luv4u said:

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

When you record a song off the radio, you aren't going to have an absolute perfect beginning and ending to a song. You aren't going to have the perfect beginning because the DJ may have talked a little bit through the intro or maybe played the station ID through it. It's also not going to have a perfect ending that is faded all the way down because the DJ may have talked at the end of it (which means you have to rewind and record over that part) or another song may have began while the previous song was fading out. When I recorded songs off the radio, I just recorded them in a way where the songs played continuous one after another with no blank space inbetween. That's more like having a mix instead of owning the song. As years went by with the invention of the double cassette recorder, I was able to perfect it though. I would just put a cassette in and let it record every single thing on the radio, then I would go back later and dub only the songs I wanted editing them to perfection with a perfect beginning and could fade them down with a tape deck that had a volume control of it's own.

Also, cassettes have too many flaws that vinyl and CDs don't have. When you buy a pre-recorded vinyl album, CD, or even a pre-recorded cassette, it is going to play on every single boom box, tabletop stereo, component system, or even an extremely high priced system in a nightclub at full power and strength with all the bass it should have and clear and crisp sounding. However, with a homemade cassette, the sound quality is going to vary according to the type of cassette recorder that was used. If you record a cassette from a nice cassette deck that is only one component of a component system or if you record a cassette from a system at a nightclub, it is going to sound great and full of power on any cassette player ranging from the smallest Walkman to the biggest sound system. But....if you record a cassette from a boom box or even from a tabletop stereo (a stereo that comes with the radio, cassette player, and turntable all combined....which is what most of the average people had because component systems were so expensive) that cassette is going to sound weak when played in a component system or on a nightclub's system. It isn't going to have that hard pounding bass and power that a pre-recorded cassette or a cassette made from a more expensive recorder would have. I think the record labels knew all this so cassette recording really wasn't a threat to them because the serious music lover is not going to be satisfied with those flaws. Plus, all those cassettes, whether pre-recorded or homemade, will wear out and start sounding muffled over a period of time, sometimes as early as a year if you play them a lot.

With homemade CDs though, you can download something on even the smallest laptop, burn it onto CD and put it in a nightclub's high powered system, and blow the roof off the joint. Plus, once that song is in the library in the computer, if the CD should ever wear out, you can always burn another one that was just as good and powerful as the previous one. I may hate the new music that is being made these days but I am loving the technology that we are able to record or save our music these days. I've come a long way from the days of a tape recorder microphone up next to the stereo speaker turned up full blast and telling everybody beforehand...."Shhhhhhhh...be quiet" and then ending up with a recording of my grandmother hollering in the background......"Andy, either turn that bumpitty bump shit DOWN or OFF. If I have to tell you again, I'm going whoop your ass!"

.

.

.

[Edited 1/10/11 8:18am]

luv4u said:

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squawking about it then.

The Audio Home Recording Act (1992), which gives the consumer the right to record broadcast music for his own use. He/she cannot, of course, make copies for someone else. This ended nearly twenty years of dispute among those parties about whether consumers who copied recordings at home for their own use were infringing the copyrights of the sound recordings or the musical compositions embodied in those recordings. The solution exempted private, non-commercial copying in analog or digital format from copyright infringement, placed a royalty on the sale of digital audio recording devices and blank digital audio recording media, and required manufacturers of digital recorders to incorporate a copy management system into recorders to prevent serial copying. By the way, your computer hard disc or your MP3 player, isn't considered digital audio recording device.

At least that's what they thought.

When you made that mix tape, recorded an album to a cassette, or ripped a CD for a friend, you stoled. When you recorded that album, tape, or CD you checked out from the library, you stoled. When you use software to download most videos from Youtube and other such sites, you are stealing. That sounds so harsh . . . you maybe infringing on someone's copyright.

The things is, the recorded companies didn't have the means to go after YOU back in day so, the went after the manufactures of theses electronic devices. The sued Sony, XM radio and Rio's. Oh, did I say Sony, don't they own a record company too? Aren't the six recording industry "majors", music publishing, and record distribution have both digital recording hardware and recording & musical composition software under their coporate umbrellas? With all due respect to last december, it appears the record companies wants it both ways too.

=============

[Edited 1/10/11 11:02am]

TD3 said:

luv4u said:

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squawking about it then.

The Audio Home Recording Act (1992), which gives the consumer the right to record broadcast music for his own use. He/she cannot, of course, make copies for someone else. This ended nearly twenty years of dispute among those parties about whether consumers who copied recordings at home for their own use were infringing the copyrights of the sound recordings or the musical compositions embodied in those recordings. The solution exempted private, non-commercial copying in analog or digital format from copyright infringement, placed a royalty on the sale of digital audio recording devices and blank digital audio recording media, and required manufacturers of digital recorders to incorporate a copy management system into recorders to prevent serial copying. By the way your hard disc nor your MP3 player isn't considered digital audio recording device.

