Please explain the justification (from a music lover and supporter of artists point of view) of why it is okay for music blogs to post free downloads of old music?
It's okay in cases where the artist is either dead, completely retired, or no longer creating and/or releasing any music. In one case the artist is no longer alive to support, and in the other cases, not supporting the artist does not jeopardize the creation of future music. And in all three cases, getting something of value for free is objectively better (for the receiver) than paying.
Your high flying legal career also seems to have the scent of poo attached. How are you even on here still?
PS I am typing while on the shitter. Need to wipe now. Thinking of you. Bye.
Is "while on the shitter" a euphemism for making one of your mixes? Because that's what they smell like. And don't forget that you have to wash your hands before you go back to making the McMuffins.
Your high flying legal career also seems to have the scent of poo attached. How are you even on here still?
PS I am typing while on the shitter. Need to wipe now. Thinking of you. Bye.
Is "while on the shitter" a euphemism for making one of your mixes? Because that's what they smell like. And don't forget that you have to wash your hands before you go back to making the McMuffins.
There was a much better potential comeback in there about me touching my ass while thinking of you. Oh well.
Now then, back to the topic, websites that offer LP downloads are completely devoid of merit.
Your high flying legal career also seems to have the scent of poo attached. How are you even on here still?
PS I am typing while on the shitter. Need to wipe now. Thinking of you. Bye.
Is "while on the shitter" a euphemism for making one of your mixes? Because that's what they smell like. And don't forget that you have to wash your hands before you go back to making the McMuffins.
There was a much better potential comeback in there about me touching my ass while thinking of you. Oh well.
Now then, back to the topic, websites that offer LP downloads are completely devoid of merit.
I was specifically trying NOT to think about you, thinking of me. And my site doesn't offer downloads, because I stopped paying for Rappidshare and the links are all dead, so there.
Please explain the justification (from a music lover and supporter of artists point of view) of why it is okay for music blogs to post free downloads of old music?
It's okay in cases where the artist is either dead, completely retired, or no longer creating and/or releasing any music. In one case the artist is no longer alive to support, and in the other cases, not supporting the artist does not jeopardize the creation of future music. And in all three cases, getting something of value for free is objectively better (for the receiver) than paying.
I think we can all agree on the last sentence.
As to the other stuff you wrote - if the music no longer has copyright protection, okay, but otherwise your robbing the musician's heirs...which I guess may not be morally objectionable to everyone.
My main issue is not with the people on here who download free music because it's just difficult to justify paying for something you can easily get for free. I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist. That is just ridiculous. Post it on a music player so that people cannot download it. If you don't do this, you are selfishly trying to drive traffic to your site for no good reason.
I get the argument over artists who are leaking their own music, but unless you are receiving music directly from an artist, it's bullshit to apply that logic to yourself ("someone else said somewhere on the internet that an artist leaked this, so i guess that means i can post it").
I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist.
This is the main point about download sites. It's a strange combination of stalkerism, art critic syndrome, and just basically settling for mediocrity. I would have thought Reynaldo would be very critical of such moves.
I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist.
This is the main point about download sites. It's a strange combination of stalkerism, art critic syndrome, and just basically settling for mediocrity. I would have thought Reynaldo would be very critical of such moves.
It's also extremely hypocritical to take the stand that sharing music is an unstoppable force when you are enabling that behavior by posting free music. If music blogs didn't make it so easy, most of us wouldn't be typing "______ song or artist & mediafire zippyshare etc." into google...or we'd be doing it, striking out, and then going to itunes or amazon to pay for it.
Yet iTunes and amazon still sell. We're talking about different streams of content and for the time being, those streams exist in parallel.
^^^^^^
must have a music blog
if itunes or amazon doesn't have something, that is even more the reason not to post it for a free download. is crate digging no longer holy on the crate digging revealed thread?
Yet iTunes and amazon still sell. We're talking about different streams of content and for the time being, those streams exist in parallel.
For the time being, yes. We are currently still in the Wild West phase of the internet. It's not 1888 yet.
A lot of this will end soon when TimeWarner and Google and others have the power to sniff every piece of data that you access 24/7, and as (de facto in the case of Google) copyright holders, they will be interested in policing your content choices.
Yup, this is already happening.
My music videos have been flagged on YouTube for "matched third party copyright infringement" by YouTube. If you click on the link it says in laymen's terms that you're video contains third party copyrit content which you do not hold the rights to. The problem is, I'm the third party who owns the rights. It's unclear, I think even to themselves, as to what course of action they'll take, but imagine a YouTube where every video with matched content (using a shazaam/genome algorithm) is flagged and removed.
They are probably just protecting thier ass but, to me, it looks like the future of internet policing will be done with bots and algorithms and google is working on getting it together.
