Dubstepforum.com

odd this thread appeared when I was about to go look for it! maybe some of you guys could shed some light on this, i am trying to by dark sky's remix of bombay bicycle club, but it's only available for legal purchase in the UK due to copyrights. since i am in the states i can't find a place that will allow me to purchase it here. any of you have suggestions?

it's to do with publishing/licensing, he won't have rights for the US probably.
if you have paypal i'll buy it for you, send you the songs, but i expect you to reimburse me.

seckle wrote: listen on DSF or listen on youtube on your own? yes, DSF bans youtube collections, chiefly because we've had labels and producers come at us over the years complaining that these channels are getting adsense money off their hard work! youtube collection channels and their motivations to collect huge archives of tunes is shady at best, when they run adsense on each video. again, its entitlement.

your argument here is silly, as jazz lick is on youtube right now. you can hear the entire tune. its a classic that is worth the money tracking down on vinyl. Are you going to now argue that Loefah's not going to get the money if you buy it on discogs? i love that one too.

how many hoops do people need to jump through to prove to the world that their hard drive collection is more important than supporting the community financially?

Legally was the key word. My point is that the tune's presence on youtube is only because of the collection channels you just called out, and I as a buyer would have no knowledge of how good the tune is to begin with.

you going to now argue that Loefah's not going to get the money if you buy it on discogs? i love that one too.

This is entirely true though. The big argument in favor of buying tunes is to support the artist and the label. Buying secondhand does neither, and in the case of Jazz Lick, is impossible to do at all.
Seeing as the cheapest price for the EP on Discogs is $450 from someone who hasn't even listened to the music, why shouldn't someone pirate as opposed to enabling people to make money off the backs of other peoples' work?
The options here are:
-listen to the tune on youtube (giving adsense money to profiteering stnuc)
-buy the tune on vinyl (giving my hard earned money to a profiteering tnuc, unless you think $450 is a reasonable price for a 12")
-download the tune (giving no money to anyone)

I'd prefer the lesser of the three evils. And for the record, I haven't even downloaded the tune.

EDIT: This point kinda ties in to my dislike for limited run vinyl-only releases, which should probably be saved for another thread.

collige wrote: EDIT: This point kinda ties in to my dislike for limited run vinyl-only release, which should probably be saved for another thread.

you'd probably fuckign hate me then

edit esfyandr, i would say send me some dollars in an envelope but it would probs get lost.
i mean i could just send you the songs... but then that would be naughty.

or maybe that's what this thread needs
i could record it and put the video on youtube, illegal downloading in action.

add some police sirens and get my mate to roleplay the RIAA version of chris hansen

wearecorsairs wrote:it's to do with publishing/licensing, he won't have rights for the US probably.
if you have paypal i'll buy it for you, send you the songs, but i expect you to reimburse me.

i know its 2012, but i still do not use paypal

i buy all my cheese.
When people say they support the artist By buying der music is all good but going to their events earns them more because everyone is downloading music illegally.
Thats why Events are double as much as they were back when digital didnt rule the world.

collige wrote:My point is that the tune's presence on youtube is only because of the collection channels you just called out, and I as a buyer would have no knowledge of how good the tune is to begin with.

don't put the two issues together. DSF doesn't allow youtube channels to solicit for subscribers or promote. that doesn't mean that you can't post individual videos. we're trying to stop the most obvious piss taking and that is these channels seeking subscriptions, which means they are on adsense, because otherwise, they wouldn't be fishing for new people to join. adsense rules stipulate that the more subscribers you have the greater your revenue, once you have global traffic, as your channel in effect becomes influential. <--this is what we don't allow. this tune would be uploaded by someone eventually, as its one of the most vinyl only coveted releases in dubstep. very collectable.

the main point is that you can hear the whole tune, figure out if you want to buy it, without having to pirate it, all on youtube at your leisure without effort. you're defending your entitlement to the tune, on a bed of hot air. regardless of the cost of the vinyl, whether or not the label get's the money, or whether or not you're a DJ, the tune isn't your property until you've got the vinyl in your hands.

Regardless of DSF's policy and and how many followers the channel has, uploading a tune to youtube is still a form of piracy and I'm confused as to why that's a lesser crime than downloading it. Either way, I can still listen to the entire tune without benefiting the artist, just one way I don't have to listen to it in shit quality.

The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

if it wasn't for torrents and mp3 converters i wouldn't know proper dub. But I'm redeeming myself by spending every penny on Boomkat.

n1 collige

collige wrote: The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

garethom wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread, but I definitely don't agree with playing pirated stuff out, moreso if you're getting paid for it! There's pirating stuff for home listening, then there's pirating stuff and making money off the back of it.

I've never made much money DJing, sometimes $40 after a gig, but for the most part I enjoy doing it and never expect to get paid. Considering the shit storm that is so called "Dubstep" these days, why would I feel anything but awesome knowing I made the crowd grind to "Ruff House" over the weekend. Many DJs play brostep, and get paid for it, I don't play that shit, most of my set is on vinyl anyways, because it simply sounds better, and when you own something on wax, you can really fall in love with it, a different sort of romance from the digital. But I bought a Pioneer CDJ and totally plan to put it to good use with fresh tracks that I dig for digitally. Piracy and Copyright infridgment are both arguments for yesteryear, It's impossible to regulate and enforce any rules digitally, that's the beauty of the culture, any kid with a nack for launching clips can DJ sick tunes with the power of information technology "NO ONE GETS TO VOTE ON WETHER OR NOT TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO CHANGE OUR LIVES" - Bill Gates The only thing left to do is adapt to the ever changing landscape of cyberspace, the bottom line is my set is better with those tear out tracks that I've discovered online, as long as the crowd is grooving, who's to judge. If D/L music is "wrong" and sampling music "wrong", IDK, our culture would be drastically different without both of those key factors working seamlessly together.

collige wrote:The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one.

the concept of property is not a philosophical argument, just because of access via the internet. the reason why filesharing continues is that there's no real life repercussions for people at the moment. this is why i find it funny, that the people crying so hard about internet freedoms being taken away, are the ones directly responsible for RIAA, hollywood and the govt deciding to take action. its the people that think they're untouchable. do you honestly think that RIAA and hollywood, are going to allow another decade of filesharing, without control? you're dreaming.

people are getting taken to court today for filesharing things 5-7 years ago. what makes you think that what you shared yesterday or last year, isn't being archived along with your IP as we speak?

seckle wrote:based largely on mainstream barcoded/soundscan music. They reveal absolutely NOTHING about filesharing independent underground music.

Wrong, plenty "underground" music falls under the umbrella of the music monitored. What's important is the overall statistical trend.

seckle wrote:

collige wrote:The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one.

the concept of property is not a philosophical argument

You serious?

And then fear mongering. Classy.

AllNightDayDream wrote:plenty "underground" music falls under the umbrella of the music monitored. What's important is the overall statistical trend.

prove me wrong then.

link me to these "monitored" studies, where indie dance music sales are calculated? otherwise, all you're protecting and justifying is an opinion. nothing factual.

seckle wrote:

collige wrote:The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one.

the concept of property is not a philosophical argument, just because of access via the internet.

I'm not gonna argue this, but it still doesn't explain to me how pirating (as opposed to listening to an illegal youtube upload) a long sold out, vinyl only release from a defunct record label hurts the scene.

the people crying so hard about internet freedoms being taken away, are the ones directly responsible for RIAA, hollywood and the govt deciding to take action.

this isn't true at all though, which is why GoDaddy's business is being ruined because so many of their customers left after finding out they supported SOPA. Even if it was, it's still not an excuse to bypass the justice system, which is what SOPA does.

people are getting taken to court today for filesharing things 5-7 years ago. what makes you think that what you shared yesterday or last year, isn't being archived along with your IP as we speak?

Because I don't file share and if I did I would be smart about it. It's not particularly hard to avoid getting in trouble.

collige wrote:Regardless of DSF's policy and and how many followers the channel has, uploading a tune to youtube is still a form of piracy and I'm confused as to why that's a lesser crime than downloading it. Either way, I can still listen to the entire tune without benefiting the artist, just one way I don't have to listen to it in shit quality.

The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

i believe you've answered your own question

Today wrote:

collige wrote:Regardless of DSF's policy and and how many followers the channel has, uploading a tune to youtube is still a form of piracy and I'm confused as to why that's a lesser crime than downloading it. Either way, I can still listen to the entire tune without benefiting the artist, just one way I don't have to listen to it in shit quality.

The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

i believe you've answered your own question

It's possible to listen to a track without playing it out. What about the non-DJs?

seckle wrote:people are getting taken to court today for filesharing things 5-7 years ago. what makes you think that what you shared yesterday or last year, isn't being archived along with your IP as we speak?

oh noes

collige wrote:

Today wrote:

collige wrote:Regardless of DSF's policy and and how many followers the channel has, uploading a tune to youtube is still a form of piracy and I'm confused as to why that's a lesser crime than downloading it. Either way, I can still listen to the entire tune without benefiting the artist, just one way I don't have to listen to it in shit quality.

The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

i believe you've answered your own question

It's possible to listen to a track without playing it out. What about the non-DJs?

because when you make rules and laws, you can't interview every single person and figure out how they're gonna behave. You have to go on assumptions. When people have custody over the file, they have the potential to play it out. No one's gonna DJ youtube streams. Even if the files are lower than 320, the potential is still considerable because you can put that file onto a virtual deck or CDR, and beat-match, rewind, ff, jog, etc. You can't do that with a youtube rip so the threat isn't there.

Today wrote:

collige wrote:

Today wrote:

collige wrote:Regardless of DSF's policy and and how many followers the channel has, uploading a tune to youtube is still a form of piracy and I'm confused as to why that's a lesser crime than downloading it. Either way, I can still listen to the entire tune without benefiting the artist, just one way I don't have to listen to it in shit quality.

The argument of entitlement seems, to me, to be a more philosophical argument rather than a concrete one. Not there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see how it makes pirating out of print vinyl only releases anything more than a victimless crime with respect to the vitality of the scene. Playing tunes out is an entirely different matter, of course.

i believe you've answered your own question

It's possible to listen to a track without playing it out. What about the non-DJs?

because when you make rules and laws, you can't interview every single person and figure out how they're gonna behave. You have to go on assumptions. When people have custody over the file, they have the potential to play it out. No one's gonna DJ youtube streams. Even if the files are lower than 320, the potential is still considerable because you can put that file onto a virtual deck or CDR, and beat-match, rewind, ff, jog, etc. You can't do that with a youtube rip so the threat isn't there.

It's been confirmed that people do play out youtube rips, but I'm talking on a person by person basis. You or I could download a tune and have the self-control to not play it out. In my eyes, the line has been crossed once they play out the tune, not once it's downloaded.