New Beach Boys 2012 Remasters!

[drbeachboy]

Whoever is planning to buy the remasters is going to buy it.
Whoever isn't planning to buy the remasters isn't going to buy it.

There is nothing being "lost", especially not sales that weren't happening anyway.

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

Yeah. I just get the vibe there are quite a few people on here that claim to be major fans, but aren't willing to pony up a few bucks to buy a few of the remasters. I'm not even close to rich, honestly can barely pay my bills, but I am buying the remasters that I want, because I want to support my favorite band, and not steal from them.

I get that through my posts I may be coming across as a cheap, unsupportive fan, but it's don't think that's the case. I'm a really, really poor student who's juggling pretty extreme medical bills to boot and yet I took the plunge in spending about six months worth of  disposable income to attend the Perth concert next month - one of the most expensive things I've ever purchased in my life - and because of that, I'm completely broke. That being said, I bought those tickets because I love the boys and I'm thrilled to support them, and I know that a higher percentage of that ticket sale would go to them than what would go to them had I bought a few of the 12 remasters and that's why I did it. If I had the fiscal resources to make the cd purchase, I would, I'm just not in that position right now with all of these bills and study overhead and for that reason, I don't see the harm in having early access to something I will most definitely purchase in the future. It just sucks a little bit.

Well, it's an interesting ethical discussion isn't it?  Is breaking the law and stealing OK if in the future we will, in a sense, unsteal what we stole?  I'm not judging anybody, I've certainly done plenty of illegal downloading in the past.  I just think it's an interesting discussion that is illustrative of the state of morality.  Do we live in a community where stealing is morally acceptable?  I tend to define, minus very few moral absolutes, morality as generally shaped by the community.  A lot of morality is based on shame.  Has the music-consuming community lost it's shame?  Or is it because of the anonymity?

If you had to steal a copy of one of these right out of Brian Wilson's hand, would you be ashamed?  What if you told him that you were going to buy it in the future?

Again, not judging, merely asking philosophical questions as is my wont, in hopes of learning something.

A better question is, if I told Brian outright that I couldn't afford it, would he just give them to me if I promised to pay him for them later? If someone DL's something first, then buys it later and deletes the DL'd copy, is that any different than someone taking it out of a library to listen to before he buys?

[puni puni]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Everything always balances itself out at the end of the day.

I am buying the remasters that I want, because I want to support my favorite band

You say that as if The Beach Boys™ are running thin in the wallet.

steal

No.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Everything always balances itself out at the end of the day.

I am buying the remasters that I want, because I want to support my favorite band

You say that as if The Beach Boys™ are running thin in the wallet.

steal

No.

Your status as to having been able to audition the CDs does not factor into the morality.  I didn't say it was fair.  Plenty of people, say, buy bananas and after eating them, realized they weren't very tasty.  There are risks involved in buying something.

The status of the person you're stealing from should not factor into the morality of the stealing.

And I think there's no question that it is stealing.  You would be depriving somebody of their property without compensation and without authorization, even if it's temporary.  The question is whether it's morally permissible stealing.

[I. Spaceman]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

[ontor pertawst]

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

My father operated under that principle. He's a bit Murryish.

[cable21]

This may have been answered somewhere on past posts but wasn't the Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coup, All Summer Long albums already released in stereo?

[Jim V.]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Everything always balances itself out at the end of the day.

I am buying the remasters that I want, because I want to support my favorite band

You say that as if The Beach Boys™ are running thin in the wallet.

steal

No.

Your status as to having been able to audition the CDs does not factor into the morality.  I didn't say it was fair.  Plenty of people, say, buy bananas and after eating them, realized they weren't very tasty.  There are risks involved in buying something.

The status of the person you're stealing from should not factor into the morality of the stealing.

And I think there's no question that it is stealing.  You would be depriving somebody of their property without compensation and without authorization, even if it's temporary.  The question is whether it's morally permissible stealing.

I'm not some huge capitalist or anything, but I think it's absolutely pathetic that people think that all this music is basically owed to them. Like other people didn't put lots of work into it, and don't deserve to be compensated.

[Roger Ryan]

This may have been answered somewhere on past posts but wasn't the Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coup, All Summer Long albums already released in stereo?

Yes, but they have been unavailable in mono for some time which is the main appeal of this re-release.*

*This release of ALL SUMMER LONG does contain the first ever stereo mix of "I Get Around" which has only appeared in mono on previous issues.

[runnersdialzero]

I'm glad this thread turned into the "Let's talk about why it's okay/wrong to steal music" thread.

[cable21]

Thanks, I was a little confused about the earlier albums, definatly looking forward to picking up Summers Days and the Today album, I wished they would have included Wild Honey too!

[pixletwin]

I'm glad this thread turned into the "Let's talk about why it's okay/wrong to steal music" thread.

Yes. It is very interesting indeed.

[The Shift]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

What if the BBs refused to record anything unless punters paid upfront?

[I. Spaceman]

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters if they can't find a suitable download?

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

What if the BBs refused to record anything unless punters paid upfront?

Based on their track record, I'd send em a 20 spot.

[puni puni]

And I think there's no question that it is stealing.  You would be depriving somebody of their property without compensation and without authorization, even if it's temporary.  The question is whether it's morally permissible stealing.

I'm not arguing past this picture because the topic is really boring, so here you go

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

My father operated under that principle. He's a bit Murryish.

I think everyone's did! Don't know if he could have picked a better example than mowing lawns. Heart surgery? Oh wait, no, that's just another thing nobody should have to pay money for.

I'm not some huge capitalist or anything, but I think it's absolutely pathetic that people think that all this music is basically owed to them.

Watch who you're calling pathetic. David Byrne might read these boards. Or Thom Yorke. Or Brian Eno. Or just about everybody from within the last thirty years that isn't a total hack... They might come to your house one night and show you what it really means to steal.

[I. Spaceman]

Watch who you're calling pathetic. David Byrne might read these boards. Or Thom Yorke. Or Brian Eno. Or just about everybody from within the last thirty years that isn't a total hack... They might come to your house one night and show you what it really means to steal.

Not only pathetic, but pretentious and white as well.

[puni puni]

Too racist! I'm gettin' outta here!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I don't see what being white has to do with it.

In any case, f*ck yeah it's stealing. The only bootlegs I approve of are of material that IS NOT GOING TO BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, EVER.*There's a difference between downloading Brian doing 'Drip Drop' while wiggin', and

What about the people who are only planning to buy the remasters after they judge for themselves whether or not it's a suitable purchase?

.

*-I also include stuff that's out of print.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I'm not arguing past this picture because the topic is really boring, so here you go

On the contrary, it's a fascinating topic.  And that picture is absolutely right.  Nevertheless, both theft and piracy are forms of stealing.  Piracy is, perhaps, a more abstract form. 

In any case, f*ck yeah it's stealing. The only bootlegs I approve of are of material that IS NOT GOING TO BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, EVER.

And I think most people would be in agreement with you, certainly I am, to some extent, at least.  But why does the one seem more approval worthy than the other, I wonder?

I do apologize for somewhat hijacking the thread here, but there is a place, not on this thread, I suppose, for this discussion.  The issues are really interesting.  The value of intellectual property, the ethics of distribution of art, the morality illegal downloads, etc.

I suppose that if you are not willing to pay for a CD that is commercially available, but you illegally download it, that would mean that you like the music but you do not value it.  Which is an interesting tension worth exploring.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

See, the thing is, as an artist, if I'm not going to release something but there's demand for it, I'd put it up online myself.

[Johnston65]

Since we're on the topic of buying music vs. sharing it, what about buying music used? You're not putting money in the pockets of the band but a seller. How can you justify it?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The artist still got paid for the original sale, at least. Plus, the resale is usually a lot cheaper, the cd is usually scratched worse than cat owner furniture, the artwork is either missing, torn, or stained with coffee (or other liquids, depending on the artist...)

[Jim V.]

And I think there's no question that it is stealing.  You would be depriving somebody of their property without compensation and without authorization, even if it's temporary.  The question is whether it's morally permissible stealing.

I'm not arguing past this picture because the topic is really boring, so here you go

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

My father operated under that principle. He's a bit Murryish.

I think everyone's did! Don't know if he could have picked a better example than mowing lawns. Heart surgery? Oh wait, no, that's just another thing nobody should have to pay money for.

