Robert Plant vs. Piracy

[WaylonFan76]

Originally Posted by colchar

And so have countless other blues players so I'll ask again, why is it theft when Zeppelin does it but not when others do it?

So I guess this is ok, then :





This too:

[mal paso]

Remind me to stay on yer good side, Waylon!

[colchar]

Originally Posted by WaylonFan76

So I guess this is ok, then :





This too:

I didn't say it was OK, I asked why Zeppelin is constantly taken out to the woodshed over it but other artists, especially blues artists who have been stealing from each other since the genre began, never are.


Here are my exact quotes:

Originally Posted by colchar

Why is it theft when Zeppelin does it but not theft when thousands of other blues players do it?

Originally Posted by colchar

And so have countless other blues players so I'll ask again, why is it theft when Zeppelin does it but not when others do it?

[cowboytwang]

Originally Posted by colchar

You couldn't be more wrong and, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.

Here in Canada we pay a levy on all blank media whether CDs, DVS, Hard drives, cassettes, video tapes, cellular phones, iPods, or whatever. The amount of the levy increases according to the amount of storage space on the media (ie. a 500GB hard drive has a bigger levy attached than a 250GB hard drive). This levy is collected by the retailer right at the point of sale just as sales tax is so there is no way for us to avoid paying it. It doesn't matter whether you buy a new computer at Best Buy or a video cassette from the Dollar Store - this levy is collected on every piece of blank media in the country. The retailers then submit that money to the government in exactly the same way as they submit the sales tax that they collect. Our government then gives the money from this levy to the record companies and/or artists. Basically it works about the same way as downloading from iTunes does.

Because we pay that levy our government and our courts have determined that we are allowed to download to our heart's content. Record companies have tried to force Canadian ISPs to reveal the names of downloaders (and this despite them quite happily accepting every penny of this levy that our government has already given them!) but have been told to take a hike each and every time.

So nice try but there is no rationalization here nor is there any theft as I, and every other Canadian who has bought any item capable of storing media, has paid a levy and our government and our courts have determined that the payment of that levy gives us the right to download.

The "International Intellectual Property Alliance" is still trying to get legislation in Canada, and are quite upset that they agreed to copyright protection years ago and still haven't enacted laws to pay people for copyrighted works. Also they way the Government look at the law right now is that it's not illegal for someone to upload a song, and they kind of look the other way on downloads, claiming they have better things to go after than people ripping off musicians. They do say that you can copy a song for your own private use. Not sure what that is.

[Red Square]

I feel like all recorded music should be given away freely. I never played a gig where I didn't feel a bit dirty when I was paid. I felt a bit like a prostitute.
In my experience, record companies are the devil.
Just my take.

As far as the LZ discussion, take money out of the equation and then anyone who claims someone else's work/creativity is their own is sort of merely a buffoon. Nothing more.
Yeah...LZ shouldn't have claimed those tunes as their own maybe, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What is imprinted on a record/cd/artwork/cover etc. is rarely in the "artists" control, in my experience.
Clearly, looking at JP's body of work, he didn't need to take anything from anyone to be an incredibly great songwriter. The stuff he discards is probably 100 times better than anything I've ever written.

[WaylonFan76]

Originally Posted by colchar

I didn't say it was OK, I asked why Zeppelin is constantly taken out to the woodshed over it but other artists, especially blues artists who have been stealing from each other since the genre began, never are.


Here are my exact quotes:

Ok, fair enough. But, I guess the Blues artists you mention didn't even make one millionth of the royalties Page and Plant made and keep making. Are you talking Blues artists such as pre-war Delta Blues ? Chicago Blues artists ? In either case, I don't think their publishing was worth much and they did not likely own it anyways. This is all JM $.02 YMMV

[maryjane]

don't be greedy, be grateful...most importantly of all:

shut up and play your guitar; stop crying about somebody else getting paid more than you.

boo friggin' hoo....

[colchar]

Originally Posted by cowboytwang

The "International Intellectual Property Alliance" is still trying to get legislation in Canada, and are quite upset that they agreed to copyright protection years ago and still haven't enacted laws to pay people for copyrighted works. Also they way the Government look at the law right now is that it's not illegal for someone to upload a song, and they kind of look the other way on downloads, claiming they have better things to go after than people ripping off musicians. They do say that you can copy a song for your own private use. Not sure what that is.

Uploading is illegal, downloading is fine.

And the record companies don't seem to have a problem accepting payments from that levy so until they stop accepting those payments they should keep their mouths shut on the subject as we are governed by our government and our courts, not them.

[redstringuitar]

Glad no one copyrighted Em, I'd be f***ed!

[cowboytwang]

Originally Posted by colchar

Uploading is illegal, downloading is fine.

And the record companies don't seem to have a problem accepting payments from that levy so until they stop accepting those payments they should keep their mouths shut on the subject as we are governed by our government and our courts, not them.

Of course the record companies don't have a problem taking money from blank media tax, they don't have to give royalties to whomever actually has a copyrighted hit. The record companies just divide up the money and give it out to whomever they like, even keeping a portion themselves, instead of who deserves it.

[cowboytwang]

Originally Posted by colchar

Uploading is illegal, downloading is fine.

Wait a minute! If uploading is illegal, and you guys NEVER break the law, then how can there be any songs available for you to "download to your hearts content"?

[5am5]

i am genuinely so bored with people justifying "stealing" music - if you are going to do it then do it - don't try and hide behind some kind of twisted moral viewpoint - and all this crap about how led zep stole others stuff as some kind of justification for hating them - well go on write a song that they wrote that touches peoples souls - until you can do that - well just go away :)

[colchar]

Originally Posted by cowboytwang

Of course the record companies don't have a problem taking money from blank media tax, they don't have to give royalties to whomever actually has a copyrighted hit. The record companies just divide up the money and give it out to whomever they like, even keeping a portion themselves, instead of who deserves it.

I'd be curious to see how much they actually give to artists.

[colchar]

Originally Posted by cowboytwang

Wait a minute! If uploading is illegal, and you guys NEVER break the law, then how can there be any songs available for you to "download to your hearts content"?

Just because uploading is technically illegal doesn't mean people don't do it. And what makes you think the sources from which people download are all located here? We download form the exact same sources as everyone else, from Napster back when it was popular to bittorrents today.

[bradpdx]

I'm going to leave aside questions about the sources of Led Zep's songs, that is neither here nor there. The point of the letter is to address copies of performances, which is what recordings are.

The digital/internet revolution has (at this point in time) created odd bedfellows and arbitrary winners and losers. One of the main reasons - perhaps the primary reason - that recorded music is so hard to sell is that it is so easy to distribute digitally. This is not true of other types of art or labor; if I make a piece of pottery or furniture, then piracy is of little concern. It is only media that happens to fit our current digital distribution technology that is at risk of a disruption.

While I am no huge fan of the traditional big record label, I also believe that those companies and people are unfairly lumped together with "straw man" arguments about greed and corruption. Those arguments are especially convenient for people who wish to justify their own patterns of consumption - if you "believe" that recorded music should be free of charge, you can cite without further analysis the popular meme that "record labels are crooks" and download to your heart's content.

This is, unfortunately, about as morally sustainable as deciding that "food should be free" in order to justify shoplifting at the local Safeway. Maybe Safeway can lower prices. Maybe other stores with other ideas about distribution can disrupt Safeway. That's fine, that is how markets discover value. But a unilateral declaration that justifies theft does little to move things in that direction, because it only threatens existing models without proposing alternatives. It makes people react stupidly, angrily.

Musicians today are in a world that is rapidly changing with respect to recording, finances and distribution. It is easier and cheaper than ever to record, and harder to get paid for the results. It is easier and cheaper to get yourself distributed everywhere, and harder to get noticed in the ocean of others doing the same thing. If you play live gigs, then you know that the rate of pay for local work (adjusted for inflation) has decreased by approximately 40% since 1990, and approximately 60% since 1980.

This is not to say that the way things were in the pre-internet age were perfect and model to use today - that would be as stupid as the unilateral "music is free" mindset. But players who saw how the system of 40 years ago worked (Plant, Townsend, etc.) know what was possible and might feel that something is lost in the current landscape. Many bands of the past - heck, let's cite this great article about Radiohead - simply would never have been possible without the financial assistance that a label of that period could provide.

Finally, one idea. Free is a nice price, but easy is better. That's why the iTunes Store is huge - the friction is made extremely low. That's another way to disrupt things, with many possibilities.

[RockerDuck]

My agent told me over forty yrs. ago. "Amateurs copy, professionals steal". Meaning we amateurs imitate in a cover band.

[guitarbiker]

Originally Posted by colchar

You couldn't be more wrong and, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.
Here in Canada we pay a levy on all blank media whether CDs, DVS, Hard drives, cassettes, video tapes, cellular phones, iPods, or whatever. The amount of the levy increases according to the amount of storage space on the media (ie. a 500GB hard drive has a bigger levy attached than a 250GB hard drive). This levy is collected by the retailer right at the point of sale just as sales tax is so there is no way for us to avoid paying it. It doesn't matter whether you buy a new computer at Best Buy or a video cassette from the Dollar Store - this levy is collected on every piece of blank media in the country. The retailers then submit that money to the government in exactly the same way as they submit the sales tax that they collect. Our government then gives the money from this levy to the record companies and/or artists. Basically it works about the same way as downloading from iTunes does.

Because we pay that levy our government and our courts have determined that we are allowed to download to our heart's content. Record companies have tried to force Canadian ISPs to reveal the names of downloaders (and this despite them quite happily accepting every penny of this levy that our government has already given them!) but have been told to take a hike each and every time.

So nice try but there is no rationalization here nor is there any theft as I, and every other Canadian who has bought any item capable of storing media, has paid a levy and our government and our courts have determined that the payment of that levy gives us the right to download.

The Government does charge an extra levy, but it does not go to artists, they simply put it in the pool to pay for all the government workers.

[chezdeluxe]

Originally Posted by WaylonFan76

Actually Mick and Keith pretended they wrote Love In Vain, but when the Robert Johnson CD reissues came out, they had to start crediting him on the Let It Bleed cover.

Not true. My 1969 LP of Let It Bleed shows all songs by Jagger/Richards with the EXCEPTION of Love In Vain which is attributed to "W. Payne"

[WaylonFan76]

Originally Posted by chezdeluxe

Not true. My 1969 LP of Let It Bleed shows all songs by Jagger/Richards with the EXCEPTION of Love In Vain which is attributed to "W. Payne"

I stand corrected.

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by chezdeluxe

Not true. My 1969 LP of Let It Bleed shows all songs by Jagger/Richards with the EXCEPTION of Love In Vain which is attributed to "W. Payne"

At the time, "Woody Payne" was legally the holder of that title, however dubious his history.

He claimed to have written all of Johnson's songs - he was a squatter. Legally, the Stones had to show him as the author, not Robert Johnson, even though they knew better.