(Ilegal) Internet music downloads ....

[jbag031]

I completely understand that point of view, it is a bit discomforting knowing that my music is gone with my hard drive. And obviously a hard copy of something is worthy of a higher price but if they are downloading a tune ripped from cd in order to avoid having to pay for it how is that not theft? Especially if they are playing out. Hardware or Software/VST some one had to make all the synths and programs out there. And If artists werent faced with at least the possibility of making some kind of money how could they possibly shell out a bunch of cash for equipment and software. If they dont shell out cash the programs and hardware than the companies stop making them and there wont even be a want to make tunes. Because so much of music is now digital the effect of not paying for digital files crosses into the physical world. Hardware companies will be effected, they will either fail all together or stop progressing and helping to push music forward. Shows would be more expensive in order to pay for themselves and the artists, if they can even afford to make tunes. Whats the point of even bothering with music if you dont at least want to help it in a positive direction. And yes i understand that people should make money for the love of things and what not but how good would 'Die Hard' be if it was made for $12.50

[Mad_EP]

To be honest - I think one of the larger problems with all the mp3 downloading... is not only the harm to the artists and labels, but the degradation of sound quality standards. Sure, 320's are a hell of a lot better than 128's... but the only reason people think 320's are a suitable replacement for full resolution is because over the past 10-15 years, people's ears have been trained to accept lower & lower fidelity. Whether it be years of mp3 listening, and/or listening to songs via ringtones or clips on their phones, tinny earbud headphones, etc... people's standards for sound have dropped way down.

I agree with you Cloak & Dagger - I can't bring myself to buy mp3's. But then again, I rarely listen to mp3's anyway. When I buy digitally, I buy WAV or FLAC. The mp3's I listen to are usually dj/live sets... or tunes that don't otherwise exist outside of mp3.

[sifres]

Slightly off topic; even audiophiles can't hear the difference between 320kbps and CD's or FLAC. I hear you on the people playing out 128kbps mp3's on gigs, sounds awfull when mixing, but 320 is not less then WAV. Purely psychological. Maybe an analog setup straight to vinyl will give you more resolution, but since it all has a digital source now anyway, it's kinda bullshit.

Ontopic:
My problem is that in Holland it is actually not illegal to download (this being due to taxes on mp3 players, hard disks, empty cd's and dvd's etc.). It's illegal to share though. But the law in Holland says you can have a spare copy, or even copy from your neighbour. Even if he is a 13 year old from Belfast. I am left with only the moral choice... So I choose wich music to support and dowload the rest.

Please take note that I still buy a hella lot more then my girlfriend, who does not pirate. Pirates are more prone to buy music, it's been researched.

Make your own choices. But It does look grim, and anybody who says it only hurts the 'Suits' in the 'Music Industry' should look around here and see how many people are putting their balls, hard work, and sweat into the tunes.

[vries]

So if I walk into the Rijksmuseum, take a picture of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht, go home, print it out and put it on my wall, did I steal the painting?

Being on the anarchistic side of the political spectrum paints my perspective on property, obviously, but to me the logic doesn't seem right in saying that if you duplicate something without robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, you're stealing it.

That being said, I don't feel comfortable playing out with tunes I didn't buy or that were put up by the artist to be downloaded. If it's in the café of our local club, where the sound's pretty shitty anyway and there's no monetary gain involved, I really don't care as I just want people to hear as much good music as possible and I can't afford to buy hundreds of releases a year. But when we're doing a party in the main hall with the big ass sound system I'd feel like a fucking poser if I were playing some shit I ripped off of torrents.ru while the dj up after me is bringing some fresh dubs straight from the producers themselves.

[Mad_EP]

Slightly off topic; even audiophiles can't hear the difference between 320kbps and CD's or FLAC. I hear you on the people playing out 128kbps mp3's on gigs, sounds awfull when mixing, but 320 is not less then WAV. Purely psychological. Maybe an analog setup straight to vinyl will give you more resolution, but since it all has a digital source now anyway, it's kinda bullshit..

