PDA

View Full Version : Mininova - Torrents



shotglass75
12-04-2009, 07:02 AM
I think it's a great thing that Mininova shut down. Good thing there are people making a difference and taking action against these people that are stealing from the entertainment industry.

Distorted_Jungle
12-04-2009, 07:24 AM
I never download anything but music but Vuze works great for me. They have a toolbar app and they have another app that looks kind of like a lime wire type thing that searches multiple sites at once. I think it works great, but i know some people who don't like it.

suprefan
12-04-2009, 07:27 AM
Youre really asking about this here in an open public forum where you dont want to talk about that kind of stuff? Since it is ILLEGAL and all?

bug on your lip
12-04-2009, 07:30 AM
http://www.northants.police.uk/retailcrime/eyes_ani.gif

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 07:32 AM
Youre really asking about this here in an open public forum where you dont want to talk about that kind of stuff? Since it is ILLEGAL and all?


What the hell are you talking about Suprefan? Once again, Suprefan is making up lies and changing my quotes around.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 07:50 AM
isohunt.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 08:17 AM
So Mininova has pretty much gone ka-put which sucks because they really did seem to have the best layout and search function. Besides places like Pirate Bay, DIME, or Demonoid, anyone else know of a good place to get really good movie, music and TV torrents?

Why don't you go to best buy and join netflix....fucking shitface

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 08:19 AM
There are a lot of alternatives.... one simply has to look. For tv specifically, go to Eztv.it

caco0283
12-04-2009, 08:26 AM
I just emailed this thread to the MPAA....thanks you guys!!!

unitedwesuck
12-04-2009, 08:29 AM
http://www.ladepeche.fr/content/photo/biz/2007/10/24/200710240975_zoom.jpg

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 08:38 AM
Why don't you go to best buy and join netflix....fucking shitface

I do belong to Netflix and pay my monthly fees. Best Buy is alright but I prefer to shop at the mom and pop movie stores to purchase my DVDs. Your language is offensive and quit changing what I originally said. I could make a call to the authorities and report you.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 08:40 AM
I just emailed this thread to the MPAA....thanks you guys!!!

Thank you CACO for being an upstanding citizen

unitedwesuck
12-04-2009, 08:40 AM
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2251274/How-EntertainBored-main_Full.jpg

faxman75
12-04-2009, 09:04 AM
....

caco0283
12-04-2009, 09:17 AM
And SuperDouche has now been replaced by......... drum roll please........

CACO..... Yes I'm a super douche but at least I don't bitch about the economy and then steal from an industry that does so much for the economy....to add to my reign of being superdouche I emailed a bunch of friends the thread so they can email the MPAA also!!!

caco0283
12-04-2009, 09:19 AM
because that costs money that I don't have. duh
this guy, what's with this guy?

I dont have the money for a new car but you don't see me going out and stealing one....if you cant afford something...thats your problem for not making the amount of money you would like....don't steal from others and fuck up their future paychecks

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 09:32 AM
Yeah, I kind of agree with you on some IP... but personally I think it's bullshit when it comes to TV shows. I mean, the get most of their revenue from commercials. Once it airs, they've got their money. Forcing us to watch it on their websites,having to buy it from iTunes, or having to wait for the DVD release is just being greedy. I mean, I'm not home when they air my shows and TIVO is a fucking rip off.

ElBlueblazer
12-04-2009, 09:33 AM
I dont have the money for a new car but you don't see me going out and stealing one....if you cant afford something...thats your problem for not making the amount of money you would like....don't steal from others and fuck up their future paychecks

whaaa whaaa steal blah blah ,, fuck off!!!

bug on your lip
12-04-2009, 09:39 AM
CACO..... Yes I'm a super douche but at least I don't bitch about the economy and then steal from an industry that does so much for the economy....to add to my reign of being superdouche I emailed a bunch of friends the thread so they can email the MPAA also!!!


doods

if Caco emailed Lars you're fucked !!!

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00022/lars-ulrich-metal_22281artw.jpg

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 09:54 AM
Yeah, I kind of agree with you on some IP... but personally I think it's bullshit when it comes to TV shows. I mean, the get most of their revenue from commercials. Once it airs, they've got their money. Forcing us to watch it on their websites,having to buy it from iTunes, or having to wait for the DVD release is just being greedy. I mean, I'm not home when they air my shows and TIVO is a fucking rip off.

Ads aren't fixed costs, though, they vary based on ratings. The networks are assuming that people who watch the shows on the web sites, iTunes, or who wait for the DVD are not watching when the shows regularly air. The DVD part being less of a concern to them cause many are repeat viewers. Those other media have a negative affect on ratings for the regularly scheduled broadcast. Lower ratings means less the network can charge for advertising. They have to recoup that money somehow, so it makes sense for them to show ads on their web site and through other media.

Also, the fact that they air commercials ultimately benefits you. No commercials = no revenue = no show. So deal with it.

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 09:55 AM
I do think downloading an album from an unknown artists is a little weak. But if you've been played on the radio, been featured in television or film, or have had your face on a billboard, then the argument becomes a lot weaker.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 11:26 AM
I agree, but you shouldn't download anything. CACO told me he has never in his life ever downloaded anything for free off of the internet when he was supposed to pay for it and I really feel that his model is one to be followed.

faxman75
12-04-2009, 11:31 AM
I do think downloading an album from an unknown artists is a little weak. But if you've been played on the radio, been featured in television or film, or have had your face on a billboard, then the argument becomes a lot weaker.

Right because once an artist becomes at least semi-successful, they no longer deserve to be paid for their work by the average person. Bands and film makers should stop trying to be successful, that way no one can justify the thievery.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 11:33 AM
I dont have the money for a new car but you don't see me going out and stealing one....if you cant afford something...thats your problem for not making the amount of money you would like....don't steal from others and fuck up their future paychecks

C'mon Ronnie, don't act like you never stole a car. You're the wrong color.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:33 AM
I agree, but you shouldn't download anything. CACO told me he has never in his life ever downloaded anything for free off of the internet when he was supposed to pay for it and I really feel that his model is one to be followed.

When did I tell you that??? I didn't even know you existed until today?? Im so happy you have dreams about conversations you think we have had....if you want my cock just ask for it and dont make a stupid thread to piss me off. but yeah, I download music from bands I haven't heard of or new albums...then I decide if I want to buy it or not...regardless if I buy the album or not I delete it from my computer.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:34 AM
C'mon Ronnie, don't act like you never stole a car. You're the wrong color.

Those were the dark days

Monklish
12-04-2009, 11:35 AM
Also, I know for a fact that you received an illegal download of the new Animal Collective EP.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:36 AM
Also, I know for a fact that you received an illegal download of the new Animal Collective EP.

did you not read my last post??

Monklish
12-04-2009, 11:37 AM
I see now. I still think it's silly either way. Shoveling shit against the tide, son.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:39 AM
I see now. I still think it's silly either way. Shoveling shit against the tide, son.

Naw kneegro...its like back in the day you would borrow a friends cd and decide if its worth you buying....some idea...now if I just sat here all day and DL music just to keep....thats fucked up.

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 11:41 AM
Right because once an artist becomes at least semi-successful, they no longer deserve to be paid for their work by the average person. Bands and film makers should stop trying to be successful, that way no one can justify the thievery.

Meh, say what you want, but I don't feel a shred of guilt of depriving Metallica of money. They've got plenty. The only guilt I would feel is that I just downloaded a Metallica album.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 11:41 AM
When did I tell you that??? I didn't even know you existed until today?? Im so happy you have dreams about conversations you think we have had....if you want my cock just ask for it and dont make a stupid thread to piss me off. but yeah, I download music from bands I haven't heard of or new albums...then I decide if I want to buy it or not...regardless if I buy the album or not I delete it from my computer.

