Quote
bv
It ain't cheating if you don't get caught.

l"ll drink to that

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

I love my vinyl LPs too. Ah, the nostalgia...

Quote
with sssoul
>> the mass of money that we are paying should be enough for everyone in the business
that is the providers of bandwidth <<

yes, and where does paying the artists come into all that?
who's supposed to do that - the providers of bandwidth? what would motivate them to start doing that -
just to get us to download more stuff? so they can charge us more and more for the bandwidth?
gee - that would be a big improvement

and why would a bandwidth provider treat the artists any better than the record companies have?
...

well sssoul if you dont see the link between the industry of content providers and the industry of the internet i guess you have skipped a lot of headlines in the newspapers in the past few years and i dont mean only the economic pages

of course here i am making a political argument for the legalization of free downloading and against the loss of public money for the prosecution of something that is already beyond control. The number of failures of all the techno tricks to make cd or dvd copycontrolled is telling

i am not talking about the ethics of the companies, i am talking about the laws of free market that should be preserved so that the public administrations should not play as the dogs that defend the profit of private companies against the rule of the free market enforcing laws the punish as illegal the use of a technology

i am not saying that we should have music for free. In fact I pay a lot if you consider how much the good cost for a single unit. The problem is that the money dont go the the artists. Is that my problem? I pay for a technology that allows me to do certain things. More. THEY (let's say AOL) SELL ME THAT TECHNOLOGY EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON. Of course they dont put it this way but it's more than "implicit" Then they ask and make the government to tell me:"NO YOU CANT USE FOR THAT!". So I pay AOL but then, if I want some , say, Warner content i have to pay the whole price of the good as if that technology doesn't exist and i did not pay for it. So here they are doubling two huge profits (or willing to)

I think in there there's something wrong that is in need of change. And the wrong is, imho, abusive protectionism. Victims are the "illegal" (but paying) users and the real "content providers" (the artists).

"just to get us to download more stuff? so they can charge us more and more for the bandwidth?
gee - that would be a big improvement "

is that what you experienced in the past few years? at least in italy the cost of the bandwith has decreased due to more competition. but the market has become enormously bigger so the profits have increased wildly. So the result for the companies has been MONEY. Basically on the shoulder of the "content providers". If there is some stealer here...

think about the "social network" in a reverse angle. Think about all the people that upload their own stuff to YouTube. Well they are providing content for someone who is making money out of it. So the "social network" artist pay the connection, make a work and then gives it to YouTube. Of course the counterpart is the game, the social, the visibility, the amusement and there's agreement on the part of the "artist". But there's a thin line.

I think it's high time THEY pay for the commercial use they do of the art the flows on the internet. I am not making a penny out of it. I pay for it.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 02:02 by maumau.

maumau nice points. A piece of my prior post eluded to the notion of "gifts". What exactly constitutes a gift? I said earlier if Charlie Watts signed a copy of A Bigger Bang to a roadie, who in turn new you were a dye hard Stonehead and gave it to you then what? That is copyright infringment! He intended the gift to another, never knowing it would end up in a third parties hands, Each of you who steadfastly oppose piracy would not accept that gift from your roadie friend? Cmon, everyone here would, and so the proverbial addage would hold "your not practicing what you preach". Because if that is your stance you cannot do it a once. So every single song, movie etc in your household you are certain was paid for by you. (not perhaps left by an old girlfriend who moved out) IS that infringment? yes throw it out boys and girls. What is the difference if you accept a burned copy from MEZ or someone inadvertantly left a CD at a party you threw. How would you know they legally paid the appropriate price? If you could not trace the CD back did you discard it as you did not pay for it? By the way I own all of The Rolling Stones official catalogue save for Love You Live and London Singles Collection. I am just making arguements to demonstrate there is a large grey area. Unless you ask to see a receipt for every "gift" how do you know it wasn't illicitly obtained. My argument is if you partake daily or in a rare hypothetical instance its all the same. You would not be practicing what you preach. Each of you would accept that signed copy of the CD. If you accept the Gift your costing the band money as you would not now in turn go out yourself and spend your hard earned dollars on A Bigger BAng. Charlie would bear the brunt of lost dollars due to his innocent gesture. Just be open and honest that you may have some "qustionable "material in your collections. MEZ

Downloading released material is indeed illegal, but who the hell cares? Most of the people on this board who downloaded SAL (myself included) will end up buying the cd anyway, so what exactly are we stealing? Besides, I have given enough money to the boys that I don't feel particularly guilty about getting a bit of a preview on some crappy sounding mp3 file. It is understandable that BV would act to protect this website (and his own ass) from unwanted attention, but the platitudes about this being wrong or unethical are just a load of bullshit.

Thank you Raoul Duke My point exactly but you said it rather succintly. The Copyright infringment PC police about it being wrong have something or cannot verify every item in their respective collections. Is Mick infringing with Anybody Seen Baby & Constant craving? As one said a lot of Rod tunes sound similar. Its not wrong or unethical I agree with you. But illegal nontheless.

Quote
Is Mick infringing with Anybody Seen Baby & Constant craving?

What the heck has that to do with pirated downloads?
thats a totally other subject.

Copyright infringment Open-G stelaing anothers song in whatever fashion. I believe that was the original closed thread that started this discussion.

Originally posted: January 18, 2008
Chicago Tribune

Digital tax could save the music industry from itself

In the last few years, the music industry has combated tumbling revenue by suing customers, decimating artist rosters and laying off thousands of employees.

That’s not a business plan. That’s the sound of the Titanic slipping under the waves.

But in the last few days, one important segment of the music industry actually came up with a rescue strategy that didn’t smack of panic, malice or desperation.

The Songwriters Association of Canada is proposing a $5-a-month licensing fee on every wireless and Internet account in the country, in exchange for unlimited access to all recorded music.

The deal would put $1 billion annually in the pockets of artists, publishers and record labels, according to the songwriters group. The money would be distributed to artists based on how frequently their music is swapped on-line; the more downloads, the more money the people responsible for the music would accrue. Big Champagne, a Los Angeles-based Internet monitoring service, says it can track file-swapping accurately enough to ensure that artists big and small would be compensated.

Yet initial reaction to the proposal within the Canadian recording ...
more here: [leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com]


Nokia hopeful of signing up all four major labels for all-you-can-eat music offering
by Steve O'Hear (editor)
March 27th, 2008 | Posted in Audio | No Comments

Having already secured Universal Music’s support, Nokia is hopeful that the three remaining major labels -
Sony BMG, EMI and Warner, along with around ten independents - will also sign on in time for the launch of its all-you-can-eat music download service.

Announced last December at the annual Nokia World conference, “Comes With Music” will enable customers to buy a Nokia device
with a year of unlimited access to “millions of tracks”, and - rather surprisingly - get to keep any downloaded tracks once the twelve month subscription period ends.
The only way to then continue accessing the service, however, is to purchase a new “Comes With Music” device (see our follow-up report).

more here: [www.last100.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 03:38 by open-g.

Quote
Raoul Duke
Downloading released material is indeed illegal, but who the hell cares? Most of the people on this board who downloaded SAL (myself included) will end up buying the cd anyway, so what exactly are we stealing? Besides, I have given enough money to the boys that I don't feel particularly guilty about getting a bit of a preview on some crappy sounding mp3 file. It is understandable that BV would act to protect this website (and his own ass) from unwanted attention, but the platitudes about this being wrong or unethical are just a load of bullshit.

Finally an honest man

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

who else here did not dowload SAL but read all the early reviews of it from those who did?

Quote
Raoul Duke
Downloading released material is indeed illegal, but who the hell cares? Most of the people on this board who downloaded SAL (myself included) will end up buying the cd anyway, so what exactly are we stealing? Besides, I have given enough money to the boys that I don't feel particularly guilty about getting a bit of a preview on some crappy sounding mp3 file. It is understandable that BV would act to protect this website (and his own ass) from unwanted attention, but the platitudes about this being wrong or unethical are just a load of bullshit.

Exactly. I downloaded it and will end up seeing the movie,buying the CD and will go see them on future tours. Including the money I've spent in the past I don't have a huge problem with getting something for free....bv is certainly to run his sight as he see's fit. But on Rocks Off,they don't seem to have quite the same issue. The link to the download has not been deleted and the thread hasn't been closed....Again,to each their own.

