|
Unsung Forum » Fileshare and illegally download now! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 22:19
|
||
|
Hi Ming, Thanks for taking the time to read all or some of my post. To answer your question. If that portion of my diatribe had you asking yourself..."Is that me, he's on about?".....then i have completely suceeded to my own satisfaction. Regards to you D1
|
|||
mingtp 2270 posts |
Nov 21, 2009, 22:40
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Hi Ming, Thanks for taking the time to read all or some of my post. To answer your question. If that portion of my diatribe had you asking yourself..."Is that me, he's on about?".....then i have completely suceeded to my own satisfaction. Regards to you D1 Haha, beautiful :D
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited May 07, 2015, 16:45
Nov 21, 2009, 23:00
|
||
|
Dodge, those krautrock albums that folk post on here about aren't that difficult to get hold of on CD these days. In fact, many of them are probably more widely distributed now than they were in the early 70s. There's a glut of re-issue labels such as Spalax, Cleopatra and Repertoire that specifically cater - legally - for that market, as specialised as it may be. Aside from your arguments about file-sharing, I think your description of "Soundtracks of our Lives" as a vanity list is a little harsh. I know from the number of real-life encounters I've had with HHers that there are many people on this forum who virtually live, eat and shit music - I'm one of them, to the extent that it often leaves me with little time for anything else. For the record, everything I post about on "Soundtracks of our lives" is owned. Admittedly, I do get to hear a lot of stuff for free, as I work in the NSA and listening to new releases is part of my job, but frankly about 70% are so mediocre they go in one ear and out the other. The ones I like, I will always buy, unless they're out of print, in which case that's not an option. The only thing I object to is being expected to pay for the same album two or thrree times over. "The Beatles In Mono" box set was an example of this - if EMI are going to charge loyal Beatles fans - many of whom have probably paid for those albums several times - £200 for a box set of CDs that could easily have been issued separately, or as two-fers with the stereo mixes, they have only themselves to blame if people opt to download rather than buy. Same with "The Velvet Underground & Nico" - having already paid for, and worn out, that album three times (on cassette, vinyl and CD). I reckon I'm entitled to download the mono mix for free rather than fork out for a fourth edition/ When it comes to less established artists who struggle to eke out a living from their music, though, I'm against file-sharing myself - but with CDs having been kept at an artificially high price for so long, I do feel that the industry is partly to blame.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 00:01
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: Dodge, those krautrock albums that folk post on here about aren't that difficult to get hold of on CD these days. In fact, many of them are probably more widely distributed now than they were in the early 70s. There's a glut of re-issue labels such as Spalax, Cleopatra and Repertoire that specifically cater for that market, as specialised as it may be.
Aside from your arguments about file-sharing, I think your description of "Soundtracks of our Lives" as a vanity list is a little harsh. I know from the number of real-life encounters I've had with HHers that there are many people on this forum who virtually live, eat and shit music - I'm one of them, to the extent that it often leaves me with little time for anything else. Again....as i posted, it's sheer #'s of items every week that have me staggered. I make a very respectable living, and can't approach near the volume of music that is supposed at in those posts. I guess there are VERY wealthy members on this site. And more power to 'em if that's the case. It's taken me a span of 35 years of steady but sensible buying habits to put my pile together. I do not even come close to some of the reputed weekly listenings....and i DO 'own' over 7000 individual recorded items. Just has me wonderin' for sure...... For the record, everything I post about on "Soundtracks of our lives" is owned. Admittedly, I do get to hear a lot of stuff for free, as I work in the NSA and listening to new releases is part of my job, but frankly about 70% are so mediocre they go in one ear and out the other. The ones I like, I will always buy, unless they're out of print, in which case that's not an option. Other than that you state you you own all your music, as physical media, i assume, I'm not too sure about what it is your pointing out here. The only thing I object to is being expected to pay for the same album two or thrree times over. "The Beatles In Mono" box set was an example of this - if EMI are going to charge loyal Beatles fans - many of whom have probably paid for those albums several times - £200 for a box set of CDs that could easily have been issued separately, or as two-fers with the stereo mixes, they have only themselves to blame if people opt to download rather than buy. Same with "The Velvet Underground & Nico" - having already