There is a big difference from life in ‘Acadamia’ and what goes on in the real world…for you that difference comes out to $675,000.

I just don’t…. well……y’know…… want to actually have to pay them anything myself.
It’s a freedom of speech thing.

lol

What Joel did was copyrighting and had he won it would have set a precedent and copyright law would have been changed. This is part of the legal process. Look up the origins of land ownership.

The RIAAs argument about the cost of music is based on the fact that in the ‘old days’ people would still buy enough of the crap that was recorded by the people who were dropped to mitigate some of their losses.
In the ‘new days’, people don’t have to buy crap to listen to it and decide they don’t like it.

Therefore, the music industry needs to find a way of recovering all the money they invested in crap artists who never paid back their advance. This is their challenge and their screwing it up.

Ours (the music-listening and buying world’s) is to force them to hurry up and sort it out before good artists get lost along the way.

That’s like saying, the best employees work for the love of it, not the money. So knowing that their boss is happy should be their one and only goal, regardless of whether they get a paycheck.

Yet somehow I don’t think that you’d be happy if you didn’t get a paycheck from your employer. So if it’s not ok for you to have to work for free, why should the musicians in their chosen line of work?

Here’s a common scenario; a band plays live around a college campus, tours a little, releases a CD and gets a following. In this band there’s a great guitar player who is a crappy singer and doesn’t look like a star but… he writes the songs that people come to hear and sing along with. Like most bands, five or ten years later they break up. This guy, however, decides to stick with it. He writes songs for others, produces some records, plays in the studios and makes an ok living from his unique talents. Everybody else in the musical food chain is making lots of $ from his contribution and efforts. Is he a sell-out to be hated and dismissed because he found his niche? Because he didn’t quit doing what he loves? Multiply him by tens of thousands and you have the music business that I know. Men and women who started out in bands but found that they had a gift and a specific, valuable creative talent, writers, producers, engineers, etc. etc, etc. Should they spend all day amassing facebook friends, chasing down gigs and stapling flyers to telephone poles or should they do what they do best?
Just wondering.

Nibien was simply saying, the best musicians play for the love of it, not the money. They play to bring joy to those around them, and listening to them. They are unlike other artists who play simply for the money, and nothing more. These are your sellouts. And yes, Nibien is correct when he says almost all of our Britney Spears’ and modern day rappers, are the core examples of our sellouts. Note this is not everyone in those genres of music, but there is a large abundance of sellouts that tend to dwell in those genres specifically.

As for summary number 2, bands really aren’t that affected by piracy at all, their labels are. And no it shouldn’t bother them if their music is being pirated. That just shows them people are enjoying their music, and that should be their one and only goal.

Your sarcasm and poor summaries show that you are childish, immature, and close minded. You missed the entire point of Nibiens argument, and really showed it.

1. Sell-outs are the musicians you don’t like. And you don’t pirate, or even enjoy, their music. Lots of other people pirate their music, though. But that’s OK, because you don’t like those musicians. They are sell-outs, and don’t deserve to make more money.

2. On the other hand, the ‘real’ bands — the ones you like — aren’t affected by piracy because they aren’t in it for the money. They aren’t sell-outs. They are volunteers.

You might want to look up the definition of ‘rationalize’… OK, I’ll save you the trouble.

rationalize : to attribute one’s actions to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives

Well, since the point is above you, painfully so, I’ll explain it to you.

Expecting to make millions of dollars from your music, when you’re first starting up a band and (possibly) have a glimmer of talent is not only ignorant but pathetically arrogant.

This is the epitome of the ’sell out’ — the company crafted boybands, people like Britney Spears, almost every popular “rap artist.” These things are specifically made and crafted to get millions, if not billions, of dollars away from the slack-jawed lowest common denominator.

However, those hard-working kids who loved playing music, who worked at McDonalds just to scratch up enough money for rent for the month. Those who did that while trying their best to play gigs around town at night, who played because they loved to play, who lived to see people enjoy their music, who strive to make an influence on popular culture these are not the sell outs. I don’t think anyone will fault a band like that, who just happens to become rich and famous because of their hard work — and if they do, there is something wrong with them.

The point is: The ‘real’ bands, the actual artists, will not stop playing because they’re not suddenly going to be guaranteed millions of dollars suddenly (as if that’s the case now) any more than the kid who plays junior-high football is suddenly going to stop suddenly because professional NFL players suddenly make ten-percent less average a year.

Why do you want to acquire music from sell-outs?