Entertainment For Lively Minds
Oh, come on, we are all doing it....
Downloading is a fact of life - it will change how all we listen, how we all watch. Whether people will actually pay relatively small amounts (Spotify etc) to download films or music is probably irrelevant.
We , public and artists alike, will all have to adapt. TV series on demand - all episodes today, please. Watching Winter’s Bone not in some over-priced popcorn-strewn auditorium but in the comfort of your own home. Listening to music in whichever form you want - the hit single for instant gratification or the entire works of your old fave spread over a long weekend redolent of how things used to be.
Time to admit it is all happening, time to admit is has already happened…
The full text can be read in the comments.
- More from Ian Stephen.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Downloading
The secret crackling delight and continually disappearing reception of Radio Luxembourg , tuning into Two Way Family Favourites in the vain hope they would play something good, hearing Bob Dylan for the first time , those times when the Beatles seemed to release another masterpiece every 6 weeks, listening to the Grateful Dead on stereo headphones – those were the events that dominated my young life.
For the next 40 years music continued to take centre stage. In teenage days, records could only be bought at Birthday’s and Christmas – the planning stages were involved, fraught with danger. One pound could buy three singles - the latest Beatles’ obviously but next was it Ray Charles or Dusty Springfield, The Hollies or The Tremeloes ? Whilst I liked to think I ploughed a lone and thoughtful furrow as regards my musical taste I was, of course, open to the vagaries of fashion and my contemporaries’ often withering opinions. (It took me several weeks to realise Bob Dylan was not a 60 year black guy from The Deep South, had anyone noticed my error, was that what the sniggering was about ?).
LPs were the stuff of dreams. The arrival of such money in my hands only occurred rarely. Should I buy The Rolling Stones which everybody had purchased months before or should I take a chance on the MC5 which would increase my street credibility but did I actually like it ? I remember going into my local record ‘emporium’ (even in those mid-sixties’ days staffed by sneering assistants pretending they worked in Soho rather than in the corner of an Aberdeen TV & Radio shop) determined to buy Jethro Tull or The Doors. Why I came out with The Incredible String Band (and I am eternally grateful I did) could only be due to hearing them on Sunday afternoon John Peel – a few snatches heard whilst walking down the street carrying a transistor radio. Such was the often random nature of my musical purchases.
Marrying young and with two kids, buying records whilst still hugely important was only slightly more regular than the impoverished teenage and student days. Then along came home-taping – a new vista, almost a new universe unfolded in front of me. Not only did my brother-in-law work in a proper record shop with apparently unlimited access to all its wares but my local library would actually order virtually anything I wanted ! I scoured the pages of the NME and anything that looked interesting would eventually find its way into my home.
My stereo system had been somewhat upgraded over the years but was far from top of the range. The quality of these taped recording was actually pretty abysmal but my collection of albums now was probably around 200 to 300.
Along came CDs and with me slipping into the relative prosperity of middle-age the purchasing of music became more-or-less a once a week. My tastes were, of course, impeccable. I embraced 1977 , fell asleep during the eighties, kept faith with the usual giants (Springsteen, Mitchell et all) but all the while diving off-road to more exotic avenues of World Music or The Blue Nile, or even dipping my toes warily into Jazz.
As I approached sixty, my vinyl collection was disposed of and despite huge misgivings I eventually purchased an IPod. Within what seemed a few weeks everything I owned was transferred (yes, I quickly upgraded to 150GB) and the CDs were largely boxed away. The sound quality was, and is, markedly inferior to CD and especially vinyl ( maybe as bad as the home-tape stuff I used to have in abundance ?) but, as everyone knows, the convenience of having everything accessible at your fingertips is truly irresistible. I have recently upgraded to a set of speakers which apparently reconvert MP3 to FLAC and the result is pretty damn good – as good as I listened to in 1995 – nah ?.
So , a few years later here I was with an IPod stuffed full of everything I could possibly listen to - wrong ! My older son (good god, he is nearly forty now) is perhaps even more obsessed by music than me. He has remained true to the faith, buys loads and loads of vinyl (mostly obscure tracks from the vaults of Studio One) but is also computer literate. I knew he had been downloading stuff off the internet for several years including films, American TV shows etc.
I had played around with Napster but a slow internet connection prevented me from taking too much advantage of this new opportunity One fateful day he showed me a Bit Torrent site - I simply could not believe how easy this was especially as his main site claimed (and still claims) to disguise your IP address from any prying eyes.
The candy shop doors were flung open and in I strode. Want everything Steely Dan ever, ever recorded ? Want that obscure album by the guy nobody has ever heard of but was first up on Jools Holland, want the bootleg of Dylan & Woody Guthrie talking in hospital in 1963, want the complete 5 series of The Wire, want to watch every 2011 Oscar nominated film, want to watch that new series before even Sky get its hands on it ? Everything, simply everything is there. It’s there, it’s free, it’s there, it’s free.
My son, a more moral creature than myself, instructed me that whilst it’s ok to illegally download stuff you have previously purchased in vinyl, tape and CD you have a duty to pay for stuff released by new or struggling artists. His preferred method is to download 3 or 4 albums by someone he thinks he may like then if any does indeed prove to be his kind of thing then he goes and buys it (cheap off the internet, of course).
No such scruples for me, I am afraid……. haven’t paid for a piece of music, film or TV for over two years.
There are two points I would now like to address:
Firstly, the morals of illegally downloading. There is huge amount of self interest and self justification here but I have gradually come round to the viewpoint that it is here and it is unlikely that regulation or technical preventive measures will ever work in removing it from almost everyone’s reach.
It is clear that artists are changing their ways and that, for instance, touring ,sales of T-shirts etc will in future be far more lucrative than record royalties. Of course, I feel guilty and not a little ashamed that a relatively new artist like, for instance, Emily Smith, will not receive a penny from me but I am afraid that everyone like her is going to have to adapt to the Brave (?) New World out there.
Secondly and in some ways even more disturbing to me, is the sheer amount of downloaded music, Films and TV I now have safely encased within a 1000gb external hard-drive. I can just about keep up with the Films and TV - does anyone actually watch individual episodes of anything anymore ? I came very late to Mad Men but my wife and I now currently watch two, sometimes three, episodes, virtually every free night we have. A glass of Shiraz, Dan Draper and Joan – ah, heaven. And we still haven’t touched West Wing or Nurse Jackie or Broadway Empire.
As for Films - plug the stick into a flat screen monitor with cheap speakers (god knows how good it would be through a proper home cinema set-up ?) and nobody ever need go to The Odeon again: ok we might be missing out on 3D-Avatar but my feeling is we’ll soon all be experiencing that kind if thing (if we want it) at home.
Ah, but music, music. I now have the attention span of an agitated gnat. Read a review of something new, download it 15 minutes later. Mate mentions “have you heard” and bang you are there too. But when last did I really, listen to an album all the way through ? Every so often something bursts through - Jamie T is simply the most exciting British artist we have today: why has it taken me so long to discover Noah and The Whale ? But put the IPod on shuffle and how many tracks can I recognise within the first 10 seconds ? (This used to be a particularly impressive party-trick of mine, impressive at least to me).
I often wondered how reviewers, or Word Staffers, found the time to really explore an album - I still wonder. Am I worrying myself about nothing - after all the 30 - 45 minute length of an LP is artificially created: what’s wrong with at most two great tracks and a few fillers that may or may not grow on you ? I knew every word, every note, every nuance of Blonde on Blonde but how much of that was due to my raw teenage excitement and how much was it because it was one of only 3 LPs I actually owned ?
Downloading is a fact of life - it will change how all we listen, how we all watch. Whether people will actually pay relatively small amounts (Spotify etc) to download films or music is probably irrelevant. Given that there is a community out there (I always think it largely composes of acned-teenagers in California who haven’t seen the sun since they were ten but it is probably run by guys like my son) dedicated to ever new ways of beating The System nobody need ever pay for anything ever again.
We , public and artists alike, will all have to adapt. TV series on demand - all episodes today, please. Watching Winter’s Bone not in some over-priced popcorn-strewn auditorium but in the comfort of your own home. Listening to music in whichever form you want - the hit single for instant gratification or the entire works of your old fave spread over a long weekend redolent of how things used to be.
Time to admit it is all happening, time to admit is has already happened…
That's us professional musicians that you're stealing from...
Yeah!
And unprofessional ones! It's a good job Masterchef is on in a minute, I feel righteous ire coming on! Rrraaarrrr! I'll be back to deal with this later!
Just curious
But what's the difference between what the OP appears to be advocating, and
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/9-dvds-ogwt-stuff
or
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/in-our-time-2009-complete-series-n...
All three are examples of a copyrighted material being downloaded in breach of copyright. So why is one OK and the other not? I'm not trying to put holes in your argument - it's obviously an issue you feel strongly about, so I'm sure you justify it for what you consider to be sound reasons - I'm just curious as to the difference.
All of the In Our Time programmes are podcasts
which are freely available on their website, the torrent was simply a collection of them to save people the hassle of downloading them one-by-one.
There's also an argument to be made that any BBC content has already been paid for by any license fee payers so royalties/residuals have already been paid.
Not sure how repeat fees work for TV programmes though. I only ever played on them as 'cash-in-hand' sessions.
Feels like a massive grey area to me
But thanks for answering.
Talking of your session work, if someone illegally downloads an album you've played on in preference to purchasing it, how are you losing money? I assume that you would have received a fee at the time, but not ongoing royalties. Once you've "done your bit", does it make a difference to your bank account whether the album sells 1000 or 100,000, whether someone pays for it or not?
Sessions were always 'cash-in-hand' - literally if not
metaphorically. If I did a 3-hour session, I turned up, read the chart once, had one run-through if we were lucky, then played what was on the chart. Down to the office to collect the money then, on a good day, onto the next session. No royalties, no credit and, to be honest, oftentimes we didn't even know what the music for - an advert, a TV show, a jingle. Some saw the light of day, some didn't.
So, you're right, if someone downloads an album I played on as a session then I personally don't lose money. Of course, that's just the session guys; *someone* loses money - just not me :-)
On a few occasions, I did longer engagements where I was brought into to play on an album as part of a backing band for (say) a solo singer. My agent always tried to get me some sort of credit such that I got an ongoing record royalty, and over a 25 year career, I accumulated enough of those to ensure a healthy (if not spectacular) revenue stream. They're the ones I don't like being downloaded :-)
I agree
It's also why I think Spotify is doing great damage, as I've banged on about in other threads, because the musician gets paid next to nothing while the listener gets cd quality without having to fork out for 30 cdsa month.
And ultimately, if people dont get paid for their work, plenty will stop doing it and go into marketing instead :)
Where to start?
How about with "I am afraid that everyone like her is going to have to adapt to the Brave (?) New World out there."
Why should she "adapt" to you basically stealing from her?
Oh, for goodness sake - of
Oh, for goodness sake - of course I am "stealing" but it's a theft that is happening everywhere, every day ,every second. I am not defending my morals, I am not saying young Emily is not deserving of my three pounds fifty, I am simply saying that everything is now available to everyone for free - get used to it
So, because 'everyone' is doing it, that makes it OK?
Would you steal a copy of Word from the newsagents? Would you steal a tank of petrol from the petrol station? I suspect not.
