+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Portland Article

  1. #1

    Portland Article

    Its a piece on Garth's stance on used CD's and an interview with a store owner, who hasnt
    sold Garth's cds for 20 years. Very negative towards Garth.

    You can leave comments.

    http://www.wweek.com/music/2017/04/2...ord-store-day/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,332
    I buy used CDs... quite often actually. So sue me.

    I get the reasons why Garth is against it, but when you can pay $2-$5 for a CD that would otherwise cost you $10-$15 new, it's a no brainer.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Just south of nowhere
    Posts
    1,350
    I don't agree. I think people should be paid what they are due for their hard work. Not every artist is pulling in Adele numbers are trying to support their families. It's pretty much stealing it.

  4. #4
    So it's blatantly obvious that used CDs are still being sold in some places, that said, unless there's a small music store in my area that I don't know about, most of the stores in my city aren't doing this practice other than maybe Goodwill but even then, they're mostly doing vinyl and cassette tapes. Personally he can rant about CDs all he wants, but let's face it guys that format is on a slow death for multiple reasons that we already know. Like I've been doing nothing but use the auxiliary cable that my new car stereo has and I just play the music on my phone.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    In the USA, the best country in the world
    Posts
    6,512
    hmmm- ya know? the more I read the article (read it and re-read it a few times).. its' really a non story / not a big issue.

    The article itself isn't negative against Garth (not that it would matter, it's a simple matter of opinion... ) as much as it's a retrospective how this guys' shop helped spark 'record store day'.. Garth could be replaced by any artist really, and the article would still work. At least, that's how I see it.

    Dang though I wish I'd have been been there when this all was going on- I'd have gladly taken some of what was BBQ'd
    An objective Garth fan, with my own views...

    I have a purpose
    Made in His image
    Accepted by Him
    Given new life in Christ
    Eternity with Him

    My collection of all things Garth....
    The GarthCast

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    I'm probably going to stick my foot in my mouth here, but I'm going to do it anyways. I worked in country radio for 7 years and I totally disagree with Garth and the music industry on this issue. Let me see if I can explain this.

    My mom owns a 50s diner. When she was getting ready to start the diner she spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on 50s music to play basically as background noise. However, when she looked into it just buying the music wasn't enough she also has to pay a monthly fee to the performing rights organizations. Outside of actual food supplies this is one of her biggest expenses all so she can have 50s music playing in the background. That is considered "public use".

    I think about if we applied this principle to anything else in her restaurant. She has many things that are themed. She has booths designed as pink cadillacs, 50s mugs/glasses, a 50s bar, etc. Once she bought all of these items they were hers and she could use them as she wished. Yes, they are used for public consumption (and are more important than the music playing in the background), but the companies that created these things don't charge her a monthly fee so she can use them. We would all find it ridiculous if the person who made her tables, chairs and booths demanded a fee of her because they were being used publicly.

    If my mom sells her restaurant some day there are many who would say she can't sell all the 50s music that she owns, but would anyone care if she sold her tables, chairs, booths, glasses, plates, and mugs?

    It is utterly ridiculous. I believe that once you buy something it is yours to use as you see fit. You paid for it and the person got their money off of it. Music, and the entertainment industry, is one of the few groups of people that argue against this.

    I get it isn't always straightforward. Copying CDs and giving them to people is one thing, but if I decided to sell a CD I don't like anymore at a yard sale then why should the person who wrote the song on that CD care? They got their royalties for it when I paid for it the first time. They shouldn't continue to get royalties on that no more than the person who built the chair for my mom's restaurant.

    Can you imagine if where you bought your sofa or TV said that you couldn't let others use it for public consumption? It is for your private use and if you throw a party and have 50 people over then you have to pay a fee for them to sit on it. What if where you bought your TV said that anyone who watches the TV who isn't normally in the home there will be an additional charge for that? Oh, buy the way, you can't sell those items either unless you pay a fee and the person who made them gets royalties.

    I'm sorry. No one will convince me that the people who created the music are getting ripped off by the people who actually purchase their music.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by YouSoundBitter View Post
    I don't agree. I think people should be paid what they are due for their hard work. Not every artist is pulling in Adele numbers are trying to support their families. It's pretty much stealing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricOutcast View Post
    So it's blatantly obvious that used CDs are still being sold in some places, that said, unless there's a small music store in my area that I don't know about, most of the stores in my city aren't doing this practice other than maybe Goodwill but even then, they're mostly doing vinyl and cassette tapes.
    You make it sound like selling used CDs is a shady illegal practice like pirating. It's not. It's 100% legal, and in my mind, there is nothing wrong with it. If the RIAA, Billboard, etc., wanted to track the sales of used albums, or if Congress wanted to attach a royalty fee to the sale of used CDs, they could. But they haven't.

    As to the argument that there aren't that many used record stores anymore, Amazon and eBay sell used media, so the market is hardly dead. Also, there are 3-4 great used record shops in my area that I frequent quite often.

    To the point that buying a used CD is like "stealing" from the songwriters and from those who put hard work into the albums, I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Under that reasoning, if you've ever purchased a used car, you could say that you've stolen the dinner off a auto-factory worker's table. If you've ever purchased a house that wasn't brand new, you could argue that you've stolen from a contractor and all of his crew who could have built you a new house. Luckily, it's not like that. Like rhd13 said, the artist received the royalties and credit for the CD when it was first purchased. But the used CD shop owner gets to feed his family based on sales of albums that people like well enough to pay a few bucks for, but don't love enough to go buy brand new at full price. Indeed, for the vast majority of the albums I buy used, most of the time I only buy them because they're cheap, meaning I never would have paid a full $10-$15 for them new. So in that sense, the artist and songwriters aren't losing anything from me, because I never would have bought their album at full price.

    And btw, with regard to Garth, there was about a 10 year period where the ONLY way to get his albums in any format was to buy them used. So are we really going to say that anyone who bought a used Garth CD during that time stole from him? And if so, what exactly did they steal? If the albums were not commercially available to buy new, then I couldn't have purchased the albums new even if I wanted to make sure that the songwriters got their royalties and that Garth got credit for the sale. You can't steal something that isn't there in the first place.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    LA/Long Beach area
    Posts
    1,591
    My only comment is, that Garth and the songwriters got paid for the album when it sold. If someone want to sell I later, that is there right. Nobody said you get paid again when it is sold used. Why is music so special then other products?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by gbkubfan View Post
    My only comment is, that Garth and the songwriters got paid for the album when it sold. If someone want to sell I later, that is there right. Nobody said you get paid again when it is sold used. Why is music so special then other products?
    Bingo! I love Garth but he can go whistle when it comes to people selling used CD's!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Just south of nowhere
    Posts
    1,350
    That's my point, how many artist have only sold 500 copies of their independent release? Struggling? But it's ok that one one person buys it, then passes it around and they only get paid once yet owe thousands in studio fees and pressing? Pretty sure alot of people would hate to go to work for 40 hours a week and have someone else show up in payday and take their check away from them.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by YouSoundBitter View Post
    That's my point, how many artist have only sold 500 copies of their independent release? Struggling? But it's ok that one one person buys it, then passes it around and they only get paid once yet owe thousands in studio fees and pressing? Pretty sure alot of people would hate to go to work for 40 hours a week and have someone else show up in payday and take their check away from them.
    I think there are two different issues here. First, if I go out and buy an album and then start making copies for all of my friends then yes I believe that is stealing. That, however, is not what I am talking about. This whole thread is about the article referring to used CD stores. I do not see how someone buying or selling a used CD is stealing from the songwriter/artist/producer and those who created it. That CD has been bought and paid for. The royalties have been received. If I decide I don't want it anymore and sell it to my friend for $5 how exactly is that stealing from the people who created it? I've already paid the people who created it. They got their money. By that logic if you buy a used sofa you are stealing from the furniture store who created the sofa.

  12. #12
    Call me a cynic but is it the songwriters Garth really cares about or is he pissed that if say back in the day 30,000 copies of No Fences were sold on the second hand market he resents the fact that it's 30K less he can tabulate for RIAA purposes?

    I love the guy's music but c'mon.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by CER956 View Post
    Call me a cynic but is it the songwriters Garth really cares about or is he pissed that if say back in the day 30,000 copies of No Fences were sold on the second hand market he resents the fact that it's 30K less he can tabulate for RIAA purposes?

    I love the guy's music but c'mon.
    Probably both. But really, I don't think either motivation is necessarily invalid or unreasonable. But as I said in my diatribe above, there are ways to address and satisfy both of those concerns and still allow the second hand market to exist, but for some reason the RIAA and record companies have not pursued those solutions.

    For tabulation purposes though, since the RIAA only counts shipments rather than actual sales, it doesn't really matter whether Garth's albums are sold on the primary or secondary market, since the total shipments were already counted for RIAA purposes when they were shipped to the primary vendor.

    Either way, it all equalizes out since I'm sure way more Beatles albums have been purchased usedover the years than Garth's albums. So even if you were to count used sales, they would probably still be way ahead.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Emerald Isle View Post
    Probably both. But really, I don't think either motivation is necessarily invalid or unreasonable. But as I said in my diatribe above, there are ways to address and satisfy both of those concerns and still allow the second hand market to exist, but for some reason the RIAA and record companies have not pursued those solutions.

    For tabulation purposes though, since the RIAA only counts shipments rather than actual sales, it doesn't really matter whether Garth's albums are sold on the primary or secondary market, since the total shipments were already counted for RIAA purposes when they were shipped to the primary vendor.

    Either way, it all equalizes out since I'm sure way more Beatles albums have been purchased usedover the years than Garth's albums. So even if you were to count used sales, they would probably still be way ahead.
    That's a great point but hypothetically if on were to have eliminated the used record stores then extra demand would've been created by the Musiclands and Best Buys of yesteryear to stock more copies of The Chase, No Fences, etc meaning more certifications.

    Fortunately Garth could never win such a battle but I really think it turned off a lot of people and I would've agreed with them had I been older then

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Emerald Isle View Post
    Probably both. But really, I don't think either motivation is necessarily invalid or unreasonable. But as I said in my diatribe above, there are ways to address and satisfy both of those concerns and still allow the second hand market to exist, but for some reason the RIAA and record companies have not pursued those solutions.

    For tabulation purposes though, since the RIAA only counts shipments rather than actual sales, it doesn't really matter whether Garth's albums are sold on the primary or secondary market, since the total shipments were already counted for RIAA purposes when they were shipped to the primary vendor.

    Either way, it all equalizes out since I'm sure way more Beatles albums have been purchased usedover the years than Garth's albums. So even if you were to count used sales, they would probably still be way ahead.
    Great point.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Arlington, Tx.
    Posts
    507
    I think this is the mindset of not being willing to adapt to the market. Does it suck how Itunes and used CD sales affect songwriters? Yes. But how many of us are or have been in industries where things change and you have to change or get more education/certification to survive and adapt. Otherwise they move on. Garth would have been bigger this second time around if he had picked his battles better. Because though Amazon is big and great, I don't really know of many who go there for their music. It's still concepts like Itunes (or old concepts like used CDs). Has all of this noise about standing up for the songwriters made any impact for them as a group?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Just south of nowhere
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by rhd13 View Post
    I think there are two different issues here. First, if I go out and buy an album and then start making copies for all of my friends then yes I believe that is stealing. That, however, is not what I am talking about. This whole thread is about the article referring to used CD stores. I do not see how someone buying or selling a used CD is stealing from the songwriter/artist/producer and those who created it. That CD has been bought and paid for. The royalties have been received. If I decide I don't want it anymore and sell it to my friend for $5 how exactly is that stealing from the people who created it? I've already paid the people who created it. They got their money. By that logic if you buy a used sofa you are stealing from the furniture store who created the sofa.
    Well the difference is a used couch is something completely different. Music is an art form. Sells are how the creator of such art mark a living to make more for us. That's apple to oranges comparison. Yes, they got your money from your purchase but how much of that $5 did they get from the deal with your friend?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by YouSoundBitter View Post
    Well the difference is a used couch is something completely different. Music is an art form. Sells are how the creator of such art mark a living to make more for us. That's apple to oranges comparison. Yes, they got your money from your purchase but how much of that $5 did they get from the deal with your friend?
    I'm not trying to start an argument. I really have no interest in getting into a back and forth, but this is where we just disagree. The whole "music is an art form" argument is so vague where does it really end?

    What I don't understand is why if a used CD store sells a used CD for $5 why the creators of that CD actually deserve to get paid for that product again? Is that just because it is "art"? If I'm not mistaken in 2013 the US Supreme Court actually ruled (concerning books - which I would consider "art" if music is "art") that you own the physical copy and therefore you have a right to resell that copy even if it is copyrighted. The publisher is not entitled to be paid for it again and they can not sue someone for reselling it because that copy of the product is yours to do whatever you wish with it. Obviously you can't make copies of it and sell it, but you can sell the physical product that you bought and now rightfully own. This is why used CD stores and used bookstores have not been shut down. As far as I know there is nothing illegal in what they are doing.

