i am just going to give my last opinion __ i truly wish is being heard __

people got together in this beautiful FAC ___ they considered file-sharing as an important issue in the world _

i was reading every day the comments _ then i considered myself file-sharing as an important issue [ i guess . . . even when i was more interested in people 's words about things and not specificaly about file-sharing - i am always very interested in how people  express themselves in blogs  , because if you put the " real " issue aside, you can discover huge important things about life on how people are expressing this days.

-- [ please follow my idea , is important ] 

---

then,  2 important things happened [ things like that happen to me everyday because i am PAYING ATTENTION ]

1 - is a very personal thing so i rather not talk about it 

2 - i read an article about babies posibly being racists in the very early age [ newsweek magazine USA

september 14, 2009 ] and i was shock [ not Dr. Tchock ] again in this daily life

__

then i am  just going to give my last words in a non very polite way and i am sorry about that [ but is necesary this time ] :

what the fuck file-sharing has to do with important things - please just ask for a topic to thom yorke [ he will give U millons ] and lets start a coalition about something more important for the FUTURE of us human beings [ earth - racism - or just about us as human beings being fucked up - thom can help on that ] - I HOPE PEOPLE GET INVOLVE as much as file-sharing 

and FAC - stop it - take care of something more important in your life and ED - just listen to your band mate dude - i used to LOVE YOU

peace guys - really

pantrus [ 37 years old guy, living in Miami and getting scared very scared everyday about the world today ] 

 On the side of the consumer - yes, most albums/cds/downloads are overpriced. There is the greed factor and the "serves you right" finger of the consumer is waving loud and cocky at the multinationals. On the otherside, stealing/sharing a file which doesn't belong to you, just because you want it, also could fall under the greed umbrella. We must reach a middle ground where the consumer isn't being screwed by the corporate machine, where the artists have a say in how much their products are sold for, taking into account how much they've chosen to spend on creating their albums/products, how much they decide to spend a director to shoot a promo video... and so on.

The problem with "the old model" is that record company album budgets (even only 10 years ago) were insane, and how they decided to allot this money was even worse:

• when it came to promo videos - nominating a large percentage on these videos. Generally throwing upwards of £100,000 at weak storyboard ideas, hoping that the gloss factor will compensate. It doesn't cost to shoot a good video, you just need a good, simple idea and a good director.
• Also they (record companies) have been known to have rediculous expense accounts - wining, dining, cocaining... potential clients - all these expenses fall on the artist, hence reducing the potential profit margin, increasing the cost of the final product/increasing the recoup.
• On the recording side, artists would be recording, by today's standards, under slightly more luxurious circumstances. Recording with producers, some of who were being paid exhorbitant amounts of money, on top of royalty splits, for work which didn't really justify the pay. Producers who would perpetuate the extravagance, in many ways - from what restaurant they chose to eat at during the recording period to choosing to occupy large live rooms/studios to do percussion and vocal overdubs.

Every penny spent during the making and promoting of a record adds up. I think in these times there's a lot more budget watching going on. And so there should. It shouldn't cost the price of a house to record an album. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using recording studios, producers, engineers, directors, stylists, marketing people to create, package and promote an album, but again, it doesn't have to cost the earth.

    When a band sign to a record label, they chose to put their art in the hands of these companies - choosing the deal which suits them most. As was mentioned in an earlier post, there was a structure there and it worked. It's not perfect, but it worked.

   On the side of the artist, the artist creates, the artist wishes to make a living from his art. If he/she chooses to sell or give it away - that choice should be entirely their's to make - just as is their choice to take or not to take that record deal that they've been offered. It is not the right of the consumer to consume at will, taking said art -  stealing or "sharing"! And it is not their choice to make, as some of the previous posting folk seem to think it is. If you want to change the record industry - join it and make that difference - don't just steal somebody elses property because you can and who cares, because (to paraphrase) "all record companies are greedy corporate heartless machines, fuck the system!", and some of this coming from "musicians", well as they say don't give up the day job, because with that attitude, you're digging your own graves! And as for a "changing society", people look on this change as something to embrace, well, embrace with caution. New isn't always a good thing.

   Yes, tape recording songs has been going on for years, but that's about as convenient as downloading with an extremely squeezed/reduced broadband width - which is maybe where the FAC are coming from. In my opinion, if we reduce recording costs and introduce a consumer friendly selling model, we might reach equilibrium in a few years. But in order for this to happen, the self-righteous, file-sharing thieves must stop screwing the artists - leave that to the groupies!

   Finally, one thing's for sure - the day of the rock band throwing the TV out the window and thrashing hotel rooms is over, if this music thieving trend continues, they'll barely be able to afford a small portable for the corner of the room, never mind replacing the widescreen from whatever Hilton Hotel they've just destroyed...

The entire basis of the argument FOR file sharing is absurd.  To make the claim that music should be free is the same as calling it worthless.  Pulling quotes from people who are decades gone to justify ripping people off is just wrong and sad.  Yeah music is free, manufacturing it is not.  There are a lot of things in between when a musician plays a note and you hear it and none of it is free(unless it is you that is playing, in which case it is in fact free.  Maybe that is what Lennon meant.)  Apply these arguments to everyday situations.

I bought this on Vinyl 20 years ago . . .
translation
I drove a honda in high school and now that they’ve come out with these new hybrids, I think I’ll take one off the lot.
or
Barkeep, I just bought a pint from you twenty minutes ago but now it’s gone.  So, I’ll just come around there and pull myself a new one.

This is more of an ideology derived from the practice of file sharing.
Radiohead and Pink Floyd sell millions of copies anyway so I can steel Neko Cases new record.  What?! you’re an ass!

 Manufacturing media(or hosting it) is expensive, ask anyone who has produced their own CD’s.  The people who work for/own these production facilities are due some monetary reward for it.  Not to mention distribution costs on top of that.  I mean, what is it that all of these people so FOR file sharing do for a living that they are willing to give away for free?  Bitching. 

In our age of digital distribution music is so much more accessible and inexpensive there is no excuse for this debate.  People who habitually use file sharing to acquire music are leeches, and Cheats, and THIEVES.
 

Dan Bull has put his thoughts on this issue into song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

Dear Lily Allen,

Remember when you pretended, Lily, that you were truly independent, Lily? Faking like you made it all alone but you were legally with Regal, part of Parlophone - oh yes. So when you lectured me, I thought I'd fileshare my thoughts on your mp3, Lily.

Now first I must sing your praises - I love your singing but I'll just say this: I saw on your MySpace pages saying filesharing's a new ice age, but the industry's a recent innovation - music's been alive, thriving since cavemen. Folk songs so long have had a place in communities that you should be amazed at it. Then one day came intellectual property, meaning if I think a thought, you can't copy me. And if honesty's the best policy, I'd say songs are better off without this monopoly. It'd blatantly be a major fail if they'd patented the major scale. And downloads don't equate to sales, so taking them away won't make me pay up - just procludes me from sending your tunes to my friends, so we all lose in the end. You lose potential fans and we lose respect for the fact that you're desperate for cash. But what do you expect from the lass who's collecting a fat bank cheque from the man, while her fans are collecting the glasses for minimum wage they'll spend on her tracks?

Now please don't be offended, Lily; I think your new CD's splendid, Lily. Everybody's at It and it's Not Fair, I Could Say, The Fear was Him but He wasn't There so let's go Back to the Start, before 22 - all music's in the public domain, so Fuck You.

It's never the amateurs that's reckon it's damaging us, it's the major labels saying it's fatal; like when Napster had to pack up, wrecked by Metallica. The table's turned now - the labels churn out a new Jezebelinternetelevangelist - and she's fit - with a manuscript that was actually written by Mr. Michael Masnick. Can you get the irony? And by the by, Lily, I like this beat - I hope you don't mind me thieving, 'cause even doing a cover song's decried as stealing. But it's alright, still, for you to plagiarise, and preach it - Don't you believe it's maybe time to rethink, Lily?

Put music back in the hands of the people; make the majors and amateurs equal. If anything labels strangle the freedom you claim they're saving by banning this evil. That's the actual reason, you see; and please don't compare sharing to stealing - I've not took anything off you, I'm just spreading love for what you do. Downloaded your songs for free, then I bought my mom your CD. She likes it too, she keeps telling me, all because I pirated an mp3. Now I've got Matt Bellamy belling me, telling me I'm not a fan, I'm the enemy. That's amusing, I've paid enough to see Muse in my time I could buy them a museum. Did you see them on that programme miming? Yeah, the pirates are killing live gigs. Maybe we should have a ban CDs appeal - then people would pay to see bands for real. Dear Lily, why are you being this silly?

Yours sincerely,
Dan Bull

P.S. - And I don't mean any offence or anything, Lily. I just don't think the issue's as clear cut as you're making out. And I know you're going to carry on making music really. But when you're between the devil and the deep blue sea, you need to stop worrying about pirates, and adjust your sails.

ha

wow

i cant believe it

now i am for sure out of this issue - i hope everything go well - but

THOM YORKE HAS A BAND TO PLAY THE SOLO STUFF and you have to check the band

sorry - file-sharing is nothing - let s keep moving

peace and bye

pantrus