Why? Because you'd get caught and punished. You're happy to steal music because you won't get caught. That doesn't make it a victimless crime y'know.
As I have said here several times over the years, musicians are people too. They have bills to pay, houses to heat, cars to run, kids to feed, just like anyone else. Stealing their music is stealing their income. How would you like it if I came and helped myself to a small chunk of your salary every month - that's what you're doing if you steal music.
How about this for an offer? I'll come to your house and point out every stolen album that I played on - I'm confident you'll have a few - and you can pay me directly for my efforts?
How about this for an offer?
... I come round to your house and point out every album that I haven't played on - you'll never get rid of me.
To be fair, I could make the same offer on those terms as well
:-)
I'm dying to know
What albums i have Stimpy has played on.
Sorry but I'd rather remain anonymous for the time being
I know that makes me sound a bit self-obsessed and self-important but it works for me...
EDIT: Even that post reads as pompous! On a lighter note, if you've anything that was recorded in the 70s or early 80s which claims to have been played by a bunch of chancers who'd likely require some studio fairy dust - and the drums sound like a second-division (read 'cheaper') Clem Cattini or Peter Phipps - that might have been me :-)
Theres a challenge.......
Bzericki,M? Phillips,S? Both 1957 vintage and fit the bill. Sadly, tapping vintage synths doesn't help narrow it down.
Stop it!
Simon Phillips is one of my drumming heroes; not especially well-known, certainly not a 'star' - although he's gained a certain amount fame in the US since replacing Jeff Porcaro in Toto - but one of the best drummers I ever saw when you want a certain style of drumming. His work with Jeff Beck was stunning.
(No mentions of Keytars please :-))
Simon Phillips is the FPO's god father.
Truesay. Mind you, he never writes, he never phones...
Gosh... I'm quietly impressed
Downloading-equals-stealing analogies simply don't work
I understand your vested interest in this, Stimpy, and sympathise with it, but nobody out there without a vested interest is ever going to be convinced that downloading an infinitely duplicatable file is the same as stealing a discrete physical object. And they're not convinced because it's not the same. At all.
A Word that's stolen from a newsagent's is thereafter unavailable for sale. Not only has it not been bought by the thief, but it can't be bought by anyone else either. It's a big hole on the shelf where a saleable item should be.
A downloaded file won't be bought by the downloader, but it's just as available for anyone else to buy as it was before the unauthorised download happened. The condition of the saleable item remains unchanged and unaffected by the download.
All that an unauthorised download means commercially is that someone has (probably) opted out of the pool of potential buyers for that item. If you can't be sure that the downloader would have bought the item if they couldn't get it free, how can you quantify the loss? And if you can't quantify the loss, there's no theft.
So it's not theft either
if I photocopy my mate's Word instead of buying my own? Okay, "theft" may be a strong way of putting it, but the end result is one less sale for Development Hell just like it's one less royalty for Stimpy.
Again
You're presupposing that you would have bought it if your mate didn't photocopy it for you. What if you had no such intention? If you thought it looked fairly interesting but not worth spending money on without having a good shufti first, then Development Hell loses nothing if your mate passes on a photocopy of the magazine to you. On the balance sheet you're exactly the same non-buyer you were before you became a clandestine reader.
Every month
I get an email with a link to the digital edition. It comes with an invitation to distribute to interested friends, as I see fit.
This makes sense to me, since anyone who then likes it will be more likely to actually buy a copy.
You do?
Since I started to subscribe before Christmas (yey!) I seem to have stopped getting the weekly email too. Fraser, can you help?
Since I'm here, I may as well throw in my thruppence. I sit somewhere in the middle of this debate. I want to buy and own my music, but that isn't always possible. Some albums (CDs mainly - I have some vinyl but don't own a turntable and I'm a child of the CD generation) simply aren't available, so I will obtain it by whatever means (I'm looking at you Buckingham Nicks); some have a restricted release, either download only or they have to imported, and it is these latter releases that are my downfall. I don't want to spend money on something that, if I don't like, I can't return. HMV, for all it's faults, will allow a no questions asked return. My income is a little more restricted than it was a couple of years ago (hence the money saving subscription!) so occasionally I will seek out a download to try it before I buy it. I would say roughly 60% of the time, these downloads are deleted almost immediately. Of the other 40% or so I probably buy three quarters of them, which means I keep roughly 5% of the stuff I download without any money changing hands. I don't download frequently, I'd say maybe 3 albums and a handful of single tracks a week, so all in all this doesn't amount to much.
I know this is wrong; I don't see it as theft as such, I'm more in line with Archie's stance, but I know that it certainly isn't right. However, I kind of 'correct' my morality by buying an awful lot of music, or music related items (gig tickets, t-shirts, magazines), and most of my money goes on new music thereby supporting the acts that need it the most. The problem will get worse as time goes on, and I'm not looking forward to the day when CDs and CD players are no longer available. I would like to think the majority of us on this forum are better (than me) so that we can try to prolong this thing, but it's probably out of our hands, particularly if some (like the OP) have already turned. The future is uncertain, but debates such as this must take place to find the answer.
Check your spam folder
If you're a subscriber and we have your e-mail address, you're being sent the e-mail.
Specious
This argument is always wheeled out at times like this.
Basically -- it makes no difference, why have the profits of the music industry fallen off a cliff?
Our proud moral vacuum up above says in black and white that before he discovered downloading he was buying records weekly. Now he hasn't paid for anything for two years.
Specious
This argument is always wheeled out at times like this.
Basically -- if it makes no difference, why have the profits of the music industry fallen off a cliff?
Our proud moral vacuum up above says in black and white that before he discovered downloading he was buying records weekly. Now he hasn't paid for anything for two years.
"Why have the profits of the music industry fallen off a cliff?"
Video-gaming, mostly. Seriously. Its rise coincides exactly with the music industry's decline. Music used to be the only leisure pursuit for young people apart from the cinema (also in free fall, with the film version of Prince of Persia grossing only a fraction of the revenue of the original game franchise). Even if the Internet didn't exist I very much doubt the music business would be in much better shape today than it has been post-Napster.
Most of the people I know who induldge in torrents and P2P downloads (i.e. all the people I know) still buy CDs from time to time, but they also buy video games and DVD boxsets, so their total spending on "creative leisure product" is probably as high as it's ever been; it's just no longer going on big circles of shiny black plastic the way it used to.
Correct.
My boys like music but they own more computer games than CD's or iTunes tracks. Music is a side issue, gaming is where it's at.
True, true
... but only to an extent.
I do think there would have been a decline, probably a serious decline, as money was diverted away to other interests -- gaming being top of the list. But music would not have declined so precipitiously without downloading.
The ability to download meant that all of your money could be spent on games (which are much more difficult to download) rather than games and music having to fight it out.
Well I don't have a vested interest
Can't sing, can't play. But I do believe that stealing someones music or text is stealing whether its physical product or electronic data.
If I'd written a book, emailed a copy to you with a clear copyright statement attached and you gave it away online as an ebook, would that be ok?
Of course it's not okay
But it's not "stealing" the way stealing a physical object is either. Stealing deprives the owner of the object, and without possession of the object it can't then be sold on to anyone else. Downloading, however, simply deprives the rights owner of one potential sale. It's not the same thing at all.
Unauthorised downloading is a new problem, and the task of solving it is ill-served by force-fitting old terminology onto it like a glass slipper onto an Ugly Sister's foot. That's all I'm saying.
Just because I don't think unauthorised downloading is theft doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be discouraged. It should, but the same as any other copyright infringement, be it a dodgy Rolex, or a label that passes off one thing as another. But that's all it is: a commercial infringement, not the serious crime against society that it's being painted as whenever words like "theft" and "stealing" are bandied about.
But theft
is a legal term not a social term. I agree there are degrees of seriousness but thats the same in all crime.
Course its stealing
anything else, to quote Nigel Tufnel, is nitpicking
A thought experiment
Danny Downloader used eMule to download the e-book version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He's now reading page 67 of the book that cost him nothing. As a result of his action, the Larsson estate won't see a penny, because he didn't pay a penny in royalties.
Meanwhile, Tommy Traditionalist went to a car-boot sale and picked up a copy of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He's now reading page 67 of the book that cost him 50p. As a result of his action, the Larsson estate won't see a penny, because he didn't pay a penny in royalties (the 50p he paid went straight into the pocket of the stallholder).
Result: Danny is considered by most of the Massive to be a thief, while Tommy is considered by most of the Massive to be merely thrifty.
What's the justification for that, if the direct effect on the Larsson estate's income is identical in both cases? If two "criminals" harm the interests of the "victim" in exactly the same way, why aren't they both accused of committing the same "crime"?
And, come to that, if wilful non-payment of royalties is truly theft, why isn't the stallholder who sold Tommy his copy of the book called a "fence"?
Interesting argument, Dr V..
But deeply flawed, as well you know.
"And, come to that, why isn't the stallholder who sold Tommy his copy of the book called a "fence"?"
Because he isn't selling stolen goods. What he is doing is perfectly legal.
If, however, he'd photocopied or scanned his book and was selling copies on memory sticks in .pdf format or whatever, then he'd be a criminal. Why? Because copyright law says so. And you're told that inside every book.
Books, though, no longer seem to carry the warning about "This book may not be lent, sold, hired etc blah wibble without the current cover condition hum hubble thingmy and the same conditions being imposed on subsequent owners" or words to that effect.
"It is because the law says so"
OK, forget the stallholder as fence - it was an afterthought anyway, and muddies the issue even further. But I see you don't address my main point, other than to call it "interesting" (ta, Len).
And that's exactly what I'm driving at. We haven't really thought this through. For several years now we've being conditioned - relentlessly spun at - to lump torrenters in the same bag of antisocial miscreants as burglars and muggers. And, second, as if that weren't ridiculous enough, we're not even consistent when we do it. Not paying royalties when acquiring a copyrighted work can't be a crime in some cases (Danny's)but not in others (Tommy's). And if it is, then the law is an ass.
it is difficult
Obviously I've spent more than my share at the Record and Tape Exchange over the years, none of which reaches the artists whose records I bought.
So why does it seem less shady? It just does. I don't know why. This is not a very reasoned argument, I'll admit.
Maybe it's because getting something second-hand, you're clearly getting something sub-standard, whereas a dodgy download is identical to a kosher download.
I don't know, just thinking out loud...
Yes, but thats okay.
Surely? Buying something second hand, the artist has already got the royalties from the first sale. You are buying something in a condition inferior to the originally sold product - why should the artist get extra royalty on a product already sold? You pay your money you take your choice. I remember at a Record Fair a few years ago I had the option of buying a new cd at £10 - they also had a copy of the same cd for £5.00 - I am sure it would have been okay but I opted to shell out the £10.00.
Exactly, its already been sold once
so payment has been received, and its yours to do with what you will.
If that wasnt the case, to extend it a bit further, antiques shops would be unacceptable for example. The second hand market is something different to pinching something in the first place.
That though does get to the nub of it in a way, because when something isnt there in physical form, its very easy to convince yourself that taking it isnt stealing, because it was never there in the first place. Bullshit I know, but people can convince themselves of pretty much anything if they want to.
I'm really not very interested in digital downloads. On the rare occasion I have - special offer from Amazon etc - I have to tell myself that I'm buying something, simply because it doesnt exist in a physical sense and therefore seems worthless. When I buy a cd, it seems worth handing the money over.
