| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 2:53:59 PM | ^^^Ummm...lets remember it was paige that brought up the example of him downloading a pic...not him. You're getting way to defensive in that you aren't seeing reality. I'm sure any art expert will tell you there is a big difference in looking at the Mona Lisa live as compared to a picture. Music is about hearing!!!
Again, how many times do I have to say this...probably forever as some people just can't comprehend what is being said before them....that by downloading music for free means that the artist did not receive any monies for that. I don't care if you downloaded a song or a whole album. No monies were given to the artist. That's the point , if you don't get it, I won't waste my fingers typing it again. Surely 3 times is enough!!! 
And for the third time I will state that I download all my music. 
Edit: These little ^^^^ don't really work too good when the post ends up on the next page. lol!!!
Also, there is an editor in play when typing posts, it's just a matter of looking at what you type. Just look at the words underlined in red. Apparently a lot of people don't review before they click Post. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 3:23:03 PM | I sure wish I gave a rat's ass about any of this........but alas , I do not 
.....and before anyone asks why I am bothering to read and even post...
well I am bored and I wanted to.  | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 3:23:59 PM | Perhaps your not seeing reality(whose to say i got it wrong, but you could be right and I could be wrong)... and how many times do I have to say this- it's legal to download music in Canada. Also he admited to downloading pics(even if Paige brought it up to him and why does it matter she was first to mention it does it actually have any bearign on things...nope other to to point out SHE(not anyone else) posted that question to him about pictures) whose to say they are not for sale and he downloaded them anyways. It doesn't change the fact it's legal to download things here in Canada (pictures or music hell even movies I think)
So my question is to you ..you never downloaded any songs EVER that were not on a CD that you have not bought before or after you downlaoded it..I myself have bought cds that got scratch so ended up Downloading them(sot he artist got their money from when I bought their cd) also I've downloaded songs I never had on CD but went out and bought the cd after heard a few songs that I like on a CD..so tell me is that wrong for me to do.
oh second question, you never made a mixed tape before and gave it to someone or recieved one, which also brings up the question about buying a cd at a flea-market I'm 100% sure the artist doesn't get money from that sale.
He came in here accusing someone of stealing when infact they were not, so he opened himself up to comments, just as we all do with whatever we post.
Tim
=)x | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 3:28:52 PM |
That point being that the recording artist never received the royalties of the music downloaded onto her computer from the people that upload it. Ummm...did you not read this part???? They got royalties from you but all those other people never paid for the CD and thus no royalties from them.
Is that any different than me lending someone a hard copy of my CD or DVD????
That was MY point | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 5:06:40 PM | | In this country we all pay a royalty on every audio tape and every blank cd we buy. It does not matter if you put data on it or music we all pay royalties. This is why we are one of the only countries were downloading music is legal. So download away because we all pay | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 5:43:52 PM | ^^^^^true......regardless of whatever. Any blank tape or video has royality amounts set in the price. Not enough to cover the downloading or such.
But in the end, all bands know that they shall make their money from their tours, merchandise, marketing and real fans will want to purchase their recordings.
But it is a free for all right now.
Not that its a bad thing....it's just reality. No one industry can keep up to the quick changes in this medium.
Record companies are pretty well a thing of the past, their bones can be dug up with the 8 track, the LP, the cassette.....etc
It's a good industry right now for indies, but not alot of money being put back in by promoters, venue operators...etc.
But talent will survive, it always has. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 8:11:26 PM |
^^^^^true......regardless of whatever. Any blank tape or video has royality amounts set in the price. Not enough to cover the downloading or such.
Really???? I remember it being discussed but never passed! Must have been one of those Bills that flew under the radar!! 
But in the end, all bands know that they shall make their money from their tours, merchandise, marketing and real fans will want to purchase their recordings.
And that is the way it should be!! It's called working for your money!!  | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/20/2007 8:36:09 PM | Their not making their money from the cd sales anyway. Saw a breakdown once for the group TLC. For every record sale, they didn't even make one dollar. Once you take the manufacturing, promotion, managers, agents, promoters, producers, record company, etc etc etc. Most bands/singers are making their money from touring and things like that. Not sure why that is pertinent..just thought I'd share lol
Also, to the guy who started all these tirades...you get what you deserve. If you couldn't find a better reply to the OP then you're a thief, then you get what you deserve. Could have been said a bit more "PC" couldn't it? | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/21/2007 4:22:38 PM | Does anyone else remember sticking a drippy recorder in front of a radio to record "the beatles weekend" on CJCH ? God, my first piracy, during the 70's. shite. the good bands still seemed to make alot of money back then. Or maybe it was just for the girls? Ah who knows? Im sure someone must have recorded Supertramp a similar way back then. My buzzed 2 cents. 
by drippy I just meant, the old big boxy portable recorders. haha
| |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/21/2007 4:27:37 PM | I don't remember a drippy recorder, ok I don't even know if I know what a drippy recorder is. But I do remember using a state of the art recorder, the kind that the top pops open, and you can carry it around with the handle. I recorded the top 100 songs off of CJCH many a New Years day in my teen years aka 70's.
So yes I was also a pirate from way back when! | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/21/2007 4:34:29 PM | Hahaha Jord.
I remember ordering my 20 or so records from Columbia House(for a penny I think) and taping them to cassette and then returning them. 
| |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/22/2007 11:15:26 AM | Damn ITBPG, that is just evil. How do you live with yourself. 
Saw two shows this week that referenced "mixed tapes" lol Ah, the good old days.
You know though, there are so few artists out there who can put out an entire cd of good music its not wonder all of this "piracy" goes on. I never rush out and buy a cd anymore. If I like someone I'll download their album or listen to various songs on much music or the radio, see if I think its worth buying an entire cd for four songs. If its someone that is local (Clam Chowder for instance) I will just buy the cd. I like to show support for their efforts. Otherwise I take the one or two hits songs that they make it put it with other artists who do the same...and get at least one good cd. Nothing worse than skipping 80% of the songs on a cd...not worth the effort. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 4/24/2007 3:40:08 PM | | Cara - Did you ever actually get these songs? I own the cds with these songs on them, and would be happy to set you up with these songs. Drop me a line if you're still looking. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/4/2007 10:05:25 PM | Personally I think that we get robbed on occasion when we "go out and buy the disk".
Ever notice how albums now a days have maybe 2-4 great songs and quite a few really forgetable songs as fillers.
And we have the privledge of paying $20 plus dollars for those CDs.
Half the time I have no idea who sings what anymore so I like to go to the I-tunes store and listen to the samples of artist's songs ....then jaunt back to Limewire to see if anyone has the song posted.
If i REALLY want a song I'll spring the $0.99 cents for it and enjoy it just the same.
Kikit | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/5/2007 4:41:36 PM | What a great topic of debate. Logic and truth should rule in this case as in any other. The decision made in 2004 was in my humble opinion, not entirely logical. Doesn't music copyright law elude to the fact that people cannot reproduce or distribute music without the artist's consent? Sure, some would say "...but it's file sharing.... I'm shhhhhaarrrring the file with my friend. Hmmmmm..... in the case of music downloading.... the term "file sharing" really isn't as appropriate or accurate as "file copy free for all". In order for what is currently classified as "file sharing" to occur, there must be at least one person who makes a file available (the uploader) and another person who accepts the file (the downloader), be it directly from one person to another, as in an intranet, or as in a 3rd party, as in Kazaa or Limewire. The uploader allows their computer to be intruded by a downloader who in the vast majority of cases has NO CLUE who the identity of the uploader is, AND, the downloader doesn't just borrow the music. It's not like we would lend our buddy a CD for a night and get it back the next day. What once was the uploader's property (be it purchased or not), would then be duplicated at high quality and lost forever into another person's possession. Didn't people used to go to jail for that stuff years ago? Aren't there warnings on DVD's that the FBI will prosecute anyone who makes illegal copies? In the case of recording stuff off of the radio or T.V., the finished recorded product is by far less quality than even a full uninterrupted digital mp3.
Many people say, "free digital music access is good for the musician". Ok. It can increase awareness for the musician, and can help to facilitate live performances from the music's popularity. For small time musicians, this works- at best- at a local level, ie: a brand new independent artist will hardly ever sell out a concert in Seattle if they are from Halifax because of the effects file sharing, but it may help sell out a concert in Halifax where the files were downloaded from fans who knew of the band. Further to this and paramount, the "increased awareness" argument does not outweigh the drop in royalty revenues. In my opinion the latter is much more significant to the artist. Can anyone imagine Shakira shaking her booty to make a living when she's a thousand years old? Fact is, is that most artists won't be performing the music that they composed and produced when they were much younger. Under the current reality of artist revenues shifting from royalties to performances, an artist's financial stability is severely undermined. This can eat at an artist's confidence and creative potential, creating immeasurable psychological and further monetary damage. When we hear statistics as to how digital music purchases have doubled and tripled, we need to remember that digital sales reduces CD sales and, more and more people are gaining access to high speed internet in the world. It's too bad that more musicians didn't hop on the wagon of artists such as Metallica and Don Henley years ago to ban free file "sharing". If this law isn't changed the result will be more musical genius's who turn into one-hit wonders and quit the road to get better paying jobs.
Here is some truth and logic:
http://www.cria.ca/freemusicmyth.php
http://www.thestar.com/article/207826
Supertramp is awesome. Peace. | |
|
1cc™
|
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 41 | |
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/5/2007 5:27:22 PM | I dunno. I really don't think Shakira is suffering too much because we can download her music for free. Not that I would - Shakira's voice makes me want to strangle people... but then I really don't think it's her voice that people are buying, so is it really such a big deal that we can download it for free?
And sorry. I know I'm wandering off topic a bit, but honestly... should someone really make millions of dollars a year just because they can hold a note? That's about as sensible as someone making millions of dollars a year just because they can hit a baseball. Take a look at amateur (and even most professional) athletes in the world who can barely afford to feed themselves. You tell me that Britney Spears deserves a more luxurious life than they do.
If you like to sing, then sing. If you can make a living, or even a buck, by peddling your wares at the local watering hole, then good on y'er, mate. But don't ask me to spend my hard earned money buying an over-priced, over-hyped CD with two good songs at most on it.
Sorry. Just can't conjure up the sympathy for the Jessica Simpsons and Justin Timberlakes of the world as I work 60 hours a week just to earn enough to pay the mortgage.
Sorry. Bit cranky tonight. Need coffee. Carry on. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/5/2007 6:48:54 PM | | 1CC: I agree with your post 1000%. I've always said the same thing. We have a world full of people who are basically the modern era's court jester's. They are simply there to entertain us after we (the people who actually contribute and labour to keep this world going) need to relax from actually working for a living. The obscene amounts of money paid to people for entertainment (which doesn't require a whole lot of talent in most cases) is completely out of balance with the rest of the world. Anyone who could feel any kind of sympathy because these people can now only have one jet instead of two (boo hoo) needs to get their priorities in order. I've never seen anyone terminally ill run to a drunken rock star for treatment, yet they make a hell of a lot more than doctors, engineers etc. The funny thing is people complain about how much money doctors and politicians make but they admire celebrities. Very strange if you ask me. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/5/2007 9:12:28 PM | | A very small % of musicians who produce an album actually make it to celebrity status and even fewer would be wealthy enough to afford a jet- especially in Canada now with their product being given away for free. I don't know if there would be a musician alive that wouldn't be offended at least a little bit being compared to a courtyard jester. Anyone know how hard it is to work 200 shows a year, year after year? I've never done that myself but I hear that after a while it gets to be like work. If a doctor or engineer made a creative/inventive treatment/concept and wrote about it in a book, should the author's income be limited? Democracy rewards creativity and innovation and thank goodness. On the treatment topic, certain types of music have been proven to play a positive part of physical well-being, including illness recovery and the development of a baby in the womb. Fact is, is that the millions of people who are downloading music for free as we speak would probably be upset if all of a sudden they had to pay for it again. Boo hoo. The concept of free music is still contrary to the rationale behind copyright law. These laws were designed to protect industries which help sustain the economy. What would happen to the world if every company gave away their product for free? Easy. All of the companies go bankrupt, we'd be out of work, the government would collapse and we'd all have to go back to farming, hunting, ravaging, pillaging and begging. I agree that there are big extremes in society in terms of personal wealth and perhaps a cap on personal net income might be a good idea to counter inflation and devaluation of currency... or maybe a law that forces people to invest a surplus in net income into ethical/green company stocks. Until then, musicians should be on the same playing field as anyone in a democracy, as free to earn as much as an oil tycoon or computer guru. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/6/2007 2:55:07 AM | I know it's probably hard for musicians to admit that they aren't god's gift to our planet but if you look at the big picture of what really matters in this world, entertainers are just that, ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Statistics already show that stolen music (if you can actually call most of the junk that's out there today music) still accounts for a very small dent in the greedy pockets of record companies so I hardly think ALL music is being stolen. I also don't think that most of the music being downloaded is local Canadian music or Indie bands either. You'd have to send ME a cheque every month to listen to most of the local garbage I've heard. Personally, I don't think that these people should have unlimited earnings. No other occupations do and if there were occupations out there that should have unlimited earning potential, it's certainly not being in the music industry. I still find it so funny that people will jump all over defending the entertainment industry but criticize the earnings of people that actually matter. As far as the oil companies go, that's a whole separate issue I could go off on. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/6/2007 7:02:07 AM | | Just to elaborate and clarify, by "unlimited income" I am referring to any income that is not limited to a salary, such as in a commission structure, which is how many salespeople are paid. Although being called "unlimited" the income is actually limited to the buying market... until we find other planets with intelligent life that will buy too. This buying market should not be more limited to entertainers than it is to any other tax payer. Leave Willie Nelson outta this. :) I would agree though with an "across the board" cap on net income or net worth, that would not only apply to entertainers and professional sports athlete's, but to everyone who earns income and pays taxes in the same system. As a result of this not being done, 5-20% of the world's population has now acquired 80-95% of it's wealth (depending on which country), the special interests of this 5-20% rules the planet, and, the gap between rich and poor will theoretically get worse, at least in a democracy. Theoretically, the gap of poor to wealthy would be higher in a democracy with no income gap, provided crime and corruption were absent from both democracy and other forms of government. If a person inherits 10 million from a rich parent, they can easily earn $500,000/year in interest, sitting on their arse, and continue in perpetuity to become richer and richer, without contributing labour into society. At the same time, the children of poor parents must usually work a lifetime to acquire a restful quality of life. Society needs factory workers but it shouldn't be the same families from century to century, millenium to millenium. Perhaps a cap on net income such as 100 times that of the poverty line ie: about 2million/year would help curb this gap. Vote funguy for prime minister. Problem is, people making more than that would hate it cause they'd have to sell a jet, and poor people.... would they see the benefit after all the special interest campaigning against it? Don't know. I love Supertramp. Here's Roger Hodgson from Supertramp at the Concert for Diana. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Ssi_D8f2JE&mode=related&search= | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/6/2007 2:57:09 PM | I prefer to be like 85% off all internet useres and just borrow it for my mp3 player. I'm just going to borrow it. i know the song will go out of style in a few months and I'll want to delete it.
| |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/6/2007 4:46:49 PM | In concept, it's no different than perpetual shoplifting to keep in new duds.
clothes = product; music = product
The majority of the music "borrowers" that I know do NOT buy CD's any more, or even buy digital files. Stats that say otherwise, IMHO, are biased, just like the majority of "real statistics" that are presented, in order to sell a particular product, service, or an entire industry. Here's a thought, perhaps mp3's should be encoded to expire in an hour, kind of like the trial version of different software programs. I mean, if we can't decide if we like a song within an hour, we're probably due for a hearing test. This is as close to trying on a shirt as it gets.
 | |
|
1cc™
|
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 48 | |
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/7/2007 8:56:50 AM | I'm still not convinced, fungi. You make some good arguments, but I still say if musicians can't eek out a living doing shows, then maybe they should rethink their career decisions. Don't tell me that you need to sell CD's to get your name out, because that would make my argument for me - bands are all over the internet for free. Their names are getting out. If they can't back that up with good old fashioned live shows, then maybe they're not the musicians they thought they were.
It's time for change. A permanent revolution. Or, perhaps, the natural evolution of the music industry. Let's stop taking the money out of the pockets of working people. Let's give them the music for free and let them decide for themselves if they like it.
Also, you know what? Let those who sing and write for the sheer joy of it take over the airwaves. We'll all be richer for it. | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/7/2007 8:11:54 PM | When people bought albums, cassettes and CD's, was there public unrest because of all the "money that was being taken out of their pockets"? Was the public threatening to revolt against the government or the record companies? LOL. This was a zero issue before music was free. Since it's free, I've seen a lot of bullcrap walking, miraculously.
I think it should be legal for P2P as long as each individual copyright holder grants their persission. THAT would be fair.  | |
|
| This Supertramp Song
Posted: 7/7/2007 8:23:42 PM | | There wasn't unrest or a feeling of being ripped off because people STILL copied music all the time. Ever hear of a stereo system or maybe a double cassette deck. They were still supposedly losing lots of money but they whine about it more these days because they're 100 times greedier now. Engage brain before opening mouth. | |
|
Home
login 
