Downloading issues (again)

[Dodens Grav]

You really think that most labels don't hurt the bands one way or the other?You really think that bands get benefited directly from labels and record sales?Why the heavy metal trend got diminished and later vanguished in the 80's then?Whose fault do you believe that was?

Uh...what? I never came close to saying any of those things. Every mutual agreement between two parties necessitates sacrifice in one way or another. Certain metal labels like Roadrunner in the 80s really took advantage of some bands and screwed them over. However, on the flip side, a lot of bands would have never been able to release anything substantial or have substantial distribution if it wasn't for record labels, which is why they exist. People also need to be responsible for themselves and informed, so if a band got taken advantage of by a record label, it IS their fault. It's their job to understand what the contract that they're signing means...if you're not comfortable with or don't understand a contract, don't sign it. If you sign it, you're bound, and you agreed to be bound.

If labels were evil, bands wouldn't sign with them ever, would they? So obviously labels do SOME good. Labels help bands spread their music further than they would be able to do themselves, if they were able to do it on their own at all. I'm sure the popularity of metal declined in the 80s for a number of factors, but obviously oversaturation perpetuated by record labels (more specifically the crappy thrash bands in the late 80s somebody referred to earlier) was a major factor in forcing the metal scene more underground. It's definitely not the only reason though.

[daniel]

You obviously think you're terribly clever. Because interjecting your condescending yet restrained remarks certainly makes it seem like you think you're above us mortals.

I don't know how you didn't understand that I meant I'm completely aware of the "right and wrong" here yet choose to ignore it, and also disagree with it. Yes I sometimes make more lighthearted comments as well as about sin. You ARE being a goody-two-shoes simply to be an asshole, as you already admitted repeatedly you have no great issue with people here downloading - Why should I remove my personal view from the argument when there would be much less to contribute if it was all on a general legal level. There is no failure to understand your epic intellect, you putting forth two different points of view is simply pointless to me. I'm glad to see you have no words for the site owner yet plenty for little shits like me and Cochino.

Yes, as you became more ridiculous I couldn't help but call you something less pleasant.
Me replying to you countering my example is not my failure to refute your arguments, stop using fucking analogies and get it said some other way instead if it's so important. Monetary damage? Even if the person would never have bought the CD in the first place? Which you already admitted to being ok as your alter-ego. To contend the opposite "legally" is a stretch indeed I think.

No, saying killing in war is not murder is something I disagree with as in the other cases. I didn't say killing always equals murder.

Yes, I do have interest in discussing this, while you are simply being awkward "because you can".

[Trigger]

Of course it's not the only factor and you're right when you say some bands were "big headed" or sky-walking,but what about their payment?I'm sure when they all complained they got not a single cent from record sales,they didn't all blindly signed a deal!This is were the worst exploitation comes and when the band decides to give up due to betrayal.What I'm trying to say is that a band loses lots from not getting money from a deal when that's their direct source of paid-off effort,while the downloading thing deprives them of less profit and indirect one (which still is a profit).The money in a realistic dollar figure agreed in such a deal is insulting to the band!However,when a band releases let's say 10 copies of an album to sell it,it will be bought either by 10 people,or by 8 that like it and 2 copies remain unsold.If one listens to the album and likes it,he'll buy,if they don't like it,they won't buy it,so these 2 copies remain unsold again.No change,I know it's a simplistic theory but applies in a similar way in "our" market.If you are not Metallica of course.People seek for value for money and I see no wrong in that and it's spreading in every branch of social life.Unless you want to buy anything in sight no matter what the content is,this is not me though.

[quietus]

[quote="daniel"]What makes me think I have the right? Nothing, but I do it anyway because it makes my life easier, so I couldn't give less of a shit about what laws I'm breaking IN THIS CASE. Do I feel guilty? Nope. OH MAH FRIGGIN GAWD, Dan just admitted to having downloaded the album as well... He'll buy it, but he's still a dirty SINNER.}

I guess this is the bottom line of it all that cuts through all this threads philosophy. Lazy,Narcisistic,selfish and thieving.

[daniel]

You're being such a fucking douche, way to ignore all the other stuff I said. Too lazy to make any effort in replying. I guess you mean the same about Dan too then? Or is this a case-specific thing then? Kind of like Nuclear Blast being a shit label etc.

[Cochino]

Illegal downloading has directly contributed to vast declines in record sales for mainstream, pop culture artists. Based on a little research, for example, Britney Spears' first album sold 3 million copies in 6 weeks and over 8 million in its first year. Her 2007 album has sold 3 million copies worldwide to date. Likewise, the Backstreet Boys' first album sold almost 10 million in its first year. Their 2007 album isn't close to that to date either. These are just a couple of examples.

Where is the proof that such decline is due to illegal downloads?
And about the laws being there to help people, sorry but
I won't reply to any of the other points because we're going in circles.

[Dodens Grav]

Of course it's not the only factor and you're right when you say some bands were "big headed" or sky-walking,but what about their payment?I'm sure when they all complained they got not a single cent from record sales,they didn't all blindly signed a deal!This is were the worst exploitation comes and when the band decides to give up due to betrayal.What I'm trying to say is that a band loses lots from not getting money from a deal when that's their direct source of paid-off effort,while the downloading thing deprives them of less profit and indirect one (which still is a profit).The money in a realistic dollar figure agreed in such a deal is insulting to the band!

Well, yes, of course you're right that labels that rip off bands and don't follow through on the actual contract that they signed are complete shit, and that's a totally different ballpark of screwjob. But if a record company follows through on their agreed upon end of a contract and a band still feels screwed, at that point it's their fault. But you're absolutely right to point out that, in reality, there have been a lot of shitty labels or at least labels that took advantage of bands in certain instances. I know that a lot of early Earache and Rise Above releases were never properly refunded, such as Revelation's first album. The band never saw a dime for Salvation's Answer until Lee Dorian found a small box of CDs left over or something 6 or 7 years ago, and the band sold them off on their website for like $10, and that was their total profit for an album that came out in the early 90s. Scenarios like that are obviously fucked up...

However,when a band releases let's say 10 copies of an album to sell it,it will be bought either by 10 people,or by 8 that like it and 2 copies remain unsold.If one listens to the album and likes it,he'll buy,if they don't like it,they won't buy it,so these 2 copies remain unsold again.No change,I know it's a simplistic theory but applies in a similar way in "our" market.If you are not Metallica of course.People seek for value for money and I see no wrong in that and it's spreading in every branch of social life.Unless you want to buy anything in sight no matter what the content is,this is not me though.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here actually, but if I follow it correctly, I still see two issues. First, it's certainly not the case that everyone that hears an album that he really likes will proceed to go out and buy it. Although it is seemingly rare within our own music scene, there are plenty of people that simply don't buy music. Secondly, it still doesn't resolve the issue of the permissibility of downloading. Illegal/unauthorized downloading, whatever phrase one chooses to use, is still an violation of the rights of the artist in that it is the gaining of something, namely an album, for which no compensation was provided. Now, this is speaking 'objectively', meaning looking at it from a theoretical perspective. In practice, however, I understand that sometimes the ends justify the means, so to speak, namely that sometimes illegal downloading leads to legal purchasing, which, pragmatically, I can't really complain about much, which I said earlier.

That is, if I understood your point properly.

Where is the proof that such decline is due to illegal downloads?
And about the laws being there to help people, sorry but
I won't reply to any of the other points because we're going in circles.

There have been plenty of reports and studies and surveys done that directly correlate the advent of piracy with a sharp decline in mainstream record sales, and in fact it's pretty apparent just by comparing the sale numbers of charting albums in the mid-90s to the sale numbers of charting albums now. Total record sales are also down significantly since the mid-90s. All of this I'm sure is well documented and easy to find with google...

As far as laws being designed to help people, well, I don't know how fucked up of a country Argentina is, but it's pretty apparent that there is an abundance of laws passed in the US that are to the betterment of its citizens, such as laws regulating the safety of food products, water, working environments, and the environment, laws that give women and minorities the right to vote, laws that give us the freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms, laws that protect citizens from being forced to quarter troops in their homes and prevent them from conduct illegal processes of search and seizure, the right to due process and protection from double jeopardy, laws protecting from the subjection of cruel and unusual punishment...I mean there are so many laws that are so obviously good for people that your insinuation that laws are bad is somewhat frustrating to me? Are all laws good? Are all laws specifically designed to protect people? No. But to laugh at the suggestion that laws can be good for people is, well, worrying. Argentina must be a really fucked up place to have such a disenfranchised attitude.

I'll respond to daniel tomorrow.

