I get insulted because I buy my music...wait, what?

[dangitall]

Some guy insulted me because I bought a PSP instead of an Xbox.
Some guy insulted me because I am Chinese.
Some guy insulted me for asking a question in science on behalf of the idiots of my class.
Some guy insulted me because I was HELPING my friend (called me "gay").
Some guy insulted me because I didn't pirate a game (MGSPW, for the people that really wants to know).
Some guy insulted me for calling the CoD series a setback for new gaming innovations.
!And about the music thing, I suggest keep buying it, if it is what you consider really good. And if you don't buy it, they won't have money left to make new better music.
Unless it's the generic MTV pop music, they don't deserve the kind of money. Pirate away.

 

[Novokane]

I got insulted by one of my art teachers cuz i make art she doesn't like.
During a class she said outloud that the kind of art I do is not in fact art and people like my shouldn't be accepted in art establishment... then she added that I was probably not sane (and that infront of all my classmates.)

I knew there were still closed minded folks everywhere but from an art teacher... can't say I saw that coming.

 

[theevilsanta]

I was pretty popular in high school. The only people I didn't get along with were the extremely antisocial (sadly) and the elitist (essentially just self-righteous nerds). Even the super rich kids were more open minded than the XKCD comic lovers.

What sort of strange mirror-world did you go to high school in? o_0

Well the elitist nerd kids weren't "cool" by any means. The point is a friend of mine and myself (both "cool"ish football players) tried to join Knowledge Bowl and we were attacked with so much passive aggression (nerdy teacher included) that we never went back to a second meeting. We just wanted to have fun doing Quiz Bowl stuff. Trivia is fun!

 

[Xenomemphate]

How do artist even make money anymore? That music you're stealing is somebody else's intellectual property.

Merchandise and tours. They only get a fraction of the money made from selling the CDs.

I got insulted for being good at physics...

And who funds the tours and makes the merchandise? Oh yeah, its the record company who makes money off the CD sales... D'OH!

Actually no. Not always. Many tours are organised by other companies. Take the Rockstar tour I recently went to, that was funded by none other than the energy drink Rockstar (of which I got two free cans of. Awesome!)

Like I said. Expert economists.

Guess what? If no one buys your bands' albums, you're probably not going to stay signed for very long! I can sit here and throw out valid, logical counter-arguments just as long as you can attempt to pull random junk out of your backside to justify people not having any obligation to buy music.

I take exception to that. I never once said anyone was justified in not buying their music. I was never arguing with you, I was just pointing out where you were incorrect.

However, with some bands I have been unable to find their CDs in shops, and even online, and so have had to download the song. I wont say I never download, but I damn well do buy the CD if I can, so don't pretent you know me.

 

[BlackWidower]

Ok I have to word this carefully to avoid moderator wrath....

With movies and videogames the only experience is the product so piracy is technically removing the chance of income and therefor it can be argued that piracy is a moral wrong.
However where music differs is in the distribution and consumption. When purchasing an album the money goes to the record company who then keeps between 88 and 95 percent of the money, the remainder is used toward paying for the advance, recording, promotion, manufacturing, distribution etc, which means that the artist/band only start receiving royalties once they have sold quite a high volume usually in the Millions.

It then becomes arguable that if you were to download the bands entire back catalogue instead of purchasing and subsequently attend one concert, even if the ticket price is the same as one album, you would be contributing more to the artist than someone who had purchased every album as the artist receives 100 percent of the ticket (minus venue hire etc)

It is a very tricky subject to discuss on the escapist as they are quite keen to suspend for even mentioning piracy in a positive light, but let me leave you with this, if (and granted it is a large if) all artists started releasing their recorded works for free, would the artists be making the same amount of money they do now and would they still feel the need to make music for a specific demographic or would it liberate the artists from chasing sales to sustain their fan base?

getting insulted for buying music is fair enough. why do musicians need money? they clearly already have instruments or you wouldnt be able to hear anything. I think free music is a good thing., people should make music for the fact they like making music not for fame and fortune. if they want money they should go and tour.

you are wrong. bands do not keep much money from ticket prices at all. think about it you pay 20 dollars for a concert ticket. that has to pay for a bus a bus driver, somewhere for the driver to sleep, food for yourself, your own merch cds exc, guitar strings drum heads excc that need to be replaced and half a billion other things.

also this: http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/no_money_mo_problems/

What you are forgetting is that those are all reasonable expenses and the money left IS ALL THEIRS whereas the list of deductions for record sales is much worse and they have to pay for that out of their 10% of sales BEFORE they see a cent, trust me, from a musician who has gigged, you won't be rich but you will be richer if you sell gig tickets instead of albums

Im guessing you didnt read the article linked and missed the point of my post. Obviously tickets bring in more cash than selling records im not trying to argue that. Im just saying that making a living as a musiian is a pipe dream nowadays. If the lead singer of thursday (a pretty popular band) cant break 10 grand a year how are the thousands of bands which are alot smaller than his suppose to get by. its not possible without being constantly broke.

I read the article, it seems like the real blame goes to the fans who didn't go see them live, see if they kept selling out venues they could book a bigger venue next time and make more dough, but they couldn't sell out venues because people would rather buy and album and act holier than thou than get informed and buy a gig ticket, all it did was prove my point that if you wanna help artists, pirate their tracks and go see them live

your impossible. im done trying to reason with you. keep telling yourself that stealing is the answer if thats what you honestly believe.

I believe sharing is the answer, I believe that there are better solutions to distribution and they don't all have to be based on financial gain and I believe that everyone should get to experience music regardless of social standing or wealth

thanks for the discourse

Here's a better idea, maybe the fans should buy the albums AND go see them live. Radical idea, I know.

and maybe we should all buy ferraris and race them around on the moon, not everyone is wealthy, radical concept I know

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

 

[Nannernade]

I've been insulted for watching anime subbed, I think I'm a threat because I don't make the excuse "I don't want to read while I watch"

 

[Tipsy Giant]

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

well if you consume a lot of music, very expensive!

and if you are suggesting they limit the amount of music they consume they will have a much narrower view of music and in the long run our culture suffers and artists aren't inspired by a variety of sources and music stagnates, this is how I see the issue and I would never back down on my belief that everyone deserves art, which is why I think museums and art galleries should be free entry too.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I got insulted for defending Metallica.

Sure I'm not defending Lars v Napster and all that, or St Anger, but this is the band that made five of the most influential metal albums of all time.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I've gotten insulted by a number of people for the past few days because I told someone I buy all my music...does that make any sense at all? Sorry that I support those that work their asses of to make it so you have the music you like to listen to.

For discussion value, have you ever been insulted for something utterly retarded?

The fact is, you value quality and should have pride in the solid copy of a single or album/vinyl etc. Piracy is for morons with no value for the music itself and have no particular attachment to the physical object.

I've bought around 70 CDs in the last few years of stuff I like, I enjoy it all

 

[Kaymish]

dont take any notice of those people. someone will always insult you for something ive been insulted for being a girl with red hair and thats not even a total choice like piracy or what not because while you can easily colour your hair your gender is a bit more difficult to choose

 

[DracoSuave]

You are missing my point, if you buy the album they don't get a penny unless they have have already sold millions of cds, so what you are denying them is usually nothing, there are a lot of bands who are so sick of being dicked around with money that they tell their fans to come see them live and just download their tunes for free.

This logic is even worse.

So, after having acknowledged that, after a certain amount of sales they make money, you then use that as logic for not only denying them that money, but also crippling their sales so that they can't ever make money from this venue.

The crux of the matter is:

Unless the artist tells you to do so themselves, you're not morally entitled to make that decision for them.

Once the artist does, you have all the moral justification in the world. It is morally their decision to make. You do not have the moral (or legal) right to make such decisions on their behalf; until you do you're just rationalizing theft... from someone where that theft actually directly endangers their ability to profit from their own work.

Look, I'm against the way the record industry works as well, I don't like how they treat artists and the consumer, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're some music industry Robin Hood here. You're not. You're downloading music for yourself. That's not 'Stealing from the rich so you can give to the artist.' That's taking for yourself. It's not the same thing at all.

The REAL way to hit the corporations is very simple: If you do not like the product, do not consume it. Do not steal it and think you're saving the day for art. You're not... the industry still has the power in other ways.

 

[BlackWidower]

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

well if you consume a lot of music, very expensive!

and if you are suggesting they limit the amount of music they consume they will have a much narrower view of music and in the long run our culture suffers and artists aren't inspired by a variety of sources and music stagnates, this is how I see the issue and I would never back down on my belief that everyone deserves art, which is why I think museums and art galleries should be free entry too.

Well, here's the issue. You can still get music legally for free. Most artists post their songs for live streaming on their website, or you can view their videos on YouTube. This is different. If one is listening to music over and over again after getting it off a torrent site and having no plans to buy the album, the artist, and by extension, the industry, suffers. Why would anyone take the time to make music, and record it with $1000 recording equipment, if no one's going to buy it?

Now, one can just go see them in concert and give them money from the ticket. But what are the odds that they are going to come to your hometown? Okay, fine, if you live in the big city it's likely. But most people don't. I know only a few bands I've actually liked came to my hometown, but thrice I had to leave town and go to Toronto, or in one case, Hamilton, to see a concert, and I wouldn't do that for any band. Only the Stones are worthy of that pilgrimage.

We do have the Townehouse, a local bar that some local and indie musicians perform at, but most aren't into the indie scene, and the artists only make money if you drink alcohol. Which says a lot about their quality.

I guess what I'm saying is, stop trying to justify your blatant piracy. If they want to give their music away for free that's fine, but if they want you to pay, you should. Unless you don't think the music is worth the money, and the artist should be compensated for their hard work.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

well if you consume a lot of music, very expensive!

and if you are suggesting they limit the amount of music they consume they will have a much narrower view of music and in the long run our culture suffers and artists aren't inspired by a variety of sources and music stagnates, this is how I see the issue and I would never back down on my belief that everyone deserves art, which is why I think museums and art galleries should be free entry too.

Well, here's the issue. You can still get music legally for free. Most artists post their songs for live streaming on their website, or you can view their videos on YouTube. This is different. If one is listening to music over and over again after getting it off a torrent site and having no plans to buy the album, the artist, and by extension, the industry, suffers. Why would anyone take the time to make music, and record it with $1000 recording equipment, if no one's going to buy it?

Now, one can just go see them in concert and give them money from the ticket. But what are the odds that they are going to come to your hometown? Okay, fine, if you live in the big city it's likely. But most people don't. I know only a few bands I've actually liked came to my hometown, but thrice I had to leave town and go to Toronto, or in one case, Hamilton, to see a concert, and I wouldn't do that for any band. Only the Stones are worthy of that pilgrimage.

We do have the Townehouse, a local bar that some local and indie musicians perform at, but most aren't into the indie scene, and the artists only make money if you drink alcohol. Which says a lot about their quality.

I guess what I'm saying is, stop trying to justify your blatant piracy. If they want to give their music away for free that's fine, but if they want you to pay, you should. Unless you don't think the music is worth the money, and the artist should be compensated for their hard work.

Firstly thanks for the eliquent post, surprisingly when you usually try to stand up for a culture of sharing you are shot with insults all over the place calling you a thief so this has been a pleasent change in discourse.
OK so recording equipment does not cost $1000, more like $100, might not be top studio level but you are recording with the same quality audio, I am currently working on a music project to try and prove you can make music cheaply and well and if our ticket sales are good enough we will keep making music, but I refuse to eliminate people from hearing my tracks based on wealth

 

[GiantRaven]

OK so recording equipment does not cost $1000, more like $100, might not be top studio level but you are recording with the same quality audio, I am currently working on a music project to try and prove you can make music cheaply and well and if our ticket sales are good enough we will keep making music, but I refuse to eliminate people from hearing my tracks based on wealth

For $100 you expect to be able to purchase...an digital audio interface, a mixer, the software needed, microphones for recording, etc?

For reals?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

OK so recording equipment does not cost $1000, more like $100, might not be top studio level but you are recording with the same quality audio, I am currently working on a music project to try and prove you can make music cheaply and well and if our ticket sales are good enough we will keep making music, but I refuse to eliminate people from hearing my tracks based on wealth

For $100 you expect to be able to purchase...an digital audio interface, a mixer, the software needed, microphones for recording, etc?

For reals?

already have and only one scratch section until the EP is complete

 

[BlackWidower]

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

well if you consume a lot of music, very expensive!

and if you are suggesting they limit the amount of music they consume they will have a much narrower view of music and in the long run our culture suffers and artists aren't inspired by a variety of sources and music stagnates, this is how I see the issue and I would never back down on my belief that everyone deserves art, which is why I think museums and art galleries should be free entry too.

Well, here's the issue. You can still get music legally for free. Most artists post their songs for live streaming on their website, or you can view their videos on YouTube. This is different. If one is listening to music over and over again after getting it off a torrent site and having no plans to buy the album, the artist, and by extension, the industry, suffers. Why would anyone take the time to make music, and record it with $1000 recording equipment, if no one's going to buy it?

Now, one can just go see them in concert and give them money from the ticket. But what are the odds that they are going to come to your hometown? Okay, fine, if you live in the big city it's likely. But most people don't. I know only a few bands I've actually liked came to my hometown, but thrice I had to leave town and go to Toronto, or in one case, Hamilton, to see a concert, and I wouldn't do that for any band. Only the Stones are worthy of that pilgrimage.

We do have the Townehouse, a local bar that some local and indie musicians perform at, but most aren't into the indie scene, and the artists only make money if you drink alcohol. Which says a lot about their quality.

I guess what I'm saying is, stop trying to justify your blatant piracy. If they want to give their music away for free that's fine, but if they want you to pay, you should. Unless you don't think the music is worth the money, and the artist should be compensated for their hard work.

Firstly thanks for the eliquent post, surprisingly when you usually try to stand up for a culture of sharing you are shot with insults all over the place calling you a thief so this has been a pleasent change in discourse.
OK so recording equipment does not cost $1000, more like $100, might not be top studio level but you are recording with the same quality audio, I am currently working on a music project to try and prove you can make music cheaply and well and if our ticket sales are good enough we will keep making music, but I refuse to eliminate people from hearing my tracks based on wealth

And that is your decision, that is the business model you have chosen. But the consumer should not force their own ideal on the producer. If the consumer does not like the business model the producer has chosen, it does not give them the right to pirate the content.

 

[velcrokidneyz]

artists hardly make money off of record sales. Just saying.

I huess i been hated on for not liking evangelion by my friends and twin brother

 

[Tipsy Giant]

...wait...how much do you think CDs cost?

well if you consume a lot of music, very expensive!

and if you are suggesting they limit the amount of music they consume they will have a much narrower view of music and in the long run our culture suffers and artists aren't inspired by a variety of sources and music stagnates, this is how I see the issue and I would never back down on my belief that everyone deserves art, which is why I think museums and art galleries should be free entry too.

Well, here's the issue. You can still get music legally for free. Most artists post their songs for live streaming on their website, or you can view their videos on YouTube. This is different. If one is listening to music over and over again after getting it off a torrent site and having no plans to buy the album, the artist, and by extension, the industry, suffers. Why would anyone take the time to make music, and record it with $1000 recording equipment, if no one's going to buy it?

Now, one can just go see them in concert and give them money from the ticket. But what are the odds that they are going to come to your hometown? Okay, fine, if you live in the big city it's likely. But most people don't. I know only a few bands I've actually liked came to my hometown, but thrice I had to leave town and go to Toronto, or in one case, Hamilton, to see a concert, and I wouldn't do that for any band. Only the Stones are worthy of that pilgrimage.

We do have the Townehouse, a local bar that some local and indie musicians perform at, but most aren't into the indie scene, and the artists only make money if you drink alcohol. Which says a lot about their quality.

I guess what I'm saying is, stop trying to justify your blatant piracy. If they want to give their music away for free that's fine, but if they want you to pay, you should. Unless you don't think the music is worth the money, and the artist should be compensated for their hard work.

Firstly thanks for the eliquent post, surprisingly when you usually try to stand up for a culture of sharing you are shot with insults all over the place calling you a thief so this has been a pleasent change in discourse.
OK so recording equipment does not cost $1000, more like $100, might not be top studio level but you are recording with the same quality audio, I am currently working on a music project to try and prove you can make music cheaply and well and if our ticket sales are good enough we will keep making music, but I refuse to eliminate people from hearing my tracks based on wealth

And that is your decision, that is the business model you have chosen. But the consumer should not force their own ideal on the producer. If the consumer does not like the business model the producer has chosen, it does not give them the right to pirate the content.

If the industry fails to recognise the online evolution of distribution then maybe it is time for a music revolution

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED