Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gristle on October 27, 2007, 04:22:52 AM
-
Alright i admit it i steal music and say what you like about it. it is revolutionizing how people look and feel about music, as well as opening up new doors for GREAT artists. The only site I have ever used for downloading music has been Oink.cd, and this torrent site recently got what was coming to it, but I feel that it has been in bad form, once again think what you will but please read this article. as it is a great two sided argument.
Beware though it isn't un-biased it is on OINKS side, but still if you have 30 minutes and Loved music, or you are upset with pirating music anyway just read it.
When pigs fly. (http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html)
-
You reap what you sow..
-
I have roughly 85GB of mp3's on my HD. More than 75% are ripped from my own CD collection. The other 25% is from torrents, and almost every download has spawned a purchase of a CD, that I normally wouldn't have had exposure to.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
... almost every download has spawned a purchase of a CD, that I normally wouldn't have had exposure to.
Only one? :D
-
Originally posted by moot
Only one? :D
no silly. :cool:
-
I know very little about what’s happening in the music industry and have virtually no experience downloading music legally or illegally. I’ve spent some time downloading .wav file sound effects, but not really music. I like music, but I can’t say that I’m a fan and I pretty much don’t buy CD’s either (except maybe at garage sales for $1).
That being said, I read the guy’s rant and found it very enlightening and informative. Although he’s trying to justify something that is wrong, I think that he is right about the future of music and the recording labels. Personally, I think the main reason why I stopped buying music is because it’s just too darned expensive.
I especially like this quote:
So the next question is, what now?
For the major labels, it's over. It's ****ing over. You're going to burn to the ****ing ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault. Surely, somewhere deep inside, you had to know this day was coming, right? Your very industry is founded on an unfair business model of owning art you didn't create in exchange for the services you provide. It's rigged so that you win every time - even if the artist does well, you do ten times better. It was able to exist because you controlled the distribution, but now that's back in the hands of the people, and you let the ball drop when you could have evolved.
-
I used to download a lot of music (back in the Kazaa days) and it introduced me to a lot of bands I had no idea existed who'se music I love.
However, I have not purchased any CD's in many years.
Reasons?
1 - While I like the band, I do not like all their songs. I do not like to be forced to purchase a $15 CD just because it has 2 of the songs I like.
2- The internet allows me to download the single song I like and I can burn my own CD's.
3- Record companies monopolize the artist's creation. There are many great bands out there that 'didnt make it' because the big record companies snuffed them. I wish I could pay the artist directly not a megacorporation.
With the introduction of MP3 players and I-tunes type services, the record companies no longer dictate my purchases.In fact, ever since Itunes came out I've purchased about 3 cd's worth of music..and every single song is one I wanted to own.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Although he’s trying to justify something that is wrong, I think that he is right about the future of music and the recording labels. Personally, I think the main reason why I stopped buying music is because it’s just too darned expensive.
I didn't ever even get into the music just because it costs way too much. Didn't even have to start downloading music because it was too much of a hassle to find out what's good music without prior knowledge. Buying an expensive album is same as buying a pig in a sack or a horse without checking it's teeth.
If there would be a legal subscription based music service without DRM crapola I would most likely sign up and see what fits for me. Trying out and paying for each try is too expensive. Neither do I like DRM - If I purchase a license to listen music I want the songs to be available to me at all times now and 10 years afterwards in any device of my choice.
In the worst case scenario DRM can cause songs to become useless bytes on harddrive if the license server goes out of business or changes it's address. The alternative is to be restricted to certain platforms and devices only. Neither option is acceptable to me.
-
Originally posted by moot
You reap what you sow..
you talking about the pirates or the music industry :)
-
Personally, i think that it is futile to attempt sueing pirates
-
Originally posted by Gristle
Personally, i think that it is futile to attempt sueing pirates
Yes it surely is. There are at least 100.000 downloaders for every one getting sued. Here in Finland they have been targeting the guys who distribute the new releases, which doesn't seem to be working. I admit I might download the new records I'm interested in, but on the other hand if I really like one I will buy it, preferably on a CD - you can say I'm old fashioned, but I like to have the cover leaflets with the music...
-
i have a lare stack of CDs. i buy CDs, because i cannot stand the piss-poor quality of downloaded music.
"If there would be a legal subscription based music service without DRM crapola I would most likely sign up and see what fits for me. is"
last.fm has a very nice radio function.
-
Both Vulcan. The whole thing can't be over soon enough.
-
The movie and music monopolies are slowly but surely bending. R5 releases in Eastern Europe are proof that there is only one way to beat piracy.
-
Originally posted by Panzzer
Yes it surely is. There are at least 100.000 downloaders for every one getting sued. Here in Finland they have been targeting the guys who distribute the new releases, which doesn't seem to be working. I admit I might download the new records I'm interested in, but on the other hand if I really like one I will buy it, preferably on a CD - you can say I'm old fashioned, but I like to have the cover leaflets with the music...
i think everyone, well at least a large portion of the people want the physical part of the cd, the leaftlets/artwork/cool cover art/ and easily cracked jewel case.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i have a lare stack of CDs. i buy CDs, because i cannot stand the piss-poor quality of downloaded music.
"If there would be a legal subscription based music service without DRM crapola I would most likely sign up and see what fits for me. is"
last.fm has a very nice radio function.
The whole thing about OINK.CD was that they had standards on music quality, so nothing could be uploaded that wasn't 192 KBPS or better, and most people would upload at 320. It was quite nice.
-
Originally posted by Gristle
i think everyone, well at least a large portion of the people want the physical part of the cd, the leaftlets/artwork/cool cover art/ and easily cracked jewel case.
There was more stuff in the albums back in the days of vinyl.
-
Yep, and you can download vinyl quality MP3's on oink.... or you used to be able to.
o'well
i just feel kinda betrayed cause i dont want to go to myspace to find music that i'm unsure about before purchasing... cause myspace sucks.
-
The record companies duping bands into ****y contracts and putting out ****ty albums is no excuse for theft.
One wrong does not make another right.
I know some of you need to believe the justifications though, prolly so you can still look yourselves in the face in the mirror.
-
Originally posted by Gristle
Hello,
My name is Gristle and I'm a thief.
ack-ack
-
You can window dress it all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that those that illegaly download copyrighted material, whether it be music or software are nothing more than thieves. You may think it's not because you're not holding anyone at the point of the gun and it seems relatively harmless to you, a virtual victimless crime. But it's not. People make those CDs, from the recording artist to the guy that presses the CD. By stealing, you are taking money from them.
Maybe if you guys were affected by this then you'd have a different attitude.
ack-ack
-
I used to download/steal alot of music some years ago, but i got tired of the varying quality and not seeing the cd collection growing. Now i buy all my music on cd again and rip them to the harddrives. I have almost filled 2 500gb harddrives and still have many cd's to go before im done. I rip em im full uncompressed quality so one TB of music is not as much as it sounds :)
Im actually thinking about getting one of those Windows Home Server boxes to store it all in when they start to ship in my language in january.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The record companies duping bands into ****y contracts and putting out ****ty albums is no excuse for theft.
One wrong does not make another right.
I know some of you need to believe the justifications though, prolly so you can still look yourselves in the face in the mirror.
Meh I do plenty of other 'illegal' things all the time, like driving over the speed limit, not putting parking money in the meter, and so on. Trying to make me feel guilty about denying some RIAA/movie executive a small portion of his weekly crack fix isn't going to work :) especially when I am aware of illegal practises that industry partakes in such as price fixing. Besides R5 proves piracy works.
-
Look i am a musician, i write my own music, and am shopping a demo cd now to record labels. So i have a vested interest in this. I don't agree with pirating music. It's stealing point blank. I know how hard it is to get any recognition for what you do. I have limewire, and i use that to check out bands i've heard of, but don't have the money to go buying their cd's only to find i don't like them. Once i find a band i like i find what record it's on and buy the record. I've gotten turned on to a few bands like this and became a paying customer. It's people who rip everything without buying i don't get.
I didn't understand why people started hating Metallica because of the Napster thing. Napster shouldn't have been stealing their stuff or anyone elses, period. Lars Ulrich says he got pissed at Napster because they were working on an unfinished song in the studio and before they were through with it, it was up on Napster free, unfinished. That's total rape of someones hard work. There was nothing wrong Metallica defending themselves. The only people against it were the snot-nosed little brats who were stealing peoples music for free.
All in all the music industry, needs to be changed. It's like a popularity system in high school it's completly stupid. Allot of the times the most talented people don't get chosen but the most superficial ones get chosen, because of this. That is why music sucks today. Quantity over quality, surface over substance. They don't pick any Pink Floyd's anymore. Instead they get Pink Floyd's sisters cousin's boyfriend. I've gotten through to Marilyn Manson's manager in California recently, Syndyck and Leonard Co, but it took me lying and cheating just to get through. But the music industry needs to be changed and learn to adapt to to this.
And now for a shameless plug, check out my music on http://www.myspace.com/groovegrinder and tell me what you think.
Thanks Ledpig.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I used to download/steal alot of music some years ago, but i got tired of the varying quality
Yanno what amuses me. Is the amount of radio stations that download songs "of various quality"
I can honestly say that while I've downloaded music. I've downloaded very few songs I havent already owned.
and the ones I didnt own that I've downloaded are typically old and obscure songs you just cant find anywhere for sale.
But I've found the same thing.
Download one song and maybe the drums might be missing.
Another song and something else is eithe missing or partially drowned out.
to get back to my original statement I can site one example.
A few years ago I heard a radio station playing the song " Eight Days A Week" by The Beatles.
You could hear the insumentals fine. But the voices were barely legible.
The funny thing was I had downladed the same song a week earlier and had the same exact thing. I had to try 4 diferent times before I was able to get a decent version.
Its funny cause I could have told you at the time exactly whom they downloaded it from.
By and large As I have said I've only downloaded songs I have already paid for.
Its just easier to DL 3-4 songs at a time then it is to go through my entire collection to pick out one or two songs off each.
Anything I want I pretty much already have and I havent DL'ed any in a long while.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I used to download/steal alot of music some years ago, but i got tired of the varying quality and not seeing the cd collection growing. Now i buy all my music on cd again and rip them to the harddrives. I have almost filled 2 500gb harddrives and still have many cd's to go before im done. I rip em im full uncompressed quality so one TB of music is not as much as it sounds :)
Im actually thinking about getting one of those Windows Home Server boxes to store it all in when they start to ship in my language in january.
but but, dont you know that the arugments the RIAA and company are using now, you hav no right to copy that CD and if you do you are as "bad" as the kid getting his b spears and radiohead off a torrent. Hell listen to your music at work loud enough for someone else to hear and that is theft by their thinking also.
-
RIAA has no authority over here. Norwegian law states that you can copy any music or movies you have purchased for your own personal use. :)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Look i am a musician, i write my own music, and am shopping a demo cd now to record labels. So i have a vested interest in this. I don't agree with pirating music. It's stealing point blank. I know how hard it is to get any recognition for what you do. I have limewire, and i use that to check out bands i've heard of, but don't have the money to go buying their cd's only to find i don't like them. Once i find a band i like i find what record it's on and buy the record. I've gotten turned on to a few bands like this and became a paying customer. It's people who rip everything without buying i don't get.
I didn't understand why people started hating Metallica because of the Napster thing. Napster shouldn't have been stealing their stuff or anyone elses, period. Lars Ulrich says he got pissed at Napster because they were working on an unfinished song in the studio and before they were through with it, it was up on Napster free, unfinished. That's total rape of someones hard work. There was nothing wrong Metallica defending themselves. The only people against it were the snot-nosed little brats who were stealing peoples music for free.
All in all the music industry, needs to be changed. It's like a popularity system in high school it's completly stupid. Allot of the times the most talented people don't get chosen but the most superficial ones get chosen, because of this. That is why music sucks today. Quantity over quality, surface over substance. They don't pick any Pink Floyd's anymore. Instead they get Pink Floyd's sisters cousin's boyfriend. I've gotten through to Marilyn Manson's manager in California recently, Syndyck and Leonard Co, but it took me lying and cheating just to get through. But the music industry needs to be changed and learn to adapt to to this.
And now for a shameless plug, check out my music on http://www.myspace.com/groovegrinder and tell me what you think.
Thanks Ledpig.
I hear what your saying about already established successful bands
But you can look at the flipside too though.
For someone like you who Im guessing hasnt had alot of success in marketing your music. This is an opportunity to get some of it out there for the masses to hear.
Look at some of your music being downloaded not as theft but marketing.
People hear your music and like it they are more inclined to want more of it.
and be willing ot pay for it.
But people cant like or want your music if its not out there for people to hear
I dont care what anyone says. Its REALLY hard to consistantly find the kind of qualty sound you get on commerically manufactured CDs on these DL sites.
While its usually somethign minor. Somethig is usually missing, or not quite right.
And the only way to get the high quality stuff is to buy it.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Meh I do plenty of other 'illegal' things all the time, like driving over the speed limit, not putting parking money in the meter, and so on. Trying to make me feel guilty about denying some RIAA/movie executive a small portion of his weekly crack fix isn't going to work :) especially when I am aware of illegal practises that industry partakes in such as price fixing. Besides R5 proves piracy works.
I hope you do not extend that line of "reasoning" to your neighbors, but I dont't trust you not to.
-
Many of the comments here state how I feel in a way, if you combine them all.
LEADPIG, I'll start with you just because it is simplest. If you DL a song, even if you go buy it later the RIAA says you stole, and should be sued / in jail. That right there is part of the dilemma, and I don't have an answer to get around it.
Some here have mentioned downloading music because they don't want to pay $15 for a CD when they only like 2 songs. I completely agree with this, in fact it is one of my biggest complaints. Considering the cost to make a CD is less than 25¢ it is insulting to make the consumer pay $15. There was an article I remember that quoted the RIAA back years ago when CD's first came out. They promised the consumers the cost of CD's would be down below $10 in a year or two, and go even lower after that because the how cheap they were to make compared to albums and cassette tapes. Has that ever even come close to happening?
If the record companies weren't so greedy I'd be more interested in buying entire albums. As it stands the money they charge an artist for "recording time" "advertising" "distribution" and other bloated charges are just insane.
Here's a part some of you may not believe but it is totally true. Back in 1993 or 1994 when I was first learning about the internet and computers I came up with an idea. A friend had downloaded a MIDI file of some classical music and I thought WOW! I said to him "Wouldn't it be cool if you could download songs 1 at a time for 50¢ each?" This was in the first days of being about to burn CD's and I thought man I'd love to make my own CD. I was thinking of all the old songs I had on cassette that I wanted. I wanted only 2 or 3 songs from an old Whitesnake cassette but didn't want to spend $15 on the CD. I really did think of this concept years ago but knew next to nothing about computers or where to even begin with something like this. My dream was to patent the "idea" and go to Sony, BMG, so on, have them give me the songs, and I'd run the company that sells them. Sony, whoever would get 30¢ of every 50¢ song sold, and the rest would cover operating expenses. I figured there wasn't a huge market for those "old" albums, and they'd jump at the chance to make money off songs that weren't selling on CD. I also figured there were tons of other people who would love to get that "one special" old song on CD and not have to buy a $15 CD of stuff they didn't want at all.
Yes I really did think of this but had no clue where to begin.
