the new way to stop file-sharing

noodles · **Posted:** Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:42 am

Zad wrote:

Yes, but it's different. If they let people get refunds on music people would buy it, rip it and return it.

If I wanted free music I'd just download it illegally...

Quote:

It's the experience they're selling, do you get a refund from your local video rental store if the film you borrowed was poor?

Nah... I listen to music I like over and over again but only watch movies I like once or twice. This is why renting movies is a popular business but renting music isn't =\

Mike · **Posted:** Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:27 am

Adveser wrote:

How should the 300 bands I listened to this month divide thier 9 dollars for the subscription?

There's limited scope for ya'!!

If just 1 million people out of the 300 million in the USA signed up for Rhapsody that's what.. hhh

mm??? 9 million dollars. I'm sure less after Rhapsody and the labels get their share. However, I'm sure artists on Rhapsody will be happy getting their part of the 9 million dollar pie when it's all said and done.

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Raven wrote:

Adveser wrote:

How should the 300 bands I listened to this month divide thier 9 dollars for the subscription?

There's limited scope for ya'!!

If just 1 million people out of the 300 million in the USA signed up for Rhapsody that's what.. hhh

mm??? 9 million dollars. I'm sure less after Rhapsody and the labels get their share. However, I'm sure artists on Rhapsody will be happy getting their part of the 9 million dollar pie when it's all said and done.

The artists aren't getting shit from rhapsody as far as I know unless you choose to buy the album, the label will get the money and pay ASCAP fees and screw everyone over.

I guess you're all about supporting the billion dollar conglomerate rather than the creator of the product.

...Or I can go out and buy 20 different albums on Steamhammer or a similar label and (minus the retail location's profit) make the label and thier artists 200 bucks instead of the close to zero they would get from rhapsody.

Your whole argument is based around the premise that we should only buy albums if the label has enough money to market it to us correctly and it is absolutely wrong to figure it out for yourself how best to spend money.

Look, I won't support half-assed hacks because some people seem to think you have no right to understand a product before you buy it.

noodles · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:31 am

noodles · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:33 am

From John of Hammers of Misfortue's myspace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/31bar.html

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =343014186

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

noodles wrote:

From John of Hammers of Misfortue's myspace:

Quote:

Slow and Painful Death Of The Music biz: Oregon v. RIAA

Link: "In the Fight Over Piracy, a Rare Stand for Privacy"

It looks like the state of Oregon is standing up to the RIAA, who is using it's usual intimidation and bullying tactics to extort money out of some kids who (gasp!) file–shared some songs by Madonna and Sting.

If you use P2P (like soulseek) to share music, you should know that the RIAA is using data mining techniques to spy on you. They seem to enjoy preying on young kids and single moms, and usually settle out of court for 5 figures or so. This practice is despicable. Leave it to the majors to criminalize and intimidate their own customers, seemingly unable to grasp that the toothpaste is out of the tube when it comes to digital media sharing.

Here are some tips for avoiding RIAA spies: Don't use peer to peer. There are other ways.

— Usenet (sometimes known as newsgroups) is my personal favorite. You can use any number of free newsreader wares, there are also some web-based usenet browsers out there that allow you to browse through and download tracks through the web.

— BitTorrent is not hard to use, just follow the instructions. As far as I know it's not being tracked by the RIAA, but you may want to research this yourself. There are plenty of torrent sites and free torrent clients available.

— Lately I've been using blogs. Here is how: type the name of the album you want into google search, and then go to the 'more' pulldown menu at the top of the search results page and select 'blogs'. This is probably better for rare, out of print or obscure stuff but ask yourself this: what other kind of music is worth listening to anyway? If you just want to download Madonna and Sting you might as well go pay 99¢ for the song.

— Of course, support underground music. Buy a shirt or something, you know the drill. Fuck the RIAA. Downloading music hurts no one except these corporate raiders. Who are the real pirates?

Thank you for that. The RIAA and thier bullshit practices are the real problem and have REALLY disassociated a lot of cusotmers through thier practises.

There's even a website that chronicles which albums are reales througb RIAA association, so people can avoid anything having to do with them.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:55 am

Of course, if that guy sold more than a couple of albums a year then he's be whistling a different tune.

Mintrude · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:47 am

I'm surprised they haven't targeted sites like rapidshare and megaupload. It's a lot more convienient to use than torrents, and I'm sure there's a lot of stuff on there,

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Mintrude wrote:

I'm surprised they haven't targeted sites like rapidshare and megaupload. It's a lot more convienient to use than torrents, and I'm sure there's a lot of stuff on there,

As far as I understand, everything you can imagine is on those two sites. They have so many files, they can't possibly manage the content. They both state uploading copyrighted materials is forbidden and they will remove files when it is brought to thier attention. This is the problem. Many user use a "Link protection" proxy site so that even if you wanted to get the contents removed, you wouldn't have the address to do so.