If anything on the internet proves why you are such a fucking internet fucking douchebag, your response to my post does it. But it's good for you to think that you are important enough that someone would make a thread entirely to piss off some complete fucking cumguzzler as yourself. Keep fighting the good fight kid. Someday grandma will give you that cookie.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 11:41 AM
The world is a quagmire, Cac. Thank god I don't pay for any of it.

faxman75
12-04-2009, 11:42 AM
Meh, say what you want, but I don't feel a shred of guilt of depriving Metallica of money. They've got plenty. The only guilt I would feel is that I just downloaded a Metallica album.

So it's ok to steal from rich people?

ETA:

For the record I am a thief but I haven't deluded myself with silly justifications. Own it and realize you are no better for stealing exclusively from the richer artists. You're still a thief.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:43 AM
If anything on the internet proves why you are such a fucking internet fucking douchebag, your response to my post does it. But it's good for you to think that you are important enough that someone would make a thread entirely to piss off some complete fucking cumguzzler as yourself. Keep fighting the good fight kid. Someday grandma will give you that cookie.

awww you just made me wet myself

Gribbz
12-04-2009, 11:43 AM
The only guilt I would feel is that I just downloaded a Metallica album.

Hahahaha.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 11:43 AM
So it's ok to steal from rich people?

Yes.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 11:44 AM
awww you just made me wet myself

it's not hard to do obviously.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 11:45 AM
The only guilt I would feel is that I just downloaded a Metallica album.


Hahahaha.

Welcome to 2001, you guys.

Gribbz
12-04-2009, 11:49 AM
Metallica started sucking long before 2001 Tommy.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:49 AM
If anything on the internet proves why you are such a fucking internet fucking douchebag, your response to my post does it. But it's good for you to think that you are important enough that someone would make a thread entirely to piss off some complete fucking cumguzzler as yourself. Keep fighting the good fight kid. Someday grandma will give you that cookie.

You know the best part of this post....that you think I really care if im an "internet fucking douchebag" that to me makes me giggle.

Another thing that makes me giggle is you assume I'm gay by calling me a "fucking cumguzzler" Well if I'm not gay...if I was BIG FUCKING DEAL

So not only do you care about your internet persona but you dislike gay people...and im the douchebag

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Metallica started sucking long before 2001 Tommy.

They weren't half bad at Bonnaroo

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 11:52 AM
They weren't half bad at Bonnaroo

They were decent at Bonnaroo, but that wasn't even the point of my post you gay spic.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 11:53 AM
They were decent at Bonnaroo, but that wasn't even the point of my post you gay spic.

Ill be sure to sleep in your tent at Bonnaroo next year

bug on your lip
12-04-2009, 11:56 AM
so Rnooie is saying it's ok to steal music but not movies

is that what's happening here?

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 11:56 AM
You know the best part of this post....that you think I really care if im an "internet fucking douchebag" that to me makes me giggle.

Another thing that makes me giggle is you assume I'm gay by calling me a "fucking cumguzzler" Well if I'm not gay...if I was BIG FUCKING DEAL

So not only do you care about your internet persona but you dislike gay people...and im the douchebag

No, the best part of this post is that you actually think I care about those things. i don't. i don't care about you. i really don't care that you may or may not be a cumguzzler. I don't care. Move on Kid, seriously you are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself and I am getting kind of tired having to respond to your retarded comments.

amyzzz
12-04-2009, 11:59 AM
When did I tell you that??? I didn't even know you existed until today?? Im so happy you have dreams about conversations you think we have had....if you want my cock just ask for it and dont make a stupid thread to piss me off. but yeah, I download music from bands I haven't heard of or new albums...then I decide if I want to buy it or not...regardless if I buy the album or not I delete it from my computer.
I remember you saying that. Well, you or Gabe. or both of you.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:00 PM
No, the best part of this post is that you actually think I care about those things. i don't. i don't care about you. i really don't care that you may or may not be a cumguzzler. I don't care. Move on Kid, seriously you are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself and I am getting kind of tired having to respond to your retarded comments.

im going to keep on pushing your little buttons cos its funny to see you get so mad....I have time to kill at work so Ill be right here....and if you didn't care so much you wouldnt respond....now go ahead and stop responding after reading this so you can show how big and bad you are

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:00 PM
dissed by Amyzzz....

+20

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:00 PM
I remember you saying that. Well, you or Gabe. or both of you.

i miss Gabe

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:01 PM
im going to keep on pushing your little buttons cos its funny to see you get so mad....I have time to kill at work so Ill be right here....and if you didn't care so much you wouldnt respond....now go ahead and stop responding after reading this so you can show how big and bad you are

The both of you sound like school boys. You kind of started it with the name calling though.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:05 PM
The both of you sound like school boys. You kind of started it with the name calling though.

I know...I will admit to starting it....I didn't know he would get a sandy vagina though

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:08 PM
im going to keep on pushing your little buttons cos its funny to see you get so mad....I have time to kill at work so Ill be right here....and if you didn't care so much you wouldnt respond....now go ahead and stop responding after reading this so you can show how big and bad you are

I'm not trying to prove how big and bad I am because let's be honest for those who know me, I'm not. I'm not mad. More annoyed than anything that I have to keep on responding to this thread. You did a good job wording your last post so it puts me in the position of "do I respond? or "don't I respond because of what he said?"

Kid, can I call you kid? More like child though. Child, you're going to need to learn that no one likes a tattle tale. it's not a personal thing. it's just you are a SuperDouche. And if you didn't care so much you wouldn't respond....Now go ahead and stop responding after reading this so you can show how big and bad you are

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:09 PM
I didn't do a good job wording it...its just called the truth

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:16 PM
yawn... ladies and gentlemen the almighty has spoken the truth. let this be over because I really don't have the energy. Plus I have a lot of movies and music that I need to get back to downloading.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 12:17 PM
I know from personal experience that both of you are total fagmos, so shaddup.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:17 PM
yawn... ladies and gentlemen the almighty has spoken the truth. let this be over because I really don't have the energy. Plus I have a lot of movies and music that I need to get back to downloading.

http://media.funlol.com/content/img/whos-awesome.jpg

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:18 PM
I win!!!!

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:20 PM
I know...I will admit to starting it....I didn't know he would get a sandy vagina though

I don't think there are too many people on this board who don't fire back when flamed.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:22 PM
I don't think there are too many people on this board who don't fire back when flamed.

Damnit fax...he is the winner don't bring it up again....you fucking douchebag

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:24 PM
yes please. move on

Sexecutioner
12-04-2009, 12:28 PM
so Rnooie is saying it's ok to steal music but not movies

is that what's happening here?

no, hes not stealing music, just "borrowing" it.

And get off your high horse caco. The entertainment industry are a bunch of overpaid, under worked, prima donnas, just like pro athletes. It's an industry of excess, that I do not agree with. Sure, their work is important, but it's not nearly as important as their paychecks would suggest. Sorry, but I am not going to throw down my hard earned money so johnny depp can go buy another fucking house in france, or so lindsay lohan can afford LA's most expensive lawyers to fix her problems with coke, or dui's, or whatever the fuck she does. Same thing with music...sorry if I dont want my money going to some scumbag record label exec so he can buy more hookers.

