MusicNonStop - End Of An Era

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by Effigy

Following your logic I'm entitled to drop into Tesco today, stuff my face with whatever food I like the look of and then decide whether or not to pay for it.

No.

However, if you go into Tesco and buy something which turns out to utter shit, you can get a refund. What reply do you think a record company would give to a CD that came in the post with a letter saying "This wasn't good enough, I'd like my money back"?

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by Effigy

If so I'll shake you by the hand and wish you all the best, cos you're a better person thatn any other musician out there.

Most of this post seems to be personal bickering that I don't really want to get in the middle of, but this point really should be addressed as it is patently nonsensical, the world is full of artists who don't seek financial reimbursement for their work.

[killdozer]

Firstly: I've treated you with respect, and not resorted to name calling or any argumentum ad hominum. Please reciprocate. Resorting to insult only cheapens your (fundamentally flawed) argument.

Originally Posted by Effigy

So fundamental point is that you (killdozer) object to the way the music industry/record labels etc treats artists?

No. If you bothered to actually read my posts you would see :
I object to the way the record industry treats bands *and* fans. I object to the concept that artists are treated like production line workers and that fans are assumed to be theives.

Originally Posted by Effigy

And your solution to this is to download artists material without paying for it, therefore reducing the revenue created and giving record labels a further excuse to take larger cuts of what they have sold in order to cover what they will argue to be 'fixed costs' in developing/producing/marketing and releasing artists work.

My above answer makes this part (your sentences above) both specious and wholly irrelevant, but I'll humour you.

This is going to get awfully tedious, but I'll repeat : READ MY POSTS!

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.

I also buy merchandise, and attend concerts. Thus supporting the artist in any way I can. Where possible I'll buy direct from the artist.

Please, don't try and represent my argument as something it's not. I've never furthered the notion that everyone should simply leech. What I'm arguing is that a. Downloaders are not freeloading. That music fans are not, in the main, thieves and b. that downloading is not, in any way, theft.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Cunning plan mate, really gonna hurt the labels and obviously not going to damage the bands in any way whatsoever.

Empowering artists isn't going to help them?

The current situation is one that the music industry have created. The made this monster. p2p companies, music playing devices and governments have all offered ways of monetising downloads to labels. They have steadfastly refused as it remove the opportunity to control the distribution channels - ie the places where prices are fixed. And whilst maintaining their monopoly they cry
"theft, theft", when in fact they have knocked back perfectly reasonable offers of payment.

Is downloading from AllOfMP3 or MP3Sparks theft too? The RIAA says so because they collect a lower royalty amount than the cartels would like, but the Russian courts disagree and say they are contributing at the figure agreed for other types of media. Theft or not? The record company gets money, but not the cash they want, so is it theft? Is it greed?

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?

Hint: In both cases they were good for the industry. In both cases the record labels/media companies objected absolutely to their existance and indeed tried to have both strangled at birth. What similarities can we draw here from downloading? The RIAA/labels are against it is one.....care to forward another?

Originally Posted by Effigy

Basically you're just trying to excuse the fact that you think you're entitled to access to something without paying for it. If you then deem it worthy by your standards, you'll lower yourself to making some sort of financial acknowledgement of the work that went into providing you with it in the first place.

So...what you are saying is that I should buy music I don't like simply because I've listened to it? I heard Britney Spears becing played on the CD player of a passing car, I didnt like it, but who should I make the cheque payable too?

If I download and listen to a CD, if I don't like it I'm not going to buy it. Or are you suggesting I should buy everything speculatively and suck it up if it's garbage?

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.

To be pedantic, I don't make a woolly "some sort of financial acknowledgement" I pay the asking price for the CD at whatever price that is set.
And again, I ask you, please cease the sarcastic, patronising tone. I treat your points, and you, with respect. I'd like reciprocity.

Originally Posted by Effigy

So does this apply to all commercial goods (cos lets cut to the chase and admit thats what music is when its provided in a business sense) or are you selective about who and which companies you rip off?

I don't rip off any companies. But yes, I tend to try and not spend money on things I don't like. Are you in the habit of spending money on things you don't like?

Originally Posted by Effigy

Following your logic I'm entitled to drop into Tesco today, stuff my face with whatever food I like the look of and then decide whether or not to pay for it. I'm sure they wouldnt have an objection to that. And just cos you're doing your rip-off from in front of a keyboard, dont try to make out its any different. You may as well go into HMV and fill a bag with cd's. At least have the guts to admit you're damagaing the livelihoods of the artists you so elloquently claim to be acting in support of.

That analogy ranks amongst the weakest I have *ever* read. It's lazy, it's inaccurate and it's frankly ridiculous.

If you bought a fruit loaf and there was a nail in it, would you take it back?

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"?

