Soulseek

diss04 · Post by **diss04** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:37 pm

Adikt wrote:shouldnt we be encouraging RESPONSIBLE file sharing, rather than saying all sharing is bad?

I mean complete prohibition didnt work on any drug, ever...drinking...sex...music...
why would we think that would work with filesharing?

rather than saying all sharing is bad, mmkay...we should be saying Share everything you ever hear, but SUPPORT it if you like it, and if you dont, get rid of it. That is responsible sharing. Using it to find new music, not to find all the music your friend has but for free. Now would this stop all negative filesharing? no, but i think in the long term it would pretty much disintegrate the actual issue that most seem to have with it. I give all my live music away for free. If someone wants to give me money for a 2nd copy of the cd or even just admission to one of my shows, then we are all equal in my eyes.

bottom line: support & there will be no problems. peace.

I <3 Soulseek

properauthority · Post by **properauthority** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:51 pm

I am a dedicated DJ so I spend my hard earned cash (and too much of it) on vinyl, label merchandise, and cover-charges to parties. I simply asked in the original post if anyone would like to share some tracks and expand both mine and their's musical horizons and I'm told to fuck off. Good to know such a small scene is so welcoming of relative newcomers! [/sarcasm]

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:05 pm

properauthority wrote:I am a dedicated DJ so I spend my hard earned cash (and too much of it) on vinyl, label merchandise, and cover-charges to parties. I simply asked in the original post if anyone would like to share some tracks and expand both mine and their's musical horizons and I'm told to fuck off. Good to know such a small scene is so welcoming of relative newcomers! [/sarcasm]

I think some people on here see 'filesharing' and instantly go for the original poster. I see your point mate, and fair play. However, not all people that use such filesharing services put as much into the scene as you appear to, and it is these people who are often at the forefront of people's minds when the word filesharing is read.

There's a few threads - tune of the day, recommend me an album etc that can help point you in new musical directions, without the mention of filesharing.

Hope that helps!

jackieboi · Post by **jackieboi** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:32 pm

Hmmm. I strongly believe if it wasnt for filesharing dubstep wouldnt be anywhere near as widespread as it is. some of the elitist wanks who think that it should be contained and shouldnt be as widespread as it is might think this would be a good thing but i think they can suck my cock and stop being such tossers.

Fair do's it does mean people are less likely to pay for the music, not everyone though - lots of people as you said will download it to listen to it then pay for it. However with so many people downloading tunes for free people are getting exposed to so much new music - people going to see live music (including seeing dj's in a club) is massively on the up!!

Aside from that i think what makes me rofl is the fact that some people arent bothered too much that he was talking about file sharing, more that he "broke a forum rule" - what the fuck is this?? ITS AN INTERNET FORUM YOU SAD ACTS!!! GET A GRIP!!!

Pallms · Post by **Pallms** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:35 pm

deep topic.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:37 pm

i used to think filesharing was great promotion, i'm not so sure now

my brother downloads the amount of tunes from the internet, mostly dnb but he's started getting a fair bit of dubstep now too.

''blah blah if i like the tune that much, i'll buy it on vinyl"
errr no you wont. you've been battering those Rusko .mp3s on cd in your car for months now...and i'm the only one buying Rusko vinyl bro.

good enough to burn to cd but not good enough to pay for?
i dunno.

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:46 pm

show me an internet forum for underground music that has over 20,000 members that supports filesharing. i'd love to see it.
good luck on your quest. none of them do for a good reason. why? because you don't have to be a fucking rocket scientist to understand that its a conflict of interest. this site from day one has been supporting labels, label owners, producers and their uphill battle at trying to at least break even in the support of their creative efforts. break even FFS!

whether or not filesharing is good, bad, hypocrisy or the way of the future is totally irrelevant to the fact that this site has rules that you have to follow. you don't have to like the rules, and if its going to really ruin your day by not being able to fileshare on this forum, then go get some tissues and cry.

diss04 · Post by **diss04** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:52 pm

so peoples main problem with filesharing is that the money ain't going to the artist but ain't that the same when you buy a second hand vinyl?

datura · Post by **datura** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 pm

Diss04 wrote:so peoples main problem with filesharing is that the money ain't going to the artist but ain't that the same when you buy a second hand vinyl?

One person can rip one record and share it to thousands. You can buy a record, then sell it, but at least it is only going to a few people. Normally people only look at 2nd hand records if the original is sold out also.

Your argument is weak you filesharing, terrorist supporting scum!

seckle · Post by **seckle** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:11 pm

no, peoples main problem is that for the most part, producing and making music in the start is nothing but straight losses. getting a 12" made and put into a distribution system can cost anywhere from £800 to £1500 out of pocket (depending on different factors). people don't put in that much graft and that much coin, to not even try and make a little money back. i talk to a lot of different label owners that have said to me privately that the p2p thing is a nightmare and that most of them get completely fucked off when they have their tracks being shared, but you'll never see them come on here and discuss it because it's like pouring oil on a fucking forest fire.

diss04 · Post by **diss04** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:18 pm

datura wrote:
Diss04 wrote:so peoples main problem with filesharing is that the money ain't going to the artist but ain't that the same when you buy a second hand vinyl?
One person can rip one record and share it to thousands. You can buy a record, then sell it, but at least it is only going to a few people. Normally people only look at 2nd hand records if the original is sold out also.

Your argument is weak you filesharing, terrorist supporting scum!