    If we go down the road of the publishers are owed money if you resell it or someone listens to it where does that end? If I have a party over at my house and play a CD do I need to pay royalties to the songwriters/artists/producers? Where does "private use" become "public use"? If I am a bus driver and have 50 people on my bus and stick in a CD am I breaking the law if other people on that bus are getting to hear the music? Do I need to pay royalties? Saying that it is somehow "art" to me doesn't make it different. At the end of the day it is a product and we the consumer buy that product. As I said above burning copies or giving the files to another person is clearly stealing, but saying that it is "art" and therefore that somehow makes it special and different I'm not sure I buy that. I feel like that is the music industry's way of continually being able to milk every cent they can.

    You say my sofa argument is an apples to oranges argument, but I dare say that people who make unique products like the ones in my mother's 50s diner (ie. pink cadillac booths) would tell you that is an "art form" and their product is unique and special. I'd guarantee some of them actually have copyrights on their work. Shoot, even the person who makes a regular sofa might tell you that what they do is a form of "art". To me declaring that music is "art" and saying that what someone else does isn't just opens it up to something very subjective and based upon interpretation.

    If the supreme court rules that we own the physical product and have a right to resell that product then that is good enough for me.
    Last edited by rhd13; 04-23-2017 at 12:44 AM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    For anyone interested here is the actual law.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by YouSoundBitter View Post
    Well the difference is a used couch is something completely different. Music is an art form. Sells are how the creator of such art mark a living to make more for us. That's apple to oranges comparison. Yes, they got your money from your purchase but how much of that $5 did they get from the deal with your friend?
    I should have put this in the post above and for some reason I couldn't get it to edit. You say that sales are how the creator of such art makes a living. Is that not the exact thing that a person who makes a sofa or any other product is doing? If I chose to buy a used sofa, and the design is copyrighted, couldn't the argument be made that I am cheating the creator of that sofa by not buying a new one? I guess I just don't understand why we want to apply a different set of rules to music. If something is copyrighted no matter if it is music or a sofa design the same rules should apply.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by rhd13 View Post
    I'm probably going to stick my foot in my mouth here, but I'm going to do it anyways. I worked in country radio for 7 years and I totally disagree with Garth and the music industry on this issue. Let me see if I can explain this.

    My mom owns a 50s diner. When she was getting ready to start the diner she spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on 50s music to play basically as background noise. However, when she looked into it just buying the music wasn't enough she also has to pay a monthly fee to the performing rights organizations. Outside of actual food supplies this is one of her biggest expenses all so she can have 50s music playing in the background. That is considered "public use".

    I think about if we applied this principle to anything else in her restaurant. She has many things that are themed. She has booths designed as pink cadillacs, 50s mugs/glasses, a 50s bar, etc. Once she bought all of these items they were hers and she could use them as she wished. Yes, they are used for public consumption (and are more important than the music playing in the background), but the companies that created these things don't charge her a monthly fee so she can use them. We would all find it ridiculous if the person who made her tables, chairs and booths demanded a fee of her because they were being used publicly.

    If my mom sells her restaurant some day there are many who would say she can't sell all the 50s music that she owns, but would anyone care if she sold her tables, chairs, booths, glasses, plates, and mugs?

    It is utterly ridiculous. I believe that once you buy something it is yours to use as you see fit. You paid for it and the person got their money off of it. Music, and the entertainment industry, is one of the few groups of people that argue against this.

    I get it isn't always straightforward. Copying CDs and giving them to people is one thing, but if I decided to sell a CD I don't like anymore at a yard sale then why should the person who wrote the song on that CD care? They got their royalties for it when I paid for it the first time. They shouldn't continue to get royalties on that no more than the person who built the chair for my mom's restaurant.

    Can you imagine if where you bought your sofa or TV said that you couldn't let others use it for public consumption? It is for your private use and if you throw a party and have 50 people over then you have to pay a fee for them to sit on it. What if where you bought your TV said that anyone who watches the TV who isn't normally in the home there will be an additional charge for that? Oh, buy the way, you can't sell those items either unless you pay a fee and the person who made them gets royalties.

    I'm sorry. No one will convince me that the people who created the music are getting ripped off by the people who actually purchase their music.
    I agree with this 100%

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by rhd13 View Post
    I'm not trying to start an argument. I really have no interest in getting into a back and forth, but this is where we just disagree. The whole "music is an art form" argument is so vague where does it really end?

