Oink Rants

[hoby]

but i just dont need cd's anymore. its the digital age.

Just to be really picky, here; CDs are digital. The digital age started waaaay before downloading or OINK.

i know its wrong, but it just feels too good.

Thanks for sharing.

What about used cd stores? Are they wrong too?

this is an interesting question.

Agreed, this is a tough one. The one rationalization I can offer is that at least a used store keeps those discs out of the waste stream.

[putty]

since i'm not on oink anymore, i can't check it, but typically a cd doesn't get snatched more than 1000 times or so, right? what i mean is, it's not 100,000 or 50,000 times.

not that it makes any difference, as far as making it right or wrong. i'm just saying those aren't the numbers.

yes, we all love music. that's why we're on a slip message board arguing about the ethics of pirating. but what's with all this stuff about how musicians have it so tough? it's always been tough for musicians, and it's not going to change any time soon. people have to figure out how they're going to survive, whether they're in a fledgling band or a graphic designer or a real estate agent or journalist. my job doesn't pay for my health insurance either.

this is the state of the music industry. it's uncontrollable. i'm not justifying my use of oink. it's certainly a personal dilemna i'll have to deal with. but this argument is not about sympathy for the musician.

[hoby]

since i'm not on oink anymore, i can't check it, but typically a cd doesn't get snatched more than 1000 times or so, right? what i mean is, it's not 100,000 or 50,000 times.

not that it makes any difference, as far as making it right or wrong. i'm just saying those aren't the numbers.

OK, thanks. I guess I wasn't talking only about OINK, but it's always good to have "real" numbers.

yes, we all love music. that's why we're on a slip message board arguing about the ethics of pirating.

"The Ethics of Pirating." Aaaar!! Thar's me thesis, mateys!!"

it's always been tough for musicians, and it's not going to change any time soon.

Probably not until our society values art more than war.

people have to figure out how they're going to survive, whether they're in a fledgling band or a graphic designer or a real estate agent or journalist.

Is piracy of graphics, real estate listings, or journalistic output as widespread as that of music? Are there websites devoted to the pursuit of that theft? Just guessing here but it seems that when graphics or journalism is stolen, it's already been paid for by whomever posted it in the first place, right?

my job doesn't pay for my health insurance either.

And that sucks. Some employers just suck and don't want to provide the insurance because of the cost (even if they can easily afford it. Hi Wal-Mart!!) and extra work. Others really can't afford to do it. The food co-op for which I work pays 100% of the medical and dental insurance premium for every full-time paid employee AND their family (we have a stafff of almost 70.) With double-digit raises in premium costs every year, it will soon be impossible for us to do this.

this is the state of the music industry.

That's part of it.

it's uncontrollable.

I disagree.

but this argument is not about sympathy for the musician.

Agreed. It's not about sympathy. It's about recognizing the effect your actions have on another human being - someone else who is struggling just like you. There are billions of those folks about whose situation you can do NOTHING. But there are some people whom your decisions do directly affect in some way large or small.

You decide to steal someone's music, you affect them negatively. You support them by buying it, you affect them positively. Your choice.

Where did I just read a quote that went something like "A person is the sum of his or her actions" ? Or "sum of his or her choices." Or something like that.

[headnugg]

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?

He just might, Hoby, he just might.

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.

What I mainly steal are computer programs and actually I get most of them off other illegal, illicit and insipid sites like Pirate Bay. As far as stealing music, I mainly go for obscure rap albums that you can't find anywhere and instrumental CD's.

But no, it's not even humanly possible to go see/buy merch for the artists I've stolen from because most of them were never even touring artists to begin with. I also steal a lot of advance albums and new releases. I usually DL them in MP3 first to see if I like them and they're worth burning to CD, and if they are, I'll DL the lossless version.

I just don't feel bad at all about stealing music. For the sake of this debate I'll refer to it as "stealing," but I don't really consider it stealing. The music business has been stealing from us since their inception. Now they're getting what's coming to them.

You know, Harvard just released a study that says something to the effect that Napster didn't hurt bands, it helped them. When Napster was around the music business was selling many more CD's. After its demise, CD sales leveled off. Why don't YOU explain that to me?

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?

They were an indie DIY band who was doing very well on their own and then signed a major label deal to release their newest album, the critically acclaimed Crane's Wife. This album hasn't sold as well as expected, they'll probably be dropped and it just didn't make any sense for them to move to a major label.

To each his own man.

This is your defense for theft and bragging about it? The prosecution rests.

If the prosecution was to rest at this point they would lose. You've only addressed one sentence. What about the rest?

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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."

Those are some good reasons. But there are many more.....

Yes, streaming may not mean the band is officially saying go steal my music, but they're sure putting it out there and making it easy to take.....

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.

Those are good numbers for an unknown band to put on their resume yes. I was more referring to a band that is already on a label. 50,000 is a number that will get you dropped. So yes, I do think that if a band had two options, one being to give away 100,000 copies of their album, but in doing so, they now have the ability to tour nationally, and the other option being to simply sell 50,000 copies of their album, any band would choose option A.

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?!

Yes, but if 100,000 people stole your album allowing you to tour and rake in the cash doing so, wouldn't that end up being a positive thing? And if that allowed you to then make a big, beautiful new CD and you had all these new fans to now want to seek out and purchase your music, would that be bad? If stealing a CD turns a person into a fan that is a good thing. They will then go out and support the band, and some of them will even buy the next CD you come out with, or will seek out and buy earlier releases. Or maybe they won't.

First of all there aren't many bands that tour on the arena level, but yes some bands tour arenas without label support. Remember a little band called Phish back in the early nineties touring arenas with virtually no label support, no radio support, no MTV, no nothing. How about String Cheese incident today? How about Widespread Panic? How about Dispatch just selling out 3 shows at MSG? I can keep going......

And of course I remember my comment, but you don't seem to understand what I was getting at. I'm saying that labels today don't build acts like they used to. When the Doors released their first album it didn't particularly sell well. Today, they would've been dropped. If labels were the way they are today in the 60's, I never would've heard the Doors. What I'm saying is that labels today don't build artists, they're looking for the instant payoff, the platinum sales. If they can sell a few million copies of an artists album, but then that artist disapears in a year, that's successful in today's market. A label cares about selling CD's now, not building a band that in 5 years from now will have the ability to sell out its' tours and sell millions of albums. If it takes 5 years the label isn't interested.

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?

What I said is true, whether people admit or not.

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.

What's the difference?

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.

Go back and read it again. (I don't know why this is in quotes, but I'm too tired to figure it out)

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.

Last time I checked this was America. There's a fine line between being a mod and being a censor. Phrazz can do whatever the fuck he wants, it's his board. But what's the point of an online discussion board if you can't feel free to say/discuss whatever the hell you want?

[putty]

i don't think pirating a band's cd is always negatively affecting that band.

if i would've never purchased the cd in the first place, then the band isn't losing money they would've made, but they are gaining a listener, and possibly a fan who will go to shows later on.

with the enormous number of indie bands out there, i think this factor can't be written off. but, using oink to download something that you normally would've purchased anyway is taking money out of their pocket, even if it is only a penny or two.

both instances are stealing. one is negative, while i consider the other to be positive if anything.

[KLUE]

Anyway, would Jah approve of stealing someone else's art?

Sorry for getting philosophical but, What is Art for?

[hoby]

Anyway, would Jah approve of stealing someone else's art?

He just might, Hoby, he just might.

Nah, I just checked in with him and he said "Definitely NOT."

What I mainly steal are computer programs

That's cool, then, 'cause computer programmers don't need to eat.

As far as stealing music, I mainly go for obscure rap albums that you can't find anywhere and instrumental CD's.

Obscure rap and instrumental musicians are less deserving of financial support? If you can't find the rap albums anywhere, where'd the download come from?

But no, it's not even humanly possible to go see/buy merch for the artists I've stolen from because most of them were never even touring artists to begin with.

So first you said it's ok to steal because you support the live gigs; now you're saying it's ok that you can't do that for all of them because they don't tour anyway.

I get it now.

I also steal a lot of advance albums and new releases. I usually DL them in MP3 first to see if I like them and they're worth burning to CD, and if they are, I'll DL the lossless version.

So you'll only make the effort to steal the lossless version if the music is good enough?

The music business has been stealing from us since their inception. Now they're getting what's coming to them.

