Default Sidebar

[Effigy]

Ok, I've re-read a lot of your posts in this thread and I'll hold my hands up to some of your accusations. A lot of my arguments are based on an emotive response to the subject and are not backed up by the evidence you put in yours. As I said, you're part of the industry, I'm not, so it gives you a different perspective.

You accuse me of getting personal rather than sticking to the subject. Ok, I'll disagree with that but apologise if you took it that way, it wasnt the intention to come across as attacking you personally rather than you viewpoint. But come on - could your original attack on Faderhead have been any more personal??? Bit of double standards. Still, my comments weren't meant that way so please ignore any that come across in that manner. Sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain works (not a difficult thing to achieve before some smartarse on here points it out )

Markmono's comment above - fair point, I worded it very badly. I should have said "you're a better person than any other commercially signed musician out there". Personally I dont believe anyone who signs a record deal isnt interested in financial gain from their product (why not just offer everything you produce free on demand?), but as I said, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

As for the general downloading issue, I believe artists who are signed to a label, whether its a small indy label or one of the big commercial outfits, have a right to a level of protection of their works. Yes, a lot of the digital rights management stuff is over the top, and I dont dispute that. Its the basic ownership of a creative work that I'm arguing for, and who has rights to access and use that work.

Yeah, the Tesco analogy sucked. I blame hunger. I'll try something else instead. How about I go to a library, borrow a book, photocopy it and pass round copies to everyone I know. Closest valid comparison I can think of to downloading.
In answer to yours...

I'll give you a better analogy: You order a couch from Argos. On arrival, you discover that in the place of foam in the cushions there are actually bricks. Would you send it back or would you say "It's the most uncomfortable chair in the world but I ordered it, and those guys deserve my money"?

Not a relevant analogy, and here's why. You buy a music cd. You take it home and find it has music on it. So the product is what it says it is (in your example it isnt) but you decide you simply dont like it because of your personal tastes. No, you're not entitled to a refund on that basis. The sofa you are because its mis-selling and also a breach of health and safety legislation. So not a valid comparison. You argue that you you are entitled to decide whether you like something before you pay for it. But that doesnt apply to any other product - do you watch a film before you pay for it? Do you play a console game right through before you pay for it, or read the whole book before paying? So why should you be entitled to listen to an album all the way through befor epaying for it?

For the record : If I like an album, or if I find an album interesting enough to warrant repeat listening then I'll buy it. If it's rubbish, or not fit for purpose than I'm not going to spend money on it. It'll go in the recycle bin.

Why do you believe you have the right to fully access and effectively consume a product prior to deciding whether or not youre paying for it? Do you apply this principle to every consumable in your life or is music the exception to the rule? So far I dont see anything in your agruments that actually justifies this, other than you thinking its acceptable because you object to the way lables, promoters etc treat artists.

Downloaders are not freeloading

Most downloaders dont then go and buy the product they've just ripped, so by definition thats exactly what they are.

More to the point however, I simply don't buy the argument that p2p is killing sales. I believe that it drives sales. And, unlike you, /i have evidence to back this up - historical precident.

Did VCR drive or reduce the profit margins that TV companies made and thus sales?

Did cassette tape hurt the music industry or virally drive sales?

Yeah, I dont think that precedent actually backs up your argument. In both cases you still bought a physical product. Yes bootlegging was and still is an issue, but it never occured on the scale of unauthorised (see, I avoided the word 'illegal') downloading and it was never as easy to distribute over a wide audience the way it is with downloading. The validity of evidence is always defined by your perspective.

The crux of your argument isn't that downloading is theft, it's actually that listening is theft! If I hear a track played in my friends car I owe the artist money. Thats basically what you are saying.

In your own words: "READ MY POSTS! Please, don't try and represent my argument as something it's not."
I stated clearly that my points were specific to downloading, so lets not go off on a tangent.

Think we could go on for months with this argument without actually achieving anything on either side.

It's cheeky question you ask. And you've no right.

In that case dont bring into the argument that your a signed artist and part of the business.

Thanks for the well wishes. I'm not sure I need them though. Put your energies into a more deserving cause - Like Faderheads "Give BMW" fund.

Fair enough, I'll withdraw the good wishes and apologies for trying to indicate that none of my arguments were directed at you or that I felt any negativity towards yourself or your band.
And its so nice to see that you avoided the bitchiness that I put into my posts.