[Trigger]

"I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here actually, but if I follow it correctly, I still see two issues. First, it's certainly not the case that everyone that hears an album that he really likes will proceed to go out and buy it. Although it is seemingly rare within our own music scene, there are plenty of people that simply don't buy music. Secondly, it still doesn't resolve the issue of the permissibility of downloading. Illegal/unauthorized downloading, whatever phrase one chooses to use, is still an violation of the rights of the artist in that it is the gaining of something, namely an album, for which no compensation was provided. Now, this is speaking 'objectively', meaning looking at it from a theoretical perspective. In practice, however, I understand that sometimes the ends justify the means, so to speak, namely that sometimes illegal downloading leads to legal purchasing, which, pragmatically, I can't really complain about much, which I said earlier."

You got that right,to a great extend,but we shouldn't forget that bands in the past had no means to provide their music,while today whoever wants to record can do it in a blink of an eye,this is why people SHOULD do that "test-drive" in the first place,there are dozens of labels today anyway!Take notice that most of them do re-issues and take a look at the comeback of the vinyl and how this is exploited.People will buy it,so one fancy production and a huge "limited edition" sticker and there you go!It will be sold anyway,so that's a nice tricky way to sell more expensive.If you collect vinyls,can you follow the market?It's impossible to do so. That law turned into a rather label-protective one in the end.Most people making music (and if they are NOT Metallica I repeat) want their brainchild to be widely heard because they know how the label-game goes,this is why they provide their music themselves as you probably know already.

[Stormspell]

Oh wow, some of you guys have so much free time on their hands, I envy you!

[Trigger]

Oh wow, some of you guys have so much free time on their hands, I envy you!

Count me out,I'm only posting,not reading
This has all been talked about before,so a copy/paste is enough,haha

[daniel]

"As far as laws being designed to help people, well, I don't know how fucked up of a country Argentina is, but it's pretty apparent that there is an abundance of laws passed in the US that are to the betterment of its citizens, such as laws regulating the safety of food products, water, working environments, and the environment, laws that give women and minorities the right to vote, laws that give us the freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms, laws that protect citizens from being forced to quarter troops in their homes and prevent them from conduct illegal processes of search and seizure, the right to due process and protection from double jeopardy, laws protecting from the subjection of cruel and unusual punishment...I mean there are so many laws that are so obviously good for people that your insinuation that laws are bad is somewhat frustrating to me? Are all laws good? Are all laws specifically designed to protect people? No. But to laugh at the suggestion that laws can be good for people is, well, worrying. Argentina must be a really fucked up place to have such a disenfranchised attitude."

You must be incredibly ignorant to the political happenings of the last decade for starters.

[Dodens Grav]

You obviously think you're terribly clever. Because interjecting your condescending yet restrained remarks certainly makes it seem like you think you're above us mortals.

That's charming coming from yourself.

You ARE being a goody-two-shoes simply to be an asshole

How can a goody-two-shoes be an asshole? There's yet more proof that you don't actually employ logic and reasoning in your thought process.

as you already admitted repeatedly you have no great issue with people here downloading - Why should I remove my personal view from the argument when there would be much less to contribute if it was all on a general legal level. There is no failure to understand your epic intellect, you putting forth two different points of view is simply pointless to me. I'm glad to see you have no words for the site owner yet plenty for little shits like me and Cochino.

Obviously you continue to fail to understand what I'm saying, since you still insist that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. The problem is that you don't understand the concept of looking at something objectively and realizing that your objective analysis is not necessarily the same as your subjective views, which more often than not is a pragmatic compromise. Objectively, I realize that illegal downloading is a violation of artists' rights and for that alone should not be done, among the other reasons that I've discussed.

However, subjectively I also realize that, besides the fact that nothing can be done to stop people from downloading, there are numerous instances, particularly within the underground metal culture, in which downloading has benefited bands, both in cases like Hell being well-known today because of tape trading and downloading and in the cases of people simply downloading an album to decide whether or not they want to buy it, and because of these things I really can't allow myself to get too worked up about, for example, you or Dan downloading the Hell album to check it out, knowing that you would have bought it if you liked it. Your mistake has been in assuming that my argument was against you, or against anyone really. You evidently think that the only reason that I said anything was because you downloaded Human Remains and I really took offense to that or something, but the reality is that I said something simply because the topic was brought up, and it's a topic that I think is both interesting and important, and that people in general should be more cognizant of what they're doing when they pirate material. The fact that you think I care any more or less that Dan downloaded it than that you downloaded it is funny, really. What, do you think I didn't say anything because he runs this site or because I don't want to get banned? I didn't say anything to him because he's not involved in this discussion. That's why I've only said anything to you, Cochino, and Trigger...because you're involved in the discussion.

Me replying to you countering my example is not my failure to refute your arguments, stop using fucking analogies and get it said some other way instead if it's so important. Monetary damage? Even if the person would never have bought the CD in the first place? Which you already admitted to being ok as your alter-ego. To contend the opposite "legally" is a stretch indeed I think.

Yes, I do have interest in discussing this, while you are simply being awkward "because you can".

I really can't tell if you're lazy or ignorant. "Stop using fucking analogies"? What's so hard to understand about analogies? Analogies are used to explain things, which is kind of an important feature in a debate. Analogies are used to simplify, so why would I "get it said some other way" when using an analogy is the clearest way to do so?

As far as the 'damage' thing, I wasn't talking about monetary damage. Obviously if a person was never going to buy something, then they were never going to buy something. But is somebody illegally downloads something and keeps the mp3s, even if he doesn't like it, then he's violating the artist's rights to protect his creation and how it's distributed. That in itself is damage.

Your "alter-ego" comment just continues to prove that you don't understand what I was saying, by the way, as is saying that I'm "being awkward" because I can. I don't even know what that means, but I'm sure it's stupid and a result of you not comprehending me. You're obviously too lazy to have a serious discussion, so why don't you just go away and masturbate to your 80s private pressing LPs?

You must be incredibly ignorant to the political happenings of the last decade for starters.

Right, because I don't know anything about the Patriot Act, that was in fact just extended 2 days ago. It's amazing how you can quote a post in which I clearly point out that not all laws passed have benefited or were intended to benefit the people (although, of course masked as such) and then say that. My point was simply that there are so many laws in place that ARE directly beneficial to the populace that to laugh at the suggestion there are laws that are good for people and that were designed with the benefit of people in mind is ridiculous, or the product of living in a really fucked up place. Or do you take issue with a law being passed protecting people from being persecuted for speaking their mind (the right to free speech)? That sounds like a pretty universally good law to me (although of course not all speech is protected, ultimately...).

[daniel]

Maybe it's only in your world the term "goody-two-shoes" means something wholly positive - as it's usually employed in a sarcastic sense and thus could without problem entail the person in question very well being an "asshole" as well.

I understand you perfectly fine, and think it's intellectual wankery to go about things the way you are - you can present it any way you like but you're doing it out of interest to present "the other side" of things to put it crudely, and the one thing I can't comprehend is why anyone would waste their time with such.

If you're going to use ridiculous analogies equating illegal downloading with murder then you are not explaining things simply, that is taking things way out of proportion and I don't even see the need for your stupid examples here.

Enough things have already been put forward and on the one hand as you present it there is no arguing the legality of the issue so what's the point saying anything else.

The reason I can make a comment like I did about politics after your post is that most of the things you mentioned as in place to protect people are NOT working - so to me it seemed like you weren't all that up to date on changes that have occurred, or of the countless examples of governments ignoring supposed legal rights. You did not "clearly" mention anything about certain laws being masked as beneficial.

[DaN]

Sneak Peek.

Some of us just had a sneak peek, that's all.

There are 2 totally different issues being discussed here I think, and the mixup is resulting in unnecessary long diatribes. The mp3-hoarding, non-album-buying, pirate kiddie dowloader ilk that both quiteus and Dodens Grav are making some fair arguments against just aren't the kind of people who visit this forum, and obviously neither Cochino nor daniel would fall into that particular cathegory. Your lazers are pointed in the wrong direction imho...

Today, having a sneak peek at a new album release can be done in a number of ways:

1. Checking out a few clips at the band's site/myspace/label page etc..
2. Use a streaming service like Spotify, Grooveshark etc..
3. Listening to the album at the local music store.
4. Borrowing the album from a friend.
5. Downloading the whole bloody thing from a blog or torrent.

It just so happens that the 5th option is the fastest/easiest/most convenient one and I can't for the life of me understand why this particular solution is such a bloody controversial method

[daniel]

Yes thanks. It's the easiest and fastest pure and simple, which has been said all along, and in that case the "oh I'm breaking the law" argument really isn't an issue. I don't believe anyone never breaks or has broken the law, so it's bs getting so holier than thou.