Blogspots...

[Shawn]

I still find it a hypocritical belief that buying used CDs, DVDs or LPs...whether online or in a used store...is somehow "acceptable" where finding the exact same product on a blog is not. In neither case does the artist/label get any money for the item in question. Except for the one time it was purchased new of course.

I'm NOT saying that downloading copyrighted material is okay...I'm just saying that it's no different than acquiring the product at Half Price Books on Sunday afternoon. (except half price books doesn't get their 50% mark up)

If some of this stuff had any chance of being legally issued I'd happily buy it...there isn't any money to be made from it, so it most likely won't be. Does that mean it should just fade into oblivion? At least some of these artists can at least be remembered for their music online...they get 0% exposure sitting in a dusty bin in the back of a record store somewhere.

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

[Chuck Nessa]

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

The answer is: The download creates a new copy without anyone being paid for their work.

Not really that tough to figure out.

[Shawn]

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

The answer is: The download creates a new copy without anyone being paid for their work.

Not really that tough to figure out.

Could that "copy" be sold in the same format as the original? No. It's a degraded copy of a used vinyl album manufactured decades ago and no longer available for purchase. If the guy running the blog was SELLING this item, then I could buy your argument.

However, that's still not the point I was getting at, which is the moral implications of buying ANY used product.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Shawn

[Chuck Nessa]

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

The answer is: The download creates a new copy without anyone being paid for their work.

Not really that tough to figure out.

Could that "copy" be sold in the same format as the original? No. It's a degraded copy of a used vinyl album manufactured decades ago and no longer available for purchase. If the guy running the blog was SELLING this item, then I could buy your argument.

However, that's still not the point I was getting at, which is the moral implications of buying ANY used product.

No moral impilications of buying a used cd/lp/78/ect. - the royalites were paid for that sucker. Format is not the question, content is. The content has intellectual and property values, the format is another question.

[Shawn]

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

The answer is: The download creates a new copy without anyone being paid for their work.

Not really that tough to figure out.

Could that "copy" be sold in the same format as the original? No. It's a degraded copy of a used vinyl album manufactured decades ago and no longer available for purchase. If the guy running the blog was SELLING this item, then I could buy your argument.

However, that's still not the point I was getting at, which is the moral implications of buying ANY used product.

No moral impilications of buying a used cd/lp/78/ect. - the royalites were paid for that sucker. Format is not the question, content is. The content has intellectual and property values, the format is another question.

Okay, I can see that.

Guess someone should be calculating the interest level of items available on these blogs, so that information could be passed onto the record label morons running the reissue departments...which of course still wouldn't be a big enough drop in the bucket for them to put the effort into releasing either a digital or physical copy of said intellectual property.

Which takes us back to either searching used bins for 20 years trying to find a copy of something...or buying a used copy on eBay for a fortune...or downloading the thing off one of these sites. The artist-label-publishers-manufacturers still won't make a dime off any of the above scenarios.

[JSngry]

But Chuck, said "value" of said content is a relative, not absolute, thing, isn't it?

And might not the value of a Freddie Robinson World Pacific side actually be, ultimately, increased by keeping it "in circulation" long enough and visibly enough to the point where some buzz is created?

And is not that value ultimately decreased by its owners by allowing it to sink into obscurity (assuming of course, that they even know that they own it, and that it might be capable of generating a buzz).

Granted, owners have the right to do what they want with their property, including waste/destroy it, but it seems to me that if one is going to argue the concept of "value" as being that of an asset to protect, then one must look at all the potential ways to create, maintain, and benefit from same. And "digital reality" does reframe the paradigm (is a paradigm is in fact something to be framed, and hell if I know whether or not it is...). The "legalities" are still rooted in an analog paradigm, but to what end? To what effect? And to whose benefit? There are no consistently easy or "right" answers to this issue, not that I can see, not at this juncture.

Interesting times, these are...

Edited July 27, 2008 by JSngry

[marcello]

Guess someone should be calculating the interest level of items available on these blogs, so that information could be passed onto the record label morons running the reissue departments...which of course still wouldn't be a big enough drop in the bucket for them to put the effort into releasing either a digital or physical copy of said intellectual property.

