Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Morpheus Mac

its just scary....

do you guys really think you're hurting the major labels? let me assure you you're not. you're only hurting the artists-people like me who write songs, produce music, get bogus royalty statements, stay in crummy hotels and eat only at places that end with an apostrophy "s".

i don't need ( or want) your help fighting my battle. i'll negotiate a better deal, a higher cap, a better slice of publishing or i'll do it myself.

your stealing of our material doesn't help us-that's just a lame arguement to rationalize and justify.

sure you sleep well at night-its your life, lead it how you want. just say to yourself-" i'm a theif, i like being a theif, i'm really only helping myself ".

its ok, you're part of the big picture and you deserve to be here. the world needs it's ugliness to truly appreciate it's beauty.

peace to you.
 
My, how very backhanded and cynical.

I don't think I'd want to hear music from such a whiney git anyway. Either live the life of a Bard and LOVE it or shut up. If you choose the "starving Artist" bit, don't use it to get attention. I'm an Artist. My Wife is an Artist. However, we both want lives we couldn't afford as Artists so we have Grey-People jobs to get by. Stop Whining. It makes the rest of us look bad.
 
I say yes to free downloads...

It is somewhere suggested to you that you would really like Band X. You are semi curious, but not enough to pay $15. You download a song or two, decide you do in fact like them, so you g out and make the purchase. Does that make you a thief or an informed consumer? Or something else perhaps?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the question, as it will allow me to clarify my position. With the bands that I work with, I encourage them to post free copies of their songs on their web site. I generally give the advice that they should rip the MP3 at a lower bit rate, so that the quality is comparable to an FM radio broadcast, and more easily downloaded; thereby allowing the person to sample the music well enough to determine whether or not they want to buy it.

So, to answer your question, it depends. I think the choice should rest with the owner of the copyright. If that owner absolutely does not want the music distributed for free, that is their call to make; I may argue with them that they are making the wrong decision, but it is their decision to make. But, this is very different than when a person rips an entire CD to MP3, at high-quality, and posts it to a P2P network sans the permission of the artist or label; this distinction makes all the difference.

Also, to fulfill what you are suggesting, technology has developed expiring digital files, which I think would also work. However, it is my impression that many people on this thread are seemingly arguing that they should never have to pay for digital content; that they somehow have a "right" to this stuff for free.

Here's the point...do I care about the occasional swapping of files? Sharing amongst friends just to expose someone to new music? No. But, when actual networks are set up with no permissions, with no limitations, with no compensation whatsoever going back to the artist or label, then I draw a line.

And, ultimately, this issue goes much further than music. AmbitiousLemon is arguing that those who do work primarily in a format that can be duplicated easily shouldn't be compensated for that work in the same way that a person who works with physical materials is compensated. I disagree with the distinction (and yes, I did read his entire article, I just completely disagree with the conclusion of the author).
 
Open source?

Ambitious...

I did read your entire article; twice even.

I do agree with you that there are times and places where open source and free software are good ideas. If you want to write code, and post it for free, nothing I have said in this thread will stop you from doing so. But, the decision to do so should be yours, not mine. If you want to be an artist, and give your work away for free...Great! Go ahead and do it!

I also don't think the distinction you are making between work that is easily duplicated and work that is not should have any merit in our society. Some people work with physical products, and they are compensated for their work. Others work with abstract ideas, and they, too, should be compensated for their work insofar as they create something of value. That one medium is easier to duplicate than the other does not change the fact that both should have the right to compensation for their work.

But to argue that because you want the world to be that way, and you are willing to give your work away for free, and therefore, everyone else should as well, just doesn't follow. To argue for freedom of ideas is one thing; to then use that argument as an excuse to steal someone else's work is ridiculous.
 
The problem here is: You're both right.

Yes, it sux that Artists do not get appropriately or fairly compensated in either system. Yes, the industry IS (sorry Timbo) screwing everybody concerned at tremendous proffit. Yes, there needs to be a new system. Just realize: Whatever comes of this it won't be one way or the other and I don't think El Citrus or Timmy are trying to say that. 'Lemon's point is that SOFTWARE is better off open-sourced and freely distributed.Tim's point is that Artists need to get paid.

My point is that Programmers and Artists need to make it happen from THEIR end and move toward more realistic distribution methods. Existing Music Industry tactics of "encrypting" CDs or putting out expiring MP3's is Draconian, wrong, ineffective and only encourages P2P use. Existing Software is, well......clumsy and over-large for what it does, as if programmers get paid by the line.
 
Re: to mischief

Originally posted by 3rdpath
wise career choice....
Click to expand...

Wise, but un-fulfilling. I'm strongly considering Entreprenuership. If that was a crack at the quality of artistry we turn out:Get bent poser. If the implication is that it's not Art if you don't live off it/sell it, I'm glad you're struggling.
 
anyone else find it funny that this started simply as a discussion of the coming release of a good program that offers P2P filesharing that alot of people enjoy for whatever reason. Then it turned into a heated debate over music and copyrights. Frankly, who cares about it. You can sit here and bitch about this and that but in the end it's not going to change anything. So stop wasting your time as well as mine. You waste you time writing it and i waste my time reading it.
 
wow mischief

so much hostility and name calling. i make a post to make the point of a person making his living in the music biz ( and it is just MY opinion) and you go off like a roman candle. i'm still not sure what your point is. do you have one? or is this just your form of creative release? if so, then its a good thing it's free....if not, please make a point sometime or start a pointless thread and sit there by yourself. by the way, if you're going to become an entrepreneur then learn how to spell it.
 
Mischief: good to hear another voice of reason here.

isnt it interesting how timothy claims to have read my posts so closely and yet has absolutely no response other than "i disagree cuz i want to be paid." i guess if you cant come up with a good counter argument you should just resort to talking around the main topic.

a lot of people here have pointed out the flaws in logica regarding the "stick it to the music industry" excuse used by many p2p proponents. again i never subscribed to this line of logic (although i can see some merit in it). ive never quite liked seeing protesting that involves benefit to the protester. for the protest to mean anything you cant be gaining anything from it (other than the eventual change you are asking for).

i think the main reason many people make the "stick it to the industry" argument is that they can feel deep down that there is nothing wrong with file sharing, they see a corrupt system and they put 2 and 2 together. people usually make decisions based on emotion and use logic later to justify their decision. your hearts are in the right place guys but your logic needs some redirecting.

people are generally "lawful." or more accurately people are generally "moral." despite what organized religion might try to tell you. these people who are "stealing files" are your typical criminals. there isnt rampant unlawfulness in the world at large. you dont walk down the street seeing looting going on in every store front. i dont think there is some sort of moral degredation that happens to someone when the log on to the internet. so why are generally moral people breaking the law? perhaps because there is something wrong with the law and that the activity this law prohibits isnt in fact moral or constructive for society.

i think perhaps the reason i grew so offended by Timothy's arguments (btw Tim im sorry for responding in an over the top hot headed manner) is that these arguments remind me very much of system's that exist (today and in the past) whose goal was to degrade the individual and rob the individual of certain inalienable rights. The Soviet Union, Christianity (or organized religion for those of you who prefer i put it that way), capitalism (lets not get side-tracked arguing this one but just to set the record straight the current global market isnt capitalist, there are socialist constraints that let thinks work--id like to see more, but thats another topic), etc. i am will extend Tim and his cohorts a courtesy and assume they are not operating in this fashion towards these goals, but are merely concerned about their own well being and (probably do to limitations of intelligience or personal biases inherent in their upbringing) have yet to see that they are fighting the wrong fight.

And what do i mean byy all this and what is meant by "fighting the wrong fight?" well mischief hit the nail on the head with this:
"My point is that Programmers and Artists need to make it happen from THEIR end and move toward more realistic distribution methods. Existing Music Industry tactics of "encrypting" CDs or putting out expiring MP3's is Draconian, wrong, ineffective and only encourages P2P use. Existing Software is, well......clumsy and over-large for what it does, as if programmers get paid by the line."

great point mischief so ill elaborate. artists deserve to be paid. those of us in favor of p2p file sharing (and other types of file exchange) are not saying artists should starve or have to get other jobs (although excepting the current reality that mischief has and 3rdpath hasnt is important if you choose to be an artist today is important). all that we are saying is the nature of digital media requires a different system, one in which the sharing of digital files is not only allowed but is legal and perhaps even encouraged. there has been a change in the product that artists produce. well the product is and will always be art (music, software, movies, etc) but the medium for distribution has changed. this greatly impacts the market structure that is required to bring the music from creator to consumer (i suppose the term consumer isnt the best isnt nothing is actually consumed). the music industry is refusing to accept the fundamental change in their market, and are subsequently (through a large investment of capital funding legislation) are in fact hurting society and hurting themselves. a switch from a material based distribution to a digital based distribution market is necessary. This is not a utopian, theoretical, or fantasy sitaution, but one that others have undertaken in the past. Markets and that include the free distribution of products that dont require capital or time to repoduce as well as funding or payment for the intial creation of the product have been in existance for many thousands of years. I am part of one such market myself. The market of ideas. As an academic researcher (or scientist if you prefer) one creates original ideas (much the same way an artist creates original pieces of art) has that creation funded (through a variety of means) and has ones own salary provided while still delivering a product to the masses that is freely shared and distributed. The academic system is responsible for some of the greatest achievments of man and it is one in which those who choose to pursue a career in it are well paid and funded for their efforts while at the same time delivering a free product. So when i say that artists such as Timothey are "fighting the wrong fight" what i am saying is that instead of fighting to prevent the sharing of digital media they should be fighting to create a system that makes sense for both the consumer and the artist. One that, like the academic system, funds the development of new material and rewards the creater as well as provides a free product.

in the meantime as a consumer i will continue doing what is right (when did the word sharing become such a bad word? i dont think i like living in a world where sharing is considered immoral) and those of you who are on the flip side should try working with the masses and fight the good fight.
 
Okay, not meant as hostility.

Sorry to go off like that, I've just met WAY too many posers here in Santa Cruz who think that Art should be LIVED not simply expressed and enjoyed. Such people piss me off.Didn't mean to get all pissy, I guess I'm kinda jealous of your bravery. Most of the afore mentioned posers live off trust funds and call themselves Artists cuz they own an axe and sit around stoned all day.

Plus I'm kinda hopped up on the silly-ness of this thread: Yes, P2P encourages illegal behavior. It's cool we have 1 more formerly PC P2P. Yes, Artists have and will always get screwed by their patrons if it's their major source of income. Yes, there needs to be a change in the distribution and reconciliation of Digital content. Yes, open-source has major advantages.
 
I had a bit of an idea. I will share (if thats ok). I have had that "software should be free" article on my website since day one. im quite fond of it. i have on a number of occasions tried to solicit responses to the article from, friends, coworkers, viewers. I have encouraged a response from both sides and most people although enthusiastic at first quickly decide not to submit anything. I think its a little daunting to most people trying to respond to an article like that.

I would like to invite all of you to submit some articles to my website (i will post everything i get as long as they are grammatically sound). But more specifically i would like to invite Timothy and Mischief to submit articles. Mischief hasnt really responded at large on the topic but he seems to have quite a bit to bring to the table. And although I dont personally feel Timothy has addresses most of my points i do feel he has addressed a number of issues and will likely be able to respond to my points give proper encouragement. I feel both of you could bring quite an interesting perspective to an issue that I feel is quite critical to modern economics. let me know what you guys think, i hope you will be agreeable.
 
Okay, I'll write a piece I wouldn't dare post here.

It'd be scorched earth the likes of which the west has never seen.
 
just to add a few more cents....
they did figure out that it wasn't napster that "hurt" sales, but CD-Burners...now 5 people could pay for 1 CD...which was actually an advertising slogan from Phillips in Japan...just thought i'd throw that out there...
 
Originally posted by PyroTurtle
just to add a few more cents....
they did figure out that it wasn't napster that "hurt" sales, but CD-Burners...now 5 people could pay for 1 CD...which was actually an advertising slogan from Phillips in Japan...just thought i'd throw that out there...
Click to expand...

BINGO!😀
 
logical conclusion

then i guess everything should just be free.

after this post i'm on my way to the apple store to take a new g4-it will be free because i just don't like their channel of distribution. and i'll be driving a new diablo that the salesman gave me after i complained that everything should be shared freely-who cares about the time and labor and creativity contained in the design. ya see, we're all just patrons of some magical benevolent ruler who pays our way while we create all this great free stuff.

so many great theories-so few people to truly live them.
 
Jeez, calm down.

No one is proposing a true communist/anarchist system here. As nice as that would be there is too much entrenched greed to allow it to happen. The point being made is that the recording industry needs to keep P2P in mind and NOT screw the consumer with knee-jerk technologies.
 
when is it coming out?

I know the program is great, and I don't really care if I'm breaking any laws, so when the heck is it coming to the mac? 😉
This is thw best program for the Pc, I'm glad it is coming to the mac.
 
just remember you said it

if you don't care that you're breaking the law thats cool. just remember to give a big smile to the person who steals your car stereo or nicks your ipod from your backback-he doesn't care if he's breaking the law either. he's not a thief- he's your bud.

its always cool until it happens to you.
 
ok im going to do it. im going to resport tyo name calling. because frankly 3rdpath you are a complete an utter idiot. your idiotic name calling is just not needed here. i think all intelligient discussion has quite conclusively shown it is not "stealing" "immoral" or "wrong" to share something. you can keep you idiotic right-wing brainwashing to yourself because the rest of us are sick and tired of hearing it. if you want to feel bad about yourself and others even though no one is doing anything wrong then join the republican party join your local catholic church and stop using macrumors and your computer. this will keep you quite unhappy, make you think very little of yourself and your fellow man, and keep you quite backward and culturally retarded. the rest of us will continue embracing our fellow man, will not be fooled into thinking that sharing and helping one another is wrong will feel good about ourselves and the world in which we live and will continue embracing the future and striving to change damaging social constructs such as current laws pertaining to the transfer of digital media and replace them with societally contructive markets that realistically apply technology and human innovation.

seriously now, did you even bother to read anything posted here or did you just go "bah, these people are communist morons, im not going to read this drivel" and skip on to the more mindless posts of Timothy and his cohorts? at least Timothy has read my and other's posts, even if he has no intelligient rebut to our arguments he hasnt degraded himself to yourlevel of childish witch hunting.
 
you just get funnier and funnier

man oh man are you losing it ambitiouslemon. name calling just supports the fact that you have NOTHING to refute the basic fact that theft is theft. i've read your posts and even went to your site to read your " free software manifesto" and nothing you say has anything to do with this planet we inhabit. the manifesto has so many holes in it that its just sadly laughable. it looks like something i would of gotten reamed for during my freshman year in business school.

i found it fascinating that for all your "free software" rantings there wasn't any great free stuff for downloading on your site. its so easy to talk the talk but you definitely don't walk the walk. to scared to stand up for what you believe in? i'm not. when a buddy offered me $3000.00 worth of cracked software i turned him down. it wasn't easy- i wanted that stuff. but that's where we seperate the men from the boys.

i'm not going to change your delusional beliefs. why? because you have a serious problem. you call names, classify people by religion, political party and make snide inferences about people's familiar history.

and besides, you know everything already.
 
Woo, mischief, I didn't notice your location. You probably HAVE met more neurotic poseurs than I have. 😀

I'm 100% with you that the whole "starving artist" thing is a pretension. The best artists I've ever known have not been the flaky Byron wannabes. Those are the ones who just don't want regular jobs. The really great artists I've met are organized, practical and focused. They put in long hours studying the technical aspects of their medium, because they know that meaningful expression doesn't happen just because you bought your outfit at an antique clothing store.

Now as far as theft of music, I don't think anybody has said that artists should not be compensated for their work. They invest labor in making something you find valuable, and basic ethics dictates that some compensation should be made when one person enjoys benefits of another's labor.

However, we've been kind of screwed over by publishers, where "we" means both consumers AND artists. They have insinuated this concept into our culture that an intellectual property asset should be treated exactly like a tangible asset. They were able to pull this off for a long, long time, because the publishers controlled production and distribution. People thus saw the medium and the content as synonymous. The thing that makes intellectual property different from tangible property is that intellectual property can be reproduced infinitely. In a tangible goods transaction, you have ten chickens and I have a dollar. I give you the dollar and you give me a chicken. You now have my dollar and nine chickens. In an intellectual property transaction, metaphorically speaking, I give you a dollar and you still have ten chickens. You can sell as many chickens as people want, for whatever price they'll pay, and at the end of the day you'll still have ten chickens. This is not an economically sound principle. Unlimited IP rights is literally like a license to print money. That's one reason the framers of the Constitution stipulated LIMITED intellectual property rights. The ability to make profit off your work encourages creation. The ability to charge infinitely for something at no incremental cost to oneself discourages creation, concentrates wealth artificially in the hands of intellectual property holders, creates monopolies, devalues currency and so forth.

Here's how I envision the life of a musician under a more reasonable system: You have your garage band, just like four or five other guys on your block. You play in the park on the weekend in your free time, while continuing to plan for getting a real job if necessary. People like your music, maybe toss some money in your hat. You use that money to print up some flyers to attract more people to your little weekend performances. Eventually, you become well-known enough locally that you can approach (or are approached by) local club owners. This brings you your first paying gigs, and gets you more attention, which gets you higher paying gigs and recognition in a wider area. As soon as your income from the music is high enough to cover the cost, you go online. Put MP3s of ALL your stuff on the web. Make them available through P2P yourself. Start putting your URL on the flyer, and mention it at your performances. Use your web stats to keep track of what people like from you, so you can be sure to play those at your performances. If you're actually good enough, you have the potential to become a star right now, through P2P and word of mouth. You can play to bigger crowds with people who will come in and pay money just to see you. Imagining that the labels didn't control the radio stations, you'd also get radio play, which is just more advertisement for your performances. At this point, you approach (or are approached by) my vision of "the labels," which are companies successful musicians hire to do advertising, arrange tours, handle merchandising, etc. "The labels" perform this service for a modest upfront fee and a contractually agreed upon percentage of the income for performances and merchandise.

You're now a successful music star. You've never mastered an album. You've never had to try to convince a stuffy record exec in a thousand dollar suit that you're the coolest punk thrash metal act in history. You've never signed your soul away to a publishing company. You've managed your own finances, and kept a very respectable percentage of them for yourself. And you've never sold anything intangible to anyone. You still have intellectual property rights and control. That's what you use to keep those loser guys down the street from copying your style once your music starts to catch on. But you never find yourself having to prosecute your fans for illegally downloading a riff from your biggest hit as a ringer for their cell phones.

See, what the labels are afraid everyone will figure out is that they're not really particularly necessary anymore. The Internet revolution has made many record industry jobs obsolete the same way that the industrial revolution made many manual labor jobs obsolete; the same way that the digital computer made many clerical jobs obsolete (bet you didn't realize "computer" used to mean a guy with a pencil and a roll of paper). Times change. The only difference is that the folks who feel endangered this time have far more money and power than those in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back