Threads regarding torrents and filesharing.

debate, appreciation, interviews, reviews (events or releases), videos, radio shows
two
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:22 pm

Post by two » Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:57 am

To be clear. As forums go this one is pretty open. There are a few things that are asked of its users with respect to behavior. Why this thread would ever turn into some drawn out discussion on society, mores and who is in control says volumes about wealth of armchair indignation and discourse on the web. Not everything is oppression; simple respect for the rules is what's asked. Most would think that's a small request for free use of this resource not the rise of fascism or suppressed speech.

User avatar
djshiva
Posts: 4933
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:13 pm
Location: aka sapphic_beats Indianaptizzle, IN USA
Contact:

Post by djshiva » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:29 am

two wrote:To be clear. As forums go this one is pretty open. There are a few things that are asked of its users with respect to behavior. Why this thread would ever turn into some drawn out discussion on society, mores and who is in control says volumes about wealth of armchair indignation and discourse on the web. Not everything is oppression; simple respect for the rules is what's asked. Most would think that's a small request for free use of this resource not the rise of fascism or suppressed speech.
god forbid anyone want to stretch their gourd just for the sake of using it for more than a hat rack...

i have been asking questions for the sake of discussion because the deletion of deapoh's thread sparked a train of thought in my head. i wouldn't call that armchair indignation so much as a general interest in the topics i have brought up. the deletion was a catalyst. get me?
Here, have a free tune:
Soundcloud

shonky
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:31 pm

Post by shonky » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:36 am

On a slightly different tack, how many producers that are complaining about files getting leaked are also using uncleared samples?

Seems to be a great level of indignation on one part and then fair game on the other (don't think this is the case with the Bare Dubs tunes to be fair) - bit like the burglar complaining that someone's turned his flat over isn't it?

I'll generally be buying the tunes on vinyl anyway, and I don't use filesharing stuff anymore, as I realised that for all that music you like, you're unlikely to hear any more if the record doesn't sell. MP3's can be copied exactly though, with all the artwork and other info so it's inevitable that people are going to look at what they can buy and what they can get for free and realise it's the exact same thing. Really down to peoples' ethics isn't it
Hmm....

Image

User avatar
cogent
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Northants, UK
Contact:

Post by cogent » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:55 am

I cannot believe Deaps recent thread has been deleted...

Ok rules are rules, but when the thread starts to become constructive about how we as music makers can try to stamp it out and just air our views on it..it NEEDS to remain...

Who is actually making the decisions? - Is this one person? Cos if you read the general feelings us forum users have on deleting threads you'll find it fucks a lot of us off and we don't agree... Is a forum not about freedom of speech? within reason.

Fair play for the recent banning, i can see your point on that but deleting threads is not what the forum users want... maybe you do Mr oversensitive delete key user, but WE want to be able to come on here and say what we feel... FFS..

I think using pirate software or uncleared samples is irrelevant to what the thread was about... Which was..If you pay to download a track - don't fucking share it.. and more importantly, if a producer installs trust in you by giving you their latest piece of work have some fucking respect and keep it for yourself...

dusty
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:47 pm
Location: Sunny Dorset
Contact:

Post by dusty » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:49 am

I think the thread deletion was reasonable. Although in that instance, perhaps we could have got away with the initial post being edited to remove the sensitive info?

User avatar
dubway
Admin
Posts: 3089
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:30 pm

Post by dubway » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:08 am

i see your points here..
i'll see what we can do...

User avatar
d-range
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: steppin' international

Post by d-range » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:14 am

blah blah blah


bigup the deletion crew!

User avatar
d-range
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: steppin' international

Post by d-range » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:17 am

and bigup everyone running illegal copies of windows!

respect to everyone with a stolen copy of fruity loops, reason.. whatever production software you use.

safe as muck.

shonky
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:31 pm

Post by shonky » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:23 am

I don't think the sample clearance thing is totally irrelevant to the debate - there was one producer that was pissed off that his track had ended up in someone's possession that he hadn't passed it to but then noted that the entire hook of the tune had been robbed from another tune.

You can't be calling respect for producers on one hand and then robbing artists material with the other and it'd be hypocritical to think otherwise.

If you think of the amount of talented producers here, the amount of labels/money to put into releases, and the potential market of record buyers, the majority of producers aren't going to be making a living out of this anyway (a few hundred quid per release isn't something you're going to survive on for a few months is it). If I was going to buy every tune I liked that was put up for free on this forum, I wouldn't be able to eat.

I can understand it if it's a commercial release, or if it's exclusive dubs, but a lot of these tunes are given up as free 320's as standard, so there isn't really any obligation on the downloaders part to not share them - then again if the idea is to get the music out there and heard by as many people as possible, that's no bad thing.

The majority of producers are in it for the love not the money hopefully so this only affects the people that are looking to keep their tunes elitist or think that their tunes should only be enjoyed by paying customers. Unless someone's spent stupid money going into professional studios to cut a track, in which case it would at least be fair to see some compensation, the majority of this music is probably going to be made in home studios, with cracked software and lifted samples in people's free time and not as a day job.

Had a mate years back who had a breakbeat tune put on a Bedrock Breaks compilation - he got back £250 as total royalties for that and that was about a year after the album came out. Pretty sure those albums sell in the tens of thousands so I imagine dubstep would probably be substantially less lucrative. Heard that the going rate was £150 a track for 12" releases and that's probably dependent on the full press selling out.

Any fool knows that the real money's in dj'ing and live work and that work's more likely to roll in the more popular your tunes are which requires the most people to hear the music. If it's about the money, you're likely to make the same money for a gig or two as you would do for any release.

Then once you're getting gigs, you can keep all your good tunes for yourself to make sure you've got a unique selling point. :wink:
Hmm....

Image

User avatar
heva
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: LDN

Post by heva » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:26 am

scoz wrote:no offense intended to those who are 100% legit but

how many of the artists complaining about file sharing are using 100% legit software?

next, which do you think is worse, sharing music for no monetary gain or using illegitimate software for potential monetary gain?
yep, i do think this is a related point. i try to use and promote free and open source software, which is related to my view about filesharing.

i always get a little funny when i read threads with people complaining about this on here. as a pretty bottom-up, grassroots community, i think its odd to rely on the outdated/obsolete economic models of the mainstream music industry. we have the space between us to experiment with new ways to share music, television, film, software and new ways to attribute value to these things.

we can argue about the nuts and bolts of sharing dubs, or unreleased tracks, etc. etc. and those things *should* be hashed out, but i would love to see the arguments being made with a bit more innovative thinking rather than, as i say, relying on the crutch of a mainstream infrastructure that is all but irrelevant now. new projects like this one: https://copycan.org/ ('people club together to buy digital content that they can then copy as many times as they want') are maybe not at the stage yet where you might feel them relevant to you, but are definitely the direction i'd personally like to see things heading... at least for their effort in coming up with something new.

shonky
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:31 pm

Post by shonky » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:32 am

Yeah, that looks like a pretty interesting way of doing it Heva - well found :wink:

Certainly seems a far better way than keeping record label heads in coke and artists living on less than minimum wage anyway
Hmm....

Image

daf2
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:06 pm

Post by daf2 » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:43 am

was there ever a time when producers of non-mainstream music could make a living off their music? how big an impact has filesharing had on the smaller scenes?

User avatar
cogent
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Northants, UK
Contact:

Post by cogent » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:58 am

Use of sample and sofware is another debate and could have a thread started about it.

The geneal point we are trying to make here is..
Cogent wrote: If you pay to download a track - don't fucking share it.. and more importantly, if a producer installs trust in you by giving you their latest piece of work have some fucking respect and keep it for yourself...
If i hosted a free track on here i don't think i could complain if it ended up on p2p programs cos you've given it away free.

My point was when a discussion starts to become constructive about how we can combat our music being leaked, the thread needs to stay.

The majority of us do it for the love and when someone takes it on themselves to share YOUR work around, this is where it becomes a problem..

shonky
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:31 pm

Post by shonky » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:32 am

Like the use of the royal "we" there :wink:

In all honesty I don't think there's anything much that can be done - if someone betrays the trust of keeping an exclusive cut, it's like Pandora's Box - if it's out there it's out there. Unless there's some way of batch processing tunes with watermarks so you know exactly who's had which mp3 it's going to be a long and time consuming process (think I'm sending 320's out to about 30 different people at the moment and can figure this would take a long time for each tune).

Also, imprinting some noise via picture encryption would mean that the people you were trying to pass it to would have imperfect copies that they might not play (imagine a night of wierd little noises popping up in tunes for copyright purposes - can imagine it being a tad annoying for the crowd), it would have to be done well not to spoil the tune.

From what I can remember, most file sharing programmes have a shared folder that's open to anyone that wants it - might actually be far simpler to ask that people have a separate folder to put dubs received in away from the main folder that can't be accessed via the programme. As it is, I get the feeling that most people will probably immediately put these into their music folder and then forget that it's accessible to anyone that wants it. It would be quite easy to set Winamp or whatever media player to be able to play those tunes, but would then make it impossible for them to be downloaded by others.

Maybe it might be worth putting that idea up as a sticky as a code of conduct so that this doesn't happen by accident in future.

You still won't be able to do anything about people swapping tunes deliberately though
Hmm....

Image

User avatar
cogent
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Northants, UK
Contact:

Post by cogent » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:50 am

Shonky wrote:Like the use of the royal "we" there :wink:

In all honesty I don't think there's anything much that can be done - if someone betrays the trust of keeping an exclusive cut, it's like Pandora's Box - if it's out there it's out there. Unless there's some way of batch processing tunes with watermarks so you know exactly who's had which mp3 it's going to be a long and time consuming process (think I'm sending 320's out to about 30 different people at the moment and can figure this would take a long time for each tune).

Also, imprinting some noise via picture encryption would mean that the people you were trying to pass it to would have imperfect copies that they might not play (imagine a night of wierd little noises popping up in tunes for copyright purposes - can imagine it being a tad annoying for the crowd), it would have to be done well not to spoil the tune.

From what I can remember, most file sharing programmes have a shared folder that's open to anyone that wants it - might actually be far simpler to ask that people have a separate folder to put dubs received in away from the main folder that can't be accessed via the programme. As it is, I get the feeling that most people will probably immediately put these into their music folder and then forget that it's accessible to anyone that wants it. It would be quite easy to set Winamp or whatever media player to be able to play those tunes, but would then make it impossible for them to be downloaded by others.

Maybe it might be worth putting that idea up as a sticky as a code of conduct so that this doesn't happen by accident in future.

You still won't be able to do anything about people swapping tunes deliberately though
From this post i notice i'll never win, not that i'm in a competition with ya :D
Shonky wrote: You should just agree with me, it would make things a lot easier. I would say I have better things to do than argue all day but 3000+ posts indicates otherwise :D
Sorry about the royal we, but thats generally the feeling i get from speaking to other producers and reading the posts...

and if the original thread would have stayed up i'd have some more info on watermarking and this.. :wink:
Shonky wrote: Also, imprinting some noise via picture encryption would mean that the people you were trying to pass it to would have imperfect copies that they might not play (imagine a night of wierd little noises popping up in tunes for copyright purposes - can imagine it being a tad annoying for the crowd), it would have to be done well not to spoil the tune.
Last edited by cogent on Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

j_j
Permanent Vacation
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Post by j_j » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:55 am

two wrote:Why does having the thread stopped have to be more justified beyond the simple fact that some artists are torn, if not out right against having there music disseminated this way? The fact of the matter is that many musicians are on here and the giddy/greedy glee with which some people pirate and distribute their music can be offensive and is out of place on this forum as it currently stands. Without these people there would be nothing to talk about; respecting them by not rubbing such a highly contentious and personally frustrating issue in their face is not much to ask. No ones civil rights are being trampled and the sky will not fall if filesharing talk is omitted here. Any who want to discuss such things are free to do so on a host of other forums or better yet start your own.

deapoh
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:17 pm
Contact:

Post by deapoh » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:48 pm

sapphic_beats wrote:why exactly did it get deleted? i know it mentioned *coughsoulyouknowwhat*, but there was actually some interesting conversation goin' on in there.

is this is a community or a dictatorship? ok maybe i'm being a tad snarky, but damn...it's not like people who wanna share and steal files don't just have to google to find out how to do so.

i mean, this is the same kind of mentality that the right wing exhibits about sex ed. "if we TELL the kids that birth control exists, they will run out and have sex." meanwhile the kids are already doing it, and any informative dialogue is thrown out the window.

does anyone really think we are gonna stop filesharing by just not saying the actual names of sites? really? cuz frankly, i think that's ill-informed and intensely myopic.

if people cannot speak candidly on important topics without fear of some sort of retribution, then the community loses it's vitality and diversity.

and some may think i am making a big deal about nothing, but if we lost an entire discussion because the initial post mentioned a p2p by name? that just sucks. sorry.
Amen.

It's a bloody dictatorship and cencorship of free speech. I feel like I am supressed from airing my views and reasons in the public eye. Why must this whole world front and lie about shit thats bothering you? I notice it in every day life. You can't say what you think and feel in case you offend someone... truth hurts people.


Shonky wrote:but a lot of these tunes are given up as free 320's as standard, so there isn't really any obligation on the downloaders part to not share them - then again if the idea is to get the music out there and heard by as many people as possible, that's no bad thing.
Bare Dubs 001 was not uploaded at all and is not available via mp3 yet so what you're saying is absolute bollocks, especially in Ramadanmans case as his tracks are mp3 only, sharing is just killing what he's tried to do. And no it's not a bad thing that many more people get to hear the music and yes thats my intension, not by illegal means however, and theres always myspace you can listen to the tunes on.






I have broken the 3 rules about piracy:
seckle wrote:-names of releases available on specifically named networks.
-discussions of rooms, or forums where tunes can be found.
-names of tune ripping groups.
So BAN me.
Image

pangaea
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:31 pm
Contact:

Post by pangaea » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:18 pm

Artists who use cracked software and plugins aren't showing much respect to their developers, and therefore such people haven't the right to feel put out when their tunes, built from all this stuff, appear on the internet. Glass houses, etc etc etc etc. Discuss.

That's the moral side of the argument anyway. The other side is that the DJ/producer network is built on trust and invariably, someone is going to betray that trust...so if you're worried about it, watermark the tracks.

User avatar
the wiggle baron
Posts: 5420
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Oxford

Post by the wiggle baron » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:24 pm

I think that unfortunately some people are missing the point here that while you are right in that what people have said is being censored or removed, which is not freedom of speech at all, this place isnt our "free country", in effect this place belongs to the people who run it, and if they banned the word "fridge", it wouldnt make sense either, but they are the authorities and if its what they say then unfortunately I dont think anyone really has a leg to stand on.

Im sure the admin agree whole heartedly with how you feel especially Deapoh, but they want to try to remove this forum from those kind of problems, or something along those lines.
Saturday nights 7-9pm GMT - Wiggle Baron @ SubFM!

Radio archive: http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=60164.html
Mixes: http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=63354
Electronic Explorations 035
Deeper Mix
Bad Mood Dub
2hr Classics Selection

shonky
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:31 pm

Post by shonky » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:27 pm

Deapoh wrote:
Shonky wrote:but a lot of these tunes are given up as free 320's as standard, so there isn't really any obligation on the downloaders part to not share them - then again if the idea is to get the music out there and heard by as many people as possible, that's no bad thing.
Bare Dubs 001 was not uploaded at all and is not available via mp3 yet so what you're saying is absolute bollocks, especially in Ramadanmans case as his tracks are mp3 only, sharing is just killing what he's tried to do. And no it's not a bad thing that many more people get to hear the music and yes thats my intension, not by illegal means however, and theres always myspace you can listen to the tunes on.
Calm down, I was referring to free 320's given out on the forum to anyone that wants them, which are pretty much public domain - a producer that gives a link and says help yourself style. That's way different to someone sending 320's to particular dj's and then finding them surfacing or mp3's being commercially bought and then being redistributed by filesharing - that's a completely different matter and one that causes major grief for producers and labels that have put the effort in.

I can't remember the situation from the original post as, like you say, it's been deleted but I thought it was about Bare Dubs tunes being uploaded on to a file-sharing network and you not being happy about it.

Also there's no need to kick off about censorship and all this police state business - although we're fully aware of where we could go to get freebies, I can understand why it's best not to advertise this fact. If Dubway has to make revenue from label-related advertising in future, having someone tell where you can nab that stuff for nothing is going to jeopardize that and then...no more forum.

And don't get yourself banned bruv, we need your forthright opinions - do check what's being said before you go off on one though yeah :wink:
Hmm....

Image

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 85 guests