paid for, and worn out, that album three times (on cassette, vinyl and CD). I reckon I'm entitled to download the mono mix for free rather than fork out for a fourth edition/ This is the true crux of the matter for me. I own all the Beatles records. Most as original pressings from the 1960's. Now....if i understand you correctly, The Beatles catalog is 'OWED' to me gratis as free down-loads?Is that right? This assumes that YOU actually have owned the MONO releases of those Beatles albums, as the original purchaser,....something that i would find astonishing in the extreme for someone 8 years my junior. Alternate universe timelines aside....How has it effected me any, that i did not purchase these MONO {or otherwise} box-sets. In full re-mastered fidelity? Or downloaded them as copied MP3 files? Am i at a serious loss here? How so? Do i miss the chance to brag up that i got 'em? Or complain that i think they sound like shit on my IPOD?....so many questions..... Same applies for the Velvet Underground.... If my coat were's out, does the coat store owe me another as replacement? What about the coat of paint on my house? What about my LP copy of the Leather Coated Minds? Incredible......the ENTITLED mind-set. When it comes to less established artists who struggle to eke out a living from their music, though, I'm against file-sharing myself - but with CDs having been kept at an artificially high price for so long, I do feel that the industry is partly to blame. It is an extroadinary thing that you can decide for yourself what and which artists are not worth regarding in the ILLEGAL down-loading scheme. But when you call it "FILE SHARING" it's got such a harmless ring to it. Artificially high prices? When i can't afford something...i just won't get to own it. Thats life. No one OWES me a thing.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 00:17
|
||
|
D1, I take it this is the rebuttal you promised. I'm a little disappointed that generally this comes across as a prejudice against digital music, rather than specifically illegal downloads. I own an ipod, it has about 8000 songs on it and 7800 of those will have been ripped from original CDs that I own. The remaining songs are almost all iTunes downloads, with maybe a dozen that are otherwise not on CD or a current official release (but which I've probably bought on vinyl anyway). I post on SOOL most weeks, and 99% of what I mention is owned by me. The other 1% will be the live stuff I have mentioned earlier in the thread - if someone wants to give this stuff a proper shiny CD release, I'll buy that too. I probably buy ten CD albums, a few CD singles, some vinyl and a small amount (probably less that a tenner) on iTunes every month. I reckon I don't need to feel bad about what you percieve as my lack of support for the music industry. Last night, you mentioned that the issue was with illegally downloading "copyrighted material". I don't know the ins and outs of copyright law, and I'm sure it's different in the UK to the US anyway. However, let's say New Order played a gig in 1981. At that time they were signed to Factory records, and due to Factory's contract policy, the band owned all of their own music. The gig was recorded by an audience member on a crappy tape machine. The record company was never going to release something like this. Fast forward nearly 30 years. Factory (who never owend the music anyway) have been bust for 15 years or so. New Order's catalogue is administered (badly) by Warners under licence from New order themselves. They have no interest in releasing crappy audience recordings from 30 years ago, they can't even do a proper job of releasing the studio recordings. Someone gets hold of the audience tape, digitises it and posts it online. Fans get to download it and hear music they wouldn't hear otherwise. The blogger doesn't make any money from this, but probably takes pleasure in the fact that other people get to hear this stuff. I think the point that someone (IanB?) made about "entitlement" is fair. It is true that the bootlegger who made the original recording, the blogger who is posting it and the fans who are downloading may appear to believe that they are "entitled" to do so, and I do agree that this is not right. However, my question is, is this activity depriving the artist of income they would otherwise be getting? Only if the recording was going to be commercially released. It could be argued that there is a "loss" of publishing for the songs on the recording. However, one of the copyright holders (Peter Hook) has gone on record to say he has no problem with bootlegs of this nature. Is it depriving the record company? No, because they never owned the rights to this recording in the first place. When you were younger, did you ever buy a bootleg LP? Did any of your friends ever give you a cassette of something they thought you would like but probably would never buy of your own bat? And did those LPs and tapes make you even more into music? I've probably said more than enough on this subject now, so I'll keep on listening to music and in the meantime I'll look forward to the knock on the door in the night.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 00:28
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: D1, I take it this is the rebuttal you promised.
I'm a little disappointed that generally this comes across as a prejudice against digital music, rather than specifically illegal downloads. I own an ipod, it has about 8000 songs on it and 7800 of those will have been ripped from original CDs that I own. The remaining songs are almost all iTunes downloads, with maybe a dozen that are otherwise not on CD or a current official release (but which I've probably bought on vinyl anyway). I post on SOOL most weeks, and 99% of what I mention is owned by me. The other 1% will be the live stuff I have mentioned earlier in the thread - if someone wants to give this stuff a proper shiny CD release, I'll buy that too. I probably buy ten CD albums, a few CD singles, some vinyl and a small amount (probably less that a tenner) on iTunes every month. I reckon I don't need to feel bad about what you percieve as my lack of support for the music industry. You have completely miss-understood my intent for even discussing what constitutes ILLEGAL downloading. If you have actually purchased the music to begin with...and digitized it for your own personal use, You fall completely within my concept of an ''HONEST MAN". And that is all i can really say on this subject. I can't spend the rest of my life on the internet, countering arguements to my points of view. I won't give up my personal sense of moral highground and start downloading ILLEGAL copyrighted materials of ANY sort. I've weighed in. Last night, you mentioned that the issue was with illegally downloading "copyrighted material". I don't know the ins and outs of copyright law, and I'm sure it's different in the UK to the US anyway. However, let's say New Order played a gig in 1981. At that time they were signed to Factory records, and due to Factory's contract policy, the band owned all of their own music. The gig was recorded by an audience member on a crappy tape machine. The record company was never going to release something like this. Fast forward nearly 30 years. Factory (who never owend the music anyway) have been bust for 15 years or so. New Order's catalogue is administered (badly) by Warners under licence from New order themselves. They have no interest in releasing crappy audience recordings from 30 years ago, they can't even do a proper job of releasing the studio recordings. Someone gets hold of the audience tape, digitises it and posts it online. Fans get to download it and hear music they wouldn't hear otherwise. The blogger doesn't make any money from this, but probably takes pleasure in the fact that other people get to hear this stuff. I think the point that someone (IanB?) made about "entitlement" is fair. It is true that the bootlegger who made the original recording, the blogger who is posting it and the fans who are downloading may appear to believe that they are "entitled" to do so, and I do agree that this is not right. However, my question is, is this activity depriving the artist of income they would otherwise be getting? Only if the recording was going to be commercially released. It could be argued that there is a "loss" of publishing for the songs on the recording. However, one of the copyright holders (Peter Hook) has gone on record to say he has no problem with bootlegs of this nature. Is it depriving the record company? No, because they never owned the rights to this recording in the first place. When you were younger, did you ever buy a bootleg LP? Did any of your friends ever give you a cassette of something they thought you would like but probably would never buy of your own bat? And did those LPs and tapes make you even more into music? I've probably said more than enough on this subject now, so I'll keep on listening to music and in the meantime I'll look forward to the knock on the door in the night.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 00:43
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: You have completely miss-understood my intent for even discussing what constitutes ILLEGAL downloading. If you have actually purchased the music to begin with...and digitized it for your own personal use, You fall completely within my concept of an ''HONEST MAN". And that is all i can really say on this subject. I can't spend the rest of my life on the internet, countering arguements to my points of view. I won't give up my personal sense of moral highground and start downloading ILLEGAL copyrighted materials of ANY sort. I've weighed in. I wasn't going to post again on this, but I obviously haven't been clear. The music I have mentioned above as being music that I have downloaded for free IS NOT AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE and digitise for my own personal use, that's my whole point. If it was, I'd be buying it. So, for me to obtain this music I must be doing so illegally. I may have misunderstood your intent, but my concern is with the intent of the proposed legislation. It doesn't differentiate. None of us who have downloaded anything for free, whether it's otherwise unavailable or not, would be anything other than a criminal in the eyes of this law.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 00:56
|
||
Good luck with that then....it's not something that i will ever have to worry about.
|
|||
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 01:07
Nov 22, 2009, 01:00
|
||
|
Replies not meant to be personally directed at you or anyone else, or even meant to fuel the argument, just to give a different perspective on some points. I can see that there are negative aspects from "downloading", but think the idea that "consumers are ripping off artists" is mostly bollocks. In my view, it's those middle men (i.e. record companies) that have been ripping off BOTH artists and audiences for years, and it's getting harder for them to make a buck doing it these days. Boo-frickin'-hoo, let's get rid of the middlemen and let artists & audiences find each other directly -- the Internet is an invaluable tool not a tragedy. (See for example the merchandiser at headheritage.co.uk!!!! No corporate "record label" required!) dodge one wrote: I don't own an IPOD or MP3 player. I have made a personal choice in that regard. I too shun the iPod (supposedly my cheap on-sale cell phone is also an "mp3 player", but I've never bothered to figure out how that function works.) But other than buying CD's from bands at shows (that is if they don't have vinyl, or yes CASSETTES!) I haven't purchased a "new compact disc" since the beginning of this decade. In part this has to do with having a nice radio gig -- access to hundreds and hundreds of new CD's per year (which yes I make copies of, and under US copyright law "audition copies for media workers" is a specifically defined "fair use" exemption, so not stealing nyah nyah.) I have also downloaded tons of stuff (yes, it was a bit of a "mania" trying to find "everything" for awhile), though not so much these days. I suppose hypothetically I have downloaded or copied (included LP dubs on cassette before the days of CDR's) "a million dollars" worth of music, as compared to "merely" purchasing enough store-bought music to purchase a small house or a couple of nice automobiles (more than most people will ever spend on music in their lifetime.) But the thing is, most of the stuff I downloaded is crap that got listened to once or never. I certainly wouldn't have actually purchased 99.9% of that $1 million in additional records, and thus the revenue they "lost" is 99.9% fiction. I downloaded a bunch of Joe Walsh's solo albums cuz I was curious -- listened to just enough to confirm my suspician that there is no reason to purchase! How did Joe Walsh (or anyone else via "trickledown") lose any money because of this? Should I have had to pay for the priviledge of finding out I didn't want these records? dodge one wrote: Just a short primer. An MP3 at maximum bit rate of 320 Kbps only represents about 80% of the original recorded signal. Go down to 190 Kbps, and your listening to the toon of your choice at approximately 50% retrograde from the original signal. Thats OK by you? How would your Spagetti sauce taste, Minus 50% of the ingrediants? Such are the acceptable COMPROMISES of the modern world. But hey.....YOU 'know' all about that Blue Cheer record you downloaded yesterday. Records get scratches in them (or already have them if you buy used, which is mostly what I do) -- and cassettes don't have very good fidelity either, especially when played on those cheap "boom boxes" that used to be so popular. So what? Not everyone is an audiophile. Doesn't mean you can't still enjoy music. In fact my fondest memory of listening to Black Sabbath "Paranoid" was on an especially crappy car stereo tape player that added extra layers of flatness and distortion. Almost sounded like a whole new album. (In fact I don't think Sabbath sounds very good on CD on a good stereo -- not enough fuzz!) I prefer music to "sound good", but I love all mediums for what they offer. As great as LP's are, they are fragile and not very portable and also more difficult to cue. Different formats suit different uses. dodge one wrote: Regarding that Analysis of illegal Downloading Vs. Actual purchases. I am sceptical of it's claims. I counter with claims by other sources that in the last 2 years 95 % of ALL music that was downloaded was ILLEGAL. 95 % ! This represents a loss to the HATED music 'INDUSTRY' a loss estimated at 48 BILLION {!!!} Pounds. See above -- the phantom 48 billion does not represent sales that would have happened in the real world. If I could give away a million widgits for free, it does not follow that therefore I can make $10 million selling them at $10 apiece. dodge one wrote: Here in the USA at least...as the link i posted explains...Album sales fell 14% this year, following a 15% decline the year before. The article also claims CD sales to be at an all time low. Hard to be sure what that means. Perhaps you have seen the recent cellphone commercial starring some "artist" named Sierra (sic?) -- her talent appears to be shaking her booty to slick drum machine beats while melissmatically wailing oo baby baby stuff, sort of a Beyonce-clone I guess -- point is, I am a person who follows "music" very closely and have no clue who this person is other than that she stars in a cellphone ad. In other words, she's really on TV because she's "famous for being on TV", not for her "music" (which is probably her "producer's music" anyway.) Most major label acts in terms of sales volume are celebrity garbage -- if they are selling 14% less Britney Spears this year, that's a step in the right direction! Or in a larger context -- this is really about POPULAR music, cuz that's where the money is. "Popular music" isn't as popular as it once was. That's part of the appeal of downloading OLD albums -- Blue Cheer was better than the new Sierra album from the fine folks at Sony. And if more kids are listening to old CAN albums, while failing to purchase the latest blockbuster album from SIERRA, again I say "step in the right direction!" I'm amazed that "youngsters" (folks around 30 and under) know as much as they do these days -- it took me years of hard labor to uncover the very existence of weird stuff like Faust and Magma! Nowadays, you could have their complete discogs in hand in minutes for no money. Weird times man! But again, what does that have to do with a music "industry" reporting a 14% loss in sales, which never got more than 0.1% of its sales from Faust, Can, Blue Cheer, you name it, anyway. The losses are coming from sales of Michael Jackson, Elvis, Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Garth Brooks, Bruce Springsteen, and all the stuff that sold a ton in the first place. Cry me a river for those guys! As far as the "trickledown" effect --- you mean the sports arena that hosted big hair metal bands in the 80's closed down? Oh whereever shall we go to see our big hair bands now! Personally, I like my music played in smaller more intimate settings anyway -- big shows aren't about music, they're about spectacle. If wrestling or video games become more popular spectacle-events than music concerts, again who beeeepin' cares? I see well over a hundred shows a year, from big venues to living rooms, and it's generally a truism that the solo banjo player is more likely to blow your mind than the band that travels with a truck full of lighting equipment.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 01:04
Nov 22, 2009, 01:03
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Just a few thoughts on the Trickle down effect.... Ian was about as thorough as one can be with his informed insight. I can add to it somewhat from the viewpoint of a player/collector. Whats it cost to be a musician? And take it out on the road and try to eke out a living at it? Lets talk about some facts and figures there. I can speak to the costs of several items in the musicians world. A GOOD guitar. 2000 - 5000 dollars US A GOOD AMPLIFIER RIG. 3000 - 5000 dollars US Want tonal pallette? Various guitars and amps with specific sonic signatures? Multiples of figures cited. Microphones? A nuemann u-87? 3000 Dollars US. A nice RODE? 600 - 2000 dollars The better SHURE 'BETA's'? 300 and up.... A decent roadworthy mixing console....thousands. A decent roadworthy P.A. system?.....THOUSANDS. All the cords, line conditioners, pedals, tuners, etc.....THOUSANDS. The DRUMS and BASS guitars? See above. Transport to here and yonder? The hotel Bills? The shitty food, and time away from home....Schlepping all the gear around....and for most bands just try to break into the scene....leveraged to there eyeballs with Credit bills for said gear. The studio recording charges. Oh wait....you mean another start up INDIE label has gone under? Why? The guitars I play: $125 electric Strat knock-off from a pawn shop 20 years ago, and a $50 3/4-size acoustic (probably intended for children) whose strings I have changed only once in 10+ years (I think old strings sound warmer -- I play them til they break off.) My favorite amp: $50 Peavey bought from a friend 25 years ago. Pedals I use: $30 for used analog delay ages ago; splurged on a brand new Vox wah for $150 tho. I think anyone who uses more pedal boxes than this is a lazy wimp! (Unless if you're Roger Miller or Curt Kirkwood, though I bet Kirkwood only uses about 3 pedals at most.) Recording unit: $50 Radio Shack portable mono cassette recorder (they still make them) -- cassettes about $1 apiece (normal bias.) Hotels on tour, are you kidding? We sleep on the floor wherever they'll have us! Hope to sell enough merch (tapes!) to pay for gas . . . maybe the nice people who let us sleep on their floor can feed us too . . . Does it really require spending a fortune to make music? fuck NO! Check out some underground music these days, and you'll see cassettes and home taping are making a big come back. Cassettes sound cooler and are still cheaper than a laptop and ProTools kind of set up. (Very small "groups" of one to three people seem to be all the rage as well -- these are ECONO times after all.) I know it sounds very old fashioned, but you'd be surprised how far CREATIVITY AND INGENUITY can take you! Money should not be a barrier to making music, and it really isn't -- only in yr mind! Unless of course by "music" you mean a massive tour with truckloads of lights & backup dancers & stuff to push a CD that took 18 months and a million dollars to record -- to which I again say, if they're losing money on that business model, then we must be doing something right! dodge one wrote: This one little ILLEGAL download won't go noticed....said the collective conscience of BILLIONS. Here's some music I was involved in making -- someone else (in Spain I believe) put it up online -- HELP YOURSELF, and if you like it I personally encourage you to purchase the material artifact (try The Google, it works fast!) And see the band when we come to your town (put us up at your place?), et cetera. http://calmintrees.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-family-band_12.html (Lots more on that site & Soulseek too.) My point is, not all music lovers, musicans or "artists" are against "illegal" downloading. From the underground musicians' perspective, it's more like "evening the playing field" -- we were never allowed to eat at the table where the lunch is allegedly being stolen in the first place. I think that what hurts "their" economy now may very well be good for "us" in the long run. dodge one wrote: I know that this little thought stream of mine is somewhat shambolic. And i won't argue my points of view with any of you. And i'll leave you to yours. Thanks again IAN, for saying it all far more eloquent than i am capable of. D1 Well put, seconded & me too. I think this is something reasonable people can disagree on -- I know I'm open to other's opinions, and my own are a work in progress on this issue.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
