Author Topic: James LaBrie appreciation thread  (Read 8647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline winghead

  • Posts: 4
James LaBrie appreciation thread
« on: July 22, 2015, 09:34:08 AM »
Just wanted to appreciate my favorite frontman in rock. James is extremely versatile and seems like a great guy too!

Offline Madman Shepherd

  • Posts: 3718
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2015, 11:38:32 AM »
I appreciate. 

Offline JayOctavarium

  • I used to be a whorejerk
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10055
  • Gender: Male
  • But then I took a Hef to the knee...
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2015, 11:42:05 AM »
I LaBrieciate
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 12:21:10 PM by JayOctavarium »
I just don't understand what they were trying to achieve with any part of the song, either individually or as a whole. You know what? It's the Platypus of Dream Theater songs. That bill doesn't go with that tail, or that strange little furry body, or those webbed feet, and oh god why does it have venomous spurs!? And then you find out it lays eggs too. The difference is that the Platypus is somehow functional despite being a crazy mishmash or leftover animal pieces

-BlobVanDam on "Scarred"

Offline As I Am

  • Banned
  • Posts: 578
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2015, 12:14:15 PM »
I'm a fan of JLB, but a good frontman he is NOT!

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52780
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2015, 12:25:47 PM »
He's the singer of my favorite band.

*appreciates*
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74076
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2015, 04:05:35 PM »
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline wasteland

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8011
  • Gender: Male
  • Jay Beckenstein was in Spyro Gyra, right?
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2015, 04:17:42 PM »
My favourite!

*good deal of appreciation*
:slayer: Somewhere, over the wasteland..... bootlegs fly :slayer:
MoraWintersoul is the BEST person.
- Marco

Offline IdoSC

  • Posts: 901
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2015, 02:27:37 PM »
He's making the band especially special.

Offline Train of Naught

  • I sympathize, with a cockroach
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
  • .....and a cockroach
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2015, 03:22:53 PM »
It's almost been twelve years since the famous LaBrie-rap, and we still appreciate.
Also: "Would you appreciate?"
people on this board are actual music fans who developed taste in music and not casual listeners who are following current fashion trends and listening to only current commercial hits.

Offline TheGreatPretender

  • The Second Dancing Turtle
  • Posts: 6981
  • Gender: Male
  • You are reading these words.
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2015, 05:21:09 PM »
LaBrieciation.
"How's that for a slice of fried gold?"

Offline erwinrafael

  • Posts: 3436
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2015, 08:48:08 PM »
Now if DT could just produce a song like MullMuzzler's Afterlife to highlight LaBrie's vocals, they I would further appreciate his talents. ;)

Offline |KirK|

  • DT Addicted
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • Seize The Day
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2015, 10:22:55 AM »
The main reason why I wait every year for the release of a DVD is to listen to him. I couldn't listen to DT with any other frontman.
I Labrieciate him!!!  :hefdaddy :yarr

Offline Voices

  • Posts: 198
  • Gender: Male
  • Like a scream but sort of silent.
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2015, 08:52:45 PM »
He's just outstanding. Just watch this  :yarr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVJSANnF3c

Offline Onno

  • Well, it's just entertainment, folks!
  • Posts: 4361
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2015, 01:31:52 PM »
James is fantastic!

Offline CharlesPL

  • Posts: 4186
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2015, 08:57:35 PM »
DREAM THEATER's JAMES LABRIE: Illegal Music Downloading Is 'No Different' From Stealing Groceries
Read more at https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dream-theaters-james-labrie-illegal-music-downloading-is-no-different-from-stealing-groceries/#sQ5oo34m4sbXBQrZ.99

Offline DarkLord_Lalinc

  • pr0nman extraordinaire
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11580
  • Gender: Male
  • Hostages love me
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2015, 04:34:33 AM »
DREAM THEATER's JAMES LABRIE: Illegal Music Downloading Is 'No Different' From Stealing Groceries
Read more at https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dream-theaters-james-labrie-illegal-music-downloading-is-no-different-from-stealing-groceries/#sQ5oo34m4sbXBQrZ.99

Blabbermouth's titles always give us something to talk about, don't they?
Quote from: TioJorge
MAN FUCK YOU KUJA.
Quote from: hefdaddy42
The Darklord is amazing

Offline Bolsters

  • Lost Boy
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5487
  • Gender: Male
  • What a hell of a day to embrace disorder
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2015, 04:52:20 AM »
Just don't read the comments.