And the artist is just collateral damage in you war against the man.

You know, Harvard just released a study that says something to the effect that Napster didn't hurt bands, it helped them. When Napster was around the music business was selling many more CD's. After its demise, CD sales leveled off.

Is the relationship causal or temporally coincidental?

Why don't YOU explain that to me?

Because.

They were an indie DIY band who was doing very well on their own and then signed a major label deal to release their newest album, the critically acclaimed Crane's Wife. This album hasn't sold as well as expected, they'll probably be dropped and it just didn't make any sense for them to move to a major label.

It didn't make any sense to you as an outsider.

If the prosecution was to rest at this point they would lose. You've only addressed one sentence. What about the rest?

Not sure what you mean by the rest, but everything else just seemed like bragging rather than justification.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, I won't. ("I'd like to have an argument please." - Name the reference.)

Yes, streaming may not mean the band is officially saying go steal my music, but they're sure putting it out there and making it easy to take.....

They're putting up samples in a streamed format. How can you possibly take that to be permission to go find a lossless copy and steal it? Oh, never mind; you don't really care about permission.

So yes, I do think that if a band had two options, one being to give away 100,000 copies of their album, but in doing so, they now have the ability to tour nationally,

Please. I'm trying to understand this. Describe for me the mechanism by which having 100,000 copies of your album stolen gets you a national tour.

Yes, but if 100,000 people stole your album allowing you to tour and rake in the cash doing so, wouldn't that end up being a positive thing?

How does their stealing my music allow me to tour?? If I don't have label support, where do I get the money to tour if not from CD sales??

And how about this time you address the point I raised about 100,000 not paying $10 for my disc and what that means for my income stream.

If stealing a CD turns a person into a fan that is a good thing. They will then go out and support the band, and some of them will even buy the next CD you come out with, or will seek out and buy earlier releases. Or maybe they won't.

You're just trying to make me crazy, aren't you?

Remember a little band called Phish back in the early nineties touring arenas with virtually no label support

Phish didn't have a record label? All those discs were self-released? I'm thinking there was a record label and I'm thinking you are not privvy to the terms of their agreements with said label.

no radio support

I heard them on the radio. A lot.

How about String Cheese incident today? How about Widespread Panic? How about Dispatch just selling out 3 shows at MSG? I can keep going......

None of these bands have record labels? Is Sci Fidelity Records a figment of my imagination? I can't bother to look up the others.

you don't seem to understand what I was getting at.

It seems I rarely do because what you say is alien to me. You posit causal relationships that happen by magic without substantiating facts and justifications are replaced by self-serving proclamations. I'm sorry, 'Nugg, but all I understand is that you are a remorseless thief of people's art.

You're right, you can do whatever you want if you can live with the consequences. Just don't exect me to ever think it's ok.

I'm saying that labels today don't build acts like they used to. When the Doors released their first album it didn't particularly sell well. Today, they would've been dropped. If labels were the way they are today in the 60's, I never would've heard the Doors. What I'm saying is that labels today don't build artists, they're looking for the instant payoff, the platinum sales. If they can sell a few million copies of an artists album, but then that artist disapears in a year, that's successful in today's market. A label cares about selling CD's now, not building a band that in 5 years from now will have the ability to sell out its' tours and sell millions of albums. If it takes 5 years the label isn't interested.

None of this proves your point. If labels drop anyone who doesn't sell enough discs, how does stealing the music instead of buying discs help the artist? It doesn't. Unless you've decided that it's best for the artist to get dropped. I'm sure they appreciate you looking out for them like that.

Look, I think record labels suck. Out loud. And viable alternative distribution is becoming a reality. But if it isn't a distribution that pays the artist, then all you've done is eliminated the middle-man in your efforts to rip off artists.

Which brings up another question: When you've eliminated "the man," how will you justify ripping off the artists?

What I said is true, whether people admit or not.

Prove it.

Last time I checked this was America.

OK, let's get out the chart and see who won the pool on how long it would take for this to appear.

'Nugg, at some point you're going to learn that "America" does not mean you do or say whatever you want without regard for anyone else.

But what's the point of an online discussion board if you can't feel free to say/discuss whatever the hell you want?

Um, civilized discourse and exchange of ideas within agreed-upon guidelines?

And with that, I'll be moving on to some other thread of civilized discourse.

[hoby]

Sorry for getting philosophical but, What is Art for?

Please, don't apologize. This is my favorite post of the entire thread and a question I am not qualified to answer.

Phrazz?

[headnugg]

What I mainly steal are computer programs

That's cool, then, 'cause computer programmers don't need to eat.

Yah, stupid nerds. FYI, those guys get paid when they create a program. They don't get a commission based on how many people buy the program.

As far as stealing music, I mainly go for obscure rap albums that you can't find anywhere and instrumental CD's.

Obscure rap and instrumental musicians are less deserving of financial support? If you can't find the rap albums anywhere, where'd the download come from?

That means that I couldn't find it at the Newton Free Library, take it home and burn it, then return it. So I OINKED it. I'd prefer to borrow/burn it, because then it doesn't affect my OINK ration. But we can't all win every time, you know?

But no, it's not even humanly possible to go see/buy merch for the artists I've stolen from because most of them were never even touring artists to begin with.

So first you said it's ok to steal because you support the live gigs; now you're saying it's ok that you can't do that for all of them because they don't tour anyway.

No, actually, I"m responding to your previous post asking if I support EVERY band I ripoff. I'm telling you to do that is not possible. You really seem to read what's convenient for you. YOu address only statements that you can twist, ignoring everything else.....

I also steal a lot of advance albums and new releases. I usually DL them in MP3 first to see if I like them and they're worth burning to CD, and if they are, I'll DL the lossless version.

So you'll only make the effort to steal the lossless version if the music is good enough?

Exactly! While it is free, every thing I DL brings my OINK ratio down, until I can only seed and can't DL. No one wants that to happen!

The music business has been stealing from us since their inception. Now they're getting what's coming to them.

And the artist is just collateral damage in you war against the man.

What you don't seem to get, and more importantly neither do the labels, DL'ing an album or a song doesn't affect an artist. An artist has their deal . They get minute points every time a record sells. They owe the label so much money for making the album, they're lucky to break even. Modern artists don't make their money off albums. Why is that so hard to grasp? People stealing music only promotes an artists music, creating more fans. Creating more fans in turns creates a bigger audience at shows, creating more merch profits.

You know, Harvard just released a study that says something to the effect that Napster didn't hurt bands, it helped them. When Napster was around the music business was selling many more CD's. After its demise, CD sales leveled off.

Is the relationship causal or temporally coincidental?

Go google that shit.

Why don't YOU explain that to me?

Because.

Not convenient enough, huh?

They were an indie DIY band who was doing very well on their own and then signed a major label deal to release their newest album, the critically acclaimed Crane's Wife. This album hasn't sold as well as expected, they'll probably be dropped and it just didn't make any sense for them to move to a major label.

It didn't make any sense to you as an outsider.

I'm commenting on that situation as someone who works in the business. Surely if someone came into your business and made some big moves that didn't pay off, you would have a comment one way or the other? That's what's going on here. This was a situation that was being closely watched by everyone in the industry. We've formed opinions, I'm sharing mine. That's what you do on a discussion board, right?

If the prosecution was to rest at this point they would lose. You've only addressed one sentence. What about the rest?

Not sure what you mean by the rest, but everything else just seemed like bragging rather than justification.

The jury finds for the plaintiff.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, I won't. ("I'd like to have an argument please." - Name the reference.)

Monty Python. English "comedy" is so not funny.

Yes, streaming may not mean the band is officially saying go steal my music, but they're sure putting it out there and making it easy to take.....

They're putting up samples in a streamed format. How can you possibly take that to be permission to go find a lossless copy and steal it? Oh, never mind; you don't really care about permission.

Again, you're missing my point. I'm commenting on the fact that a band streaming it's shit is making it very simple for their music to be stolen. You know streams can be easily recorded right?

So yes, I do think that if a band had two options, one being to give away 100,000 copies of their album, but in doing so, they now have the ability to tour nationally,

Please. I'm trying to understand this. Describe for me the mechanism by which having 100,000 copies of your album stolen gets you a national tour.

If 100,000 people buy/steal/hear your album and like it, guess what? You now have the ability to tour. Now there's 100,000 people that care enough about your music to pay to come see it performed live.

Yes, but if 100,000 people stole your album allowing you to tour and rake in the cash doing so, wouldn't that end up being a positive thing?

How does their stealing my music allow me to tour?? If I don't have label support, where do I get the money to tour if not from CD sales??

Since when does a band need label support to tour? The percentage of touring bands w/label deals and label support is probably 20% tops. This is how working bands become known. This is how garage bands get their music out there. It's called packing the van up and sleeping in it or on peoples floors, eating ramen noodle soup, sacrificing everything to get your music heard. Most of those people don't have the luxury of "label support." You're working with some antiquated notions here Hoby.....

Remember a little band called Phish back in the early nineties touring arenas with virtually no label support

Phish didn't have a record label? All those discs were self-released? I'm thinking there was a record label and I'm thinking you are not privvy to the terms of their agreements with said label.

Everyone knows Phish did it themselves, c'mon Hoby! You heard Phish's shit on the radio "a lot." Who are you kidding? Even though you quoted me above, you didn't seem to actually read what you're quoting.....I used the word "virtually" in Phish's case. Elektra didn't give a shit about Phish in 1992. They probably sold a combined 38,000 records. Neither did radio or MTV or any news publications or anyone, except for the phans in the know. They didn't really "break" until Billy Breathes and they were never a band that sold records. They were entirely self sufficient. They were a DIY band who happened to be on a major.

How about String Cheese incident today? How about Widespread Panic? How about Dispatch just selling out 3 shows at MSG? I can keep going......

None of these bands have record labels? Is Sci Fidelity Records a figment of my imagination? I can't bother to look up the others.

SCI owns their label. The only person giving them money to tour is themselves. And guess how they generated said money in the first place? Relentless DIY touring.

Same thing w/Dispatch.

Panic, same deal as Phish. At one point, a long time ago, they werer on Capricorn. THey got dropped because they didn't sell any records. But they could sure sell out an arena. Now they have just a distribution deal, so there' no "label support." Label support exists for bands like Linkin Park and Justin Timberlake. Do you think Bar None is giving much label support to BAM? I'm actually curious about that, but I would bet the budget is very, very low.

you don't seem to understand what I was getting at.

It seems I rarely do because what you say is alien to me. You posit causal relationships that happen by magic without substantiating facts and justifications are replaced by self-serving proclamations. I'm sorry, 'Nugg, but all I understand is that you are a remorseless thief of people's art.

You're being a little dramatic here Hoby. Everything I say can be backed up. If I don't have speficific evidence for something I say, it's usually because it's common knowledge. THere's no reason for me to provide footnotes for something that everyone should know. I've stolen some CD's yes. SOme computer programs, sure. Does that make me a "remorseless thief of people's art?" Hardly. In fact I support the arts often. I go to museums, art galleries, photo exhibits. I spend thousands on concert art. Sometimes at shows, but usually in the aftermarket, like Ebay and stuff. Where a lot of the original artist come back to re-sell their own stuff. YOu and I simply have a different opinion on this issue. Does that make me wrong? No. Does it make you wrong? Probably.

You're right, you can do whatever you want if you can live with the consequences. Just don't exect me to ever think it's ok.

This isn't an issue of you, or anyone else, thinking it's OK. This is way beyond that.

I'm saying that labels today don't build acts like they used to. When the Doors released their first album it didn't particularly sell well. Today, they would've been dropped. If labels were the way they are today in the 60's, I never would've heard the Doors. What I'm saying is that labels today don't build artists, they're looking for the instant payoff, the platinum sales. If they can sell a few million copies of an artists album, but then that artist disapears in a year, that's successful in today's market. A label cares about selling CD's now, not building a band that in 5 years from now will have the ability to sell out its' tours and sell millions of albums. If it takes 5 years the label isn't interested.

None of this proves your point. If labels drop anyone who doesn't sell enough discs, how does stealing the music instead of buying discs help the artist? It doesn't. Unless you've decided that it's best for the artist to get dropped. I'm sure they appreciate you looking out for them like that.

What's the point I'm trying to make then? In fact, this illustrates my point very clearly. That the music business today is totally different than what it was even five years ago. This isn't an argument about what's right and what's wrong. It's way beyond that. This goes into DRM and business practices, laws that haven't even been invented yet. What's going on now is going to dictate what goes on in the future of the music business. We're at a very crucial juncture at this point in time. This has nothing to do w/right or wrong, it's not about stealing music, it's about more important shit that that. It's about setting up a viable, business model for the new millenium. Digital sales are the wave of the future. If you think people are going to continue paying .99 a song and $15 an album, you're wrong. File sharing is a way for the people to dictate to the industry that they need to create a new model. It's also a way for Average Joe to check out a band he doesn't feel like dropping $20 for the new CD that only has one good song anyway. This way, he can check the tunes out and if he likes them, presto, voila, there's a new fan! Now Joe, by DL'ing an album or a song, is a new fan of so and so's music. He never even would've heard the music if he didn't "steal" it. Now the band's got a new fan. That's a bad thing?

What I said is true, whether people admit or not.

Prove it.

Since you're the one challenging it, why don' you prove I'm wrong?

Last time I checked this was America.

OK, let's get out the chart and see who won the pool on how long it would take for this to appear.

'Nugg, at some point you're going to learn that "America" does not mean you do or say whatever you want without regard for anyone else.

Isn't that exactly what America is? Frankly, you sound very naive....

But what's the point of an online discussion board if you can't feel free to say/discuss whatever the hell you want?

Um, civilized discourse and exchange of ideas within agreed-upon guidelines?

And with that, I'll be moving on to some other thread of civilized discourse.

Is this not civilzed discourse? And if you can't say whatever you want on an online discussion board, where can you?

BTW, this has been fun.

[hoby]

Yeah, I'm back. Couldn't let it go...

FYI, those guys get paid when they create a program. They don't get a commission based on how many people buy the program.

No, but if no one buys the program because everyone steals it, the company goes out of business and those guys are out of a job.

You really seem to read what's convenient for you. YOu address only statements that you can twist, ignoring everything else.....

And you seem to contradict yourself, saying whatever works to "support" your argument at the time.

What you don't seem to get, and more importantly neither do the labels, DL'ing an album or a song doesn't affect an artist.

What you don't seem to get is that if someone doesn't want you to do something with their property and you do it, no amount of rationalization or industry insider posturing makes it right.

You can rant all day long about what's best for the band. If they don't want you stealing their music, it's wrong to do so. The enlightened bands who understand the new economy? Take it all from them. It's what they want.

An artist has their deal . They get minute points every time a record sells. They owe the label so much money for making the album, they're lucky to break even. Modern artists don't make their money off albums. Why is that so hard to grasp?

It's not hard to grasp. It's been the story of the industry for MUCH longer than you've been involved in it. I just don't agree that the labels screwing artists means it's OK for you to steal from someone who doesn't want you to.

it just didn't make any sense for them to move to a major label.

It didn't make any sense to you as an outsider.

I'm commenting on that situation as someone who works in the business.

If you're not in the band or working for the label, you're an outsider to that situation. You might be a knowledgeable outsider, but you are an outsider nonetheless. You might even end up being right about the final outcome, but you can't know how it looked to the parties involved at the time.

The jury finds for the plaintiff.

The jury got bored and left hours ago.

English "comedy" is so not funny.

But you knew the reference.

Again, you're missing my point. I'm commenting on the fact that a band streaming it's shit is making it very simple for their music to be stolen. You know streams can be easily recorded right?

I think I see the problem here. Yes, of course streams can be recorded. When I talk about stealing, I'm not talking about snatching some crappy stream. I'm talking about downloading a lossless copy of a CD; an "official release" that is available in the "consumer industry standard" of 44.1/16-bit audio. I've been under the impression that you were talking about doing that. Finding lossless copies of officially released CDs and downloading them rather than purchasing them. Are you only talking about taking promotional streams?

Since when does a band need label support to tour? The percentage of touring bands w/label deals and label support is probably 20% tops. This is how working bands become known. This is how garage bands get their music out there. It's called packing the van up and sleeping in it or on peoples floors, eating ramen noodle soup, sacrificing everything to get your music heard. Most of those people don't have the luxury of "label support."

Whoops, here we go again. When this whole thing started we talking about arena tours, not van tours. Have we changed tracks again?

You're working with some antiquated notions here Hoby.....

Go ahead and misunderestimate my notions. There is one apparently antiquated notion that I most certailny am working with: The notion that doing somethig with somebody's property that they don't want you to do is wrong.

And that (plus exhaustion) is why I'll concede all that follows about indistry stuff; because all the blather about that stuff doesn't change the fact that if the band doesn't want you taking something from them, to do so is wrong.

You're being a little dramatic here Hoby.

<Back of hand to forehead> Me? DRAMATIC?!?!?! NEVER !!!!

Does that make me a "remorseless thief of people's art?" Hardly

What makes you a "remorseless thief of people's art" is that you steal people's work/art and show no remorse whatsoever.

In fact I support the arts often. I go to museums, art galleries, photo exhibits. I spend thousands on concert art. Sometimes at shows, but usually in the aftermarket, like Ebay and stuff. Where a lot of the original artist come back to re-sell their own stuff.

None of which makes it right to steal a copy of an artist's copyrighted CD from the internet. If that's what you're doing. If, as I pointed out above, that's all been a misunderstanding, then, darn the inexactitude of internet communications.

YOu and I simply have a different opinion on this issue. Does that make me wrong? No. Does it make you wrong? Probably.

This isn't an issue of you, or anyone else, thinking it's OK. This is way beyond that.

I honestly have no idea what this means.

This isn't an argument about what's right and what's wrong.

Well, it was. But you've moved away from that to...

This goes into DRM and business practices, laws that haven't even been invented yet. What's going on now is going to dictate what goes on in the future of the music business. We're at a very crucial juncture at this point in time.

None of which was mentioned until just now. And I happen to agree with you about that stuff. It's just not what we were talking about.

It's about setting up a viable, business model for the new millenium. Digital sales are the wave of the future. If you think people are going to continue paying .99 a song and $15 an album, you're wrong. File sharing is a way for the people to dictate to the industry that they need to create a new model. It's also a way for Average Joe to check out a band he doesn't feel like dropping $20 for the new CD that only has one good song anyway. This way, he can check the tunes out and if he likes them, presto, voila, there's a new fan! Now Joe, by DL'ing an album or a song, is a new fan of so and so's music. He never even would've heard the music if he didn't "steal" it. Now the band's got a new fan. That's a bad thing?

If the band is giving away music, it's not stealing. If the band wants you to pay for the music and you don't, that's stealing. Stealing, by definition, is bad. Maybe, hopefully, someday, there'll be a new paradigm. We're not there yet and some artists want you to pay when you take their music.

'Nugg, at some point you're going to learn that "America" does not mean you do or say whatever you want without regard for anyone else.

Isn't that exactly what America is?

Only to elementary school kids who fall back on the "it's a free country" defense when called on their sh*t. (That sounds harsher than it's meant to be.)

Frankly, you sound very naive....

Frankly, your definition of America sounds very naive to me. (See, I'm willing to judge your statement rather than you. At least in this paragraph. )

Is this not civilzed discourse?

For the most part.

BTW, this has been fun.

For the most part.

[johnhk4]

jesus

[headnugg]

Well excuse me Mr. Holier Than Thou Phrazz. Sorry I'm being so insipid.

Instead, why not post or do something tasteful? I was merely commenting that your vehement support of Oink is tasteless. You don't have to apologize to me.

What you were doing was merely "insulting," not commenting. Insipid is an insult. Don't put out a cheap shot and then pretend you didn't mean it that way.....

1 : lacking taste or savor : TASTELESS
2 : lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : DULL, FLAT

When I want to get some instrumental rap shit to spin/cut to, I go to OINK. When I want to get a CD that I can't find at the library, I OINK that shit. When I need a music program, like Logic Express, Recycle, etc., holy shit, guess who has it? OINK. And I don't have to pay hundreds for it. And I don't feel bad about ripping Apple off either. They have anything and everything. It's easy, it's free. What could be better? Well, I guess it would be better if you didn't have to keep your ratio up....

Stealing is easy, and you justify your own actions by saying it's easy to steal? I don't get your logic, man. You are living in a world of your own perfection. You even say you're ripping off Apple, but you don't mind. That statement is morally bereft. And what could be better? Sending back nothing in return ("would be better if you didn't have to keep your ratio up"). This is a completely ridiculous way to justify theft.

Go back to your first post. YOu asked me to explain why I like OINK so that's what I did. I don't have to justify my actions to you. I use OINk. So do thousands. I don't care if you think it's wrong. I'll use it until they shut it down. And let's get technical. If it's stealing, if it's illegal, why has that website been allowed to operate for so long? Other websites get shut down quick. And it's not like this is operating out of Sweden or some remote island, it's a UK based website. So if it's illegal, why is it allowed to operate so freely and in the open?

I would have to completely disagree with you.

You know, at this point I really don't care. You've made your stand -- you will stand by your right to steal music. I understand at least that much about you.

I was more arguing a point you made. You said music is not free for the taking. I said it clearly is. I believe what you were trying to say is that while music is free for the taking you shouldn't just take it. That's fine and dandy. I'm merely saying that if you want it, it sure is free for the taking.
I don't think you can gain an "understanding" of anyone, no matter how minute that "understanding" may be, through an internet message board....but hey, if that's how you figure people out, more power to you.

In this day and age, music is totally free for the taking. It's up to you if you want to do it or not. Preaching on internet message boards doesn't help anyone.

I don't understand how I'm preaching and you're not. But that's not the point. The point is you continue to justify your own stealing of music, but the only argument you have is that everyone does it or that it's easy. This is not justification, this is rationalization.

Seriously man, maybe you should go back and read your first post. If that's not holier than thou internet preaching, than I don't know what is.....

I may not buy any CD's

Why not? Because they cost money?

Because they're a fucking ripoff.

but I sure as hell support artists by purchasing concert tickets and merch.

So why do merch and tickets fall into your precious category of "things that Headnugg will pay for", but recorded material is "free for the taking?" This argument is completely inane (although it may reflect a growing trend...I'll agree to that much). This doesn't make it right, however.

Why does Picasso mean so much to some people and others don't give a shit? Seeing live music is something that I shell out big bucks for. I don't shell out big bucks for CD's. I don't feel like explaining it. It's just how it goes. Gotsta prioritize.

And in this day and age, THAT is how the artist makes money. No one except the HUGE stars make money off CD sales these days, and that's even debatable.

Why, because kids can get CDs for free, so why buy them? Thanks for proving my point (yet again). You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Huh?

I'm a musician and Putty may well be one too.....but aren't you forgetting who started this thread and already said he used OINK?.......I also understood that this is a DISCUSSION forum. If people want to discuss OINK, if it bothers you so much, simply don't enter the thread. There's no reason people can't talk about OINK here because you don't approve.....

No, actually, it's more than that. I don't approve of illegal activity and I will not support the discussion thereof on this board. This board has a Charter, and it has rules, and if you don't like them, you can visit another board of your choice. You still have to abide by society's laws and a forum is only as open as it's owners are willing to tolerate.

Some musicians really do make money off CD sales, and when they have their own record label, most of that goes to the band's organization. I'm not sure if your band makes any money this way, but I know some bands who do and they would certainly not extol the virtues of Oink for the sole purpose of justifying massive theft in the name of freedom. There is no such right as freedom to steal.

-Phrazz

So are you saying that discussion of OINK will no longer be tolerated at this board? Please clarify.

[Cleantone]

holy cow. I am not going to read any of that. I do want to share my thoughts...

People are not going to change other peoples minds about downloading pirated data. I do not agree with mind set of what I would consider an "oink" user. Again I didn't read the above posts at all. I don't bother preaching. I JUST WISH that people who were doing the downloading could just NOT TALK about it. Not online or in real life. THAT is what I wish would happen. Steal your softwares, your music, and your movies. Have a blast. I cannot change your opinion on the subject. Just consider keeping the information to yourself. That way it won't bother people cause they wont have to read about it on message boards or overhear you at a restaraunt.

That being said I do know most of the people who posted the above (that I read not one word of). I DO LIKE all of you and am not going to take sides or enter the debate. I just wish folks would keep it in the closet.

[francis]

more bands should post streams of their cds. i enjoy being able to listen to a cd before the release date, or before i buy it.

[appleofmyeye]

Yeeeeaaaahhhh Tone! I totally agree.