The old copyright thing again

In this section, you can talk relaxedly about everyday matters, and also engage in more serious discussions. Please try to keep this place accessible to everyone and write your posts in English.
Message
Author
User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#51 Post by Desert_Storm » 10 Jun 2010 14:11

The Rider Of Rohan wrote: This graph is clearly erroneous as well as misleading, but now that I see it I do see why you are making such a fuss. If I was led to believe that artists make 1,5 euro per cd, I would blame downloaders too. But artist don't make that kind of money, trust me.
Well for starters, you knew since my first or second post what numbers I'm talking about, so I don't really get how you find out "now" that I'm "making such a fuss". Anyway, I researched the site I took the information from, and found the graph posted above dated Sept. 09, and also an update from April '10 here.
I'll try to translate a little from the text introducing the graph.
Do artists really just get cent-amounts of an album bought for 15€ in the store? We asked Independents and Artists and came to a distinctly different result. Those polled agreed that the artists' share is only in the rarest cases below 12%. If the artist also wrote music and lyrics himself he will get an average of 17% of the retail price, since in this case he also profits from the GEMA-License.(...)
An artist that is signed by an Independent will thus attain between 1,90€ and 2,60€ for each album at 15€. Depending on the popularity of the artist and his bargaining abilities he can however get considerably more.
"We should use every chance to make clear to the publicity how the revenues of the music industry are really distributed. If not, the faulty assessments will settle in the heads of music consumers and will cause filesharing to be seen as a peccadillo only.(...)", comments Eva Klitz, manager of the VUT e. V. [meaning federation of independent music companies]
"During the conversation with the labels it became clear that there is no standardized distribution of revenues. However, they all agreed that label and artists normally equitably share the incomes of the sound carriers sold", say Amke Block from the internet portal audiomagnet and Thomas Schlegel from the chambers Sasse & Partner.
"Generally, in the digital as in the physical market, artists appropriately take part in the incomes of the lables. Nevertheless, the question, how young, unknown musicians shall prospectively produce music and subsist on it, if their works are available for free in the internet without their knowledge and consent, will have to be answered. Enterprises like myvideo or rapidshare, but also internet service providers like United Internet, T-Online and Vodafone are challenged to develop models with us - the independent labels - in order to open new reward- and promotion channels. Up to now, these enterprises make profit with their contents and new business models without involving the artists appropriately. (...)", comments Oke Göttlich [what a name ;)], CEO and founder of finetunes GMBH

So now my question is, what sources do you have, and what reasons are there for me to prefer them over the ones that I brought up?
btw. Page 1 of this thread has got to be the longest page in this whole forum :wink:
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#52 Post by t.a.j. » 10 Jun 2010 17:09

I would like to point out that the VUT is not exactly an unbiased source.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#53 Post by Desert_Storm » 10 Jun 2010 17:15

Would you like to point out a little more? ;)
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#54 Post by t.a.j. » 10 Jun 2010 17:22

Nope. Merely that if they are the only source for numbers I would be careful in putting too much trust in those numbers. They are after all a party with their own commericial interests in the field researched. Skewed research is not unheard of. Also in general stuff like this is often kept secret for a purpose. I've yet to see any label go public with how much they give to artists and how much the take for themselves.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#55 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 10 Jun 2010 19:29

This part "An artist that is signed by an Independent will thus attain between 1,90€ and 2,60€ for each album at 15€. Depending on the popularity of the artist and his bargaining abilities he can however get considerably more" is probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Perhaps you might think it's what artist deserve, but it's certainly not what they earn.
So now my question is, what sources do you have, and what reasons are there for me to prefer them over the ones that I brought up?
I don't have any sources. However, I did work for many years in the music-industry, working closely with bands and labels. I know from my own experience that what you quoted isn't true. A lot of it can be disproved by common since. Allow me to explain how the music-industry works.

Most of it starts with a band signing a record-deal. In their contract the band and the label agrees on the terms. When I say 'agree' I mean that the label usually dictates the terms and the band has to swallow it. Because unless you are a really sought-after band, you don't have much room to negotiate.

Part of the contract are the royalties, which are roughly 10 to 20 percent of the sales-price. The label also sets a budget for recording the album, designing the artwork and shooting a video. When a cd is a budget-production these might be as cheap as 25.000 euro's, but for a big band it could easily ten times as much (Nightwish's Once, for example, costed 250.000 euro's).

Please not that this is not a donation the label makes, it's an investment with a twist. The money is added to the debt the band have with the label, so by the time the album comes out, the band actually owes the label lots and lots of money. It's a recoupable debt and not a redeemable. The main difference is that a redeemable debt is something that people are obligated to pay back through their own income (just like an unpaid bill for an internet-provider is to you an me) - and a recoupable debt isn't. All of the royalties made from cd-sales flow back directly to the recordcompany until the recoupables are nullified. So by the time the band starts to earn their first 80 cents of royalties the cd has sold over 100.000 copies (and please note that in the meantime the recordlabel has earned 2 - 3 euro's per cd and returned their initial investment).

Now, there's the question what the band receives a percentage of. If you use your common sense, you'd know that this can never be the retailprice for three reasons:

- Retalprices aren't fixed: different stores have different prices based on their overhead, profits and buying. This would mean that an individual store would have to calculate the retailprice, take 10 percent off, and transfer it to the band (possibly through a middleman). This would be an impossibly difficult process to coordinate.
- Cd's tend to drop in price. A new cd would be sold for as much as 15, but stores sell their overstock for as little as 5 euro's. How do you keep track of how much the band makes? Take 10 percent of this 5 euro's? That's just silly looking at my previous point. Or agree that the band receives a fixed 2 euro's? That would mean that in the line of labels-wholesalers-retailers somebody would be making less money than they earn - which isn't very realistic either.
- As royalties vary from 10 to 20 percent, retailers would have to have knowledge of this information in order to calculate a price. This is impossible, as this information is never disclosed.

So bands receive a part from the wholesale-price, not the retailprise. Aside from the fact that I know this is true, it also has to be true.

Also, there's the fact that the band only makes money from the cd's sold, and not the unsold ones. This might seem insignificant, but it itsn't. In order to ensure large shipments of cd's and a good place in the charts, labels offer discounts to wholesalers (I mention charts because most national charts count the cd's shipped to wholesale, not actually the ones sold). The typical deal is that for every 9 cd's bought, the wholesaler receives the 10th cd for free. Wholesalers grant the same courtesy to the retailers. So every 10th cd that you see in the stores is one they got for free, with the proceedings fully going to the store (with added taxes). This 'get one for free' policy is actually how smaller stores are able to keep their prices low: larger retailers might choose to sell it at 20 euro's, whereas smaller stores might choose to sell the other 9 cd's for 2 euro's less. In both cases, the band receives no royalties at all for every tenth cd sold.

So in conclusion: that link you provided is either written by somebody who doesn't know anything about the industry, or someone who guild-traps you into believing that each downloaded cd is less money for the band. Don't give in to this propaganda, it's nothing but lies - as I just proved.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#56 Post by t.a.j. » 10 Jun 2010 19:45

To be picky, that was not a proof, but a story. Which might still be true, but you did not provide any evidence beyond your credibility.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#57 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 10 Jun 2010 20:18

Meh, don't be that picky, you know I am right.

But hey, just because google is our friend. These links don't paint the picture exactly like I painted but they certainly back it up.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... tract2.htm
http://www.music-law.com/musiccontracts.html
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#58 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 10 Jun 2010 21:20

This link is pretty good: it's a story written by someone who was signed to Warner Bros, who describes the downside of the recouping in detail (including proof). It tells how the band received a 62 dollar payment of royalties after 3 albums in 5 years. It doesn't say how many albums they sold, but perhaps TAJ or Joost can calculate the amount of albums they sold (I'm drinking at the moment).

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/?p=1397

There are bound to be many other bands with the same story, though few of them are documented this well. I don't remember any from scratch, but perhaps somebody could think of some examples (I remember reading something about Jon Oliva saying that 20 years of Savatage indebted the band to various labels which made the choice to focus on TSO and JOP rather easy).

This article seems to be pretty interesting too, but I am too lazy to read it. Besides. This all is reminding me pretty much of why I loathed the music-industry back when I left it.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#59 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 12 Jun 2010 12:18

I did some more googling into which bands are unrecouped and came up with quite a list. The artist you see here are artists who never made a single euro from their album-sales despite some of them selling truckloads. Just to point out that the statement "downloading is stealing money from the band" does not make any sense, because you cannot steal money they didn't earn.

I would like to point out that the list is perhaps speculative -as there is no easy way to verify these claims as these figures in a public source. I deducted every artist that I couldn't verify from an additional source to prevent random namedropping from entering this list. Oh, and to keep the argument tangible I didn't list any artists which started out post-napster.

Unrecouped artists:

- Journey
- Status Quo (seventies)
- Michael Jackson post Thriller
- Korn
- Incubus
- Rolling Stones
- Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (at the end of the seventies)
- Backstreet Boys
- Shadows Fall

I did some googling about unrecouped metalbands but found nothing solid, although I am quite sure most of them are unrecouped too. The only band admitting they were unrecouped was Shadows Fall, who were signed to Century Media and sold about 300.000 copies of each album, with a total nearing 1 million albums sold. Now, if a band doesn't make money with that amount of cd's sold, you can imagine the situation for many other bands signed to Century Media and the like.

I would like to conclude this post with a pretty good statement I came across.

"What U2 and Bruce Springsteen make off a 2-million-selling record probably pays for their catering budget from Tuesday to Wednesday on the road, (...) Tickets to live concerts should make up 60 to 65 per cent of income; T-shirts and other merchandise, 10 to 15 per cent; song publishing, 10 to 15 per cent; film and TV soundtracks, five to 10 per cent. And record sales, two to four per cent. Record companies are in the record business. (Artists) are in the tickets and T-shirt business."

@ Desert_Storm & Dentarthurdent: So after this, are you finally able to admit that downloading is different from stealing and doesn't hurt the bands at all?






Linkdump:

http://www.velvetrope.com/forums/ubbthr ... =3&fpart=1
http://www.mudcrutch.com/index.php?page ... gigography
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... 76e18d5ab8
http://www.musesmuse.com/00000267.html
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58548
http://www.journey-zone.com/Archive/Interviews/2003.htm
http://www.11sb.com/pdf/performersroyalties.pdf
http://www.hitsville.org/2008/03/01/the ... -money-go/
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-keeps-sett ... ey-080228/
http://www.bonus-trax.com/petty/tpbio.htm
http://www.lakesnw.co.uk/bsbweb/news200 ... _page8.htm
http://www.metalrage.com/news/50475/sha ... ealed.html
http://www.noisecreep.com/2009/05/01/sh ... -the-past/

And some general stuff about how recording contracts work:

http://www.themusic.com.au/imm_display. ... uest&id=29
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... 23/1811224 (second comment)
http://articles.hikool.com/showarticle. ... icle=27965 (an interesting article written from the inside about what labels do with the money they earn)
http://www.mgonzalezlaw.com/Site/GLOSSA ... USTRY.html
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#60 Post by Led Guardian » 12 Jun 2010 17:52

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:@ Desert_Storm & Dentarthurdent: So after this, are you finally able to admit that downloading is different from stealing and doesn't hurt the bands at all?
Not true, at least not in every case. For instance, Arjen Lucassen told me (Yes, told me. I emailed him a while ago) makes a large portion of his income from CD sales. He said he was not sure that he would be able to make music without that income. Sounds harmful to me.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#61 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 12 Jun 2010 20:50

Arjen Lucassen is indeed an exception because he doesn't really tour that much. Plus, he's already rich from his time with Vengeance.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#62 Post by Led Guardian » 12 Jun 2010 20:58

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:Arjen Lucassen is indeed an exception because he doesn't really tour that much. Plus, he's already rich from his time with Vengeance.
My point is, unless you want to research that for every band, you can't just assume that a particular band is not losing money.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Juss
Posts: 81
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 20:59
Location: Between the world and Kreffeld

Re: The old copyright thing again

#63 Post by Juss » 12 Jun 2010 21:14

I think this may apply to the music industry as well:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another ... ame-piracy

In short, all calculations on "lost money" (more like "money that the company/artist/developer/you name it, may have gained") are based on the assumption that everyone that downloads a product would otherwise buy it. For example i downloaded the whole BG discography (up to ANATO by then) quite a few years ago when i couldn't afford to buy a single album though i bought as many of them as i could find, i'm only missing ATITM & ANATO :P
Although I don't mean that its fine to download stuff that you like or enjoy and never pay for it. As said by the wolfire games blog dude (?) on the piracy rates of a pay-what-you-want 5-game bundle:
"Some users just want to "stick it to the man", and be edgy and rebellious. It doesn't matter if they're sticking it to indie developers, sick children, and online civil liberties... they're sticking it to someone, so they feel cool. "
I'm on a mission to escape from what my life has been
Ozzy Osbourne wrote:"Yea, Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies
Yeah Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes"

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#64 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 12 Jun 2010 21:26

My point is, unless you want to research that for every band, you can't just assume that a particular band is not losing money.
Indeed you cannot assume it, but it still possible to get a good idea of reality by looking at the big picture. Imagine that you have a 1000 metal-cd's in your collection. You may think that you were supporting the band when you bought them, but that is just what they wanted you to believe. In truth a full hundred of those were given to the store for free under the 'buy one, get one for free' method, which means that the artist don't get any royalties from a hundred cd's you bought.

Out of the remaining 900, how many do you supposed are unrecouped? The majority, I'd wager. If a band is signed to Century Media sells a million albums and still receives zero euro's from their recordlabel, I imagine the same can be said about 95 percent of the rest of the albums. That means that there's 45 albums left that saw an artist actually receiving money from them. At 80 cents an album that's a whopping 36 euro's flowing back to the bands. Which is ridiculous because you just spent 15.000 euro's on cd's.

So obviously, yes: it is always possible to say that there is at least one artist somewhere who made some money, but with these figures, it is quite silly to maintain the argument that downloading is bad just because it's hurting the artist. When you buy a concertticket and a t-shirt, you are giving a band exactly the same financial support as you would when you bought a 1000 albums.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#65 Post by Desert_Storm » 13 Jun 2010 02:48

Juss wrote:(...) are based on the assumption that everyone that downloads a product would otherwise buy it.
If you read the posts above you'll see that nobody makes that assumption.
@Rohan: don't worry, I'll reply, but it's weekend at the moment and you're not the only one with wine drinking invitations ;)
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#66 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 13 Jun 2010 14:03

I await you reply, good luck with your hangover. ;)

In the meantime I would like to respond to the article you quoted in the post at the top of this page. I read that it isn't something you wrote yourself, but you translated it from a different source and put it on this forum. The same laws that protect cd's from being copied (the laws which you so dearly hold on to on page 1 of this discussion), protect written articles. So I would like to ask you: did you have the author's permission and/or did you pay the artist to quote that article?

Otherwise you would be - if I choose to follow your own logic - stealing money from the author.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
End Of An Era
Posts: 5872
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 00:56
Location: here, duh!

Re: The old copyright thing again

#67 Post by End Of An Era » 13 Jun 2010 14:14

in Spain they start to realize it:
After raids in 2005, Spanish police arrested four people and dismantled a popular file-sharing site. The case has been dragging on ever since but now has finally been closed. Three judges decided that no offense had been committed and likened file-sharing to the ancient practice of sharing books.

User avatar
Juss
Posts: 81
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 20:59
Location: Between the world and Kreffeld

Re: The old copyright thing again

#68 Post by Juss » 13 Jun 2010 18:45

Desert_Storm wrote:
Juss wrote:(...) are based on the assumption that everyone that downloads a product would otherwise buy it.
If you read the posts above you'll see that nobody makes that assumption.
If no assumption is being made where does that 'stolen money' come from? I mean, if someone downloads something he can't or wouldn't pay for, how is he stealing money from the author? At most he would denying potential money to the author and his associates.
Following that logic you are stealing from Hanna Montana by not buying her last <whatever-she-sells-now>, you don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever, so you won't pay for it.(example doesn't apply if you actually like that)
I downloaded music that i liked so i went and bought a few albums when i could. Again, it doesn't work this way for everyone but there is quite a few of us, lawfull neutral pirates (?)
I'm on a mission to escape from what my life has been
Ozzy Osbourne wrote:"Yea, Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies
Yeah Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes"

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#69 Post by Led Guardian » 13 Jun 2010 20:27

Juss wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:
Juss wrote:(...) are based on the assumption that everyone that downloads a product would otherwise buy it.
If you read the posts above you'll see that nobody makes that assumption.
If no assumption is being made where does that 'stolen money' come from? I mean, if someone downloads something he can't or wouldn't pay for, how is he stealing money from the author? At most he would denying potential money to the author and his associates.
Following that logic you are stealing from Hanna Montana by not buying her last <whatever-she-sells-now>, you don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever, so you won't pay for it.(example doesn't apply if you actually like that)
I downloaded music that i liked so i went and bought a few albums when i could. Again, it doesn't work this way for everyone but there is quite a few of us, lawfull neutral pirates (?)
The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#70 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 13 Jun 2010 20:41

The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is.
Stealing is defined as the unlawful removal of an object, which is something completely different from making a copy of copyrighted material for private use. It might evoke the same sentiment to some people as stealing, but that's an arbitrary thing - judged by the facts, downloading and stealing are different thing. Plus they come from different books of law, so there shouldn't be any confusion amongst people who are able to read.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#71 Post by Led Guardian » 13 Jun 2010 22:06

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is.
Stealing is defined as the unlawful removal of an object, which is something completely different from making a copy of copyrighted material for private use. It might evoke the same sentiment to some people as stealing, but that's an arbitrary thing - judged by the facts, downloading and stealing are different thing. Plus they come from different books of law, so there shouldn't be any confusion amongst people who are able to read.
True, but a technicality. The rest of my statement still stands.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Juss
Posts: 81
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 20:59
Location: Between the world and Kreffeld

Re: The old copyright thing again

#72 Post by Juss » 13 Jun 2010 22:22

Led Guardian wrote:The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is.
Yet there is no money being stolen then unless the downloader could and would pay for the product, or the downloader is making profit from the product. Those are the only cases in wich i find no justification for downloading something instead of buying. In any other case the downloader harmlessly gains access to the same posibilities and information that paying customers do and with that he can decide wether does the product is worth to pay for or not.
I'm on a mission to escape from what my life has been
Ozzy Osbourne wrote:"Yea, Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies
Yeah Balrogs have wings and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes"

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#73 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 13 Jun 2010 22:28

It's not a technicality, that's your emotion speaking. What you described was an opinion, whereas what I described is fact. And I can prove it to you.

Take newspapers, for instance. It's a fact that each newspaper sold is read on average by approximately three people. Easy mathematics indicate that this means that two people didn't pay for said newspaper. Perhaps they live in the same house as the owner of the subscription, or perhaps they read the newspaper in the cantina at work. They may have even found the newspaper in the train where somebody left it behind after he was done reading it.

Now, let me see what you wrote. "The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is."

Now, don't you agree that this argument is just plain silly?
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#74 Post by Led Guardian » 13 Jun 2010 22:50

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:It's not a technicality, that's your emotion speaking. What you described was an opinion, whereas what I described is fact. And I can prove it to you.

Take newspapers, for instance. It's a fact that each newspaper sold is read on average by approximately three people. Easy mathematics indicate that this means that two people didn't pay for said newspaper. Perhaps they live in the same house as the owner of the subscription, or perhaps they read the newspaper in the cantina at work. They may have even found the newspaper in the train where somebody left it behind after he was done reading it.

Now, let me see what you wrote. "The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is."

Now, don't you agree that this argument is just plain silly?
Just forget the last sentence. And no, I don't agree. I still stand by the first part. News is a different issue. It describes things that are happening in the world that everyone has a right to know about. You can't copyright news, because you didn't create it.
Juss wrote:
Led Guardian wrote:The difference is that in one case you are neither paying for nor making use of the product, and in the other you are using it, but still not paying for it. That's what stealing is.
Yet there is no money being stolen then unless the downloader could and would pay for the product, or the downloader is making profit from the product. Those are the only cases in wich i find no justification for downloading something instead of buying. In any other case the downloader harmlessly gains access to the same posibilities and information that paying customers do and with that he can decide wether does the product is worth to pay for or not.
This argument just makes no sense. The person is using the product. Therefore, something is owed for its use. Whether they would have purchased it is irrelevant. I would like a Porsche. I can't and won't pay for it though. However, I'd love to drive it, so I'll just take it out of the lot and drive it anyway. They're not losing money because I wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Not a perfect analogy, I know, since the original is removed, but it still describes the same issue: making use of something that someone created, and that you haven't paid for the right to use.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#75 Post by Desert_Storm » 14 Jun 2010 02:37

Rohan wrote: Now, there's the question what the band receives a percentage of. If you use your common sense, you'd know that this can never be the retailprice for three reasons:

- Retalprices aren't fixed: different stores have different prices based on their overhead, profits and buying. This would mean that an individual store would have to calculate the retailprice, take 10 percent off, and transfer it to the band (possibly through a middleman). This would be an impossibly difficult process to coordinate.
- Cd's tend to drop in price. A new cd would be sold for as much as 15, but stores sell their overstock for as little as 5 euro's. How do you keep track of how much the band makes? Take 10 percent of this 5 euro's? That's just silly looking at my previous point. Or agree that the band receives a fixed 2 euro's? That would mean that in the line of labels-wholesalers-retailers somebody would be making less money than they earn - which isn't very realistic either.
- As royalties vary from 10 to 20 percent, retailers would have to have knowledge of this information in order to calculate a price. This is impossible, as this information is never disclosed.
These are indeed good points.
Now you started your previous post with "I have no sources, but I know". I could argue that this isn't the best way to contradict my sources, since you are after all just a stranger from the internet. You could then do some googleing yourself then, and probably come up with graphs that would say other things than the ones I found, and so on.
Let's leave it at that that I will assume you're right in this point for the rest of our discussion - because what you said sounded (more or less) convincing, not because you proofed anything. Now of course if the artists really get so little money from a record sold, the whole downloading thing doesn't look so crucial anymore. Nevertheless, a small loss is still a loss for the band, and therefore my points remain valid. It's just a matter of scale. Taking ten cents out of a strangers valid isn't so bad as taking ten bucks, but that doesn't make it right to take anything in the first place. Like Led Guardian said, there are exceptions to that, and there are bands and artists that make a lot of income through cd sales, and neither you nor I know how numerous they are.
At 80 cents an album that's a whopping 36 euro's flowing back to the bands. Which is ridiculous because you just spent 15.000 euro's on cd's.
So obviously, yes: it is always possible to say that there is at least one artist somewhere who made some money, but with these figures, it is quite silly to maintain the argument that downloading is bad just because it's hurting the artist. When you buy a concertticket and a t-shirt, you are giving a band exactly the same financial support as you would when you bought a 1000 albums.
Like I said, neither of us can really prove if that's exactly true, but I'm just assuming you're right about the numbers for now. No matter how big the numbers are, some artists are always going to suffer from downloading anyway, especially the ones that don't tour, or the ones that have their own labels.

and by the way:
I await you reply, good luck with your hangover. ;)
thx :)

but let's get back to serious business
In the meantime I would like to respond to the article you quoted in the post at the top of this page. I read that it isn't something you wrote yourself, but you translated it from a different source and put it on this forum. The same laws that protect cd's from being copied (the laws which you so dearly hold on to on page 1 of this discussion), protect written articles. So I would like to ask you: did you have the author's permission and/or did you pay the artist to quote that article?
Neither. But you're wrong about the protection of written articles, and I'm quite sure you know that you are. Imagine, to give just one example, every university student would have to track every author/copyright holder of every book he uses for each of his papers and pay them for it. Different countries have (mostly slightly) different wordings, but the essential part is that you are allowed to quote excerpts of pretty much everything, whether spoken or written, if you don't adulterate the meaning of the original text/statement and if you attribute the quote to the originator. There are some other guidelines too, concerning the extent and context that differ from country to country, but that's pretty much it.
Juss wrote:If no assumption is being made where does that 'stolen money' come from?
To keep it short. Certain people would buy it if they couldn't download it. When they download it and then not buy it, the money loses band in terms that they don't gain what they would otherwise. I explained this at great length in many of my previous post, is it too much to ask you to read them? I don't want to waste my time by writing everything twice just because certain people don't consider it necessary to read the stuff already said and explained. Or to put it differently, I just saw you wrote it yourself:
Yet there is no money being stolen then unless the downloader could and would pay for the product
Following that logic you are stealing from Hanna Montana by not buying her last <whatever-she-sells-now>, you don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever, so you won't pay for it.(example doesn't apply if you actually like that)
Yes, that would totally be "following that logic". Listen. If you download your BG albums and not buy them afterwards, the band makes less money, because you, judged by what you said, would have bought them if you couldn't have downloaded them (Yes, t.a.j., I'm aware that a system that would actually be able to prevent something like that wouldn't be desirable). If you download "Hanna Montana" (whoever that may be) and "don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever" it's a different thing because, why would you want to download that stuff in the first place if you "don't enjoy it nor (...)"? It sounds like you wouldn't even have considered buying that product, so that "Hanna Montana" person would not be affected by you downloading or not downloading anything anyway.
Led Guardian wrote:Not a perfect analogy, I know, since the original is removed, but it still describes the same issue: making use of something that someone created, and that you haven't paid for the right to use.
Not a perfect analogy indeed, but that doesn't matter too much since stealing isn't only the removal of things. Think of a prostitute you don't pay after having made use of her services. Nothing removed, yet money stolen.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#76 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 14 Jun 2010 07:10

Now you started your previous post with "I have no sources, but I know". I could argue that this isn't the best way to contradict my sources, since you are after all just a stranger from the internet
You are one hundred percent right about this. That is why I backed up my story with a dozen of links afterwards. I don't now if you read them, but if you didn't, I would recommend you do so: they give a huge insight into the music-industry.

I would like to repost this one (although other links are quite good too), as it paints a quite complete and readable account: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... tract2.htm
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#77 Post by Desert_Storm » 14 Jun 2010 13:51

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
Now you started your previous post with "I have no sources, but I know". I could argue that this isn't the best way to contradict my sources, since you are after all just a stranger from the internet
You are one hundred percent right about this. That is why I backed up my story with a dozen of links afterwards. I don't now if you read them, but if you didn't, I would recommend you do so: they give a huge insight into the music-industry.
I would like to repost this one (although other links are quite good too), as it paints a quite complete and readable account: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... tract2.htm
Yep, I'm on it, I just didn't have the time to go through all of them at once. However, it probably wont add too much to the discussion (though it's certainly an interesting read), since:
I wrote:I will assume you're right in this point
Further, my argument still stands:
[quote"I"]Taking ten cents out of a strangers valid isn't so bad as taking ten bucks, but that doesn't make it right to take anything in the first place.[/quote]
Of course now that isn't too severe for the average band, I just wanted to point out that I didn't make any logical mistakes, but just that the numbers I got were (apparently) wrong to start with. Since I posted them at a very early stage, we maybe should have concentrated on that matter in the first place and could have both saved a lot of time for, say, drinking invitations ;)
After all, I think we agree on most points, like you said:
(...) now that I see it I do see why you are making such a fuss. If I was led to believe that artists make 1,5 euro per cd, I would blame downloaders too.

What still remains are artists that in fact do make a considering amount of their income via record sales, and since you probably won't (be able to) find out who they are for each record you listen to, buying is in case of doubt always better than downloading, and even if not in doubt, the ten cents maybe won't hurt the artist too bad, but that doesn't make it right. And even in your articles is stated that bands signed to independents are more likely to get reasonable amounts of money. The same obviously goes for bands that produce themselves, have a studio their own, have their own label or no label at all.
I can only estimate from here on, but it seems like the number of those bands are growing. I remember that progressive rock drummer Gavin Harrison stated that he had several projects with other musicians that run completely over the internet, with everybody recording their tracks at home and then exchanging them for mixing and mastering, and finally selling them over the internet.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#78 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 14 Jun 2010 21:30

Led Guardian wrote:Just forget the last sentence. And no, I don't agree. I still stand by the first part. News is a different issue. It describes things that are happening in the world that everyone has a right to know about. You can't copyright news, because you didn't create it.
Out of all the numerous things I have heard about copyright, this one must rank amongst the most uninformed statements somebody ever made. Obviously everything in a newspaper is copyrighted. Copyright is created through the creation of something that carries the hands of its maker. So although it is not possibly to copyright news, it is fact that the desciption of those events - in the forms of articles, photographs, comments, columns and cartoons - are copyrighted.

Saying that there's no copyright on a newspaper because you didn't create news, is the same thing as saying that there's no copyright on music because you didn't create the guitar.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#79 Post by Led Guardian » 15 Jun 2010 03:00

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
Led Guardian wrote:Just forget the last sentence. And no, I don't agree. I still stand by the first part. News is a different issue. It describes things that are happening in the world that everyone has a right to know about. You can't copyright news, because you didn't create it.
Out of all the numerous things I have heard about copyright, this one must rank amongst the most uninformed statements somebody ever made. Obviously everything in a newspaper is copyrighted. Copyright is created through the creation of something that carries the hands of its maker. So although it is not possibly to copyright news, it is fact that the desciption of those events - in the forms of articles, photographs, comments, columns and cartoons - are copyrighted.

Saying that there's no copyright on a newspaper because you didn't create news, is the same thing as saying that there's no copyright on music because you didn't create the guitar.
I'm not saying the articles in the newspaper aren't copyrighted, I'm saying that the news isn't. The fact that a newspaper article is copyrighted does not preclude one from legitimately getting that news from another source (like for free on the internet). However, one can't go legitimately get music in any fashion other than purchasing it (like for free on the internet). Please try understanding someone's point before calling it uninformed.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#80 Post by Joost » 15 Jun 2010 11:48

Also, copyright laws do allow for citation rights: you can always quote a fragment from an article legally. And because the events described in the article aren't "created" by the writer of the article, you can of course paraphrase the news described in the article in your own words. I think, when it comes to music, 30 second samples are considered legal too.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#81 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 15 Jun 2010 18:24

I'm not saying the articles in the newspaper aren't copyrighted, I'm saying that the news isn't. The fact that a newspaper article is copyrighted does not preclude one from legitimately getting that news from another source (like for free on the internet).
That's not the point. I never talked about reading news on the internet vs reading a newspaper. You argued that if you consumed something copyrighted without paying for it is the same thing as stealing. I countered that argument by saying that a lot of newspapers are read by more people than the one who paid for it. Just to underline that, apparently, somebody who reads the newspaper bought by his room-mate can be considered a thief according to your own logic.
However, one can't go legitimately get music in any fashion other than purchasing it (like for free on the internet).
Another factual error. There are lots of ways to legitimately listen to music besides paying for it. Albums have only been around for a hundred years, music much longer than that.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
somnia
Posts: 237
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 20:16

Re: The old copyright thing again

#82 Post by somnia » 19 Jun 2010 22:59

Couldn't read all the topic but, I just though another reason why pirating can be good.

A metal album (unless it's Metallica) comes to Turkey at least in a month, usually in two or three months. A Twist In The Myth had arrived in a little less than five months at the time. But for the Twist tour the band had four gigantic shows in Turkey, one in 2006 (before the album came out, the warm-up tour), and three in 2007, two of which were in the same venue with the audience of about 2000 people. If piracy hadn't existed, the band would have never come to Turkey, not in 2006 and 2007 and not in 2002, which was their first ever gig and afaik metal albums were only sold in dim-lighted shops in dark passages full of addicts. This means they made a considerable amount of money in a country where there is almost no proper foreign music culture, let alone metal, thanks to piracy.
power progressive metal: polimat
game music and soundtrack: dogac yavuz

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#83 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 27 Jun 2010 09:43

I remember watching Sam Dunn's excellent documentary Global Metal, with people from the middle-east (I believe it was Iran) saying more or less the same thing: that downloading was close to the only possible way to get hold of weven the most staple metalbands.

I think that's cool, because it's an underground-thing. When halfway across the nineties we started hearing stories about a movement of obscure metalbands from Norway burning churches and killing each other, there was no possible way to get hold of their albums in the stores. I had been listening to the first releases of Emperor, Immortal, Mayhem and Satyricon on copied tapes for YEARS, before I ever saw a cd of theirs in the stores. That was all part of the 'cult'-thing of black metal back then. It was obscure, and when you received a tape with a new demo in the mail, you felt like you were the only person in the world owning said tape.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#84 Post by Desert_Storm » 27 Jun 2010 13:24

The Rider Of Rohan wrote: When halfway across the nineties we started hearing stories about a movement of obscure metalbands from Norway burning churches and killing each other, there was no possible way to get hold of their albums in the stores.
"Burning churches and killing each other" has also been my number one criteria for picking bands for a couple of years now. You can't go wrong with that!
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#85 Post by t.a.j. » 27 Jun 2010 13:38

In those days, you couldn't. Not a necessary connection, though ;).
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#86 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 27 Jun 2010 16:14

Desert_Storm wrote:
The Rider Of Rohan wrote: When halfway across the nineties we started hearing stories about a movement of obscure metalbands from Norway burning churches and killing each other, there was no possible way to get hold of their albums in the stores.
"Burning churches and killing each other" has also been my number one criteria for picking bands for a couple of years now. You can't go wrong with that!
Lol, exactly.

And you had to remember that it was a different times, being nearly fifteen years ago. Up until then this whole satanical thing wasn't really anything special. Sure we had Slayer and Maiden singing about satan, but that was just an imaginary thing. Our parents might have worried when they heard those lyrics about the devil and believed that those bands were satan-worshippers, but we knew different. Having that special knowledge while the outside world didn't, made you feel really special and was part of what was fun about metal in the first place.

But then there came talk about a bunch of metalbands who were killing and arsoning and it was something completely different. Those stories were intriguing because they were extreme and different, and all the news came in fragments - including the half-truths and rumors.

Of course it was only natural everybody started to become curious, and searched for as much copies of albums as your casetteplayer could handle.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#87 Post by Led Guardian » 27 Jun 2010 19:01

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:And you had to remember that it was a different times, being nearly fifteen years ago. Up until then this whole satanical thing wasn't really anything special. Sure we had Slayer and Maiden singing about satan, but that was just an imaginary thing. Our parents might have worried when they heard those lyrics about the devil and believed that those bands were satan-worshippers, but we knew different. Having that special knowledge while the outside world didn't, made you feel really special and was part of what was fun about metal in the first place.
I saw a black metal documentary recently (don't remember the name), and Varg was talking about how the original black metal movement was never about satanism. He really seemed to hate all those people who joined the movement later bringing satanism into it (and especially the media, who started the accusations). To him, it was about destroying Christianity in Norway, and bringing back pagan culture. (By the way, I assume the interview was filmed in the prison he's incarcerated in. If this is the case, Norway has some really nice prisons. He had a computer and printer and everything.)

[/tangent]
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: The old copyright thing again

#88 Post by Led Guardian » 03 Jul 2010 05:23

Just to stir up this bee's nest again :wink: :
Andre Olbrich wrote:Altsounds: So, is it safe to say it’s not just the internet fault, but also the quality of the records that has been going down?
Andre: Yes, I think the fault is in some bands, but mainly the labels. They have to step in between the fans and the band, and they should handle the situation but they didn’t, they slept 20 years, I think that was the biggest mistake. But now, unfortunately bands do not earn that much money, so the productions are going down, we have albums out now that have a worst sound compared to albums out ten years ago, and we try to work against this; even if times are harder, we tried to bring in the best sound in the new album and I think we achieved the best sound we ever had on our new album.
So he told us something we all already know: the labels are stupid. The second part I find interesting though...

:wink:
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#89 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 03 Jul 2010 09:44

Well, he's right about the labels. Look at it like this. During the early nineties there were approx 30 - 40 new albumreleases, in the metalgenre, a month. Nowadays, it's more than 200 a month. Now do they honestly expect us to buy them all? Or even buy them at random, hoping that they're actually good?
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

acidbasement
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 Jul 2010 16:50

Re: The old copyright thing again

#90 Post by acidbasement » 23 Jul 2010 17:38

I've been an occasional lurker here for awhile and thought I'd finally register to respond with my two cents here - twenty days late, but whatever. :) And I'm not intending this to be a troll post, though in looking at it I can see that I use some strong statements. It happens to be a subject on which I'm rather passionate, having a number of friends who are touring and recording artists.

Anyway, you guys are blowing this up into way more of an intellectual argument than it needs to be. We have some common ground here, and that is the idea that artists ought to be paid for their work by the people who enjoy their art, yes?

Artists get paid through two activities: recording and selling albums, and performing and selling merchandise.

The arguments from so-called "fans" are nearly always the same. "I torrented their entire discography, but they made more profit on the T-shirts I bought anyway, so my conscience is clean."

However, if we, the fans, choose only to support the artist by purchasing concert tickets and T-shirts, we are inadvertently doing two things:
a) ensuring that artists are always on tour, and thus denying them any semblance of a healthy family life, and
b) driving down the quality of recordings (why make a recording extra good if nobody is going to reward you for it?).

The industry is going through some serious changes right now, and many artists are suffering under the obsolescence of their record companies. In this day and age, we probably don't need "the industry" to be as big as it used to be, and it's inevitable that there will be winners and losers as the industry shrinks. I can't claim never to use torrents to find new music, but if I find an album I want to listen to a lot, I buy it.

If you don't support the artists whose work you enjoy, all of your intellectual arguments about freedom of the Internet, power to the people, and down with Big Music really boil down to one thing only: you are selfish and don't want to admit it to anyone, especially yourself. Suck it up and pay for good art.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#91 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 23 Jul 2010 18:49

First of all, nice of you to register. I welcome you to the slaughterhouse and hope your first post won't be your last.

Perhaps unsurprisingly I disagree with some of the things you wrote, and I'm happy to point out why.
Artists get paid through two activities: recording and selling albums, and performing and selling merchandise.
Right in some cases, but definitely not all. As stated above there are a LOT of bands who never have and never will make any money selling albums. For the vast majority the tours and t-shirtsales are not just the biggest, but the only source of income.

However, if we, the fans, choose only to support the artist by purchasing concert tickets and T-shirts, we are inadvertently doing two things:
a) ensuring that artists are always on tour, and thus denying them any semblance of a healthy family life,
Here your argument goes wrong. First of all artists aren't always on tour. A lot of bands typically tour for six weeks per continent, then perhaps an additional two months for festivals. Touring is certainly not something you do for 48 weeks a year like you would be doing at a regular job.

Second, you make it seem the fans are forcing a band. At most this is only partially true. The love of a band shared by their fans might offer the band both an incentive and an opportunity, but the fact remains that a bandmember choose this job out of his own free will. And if at one point an artist would prefer a family life over touring, there's no-one in the world holding them back to get a 9 - 5 job.

Aside from that, this little guild-trap has little to do with this copyright-debate. Ever since Elvis and the Beatles artists have found that touring and merchandising is where the real money's at. If artists were making a profit from touring before and after the invention of the mp3, it is safe to say that the invention of the mp3 is quite irrelevant.
b) driving down the quality of recordings (why make a recording extra good if nobody is going to reward you for it?).
Basic economics dictate that this reasoning is too one-sides to be valid. I remember ten years ago when you had only 50 cd-releases in the metalgenre per month. Nowadays there are 250 new metal-cd's coming out, even though very few of us are making five times as much money as ten years ago. Every new cd has its own budget fronted by a recordcompany, so the expenses are vast.

Taking into account the fact that the supply has increased while the demand has decreased or stayed the same, the music-industry has ended up devouring itself. This has resulted in various acts of panic trying to change the status quo through lawsuits against filesharers, but that's hardly the point.

It's up to the music-industry to reinvent itself and make a choice between decreasing the quantity or decreasing the quality and try to keep up with changing demands from the consumer. If, however, somewhere along the line you discover that quality has decreased while quantity stays the same, please keep in mind that you cannot simply pass that on to downloaders. Its a deliberate choice of a company to go the way of the dinosaur and certainly not the fault of changing demands from its audience.

After all: companies are there to provide for the consumer's needs, and not the other way around.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

acidbasement
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 Jul 2010 16:50

Re: The old copyright thing again

#92 Post by acidbasement » 23 Jul 2010 21:07

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:First of all, nice of you to register. I welcome you to the slaughterhouse and hope your first post won't be your last.
Thanks for the welcome. I have two tiny children, which means I won't be nearly as active as many users here, but I'll try to keep in touch. I'm very excited for the new album, and will be discussing the music when it comes out, you may be sure. :)
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:Perhaps unsurprisingly I disagree with some of the things you wrote, and I'm happy to point out why.
Artists get paid through two activities: recording and selling albums, and performing and selling merchandise.
Right in some cases, but definitely not all. As stated above there are a LOT of bands who never have and never will make any money selling albums. For the vast majority the tours and t-shirtsales are not just the biggest, but the only source of income.

However, if we, the fans, choose only to support the artist by purchasing concert tickets and T-shirts, we are inadvertently doing two things:
a) ensuring that artists are always on tour, and thus denying them any semblance of a healthy family life,
Here your argument goes wrong. First of all artists aren't always on tour. A lot of bands typically tour for six weeks per continent, then perhaps an additional two months for festivals. Touring is certainly not something you do for 48 weeks a year like you would be doing at a regular job.
I exaggerated when I said "always on tour". However, my point stands when you add up the numbers in your post. Six weeks touring per continent (Europe, North America, South America - 18 weeks?), plus two months on the festival circuit (9 weeks) makes 27 weeks, or half the year away from home, probably give or take a month. That is a recipe for divorce from spouse and estrangement from children, without question.
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:Second, you make it seem the fans are forcing a band. At most this is only partially true. The love of a band shared by their fans might offer the band both an incentive and an opportunity, but the fact remains that a bandmember choose this job out of his own free will. And if at one point an artist would prefer a family life over touring, there's no-one in the world holding them back to get a 9 - 5 job.
Yes, and while I love the fact that my favourite bands now tour near my somewhat remote part of the world (Manitoba, Canada), which would not have happened a decade ago, I would not want to think that my refusal to buy their albums had anything to do with it if they felt they had to quit full-time music and take a 9-5 job in order to inject a bit of balance into their lives. Would you?
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:Aside from that, this little guild-trap has little to do with this copyright-debate. Ever since Elvis and the Beatles artists have found that touring and merchandising is where the real money's at. If artists were making a profit from touring before and after the invention of the mp3, it is safe to say that the invention of the mp3 is quite irrelevant.
This is the case when artists become better known and are able to fill large venues. Artists who are struggling to get a leg up often lose money on their first tours and would appreciate it very much if their so-called "fans" bought their recordings.
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
b) driving down the quality of recordings (why make a recording extra good if nobody is going to reward you for it?).
Basic economics dictate that this reasoning is too one-sides to be valid. I remember ten years ago when you had only 50 cd-releases in the metalgenre per month. Nowadays there are 250 new metal-cd's coming out, even though very few of us are making five times as much money as ten years ago. Every new cd has its own budget fronted by a recordcompany, so the expenses are vast.

Taking into account the fact that the supply has increased while the demand has decreased or stayed the same, the music-industry has ended up devouring itself. This has resulted in various acts of panic trying to change the status quo through lawsuits against filesharers, but that's hardly the point.
We don't have five times the money, but we also don't have five times as much time to listen to music as we did ten years ago. Buy the albums you make time to listen to. If you like the new Blind Guardian album, you can't tell me you're not going to pay for it because Paul Simon also just released an album that you might have heard once in a coffee shop and, gee whiz, you can't afford both of them so you won't buy either. What you're actually saying is that the technology exists to give you a free lunch at your favourite artist's expense (and yes, the bloated industry's as well), and you're going to take advantage of it, yes?
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:It's up to the music-industry to reinvent itself and make a choice between decreasing the quantity or decreasing the quality and try to keep up with changing demands from the consumer. If, however, somewhere along the line you discover that quality has decreased while quantity stays the same, please keep in mind that you cannot simply pass that on to downloaders. Its a deliberate choice of a company to go the way of the dinosaur and certainly not the fault of changing demands from its audience.

After all: companies are there to provide for the consumer's needs, and not the other way around.
I agree with your point here, but it's a red herring in this debate. If you listen to music, you should make sure the artist gets something in return for your enjoyment.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#93 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 23 Jul 2010 21:45

Thanks for the welcome. I have two tiny children, which means I won't be nearly as active as many users here, but I'll try to keep in touch.
Having a couple of kids never stopped Mule to haunt these places, so he might give you some advice if you need it.
I exaggerated when I said "always on tour". However, my point stands when you add up the numbers in your post. Six weeks touring per continent (Europe, North America, South America - 18 weeks?), plus two months on the festival circuit (9 weeks) makes 27 weeks, or half the year away from home, probably give or take a month. That is a recipe for divorce from spouse and estrangement from children, without question.
True indeed, although one could argue that no band (Manowar being the only exception that I can think of) tours every year. Every two years at the very most. But still, it's quite a stretch to go from downloading to divorce, and in all honesty I don't see how you can put the blame of that on people making a couple of mouseclicks.

Besides, this problem has been around as long as rock and roll has been around. There are numerous examples of artists who never saw their children grow up because they were on tour the whole time. That's just part of the deal, and the price an artist pays for the life he choose. Still its the artists choice, and it has been so for decades.
We don't have five times the money, but we also don't have five times as much time to listen to music as we did ten years ago. Buy the albums you make time to listen to. If you like the new Blind Guardian album, you can't tell me you're not going to pay for it because Paul Simon also just released an album that you might have heard once in a tea shop and, gee whiz, you can't afford both of them so you won't buy either. What you're actually saying is that the technology exists to give you a free lunch at your favourite artist's expense (and yes, the bloated industry's as well), and you're going to take advantage of it, yes?
Probably, yes. But you fail to see one important thing: the fact that consumer behaviour has changed significantly in the last ten years and the music industry has failed to adapt. One of the blessings of the internet is that we have free and unlimited access to information and are able to look up any info at any time. This freedom changed the way we look at things.

Take television, for example. Years ago we were happy to watch reruns of our favourite shows on a weekly basis. Nowadays we are buying the box-set and watching two or three episodes in a row. At one point there was a tv-station in this country which followed this change in behaviour by only airing South Park reruns in 3-hour mini-marathons. That's something that you couldn't imagine fifteen years ago, but it is appreciated right now.

The whole downloading thing isn't just about money, it's also about freedom: the freedom to discover art at your own pace and enjoy it at your own leisure. Truth is that, where music is concerned, the free version offers flexibility that the paid version doesn't. Frankly I don't want cd's anymore: aside from being too pricey, they take up too much space and aren't as user-friendly as a drm-free mp3.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: if the owners of sites like the Pirate Bay are to make millions, I don't see why the music industry shouldn't make their own alternative. I'd happily pay a monthly subscription-fee to a service that offers me the same amount of choice.

To tell the truth I wouldn't even object to an extra taxation of isp-connections. It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would put some perspective on the whole thing.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

acidbasement
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 Jul 2010 16:50

Re: The old copyright thing again

#94 Post by acidbasement » 23 Jul 2010 22:10

The Rider Of Rohan wrote: I have said it before, and I will say it again: if the owners of sites like the Pirate Bay are to make millions, I don't see why the music industry shouldn't make their own alternative. I'd happily pay a monthly subscription-fee to a service that offers me the same amount of choice.
I have no quibble with you on this point, and I hope this is where things are going. iTunes is a poor excuse for an alternative to CDs. I'm pretty sedentary and I prefer CDs myself, but if I required portability I would rage against iTunes and DRM too.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#95 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 23 Jul 2010 23:00

And there will always be a small number of people who, like you prefer to stick to cd's - just like there are still people who prefer to buy new releases on vinyl. That's great of course. But in the long run, artists and recordcompanies just have to accept that the era of the cd is over and will never return. Just like the era of mp3 will one day end and be replaced by something else.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#96 Post by Desert_Storm » 25 Jul 2010 14:13

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
acidbasement wrote: Artists get paid through two activities: recording and selling albums, and performing and selling merchandise.
Right in some cases, but definitely not all. As stated above there are a LOT of bands who never have and never will make any money selling albums. For the vast majority the tours and t-shirtsales are not just the biggest, but the only source of income.
Also, there are artists who never have and never will make any money touring. Because they don't tour.
acidbasement wrote:
The Rider Of Rohan wrote:Aside from that, this little guild-trap has little to do with this copyright-debate. Ever since Elvis and the Beatles artists have found that touring and merchandising is where the real money's at. If artists were making a profit from touring before and after the invention of the mp3, it is safe to say that the invention of the mp3 is quite irrelevant.
This is the case when artists become better known and are able to fill large venues. Artists who are struggling to get a leg up often lose money on their first tours and would appreciate it very much if their so-called "fans" bought their recordings.
I'd like to emphasize here how bands "become better known" by album sales, and in this case it doesn't matter who gets the major shares of the retail/wholesale price. A band with near zero albums sold will not be sent on tour by their label (and much less on tours to distant places), will not be booked by venues (and much less by big venues), and so on. It's a cycle. Bands sell more albums, therefor go play in bigger and more distant venues, and therefor sell more albums. BG is a good example for that. I recall a statement by Hansi in an interview were he said that on the FTB "tour", they played in a few german clubs, with the crowd consisting of as much as five to ten people sometimes. Of course, TFTTW sold much better, and therefor they were booked by larger venues and supported by the label and could thus do a very successful tour (to take the cycle-theme up again: and therefor became more popular and sold more albums....). Take the album sales away, and the whole thing breaks down. Again, here it does not matter who gets how much from an album sold.
acidbasement wrote:(...)you can't afford both of them so you won't buy either.

That is, in one sentence, what bothers me about this downloading mentality displayed here by some people. No, one probably won't do any (or much) damage if he downloads albums he wouldn't have bought in the first place, no matter if due to lack of time or money. However, if you don't buy stuff you would have bought otherwise (without a free download opportunity), you certainly do damage. Even if a great share of the damage were done to the label and not to the band (though that's always linked, as described above), and you don't like the label or labels in general, that doesn't make it right. Also, speaking of the bands again:
I wrote:Taking ten cents out of a stranger's purse isn't as bad as taking ten dollars, but that doesn't make it right.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#97 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 25 Jul 2010 14:53

That is, in one sentence, what bothers me about this downloading mentality displayed here by some people. No, one probably won't do any (or much) damage if he downloads albums he wouldn't have bought in the first place, no matter if due to lack of time or money. However, if you don't buy stuff you would have bought otherwise (without a free download opportunity), you certainly do damage
But then again: there are people who just don't care. You care about buying albums, that's great. Others don't and prefer to spend their money on other things. I found a website the other day where they stream entire episodes of Simpsons. Is clicking on them wrong? It might be. Is is an alternative for paying for cable and/or buying the box set? In my case: probably, as I do neither. Do I give a deal? Not at all.

Whenever someone puts out a luxury-item there will always be those who buy it, and those who don't. And there'll always be a group of people who do get it, but is very economic about it. For example by downloading it (music), buying it second hand (videogames), renting it (dvd's) or borrowing it from someone else (a book).

Imagine that I would substitute downloading for lending a friend's book (which enables you to read it without paying for it) in you last post:

- However, if you don't buy books you would have bought otherwise (without a free borrowing from a friend opportunity) you certainly do damage
- Even if a great share of the damage were done to the book company and not to the writer, and you don't like the book company or book companies in general, that doesn't make it right to borrow a book from a friend.

Now, is there anyone in the world who supposes that lending books should be banned? Probably yes, and I bet they're talking on a forum about it right now. There's an even larger group of people, though, who just doesn't give a tosh, and continues to read books they didn't buy themselves.

Tough luck.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#98 Post by Desert_Storm » 25 Jul 2010 15:17

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
That is, in one sentence, what bothers me about this downloading mentality displayed here by some people. No, one probably won't do any (or much) damage if he downloads albums he wouldn't have bought in the first place, no matter if due to lack of time or money. However, if you don't buy stuff you would have bought otherwise (without a free download opportunity), you certainly do damage
But then again: there are people who just don't care. You care about buying albums, that's great. Others don't and prefer to spend their money on other things. I found a website the other day where they stream entire episodes of Simpsons. Is clicking on them wrong? It might be. Is is an alternative for paying for cable and/or buying the box set? In my case: probably, as I do neither. Do I give a deal? Not at all.
Here I just don't know what we're discussing. Of course there will be people who buy and people who download, as well as people who sleep with their girlfriends and people who rape, and people who say "good morning" and other people who shoot your head away with a pump-action instead (not meant as an analogy).
Nobody ever said that there aren't people who wouldn't do anything, or people who don't care about right or wrong.
I was always thinking that we were discussing the question if downloading is right or wrong, or whether it harms anybody or not. That's how the topic started and it's also how you wrote (bringing up arguments why downloading is ok/does not damage anybody/does only damage to the labels/it's ok if the labels suffer/etc.). Now that we give up any moral or economic ground, what exactly do you want to discuss? That people do it anyway? That people don't care? We all know that, no thread necessary.
Imagine that I would substitute downloading for lending a friend's book (which enables you to read it without paying for it) in you last post:
That's not really the same thing. Principally, if you lend something to someone it is at one place or the other but not at both places at the same time. Substitute "scanning the book and then giving it to a friend", and we are at a point where I would take up discussion again (given that the author demands money for it in the first place).
Last edited by Desert_Storm on 25 Jul 2010 16:21, edited 2 times in total.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#99 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 25 Jul 2010 15:35

Desert_Storm wrote:Here I just don't know what we're discussing. Of course there will be people who buy and people who download, as well as people who sleep with their girlfriends and people who rape, and people who say "good morning" and other people who shoot your head away with a pump-action instead (not meant as an analogy).
Nobody ever said that there aren't people who wouldn't do anything, or people who don't care about right or wrong.
I was always thinking that we were discussing the question if downloading is right or wrong, or whether it harms anybody or not. That's how the topic started and it's also how you wrote (bringing up arguments why downloading is ok/does not damage anybody/does only damage to the labels/it's ok if the labels suffer/etc.). Now that we give up any moral or economic ground, what exactly do you want to discuss? That people do it anyway? That people don't care? We all know that, no thread necessary.
Whoa, don't get all Mr T on me just now. On page one of this topic we debated a lot of the legal parts about downloading which more or less ended when I pointed out that the legal side is unrealistic to begin with (whistling a song in the streets as an infringements of copyright for example). Then it shifted towards the notion that downloading is stealing money from the artists, a notion which has been countered on page two.

It was you who, during the last couple of posts, tried to tilt the balance towards a wrong vs right-argument, and I am merely trying to shift that balance. As you grow older you learn that there are far fewer wrongs and rights than you initially expected. And those that remain depend greatly on one's point of view. What might be normal behaviour of yours, could for example be regarded as blasphemous by someone of a different religion. Same thing here. It's impossible to label downloading as good or bad per se. You might think it's bad, but there are millions of people who disagree. That's something for you to accept.
That's not really the same thing. Principally, if you lend something to someone it is at one place or the other but not at both places at the same time.
Dude, don't go changing your own arguments. Just one post ago you wrote your example based on an economical viewpoint, namely consuming without paying for it. Physicality wasn't part of that argument.
Substitute "scanning the book and then giving it to a friend", and we are at a point where I would take up discussion again (given that the author demands money for it in the first place).
Okay, so we need to ban xerox-machines too? Now you're just not making any sense.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: The old copyright thing again

#100 Post by Desert_Storm » 25 Jul 2010 16:21

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:Here I just don't know what we're discussing. Of course there will be people who buy and people who download, as well as people who sleep with their girlfriends and people who rape, and people who say "good morning" and other people who shoot your head away with a pump-action instead (not meant as an analogy).
Nobody ever said that there aren't people who wouldn't do anything, or people who don't care about right or wrong.
I was always thinking that we were discussing the question if downloading is right or wrong, or whether it harms anybody or not. That's how the topic started and it's also how you wrote (bringing up arguments why downloading is ok/does not damage anybody/does only damage to the labels/it's ok if the labels suffer/etc.). Now that we give up any moral or economic ground, what exactly do you want to discuss? That people do it anyway? That people don't care? We all know that, no thread necessary.
Whoa, don't get all Mr T on me just now. On page one of this topic we debated a lot of the legal parts about downloading which more or less ended when I pointed out that the legal side is unrealistic to begin with (whistling a song in the streets as an infringements of copyright for example). Then it shifted towards the notion that downloading is stealing money from the artists, a notion which has been countered on page two.

It was you who, during the last couple of posts, tried to tilt the balance towards a wrong vs right-argument, and I am merely trying to shift that balance. As you grow older you learn that there are far fewer wrongs and rights than you initially expected. And those that remain depend greatly on one's point of view. What might be normal behaviour of yours, could for example be regarded as blasphemous by someone of a different religion. Same thing here. It's impossible to label downloading as good or bad per se. You might think it's bad, but there are millions of people who disagree. That's something for you to accept.
Thanks for telling me what will happen "when I grow older". That's really what I'm looking for when discussing copyright/downloading issues.
OK, leave the right/wrong part out of the discussion, that doesn't change much in my point of view. I have only equaled "harming somebody" (e.g. financially) with "wrong". If you don't agree with that, or if you find that inappropriate, so be it. Just leave the wrong out. We can then return to discussing whether downloading harms people or not without applying moral labels to "harming people".

If you ask me why I think people shouldn't harm other people though, I will have to return to right/wrong argumentation because there's not really much other reason for me why you shouldn't do that except for it being wrong IMO. To clear things up a little more, my axiom, in contrary to what you wrote, wasn't "downloading is wrong/bad", but "harming people is wrong". And taking "harming people is wrong" as a prima facie statement, I think that here millions and probably billions of people would agree.

The discussion here, for most of the time, was to find out whether downloading harms people, and if it does, in which cases. Your statement before was that people will do it and people won't care. What does that add to the discussion? That doesn't change the fact that people are or are not harmed by other people who download. So what do you want to say with that, "Dude"?

Also, I hope we can keep the tone a little friendlier here. My goal in a discussion is to look at other arguments and opinions and compare them to my own, and vice versa. I don't think that I'm that stubborn "downloading is always wrong and I won't listen to anything about it" guy that you seem to take me for. You will see, for example, that withdrew most parts of my "money loss for the band" argument due to scale information etc. you provided. I just think that there's lots of (valid) arguments still in limbo (not necessarily mine) and that we could discuss them instead of pointing out that people will do it no matter what you or I think of that.

-------

And because this is, after all, a forum and supposed to be fun: Click here for a nice piece that is not only ingenious from the musical point of view (it's an a-capella fugue [multiple voices entering at different points of the piece and running simultaneously] and one of the very few post-Bach fugues I like [it's actually much better than Glenn Gould's attempt], but that's getting OT), but also fits in nicely with our discussion from the lyrical point. It's about a young musician called Johnny Virgil and his attempt to make it in the music business. This particular track is subtitled "The dance of the A&R men", and shows different label guys trying to talk him into signing the contract with them.
Because the lyrics are quite hard (sometimes near impossible) to understand due to the fugue structure of the song, click here to read them. They are arranged quite nicely on that side and are shifted in each time a new voice enters. Pay attention to the background vocals during the chorus (My name is Johnny Virgil...). Favourite line in the lyrics:

"Hi, Joe, about publicity
Thought about the photo op with the cripple
No, we need a sharper hook - like a scandal
Maybe you could rape a nun
Or better still a priest
Some androgeny could be interesting"

The track is called "Suit Fugue", and it's taken from Kevin Gilbert's album "The shaming of the True", which is a concept album dealing about this guy Virgil trying to get into the business. If you don't know Gilbert yet, try the album or look up his live performance of Genesis' "The Lamb lies down on Broadway". Have fun :)
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest