Stevie IS against File Sharing.

[Nixxxed]

Originally Posted by catinthedark

Honestly, not trying to be argumentative at ALL, but I wouldn't download any more or less if they were 49 cents. The stuff I buy off download sites is stuff I know I won't buy the whole album of (ie. J.Lo). But I also know that the 99 cents is paying for more than just the song. It goes towards the cost of running the site, and since I support the philosophy of the site, I don't mind that part of the cost goes to that. In fact, the site I use charges about $9.97 for a full album download, so it IS way cheaper than buying the CD in the store, which is fair, given that you don't get the artwork, etc.

(And no - I didn't hear about the feud!! Jui-ceee! Funny, first time I heard the new song, i was like "what the HECK is that? It's horrid!" Then I caught myself singing it all day long, and suddenly, I love it. Go figure. It doesn't sound too Usher-ish. He's probably just jealous. )

I didn't think you were being argumentative, and I wasn't trying to be either (just so ya know fer shure). Like I said - just playing Devil's Advocate.

I only dl boots and demos, never "real" songs, so I didn't know about the $9.97 deal. Is that price good no matter how long the albums are? What about an 18-tracker like Say You Will, or a 19-er, like the new Tori album below (shameless plug )? If longer albums are the same, that really IS a good deal.

Here's the J-Lo, Usher dirt: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144923,00.html

I didn't like the song too much, but thought the video (where she's playing 4 or 5 characters) was pretty cool. They coulda bumped it up a notch and included a 4-way J-Lo catfight tho, instead of all that silly dancing...

[MacMan]

One thing they do here in Canada with blank dvd's, cd-r's, burners, mp3 players and all the necessary articles that allow a person to download, make copies of and distribute is they tax these things heavily and this extra tax that is collected is distributed somehow amongst the Canadian artists that belong to socan or something like that. It's not exactly a fairly divided pot of cash, as some artists are more popular then others, but it's something a little extra in place to cover some losses. There might even be a built in tax on computers, I'm not entirely sure on that one.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by MacMan

One thing they do here in Canada with blank dvd's, cd-r's, burners, mp3 players and all the necessary articles that allow a person to download, make copies of and distribute is they tax these things heavily and this extra tax that is collected is distributed somehow amongst the Canadian artists that belong to socan or something like that. It's not exactly a fairly divided pot of cash, as some artists are more popular then others, but it's something a little extra in place to cover some losses. There might even be a built in tax on computers, I'm not entirely sure on that one.

You know, you bring up an interesting point. Music companies bitch and moan about losing sales due to pirated CDs, yet look at the mondo profits they make off of blank media.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You know, you bring up an interesting point. Music companies bitch and moan about losing sales due to pirated CDs, yet look at the mondo profits they make off of blank media.

Apples and oranges - they are different products and the company has a right to profit off of both.

And the artists are still left in the cold due to the theft of their product and last I checked Maxell and other such companies were not a music company <----- is that still on moratorium

This argument is essentially pointless because it is stealing - there is n arguing around that - that is the law - if it is not - let's see some contrary law - I submit there is none.

So, it becomes a question of whether we as individuals have the right to supercede the law based on our opinion of someone's wealth - in other words is it okay to say that I can steal from someone because they are IMO too rich already. My answer will always be that is wrong because I do not want anyone to treat me that way. Others cannot see it like that because they want an excuse to break the law and that is a good one to them. Again, I think they should really put their views to the test and have the sand to go into a physical store and steal away - after all companies like WalMart and others sure make more money than most artists - and as you are walking out with the stolen property exclaim that you are proudlty stealing because the rich deserve it Yet, that never happens - I blame it on cowardice.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Apples and oranges - they are different products and the company has a right to profit off of both.

My point was that, in the end, they are essentially promoting the theft of the product they put out by marketing such materials. Kids aren't going to go out and buy something if they can get a blank CD for ten cents and burn something onto it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

My point was that, in the end, they are essentially promoting the theft of the product they put out by marketing such materials. Kids aren't going to go out and buy something if they can get a blank CD for ten cents and burn something onto it.

they are still stealing - there really is no way around that one - and the fact that they are kids does not make it right.

Moreover, the theory behind blank CD's is you can buy the download or CD or individual song from a service like Itunes and then burn your own CD with the songs you bought.

Personally, I think they should make the songs in such a way that they corrupt on an illegal download and notify the authorities. That way there is no download.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

they are still stealing - there really is no way around that one - and the fact that they are kids does not make it right.

That's not the point. Stealing or not stealing, the companies make it possible for them to do it so easily. It may be wrong, but they promote it in the end.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, the theory behind blank CD's is you can buy the download or CD or individual song from a service like Itunes and then burn your own CD with the songs you bought.

That wasn't the theory when they first introduced them years and years ago without outlets such as iTunes.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Personally, I think they should make the songs in such a way that they corrupt on an illegal download and notify the authorities. That way there is no download.

I don't know what to say to that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's not the point. Stealing or not stealing, the companies make it possible for them to do it so easily. It may be wrong, but they promote it in the end.

I think (but am not certain) only Sony makes blank CD's - the rest are not affiliated with the music industry - and the artist is still getting left out even in the case of Sony.

Originally Posted by dissention

That wasn't the theory when they first introduced them years and years ago without outlets such as iTunes.

No - it was so people could buy the CD and put it on their computer and then make up playlists from songs they had bought and put those playlists onto the black CD

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't know what to say to that.

Strand you are a genius and I will never question your authority again

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No - it was so people could buy the CD and put it on their computer and then make up playlists from songs they had bought and put those playlists onto the black CD

Ah. And the record companies never imagined that people would do completely different things with them.

Cry me a river, honestly. They're practically putting the songs in their hands. I don't download commercially released material, but I won't condemn people who do.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Strand you are a genius and I will never question your authority again

In another life, when the God's were crazy...

[WildHeidi]

Well I knew that she got peeossed about people 'stealing' her demo's as she put it and sharing them. I still download them though. I don't do any of that illegal stuff from thoes strange sites though. I think artist are just trying to protect there music from being given away. It's ok...

[glitter_fades]

Originally Posted by dissention

These people are still too stupid to acknowledge file sharing as helping a dying industry.

As for Stevie joining into this hoopla, whatever. I'm sure there's just a gigantic market for pirated copies of Running Through the Garden and Too Far From Texas that none of us know about.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Ah. And the record companies never imagined that people would do completely different things with them.

Cry me a river, honestly. They're practically putting the songs in their hands. I don't download commercially released material, but I won't condemn people who do.

Interestingly and I know no one is going to believe me, but I kind of could care a less if people download it. I just get annoyed when they use the rationale of I know it is illegal but screw it and them because they have enough money already. That is where my problem with it is for the most part. Again, although I am not nearly as rich as any of these people (DAMNIT ) I still believe in karma and the law of threes - so I just do not do it.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I still believe in karma and the law of threes - so I just do not do it.

You don't own a piece of bootlegged material? Odd.

Live or not. It's copyrighted.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

You don't own a piece of bootlegged material? Odd.

Live or not. It's copyrighted.

Oh - I totally have boots and demos and I totally realize I am somewhat of a hypocrite for that - although they are somewhat different because they are not commerically available. Actually, I am unsure if a recording of a concert is copyright protected - it probably is though. Finally, many artists do not mind the boots of the concerts being traded but not sold.

But, I specifically have been referring to commecially available material in this discussion. AND - my beef is the excuse of screw them they are rich enough so it is not stealing - which I can assure you I have never said.

[glitter_fades]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's definitely her - 'cause "She writes the songs that make the whooooole woooooorld siiiiiing." Illegal file sharing prevents the writers from earning royalties.

Did you ask Stevie about the bootlegs on one of those Rockline radio shows? I seem to remember that....

Oh, and remember - some of those people on the bandwagon w/ her (Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow) did that Concert for Artists Rights w/ Don Henley, back in 2001?

My understanding was the AR gig in 2001 at the LA Forum was a protest against unfair practices of the recording industry toward artitst and songwriters. It was a beef with record execs and labels on their payment practices and not about file sharing. With the lopsided deals and unfair payments historically in the industry, these same artists are now getting in bed with the devils who screwed them to gang up on music fans? What next?

File sharing is more a plus for aging artists who won't do much in record sales anyway, but may still reach a younger audience from file sharing. This will get more butts in the seats at concerts which is the artists bread and butter. By getting on the bandwagon of this lawsuit Stevie and Friends are too stupid to realize they're turning off a lot of the people who could be paying their 401Ks.