TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Funkagenda vs ZippyShare
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Funkagenda vs ZippyShare

Re: Funkagenda vs ZippyShare

He has a legitimate beef, but he looks like a complete bitch whining about it on Twitter.

yea its bullshit. upload in a minute. to remove, send an email wait 1-2 days, then they'll take it down. in the meantime, someone re-uploads, impossible to win and its pretty unfair. all fileshare sites included.

Re: Re: Funkagenda vs ZippyShare

quote:

Originally posted by knittybone He has a legitimate beef, but he looks like a complete bitch whining about it on Twitter.

Heh yeah, pretty much my thoughts.

hahahahahahyahhahahahahahah FUCK YES!

Who else is tired of attention-whoring artists like Funkagenda who bitch about people downloading their music illegally?

If you're an artist in the music industry today, your music is going to get illegally downloaded. Period. It's a fact and a practice that has existed for over a decade now.

So instead of actually innovating and finding new ways to convince people to buy digital downloads rather than just rip them off, the record labels and artists have just sat there and bitched about it to no end. The result is that the music industry continues to go south, the artist/labels come off as whiny bitches, and illegal downloading continues.

I buy all my music legally. And I can understand that they don't like their stuff getting ripped off. But to come on Twitter/Facebook/anything and pull the "hey I'm shocked...I'm innocent!" card out is acting like a moron. Funkagenda probably knows that illegal downloads are part of the industry now, but in this case he's deciding to act ignorant for sympathy points.

Who'd waste bandwidth on that shit music anyway?

Twitter - exposing your brainfarts to the entire world since wheneverthehellitwasfounded.

his glasses are dumb

Moron, download illegaly his music, i've downloaded from zippyshare the past dreaming track he refers to and i've wasted 10 seconds of my time and a click on it.

LOL

I always feel for an artist who's hard work gets spread around the web and they don't see a penny back. But Funkagenda should be flattered that this many people want to listen to his shit music, even for free.

The guy is absolutely right. The quality of his music and the medium he's expressing himself through are irrelevant.

These fileshare sites can't even claim the usual paper-thin anarchistic ideology of a kid in his bedroom. They're making a lot of money through facilitating piracy, and they know if they introduced these measures, nobody would use their sites. Funkagenda isn't bitching about pirates themselves, but he's got every right to bitch about companies profiting from his loss.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The guy is absolutely right.

Of course he is, but he needs to do something else about it than moan endlessly on Twitter.

Besides, if these sites get taken down the files are just going to get distributed via some other method, as has been done since the birth of the internet. It's a battle that cannot be won.

a little off-topic. but this looks like its going to be passed in the US, its got a lot of financial support, A LOT i hear.

Home � Our Work � Intellectual Property
The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill

The "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) is an Internet censorship bill which is rapidly making its way through the Senate. Although it is ostensibly focused on copyright infringement, an enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and other speech, could disappear off the Web if it passes.

The main mechanism of the bill is to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate. The bill creates a blacklist of censored domains; the Attorney General can ask a court to place any website on the blacklist if infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site.

If this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such as Dropbox, MediaFire and Rapidshare; MP3 blogs and mashup/remix music sites like SoundCloud, MashupTown and Hype Machine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us, p2pnet, InfoAnarchy, Slyck and ZeroPaid . Indeed, had this bill been passed five or ten years ago, YouTube might not exist today. In other words, the collateral damage from this legislation would be enormous. (Why would all these sites be targets?)

There are already laws and procedures in place for taking down sites that violate the law. This act would allow the Attorney General to censor sites even when no court has found they have infringed copyright or any other law.

http://www.eff.org/coica

Senate Bill 3804 i believe

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Besides, if these sites get taken down the files are just going to get distributed via some other method, as has been done since the birth of the internet. It's a battle that cannot be won.

Again, point missed. You can't stop piracy, but you can certainly stop other people profiting from piracy. And he isn't trying to get the sites "taken down". He says that right at the top. And it's pretty clear he's seeking legal advice and intends to fight the site in question, so he isn't just whining on Twitter either.

Did you actually read the OP at all?

im sure he'll be crying all the way to his next gig - where he can make himself feel a little better with his large paycheck and snorting blow off some random tits.

he is right of course. still - little bitch posts lol.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Again, point missed. You can't stop piracy, but you can certainly stop other people profiting from piracy. And he isn't trying to get the sites "taken down". He says that right at the top. And it's pretty clear he's seeking legal advice and intends to fight the site in question, so he isn't just whining on Twitter either.

I don't really fully understand how these site function, but isn't the basic functionality usually free? I'm not really sure how anyone's profiting from piracy in this case, apart from ad revenue. Do fill me in if I'm missing something here.

And if he indeed wants people to prove that they hold the copyrights to the media they are uploading it more or less does mean a death blow for all the one-click hosts. I mean how do you prove you own the copyrights to a digital file?

The solution is obviously not this, there are legal downloads of quality stuff for less than 20 cents (for example in faithless website, if this is good or not should be another discussion) , who on earth does not pay 20 cents or less for a 320k mp3?

On the other hand some artists (not only edm) give their cds for free, of course needs another kind of agreement with the label, because there won't be cd sales, but say you give your label a 10% of all your gigs/concerts, that 10% could be a lot of money. In the case of EDM i am not sure if this would work the same because some producers are only producers and some producers are crap dj's at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos The solution is obviously not this, there are legal downloads of quality stuff for less than 20 cents (for example in faithless website, if this is good or not should be another discussion) , who on earth does not pay 20 cents or less for a 320k mp3?

Who exactly sells files that cheap?

http://faithless.sandbag.uk.com/Sto...tems-5-0-0.html

oh well it's 29 pence, still is cheap, but sometimes i've found music in stores for this derisory prices

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery I don't really fully understand how these site function, but isn't the basic functionality usually free? I'm not really sure how anyone's profiting from piracy in this case, apart from ad revenue. Do fill me in if I'm missing something here.

Basic functionality is, but most of these sites have heavy restrictions on download speeds and availability if you don't pay subscription. There's also ad revenue. These sites are businesses and they aim to turn a profit. They know they are predominantly used for piracy.

quote:

And if he indeed wants people to prove that they hold the copyrights to the media they are uploading it more or less does mean a death blow for all the one-click hosts. I mean how do you prove you own the copyrights to a digital file?

Presumably the same way he's having to prove it right now to get his music taken down.

kinda agree with him.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Presumably the same way he's having to prove it right now to get his music taken down.

Random Joe Uploader won't bother with that, though.

The main thing about these kind of rants is that you always end up looking like an asshole, even when you are right. It'd be better to just take action and keep the Twitter/Facebook updates to a minimum, no matter how tempting it is.

lol @ funkadick

Is he trying to fight piracy lmfao? It's like the first time he heard about it.

I completely agree with him.....if you want to enjoy the music then support the artists and pay for it.

Personally, I think these sites should be shut down and should be illegal.

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