Blogger arrested, accused of posting 9 unreleased Guns N' Roses songs

[themsbreaks]

The problem is that our technology has grown faster than our ethics. I see this in hospitals all the time. The current generation that grew up with computers wants things INSTANTLY!

What sounds more ethical to you - sharing all forms of information (art, music, knowledge) freely, so that everyone can benefit and experience them; or making millions and millions of dollars, and living in a mansion while the people who granted you that opportunity may in fact not be able to afford three square meals?

[Annie]

The problem is that our technology has grown faster than our ethics. I see this in hospitals all the time. The current generation that grew up with computers wants things INSTANTLY!

What sounds more ethical to you - sharing all forms of information (art, music, knowledge) freely, so that everyone can benefit and experience them; or making millions and millions of dollars, and living in a mansion while the people who granted you that opportunity may in fact not be able to afford three square meals?

Technology can be used for good or evil. There are all sorts of shades of gray. I don't even own an IPOD and I don't even know how to download music because I am not interested. The heart of the matter with tracks from CD being leaked is betrayal by a trusted source. A favorite writer of mine who currently has 4 books on the NY Times bestseller list was working on a 5th book to the series. A trusted person leaked her rough draft on the internet. She feels so betrayed that she does not want to finish writing the novel which would have made her MILLIONS of dollars. She was kind enough to post the rough draft of her manuscript on her website. The person who leaked her rough draft has stolen something from millions of fans  who would have LOVED to read that unfinished novel. So the damage the leak of the 9 tracks of Chinese democracy was not all monetary. Uncle Axl put his heart and soul into that CD. I don't blame the people who downloaded it, I blame the person who was responsible for the original leak.

[jarmo]

That's part of it yes.  No matter how much music is "taken" from Axl Rose - he still has all of it.

But you're not taking it from Axl or any other artist.

By the way, in this case Axl doesn't have "it". The right he had to choose when you and I would hear music was stolen from him.

He still had the music as you put it, but something non-physical was stolen.

I guess that's also not worth anything in your dream world because it's not a physical thing.

Buyers determine the market, not sellers.

I don't think Axl will ever starve. 

That's so stupid. It's not about Axl needing all the cents so he won't starve.

It's about taking something for free that has a price. Something you had to pay to get in the past.

Do you remember the time when you had to walk or take a car to the record store, pick out the music you wanted, pay for it and then go home to listen to it?

Just because all those steps have been replaced by technology doesn't mean it's right to just steal.



There's something odd in the world when you think a cup of coffee is worth more than hours and hours of entertainment (an album).

That is not at all the same thing Jarmo.  Electricity is a quantifiable thing.  Yes, he/she would still have electricity, but it would cost him something - it would be taking something from him , i.e. his money to pay for something that he would not get to use (the electricity you took from him).

And when you take music for free that would cost you money, money that would go into the creator's pocket, it's completely different?


You don't think all the free downloading costs anything? Somebody is losing his/her job because of it.

Less income for the artists and record companies mean they have to make money somewhere else.



What do you suggest the artists who create art live on if the art is free?

What's your solution? Who pays their bills? Can they just tell their landlord that since they create stuff for others to use freely, they should be able to skip rent altogether?

How can you justify taking something that you enjoy for years to come for free?

Why is it that some peoples' work isn't worth paying for? Yes, creating art can be work too.

What's next? Should teachers work for free because they should just share their knowledge with the students for free? How about doctors? Lawyers? Police? Why not?

What sounds more ethical to you - sharing all forms of information (art, music, knowledge) freely, so that everyone can benefit and experience them; or making millions and millions of dollars, and living in a mansion while the people who granted you that opportunity may in fact not be able to afford three square meals?

Maybe in your dream world nobody's creating art because they won't make any money off it.

It's hard to pay your electricity bills to record music with the gratitude of some downloaders.


You're using the old "I'm owed" excuse.

People don't "grant" others any opportunity to live in mansions.

You pay for a cd, you get the cd. The artist who created it is free to use his/her money as they wish. If they want to invest in a mansion, they can.

Just like any other professional who makes a living by working.


Just because their work happens to be something creative, they don't have the right to spend their money as they wish?

Once again it seems like artists "owe" others. Do you feel the same way about lawyers, plumbers, doctors, teachers, police etc.?

They can all become successful in their professions and make money. Then invest it however they choose. Do they also owe you?




/jarmo

[russtcb]

I bought the album 3 times (so far). To me, I personally have paid for what I might have heard before that.

How does that compensate for the fact that you heard songs before the band wanted you to as well as them being versions that were not intended to be heard?




/jarmo

Thereagain with the fact that I've bought the finished product 3 times over.

You don't seem to get it.

I'm not talking about the loss of income due to somebody not buying the album when he/she can get it for free.

I'm talking about the loss of certain rights of an artist. Such as having the say when and how their art is made public.

How do you put a monetary value on that right?


This guy ruined the surprise. It's not his right to do so!




/jarmo

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I "don't get it". I wasn't aware that we where discussing the fact that this guy should be imprisoned for "ruining the surprise"

[jarmo]

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I "don't get it". I wasn't aware that we where discussing the fact that this guy should be imprisoned for "ruining the surprise"

Sorry if my comment offended you.



I've been pointing out that some things don't have a set monetary value and people keep saying they bought so and so many copies.

So I assumed you didn't get what I was talking about.


Should he be imprisoned for ruining the surprise? No idea.

Should he be held responsible for doing so? Yeah. It's not his work to release.




/jarmo

[themsbreaks]

By the way, in this case Axl doesn't have "it". The right he had to choose when you and I would hear music was stolen from him.

He still had the music as you put it, but something non-physical was stolen.

I guess that's also not worth anything in your dream world because it's not a physical thing.

I conceded that to you - as I have already stated.  We are in agreement on this.

That's so stupid. It's not about Axl needing all the cents so he won't starve.

I never said it was. 

It's about taking something for free that has a price. Something you had to pay to get in the past.

But was it a fair price in the past?  This is what I mean when I say "buyers determine the market". 

People will "give something back" if they have beneftited from an aritsts contributions.  But the day of a few companies/people living high on the hog is over.

And when you take music for free that would cost you money, money that would go into the creator's pocket, it's completely different?

Yes.  There is no "free electricity machine".  But there is a machine that can reproduce music for free (the computer - tape recorders, etc.).  This changes everything.

You don't think all the free downloading costs anything? Somebody is losing his/her job because of it.

That's one way to look at it.  The other, imo better way to look at it is - "that's one less job that has to be done".  Employess of record companies can move on to more important things that need doing.  The less jobs there are to do, the more people there are to do them - less work for everybody.

What do you suggest the artists who create art live on if the art is free?

People will reciprocate if they feel they owe something.  People will donate money, people will go to shows etc.

How can you justify taking something that you enjoy for years to come for free?

The "value" of something/anything is totally subjective.  It's up to each individual to determine how valuable something is.

Why is it that some peoples' work isn't worth paying for? Yes, creating art can be work too.

Again, it's up to the consumer of a product how much it is worth. 

What's next? Should teachers work for free because they should just share their knowledge with the students for free? How about doctors? Lawyers? Police? Why not?

Indeed.  "Why not?" Well, many do - expecting only to have their basic needs met.  Doctors who go to foreign countries to help those in need - not for profit legal aid societies etc.

It's hard to pay your electricity bills to record music with the gratitude of some downloaders.

Again, buyers will determine how much something is worth, and if they're moral and think something is valuable, they will return value of some kind to the originator.

People don't "grant" others any opportunity to live in mansions.

So where did Axl's relatively lavish lifestyle come from?  Was it not from the people who bought his music?  Without the fans, he would not have what he has. 


It's my belief that good things will happen to those who do good.  The day of people who make great music living like kings is probably over.  But they'll still get a lot of "something" back.  Be it money from some other system that arises to replace the current dying model, praise from fans, etc.

[D]

I know a big reason people are disappointed in CD is because the final versions of the songs weren't far removed from the leaks.

I think people had grand illusions that the final versions would somehow be way better than the leaks. So when they were the same with a few extra added layers, people realized they already wore the album out little bit at a time instead of getting the full experience.


I admit right now that most of the reason I have for not loving CD is due to the fact that I already wore 75 percent of it out over the last 5 years.

That is why CD only stayed in my CD player a few months instead of a few years.

So yeah, leaks really ruined the experience for me and yes I have myself to blame, but I won't make that mistake again.




To answer a previous poster that quoted mine:

Itunes do still sell a shit load of music

ask yourself this though:

Remember back in the mid 90's when Creed had like back to back 10 million selling albums? I remember everyone was hitting the 10 million mark.

Hello leaks, torrents, file sharing sites, more people becoming smart to them......... now the best album of 2008 barely hit 3 million copies!


Downloading and Itunes are responsible.


Like i said, I know I now DL the hit single on the radio now of bands I am not crazy about whereas before I'd have to buy the entire CD.


Id rather sell 500k albums at 10 bucks, then 1 million Downloads of .99 cents.

thats just math.




U brought up AC/DC


2 things:

1 Walmart which promotes the hell out of it, tons of foot traffic, low price AND GUESS WHAT? AC/DC do not sell their music on Itunes.

[jarmo]

But was it a fair price in the past?  This is what I mean when I say "buyers determine the market". 

If you don't want to pay $10 for a cd, get it used.

You have all kinds of options.

People will "give something back" if they have beneftited from an aritsts contributions. 

Sure, some will.

But how do you suggest artists make money to pay their bills?

Yes.  There is no "free electricity machine".  But there is a machine that can reproduce music for free (the computer - tape recorders, etc.).  This changes everything.

Well, there's no machine that can write, perform and record music for free is there?

Somebody has to work on the creation part first, then somebody has to work on recording it. Did I mention some of these things cost money?

Then you can start distributing it for free if the artist so wishes.

People will reciprocate if they feel they owe something.  People will donate money, people will go to shows etc.

Donate money? Like a charity?

Putting together tours and shows cost money.

So you think it would be fair to raise ticket prices to compensate the loss of income from the music sales?

Again, it's up to the consumer of a product how much it is worth. 

Does that apply to everything?

So if there's the technology to steal other things (take them for free), you should be able to?

Indeed.  "Why not?" Well, many do - expecting only to have their basic needs met.  Doctors who go to foreign countries to help those in need - not for profit legal aid societies etc.

Yes they do, by their own choice. Not due to the greed of others.

So the next step is to have a group of professionals determined by you living off charity?

So where did Axl's relatively lavish lifestyle come from?  Was it not from the people who bought his music?  Without the fans, he would not have what he has. 

Without Axl's talent, you'd have no music to steal!

He put out music, the record company put out the albums, people bought the albums, Axl could live of the money. What's the fucking problem?

Why doesn't he have the right to do so?

I'm not saying artists or Axl isn't grateful for their fans. But some of these fans need to tone down the "They owe me" attitudes. It's quite ridiculous in my opinion.

How much do you owe them for brightening your days for years and years? Apparently nothing because you want to take the music for free. But the artists owe you.... Ironic.


It's like somebody becomes successful and they should feel ashamed of it because there are others who aren't.



Where did any working person's lifestyle come from? Do you feel that a successful doctor owes you?

How about somebody who's very talented in a sport? Does he/she owe the people who pay to see him/her?





/jarmo

[D]

Jarmo is right once again:

My best friend is a dentist.

Charges people 150 dollars to fill a tooth. Cost him like 2 bucks to do the job.

If you provide the service, you deserve to get paid no matter how rich you are or people think you are.


And also, maybe financially it doesn't hurt huge bands all that much, but bands starting out don't have a chance because the labels cut them if their first album isn't huge thanks to down loaders.

[russtcb]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

[Annie]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

That is the million dollar question.

[GNRFAN20]

Kevin must of got it from someone who has worked with the band/working with them.

[themsbreaks]

Sure, some will.

But how do you suggest artists make money to pay their bills?

If they can't pay their bills...then they can't pay their bills.  It would be an indicator that what they have to offer is not "up to snuff".  IOW, back to the drawing board.

Well, there's no machine that can write, perform and record music for free is there?

That is true.

Good music is valuable, the people who make it will be compensated, maybe not with money anymore, but with something.

Somebody has to work on the creation part first, then somebody has to work on recording it. Did I mention some of these things cost money?

These costs are nominal. And if the the music industry continues to collapse and people who make music can no longer afford to do it in massive state of the art studios and are forced to do it in garages with styrofoam on the walls and a laptop - and if the public does not like the sound that results, then they public will be forced to give more money to the band - but only if the public deems it worthy.  The audience/public will determine it.

Donate money? Like a charity?

Yes, in a sense.  But donate was not the right word to use.  People will (hopefully) "give as much as they have been given", or even more.

So you think it would be fair to raise ticket prices to compensate the loss of income from the music sales?

Whether a financial transaction is "fair" is up to the individuals involved in the transaction.  When people disagree (as some do now with the the current music biz model), things like file sharing become popular.

Again, it's up to the consumer of a product how much it is worth.

Does that apply to everything?

Yes.

So if there's the technology to steal other things (take them for free), you should be able to?

We have different defintions of stealing - remember?

Yes they do, by their own choice. Not due to the greed of others.

Good point.  But I don't think greed is the right word.

So the next step is to have a group of professionals determined by you living off charity?

"Charity" is not the right word, but yes, how much anyone is able to "make" will ultimately be determined by the people consuming the product.

Without Axl's talent, you'd have no music to steal!

True (again, we disgree on the def. of "steal").  But that does not disprove my point.  I guess it's a 'chicken/egg' thing.

Where did any working person's lifestyle come from? Do you feel that a successful doctor owes you?

Nobody "owes" anybody anything.  I've never said they do.

Jarmo is right once again:

My best friend is a dentist.

Charges people 150 dollars to fill a tooth. Cost him like 2 bucks to do the job.

If you provide the service, you deserve to get paid no matter how rich you are or people think you are.

Yes, but how much does he deserve?  That has to be negotiated by both parties. 

[jarmo]

If they can't pay their bills...then they can't pay their bills.  It would be an indicator that what they have to offer is not "up to snuff".  IOW, back to the drawing board.

Excuse me?

If an artist creates art that is taken for free by thousands of people, he/she makes nothing.

Obviously it's good enough for them to enjoy since they took it for free and are enjoying it.

Good music is valuable, the people who make it will be compensated, maybe not with money anymore, but with something.

So maybe if you grow apples, you could give a bag of apples to an artist and he/she would sing you a song?

Seriously, until you come up with a working system where artists are compensated for their work, just keep doing it the old fashioned way by compensating them with your local currency....

These costs are nominal.

It's not up to you to decide is it?

If somebody wants to hire an entire orchestra, he/she should be able to.

Instruments cost money. Recording equipment costs money. Learning to play takes time. Etc etc.



You can make a movie with a hand held camera and put it on Youtube. Would you be happy if all movies were like that?

Yes, in a sense.  But donate was not the right word to use.  People will (hopefully) "give as much as they have been given", or even more.

Or even more? So you're saying, instead of buying the cd for $10, they download it for free and then essentially pay more for the same thing by donating money?

Doesn't that mean that the (free) music, is then worth more than the original price (that you claim it wasn't worth)?

Example: A cd costs $10. You download it for free. Then "donate" $20 to the artist because you like it. So doesn't that mean you think the cd was worth $20? But you downloaded it for free because you think it's not worth paying for.....

Whether a financial transaction is "fair" is up to the individuals involved in the transaction.  When people disagree (as some do now with the the current music biz model), things like file sharing become popular.

It's popular because everybody loves free stuff.

We have different defintions of stealing - remember?

I said, if the technology was there.

The problem is that you don't see art as being something that can be stolen because it's not a physical thing you can grab.

Good point.  But I don't think greed is the right word.

If you're too cheap to pay for music, what is the word?

Nobody "owes" anybody anything.  I've never said they do.

Nah, you just liked to point out how artists would have mansions without the fans.

I pointed out the fans wouldn't have art to steal without artists.





You have no answers to the issue.

Just like the rest of us.

This isn't really about the case anymore....




/jarmo

[russtcb]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

That is the million dollar question.

Seems like it's deserving of an answer doesn't it?

[D]

If labels hadn't become greedy selling CDs for crazy high prices, this probably wouldn't be as bad. Also, it is sort of ironic that labels ditched Vinyl and cassette due to the cheapness thus more profits of CD manufacturing and that very greed ultimately came back to crush them.


I don't think anybody would've been able to rip a vinyl or a cassette. at least not as easily.



I feel bad for the artists, I could care less about the labels. Sony is one of the biggest record labels and yet they manufacture and sell CD burners. 

[FunkyMonkey]

It's not his work to release.

It pretty much comes down to this.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

That is the million dollar question.

Seems like it's deserving of an answer doesn't it?

I wonder who can be so stupid enough to steal a disc from the band.

[Annie]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

That is the million dollar question.

Seems like it's deserving of an answer doesn't it?

I wonder who can be so stupid enough to steal a disc from the band.

Inquiring minds want to know!

[suicide]

I'm sorry if this has been answered but where did he get the leaks from that he posted?

That is the million dollar question.

Seems like it's deserving of an answer doesn't it?

I wonder who can be so stupid enough to steal a disc from the band.

I don't think the disc was stolen from the band. Some people in or close to the band had the finished product before it went into production.
The 2006 leaks were alledgely stolen in Spain. I don't think any actions were taken against those who took the demos.