|
Unsung Forum » Fileshare and illegally download now! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:04
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: What part of this pending legislature do you interpret to say, that you will no longer be able to purchase 'LEGAL' downloads from I-Tunes and Amazon and etc....? D1: It's the part that causes me to be fined and banned from accessing the internet once I'm found to have downloaded evil shared files (illegally of course in the eyes of the legislature). This would prevent me shopping on Amazon and downloading from iTunes. I love music, I'm obsessed with it, I spend large amounts of money on it - I bought both Beatles box sets, for example. But I love to hear music that is never going to get a commercial release and which will therefore never make any money for the artists. Recently, someone on here pointed me to a site offering the facility to download dozens of audience recordings of gigs by Joy Division and New Order from the late 70s and early 80s. I am ecstatic to be able to hear this stuff, which will never be made available commerically. Therefore the only way I will get to hear it is via illegal filesharing. In the past it would have been by way of crappy bootleg tapes. These sort of filesharing sites are only likely to be of interest to sad music obsessives like me in the first place, who are EXACTLY the sort of people who also still buy the artists' records. So, by downloading this music, I am not harming the artist. By uploading ut, neither is the filesharer (who will often be equally as much of a fan of the artist as the people downloading are). Many filesharing sites are fan-oriented labours of love, by and for people who just want to hear the music. Further, as I still prefer buying CDs and records, if someone did release this stuff commercially, I would no doubt buy it anyway. If the record labels actually gave a toss about the music and the artists, rather than the profit margins, much more of this stuff might get an official release in the first place. Anyway, this proposed legislation would brand me a criminal and potentially cut off my internet access, thus preventing me from buying "legal" products which do support the artists. This is especially irritating when the government and the record industry has done nothing to support record shops (which is where I used to buy actual records) and has therefore forced me to look online.
|
|||
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:11
|
||
|
""Ma gavte la nata. Take out the cork." You say it to anyone who is full of himself, the idea being that what causes him to swell and strut is the pressure of a cork stuck in his behind. Remove it, and phsssssh, he returns to the human condition" Umberto Eco 'Foucault's Pendulum'. My history of buying music and supporting bands is not in question. I work in a slaughter house and therefore only contribute to boards such as this in the precious hours before and after work. I asked what difference it made to the artist financially wether one downloaded music or bought it second hand or from a remainder bin.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:16
|
||
|
Thesweetcheat, Thank you for this very respectful reply. It is thoughtfully written and devoid of the usual 'Fuck-em's' 'Cunt's' and the usual frothing at the mouth, mob mentality and little cause to support platitudes. I'm going to see if this thread generates any more responses that would appear at face value to support, un-equivocally, the outright theft of copyrighted material, before offering my rebuttal. But i promise i shall. Regards D1
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:20
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Thesweetcheat, Thank you for this very respectful reply. It is thoughtfully written and devoid of the usual 'Fuck-em's' 'Cunt's' and the usual frothing at the mouth, mob mentality and little cause to support platitudes. I'm going to see if this thread generates any more responses that would appear at face value to support, un-equivocally, the outright theft of copyrighted material, before offering my rebuttal. But i promise i shall. Regards D1 D1, I look forward to it. I may have a concern about how you define "copyrighted material" though! Alken
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:22
|
||
|
You imply that, since i do not stand in support of ILLEGAL downloading that i am swelled full of myself? And should thus pull the cork? You do not merit a respectfull reply. Good day to you sir D1
|
|||
|
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 00:30
|
||
Ignore the whole arse thing since it has obviously hit a nerve. What difference does it make to an artist financially wether one downloads files or buys recordings second hand or from a remainder bin?
|
|||
mingtp 2270 posts |
Edited Nov 21, 2009, 02:38
Nov 21, 2009, 02:22
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: I'd be very interested to read about that. Got any links to credible "Research" regarding your assertion? Dodge I knew you'd ask :) Various research can be found with a simple google search, it was all over the news a few weeks back over here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8337887.stm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224460/Illegal-downloaders-spend-MORE-music-obey-law.html I did find a link earlier (BBC) from 2005 that said the same thing. I'll hunt it out later. The full report can be found here: http://www.demos.co.uk/ EDIT: I'd add that I'm one of this group of downloaders, I much prefer to have the genuine article and have an enormous legit music collection. Between iTunes and CDs I spend about £50-£100 a WEEK on music (which is why I'm so skint). If I choose to sample an album before buying it by downloading it the artist IS the one who benefits.
|
|||
rojo 433 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 08:50
|
||
with you on this one. I have a vast itunes library stock full of music I have legally ripped from my cd collection and also stuff that - ahem - has been acquired thru soulseek, torrent & blogspots. I often download stuff to get a feel for it before a purchase. Every month I buy at least 3 cds so I am still supporting the industry albeit through the likes of amazon,blahdvd, ebay et al. Just wish I dad a decent indepentent store out here in the sticks. Thats what I miss a good record shop you can just stroll in and find something in the racks you never thought of buying before.
|
|||
|
rojo 433 posts |
Edited Nov 21, 2009, 09:02
Nov 21, 2009, 09:01
|
||
I can answer that one in part. When you buy 2nd hand items off traders you are at least funding a wider music related econonmy as oposed to a free download. Alot of the independent shops who used to sell 2nd hand stock out of shop in your local town now do so through ebay etc
|
|||
|
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 10:22
|
||
|
I would contend that a download still forms part of this wider music related economy performing in many cases the same function as a radio show or the samplers that some record shops or online dealers supply. I would also contend that, in many cases, the same people downloading files are also the ones still active in seeing bands, purchasing material and still visiting record shops. I can also envisage a situation where if one was interested in more obscure or old music that a download would represent the only opportunity that a person on a lower income or with family commitments would have to hear a band or artist. I can imagine being upset about downloads if say I was a collector or a second hand dealer and that the value of a recording was based entirely on its rarity rather than any other merits, if I were speculating to accumulate. More pertinetly, if I was watching the value of my long searches and years of pusuit plummet as people realised that a certain recording was not only rare but also shit. Although no collector myself my tastes run to the late sixties early seventies and I buy music to listen to. I have wasted many years chasing reissues on CD to only discover that they were shit. I know I am not alone in this. Downloads and sites like Last FM and Spotify have saved me a lot of money and time but I am old fashioned and like to have "the artefact", to own. The main risk to music is that kids, in many cases, do not care about music in the same way that I did and do. This in part may have something to do with the ease of ownership. Raging about this is all well and good but a complete waste of time. This law was drafted by Canute and stands the same chance of success. If it does have an effect it may sever even more the link between music and the populace.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
