Which is paying for the recording, distribution and bandwidth, advertising, administration...
record industry bosses over school anti-piracy lessons
- Thread starter mattheman
- Start date
iTunes has been DRM free for a while now hasn't it?
Doesn't change the fact that doing promotional gigs and playing at smaller venues is still going to be the bulk of their income compared to the small amount of CDs they sell.
Their CD/MP3 sales are directly proportional to the bands notoriety, which is proportional to their level of live performance venues. So a smaller band with less venues to play at will also be selling less recorded music, and so will still be reciveing the majoirty of their money from the venues.
Stealing is stealing
Are you telling me you wont listen to any piece of music, or artist you enjoy until you can afford each and every single piece of music you desire to listen to? (An impossible task for anyone to afford)
I don't pirate music, if I like something enough to want to listen to it I will buy it. There are plenty of legal ways to listen to music at little to no cost. Why do you feel such a sense of entitlement that it is your "right" to own something even if you cannot afford it?
Stealing is stealing
Except that downloading music isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.
Yes, but these bands are typically part timers, having to work full time to actually make ends meet and will never make the big time, and will either continue being little more than a hobby band or end up breaking up.
For the vast majority of bands to make an actual living from making music the only way will be to get signed by a publisher.
Which is probably why he called it stealing rather than theft. I am well aware of the legal difference myself, I just see little moral difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
As far as I know, most smaller gigs at venues are pretty much done for pittance. Most bands, when starting out, DO offer their music for free to get some input and reputation. Then, when they find something that works, they whack a price on it. And I've nothing against them for that (except for when record labels get involved and start taking majority cuts of extortionate prices).
Just because it appeals to your senses doesn't mean it should be free. What about food? Go to a restaurant and buy an expensive meal. Should it be free? Of course not.
Spotify? Grooveshark? Plenty of legal ways to listen to it for free. In fact, I'd say there's very little reason to buy music. For £9.99 a month, Spotify will let you play any song it has, offline (including on compatible players). Exactly the same as owning the music yourself, for a much lower price.
Last edited:
I've no problem paying for the music I enjoy and as pointed out there's so much services now offering legal music free to the user such as Spotify, you tube and even radio/TV channels that defence of outright piracy is getting pretty thin now, compared to 15 years when your choice was radio or £15 for an album.
Care to name a legal way o listen to music without CR infringment or piracy?
Again, that example is ridiculous. It costs the restaraunt to buy the food, the chef has to work to cook the food, the restaraunt has to pay for electricity and gas and water.
A musician has to play their instrument/sing their song, balance the audio and then it's ready for listening.
The major difference between these two examples is a musician would be making the music whether they are being paid or not, a chef wouldn't be cooking food for table after table were he not paid, a waiter wouldn't be walking back and forth were he not paid.
Yes i am, if i want an album i go and buy it. If i want to check the songs out first then there are plenty of places you can do that. I am in no way rich or have lots of money but then again if i cant afford something then i just simply dont buy it.
I don't know what spotify is, but as for youtube - it's copyright infringment, you can't argue against piracy and then be for illegally uploading content onto youtube. That's the definition of hypocritical. As for the television channels, great - if you enjoy the crap they spew out depending on what bland unoriginal artist is currently in the chart, and you don't mind not having a say in what you listen to.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time! At 5 and 6 kids are very suggestible, this whole thing isn't aimed to teach kids but to brain wash them, having a 6 year old brother the thought of him going to school and being taught this nonsense is sickening. Frankly my brother goes to school to get an education, to learn to read and write, count and learn basic science, not to learn to be extorted by record companies.
In reply to the above conversation, I have 4342 songs in my library right now, 4342 * 0.70 = £3039.40 and thats based on the assumption that my songs can be got for 70p, but based on the fact most of the stuff I listen to is out of the mainstream, songs cost upwards of £1.30.
I'm all for supporting the bands I listen to, I do that by going to concerts, and by buying from bands that own their own record label or run on underground record labels like Dancing Ferret Discs, however I refuse to give my money to companies like EMI while the bands, and the reason I'm buying the album, get next to nothing from it.
In reply to the above conversation, I have 4342 songs in my library right now, 4342 * 0.70 = £3039.40 and thats based on the assumption that my songs can be got for 70p, but based on the fact most of the stuff I listen to is out of the mainstream, songs cost upwards of £1.30.
I'm all for supporting the bands I listen to, I do that by going to concerts, and by buying from bands that own their own record label or run on underground record labels like Dancing Ferret Discs, however I refuse to give my money to companies like EMI while the bands, and the reason I'm buying the album, get next to nothing from it.
Too bad for you, music is too much an enjoyment of my life to choose going without simply because I can't afford to purchase every song I like.
There's plenty of legitimate, paid for content on you tube.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
It costs the artist to buy the equipment. The artist has to work to sing/play the song. The artist has to pay for his OWN electricity, gas and water.
A cook has to cook the food, and then it's ready for eating.
And I don't care what you say, no-one would produce professional music for free. Maybe something in their spare time as a hobby, but you can't produce music that good if you spend less time on it. If they make their own lyrics and tune, it takes time. If they pay someone else to do it, it costs money. Time = money. Either way, they need money to live. Back to what I said before. Should a footballer be forced to play football for free? I bet they enjoy it, but would they still march out onto a pitch and entertain (and indeed anger) millions of people for free if the other footballers were getting paid for it? Of course not.
What about ANY form of manufacture? The product is designed, then it's manufactured and sold. It probably costs very little to make or package. Does that mean they should give them out for free, or only charge what it costs to make?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
I could buy a house probably if i paid for all my music, it's expensive for new releases. And if you burn through music like I do it's very expensive.
I've got just under a tb in total.
(oh and "Yeah i paid for my music I never download illegally")