Mike · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:06 pm

Adveser wrote:

I guess you're all about supporting the billion dollar conglomerate rather than the creator of the product.

How can you rationalize that illegally downloading an artists work is supporting the artist? That's actually quite the opposite. Wouldn't you agree?

Adveser wrote:

Your whole argument is based around the premise that we should only buy albums if the label has enough money to market it to us correctly and it is absolutely wrong to figure it out for yourself how best to spend money.

If you had taken the time to read and comprehend anything that I've written you would obviously know that my position is absolutely the opposite of what you're accusing me of now. You couldn't have written a more incorrect statement then that.

As I've stated you're incredible at twisting this argument and putting words in my mouth.

To quote Pill Parcels..." This conversation is going no where"

:lol:

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

There is no conversation, there's you ignoring everything I am writing and hammering home the same point that no matter what, listening to downloaded MP3's is wrong.

Quote:

How can you rationalize that illegally downloading an artists work is supporting the artist? That's actually quite the opposite. Wouldn't you agree?

Because thier chances of me buying thier albums was around 0% if I have no idea what kind of music they play, what they sound like or if I like it or not, I don't believe the hype and don't let other people's opinion determine what I buy. I like sites like this one that point me in the right direction though. The chances are very good (around 100%) if I like what I hear. Why is this hard to understand. I don't download stuff to avoid paying for it, I download to better judge what should be bought. I don't hoard away cd's full of albums I hate because I can, what sense would that make? I download something and if I like it, I'll go out and buy it. If I do not like it, it gets deleted.

*Sometimes you have to wait out certain releases because they get much improved re-issues, downloading the inferior edition and buying the "special" or "Limited" edition when it is released is a very smart way to go unless you really believe you must buy stuff as many times as possible

* Sometimes CD's get scratched, broken or you otherwise can't play them, I download those because I am not re-buying the same shit again when I have the right to listen to it "for a lifetime" as described by the manufactuers of CD's. If this is not the case then they owe a lot of us refunds for decetive advertising.

*I see music as shareware as far as I'm concerned. If I own it on tape, cd, vinyl, 8-track or whatever, That means by fair use laws, I'm entitled to own a copy on MP3 as a back up. The RIAA doesn't see it that way, but that's too bad, they don't make the laws. As the purchaser of a CD, I own a license to use it as I see fit and even modify it for my personal use, so long as I don't make other copies available to anyone else concurrent to my listening, it is legal.

*Sometimes you can not buy a CD any more commercially, why support 3rd parties and buy it used if it isn't on the market any longer? Why support businesses that mostly exploit people and give them very little for thier cd's, just so they can make a fast buck? Essentially, out of print albums are the free ware of the audio world because they are not being used commercially so there can not possibly be any loss incurred from anyone.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:32 pm

Mintrude wrote:

I'm surprised they haven't targeted sites like rapidshare and megaupload. It's a lot more convienient to use than torrents, and I'm sure there's a lot of stuff on there,

Half of those sites are foreign like I think rapidshare is from denmark. Sites like PirateBay moved across the ocean and no one has touched them so I guess they're safe in Europe?

noodles · **Posted:** Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:57 pm

Yeah those sites are generally based in countries with less strict copyright laws, so there is very little the RIAA can do against them.

Mike · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:43 am

Adveser wrote:

There is no conversation, there's you ignoring everything I am writing and hammering home the same point that no matter what, listening to downloaded MP3's is wrong.

Adveser wrote:

Because thier chances of me buying thier albums was around 0% if I have no idea what kind of music they play, what they sound like or if I like it or not, I don't believe the hype and don't let other people's opinion determine what I buy. I like sites like this one that point me in the right direction though. The chances are very good (around 100%) if I like what I hear. Why is this hard to understand. I don't download stuff to avoid paying for it, I download to better judge what should be bought. I don't hoard away cd's full of albums I hate because I can, what sense would that make? I download something and if I like it, I'll go out and buy it. If I do not like it, it gets deleted.

If that is indeed what you engage in, do you have any concept of how small the majority of people who "download to preview" is? I'm not engaging you in this argument again because I feel there are plenty of places to preview material without illegally downloading the artists work. We've covered that ad nauseum. However, I will go on record record as saying the MAJORITY of teeneagers that I have discussed this topic with all say the same thing. If I can get it for free then why would I pay money for it? Considering that I have contact with literally hundreds to thousands of teens, I can safely say that recording artists and labels have a legitimate complaint about illegal downloading. Go to any service, Limewire, Bearshare, Kazaa, etc....they're all not just previewing. you can bet your life on it.

Adveser wrote:

*Sometimes you have to wait out certain releases because they get much improved re-issues, downloading the inferior edition and buying the "special" or "Limited" edition when it is released is a very smart way to go unless you really believe you must buy stuff as many times as possible

Just because an artist decides to release a remaster, re-issue, special edition, or limited edition, it does not give the consumer the right to illegally download the artists work until you "wait it out for something better". Do you get to test drive a car for free, for as long as you like, and keep it for as long as you like until the manufacturer works out all the recalls or until they release a version with all the options you want in it?

