To all MP3 sharers

starkey · Post by **starkey** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:30 am

Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?

tomb6000 · Post by **tomb6000** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:17 am

Shonky wrote:Think the cost of lawyers actually makes suing small labels economically pointless for uncleared samples.

This having been said - what's the betting that the repress of South London boroughs'll have the Michael Jackson sample removed from Nite Train. Mind you, I suppose he needs all the moolah he can get these days.

gridgh0st · Post by **gridgh0st** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:18 am

forensix wrote:x2

theres no point in taking away the little money there is in the scene

the more people buy stuff legally the more releases there will be, and the greater the chance for new artists to come through, keeping the scene fresh, i know people have differing views on this but if you wanna hear new tunes go to barefiles get a mix and listen to that, dont just happily download them for free, it takes a lot of hard work to produce a tune and its pretty demoralising having them given away for nowt

What about the argument that it serves to "advertise" for a certain artist ... Although a group of 10 people recieve the MP3's they each show 2 people who show 2 people and so on ...

I know personally from my group of friends about 25 percent of them are into file sharing on the net and the rest hit the record store or get their friends to burn them a copy.

Just a thought...

gridgh0st · Post by **gridgh0st** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:21 am

starkey wrote:Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?

drbluebeat · Post by **drbluebeat** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:41 am

^^

That joke above is hysterical!

Seriously, please, I can't believe I have to have this conversation again. This issue divides people like arguing about the Palestine / Israel conflict. People have a position (share/don't share) and they are unlikely to change their mind through debate, but they might.

Again:

I am old enough to remember the "home taping will kill the music industry" message that was pushed in the 70's and turned out to be bollocks, all of us home tapers turned out to be the next generation of music buyers.

Then there was "video recorders will be the death of the film industry" another pile of old bollocks.

Then a long came Napster and everyone started saying "file sharing will kill the music industry" and now we have the RIAA criminalising children for downloading music. In-f***ing-credible.

I believe it can be proven that filesharing increases sales of singles and albums. Twice in recent years large comemrical albums (U2 and Madonna) have been leaked resulting in first a press release saying "see, this is going to kill us all and steal our money" and secondly the statistics proving that the albums sold stronger than expected due to the wider exposure of filesharing.

Salient points:

If someone downloads a track with no intention of buying it later (if they like it) were they ever going to buy the track? If not seeing as no physical product has been stolen no money has been lost and no money would have been generated anyway.

Like many others I found dubstep by accident through downloading grime mixes and singles from eMule as it was incredibly hard to get vinyl or mp3. In the mix of tracks that came down I found some containg the phrase "Dubstep". Entering that as search term led me to the front door of the Dubstep scene frothing at the mouth with excitement.

Luke/Skream/DMZ - I have downloaded many of your tracks from eMule but you know what? Not only I do have nearly every track that is on DMZ/Road I also have a growing number of them on vinyl cos mp3's are shit. The reason I use eMule is so I get tracks when they are hot as soon as I have the chance I buy them (if I like them).

What I do understand is that producers are upset because they give people high quality mp3's and ask them not to share them which they then do. I understand and agree with people being upset by this.

Piracy is different to filesharing - piracy is people stealing your money, filesharing is doing for free what a million pound marketing campaign could not - getting your music heard by the world.

Caveats:

If a producer gave me atrack with an undertaking not to share it I wouldn't and that's just manners.

I don't personally share bought music, so none of my Bleep mp3's are shared.

I am a consumer, a punter, I buy your tracks, it is unlikely I would have ever heard of you or some of your tracks if it wasn't for filesharing.

My opinion and experience, others may differ or disagree.

deapoh · Post by **deapoh** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:51 am

hahha man this topics gone wild.. I think everyones expressed there views. This is an endless debate of wether it's good or not. In many aspects it is but there are many negative ones that crop up.

Respect to the posters for expressing your views. It's opened my mind up and made me understand music a bit better

... Having said that can someone lock the topic?

ifp · Post by **ifp** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:54 am

Deapoh wrote:... Having said that can someone lock the topic?

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:36 am

drbluebeat wrote:I believe it can be proven that filesharing increases sales of singles and albums. Twice in recent years large comemrical albums (U2 and Madonna) have been leaked resulting in first a press release saying "see, this is going to kill us all and steal our money) and secondly the statistics proving that the albums sold stronger than expected due to the wider exposure of filesharing.

Those statistics are based on mass marketed barcoded music. You can't apply any of those statistics to our scene, because we don't have any centralized purchase system that major outlets like hmv and virgin mega have. 12" sales are not tabulated, and mp3 sales are so spread out between all the sites that it's very unlikely you could ever get accurate stats about sales. bottom line is, these pro filesharing theories mean nothing to a scene like ours where no ones making a living. ask britney spears if she gives a shit about slsk, and she'd probably laugh. ask goldie, kode 9 or paul rose about slsk, and i'm sure you'd hear some curse words.

dubweiser · Post by **dubweiser** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:39 am

gridGh0st wrote:
starkey wrote:Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?

LOL

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:40 am

Deapoh wrote:hahha man this topics gone wild.. I think everyones expressed there views. This is an endless debate of wether it's good or not. In many aspects it is but there are many negative ones that crop up.

again, big up for speaking your mind bro.

andythetwig · Post by **andythetwig** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:55 am

drbluebeat wrote:My opinion and experience, others may differ or disagree.

i agree wholeheartedly! the pro-digital side nicely put.

the outcome is inevitable, whatever vinyl-only purists say, music cannot survive on plastic alone.

Big love to vinyl though! long may it continue being the dubstep dj's format of choice!

drbluebeat · Post by **drbluebeat** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:23 am

seckle wrote:Those statistics are based on mass marketed barcoded music. You can't apply any of those statistics to our scene, because we don't have any centralized purchase system that major outlets like hmv and virgin mega have. 12" sales are not tabulated, and mp3 sales are so spread out between all the sites that it's very unlikely you could ever get accurate stats about sales. bottom line is, these pro filesharing theories mean nothing to a scene like ours where no ones making a living. ask britney spears if she gives a shit about slsk, and she'd probably laugh. ask goldie, kode 9 or paul rose about slsk, and i'm sure you'd hear some curse words.

An intelligent response but Madonna and Eminem as well as some other "comercial" artist have come out against file sharing and I beleive contrary to you that Dubstep is *more* likely to benefit from filesharing as unlike Madonna you don't have a huge marketing budget and Radio 1 playlisting for your tracks so eMule et al is your marketing tool. Arctic Monkeys gave away all their music and look what happened?

Out of respect for the scene and the producers I do not share any of my (legal) Dubstep mp3s but I happen to believe this is to the detriment of the scene and their pockets.

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:28 am

drbluebeat wrote:Dubstep is *more* likely to benefit from filesharing as unlike Madonna you don't have a huge marketing budget and Radio 1 playlisting for your tracks

why do you think mixes and shows are recorded and put on servers week in and week out? this scene promotes itself very well. shows like the breezeblock have done more for our scene in two shows than anything slsk could ever do. sorry but i don't subscribe to theories about why stealing is helping.

mr. messer · Post by **mr. messer** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:31 am

dubweiser wrote:
gridGh0st wrote:
starkey wrote:Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?

LOL

hehehehehehehehehehheeeee
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

LOLZ

LOLLERZ

lolzy! lolzy wollerz!

top notch fellas! really smAcked it

threnody · Post by **threnody** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:10 pm

starkey wrote:Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?

Spot on. Music made by pirates for pirates (and played on the pirates). At the end of the day software is fucking cheap really. You can get fruity for less than a half oz so if anyone is serious and wants to make money from their music they shouldn't rip off the developers in the first place. Biting the hand that feeds them.

starkey · Post by **starkey** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:46 pm

threnody wrote:
starkey wrote:Is file sharing ok if the track was made on a pirate version of FruityLoops?
Spot on. Music made by pirates for pirates (and played on the pirates). At the end of the day software is fucking cheap really. You can get fruity for less than a half oz so if anyone is serious and wants to make money from their music they shouldn't rip off the developers in the first place. Biting the hand that feeds them.

haha. i didn't know my late night (somewhat drunk) post would be dubstep forum joke of the day.

It just goes back to the idea of putting a face on who you're stealing from. If you're stealing from "the man" ....some people are more acceptable to it. But, if you're stealing from an artist or a person it's not acceptable. ex.) Stealing from Sainsbury's vs stealing from Old Man Hubbard's corner store and deli.

I feel as though file sharing is just an inevitable demon/promotion tool at the same time. It all depends on who is doing the sharing and receiving. When Napster was big (like 7-8 years ago), I was a freshman in college. I was all over that. All I did in my free time was download music and play Mario Kart.

But..... I find that now, whenever I have the inclination to see what's available out there I'm always dissapointed. It's like that one post that Luke Envoy (i think it was him) had, where he was pissed that someone was sharing the recorded myspace streams of his tracks. I could understand if you really loved a track and couldn't wait for it to come out and had to continuously go to that artist's myspace page and listen to the tracks..... but do you really need to record that god awful sounding stream? haha..... is that necessary?

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:25 pm

i agree with what's been said by the majority in this thread, and much prefer listening to sets than individual tunes anyway, but

Basically he said if you share Hip Hop it might be one less swimming pool for the artist where as in Grime & Dubstep it's a difference between continuing the music they love and getting a day job.

that's a pretty shit stance to take. does that mean it's okay for me to rob from a rich man but not from someone who isn't? you can't download films or 'commercial' music and yet at the same time condemn downloading of more 'underground' material.

i can see why you'd feel that way, though. internet piracy's killed the singles chart, that much is for certain, and dance genres are much more reliant on singles sales than other sort of music, but that doesn't legitimise the piracy of these other genres. i don't agree with downloading dubstep tunes, but i can't bring myself to condemn it because i don't think i've paid for a dvd for about 2 years. although that was mainly because i was a scummy skint student.

and starkey's said all of that far more eloquently than i managed, so ignore this post!

sybian · Post by **sybian** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:14 pm

A dance artist,non talkin about mainstream shit,or HOUSE or stuff like that,will ever get rich selling his singles?or he will earn money by touring and djing?

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:18 pm

will ever get rich selling his singles?

no. but the money from singles on vinyl will be the only form of income he'll receive from his music until he's made a name for himself.

sybian · Post by **sybian** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:25 pm

ok...wrong me.didn't mean get rich...srry

....

but you ALLSO can get a good name by plaiyng out,sharing your dubs,letting people and "names" know you.and eventually have gigs outside your place and so on..

Just my little opinion

To all MP3 sharers

Who is online