AC/DC: Music for people who still think repeating the word “Balls” is funny. Not even worth spite-downloading like we used to do with Metallica songs.
The Mossy Spaniard |
May 9th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
^this. I had a conversation about this the other day:
-“Dude, you can’t tell me Angus Young isn’t a badass!”
-“Yeah, I can. He plays three notes over and over with a funny outfit on. Now John McLaughlin, THAT’s a badass.”
“AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available for Download; Rest of Internet Laughs.”
What is it — “oh, ha ha ha, we’ll just infringe your copyrights instead”? Like: “We know you invested your lives’ work into this stuff under a good-faith understanding with society that you would have rights to your intellectual property, but hey… fuck good faith. We’ve decided to just steal your stuff, and that makes us laugh.”
that public “good faith” stuff is for the bull. You put music out to make become famous. These days music doesn’t even constitute the majority of sales though since CD’s are cheaper then they’ve ever been and digital storage makes purchasing songs in higher demand then ever with plenty of “supply” to meet that demand. Today it is more lucrative to give your music away for free. It makes you more popular and therefor increases the likelihood that someone will purchase a shirt at an increased price. Take Nike for instance, their shoes aren’t much better then the next good brand but their brand symbol gives them a higher demand, but the supply remains the same so the price increases to reflect this. Bands intellectual property needs protection from other bands stealing their material. Not from their fans getting it for free. These people don’t brand it a different band and try to resell it. They simply want it to enjoy. All fledgling bands know that if you want to make money in the industry you have to go big, but AC/DC is already big so they don’t think they have to worry about it. Smaller bands get excited when someone has listened to their music. Bigger bands get upset that they don’t see your money. Is their property that intellectual if they made it just to turn a dime at the expense of their fans? Even now in an age when it can be copied at the press of a button? Do you think that there is a system that can cheaply defend bands from this action?
That’s whats so funny. How are you going to stop it? Even people who don’t “steal” music know this is an impossible task. At least impossible without infringing on any of our other rights… like privacy. Is it funny to you that AC/DC would put money behind an effort to get the federal government the right to view all your comings and goings be it on your phone or computer just to stop you from downloading their 10 cent song for free?
God, I don’t even know where to begin to respond to your non sequitur-riddled, red herring-laden, strawman-infested, paragraph-ignoring “argument.”
Devil's Advocate |
May 9th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Yeah, the last thing we need is a shitload of people buying our albums.
The Mossy Spaniard |
May 10th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Point taken, but I think reducing rock and roll to a three-chord, image-based entity falls short of recognizing rock’s background and its artistic (barf) significance. I was just saying that, for me, musical badassery is rooted in great musicianship, which is a quality that kind of faded from rock and roll in the decades after its advent.
Maybe Chuck Berry would have been a better illustration than a jazz-fusion guitarist.
Thomas D, perhaps you should go read the article. It’s not about piracy, which AC/DC couldn’t stop if they tried. It’s that AC/DC won’t even *SELL* their songs via download. You know, the way the majority of music sales are done now. The article points out that this is stupid, because to not even give people the chance to buy your CD through their preferred means pushes them to either not listen to your work (and therefore not be interested), to go out of their way to buy a CD, for maybe the first time in years, or to illegally download it, which is barely out of their way.
Now, the band is claiming that this isn’t being done because of piracy issues, but because they want people to listen to the whole album as a single work. But even their CD has multiple tracks. If they want it to be a single work, they could master CD’s as a single track, or sell the whole album as a single downloadable track.
So essentially, it’s like Marty says above: “old people logic”
And by not making it even available by digital download, they make the same stupid mistake that game companies and movie studios make with copy protection and authentication: They make the legit acquisition and use of their work harder and less satisfying than piracy. When you make legit use so difficult and annoying, it makes it so that pirates have a better experience with your content. You *reward* people for piracy. It’s this stupid, shortsighted, and anti-consumer thinking that makes people irrelevant.
It’s not just the three notes it’s the space between those three notes. AC/DC has some of the greatest riffs EVER! John McLaughlin is pretty badass, though.
The Mossy Spaniard |
May 10th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
OK, I will concede that Malcolm Young is a balls-out riff machine. Plus, his signature guitar is amazingly nice.
I should add that AC/DC’s earliest work is authentically bluesy and quite good. They had some nice under-the-radar album cuts in the 80’s, too (I still think “Fly on the Wall” is a solid album). But I’m sure you can understand why my opinion of them has soured over the years.
You don’t know how to respond because there isn’t one. And since there are two paragraphs that point is moot. Straw-man argument? how does it fail to hold up? You can’t just look at an argument and crush is based on anything but it’s merits and expect to be taken seriously. You put words in the mouth of an entire people, and then you ignored their arguments by putting them off with special words that prove nothing but your opinion of what was said.
I was hoping for an intellectual response from someone ready for a debate about music sharing on the internet. At least that’s what I was talking about. Was it what you were talking about? Because that would then make it non sequitur. I’m pretty sure I didn’t just try to change the subject.
When a response starts this way — “that public ‘good faith’ stuff is for the bull. You put music out to make become famous” — it might as well say, “Hey, just don’t bother with this one.”
I’ve been debating about “music sharing on the Internet” for 12 years. It long ago became easy to spot which arguments are worth engaging and which are just-don’t-bother. That’s not to say your points aren’t valid. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I just know when a fight is worth fighting.
Much like JK Rowling and her refusal to allow ebook editions of her work. I was so disappointed that my son actually asked me to read him Harry Potter for his next bedtime story, but when I hit the kindle store to buy a copy, I found there weren’t any electronic editions available of her work. I mentioned this to some of my friends and within 3 hours had mobi editions of every single one of her books for free – which I would have happily purchased if she’d given me the opportunity to do so. I think I’m going to read him the Chronicles of Narnia instead, in protest.
I’ve got the same amount of time debating file sharing on the internet and I have only found one argument not worth spending any time on. The one where all you have is a greedy jerk who wants to rip someone off.
I never proposed “stealing” music was a good thing. I proposed that bands giving it away is, and that any band not joining in the free sharing of their music in this day and age is not getting that advantage. That is why their popularity has been failing to rise.
There is no winner or looser to a debate of any sort unless you just insist on not participating. The whole point of a debate is to shape public opinion, and if any point is to be considered a winner then it’s the one that stands one top at the end of the day. Time, technology, society, and many other factors can change that.
Thomas D., 99% of rock bands don’t own their own music, the record company does. So when you buy your favorite CD, the record company rakes in all the bucks and the band gets a dime (if they even negotiated THAT good of a deal) for every copy sold. The only bands who own everything is the scant few like the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd. If you remember, Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog and McCartney was pissed about it.