To burn or not to burn?

[Pro-MyIdeals]

what do you guys think about downloading free music and movies off of the internet...is it hurtful to the artist? or is it just the masses responding to the overpricing of cd's and dvd's?

your thoughts, please

[elijahcraig]

Download, download, download.

FUCk the artist. If they are TRUE ARTISTS, they'll make art for the art and not for the money.

[Bodyguard]

Fuck the downloaders! Let them work hard and expect to be rewarded for their hard work!.......................

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 01:28 AM
Fuck the downloaders! Let them work hard and expect to be rewarded for their hard work!.......................
don't you think cd's are just a weeeeeeeeee bit overpriced? cd's have not gone down in price since basically their inception...they are much much cheaper to manufacture than tapes..yet somehow they are much more expensive? i say download and be happy...the music idustry has seen record sales since the beginning of file sharing...it's basically free advertising for the artists...yet they somehow believe they are hurting financially

[synthesis]

I think it depends on the artist. I wouldn't buy a record by, say, the Rolling Stones, because they're all multimillionaires.

I would buy a record by Queens of the Stone Age or Turbonegro or Atmosphere because they are independant artists.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 01:53 AM
I think it depends on the artist. I wouldn't buy a record by, say, the Rolling Stones, because they're all multimillionaires.

I would buy a record by Queens of the Stone Age or Turbonegro or Atmosphere because they are independant artists.
queens of the stone age are rich in their own right...they are memebers of already semi-successful separate bands

[synthesis]

Relatively widely recognized, maybe, but I wouldn't say successful. Well, except for Dave Grohl, obviously, but he didn't do all that much with the Queens and I don't think he's making too much money off the project anyways.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 02:31 AM
Relatively widely recognized, maybe, but I wouldn't say successful. Well, except for Dave Grohl, obviously, but he didn't do all that much with the Queens and I don't think he's making too much money off the project anyways.
I listen to artists I respect. From what I know, they are very active in charities and other good causes. Therefore I will support them by buying their albums.

So for me, downloading is a non-issue.

But for other who wish to download and burn. I still think it is stealing, but agree that cd's are overpriced and the record industry needs to address that.

would anyone here walk into a music store and take the album off the shelves, stick it under your shirt and walkout... downloading is essentially the same thing.

[SonofRage]

the artists themselves make most of their money from concerts and merchandising (t-shirts and shit). They get very little from CD sales.

[Totalitarian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 06:28 AM
Fuck the downloaders! Let them work hard and expect to be rewarded for their hard work!.......................
Don't you support the free market? Then you should be in favour of burning.

:D

[Invader Zim]

If I ever download music, I see if I like it, and if I do than I buy the Album usually, if its car then I delete it, and curse the Artists.

[Pete]

I just listen to what I already have downloaded (can't get any anymore because of my hookup, not that I want to though), my CD's and my friends CD's. I personally think it depends on the band, although I don't really listen to many bands that I would not support. Also if I have the cassette I'll download the music to make a cd of it, they already have my buck.

[suffianr]

I download random tracks from an album that interests me, and if they're all good enough, I'll usually buy an illegal copy of the album. If it's really good, I'll buy the original. Otherwise...

[canikickit]

A lot of the songs I download I'd never be able buy anyway, unless I went abroad. I'd never stop buying music, it's nice to have a CD.

A lot of the songs people download they would never buy anyway, it's allowing more exposure to artists.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 06:11 AM
Download, download, download.


I concur .

[Man of Steel]

Download while you can, for tomorrow you will be sued.

[Xvall]

Burn it all! And yeah. Musicians are the only artists I can think of that 'sell' their art in such a manner. At that point it is no longer art, it is a commodity.

[nezvanova]

as a musician, i would rather give my music away than make money off of it. CD's are blatantly over priced, and i personally see no fault in downloading music....

and did you ever notice that the only bands *****ing about downloading music are really rich bands that aren't really getting all that harmed byt he downloading? case and point: matallica

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 12:53 AM
I think it depends on the artist. I wouldn't buy a record by, say, the Rolling Stones, because they're all multimillionaires.

I would buy a record by Queens of the Stone Age or Turbonegro or Atmosphere because they are independant artists.
I would like to repeat what DyerMaker said. There is no reason to feel obligated to give more money to millionaires. I would not mind supporting bands that are still trying to get established.

[Al Creed]

The only CD's I have ever bought with my own money are Nirvana. In retrospect, seeing that most of the money goes to Courtney Love (I HATE her), It may have not been a great idea.


I advocate CD burning and Music downloading. Art should be public domain, once it is finished.

[bush youth]

Bands who actually need money would probably benefit by mp3's because you probably won't get a chance to hear them on the radio... and if you buy a CD before you've heard any of their songs you're crazy...
GoKart Records actually encourages (http://gokartrecords.com/freedownload) burning cds..

as for downloading...
here's an incentive...

[Urban Rubble]

South Park, the vast pool of wisdom from which we could learn alot said it best.

Cop: That's Lars Ulrich of Metallica.

Kyle: What's wrong with him ?

Cop: Lars is sad. Today, he was going to buy a gold plated shark tank to put in his swimming pool, but thanks to you kids downloading his songs, he'll have to wait another month.

Cop: That's Britney Spears. See that private jet she's boarding ? That's a GulfStream3, she did have a GulfSream4, but thanks to you kids, she had to sell it.



If it's a band that I support (meaning politics, personality and music) I will usually buy their album if I want it, usually. Sometimes I can't afford CD's, I don't feel bad about it at all. Even the more underground bands are still making a comfortable living, for playing music. I don't feel that bad for them.

Also, anyone who says this will kill the industry is a moron who apparentlly hasn't heard of live concerts, merchandise and other means of making cash.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Music is inherantly communistic, that is it's meant to be shared. Music is a public good and it must stay that way. Any communist or socialist that adovates the privitization of musical art is a complete hypocrit.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Download

if art is for sale its nothing more than just another capitalist product. Art is how you express your ideas to the world, not a way to make money. And CDs around here are VERY expensive, mp3s have a simmilar quality and you can download rare songs too.

[Urban Rubble]

Any communist or socialist that adovates the privitization of musical art is a complete hypocrit.

I disagree.

Although I am fine with downloading music, I don't think a socialist advocating privitization of music is neccesarily (sp?) a hypocrite. We are living in a Capitalist society, these artists need to make money somehow. Selling music is fine, in Capitalism. In a Socialist society, I think it would be different. Music would still be sold, but the artists and others involved would not be making enough to be rich.

[Totalitarian]

Believe it or not, the burning of CDs is compatible with capitalist ideology.

(Intellectual property rights are a complete fiction)

[truthaddict11]

I cant burn cds or dvds because of my connection and computer nor would i burn cds, I buy most of my albums from independent sellers people who have been around for 20+ years and survived the growing number of chain and retail stores they have the cds i want stuff i cant find in a retail store.

[synthesis]

Regicidal Insomniac and Urban Rubble, both of you will probably enjoy this article, if you haven't read it already. I encourage everyone else to read it, too, it's a well-written essay and I would say it provided a great deal of the inspiration for the 'Libertarian Socialism' that is so prevalent among college students and the like today.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_text...wilde_soul.html (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html)

[dancingoutlaw]

Believe it or not, the burning of CDs is compatible with capitalist ideology.

(Intellectual property rights are a complete fiction)


What fiction is that?

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 08:33 AM
I cant burn cds or dvds because of my connection and computer nor would i burn cds, I buy most of my albums from independent sellers people who have been around for 20+ years and survived the growing number of chain and retail stores they have the cds i want stuff i cant find in a retail store.
I buy them in the smaller shops too. They are usually way cheaper there and the people that work there are way more friendly than those dorks at the chain stores (not that all of them are dorks who work there, but those I have seen, are :lol: ) Anyway I dl the biggest part of my music, but I do buy the cds of bands I really like and the price of their cds are under the 10 &#036;. Since I don&#39;t really have much cash <_<

[Totalitarian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 05:01 PM

Believe it or not, the burning of CDs is compatible with capitalist ideology.

(Intellectual property rights are a complete fiction)


What fiction is that?
The concept of property rights exists because OBJECTS cannot be divided up amongst infinite number of people. Me and you cannot both wear the same shoe at the same time.

However, an unlimited number of people can have the same IDEA at any one time. Therefore, "intellectual property" has no valid basis.

[dancingoutlaw]

However, an unlimited number of people can have the same IDEA at any one time. Therefore, "intellectual property" has no valid basis.

I am sorry to disagree. If there is no "valid basis" as you say to intellectual property then there has been plenty of ink spilt over the centuries that would not comply with that worldview. Yes plenty of people can have the same idea at the same time, yet believe it or not, that situation either rarely happens or only one person will implement that idea. In the case of being the one to think of it first, as it were, doesn&#39;t that person have the rights to that idea for a reasonable time before others can lawfully copy it? This value is actually pretty important to capitalist ideology which is why I ask you why intellectual property rights are viewed by you as fiction. What capitalist would not want their ideas, music, art, literature, really any thing that is not tangible but is used as a livelihood to be protected?

Respectfully yours

[(*]

You can&#39;t justify stealing music by claiming it&#39;s art.

I pose the same question I asked before. Would you walk into a music store and steal a cd?
It is up to the musician whether they want to freely distribute their music, or sell it.

I guess dvds, movie tickets etc... should be free as well.

[marxstudent]

I don&#39;t really care myself but I d/l most of my songs and if I really like the tracks, I&#39;ll go purchase the album. I get the albums I like the most first because I have a limited budget.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by (*@Nov 6 2003, 06:28 PM
I pose the same question I asked before. Would you walk into a music store and steal a cd?
Well that is stealing from the store and not the artist, since the store has already paid for that CD. In which case the Store then has to re-purchase that CD from the distributor, now the artist gets more money from your theft. If you had bought it from the store the artist would have made the same amount of money, since it was stolen the CD was purchased again by the store. Theft at a store helps the artist.

As far as everybody saying that artists make the most money from concerts and merchant sales at concerts... you are wrong, it would advertisment and product endorsments. Britany Spears made more money from advertisments with Pepsi than with concerts and t-shirt sales.

The only way the industry is going to be able to combat piracy of music is to find a new way to make money. Drop prices of CDs to almost nothing, like 5 dollars a CD since it will cost them total 1.30 cents to make, after cost of machinery, manufacturing and material. That would also count in cost of shipping. The stores will only be able to make 2 dollars a sale. The stores will have to figure sales as such, 1st week to cover wages, 2nd week rent, 3rd week to cover electricity, 4th week for expansion, investement and savings. More than likely you would see the CD only stores disapear as CDs go to stores that sell stereos and TVs ect..ect. These stores although not making a lot of profit will make more than the previous CD only stores since they already have large space and less employees to just run the CD part of thier store (Think of Best Buy). They CD sales will promote daily sales that can slump on big ticket items during the weekdays. The CD only stores would still be around but you would see a rise in independent stores in out of the way locations saving on thier 2nd week of sales, (rent) and 1st week of wages by having less employees, with lower costs of CDs they can afford to buy more independent CDs than normal allowing less risk by the independent store owner.

People that use to go to large corporate chain stores (Tower Records) will split on going to the independent CD only stores or the larger stores that carry CDs and other items.

Independent stores will thrive more as they will be paying less over-all on product and will have more sales as increase customers come in.

the issue with CDs right now and the RIAA is that record companies want to make 1,000,000,000 profit when they need to realize that they have to settle on 200,000,000 profit. They will still make money just not as much.

[dancingoutlaw]

Exploited Class, I pose another outcome to the situation that you brought up. Before that though I will say that yes the record industry needs to figure out a way to use the internet as a distribution tool in the way that the consumer wants and make a profit or the music industry will suffer. A CD costs what a CD costs because so far that is what people have been willing to pay. Lowering the cost will not prevent theft of the CD over the internet. Any cost over free then becomes too much as long as it is seen something that does not cause harm to the industry. What I fear because of piracy is the further homogenazation of the music biz so that the only things that are produced are the mass appeal, talentless goons that permeate radio and television. The only bands that will be produced are the ones that the record companies know will make money. Minor labels won&#39;t be able to make it because no money will come in and thus no money will go to the artists. A sea of crap with a very occasional island of good music will be all there is to listen too. For every Nirvana there is twenty Creeds. For all the good Punk there is the chewed up result of Good Charlotte. Heck Even Rage Against the Machine has the very capitalist "goods" button on their website. I fear that the record companies will stop taking chances on good music as they already have. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones new realease is not on a major label. With less of a profit margin you do not get greater diversity of art, you get NSync and New Kids on the Block if you can tell the difference between the two.

Respectfully yours

[Totalitarian]

Dancinginoutlaw:

Yes plenty of people can have the same idea at the same time, yet believe it or not, that situation either rarely happens or only one person will implement that idea. In the case of being the one to think of it first, as it were, doesn&#39;t that person have the rights to that idea for a reasonable time before others can lawfully copy it?

An idea is not a piece of property. You can&#39;t hang onto an idea. By its very nature an idea is free and will not be constrained in the same way as an object. I do not think anyone has the "right" to prevent others from copying something.

This value is actually pretty important to capitalist ideology which is why I ask you why intellectual property rights are viewed by you as fiction.

In terms of the intellectual basis of capitalism, there are some that do not support IP laws. Certain libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists for example.

IslamicCrescent:

I pose the same question I asked before. Would you walk into a music store and steal a cd?

This is a totally different scenario. The CD is a physical object which belongs to the store owner. It cannot be shared by infinite people like an idea can.

[dancingoutlaw]

An idea is not a piece of property. You can&#39;t hang onto an idea. By its very nature an idea is free and will not be constrained in the same way as an object. I do not think anyone has the "right" to prevent others from copying something.

So by creating a work of art... Be it audio, visual, dramatic, or whatever... I would have no rights to my own effort in the creation of this work because someone else along the line (maybe they had a room with a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters) would have dreamt the same vision? So by this fact of not being able to have rights to an idea anyone could release "Stairway to Heaven" and claim it as their own? If a society does not protect individuals from making a livlihood from ideas then I fear that a good portion of those ideas will dry up.



In terms of the intellectual basis of capitalism, there are some that do not support IP laws. Certain libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists for example.

I can speak for Libertarians since I am one and I know of no Liberatarian that would ignore the Constitution of the U.S. As for anarcho-capitalist? Their brand of extreme libertarian Lassez-faire Capitalism would be just as successful as pure stateless Marxism. Anarcho- Capitalist are at best the very fringe of a third party. Why count myself Libertarian? I vote for who I agree with the most and since I am not on the ballot I vote Libertarian. I also know that they will never win. I do not accept the argument that a vote for "blank" is a vote for the Republicans or Democrats or whatever.



This is a totally different scenario. The CD is a physical object which belongs to the store owner. It cannot be shared by infinite people like an idea can.

And if I may ask a question pertaining to this one. Would you take a CD, make millions of copies and distribute them yourself?

Peace

[Totalitarian]

dancingoutlaw:

So by this fact of not being able to have rights to an idea anyone could release "Stairway to Heaven" and claim it as their own?

They would be able to perform it and record it. If anyone bought their CD or tape, they would be able to make money from it. But with everyone allowed to do the same, they would be unlikely to profit. In most cases i think people would be honest enough to recognise the person who formulated the idea.

If a society does not protect individuals from making a livlihood from ideas then I fear that a good portion of those ideas will dry up.

Most of the commercial rubbish such as Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys would dry up, and good riddance. Real artists who did it for the love of music would flourish. I think without the intervention of the state, society would find a way to look after the best artists as long as they recognised the talent.

I can speak for Libertarians since I am one and I know of no Liberatarian that would ignore the Constitution of the U.S.

Here&#39;s a libertarian argument against IP.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Would you take a CD, make millions of copies and distribute them yourself?

In a climate of state IP enforcement, i would certainly not do this as it would result in jail time. Even if it was legal, i don&#39;t think i would bother. Anyone else could just do the same thing, so i probably wouldn&#39;t make much profit.

[dancingoutlaw]

Totalitarian,

Good Try, Find a fringe "Libertarian" group from Raliegh, NC who advocates pure lassez-faire capitalism (which we don&#39;t) and even links to a site that promotes building a paradise somewhere in the Carribbean on peirs on top of a submerged mountain. http://www.new-utopia.com/ here is the author of the article in question&#39;s blog http://praxeology.net/unblog.htm


I am sorry but that is all pure fantasy. What these people represent once again are the fringe of a fringe of a third party. They cannot be said to represent an official party line in fact on the Libertarian Party website http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0105/bryant.html

You sadly have the same argument as the fringe Libertarians. That society as a whole will find the quality works and choose the great among them to support. The author that you point to says against IP rights
Suppose I compose a poem and recite it to you. As a result, you learn the poem by heart. In effect, there is now a copy of the poem stored in your brain.

Who owns that copy?

The only answer must be: you do. You own yourself; you own your brain and the contents of your brain. If I owned the copy in your brain, then I would be a part owner of your brain, which would make you a partial slave – which is morally untenable.
Now in addition to owning your brain and the poem stored within, you also own, let’s suppose, a pen and some paper. You use your pen to transcribe onto the paper the poem that’s stored in your head. Now there are two copies of my poem in your possession: one in your brain and one on the paper. Who owns the second copy?

Once again, you do. You produced that second copy using nothing but factors that you owned: your paper, your pen, and your brain (with your neuron-encoded first copy of my poem). That second copy is yours – to keep, to burn, or to transfer.

Yes, to transfer. If you give or sell your copy to someone else, or if you use your copy to make a new copy to give or sell to someone else, or if you allow others to use your copy to make new copies, you are making a peaceful use of your own property. You are violating no rights.

“But,” I protest, “that’s my poem you’re selling&#33;”

No, it isn’t. You’re not selling any concrete copies of the poem that are in my possession – I still own those and can control access to them as I please. Nor are you selling the abstract object of which all these copies are instances. You can’t sell an abstract object. Abstract objects can’t be transferred. They are not scarce resources; one person does not lose access to the abstract object just because someone else has gained access. All you’re selling is your copies of the poem. Which is your perfect right. They’re yours to do with as you please.

I am sorry but that argument does not hold water. Because I have in my possesion a copy of your idea does not give me any right to profit off of your labor. Concrete or abstract it is still your labor and I do not have any right to it without a fair exchange. Whether it be an agreement of freindship or a hard barter. I have no right.

[Totalitarian]

Because I have in my possesion a copy of your idea does not give me any right to profit off of your labor.

This is ironic coming from a libertarian. I&#39;m sure you find it perfectly acceptable to profit from someone else&#39;s labour, in other circumstances.

[atlanticche]

i only buy music from bands that i really like, its just having the real thing that is better than having it on some shity computer

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 11:31 AM
i only buy music from bands that i really like, its just having the real thing that is better than having it on some shity computer
Buy a cd-writer :P

[dancingoutlaw]

This is ironic coming from a libertarian. I&#39;m sure you find it perfectly acceptable to profit from someone else&#39;s labour, in other circumstances.

I profit from my own labor. I do not buy sweatshop items. I do my best not to buy from companies that use abusive labor practices or give money to political affiliations that I do not agree with. Investments I have made are in fuel cell technology. I support rational enviromental laws that do not usurp the power of the elected government. I beleive in free exchange between parties for goods and services. I do not steal.

Peace