R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Poll: Should Music Be Free?  (Read 9780 times)

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2006, 09:06:45 pm »

charles wrote:

"maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 18:56

in australia we have free medical care

there is a medicare tax"


"And the contradiction in the above statement somehow escapes you?"

is there something about that statement that you find confusing?

the care is FREE to the consumer, because the state is PAYING for it

the state pays for it with the taxes it collects from me, linear, dave "the bear", etc

Logged

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2006, 09:19:33 pm »

bbbkong (?) wrote:

"Let's see, you're a doctor who plays music full time?"

sure

i only work 3 days a week, but i play guitar every day

"I think I'd rather pay you play me a song than consult me about my body, since by your own admission you are a part time/free doctor."

you can do what you want, but you'd be a fool to discount my opinion for either of the reasons you mentioned

you see, as an amateur, i can't guarantee that you will like what i make,but you can't ask for your money back

as a professional, i can guarantee you a competent medical consultation, even if it's free


"Funny, but my recent relationship with an osteopathic surgeon was
predicated by the fact that he said he had no hobbies (like music) and spent most of his time in surgery. I (and my insurance company) happily handed over close to $400K for his professional skills."

you truly are a fool

methinks you haven't met many great doctors

if you had, you'd know they all have hobbies

you can't survive in this profession without one

the best orthopaedic surgeon i know builds boats in his spare time

"Methinks you could self-administer a dose of serious laxative."

how much do i owe you for that advice

personally, i prefer the "funny" ones



Logged

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2006, 10:18:22 pm »

in australia there is no such thing as free medical care, someone always pays for it, whether it's directly or via taxes. a friend once told me that there is no such thing as a free recording, someone always pays for it. i've found this to be true. if i record someone for free it ends up costing me money, at the very least in electricity! i wouldn't like to get taxed a music levy. i prefer to choose what music i pay for. i'm happy knowing my hard earned money went a little way towards "how to dismantle an atomic bomb" for instance. besides, i don't think anything has really been free since the garden of eden. it's the way the world works isn't it? someone provides goods or services, someone else pays for it. it's only a problem when someone gets greedy & either rips you off or steals.

hope that makes sense. i just got back from holidays.

cheers,
glenn
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2006, 10:28:25 pm »

glenn wrote:

"in australia there is no such thing as free medical care"

if you came to see me or one of my bulk-billing colleagues, would you have to pay?

or would it be free?

if you break your leg and go the casualty department, and have an x-ray, would you have to pay the radiographer and the radiologist?

or would it be free?

you should be so fucking lucky
Logged

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2006, 10:29:28 pm »

If the people making, recording and funding the recordings want to give them away for free, fine.

If they want to give away their car, their house, only do free concerts, etc., that is their choice as well.

If they happen to be a doctor and choose to treat people in an office they pay for with supplies they pay for and take no money from the government or patients, even better.

Just don't decide what others should do with their goods and services.
Logged
R.N.

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2006, 10:35:47 pm »

rn wrote:

"Just don't decide what others should do with their goods and services."

my point exactly
Logged

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2006, 10:41:03 pm »

maxim, i don't quite understand what point you're making there, but whether i go to the doctor or not (i'm pretty healthy, so usually not), i pay a medicare levy & have done for years. i like that system btw, i think health care is important & i'm happy to share the wealth in that respect. but anyway, we're probably focusing too much on the analogy you made rather than the actual topic.

r.n., agreed! that's kinda the idea i had in my head when i wrote my last post.

cheers,
glenn
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2006, 11:21:41 pm »

glenn wrote:

"maxim, i don't quite understand what point you're making there,"

and

"in australia there is no such thing as free medical care"

i wasn't quite sure of your point, so i presumed you were saying that oz does not have free medical care
Logged

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2006, 12:51:19 am »

electrical wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:55

This is a preposterous question. It's like asking "Should air be free?"


No. That is a preposterous answer.

How do you compare Music to Air?

If people were required to take the time from their busy lives or in some cases (like mine) dedicate their lives to making air, than you'd have a point.

Air takes no time or human resources to make. Therefore it requires no compensation for it's creation. Unlike Music.

I believe that the air was here before us. It will probably be here after us and it's relation to music is derisory.

electrical wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:55

 Records, those cost money. Attaching music to another commercial enterprise, that costs money. Both of them still do. Concert tickets, those cost money.


Were you really so confused by my question that you didn't know what was meant here?

electrical wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:55

Listening to music, that's always been free. I remember leaving a concert at the tender age of 15 while the dreadful Marshall Tucker Band were still onstage. It cost me $7 to go to that concert, and $15 for the bag of weed I purchased there. I remember thinking that if I had been able to find my weed guy outside, I could have saved $7, and still heard the Marshall Tucker Band from the parking lot.


No. No. No. You would not have been partaking in free music at all. You would have been stealing it. The Marshall Tucker Band was not putting on a free concert. Some others were paying for it and you (had you stayed outside) would have been stealing income from the band. Furthermore, the next time they came to your town they would have to raise ticket prices to account for the potheads who were listening for free in the parking lot. So now you're (or is it "your") stealing from the other audience members by making them pay more because you're paying less or nothing in this case.

electrical wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:55

Music itself, the audible part of music, has always been free. The artefacts and carriers of it, those cost money, and some of them always will.


Thank you Captain Obvious. Rolling Eyes
Logged

MB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2006, 01:13:37 am »

Actually air isn't free at all. Case in point, pollution permits.

What you're taking about is the problem of public goods and unsecured property rights.

Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize for this stuff ya know....
Logged

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2006, 01:17:54 am »

chris haines wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 20:28


If you want to get into the Economics of it, I'd argue that there is a demand curve for illegal downloading that looks exactly like a supply curve...higher the retail price, the more people choose to download instead of purchase...




