10 Ideas for MMJ

[wellfleet]

sweatboard... your point is completely valid, that downloading allows you to sample music before paying your hard-earned money for it. but then don't keep the music that you don't end up buying. you can go to the Gap and try on a pair of jeans before you buy them, but you don't get to keep them if you think they're not really worth 50$...
let's just get this, recorded music is a luxury. it is a non-essential item when it comes right down to it. if you had to choose between feeding your child and buying a new CD, i hope the choice is to feed your kid. CDs, DVDs, albums, they're all material goods that we *choose* to spend money on, they're not water/food/shelter. your charity analogy doesn't make sense. by not giving money to ALL charities, you are not stealing from those you don't donate to. but if you go to the "please bring a donation" event of a charity, enjoy the show but don't bring a donation, then you DO affect their bottom line. you are using their services and NOT compensating them.
i don't get it...
it's ok to steal from a band because you pay for other bands' material
it's ok to steal from a band you semi-like, but not from one you really like
it's ok to steal from big companies, but not little ones
it's ok to steal songs, but as long as you go to the show

that's a lot of moral justifications, ifs and buts...

i just spent 60$ at best buy on CDs and DVDs, is it ok if i help myself to a bag of peanut M&Ms at the cash lane because i already paid for other things?

EC is right, you never know what's in a band's record contract, where its revenue stream comes from, what their advances are based on... to me, it's insane to believe that a band like MMJ or Wilco can be successful scanning 10,000 copies of an album release even with extensive touring. these bands don't get the licensing deals that a U2 or the Black Eyed Peas get to sponsor cell phones, iPods, Tostitos, whatever...

way i see it, 5 bucks or 5 million bucks off the band's table, it's THEIR work and THEIR creative force, they should have control over it. the way some of you justify downloading other albums but not MMJ albums is the way some people justify downloading MMJ stuff but not other albums. so your logic, used by non-MMJ fans, hurts MMJ. is that cool?

[sweatboard]

That statement is untrue.

Yeah, I saw that argument coming from a mile away and I also agree that it is "UNTRUE".  I work for the Boys and Girls Clubs and when people donate to us they are not just investing in the lives of young people they are investing in THIER community.  The entire community benefits from what we do on a daily basis, Not everyone pays to enjoy it.

 Thier are several families that take advatage of our services and don't pay thier dues, thier are also plenty of families that give what they CAN and still take the same advantages as everyone else does of our services.  I'm one of those people that gives what they CAN when it comes to supporting music.  It's really your problem if you think I'm WRONG because I don't feel bad about what I do and I don't think it's WRONG.  Also, I doubt anyone in the band is struggeling monetarily as much as I am.  If they wanted to be millionares they could have picked a diiferent profession.  You do starving artist everywhere a disservice by complaing about how bad My Morning Jacket has it.  

I wasn't ever aware that I liked cheese on my sandwich until my friend let me download it for free one day and I was like SHIT! cheese soothes my soul.  Now I pick up a half pound every week.            

[sweatboard]

The fact is that YES, I would choose to pay my bills, eat, provide for my wife and household before buying music, which is why I can't afford to buy all the music I'm interested in checking out.  It's pretty simple, If I couldn't afford to buy the music and it wasn't available for free I wouldn't ever hear alot of the music I have because I STILL wouldn't have bought it.  So Unless someone let me borrow it or I heard it on the radio I just wouldn't ever hear it.  I guess I'm probably stealling thier music when someone let's me borrow a record since I'm not deposinting coins for every 30 seconds of thier music that I actually hear.  If you are a band you aren't in it to make money you do it beacuse of some deeper reason (hopefully).  Let's say I buy a local bands CD and I really love them.  Someone two states away may feel like "well, I would check it out but I just don't have money to go out and buy this cd" Is it better that they never hear the music or that they hear it for free and enjoy it and connect to it?  I'm asking anyone that actually plays music this question, because it seems to me you would want as many people as possible to enjoy it.      

[wellfleet]

"Also, I doubt anyone in the band is struggeling monetarily as much as I am.  If they wanted to be millionares they could have picked a diiferent profession.  You do starving artist everywhere a disservice by complaing about how bad My Morning Jacket has it. "


 ??? ??? ???

