| Author |
Thread |
|
atomsk
Advanced Member
United States
1,660 posts
Joined: Jan, 2009
|
 Posted - 2009/06/15 : 22:59:04
whats your view on this?
im pretty sure this has been started before, but wanted to bring this up again lol
well this is my view on this topic.....
<rant>
well i think the whole thing should be fine, some people like me do not have money to fork out $20+ on a cd, i think that the cd should be free for download on this type of website that pays the artist by ads on the page but would still be free for users, i know that sounds like a dumb idea... but i think if you want all the art work and the real cd then you should still have the choice to buy, but as i said some people dont have money
governments are forking out so much money to stop us from downloading stuff, why cant they make some type of site like i said..
i dont really see the point of getting all worked up downloading stuff, how much is it hurting these big bands?
if it wasnt for these sites i wouldnt fell in love with hhc, i know it hurts smaller bands/producers but it gets the out there, and dont that help?
</rant>
sorry kinda dumb, well i would love to hear your view on file sharing
Alert moderator 
|
Wilky
Banned
United Kingdom
6,198 posts
Joined: Mar, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:06:04
i have illegally downloaded in the past, and still do now but only live cd pack sets... or radio shows..
i will not pay for mp3 singles or albums as if im paying i want something to show for it.
if people illegally download games or movies or anything else but not hardcore then in my eyes they cant complain about anyone that does illegally download hardcore, its the same an illegal download is an illegal downlaod.
hopefully this topic wont get locked, but any that follow should!!
__________________________________
R.I.P ush.net
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/wilky
This post was made by Spunk Licker
who is currently on your ignore list .
Display this post.
Alert moderator
|
Hard2Get
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:13:50
We are all pretty much against it. This is not a place where you will find people who agree with it.
The topic has been discussed many many times, but the answer is always the same. No matter how you look at it, it's dishonest and there is nothing anyone can say to change that so there isn't really much point in trying. It dosn't matter even if record labels weren't effected by it, it dosn't change the dishonesty of it.
You can go ahead and do it, just don't pretend it's not wrong because it is. Also yes, it dosn't matter what it is, the fact that you download other stuff but not Hardcore isn't any better. Again though, i'm not complaining at people for doing it, everyone has done it and does it to some degree, i'm just saying that your deluding yourself if you let yourself beleive that it's not wrong/dishonest. The best thing you can do is say that your aware of what you are doing and just don't care.
Not having they money is one of the poorest excuses i've ever heard and people continue to use it. If you don't have the money to buy the music, don't buy it; you don't need it to live, no one is making you buy it. The people making this music don't owe you anything. If you wanted it badly enough you could make the effort to pay for it.
What about before the internet was really popular or file sharing was really popular, people didn't have any trouble buying it then and they never have done.
I'm not complaining at you specifically (or anyone), i'm just making a point.
You will find most people on this site share this view.
Alert moderator
Edited by - Hard2Get on 2009/06/15 23:22:22 |
atomsk
Advanced Member
United States
1,660 posts
Joined: Jan, 2009
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:22:24
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
No matter how you look at it, it's dishonest and there is nothing anyone can say to change that so there isn't really much point in trying. It dosn't matter even if record labels weren't effected by it, it dosn't change the dishonesty of it.
You can go ahead and do it, just don't pretend it's not wrong because it is.
but isnt it wrong of the labels to charge so much for the songs?
look at apple ipods.... they make 120gig ipods, how can anyone fill that will legal stuff?
i did some math for it for a school thing once
$0.99 for a song
1 gig of space is about 120 songs
so 120 gigs of music is about 14400 songs
at $0.99 a song for about 14400 songs is, $14,256(us) thats a new car.....
how could you fill that with legal stuff?
i dont think its right to download the stuff and make copys of it for people, as i said if you want the real cd to show for it then you should, but its to much money for it
thats just my thoughts
Alert moderator
|
Hard2Get
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:26:43
quote:
Originally posted by atomsk:
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
No matter how you look at it, it's dishonest and there is nothing anyone can say to change that so there isn't really much point in trying. It dosn't matter even if record labels weren't effected by it, it dosn't change the dishonesty of it.
You can go ahead and do it, just don't pretend it's not wrong because it is.
