TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Steve Angello's Antipiracy Statement
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

speaking of downloading music for free

http://www.qtrax.com/

new service to download 25000000 tracks for free legally.
launching soon

"Qtrax is the world�s first free and legal peer-to-peer (P2P) digital music site. Music lovers can discover new music and legally download full-length, high-quality versions of their favorite songs while compensating both the artists and the record labels through non-intrusive and relevant advertising. Qtrax has the unparalleled support of the major record labels and all of their respective publishing divisions. Qtrax and its components are developed by LTDnetwork Inc. a division of Brilliant Technologies Corporation."

quote:

Originally posted by phlog just throwing a question out there... how do you think musicians made money before they were able to record and sell their music as physical product(8 track, cassette, cd)?

live performances, I suppose....although people have been able to record music for quite some time.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper live performances, I suppose....although people have been able to record music for quite some time.

and mass produce/profit..?

quote:

Originally posted by geroin speaking of downloading music for free http://www.qtrax.com/ new service to download 25000000 tracks for free legally. launching soon "Qtrax is the world�s first free and legal peer-to-peer (P2P) digital music site. Music lovers can discover new music and legally download full-length, high-quality versions of their favorite songs while compensating both the artists and the record labels through non-intrusive and relevant advertising. Qtrax has the unparalleled support of the major record labels and all of their respective publishing divisions. Qtrax and its components are developed by LTDnetwork Inc. a division of Brilliant Technologies Corporation."

From the legal disclaimer:

quote:

In the mean time, however, we expect all users of Qtrax to comply with applicable laws, to respect the moral and legal rights of copyright authors and owners, and to use the Gnutella network in a responsible and law abiding way. While ideas are not fully protectable (only the expression of ideas), users who do share their own ideas with others expect others not to steal their protected works. THEREFORE, DO NOT STEAL FILE TYPES WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWFUL RIGHT TO OWN OR USE. IF YOU FEEL YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT USE Qtrax OR ANY OF OUR SERVICES. In summary, Qtrax is provided for personal use only. You agree to use Qtrax legally. Any illegal and unauthorized commercial use of Qtrax, or the resale of its software and services, is expressly prohibited.

Sounds like the same old story to me. "We're giving you the network, what you do with it is your responsibility".

That said, I looked up some articles, it seems like there's some legitimate aspect to it; I'm curious how it will work.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade The only thing I'd really care to stop people from is making ridiculous justifications for things that are absolutely illegal and immoral. That's about it.

and as i've said several times, i'm not attempting to justify piracy.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog and as i've said several times, i'm not attempting to justify piracy.

I realize that, but quoting me and replying with these comments makes it seem like that's what I spoke about. We're not speaking about the same thing.

In response to your question about before mass production of vinyl or any other form, there wasn't mass distribution either, people stayed (relatively) local. Not only that, but there was generally a distinction to be made between the person who composed the music and the people who played it. The composer would still be there at live concerts (and would still be working), but it's a far cry from the same story when things are so publicly accessible.

Edit: People also wouldn't have been able to listen to things whenever they wanted to, your question doesn't really bear much (if any) relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog just throwing a question out there... how do you think musicians made money before they were able to record and sell their music as physical product(8 track, vinyl cassette, cd)?

umm... you mean in like the 1880?

because that's when cylinder phonographs started becoming popular... or maybe you mean before flat discs came out? so pre 1915?


lol

how about producers give their music away for free on a website but make people watch a small ad before downloading. simple, effective, profitable?. make people pay a bit for high quality copies meant for dj's etc. artists are going to have to get creative if they want to make money.

quote:

Originally posted by activate umm... you mean in like the 1880? because that's when cylinder phonographs started becoming popular... or maybe you mean before flat discs came out? so pre 1915? lol

what's your point man? did wikipedia tell you that?


technology changed the way artists profited from music then and it's doing the same now.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog how about producers give their music away for free on a website but make people watch a small ad before downloading. simple, effective, profitable?. make people pay a bit for high quality copies meant for dj's etc. artists are going to have to get creative if they want to make money.

How will that change anything from how it is today? Most artists in this industry have a myspace which allows people to listen to clips, yet someone still goes out, buys the track and gives it to the masses. Artists with websites often have ads on them too, but it hardly leads to any sort of compensation.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade How will that change anything from how it is today? Most artists in this industry have a myspace which allows people to listen to clips, yet someone still goes out, buys the track and gives it to the masses. Artists with websites often have ads on them too, but it hardly leads to any sort of compensation.

just making a suggestion. you did ask how i think artists should adapt right?

there's a big difference between a shitty quality clip and a (say 128kbs) track.

many web sites make lots of cash from advertising (obviously).

quote:

Originally posted by phlog just making a suggestion. you did ask how i think artists should adapt right? there's a big difference between a shitty quality clip and a (say 128kbs) track. many web sites make lots of cash from advertising (obviously).

Many people are happy with 128 kbps. It's kind of odd, but meh.

And websites that make a lot from advertising are huge; an artist website - especially in this industry - isn't likely to get anywhere near as much traffic.

quote:

Originally posted by Irishaddict sigh. besides the prince thing as possibly the worst example ever in the history of backing up an argument, the stagnant fact remains that if you are a professional artist you should be PAID for the WORK you do. You wouldn't expect to walk out of a automobile dealership with a brand new car - simply because some company really loves making cars - so how can you expect to receive music that takes time, effort, equipment investment (to name a few) for free? Where does the culture of entitlement come from?

Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL.

I felt the following needed to be restated in really big, bold letters:

quote:

Originally posted by phlog technology changed the way artists profited from music then and it's doing the same now.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog what's your point man?

my point is that it's quite rediculous to compare any aspect of industry to how it was 100+ years ago.

I think the problem with phlog's argument is that it's basically assuming that intellectual property isn't valuable anymore. That technology has changed what is defined as IP to begin with. There is something so so fundamentally flawed with that concept.

The method of distribution does not change the product that is being distributed or the ownership of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Antal Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL.

I don't see how that's a poor argument, feel free to enlighten me.

quote:

Originally posted by Antal Sigh...before your claim that Prince it the worst example in the history of backing up an argument you should REALLY look over your argument example, since its just as brutal. LOL.

Enlighten me then.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper The method of distribution does not change the product that is being distributed or the ownership of it.

agreed... but the method of distribution does change the way it is stolen.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon agreed... but the method of distribution does change the way it is stolen.

It facilitates theft, sure. But it's not an excuse or a justification for it. Technology and its role in stuff like this has led to digital content being even more fiercely protected than ever before. People who think the artists or the industry are going to back down and just hand stuff out for free are in for a surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper It facilitates theft, sure. But it's not an excuse or a justification for it.

There it is right there. Exactly it!

That's the sad fact too many don't seem to realize!


(prolly mostly bc ppl have easily downloaded for so long w/ with no punishment whatsoever resulting from their actions!

this had led to, over time, the perception that this act of stealing (getting something for free instead of paying for it) as not being anything that is wrong in this particular context.

and, i feel, subconsciously, it then gets taken a step further past that. reasons next are now fabricated and created as to why its ok to act under this context (music, mp3s) when generally ppl do consider stealing wrong in most all cases.

Im sure a first no one saw it as justifiable or 'right.' it was just easy! wow! free music! lets do it! look how easy it is! and we're not prolly gonna get busted! how wonderfully awesome!

no one prolly tried to be all saintly about it, thinking on any level that it was moral. lawful. it was just free (and easy).


but now, years and year later, with this being such a hot topic that frequently comes up, and ppl preaching how its wrong in general, these ppl that have always done it, are now having to justify why they do it, if they admit to it to a hostile audience.

who wants to now pay for music they've easily gotten for free for years and years? no one. and, IMO, this had led to masses creating justification for why they've done it all along.

the justification came after the act was already in common practice and seen as the norm by kids and ppl (it couldnt be something crazy bad if no policeman was ever going to come to ur door to try to arrest you over it!), and NOT vice versa. IMO. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper People who think the artists or the industry are going to back down and just hand stuff out for free are in for a surprise.

dont be so sure of that.

www.qtrax.com

over 25mil songs. free and legal, paid for by advertisers. a white flag?

quote:

Originally posted by terrytutone www.qtrax.com over 25mil songs. free and legal, paid for by advertisers. a white flag?

Pandora has been going a somewhat similar route for quite a while and has made good money from it. Last.fm just launched their commercial model as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Irishaddict Enlighten me then.

While the POINT you are trying to get across is true, you should've used a much more comparable company/subject for arguments sake. You cant compare Car companies to music labels. time, effort, and equipment investment, is on a much larger scale,and not even in the realm of comparability.
but I understand what you where trying to get across.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko If Steve is angry, maybe he should be angry at the very people he is trusting with the promo. They are the ones that are giving out the material they were trusted with. This is the exact same problem in the movie industry. Reviewers are given preview copies of movies, but they are the ones pirating and uploading to the net.

This to me is the crux of the problem...
If the promos were handled properly then pirating would never (or barely) be an issue.

Imo you cant really blame ppl for not wanting to spend money, especially when they don't have to!
Dude, free shit laying around online will be gobbled up by ppl no matter what action is taken.


The ppl who get the promos start the WHOLE problem.
Everyone else is just taking advantage of someone else's lack of responsibility,
and that happens in EVERY business


Again, i have no problem with saying i have never and will never pay for any electronic music i have.

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