Not to mention their insanely bad business model. If they gave me easier access to the shows/movies I wanted, at a cheaper price, I would be much more willing to pay for it. I pay for netflix, since its cheap, and convenient, and I would pay for other services if they were too. If you let me stream anything I want to my set top box of choice, whenever i fuckin want it, I would gladly pay a few dollars per movie, or show, whatever. Instead they try to charge me 20 some fuckin dollars for a piece of plastic that will probably get scratched and stop working at some point anyway. Sorry, but I'd rather just torrent that shit for free and have my own digital copy for as long as I want. They could change their business model and still make plenty of money, yet that would mean one less rolls royce for some asshole, so no way.

Well sorry, but when they start spending their money wisely, then maybe I'll start giving them some of mine. Until then, I'm am going to steal as much as I can without an ounce of guilt.

Distorted_Jungle
12-04-2009, 12:31 PM
Naw kneegro...its like back in the day you would borrow a friends cd and decide if its worth you buying....some idea...now if I just sat here all day and DL music just to keep....thats fucked up.


I remember the days of borrowing CDs from friends, and then i would burn them so i didn't have to buy them.


I have time to kill at work so Ill be right here....


Is posting on these boards your job? no it's not, so you are stealing from your work because you aren't doing what they pay you to do.

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 12:33 PM
So it's ok to steal from rich people?

ETA:

For the record I am a thief but I haven't deluded myself with silly justifications. Own it and realize you are no better for stealing exclusively from the richer artists. You're still a thief.

If they are truly rich, I have zero issue getting their IP for free. And calling it stealing is kind of a misnomer. Since nothing was produced (e.g. a case, physical media) they aren't losing money, they simply aren't gaining money. This whole calling p2p stealing is fucking propaganda.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 12:35 PM
If they are truly rich, I have zero issue getting their IP for free. And calling it stealing is kind of a misnomer. Since nothing was produced (e.g. a case, physical media) they aren't losing money, they simply aren't gaining money. This whole calling p2p stealing is fucking propaganda.

Time in a recording studio isn't free. If they have their own recording studios, the equipment likely wasn't free.

caco0283
12-04-2009, 12:38 PM
I remember the days of borrowing CDs from friends, and then i would burn them so i didn't have to buy them.




Is posting on these boards your job? no it's not, so you are stealing from your work because you aren't doing what they pay you to do.

Im a partner here so I guess I'm stealing from....myself??

Distorted_Jungle
12-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Oh, and most of what i download is live sets from people that are never released so is that still stealing?

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:38 PM
The justifications for stealing in this thread are funny. Bad business models, rich artists and it's not actually stealing it's just less profit.

No. It's illegal. You are violating laws. You are watching or listening to something that you do not have the right to watch or listen to. By doing so you are neglecting the artist or company of their profits.

It's stealing and it's illegal. You simply want something for free and have justified it as many others have done. You are not entitled to any artists work because of some moral disagreement with the way the industry chooses to distribute.

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Time in a recording studio isn't free. If they have their own recording studios, the equipment likely wasn't free.

Ah shit.... that is a good point.

amyzzz
12-04-2009, 12:39 PM
Is posting on these boards your job? no it's not, so you are stealing from your work because you aren't doing what they pay you to do.
This sounds like a good diss to me. How many points?

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:40 PM
Oh, and most of what i download is live sets from people that are never released so is that still stealing?

If the artist and venue are ok with their music being shared then no it's not stealing. If the artist is trying to maintain propriety of all of their content for whatever reason, then yes, it's still stealing.

I tend to think the artist doesn't necessarily get hurt by file sharing but that still doesn't make it legal or mean it's not stealing.

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 12:40 PM
The justifications for stealing in this thread are funny. Bad business models, rich artists and it's not actually stealing it's just less profit.

No. It's illegal. You are violating laws. You are watching or listening to something that you do not have the right to watch or listen to. By doing so you are neglecting the artist or company of their profits.

It's stealing and it's illegal. You simply want something for free and have justified it as many others have done. You are not entitled to any artists work because of some moral disagreement with the way the industry chooses to distribute.

How is it different from going to the library, checking out a cd, and ripping it?

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 12:42 PM
How is it different from going to the library, checking out a cd, and ripping it?

I don't think it is different. I assume you're not allowed to do that either. Reproduction without consent and whatnot.

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:42 PM
If they are truly rich, I have zero issue getting their IP for free. And calling it stealing is kind of a misnomer. Since nothing was produced (e.g. a case, physical media) they aren't losing money, they simply aren't gaining money. This whole calling p2p stealing is fucking propaganda.

What do you call taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it? What right to ownership do you have of the material?

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 12:44 PM
I don't think it is different. I assume you're not allowed to do that either. Reproduction without consent and whatnot.

Do you think it's wrong to make your friend a mix tape? At a certain point it becomes a matter of perspective.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 12:45 PM
Do you think it's wrong to make your friend a mix tape?

Yes.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:45 PM
What do you call taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it? What right to ownership do you have of the material?

I call it The American Way of Life since we stepped foot on this land.

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:45 PM
How is it different from going to the library, checking out a cd, and ripping it?

As Tommy said both are illegal. Just as it was illegal back in the day to make copies of cassette tapes with your high speed dubbing jam box. Illegal. Did everyone do it? Sure. Did it turn others on to tons of music they may not have otherwise heard? Of course.

Still illegal and wrong. The artists and the labels own the rights. It's their art. They get to choose distribution. If you choose you don't like their way of distribution so you are going to take it, it's stealing.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:48 PM
But Girl Talk is so amazing and he is making a living off of stealing other peoples music. How can someone who is so amazing get away with something like that?

ShyGuy75
12-04-2009, 12:49 PM
ahhh...so this is the thread where all the worthless leeches on society hang out.

hawkingvsreeve
12-04-2009, 12:49 PM
Sampling is slightly different.


What he is doing isn't entirely legal either.

faxman75
12-04-2009, 12:51 PM
ahhh...so this is the thread where all the worthless leeches on society hang out.

You found a place to hang out for the day I see.

ShyGuy75
12-04-2009, 12:53 PM
did brokendoll write that for you?

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 12:53 PM
Sampling is slightly different.


What he is doing isn't entirely legal either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but permission is needed from the original artist even if it's a sample. Right?

Girl Talk claims that his samples fall under the fair use umbrella, which I think is probably bullshit. So he doesn't think he needs the permission of the artists. He's a hack anyway.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:55 PM
jesus, is it really that easy guys?

hawkingvsreeve
12-04-2009, 12:55 PM
I am pretty sure you need to have samples cleared.

As far as songs sounding like one another, I think that as long as one note every four bars is different, or something to that effect, it's fair game.

bug on your lip
12-04-2009, 12:57 PM
I am pretty sure you need to have samples cleared.

As far as songs sounding like one another, I think that as long as one note every four bars is different, or something to that effect, it's fair game.

i thought he won a lawsuit that got to Federal court that allows him to sample as satire

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 12:57 PM
jesus, is it really that easy guys?

If you were joking about the Girl Talk thing then I didn't get it because it wasn't funny.

Go suck Edward Sharpe's apparently life-changing dick some more.

shotglass75
12-04-2009, 12:58 PM
It is tasty

The Girl Talk thing is actually more funny that you didn't get it.

Sexecutioner
12-04-2009, 02:05 PM
No. It's illegal. You are violating laws. You are watching or listening to something that you do not have the right to watch or listen to. By doing so you are neglecting the artist or company of their profits.

I know it's illegal. I never claimed it was legal. I'm just saying I dont feel bad about it because I dont really acknowledge laws I don't believe in if I know I wont get caught, kind of like speeding on the freeway. I dont believe in the current IP laws when it comes to music. It's complete bullshit that somebody else besides the artist that created it can own the actual rights to a song. Give me a break. Music is an intangible item, and shouldnt be bought or sold if you ask me. If you want to make money, go on a tour. I'll buy a ticket. Yes, I know that's just my selfish opinion...

