R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: Kenny Gioia on January 03, 2006, 03:57:31 am

Title: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 03, 2006, 03:57:31 am
Well Maxim started a Shitstorm over it.

We might as well discuss it.

Should music be free?

Should we all get straight jobs and do music for free on the weekends?

Enjoy!!!
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chris haines on January 03, 2006, 04:52:18 am
unfortunately the real question should be "is music free?"

sometimes technology makes pondering such issues irrelevant.  a better use of time and energy would be devoted to how will technology continue to affect intellectual property rights and what is the best way for society to deal with this issue as a whole...?

another good question might be, how many of you would pay for gas if you could download it for free?  'cause i think that a large portion of the general public feels this way about music...ie...they're just filling up their Ipod...except they'd buy the gas if they couldn't download it, unlike the music they're acquiring.

it sucks, and it's a change in the paradigm that the industry is extremely slow to embrace, but maybe we need to start looking at music from a more socialist point of view...ie...in Europe the medical care isn't as good, and the doctors earn less, but at least they're still getting paid.

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Ronny on January 03, 2006, 05:23:58 am


Why should music be free, the creation of music costs money. To become proficient at music costs time, thousands of hours of time. To write a song takes a certain amount of education. Education costs money. Capturing music costs money. Making music available so that other people can enjoy it costs money. Anyone that thinks music should be free probably has never mastered an instrument and has no insight into the complexities of the creation, production and distribution side of it.


Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 05:39:16 am
ronny wrote:

"Anyone that thinks music should be free probably has never mastered an instrument and has no insight into the complexities of the creation, production and distribution side of it. "

another wild guess, ronny

guess again

i have no problem with people charging whatever they want for whatever services they wish

i have worked as a doctor since 1991, and i have never charged a patient

as far as they're concerned, their medical care is free

i would like it if the same system existed for music

which it sort of does

i get paid by apra for live appearances and radio play

i'm quite happy with that, and i'd like to see this extended to the internet

the main beef with the 'music is free' concept comes from the paramusicals, who have no stake in the copyright, and only get paid from the record sales

now, we're only talking about people trying to make maoney from their art, which, as i said, is their right and prerogative

however, that is not the motivation of all the musicians

i was making music for a long time without getting paid, and would continue to do so, if i wasn't

i make music and perform to be appreciated

i am and will always strive to be an Amateur, because i Love music

bob o might feel otherwise
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 06:01:38 am
otoh

i wouldn't work as a doctor if i wasn't getting paid (most likely)

and the album i've just recorded will be available for sale, in order to pay for itself, to pay the musicians and to make profit

i don't mind people making duplicates of my work in their time for free, but if i'm going to go through the expense of making a cd box, i might as well get paid for it

that's why these sort of polls and absolute statements are meaningless

it may come as a surprise to this thread de/generator, but a brain is capable of holding more than one idea at a time
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxdimario on January 03, 2006, 07:05:30 am
any engineer who thinks music should be free MUST be lacking mentally.

the reasons are obvious...chatter aside.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 08:15:17 am
what exactly does the engineer have to do with it?

appropriately, on steve's forum, surely, it is up to the band
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chris haines on January 03, 2006, 08:56:52 am
Ronny wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:23



Why should music be free, the creation of music costs money. To become proficient at music costs time, thousands of hours of time. To write a song takes a certain amount of education. Education costs money. Capturing music costs money. Making music available so that other people can enjoy it costs money. Anyone that thinks music should be free probably has never mastered an instrument and has no insight into the complexities of the creation, production and distribution side of it.





i guess my point would be 'why should' is irrelevant when 'why is' can already be answered...  we can all hold hands and have a cybercry or move on and figure out how to deal with it.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: John Ivan on January 03, 2006, 11:33:33 am
I think everything should be free. I should be able to buy some BEER and it should be free. I should not have to pay for Gas,, Right,,,,,,  ?? I should have the roof put on my house for free.........??  

Maxim,,,,

I didn't spend ANY time being a Doctor. Or doing anything else for that matter. I love music so much that It's ALL I EVER DO.  I think it's cute that as a part time music guy you feel all warm and fuzzy about "music being free" but I can tell you this.....

The music that I value as an individual the most, is music that was made by people who spent all their time playing music. This is why they get so good at it. I personally have a big problem with the idea of people stealing my work.......


Now let me ask you this,, do you feel,I mean you personally, that music is important to you? Are you willing to pay Money to see a great Musician play? Or should we just play for free??


I'm a Musician, not a Doctor.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: covert on January 03, 2006, 11:35:16 am
Sure, music "should be" free.  Food should be free. Housing should be free.  Cars should be free.  

Music should be available at cost plus.  That would be, enough so that the artist is recompensed reasonably, and the people that really make the process can earn a decent living.  For the most part, record company types aren't necessary to the process.

The question that never seems to come up, in these discussions of downloading etc., is, Would you happily pay the artist royalty (around a nickel per song) for the stuff you take free?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: electrical on January 03, 2006, 11:55:13 am
This is a preposterous question. It's like asking "Should air be free?"

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

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.

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.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chrisj on January 03, 2006, 12:04:14 pm
Of course music is free. Steal a kazoo, and get busy. Nobody's stopping you.

If you mean GOOD music- fine. Exactly how impressed can you afford to be?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: bbkong on January 03, 2006, 12:08:23 pm


Too bad we can't find a way to apply the automotive model to music.

A Rolls Royce is a finely crafted car hand built by experts and should be very expensive.

A Yugo is a stamped out piece of shit and should be as cheap as a toaster.


There's too many Yugo's cruising around the music industry thinking they are Rolls Royces.

No, music shouldn't be free, but there should be a VAT royalty.


A Duke Ellington CD should cost like hell.

WangChung should be in the dollar bin.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Tidewater on January 03, 2006, 12:37:02 pm
I have it! The new music business model!

You buy an 'album'. It's a harshly played acoustic guitar, with a drunk, singing flat. The liner notes have track charts, and descriptions of the finished record you can have.. if you want anything more.

So, you hire time in a local room... and..


M
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 03, 2006, 02:37:31 pm
maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 05:39

i have worked as a doctor since 1991, and i have never charged a patient

as far as they're concerned, their medical care is free

I find this very interesting. Could you please explain how your patients do not pay for their medical care?

If you're gettin' paid, somebody's payin' for it.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: wwittman on January 03, 2006, 04:36:33 pm
covert wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:35

Music should be available at cost plus.  That would be, enough so that the artist is recompensed reasonably, and the people that really make the process can earn a decent living.  For the most part, record company types aren't necessary to the process.

The question that never seems to come up, in these discussions of downloading etc., is, Would you happily pay the artist royalty (around a nickel per song) for the stuff you take free?


the typical artiste deal on a major is anywhere from 12-20 percent of retail.

that's the ARTISTE royalty... the songwriter ALSO gets a Mechanical royalty per song.

plus, let;'s say you pay the artiste that amount, say $3.50 an album... who pays him back for the cost of rehearsing, recording (including engineers and producers and strings and sticks and housing and whatever during the making of the record) and the cost of production (mastering and manufacturing the CD's/printing the sleeves), promotion (did he pay for ads so that you KNOW about this CD in the first place?)...

you can;t expect to give people 5 cents a track and expect them to actualy be able to create something viable; at least not for a LIVING.

so then the argument becomes: should the actual recording and sale of music be a loss leader to simply promote OTHER money making activities such as t-shirt sales and live performances?

I think the music ITSELF should be valued more highly.

Why should an artiste be "fairly compensated" just enough to "make a living" ?
Is that how EVERYONE should be paid?
People DO get rich in this country and this world.
Are they more valuable than artistes and writers?
I think not.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: kraster on January 03, 2006, 05:12:55 pm
DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 17:37



You buy an 'album'. It's a harshly played acoustic guitar, with a drunk, singing flat.

M


Nothing new about this. Shane McGowan has ben doing this for years. Smile
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chris haines on January 03, 2006, 05:22:03 pm
wwittman wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 22:36


so then the argument becomes: should the actual recording and sale of music be a loss leader to simply promote OTHER money making activities such as t-shirt sales and live performances?



yes, and they should start in Spain where I spent 26 American dollars to purchase the new Death Cab For Cutie, Plans.  This price encourages theft and suggests that the label doesn't care if the band breaks here.

wwittman wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 22:36


I think the music ITSELF should be valued more highly.



yes, i do too.  I want DVD audio players put in all the new cars and I want everyone to re-release all their records at 24/96 and be able to hear the added dynamic range in the recordings when I'm playing stuff parked in my driveway with the engine turned off.

