Public library and piracy

[zephonic]

If I read your initial post correctly, your thesis is that society in general would be better off if my satire (and everyone else's, don't worry Dave Barry and Joel Stein, I've got your back!), and intellectual property in general, were made freely available to society for the greater public good.

 

I just read my original post and don't see where I said that. Reason I started this thread was simply because it occurred to me that library use has not been addressed in some of the other threads on this subject. At least not that I am aware of.

 

I am all for the library as it has enriched my life. There are many artists whose albums I would have never bought if I hadn't discovered them through the library first. Ditto for a lot of writers.

 

My position on intellectual property is an ambiguous one. I would like to see some money for what I cook up, but I am aware that the world has changed and I think it is better to figure out how to deal with it, rather than simply clinging to principles and beliefs that are obviously no longer tenable.

 

I would like to have a forward-thinking discussion that focuses on how music can remain a viable occupation. I think we all have heard and know now that stealing is wrong, as is infringement and piracy. Do we really need to have 5 more pages of that?

 

Fine so far, but by what alternative means do you propose that Dave, Joel, and I put food on the table and shoes on our daughters' feet? This is not a snarky question, and I have a number of ideas, some of which have actual historical precedents that we could discuss.

 

Composers/authors receiving money through exploitation of copyright is not a very old phenomenon. Before recorded music, composers could earn a penny of the print publishing rights, but I doubt that was enough as sole source of income (I have no actual data to back this up, and would happily be proven wrong).

So I imagine they did what all musos did, hustle. Do gigs here and there, teach, get lucky with a court or church appointment.

 

This is what most musicians do: at least most of the ones I know. Some guys get into music to make it big, and those opportunities may be on the wane, but were they ever really all that abundant in the first place?

 

But this is your debate, so I'll ask you. How do you think society can best support and encourage the most creative minds in society, to produce the most creative works, for the greater good of society?

 

I am not convinced that it is society's duty to support and encourage creative minds. I am not convinced that copyright control and legislation have EVER been responsible for a better creative climate. In fact, history teaches us that great works and deeds are often a product of misery and oppression.

 

I am not advocating anarchy. But hailing from a country that has pretty much legislated itself into a perpetual maze of self-conflicting rules, I am doubtful that more laws are the way to go. At least I cant think of any, but perhaps there are others who have better insights.

 

 

 

[richwhite9]

Composers/authors receiving money through exploitation of copyright is not a very old phenomenon. Before recorded music, composers could earn a penny of the print publishing rights, but I doubt that was enough as sole source of income (I have no actual data to back this up, and would happily be proven wrong).

 

See Stephen Foster, America's best known songwriter of the 19th century: he died impoverished in the NYC Bowery trying to make a living writing songs. Publishing theft was rampant. There was little or no enforcement.

 

Foster's only real support was the Christy Minstrels who would pay Foster for exclusive use of his music much like strong production demos get shopped today among artists who will pay for play.

 

Foster made aound $1350 a year (40K today) from royalties plus additional money from advances from Christy for exclusive use. That relationship ended in 1855 when Foster was 28 when Christy retired. Christy committed suicide in 1862, ruined by the Civil War, and Foster died with pennies in his pocket at age 37 in 1864.

 

Edgar Allen Poe was paid $9 ($270 today) for

The Raven' and offed himself a little quicker in 1849. Not surprisingly the distributors of the day (iTunes like publishers) made more money than any writer.

 

 

[Bottom End]

I don't think "society" should subsidize art, but I agree that intellectual property should be protected as much as real property is; how to do it effectively is the question. DRM protection seems to succeed at punishing the lawful purchaser more than it deters the pirate.

 

As for the recording artists, I think people ripping CD's from the library is the smallest hole through which they lose potential revenue. Far more music pirates steal from the comfort of their own home.

