I'd also like to say to DOR, I think I have more of a problem with your cavalier attitude of "oh well, too bad for you, deal with it", than the problem itself.
This situation is not entirely bad - at least for someone like me. I'm sure I've gotten more exposure from people posting/sharing my music. The problem comes when people upload entire brand new CD's or records.
Technically, yes, copyright infringement is "stealing." But, a brief glance at the history of copyright and intellectual property laws quickly reveals the incredible inconsistencies in the thought and practice of these laws. These inconsistencies are only interesting because they so clearly show that copyright law has never really been about protecting artists or art or intellectual property, but about protecting the economic interests of those in power that make money off these copyrights. So, while copyrighti infringement is "stealing" on some level, I don't think it's difficult to make the argument that--many times (if not most of the time)--it is also much different than "stealing" as well.
-e
I don't claim to be an expert on IP law, but in the context of this thread, copyright infringement is equivalent to stealing. If this were a lanham case dealing with trademarks where the injured party alleged infringement based on the creation of confusion in the marketplace...ok, that might not fit squarely within the defnition of "stealing". But again, thats not the case here. We are talking about sharing music that is owned by someone else. The only issue worth debating is whether someone who buys a cd/movie/software program has the right to share it. However, that issue has already been decided ten times over by the courts, and the answer is a resounding "NO".
Also, you dont need a copyright or a trademark to have a successful infringement case. THey are just tools to prove ownership. Therefore, while I agree that the lobbyists arent out there pushing for tougher copyright laws because the want to help out the little guy, you'd have to be more specific before I would buy into the idea that the law is actually targeted to benefit those in power. I think what you really mean to say is that the big guys are the only ones with the money to enforce these laws (by suing in civil court, or sending threatening letters through their powerful attorneys). We can agree on that for sure.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Why wasn't this released on vinyl? I think that puts off a lot of potential buyers too.
It puts off some potential buyers, but don't get it twisted; vinyl junkies don't equate to "a lot" in terms of the potential market for music. There used to be a piece on the Blood and Fire website talking about why they stopped reissuing stuff on vinyl (they may have resumed this by now), and the crux of it was that it was prohibitively expensive if they wanted to continue to release stuff to the standards they'd set themselves. The hard fact is that it's easier and more cost-effective to do that kind of shit on CD. My girl used to work for World Circuit, and she could tell you there is no market for vinyl in that particular niche - world music buyers aren't, as a rule, vinyl fetishists. I'd imagine there'd be a bigger audience for Danno's album amongst that crowd than the "music should totally, like, be free, dude!" mob.
This has been one of the more interesting threads on here for a minute, and the input of Thes, Danno, Day and Einstein in particular has, I think, given a much-needed "creator's perspective" to the discussion. Danno's perspective is a little different in that it isn't his music that's being offered up for download. Nevertheless, it is his labour and, just like Thes, Day and Einstein, he has a right to be able to make some kind of living from that labour. I'd imagine also that he's not as well-placed as the EMIs and Universals to take the hit that excessive downloading of his product represents. Because of that, he's probably less likely to (want to) take the risk, and attendant headaches, of doing all this again, so chances are that those of us who'd like to hear (and buy) "Si Para Usted Volume 2" may never get the chance. I mean, fuck the majors; this is the reality of the matter at the sharp end. You're basically expecting people to work for nothing, and how many of us would do that?
To broaden it out a little, the major labels are culpable in a big way for the current situation. I could comfortably go on about this for a good 10,000 words minimum, but I'll keep it brief and say that if they'd responded more quickly to the whole issue of digital music about ten years ago, when it was obvious what direction the game was headed in, they'd have been set. Instead, they were more concerned with protecting the physical market at all costs - their attitude wasn't "how do we make it work for us?", but "how do we stop this?". Now, "new business models" are all they talk about but, ten years back, very few people in the industry had any idea about how technology and society were changing, and how the way people consumed music would follow suit, and nobody wanted to listen to those few people anyway. As for the RIAA, "internet crackdowns" and such, it's a waste of time. The one thing the industry should have done, above all others, was bring in a Red Book standard for digital downloads like they did with CDs and CD players. The fact they didn't insist on standards means they now can't go back and face down the unholy mess they find themselves in.