At least that's what they thought.

When you made that mix tape, recorded an album to a cassette, or ripped a CD for a friend, you stoled. When you recorded that album, tape, or CD you checked out from the library, you stoled. When you use software to download most videos from Youtube and other such sites, you are stealing. That sounds so harsh . . . you maybe infringing on someone's copyright.

It was all very practical back then and made good sense. I had many uses for a recorded copy of an album for myself so I could play my album in a car or on a boombox. I always thought it was extremely stupid of people to buy pre-recorded cassettes back then for those purposes when they could buy the vinyl, record it, and play the cassette anywhere they wanted to and also have a vinyl album that sounded much better and was going to last a lifetime instead of just a few years. Hell, even before cassettes, I used to record 8 Tracks for the same purpose.

I did make a many a tape for friends though. But just look at it this way. That was the early 1980s. I don't think they still have those old cassettes these days because they are probably worn out so they never really owned the songs to begin with because they didn't last over the test of time.

.

.

.

[Edited 1/10/11 9:42am]

Legally speaking, illegal downloading of music, file-sharing or music piracy is not theft but "copyright infringement".

This is so because, factually speaking, what is happening is that music is being copied and distributed, without permission, but no copies of music are factually being taken away from its rightful owner. Since however it's the copyright owners exclusive right to make and distribute copies, legally speaking, this is called copyright infringement.

Copyright owners nevertheless usually speak of "theft" because this is how they perceive it to be. After all, the exclusive right to make and distribute copies is the copyright owners bread and butter. It's how he or she makes a living or a profit for its company and when you basically take that away by infringing on that right on a large scale and hurting the sales of copies that were legally made available, it feels in every way as outright stealing.

Also, in the more socio-political debate it's easier and for certain parties like the RIAA and MPAA also more usefull to hammer on "stealing" because it brings the message across better to the public at large and it makes the opponent look much worse than when you merely speak of them being "infringers of copyright". "Theft", "piracy" and "stealing" play on people's values and emotions, making them more susceptible to the cause of supporting a tough stand on copyright infringement.

But it's not the same.

On the other hand, does it really matter? What really matters is that - by law - what is happening on file share sites, torrents, blogs, youtube and many other sites on the internet in most cases, and we are literally talking billions per year, IS in fact copyright infringement. And it does hurt the music and movie industry, with the music more than the movies so far.

However, who or what is really hurt here? Who are mostly hurt are record companies and an elite/ limited number of major rock/pop stars, who have profited and worn out business models that were used for ages in the old world but that do not work anymore in the days of the internet. Most recording artists have never made much by selling records. Only a select few and a bunch of shareholders, CEO's and other managers. Those few select have always made sure that record companies could survive with selling big on only a couple of albums per year, while losing out on most of their other acts. This created a system with only a few on top (of the pyramid Prince would say) making all the money and getting all the attention, with all the rest losing out.

That system is gone thanks to the internet and all the changes it has caused in people's lives and behavior. What is also gone is MTV promoting only payola music until it makes you sick. What is gone are record stores that only sell CD 's made available by major record companies. What is gone is popular radio dictating you what the latest hit should be.

What is left is still mostly a void. Itunes/Apple and Youtube/Google plus some others have filled some of it what major record companies should have done 10 years ago, but failed to do.

Because of the latter, the music industry has itself to blame to for its demise too, not just any downloader.

-

[Edited 1/10/11 11:16am]

yes it is stealing

It costs a fortune to make an album. If nobody buys them, they will not make them anymore.

If I actually like a music project, I purchase the cd.

Music that I will ONLY listen 2 once..............I download or get from someone and trash.

It is really that simple 4 me.

NDRU said:

It costs a fortune to make an album. If nobody buys them, they will not make them anymore.

That's not really true, anymore. These days, with equipment that is much less expensive and the use of computers and computer programs, it's not as expensive anymore to record an album.

What's really expensive is a major record company, belonging to a media conglomerate, employing thousands of people and paying its ceo's and biggest stars millions a year.

If nobody buys them (which is still not true) then real musicians will still make music and inventive sellers will still find a way to make money with it. Just without a major record company.

--

[Edited 1/10/11 11:56am]

Termini said:

Legally speaking, illegal downloading of music, file-sharing or music piracy is not theft but "copyright infringement".

This is so because, factually speaking, what is happening is that music is being copied and distributed, without permission, but no copies of music are factually being taken away from its rightful owner. Since however it's the copyright owners exclusive right to make and distribute copies, legally speaking, this is called copyright infringement.

