|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Too good to miss? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Feb 23, 2012, 20:32
|
||
|
I am enjoying this thread. Brain to keyboard is sometimes good Rhiannon. One the question of music, I remember there was a very long thread on a similar theme over on Unsung a couple of years ago, involving a guy called Dodge One. It all got rather heated and there was some name-calling (hard to believe such a thing would ever happen here though). One of the strands of that thread revolved around the "availability" of the music that was being illegally up/downloaded. It went something like this: -Copy of the latest album by Rhianna/One Direction/Andy Williams. Generally agreed by most (but not all) that ripping this and posting it online was a Bad Thing, as it was a new album and easily available to buy, preserving the artist's royalties, etc. This is similar to your comment about the fact that most people wouldn't expect to walk into Waterstones and take whatever they fancied without paying. Those who did not think this was a bad thing mainly argued that the record companies had enough money and the artist wouldn't see any of it anyway. -Copy of the latest remastered reissue of Sgt Pepper/Darkside of the Moon, etc. Many people took the same view as above, but there was an argument that if you had bought the album previously either on CD, wax cylinder or whatever, you were effectively entitled to download this for free. Hmm. If only this worked with worn-out Explorer maps. -Copy of long deleted album by Bogshed. The argument here was slightly less one-sided. Although the album was officially released, the lack of "current" availability suggested to many that making it available over the internet was not harming anyone. In many cases where this kind of "out of print" music is uploaded, the sites routinely carry a message to any copyright holders who object to get in touch and the offending item will be taken down. This seems to have been felt to generally less Bad and in many cases may actually bring an artist to people's attention that otherwise had been lost in the mists of time. -Never officially released "audience" recording of Half Man Half Biscuit playing at the Dog and Toilet in 1986. It seems generally that no-one (even Dodge One) had any particular objection about this, and frankly if anyone was bothered enough to download and listen all the way through they deserved to have it for free. The point was often made that the sort of people who wanted this type of recording were also likely to be amongst the people who bought whatever "official" product the band released anyway (I'm in this one by the way). So it seems that "availability" plays quite a large part in where you stand on the issue. I think the same is true of books, probably. That seems to square with the article by Rachel Caine linked above. One other thing that occurs to me is that the taking of other people's intellectual property via the internet is far less public (and therefore less likely to result in arrest and imprisonment) that walking into a bookshop, grabbong 780 books off the shelf and walking out again. It's so easy to click a button and "bingo" here's all this stuff, whereas shoplifting in the real world at least requires the effort of putting on a coat with big pockets. It's a victimless crime isn't it? Enough rambling on from me. I'm pleased the guy has taken that sale down, shame about the other several thousand still up.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Feb 23, 2012, 21:28
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Anyway the link is there in my first post to question this bloke directly if that is what stopping some from buying. If he is telling the truth then you are missing out on a great deal so check him out. Hi Roy, question asked. I'll let you know what answer I get. Interstingly the item has now been replaced by a list of "recommendations", all of which are similar packages. So there's no end to it is there?
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Feb 23, 2012, 22:39
|
||
|
That. wasn't rambling at all, that was extremely coherently put. And extremely reasonable, I agree completely. I wish my brain had been able to sort that all out. one more thing that occurs to me (again in a vague fashion, but containing a spark that I'm sure is relevant), is the selling on aspect of second hand objects like books and records. That their scarcity makes them more desirable and people will pay more for them. I heard of a superb book the other day, it is about how people in the arctic make / made clothes. But there was only one on abe or amazon or wherever and it was about a squillion quid. If I bought that none of the money would be going to the original author. One assumes it's out of print and the only way to get it (other than A Library) is by buying it secondhand. So you could almost justify your illegal downloading then, by saying that you didn't want to pay more than the book was physically worth. Book dealers turn it into a commodity and see how much you'll pay for it. (and why not I guess, that is no doubt capitalism). Books that are out of print and unlikely to be reprinted - none of that resale money goes to the author. Buuut maybe a savvy author could (and would have the right to? I'm not sure) produce a digital version of their book and sell it. For less of course cos there int no paper involved. it's all v interesting isn't it.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 09:27
|
||
|
Well off topic as far as stones are concerned but relevant to this thread.. John Peel's complete record collection is to be made into a virtual museum to which (I don't know if you have to pay) you can subscribe to. Someone I miss greatly on the radio! "John Peel's huge record collection is to be made available as part of an interactive online museum. The late BBC Radio 1 DJ's personal archive of 25,000 albums, 40,000 singles and thousands of other CDs will become part of experimental online service The Space, which is funded by the Arts Council and supported by the BBC. Tom Barker of the John Peel Centre for Creative Arts said: "It is the first step in creating an interactive online museum with access to the entire collection, one of the most important archives in modern music history." Collaborator Eye Film and Television's Frank Prendergast explained: "The idea is to digitally re-create John's home studio and record collection, which users will be able to interact with and contribute to, while viewing Peel's personal notes, archive performances and new filmed interviews with musicians." Peel's widow Sheila Ravenscroft added that the broadcaster's family is pleased to allow fans to listen to the collection, which she described as "only the beginning". "We're very happy that we've finally found a way to make John's amazing collection available to his fans, as he would have wanted. This project is only the beginning of something very exciting." http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a367575/john-peel-record-collection-for-interactive-online-museum.html
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 18:16
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: This is causing me much pause for thought this morning. It's a bit complicated isn't it. And I was thinking, are books a slightly different case from music. Downloading music for free off the internet, that's dishonest obviously because the musicians who created it are getting nothing and you're getting the benefit. But you get the benefit so easily, you jsut have to listen. I like this thread! As a very p/time music blogger I have spent the last few years re-mastering work by an artist (now deceased) and posting it online on a blog. I only transcribe vinyl/ cassettes/ CDs which are not in circulation and which have no real chance of ever being heard again. The record companies ain't interested in re-releasing any of it and mostly have lost the master-tapes anyway. In some cases I actually supplied original CD singles (and in one case a 12" vinyl burn recorded onto an analogue CD recorder...) for official re-issues! The response from other fans has been magnificent. Old unreleased studio recordings have been shared between us and rare early singles and B-sides meticulously transcribed from vinyl. Bootlegs stored in garages have been dug out. And what people who download such stuff from my wee site get is commercially unavailable, the masters lost and record company disinterested type material. Those strange three live tracks only ever released on the 10" b-side from 1985. They don't actually get the lovely piece of vinyl from my box but get an MP3 rip of it. Maybe it is a bizarre 12" mix only available as a rare Portuguese CD album extra twenty years back, but for fans it might be a wee gem! I don't sell it - it isn't mine to sell. I've posted copies to the artist's family and to fans around the world. They do get a benefit, they truly do! And I take down anything anyone objects to. There is also lots of rips of stuff from a variety of bands I've played in over the years which is quite widely available on some blogger's sites and long may it continue! I saw a Youtube clip with one of our old drummers in it (he died nearly twenty years ago - nothing to do with Spinal Tap!). It wont change the world, but I'm glad someone kept the clip and posted it up for free... I see music sharing as a very different thing from burning CD rips of Adele's "21" and selling them at a car boot in a poorly printed sleeve. Recent e-books burned onto DVD and sold on e-bay? Bit of a whiff offa that one to me... But me- I'm probably biased on this one.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 21:19
|
||
|
Excellent. With you all the way on this one. There are a number of absolutely top blog sites run by enthusiasts that have done similar things (i.e working on vinyl to produce high-quality digital recordings) when the record company has no interest in doing so. In the case of one Very Well Known band (at least they are these days)with a deceased lead singer, a blogger's work on remastering some vinyl tracks was so good that the band and record company sent him some unreleased tapes so that he could work on them (which was then officially released).
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 21:21
|
||
Wow! That is a really brilliant thing. Much of this stuff will be demo tapes and scarce stuff by bands that have been largely forgotten (or never heard of in the first place). Really exciting.
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 21:43
|
||
|
moss wrote: Well off topic as far as stones are concerned but relevant to this thread.. John Peel's complete record collection is to be made into a virtual museum to which (I don't know if you have to pay) you can subscribe to. Someone I miss greatly on the radio! "John Peel's huge record collection is to be made available as part of an interactive online museum. The late BBC Radio 1 DJ's personal archive of 25,000 albums, 40,000 singles and thousands of other CDs will become part of experimental online service The Space, which is funded by the Arts Council and supported by the BBC. Tom Barker of the John Peel Centre for Creative Arts said: "It is the first step in creating an interactive online museum with access to the entire collection, one of the most important archives in modern music history." Collaborator Eye Film and Television's Frank Prendergast explained: "The idea is to digitally re-create John's home studio and record collection, which users will be able to interact with and contribute to, while viewing Peel's personal notes, archive performances and new filmed interviews with musicians." Peel's widow Sheila Ravenscroft added that the broadcaster's family is pleased to allow fans to listen to the collection, which she described as "only the beginning". "We're very happy that we've finally found a way to make John's amazing collection available to his fans, as he would have wanted. This project is only the beginning of something very exciting." http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a367575/john-peel-record-collection-for-interactive-online-museum.html There is a show doing the rounds just now called 'John Peel's Shed'...it is arranged by a fellow who won a prize of a box of records from John Peel's shed(AKA where he stored his vast collection)
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 22:07
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: That. wasn't rambling at all, that was extremely coherently put. And extremely reasonable, I agree completely. I wish my brain had been able to sort that all out. one more thing that occurs to me ... is the selling on aspect of second hand objects like books and records. That their scarcity makes them more desirable and people will pay more for them. I heard of a superb book the other day, it is about how people in the arctic make / made clothes. But there was only one on abe or amazon or wherever and it was about a squillion quid. If I bought that none of the money would be going to the original author. One assumes it's out of print and the only way to get it (other than A Library) is by buying it secondhand. So you could almost justify your illegal downloading then, by saying that you didn't want to pay more than the book was physically worth. Book dealers turn it into a commodity and see how much you'll pay for it. (and why not I guess, that is no doubt capitalism). Books that are out of print and unlikely to be reprinted - none of that resale money goes to the author. ..... it's all v interesting isn't it. Thanks Rhiannon, yes it is. Records is interesting (and I suppose must apply to antiquarian books too) because there is also a streak of completist obsession involved too. For instance, when it comes to one band (and only one, really) I have bought multiple copies of some records because of sleeve variants, remixes, etc (yes, it's very anorakish, sorry). I have the songs on lots of formats so it isn't that I need to buy it for the music. And if you said to me that there was another version I didn't have, I would want that too. I still buy 7" singles of songs I'm downloading, because I like to have the record in a physical format. The record collecting completist mentality is the same as stamp collecting or train-spotting really. From reading the "Map Addict" book recently, it seems there is a similar streak of super-obsessed map collectors who want every edition of every sheet, including misprints, etc. Programmes like "Life Laundry" that was on a few years ago make me feel distinctly queasy. I like "stuff". But none of the money I would spend is going to the original artist. But then I guess if I was a Zillionaire and bought a Rembrandt painting, he wouldn't be getting anything for it either. With second hand stuff, I suppose you have to work on the basis that the original artist got their royalties or money for selling the thing to the first buyer (even if they didn't get much for it at the time). I guess a builder wouldn't expect to take a cut of each successive sale of a house he built (bit of a lame analogy). So if I buy a book, I own the physical object of that individual book (the paper, glue and print), even though I don't own the copyright in its contents. If I sell the book to someone else (for a profit or a loss), I'm only selling the same physical object and that's all they're buying. Or are they? Are they buying the contents of the writing in the book? I don't think so, because the ideas and writing remain the intellectual property of the author. Whereas in the case of someone who has got stuff "for free" online and has then sold "it" on multiple multiple multiple times, I don't think the same process applies. Because they're not selling an individual "possession" that they own. I guess you could argue that they're entitled to sell the physical object (in this case the DVD that the books are burned onto). Actually I'm on the verge of tying my point up into an undo-able knot, so perhaps I'll stop there!
|
|||
|
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 20:36
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Excellent. With you all the way on this one. There are a number of absolutely top blog sites run by enthusiasts that have done similar things (i.e working on vinyl to produce high-quality digital recordings) when the record company has no interest in doing so. In the case of one Very Well Known band (at least they are these days)with a deceased lead singer, a blogger's work on remastering some vinyl tracks was so good that the band and record company sent him some unreleased tapes so that he could work on them (which was then officially released). I know that very blogger you mean and it has been a true labour of love and sterling work the guy(s) have done. And done for nothing but the glory of the music and to provide a proper legacy long denied by shameless record companies. I paid good money for all of that band's vinyl as it came out. Then along came the CD and the boxset and the endless repackaging. The H&S boxset was a shambles, a rip-off and sounded worse than the TDK D90 cassettes for my car which I'd taped from my original vinyl releases and boots. The way which many record companies treat fans is appalling - and such shabby treatment paints a vulgar picture of some really honest bands too, as greedy record companies re-package overly-compressed, cheap third-generation transcriptions to keen fans eager to revive their thirty year old collections. Collections that have already been paid for a few times over as format-hungry completists satiate their need - it is not any record company or artist that is being ripped-off here... The same bunch of music enthusiasts to whom you refer are currently about halfway through a charming recycling of the singles output of another band from the same city. Aside from the wondrous approach to the process of re-mastering the music, I love the chronological detail and the sublime attention to packaging... it's a fan thing. Let us rip...
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
