flyfisher

Well, we all say these sort of things, but there must be enough people out there to fall for marketing ploys otherwise why would they do it. It's a bit like those enticing letters from pleasant African fellows who somehow have a mountain of money they wish to share with you. Anway, isn't there an old marketing saying along the lines of "50% of all advertising is a pure waste of time and money. The problem is that nobody knows which 50%".

If basschat was around when music recording first started, we'd probably be discussing how recording was killing live bands. Once upon a time if you wanted music you would have to somewhere to listen to people actually play stuff, right there, right then. Recording changed all that and discos, for example, must have massively changed the market for live bands. But did it kill live music? Of course not. Things change and people have to change with them. Next, someone will be saying that the Internet is a bad thing and should be scrapped.

[quote name='XB26354' timestamp='1340300036' post='1702599'] This is wider than music, it's anything that can be obtained electronically. Software, anyone? It is stealing. It is be a commercial product for sale that has taken time and effort for skilled people to produce which technology allows people to get for free. [/quote] Yes, it is wider than music but it's not always stealing. There is a large and growing 'open source' movement in the software world and there is loads of 'freeware' out there. Similarly, there are loads of bands that allow their music to be freely streamed and some even give away their music. Heck, a lot of bands play for free and, as we have discussed, some even pay for the privilege. Such things might undermine the market for selling such things, but that's life. It's hardly reasonable to make it illegal to give away music is it?

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1340350383' post='1703047'] Almost my entire CD collection has been ripped to my computer. An illegal act, depriving musicians of income. [/quote] It might be technically illegal to rip CDs to a hard drive, but how does that deprive musicians of income if the CD has been legitimately purchased? Unless we think it's fair to pay once for a CD and once more for a download for our iPods. Personally, I don't.

Me too - on all counts, except we'd tape each others records after school. Because of the tape quality, all my favourites were eventually replaced with LPs. I've since digitised them and they all languish in the attic - funny how it's hard to let them go. Later, I would also make tapes of my own LPs to play in the car. That used to be a bit controversial as it was, I believe, technically illegal but it was the only way to have music in the car at the time. Thankfully the music industry's attempt to get a levy on all blank tape sales was never successful. Later still, before the advent of CD burners, I re-purchased most of my favourite music on CD, so I've paid twice for a lot of my collection. These days, I refuse to buy downloads because of the lossy encoding and DRM issues and only buy CDs. This gives me the full quality music as well as a backup copy. However, since going fully digital, all my CD purchases have only seen the inside of a CD drive once while I convert them. I don't even have a CD player connected to the hi-fi any more.

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1340281451' post='1702193'] If you borrow your friends lawnmower to cut your grass, and then also use it to cut someone elses (whether or not you charge for the service) then that is also conversion. It does not require an actual contract with consideration on all sides, but merely an agreement (such as cutting YOUR grass) and to go beyond it results in conversion. Again, the chances of anyone actually suing are basically nil, but that doesn't change the legal position that you didn't have permission to use the lawnmower in that fashion. [/quote] Blimey! Typical lawyer nonsense. Not in a legal sense I'm sure (am not qualified to question it anyway) but a good example of the sort of answer you get when asking a lawyer something because they are obliged to point out all the possible risks and implications and will then explain how to cover yourself for every eventuality - at a cost of course. Anyway, if you ask to borrow your neighbour's lawnmower, what are chances they will ask 'what for'? In which case, the 'loan contract' has no usage terms anyway. (what's that old saying about free advice being worth every penny? )

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340263875' post='1701763'] No. Firstly it's the band or record companies choice to allow the songs to be streamed for free. As I've said before in this thread, if you just want to listen to a band there are plenty of places on the internet where you can do this legally. This is one of them. Secondly, this is internet promotion working properly. Having the songs streamed from the band's website means that people who want to listen to them keep coming back to the site and at the same time get to see news and other information about the band while they are listening. You can listen for free, but at some point the songs will most likely be replaced with newer ones, and every time you listen you are using up your internet connection bandwidth allowance or mobile data plan. Therefore the band will hope that at some point you will find it more convenient to buy the CD or iTunes download. [/quote] All good points. But, in the days before the internet, how many people would buy CDs listen to them for a week or so and then leave them on the shelf to gather dust for ever more? Skank mentioned this phenomenon somewhere; 25,000 tracks and only 30 of them any good. Being able to stream songs these days, people can listen to a band completely legally and at no cost for a week or so. If they really, really like them then perhaps they'll buy the CD but - I suspect - in practice, most of the time, the novelty will wear off and they'll just move on without making a purchase. A few streamers will, of course, love the music and buy the CD. So perhaps the decline in music sales is not so much that people are not buying music they love these days, more that they're not buying music that they don't really like after streaming it a few times.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1340195698' post='1700761'] At times like these, you'll need that heavy handed drummer..as this is where you will run out of steam first, sound-wise. [/quote] That's also my experience when playing outdoor parties.. Our 1000w PA was OK and we had mic'd the kick drum, but we found it was the cymbals that disappeared unless we used a couple of overhead mics and also fed those through the PA. Made a big difference to the overall sound.

Lots of unsigned bands (and some signed ones) have websites where entire songs can be played by simply clicking a link as well as being able to buy the songs on CD or download. Is it 'stealing' if someone decides to only listen to the songs using the link provided by the artist and not buy the CD?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340214588' post='1701247'] Perhaps the most dispiriting thing for me is that there are not enough mealtimes left in my life to try every recipe from the (not that many) cookbooks on my kitchen shelf. There's another happy thought, eh? [/quote] Yep. Makes me think I should be spending more time diving in the Maldives than arguing the toss about downloading music.

Perhaps it doesn't matter if the music business dies and no more music is ever produced again. Give things another decade, two at the most, and there'll be more video, audio and books online and freely available than anyone could actually watch/listen/read in their entire lifetime. The alternative is that the music business continues to produce absolutely wonderful music, but that no one will live long enough to listen to it all . . . so what's the point? Freely available information changes all sorts of things and we're only seeing the tiniest consequences today. You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet.

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340205133' post='1701017'] I'm actually very interested in this question. There was a lot of suggestion that the Arctic Monkeys owed more to major labels than they did the internet. [/quote] I thought it was because Gordon Brown said he listened to them.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So I'm not saying the internet has made these issues worse. But it certainly hasn't improved them. Despite what some may misguidedly aver, things are definitely more sh*t than they were. [/quote] Where did you get your sh*t-O-Meter to make such a definitive statement? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. That's worse, depending on one's POV. Of course, if one is in a band with little or no appeal, the internet must seem like a marvellous thing. [/quote] More complicated, perhaps, but not far more expensive. The problem with these sorts of discussions is that they're too general. Thus, the internet has no doubt been a bad thing for the big labels and the suits but it has also been a very good thing for independent bands, who can now reach huge numbers of people for very little outlay. Some of those bands will, of course, be utter sh*te but some will be brilliant - and of course there'll be no consensus about which is which, but the point is that the internet enables them to be heard for the audience to make that judgement themselves and not rely on someone like John Peel making the decision for them. I'd say this is a good thing. [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] It's all bollocks and everyone is ghastly. [/quote] Ah, now you're talking.

If a bunch of musicians (well, bass players ) can't agree on this subject it's no wonder that the world at large doesn't agree either. What amazes me is that many people think they can stop these changes and hang on to the 'old ways'. Times change and the winners are those who embrace those changes and use them to their own benefit. The losers are the ones who cling on to a nostalgic memory of how things used to be.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. [/quote] Well that's a big subject you've just touched on there. What "things" have you in mind and have they all got worse because of the internet? And "worse not better" is rather subjective so that's a doubly-sweeping statement which probably makes it doubly pointless. [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] The other thing is, don't take me too seriously on anything I say. [/quote] Ah, I see. OK then. As you were.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340187155' post='1700526'] [i]What's the practical difference between having immediate, on-demand access to 1000 music files stored at home on a hard drive or having immediate, on-demand access to 1,000,000 music files stored on a hard drive in the server room of companies like Spotify or YouTube?[/i] Convenience. Accessibility. Portability. [/quote] I'd suggest that ubiquitous internet access and mobile devices is against you there.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340186319' post='1700507'] Tru dat re the inevitability, but whether it can be seen as 'progress' is not so clear. [/quote] Well, it's progress in the sense of going forward, but I take your point that different people will have different views on whether it's a good or bad thing. But I dare say there were plenty of people who thought the invention of the wheel was a change for the worse.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340185141' post='1700469'] So what's the problem then? I thought we were talking about the rights and wrongs of ILLEGAL downloading. The music industry IS changing, there are more ways to consume music and hear it before buying it, and yet people have £100s / £1000s worth of illegal music on their devices and deprive the artist and the industry of income. I'm arguing that this is WRONG. [/quote] Yes, I understand the argument and technically you're absolutely correct. But it is only a technicality, which is why, in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant. What's the practical difference between having immediate, on-demand access to 1000 music files stored at home on a hard drive or having immediate, on-demand access to 1,000,000 music files stored on a hard drive in the server room of companies like Spotify or YouTube? We're only about 20 years into the internet age and already there is more music, video and books available on-demand than anyone could reasonable 'consume' in their own lifetime. The BBC is working on making its entire television and radio archive available online. The Gutenberg project was a very early example of making written material available online. The era of whole days lost visiting reference libraries is past; historical documents may still be important cultural artifacts but the information within them is now freely available. Such draconian cultural changes create many tensions and we're discussing just one of them, but short of some sort of Luddite revolution there's no going back. Indeed, even the Luddite revolution was a short-lived blip in the march of inevitable progress.

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1340184977' post='1700462'] Because, the honest answer is that the old distribution model no longer works; or no longer works [i]universally[/i] - [b]which means some people here will hold a value in their music[/b], their output, which has no bearing on what value large sections of the listening public may apply to it. In market economics you'd suggest they'd be left to wither - if you price at $5 and your customers won't pay $1, then you get your own rewards. [/quote] Yep, and I'd suggest that it's a generation thing and will, like most such things, gradually solve itself as people drop off the end of life's conveyor belt, leaving only those who have grown up in this brave new world to swap stories about how odd it was that their granddparents actually used to pay good money for shiny plastic discs and how great it is that almost everything in the world is now online and available on demand for free.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340184414' post='1700440'] There are many ways to hear music before you buy it without thieving it. Your illegal actions mean that loss has occurred. [/quote] I wasn't talking about stealing anything or buying anything, but using a perfectly legal streaming service to listen to the music of my choice whnever and wherever I want. Nothing illegal about it - indeed, I presume the music industry supports such services.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340183978' post='1700426'] I'd also say would you feel comfortable doing a transaction in the Basschat marketplace with someone who you know advocates downloading for free content that should be paid for? I know I wouldn't. [/quote] That's sounds like just the sort of 'threat' that music business execs would come up with. What next? Criminal record checks for anyone wanting to sell something here? And how exactly are you going to differentiate between someone who legally uses services such as spotify or youtube to listen to their music for free?

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340183762' post='1700417'] So, have I got this right?.. If I download a song illegally, i'm a ****, even if i've contributed to that artist's income in other ways If I stream the same song legally, i'm a good guy. [/quote] That's my understanding - which is why this whole debate is so pointless. The world has moved on.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340183528' post='1700407'] You will have paid for the streamed songs... I believe Spotify costs money. [/quote] I've not used it but I know a couple of people who do. I believe the basic service is free but they play the occasional adverts but if you pay £9.99 per month then it's ad-free.

Spotify is indeed an interesting example. If I download a song and store it on my hard drive then a lot of people will say I've stolen that song. But if I listen to that same song by streaming it (i.e. downloading without storing it) then it seems to be OK. In these days of mobile comms and on-demand streaming, what is the practical difference between these two scenarios? None! Like it or not, music IS freely accessible these days and perfectly legal if you use services like Spotify or YouTube.