    What I don't understand is why if a used CD store sells a used CD for $5 why the creators of that CD actually deserve to get paid for that product again? Is that just because it is "art"? If I'm not mistaken in 2013 the US Supreme Court actually ruled (concerning books - which I would consider "art" if music is "art") that you own the physical copy and therefore you have a right to resell that copy even if it is copyrighted. The publisher is not entitled to be paid for it again and they can not sue someone for reselling it because that copy of the product is yours to do whatever you wish with it. Obviously you can't make copies of it and sell it, but you can sell the physical product that you bought and now rightfully own. This is why used CD stores and used bookstores have not been shut down. As far as I know there is nothing illegal in what they are doing.

    If we go down the road of the publishers are owed money if you resell it or someone listens to it where does that end? If I have a party over at my house and play a CD do I need to pay royalties to the songwriters/artists/producers? Where does "private use" become "public use"? If I am a bus driver and have 50 people on my bus and stick in a CD am I breaking the law if other people on that bus are getting to hear the music? Do I need to pay royalties? Saying that it is somehow "art" to me doesn't make it different. At the end of the day it is a product and we the consumer buy that product. As I said above burning copies or giving the files to another person is clearly stealing, but saying that it is "art" and therefore that somehow makes it special and different I'm not sure I buy that. I feel like that is the music industry's way of continually being able to milk every cent they can.

    You say my sofa argument is an apples to oranges argument, but I dare say that people who make unique products like the ones in my mother's 50s diner (ie. pink cadillac booths) would tell you that is an "art form" and their product is unique and special. I'd guarantee some of them actually have copyrights on their work. Shoot, even the person who makes a regular sofa might tell you that what they do is a form of "art". To me declaring that music is "art" and saying that what someone else does isn't just opens it up to something very subjective and based upon interpretation.

    If the supreme court rules that we own the physical product and have a right to resell that product then that is good enough for me.
    Totally on board with this.

    On the "art" subject...if I buy a painting and then choose to sell it, the artist isn't getting paid again. The art form argument simply doesn't hold up.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Just south of nowhere
    Posts
    1,350
    Just because something is Legal doesn't make it right...Well, we each have our opinions, right or wrong. At the end of the day, we will have changed nothing here.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by YouSoundBitter View Post
    Just because something is Legal doesn't make it right...Well, we each have our opinions, right or wrong. At the end of the day, we will have changed nothing here.
    You and I completely agree that just because something is legal it doesn't necessarily make it right. However, in this particular case I think legal is right. As I have said numerous times above, we don't treat anything else like we do music in this argument. We act like it is some mythical thing. When you purchase a CD if you don't have the right to resell that CD then what exactly are you purchasing? The right to listen to and enjoy what is on the CD? To me that is a huge slippery slope (which is what the music industry wants). As I said above, we would not stand for this principle to be used for any other item we own. Again, I am not talking about copying and reselling in digital format. I am not talking about giving a file to another person. I'm talking used CDs, a physical product. I think the law is right and the law was made to protect the consumer from getting sued for selling something they rightfully paid for. In the instance of buying a physical CD the publisher, songwriter, producer, artist, record company, etc. all got their royalties. NO ONE has been cheated or stolen from. The law also states someone shouldn't be paid for their work a 2nd time just because someone (the rightful owner of the physical product) decides to sell it. Makes sense to me. If you can't sell it then you do not own it. Again, what other items do you know of that you bought and fully paid for that you can't resell if you wish?

    I agree. We have exhausted the topic and changed nothing. We agree to disagree
    Last edited by rhd13; 04-23-2017 at 10:33 AM.

  25. #25
    I agree with rhd13, if you buy a cd you have the right to resell it. The artist has already been paid and so has the songwriter.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Arlington, Tx.
    Posts
    507
    If nothing else, this is a very interesting argument in regards to the music industry.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    In the USA, the best country in the world
    Posts
    6,512
    Quote Originally Posted by CER956 View Post
    Call me a cynic but is it the songwriters Garth really cares about or is he pissed that if say back in the day 30,000 copies of No Fences were sold on the second hand market he resents the fact that it's 30K less he can tabulate for RIAA purposes?

    I love the guy's music but c'mon.
    Cynic!! (hey you said to.. )

    seriously though I agree with ya CER... I think it more has to do with the sales #'s. I know Garth's humble.. I know he does a lot for songwriters.. I know he's against piracy and illegal streaming, all that stuff.. but ........don't let any of the nice 'side' fool you, he's no dummy.. advertising degree, MBA (I believe), successful career- there's a side of Garth that is all about #'s and sales...
    An objective Garth fan, with my own views...

    I have a purpose
    Made in His image
    Accepted by Him
    Given new life in Christ
    Eternity with Him

    My collection of all things Garth....
    The GarthCast

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts