Upcoming shows professionally recorded! Options

[Pokey]

No offense, but do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I want a Porsche. I do. But I also can't afford one. So I will steal one from the dealership because it's not fair that I can't have a Porsche and I want one.

Here is a little lesson in property law.

There is real property. That's real estate.

There is personal property. That is stuff like chairs and tables and paintings.

There is intangible property. That is stuff like brokerage accounts and stocks and bonds.

There is intellectual property. Those are things like patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
TGF owns intellectual property when they create and perform music. They own the publishing rights to the songs. They own their image and likeness. They own the band logo. They own the recordings. That is their property. Just because you can't take it from a shelf and walk out of a store with it doesn't make it any less property. And taking it for free doesn't make it any less stealing. THIS IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT WITH ED KOWALCZYK! Think about for a second! You can't call Ed a dick for what he did with the publishing rights and secret publishing contracts and selling performances of Live songs on his website without paying royalties to the owners (the rest of the band) and say that was wrong, and then a few weeks later steal copyrighted music from The Gracious Few because you want it and you can't afford to pay for it. You are doing the same damn thing that Ed did. You are stealing property. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it. That's how the sale of property works.

I'm sure this comes across as harsh. And for that, I am really sorry. But I just want to get my point across strongly.

Sorry dude I didn't read all that after you started talking about stealing cars, it's just not that big of a deal and I'm not gonna bother arguing about it since we obviously have differing opinions. I respect that you are morally right, but I'm ok with that. All I'll say is this is a small scale where 5-6 people who have BOUGHT their copies of the album are sharing it with each other. Have you never burnt a CD you bought for a friend? It's not so that hundreds of people can get access to without having contributed anything themselves. It's not like downloading a leaked album. I think you're blowing the whole thing way out of proportion.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Nov 23 2010, 6:46 pm

[FishOutaWater]

Sorry dude I didn't read all that after you started talking about stealing cars, it's just not that big of a deal and I'm not gonna bother arguing about it since we obviously have differing opinions. I respect that you are morally right, but I'm ok with that. All I'll say is this is a small scale where 5-6 people who have BOUGHT their copies of the album are sharing it with each other. Have you never burnt a CD you bought for a friend? It's not so that hundreds of people can get access to without having contributed anything themselves. It's not like downloading a leaked album. I think you're blowing the whole thing way out of proportion.

I realize that I may have gotten carried way. I just know a little about intellectual property and I am pretty clear cut with my views on the subject, and I guess I can get carried away and lecture sometimes. We'll agree to disagree. Sorry to hassle you.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Nov 23 2010, 8:22 pm

[jayda]

I'm not getting into the whole stealing music thing but they are a little pricey don't you think? $20? Their album was only US$11.00.

I still wish it was downloads.

[Pokey]

I don't really think it's that pricey for a one off show really. They seem like a bit of a specialty item afterall. Just pricey if you get 8.
I wish they were downloads too, or at least samples.
Like I said I'd probably only buy the one show like I did with Ed's acoustic stuff after I bought single songs from each show and determind which one I liked best. With this you won't know until you've bought one and had it shipped. Because they're being made and mixed on the fly I'm guessing whilst none would be bad quality, they could still differ quite a bit from show to show. Being done on the fly means any show problems like bad sound or voice problems or whatever really would be captured. So you can order and have a show shipped and find out only later you picked the worst of 8 shows which are only limited edition. With a live album or studio album you know there is only one version and it will be made sure there are (or shouldn't be) any mistakes. So I think there is an element of risk with this, not much .. but still. Still, they're at least being made which is something awesome!

[live2cd]

my order for San Diego was $26 something with shipping + tax. For 2 CD-R's, lol.... this is why Im not buying any others. Hopefully they give it their all in SD and there are no technical problems!

[PurdueSteve]

No offense, but do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I want a Porsche. I do. But I also can't afford one. So I will steal one from the dealership because it's not fair that I can't have a Porsche and I want one.

Here is a little lesson in property law.

There is real property. That's real estate.

There is personal property. That is stuff like chairs and tables and paintings.

There is intangible property. That is stuff like brokerage accounts and stocks and bonds.

There is intellectual property. Those are things like patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
TGF owns intellectual property when they create and perform music.

Fish, I understand where you are coming from and I really don't disagree with you. I recently recorded a podcast (it's a political show) where me and my anarchist co-host discussed the validity of intellectual property. I was pro-IP and he was not. I find this to be a fascinating subject, one that I can't really delve into an it's entirety or with enough background to convince anyone here otherwise.

I will say however, that you're attempting to make a moral statement from a perspective of law. The law does not equal morality. Morality does not equal law. At one point in time it was illegal to help slaves through the underground railroad, that didn't make it immoral.

Intellectual property, as executed in this country and backed by our corrupt governments, is significantly flawed. Just recently facebook was granted (or filed, can't remember) trademarks for "Poke", "Face" and other terms. So something being trademark, copyright or other forms of IP doesn't necessarily make for the validity of true property ownership. The engineering blueprints, schematics and R&D data for a Porsche are largely different than having certain rights to the terms "face" and "poke" and their utilization within social media.

That being said I think everyone should support TGF. I've purchased their album (I did download it "illegally" a few days before it was released simply because I wanted to hear it), however I see nothing wrong with downloading music to sample it. Taking the recent audience recordings that were posted here from the Ohio shows. I would be inclined to not purchase some tracks, particularly "Crying Time" because some woman was screaming incredibly off-key during the bridge that kind of ruins the track as a recording (I didn't really even notice it at the show).

Other advantages to a relaxation of intellectual property, taken from radioheads radical approach, is that the value of an album isn't fixed to every person. I don't care for Nickelback, I won't pay $10, $5 or even $1 for their album, however I'd download it and hold it in my collection so that someone who is a fan, who has purchased rights to their music, can enjoy their work from my system while visiting me over the holiday weekend. With all the hassles DRM, Apple and other modes of music portability have engaged, it can be cumbersome for someone who has purchased the rights to the media to actual playback the media.

I find that in this day and age, despite my internet wit and ability to get nearly an damn album I want for free, I find that I'm exclusively listening to a handful of albums that I adore and that I've paid for. Why is that? Is it because of morals or the law?

edit: I also think it's very loose to call it "stealing". Stealing implies that someone else owns my harddrive or other mediums of data storage and have a say in how it can be used. Stealing as a term is reserved for the taking of something from someone else, effectively taking it from their possession. If I take your Porsche you no longer have it. I have stolen it from you. If I had a magical porsche duplicating plasma gun, and simply scanned your Porsche to magically create my own, I have not stolen from you. The violation of copyrights, trademarks and even patents aren't stealing. They can, and are at times, wrong (and even illegal) but they aren't stealing in the general sense of the word.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: Nov 24 2010, 1:20 pm

[OutToDry]

I still have 12 TGF CD's that need gifting!!!

[+Ed+]

I still have no doubts my message will remain ignored in this thread.

[FishOutaWater]

I still have no doubts my message will remain ignored in this thread.

Ok, I will answer it. They are selling the cd through Abbey Road and one needs a credit card in order to purchase a copy of the cd. If you do not have a credit card, maybe you just can't buy one. You aren't entitled to one of these cd's. They are selling them on that website to people who can pay with a credit card. Or erhaps you can give someone with a credit card some cash to buy you one with their credit card.

Intellectual property seems pretty straight forward to me. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their intellectual property, litigating over infringment and protecting it from being stolen. Chad, Chad and Patrick hired lawyers to sue Ed because he sold performances of Live music without paying them royalties. Chad, Chad, Pat and Ed formed Black Coffee as a company to own the publishing rights to their intellectual property. When a cd is sold, they get paid.

Read this. It is a pretty serious read. If you aren;t concerned with violating the law after you read this, then go ahead at your own risk:

RIAA page

Here are some highlights:

Copyright law protects the value of creative work
When you make illegal copies of someone’s creative work, you are stealing and breaking the law.

If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law, and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.

That’s pretty important information to have, considering how serious it would be if you were caught and prosecuted by the authorities or sued in civil court. It’s even more important that you understand that when you illicitly make or distribute recordings, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission.

Examples of easy ways you could violate the law:

Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.

You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.

Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.

In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.
You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.

You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.

On the subject of intellectual property, we wouldn't have any of the innovations like the iPhone, or the software that plays music or videos, or Blue Ray players, or statin drugs or contact lens solutions if there wasn't intellectual property. People invent these things, patent and copyright them and then license them or use them for a profit. If someone invents a technology and then anyone else can just take it and use it, no one would have an incentive to invent these new technologies.

[PurdueSteve]

Here are some highlights:

On the subject of intellectual property, we wouldn't have any of the innovations like the iPhone, or the software that plays music or videos, or Blue Ray players, or statin drugs or contact lens solutions if there wasn't intellectual property. People invent these things, patent and copyright them and then license them or use them for a profit. If someone invents a technology and then anyone else can just take it and use it, no one would have an incentive to invent these new technologies.

Quoting or referring to that as source for the moral validity and justification would be the equivalent of referring to George Bush on the morality and validity of our current foreign international policy. It's begging the question and is also nothing more than morally bankrupt consequentialism.

What I'm guessing you won't find in that link are the cases where companies, who haven't developed anything, who haven't created anything, rush to the patent office or file for a copyright/trademark on anything and everything so that when a legitimate manufacturer like Apple creates a product they can probe for any remote similarity to their "patent" and effectively tie Apple up in litigation or out of court settlements which just means the cost is passed down to the consumer.

At the end of the day, it comes down to those that purchase the content. By purchasing it they agree to the terms. If they share it, upload it, distribute it then they are the ones who have violated an agreement. By no standard of contract law can you, or anyone out there, say that I've agreed to the terms of an album purchase I've yet to actually purchase.

Look at it from another angle. As an electrical engineer (one who is Pro-IP but not in the form that it is exercised in this country) I program, develop schematics and do general design that costs my clients hundreds of thousands per year. I'm certain that my employer has worked out the legal stuff that states our clients are purchasing the rights to our developed work for use in their facilities and that they in turn cannot turn around and resale it. Let's say, for example, that a client misplaced a USB stick or emailed and BCC'd a copy of my program and schematics by accident. Would I (or my employer) have the moral right to pursue someone else who comes across information (who didn't "steal" it) and use it for their gain? No. I (or my employer) would have legal grounds to go after my client who released (even if negligently) our intellectual property.

What if this was the dark ages, could someone have the intellectual property to fire? Building shelter? Cooking raw meat?

If you read a poem on your neighbors wall, and liked it, could you not verbally recite it to your friends and family? You would technically be infringing on someone else's intellectual property. To enjoy that poem you should pay the author his or her asking price. After all, they didn't agree to let you see it, but rather the purchaser of the art.

Intellectual Property isn't as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. At the end of day I agree people need to have some protections for their work, but in a proper world, a proper society, those protections would come in the form of agreements and punishments would be doled out to those that break those agreements. If you haven't purchased something from someone than obviously you haven't agreed to their terms of the sale.

[+Ed+]

Sorry, Fish. I do not have a credit card, I do not have an iPhone and I hate my country, but that does not mean I am happy without my TGF.

[PurdueSteve]

Sorry, Fish. I do not have a credit card, I do not have an iPhone and I hate my country, but that does not mean I am happy without my TGF.

The argument of "you aren't entitled to it" is the logical reduction that one must come to when embracing the current status of intellectual property in this country. Obviously, if you were to ask CT, CG, KM, SH or PD if they want to actually lock you out from their content, they'd probably say no.

So then it no longer becomes an issue of "their hard work" and their right to protect it, but rather piss poor accessibility to content in a digital world administered by someone other than TGF (who is working hard and I appreciate them for it)

Fish, out of curiosity, is the "law" the only thing that stops you from downloading material without paying for it? Is the "law" the only thing stopping you from stabbing people and kicking babies? I'm going out on a limb and assume not. The law being the law is a very poor argument.

[Bremang]

No offense, but do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I want a Porsche. I do. But I also can't afford one. So I will steal one from the dealership because it's not fair that I can't have a Porsche and I want one.

Here is a little lesson in property law.

There is real property. That's real estate.

There is personal property. That is stuff like chairs and tables and paintings.

There is intangible property. That is stuff like brokerage accounts and stocks and bonds.

There is intellectual property. Those are things like patents, trademarks, and copyrights.



TGF owns intellectual property when they create and perform music. They own the publishing rights to the songs. They own their image and likeness. They own the band logo. They own the recordings. That is their property. Just because you can't take it from a shelf and walk out of a store with it doesn't make it any less property. And taking it for free doesn't make it any less stealing. THIS IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT WITH ED KOWALCZYK! Think about for a second! You can't call Ed a dick for what he did with the publishing rights and secret publishing contracts and selling performances of Live songs on his website without paying royalties to the owners (the rest of the band) and say that was wrong, and then a few weeks later steal copyrighted music from The Gracious Few because you want it and you can't afford to pay for it. You are doing the same damn thing that Ed did. You are stealing property. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it. That's how the sale of property works.

I'm sure this comes across as harsh. And for that, I am really sorry. But I just want to get my point across strongly.

If someone buys copyrighted music legally, they can burn a copy of that CD for a "friend." I think they can make up to 30 copies for friends and family. So if +Ed is your friend, you can burn a CD and send it to him legally. And then +Ed can make a money order to TGF, which +Ed can then mail to someone who is planning on seeing the band after a show, who would then hand TGF the money order.....to rectify the situation morally.

Or Ed can make a deal with someone who has a credit card, shouldn't be too hard to find someone.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Nov 24 2010, 4:11 pm

[FishOutaWater]

Fish, out of curiosity, is the "law" the only thing that stops you from downloading material without paying for it? Is the "law" the only thing stopping you from stabbing people and kicking babies? I'm going out on a limb and assume not. The law being the law is a very poor argument.

The law is a dispositive factor for me, yes. Also, I think I really do have a decent understanding of intellectual property law and that understanding informs my positions on this kind of stuff.

But the law is not the only factor when it comes to TGF. See my discussion of the economics of these guys' little adventure. I'm sure that they would like to sell their product when they can and should so that they can be compensated for their significant efforts. They are selling these cd's and I am not going to take one for free because I do have the ability to buy every one of them if I really wanted to. If I don't, that is my choice based on whether it is worth it to me to pay for so many cd's that will be quite similar to each other. If I don't want to spend the money to buy one of these cd's, then I don't get it. Just like if I don't want to spend the money to buy a T-shirt at a concert then I don't get it. And I don't buy one for $5 from the guy in the parking lot who is profiting from the image and likeness of the artist either. I don't consider it an alternative to take a free download of something that I could have bought but didn't because I am too tight-fisted with my money to splurge on every one of these cd's. If I am going to own something that TGF is selling, then I will pay for it.

Your other comments about intellectual propoerty require too nuanced and detailed of a discussion to be able to chat about it in a thread here. We'd be writing until our fingers bleed.
It's interesting stuff and you clearly have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

I don't mean to come across like I am holier than though. I just have convictions about this.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Nov 24 2010, 5:03 pm

[Aitkens]

Shit every time I go to an Eagles or Phillies game, I always buy shirts from the guys in the parking lot. Often times they're funnier shirts and have much better fan fave slogans on them compared to the cookie cutter stuff offered in the pro shops.