Anyway I have always been "for" paying money for individual songs, and once that was a reality I thought wow this is cool.
Until I learned about the DRM garbage. I figure if I BOUGHT the songe once I should be able to play it wherever I want, and copy it for personal use whenever I want. Where it got really complicated is old songs I already owned. I must own 200 cassette tapes all bought years ago. I paid for those songs, and I should be able to have those in digital format if I'd like. since no one has come up with a realistic solution to cleanly convert them I have downloaded a bunch of them. There is no way I'm going to pay again for "Trixter - Give it to me Good" just to have some nostalgic hair band fun. I already own it, so I am going to download it if I can to have my digital copy. It is not a re-mix, or different version that someone took time to produce or something, it is the same song.
Well those are a few of my thoughts on this, I do have more but I am sick of typing lol.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
RIAA has no authority over here. Norwegian law states that you can copy any music or movies you have purchased for your own personal use. :)
The law is the same here in the States. You are allowed to make one back up copy of any copyrighted material you purchase. So if you buy a book, you can legally make a copy of it, same with a video game and music.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yanno what amuses me. Is the amount of radio stations that download songs "of various quality"
I can honestly say that while I've downloaded music. I've downloaded very few songs I havent already owned.
and the ones I didnt own that I've downloaded are typically old and obscure songs you just cant find anywhere for sale.
But I've found the same thing.
Download one song and maybe the drums might be missing.
Another song and something else is eithe missing or partially drowned out.
to get back to my original statement I can site one example.
A few years ago I heard a radio station playing the song " Eight Days A Week" by The Beatles.
You could hear the insumentals fine. But the voices were barely legible.
The funny thing was I had downladed the same song a week earlier and had the same exact thing. I had to try 4 diferent times before I was able to get a decent version.
Its funny cause I could have told you at the time exactly whom they downloaded it from.
By and large As I have said I've only downloaded songs I have already paid for.
Its just easier to DL 3-4 songs at a time then it is to go through my entire collection to pick out one or two songs off each.
Anything I want I pretty much already have and I havent DL'ed any in a long while.
You're talking about mistakes in the mastering process, not compression. You listened a record that was ripped from the same master that the radio station played through original lp/cd. Compression will never selectively rip off drums or vocals.. shoddy mastering can and will. So, imagine if you bought this cd for $25 and got the badly mastered version, full price, no refund.
This is what music business is.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
You're talking about mistakes in the mastering process, not compression. You listened a record that was ripped from the same master that the radio station played through original lp/cd. Compression will never selectively rip off drums or vocals.. shoddy mastering can and will. So, imagine if you bought this cd for $25 and got the badly mastered version, full price, no refund.
This is what music business is.
Until the album "Help!", the Beatles were recorded with a two track machine. They recorded the guitars and drums on one track and the vocals on the other. These were mixed and presented in mono. When these early albums were first rereleased mono was totally dead and the only way to get a stereo image from the original masters was to put one track in one channel and the other in the other. This is why you could effectively "turn off" the vocals just by playing with the balance control on your stereo.
When the Beatle albums were first released on CD they were represented as their original British release with the British track listing and in mono (if the original release was in mono). About two or three years ago, EMI, trying to squeeze every last dime out of the Beatles, released the American albums in their track order and in stereo. This is the only way a bad rip of "Eight Days a Week" could be found.
-
I don't have a problem with people trading my music. I do have a problem with people dowloading my whole record and not paying for it. I couple songs here and there is cool, to get a taste. Paying 50 cents for individual songs is fine too. Because look the record companie big wigs charge too much as it is. From the musicians side of it, i don't care, music is something i'd do if none gave a crap anyway. The real payment to me would be to bring a little joy to people. I'd like a enough too make a nice living at it. Writing songs and making music is not that hard for me too justify millions of dollars for something i do naturally. The record companies do that.
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails said something recently at a concert that sums it up. He said basically go ahead steal it, put my slavemaster bosses out of work so i can do music for the real reason i do it, something like that.
He was in Sweden or something and asked the crowd if the prices for cd's went down, to which he said that. .... Cool guy.
As a matter of fact i have the link right here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4&mode=related&search=Trent%20Reznor%20Nine%20Inch%20Nails%20interview%20MTV%20Video%20Awards
-
glad to hear you feel that way LEADPIG.
it is a fine a complex line sadly, and I can't say where it ends. I do think Radiohead's new album and the way they dealt with the release is going to turn some heads. I also think it may be the beginning in a fundamental shift in the music industry (I can hope ;) )
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Until the album "Help!", the Beatles were recorded with a two track machine. They recorded the guitars and drums on one track and the vocals on the other. These were mixed and presented in mono. When these early albums were first rereleased mono was totally dead and the only way to get a stereo image from the original masters was to put one track in one channel and the other in the other. This is why you could effectively "turn off" the vocals just by playing with the balance control on your stereo.
When the Beatle albums were first released on CD they were represented as their original British release with the British track listing and in mono (if the original release was in mono). About two or three years ago, EMI, trying to squeeze every last dime out of the Beatles, released the American albums in their track order and in stereo. This is the only way a bad rip of "Eight Days a Week" could be found.
Actually the vocals were there but just BARELY legible.
You could hear the music fine. but the vocals sounded muffled.
but thats just one example.
I head rado stations play music like this all the time with different artists. Not just the Beatles.
I've also run across the same thing Downloading songs of various artists
-
Originally posted by JB73
Some here have mentioned downloading music because they don't want to pay $15 for a CD when they only like 2 songs. I completely agree with this, in fact it is one of my biggest complaints. Considering the cost to make a CD is less than 25¢ it is insulting to make the consumer pay $15. There was an article I remember that quoted the RIAA back years ago when CD's first came out. They promised the consumers the cost of CD's would be down below $10 in a year or two, and go even lower after that because the how cheap they were to make compared to albums and cassette tapes. Has that ever even come close to happening?
If the record companies weren't so greedy I'd be more interested in buying entire albums. As it stands the money they charge an artist for "recording time" "advertising" "distribution" and other bloated charges are just insane.
.
You make a real good point. Look at the movie industry.
Remember when VCR movies cost a fortune.
I used to tape off of HBO (back when they actually showed more then 2 newer movies per month) all the time.
Now they are so cheap I dont even bother renting anymore. I just buy them outright
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I hope you do not extend that line of "reasoning" to your neighbors, but I dont't trust you not to.
If my neighbours tried to rip me off to support their drug habits I might consider it.
Nilsen, give it time, the RIAA have made their weight felt in NZ. Their going to allow you to format shift music but leave the ability for the copyright owner to 'contract out', ie all they have to do is slap a T&C on the cover saying "No copying/format shifting" and we're screwed.
GtoRA2, look at R5 DVD's. They're released quickly (sometimes before the movies hit the big screen in NZ), the quality is good, and they're cheap. Sure theres no wanking 'extras', but who cares about those? Its proof that piracy works to give the consumer a competitive stick to beat the industry over the head with. It is also proof that the industry CAN do the things it said it could not (such as cheaper DVD prices and earlier releases).
Unfortunately for the music and movie industry they've created a pavlov's dog outta me and many other consumers. I got so fed up waiting for what they should've done many years ago that piracy is a learned habit for many of us.
-
My guess is theiving has been legitimized in this thread.
That about right?
-
Originally posted by JB73
glad to hear you feel that way LEADPIG.
it is a fine a complex line sadly, and I can't say where it ends. I do think Radiohead's new album and the way they dealt with the release is going to turn some heads. I also think it may be the beginning in a fundamental shift in the music industry (I can hope ;) )
What Radiohead is doing is wonderful, but I think it will only change things if the other megabands follow suit, and thats a big if. The Industry is sooooo screwed up right now it is going to take a major shake up for the labels to get there heads out of their rear ends. The more bigtime bands that give their label the finger the better.
The sad thing is that an up and coming band really needs a label. It is very difficult to get your songs on the radio nation wide with out a lot of major label support. And forget about MTV, VHI or Fuse, with out bigtime label support getting your videos on those stations is impossible. I'm hoping that if a lot of different megastars start bailing on their record contracts it will force the major labels to start developing acts like they used to. The optimist in me wants to belive that its possible, my own experience in the biz makes me think it will be difficult because of the way the media in this country is set up.
Back in the late 90's I was in a band that got signed to a major label and it was an eye opening experience. Because big time corprate media giants like Clear Channel own about 95% of the radio stations a label needs to spend a ton of money on promotion and "payola" An A&R guy needs to not only get the label behind the band he is working with but also Clear Channel. Thats why a lot of the stuff you hear on the radio sounds the same. The labels are in it to make money, so they tend to push acts that they know will sell.
The other bands like the one I was in get left in the dust. In fact TVT, the label we where on put almost no money into us at all. We didn't even record the damn thing a second time. They just took the CD we tracked at our own studio remixed it, slapped some new artwork on it and put it in the stores. Then wouldn't give us an support for touring or promotion aside form a couple of movie and video game soundtracks. My guess is with the small amount of money they threw us when they signed us, and the little bit of money they got for the soundtracks they might of hit the break even point.
We signed a one album deal, big mistake on our part. When it came time to try and get a second album out they used the old "you didn't sell like we hoped you would" excuse, and we where out a label. I guess the 8 week tour was more then enough time to build a nation wide following:rolleyes: I am willing to bet that there are about a million bands out there that made some great music with a story like ours that never got a chance. Its a big freaking mess:furious
-
Originally posted by Hap
My guess is theiving has been legitimized in this thread.
That about right?
rationalized would be a better term :)
-
Originally posted by bizz
We signed a one album deal, big mistake on our part. When it came time to try and get a second album out they used the old "you didn't sell like we hoped you would" excuse, and we where out a label. I guess the 8 week tour was more then enough time to build a nation wide following:rolleyes: I am willing to bet that there are about a million bands out there that made some great music with a story like ours that never got a chance. Its a big freaking mess:furious
I bet the bands that they promoted were clones of the current flavor of the week, that you'll never hear about. You guys were probably different (good thing) so they didn't want to deal with you.
Iv'e heard bad things from TVT records as well, Trent Reznor grew to hate there guts. Sounds like he was right.
-
Originally posted by Hap
My guess is theiving has been legitimized in this thread.
That about right?
Yes but only if they are theiving from you :D
Im not so sure anyone is legitimising it as much as pointing out that the record companies through their shortsighted greed are in large part creators of their own problem.
As I have stated before. I remember when movies were expencive $40 +
now they are so cheap I dont bother renting or recording off TV.
I just buy them outright.
I dont have to worry about late fees, the little HBO,showtime Cinemax etc logo that pops up on the screen. And most of all unless I get a bad DVD I dont have to worry about the the quality of the recording.
Charge less and they can make buying the stuff more worthwhile, then downloading it.
Classic case where by charging less you can make more.
but if you want to put it in the terms Im sure you are thinking of.
Well lets face it. These companies arent exactly nice people either.
Most of them wouldnt think twice about ripping off some unknowns material and giving it to one of their name bands to use either.
They'd cut your or my throat in a New York minute if they thought they could get away with it and turn a profit off of it.
think not? Just look at HTC and all the fun they've had with a party that shall go nameless. in the last few years.
So while I might not condone this "theivery. Or "stealing" music
My heart doesnt exactly pump purple pi$$ for these companies either.
They aint exactly Mother Theresas themselves
Sometimes what goes around comes around.
But relax. Im sure this thread wont be around long.
these threads rarely are.
Im actually kinda surprised its been here this long
-
I'm glad the thread is here, i do love a heated discussion :)
-
speaking of all this here's a perfect example:
Anyone seen the movie "Solaris" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/) ?
the soundtrack has 1 or 2 ambient tracks I love, or at least while watching the movie I said to myself "I really like this background music"
There's no way I am going to pay $15 or more for the CD when all I am interested in is a song or 2. Also I'd like to look up the composer and see what else he has done. If he has other tracks similar I'd be interested in a compilation CD.
Thats a prime example of where I'd look to DL a track or 2, and look to DL other tracks by said composer. I won't even bother with itunes since if I do get the song al I can do is play it on my PC with apple's software. that is crap.
Sorry to go off on a tangent but if I pay money for a song I want to be able to do with it whatever I can legally do. play it on multiple sources, make copies for use in multiple locations in my household, whatever. they say "ohh you are copying it to someone else" or whatever. I say I refuse to use their product because it is a total SCAM.
well thats my thought on itunes lol sorry for the off tangent reply.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Originally posted by Gristle
Hello,
My name is Gristle and I'm a thief.
ack-ack
I actually never posted that I only brought this up for some discussion, I have purchased all of the albums that I downloaded and liked, the others I have done away with or are hiding in some abandoned folder, no need to flame me; that was kind of mean.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The law is the same here in the States. You are allowed to make one back up copy of any copyrighted material you purchase. So if you buy a book, you can legally make a copy of it, same with a video game and music.
ack-ack
And you can download music or any other copyrighted material, but it must be removed from your hard drive within 24 hours.
Originally posted by Hap
My guess is thieving has been legitimized in this thread.
That about right?
No its much more than that, I wanted it as an exploration of idea's about music piracy and possibly some competent solutions. At least that’s what I hoped for, even if it wasn’t directly addressed.
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I'm glad the thread is here, i do love a heated discussion :)
Hopefully it stays a discussion and not a flame fest.
No need to insult people on forums it's pointless and really helps nothing.
Negativity spreads like S.A.R.S. in the world.
-
I haven't purchased a CD in 6 years, and have no plans to.
the closest thing to paying for music I do is XM Radio.
I don't have gigs upon gigs of music though.. I think I may have 20 songs on my PC total right now..
I usually just look at station's play lists and download whatever songs i like, or if I hear something on XM or the radio I like, Ill DL it..
its wrong, i know it, I dont try and defend it..
but im not going to drop whats = to a month of AH for a CD containing only 2 or 3 songs I actually like..
and of course, if you buy a CD or even put songs you like on a CD, immediately every radio station will start playing them, and run them into the ground for you..
:furious
-
Originally posted by Snubby
I usually just look at station's play lists and download whatever songs i like, or if I hear something on XM or the radio I like, Ill DL it..
Interestingly enough you could legally record the same songs of the broadcast, but it becomes illegal if you download them.
More interestingly, the industry tried to ban even that kind of copying in the past when C- and VHS-casettes made their debut.
Where's the compromise today?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Interestingly enough you could legally record the same songs of the broadcast, but it becomes illegal if you download them.
More interestingly, the industry tried to ban even that kind of copying in the past when C- and VHS-casettes made their debut.
Where's the compromise today?
Yea, when... IF... they come out im going to upgrade to an XM radio that has memory that will PERMANATLY save (not just pause like they do now) songs, assuming the RIAA doesent get the technology buried, which is what they are trying to do.
-
The whole piracy DRM thing is really a front for Disney, they are about to lose the copy right to "Micky Mouse" and are trying to defend the cash cow. Here is a link to a series of articles by Eric Flint, about copy right and open access.
Enjoy
http://www.baens-universe.com/authors/Eric_Flint
Disclaimer, Eric sometimes pays me for what I write, so I am biased...
Kevin
-
Im not so sure anyone is legitimising it as much as pointing out that the record companies through their shortsighted greed are in large part creators of their own problem.
I see a lot of that going on in this thread as well. I also read the article that was linked in the first post and believe that was the same point being made there.