$0.99 for a song
1 gig of space is about 120 songs
so 120 gigs of music is about 14400 songs
at $0.99 a song for about 14400 songs is, $14,256(us) thats a new car.....
how could you fill that with legal stuff?
No one said you have to fill it, and if for some odd reason that you felt the need to, you could just rip all the CD's you previously own or even tapes, that is perfectly legal, and maybe you want to store on there some audio that is unencoded and 100's of mb per file. You don't HAVE to use it for mp3's.
I still don't see your point though, a dollar for a song is stupidly cheap. Vinyls cost around 6 pound 50 last time i bought one, so that's at least 10 dollars for you, and CD singles are a few pounds which again is at least 5 dollars for you. So, i don't really see how you can ever mind paying 1 doller per song. If anyone is stupid enough to think they have to fill an ipod just because the space is there, then i'm honestly quite lost for words as to describe how senseless they are.
Alert moderator
Edited by - Hard2Get on 2009/06/15 23:29:48 |
atomsk
Advanced Member
United States
1,660 posts
Joined: Jan, 2009
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:29:29
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
No one said you have to fill it, and if for some odd reason that you felt the need to, you could just rip all the CD's you previously own or even tapes, that is perfectly legal.
I still don't see your point though, a dollar for a song is stupidly cheap. Vinyls cost around 6 pound 50 last time i bought one, so that's at least 10 dollars for you, and CD singles are a few pounds which again is at least 5 dollars for you. So, i don't really see how you can ever mind paying 1 doller per song. If anyone is stupid enough to think they have to fill an ipod just because the space is there, then i'm honestly quite lost for words as to describe how senseless they are.
wow its that much over there?
damn
lol dont get all worked up about this
Alert moderator
|
Hard2Get
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:31:11
quote:
Originally posted by atomsk:
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
No one said you have to fill it, and if for some odd reason that you felt the need to, you could just rip all the CD's you previously own or even tapes, that is perfectly legal.
I still don't see your point though, a dollar for a song is stupidly cheap. Vinyls cost around 6 pound 50 last time i bought one, so that's at least 10 dollars for you, and CD singles are a few pounds which again is at least 5 dollars for you. So, i don't really see how you can ever mind paying 1 doller per song. If anyone is stupid enough to think they have to fill an ipod just because the space is there, then i'm honestly quite lost for words as to describe how senseless they are.
wow its that much over there?
damn
lol dont get all worked up about this
Vinyl cost the same here as they do there, as for CD's i've not bought a commercial CD single for 10 years so i can't comment, but they were about 3 pounds at the time. No one has ever had trouble affording that. It's just that people think they shouldn't have to pay anything for digital media just because it dosn't physically exist.
I'm not getting worked up though, i'm just stating my view.
Alert moderator
Edited by - Hard2Get on 2009/06/15 23:33:34 |
atomsk
Advanced Member
United States
1,660 posts
Joined: Jan, 2009
|
Posted - 2009/06/15 : 23:44:20
yes i know you are just stating you views
anyone else have something to say?
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,640 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 00:16:29
yes!
money is all relative, people sometimes forget that :)
minimum wage in illlinois was about $5.75 - that doesnt mean they are only getting paid £2.75 a hour
likewise £5.75 being minimum wage in england (or its close to that) doesnt mean one is getting paid $9
whilst you pay £400 for a flat screen in the UK....in america you would pay say...$450
that doesnt mean that one side of the ocean is getting ripped off, its because its relative, and $450 is $450 to someone who is making the $6ish minmum wage
just as £400 is £400 to someone who is making the £6ish minimum wage in england
at its basic level - in iraq they pay roughy 15c/5p a gallon of fuel - are they getting that cheaper? no, its beause money is relative and that 15c/5p a gallon is ab-so-lutly appauling to them, because they make on avarage £100 a year (none of those figures are precise, but that is the jist of the issue when oil prices went up last year) - effectively that fuel going up by (what to us would be 1p) in relative terms it would be like our fuel being hiked up to say $4 a gallon...which in relative terms would be like £2 a litre to brits....
