DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: winghead 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!
-
I appreciate.
-
I LaBrieciate
-
I'm a fan of JLB, but a good frontman he is NOT!
-
He's the singer of my favorite band.
*appreciates*
-
I LaBrieciate
:lol
That's clever.
-
My favourite!
*good deal of appreciation*
-
He's making the band especially special.
-
It's almost been twelve years since the famous LaBrie-rap, and we still appreciate.
Also: "Would you appreciate?"
-
LaBrieciation.
-
Now if DT could just produce a song like MullMuzzler's Afterlife to highlight LaBrie's vocals, they I would further appreciate his talents. ;)
-
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
-
He's just outstanding. Just watch this :yarr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVJSANnF3c
-
James is fantastic!
-
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
-
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?
-
Just don't read the comments.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://www.ego4u.de/images/countries/usa/los-angeles.jpg) (https://www.dairygoodness.ca/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/dairy-goodness/home/cheese/all-you-need-is-cheese/cheese-life/simple-solutions/canadian-brie-our-top-four-festive-favourites/9848281-1-eng-CA/canadian-brie-our-top-four-festive-favourites.png)
Forever
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
I realize that I made a potentially charged statement there. However, to me, it is tremendously obvious that how much Spotify pays artists who agree to put their music on Spotify is completely irrelevant to the issue of piracy. It is an issue of the artist's ability to control their intellectual property, and I really found it bizarre that you tried to make a completely consensual business model that may not favor the artists that much out to be worse than theft. Though we talk sometimes about making sure that artists get paid for their work, and while that is important, the central issue is their ability to control their intellectual property. By not really addressing that, it seemed to me like you possibly did not grasp that. Because if you focus, laser-like, on the essential issue that defines whether piracy is wrong, Spotify's payment structure is completely irrelevant.
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.
Same. I don't really appreciate the recent trend that some artists, DT included, have participated in, where the whole album is streamed online a week or more before the CD release. I don't listen to those streams because I'm waiting to buy the actual album.
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.
I agree. That's why I said that the payment structures of streaming is an important issue. It's just a separate issue from that of piracy. Whether streaming services give artists 5 cents or 50 dollars per play, piracy is still wrong. The morality of piracy is totally unrelated to the business dealings between streaming services and consenting artists.
I agree that streaming services should pay artists more. I also think it's great that big-name artists like Taylor Swift are standing up for smaller artists—Taylor will be fine no matter how much streaming revenue she gets, but she's still participating in the conversation because she cares about smaller artists who rely on streaming revenue. But it is a separate issue from piracy.
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.
It's the essential difference. Artists don't have to put music on Spotify. Some don't (Neal Morse). They got to make a choice about whether their music was available there. But they don't get to choose whether or not people steal it. One of those things is clearly wrong.
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.
Can't be bothered to care about this. Making a bad deal with Spotify is one thing, deciding to steal an album because you can't pay for it is another. Just try following the idea "if someone can't afford something, it might be morally acceptable for them to take it without paying for it" to its logical conclusion.
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?
These are all borderline issues—in the issue of morality in media sharing, as with many ethical issues, there are some things that are clearly ethical, some things that are clearly unethical, and a smattering of borderline cases that require more intensive thought.
I would say that before even getting into those borderline cases, it's important to first define what is definitely right and what is definitely wrong. Buying a CD is definitely right, shoplifting one is definitely wrong. Buying an album on iTunes is definitely right, downloading one from Napster is definitely wrong. Streaming an album on Spotify is right. Torrenting an album is wrong.
Only after we clarify those (and understand the reasoning behind them), should we move on to the borderline ones. And to be clear, I wouldn't condemn somebody for honestly coming to a conclusion that I believe is wrong on one of these little borderline ones, unlike on something where it's clear. That is, if somebody makes personal copies of two or three albums and shares them with their one friend, I wouldn't treat that person the same way as I'd treat someone who downloads all their music from The Pirate Bay. I'll attempt to give some of my thoughts on the borderline issues you raised real quick:
All this was easier in the era of physical media. Borrowing a book or a CD is definitely okay. The deal that you make with the publisher or bookstore to buy a book is to buy one copy of that book (that's implicit when we're dealing with physical media). So if you take that copy of the book and let your friend borrow it for a month and then get it back, that's okay. Because you had the copy, then your friend had the copy and you didn't, then you had the copy again. The whole time, there was just one book. Same thing if that book had been a CD. See, the problem with mass online piracy isn't really that somebody is getting knowledge without paying for it. That would be impossible and wrong to regulate—even if you stopped people from lending their books to others, there's no way you could possibly keep someone from telling their friends everything they learned from any particular book. You wouldn't really want to, either. The issue with mass online piracy is that the thing is proliferating and multiplying beyond what the original owner consented to. The problem isn't somebody getting a CD that they didn't pay for as a gift or as a loan. The problem is many people getting an album they didn't pay for because one person who did put the thing on the internet.
So, what about a more digital form of borrowing, like sending a scanned book chapter (or my earlier example of sending one friend an MP3, with the understanding that they're just going to listen to the song a few times and then either buy the album or delete the file and not buy it)? This is where it gets tricky, and it requires a lot of thought. I believe this is still an issue where copyright lawyers don't really quite know where the line is.
My own preliminary thoughts (and I'm not proclaiming to definitively have all the answers here) are that, if one person sends the scan or the file and the "lender" does not use their own copy for the duration of the "borrower's" use of the file, then it's okay. That, in my mind, is the equivalent of lending someone a book or CD, just made faster by the internet. It's like using email instead of snail mail to send somebody the book or CD, and then when they stop using the file (preferably deleting it), it's like sending it back. That's one where I have a lot of confidence that I'm right.
A situation where a piece of media is temporarily shared between friends, but the "lender" does not stop all use of the original piece of media, is more questionable. But I would say it's questionable at worst. At worst, it's not the best thing you could do, but it's not awful, particularly if the duration of the "borrowing" is short (like a day or a week). I could also almost imagine a scenario where both people have the file for a certain time period, but only one of them accesses it at a time. That would be almost the equivalent of borrowing and returning and borrowing again multiple times in succession. It's not as clear cut to me as the scenario I described in the previous paragraph, but I think it's alright. This would be a good scenario for families that share media (though they could have the complicating factor of, for example, sharing an iTunes account where the license allows media to be shared between a maximum of five devices, or something. In that case, playing iTunes-purchased media at the same time while both logged into the same account would be fine. The question is whether you could apply that to files ripped from a CD).
Full disclosure: I'm currently in the last round of a roulette I'm running over in General Music. If anyone doesn't know, in a roulette people send me songs (often via YouTube, Spotify or other streaming link), I listen to them a few times and give them a score. A few of the contestants in my roulette sent me MP3 files. After each particular round, I've deleted these files after I was done listening (which was usually within a week). Personally, I don't feel especially comfortable with the scenario, but I also don't feel that I'm doing anything wrong. True, I'm not checking to make sure that the person who sent me the files isn't playing them at the same time as me, but I feel that would be unlikely and what I'm doing probably just falls into a form of borrowing. I'm deleting the files after a short time, as well, and in many cases plan to buy the album that the songs came from. However, I would still definitely describe the overall scenario as a borderline case, and one I'm not 100% comfortable with.
All these paragraphs of writing to say... there are definite borderline issues where there is room for debate. But the big-picture issue should be clear: piracy is not okay. Downloading music instead of paying for it is not okay. I will clarify right here at the end: When I condemn piracy, I'm not condemning people who send an MP3 to their friend so he can listen to it a few times and see if he likes it. I'm condemning people who download music from file sharing sites on the internet who have no intention of ever paying for it, and who often have vast libraries of stolen content. There's room for conversation about the technicalities of borderline cases, but in the clearest cases of piracy (which is what James, I think, was pretty obviously talking about), the pirates are definitely wrong.
-
LaBrieciated
-
So it appears we both agree that downloading is unfair to the band in many situations and we both agree that downloading is not as clear cut as simply if you download a song, you are a thief. You have given a number of complex situations where you have downloaded something to sample and deleted quickly thereafter. In the past (like, 15 years ago), I have downloaded stuff and about 90% of the time purchased it after if I liked it.
My big problem is that there is no proof that downloading takes money out of artists pockets. In my case, it certainly acted as a promotional tool but I know a lot of people don't intent to buy anything once they have downloaded it. Many people who download would have never purchased the album to begin with and then of course, I can't deny there are some that are getting a free ride, which we all agree is shitty.
My big problem with James's statement is that I believe, in addition to being factually wrong, it really makes a 13 year old out to be some robber when there is a drastic difference between what some 13 year old might do in his basement to actually going into a CD store, or grocery store, or the musicians own house and taking their refrigerator or lamp or loaf of bread or a physical CD. Because of this alarmist rhetoric, some elderly woman who happen to get an IP address that someone used to have that downloaded stuff is now on the hook for paying off these record label fat cats. I haven't heard of that happening lately but it used to be kind of rampant.
As far as keeping things moral and ethical, it is just one big grey are. We haven't even gotten into people playing along to tracks and putting it on youtube, cover bands playing songs at a bar without paying the required rights for public performance, or playing CDs at a 4th of July block party (which would fall into public performance). All of these I feel are as bad as downloading but no one reserves the same vitriol for that.
Then you have some artists like Mike Portnoy or Alice Cooper that don't mind downloading and see it as a modern day radio which promote the band. If anybody actually would be hurt by downloading, it would be someone like Alice Cooper who knows people would rather not buy the School's Out album just to hear the title track.
My point is, with so many grey areas it is not as simple as saying, "You download, you're stealing!" There are so many situations of potential thievery that have nothing to do with downloading that I just can't understand why downloading is singled out. I personally think because its new and its easier to catch people.
-
LaBrieciated
-
Stealing is stealing. I don't see the point of dissecting the accuracy of LaBrie's comparison. You can dispute the accuracy of any analogy, but it doesn't justify pirating music. The only real grey area is in how to regulate and punish for and/or prevent it, and yeah, that's something that's difficult if not impossible to fairly quantify right now.
-
So it appears we both agree that downloading is unfair to the band in many situations and we both agree that downloading is not as clear cut as simply if you download a song, you are a thief. You have given a number of complex situations where you have downloaded something to sample and deleted quickly thereafter. In the past (like, 15 years ago), I have downloaded stuff and about 90% of the time purchased it after if I liked it.
An important thing to note about the instances where I have personally downloaded, though: They were instances in which someone who I knew personally on some level sent an MP3 specifically to me. No, I don't know the users on DTF who participated in my roulette and sent me MP3 files in real life, but I have on some level a direct relationship with them, and they sent the MP3 files specifically to me. I did not go searching file sharing websites for a song I was looking for. These were files that were sent by individuals to me, an individual.
My big problem is that there is no proof that downloading takes money out of artists pockets. In my case, it certainly acted as a promotional tool but I know a lot of people don't intent to buy anything once they have downloaded it. Many people who download would have never purchased the album to begin with and then of course, I can't deny there are some that are getting a free ride, which we all agree is shitty.
As I've said, though, the central issue is control. Downloading takes away artists' control over their music. I think more and more nowadays, new artists are realizing that allowing people to listen to their music for free is a fantastic promotional tool. Hence: Bandcamp, where you can stream the songs for free and then you can pay to download the album. Having a pirate distribute the music for free over the internet without the artist's permission, though, is a problem. The instances that I am saying might be okay do not involve that form of broad distribution, but something like a friend sending a file to another friend, with the assumption that the recipient will soon either buy the album or delete the file.
My big problem with James's statement is that I believe, in addition to being factually wrong, it really makes a 13 year old out to be some robber when there is a drastic difference between what some 13 year old might do in his basement to actually going into a CD store, or grocery store, or the musicians own house and taking their refrigerator or lamp or loaf of bread or a physical CD. Because of this alarmist rhetoric, some elderly woman who happen to get an IP address that someone used to have that downloaded stuff is now on the hook for paying off these record label fat cats. I haven't heard of that happening lately but it used to be kind of rampant.
13 year olds shoplift. Not all of them, obviously, but a lot of them do, either because they can't afford something or because they don't want to pay for them or because they think it's cool. I would equate a 13 year old pirate to a 13 year old shoplifter: someone with a behavioral problem that definitely needs to be corrected ASAP, but not the end of the world as we know it.
As far as keeping things moral and ethical, it is just one big grey are. We haven't even gotten into people playing along to tracks and putting it on youtube, cover bands playing songs at a bar without paying the required rights for public performance, or playing CDs at a 4th of July block party (which would fall into public performance). All of these I feel are as bad as downloading but no one reserves the same vitriol for that.
I agree that public performance is approaching as bad as piracy. I wouldn't say it is as bad, simply because pirated music is distributed anywhere on Earth and is permanent while a block party is a one time occurrence with a limited number of attendees.
If you cover a song you ought to pay the royalties, for sure, but it's not as bad as piracy. Playing the new Dream Theater song at a local club with your band without paying royalties doesn't have as big of an effect as distributing an MP3 of the new Dream Theater song all over the world on the Internet.
Then you have some artists like Mike Portnoy or Alice Cooper that don't mind downloading and see it as a modern day radio which promote the band. If anybody actually would be hurt by downloading, it would be someone like Alice Cooper who knows people would rather not buy the School's Out album just to hear the title track.
Of course it's the artist's prerogative to not mind downloading, but the issue here is that plenty of artists do have a big problem with downloading. Then the result is that a) some people figure if Alice Cooper doesn't mind downloading, then they'll just download music from everyone and b) those same people denigrate the artists who oppose downloading.
I don't exactly have a love affair with Lars Ulrich, but it is totally unfair that he gets attacked for fighting Napster. It's Lars's (and the rest of Metallica's) right to not have his music stolen, distributed in a way that he doesn't consent to. Metallica did a good thing in my book by standing up to Napster. They were in the right to defend their property, and they probably did a good thing by smaller bands who were hurt a lot more by Napster than Metallica was. But Lars gets tons of abuse for "suing his fans." And I worry that some artists giving the okay to piracy only throws fuel on the fire of artists like Lars.
The other issue there is that members of a band might disagree. Even Mike Portnoy doesn't mind piracy, James LaBrie opposes it. So an album like Scenes from a Memory may have been made by one person who sees piracy as not being a bad thing, but it was also made by someone who strongly opposes it.
My point is, with so many grey areas it is not as simple as saying, "You download, you're stealing!" There are so many situations of potential thievery that have nothing to do with downloading that I just can't understand why downloading is singled out. I personally think because its new and its easier to catch people.
But so often, it is that simple, which is part of what I tried to emphasize. I would say that a vast majority of illegal downloads are done by people who say "I want to get this album by Dream Theater. Let me go on Pirate Bay and find a torrent." That's unambiguously wrong. In fact, I don't really see a scenario where using a site like that is okay.
-
*Overanalysis of JLB's point about illegal downloading*
*Post and discuss in DTF*
*Profit*
-
Wouldn't call it analysis of JLB's point at all. James's remark just sparked the conversation on the topic, which is naturally a bit of a hot button issue on a music forum. In fact, I'm surprised we don't spend as much time on this as we do on stuff like "prog vs. progressive."
-
LaBrieciated
-
Actually, this free distribution sells a lot.
I first heard SFAM fully free on a youtube account that was latter shut down (although many more continue to reupload it)
Loved it, bought it.
No videos, no me buying SFAM.
-
Actually, this free distribution sells a lot.
I first heard SFAM fully free on a youtube account that was latter shut down (although many more continue to reupload it)
Loved it, bought it.
No videos, no me buying SFAM.
Well, you are one of those people who do things the 'right' way. The 95% of the people will watch the youtube videos and stick to the youtube videos.
Or torrent it or something.
-
Actually, this free distribution sells a lot.
I first heard SFAM fully free on a youtube account that was latter shut down (although many more continue to reupload it)
Loved it, bought it.
No videos, no me buying SFAM.
Well, you are one of those people who do things the 'right' way. The 95% of the people will watch the youtube videos and stick to the youtube videos.
Or torrent it or something.
Yeah, that's the thing. Personally, I bought SFAM on impulse, but I could've just as easily downloaded it and never given it another thought. Sure, Streaming can advertise a product, but he, these days, companies upload tracks anyway, so you can stream for free, but the ads that come with the video are actually subsidizing the company and the artist. But it's pretty sad that they've resorted to this just because so many people liberally upload music to Youtube that people have pretty much started feeling entitled to finding anything and everything on YT.
-
So it appears we both agree that downloading is unfair to the band in many situations and we both agree that downloading is not as clear cut as simply if you download a song, you are a thief. You have given a number of complex situations where you have downloaded something to sample and deleted quickly thereafter. In the past (like, 15 years ago), I have downloaded stuff and about 90% of the time purchased it after if I liked it.
My big problem is that there is no proof that downloading takes money out of artists pockets. In my case, it certainly acted as a promotional tool but I know a lot of people don't intent to buy anything once they have downloaded it. Many people who download would have never purchased the album to begin with and then of course, I can't deny there are some that are getting a free ride, which we all agree is shitty.
My big problem with James's statement is that I believe, in addition to being factually wrong, it really makes a 13 year old out to be some robber when there is a drastic difference between what some 13 year old might do in his basement to actually going into a CD store, or grocery store, or the musicians own house and taking their refrigerator or lamp or loaf of bread or a physical CD. Because of this alarmist rhetoric, some elderly woman who happen to get an IP address that someone used to have that downloaded stuff is now on the hook for paying off these record label fat cats. I haven't heard of that happening lately but it used to be kind of rampant.
As far as keeping things moral and ethical, it is just one big grey are. We haven't even gotten into people playing along to tracks and putting it on youtube, cover bands playing songs at a bar without paying the required rights for public performance, or playing CDs at a 4th of July block party (which would fall into public performance). All of these I feel are as bad as downloading but no one reserves the same vitriol for that.
Then you have some artists like Mike Portnoy or Alice Cooper that don't mind downloading and see it as a modern day radio which promote the band. If anybody actually would be hurt by downloading, it would be someone like Alice Cooper who knows people would rather not buy the School's Out album just to hear the title track.
My point is, with so many grey areas it is not as simple as saying, "You download, you're stealing!" There are so many situations of potential thievery that have nothing to do with downloading that I just can't understand why downloading is singled out. I personally think because its new and its easier to catch people.
Great post, agreed.
I would equate a 13 year old pirate to a 13 year old shoplifter
Just. No. Hell, no. Doing either of them is wrong, but that's where the comparison ends. If someone is regularly shoplifting when they're 13, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with them. A 13-year-old pirate is just a normal 13-year-old kid (normal doesn't mean a good or correct behavior, it just means typical), like the kids in South Park on the Christian Rock Hard episode (which made some great points regarding this subject).
Let me go on Pirate Bay and find a torrent." That's unambiguously wrong. In fact, I don't really see a scenario where using a site like that is okay.
I just went there and grabbed DT's recent Wacken performance, I don't see why that wouldn't be okay. If they ever happen to release it on a DVD, I'd buy it, but I don't see that happening. Also, I used to be an avid NHL fan and literally the only way for me to watch games was to download them the day after. So there are indeed a lot of a gray areas (YouTube cover videos which feature the original song as a backing track are a prime example, seriously, fuck those companies that get those taken down) and I wouldn't deal in absolutes.
-
I love JLB! Hoping for another solo album soon!
-
Didn't read the thread. Just came here to say that LaBrie's voice gets way too much hate. It seems people criticise his voice or outright call him "shit" because that's what you do.
It's totally undeserved especially with people like Axl Rose , Wayne Coyne & Dave Mustaine fronting bands.
-
Stealing is stealing. I don't see the point of dissecting the accuracy of LaBrie's comparison. You can dispute the accuracy of any analogy, but it doesn't justify pirating music. The only real grey area is in how to regulate and punish for and/or prevent it, and yeah, that's something that's difficult if not impossible to fairly quantify right now.
Yep. the musicians still put the time in - writing, rehearsing, recording and releasing the song. It's their job.
You just stole their product.
I don't see why people think music should be free. It's still someone's job and livelihood.
If you could download band merch for free - people would.
-
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.
That's a great point and I never considered it before.
-
I would equate a 13 year old pirate to a 13 year old shoplifter
Just. No. Hell, no. Doing either of them is wrong, but that's where the comparison ends. If someone is regularly shoplifting when they're 13, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with them. A 13-year-old pirate is just a normal 13-year-old kid (normal doesn't mean a good or correct behavior, it just means typical), like the kids in South Park on the Christian Rock Hard episode (which made some great points regarding this subject).
A 13 year old pirate **who knows what they are doing.** There. And I'm not saying they're psychologically the same, but they are morally the same and I would treat both of them the same way.
I just went there and grabbed DT's recent Wacken performance, I don't see why that wouldn't be okay. If they ever happen to release it on a DVD, I'd buy it, but I don't see that happening. Also, I used to be an avid NHL fan and literally the only way for me to watch games was to download them the day after. So there are indeed a lot of a gray areas (YouTube cover videos which feature the original song as a backing track are a prime example, seriously, fuck those companies that get those taken down) and I wouldn't deal in absolutes.
Bootlegs are another grey area (I would say go for it if the band supports bootlegs, like the Grateful Dead, and you legally bought all the albums that have songs on the bootleg, but otherwise, no), but that's a whole other conversation. But downloading hockey games, I'm sorry, is not one in my mind. That's definitely not okay with me. I don't watch hockey, but I know with baseball and perhaps other sports there's usually an announcement on the TV broadcast like "this broadcast is the property of [team], and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express written permission of Major League Baseball." And even if it isn't on the broadcast, such a statement is implied. Even if that's the only way you could have watched the game, it's not okay in my book. Same as if there was a digital album that was available to buy on limited release only for people with a Japan IP address, it's still not right for an American to pirate it.
-
But downloading hockey games, I'm sorry, is not one in my mind. That's definitely not okay with me. I don't watch hockey, but I know with baseball and perhaps other sports there's usually an announcement on the TV broadcast like "this broadcast is the property of [team], and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express written permission of Major League Baseball." And even if it isn't on the broadcast, such a statement is implied. Even if that's the only way you could have watched the game, it's not okay in my book. Same as if there was a digital album that was available to buy on limited release only for people with a Japan IP address, it's still not right for an American to pirate it.
I don't see how that is wrong. It is essentially the same as videotaping it to watch later. In fact, I can't see how this is any more wrong than downloading a few sample songs and later deleting them ESPECIALLY considering that most of these games you cannot purchase in any way shape or form unlike a band's album. So for Sycsa, this is the only way to see it. The sponsors still get their products seen and nobody loses money except that the network doesn't get the additional ratings from him tuning in which he couldn't do regardless.
This isn't a matter of just purchasing more cable networks that broadcast the games you want to see, sometimes there is literally no option to see these games other than uprooting yourself to a new market or the very rare occasion where they do a DVD release of the season if that team happens to win a Stanley Cup.
BTW 425, just wanted to thank you for your detailed responses and discussion. It seems we are actually in agreement about a lot of these issues but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and hear other points of view. Didn't read the thread. Just came here to say that LaBrie's voice gets way too much hate. It seems people criticise his voice or outright call him "shit" because that's what you do.
I agree so, so much. The guy that got me into Dream Theater about 15 years ago would talk about how awesome the band was but how bad the singer was. He then began to criticize everything DT did so he was one of those obnoxious arrogant types that just likes to find shit to talk bad about and thinks he is cool because he listened to DT in the mid-90s, nevermind the fact that it was essentially because his older brother did and he just followed along. Needless to say, he and I are no longer friends.
When ADTOE, JP was doing a track by track rundown in an interview and when he spoke about Beneath the Surface he said that James just had this amazing, unique voice. It really clicked that even though James has amazing vocal talent, his voice is unique, which leads some people like me to love that he easily stands apart, but for other people it gives a chance to talk shit because he can't be easily pigeonholed.
-
Yeah it just grinds my gears when you mention DT and someone will go " LOL SHIT SINGER ".
-
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.
Personally, I think the roots go deeper than that. There is fundamentally something tangible about sticking something down your pants and walking out the store. From the days of cavemen, if you were holding something in your hand that wasn't yours and you walked off with it, it was BAD.
Music is not the same thing. Let see some hands: how many of you bought blank cassettes back in the day? Good, good. Now, keep your hands up if you used those to make a copy of the new Ozzy Blizzard of Ozz album that just came out so you could listen to it in the car? Good. Now, keep your hands up if you gave that cassette to your buddy, or made a copy for him, since he wasn't all that sure about Ozzy without Iommi? Still a lot of hands up there.
What's the difference, other than ease of effort?
Now, personally, I deal with licenses and whatnot at work, so I sort of stay away from the whole downloading thing. I went crazy when Napster came out because I had access to stuff I had never even heard of let alone could buy (I have a complete 1983 Sabbath concert with Ian Gillan from that time). How about this? How about downloading a song digitally that you have already on vinyl? Technically, that shouldn't be a problem, since I am allowed to make copies for my own personal use. I can also lend my vinyl to a friend. I could (and have) hooked my record player up to my iMac so I can have a copy of some of the b-sides - many of which have never been released in digital format - for my iPod. So why is having a digital copy now a problem?
Okay, so never buying ANY version of Lil Wayne's new CD and using a torrent to get a CD-quality version of the album is wrong. As is then burning that to CD and circulating it amongst all your friends. But how do you police the two? And should the former actually BE policed?
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It is essentially the same as videotaping it to watch later. In fact, I can't see how this is any more wrong than downloading a few sample songs and later deleting them ESPECIALLY considering that most of these games you cannot purchase in any way shape or form unlike a band's album. So for Sycsa, this is the only way to see it. The sponsors still get their products seen and nobody loses money except that the network doesn't get the additional ratings from him tuning in which he couldn't do regardless.
It's just back to the league being allowed to dictate how people view the material they put out. I understand that it's a tough situation, I do. But it's about the league being able to control how their video footage is used.
Recall that I am absolutely against downloading a few sample songs and deleting them later. I am absolutely 100% against that. What I defined as a grey area is an instance where an individual person is sent a song by an individual person who owns the album. That's one where it is somewhat akin to loaning someone the CD. If you get sent a sample track by a friend and delete it a few days later, that's kind of like borrowing the CD from that person. Downloading it from The Pirate Bay? No. That is not the same thing. Because it is something that is being broadly distributed illegally instead of being "loaned" from one person to one other person.
This isn't a matter of just purchasing more cable networks that broadcast the games you want to see, sometimes there is literally no option to see these games other than uprooting yourself to a new market or the very rare occasion where they do a DVD release of the season if that team happens to win a Stanley Cup.
I understand this! I am a Tampa Bay Rays baseball fan who spends most of the year in North Carolina. How many Rays (a small market team) games do you think they televise in North Carolina. It's not fun, no. It sucks to not be able to watch the games you want to see. But it's still not okay to violate the right of the MLB or any other sports league to control its content (I don't).
Fortunately, things are improving in this regard. The MLB now offers an annual subscription to be able to stream almost any game over the internet. But even if it didn't, piracy would not be acceptable in my mind.
BTW 425, just wanted to thank you for your detailed responses and discussion. It seems we are actually in agreement about a lot of these issues but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and hear other points of view.
Yeah, ditto. This is definitely the most intelligent discussion I've had on this topic.
Didn't read the thread. Just came here to say that LaBrie's voice gets way too much hate. It seems people criticise his voice or outright call him "shit" because that's what you do.
I agree so, so much. The guy that got me into Dream Theater about 15 years ago would talk about how awesome the band was but how bad the singer was. He then began to criticize everything DT did so he was one of those obnoxious arrogant types that just likes to find shit to talk bad about and thinks he is cool because he listened to DT in the mid-90s, nevermind the fact that it was essentially because his older brother did and he just followed along. Needless to say, he and I are no longer friends.
When ADTOE, JP was doing a track by track rundown in an interview and when he spoke about Beneath the Surface he said that James just had this amazing, unique voice. It really clicked that even though James has amazing vocal talent, his voice is unique, which leads some people like me to love that he easily stands apart, but for other people it gives a chance to talk shit because he can't be easily pigeonholed.
Agreed. Especially the part about how his voice is unique, which definitely makes him a love-hate vocalist. Personally, I love how easily recognizable he is. And his talent is obvious.
-
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.
Respectfully, you are using terms incorrectly and out of context. By definition, a deal with Spotify is not "under duress", and not "ridiculous". Each artist is freely able to participate or not, under the terms provided, and can make the decision of their own free will. There is no component of "desperation" that matters here. That there are upsides and downsides for doing so do not amount to "duress". "Financial position" doesn't justify or excuse any actions by either party here. I agree the supermarket analogy is very flawed, but on this point it is not: I don't get to go and "take" food simply because I have no job.
-
Stealing is stealing. I don't see the point of dissecting the accuracy of LaBrie's comparison. You can dispute the accuracy of any analogy, but it doesn't justify pirating music. The only real grey area is in how to regulate and punish for and/or prevent it, and yeah, that's something that's difficult if not impossible to fairly quantify right now.
Yep. the musicians still put the time in - writing, rehearsing, recording and releasing the song. It's their job.
You just stole their product.
I don't see why people think music should be free. It's still someone's job and livelihood.
If you could download band merch for free - people would.
But you understand that your basic premise is flawed: it's irrelevant whether people think it should be free or not. It's only the artist (and by extension, the record company) that decides, in conjunction with the economic forces of the marketplace, what the value is. There is no difference (from a market standpoint) between the release of the holiday live album a year or so ago, and the release of "Once In A Livetime", except that the band decided the "price" for the former should be $0.
People THINK it is free, because they have become accustomed to paying for a disk or a tape, not for the music itself. FM radio has been free for decades, and notwithstanding requests to the DJs, the only difference is you don't get to program. But I used to record music off the radio all the time. People don't realize that a part of that $8.99 for that CD is a license for the actual music. Yet, iTunes is charging $9.99 for an album and there is no CD involved. Many people don't understand why that is.
-
FYI, I got into DT because I heard James sing and went "WTF? That guy is not human." If DT was to change singer it is not a given I would still be a fan. I LOVE the way James sings (though I'm not 100% sure I like the man.).
-
Something cool that comes to mind about that particular way of doing things is that they may have gotten cool ideas from playing together during the whole summer leg, so that may (or may not) affect the new album in some sort of positive way. It's certainly different to their usual routine of writing/touring, so anything that feels fresh and different is quite excellent in my book.
-
Respectfully, you are using terms incorrectly and out of context. By definition, a deal with Spotify is not "under duress", and not "ridiculous". Each artist is freely able to participate or not, under the terms provided, and can make the decision of their own free will. There is no component of "desperation" that matters here. That there are upsides and downsides for doing so do not amount to "duress". "Financial position" doesn't justify or excuse any actions by either party here.
Many bands absolutely do sign these agreements under duress. It's not like some band is sitting around eating steak and asks, "Well, shall we sign with spotify and make 1/4 of a cent for every 500 plays we get? I think not. I'll have another steak please...with some lobster tail." You've got some bands that are so unknown that they will take anything happily and you have others that still have an entire bureaucracy demanding things of them. Their sales have slipped, their tours are getting smaller, and they are told they need to agree to spotify to get their names out. For others it may be a last ditch effort to try to keep from having to get side jobs. I think there is even a documentary out about that. I don't see how that is wrong. It is essentially the same as videotaping it to watch later. In fact, I can't see how this is any more wrong than downloading a few sample songs and later deleting them ESPECIALLY considering that most of these games you cannot purchase in any way shape or form unlike a band's album. So for Sycsa, this is the only way to see it. The sponsors still get their products seen and nobody loses money except that the network doesn't get the additional ratings from him tuning in which he couldn't do regardless.
It's just back to the league being allowed to dictate how people view the material they put out. I understand that it's a tough situation, I do. But it's about the league being able to control how their video footage is used.
Recall that I am absolutely against downloading a few sample songs and deleting them later. I am absolutely 100% against that. What I defined as a grey area is an instance where an individual person is sent a song by an individual person who owns the album. That's one where it is somewhat akin to loaning someone the CD. If you get sent a sample track by a friend and delete it a few days later, that's kind of like borrowing the CD from that person. Downloading it from The Pirate Bay? No. That is not the same thing. Because it is something that is being broadly distributed illegally instead of being "loaned" from one person to one other person.
Sorry. I didn't remember that part correctly but I fail to see how it is that different. Yes, it is different but not by much. In a way you could say that using pirate bay is like making a new friend and having them let you borrow it. I'm sure some people have formed relationships on there. I remember using napster and chatting with a few people about where you could find more Sabbath bootlegs. Sure its a stretch but again, I just don't see it as that different.
-
But you understand that your basic premise is flawed: it's irrelevant whether people think it should be free or not. It's only the artist (and by extension, the record company) that decides, in conjunction with the economic forces of the marketplace, what the value is. There is no difference (from a market standpoint) between the release of the holiday live album a year or so ago, and the release of "Once In A Livetime", except that the band decided the "price" for the former should be $0.
And they're well within their rights to decide. I mean, they didn't owe us anything. But they said, "Hey, we love and appreciate our fans, let's put the time in and mix all these live songs and give them to the fans to download for free." It's their decision, they're in charge.
But these artists have to make a living somehow. And it's not so much about, "This is worth more than that," it's about, "Hey, this is our job, and we have to eat and pay for the house, so we're releasing this product and trusting our fans to put in the money.
I mean, this is getting a bit off topic, but the whole concept of economy is flawed in that way. In a perfect and honest world, a world not revolving around how to make more and spend less, people would only have to pay what they think the product is worth. They'd give the music away for free, let you listen to it and say, "How much do YOU think it's worth? Pay whatever you deem worthy," and people would, and some would pay more, and some would pay less, and everyone is happy. We kind of have this already happening with kickstarter projects, or patreon, or any "pay what you can" system.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world of commerce works on the grand scale.
People THINK it is free, because they have become accustomed to paying for a disk or a tape, not for the music itself. FM radio has been free for decades, and notwithstanding requests to the DJs, the only difference is you don't get to program. But I used to record music off the radio all the time. People don't realize that a part of that $8.99 for that CD is a license for the actual music. Yet, iTunes is charging $9.99 for an album and there is no CD involved. Many people don't understand why that is.
FM radio, much like a lot of today's online streaming is ad supported though. We may not be paying for listening to this music, but 1/4 of your listening time is spent on hearing commercials and jingles. And let's not forget the quality. Sure, you can record off radio, but comparing that to the sound quality of a purchased CD or even MP3 is like night and day.
And another thing is, Radio is a big part of the picture, because record companies pay radio stations to play their music, so in a way, it's another form of advertising. But they do this because they're hoping that if people like it enough, they'll pony up for the whole album, and that they'll make a profit. Imagine if you're listening to a Pizza jingle on the radio and think, "Well, if I can hear the jingle for free, I guess I'm entitled to eat the pizza for free."
If you want to argue that iTunes music is overpriced, by all means. I don't actually bother with iTunes, or much of any other digital distributor. I still buy CDs, unless the music is absolutely not available in physical format.
-
Sorry. I didn't remember that part correctly but I fail to see how it is that different. Yes, it is different but not by much. In a way you could say that using pirate bay is like making a new friend and having them let you borrow it. I'm sure some people have formed relationships on there. I remember using napster and chatting with a few people about where you could find more Sabbath bootlegs. Sure its a stretch but again, I just don't see it as that different.
It's different because one is a contained borrowing situation that emulates real-life borrowing of physical objects while the other is widespread distribution of copied work.
My argument, which I'm not going to entirely reproduce here, can be found in the first post on page 2 of this thread, starting in the sixth paragraph from the bottom. In essence, the difference between getting sent a song by a friend and downloading a song from The Pirate Bay is that getting a song sent temporarily by a friend can realistically be considered a form of borrowing. If your friend sends you a song and you listen to it a few times, then delete it and buy the album, odds are you aren't listening to it at the same time, so there's only one copy. Even if you do happen to listen to it simultaneously, that just means there's two, which is morally ambiguous but ultimately not that consequential. But when someone buys an album and hosts it as a torrent on The Pirate Bay, that creates a potentially unlimited number of copies, which will likely be listened to by different people simultaneously. The result is that one person's legitimate purchase resulted in, say 1,000 illegitimate copies. By participating in that, you aren't really borrowing anymore. You're party to an impersonal and massive theft. In the era of CDs, you could lend a CD to your friend for a few days. But you couldn't lend a CD to everyone at your college. That's the difference. Being sent an MP3 by a friend could legitimately been seen as a form of borrowing, comparable to borrowing a physical good, while downloading the 1,279th copy of an MP3 could not possibly be viewed that way. That's a huge difference.
-
Oh wow... Not much LaBrie appreciation here.
Used to hate James' voice... For like five minutes. Then got over it. Can't picture DT with anybody else at the mic.
-
This one should be right here.. And now it is..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oSh2ZdIOaY ("The Vocal Range of James LaBrie")
-
Respectfully, you are using terms incorrectly and out of context. By definition, a deal with Spotify is not "under duress", and not "ridiculous". Each artist is freely able to participate or not, under the terms provided, and can make the decision of their own free will. There is no component of "desperation" that matters here. That there are upsides and downsides for doing so do not amount to "duress". "Financial position" doesn't justify or excuse any actions by either party here.
Many bands absolutely do sign these agreements under duress. It's not like some band is sitting around eating steak and asks, "Well, shall we sign with spotify and make 1/4 of a cent for every 500 plays we get? I think not. I'll have another steak please...with some lobster tail." You've got some bands that are so unknown that they will take anything happily and you have others that still have an entire bureaucracy demanding things of them. Their sales have slipped, their tours are getting smaller, and they are told they need to agree to spotify to get their names out. For others it may be a last ditch effort to try to keep from having to get side jobs. I think there is even a documentary out about that.
That's not "duress". You can keep calling it that all you want, but it's not "duress". There is no specific threat, there is no violence, there is no coercion. If they don't sign, it's not as if their kid is going to be taken hostage or sold into sexual slavery. It's simply a different valuation. They ultimately DO have a choice, it's just that the regular variables that we all have in any decision-making process are valued differently. If there was a different variable - i.e. "you take a bullet if you don't sign this" - doesn't exist. (And yes, I know there are degrees of coercion; but this doesn't qualify).
-
But you understand that your basic premise is flawed: it's irrelevant whether people think it should be free or not. It's only the artist (and by extension, the record company) that decides, in conjunction with the economic forces of the marketplace, what the value is. There is no difference (from a market standpoint) between the release of the holiday live album a year or so ago, and the release of "Once In A Livetime", except that the band decided the "price" for the former should be $0.
And they're well within their rights to decide. I mean, they didn't owe us anything. But they said, "Hey, we love and appreciate our fans, let's put the time in and mix all these live songs and give them to the fans to download for free." It's their decision, they're in charge.
But these artists have to make a living somehow. And it's not so much about, "This is worth more than that," it's about, "Hey, this is our job, and we have to eat and pay for the house, so we're releasing this product and trusting our fans to put in the money.
I mean, this is getting a bit off topic, but the whole concept of economy is flawed in that way. In a perfect and honest world, a world not revolving around how to make more and spend less, people would only have to pay what they think the product is worth. They'd give the music away for free, let you listen to it and say, "How much do YOU think it's worth? Pay whatever you deem worthy," and people would, and some would pay more, and some would pay less, and everyone is happy. We kind of have this already happening with kickstarter projects, or patreon, or any "pay what you can" system.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world of commerce works on the grand scale.
And it doesn't work that way because there are two points present in the real world that aren't present in this illusion of art as "having value": there is no guarantee that what I WANT to do has value. I WANT to sit on my couch and kick ass at Call of Duty all day, but for some reason, people aren't paying for that. I'm not sure why. They SHOULD. In a perfect world... you get the point. Two, that already happens, to a degree, but it's just out of order. The record companies (or bands) sit and decide, what one price can I charge that will maximize sales, maximize revenues, and maximize exposure. Let's assume Images and Words sold 500,000 even, at $10 a pop. $5M in revenue. They could have charged $7.50, but how many more would they have sold? It would have to have been 166,667 for it to make sense. I'm sure that if they charged $1,000 SOMEONE would have bought it; but they would have had to find 500 people to do so, and they take the hit on the exposure side. All this stuff is thought out (even if you - or I - don't agree with it). It is not random. You DO get to decide what is fair to pay, except that it is a binary equation. If the disk is on iTunes for $9.99, you don't get to say "well, I'd buy it if it was only $4.99", but conversely, Apple doesn't get the benefit of those fans that would have paid $19.99. it's all a trade off for efficiency sake.
Personally? I hate the "pay what you can/want" system.
FM radio, much like a lot of today's online streaming is ad supported though. We may not be paying for listening to this music, but 1/4 of your listening time is spent on hearing commercials and jingles. And let's not forget the quality. Sure, you can record off radio, but comparing that to the sound quality of a purchased CD or even MP3 is like night and day.
And another thing is, Radio is a big part of the picture, because record companies pay radio stations to play their music, so in a way, it's another form of advertising. But they do this because they're hoping that if people like it enough, they'll pony up for the whole album, and that they'll make a profit. Imagine if you're listening to a Pizza jingle on the radio and think, "Well, if I can hear the jingle for free, I guess I'm entitled to eat the pizza for free."
Well, the jingle and the actual product are two different animals. But while your points are correct, they don't change the equation any with respect to the listener. The LISTENER isn't paying. This is the same problem in the US Healthcare industry; we've separated the actual "payer" from the "user". That's why it was such a genius move for the Pfizer's of the world to market their cock drugs directly to the people. Who doesn't want a firmer, stiffer boner? So you go, pester your dr. for a script, and you're in business. But that drug gets subsidized by Pfizer, it gets covered by insurance, etc. etc., so the actual user has no idea what it REALLY cost to have that erection.
To this day, that gets my vote for most ingenious marketing ploy in modern commercial history. That and bottled water.
If you want to argue that iTunes music is overpriced, by all means. I don't actually bother with iTunes, or much of any other digital distributor. I still buy CDs, unless the music is absolutely not available in physical format.
As do I. Almost 2,000 and counting, and my wife thinks I'm nuts.
-
Respectfully, you are using terms incorrectly and out of context. By definition, a deal with Spotify is not "under duress", and not "ridiculous". Each artist is freely able to participate or not, under the terms provided, and can make the decision of their own free will. There is no component of "desperation" that matters here. That there are upsides and downsides for doing so do not amount to "duress". "Financial position" doesn't justify or excuse any actions by either party here.
Many bands absolutely do sign these agreements under duress. It's not like some band is sitting around eating steak and asks, "Well, shall we sign with spotify and make 1/4 of a cent for every 500 plays we get? I think not. I'll have another steak please...with some lobster tail." You've got some bands that are so unknown that they will take anything happily and you have others that still have an entire bureaucracy demanding things of them. Their sales have slipped, their tours are getting smaller, and they are told they need to agree to spotify to get their names out. For others it may be a last ditch effort to try to keep from having to get side jobs. I think there is even a documentary out about that.
That's not "duress". You can keep calling it that all you want, but it's not "duress". There is no specific threat, there is no violence, there is no coercion. If they don't sign, it's not as if their kid is going to be taken hostage or sold into sexual slavery. It's simply a different valuation. They ultimately DO have a choice, it's just that the regular variables that we all have in any decision-making process are valued differently. If there was a different variable - i.e. "you take a bullet if you don't sign this" - doesn't exist. (And yes, I know there are degrees of coercion; but this doesn't qualify).
Duress is a broad term that means more than just threats and violence and yes, it does fit the situation I mentioned.
-
Respectfully, you are using terms incorrectly and out of context. By definition, a deal with Spotify is not "under duress", and not "ridiculous". Each artist is freely able to participate or not, under the terms provided, and can make the decision of their own free will. There is no component of "desperation" that matters here. That there are upsides and downsides for doing so do not amount to "duress". "Financial position" doesn't justify or excuse any actions by either party here.
Many bands absolutely do sign these agreements under duress. It's not like some band is sitting around eating steak and asks, "Well, shall we sign with spotify and make 1/4 of a cent for every 500 plays we get? I think not. I'll have another steak please...with some lobster tail." You've got some bands that are so unknown that they will take anything happily and you have others that still have an entire bureaucracy demanding things of them. Their sales have slipped, their tours are getting smaller, and they are told they need to agree to spotify to get their names out. For others it may be a last ditch effort to try to keep from having to get side jobs. I think there is even a documentary out about that.
That's not "duress". You can keep calling it that all you want, but it's not "duress". There is no specific threat, there is no violence, there is no coercion. If they don't sign, it's not as if their kid is going to be taken hostage or sold into sexual slavery. It's simply a different valuation. They ultimately DO have a choice, it's just that the regular variables that we all have in any decision-making process are valued differently. If there was a different variable - i.e. "you take a bullet if you don't sign this" - doesn't exist. (And yes, I know there are degrees of coercion; but this doesn't qualify).
Duress is a broad term that means more than just threats and violence and yes, it does fit the situation I mentioned.
Not going to argue with you anymore. It's a term of art that means something specific, something that is NOT included in what you are talking about. It's the equivalent of arguing with me that the thing on the end of your leg is a "HAND, because there is a HAND at the end of the upper two limbs, so the thing on the lower limb is a HAND". Okay.
Argue all you want, this is one of those areas that is not "opinion", it is "fact", and you are factually wrong.
Carry on.
-
It's a fact that you can't seem to provide any evidence for. Some fact ya got there. ::)
-
Stadler is right. There is no duress here.
-
Evidence?
-
Evidence of no duress?
How about some evidence that there WAS duress? You can't prove a negative.
But that doesn't mean that there IS a positive just because you say so.
You are the one saying there WAS duress. The burden is on you.
-
Evidence?
Evidence? YOU'RE USING THE WORD INCORRECTLY. That's the evidence. I don't deny that there is an artist out there that morally doesn't want to sign with Spotify, financially doesn't want to sign with Spotify, but through the circumstances of his life at that point feels like there is no better alternative. BUT THAT ISN'T DURESS. There ARE reasonable, non-harmful alternatives. Work at Burger King. Do paid meet-n-greets. Sell music to advertisers. Start your own website to stream your music. These might be morally unacceptable choices, and they may be hard choices, but they are reasonable ones, legal ones, and ones that artists in the normal course of business do every day. In a "duress" situation, there is no choice, or at least not a choice that doesn't have unreasonable, serious, often irreversible, consequences. That's the point.
Though Hef is right too. As usual.
-
Hef is right too. As usual.
Stadler was under no duress from me when he posted this.
-
Evidence?
Evidence? YOU'RE USING THE WORD INCORRECTLY. That's the evidence.
Stating something that is not a fact is not evidence. For the love of god this is one of the most asinine arguments to ever occur on this forum. After being told I was wrong I double checked the meaning to make sure I wasn't wrong and sure enough I wasn't. Then you responded by restating your opinion. Kind if sad that you had to take this otherwise respectful conversation and turn it into this.
-
du·ress
d(y)o͝oˈres
noun
threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.
"confessions extracted under duress"
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, force, pressure, intimidation, constraint
LAW
constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
No one signs a deal with Spotify under duress. The concept is laughable.
If they want to be on Spotify, they sign. If they don't, they don't. No duress. Spotify isn't forcing anyone to sign with them.
-
Wow, this thread got hijacked! Trolls!!! Lol..
Back to Labrie,, utmost respect for the powerhouse frontman of one of the greatest bands of all time!!! Very talented singer..
-
du·ress
d(y)o͝oˈres
noun
threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.
"confessions extracted under duress"
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, force, pressure, intimidation, constraint
LAW
constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
No one signs a deal with Spotify under duress. The concept is laughable.
If they want to be on Spotify, they sign. If they don't, they don't. No duress. Spotify isn't forcing anyone to sign with them.
Way to ignore parts of the very definition you posted. Now THAT is laughable.
-
Which part, pray tell?
-
Hef is right too. As usual.
Stadler was under no duress from me when he posted this.
I don't know; maybe I'll hire Madman Shepherd to be my attorney and he can make that argument to the court. Big money! Big money!!
-
If you are looking to me for big money, I must warn you to look elsewhere.
-
Hef is right too. As usual.
Stadler was under no duress from me when he posted this.
I don't know; maybe I'll hire Madman Shepherd to be my attorney and he can make that argument to the court. Big money! Big money!!
why hire me when you can just use a dictionary online for free?
-
Lol this thread escalated quickly. I remember feeling bad when he made the point about 'stealing' music while downloading, but then I realized I wouldn't have known any of their music or gotten to love it without ::) Same goes for so many other bands. I do buy CD's, concerts and merch when I'm sure I love it. I'm still not sure if I see downloading as stealing...
Ironic that the pirate hates pirating :lol
Furthermore I love the man and I'm strangely attached to him, can't even explain why because I don't know him personally.
LaBrieciated