If someone gave you a copy of a CD...

[chet]

Originally Posted by Lost_N_Austin

I recently went to hear Keith Gattis play at a local smoky beer joint in Austin called Buddy's. I was very impressed with this Tele player and his model 65 AMP.

I invited two TDPRI guy's out to Buddy's the next time Keith played there. As luck would have it, I spotted a CD that Keith put out in 1996 at a local pawn shop. Purchased it for $1.99. This particular CD was marked with a sticker that said NOT FOR SALE nfs-1. I was so impressed with this CD that I burned a copy for my TDPRI guys. I wanted them to hear the songs on this great CD that is probably tough to find. Between the five of us (with spouses) we probably contributed $20.00 bucks to the band in the tip jar on that one night. I've been back three times so my contribution to the artist is around $15.00.

When I asked Keith to sign this CD he was surprised that I even had one and asked me where I came up with it. I've since logged onto Google looking to see if I could buy a CD copy and found one for $1.08 and one on fleabay asking $4.95 that had not sold.

I don't know what the artists profit on a single CD in limited distribution might be but I'm thinking it's relatively small, maybe under a dollar per unit. My goal was to make others aware of the artist and his talent with the idea that they would support him by attending his shows or buy more of his music in the future.

Now I realize thanks to Heather's persistance that I was wrong so I'm asking those guys to smash the CD copies and boycott any and all of the upcoming Keith Gattis shows like the one Sept 31 at Antone's and the one on October 19 at Stubb's when he plays with Dwight Yoakam. And the one November 3 at El Arroyo in Austin, TX (w/ Cory Morrow).

I've learned my lesson. Sorry.

Why boycott Keith Gattis? I don't see what he did to be boycotted. If you're joking then use an icon.

OK- I'm guessing that you're being facetious.

[chet]

Originally Posted by 0le FUZZY

<li> NOPE!!!

<li> Jes like Daddy Elmis's avitar, someone steps up and types then --------



<li> There ain't noe final ant-sir.



<li> Wheel go roun in circles.


0le FUZZY

What's the problem with us discussing the problem? It brings out different points of view which some may not have considered. You are right that there isn't an answer....yet. That's the point of discussing it.
If I were an artist who was putting out a new CD I would want as much money due me as possible. Being a new artist I would probably be better off selling as many CDs as possible so i could finance more CDs and tours. Maybe expand the personnel in the band or upgrade the bands equipment etc.
As an individual recording artist I would have no control of have to depend on whatever playback equipment/media was used to make my work available to the public. Whether I could make a living at it would depend on how many units I sold.
Maybe I'm naive and most artists sign thier life away to big corporate entities and don't have to worry about anything ever again- which sounds to me like "selling out" but I digress.

[professor]

I've taken a couple of copied CDs (or just MP3s) of artists' work. Sometimes, the tracks I receive are boots recorded at a concert. In any case, if I like what I hear, I generally go out and buy more of their work through "legitimate" means (I may or may not actually replace the bootleg cd or track...). If I don't like it, I usually toss it, although I might forward it along to someone who might like better than I did.

At the end of the day, it's exposed me to something I might not otherwise have hard, and as I said, if I like it enough to buy more work by an artist, I do, as well as supporting them through concerts, et al. In this era of limited distribution support from labels, sometimes this free swapping of discs and tracks has the effect of becoming "guerilla marketing" that actually helps to support an artist.

Just another perspective... ;)

[popthree]

near as i can tell, there is a final answer. it's just not the same answer for everyone.

[Heather Anne Peel]

Interesting thread Chet started. This one has gone better than some others, recently.

[Seanycaster]

My friend and I have an annual ritual where at the end of the year we'll make a compilation cd for one another of our best tracks of the year. We're the kind of guys who like to sit around pontificating about music because we play and we like to think we know what we're talking about and we each think we know better than the other. The reason I bring this up is because this year those, fairly inconsequential cd's meant that I went out and bought cd's by four or five artists that I otherwise wouldn't have. My friend was much the same. I guess my point is that this kind of thing can lead to sales and promote music instead of killing it.

[chet]

I thought of an answer while I was jogging today but I'll wait and see if anyone else thinks of it too. Jogging's good for clearing your mind and thinking of stuff. :-)

[david henman]

Originally Posted by snoglobe

True, but the publisher is denied the opportunity to make that extra sale.

...perhaps, but its insignificant, and unrelated to anyone's livelihood.

with the possible exception of "consumers reports", magazines make very little if any money from sales. their profits are made up almost entirely from ad revenue.

-dh

[david henman]

Originally Posted by Big John

I work oft times at a college in Cambridge as the Mac tech and i have to tell you the younger students (17+) would not dream EVER of walking into a store and BUYING a CD !!

...would they be as eager to work for free as they are to steal someone else's livelihood?

no hypocrisy there, nope.

-dh

[chet]

That was my point when I started the thread. It seems that people have no scruples in copying CD's for each other. I don't think they feel that there's anything wrong with doing it.

[david henman]

Originally Posted by jwsamuel

The fact is that a magazine is a copyrighted work and it is illegal to copy and distribute a copyrighted work. If you are going to take the position that copying a CD is illegal because of the copyright laws, you must also take the same position for all copyrighted works.
In addition, writers retain the rights for future sales of their work. When you buy a magazine, you have not purchased the right to distribute a writer's work to others. The writer retains control of further uses of the article unless his agreement with the magazine says otherwise.
Any writer who gets paid only once for his or her work is not doing a good job of marketing.
Jim

... i agree in regard to the writer, not the publication.

that said, i don't have much of a problem with a one-off photocopy, similarly with someone making a copy of a specific song (ie a cassette copy from the cd).

i think we have to draw the line at free distribution - making an entire movie, cd, book or magazine article available for unlimited downloading - without the writer's full consent.

-dh

[david henman]

Originally Posted by Daddy Elmis

My fervent wish is that folks that abide piracy would take a day and do some real research into the issue, starting with U.S. Copyright Act.

My favorite response is that making illegal copies "helps" the artist by giving them exposure. Seems to me the artist (and his/her label to whom he/she has granted the rights) should be the ones to make that decision, not the pirate. This would be like you stealing food from a restaurant and handing it out so the people could find out how good the restaurant is.

And, BTW, the facts (sales figures) contradict that oft-used rationale for piracy. Also, the vast majority of pirated music is from artists at the major labels, not small-time indy artists. If the artist wants you to have his/her music for free, they can publish it on their website for you to download.

The argument that you are "sticking it to The Man" when you pirate is likewise full of crap. The artist suffers in proportion to whatever their royalty deal is with The Man. So you're sticking it to both -- if the fact that somehow you're sticking it to the artist "less" makes you feel good, so be it. This rationale is also the same as the one made by folks that don't pay their taxes -- you see how well that works for them.

As for YouTube, they are structured to take advantage of the protections under the DMCA as an ISP (see YouTube). In essence, they are saying "we're just the ISP, and we remove material alleged to violate copyright as soon as we are made aware of it." Time will tell how well this works for them.

At the end of the day, it is illegal to copy protected works except in limited circumstances of "fair use" (as defined in the Copyright Act, not as defined by you or me) or the "time shifting" rationale adopted for videotaping. We can debate until the cows come home over it, but it is federal law. You can elect to break the law, but let's not try to paint that as some noble cause. You want to change the law? Write your legislature, vote, lobby, run for office.

...well stated.

-dh

[Fuzzyhead]

Originally Posted by webmaster

The only solution will be the next version of the software. When SACDs started to be distributed many thought that this would be the format. It was higher quality and it couldn't be burned or downloaded. But this format has officially failed to catch on.

Not true. You can rip SACDs with a recording program or burner that can read RAW data (like Adobe's Audition or the free Audacity). I've done it with a Sting CD I bought, because it wouldn't play in my CD player. That really makes me angry, you buy something and it doesn't work because of copy protection. Just like I had to wipe my HDD and reinstall XP because of Sony's stupid rootkit... Stuff like that really lowers my ethical threshold towards the so-called "pirates".

BTW, if you wanna read a technologist's angle on this issue (basically that's how I approach this, too), here's a cool column:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1996839,00.asp

[Stuco]

I think it hurts bands that rely on one or two hits on the pop charts to sell records. I don't think it hurts artists whose listeneres are interested in hearing the whole album and are in for the long haul.

[dr_twangenstein]

In my humble opinion,

There isn't much major label stuff worth having these days which is a normal remedy to the record execs being a$$holes for the last hundred years brought on by the advent of reliable cheap recording technology.

Most musicians I know, sell their discs themselves or else they give them away to get people to the shows to buy tickets, t-shirts and the like, because that is where the artists and not the music pimps can actually make money.

It's very easy to record your own songs, put them up on CD Baby and iTunes and get royalty checks that way or sell them through your own website.

If you deserve to be supported by your fans, you will be.

Most musicians I know upload, download and share music with others habitually to network and to learn about other bands not to mention learning cover songs.

[Big John]

Mr. Twangenstein has it i feel !!!
Most "major" labels are also producing weapons systems, washing machines and a few million other things, their music 'divisions' can trundle along resurrecting songs from the 70's that this crop of teenyboppers have never heard of and make a few million quid !!
Its this whole 'mechanical' ownership thing that has to change !, the medium you choose to listen to your music shouldn't matter and collecting pennies for each one should be abandoned too, you own the song if you wrote and registered it, if it gets 'air time' good luck, claim what you can.
Meanwhile, upload your songs, bypass ANY record company and do it yourself, if its good its good if its cr*p you won't get the support of some million dollar company trying to sell it as good, it'll just be cr*p.
Only you can convince people to go to your gigs and start a following, if you are as good as you think you are then 'go for it'.

[Wildhawk]

Water Trout, Joe Bonamassa, Joe Kubek, Roy Buchanan(RIP)....

When was the last time you heard one of these guys on local radio/TV?

I prefer to buy CD's,DVD's and concert tickets based my "illegal music" listening. It helps me discover the guys listed above.

Something that those that quote copyright laws can't do.

[Daddy Elmis]

It's amazing that any bands were "discovered" in the days before digital music to hear some of you all talk. My God, how did we ever find out about Velvet Underground, Traffic, Allman Bros, etc. (these were the folks that got no airplay back in the day).

Seems that the mega successful bands, those that have had careers measured in decades, did quite well getting discovered without folks stealing their music on a grand scale.

What's funny is that if we were talking about their T-shirts, their wallets, or their instruments, I think most of you would say you wouldn't steal them. Just something about intangible digital information I guess.

[TheViking]

When I grew up during the 70's and 80's every kid was listening to radio shows and most of us were recording the songs we liked on tape. If you liked a band you went out and bought their LP or their tape, it was as simple as that. I probably still have a bunch of those "recorded from radio" tapes around somewhere. Radio promoted the artists. We would not get to know about them unless it was for the fact that they got air play.

When the VCR's got big, most of my friends would record movies, music programs or any other thing of intrerest beeing shown on a screen. Again, if you really liked the movie, you went out and bought it. Why? Because you wanted the real deal. With MTV and VH1 and so on, kids have been able to record music videos for years and years. Again the shows promotes the artists.

Ok so now it is the net. Yes you can download tunes and tracks. You can keep them in your ipod or other brand mp3 player or stock them on your computer. What is the diffrence between then and now except that the media forms have become more portable and smaller? I meet a lot of kids and they have a lot more original music than I used to own. They are extreemly loyal to the artists they like, and many of these kids have more than one legal copy of even the same albums.

Do artists really loose money on this? I think the losses are marginal. The kids who download without buying are the ones who can't afford the albums. Those who can, buys the albums. A lot of these kids use the mp3's to get their friends hooked on their kind of music. They buy merchandise, they go to concerts and yeah they still buy albums. I think that as a music industry we need to adapt and overcome rather than sue and threath.

[chet]

[quote=Daddy Elmis]It's amazing that any bands were "discovered" in the days before digital music to hear some of you all talk. My God, how did we ever find out about Velvet Underground, Traffic, Allman Bros, etc. (these were the folks that got no airplay back in the day).

QUOTE]

It was called "FM Radio".

[Heather Anne Peel]

Originally Posted by TheViking

When I grew up during the 70's and 80's every kid was listening to radio shows and most of us were recording the songs we liked on tape. If you liked a band you went out and bought their LP or their tape, it was as simple as that. I probably still have a bunch of those "recorded from radio" tapes around somewhere. Radio promoted the artists. We would not get to know about them unless it was for the fact that they got air play.

When the VCR's got big, most of my friends would record movies, music programs or any other thing of intrerest beeing shown on a screen. Again, if you really liked the movie, you went out and bought it. Why? Because you wanted the real deal. With MTV and VH1 and so on, kids have been able to record music videos for years and years. Again the shows promotes the artists.

Ok so now it is the net. Yes you can download tunes and tracks. You can keep them in your ipod or other brand mp3 player or stock them on your computer. What is the diffrence between then and now except that the media forms have become more portable and smaller? I meet a lot of kids and they have a lot more original music than I used to own. They are extreemly loyal to the artists they like, and many of these kids have more than one legal copy of even the same albums.

Do artists really loose money on this? I think the losses are marginal. The kids who download without buying are the ones who can't afford the albums. Those who can, buys the albums. A lot of these kids use the mp3's to get their friends hooked on their kind of music. They buy merchandise, they go to concerts and yeah they still buy albums. I think that as a music industry we need to adapt and overcome rather than sue and threath.

One major difference is the quality of CD/mp3 copies is infinitely superior to what we copied onto cassette and VHS back in the day.

[petebradt]

Stealing music is wrong. If you steal music, you are a criminal and I, for one, don't want anything to do with you.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[Big John]

Originally Posted by Daddy Elmis

It's amazing that any bands were "discovered" in the days before digital music to hear some of you all talk. My God, how did we ever find out about Velvet Underground, Traffic, Allman Bros, etc. (these were the folks that got no airplay back in the day).

They were "discovered" by them playing live, creating a 'buzz' and getting signed on the strength of it, that seems pretty simple to me.
Try getting an A&R man to your gig nowadays and THEN get him to make a decision - not so simple.
This really is one of those 'circular' arguments and i think we are now going around for the second time, all i would say is, "Dont be an ostrich" and if you are linking this with making money perhaps you should try another business.