4 students sued by RIAA over music sites

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gnarf: Quote: You are kidding yourself if you think you're a fan of a band and stealing their work.

I beg you to differ. I'd say I'm a fan of Deftones. I've bought all their albums and their DVD, seen'em live once (the only concert they've done in my country, with no age-limit). I've also downloaded music videos for some of the songs and some live stuff. Therefore, you don't think of me as a fan? Would I've been any more of a fan if I've never seen some of their videos?[/QUOTE]Would you call the guy that killed John Lennon a fan? Plenty do because he called himself a Lennon fan. Yet he killed the guy! So much a fanatic of Lennons he stopped the world from hearing any more music from him.

And that is exactly what would happen if every Deftones "fan" stole the songs they liked and didn't purchase the album. The Deftones would no longer be able to share their music with the world.

Grojl, I appreciate your post. Thanks for the time on it. However, the fact remains that if you want to reach a large market, a large audience, TV, movies and radio remain the number 1 way to sell your product. 1 spot on a late night TV show sells far more copies than internet sharing. Individual sites just don't get the numbers a TV show does. Secondly, once someone has the song, they've less incentive to buy it.

Regarding the whole album vs single songs bit, on reflection, the attitude presented here amazes me to say the least.

I presented the analogy of someone splicing up the scenes they like from a film, yet this was challenged? It comes down to the artists INTENT. Artists and producers DO make full albums designed as full albums. Certain songs are left OFF albums because they do not fit in to the album. Balance of songs.....

forget it. I could go on but who gives a toss. I make albums. I produce others albums. Every single artist I've done an album for, without fail cares about the full work. The songs fit into the whole. They are pieces of a puzzle sometimes. In 10 years I've been involved in 32 albums in varying capacities. It's what I do. If you guys want to ignore that and persist in a "albums don't matter they're just collections of songs" it's your loss. You're the one(s) not appreciating the full work as intended.

I's like viewing a series of paintings in a different order to the artists intent, reading a trilogy in the wrong order or ignoring books altogether. Like selectivly watching parts of a film, or whatever. Ignoring the creators intent.

If you want to do that c'est la vie.

Bye.

[ 04-17-2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

ANother thing that pi$$es me off is certain stereo systems that have reverb and eq adjustments. Or 'graphic equalisers' that screw with the sound.

If I want reverb in a song, I put it in. Yet one of these machines can totally screw up the intent and in many cases ruin a tune. The "ambience" option turns up the left and right sides, and turns down the middle. Did you know that? Now, if you have a record where it's only the reverbs on the sides great. It sounds more "ambient" But if you have instruments hard panned, you end up loosing the centre panned vocal, snare, kick etc. WTF???

About ten years ago I was making a record with a guy doing testing for Roland. They were talking to him about the concept of having your CD player register midi signal, so you could change the keyboard sounds on a song for example.

Unbelievable. What is the frigging point? People bleed over sound selections.

However there is hope for the world. Some people like to find out what speakers an album was mixed or mastered on, so they can buy them to hear it exactly as intended (for speakers are all different)

[sageridder]

You guys can all philosophize all you want, you can justify all you want.The thing is this a product is out for sale you find a way to reproduce it and give it freely to whoever,you have robbed the creater.It's the same as playing a cracked game, It's the same as if Yorick made the best jelly and you mass produced it to "just your friends" you didn't think of it yourself you didn't create anything you were just so clever to copy it.I think cd's cost too much and albums as well but I don't steal them,If you don't like don't buy It'll drive the cost down.For those that say we love band X but do this, I would love to see you meet band X and say face to face we love you but we copy your stuff instead of buying, they would kick you in the nuts and take your backstage pass.

[Luvian]

Well, personally, I think someone downloading some songs off the net is the same as someone recording songs from the radio. For years people have been recording and distributing music from the radio, and I saw no one really mind it yet.

Personaly, I don't mind if someone distribute a song he got off the radio, (or the net) to some of his friends, let's say 3-4. I only see it as a problem if it's more than that.

[Yorick]

Well said Sageridder. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hey, continuing my rant about systems changing the intended sound, I just remembered on Itunes there is the "sound enhancer" option with a scale of more/less.

What it does is compress the sound and turn up the treble. Uh huh. Wow. That's what mastering essentially does. In mastering the ong/album is compressed to maximum, and trebled to optimum sonic 'enhancement'. We pay masterers oh, $800 for a no name guy, and thousands for a better known guy. All this is fruitless of course, because Mac dish out Itunes with the sound enhancer defaulting to "ON". So people here an already compressed and trebled song even more so. Then there's radio. Which compresses the heck out of everything. But we all know that and allow for that.

So first shifts in tempos went out the window, then dynamic shifts. Soon variences in the frequency band. Made a song with a crunchy middle and warm bottom end? Forget it. All the products make it all sound like it's been put through a tinny top endy strainer.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Luvian: Well, personally, I think someone downloading some songs off the net is the same as someone recording songs from the radio. For years people have been recording and distributing music from the radio, and I saw no one really mind it yet. Personaly, I don't mind if someone distribute a song he got off the radio, (or the net) to some of his friends, let's say 3-4. I only see it as a problem if it's more than that.

Actually it was always illegal to tape songs off the radio.

