it's obvious that my discussion is being ignored as witnessed by the
following statements and replies. Further, others simply solve this issue
with "witty" and immature comments. Thus, I think this discussion serves
no purpose any longer (especially on the list). However, my original
intention was simply to open a forum for discussion as witnessed by the two
light and non-confrontational, if somewhat controversial emails I have
sent. However, others simply replied with more personal and bitter attacks
which walked around the issues with accusations which had nothing to do
with the topic of discussion. I would be happy to further this discussion
off-list, however, as it is a topic with much relevance as more revenues
are lost due to mp3s and new avenues for music distribution arise (finally
allowing the indies to finally take a large stake of the music market
without enormous marketing machine budgets. )This is a very complicated
issue and one worth discussion, and I am disappointed that some are so
quick to come to decisions without talking about things first. Further, I
never took one side or the other, I simply presented the other side because
I think it is an important issue which one (self-serving) conclusion should
be reach on immediately. I have no problem with responding to logical
arguments, but when the replies in a discussion are just plain silly and
evasive of the central point, things can get quite non-productive. I
didn't realize some people would take this so personally, for me it is just
an interesting topic of discussion and nothing more.
In the future I will only discuss how cute Isaac is.
--Teen Beat Fanclub Member #2884
1) I never claimed russ had the singles on mp3, just suggested that they
were available to download
me: "How many people didn't buy the singles comp because they already had
all the mp3 files?:
(my original query, which was not a statement and certainly not a specific
one pointing fingers)
you:
Philip: "If someone is downloading the
singles comp off of the internet, I don't think it's
from Russ, now is it? You're not going to find
domestically released songs on Russ's site, I'm
afraid."
(something you made into a point of contention, for no apparent reason
2) you supported the decision to distribute the mp3s of the jap tour ep,
which is what I am discussing, therefore there is an arguement, because I
believe it may not be the right of someone to distribute these at will
me:
"I think the sale of the japanese tour ep is OK personally, because it is
an official release that the modest mouse guy made money from. though I
appreciate the mp3s immensely, and agree with you about the boots, I think
this may be going too far. it's just a few steps away from saying "hey
don't bid on that interstate 8 cd! download it here....". And I do realize
it is different......but at the same time these are songs which may very
well be coming out in the US sometime soon, on the new album, or in another
format."
Philip: "I think it's excellent
that Russ put them up because not everyone had the
chance to buy them in the first place even if they had
the money."
3) you're stepping around my point, and my point is THE BAND HAS FREE WILL
AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO DECIDE TO PUT THE INK TO THE PAPER. THEY DON'T
HAVE TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH EPIC
Philip: "Well, Bill, you seem to be awfully knowledgeable about
the music business. Perhaps you could explain to me
the inherent exclusivity clause in the band's
contract."
me: "But back to the point---it's not as if Modest Mouse is a victim to
this major label. Don't forget they choose to sign with Epic. "
ie, I don't care about contracts etc. At its base level, the band's
relationship with its label and the public is determined by its own actions
primarily.
4) I never claimed to have knowledge about the public, I simply asked a
non-leading question to the list, and stated facts about several people I
know, and their actions, in an effort to get a more general consensus
through intelligent conversation, not name calling and insults.
Philip: "And maybe you could also explain to me exactly where
you get all of these cold hard facts about the
record-buying public."
me: "How many people didn't buy the singles comp because they already had
all the mp3 files? There are people, I can guarantee you, who did not buy
the singles comp because they had the files. I know at least three people
personally who didn't."
notice I did not say "there are many people" or "I know everyone on this
list didn't buy it" or "everyone in idaho didn't buy the singles comp
because they had mp3s" (to further this point, I don't think it's deniable
that there are instances on this list and on the usenet and other lists of
people either offering for sale or trade a cd-r of these singles)
5) there is no real comparison between full-length tracks (And usually ALL
of the tracks off a release) bootlegged onto cd-rs and the internet without
any input from the band, and cds from magazines which are optioned in at
the band's or label's desire (And sometimes even payed for in order to
appear on these cds). It's the difference between a demo of a game and a
full copy of a game.
6) you quite obviously claimed that the band and thus the public was a
victim of the label
Philip: "No one is claiming that Modest Mouse is a victim of a
major label except you"
Philip: "Well, that's exactly where the major label comes in.
Epic declared that they would no longer allow the sale
of the tour EP because some of the songs were/are/have
been re-recorded, and they didn't want anyone to
undermine the buying power of their newest signing.
There are publishing and copyright issues that Epic
felt the need to protect, and unfortunately that
screwed the general buying public (in the USA, at
least) out of this excellent collection of songs."
in so many words, you are saying that the reason for the licensing issues
is Epic. Again, I reiterate, that the band has control over this and they
are the ones who signed the contract.
-BILL