Different countries have different rules and regulations - same with different websites.

btw, interesting link about Filesharing:
The Facts and the Myths
[www.slyck.com]

It's illegal and unethical.

Cohl's promising, at the initial ABB press conference, that there would be "club/theater" concerts, when during 2 years there was just 1 charity/movie shoot and 1 movie shoot, both with very limited ticket sales, WAS UNETHICAL, if not illegal.

Because Mick's extra rehearsal's for the movie shoots led to the last minute postponement of the Atlantic City concert, I had to fly over half-way across the US twice to see that concert - and I was not able to get a ticket for the movie shoots. So in this case, I don't care what's right or wrong. I want to hear Shine A Light and see it, but I don't want anyone associated with the movie to make a cent off me, seeing or hearing it. I'll download it and copy borrowed official CDs (and the SAL DVD too) and make free copies for friends. When going to the movie next week, at a multi-theater complex, I'm considering buying a ticket for a different movie and going into the SAL one. That way the theater owner will make money off me, but not the SAL producers. Yes, that's illegal, but, in this SAL case, so what!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 06:46 by IGTBA.

I don't need to save my ass to have this policy. It is simply a matter of my own standards. I am a software developer and supplier by profession. Programming or developing or writing music is the same thing. You spend time making some sort of art, and then you make it available to the public, hoping they will pay you back so that you can get bread on your table. Most developers and most musicians are not rich. Some are. If you steal software, music or art in general then you have moved your moral standards, just like doing a hit and run. You have decided to put yourselv above the law and decided you are superior to others. That is my personal opinion, and that is why I don't want to see IORR being abused for distribution of links to illegal copies. By the way, there are plenty of ways to find out about all these things on the net, so no worries if copying legal stuff is your way of living. Thanks!

Bjornulf

>> The problem is that the money dont go the the artists. Is that my problem? <<

ah: if it doesn't affect you directly, why think about it? artists will just go on producing/sharing music
for us forever anyway, right? whether they can earn a living at it or not. like songbirds ...
ahem, i mean: maybe one difference in our viewpoints is that money not going to artists has been my problem
(one of several, i'm proud to add! i am a diverse chick) for most of my adult life.

like i said last night, to me the prospect of having music funnelled through a provider
doesn't sound too appealing in a bunch of ways, but if you trust your providers that much ...
good for you! and for them too, eh? so carry on supporting them.
it's good to support stuff that we believe will make the world a better place.

(and since you ask: no, the situation where i live is not like what you describe where you live;
and yes, you're right that i miss a lot of headlines, mainly because
my news is funnelled through an internet provider - well okay so that's not the only reason,
but someday it might be )

meanwhile, James Lynn's "examples" don't have anything at all to do with copyright infringement.
maybe this article will start to clarify how copyrights work: [www.howstuffworks.com]
if you don't want to know about it, carry on just as you are by all means -
but meanwhile the answers to your basic questions are: no, not everyone casually owns illegal copies;
and yes, lots of people go out of their way to make sure they buy official releases;
and yes, different people have different ethical boundaries they feel okay with.
if you're comfortable with your own ethical boundaries about it, then you don't need others' "approval", do you



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 10:22 by with sssoul.

Charging $51 for 1 bonus track is unethical in my humble opinion. That is a travesty to hard core die hard fans. Who else is that aimed at? The general fan who is going to seek out a Japeneese import? Thats that crap that have pissed off die hards of the recent Cohl-Sir Mick conglomorate. Maybe I can offset the insulting ripoff "bend over" scam of a price by some other means. I wonder who thought up that little "lets screw the diehard once again" mentality by offering a "bonus track" on a Japeneese import. How about a CD single for few dollars? Fair is fair but I digress a bit. MEZ

smile: the $51 isn't for one bonus track - it's for the whole two-disk set plus international shipping.
there are 23 tracks on it, i think? so it works out to [calculatecalculate ... calculatecalculate ...]
it works out to $2.21 per track. so it's a good thing it's not like anyone is *required* to buy it, huh