Only downloads I get
Are from Band websites or for albums not available in physical form - last Ian McNabb album as an example. Obviously many people on here are talking about free downloads - call me naive but I wouldn't know where to go to get them but wouldn't be interested anyway.I like to have the physical product and should we get to stage where we can no longer buy the physical product then we will have reached a sad day indeed.
Yet Danny himself
is being conditioned to believe that everything should be free. If he can get it for nowt by illegal means then he won't even consider paying for things. Even 50p is too much
so you're saying
as goes the music industry
so goes the boot sale industry
Well I went into one of those
sell your old games\DVDs for cash shops the other day and there was a huge queue of people selling and plenty buying. So will this start impacting on the games industry? Probably not its just easier to get music illegally with even the crappiest net connection than it is to do with games. (I assume you'd have to get your console modified is some way)
The problem is subtle and complex
Originally, in common law (though IANAL) and then codified in the Theft Act, 1968, "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
There are several contentious words there: property, permanently and dishonestly. Indeed, the whole definition is flawed because it considers, 'property' in an almost Lockean sense: a physical item over which ownership is clear to establish, or transfer. The water is now incredibly muddy, because some of the 'property' at issue here is difficult to pin down. These laws were simply not designed for 'property' which is, as AV pointed out, infinitely reproducible, and doesn't (in a physical sense) really even exist, without depriving the owner of the original artifact itself.
If we try to fall back on the laws governing copyright and intellectual property, we are in a similar mess, because those principles, defined by the Berne Conventions, are well over a century old and designed for a world that is as similar to now as the world before Gutenburg was to Berne.
We must also wonder what value people attach to these digital artifacts. Clearly, this seems to be different to thinking about them in physical terms. The defence of "everybody's doing it" doesn't make it right, and I too will admit to having done so on occasions. Most of us, I suspect, operate in a fairly wide grey area with respect to sharing media, which doesn't just mean downloading music. The position of the OP (deal with it) is stark, but not beyond the pale. The point is that the notions of ownership, title and even copyright are in flux, like so many things, as a result of changes in technology that currently far outstrip our attempts to legislate or even develop ethical and moral frameworks to navigate them. In the middle of this are the poor (in many cases) artists, who just want to be able to make a living. And we are seeing some of them being innovative in trying to generate income from their work, moving away from the distribution and ownership of the media companies. Those media hegemonies are, frankly, not collapsing, just moving somewhere else. Companies like Google are the gatekeepers of this brave new world.
The realignment of our culture is only just beginning, and will go in directions we can't imagine quite yet. It will take many years for many of these issues to be resolved; that is something we (or our successors) will have to deal with.
Because
no 'fence has been committed.
I thank you.
inverted commas?
It isn't "stealing".
It's stealing.
I have never.....
Illegaly downloaded music or video and don't intend to start now (I truly buy into the whole freetard thing, even paying again via iTunes for songs I already own on vinyl). More importantly for me though Free music equals music you don't need to care for or give time to, as you would with stuff you've forked out for.
And haven't we had a choice not to watch a film at the cinema for about 30 years now?
"...no-one need ever pay for anything again"
I don't think that'll be an issue. There won't *be* anything.
Exactly
If people keep stealing from the sweet jar, then one day it'll be empty with no one left to fill it up. The 'everyone's doing it' argument is naively short-sighted, at best.
It's not that the sweet jar will be empty
There just won't be a sweetie jar because no one (apart from a few specialists) will be able to earn a living as a musician, or photographer, or writer, or whatever ... That won't mean the end of music, photography or story-telling, but it might mean the end of regarding those activities as jobs with a career structure and a salary ...
Not many handloom weavers or miners left in the UK either ...
I politely ask once again -
I politely ask once again - it's all free, it's all out there. To pretend otherwise, to pretend it ain't happenin' is like watching The Tide Coming In. It's Real, It's Now.
Forget the moral: very, very old people like me are "stealing" everything we can - get used it.
It's not free
Free would involve you having the permission of the owner of the property (property can be physical or intellectual), It's no more free than you car being free if I figure a way to drive off in it. Or your wallet containing free money for me to help myself to.
Old doesn't make it right. Youth or age is no excuse.
and very very young people...
...are mugging very very old people for their pensions every day.
I suppose that's OK too?
Morals? Pah! Who needs'em.
Stealing everything you can get... (no quotes)
as long as you know you won't get caught. Not only is it immoral and illegal, its cowardly. Come back and tell me you've just stolen some books and a tank of petrol then I'll have some respect for you as a proper criminal.
Or, appealing to your better nature, why not donate something to the Musicians Benevolent Fund - a UK charity that helps professional musicians in need - give 50p for every record you've stolen? You'll still have your thousands of stolen albums but you'll feel better and you'll have helped out the musicians who make the music you love.
Soory but that argument is crap
Don't you put any value on the stuff you are stealing? If in 10 years time I can't get any new music because the likes of you have driven people who chose music as a way of life into a career change then my life will be poorer. I have a colleague who boasts about how many free books he has downloaded onto his Kindle. He wont read any of the fuckers but it is in his eyes a great coup. This is called progress?
Try "stealing" in Tesco's
You won't last long running past the security guards with a Topside of beef down your jumper.
Stealing is stealing is stealing.
There is no spin.
I always drop my topside of beef
into a passing old lady's handbag and if she doesn't get stopped I just lift it out again once outside the shop, along with her purse. Easy!
"Time to admit it is all
"Time to admit it is all happening, time to admit is has already happened…"
So we should just go along with it?
I'm not telling you how to live your life, but I do think you are wrong to steal someone's work. Sorry ... make that 'steal'.
But we're only musicians, so it's probably 'work' rather than
proper work.
I think it's time to be pragmatic
Regardless of whether or not you or I condone such activites, the fact is that it now happens and that's pretty much all there is to it.
What it means is what Ian is saying, record companies are having to adapt because sales are right down. Kids coming into the modern world are going to see this availability as the norm.
Personally, in a way, ebay has ruined shopping for me, a bit. I used to enjoy pottering around second hand shops - record shops, bookshops, but general second hand shops too. Most of them have shut down now. Ebay means we can find, second-hand, most things quite quickly and easily. Ebay also means that going shopping is a bit boring, because all towns have basically the same shops with the same stock. And the internet's better. I miss that though.
On the Dexys' thread, it was pointed out that £100 was a bit steep to pay to hear 'Don't Stand Me Down'. The argument was that Kevin Rowland and co. won't see any of that money, so maybe it's okay to download it? I find that a reasonably persuasive argument.
Another argument I find persuasive is the one that suggests that, if you cannot physically get a copy of a record, it's alright to download it. If you find one, of course, you ought to buy it.
Yet another argument is 'The Library' argument. You can download a new album, burn it, listen to it and see if you like it. If you do like it, you should buy it and keep the cd for the car. If you don't like it, you should chuck the cd. Or lend it to someone who you think might like it.
Personally, I won't pay for digital copies of music. If I have the cd and I can't be arsed to go in the loft and get it, I might download it. If it's new and I like it and I can buy it on vinyl, I'll buy it on vinyl. I consider cds overpriced and my feeble justification is that I possess so many multiple copies of so many recordings, yeah fuck the greedy record companies - I'll pay for vinyl, but the cd you can sell me is no better than the one I can download. If you don't stick it on vinyl - always much more expensive than cd and I pay it - tough, you've missed out. And so have I. Because I like vinyl, I can't make my own and I wouldn't want to. Give me vinyl and I'll give you money.
The internet is going to result in very few artists being able to make a living out of music/film/comedy - which was a very short period of time, in fairness. Making money out of selling recordings was something that happened only briefly in time. It was always live before and it'll be live in future. The facility for making high quality recordings is cheaper and more widely available now. Those that want to do it will do it and those that are in it for the money, won't.
That's why there's these special editions coming out about everything, fewer people buying records mean you have to charge more, for more and more stuff you can't digitise and download. Some of that's quite good, some of it's dross.
Not liking it doesn't mean it's not going to happen, though.
EDIT - On the plus side, because you can only be in one place at a time, we might end up with more musicians/actors/etc in order to fulfill the demand for live performance, seeing as there might be less recorded content in the future.
Vinyl
It is annoying that some record companies don't realise there is a demand for vinyl. They need to do some market research, I say.
If only
there was some way of finding out what it was that people wanted and translating that to benefit the customer in some way.
I suppose it's one of those things that we'll never ever solve.
Joking apart, it's not hard to work out, is it? Some companies make their money exclusively from vinyl.
The Unthanks' releases aren't on vinyl. Why is this? You'd have thought that nobody would buy X Factor records, but more would be likely to buy a traditional artist on a (relatively) traditional format.
But there isn't any substantial demand
Not in the real world anyway. There may well be some interest in places where real enthusiasts gather, like here, but among the vast music buying population only a nano-percentage would have any desire whatsoever to buy vinyl, just like they don't have any desire to use a 35mm camera or a valve amplifier.
And before anyone starts arguing, a quick Google
reveals several features about the rebirth of vinyl, but when you get into the articles you find out that vinyl still accounts for less than 1% of music sold in a physical form. If you were to include downloads in the total then vinyl's share would be virtually invisible.
I disagree
1. Second hand items are worth less than new items? I think not.
http://music.shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_nkw=beatles&_sacat=306&_sop=16&_dmp...
Google that one. Anyone offering any cds or downloads for about £9,000?
2. The fact that some people are prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for vinyl that is now no longer available - because nobody wants it, obviously - suggests to me that record companies are missing a trick here.
3. Or are they? Perhaps the fact that when the box set reissues come out these days, there's almost always vinyl included in the package. To name but two highly unpopular bands on this website (itself a tiny percentage of the entire market) The Stone Roses and Primal Scream - Screamadelica boxset both include plenty of slabs of vinyl.
If record companies want to miss out on thousands of punds worth of sales every year, because it's not cost effective(?) bearing in mind that one download's as good as another, one cd (can be) as good as another - and we can all make our own, should we so desire - vinyl is the only format that most people cannot duplicate. The only format that people actually want in its original form - AND IT'S NOT WORTH MAKING IT?
It might be a tiny proportion, but it's the safest proportion in the business. Yes, you could rip it, but what is the point of that. As has been pointed out, you generally get a download voucher with new vinyl.
It's not the biggest market in the world, but it's unique in that people want the whole artifact and they aren't going to shove it in the loft once they've ripped it. And the industry have let it go because it's not worth it? Pillocks,no wonder they're going down the swanny.
An ugly vision of the future...
You are paying for your internet connection. You're also paying for all your fancy gizmos that translate binary into pleasant noises.
Maybe one day ISPs will have to shove some money towards the creators of stuff they, for their part, make available for free... Of course it'd have to be one huge, monopolous ISP... let's call it, ooh, "Apple"... All funds would go into some kind of Bands and Artists' Kitty... and they'd know who to give more money to because, uh, we'd all have popularity monitoring chips in our brains...
It's a practical solution to a practical problem.
Regardless of my views
I wonder why the OP decided on this for their first post.
Predictably inflammatory stuff.
Offence taken!
I can understand the musicianly ire on this thread, but I just really wanted to echo art vanderlay's point.
We're not all doing it, thanks very much.