Since the laws in my country have never been that it's illegal to download music, I feel I'm not doing anything wrong until the laws are
This line of thinking is all kinds of fucked up.
I understand that you think this and I respect your opinion. Doesn't change the facts any.
You're essentially saying you'll do something wrong because its not illegal in your country.
Doesn't change the facts any.
If someone creates and sells something for a living, and someone copies it and distributes it (potentially to millions of people) for free, what do you classify that as?
Bootlegging? Stealing?
You can try to circumvent the argument with semantics like "copyright infringement", but in the end it is taking something without paying that someone makes their living from.
That said, I agree there is no stopping this and adapting is key.
Especially in Canada, apparently.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it? Unless of course, you believe that US law trumps all other countries laws? This isn't just Canada BTW. There are many countries out there with the similar rules.
I mean, it's not like were talking about unauthorized use of sampling or selling DJ mix tapes or using cracked plug-ins or DJing an event without the proper license or smoking weed while making music.
All of which are illegal here unfortunately.
I don't even really download music much anymore. And I never look to DL Strutters stuff. And to me, I've heard your stuff Day and think it's worth a hell of alot more than what it sells for.
My family lost it's livelihood from downloading. But I'm not looking to blame people for downloading.
But in anycase, I wish you and any other strutter a successful career.
To broaden it out a little, the major labels are culpable in a big way for the current situation. I could comfortably go on about this for a good 10,000 words minimum, but I'll keep it brief and say that if they'd responded more quickly to the whole issue of digital music about ten years ago, when it was obvious what direction the game was headed in, they'd have been set. Instead, they were more concerned with protecting the physical market at all costs - their attitude wasn't "how do we make it work for us?", but "how do we stop this?". Now, "new business models" are all they talk about but, ten years back, very few people in the industry had any idea about how technology and society were changing, and how the way people consumed music would follow suit, and nobody wanted to listen to those few people anyway. As for the RIAA, "internet crackdowns" and such, it's a waste of time. The one thing the industry should have done, above all others, was bring in a Red Book standard for digital downloads like they did with CDs and CD players. The fact they didn't insist on standards means they now can't go back and face down the unholy mess they find themselves in.
I'd also like to say to DOR, I think I have more of a problem with your cavalier attitude of "oh well, too bad for you, deal with it", than the problem itself.
Yeah, I'm sure I've come out like that. Talking about this over the net doesn't help. It doesn't get across the emotion part. I'm really just trying to state my opinion that this is the world we find ourselves in right now. People would be best served to find other ways to do it. And in no way am I trying to say "Fuck you suckers, I download all ur shits"
Sorry if I'm coming across as that.
This situation is not entirely bad - at least for someone like me. I'm sure I've gotten more exposure from people posting/sharing my music. The problem comes when people upload entire brand new CD's or records.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it? Unless of course, you believe that US law trumps all other countries laws?
Not in the least. I'm talking from a common sense right/wrong, moral perspective. We all know it's not right (myself included). I'm not exempt from this. I download things I normally can't purchase or find, but I still buy new music.
And to me, I've heard your stuff Day and think it's worth a hell of alot more than what it sells for.
Thank you, but you're being way too kind.
My family lost it's livelihood from downloading. But I'm not looking to blame people for downloading.
Not to get personal, but can you elaborate on this? I find it interesting you have the opinions you do considering.
...wait a minute, isn't there a "secret" forum here for the soulstrut heavyweights to trade music?
The last time I saw someone post a currently in-print LP it was promptly removed.
so if it's old music you can swap freely but if it's new lp's it's a no-no??? what about when the Nas Where Are They Now remixes that weren't "promptly removed"? or the then-unreleased Ghost is Back?
