sorry misread i thought you said you jst brought it, i meant i could have swaped it with you, but obviously not as you sold it not brought it
Printable View
sorry misread i thought you said you jst brought it, i meant i could have swaped it with you, but obviously not as you sold it not brought it
Nah. Especially considering my mixes are largely spread via MP3, it makes no difference to me. If it comes down to paying steep prices for one track, off to Soulseek I go. The artist doesn't see a cent from collectors charging obscene prices anyways. I just find that whole scene to be really ****ed up. PEople don't part with records they still play. People selling records for obscene prices also haven't come near to spending as much on them. So, **** 'em. When I use Soulseek, I "liberate" such tracks. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Deviant Idol
That's great you like MP3's and all, but you forget that old records are a supply and demand. Of course a person selling a record that is no longer pressed, is going to ask more than the suggested retail price for a record. The thing I don't understand is how you can say the whole scene is f*cked up. And you're right when you say an artist will never see the extra money someone gets when they sell a record. But they did see money when they sold the record for the first time. That same artist never saw
any money if you just downloaded that song off of Soul Seek without buying
it in the first place. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but
supply and demand is always going to happen with ANY item when someone
sells something that is no longer being made.
but the question is, if you found one of these records you have downloaded at the normal selling price, in a shop, brand new, repressed or whatever, would you then buy the vinyl ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan the acid man
Thing is, your point about the artist not seeing money if I download the thing in the first place is a different scenario. Here, we are dealing with a scenario where a record is out of print and went through it's run. So, if I purchase or download, the artist still doesn't see a dime. At that point, digital copies do figure into supply and demand. And when someone wants practically 9-10 times the original asking price of a record, I'm going to download it if a copy is available. Hell, I've got a record that people have spent over $100USD for and, on just the principle, I would never sell it for that much. Rather, I'd sell it for the price I obtained it to someone I knew was going to play it, and not turn around to milk it for cash on E-Bay. If I was ever aware of a record I'd worked on even fetching double it's worth, I'd be releasing 320kbit versions on the net myself, if not the uncompressed WAV if the bandiwdth was available. Charing ridiculous amounts of money for a slab of vinyl, just because some might be willing to spend that much, just seems too greedy for me to tolerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviant Idol
heres an interesting question... i know we all have our opinions on illegal downloads, mp3 quality blah blah..(i dont want to start that debate again!!!) but if a track is out of press and probably wont be repressed well surely downloading it is "morally" ok. example - i had a record years ago called barcode population.. i've NEVER seen it since but if i found an mp3 of it then i probably would D/L it. even if i found it again i know its second hand so the artist isnt losing out. dont get me wrong.. i spend a stupid amount of money on legal D/Ls and i dont D/L new releases illegaly.
(btw - does anyone know who made "barcode population"? it always sounded like Beyer to me...)
cool :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
[quote="
to be honest the gift is quite shit in my opinon so many better tune from dave out there[/quote]
this is the bottom line, IMO. the tune is awkward to mix, the vocals are fairly buried in parts, and the whole affair only gets banging after quite a long wait. i DO love the acid line, though.
IMO most of the LTDs are weak. i personally like the Speaker Pimps one, as it's pretty weird and groovy.
this is a question i've been looking into. i have been thinking about starting an online acid archive, but i'm not interested in causing a riot. the idea is to have a PHP-based site that allows user uploads within a certain size range, with the site automatically refreshing to reflect each label page catalogue. the basic site is done already.
ideally, the site could focus on tracks that released before 2000. there could be downloads of files i heve personally encoded using lame 320kbps. this is the only quality mp3 i will play out, so user submissions would ideally be the same standard. i also have the ability to post WAVs, though i'll never have the bandwidth.
the bottom line is that people newer to the acid scene usually don't know about the older classics. collectors buy up all the copies, then refuse to sell for lower prices. so you get these amazing acid collections that never get played out, even fi that means Mp3 mixes on the 'net. this is contrary to the spirit of acid IMO. everyone should have access to the music, as long as it's well past making any money for the artists. at that point, i think downloading the tunes can actually help to revive the real acid sound.
anyway, the main question is who owns the music. if the larger companies still exist, free, public downloads could stir up some shit. from what i've seen, many of the German tunes still have some tie to existing companies. even though the artists has gone away, money could be an issue.
At the end of the day, regardless of the downloads, if i'm selling records i'm gonna find the best market i can, regardless of what people think morally. There's no point me selling The Gift for retail price when i can get 10x that amount, like it or not, to sell an old record that's in demand at retail price is bad business sense; and if you are selling something you are doing business anyway, so all this moralistic talk doesn't really wash with me i'm afraid.
Also, my opinion on the MP3 ripping, i can't say i really agree with it, it's still a breach of copyright especially if you're using it to earn money in the clubs (unless you've cleared (c) of course). Soulseek, well, i've just signed up, but isn't supposed to be used for promoting artists rather than ripping them off with illegal uploads/downlods?
From a buyers point of view, well, i wouldn't be happy paying 10x the retail value of course, but i can't help but think that if i wanted a tune that much, i'd pay for it, there's plenty of other people out there willing to so why shouldn't i ?