Unfortunately, I'll get a standard in-dash .mp3 player instead...so then what...?


Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Linear on January 03, 2006, 05:52:53 pm
Charles Dye wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 06:37

maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 05:39

i have worked as a doctor since 1991, and i have never charged a patient

as far as they're concerned, their medical care is free

I find this very interesting. Could you please explain how your patients do not pay for their medical care?

If you're gettin' paid, somebody's payin' for it.


Exactly. Somebody pays for it, nothing comes free.

Here certain establishments 'Bulk-bill' whereby a person with a Government Medicare card can walk in to a 'bulk-billing' practice and pay nothing for a doctors appointment. The Government sets the minimum fee they pay and some practices charge more (so you pay the gap) and some don't (ie they bulk-bill).

Considering however that I paid over $1k Medicare Levy last year I don't consider it to be 'free'. In fact, considering I didn't visit a GP once in the past 12 months I consider it to be a huge ripoff.

But I digress, this is slightly off-topic.

I don't agree that music delivery should be free, unless the band wants their music to be free. In most cases here, bands that are signed to labels make no money from record sales anyway, most of their income is derived from touring.

So an unsigned band may be better off giving their CD's away for 'free' (or a nominal amount) and hope that it promotes them enough to sell more tickets on their tour (which is kinda like radio anyway, and what band doesn't want to be on radio).

In a general sense though, people don't really appreciate what they don't pay for, so it could be a double whammy.

Chris
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 06:56:01 pm
charles wrote:

"I find this very interesting. Could you please explain how your patients do not pay for their medical care?"

in australia we have free medical care

there is a medicare tax

in effect, i pay for my patients care out of my own taxes

unfortunately, this government has been trying to dismantle the system, so now, it's virtually impossible to find a doctor who doesn't charge at least a nominal amount

me, however, i don't believe in that, so i'm prepared to take a smaller fee, so that my patients continue to receive free care

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Fletcher on January 03, 2006, 07:00:29 pm
Each and every one of us should work to the maximum of our ability for the common good and be compensated according to our needs...

Great utopian ideal.

It's been tried before.

Rather unsuccessfully.

My iPod gets filled up at $.99/song and/or after the $10-18 the kid plunks down for a CD.  

My daughter's iPod gets filled up for the same $.99/song... but it's her sister who seems to be buying most of the CD's around here [that are listenable... the one with the iPod has vile taste in music... WhuddaYaGonnaDo?].  
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 07:04:42 pm
ivan wrote:

"Now let me ask you this,, do you feel,I mean you personally, that music is important to you?"

yes

" Are you willing to pay Money to see a great Musician play?"

yes, admittedly, not very often, but then, i get to play with great musicians for free anyway

" Or should we just play for free??"

as i said before, you should do whatever you feel is appropriate

should i NOT play for free?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: wwittman on January 03, 2006, 07:09:41 pm
chris haines wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 17:22

yes, and they should start in Spain where I spent 26 American dollars to purchase the new Death Cab For Cutie, Plans.  This price encourages theft and suggests that the label doesn't care if the band breaks here.


Sorry but I find this argument specious.

First off, no one FORCES you to "overspend" on anything.
If Death Cab isn't worth 26 dollars (and I think this record isn't worth 10) buy something ELSE that is.
B ut that's not an "invitation to theft" anymore than the aforementioned Rolls ROyce is.

I can't afford it, or I perceive it to be overpriced so I steal it?

Sorry, I don't buy into that.

and similarly with quality.
The audio quality of the final product may not be what professionals would like to see... (god knows I think CD's sound like crap next to analogue 2 track certainly) but that's ALSO not a reason to steal.

If I don't perceive something as being of value, I don't BUY it.
And then I don't miss it.

It's why i own no C-414s.
or Steely Dan records.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 07:11:21 pm
as for internet downloads, it doesn't cost me a cent if someone makes a copy of my work, so why should i charge for it?

if i produce an actual hard cover record, and someone steals it, well, that's my money and time gone, but information, well, it just wants to be free

sure, i'd like to see the same system as exists on the radio, apply to the internet, so the kazaas and  the itunes of this world get charged a general fee for broadcasting and then split between the artists, and it may just happen

steve wrote:

"Music has always been free. Records, those cost money. Attaching music to another commercial enterprise, that costs money. Both of them still do. Concert tickets, those cost money."

ditto


Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: bbkong on January 03, 2006, 07:15:35 pm
Quote:

It's why i own no C-414s.
or Steely Dan records.

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



That's about the strangest thing I've seen on my screen in months.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: seriousfun on January 03, 2006, 07:21:42 pm
Just about everything we need in life is available free.

Air, water, dirt, food, bibles, music (yes, just start humming).

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have built an economic system where one person with more or better stuff can get compensated by another for a taste of this stuff.

Making music doesn't directly put food on the table, only agriculture does this, so we have to figure out a way to get fairly compensated for making music, so we can pay (or barter...) for food, shelter, etc. I figured it out for fifteen years or so, and still do indirectly, and so can you.

Unfortunately, the music industry is royally screwed up right now. It's top-heavy and blockbuster driven, leaving little room for middle-class musicians. This is what must change. Kids trading files aren't taking meals away from my kids, who don't trade music files. Let's figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for file trades on the internet, and this transitory problem goes away.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 03, 2006, 07:24:35 pm
ivan wrote:

"I think it's cute that as a part time music guy you feel all warm and fuzzy about "music being free" but I can tell you this..... "

the patronising tone doesn't suit you, leave to kenny g and eric s

he also wrote:

"The music that I value as an individual the most, is music that was made by people who spent all their time playing music."

who told you i don't

besides, would you not see a doctor or discount their opinion if they worked part-time

if so, you will have a lot of trouble finding one
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 03, 2006, 07:28:08 pm
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?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: bbkong on January 03, 2006, 07:48:46 pm
maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 16:24

 

who told you i don't  [people who spent all their time playing music.]

besides, would you not see a doctor or discount their opinion if they worked part-time

if so, you will have a lot of trouble finding one


Isn't this a glaring self contradiction?

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

Hm.

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.


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.


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



Personally, I prefer the services of professionals and don't mind one bit paying for it.

Amateurs with free music?


Well, you gets whatcha pays for.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chris haines on January 03, 2006, 08:28:35 pm
[quote title=wwittman wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 01:09First off, no one FORCES you to "overspend" on anything.
If Death Cab isn't worth 26 dollars (and I think this record isn't worth 10) buy something ELSE that is.
B ut that's not an "invitation to theft" anymore than the aforementioned Rolls ROyce is.

I can't afford it, or I perceive it to be overpriced so I steal it?

Sorry, I don't buy into that.
[/quote]

music consumers have a choice to download for free or pay retail.  most of the time, they have no way to assess the value of the recording until AFTER they have consumed it...ie...I don't know if it's worth the 26 bucks 'til after I've listened to it or downloaded it.  ("what sarah said" is worth 10 bucks in my opinion but i'm a fan...so I shelled out the dough...but this is not the choice I would have made were I still in college and broke)

while it's convenient for you to 'not buy into' it, you're ignoring the consumption habits of 200 million plus kids...theoretically the bread and butter of new music purchasers...the retail price of a CD, does, in fact, influence the decision of a kid to either download or purchase music...some will download regardless of price, others will choose to purchase or download based on the price of a retail CD/cost of a commercially availble download.

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...

As long as we consume music in a digital format it will be available for free.  Bandwidth is the enemy...who's gonna fight it?  It's time to accept that the paradigm has changed.



Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim 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

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim 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



Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: jetbase 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: rnicklaus 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.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: jetbase 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: MB 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....
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: wwittman 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.

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: chris haines 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.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: bbkong 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.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Daniel Farris 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
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: drgonzo 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.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Daniel Farris on January 04, 2006, 02:14:38 pm
drgonzo wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 18:48

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.


And yet, that's probably still not enough for them to avoid being dropped, had it all been done on a major label.

The problem is inflated budgets and inflated sales expectations. It's reached the ridiculous point where a record practically has to go double platinum to "break even" and, since you can barely get that many people on this planet to agree about ANYTHING, the labels need every last sale they can get to make this longshot pay out.

The highest imaginable level of success for an indie band barely meets the major label criteria for "not dismal failure," and it's entirely because of inflated budgets and unrealistic sales expectations.

DF
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: drgonzo on January 04, 2006, 03:23:47 pm
Yeah, that's kind of what I was meaning.

Major Label = Major Investment (i.e. major waste of the artist's money, for the most part) = Major Need to Recoup Costs

whereas, Arctic Monkeys have, up to a point, existed on the traditional small label side of things. They make a damn good living out of it (or they will be this year, certainly) and they can release whatever they want for free, because it all helps drive their market.

Babyshambles are a key example. I know a former member of the band, they were paid in excess of 28k for ten weeks of touring. I'm sorry, but that's a bloody marvellous years money, let alone a short space of 10 weeks work.

If I could that money for the same number of shows in a year, with album and merch sales while on the road, why would I want to bother with worrying over people downloading my music on the internet?

I know i earn a damn site less than that at the moment, I have a house, I eat most days, I go to the pub every so often and I play in a band that is just about paying for itself, nothing more. If, all things going well, I can earn enough to do all this without having a job, why worry about anything else???

Oh, sorry. I forgot about that one little thing that is the major factor here.... personal greed.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: seriousfun on January 04, 2006, 03:32:41 pm
Kenny Gioia wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 21:51

...
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.

...



Artistic expression has been around as long as humans have been around. We have records of the visual and practical arts that have survived - we just don't have records of the music until fairly recently (written music from 800 BC - A hymn on a tablet in Sumeria, written in cuniform, recorded music from...well, you better know this...). The original inspiration was NOT money, and I don't think that has changed. Its existence is IMO air-like, and probably harder to destroy than air.

If someone compresses air into a can and sells it so you can blow cat hair from your computer or breathe underwater, they deserve compensation. If someone drags me to an open field and asks me to pay to breathe, I'd think they are nuts.

If someone hears me playing music through an open window, I wouldn't expect them to pay (if they didn't run away screaming...) If someone sells a spinning disc of my music, I'd want a piece of that!

It's all in the packaging and marketing. Unfortunately, the current music industry tends to compensate the creators last, and the packagers and marketers first.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 04, 2006, 07:08:21 pm
bbbkong wrote:

" He's putting three daughters through Vassar. Something you probably won't have to worry about."

no

i don't have to pay for my son's education

there's FREE education available to him in australia

he also wrote:

"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."

i'm an analog quote kinda guy

you know this was a much more pleasant place to hang out before you and kenny and the other marshmen showed up

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 04, 2006, 07:17:13 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 19:08



i'm an analog quote kinda guy

you know this was a much more pleasant place to hang out before you and kenny and the other marshmen showed up





Do you really prefer to avoid using quotes the way the rest of us do?

It really is difficult to follow your posts this way.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Dave Davis on January 04, 2006, 08:15:40 pm
Many times, when you're too close to something, you can back the wrong horse, or generate unintended consequences.  A good example is the label's response to iTune's success.  They greet their #7 retailer with sharp knives because they correctly surmise that Apples more interested in selling iPods than ICP.  

Setting aside the merits of either side's argument, the labels are in a great position to offer something at no extra cost, to increase margin, if they truly believe their darkest fears.  Let Apple sell as many AAC files as they can at 99 cents... offer MLP's or higher rate files, and multichannel formats alongside them for a higher price.  Whether that price is $1.50 or $2.00, it reintroduces iPod users (read: customers) to higher quality products.

This is important on many levels:
1) It makes more money for the owners of songs
2) It demonstrates real benefits, and value, in better sound.
3) It creates markets for new formats, and gives the market (fans) a vote on what they prefer.
4) It's a step back from the brink, and a timely vote of confidence in fans again, to give them actual CD quality music at CD retail prices online.
5) It sets an important precedent with Apple and other online retailers, whereby some legitimately

No matter what the labels do or don't do with Apple, artists must take responsibility for the products themselves.  If they're cool and desireable, people will want them.  The challenge on iTunes or anywhere else is loading the product with value.  Value is to the beholder, which means, give fans the things they want, and the market will define it's value.

