[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

Félix Robles redeadlink at gmail.com
Thu Oct 29 11:11:00 CET 2009

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Christian Hufgard <pp at christian-hufgard.de
> wrote:

> > And you are wrong, it's crosspromoting live concerts with music
> recordings
> > that does not pay off - unless you are "at the top of the charts". Only
> > very famous and already rich musicians earn a considerable part of their
> > money from records, 99% of musicians live out of live concerts.
> Can you give and evidence to that figures? Or do you just guess them,
> because they proof the way to consume music?

I won't give any evidence to those figures, but they are true and you know
it. How many people work as musicians? How many sell records? How many of
those who sell their records get a fair share? How many of those who sell
records sell enough to make a living of that money? How many of those
musicians earn more money through records than through live concerts? Do you
know that  LPs were used first as a means to promote musicians? I advise you
to search for the answer to all those questions.

And yes I made out the 99% figure, I don't know the exact figure, that's not
important, it's just a veeryy big percentage.

> >> > Normally, when I download music, I download the whole discography. And
> >> if
> >> > I like them and they come to visit us I go to their concert. Then they
> >> > earn enough money to pay the producers of their next album.
> >>
> >> And you really believe, that visiting a single concert can fully
> >> compensate downloading the whole discography?
> >
> > They should be glad I wanted to listen to them and invest my time and
> ears
> > on them, there's nothing I have to compensate.
> You are using your pure consumer's force to get something, you are not
> willing to pay for. I hope, that you never get interested in my car... Or
> should I be glad, if you drive it for me?

Can your car be copied with zero cost? Is your car a cultural product?

> > I am just freely accessing to culture.
> And the way you do it, you make it pretty less interesting for artists to
> "produce" new "culture".
> That's why there was no music before copyright was invented, I suppose?

> > I'm not making artists lose any money because if I couldn't get
> > their music from the internet for free, I would not buy their music, and
> > it's because I download their music that, perhaps, maybe, at least I
> > consier to go to one of their concerts.
> You're a pretty noble guy. I think every artist should be really really
> glad, if you listen to his music. So do you regulary visit concerts? Or
> are you just a cultural parasite, consuming what others peoples pay for?

So when I go to the public library and pay 0 cents for reading a book I'm a
cultural parasite too?

> > If at this moment you are considering my arguments are crazy, reconsider
> > that, because those arguments have been good enouh for my country, Spain.
> > Here it is legal to share copyrighted products (except for sotware) like
> > movies, music or books if you don't do it for profit.
> I know that spain is pretty relaxed in private copies. But why is software
> excluded?
> I agree with David Arcos's answer: music/video came first, and
software/games came much more later (different laws)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091029/51b97652/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list