Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Okay I'll pay for music

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 01, 2002
Okay people unlike my other diary entries I wont be trying to force feed my ideals. Instead Ive come to a nice sort of compromise.

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
The little things
What is god?
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
I am willing to pay for the music I listen to - to give money to the artist. This is out of respect for their time and creation - not out of any change in my belief that data is unsellable. Still, you people have shown me that the artist has spent time and effort on creating music and as such I should pay some credit to them - if anything, to give them encouragement.

Here is my proposal:

I will download entire albums at a time in MP3 format and burn it onto CD.

Once I have done this I will proceed to and donate $2 to the artist or even more if I thought it was particulaly good music.

This gives more to the artist than they would get if I had bought the CD in the shop plus im not being ripped off.

Does anyone have any problems with this?


Yes (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Yoshi on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:25:30 PM PST
What the hell is your problem? Do you think it's free to produce that music? Promote that music? Have you any idea how much it costs to own the high tech equipment that the record companies own? If they have to cut back because of illegal pirates like you, your artist will be hurt.

no no no (none / 0) (#2)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:47:13 PM PST
If less than $1 goes to the artist when an album is sold something tells me that the system is fucked up.

"Do you think it's free to produce that music"
Yes. How come so many people produce their own music in their home? It doesnt need money.

"(Do you think it's free to) Promote that music?"
What do you mean? that I owe money to the record industry because they bought the music to my attention? First I dont need the record industry to bring music to my attention - I use the advice of my friends and websites such as when im looking for new music.

IF I used MTV then yes, I would be using record industry promotions - but then, you have to pay for MTV anyway.

As I dont use this service I dont have to pay for it.

"Have you any idea how much it costs to own the high tech equipment that the record companies own"
Your living in a dream world. You can record and edit a song using a home computer.
The artists do all the hard work with editing it anyway. All the record industry do is print it on CD's. As im not using that service in my method I shouldnt have to pay for it.

"If they have to cut back because of illegal pirates like you, your artist will be hurt."
No, If everyone used my method the artists would get MORE money - remember im paying more to the artist my way than the record industry gives the artist when you buy a CD.
Sure the Record industries would probably collapse but as I have just shown, they arent needed.

I respect your views but I cant really see how you can have a problem with this as I am paying the author a good contribution for the product they have produced.

If you buy a TV straight from the manufacturers instead of going to the highstreet, are you hurting the manufacturer? dont think so - they promote that kind of thing.


Not exactly. (none / 0) (#3)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:25:57 PM PST
What the hell is your problem?

Recording industry greed. (And lack of taste.)

Do you think it's free to produce that music? For most kinds of music you don't need overly expensive equipment. I heard very good recordings done in garage studio on el-cheapo secondhand equipment. If I put the attractiveness-for-me of the music itself into the equation, most of current Top 40 was *far* inferior in comparison.

Promote that music?

Back in 50's there was a scandal related to promoting music, called "Payola". The practice that raised the stink back then is common today. I don't want to pay the cost of DJ's bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcontract in the CD's price. I don't want to hear a song in the radio because someone in Armani suit wishes so - I want to hear a song because my favorite DJ likes it! So shove the music promotion where it belongs. Hint: The place belongs to RIAA and their cronies, and the sun doesn't shine there.

Have you any idea how much it costs to own the high tech equipment that the record companies own?

They would need half the equipment if they'd not need to compensate the lack of talent of the visually attractive ... erm... what they call artists now. Today's primary criterium is how the band will look in a videoclip or on the stage, and the sound will be handled electronically. Or you think that a bearded singer with a guitar could get the same popularity as back in 70's? Would the gems like "Save a fighter pilot's ass", "In Flight Refueling", "Green Beret and Friendly FAC", or "Six Click", to name just a less-known few, have even remote chance to get recorded?

If they have to cut back because of illegal pirates like you, your artist will be hurt.

Not if they will be wise enough to jump off the sinking ship of labels.

Well, go make them the offer. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by elenchos on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:56:09 PM PST
If the owners accept your proposal, who am I to criticize? It's a deal between you and them, see?

The thing everyone has been giving you a hard time about is thinking that you get to unilaterally decide what the terms of the distribution of other people's property is, and if they don't like it, tough. That is outright theft.

