Dubstepforum.com

AllNightDayDream wrote:

(Pada) wrote:I think the lack of respect for music that this culture has created is just as bad as the financial losses.

Kids these days don't seem to value apiece of music at all, they just want everything instantly.


Shit how did I get this bitter by 18 hahaha

I respect music and value it deeply, but real value to me doesn't include $$$

Ignore the money.

you totally misread what I put.

People want EVERYTHING, NOW.

Instead of valuing what they do have

Pedro Sánchez wrote:^

People have been on the cutting edge of "preventing" piracy for decades and it has never worked, ever.

The RIAA needs to take a few cues from the gaming industry when it comes to this stuff.

(Pada) wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:

(Pada) wrote:I think the lack of respect for music that this culture has created is just as bad as the financial losses.

Kids these days don't seem to value apiece of music at all, they just want everything instantly.


Shit how did I get this bitter by 18 hahaha

I respect music and value it deeply, but real value to me doesn't include $$$

Ignore the money.

you totally misread what I put.

People want EVERYTHING, NOW.

Instead of valuing what they do have

exactly. everything is free, and fuck you if you tell me different. i don't think people know the repercussions that this kind of generational thinking will have for anyone that wants to pursue a career in the arts.

as a promoter.... I wonder if artists would be cheaper to book if people bought more music? Door tax could be lower too.

I don't nesecerrily think musicians are owed any sort of living, if the pirated version is exactly the same as the non pirated version then they need to step up their game and offer something different. Whatever that is- live shows/DJing, merchandise, collectable formats, higher quality digital formats etc.

seckle wrote:

(Pada) wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:

(Pada) wrote:I think the lack of respect for music that this culture has created is just as bad as the financial losses.

Kids these days don't seem to value apiece of music at all, they just want everything instantly.


Shit how did I get this bitter by 18 hahaha

I respect music and value it deeply, but real value to me doesn't include $$$

Ignore the money.

you totally misread what I put.

People want EVERYTHING, NOW.

Instead of valuing what they do have

exactly. everything is free, and fuck you if you tell me different. i don't think people know the repercussions that this kind of generational thinking will have for anyone that wants to pursue a career in the arts.

@pada: I kind of see what your saying? not really though, you're arguement is'nt too strong here.
i can buy a song faster than i can find a dl of it. Think about it, at good online music stores you search for the song/artist, you find it, and buy it, then download it.

If i were to download the shared file i would need to check multiple websites, read the comments and look at the health to make sure its not a virus, download link, open up a client to start to dl the tunes. Then i would need to go through the collection and make sure all of the tracks are labled correctly. This is just music, software is a completely differant level sometimes (Don't rip software, please for the love of god. Taking tunes for a few bucks isn't alot but your talking big money your jacking here. Helps to have the manuals/pdfs too)

If your paranoid, you might want to make sure you havn't picked up any unwanted bugs or cooks that made their way onto your computer, or your shit can get fucked up!


The benefits of buying really do outweigh illegal downloads if your picky about you're music.

Mr Hyde wrote:I don't nesecerrily think musicians are owed any sort of living, if the pirated version is exactly the same as the non pirated version then they need to step up their game and offer something different. Whatever that is- live shows/DJing, merchandise, collectable formats, higher quality digital formats etc.

It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything). Maybe the capitalist paradigm of 'giving the consumer what they want' would actually fall apart if everyone realised they don't want what all these random unnecessary things that are constantly flashed at them all day, music included. It has only been in the past 100 years or so that people stopped getting together to make their own music, like singing around the family piano, and this has coincided with the rise of the music industry.

Making music is ubiquitous for humans, it's only really western Europeans and their descendants that don't make a social activity out of unlike other cultures where it's still a part of everyday life and social cohesion. For instance, my mate who's working in Nigeria said all the Africans in his workshop get together and have a sing-song before work in the morning before work and this is pretty standard for traditional cultures across the world judging from anthropological data. From this then, maybe music isn't actually worth any money since people can do it themselves and have just as much enjoyment out of it therefore meaning the whole 'business' of music a commodification of traditional human activities?

test recordings wrote:

Mr Hyde wrote:I don't nesecerrily think musicians are owed any sort of living, if the pirated version is exactly the same as the non pirated version then they need to step up their game and offer something different. Whatever that is- live shows/DJing, merchandise, collectable formats, higher quality digital formats etc.

It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything). Maybe the capitalist paradigm of 'giving the consumer what they want' would actually fall apart if everyone realised they don't want what all these random unnecessary things that are constantly flashed at them all day, music included. It has only been in the past 100 years or so that people stopped getting together to make their own music, like singing around the family piano, and this has coincided with the rise of the music industry.

Making music is ubiquitous for humans, it's only really western Europeans and their descendants that don't make a social activity out of unlike other cultures where it's still a part of everyday life and social cohesion. For instance, my mate who's working in Nigeria said all the Africans in his workshop get together and have a sing-song before work in the morning before work and this is pretty standard for traditional cultures across the world judging from anthropological data. From this then, maybe music isn't actually worth any money since people can do it themselves and have just as much enjoyment out of it therefore meaning the whole 'business' of music a commodification of traditional human activities?

Hahaha don't even get me started on capitalism, thats a whole another topic i can rant and rant about for hours on its evils and how its completely failed to benefit anyone except rich, greedy, CEO's and corrupt politicians.

Culture's are differant TD. We may not gather around a fire and sing songs together but we still have massive gatherings where people come for one sole purpose, which is to listen to music. Plenty of me and my friends will all get together and have jam sessions on some guitars and some drums. Sadly, dubstep and other electronic music isn't that easy to jam out with other people. You'd have to have some skill at making songs on the fly to do that. Not impossible though, thats for sure.

Basically, change happens. We don't lack musical tradition, its just different.

test recordings wrote:It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything).

look at the assange thing. his claim from day one is that he was the "conduit" of information. the pipe for it, as you could say. he claims that he didn't know who sent him info and who downloaded it. he had no regard for whether the information he was receiving/re-transmitting was "property". he took it upon himself to in effect publish what he liked. a brazen and selfish decision.

he, like all filesharers, have this fantasy land notion that 1's and 0's floating around in cyberspace, are somehow theirs due to free access. its like being on a train, and finding a wallet. trains are public access and people are travelling in the same tunnels, but because a wallet is tangible, "hold in your hands" property, most people would do the right thing and return it, or try to contact the owner. there's a guilt decision involved. but hey you know what.....some music that someone has spent dozens of hours labouring over, who might be struggling to make rent or feed his wife or kids, has paid to have his music professionally mastered, and if lucky has found a label...well fuck that guy and his family. i won't pay him a dime because i feel big and empowered by my internet connection.

how anyone can argue in justification for ^that bullshit is beyond me.

seckle wrote:

test recordings wrote:It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything).

look at the assange thing. his claim from day one is that he was the "conduit" of information. the pipe for it, as you could say. he claims that he didn't know who sent him info and who downloaded it. he had no regard for whether the information he was receiving/re-transmitting was "property". he took it upon himself to in effect publish what he liked. a brazen and selfish decision.

he, like all filesharers, have this fantasy land notion that 1's and 0's floating around in cyberspace, are somehow theirs due to free access. its like being on a train, and finding a wallet. trains are public access and people are travelling in the same tunnels, but because a wallet is tangible, "hold in your hands" property, most people would do the right thing and return it, or try to contact the owner. there's a guilt decision involved. but hey you know what.....some music that someone has spent dozens of hours labouring over, who might be struggling to make rent or feed his wife or kids, has paid to have his music professionally mastered, and if lucky has found a label...well fuck that guy and his family. i won't pay him a dime because i feel big and empowered by my internet connection.

how anyone can argue in justification for ^that bullshit is beyond me.

much respect seckle. how anyone can dispute your wisdom is beyond me.

i used to download music illegally until i realized how much money i take away from artists in the long run. I mean artists these days arent rich, and some dubstep artists struggle with money. i mustve illegally dl'd thousands of dollars worth of music. and for itunes artists make 70 cents on the dollar. thats alot of money i know i would want if i were having my music stolen. then again my tracks are shit no one will bother to put em on mediafire i deleted my illegal library and started buying it all back like a year ago.

How about instead of defending intellectual property rights we fight for the right to food and shelter, so that IPRs become obsolete? Just a thought...

seckle wrote:

test recordings wrote:It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything).

look at the assange thing. his claim from day one is that he was the "conduit" of information. the pipe for it, as you could say. he claims that he didn't know who sent him info and who downloaded it. he had no regard for whether the information he was receiving/re-transmitting was "property". he took it upon himself to in effect publish what he liked. a brazen and selfish decision.

he, like all filesharers, have this fantasy land notion that 1's and 0's floating around in cyberspace, are somehow theirs due to free access. its like being on a train, and finding a wallet. trains are public access and people are travelling in the same tunnels, but because a wallet is tangible, "hold in your hands" property, most people would do the right thing and return it, or try to contact the owner. there's a guilt decision involved. but hey you know what.....some music that someone has spent dozens of hours labouring over, who might be struggling to make rent or feed his wife or kids, has paid to have his music professionally mastered, and if lucky has found a label...well fuck that guy and his family. i won't pay him a dime because i feel big and empowered by my internet connection.

how anyone can argue in justification for ^that bullshit is beyond me.

What are your feelings towards uncleared samples used in music? Are they as you previously said an

seckle wrote:attack on creativity

?

clearing samples is generally at the hands of a major labels legal team and not the original artists, and i wouldn't call most lawyers artistically minded

deadly habit wrote:clearing samples is generally at the hands of a major labels legal team and not the original artists, and i wouldn't call most lawyers artistically minded

I imagine prosecuting file sharers is also done by legal teams not the original artists.

deadly habit wrote:clearing samples is generally at the hands of a major labels legal team and not the original artists, and i wouldn't call most lawyers artistically minded

Exactly why I think that uncleared samples can only really result in greater creativity.

kentnz wrote:

deadly habit wrote:clearing samples is generally at the hands of a major labels legal team and not the original artists, and i wouldn't call most lawyers artistically minded

I imagine prosecuting file sharers is also done by legal teams not the original artists.

Correct in both cases, fucking lawyers.

kentnz wrote:

deadly habit wrote:clearing samples is generally at the hands of a major labels legal team and not the original artists, and i wouldn't call most lawyers artistically minded

I imagine prosecuting file sharers is also done by legal teams not the original artists.

if the original artists had to deal with file sharers it would become a full time job, where as a couple of people looking to clear a sample could be covered via email (unless you're the winstons)
also there's a difference in sampling vs just ripping entire sections of tunes (see 90% of youtube unauthorized dubstep remixes)

seckle wrote:

test recordings wrote:It's like with any commercial venture then, people will pay for what they think something is worth (even if it takes a lot of advertising to convince them it's worth anything).

look at the assange thing. his claim from day one is that he was the "conduit" of information. the pipe for it, as you could say. he claims that he didn't know who sent him info and who downloaded it. he had no regard for whether the information he was receiving/re-transmitting was "property". he took it upon himself to in effect publish what he liked. a brazen and selfish decision.

he, like all filesharers, have this fantasy land notion that 1's and 0's floating around in cyberspace, are somehow theirs due to free access. its like being on a train, and finding a wallet. trains are public access and people are travelling in the same tunnels, but because a wallet is tangible, "hold in your hands" property, most people would do the right thing and return it, or try to contact the owner. there's a guilt decision involved. but hey you know what.....some music that someone has spent dozens of hours labouring over, who might be struggling to make rent or feed his wife or kids, has paid to have his music professionally mastered, and if lucky has found a label...well fuck that guy and his family. i won't pay him a dime because i feel big and empowered by my internet connection.

how anyone can argue in justification for ^that bullshit is beyond me.

The real question is whether the pirates in question would have paid for the music if they weren't able to pirate it.

but what if the music in question is no longer for sale first hand? what if my only choices are to pay some joker £50 for the vinyl on discogs or download a vinyl rip from a filesharing website? is that still wrong? either way the artist isn't gonna get a cut...

i always pay for current music, still available in record shops/online retialers etc etc. only today i spent £15 on tunes. as well as £20 on saturday afternoon and £10 last wednesday. so i spend a fair amount.

HOWEVER, a great deal of what i want is old jungle and uk garage - not much of it available on itunes, beatport, digital-tunes and so on. am i just not allowed it even if its available for illegal download?