| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/22/10 12:11 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| bridgehere wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| bridgehere wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Think about this folks. This is a plea for people to concern themselves with the plight of one half of the most despicably evil businesses the world has ever known: The Hollywood Entertainment Empire. The whiner asks WHY... why doesn't anyone talk about infringement issues any more. lol!
"This demonization of major labels has had an adverse effect on the entire industry and is, according to Barsuk Record co-founder Josh Rosenfeld, "driving people to feel like it's an ethically pure act to take the music without paying for it."
They are fucking demons. And as a whole, in effect, if not in the eyes of the law, they constitute a monopoly.
What's sad is how, once again, people FAR removed from the battle get sidetracked into this riding haughtily on an argument about the ethics of downloading music on the internet. |
Stealing is stealing it doesn't matter whom you steal from, plus this affects artists and writers, often people who are not making boatloads of money. |
this is, sadly, the perspective from which good people enter this discussion. stealing is stealing, there's no arguing with that, I'm gonna park my butt comfortably down on this simple fact and ignore this entire world and and the infinitely complex realities and history and ramifications for society of this incredibly exploitive and destructive force that is the Hollywood music industry. what's to talk about here? stealing is stealing, there it is. end of story. thank you very much. easiest debate you've ever won on Rebkells. congratulations. |
Nah, I have won easier ones. You also ignored the fact that I said it affects writers and artists, people who are often not making boatloads of money. |
I ignored it because it's a little naive. Sorry. That's the truth.
Believe it or not, this stuff can be very much tied into my rants the other day in the immigration threads. In terms of how we don't equip our young people to understand the world that they live in. We try to create Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. It works sometimes, and those people are pretty much screwed unless they have some cynic next to them to keep them grounded in reality, or it fails miserably but confusedly and erratically most times, and often results in creating angry reactionaries.
The idea that downloading music is stealing and this is a valid example of the fact that "stealing is wrong" and that the ARTISTs and writers and musicians and singers are SCREWED when people download and that THIS somehow represents the business model that is the Hollywood music industry... where do I even start? I don't mean to go on the offense but my thoughts are... how old is this person? where do they hail from? what do they know?
Are you as old as me? (52 and a half) Do you live in Los Angeles? New York? (remember the days where the movies accurately portrayed the bright eyed and bushy haired innocents from the midwest arriving off the train in New York City and SHIT WOULD JUST START HAPPENING? lol!)
Do you know anything about how the music business or Hollywood operates? Don't take this the wrong way but I don't think you do. |
Probably more about how Hollywood operates than the music business, I am repeating what was said back in the day when the artists were up in arms about this. I am a lot of things but naive is not one. I may not be as knowledgeable as I thought I was about the subject but that does not make me naive. So, I am not backing down on the basic premise that it is wrong to download without paying. As far as my ability to think, to understand the world we live in with all its complexities; I have been doing that since I was born. I was way ahead of my classmates on these things because of my family. There are many 52 and 1/2 year old people who do not have a clue and never will. But you picked the wrong person when you decided out-of-the blue that you could define me. You are so off the mark.
I am quite knowledgeable about most business industries. I have never lived in Nashville or Hollywood, which does not negate my ability to be qualified to talk about these matters; however, I have admitted above that I may need to educate myself, because I am going from memory regarding this issue when it was making headlines and the artists were going to Washington. If I remember correctly, there were smaller artists and songwriters, who suffered from the illegal downloads. Or that was the argument that I remembered. I would imagine that this affects different musicians and different songwriters differently, depending upon how large they are, how independent they are in their business; not all musicians and writers are the same, their situations aren't the same. Finally, I know better than to take your word for something, so if I am significantly interested I may go do research. And please don't take offense that I don't just take your word for this or anything, it is not personal. I don't take anyone's word, except my friends' and even then, not always.
 You can be so condescending, but that is your thing not mine. I don't read your rants because I don't want to spend the time. I don't mean that in a negative matter, but they just don't interest me. I have my own opinions and I discuss things with my friends who are quite educated, knowledgeable, and definitely on the high end of the IQ scale in both knowledge and emotions. About the only person on this board that I read to get a concise, educated, non-ranting, knowledgeable opinion is beknighted in area 51. I don't necessarily read his posts for that reason in the ncaa and wcbb forums, because I often don't agree with him. I am not saying anything negative about him, just because I don't agree with him about some topics that arise in the women's basketball forums. But in Area 51 and the topics he posts about, he is quite knowledgeable. I may not always agree with him here either, but he gives me something to think about and sometimes research and/or discuss with my friends.
