| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rocktopus 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
 Posted: February 19 2009 at 13:58 |
 Vibrationbaby wrote:
Gentlemen. It is very simple as I pointed out earlier. Go to the music store. Ask the nice man/woman if he/ she has the CD or DVD which you require. If he/does not ask nicely if it is possible to order it. This is what we did in the olden days. I don`t get you guys. I still do it. I have NEVER EVER ordered a CD, LP, Cassette, 8 Track over the internet ( Itried once and got burned out of $200 ) and in the end I`ve always managed to hunt down anything I ever wanted. I have close to 4,000 albums/CDs and am proud of the fact that I can remember where just about every single one of them came from although sometimes I find the odd album still in it`s original plastic unopened. There. End of thread.
|
Hello stone age man. You won't be able to end end the thread with this post. That's for sure. The world has changed. And people of your own generation is more to blame for everything you think is wrong than musicinterested teenagers growing up now. I've never had a problem with ordering over the internet. When I order on ebay, its mostly through actual musicstores who also sells online anyway. What is so wrong about that? Btw: Have you ever tried to go to the CD/DVD musicstore and order an out of print vinyl, that's never been reissued?
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 13:35 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The cost of producing an album can hardly be called "immaterial" ... *someone* has to pay the money. Maybe it wouldn't matter to Metallica if an album cost $150000 or $10000, but it surely matters to young new artists who are looking for ways to make music without depending on a huge industry. In the old days (as I've been told) if you wanted to make a record you made a deal with a record *company*, which essentially meant that they paid for production and promotion, and in turn got most of the profit from the album sales. Today it is possible for an artist to record an album for less than $10000, which makes it possible to go ahead without making deals with companies ... IMO that's the big difference.
|
I was refering to it being immaterial to the retail price of a CD - Amazon don't price CDs based on studio costs.
Once downloading has torn down the barriers and destroyed the multinationals no one will be signed and every band will have no choice but to record albums "on the cheap" - every album will be recorded for much less than $10,000. Eventhough I like many albums recorded in this way, I honestly don't want all of them like that.
Edited by Dean - February 19 2009 at 14:26
|
|
What?
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 13:21 |
|
Gentlemen. It is very simple as I pointed out earlier. Go to the music store. Ask the nice man/woman if he/ she has the CD or DVD which you require. If he/does not ask nicely if it is possible to order it. This is what we did in the olden days. I don`t get you guys. I still do it. I have NEVER EVER ordered a CD, LP, Cassette, 8 Track over the internet ( Itried once and got burned out of $200 ) and in the end I`ve always managed to hunt down anything I ever wanted. I have close to 4,000 albums/CDs and am proud of the fact that I can remember where just about every single one of them came from although sometimes I find the odd album still in it`s original plastic unopened. There. End of thread.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 13:15 |
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.
If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.
|
I didn't say that because recording has become much cheaper artists *should* give away their music for free. I'm all for "let the artist decide". The point is: Today it is *possible* for an artist to be independent of record companies and still make really good music recordings. That means that contrary to the situation in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, today there are alternatives.
|
The cost of producing a work of art, be it a painting, a sculpture, a book or a peice of music has little bearing on its value or selling price. What you are paying for is not the material costs and the artisans hourly-rate, but for a very intangible commodity - the creative process.
Whether a band spent $15,000 in a studio or $150,000 did not affect the selling price of the album in the pre-Digital age, so today if a band spends $150,000, $15,000, $1,500 or $150 is as equally immaterial - the only difference is that he does not have to sell as many to cover his expenditure, which with the way the music industry is at the moment, is just as well.
|
The cost of producing an album can hardly be called "immaterial" ... *someone* has to pay the money. Maybe it wouldn't matter to Metallica if an album cost $150000 or $10000, but it surely matters to young new artists who are looking for ways to make music without depending on a huge industry. In the old days (as I've been told) if you wanted to make a record you made a deal with a record *company*, which essentially meant that they paid for production and promotion, and in turn got most of the profit from the album sales. Today it is possible for an artist to record an album for less than $10000, which makes it possible to go ahead without making deals with companies ... IMO that's the big difference.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 12:52 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.
If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.
|
I didn't say that because recording has become much cheaper artists *should* give away their music for free. I'm all for "let the artist decide". The point is: Today it is *possible* for an artist to be independent of record companies and still make really good music recordings. That means that contrary to the situation in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, today there are alternatives.
|
The cost of producing a work of art, be it a painting, a sculpture, a book or a peice of music has little bearing on its value or selling price. What you are paying for is not the material costs and the artisans hourly-rate, but for a very intangible commodity - the creative process.
Whether a band spent $15,000 in a studio or $150,000 did not affect the selling price of the album in the pre-Digital age, so today if a band spends $150,000, $15,000, $1,500 or $150 is as equally immaterial - the only difference is that he does not have to sell as many to cover his expenditure, which with the way the music industry is at the moment, is just as well.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 12:45 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 12:41 |
|
^ you should rather use a site like last.fm ... at least there you get paid when people download or listen to your music.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 12:15 |
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Exactly that's the point of this all, many anti piracy organitations sue those companies and they lost the case.
that's because of the "volatile" entity that the internet is. |
They don't lose every case and the file-share companies have changed how they operate as a result. One-click file hosts only provide a service and that service is legal - they do not support, encourage or condone illegal file-sharing - it is the people using the service for illegal means who are committing the crime. Rapidshare and the like will remove illegal files once they are reported, and they keep a database to prevent known illegal files from being uploaded again. What they will not do is open the file to check whether the content is legal - this is the battle that is currently being fought by the anti-piracy agencies.
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Yes Dean i know how the Torrent works, but i reffer of the millions of blogs putting "free music" and links of Rapidshare, megaupload and the likes |
I gave the Torrent example to show that the internet has already moved beyond simple Uploading. The bit-torrent file contains no illegal content and the "illegal" data-file has not been uploaded to a server or host.
However, person carrying lock-picks and other such burglary tools can be arrested and charged with intent to commit a crime, even if no crime has been committed. You cannot sue the brick maker for making bricks, but you can prosecute someone for carrying a brick near a jewellers shop.
So a file may have illegal content, but the One-click hosts, the anti-piracy agencies and all the other internet users do not know what is inside, therefore do not know whether it is legal or not. That file can sit on the host's server forever and no crime is being committed - what makes it illegal is knowing what is inside and deliberately downloading it to get its contents. Similarly, a bit-torrent file is useless unless you know it downloads a particular content.
Therefore the "tools" that facilitate this illegal act are not the file-hosting services that hosting service providers provide, but links and bit-torrent files that identify and point to that data-file as being the a particular album or film. It is the sites that provide those links are what is facilitating the crime, not the hosts... and having to know which file to download to get the prize is the chink in the armour of illegal file-sharing using One-click hosts... at some point in the system something has to say "for the entire Metadeth discography download, click >here<" and that, to my mind, is where the crime is committed.
Trademark wrote:
The ad heading on the page at the moment is promoting a server-based file sharing site which, if I mention it by name, I could be banned.  |
Advertising file sharing services is not illegal - they can be used for legal means - I use Rapidshare, YouSendIt and MegaUpload to share my own Creative Commons protected music creations to all who can be bothered to listen to it. So, no, you couldn't be banned for mentioning them 
/edit - corrected for spelling. 
Edited by Dean - February 19 2009 at 12:16
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 11:18 |
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 11:10 |
angelmk wrote:
anti piracy organisations tryied to sue rapidshare also, and they did, but lost the case, rapidshare stated that they don't know what has been uploaded on their servers, it was private to the uploader, and they are not responsible for that. the same as pirate bay case : Gottfrid Svartholm’s lawyer stated that users generate the content on The Pirate Bay, and that his defendant has no control over it. Peter Sunde’s lawyer pointed out that his client was merely the spokesperson of the site, and said that Peter was not responsible for anything else. It was further argued that the correlation between the number of downloads and damages suffered by the copyright holders is non-existent.
EU directive 2000/31/EG says that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. In order to be responsible, the service provider must initiate the transfer. But the admins of The Pirate Bay don’t initiate transfers. It’s the users that do and they are physically identifiable people as currently The pirate bay is dealining with charges of illegal filesharing, but as trail is on it's 4 day pirate bay are wining becouse : What has been shown in court today is that the prosecutor cannot prove that the .torrent files he is using as evidence actually used The Pirate Bay’s tracker. Many of the screenshots being used clearly state there is no connection to the tracker.
My point was torrent thing perfectly works , and cannot be blamed that it is illegal , (Although it is ,in fact. but cannot be proved) |
The fact is that the providers of a service of this kind (which has also a legal use), are not to be blamed, because this service is not provided to send music, but to send large personal files, the misuse of them is not responsibility of the provider.
The funny thing is that this was started by one of the most wild anti piracy fighters, I'm talking about Sony.
In 1984 (If I'm not wrong), Universal Studios and Disney Corp sued their today partner Sony, because they sold the Betamax that according to Universal and Disney, was being used to copy TV programs with copyrights.
After a long trial and when it was useless because 50% of USA had a Video Recorder, the Court ruled that defendant (Sony) merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use…"
Of course some rules were imposed, like a lapse of time before the movie could be shown on TV, but it was clear that the provider couldn't be held responsible for the way people used their product.
Now Sony is on the other side, but since they were the reason of the precedent, very little can be done.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 19 2009 at 11:12
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 11:07 |
Pnoom! wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
When artists decides to make their music available for free, that somehow devalues the music. |
No, it doesn't. All it does is reflect that the band understands the situation music is currently in and is responding to it.
|
Maybe not for you or for me, but for many people it's the case. They're complaining about prices, but at the same time they're ignoring the legally free downloads. How many people here know JT Bruce's albums? Not very many, I guess.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 11:01 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
When artists decides to make their music available for free, that somehow devalues the music. |
No, it doesn't. All it does is reflect that the band understands the situation music is currently in and is responding to it.
Edited by Pnoom! - February 19 2009 at 11:01
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 10:04 |
Exactly that's the point of this all, many anti piracy organitations sue those companies and they lost the case.
that's because of the "volatile" entity that the internet is.
|
|
|
|
angelmk
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 22 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1955
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 09:53 |
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Dean wrote:
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Download music via fileshare is illegal, but why is illegal?
it's illegal for the copyright rights that protect a intellectual propierty of abuse.
Those copyrights are, in most cases, forever, until the copyright holder decides to sell to another person.
Or die and the descendanst (generally) inherit the copyrights titularity.
Now the main problem that face the bussiness record companies is how volatile is the information on the internet, and here enter many international laws and local laws that should have prohibited this kind of sharing system.
And point two: These companies of file sharing do not do anything to prohibit illegal UPLOAD of content, so any anonymous person can upload what ever want.
So, to broke the law is necessary the behaviour of that person that have the willing of UPLOAD that copyrighyted content, the UPLOAD can be a cd's a couple's of songs, entire books, etc. But i think that the person who UPLOAD is that about to blame, because he put avaible to all the world (almost) the copyright material in mention.
So, maybe we can talk of illegal UPLOAD.
|
The problem with Bit Torrent P2P filesharing is nobody uploads any illegal material to a file-sharinging company - the torrent file-share sites only store torrent-files and the torrent-file contains no copyright-protected information, it contains none of the artists material and therefore is not illegal.
The torrent-file is like a key that instructs the torrent software to collect parts of the target file from all the torrent clients (users) that have copies (or partial copies) of the file on their home PCs. It then peices together the file content from all the small packets it has collected from all the client's PCs like a jigsaw. So the final file could be made up from thousands of small packets from hundreds of different "uploaders" (which is why it is called Peer-to-Peer - the Torrent sites do not even touch the file, legal or illegal, all they provide is the "key")
Once the torrent software has each small section of the file, it also starts seeding the system with those same packets, so the "downloader" also becomes an "uploader" - but he is not uploading the whole file, only small pieces of it.
|
Yes Dean i know how the Torrent works, but i reffer of the millions of blogs putting "free music" and links of Rapidshare, megaupload and the likes |
anti piracy organisations tryied to sue rapidshare also, and they did, but lost the case, rapidshare stated that they don't know what has been uploaded on their servers, it was private to the uploader, and they are not responsible for that. the same as pirate bay case : Gottfrid Svartholm’s lawyer stated that users generate the content on The Pirate Bay, and that his defendant has no control over it. Peter Sunde’s lawyer pointed out that his client was merely the spokesperson of the site, and said that Peter was not responsible for anything else. It was further argued that the correlation between the number of downloads and damages suffered by the copyright holders is non-existent. EU directive 2000/31/EG says that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. In order to be responsible, the service provider must initiate the transfer. But the admins of The Pirate Bay don’t initiate transfers. It’s the users that do and they are physically identifiable people as currently The pirate bay is dealining with charges of illegal filesharing, but as trail is on it's 4 day pirate bay are wining becouse : What has been shown in court today is that the prosecutor cannot prove that the .torrent files he is using as evidence actually used The Pirate Bay’s tracker. Many of the screenshots being used clearly state there is no connection to the tracker. My point was torrent thing perfectly works , and cannot be blamed that it is illegal , (Although it is ,in fact. but cannot be proved)
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 09:34 |
Dean wrote:
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Download music via fileshare is illegal, but why is illegal?
it's illegal for the copyright rights that protect a intellectual propierty of abuse.
Those copyrights are, in most cases, forever, until the copyright holder decides to sell to another person.
Or die and the descendanst (generally) inherit the copyrights titularity.
Now the main problem that face the bussiness record companies is how volatile is the information on the internet, and here enter many international laws and local laws that should have prohibited this kind of sharing system.
And point two: These companies of file sharing do not do anything to prohibit illegal UPLOAD of content, so any anonymous person can upload what ever want.
So, to broke the law is necessary the behaviour of that person that have the willing of UPLOAD that copyrighyted content, the UPLOAD can be a cd's a couple's of songs, entire books, etc. But i think that the person who UPLOAD is that about to blame, because he put avaible to all the world (almost) the copyright material in mention.
So, maybe we can talk of illegal UPLOAD.
|
The problem with Bit Torrent P2P filesharing is nobody uploads any illegal material to a file-sharinging company - the torrent file-share sites only store torrent-files and the torrent-file contains no copyright-protected information, it contains none of the artists material and therefore is not illegal.
The torrent-file is like a key that instructs the torrent software to collect parts of the target file from all the torrent clients (users) that have copies (or partial copies) of the file on their home PCs. It then peices together the file content from all the small packets it has collected from all the client's PCs like a jigsaw. So the final file could be made up from thousands of small packets from hundreds of different "uploaders" (which is why it is called Peer-to-Peer - the Torrent sites do not even touch the file, legal or illegal, all they provide is the "key")
Once the torrent software has each small section of the file, it also starts seeding the system with those same packets, so the "downloader" also becomes an "uploader" - but he is not uploading the whole file, only small pieces of it.
|
Yes Dean i know how the Torrent works, but i reffer of the millions of blogs putting "free music" and links of Rapidshare, megaupload and the likes
|
|
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 06:31 |
|
I've just sent in the PA interview with Nick Barrett of Pendragon. You may want to read the sections where he talks of this issue.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 04:58 |
HughesJB4 wrote:
If art suffers because you have a day job and don't have all day to work on it, explain to me why so many great albums have still come from artists that had to record in between their day job?
Chances are, you might just need a few more months to do it if you have a day job that isn't related to the music you're working on, rather than automatically saying : having day job=art suffers.
|
Working with art is work too, and should be respected as such. I don't have to explain to you why its
possible to do create great art in your spare time (and
I've mentioned earlier in the thread that it happens). An artist can be a brilliant mechanic in his or her spare time and the other way around. So what? We should ideally (like I wrote) allow people that are outstanding at something, do it for a living. Thinking otherwise is an insult to art imo.
Stop excusing lack of willingness to pay for art with rubbish arguments like low production expences. Btw: I'm not saying that any of you aren't buying/paying for stuff. This is just about the arguments you use.
Edited by Rocktopus - February 19 2009 at 05:23
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 04:50 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.
If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.
|
I didn't say that because recording has become much cheaper artists *should* give away their music for free. I'm all for "let the artist decide". The point is: Today it is *possible* for an artist to be independent of record companies and still make really good music recordings. That means that contrary to the situation in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, today there are alternatives.
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 04:41 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.
If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.
|
If art suffers because you have a day job and don't have all day to work on it, explain to me why so many great albums have still come from artists that had to record in between their day job? Chances are, you might just need a few more months to do it if you have a day job that isn't related to the music you're working on, rather than automatically saying : having day job=art suffers.
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: February 19 2009 at 04:36 |
|
Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.
If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Downloading