Offline bl5150

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9132
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2015, 04:57:17 AM »
Just don't read the comments.

 ;D  There's the odd gem ,but yeah.......probably not worth the trouble of scouring the rest.

Instead link it here and comment here at Blobbermouth.  :blob:
"I would just like to say that after all these years of heavy drinking, bright lights and late nights, I still don't need glasses. I drink right out of the bottle." - DLR

www.theguitardojo.com.au

Offline Madman Shepherd

  • Posts: 3718
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2015, 09:13:42 AM »
DREAM THEATER's JAMES LABRIE: Illegal Music Downloading Is 'No Different' From Stealing Groceries
Read more at https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dream-theaters-james-labrie-illegal-music-downloading-is-no-different-from-stealing-groceries/#sQ5oo34m4sbXBQrZ.99

I have to say I think "illegal downloading" is way overblown.  These streaming music services pay artists jackshit and make a ton of money for themselves.  I think that is more wrong than some teenager downloading a few songs that he probably wouldn't buy to begin with.

I also think the comparison of groceries and music is ridiculous.  When someone plays a song in a room (or in a grocery store), everyone gets to hear that.  When someone eats a sandwich, only the person that is eating gets to enjoy it.  Intellectual property does not equal food.  If someone steals a loaf of bread and eats it, that bread is gone forever.  If someone steals a song and shares it, it is still available to listen to and be purchased.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I admit this is not a clear cut issue), those are two very different and incomparable things. 

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2015, 09:30:47 AM »
I'm not sure James meant the groceries to music analogy to be that literal. He probably just meant to say that he felt like stealing music (illegally downloading it) was the same as physical theft in his eyes. It is something that should be obtained by paying for it. Food might have just came to mind first.

Online Kwyjibo

  • Worse troll than Blabbermouth
  • Posts: 5998
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2015, 09:50:12 AM »


Forever
Must've been Kwyji sending all the wrong songs.   ;D

Offline Thoughtspart3

  • Posts: 150
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2015, 09:54:11 AM »
Why do people seem to have a different standard for media versus other products?  I imagine that most of us would feel really guilty about slipping a CD or a candy bar in our pocket as we walked out of a store which is James' point, but many think nothing of downloading a song for free online.  It probably has to do with the immaterial nature of a digital file. 

Online Sycsa

  • Posts: 1895
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2015, 09:57:34 AM »
Illegal sharing and downloading lead to more exposure (the only exposure really, since you can't hear DT on MTV or on the radio), which leads to concert ticket sales, which is financially more profitable for the artist than selling albums. On the flip side, bands are touring more and writing less, which is a loss for everyone in the long run. Stealing is stealing, but it's still a complicated and delicate subject which James addressed with a rather clumsy and clichéd analogy, especially since RoadRunner made the whole DT12 album available on YouTube.


Sycsa is perhaps the most brilliant and insightful man I have ever encountered.

Offline Thoughtspart3

  • Posts: 150
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2015, 10:05:41 AM »
You do have a point about exposure, but shouldn't the band control that?  Your example about the youtube release of DT13 is a good example.  Bands can generate exposure through the new mediums and even release a few songs for free to generate interest.  It doesn't seem necessary for people to steal the whole albums to spike interest in a band.

Also, I wonder what the correlation is between fans who steal music and then attend concerts which are significantly more expensive.

Online Sycsa

  • Posts: 1895
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2015, 10:10:05 AM »
Why do people seem to have a different standard for media versus other products?  I imagine that most of us would feel really guilty about slipping a CD or a candy bar in our pocket as we walked out of a store which is James' point, but many think nothing of downloading a song for free online.  It probably has to do with the immaterial nature of a digital file.
Well, sorta, but not entirely. You wouldn't be comfortable with illegally transferring money from someone else's bank account to your own, even if you didn't know the person, and that's also immaterial. The reason you wouldn't is the same why you wouldn't steal bread from a store: because you can clearly see and identify the victim of your crime. Illegal downloading is perceived as a "victimless crime", people rationalize it that they wouldn't buy it anyway, so nobody is losing money over it, or that they go to concerts to support the bands, the record companies are heartless exploiters anyway. The same fallacious "victimless crime" logic applies in the following: when you find a wallet, you'll likely return it to the owner, but if the ATM gives you more money that it should have, you're likely to keep it instead of returning it to the bank.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 10:15:54 AM by Sycsa »


Sycsa is perhaps the most brilliant and insightful man I have ever encountered.

Online Kwyjibo

  • Worse troll than Blabbermouth
  • Posts: 5998
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2015, 10:12:38 AM »
I doubt that many who illegally download songs or albums are regular concert goers of the bands the stole their records from. And besides what about the bands that don't tour like Ayreon or that can only afford small tours like Spock's Beard who barely break even on a tour.

This analogy of more exposure = more concert goers = more money is too simple and I get the feeling that it is often brought up by people who know it's wrong but do it nonetheless and try to justify it for themselves.


Must've been Kwyji sending all the wrong songs.   ;D

Offline Madman Shepherd

  • Posts: 3718
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2015, 10:22:40 AM »
Why do people seem to have a different standard for media versus other products?  I imagine that most of us would feel really guilty about slipping a CD or a candy bar in our pocket as we walked out of a store which is James' point, but many think nothing of downloading a song for free online.  It probably has to do with the immaterial nature of a digital file.
Well, sorta, but not entirely. You wouldn't be comfortable with illegally transferring money from someone else's bank account to your own, even if you didn't know the person, and that's also immaterial. The reason you wouldn't is the same why you wouldn't stea breadl from a store: because you can clearly see and identify the victim of your crime. Illegal downloading is perceived as a "victimless crime", people rationalize it that they wouldn't buy it anyway, so nobody is losing money over it, or that they go to concerts to support the bands, the record companies are heartless exploiters anyway. The same "victimless crime" logic applies in the following: when you find a wallet, you'll likely return it to the owner, but if the ATM gives you more money that it should have, you're likely to keep it instead of returning it to the bank.

But with money, it is a tangible object that disappears if it is stolen.  That person or business is now without that money that it had before.  With intellectual property, it is impossible to prove whether the artist actually "lost" money.  I personally do not illegally download.  I own about 2000 CDs (and over 2000 DVDs for that matter) so I clearly believe music should be purchased to be enjoyed properly.  I also do not think it as the same realm as stealing objects.  Almost everybody has copied a CD from a friend, or more to make it more complicated, heard music purchased by someone else.  What if you are at a party where music is played.  Should you be responsible for paying a portion of the rights to hear that in someones living room?  What if that song was illegally downloaded, are you now complacent in a crime?  Obviously there are complicated issues for public versus private performance but that proves that it is clearly different than a stolen object which belongs to the person it was stolen from.

I also think its incredibly cheesy that record companies are suing elderly ladies (whose only crime is having the same IP as someone who at some point may have illegally downloaded music) for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then willing to settle for something like $20,000. 

Offline 425

  • Posts: 6910
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2015, 10:28:52 AM »
Written for the other thread before it was locked:

Music is created by the artist and offered for sale to the public. Illegally downloading music is not okay, because it means taking that music against their terms.

I'm not talking about someone who shares an MP3 with one friend, who then goes out and buys the album himself if he likes the song or deletes the file if he doesn't. That's a grey area, because it's somewhat like a virtual version of lending someone a CD. I'm talking about illegally downloading an album, with no intention to ever pay for it. That's wrong because it violates the artist's ability to decide what is done with their intellectual property.

I have to say I think "illegal downloading" is way overblown.  These streaming music services pay artists jackshit and make a ton of money for themselves.  I think that is more wrong than some teenager downloading a few songs that he probably wouldn't buy to begin with. 

This, to me, demonstrates that you don't really understand the issue. The issue is not exactly how much money the artists make, the issue is that, when Dream Theater creates an album, it is their intellectual property and they are allowed to decide how it will be distributed to other people. So if they choose to make a deal for their album to be on Spotify, even if it's a bad deal for them, they still made that choice, which is what matters. They did not choose for the album to be simply taken by thousands of people who did not pay for it.

I agree that streaming services have some issues regarding how much they pay artists. And, fortunately, artists like Taylor Swift are being very confrontational about how this works, trying to make things better not just for big artists, but for small ones who are just getting started. But it's not worse than illegal downloading. Using Spotify is not immoral, because the artists consent for their intellectual property to be on Spotify. They do not consent to people stealing their albums.

I also think the comparison of groceries and music is ridiculous.  When someone plays a song in a room (or in a grocery store), everyone gets to hear that.  When someone eats a sandwich, only the person that is eating gets to enjoy it.  Intellectual property does not equal food.  If someone steals a loaf of bread and eats it, that bread is gone forever.  If someone steals a song and shares it, it is still available to listen to and be purchased.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I admit this is not a clear cut issue), those are two very different and incomparable things.

It's true that scarcity is an aspect that is different between physical property and intellectual property. But as I said, the key issue is the artist's ability to control their intellectual property.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine you wrote a book. Put eBooks aside for a moment because that's an unnecessarily complicating factor. Now, imagine that one person bought your book, scanned all the pages, then posted it online. And no one else bought the book, instead reading the online post. Does that not seem like theft? Instead of paying for your intellectual property, the way you wanted them to, they chose to steal it. Your Spotify example might be the equivalent of an author choosing to host the complete text of his book on a website that charged readers a monthly fee and paid the authors 5 cents per reader. That's not a good deal for the author, and it's worthy of discussion, but because the author chose to use that website, it's not wrong like piracy.
And if spirit's a sign,
Then it's only a matter of time

Online Sycsa

  • Posts: 1895
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2015, 10:53:41 AM »
It doesn't seem necessary for people to steal the whole albums to spike interest in a band.
Indeed. Releasing a few song officially on YouTube seems like a good start in adapting to today's market.
Also, I wonder what the correlation is between fans who steal music and then attend concerts which are significantly more expensive.
The fact that concerts are more expensive is totally irrelevant. Albums can be pirated effortlessly, but you can't just sneak in to attend a concert. I don't think most people who download illegally can't afford to buy CDs (or go to concerts, for that matter). They just do it because it's easier, so why spend money?
I doubt that many who illegally download songs or albums are regular concert goers of the bands the stole their records from.
It probably depends on where you live, but in Eastern Europe, most regular concert goers, especially the younger ones, don't buy CDs (which are way more expensive here, too), maybe just a few token ones from their favorite bands. Yet bands come here and play (yes, even Spock's Beard, I saw them twice), because they can sell tickets.
And besides what about the bands that don't tour like Ayreon or that can only afford small tours like Spock's Beard who barely break even on a tour.
What about them? They scramble and try to survive (Spock's even tried out Kickstarter crowdfunding). I'm not saying the music industry or music in general is better off because of piracy in any shape or form, but it is what it is, and it's a complex issue in general. 


Sycsa is perhaps the most brilliant and insightful man I have ever encountered.

Offline Madman Shepherd

  • Posts: 3718
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2015, 11:05:49 AM »
Written for the other thread before it was locked:

Music is created by the artist and offered for sale to the public. Illegally downloading music is not okay, because it means taking that music against their terms.

I'm not talking about someone who shares an MP3 with one friend, who then goes out and buys the album himself if he likes the song or deletes the file if he doesn't. That's a grey area, because it's somewhat like a virtual version of lending someone a CD. I'm talking about illegally downloading an album, with no intention to ever pay for it. That's wrong because it violates the artist's ability to decide what is done with their intellectual property.

I have to say I think "illegal downloading" is way overblown.  These streaming music services pay artists jackshit and make a ton of money for themselves.  I think that is more wrong than some teenager downloading a few songs that he probably wouldn't buy to begin with. 

This, to me, demonstrates that you don't really understand the issue. The issue is not exactly how much money the artists make, the issue is that, when Dream Theater creates an album, it is their intellectual property and they are allowed to decide how it will be distributed to other people. So if they choose to make a deal for their album to be on Spotify, even if it's a bad deal for them, they still made that choice, which is what matters. They did not choose for the album to be simply taken by thousands of people who did not pay for it.

I agree that streaming services have some issues regarding how much they pay artists. And, fortunately, artists like Taylor Swift are being very confrontational about how this works, trying to make things better not just for big artists, but for small ones who are just getting started. But it's not worse than illegal downloading. Using Spotify is not immoral, because the artists consent for their intellectual property to be on Spotify. They do not consent to people stealing their albums.

I also think the comparison of groceries and music is ridiculous.  When someone plays a song in a room (or in a grocery store), everyone gets to hear that.  When someone eats a sandwich, only the person that is eating gets to enjoy it.  Intellectual property does not equal food.  If someone steals a loaf of bread and eats it, that bread is gone forever.  If someone steals a song and shares it, it is still available to listen to and be purchased.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I admit this is not a clear cut issue), those are two very different and incomparable things.

It's true that scarcity is an aspect that is different between physical property and intellectual property. But as I said, the key issue is the artist's ability to control their intellectual property.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine you wrote a book. Put eBooks aside for a moment because that's an unnecessarily complicating factor. Now, imagine that one person bought your book, scanned all the pages, then posted it online. And no one else bought the book, instead reading the online post. Does that not seem like theft? Instead of paying for your intellectual property, the way you wanted them to, they chose to steal it. Your Spotify example might be the equivalent of an author choosing to host the complete text of his book on a website that charged readers a monthly fee and paid the authors 5 cents per reader. That's not a good deal for the author, and it's worthy of discussion, but because the author chose to use that website, it's not wrong like piracy.

You've made a lot of good points but I take issue with the idea that I "don't understand the issue."  I have spent years discussing this, reading articles, watching documentaries, and personally not partaking in illegal downloading myself and instead spending tens of thousands of dollars on movies and music. 

You are right that an artist should have a right to present the music in the way that they wish.  I think it is lame to not care about cover art and liner notes because to me that is an important component of music.  I still haven't listened to a few songs legally released by a different band that I love because I want to have the album in hand which isn't available until later this month. 

But, when a band gives into the demands of spotify which basically force bands to give into their ridiculous demands under duress, I do not believe the bands consent implies that they are happy with that at all.  Simply because they signed over the rights to have it publicly broadcast is an act of desperation.  While I agree consent is important and the main difference between illegal downloading and something lame like spotify, I believe there is still very little difference.  I think many of the people that illegally download are in the same position as the band when they make their decision.  Because of their financial situation they aren't able to go out and purchase all the music they want so they give in to a bad deal.  Of course there are those that have the ability to pay and choose not to and I think that is incredibly lame.

As far as books go, I understand the analogy but lets modify it.  Say you are doing research and cannot afford to buy a book but your friend offers to scan you a chapter of the book that they own that will help you immensely, are you now a thief? What if that friend let you borrow that book?  You didn't buy it but now you get to benefit from the knowledge acquired?!?!  What about borrowing CDs?  You didn't pay for it!  Legally you are allowed to make a personal copy if you purchase it so if your friend does that and lets you borrow the CD permanently, that is essentially the same as just burning a copy for them or letting them download it to begin with.  Are you now part of a crime syndicate?


Offline goo-goo

  • Posts: 3162
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2015, 11:08:11 AM »
Written for the other thread before it was locked:

Music is created by the artist and offered for sale to the public. Illegally downloading music is not okay, because it means taking that music against their terms.

I'm not talking about someone who shares an MP3 with one friend, who then goes out and buys the album himself if he likes the song or deletes the file if he doesn't. That's a grey area, because it's somewhat like a virtual version of lending someone a CD. I'm talking about illegally downloading an album, with no intention to ever pay for it. That's wrong because it violates the artist's ability to decide what is done with their intellectual property.

I have to say I think "illegal downloading" is way overblown.  These streaming music services pay artists jackshit and make a ton of money for themselves.  I think that is more wrong than some teenager downloading a few songs that he probably wouldn't buy to begin with. 

This, to me, demonstrates that you don't really understand the issue. The issue is not exactly how much money the artists make, the issue is that, when Dream Theater creates an album, it is their intellectual property and they are allowed to decide how it will be distributed to other people. So if they choose to make a deal for their album to be on Spotify, even if it's a bad deal for them, they still made that choice, which is what matters. They did not choose for the album to be simply taken by thousands of people who did not pay for it.

I agree that streaming services have some issues regarding how much they pay artists. And, fortunately, artists like Taylor Swift are being very confrontational about how this works, trying to make things better not just for big artists, but for small ones who are just getting started. But it's not worse than illegal downloading. Using Spotify is not immoral, because the artists consent for their intellectual property to be on Spotify. They do not consent to people stealing their albums.

I also think the comparison of groceries and music is ridiculous.  When someone plays a song in a room (or in a grocery store), everyone gets to hear that.  When someone eats a sandwich, only the person that is eating gets to enjoy it.  Intellectual property does not equal food.  If someone steals a loaf of bread and eats it, that bread is gone forever.  If someone steals a song and shares it, it is still available to listen to and be purchased.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I admit this is not a clear cut issue), those are two very different and incomparable things.

It's true that scarcity is an aspect that is different between physical property and intellectual property. But as I said, the key issue is the artist's ability to control their intellectual property.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine you wrote a book. Put eBooks aside for a moment because that's an unnecessarily complicating factor. Now, imagine that one person bought your book, scanned all the pages, then posted it online. And no one else bought the book, instead reading the online post. Does that not seem like theft? Instead of paying for your intellectual property, the way you wanted them to, they chose to steal it. Your Spotify example might be the equivalent of an author choosing to host the complete text of his book on a website that charged readers a monthly fee and paid the authors 5 cents per reader. That's not a good deal for the author, and it's worthy of discussion, but because the author chose to use that website, it's not wrong like piracy.

You've made a lot of good points but I take issue with the idea that I "don't understand the issue."  I have spent years discussing this, reading articles, watching documentaries, and personally not partaking in illegal downloading myself and instead spending tens of thousands of dollars on movies and music. 

You are right that an artist should have a right to present the music in the way that they wish.  I think it is lame to not care about cover art and liner notes because to me that is an important component of music.  I still haven't listened to a few songs legally released by a different band that I love because I want to have the album in hand which isn't available until later this month. 

But, when a band gives into the demands of spotify which basically force bands to give into their ridiculous demands under duress, I do not believe the bands consent implies that they are happy with that at all.  Simply because they signed over the rights to have it publicly broadcast is an act of desperation.  While I agree consent is important and the main difference between illegal downloading and something lame like spotify, I believe there is still very little difference.  I think many of the people that illegally download are in the same position as the band when they make their decision.  Because of their financial situation they aren't able to go out and purchase all the music they want so they give in to a bad deal.  Of course there are those that have the ability to pay and choose not to and I think that is incredibly lame.

As far as books go, I understand the analogy but lets modify it.  Say you are doing research and cannot afford to buy a book but your friend offers to scan you a chapter of the book that they own that will help you immensely, are you now a thief? What if that friend let you borrow that book?  You didn't buy it but now you get to benefit from the knowledge acquired?!?!  What about borrowing CDs?  You didn't pay for it!  Legally you are allowed to make a personal copy if you purchase it so if your friend does that and lets you borrow the CD permanently, that is essentially the same as just burning a copy for them or letting them download it to begin with.  Are you now part of a crime syndicate?

The libraries let you make photocopies of one chapter usually, especially if you are doing research. I think there's a limitation to book in their copyright, IIRC, it might be three chapters.

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2015, 11:23:49 AM »
While I agree consent is important and the main difference between illegal downloading and something lame like spotify, I believe there is still very little difference.

I think when discussing intellectual property, especially in this conversation, consent is everything. Its the artist's property, however they consent to distributing that work defines the legal way to obtain that property. You thinking Spotify isn't an advantageous business venture for the artist changes absolutely nothing. The artist consented to distribute their property in that manner, period. Regardless of revenue that consent makes it completely different than illegal downloads.

I think many of the people that illegally download are in the same position as the band when they make their decision.  Because of their financial situation they aren't able to go out and purchase all the music they want so they give in to a bad deal.  Of course there are those that have the ability to pay and choose not to and I think that is incredibly lame.


So motivation behind committing a crime changes whether or not something is a crime? Is that really what you are arguing here? So if I have disposable income and go into a store and steal a CD, I'm somehow worse than someone who doesn't have disposable income and goes into the same store and steals the same CD?

Offline Madman Shepherd

  • Posts: 3718
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2015, 12:28:53 PM »
While I agree consent is important and the main difference between illegal downloading and something lame like spotify, I believe there is still very little difference.

I think when discussing intellectual property, especially in this conversation, consent is everything. Its the artist's property, however they consent to distributing that work defines the legal way to obtain that property. You thinking Spotify isn't an advantageous business venture for the artist changes absolutely nothing. The artist consented to distribute their property in that manner, period. Regardless of revenue that consent makes it completely different than illegal downloads.

I think many of the people that illegally download are in the same position as the band when they make their decision.  Because of their financial situation they aren't able to go out and purchase all the music they want so they give in to a bad deal.  Of course there are those that have the ability to pay and choose not to and I think that is incredibly lame.


So motivation behind committing a crime changes whether or not something is a crime? Is that really what you are arguing here? So if I have disposable income and go into a store and steal a CD, I'm somehow worse than someone who doesn't have disposable income and goes into the same store and steals the same CD?

I've already explained the clear difference and disadvantage stealing a physical product puts multiple parties in so that is irrelevant. 

Also, saying that the only issue is consent does not give respect to the complex nature of intellectual property vs. physical property. 

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2015, 12:54:53 PM »
Sorry I missed where you somehow made the stealing a CD vs. stealing a digital copy of an album irrelevant to the conversation anymore... Seemed like it was totally still debatable.

Consent seems like the issue to me. If I create an artistic work of intellectual property and have it copyrighted, trademarked, or whatever depending on the type of work, wouldn't my consent (unless I grant a third party like a record label permission to work deals on my behalf) be the determining factor in how that work can be distributed?


Offline Thoughtspart3

  • Posts: 150
Re: James LaBrie appreciation thread
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2015, 01:07:21 PM »
Borrowing a CD or Movie is not the same as copying it.  When it is copied two people are using it at the same time but when it is borrowed the first person can no longer use it.  When you loan it you are temporarily transferring your purchased right to use the product to someone else.  Legally this is called the "First-sale doctrine."  This is why it is also legal to resell products.  However, if you resell a CD you need to destroy any other copies you made for yourself.