The only reason I can think of for illegal downloading is if the album in question is deleted or similar. But if there is a channel for you to pay for it, you should.
Quite right.
I'm 33. I'm a rabid technophile and a heavy internet user (as in I use it a lot. I'm also, coincidentally, quite heavy). I've illegally downloaded 3 tracks in my life, because they weren't published records (two Lemonheads bootleg songs, and something else I forget).
It. Is. Not. OK. Therefore I won't do it. I don't give a fuck how many other people do: they're doing something that's wrong, which I won't participate in.
Bob - I saw this earlier and thought of you...
I have literally...
... never seen an XKCD cartoon that didn't make me giggle like Homer chasing that squirrel round a tree. Thanks for that! I thought of me too.
OK.
If you want to get shirty, people, just be mindful that the vast majority of youtube videos that are embedded on the Word Website are placed here without the permission of the owner.
Every time you watch Echo & The Bunnymen simper their way through "The Killing Moon" on TOTP in 1984 remember that you're either stealing Ian McCulloch's hairgel money, or watching him making an arse of himself long after he withdrew the right for us to do so.
So I hope this doesn't mean you're going to stand over our shoulders with your crowd-clicker counting every view from henceforth.
Now I could not live with myself if I took from Laura Marling, or The Vaccines, or even Radiohead what is theirs by right (although I am tempted to illegally download the Mumford & Sons album out of spite even though I have no intention of ever listening to it), but I am not going to deny myself the opportunity to watch "Europa '51" by Roberto Rossellini, or Dire Straits on Arena in 1980, or listen to Buckingham Nicks or Fischer Z if they're out there, because it's likely at my age that this might be the only opportunity I ever get to enjoy them again.
Audible chuckle duly emitted
"although I am tempted to illegally download the Mumford & Sons album out of spite even though I have no intention of ever listening to it" - I couldn't agree more.
I'm with the Just Say No Campaign. I don't think it's OK to download music illegally when it's available to buy, often more cheaply than it's ever been. We have plenty of ways of listening to stuff to find out if we like it - like Spotify, although I gather artists make a pretty miserable amount from it, so maybe that's not the best example - so the argument about "I download stuff then if I like it I'll buy it" is not very convincing, especially given that, in all likelihood, the vast majority of people who spout this line have no intention of shelling out.
Yes, if stuff is otherwise unavailable, it's hard to argue against getting it by whatever means necessary (my thanks to whoever it was who helped me out with a long deleted Aretha Franklin song). Otherwise, I'll pay up.
Another concrete example
I loved Dougal and the Blue Cat. So, a couple of years back, I went searching for a d/l so that I could watch a fondly remembered childhood favourite. It was the only way I could do it.
It didn't stop me taking all of 45 seconds to purchase a copy from Amazon when I found out it had finally been released. When the legal option was made available, I took it with no little alacrity.
If there's nothing
left to sell we won't need marketing people any more so there's a plus. But with no marketing people nobody will know what to steal and if no one is stealing we'll be able to sell again and then the marketing people are back in business........ Ah fuck it, I blame Tony Blair anyway.
"If I have the cd
and I can't be arsed to go in the loft and get it"
bloody hell man, thats hardore laziness. I tip my hat to you.
A lot of new vinyl issues now comes with cd copies of downloads. Sorted.
I've always wanted to do this....
...'Hardcore Laziness'. TMFTL.
It's cold in my
loft and the dog ate my slippers. And you can tell that to Sting when he's starving and looking for something to feel sickened by.
But yes, when I can't be arsed, I can't be arsed. It's a bad thing.
Of course I am "stealing"
Of course I am "stealing" and, of course, it's "wrong" but no amount of moralisng from Stimpy is going to stop me, or 650 million others. For F**k's Sake, the World Has Changed Yet Again right in front of our eyes. It's late February 2011 and illegal downloading is changing everything we listen to, everything we watch. Get with the programme or pretend it's 1967....
Please
Take a quick look at the posting guidelines in the FAQ, and reign in the aggressive tone. We ask posters to remain polite at all times, no matter how strongly they agree with fellow readers.
OK
I see. You're just here on a wind-up.
Well done.
Twat.
The same guidelines
apply to all readers. If someone has just "arrived here", I'd prefer it if they were made welcome and politely pointed in the direction of the FAQ. Rudeness isn't necessary. Thank you.
sorry all
I realised as soon as I pressed POST.
Tried to edit, cocked it up.
*looks down shame-faced*
Would this help?
Always
Always
650 million people downloading?
With less than 500 million home computers on the planet?
150 million of them
are also on second life...
(where's me coat?)
I'll opt out of your "Programme" thanks
I'm well aware of what's going on, and I've spent an inordinate amount of time thinking, talking and blogging about just that. I don't agree with your position although at least you've given it some thought, I suspect a lot of those who happily torrent everything they want haven't given it a seconds consideration.
You may be happy with your hard drive full of half listened-to LPs and unwatched movies. Personally I prefer to be more discerning and I carefully sift through what's out there and I'm very selective about what I buy, whether its through a paid download or a CD from an actual record shop. It's what works for me and means I can invest an adequate amount of time in appreciating the music I've got.
For me it comes down to the fact that to simply acquire unlimited amounts of 'stuff' gives me no pleasure. I enjoy the act of finding something I like, especially if it's a new artist or someone I've not discovered before, and bunging the artist a few quid for his or her effort. It's a nice thing to do! It's a shame that most people couldn't give a flying f**k.
If 650 million others told you to jump off a cliff...
would you do that too?
Sorry - I thought I was my Mum for a moment.
And
if you break your legs doing it, don't come running to me.
especially if you're carrying scissors...
I don't think that Stimpy is
I don't think that Stimpy is moralising. I'd describe it more as standing up for the way he and many others are having potential earnings taken away from them. And in these days of cuts and redundancies who can really argue with that. Yes everything is available, and yes it's all free. I accept that, and realise we can't shut the stable door and un-invent downloading. Doesn't make it right though.
Reading this thread
and Stimpy's remarks in particular, I'm beginning to feel bad about all the tapes I made for my mates down the years. Maybe I was killing music after all...
Quite
and woe betide you if you ever bought an album second-hand or swapped one for a frog or something.
Pax, STD....
I am sure you see a difference in getting a mate to tape the odd album for you and buying records second hand to downloading, and never paying for, endless albums.
People I work with, people who are not even wildly passionate about music, now have literally 1000's of illegally downloaded albums, that's not the same as buying a second hand album is it?
in principle it's *exactly* the same
the big change is that the laborious creation of mix tapes in the 1970s or 1980s was a niche activity that had very little impact on the music biz ...
CDs for example - according to a graph posted here lately - took off in the mid '80s and tripled the global turnover of the business between then and the turn of the millennium ... home taping is killing music? oh no it's not...
then came digital ... broadband, capable PCs and Macs, file sharing sites, digitised music ... and the means of production, if you forgive the phrase, became widespread and accessible; a lot less 'niche' than pressing play & record simultaneously on your parents' hi fi system (with turntable, cassette and AM/FM radio) ...
i don't actually think the OP is a wind-up merchant - all he's really doing is pointing this out ...
- i mean, the rules of the game have changed not only for musicians - with all due respect to Stimpy - but for everyone whose work can be digitised ... photography has undergone a sea change in the last decade, so has the media in general as sales of newspapers and magazines fall while people expect to read material online for free (or rather, once having bought a PC and paid for internet access, they don't fancy paying yet more for content)...
a modest distance from Word Towers for example, Time Out managed to build up a reported £10m debt over the last few years by trying to keep its "media empire" going (weekly London listings mag and wide-ranging portfolio of guidebooks) ... it's now 50% owned by a venture capital group and simply cannot keep doing what it used to do, as that would just mean building up more debt and dying on its behind... (watch out for changes soon)
infinite space on the web but no money to pay writers for content (so we provide out own content unpaid in places like this) ... people i know can no longer earn a living as photographers but a site like Flickr is running at a reported 5billion+ images ... even if 0.1% of them are any good, that still leaves a resource with 5 million bloody good, publication quality images taken mostly by amateurs
want to earn money from being a professional musician? then copyrighted music sold via traditional channels seems largely stuffed, but there will still be fees for recording sessions? live performance? i don't really know ...
incidentally, i buy my downloads from iTunes ... but i did once see a link from this site to a website that allowed you to extract the audio from a YouTube vid, then you could import it to iTunes and stick it on your iPod ... so i have a small collection of stuff that i literally couldn't or certainly wouldn't buy and i'm as guilty as the OP, or any of us who taped the John Peel Festive 50 off Radio 1 in 1982...
I think that chimes in
with a point Joe R made on the future of music journalism thread here:
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/the-future-music-journalism#commen...
There's a huge desire for content, little or no desire at all to pay for it - hence the complaints once Murdoch erected his firewalls - and increasingy less discernment. Maybe it's because its "free", but people seem less bothered whether the content is actually any good. Just that it's there.
In a bit of meta- something or other, it also feeds into that video that started the marketing thread. From my lofty perch in my mid 40s, it seems younger people are increasingly self absorbed, such that they'd rather read something written by someone they vaguely know at 6 friends removed on Facebook in spite of the fact that he/she can't string three words together, than actually reading something thoughtful, considered, structured. Maybe their brains are just wired differently as well.
The OP is right in that the rules have changed. The old gatekeepers - publishers, record labels, trusted journos and commentators etc - are on the way out. As a result, we are going more and more down the old punk road that "anybody can do it". Yes, they can. The vast majority do it really badly. It gets harder to find diamonds in the dirt which is why it's ever more important to have good gatekeepers. And so the paradox eats itself.
I wonder how many people in this thread...
..pissing on the morals of the OP ever owned a bootleg disc, or recorded a radio show on their boombox, or built a nice little collection of VHS tapes/DVD's directly from TV of their favorite shows, or have a box of old mix tapes/CDs given to them by friends gathering dust in the cupboard...
you could, of course, take the line that
the unauthorised possession of ANY material without due payment to the copyright holder is just plain wrong, in the binary sense - as in somethings either right or wrong, and it doesn't matter how much illegal stuff you own, that the person who illegally downloads one track has JUST as big a beam in their eye as the person who unapologetically downloads everything.
Frankly, I don't take that line. It's a question of scale. Don't ask me to define the line, because I can't. I've downloaded in the past. I'll probably do it again. I've also spent far more than is healthy on recorded music, concert tickets, music dvds, re-issues and t-shirts in my 37 years, and will continue to do that as well.
I've pretty much got a clear conscience about this. The OP hasn't indicated that he gives much 'back' at all.
It's tricky to assess when mere musical curiosity...
crosses over into grand larceny. Back in the day, making and receiving mix tapes of 'illegal' music was a limited crime, but in the eyes of the music industry a crime nonetheless - and years later they got their blank media levies in compensation, thus penalizing even the holiest music consumer who simply wanted a copy of 'Thriller' to play in the car during rush-hour.
I find it difficult to believe that at NO time did many of the anti-downloading Massive not possess some 'illegal' music or video - I can't even envision someone flying into a moral snit at being offered a C-90 or VHS dub of something they didn't 'legally' own, and yet that is precisely how they are reacting to downloading. Apologies offered if I am misjudging them, but I remain skeptical.
