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 :)
Printable View
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 :)
:eh:Quote:
Originally Posted by dirty_bass
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.
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 davethedrummer
time is money too.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_s
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by j_s
;)
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.
Haha very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
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?
Yeah, if we could only download our dope...Quote:
Originally Posted by dirty_bass
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Isaac
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
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by dirty_bass
maybe thatll change when im struggling to find the time to write...
waves don't physically exist, we can only observe their effects. atoms (of food) are physical matter. different ball game, surely.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Komplex
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%.
But string theory says that all matter (including air) is made out of vibrating strings :doh: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j_s
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Divide
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.