I quite understand your point.
I just disagree with it.

There is NO price at which illegal downloads will stop because some people will always steal them.
99 cents a song to find out if you like the new Deah Cab doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
How many duff songs do you need to download before you know for sure that you don't want to buy the whole record?
Yet, as you say, lots of people steal it online. NOT because the pricing is unfair; but because they CAN get it for "free".

Do I have an easy solution? Clearly no.
But that doesn't mean it's "okay" for the profit to go out of recording; unless all you WANT is no budget, home made recording in the future.

Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

chris haines

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2006, 04:22:40 am »

wwittman wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 07:17



But that doesn't mean it's "okay" for the profit to go out of recording; unless all you WANT is no budget, home made recording in the future.




I agree with your sentiment, i just think it's irrelevant.
Logged
Rinkydink Audio, studio
The Vulcan Freedom Fighters, band

ex-weasel
ex-publisher
ex-pat

bbkong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2006, 12:15:05 pm »

maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 18:19




Quote:

"Funny, but my recent relationship with an osteopathic surgeon was
predicated by the fact that he said he had no hobbies (like music) and spent most of his time in surgery. I (and my insurance company) happily handed over close to $400K for his professional skills."


you truly are a fool

methinks you haven't met many great doctors

if you had, you'd know they all have hobbies

you can't survive in this profession without one

the best orthopaedic surgeon i know builds boats in his spare time



Well, let me correct that statement. He does have a hobby of sorts. He's putting three daughters through Vassar. Something you probably won't have to worry about.

Quote:

"Methinks you could self-administer a dose of serious laxative."

how much do i owe you for that advice


I usually never charge anyone for politely telling them they're full of shit.




Maybe the next time you consult with your 'free' brain surgeon you two can figure out why you can't seem to master the 'quote' software in this forum so I don't have to clean up after you.



Perhaps you might spend a moment refining your definition of 'free' too. It doesn't seem to be working very well.
Logged
"ottotune that bastard till he sounds like a sine wave"

Daniel Farris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2439
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2006, 12:58:37 pm »

Kenny Gioia wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 05:51

No. No. No. You would not have been partaking in free music at all. You would have been stealing it. The Marshall Tucker Band was not putting on a free concert. Some others were paying for it and you (had you stayed outside) would have been stealing income from the band.


That's funny. And maybe someday Clear Channel will put video screens and PA speakers in the parking lot to make it true.

If you don't want me to be able to hear your music outside the area where you charge to get in, turn it the fuck down. Inside a Budweiser amphitheater, music is apparently a commodity. Outside, it's a nuissance.

Quote:

Furthermore, the next time they came to your town they would have to raise ticket prices to account for the potheads who were listening for free in the parking lot.


Or they could have made better records, so those declining to enter would find the music to be a better investment of their time and money.

DF
Logged

drgonzo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2006, 01:48:45 pm »

Hmm... interesting debate. Spoilt by people wading in with the usual internet forum

"i can't see you so I'll needlessly talk shit, shooting down your comments in a purile and pathetic way, just because its something I'd love to do in real life, just here I can't see any way where I'll wind up getting hit for it"

At the end of the day, for the vast, vast majority of musicians out there, people downloading their tracks on the internet can only be a good thing, as far as I can see, as if by letting people listen to your music for free (as a taster, or an introduction to their music) then more people will hear about it, thus actually driving demand for their music.

In the past, I've listened to albums that have been downloaded illegally. usually, if its good, I'll go buy the album. Definitely, if I like the music, I'll play it to friends, play it while DJing at house parties or in clubs, and generally get the music heard. A lot of the time this will be music written by bands I've perhaps heard of, but have never bought any albums. Hopefully, by my distribution of this music socially, more people will have heard of a certain band, and maybe a few record sales will be made that never would have been.

You only have to look at Arctic Monkeys over here in England to see just how successful allowing your music to be freely downloaded can be. They released about 16 tracks for free on their website, loads of people downloaded them, because they weer good. They played tem to their friends. Then, the band went on tour. Played to capacity venues everywhere they went. On their first ever national tour. Then, they released a single. It went to number 1. Straight away. They sold out Brixton Academy before they even released the single, which probably made them more money than the number 1. Now they have a new album out, I'm sure its available on the internet for free. BUT I bet it still goes to number one.

The only bands that really have cause for complaint are the people at the top of the industry. Now, I could get all high and mighty and say that they could probably afford to lose a few thousand album sales, as they've already made several times more money than the average person will make in their whole life. BUT, that wouldn't be fair. However, I'm not aware of any major release actually failing to sell copies due to it being available on the internet. A major point in case would be Coldplay's recent offering. They were very annoyed that it was leaked on the internet (despite them offering a free stream from their website), and yet the album still reached number one (although why, after hearing it for free, so many people still decided to waste their money on such a limp album baffles me). Where's the beef?

At the end of the day, the real driving force behind the complaints of copyright theft are the major labels. They percieve that if X million people download an album, if there were no downloads all those people would actually have gone out and bought the album. I contend that that is utter bollocks, and in practice the majority of downloaded music is material that the "pirate" had perhaps never listened to before, and was curious about. Certainly for me, downloading music illegally has led to me purchasing more, not less, albums.

Yeah, there's probably loads of people out there that erfuse to buy any albums, but then if you made it iollegal, rthen they would have no interest in going to see the band live, or buying the T-shirt and novelty mousemat. Or whatever.

Sorry about the long rant, I just felt I had to get out the whole argument from myself, so I could safely ignore this topic forever more.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up