As to the specific topic of the thread, I suggest that both sides take a deep breath, and stop exchanging the same old arguments that have gotten us nowhere.  We may be Americans, but we need not think like W.  It's not with the labels or with the terrorists.  

Expand the argument just a little.  Change the terms.  What if we make a critical distinction between "free" and "free-to-user"?  This, afterall, is the basis of network TV, which of course is anything but free!

With this subtle twist, the argument collapses.

In truth, many self-produced bands already DO give away music.  Anyone with the slightest ambition can get free music, any number of ways.  We're rapidly approaching a time where artists will begin to exchange music for in-kind payments of all sorts, from all kinds of places.  As I predicted in '99, anyone can get music for drinking Pepsi, already.  These trends have expanded dramatically.

I'm a mastering engineer by trade, and I'm not predicting the death of physical media.  Rather, I'm suggesting a shift in paradigms.  Artists have always paid their own way, but now they have a bigger say, and can effectively pay up front, selling finished products.  This is model allows artists to maximize what they make and how and where they sell... Anyone who's ever self-released knows there's real value of discs sold at the merch table (The fan gets a very special souvenier and you make more per/disc than anywhere else you can sell a CD).  But you still have to be on Amazon, CD Baby and iTunes as well, for the impulse and review buyers.  It's not either/or in anything we do today.

It's complex, and beyond a post in this thread, but my point is that directly paid-for and free-to-user music can and already co-exist.  In fact they necessarily MUST (don't get me started on radio... but you see where I'm going!).  I would argue the question, as phrased, is a false choice, a strawman.

Happy New Year!

-d-
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 04, 2006, 09:07:58 pm
dave d wrote:

"It's not either/or in anything we do today."

damn right

that's the trouble with absolutist thinking

imo, internet is the new radio, and as a content creator, a damn good one

btw, i used to tape songs off the radio (still have a cassette or two somewhere in storage)

when i grew up in soviet siberia, my brother had a huge collection of 1/4 inch tapes which were 'ripped' off the rare vinyl which made its way into ussr

sometimes, it was fifth or tenth generation

was it free?

sure

was it precious?

you bet

did any of the artists get a cut?

no fucking way

were they happy that their art made it past the iron curtain?

i've no doubt

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 04, 2006, 09:09:32 pm
kenny g wrote:

"Do you really prefer to avoid using quotes the way the rest of us do?"

afraid so

want to make something of it?

"It really is difficult to follow your posts this way."

sorry
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: wwittman on January 04, 2006, 09:50:11 pm
[quote title=drgonzo wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 13:48]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./quote]

So then, with this increased "demand" for their music then WHAT happens?
Are musicians doing better than ever because of it?

Or are they simply being robbed blind by a new set of theives?

NO ONE is against your ability to make your music available on the internets for "free".
What people object to is having their music that is currently for SALE (not given away by choice) stolen on the internet.

What happens AFTER the "taster" when let's say you get lucky and millions of people want your recording?
Still free?
Now that it's no longer a "taster", where DOES the profit come in?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 04, 2006, 10:14:21 pm
william wrote:

"What happens AFTER the "taster" when let's say you get lucky and millions of people want your recording?"

if they want an actual recording, they can buy one

all you'd need is less than one percent to want to actually purchase something of value (cd box, t shirt, lock of hair..)

in my experience from playing live, the proportion of people who would actually, WANT to do that, is much higher that that

about 20-30%, at least, i think

obviously it fluctuates according to the act, the moon, the audience etc.

but all that's assuming that money is what i want

as i said, i don't need a job, i need appreciation, recognition, pat on the back, and all the other things that drive the artists (not the craftsmen, i might add)

a million people hear my songs?

who could ask for anything more?(break into song)
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: rnicklaus on January 04, 2006, 10:47:42 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 18:07


when i grew up in soviet siberia, my brother had a huge collection of 1/4 inch tapes which were 'ripped' off the rare vinyl which made its way into ussr

sometimes, it was fifth or tenth generation

was it free?

sure

was it precious?

you bet

did any of the artists get a cut?

no fucking way

were they happy that their art made it past the iron curtain?

i've no doubt




Was it free?  Who paid for the tape and spent the time dubbing in "reel" time?

