WILL WE GET BUSTED FOR DLing Music from Blogs
kala
3,362 Posts
is it just a matter of time before the greedy fucks at the riaaa clamp on blog /cd /lp rips?Am i gonna have to settle out of court for $20,000 in 4 years because i downloaded a copy of flower traveling band or some other rare ass oop joint from rapid share via a blog?how about you??
Comments
nice orwellian reply
As for me (and probably Thes, The Rub, Kingmost/Kero One and on and on), I'm not too cool with it. Both my upcoming CD and newest 12" were uploaded on a blog in their entirety, with cover art, for free.
I can understand major label shit being uploaded, but they're taking away what little money some of us are making.
I guess that's the world we live in though
b/w
karma is a bitch
I'm an asshole because I expect someone to pay 8 bucks for something I spent two years working on.
These people who download are the same fucks who complain about music getting shittier/more disposable. If you want to eat good food, don't go to the soup kitchen. Support your local chefs. If you DO go to hometown buffet, don't complain that it's not 5 stars.
Yes I'm mad doggie.
We get a load of shitty emails because we only put snippets of old stuff on the site and don't allow uploading of 'in print' music on our forum - but that's the way it's gotta be.
The aim is to inspire people to try and find the music they like... not amass thousands of MP3 files.
damm yo
think i hit a nerve
i NEVER DL new Shit that I can buy
I always support artists that i like
its that old stuff that is uber rare in my case
Sheet music didn't replace commissions, player pianos didn't replace virtuosi, the phonograph didn't replace concerts, radio didn't replace local music venues, cassettes didn't replace LPs, and downloading won't replace sales of records. All of these things have spread music out into the unwashed and away from the entrenched music industry, and the industry reacted in fear at their inception.
They will all continue to exist as part of a spectrum.
Downloading is another kind of listening booth or radio station, that's all. If you don't mind the sound quality, and if you want to go through the hassle, you can make a copy of something, but it isn't the same experience you get from buying a record. If it serves the purpose for you, then all these things tell us something about the value you place on music, and I don't think this you'd buy more records if file sharing didn't exist.
I look at it as a harmless pastime like stamp collecting -- it is a trivial detail that it involves music, and I believe its impact on the consumption of music in commercial forms is neutral or positive. Eventually the music industry will accept this as the obvious truth and the issue will disappear, just like the hoopla over home cassette taping.
not to be all, you know, "DJing is not an art!!!" or whatever but
i was looking around for what you were refering to and came across this:
"On the way home, Jim and I sat silently in traffic. We knew we were fucked. He told me the DJ, who was supposed to play music between us and the performers had quit the night before. He said he walked when they asked him to not play and play certain songs. An iPod would replace him. His name was DJ Day and he was now my personal hero."
http://grapefoot.livejournal.com/47502.html
Slow your roll, Chachi
A-Trak & The Rub
Sunglasses Is A Must Blends EP
format: VINYL[/b] EP
from a policy standpoint, its obvious that the artists are getting screwed out of record sales, but in a lot of cases, people are downloading music which they otherwise would not buy. so getting introduced to an artist through a filesharing site is not always harmful. if there was a way that artists could keep track of downloads (other than itunes), i would bet that a majority would actually promote it.
i doubt the hip hop hating coke fiends who worship at the mash up alter of the rub can sit still long enough to download anything... plus they probably all pawned their computers for a gram before the big austin show, so i wouldn't worry about that too much
I sent him an email saying that, though I appreciate the support and whatnot it isn't really helpful to have it for free out there for me and that alot of people once they get it in thier Ipod will shortly forgot about it or at least never take the time to actually buy it. I mean, why would they, they, in theory, already have it. I was cool with the message I left though, because I do understand the vibe of people sharing something they like, or they think other people will like.
anyways, Day, the link you sent me is now dead and instead you see this:
http://abouthevibez.blogspot.com/2007/02/it-seems-that-word-has-got-out-and-i-am.html
I'm sure our stuff is all over file sharing sites already though now, it's almost as if there is no stopping it. IMo, the only people who don't think downloads effect sales are people who aren't trying to or who have never sold thier music. Just look at how many indy labels had to fold in the last couple of years. Having a record out just doesn't mean what it used to. I'm not asking for sympathy, just stating the facts.
A classmate had the audacity to tell me he was excited to download my comp from slsk. When I suggested I didn't approve, the goof told me that today's artist doesn't expect to make money from music. Douches of the highest order are what you find in law school.
Has anybody ever gotten burnt by running one of these?
Are the moral qualms of sharing lessened by a record being unavailable on any format for decades?
Posting entire albums for downloading is more problematic than posting single songs for downloading. In theory, if you have a song on a blog that you download, and you actually like it, you might buy the record containing the song. Especially before the albums are released, posting them for download is pretty low.
But in the end, I think there are people who do not buy music any more because it is available for download for free. These are the people that, in theory, are eating into record sales. I just don't think there are THAT many of these people b/w there is a generation that has lost its affection with the tangible object of music (who will experience nervous breakdowns when their iPods (inevitably) fritz out in five years).
There are also people who continue to buy music AND download it for free. Their reasons may be what economists would call "idiosyncratic", i.e. they are interested in the cover art, the object, the thank yous in the liner notes, the quality of the recording, supporting the artist who made it, etc. But they still buy music.
If your album is done, why isn't it coming out for two months? A marketing issue? a post-production issue? Just curious. You don't have to answer.
Bye,
JRoot
PS I'm listening to side two of this record now. It's great. I'm loving the Old Rugged Cross and Blacknuss.
Research (what little has been done on this topic) also shows that the majority of people who do download 'illegally' generally will go and purchase the CD/LP if they really like the product. So in the end, you're not really losing any sales.
And while I totally am on Day and Thes' side of the argument, I've always felt that free promos to DJs actually hurts your sales more than DLing. When a large portion of the population that actually buys vinyl is getting it for free (albeit on a smaller scale since you guys are not on major labels) that taps into your profit margin. I always hated seeing that, because I always bought someone's record even if I knew them and could get it for free. It's easy to say "yo this new track by so-and-so is dope" but it's another thing to put your $$$ where your mouth is and really support the artist by purchasing their releases. I always think about guys like Krondon who were really big locally, but all the radio and club jocks were getting his record (and many of them doubles) for free. Everyone loved it, but the majority of people who actually owned it on vinyl probably didn't pay for it. And for a regional act, that hurts.
And how many of y'all are trading your songs before they are released on some "check out my new shit that is coming out" steez? I know for a fact that some of you do, as I've heard tracks months before they came out. I'm all for sharing and whatnot, but if it were me, I'd play you my track, then say "buy it when it comes out." Hell, I don't even like swapping MP3s with other dudes for s.erato.
In the end, music is kinda like a kid. After you let it out into the world, there's not much you can do to control it.
and closing some of them down!!! see Starwood in Nashville!
http://www.llrx.com/features/bmgvgonzalez.htm
So while only the Seventh Circuit has ruled against an end user (as of Feb 2006), the language of that 2005 Supreme Court case against Grokster strongly suggests that other Circuits would hold that downloading shared music does not constitute a "fair use." Who knows though.
Not exactly what you were asking... but someone I know in Germany had a blog with the promo-only Large Professor remix of Nas' 'It Ain't Hard To Tell' up (which was technically never available for sale) - and promptly got a legal letter from Sony stating that if he didn't pay a large fine, he would be dealing with them in court.
After checking things out and finding that it wasn't a hoax, he settled up. And closed the blog down.
This is standard practice in the industry. Actually it's usually three to four months and the reason is it takes that long for a magazine to get a record, review it and then publish said issue. It's about three months. So labels have to send records out to "press" like 3 months before it comes out and then some of those people leak it. If you want a review to run for your record in say, an April issue, then they need the record in January. It's the nature of the beast and it facilitates records getting leaked in this day and age.
Let me reiterate that I am in no way complaining. I am humbled and thankful every time ONE person decides to buy something I made, and I never forget that it is a blessing. It also keeps me inspired to keep creating and innovating (or at least trying to). From a numbers standpoint though I would say that the game, for people like me and Day, is off at least %30, maybe more. Don't get me started on vinyl!
isn't there some sort of watermark feature they can use to trace the music, surely no magazine writer wants to be outed as the guy that leaks the music (Record company poision)
also how aabout a self destrct type lfeature so that the music can only be played once before it expires and therefore can't be burned
PS Hi Thes
Thanks for the answer. I hope you make lots of money from the record when it comes out. You seem like a nice guy.
Best,
JRoot
Wasnt there a lot of controversy around that sort of thing quite recently - sony or some other big wig trying to digitise the cds so you couldnt listen to it in a cdrom drive (therefore rip it) - i heard a rumour computers were crashing when you tried to listen to the new beastie boys album or some shit.
If you find a way to digitally stop something from happening there is of course a way to reverse it. So really its pretty pointless.
Promo copies of the last UNKLE album had something like that on it. We were working on the website at work and the guys wanted audio clips on there... but we couldn't rip them from the CD.
In the end, we had to use WireTap to record them in realtime... which, yeah, does prove there's a way around any copy protection.