On a side note, even though the bot flagged my video, a separate one placed an ad banner on the bottoms of te video to buy the song on amazon.
Web 3.0 is gonna be a strange place.
billbradleyYou want BBQ sauce? Get the fuck out of my house. 2,905 Posts
SportCasual said:
mannybolone said:
A lot of this will end soon when TimeWarner and Google and others have the power to sniff every piece of data that you access 24/7, and as (de facto in the case of Google) copyright holders, they will be interested in policing your content choices.
Don't fool yourself. They have that power already. Anything that passes over the internet (un-encrypted) can be sniffed.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
Yet iTunes and amazon still sell. We're talking about different streams of content and for the time being, those streams exist in parallel.
For the time being, yes. We are currently still in the Wild West phase of the internet. It's not 1888 yet.
A lot of this will end soon when TimeWarner and Google and others have the power to sniff every piece of data that you access 24/7, and as (de facto in the case of Google) copyright holders, they will be interested in policing your content choices.
That may all be true but this is all 10years after Napster too. The points we're talking about have been argued ad nauseum and I think the key thing that would change the terms of the debate is a major change in enforcement strategies.
I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist.
This is the main point about download sites. It's a strange combination of stalkerism, art critic syndrome, and just basically settling for mediocrity. I would have thought Reynaldo would be very critical of such moves.
I'm about the music, so much so that I'm willing to destroy an entire industry and impoverish any artist to feed my appetite.
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
A lot of this will end soon when TimeWarner and Google and others have the power to sniff every piece of data that you access 24/7, and as (de facto in the case of Google) copyright holders, they will be interested in policing your content choices.
Don't fool yourself. They have that power already. Anything that passes over the internet (un-encrypted) can be sniffed.
I'm a web developer, I know this. But my point is more about when it becomes in the interests of those with the ability to do the cracking down. Up to now, Google has been about traffic/market share, that's indicative of the speculative phase of the Internet. Dotcom was after all not about making money, but increasing market share. Profit was almost a bad sign as it meant a slow in growth.
When market saturation for internet users is reached, it will be all about maximizing profit on the existing model, not trying to be at the top of the bubble in order to capitalize on potential. Copyright and its enforceabilty will be key to that.
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
this is such a load of shit. artists entering into unfair contracts with music labels, agents, managers, etc. is an entirely different ballgame. that's like me stealing fruits from wholefoods [assuming wholefoods was a co-op] and justifying it by saying that the farmers are getting screwed anyway.
it's amazing how logic gets distorted when people try to justify their own behavior.
it's a lot easier to just say - we are all part of the problem.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
mannybolone said:
HarveyCanal said:
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
What always bothered me was the mark-up on cd's which cost like 15 cents a piece to manufacture. And despite their profit margins being astronomical, they still managed to rip off artists at every turn. So yeah, eff the music industry old guard and anything that they ever whine about.
I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist.
This is the main point about download sites. It's a strange combination of stalkerism, art critic syndrome, and just basically settling for mediocrity. I would have thought Reynaldo would be very critical of such moves.
I'm about the music, so much so that I'm willing to destroy an entire industry and impoverish any artist to feed my appetite.
Just like Google feels about the printed word.
Publishing is the future. Distribution will be a zero-profit endeavor. You need to man up and get in on the re-issue game. You can still keep the artists out of the loop if you want!
They're still going to arrest us all for dubbing albums to cassettes back in the day. Don't think they've forgotten.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
this is such a load of shit. artists entering into unfair contracts with music labels, agents, managers, etc. is an entirely different ballgame. that's like me stealing fruits from wholefoods [assuming wholefoods was a co-op] and justifying it by saying that the farmers are getting screwed anyway.
it's amazing how logic gets distorted when people try to justify their own behavior.
it's a lot easier to just say - we are all part of the problem.
What exactly is the problem though? Whose interests are being protected? How does file sharing quantifiably impact the average artist or musician? What impact does it have on new releases? Or out of print music?
ODub......how about we film you teaching your class for a year, then package it on video and provide it to schools across the country to teach their students without you getting any compensation?
Comments
PS I am typing while on the shitter. Need to wipe now. Thinking of you. Bye.
Is "while on the shitter" a euphemism for making one of your mixes? Because that's what they smell like. And don't forget that you have to wash your hands before you go back to making the McMuffins.
There was a much better potential comeback in there about me touching my ass while thinking of you. Oh well.
Now then, back to the topic, websites that offer LP downloads are completely devoid of merit.
I was specifically trying NOT to think about you, thinking of me. And my site doesn't offer downloads, because I stopped paying for Rappidshare and the links are all dead, so there.
Now get me some fries!
I think we can all agree on the last sentence.
As to the other stuff you wrote - if the music no longer has copyright protection, okay, but otherwise your robbing the musician's heirs...which I guess may not be morally objectionable to everyone.
My main issue is not with the people on here who download free music because it's just difficult to justify paying for something you can easily get for free. I find it much more objectionable that people are posting music of artists that they love and fooling themselves into thinking that they are serving the artist. That is just ridiculous. Post it on a music player so that people cannot download it. If you don't do this, you are selfishly trying to drive traffic to your site for no good reason.
I get the argument over artists who are leaking their own music, but unless you are receiving music directly from an artist, it's bullshit to apply that logic to yourself ("someone else said somewhere on the internet that an artist leaked this, so i guess that means i can post it").
This is the main point about download sites. It's a strange combination of stalkerism, art critic syndrome, and just basically settling for mediocrity. I would have thought Reynaldo would be very critical of such moves.
It's also extremely hypocritical to take the stand that sharing music is an unstoppable force when you are enabling that behavior by posting free music. If music blogs didn't make it so easy, most of us wouldn't be typing "______ song or artist & mediafire zippyshare etc." into google...or we'd be doing it, striking out, and then going to itunes or amazon to pay for it.
^^^^^^
must have a music blog
if itunes or amazon doesn't have something, that is even more the reason not to post it for a free download. is crate digging no longer holy on the crate digging revealed thread?
For the time being, yes. We are currently still in the Wild West phase of the internet. It's not 1888 yet.
A lot of this will end soon when TimeWarner and Google and others have the power to sniff every piece of data that you access 24/7, and as (de facto in the case of Google) copyright holders, they will be interested in policing your content choices.
My music videos have been flagged on YouTube for "matched third party copyright infringement" by YouTube. If you click on the link it says in laymen's terms that you're video contains third party copyrit content which you do not hold the rights to. The problem is, I'm the third party who owns the rights. It's unclear, I think even to themselves, as to what course of action they'll take, but imagine a YouTube where every video with matched content (using a shazaam/genome algorithm) is flagged and removed.
They are probably just protecting thier ass but, to me, it looks like the future of internet policing will be done with bots and algorithms and google is working on getting it together.
On a side note, even though the bot flagged my video, a separate one placed an ad banner on the bottoms of te video to buy the song on amazon.
Web 3.0 is gonna be a strange place.
Don't fool yourself. They have that power already. Anything that passes over the internet (un-encrypted) can be sniffed.
That may all be true but this is all 10years after Napster too. The points we're talking about have been argued ad nauseum and I think the key thing that would change the terms of the debate is a major change in enforcement strategies.
SportCasual only pawn in game of life.
And before that, they wanted to make playing records on the radio illegal too.
Regardless of the technologies involved, these are all very old arguments regarding the principles involved. All I know is that the biggest thieves in the music business is the music business. The well-being of artists or their heirs is a red herring.
Agreed X1000000000000000000
I'm not following the line of logic here.
Also: I'm assuming you're opposed to Record Day on this very site?
I'm a web developer, I know this. But my point is more about when it becomes in the interests of those with the ability to do the cracking down. Up to now, Google has been about traffic/market share, that's indicative of the speculative phase of the Internet. Dotcom was after all not about making money, but increasing market share. Profit was almost a bad sign as it meant a slow in growth.
When market saturation for internet users is reached, it will be all about maximizing profit on the existing model, not trying to be at the top of the bubble in order to capitalize on potential. Copyright and its enforceabilty will be key to that.
this is such a load of shit. artists entering into unfair contracts with music labels, agents, managers, etc. is an entirely different ballgame. that's like me stealing fruits from wholefoods [assuming wholefoods was a co-op] and justifying it by saying that the farmers are getting screwed anyway.
it's amazing how logic gets distorted when people try to justify their own behavior.
it's a lot easier to just say - we are all part of the problem.
What always bothered me was the mark-up on cd's which cost like 15 cents a piece to manufacture. And despite their profit margins being astronomical, they still managed to rip off artists at every turn. So yeah, eff the music industry old guard and anything that they ever whine about.
Just like Google feels about the printed word.
Publishing is the future. Distribution will be a zero-profit endeavor. You need to man up and get in on the re-issue game. You can still keep the artists out of the loop if you want!
Tell us again about all those "saved jobs." I love that one.
what are you talking about?
What exactly is the problem though? Whose interests are being protected? How does file sharing quantifiably impact the average artist or musician? What impact does it have on new releases? Or out of print music?
You signing up for that??
But previous to that, the implosion of Tower records, gas prices, and print media did too.
So, basically, things suck but we trudge on because the funny thing about artists is that they will create even if someone isnt paying them.
So, yeah.