The OPs point, lost in the huffing and jowl-shaking, it that the business model which sustained the recorded music industry for the last 40 years is doomed and cannot be saved. Many of us welcome this for (admittedly) selfish reasons, not least being the humbling of once-mighty corporations that gouged the consumer AND the artist while enriching themselves (for fun, Google Steve Albini's rant on the economics of being a rock musician).
And frankly, if Lars Ulrich, Gene Simmons and Lily Allen are so dead-against downloading then it MUST have some merit.
Im not questioning anyone's morals
I'm railing against the OP saying that we're "all doing it", and trotting out the Pirate party line that we somehow have a divine right to limitless free stuff. That's fine if all you care about is getting something for nothing but you do that at the consequence of shutters coming down on more record shops and small independent labels struggling to survive. Few will mourn the big corporate side of the music biz, but what about the smaller cottage industry side that the OP proudly boasts of helping himself to that stuff too. We've all taped things off TV or borrowed a friends LP or made a mix tape, and I don't agree downloading is theft or should be criminalsed. What I don't accept is that music has no value, and I don't accept that you should make a virtue our of taking an artists work without giving something back and doing it with such glee as the OP.
Im not questioning anyone's morals
I'm railing against the OP saying that we're "all doing it", and trotting out the Pirate party line that we somehow have a divine right to limitless free stuff. That's fine if all you care about is getting something for nothing but you do that at the consequence of shutters coming down on more record shops and small independent labels struggling to survive. Few will mourn the big corporate side of the music biz, but what about the smaller cottage industry side that the OP proudly boasts of helping himself to that stuff too. We've all taped things off TV or borrowed a friends LP or made a mix tape, and I don't agree downloading is theft or should be criminalsed. What I don't accept is that music has no value, and I don't accept that you should make a virtue our of taking an artists work without giving something back and doing it with such glee as the OP.
Im not questioning anyone's morals
I'm railing against the OP saying that we're "all doing it", and trotting out the Pirate party line that we somehow have a divine right to limitless free stuff. That's fine if all you care about is getting something for nothing but you do that at the consequence of shutters coming down on more record shops and small independent labels struggling to survive. Few will mourn the big corporate side of the music biz, but what about the smaller cottage industry side that the OP proudly boasts of helping himself to that stuff too. We've all taped things off TV or borrowed a friends LP or made a mix tape, and I don't agree downloading is theft or should be criminalsed. What I don't accept is that music has no value, and I don't accept that you should make a virtue our of taking an artists work without giving something back and doing it with such glee as the OP.
My glee detector must be faulty
So far on this thread I've seen smug rancour, self-congratulation, line-in-the sand fundamentalism, resigned fatalism, curmudgeonly chiding, circular logic, leavening humour, and a whole lot of statements to the effect of 'I know theft when I see it', but not a lot of glee.
Yeah, my kids went to bed hungry tonight because of YOU.
It's all down to that c90 you made in 1984. :-)
Is Rob Fitzpatrick's Lily Allen feature
available to read anywhere on this site? If so, could someone post a link as I think the creator of this thread may find it interesting.
Word and Radiohead shows us the way
I am not by any means a fan but curiosity made me download In Rainbows for free and last week I got an email directly from them telling me all about their new release and letting me know how to get it and how much it is. It was a very personal touch and I liked that. And dammit, I am curious enough again to actually buy it this time.
Word magazine also connects in a personal way to its readers. To be honest, after some years of occasionaly picking up the mag in a shop, I felt almost duty-bound to subscribe because they put so much effort into it and I wanted to contribute in a small way. Seems rude not to.
I like the way that bands these days *need* to play live. If Kate Bush was starting out now, she really wouldn't be able to afford the luxury of retiring from live performance in her early 20s.
Would 2011's Stone Roses equivalent be financially able to spend five long years between album 1 and album 2?
Buying a vinyl record is a very personal thing for some reason and you don't get that with downloads. But if you get an email from the artist themselves asking you personally to listen to their latest thing via a download - you are more likely to accept that and value the download's worth in money terms - and pay for it.
Incidentally, I know that Radiohead/Word do not know me personally and I am not in a shangrila-type world where I believe I am hob-nobbing with the stars. I just think that artists could work on personalising the delivery of their stuff so that you make more of a connection with them. That way you are more likely to hand over the folding stuff happily and it's never a grudge purchase.
It's my birthday today
and upon first checking the Blackberry I had three birthday greetings via email.
The first was from Elbow, hoping I have a great day.
The second from Fyfe Dangerfield, hoping I have a great day and thanking me for my continued support (topped off at the end with a rather unneccesary x)
The third was from the National Lottery (always such a caring guy) hoping I have a great day with an invite to play a lottery game. Maybe after I've ploughed through opening all my other cards and gifts from my many admirers.
Interstingly, the Elbow/Fyfe mails both landed at 4.09am. I have a mental picture of Messrs Garvey and Dangerfield out on the lash, eating a kebab and going "bugger, it's el toro's birthday and we've not got him anything. Quick......mail him.
I suspect the truth may be a little more corporate.
Ohhhh
and a happy birthday from me and the Massive. It is also my daughter's birthday today.
Sugar. I have just deprived the greetings card industry of a sale and the Post Office of a stamp. I shall put that loss of revenue into the drinks industry on your behalf. OK?
Thank you Beany
No problem with you supporting the drinks industry as long as its the UK independent craft brewers or distillers that benefit from your largesse.
I would hate to think anybody was lining the coffers of the multi-national, mega-keggery, fizz-factory, bland beered, multi-coloured, spirit based alcopop for da yoof, "lets do some marketing to persuade kids that going out, drinking to excess, vomiting and fighting is the future" drinks industry on my account.
So.....a half of bitter shandy then.
They're both on Polydor
Same robot.
I am guilty
of this but I make no apologies in the current climate. Whereas not so long ago I would have clambered up on my high horse (once the sciatica had gone) I now admit that I am purely being selfish. I am taking the cost free route so that my wife and I will have more money in the bank to save for other things.
The cost of living is getting ridiculous and I cannot close myself off to this avenue and you know what? The irony is that with the extra readies in my pocket I am buying musical instruments to realise a dream I have held for over twenty years - to make an album! But it's not going to be a main source of income if I chose to release it so would have no problems seeing it ripped for free.
But times are changing and this relatively new 'music business' is too. Until we get back to the champagne popping days of rolling in credit this is how it's got to be.
(I do still buy special editions and go to gigs)
Ha! This just appeared in my inbox
Apropos
here
And I still buy YepRoc Records
their reissue of 'Jesus Of Cool' was, er, cool
I'm in the
'illegal downloading is bad' camp. Never done it, don't intend to. And based on the OP, and some others in this thread, it seems to be a self-defeating activity, in that you end up with thousands of tracks and hundreds of films/videos, with no time to listen to or watch any of them, because you are too busy nicking even more 'free' stuff. Put the brakes on. Buy the CD or the vinyl, or the DVD. Relax. Have a glass of something nice. And savour what you've bought.
Ian Stephen makes his point.
His point is that we need to get hip to the groove, daddy-o, dig the beat and move with the times which are-a-changing.
I would say that his argument is fundamentally flawed. Not because of his wholesale catalogue ransacking via illegal digital networks but because he is still thinking with an old head.
He, and everyone else, is still thinking in terms of media as things which we purchase.
This is the old model.
The Cloud is there. A particular digital whatsit, be it music, a book, a film, a newspaper, is there to be streamed as we need it. The libraries are not yet complete, but they are getting there. We will soon view ownership as a quaint anachronism. Our money will be spent giving us the right to consume what and as and when we please. Ian Stephen and his terabytes of pilfered material will soon be as historic as CDs, vinyl, books and DVDs. Which is to say relevant to some, but increasingly less so.
Yes
Exactly right.
except for the old school, first generation web types
who want control of their own files, and backup copies
You see I had this great post...
All about illegal drug use, and how it's always more complicated than people just breaking the law (same as most crimes really I suppose - complex social and psychological factors affecting peoples choices and decisions - actually that's the same as life generally, not just criminality). I went on to thoughtfully consider how well the current drugs policy was working in terms of reducing drug use, and how while decriminalisation had both pros and cons at least it was different to whatever isn't working now. I came clean about my own history of illegal drug use (none) and illegal downloading (none), before pointing out that I was neither saying they were the same thing, nor asking for a gold star but simply wondering if there were some parallels to be drawn.
Sadly, the computer crashed and the post has been lost forever, so you'll never see it's glory. *sighs*
Ok, I'll ask
Are there any drug-takers on here, protesting about the theft of 1s and 0s?
funny you should say that...
...because 3D printing already exists ... so a tweak to the software, some adapted hardware to manufacture chemicals rather than objects, then loading the printer with the relevant raw materials and hey presto - the home narcotics lab ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing
okay so this won't happen next week, but give it a decade or three as an adaptation or extension of the existing tech
No one stepping forward?
Perhaps it's a case of "That's different. It's something I want to do".
If everything was free, there certainly wouldn't be nothing.
I'd like to sidestep any moralising and just comment on one argument I strongly disagree with: the idea that if no-one paid for media, then it would cease to be produced.
This is simply not true. Whilst it would make it extremely difficult to operate creativily full-time, anyone with a passion for something would likely continue to do so in their spare time, and hope that their work is enjoyed by others, which is presumably the only way one starts out isn't it? The materials to create professional sounding recordings, for example, are now cheap and easy to come by, and as far as I can see new writers are starting to offer their novels online.
Having heard about it from other members of the Massive, I'm currently making a record for the "RPM Challenge", which is to write and record and album from scratch in the month of February. This isn't meant as a plug for myself (it would be a pointless one as I haven't uploaded anything yet) but I've been listening to some of the acts involved, almost all unsigned, and the stardard is staggeringly high. It's very likely that over the next few weeks I will be spending a lot of time listening to records uploaded there.
I mean no disrespect to those trying to make their living from such things, it's a lot of hard work and I wish them every success. (I buy a lot of cds/dvds, if you're wondering, though gig tickets are my biggest expense.)
the Massive produce a lot of 'media' here
i'd guess there was more content created on this site in a month than exists within the dead-tree version of the actual Word mag?
Agreed
Agreed. Similarly, whilst I subscribe to two monthly music magazines, I'm far more likely to read Amazon user reviews of "older" albums than search for online reviews by journalists.
Perhaps, to an extent
what you say holds true for music; I'm not convinced that if John, Paul, George and Bongo were all holding down sensible jobs and doing music as a sideline, that they'd have made quite the same impact.
however, I digress, and that's not really the point I'm getting at.
Expand what you're saying to other media. Whilst the discussion here is about downloading of copyrighted music without the artists consent, what about, say, TV shows.
Many of us are fans of shows such as, say, The Wire, The Sopranos, Empire Boardwalk or Mad Men. These are all fine works. They get shown on premium channels, but the real money comes from the DVD sales, certainly now that Sky plus boxes mean that hardly anybody watches the ads.
So, if we all decide to stop buying the box sets, or paying the subscription to Sky Atlantic, because we can torrent it instead, what fills the gap left by quality telly?
The Beatles
The Beatles wouldn't have, but there weren't high end home recording kits or the wealth of access to music we have now. Even if downloading was to vanish, I'm not convinced it would be possible to get another "Beatles" in this age.
