Heaven and Hell Records joins SOPA blackout

[J. Golden]

You had to go and bring the new Edguy album into this...

hey watch that here that might get stones cast at you. So let me say things like that for you, I can handle the backlash.

 

[dcowboys311]

Damn man the music worked would have been hell for you kids a couple of decades ago. Whatever would you have done?
I wonder how many kids in the 70s and 80s held that KISS, AC/DC, or Van Halen album in their hands and said "but if I had only heard the whole album already and not just that one song". I'm sure that caused many kids to put that record down, certainly the album sales reflect that.

Hearing one AC/DC song is enough for me to turn away from that band forever!!

 

[sicbeanie]

I wonder how people in other forms of entertainment deal with people sampling their works. Imagine if there were a place where people just got books for free and had access to the whole thing without paying the authors....what a crazy concept that would be lol. The book industry would be crushed.

It is actually becoming a problem with books being downloaded with the creation of the ipad, nook, kindle etc. Movies too, just because an actor may make a million a movie doesnt mean we should download for free. It is all going back to this new sense of entiltlement we currently have. It will eventually bring industries that rely on payment for artists (in any creative outlet) to a halt. Example (albeit not necessarily anyones cup of tea)- Stephanie Meyer (the twilight lady) decided to rewrite her twilight book from the point of view of the vampire. She gave 10 copies (each with minor changes so she knew who had what) to people she trusted to read and give her critisism and suggestions on. Keep in mind it was only the first couple hundred pages, but one of them leaked it on the internet and the next thing Stephanie knew her entire fanbase was downloading and reading it. It was not a finished copy, she wasnt expecting compensation, but the mere fact that people were so willing to "steal" it was enough for her to come out and say she was not finishing it and how disappointed she was.

"As some of you may have heard, my partial draft of Midnight Sun was illegally posted on the Internet and has since been virally distributed without my knowledge or permission or the knowledge or permission of my publisher.
I have a good idea of how the leak happened as there were very few copies of Midnight Sun that left my possession and each was unique. Due to little changes I made to the manuscript at different times, I can tell when each left my possession and to whom it was given. The manuscript that was illegally distributed on the Internet was given to trusted individuals for a good purpose.
I think it is important for everybody to understand that what happened was a huge violation of my rights as an author, not to mention me as a human being. As the author of the Twilight Saga, I control the copyright and it is up to the owner of the copyright to decide when the books should be made public; this is the same for musicians and filmmakers. Just because someone buys a book or movie or song, or gets a download off the Internet, doesn't mean that they own the right to reproduce and distribute it. Unfortunately, with the Internet, it is easy for people to obtain and share items that do not legally belong to them. No matter how this is done, it is still dishonest. This has been a very upsetting experience for me, but I hope it will at least leave my fans with a better understanding of copyright and the importance of artistic control.
In any case, I feel too sad about what has happened to continue working on Midnight Sun, and so it is on hold indefinitely." (stephaniemeyer.com August 28,2008)
Piracy is affecting all media outlets. SOPA/PIPA may not have been the answer but Id like to believe that some of the issues presented by them put into a better more defined bill would be a good thing. Nobody wants the government policing their every move, but something needs to be done. I am hopeful with more time in the next year something good that benefits the creative minds and those that have the ability (like Heaven and Hell Records) to get it out to the masses legally will come out of the SOPA/PIPA mess.

 

[nailz]

Hearing one AC/DC song is enough for me to turn away from that band forever!!

AC/DC has more than one song?

 

[nailz]

this new sense of entiltlement we currently have.

People keep saying this. I don't understand it. You think people feel they're entitled to free things?

It will eventually bring industries that rely on payment for artists (in any creative outlet) to a halt.

Hello 2012, this is 1980. We are holding your entertainment industry captive until our demands are met. We don't really know what those demands are, but they seem to center around halting and destroying all technological progression and implementation.

Keep in mind it was only the first couple hundred pages, but one of them leaked it on the internet and the next thing Stephanie knew her entire fanbase was downloading and reading it. It was not a finished copy, she wasnt expecting compensation, but the mere fact that people were so willing to "steal" it was enough for her to come out and say she was not finishing it and how disappointed she was.

Oh, the poor dear. Having made millions on poor writing, someone leaked a copy of her unfinished book and now she's depressed and miserable and no doubt using $50 bills to blow her nose and $100's to wipe away her tears.

I mean, seriously. Get over yourself. Yes, what happened sucks, and whoever leaked it should be held legally responsible and fined, but to entertain the idea that people are downloading and reading your work in such a multitude is oh so horrible and depressing? Fuck her. I'm sure any artist would give their right arm to be in that position, where people are so anxious for more of your product they're literally willing to read any unfinished tripe you put out.

She's probably not going to finish the book because it would sell too well and would no longer be a case against piracy.

just because an actor may make a million a movie doesnt mean we should download for free

Agreed. However, since it's clear that sales are tanking and piracy is a problem, then the products being released aren't worth the money to people spend their money on. The price points are wrong. To take a family of 4 to the movie theater could easily cost $75 a pop. To buy a movie on Blu-Ray is another $25. Cable is $175 a month in most places. Piracy is not affecting sales. Price point is.

This is what the ugly side of capitalism looks like. If the price is wrong, or out of reach for the majority of consumers, they will not buy it. But if it's available, they'll consume it.

The industry has to figure out how to get their products into the hands of the people in exchange for compensation. Not alienate their customer base with bribery and laws.

Frankly, I think this sums it up nicely.

 

[Magius]

Ensiferum vs Metallica. Metallica likely lost more money and Ensiferum lost money that they would have never had the opportunity to lose in the first place. Ensiferum would have never reached the level of success they have right now and I say that as an Ensiferum fan.

You have stats to support that?

Have you ever thought that maybe there isn't a market for band like Therion here in the states? No, no, no, it must be the piracy...it would NEVER be the cost involved in bringing a circus-sized operation to a metal club or the legal fees involved or the fact that they were an operatic metal band playing in Bumblefuck, Idaho. It was the piracy, dammit.

Actually, yes. That did occur to me, until someone said:

As someone who lives in Atlanta and is very active in the local metal scene, I can tell you right now that Arcturus and Therion will be big draws.
!

Old men singing about Denim and Leather not selling out arenas? What's with the state of the music industry?!?!

Seems fine when old men sing about Diamonds and Rust.

You know who went SIX TIMES PLATINUM in the 80's? Milli Vanilli. Show me their draw in the year 2012. What? You mean the show didn't sell out? Must be pirates.

For every band you suggest, there are bands who sell out shows just fine. Not every band will be selling out shows. That's how things were before piracy and that's how things will continue to be. It's called supply and demand. There isn't demand for those bands so no, they will not be as full -- piracy or no piracy. Unless the pirates have figured out ways to download the experience of being at a concert.

Interesting how the download community likes to have their cake and eat it too. Since the concert experience can't be downloaded bands need to tour to make money, increase their demand, and become successful, which will obviously work because they can sell t-shirts.
On the other hand they shouldn't make enough off of music sales to either pay for a tour or have a label support one.

I'm talented at sitting on my butt on forums all day long. I should use said talent to get rich! Despite the fact that there is a) no market for it or b) no viable way for it to happen. What a fucking slap in the face to anyone who ever picked up a keyboard with a dream!

What talent?

Plenty of people have picked up a keyboard and become rich. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple were all started by someone who picked up a keyboard with a dream.
Just because someone has an interest and desire to sit on their butt does not mean that they are financially able or that they should blame everyone else for their own financial difficulties (not pointing fingers at anyone specific).

I wonder how people in other forms of entertainment deal with people sampling their works. Imagine if there were a place where people just got books for free and had access to the whole thing without paying the authors....what a crazy concept that would be lol. The book industry would be crushed.

Yeah, the old library argument. That's always equitable, because we know libraries buy just one book, print unlimited copies, and give them away for people to keep.
That way when a new release comes out you can get it immediately, without having to wait 4 months as #72 on the waiting list, and read it unlimited times forever.

 

[dcowboys311]

You have stats to support that?

Nope.

Actually, yes. That did occur to me, until someone said:

Got me there! I stand by that claim when you compare Atlanta to the 9000 North American shows they played on their first tour in places ranging from Center Stage to Jack's Farm in Montana. [/quote]

Seems fine when old men sing about Diamonds and Rust.

Saxon's not as big as Priest. Never has been and never will be. The difference between the two is that Priest kept themselves in the public eye, musically or not.

Interesting how the download community likes to have their cake and eat it too. Since the concert experience can't be downloaded bands need to tour to make money, increase their demand, and become successful, which will obviously work because they can sell t-shirts.

You left out the part that I've said a few times -- I'm supporting downloading as a legitimate SAMPLING method, not a sole source of music acquisition. This isn't really relevant. But, since you seem to believe that illegal downloading is the primary source of acquisition for people these days, wouldn't that also translate to the primary source of music discovery? And do artists not receive money from ticket sales and merch sales? Like Duchess said, musicians have pretty much always received money from performances. Recorded music was a new income stream. Not the primary. We're seeing a 'return to roots' if you will -- the novelty has worn off.

On the other hand they shouldn't make enough off of music sales to either pay for a tour or have a label support one.

I never said they shouldn't. I said they shouldn't EXPECT to. IF someone can work the industry, more power to them!

What talent?

Your second good burn of the thread, lmao!

Plenty of people have picked up a keyboard and become rich. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple were all started by someone who picked up a keyboard with a dream.
Just because someone has an interest and desire to sit on their butt does not mean that they are financially able or that they should blame everyone else for their own financial difficulties (not pointing fingers at anyone specific).

And those people went into a growing industry with revolutionary ideas. Not into a dying, oversaturated industry with relatively nothing new to add to the plate. And you don't see the failed startups blaming everyone else.

Yeah, the old library argument. That's always equitable, because we know libraries buy just one book, print unlimited copies, and give them away for people to keep.
That way when a new release comes out you can get it immediately, without having to wait 4 months as #72 on the waiting list, and read it unlimited times forever.

Maybe I just have good success rates with libraries. I never really have to wait. And the 'unlimited times' -- again, this whole discussion has been about downloading as a viable sampling method. Not a justification to rip people off.



I hope none of the anti-downloading/sampling/whatever people have ever bought or sold albums through secondary markets. Artists see not a single penny from used CD sales and you receive the entire physical package!

 

[Dustin]

Wow…as usual, I opened a can of worms.

Some interesting articles I want to share…

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2012/01/quit_whining_about_sopa_and_pi.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/jan/19/behind-music-anti-piracy-legislation

Okay, first let me say that I do respect what you are doing as a musician. Hell, I've even bought a few Katagory V albums over the past years. I still would like the get the latest one. I am about to go do some shopping on Lance's website, so I may grab it there (if available).


However, with that said, what I also find equally laughable is how many of the "pro-SOPA" types go and crow on about how "nobody read the bill". Well, guess what? I DID read the bill, and as far as I am concerned, you could call it a rose and it still stinks like shit! After wading through all that legalese (why you think most people would rather just read the Wiki article anyway?), it did not change my mind one lick and still think it is big media and big government trying to take a mile just to save an inch.
Yes, I agree that something should be done about the piracy that is going on. At least I am seeing sensible things being done in recent years like offering up content for a more reasonable price in formats that people actually prefer (instead of locking it all up behind draconian DRM and charging as much or more for it than the physical copy).

Thanks, I really appreciate the kind words about the band ;-) and even though I still disagree with some of your statements concerning the industries lack of willingness to conform (which I believe they have, albeit begrudgingly), and government involvement, the fact that you have read the bill, and still feel it’s crap on a platter, has earned my respect about your opinion. I know most of the pro-SOPA’s like myself cried fowl on that, but in all honesty, You are the first person I have talked to who disagrees with it an actually sat through the legalese and said, “yup, still sucks.” Most don’t want to or care too read it… can’t blame them, it’s a boring read for a laymen. So I appreciate you taking the time to at least do that and stand your ground.

When it comes to government involvement with anything that is new or unregulated - from a conservative perspective - it is best to believe that people can police themselves and do the right thing and should be given the opportunity to do so, if they can’t or won’t, then and only then is when government intervention should come into play. So I will reiterate my point – after more than a decade of chances, the gate keepers of the web are not only uninterested in figuring this out, they are unwilling to and are fighting it in every possible way. Thus, why the bills were implemented into the house. Looking back through history, the government (even ones outside the U.S.) eventually goes through the motions of getting involved when there is a large enough public outcry about certain issues like consumer safety, personal welfare, criminal activity, and/or grave injustice and grievance, and either pass simple laws like a lemon law that is up to the individual to follow through on with little government involvement, or create government bureaucratic divisions to police things more closely and be heavily involved, much like the FDA, FAA, EPA, FCC and so on and so forth. Granted, these bills more than likely won’t see the light of day again, or might return a year or two later revised with less broad language, but at some point there is going to be a catalyst in the world of the interweb that will bring heavy government involvement to the internet, it definitely won’t be these bills in my opinion, and could be years away from happening, but it very well could be something else, and if history has anything to say about it, it will happen eventually. it’s still considered the wild west, and even the wild west had sheriffs. The internet technically does not have even that at this point.

…BTW – you mentioned DRM… I am seriously unaware the entertainment industry is STILL using that stupid protocol? If I’m not mistaken, I thought they stepped away from it years ago as an epic failure?

It's funny how you say you've read these bills, and want them passed based on your own perspective of "losing money to piracy" (lol no one would actually buy your shit who's downloading it for free anyway, but that's different.) I also wonder if you understand anything about how the internet works and how these bills would threaten it, beyond "stealing" from you.

ouch… touché’ good sir, touché’. yes, I know you were just generalizing.

As far as understanding how the internet works, I would be lying if I said yes. I’m not going to pretend to know. Do I understand the extreme details of DNS routing, internet protocol, NAP/POP so on and so forth? …not really. Here’s what I do understand about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-the-internet/2012/01/18/gIQA3dAP8P_blog.html

And I also happen to have a picture that sums up your comments on the twilight author and the disconnected entertainment industry. :Spin:

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for your art. Expecting your little compensation to be more important than the openness of the entire internet is flat out selfish. There can be, or should be, mechanisms to fight piracy that don't include infringing on the rights of hundreds of millions of people.
The recent Megaupload takedown has shown that the government already has the power to eliminate piracy strongholds. Do they really need even more power?

In the grand scheme of things, making a living, or even money, off of music is a relatively new concept. I'll leave my commentary on that out...just food for thought.

Interesting you bring up megaupload… the ONLY reason that site was taken down by the FBI without the SOPA bill, was that it had ties on American soil, thus justifying the FBI to gain the involvement of Interpol, and thus also allowing international arrests, otherwise it would still be up and running, unless someone else’s government wanted to take them down of course. The vast majority of Pirating sites do not have ties to the U.S., for example PirateBay, which is solely operated out of Sweden. There is absolutely nothing owners of intellectual property in the U.S. nor the FBI can do about that particular website unless they are dumb enough to erect a server or base of operation in the U.S. like Megaupload did.

Concerning musicians making money from their creative works be it digital or physical… you don’t think we at least deserve to generate an income that would pay ourselves back for the money spent to bring you what you enjoy so much? …or are we all stereotypically portrayed like this? LOL!

Sorry, I’ve always wanted to post that album cover when people complain about athletes making too much money… I felt it also now applies when anyone generalizes musicians the same way.

It's a completely different beast. I understand the plight of musicians trying to make a living because in this day and age, unless you already have a ton of money backing you, it's virtually impossible to make a professional recording worthy of being purchased by enough people to make up for the cost of recording. Basically, you lose more money than you make on the product. Add to it the fact that people will share your product without buying it, and yes, it's totally frustrating.


But I understand the risks, because it's not realistic to go into music with the purpose of making a living. It's sad but true, because some of the best musicians in the world are not the people we know by name. They're at home, working 9-5 jobs, and most of them can't afford to make professional recordings that might get heard by people.
Honestly, I just think people should go into music for the love of music, and not the desire to see money come out of it. You'll be a lot less stressed, that way.


And your music will probably be better, too. But of course, we all gotta follow our dreams. It's sad that money should be such an important element to those dreams.

you are correct in a sense, it should be for the love of it. Even before the digital age, I felt that anyone that got involved with music; it was because it was for the love for it, and I personally had (and still have) NO high expectations OR delusions of grandeur about “making it” or generating an income to live off of so I didn’t have to work a 9-5 job. However, I soon found out that it COSTS money to create and improve a competitive sounding recording that people will actually give a chance and possibly enjoy, as well as take seriously. Thanks to technological advances, it actually costs a fraction of what it used to 20, or even 10 years ago to record an album that sounds competitive.

However… the fact remains that it still costs money. In fact, everything from creating merchandise to playing live costs money. I found that the outflow of monies was far more than the inflow, even before the digital revolution. What my personal stance is on the piracy matter, and what I have personally experience over the last few years, is that it if it is effecting larger artists, labels, producers enough to cut “making their living” in half… then for those of us who are in the bottom ranks working day jobs and using our personal income from and/or savings to advance ourselves the costs, and are already barely make enough off of physical/digital/performance rights to even pay back HALF of the recording/performing costs… then we are now getting zero and/or officially going backwards with no sign of a return of any kind. It all trickles down hill. Initially what this means, is when the pie pieces get smaller, those already with the smallest cut will not get a cut at all.

I consider myself an economist as well as a capitalist, and with that being said, none of this seems worth the effort if you can’t, at the very least, pay yourself back for some of the money spent to create it. I know the word “profit” makes people cringe as if it was a swear word, but I find it disappointing that when it comes to intellectual property, the word profit, and sometimes even the word compensation = greedy, undeserving and uncouth… but when it comes to anything else out there that we all consume on a daily basis and spend money on, from bandwidth and fast food, to gasoline and a pair of Levi’s… it’s not a bad word, easily overlooked, and yet there is someone on the other end that is making a profit and being compensated from those things. I have a theory… I theorize that because intellectual property has become a disposable commodity in the digital age, and has no real “value” among the average music consumer, and as such, is why it has a negative attachment when it comes to the financial gains of it. There is now a sense of entitlement to it, as if it was water flowing from a fountain in a public park rather than bottled water at the corner store. If anything, the actual act of piracy itself very well may not be the root problem, but the attitude is has created among consumers over the last decade. Again, just a theory.

Yeah every downloader says they use it to sample a band before they buy it. I'm sure some do but most of the time we know as well as the person claiming that that it is total bullshit.
I can help but to think back to when us old folk bought albums going by the album cover; how would have Napster kids handled that?

I have a hard time with the "sampling" argument too. Bands put enough of their material on their websites/myspace/facebook/youtube that if you want to know what they sound like, you're able to find out without any trouble. If sampling is the goal, there's no reason at all to download an album.

I agree with you both on the sample before you purchase excuse. Yes, I also believe it to be an excuse, and always have. This subject seriously goes in circles every time it’s brought up on any forum and get’s beaten to death, flares up the tempers, with no real resolve because both sides of the debate feel they have some justifiable recourse. There is no human lie detector needed here, and there really are no stats to prove either side of the debate is fruitful or harmful. I can only underscore that for years now, when it comes to this subject, there is this annoying and massive gray area when it comes to downloading something for free to sample from any source OUTSIDE of the artist or label themselves - and weather or not it’s actually considered “owning” or “sampling”. There are several perfectly legal options to sample something before you buy it, have the ability to listen to it over and over anytime, anywhere, (especially if you have a smart phone) and be sure if it’s something you would like to buy. Considering all these free AND subscription streaming services cropping up, downloading a song or an entire album from any source other than the artist/label/distributor themselves for free to sample is becoming just that… and excuse. Sure, we can all take each others word at face value over this, but seriously, when it comes to average-Joe consumer, that is a lot of trust to ask for from the artist to believe actually is happening with their music. Again, free advertising and sampling? 10 years ago? Yeah, Maybe… today? No, I don’t think so.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear…. When it comes to pirating of music, I DO NOT believe that each illegal download = loss sale. That is incredibly stupid an arrogant for anyone in the industry to think that. However, what I do believe is that an illegal download = a lost opportunity. There is actually a big difference. So when it comes down to it, I am not complaining that my art is being outright stolen, I am complaining that I didn’t even get a chance to sell it in the first place. It is one thing to give someone a chance to sample it t their leisure (be it short clips or entire songs) and them pass on it or buy it. It is another to have someone just take it in it’s entirety, and decide to delete/keep it at their convenience, then take their word for it that they have every intention to buy it if they like it when in all reality, they already have it... and probably won’t.

Statistics. What a crock.
I know lots of people who download and never buy music, and they're not "music fans" who buy and support bands through concert tickets and merch. It's not just the Napster generation either, as I know 50+ year olds who do it or have their kids do it for them.

No one needs to "sample" a Bob Segar, Rolling Stones, or Beatles song. They know exactly which song they want and why they want it, and download it because they can have it for free. These people didn't stop buying music because some "novelty wore off," they stopped buying it because it's easy to steal it.The attitude is simply "Anyone who pays for something they can get for free is just stupid," which applies to music, movies, software, and anything else they can download
Downloading might help a little to get exposure in the underground scenes, but even there every song that's downloaded to an iPod without being paid for is money out of the artists' pockets. That's even more true for mainstream artists, since they don't need the exposure. Mainstream albums are downloaded for more than underground albums, and the losses are astronomical. Who do you think lost more money to downloads: Ensiferum or Metallica?

Facebook, MySpace, Pandora, Live 365, and host of legal online sources make the whole "need to sample" by downloading argument a convenient lie to justify stealing.

Bands don't make much money selling music anymore, because so few people buy it. So, a lot of bands now have to make a living touring and selling merch.


You don't think it's a sad state of affairs that a band has to invest a lot of money to release a CD so they have a basis for becoming traveling T-shirt salesmen?


Bands like Therion have tried to do US tours,and lost their butts. They tried twice, and finally gave up completely. I don't see where underground "promotion" helped them a bit. Maybe Therion isn't talented enough to deserve success.



Oh. Let's not forget that the house is going to take it's cut of whatever the band makes from merch.


Recorded music is relatively new, so now that it's old news musicians don't deserve to be compensated for their work. Musicians shouldn't strive to become successful and actually make money from their efforts. How dare anyone try to use their talents to get rich (Damn capitalists might become part of the 1% if that happens). Music if for listeners to enjoy and musicians should be happy to provide that entertainment as a money losing hobby. What a fucking slap in the face to anyone who ever picked up a guitar with a dream!

wow, don’t hold back! Sarcastic and blunt… but very well said. Thank you for standing up and pointing out the obvious that ironically, and obviously, get’s overlooked. you just earned yourself a free KV T-shirt/CD of your choice… shoot me a PM to collect your swag.

Anyway, attempting to get back on topic…

What these bills boil down when you strip away all the ethical pitfalls, is corporation vs. corporation with the government being the judge, jury and executioner, both sides stand to either gain or lose money from the passing or veto of these bills. I happen to be involved with the corporation that has been (and is still) losing money, so of course I am going to be biased to that end because it effects me as an individual concerning my rights that are being exploited without my permission. The easy way out for the tech giants and the internet gate keepers would be to stop fighting copyright holders, to come up with a solution to support our rights on an international scale, and help protect us from piracy under the laws that are written already, of which have been in effect for over a 100 years. Doesn’t that seem like a simple solution? Why is that so hard to do? If they could do all of that on their own accord… there would be no need for these bills, and government involvement would simmer down, if not just go away entirely. From day one, It seriously has been in the internet business (because it is a business) hands to decide if they want to help us as artists and intellectual property owners, or force us to give in to their whim in a fight… and as of now, they still would rather fight us all the way up to capitol hill. So when the public screams up a storm over internet censorship and government involvement; if you truly support us as artists as you say… wouldn’t it be just as logical to send a petition to the interweb gods and tell them you support artists rights to be compensated on their creation, and to fix this so the internet can stay free from government involvement? …or would you rather stick it to the greedy, over-feed entertainment industry, because free music/moves/tv shows too hard to give up and everyone would rather take their chances in D.C., if not now, possibly in the future?

As for myself, I would rather hope the tech giants would do what it took to keep the government involvement out and work along side us to ensure we are safe from piracy, but they don’t want to, they have absolutely no interest in doing that and feel it’s not their responsibility. Not one bit. So that begs the question…why? They have the ability to do so, and have admitted it in a judiciary hearing , so why not? If you dig deep enough you’ll find the answer to that question. It’s out there, ironically, on the internet. At that point, you’ll understand that there is a fine line between greed and capitalism in the corporate world, and no one is immune from being greedy. Not even the tech giants who created the internet. Just food for thought…

Which corporation do you side with? Which is the lesser of two evils? What is the real solution? ..and who is going to be hurt the most in the end regardless of the outcome? The consumer? Or the creator?

 

[J. Golden]

I hope none of the anti-downloading/sampling/whatever people have ever bought or sold albums through secondary markets. Artists see not a single penny from used CD sales and you receive the entire physical package!

Not in agreeance but you were arguing fine then you pull this out; seriously that is just stupid.

 

[nailz]

Not in agreeance but you were arguing fine then you pull this out; seriously that is just stupid.

Why is this stupid? It's true. Video games have started taking measures to make sure games must be activated by the buyer so once it's been sold, it can't be re-sold and used by a second party, thus eliminating "resale revenue loss".

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Why is this stupid? It's true. Video games have started taking measures to make sure games must be activated by the buyer so once it's been sold, it can't be re-sold and used by a second party, thus eliminating "resale revenue loss".

Except used video game sales is a HUGE market. I read somewhere it's like 30-40% of Gamestop's income. It's not really a fair comparison. It's also a pretty disgusting practice because games cost about 30 million bucks on average to make. The developer needs every sale. If a record company has a bad selling-record, they can drop the act and sign new talent, etc and it wouldn't be such a huge loss. However if a video game developer makes a poor selling game, even ONE, it could ruin the future of the entire company. In fact, I would probably argue that used game sales do far more damage than piracy because in the case of piracy, it could've been some kid with no money who wouldn't have otherwise bought the product. But buying a used game means actually putting money into a product, and the rights holder of that product sees no royalty for that transaction. That's absurd to me. I almost NEVER buy my games used.

Regarding music - it's a tricky battle. I am anti-SOPA because I don't think non-malicious sites deserve to be penalized for not moderating like the fourth reich is in session. That's not fair AT ALL. And you know what, the musicians like Duff Mckagen who complain that tech companies should suffer like record labels and record producers and bands have suffered is selfish as fuck. Two wrongs don't make a right. Honest and hard-working people don't deserve to suffer PERIOD. Whether they run a label, manage bands, produce bands, or run a blog, or are in a band themselves. Period.


That being said, I don't think that people are entitled to other people's intellectual property. I'm also not a fan of the argument that because the entertainment industry isn't doing as well right now, it should keel over and die, and tough shit. Do you really think Google will last forever? Do you think Apple will? Protip: Apple has been around for decades and has only seen success over the last 10 years. There will be new industries that will attempt to superseded the current ones, and while that's the nature of capitalism, nothing chaps my ass more than people who underestimate the arts. Like I said, I don't WANT the tech companies to suffer, but the fact of the matter is - at the end of the day there will be other enterprises that will create a better product. Art on the other hand, cannot be objectively superseded or replaced. It is something precious that should be protected. A world without music, film, literature, is not a world I want to live in. I think sites like Spotify are brilliant methods of curtailing piracy while providing income to rights holders. And I thought that the takedown of Megaupload was justified. Fuck Megaupload.

 

[nailz]

Thanks, I really appreciate the kind words about the band ;-) and even though I still disagree with some of your statements concerning the industries lack of willingness to conform (which I believe they have, albeit begrudgingly),

I'm generally interested in hearing what you know of the industries attempt to adapt to the new market.

the fact that you have read the bill, and still feel it’s crap on a platter, has earned my respect about your opinion.

I forget, have you actually sat down and read it yourself?

after more than a decade of chances, the gate keepers of the web are not only uninterested in figuring this out, they are unwilling to and are fighting it in every possible way.

This is so incredibly untrue it's not even funny to read it. Every time a DCMA was sent to a site, they would take down the violating content. If users of their services ended up throwing it back onto said website, well, all they can do is wait for another DCMA. Legit File Sharing Websites have made every conceivable effort to conform to the laws they are presented involving copyright infringement material.

Looking back through history, the government (even ones outside the U.S.) eventually goes through the motions of getting involved when there is a large enough public outcry.

Lol, right. Public Outcry. Certainly not Private Companies threatening to not pay politicians, right out in the open, as Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, head of the MPAA just threatened in a statement regarding their stance change on SOPA when the entire internet 'cried out' they were being fowled.

at some point there is going to be a catalyst in the world of the interweb that will bring heavy government involvement to the internet

That day, there will be riots of the people. You can't stop the flow of information.

ouch… touché’ good sir, touché’. yes, I know you were just generalizing.

Indeed, this wasn't a personal statement about your band. I don't even know who you are.

As far as understanding how the internet works, I would be lying if I said yes. I’m not going to pretend to know. Do I understand the extreme details of DNS routing, internet protocol, NAP/POP so on and so forth? …not really. Here’s what I do understand about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-the-internet/2012/01/18/gIQA3dAP8P_blog.html

This is what absolutely infuriates me. People who want to regulate, through laws, technology they have no understanding over. "I DONT KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND ITS SCARY SO LETS MAKE LAWS ABOUT IT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND."

Honestly, how can you be for a law to regulate something you are not educated on?! You don't understand the scope of this bill, you don't understand the consequences of this bill, you don't understand the concept or the purpose of the internet, and you don't really know what this bill will do other than "help stop piracy".


I have this picture someone recently shared with me that basically sums up my feelings about the Twilight Author's pity fest:

Interesting you bring up megaupload… the ONLY reason that site was taken down by the FBI without the SOPA bill, was that it had ties on American soil, thus justifying the FBI to gain the involvement of Interpol, and thus also allowing international arrests, otherwise it would still be up and running, unless someone else’s government wanted to take them down of course.

Of course, it had nothing to do with the 6 other governments involved, or the fact that MegaUpload was a money laundering cash cow front that seriously made every attempt to encourage pirating material by offering incentives for how much someone downloaded your link, and didn't offer long term storage for non-downloaded links.

Megaupload was a scumbag site, in short.

The vast majority of Pirating sites do not have ties to the U.S., for example PirateBay, which is solely operated out of Sweden.

You do know the pirate bay guys have been arrested and are currently in court, and that the Pirate Bay does not host any illegal content on any of their servers, correct? If the Pirate Bay is guilty of Copyright Infringement, so is Google.

There is absolutely nothing owners of intellectual property in the U.S. nor the FBI can do about that particular website unless they are dumb enough to erect a server or base of operation in the U.S. like Megaupload did.

Lol. Right.

I have a theory… I theorize that because intellectual property has become a disposable commodity in the digital age, and has no real “value” among the average music consumer, and as such, is why it has a negative attachment when it comes to the financial gains of it. There is now a sense of entitlement to it, as if it was water flowing from a fountain in a public park rather than bottled water at the corner store. If anything, the actual act of piracy itself very well may not be the root problem, but the attitude is has created among consumers over the last decade. Again, just a theory.

I also have a theory. Music Prices are too high to be sustainable by the current market structure, the over-engorged supply of music/bands and limited consumer demand. Your target market no longer has disposable income to purchase a $12 CD, a $25 tee-shirt, and a $15 concert ticket for 150 bands.

The easy way out for the tech giants and the internet gate keepers would be to stop fighting copyright holders, to come up with a solution to support our rights on an international scale

We don't live in a globalized world. You can't enforce laws of one country in another. That's chaos. Also, there already is a solution in place: the DMCA.

and help protect us from piracy under the laws that are written already, of which have been in effect for over a 100 years. Doesn’t that seem like a simple solution? Why is that so hard to do?

New laws need to be written, if that's the case, that make sense, and aren't a killswitch to the internet. No, it's not easy to do. Not even a little.

As for myself, I would rather hope the tech giants would do what it took to keep the government involvement out and work along side us to ensure we are safe from piracy, but they don’t want to, they have absolutely no interest in doing that and feel it’s not their responsibility.

Who, exactly are these "Tech Giants" your talking about?

Not even the tech giants who created the internet. Just food for thought…

You mean the US Government? LOL.

 

[dcowboys311]

you don't understand the concept or the purpose of the internet

porn

 

[freakchylde]

In regards to the Therion issue, I'd venture to say that they're marketing to the wrong crowd. I was very surprised when my little Goth brother got into a tizzy about ProgPower, only because Therion was playing. I'm more than sure, that if they marketed to the American Goth bunnies they'd probably make more money and get larger draws at their concerts. Not to mention, things like Convergence could more than pay for a trip to the US/Canada or the UK.

They're not the only band I could see having a cross-over, I was sure Nightwish could easily accomplish that, and they've more than done so. Ome concert of theirs I went to, was almost standing room only and it was a cross between ravers/goth/metal heads and emo whiners. Some of these bands really should widen their eyes.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I actually agree that Therion would do well with the Cradle Of Filth crowd. If I'm not mistaken, those bands have even go so far as toured together on a few occasions (at least in Europe anyways).

The problem with Therion now is that the act is simply too massive and expensive to put on every night to be making $500 a night opening for Dimmu Borgir and HIM, and the crowds aren't big enough to justify most promoters to pay for their show. Unfortunately, their situation is the product of an unstoppable force (in this case, the lack of demand) meeting an immovable wall (the band's inability to downsize its production and/or lower its earnings standards in the US - not hating, just sayin).

 

[SkiBumMSP]

Here is an interesting little gem that I found and an interesting angle on this whole thing:

Questioning Copyright


Now, I certainly agree that a musician (or any artist for that matter) should be able to sell their work and get whatever compensation they think they can get out of the market. And yes, the Constitution does offer a "Limited" Copyright. What I found issue is how the big media has perverted it to the point of utter ridiculous. 95 years or the author's life plus 70 years is hardly considered "limited" in my book - that is longer than just about anybody's lifetime.

I actually somewhat agree with much of what that article I linked there says. What the copyright holders should also realize is that, ultimately, the only reason they even have a copyright is by the will of the populace at large that hopes to encourage more creation of the arts by allowing a small, limited monopoly to the artist to their works. Abuse these copyrights enough and I can guarantee, the populace at large will be more then happy to pretty much say "fuck you" and take it all away. Seems we are starting to see this very thing happening, despite what ridiculous or draconian laws that may get passed. Passing laws like SOPA and PIPA will most likely not have one iota of an effect on piracy and only pretty much piss everybody off that wants to use the internet. To paraphrase that quote from Star Wars : "The tighter you squeeze, Commander, the more consumers will slip between your fingers".

However, with that being said, I still agree that there must be something that can be done to meet halfway. The problem is certainly not going away. Yes, I want to see artists/musicians get appropriate compensation for their works, but at the same time, I don't need my own rights trampled on just because some whiny labels/studios think they are not getting their maximum profits.

 

[Rycher]

Not wading into the prior discussions but I do have an additional thought for everyone.

Many of you are probably thinking of the immediate funds that a band would receive for just an album sale. There's also incidental income related to sales that you might not consider....

Bands need to show their labels that the album is selling in order for the label to offer additional tour support. A band signed to The End probably doesn't have a major-label budget for touring. If they can justify legitimate album sales (cd, digital), they can lobby for additional funds for touring expenses.

Every single illegal download hurts the band when it comes to obtaining money from a record label to fund a tour.

 

[nailz]

Except used video game sales is a HUGE market. I read somewhere it's like 30-40% of Gamestop's income. It's not really a fair comparison. It's also a pretty disgusting practice because games cost about 30 million bucks on average to make.

So I have this couch. I shoudn't sell this couch to someone else, because the couch company loses money, even though it's my couch, to do with what I wish, because I purchased it. If I can't resell the couch, it's never really mine to begin with.

The developer needs every sale. If a record company has a bad selling-record, they can drop the act and sign new talent, etc and it wouldn't be such a huge loss. However if a video game developer makes a poor selling game, even ONE, it could ruin the future of the entire company.

How is this the consumers problem?

In fact, I would probably argue that used game sales do far more damage than piracy because in the case of piracy, it could've been some kid with no money who wouldn't have otherwise bought the product.

Possibly, unless new price is significantly more than used price, of course.

But buying a used game means actually putting money into a product, and the rights holder of that product sees no royalty for that transaction. That's absurd to me. I almost NEVER buy my games used.

That fact has never bothered me. If I can get a game for 5$, vs 15$, guess which I'm gonna do. Of course, this point on a personal level is moot since almost all of my games I buy through steam.

Regarding music - it's a tricky battle. I am anti-SOPA because I don't think non-malicious sites deserve to be penalized for not moderating like the fourth reich is in session. That's not fair AT ALL. And you know what, the musicians like Duff Mckagen who complain that tech companies should suffer like record labels and record producers and bands have suffered is selfish as fuck. Two wrongs don't make a right. Honest and hard-working people don't deserve to suffer PERIOD. Whether they run a label, manage bands, produce bands, or run a blog, or are in a band themselves. Period.

This is what bothers me most about SOPA PIPA, and now ACTA. People taking laws written by corporations to protect their assets and fuck all to whoever they steam roll and turning them into laws for this country. It's not about the people, it's not about the little guy, it's about ignorant old men getting bribed. Dodd even said so himself.

That being said, I don't think that people are entitled to other people's intellectual property. I think sites like Spotify are brilliant methods of curtailing piracy while providing income to rights holders. And I thought that the takedown of Megaupload was justified. Fuck Megaupload.

Agreed totally.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

Except used video game sales is a HUGE market. I read somewhere it's like 30-40% of Gamestop's income. It's not really a fair comparison. It's also a pretty disgusting practice because games cost about 30 million bucks on average to make.

Okay, this is where I call bullshit! You are telling me that I am not allowed to sell that PS/3 copy of Red Dead Redemption that I just recently finally got through playing? Oh how about that I would like to play an older game that is long out of print. For example, I wanted to play the original Golden Sun game for the Game Boy Advanced. The only way I could get a copy was on the second-hand market, and it so happened that I found a copy for $5 at a local Gamestop. This is the same kind of bullshit that the RIAA was crying about back in the early 90's with regards to used CD sales.

The developer needs every sale. If a record company has a bad selling-record, they can drop the act and sign new talent, etc and it wouldn't be such a huge loss. However if a video game developer makes a poor selling game, even ONE, it could ruin the future of the entire company.

And they can go cry me a friggan river! Just like 'nailz' replied above - this is the consumers problem how?

In fact, I would probably argue that used game sales do far more damage than piracy because in the case of piracy, it could've been some kid with no money who wouldn't have otherwise bought the product. But buying a used game means actually putting money into a product, and the rights holder of that product sees no royalty for that transaction. That's absurd to me. I almost NEVER buy my games used.

Again, cry me a friggan river! I have no qualms about buying games (or just about any media for that matter), second hand. In fact, I went to buy a copy of Call of Duty and go figure that the ONLY copy that the local Gamestop had on hand was actually a USED copy! No problem for me to pocket the $10 savings I got - not my fault they did not have any more new copies on hand. But, I guess, in your world, I should've just denied myself the only copy that I could find in this town because, God forbid, I may be taking money out of those poor developers' pockets buying that second hand.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Okay, this is where I call bullshit! You are telling me that I am not allowed to sell that PS/3 copy of Red Dead Redemption that I just recently finally got through playing?

Where did I say that you're not allowed to do that? Find it for me please...

Though with that being said, from a legal standpoint no you're technically not. Here's why:

So I have this couch. I shoudn't sell this couch to someone else, because the couch company loses money, even though it's my couch, to do with what I wish, because I purchased it. If I can't resell the couch, it's never really mine to begin with.

The difference is that when you buy a couch, you buy a piece of furniture and you own that couch. The value of that couch comes from the materials, the physical labor being put in to make the couch, etc. When you buy a video game, you actually buy a "license" to play that game. The value of the game isn't the box or the disc (I mean yeah there's SENTIMENTAL value to that, but the disc and the box are not worth 60 bucks). The value of the game is the GAME, which is intellectual property and cost millions of dollars and staff to create. The making of a game does not come from quantifiable things (no physical materials), but rather intellectual creative talent. Whether you agree with that isn't up for debate because that's the fact. A developer has every legal right in the world to protect its IP from being resold. That's just the fact. Gamestop buys back and sells used games because it makes up a large portion of their business, and they could hold the games industry hostage by refusing to sell games if developers tried to sue them or whatever. Gamestop is actually an extremely shady company that pretty much broke monopoly regulations by buying out EBgames, but because of their power over developers, they get away with murder.

I mean really. When you watch a movie, start up a game etc, and you get the message that says "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT FOR PRIVATE CONSUMPTION ONLY, FAILURE TO COMPLY RESULTS IN A 250,000 DOLLAR FINE" (I'm paraphrasing) did you close your eyes each and every time?

Oh how about that I would like to play an older game that is long out of print. For example, I wanted to play the original Golden Sun game for the Game Boy Advanced. The only way I could get a copy was on the second-hand market, and it so happened that I found a copy for $5 at a local Gamestop.

You don't have a right to that game, as much as you think you do. Now, personally, I don't care about situations like these. I don't think purchasing USED out of print IP hurts anyone, but I'm being objective.

And they can go cry me a friggan river! Just like 'nailz' replied above - this is the consumers problem how?

I'm not even going to address this question from both you and nailz. If you can't figure out that the loss of content creators = the loss of art... well, you've missed the entire basis of this thread. And don't give me some nonsense like "if the comsumer wants the loss of art, then we should allow for that." NOBODY wants the loss of art. You try living in a world with no music, games, film, literature. I couldn't even fathom it.