Controversial opinions on metal

[Serjeant Grumbles]

One can download out of print material and then purchase it when it is reprinted.

I actually said that I don't want the TV because I already have enough TVs for my home. Just like I don't need to download music because I own enough and can buy more if I want it. Thanks for your time though.

Your exact words, bold for emphasis:

I don't want it. I already own two large 4K resolution flat screen TVs and I don't have anywhere to put a third one. It also doesn't belong to me.

Even if it was just an afterthought, I don't see how saying "it doesn't belong to me" would not imply that you consider dumpster-diving to be theft.

 

[Baroque]

Your point was that there wasn't a difference between using Youtube and listening multiple times, and downloading a song to listen multiple times. I proved that was certifiably false.

You then went on to post a lot of stats that didn't even end up really supporting your claim anyways; you can't claim the two things are the same when 39% of Americans would disagree with you.

You can feel free to joke about my cell phone (lol) all you like. Go for it, I do the same sometimes too. But bottom line is, you were wrong and made a shit point. Lmao. Try to accept it gracefully.

Go back and re read my point, I was clearly talking about PCs since I mentioned hard drives and modems. You're the one that brought up your cell phone's lack of data which you assumed was the norm. To which I loled and proved you wrong that you're actually in the minority.

 

[CiG]

What I was getting at is that the band is getting kickbacks for their studio costs from album sales, so even if a profit isnt made, the band is still seeing your money. As for the labels knowing whether they will make a profit or not, id imagine that this isnt exactly known beforehand. Shitty bands not being offered contracts is fine by me tbh.

It's not a matter of quality. Example: it's the 80's and downloading is as common as it is today, if everybody downloaded Slowly We Rot we would likely not see Cause Of Death follow, or we would see it follow with a different, smaller label with a smaller studio budget, regardless of quality.

Bands for the most part don't get profit from album sales until they move up into the mass consumer market of mainstream music.

You mean the sheer legality of it, or that it is unethical? It's probably illegal, but I dont think there are ethical ramifications that should be worried about.

I actually don't care so much about the legality of it, I care about the ethics. It feels wrong.

 

[Baroque]

It's not a matter of quality. Example: it's the 80's and downloading is as common as it is today, if everybody downloaded Slowly We Rot we would likely not see Cause Of Death follow, or we would see it follow with a different, smaller label with a smaller studio budget, regardless of quality.

Bands for the most part don't get profit from album sales until they move up into the mass consumer market of mainstream music.



I actually don't care so much about the legality of it, I care about the ethics. It feels wrong.

Counterpoint is that we also might not have had Cause of Death without the tape trading scene popularizing the band among metalheads. Illegal listening be it YouTube, downloading or cassettes is important to a band's exposure. Many young bands realize this and give away their first album free, or stream albums.

 

[CiG]

That's a good point which I fully accept, but those tape trading scenes didn't trade illegally dubbed albums but rather self-released demos and rehearsals. So it doesn't quite follow.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... we used to trade plenty of dubbed tapes back in the days dude

 

[Baroque]

That's a good point which I fully accept, but those tape trading scenes didn't trade illegally dubbed albums but rather self-released demos and rehearsals. So it doesn't quite follow.

Sure, trading tapes or trading songs on napster, what's the difference? Either way the prior owner is likely to keep a copy for themselves, duplicating tapes was rampant

 

[MrTagoMago]

Bob Dylan is more metal than Madonna.

 

[Baroque]

... we used to trade plenty of dubbed tapes back in the days dude

Yeah definitely

 

[CiG]

... we used to trade plenty of dubbed tapes back in the days dude

You missed Baroque's point, he says that without tape trading, bands might not have even gotten a contract for their debut. People trading dubbed versions of a debut couldn't by definition help a band get signed to record that debut, since it obviously already exists.

 

[Baroque]

You missed Baroque's point, he says that without tape trading, bands might not have even gotten a contract for their debut. People trading dubbed versions of a debut couldn't by definition help a band get signed to record that debut, since it obviously already exists.

What I didn't say that

Cause of Death is not their debut dude

 

[CiG]

What I didn't say that

Cause of Death is not their debut dude

So you're saying that people dubbed Slowly We Rot and spread it around which likely helped Cause Of Death to be recorded? That's strange logic. It was more likely that the shows and tours that Slowly We Rot kicked off that helped their popularity = sophomore contract.

Sure, trading tapes or trading songs on napster, what's the difference? Either way the prior owner is likely to keep a copy for themselves, duplicating tapes was rampant

Tape trading started with bands sending out their own demos or rehearsals, the intention being that it's free. The free sharing of music by the actual artists themselves.

 

[Baroque]

So you're saying that people dubbed Slowly We Rot and spread it around which likely helped Cause Of Death to be recorded? That's strange logic. It was more likely that the shows and tours that Slowly We Rot kicked off that helped their popularity = sophomore contract.



Tape trading started with bands sending out their own demos or rehearsals, the intention being that it's free. The free sharing of music by the actual artists themselves.

1) yes, the band needed funding to make a 2nd album

2) that's not what tape trading was in general. That's not the kind of tape trading I was talking about. It was friends giving friends dubbed tapes like we share YouTube links now.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I posted an article a couple of years back that covers a lot of what you guys are talking about with regard to downloading, intellectual property and the state of the music industry. Steve Albini offers a pretty interesting perspective:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...nis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

"So there’s no reason to insist that other obsolete bureaux and offices of the lapsed era be brought along into the new one. The music industry has shrunk. In shrinking it has rung out the middle, leaving the bands and the audiences to work out their relationship from the ends. I see this as both healthy and exciting. If we’ve learned anything over the past 30 years it’s that left to its own devices bands and their audiences can get along fine: the bands can figure out how to get their music out in front of an audience and the audience will figure out how to reward them.

The internet has facilitated the most direct and efficient, compact relationship ever between band and audience. And I do not mourn the loss of the offices of inefficiencies that died in the process. I suppose some people are out of work. But the same things happened when the automobile replaced the horse, and all the blacksmiths had to adapt, spending their time making garden gates rather than horseshoes."

"From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to.

There is great public good by letting creative material lapse into the public ownership. The copyright law has been modified so extensively in the past decades that now this essentially never happens, creating absurdities whenever copyright is invoked. There’s a huge body of work that is not legally in the public domain, though its rights holder, authors and creators have died or disappeared as businesses. And this material, from a legal standpoint now removed from our culture – nobody may copy it or re-release it because it’s still subject to copyright."

 

[CiG]

1) yes, the band needed funding to make a 2nd album

2) that's not what tape trading was in general. That's not the kind of tape trading I was talking about. It was friends giving friends dubbed tapes like we share YouTube links now.

I don't see how illegally dubbing owned material helped Obituary get a follow up contract for their sophomore.

 

[Baroque]

I don't see how illegally dubbing owned material helped Obituary get a follow up contract for their sophomore.

People heard it illegally, then paid to see obituary live. Or they bought an obituary shirt. Or they bought the album proper. Or they passed it onto 3 more friends and one of them bought it. If those people never heard the album the band would have never made these sales. Tape trading was free marketing really. Dubbed tapes were often poor quality like YouTube videos..

 

[CiG]

People heard it illegally, then paid to see obituary live. Or they bought an obituary shirt. Or they bought the album proper. Or they passed it onto 3 more friends and one of them bought it. If those people never heard the album the band would have never made these sales. Tape trading was free marketing really. Dubbed tapes were often poor quality like YouTube videos..

There is no way to prove this line of argument though, if it is true then I would say it's likely quite unimportant in how Obituary got their sophomore contract. If only there were stats on sales upon release.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Your exact words, bold for emphasis:


Even if it was just an afterthought, I don't see how saying "it doesn't belong to me" would not imply that you consider dumpster-diving to be theft.

Not sure how obvious I have to make it that I was talking about the TV exactly like I would an album that is OOP since he insisted on using that analogy to try to act like I was dumb for not wanting to download an album. I don't own it so I won't take it. I explained this to you already despite it being obvious in the first place. Again, thanks for your time.

 

[Baroque]

There is no way to prove this line of argument though, if it is true then I would say it's likely quite unimportant in how Obituary got their sophomore contract. If only there were stats on sales upon release.

I don't think it really needs proving, having lived through it and seen it happen personally, but if you don't want to believe it fine. Also it's not just the financial support but people supporting the Style of music, that's very important. they were getting loads of positive feedback from tape traders and others which helped encourage them to make another album in the style.

 

[CiG]

Hearsay arguments in this vein just don't interest me. I prefer proof.