|
|
#131
10-05-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think artists (more acurately in todays world to be some large corporation) are entitled to income from their music. [/ QUOTE ] Why is this? Do you think authors are entitled to income from their books? Actors and directors from their movies? [/ QUOTE ] I fully support their ability to make money, but fining people for sharing books and movies I also find ridiculous. They should spend their time finding ways to really influence people to want to pay for their work for reasons other then scare tactics and quarter million dollar fines. [/ QUOTE ] How are they going to make money, if music is not property, and Big Evil Corporations don't deserve any money for producing and distributing music? How do you plan to have any music -- beyond just sitting around jamming for fun, or cover bands -- if it is not property? Who will make it, for nothing? Who will distribute it, for nothing? [/ QUOTE ] Why are you assuming they will make nothing? The large majority of people can download any song they want for free, simply downloading isn't being prosecuted so doing something against the law is only a deterrent to a small amount of people, and yet the sky isn't falling. Musicians are still putting out material and making money from it. A lot of fans *enjoy* going out and supporting a band or artist that they appreciate. I myself have bought five albums this year just to get the official copy and support someone I thought was making great music. The artist or label just has to inspire people to want to do it, instead of using scare tactics. [/ QUOTE ] In the real world today, yes musicians are still making money. I am talking about the world you want to live in, where music is not property. In your utopian world, there will still be lots of fans ready to enjoy music--but no one to produce or distribute the music they want to enjoy. [/ QUOTE ] You just repeated yourself. You keep asserting *no one* will pay for music, when no one has to now and the only deterrent is breaking an unenforced law (downloading as opposed to actually doing the sharing) and yet people still go out and support the artists they like. How do you explain this phenomenon? 
|
|
#132
10-05-2007, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why does this matter? [/ QUOTE ] Because Drew is claiming that artists are losing money. [/ QUOTE ] Well they are, indirectly. The record company isn't going to sign them to as big a deal if they know they aren't going to be able to make as much off their records because of rampant copying. My point is that it seems as if a lot of people justify downloading/sharing by saying "oh, I'm just taking some small profits from a big evil record corporation, who cares?" when, cliched as it may sound, stealing is stealing. [/ QUOTE ] maybe im nitty, but downloading/sharing isnt stealing, if anything its copyright infringement
|
|
#133
10-05-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think artists (more acurately in todays world to be some large corporation) are entitled to income from their music. [/ QUOTE ] Why is this? Do you think authors are entitled to income from their books? Actors and directors from their movies? [/ QUOTE ] I fully support their ability to make money, but fining people for sharing books and movies I also find ridiculous. They should spend their time finding ways to really influence people to want to pay for their work for reasons other then scare tactics and quarter million dollar fines. [/ QUOTE ] How are they going to make money, if music is not property, and Big Evil Corporations don't deserve any money for producing and distributing music? How do you plan to have any music -- beyond just sitting around jamming for fun, or cover bands -- if it is not property? Who will make it, for nothing? Who will distribute it, for nothing? [/ QUOTE ] Why are you assuming they will make nothing? The large majority of people can download any song they want for free, simply downloading isn't being prosecuted so doing something against the law is only a deterrent to a small amount of people, and yet the sky isn't falling. Musicians are still putting out material and making money from it. A lot of fans *enjoy* going out and supporting a band or artist that they appreciate. I myself have bought five albums this year just to get the official copy and support someone I thought was making great music. The artist or label just has to inspire people to want to do it, instead of using scare tactics. [/ QUOTE ] In the real world today, yes musicians are still making money. I am talking about the world you want to live in, where music is not property. In your utopian world, there will still be lots of fans ready to enjoy music--but no one to produce or distribute the music they want to enjoy. [/ QUOTE ] You just repeated yourself. You keep asserting *no one* will pay for music, when no one has to now and the only deterrent is breaking an unenforced law (downloading as opposed to actually doing the sharing) and yet people still go out and support the artists they like. How do you explain this phenomenon? [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product.
|
|
#136
10-05-2007, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] you seriously don't understand how stealing music hurts record companies? you seriously don't understand how the 20% drop in record sales resulting from illegal downloading, hurts record companies?? [/ QUOTE ] Artists who are truly artists can tour to show off their legitimate talent and make plenty bank. [/ QUOTE ] Are you insane? What percentage of musicians do you believe could survive just by touring? 0.00001%?? Seriously, I think you should re-evaluate that opinion after taking a look at the economics of the music business. [ QUOTE ] If there is the capability for free information exchange, it's going to happen - the recording industry and artists need to go ahead and accept that and make the best of their situation. This fight is futile. [/ QUOTE ] If you don't allow artists to profit from the fruits of their labor, many if not most of them will stop producing new music. You can take it to the bank. Anyone who truly loves music and creativity--and who wants more of it in the future--should understand that protecting artists' intellectual property is the best thing we can do. [/ QUOTE ] DrewDevil, I just wanted to comment on you blasting FFK about her comment on bands making a living touring. You seem to think record sales are the bread and butter of low to mid success srtists. I was an events director for a mid-sized university for 3 years. We were constantly booked these type of acts in coordination with student activites. Most of these "starving artists" cost between 4 to 6K for a 2 hour gig including hotel and meals. Now admittedly I'm not familiar with how much they're making selling CDs, but I find it hard believe it beats their show revenues.
|
|
#138
10-05-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why does this matter? [/ QUOTE ] Because Drew is claiming that artists are losing money. [/ QUOTE ] Well they are, indirectly. The record company isn't going to sign them to as big a deal if they know they aren't going to be able to make as much off their records because of rampant copying. My point is that it seems as if a lot of people justify downloading/sharing by saying "oh, I'm just taking some small profits from a big evil record corporation, who cares?" when, cliched as it may sound, stealing is stealing. [/ QUOTE ] maybe im nitty, but downloading/sharing isnt stealing, if anything its copyright infringement [/ QUOTE ] You're not nitty. You're 100% correct. There are just lots of people who call it that because it sounds more inflammatory and gets their point across better.
|
|
#139
10-05-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? [/ QUOTE ] He thinks that if it were legal to download music than everyone would stop recording music. I mean sure, that is a basic argument for why people produce goods for economic reasons, but I would argue that the vast majority of musicians are making their music for other reasons. This is why arguing this topic is so difficult. Music is just so different than most other products in terms of economic value/ rewards for producing music.
|
|
#140
10-05-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying no one will produce or distribute music. There will be people willing to pay, but no product. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? [/ QUOTE ] Do people seriously not get this? It's not that hard to understand that companies develop IP because they expect to make money off it. If it's not their property and people can just take the fruits of their labor and redistribute it for free they're going to stop doing it. Please lay out for me how it will work, from start to finish if music is 'free' and no one is forced to buy it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