TV is more difficult, I'd certainly agree. BBC, Channel 4 and More4 still buy in a lot of American stuff, so if they pay the licence fee I'm not sure how people downloading the ones that these channels have would make a difference. It's unlikely to effect ratings as they're gathered in such an innacurate way. The ones bought by Sky etc? I don't know. Presumably Sky and the like would start dropping things if their overall subscription was down, but I'm not sure how that all works or whether they have a more accurate idea of what people are watching.
The Beatles was, probably, a bit of a cheap shot...
there's probably a Godwins law equivalent for bringing them into any argument! I'd think though, in general terms, that if somebody can make a 'decent' living from making music, such that they don't need a day job, (and thus it's more than a hobby), there's more chance of them coming up with 'better' stuff.
As for telly, with a bit of luck there might be somebody along in the morning who knows about the economics of that medium. Certainly I take your point on license funded channels; the money is paid upfront, and in the case of the Beeb, there's no advertising to be skipped in the first instance.
Dagnabbit, I made my original post without really thinking *that* much about it, merely thinking (on foot of YOUR post) 'who the fuck would watch The Sopranos if it was shot on a home camcorder?' and now I'm actually wondering where the money actually *does* come from!
Where do I
(and Stimpy, I believe, or possibly Sheev?) stand with my large collection of downloaded ROIOs or "bootlegs" as they used to be called. Am I stealing or "stealing". It's so confusing.
I happily collect and exchange bootlegs -
principally Grateful Dead and Led Zeppelin without any compunction as there's no royalties due on them.
The Dead of course, famously, encouraged tapers by setting aside a special 'taper only' area immediately in front of the desk.
I used to collect King Crimson boots but Robert Fripp has, in recent years, been repatriating them, cleaning them up and releasing them for download as part of his 'DGM Live' series of live recordings. Given what a great job he and David Singleton make of these, Crimso bootlegs now seem a little redundant.
Agreed
I wish Jimmy Page would do something similar to the Fripp model.And oh, for a decent recording of Pink Floyd's 77 tour.
Fripp podcasts a free track every week
It's almost always something not otherwise available and is usually a rehearsal, outtake, or simply a musical doodle.
But Stimpy,...
Led Zeppelin were quite famous for their atitude to bootlegs and bootleggers and often made it clear with broken legs etc.
Whether or not royalties are lost by the group on all those Zep bootlegs you own, there is no doubt that live bootlegs damage official release sales and show the band in a bad light.
Theft of someones talent is surely just as bad as theft of their royalties isn't it?
We all have different moral lines that we justify to ourselves I guess.
(a lot of those boots you listen to no doubt come from master tapes stolen from J.Page's house).
A dichotomy
jimmy Page collects Led Zeppelin bootlegs
Peter Grant used to break bootleggers legs.
you can download Rolos?
Blimey - the future really is now.
You are creating an archive
that the original artists will one day ask to borrow for their umpteenth deluxe CD editions
Anyway I'm a gig taper so I'm guilty as hell.
Profuse apologies
A gig tapir, yesterday...
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
May I just say...
AAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
And I thought
this thread was going to be about The Guardian paying less Corporation Tax than Barclays bank while getting all Woodward and Bernstein about it all.
A friend
makes his living as a musician. When his third album came out last year it was on all the rip-off sites within days. His fans still bought it though.
He makes a pittance from his cut of ticket revenues on tour but a reasonable wodge from the merchandise. A lot of people who illegally downloaded his album come along to see him on the strength of it and - guess what - buy the CD. And a couple of others from the back catalogue, and a T-Shirt. Illegal downloading has taken his music to a much wider audience.
Mr Ford
Presumably? Or is the Captain a friend to the stars generally?
What about bootlegs?
I've never downloaded a legally available track, but when it comes to bootlegs, I've bought/downloaded hundreds.
What's the Massive's position on that ?
Later the next morning -
Later the next morning - what I am trying vainly to say here is that downloading is already changing "entertainment". It has changed televison forever - what is IPlayer but complete acceptance by the BBC that everything will be soon watched by people when and where they want it ? If movies were released instantly over the net then probably most of us would pay (99p?) to watch them in the comfort of our home
As for music, artists will have to look at new ways of making a living. Millions like me won't pay for albums or even singles but if Emily Smith tells us she can't afford to record then would not internet-based fans contribute either through straight cash donation or a signed photograph or...
You will no doubt counter that if I had paid for the album in the first place Emily would not need me to buy a T-shirt but as I keep saying all music is now free.
You keep repeating the same argument
but not coming up with anything new to back it up, just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't get any more convincing.
BBC iPlayer isn't free. It's funded by the licence fee.
but it's not really an argument as such
more a statement of fact: the days of paying for music look to be over unless someone comes up with a new business model ... so either the era of records/tapes/CDs and the professional music industry it supported is now forever over OR has the Massive got any idea what might come next?
One post so far mentioning the Cloud and effectively hiring files rather than owning them - like Spotify sort of - but any other suggestions?
Not quite true
Millions of downloads are paid for, and millions of CDs are still sold.
I think digital pricing needs to be fairer, it makes no sense that the HJHs downloads cost more than the CD in some cases, but I do think there are a core of people who are happy to pay for the ease and convenience of paid downloads and the knowledge that they are helping fund the next album by an artist they like.
There is definitely a case for a Cloud type model too, but I don't think there is a one size fits all approach yet, and I think mobile phone, broadband networks and 3g signals are lagging behind in terms of providing the infrastructure needed to support The Cloud.
What I do know is that the lazy, greedy, unregulated grasping of everything without discernment isn't sustainable and I do not accept that its the way forward and we should just Adapt. It's wrong and it should be challenged.
having too much time on my hands and being *terribly* picky...
... i did say the days of etc etc *look to be over*, but plainly i acknowledge that >>at the moment<< heaps of folk still buy CDs (Sketches of Spain by Miles Davis, £3, FOPP is lying by my laptop as i write) and pay for downloads (yes me too) ... but overall sales figures are in decline, aren't they? both for actual tangible product and its digitised equivalent ...
yer average middle aged bloke (again, me, and many other Massive members) may well prefer the convenience of iTunes to fussing around with file sharing sites, but today's average 15 year old seems quite savvy about file sharing and - perhaps crucially - is growing up in a culture where owning gatefold albums with two 12" discs of vinyl inside no longer applies ...
using words like "lazy", "greedy" and "grasping" may all be very well with 40something blokes in the pub, talking peer to peer, but i think you might get a blank look if you used that language in relation to music with that Joe 15-yr-old mentioned earlier ... and this generational change appears to be the crux of the problem...
the lack of concrete suggestions for a workable future for the music biz throughout this thread (apart from "the Cloud, a bit") seems to mean that the old days are going (although not quite gone) but no one really knows what happens next ...
For what it's worth
I pay for music because it's worth it to me. Aquiring it for free would devalue it. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. We are not 'all doing it'.
must confess
That I've always paid for my music...or at least I had-until that Smiths demos and instrumentals thing came out around Christmas. Apart from that, I'm clean...
I do wonder whether those in the same camp as me would apply the same principles to pornography, if and when they were ever tempted......
I'd love to answer for myself but, gosh, I really must be getting back to work.
From Mike Joyce?
Oh yes they were. I bought mine. A thing of beauty it is, too. Depriving an artist who never got paid his fair share in the first place (10%), won a court case and who still hasn't had his money from Morrissey and is trying to make some money by producing and selling a double vinyl set for a very reasonable price. And you download it for free.
The very embodiment of an starving, wronged, artist selling their wares on the net to scrape a living and you think his children should starve?
(Mock outrage, I might point out - although it wouldn't be hard for you to buy one, would it?)
Why should a tiny minority (vinyl purchasers) subsidise all you cloth-eared digital 'must have that' people?
so
Morrissey aside, how much is Johnny Marr and Andy Rourke getting from this release then? and are you sure Joyce didn't just flog the tapes to some bootlegger for a fee to a manufacture to print as many LP's as they like.
strange case put forward here as these songs are not Joyce's to do anything with regardless of the court case against Marr and Morrissey.
You haven't got it yet
ALL the money made by sales of The Smiths' records, reissues, back catalogue, downloads, you name - currently, it ALL goes to Mike Joyce, until he's been paid off.
Hence why The Smiths haven't really brought any rarities out since, well, ever.
If they were released officially, the money would go to Joyce. Marr, Rourke (who remains on 10%) and Morrissey get nothing.
The songs don't have much to do with Joyce, artistically. But legally, they have everything to do with him.
It's slightly dubious ground, I'm sure, but if we're talking ethics, I know who I think is on the safer ground with 'Lost Demos'.
and it certainly
isn't Joyce. Read the full story of his case and tell me he has acted ethically and honsetly in line with his contributions to the songs. Marr/Rourke/Moz/Warners/Street/Lillywhite and many others have been ignored for Joyce to continue line his pockets.
Marr paid him off in full, Rourke already took a deal and Joyce won't let it go.
the real point
on this thread is that this is a bootleg made for ripping off any site you can find it, as it's very existence is illegal.
Why won't Joyce let it go?
He's been awarded money in court and Morrissey refuses to pay it.
The reason the others aren't getting paid is because of Morrissey's refusal to accept the legal decision.
Joyce, legally, has won the right to be paid 25% on all sales. Not including publishing. If Moz paid up, the Smiths' royalties would revert back to the court hearing's decision.
Marr is suffering because of Moz, Rourke is suffering because of Moz, Joyce is suffering because of Moz and, as usual, Moz is his own worst enemy.
Why should Joyce let it go? He's the one with the court decision, he's the one owed payments.
Perhaps anyone who's been found to have been wronged in the courts should just let it go, should they?
i won't
comment on the rights or wrongs of the court case, but to state he is acting ethically by releasing songs he had no hand in writing purely for his own benefit is debatable to say the least. My main reason for replying to your post was for using his bootleg as an example of something which should not be ripped off the internet but bought only on an illegal vinyl print. I'd be hard pushed to find something more fitting of ripping off the internet.
That's handy
Morrissey legally owes him money. Morrissey won't pay up.
Morrissey has relinquished the high moral ground.
Joyce is owed money. Joyce has a way of getting his money, why shouldn't he?
It's all very well ignoring the legal case - but you can't. It's happened, mate. It's the law.
Morrissey can hardly start suing Joyce when he has outstanding business he needs to fix first.
In fairness, neither of them are being entirely reasonable, legally. But Morrissey started it and I know where my sympathies lie.
I sort of lost track of this case
after the judge labelled Moz "truculent and devious"...
If SPM refuses to accept the court outcome is he not in contempt of court? Is this a civil case or a crown case?
The devious and truculent Mr Morissey
Judge Weeks described the drummer and bassist as honest, but said Morrissey, on the other hand, "did not find giving evidence an easy or happy experience. To me at least he appeared devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake."
Morissey then, so I gather, appealed on the basis that the judge had launched an "unjust and gratuitous attack" on his character.
Hmm...
following
Joyce's appearance the radio a few years back Moz responded with this list of points. I'm no lawyer so as far as what the legal state of play is at the moment, would be interested to hear..
"30 November 2005
Statement from Morrissey:
The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.
1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.
2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.
3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.
4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.
5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."
6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.
7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above.
8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.
9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.
10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.
11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.
12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.
13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings.
The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.
Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.
I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.
What more does he want?
I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.
Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.
Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY."
"What more does he want?"
How about a Smiths reunion?
To quote Douglas Adams:
"a whelk's chance in a supernova"
Reunion
I'd be in favour of a Morrissey & Marr reunion (a la Page & Plant). That way they could make music together again, without harming The Smiths' name if it turns out to be substandard.
It could be possible too, as they seem to be on friendlier terms nowadays.
Of course
Joyce doesn't have the legal right, that's why it's a bootleg. I'm just suggesting that Moz might be best advised to not go through the courts to pursue any grievance, eh?
However, I would argue that, being on 10% royalty, Joyce did in fact pay, heavily, for the recording costs of such demos.
The bottom line is, M&M were tightwads about paying the footsoldiers and it's come back to bite them on the arse. And, in not paying up Morrissey, by his own admission, continues to have his arse bitten as a result of this greed. If he shut up and paid up, he wouldn't be spending all this money fighting it.
From the above, Marr seems to have paid £475K to Joyce, plus costs. For the same time period, Moz has spent £1.5 million. He's spent all but 215K of it fighting the judgement.
Neither Joyce nor Rourke ever made any claim on publishing from songwriting. Despite Marr's claims of how Rourke's basslines were like songs within songs.
Morrissey is a bugger. That's what he is. How many people have sued him since the start of The Smiths? John Porter has, Stephen Street has, Rourke has, Joyce has, numerous Smiths managers did, did Geoff Travis? Contracts have never been forthcoming, payment is always given grudgingly - these are reports from people who worked with him for years and have great respect for his art.
He doesn't appear to treat people very well and he's pretty paranoid, isn't he?
I'm into The Smiths as much as anyone, I'd have thought. I can take or leave his solo stuff, frankly. Same for Marr's post-Smiths art. They were spot on, but I wouldn't trust Morrissey as far as I could chuck him, chuck.
You know what?
After reading all that, I don't think I'll bother trying to track down a copy of that Smiths singles CD boxset I'd like to buy - I'll find a torrent instead.
Just to spite Morrissey,
I'm going to illegally download his entire catalogue then delete it unlistened :-)
I was just...
thinking that I'll do the same to U2!!
There is a flaw in this
in order to really do them out of royalties, you'd have to listen to them as well.
Some hits
are just too big to take. And that would be way above and beyond
blushes crimson....
Hand on heart I honestly thought it was bootleg only. It wasn't even me who did the deed. I solemnly promise to rectify that as soon as I get home. I always thought that Joyce and Rourke had been very badly done by and I don't want to feel as if I've perpetuated that.
Oh, it is a bootleg.
I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is it's a bootleg put out by Joyce because the Marr half of the settlement appears to be running out. If Moz coughed up his, these releases would most likely become official.
The only reaon they're not official is because Moz doesn't want anything putting out, because all the money goes to Joyce. Because Moz won't pay up. If he could only move on, I'm sure he'd be happier.
As is, Joyce is persona non grata in Smiths world. Marr won't speak to him, because he sued. Rourke accepted a payout and he's accepted, at least by Marr.
There's a record??
I've heard of this bootleg, mentioned online a couple of times recently, but I had no idea it was available on vinyl either. Is this well known?
Also, is it worth hearing?
All the online mp3\FLAC etc
versions are sourced from a rip of the vinyl.
Some of the difference in the versions of the songs are barely noticeable but yes, there is some interesting stuff in there from the beginning of their career to the last gasp. That is what made it clear it must have been an inside job
The original title was 'Demos and Sessions' - its everywhere. Someone has even remasrtered it
This is where I found out about it
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/112376-The-Smiths-Unreleased-Demos...
I like it.
It's all free but at what price?
I can understand why people illegally download, why wouldn't you?
Well how about just being decent and honest about it.....oh sorry I'm being silly again.
I don't illegaly download because I don't agree with it.
I do sometimes feel like an idiot when I pay my money to iTunes but that's the way I am.
Personally
.. i do download music/films/TV etc; and have been doing so for some time now. Do i feel guilty ? Yeh, slightly..but then i think back a few years when the greedy b#s#a#d record industry were charging unreasonable amounts of my hard - earned cash for small,plastic items that i probably either liked one or two tracks at best, but i had to still buy the item nontheless ! I could go into a shop or supermarket and tailor my shopping to suit my needs ( one banana or a bunch , sir ? )but i couldn't do that with my music, unless i only bought singles !
So for me i couldn't care less whether or not the " industry " loses or not .....they'll get over it, i'm sure !
( So please excuse me, iv'e got to go and d/load the latest Radiohead album )!
A Polite Question
OK, so libraries are all closing down, but what is the view on copying from the record department? (OK, I think I know, but I will not be the only one who has borrowed, for a fee, LPs and taped them, or even, fast forward 20 odd years, copied CDs, I am sure.) I have never known whether the artist gets a royalty for a borrowed recording, as they would were it a book. Not much I know, but do they? If they don't, why is it that books are free and recordings attract a fee? Does that make librarians and councils acomplices to the action, if illegal it be?
I assume
the library has to buy the cd or book like the rest of us so the royalties would have been covered. I guess it is similar to borrowing an album off a friend and burning a copy. It is a complex issue when you look at it in this light - if I have lioked a friends album enough I have generally gone out and bought my own copy. I guess however that not everyone is like me.
Sorry, not the point sought
Does each "lend" send a penny to the artiste, in the way that it does for books? Like spotify but less virtual???? (Like spotify but less virtuous, maybe more like it)
Public Lending Right
If I remember correctly, there's a scheme (The Public Lending Right) where copyright holders receive a small royalty each time a book is lent from a public library.
Works the same way as PRS payments for musicians.
EDIT: A brief furtle led me to http://www.plr.uk.com/
As far as books go
PLR still exists, it's being reduced and so tiny is the payment per time borrowed that unless you are the likes of a Dan Brown, it's never going to amount to anything much worth having.
I'm happy to pay extra to buy music in shops
Although I listen to music on my computer, mainly stuff I haven't heard on My Space or You Tube, I've not got anything stored on it apart from a few of CDs I've already bought.
Browsing in a shop, like Piccadilly Records in Manchester, is so much better than browsing on the net. You can also talk to the great staff they have. I don't want to lose those shops by saving a few quid on the net or not paying anything.
Piccadilly also have a brief precis of the artiste and LP on every CD so you can jot down details of the artiste, listen at home on MySpace and buy the LPs from the shop later. Perfect mix of new technology and 'old-fashioned' shops.
Downloading isn't a fact of life for me and it really annoys me that in a 'free market' society we are increasingly restricted in the way we can buy (or steal) things.
New innovations are good up to a point, but not when you're depriving musicians and others of money they deserve.
ah, right, going to get pelters for this, but...
i think that "deserve" is a contentious word in context ... as has been repeatedly pointed out above, the industry is changing - has actually changed - and no one really knows how musicians of all sorts can make money these days from recordings of their work ...
it used to be the case that they could make a living via this route, it perhaps even morally *should* still be the case, and given this is a website where people are interested in music, i suspect a significant number of posters here are effectively pro-musician and pro-fairness-for-musicians and would *want* it to be the case... hence Olthwaite using the "deserve" word ... and here comes the but...
but for my entire adult life, unfair stuff has happened ... that goes from the closing down of postwar manufacturing and heavy industries (creating economic deserts in parts of the UK) to more recent bank bonuses for the very folk who got us in a national debt hole, to redundancies for blameless low grade bank staff, to the current round of public spending cuts (i have a mate who retrained as a teacher in his 40s who simply now cannot get a job for love nor money; he simply doesn't know what to do next) ...
i think my mate deserves a job ... i think that a lot of people who got laid off by the banks in 2009 didn't deserve to be unemployed (casino banking and the attendant losses weren't their fault) ... i look at a Guardian report on authors for example and see that their average income is around £16,500pa ... but take the top end authors out of that equation and large numbers of writers whose books you buy in Waterstone's can hardly afford to live on what they make from writing ... maybe they deserve better too
i would love a fairer world, but it's not ... and instead of trying to turn back the clock "to when things were fair", it seems important to get on and come up with a new way to earn a living as a musician/unemployed financial services person/unemployed teacher/mendicant author or whatever rather than coming over all Canute-like ... the new world is here ... and unless we help to define the future - rather than moaning about how the environment has changed around us - it will belong to those fuds at PhD whose video kicked off the marketing thread ... adapt or die?
+++Your message for Pompous Friday was brought to you by Glenbervie, occasionally full of himself since 1962+++
Pretty much
echoes my own thoughts, which I broadly shared earlier in this very thread. Up supplied.
So that's it? We have to accept life isn't fair?
I can understand why people with limited amounts of cash are tempted by free music, TV and film on the net, but I'm sorry, this is a selfish, short-term attitude.
To me, illegally ripping a whole album I like is like watching a fantastic band for free in a pub and not giving any money when they ask for donations after the gig.
Don't give any money and they won't be able to perform again - it's the same in the pub and on the net.
And just shrugging ones's shoulders and saying everyone does it and life isn't fair is not good enough. People don't have to go with flow.
Do we want all our towns and cities to lose their book and record shops? Do we want talented musicicans to give up because they can't afford to make a living? Carry on Torrenting for your own pleasure and that's what will happen.
And comparing it to making tapes from songs off the radio or buying bootlegs is ludicrous. That was always an add-on to music that was bought - and not a replacement, as illegally downloading is now.
I'm not disagreeing with you on moral grounds ...
(well, i am a bit) but i'm certainly disagreeing with you on world-has-changed grounds ...
working backwards on your points raised, i'd say the following:
making mix tapes from your pal's record collection in 1981 was every bit as illegal as ripping a mate's CD to your iTunes for free in 2011 ... the only thing that has changed in 30 years is the scale, because digital tech enables a more widespread flaunting of "the rules" so consequently the behaviour now has a tangible effect on the industry ... whatever the *intention* behind the act however ("ah, when i did it in 1981 i went out and bought the music anyway, so it was alright really"), the act was still illegal so i don't see sentiment as a defence (and i'm honestly not getting at you as an individual Olthwaite, this is more of a general observation on the thread as a whole)
meanwhile our towns and cities *are* losing their book and record shops anyway - partly because of file sharing but mostly i suspect because of structural changes to retailing - and i see very little evidence of practical alternatives to this, throughout this thread, that will keep HMV and Waterstone's in place, as we know them ... unless someone wants to disinvent iTunes, Amazon and affordable broadband...
"people don't have to go with the flow" ... except that tsunamis really don't give you much choice ... i would reiterate that i *buy* music ... both from iTunes and in FOPP ... i'm not an inveterate bit-torrenter, but even nice dinosaurs like me got wiped out when the asteroid hit 65 million years ago ... being a placid, veggi leaf-muncher who watched where he put his feet, not squishing the wee furry things, didn't make much difference ... our recent history of "earning a living through music" stood on a specific structure of companies manufacturing and distributing vinyl or plastic discs and surrounding that with a matrix of legal formulations and moral proscriptions ... that underlying structure has now fallen away and i can appreciate that some folk are passionate, angry and upset that the moral proscriptions are being flouted BUT they're no longer anchored to anything ... a situation which reminds me of Ted and Dougal outside the cinema with a placard saying "Down With This Sort Of Thing" ...
(and if i was being a devil's advocate, i'd make the only half silly conjecture that rocknroll has fed on a sense of youthful rebellion since Elvis wiggled his hips ... consequently we've had decades of acts predicated on a stance of sexual and political transgression ... all of which look a little lame to early 21st century eyes ... so what final, apocalyptic act of rebellion is left for 'ver yoof'? Don't buy the fucking stuff in the first place: Armagideon Time, as a popular beat combo of the last century once sang) (this is a bit of a digression, so back to the reply...)
"don't give any money and they won't be able to perform again" ... except by the standard practice of charging to get into gigs (although a thread about gigs you'd pay to leave could be quite fun) ... it's maybe just me, but i've never been to a gig in a hall/theatre/pub where someone came round with a bucket at the end (benefit gigs excluded)
it's quite sunny in edinburgh
/goes out
'Add-on' doesn't fly, sorry
The music industry never said 'as long as you've bought a few discs this year, feel free to dub some tunes off the radio or buy a bootleg disc'. They were fundamentally and vocally opposed to any type of copying, even to the point of making copies for one's own use. There was no groundswell of popular support for this position and it took political lobbying on their part to get governments to impose levies on all blank media purchases as compensation. This is now raised to absurd levels, particularly in the US, with record companies suing individuals for unconscionably punitive damages. The net effect of this approach has been to turn almost everyone against them.
There is a theme running through this thread that it was OK to make tapes or CD's of music that one didn't own as long as it was done on a one-to-one scale (copying a disc at a friends house, etc.). I don't know if this is some sort of peculiar inter-generational prejudice against new technology, but the fact remains that 30 years ago people copied music to the degree that technology and time allowed them to do so, and shared music with others so that they might not have to buy it. And as far as I can tell, no-one in this thread is headed to the local constabulary with their box of c-90s (of music they no longer own or never bought, both equally repugnant to the music industry) to turn themselves in for 'theft'.
Maybe the real difference is not so much inter-generational
but one of presentation.
It seems to me that those arguing for mass torrenting of free music are dressing it up as some kind of 'stick it to the man' protest against the industry whilst those arguing that it's wrong are focussing on the loss of income on the musicians who actually make the music in the first place.
Of course the corporate entity of Sony can weather people downloading Lady Gaga, they have other revenue streams and other ways of monetizing their artists/music but if you torrent (say) King Crimson then, fairly shortly, Robert Fripp will decide it's no longer viable to release his own music and close down his label.
For King Crimson/Robert Fripp read any independent musician/band releasing their own music.
Absolutely agree with Stimpy.
It seems to me that the music business has become somewhat polarised between artistes with record deals and those without.
In the old days, if you didn't have a record deal you couldn't make records. Now you can. The difference is that a signed artiste will have been paid an advance on signing (a legal requirement) which should compensate whether the record sells or not. The record company, who will have invested money in the recording (studio time/ sesison fees. etc), despite the fact that this investment will be tacked on to the advance (so that the record will have to sell well to pay it all off before royalties become due) will want to protect their investment by spending more money on promoting it. We're now getting into large amounts of money here: recording costs, advertising, promotion staff, etc. It's all on a comparatively grand scale, compared with the independent artiste who is financing everything themselves.
From the signed artiste's point of view, it will be some time before free downloading will make a difference to their income, since, despite the fact that the upfront costs will have to be met out of their royalties, they've still had an advance and loads of promotion.
On the other hand, the independent artiste may not sell a tenth of the signed artiste, with maybe little or no promotion, apart from MySpace or Facebook. Yes, they may play gigs, but then they may not, for a variety of reasons. Every record sale and paid download makes a big difference. They may only sell 1000 CDs, but every single sale counts. With the ease of creating paid-for downloads legally comes the ease with which free downloaders can find a way to undermine this.
Maybe the kids who've grown up with free downloading need some education into the true economics of the situation (they certainly need education as to what they're missing sound-wise) otherwise there'll be no incentive for new, independent artistes to create anything.
I should also add that, if everyone took the view that "this is the way it is, so get over it", we'd still have bear-baiting, slavery, witch-burning, and the workhouse.
Careful about creating 'moral' equivalencies
Slavery! Workhouses! Christ-on-a-stick, if people REALLY think this way then I expect to see a rash of denunciations of teens by their parents ('officer, I caught him downloading the latest Metallica. Please throw him in jail to teach him a lesson') and line-ups outside the EMI offices with sobbing penitents offering their houses up as recompense for that Kate Bush mix they made at Derek's flat in 1985.
Makes a change
from "Stormy Petrel on a stick"!
Not sure if you got my point. My last comment was simply that what was considered acceptable later became unacceptable when people actually thought about it. And the main tenor of what I wrote was looking at the practical rather than the moral issue. It's a bit like the university funding issue: regardless of the moral implications, the very practical one is whether there's any point now in going to university, since there's little point in getting into debt for something that's not worth very much these days. Young people are now asking themselves this question.
Your examples also miss the point. Both Metallica and Kate Bush had record deals, advances, and money spent on them (marketing!). In fact Kate Bush was supported by EMI long before she released a record. I said that for artistes with record deals it doesn't make an enormous difference, but for self-financing artistes it does. As with the university example, independent artistes may start to question whether it's actually worthwhile recording material if there's no financial compensation for the time and costs involved.
maybe there's not
and music goes back to fri night in the pub rather than people with stars in their eyes?
And it might do
and still does in some pubs, but I thought we were talking about recorded music.
And not everyone who wants to record independently necessarily has stars in their eyes. Some just want to preserve their songs/performances and disseminate them to those who want them.
So substitute two unknown bands of your choice..
for Metallica and Kate Bush. What difference does that make? It's not about the artists or the deals they had, it's about a system of ownership, control and distribution that was based upon the consumer (YOU) paying over the odds, decade after decade, for some PVC with grooves/magnetic particles containing an aural replica of a musical performance. The music on that hunk of plastic, according to the rules of the game, never really belonged to you - you merely rented it until it was broken, then had to repurchase another hunk of plastic if you wanted that same piece of music.
Now, recorded music is no longer a piece of plastic - it's data, and can be moved across the planet in seconds, shared with countless people, and replicated endlessly without degradation. Kate Bush or Spiggy Topes, it's all the same - musical content is freed from the physical constraints of vinyl, cassette and CD and there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. All artists will have to contend with this new reality, including the fact that their work can be copied and distributed immediately. Will this hurt smaller artists more than, say, Lily Allen? It's too soon to tell, but many musicians have not made up their mind on this issue - some decry downloading, some believe they wouldn't have an audience without it. If I relied on radio to provide musical direction, I'd be buying Gaga and Bieber.
Most musicians are too smart to believe in the old music-industry fairy story of how they too might one day be lifted out of obscurity by some company man whispering in their ear and stuffing pound notes in their pockets.
the workhouse, slavery and witch-burning analogies...
...are the wrong way round ...
things were happening, people looked at them, changed the rules
with the music industry, the rules changed, then people starting talking about going back to how it was when they were a lad, as the industry looked at the environment changing around it and scratched its head, saying, "er..." (meanwhile, no one died)
i'd hazard that the situation is closer to the british coal mining industry faced with cheaper imported coal, british farming faced with cheaper imported barley, british IT depts faced with lots of Indian guys with PhDs in computer science working for lower wages &c (or the fact that China manufactures lots and lots of things and can do it cheaper than we can ...)
I take your point
and, on reflection agree, but must point out that the miners didn't take it lying down and it wrecked their communities, nor do I think there's much to be cheery about the other examples you give.
Ironically, this blog often features comments by people who hanker after how it was when they were a lad (or a lass), especially when it comes to recorded music....
I don't even think it's that
I think the major difference is a material one, if you'll forgive the pun (trust me it is coming).
In the past, the one-to-one copying of stuff was just about bearable because the technology used for copying was analogue. Each generation made the quality of the copy significantly worse, so that very soon there was no point in copying unless you were happy to listen to something that was, frankly, damn near unlistenable. Usually, you had to rely on someone you actually knew having the music that you could copy. Even (at the time) incipient technologies like MiniDisc contained 'features' to prevent multi-generational digital copies. There was a practical limit on how many generations a single copy could go through.
No longer. The immaterial (see, told you there was a pun earlier) nature of the digital resource and its ability to be copied repeatedly with no loss of quality from one generation to the next means that first gen copy can be passed on almost indefinitely, and through a distribution system that means you don't even need to know who made that copy. There's no incentive to buy the original if the copy you have as a result of that is as near to the original as you want it to be. This might, of course, depend upon whether you'd be happy with the mp3 at 128k or want the higher quality of a FLAC version; it doesn't stop either being available in most cases.
I might add here that I see this just as a statement of affairs. I don't make any comment on the morality of doing so, other than to say that I actually quite like to have something in my hands to show that I have spent my cash on something tangible.
It's the old thing
about you can turn a blind eye to the immorality of it when, as others have said, it's not really inflicting massive damage. Broadly - very broadly - speaking back in the 70s and 80s, you had a few c90s, and that was largely restricted to music heads anyway, people who spent all their pocket money, student grant, meagre wages on records, so they were buying anytway. No real justification, but not the biggest deal in spite of the home taping is killing music stuff.
Fast forward. If anybody would like a copy of my entire record collection in 320k mp3 format, all they need do is spend around £100 for 1Tb of memory and they can copy it across in a few minutes. On a recent podcast, Mark Ellen was talking about his first iPod which Andrew Harrison took away and, overnight, filled with stuff from his collection so Mark suddenly had 3000 new tunes to hear, free.
The morality might be no different, but the damage inflicted is. A bit like the difference between nicking a tenner and £10 billion from Barclays.
for the record (no pun intended)
i'm not "arguing for mass torrenting of free music" any more than i'm arguing for or against the tides ... i'm just recognising the state of play
C-90 go
But no-one was prosecuted for taping bits of Peel/the Top 40 off the radio or sending mixtapes to friends because the record companies knew it was relatively harmless - an add-on to listening to the radio and a 'word of mouth' way of letting people hear the companies' aritistes.
I used to tape stuff off Peel which I'd probably never get a chance to hear again and buy the stuff I liked. I also taped comedy stuff, such as Radioactive, and Alan Williams' radio commentaries on Welsh rugby in the seventies. I also have a couple of taped copies of gigs I went to (I'd already got all their albums, honest guv!)
Yes it was illegal but it was an add-on to stuff I already had (or was going to buy) or stuff I could not get anywhere else. It just can't compare with Torrenting whole albums, series or films and the fact that record companies are pursuing it with such vigour shows there is a difference.
Indeed, giving a mate a badly dubbed C90 is a world away from
giving him a 1TB disk loaded with 10,000 exact clones of your entire collection.
(is 'exact clones' a tautology?)
Whether you think
Musicians deserve to be paid or not, if the bass player from The Horrors doesn't get paid for example, then he joins the dole queue and is vying for jobs he otherwise needn't be going for along with the rest of the 3m or so. Doesn't help. Still at least he can sit at home and download music for free.
Bloody musicians!
Coming over here... taking our jobs...
Haha!
I think we'll soon see artists going on tour with Polish backing groups, because they're cheaper and work harder.
Polish hip hop
http://www.abradab.pl/
(has played Edinburgh a few times)