Introductions First ... Then Some Apologies To The Band

[Austin4]

Hey kids! I'm a 32 year old retired musician in the Twin Cities area. I enjoy reading and really good movies. I love learning about who God is and the joys that music can bring to a person. I have a gorgeous wife and beautiful daughter and I would love to play music as my living again someday.

Now, on the apologies:

Almost 10 years ago I downloaded Enchant's ABoTW and immediately fell in love with the music. I had never heard of the band, but was blown away by the caliber of musicians, the soaring vocal melodies and the "enchanting" arrangements. Basically, I was hooked from the first note I heard.

As I got more and more into illegally downloading music and movies, I ended up with the entire Enchant catalog as well as almost 80 gig of music. It was getting to be an addiction. I seriously needed help. So I did the most honest thing I could think of. I gathered up all my illegally acquired media and literally tossed them in the garbage and deleted them from my hard drives. I am now currently on my way to purchasing the music I had listened to for all those years free of charge. And I have almost acquired the entire Enchant catalog .. again.

So, to Ted, Doug, Bill, Ed, and Sean; I'm sorry I stole your music. Forgive me and accept me as a hard-earned paying fan who wishes to support your endeavors.

- Aaron

 

[Soundscape]

hey Aaron..it's angra1 (Kyle)...no biggies. I know you were a fan of the band as I've seen you talk about them before. Anyway, welcome to the forum!

 

[Squall45]

It takes balls to delete that much music.

 

[ebass]

It takes even more balls to apoligize and come in here with that kind of honesty. You have made good in my book bro.

Welcome to the enchanted family. Hopefully we have another out soon you can buy in the stores or on i tunes or wherever we play.

E

 

[Squall45]

That it does. Austin, you have a lot of balls. Seriously though, nice job of admitting and fixing that.

 

[sharward]

My hat's off to you, Aaron. Most people who get in that deep can't see the light anymore.

 

[|ngenius]

I would take posts like this one more seriously, since this boy probably needs help in understanding which he believes that was a problem, and probably was perturbed for a long time. Mere fact of encouraging or congratulating him is reinforcing the seed of which actually troubled his mind.

Fact: downloading music from the net is not dangerous for the industry, nor for the musicians, and as long as you're not taking economical profit from it, you're just a kid exploring the vast universe of music.

I have downloaded tones of stuff, I have spended a great lot of money on purchasing those albums I considered worthy of being purchased, and I tell you, it's not just a couple, my collection is quite huge. I even puchased twice "J9OD10", just to have the special edition.

Now, this kid is actually apologizing for exploring and loving the music, someone should tell him that he has done nothing wrong. Those of us who love the music always spend their money on live shows, CDs, DVDs and more, so we would be grateful to the internet for opening a free way to checking before buying, instead of paying 17 € for some home made DVD (yes, Symphony X, I'm still angry!!!).

|ng.

 

[Austin4]

What I was apologizing for was not purchasing the music after enjoying it for so many years. And this for 300 + artists. I was not condemning downloading music for sampling and trial runs. That in itself is a healthy thing. The problem occurs when it becomes obsessive and not contributing to the artists income.

 

[|ngenius]

I understood, still you've done nothing wrong. Art is art, as a musician, I'd be proud of you if you tell me that you loved my songs, either you bought my CD or not.

Now, if we talk in terms of supporting that art, economically speaking, we should point at the industry and the unbalanced bussiness they run, as they're getting most of the income we DO pay, to invest it in new dresses for Shakira.

So this is how I see it: you've downloaded stuff over the years, and at some point you decided to say your little something and purchase for those albums you loved. End of the story, no apologies, no regrets. Feeling guilty because of that is going way too far, not to mention thrashing away all your mp3 collection, collection which surely increased your musical culture and opened your mind.

And as a little observation, if you ever went to any gig of those bands you used to listen to... you've supported them well enough.

|ng.

 

[sharward]

I'll weigh in on this some more.

Austin, you did wrong, recognized it, made good, and apologized. No one is perfect, but the more perfect ones correct their mistakes. I have nothing but respect for you.

I disagree with Ingenius on many points. Ingenius, I respect the fact that as an artist you take pleasure in your works being enjoyed by people, whether they paid for the privilege or not. As the owner of your works, you have the right to distribute it freely if you choose.

But to distribute the works of others without their permission is wrong, regardless of whether or not you profit from it -- and to receive the works of others being distributed without the permission of their creator/owner, that too is wrong.

Ingenius, what you're doing is something called "rationalizing behavior." Blaming the industry for what you determine to be "unbalanced" gives you the illusion of justification.

A crime committed that benefits the criminal and arguably in some ways might benefit the victim occasionally does not make the crime any less real.

The best way you can support an artist is to support his work, support the artist's wishes in the distribution of that work, and ultimately, purchasing his work. Artists (and labels) who wish to give away larger pieces of the work for free in an effort to attract more fans/supporters have the right to do so, moreso than you have the right to take what is not yours and what you have not paid for.

Just because technology makes something possible does not necessarily mean something is appropriate.

 

[|ngenius]

Step by step, my friend. First off, you said "crime", if understood as trespassing the laws, well, it is certainly a crime. I speed up to 130 km/h with my car sometimes, so yes, I'm a criminal. I even pissed on the street, and got caught, once. Got my point?

Now, does my crime actually damage anything?

The criminal (|ngenius) benefits himself and the victim (Enchant) profits from certain publicity that would be reasonably unreachable otherwise. In my particular case, I stumbled upon "Juggling 9..." on the internet, downloaded it, loved it, purchased it twice. I like deciding by myself, it's fun.

Does Enchant have more or less success because of the internet?

Being the victim some other "bigger" band (Dream Theater? Marillion?), would the criminals purchase (for sure) all their discography if there wasn't any chance of downloading? I don't think so, they have just the chance to do it so, and still they preserve their force of will. On the other hand, they overcome the old media (TV, radio) and have rather more presence on the net, so it is up for more people to have the chance of purchasing if they want to.

Does Dream Theater have more or less success because of the internet?

Are they really losing sales or just counting those albums they could potentially sell?

Finally, being the owner of any kind of art entitles you to say that you've done it and decide over it, still nobody hunts me down when I look at The Eiffel Tower. I won't try to build the same tower and sell it to anyone, don't worry.

|ng (THE Criminal)

P.S: Yeap, I'm rationalizing, I don't like to hang around compelled solely by impulse.

 

[sharward]

"Does Dream Theater / Enchant have more or less success because of the Internet?"

Perhaps the question should be rephrased: "Does Enchant / Dream Theater have more or less success because of illegal music sharing on the Internet?" I would say that overall, factoring all positives and negatives, illegal music sharing has hurt them. Of course there are some positives, such as those who illegally copy complete songs for themselves to evaluate and possibly enjoy and possibly purchase legitimately in the future... But just because there may be some benefits, it is not the band's wish nor their labels' wishes, so therefore it is wrong.

The Eiffel Tower analogy is a silly one in my opinion, but I'll go with it -- admiring the tower from the outside is in the public domain, but if there is a fee charged to go into it, then it would be wrong for someone to erect a ladder beside it to gain entry without paying the fee, even if some gaining illegal entry later decided the view was worth the fee and then voluntarily paying it upon leaving.

I really think that with the availability of today's Internet tools to musicians, bands, and labels, such as MySpace, where it is possible to listen to selected complete songs without charge, and Amazon.com and other music sellers that feature sound clips and vigorous cross-referencing of music the visitor may not have known about, not to mention Google and message forums like this one, bands do not "need" illegal music sharing to spread awareness of their work.

Even though you might be able to point to limited circumstances where limited individuals of illegal music sharing may benefit, it doesn't make it right.

 

[|ngenius]

Well, I'm sorry if I was too ironic with my analogies, looking at my post, I see it could appear kinda aggressive, when I just intended to make it less serious.

So, although we have different opinions, we match some points:

- It is admitedly illegal.

- It benefits some people in both sides of the game (sometimes, if you want).

And some others perhaps you would agree with as well:

- It has changed the market substantially, and the customers have gained a lot with it (i.e: extra features that come along with the albums, the myspace features that you mentioned...).

- Availability to unreleased/vinyl/out of catalog albums, which otherwise would be lost forever.

Now, if the fact of downloading music is the reason for a band to sink, then I would agree with you completely. However, it is pretty clear that over the years there were many other decisive factors for that to happen (i.e: those hundreds of hard rock bands set apart by radio stations and industry in order to support grunge in early 90s, for example, nothing to do with the internet).

I think that in the 80s we all had a friend who taped down everything we bought. Nowadays, the same guy downloads it all. Again, no internet involved.

|ng.

 

[sharward]

I'll admit to having done a small bit of tape dubbing between friends in my younger years. I had a sense that it was wrong then too, but at least the quality was poorer than the original and we knew each other. It was a personal connection.

Nowadays it's peer-to-peer networks where few people know whim they're sharing with. That phenomenon and the arguments against it struck a chord with me - it was the catalyst to a foundational respect I enhanced in my mind regarding a certain sacredness of the rights of the publisher. It put all copyright infringements into perspective for me.

Bottom line on my thinking is that if record labels are making a mistake by holding onto a supposedly outdated and arguably flawed model of purveying music with today's technology, it's their prerogative to make it.

A word about out-of-print works - sometimes such works are rereleased or repackaged in compilations. I submit that someone who already has the individual pieces illegally obtained via peer-to-peer file sharing has little motivation to purchase a compilation of those pieces, so I believe P2P actually hurts publishers of discontinued works by diminishing their marketability. Yes, they may be kept "alive" in the sense that they're distributed and listened to again, but that comes at a price to the owner of the works.

I appreciate your respect of my view and for indulging my arguments. I hope they've been at least somewhat persuasive.

You should see the knock-down drag-out debates I get into with friends who get ahold of new releases before they're available to the public while they're awaiting their Amazon preorders. It's tough to argue on principle when they've already paid for the works and all I have to go on is the wishes of the label/band - but I manage!