OK Jim, Carl, Bo, Tom, Pat, you can make 80,000$ a year and i'll totally support you guys, but if i ever find out you guys are buying yachts and malibu compounds and bling, i will not buy your cds anymore. Jim, if you wanted to make real money, you would have become a lawyer. you chose to be a musician and that's your own damn fault for being too stupid to go to law school instead of the guitar center. i only make 24,000$ a year so i don't think you should make money while i'm assembling widgets down here in Kenosha, Wisconsin. My name is robin, robin hood, and i believe it's ok to steal from the rich and give to the poor because the rich just have it too good. see, the only way to truly be an artist is to live in obscurity in a roach-infested basement, cut off your ear, and have your albums sell posthumously, naturally, after you die of a heroin overdose for that extra rock 'n roll touch.


what a load of BS.

at least, at the very least, download bands that say it's ok. if band ABC says go ahead and get our music for free off our web site and keep it, then do it. if a band says, gee, we'd much rather you listen to the album for free on our site via streaming audio, and if you like it, please buy it, but don't cherry pick our one song and download it because then our label will drop us and we'll be forced to become carpenters, welders, or politicians...

[Chills]

WN: How do you feel about efforts to control how music flows through the online world with digital rights management technologies?

Tweedy:A piece of art is not a loaf of bread. When someone steals a loaf of bread from the store, that's it. The loaf of bread is gone. When someone downloads a piece of music, it's just data until the listener puts that music back together with their own ears, their mind, their subjective experience. How they perceive your work changes your work.

WN: What are your thoughts on the RIAA's ongoing lawsuits against individual file sharers?

Tweedy: We live in a connected world now. Some find that frightening. If people are downloading our music, they're listening to it. The internet is like radio for us.

WN: What was your reaction when copies of A Ghost Is Born started showing up online this year, before the official release?

Tweedy: Something interesting happened. We were contacted by fans who were excited about the fact that they found it on P2P networks, but wanted to give something back in good faith. They wanted to send money to express solidarity with the fact that we'd embraced the downloading community. We couldn't take the money ourselves, so they asked if we could pick a charity instead -- we pointed them to Doctors Without Borders, and they ended up receiving about $15,000.



All good and well. We're all music fans here who still spend  shitloads of  money on music & shows. Bottom line for me: it's ok to discover new things through the internet, just keep supporting your favorite bands as much as possible.
It's that easy right?

[Steven_Smith]

Yeah, I saw that argument coming from a mile away and I also agree that it is "UNTRUE".  I work for the Boys and Girls Clubs and when people donate to us they are not just investing in the lives of young people they are investing in THIER community.  The entire community benefits from what we do on a daily basis, Not everyone pays to enjoy it.

Thier are several families that take advatage of our services and don't pay thier dues, thier are also plenty of families that give what they CAN and still take the same advantages as everyone else does of our services.  I'm one of those people that gives what they CAN when it comes to supporting music.  It's really your problem if you think I'm WRONG because I don't feel bad about what I do and I don't think it's WRONG.  Also, I doubt anyone in the band is struggeling monetarily as much as I am.  If they wanted to be millionares they could have picked a diiferent profession.  You do starving artist everywhere a disservice by complaing about how bad My Morning Jacket has it.  

I wasn't ever aware that I liked cheese on my sandwich until my friend let me download it for free one day and I was like SHIT! cheese soothes my soul.  Now I pick up a half pound every week.            

Again, you continue to only see it from your perspective.  I'm not trying to pick on you, but this is inherently selfish.  This selfish, me first attitude is one of the main reasons why we need charities in the world......

[wellfleet]

i just think that the perception that recorded music is a public right, like AIR, is incorrect. the music doesn't belong to the people, it belongs to the artists! you don't have a god-given right to hear music. there is a higher reason for them becoming musicians, they are incredibly creative. but surgeons and lawyers also have special skills that are important to society and they get paid for those skills even though they can and do choose to do pro-bono work.

i paint and write. if i can't at least break even selling paintings and/or articles, how can i afford paint, brushes, thinner, canvas, and the free time to do these things? i want people to enjoy my writing, but i can't keep writing if nobody pays me, because i would have to get a JOB! i can't afford all the cds and movies i would like to own. the answer is, well, i just have priorities and stealing is not the fix for this. i can't afford the louis vuitton tote bag for 2000$, my answer is not to shoplift it or buy a knockoff, it's to do without it.

to professional artists and musicians, this isn't a hobby, it's their employment, their retirement fund, their kids' college tuition, not just pocket money for weekend beer.

[ycartrob]

the REAL problem I have with record companies is they use the artist (again) to try and prevent illegal downloading. That's where the rub is for me; it's really not about eithics or money or the artist, it's about power (Chuck D talks about that on the link I provided). If they really cared about these artists they're signing, they'd give them more control and cash. They see this new technology getting the best of their inflated prices, so instead of address the over priced item, they try to limit the technology.

The principle of making copies has always been with us, but they could control that (how could you possibly make copies at this rate before the internet?) back then, making casettes for friends. So, the ethical and moral argument is crap. The record companies have a fear of being out of a job, so they lobby the government to do something about it.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, fuck greedy corporations; on the other hand, support your artists of choice. Suprised to see so many capitalists here...

It's the ethical dilema more so than the fact that bands are going broke b/c of downloading. Bands aren't going broke b/c of downloading. Lars talks about that on the link I provided, so let go of that angle please.

[ycartrob]

wellfleet, if you think the music belongs to the artists then you're living in a fantasy land. You might want to look at that assetion again or ask Paul McCartney how Revolution got to be part of a Nike commercial.

[wellfleet]

WN: What was your reaction when copies of A Ghost Is Born started showing up online this year, before the official release?

Tweedy: Something interesting happened. We were contacted by fans who were excited about the fact that they found it on P2P networks, but wanted to give something back in good faith. They wanted to send money to express solidarity with the fact that we'd embraced the downloading community. We couldn't take the money ourselves, so they asked if we could pick a charity instead -- we pointed them to Doctors Without Borders, and they ended up receiving about $15,000.
All good and well. We're all music fans here who still spend  shitloads of  money on music & shows. Bottom line for me: it's ok to discover new things through the internet, just keep supporting you're favorite bands as much as possible.
It's that easy right?

this is great. if wilco says it's ok to download, then go ahead and download their music. if you then want to contribute to a charity in their name, that's awesome, especially DWB. but:
1. not all bands think it's ok
2. not all downloaders will respect the band and donate to the charity to even out the moral ledger
3. good faith implies just that. but so many people's sense of entitlement means that they lack good faith. they just want to get something for nothing.

[ycartrob]

nice post Chills  :)

[wellfleet]

tracy, i'm not an idiot, i did work in music and TV. some artists own their own masters and publishing rights obviously some don't. thanks for the history lesson, though  :-/  ;)

it should be up to the owner of those rights to decide who gets to use their songs and how.

and to all those who believe that by downloading they don't pour money into the coffers of labels... P2P service providers are free for the users, but they're not free to start up or maintain. there are deep pockets behind those doors, too. so someone is making a profit off of all downloads...


but the music belongs to someone who has invested money and effort into it, it's not public property is what i was trying to say.

[ycartrob]

it should be up to the owner of those rights to decide who gets to use their songs and how.

again well, shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Is it OK for me to record a song I hear on the radio?

[wellfleet]

i guess i'm amazed by so many anti-capitalists, and i was born in a Communist country! anti-capitalists maybe don't know what it's like to stand in a long line for eggs because everyone gets the same amount of eggs (and bread and milk)
when i see people rage against big corporations, i can't help wondering about basic economic theory. money and profit aren't zero-sum. if i am a millionaire, it doesn't mean there is less wealth out there for you to obtain.

record labels employ lots of people who all play a part in bringing your favourite band into the public light. all those people receive a salary. there's a million cogs that take a bunch of  guys from Louiville from local faves to worldwide critical darlings.

[corey]

Is it OK for me to record a song on the radio?

my wife and I were discussing "radio recording" last night. I remember trying to record the newest Prince single off of the radio years and years ago. I already owned "Purple Rain", but didn't have a dual-cassette recorder and I was trying to put together a mix of songs from the radio. The problem was getting the god-damn DJ to shut up because I didn't want to hear him talking. So most of my mixtapes back then started *right* before the lyrics started.
God Damn DJs.
:)

[Chills]

this is great. if wilco says it's ok to download, then go ahead and download their music. if you then want to contribute to a charity in their name, that's awesome, especially DWB. but:
1. not all bands think it's ok
2. not all downloaders will respect the band and donate to the charity to even out the moral ledger
3. good faith implies just that. but so many people's sense of entitlement means that they lack good faith. they just want to get something for nothing.

Actually, we both agree! I knew we would.
Number three is the problem.
Most real music lovers (I just know everyone here does) keep supporting their favorite band any way they can, but hey, you can't stop the ones that just abuse the system. Certainly not if it is so easy to abuse.
People will always be greedy, it's our nature

[sweatboard]

This selfish, me first attitude is one of the main reasons why we need charities in the world......

this comment and Wellfleet's entire argument are just putting words in my mouth.  I thought I've explained myself pretty well but people keep making me out to be the antichrist.  This debate could go on literally forever.  If you are in the buisness of only listening to music that you have compensated the artist monitarily for I applaud you and your righteous road.  I'll continue to download albums and enjoy music and support the bands that I can.   :-*  Peace Out!!!

[ycartrob]

well, I am able to see both sides of the argument and I have provided links and snippets from artists who feel both ways.

The bottom line is that regulating technological advances is not the answer. No one ever had a problem with file sharing until power came into the equation (and that has absolutely nothing to do with the artist, as you saw with Z and SONY records).

wellfleet, I'd challenge you to look a little harder into the flip side of your argument b/c you come across sounding like you are pro SONY and pro record companies doing whatever they want (you know, downloading spyware onto your computer?) b/c they OWN the material you are putting into your computer.

It's a slippery slope, but both sides have vaild and honorable points.

[wellfleet]

tracy, i'm not pro-Sony anymore than i am pro-blue cheese dressing being spelled bleu. but i'm not anti-Sony. the spyware fiasco actually goes to the heart of my argument, which is all about consent. i did not consent to having spyware installed on my computer and the label, apparently, does not consent for me to make copies of this album for my friends. (and fuck my friends, the album is ace and worth every penny dammit!)
i'm definitely not for record companies influencing modes of distribution as it pertains to suppressing technology. the slippery slope you mention is right on, but it slopes both ways. if downloading is ok, then what else becomes ok by extension? i think companies are weary of setting a precedent whereby they will no longer have control over a product they paid to produce.
a judge just halted sales on the notorious B.I.G.'s ready to die album because the song contains an Ohio Players sample without permission. what do people have the right to do without compensating the creator?
the way the industry is now, it still relies heavily (arguably too heavily) on physical album sales and although pay-per-download services are very popular, they are not embraced by all. there definitely will be a new production model where everyone can make a profit while respecting both intellectual property and the freedom to make mix tapes. recorded music has come a long way in 100 years and it will keep changing. and while consumers dictate supply, demand, and therefore market price, if they don't like any one of these, they can affect change by not buying, not supporting, buying only the lowest price...
the more money a company makes, the cheaper their product prices are.
i think it's about control, the control of your product. my dad works in pharmaceuticals, everyone's favourite scapegoat. some are very angry at these companies for selling brand-name meds for so much and holding on to their patents instead of letting them be produced generically and for cheap. for one, in the 12+ years my dad's been in this industry, i've heard him talk about hundreds of millions of dollars spent or research and development, sometimes only to not have the drug approved, have the side-effects be too overwhelming... one contaminated IV bag forces the halt of production and the tossing out of an entire batch, thousands of bags. these companies are there to make a profit, they're a business, not a charity. they need to recoup the costs of their R&D, their testing, their losses... so i can understand why they want to hold on to a patent for a while before releasing it. if they send 200 million dollars on developing an arthritis drug that could help millions of people and someone just copies the formula and sells it for 5$ instead of 25$, the company can't fund research...
i think it's nice to show respect to those who worked to make something happen and see how they feel. if, like, tweedy, they think downloading is a benefit, then by all means. but if lars ulrich says he doesn't want you to download, as a fan, you should respect his wishes.

[wellfleet]

and for the record, sweatboard is not the antichrist. i have it on good authority that it's ashlee simpson.  :-*