 

For any of you who use MySpace or some other form of self-publicity and distribution, is it profitable for you? (Not will it make you rich, only do you receive enough in revenue to cover recording and production cost, and build capital to invest in the next project?)

 

 

 

[Sven Golly]

Hello Tony, funny you should say that. I make my living exclusively from composing, producing and performing music. Take a look at my website, if you like.

 

Actually I find it interesting you would say that. I did take a look at your website, and see that your "debut album" is coming soon. Previous to that, you seem to have done work for corporate clients, and toured with other acts. Therefore, I would suggest that you have never derived income from anything for which you hold copyright (presumably your work for Coca Cola, etc. was done via an agreement wherein the client paid you for ownership of the material).

 

So it's a little disengenuous for you to take affront to Tony's presumption, no?

 

[Tonysounds]

That's the response of someone who obviously doesn't have product to sell. Way to see the other side Z.

 

You weren't really interested in the debate, were you?

 

Hello Tony, funny you should say that. I make my living exclusively from composing, producing and performing music. Take a look at my website, if you like.

 

What about you?

 

I started this thread because I am interested in debate, not in tired old mockery like iLaw's, which was surely not a lot more constructive and insightful than my emoticon.

 

And have you never borrowed an album from a friend and taped it?

 

Have a good one.

 

Making your living composing doesn't necessarily mean you make have product to sell. (Some people compose works for hire.)

If you have product to sell, it is your right to give it away, and your right to not care if people take it from you even if you don't give it away. But your "yawn" response was completely assinine given the context of your question. Regardless of your profession.

 

Not to turn this into a pissing contest (because after all, what does my occupation have to do with whether I am right or wrong?), but since you asked, until 5 years ago, yes, I made my living solely from composing, producing and performing music. I wrote jingles, had a national radio spot that ran for 2 years; wrote 5 albums worth of material, recorded and produced those records; recorded on other people's albums; toured the US extensively off and on for 20 years and toured overseas sporadically for 6 years with a band playing original music. We had 5 albums out, and we advised everyone to download them for free because we weren't seeing any money from publishing or record sales. But that's the difference: we gave them permission and told them to go for it. Just because we advocated it for OUR records, doesn't mean we had carte blanche to give away anyone else's product.

 

And I have borrowed music from the library and duplicated it. Does that make it okay? It doesn't change the reality of the question.

 

Have a good one as well.

[Tonysounds]

I am not convinced that it is society's duty to support and encourage creative minds. I am not convinced that copyright control and legislation have EVER been responsible for a better creative climate. In fact, history teaches us that great works and deeds are often a product of misery and oppression.

Yeah, that makes sense. The light bulb, electricity, the telephone, audio recording, photography, medicine, books, music, painting, sculpture, programming code...all those things happened while their inventors were being oppressed. And to think all those years, when those forward thinkers were busy trying to put food on their families tables, and it was during those laborious days toiling at the factory, or in the fields, or somewhere, and while they were all starving and being oppressed that all the REAL progress was being made. Here I thought progress and art and philosophy were advanced IN SPITE of oppression and misery, not because of it.

 

Dude, I have a hard time understanding your thought process.

[Tonysounds]

Exactly. I was making the point that d.t. doesnt change right and wrong. Nothing about the FUD.

 

That certainly makes sense. Quoting my post to make that point didn't make sense...it was very misleading. But I get your point. Thanks!

[Cygnus64]

Dude, I have a hard time understanding your thought process.

Justification is a strange thing.

 

Zephonic, I would like to offer you some unsolicited advice:

 

If you wanna steal music, just do it. Forget all the philosophical bullshiat and just take the music and enjoy it. There's really no need to discuss it, you gain nothing by discussing it and you lose plenty.

 

Coming on a website full of working musicians with a pro-stealing POV is a no-win situation. What's even worse is that you don't have to, none of us would be the wiser. Keep it to yourself. All you are doing is angering people and losing respect for yourself and your product.

 

I gotta be honest here: I won't listen to your product. It's not because I look down on you and claim some moral superiority, I don't. We all have our flaws. I'm not about to pass judgement on you at all, you seem like a decent guy.

 

I wouldn't listen to your product because I doubt it is very good, sorry. Your attitude reflects it. Maybe it is, and I'm wrong, but it would be rare. Most people with your outlook place no value on their music, ultimately because they know it has none. There's an intense pride involved in creating something amazing, people who do are fiercely protective of their work. It transcends money, it has nothing to do with money. I couldn't explain it to you, you wouldn't get it.

 

Anyhoo, I hope that in the future you DO come up with that amazing song, arrangement, performance, etc. When you do, you'll change your tune. You'll drop all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo and you'll say "Holy crap, this tune's my meal ticket". At that point, you'll see things in a completely different light. Peace.

[richwhite9]

There's a reason why intellectual property rights were protected and no I dont see that level of protection ever returning again. For all purposes songwriters never got a raise after the initial laws were passed a century ago.

 

Springsteen singing Stephen Foster's "Hard Times Cone Again No More" from last Summer.

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

Expect new insanity in the next century as bio-tech proliferates in countries with weak regulation and weak protection for intellectual rights. Music will be way down on the list of priorities for protection. College students will be swapping 100GB blu-rays with more music than they can ever hope to listen to from the 20th Century.

 

 

 

[Cliffk]

Coming on a website full of working musicians with a pro-stealing POV is a no-win situation ... All you are doing is angering people ...

This sure took a long time coming; these kinds of ideas are usually snuffed out almost as soon as they're mooted.

Of course it's worth discussing these issues but I agree that the KC isn't the most neutral place for that; there are marksmen here who'll take out such POVs with extreme prejudice.

 

Now I'm not an authority on the legalities of these things, nor do I profess not to have copied tapes when I was much younger. All I know is that it rubs me up the wrong way if I know stuff has been copied without permission, be it by people who copy music indiscriminately or students of mine who photocopy books. (The fact that I've been conned out of songwriting royalties in the past - not that they would have amounted to even a pile of beans - has perhaps influenced my POV. )

 

Ironically, I fell out with a friend who liked my music so much he copied it without asking me if he could. Needless to say, he thinks I'm a stuck-up little a--hole, as others no doubt would. Still others would be resolutely on my side. So again, while I certainly agree with Zephonic that the world has indeed changed and we need to address this as it affects us, for me such issues are real and raw enough to make me react perhaps more strongly (unreasonably?) than I usually would.

 

Point is, this discussion is never likely to be held here without evoking a world of anger, which will inevitably descend into personal attacks etc.

 

[zephonic]

Actually I find it interesting you would say that. I did take a look at your website, and see that your "debut album" is coming soon. Previous to that, you seem to have done work for corporate clients, and toured with other acts. Therefore, I would suggest that you have never derived income from anything for which you hold copyright (presumably your work for Coca Cola, etc. was done via an agreement wherein the client paid you for ownership of the material).

 

So it's a little disengenuous for you to take affront to Tony's presumption, no?

 

 

Hello Sven. The way it works with corporate clients is that they pay a flat fee for production costs and renew license of use every 2 years. In fairness, I was on a salary and as such do not derive income from those licenses (which belong to the company, not me personally).

I still get publishing royalties yearly from stuff I did in the 90s, albeit not much.

My album (why the quotes, btw?) is a labour of love, and I do not expect to see much of a return on the investment.

 

I did not comment on Tonys other posts. I replied only when he got personal with me. Unprovoked, I might add.

 

Dude, I have a hard time understanding your thought process.

 

I can see that, and you are not alone. It is obvious that my original post has largely been interpreted as pro-piracy.

 

That is not the case. I observe that piracy is here to stay, and confess that I have been guilty of it, too. I bet that just about everybody on this forum has at one point in time made a copy of an album, be it from the library or a friends. Therefore I figure we should move past the it is wrong phase and have a discussion about the way forward.

 

Last but not least, from the general atmosphere in this thread I get the sense that this is about to get personal. I hope that we can all subject ourselves to reason and not turn this thread into a wormfest. Thank you.

 

 

 

[zephonic]

I don't think "society" should subsidize art, but I agree that intellectual property should be protected as much as real property is; how to do it effectively is the question. DRM protection seems to succeed at punishing the lawful purchaser more than it deters the pirate.

 

And that is the crux of the matter. Current legislation does not suffice, but it remains to be seen if proposed legislation will really change things for the better. I feel that it may well be a change for the worse.

 

Point is, this discussion is never likely to be held here without invoking a world of anger, which will inevitably descend into personal attacks etc.

 

No s--t. I sort of regret having started this. But I still think it could be a viable discussion if reason prevails. Participants' conduct on this forum has traditionally been measured and reasonable, which is why I thought it would be okay to post about this.

 

 

 

 

[longfuse]

UK Libraries have to pay "authors' lending royalties". They work out about two pence per loan. There have been recent moves to try and get the amount increased (not exactly much compensation).

 

I'm pretty sure that the same applies to DVDs and CDs too. My library charges for those loans, so I should imagine that the royalty will be greater than 2p...who knows. That doesn't give anyone the right to rip whatever they borrow, but at least the 'author' gets some compensation for lost revenue.

 

My father is signed up to some organisation that collects royalties on behalf of academics. Because not many can afford academic books, especially if they're of minority interest (they can cost a small fortune), many people photocopy huge sections of text using library copiers. From what I understand, a royalty per page is factored into the cost of each photocopy, which then gets shared out among those registered. I doubt that anyone has read the weighty crap my father churns out, but he receives a cheque for £25 each year...freeloader.

 

When I was a music student in the late 80s, some chap from one of the royalty organisations gave a talk. The basic gist was that all the millions that go unclaimed by Paul McCartney get shared out among the small fry...similar thing to my father (get on the list and you're quids in).

 

Personally, I've ripped stuff from libraries. Almost without exception though, I rarely listen to that music after a few plays and it sits languishing on my computer or eventually gets deleted. The stuff I'm really interested in, I tend to buy. This isn't justification for what I've done, by the way, just an observation.

 

If an artist is still alive and I really like their work, I try to support them by purchasing their music/art...well that's an aspiration (which I occasionally fall short of).

 

[Cygnus64]

 

No s--t. I sort of regret having started this. But I still think it could be a viable discussion if reason prevails. Participants' conduct on this forum has traditionally been measured and reasonable, which is why I thought it would be okay to post about this.

 

 

 

 

Dear Steve Nathan and 50+ other people here,

 

I've been stealing your stuff. I'm sorry for your loss of income, I thought we could talk about it rationally. Also, I'm sorry that in ten years, you won't have any work because there will be no need for session players since recordings won't produce revenue any more. Let's talk this out rationally.

 

Reason prevails?

[richwhite9]

Personally, I've ripped stuff from libraries. Almost without exception though, I rarely listen to that music after a few plays and it sits languishing on my computer or eventually gets deleted. The stuff I'm really interested in, I tend to buy. This isn't justification for what I've done, by the way, just an observation.

 

If an artist is still alive and I really like their work, I try to support them by purchasing their music/art...well that's an aspiration (which I occasionally fall short of).

 

That's an argument the music companies don't like to hear. There's so much free music now available that it's impossible to listen to it all. People can create their own radio stations and program them and rip the music to MP3. Many of the people who have gigabytes of music aren't potential purchasers. It's just glorified radio and backgound music.

 

As has been mentioned many times on many threads the majority of artists make their money off performance anyway and it wasn't all that long ago that record companies packaged tours and product and promotional hype as one package.