As for free music, well yes, i'm well up for it just like everybody else, but it has to be with respect.
It's not "business" for me. When I do, once in a blue moon, sell a record that fetches $50+ on E-Bay, I sell it to someone I know for the same as what I bought. Reason being is that a.) they actually want to play the thing out and, if I'm selling it, it's a record that collects dust and b.) by being reasonable with the price, someone who has a desire to play the track out for others will be inclined to take it and do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurian
As for anything that is fetching such high amounts of cash, if it's out of print, yep, chalk me up as a pirate. If I want it that bad, I'll download it. Artists, in many circumstances, will give you permission to do so anyways. Still legally grey, depending upon the contract signed with the publisher by the artist. But, that doesn't bother me. It's why I'm amused when you see records popping up with titles like "Anti E-Bay Weapon." For some reason, it doesn't appear I'm alone in finding it kind of offensive that music which was pressed not even a decade ago in many cases starts fetching such high prices, all while be held by people who don't play it out anyways. So, nah, I'll never drop that much on a track. Especially when, thanks to filesharing, I will never have to.
:clap:
its good to see this attitude. we are talking about recent music here... these tunes are destined to be classics within the acid community but are they actually comparable to real genre defining classics such as "london acid city" , "neurodancer" or "substance abuse". Dont get me wrong, i think DDR is something really special (and i consider gottagetoutofit a true classic), but are these tracks really worth €50?
What I'm saying is that I don't care if people want to pay high prices for records. They are free to do so. Collectors will generally want the vinyl anyway, even if they have an MP3. At the same time, it seems ridiculous for a tiny genre like acid to get limited because most of the classics are owned by collectors who don't play them out or offfer them any exposure. Have you ever heard someone play a set of Important, Synewave, Experimental, 23 Frankfurt, etc.? Maybe back when they released, but not these days. I'm tired of the cycle of dance music, where people are constantly hung up on playing the latest and "greatest" without having any idea where the music came from. There should be respect for classic tracks that are still unmatched today, and MP3 can work wonders in distributing these tracks. It all contributes back to the strength and diversity of the scene.
:clap: good to see so many level headed opinions on this. i'm certainly not dissin anyone for makin money off of vinyl (if someone wants to pay fair enough), but i wouldn't. anyway, the missus would friggin kill me <--- see - priorities :cry:
BTW, do you have any records for sale? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
My opinion is that if there's money involved, then it's a business. Fairplay to you for not charging through the nose, i just can't help but think it's a bit lke shooting yourself in the foot. Endearing all the same.
Anyway, if you're getting permission to download the music then i can't see a problem, that's what i was saying about respect earlier, if you go to the artist and actually ask if it's ok then free music changes hands with respect, everythings sweet. When it comes to just going ahead and downloading with complete ignorance to what the copyright owner would say, then that's when it's wrong imo.
Also, i don't think it matters if the music gets played out, there's plenty of bedroom DJs who enjoy the music on their own at home.
At the end of the day, i'm reluctant to sell records because:
a) I know I'll regret it
b) At some point i'll probably want to hear it again
c) if i am to sell it, i'll find out a couple of weeks later i could have got double the cash for it.
Bottom line is that my record collection does mean a lot to me and it'll take a big offer for me to part with any of it, i don't see this as greedy, nostalgic maybe, but not greedy.
Just about every record I've ever sold is one I had two copies of. I really don't scratch or juggle at all anymore so holding on to two is just unnecesary. Turns out some were worth a pretty penny apparently. But, it's just not my thing. And, nah, I don't get permission from every artist where I've ever downloaded a track that is out of print. Ideally, sure, I should do that. But, whatever. It's a rare occurrence for me to begin with and, in the end, since it's out of print, I'd be lying if I said I really cared too much about how the artist felt. There was a time when "techno" pretty much raised its middle finger to copyright laws. I find the Hollywood industry arguments that seem to take root now, especially here, to just be kind of funny and I would do nothing short of laugh if any artist actually gave me shit for downloading a song that was out of print and originally pressed on a 500-1000 run without the slightest chance or plans for a repress.
Circa the internet i take it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
No. Way before that. Back when "sampling" was in so much of the music and no market really existed that made paying a fee to do a derivative work a smart move. I'm probably kind of an anomoly though I guess. I have music out and, personally, couldn't give a damn if people download it and I never see a dime. I've sampled in near 90% of the tracks I've done. I've also used a significant amount of pirated software, up until I could afford to buy it. One of the things that drew me into techno was the culture behind it that seemed to be a straight offshoot of the late 80s/early 90s hacker culture. Now, I'm not implying that would support blatant piracy of MP3s. But, in a situation where a record was out of print, well, I just can't feel guilty for downloading it, just in the same way as, where law would likely say I'm doing something illegal, I'm unwilling to let the law stifle creativity that results in something different. To be honest, I feel a lot worse about not being able to afford to pay people for my use of their creations right now than I do when I download a song that's out of print and prevent a collector from seeing anywhere from a 500% to 1000% return on their investment, which is likely just collecting dust in their bin and, if they sell it to me, they've likely made a back up of anyways, whether on tape, CD or MP3 for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurian