Default Sidebar

[killdozer]

Originally Posted by 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.

An emotive response is a good thing - it shows that you care about the scene. I wouldn't apologise for that, my point is though that it should be mixed with an informed opinion. Yours is pretty much based on the RIAA party line. THey play the emotive "poor artist" card to try and deflect from the true picture.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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 )

Really? What about the "You sound like a failed blah...", "bitter that you haven't made a million". Did your fingers slip oj the keyboard when you were trying to make a sensible point? It was an insult. Apologise if you mean it, but don't claim it was an accident. You'll look like more of a man if you admit it and we move on and forget it.

Are you Faderhead? No. So I've treated you with respect. I expect likewise in return. Surely you're mature enough to do that? My comments directed a Faderhead may be sarcastic, but I stand by them 100%. The guy has thrown a tantrum and treated his fans appallingly. Accusing them of ripping him off. I think that that is beyond the pale. Moreover, his entire strop has no basis in fact. He's invented numbers. He knows how many CD's he'd have liked to have sold and assumed that's how many he might have sold if the world was different. It's not. He made up facts and now he's punishing his entire audience, even the 5% of "good" fans, by saying "I'm not letting you hear the new album". If music is from the heart, he could retire whilst releasing the album under a creative commons licence. In my opinion he's prostituting his art.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

Where did I say I wasn't interested in financial gain? What I've said is that it isn't my primary motivation. If I make cash, fantastic. If not? I'll do something else to pay for my passion. My over riding hope is that I'm treated ethically. That artists are treated ethically.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

Absolutely, they do. All artists should expect protection. Record labels, in the main fail to do that.

Ask the Stone Roses, whose early works, whose early creative output is owned in it's entirity by a label who has released countrless reissues, remixes and other knock off goods. All legally, but without the permission or consent of the band who were poorly advised.

All DRM infections are wrong. All. Anything that stops a user being able to access the music they have bought in any reasonable way is wrong. The fan, or "consumer" has an equal right to protection under the law. We are all equals and artists don't deserve any greater protection than the consumer gets. The truth is that both ends get shanked whist the RIAA and the major label execs are kept in cocaine and hookers.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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...

No it's not a valid analogy. Because it makes the base assumption that people who download don't buy. In order to accept your analogy I'd havfe to accept that a download is a lost sale. Something I refuse to accept.

The people responsible for music being valueless, if it is are people like Simon Cowell etc and the plethora of cheap X factor exploitainment tv infomercials.

If you go to a library, and borrow a book you can read it and never buy it. If I download, I can listen and never buy. What's the difference? Why is one legal and the other not? My contention is that if people download, generally there is a reciprocal arrangement where the person will buy the CD, or buy a tshirt, or concert ticket. The truth is that the days of outragous profits for the major lables are gone. Maybe in the short term signed artists will suffer. In the long term the situation is much, much healthier. The systematic exploitation of artists will cease because the majors gravy trian has ground to a halt.

And the people responsible for the lack of recompense from p2p downloads are the lables who have stymied every attempt to make payment or legitimise these systems in an futile attempt to continue the cartel.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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?

I *am* entitled to decide if I like something before I pay for it. My statutory rights say so. "Merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose" cover it.

My analogy is perfect. A couch with bricks in place of foam is entirely still a couch. It's just not what you expected. Why would bricks be a health and safety hazard? It's entirely a fair comparison. The description of the couch would be exactly the same :

The Cryotec Boys : From here to Industria.
A stunning return by the masters of electronica. Cost £17

"The Nightingale" : 3 Piece suite
A stunning and decadent velour suit from the kings of seatery. Cost £3000

Both of the above could be perfectly legitimate adverts, neither tells any lies, but your CD of Hispanic harpsicord and flute music can't be returned, whilst the sofa with brick cushions most certainly would.

Music and Movies are the only two things that you have to buy without any chance of seeing if it's what you like. Washing machines, football strips, clothes, electrical goods etc etc etc...most items can be sampled before buying. Music has to be bought on faith. That's not fair and is restrictive practice on the part of the media industries.

If you buy something that isn't to your expectation you have a right to expect a refund.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

I have a right to know what I'm buying and for my expectations to be reasonably met. Why should I be expected to subsidise poorly produced, or poorly written work? Why should you? Artists are workers, the same as you and I. We (artists) have a right to expect fiar pay and not be treated like slaves, but we're not gods either. If a guy lays my driveway and it's not what I expect or not up to scratch then too right I'll complain and refuse payment. I can't know what's on a CD before I buy but I have no right to return it? THat's wrong. People not gods. Equal rights, not extra rights.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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

And where is your proof for such a definative statement?

You have *no* empirical evidence to back that up.

I do however - I have historical precident. Radiohead's "In Rainbows" and NIN's "Ghosts" - Both available as free downloads and both absolute successes upon "commercial" physical release. Both bucking the trend for poor sales. Why is this? It's because fans buy product and non fans don't. Regardless of whether they download it or not, they wouldn't have bought a physical product regardless of downloadable availability.

Some downloaders might find themselves "in raptures" over the music and buy the physical product! They might even buy the back catalogue, but some tshirts and go to gigs. Therefore the download has dirven sales rather than lessened them. Fans buy product. People like haveing physical goods. Bands can make money and be rewarded without resorting to "old world" stereotypes.

You need to shift your thinking away from the traditional RIAA cartel and into the real world, the modern world. This ain't Kansas.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

My perspective is that of an artist in the eye of the "storm". I think that makes me a pretty good authority.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

Why only downloading. Why is Downloading a file worse than a streaming radio show being cached on your hard disk or listening to someone elses music? The only reason this is on your radar is because the Labels have told you it's bad and you believed them. You've believed the lie. And it is a lie.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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

I disagree. I think you'll come round to my way of thinking. You're clearly not stupid. You *are* in the industry.

Look at the fact and figures. Look at the bands who are now embracing the new world.

Front242 have just announced a free downloadable release, surely you must be coming round to accepting that the old world thinking is like trying to hold back the tide. WHy can NIN, Will.i.am, Radiohead, Front242 and many others embrace the new world fearlessly and Faderhead can't?

I think expectations, and faith in fans, in people, come in to it. Doesn't it strike you as odd that none of these bands seem to have issues with downloading? Seemingly successful bands bands with more to lose than most?

Originally Posted by Effigy

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

You asked the question, I answered it. What did you expect me to do? It's obvious what your role in the industry is, tso I thought I'd tell you mine.

You didn't answer if you DJ with originals or copies BTW. Something to hide? It was a simple question, amongst all of your self rightious posturing, do you rip your CDs? If so, you are as guilty in the eyes of the law and the labels as downloaders. You are committing the same offence, and supposedly ripping off the self same artists you claim to care for.

Originally Posted by Effigy

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.

Some of your arguments were directed at me. I offered you no insult, you returned with petty digs and insults. I treated you with respect and you failed to return the courtesy. You don't know me, and yet you cast aspersions on me.

I also said I didn't need your best wishes. I don't. That's not an insult directed at you, just a simple statement of fact. If you like my music I appreciate it, but I don't need some hippy-esque love in. This ain't the 60's anymore.

My final comment on Faderhead was meant to be a humerous reference to the "give boobs" website. Other than that, I stand by my comments. Faderhead has, in my opinion, acted bindictively. It's his perogative to retire, to withdraw his art, but it's not his right to label 95% of his "fans" (or the number of people he thinks should be his fans, which his sales don't bear out) as criminals of thieves without ANY evidence other than poor sales. That is well nigh unforgivable in my book. As is greed.

I've asked around and you seem to be fairly well regarded in the Scottish scene. Which is at odds with your attitude on here. Shame.

I'll finish by asking you to revisit the argument with an open mind and a fresh outlook. Pay attention to what Artists are saying - informed artists. Artists who actually have something to lose.

Despite some of my sarcasm, I fear that Faderhead has simply found out that great reviews don't always equal great commercial success. And having a great talent falls some way short of being in the right place at the right time. He might have the right to be bitter that his talent has been met by massive commercial success, but he doesn't have a right to project that anger onto the people who supported him.