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
or the Bjork single that's currently not being removed from this very site???? seems like you want no one to fuck with your shit but aren't holding the same tone when it comes to other's music.
...wait a minute, isn't there a "secret" forum here for the soulstrut heavyweights to trade music?
The last time I saw someone post a currently in-print LP it was promptly removed.
so if it's old music you can swap freely but if it's new lp's it's a no-no??? what about when the Nas Where Are They Now remixes that weren't "promptly removed"?
Well, to my knowledge at least, these have never been released in any physical form. They seem to have been created with the very intent that they be shared via the net and mixtapes--can't imagine Nas had any illusions about them being added to rotation anywhere.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Well, I kinda made note to this. If were talking about immoral, well I guess I'm a bad guy. I've looked at porn before too and I've had immoral thoughts. I'm a really bad bad guy. But if were talking about the law here. I haven't broken it by the laws stated in my country.
When you bring up travel, I'm guessing that you could come to Canada and make as many personal copies as you wanted, but taking them home with you would be against American laws.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Slavery (from an historical perspective)? Adultery? Just to name a couple. I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Could someone post a link where to buy this comp?
I agree with others who say that this transitional phase will hurt a lot of people before the marketplace is radically restructured. But I do beleive that this will take place, and that people will continue to profit by making good and bad music.
And we can all tell this thread is just a crass marketing strategy, Dano.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Well, I kinda made note to this. If were talking about immoral, well I guess I'm a bad guy. I've looked at porn before too and I've had immoral thoughts. I'm a really bad bad guy. But if were talking about the law here. I haven't broken it by the laws stated in my country.
They seem to have been created with the very intent that they be shared via the net and mixtapes--can't imagine Nas had any illusions about them being added to rotation anywhere.
so it's cool to share stuff if they're not for sale, but if it's Danno's he's up in arms???? Then what about the Ghostface and Bjork records past and currently posted here for "sharing" It's interesting Danno has yet to state his position on this and didn't we go thru this with that Sound Chronicles ?
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Slavery (from an historical perspective)? Adultery? Just to name a couple. I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Jeezus, dude, that is some density. Nobody viewed slavery as "moral" because it was legal--economic interests shaped the "morality" which was then codified in laws.
That aside, are you saying this is a defensible perspective? That it's acceptable for adults to take the position that law defines personal morality and that's the end of it? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where people didn't question whether or not the law was the perfect embodiment of morality and as such should never be questioned or evolve.
They seem to have been created with the very intent that they be shared via the net and mixtapes--can't imagine Nas had any illusions about them being added to rotation anywhere.
so it's cool to share stuff if they're not for sale, but if it's Danno's he's up in arms????
In a nutshell, yes.
The Nas remixes were intended for public consumption but not for sale--as far as I can tell, promotion via free DLing was their purpose. That's not the case with Danno's product. The distinction seems pretty clear to me.
I don't know anything about the other recordings you're talking about, so I don't have an opinion on them--although it would not surprise me if they were being posted for download in a context that I don't think is defensible.
I don't know anything about the other recordings you're talking about, so I don't have an opinion on them--although it would not surprise me if they were being posted for download in a context that I don't think is defensible.
Danno's argument is legit. It's fucked up.
But I see what YoIgotbeats is saying. There is confusion and hypocrisy. I myself am confused as to where these invisible lines should be drawn. What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Slavery (from an historical perspective)? Adultery? Just to name a couple. I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Jeezus, dude, that is some density. Nobody viewed slavery as "moral" because it was legal--economic interests shaped the "morality" which was then codified in laws.
That aside, are you saying this is a defensible perspective? That it's acceptable for adults to take the position that law defines personal morality and that's the end of it? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where people didn't question whether or not the law was the perfect embodiment of morality and as such should never be questioned or evolve.