Gonna have to stay off topic... because this is just one of those myths that has been repeated so many times that some people are starting to think it is true, and it just needs to stop.

320 *is less* than WAV. There is no other way to put it. I agree that many people can't hear the difference ... or that if the full resolution track was composed from lo-res sources (ie Youtube samples or whatever) ... or even a decent resolution track that has been mixed horribly and is full of digital saturators, etc.. that the difference might not be huge...

But if a track is mixed well with good sources (doesn't matter if they are all digital or not), there will be a difference. Nothing psychological about it.


On the other hand - of course there isn't a difference between WAV and FLAC - FLACs are lossless.

[dankface]

flac/wav sub bass will feel better than 320 on a proper system

[serox]

Gonna have to stay off topic... because this is just one of those myths that has been repeated so many times that some people are starting to think it is true, and it just needs to stop.

320 *is less* than WAV. There is no other way to put it. I agree that many people can't hear the difference ... or that if the full resolution track was composed from lo-res sources (ie Youtube samples or whatever) ... or even a decent resolution track that has been mixed horribly and is full of digital saturators, etc.. that the difference might not be huge...

But if a track is mixed well with good sources (doesn't matter if they are all digital or not), there will be a difference. Nothing psychological about it.


On the other hand - of course there isn't a difference between WAV and FLAC - FLACs are lossless.

this.

mp3 is a compressed file so there is a difference 100%. If you play two tracks at the same db on a rig, one mp3 and the other wav, you will hear the difference!

I think this myth about there being no difference was made up by people who 'dj' on laptops.

[tripaddict]

At the end of the day music will never die. I get the impression that some people think that when music is no longer a realistic way to make money all the producers/musicians etc will say "Ahh fuck it, Im not ging to bother anymore....." That to me is ridiculous. People will always make music because to some people it is something that they cannot live without doing.

sums things up well imo

[zonetrooper5]

I both download illegally and buy music however I prefer to buy music on CD's or vinyl. I feel that buying a digital copy really isn't worth it and doesn't have any value compared to that of a CD or vinyl, something that is physical. Hell I'm against the Digital Britian bill which I think is a crock of shit and isn't going to help anyone in the industry nor the consumer apart from the major labels who would rather push generic samey crap just to make a quick buck.

What the music industry needs to understand that piracy isn't just black and white, there is a fuck load of grey area which needs to examined so the whole of the industry can come up with a solution which benfits the consumer, labels and finally the producers/songwriters/musicians etc. All this DRM, sony rookits, overpriced CD's and the lack of value when it comes to digital copies is just part of the reason the music industry is failing.

I think there needs to be more choice for the consumer, a much better service then that of Itunes amongst the other download sites. If I was to take a quote from Gabe Newell who is the CEO of Valve Corp (makers of half life, left 4 dead, portal etc) "DRM is entertainment as dis-service." Now this quote is talking about DRM, however if you look back over the years at the music industry you can tell that the music industry has been a dis-service to its self. The fact that RIAA decided to sue napaster instead of taking a cue back in 2001 that the digital era was ready and willing, if the music industry wasn't so slow at adapting then maybe just maybe it wouldn't be failing. Hell blame it all on the pirates if you want but you know there are a ton of other reasons as to why the industry is failing, I think its about time the music industry should evolve or die.

[sifres]

It's shitty that I can't find the original source of my 320kbps vs WAV statement. I had a source online which compared the most used codecs for MP3 (because these do matter) with spectrum analyzing and the whole shabam. 90% of people have trouble distinguishing recordings at 192 kbps. And off course there is also some loss in the higher regions. Higher up it's indistinguishable apparently.

But hey, I'm just another guy on dubstepforum, who can't find his original source I'll try to find it later tonight. I'd be intrested to read links that prove the op stand on this though

[zonetrooper5]

Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

Legislation to tackle internet piracy, including bans for illegal file-sharers, has been passed by the Lords.

The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to be rushed through the Commons before the general election.

Peers had earlier rejected a bid by ministers to include wide-ranging powers over future online piracy law.

But despite criticism, the government said it was still committed to giving courts the power to block websites which are infringing copyright.

The bill, put forward by Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, has been welcomed by the music industry because it includes plans to suspend the internet accounts of people who persistently download material illegally.

But firms such as British Telecom, Google and Facebook say that would be unfair and illegal file-sharers should be fined instead of cut off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8569750.stm

[jbag031]

So if I walk into the Rijksmuseum, take a picture of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht, go home, print it out and put it on my wall, did I steal the painting?

Being on the anarchistic side of the political spectrum paints my perspective on property, obviously, but to me the logic doesn't seem right in saying that if you duplicate something without robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, you're stealing it.

First of all that analogy doesnt apply considering that Rembrandt is dead and the painting is worth money based on the fact its a one of a kind. And no you didnt steal the painting, but you stole a print. If Rembrandt sold prints and you stole/bought one and then printed it out and started giving them away for free that would be theft. Besides Rembrandt has no use for profit, its not like he's got a new painting coming out next week. It isnt that your robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, its that you are effecting the artists ability to sell/release/produce more tunes.

[setspeed]

I think there needs to be more choice for the consumer, a much better service then that of Itunes amongst the other download sites.

what do you want to see that you can't get at the moment?

[deadly_habit]

So if I walk into the Rijksmuseum, take a picture of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht, go home, print it out and put it on my wall, did I steal the painting?

Being on the anarchistic side of the political spectrum paints my perspective on property, obviously, but to me the logic doesn't seem right in saying that if you duplicate something without robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, you're stealing it.

First of all that analogy doesnt apply considering that Rembrandt is dead and the painting is worth money based on the fact its a one of a kind. And no you didnt steal the painting, but you stole a print. If Rembrandt sold prints and you stole/bought one and then printed it out and started giving them away for free that would be theft. Besides Rembrandt has no use for profit, its not like he's got a new painting coming out next week. It isnt that your robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, its that you are effecting the artists ability to sell/release/produce more tunes.

well put man
if people are just going to steal my music and i can't make anything off it i'm better off working a 2nd job at minimum wage than spending time on working on tunes besides for myself which means at my own pace when i have free time and not lose sleep over it honestly.

[abZ]

I think there needs to be more choice for the consumer, a much better service then that of Itunes amongst the other download sites.

what do you want to see that you can't get at the moment?

Maybe he is talking about music in general. For electronic music we have all the choices you could possibly ask for in fact iTunes is probably about the last place you would look for dubstep. You can get it on there. My label is on there but why would you?

[setspeed]

I think there needs to be more choice for the consumer, a much better service then that of Itunes amongst the other download sites.

what do you want to see that you can't get at the moment?

Maybe he is talking about music in general. For electronic music we have all the choices you could possibly ask for in fact iTunes is probably about the last place you would look for dubstep. You can get it on there. My label is on there but why would you?

yeah but it could also be, uh, some kind of fancy artwork or 24 bit wavs or whatever...

[vries]

So if I walk into the Rijksmuseum, take a picture of Rembrandt's Nachtwacht, go home, print it out and put it on my wall, did I steal the painting?

Being on the anarchistic side of the political spectrum paints my perspective on property, obviously, but to me the logic doesn't seem right in saying that if you duplicate something without robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, you're stealing it.

First of all that analogy doesnt apply considering that Rembrandt is dead and the painting is worth money based on the fact its a one of a kind. And no you didnt steal the painting, but you stole a print. If Rembrandt sold prints and you stole/bought one and then printed it out and started giving them away for free that would be theft. Besides Rembrandt has no use for profit, its not like he's got a new painting coming out next week. It isnt that your robbing others of the possibility to enjoy it, its that you are effecting the artists ability to sell/release/produce more tunes.

Just to be clear: I think we had a link to illegal mp3s on our site once and we made sure to remove it, and I've spent way too much money on tunes in the past year, lookin' at my bank account. So yeah, I agree that there's a major problem when it comes to who does and who doesn't end up making money on music, and I'm doing pretty much all I can to support independent artists .

But you seem to be missing the point I was trying to make: back when I worked in a grocery store/supermarket when I was younger, it was only considered stealing after someone had physically removed the particular product from the confines of the store. It makes sense that the owners [Ahold] would be pissed then, because they couldn't sell the product anymore since it had already been taken out of the shop. When I make a copy of something, and leave the original in place, how do I take away the opportunity for the owner to sell it?

Now if I go around and start selling those copies for lower prices than the orginal, then yeah that'd be fucked up, but we're talking about something different from where I'm standing, and I didn't bring that into the equation. I'm still having problems coming to terms with the idea of intellectual property as it is, so my thoughts on this subject are all over the place... But I think in the end the internet bans for illegal downloaders and all that will only come back to hurt the independent artists, while the majors will use it to find a way to maintain their marketshare and power.

[silentk]

I can hold my hands up and say that in the past i used to download shit loads of films/mp3's/software. And i supported the argument that, people who download a £500 peice of software, would never of bought it in the first place, they wernt a prospective customer, and so the company is not actually loosing anything. Although i could see that the same argument doesn't translate to lower priced items such as music, which is readily available for under £1 these days.
I downloaded all this stuff simply because i couldn't afford to buy it, how is a 14 year old supposed to shell out hower much it costs for a new copy of photoshop etc.

BUT

since growing up a bit and finally getting my self a job, there is no grater satisfaction, than browsing through juno or beatport of whatever, selecting some tunes i'm really feeling and PAYING for them. They are now mine, i own them, i have contributed in my own little way, to something i am hugely passionate about. and this changed my whole perspective on the matter. And i now pay for all the music i own.

If you say that you download music because you cant afford to pay for it, go talk to your parents, talk to an adult, ask them how they got their music when you could only get vynal. they would save all their pocket money, wages from a weekend job, go to the record shop, and buy it. that was their only option. But with the advancement of technology, this is no longer the case, everything is available to everyone, for free. And whose gonna turn that down?
It means that people now download music simply to say they have it, not because they are passionate about it, "wow look i've got blah blah amount of gigabytes on my itunes" oh cool, who gives a fuck? how much of it do you actually listen to? how many of the artists have you researched and found out about? thats right, none, you just went through a torrent list and downloaded whatever had a load of seeds.

The line has become blurred, copyright is an outdated concept. we need something new. a new way for artists to be compensated for their work. it's been said before but ill say it again. the music industry will not survive it it's current state, it can no longer maintain its self. a new model needs to be designed, and new lines need to be drawn.

I will say this though, just as a thought..... How many dubstep artists that you know and love today, would never have been where they are, without that cracked version of fruity loops/reason/cubase, and all those VSTs with a lovely AiR tag on the end of them..... food for thought?

(just to be clear i am not condoning piracy in any way )

[cloak and dagger]

yeah if you're talking about theft, then the "walking into a museum and stealing a painting" analogy makes absolutely no sense. according to most countries' legal definitions, it's not theft, and that's why nobody is brought up on charges of theft for downloading music. I just want to clear that up, because it's really frustrating when you see a completely terrible analogy, despite the intention behind it.

[tripaddict]

since growing up a bit and finally getting my self a job, there is no grater satisfaction, than browsing through juno or beatport of whatever, selecting some tunes i'm really feeling and PAYING for them. They are now mine, i own them, i have contributed in my own little way, to something i am hugely passionate about. and this changed my whole perspective on the matter. And i now pay for all the music i own.

but this still doesnt answer how they are going to determine the difference between legal and illegal ?