I seem to have been rumbled

dopedragon · Post by **dopedragon** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:26 pm

all this talk about filesharing=exposure for the scene is

there are plenty of free/legit mixes hosted online for that very reason, and the tunes being played are much fresher than anything you'll find as an illegal rip.

when i first started here it was mostly to ID tunes from rinse mixes so i could learn more about the music...call me oldskool for actually puttin in some work.

i cant even listen to most dance music without skipping through unless its mixed. so, i don't understand how the average, uninitiated ears are supposed to get much out of individual tracks that have been ripped while played on an ipod or shtty computer speakers.

ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, i just assume anyone ripping tunes is a scurvy, degenerate pirate doing so with the intention of mixing ill-gotten music without paying any dues.

spooKs · Post by **spooKs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:56 pm

dopedragon wrote:i just assume anyone ripping tunes is a scurvy, degenerate pirate doing so with the intention of mixing ill-gotten music without paying any dues.

Well vinyl rips are never anything over 192kbit kind of quality, so not really mixable pal.

dopedragon wrote:i cant even listen to most dance music without skipping through unless its mixed.

That just suggests you're not listening to very good music.

EDIT: And as an afterthought, why would someone rip a record "with the intention of mixing ill-gotten music" - they have to have the record in order to rip it?

surface_tension · Post by **surface_tension** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:03 pm

If I put out 2000 dollars of my own money to release some vinyl, and someone takes that product and puts it online, understand that break even points for Dubstep vinyl are like 350-400 or so records.

Most labels will not sell that. Most labels will not break even at all. That used to be a determining factor in who was releasing good tunes or not. Good tunes used to sell out and repress. Now good tunes are lucky to break even. Most of them don't.

So next time you think you are doing us a favor by stealing from us, the artists, the distributors and even your fellow fans who may not get another release from this label or that label who is putting out FIRE tunes... do us a favor, and don't do us any "favors" by sharing our tunes. If you feel so strongly, grab the vinyl and let your mate borrow that. Buy 2 copies of the MP3 and give it to your mate. Otherwise, you are the problem. Our intended audience doesn't include file thieves. If you are one, you have absolutely no license to hear, play, promote, or otherwise perform our tunes.

You are trying to put out a fire with gasoline when you say you are helping by causing more headaches for the labels. We're not Warner, we're not MCA... we're NOT EMI... don't be a douche.

dopedragon · Post by **dopedragon** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:24 pm

spooKs wrote:
dopedragon wrote:i just assume anyone ripping tunes is a scurvy, degenerate pirate doing so with the intention of mixing ill-gotten music without paying any dues.
Well vinyl rips are never anything over 192kbit kind of quality, so not really mixable pal.

I've seen 320's about - this just suggests you're not very good at the internet

spooKs wrote:
dopedragon wrote:i cant even listen to most dance music without skipping through unless its mixed.
That just suggests you're not listening to very good music.

No - notice the use of the word "most" and "dance music". actually i just think that most dance tracks are made to work in a mix, and very few ever attain timeless mention of being an actual song. eg. i have crates upon crates of records that i used to love/mix ten years ago, but only 2% would i still like to hear on its own, in its entirety.

spooKs wrote:EDIT: And as an afterthought, why would someone rip a record "with the intention of mixing ill-gotten music" - they have to have the record in order to rip it?

i am using the word "rip" to mean stealing, ie. ripping off the interweb.

abs · Post by **abs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:45 pm

If I really really really like something enough i'll buy it, and I do support some artists, but I actually can't afford to pay for the amount of music I want to listen to, so if I just so happen to see something I like on rapidshare or soulseek I will download it, I know it's wrong and damages the labels and artists, but at the end of the day i'll go insane if I know some banging tunes are just a few clicks away and i can't get them because I should be paying.

One day, when i'm rich i'll distribute loads of cash back into the scene.

__________ · Post by **__________** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:49 pm

Abs wrote:One day, when i'm rich i'll distribute loads of cash back into the scene.

oh yeah?
i reckon one day, when you're rich, you'll buy loads of coke.

jackieboi · Post by **jackieboi** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:57 pm

Abs wrote:If I really really really like something enough i'll buy it, and I do support some artists, but I actually can't afford to pay for the amount of music I want to listen to, so if I just so happen to see something I like on rapidshare or soulseek I will download it, I know it's wrong and damages the labels and artists, but at the end of the day i'll go insane if I know some banging tunes are just a few clicks away and i can't get them because I should be paying.

One day, when i'm rich i'll distribute loads of cash back into the scene.

x 2

abs · Post by **abs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:00 pm

£10 Bag wrote:
Abs wrote:One day, when i'm rich i'll distribute loads of cash back into the scene.
oh yeah?
i reckon one day, when you're rich, you'll buy loads of coke.

yeah i'll probably just buy a kilo of coke actually, start listening to loads of durrty southern hip hop and forget about dubstep.. i might pay for a hitman to kill all the big djs in the scene aswell, kill it off for good.

eventualdecline · Post by **eventualdecline** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:51 pm

I find it quite funny the swing of the general consensus on file sharing. Five to ten years ago you'd find that the majority of internet users clued up on file sharing were pro, now today it's against. I think this stems from the brain washing of the MPAA/RIAA/Greedy underground producers/etc... I'd be interested to see how many producers clear 100% of their samples? Pay for 100% of their software? What about graphic designers paying for 100% of their source photography? 100% of their fonts? Their £1,500 copy of photoshop? That copy of XP/Vista that runs on their computer?

Contrast this with the fact that there have been competing reports that support just about every view on file sharing, pro and against. Why is this? Probably because no one really has a clue about the impact of filesharing. I just find it disturbing that so many people have changed their stance because big business has dictated how you're supposed to think.... but fuck it, it's all about scraping every last cent from society while you claim to be underground, right?

Soulseek

Who is online