Stop calling these people artists! Art is for art galleries, not jukeboxes. Some clown screaming in a microphone while waving his arms around is no artist. Never has been, never will be.

Call most of them performers, some are entertainers, fewest of all, musicians.

The real losers of this download mess are the few remaining mom and pop record stores who have lost walk-in business. To date, I have not heard a single news report focusing on them.

The record companies will still be around. I don't see any of these people suddenly out of their limos, now forced to thumb a ride. Poor babies.


-John

 

naishou,

Your argument is a common one -- that information is not ownable because "it's just ones and zeroes." Certainly no one claims to have ownership of the symbols A-Z, but many people claim authorship of books they write with those symbols. You're making at argument at a level of information representation, and I'm making an argument at a level of the information itself. No one can claim ownership of ones and zeroes (how could you possibly think I was arguing that?), but one may claim ownership of the information those ones and zeroes represent.

No, I wouldn't mind you making a copy of my S2000 -- but if I just spent the last two years writing my masterpiece novel, and you just photocopied it and gave it away, I would mind it quite a bit, and rightly so. Why do you not see this?

Your next argument, that something which can be copied effortlessly has no intrinsic worth, is garbage, my friend. Industry as a whole is based on the concept of amortized cost -- it costs a lot of money to develop a microprocessor, but very little to manufacture the completed parts. This absolutely does not mean the product is worth only its individual cost of manufacture. If you're arguing that companies should only charge what they spend on the manufacture of an individual part, you might as well become a nihilist and go into hiding on the top of some mountain.

Now this one makes just about no sense -- now you're arguing that musicians produce nothing of value, and hence we should not need to pay them, because consumers are not charitable. Understand this: THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WANT MUSIC INDICATES THAT IT HAS VALUE. A market economy is exemplified by the fact that the demand for a product determines its value. People seem to want music very much, and they demonstrate that the information has value to them every time they click 'download.' I could make a website that would allow people to download pseudorandom strings of bits, but no one would likely be interested.

Well...... if your business deals in IP, which you claim has no worth because it's only ones and zeroes (or is it As and Zs?), then obviously you shouldn't be paid, you peddler of worthless free bits. Your company, according to your logic, doesn't make a product.

Besides all this philosophy, my original point was this:

Artists deserve to be paid fairly, because they work to entertain us.

What's the deal? Do you really, honestly feel that artists don't deserve compensation for what they do? What about live performers? Do you just not like music?

I guess I've finally met the one guy in the world who doesn't even think $1 is fair for an album.

- Warren

 

JGSS2K,

Music is not a form of art? Did I miss a memo or something?

- Warren

 

yes i promise to not steal music:ops in nirvana cd to be copied::

 

If you can find it Download it.

If you can't find it - find someone else that downloaded it.

If all else fails - buy it

 

Warren,

Many of your points are well-taken and I agree with many of them. I just don't agree that these people entertaining us with their performances are artists. I'll go to my grave knowing that if I could cook up something that made the top 40, I wouldn't deserve to be called an artist.

I watched some of the Congressional hearings and I cringed every time Don Henley used the term. That's his right I guess.

I imagine your life is very different than mine and thus these artists as you refer to them play a much larger role. You may even be a perfomer yourself and take it very seriously. I meant no offense to you if your life is tied to the entertainment business.

-John

 

JGSS2K,

No harm done, man. I'm not a performer at all -- kind of a wannabe garage guitarist, though. My sister, however, is a professional jazz musician (you can pretty much name the instrument), and I just cringe when I think about how hard she works for so little remuneration.

I think I'll go to my grave, too, knowing that Britney != artist. But, other real musicians still exist!

- Warren

 

Warren,
Great post. I have alot of respect for people like your sister. My nephew, is a synth virtuoso. I was blessed with NONE of his talent. I just hope he didn't catch my diatribe. I'm sure he has his own take on this.

I guess this whole free music mess is like the overturned Brinks truck on the highway. You want to grab all the cash fluttereing around, even though you know it's wrong.

-John

 

I wouldn't care, but you can be sure that Honda would bring to bear the full power of its legal team to stop you from making them. You don't see Ford cranking out copies of GM's trucks, eventhough the capacity to do so is there. The law would not permit it.

Why should it be any different for those whose products are books, magazines, software, movies, or music? It shouldn't and it isn't. To think any differently is preposterous.

This does not mean I agree with the way the music industry works today, screwing both the consumer and the artist . . .

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]Your argument is a common one -- that information is not ownable because "it's just ones and zeroes."