METALLICA HATERS

[Grazydine]

is there really any proof that downloading is significantly damaging the revenue of the music industry??

that's what I would be interested in (I would research right now but I'm writing a paper for school)

It probably isn't now but in a few years it prolly will be (too tired to look) lol , doesn't matter to me i'd like to see those bastards go out of business anyway. Internet downloading and sneaking will increase untill somethings done about it. In a way it's a good thing but if not controlled it wil go crazy and it will get so a touring or working musician can't afford enough money to buy a roll of toilet paper after selling two million records. I wouldn't be any more upset if someone stole all my demos at a show after dropping a couple thou, than i would be if they downloaded all my shit without my knowledge.

 

[Wires & Waves]

Whinges and Waves, I'm going to stop trying to counter your ever-shifting, ever-crumbling tide of horrible arguments, for you'll just dance around the responses and will never produce any decent reasoning to support your claim.

The reasoning is this: the concept of "intellectual property" exists primarily to serve the interests of those who seek to control cultural discourse for their own profit-motivated ends. It's a HORRENDOUS affront to freedom when only those who can afford to are permitted to participate in cultural discourse, and even then they're only permitted to under the terms dictated by those with the power to do so.

The folk musicians of thousands of years ago didn't pay tens of thousands of dollars for equipment and studio expenses, did they? Trying to equate music of communal expression and celebration to art created to sell as a product is about as fortuitous as saying that all white people are of the same ethnic makeup.

Stop trying to conflate the concept of music with things peripheral to the music itself.

Not letting people download your song hardly amounts to a "detriment [to] the good of society as a whole," so that's where your argument dies. This argument works for other things such as **************s, advancement in agricultural technology, etc., but you'll have your work cut out for you trying to put forth a coherent argument defending the right to download music as a necessity for "society as a whole."

Don't you think art is an important element of a healthy society?

 

[Demilich]

I hear vinyl sales have increased exponentially every year since the introduction of convenient music downloading.

To be honest, no matter how strongly I disagree with W&W's specific argument, I once downloaded most of my music, but eventually deleted it all, and now keep only mp3 rips of albums that I own. I do continue to listen to samples on myspace and occasionally listen to a rip someone else has downloaded in cases of bands that I like and am pretty sure I'm going to buy the album. I guess if anyone shows up wanting to sue me for it I'll just let them give it a go!

 

[skeptik]

There is more than enough art of various sorts readily available in the public domain. Not letting people download songs that are copywrite protected hardly falls under the category of "a detriment to society."

 

[More Murder]

Would it really hurt you that much if someone decided to download a cd before they bought it?

 

[charles_dexter_ward]

i solely download music because i'm poor and i like books and alcohol

 

[Demilich]

The reasoning is this: the concept of "intellectual property" exists primarily to serve the interests of those who seek to control cultural discourse for their own profit-motivated ends. It's an affront to freedom when only those who can afford to are permitted to participate in cultural discourse, and even then under the terms dictated by those with power.

Your whole "waah intellectual property is a tool of the evuhl music industry!" schtick is tired rhetoric and nothing more. Nothing you can say negates an artist's connection to the art he or she has created. (Now, if the artist signs over property of their songs to a record label or third party, they can writhe and whine all they want about it and I won't be writing a word to defend them) If its honestly such a concern for you, stop trying to conflate the concept of music with things peripheral to the music itself.

Stop trying to conflate the concept of music with things peripheral to the music itself.

Yes, this is a lot easier than actually taking the time to respond to what I say, but it does far less to actually make a point against it

Don't you think art is an important element of a healthy society?

Does this have *anything* to do with the issue? Am I in any way proposing or suggesting the benefits of a society without art or with limited access to art? Music can be heard in many places in public without paying for it. People can have it if they wish, in stores, elevators, malls, restaurants, free performances, street musicians, etc. Do you honestly believe that charging for cds is some horrible injustice that is destroying our society?

 

[skeptik]

Nowhere did I say that people should not download music. I was posing an argument in defense of musicians having a right to protect their material from being illegally downloaded. The issue is far more complex than to give such a black and white answer.

 

[Wires & Waves]

There is more than enough art of various sorts readily available in the public domain. Not letting people download songs that are copywrite protected hardly falls under the category of "a detriment to society."

you're looking at this in quantitative terms and it just doesn't work like that. if even a single work than could theoretically be an important element of cultural discourse is controlled by capitalist interests, that's one too many.

 

[Wires & Waves]

Your whole "waah intellectual property is a tool of the evuhl music industry!" schtick is tired rhetoric and nothing more. Nothing you can say negates an artist's connection to the art he or she has created.

Well we essentially have a fundamental difference of philosophy here. I don't believe anyone has any right to lay claim to ownership of any idea, regardless of their role in its creation.

Yes, this is a lot easier than actually taking the time to respond to what I say, but it does far less to actually make a point against it

The expense of creating music has nothing to do with the right of ownership to it. You're looking at things from a pragmatic capitalist perspective that I fundamentally disagree with.

Does this have *anything* to do with the issue? Am I in any way proposing or suggesting the benefits of a society without art or with limited access to art? Music can be heard in many places in public without paying for it. People can have it if they wish, in stores, elevators, malls, restaurants, free performances, street musicians, etc.

Ignoring the fact that I was responding to Dodens Gray, see my previous post for my response to this.

Do you honestly believe that charging for cds is some horrible injustice that is destroying our society?

Jesus fucking Christ did you not see where I fucking said there was nothing wrong with selling CDs? Do you even bother to read my posts?

 

[skeptik]

you're looking at this in quantitative terms and it just doesn't work like that. if even a single work than could theoretically be an important element of cultural discourse is controlled by capitalist interests, that's one too many.

