seashell
Member
totally easy
Posts: 1,461
Location:
|
Post by seashell on Nov 29, 2011 14:22:07 GMT -5
ya... I find the ethics of the digital media world to be confusing... For instance: I never buy a book unless I've read it and I know I WANT TO OWN it. I use something called a library - the place where I can borrow the books and other media (DVDs, CDs, tapes) for my temporary use. Some authors I buy without reading as I know from my previous experience that I will WANT TO OWN their work anyway - Adam falls into this category of course. So, if I use the YouTube or a download site for the same purpose, i.e. to decide if I in fact WANT TO OWN a book or a song or an album - am I stealing? How is it different from using a library item? One is a loan that has been paid for by the Library the other is not. And.. how is it that the Library loaning programs.. disappear after a certain amount of time? Why is it that Digital Media for Books has evolved to the extent that there can be lending.. i.e. book libraries.. But, they can't figure this out for music.. |
|
nonotme
Member
Posts: 1,399
Location:
|
Post by nonotme on Nov 29, 2011 14:23:42 GMT -5
Buder, An amazing thing related to downloading that I learned recently. So many young people have been used to downloading music for free, and believe that music, books, etc should be free online, and that artists will make their money through live performances, that this attitude is now making itself felt in law schools where students are studying intellectual property law. Some students are now intent on changing, or even eliminating, copyright laws when they graduate. I guess this would be a paradigm shift, but I don't see how it could work. peace&love How would an author make money in this situation? Just curious. I know. This seems doubly confusing when applied to authors. I guess they would have to start having readings/book-signings in clubs, or arenas if they are hugely popular, and sell tickets through ticketmaster. HA! One could easily see the whole idea as a conspiracy spearheaded by ticket sellers. LOL peace&love |
|
murly
Member
Life's my light and liberty and I shine when I want to shine.
Posts: 2,576
Location:
|
Post by murly on Nov 29, 2011 14:26:33 GMT -5
I'm torn about Adam singing at the Olympics -- his album campaign will be in full swing. Now, if Queen were to back him on one of his songs, that might work. Although, how can you not want to hear "We Are the Champions" at the Olympics? I don't know. Adam's style is so different then Queen's style. It really doesn't represent what he does. Regardless of what song Adam might do at the Olympics, he would impress people with his voice. And those people would probably go out and buy his music. There might be a few who would be disappointed because the music wasn't what they were expecting, but overall I think there would be a net gain of new fans. A worldwide platform would be a major win for Adam, IMO. |
|
FanOfTheMan
Member
Love Our Guy!
Posts: 4,205
Location:
|
Post by FanOfTheMan on Nov 29, 2011 14:29:48 GMT -5
I wonder if it would be possible to create a "gifting" thread when Trespassing comes out so everyone could have a bona fide copy? I would love to give others a copy of it but sadly don't personally know many folks who would be receptive. But gifting to Atop members is a no brainer. Not sure about the logistics of course, just an idea. I really like your idea of a 'gifting thread' when Trespassing comes out. Hope we have a thread for this.  I would love to participate in a gifting project - spread the Adam love, I say. 8-) |
|
aralid
Member
Posts: 573
Location:
|
Post by aralid on Nov 29, 2011 14:34:35 GMT -5
Buder, An amazing thing related to downloading that I learned recently. So many young people have been used to downloading music for free, and believe that music, books, etc should be free online, and that artists will make their money through live performances, that this attitude is now making itself felt in law schools where students are studying intellectual property law. Some students are now intent on changing, or even eliminating, copyright laws when they graduate. I guess this would be a paradigm shift, but I don't see how it could work. peace&love ya... I find the ethics of the digital media world to be confusing... For instance: I never buy a book unless I've read it and I know I WANT TO OWN it. I use something called a library - the place where I can borrow the books and other media (DVDs, CDs, tapes) for my temporary use. Some authors I buy without reading as I know from my previous experience that I will WANT TO OWN their work anyway - Adam falls into this category of course. So, if I use the YouTube or a download site for the same purpose, i.e. to decide if I in fact WANT TO OWN a book or a song or an album - am I stealing? How is it different from using a library item?  or if you listen to a album with your friend or borrows it from him/her, who owns it. Or borrow a book from a friend not necessarily a library. In the end downloading is the same. It is just through a new media: the internet. Not everything is black and white. I believe sharing does not necessarily harm artists. Through it their music can reach a wider audience, which are potencial buyers of the album or the next one. Their are many new artists who only are famous because they shared their music for free, the ones liked it recommended it to friends and so on. I know we are talking about music, that is not free, but it shows sharing is not always bad. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 14:41:27 GMT -5
One is a loan that has been paid for by the Library the other is not. yes. But the person who uploaded to the site/YT might've paid...- of course we don't know that for sure.... (not arguing, but playing devils advocate) Point, but it is not a formal arraignment where we know it is paid. I think the crux is that if some one is not ethical like you are, the music goes round and round and the beginning is forgotten and so... they have the music why pay? My son and I discussed this the other day because he was upset that one of his friends had downloaded one of his favorite bands with the argument that they, the band, had enough money! As a Libra I can discuss both sides because he would not have been upset if they had borrowed his cd and they had copied it! |
|
|
|
Post by nonchallance on Nov 29, 2011 14:42:22 GMT -5
ya... I find the ethics of the digital media world to be confusing... For instance: I never buy a book unless I've read it and I know I WANT TO OWN it. I use something called a library - the place where I can borrow the books and other media (DVDs, CDs, tapes) for my temporary use. Some authors I buy without reading as I know from my previous experience that I will WANT TO OWN their work anyway - Adam falls into this category of course. So, if I use the YouTube or a download site for the same purpose, i.e. to decide if I in fact WANT TO OWN a book or a song or an album - am I stealing? How is it different from using a library item? or if you listen to a album with your friend or borrows it from him/her, who owns it. Or borrow a book from a friend not necessarily a library. In the end downloading is the same. It is just through a new media: the internet. Not everything is black and white. I believe sharing does not necessarily harm artists. Through it their music can reach a wider audience, which are potencial buyers of the album or the next one. Their are many new artists who only are famous because they shared their music for free, the ones liked it recommended it to friends and so on. I know we are talking about music, that is not free, but it shows sharing is not always bad. Of course its not always bad and I'm talking about certain album  |
|
|
|
Post by cassie on Nov 29, 2011 14:51:21 GMT -5
aralid: I appreciate you being willing to come out and discuss your perspective on downloading. It was risky, as many of the members here are of an age that they did not grow up in the age of free digital downloads, and now can afford to buy any music they want. Heck, they are talking about flying a thousand miles to another country to see an Adam concert. That must seem like total fantasy to a poor college student. Your posts remind us that the issue is not black and white, and there are many different perspectives.
I happen to believe that people should buy the music they listen to. Having said that, I remember being young and broke and making copies of albums on cassette tapes. Lots of them during my college years. I remember checking tapes out of the library and making copies for myself and my family members. Yup, my economics clashed with my ethics, and the economics won. So, no judgment here.
The artists, producers and recording companies are going to have to figure out how to make a profit in this digital download era. Perspectives like yours may clash with the beliefs of some of us, but, these perspectives are common and increasing. We need to hear them, to understand them, and figure out how to create an environment where artists are paid for their work.
Again, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Nov 29, 2011 14:52:47 GMT -5
re: illegal downloading Putting the moral question aside for a moment, I just wanted to say that Aralid, I am most impressed by your directness and honesty here, which seems to me, in the moment, to outweigh any other considerations! I really appreciate your posting your point of view and your gutsiness in expressing it. Personally, while I don't feel all that strongly about it, I don't download music illegally that is legally available for purchase elsewhere (no not even BFM  ). My tumble into this Adam fandom has reinforced this policy--I want to actively support him, and feel I owe other artists the same even if I care less about their success. But then, I can easily afford to do so, which I agree puts me in a very different position from those who can't, and I do think social norms are relevant here--if a whole section of society (mostly younger people) have grown accustomed to downloading in this way, the new norm may shift the moral weight of the act in some way. And then, of course, if I'm honest about it, I've done the equivalent to illegal downloading without a second thought many many times in my life. If a friend gives me a "mix-tape," or burns me a CD of some music he or she likes, both of which have happened many times, I don't, of course, then go out and buy each of those songs again on i-tunes. I don't even consider doing it, and don't give a second thought to the legal status of the "shared" music. This is partly what I mean by moral norms--mix-tapes are an excepted form of music sharing in a way that I suspect illicit downloading is for a whole generation of less-rule-bound, less wealthy music listeners. (Nonotme's interesting info applies here as well.) None of which is really intended to argue for one side or another in this debate--I just think that it's good to be completely honest about the ways in which we all participate in one way or another in the sharing culture. For that matter, a large percentage of the music we enjoy on youtube is equally "illegal," in that it is a violation of copyright laws intended to protect the intellectual property and economic interest of artists. Do I really stand on so much higher ground simply because, instead of illegally downloading a song, I regularly listen to it on youtube? I don't think so. Similarly, when those of us who do not, for example, have cable, watch a show live-streamed on ustream, or via a later youtube, we are "stealing" what we could have legally purchased with a cable package. We all do things like this all the time without a moment's guilt. It's helpful to remember this when evaluating the actions of others. That all having been said, I certainly hope as many people as can buy Trespassing do buy Trespassing, and think the gifting thread is an excellent idea. Totally different topic: I'm cringing horribly for poor Adam at all this marriage talk in the media. I for one didn't interpret his comments to RS so literally at all. He said as recently as the EQ awards that he thinks he's "too young" to be thinking about marriage in any concrete way. I just assumed he meant that now that he's more mature, and in a serious relationship, and marriage is something he could easily imagine himself wanting in the future (unlike when he was younger and couldn't imagine it), he can't legally do it. Geez, it's just been a year! Hubby and I were together for 13 years before we finally tied the knot ;D! I hope Adam can just shrug off all the silly hyperventilating by press and to some extent fans, too (certainly not thinking of anyone in particular here). I'm confident he can. More than anything, of course, I hope that when it comes time that Adam really does actively plan to get married, this retrograde-ass country will have grown up a little and will let him!! |
|
|
|
Post by gelly14 on Nov 29, 2011 14:53:57 GMT -5
www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2011/11/glambert/Joe Zee gives Adam Lambert a style upgrade November 28, 2011 Joe Zee is back and on this season of ALL ON THE LINE WITH JOE ZEE he’s not only helping struggling designers. He’s also helping celebs looking for a style upgrade. American Idol alum, and bonafide pop superstar, Adam Lambert knew it was time to bring his wardrobe from trashy-tacky to fashion forward. more...
|
|
). My tumble into this Adam fandom has reinforced this policy--I want to actively support him, and feel I owe other artists the same even if I care less about their success. But then, I can easily afford to do so, which I agree puts me in a very different position from those who can't, and I do think social norms are relevant here--if a whole section of society (mostly younger people) have grown accustomed to downloading in this way, the new norm may shift the moral weight of the act in some way. 
