Download fever

Trouserpress wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Trouserpress wrote: sonic_assassin wrote: My fav P2P is WinMX, btw. Try Soulseek. It's about 10000% better than Win MX. Huh, WinMX is absolutely free though! ...so's Soulseek. What's yer point, Snowy?

When i tried soulseek, they wanted a monthly subscription!

Edit....ha! I've been trying the wrong soulseek, I tried ages ago, when you mentioned it, but thre's another one you pay for!!!!

Anyway WinMX is still better! Or should I ask, in what way is soulseek better?

soulseeks better cause you can download whole cds

Trouserpress wrote: jiggajake wrote: soulseeks better cause you can download whole cds And any downloads you do do are from specific users who you can communicate with. There's also an (ocassionally) lively progressive rock chat room where users swap recommendations and discuss albums. Oh, and the search facility's better. And other reasons that I can't think of off hand. It's just generally better - this is coming from someone who used Win MX for about a year.

You can download whole CDs with WinMX, you also download from specific users and you can communicate with them! So thats the same then,

Search fascility better? I don't know yet, but didn't like what I saw! I'll try it though!

Smaller bands tend not to make that much money from CD sales (there are always exceptions, but it's generally true) so if you want to support the likes of Pendragon you're probably better going to a gig and buying a t shirt (and if you want to buy a CD, buy it directly from the band themselves). The bootlegging which hits artists is the proliferation of mass produced cheap copies, which home downloaders aren't generally involved with.

My own take on downloading is that, in the case of new or unfamiliar artists, it allows me to try before I buy - and if I like the music I always buy a legitimate copy because there's always some loss of quality with MP3 files, plus I like to have the information in the packaging.

I also have no qualms about using downloading to replace albums that I bought in another format when they were first released - especially those which weren't that great to start off with. In the case of albums like More or Obscured by Clouds I resent paying full price for a second rate 30 year old album. After all, CD reissues represent almost pure profit for the music industry (production costs are pretty minimal and there's no guarantee that any money will actually reach the artist).

Remember those warnings that home taping was killing music? This is the same idiocy repeating itself. The emergence of the CD format in the 80s gave the music industry a cash bonanza that defies belief. This current furore is really about major corporations blaming consumers for not making them even more obscenely wealthy than they already are.

goose wrote: BitchBrew wrote: If you can't afford to buy a CD, downloading is OK! WHY THE f**k NOT!? ...and if you can't afford a CD player, stealing is OK? Why the f**k not?

 I can't afford a Ferrari so it must be okay to steal one then!

I would suggest you talk to Nick Barrett of Pendragon about downloading and explain to him why you think it's okay to deprive him of his royalties.

goose wrote: So? The musicians signed that contract, therefore they're happy for the record company to take what they do in return for promotion.

What is your point? You forgot to defend your incorrect statement. The discussion is not whether it is right or wrong to download. Actually, there is no discussion: Copying music is not stealing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing&db=*

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=copying&db=*

It's important to differentiate between the two terms, since stealing directly hurt the original owner of the object. Therefore, it should be punished more severely. In many cases it does not, and the reason for that is illogical copyright laws.