Leeartlee
12-04-2009, 02:20 PM
^^^^

For example, how many people here smoke pot or do drugs?

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 02:31 PM
Music is an intangible item, and shouldnt be bought or sold if you ask me. If you want to make money, go on a tour. I'll buy a ticket. Yes, I know that's just my selfish opinion...

It also costs money to make that intangible item, so why shouldn't it be sold? If artists couldn't make money off of what they create in the studio then they wouldn't have much incentive to make music. And what's the primary thing that makes people interested in seeing a live show? It's the music the artist creates in the studio.

So answer this. How can an up-and-coming band sell its live show if it doesn't have any incentive to create music in the studio to sell people on that live show?

Monklish
12-04-2009, 02:35 PM
Well I think the incentive to make music in the studio is so that you can sell tickets, Tommy.

hawkingvsreeve
12-04-2009, 02:37 PM
Well, and hookers and blow.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 02:40 PM
But those things cost money, and they're not going to make any of that in the studio.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 02:53 PM
Well I think the incentive to make music in the studio is so that you can sell tickets, Tommy.

I understand that would be some sort of incentive, but do you think that would cover the costs of a tour plus promotion?

Monklish
12-04-2009, 02:57 PM
People have been doing it for decades. How do you think the costs of a "tour" plus promotion were covered before? Their record sales? No.

Sexecutioner
12-04-2009, 03:10 PM
It also costs money to make that intangible item, so why shouldn't it be sold? If artists couldn't make money off of what they create in the studio then they wouldn't have much incentive to make music. And what's the primary thing that makes people interested in seeing a live show? It's the music the artist creates in the studio.

So answer this. How can an up-and-coming band sell its live show if it doesn't have any incentive to create music in the studio to sell people on that live show?

as for your bolded statement, i disagree. i like to think true artists make music as a way to express themselves, hoping others can connect with it (or to quote almost famous, they do it for "the buzz"). not saying they dont like the money that comes along with it, but i dont think thats their main motivation. i'm sure it is for some, but not the good ones...

and plenty of bands tour without any record sales. they work a side job enough to pay for some cheap studio time, put together a demo, throw it on myspace, buy a molester van, and hit the rode playing shitty clubs all over. if your music is good, everything else should hopefully work itself out...

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 03:26 PM
People have been doing it for decades. How do you think the costs of a "tour" plus promotion were covered before? Their record sales? No.

Many tour costs are covered by the record companies, which you guys conceivably want to eliminate. Under Josh's model, artists wouldn't make any money by selling music AND they would have to pay tour and promotional costs. That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.



and plenty of bands tour without any record sales. they work a side job enough to pay for some cheap studio time, put together a demo, throw it on myspace, buy a molester van, and hit the rode playing shitty clubs all over. if your music is good, everything else should hopefully work itself out...

I think you're just living in ideal land. Plenty of artists tour without record sales, I guess, but that doesn't mean it's successful. It costs a lot of money to tour and put on great shows. Without the backing of an entity with a good amount of money, it will be harder for bands to do this and will just ultimately cheat music fans. And there would probably be less recorded music if artists had no choice but to give it away, again cheating music fans.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 03:28 PM
The record companies are already pretty much eliminated though. Nobody buys CDs anymore. What you're going to have in its place is a system of promotion companies who put up the money for bands to tour and take a percentage. This is of course only concerning bands who are actually large enough to qualify for a record deal that would have involved paying them to tour in the first place. Most small bands didn't have that anyway.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 03:30 PM
Would these promotional companies pay for the record to get made too?

Monklish
12-04-2009, 03:31 PM
Probably not.

TommyboyUNM
12-04-2009, 03:35 PM
So are you proposing that artists hire a promotional company to do something that a record company could probably do (or a company like Live Nation), but the artist would have to pay for their record to be made instead of getting help with that too?

It just seems like this system would ultimately hurt music consumers as well as artists.

Monklish
12-04-2009, 03:39 PM
I think you're missing the point. What we're talking about when we say promotional companies is the equivalent of LiveNation. Exactly why are we continuing to involve record companies in this? There is no money to be made. You can keep fighting in favor for them or get realistic and adapt to the new business model. Music is effectively free now, and will be a whole fucking lot freer in about five years.

Thankfully the costs of recording are also drastically cheaper. But seriously, who do you think paid for a demo to be recorded back in the day? It would cost upwards of a thousand dollars just to record a quick four-song EP to shop around to record companies. Nowadays that much money can easily be turned into a full album using advanced technology available to any consumer who has a band.

So let them go ahead and record albums on their own and release them for free. If they gain any popularity, then they can talk to companies like LiveNation about touring.

Or they can keep doing it the old way--book the fucking shows themselves, get in a fucking van and go.

ShyGuy75
12-04-2009, 03:42 PM
CHICK FIGHT!!!!

Sexecutioner
12-04-2009, 03:42 PM
i agree that what i was saying is very idealistic. but with consumer technology where it is, cant most people make an album on their computer these days? yea, it costs a little money im sure for mics and hardware and whatnot, but cheap enough that somebody could save up with job, put something together and put it on the net. seems like the only thing a record company is really good for anymore is the promotion, and with the internet these days, lots of bands can get that themselves if their music is good. you start off playing local shows, sending your stuff to the local stations, and if enough people like you, the production companies will hear about it and pay for a national tour.

i dont know, im talking out my ass, but sounds good to me...

edit: randy already beat me to a couple points.

frozen pilgrim
12-06-2009, 10:38 PM
good lord I've missed a lot on here the last few days.

downloading is not stealing.

there was a period of half a century (give or take a decade or so) when you could sell recorded music for profit. even less time when the artists themselves got any of that money. fifty years is a pittance on the timeline of human artistic history. the bread and butter of music and theater have always been and will always be live performance.
I don't pay for digital copies of music. never have. CDs are the biggest bullshit ripoff scam and also the worst use of technology in the last three generations. they're low quality, low capacity, and were intentionally crippled to that degree by the RIAA. and now DRC has come in the last decade and made them sound even worse.

go to bars, go to clubs, part of the door cost goes straight to artists' royalties (at least in canada). people coming to see you is how you make money as an artist. end of story.

karma_guy
12-06-2009, 10:49 PM
here's a fun graph looking at revenue for artists and labels in a time where p2p file sharing is an issue

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

unless i'm going blind, looks like the artists are doing alright music-wise
but GASP
going down for labels

woooonder why the labels bitch about piracy so much...

sonofhal
12-07-2009, 12:23 AM
One of the main things the internet has changed is the accessibility of music. Obvious statement, I know. It is now insanely easy to check out new artists (both legally and otherwise) and thus most music fans are listening to a ton more acts than they were 10 years ago. This means that their music spend is spread a lot thinner, and a lot of money is going direct to artists (buying cd's/vinyl at shows or direct from bands on the web).

There is a limit to peoples disposable income and I don't think the average spend has changed. It's just being dispersed amongst a lot more acts and is harder to accurately track.

The live music scene over here is the strongest it's ever been. New music festivals are popping up all the time. The tube is packed with people listening to music on their MP3 players every morning. More people than ever are enjoying music because of the ease of availability. The pie has got bigger, but with accessibility to so many artists, the slices have got smaller.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 04:36 AM
downloading is not stealing.


You know absolutely nothing about copyright law in the United States. It is illegal to share unauthorized copyrighted work. I have no idea why you think the capacity of a CD or why the length of time CD's have been sold by artists is relevant to the legality.

Maybe we should take away all the rights of women and black people because it's only been a pittance on the time line of human history that they have found a way to have rights?

Just because the music industry has made some very poor decisions over the past decade doesn't mean artists should no longer have copyright control of their work.

The band gets to decide how to distribute their art, not Frozen Pilgrim. Just because some artists have decided to give their music away for free from time to time doesn't mean all artists should be forced to do the same.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 05:00 AM
Just because it's illegal doesn't make it "stealing," Fax.

HunterGather
12-07-2009, 05:17 AM
lolz, medicated pete avatar.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 05:49 AM
Just because it's illegal doesn't make it "stealing," Fax.

Theft. The illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

So, you are either arguing that music isn't the proprty of the artist or the artist gave consent to everyone to freely distribute.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 05:52 AM
Problem is you get into a hairy ground when you're talking about the difference between intellectual property and physical property. Stop acting like such a law-toting authority on jurisprudence, asshole. You do drugs and you barely graduated high school, you're not an authority on anything.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 06:12 AM
Problem is you get into a hairy ground when you're talking about the difference between intellectual property and physical property. Stop acting like such a law-toting authority on jurisprudence, asshole. You do drugs and you barely graduated high school, you're not an authority on anything.

I already stated in this thread I steal media. The difference is I don't write paragraphs about how it's ok because it's only been sold for a certain number of years or the artist makes more off of touring or any other countless justifications being made.

My high school education and drug use are pretty irrelevant in this thread. I never claimed to be an authority but it's pretty funny watching you play an authority card.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 06:14 AM
Well ya certainly act like it, ya mail room motherfucker.

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 07:28 AM
One more thing to add on this whole "Sharing is stealing" thinking. Apple, realizing that people were getting pissed off they couldn't do what they wanted with music they had purchased, removed DRM from their entire music catalog. It's pretty fucked up that the music industry was initially penalizing people for acquiring music a more "legit" way than those who were getting it for free. I think this move is an indication that people want and downright demand that they be able to do whatever the fuck they want with stuff they buy. I mean, we don't live in a fascist dictatorship do we?

And if I hear the comparison between stealing music and stealing a car one more time, I'm going to have to slap someone. These two things are not even in the same league as each other.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 07:39 AM
And if I hear the comparison between stealing music and stealing a car one more time, I'm going to have to slap someone. These two things are not even in the same league as each other.

How about comparing it to stealing a painting or prints? What about books and movies? What if I buy a book and make photo copies for everyone I know?

The old argument used to be that music fans still purchased music because they are such avid collectors and decent people. As time has gone on we are learning that isn't the case at all. We are learning that people have justified their stealing of media because the evil labels take the lions share of the profits. Technology has caused artists to think of new ways to distribute their music and still somehow make a profit off of it.

Artists don't have a load of options for making profit off of their music so I don't see the point of justifying taking away one of their avenues for making a living and whether we are talking about Metallica or some indie band we all claim to love, the band gets a portion of record sales no matter how small the take may be.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 07:45 AM
Okay, how about if you buy a book and make photo copies for everyone you know? Suppose there was no chance the people you gave it to were ever going to buy the book in the first place? Who's the victim exactly? The author isn't losing out on any money they would have made otherwise.

chairmenmeow47
12-07-2009, 07:52 AM
how about people just stop trying to become rich off of creative expression? problem solved.

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 07:55 AM
Okay, how about if you buy a book and make photo copies for everyone you know? Suppose there was no chance the people you gave it to were ever going to buy the book in the first place? Who's the victim exactly? The author isn't losing out on any money they would have made otherwise.

This basically echoes my frame of mind. Back in the day, yes, I did buy a lot of cds, tapes, and lps. But since the explosion of p2p sharing, I have reallocated those funds previously earmarked for music purchases for other events. Ironically, a lot of that money now goes to seeing bands live. But even if the internet were to be gone tomorrow, I'd have a really hard time going back to the old ways. I've learned that spending 100 to 300 dollars a month on music is kind of outrageous. So to tie back in with Randy's post, there are a lot of bands I would just not get a chance to listen to if it became a choice between buying the album or having nothing. Maybe that has shifted the power towards the consumer more but I think we as a society really benefit from this setup. I for one now have a much broader range in music taste as a result of p2p file sharing.

lowfront
12-07-2009, 07:57 AM
I want to be a musician


O me o my the record industry is dieing though


guess Its back to my shit job

faxman75
12-07-2009, 08:13 AM
Okay, how about if you buy a book and make photo copies for everyone you know? Suppose there was no chance the people you gave it to were ever going to buy the book in the first place? Who's the victim exactly? The author isn't losing out on any money they would have made otherwise.

How would you prove they had no chance of knowing? People pay money to buy DVD's and books all of the time based on reviews and word of mouth.

The victim is still the person who's copyrighted material you are distributing. You have decided how you want their work shared and that takes away from the owners profits.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 08:17 AM
Can't really prove that it does, though. Because no one is making any money on the transaction it's impossible to tell if there was any money to be made. Now if you made copies of the book and then sold those copies, that would clearly be wrong.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 08:23 AM
This basically echoes my frame of mind. Back in the day, yes, I did buy a lot of cds, tapes, and lps. But since the explosion of p2p sharing, I have reallocated those funds previously earmarked for music purchases for other events. Ironically, a lot of that money now goes to seeing bands live. But even if the internet were to be gone tomorrow, I'd have a really hard time going back to the old ways. I've learned that spending 100 to 300 dollars a month on music is kind of outrageous. So to tie back in with Randy's post, there are a lot of bands I would just not get a chance to listen to if it became a choice between buying the album or having nothing. Maybe that has shifted the power towards the consumer more but I think we as a society really benefit from this setup. I for one now have a much broader range in music taste as a result of p2p file sharing.

Yes, I understand that sharing music leads to more people liking a given band than if the music was not shared. That's not what we are discussing here. This is just more justification and you wanting to rewrite current laws and feel warm, fuzzy and justified for taking music you didn't pay for.

You said it yourself. You don't think artists deserve the hundreds of dollars you spend on music every month. You think it's outrageous to spend lots of money on music when you can just steal it all and spend that money on the concerts. You guys just don't like the word 'steal' for some reason. Like I said, own it. You are a thief. I am a thief. We steal copyrighted material and share it with others.

malcolmjamalawesome
12-07-2009, 08:24 AM
Hey I'll chime in.

Part 1: No argument to be made that it's not illegal. Clearly a violation of copyright law. End of story. Useless to compare the illegality of one act to the illegality of another act, and it's especially useless considering the rarity of legal action being taken against people downloading/sharing.

Part 2: Is it "wrong"? I think you have to look at the value we now align with music. It's not necessarily wrong for people to suddenly not be able to make as much money at a job because society has stopped putting enough value on their product to pay as much for it.
P2P didn't necessarily make people stop valuing music less, but maybe, as Leartlee touched on, it made people take inventory on what they're willing to spend. I think if P2P/free pirated music just went away, you wouldn't see people necessarily going back to their original buying habits. I think you'd find people actually being much more selective about the music they bought, and eventually prices would come down to where music was damn near free again, anyway.
Maybe it's unfair that if somebody writes a book, song, makes a movie, etc somebody can just get it and enjoy it without paying for it. But nobody's forcing anybody to be a writer/musician/filmmaker, either. It's just a reality that several "starving artists" before have had to deal with: you want to choose a life of making art because you love it? Great. But you won't necessarily get paid well for it. So then you end up getting down to the people who want to make art because they want to make art and the people who want to make art because they want to make money (and, the obvious middle ground of people who want to do both).
Further, as already touched on, there's kind of a balancing out of all of this because now you have acts who, without P2P sharing, would NEVER have gotten the exposure that they have now and because of that, can make more money off of touring (and arguably, more money off whatever music they DO sell than without it). So you get lower record sales from the people who were going to sell records with or without P2P sharing, but higher ticket (and probably record) sales from the people who weren't going to get heard by ANYONE without P2P sharing.

So, is somebody a prick for sharing music? Maybe. But even if you did away with P2P, you'd still see a fair amount of artists continue to give their music away for free, and that's who I'd listen to.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 08:24 AM
Is fast forwarding through commercials stealing television?

malcolmjamalawesome
12-07-2009, 08:26 AM
Well yeah, and is hearing music played in a bar or on a radio stealing that music?

You're not so much stealing as you are violating copyright law, which has no element of "theft" to it.

chairmenmeow47
12-07-2009, 08:26 AM
It's just a reality that several "starving artists" before have had to deal with: you want to choose a life of making art because you love it? Great. But you won't necessarily get paid well for it.

amen.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 08:27 AM
Malc, you and I should start up a law practice someday. You handle the actual lawyering, I'll recruit the scumbag clients.

chairmenmeow47
12-07-2009, 08:27 AM
wait a minute, how is listening to a song on the radio a violation of copywrite law?

malcolmjamalawesome
12-07-2009, 08:27 AM
wait a minute, how is listening to a song on the radio a violation of copywrite law?

I mean P2P sharing being a violation of copyright.

malcolmjamalawesome
12-07-2009, 08:28 AM
Malc, you and I should start up a law practice someday. You handle the actual lawyering, I'll recruit the scumbag clients.

Why don't I just start a practice that revolves around defending you

faxman75
12-07-2009, 08:28 AM
Hey I'll chime in.

Part 1: No argument to be made that it's not illegal. Clearly a violation of copyright law. End of story. Useless to compare the illegality of one act to the illegality of another act, and it's especially useless considering the rarity of legal action being taken against people downloading/sharing.

Part 2: Is it "wrong"? I think you have to look at the value we now align with music. It's not necessarily wrong for people to suddenly not be able to make as much money at a job because society has stopped putting enough value on their product to pay as much for it.
P2P didn't necessarily make people stop valuing music less, but maybe, as Leartlee touched on, it made people take inventory on what they're willing to spend. I think if P2P/free pirated music just went away, you wouldn't see people necessarily going back to their original buying habits. I think you'd find people actually being much more selective about the music they bought, and eventually prices would come down to where music was damn near free again, anyway.
Maybe it's unfair that if somebody writes a book, song, makes a movie, etc somebody can just get it and enjoy it without paying for it. But nobody's forcing anybody to be a writer/musician/filmmaker, either. It's just a reality that several "starving artists" before have had to deal with: you want to choose a life of making art because you love it? Great. But you won't necessarily get paid well for it. So then you end up getting down to the people who want to make art because they want to make art and the people who want to make art because they want to make money (and, the obvious middle ground of people who want to do both).
Further, as already touched on, there's kind of a balancing out of all of this because now you have acts who, without P2P sharing, would NEVER have gotten the exposure that they have now and because of that, can make more money off of touring (and arguably, more money off whatever music they DO sell than without it). So you get lower record sales from the people who were going to sell records with or without P2P sharing, but higher ticket (and probably record) sales from the people who weren't going to get heard by ANYONE without P2P sharing.

So, is somebody a prick for sharing music? Maybe. But even if you did away with P2P, you'd still see a fair amount of artists continue to give their music away for free, and that's who I'd listen to.



There it is. I agree with all of this 100%.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 08:29 AM
Why don't I just start a practice that revolves around defending you

You should pick clients who actually pay.

malcolmjamalawesome
12-07-2009, 08:32 AM
You should pick clients who actually pay.

I'm just glad blowjobs aren't available over P2P.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Some day... some day...

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 08:43 AM
Who in here ever said it p2p was "legal"? I just think the term stealing is a bit of a misnomer, but I guess that's an opinion

PlayaDelWes
12-07-2009, 08:52 AM
how about people just stop trying to become rich off of creative expression? problem solved.

Exactly.


And this whole thing is working out just fine. Technology has lowered the cost of music for all of us, while broadening the supply available. New releases on CD used to be > $15. Today, you can legally get most albums for less than $10. Torrents have kept costs down. If music was more expensive to the consumer, more people would steal it. As long as that threat to steal exists, the industry will be forced to offer an affordable product to the masses.

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 09:03 AM
Exactly.


And this whole thing is working out just fine. Technology has lowered the cost of music for all of us, while broadening the supply available. New releases on CD used to be > $15. Today, you can legally get most albums for less than $10. Torrents have kept costs down. If music was more expensive to the consumer, more people would steal it. As long as that threat to steal exists, the industry will be forced to offer an affordable product to the masses.

I think it's especially important for the price structure to get mixed up now that physical media is becoming a thing of the past. I've said to my friends before that if music and tv were at more competitive prices, I would seriously consider using itunes, beatport, or whatever. At least when you buy movies you get extras and HD (i.e. Blu Ray).

TommyboyUNM
12-07-2009, 09:05 AM
Is fast forwarding through commercials stealing television?

This is a poor analogy. The networks' clients pay one-time rates for the ads they air. The network doesn't lose or gain money based on whether or not people fast forward through commercials. If you have a Neilsen box (or some other tracker) and you fast forward through a commercial, I believe you're still being counted as a viewer. And that's how networks justify their ad rates. It's a totally different model for making money than that of music.

And I guess it isn't stealing because you're not making it so the artist, or anybody else, doesn't have access to the work. But now we're just talking semantics and avoiding one of the larger issues. It is illegal and I think most of what I'm reading is just people trying to justify it.

chairmenmeow47
12-07-2009, 09:05 AM
i just wish iTunes wasn't exponentially more difficult than just illegally downloading. i feel like i need to hire someone to manage my iTunes.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:06 AM
You think I-Tunes is too expensive? If 99 cents a song is too much how much do you think music should cost?

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:08 AM
i just wish iTunes wasn't exponentially more difficult than just illegally downloading. i feel like i need to hire someone to manage my iTunes.

Pulling out a debit or credit card and typing in numbers and then downloading will never be easier than just clicking a few links.

chairmenmeow47
12-07-2009, 09:09 AM
songs are only 99 cents IF they are allowed to be sold individually. for example, all i wanted was the fiona apple version of sally's song, but iTunes wanted me to pay for the entire remixed soundtrack. i refused to pay $10 for a bunch of shit i didn't want by fallout boy and the like, so i had randy download the song for me. that's the only time i really do any downloading though; if i can't legally find what i need.

and fax, i'm talking more about the management of music with iTunes. it's fucking annoying to have two copies of all your files and shit like that. not to mention the naming & categorizing.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:14 AM
and fax, i'm talking more about the management of music with iTunes. it's fucking annoying to have two copies of all your files and shit like that. not to mention the naming & categorizing.

I've certainly found ways to live with itunes and to manage my media with it but I don't think it's great or anything.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:21 AM
This is a poor analogy. The networks' clients pay one-time rates for the ads they air. The network doesn't lose or gain money based on whether or not people fast forward through commercials. If you have a Neilsen box (or some other tracker) and you fast forward through a commercial, I believe you're still being counted as a viewer. And that's how networks justify their ad rates. It's a totally different model for making money than that of music.

And I guess it isn't stealing because you're not making it so the artist, or anybody else, doesn't have access to the work. But now we're just talking semantics and avoiding one of the larger issues. It is illegal and I think most of what I'm reading is just people trying to justify it.

Aren't you stealing from the advertisers by not watching their advertisement though? They PAID for those ads the same way artists PAID for the studio time to record their album. So where the fuck do YOU get off saying it's okay for you to fast forward through the commercials just because you have absolutely no interest in being advertised to but judging me because I don't want to pay for an album I have absolutely no interest in paying for.

Don't fuck with my analogies.


You think I-Tunes is too expensive? If 99 cents a song is too much how much do you think music should cost?

A fuckload less. At 99 cents a song you're paying about 15 bucks per album again. Bands used to make less than 2 bucks off their albums.

TommyboyUNM
12-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Aren't you stealing from the advertisers by not watching their advertisement though? They PAID for those ads the same way artists PAID for the studio time to record their album. So where the fuck do YOU get off saying it's okay for you to fast forward through the commercials just because you have absolutely no interest in being advertised to but judging me because I don't want to pay for an album I have absolutely no interest in paying for.

Don't fuck with my analogies.

Your analogy was stealing television, not stealing from the advertiser. Get your shit straight and maybe I'll agree with you.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:25 AM
A fuckload less. At 99 cents a song you're paying about 15 bucks per album again. Bands used to make less than 2 bucks off their albums.

At 99 cents per song the vast majority of people are not purchasing full albums any more, they are buying singles or a few songs, which is why some bands are no longer going to make albums but drop handfuls of songs every now and again.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:32 AM
Your analogy was stealing television, not stealing from the advertiser. Get your shit straight and maybe I'll agree with you.

Stealing from the advertiser is stealing television. Tivo has caused networks to have to cut the rates they charge advertisers to account for the lack of commercial viewership.


At 99 cents per song the vast majority of people are not purchasing full albums any more, they are buying singles or a few songs, which is why some bands are no longer going to make albums but drop handfuls of songs every now and again.

So your argument then is that bands are justified for charging us a disproportionately higher amount for the small amount of product we're interested in?

westcoastpirate
12-07-2009, 09:37 AM
A fuckload less. At 99 cents a song you're paying about 15 bucks per album again. Bands used to make less than 2 bucks off their albums.

$15? Most albums today are the length of EPs from a decade ago, that's my problem with the music industry. Yeah, you pay less but an album might only have 7 songs on it.

TommyboyUNM
12-07-2009, 09:40 AM
Stealing from the advertiser is stealing television. Tivo has caused networks to have to cut the rates they charge advertisers to account for the lack of commercial viewership.

But you're still paying for what you're consuming, regardless of what the network is making from advertising. Your habits may have some sort of trickle-down effect when it comes to prices, but you're still paying for a service through legal channels (PUNNY!).

It's a different model and not really an appropriate comparison.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:43 AM
But you're still paying for what you're consuming, regardless of what the network is making from advertising. Your habits may have some sort of trickle-down effect when it comes to prices, but you're still paying for a service through legal channels (PUNNY!).

It's a different model and not really an appropriate comparison.

The bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from whatever small percentage of the cable subscription fees they might get.

My point is that technology serves to help us avoid putting up with shit we don't want to be bothered with. That technology is always going to take food out of somebody's mouth.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:43 AM
So your argument then is that bands are justified for charging us a disproportionately higher amount for the small amount of product we're interested in?

My argument is that an artist can sell their work for whatever they like. It's then your choice to buy it, steal it or not listen to it at all. I don't hink it's inappropriate for an artist to sell a song for .99 cents.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:45 AM
Once again, we're back at the part of the conversation where your dumb ass doesn't understand the word "stealing."

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:47 AM
$15? Most albums today are the length of EPs from a decade ago, that's my problem with the music industry. Yeah, you pay less but an album might only have 7 songs on it.

What albums are you buying with only 7 songs? From what I can tell the average seems to be between 11-15 songs.

Counting the number of songs can be misleading as well. Depending on the band 10 songs can be anywhere from 34 minutes to 90 minutes.

TommyboyUNM
12-07-2009, 09:47 AM
Fax, it's not stealing. Stop saying that cause that's an easy way to deflect from your larger point.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:49 AM
Fax doesn't have a larger point, you dumb Mexican.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:49 AM
Once again, we're back at the part of the conversation where your dumb ass doesn't understand the word "stealing."

Yet when I offered the definition of a theif you didn't dispute it. It's a semantics argument that I thought we all agreed to avoid. You are taking copyrighted material that you do not have the rights to and distributing it. Call it what you like.

TommyboyUNM
12-07-2009, 09:50 AM
The bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from whatever small percentage of the cable subscription fees they might get.

My point is that technology serves to help us avoid putting up with shit we don't want to be bothered with. That technology is always going to take food out of somebody's mouth.

Well, that's between the networks and the cable/dish companies. We as consumers are doing what's being legally asked of us by paying those subscription fees.

I agree with your second point. And I do think the music industry needs to accept that the internet has changed the way we consume music. Many of these artists need to get wise and figure out how this technology can actually help them. As wrong as I think it is, not charging for recorded music could be an option.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:51 AM
Nobody agreed to avoid it, I just thought that you'd had the truth shoved down your gaping maw enough to shut up about it.

faxman75
12-07-2009, 09:52 AM
Nobody agreed to avoid it, I just thought that you'd had the truth shoved down your gaping maw enough to shut up about it.

You thought wrong because it wasn't truth, it was just opinion.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 09:54 AM
Well, that's between the networks and the cable/dish companies. We as consumers are doing what's being legally asked of us by paying those subscription fees.

I agree with your second point. And I do think the music industry needs to accept that the internet has changed the way we consume music. Many of these artists need to get wise and figure out how this technology can actually help them. As wrong as I think it is, not charging for recorded music could be an option.

Perhaps you just need to give up your silly white man's notion that there's something wrong with it. The music industry fucking sucked for the last 10 years it actually existed. It filled us with generic pop crap that sold millions and millions of copies of bullshit albums and propped up a worthless industry that sought to do nothing but bilk us out of money and rip the artists off in the process as well.

Fuck them, and fuck paying for music. You want to make a career off of music, fine, you're welcome to it, but you're shit out of luck if you think you're going to profit off of just making some audio files 'cause that's not the world we live in. Same way advertisers are gonna have to get used to tivo making scheduled breaks fucking irrelevant within the next ten years.

westcoastpirate
12-07-2009, 10:00 AM
What albums are you buying with only 7 songs? From what I can tell the average seems to be between 11-15 songs.

Counting the number of songs can be misleading as well. Depending on the band 10 songs can be anywhere from 34 minutes to 90 minutes.

It seemed like in the 90s, albums were 12-16 songs and between 50-60 minutes in length. I would bet the average now is 10 songs, 30-40 minutes in length. The quality may be good, but the quantity is less. This is a subjective opinion, though.

PlayaDelWes
12-07-2009, 10:08 AM
It is a stupid analogy. Fast forwarding through commercials is not illegal and certainly not stealing from anyone. Advertisers have adjusted the rate they are willing to now pay for commercials and in response, networks are airing shows that cost less to produce (Reality TV and prime-time talk-shows). Also, product placement within the TV programming has become more prominent than ever.

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 10:10 AM
Fuck them, and fuck paying for music. You want to make a career off of music, fine, you're welcome to it, but you're shit out of luck if you think you're going to profit off of just making some audio files 'cause that's not the world we live in. Same way advertisers are gonna have to get used to tivo making scheduled breaks fucking irrelevant within the next ten years.

Actually, this is a interesting point. One way that I have watched tv shows legit is directly from the networks site. For example, I've watched Lost on abc.com on several occasions. When you watch it this way, as many of you know, you are basically forced to watch four 30 second commercials throughout the episode. Similarly to how I feel about prices for music, this is a threshold I'm willing to endure. Sure, you can mute it and flip to a different browser during this time, but since it's only 30 seconds, I'm willing to put up with it. We are also starting to see more and more commercials that are directed at the view based on their demographic and taste. On another website I go to, I watch these video reviews. Since the commercials are related to the material I'm about to watch, I tend to pay more attention to the ads because they hold at least some relevance to me.

Basically, the old system is broken and we have yet to truly see what will rise out of the ashes.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Who cares whether or not it's illegal? We're debating the morality, not the legality. Everyone's agreed it's illegal. So are a lot of things I think many people in this argument do or have done. Fast forwarding isn't stealing--neither is downloading.

Product placement within programming is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with technology's effect on the price model. Complaining that people are fast forwarding through your commercials is not.

PlayaDelWes
12-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Who cares whether or not it's illegal? We're debating the morality, not the legality. Everyone's agreed it's illegal. So are a lot of things I think many people in this argument do or have done. Fast forwarding isn't stealing--neither is downloading.

Product placement within programming is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with technology's effect on the price model. Complaining that people are fast forwarding through your commercials is not.

There is nothing immoral about fast forwarding through commercials and nobody today is complaining about it. Instead they have reacted to it. It's a choice that was offered to the consumers, and in return the networks and advertisers adjusted the content we see and the way we view ads.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 10:15 AM
How is there nothing immoral about fast forwarding through commercials? People paid GOOD MONEY to have the audiences of that TV show see those ads. You OWE it to network to watch the ads they were paid to show you.

Leeartlee
12-07-2009, 10:17 AM
How is there nothing immoral about fast forwarding through commercials? People paid GOOD MONEY to have the audiences of that TV show see those ads. You OWE it to network to watch the ads they were paid to show you.

You joke, but that is honestly how some exs think

Monklish
12-07-2009, 10:18 AM
Yup. The same ones that think you OWE it to musicians to pay for their albums.

There is no morality in capitalism, fuckheads. There is only what is and what is not.

PlayaDelWes
12-07-2009, 10:21 AM
How is there nothing immoral about fast forwarding through commercials? People paid GOOD MONEY to have the audiences of that TV show see those ads. You OWE it to network to watch the ads they were paid to show you.

AGAIN: Now that you can fast forward through commercials, people pay LESS MONEY to have audiences of that TV show see those ads. The network now has cluttered thier schedule with shitty reality TV shows (since they are not getting that other ad revenue) and programming with products in every scene. I don't OWE them shit.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Right, that's the manufacturer adapting to a new business model, the same way musicians are adapting by shifting their expectations of money-making to touring and merchandise.

Monklish
12-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Did you really not realize that I was being sarcastic, you dumb fuck?

lowfront
12-07-2009, 07:50 PM
Record Labels Face $60 Billion Damages for Pirating Artists

http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-face-60-billion-damages-for-pirating-artists-091207/

faxman75
12-07-2009, 08:19 PM
So I wonder how much the fines will be against the labels if they follow the fine model used against the Boston University doctoral student Joel Tenenbaum for illegally sharing 30 copyrighted songs. The judge affirmed that 675K verdict today. This should put the labels out of business but they have good lawyers so we'll see.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141914/Update_Judge_affirms_675k_verdict_in_RIAA_music_pi racy_case?taxonomyId=15

Leeartlee
12-08-2009, 06:59 AM
Record Labels Face $60 Billion Damages for Pirating Artists

http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-face-60-billion-damages-for-pirating-artists-091207/

Proving what we already know: Record labels suck

Distorted_Jungle
12-08-2009, 07:07 AM
So I wonder how much the fines will be against the labels if they follow the fine model used against the Boston University doctoral student Joel Tenenbaum for illegally sharing 30 copyrighted songs. The judge affirmed that 675K verdict today. This should put the labels out of business but they have good lawyers so we'll see.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141914/Update_Judge_affirms_675k_verdict_in_RIAA_music_pi racy_case?taxonomyId=15


I'm sure we all heard about this lady correct? fined $1.9 million for downloading music.

http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-downloading-24-songs/

malcolmjamalawesome
12-08-2009, 11:53 AM
Mission accomplished. This thread has scared me off of downloading.

Leeartlee
12-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Surly not porn though

marooko
11-25-2011, 06:49 PM
Not this site in particular, but maybe: What's the deal with torrent sites going to shit? Poor quality uploads, little to no seeders, crap formats, web releases. Just turning to shit.

Sleepingrock
11-25-2011, 08:17 PM
Cause you are using public trackers. I would say the general public doesn't give a shit about quality, seeding, or media it was used from. I once told my manager about ? and I said only quality uploads were allowed and his response was "Oh like 198 kilobytes per sec". The general population doesn't know, or care to know the basics to quality music.

marooko
11-25-2011, 08:51 PM
You're assuming.

I haven't used a public tracker in years. ? is one of the trackers I was referring to, they have an S-ton of "web" uploads. It use to be that if it was freely available you wouldn't see it on there. Now it's a totally different story. AAC or whatever it is, and VB are an all too common find on there nowadays. FLAC has been all but replaced by these kinds of ups. Been a member for ages and its gone through some changes. I seed what I snag now and always have, but my uploads and other snatches were lost on a trashed HDD.

I haven't upped anything myself in a long while, so maybe I don't have much room to talk. But I do seed until the torrent is either removed or I lose it on a crashed drive.

I downloaded "The Walking Dead" off another private tracker I'm a member of and I almost couldn't even watch it the quality was so poor.

wmgaretjax
11-25-2011, 09:04 PM
i'm not really sure what your complaint is... V0 uploads have virtually replaced the lower quality 192 and V2 that were the norm in the past... Perfect FLACs are more prevalent then ever... The existence of WEB uploads signifies two things: 1) the surge of releases available through digital storefronts 2) recognition by the staff that ? serves an archival purpose that should necessarily include freely available releases. What, in your opinion, is missing?

as far as video trackers, most trackers have standard and HD duplicates of any popular recent releases...

marooko
11-26-2011, 12:01 AM
It just seems the last couple times I looked for something on ?, I wasn't able to find it in a preferred format. Never use to be the case. Preference being the key word, was still able to find most things.

Sleepingrock
11-26-2011, 12:05 AM
As in you couldn't find a 100% log/cue FLAC? If it is something you could transcode then just transcode it, fool. But I understand it is annoying to see a cd upload in v2 but not any other format.

marooko
11-26-2011, 12:07 AM
But I understand it is annoying to see a cd upload in v2 but not any other format.

This is probably the biggest gripe.

This has also been much more a vent than a complaint. I am thankful to be a part of these places and will continue to participate.

wmgaretjax
11-26-2011, 12:57 AM
Typically, if you see a V2 alone... it's probably a vinyl-only release that is a relic of when the scene used V2 as standard....

shotglass75
11-26-2011, 10:56 AM
Man, I was bored when I started this thread 2 years ago.

Sleepingrock
11-26-2011, 12:35 PM
This is probably the biggest gripe.

This has also been much more a vent than a complaint. I am thankful to be a part of these places and will continue to participate.

How often do you find v2s only? You should check the dates of all those, I doubt they are new. I wish everything was perfect FLAC, but normally if I see something that is one format it is mp3 320 which I have not complaints with. I don't use FLAC, but I am find with transcoding to the perfect 3.

marooko
01-25-2012, 01:39 PM
I'm looking for an ebook pertaining to a certain program. Any good trackers focusing in this area?