Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
|'); } // End -->|
Hard to imagine great music being sold when the ratio between songs sold to songs stolen is something like 8:1 in favor of theft. Great music will always be made.....heard is another story entirely. The world is moving more towards "American Idol" music, where every artist that performs is bound by the pre-arrabged rules of the network, rather than his/her creativity. Hard to believe this is what Sony/Philips envisioned when they created the digital format. Sad indeed.
- http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117444575607043728-oEugjUqEtTo1hWJawejgR3LjRAw_20080320.html?mod=blogs (Open in New Window)
They make Napster look like kid stuff. If it's digital, you can get it on a bit torrent with the same effort as running a google search. That is true of software, music, video games and movies. Movies not yet released in the theaters are available on bit torrents.
Check out the article below talking about the piratebay.org. which is, I believe, the biggest torrent tracker in the world. As the article makes clear, the trackers can be moved and reopened for business in mere hours if they are ever shut down. And with a million distinctive hits a day, as in the case of pirate bay, the money they make from advertising provides plenty of resources to fight lawsuits, etc.
Be sure to read the "gallery" link on page two of the article for a good laugh.
and it applies to many such peer-to-peer file sharing protocols. It requires you to upload portions of material that you have downloaded.
In other words, if you have 1/2 of a movie, you will be uploading that while your download of the other 1/2 continues.
When you are uploading material, your ip address is public. If, for example, the MPAA looks for uploaders for a movie and you have that movie, your IP address may show up to them as an uploader.
This opens you up to liability. You need to go to extraordinary lengths to be anonymous on a peer-to-peer network. Or in general, it is safer to stick to non-copyrighted material, and there is plenty of that.
You know there is this distrust between the record companies and the buying public. It would be very interesting to have a record company explain how much they made off of each CD that they sell and where all of the expenses go. We the buying public have this feeling of being ripped off buying a 10cent silver disc for say $15. It wasn't that way with vinyl records because they seemed much more substantial (had insets, posters and pictures that you actually see), plus there was an aura about them. You couldn't copy an LP - sure you could tape it but the sound was lousy plus a cassette was even cheaper feeling than a CD. Also, the record was a technical marvel (who is not thrilled today that a small needle can reproduce that sound and what percentage of us really know how it works).
So, when you have to pay $15 for cheap piece of plastic and then it comes with a warning that it is a federal expense to copy it for your friends, you could be excused for being pissed off before you even play the thing.
Record companies need to rebuild the trust that they used to have with the buying public. In my view these companies were sort of our heroes because the brought us all of this amazing music and were always on the lookout for new acts, and seemed to have expertise in finding great new artists and promoting them. They have gone from this point to being pretty much despised and looked upon as "profiteers" by the buying public, their own bread and butter.
Based on their brainwashing the public that CDs sounded better than LPs and were "perfect sound forever" maybe they deserve everything that they now have. However most of us would like to be able to collect music in a format that sounded decent and was readily available. Fences could be mended.
How to proceed ? Open the books up and give us an explanation as to why we are being given value in the product and maybe even consider reducing the price of the product as a goodwill gesture.
That would be a start.
Maybe? These huge companies took the same saturation marketing techniques they used to help drive ever growing LP sales into flat sales in the early/mid 80's, fed the public a new medium on which to listen to the same old music, sold them that new medium at seemingly inflated prices, re-saturated the market with tons of "product" and are now suffering because no one in charge seems to have any foresight beyond the next quarterly sales reports.
The future for recording artists lays in boutique labels and direct marketing/sales, downloads and the Internet. The days of "blockbuster" breakthrough releases is a thing of the past, and that's what the big labels lived for and depended on, and what they haven't yet figured out how to survive without. They need to find a way to survive and possibly prosper while learning to turn down the volume. EVERY sale needs to count.
You're a kind soul, I think the music megacorps very much deserve what they now have, which is a creation of their own greed and lack of foresight and a dependency on outdated marketing and sales models.
WELL SAID...and I think the same criticisms can be levied upon FM radio and its looming deimse. Same old tired playlists, boring DJs, and market driven sales and advertising darkness!
"The days of 'blockbuster' breakthrough releases is a thing of the past, and that's what the big labels lived for and depended on, and what they haven't yet figured out how to survive without."
The problem is in recent time, there is little substance behind the "blockbuster".... It's basically an empty suit.
Just like the music media shapes public opinion by "validating" certain music as "best", "relevant", or "significant", it has also tipped its hand where anticipation is created before release (maybe with a pre-album single), as if the public would automatically embrace the music. And some of the worst music I've heard in recent time has had such hype applied to it. Often with a consensus parroting the media, "this stuff is great".....
... well, actually I mean the music fan, or a good portion of them.
Do you believe the hype of international mega-corporations in other industries?
No, of course not.
So why expect these corporations to be any better?
In the 60s CBS used the slogan "The man can't bust our music". NIce use of "our".
Well, he doesn't need to bust it, he just uses it to promote whatever he is really selling and is actually interested in.
I think when a musician focuses on societal issues, the expression becomes limited in both musical imagination and situation. When a piece of music is labeled as "timeless", it's usually because such focus on society wasn't there in the first place. Aside from the musical style itself.
I mean, there is a recent song by the Who called "Man in a Purple Dress".... Depicting a perspective of an outsider toward a mystical "wizard". The song has the paradox of seriousness and goofiness, and makes me paint an interesting picture inside my head..... But how is this tied to society? In no way whatsoever. It's maybe a subject matter that's I've never before heard in a rock song. And the best part- I'll probably enjoy this song 20 years from now (provided I'm still alive).
And in retrospect, the music I've enjoyed the most seem to deal with subject matters that are unique, and hence enables a freedom of style that I think makes the music special. Not just timeless, but maybe of classic stature.
The industry has been too bloated and complacent for a long time. Adapting to a changing market doesn't seem to be something they are very adept at, so in the meantime I guess they'll just suffer.
"The situation is complicated by the fact that that the industry association does not know the identities of the students it is seeking."
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
as a tool of the Music Industry's propaganda clouds your post....
"theft" and "stolen" more accurately reflect what record labels do to their artists and to their consumers.
The artist, and the record company have, will, and do, do better whenever music is shared, - no matter if it has been over-paid for, or not...
Boy, talk about situational ethics.
"The artist, and the record company have, will, and do, do better whenever music is shared . . . "
Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, not even a burglar could have said that better.
You know, if folks stole *your* products, the hifi word would spread far and wide, and that would be better for business, no? And if you happened to be a businessman who engaged in shady practices, or simply stiffed your creditors, that would justify it stealing from you, wouldn't it?
Sheesh. Hell, handbasket, etc.
If you'd like to keep having new music to listen to, I recommend paying for it and encouraging others to do so. Song "sharing" won't put braces on the musicians' kids' teeth.
Hey, whatever makes you feel comfortable with your moral choices. Stick it to The Man!
I have never illegally downloaded ANY piece of music, ever.
But, I have purchased my own CD. And I have encouraged everyone I know to spread my CD out to whomever they wish... It greatly benefits me, and Capricorn Records, and puts money in my pocket....