Some artists I knew 12 years ago were going to try and sue their record companies, because their companies, though contractually obliged to protect their artists copyright, were manufacturing blank cassettes. Now what are you going to put on a blank cassette?

Anyhow it was never really an issue because of the quality degradation. The radio compression alters the song. The tape itself was inferior to records and then CDs. With mp3s it's a different story.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Console and computer games are also competing more with music these days too. Free time is always a limited asset. The more you do of one recreational thing, the less you'll do of the others.

Nah Kenyth. That's not true at all. Music can be played against the backdrop of many other activities. Indoor sports, parties, driving to and from work, while playing a game. Music competes with music, not with other 'recreational activities'. Professionals with no free time are more likely to buy music than a game.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by: sageridder You guys can all philosophize all you want, you can justify all you want

Meaning, I could unearth The Argument to end all arguments, I could show statistics that showed worldwide CD sales increasing ever since Napster was created, I could have bloody record company executives happily admitting that Internet piracy was the best thing that ever happened to them

And you'd still be adamant in your Black & White view that Internet Piracy = BAAAAD!
_
_
_

Having a discussion under those circumstances could compete for the very definition of a Waste of time. I'd say it's time to call it a day when it's clear that the opposition has no intention of ever refuting my arguments, but just insists on banging their view of the world into my head with a sledgehammer.

[ 04-17-2003, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Yorick: Anyhow it was never really an issue because of the quality degradation. The radio compression alters the song. The tape itself was inferior to records and then CDs. With mp3s it's a different story.

So mp3s is as good as CDs? I have never experienced that. The mp3s (never shared) I make from my CDs (all bought) do not have the same quality as the CD. Maybe it is just my imagination.

What I find funny about the music industry is that it is not learning from its mistakes. Take mp3s as a very good example. Almost everyone use them. Now ponder all the statements in here. "I like 2 songs on a CD, therefore I would never buy it". I agree, what a complete waste of money. But downloading them and sharing them is illegal. Then why can´t the music industry adapt? Make a website that allows you to preview, prelisten , the songs on a CD. Then you pick what songs you would like to buy and download them. But no, that would probably lead to a decrease in income since people would no longer buy all those crappy songs that fills out the CD. The point is, the music industry needs to do something before it loses all its customers. And suing people is not going to help I´m afraid. Perhaps it is time for a new generation to take charge of the industry. One that has heard of computers perhaps.

Edit: Yorick, where can I find your CD? Has it been released? The songs I´ve heard on the IW radio are amazing. We´ve got lots of talent on this forum. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 04-17-2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Rataxes: Meaning, I could unearth The Argument to end all arguments, I could show statistics that showed worldwide CD sales increasing ever since Napster was created, I could have bloody record company executives happily admitting that Internet piracy was the best thing that ever happened to them And you'd still be adamant in your Black & White view that Internet Piracy = BAAAAD! _ _ _ Having a discussion under those circumstances could compete for the very definition of a Waste of time. I'd say it's time to call it a day when it's clear that the opposition has no intention of ever refuting my arguments, but just insists on banging their view of the world into my head with a sledgehammer.

Errr, yes, but what IF it can be proven Internet Piracy boosted record sales. You are right people wouldn't be able to say they lost income through it, but does it make piracy legal all of a sudden? I don't think so.
If it were proven that theft was a boost of the economy (unlikely, but let's assume it), do you think that would mean it was OK to rob people?

I think what artists are complaining about is that they CREATE something, and people steal it from them. I don't think there is a real difference between creating a sandwich or a bookshelf and creating art - well, of course the difference is obvious, but LEGALLY, there shouldn't be any.
The fact that it's easier to copy a song than to copy a painting doesn't mean that stealing music should be legal and stealing a painting theft.
I like to do calligraphy, and sometimes make little cards that I give to my friends. But if I ever decided to try and earn money from designing greeting cards, I would consider it theft if someone took a designed card, printed off a thousand copies and sold them - AND THE LAW WOULD AGREE WITH ME. Now what's the difference?

Don't get me wrong, 1. I think CDs are monstrously expensive and should be MUCH cheaper and 2. I disagree with you Hugh that artists usually create the album as an inseperable whole, and also with the assertion that there aren't a lot of albums consisting of a few good songs and lots of useless fillers - so I do think it should be made possible for people to pay for downloading individual songs AND albums.

I also think dragging classical music into this is not very relevant: I happen to like classical music and if I buy a CD, it will invariably be a classical one. However, out of roughly 200 classical CDs I have, there is only one that I paid more for than for a regular CD. Almost all CDs were less than half the price of a popular CD. Of course there ARE expensive recordings in classical music, but you KNOW you get value for your money with one of those (they're often double CDs with entire operas or performances of very good quality). The point is, you can get very good quality classical music for very low prices. But if these CDs had been the price of regular CDs, I would have a big problem.
So I completely understand why people who DO want to buy popular music are complaining now. I do not think downloading music instead of buying the CDs is morally right, but I do see the problem with buying CDs.

One last thing Hugh... I know how close this topic is to your heart: you are trying to make a livelyhood of what people say they don't want to pay for. I already made the comparison to my calligraphy (something I am still considering to pursue as a way of making a little money on the side) - so I DO know how you must feel. But can I just say I haven't even seen you as vehement on that other close-to-your-heart topic, religion? I know how much this means to you my friend but please don't get so upset at people about it, OK? [img]smile.gif[/img]