Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and man, stfu!! if you dont want people to respond, dont post to the list about it. your opinions is short-sighted and selfish and i'll call it for what i see it -- BS!! we're all familiar with idealistic nonsense wahh wahh gimme a break!! _ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
i agree john. if art were free some of the greatest masterpieces of all time would never have been made!! financial compensation IS a perfectly sound motivation. maybe even when it's the only motivation. da vinci didnt work for free! PEOPLE dont work for free! a lot of art takes SERIOUS work, that you cant do in your spare hours off from your paying job! lots of art takes talent and knowledge, not just a medium and oppurtunity! a lot of art takes money to be made! artists make art for a variety of reasons and what kind of self-righteous elitist are you to suggest it isnt art as true as yours?? it's the sort of ultra-conservative viewpoint that intellectual elites (including nazis!) used to attack pop music and culture earlier this century -- commercial music, art for the masses is vulgar and not true art - bs! dance music is firmly rooted within pop culture. i think your viewpoint confuses the values and heady idealism of underground culture with financial and cultural reality. i dont think you intended any harm, but you definitely need to stick both your feet in your mouth. who cares about your opinion if it's irrelevant to anybody but yourself..?? great, you're happy with an online niche market, not releasing music on vinyl, and can afford to spend time on your art instead of at a paying job -- that is a unique ability and pov! that doesnt help other artists. that doesnt grow anything. you may think it's revolutionary, but not only is it actually incredibly old-fashioned and outdated, but it's not viable enough to be revolutionary at this point. and i doubt it will be viable for a long long time, despite your futuristic vision of what music will become. please! i 'd say it's a limp idea! i find the whole argument ridiculously idealistic, unfounded, and stating your opinion as if its some undeniable nature of true art and whining when others disagree..WEAK. not to mention this whole damn viewpoint is old as hell, on this list and in the world we live in, and i'm disgusted we even have to discuss it...i really dont think this opinion added much worthwile to the consideration of the problem of digital media and p2p, it's just a shrug-your-shoulders, it doesnt matter anyway cop-out... jt suggesting that you can only have soul in your music if it's free is a bit insulting to all the soulful labels and artists that do make money. its not a question of trading soul for money. many artists never compromise and make money. anyway, for financial gain surely the compromise should be the other way - taking the soul out of the music? john - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:00 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc if you're asking *me*, I've already said I dont support dollar signs being attached to my music. thats just my own belief, and it doesnt threaten anyone else. this stemmed from me making music for years, and the anxiety that comes with releasing it, as opposed to doing it for the love of the art. my opinion only. I dont think musicians that make money from music are doing anything wrong... if I did, I'd be alienating a large number of my friends... I think money dirties the art, and I dont need record labels to distro my stuff anymore to the REAL audience. I can put it in the hands of the audience via the internet. I choose to embrace the technology instead of fighting it. I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and nothing Im trying to push on the world. I already traded the cash for the soul of my tracks, I've made my choice. and no one ever said the musicians dont DESERVE the money, but for me, selling tracks is like putting my daughter out on the corner to turn tricks. sure I COULD make money from music, but at the expense of my soul and the emotion behind the tracks. trying to address the torrent of emails I received in response in one conglomerate email, -Joe - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) most musicians don't - maybe nobody should make a living off of musicians they way that unscrupulous record labels do? I think that would be a better situation. I'm not a recording artist but couldn't musician's unions be a bit stronger in fighting the status quo of contracts and payment? Seems like the larger unions are in bed with the IIRC and the major media corps. MEK _ MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. http
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
WITH CABLE TV AT M.I.T., WHO NEEDS NAPSTER? By John Schwartz, New York Times, Oct. 27, 2003 Two students at the M.I.T. have developed a system for sharing music within their campus community that they say can avoid the copyright battles that have pitted the music industry against many customers. The students, Keith Winstein and Josh Mandel, drew the idea for their campus-wide network from a blend of libraries and from radio. Their effort, the Libraries Access to Music Project, which is backed by M.I.T. and financed by research money from the Microsoft Corporation, will provide music from some 3,500 CD's through a novel source: the university's cable television network. The students say the system falls within the time-honored licensing and royalty system under which the music industry allows broadcasters and others to play recordings for a public audience. Major music industry groups are reserving comment, while some legal experts say the M.I.T. system mainly demonstrates how unwieldy copyright laws have become. The music industry's woes started on college campuses, where fast Internet connections and a population of music lovers with time on their hands sparked a file-sharing revolution. It's kind of brilliant, said Mike Godwin, the senior technology counsel at Public Knowledge, a policy group in Washington that focuses on intellectual property issues. If the legal theories hold up, he said, they've sidestepped the stonewall that the music companies have tried to put up between campus users and music sharing.
RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
Idealistic nonsense is exactly what a lot of great art is. Tons of great music gets made by people like me who don't make money off it. (Well, I did make $20 with my rock band Saturday night!) Some talented people also manage to make money doing music, I don't think money NECESSARILY corrupts the music. But surely the desire to make a fortune off of music is responsible for a great deal of garbage, whereas tons of great music gets made every day by people all over the world who make almost nothing from it. There is nothing idealistic about passion, and those who are passionate about making music will continue to do so, with or without the money. Passion and love of creating are just as real forces in people's lives as materialistic motives. _David -Original Message- From: J. T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and man, stfu!! if you dont want people to respond, dont post to the list about it. your opinions is short-sighted and selfish and i'll call it for what i see it -- BS!! we're all familiar with idealistic nonsense wahh wahh gimme a break!! _ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
well i think thats all pretty obvious, no offense, and i was never calling any sort of art or passion idealistic nonsense. i'm calling the notion that real art means not getting paid...etc etc...i released music 6 years after it was made, did it suddenly become non-art cus i got paid for it..6 years after the fact? thats an awfully simplistic, retroactive and idiotic view of the forces/passions which go into making art Idealistic nonsense is exactly what a lot of great art is. Tons of great music gets made by people like me who don't make money off it. (Well, I did make $20 with my rock band Saturday night!) Some talented people also manage to make money doing music, I don't think money NECESSARILY corrupts the music. But surely the desire to make a fortune off of music is responsible for a great deal of garbage, whereas tons of great music gets made every day by people all over the world who make almost nothing from it. There is nothing idealistic about passion, and those who are passionate about making music will continue to do so, with or without the money. Passion and love of creating are just as real forces in people's lives as materialistic motives. _David -Original Message- From: J. T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and man, stfu!! if you dont want people to respond, dont post to the list about it. your opinions is short-sighted and selfish and i'll call it for what i see it -- BS!! we're all familiar with idealistic nonsense wahh wahh gimme a break!! _ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
Full Text of Article MEK mentioned. It's funny, like techno, it uses _analog_ technology. Heh. -m The New York Times , Oct 27, 2003 pC1 col 03 (23 col in) With Cable TV at M.I.T., Who Needs Napster ?(Business/Financial Desk)(the Libraries Access to Music Project) John Schwartz. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2003 The New York Times Company Two students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a system for sharing music within their campus community that they say can avoid the copyright battles that have pitted the music industry against many customers. The students, Keith Winstein and Josh Mandel, drew the idea for their campus-wide network from a blend of libraries and from radio. Their effort, the Libraries Access to Music Project, which is backed by M.I.T. and financed by research money from the Microsoft Corporation, will provide music from some 3,500 CD's through a novel source: the university's cable television network. The students say the system, which they plan to officially announce today, falls within the time-honored licensing and royalty system under which the music industry allows broadcasters and others to play recordings for a public audience. Major music industry groups are reserving comment, while some legal experts say the M.I.T. system mainly demonstrates how unwieldy copyright laws have become. A novel approach to serving up music on demand from one of the nation's leading technical institutions is only fitting, admirers of the project say. The music industry's woes started on college campuses, where fast Internet connections and a population of music lovers with time on their hands sparked a file-sharing revolution. ''It's kind of brilliant,'' said Mike Godwin, the senior technology counsel at Public Knowledge, a policy group in Washington that focuses on intellectual property issues. If the legal theories hold up, he said, ''they've sidestepped the stonewall that the music companies have tried to put up between campus users and music sharing.'' Hal Abelson, a professor of computer science and engineering at M.I.T., called the system an imaginative approach that reflected the problem-solving sensibility of engineering at the university. ''Everybody has gotten so wedged into entrenched positions that listening to music has to have something to do with file sharing,'' he said. The students' project shows ''it doesn't have to be that way at all.'' Mr. Winstein, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science, described the result as ''a new kind of library.'' He said he hoped it would be a legal alternative to file trading that infringes copyrights. ''We certainly hope,'' he said, ''that by having access to all this music immediately, on demand, any time you want, students would be less likely to break the law.''' While listening to music through a television might seem odd, it is crucial to the M.I.T. plan. The quirk in the law that makes the system legal, Mr. Winstein