Are you interested? I'll burn you a copy of my CD and if you like it, - please go to Amazon and buy it. You can get it for only $.78 used.
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
Music was never meant to be copyrighted, - or restricted...
The "law" was designed to stop massive redistribution, - not a few one-off copies.
It has been "proven" that sharing of music leads to greater sales.
How can it be theft if one receives more because of sharing?
Your analogy's are completely off base.
I speak from the experience of having been signed with a record label, and have more than a few friends with major label deals; you've lost focus with this argument when you talk about what stealing is, and what fair use is, and where the benefit lies.
Step up, research, have fun. Read Courtney Love's Salon article regarding the biggest fear of a signed musician and a musician's revenue that is "stolen" constantly by their own label(s).
Fair use means publicity and enhanced sales.
Is that better?
Why are you so persistent in continuing to inflame the discussion? If you know better, and you are on the correct side of the discussion, then why is it necessary to do this?
I would set the microphone up against my AM radio and when a song came on that I wanted, I would record it. Inevitably, some of the DJ's talk came in at the beginning and end.
I never thought of myself as a thief. Those were simpler times. I didn't have much money to buy records. This method wasn't all that convenient, but it worked at the time.
Though it seems to me that what you did constitutes "fair use," so long as you didn't charge admission to hear the tapes or made copies for sale.
What bothers me is the mindset that because the record companies are evil it's okay to steal from them and, by extension, the musicians who made the recording in the first place.
Not prior to the Audio Home Recording Act. It was copyright infringement.
You are still insinuating that I am offering rationalizations for theft.
How would you feel if such an unwarranted charge were directed at you?
If you ever, even once, made a recording from a radio or turntable onto a blank cassette prior to 1992, then you were, as you say, 'stealing' as well.
As I said, throwing around the term 'theft' when it does not technically apply merely muddies the debate & does a disservice to everyone involved. Except, of course, the downloaders engaged in copyright infringement, who should be held accountable for their actions.
So do I. Changes nothing.
The notion that moral standards are determined on a case-by-case basis is fascinating and, well, convenient.
Then you wouldn't dismiss my links as rationalizations, and you might've chosen to respond to one or two of them, which you haven't.
This link falls halfway into a discussion of a case where a teenager has countersued the RIAA. It's an entry point at the first post in the thread by a music industry lawyer, who has been described by Dave Marsh as 'the industry's ethicist-in-chief if the industry had ethics, which it doesn't.'
He runs up against some feisty opposition who refuse to accept his assertion that downloaders are NOT thieves, and referring to them in that fashion makes the entire situation worse, especially in a situation where none of this has been decided in a court of law.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying in this thread. Either you're misinterpreting what I've been saying, or baiting me. This is not only insulting but puts you squarely on the wrong side of the discussion as I see it. Yes, that discussion that you can't believe you're having.
I fail to see how a paper like the Wall Street Journal calling for a clear rewriting of copyright law amounts to situational ethics, rationalizations, or the refusal to judge one as either being willing to steal, or not. When I recorded albums onto cassettes 25 years ago so I could listen to them on my Walkman, according to you, I was stealing. I reject this, mostly on the basis that it was copyright infringement. Did you ever do anything like that?
Seems silly now, doesn't it? Well, if you ever did anything of the sort, then you were, as you've been putting it, stealing as well, just like the PhD who sees nothing wrong with whatever infringement you discussed earlier.
My original post in this thread wasn't directed at you. You're the one to step in and take arrows for that fella, so don't blame me for "insults" or whatever. You associate yourself with his remarks, fine, but I never asked for a confrontation with you. You've taken it upon yourself to justify and rationalize that guy's attitude.
I see and comprehend your points just fine, in triplicate, at incredible time consuming length, through multiple posts and links--and I've told you so. You don't see mine, so what? What more do you want from me?
I didn't associate myself with his remarks, only part of them. Yes, I find it insulting that not only have you refused to acknowledge that yr premise is not on the correct side of the law, but that it's irrelevant, because only the moral of whether or not someone is willing to steal is important, thereby by implication you are suggesting that this is my stance when it is not, not by a long shot. I do not justify Sordidman's remarks that the only 'theft' going on is what the industry does to artists & consumers; I don't entirely disagree, but I would never put it in those terms, and my claim that what he is referring to, when enumerated specifically, points to the lack of credibility of the RIAA in the discussion, and nothing else. This to you amounts to a rationalization of his attitude? I think not, because I am fully behind, as I also have stated previously, the appropriate punishment and/or fines to be sanctioned against those engaged in illegal file-sharing.
When someone feels that way, and someone else comes along & suggests that they are engaging in 'rationalization' and using terms like 'theft' when legal experts strongly claim this to be inaccurate, especially since this has never been found to be the case in a court of law, you're darned tootin' it's insulting. No less than the brouhaha of a few years ago that I mentioned. And no, I'm not looking for a confrontation with you, either, Mark, but you're the one telling me I'm on the side of thieves even as you agree with most of what I've said here. Well, if I am, then so is the Wall St. Journal, the University of Nebraska, and major label executives.
None of which speaks to yr point, but I can't understand why you refuse to see that morality is difficult to define when the law has not done so.
Did you ever make a cassette recording of a work that you did not own the copyright for? By yr standard, that's theft too. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I don't care. Either you condone theft, or you don't, right? Well, Home Taping Is Killing Music, remember?
Theft, or copyright infringement? Still theft? Then unless you are going to seriously tell me you never made a cassette of an album or ever taped off the radio, then you're a thief too, and on that basis, you have no right to judge. And I figure you probably find this line of reasoning to be annoying, but I defy you to come up with a basis as to why it should be considered incorrect.
Do you have a wireless network in your house? Have you encrypted it since the time you first turned it on? Hey, here's another point that I'm sure you'll be willing to dismiss since you've turned a deaf ear to what it is I'm saying here, because yr point about morality must trump any other regarding legalities: what if it was YR IP address that was spoofed & YOU got a subpoena? How would you feel then?
Think maybe you'd feel sorta like the guy who lives in Florida but was served with a subpoena in Michigan?
I'm not a computer expert, but I'm not exactly a novice, either. When I first got my router, I didn't know enough to have it locked down. Then I opened iTunes one day & there was "**** ********'s Music" on the left hand side. The name was that of my next-door neighbor.
Had he been a downloader--and I wouldn't put it past him--then I might have found myself on the wrong side of a lawsuit, in spite of my never having had file-sharing software on any of my computers hooked up to the network. Fortunately, at this point in time, I believe I would've been notified if my IP address had been the source of illegal uploading, resulting in RIAA operatives downloading music from whatever computers were illegally accessing MY network.
This is why the deposition given by the expert witness from Iowa is important. Because people are being sued whose computers were found to have never contained file-sharing software--by the same expert who offered this deposition, no less!--let alone the infringing files. And even so, the RIAA is refusing to even compensate the wronged parties with compensation for legal fees.
So because I stand up & say this is wrong, you maintain that I am offering up rationalizations. No, I'm afraid, I don't see your point here. Because it's entirely separate from this discussion. It wouldn't be if the RIAA had a more efficient method of pinpointing exactly who is engaging in all of this illegal file-sharing, but they don't. They could've invested money in manpower and technology to keep from disrupting the lives of innocent people, but they didn't. Instead of throwing a few million dollars at the hacker community to try to come up with a more efficient solution, they have invested in releases by people like Paris Hilton, Kevin Federline, Lindsay Lohan, and on and on.
It's not difficult to cast blame on the downloaders themselves, but it's an obvious exercise, which is why I won't engage in rationalizations about THEIR behavior, though you've accused me of exactly that. My problem lies with the means employed to correct the problem, the vagueness of the laws involved, and the tactics employed by the plaintiffs, especially regard to their refusal to compensate wronged parties.
Separate issue from downloading, whether you want to erroneously call it theft, or whether you're willing to call it what it actually is.
Would that you'd see that it doesn't take a genius to understand that the concept of instilling values in children relative to rationalizing illegal activities, or, by itself the mere rationalization of illegal activities, is the part of the discussion that I agree with you on, even as you are trying to claim otherwise because I disagree with methods resulting in legal action taken against innocent people.
I don't think what you said is what you meant. Perhaps you meant to say "legality is difficult to define"?
I wasn't specific enough, I was referring specifically to the moralist argument 'theft is theft' being applied to an issue that the law says it's not specifically applicable to. You're right, though, I lost sight of how that might've been interpreted in the the discussion. Quite possibly not the only such mistake I made, but this is a complicated issue that deserves mention of the nuances, without which, the discussion is reduced to a level where...'theft is theft.' My position is that the discussion is worthy of being discussed on a level where this sort of moralising is shown to be inaccurate & not helpful.
Part of the reason why the law hasn't caught up to the technology, is because the law likely doesn't completely understand the technology. Why else would Viacom sue Google/YouTube for copyright infringement when their own online IFilm hosts images that infringe on the copyrights of others...seemingly without having to even consider that their own actions could provide damning evidence against them?
When they forced YouTube to pull content on the basis of their copyrights being infringed...even though the material in question was not, in fact, owned by Viacom?
When one of the people responsible for the DMCA states that that the blame for the lack of respect afforded copyrights among illegal file-shareres belongs more to the RIAA than to the illegal file-sharers?
Perhaps the finger pointed at me for rationlizing theft, when I have done no such thing, should be pointed in his direction, as well.
I pretty much entirely agree with you, - including your remarks about my post...
Which is somewhat extreme and over-exaggerated, to make a point.
Our CD is now over. Tom and I have been paid. Capricorn has been paid. If our CD sells used, - or there's some new sales revenue that comes to me, fine: icing on the cake.
But if someone wants to disseminate it, it's only going to be a benefit to get our name back out there, - publicity....
If we were to re-release, (maybe SACD)?, - then, I probably would be changing my tune, but maybe not.
At the very least, sales revenue losses, - (even by illegal downloads), - are greatly over-exaggerated. And sales gains by "sharing" of "samples" from an album or recording are also never talked about, as these "sue happy" penny pinchers have decided to attack bands and consumers instead of embracing new technology which would have benefitted everyone.
Some members of the recording industry have defied the majority of the record companies and have modernized their business practices, - these companies have little problems, few illegal download issues, and they, and their artists end up doing a lot better....
Thank you, Sordid, and also for complimenting other posts of mine where I might not respond directly to yr posts. I'd like to make it clear that I think that there's probably a lot more agreement here than disagreement. However, being nuanced, even if it's to the point where someone might consider it to be anal, and being specific about semantics is absolutely crucial to this discussion.
I like Mark a lot & respect him probably as much as anyone else on this site--although, on this one issue, I have to take issue with the one-dimensional view of considering this issue to be about whether or not one is willing to 'steal,' and little, or nothing, else. And that if anything else is mentioned, that it's a rationalization that puts you on the side of those engaged in illegal file-sharing. To wit: 'if you bring the conduct of the RIAA's members or the music industry at large into this debate, then you're just rationalizing theft.' Well, no, not if that conduct is brought in the debate merely for context. Tom is very wrong, there IS a big picture, and to reject the idea that it deserves mention is not something I'm going to accept when the 'fuckee,' as he puts it, the person who takes responsibility for signing the bad deal, is not the only one who gets f*cked.
Something else that deserves to be mentioned is that those who engage in this discussion and do offer the rationalizations about the conduct of the record labels always seem to dance around the issue of whether or not sales have actually been affected. Uh, it's time for those protesting the figures trotted out by the RIAA--and I sure never trusted them--to admit that sales have been affected. BIG time. The issue of whether or not illegal file-sharing spurs sales is a very secondary matter, more like tertiary. There is truth in the idea that there is an entire generation of youngsters for whom music has been devalued. The idea that 'you can't compete with free' is valid, and anyone denying that is being...dishonest. Period. I do believe there are a few different things going on here--a relatively productive use of file-sharing, illegal as it may be, where music consumers preview tracks that they're actually going to buy, or are going to spur them to purchase a ticket to see an act in live performance. It is on the behalf of that type of person that I used to assign more validity to the rationalizations, because they were logical. They were never logical when it came to kids downloading teen pop singles. But then there were those who were busy downloading tracks they would never have paid money for. And so, a few years ago, I remember a newspaper piece written by Jerry Lieber (or Stoller, I can't recall exactly) that complained of lost sales, and therefore lost income. None other than Thomas Sowell responded that this was, economically speaking, a fallacy, since you cannot assume sales, and, as a matter of fact, data was emerging that showed that those engaged in illegal file-sharing were a group that included quite a few folks who did state that they did download tracks that they never would have paid for.
This is about 5 years ago at this point.
Obviously things have changed to an extent. Sales ARE down, and they're down dramatically, and you can point to how the nature of the business has changed as it's leaned towards the blockbuster and so forth, but if you deny that illegal file-sharing has had an impact...sorry. Wrong.
Now, Mark, if you're reading this, I know that you're sick of this whole thing, but you know what? I don't care. Just so you know, I happen to run a business where I purchase used CDs for resale. My bottom line has decreased sharply over the past couple of years. So it's just as valid for me to say that illegal file-sharing impacts negatively on me. And when you're in that position, being moralized to is, yes, insulting. Because I choose to try to take a measured view of this instead of dismissing anything other than whether or not people are willing, or programmed, to 'steal?' That's unfair, sir.
For that reason, I continue this discussion, because I think it's worthy. Even though you've chosen to seemingly put little stock in any of what's discussed in the links I've provided, I'm going to introduce a new issue, whether you want to expand this any further or not, and, of course, you are free to not read, not respond, ignore as you wish. But I would appeal to you as a gentleman and a player to consider what I have to say, a little more than you have in this thread.
I am not an expert, and I don't present myself as one. I'm merely an interested party, though my interest is perhaps more significant than a layman, particularly since I do occupy a remote, tiny--microscopic--corner of the business, as anyone still reading this probably does as well. Or, depending on circustances, perhaps it's more than just a corner for you, but that's how I describe myself so that I don't present my involvement in any more of a self-important fashion than it needs to be. On this board, I never want to be anything more than a fan of music, and I do not speak of my own accomplishments when it comes to playing, because it has no bearing on the discussions I participate in on this board. I know how to play--big deal. Don't mean squat, and if I have to lean on how I'm a player, then most of the time I'm probably on the wrong side of the discussion, so I just don't do it.
Now, Mark, I asked you a post or two ago if you had a router, a wireless network in your home. Do you? How serious are you about security?
I got serious about security after the Sony BMG rootkit issue. Not long after that, I saw that my neighbor was on my home network, and I prioritized securing my system. However, in the months that my network was not secured, I unknowingly ran the risk of having a neighbor utilize file-sharing programs to illegally download music files. As time has passed, and wireless networks have become more common over the past few years, we are seeing, more and more, what appears to be an increasing volume of problems in the RIAA lawsuits. Three and a half years on, they're starting to hit people who have never had file-sharing software on their computers. And, like each and every day brings more interest, more articles, more blog entries, each and every day is leading towards a significantly higher volume of RIAA lawsuits directed at people who are simply not guilty of what they're being sued for.
(We can forget about the inconvenient detail that the RIAA is doing everything they can in such cases to resist compensating wrongly accused parties for their legal fees. Mark might call that a rationalization.)
Microsoft hired a Windows expert nearly a year ago, a fellow named Mark Russinovich. It's been said that he knows more about Windows than anyone else on the planet. Prior to his employment with Microsoft, he was probably best known for his software, designed to detect rootkits, and his blog, Sysinternals. Again, if you're reading this, you probably know that in late October of 2005, he ran his software on his computer after he saw something that didn't seem quite right. And he uncovered the presence of the rootkit in all CDs sold with XCP copy protection, and other issues in CDs that were copy-protected with MediaMax. As I previously mentioned, I had fouled my own box with a MediaMax disc (if you're reading this, Tom, that's an exception to yr response to Sordid about how you have no gripe with the music industry because you pay for recordings...and you get them). As it happens, I came pretty close to putting an XCP CD on my computer--the XCP with the rootkit, that is. I had actually had a disc with an earlier version of XCP that planted no rootkit. It did not, however, play in my computer--or ANY of my devices that play CDs, including a discman, a DVD player, and a dedicated, one-disc, reliable, 10-year-old CD player. It played only in an alternate CD player.
When I pay for a redbook CD that's DRM'd up the wazoo to the point where I cannot use it, then right there I feel I have the right to examine aspects of the discussion that are dismissed by others as 'rationalizations.' If I'm wrong on this, please let me know why.
There was an aspect of the Sony rootkit issue that I only saw discussed on a couple of blogs & message boards. Again, I'm no expert, but the way it was explained, it seems that Mr. Russinovich was in violation of certain provisions in the DMCA. Specifically, it was illegal for him to search his computer for a rootkit. It was illegal to identify it. It was illegal to try to remove it. So I ask a ridiculous question: why was Mr. Russinovich not prosecuted for violating provisions of the DMCA?
Now I ask a far more reasonable one: why the hell is it so difficult, Mark, to admit that the law has not caught up with the technology, and that, until this horribly constructed law undergoes a sorely-needed overhaul, that the attorney I linked to earlier is correct in floating the proposition that until all this is sorted out, that the use of terms like 'theft,' and its legally inaccurate usage in such discussions, is not only counterproductive, but foolish?
I do not think I'm making such an unreasonable observation here, Mark. And I don't think it helps when you put up posts such as the ones in this thread. And it's not about some PC nonsense that says we shouldn't call a thief a thief. It's more like, if we take just a second to approach this more rationally, that we'll benefit from having a law better than the one that now exists. Perhaps it will classify those illegally infringing copyright as thieves, in which case I will be content to call them exactly that. This is not currently the case. I want to see a balanced law, but, within limits, I am hoping that technology will soon provide us with the ability to be more precise about identifying those engaged in illegal file-sharing. It's probably too much to hope for that the RIAA hires some hackers to work to achieve this end, because, after all, there will be another Britney Spears or Lisa Marie Presley or Ashlee Simpson album that will need to be promoted. Let them continue to file suits against an increasing number of people whose only crime was not securing their wireless network--or people whose IP addresses were in fact spoofed. I think this all trumps yr view on the subject, Mark, and I think it's sad that you don't see it that way. And I know you're a busy guy, but I am hopeful that you can spend a few minutes & sit down & tell me exactly why I'm wrong about this, and why I should see it your way.
In return, I think I have a photo of a teenaged Michael Portnoy floating around here somewhere that I'd be happy to post, if yr youngster would have any interest in seeing it (I do think you recently said Portnoy had become a fave?). I think it might be a pic of him in a marching band uniform with a bass drum strapped on, but I can't recall, I'll have to look. Hopefully I can dig it up. In any case, I do look forward to a reply.
I still want to digest more of what you said...
I also believe that based on that, that I've contributed to the inflammatory nature of this discussion, and overall issue.
Further, - yes, - although I've been somewhat out of touch, - my most egregious statement was probably that (illegal) downloading only helps the artists/label. When in fact, - teh escalation in the war, - however it escalated, - and whomever is responsible, has CURRENTLY, NOW, TODAY, - and maybe even for a few years; has really hurt the labels bottom line.
Part of that war, has also caused a lot of homogenization, - which has resulted in a lower quality product, - (but that's an arguable, more subjective opinion), - which, exacerbates the fact that the consumer doesn't want pay for an inferior product.
Again, excellently reasoned post, and your points are well taken...
We agree far more than we disagree. I just think that the DMCA has severe problems that need to be addressed, and a constructive debate furthers that goal. Illegal file-sharing, any benefits aside, does not, and far more than any other factor. However, it is valid to also take into consideration how the industry has mismanaged digital distribution. Once we get to the point of bringing in various other industry foibles...it opens the discussion wider than it should be, and the natural consequence is that someone is going to feel as though rationalizations for theft are being employed...vicious circle.
I have to say that I would not be shocked if copyright law loses much of its clout in the near future. I mean, it's hard to imagine illegal file-sharing becoming legal, but at one time taping off the radio was illegal, too. Lots of things that were once illegal are now legal, and we take that for granted. Most comparisons don't make sense, but society changes, and the law tends to change with it. I've seen it suggested that not only is the album, or the CD, 'dead,' so to speak, but that more and more people are getting used to the idea that the only way to make money in the music business is through...ringtones. And live performance/merchandising, and to a lesser extent paid downloads. The 'the old model is dead' line of reasoning. I have no crystal ball, so all I can offer is that the nature of the business will have changed more between 2000 and 2010 than it probably did in the previous 50. But that's true for many aspects of contemporary life, as technological gains have exploded to an extent I don't think anyone thought possible.
Unfortunately, for the sake of this discussion, we are stuck in a time where a one-two punch has dealt the industry a serious blow: one, parents are not instilling in their offspring the sense of right and wrong, in the sense that Mark refers to. Two, getting across to an entire generation of youngsters, a lesson that they did not learn from their parents, the issue of illegal file-sharing, why it was wrong, and why it was something that did great damage to an industry, did not happen. Because it was handled clumsily, because they did not care, because people started spending money on cheap DVDs & stopped spending money on expensive CDs, because it was another miracle brought to us by technology. From my point of view, Lars Ulrich's testimony & a few commercials wasn't the way to go, not when cooler heads might've found a way to negotiate with Napster, might've chosen not to sue the Rio.
Were you aware of the legal discussion I linked to on that message board? Did you read it? I'm curious to know what you think of that. A few years ago, I think it was the same guy, there was a great discussion on that board, now probably gone, where he said that he was itching to be sued by the RIAA. Because he used file-sharing networks on a daily basis to share software, legally, as well as files that he created that were specifically named after hit songs. But, they were not actually song files, can't remember if he said they were in MP3 format or not, but the point was that they were not infringing on anyone's copyright. However, it was said at the time that the process the RIAA was using to identify infringing files did not include the people involved actually playing the files to see if they were indeed, actually, infringing song files. He admitted to creating files in the hope they would become ensnared in the RIAA's net, because it could potentially expose the RIAA's methods as being so weak, that they would likely sue an alleged uploader without checking to see what it was that was actually being uploaded & downloaded. This was only half-serious, and of course that's a real troublemaker mentality, but he was quite serious in considering it important to hold the RIAA to standards when it came to how they were identifying infringers.
Like I said, if only they'd canceled the budgets on a few stupid recs, they could've enticed hackers to devise a way where they could definitively identify infringers properly. But then, if only they'd negotiated with Napster, if only they hadn't sued the Rio...and if only millions of people didn't choose to create, and take, something that does not belong to them.
That last sentence always meant theft, pretty much, until the advent of file-sharing. And so technology has so outpaced the law that the idea of the law being able to address this properly is a sad joke.
There's a difference & I know you know better. Come on, now. You don't make the RIAA's case any better when you mischaracterize a civil offense to be a criminal one.
I do not condone illegal file-sharing, but there's a clear difference here that the law has not grown to address. Throwing around terms like 'theft' just doesn't help. If one breaks into a store & physically robs something, then the owner is deprived of a physical product. In the case of a copy being created, the owner is not deprived of their original. None of this has been successfully defined yet, so it's a muddy debate, but one that's important enough to deserve to not be distorted even further with terms that do not apply. The natural course is for someone to inevitably step up with the point of how much credibility the RIAA deserves in the debate given the many foibles, especially the illegal ones, that its members have themselves been involved in...for decades.
I follow blogs like http://www.drmwatch.com/ and
fairly regularly. It's a shame that Sarah Seabury Ward didn't elect to do what the Santangelos & Lindors & Fosters have done. I'd be 100% behind the lawsuits if it were based on something less flimsy then IP addresses, which, as attested to in the deposition of the RIAA witness in the Lindor case, can be spoofed. Which seems to happen on this site on a regular basis, by the way.
In cases like Santangelo, when the RIAA realizes that they're wrong & have no chance to win, they attempt to simply drop the suit. In that case, though, the court is forcing them to at least cover the legal fees of the defendant in a case that should never have been brought.
The guys crying theft aren't even willing to compensate those for their costs when their suits are shown to be dead wrong. You're cheerleading for them. I trust that doesn't feel so good, does it? It won't get better if the few details surrounding the lawsuit filed against John Paladuk turn out to be an accurate representation of that situation.
Leave it to copyright infringement, if you would. As a man of reason, I would think you would agree that this seemingly minor difference is actually massive. As I'm sure you're aware, the vast majority of those being sued are settling. That's all fine & well. They should. But even one of these suits are simply unacceptable. Suing people without computers? People who don't know enough to use encryption on their routers? I understand that a person should be responsible for what goes on on their box in their home. But if someone glommed off their internet access? Spoofed their IP address?
You might respond that what I'm discussing here is one in a thousand. I don't care if it's one in a f*cking million . Unacceptable. Period. Maybe not if we're talking about an industry known for its ethics, but, again, we don't have to go there. Wait...Sony rootkit? Cheap Trick/Allmans' litigation? Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Meanwhile, I read a post by a frustrated CUSTOMER who purchased a CD...which was so DRM'd up the wazoo that his computer--a Mac--wouldn't even play it. From what I gathered, returning it wasn't even an option. Then I found this. I'd be interested to know if you'll still cry theft after reading this post--and, if you do, who exactly it is you'd be accusing.
I appreciate your post, J, as I always do, and there is much truth in it. But all this extra-fine semantic parsing simply gives cover to thieves and those who sympathize with them.
A friend of my wife's, a PHD no less, knew I was a writer and asked me what word processor I preferred. After I told her she asked me if she could copy my copy of the program. I asked her if she would similarly walk into CompUSA, stuff the program into her pants, and walk out without paying.
Like so many, she thought that was different!
I wonder what she teaches her kids.
I stipulate: the record companies and the RIAA are evil, rapacious, and stupid. (So was the company whose software I recommended.) And I stipulate that technically what is happening is copyright infringement under the law.
Well, the truth is, the law has no bearing on my argument.
Whenever this comes up I cannot believe I'm having the conversation. Crikey, this is third-grade catechism stuff. One is either willing to steal--and here you can name any extenuating circumstances you like--or not.
Mark, I know this is starting to get a little old, but I've been watching this closely for more than 5 years now. Does it mean anything that every article I'm linking here is either from today or from a day or two ago? It's not a coincidence. Of course, it doesn't need to be said that 'stealing is wrong' or 'copyright infringement is wrong' or 'illegal file-sharing is wrong.' But then there's reality. And the reality is that the business uses these doom & gloom reports to their advantage, while muscling Microsoft into ridiculous extortion per Zune sold...and the DRM on Vista? If I didn't come across as many articles as I did on what the OS was designed to do, I would never have purchased a MacIntosh, as I did a few months ago. That's what the reports of what DRM was going to cause did for the marketplace in THIS household. I think you'll agree that nothing in Vista is likely to curb the growth of 'torrent' sites. But it HAS been a factor in Apple's growth.
Oh, but Steve Jobs, he's that guy who wants to remove the DRM. What does he know. He's only sold a couple billion downloads over the past few years.
As for Lefsetz, who I assume you're familiar with, it's fair to point out that he works for Rhino/Warners, or the company that was responsible for the difficulties encountered by the person who paid money for music they could not play in the Consumerist piece.
LEFSETZ talks about downloading music illegally, and HE'S A LABEL GUY. And he's nutty & inconsistent & at times seems illogical...but at times he seems to make an awful lot of sense, too, even if he has to argue in uppercase to get it across.
And several times a week now he drives home the point that file-sharing is really not the problem...that it's part of the problem, sure, but it's an issue that's been mismanaged to the point where it's only one small piece of the puzzle.
It wasn't all that long ago that stuff we take for granted was not only illegal, but spoken of in the same terms you used back up there: either you're willing to engage in illegal behavior, or you're not.
People can come up with some darned good rationalizations for file-sharing. On the same day, we have both the Wall St. Journal & a label guy engaging in what I've seen you decry as 'situational ethics.'
Have you ever considered emailing Lefsetz?
"I stipulate: the record companies and the RIAA are evil, rapacious, and stupid. (So was the company whose software I recommended.) And I stipulate that technically what is happening is copyright infringement under the law.
Well, the truth is, the law has no bearing on my argument."
I don't need convincing. Further, I stipulate to all you have said below. Every last word. You can post about how evil these folks are, how unjust their prosecutions are, how they deserve to go out of business, or worse. Go ahead, put twenty more such posts below mine. I stipulate to them in advance.
...is too pompous for me to, in good conscience, copy as is. Then again, I can't say I'm a fan of its source, not because it's not capable of truth, but because I see it as a rather one-sided sort of place. Regardless, even a one-sided place comes up with something decent every once in awhile.
From today's Huffington Post:
"Four months ago, I wrote an article about a young rap artist named Lupe Fiasco. Fiasco is a 24-year-old skateboarding Muslim from Chicago who raps about his distaste for the rampant materialism currently dominating hip hop and his desire to bring the troops home from Iraq.
"Though he received Grammy nominations in prestigious categories like Rap Album of the Year and Rap Single of the Year as well as rave reviews in practically every publication that is supposed to count, he has not even gone gold.
"While I was doing the piece, I called up Tom Silverman, the head of Tommy Boy Records, which was responsible for launching the careers of De La Soul and Queen Latifah. He said that while he thought Fiasco was a formidable talent, the current state of the market made it all but impossible for him to succeed.
"It's great that someone's taking a chance on a socially conscious hip-hop artist like Lupe but the economics are not as good as they once were," he told me. According to Silverman (as well as several other people I spoke to) the problem is not so much file sharing (which has been vastly inflated) as it is the consolidation of radio (which has largely gone ignored.)"
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-bernstein/on-the-the-state-of-the-m_b_44038.html (Open in New Window)
Wisconsin, considered to be a liberal school, is offering resistance to the RIAA's controversial settlement letters. The University of Nebraska, which I believe would be considered quite conservative, has taken the step of requesting that the RIAA compensate them for the time wasted on dealing with the issue.
And I say, if the RIAA spent the money they've spent on legal fees coming up with something that works as well as Apple's FairPlay, and was able to show universities and colleges why using it would be important, aid legal compliance, and create a good example that would become a social standard, we wouldn't be having this discussion you can't believe you're having.
"the University of Nebraska has told the RIAA that it can't help them identify many of the students accused of file trading. The school's system changes a computer's IP address each time its turned on, and it only keeps this information for month. After that month, the school has no way of associating an IP address with a computer or its user. The RIAA is angry about this, and a spokesman for the group criticized the university for not understanding "the need to retain these records". This is a ridiculous complaint. The university doesn't have a need to retain these records, and there's no reason it should do so out of some obligation to the RIAA. If there were any doubt that the university is really irritated by the RIAA's requests, it has requested that the RIAA pay the university to reimburse its expenses from dealing with this (good luck with that)."
From today's Wall Street Journal:
"I believe that intellectual property is real and that some form of copyright is appropriate to protect it. I am against the unlicensed copying of DVDs for sale on street corners, or the mass uploading of songs to so-called sharing sites."
"In fact, the DMCA, and other recent laws and regulations passed under pressure from media companies, are pretty hostile when it comes to consumers. They turn essentially innocent actions into unlawful behavior, because they define copyright infringement too broadly. They have given rise to a technology called Digital Rights Management that causes too many hassles for honest people and discriminates against the new digital forms of distribution."
(See my link from the Consumerist)
"What consumers need is real clarity on the whole issue of what is or isn't permissible use of the digital content they have legally obtained. And that can come only from Congress. Congress is the real villain here, for having failed to pass a modern copyright law that protects average consumers, not just big content companies.
"We need a new digital copyright law that would draw a line between modest sharing of a few songs or video clips and the real piracy of mass distribution. We need a new law that would define fair use for the digital era and lay out clearly the rights of consumers who pay for digital content, as well as the rights and responsibilities of Internet companies.
"If you don't like all of the restrictions on the use of digital content, the solution isn't to steal the stuff. A better course is to pressure Congress to pass a new copyright law, one that protects the little guy and the Internet itself."
And I attempt to polish no turd. We're still talking about something that's a civil offense, not a criminal one. Not piracy, not theft. If this were not the case, then one could be arrested for possessing illegally obtained files on their computers. As that is not the case, I do not see how you could possibly try to tell me that there is no difference in the distinction.
Three years ago, I put a CD with MediaMax in my computer, and it installed a player WITHOUT my permission. It didn't even ASK. It started playing even though I didn't prompt it to. Woke my wife up, though she wouldn't have been if the software I didn't consent to the install of hadn't prevented me from using Dell's MusicMatch, on which I had a lower volume set, to play the files.
I still have plenty of MediaMax & XCP CDs around here. You want a rootkit on your computer?
What turd exactly? The one the Bay City Rollers are now trying to extract from Arista in the form of unpaid royalties?
I do not think it's too unreasonable to suggest that the money the labels have thrown at DRM could've been better spent on a way to more properly identify downloaders so that these bullsh*t harassment lawsuits wouldn't be disrupting the lives of innocent people, who are tarred as thieves by people who so carelessly use the term. When the facts in the Sarah Seabury Ward case became known, there was an RIAA apologist who nevertheless chose to dismiss her claims of innocence on the basis that she was a 'lying old bag lady.'
By pointing this out makes me one sympathizing with thieves? How's that? I've never had file-sharing software on my computer. Yet by pointing out the problems inherent in the RIAA's strategy, and referencing articles that took issue with the numbers presented relative to their claims as to how 'piracy' was hurting their bottom line, I was taken to task on this site.
By a certain C.J., who snidely offered his opinion that I'd just go on ripping. I'd never ripped a CD in my life. I do not like or appreciate being cast as either a thief (not that ripping a CD is or ever was illegal), or one that sympathizes with them. I've told everyone I know who participates in illegal file-sharing that I recommend they dump that software immediately & stop doing that (never mind that most are musicians), and at that time I responded to the famous C.J. by pointing out that he was the guy who was copying & pasting copyrighted newspaper articles on this site without permission. Who was engaging in theft exactly? (My post remains on Whiner's Woad)
So I have to reject where you're coming from, anecdotal evidence (yours AND mine) notwithstanding. I would re-state: one is either willing to engage in copyright infringement, or they are not. I suspect that most who are, would NOT be willing to engage in ACTUAL theft, which is a CRIMINAL act and presents harsher consequences. How could you say the law has no bearing on this?
If the law is changed to permit criminal charges to be filed for illegal file-sharing, then so be it. That's not the case. But I was also interested in what you thought of the linked article where the CUSTOMER paid money for a product they couldn't use.
I said I'd leave you alone, but I just had to say something.....
Anybody who has been conditioned to accept a narrow range of music, where the inevitable questioning the artistic merit of that narrow range of music, or possible improprieties amongst the artists, makes them extremely uncomfortable. Especially when alternative music to them is unacceptable. And not an option.
Most people are afraid to push their hot buttons. I'm not one of them. Because IMO, I think such people need to learn to appreciate alternative music. Otherwise they'll spend their entire time being bullies in musical discussion, mainly because it mostly covers the alternatives that they've been conditioned to despise.
For as long as I've been into music (45+ years) and for as long as I have been a professional musician (35+ years) I have found my tastes expanding. I was much more parochial when I was young and stupid.
But I have to say I haven't seen anyone "conditioned" in the manner you state. I've only seen folks develop preferences and then go that one step too far by denigrating music they don't happen to like. (Me, young and stupid again.)
"And I don't think anyone "needs" to learn to appreciate alternative music. They will or they won't, and who cares if they do? The music police? ;-) "
"Song "sharing" won't put braces on the musicians' kids' teeth."
Yeah but they can console themselves with "beauty, art and innovation".
A look at the other side might do some good, - but I see suspect that that is not going to happen.
The pile of artists and their law suits against their own labels only begin to scratch the surface of the real thievery that the industry propagates towards consumers and artists.
When music is shared, everyone wins, everyone profits; unless you believe the thieves, then, you're not really seeing the big picture.
So some people make bad deals and get themselves fucked; it doesn't justify me stealing from the people who fucked them. It might justify the fuckee stealing from them but not me.
You say the music industry steals from consumers. Well they never stole anything from me. I give them money and they give me a recording. Simple deal. If I don't like the deal I don't buy.
> So some people make bad deals and get themselves fucked; it doesn't justify me stealing from the people who fucked them.
Correct, but this is not stealing we're discussing, it's copyright infringement. Sordidman may be using situational ethics here, which doesn't help, but it doesn't inflame the debate the way the terms 'stealing' and 'theft' do.
> It might justify the fuckee stealing from them but not me.
So stealing is okay if it's the person who signed the bad deal? I've been taken to task in this thread because someone thinks I'm trying to say that two wrongs equal a right, which is not what I'm trying to say at all, because it's simply not true. But it's okay for you to think this?
> You say the music industry steals from consumers. Well they never stole anything from me. I give them money and they give me a recording. Simple deal.
Well, then it would seem that you did not read the link I provided way earlier in this thread to the piece in the Consumerist where the person who did give money for recordings received files in return that they could not use. Just because you haven't been victimized by this sort of thing, doesn't mean that others haven't.
> "Big picture" my fat Irish ass. You're just spouting a bunch of bullshit rhetoric
No, I don't agree with him completely, but that's not true. Using words like 'stealing' in a discussion of copyright infringement is spouting a bunch of rhetoric--similar to what Mark's doing, though I give him a bit of a pass due to his status as a working professional. Sordid & I can attest to the idea of a big picture, although I'll limit it to my estimation of the credibility of the RIAA's side in the discussion. But I can tell you from personal firsthand experience that one doesn't have to be the one who signs a bad deal to be f*cked by copyright holders in their dealings with artists who create the work that the copyrights are held on.
"but this is not stealing we're discussing, it's copyright infringement."
Copyright infringement is theft.
"So stealing is okay if it's the person who signed the bad deal?
I said people who were fucked MIGHT be justified in stealing from those who fucked them, my point was that I'm not justified.
"Just because you haven't been victimized by this sort of thing, doesn't mean that others haven't."
So what's his recourse? Copyright infringement? And like I said, they never stole anything from me.
"Sounds like that's not exactly a position you can relate to, so perhaps you might want to consider cooling it with yr own overheated rhetoric."
You're right, I've no need to steal from copyright holders, nor have I any need to rationalize such behavior.
> I said people who were fucked MIGHT be justified in stealing from those who fucked them, my point was that I'm not justified.
No, they're NOT justified, not if you care about the law, that is. You appear to care a lot about the law when it suits yr argument, but here you are saying that you MIGHT justify theft. Quite a conundrum here, hmmm? I thought stealing was stealing, PERIOD. Or is situational ethics only okay when YOU'RE the one engaging in it?
> So what's his recourse? Copyright infringement?
I never said that, and if that's what he's going to do, that's illegal activity that does not constitute recourse so far as I'm concerned. What's his recourse, indeed! He just might be the victim of fraud, which is NOT the same as signing a bad deal. It's a matter of being sold something that was represented to be functional, and, instead, it was not. I guess the only recourse is to go to small claims court. Unless you have any better ideas, that is.
What's that? It's not worth it to pay more to file the case than the amount of the damages? Oh, well, I guess he's just f*cked, then, isn't he. Too bad.
Sorry, I object to this. Strenuously. Illegal file-sharing devalues music. But so does this, and I have my own small stake in that. Do you?
> And like I said, they never stole anything from me.
Oh, I guess it's okay then.
> You're right, I've no need to steal from copyright holders, nor have I any need to rationalize such behavior.
Well, I don't know who that's supposed to be directed at, since I rationalize no such thing. However, if you knew anything about what copyright holders have been known to do to those who created the work that the copyrights are based on, you might feel differently. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that you should find it in yr heart to justify stealing, but you might be moved to think about issues you post about beyond the perfectly obvious that one sees on the surface, and how that impacts on you, or doesn't. I have a feeling that illegal file-sharing impacts negatively on me more than it does on you. Rational and critical thinking needs to be applied to this issue to produce a feasible legal result, and I say yr outrage doesn't help.
> Copyright infringement is theft
It is? I guess you didn't check this link that I dropped elsewhere in this thread. The linked post occurs approximately halfway through the discussion, which I recommend you take a look at if you believe what you just posted. Then perhaps you might want to take a look at a post I just put up in response to Sordidman & then get back to me if you want.
If you don't, fine. But I'm telling you flat-out you don't help matters here.
"You appear to care a lot about the law when it suits yr argument, but here you are saying that you MIGHT justify theft. Quite a conundrum here, hmmm? I thought stealing was stealing, PERIOD. Or is situational ethics only okay when YOU'RE the one engaging in it?"
You waste your time on sophistry. I was musing, thinking out loud so to speak and didn't say stealing by anyone was OK. Remind me never to think out loud in front of you again, like other thinking it seems to be wasted on you.
I don't need you or the fella who posted on the thread to tell me what is and isn't theft. The Jesuits trained me in both conscience and dissembling, I know one from the other.
"But I'm telling you flat-out you don't help matters here."
I'm not here to help you or matters here, anyway no doubt the only people reading this are you and I so don't worry about it.
> You waste your time on sophistry. I was musing, thinking out loud so to speak and didn't say stealing by anyone was OK. Remind me never to think out loud in front of you again, like other thinking it seems to be wasted on you.
It's my time, not yours, I'll decide whether or not I'm wasting it. This is a topic that is extremely important to me. You jumped in & stated something that happens to be factually incorrect.
Moreover, what you did was to inflame with rhetoric, precisely what you accused the other guy of, which is not to say that you were completely incorrect in yr assertion.
> I don't need you or the fella who posted on the thread to tell me what is and isn't theft. The Jesuits trained me in both conscience and dissembling, I know one from the other.
I see. Did the Jesuits teach you words like 'fuckee?'
Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Don't complain that anyone's splitting hairs here, because you're wrong about that. Period. This creates a problem where anyone who makes the point I'm making is typically then accused to be excusing or rationalizing theft, which is not the case.