That is an absurd claim. You have no rights allowing you to unlimited access to various arts just as much as you feel that owners of intellectual property rights should not have the right to prevent people unlimited acces to their arts.

I don't believe anyone has any right to lay claim to ownership of any idea, regardless of their role in its creation.

Do you ever plan on elaborating on this or you content with continually restating it?

 

[Demilich]

I think you vastly misinterpret my argument if you believe that I am attempting to defend an intrinsic right to intellectual property. Such a thing has no more basis in reality than tenuous concepts such as "international human rights." I simply see this from the point of view of an artist rather than a frustrated consumer attempting to justify a medium that bankrupts the very independent artists who are often considered the zenith of innovation within a society to begin with. My belief that the artist deserves some control over the dissemination of his work is not inextricably bound to the concept of intellectual property. I think you're getting caught up on unnecessary dualisms here.

Jesus fucking Christ did you not see where I fucking said there was nothing wrong with selling CDs? Do you even bother to read my posts?

I think at this point you'll say pretty much anything to try to hold the pieces of your ill-concieved argument together. You don't see a problem with selling cds, yet ANY SINGLE deprivation of a work that could be considered of cultural significance is too much? Hypocrisy bears many faces...

 

[Grazydine]

i solely download music because i'm poor and i like books and alcohol

Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner !

 

[Wires & Waves]

That is an absurd claim. You have no rights allowing you to unlimited access to various arts just as much as you feel that owners of intellectual property rights should not have the right to prevent people unlimited acces to their arts.

My point is those rights to unlimited access should exist because it would lead to a healthier society. We live in a society where most media, and certainly the vast majority of popular media, is controlled by capitalist interests who seek to subjugate us into roles as passive consumers, rather than active agents in a multidirectional cultural discourse. On top of that, access to what castrated ability to interact in that discourse we have is restricted to those who can afford to do so.

Do you ever plan on elaborating on this or you content with continually restating it?

I already did elaborate on it. How about you back up the counterargument with a better case than "That's how it is now"?

 

[Demilich]

I find it humourous that W&W's seemingly ceaseless candor and tenacity in defending his belief would dry up awfully quickly if there were a physical and immediate embodiment of authority waiting to slap him on the wrist when he proceeded to liberate a cultural artifact from the grip of the tyrants!

 

[Wires & Waves]

My belief that the artist deserves some control over the dissemination of his work is not inextricably bound to the concept of intellectual property. I think you're getting caught up on unnecessary dualisms here.

Perhaps not, but I still disagree, because I don't look at this in terms of profit and loss. I do appreciate that artists need to make a living, and I do believe they deserve compensation for their work and that's why I buy CDs. But if the absence of profit is enough to stop them from producing art, then good riddance.

I think at this point you'll say pretty much anything to try to hold the pieces of your ill-concieved argument together. You don't see a problem with selling cds, yet ANY SINGLE deprivation of a work that could be considered of cultural significance is too much? Hypocrisy bears many faces...

I don't see how that's contradictory, given that there are other avenues through which music is made accessible for free, regardless of if they're selling CDs or not.

 

[Wires & Waves]

I find it humourous that W&W's seemingly ceaseless candor and tenacity in defending his belief would dry up awfully quickly if there were a physical and immediate embodiment of authority waiting to slap him on the wrist when he proceeded to liberate a cultural artifact from the grip of the tyrants!

Again, other avenues. If, under your analogy, my proposed actions were the only way in which I could freely disseminate the work, then yeah I might be a little more passionate about it. If all methods of sharing music other than corporate-controlled avenues were locked off, then yeah I probably would react a little more negatively to the idea of selling CDs. But until that's the case it seems pointless to get all up in arms put oneself at risk for no reason.

 

[Demilich]

But if the absence of profit is enough to stop them from producing art, then good riddance.

In a lot of cases I'd agree with you there, but I'm sure it isn't as simple as that in most cases. I'm sure some artists are financially unable to produce art without some of what they make back in album and merch sales. Keep in mind I'm thinking of independent artists when I say this, just for the sake of keeping the discussion as far removed from the music industry as possible.

I don't see how that's contradictory, given that there are other avenues through which music is made accessible for free, regardless of if they're selling CDs or not.

When Necuratul suggested the exact same thing (that there are other avenues of experiencing art), you lambasted him for

looking at this in quantitative terms and it just doesn't work like that. if even a single work tha[t?] could theoretically be an important element of cultural discourse is controlled by capitalist interests, that's one too many.

Is each CD sold one to many, or is it not?

 

[skeptik]

My point is those rights to unlimited access should exist because it would lead to a healthier society. We live in a society where most media, and certainly the vast majority of popular media, is controlled by capitalist interests who seek to subjugate us into roles as passive consumers, rather than active agents in a multidirectional cultural discourse. On top of that, access to what castrated ability to interact in that discourse we have is restricted to those who can afford to do so.

I hardly feel that the immediate availability of every piece of art ever created is essential to creating a cultural discourse. I also don't feel that this unlimited availability would necessarily lead to a "healthier society." We are not discussing the role of popular media and capitalist practices, we are discussing an artist's right to control his own property. And access to everything in the world is restricted to those who can afford to do so.

 

[Wires & Waves]

When Necuratul suggested the exact same thing (that there are other avenues of experiencing art), you lambasted him for

Is each CD sold one to many, or is it not?

He was referring to music that has been made available for free legally. I'm referring to (primarily) illegal avenues, e.g. filesharing. Perhaps this isn't so applicable to the analogy you used, but I honestly am not familiar enough with how the visual art world works to say. Sure, flash photography, videotaping etc. might be disallowed for practical purposes, but is it really common at all to restrict the free distribution of prints, etc.? Art magazines have that shit in them all the time, I can't imagine they're paying hella licensing fees.