 

The artists thriving in the download world are the singles artists. Cheap single downloads as impulse purchases to the teen market. It's a return to the pre-1970 era when single sales dominated the market and those artists are packaged together on tours with 5 or more other single artists. K-Tel's been replaced by "Now That's What I Call Music Vol 34".

 

Not to justify theft but there are those that do cater to the realities of the market place one hit at a time.

 

 

 

[Tonysounds]

So it's a little disengenuous for you to take affront to Tony's presumption, no?

 

 

I did not comment on Tonys other posts. I replied only when he got personal with me. Unprovoked, I might add.

 

Dude, I have a hard time understanding your thought process.

Last but not least, from the general atmosphere in this thread I get the sense that this is about to get personal. I hope that we can all subject ourselves to reason and not turn this thread into a wormfest. Thank you.

 

 

Actually, your chronology is off, I never "got personal" with you until you insinuated that as I am not a musician who makes his sole living from composing, performing or producing, that my P.O.V. is without merit. My previous post just pointed out that your yawn response indicated you werent really interested in a debate. Thats hardly a personal attack. And calling subsequently calling that yawn assinine isnt getting personal either. Man up my man, you're in a tough business.

 

I also think youre rationalizing your original post and its intent. If not, you might want to think about how you compose these posts to inspire real debate.

 

[zephonic]

Actually, your chronology is off, I never "attacked" you until you insinuated that as I am not a musician who makes his sole living from composing, performing or producing, that my P.O.V. is without merit. My previous post just that your yawn response indicated you werent really interested in a debate. Thats hardly a personal attack.

 

Your first post directed to me reads:

 

 

That's the response of someone who obviously doesn't have product to sell. Way to see the other side Z.

 

You weren't really interested in the debate, were you?

 

This sounded like a personal attack to me.

 

 

I also think youre rationalizing your original post and its intent. If not, you might want to think about how you compose these posts to inspire real debate.

 

Perhaps. However, I see others did understand its intent and have responded in a thoughtful manner.

 

But please tell me which passages in my OP you find offensive. I say this without mockery, I really do not care for the unpleasant vibes this thread is giving me.

 

 

[ProfD]

Regardless where one sits on the creative totem pole, protect your music. Along the same lines, do not copy and sell other folks' music.

 

Making copies of copyrighted material becomes a crime once it is redistributed and/or sold for profit.

 

When you write a song and/or compose music, get it copyrighted. Think of it like car insurance.

 

For many folks, copyrighting material is an exercise in futility. Especially if that song/music is never released commercially.

 

OTOH, with copyright protection, if your song or music generates a considerable amount of money, having proof of ownership helps if you decide to pursue legal action.

 

The reality is, intellectual property generating a considerable amount of money lines the pockets of its benefactors way before it hits the public library, internet, etc.

 

Piracy has always been around but it hasn't crippled the recording industry. Hot songs have been leaked to the internet and still have not adversely affected sales of that record.

 

Folks buy art their feel is worthy of the price. After all, many of us have bought the same music several times i.e. vinyl, tape, CD and downloads.

 

IMO, that will never change. If you write and compose a hot song, folks will buy it. Period.

 

 

[Cygnus64]

As has been mentioned many times on many threads the majority of artists make their money off performance anyway

Here's a reality check:

 

In 2000 I was doing about 30-35 non-classical backup gigs a year. By 2004, maybe 15. 2009 I did 3. So far in 2010? 1. That's the concert industry.

 

Cancelled shows and tours by usually reliable marquee artists like Christina Aguilera, the Eagles, U2 (due to Bono's back surgery), Sarah McLachlan's Lilith Fair, Rhianna, John Mayer, Limp Bizkit, and the Go-Go's seem to belie the fact that the live music business is taking a beating this summer. Multi-act festivals like Bamboozle and the Country Throwdown Tour pulled the plug on some dates, while other tours by what were considered hot acts are experiencing slumping sales, among them Jonas Brothers and Kings Of Leon, according to sources

Link

 

It's easy to blame it on the economy, but it's been going downhill for 10+ years, coinciding with the illegal downloads. Music has been devalued. It's that stuff that kids get for free off the internet. Who wants to see those jokers that we steal off of?

 

Beyond the personal financial implications, I'm actually sorry for the kids. When you have it all, you don't have anything. The kids don't save their allowance money for that new album, they just steal one. They don't have the joy of building that CD collection up to 200 discs, getting them all in order, etc. You can have 200 discs on mp3 in an hour. Music is meaningless.

 

[sakari lindhen]

We have also had several music festivals with long long traditions go bankrupt here in sweden this summer. though festivals in cities are still going ok, the traditional out in the countryside festival seems to be in serious trouble.

[Joe Muscara]

There's an intense pride involved in creating something amazing, people who do are fiercely protective of their work. It transcends money, it has nothing to do with money.

QFE

 

Coming on a website full of working musicians with a pro-stealing POV is a no-win situation ... All you are doing is angering people ...

This sure took a long time coming; these kinds of ideas are usually snuffed out almost as soon as they're mooted.

I think you skipped a few posts.

 

Zeph, is your OP saying that maybe it should be okay to copy material from the library? Draw your boundaries, tell us how big of a net you are casting here. Also, explain the part you said about paying 1.50 for a CD. Is that to the library? If so, perhaps some of that money is supposed to go back to the record company/publisher/artist.

[ProfD]

As has been mentioned many times on many threads the majority of artists make their money off performance anyway

Cancelled shows and tours by usually reliable marquee artists

 

Music has been devalued. It's that stuff that kids get for free off the internet.

 

Beyond the personal financial implications, I'm actually sorry for the kids. When you have it all, you don't have anything. The kids don't save their allowance money for that new album, they just steal one. They don't have the joy of building that CD collection up to 200 discs, getting them all in order, etc. You can have 200 discs on mp3 in an hour. Music is meaningless.

Live performance is still the money-maker. The key is to package and sell it correctly.

 

IMO, concerts are cancelled because the ticket prices are too high. But, these 'kids' do still have enough disposable funds courtesy of their middle-class parents to attend a concert if they wish.

 

Also, many middle-class, middle-aged folks attend concerts themselves. They have no problems dropping coin on blasts from the past i.e. Classic Rock, Heavy Metal and 80s Pop, Classical performances, etc.

 

IMO, artists with a successful record on any level have to book their own gigs. Play smaller venues. It takes more work but they see more money in the long run.

 

To any extent, I do believe music has been devalued but not merely because of illegal downloading and file sharing. I believe it is because there is so much music in the marketplace.

 

So, in order to be seen and heard, artists and musicians have to take it back to the grassroots level. They have to build their following through live performance and selling their CDs at shows.

[zephonic]

Zeph, is your OP saying that maybe it should be okay to copy material from the library? Draw your boundaries, tell us how big of a net you are casting here. Also, explain the part you said about paying 1.50 for a CD. Is that to the library? If so, perhaps some of that money is supposed to go back to the record company/publisher/artist.

 

Uhm, not really. I just remembered how I used to go the library and borrow LP's and CD's. If I really liked them, I taped them. I never thought anything of it, and everybody did it.

 

I was reading another thread about digital rights on GS, and then I wondered how library use would fit into the new picture.

 

In Holland you pay the library Euro 1.50 (IIRC) and you get to keep the CD for three weeks. I do not know what happens with that money.

 

I guess the point of this thread is:

 

intellectual property protection versus making knowledge available to the people who can't afford it.

 

 

 

 

[Cygnus64]

 

 

 

Also, many middle-class, middle-aged folks attend concerts themselves. They have no problems dropping coin on blasts from the past i.e. Classic Rock, Heavy Metal and 80s Pop, Classical performances, etc.

 

 

Everything is seriously, seriously down. Classical is way down and hurting. A big classical concert has typically 4 rehearsals, it's now 3 almost everywhere. The problem is that if the economy ever stabilizes, rich board members will say "It sounded fine with 3, we can keep it that way".

 

My Dad always nagged me, "Get your degree" (I never did). Man, am I an idiot! He was so right. I could be teaching at Buttcrack State College by now, sippin virgin Pina Coladas while I mentally undressed nubile vixen string students. Write one cheezy paper a year about 16th century Castrati, go to a few meetings where I daydream about the aforementioned mental undressings, fill out a form where I give everybody an "A", and laugh my taxpayer-funded, tenured A$$ all the way to the bank.

[Ken Beaumont]

My question is when does the gravy train end. Here in the US every time the Disney Corporations rights come close to becoming public domain, they pay politicians to extend copyright. The Disney Corporation made a fortune off the public domain. Re-branding stories that were generations old.

 

The current law for copyright is 70 yrs. after the death. That bill was drafted by Sonny Bono who stood to gain financially from it.

 

A.P. Carters name is on hundreds of songs never written by him. He toured the Appalachians and popularized songs long forgotten in the public domain. His great-great-great grandkids benefit from nameless musicians.

 

Corporations will be making money of the Beatles catalog long after the last Beatle draws his final breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tonysounds]

Dude, I have a hard time understanding your thought process.

 

I can see that, and you are not alone. It is obvious that my original post has largely been interpreted as pro-piracy.

 

Not by me. It was your subsequent posts that have me (and I'm presuming others as well) perplexed. I really didn't take your original post to be pro-piracy, only that you do pirate music, and think that the Dutch government thinks making information public domain is more important than protecting authors' rights. I don't know anything about Dutch government or politics, so I can't answer to that one way or another. I do know the European (especially in Italy) thinking on copyright protection and its value is quite a bit different than my own, but that's not what's being discussed.

[Cygnus64]

My question is when does the gravy train end. Here in the US every time the Disney Corporations rights come close to becoming public domain, they pay politicians to extend copyright.

The current law for copyright is 70 yrs. after the death. That bill was drafted by Sonny Bono who stood to gain financially from it.

 

 

That's a tough one. The Wizard of Oz is 71 years old yet still a cash cow. I do agree that life+ 70 is a reasonable solution. In Canada it's life +50. I'm guessing that public domain will never happen in the US to anything after 1923.

[Tonysounds]

As has been mentioned many times on many threads the majority of artists make their money off performance anyway...

 

This was precisely our rationale for advocating fans to just rip the music off of Kazaa and Napster. If giving our music away kept people coming to our shows, and those friends gave the music to their friends and got them to come to our shows, at least it was keeping us alive touring.

[Joe Muscara]

intellectual property protection versus making knowledge available to the people who can't afford it.

Really?

 

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

When I was in high school and college, I made copies of stuff, but as I said, I grew up. Money was an excuse back then, and so was laziness. The reality is, most of the music most people steal could easily be found on the radio. Now, you can listen to almost anything you choose on Pandora, Rhapsody, internet radio stations, satellite radio

 

So if it's that easy, why copy? If your argument then becomes the artists I want to hear aren't available through those sources, then I might say you should be spending money on those lesser artists and not ripping them off.

 

If you can afford a computer to make copies of CDs, you can afford to buy the album.

[Synthoid]

My Dad always nagged me, "Get your degree" (I never did). Man, am I an idiot! He was so right. I could be teaching at Buttcrack State College by now, sippin virgin Pina Coladas while I mentally undressed nubile vixen string students. Write one cheezy paper a year about 16th century Castrati, go to a few meetings where I daydream about the aforementioned mental undressings, fill out a form where I give everybody an "A", and laugh my taxpayer-funded, tenured A$$ all the way to the bank.

 

Sounds like another Martha Stewart job.