[Sunday Business Post] Irish music industry hit by downloading (1 Viewer)

[broken arm]

are records still made of PVC?

 

[pete]

Not so - ireland is a signatory to international convention on the subject as well as being subject to EU directives, so it would take more than a whim. The 70 years relates to the period of copyright after the author dies, so for the author themselves it is a permanent right.

and none of which precludes the duration from being revised downwards, however unlikely that may be - it was revised upwards in the US, thanks in no small part to sonny bono acting to protect the interests of disney. specifically, mickey mouse.

 

[theoootini]

The suggestion of a flat rate "music tax" on broadband connections has been suggested more than once, something like the blank tape levy in canada(?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Blank_music_CDs_and_recorders

canada has some kind of a tax on blank cds which are specifically for music.

and another thing...

Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U.S.

 

[Vinnie]

and none of which precludes the duration from being revised downwards, however unlikely that may be - it was revised upwards in the US, thanks in no small part to sonny bono acting to protect the interests of disney. specifically, mickey mouse.

What exactly are you trying to argue? I mean in general. Of course the copyright duration could be revised downwards. What difference does that make?

 

[Vinnie]

Is the point that us artists have the people to thank for our work having any value to begin with? Should we be paying the public money?

 

[billygannon]

Is the point that us artists have the people to thank for our work having any value to begin with? Should we be paying the public money?

Yes. To support other artists.

 

[egg_]

From here : http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029

This is how any band I'm in will release music from now on, budget permitting.

I'm starting to lean that way myself, despite having laughed at vinyl snobbery a lot since I discovered thumped, and despite not owning a turntable. What have people's experiences of selling vinyl as opposed to selling CDs been? Is it easier/harder to sell?

The way this thread is unfolding, it seems the future market for physical copies of recorded music is going to be limited to oldsters and music nuts like you find on thumped.

I dunno though. We have some teenage fans, and while I don't think many of them own an actual copy of our album I'd expect when they eventually get jobs they'll probably buy it. Not on vinyl though

 

[RED(tape)MENACE]

including mp3 coupons?

Including mp3 versions of the songs.
There's no accounting for taste, like.

Large Mound did it that way. Now buy our vinyl people!

How did you do the digital side of it? (remind me, I've forgotten).

 

[RED(tape)MENACE]

We have some teenage fans, and while I don't think many of them own an actual copy of our album I'd expect when they eventually get jobs they'll probably buy it. Not on vinyl though

You're probably right.
Imagine a kid having grown up on mp3s and youtube sound hearing an amazing album on vinyl for the first time though...

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Exactly - copyright is a temporary right granted by society (in the form of the government) to the creators of the works. It's not some absolute, inalienable, allah-given right.

Nail on head!

Whether people like the idea or not technology has irriversably broken the copyright arrangement as it stands.

What we are seeing now is the beginning of the death of that arrangement. The grotesque sight of record companies sueing kids for sharing, the hugely polarised views on this thread - Stealing vs Sharing, make it clear that the system as it stand is ill - terminally fucking ill in my view.

This is not the same as saying an artist should produce art for free.

A mechanism will have to be found to compensate the artist for his work and allow him to enjoy the benefits of it, I'm not entirely sure what that is yet - micropayments, music licence fees, who knows, however artists will just have to accept that digital duplication is a fact of life and they are just never going to able (or society as a whole are never going to allow them) to directly recover a royalty on this duplication.

This is not stealing anymore than whistling along to the radio you hear through someones open window is stealing. Society as a whole created the copyright bargin and it is for society as a whole to alter it if it is unsiutable for todays circumstances.

The inescapable fact of this is that the record industry as it currently operates is dead - whether tomorrow or 10 years - fucked.

 

[broken arm]

kill buskers randomly

 

[egg_]

Pratice kind acts of randomness

 

[hugh]

I'm starting to lean that way myself, despite having laughed at vinyl snobbery a lot since I discovered thumped, and despite not owning a turntable. What have people's experiences of selling vinyl as opposed to selling CDs been? Is it easier/harder to sell?

I would say it's been roughly 50/50 on our album ... maybe leaning a little more towards CDs.

The way this thread is unfolding, it seems the future market for physical copies of recorded music is going to be limited to oldsters and music nuts like you find on thumped.

A large percentage of the people who like us could be described as the above so that might explain the fact that the vinyl is doing okay.

How did you do the digital side of it? (remind me, I've forgotten).

I kinda hacked it. Randomly generated passwords that are hand-written onto inserts that go in the sleeve. Program on server to check passwords. Password deleted as soon as someone downloads it. Pm me if you want the full sceal .... it was pretty easy.

Having said that, it was pretty easy for me to do because I know how to do this kind of thing. I was thinking at the time someone could set up a nice little business to do this. Band sends you the album digitally. You host it on a server. Have the software written to handle the above. You print out the inserts for the band and send them back to them. They bung them in the record sleeves and off you go.

 

[coast to coast]

Not so - ireland is a signatory to international convention on the subject as well as being subject to EU directives, so it would take more than a whim. The 70 years relates to the period of copyright after the author dies, so for the author themselves it is a permanent right.

But if copyright infringement is nothing but theft (as people have been saying here, with a moral weight to it) then the fact that its only theft as long as the law says it is (70 years after your death) undermines the moral weight of the original statement.

You can't mix the logic of one person's morality and the logic of one country's law (or many countries' laws) and logic of economics and expect it to make sense in general I think.

The other thing is, that regardless of the moral crime at stake here, people are still going to do it, and there are plenty of positives from it blur the lines even further.

 

[RED(tape)MENACE]

The other thing is, that regardless of the moral crime at stake here, people are still going to do it, and there are plenty of positives from it blur the lines even further.

Positives you say.

To all the "it's not stealing" people.
It fucking is.

 

[broken arm]

Pratice kind acts of randomness

stab tune-wistlers repeatedly

 

[Flux]

Regarding the ''320kb mp3's sound comparable to cd'' argument, they definitely don't. I ripped ''Loveless'' from cd to mp @ 320 and listened away to it on my iriver. It was okay. Then one day, I had mislaid my iRiver and decided to bring my 30-quid Bush discman on a bus journey with the ''Loveless'' cd, using the same headphones I use on the iriver- the difference was incredible, I got completely wrapped up in the album as opposed to merely ''listening to something to pass the time''. It was like I was hearing it again for the first time. After that no-one could ever convince me they are remotely comparable, there's a ridiculous amount of detail being thrown away.

I suppose it wouldn't matter so much for a lot of music, but still.

 

[coast to coast]

Positives you say.

To all the "it's not stealing" people.
It fucking is.

Positives I meant in that plenty of artists get more exposure and sell more records this way. Not as in, "Deadly, free tunes for me!" kind of positive way. Which is why I said it blurs the lines.

More people hearing your music can be better than less people who all pay for your music hearing it.

 

[Kims Deal]

In my opinion sharing/downloading devalues music.
When I first started collecting music I saved my pocket money to get the albums I wanted and it felt amazing when I finally got what I had saved for. People had less money in their pockets then and were willing to spend it on albums. People have alot more money now and they want it all for free.
It makes no sense and makes music disposable, cheap and something that carries little value to the listener.
Without the record company alot of bands/artists will have a tougher slog getting press/tours etc. They don't just sign an artist and hope for the best (excluding the deluded world of x-factor) alot of work is put into getting recognition for the artist and their music.

The record company as it currently operates is not dead but it needs major updating.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

To all the "it's not stealing" people.
It fucking is.

So if I happened to have a star trek style replicator in my house my local shopkeeper could call me a thief cause I didn't buy from him anymore?