All users can post new topics in this forum. All users can reply to topics in this forum
Author
Thread
SparkzMusic Junior Member
United Kingdom
104 posts Joined: Apr, 2011
Posted - 2019/08/01 : 20:29:56
Something just got me thinking.
In a scene such as this, is piracy a big deal really? (I can elaborate on that).
Ok, so....
Going back to pre 2k, so the 90's. DJ's bought vinyl for the mixing purpose, some home consumers still had records players and might buy them. There was some booty repress stuff (A few 12 inch that nabbed single tracks and illegally pressed them together on 1 12"). Ripping from vinyl to tape? But then would those people who likely didn't have a record player buy the vinyl at all?
Post 2k before the digital download age....
Vinyl.... At this point most home consumers were integrating CD players, not vinyl. Typically people who wanted the vinyl release would be DJ's, collectors maybe? They would buy the actual release.
Consumers? No record player. Is it a loss if someone ripped a vinyl and those who don't own a record player grabbed the rip? They would never have bought it anyway (with nothing to play it on).
Post 2005-ish. MP3 stores. An iffy time and yes, if someone bought a release, shared it around then that's easy piracy and potentially taking away sales from labels as people are getting a product they would have otherwise paid for.
Mind you in this small scene a lot of people still wanted to support it regardless and buy regardless if they could get it for free or not.
Now....
Core is..... well.... in one way or another "free" legally?
The amount of labels releasing something and putting the full track on youtube up for anyone to hear?
Even if it isn't the full track and a clip, eventually someone will upload the full track and it's fine (not reported or taken down), it stays uploaded forevermore?
Clips these days tend to be long. 4 mins clip of a 5 minute track? To home consumers, that's more than enough?
An example
UFO posted it up himself.
So it's "free" for everyone?
People in 1994 could "pirate" core by ripping from crackling vinyl to tape? Recording from one mixtape to another?
Now people just hear the full tracks legally via youtube. Is that "piracy"? Is it "piracy" to use adblockers to block the adverts that might play before a video?
Would it even be piracy for someone using adblockers to "download" a track from youtube (for offline listening) that they wouldn't be viewing the adverts for anyway?
Alert moderator Edited by - SparkzMusic on 2019/08/01 20:43:00
SparkzMusic Junior Member
United Kingdom
104 posts Joined: Apr, 2011
Posted - 2019/08/01 : 20:57:03
With old stuff now I guess there can be some red tape. Is the rule if the label is gone and the track no longer for sale anywhere, then it's fine to put out a copy?
Actually, there was something on my old fan page years ago where something I said was interpreted wrongly. I was basically saying that if some Technikore tracks I loved were no long available to buy, the label had been long gone, then I would happily pass the tracks on to let others enjoy as well. Technikore saw the post and when he realised the point I was making he said that's fine.... but.... did end with.... something along the lines of "That's fine but it would never happen".
Now as in 2019....
Music is being given away on a plate? People don't have to rip a vinyl anymore or buy a track and pass it on. They just go to their old favourite Youtube and it's all there.
Styles for example. It's all the full track and actually it seems to be that barely any time after leaving the export folder does he himself get it uploaded in full on Youtube?
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
10,214 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2019/08/02 : 05:20:03
The Hardwired albums is a bad example if you ask me.
Sure, the mixed CD will probably not be out there, but most, if not all, unmixed tracks are available for digital purchase.
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
Vladel Advanced Member
United Kingdom
999 posts Joined: Feb, 2008
Posted - 2019/08/02 : 16:22:58
I see it very simply. If I like a song and it is available for purchase for an acceptable price, I will buy it. If I don't think the track is worth the cost, I won't buy it. If the song is not available to purchase, at all and I can get it for free I will and that is the fault of the artist or label for not making it available.
I have quite often bought a song I already have when it has been released at a later date because I am serious about supporting an artist if that artist is willing to be supported.
__________________________________
remain calm do not be alarmed do not attempt to leave the dancefloor
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
10,214 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2019/08/03 : 11:28:33
quote:Originally posted by lainnix:
quote:Originally posted by Samination:
The Hardwired albums is a bad example if you ask me.
Sure, the mixed CD will probably not be out there, but most, if not all, unmixed tracks are available for digital purchase.
You have not detracted from that point at all.
But, are you saying that, if a certain album, no matter if the tracks that appear on it can be found or purchased somewhere else, isn't readily available, makes it more "ok" to pirate it?
that sounds stupid, even to someone who used to be "'Core" pirate, like me
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
10,214 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2019/08/03 : 15:11:16
Well, I just find Hardwired and Scott Brown to be 2 very bad examples when it comes to "not make things available for purchase", especially with the last line in your first post.
And while Hardwired as an album is not out digitally (for whatever reasons), Scott Brown has shown since 2004 that he has no problem releasing the tracks that appear on his own labels. And like I said, most, if not all tracks on Hardwired have been released digitally, and presumable still purchase-able.
And while you didn't exactly write what I were hinting at, you kinda did say you can't support Scott Brown if you can't buy that album
(also, Scott Brown would earn more if you bought all the tracks separately )
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
SparkzMusic Junior Member
United Kingdom
104 posts Joined: Apr, 2011
Posted - 2019/08/06 : 13:55:06
I think CD albums can be tricky and there's a lot of variables there.
IF getting a CD album for free could stop someone buying the full tracks on label release, then the label are losing out and I guess it is piracy. Although, there's 2 situations here with that.
1) Someone searching the dark side of the web, going out of their way spending 10 hours downloading a dodgy ******* with just 2 seeders with a clear intention of getting the album for nothing instead of buying the individual tracks released on the label.
2) Someone doing their everyday thing of logging onto youtube, typing in "Scott Brown", it coming up with the full hardwire albums and hearing that instead of buying full individual tracks.
I would like to think if someone heard the album mix, they would look to find where to buy the full tracks. But again.... Youtube. They search a track off the album, full version is there.
Artists and labels can get their full tracks pulled from YT if they do a copyright claim. I know ages ago I uploaded MPT001 vinyl rip (M-project - Cherry). A few days later it was flagged and removed because of a copyright claim.
Probably M-Project himself filed the claim (as the YT copyrighted track upload detection system would have picked up on it within hours of the upload).
A douche move really considering the track at that time (and even now I recall) isn't available anywhere to legally purchase and even more ****ed up is it's a bootleg anyway.
So artists who sell their work but don't get uploads of their full tracks removed? Isn't it their fault? As these days YT is used by everyone and mostly assumed to be a place to legally hear music
Vladel Advanced Member
United Kingdom
999 posts Joined: Feb, 2008
Posted - 2019/08/06 : 14:48:06
quote:Originally posted by SparkzMusic:
I think CD albums can be tricky and there's a lot of variables there.
IF getting a CD album for free could stop someone buying the full tracks on label release, then the label are losing out and I guess it is piracy. Although, there's 2 situations here with that.
1) Someone searching the dark side of the web, going out of their way spending 10 hours downloading a dodgy ******* with just 2 seeders with a clear intention of getting the album for nothing instead of buying the individual tracks released on the label.
2) Someone doing their everyday thing of logging onto youtube, typing in "Scott Brown", it coming up with the full hardwire albums and hearing that instead of buying full individual tracks.
I would like to think if someone heard the album mix, they would look to find where to buy the full tracks. But again.... Youtube. They search a track off the album, full version is there.
Artists and labels can get their full tracks pulled from YT if they do a copyright claim. I know ages ago I uploaded MPT001 vinyl rip (M-project - Cherry). A few days later it was flagged and removed because of a copyright claim.
Probably M-Project himself filed the claim (as the YT copyrighted track upload detection system would have picked up on it within hours of the upload).
A douche move really considering the track at that time (and even now I recall) isn't available anywhere to legally purchase and even more ****ed up is it's a bootleg anyway.
So artists who sell their work but don't get uploads of their full tracks removed? Isn't it their fault? As these days YT is used by everyone and mostly assumed to be a place to legally hear music
The solution is simple really, artists should sell music and people will buy. Sure some will pirate and that sucks but, if the music is not sold, everyone suffers and that artist is a douche.
__________________________________
remain calm do not be alarmed do not attempt to leave the dancefloor
Although, IF a track is available to buy on a store and someone uploads the full version on YT, is that piracy? In some cases it's the producer themselves uploading the full (to make money from adverts), in other cases it's members of the public.
In the latter case, the original artist/label have the power to submit a copyright claim and have it removed. If they don't, is it their own fault for loss of sales? As YT is part and parcel of music distribution these days.
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
10,214 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2019/08/06 : 18:22:47
is it a true master, or just the CLXH with intro and outro edited into it?
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
SparkzMusic Junior Member
United Kingdom
104 posts Joined: Apr, 2011
Posted - 2019/08/06 : 18:26:29
quote:Originally posted by Samination:
is it a true master, or just the CLXH with intro and outro edited into it?
True master (I know there were a lot of edited "masters" about which are easy to spot. The sub build with chording and notes related to the track don't exist on CLXH version so impossible to nab off something else and paste in).
Even the fill hoover sounds. It's predominant throughout and a unique set of notes to that track, which is featured as early as 7 seconds in.
Alert moderatorEdited by - SparkzMusic on 2019/08/06 18:39:36
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
10,214 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2019/08/07 : 04:17:38
that's definitely staying untouched by me ;)
(Squad-E can go to hell for all I care)
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
Although, IF a track is available to buy on a store and someone uploads the full version on YT, is that piracy? In some cases it's the producer themselves uploading the full (to make money from adverts), in other cases it's members of the public.
In the latter case, the original artist/label have the power to submit a copyright claim and have it removed. If they don't, is it their own fault for loss of sales? As YT is part and parcel of music distribution these days.
quote:Originally posted by GrahamC:
Surely all the Tape/CD/USB Packs is the scene self pirating??
You can't tell me that all the tracks on those things are licensed, especially the bootlegs played that could never ever be released.
Nobody could moan about piracy in the scene on that basis
You have a good point there and that is one thing Scott Brown was really against. He said that the DJ's doing the sets or artists who's songs were used, never got any pay or royalties when they put out their mixes on tape packs.
Posted - 2019/08/24 : 20:09:55
If it wasn't work the ease of sketchy mp3 sites and abundance of bt collections I wouldn't be here. I got into the music around 2003 when the big kick style was starting to take off and peeps were starting to familiarize with the term UK Hardcore, but getting into the DJ side of things was difficult, as the options for many tracks were get it on vinyl or pirate. I can't exactly be proud of my actions, but that's not to say that I wasn't still trying to get things legitimately when I could, and of course years later I would go back from time to time to get old promo discs or other means to legitimize the dubious copies I had, possibly replacing them with better ones.
Nowadays it's more perceived as a non-issue as everything is expected to release in some digital format eventually, though affordability sake has definitely fluctuated over the years (Rip HBD, SeriousSouds, imodownload, AudioJelly, MOAS, TrackItDown).
quote:Originally posted by SparkzMusic:
well done to whoever leaked "Love leaves no scar (hixxy remix)" for example. Only ever on CLHX, never released
This track in particular is likely from CDDJGLOBE975, that eventually made it's way out via LOL-Love_Leaves_No_Scar-(Promo_CDM)-2008-pLAN9.
For current stuff, even if the artist themselves and their fans don't bother with an upload you'll quite often find one of the automated systems providing a template upload with the song, so that it exists on YouTube in one form or another.
Nowadays it isn't as much of a big deal to have a song on YouTube, as distributors like Label Worx take care of all the behind the scenes stuff and makes sure the tracks they distribute are monetized through the ContentID system, regardless of who uploads the song, even in part (this includes DJ mixes, new and old).
I've been putting a mix on YouTube about once a week for four years now consistently and nearly every single two hour mix has several ContentID claims: They don't hinder my channel at all, but there is money (albeit small amounts) being paid out for these plays, which is much better than it used to be...For the pre-2010 songs before the whole ContentID system the alternative was to have the video blocked or muted instead, and nobody liked that, hence why many of the older songs just kind of exist on there; For many it was just too much of a hassle to actively request DMCA claims when the alternative is to allow someone else to listen to a mediocre quality double-transcoded track with some weird movie maker effects, at the chance they might later seek out other songs through legitimate means.
Printer friendly
Posted - 2019/08/01 : 20:29:56
)
