The RIAA Armageddon has begun

music is not produced at no cost frogbs thx for playing

fine, so long as you stop posting altogether

Just curious, how many of y'all are gonna lay off by July 11th? Oh sorry. IF YOU DID download shit, would that hypothetical you quit doing so in about two weeks?

Hypothetical me probably will tbqh.

music is not produced at no cost frogbs thx for playing

either you're intentionally trying to misunderstand this so you can get off an invaluable quip like "thx for playing" or you truly are that dumb

since i got addicted to Spotify pretty much the only things i download anymore are things i buy or that are sent to me by the artist/label. which is why i'm hoping there's gold in them thar clouds for musicians somewhere down the line.

I only d/l things that are either by old, rich and/or dead people, or out of print and otherwise unavailable. won't dl anything from current artists trying to make a living, just on principle. don't do subscription services either, cuz they don't pay us shit.

either you're intentionally trying to misunderstand this so you can get off an invaluable quip like "thx for playing" or you truly are that dumb

yeah not really. reproduction and production of music don't happen for free (servers cost money! recording costs money! engineers cost money!) etc

spotify's sated my "everything i want, when i want it, now" internet urges, but good luck guilting me off a legal streaming service

Just curious, how many of y'all are gonna lay off by July 11th? Oh sorry. IF YOU DID download shit, would that hypothetical you quit doing so in about two weeks?

I have avoided knowingly downloading free non-artist-sanctioned music without payment for a good... 8 years now; it's not really that difficult

Old people can be poor, Shakey.

I know that, that's why I put "rich" after it. Like, I don't feel bad about d/l'ing Neil Young albums, for ex. I've given that dude a lot of money over the years, and he's already richer than god.

yeah not really. reproduction and production of music don't happen for free (servers cost money! recording costs money! engineers cost money!) etc

yes hence why I said "reproduced" and not "produced". obviously someone has to pay some small amount for bandwidth or if they want to store it on a server but I'm saying that just copying data doesn't cost anything, hence why that analogy doesn't even worse on the simplest level

it works as an analogy because producing music - like food, shelter, or clothing - costs money, no matter how much you would like to think otherwise.

The fact that costs are nominal or extremely spread does not mean they are nonexistent.

i don't plan to change anything but i've already mostly stopped downloading in favor of spotify so it doesn't matter much. i think i would pay as much as $30 a month for spotify before even considering going back to a Life of Crime, so $10 is a bargain

it works as an analogy because producing music - like food, shelter, or clothing - costs money, no matter how much you would like to think otherwise.

lol @ "no matter how much you would like to think otherwise", give me a break, I spend tons on this shit

you're still not understanding this very basic principle so I'm not really sure what to say. this is the same type of logic that leads the RIAA to sue teenagers for six-figure amounts. if I still all your food or clothes and throw it away, then you're cold and hungry. if I downloaded all your albums and didn't listen to them, literally nothing would change

ok obviously that should be *steal*

Speaking as a musician, I blame Spotify users more than casual downloaders for the shitty state of the music industry.

I mean does frogbs really think that Megaupload's operating costs were $0? Or that the costs of all nodes of a bittorrent transfer sum to $0? Because . . . no.

if I still all your food or clothes and throw it away, then you're cold and hungry. if I downloaded all your albums and didn't listen to them, literally nothing would change

wait what? did I make all my own food and clothing in this scenario, in addition to all my albums? I don't understand.

xp i don't. i'm not talking about transferring data, i'm just talking about copying it.

keep digging

wait what? did I make all my own food and clothing in this scenario, in addition to all my albums? I don't understand.

does it matter?

i mean clearly you're going to do your best to misinterpret a pretty simple concept in order to get more lame digs on me, what's the point of arguing if you don't understand why you can't stream a pancake

Oh, I get it, he's assuming away input costs. OK. But then he's also assuming away opportunity costs, e.g., an artist saying, "Well, I could record this new song or album, but given that a bunch of knobs on the internet are just going to download it without paying, I could also just take an extra shift at the print shop and actually make money."

xp i'm not talking about transferring data, i'm just talking about copying it.

what is this i don't even

I can stream a pancake but I have to eat it first

Transferring is copying. Copying is transferring. Opportunity costs are real costs. Every MB of a hard drive taken up by music you copied from CDs at the library is an MB that can't be allotted to something else. This is simple shit, here.

this thread is a lot more fun after i gave up caring and just decided to watch shakey and frogbs and iatee circle around each in a festive dance of faulty logic and useless generalizations

― Planned Perrintweet (some dude), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:47 PM (5 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not talking about transferring data, i'm just talking about copying it.

god this is so fucking stupid. it's like you think the only point at which money was required in the music industry is at the point of sale of a physical product. But when you bought an album you weren't just paying for the physical costs of pressing and distributing an album, you were paying for the engineers, for the studio time, for the gear used, for the time the artist spent writing and creating the material, for the promotional costs, etc etc. This is because the purchase of the physical product was the most reliable point in the chain of music created -> you listening to it from which to extract financial compensation. Now that that's gone, there is NO point in the chain through which the musician can financially recoup their expenses for creating a piece of recorded work.

xp

I might use the time to finally get Spotify.

I can't really roll with Spotify except as a previewing service for what I might wanna buy/which tracks I wanna cherry-pick. Spotify just sounds really bad a lot of the time. Like markedly worse than a 192 bit MP3. I think it might be a label by label thing in how they supply their digital files or something. Listen to for ex 'My Old School' on Spotify. The backing singers sound really really weird. Same for lots of classical music and film scores on there.

(disregard the above if the paid service gives you a higher stream quality or w/e)

Transferring is copying. Copying is transferring. Opportunity costs are real costs. Every MB of a hard drive taken up by music you copied from CDs at the library is an MB that can't be allotted to something else. This is simple shit, here.

yeah I already got it. it doesn't *literally* cost nothing but it's not exactly related to the initial cost of production. with a physical good, the cost to buy is very related to the cost of production. whether you spend $200 or $2000000 on producing an album it's going to cost the same amount to distribute a copy to someone else. got it?

But then he's also assuming away opportunity costs, e.g., an artist saying, "Well, I could record this new song or album, but given that a bunch of knobs on the internet are just going to download it without paying, I could also just take an extra shift at the print shop and actually make money."

exactly. I'm not saying this is going away. I never said that artists don't have to spend money to make recordings. Just that the analogy doesn't make sense and we've all bagged on the RIAA for years and years for assuming it does.

I don't bother with spotify because - like EVERY other streaming service before it - it's catalog is woefully incomplete. and yeah then there is the payment thing.

xp

about half of my pre-iPod listening time was on cassettes and car radios so i'd be totally fronting if i said i ever think about or mind the fidelity or mp3s or streams, even if i notice the difference.

with a physical good, the cost to buy is very related to the cost of production.

lol in what universe

some dude OTM

like I get that's how it's supposed to work in Econ Theory 101 but in the real world that is just not the case

xp

god this is so fucking stupid. it's like you think the only point at which money was required in the music industry is at the point of sale of a physical product.

yeah I stopped reading here because you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. you really think I don't know it takes money to create the music? what I'm saying is there's a difference between a product that costs you $5 to make and distribute vs. a product that costs $10000 to make but $0 (okay, a few cents) to distribute. say you sell each for $10. if Product A sells 50,000 but you get 50,000 stolen, you broke even and that sucks. if you sell 50,000 of Product B then you made $40,000 regardless of how many are stolen. get it?

*sigh*

backing away slowly

IMO bitching about a streaming service having an incomplete catalog makes absolutely no sense; would you expect a single record label to release every album you've ever wanted to hear, from the past to the present? If not, why would you expect that of a streaming service? Even paid television subdivides into packages and different carriers may offer different channels. Neither Hulu nor Netflix has every television show or movie ever made available for physical rental, let alone download. It's a wholly unrealistic expectation; the question shouldn't be "do they have EVERYTHING?", it should be "do I like enough of what they have?"

*sigh*

backing away slowly

― a dense custard of infinity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:06 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is my favorite part of the festive dance!

yeah well that answer (in my case) is no

xp

lol some dude

*sigh*

backing away slowly

― a dense custard of infinity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:06 PM

lol, this was me yesterday on the Zappa thread when he showed up

xp hahaha

dude WmC you were bitching about something I *didn't even write*! cmon man

I don't get it why do people constantly mock the RIAA for using this type of bad logic yet champion our posters around here that do the same? This place is weird

You instantly misread my criticism of the quote you pulled by that critic, and in general your posts have the logical and rhetorical rigor of a pile of wet spaghetti, so there was no need for me to carry on with you in that thread, and the same thing is happening here. xp

http://www.v-r-a.org/ppp/MJFrog/MJF1.gif

when I want to listen to obscurities I don't own I sequence a bunch of YouTube clips together. Is it any worse than paying for Spotify?