Sure the artists did not get paid but this is much different than manufacturing a 100,000 of these reels.

In file sharing, millions can be "manufactured" and "distributed" in seconds.

What would it have cost to make a million 1/4 tapes to give away?

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Tidewater on January 04, 2006, 10:53:52 pm
What about cheap music? Should cheap music be free?

How about shitty music? Maybe music should cost as much as you like it. Maybe a never ending series of single-use playback licenses... and the stuff you don't like is free, and you can't lie about it, or something bad will happen.


M
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 04, 2006, 11:14:46 pm
Kenny Gioia wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 00:51

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

Kenny, tell me, precisely where do you stand on killing babies?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 04, 2006, 11:15:44 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 21:09



afraid so

want to make something of it?




You really haven't had enuff?

A doctor, lecturing the rest of us on the Record Business?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 04, 2006, 11:26:32 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 19:08

i'm an analog quote kinda guy.

Yeah we know, they're much punchier that way.

But they also seem to lack clarity.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 04, 2006, 11:30:58 pm
Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 20:15

This is important on many levels:
1) It makes more money for the owners of songs
2) It demonstrates real benefits, and value, in better sound.
3) It creates markets for new formats, and gives the market (fans) a vote on what they prefer.
4) It's a step back from the brink, and a timely vote of confidence in fans again, to give them actual CD quality music at CD retail prices online.
5) It sets an important precedent with Apple and other online retailers, whereby some legitimately

6) It makes more money for Apple, cuz it pushes customers to buy newer larger capacity iPods.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 04, 2006, 11:33:40 pm
Charles Dye wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 23:14



Kenny, tell me, precisely where do you stand on killing babies?


I believe it is very important to be neutral in the process.

I don't want to interfere with the actual killer or what he/she is trying to accomplish.

My only job in the situation is to be a recordist or historian if you will. Be there for the event but not add my stamp on the situation.

It's not about me. Nothing drives me crazier than some hero who believes that it is his job to be a mercenary and save a life in this instance.

It's just plain egotistic to get involved with stepping into life management.

If for some reason the attacker changes his mind and prefers to give the child a piece of candy or a nice cuddle, that's his intent. Not mine. I won't interfere with that action either. It is not my job to convince him to kill or ask him to show restraint.

My job is to be there as a witness to the event. It is the killer who needs to be served. Not me.

How'd I do?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 04, 2006, 11:35:59 pm
Kenny Gioia wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 23:33

How'd I do?

Great.

Then how do explain the whole defending Bob O thing? Shocked
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Ronny on January 04, 2006, 11:41:50 pm
DivideByZero wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 22:53

What about cheap music? Should cheap music be free?

How about shitty music? Maybe music should cost as much as you like it. Maybe a never ending series of single-use playback licenses... and the stuff you don't like is free, and you can't lie about it, or something bad will happen.


M



Cheap and shitty music should absolutely not be free.


They need to keep paying me to listen to it, I'm not in this business just for the sex and drugs.  Laughing
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 05, 2006, 12:08:18 am
r. nicklaus wrote:

"Was it free? Who paid for the tape and spent the time dubbing in "reel" time?"

my brother did

so as far as i was concerned, it was free

Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: cerberus on January 05, 2006, 12:20:12 am
http://www.parsek.at/cerberus/examples/Home_Taping .jpg
   "Oh Lord, I am so tired. How long can this go on?"
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 01:30:40 am
Charles Dye wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 23:35

Kenny Gioia wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 23:33

How'd I do?

Great.

Then how do explain the whole defending Bob O thing? Shocked


How do you explain the whole "showing up here just to troll me" thing?

Didn't I leave you back at Gearslutz trying to figure out which knob was hott and which one was cold?





Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 01:34:30 am
Well, actually, that's why I'm back.

What did you say again? The left one was...   Sad
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 01:35:35 am
And how hot did you say your boyfriend liked it?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 01:37:44 am
or should I say you're...
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 01:40:21 am
Charles Dye wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:34

Well, actually, that's why am back.

What did you say again? The left one was...


No Sweetie!!

That's not a knob.

That's my DICK.

Let go and go lick around the back.

Give it a swirl and reach around to the front.

That is the aux send. It is Pre fade right now.

Thank God Digi gave you 5 more slots for plugins.

Did they pay you extra to put all that overuse in your DVD?

You know that the big boyz don't work that way?


Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 01:41:52 am
It's all camera tricks. I'm actually 4 foot 3.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 01:42:08 am
Charles Dye wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:35

And how hot did you say your boyfriend liked it?


What he doesn't know won't hurt you.

My fishing pole might.

Yeah Yeah. Bait that Barracuda.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 01:43:10 am
Charles Dye wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:41

It's all camera tricks. I'm actually 4 foot 3.


Perfect.

It won't be so hard on your knees.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 01:43:21 am
And that wasn't the Grand Canyon, just a big hole in my back yard.

Also camera tricks.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 05, 2006, 01:49:00 am
i know i've been guilty myself, but, please don't feed the troll any more

i think his tummy's hurting, and he's too young to realise
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Ron Steele on January 05, 2006, 01:52:17 am
Kenny, at this point, I think what many will appreciate,

is you and  your/you're lame ass commentary getting the fuck out of here.

Do a disappearing act, and I'm positive nobody will bother to look for you.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 02:08:37 am
Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:52

Kenny, at this point, I think what many will appreciate,

is you and  your/you're lame ass commentary getting the fuck out of here.

Do a disappearing act, and I'm positive nobody will bother to look for you.


I can't believe I'm being told by Robocop to stop acting like Robocop.

What's next? Are you gonna tell Erik Gavriluk to stop stealing software?
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: originalrecorderman on January 05, 2006, 02:13:07 am
Kenny Gioia wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 23:08

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:52

Kenny, at this point, I think what many will appreciate,

is you and  your/you're lame ass commentary getting the fuck out of here.

Do a disappearing act, and I'm positive nobody will bother to look for you.


I can't believe I'm being told by Robocop to stop acting like Robocop.

What's next? Are you gonna tell Erik Gavriluk to stop stealing software?



Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Very Happy  Cool
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: electrical on January 05, 2006, 02:13:31 am
Charles Dye! Kenny Gioia! You are both being dicks!

Take it elsewhere.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 02:15:38 am
electrical wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:13

Charles Dye! Kenny Gioia! You are both being dicks!

Take it elsewhere.


IMHO you throw this word around too easily.

I need to get you some insulting nouns toilet paper.

That's twice you called me a DICK.

Three strikes and your out. (or is it you're)  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 02:15:41 am
a badge i wear with honor.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Tidewater on January 05, 2006, 02:23:41 am
If I was producing Rod Stewart, I'd bring back that ABBA thing.


M
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 05, 2006, 02:26:28 am
charles wrote:

"a badge i wear with honor."

wearing your dick on your sleeve, so to speak
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 02:29:05 am
but always with a condom
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 02:35:16 am
maxim wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:26



wearing your dick on your sleeve, so to speak


So is he wearing Me, Steve or Curve on his sleeve?

I'm confused.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: maxim on January 05, 2006, 02:35:49 am
as you should with the likes of kenny around
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 02:37:26 am
Charles Dye wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:29

but always with a condom


We should rename this forum "Condom Nation".
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Kenny Gioia on January 05, 2006, 02:40:12 am
maxim wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:35

as you should with the likes of kenny around


Hey. I've only had sex with one hooker who was HIV positive.




BTW - She wanted to thank you for the Mother's Day Card. Very thoughtful.














(and your dad asked why you don't call him anymore. He wasn't as hot but a goer)
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 02:40:59 am
maxim wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:26

charles wrote:

"a badge i wear with honor."

wearing your dick on your sleeve, so to speak

i am warming up to your analogue quotes tho.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: Charles Dye on January 05, 2006, 02:41:59 am
they have a certain softness.
Title: Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
Post by: electrical on January 05, 2006, 02:47:31 am
Okay, this thread has become a nuisance.