Which takes us back to either searching used bins for 20 years trying to find a copy of something...or buying a used copy on eBay for a fortune...or downloading the thing off one of these sites. The artist-label-publishers-manufacturers still won't make a dime off any of the above scenarios.

In the near future all past recorded media will be available for download ( in Hi Res.), the the owners and copyright holders will be paid. They will use a format like the one Media Guide uses ( and Media Guide is owned by ASCAP) to digitally monitor downloads/plays, to determine compensation.

[Chuck Nessa]

My experience is the "bloggers" have little interest in the details. One of the most popular sites, where one of our most active members is a contributor, offered Laury Pepper's cds within a month of issue. Most Mosaics are offered there and they make a big deal about demanding "thanks and appreciation" for their efforts. They complain about "trolls" when owners have downloads removed.

I have spent my life recording the best music I can and went more than broke in the process. So - some of them are not available yet and they seem to be "fair game" for "fans" wanting the sounds. Eight years ago I was $300,000 in debt and never copped out. I paid my bills and have started issuing cds of the music. Currently at least half of my cd catalog is up for download and those are only on sites I'm aware of.

In the next couple of months I will issue 4 cds and before next year is over, my entire catalog will be available. I am sure the new versions will be offered on any number of blogs.

I go into these reissues knowing I will lose money but it is important to me to get the stuff out there in the best versions possible (with the artist's participation).

So, any of you "downloaders" send money to musicians, composers, etc. Folks like me do.

Sorry if you want something and it isn't available NOW and FREE.

[JSngry]

My experience is the "bloggers" have little interest in the details. One of the most popular sites, where one of our most active members is a contributor, offered Laury Pepper's cds within a month of issue. Most Mosaics are offered there and they make a big deal about demanding "thanks and appreciation" for their efforts. They complain about "trolls" when owners have downloads removed.

I have spent my life recording the best music I can and went more than broke in the process. So - some of them are not available yet and they seem to be "fair game" for "fans" wanting the sounds. Eight years ago I was $300,000 in debt and never copped out. I paid my bills and have started issuing cds of the music. Currently at least half of my cd catalog is up for download and those are only on sites I'm aware of.

In the next couple of months I will issue 4 cds and before next year is over, my entire catalog will be available. I am sure the new versions will be offered on any number of blogs.

I go into these reissues knowing I will lose money but it is important to me to get the stuff out there in the best versions possible (with the artist's participation).

So, any of you "downloaders" send money to musicians, composers, etc. Folks like me do.

Sorry if you want something and it isn't available NOW and FREE.

Fair enough. That is indeed part of this complicated equation, a very real part.

Now, once you get all your shit out, can you go to work on the other owners of materials, the ones who have no clue or interest in their holdings?

It goes without saying that you are an honorable man doing the right thing, and I know that I and any number of others treat you and your catalog with the respect that you and it deserve, precisely because you continue to demonstrate the integrity to command that respect.

But you are not norm, sadly.

And on the other side of the equation, the bloggers that really kill me are the ones who basically upload the entire Dusty Groove inventory, a big bunch of which consists of licensed (hopefully...) reissues put out precisely to offer legitimate copies of rare material that has created a buzz.

That ain't gonna work...

[Shawn]

In the near future all past recorded media will be available for download ( in Hi Res.), the the owners and copyright holders will be paid. They will use a format like the one Media Guide uses ( and Media Guide is owned by ASCAP) to digitally monitor downloads/plays, to determine compensation.

Good, I'm looking forward to that day.

[Chuck Nessa]

Never mind.

[Shawn]

So, any of you "downloaders" send money to musicians, composers, etc. Folks like me do.

Sorry if you want something and it isn't available NOW and FREE.

Don't count me amongst the people that demand music for FREE, I want the rightful people to get their fair share. But the shit has to be available for that to happen.

I applaud your efforts for continuing to work to make your catalog available!

[papsrus]

My experience is the "bloggers" have little interest in the details. One of the most popular sites, where one of our most active members is a contributor, offered Laury Pepper's cds within a month of issue. Most Mosaics are offered there and they make a big deal about demanding "thanks and appreciation" for their efforts. They complain about "trolls" when owners have downloads removed.

I have spent my life recording the best music I can and went more than broke in the process. So - some of them are not available yet and they seem to be "fair game" for "fans" wanting the sounds. Eight years ago I was $300,000 in debt and never copped out. I paid my bills and have started issuing cds of the music. Currently at least half of my cd catalog is up for download and those are only on sites I'm aware of.

In the next couple of months I will issue 4 cds and before next year is over, my entire catalog will be available. I am sure the new versions will be offered on any number of blogs.

I go into these reissues knowing I will lose money but it is important to me to get the stuff out there in the best versions possible (with the artist's participation).

So, any of you "downloaders" send money to musicians, composers, etc. Folks like me do.

Sorry if you want something and it isn't available NOW and FREE.

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener) and it's commercial purpose (to earn money for the artist). Those who see no problem in acquiring OOP music for free because there's no other way to acquire it are seeking to fulfill the first purpose. Those who would argue that doing so ultimately undermines the artist are seeking to fulfill the second purpose.

I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile the two. Listeners may simply have to choose for themselves which is more important. I have to come down on the side of the artist. If grabbing this music for free undermines the efforts of people such as yourself in some way, it's not worth it, is it?

[JSngry]

No Chuck, let's do mind, because I know where you're coming from, at least as much as somebody like me can know what it's like to be up against what it is you've been up against almost your entire adult life.

But let's be honest - what "value" is there to be accrued from a catalog item that was obscure in the first place and has only gotten more obscure with the passage of time, and whose owners probably don't see it as having any marketable value now or possibly ever, or quite possibly don't even know that they own it. You know that this is also a reality, you know the reality of the business as its evolved towards more and more "corporate holdings" and less and less about "musical catalogs". How is this shit supposed to stay alive unless somebody does rescue work.

In the past, I've heard you speak of Jerry Valburn in unequivocally equivocal terms, that yeah, sleazy cat, but he also saved some gems for all of us to get to, so let's just let it be what it is and leave it there. That seems perfectly right to me.

Never mind the vulgarians out there, of which there are an uncountable many. It also seems that the best of these blogs (and I only know of a handful that qualify) fall into the same category, and merit at least the same equivocality. They might well be proving to be the Valburns of our time.

Edited July 27, 2008 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

You probably misunderstand Valburn or my attitude about him. He wound up destroying or losing more than was "saved".

I guess I should not expect anyone to get it. My fault.

[JSngry]

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener) and it's commercial purpose (to earn money for the artist). Those who see no problem in acquiring OOP music for free because there's no other way to acquire it are seeking to fulfill the first purpose. Those who would argue that doing so ultimately undermines the artist are seeking to fulfill the second purpose.

I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile the two. Listeners may simply have to choose for themselves which is more important. I have to come down on the side of the artist. If grabbing this music for free undermines the efforts of people such as yourself in some way, it's not worth it, is it?

Well, aside from thinking that the primary commercial purpose of music is to "earn money for the artist" (when has the primary purpose of any business been to earn money for labor instead of for ownership? And I say that with no animus whatsoever.) I think this is a false dichotomy which you set up. No, not false. Incomplete.

Incomplete because there are listeners such as myself who are interested in recordings for more than simple "entertainment". We want to study the music, the sociology, the...thing around and within the music. And we do spend money, lots of it, on legit product, including (especially including) legit releases that we have first encountered elsewhere (including the old "mix tapes" from long ago). When I do download, it's not to "get some cool shit for free". It's because an opportunity has presented itself to explore something that I, for whatever reason, consider relevant that would not, as of this juncture, been available elsewhere, for reasons completely outside my control. I do feel an obligation to download ethically, and I do feel an obligation to "follow through" as appropriate. And if I am not in the majority now, I ask you this - when was I ever in the majority?

Railing against the internet and what it has spawned will not create higher ethics. It';s happened, it's here, and barring some global reign of totalitarian oafishness, it ain't gonna go away.

Higher ethics will create higher ethics, and the first step towards that is recognizing reality, not denying it.

[JSngry]

I guess I should not expect anyone to get it. My fault.

No, I think I get it, at least some of it. You built your life on one set of realities & principles, and now, almost overnight, they ain't there anymore, and they seemingly ain't coming back.

I get that, and know that it's gotta be a kick in the nuts, to put it mildly.

I'm just not sure what you or I or anybody can do to change it. Which is yet another, harder, kick in the nuts.

If I was God, you'd be set. But I'm not.

[papsrus]

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener) and it's commercial purpose (to earn money for the artist). Those who see no problem in acquiring OOP music for free because there's no other way to acquire it are seeking to fulfill the first purpose. Those who would argue that doing so ultimately undermines the artist are seeking to fulfill the second purpose.

I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile the two. Listeners may simply have to choose for themselves which is more important. I have to come down on the side of the artist. If grabbing this music for free undermines the efforts of people such as yourself in some way, it's not worth it, is it?

Well, aside from thinking that the primary commercial purpose of music is to "earn money for the artist" (when has the primary purpose of any business been to earn money for labor instead of for ownership? And I say that with no animus whatsoever.) I think this is a false dichotomy which you set up. No, not false. Incomplete.

Incomplete because there are listeners such as myself who are interested in recordings for more than simple "entertainment". We want to study the music, the sociology, the...thing around and within the music. And we do spend money, lots of it, on legit product, including (especially including) legit releases that we have first encountered elsewhere (including the old "mix tapes" from long ago). When I do download, it's not to "get some cool shit for free". It's because an opportunity has presented itself to explore something that I, for whatever reason, consider relevant that would not, as of this juncture, been available elsewhere, for reasons completely outside my control. I do feel an obligation to download ethically, and I do feel an obligation to "follow through" as appropriate. And if I am not in the majority now, I ask you this - when was I ever in the majority?

Railing against the internet and what it has spawned will not create higher ethics. It';s happened, it's here, and barring some global reign of totalitarian oafishness, it ain't gonna go away.

Higher ethics will create higher ethics, and the first step towards that is recognizing reality, not denying it.

I hear you. And I'm not doubting there are fuzzy lines here. But ... for the vast majority of those downloading this music, I would assume it is for their listening pleasure, not study. And in any case, one might make the argument that there is little distinction between the two in the end.

[JSngry]

Here's a blog: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/

Charming, ain't it? Harmless, right?

Absolutely.

And the gap between this type stuff and so much LP-era recorded music is how much? And narrowing how rapidly?

Edited July 27, 2008 by JSngry

[AllenLowe]

CHuck - how about the Jazz record Mart? He's selling plenty of stuff that falls withing the realm of the questionable-

[connoisseur series500]

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener)

I am not a musician but I've been an artist in other endeavors. I'm pretty sure that this is not the primary purpose of music, unless you are a pretty vapid musician. The primary purpose of art in general resides in personal issues with the artist himself. Artists make art for themselves. It's great if others end up appreciating it, but we make music, or paint pictures, or write books, or create chess games for ourselves primarily.

But then I'm being picky here.

[Dan Gould]

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener)

I am not a musician but I've been an artist in other endeavors. I'm pretty sure that this is not the primary purpose of music, unless you are a pretty vapid musician. The primary purpose of art in general resides in personal issues with the artist himself. Artists make art for themselves. It's great if others end up appreciating it, but we make music, or paint pictures, or write books, or create chess games for ourselves primarily.

But then I'm being picky here.

Have to disagree with you there, Paul. For any musician who's work is being downloaded, financial motivations had a lot to do with their chosen field. Of course they are being creative and expressing what is inside, but they're also doing it because in most instances, they've found that this is the way they want to make a living. And that starts with providing enjoyment to their listeners.

[connoisseur series500]

Are you telling me, Dan, that people become musicians for financial reasons? Surely this can't be true.

As for those who might do so, there's little chance I would be interested in their music. That's Hannah Montana stuff, no?

[Dan Gould]

Are you telling me, Dan, that people become musicians for financial reasons? Surely this can't be true.

As for those who might do so, there's little chance I would be interested in their music. That's Hannah Montana stuff, no?

There's a difference between financial reasons of "getting rich" and financial reasons of "getting paid to do what I love to do and am good at doing".

How many musicians have told stories about being 13 or 14 or 18 and getting paid to play for the first time, and how it changed their view of what they wanted to do? And a large part of that becomes sustaining an audience by creating music that appeals to them.

I really don't think its that difficult or off base. Artists can be motivated by more than just what is inside yearning to find expression.

[Dan Gould]

Furthermore, I feel safe in asserting that the latter motivation is what keeps Jim, Joe and Randy working toward their dream.