said, has much to do with the difference between digital and analog technology. The advent of the digital age, with the possibility of perfect copies spread around the world with the click of a mouse, has spurred the entertainment industry to push for stronger restrictions on the distribution of digital works, and to be reluctant to license their recording catalogues to permit the distribution of music over the Internet. So the M.I.T. system, using the analog campus cable system, simply bypasses the Internet and digital distribution, and takes advantage of the relatively less-restrictive licensing that the industry makes available to radio stations and others for the analog transmission. The university, like many educational institutions, already has blanket licenses for the seemingly old-fashioned analog transmission of music from the organizations that represent the performance rights, including the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Ascap, the Broadcast Music Inc. or B.M.I., and Sesac, formerly the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers. If that back-to-the-future solution seems overly complicated, blame copyright law and not M.I.T., said Jonathan Zittrain, who teaches Internet law at Harvard and is a director of the university's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The most significant thing about the M.I.T. plan, he said, is just how complicated it has to be to fit within the odd boundaries of copyright law. ''It's almost an act of performance art,'' Mr. Zittrain said. Mr. Winstein, he said, has ''arrayed the gerbils under the hood so it appears to meet the statutory requirement'' -- and has shown how badly the system of copyright needs sensible revamping. Representatives of the recording industry, including the Recording Industry Association of America, Ascap and B.M.I., either declined to comment or did not return calls seeking comment. Although the M.I.T.
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
I meant I dont need the 30 private replies saying I'm wrong. - Original Message - From: J. T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and man, stfu!! if you dont want people to respond, dont post to the list about it. your opinions is short-sighted and selfish and i'll call it for what i see it -- BS!! we're all familiar with idealistic nonsense wahh wahh gimme a break!! _ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
it's funny - I'm reading a book on the history of Melody Maker and on page 245 it says 'Album Sales Slump, Blank Tapes Boom' reported Melody Maker on October 6 [1979] in a news story which explained that sales of singles were rising but album sales had seen a heavy decline. The blame was pinned down on the growth of home taping, which accounted for a 38 per cent increase in the sale of blank tapes in the first quarter of 1979. Total sales of cassettes in 1979 were expected to be 60 million. Then later, the author cited again [some time in the 80's] the increase of tape sales and decrease of album sales blaming high unemployment rates. Sound familiar? MEK
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
Then later, the author cited again [some time in the 80's] the increase of tape sales and decrease of album sales blaming high unemployment rates. Sound familiar? MEK It does! Perhaps a big thing which we often overlook in this whole issue is: the sheer *resilience* of the music industry! I mean, its death knell has been sounded many times. (And I am talking about actual music media here, records, tapes, cds etc.) And many times it has adapted and survived. Free electronic acquisition by consumers, though, is going to take some coming back from! I personally do think the survival of the majors (speaking neutrally, leaving out for now the question of whether I want them to survive or not ;-) is going to be a case of 'if-you-can't-beat-'em, join-'em' rather than 'destroy-them-my-robots'. Although they'll try that, and I feel they'll fail. Ken
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
I read my post again - I should clarify. High unemployment rates were said to be the cause of increased home taping of music - not home taping causing layoffs in the music industry. Still, I feel the situation is similar to today. We have high unemployment so less money to spend on product. Therefore people look for inexpensive ways to acquire music - home taping/mp3s. MEK Ken Odeluga [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: 313@hyperreal.org 11/03/03 10:28 AMSubject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc Then later, the author cited again [some time in the 80's] the increase of tape sales and decrease of album sales blaming high unemployment rates. Sound familiar? MEK It does! Perhaps a big thing which we often overlook in this whole issue is: the sheer *resilience* of the music industry! I mean, its death knell has been sounded many times. (And I am talking about actual music media here, records, tapes, cds etc.) And many times it has adapted and survived. Free electronic acquisition by consumers, though, is going to take some coming back from! I personally do think the survival of the majors (speaking neutrally, leaving out for now the question of whether I want them to survive or not ;-) is going to be a case of 'if-you-can't-beat-'em, join-'em' rather than 'destroy-them-my-robots'. Although they'll try that, and I feel they'll fail. Ken
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
... in addition to the fact that the average person isn't quite sure if they consider downloading easily replicated data off the network to be stealing. at that point, its an issue of simple economics. if you dont feel that you're stealing, or that what you're downloading should even be sold in the first place, most people will save their money and download the tracks. (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) as computers get cheaper and more powerful, along with the advances in audio software, the average joe (ha) can afford to create pieces of audio that rival those produced with professional studio gear over the past 30 years. I foresee a world when most people will make music, there will be too much good music to support a solid market, and that music will move back to the realms of hobby, ceasing to exist as the lifeless business model its been relegated to in the past 50-60 years. ...that genres will become decentralized, and the music will move at the behest of the collective, not the azsholes at mtv who decide what can be marketed this year, then whore it out for every penny they can get. hope this makes some sense, Im busy at work and flash-ranting :) -Joe I read my post again - I should clarify. High unemployment rates were said to be the cause of increased home taping of music - not home taping causing layoffs in the music industry. Still, I feel the situation is similar to today. We have high unemployment so less money to spend on product. Therefore people look for inexpensive ways to acquire music - home taping/mp3s. MEK Ken Odeluga [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: 313@hyperreal.org 11/03/03 10:28 AMSubject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc Then later, the author cited again [some time in the 80's] the increase of tape sales and decrease of album sales blaming high unemployment rates. Sound familiar? MEK It does! Perhaps a big thing which we often overlook in this whole issue is: the sheer *resilience* of the music industry! I mean, its death knell has been sounded many times. (And I am talking about actual music media here, records, tapes, cds etc.) And many times it has adapted and survived. Free electronic acquisition by consumers, though, is going to take some coming back from! I personally do think the survival of the majors (speaking neutrally, leaving out for now the question of whether I want them to survive or not ;-) is going to be a case of 'if-you-can't-beat-'em, join-'em' rather than 'destroy-them-my-robots'. Although they'll try that, and I feel they'll fail. Ken
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
(i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) wow thats depressing and imo infantile art is free if you make it for yourself. music is free is you make it for yourself. food is free if you grow it yourself. you want something somebody else put blood, sweat, and $ into, you buy it. it doesnt come from nowhere grr _ See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
(i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) most musicians don't - maybe nobody should make a living off of musicians they way that unscrupulous record labels do? I think that would be a better situation. I'm not a recording artist but couldn't musician's unions be a bit stronger in fighting the status quo of contracts and payment? Seems like the larger unions are in bed with the IIRC and the major media corps. MEK
RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
I would modify that statement and say that no-one should EXPECT to make a living out of music. Truly talented musicians make do whether they make money or not. If it is too easy to make money out of music, too many idiots get out there and dilute it. -Original Message- From: J. T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) wow thats depressing and imo infantile art is free if you make it for yourself. music is free is you make it for yourself. food is free if you grow it yourself. you want something somebody else put blood, sweat, and $ into, you buy it. it doesnt come from nowhere grr _ See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. #
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
(i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) I tend to believe, as a producer and label owner, that everyone has a right to make a living in something that they enjoy and feel their talent lies. I think that saying all music should be free is ridiculous. If we make something that people enjoy, we deserve something back- so that we can go eat too! I know what you are getting at, about art being free, but we just don't live in that ideal world.. we've all got bills to pay. rant over.. kev WILD LOOPS
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
if you get to hear the track for free three times, you could cheat by recording, to say, a stand alone cd recorder through the analogue input whilst you're auditioning the track. of course the use of d/a a/d converters would reduce sound quality a miniscule amount, but you wouldn't be able to tell. john
RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
In the old days, we had patrons and salons. Favoured musicians and artists were subsidised so they could dedicate all their time to creativity. Those days are over. These days, after some artists and musicians have become global stars, there is too much expectation from artists who expect worldly goods and eternal glory for their efforts - in reality medicocre artists are paid way too much to produce far too little, while more talented people languish because they feel left out by the music 'industry'. Real talent ignores all of that and just gets on with it, regardless of circumstances, whether they be adverse or nurturing. It is a 20th century capitalist construct to expect to make money doing what you enjoy - nobody else expects it, so why are artists any different? Or am I being too cynical? All I can say is that great music continues to be produced, regardless of whether people make any money out of it (in fact you could argue that a lot of great music comes out of difficult times), so that must count for something. PS I have had too many glasses of shampoo, so excuse if this doesn't make any sense -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) I tend to believe, as a producer and label owner, that everyone has a right to make a living in something that they enjoy and feel their talent lies. I think that saying all music should be free is ridiculous. If we make something that people enjoy, we deserve something back- so that we can go eat too! I know what you are getting at, about art being free, but we just don't live in that ideal world.. we've all got bills to pay. rant over.. kev WILD LOOPS # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. #
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
i don't think that genuine artists expect to make vast amounts of money. the ones that do make alot, do so because they've sold alot of records.so if you believe in capitalism and supply demand, then you would have to conclude that they do indeed deserve the sums they get. of course people like michael jackson who have made it due to their past talent have no right to expect future success unless the material warrants it. its true that money isn't the overriding factor for genuine artists, but if they get it then fairplay to them. john - Original Message - From: Robert Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:48 PM Subject: RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc In the old days, we had patrons and salons. Favoured musicians and artists were subsidised so they could dedicate all their time to creativity. Those days are over. These days, after some artists and musicians have become global stars, there is too much expectation from artists who expect worldly goods and eternal glory for their efforts - in reality medicocre artists are paid way too much to produce far too little, while more talented people languish because they feel left out by the music 'industry'. Real talent ignores all of that and just gets on with it, regardless of circumstances, whether they be adverse or nurturing. It is a 20th century capitalist construct to expect to make money doing what you enjoy - nobody else expects it, so why are artists any different? Or am I being too cynical? All I can say is that great music continues to be produced, regardless of whether people make any money out of it (in fact you could argue that a lot of great music comes out of difficult times), so that must count for something. PS I have had too many glasses of shampoo, so excuse if this doesn't make any sense -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) I tend to believe, as a producer and label owner, that everyone has a right to make a living in something that they enjoy and feel their talent lies. I think that saying all music should be free is ridiculous. If we make something that people enjoy, we deserve something back- so that we can go eat too! I know what you are getting at, about art being free, but we just don't live in that ideal world.. we've all got bills to pay. rant over.. kev WILD LOOPS # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. #
RE: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
Free the Weed! Just had a quick look. It's certainly nothing new and you're point about recording it is clear. Reminds me also of a comment regarding the Napster subscription. With that it was/is possible to take a subscription for a month and extract all the music using some sort of script following the stream all to playlist (after several days of course). Besides, the biggest disappointment about the idea is it's a windows exe installer so a definite non-starter IMHO. Steve -Original Message- From: john harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 November 2003 19:39 To: 313 Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc if you get to hear the track for free three times, you could cheat by recording, to say, a stand alone cd recorder through the analogue input whilst you're auditioning the track. of course the use of d/a a/d converters would reduce sound quality a miniscule amount, but you wouldn't be able to tell. john
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
Valid point. And I feel that as globalisation calcifies in this century, the polarities which seem to be concomitant with it (again, I make no claims about causality, although I do have my personal views ;-) will become more pronounced, so the need for people to have commodity-priced music will only increase. Is this thread on-topic enough for some of you? ;-) k On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 04:46 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read my post again - I should clarify. High unemployment rates were said to be the cause of increased home taping of music - not home taping causing layoffs in the music industry. Still, I feel the situation is similar to today. We have high unemployment so less money to spend on product. Therefore people look for inexpensive ways to acquire music - home taping/mp3s. MEK Ken Odeluga [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: 313@hyperreal.org 11/03/03 10:28 AMSubject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc Then later, the author cited again [some time in the 80's] the increase of tape sales and decrease of album sales blaming high unemployment rates. Sound familiar? MEK It does! Perhaps a big thing which we often overlook in this whole issue is: the sheer *resilience* of the music industry! I mean, its death knell has been sounded many times. (And I am talking about actual music media here, records, tapes, cds etc.) And many times it has adapted and survived. Free electronic acquisition by consumers, though, is going to take some coming back from! I personally do think the survival of the majors (speaking neutrally, leaving out for now the question of whether I want them to survive or not ;-) is going to be a case of 'if-you-can't-beat-'em, join-'em' rather than 'destroy-them-my-robots'. Although they'll try that, and I feel they'll fail. Ken
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
And I feel that as globalisation calcifies in this century, the polarities which seem to be concomitant with it (again, I make no claims about causality, although I do have my personal views ;-) will become more pronounced, so the need for people to have commodity-priced music will only increase. eh? :]
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. yours is dully noted - Original Message - From: J. T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:10 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) wow thats depressing and imo infantile art is free if you make it for yourself. music is free is you make it for yourself. food is free if you grow it yourself. you want something somebody else put blood, sweat, and $ into, you buy it. it doesnt come from nowhere grr _ See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
if you're asking *me*, I've already said I dont support dollar signs being attached to my music. thats just my own belief, and it doesnt threaten anyone else. this stemmed from me making music for years, and the anxiety that comes with releasing it, as opposed to doing it for the love of the art. my opinion only. I dont think musicians that make money from music are doing anything wrong... if I did, I'd be alienating a large number of my friends... I think money dirties the art, and I dont need record labels to distro my stuff anymore to the REAL audience. I can put it in the hands of the audience via the internet. I choose to embrace the technology instead of fighting it. I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and nothing Im trying to push on the world. I already traded the cash for the soul of my tracks, I've made my choice. and no one ever said the musicians dont DESERVE the money, but for me, selling tracks is like putting my daughter out on the corner to turn tricks. sure I COULD make money from music, but at the expense of my soul and the emotion behind the tracks. trying to address the torrent of emails I received in response in one conglomerate email, -Joe - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) most musicians don't - maybe nobody should make a living off of musicians they way that unscrupulous record labels do? I think that would be a better situation. I'm not a recording artist but couldn't musician's unions be a bit stronger in fighting the status quo of contracts and payment? Seems like the larger unions are in bed with the IIRC and the major media corps. MEK
Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
suggesting that you can only have soul in your music if it's free is a bit insulting to all the soulful labels and artists that do make money. its not a question of trading soul for money. many artists never compromise and make money. anyway, for financial gain surely the compromise should be the other way - taking the soul out of the music? john - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:00 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc if you're asking *me*, I've already said I dont support dollar signs being attached to my music. thats just my own belief, and it doesnt threaten anyone else. this stemmed from me making music for years, and the anxiety that comes with releasing it, as opposed to doing it for the love of the art. my opinion only. I dont think musicians that make money from music are doing anything wrong... if I did, I'd be alienating a large number of my friends... I think money dirties the art, and I dont need record labels to distro my stuff anymore to the REAL audience. I can put it in the hands of the audience via the internet. I choose to embrace the technology instead of fighting it. I know some of you disagree, and I knew it before I sent the mail. sooo, save the counter-point emails to me, because this is my own opinion, and nothing Im trying to push on the world. I already traded the cash for the soul of my tracks, I've made my choice. and no one ever said the musicians dont DESERVE the money, but for me, selling tracks is like putting my daughter out on the corner to turn tricks. sure I COULD make money from music, but at the expense of my soul and the emotion behind the tracks. trying to address the torrent of emails I received in response in one conglomerate email, -Joe - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: Re: (313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc (i tend to believe, as a producer, that all music, as a form of art, should be free and that no one should make a living as a musician) most musicians don't - maybe nobody should make a living off of musicians they way that unscrupulous record labels do? I think that would be a better situation. I'm not a recording artist but couldn't musician's unions be a bit stronger in fighting the status quo of contracts and payment? Seems like the larger unions are in bed with the IIRC and the major media corps. MEK
(313) downloading, peer-to-peer, etc
In theory, this looks like a 'solution' to the problem of the practice of file-sharing/downloading music and how this has hurt the sales of cds and vinyl. http://www.weedshare.com/ k
