Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Most Fans Want To Buy, Not Steal

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:24:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

But we need a reason to do so.

Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
poorly mastered?

Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.

Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
creep is getting all the royalties?

Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
that stop me, the fan?

Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.

More about : fans buy steal

Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110133457.905859.102520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> But we need a reason to do so.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
> poorly mastered?
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
> maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
> shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
> creep is getting all the royalties?

So if, in your own subjective opinion it is tracked/produced/mixed/mastered
badly, you're not personally happy with the notes and cover and if, the
owner is the copyright isn't the songwriter.........this gives you the right
to steal it? How convenient.

>
> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
> is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
> and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
> that stop me, the fan?

Obviously not.
>
> Remember, I'm young, stupid,

........obviously so

and all my friends think it's OK too.

..........and so it's OK for the RIAA to sue your parents. Now go to your
room.

DJ
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:57:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110133457.905859.102520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> calcerise@hotmail.com writes:

> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
> poorly mastered?

In fact, why would we even want to listen to it? So there's no reason
to steal it. But people don't know that it's poorly recorded, produced
and mastered, it's the SONG they want to listen to (I guess).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> But we need a reason to do so.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
> poorly mastered?
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
> maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
> shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
> creep is getting all the royalties?
>
> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
> is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
> and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
> that stop me, the fan?
>
> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>

you and all your friends are wrong
G
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LUIWd.337400$w62.44254@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>> But we need a reason to do so.
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>> poorly mastered?
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent
>> notes, maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic
>> jewelboxes of that shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>> creep is getting all the royalties?
>>
>> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>> is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>> and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>> that stop me, the fan?
>>
>> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.

Young? This seems strange coming from a guy whose idea of SOTA speakers are
Klipsch La Scalas, and whose idea of a SOTA amp is a WE 91.

http://www.ampslab.com/SCHEMATICS/WesternElectricNo91A....

> you and all your friends are wrong

More likely, they're trolls.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:31:55 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>> But we need a reason to do so.
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>> poorly mastered?
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
>> maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
>> shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>
>> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>> creep is getting all the royalties?
>>
>> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>> is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>> and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>> that stop me, the fan?
>>
>> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>>
>
>you and all your friends are wrong

No matter how good it makes you feel, your saying that makes
absolutely no difference, however.

Al
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:59:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110133457.905859.102520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> But we need a reason to do so.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
> poorly mastered?
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
> maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
> shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.

Well, then don't buy it if you don't like the quality, or the way it's
presented... but don't steal it either. You gonna use that same reasoning to
go steal a Kia: "It's small, it's underpowered, I don't like the colors
they come in, and I think the upholstery is cheesy, therefore I will steal
one."?

> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
> creep is getting all the royalties?

What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
being repo'ed? What if it's not some "creep", but the artists widow or kids?
What difference does it make, really... you're just trying to rationalize
theft. If you don't think it's worth spending your money on, then do what
the rest of us do... just pass on it.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
<neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:

>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>being repo'ed?

What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
NY.

Al
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

calcerise wrote:

> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
> creep is getting all the royalties?

You would characterize an artist's family as creeps? His/her spouse as
creeps? Their children as creeps?


--
ha
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:27:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Troll
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:09:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> But we need a reason to do so.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
> poorly mastered?
>
> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent
notes,
> maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of
that
> shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>
> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
> creep is getting all the royalties?
>
> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
> is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
> and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
> that stop me, the fan?
>
> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.

When I first saw the title, I thought that the point made would be more
interesting than it was. Whether you think it was poorly recorded etc
is clearly completely irrelevant. Presumably, if you didn't like the
music, you wouldn't download it even for free.

I thought that the point would be that it now actually requires less
effort to steal music than it does to buy it. This means that some
people who wouldn't normally steal stuff steal out of laziness.

For nearly any other product, it is more effort to steal than to buy.
Clearly, the music industry sees this and is making efforts to make it
easier to purchase music online. That's at least one thing that can be
done to make the steal vs purchase ratio better.

One thing is certain though; saying repeatedly that downloading is
theft is not going to help things. If people can steal stuff, they
will. There may be a few people who want to have arguments about
legitimacy on the internet, but, in general, people don't care about
the moral issues, think that they won't get caught, and therefore only
an idiot would pay. That's why building subcontractors don't pay taxes,
and Paris Metro users don't buy tickets. The music industry has to
either make stealing impossible, or enforce severe penalties a lot more
frequently than at present, and it isn't obvious how to do either of
these.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
> <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>being repo'ed?
>
>
> What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
> back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
> NY.
>
> Al


why on earth would it matter?
as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
to music
if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
price, accepted the compensation, deal over
is this your first day here?
george
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:17:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:31:55 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> But we need a reason to do so.
>>>
>>> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>>>poorly mastered?
>>>
>>> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
>>>maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
>>>shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>>
>>> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>>>creep is getting all the royalties?
>>>
>>> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>>>is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>>>and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>>>that stop me, the fan?
>>>
>>> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>>>
>>
>>you and all your friends are wrong
>
>
> No matter how good it makes you feel, your saying that makes
> absolutely no difference, however.
>
> Al

some people are happy in the moral gutter
most people get to a point where they see how their action affect the
world in a much more connected way, that is called maturity
try it
george
george
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:23:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>> <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>>being repo'ed?
>>
>>
>> What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>> back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>> NY.
>>
>> Al
>
>
>why on earth would it matter?
>as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
>to music

There was certainly immorality in this case... if you view addiction
as an illness, you have to conclude that Tim was unfairly taken
advantage of.

>if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
>contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
>otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
>price, accepted the compensation, deal over

Tim died without ever getting his music back. His ex-manager is still
collecting $ from Misty Roses, Reason To Believe, etc etc.

>is this your first day here?

No.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:23:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:17:32 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:31:55 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> But we need a reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>>>>poorly mastered?
>>>>
>>>> Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
>>>>maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
>>>>shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>>>
>>>> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>>>>creep is getting all the royalties?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>>>>is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>>>>and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>>>>that stop me, the fan?
>>>>
>>>> Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you and all your friends are wrong
>>
>>
>> No matter how good it makes you feel, your saying that makes
>> absolutely no difference, however.
>>
>> Al
>
>some people are happy in the moral gutter
>most people get to a point where they see how their action affect the
>world in a much more connected way, that is called maturity
>try it
>george
>george

George George, your posts aren't exactly poster childern for maturity.

Al
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:32:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>creep is getting all the royalties?
>
Do you hope to inherit when your parents snuff it?

At the moment, you have the power to steal or buy, as you choose. If
this situation persists, spare us your justifications, just do what
you want to do. Maybe this situation won't persist.


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:14:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> I thought that the point would be that it now actually requires less
> effort to steal music than it does to buy it. This means that some
> people who wouldn't normally steal stuff steal out of laziness.
>
> For nearly any other product, it is more effort to steal than to buy.
> Clearly, the music industry sees this and is making efforts to make
it
> easier to purchase music online. That's at least one thing that can
be
> done to make the steal vs purchase ratio better.
>
> One thing is certain though; saying repeatedly that downloading is
> theft is not going to help things. If people can steal stuff, they
> will. There may be a few people who want to have arguments about
> legitimacy on the internet, but, in general, people don't care about
> the moral issues, think that they won't get caught, and therefore
only
> an idiot would pay. That's why building subcontractors don't pay
taxes,
> and Paris Metro users don't buy tickets. The music industry has to
> either make stealing impossible, or enforce severe penalties a lot
more
> frequently than at present, and it isn't obvious how to do either of
> these.


You win the prize.

You pretty much got my whole point: Stealing the music will be stopped
when it's either impossible or too much work to steal it, when the
penalties for stealing it and the likelihood of getting caught become a
tangible issue for the thieves, or-when the product as purchased is a
more attractive purchase than the product as "stolen" is to steal.

The first prospect is unlikely unless a Nazi-like regime in all
currently "free" countries can implement a rigorous DRM program or the
industry goes back to analog.

The second would have been feasible in Nazi Germany or Stalinist
Russia but is politically infeasible here. Without a right of search
and seizure of all computers and a jail system credibly capable of
incarcerating tens of millions of song scofflaws, little deterrence is
possible.

The third prospect is more within the capabilities of the record
companies. Give people a package-not just a CD easily burned-that is
desirable to own, including a quality disk (highbit...) but a package
of attractive art and good notes, and price it reasonably. Concepts of
value of production started with Riddle-arranged Sinatra albums and
culminating perhaps in Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk" are no longer relevant in
the Pro Tools world. While it would be nice if they were, they aren't.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny>>Young? This seems strange coming from a guy whose idea of SOTA
speakers are
Klipsch La Scalas, and whose idea of a SOTA amp is a WE 91. <<

Arny's "debating trade' appears to be just take whatever he wants in
any context and apply it as if true. But he knows he's full of Kroo
Poo, because he can't cite one post in which I ever said either of the
above things.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:17:32 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>play on wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:31:55 GMT, George Gleason
>>><g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But we need a reason to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>>>>>poorly mastered?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
>>>>>maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
>>>>>shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>>>>>creep is getting all the royalties?
>>>>>
>>>>>Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>>>>>is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>>>>>and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>>>>>that stop me, the fan?
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you and all your friends are wrong
>>>
>>>
>>>No matter how good it makes you feel, your saying that makes
>>>absolutely no difference, however.
>>>
>>>Al
>>
>>some people are happy in the moral gutter
>>most people get to a point where they see how their action affect the
>>world in a much more connected way, that is called maturity
>>try it
>>george
>>george
>
>
> George George, your posts aren't exactly poster childern for maturity.
>
> Al

but my morals are
when taking to children I must use simple words they understand, and
repeat myself often
george
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:46:05 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:17:32 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>play on wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:31:55 GMT, George Gleason
>>>><g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But we need a reason to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if it's poorly recorded, poorly produced,
>>>>>>poorly mastered?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if it doesn't have some intelligent notes,
>>>>>>maybe an attractive little cover or jacket? Plastic jewelboxes of that
>>>>>>shitty plastic are just that, shitty plastic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should we buy the disc if the artist is dead and buried and some
>>>>>>creep is getting all the royalties?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think about it from that perspective. Sure, it's wrong to steal. But
>>>>>>is my duping a Susannah McCorkle CD like I broke into your mic locker
>>>>>>and stuck your Telefunken U47 down my pants? Even if it were, would
>>>>>>that stop me, the fan?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Remember, I'm young, stupid, and all my friends think it's OK too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>you and all your friends are wrong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No matter how good it makes you feel, your saying that makes
>>>>absolutely no difference, however.
>>>>
>>>>Al
>>>
>>>some people are happy in the moral gutter
>>>most people get to a point where they see how their action affect the
>>>world in a much more connected way, that is called maturity
>>>try it
>>>george
>>>george
>>
>>
>> George George, your posts aren't exactly poster childern for maturity.
>>
>> Al
>
>but my morals are
>when taking to children I must use simple words they understand, and
>repeat myself often

You got that right
You got that right

Al
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:51:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>play on wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>>><neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>>>being repo'ed?
>>>
>>>
>>>What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>>>back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>>>NY.
>>>
>>>Al
>>
>>
>>why on earth would it matter?
>>as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
>>to music
>
>
> There was certainly immorality in this case... if you view addiction
> as an illness, you have to conclude that Tim was unfairly taken
> advantage of.
>
>
>>if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
>>contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
>>otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
>>price, accepted the compensation, deal over
>
>
> Tim died without ever getting his music back. His ex-manager is still
> collecting $ from Misty Roses, Reason To Believe, etc etc.
>
>
>>is this your first day here?
>
>
> No.

Then Tim must have found peace with HIS sale

The legal recourse was available if he was wronged, but HE(or someone
with power of attorney over his dealings) would have had to initiate it
no foul here.
I could sell my 4000$ mandolin for the price of a hamburger if I really
wanted to
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:51:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:51:13 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>play on wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>>>><neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>>>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>>>>being repo'ed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>>>>back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>>>>NY.
>>>>
>>>>Al
>>>
>>>
>>>why on earth would it matter?
>>>as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
>>>to music
>>
>>
>> There was certainly immorality in this case... if you view addiction
>> as an illness, you have to conclude that Tim was unfairly taken
>> advantage of.
>>
>>
>>>if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
>>>contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
>>>otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
>>>price, accepted the compensation, deal over
>>
>>
>> Tim died without ever getting his music back. His ex-manager is still
>> collecting $ from Misty Roses, Reason To Believe, etc etc.
>>
>>
>>>is this your first day here?
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Then Tim must have found peace with HIS sale

Tim at the time was finding peace at the end of a syringe.

>The legal recourse was available if he was wronged, but HE(or someone
>with power of attorney over his dealings) would have had to initiate it
>no foul here.
>I could sell my 4000$ mandolin for the price of a hamburger if I really
>wanted to

Well if your touted morality is OK with the way Hardin was so shabbily
treated (by the very people he hired to look out for his interests) so
be it. And of course his story is just one of many examples.

Al
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:10:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6udp21hsracgu9lpbe235rfav2t9jbiek8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >play on wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
> >> <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist
when
> >>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house
from
> >>>being repo'ed?
> >>
> >>
> >> What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
> >> back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock


Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution, in
any way whatsoever?

jb
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:10:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:10:35 -0500, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6udp21hsracgu9lpbe235rfav2t9jbiek8@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >play on wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>> >> <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist
>when
>> >>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house
>from
>> >>>being repo'ed?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>> >> back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>
>
>Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
>artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution, in
>any way whatsoever?

It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
sterling.

Al
March 8, 2005 4:05:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

a somewhat "innovative" solution to the problem of copy CD's in
Thailand (where there is no artistic or "moral" differentiation between
an original and an illegal copy) is for the record labels to sell CD at
close to the price that a copyer would sell them . . . so no point in
trying to sell a copy-CD.

Chris
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:83dq21p4eth2mes9d94gcudklofdb14lpo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:10:35 -0500, "reddred"
> <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

> >Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
> >artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution, in
> >any way whatsoever?
>
> It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
> crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
> sterling.
>
> Al

I suppose the difference is that the labels used the legal system.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:27:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> You pretty much got my whole point: Stealing the music will be
stopped
> when it's either impossible or too much work to steal it, when the
> penalties for stealing it and the likelihood of getting caught become
a
> tangible issue for the thieves, or-when the product as purchased is a
> more attractive purchase than the product as "stolen" is to steal.

Actually you didn't say a thing about downloading, you said
something about "duping" a CD. Somewhere between making a cassette
tape of an LP/burning the occasional CD for a friend is "personal use",
and I bet more here than would like to admit it publically have done
that one time or another. But declaring the whole world to be your
best friends that you have to share every song ever recorded with is
another matter entirely, both in moral terms (it just warms the heart
that RAP is *such* a bastion of morality) and in terms of scale in my
estimation.

The core issue with downloading isn't theft I think, the core issue
is respect. Fortunately if an artist actually has fans - real fans - a
mutual respect isn't a problem. The fact that half the monies made on
a major tour come from merchandising reflect that reality I think,
people want part of the band, the logo, to possess a symbol of that
which they admire. And MP3's have I think very little to offer in the
way of that - although this could account for the ringtone popularity
somewhat. I don't disagree that there are issues with file sharing,
but if fans are ready and willing to spend money, the question could be
"what exactly is the *real problem*?"

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 3:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:51:13 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>play on wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
>>><g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>play on wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>>>>><neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>>>>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>>>>>being repo'ed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>>>>>back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>>>>>NY.
>>>>>
>>>>>Al
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>why on earth would it matter?
>>>>as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
>>>>to music
>>>
>>>
>>>There was certainly immorality in this case... if you view addiction
>>>as an illness, you have to conclude that Tim was unfairly taken
>>>advantage of.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
>>>>contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
>>>>otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
>>>>price, accepted the compensation, deal over
>>>
>>>
>>>Tim died without ever getting his music back. His ex-manager is still
>>>collecting $ from Misty Roses, Reason To Believe, etc etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>is this your first day here?
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Then Tim must have found peace with HIS sale
>
>
> Tim at the time was finding peace at the end of a syringe.
>
>
>>The legal recourse was available if he was wronged, but HE(or someone
>>with power of attorney over his dealings) would have had to initiate it
>>no foul here.
>>I could sell my 4000$ mandolin for the price of a hamburger if I really
>>wanted to
>
>
> Well if your touted morality is OK with the way Hardin was so shabbily
> treated (by the very people he hired to look out for his interests) so
> be it. And of course his story is just one of many examples.
>
> Al

just because someone is on drugs some of the time does not mean they can
not make valid legal choices in their life
your assuming a awful lot about something your weren't part of
George
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 3:38:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> You got that right
>
> Al

I see you are "getting" it
now if I can teach you how to trim away old text we will be almost there.
George
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:18:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:35:55 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:51:13 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>play on wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:03 GMT, George Gleason
>>>><g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>play on wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:45 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
>>>>>><neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What if it's a creep who bought the rights to the music from the artist when
>>>>>>>they were desperate & really needed the fifty grand to keep their house from
>>>>>>>being repo'ed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What if it's the guy who bought all of Tim Hardin's songs for $40,000
>>>>>>back when Tim was a junkie, and who lives in Tim's house in Woodstock
>>>>>>NY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Al
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>why on earth would it matter?
>>>>>as far as I know there is nothing illegal or immoral about buying rights
>>>>>to music
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There was certainly immorality in this case... if you view addiction
>>>>as an illness, you have to conclude that Tim was unfairly taken
>>>>advantage of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>if Tim can make a case that he was disabled from completing a binding
>>>>>contract due to drug addiction he can have the contract nullified
>>>>>otherwise it is a honest exchange for value received, the owner set the
>>>>>price, accepted the compensation, deal over
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tim died without ever getting his music back. His ex-manager is still
>>>>collecting $ from Misty Roses, Reason To Believe, etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is this your first day here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>Then Tim must have found peace with HIS sale
>>
>>
>> Tim at the time was finding peace at the end of a syringe.
>>
>>
>>>The legal recourse was available if he was wronged, but HE(or someone
>>>with power of attorney over his dealings) would have had to initiate it
>>>no foul here.
>>>I could sell my 4000$ mandolin for the price of a hamburger if I really
>>>wanted to
>>
>>
>> Well if your touted morality is OK with the way Hardin was so shabbily
>> treated (by the very people he hired to look out for his interests) so
>> be it. And of course his story is just one of many examples.
>>
>> Al
>
>just because someone is on drugs some of the time does not mean they can
>not make valid legal choices in their life
>your assuming a awful lot about something your weren't part of

I was a lot closer to it than you were. I know what I was told by a
close friend of Tims, while working on one of Tim's last sessions.

Al
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:19:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:83dq21p4eth2mes9d94gcudklofdb14lpo@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:10:35 -0500, "reddred"
>> <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
>> >artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution, in
>> >any way whatsoever?
>>
>> It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
>> crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
>> sterling.
>>
>> Al
>
>I suppose the difference is that the labels used the legal system.

Yep.

Al
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:19:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:83dq21p4eth2mes9d94gcudklofdb14lpo@4ax.com...

> >Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
> >artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution,
in
> >any way whatsoever?
>
> It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
> crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
> sterling.

OK, you have a moral point. So? I'm a little more worried about things that
are real, like music and musicians.

jb
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:22:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:83dq21p4eth2mes9d94gcudklofdb14lpo@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:10:35 -0500, "reddred"
>>><opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
>>>>artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution, in
>>>>any way whatsoever?
>>>
>>>It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
>>>crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
>>>sterling.
>>>
>>>Al
>>
>>I suppose the difference is that the labels used the legal system.
>
>
> Yep.
>
> Al

much greater crimes are done at the end of a pen than the end of a gun
george
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:28:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>
>>just because someone is on drugs some of the time does not mean they can
>>not make valid legal choices in their life
>>your assuming a awful lot about something your weren't part of
>
>
> I was a lot closer to it than you were. I know what I was told by a
> close friend of Tims, while working on one of Tim's last sessions.
>
> Al

I was not close at all
just pointing out people are allowed to make any stupid self diminishing
decisions they want, but if they are TRULY unable to understand what
they are doing at the time a contract can be nullified, in fact a
contract can not be consummated if one of the parties it not able to
understand the implications of the contract
please explain why your friend turned a blind eye?
if you were close enough why you ignored it
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:28:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 01:28:14 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>>>
>>>just because someone is on drugs some of the time does not mean they can
>>>not make valid legal choices in their life
>>>your assuming a awful lot about something your weren't part of
>>
>>
>> I was a lot closer to it than you were. I know what I was told by a
>> close friend of Tims, while working on one of Tim's last sessions.
>>
>> Al
>
>I was not close at all
>just pointing out people are allowed to make any stupid self diminishing
>decisions they want, but if they are TRULY unable to understand what
>they are doing at the time a contract can be nullified, in fact a
>contract can not be consummated if one of the parties it not able to
>understand the implications of the contract
>please explain why your friend turned a blind eye?
>if you were close enough why you ignored it

I wasn't there at the time, it happened long before I had met anyone
connected with the event. I don't know all the details, just the
outline. But taking advantage of an addicted junkie in that way, there
is just no excuse for it in my book.

Al
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:22:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>Al
>>
>>I was not close at all
>>just pointing out people are allowed to make any stupid self diminishing
>>decisions they want, but if they are TRULY unable to understand what
>>they are doing at the time a contract can be nullified, in fact a
>>contract can not be consummated if one of the parties it not able to
>>understand the implications of the contract
>>please explain why your friend turned a blind eye?
>>if you were close enough why you ignored it
>
>
> I wasn't there at the time, it happened long before I had met anyone
> connected with the event. I don't know all the details, just the
> outline. But taking advantage of an addicted junkie in that way, there
> is just no excuse for it in my book.
>
> Al


even addicted junkies are not high beyond reason and lucidity 24/7 for
years , or even months on end
this man must have had lawyers , family, it seems alot more had to be
going on
or he had given up on it all and just didn't care anymore
this is pure assumption on my part based on my experiances with drug
addicts, mostly heroin users
George
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:27:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:83dq21p4eth2mes9d94gcudklofdb14lpo@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>Well, everybody knows the music industry licks big balls and treats most
>>>artists like sharecroppers. But how does downloading help the situaution,
>
> in
>
>>>any way whatsoever?
>>
>>It doesn't. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the label's
>>crying "thief!" at teenagers while their own background isn't exactly
>>sterling.
>
>
> OK, you have a moral point. So? I'm a little more worried about things that
> are real, like music and musicians.
>
> jb
>
>

one can not change the past, but we have a small window over which we
can influence future events

during the 50's, 60's,70's,80,s and 90,s
I had no real understanding of the backroom deals nor did I have the
power to reach anyone who was effecting these decisions
I can now directly address people who are stealing music via p2p freeloading

George
!