So sure, your proposal sounds like a wonderful offer and I'm sure they would just jump at it. I bet the whole music industrial complex will just kick themselves for not having thought of it first. Hey! Maybe they'll give you a big finders fee in gratitude for your brilliant idea.

But what if they don't? Will you take what you want regardless?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

you said theft again (none / 0) (#5)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:19:14 PM PST
"music industrial complex will just kick themselves for not having thought of it first"

The reason they havent thought of it is because it spells the death of the music labels such as EMI, Song, AOL Timewarner etc. Its the death of the middle man. Its just artists and consumers in my world. No pointless record companies.

You see the artists wont have a problem with this method at all - they would accept it with open arms as they would recieve more money than they currently do. But the record companies will not like it one bit as its losing them money. They will attempt to force artists to not use this system. Its pretty easy "tell your fans not to use this method or we will drop you from our label". And lets face it no established artist is going to risk losing their contract. Even though it probably wouldnt make them disapear at all (although you could be the most famous band ever but if you arent signed up with a major record company I bet you will never get on MTV or radio).

The record companies are only in it for the money you see - they arent there to create or provide help to artists. The evidence shows their motives to the full and so there is no doubt on this.

As they are forcing the artists to do what they want, not whats best for the artist, I will not stop from using the consumer power I have and will this method regardless of what "laws" record companies say that this method breaks.

I see a 'delete' button at the bottom of... (none / 0) (#6)
by elenchos on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:23:27 PM PST
...every one of your comments. Do you have a 'delete' button? No, I didn't think so. So where the fuck do you get off calling me on what I said? I can say anything I want. You know what? Thief! You know what? Chicken butt! HA!

You try saying anything YOU want here, and see what happens. You want free speech? Get your own site, parasite.

Aside from that, who made you the guardian angel of all the helpless musicians who want you to save them from the big bad record companies? The record labels market their music for them, and they like it that way. Musicians who want to do all that work themselves can go be like Ani DiFranco. Does she want you taking her music for free? Even though she isn't beholden to this demon middle man that you think you are saving the poor musicians from?

Do you know any musicians who want you to be doing this? Which ones? Not one will speak out? Not one?

Pah! How many terrorists have claimed to be acting in the name of "silent" victims who supposedly would thank the murderous vigiliantes if they could? It's all in your imagination: when the musicians of the world want you to come rescue them, they will ask.

Until then, go download some GPL'd GNU/music and keep your sticky mitts off the copyrighted work that you have not been given permission to take.

Better yet, try creating something original and valuable yourself, and then sit here and tell me you don't care who takes it and pays you, or doesn't pay you, as they please.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

I see no difference in his argument... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Yoshi on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:49:13 PM PST
... than from pirating Windows, and setting up a fund that goes 'directly to the programmers.' What's the difference? Or, how about refusing to pay at a movie theater, but sending your $.50 to your "Actor's Fund" since that's more than they get in royalties anyway? The truth is, he has such a deluded mind to think that his arguments carry any merit that he'd even argue in support of these analogies, I'm sure.

He's shouldering the White Man's Burden. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by elenchos on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:53:21 AM PST
He thinks musicians are all niggers and it's his job to lead them from that plantation,, whether they asked him to or not. And praise the lawd! Thankee mista PotatoError! You done freed us from th' massa!


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

I find myself agreeing (none / 0) (#11)
by First Incision on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 07:06:04 AM PST
Better yet, try creating something original and valuable yourself

Well spoken!

Do you want free music? There is PLENTY of free music out there. It is on the radio, it is at college performances, it is at free weekend festivals. Better yet, music can be made, by YOU!

This is why the whole copyright/Napster/ thing is boring and pointless to me. The music I enjoy is played by myself, and by my friends, and by people who want nothing more than just for you to listen.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

then why dont you (none / 0) (#13)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:21:21 PM PST
stop using words and actually delete my comments - go on do it.

Im not daring you to do it as im perfectly sure you can and will - im just telling you to do so.

Get a job. (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by RobotSlave on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 12:17:51 AM PST
The only people I know who demonstrate your complete and total lack of respect for the labor of others are those who have never been employed.

I have patiently explained the role of the Recording Industry, and politely but firmly addressed all objections to that role, but you refuse to listen to reason.

You absolutely and without any question do depend on the Recording Industry to find new music to enjoy. The fact that you are incapable of figuring this out for yourself, or unwilling to accept it, does not change the truth.

How do you suppose a good DJ at an independent radio station finds new music? Where do critics with integrity get the music that they write about? The music comes from the Recording Industry, and DJs and critics have to make many of their decisions based on trusted relationships with representatives of the Recording Industry.

You can get all of your suggestions from friends, but in the word-of-mouth system, ultimately, someone has to depend on the Recording Industry, whether via radio, the press, or via "street marketers" paid by the Recording Industry to use word of mouth directly to promote their artists and get good new music into your hands.

As to who do you think is making the music available there? The artists? Wrong. It's the Recording Industry, making a promotional decision. There may be a few lesser artists enjoying some promotional success there who do not have a contract with an established Record Company, but in attempting to promote recorded music, they are, in fact, themselves representatives of the Recording Industry.

It is physically impossible for any one person to listen to all of the music recorded in a given day. The Recording Industry is the best means we have found to address this problem.

I present things in this light in the hope that you might start to understand the issues if they are laid out for you as a set of technical problems.

Your proposed scheme, in the absence of a Recording Industry, does not adequately address the scientific problem of there being far more music recorded every day than a person can possibly listen to.

There are many other problems with your latest diatribe, but let's stick with that one.

In closing, I have a request. In your response, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from quoting me. I have several reasons for this. First, I would like you to establish the fact that you are capable of being polite enough to honor a reasonable request. Second, this will be an opportunity to think about whether or not it is ethical for you to reproduce "data" when that data's creator has specificly asked you not to.

Most importantly, I want you to think through your response and attempt to present a clear thesis, rather than reflexively spitting out intermittent denials. I would prefer to keep the debate above the level of the simple-minded reactionary.

Though it is stated again at the bottom of the page, I would like to remind you that the entirety of this post is:

RobotSlave, 2002.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

heh (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 11:17:58 AM PST
Okay RobotSlave - you do realise that your copyright wont stand up in court. There is a law allowing people to quote from others work. Wouldnt it suck if noone could quote a book?

But just to humour you...

These are the points you made:
-It isnt possible to listen to all the music created in a day.

-Where do you think radio stations get their music from.

-We need the record industry or we couldnt find good music.

Firstly if it isnt possible for consumers to sort through all the music created in a day then how the hell do you think the record industry can manage it? After all there are millions of consumers but at most only thousands of people "sorting" through music. Sites like dont "sort" through unsigned artists - the users do and they have been well capable of finding the good stuff themselves.

No, the truth is that the record industry does a botch job at sorting through music. The only good music presented to us is mostly by existing artists owned by the companies themselves.

Radio stations are often forced to play what record companies want them too. "Here play this new upcoming britney spears song 10 times a day" thats not exactly giving the consumer a choice is it? its force-feeding them what the record companies think will make them more money.

Anyway last time I listened to the radio all they played was mostly chart music - ie they play what people have already bought. So thats not promotion is it? The only reason people bought that music was they are given no choice. Even MTV is self-promotion of the record companies own stuff.
The record industry is DECIDING what people like not giving them the choice of finding out themselves.

Some good stations have sessions where they play music submitted by ARTISTS - often unsigned artists. This is a good way to find new music as its varied and different. mostly lists UNSIGNED artists - so the record industry played no part there. If people hear music they like from places as described above, they will buy the music and then spread the word. You underestimate the power of word by mouth enormously. If my friend finds a good song by an unsigned artist online they will tell me. If I also like it I will tell all my friends - it spreads exponentially from there. You see we dont need record companies to promote music anymore now that music can be distributed online - and so can peoples opinions of it.

A good example of this is Rock/Metal culture. This is the music I listen to but it isnt represented by the major record companies half as much as pop and R&B and stuff. For example the radio hardly ever plays this type of music and the TV never does. There is no promotion of the music to the consumer in these genres. Not enought promotion to add $10 to the price of a CD anyway. All the finding the good music is done by us - the consumer. So you must excuse me if I believe the record companies are just taking my money.

No one has to listen to ALL music anyway. If its all available then everyone will hear different music. The ones they like they will tell people about. This way the best music will be well known.

You cant honestly believe that the decision that music is "good" or "bad" should be made by a couple of people at record companies. After all people have different tastes.

i respect your view as at first glances it does seem we need the record companies.


Respect? (none / 0) (#16)
by RobotSlave on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 04:30:53 PM PST
You have respect for my views?

Perhaps we're getting somewhere.

You allude to the doctrine of fair use in your post, but as you did not even know the term for it, I assume you do not know what constitutes fair use, either.

Reproducing the entirety of a work, with interspersed comments, but without permission, exceeds the limited excerpting allowed under the provisions of fair use, and is thus illegal. If you don't want to believe me, ask an attorney. Or just think about it for a moment-- if that sort of copying were allowed, then I would be able to take a best-selling novel off the shelf in the bookstore, copy it, add a few comments, and then sell the annotated work, keeping all profits for myself. Not legal.

There are, of course, plenty of annotated texts out there, but the works reproduced are either in the public domain, or, in some cases, properly licensed. You're going to have to wait a while before this comment falls within the public domain, and I'm not about to license it to you.

In respected academic debate, very little quoting takes place, and you never see the sort of line-by-line reactionary denial that is regrettably common in comparatively immature on-line venues. The reasons for this relate more to the other reasons outlined in my previous comment than to copyright law, but nonetheless, it would be advisable to seek a better understanding of fair use before assuming that it applies to your reproduction of the work of others.

Now then. Let's talk about music.

Your laughable depiction of the Commercial Radio industry is tragic, but I will address it in the next part of my series of articles, rather than here.

I will note, though, that I find it amusing that you castigate the Commercial Radio Industry for only playing what is popular, and then in the next breath praise for its "user sorting," ie, for basing recommendation on popularity.

You want Radio Stations and Music Magazines to consider music submitted by Artists?

Fine. Let me walk you through it.

Suppose an artist wants to be considered for airplay or review. To have any reasonable chance against all the other Artists submitting material, our unknown Artist will have to submit a demo, a biography, a photo, and a CD to at least 200 independent radio stations and publications.

Let's think about the work involved. The bio and a cover letter and maybe a one-sheet have to be written. The photos have to be taken and developed. The CDs need artwork and liner notes. The mailing has to be assembled. Once the mailing has gone out, the Artist needs to call all of the recipients a week later to make sure that the materials have been recieved, and much more importantly, to put a human voice behind the package and make an impression on the music director or editor.

Another call has to be made soon after, just to "touch base," ie, to remind the recipient of the Artist and the package, and hopefully to get in a little bit of ingratiating chit-chat. The third call should be direct-- the Artist should politely inquire as to whether or not the CD is going to get some airtime or a review, and if not, the Artist must apologise for taking up the recipient's time, so as to leave a favorable impression for the next mailing.

Six hundred phone calls. Almost all of them long distance.

Does any of that sound like the Art of Music? No, of course not. It is business. It is a business that has a name. And the name of this business is the Recording Industry. Believe it or not, most musicians are not very good at this sort of business. Do you understand the value of the division of labor? Let the musicians make music. Don't force them to be businessmen.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in America, Rock/Metal is very, very well represented by the Recording Industry, and by Commercial Radio, as well. Up until six or seven years ago, in fact, Rock/Metal dominated Commercial Radio, first in the form of Hair Metal, and then in the guise of Grunge and Alternative Rock. Today's Tattoo Metal doesn't enjoy as large a market share in Commercial Radio, but it is quite well represented by the Recording Industry.

Limp Bizkit is represented by Universal. Korn is on Sony. Linkin Park is signed to Warner Brothers. Slipknot is on Universal. Even Slayer is on one of the big five (Universal again).

You may or may not like these bands, but to claim that the Recording Industry is ignoring "Rock/Metal" is just wilfully ignorant. Maybe you're into lesser known Rock/Metal, but whatever it is, I'll bet it's represented by Record Labels, be they indie labels like Am/Rep or Alternative Tentacles, or specialty imprints of the big five. Not only is Rock/Metal represented by the Recording Industry, it is well and extensively represented, and has been for decades.

No, nobody has to listen to all new music. In fact, as I mentioned in my previous message, it's impossible. But someone has spend most of their time listening to unknown music, sorting out the utter shit and passing along the relatively small amount of decent stuff to you and me. You know who does that?

The Recording Industry, that's who.

The only reason you think they do a poor job of it is that you never have to listen to the things they've rejected. You don't even know how good you've had it, and now you want it for free.

Hang your head. Hang your head in shame.

© RobotSlave, 2002.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

How about this (4.50 / 2) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 12:37:37 AM PST
Next time someone (or some company) creates an app that breaks the GPL, they send $2 to the author(s) instead of releasing the source in accordance with the license.

Umm (none / 0) (#14)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:28:30 PM PST
I see what you are doing - you are trying to make an idea that compares to my idea in order to show me the "truth".

But your example isnt comparible to mine at all.

Firstly you cant make an app that breaks GPL. GPL by definition allows you to copy the source code of GPL apps legally and to use them to build your own apps. Most GPL apps dont impose a price anyway. For the ones that

"send $2 to the author(s) instead of releasing the source in accordance with the license."
That isnt even relavant to the conversation - thats about breaking licenses.

Im saying I will pay the artist for their product.
You are saying pay the artist and expect you can break the license.


It is about the license. (none / 0) (#15)
by elenchos on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 02:04:28 PM PST
The license is the terms the owner chooses to distribute their property under. You think it is enough that you are willing to give them something for their work, and you think it is downright white of you to supposedly ensure the artist gets more your way than by going through a record label.

What you are avoiding is the fact that it is your way. The owners of the property you are proposing to take have not yet agreed to this deal, and until they do, it is no deal at all. It is merely a proposal you are offering. In the mean time, the only terms that are valid are those that apply to the property in question. If I say I'm selling CDs of me crooning lulabys to my dog for $1000, then that is the deal. Take it or leave it.

Just because in your opinion I would make more money if I lowered the price to $2 because I would move more units, you can't then go ahead and make copies and send me $2. Maybe I am a stupid businessman, (I'm no Dr. Martino Cortez PhD after all), but still, it is my property and I alone get to decide what the license is.

If you don't like it DON'T BUY IT! You keep saying that there are all these brillaint garage bands giving out free MP3s on the web. Go there and download their free stuff. Send them $2; whatever.

But how can you justify taking music offerend under different terms? You don't get to name your own price, do you?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You don't understand the GPL or music (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:23:29 AM PST
If I use some of the source for GCC to build, say, a Windows compiler, and in doing so I make modifications or improvements (eg. allowing it to create MFC or ActiveX apps), then sell this new compiler under a closed license, without releasing the source, without including the "COPYING" license, then I have most certainly created an app that breaks the GPL. It is not at all hard to break the GPL.

In the same way that you have decided to take the law into your own hands when it comes to acquiring/redistributing copyrighted music, perhaps I should take the law into my own hands when it comes to using GPL code?? You GPL fanatics should count your lucky stars that the rest of us take licenses - including the GPL - a whole lot more seriously than you take copyright.

Im saying I will pay the artist for their product.
You are saying pay the artist and expect you can break the license.

You aren't saying anything, you're spouting incomprehensible nonsense. You are breaking the license by deciding yourself who and how much to pay. The musician's next advance from the label most likely depends on their CDs selling a certain number of copies. The best thing you can do for that band's career is to walk into the nearest HMV and buy a copy - and if there are no copies in stock, tell them to order some.

And let's face it, a g**k like yourself, the only reason you heard of the band in the first place is because of the time and money their label put into marketing. Furthermore, the only reason you even like the music itself is because a producer took the raw material from the band and engineered it into something that you would find appealing. I sincerely doubt that you have the aesthetic sensibilities to know raw, unpolished talent if it were to hit you in the face.

You are so very ignorant of the things you defend. (none / 0) (#18)
by RobotSlave on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 01:09:53 PM PST
The very, very obvious point that the anonymous reader was making, and the point that flew right over your selectively-educated head, is that the only legal basis for the GPL is in copyright.

The very same principle of copyright is also the legal basis that the Recording Industy has for asking that you not copy and redistribute their music.

The GPL can only be applied to source code by the person or persons who own the copyright to that code.

No respect for copyright? Then no respect for the GPL. It's that simple.

© RobotSlave, 2002

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to