Dubstepforum.com

ThinKing wrote:

relaks wrote:

biomat wrote:http://www.negrophonic.com/2007/defendi ... nk-croaks/

This basically sums it up for me. OiNk pwned

that's a great article. Genuinely highlights the contradiction many people face when trying to consider the wider issues. This

If Radiohead (the British rock band who achieved worldwide success via a long-term mutually-beneficial relationship with a major record label) were truly radical, they would have posted their new album as a BitTorrent file with a PayPal & bank account link for the fans who felt like paying. Not hosting it on some weird website with an awkward interface & requiring credit card info…

is absolutely correct. I can't believe the amount of bluster Radiohead have made about their new LP.

Quietmouse wrote:Dubstep is the only scene I've been in where people get uppity about file-sharing. It's really pretty crazy considering how people are always talking about sharing the love, spreading the music, posting free mixes and sometimes tracks.. but then when you download a 12 from somewhere like Oink, you're some kind of jackass stealing from poor artists? Fuck off mates, if it wasn't for file-sharing I wouldn't have ever gotten into dubstep or bought all the 12s I have. Those of you who think otherwise are backwards. The days when people would buy something without the ability to check it out first (legally or not) are over, in my opinion. And I'm not going to pay $20 to buy a record with 2 tracks and ship it from London to my house based on 30 second Boomkat samples, sorry.

Oink was the best place around and I eagerly await the rise of another great tracker.

The benefits of file-sharing for a growing scene like dubstep far outweigh the negative side-effects.

Jennifer wrote: but you can hear tracks from mixes

there's free mixes with loads of new tracks on them on this forum.

Quietmouse wrote:

Jennifer wrote: but you can hear tracks from mixes

there's free mixes with loads of new tracks on them on this forum.

If it doesn't bother an artist if I hear a nearly full track in a mix, why should it bother him/her if I hear the whole thing by itself?

There's a lot of hypocrisy in this scene.

Alex Deadman wrote:Man there is so much confusion.

Public domain filesharing was and is a massive part of dubstep's growth - FACT
I've downloaded many gigs of fully legitimate dubstep for free without ever visiting a P2P site like Oink or Limewire or Kazaa or whatever.
Everyone accepts that mixes, if recorded with permission, are fair game.
You download the free mix with has been stuffed full of the freshest beats, you decide what you like, you go and buy the vinyl. This is how it should work. This is what i did and this is what true supporters of the scene will do.

If you decide what you like based on the illegal full tracks you've downloaded there's no need for you to buy a vinyl or legitimate download because you have your rip-off tracks. You're taking from the scene and not giving anything back in return. If everyone acts in this way and vinyl finally becomes obselete WE WILL HAVE NO SCENE. Not for you, not for anyone. Simple The genre is what unifies all our efforts but it doesn't simply exist ipso facto, it must be nurtured through the passage of time by the individuals. If we all just take (this applies to absolutely everyone) we will take apart our own scene, seen?


We're not majors, we're running this shit from our bedrooms.
Please see sense, income from bookings alone will not pay for the individuals who arn't DJs but are fundamental to the scene. These people will give up.

Sorry for the rant, I know this is not a clear issue. I just have to voice my opinion and that's all this is.

seckle wrote:it's not that silly

The issue was whether a consumer portal on the Internet, ABC Startsiden, contributed to infringement of copyright by publishing links to file-sharing services like KaZaA. The plaintiff was Phonofile, a company organising the licensing of musical works for the Internet.

ABC Startsiden is a typical portal, the first page including a categorisation of different services. By selecting the category "MP3", the user was directed to a new page, which included the choice "file sharing". If this was selected, a page was displayed with links to several file-sharing services, including KaZaA.

The court states that file-sharing services may have both lawful and unlawful objectives. The court also based its decision on evidence that proved that users who had been referred to KaZaA from the home page of Startsiden used the file-sharing service for unlawfully making protected musical works available to the public. In this way, the court found that there had been established a certain actual causation between the links and the infringements. However, to be legally relevant, the causation also had to be qualified according to Norwegian legal doctrine. The court did not find that such a qualified causation had been proven. After having accessed the home page of the file-sharing service using the link from Startsiden, the user would have to make further individual choices before being able to employ the service for offering music files to the public ­ download the appropriate software, upload files to his or her own disk, etc. In the sequence of events leading to the infringement, the court found that the links of Startsiden were "elements of little importance".

The court also considered whether the law of unfair competition would be relevant. The court found that Startsiden and Phonofile were not competitors in the same market, which would require a rather strong degree for an "unfair" action to be relevant. The court did not find that the links represented such action.

Startisiden was acquitted. The decision has not been appealed, and is therefore final.

Diss04 wrote:me miss tv links

Quietmouse wrote: There's a lot of hypocrisy in this scene.

seckle wrote:

Quietmouse wrote: There's a lot of hypocrisy in this scene.

But of course there's no hypocrisy with P2P at all. No no never. because it's not stealing it's "copying" right? it's just automatically yours now because you have an internet connection.

i'm glad oink is down, and i'm glad some p2p people are getting a taste of their own medicine.

elgato wrote:

seckle wrote:

Quietmouse wrote: There's a lot of hypocrisy in this scene.

But of course there's no hypocrisy with P2P at all. No no never. because it's not stealing it's "copying" right? it's just automatically yours now because you have an internet connection.

i'm glad oink is down, and i'm glad some p2p people are getting a taste of their own medicine.

before i say anything please don't read what i write to imply dogmatic support of p2p without proviso or contextual considerations

but

do you think that in no circumstances whatsoever piracy is justified?

what do you say of the many, many producers (especially, i suspect, in dubstep and grime) who were given a window to production via cracked software? by the hard language and logic of property rights and retribution that you're using they deserve to be pirated...

seckle wrote:i'm voicing a hard personal opinion. i'm not telling people what to do or not to do. don't twist this into something it's not. i just have ZERO time for P2P advocates that start speaking about hypocrisy.