Copyright owners nevertheless usually speak of "theft" because this is how they perceive it to be. After all, the exclusive right to make and distribute copies is the copyright owners bread and butter. It's how he or she makes a living or a profit for its company and when you basically take that away by infringing on that right on a large scale and hurting the sales of copies that were legally made available, it feels in every way as outright stealing.

Also, in the more sociopolitical debate it's easier and for certain parties like the RIAA and MPAA also more useful to hammer on "stealing" because it brings the message across better to the public at large and it makes the opponent look much worse than when you merely speak of them being "infringers of copyright". "Theft", "piracy" and "stealing" play on people's values and emotions, making them more susceptible to the cause of supporting a tough stand on copyright infringement.

But it's not the same.

On the other hand, does it really matter? What really matters is that - by law - what is happening on file share sites, torrents, blogs, youtube and many other sites on the internet in most cases, and we are literally talking billions per year, IS in fact copyright infringement. And it does hurt the music and movie industry, with the music more than the movies so far.

However, who or what is really hurt here? Who are mostly hurt are record companies and an elite/ limited number of major rock/pop stars, who have profited and worn out business models that were used for ages in the old world but that do not work anymore in the days of the internet. Most recording artists have never made much by selling records. Only a select few and a bunch of shareholders, CEO's and other managers. Those few select have always made sure that record companies could survive with selling big on only a couple of albums per year, while losing out on most of their other acts. This created a system with only a few on top (of the pyramid Prince would say) making all the money and getting all the attention, with all the rest losing out.

That system is gone thanks to the internet and all the changes it has caused in people's lives and behavior. What is also gone is MTV promoting only payola music until it makes you sick. What is gone are record stores that only sell CD 's made available by major record companies. What is gone is popular radio dictating you what the latest hit should be.

What is left is still mostly a void. Itunes/Apple and Youtube/Google plus some others have filled some of it what major record companies should have done 10 years ago, but failed to do.

Because of the latter, the music industry has itself to blame to for its demise, not just any downloader.

==

[Edited 1/10/11 11:13am]

Herein lies the problem with the legalese or the definition of copyright infringement. The fact that many people don't know what's what has left this issue on death ears, therefor people keep violating the law. My point in my former post is the record industry have been playing catch up to the advancment of recording technology since the invention of cassette tape. In these instances the record companies have relied on the courts to make sense of what's copyright infringement and what isn't. The record business have been running to close the door after the horses have fled ever since.

===========

[Edited 1/11/11 6:55am]

Tremolina said:

NDRU said:

It costs a fortune to make an album. If nobody buys them, they will not make them anymore.

That's not really true, anymore. These days, with equipment that is much less expensive and the use of computers and computer programs, it's not as expensive anymore to record an album.

What's really expensive is a major record company, belonging to a media conglomerate, employing thousands of people and paying its ceo's and biggest stars millions a year.

If nobody buys them (which is still not true) then real musicians will still make music and inventive sellers will still find a way to make money with it. Just without a major record company.

--

[Edited 1/10/11 11:56am]

Even a badly recorded home project can cost thousands to record, mix, master, produce artwork, make a web site or cd's, not to mention everyone's time.

I don't deny that the system could stand a change, but your last paragraph seems to be confirming what I am saying, people need to buy music in order to sustain it--no matter how cheaply it is produced.

Cerebus said:

lastdecember said:

What people arent getting is its all irrelevant and comes down to your taste, if you dont like the music, go elsewhere, just because you think it sucks doesnt mean you can take it without paying for it and use that as your excuse. I mean i dont like waiting for the subway, does that mean i can jump the turnstile everyday because i feel i shouldnt have to pay for the ride? The big bad label crying is played out, if you dont like the music go find something you like, go to the movies, you cant take everything that you feel sucks and shouldnt have to pay for. Download whatever you want but at least OWN up to what you do, stop this pathetic two year old mentality of "i dont like the music i shouldnt have to pay boo hoo".

Yep. That's a large part of what I was trying to get across. It IS stealing. If you don't feel bad about it, fine. I download music myself and I don't work for the RIAA, so I'm not judging you. But don't pretend that whatever excuse you're making actually justifies the act. It's the theft of a product that was meant to be paid for. And in this day and age there is VERY little that you can't find for sale someplace. I understand there's a bit of this and a bit of that that's out of print. But it's such a ridiculously small percentage of the BILLIONS of files that have been downloaded. I also understand some things are just limited and hard to find. I understand this because I hunt for some of them myself, intending to purchase them. When I can't find them, or if I just want to hear them to be sure spending the money is worth it, I download them. But when I do so I'm fully aware of the fact that I am stealing something that an artist, label, manufacturer and distributor worked to put into a store for people to buy.

Not sure if this has been discussed yet or not, but I do believe that the all encompassing subscription services that several companies are working on may finally alleviate some illegal downloading. The money being made/lost still won't equal out. But it may begin teaching a new generation of music listeners to pay for most of their music again.

There is this site called Emusic that is subrscription based that is pretty cool i found tons of out of print hard to get stuff odds and ends, and the monthly fee is very resonable with add ons for multiple months, so i think things like this popping up are good and will help a bit. But like we were saying and we totally agree, if you are going to download it for nothing at least fess up to what it really is, stealing, copyright infringement whatever you want to call it, it still is what it is. Now i have done it plenty of times, but honestly, if i got a letter stating that i owed such and such, i would have to fess up to it, not cry about it, i mean i understand the whole out of print thing, i mean when all you got around is a Bunch of Best Buys that only stock the new releases, where the hell am i going to find that out of print 3rd styx cd, where im not going to have to pay 200 to some amazon seller. (this is just an example) but that example i just stated is one in a zilllion of what is being done, so again, I GET IT and what people are saying and i have no horse in this race, shit, 90% of the artists i listen to are far past labels and their "selling" days, so they arent really affected, but this is irrelevant, i think people forget that their are plenty of artists that have their own labels and own websites and put music out on their own, that still get ripped off! I mean so who feels for them? i mean all im saying is stand by your actions for what they are.

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

That's not really true, anymore. These days, with equipment that is much less expensive and the use of computers and computer programs, it's not as expensive anymore to record an album.

What's really expensive is a major record company, belonging to a media conglomerate, employing thousands of people and paying its ceo's and biggest stars millions a year.

If nobody buys them (which is still not true) then real musicians will still make music and inventive sellers will still find a way to make money with it. Just without a major record company.

--

[Edited 1/10/11 11:56am]

Even a badly recorded home project can cost thousands to record, mix, master, produce artwork, make a web site or cd's, not to mention everyone's time.

I don't deny that the system could stand a change, but your last paragraph seems to be confirming what I am saying, people need to buy music in order to sustain it--no matter how cheaply it is produced.

Yeah thats basically it, people still need to buy you, if you are an artist on your own, hav,e your own site, recording your own records, you still have to be able to make money to sustain this, in some form, you arent gonna make a cd for 500 dollars, studio time alone wont even cover that, there are alot of costs not considered that people forget about, and when you are on your own, you gotta do it all on your own, which means foot the bill.

Take this example:

Rick Springfield: now he's been on his own since 1998, steal has some publishing with RCA for his early stuff, but the records coming now are recording in his own studio, which he pays for, then to record the album he has a band, which has to be paid, he has to mix the records, he has to have an engineer, he needs to also get the artwork, get them pressed, and then get them into stores and allow stores or whatever to take thier cuts. also the digital services like iTunes or whatever, he then has to tour which he has been doing steadily for the last decade, but touring the states costs money, its not just about selling out a club and collecting the cash for it, you have to pay the venue a portion, and then of course all the road fees and traveling , gear etc... Now yes he is making cash, but he is also established from previous work, he doesnt have to promote himself, now factor all those costs he has to a band no one knows.

To me the person at fault is the one who uploads it for others to download from. They're the ones sneaking their friends into the movie theater.

If someone is taking anything that was copyrighted and converting it, they're breaking the law, but there's already a law that says as long as you keep it under your roof, that's fine (DVDs are another story).

The RIAA cares more about whether someone is putting Taylor Swift or Kanye West up on the sites.

But the recording industry wants us to keep coming back and buying the same thing over and over. They used to hype that CDs were indestructable... even though they knew full well that scratching a CD can render the whole damn thing unplayable, where if it was a tape, you could fix and splice it, or if it was vinyl, might just have been an annoyance because one song had a skip.

Once we ripped our music library into files, we put our music CDs away, we collected other people's music libraries, got some from file share sites, some from the library, and continues to buy the latest and greatest,or one of our friends had a copy in the car, that in 5 minutes' time, would be a copy we'd also now have to listen to.

A company like Sony makes music as well as makes equipment to play music on. They are now one of the biggest music publishers in the world. They're prob. going to try to find a way to encode songs that will track what computer the person uploaded to a file share site came from. Same with Apple. I'm sure there will be some point where you try to go to a file share site, and your computer's going to shut down, to stop you from uploading.