I'm not some huge capitalist or anything, but I think it's absolutely pathetic that people think that all this music is basically owed to them.

Watch who you're calling pathetic. David Byrne might read these boards. Or Thom Yorke. Or Brian Eno. Or just about everybody from within the last thirty years that isn't a total hack... They might come to your house one night and show you what it really means to steal.

A lot of artists feel justified by their sales and chart placements. Therefore, if they feel like nobody wants to bother to listen to them, they might lose heart. I wouldn't doubt that this is part of what fueled Brian's exile from the music scene for a while. The Beach Boys' records weren't doing as well as they used to, and he figured if people aren't even bothering to listen to this stuff I put my heart and soul into, then what's the point?

And if you are trying to say that Thom Yorke advocates stealing music, I'm not sure what you are getting after. Last time I checked, he still has his albums sold in big corporate stores, which he hopes will sell. He did experiment with the idea that people would buy his group's album and pay what they thought it was worth. Therefore, if most people downloaded it for $0.00, well then that must have told Mr. Yorke that quite a few people were interested in his music, but not enough to say it's worth anything. And I don't know about you, but music is worth something to me. In fact, I don't mind spending money on music, because it is something I love.

Too racist! I'm gettin' outta here!

Not racist. Just mocking your super white person music tastes.



*I like both bands but it's just funny you took two of the most self serious, egotistical pricks to prove you point, whatever that point was supposed to be.

[tansen]

See, the thing is, as an artist, if I'm not going to release something but there's demand for it, I'd put it up online myself.

I'm with you Billy.

The worst argument I hear is from those who say they only 'download music from the big artists and not from the independent smaller artist'. It's ridiculous - who gives them the right to decide who are big or small artists? Who makes the distinction? How much does an artist need to earn before it's OK to steal his or her music?
Piracy is piracy.

For me as a collector, downloaded music just doesn't feel right. I wouldn't feel that I actually had the record if it was just floating around as 1's and 0's on my hard drive (the same goes for bootlegs for that matter), but that's a different subject all together.

[Zach95]

And I think there's no question that it is stealing.  You would be depriving somebody of their property without compensation and without authorization, even if it's temporary.  The question is whether it's morally permissible stealing.

I'm not arguing past this picture because the topic is really boring, so here you go

Go mow my lawn. I'll tell you afterwards if you did a job that is good enough to be paid for.

My father operated under that principle. He's a bit Murryish.

I think everyone's did! Don't know if he could have picked a better example than mowing lawns. Heart surgery? Oh wait, no, that's just another thing nobody should have to pay money for.

I'm not some huge capitalist or anything, but I think it's absolutely pathetic that people think that all this music is basically owed to them.

Watch who you're calling pathetic. David Byrne might read these boards. Or Thom Yorke. Or Brian Eno. Or just about everybody from within the last thirty years that isn't a total hack... They might come to your house one night and show you what it really means to steal.

A lot of artists feel justified by their sales and chart placements. Therefore, if they feel like nobody wants to bother to listen to them, they might lose heart. I wouldn't doubt that this is part of what fueled Brian's exile from the music scene for a while. The Beach Boys' records weren't doing as well as they used to, and he figured if people aren't even bothering to listen to this stuff I put my heart and soul into, then what's the point?

And if you are trying to say that Thom Yorke advocates stealing music, I'm not sure what you are getting after. Last time I checked, he still has his albums sold in big corporate stores, which he hopes will sell. He did experiment with the idea that people would buy his group's album and pay what they thought it was worth. Therefore, if most people downloaded it for $0.00, well then that must have told Mr. Yorke that quite a few people were interested in his music, but not enough to say it's worth anything. And I don't know about you, but music is worth something to me. In fact, I don't mind spending money on music, because it is something I love.

Too racist! I'm gettin' outta here!

Not racist. Just mocking your super white person music tastes.



*I like both bands but it's just funny you took two of the most self serious, egotistical pricks to prove you point, whatever that point was supposed to be.

And, the incredible thing is, the majority of people did in fact pay for In Rainbows, proving that people clearly valued Radiohead's music.

[Mooger Fooger]

And that leads to a valid question: Why the hell is Capitol/EMI _not_ making the albums available for download? I certainly would pay immediately for that access.