(thats not to undermine anybodys point at all! i just like pointing out that money is relative to countrys blah blah blah)
but back on track - harcore vinyl tends to be a little more expensive, as with house music back in the states - you end up paying around about $9 for it in some stores, when it should only be around about $6, which most good stores do - pretty sure the others hike the prices because of all that importing they have to do (where the whole relative thing rolls back into play, minimum wage being $6ish, in relation to our minimum wage being £6, meaning the vinyl should really sit around $6.50ish...which like i said, good stores will, other stores wont
ya...money...relative...its late....goodnight all :)
__________________________________
BEE TRAX ALBUM
TRIQUATRA
Alert moderator
Edited by - Triquatra on 2009/06/16 00:28:14 |
Hard2Get
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 00:54:21
If your trying to make a point about $0.99 actually not being as cheap as i say it is, then you missed my point. £1.50 is still stupidly cheap, i only used that number ($0.99) because its the one he gave.
Alert moderator
Edited by - Hard2Get on 2009/06/16 00:54:49 |
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 01:14:28
....so, if I've got a garage in which I can park ten cars
but can only afford one,
is it OK if I steal the other nine?
__________________________________
This- http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ionosphere
THIS - http://soundcloud.com/ionosphere
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYWkHCkaho
Alert moderator
|
Nav
New Member
United States
76 posts
Joined: Nov, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 01:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ionosphere:
is it OK if I steal the other nine?
Absolutely not. Piracy is NOT stealing. Stealing is defined as:
"To take (the property of another) without right or permission" or "To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own."
When someone pirates an album or a single, they are neither taking someone else's property, nor are they using someone else's words/ideas as their own. When you pirate something, you are not:
1. Taking a physical copy away from anybody. You are downloading a file. Nobody is losing their copy of the original record/CD. Nothing is being lost except hard drive space and bandwidth. Instead, the end user is gaining a product for no cost. It is impossible to compare to a real life action such as "taking" something from someone else.
2. Preventing someone from making money. Nobody loses money from piracy. People always complain that "all the times that this was pirated would have been sales," but that is blatantly incorrect. Had the downloader not pirated it, they probably would not have bought it either. It is not a lost sale. In fact, it is more likely to be a sale made than to be a sale lost, as the downloader might not have discovered that song/artist/genre without being able to download and listen first.
So, for all the people who complain about piracy, know two things. The first is that the Hardcore scene would be SO much smaller without piracy, due to lack of discovery. The second is that it is the fault of those who do not know how to adjust to piracy that causes it. If people/labels tried to change what they did rather than constantly moaning about it and forming organizations that don't do anything except try to convince people that it's a bad thing, then progress might be made.
However, at this point, piracy is very similar to drug usage when it comes to the Hardcore scene. A lot of people, especially the government, don't like either. However, you need to acknowledge that both are huge factors in why Hardcore is what it is, whether it is liked or not.
Alert moderator
|
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 02:46:01
in 100 years we'll all be gone and anybody is going to give a damn whether we got paid or not, all the music from now will be patrimony of mankind, thus free
the only thing will matter is the musical value of the songs, shit music will be forgoten, and the masterpieces will live forever.
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator
|
Starstruck
Advanced Member
Australia
1,152 posts
Joined: Jul, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 02:49:05
Look, said plain and simply..
Filesharing is ****ing wrong. I don't give a shit who says it's right, they're clearly talking ****ing shit...
How is paying 1.50 to 2 pounds for a track not acceptable in any way? These producers have spent hours in the studio, making great tracks. Production is bloody hard. It boils my blood to see and hear of people who constantly download like no tomorrow without care or respect for the scene in general..
I'd love to meet someone who's hosting my labels tracks illegally..
__________________________________
Starstruck - Australia With Force Records
Alert moderator
|
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 03:00:17
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
What about before the internet was really popular or file sharing was really popular, people didn't have any trouble buying it then and they never have done.
err.... how about "people didn't have any trouble lending the music to their friends"
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator
|
atomsk
Advanced Member
United States
1,660 posts
Joined: Jan, 2009
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 03:24:21
quote:
Originally posted by Naturatech:
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
What about before the internet was really popular or file sharing was really popular, people didn't have any trouble buying it then and they never have done.
err.... how about "people didn't have any trouble lending the music to their friends"
yes, wouldn't giving a copy of a cd or song be file sharing?
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
