Prove to me that you buy concert tickets and t-shirts for every artist whose music you steal.
The only people I have to prove something to is myself and Jah.
That's funny, you don't look Rastafarian. (That was a joke. See, here's my smiley
) Anyway, would Jah approve of stealing someone else's art?
You best believe I've dropped THOUSANDS over the years on shows alone.
That's not what I asked. Do you go to shows and buy merch for EVERY aertist you steal from. Buying 6 Slip tickets, Eisenhower, and a t-shirt is good for BAM but doesn't help the artist you steal from whose gig you don't attend.
The Decemberists before they sold out to the man.
That's so cute, so '70s.
(I was there, BTW, the '70s. Hated the man.) But what does that mean in this context, "selling out to the man"? Seriously. I don't know much about the Decemberists, so what constitutes their selling out?
Touring and merch is how bands stay alive today.
This is true for the large majority of musicians, yes.
To each his own man.
This is your defense for theft and bragging about it? The prosecution rests.
I guarantee there are plenty of bands out there that would be thrilled to know that anyone cared enough about their music to actually steal it.
Not the ones who try to feed their kids and pay for health insurance through their music.
Why do you think so many bands give away their music for free? Stream their album on their website/myspace before it's even released? Leak their music....
I can think of a couple of reasons:
-They're just starting out and still have the safety net of an alternate income stream (read: "day job"). Giving it away is a strategy for building to the next level.
-They're already so well established they can afford to offer up a loss leader (ex. Neil Young and Living With War)
Just to be clear, BTW, streaming sample cuts is not the same as saying "Go ahead and make bit-for-bit copies of my official release and give it away."
If a band can generate a buzz by giving away it's music,
That's an incorrect use of the apostrophe there; -2 points. You lose credibility if you can't spell. "Sorry, I'm old school."
that's more valuable then not generating a buzz and selling 50,000 albums.
Selling 50,000 units as a fledgling band isn't generating a buzz?? I'm pretty sure those are the kind of numbers that get interest from labels.
Are you really telling me that if you were in a band and 100,000 people stole your album, but in doing that all of a sudden you're playing arenas, that's not a good thing?!
Lots in this one sentence.
First, I am in a "band" (a duo, actually) and we just entered into an agreement with a netlabel to offer up some of our stuff as free MP3 downloads. We both have day jobs. Neither of us depend on making music to feed our family.
But if I was trying to sell an album as an income stream, you're damn right I'd be pissed if 100,000 people stole it. If I release it myself and I'm selling the record for $10, how much money have I lost? My kid's college education? My retirement? People are welcome to download and copy the stuff we offer for free until they pass out from the effort, but to then also steal the "official release" I'm asking to get paid for? Where's my baseball bat with the spike through one end? (Of course, this is all hypothetical. We're not self-releasing a CD and if we did, it's not the kind of stuff 100,000 people would be interested in, and I don't own a baseball bat with a spike through one end.)
Finally, I don't believe anyone tours arenas without label support and labels don't sign bands that are good at getting ripped off. Labels sign bands that make money by moving units and filling rooms. Remember your comment about instant gratification and no one building bands?
And yes, it is stealing and I steal music.
And so does everyone reading this thread, whether they choose to admit it or not.
'Nugg, you're the absolute master of the unprovable absolute. EVERYONE?
And I was asked to "extol the virtues" of OINK.
Which you still haven't done, I don't think. You've rationalized your use of it, but you haven't explained why OINK is good.
We can argue this all day.
Yes, we've proven that before. I'm guessing other members cringe when they see our two avatars in the same thread. Wanna smoke?
There's no right or wrong. There are only opinions.
That's an enormous pile of poop, but that's also a discussion for another time and not online. I can't afford the carpal tunnel.
Um, what the f*ck does that have to do with anything?
Whoa! An uncharacteristic swear from Hoby! Go back and read Phrazz' post that I initially responded to and you'll get your answer......
Yeah, I'm sorry. I've had a couple of weeks of really stressfull days at work and was pretty low on tact by last night.
But I did go back and find Phrazz's first post and your reply and I'm still confused. He wasn't the first to mention Oink, I think you were. At least I didn't see it mentioned before that.
hoby wrote: There's no reason people can't talk about OINK here because you don't approve.....
This is just plain absurd.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Because there's nothing absurd about my statement. Phrazz asked us to curtail the OINK talk. THAT is absurd.
Well, let's see, Phrazz is a moderator of the forum and I'm pretty sure he OWNS THE D*MN BOARD!!! (I'm not angry, I'm laughing. See?
)
It's not absurd. It's his perogative.
You or someone else may find it unreasonable, unfair, or funny, but it's his party and he can cry if he wants to. (Name the artist, please.) I find Phrazz to be the epitome of a reasonable moderator and don't believe he would censor on a whim, but the fact is, Phrazz could "not approve" with extreme prejudice and that would be the end of discussion about OINK. It would be quite the brouhaha and I'm sure some members would bail on the board, but he could do it.
Hence, my statement of absurdity. For you to say something that amounts to "We can talk about OINK whether you like it or not" to the owner of the board just doesn't compute.
As with my swearing, using "absurd" was my stress talking. Absurd wasn't a constructive way to phrase it. Sorry.