NT (TT Spektra) - "Kents telefon splittrar fansen"

[joshua]

Hey,

I understand your position, however, you have gone straight into a classic "The Chicken Or The Egg"-discussion. You will never get me to agree that because of the drop in quality music, downloading is up. Never. I will agree with you that the record industry made a lot of useless albums in the late 90's and that they totally dropped the ball when it came to the introduction of New Media and internet-based distribution.
Let me just say as a child of the 80's, that the theory of young people being poorer than in the 80's and 90's is nothing short of rubbish! This generation of young people, right now, is the richest there has ever been. Available income to the 14-25 year olds is off the charts compared to 15-20 years ago. ... And the business world knows this, so they are trying to take your money anyway they can and as a consequence, it seems neccessary for every teenager to have a mobile, laptop, LCD-TV, fat stereo, cars and spending on clothes in this agegroup has skyrocketed! - Now, I', not saying that kids are spoiled - many hold down jobs to get there, but there is an imbalance in the spending habits of this generation. It seems ironic that you would spend thousands on iPods and then fill it with free music. Buy the expensive car - steal the petrol.
Please understand me correctly, I am all FOR the free distribution of music, but I need someone to come up with a model that does not rely on charity, sponsorship, endorsements, handouts or crime. If you can do that, I think you can make a lot of money on your idea... And wouldn't that be fair ?

[The Plague]

joshua:
First off, I never said kids today are poorer, I just wanted to make through that kids never really didn't have alot of money to spend.
Which I think is still true. You mention mobile, laptop, LCD-TV, fat stereo, cars and spending on clothes and I would agree to certain extent. The people actually spend is more to live up to some kind of lifestyle no-one can really explain. Still there's a great divide here, from working with a youth centre some time a few years back I saw there are alot of kids who can buy NOTHING. Maybe they have managed to get the cheapest mp3-player and their whole life surrounds, and possibly rests, on music downloaded for free.
Then there are of course the other kids who get anything they point at.
Somewhere there's of course money to be spent.
Still I believe that Kent aren't mainly one of the artists that mainly are affected, which was the discussion from the beginning. When people hear Jocke complain over income I can assure you they aren't getting more keen paying for their music.

[joshua]

joshua:
First off, I never said kids today are poorer, I just wanted to make through that kids never really didn't have alot of money to spend.
Which I think is still true. You mention mobile, laptop, LCD-TV, fat stereo, cars and spending on clothes and I would agree to certain extent. The people actually spend is more to live up to some kind of lifestyle no-one can really explain. Still there's a great divide here, from working with a youth centre some time a few years back I saw there are alot of kids who can buy NOTHING. Maybe they have managed to get the cheapest mp3-player and their whole life surrounds, and possibly rests, on music downloaded for free.
Then there are of course the other kids who get anything they point at.
Somewhere there's of course money to be spent.
Still I believe that Kent aren't mainly one of the artists that mainly are affected, which was the discussion from the beginning. When people hear Jocke complain over income I can assure you they aren't getting more keen paying for their music.

I think the problem becomes that you cannot set a double standard for people. It is certainly more understandable that people of poorer background steal - It, however, still does not justify theft in general. If you can't afford gas, you probably shouldn't buy a car. Get a bicycle and a train-pass. (I don't own a car.) You have no use for an mp3 player if you can't afford to put music on it. Stealing is stealing is stealing...

... Besides, the logic doesn't make sense. What you are telling me is that you DON'T want to pay as much for goods that come from bigger, succesful companies ? So, do you steal Coca-Cola ? Why pay for food from ICA or Arla or what about that IKEA-chair ? These big companies CERTAINLY do not need your 10 kr. ! You can never justify it. Ever.

Jocke is absolutely entitled to raise this issue with the public. The President of a union is more than entitled to say: "We are suffering", even if he personally, is not hit as hard yet (and to me, Jocke is President!)... Even if the problem is smaller for a bigger band, like I've said earlier, the universal issue always is the fundamental copyright law, which has protected artists of all kinds and made sure that they get what is coming to them for their work and investment - time AND money.

Someone with a big audience needs to say these things, cause you are never going to see some goth-band from Karlshamn on the Evening News and they are not going to interview you or me about it... Big artists have the media attention, so it is their DUTY to speak up for all of us. If Joakim doesn't speak up, noone is going to listen. Do you think that it is hypocrisy when Bono from U2 speaks about world hunger and Chris Martin from Coldplay tell world leaders to "Drop The Debt" ? Bono looks pretty well fed and Chris Martin could just send his millions to Africa, couldn't he ? The problem is real and you need a familiar face to tell you so.

Music piracy is a fact and a gigantic problem for everyone who tries to make music today.

The internet in all it's glory and with all the great communities that have come out of it has only one big problem. The Content Provider - of ANY kind - has literally no way of getting paid for the content that they provide. If you can't get paid for your work, you're an amateur. In this future scenario it basically means that everyone is an amateur. Good or bad ? I think bad, but hey, I do this for a living and if I had to work at ICA during the day to afford making music at night, none of the albums I have helped make would have been made. Simple as that.

So I propose this: Come up with a system that makes it realistic to be an artist in a modern economy. How do you get paid for work that you have done ? It doesn't matter if it is music, art, books, photos, video or inventions. If you have made something that other people want they should pay you something for it so you can feed your kids, pay your rent, fix your car and spend even more time doing that.

I don't care which job you have, you want to get paid what you are worth.

Fundamentally (and I admit, a bit oversimplified but here goes...), the only reason we all don't all steal in supermarkets is because A: we fear the punishment and B: we a brought up with the knowledge that stealing is wrong and C: If we all did it, there would be no more supermarkets. So the motivation to steal is only there for people in dire need, ergo if you are willing to face the consequences, you are willing to steal. Or to put it even more plainly: For 98% of us it's just not worth it. So we pay a reasonable price for our milk even though we could technically steal it and have a fair chance of getting away with it. It's just not worth the trouble...

So what would it take, what price is low enough or which way to buy is easy enough for us all to say "Stealing the music is just not worth it, I'll buy it instead" ?

Piracy kills NEW music.


Musik. Non Stop,

Joshua

[The Plague]

Joshua:
To begin with I'd just like to say that I think Chris Martin and even Bono nowadays are nothing but clowns. What the fuck can they change? They're used as nothing but mascots for someonelse with quite a different agenda - fuck poor people even more in the ass.
Having that said I also must say I have no problem Jocke saying what he does. I just think it's really not effecient and it looks weird in people's eyes. Besides, he isn't really speaking(at least it doesn't sound like it) for the whole community of artists that should have their income, he speaks of his and kents income.
That is what people reacts to.
And if it hasn't been clear yet, I have no problem paying for music, the greatest thing giving me so much, and I have the luxury of having quite a decent income to use on this. And coke, ipods, stereo or whatever.
The problem of course is people not feeling anything for the music industry. They get all these songs which they really enjoy and all, but nothing feels real or personal. And there are a few(and they're getting fewer) exceptions, for example kent. If the music industry was more focused at those kind of artists, that worked in the long run, instead of cheating people to get fast money on artists even themselves doesn't believe in and wouldn't work with longer than maybe a year or two. Then more people would start taking it all a little more serious, I think.
This will certainly have an impact on the new artist who never will have a chance. Which is of course our loss.

[halka_på]

I spoke to some stupid fuck (appologize for the horrible language of mine) yesterday. He hates everything that has to do with culture, but that is not the point. He told me that some of the taxes go to culture-supporting allowances for artists, actors, musicians and so on. He did not like the fact that his money were used to help people who are working with culture (actually he was bitter and aggressive when arguing).

Here is the thing: the people who steal music will pay for it in the end. The price might be higher than the one for the record, but few of them concider the consequences. The highest price will be the loss of great artists, the lowest will be the higher tax.

I think music should be availiable for everyone, but not for free. We can choose how to pay; in tax or for the record in the store, but we should never be forced to pay unreasonable prices (for they will become unreasonable if the piracy will continue). I might sound communistic, but that is my point of view. Music is the language of the soul, as someone said, and it should be accessible for every soul, not only for those who have high income.

[joshua]

I spoke to some stupid fuck (appologize for the horrible language of mine) yesterday. He hates everything that has to do with culture, but that is not the point. He told me that some of the taxes go to culture-supporting allowances for artists, actors, musicians and so on. He did not like the fact that his money were used to help people who are working with culture (actually he was bitter and aggressive when arguing).

Here is the thing: the people who steal music will pay for it in the end. The price might be higher than the one for the record, but few of them concider the consequences. The highest price will be the loss of great artists, the lowest will be the higher tax.

I think music should be availiable for everyone, but not for free. We can choose how to pay; in tax or for the record in the store, but we should never be forced to pay unreasonable prices (for they will become unreasonable if the piracy will continue). I might sound communistic, but that is my point of view. Music is the language of the soul, as someone said, and it should be accessible for every soul, not only for those who have high income.

Well, Hello Karl Marx! :-)

I see both your points.

1: I am no fan of spokespeople in general, because the issues sometimes get lost (I said sometimes!) - I was no big fan of Little Steven, but he made a HUGE dent in the Apartheid debate back in the 80's. You can say what you want about Al Gore, Bono, Chris Martin, Bob Geldof and Bruce Springsteen - but what they are saying needs to be said. I know that Joakim speaks for us all, he is a very social and caring guy.

2:... Just read that although Radiohead is effectively GIVING their new album away online, it is STILL be distributed/pirated in the millions through bittorrent sites. Which means that Radiohead don't even get to know who listens to their music, and so the whole romantic community-idea goes out the window.

I had the taxation-discussion with a friend the other day and I can't see it happening like that. The world is fresh out of socialism. Also I find it scary... Music is not, has never been and should never be a democratic process. Who gets to decide which bands/artists get to make albums ? The goverment ?! Goodbye protest-songs...

[halka_på]

I had the taxation-discussion with a friend the other day and I can't see it happening like that. The world is fresh out of socialism. Also I find it scary... Music is not, has never been and should never be a democratic process. Who gets to decide which bands/artists get to make albums ? The goverment ?! Goodbye protest-songs...

I agree, but if people keep up with the piracy, the artists only way to survive will be to make friends with the powerful people in the governments or in companies.
The artist could live like the hippies did in the sixties but I don't think it's going to work that way.

He, with whom I had argued, said: There is good art, which sells no matter what, and there is bad art, which nobody buys. By saying this he compared the creation, expression and culture which lies in the art with business; the best product will generate the best profit.

But since people have different tastes we can't just cut out the non-profitable artists. The even bigger problem is that the so called "successful" or popular artists are getting non-profitable as well. There is a matter there; some earn money and others don't. Should it be the market or the free economy who chooses the art and culture of the future? Since artists nowadays are sponsored, they are exposing themselves on the free market economy; and those who are getting allowances have to give something in return to their nations.

If people buy the music, they will decide which artists will survive. Never will the artists be able to do what they want to do unless it is profitable. In the end someone will have the power, and I hope it will be the majority - both artists and people.

[The Plague]

joshua:
To take it slightly off topic...
The things the people you mention says needs to be said, of course. But also, something needs to be done. And I'm not talking about some charity event or so.
Besides, please don't take Bruce Springsteen in the same breath as th others.
When talking about doing something I agree with coming up with new structures to get the artists income, pay off or whatever you'd like to call it to keep on doing the music they'd like and we love so much. And even the music we don't love.

[The Plague]

halka på:
I have one very important input to your post:
If the majority was to decide on what music should be made I'll promise you that we'd never get to hear alot of good music. Including Kent, their first albums would then never even had the chance to hit the market, get some money in and listeners in the first place and allow the band to grow big and in the long run hire producers as joshua etc etc.

[Manic Internet Preacher]

All the arguments for this case are as old as the internet, but what the hey.

It's an inescapable fact that the music market is insanely unfair. I can't support (most of) my favourite bands by buying their albums - at most it covers the cost of production for them. I still do, as a symbol of appreciation and because the tangibility of the CD and booklet in my hand is worth it.

The thing is: A friend of mine got me interested in music some 5 years ago, by sending me some hundred mp3s, of bands you'd never have heard of any other way. Never mind the fact that he hadn't paid for it, and neither had I at the time - before all that I owned a total of 4 CDs, and now I have 102 (I've paid for every single one of those). Yes, there are also thousands of "unpaid" mp3s in my collection, but they're essentially samples. Sure I've had a lot of those for several years now, but as any purveyor of Kent would know, music takes time to grow on you, and for a lot of these songs, my interest is piqued only after a while, or by casually listening to random stuff in my collection. For example, I recently bought several Flaming Lips albums, some by Red Harvest, My Dying Bride, Broken Social Scene, etc. and all of these I've had mp3s of for at least a couple years.

The bottom line being that, in my case, "piracy" has benefited the market.

[Oskar]

All the arguments for this case are as old as the internet, but what the hey.

It's an inescapable fact that the music market is insanely unfair. I can't support (most of) my favourite bands by buying their albums - at most it covers the cost of production for them. I still do, as a symbol of appreciation and because the tangibility of the CD and booklet in my hand is worth it.

The thing is: A friend of mine got me interested in music some 5 years ago, by sending me some hundred mp3s, of bands you'd never have heard of any other way. Never mind the fact that he hadn't paid for it, and neither had I at the time - before all that I owned a total of 4 CDs, and now I have 102 (I've paid for every single one of those). Yes, there are also thousands of "unpaid" mp3s in my collection, but they're essentially samples. Sure I've had a lot of those for several years now, but as any purveyor of Kent would know, music takes time to grow on you, and for a lot of these songs, my interest is piqued only after a while, or by casually listening to random stuff in my collection. For example, I recently bought several Flaming Lips albums, some by Red Harvest, My Dying Bride, Broken Social Scene, etc. and all of these I've had mp3s of for at least a couple years.

The bottom line being that, in my case, "piracy" has benefited the market.

Jag orkar inte ta det på engelska, så: detta är ett moraliskt problem, inte ett ekonomiskt. Vad du säger till artister är att "ni får jobba för mig, för mina intressen, och sen bestämmer jag om jag vill betala eller ej baserat på hur nöjd jag blir, och ni har ingenting att säga till om". Varför ska just musikindustrin fungera så, det ska väl i så fall alla andra yrkeskategorier också göra? Man söker anställningar, arbetar och avlönas bara om arbetsgivaren tycker att man är bra, helt utan regler, rättigheter eller ömsesidiga skyldigheter.

[Manic Internet Preacher]

Vad du säger till artister är att "ni får jobba för mig, för mina intressen, och sen bestämmer jag om jag vill betala eller ej baserat på hur nöjd jag blir, och ni har ingenting att säga till om". Varför ska just musikindustrin fungera så, det ska väl i så fall alla andra yrkeskategorier också göra? Man söker anställningar, arbetar och avlönas bara om arbetsgivaren tycker att man är bra, helt utan regler, rättigheter eller ömsesidiga skyldigheter.

Inte alls. Genom att jag, som potentiell konsument, utsätter mig för t.ex. en singel fungerar jag på samma sätt som framför en tv. Jag tar emot reklam, intryck, varefter jag
bestämmer mig för om huruvida den egentliga hela produkten är värd att betala för.

En låts värde består inte i dess fysiska form på samma sätt som t.ex. ett paket mjölk gör. Den består av en upplevelse, inte en ren konsumtionsprodukt som försvinner så fort den förbrukats. Att kräva att jag betalar för varje gång jag ges möjlighet att lyssna på en låt vore som att avkräva mig betalning varje gång jag känner lukten av mjölk. Skulle man betala en konstnär varje gång man såg ett av hans verk? Ska musikern ha betalt varenda gång jag nynnar på en melodi han skrivit? Ska jag betala när jag MINNS en upplevelse som kostat något? En låt innebär ett rent intryck, och det spelar ingen roll om någon bemödat sig med att skapa intrycket, har det spridits så att jag kunnat ta del av det utan att betala har jag ingen skyldighet att sedan lägga ut min inkomst på det. En singel som spelas på radio är därför gratis, ren och skär reklam.

Alltså: nu ser marknaden ut så att internet erbjuder samtliga intryck i stort sett gratis. Då är det inte MIN skyldighet att forcera tillbaka marknaden i dess gamla gängor. Mitt samvete är rent, jag råkar bara sitta på den sida av stängslet som inte drabbas av marknadsskiftet och hur den andra löser sitt problem är inte min ensak. Musik kommer skapas hursomhelst, dess kvalité kanske sjunker under en period, men när så priser på privata produktionsmedel (dvs inspelningsapparater) nått en tillfredsställande nivå kan de som fortfarande skapar musik för musikens skull sprida sina alster via internet istället för företag som tar en större andel av deras produkts inkomst än de själva gör.

För övrigt: vad många fortfarande inte tagit till sig är att en produkt som inte skulle inhandlats från början inte heller innebär en förlust när någon kopierar den. Först när man genast kopierar produkten i stället för att köpa den förlorar producenten något.

[Oskar]

Skillnaden är att artisten inte har valt att lägga ut skivan på nätet, det valet har DU gjort mot deras vilja. Den där mjölkjämförelsen är bara löjlig, artisten har valt att lägga låtarna på en skiva som kostar pengar, vill du inte betala så ska du heller inte lyssna på precis samma sätt som du inte ska ta ett paket mjölk. När du inte köper en skiva så betyder det naturligtvis att artisten har tagit en kostnad för produktion av en vara som du konsumerar utan att betala. Att någon annan kan betala för samma CD är bara en löjlig undanflykt, oavsett vilka tekniska förklaringar du än kan komma på så konsumerar du något olovligt.

Du pratar om en tid när artister ska producera musik gratis för din skull, men det är artistens beslut, inte ditt, det är det som är grejen. Om artisten inte vill ha det så så är det inte din rättighet att med rent samvete ändå göra det valet. Du kan lyssna på singlar på radio eller TV om du vill, för det har artisten godkänt, men INTE att du ska ta dig rätten att konsumera hela skivans innehåll och sedan välja om du vill betala eller ej. Ge artisten möjligheten att ge dig den rätten innan du tar dig den själv, annars måste du applicera samma argument på all näringsverksamhet. När jag går på föreläsningar i skolan så får jag INTRYCK, då ska jag inte behöva betala lärarna för deras nedlagda tid, när jag läser kurslitteraturen så får jag en KÄNSLA, jag tar ingen bok, jag använder bara dess innehåll och ska därför inte behöva betala för den. Osv. Same bullshit.

[Tralfamadore]

Jag är bara lite nyfiken Oskar. Laddar du aldrig ner musik/film?

[Oskar]

För övrigt: vad många fortfarande inte tagit till sig är att en produkt som inte skulle inhandlats från början inte heller innebär en förlust när någon kopierar den. Först när man genast kopierar produkten i stället för att köpa den förlorar producenten något.

Det där är ju exakt samma sak men med olika ord. Att "kopiera" något är alltid att konsumera utan att köpa, det finns inga alternativ.