Read a couple of post above ^^^^^

BklynBabe said:

What if you download a song that was recorded off the radio? PS all songs downloaded are not perfect off the CD or digital download... What makes money for an artist are tours. Let the music be free, and create a fan base that wants to see you live. Deuces was the top R&B song of 2010. Chris Brown was able to get his career back. Deuces was released on a free digital mixtape. Drake and Nicki Minaj started with free mixtapes. Otherwise, you can put out solid effort, like Ushet, and see slow and steady results. And yeah, I stoled!

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

That's not really true, anymore. These days, with equipment that is much less expensive and the use of computers and computer programs, it's not as expensive anymore to record an album.

What's really expensive is a major record company, belonging to a media conglomerate, employing thousands of people and paying its ceo's and biggest stars millions a year.

If nobody buys them (which is still not true) then real musicians will still make music and inventive sellers will still find a way to make money with it. Just without a major record company.

--

[Edited 1/10/11 11:56am]

Even a badly recorded home project can cost thousands to record, mix, master, produce artwork, make a web site or cd's, not to mention everyone's time.

I don't deny that the system could stand a change, but your last paragraph seems to be confirming what I am saying, people need to buy music in order to sustain it--no matter how cheaply it is produced.

Oh but I am not disputing what you said about the need for people to still buy CD's. Naturally people will have to buy something from you, if not some CD's then at least lots of concert tickets, to pay for the production costs of a CD, as well as to make a living.

All I'm trying to say really is that these days it is much cheaper than before to make a record. I am not talking about art work, mastering, mass production, distribution and marketing of a CD then, only about recording the music and mixing it. You don't need a record company's cash to rent a studio, engineers and equipment do that anymore and you don't need a record company's distribution channels to get it to your fans anymore either. You have computers and the internet for that.

And if you still want to go the 'major route' and try and become a media 'star', then you have your recording basically already and you can claim full ownership of it as well. No need to sell any rights in that case.

--

[Edited 1/11/11 4:35am]

TD3 said:

Termini said:

Legally speaking, illegal downloading of music, file-sharing or music piracy is not theft but "copyright infringement".

This is so because, factually speaking, what is happening is that music is being copied and distributed, without permission, but no copies of music are factually being taken away from its rightful owner. Since however it's the copyright owners exclusive right to make and distribute copies, legally speaking, this is called copyright infringement.

Copyright owners nevertheless usually speak of "theft" because this is how they perceive it to be. After all, the exclusive right to make and distribute copies is the copyright owners bread and butter. It's how he or she makes a living or a profit for its company and when you basically take that away by infringing on that right on a large scale and hurting the sales of copies that were legally made available, it feels in every way as outright stealing.

Also, in the more sociopolitical debate it's easier and for certain parties like the RIAA and MPAA also more useful to hammer on "stealing" because it brings the message across better to the public at large and it makes the opponent look much worse than when you merely speak of them being "infringers of copyright". "Theft", "piracy" and "stealing" play on people's values and emotions, making them more susceptible to the cause of supporting a tough stand on copyright infringement.

But it's not the same.

On the other hand, does it really matter? What really matters is that - by law - what is happening on file share sites, torrents, blogs, youtube and many other sites on the internet in most cases, and we are literally talking billions per year, IS in fact copyright infringement. And it does hurt the music and movie industry, with the music more than the movies so far.

However, who or what is really hurt here? Who are mostly hurt are record companies and an elite/ limited number of major rock/pop stars, who have profited and worn out business models that were used for ages in the old world but that do not work anymore in the days of the internet. Most recording artists have never made much by selling records. Only a select few and a bunch of shareholders, CEO's and other managers. Those few select have always made sure that record companies could survive with selling big on only a couple of albums per year, while losing out on most of their other acts. This created a system with only a few on top (of the pyramid Prince would say) making all the money and getting all the attention, with all the rest losing out.

That system is gone thanks to the internet and all the changes it has caused in people's lives and behavior. What is also gone is MTV promoting only payola music until it makes you sick. What is gone are record stores that only sell CD 's made available by major record companies. What is gone is popular radio dictating you what the latest hit should be.

What is left is still mostly a void. Itunes/Apple and Youtube/Google plus some others have filled some of it what major record companies should have done 10 years ago, but failed to do.

Because of the latter, the music industry has itself to blame to for its demise, not just any downloader.

==

[Edited 1/10/11 11:13am]

Herein lies the problem with the legalese or the definition of copyright infringement. The fact that many people don't know what's what has left this issue on death ears, therefor people keep violating the law. My point in my former post is the record industry have been playing catch up to the advancment of recording technology since the invention of cassette tape. In these instances the record companies have relied on the courts to make since of what's copyright infringement and what isn't. The record business have been running to close the door after the horses have fled ever since.

It was Sony who in the early 80's defended itself in the US against Universal et al concerning their VCr's. According to copyright owners video recorders were nothing but instruments of mass piracy and so they had to be takenoff the market. In a landmark decision the Supreme court decided that video recorders could be used to infringe on copyright but also served legitimate purposes, like 'time shifting' / making copies for personal use to view e.g a TV show on a later time. Moreover, if the VCr technology would become illegal, just because of the mere possibility to use it for copyright infringing purposes, it would stiffle technological development in this field, which is not what copyright law is supposed to do.

This case paved the way for the law that made hometaping legal, as long as it is for private personal non commercial use. The same happened in most other countries in the world. In return for this, most countries also set up a royalty system, ensuring copyright owners receive a royalty on each blank cassette tape, video tape, CD'r, DVD etc. that is made and/or on cassette recorders, videorecorders, DVD writers, computers etc. The music and movie industry make many hundreds of millions a year on these royalties. Hence the reason why they stopped complaining completely about "hometaping is killing music" and do not ever want to get rid of this system of compensation. For filesharing however, they are paid nothing.

When they are ensured pay, they will play. In the end therefore, something along these lines needs to happen with the issues of the internet too. It won't be so likely, as many on here think, that government or internet providers will step in to do dirty job of the entertainment industry, stiffle internet technology and squash freedom of information only to find torrent sites popping up outside of their jurisdiction and only so the entertainment industry can hold on to its old business models that have become uselss in a digital age. Unless it is willing to abolish certain constitutional rights and basically close up the internet, government won't do that and is not allowed to do that either.

--

[Edited 1/11/11 4:58am]

vainandy said:

BklynBabe said:

What makes money for an artist are tours. Let the music be free, and create a fan base that wants to see you live.

I partially agree "Let the music be cheap, and create a fan base that wants to see you live. "

we are all tired of these expensive Cds: 19-23$ dollars for a new album that most likely is not even that good to begin with??'

[Edited 1/11/11 9:55am]

Tremolina said:

NDRU said:

Even a badly recorded home project can cost thousands to record, mix, master, produce artwork, make a web site or cd's, not to mention everyone's time.

I don't deny that the system could stand a change, but your last paragraph seems to be confirming what I am saying, people need to buy music in order to sustain it--no matter how cheaply it is produced.

Oh but I am not disputing what you said about the need for people to still buy CD's. Naturally people will have to buy something from you, if not some CD's then at least lots of concert tickets, to pay for the production costs of a CD, as well as to make a living.

All I'm trying to say really is that these days it is much cheaper than before to make a record. I am not talking about art work, mastering, mass production, distribution and marketing of a CD then, only about recording the music and mixing it. You don't need a record company's cash to rent a studio, engineers and equipment do that anymore and you don't need a record company's distribution channels to get it to your fans anymore either. You have computers and the internet for that.

And if you still want to go the 'major route' and try and become a media 'star', then you have your recording basically already and you can claim full ownership of it as well. No need to sell any rights in that case.

--

[Edited 1/11/11 4:35am]

I think you're right to an extent, but cheap recordings applies more to bad hip hop/R&B (and even that requires a pretty good computer setup). To record something well with live instruments still requires a good sounding room, producer, recording engineer, lots of good mics, good preamps, mixing, mastering, time & expertise.

But my main point was simply that it costs money so there needs to be payment from the consumer, and we seem to agree about that much!

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

Oh but I am not disputing what you said about the need for people to still buy CD's. Naturally people will have to buy something from you, if not some CD's then at least lots of concert tickets, to pay for the production costs of a CD, as well as to make a living.

All I'm trying to say really is that these days it is much cheaper than before to make a record. I am not talking about art work, mastering, mass production, distribution and marketing of a CD then, only about recording the music and mixing it. You don't need a record company's cash to rent a studio, engineers and equipment do that anymore and you don't need a record company's distribution channels to get it to your fans anymore either. You have computers and the internet for that.

And if you still want to go the 'major route' and try and become a media 'star', then you have your recording basically already and you can claim full ownership of it as well. No need to sell any rights in that case.

--

[Edited 1/11/11 4:35am]

I think you're right to an extent, but cheap recordings applies more to bad hip hop/R&B (and even that requires a pretty good computer setup). To record something well with live instruments still requires a good sounding room, producer, recording engineer, lots of good mics, good preamps, mixing, mastering, time & expertise.

Exactly.

vainandy said:

luv4u said:

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

When you record a song off the radio, you aren't going to have an absolute perfect beginning and ending to a song. You aren't going to have the perfect beginning because the DJ may have talked a little bit through the intro or maybe played the station ID through it. It's also not going to have a perfect ending that is faded all the way down because the DJ may have talked at the end of it (which means you have to rewind and record over that part) or another song may have began while the previous song was fading out. When I recorded songs off the radio, I just recorded them in a way where the songs played continuous one after another with no blank space inbetween. That's more like having a mix instead of owning the song. As years went by with the invention of the double cassette recorder, I was able to perfect it though. I would just put a cassette in and let it record every single thing on the radio, then I would go back later and dub only the songs I wanted editing them to perfection with a perfect beginning and could fade them down with a tape deck that had a volume control of it's own.

Also, cassettes have too many flaws that vinyl and CDs don't have. When you buy a pre-recorded vinyl album, CD, or even a pre-recorded cassette, it is going to play on every single boom box, tabletop stereo, component system, or even an extremely high priced system in a nightclub at full power and strength with all the bass it should have and clear and crisp sounding. However, with a homemade cassette, the sound quality is going to vary according to the type of cassette recorder that was used. If you record a cassette from a nice cassette deck that is only one component of a component system or if you record a cassette from a system at a nightclub, it is going to sound great and full of power on any cassette player ranging from the smallest Walkman to the biggest sound system. But....if you record a cassette from a boom box or even from a tabletop stereo (a stereo that comes with the radio, cassette player, and turntable all combined....which is what most of the average people had because component systems were so expensive) that cassette is going to sound weak when played in a component system or on a nightclub's system. It isn't going to have that hard pounding bass and power that a pre-recorded cassette or a cassette made from a more expensive recorder would have. I think the record labels knew all this so cassette recording really wasn't a threat to them because the serious music lover is not going to be satisfied with those flaws. Plus, all those cassettes, whether pre-recorded or homemade, will wear out and start sounding muffled over a period of time, sometimes as early as a year if you play them a lot.

With homemade CDs though, you can download something on even the smallest laptop, burn it onto CD and put it in a nightclub's high powered system, and blow the roof off the joint. Plus, once that song is in the library in the computer, if the CD should ever wear out, you can always burn another one that was just as good and powerful as the previous one. I may hate the new music that is being made these days but I am loving the technology that we are able to record or save our music these days. I've come a long way from the days of a tape recorder microphone up next to the stereo speaker turned up full blast and telling everybody beforehand...."Shhhhhhhh...be quiet" and then ending up with a recording of my grandmother hollering in the background......"Andy, either turn that bumpitty bump shit DOWN or OFF. If I have to tell you again, I'm going whoop your ass!"

[Edited 1/10/11 8:18am]

yeah the laws were the same, but the process was so much more labor intensive that it was not such a big issue. Taping a record took a long time, and you needed the record, not just an internet connection. It would have taken a lifetime to make 1000 copies of a record.

Tremolina said:

Legally speaking, illegal downloading of music, file-sharing or music piracy is not theft but "copyright infringement".

This is so because, factually speaking, what is happening is that music is being copied and distributed, without permission, but no copies of music are factually being taken away from its rightful owner. Since however it's the copyright owners exclusive right to make and distribute copies, legally speaking, this is called copyright infringement.

Copyright owners nevertheless usually speak of "theft" because this is how they perceive it to be. After all, the exclusive right to make and distribute copies is the copyright owners bread and butter. It's how he or she makes a living or a profit for its company and when you basically take that away by infringing on that right on a large scale and hurting the sales of copies that were legally made available, it feels in every way as outright stealing.

Also, in the more socio-political debate it's easier and for certain parties like the RIAA and MPAA also more usefull to hammer on "stealing" because it brings the message across better to the public at large and it makes the opponent look much worse than when you merely speak of them being "infringers of copyright". "Theft", "piracy" and "stealing" play on people's values and emotions, making them more susceptible to the cause of supporting a tough stand on copyright infringement.

But it's not the same.

On the other hand, does it really matter? What really matters is that - by law - what is happening on file share sites, torrents, blogs, youtube and many other sites on the internet in most cases, and we are literally talking billions per year, IS in fact copyright infringement. And it does hurt the music and movie industry, with the music more than the movies so far.

However, who or what is really hurt here? Who are mostly hurt are record companies and an elite/ limited number of major rock/pop stars, who have profited and worn out business models that were used for ages in the old world but that do not work anymore in the days of the internet. Most recording artists have never made much by selling records. Only a select few and a bunch of shareholders, CEO's and other managers. Those few select have always made sure that record companies could survive with selling big on only a couple of albums per year, while losing out on most of their other acts. This created a system with only a few on top (of the pyramid Prince would say) making all the money and getting all the attention, with all the rest losing out.

That system is gone thanks to the internet and all the changes it has caused in people's lives and behavior. What is also gone is MTV promoting only payola music until it makes you sick. What is gone are record stores that only sell CD 's made available by major record companies. What is gone is popular radio dictating you what the latest hit should be.

What is left is still mostly a void. Itunes/Apple and Youtube/Google plus some others have filled some of it what major record companies should have done 10 years ago, but failed to do.

Because of the latter, the music industry has itself to blame to for its demise too, not just any downloader.

-

[Edited 1/10/11 11:16am]

Agree with this^

I still have my cassettes from back in the day. They still sound ok

luv4u said:

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

I remember the record industry caring quite a bit! (Also VCR's were hugely controversial to the industry).

I found this but I don't think it's the whole story:

Most compact cassettes were sold blank and used for recording (dubbing) the owner's records (as backup, to play in the car, or to make mixtape compilations), their friends' records or music from the radio. This practice was condemned by the music industry with such alarmist slogans as "Home Taping Is Killing Music". However, many claimed that the medium was ideal for spreading new music and would increase sales, and strongly defended at least their right to copy their own records onto tape. Cassettes were also a boon to people wishing to tape concerts (unauthorized or authorized) for sale or trade, a practice tacitly or overtly encouraged by many bands with a more counterculture bent such as the Grateful Dead. Blank Compact Cassettes also were an invaluable tool to spread the music of unsigned acts, especially within tape trading networks.

Various legal cases arose surrounding the dubbing of cassettes. In the UK, in the case of CBS Songs v. Amstrad (1988), the House of Lords found in favor of Amstrad that producing equipment that facilitated the dubbing of cassettes, in this case a high-speed twin cassette deck that allowed one cassette to be copied directly onto another, did not constitute the infringement of copyright.^[39] In a similar case, a shop owner who rented cassettes and sold blank tapes was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was clear that his customers were likely dubbing them at home.^[40] In both cases, the courts held that manufacturers and retailers could not be held accountable for the actions of consumers.

As an alternative to home dubbing, in the late 1980s, the Personics company installed booths in record stores across America which allowed customers to make personalized mixtapes from a digitally-encoded back-catalogue with customised printed covers.

JoeTyler said:

BklynBabe said:

What makes money for an artist are tours. Let the music be free, and create a fan base that wants to see you live.

I partially agree "Let the music be cheap, and create a fan base that wants to see you live. "

we are all tired of these expensive Cds: 19-23$ dollars for a new album that most likely is not even that good to begin with??'

[Edited 1/11/11 9:55am]

CD's were ridicuously overpriced I agree, if there's one good thing that's come of the whole filesharing things its cheaper CD's! In regards to album quality, its anyones guess really and people's opinions will always differ when it comes to "quality" music. Of course paying $20 for an album you haven't heard yet and hating every song isn't fair so there should be some way you can listen to the album for free on an artist's website and then if you like it you can purchase it on their website for about $7-10 for a physical copy, $15 for a delux copy (bonus tracks, posters, prize draws etc.) or $5 for a digital copy. i think that will be fair for everyone!

[Edited 1/11/11 19:56pm]

ufoclub said:

luv4u said:

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

I remember the record industry caring quite a bit! (Also VCR's were hugely controversial to the industry).

I found this but I don't think it's the whole story:

Most compact cassettes were sold blank and used for recording (dubbing) the owner's records (as backup, to play in the car, or to make mixtape compilations), their friends' records or music from the radio. This practice was condemned by the music industry with such alarmist slogans as "Home Taping Is Killing Music". However, many claimed that the medium was ideal for spreading new music and would increase sales, and strongly defended at least their right to copy their own records onto tape. Cassettes were also a boon to people wishing to tape concerts (unauthorized or authorized) for sale or trade, a practice tacitly or overtly encouraged by many bands with a more counterculture bent such as the Grateful Dead. Blank Compact Cassettes also were an invaluable tool to spread the music of unsigned acts, especially within tape trading networks.

Various legal cases arose surrounding the dubbing of cassettes. In the UK, in the case of CBS Songs v. Amstrad (1988), the House of Lords found in favor of Amstrad that producing equipment that facilitated the dubbing of cassettes, in this case a high-speed twin cassette deck that allowed one cassette to be copied directly onto another, did not constitute the infringement of copyright.^[39] In a similar case, a shop owner who rented cassettes and sold blank tapes was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was clear that his customers were likely dubbing them at home.^[40] In both cases, the courts held that manufacturers and retailers could not be held accountable for the actions of consumers.

As an alternative to home dubbing, in the late 1980s, the Personics company installed booths in record stores across America which allowed customers to make personalized mixtapes from a digitally-encoded back-catalogue with customised printed covers.

Thank you for that.