开云体育

Okay. Here is an angle that just occurred to me and I don't know if anyone
has recognized it before. I've never heard it mentioned.



We all used to get FREE music all the time!



It was a little thing called RADIO!



All the young people we are bashing here (99% of downloading being done by
those under 25years of age) are just listening to their music the same as we
all used to.



They download 30,000 tunes, hit "random" and just go about their business.



I don't think we should be looking at charging for downloads, I think we
need to incorporate advertising into the mix to pay for it all, the same as
we did when we had functioning radio stations.



For example, I don't mind watching a 30 second commercial prior to seeing a
video clip on the internet. We need to look at our business model for the
internet in a reasonable way.



Truth be told, most people don't want to pay to download a song because in
many cases they only care to hear it once or twice anyway.





All the best, John



Reciprocity

Does anybody really want to steal Kiss' music??

Most of the piracy of music is of the current teen musical heartthrobs...not
old has-been jazz players.
I don't see Puff Daddy, or Jay-Z going around in rags and driving Pintos...
Don't most studio musicians get paid per session? So it wouldn't really
matter to them if the CD sold ten or ten million copies.
Has anyone on this list written a top-ten tune and hasn't been sufficiently
rewarded?
My point is that it's the large corporations, the same ones who have
marketed good music out of the picture, who are "suffering" because of
piracy - and over-priced product. $20 for a Kiss cd??? Gag!
I would like someone to explain to me how all this piracy is affecting the
average musician, who by the way, is probably not paying composers for the
right to play their tunes on gigs...
"He who lives by the sword, etc..."

On 10/18/2010 3:16 PM, Angelo wrote:

Does anybody really want to steal Kiss' music??

Not the point. Gene Simmons has every right to try to protect the business he is in and to spread that word to his fellow musicians in the hope that they can benefit from those words. Personally, I think the musicians have been (stupidly) silent about it for far too long.

Most of the piracy of music is of the current teen musical heartthrobs...not
old has-been jazz players.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the entirety of the music business, throughout every genre, has been hijacked by thieves.

I don't see Puff Daddy, or Jay-Z going around in rags and driving Pintos...

And they don't see you driving around in a new Jag. So what? I already made the comment that these guys are some of the few non-fools left in the business, and that is sad, considering they aren't even musicians.

Don't most studio musicians get paid per session? So it wouldn't really
matter to them if the CD sold ten or ten million copies.

This whole problem has "pin action". As it gets less and less rewarding (or even possible) to make and promote recordings, every person in the industry is affected. You are a smart guy, Angelo - how is it you don't see that?

Has anyone on this list written a top-ten tune and hasn't been sufficiently
rewarded?

Again, not the point, but Dave has defended his publishing company right into the ground. Is that enough for you?

My point is that it's the large corporations, the same ones who have
marketed good music out of the picture, who are "suffering" because of
piracy - and over-priced product. $20 for a Kiss cd??? Gag!

Your point is off target. You're just too cheap to buy records.

I would like someone to explain to me how all this piracy is affecting the
average musician, who by the way, is probably not paying composers for the
right to play their tunes on gigs...

It's the music establishments who pay for the music played in their clubs. Or at least that's what it USED to be. Everybody made a buck, everybody was happy. Angelo, I know that you are (or were?) a school teacher. You had a Union to defend you every step of the way, and without it you would have made around $6000 per year, and without any benefits forever. If the Social Studies teacher is treated unfairly, the Phys Ed teacher is right there to stand on that picket line and defend her.

For you, of all people, to make these comments is callous and hypocritical.

"He who lives by the sword, etc..."

Exactly.

I don't sound like it right now, but I really do like you,
Bobby

Does anybody really want to steal Kiss' music??

Not the point. Gene Simmons has every right to try to protect the
business he is in and to spread that word to his fellow musicians in the
hope that they can benefit from those words. Personally, I think the
musicians have been (stupidly) silent about it for far too long.

It's definitely the point. He is only interested in publicity for himself.
Isn't this the guy who had a reality show? He's a publicity hound and that's
why he's getting involved. He smells a buck. Nobody wants his music. They
don't even steal it and probably wouldn't take it if he gave it away for
nothing......
Yet, you give him "hero" props... smh

Most of the piracy of music is of the current teen musical
heartthrobs...not
old has-been jazz players.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the entirety of the
music business, throughout every genre, has been hijacked by thieves.

And the biggest thieves are the recording industry. They rape the
entertainers, who go along with it because they are so addled by the smell
of fame, they'd do anything for it... Pimps and whores, but I don't mean
that in a bad way.

I don't see Puff Daddy, or Jay-Z going around in rags and driving
Pintos...

And they don't see you driving around in a new Jag. So what? I already
made the comment that these guys are some of the few non-fools left in
the business, and that is sad, considering they aren't even musicians.

So what? It means they have figured out how to make money without suing and

prosecuting people. They are rich. I don't feel sorry for them...

Don't most studio musicians get paid per session? So it wouldn't really
matter to them if the CD sold ten or ten million copies.

This whole problem has "pin action". As it gets less and less rewarding
(or even possible) to make and promote recordings, every person in the
industry is affected. You are a smart guy, Angelo - how is it you don't
see that?

What I see is that you and others here are giving the record company pimps

a free ride as to their complicity in this... They refuse to take less
profit and look into new models of sale. How is it that Apple is making a
small fortune from iTunes? Couldn't the record company come up with a new
model? Instead, they take the war on drugs model of prosecuting the end
user. We all know how successful that was (is)..
I'm repeating the same advice I gave to the dinosaurs, "Adapt, or die"...

Has anyone on this list written a top-ten tune and hasn't been
sufficiently rewarded?

Again, not the point, but Dave has defended his publishing company right
into the ground. Is that enough for you?

No, it's not. Are you telling me thousands of people are pirating copies of
"Try A Little Tenderness?" .I'm not sure who he is defending the company
against..

My point is that it's the large corporations, the same ones who have
marketed good music out of the picture, who are "suffering" because of
piracy - and over-priced product. $20 for a Kiss cd??? Gag!

Your point is off target. You're just too cheap to buy records.

I have bought thousands of records, CD, and DVD's over my lifetime. I don't
buy them now because they are junk and only have one tune worth listening
per item. Not a good enough ratio for me...

Just about every tune on the older jazz and even pop albums was enjoyable.
That can't be said for the trash the record company execs create these
days.. They're not even worth stealing.. Not to me, anyway...

I would like someone to explain to me how all this piracy is affecting

the

average musician, who by the way, is probably not paying composers for

the

right to play their tunes on gigs...

It's the music establishments who pay for the music played in their
clubs. Or at least that's what it USED to be. Everybody made a buck,
everybody was happy. Angelo, I know that you are (or were?) a school
teacher. You had a Union to defend you every step of the way, and
without it you would have made around $6000 per year, and without any
benefits forever. If the Social Studies teacher is treated unfairly, the
Phys Ed teacher is right there to stand on that picket line and defend her.

The Teachers Union in NY sucks... but that's another thread.

I also belonged to Local 802 which was an extension of the clubs. They
extorted money from musicians and did nothing to the clubs who were in
violations of the by-laws. Because the union was run by and the clubs were
owned by the same "Organization", the musicians were screwed...AND the
composers didn't get dick...

For you, of all people, to make these comments is callous and hypocritical.

Yada, yada, yada.... ad hominum, as a last resort (or is that "retort"?)

always works... (i!) <--irony alert

"He who lives by the sword, etc..."

Exactly.

I don't sound like it right now, but I really do like you,
Bobby

I'm not on this earth to be liked :-)

------------------------------------



Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Angelo <angelo.nyc@...> wrote:

Don't most studio musicians get paid per session? So it wouldn't
really matter to them if the CD sold ten or ten million copies.

This was generally true in the USA but not the case in other countries. I have a number of royalty based session agreements
from recordings in the UK. See here:

I would like someone to explain to me how all this piracy is
affecting the average musician, who by the way, is probably not
paying composers for the right to play their tunes on gigs...

Venues are responsible for those payments, not musicians.
Any venue that plays music whether live or recorded or even the radio
is required to purchase a public performance license (this is not
the same as a cabaret license - some form of which is generally required for any live music). See, for example ASCAP:



For an overview of collection societies see here:

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Palmer" <rivmuse2@...> wrote:

Okay. Here is an angle that just occurred to me and I don't know if anyone
has recognized it before. I've never heard it mentioned.

We all used to get FREE music all the time!

It was a little thing called RADIO!


All the young people we are bashing here (99% of downloading being done by
those under 25years of age) are just listening to their music the same as we
all used to.

Unfortunately you are missing a big chunk of the equation. The music was not free, the radio stations paid for it.

Radio stations bought licenses to broadcast the music:







In order to pay for the licenses the stations had to be financially viable either through listener sponsored, advertising or grant etc.
But the result was that musicians, performers, writers etc received royalties.

Today music is uploaded and "shared" on sites such as Youtube and file-lockers, such as rapid share, fileserve, and torrents.

No licenses are bought, the sites make money through advertising
and the traffic that the non-licensed music draws. The sites keep all the advertising dollars for themselves and the artists, musicians, performers, writers etc receive NO royalties.

Hi Angelo,
I saw this coming, and I'm going to try to respond, but you and I are
not going to see eye to eye on this ever, so read at your own discretion.

On 10/18/2010 6:14 PM, Angelo wrote:

It's definitely the point. He is only interested in publicity for himself.
Isn't this the guy who had a reality show? He's a publicity hound and
that's
why he's getting involved. He smells a buck. Nobody wants his music. They
don't even steal it and probably wouldn't take it if he gave it away for
nothing......
Yet, you give him "hero" props... smh

Well, somebody must like their music because they've sold multiple
millions of records, and they still perform to large, packed venues. If
his greed for publicity is his motive, so what? At least he's doing
something, and he's got the soapbox (and legal fees) in which to do it.

And the biggest thieves are the recording industry....

Ya know, I keep hearing this. Why izzit that now that they are being
done away with, nobody is making money anymore. Great, ya got a grammy
for your youtube video, now how are ya gonna pay the rent?

In previous posts, I was all over the record companies, ASCAP, the
Union, &c - all of them, for not properly representing the interests of
their rosters. In short, they gave the store away. But the billions that
the whole industry is now losing to pirates far overshadows any problems
the industry encountered in the past.

So what? It means they have figured out how to make money without

suing and
prosecuting people. They are rich. I don't feel sorry for them...

You don't think they sue? What planet are you living on? These guys are
serious businessmen, and thinking they don't steal from eachother and
sue eachother is about as naive as one can get. Hell, they shoot
eachother...

What I see is that you and others here are giving the record company

pimps
a free ride as to their complicity in this... They refuse to take less
profit and look into new models of sale. How is it that Apple is making a
small fortune from iTunes? Couldn't the record company come up with a new
model? Instead, they take the war on drugs model of prosecuting the end
user. We all know how successful that was (is)..

Apple is making a fortune with ITunes by being in the forefront of
having not paid royalties where due. And even when they do pay, the
scale for the artist is worse than any deal ever cut with a record
company, including record clubs.

I'm repeating the same advice I gave to the dinosaurs, "Adapt, or die"...

I believe that, Angelo. I guess they just refused to listen.

Dave has defended his publishing company right

into the ground. Is that enough for you?

No, it's not. Are you telling me thousands of people are pirating
copies of
"Try A Little Tenderness?" .I'm not sure who he is defending the company
against..

A quick search of the tune on Youtube just yielded:

About *1,420* results

Multiply this number by the number of hits each one of those gets
worldwide, and tell me if you think that the product is worth trying to
protect.

My point is that it's the large corporations, the same ones who have
marketed good music out of the picture, who are "suffering" because of
piracy - and over-priced product. $20 for a Kiss cd??? Gag!

Your point is off target. You're just too cheap to buy records.

I have bought thousands of records, CD, and DVD's over my lifetime.

I don't

buy them now because they are junk and only have one tune worth

listening

per item. Not a good enough ratio for me..>

Just about every tune on the older jazz and even pop albums was enjoyable.
That can't be said for the trash the record company execs create these
days.. They're not even worth stealing.. Not to me, anyway...

You mean you bought them back when you told the dinosaurs to adapt or
die. Your defense of thieves, whether or not you personally either like
or buy the records is really the point. Is it that you truly are jealous
of musicians who manage to succeed, or that if you don't like it, then
it's ok if someone steals it?

The Teachers Union in NY sucks... but that's another thread.

No it's not. It's exactly the point. The Teachers union in NY is one of
the most powerful unions in the country. It has provided your raises,
your tenure, your medical benefits, your sick days, your vacations, your
livelihood, your security. And you have the audacity to say it sucks.
Just how well would you do on your own against, say, Michelle Rhee?

Musicians (even Gene Simmons, whether you like him or not) take
tremendous risks to be in the business at all. NYC teachers take none,
and have no concept of what it's like to be someone who has to It's why
most of them became public school teachers in the first place - for
security, benefits pension, &c. The musicians are not asking for raises,
pension, security, benefits, or any free ride. All they are asking for
in this is for their duly copyrighted materials to be protected by the
laws that are on the books and are supposed to protect them.

You, who have been all but breast-fed by the teachers Union, have a
problem with this because you think CDs are overpriced.

I also belonged to Local 802 which was an extension of the clubs. They
extorted money from musicians and did nothing to the clubs who were in
violations of the by-laws. Because the union was run by and the clubs were
owned by the same "Organization", the musicians were screwed...AND the
composers didn't get dick...

For better or worse, 802 is the only real game in town for musicians. It
ain't no AFTRA, and it certainly ain't no teacher's union, and it does
suck, as you say. But kicking out the legs from underneath it is not
going to solve anything. Musicians have to press them to finally get off
their asses and represent them properly. Hell, I can think of 3 lawyers
right off the top of my head who could take on this problem with
hundreds of lawsuits if the agencies which are supposed to represent
their clients would step up to the plate - but that would just piss you
off, because, of course, musicians are supposed to exist for your
convenience.

For you, of all people, to make these comments is callous and

hypocritical.

Yada, yada, yada.... ad hominum, as a last resort (or is that "retort"?)

always works... (i!) <--irony alert

That's a crap answer and you know it. I won't even address it.

"He who lives by the sword, etc..."

Exactly.

I don't sound like it right now, but I really do like you,
Bobby

I'm not on this earth to be liked :-)

Believe it,
Bobby

Bobby,
What I object to is the way over the top responses to the current paradigm. Mr. Simmons does not come across as a sympathetic figure in any way shape or form. I don't have the quotes in front of me, but his threats are simply heinous. Also someone mentioned that the daughters of the pirates should be raped, disgraced, and sent home in shame. This is just so out of context as to be shameful in itself!
Jim

Hi James,

Mr. Simmons does not come across as a sympathetic figure in any way shape or form. Idon't have the quotes in front of me, but his threats are simply heinous.

No, he's not. But I think it's about time someone took a stand. If it's him, then so be it. While the thought of him being any kind of a spokesman for musicians is, at the very least, ironic, the point to me is not about music or quality of music at all. It's about the right of those in the business to be protected by laws which are on the books. As I said, musicians take a huge risk with their lives to be in the business in the first place. If they fail (as most do) they end up pushing the proverbial hot-dog wagon.
I find any demeaning statements toward them wanting that which they've rightfully earned to be protected from thieves offensive.

As far as Simmon's threats being heinous is concerned, I disagree with you. He's been directly attacked, and we're not talking "chump change" that's at stake.

My goal is not to offend you or anyone else, Angelo included. I really do like him, and wish we had more strongly opinionated people like him on this list. I just felt his comments so strong as to be backed into a corner by them.

I Also someone mentioned that the daughters of the pirates should be raped, disgraced, and sent home in shame.

That was my comment. It was obviously meant to be facetious, and I'm sure most on the list saw it for that.

best wishes to you,
Bobby

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "JamesM" <jmings2003@...> wrote:

What I object to is the way over the top responses to the current paradigm. Mr. Simmons does not come across as a sympathetic figure in any way shape or form. I don't have the quotes in front of me, but his threats are simply heinous. Also someone mentioned that the daughters of the pirates should be raped, disgraced, and sent home in shame. This is just so out of context as to be shameful in itself!

Jim - I understand what your saying, and it's probably not the way you or I would say it!

But remember Gene Simmons's "Shtick" is glam hard rock/shock/make-up/outfits/sex.

The reason that the establishment media has picked it up the story is because of his reputation/image and because of the way he says it.

His response to the hackers is also refection of the hackers own juvenile, attention-seeking public statements.

I'm not up on this entire thread, but the general topic of piracy and the modern age of digital music fascinates me.

To begin with...I'm a physician, and music is a hobby. My opinion is probably irrelevant, and maybe I'm being presumptuous to even offer it. I respect those of you who earn your living in the music industry, and even if my opinion differs, I respect yours, and acknowledge that yours is certainly more informed than mine.

However....I think the angst concerning piracy of recorded music is something that musicians are simply going to have to "get over."

Copy-protection for digital music is a doomed effort. There will never be a bullet-proof way to prevent copying of digital files, and it's foolish to attempt to do so. I think it's best to re-conceptualize what the music industry really is, and go from there.

Technology is decried for destroying the business of selling recorded music, but the business only exists because of technology itself. The technology of being able to record music is so old that we take it for granted...but obviously, before good recording technology existed, there was no "record business" in which artists could make a living.

And the notion of "copyrighting" an individual performance of a piece of music didn't exist. There was no question WHO was performing a piece, because they were doing it right in front of your eyes.

So, the recording industry evolved because of technology.

Now, with the evolution of technology, the means of production and distribution of recorded music has changed drastically.

We simply have to accept that.

Recordings are nothing more than business cards. You can't sell your business cards; you must give them away.

The topic is more complicated than this, and there are many side issues to discuss, but this is what I believe.

A person who downloads a music file without paying a royalty may be considered a "pirate," I suppose, but to claim that this person is taking money from an artist's pocket is a stretch. Is there any way to know that the "pirate" would have bought the music, had a purchase been required in order to have access?

Clinging to the idea that one can earn a living - potentially a very, very good living - by selling recorded music is like starting a business selling accessories for typewriters. The focus should be on creating, marketing, and in general making money off the existing options for "free" digital music distribution.

Fascinating topic.

Hi Bobby,
I didn't see or hear anything even slightly funny about it. I looked up the word facetious a long time ago, and the definition I remember was "untimely humor." A man being gang banged in prison probably does see much humor in the situation, nor would a young woman being tortured find a lot to laugh about. Cruelty leads to more cruelty. I suppose a logical extension would be to lop off the left hand of the one who sends links to videos on youtube and lop off the right hand of one who posts music on a music forum. I thought the Inquisition ended way back when. Believe me Bobby, I considered a long time before posting my remarks. I was really hoping some else would respond to the cruelty and say "hey, I thought the penalty was supposed to fit the crime."
James

I pay a PRS fee for my give-away CDs, every juke
box has a titles counter for their fee.

Surely You tube could be made to pay a PRS
royalty fee split according to site visits.

Will

Alistair wrote:

Unfortunately you are missing a big chunk of the equation. The music was

not free, the radio stations paid for it.





John: That was in response to my writing:

We all used to get FREE music all the time!
It was a little thing called RADIO!

But Alistair I think you are "Cherry Picking" a little on my email. I said
that music was "free" to the listener and paid for by ADVERTISING. This is
the model I am suggesting for the internet.



Listeners did not PAY A FEE to listen to the radio. I was not saying that
the radio stations didn't pay. I said music had to be paid for and that USER
PAY is not the way to go.



Model one: British television. User pays a licensing fee to own a
television.



Model two: North American television: Programming is paid for by
advertising. (User "pays" with time spent watching said adverts).



As a kid I never BOUGHT any music. Not because I was cheap, but because I
didn't have any money. But I listened to a LOT of music, for "free".



Also, someone wrote that suing everyone all the time is the answer. But that
has led to a complete TRAVESTY of justice with the welfare mom who was sued
for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the six songs her 12 year old
downloaded.



I know they wanted to make an example of her. For me, however, it makes me
feel utterly unsympathetic to the music industry.





All the best, John





Reciprocity

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Has anyone ever heard this phrase ?




www.natjanoff.com

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Palmer" <rivmuse2@...> wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Unfortunately you are missing a big chunk of the equation. The music was

not free, the radio stations paid for it.

John: That was in response to my writing:

We all used to get FREE music all the time!
It was a little thing called RADIO!

But Alistair I think you are "Cherry Picking" a little on my email. I said
that music was "free" to the listener and paid for by ADVERTISING. This is
the model I am suggesting for the internet.

This is the current model, and it works now for those tracks that are legally uploaded. Unfortunately the majority of music is illegally uploaded. See comments below.

Listeners did not PAY A FEE to listen to the radio. I was not saying that
the radio stations didn't pay. I said music had to be paid for and that USER
PAY is not the way to go.



Model one: British television. User pays a licensing fee to own a
television.



Model two: North American television: Programming is paid for by
advertising. (User "pays" with time spent watching said adverts).



As a kid I never BOUGHT any music. Not because I was cheap, but because I
didn't have any money. But I listened to a LOT of music, for "free".



Also, someone wrote that suing everyone all the time is the answer. But that
has led to a complete TRAVESTY of justice with the welfare mom who was sued
for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the six songs her 12 year old
downloaded.

I agree with you. As you have read in ALL my previous post in the group you will have seen I agree with you that suing end-users is not the way forward.

But this is the issue....

Corporates such as Google/Youtube are making a profit through
advertising.

To drive people to the site where their advertisements are placed be it Youtube or File Lockers or Torrents, they need content that makes people visit.

Content is of two types:

1/ Legally uploaded content - the minority - content legally upload with permission from the rights holders such as a record company. On sites like Youtube they do pay royalties on this.

2/ Illegal uploaded content - the overwhelming majority - content which the people uploading do not have permission from the rights holders to upload, and therefore is illegal.

Illegal content forms the overwhelming majority of the content on the sites.

The fact is the majority illegally uploaded content helps drive traffic to the sites and increases their advertising revenue and profits.

If Google and the other sites had to pay royalties on ALL the content their business model would not work. It only works because they are not paying royalties. Their profits come from the fact the illegal content drives visitors to these sites. They use the mantra, "we only provide the technology, we are not responsible for the content".
The end result is that they are getting rich off the back of musicians, artists, etc...

Another previous post of mine has more details please watch the video in the link for more explanation:

Hi Jim,

I looked up the word facetious a long time ago, and the definition I remember was "untimely humor."

Well, then plug in the word "sarcastic" in its place.

I don't know who finds what funny or not, but I know that anyone who took the phrase literally could only have done so intentionally. Actually, the word which comes to my mind is "sad" - sad that the only problem some musicians have with this issue is the words someone parses to discuss it. The rest just isn't worthy of thought, apparently.

I'm wondering, actually, that if Good Ol' Angelo and I didn't "cat fight" about it, would any of the responses which were posted today have been posted. Angelo, I thank you for your forwardness and honesty. I don't agree with you by about 180-degrees quite often, but I can always count on your thoughtfulness and candor.

Alisdair, as always I thank you for having brought up what may be the most important issue facing musicians and the music business ever. When James Petrillo first organized musicians back in 1919, theft of works was common. Movie studios even blatantly pilfered lots of it for backing tracks of movies which made them fortunes, and the courts did little to protect even Stravinsky from it . Well, here we go again, it seems. You are knowledgeable and tireless in your desire to help your fellow musician, and you are an inspiration to me.

Dave, I truly hope you don't give up that fight, which as you say, you apparently have. It's not about crying in any beer, it's about trying to let other musicians who care about their art know they are not alone, and that music is a worthy profession. When you first began your struggle over the issue, you were a mouse fighting an elephant. You still may be, I dunno, but to concede to the geeks is not an answer, IMO.

I'm sure Gene Simmons could care a rat's ass over what other musicians face and how they face it, but I'm still glad he's out there taking on the fight, if only for himself. After all, if he doesn't care for himself, it's for sure (even from the responses I've seen from musicians on and not on this list) nobody else will.

best,
Bobby

In jazz_guitar@..., Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...> wrote:
Hi Jim,
snip
I don't know who finds what funny or not, but I know that anyone who
took the phrase literally could only have done so intentionally.
Actually, the word which comes to my mind is "sad" - sad that the only problem some musicians have with this issue is the words someone parses to discuss it. The rest just isn't worthy of thought, apparently.
snip
Bobby, excuse me for "cherry picking" your email. This is a new term to me, but I understand it very well.
Bobby, words matter to me. Surely you know by now that i have been out here laboring in the vineyards for a long time. I am not bitter; I have no regrets, I am not possessed by envy. I am not consumed by the "music business." I have learned to take care of me and mine. I am disappointed, man. Sarcastic, facetious, whatever your words were intended to be, they don't represent my feelings or intentions and i was obligated to say so.
Jim

Hi Jim,

Sarcastic, facetious, whatever your words were intended to be, they don't represent my feelings or intentions and i was obligated to say so.

And say so you did.

Look, Jim, it's not now,nor has it ever been, my intent to offend you. By way of explanation, and not apology (which I feel would be unwarranted), I'll tell you how I feel.

I honestly do not know what your idea of the music business is. From your posts in the past, I've gotten the impression that you feel that unless a musician is giving away all that he is for free, he is not somehow "spiritually minded", or something like that. As you found my sarcasm offensive, I find this so also.

True spirituality to me is that of humbleness toward God and toward fellow man. It means taking care of one's loved ones and family, and striving for fairness to all. And it involves giving.

But true giving is not something which is measured by a price tag or lack thereof. It means caring on a deeply personal level, and giving of self. I involve myself very dearly with helping those I love and those I feel I can help. On a professional level, I have probably taken on more students over the years who had no funds for free than any teacher in my area. I spend hours and hours of unscheduled time with all my students. This to me is representative of true spirituality - that which God gave to me I try to give back to His.

I share my arrangements of tunes with students, and am perfectly within the law to do so. I share my recordings with my most special of friends, and am still perfectly within the law to do so. These issues were resolved in the courts long ago.with the advent of Xerox machines, cassette tape recorders, and VCRs.

But I do not publish my transcriptions and arrangements over the Internet (and "publish" is the correct word for this type of mass distribution). When I do send someone a digital file by email, it is ALWAYS with the disclaimer that it is for their own personal use, and is not to be distributed over the Internet or passed on to anyone without my express consent, and, realizing how hard that is to enforce, I never send anything to anyone whose word to that effect I don't feel I can trust.

I do not publish files of myself playing materials of others on the Internet. That is not giving, it is stealing, and potentially taking away from profits they may have otherwise enjoyed. During the course of this thread, some have asked as to how much of a dent in their sales it would make and how it would do so. Well, I don't know, and neither do they - so I just don't do it, period. After all, people find every way imaginable to justify what it is they do.

I do not publish files of myself playing my own materials on the Internet because the courts have determined that once an artist does so, any copyright is null and void. In short, I don't steal from others, and I try to not let others steal from me. That may not be "spiritual" enough for you, but it is the reality of life.

If I am guilty of anything, it is of over-zealously desiring the success of my fellow musicians (my fellow professional musicians and students). I help them all I can. When I hire them, I always treat them fairly. And in discussions such as this, I always defend them vigorously.

I am not concerned with amateurs who take gigs for either free or "10-cents". Their egos are their own reward. I concern myself with the true artists out there who, like myself, take enormous risks with their lives to really try to do it right.

I've seen way too many of these wonderful people suffer the consequences of having been ripped off all too often. When they end up in the hospital without medical insurance, it is never those who have ripped-off their materials and uploaded them on the Internet who come to their rescue - so much for "the givers"; cest la vie. Twice in my own life I found myself hospitalized and within moments of death. Once with a blood clot in the lung, and once with pneumonia which had me on full respiratory life support for 5 days. Ask yourself if you think that doctors came in and offered me free medical treatment just for the sake of preserving my life - and, btw, nothing is more sacred than the preservation of life.

Are any of my words going to change what is happening on the Internet? Absolutely not, but they may help encourage someone out there who is getting his butt kicked royally by theft and uploads. I will say this, though - To all the "givers" who want to take the materials of others and publish their versions on the Internet, nothing is stopping you from setting up your own site for doing so, and from contacting the Harry Fox Agency to assure that you pay proper licensing fees for the privilege. I'm not holding my breath, but if you do this, then I will call you a "giver".

best,
Bobby

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...> wrote:
Look, Jim, it's not now, nor has it ever been, my intent to offend you. By way of explanation, and not apology (which I feel would be
unwarranted), I'll tell you how I feel.
I honestly do not know what your idea of the music business is. From
your posts in the past, I've gotten the impression that you feel that unless a musician is giving away all that he is for free, he is not somehow "spiritually minded", or something like that. As you found my sarcasm offensive, I find this so also.
Look Bobby, I don't know where you got this concept of me. As I have tried to tell you, I think we are brothers who speak different dialects.
I say black and you say white and vice versa. Never the twain shall meet. I appreciate the intensity and energy in your reply, but the rape the daughters crack was way out of line and someone needed to say so.
Jim