Here's a thought, though: if you were correct about that, and you ever so much as made one cassette recording off the radio or of an album prior to 1992, then you were guilty of...theft. So was anyone who chose to make a cassette copy of anything off the radio, or any record, 8-track, whatever, that they did not own the copyright on. That means anyone who didn't buy a prerecorded cassette copy of an album to play in their walkman, boombox, or car stereo, even if they'd bought the album, was guilty of copyright infringement ...which you are telling us, erroneously, is theft.
Are you going to tell me you never did such a thing? Because unless you didn't, then by yr own standards you are a thief. I have to wonder if you were this much of a hard-liner prior to the Audio Home Recording Act. I also have to wonder if you have ripped any of your legally purchased CDs to your computer. Guess what: if you were robbed, and your CDs were stolen, you would be compelled by the law to destroy your MP3 files. Would you do that?
I don't really care if you're the only one left reading this. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, my business suffers from illegal file-sharing, and all you do by calling copyright infringement, theft, is to stir more people up & delay the process of a much-needed overhaul of the DMCA. Is that really yr intent here? When it comes down to defending yr estimation of the law based on who it was that schooled you while also telling others to kiss yr ass, I have to wonder.
In the meantime, copyright infringement remains just that, not theft. If you can point to a law that supports yr position & not mine, please do. I do know that courts have stated otherwise. I also know that the attorney who posted often in the thread I linked to is more knowledgeable on the subject than either you or I. I'll take his word for it over you & whoever schooled you on the law, ethics, or anything else, thank you very much.
Hard to imagine their mix of a 2 cups of rap, 2 cups of country girls in tight jeans, 1 cup of screaming metalcore, and maybe 5 cups of teeny-bopper isn't selling. It's especially convenient to blame illegal downloading for people stealing what they're not willing to buy. I think the record company executives who want to see the real culprits should buy mirrors.
It's just a record deal. The change might prompt Paul to write and record something innovative, something he hasn't managed to do in years.
I think that was a silly thought also. A perfect example of the "John = cool, Paul = uncool" mentality that is true to an extent, but grossly overstated. I'm not sure why this is a move that would've caused the guy who hired Allen Klein to puke.
Used to be I thought Lennon was cooler than McCartney, then I got wise.
Paul wanted to be Little Richard or Elvis and John wanted to be Allan Ginsberg. No doubt many of the bourgeois temporary rebels who try to be rock and roll tastemakers would favor Lennon's strivings, afterall he was ashamed of his working class background and sought to curry favor with middle and upper class artistic types and intellectos. Lennon was an artistic ballwasher.
Whereas McCartney made as much money as he could as fast as he could with no apologies to anyone for doing so, a true working class attitude and a more honest one too.
I suspect that those who accuse musicians of selling out are people who never did a hard days work in their lives and certainly never suffered the insecurities of low wages, unemployment, danger on the job or poverty.
Paul's wanting to be Little Richard and/or Elvis doesn't quite account for When I'm Sixty-Four, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, or Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, now, does it? It's tough to generalize like that. Especially since Lennon's wanting to be Allen Ginsberg, as you put it, is probably what led to stuff like I Am The Walrus, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, and I Dig A Pony. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, calling Lennon an 'artistic ballwasher' doesn't quite make sense, either, since he was actually an art student. Deflating the myth of the coolness of Lennon vs. McCartney is all fine & well, but I don't see how you can hope to make that point effectively when you're labeling one of the most accomplished, and creatively, critically, and commercially successful musicians of all time as a 'wannabe' because he possessed artistic conceits.
don't mean as much....
have damned little to do with Rock and Roll, especially beauty and art. Innovation's OK as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
You are arguing which was more working class?
Both left their roots as quickly as they could run.
The Britain they grew up in was drab and boring.
Lennon cut the Rock'N'Roll album which was the closest either got to the music they both grew up loving.
You really seem to be splitting hairs to produce a divergence between them.
But I'd argue they were some of the hardest working guys in music. They kept a blue collar work mentallity/ethic throughout the Beatle years. Later, I don't know.
But all of the reading I've done, including Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions, details a great work ethic. Most of us would wilt at the pace they worked and produced GREAT sounds.
Often when working class people dare to have opinions on class issues we're accused of reverse snobbery and "class warfare". I'll tell you something, our versions have done alot less damage to the world than real snobbery and class warfare as practiced by the wealthy.
"You are arguing which was more working class?"
I'm arguing more who was the honest rock and roller and who was the stuck up would be artist. And which appealed more to phonies and tastemakers. I think Lennon was a jerk with wide appeal to other jerks.
We were talking about a couple of musicians.
I suggest you get over whatever it may be that was in your background that you are still carrying around.
Working class credentials?
You sound like some of the university socialists I used to meet who thought solidarity was moving to Hackney.
Keep it about the music, mate.
Pretentious? It's Macca who has written the "oratorios".
If that is the sort of thing that might qualify him.
It's Macca who wrote Give Ireland Back To The Irish.
Whereas Lennon wrote songs like Imagine... while buying up a building facing Central Park.
You can pick holes in any musician's politics, but so what?
They are not the ones wiping unions from our societies or dropping bombs.
Stop the 60s' fascination with songwriters as leaders and philosophers.
It's old hat and it didn't work.
My personal problem is when I see people going ballistic over someone bashing their favorite music artists. As if such artists ought never be criticized.
I'm not a big fan of either, never was really.
I assume you are talking about the original posting then.
"I think .... was a jerk with wide appeal to other jerks."
It's interesting you make this comment, for I think your political opposition thinks this is the biggest problem today.
While I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, in seeing some of your political comments from the past, I think the root of our disagreements is that where you think those you support are populists and reformers, I think those you support are elitists selling themselves as populists and reformers.
A wealthy person who feels like he/she's obligated to shape social policy is an "elitist." Basically someone who claims to be for the lower and working class, but as you said, never really lived in the part in real life. An elitist uses his wealth to pander to the poor, often creating a sense of **dependence** (whether real or perceived) amongst the poor for their services.
One who's wealthy is just that. He has more $$$, but otherwise tries to live his life without bothering anyone. Provided he's not also an elitist.
I've personally had a problem with anyone resenting the wealthy in a general sense. For being wealthy in itself isn't a crime. (If one cannot stand the disparity, there are alternative nations where things are made equal, amongst the masses.)
I think the biggest problem on the planet is the masses mistaking elitists for populists and/or reformers.
You are correct, in this context, that Lennon had more of an "elitist" attitude than McCartney. But I also think Lennon had the musical genius that McCartney didn't have. But then again, I think Lennon, when his attitude became elitist, compromised his musical genius in the name of political activism. (I have a similar opinion of the Dixie Chicks.) And for me, it was a big turn-off.
Interesting post Todd and well taken.
I see it completely opposite. Paul is a cheap ass. John, on the other hand, was very benevolent.
John may have had more demons - womanizing, drunken tirades, etc. Paul was probably a better family man, but when it comes down to it, John was the thinker, taking on social issues. If that makes him an elitist and "Beat Generation Wanna Be", I guess I aspire to that - definitely more than Paul's feel good - don't worry, be happy approach.
Excellent way of putting things into perspective. Allen Klein, LOL!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: