On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrew C <countfuzzball@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark, > > For what it's worth, if you download (for free) a Beatles/Stones/Pink Floyd > album, they aren't exactly losing royalties, y''know? Also, if you are > downloading one of their albums and NOT other starving artists' albums, then > there is no lost sale toward that artist. > There isn't any lost revenue to anyone if you would _never_ buy the product anyway, but there are royalties still going to the Beatles/Stones/Pink Floyd for every CD you buy of theirs on Amazon or in the iTunes store. Problem with this is that it's a slippery slope. People fill up their iPods with music and movies downloaded with BitTorrent or other tools. They start with a few things that are free and appropriate and end up with only things that should cost them money but they took because they could. > On a similar note, shouldn't we just totally lobby against youtube for > copyright violations and loss of sales etc for hosting videos containing > songs by these young, screwed-by-the-record-label artists (Lady Gaga for > example). But, last time I checked, nobody seems to, and neither are any of > the visitors to the pages that contain the videos getting sued for illegally > downloading copyrighted material etc. YouTube is an interesting case. I didn't read what the decision was but I hear they won a judgment against (I think) Viacom a few days ago allowing them to keep posting stuff, or at least to leave it online if someone else posts it. There's a big mix of things going on within YouTube and (to some extent) I think the music producers see it as a marketing tool using lousy quality video and audio. (Much as they allowed VHS to continue without copy protection until it died for lack of interest.) Most bands have web sites. Lots of these sites allow us to play their music. In some cases all of their music. They quality isn't always great but we can listen. But instead of that we find people not satisfied with what they can get for free deciding to take liberties to make their life better/more convenient and (I think) unfortunately not willing to pay a penny. Anyway, I don't suppose my views are very popular among the majority of folks that might be reading this. I actually think it's very important that artists be paid a living wage. Once we start bringing the 0.1% of them that are monster money makers into the discussion it gets pretty crazy pretty quickly but the 99.9% of them that cannot make a living really are, in my opinion, hurt financially by all of this. Keep in mind that this is not _only_ about the headliner - it's also about composers, arrangers, back-up musicians, etc, that never make a penny from the band playing live. But again, that's just me. > > Also, I do agree with Louigi. Should there be a mandatory price on > creativity? I agreed with a lot of Louigi's points, but disagreed with a couple and felt it was coming from a POV I couldn't quite understand right now. Personally I didn't think I could answer it well at this time. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
