KVR Audio

laputa_sync · Post by **laputa_sync** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:35 am

When I run the world i will make music free or not or whatever depending on this poll.
Or ill just sleep as much as i want and get fat...

morelia · Post by **morelia** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:39 am

And those who make it should be treated like gods for providing the soundtrack to our lives at no cost. In other words, only if I can have whatever I want at no cost.

xsub · Post by **xsub** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:39 am

It's like anything else, some people decide to profit off of that particular industry, is that wrong?.. Not in my opinion.

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:41 am

There's no option of free choice.As in i want to decide for myself wether my music should be free or not.
And no fish option either.(Very important around here for some reason.Don't ask me why).

laputa_sync · Post by **laputa_sync** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:04 am

i did add a fish option but its gone somewhere else i suppose...
free choice isnt an option. i think.

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:12 am

If it was free to make, e.g - took no time and took no investment, then yeah, sure, make it free. Overall it should always always always be down to the creator at what cost and how it's distributed.

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:16 am

I think everything should be free and the people who don't want to work at anything can live off of the people who work like good leeches until working people get fed up and cut them off and there is a big war for the freedom of the people who don't want to work and their right to be leeches and if the leeches win (how, I don't know because they don't like working and war is work, or hell, or something) then they will have to work because the workers were all killed in the war, so they commit suicide instead of having to work and....

stevieb19 · Post by **stevieb19** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:19 am

If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:26 am

stevieb19 wrote:If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.

Quite a difference though. If I'd hire a musician to compose music for me I don't see why I wouldn't have to pay, because it takes up his time. Making digital copies does not and has virtually no cost per copy. Hence the today oh so lively debate. It's not really as simple as "everyone should have the right to get paid for their work", because making the copies is really no work for the one who made the original. The end users seems to be more than happy to do this for him, most of the time. It's an infected and conviction filled subject. It is also important to remember that our current copyright based business are here because of the copyright laws, not vice versa.

Working in a copyright based industry is interesting these days, to say the least

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:26 am

stevieb19 wrote:If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.

BAM! (yes)
M@

Ildon · Post by **Ildon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:36 am

stevieb19 wrote:If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.

That's the way I see it. If you want to release your music free... cool... I've done a crapload of volunteer work myself, but I don't see what the difference is between selling your music and selling a piece of furniture you made. My father was a wood worker and carpenter and made a good living from it, and I'll tell you what - it's no less an artform than music. I never thought money tainted music. Greed can taint music, though, and there's a big difference between the two and I think a lot of people make the mistake of lumping the two together.

stevieb19 · Post by **stevieb19** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:41 am

stefancrs wrote:
stevieb19 wrote:If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.
Quite a difference though. If I'd hire a musician to compose music for me I don't see why I wouldn't have to pay, because it takes up his time. Making digital copies does not and has virtually no cost per copy. Hence the today oh so lively debate. It's not really as simple as "everyone should have the right to get paid for their work", because making the copies is really no work for the one who made the original. The end users seems to be more than happy to do this for him, most of the time. It's an infected and conviction filled subject. It is also important to remember that our current copyright based business are here because of the copyright laws, not vice versa.

Working in a copyright based industry is interesting these days, to say the least

I think your missing my point.

The price of digital copies is irrelevant it's only a media end product. It's the time and effort of the artists, studio staff, promotion etc. It's these people who should be paid.

Apologies if I misread your point.

Cryogenic · Post by **Cryogenic** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:44 am

stefancrs wrote:
stevieb19 wrote:If you were a plumber or a carpenter would you provide your service free of charge??

I think not, therefore why should music be any different. It takes time effort and knowledge to make it just the same.
Quite a difference though. If I'd hire a musician to compose music for me I don't see why I wouldn't have to pay, because it takes up his time. Making digital copies does not and has virtually no cost per copy. Hence the today oh so lively debate. It's not really as simple as "everyone should have the right to get paid for their work", because making the copies is really no work for the one who made the original. The end users seems to be more than happy to do this for him, most of the time. It's an infected and conviction filled subject. It is also important to remember that our current copyright based business are here because of the copyright laws, not vice versa.

Working in a copyright based industry is interesting these days, to say the least

Now think again.
Digital copy or not.
You are also stealing the experience, emotion, effort etc., you get out of that copy. You don't have the right to that.

Hovmod · Post by **Hovmod** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:47 am

I think music should be free for listeners, and provide a nice income for the artists.

farlukar · Post by **farlukar** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:58 am

What jupiter8 said.
So, WIPO: fish

KVR Audio

Should Music Be FREE????

Should Music Be FREE????