I am not saying that I do not learn from people at Area 51, I do. Red equals luck brought up the issue of non-owner's insurance and it was something which I nor no one I know has ever needed. I had no knowledge of it, but then I read Sambista's post and it appeared she thought she was getting something she wasn't. MB1 chimed in and really provided some great information and made me think and I learned something. I learn about many things here; however, political, economic and/or social issues (which really cannot be separated), I do not come here to get educated by someone's opinion. However, I do read posts that make me think and may cause me to do research and/or discuss with my friends. I am not saying there are not very intelligent, good people here, there most definitely are. But I am not brought to Area 51 to expand my knowledge of political and social issues, though it sometimes happens.
As far as my age, my knowledge, my iq, my life experience, etc; I am quite comfortable with them and feel no need for your opinion regarding these things.
OH, ONE MORE THING: I replied in kind when I said "nah, I have won easier ones." I completely GOT your condescending sarcasm. And, as we all know, no one wins an argument at Rebkell. The only person I know who proclaims to do so is Van. I don't know, maybe you do the same. Like I said, I don't read your posts. Well, obviously, I read the ones that are directed at me. Again, admitting I don't read your posts is not me trying to put you down. Whether I read your posts or not would and should be irrelevant to you. We are just two people who post at the same website.
OH YEAH. I completely understand about accounting and expenses and gross profit versus net profit and how number can be used a "number" or ways. I know that actors and actresses were owned by MGM, etc in the old days and that they got taken. I know that tv actors and actresses whose contracts did not account for replays of the series, because it was really not even something to think about at one time, got taken. I know that singers were managed and taken advantage of in earlier times. I know that and understand it. I know that there are usually lawsuits with Sony or whomever to get out of a contract after the musicians make it. I KNOW that 99 percent of business is about what you can make and not about a collaborative effort. From real estate, banking, auto sales, financial advisors and investment firms, oil companies, power companies, etc, etc, etc; it is about getting yours.
As an aside: That is one reason I wanted to be an agent. I wanted to make sure my client was taken care of and that my client understood about money, about how to save, and not be taken advantage of by anyone. I haven't become an agent, but I haven't given up the dream. I am really thinking of finding talent in my area, be it sports, modeling or acting. It is something for which I could really have a passion.
Last edited by bridgehere on 04/22/10 1:07 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 12:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="KeiraNY"]I feel the same way! Then again, most of the shit I downloaded I already have, so I've already given the record companies my money! I have the stacks of CD's to prove it too! I feel not an ounce of shame for downloading my music!
| Quote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
I'll admit it: I steal music regularly.
Do I feel bad about it? No, not even slightly.
Thanks to file sharing I get to listen to a way larger variety of music than I otherwise could. As a direct result, these days I spend more on legally purchased than I ever have. |
|
Well, I probably downloaded 3000 songs when I was doing it, post-Napster, so I do feel guilty for about 2500 of those downloads. However, it did get me back into music and now I pay and download more than I would have in the past.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 12:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bridgehere wrote: |
As far as my age, my knowledge, my iq, my life experience, etc; I am quite comfortable with them and feel no need for your opinion regarding these things. |
Hey I don't know you. You specifically quote me to tell me that stealing is bad no matter who you're stealing from? That's patronizing to me, as well as presumptuous. You expect someone not to pull their punches at that point and if you didn't then you're probably kind of naive. 
If you don't read Area 51 to learn from the people here then you're missing out one something. Or at least it USED to mean that you'd be missing out on something. It used to be a place where YOU could learn a thing or two. To wit:
You want to learn how the music business works? You know, to replace the superficial something you read a few years ago that you can't quite remember exactly?
Here you go. I wrote this five years ago. Praise be to Reb it's still here. It's condescending in tone because I already knew when I wrote it that it was going to be read by people on the internet who aren't shy about dropping nuggets like it's bad to steal into an adult discussion.
I got NEWS for you and those people. That's not really news or good Area 51 information. Turns out there's a LOT more complicated things going on in this world that are also bad. They need to be talked about. If you want to understand some of them as they apply to the recording industry... then here, read my post from December 13th, 2005.
-----------------------------------------
Please Lord, let me make this brief. (Little divine spell checking wouldn't hurt either.)
First some stipulations (for the lawyers.) I'm using the general language of the layperson. If I throw around a word like monopoly, for instance, I'm not making a charge of wrongdoing as specifically outlined in anti-trust statutes. Get a grip. One of my most basic understandings of LIFE Is that it is the tactic of nefarious business interests to find clever ways around the law. They might do it as a company. They might do it collectively as an industry. Hollywood, as an industry, has been singularly masterful in its ability to collectively get away with whatever sharky schemes they can devise to secure predominance over the entire world of commercial entertainment. (there's another example... if I use the word Hollywood, I'm not referring to the city. haha...)
da music business
It is certainly the dream of most every garage band to come to Hollywood and "get signed" by a major label record company. Not just garage bands but really talented and polished acts with unique material and concepts, other musical artists... singers, songwriters. It is, I think, safe to say that a signed major label recording contract is seen by many as a fantastic accomplishment for themselves, a validation of their talent and worth as artists, and as holding the promise of fame and fortune. (okay I know the writing stinks. I don't have the time to do it better. Just bear with it. Remember, this is FREE.)
Hollywood LOVES for these creatives to think like that. Not only does Hollywood thrive on their naivete, the jammer contends that exploiting that naivete is an essential part of the Hollywood business model. Let me sprinkle a little history. Very little.
Hollywood started life as a monopoly. Found to be a monopoly by the US government in 1945. Ordered at that time to give up certain elements of their business. Because, frankly, they OWNED everything. They owned the process of creating... the actual studios, sound stages and sets, talent, equipment, crew, etc.; the methods of distribution of the product, the actual trucks that carried prints of movies all around the country; the publicity machine; and even the theaters. (That's why you'll see a really old theater now and then with a name like The Paramount.)
Thing is, Hollywood had already been a monopoly for decades. And they had gotten VERY rich doing things their way. It's not easy to give up your monopolistic tendencies after doing business that way for so long. Especially... ahem... when you don't want to.
So my point is that Hollywood adjusted. They'd feared government interference for a long time. It happened. It was very painful. It led to something called "the breakup" of the studio system. They certainly understood all along, and understand to a degree that is difficult for most laypersons to even grasp, how important it is to OWN as much as they are legally allowed to own. So they want to OWN everything the government will allow them to own. Ownership is everything to Hollywood. Always has been.
Interruptions!
When someone creates something--a song, a band, a screenplay--it then becomes a piece of property. Very cool. Write a screenplay and you're creating, as if you could create a piece of land with a house on it, a piece of real legal property complete with (many, different) inherent rights of ownership you'd retain as an owner of any piece of commercial real estate.
Hollywood is always buying that kind of property. THEY WANT IT ALL! If they own it, they control it. They literally want to own and control everything that's out there.
So... when the band comes to town, as they all do, and gets into the showcase clubs, as they all do, to try to get the attention of the record companies and land a recording contract, there is just a whole bunch of stuff they're walking right into that they have no idea of. On one side of the table is a bunch of sharks operating from a business model that was created by brilliant scoundrels and has been in development, refined and ever evolving, for almost a century. On this side of the table is a bunch of teenage or twenty something musicians.
What do you think is going to happen? People are going to be separated from their property. (That is a big big big big BIG concept in Hollywood. Separate the sucker from his property.)
Does it matter? Does it matter that people get screwed? I believe it matters to the point that it effects where the human race is headed. But I'll get to that in another post.
Here is what really happens when a band or an artist "gets signed" to a recording contract.
Let's forget everything that the artist thinks is going to happen as well as everything that is promised by the record companies. Here's what the deals look like in terms of what fundamentally is happening.
The artist is selling what they've created to the record companies. That's what "getting signed" really is. They're selling their songs, compositions, lyrics. They're selling the name of their act. What selling means is the transferal of rights of ownership. Copyrights, etc. They're also selling away all rights to record or PERFORM those songs or materials or to record or even perform NEW material under the name of their act or band as signed.
In perpetuity.
Forever.
Gone.
That's the business end of copyright law. Copyright is transferable. It's a commodity. It's a set of rights as to what someone can do with a piece of property. Hollywood is buying up those rights when they sign an act to a record contract. Always buying and like permanently, people.
What bands get for selling the rights to their property away forever is a chance. Goes like this. Don't hold me to exact numbers. I'm not wrong in the concept. They sign an act to contract, money is all over the place, but mostly it stays in the fine print (LOL! THAT'S FUNNY). Creative bookkeeping! Remember. THEY ARE NOT NEW at this. MGM alone had scores of accountants on staff even back in the 1920s.
So what they do is charge the bands for everything. Comes out of their signing money. All recording costs, all legal costs, all promotion costs. It's all spent against future earnings. Everything comes out of the artists cut. But, thing is, there really isn't any money being generated by the artist yet so, in reality, the company is technically fitting the bill for everything. Most of the time, of course, there aren't any future earnings. But even so, the companies are padding the numbers. They're a major recording studio, right? You think studio time at a major is cheap? lol! The prices are exorbitant, to say the least. The legal costs. etc.
The record companies justify their costs and business practices by saying this. They brag about it actually. That something like 80% of the acts they sign never make a dime. So the acts that do make money pay for all the expenses incurred on those that don't. It's the price, the record companies claim, for their tireless efforts to find and develop new talent. Very Happy
Right.
They sign with an 80% rate of failure incurring exorbitant losses just so the cream of the crop, from Jessica Simpson's kid sister to Kid Rock, can rise to the top? lol! Come on.
That's not what's going on. The record companies are a permanent monopolistic entity in the world. They decide what you will hear, what will work, they make mistakes, certainly, but not that many. Not 80%. That's something else going on there. They absolutely control the means of production and marketing and distribution. They know exactly what they want. They determine what will work. Their people run the recording sessions. They've got seasoned studio musicians standing by to use wherever needed. They abhor great talent. They're not looking for it. They manufacture musical acts, sometimes from the ground up, sometimes from something that comes along. They're always looking to exploit trends. To create musical entertainment that will capitalize on popular trends.
Okay, that was a rant. Let me get back on point.
Hollywood is buying. What they buy they own permanently. It's in every new artist contract. In perpetuity. All rights to the name, the songs, all rights to record OR perform the material. Everything you could think of and a bunch of stuff you'd never think of. Ask John Fogerty. Ask Prince. They could tell you what all that means.
But what does this do to the poor unfortunate 80%? Hmmm? Those young creative performers who just could be the next earth shaking GENERATION of artists who open the eyes of the world and change EVERYTHING, like the Beatles and Dylan did?
Well, it permanently takes off their hands maybe the best 24 or so songs that they'll ever write. Damn skippy on that count. The thing is about songwriting or even movie writing... most people, even the greatest, only have so much in the well. Maybe the product of a unique collaboration with others. A once in a lifetime band concept that they can never get back. It kills what they created. It kills their dreams and discourages most of them forever. They go back to wherever they came from and just do something else with their lives.
They get nothing but a sad but exciting story and lose everything. Hollywood can point to the numbers and say, "Hey, look what we spent trying to develop this artist." But, when it's all over, Hollywood doesn't give back the property rights to these artists, people. They don't turn back over the ownership of the songs and the concepts and the right to record or perform the material so those artists can regroup and pursue their careers and livelihoods elsewhere.
Oh no.
That material is SHELVED.
So these acts. Suddenly. Just like that. Find themselves paralyzed by their contracts. They're unable to perform the songs they might have been working on most of their lives. That's over. Many try going out and changing the name or the concept a little but they quickly cease and desist when they see what Hollywood puts on their asses for simply trying to perform their own songs. It ain't pretty. (Even many LEGENDS of the music industry, like John Fogerty, could tell you about that.)
What they're doing, and if you've read this far this is your payoff... information you will only get here... they're just cornering the market on musical creativity. They sign these acts to buy up what could potentially compete with their Hollywood monopoly of the music industry. Can you imagine if they had to give back the rights to the 80% of their signees who don't pan out? Do you really think that these marvelously good looking musical acts, so many who can't even sing past the karaoke stage, are the best of the best?
(Kid Rock is, at least, a concept. But Ashley Simpson is far more typical. There's no catalog of songs she's composed. There's no property to her act other than that which is manufactured in the studio. This is what Hollywood wants in terms of artists. Studio creations that they can sell in place of those pesky real artists.)
Hollywood does not care about ditching or killing or shelving great talent. At all! On the contrary, that's a critical element of their business plan. They care about owning it, certainly. Controlling it. Absolutely. But delivering it to you and letting it grow to monstrous power. Man, they hate that part. lol! All the power then shifts to the artist. The famous and popular and even legendary artist now has leverage. Right now they've got people with platinum albums walking around on yearly allowances smaller than a WNBA veteran's salary, and that's exactly the way big Hollywood likes it.
Trust me on this. The Hollywood music industry isn't out there looking for the next Beatles. They've been stomping on creativity for decades. Looks to me like they've almost got it all stamped out, too. lol! They want artists manufactured according to their formulas and with their machinery. They don't want that 80% of their rejects popping up in an alternative record scene in Omaha or someplace, biting them in the ass with a stable of great original world shaking talent.