Adveser wrote:

* Sometimes CD's get scratched, broken or you otherwise can't play them, I download those because I am not re-buying the same shit again when I have the right to listen to it "for a lifetime" as described by the manufactuers of CD's. If this is not the case then they owe a lot of us refunds for decetive advertising.

Then it is your responsibility to create a back up copy right? Put it on your computer. Put it on your digital MP3 player. Burn a copy to a blank CD when you bring it home. Again, it's not the artists or the labels fault that you misuse, abuse, or destroy the product. It's not incumbent upon the manufacturer to give you lifetime replacements on any and all CD's. That's ridiculous.

Adveser wrote:

*I see music as shareware as far as I'm concerned. If I own it on tape, cd, vinyl, 8-track or whatever, That means by fair use laws, I'm entitled to own a copy on MP3 as a back up. The RIAA doesn't see it that way, but that's too bad, they don't make the laws. As the purchaser of a CD, I own a license to use it as I see fit and even modify it for my personal use, so long as I don't make other copies available to anyone else concurrent to my listening, it is legal.

I have no issue with that at all. As long as the artists material is not uploaded for mass free consumption onto the Internet. If copies are made for yourself and not for tens of people. If music was meant to be freeware then the artists would starve. That's a ridiculous statement. Music is not meant to be shared on a mass scale to thousands if not millions of Internet subscribers.

Adveser wrote:

*Sometimes you can not buy a CD any more commercially, why support 3rd parties and buy it used if it isn't on the market any longer? Why support businesses that mostly exploit people and give them very little for thier cd's, just so they can make a fast buck? Essentially, out of print albums are the free ware of the audio world because they are not being used commercially so there can not possibly be any loss incurred from anyone.

It's not a fast buck. It's capitalism. They went into business to sell hard to find CD's, LP's....whatever. A consumer does not have the right to circumvent the system by once again stealing the artists work just because it happens to be "out of print". Yet another ridiculous statement.

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:04 am

*cheers Raven on*

Mintrude · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:09 am

There's a difference between downloading a Slayer album that you could walk into any CD shop and buy legally, and some uber-kvlt Les Legions Noires stuff you'd pay $100 for on eBay, isn't there? There's no way the artist can make money from it now, as second hand sales don't go to them.

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:27 am

Mintrude wrote:

There's a difference between downloading a Slayer album that you could walk into any CD shop and buy legally, and some uber-kvlt Les Legions Noires stuff you'd pay $100 for on eBay, isn't there? There's no way the artist can make money from it now, as second hand sales don't go to them.

Yes, but suppose Meynach or someone did a limited re-release to buy more smack or whatever. Not going to make much if everyone's been downloading it, is he? The whole fun of kvlt Black Metal is that it's hard to find - if it was as easily available as everything else it wouldn't be as good.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:33 am

Can I just say this argument has been done before but either way record companies have nothing to complain about. CD sales are up and band shirts have become trendy so why aren't they happy. Oh yeah because the beast that is capitalism can never fulfill its hunger.

It's not as if these single moms could afford the thousands of dollars of music their kids stole. And before anyone says it I know that stealing is stealing no matter what but until the have-nots have a way of getting what they don't have they will continue to steal. This truly could be analyzed as an economic and social issue. The delinquents that steal steal what they can't afford and the penalties that arise from this only sustain their lack of ability to afford what they stole. Why do we live in a world that has to hold art like movies and music from people solely because they don't make enough money or if they have too many bills or if they have to pay overpaid prices due to the beast of capitalism? I'm a college student paying for my car, me and my girlfriend's livelihood and still maintain enough extra money to have a stable book addiction but paying $15 to a record label rarely seemed appealing to me (unlike $6 secondhand albums).

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:44 am

Yeah, well, either start the revolution and annihilate capitalism completely or live with it. Moaning about one section of your life that's been ruined by the money-grabbers but ignoring the rest is silly. Once, a piece of music would've been something to be treasured. Now, people whine if they can't afford to buy ten a week. :rolleyes:

Mintrude · **Posted:** Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:49 am

Zad wrote:

Mintrude wrote:

There's a difference between downloading a Slayer album that you could walk into any CD shop and buy legally, and some uber-kvlt Les Legions Noires stuff you'd pay $100 for on eBay, isn't there? There's no way the artist can make money from it now, as second hand sales don't go to them.

Yes, but suppose Meynach or someone did a limited re-release to buy more smack or whatever. Not going to make much if everyone's been downloading it, is he? The whole fun of kvlt Black Metal is that it's hard to find - if it was as easily available as everything else it wouldn't be as good.

Apparently the story about Meynach was a myth. Anyway, if there was a re-release I'd pick it up, as I like to have an actual physical copy. I take your point that many people wouldn't.

Metal Reviews

the new way to stop file-sharing

Who is online