| Author |
Thread |
|
ozmium
Advanced Member
United States
521 posts
Joined: Jun, 2008
|
 Posted - 2009/06/16 : 03:25:31
man its like the same thing what would you rather buy a playstation 3 or an ipod touch
jmone
__________________________________
(= ozmium =)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ozmium/
http://soundcloud.com/ozmium
Co Owner of Hardcore energy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HardcoreEnergyPromo
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hardcore-Energy
Alert moderator 
|
DJ_FunDaBounce
Advanced Member
Colombia
2,148 posts
Joined: Nov, 2001
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 03:26:53
Perhaps my generation grew up with a different set of values. I for one enjoy acquiring new music and software and feel that the money invested gives the item a different value than something you get for free.Take the TB-303 emulator called re-birth for exmpl. I remember buying the program for 100 bux, I think it was, back when it came out in '97. I almost jizzed feeling I could finally recreate that silly sound I'd heard from scooter! now, 12 years later it's given away for free but you get people saying that the sound quality isn't as good as the real thing so F**k it!
__________________________________
"Fun with a capital F-D-B!"
http://www.brightspeedrecordings.com/
https://tinyurl.com/fdb-yt-mixes
https://tinyurl.com/fdb-yt-tracks
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 04:24:52
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.
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
You, my friend, are a MASSIVE idiot.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,640 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 07:29:56
quote:
Originally posted by Hard2Get:
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.
hehe, absolutly not - i wasnt adressing anyones point, i was just pointing out that money is all relative
when atomsk said "anyone else have something to say?" that just happened to be on my mind at the time because people were talking about money
that said - to someone who makes £100 a year, £1.25 for an mp3 is a total rip off! ;)
__________________________________
BEE TRAX ALBUM
TRIQUATRA
Alert moderator
|
SPOOX
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
2,644 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 09:27:10
If i'm completely honest the only thing i used to download was movies. Still do now but very very rarely. Basically download a movie & if i liked it then i'd buy it on DVD. I can't see the point in buying something i'm gonna watch once & never watch again, unlike my music which i'll listen to over & over.
All the music i own is all bought & paid for though & always will be.
Alert moderator
Edited by - SPOOX on 2009/06/16 17:19:10 |
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,279 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 13:43:23
So, It's bad to fileshare, but what about Songs that aren't sold anymore?
Dont give me that crap that filesharing is hurting artists wallets if I where to download a track that's not been on sale for a decade, and the artists/label arent activevily selling it anymore... so which is more evil? Filesharing or 2nd hand sales?
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 14:56:57
Where do i start? hmm right here.
quote:
Originally posted by Nav:
quote:
Originally posted by Ionosphere:
is it OK if I steal the other nine?
Absolutely not. Piracy is NOT stealing.
wrong
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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."
the second one is the definition of plagiarism
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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.
You, sir, are an idiot
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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.
1. When someone makes music, what they produce is automatically copyrighted. When you buy music (say cd or download) you are paying for permission to be allowed to play the song under copyright.
2. Stealing is not limited to physical property.
3. when an artist sells a cd it is not their copy anyway. It is the copy of the person who bought it. The artist still has the original, and the artist still owns the copyright to the cd you bought, you have only paid for the right for private use. Others have to pay more for publicly exhibiting the product. But they still dont own the copyright, they only have the rights to play the track. The artist still owns the copyright. By downloading (without paying), you are stealing the rights to play the track, rights which are the producers and you legally have to pay for. The fact that it is an electronic file doesnt change a thing
4. Gaining a product for no cost is commonly known as stealing. Especially when you dont have permission to have the product. This is by definition (your definition) stealing.
5. It IS possible to compare they two, and has been done, is done, and will be done again, in a court of law. Why is it possible to compare the two? Because it IS a real life action, and it IS taking something from someone else.
6. Your a ****wit
Next
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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.
1. The producer loses money.
2. They would have been sales. Back when there was no piracy and cd's were bought, everyone bought them, everyone that wanted them enough that is. If people want something enough they will go to lengths to get it. People bought it, It IS a lost sale.
3. Sale made Vs sale lost = ********. If originally 10 people would have bought it, now 1 person buys it and 9 download. that is 9 sales lost, 9 copyrights stolen.
4. If you want to listen to something first, most online music stores have a SAMPLE BUTTON next to the song the people consider buying. This is there so that you can listen first before you buy. Otherwise, if you wanted to listen to something first you would listen to it on the radio or you ask to listen to a cd at the cd store. Thats how it was done, and thats how it is done legally.
5. Your a ****wit
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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.
So, you who know two things about piracy and those whose fault it is. If your so full of good ideas, how should the people/labels try and change what they do? What do you suggest? Tell me how they can make paying for something more attractive than stealing it. I might have told you about a measure a guy called Chris took to compete with file sharing, but it was a no-hope giving-up measure, and you have shown you dont deserve to know. Instead of being full of good ideas, your full of shit.
quote:
Originally posted by ****wit:
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.
Illegal downloading is killing underground hardcore. the CLSM crew once posted about the sort of losses they are experiencing due to file sharing. While big names such as hixxy and styles may survive amidst file sharing, the smaller acts are being squeezed out simply because they cannot afford it. The underground acts get SFA recognition at the live events they manage to get booked for. The simply hope that people will like their sound, and choose to acquire it without breaching the copyright that they own. You can still ask to listen to cd's at the store, and you can still find out you like something without downloading it.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 15:20:13
quote:
Originally posted by atomsk:
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
because you are ignorant, not acting going on like your God's gift to man but really know sweet **** all, im going to go easy on you.
If you dont have $20 to fork out on a cd, then why should you have it? You havnt paid for the track and you havnt paid for the copyright to play it.
As for a website where adds pay for it. This is known as radio. be it online or otherwise. Why it shouldnt be done? Because you only see the add's once but listen to the songs as many times as you want. And simply, the advertising probably wouldnt cover the cost of the cd's. It barely covers the costs of online radio stations. If they offer the cd in maybe 32 kbit/sec, then that might be an idea, but who would go for it? not me and not the advertising agencies.
It hurts the big bands much more than it hurts the littluns, the little guys are just so much closer to the swim or sink line where the big bands make enough to get by (and the rest) but they are millions off what they should be sitting on. As for hurting the smaller guys, sure it gets the music out there, but whats the point of getting it out there if people arent going to pay for it when they hear it, and it doesnt get the producer bookings because people are only downloading in the hundreds, no the hundred thousands, so relatively, the unknown guy still remains unknown, and his net income = Zero
quote:
Originally posted by Naturatech
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.
But its not 100 years from now, its now, and now you are supposed to pay for something before you receive it, unless it is a gift. Otherwise it is stealing.
quote:
Originally posted by Naturatech
err.... how about "people didn't have any trouble lending the music to their friends"
keyword there, lending. It is still the other persons and they are going to get it back.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Nav
New Member
United States
76 posts
Joined: Nov, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 16:41:12
Before I start my response, I'm going to say that flaming people by calling them a "****wit" is not helping matters at all. People have different viewpoints, and I would appreciate it if people could discuss them civilly. It kinda makes me understand why Silver hates discussions like this: because people can't keep their feelings under control enough to have an adult conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
1. When someone makes music, what they produce is automatically copyrighted. When you buy music (say cd or download) you are paying for permission to be allowed to play the song under copyright.
2. Stealing is not limited to physical property.
3. when an artist sells a cd it is not their copy anyway. It is the copy of the person who bought it. The artist still has the original, and the artist still owns the copyright to the cd you bought, you have only paid for the right for private use. Others have to pay more for publicly exhibiting the product. But they still dont own the copyright, they only have the rights to play the track. The artist still owns the copyright. By downloading (without paying), you are stealing the rights to play the track, rights which are the producers and you legally have to pay for. The fact that it is an electronic file doesnt change a thing
4. Gaining a product for no cost is commonly known as stealing. Especially when you dont have permission to have the product. This is by definition (your definition) stealing.
5. It IS possible to compare they two, and has been done, is done, and will be done again, in a court of law. Why is it possible to compare the two? Because it IS a real life action, and it IS taking something from someone else.
That was NOT my definition. My definition is the standard one, found on much of google, and it CLEARLY states that piracy is TAKING SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE ELSE without their permission. It doesn't have to do with GAINING an item, it has to do with the other person LOSING an item...
quote:
1. The producer loses money.
2. They would have been sales. Back when there was no piracy and cd's were bought, everyone bought them, everyone that wanted them enough that is. If people want something enough they will go to lengths to get it. People bought it, It IS a lost sale.
3. Sale made Vs sale lost = ********. If originally 10 people would have bought it, now 1 person buys it and 9 download. that is 9 sales lost, 9 copyrights stolen.
4. If you want to listen to something first, most online music stores have a SAMPLE BUTTON next to the song the people consider buying. This is there so that you can listen first before you buy. Otherwise, if you wanted to listen to something first you would listen to it on the radio or you ask to listen to a cd at the cd store. Thats how it was done, and thats how it is done legally.
Now this is completely incorrect. Do you remember what it was like back in the early 90s? I don't, but I've done enough reading. From what I gather, Hardcore and all electronic music was completely underground, and few people knew anything about it, except for tracks like Sesame's Treet.
If 10 people originally would have bought it, 10 people will buy it. However, 10 more will download it, and a few of those will buy it too. Now 15 people have bought it. Piracy does not replace purchasing. It only adds to the number of people that purchase. Why? Because you can't pirate a record. You can only pirate a file that contains music.
Regarding the preview button, I have discovered that it means nothing. I went to a music store in Denver once, and I listened to a CD called "100 Anthems: Hardcore." After listening to a minute or two and looking at the tracklist, I decided that I would buy it. However, when I brought it home to listen to the full thing, I learned that each track was cut in half. So, previewing essentially was useless.
quote:
So, you who know two things about piracy and those whose fault it is. If your so full of good ideas, how should the people/labels try and change what they do? What do you suggest? Tell me how they can make paying for something more attractive than stealing it. I might have told you about a measure a guy called Chris took to compete with file sharing, but it was a no-hope giving-up measure, and you have shown you dont deserve to know. Instead of being full of good ideas, your full of shit.
I never said that I knew how the labels should change. I do not run a label. All I can do is look objectively at the world around me and I see that the way things are going will not stop piracy. I know about Kniteforce, and I do not believe that the Kniteforce catalog was even AVAILABLE digitally, so what he did was not out of desperation. I don't think that the records were even in print anymore, so he was making nothing from those songs, whether they were being pirated or not. He has proven that he knows more about what is going on than many people out there do.
quote:
Illegal downloading is killing underground hardcore. the CLSM crew once posted about the sort of losses they are experiencing due to file sharing. While big names such as hixxy and styles may survive amidst file sharing, the smaller acts are being squeezed out simply because they cannot afford it. The underground acts get SFA recognition at the live events they manage to get booked for. The simply hope that people will like their sound, and choose to acquire it without breaching the copyright that they own. You can still ask to listen to cd's at the store, and you can still find out you like something without downloading it.
I know how the music industry used to be, and I know how it is now. NOTHING can close the Pandora's box. If the labels/people can't cope, then they will not exist in a few years. Personally, I love CLSM and I have bought the digital download of Bathford Welcomes Careful Drivers, but I must say: if they can't change their ways, then they will become extinct. It's a shame, but it's the truth. Nothing you can do or say will prevent people from pirating music.
Also, some people don't HAVE hardcore available near them. What about those of us in the USA? Do you think that we have easy access to all kinds of events, music and such? Not everyone is a money-fountain, and things that used to be cheap "back in the day" are now virtually unavailable. Do you think that if I looked around enough, I could find one of those event tape packs that people bought cheaply after events? No, I couldn't. The only access people like me have to Hardcore is through the internet. It just goes to show that without the internet, none of this would exist. Hardcore would have died in 2000, and would have STAYED DEAD.
Anyway, respond what you want, but try to respond in a civil manner, point out flaws in a way that makes sense and doesn't muddle up your viewpoint by either insulting people with differing views or by calling childish names.
Alert moderator
|
DOCTOR_HARDCORE_HTID
Junior Member
United States
117 posts
Joined: Dec, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 16:55:06
The way some of yous are bitching on this subject you would think it was your own songs that people download. Its not so stop worrying yourself, and yeah i think if people want to download music, games, movies they should. Why not? and people can say its wrong blah blah blah, but whos actually cares what they think? its simple do what you want and if anyone says anything about it tell them to fucck off its none of they're business.
Paying for stuff when you can get it free LOL
__________________________________
The Doctor !!
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 17:05:07
my view on file sharing is kinda straight forward. it's wrong. I buy my albums legally, but i've never bought an mp3. much of my music comes from mixes.
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 17:44:13
Well done to Lilley for going to all that trouble explaining the facts and the truth
but sadly knobheads will always twist things to justify their miserable poxy little existence....
....they'd probably see it differently, if they were talented enough to have something worth pirating,
and a bunch of ignorant thieves stole it from them.
It has always been so.
__________________________________
This- http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ionosphere
THIS - http://soundcloud.com/ionosphere
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYWkHCkaho
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 17:52:48
quote:
Originally posted by DOCTOR_HARDCORE_HTID:
The way some of yous are bitching on this subject you would think it was your own songs that people download.
actually,some of my music has.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2009/06/16 : 17:54:50
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by DOCTOR_HARDCORE_HTID:
The way some of yous are bitching on this subject you would think it was your own songs that people download.
actually,some of my music has.
Yeh, and ours....
__________________________________
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 : 18:04:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ionosphere:
....they'd probably see it differently, if they were talented enough to have something worth pirating,
Sure. But why bother complaining about it? Complaining about file-sharing is exactly the same as complaining about the election of President Obama, meaning... It's already happened. You can't change it, so you're forced to live with it.
All Lilley did was throw back arguments that have been said time and time again, as well as childishly insulting people through calling them names. I don't call that anything worth "thanks."
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
