I just want to say that I am really, really against the idea of a music tax, with one vote per citizen. That's not a plausible or effective system in any way.

Intern_8033 wrote:...we shouldn't design the economic model to account for weaknesses in human character -- it should hold people responsible to their potential as human beings.

But my model demands much more complicated moral reckoning from the consumer, only his decision has tenfold impact since he doesn’t have to come up with the money to back it, it’s already there from the tax. Instead of the pointless and morally dubious question of “how much” he can ponder the more dignified and morally impactful question: “Britney Spears or Fugazi?”

i've have oft. wanted to reply to this thread, but have not ever felt quite comfortable with where I stand. 5 minutes ago, here at the ole job, this guy, who probably was not older than 25 (my age), not a typical record nerd, came in wanting to buy a Traveling Wilbury's CD. I informed him that the C.D. was rather expensive 'cause of it's scarcity. when he saw the 35 dollar price tag he was undetered and went ahead with his purchase.
having been in the same situation, albeit with different record than the wilbury's, i find myself asking myself "why don't I just get it online?" in most cases i never get the music because I don't want to shell out 75 dollars for Tortoise "Gamera" (an example) and I really would rather not download.
my position. i have a 30 dollar ceiling for the music I buy. (only set that high because i am broke). i have always wanted certain records Shellac "futurist" Disco Inferno "second language" Rodan "Aviary." these recordings have yet to be made available at a price that is comparable to my income (the artists reasons are their own, I'm not interested in knowing). all I'm saying is, is that others have price constraints like myself and want the music bad enough to download. i work in a record store and have seen the effects of downloading and have no interest in joining that club, on the other hand it would be nice if some of those gems were made available at a price that someone like me can afford. not all of us can be in the right place at the right time.

maybe

oucheh wrote: 5 minutes ago, here at the ole job, this guy, who probably was not older than 25 (my age), not a typical record nerd, came in wanting to buy a Traveling Wilbury's CD. I informed him that the C.D. was rather expensive 'cause of it's scarcity. when he saw the 35 dollar price tag he was undetered and went ahead with his purchase.
having been in the

$35?! What could possibly make a Traveling Wilbury's CD worth $35 to anyone anywhere?!! Does it included one of George Harrison's fingers or something?


Jeez! $35?!! What in the hell?!!

Seriously...

"Lady, you want Seven bucks for a USED Kenny Loggins record? I'll give you FIVE"

"Ahhhh Ahhhh, he autographed it himself."

"Allright, I'll give you FOUR!"

My band is about $30,000.00 deep in recording costs. We have two albums (one of which we just finished at EA) that we haven't even attempted to sell yet. I'm sick of the pangs of poverty.

Lucky you if you are sick with the pangs of poverty with 30,000$ on you account for just two albums. I guess you didn't ever think of opening your own studio with that money. Sure it wouldn't be as good as Electrical but you are in Indie lo-fi realm probably. Hell, with the rest of the money you could even start a label and start bragging about people stealing your money by trading mp3's.
Nothing too personal.

Mayfair wrote:

oucheh wrote: 5 minutes ago, here at the ole job, this guy, who probably was not older than 25 (my age), not a typical record nerd, came in wanting to buy a Traveling Wilbury's CD. I informed him that the C.D. was rather expensive 'cause of it's scarcity. when he saw the 35 dollar price tag he was undetered and went ahead with his purchase.
having been in the

$35?! What could possibly make a Traveling Wilbury's CD worth $35 to anyone anywhere?!! Does it included one of George Harrison's fingers or something?


Jeez! $35?!! What in the hell?!!

Seriously...

mr. harrison's fingers were not included in the transaction but mr. orbison's pubic hair was. seriously tho, i guess the c.d. was out of print etc. my bosses price not mine. don't hate the player hate the game? i don't know. not a great record by any stretch. obviously.

yeah

Seriously, I know I should let this go (especially due to it not having anything to do with the thread) but $35?!! Iowa is not on another planet, is it? I mean, you do have the internet there, right? You can dial up amazon.com, yes? Ebay ever do any work your way? Google? Gemm?! There are Traveling Wilbury's CDs for $14.95 right now on Amazon. Virgin Superstores also stocks it and they are accessible through the internet as well. I don't mean to drop my load on you (as you only sold it, not bought it) but I think the guy that paid $35 for a Traveling Wilbury's CD deserves just that; a Traveling Wilbury's CD.

Let him know I am selling off my Bad Company records for $40 a pop!

Mayfair wrote:Seriously, I know I should let this go (especially due to it not having anything to do with the thread) but $35?!! Iowa is not on another planet, is it? but I think the guy that paid $35 for a Traveling Wilbury's CD deserves just that; a Traveling Wilbury's CD.

Let him know I am selling off my Bad Company records for $40 a pop!

you are very right on both accounts.
believe me.

Mikleos wrote:

if i buy a van gogh painting, and then take a pen and trace it onto tracing paper, and then give out copies to whoever wants them, is that really all that different than taking a cd and making an mp3 of it and sharing it?is it illegal to give away badly-perpared pen sketches of a painting? i don't think so.

See the above argument. Your thinking convieniently leaves out the fact that Van Gogh paintings are one of a kind, and can't be duplicated at the exact same quality that a CD of music can. Continuing your example, let's say you had a machine that could exactly duplicate a Van Gogh painting, down to the brush strokes and size. You then make 10 million copies of this duplicate and give them out to 'friends'. Guess what happens? The value of the original VG painting drops to nil, and the artist (or whoever would make money from the creative work) can no longer make $$ from it.

of course, the van gogh argument is a bad one: the copyright expired ages ago; the man's dead. we can all copy his paintings by any means we like, with no legal consequences.

imagine his works still were within the copyright term though: tracing it wouldn't violate copyright; indeed the tracer would get his own copyright in the resulting work. (in the US anyway, not in continental europe)

van gogh made little money from his paintings anyway, the people who make money from paintings are the dealers who buy em cheap and sell em high. there are currnetly proposals before the EU to give artists an unwaivable right to a portion of the proceeds in this situation.

the example of everyone having a perfect duplication machine (i.e. beyond a 2D photocopy): that is currently impossible/impractical, and unlikely to occur. anyway, who gives a FUCK if the value of a painting drops to nil because everyone can have a perfect copy? quite frankly, i'd love this to happen...i want a van gogh please!

if the idea is that the artist will stop creating (the traditional IP 'copyright is an incentive'), then you're on shaky ground. it has been admitted by all sorts of people int he IP field that the incentive argument cannot be proved. indeed, there is stronger evidence that artists would create regardless of copyright (like they did before copyright existed, and like they do even if they know they cannot sell what they have made).

anyway, presumably if the incentive argument were true, and followed to its conclusion, copyright would expire when the artist made £X, rather than lasting until 70 years after his death.

copyright is primarily an agent of censorship, unmetered capitalism, and depriving people of art and entertainment.

if copyright exists (as it does) as a right for a publisher to screw everyone else in the ass, then fuck copyright, and fuck its apologists.