Friday, May 24, 2013
Reasons I Like to Post In-Print Recordings #598
Look, I buy a lot of stuff.
Buy a lot of CDs, lot of paid downloads, loads of stuff. (Back in the day, I bought me a lot of 8 Track carts and cassettes.)
So it's not like I haven't supported the music y'know.
I can't count the thousands I have spent on buying music and going to live gigs over the years.
So the way I see it - I am owed a bit of cream.
A bit of 'extra': - some reward for my support.
Some gratis shit from artists I have supported with my coin in the past. As well as some I haven't of course.
I'm still going to buy some things. I'm just going to 'not buy' some others that I'll be adding to my collection, is all.
Here's what really annoys me though -the people down at the local supermarket flat out refuse to go along with this fair minded way of thinking.
I have supported this supermarket for years - purchasing countless amounts of household items, food and beverages over that time. I don't know how many hundreds, no thousands, of dollars I have spent there, supporting them and their industry. Not forgetting the food growers too...
I'm one of the biggest supporters of the groceries industry from around here.
And food man - food is a right. We all have the right to food - otherwise we die.
So why have the peopole down at the supermarket freaked out when I took a little extra off the shelves and stuffed it under the front of my jacket?
After all my years of support of them - how disappointing.
Being threatened with arrest - likewise disappointing.
Arguing my case about my point of view on the matter and being given a lecture on the basics of a market economy.
And having to put the stuff back on the shelves.
Disappointing.
Buy a lot of CDs, lot of paid downloads, loads of stuff. (Back in the day, I bought me a lot of 8 Track carts and cassettes.)
So it's not like I haven't supported the music y'know.
I can't count the thousands I have spent on buying music and going to live gigs over the years.
So the way I see it - I am owed a bit of cream.
A bit of 'extra': - some reward for my support.
Some gratis shit from artists I have supported with my coin in the past. As well as some I haven't of course.
I'm still going to buy some things. I'm just going to 'not buy' some others that I'll be adding to my collection, is all.
Here's what really annoys me though -the people down at the local supermarket flat out refuse to go along with this fair minded way of thinking.
I have supported this supermarket for years - purchasing countless amounts of household items, food and beverages over that time. I don't know how many hundreds, no thousands, of dollars I have spent there, supporting them and their industry. Not forgetting the food growers too...
I'm one of the biggest supporters of the groceries industry from around here.
And food man - food is a right. We all have the right to food - otherwise we die.
So why have the peopole down at the supermarket freaked out when I took a little extra off the shelves and stuffed it under the front of my jacket?
After all my years of support of them - how disappointing.
Being threatened with arrest - likewise disappointing.
Arguing my case about my point of view on the matter and being given a lecture on the basics of a market economy.
And having to put the stuff back on the shelves.
Disappointing.
Reasons I Like to Post In-Print Recordings #412
There are loads of musicians who don't mind others making their recordings available through file-sharing circles.
Most musicians probably. I can name hundreds just off the bat. Or a hundred probably.
Or at least dozens. Well, I can count 'em on my fingers and toes anyway.
Like the guy out of the White Stripes is one. And maybe Lady Gaga. And Neil Young, Eugene Chadbourne, Amanda Palmer, Steve Coleman, er.. Norah Jones . And what about that 12 year old article by Janis Ian on the subject ? She's mad for file-sharing - absolutely loves it..
Many musicians - possibly the same amount as above (possibly not) - download in-print stuff for themselves as well. Some have admitted it!
So I mean, if musicians are downloading in-print stuff AND don't mind their own stuff being made freely available - well, what more is there to say? Case proven I think !
Here is an article with further proof on the issue It's got pie charts and some graphs. These are tremendously authoritative, and tend to convince people of all sorts of things, more often than not.
The public comments at the end of the piece reveal a diversity of views.
It's a pity maybe that such words as "whiny troglodyte" are brought into play, but hey that's internets for ya..
Far more interesting is the new argument made there that musicians suffering "economic damage" are to blame themselves - for making crappy music! This is an exciting new justification for my activities - I may yet make it "Reasons I share in print stuff No. 736"...
Most musicians probably. I can name hundreds just off the bat. Or a hundred probably.
Or at least dozens. Well, I can count 'em on my fingers and toes anyway.
Like the guy out of the White Stripes is one. And maybe Lady Gaga. And Neil Young, Eugene Chadbourne, Amanda Palmer, Steve Coleman, er.. Norah Jones . And what about that 12 year old article by Janis Ian on the subject ? She's mad for file-sharing - absolutely loves it..
Many musicians - possibly the same amount as above (possibly not) - download in-print stuff for themselves as well. Some have admitted it!