That response was directed at DOR, sorry if that was unclear. I would never rely on my (or any) government to choose my morals for me. That may very well be beyond fascism into a whole new realm.
I don't know anything about the other recordings you're talking about, so I don't have an opinion on them--although it would not surprise me if they were being posted for download in a context that I don't think is defensible.
Danno's argument is legit. It's fucked up.
But I see what YoIgotbeats is saying. There is confusion and hypocrisy. I myself am confused as to where these invisible lines should be drawn. What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
I've seen entire rap albums posted right before they were released countless times here. No problem for most. I'm also preaty sure a little while back there was a soulstrut room in soulseek where people were sharing many "in print" albums. So I'm sure most of the soulstrut "anti download police" are guilty of being hypocrites
What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
I'm answering my own question. Ultimately if the artist doesn't want it, then don't do it. Makes sense. But there is still plenty of hypocrisy left. We clearly do not know each and every one of the artist's intentions. If it's a on a major label is it okay? If it's old music is it okay? Maybe we should solely buy from the ITunes store? What the dillyyo. Just throwing these questions out there for the heck of it.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Slavery (from an historical perspective)? Adultery? Just to name a couple. I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Jeezus, dude, that is some density. Nobody viewed slavery as "moral" because it was legal--economic interests shaped the "morality" which was then codified in laws.
That aside, are you saying this is a defensible perspective? That it's acceptable for adults to take the position that law defines personal morality and that's the end of it? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where people didn't question whether or not the law was the perfect embodiment of morality and as such should never be questioned or evolve.
That response was directed at DOR, sorry if that was unclear. I would never rely on my (or any) government to choose my morals for me. That may very well be beyond fascism into a whole new realm.
What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
I'm answering my own question. Ultimately if the artist doesn't want it, then don't do it. Makes sense.
Well, requiring prospective downloaders to read the minds of artists--who have often relinquished their right of ownership, anyway--is a substantial burden.
However, I don't see anything wrong with DLing music that the right-holders have opted not to keep in print... or have never put into print. Theoretically, it cuts into future sales at such time as the right-holder does get it together and put the music into print, but that seems like a pretty attenuated argument to me.
This is all purely theoretical, though; the people that will actually be making these policy decisions en masse are all mindless 13 year olds.
My family lost it's livelihood from downloading. But I'm not looking to blame people for downloading.
Not to get personal, but can you elaborate on this? I find it interesting you have the opinions you do considering.
I mentioned this a bit in the thread earlier. And there were other reasons to why things went down the way they did. But I have no doubt the downloading climate we find ourselves in these days had alot to do with it.
My family owned one of the main record shops (Among other things... Magazine, distribution centre, etc) in the city (Maybe in the country). They had the stores for over 30 years (I alone put close to 10-15 years of my life into it). We've pretty much always catered to the DJ. You can ask Aser about the good old days. Now, DJ's who started to use CD's only hurt us very little at first. Since we sold alot of CD singles, we still did alright. When DJ's started to move to being able to play stuff burnt onto CDRs, it was more of a hit. But when I saw final scratch (This was even before Stanton bought it) hit the scene, I knew we were done and it wasn't coming back. We realllly took a hit once Stanton & Microwave came into play.
I was making pretty good money back then and loved what I was doing. I'm not mad at anyone or do I even want to point a finger and cast blame. Hell, I even opened a small little shop with one of my best friends (DJ Serious) a couple of years ago and in the first year we were doing alright (Tho, I'm guessing it's because we weren't trying to sell new shit).
I could get into it more I guess, with me doing other things during that time period like promotions and label work. But you get the point.
Once again, I'm sorry if I came off as an ass before. I'm not trying to post on saying ur shit should be for free and giving away. I just feel that I'm aware of where things are and where they are headed. I guess in the end, I should just zip it.
What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
I'm answering my own question. Ultimately if the artist doesn't want it, then don't do it. Makes sense.
Well, requiring prospective downloaders to read the minds of artists--who have often relinquished their right of ownership, anyway--is a substantial burden.
However, I don't see anything wrong with DLing music that the right-holders have opted not to keep in print... or have never put into print. Theoretically, it cuts into future sales at such time as the right-holder does get it together and put the music into print, but that seems like a pretty attenuated argument to me.
This is all purely theoretical, though; the people that will actually be making these policy decisions en masse are all mindless 13 year olds.
The lawyer wins!
the people that will actually be making these policy decisions en masse are all mindless 13 year olds.
haha. True. At this point.
Another good question would be, To what extent can regulatory measures be placed, and how effective will they be in the long-run?
of course it's fucked up, but it's interesting he doesn't have shit to say when it comes to Bjork (which is still up on a site he's supposed to regulate). why is that? I mean you're not even creating anything - you just had the dough to roll to Cuba and buy some records. How does that give you the right to get all uppity?
Comments
This situation is not entirely bad - at least for someone like me. I'm sure I've gotten more exposure from people posting/sharing my music. The problem comes when people upload entire brand new CD's or records.
I don't claim to be an expert on IP law, but in the context of this thread, copyright infringement is equivalent to stealing. If this were a lanham case dealing with trademarks where the injured party alleged infringement based on the creation of confusion in the marketplace...ok, that might not fit squarely within the defnition of "stealing". But again, thats not the case here. We are talking about sharing music that is owned by someone else. The only issue worth debating is whether someone who buys a cd/movie/software program has the right to share it. However, that issue has already been decided ten times over by the courts, and the answer is a resounding "NO".
Also, you dont need a copyright or a trademark to have a successful infringement case. THey are just tools to prove ownership. Therefore, while I agree that the lobbyists arent out there pushing for tougher copyright laws because the want to help out the little guy, you'd have to be more specific before I would buy into the idea that the law is actually targeted to benefit those in power. I think what you really mean to say is that the big guys are the only ones with the money to enforce these laws (by suing in civil court, or sending threatening letters through their powerful attorneys). We can agree on that for sure.
vs.
See the difference.
It puts off some potential buyers, but don't get it twisted; vinyl junkies don't equate to "a lot" in terms of the potential market for music. There used to be a piece on the Blood and Fire website talking about why they stopped reissuing stuff on vinyl (they may have resumed this by now), and the crux of it was that it was prohibitively expensive if they wanted to continue to release stuff to the standards they'd set themselves. The hard fact is that it's easier and more cost-effective to do that kind of shit on CD. My girl used to work for World Circuit, and she could tell you there is no market for vinyl in that particular niche - world music buyers aren't, as a rule, vinyl fetishists. I'd imagine there'd be a bigger audience for Danno's album amongst that crowd than the "music should totally, like, be free, dude!" mob.
This has been one of the more interesting threads on here for a minute, and the input of Thes, Danno, Day and Einstein in particular has, I think, given a much-needed "creator's perspective" to the discussion. Danno's perspective is a little different in that it isn't his music that's being offered up for download. Nevertheless, it is his labour and, just like Thes, Day and Einstein, he has a right to be able to make some kind of living from that labour. I'd imagine also that he's not as well-placed as the EMIs and Universals to take the hit that excessive downloading of his product represents. Because of that, he's probably less likely to (want to) take the risk, and attendant headaches, of doing all this again, so chances are that those of us who'd like to hear (and buy) "Si Para Usted Volume 2" may never get the chance. I mean, fuck the majors; this is the reality of the matter at the sharp end. You're basically expecting people to work for nothing, and how many of us would do that?
To broaden it out a little, the major labels are culpable in a big way for the current situation. I could comfortably go on about this for a good 10,000 words minimum, but I'll keep it brief and say that if they'd responded more quickly to the whole issue of digital music about ten years ago, when it was obvious what direction the game was headed in, they'd have been set. Instead, they were more concerned with protecting the physical market at all costs - their attitude wasn't "how do we make it work for us?", but "how do we stop this?". Now, "new business models" are all they talk about but, ten years back, very few people in the industry had any idea about how technology and society were changing, and how the way people consumed music would follow suit, and nobody wanted to listen to those few people anyway. As for the RIAA, "internet crackdowns" and such, it's a waste of time. The one thing the industry should have done, above all others, was bring in a Red Book standard for digital downloads like they did with CDs and CD players. The fact they didn't insist on standards means they now can't go back and face down the unholy mess they find themselves in.
How can something be wrong, if it's not illegal and that there is no law against it? Unless of course, you believe that US law trumps all other countries laws? This isn't just Canada BTW. There are many countries out there with the similar rules.
I mean, it's not like were talking about unauthorized use of sampling or selling DJ mix tapes or using cracked plug-ins or DJing an event without the proper license or smoking weed while making music.
All of which are illegal here unfortunately.
I don't even really download music much anymore. And I never look to DL Strutters stuff. And to me, I've heard your stuff Day and think it's worth a hell of alot more than what it sells for.
My family lost it's livelihood from downloading. But I'm not looking to blame people for downloading.
But in anycase, I wish you and any other strutter a successful career.
I 100% agree.
Yeah, I'm sure I've come out like that. Talking about this over the net doesn't help. It doesn't get across the emotion part. I'm really just trying to state my opinion that this is the world we find ourselves in right now. People would be best served to find other ways to do it. And in no way am I trying to say "Fuck you suckers, I download all ur shits"
Sorry if I'm coming across as that.
I'm glad to hear this.
Not in the least. I'm talking from a common sense right/wrong, moral perspective.
We all know it's not right (myself included). I'm not exempt from this. I download things I normally can't purchase or find, but I still buy new music.
Thank you, but you're being way too kind.
Not to get personal, but can you elaborate on this? I find it interesting you have the opinions you do considering.
so if it's old music you can swap freely but if it's new lp's it's a no-no??? what about when the Nas Where Are They Now remixes that weren't "promptly removed"? or the then-unreleased Ghost is Back?
Do many people allow the law to define their personal morality?
How many people are even familiar with the finer points of criminal law within their particular jurisdiction... and does their personal morality shift when they travel to another jurisdiction?
Is murder wrong only because it is illegal? Because it remains generally illegal, is consuming marijuana therefore immoral?
Well, to my knowledge at least, these have never been released in any physical form. They seem to have been created with the very intent that they be shared via the net and mixtapes--can't imagine Nas had any illusions about them being added to rotation anywhere.
Well, I kinda made note to this. If were talking about immoral, well I guess I'm a bad guy. I've looked at porn before too and I've had immoral thoughts. I'm a really bad bad guy. But if were talking about the law here. I haven't broken it by the laws stated in my country.
When you bring up travel, I'm guessing that you could come to Canada and make as many personal copies as you wanted, but taking them home with you would be against American laws.
the world needs more buck 65s
Slavery (from an historical perspective)? Adultery? Just to name a couple. I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Could someone post a link where to buy this comp?
I agree with others who say that this transitional phase will hurt a lot of people before the marketplace is radically restructured. But I do beleive that this will take place, and that people will continue to profit by making good and bad music.
And we can all tell this thread is just a crass marketing strategy, Dano.
You introduced the concept, not me.
so it's cool to share stuff if they're not for sale, but if it's Danno's he's up in arms???? Then what about the Ghostface and Bjork records past and currently posted here for "sharing" It's interesting Danno has yet to state his position on this and didn't we go thru this with that Sound Chronicles
Jeezus, dude, that is some density. Nobody viewed slavery as "moral" because it was legal--economic interests shaped the "morality" which was then codified in laws.
That aside, are you saying this is a defensible perspective? That it's acceptable for adults to take the position that law defines personal morality and that's the end of it? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where people didn't question whether or not the law was the perfect embodiment of morality and as such should never be questioned or evolve.
In a nutshell, yes.
The Nas remixes were intended for public consumption but not for sale--as far as I can tell, promotion via free DLing was their purpose. That's not the case with Danno's product. The distinction seems pretty clear to me.
I don't know anything about the other recordings you're talking about, so I don't have an opinion on them--although it would not surprise me if they were being posted for download in a context that I don't think is defensible.
Danno's argument is legit. It's fucked up.
But I see what YoIgotbeats is saying. There is confusion and hypocrisy. I myself am confused as to where these invisible lines should be drawn. What exactly is "brand-new" and therefore illegal, and who decides what is to be intentionally or unintentionally distributed for free?
That response was directed at DOR, sorry if that was unclear. I would never rely on my (or any) government to choose my morals for me. That may very well be beyond fascism into a whole new realm.
I've seen entire rap albums posted right before they were released countless times here. No problem for most. I'm also preaty sure a little while back there was a soulstrut room in soulseek where people were sharing many "in print" albums. So I'm sure most of the soulstrut "anti download police" are guilty of being hypocrites
I'm answering my own question. Ultimately if the artist doesn't want it, then don't do it. Makes sense. But there is still plenty of hypocrisy left. We clearly do not know each and every one of the artist's intentions. If it's a on a major label is it okay? If it's old music is it okay? Maybe we should solely buy from the ITunes store? What the dillyyo. Just throwing these questions out there for the heck of it.
Wow, this is a big problem in many ways.
Oh, okay--sorry about that.
Well, requiring prospective downloaders to read the minds of artists--who have often relinquished their right of ownership, anyway--is a substantial burden.
However, I don't see anything wrong with DLing music that the right-holders have opted not to keep in print... or have never put into print. Theoretically, it cuts into future sales at such time as the right-holder does get it together and put the music into print, but that seems like a pretty attenuated argument to me.
This is all purely theoretical, though; the people that will actually be making these policy decisions en masse are all mindless 13 year olds.
I mentioned this a bit in the thread earlier. And there were other reasons to why things went down the way they did. But I have no doubt the downloading climate we find ourselves in these days had alot to do with it.
My family owned one of the main record shops (Among other things... Magazine, distribution centre, etc) in the city (Maybe in the country). They had the stores for over 30 years (I alone put close to 10-15 years of my life into it). We've pretty much always catered to the DJ. You can ask Aser about the good old days. Now, DJ's who started to use CD's only hurt us very little at first. Since we sold alot of CD singles, we still did alright. When DJ's started to move to being able to play stuff burnt onto CDRs, it was more of a hit. But when I saw final scratch (This was even before Stanton bought it) hit the scene, I knew we were done and it wasn't coming back. We realllly took a hit once Stanton & Microwave came into play.
I was making pretty good money back then and loved what I was doing. I'm not mad at anyone or do I even want to point a finger and cast blame. Hell, I even opened a small little shop with one of my best friends (DJ Serious) a couple of years ago and in the first year we were doing alright (Tho, I'm guessing it's because we weren't trying to sell new shit).
I could get into it more I guess, with me doing other things during that time period like promotions and label work. But you get the point.
Once again, I'm sorry if I came off as an ass before. I'm not trying to post on saying ur shit should be for free and giving away. I just feel that I'm aware of where things are and where they are headed. I guess in the end, I should just zip it.
I do find this topic interesting tho.
The lawyer wins!
haha. True. At this point.
Another good question would be, To what extent can regulatory measures be placed, and how effective will they be in the long-run?
later, i'm out to ball (aka work it son.)
of course it's fucked up, but it's interesting he doesn't have shit to say when it comes to Bjork (which is still up on a site he's supposed to regulate). why is that? I mean you're not even creating anything - you just had the dough to roll to Cuba and buy some records. How does that give you the right to get all uppity?
Yes. And ultimately, as with anything in life, something has to give.