Italian DJ fined 1.4m Euros for playing mp3's in clubs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

it came from me, but i don't see why i should want to charge you money to hear it. music is for people to hear - let them hear it, does that make sense?

---

What If i stole you voice somehow using some mad new plugin on abelton live version 6c and rang up your boss & mates and told them that they were all wankers? :lol: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

however i do feel that it is possible for people to progress creatively and produce work of value at the same time as holding down a regular job and supporting themselves through non artistic means.

---

I actually agree with you there but thats because we play/make music which pretty much requires most of us to have day jobs anyway. I dont think I would ever like to be in the position where my music brought in all the money because if things went arseways that would mean that I would proabably have to sell out in some way to keep my income levels up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavy beats

it's not picotto.

I heard it was the dj from Eiffel 65.

---

im blue im di ba da da ....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karlo

im blue im di ba da da ....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

---

LMAO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massplanck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

however i do feel that it is possible for people to progress creatively and produce work of value at the same time as holding down a regular job and supporting themselves through non artistic means.

---

I actually agree with you there but thats because we play/make music which pretty much requires most of us to have day jobs anyway. I dont think I would ever like to be in the position where my music brought in all the money because if things went arseways that would mean that I would proabably have to sell out in some way to keep my income levels up.

---

then allow me to play devil's advocate for a second here and suggest that perhaps less money involved in music = less temptation to 'sell out' = more innovation & creativity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

then allow me to play devil's advocate for a second here and suggest that perhaps less money involved in music = less temptation to 'sell out' = more innovation & creativity?

---

i'd say that's utopian naivety.

a) some people will always sell out

b) investment (i.e. money) drives technology and innovation. even in communist countries, advancement came only with heavy public-sector investment.

that's not to say that people should make art for the sole purpose of making money, but i am absolutely certain that if no one could make a living off making techno, very few records would ever come out, few djs would both playing outside of their local base, and the overall quality of the music being put out would plummet.

I`m a little sick of this argument now, it`s a bit juvenile.
Normally, the people who say "music should be free man" are the ones ripping stuff left right and centre filling up their hard drives with other peoples work.
Wait till the arse drops out of the scene.
Their will be no "scene"
Nightclubs don`t run on air.

well....

anyone who wants to give his work away fine

of course that means u will hardly make a life in music + u will most likely be exploited in a company (doing whatever)

if u steal u r thief people who download mp3s illegaly are thiefs (to me there is no difference betwen entering a shop and running with a 12" and downloading illegal mp3s

the act is stealiing

and worst u like techno right well stealing is just making it worse to everyone

and to U to

i think the industry should sell mp3s and mp3sets at low cost

i might be wrong but if drumcode or phont start to sell mp3s in theyr site cheap they will earn a lot of money (+ sets imagine listening to a set preview or a track listing (u can listen in a shop before buying the set )and buying a set for 50 c

or 1e

is it expensive think at it this way the more money u put in techno the better for all who like techno because if techno is stronger U have more chances of being a part of it

if labels are not selling they will not sign up new producers etcetcetcetc

bravo gustavo! not only do we share a name, but also a way of looking at things.

also bravo dirty...everyone who justifies profiting off illegal mp3s should remember that TECHNO IS IN A F***ING RECESSION!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlavikSvensk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

then allow me to play devil's advocate for a second here and suggest that perhaps less money involved in music = less temptation to 'sell out' = more innovation & creativity?

---

i'd say that's utopian naivety.

a) some people will always sell out

b) investment (i.e. money) drives technology and innovation. even in communist countries, advancement came only with heavy public-sector investment.

that's not to say that people should make art for the sole purpose of making money, but i am absolutely certain that if no one could make a living off making techno, very few records would ever come out, few djs would both playing outside of their local base, and the overall quality of the music being put out would plummet.

---

well if there's no money to be made - how can people sell out?

but yeah, making music costs money. though that is changing, the range & quality of free software is improving all the time. but i'm just argueing for the sake of it now. i pay for music and am happy to do so, still, it's always nice to see things going on that don't rely so heavily on money (free mp3 releases, free parties etc.)...

you pay for your dr...ugs though right?

Some people really crack me up.

Nobody does anything for nothing and thats a FACT.

Everybody needs to get paid.

It would be good if we lived in a world where we could get everything for free but lets not kid ourselves on here.

Will :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

you pay for your dr...ugs though right?

---

:eh:

I guess you can call booze and cigs as dr...ugs aswell as the stereotypical example of dr...ugs which the media like to jump on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davethedrummer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavy beats

there's got to be plenty of loopholes around this. for example, what happens if u received the mp3s directly from the artist, label or distributor, before the tracks are signed to a label or maybe received as a promo for that release? would it still be ok to play them after they are signed and released?

---

That or just like burning a copy of your own cds...I don't believe it's illegal to make a copy of a record that you bought, so what if you actually owned all of the records that you now play MP3s of??? Wouldn't they have to first prove that you don't originally own the recs themselves?

---

aaaah now that's interesting!!!
i hadn't thought of that...good point....let's ask someone.

---

I'm guessing the authorities would check all avenues before implementing the fine; searching the dj's property for cd's that could've been used would probably have been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

well if there's no money to be made - how can people sell out?

but yeah, making music costs money. though that is changing, the range & quality of free software is improving all the time. but i'm just argueing for the sake of it now. i pay for music and am happy to do so, still, it's always nice to see things going on that don't rely so heavily on money (free mp3 releases, free parties etc.)...

---

time is money too.

besides...the computer, broadband, audio interface, monitors, rent, food don't come free either.

but like i said...anyone wants to give music away for free...be my guest... i'll happily partake in that!

Yeah, exactly, no one is anti free.
But theft is theft.

It`s funny, I was on the free party scene for years.
Well, it wasn`t free, we did charge a nominal fee.
And the trust fund hippies used to moan.

But it should be free man, music is for free?

Ok, I used to say, Who`s gonna pay for our Speakers when they get blown, diesel money, generator, Beers for the DJ`s. Records for the DJ`s.

I always used to laugh at these people.

Cos sure as shit they spend a fortune getting off their nuts.
But they got shitty when asked to pay to hear the music.

true that steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

but does music belong to anyone in the first place?
its there to share, surely?
i often fail to see how can anyone seriously say 'yeah, if you make the air vibrate in this specific way then you have to give me dollar'?

---

Nice attitude. Can I live in your house and eat your food? Its all just atomic particles, you can't charge me for eating the atoms out of your fridge can you?

;)

Well, not that it matters much, but here is my own personal opinion of it. I am totally in support of sharing and people pirating my own music. If thy have the means to buy it, I'd definitely appreciate that. But, hell, we're talking about underground techno right? How many records are pressed in a typical run? How many people in turn have access to all those records? It seems there is greater access to the internet than vinyl distributors so if some kid happens to find music of mine on Soulseek, downloads it, likes it and puts on a shitload of mixes or plays it out with a digital tool, I'm in full support of that. If they ever get a chance to buy it, cool. If not, nothing really lost.I don't like groups like the RIAA that run around attacking kids for sharing music because they don't really do me any good anyways. Who sees more of that money in the end? Artists or lawyers? Obviously, in a situation where a DJ at a huge club is getting regular well paying gigs somewhere in Europe, I think it's bullshit. Accessing the music isn't exactly a problem for such a person. But, I just don't see this as such a black or white issue. The amount of roylaties I see per record sold is change that I wouldn't scramble to pick up off the ground if I dropped it most likely. But that's just me. ;) Nobody is stealing food from me, or most other artists, when they download some songs. The roaylties you'd see as payment probably aren't enough to even get you a pack of small fries at a fastfood joint. For me, it's more rewarding knowing someone is enjoying and playing the track than me seeing a few cents here and there. I've been ripped off much more in the long run by promoters than I have music pirates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tocsin

I've been ripped off much more in the long run by promoters than I have music pirates.

---

Haha very true.

Anyway, I think the issue here is that the guy in question is a big name dj, charging big name dj fees (hundreds to thousands of dollars a gig) yet he is not transferring any of this money to the people he relies on to do his job (and thats the guys who do sit in their studio and dont get a cent from this guy and others like him).

Thats wrong isn't it? He's making shitloads of money by using other peoples hundreds of hours of hard work and not compensating them for it.

If the guy was a poor bedroom banger in an almost 3rd world country this wouldn't be an issue. Thats not the same thing. I'm sure heaps of artists don't care if some of their music is gaining publicity thru mp3's. However the line is drawn when somebody is using that music to make a shitload of money and doesn't credit the people who allow him to make this nice big wad of income.

But at the same time I don't agree with the million dolar/euro fine. Will that money go to the artists who created the pirated music that he had? Or will it go into the pockets of some tosser lawyers and corporate record company owners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

you pay for your dr...ugs though right?

---

Yeah, if we could only download our dope...

Okay, this is a sound argument that I have and am yet to see it validly objected to.

1) Person (P) has X amount of money for music.
2) If X has been exhausted and P's musical taste exceeds X, then P does not get all the music they want.
3) If P downloads music for listening pleasure (not resale or the like) and does so only because X has been exhausted, then P is not "hurting" the labels financially for P has no funds anyway.

My point is if you only have a set amount of money to begin, say $100 USD, then you can only buy $100 worth of music. Say I spend $100 on music in the first week of a month, being that $100 is my monthly allowance for music. If after the second week I would like more music (for whatever reason, not just gluttony) but don't have any funds, then how am I taking money away from labels if I download music? If I have $0, then the labels are not making any money anyway. Now, if I download a ton of music and then do not go out and buy the music later on that I like, then yes, i am a thief.

Think about this argument very clearly before you go on and attempt to unseat me. Its not that I'm for downloading music or against it, but its a simple economic principle here. In the case of this Italian dj, well, sucks for him...

Yeah, your point is interesting and fair.
But even so.
If you play said music you have "stolen" a lot.
then when you do have the money, you should pay for it. It`s only fair.

I got no problem people getting my shit of the net if they can`t afford it.
Hell, I freely distribute my stuff through BOA anyway.
But if you play it a lot you should buy it.
I do.
Anything I like, that I recieve via the net (which isn`t a hell of a lot)
I end up buying. Although I`m talking albums here. The only way I get my techno is via a record shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joseph Isaac

Okay, this is a sound argument that I have and am yet to see it validly objected to.

1) Person (P) has X amount of money for music.
2) If X has been exhausted and P's musical taste exceeds X, then P does not get all the music they want.
3) If P downloads music for listening pleasure (not resale or the like) and does so only because X has been exhausted, then P is not "hurting" the labels financially for P has no funds anyway.

My point is if you only have a set amount of money to begin, say $100 USD, then you can only buy $100 worth of music. Say I spend $100 on music in the first week of a month, being that $100 is my monthly allowance for music. If after the second week I would like more music (for whatever reason, not just gluttony) but don't have any funds, then how am I taking money away from labels if I download music? If I have $0, then the labels are not making any money anyway. Now, if I download a ton of music and then do not go out and buy the music later on that I like, then yes, i am a thief.

Think about this argument very clearly before you go on and attempt to unseat me. Its not that I'm for downloading music or against it, but its a simple economic principle here. In the case of this Italian dj, well, sucks for him...

---

Thats cool but you have to include the doods that make money from downloaded music, thats what we're really talking about here not just downloading for personal listening but for financial gain/profit...

The moment you try and make an income from it is where the big bad line is drawn.

This whole ‘music should be free’ argument makes me laugh. Thing is I used to have that kind of attitude before I started writing. It was when I realised that I couldn’t support myself, pay the bills and go out on a weekend when that changed. Now with part time work combined with studying I hardly have any time in the studio to actually make music these days.

No one is making money out of releasing techno. The money that comes in just about covers the expenses. My plan was to study and make techno 50/50 hopefully earning enough cash to at least feed myself. -8k Later I realised its not possible haha.:neutral:

The point I am trying to make is that if music was free music wouldn’t exist. We need money to survival and survival is more important than any passion. Piracy is just another nail in the artists coffin. Legitimate use of the internet to distribute, sell and share music is really helping get music out.

Btw Steve really like this part of the forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

Yeah, exactly, no one is anti free.
But theft is theft.

It`s funny, I was on the free party scene for years.
Well, it wasn`t free, we did charge a nominal fee.
And the trust fund hippies used to moan.

But it should be free man, music is for free?

Ok, I used to say, Who`s gonna pay for our Speakers when they get blown, diesel money, generator, Beers for the DJ`s. Records for the DJ`s.

I always used to laugh at these people.

Cos sure as shit they spend a fortune getting off their nuts.
But they got shitty when asked to pay to hear the music.

---

well, admittedly most of the parties in london chrge a door tax, but there are parties in the country that go on throughout the summer & run only on donations, which i willingly contribute towards. and yeah, of course i pay for drugs. i wouldn't give drugs away either, well not all the time cos. i like giving people (my) music though...
maybe thatll change when im struggling to find the time to write...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komplex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

but does music belong to anyone in the first place?
its there to share, surely?
i often fail to see how can anyone seriously say 'yeah, if you make the air vibrate in this specific way then you have to give me dollar'?

---

Nice attitude. Can I live in your house and eat your food? Its all just atomic particles, you can't charge me for eating the atoms out of your fridge can you?

;)

---

waves don't physically exist, we can only observe their effects. atoms (of food) are physical matter. different ball game, surely.....

a record is a physical thing - but the music itself is a little harder to pin down.

i'm gonna shut up now, cos this is going nowhere.

apart from this - profiting from something someone has provided for free (willingly or not) is ****ing shameful - that i agree on 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

waves don't physically exist, we can only observe their effects. atoms (of food) are physical matter. different ball game, surely.....

a record is a physical thing - but the music itself is a little harder to pin down.

i'm gonna shut up now, cos this is going nowhere.

---

But string theory says that all matter (including air) is made out of vibrating strings :doh: :lol:

i think this is a extrmely simple affair

anyone who downloads stuff from labels/djs who dont authorize it

is stealing

i would like to imagine all the people who say this and that in a court

with the judge explaining theyr points of view...

in the end

i think he will say well son u stealed now u have to pay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Divide

But string theory says that all matter (including air) is made out of vibrating strings :doh: :lol:

---

I'm stoked to see other theoretical physicists, or at least enthusiasts, are on this board...Suffice it to say, some of the most intelligent people I know listen to techno. :clap:

Again, it just shows how this is not a black or white issue. I certainly don't agree that music "wouldn't exist" if it was free. That is only true for people who have money as an incentive. Not that I have any problem with that. But, I simply know way too many people, myself, included, who have made music or other forms of art without any incentive of getting paid for it. The "stealing" arguments don't really affect me much either. I certainly havern't authorised anyone to download my music but I certainly don't consider it theft. I just don't care enough. Especially when it comes to techno, people get a bit to righteous on the theft side. How many of you here who don't appreciate anyone "stealing" your music have ever used uncleared samples and, possibnly later, released it on vinyl or CD without ever even contacting the owner of the sample? Which theft is worse? Does everyone here only buy music with cleared samples or no samples at all? Where is the line drawn? Honestly, the concept that downloading music in the techno scene was really never something I heard much about until recently when people started blaming it for lack of sales, stores and labels going under, etc. I still have a really hard time believing that given all the other factors involved. One of the thing that always appealed to me about techno and the distribution around it, at least in my environment, was that it didn't act like, or rely on, the greedy business models and ethics of the mainstream entertainment industry. I'm not implying that anyone has to look at things the way I do but, when people make comments on behalf of the artists that almost exactly mimics the statements of the RIAA without leaving room for it to be different, then they are speaking for people like me. I don't agree with guilt trips, ridiculous fines, threats of lawsuits against teenagers and their parents, and other bullying tactics to get people to buy music which is largely disposable. I don't like it when people say every artist depends on the money from the art and that, if they don't see it because people are stealing, they'll stop making music. It just doesn't work that way for all of us which is why I don't like it when people try and make it so black or white. I'm completely grey. I don't authorise people to rip tracks I've worked on that are put out for sale by anyone but, at the same time, I don't really have any problem with someone who does so either. Worst case, some sales are lost and I might not get another release on the same label. But, life goes on and that won't prevent me from doing what I enjoy.

there r some things i would like everyone to understand


a) if someone gets music from a label or dj (illegal downl for examp)who dont give permission to do so is stealing (if someone gets samples without paying is stealing etcetcetcetc

b) if the label says i dont care that they steal from me thats one thing if they mind and most certainly do because they have to make it work at the end of the month $ thats another thing .........................

one of the most important point is this and it seems that some people r not understanding

if techno is financially down its bad for everyone who likes techno aspiring djs , labels ertc etc

will have a really hard time

im sure the way to make techno forward is certainly not donwloads but buiyng good records

im not sure if u r really understanding what i mean ,why people make excuses for stealing? why they dont see the big picture?

instead of focusing in small details and comparisons?

maybe because many techno djs and people dont really have a lot of life and business experience i think (i mean when u have 19 u see things in one way but when u r 28 u see things in another perespevtive

i hope the guys who r here for some years understand what im triyng tom say

totally understand, gustavo. techno is in a recession...

I think we`ve said all that needs to be said here now, I`ll leave this topic up for another day and then lock it, as really it`s going round in circles, and the refreshing thing about it, is that the majority of people think that earning bread out of the theft of someone elses work is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

I think we`ve said all that needs to be said here now, I`ll leave this topic up for another day and then lock it, as really it`s going round in circles, and the refreshing thing about it, is that the majority of people think that earning bread out of the theft of someone elses work is wrong.

---

I just wonder how much of that is lip service. People here have said it's wrong but haven't answered my questions. Do people use uncleared samples? Do people here not buy music that uses uncleared samples? Do people contact every artist who's work they use on a mixtape? I don't agree that piracy has really had much of a dent on techno sales at all. Techno got big without any help from the mainstream industry and copyright law largely due to advancements in technology that made it affordable for artists to achieve high quality results without using any of the middle men who held onto their positions as a result of the mainstream industry. If techno that we liked started out in the same game as everyone else, it would have fizzled out and died before it ever even took off. The Winston's should be rich as a result of the techno scene. Any good sams here contact them about infringing works? Fake and uneven morality is just hypocritical. For those of you who have never sampled anything nor bought anything with infringing material because that is how strongly you feel about "theft," kudos to you. I'd be surprised if there was a single person on this board who could say they are such a person. And, to those who might be that way, well, in your eyes I guess I'm just a thief but, in the end, I simply don't care. Besides, the whole theft argument pretty much ignores the fact that the trend jumpers who helped the sound blow up for a bit got very sick of it while, at the same time, production of similar sounding crap increased ten fold.

who was it? (i'm not reading through 6 pages of rants to find the named and shamed dj)

what i want to know is...how exactly did they determine the "illegal" mp3s?

what if he bought some, friends gave him some (of their own stuff for argument's sake), and then he downloaded some? most people i know actually do use a combination of these, so how do the authorities make that determination.

i would think that would be pretty importanat if they're gonna fine you 200 euros per mp3 to know exactly which ones are he naughty ones, dontcha think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joseph Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Divide

But string theory says that all matter (including air) is made out of vibrating strings :doh: :lol:

---

I'm stoked to see other theoretical physicists, or at least enthusiasts, are on this board...Suffice it to say, some of the most intelligent people I know listen to techno. :clap:

---

yay!!! physics geeks unite! count me in too. can't do math but love the theory... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djshiva

what i want to know is...how exactly did they determine the "illegal" mp3s?

what if he bought some, friends gave him some (of their own stuff for argument's sake), and then he downloaded some? most people i know actually do use a combination of these, so how do the authorities make that determination.

i would think that would be pretty importanat if they're gonna fine you 200 euros per mp3 to know exactly which ones are he naughty ones, dontcha think?

---

they probably knew from downlaod streams. alot of big comertial labels set up fake mp3's in the hope to catch regular downlaoders and they trace their ip number

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djshiva

what if he bought some,
friends gave him some (of their own stuff for argument's sake),
then he downloaded some?

---

Legal, legal and illegal. Fairly simple really. If you haven't paid for the track or been giving express permission to use it by someone holding rights to it it's illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djshiva

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joseph Isaac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Divide

But string theory says that all matter (including air) is made out of vibrating strings :doh: :lol:

---

I'm stoked to see other theoretical physicists, or at least enthusiasts, are on this board...Suffice it to say, some of the most intelligent people I know listen to techno. :clap:

---

yay!!! physics geeks unite! count me in too. can't do math but love the theory... :)

---

:lol:

Know anything about monatomic elements?

(totally off topic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_s

then allow me to play devil's advocate for a second here and suggest that perhaps less money involved in music = less temptation to 'sell out' = more innovation & creativity?

---

as a full-fledged anarchist i am still gonna have to disagree with you and say that as far as techno goes, not too many fuggas are making a shit ton of cash, or play music accessible enough to be corporate sell-outs.

most techno producers i know, even the ones who are fairly well-known, are not making a ton of money. and last time i checked, sony and volkswagen weren't beating down our favorite techno producers' doors, so i am fairly unconcerned that my techno brothers and sisters are selling out.

i may be a dirty, unapologetic anarchist who thinks that capitalism is evil dirty business, but i still gotta eat, and so does everyone i know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirsha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djshiva

what if he bought some,
friends gave him some (of their own stuff for argument's sake),
then he downloaded some?

---

Legal, legal and illegal. Fairly simple really. If you haven't paid for the track or been giving express permission to use it by someone holding rights to it it's illegal.

---

but again, even if there were illegal ones, how do you determine that, especially if you are being fined PER mp3. that's a pretty important distinction.

and unless italian authorities are really way more sophisticated than american ones (which wouldn't be far fetched prolly), i don't think they're that ****ing smart really...