Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
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People aren't getting paid because of this outdated thinking.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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor de Clercq wrote:
Perhaps copyrights should be more like patents. They used to be. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"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$uc.38929@trnddc03, "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote: At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to have sex by telling them it is wrong. What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the internet) or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of learn. Ummm David, I'm applauding and holding the spotlight on your posts here but you kinda wandered out into left field here with this particular analogy (and thus someone's going to be able to tear it assunder and ruin your overall point effectively but uselessly.. We need to keep winning here!) since contrceptives ARE a real and solid answer to the Problem of irresponsible/immature humans making new humans. OK, OK.... I just hate to see this whole piracy thing surfacing again over a darned cartoon re-run. :-( I didn't buy it when it started and I don't buy it any more today than 4 years ago. DM |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/26/05 12:28 PM, in article , "S
O'Neill" wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: They say "Flashback" but the strips have current dates. But so what? Maybe a few years later more people understand what it's all about. Well, this topic has immediately devolved back into the "stealing" bicker-fest, Ummm... It STARTED there... |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/26/05 2:29 PM, in article o64Ud.13782$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... |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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 |