So I mean, if musicians are downloading in-print stuff AND don't mind their own stuff being made freely available - well, what more is there to say? Case proven I think !
Here is an article with further proof on the issue It's got pie charts and some graphs. These are tremendously authoritative, and tend to convince people of all sorts of things, more often than not.
The public comments at the end of the piece reveal a diversity of views.
It's a pity maybe that such words as "whiny troglodyte" are brought into play, but hey that's internets for ya..
Far more interesting is the new argument made there that musicians suffering "economic damage" are to blame themselves - for making crappy music! This is an exciting new justification for my activities - I may yet make it "Reasons I share in print stuff No. 736"...
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Reasons I Like to Post In-Print Recordings #347
The amount of people grabbing my lossless endlessly reproducible copies of the music is insignificant - it's hardly anyone really..
Certainly not enough to do any financial damage to the artists whose recordings I admire.
Some of my favourite artists sure, would struggle to sell 5000 copies of a new release worldwide.
[Hey, it's esoteric music and that's just what we accept right?]
But I doubt that letting 26 dudes have a free download is going to make much of a dent in the resources of some small record label run from a kitchen table in a sleazy suburb on the outskirts of town - hey?
And hell, I'm sick of the tired arguments about "lossless changes everything" and "what if my 26 downloader-club friends in turn have 26 friends each?".
Shit, that's still only 676 guys that have my original rip, and I am willing to bet that NONE of those 676 dudes have many friends, or maybe any friends (the music we love is pretty marginal, y'know..)
Because if those 676 have only 8 friends, the we're well over the 5000 copies that was our original maximum-exposure sales projection.
We would'nt be recompensing the artist we enjoy so well - we'd be sucking them dry.
And we wouldn't want to do that would we ?
Certainly not enough to do any financial damage to the artists whose recordings I admire.
Some of my favourite artists sure, would struggle to sell 5000 copies of a new release worldwide.
[Hey, it's esoteric music and that's just what we accept right?]
But I doubt that letting 26 dudes have a free download is going to make much of a dent in the resources of some small record label run from a kitchen table in a sleazy suburb on the outskirts of town - hey?
And hell, I'm sick of the tired arguments about "lossless changes everything" and "what if my 26 downloader-club friends in turn have 26 friends each?".
Shit, that's still only 676 guys that have my original rip, and I am willing to bet that NONE of those 676 dudes have many friends, or maybe any friends (the music we love is pretty marginal, y'know..)
Because if those 676 have only 8 friends, the we're well over the 5000 copies that was our original maximum-exposure sales projection.
We would'nt be recompensing the artist we enjoy so well - we'd be sucking them dry.
And we wouldn't want to do that would we ?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Reasons I Like to Post In-Print Recordings #264
If something is in print - by which I mean available in the shops or by mail-order, I post it on the internet (to a smaller or greater global audience) because..
Artists Make Nothing From Recordings - and Never Have
The artists don't make money off recordings anyway - the greedy record companies take all the cash.
Artists have NEVER made money off record companies - who are inherently evil and exploitative.
Artists make money off live gigs. People should really go to gigs.
So really a CD is just like a business card - only louder..
Reasons I Like to Post In-Print Recordings #107
If something is in print - by which I mean available in the shops or by mail-order, I post it on the internet (to a smaller or greater global audience) because..
Because it is good exposure for the artists!
More people will like and enjoy that artist's music that I make available for download - many may even buy it.as recorded music -a CD or a purchased download for instance.
If they don't do that, they might well go to a gig of that artist (if the artist happens to be appearing anywhere near your town at some point).
Persons from institutions and societies may be influenced too - the artist in question may eventually receive prizes, grants, awards, faculty tenure and so forth - helped by my exposure of sharing their recorded work to strangers.
My labours are in the service of the artists I love I suppose - a promotions and publicity role is what I have .
Someone should pay me really.
Because it is good exposure for the artists!
More people will like and enjoy that artist's music that I make available for download - many may even buy it.as recorded music -a CD or a purchased download for instance.
If they don't do that, they might well go to a gig of that artist (if the artist happens to be appearing anywhere near your town at some point).
Persons from institutions and societies may be influenced too - the artist in question may eventually receive prizes, grants, awards, faculty tenure and so forth - helped by my exposure of sharing their recorded work to strangers.
My labours are in the service of the artists I love I suppose - a promotions and publicity role is what I have .
Someone should pay me really.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Sharing What Exactly?..
Depending on what kind of material is being shared - different moral views and opinions may be held by people concerning different 'categories' of recordings.
At the broadest, 'categories of music recordings' could be
Live recordings: - so-called ROIOs (Recordings of Indeterminate Origin). It's assumed, taped not for commercial release - often (but not exclusively) by audience members - sometimes with artist consent, sometimes without.
Many people feel that sharing and trading this sort of material is perfectly OK: - entire communities exist to exchange live recordings. Some - like the well known Dimeadozen Bittorrent site - will not allow any material that artists have requested not be made available - or have a ban policy for any music that is commercially available in any form.
It's worth noting in passing that the 'ROIO' label is frequently fairly disingenuous as the 'origin' [the O in ROIO] of many recordings is extremely precisely known [ie. it was my buddy Johann, with 2 Telefunken U47s strapped to his the ends of his crutches, 4 rows back, at the Bohemia Palace on 26th June 1996. I then mixed it in Goldwave and uploaded it from a Macbook Pro with a Core Duo CPU with sticky tape on the lid].
"Indeterminate Origin" indeed ...
Deleted recordings - Just because the record label has deleted / discontinued a recording (and this can be tricky to verify sometimes) - doesn't mean that it is out of copyright.
Many feel however that in this circumstance, it's OK to swap and share these recordings that are commercially unavailable. After all, how else would anyone get a chance to hear any deleted recording? A reissue from the original label or some other may - or may not - be forthcoming in a usually unknown amount of time..
In-Print Recordings - These are commercially available - perhaps from local shops, perhaps from small outlets online, usually - but not always - on the mega shop sites like Amazon.com.
You can buy them - but many prefer not to spend that money - when there are others prepared to offer them for free. Someone buys a copy originally - but that one copy can be disseminated to hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of people extremely easily.
This is the stuff that has brought (what used to be called) The Record Industry to its knees.
For every 10 cents somewhere like the iTunes store pulls in, untabulated hundreds or thousands of theoretical dollars (euros, pounds, rupees, roubles) flow away in the form of 'illegal downloads' - of many stripes and sizes.
There are arguably other categories - such as unreleased studio material, recordings that are in shops but discontinued by the label, or issues that are 'out of stock' but not advised as deleted.
But - keeping it simple - the above 3 categories I would suggest are the main three.
And whilst many will have no interest in this delineation and will download whatever the hell they feel like of any of the 3 kinds of material mentioned - other people will have differing responses to the 3 different areas I've outlined above - and will respond differently.
With their views of the ethics involved, and with their wallets I'd suggest.
At the broadest, 'categories of music recordings' could be
Live recordings: - so-called ROIOs (Recordings of Indeterminate Origin). It's assumed, taped not for commercial release - often (but not exclusively) by audience members - sometimes with artist consent, sometimes without.
Many people feel that sharing and trading this sort of material is perfectly OK: - entire communities exist to exchange live recordings. Some - like the well known Dimeadozen Bittorrent site - will not allow any material that artists have requested not be made available - or have a ban policy for any music that is commercially available in any form.
It's worth noting in passing that the 'ROIO' label is frequently fairly disingenuous as the 'origin' [the O in ROIO] of many recordings is extremely precisely known [ie. it was my buddy Johann, with 2 Telefunken U47s strapped to his the ends of his crutches, 4 rows back, at the Bohemia Palace on 26th June 1996. I then mixed it in Goldwave and uploaded it from a Macbook Pro with a Core Duo CPU with sticky tape on the lid].
"Indeterminate Origin" indeed ...
Deleted recordings - Just because the record label has deleted / discontinued a recording (and this can be tricky to verify sometimes) - doesn't mean that it is out of copyright.
Many feel however that in this circumstance, it's OK to swap and share these recordings that are commercially unavailable. After all, how else would anyone get a chance to hear any deleted recording? A reissue from the original label or some other may - or may not - be forthcoming in a usually unknown amount of time..
In-Print Recordings - These are commercially available - perhaps from local shops, perhaps from small outlets online, usually - but not always - on the mega shop sites like Amazon.com.
You can buy them - but many prefer not to spend that money - when there are others prepared to offer them for free. Someone buys a copy originally - but that one copy can be disseminated to hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of people extremely easily.
This is the stuff that has brought (what used to be called) The Record Industry to its knees.
For every 10 cents somewhere like the iTunes store pulls in, untabulated hundreds or thousands of theoretical dollars (euros, pounds, rupees, roubles) flow away in the form of 'illegal downloads' - of many stripes and sizes.
There are arguably other categories - such as unreleased studio material, recordings that are in shops but discontinued by the label, or issues that are 'out of stock' but not advised as deleted.
But - keeping it simple - the above 3 categories I would suggest are the main three.
And whilst many will have no interest in this delineation and will download whatever the hell they feel like of any of the 3 kinds of material mentioned - other people will have differing responses to the 3 different areas I've outlined above - and will respond differently.
With their views of the ethics involved, and with their wallets I'd suggest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)