New Interview
 

I didn't know that the Louvre was located in Sweden and that Leonardo's paintings have turned into audio files.

When exactly was that law passed, by the way? All I heard was that there was a controversial proposal by a politician but I don't know if that has become a law yet.

In The Netherlands it's legal to make copies of copyrighted works of art for personal practice, study and use. At the same time, I cannot walk into the Rijksmuseum and take home Rembrandt's De Nachtwacht.

I understand artist's desire to equate "illegal" downloading of music with theft, but it the comparison just doesn't work. When you steal something, you take something from the original owner, who doesn't have the thing anymore. When you download something, a copy is made, and the original owner loses nothing. Perhaps in the case of artists, they lose a sale, but I wouldn't even argue that people who download music would buy all they download when they couldn't download it.

It's a complex issue, but I believe that the current copyright laws are completely inadequate for this day and age.

While Illegal downloading is major issue for musicians and the music industry, I think Meat was exaggerating, being a bit tongue-in-cheek, having some fun and adding some humor to the interview. I love the fact that Meat has such a great sense of humor and doesn't take most things too seriously. Great article. Thank you for posting it stretch

I feel a thread split looming... however...

Before I start, when I say you below I mean it in the general sense not you Evil Nickname or anyone else specifically :)

I find it astounding that anyone could call this complex or a grey area.

The copyright holder has the right to control who has access to their work.

You have illegally obtained something that you should have paid for. That sounds to me like a very good definition of stealing.

Now, some theft acts, the UK Theft Act of 1968 for example, is probably behind the times and needs updating to reflect the fact that you have stolen something digital not physical.

However, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is VERY clear:

Extracts...

Rights covered
The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

Restricted acts
It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.

Infringement of copyright by copying.


(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.


So, it is illegal, not "illegal".

You have stolen something you have no right to and should have paid for and it is only technically not Theft because the theft act needs updating, it is absolutely still stealing.

I think the problem with this is that to most people, it actually isn't stealing anymore. The general conception of downloading music has changed and, being on a campus covered by over 12,000 students, trust me when I say that they don't see it as theft at all. I think the only way for the music industry to actually make money from music again, is to develop an entirely new format, one that's better than mp3 in every conceivable way - i.e. DVD - Bluray. It needs to make music feel worth buying again to the people who currently don't. And obviously, whatever that format is, it needs the forethought of protection against copying if it's going to work.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you say .. but just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's right .. or legal. And yes, the industry need to grapple with this and find a solution imo.

I loved Meat's analogy when I first read it. He may not be an artist in da Vinci's terms/medium, but he can paint a graphic and colourful picture. In my view this one put in sharp relief what it is people in effect do when they download illegally the work of a recording artist. The location of the painting is wholly immaterial I think .. few have not heard of the Mona Lisa .. that's why it works as a colourful example.

Caryl

Thank you so much for posting this.

Holy smokes. I am pretty sure I have seen the name of that girl Meat dated when I was compiling my family tree. I think she and I are distantly related.

Artists do lose a sale, and that's the problem. The music industry has changed, and most of the money is made from touring these days as opposed to record sales. This is not a huge issue for established artists, who already have a following to buy their concert tickets, but up and coming bands, I think, have no choice except to give some music out for free in order to get their music out there. It's a cost of doing business.

I also think you are correct in that people probably wouldn't otherwise buy everything they download. and it might even work in the artists' favor in the long run, because you might get turned onto a new artist via a download and end up buying their stuff later or seeing them live. It still doesn't make it legal, though.

artists lose sales through filesharing, but gain popularity through mass viral spreading of their music. For Established artists looking to attack the charts, probably not a good thing. For up and coming artists wanting to spread their name and talent, someone "illegally" downloading their album and spreading the word is probably the best thing that ever happened to them.

had no idea meat played the innagreal Ball for Bush:

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

only image i found for the clinton Inauguration ball:
http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/i...164b2c56/l.jpg

:twisted: Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat :facepalm:

He might well have played this for laughs (silly voice etc) but audio/visual humour doesn't translate to a written page.

It's like getting to the pearly gates and finding out St Peter talks like Goofy. :wtf:

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, Rap & Rock have nothing in common and should stay the hell away from each other.

The only way rap influences me is that it makes me want to shoot something.
It's true, rap encourages violence :lol:

Rock, however, is still very relevant to me. So as it was, so it shall always be 8)


I agree with Meat's opinions on downloaded music.
Not so long ago I had a row with a guy on another forum about downloading music, and let me share a few of the points and counterpoints.

He claimed downloading was good for the artist, because their music is heard by someone who might not go out and buy an album, and who might buy the next.

I answered that if you want an idea of what an artist is like you can..........
Listen to their music vids (available on youtube)
Ask friends what the artist is like.
Read reviews online and in magazines.
Buy a compilation album (giving a broad spectrum of the artists work).
Buy a second hand copy of one of their albums on ebay (set you back, what? £2 tops).
Also, if someone has ripped off an artist for their complete works, it's not very likely that they are going to decide to legitimatly buy the album next time. If they like it, they'll download it for free again.

He didn't like any of these options, and he asked why buying a second hand copy on ebay is better than dowloading (he told me that he was currently downloading Meat's entire discography).

I told them there's a big diference between a cheap sample to see if it's for you, and ripping off an artists complete works.

He argued that the music business is a rip off, that record companies take too much profit from album sales.

I answered that I agreed with him, but it's not fair to deprive the artist of the small percentage they are due.

But still this wasn't good enough, he claimed that musicians should not make any money at all from album sales, that all music should be free, and that bands should only make money from concert tickets.
He claimed that for a singer to release an album 20 years ago, and then to still make money off it is like a plummber fixing a leaking tap and still charging for the job he did 20 years latter.

I pointed out that each customer only bought the product once.

At the end of the day, I still believe now what I believed before that argument (the guy was a mod too, so I kissed that forum goodbye).

There is no need to dowload music to sample a taste of an artists work.
There are enough ways to see if an artist is for you without breaking the law.

People like the asshole i've just been talking about are nothing but tightarsed b@stards who want to steal the product for nothing while trying to claim some moral high ground.

They want to be Robin Hood.
But Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor so the poor wouldn't starve to death.
These guys want to steal from the artist to keep for themselves what they could very comfortably live without, and the money they save from not paying for these things go on other luxury items they could well do without.

There's a huge difference between stealing to feed people who would starve and stealing so you can save a few quid to spend on a Big Mac and a pir of trainees :bleh:

People should vote with their feet.
If they like an artists work they should buy the artists work because then the revenue creates a higher possibility of more work from this artist in the future.
An artist that doesn't sell records is not likely to make another.

Does this relate to Meat using the phrase you quoted and the word "homie"? Because if it does I'm really non-plussed Mouse that you feel it deserves a face-palm. Meat makes it plain he is pretty much the definition of the word from choice, and surely given it's an inteview in the US the phrase works?

Not to me. I liked this interview a lot. Many truths conveyed and done so graphically. To me nothing "Goofy" at all .. some shrewd observations and some informed ones, conveyed clearly and with an appropriate sense of self-deprecation and fun

That's your perspective though isn't it? Meat can have his own, as can we all. I am one who thinks the genre has been skillfully integrated into his new album. I know you don't, and respect your right to not consider it so .. but neither can claim our view is a defining fact. I tend to agree with Meat's perspective that the more modern styles he referred to are what speak to a significant swathe of today's audiences. Rap doesn't encourage me to the slightest violence ;)

We find accord here ;) I liked your story and examples which were very apposite. As to the rest, we'll need to agree to hold different views.

Caryl

:twisted: I'm 35 and people have been known to comment on my use of the word "dude". :wtf:

Speaking like that, in an interview laced with praise for rap, from my perspective, it seems that Meat is trying to be hip, to be something he is not, although I am the first to say that Meat is him and I am not, so Meat has more of an idea of what he is and what he isn't than I have, but it still sounds wrong from my perspective.

Does that make any sense? :lol:

Buzz words and phrases don't make hip, and sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make a chicken (if the interview wants to bring up Fight Club :lol: ).

To me, he's a rocker, and i'll always love him as a rocker :metal:




I meant the cartoon character :lol:
It's not what i'd expect St Peter to sound like.
In fact, perhaps a better way to put it is that if I got to the pearly gates and St Peter turned out to be Ali G, I would back slowly away from the gates and go see what's happening in hell :bleh:



Every one of our posts is based on personal perspective :wink:
None of this fact, and neither of us can claim to be right, but I still argue that Meat Loaf, to me, is very relevant. Rock music is relevant.
Perhaps rap speaks to "a significant swathe of today's audiences" (if you don't mind me borrowing the phrase :wink: ) but Bat was not recorded to speak to the significant swathe of 1977, nor was Dead Ringer hip in 81, MATLAF was not made for the trendies of 83 and Bad Attitude was not cool in 84.

I don't really need to go on do I? :wink:
Meat has never tried to be hip, or cool, or popular all the way through his career. He's always made his own beat and marched to it.

His success (IMHO) was because his music was so damn good, and a lot of people outside the significant swathe thought it was pretty motherf*cking great.

So OK, he wants a little rap on his album for artistic reasons, that's his choice (although not to my liking). to say that Rap is relevant and Rock in not, all I can say is that it depends on who's listening.
I respectfuly disagree with Meat on his perspective.


Thanks.
I also remember that when he said that he believed all music should be free I replied that I thought all pies should be free :lol:

:up:

But hopefully they wouldn't in the US ;)

It makes sense, although personally I don't think Meat is trying to be hip. I accept he has explored, listened to and learned about a different musical genre to the point where he has found something there he had missed before. I'll admit I have not, and still find a lot of rap not to my taste .. although my aversion stems largely from it assaulting me at top volume from open car windows .. and I would not do that with Meat's music, which I love, simply because it is so discourteous to others. I love Meat's albums but I wouldn't force them on anyone. But that assaulting experience, repeated so often, is what set it apart for me. I am glad though that Meat has introduced me to some that does appeal, so at least I can acknowledge that for me it's the assault rather than the music, and I have found there to be more to it than I assumed.

I don't believe he is. I think this has been a personal discovery

Fair enough. I love him as a rocker who is constantly exploring and pushing the boundaries musically ;)

I agree, and thousands will hopefully pile into the arenas here later this year to underline that :-) No objection to your using the phrase ;) BOOH was Jim and Meat's vision .. and whether it was planned to appeal to a mass of people, the fact is it did ;) .. and has done to millions ever since. I don't think though that Meat has to stay recreating BOOH, or sticking to one style, not for me anyway. HCTB was a new sound .. Meat's new adventure, which I loved. With HIAH he continues to explore, and I have the classics, and know I will hear them at every concert as well as the newer stuff where he is moving forward.

I remember he said some years ago that there should be no boundaries on artistic endeavour, that you need to keep pushing, that a closed door leads nowhere. I love his excitement as he moves forward and explores new things .. and yes he still marches to his own drummer .. but no reason imo why he should not try to sell his particular, and to my mind evolving, beat, just as he sold BOOH back in '78 ;)

Caryl

Well said on this part. :up:

Lol love it

well i'm gonna have to disagree :twisted:

I didn't know who Meat Loaf was until I randomly saw the video for CHSIB on a random website and happened to play it. I proceeded to pirate Meat Loaf's discography and become obessed with him.

since then I've spent REAL money on 5 concerts, and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

Therefore Pirating MADE MEAT LOAF MONEY.

But have you bought the rest of his discography?

Good question; I'm sure many (possibly most even) do not. And surely it's the artist's choice whether the fruits of his labour should be made available free. Meat's managed his career and business for 40 odd years, and imo is entitled to make his own decisions.

One example does not provide convincing statistics that pirating makes Meat money .. nor that it makes more than is lost, which is surely the point rather than whether he made a small amount off this example. He clearly doesn't believe pirating makes him money, nor does he agree with it .. and it should be his choice to make.

Caryl

Sorry, you're saying you pirated 10 albums (I've assumed the only compilation you stole was the 1998 one) and you've totally made that acceptable by buying the last 3? I'm afraid you're going to have to educate me as to how you feel that's ok?

And that's the killer question

but how many copies of the last 3??

could have bought 15 hang cools and 24 hell in a handbaskets for all we know :-P

:twisted: You couldn't have bought the albums rather than download them?

Or, if you really really wanted to download something, you couldn't download a album or compilation to give you an idea of if his music was for you or not?

Saying that pirating has made money for Meat from you is like (to use the plumber metaphor again) getting a guy to do an entire house and then paying him just for the sink.

I know that some people download an album, like it, and so become interested in the artist and buy future releases legit, but they are in the minority. Most will continue to download future works illegally, very few will buy the new releases legit, none of them ever replace their illegal copies for official CDs that put money in the artists pocket.


IN this day and age where downloading is so rife, it's almost expected that people will illegally download an album by an artist to decide if it's any good but that's a big difference from stealing every album they've ever made.

No offence, but IMHO, downloading an artists album is bad enough, but downloading their entire lifes work for free is taking the piss. :down:

But in the interests of honest debate on the subject (although we might be better starting a new thread for this :bleh: ) can you tell me.............

Have you downloaded the complete works of any other artist apart from Meat?

Have you gone on to buy any of their new albums?

Do you ever plan on getting rid of the illegally downloaded Meat Loaf albums and buying originals?

If you dowload an album, decide you don't like it and never listen to it again, do you consider that album stolen?

Some responses:

Changing copyright law is complex because of all kinds of international treaties and the like. National legislators cannot simply say, "hey, this Intelectual Property-law needs updating. Let's do it."

Also, the reality of what's going on with people downloading versus the philosphical way you think it ought to be and how to come to a new way of doing things in a way that benefits all parties: that's not going to be easy. At all.

Remember, in The Netherlands it's legal to copy copyrighted works for private practice, study and use. So in my case, there is no "illegal downloading".

************

He has a point there. It happened to me. Downloaded something to sample, spend a lot of money later on because I liked it a lot.

Which quite often happens to be uploaded by fans without the artists' permission, made by crappy camera-phones, etc. etc. etc.

"That fat bloke can't sing and his music is shite."

They weren't going to spend money on an artist to find out what he's like, remember? ;-)

None of which will go back to the artist, so you might as well download it.

True. Still, they might not buy the music, but they might go to concerts, buy shirts, whatever.

Perhaps there is no need, but it is quite a lot easier and faster that going on eBay, buying an album and waiting for it to arive. Or going to a shop to pick up a cheap compilation.

Also, you could argue that the phyiscal formats are on their way out, especially for the younger people—O, god, I'm just 32 and look at what I just wrote—and that mp3s are easier. How many people carry around a discman and a stack of CDs nowadays? Conveniance is king.

Yes, I know: iTunes. Spotify, what have you. Why still download illegally? I'll keep it at this: I cannot use iTunes on Linux, and Spotify is far from complete, and silly geographical restrictions when the internet is this global network. There's a lot of room for improvement in that department. As long as it's still easier to just torrent whatever you want, people will keep doing that.

Believe me, I'm all for artist making money with their art. I still buy a lot of CDs and LPs, perferably straight from the artist. Maybe because I can remember the time before the internet, when home taping was still killing the music industry.

But: the internet/filesharing has changed the game. The cat's out of the bag, and it's never going back in. I believe that instead of lamenting the change, artist and the industry should embrace it, and develop new ways of generating revenue. Perhaps by giving away their music for free if they choose to.

As in all evolution, you have to adapt to the changing circumstances, or you're facing extinction. That might sound harsh, but you don't hear the neanderthals complaining about that now, do you?

I'll keep it at this for now, cause I have six people coming over for dinner in an hour and a half.

:twisted: In all fairness, would you say you were in the minority or the majority?



I'm glad you knew what I meant despite the typo (I was wondering wtf I had written when I was reading your post :lol: ).
It's not the camera phone footage i'm talking about, it's the original promo vids for the singles. I've not looked for a while, but i'm betting I could go to youtube right now and find at least 80% of Meat's promo vids. And I believe that to be a low estimate.
I know that they are uploaded without the artists permission (that's perhaps another subject) but they are there so make an alternative to downloading an album (or discography).


If that's the review you read, and you trust the reporter, maybe his style isn't for you :shrug:
It's up to the reader to decide wether to look further into the artist or not.



Again, you don't need to spend money to see what an artist is like on youtube. For one, there are the promo vids, but there are also lots of fan vids where they combine music from their favourite artist with something else they like. There was a very well done fan vid for the movie Ghost Rider featuring (in good quality) the original album version of Monster's Loose. I've also seen a very good one (don't remember the song used off the top of my head :? ) for Doctor Who clips.
Again, they're not official, and i'm not defending the fact they're up there, i'm just saying they make downloading completley unnecersary :shrug:


It's true that money on ebay doesn't go to the artist, I only offered it as an alternative to the illegal act of downloading the album :wink:
Also, I think there is something much more special about an official product with a good looking cover and a lyric book than a CD with the name of the album written on with a magic marker.
Either way the artist doesn't get money, but the person gets the taste they want without completly taking the piss and they have a good quality product.




Like I said to Stretch, if a plumber does a whole house, you don't pay him just for the sink.



Perhaps, but to be fair, I can't remember when I needed music that badly.
If I were starving to death and could download "food" yes, I can go with that. If i'm homless and getting soaked in the rain and could download "shelter" (and before someone says something about the homless having access to broadband............ :bleh: ) I think I would do so, but this is music we're talking about. I like to think that music is a hugely important part of my life, but i'm not going to suffer for the lack of an album.
The people downloading illegally can afford a computer (obviously) so they can afford the album, and if they can't afford the album that week they are not going to have their health and wellbeing at risk.

Feeling the need that you need to possess right now illegally rather than maybe wait for a couple of days to own what you can live very comfortably without is more a case of greed and a well developed id.

I see why people download, but I don't think it's right just because it's easy.


You have a point here, and i'm fearful for the future or physical releases myself :sad:
But are Meat's songs not available from places where you pay track by track? (I have no idea as when it comes to downloads I am opinionated but not informed :oops: :lol: ).



I'm assuming this answers the question i've just asked before I asked it? :lol:




I'm at a loss to understand how bands can generate revenue by giving their music away for free.



Have fun :up:

In this instance yes pirating made Meat some money, and it's exactly the same more or less what happened to me too!

I had a friend who had 100's of songs on his PC including bootlegs from various shows. He also had a HUGE draw with pretty much every official release at that time on CD and Vinyl. So I got into him by listening to these songs that he had on his PC.

Then years later I bought CHSIB which I absolutely loved, went to a few concerts etc. But I wanted more. I wanted to hear Meats performances from the 70's, 80's, & 90's, at shows that had never been and never would be released for everyone to enjoy. Obviously I had heard some of the stuff from my friends PC but I wanted them for myself. From there it just snowballed, I got the bootlegs of various shows from over the years, then got every single release ever done, plus the DVD's.

So while I would agree that in the vast vast VAST majority of cases people will continue to download things illegally, there are exceptions such as myself and Stretch.

:twisted: Same questions to you then :mrgreen:

Artists complain an awful lot about losing money to piracy and unofficial video being taken. But would anyone agree with me that one of the things that could be done very easily is to release the board tapes they make at every show?

They could do this so easily as for example Meat has said many times he listens to the tapes after every show of his. When an artist does a show, if they made the board tape of the show available at say £5 for each show that would net them quite a bit of money. And it would negate the need for people to video and record the show and we wouldn't get the poor quality stuff being uploaded to youtube. It could even reinvigorate the music industry as a whole to some extent.

Just an idea?

He he yes I do have every CD and DVD now bought with my hard earned cash :-)

:twisted: So your friend had the hard copies, and he had the albums on his computer?
Did he download the albums on his computer from the internet, or did he upload his original CDs? (even with my limited knowlege on the subject, i'd say the second was more likely).

Even if he did download them, if he hadn't downloaded them I think it's safe to assume he would have uploaded the CDs to his computer, yes?

So even without an illegal download you would have heard Meat's albums on your friends computer, without the downloads you would have become a fan, so that leads me to think that downloads have had no effect on you discovering Meat whatsoever (feel free to correct me here).



So apart from the bootlegs, which are not officially available (which means IMO they are not stricly the same topic) how many albums have you bought and how many did you illegally download?

If you bought all Meat's official releases since hearing (officially sourced) albums on your friends computer then you have discovered an artist through legitimate and legal copies of his work, and have proceeded to legally buy the rest of his available discography. Downloads don't enter the equasion.

If you have downloaded all Meat's albums yourself, you have discovered Meat through legitimate releases on your friends computer then decided to rip them off the internet rather than buy them (which would rather prove my point).





Until you correct me about how i've understood what you've wrote, they look like completley different cases.

:twisted: It's an excellent idea.
(I can say that because I posted something very much the same on a convo many moons ago :mrgreen: ).

The benefits (IMO) are, as you say, less bootlegs and amateur footage on camera phones and Meat would make a pretty pennt from it.

Also the fans get what they want, including official releases of concerts you yourself attended. That would be pretty great.

Everyone would be happy.

But this is more on bootleging stuff that is not available elsewhere, while I believe the convo is more inclined towards the illegal downloading of officially released albums :wink:

Agree with you there!

Agreed again. However in both cases you are talking about changes in the future, not the current situation.

I take it you are referring to the Copyright Act 1912 as amended, conveniently ignoring the bit in bold?

"Article 16b. — It shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the copyright in a literary, scientific or
artistic work to reproduce it in a limited number of copies for the sole purpose of the personal practice,
study or use of the person who makes the copies or orders the copies to be made exclusively for himself.
Where the work is one of those referred to in Article 10, first paragraph, under (i), including the score
or parts of a musical work, the reproduction shall furthermore be confined to a small portion of the work,
except in the case of:
(a) works of which, in all probability, no new copies are made available to third parties for
payment of any kind;
(b) short articles, news items or other texts which have appeared in a daily or weekly newspaper or
weekly or other periodical.
"

In other words, you cannot download a whole song or album UNLESS it is no longer commercially available and is not likely to be again in future.

As Mouse has said, there is an important distinction to be made between pirated copies of official releases, and audience-made live bootlegs. The latter, in most cases, doesn't compete with material the artist has released officially. Even if bootlegs exist for shows which are later released, I don't know of any fans who wouldn't then buy an official recording because they already own the bootleg (assuming they are big fans of the artist). My own philosophy is that, while I have no problem with downloading bootleg stuff, which shouldn't be profited from (or, technically, even exist) anyway, I'll pay for anything/most everything that is officially released, because as a fan of the artist, I think it's the right thing to do.

I think selling copies of shows is a fantastic idea, and many artists already do this. However, some artists are a bit reluctant to release "raw" recordings that they haven't had a chance to listen to or have any "quality control" over. The answer in that case might be to release only select shows, but even that would require some work on the part of the artist and their team, and I'm not sure the profits would be all that substantial. Sure, there are diehards who would buy all or most shows, but I think most people might buy only the show they saw as a souvenir. It might curb bootlegging a little, but I don't think it will ever go away completely.

I do agree though, that people will continue to download pirated official material. I think that, especially to young people today, it's "the norm"- they don't know any other way. That's not to say I'm defending it. Unfortunately, I think artists do need to adapt to survive- it's just the way it is.

True. The current situation is what it is, and some artists and record labels are dealing with it better than others. It seems clear to me that things need to change: as I said, filesharing changed the game completly, and the idea that you can hold on to the old way of doing things seems completely naive to me.

Equating filesharing with theft is understandable from the the old perspective, but to a whole generation, it's the way the world works now. That's the reality of it. Complaining about it isn't going to change things, and sueing music fans for it doesn't seem to do the trick either. I strongly believe that there is a need for innovation in the entertainment industry.

I don't know what version you've been looking at, the current Dutch text (translation) says no such thing. The bolded part looks a mashed up version of article 16b, sub 2. But that only applies to "a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical or book or the score or parts of score of a musical work and other works that are reproduced in these works."

The phrase was kind of popular in the U.S. in the early '90's; it came out of a repeating sketch on the TV show "In Living Color", and was said by the character of Homey the Clown, played by Damon Wayans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0

I haven't thought of it in years, but I didn't see it as an attempt to sound "hip". All in your perspective, I guess. ;)

ML is shortsighted. If it wasn't for file sharing half of his fans wouldn't be his fans.

But whatever, some people like to use over simplistic analogies. Or are trapped in the past. Or both.

I really liked this thread !!!
It is a tough topic !! An artist should earn for his work the same way a plumbler does.
M

I totally agree with you.

(Nice to see you back again, BTW :D )

Any chance of you coming round and fixing our shower then? You could sing a song or ten while you're here as well :))

Yes he should I agree. Just because developments in technology make something possible doesn't make it right in my view, nor should difficulties stop us from tackling things that seem to have become the norm if they deprive an artist of his entitlement.

Caryl

Be careful what you wish for.

in my head the plumber reference is much more applicable to the touring end of the music business rather than the recording end. When a performer tours or a theatre company puts on a show, they have to be there to earn their money... if they put on a good show, they'll get repeat business etc (much like a plumber)

the recording end of the business i see more as an engineer or an inventor lol. its more about intellectual property, for the recording artist, the work is done once behind the scenes, and the product is produced... for an engineer, it's like have a great new idea, and getting a patent on it. the work is done once, but the royalties could come rolling in for years

luckily enough, i have no idea what i'm talking about, and just thinking out loud lol

for the record, i dont do downloads, i prefer to support the artist and purchase their albums (but i'm very old school :lol:)

Why ? Most plumbers here in the States make dang good money ... ;) ...

or to stick a modern twist on it, would it be like a performer investing money in a server thingy to release a cloud storage platform thingy... and some people paying to use the storage, and many many others just stealing the storage????

How about working like a plumber then? I'd like to see the plumber who installs a toilet once a year or so and lives off royalties in the meantime. (... since flawed comparisons seem to be very popular in the course of this discussion... ;))

Most plumbers my way turn up and forget a part. Never known Meat to do a show and say "We'll be back next week, we forgot Paul!" :-P

:twisted: But as the Duke pointed out (and I really wish i'd come up with the argument when I was having it out with the dude I was talking about earlier) it's not so much like a plumber who does the job and gets paid once for that one job, it's (to keep in the theme) more like the bloke who invented the toilet who makes money because nis creation keeps being sold.

ooops... as usual ... one of my appendages caught in the door ... hahaha ... I'll never learn ... lol ...

Agree 100%!

:up: :lol:

I absolutely agree. And it's nice to see you back :D

*sucks air through teeth*

"This song is going to cost you, it's an old one so will have to be on special order, might have to replace the whole set list if I can't get hold of it"

"Any chance of a cup of tea, three sugars please, just going for a cigarette and a bacon roll, then we'll get started"

I had a feeling our man would chip in somewhere soon, he's been keeping an eye on us for a while now! Welcome back, Meat!!! :D

Sorry for any confusion my earlier posts caused, to clarify a couple of things:

I believe my friend had uploaded all his CD's onto his PC, as man he had every CD (and quite a few vinyls) in this big draw of his!, but i'm not sure where he got the various live bootleg recordings from, so I would presume he got them from the internet.

As I said I got CHSIB and went to some shows, loved all that. Then I wanted more so I downloaded various live bootlegs, presumably as my friend had.

Now I do have to be honest and say that the recordings I downloaded also included all of the albums released up to that time, it was just part of the package I downloaded. But two things to say about that, one I was more interested in the live recordings, and two I made it my focus from that point to get my hands on every official release, despite having already downloaded it, because I wanted the physical CD's in my hands, nothing is better than that, having that CD in your hands, reading the booklet etc.

So although I did get the albums as part of the package I downloaded I didn't think it was right of me to have those, so I set out to get every official release properly. So now I have bought every official release both CD and DVD. I hope that clarifies some things.

in regards to bootlegs, if its never gonna be officially released, why keep it locked away? IE: meat and his late 80s live recordings :))

Anyway this thread is actually pretty damn interesting!

:twisted: So you discovered Meat through legally sold media, you downloaded the live bootlegs (which is, as i've said, a different subject IMHO) which came with the albums (not your choice) that you chose not to use, and instead you bought all the albums legit, so bootleged studio albums have had no effect one way or the other as to how you discovered Meat or how you listen to/own his music? :mrgreen:


That's a lot different from targeting someone's entire past discography and taking it for free. :yep:

:twisted: I agree, to an extent.

Admittedly, I own a couple of bootleged concerts. Not a vast collection, and most of them have a special meaning to me.

I don't claim to be in the right in owning those bootlegs, but nor can I say that i'm doing Meat any harm in owning them.
These are things that are not available officially, and if they ever were then the boots would go in the bin and be replaced by official releases.
It certainly can't be claimed that Meat has lost out on an official sale to me because i've made do with a bootleg rather than buy a song on official release :lol:

I don't know if i've mentioned this before, but I loved what happened with the Roy Orbison bootlegs.

He was able to secure the rights to 4 of the best quality and well known bootlegs, and they were then sold officially as a box set.
I would LOVE for Meat to do something like that 8)

The fans got the music they wanted, while money went into Roy's pocket (where it was deserved) while he also got to have an effect on the bootlegging of his concerts.



Very interesting :up:

exactly neil!

I would pay whatever if meat decided to say "hey, my late 80's shows were utterly fantastic. Why dont I pick a few shows from 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1993 that i think are my best and release them in their entirely!" - then out pops a boxset. Itll be sure to have the parental advisory sticker on, cause he cursed alot :)

If only :')

seriously hope meat takes note :))

Frank Zappa did something similar. He copied their artwork and everything. :lol:

Good point it is slightly different, but I would say i discovered Meat through both legally sold media uploaded on to my friends pc, but also through illegal bootlegs my friend downloaded. So a bit of both really.

You're right this thread is very interesting and I applaud everyone for having a nice conversation about it :up:

That would be frickin awesome. Don't forget to put the RAH show in there! He did such an INCREDIBLE AFL that night.

You can get dizzy reading these threads at times ;) But I think there's a difference between downloading for nothing music which is available to be bought, whether on a CD or now as a download, recording and putting bootleg clips from shows on YT, and getting hold of bootleg tapes/discs of whole concerts.

In the interview Meat was talking about the first. Personally I liked his analogies as I said, I agree with him, and it is something the industry needs to grapple with, because I think it must affect sales overall, and it is theft, does deprive the artist of income, and I do not and would not do this. As Mouse has said, if you can afford to get on-line, you can save to buy hard copy or downloads. And there are usually clips on the retail sites to get a feel for the kind of track or album you'll be buying.

Imo Meat's reasons for not wanting recordings made at concerts and put on YT are different. They are not legal, and whatever his reasons he is entitled to want that law upheld, and I respect that. His business, his choice. The fact that the law prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do doesn't negate the fact that it is law. That an artist seeks to have that law applied to his work, even if you disagree with his reasons for doing so, or think you know better than him, doesn't remove that right.

Bootleg concert tapes or discs are yet another issue. They too are not legal. But beyond that, I can fully understand any artist wanting to have some active control over the quality of work put out with his name on it. Meat's occupation listed on his profile is "making sure it's right". I think that speaks volumes :-)

Caryl

I cab't believe that with technology today it's not possible to make CD's or even digital download files uncopiable?

yupp and if meat were to release live meteral from 1987 or 1993, thatd be just icing on a big cake

If Meat releases any material, live or recorded, I am ready at the baker's door. It's the only kind of cake I bring home ;)

Caryl

I'm pretty sure it is. The thing is, it's legal to make a copy of a CD you purchased for "personal use", for instance ripping it to your computer in order to listen on an iPod. I don't know if the technology is sophisticated enough to differentiate different uses, but then "personal use" would need to be more specifically defined.

iTunes used to sell tracks with copy protection, but they don't anymore- I'm not sure why that changed.

There used to be a time when audio CD's were "copy-controlled", like the European Couldn't Have Said It Better CD, for example—which due to the copy-protection isn't even a proper CD, just a plastic disc that contains music. In practice, the copy-protection scheme is trivial to circumvent and a minor annoyance at best. The Sony Rootkit scandal was the final nail in it's coffin.

Digital rights management with MP3's and other digital music has probably stopped because 99% of the customers (and a lot of vendors) don't want it. DRM restricts the way you can use the products you bought, like you can just play it on a limited number of devices, burn it to CD for an x-number of times—and then you can rip those CDs to DRM-free mp3s, etc. Basically, it's a hassle that places you deep into the clutches of whomever sells you the stuff. A company only needs to shut down it's licensing server, and as thanks for doing the right thing and paying for your downloads, you're stuck with a pile of useless data.

(And don't start complaining most of those links go to Wikipedia. Google it yourself if you don't like 'em.)

Nice to see ML say something positive on this forum.

Your source is obviously the official one so I happily stand corrected. Does this mean that you could photo copy a whole book in a shop or library as long as the copy is for your use only? That seems extraordinary!


Actually the book analogy is a good one. Presumably most people would agree that you shouldn't illegally download copies of books free when you should be buying them? I dont see why albums are any different.

Oh and I agree that innovation is a much better answer than litigation.

:lol:

No, because that's where article 16b, sub 2 applies, and you may only copy a small portion of the work, unless “it may reasonably assumed that no new copies will be made available to third parties for payment of any kind”.

Actually, the book industry seems to be going through exactly the same motions/making the same mistakes the record industry did some years ago. E-books are the new mp3s. Vendor/device lock-in, high price-points, not making buying your product through legit channels so easy that pirating the stuff isn't worth it…

I see, fair enough.

Here's an interesting question then imho lol... I have bought many CDs which I have then ripped onto my pc and copied to my iPod. On many occasions I have had a clearout when the shelf got full, selling the CDs. Now the official position is that I should get rid of the mp3s I made now that I no longer have the CD. I can't see why this should be the case. I paid my dues when I bought the CD. This gives me the right to access those songs and make a personal copy. what I then do with the physical medium is up to me and surely should have no impact on my personal copy? Unless I'm missing something?

IMO, famous musicians make enough money as it is. If I take money out of their pocket, I dont have any sympathy for them at all.

The exceptions would be smaller bands that are on Indy labels. I'll buy their stuff, because they can actually use the cash. An artist like ML or Aerosmith make money doing nothing but collecting royalty cheques from their vast catalogue. If you make any money whatsoever, you are extremely lucky. Same with actors, but IMO actors are even less deserving that musicians.

If they want to make money off of me than you tour. If you come to my area I will buy a ticket and some merchandise. Give me an experience that I cant DL. Oh and if you cancel a show, you make it up at a later date. Otherwise I will always hold it against you. THAT is an extreme disservice to your fans.

Meat receives no royalties, his writers do...

Uh... No. That's not how it works dude.

Yeah, that's right- the writers and the publishers do. Producer too- maybe.

The thing is that when you buy a CD, all you buy is the plastic thingy, and a license to play the music it contains. You don't actually *buy* the music, just the right to play it. Same with mp3s from Amazon, iTunes, etc.

And that's where it—imo, ianal—gets tricky:
One could argue that since you pay a license, you're free to do whatever you want with the container.
On the other hand, you could argue that since you sell the CD, you no longer have the license to play it's content.

I don't know.

On a slightly different note - do I need to seek out every store manager to provide proof he has clearance to play music in his shop (a public place) because I wouldn't want to discover new artists illegally?? :-)

That's an interesting question. I don't know for sure but I think legally you are entitled to do that as like you say you have paid for the CD originally.

So theft is OK as long as it's from people you have decided have enough money. I guess the people who broke into my home and removed my VCRs, camcorder, most of my jewellery etc plus a suitcase to carry it off in thought the same.

The reality is that performers are susceptible to illness, however wealthy you decide they must be, and however hard they try and guard against it, as well as theft. The tour carries insurance so that if a show is cancelled, or stopped after 60 minutes, you get your money back if the show cannot be rescheduled. Rescheduling is not merely at the discretion of the performer. The venue may be unable to provide a date that is feasible. Not without cancelling another performer's show so that her fans can hold it against her forever

:lol: Let's add Performing Rights to the mix ;)

Caryl

The writers get a bigger percentage than Meat but Meat does get royalties

Only if you can't easily see the license which has to be clearly displayed to allow the store to broadcast music over its sound system. Most large (chains) shops are covered, it's the local independents who have a CD or the radio playing that are more than likely in breach. :))

I couldn't disagree less with this if I tried. I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to start an argument with people or whether it's what you actually believe. I'll go with it being what you believe, because I don't want this thread descending into a war. I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that.

It does get complicated then with how "deserving" Meat is. Depends whether he is acting or singing!

Good idea, for all the reasons you gave ;)

Caryl

My understanding is - at least in the USA- under fair use if you own the physical copy legally you have the right to make backup copies for your own use (ipods, etc.). Who is going to buy a physical CD then turn around and buy it again from itunes for your ipod when you own a copy legally? The day you made the copy for your ipod you were the owner. If later you decide to sell it then you are selling the physical copy of an item you own legally so that should not be an issue. You are not selling the song on your MP3 player that you made legally. I think it was Garth Brooks who started all this when stores started selling used CD's before there was ebay. A physical CD is personal property and can be sold. I think what is more of an issue is one person buys a CD and loans it to friends to rip to their ipods or computers. If the friend likes the songs he keeps them, if not he deletes them, but he never paid for a copy.

You really think that the performing artist doesn't get royalties? Than how do they make money?

EVERYBODY involved gets royalties. Not all equal, but they get them.

Yes, it's true that publishing rights are the most valuable, but not the only piece of the pie.

Well it's okay if I get a copy of your belongings and you get to keep them.

Completely different.

And it's not that its 'okay'. Its that I don't have sympathy for artists who are already filthy rich.


The reality is that he COULD have done a make up show. I live in Canada and he lives in the US. Its not like he has to come back to India. The venue was not booked solid and we have many other places to play.

I don't care about the money. I wanted a show. I have a right to be upset.

Uh okay....

A disgusting thing to say imo. Meat cares so much about his fans he takes time out to answer their facebook questions, take the time to come here etc. What other artist does that kind of thing?

You saying he didn't care enough is just a feeling and an opinion, not a fact. How do you know what happened? Maybe like Caryl said the venue wouldn't allow him to reschedule, maybe he already had too many things he had already promised to do afterwards, film roles etc. Who knows the reasons why, either way you cannot say he didn't care enough unless you know the facts, and until you do I think you should take that back.

What I mean is that musicians and actors get to do something fun for a living. They have talent, true, but it's still something that isn't a real job.

Not to say that they shouldn't get the money, because corporations are making tons of money off of them. Why should they keep it all? It's just that if I download a CD I have no problem taking that potential money out of both the artists hands and the record companies.

For the record, I have paid for every ML CD except for HIAH.

No guilt.

Okay fine.

I'm sorry Meat. :(

Even use of the phrase "filthy rich" speaks volumes.

You do not know what the reality was. And when you say "he" so dismissively, rescheduling shows is a complex issue involving a huge number of people, including the promoter, band members who have their own careers and commitments, crew, truckers, and ancilliary staff as well as the venue availability, and the insurers .. and not simply a case of Meat flying up to Canada.

Be disappointed by all means. I have been disappointed when shows I was hoping to see have been cancelled because of illness. I also remind myself that the person who is equally, if not more upset is Meat, who will struggle on with a show even when advised against it if he can manage it. And I reappoint.

This is the man who replayed the Wembley show, during which he collapsed, at his own expense when he came out of hospital after his heart surgery, because he had been on stage for more than an hour, the insurance would this not kick in, and he felt his fans had been short-changed. He did this because it could be arranged, and because he does not try and squeeze and keep every penny he can, but is generous and kind. Sometimes shows can be rescheduled, and I have been to several such concerts; sometimes they cannot, and I accept that as something Meat feels really, really bad about, but was outside his control.

That you will always hold something like this against an artist also speaks volumes.

Caryl

I always like to "dumb" it down to the level of ... Meat sings, acts, etc for a living and I work in an office for a living... Working for a living is working for a living no matter what you do ... and to hear tell ... sometimes what actors and singers do for a living is not so much fun ...

:twisted: THat would be the same as buying an album from a shop, copying it onto your PC, and then selling it on.
Two people have the album, one unit has been sold.
You don't need to be an accountant to see that that is bad for business. :wink:



But legally, you don't get to make the rules do you? :?

You want the product, you pay the price.
It's known as trade. :shrug:



So you don't mind paying for music, just as long as they are not too successful? :bleh:


Especially when every b@stard is stealing your work for free :p


I take it then you don't watch movies, or fictional TV programs, and have no interest in their future production?


Official merchandise or bootleged merchandise?
You wouldn't want to go filling the pockets of someone who's got to much already :panic: :lol:

You could always make your own by getting a plain white T shirt and writting Meat Loaf over the front with a magic marker :mrgreen:


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook :bleh:






Shops have got to pay to play music in their store. If they don't they're breaking the law.
I don't think many managers would try and get round that, given the concequences.

Wether you should go ask every manager if he is legally playing the music is down to a combination of two factors.

1. How much time you have on your hands.

2. How invested you are in the subject.

If the answer to the first is "lots", and the answer to the second is "very" let us know how you get on :0mghi2u: :lol:


^^^^ Explains a lot.

So you don't like the big bad nasty successful rock star because he had to cancel a gig near you and never got a chance to rebook it?

Dude. :facepalm:

Sometimes gigs get cancelled. Especially when the artist (no offence to him here) is in his 60's. People get sick, especially when they are doing a hard job.
And Meat is not known for taking it easy on himself.

Do you think that Meat picks every place he plays?
He has tour agents for that, and what might work on one tour might not work on another.

Between tours the venue might put the price up, or have some sort of falling out with the tour company Meat uses.

The people working on Meat's tour might have a good working relationship with certain venue managers (it would surprise me if this were not true) , so it's those people they call first when planing a tour rather than calling a theater they don't know very well, or perhaps have never dealt with at all.

The tour company might decide that venues in other places are more fruitful, easier to fill, and more in line with the bigger tour picture.

They might just be remiss.

Don't just assume that Meat is at fault without at least getting some answers first.


I was wondering what your earlier comment about canceled shows had to do with anything (as it was way off the topic) but it's easier to think someone doesn't deserve money when you think they have done you a personal wrong.

Ernie, it seems to me that you're still upset about Meat not being able to make your show and then he was unable to make it up ... We aren't privvy to the whys in most instances ... I had the same thing happen to me a couple years back... I was upset in a sad way ... but got over it rather quickly ... You really should let it go ... Life's too short to be so angry about something no one can do anything about at this point in time ... Take care...

You guys are funny.

I don't care that much. If I did than I wouldn't be on this board. I still like ML, I just don't give him as much leeway as some you guys do. Forgive, but don't forget.

Theres a difference between rebooking Wembley Stadium and rebooking Rexall Place. That's really what I meant by him not caring enough. It's not to say that I didn't understand, but other artists have rebooked... Or at least included them on the next tour.

A killer question that still goes unanswered... :whistle: