I want substance. I want tangible. I want a booklet with pretty pictures. I want a free patch and stickers. I want a poster of the pyramids. I want free post-cards and art prints. I want a gate-fold sleave with original artwork by Dave McKean or Roger Dean. I want an insert with a list of forthcoming realses from the same lable. I want a lyric sheet. I want hidden tracks and bonus material. I want a free making-of DVD. I want to read the thanks list to see if anyone I know is on it. I want to know who played 'cello on track three.

 

And if there is a small piece of plastic amongst all that that contains some music as well then all the better.

 

 

I agree with you there but for me it is difficult to find time to go to CD shops and mail order is very expensive to Greece. So starting downloads seems like a logical step. After all, I already have a good stack of CDs. I will continue to buy CDs from time to time.

 

...I don't like downloading music either - like others, I want something tangible for my money, but occasionally I'll buy a track just to get the taste.

 

 

Dunno......try it!

 

I wonder what  "account suspended" means?

 

Now that's the kind of sucky, bigoted and blindfolded attitude we need to fight.

 

Not every artist is born rich, and it tends to be the pretty ones that attract the big piles of cash, while talented people slave away.

 

Imagine if Mozart had got a proper job because he was short of a bob or two (which he constantly was)?

Most have part time jobs that they use to finance their passion and their art.

 

Can you buy your favorite bands CD in the supermarket? NO

Can you buy them from Amazon? Probably, but they are on a 28 day delivery

Can you buy them from niche genre websites? Usually.

Can you buy them from the band website? YES

Can you see them headline in a 50,000 capacity arena? NO

Can you see them in a 5,000 capacity venue? Maybe

Can you see them in a dingy 500 capacity club? YES

 

if your answers match mine then...

 

Will downloading their songs for free "stick it to the man"? NO

Will it hurt the artist? YES

 

 

 

 

Why does every thread about downloading,even if the thread is dedicated to legal downloading,turn into an argument about the illegality of downloading????

 

Please do not put words into my mouth.

 

I am not advocating anything - I simply stated that if you don't like what you bought take it back.

 

Returning purchases is within your statutory legal rights. I have done this with one CD out of several thousand I have purchased over the years. That does not make me a hypocrit - it doesn't even qualify me as a descerning purchaser.

 

 

Because that's how it once was, before the advent of the Internet... remember the 80's or early 90's ? Or are you too young (to care ?)

 

The most we could hear then was ONE song on the radio, and, when it came to prog, you didn't hear a single song.  Exciting times indeed, when you never knew what an album would sound like, when the simple act of discovery was a joy in itself.  You must be part of that BLANK generation Wilson and PT depict in Fear of a Blank Planet , the bored-to-death, everything-has-to -be-provided-for-me generation, nothing excites you, does it ?

No doubt he will think he has been unfairly censored.

 

He has been censored and his so-called right of freedom of speech has been curtailed for the sake of this thread and as a courtesy to other members.

 

Please continue to discuss on-topic.

 

 

 

 

admin note. childish name-calling edited out. Please dont inflame the situation.

 

whenever you post and run like this I just have to laugh....

 

Now how about explaining yourself adequately instead of making smart-ass comments..

 

 

 

wasnt suggesting you "feared" me but you surely must know that this type of posting is pure "troll". Not suggesting you are a "troll" just that one could interpret it that way.

 

Thanks for the link. I understand your postion better now.

 

I dont understand why you have to make your replies personal and thus aggressive seiing as you are quick to point out this failing in others...

 

 

OK, I re-read what I wrote, and I look at this way:

 

If I make something and people don't buy it, then I don't make any money. To date, I have made no money from my music - but I don't try as hard these days, since I have a family, etc.

 

When I was working on the circuits trying to make a crust from music by gigging every night, I didn't consider myself rich as I took my share of the night's takings and tried to find a floor to sleep on somewhere.

 

I didn't consider myself rich as so-called managers ran off with the kitty.

 

I didn't consider myself rich when I found a load of our tapes had got ripped off (stolen) one night - I cursed people who steal music as I still do.

 

 

Yes, the record industry stinks.

 

Stealing from the artists does not make it smell better.

 

You don't have to download illegally in order to hear music - there are streaming sites all over the place - here, for instance - and legal ways to get music for free - so that argument carries no weight whatsoever.

 

 

It's not a debate - this thread is about joining the legal campaign - I'm sorry I lost my temper; I should have just ignored your ignorant post.

 

 

If you think my point of view is narrow minded, then you might be right - but I have reason to feel this way.

 

If you think it's naive - think again about who the naive one is.

 

I hope he reads it and thinks, though

 

Radiohead appalled Parlophone by putting the entire Kid A album online for free download BEFORE it was officially released.

 

It sold extremely well.

 

Muse put the entire "Black Holes and Revelations" album onto their MySpace page before general release - many bands have official MySpace pages with either streaming or downloadable tracks, and more sites like MySpace are springing up all the time - so you don't have to sponsor Rupert Murdoch!

 

Finally, YouTube (and other streaming video sites) are a fantastic way to explore a huge wealth of music - the streaming videos may be generally poor quality, but they add life to the music, and there's stuff on there that's really, really hard to track down in any other format, including rare Prog Rock.

 

I've certainly been topping up my CD and LP collection as a result of YouTube browsing - and it really helps with research.

 

Unlike Murdoch, who books a separate suite for his loot...

 

That's very good news that the record companies are finally seeing the light. DRM was one of the reasons why I never got into downloading. DRM never worked to stop illegal downloading anyway. 

 

arf,arf.arf...

 

Please differentiate between FREE as in legally free and STOLEN, as in illegally free - it's not a hard distinction to make - and the principle's the same, except that with legally free downloads, the artist has chosen to have that greater audience.

 

If the artist has not chosen that route, please respect that decision.

"Please differentiate between FREE as in legally free and STOLEN, as in illegally free - it's not a hard distinction to make - and the principle's the same, except that with legally free downloads, the artist has chosen to have that greater audience."

 

I'd rather not make a distinction.  If artists have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new era, so be it.  I heartily encourage everyone and anyone to download whatever they want -- legally or illegally -- and then purchase the album if you deem what you have heard to be purchase-worthy.   

 

 

I was just wondering exactly how many Artists have voluntarily entered into the new era.

 

You like being dragged kicking and screaming everywhere?

 

Now that's a good idea

 

 

So, if you want to find out if you really like a particular stereo, you'd rather steal it first and find out if you like the sound of it before you buy it?

 

I'm sorry, but in most countries, that's a crime.

 

What if I wanted to find out if I liked something you owned before I bought it, so came round your house and stole it?

 

Would you be happy with that?

 

You'd not be getting paid by me in any case.  I've spent thousands on CDs over the years, but no artist has seen a penny of my money in at least 5 years.  I buy everything used. 

 

In any event, artists simply need to get used to the fact that people are going to get their stuff, for free, pretty much whenever they want.  And this is a GOOD thing for all interested parties. It will lead to greater and greater sales and concert attendances.

 

 

back after 13 months away....

 

It's about exposure.  The more you give away, the more you will sell. 

 

There are good and hurtful ways of obtaining music for free.

But whatever -- I do what I want and will not be stopped.  If I hear something that I like, I eventually buy it.  If it doesn't really stick with me, I don't.  Free downloads help the consumer, and as I'm sure you're aware, the customer is always right.  

 

The prog metal band Mindflow have released two albums and you can download both of them in their entirety at their website.

 

Because the exposure is larger, more people will buy the albums, even if there is a percentage who would not.  Funny how radio stations and blank cassette tapes did not hurt the music industry one iota.  It's a shame that some artists are so short-sighted and greedy.

 

He means that it has been taken over for other purposes.

 

We'll buy you a new hat if you promise to behave....

 

I will let this open and see what happens.

 

This is a quite normal opinion on this topic here and unlike my post, not considered trolling.

Its ignorant, self righteous and it disgusts me.

Try and figure out how its possible to discuss a swedish jazz/fusion album with only 500 ex. printed in '74 and never reissued. With a 16 year old intelligent, kid from some country where there probably doesn't even exist a single original copy of that record. While you either bought your copy when it was brand new, or on ebay for 70 euros (which doesn't help the artist any more than a free download). Try and figure out how the kid got to hear it. You think he wouldn't rather own an original copy himself like you, if he could?
 
Do you want to stay friends or do you want keep judging, even see the kid prosecuted? A thief is a thief is a thief? No way! The world is not that simple a place. Some of you have no idea how many unfortunate youngsters who wisely stays away from all these discussions, you're hurting. This is your new friends. Your young, bright hopes for the future of prog.

(Downloading a new album you can easily find, and afford, is of course wrong)

 

Here's an example: Magellan. Their new album, Innocent God, is available online-only, for ordering and also for downloading, IF YOU PAY. That means, you're paying the artist (Trent Gardner0 and he's receiving his due share for the work he's done.

 

Why did he get out of Inside Out and got into this more internet-oriented deal? Maybe there are some other reaons, but for sure he should've felt displeased with his "numbers" in terms or records sold.

 

Now, he controls what happens to him, financially. He controls what albums are sent by mail (like I did, I bought a hard copy in cd) or over the internet. You know why? Because he's not only a musician...THAT'S HIS JOB.

 

So how come only musicians have to let others download the products of their efforts? I've never heard that in other professions you have to let people benefit from you freely. A talking point: yes, music is an art. BUT IT'S ALSO A WAY OF LIVING. So let's stop pretending that we as consumers have the right to step on the rights of the creator of the music and benefit only on one side.

 

Someone mentioned that "the consumer is always right". You know what? That rule applies in the world of retail mostly, where a manufacturer produces an item, somebody else sells it, and the profits are shared (most of the percentage to the manufacturer, a little to the store). Of course, for a capitalist system to work, the consumer has the right to complain about any defects and to demand the best possible service. BUT I'VE NEVER HEARD NOR SEEN THAT INVOKING THE "CONSUMER'S ALWAYS RIGHT" THING A COSTUMER HAD THE RIGHT TO GET AN ITEM FOR FREE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT FOR THE STORE OR FOR THE MANUFACTURER. That rule helps the consume going...If the consumer's happy, he'll return. If the consumer's well-treated, he'll more than likely purcchase MORE. So in the end both the manufacturer and the store get BENEFIT. DON'T THINK THAT RULE (OR LAW) IS CREATED FOR THE SAKE OF CHEAP CONSUMERS< BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE MARKET. THE MARKET BENEFITS OF THAT, AND AS THE MARKET BENEFITS, THE ECONOMY BENEFITS.

 

It has NOTHING TO DO with music. What you say would be like going to the store, stealing an item, and if you're caught, saying: "hey! I have the right as consumer to try the product"!  Of course, they won't grant you that right, but the right to ride in a police car to a very special place.

 

Musicians are professionals. You love music? Then start realizing that music is another way of living, start by giving music the importance it deserves. When you say that "music should be free to download for the sake of the consumer" you're just degrading music to a third-rate hobby. SORRY MY FRIEND, IT IS NOT. Even Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, THEY WERE ABLE TO EAT THANKS TO THEIR MUSIC.

 

So now that we have internet, music suddenly is just a joke? Give me a break.

 

Downloading legally? OK!! I don;'t like it for musical reasons, but that's personal, there's no moral objections. Downloading just for your sake? VILE, VULGAR THEFT.

 

I believe that Google now own YouTube and are doing everything in their powers to keep it legal, so I try to use my common sense with material posted there.

 

The stuff on YouTube is typically of a very low quality, and streamed - it's a nice taste of the product, but in no way as good as the real thing - and once you've seen it, the file remains where it is - not on your hard drive.

 

 

File sharing is much more clear cut - the rules are obvious: If it's yours, feel free to share it ( http://www.4shared.com/dir/2520511/c9583a45/In_Progress.html%20 - check out my music LEGALLY AND FOR FREE   - the password is ProgArchives, as this song is available ONLY to members of this site due to it's proggy nature . There's more on my http://www.myspace.com/Certif1ed - MySpace page, but it's not as proggy).

 

If it's not yours - ie, you didn't create the actual music, then sharing it is illegal.

 

It's not about how we feel - if the Recording Industry ASS. catches you, then you're nicked, fair and square.

 

 

 

It's fairly simple really - the property of the artist is the music, not the digital file or physical album, which belongs to you and you alone unless you trade it, sell it or otherwise dispose of it.

 

It's called Intellectual Property: Just as you wouldn't quote from a book or another website and claim the material to be your own, music is not yours to re-distribute unless you wrote it.

 

 

As with computer software, the bit that belongs to you is the physical media that contains it, not the stuff on it, which might have cost millions of dollars to develop and market. This belongs to the company or individuals that created it.

 

Copying music or software in order to maintain a backup (in case the original becomes damaged) is permissible - although some companies are trying to make this illegal. I do not believe it should be, as I believe it's a right: CD's can get damaged and unplayable - why should I pay for the content twice?

 

Copying music or software in order to re-distribute it is quite obviously wrong - if someone wants a copy, they should buy it so that the creator of the work gets paid what's due to them.

 

If you receive a copy you haven't paid for, then the creator - quite obviously - does not get paid for it. Instead of selling 1,000 copies, they have only sold 999 copies - and so it goes on.

 

By not paying them for their product, you are stealing from them, the same as if it was something tangible - and that's the crux of the argument for Intellectual Property law as I understand it.

 

 

In the case of a leak, then the copyright has been breached, and anyone exchanging or receiving copies may be prosecuted if caught.

 

 

More and more frequently, digital media is watermarked these days, and there is technology that allows it to "phone home" through various media players if it detects an invalid license. The technology is young, but it will evolve.

 

The fact that the RIAA has persued civil prosecutions demonstrates that a law has been broken in that they can demonstrate "fair use" has not been met.

 

The RIAA is for the USA, other countries have their own governing bodies and laws, downloading is legal in some, but not all countries. Uploading of copyright material is illegal in all countries.

 

For your Utopia to exist there has to be a mechanism that permits the copyright holder to grant this permission and for the downloader to demonstrate that the download has subsequently been either paid for or deleted. At present this mechanism does not exist .

 

http://creativecommons.org/ - Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright which offers greater flexibility to the Artist, in that they can stipulate the level of permitted copying. /edit: the weakness in this system is that there is no way for the Artist to monitor this activity, i.e. there is no way for the downloader to demonstrate he has kept within the terms of the agreement.