TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- UK takes extreme measures for Music Piracy..
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak i manage to find stuff i like...maybe you aren't looking properly. edit: and i'm not saying i never do it...just when i do there is usually a reason for it aka like wanting to buy a record with a huge import price and not trusting a 45 second sample (then you get the record and all of a sudden out of nowhere come pitched down donna summers vocals about black momma love )

oh, im not saying I can't find it. Just that it annoys me having to sift through the shit to find it, away from the usual suspects label wise, there's just a lot of crap. I have no problem supporting those who make the music I love at all, I think overall they're after those who download the top 40 stuff etc. Hopefully the one thing to come out of any law would be that the artists and not the big corporations would receive more money & we get a service that embraces the digital world properly

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak the funny thing is, you really don't appreciate it and can't realize it.

WRONG. I appreciate it more, because I get so much more than I could ever possibly get out of some FYI music store. Most of my music is made by bedroom DJs and internet radio streams. You can't find that in no music store, not even Itunes online...Hell, go to the DJ forum on Ta. How many mixes can be downloaded???? Now tell me the music store is better than what we have here on TA ALONE!

where do you think us ta dj's get that music?

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak where do you think us ta dj's get that music?

I don't care! As long as I keep getting new music! Music I could never find in any music store!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't care! As long as I keep getting new music! Music I could never find in any music store!

You're talking about downloading sets, we're talking about the music needed to make those sets. Two entirely different things.

Just another sign that the music industry's current format is doomed. They send their lawyers first; once they realize that the lawyers are just getting fat off the legal fees and not helping the industry, that's when they'll either get with the times or go extinct.

so hundreds of thousands of ppl could get a letter in the mail? what a friggin waste of paper....sucks for the UK though. cant u just use a router and then ur isp wont know what all ur bandwidth is coming from?

I'm going to let my sleep-deprived philosophy rants bellow:

There's probably an interesting argument for people who 'believe' that technology destroys music. Artists are devalued as machines propagate the music on an effortless medium. What's my point? I'm playing devil's advocate: all the white noise of the internet music phenomena is distorted by electronic music as a whole -- captured acoustic or pure electronic.

To these people, music is spontaneous and alive. Music is a real person striking a string at one specific point in time. It is always different; never replicated. While I personally do not hold this belief, they are probably enjoying music constantly destroy and reinvent itself within the confines of human economics, law, and politics.

Now we see the cybernetic face of humanity take upon itself a two-edged sword. The two-face of human demons now has a bolder contrast when given more powerful tools.

Now is anything worth paying for that is no longer tangible? Is a service no longer worth paying for because of the effortless propagation of information in any form. Can only that which is material be paid for by the tokens of "human labor"?

Should the idiot be paid when all he did was cycle loops in FL is given a few pennies every time someone downloads his/her hobby? However, a violinist who worked 4-hours a day strenuously perfecting an art-form is given the same treatment because his/her playing can suddenly be captured and rendered to digital passes of electrons!

The anti-capitalist side hasn't held up a good audience that has affected the wages for programmers/software-engineers/developers/etc. To the free market that I am aware of, these workers get paid big bucks because they perfected a difficult-to-forge form of knowledge that companies thrive upon. The spread, creation, and enhancements of information is given much worth on the scale of human life-and-living. A programmer may never build a couch for you to sit upon, but the programmer may have created a client program to a sales-database for several companies to access with limited user-ship, order parts from, base corporate decision from, etc.

I'll give the violinist one leg-up: a pro-violinist can be paid for live acts better than a digi-download. It seems right, the violinist depends on the forced-upon venue-ship to continue honing a historical craft that provides transcendental release. The violinist has no other way to put bread on the table because the violinist spent too much valuable time perfecting the bow and string instead of learning an occupational behavior that rates less on the scale of the arcane.

Personally, music being forced to an "economic standpoint" is a fallacy as long as the lack of money somehow depreciates the gift from being expressed. If everyone had to work to support themselves, and in turn: work entailed no time for music... the world loses something This is especially true if the love of music doesn't die alongside such a realization. However, the opposite is true. Music is in abundance, and the amount of people who have the resources to expend their life to it's expression is endless. Many have discovered successful musical output in the hobby-side of their life. However, there are countless talented and crafted individuals who share no such luxury. Where does "portable value" and "artistry" meet on the scale of human life-and-living?

Even more alarming is the stupidity of celebrity status that gains more attention than real talent. However, some may blame the lowest-common-denominator of public mass appeal. In rebuttal, the blame can easily be pointed right back in the face of listeners who haven't done the work of music appreciation for themselves. However, in today's world where everything is in the fast lane, fast-food, fast-downloads, fast education, fast love, etc who has the time? Who has the time indeed, when life can be so superficial that one can live 80 years without understanding anything that is extraordinary in these escapades.

Audio-nerds (kinda like me) deserve to starve if they somehow depend on their tapestries of synthetic dreams to serve them bread and butter. Everyone has the tools and access to know how, anymore. Too many can sound like a watered down virtuoso of electronic music with the right amount of effort and talent (while some examples are laughable, many have found something to latch onto).

So where am I going with this? I really do not know, but I believe they are questions that seek higher questions that ultimately seek answers to the individual. Personally, I believe in the merits of individuality. That means that I have a standard for myself that is different due to my beliefs about human nature (whether stemmed from religion, culture, ethics, or philosophical contemplations). In practice, my actions speak thus:

1. 99% of my music that I have immediate access to is legal.
2. HOWEVER, I OFTEN listen to music off of YouTube (Sometimes, I buy the track if I like it so much).

This is where I find compromise: exploration and collection. But I personally believe that functions such as "universal subscriptions" to music downloads (legally) wouldn't have have to be an issue if human beings were all honest with themselves. If every human paid for the tracks that they downloaded, there would be no need for money to be extracted someplace else. It's the principle of such an action: that
centralized-friends-in-high-places have to tie everyone up by the arm to meet the 'demands' of another (equally scary or even stupid) centralized entity: the music industry. Here is where paradox equals unsolved questions and where politics and philosophy start getting heated and rise to sling whatever is available.

Audio-s for now...

Wow, what a storm in a teacup... I mean, theres nothing extreme about these measures, they're just proposing sending a letter to the owner of the account saying that it is being used for pirating music. Oh well, maybe (if its parents who own the account) they'll give the kid some money so they can get music legally. Its not like they're taking serious legal action.

I really like the idea of an anual fee too, that sounds like a really good way to help the industry. The problem with music at the moment is that its just too expensive, although places like beatport are starting to help slightly, I can still walk into a shop and find a $60 CD without too much effort. If people can torrent that, they definately will to save $60. If it was $10 they wouldn't think twice about buying it legally.

The only thing that's worrying me about this is the conflict of interest that is occuring because these ISPs are essentially now monitoring what you do with your account. That has negative implications for freedom in my opinion. But pretty soon the torrent programs will just integrate encryption anyway, so the ISP won't see anything, and then it'll all be irrelevant anyway.

Encryptian+proxy=immunity. I know I'm never gonna get in shit for any of the music I torrent, games however is a different story.

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ so hundreds of thousands of ppl could get a letter in the mail? what a friggin waste of paper....sucks for the UK though. cant u just use a router and then ur isp wont know what all ur bandwidth is coming from?

no.

Isnt buying second hand used CDs from Ebay, Amazon or Discogs pirating? The money never gets to Artist/Label, it just changes hands from one owner to another..

Do you even know what pirating means?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Do you even know what pirating means?

of course he does. He's seen all 3 movies on it with johnny deep and keerah nightlee!

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Do you even know what pirating means?

Not the point. He is right. If you define pirating as stealing selling stuff second hand is too.

Especially since if I buy a rare second hand cd then that pushes up the price meaning someone else might not be able to have it.

They both decrease sales for the original artist.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Not the point. He is right. If you define pirating as stealer selling stuff second hand is too. Especially since if I buy a rare second hand cd then that pushes up the price meaning someone else might not be able to have it. They both decrease sales for the original artist.

a lot of the time people buy second hand because they can't get hold of it brand new though, for someone in that position, is it wrong?

I never said it was wrong and no especially if they can't get it from the new. The main reason I think its good is because it encourages artists to not release crappy releases and in general protects the consumer. Anyway... I don't think buying stuff second hand or pirating is stealing.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips The only thing that's worrying me about this is the conflict of interest that is occuring because these ISPs are essentially now monitoring what you do with your account. That has negative implications for freedom in my opinion. But pretty soon the torrent programs will just integrate encryption anyway, so the ISP won't see anything, and then it'll all be irrelevant anyway.

They have probably always done that anyway.

How does this apply to downloading live sets? I always thought that, by creating mixes, DJs alter the music they play into their own intellectual property, but because they wouldn't make a profit in most cases after they mix (when's the last time you saw a live set by a DJ sold in stores?) that it's ok to download. Any copyright lawyers here? :P

grey area

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ so hundreds of thousands of ppl could get a letter in the mail? what a friggin waste of paper....sucks for the UK though. cant u just use a router and then ur isp wont know what all ur bandwidth is coming from?

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ so hundreds of thousands of ppl could get a letter in the mail? what a friggin waste of paper....sucks for the UK though. cant u just use a router and then ur isp wont know what all ur bandwidth is coming from?

LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange

that is pretty damn adorable.

quote:

Originally posted by Psionic How does this apply to downloading live sets? I always thought that, by creating mixes, DJs alter the music they play into their own intellectual property, but because they wouldn't make a profit in most cases after they mix (when's the last time you saw a live set by a DJ sold in stores?) that it's ok to download. Any copyright lawyers here? :P

I think it's still dodgy.

I remember some guys putting up their own remixes of tracks, and they got fucked for it (well told to remove them) because they were so good that people got them for free, and to hell with paying for the original mixes.

Sure they used the melody or vocal or whatever, but they worked damn hard on those tracks, got hype around the originals and just put them up for free.

Legally you're not allowed to remix tracks without permission, well according to this one site (tidyboard).

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Encryptian+proxy=immunity. I know I'm never gonna get in shit for any of the music I torrent, games however is a different story.

The music and movies Anti-Piracy campaign is targeting more people than the gaming/software industry is, as far as the media stories go. You think its safer to D/L games than music? lol.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.