I am not damaging anyones livelihood. I support the artists I like. The others whose art I don't appreciate I don't support. I don't owe people a living and bands aren't charities. I try and operate ethically, but I don't beleive I owe people payment for something I would *never* buy. I've discovered lots of bands on the internet, and bought product from them all. Without downloading tracks those bands would not have recieved my cash or my recommendation to others. In that way downloading has actually worked as a marketing tool and resulted in CD's that wouldn't otherwise have taken place.

Doing what you suggest in Tesco or HMV will see you charged with theft. Getting caught with an MP3 from a CD you rip or download will at worst see you charged with copyright infringement, not theft.

Originally Posted by Effigy

You believe that music should be available for all without big business getting in the way of it? Try busking. Maybe then you'll get the respect and financial reward you deserve without feeling abused.

I have no problems with "big business" as long as things are run honestly and ethically. I do have a problem when these guys cry about being ripped off whilst artists are conned. I also have a big, really big, problem with the automatic assumption that I'm a thief.

If I walked into a car showroom and the salemen started locking all cars I'd be annoyed. I don't see why this is any different. I object to the assumption that I'm a thief.

Originally Posted by Effigy

So you're in a band and know the problem from the inside? Fair play, you're a step ahead of me there.

Clearly.

Originally Posted by Effigy

But how does it work for you?

Rather well thank you.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Are you signed to a label?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Do you release through your own label?

Sometimes. Depends on the project, depends on classification of "own label" too.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Or do you just give it away for free?

Again, sometimes.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Would you object to me downloading it, passing it round all my friends and then telling you to fuck off if you asked me to pay for it?

Firstly I wouldn't ask you to pay for it. I'd assume that if you enjoyed it, you would want to nurture the thing you enjoy. If you told me you didn't intend to pay for it then I'd simply assume that you're not a fan. I don't expect people who don't like my music to pay for it. I don't believe I'm owed a living.

And if you don't want to pay for a download, why would you have bought a CD? Therfore I'd conclude that there was no lost sale, no "theft". I'd be happy, you would be happy, the word wold be a nice place.

What we would avoid is the bit where I'd say "I know you guys are all thieving scum, but buy *my* record" that way. I have respect for people, and I assume honesty.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Take it the logical conclusion of your argument that everyone who wants to hear your stuff gets it for free from the net, where does that leave you?

You assume that my primary motivation for writing music is to make cash. If that were the case I'd be jumping onto rather more lucrative bandwagons that this scene, believe me!

And your conclusion is not the "logical" conclusion. It's a conclusion based on everyone being untrustworthy. It's also based on the notion that a download is a lost sale. I don't think it is. I don't think one equals the other.

Also, the people who you reckon love the music but want it for free - how pray tell are they going to download the tshirt. Does edonkey have a new feature I'm unaware of? Can you download gig tickets on limewire yet?

There are more ways of making money than simply shoving the mp3 genie back in the bottle.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Or are you happy to creat music in your spare time and never get any financial recovery for it? If so I'll shake you by the hand and wish you all the best, cos you're a better person thatn any other musician out there.

Why do you question my motives? Do you know me?

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

I make music entirely for myself. That other people appreciate it is a shock, and something I'm incredibly grateful for. I appreciate fans of my band. I appreciate people liking my stuff whether they pay for it or not. I'm like a kid, wide eyed in wonderment about it all. But in the end, I make music for me. I like sharing it, but I'd make music regardless.

Most of the artists I know are in a similar situation. They write because they have too. It's a passion, a love, an addiction.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Personally though, so far it sounds like sour grapes from someone who's not made a million out of the industry and just wants to get his own back at the big bad boogeyman who denied him his rock n' roll lifestyle.

You're just copying my insult about Faderhead! If you're going to insult me, do me the honour of coming up with something on your own. Sheesh! I should set my lawyers on you for copyright infringment! Thief! Thief!

No one stole my rock n roll lifestyle. If you want a measure of where I'm at - Kerrang! feature artist. Metal Hammer feature artist, Rock Sound feature artist.
9/10 and 8/10 and 4 1/2K's album reviews amonst others. We've also featured on teletext! - Which is may crowning glory btw

Originally Posted by Effigy

Fuck it though, life's too short and people are never going to agree on this subject.

I'm not sure about that. If you buy the line that the RIAA are pushing, I'm betting you'll be open to suggestion.

Originally Posted by Effigy

Believe it or not, I hope things go well for your band and you prove me wrong.
No hard feelings for not seeing eye-to-eye, keeps life interesting.

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.

I have to ask - Don't you object to Faderhead labelling you as a thief (with a 95% probablilty). Doesn't it concern you that he has such a low opion of the people who invest time in him? Especially as his only evidence is low CD sales?

I'll finish with this -

Is downloading theft? Legally? No. Technically, downloading is copyright infringment, and copyright infringement has seperate and distinct tariffs to Theft charges.
Morally? Theft is when someone suffers loss without their express consent. If a download isn't a lost sale, then it cannot possibly be theft.
Philosophically? Downloading a song isn't theft. Why? Because the artist doesn't suffer loss. The artist doesn't lose anything by someone listening to the track. Granted, the artist doesn't gain anything, but he/she/them have not suffered any loss. Unless of course, the thief fully intended to buy the CD. But then, why would a thief who's stealing music buy a CD? A thief would simply steal the CD instead of the download, no? Why would a thief have a moral compunction about one and not the other?

What I'll also say is that my viewpoint is one that's echoed by an increasingly large number of major bands -
Nine Inch Nails
Radiohead
Oasis
Will.i.am

- to name but 4.

Do you rip your CD's to hard disk? Or burn copies of them for when you DJ? If so you are guilty of exactly the same "theft" as downloading tracks (that you haven't bought on CD) according to the RIAA and in the eyes of the law. No difference. Do you regard that as theft? If not, why not? It's the same people telling you it's theft. It's also a "lost sale" as the label hasn't given you permission to reproduce the tracks on the original CD - by rights you should be buying a second. Or do you simply "lower yourself to making some sort of financial acknowledgement of the work that went into providing you with it in the first place." You're stealing from artists. Surely that's wrong. I content that it's a lie.

[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.

[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.

[Effigy]

I keep coming back to this thread even though my sensible side says I should walk away. I've got caught up in these kind of arguments before and generally they end badly - as you've pointed out things get personal and the purpose of what should have been an educated debate gets lost in all the other shit.

I also have a habit of responding to posts immediately after I read them, which is always a bad idea - emotion takes over instead of balanced reason, and some of whats gone before happens (again, I'd apologies for the wording, and as you point out the content, of some of the comments made. Cheap shots I admit, but your comments on Faderhead and MNS were equally cheap and riled me, as I believe you were/are out of line on both, and its unfair to make specific accusations against them when they're not on this forum to respond. But youre entitled to your opinions and my response was innappropriate to the discussion).

Now for the shock...

The more I read your posts, particularly the most recent, the more I think we agree on the fundamental issues but are just coming at them from polar opposite directions and completely conflicting ideas about the solution...

Digital rights management is wrong - if you own the product you should be able to copy it to as many formats on your own equipment as you like.
Artists deserve protection from being ripped off, either by the record labels or by so-called fans.
Record labels should be there to serve the artist, not the other way round.
I'd agree that you should have better (limited) access to albums before you buy them. Hell, I've got stacks of cd's at home that I'd never have bought if I'd heard them all the way through first, but I've also got books, dvds etc that this also applies to. The question is over what level of access.

As I say, fundamentally I agree with a lot of your standpoints, I just disagree with your validation of mass downloading, particularly in terms of it being a solution to the way record companies treat artists. At least we've got some common ground though!!!
If your main argument is against exploitative contracts forced on artists by the record companies, surely a more productive approach is an organised boycott/strike of the record companies by the artists - it largely worked in Hollywood when the writers guild went on strike ( I think!!!). Without the artists the record companies cease to exist, so why not force their hands?

Free download albums. Yeah, I'm cynical in that only the really big acts are doing this. The ones who can afford to take the financial risk. As a dj and promoter I only deal with comparatively small acts, and I just cant see it working for them at that level. Again, I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.

With regards to the RIAA - I've never read any of their propaganda. My opinions are my own and I'll stand or fall on that basis, I've no intention of hiding behind some organisation that I know nothing of.
Further to that, my opinion on downloading is based on the individuals I know who do/have done it. Unfortunately, few of them have lived up to your expectations of then going out and buying the product if they liked it, or supporting the artist in any other way. Its the "I've got it free, why should I now pay for it?" attitude. These experiences form the basis of my 'knowledge' and I see no reason to assume these are isolated incidents, or that they do not represent the wider problem.
Also, of all the bands we've put on in glasgow, I've yet to meet one in favor of widespread downloading or who hasnt seen it as damaging to what is a comparatively small music genre (my experineces are specific to electro/industrial/EBM, so I can only comment on that area). I'm happy to accept there's opposing views out there and I have no wish to ignore that - I've had years of experience at being proved wrong about things!!!
And I've never been to Kansas - heard its got a really pretty coloured road though

Yeah, I dj with back-up copies of original cds, all of which I own. My understanding of copyright legislation was that it is legal to make a back-up copy if you own the original. If I'm wrong, fair play - you've got me, but that was my understanding

Last point, my previous best wishes to you and your band weren't meant in a hippy-esque way, though the image gave me a laugh. I think anyone who's willing to stand by their music and be judged by the public deserves to be acknowledged for that, irrelevant of whether or not I like their tracks. It was a genuine comment to you and I hope you take it that way - whether you need it or not

Here's to keeping an open mind on both sides and seeing where it takes us

[Tailz]

OK folks just got news hot off the web. Music Non Stop is BACK, yup thats right under new management and will be relaunched at infest this weekend

[Draven]

Good to hear their back, I remember fondly waiting for my Rotersand CD from them.

Killdozer put up a very good argument in this thread, pretty much summed up my views of DRM and downloading.