Album Leak (false alarm!)

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by Christopher

I really hope NPR/WB do this with Stevie next week. NPR streamed Adele, PJ Harvey & REM the week before their respective new releases recently. I think it's really good marketing. It gives new listeners & casual fans a much better chance to grasp the whole presentation, as opposed to song clips which can be jarring.

I know I personally cannot identify with song clips one iota. I think you nailed it, they're just jarring. I detested the Secret Love clip, but when I heard the full song for the first time it literally moved me to tears. I remember hearing the clip for Love Changes before TISL was released, and abhored it too. But when I heard the whole song I adored it, and thought it was quirky and fun.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Christopher

I really hope NPR/WB do this with Stevie next week. NPR streamed Adele, PJ Harvey & REM the week before their respective new releases recently. I think it's really good marketing. It gives new listeners & casual fans a much better chance to grasp the whole presentation, as opposed to song clips which can be jarring.

My guess is that there will be no streaming or even more song clips for IYD before May 3rd.Leaks are another matter.

[saintvox]

Originally Posted by tabruns

This is completely illogical. If millions of people download her music illegally, why on Earth would they then go and *buy* her albums? You're arguing that one behavior is going to lead to the opposite behavior which doesn't really make much sense. If they're unwilling to purchase music in the first place, I don't see how stealing music will inspire them to NOT steal music.

I just think if you're an actual fan you would want to buy the music both to keep the artist continuing to record and simply out of respect that this is their trade and they should be paid for it.

I stole her music first and then was inspired to buy it to get her to make more.

I have no problem admitting that. I illegally downloaded alot of my favorite artists music before buying it. And I now own all of Stevie's music as well as theirs. It actually does happen, even if it doesn't make sense.

[Phoenix]

I think stealing music is still wrong. It's kind of like going into a restaurant " just to try it out " , eating all the food and then leaving before paying , and then saying "well that was pretty good I may go back" Maybe next time I'll even pay

[saintvox]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I think stealing music is still wrong. It's kind of like going into a restaurant " just to try it out " , eating all the food and then leaving before paying , and then saying "well that was pretty good I may go back" Maybe next time I'll even pay

It's the not the same thing. I've actually got a lot of people into Stevie, who have also BOUGHT her stuff. I am ashamed that that's how I started, however I didn't have unlimited funds to support someone who is already rich and hopes to get richer. I do have more money now and I'm positive I repaid an equal or greater amount then I lost her.

If an artist is really in it for the music, like Stevie says she is, then they should be glad they're album made the amount it did, whether then going all crazy about the amount they 're losing. Because illegally downloaded or not, the music is getting listened to and appreciated.'

However I honestly don't think that Stevie loses all that much from what it whatever she thinks. Most people my age don't know who she is, and we're the ones who download for the most part.

And it's not the same as your example, because when I illegal downloaded her work, she lost one sale, and then I bought it she gained one .Your example involves the restaurant losing two meals and getting paid for one. It's not the same.

[SorcererJP]

There is a Dutch saying like: 'Opportunity makes the thief', so as long is at is very very easy just to download anything you like, this will be a thing which cannot be diverted.

Besides that, before the internet you went to the recordstore, listened to a bunch of albums, read reviews, listened to the radio and bought the CD/LP's you really wanted.

Nowadays everything is available online (and for free) and lot's of people just download stuff, just to 'have it' and never listen to it. Fot sure they never would have bought it! So, from that poimt of view, the artists don't loose money. The real hard-core fans of any particular artist will buy a release somehow anyway. So I really think that any artist hardly will 'miss' a huge amount of money due tot the downloadingscene, only their work is listened to and isn't that what any perfomrer or artists wants? Not all have Frank Zasppa's credo 'We are only in it for the money'. supplBesides that, an artist hardly make any money from albums-sales. Lot's of profits goes to 'the industry'. The money is in publishing-rights and made with ticketsales for concerts.

[skuncles]

The thing about downloading that I don't understand is how is this any different than cassette copies people made in the 70's and 80's? The only difference today is you reach a much broader audience. I also don't think the person downloading the album should be the bad guy but rather the person posting and the site hosting it should be.
I know the argument is that it takes money away from the artist and label etc. But so does buying a used cd. It's perfectly fine for me to go buy a cd, decide I don't like it turn around and sell it on eBay or at a used record store. Artist and label don't make any money there either.

[whitesoxx]

Originally Posted by SorcererJP

Nowadays everything is available online (and for free) and lot's of people just download stuff, just to 'have it' and never listen to it. Fot sure they never would have bought it! So, from that poimt of view, the artists don't loose money. The real hard-core fans of any particular artist will buy a release somehow anyway.

I think you are forgetting the "average" music consumer here, because they are the ones that drive record sales, not the hardcore fans. Stevie does not have millions of hardcore fans, so in order for the record company to turn a profit, they need the sales of casual fans or people that may have read something about the album somewhere or saw her in concert with Rod and want to hear the album. Now if all of those people download instead of buy, Stevie and Warner have a problem.

And although I am sure she sees herself as an artist first, she IS also in it for the money, which is logical as it's her job and it costs money to record and promote an album.

[KarmaContestant]

I think this is an interesting subject (downloading music without paying for it). I feel like a reformed drug addict, because I used to download a lot of music on the original Napster, and then again on WinMX.

I've done a pretty good job of purging most of those downloads, though I'm sure I still have a few songs here and there.

Ultimately, downloading music without paying for it first is stealing. You can try to justify it any which way you choose, but if you were one of those unfortunate people who got busted by the attorneys for the RIAA, the judge you stood in front of would not care one tiny iota that you intended to purchase it later down the road, or that you pre-ordered it, or that you've since bought all of the artists albums after getting a free sample. Stealing is stealing, plain and simple, and music should not be treated any differently than any other product.

Sorry to sound like one of 'those guys'...you know, like the ex-smokers who preach about how bad smoking is? I feel very strongly about the subject, and typically will take any opportunity to rant about it.

[HejiraNYC]

Here's a legal/moral dilemma I have always pondered...

What is the general consensus about free downloading of music that you have already bought on vinyl LPs many years ago? You've already paid the artist for their work. But does that entitle you to an mp3 version for your iPod? How is this any different than buying a CD and then ripping it into mp3 files for your iPod today? IMHO, I feel that I am entitled to the mp3.

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I think this is an interesting subject (downloading music without paying for it). I feel like a reformed drug addict, because I used to download a lot of music on the original Napster, and then again on WinMX.

I've done a pretty good job of purging most of those downloads, though I'm sure I still have a few songs here and there.

Ultimately, downloading music without paying for it first is stealing. You can try to justify it any which way you choose, but if you were one of those unfortunate people who got busted by the attorneys for the RIAA, the judge you stood in front of would not care one tiny iota that you intended to purchase it later down the road, or that you pre-ordered it, or that you've since bought all of the artists albums after getting a free sample. Stealing is stealing, plain and simple, and music should not be treated any differently than any other product.



Sorry to sound like one of 'those guys'...you know, like the ex-smokers who preach about how bad smoking is? I feel very strongly about the subject, and typically will take any opportunity to rant about it.

I did the same back in the day.At the time I probably did not understand, or I probably said what's the big deal is and its no different then recording a lp or of the radio.Then years past.It started to sink into my head.also remember hearing Stevie in interviews saying
about the old times that people went to the store and picked up a record ,now people
do it by a click on the mouse for free.Now if the leaks and after the release if everyones brother and sister do a mass hyjacking of her cd for free in the next couple of months ,She will be mighty pisted off and say this is it no more recording.Which I can't blame her.I hope this wont happen.Everyone has to just relax and wait until the 3rd.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Here's a legal/moral dilemma I have always pondered...

What is the general consensus about free downloading of music that you have already bought on vinyl LPs many years ago? You've already paid the artist for their work. But does that entitle you to an mp3 version for your iPod? How is this any different than buying a CD and then ripping it into mp3 files for your iPod today? IMHO, I feel that I am entitled to the mp3.

I can't recall the name of the law, but it came around when cassette tapes were first introduced. it basically states that the end-user has the right to duplicate their media purchases for personal use.

It's perfectly legal for you to convert your records, tapes and CDs to a digital format and play them on your iPod, or to make mix-CDs for personal use.

It is not legal to take those digital files and make them available for others using the internet.

That's my understanding. Isn't there a Ledgie who works for the RIAA, or one of the major labels? I seem to recall there being someone here with industry connections who might be able to shed more light on the issue.

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I can't recall the name of the law, but it came around when cassette tapes were first introduced. it basically states that the end-user has the right to duplicate their media purchases for personal use.

It's perfectly legal for you to convert your records, tapes and CDs to a digital format and play them on your iPod, or to make mix-CDs for personal use.

It is not legal to take those digital files and make them available for others using the internet.

That's my understanding. Isn't there a Ledgie who works for the RIAA, or one of the major labels? I seem to recall there being someone here with industry connections who might be able to shed more light on the issue.

For personal use. thats the key word.I've been transfering records,cassette,reel to reels,8 tracks for over 35 years.Also dont forget the do not loan out the album rule.nevermind the album or cd will get ruined by the time it gets back.

[saintvox]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Ultimately, downloading music without paying for it first is stealing. You can try to justify it any which way you choose, but if you were one of those unfortunate people who got busted by the attorneys for the RIAA, the judge you stood in front of would not care one tiny iota that you intended to purchase it later down the road, or that you pre-ordered it, or that you've since bought all of the artists albums after getting a free sample. Stealing is stealing, plain and simple, and music should not be treated any differently than any other product.

:

Correct me if I'm wrong but preodering it is buying first. It's buying real ahead of actually getting it. I think it would be more of a legal grey area there or at least should be. The thing is it's illegal now but it's actually a very useful tool and there are actually artists who support it because theyve realized that. And sometimes the artist or the label may be the ones who leak it for the press.

They just need to accept that the has changed.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by saintvox

Correct me if I'm wrong but preodering it is buying first. It's buying real ahead of actually getting it. I think it would be more of a legal grey area there or at least should be. The thing is it's illegal now but it's actually a very useful tool and there are actually artists who support it because theyve realized that. And sometimes the artist or the label may be the ones who leak it for the press.

They just need to accept that the has changed.

So you are saying that artists need to just start giving their music away and just "accept it" right off the bat before somebody has a chance to steal it and because they'll probly steal it later on anyway? Just because the times have changed and we now have the ability to do that? I realize we're talking about music right now but is this type of logic which has grown over the last couple of years continues to continue the world will be a very scary place