ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Welcome to the London After Midnight Community! Click here to join! It's free! If you have questions or problems registering just send an email to info (at) londonaftermidnight (dot) com
Search this Topic:
Posts: 25
Mar 23 11 6:45 AM
Posts: 6729
Mar 23 11 8:04 AM
Posts: 14786
Mar 23 11 10:02 AM
milena dasukidis wrote:Well I don't think that it's all to blame on end users who want free stuff. I don't know much about these things (so I risk sounding stupid now ) but I think that the main problem is that the industry got extremely powerful and puts its own profit above interests of artists. That's how we got to the situation that bands and artists who are not doing what they do primarily for money are at loss.
Of course, awareness is the big factor, but that is something that should be dealt on an individual level and given the circumstances it should also apply to those who are heads of that business and not only to end users. So with the whole system as it is, people are trying to find alternative ways to get the music they want. For instance, in Serbia (which is too small and insignificant market to be a representative example) where people are mostly poor, buying music legally is quite expensive. It is not something you earn in a day here. So there's no way for me (I'm just putting myself as an example) to buy all the music I like and want to have.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm defending piracy that causes so much damage to the bands, I'm just trying to explain how things are here. Personally, I don't download music at all, I mostly listen to the radio stations or go to YouTube when I want to hear something in particular. But the result of my awareness is that I don't own a collection of music I love.
Mar 23 11 10:23 AM
Mar 23 11 11:29 AM
milena dasukidis wrote:I understand your point, I wasn't trying to justify it nor do I think that music should be downloaded for free by any excuse. I just wanted to point out that I can see how it came to this in my country in which more crucial laws are not being obeyed, from the top of the state downwards.But as I said - I know too little of these things to pull a discussion, so I'll just stop the spam
After all, I don't have to know everything about it
Mar 23 11 11:31 AM
Mar 23 11 11:41 AM
milena dasukidis wrote:Oh, yes - one more thing.Sean, this is also question for you: what's the thing with services such as Last.fm? I created an account there years ago but I only started using it recently. Is music they provide there legal and how it works?Sorry for double post.
Mar 23 11 11:51 AM
Mar 23 11 11:56 AM
milena dasukidis wrote:Oh, yes - one more thing.Sean, this is also question for you: what's the thing with services such as Last.fm? I created an account there years ago but I only started using it recently. Is music they provide there legal and how it works?EDIT: We were writing at the same time again Yes, Nicolya, you're completely right, just as Sean.Hehe, when I said I don't have to know just everything, I meant I don't really want to drag you further into discussion. Of course I know the important part, it only takes common sense to realize that theft is not ok, it's something everybody should be aware of. I just wanted to... how to say, get a bigger picture, because my point of view regarding what we discussed here is kind of narrow; not because I don't care about it, but because I'm really not in touch with what's happening behind the curtains.
Mar 23 11 12:13 PM
Posts: 481
Mar 23 11 12:22 PM
Mar 23 11 12:37 PM
VittraEternity wrote:I just thought last.fm was just a site that keeps track of everyone's listening habits, via "scrobbling", and then makes recommendations based on what you're listening to. I didn't realize bands would get money for having their music scrobbled. And Sean, I understand your point with band pages on the web, where content is supplied by fans but it is usually meant with good intention and the information put out there becomes more and more reliable over time. Take for instance, the metal-archives website, a site that serves as an online encyclopedia for metal music -I can consider this to be an excellent source for information. The vast majority of bands I listen to aren't that involved in online matters so if it wasn't for the fans, a lot of these bands would go unnoticed. But regarding last.fm, in the past I have tried to clean up some artist pages and fix album information for various bands but it's incredibly difficult on last.fm. Band profiles can be written up easily enough, but they have a very bizarre means of getting album information. I seem to recall that they get it from a particular website that for whatever reason, they view as a valid source, but is full is full or errors and difficult for people to edit - I gave up on trying a long time ago. Many of the bands I listen to have no albums listed on last.fm as a result, and last.fm is unable to differentiate between artists with the same name, so things aren't being properly scrobbled and I assume most bands aren't being compensated at all.
Mar 23 11 2:01 PM
Sean Brennan wrote:VittraEternity wrote:I just thought last.fm was just a site that keeps track of everyone's listening habits, via "scrobbling", and then makes recommendations based on what you're listening to. I didn't realize bands would get money for having their music scrobbled. And Sean, I understand your point with band pages on the web, where content is supplied by fans but it is usually meant with good intention and the information put out there becomes more and more reliable over time. Take for instance, the metal-archives website, a site that serves as an online encyclopedia for metal music -I can consider this to be an excellent source for information. The vast majority of bands I listen to aren't that involved in online matters so if it wasn't for the fans, a lot of these bands would go unnoticed. But regarding last.fm, in the past I have tried to clean up some artist pages and fix album information for various bands but it's incredibly difficult on last.fm. Band profiles can be written up easily enough, but they have a very bizarre means of getting album information. I seem to recall that they get it from a particular website that for whatever reason, they view as a valid source, but is full is full or errors and difficult for people to edit - I gave up on trying a long time ago. Many of the bands I listen to have no albums listed on last.fm as a result, and last.fm is unable to differentiate between artists with the same name, so things aren't being properly scrobbled and I assume most bands aren't being compensated at all. I don't agree that the info becomes more reliable over time on these sites that allow user input. I've been keeping an eye on just this for years. This takes people actually knowing what's accurate in the first place, and then being vigilant about maintaining that info. On last FM you have no control of many aspects, as you found out, and often when you do (like on Wikipedia) you're met with psychos who insist their version of reality is correct or relevant, even if it isn't.Like Music Brainz or whatever it's called is a horrible site and terribly inaccurate, as are many lyric sites, WIkipedia, and others that you cannot really control, or the process to input info is so complex or convoluted that it's impossible to overcome the inaccurate info without an army of people submitting corrected info regularly.The scrobbling thing on LastFM hurts artists because it limits and cubby-holes listeners. Like, on the LAM page FearCult is listed as similar artist. We are NOTHING alike and it's truly embarrassing that these horrible artists like FearCult or Emilie Autumn are associated with LAM.Sean
Posts: 2765
Mar 24 11 1:26 AM
Sean Brennan wrote: It's the same thing as filesharing in that, like you just said (which was argued about endlessly in the past and caused big fights here, where I said YouTube was indeed harmful) people DO use YouTube like a radio station and listen to the music there - for free.
Mar 24 11 3:36 AM
still think it's too extreme. Why must people be deprived of listening to music for free AT ALL? Then we could also agree that people have no right to read a book for free or to look at a painting reproduction for free?
Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money? What's SO wrong in listening to something on YouTube (it's not people's fault that there's nothing worth listening on official radio channels!) to call these people criminals?
Mar 24 11 4:22 AM
Nicolya wrote: According to your logic, artists should give away everything and to die from the hunger. Yes, of course, artists do the art for people, but since it's their work, they have to be compensated. It was ALWAYS the case.
Mar 24 11 6:24 AM
Weirdie wrote:Nicolya wrote: According to your logic, artists should give away everything and to die from the hunger. Yes, of course, artists do the art for people, but since it's their work, they have to be compensated. It was ALWAYS the case.No way! It's all about knowing where to draw the line. I mean, for example, an artist (i.e. a painter) doesn't get paid every time anybody takes a look at his/her painting.And when have I ever said that artists don't have to receive their author's emoluments?! ...But I've already said that I just wanted to state my opinion (mainly because of Sean's hint towards me ), and I'm not gonna argue here. We can continue the discussion in private (I'd be glad to if you want ), so that not to arouse Sean...
Posts: 2307
Mar 24 11 7:37 AM
Mar 24 11 9:41 AM
Weirdie wrote:Sean Brennan wrote: It's the same thing as filesharing in that, like you just said (which was argued about endlessly in the past and caused big fights here, where I said YouTube was indeed harmful) people DO use YouTube like a radio station and listen to the music there - for free. I still think it's too extreme. Why must people be deprived of listening to music for free AT ALL? Then we could also agree that people have no right to read a book for free or to look at a painting reproduction for free?
Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?
What's SO wrong in listening to something on YouTube (it's not people's fault that there's nothing worth listening on official radio channels!) to call these people criminals?
Not only art consumers are wrong, the whole system is wrong, this world is wrong where art is considered to be a luxury item like another pair of shoes, or a diamond ring, or a car...
As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.
But don't worry, I'm not gonna start a fight, and I'll not argue any more. Just wanted to pass an opinion...
Mar 24 11 10:05 AM
Share This