That would threaten their entertainment industry monopoly.
So they're always buying. Buying and shelving._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
Last edited by jammerbirdi on 04/22/10 1:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 1:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| bridgehere wrote: |
As far as my age, my knowledge, my iq, my life experience, etc; I am quite comfortable with them and feel no need for your opinion regarding these things. |
Hey I don't know you. You quote me to tell me that stealing is bad no matter who you're stealing from? That's patronizing to me, as well as presumptuous. I won't say that you picked the wrong person to quote and then make take a morally superior tone with, but you picked the wrong issue. So let's keep this going. Seriously, how old are you? Where have you lived? Who do you know? What do you know? All those things. Because it's bad to steal is what kids learn watching Saturday morning cartoons. |
Seriously, reread my thread. I have added to it, possibly since you read it. Because I began thinking about your referring to Hollywood and movies, it made me think about what you might be trying to address, so I went back and addressed those issues. Maybe if you had addressed specific issues, rather than making generalizations about monopolies, your point would have been clearer.
As far as your saying I picked the wrong person to disagree with, well that sounds a little childish and egotistical; but I really do not worry about whom I disagree with.
And again, I said, I don't know how musicians and songwriters make their money. I imagine it is different depending upon how big you are, how your business dealings are arranged, etc. Again, I was thinking about what happened several years ago when people were going to Washington. That is where I got the idea that songwriters were hurt by this, now I am beginning to wonder if that had to do with illegal downloading or if it was about recording music someone else had bought. I can't remember. When I was growing up cartoons did not necessarily teach things, they weren't even funny, but I watched them anyway.
So I guess, using your reasoning, that a good analogy would be since Bank of America is so crooked, it is okay for you to embezzle a few thousand dollars from them.
|
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 1:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bridgehere wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| bridgehere wrote: |
As far as my age, my knowledge, my iq, my life experience, etc; I am quite comfortable with them and feel no need for your opinion regarding these things. |
Hey I don't know you. You quote me to tell me that stealing is bad no matter who you're stealing from? That's patronizing to me, as well as presumptuous. I won't say that you picked the wrong person to quote and then make take a morally superior tone with, but you picked the wrong issue. So let's keep this going. Seriously, how old are you? Where have you lived? Who do you know? What do you know? All those things. Because it's bad to steal is what kids learn watching Saturday morning cartoons. |
Seriously, reread my thread. I have added to it, possibly since you read it. Because I began thinking about your referring to Hollywood and movies, it made me think about what you might be trying to address, so I went back and addressed those issues. Maybe if you had addressed specific issues, rather than making generalizations about monopolies, your point would have been clearer.
As far as your saying I picked the wrong person to disagree with, well that sounds a little childish and egotistical; but I really do not worry about whom I disagree with.
And again, I said, I don't know how musicians and songwriters make their money. I imagine it is different depending upon how big you are, how your business dealings are arranged, etc. Again, I was thinking about what happened several years ago when people were going to Washington. That is where I got the idea that songwriters were hurt by this, now I am beginning to wonder if that had to do with illegal downloading or if it was about recording music someone else had bought. I can't remember. When I was growing up cartoons did not necessarily teach things, they weren't even funny, but I watched them anyway.
So I guess, using your reasoning, that a good analogy would be since Bank of America is so crooked, it is okay for you to embezzle a few thousand dollars from them. |
Um. Wow. You didn't understand what I wrote. Seriously? I didn't say that you picked the wrong person etc. I said I WOULDN'T say that.
YOU are the one who said it and I was alluding to the fact that you'd said it.
| bridgehere wrote: |
| But you picked the wrong person... |
I said "I won't say that you picked the wrong person to quote and then make take a morally superior tone with, but you picked the wrong issue."
 _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 1:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| bridgehere wrote: |
As far as my age, my knowledge, my iq, my life experience, etc; I am quite comfortable with them and feel no need for your opinion regarding these things. |
You want to learn how the music business works? You know, to replace the superficial something you read a few years ago that you can't quite remember exactly?
Here you go. I wrote this five years ago. Praise be to Reb it's still here. It's condescending in tone because I already knew when I wrote it that it was going to be read by people on the internet who aren't shy about dropping nuggets like it's bad to steal into an adult discussion. |
Hmm, what I can't quite remember is superficial? That is a rather stupid comment which comes from nowhere.
Oh, and adults dont' have conversations about right and wrong. That isn't adult. What a very intelligent statement. Yes, I just learned something very valuable from Area 51 with that little nugget of wisdom. 
Of course, I am not going to read the rest. I know from reading your posts in the past that you believe that many of us here are not nearly as wise as you and you feel the need to inform us. One, I don't feel the need to be informed by you. Especially, since it takes so long and you could make the point more succinctly and without your ego overtaking the post.
And I would rather research for myself, so that I would know I am getting facts not opinions; well, as best as you can know this.
Had you talked in the first place about the specifics of downloading illegally and how it affected the different players in the industry, then I might have read your post and been informed. I have now found a pretty good link that does just this. It is not a cut and dried issue from what I have read.
So, maybe you don't hurt Bono if you illegally download his songs, but smaller groups you do.
Another thing is if it is illegal then you need to delve into the situation a little more deeply. Sorry, to let those cartoonish values come into play.
|
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 4:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Let me take one more crack at deciphering this for you... in your own words.
| bridgehere wrote: |
As far as your saying I picked the wrong person to disagree with, well that sounds a little childish and egotistical; |
| bridgehere wrote: |
| But you picked the wrong person when you decided out-of-the blue that you could define me. |
Maybe you forgot that it was actually you and not me who said "you picked the wrong person." But we can both agree it's childish and egotistical.
| bridgehere wrote: |
| Hmm, what I can't quite remember is superficial? That is a rather stupid comment which comes from nowhere. |
but... didn't you say earlier?
| bridgehere wrote: |
| I am repeating what was said back in the day when the artists were up in arms about this. ... I may need to educate myself, because I am going from memory regarding this issue when it was making headlines and the artists were going to Washington. If I remember correctly, there were smaller artists and songwriters, who suffered from the illegal downloads. Or that was the argument that I remembered. |
That's what I call asked and answered.
| bridgehere wrote: |
Oh, and adults dont' have conversations about right and wrong. That isn't adult. What a very intelligent statement. Yes, I just learned something very valuable from Area 51 with that little nugget of wisdom. |
Intelligent adults who are engaging in a discussion of music downloads, the internet, the music business, how these things relate to copyright, as well as me providing some badly needed context re: the despicable business practices of the music industry.... I was just opining that some of us are probably beyond being chastised about right and wrong, stealing is bad, etc. Speaking for myself, I certainly am. But moreover, it's superfluous information. We all already have that perspective. It's pre-school level information. That's my point. It's an important and interesting discussion to have, but can we get beyond the simple kid stuff and take the conversation somewhere informative?
| bridgehere wrote: |
| Of course, I am not going to read the rest. I know from reading your posts in the past that you believe that many of us here are not nearly as wise as you and you feel the need to inform us. One, I don't feel the need to be informed by you. Especially, since it takes so long and you could make the point more succinctly and without your ego overtaking the post. |
I plead guilty to some of that. Surely do. You can't produce the kind of passion that drives my lengthy rants without having hostility towards some powers-that-be somewhere. And disdain then oozes. I'm contentious and dismissive. I apologize for that. Not necessarily to you, though. Just in general.
But it's a simple fact that on Rebkell's there are a lot of people who know more than the next person about any number of things. And in the context of our expertise, we can be dismissive and arrogant. I wish it were just me then I could go away and this place would be one giant happy family. 
As far as you not bothering to read my post on the music business from five years ago? I have to tell you. I'm not surprised at all. I don't think this stuff is for you, bridgehere. I think hanging around this thread to tell someone stealing is bad is where your head is at. But if you're not afraid of that young head exploding from reading someone's "opinion" on the internet, read mine. Consider it just another part of your research._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 6:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I mostly don't download illegally. If I want something I get it from a legitimate site. Mostly because of the stigma about "stealing" like bridgehere alluded to.
However, there are a lot of songs I've looked for on commercial sites that aren't available for download. I really "feel" the justification that listening to the indie and "old" stuff available on illegal download sites has gotten others into listening to MORE music.
jammer's novel on the recording industry and Hollywood is my understanding of how it works, too. So I don't feel guilty about borrowing CDs from friends and ripping them, or copying the occasional mp3 from my brother's voluminous music collection. I don't even consider it stealing, which is not what the Record industry wants to hear, and probably I'm now on some sort of list.
I'm not educated on the ins and outs of Big versus Little recording artists. I've been pondering whether the prevalence of online/download and commercial sites might make it easier for small artists to publish without going through the corrupt Recording Industry machine. I know that it's easier to self-publish books and such in e-book form, as long as you can find the proper niche to message boards and such to get your concept out to. Perhaps with the lack of production and distribution costs, all they need is some word of mouth, and some self-promotion on the right sites, as well as some small gigs, then you buy it on iTunes or something.
Wasn't it a few years ago that Green Day put their album up for free download on their website? It's truth that they don't make their money from song-sales, they make it from touring, and the more people who listen to their music the more want to buy a ticket to their show. But then again, Green day is "Big."
How would an arrangement like that work for an indie band? I can't imagine that the model would be that different; the difference would likely be in the proportion of "lost revenue" if that's what you'd call it. But I don't know if I buy it.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 7:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Norwester, from what I have read, everything is not the same for all artists. It would seem that those not as well known do suffer from illegal downloading. Many of the big artists ask people not to do it; now, whether that is because they are required by their contracts to do this or because they worry about the artists it does affect or because they believe it hurts them or for some other reason that they perceive makes illegal downloading a bad thing, I have no idea.
I, too, believe that the industry has worked and tries to continue to work as Jammer says. This isn't news. For decades, we have seen movies about it, read articles and seen lawsuits filed. But to me, that is not necessarily the same issue. That is something that established artists need to address and provide a different route for newcomers. This industry is no different than any other. All industries need to change their way of doing business. This is one huge reason our economy is in the toilet. But I digress.
As technology changes industries have to adapt. The laws have to be adapted. I don't have the answer but I don't think downloading songs for free on a regular basis is it. I don't judge people who do, I just don't do it anymore.
I really never intended in getting into this debate. I just threw in that I thought it was stealing even if the industry is corrupt. I should not have let myself get drug in because it was a waste of my time. I will be more attentive next time.
I thought I had learned not to do this. I don't know how many times I have written a post and then not posted, realizing it wasn't worth it - from talking about the oil industry being a shell game much like Wall Street to straight political topics.
Anyway, I am not judging you or anyone if they download songs they can't find to buy or if they download more than that. I need to spend that time criticizing myself. HOWEVER, I hope you understand that I did have to put you on THE list.
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 11:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
bridgehere, I would like to apologize for the tone of my behavior as it was towards you. i'm having a good week in many ways, but for some reason, I'm just not myself. i'm in a foul mood and no matter what your opinion of me is, I'm not generally in a foul mood. but it happens. you obviously have a lot on the ball and my reaction to you was not something I'm happy with.
i really do try, maybe too hard sometimes, to present what I feel are very badly needed contextual perspectives on things that are completely absent from certain debates. this thread started because someone in the article asked the question that said basically why aren't we talking about illegal downloads and why is the conversation focused on record company missteps.
i don't believe, as you do it seems, that there are separate issues here. in fact, i think that it's critical to tie downloading and the effect it has on the music business in with an understanding of what exactly constitutes the music business. context. i think when the standard operating procedures of the music industry are laid bare they present a much different landscape and context that should be considered when seeking to answer the question posed by the person in the article.
personally, i have a different perspective on this, I would hope, because I was a professional musician. I went to school for music at Berklee College of Music in Boston and I played music professionally for almost five years. I did not, however, come to Los Angeles to pursue a music career in the mid 1980s but I was drawn into some peripheral aspects of music and you have to know that I watched, listened, heard and learned with more than a passing interest as considering my future options was something that would certainly be contingent upon what I came to know about how the Hollywood music scene worked.
Did I want to participate in THAT? No, I didn't. But what if the industry and how the business worked had been completely different? Not predatory and exploitative but welcoming and nurturing? Who knows.
When I shared here five years ago, WHAT I shared were practically trade secrets about how the music industry operates. Not really, but in a practical sense, in the context of this message board? Yeah. Not in LA, of course. Not to anyone who has had up close experience with the music business. Not if you read the weekly papers HERE and or have read any of the insider books about Hollywood and the business practices of the entertainment industry. But to the outside world, this stuff wasn't really known and certainly none of it is even today widely known. Not the specifics. But it is getting out there I think because so many acts have had their concept and music bought by the music business and then shelved that the patterns are clear and the word has finally started to spread.
the problem has always been that the music industry holds all the cards in this country. and musicians do not give up their dreams simply because their first effort failed. nobody is inclined to go public attacking the record companies when they know that the record companies are still the only way to get what they really want. Courtney Love was very public one year in her condemnation against the record companies and their practices. She called for artists to unite and gave her personal email address and asked for ideas and input and support. I emailed her with a short thoughtful message of support. I never got a response. Within a WEEK of her coming out publicly attacking the record companies... she completely disappeared from the issue.
Shutting her up probably took one phone call. Either threatening her future livelihood or offering her up the name of some Dr. Feelgood.
So, in considering the question that was asked by the person in the article, my first thought is, wow, really? Because I'm thinking that every person who knows the facts about this industry would or should be desirous of the failure and destruction of the music industry as we've known it for the past many decades. So I think that people should be presented with that information and short of taking on these things with a blog I'm going to sound off when the opportunities arise in the natural flow of this message board.
I think that we're all naive. And as I was tying this into the immigration thread, I think we're raised to be naive. I think our education system, the range and scope of the curriculum, has been so politicized with an eye towards safe bland civic responsibility, at least in MY lifetime, that we're churning out a nation of either susceptible innocents or, when and as they start to realize how ill-prepared for real life they are, angry reactionary tea-party types, or worse.
It's a big picture. Goldman Sachs to K-street to Hollywood. Cheaters win and people who believe in things like telling the truth and not stealing lose.
And I don't like that. I'm on the side of innocence and naivete.
But that can't be sustained or championed without a more level playing field in terms of information and context and I would like people to be passionately angry at the right people and institutions for the right reasons. Why does Goldman Sachs have a revolving door to the highest levels of the American government? Because Wall St.'s scams are so complex that only people FROM that environment can possibly have a hand in regulating that business sector.
Virtue and truth can still win out in America. But we can't even start to demand it from our institutions until we really KNOW their games.
And so I rant. 
Anyway, that's what I'm trying to do here, which I admit is on some pitifully small level. I'm putting my scathing criticisms out there. I'm pissed and that's the fuel that motivates the effort. But the downside is sometimes there as well. Sorry.
I apologize again for my rudeness, bridgehere._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
bridgehere
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 4729
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/10 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Well, actually, Jammer, I said no one wins arguments here but you did. I had wanted to make amends but wanted to go back to read how we had gotten where we had. I just wasn't in the mood to do that. I'm still not, for one thing I am sitting with my sister's dog who seems depressed with the change in schedule, so he sits right beside me and it is difficult to use the computer. I had just gotten on to check the balance of my account and came to Rebkell for a minute.
I apologize also. Sometimes what we post doesn't transfer well, I know that I honestly did not mean "you picked the wrong person to call naive" like hey now you are in trouble, I did not even think of that, what I thought was "you picked the wrong person, because I am not naive." However, I can see that it wasn't the best way to say it.
I was interested in this thread because about seven years ago, over a period of several months I downloaded about 3000 songs from Kazaa. I got into it because my closest friend was and she is one of the most honest people I know. I later found out she had mostly downloaded music she had and maybe a few others. I then quit because I did not feel good about it.
I just wondered what people's feelings were about the subject. She and I both buy a lot of music online but she is the only one of my friends that I spend time with that spends much money on music. Anyway, illegal downloads is not something I had discussed with anyone and I was curious as to what people thought. I knew there were many people here that would probably have an opinion, but actually, not many have commented.
I appreciate the fact that you are a musician and lived in LA, until recently? I understand that my post to your first post probably seemed as if I was taking a superior moral position. I honestly did not think that. I should have paid more attention when responding.
So like I said, you won. You apologized. It doesn't matter if I say I was going to do it, you did. You are the winner.
But sincerely I appreciate it and I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and I did read your post from 2005. I know young people are naive but I always find it amazing when older people are not more careful regarding business matters; so I wonder where are the parents of these young artists? Often, they are around making bad decisions. My mother was a great business woman and I guess that from osmosis I just learned to ask questions, get things in writing, etc.
Finally, I appreciate your comments about the business. And I really never thought about people who downloaded as being bad. I know it sounded like I did. I think I just wanted someone to make an argument that justified it to me; to address the independent artists and songwriters that aren't on major labels and all. I hoped someone would address that part. I still believe it is complicated, but accept that you have good points.
I hope this comes across the way I mean it. Heck, I hope I wrote what I was thinking. I have my days and nights mixed up and am a little foggy. I actually am not having a good week, so maybe that is why I got involved. I need to watch that. So, peace?  I will do better.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66905
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/21 11:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So tonight Metallica played a live virtual concert for BlizzCon...and the con muted them and played some soft public domain music to avoid getting DMCA notices. Poetic justice, some might say, since it was Metallica suing Napster that led to streaming music becoming such a chore that only giant corporations can do it.
All the free streaming hasn't hurt the record companies at all. They still make money hand over fist and still screw the artists at every turn.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/21 2:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Oh the jammer.  If I could have just written all that without the attitude._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
|
|
