Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is free.
T O P I C R E V I E W
SparkzMusic
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?
lainnix
With so many labels coming and going over the last 20 years, there's almost no choice but to "pirate" if you want a lot of the older material. Where can I buy a hard copy of Hardwired that supports Scott? I'd love to do so, but there's no reprint of it. It's either buy a scrappy used copy on ebay/discogs or download it.
What's the alternative? Telling all the new fans "sorry, you're just out of luck" because they missed the big wave at the time?
SparkzMusic
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
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.
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.
I picked Hardwired because it's a classic everyone will know. There are countless other examples of CDs that are no longer available to buy from the label. You have not detracted from that point at all.
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
Vladel
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.
LeVzi
I have spent more money on CD's over the years than I care to remember, which contains all the tracks I wanted. I did the same with tape packs , back in the day, I wanted to hear tracks again I was hearing at raves, but there were no major CD releases back then, so tape packs were the only way, or vinyl obviously, but I am not a DJ.
So these days, it takes a big track for me to buy it outright, otherwise I just dont bother. I will buy the Al Storm Euphony track with Leila - like it like that, when it gets a release, cos its a banger.
Only track I would have bought since Spacemist by Dowster & Vagabond
Samination
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
lainnix
quote:Originally posted by Samination:
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
I stated the factual aspect of it: many releases are not available to get legally anymore for one reason or another. You said my given example (Hardwired) was bad. but didn't actually argue against the point being made. Now you're putting words in others' mouth and saying their opinions sound stupid.
Samination
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 )
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
Vladel
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.
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
is it a true master, or just the CLXH with intro and outro edited into it?
SparkzMusic
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.
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.
mine
htid_4_life
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.
9oh9
The major debate with recorded sets came about when CD packs became a thing IIRC. It's way easier for a DJ/producer to overlook being recorded on a tapepack; it's good promotional material, and there's a clear difference between a shit quality tape recording, and a high quality released CD. That difference gets way smaller when CDs/digital releases come out. Why pay ?15 for a properly released album, when you can pay a similar amount and get an 8 CD event pack with all the same tracks on it?
I can see "OK with being included on the tape pack" as almost being part of the DJ fee back in the day.
AWal
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.
Annoyingly someone leaked Ganar?s lifetime subscription on his Facebook page again. It?s been their for nearly 2 days and he hasn?t removed it.
Now for my opinions on piracy.
I think if it?s not available to buy then sharing with those that want it is ok as long as you have searched everywhere. If it?s not available the artist ether can?t be bothered to put it up or doesn't care about it. If the track is over a year old then it?s ok in my opinion.
BUT if the track is available digitally then i disagree with it. If a previously unavailable track becomes available then I will buy it. As for Youtube It?s up to the artist they get money for views if it?s official. Unofficial releases where the content ID system doesn?t work it?s up to the artist and Label to decide. If they leave it up then Yay for those that want to listen to it.
Don?t mind sharing free downloads either.
DJ Bounce
quote:Originally posted by MusicILove:
Annoyingly someone leaked Ganar?s lifetime subscription on his Facebook page again. It?s been their for nearly 2 days and he hasn?t removed it.
Who's Ganar?
Bring Me Round To Love
quote:Originally posted by DJ Bounce:
quote:Originally posted by MusicILove:
Annoyingly someone leaked Ganar?s lifetime subscription on his Facebook page again. It?s been their for nearly 2 days and he hasn?t removed it.
As a long term hardcore fan, I find it ironic that a music scene that was founded on illegal activities, acts all high and mighty when it comes to piracy.
Illegal raves, pirate radio, encouraging drug use, sample stealing, software piracy, etc. Are the foundations of the umbrella genre of "rave". Right or wrong, illegal activities were part of the culture, on both sides of the turntables.
The priorities changed. It started out as being about the music. In the early days it did not seem to be a scene flush with cash. and what money there was, the lions share seemed to go to promoters, less to DJ's and even less to producers. So it was done more for the love of the music. But it gained popularity, people turned a hobby and passion into a living, and it became about the money instead.
How many artists haven't "stolen" samples to use in their tracks over the years? Probably a handful of new producers at most. I don't think I could name an established producer that didn't steal a sample.
Some tracks that perhaps may have flown a little too close to the copyright infringement sun, were released under Anon as a 'cheeky' white label or bootleg instead of their normal monikers.
Labels had whole catalogues built up of these.
Another example, The Winstons. They unknowingly provided the most iconic sound in all of rave culture, the Amen Break. From the early 90's until fairly recently I would say the Amen Break was in the majority of rave songs, from jungle, dnb, HHC, UKH, gabber, techno, freeform, old skool, etc, etc, etc. Even today it is still used. I would think that this would count as the most sampled sound ever, by a huge margin. Hands up any hardcore producer that actually paid The Winstons royalties to use it, or even just ask permission, anyone?
On a side note to that, someone is running a gofundme, to give the Winstons at least a little part of what they are owed. Although at this point, it is probably more of a gesture, than actually being close to what technically should be owed.
Some of us older peeps will remember the (possibly fabricated) story about Jon Doe playing DHSS Rainbow and it getting smashed up due to it being an unauthorised remix. That seemed heavily hypocritical, and more put down to a huge ego. But over time, this attitude seemed to become the norm. Others having hissy fits, stamping their feet and "leaving the scene". Yet forgetting what activities got them there.
Glass houses and stones springs to mind.
The popularity of the scene ebbs and flows like any other genre.
Spotify et al, has changed things a lot too, but that's another discussion.
Not saying I agree or disagree with piracy, but I do find the ground some people stand on a little shaky.
But then, the bread on my table does not depend on it.
LeVzi
I' d agree with that, because the original rave scene was all about samples taken from all over the place. The Amen is someone elses intellectual property. (Greg Coleman)
I'd love to see the whole 90's scene opened up for stems , samples etc and a whole remix project happen.
It took 1.64 ninja's to process this page!
HappyHardcore.com
1999 - 2024 HappyHardcore.com audio: PRS for music. Build: 3.1.73.1
)