merely a grammatical level. I believe in ownership of property, but
ideas....hmmmm....not sure. To me, a musical composition falls into the
idea category.

Trevor, first know I fiond your posts here rock solid and on target.
With that in mind, doesn;t what you;re propsing here mean that any
invention should never allow the inventor to profit? That our Artists and
Wisemen deserve less from what they do for us than a burger-flipper?



And I think not being selfish with ideas is a big part of being humble,
mature, and "grown up".

Indeed. But it should it not be the Ideaist's choice to give freely or
bargain for something as sustainance?

I do always feel like I'm getting ripped off when I spend money on
software, yes. $1000 for some plug-ins that will for all intents and
purposes be worth nothing in a few years? That being said, I do pay for
software because the cracked versions often suck and I do want to
support the companies writing the software. However, I do use freeware
and shareware (the shareware I support if it's good) whenever I can.
Professional studios have to buy legit software for support and
stability issues, I think.

I'm not sure what the point of your Hemingway analogy is. To me you are
only arguing that the book should just be equal to the cost of
production, distribution, shipping, and retail. With the internet, that
boils down to just production, shipping, and minor retail costs. In a
digital form, it would only be minor production costs.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

hank alrich wrote:
play_on wrote:


CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?


That's funny. I bought a CD that cost me almost a grand. Had some kind
of software on it. Was I ripped off?

The cost of the plastic is irrelevant, yeah? What's the paper worth in a
Hemingway novel, compared to the words on the paper?

--
ha

On 2/26/05 10:36 AM, in article
1109432201.6d744c5c057a0d923f104e170dd6ba0d@terane ws, "Trevor de Clercq"
wrote:

I don't understand how our society rewards musicians who perhaps make
one or two musical offerings (i.e. albums) and are able to retire on
these earnings. Are those people really musicians at the end of the
day, anyway?

Ahhhh! I see what's happening:
You're mis-stating the actual ISSUE...
They indeed are -NOT- being paid to be musicians,
they;re not being paid in ANY way commensurately for what they DO or even
CAN do...
They;re being paid for what they are worth as MARKETTING FODDER,
exactly like top sports stars or any working photo model.

It's payment for being a momentary POPULARITY-DRIVEN piece of very effective
bait, numbers set by what a marketting campaign can generate in consumer
attention/sales by hanging on their momentary notoriety.
In THAT context, why should they NOT get paid somewhat commensurately with
what they're making in added business $$ for the client? It has NOTHING to
do with DESERVING the money but merely the tit-for-tat element of getting a
cut of the pie determined by how big the pie wouldn;t be wiothout them in
the picture.

Equating MARKETTING with ART is hugely easy since that's what Marketting
SELLS us: the imagined EQUATION of what You See with What Is Real, it's way
too common and makes for MOST of the arguing-at-cross-purposes that happens
in this vein.

John, thanks for the words of support. I think I'm still working out my
exact position on the costs for intangible things. Perhaps some things
should be "patentable" or "copyrightable", but if so, I think it should
definitely be less constrained than it is now. The way music is not
public domain still years after an artist's death seems ludicrous.

Perhaps copyrights should be more like patents. After 20 years from the
date of publication, the music should probably belong to the public
domain. Why should certain ideas or bodies of intellectual property be
covered for different lengths of time than others?

I doubt I'll resolve my position on copyrights here in this forum, but
it's good to help refine them.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the Willie Dixon - Led Zeppelin issue.
To me, the songs Zep created were so far removed from the Willie Dixon
material, Zep had made them their own. And so much of what Zep did was
derivative (yet totally new) anyway, you really can't say that it was
from just one source or another. Would the songs be any less powerful
with different lyrics? Probably not. But that's like all music. More
to the point, the fact that some of those songs were Willie Dixon
"covers" (to me) only served as advertising for Willie Dixon. I went
out and bought the Chess boxed set long ago and love it!

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

John wrote:
On 2/26/05 11:10 AM, in article
1109434228.2d6e14498a5461854a286d47c8ed89bb@terane ws, "Trevor de Clercq"
wrote:

It's strange that "rights" can be bought and sold, even on
merely a grammatical level. I believe in ownership of property, but
ideas....hmmmm....not sure. To me, a musical composition falls into the
idea category.


Trevor, first know I fiond your posts here rock solid and on target.
With that in mind, doesn;t what you;re propsing here mean that any
invention should never allow the inventor to profit? That our Artists and
Wisemen deserve less from what they do for us than a burger-flipper?



And I think not being selfish with ideas is a big part of being humble,
mature, and "grown up".


Indeed. But it should it not be the Ideaist's choice to give freely or
bargain for something as sustainance?

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:8xWTd.48001$uc.27183@trnddc03...

"Hev" wrote in message...

It isn't stealing.


Your are SOOOOO WRONG. Sure, you can say you weren't the
one who put the song from the CD on the web.... but as long as it's
there, you might as well take it, right? Or was it you who pirated the
CD to start with? Nah.... it's cats like you and 'play-on' (in this case)
who just take it because it's there. Justify it any way you like, but it
really doesn't hold up... and laying the blame on a new 'technology'
for making mass-theft possible and telling everyone they should just
"get used to it" is a real chicken **** excuse to promote even more
theft.


I disagree. You need to look at the new technology like the industry looked
at cassette tape decks for radio. They said THAT would kill the industry
when people could tape songs off the radio. Obviously it didn't. Here we
have a means to reach the largest base of customers in history... and recent
CD sales reports backs up the fact that people are STILL buying CD's. But
they are certainly sharing and sampling things before they make that plunge.
The result?? Bands with genuinely good music are rewarded and the standard
rises.

In my view it is not theft. It is a new technological vehicle, similar to
radio, that remains untapped by industry dinosaurs that just "don't get it".
And from the responses in here, where I thought people would be ahead of the
curve and not behind, I understand why.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me he
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0JWTd.48002$uc.38929@trnddc03...

Bull****... they're abusing the tools... there's a big difference.


You are full of **** David. Is it that you don't understand how to access
this information on the internet?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...315039,00.html

The industry didn't expect rampant piracy of intellectual property.


With the internet having exisited for over a decade I fail to see how this
is news at this point. ADAPT OR DIE!


What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the
internet)
or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of
learn.

You're of a mind that it's not stealing because it can be found on your
precious new internet.... but just remember, some ******* put it there
illegally to start with, and taking it makes you a part of the crime.


No. I am saying they ARE ****ING all day long. So put your logo on and track
the sales of these condoms so we can pay the artist some royalties.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me he
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

I think most people should live a lot more frugally and modestly than
they do. Does everybody in America have to drive an SUV and own a big
house and have brand new appliances and a huge home theater? When did
this become a right or something that is owed to every citizen?

My mother raised me and my brother by herself through teaching piano and
flute, singing in church on sundays and doing some gigs on the side. We
technically lived below the poverty line. But I don't think we lived in
poverty. We had all of our needs attended to. Not a big house or a
fancy new car, but why do people need those things?

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

FYI, what I live on would be
starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
enterprise.


No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
responsibilities to others than yourself.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Amen to that.

John wrote:
On 2/26/05 3:47 AM, in article 0JWTd.48002$uc.38929@trnddc03, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to
have sex by telling them it is wrong.

What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the internet)
or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of learn.



Ummm David, I'm applauding and holding the spotlight on your posts here but
you kinda wandered out into left field here with this particular analogy
(and thus someone's going to be able to tear it assunder and ruin your
overall point effectively but uselessly.. We need to keep winning here!)
since contrceptives ARE a real and solid answer to the Problem of
irresponsible/immature humans making new humans.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Hev wrote:

People aren't getting paid because of this outdated thinking.

If you don't pay for the music, that is why people aren't getting paid.
You want to make it fancier than that. But it isn't fancier than that.


I want the industry to embrace this new technology and track downloads like
the radio tracks plays so the artists start getting some dough.
File sharing isn't going away and is not an issue you can intellectualize
away. It is growing at a rapid pace and is here to stay. Time to use this
incredible new tool and stop sticking your head in the sand.

It is not theft and these people are not criminals.

--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me he
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

Mike Rivers wrote:

They say "Flashback" but the strips have current dates. But so what?
Maybe a few years later more people understand what it's all about.


Well, this topic has immediately devolved back into the "stealing"
bicker-fest, showing that there are a lot of Audio Pros that aren't
catching on. Or maybe they didn't bother to read the strip.

There are songs for the taking all over the internet, legal or not.
Whosoever findeth a way to capitalize on that will be the next
billionare. Whoever thinks that the old way must stay in force by
legislation is only espousing handouts for the majors to subsidize an
outdated status quo. Ah, well, we're legislating ourselves to death in
sooo many ways.

Jimmy T is suggesting one optimistic scenario. Perhaps something like
iTunes will evolve into the perfect Indie distribution system and Ashlee
Simpson will get a real job (even if it *is* in music; she could be on
the front of the next Ray Conniff tape box).

My hope is that those of us who record real musicians will stay open
because the loop factories will die off.

The radio analogy is a pretty good one. My dad (back in the 50's) used
to tape singles that he liked onto a reel-to-reel recorder. Of course,
his parents had the first color TV in the neighborhood, too, so maybe it
wasn't as common as the internet is today, but it's the same idea.

I think it's strange too that you are not allowed to go and tape a band
with your portable DAT. I paid to listen to the music, my microphone
should be able to listen as well. Some bands, like the Dead, were a
little more "with it" than others.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq
(not a hippie, although American Beauty and Workingman's Dead are
amazing creations of music)

Hev wrote:
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:8xWTd.48001$uc.27183@trnddc03...

"Hev" wrote in message...


It isn't stealing.


Your are SOOOOO WRONG. Sure, you can say you weren't the
one who put the song from the CD on the web.... but as long as it's
there, you might as well take it, right? Or was it you who pirated the
CD to start with? Nah.... it's cats like you and 'play-on' (in this case)
who just take it because it's there. Justify it any way you like, but it
really doesn't hold up... and laying the blame on a new 'technology'
for making mass-theft possible and telling everyone they should just
"get used to it" is a real chicken **** excuse to promote even more
theft.



I disagree. You need to look at the new technology like the industry looked
at cassette tape decks for radio. They said THAT would kill the industry
when people could tape songs off the radio. Obviously it didn't. Here we
have a means to reach the largest base of customers in history... and recent
CD sales reports backs up the fact that people are STILL buying CD's. But
they are certainly sharing and sampling things before they make that plunge.
The result?? Bands with genuinely good music are rewarded and the standard
rises.

In my view it is not theft. It is a new technological vehicle, similar to
radio, that remains untapped by industry dinosaurs that just "don't get it".
And from the responses in here, where I thought people would be ahead of the
curve and not behind, I understand why.

I guess I don't really care if these top "artists" get compensated in a
high salary range for being marketing fodder. I just wish the music
were more freely available, especially in formats other than just the
2-track album release. At the end of the day, I'm arguing for more
music being available in the public domain.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

John wrote:
On 2/26/05 10:36 AM, in article
1109432201.6d744c5c057a0d923f104e170dd6ba0d@terane ws, "Trevor de Clercq"
wrote:


I don't understand how our society rewards musicians who perhaps make
one or two musical offerings (i.e. albums) and are able to retire on
these earnings. Are those people really musicians at the end of the
day, anyway?


Ahhhh! I see what's happening:
You're mis-stating the actual ISSUE...
They indeed are -NOT- being paid to be musicians,
they;re not being paid in ANY way commensurately for what they DO or even
CAN do...
They;re being paid for what they are worth as MARKETTING FODDER,
exactly like top sports stars or any working photo model.

It's payment for being a momentary POPULARITY-DRIVEN piece of very effective
bait, numbers set by what a marketting campaign can generate in consumer
attention/sales by hanging on their momentary notoriety.
In THAT context, why should they NOT get paid somewhat commensurately with
what they're making in added business $$ for the client? It has NOTHING to
do with DESERVING the money but merely the tit-for-tat element of getting a
cut of the pie determined by how big the pie wouldn;t be wiothout them in
the picture.

Equating MARKETTING with ART is hugely easy since that's what Marketting
SELLS us: the imagined EQUATION of what You See with What Is Real, it's way
too common and makes for MOST of the arguing-at-cross-purposes that happens
in this vein.

"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message
news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@t eranews...

I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.

[snip]

Maybe I'm too much of a socialist or something. I don't know. I'm
obviously opening myself up to criticism and haven't really 100% thought
through these ideas. Maybe I play too much classical music and
bluegrass to care about copyrights....

Aw, c'mon. What do you do about someone like Irving Berlin -- a man who was
a thoroughly mediocre performer, probably would've been a terrible teacher,
engineer, whatever. In fact, he seems to have been a man with very few
talents, but the one that he had -- writing pop songs for other people to
sing -- he had in spades.

So how should he make his living, without royalties? Do ten hours a day
pushing racks of pants in the garment district? Instead, he wrote songs for
eight-ten hours a day, and the world's richer for it, asnd he got paid for
his hard work. "Too much of a socialist", you say? Try this on for size:
"Never get between a worker and his bread." - U. Utah Phillips

Peace,
Paul

Mike Rivers wrote:

There may not be cash or eagle feathers or goat skins handed over
after a musical perfomance at a tribal gathering, but in nearly all
cultures that have integrated music into the culture, the musicians
have a special standing in the community. Sometimes they're fed,
sometimes they're housed, Sometimes they're even paid.



The Mexican bands around northern California (at least) seem to be
living examples of this, thanks to the Mexican community, who seem to
appreciate what they have.

"Hev" wrote in message
...

I want the industry to embrace this new technology and track downloads
like the radio tracks plays so the artists start getting some dough.


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Radio brings in money by
selling advertising. Radio then has to pay performance rights organizations
out of that income for the right to play songs- the perf rights orgs
represent the songs owners. The amount that a track is played roughly
correlates what percentage of income from radio the perf rights orgs pay
each artist they represent.

With illegal downloads- where is the cash flow? What does it matter if the
labels/artists, etc track the number of downloads- who is paying? Should
the ISPs track the downloads and then pay perf rights orgs based on their
users usage, is that what you're saying?

Thanks,

~j

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

Perhaps copyrights should be more like patents.

They used to be.

In article 1109432201.6d744c5c057a0d923f104e170dd6ba0d@teran ews writes:

I don't understand how our society rewards musicians who perhaps make
one or two musical offerings (i.e. albums) and are able to retire on
these earnings.

That's pretty rare. Most aren't smart enough to take the money and
run, or are under a contract that doesn't allow it. They may not work
the same way a guy who wears a tie and goes into the office five days
a week does, but they work none the less.

Are those people really musicians at the end of the
day, anyway?

Some are able to retain their musicianship (assuming they had it to
begin with) while others just go with the flow. The smart ones have a
good financial advisor who keeps them from getting too rich too fast
and leaves them with a comfortable income when the tide turns.

And then there are some who are able to take ten years off, come back,
make a record, and rechrge the ol' bank account.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

That sound effect they put on that page is incredibly annoying.

I guess you don't know how to turn off your speakers? I never notice
these things since my surfing computer's sound comes through a
receiver that's usually switched to an FM station. When I want to hear
sound coming from the computer, I have to get up and push a button.

And when I want to play a CD, I leave the computer, go into the living
room, put the CD in the player, and sit on the couch.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article 1109433581.13d717b133f7d303061173c1d9e55934@teran ews writes:

I'm not sure what the difference between a musician and a songwriter is,
but I would consider myself to be both.

You don't have to be one to be the other. But since it's easier to
sell songs commercially than instrumentals, and most of the money to
be made in the music business is from royalty payments, many musicians
are songwriters so they can get paid for their songwriting.

There are also songwriters who aren't musicians at all or only have
enough musical skill to sketch out their melodies. They don't try to
sell their musicianship, only their songs.

Then there are some songwriters who don't care that they can't sing
worth a hoot or have little instrumental skill but record and perform
anyway. Some are successful because of the way that they put the song
across. We call them "performers." Others just suck but they still
claim that they have a right to be heard too.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

Maybe what we need is for the government to support the music industry.
How'd you like that?

I'd rather just keep getting paid and laid.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out how you make CDs for sixty cents.
Obviously what goes on to them costs you nothing to make. How can you
do that without either free equipment or free studio time?

And free electricity and free food and free flatpicks. And Fritos.

--
ha

David Morgan wrote:

Hev wrote:

They are using the tools of their generation just as
all generations past.

Bull****... they're abusing the tools... there's a big difference.

Hey, modern handguns are new tools, too, and those nice guys loaded on
crack who stick up folks on the sidewalk are merely using the tools of
their generation just as all generations past. What's the biggie? I'm
sure Hev's down with that.

--
ha

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

For some reason, I'm reminded of the Willie Dixon - Led Zeppelin issue.
To me, the songs Zep created were so far removed from the Willie Dixon
material, Zep had made them their own.

But one who knew from whence cometh the originals upon which Zep's
intreptations were built could tell you what song was being interpreted.
Hence, they're profiting form Willie's work and why shouldn't he get
some of the jelly, too?

And so much of what Zep did was
derivative (yet totally new) anyway, you really can't say that it was
from just one source or another. Would the songs be any less powerful
with different lyrics? Probably not. But that's like all music. More
to the point, the fact that some of those songs were Willie Dixon
"covers" (to me) only served as advertising for Willie Dixon. I went
out and bought the Chess boxed set long ago and love it!

But do you really think the majority of LZ fans did that? I imagine the
majority of such folks still have no clue who was Willie Dixon, and the
man was a monster in music.

--
ha

Then there are those that don't write songs because that's where most of
the money to be made in the music business is but because they enjoy and
care about writing good songs. Some of these songwriters _can_ sing
worth a hoot and have much instrumental skill and don't feel like they
have a right to be heard but are happy when people enjoy their music and
hope others enjoy their music too. I like to think a lot of the artists
I listen to, including myself, would fall in the above category.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article 1109433581.13d717b133f7d303061173c1d9e55934@teran ews writes:


I'm not sure what the difference between a musician and a songwriter is,
but I would consider myself to be both.


You don't have to be one to be the other. But since it's easier to
sell songs commercially than instrumentals, and most of the money to
be made in the music business is from royalty payments, many musicians
are songwriters so they can get paid for their songwriting.

There are also songwriters who aren't musicians at all or only have
enough musical skill to sketch out their melodies. They don't try to
sell their musicianship, only their songs.

Then there are some songwriters who don't care that they can't sing
worth a hoot or have little instrumental skill but record and perform
anyway. Some are successful because of the way that they put the song
across. We call them "performers." Others just suck but they still
claim that they have a right to be heard too.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

It seems like the days of Tin Pan Alley and people employed as staff
songwriters are behind us. Again, I'm not sure if copyrights should
totally be abolished, but I think the current system is a bit restrictive.

I think it's hard to guess whether Berlin would have been a good teacher
or not. If he had a skill, it's unfortunate that others could not learn
that skill directly from him.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message
news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@t eranews...


I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.


[snip]

Maybe I'm too much of a socialist or something. I don't know. I'm
obviously opening myself up to criticism and haven't really 100% thought
through these ideas. Maybe I play too much classical music and
bluegrass to care about copyrights....


Aw, c'mon. What do you do about someone like Irving Berlin -- a man who was
a thoroughly mediocre performer, probably would've been a terrible teacher,
engineer, whatever. In fact, he seems to have been a man with very few
talents, but the one that he had -- writing pop songs for other people to
sing -- he had in spades.

So how should he make his living, without royalties? Do ten hours a day
pushing racks of pants in the garment district? Instead, he wrote songs for
eight-ten hours a day, and the world's richer for it, asnd he got paid for
his hard work. "Too much of a socialist", you say? Try this on for size:
"Never get between a worker and his bread." - U. Utah Phillips

Peace,
Paul

What happened? Did the record labels get involved?

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Trevor de Clercq wrote:


Perhaps copyrights should be more like patents.


They used to be.

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

What happened? Did the record labels get involved?

No, the Senator from Disney had a few extensions passed. That's after
having captured Mickey Mouse from the public domain or his initial
creator or something unreasonably comical.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Trevor de Clercq wrote:

Perhaps copyrights should be more like patents.

They used to be.

--
ha

"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109437386.619c1f42398d2fe3f39d1c3327b2fc9d@t eranews...
Amen to that.

John wrote:
On 2/26/05 3:47 AM, in article 0JWTd.48002$uc.38929@trnddc03, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to
have sex by telling them it is wrong.

What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the internet)
or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of learn.



Ummm David, I'm applauding and holding the spotlight on your posts here but
you kinda wandered out into left field here with this particular analogy
(and thus someone's going to be able to tear it assunder and ruin your
overall point effectively but uselessly.. We need to keep winning here!)
since contrceptives ARE a real and solid answer to the Problem of
irresponsible/immature humans making new humans.



OK, OK.... I just hate to see this whole piracy thing surfacing again over a
darned cartoon re-run. :-( I didn't buy it when it started and I don't buy it
any more today than 4 years ago.

DM

On 2/26/05 12:28 PM, in article , "S
O'Neill" wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

They say "Flashback" but the strips have current dates. But so what?
Maybe a few years later more people understand what it's all about.


Well, this topic has immediately devolved back into the "stealing"
bicker-fest,

Ummm... It STARTED there...

On 2/26/05 2:29 PM, in article o64Ud.13782$QQ3.1953@trnddc02, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


(and thus someone's going to be able to tear it assunder and ruin your
overall point effectively but uselessly.. We need to keep winning here!)
since contrceptives ARE a real and solid answer to the Problem of
irresponsible/immature humans making new humans.



OK, OK.... I just hate to see this whole piracy thing surfacing again over a
darned cartoon re-run. :-( I didn't buy it when it started and I don't
buy it
any more today than 4 years ago.


Agreed agreed agreed...
But then said cartoon was all ABOUT this issue... I still thought the
clearest was Trudeau's week when his daughter 'gave' him a present of a
stolen burned copy of a Stones album complete with home=printed copy of the
album art as a 'present' and just didn;t get it when he was
less-than-honored.

Why these folks aren;t strolling by the sidewalk-vegetable bins at the
Safeway and filling their bags and walking off sans-pay (I mean hey... The
stuff Grows Right Back, so the farmer's not out anything right?) boggles me.

We've been around this bush so many times it hurts when folks don't take a
look at the real whole picture.

Horses and water troughs...

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:09 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article writes:

On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article
writes:

CDs cost about 60 cents to make

Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
you noting,

??? My equipment was free???

and having a living income so you don't have to work while
you're making that 60 cent CD.

I don't quit follow your logic Mike.

I'm just trying to figure out how you make CDs for sixty cents.
Obviously what goes on to them costs you nothing to make. How can you
do that without either free equipment or free studio time?

I was referring to the fact that manufacturing costs are considerably
lower for CDs than they were for vinyl LPs.


FYI, what I live on would be
starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
enterprise.

No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
responsibilities to others than yourself.

I've lived like this most of my life. I've made some good money here
and there, and have made some modest investments. Most of the times I
did earn decent money, it was not from playing music. And I don't
mind recording being a hobby, it's my choice. I still get paid to
play music in other venues.

Al

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article writes:

I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?

Because the artist has to spend his time being an artist and doesn't
have time to run a record production and distribution company.

Like Prince?

Al