>> Fair is fair but I digress a bit <<

smile: yeah to both

A rip off nontheless. Are you all going to hurt The Stones pockets by downloading Leeds, Brussels, Unreleased 72 album, LA 75, Earls 76, Memphis78 etc? of course not. When they close shop they will want to put out an anthology vault release. How can they, when all hard cores will already have this material? Because hello! people will buy it anyway, as an upgrade, or what have you. So the opposite premise holds true as well. You are not hurting the group by downloading official, but perhaps gaining them more exposure to folk, who will in turn buy more stuff. The examples are infringment parallels sorry (Some are by indirect means). But they arn't conveinent, and all of you do or would do, so it'd be contradictory to admit as much, and they cry its wrong. You'd take the "gift" and you know it, so why not take "gifts" from MEZ and others. And you know damn well people are going to buy the US double CD and then feel complelled to get the Japaneese import. They won't just want all the Japaneese writing on it, or for completist compulsion they will. Those bright minds are well aware of that so the $2.37 a track, or whatever argument is rubbish. It's a moneymaking scheme, directed solely at their most devoted fans No? YES ,But of course lets be real. A thief is a thief is a thief. Cohl #1 no? Whats the next tour going to cost as well Mr Cohl. "Lets a screw em more & more Mick" . But if you choose blind allegiance on all fronts that is cetaintly your perrogative. MEZ



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 08:52 by James Lynn.

accepting a gift of a duly-paid-for official release is not copyright infringement or "parallel to" copyright infringement.
yes, some people refuse gifts of unofficial copies, or buy the official version to justify owning a copy.
it's just a choice some people make, like some people feel okay eating meat and others
blithely rip innocent vegetables from their homes and devour them, quite without provocation,
and without ever considering that that same vegetable may be a philosopher of great insight,
or perhaps was a sentient being in a previous incarnation - maybe even a relative!
how would one know without checking?! but i digress



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 08:36 by with sssoul.

But again how would you know how the person giving the gift obtained that copy? Did you demand to see the reciept? Perhaps it was purchased via black market, (for a pirated half price means), or even perhaps the individual giving you the gift outright stole it from a store. How would you know? Its all so disconcerting if we cannot know for certian you may be unwittngly contributing to illicit activity albeit perhaps unknowingly. I guess the only way to know for certain is to not accept any music as a gift. What is the difference if a partner purchases a CD and leaves it at your home forever from a party or from breaking up. Its now yours and you did not pay. Versus me buying it legally, burning it, and once again its now yours. There is a slight distinction. One is knowingly vs unknowingly but the outcome is the same. In both scenerios you have the same CD without paying for it correct. I'm only asking for my own edification logically speaking. Thanks MEZ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 08:53 by James Lynn.

okay, just for your own edification logically speaking: the point where your examples become silly
is when you insist that giving a duly-paid-for disk to someone as a gift is an infringement of copyright.
when the purchaser paid for it, the copyright owners were duly compensated for that copy,
and nothing is infringed or imperiled if it's given to someone as a gift, left at someone's house,
bequeathed in a will or eaten by someone who's decided that vegetables are not fair game.

similarly: if someone steals a CD, they're breaking the law - but not copyright law,
because the shop has duly paid the copyright holders for the disks it stocks.

so let's stick to a scenario that actually has some relevance to copyrights:
someone gives me an official release - duly paid for - as a gift.
i later find out that before giving it to me, he/she made a copy of it for him/herself,
which is a copyright infringement. i'm not guilty of infringing copyright myself,
but do i give the "gift" back to the person or what? (i know what i'd do, because i've been in this scenario.)

the scenario where i don't know the person's made a copyright-infringing copy before giving me the disk
is verging off into silliness again. you might have eaten a profound philosopher once too,
thinking it was "just broccoli", despite your best efforts to avoid eating great philosophers.
does the awareness that you can't be sure mean you're comfortable giving up all your ethical principles?
that's up to you, isn't it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 09:38 by with sssoul.

You are a noble individual if you in fact returned the disc. I commend you. But I still disagree because if I buy the CD, burn the CD for you the Copyright owners were duly compensated by my purchase but not yours. You received as a gift from me. So wheter another buys and gives to you as a gift. The Copyright owners were duly compenstaed once again by the person giving the gift but not by the recipient of the gift. The outcome result is one in the same. I am fine with what I do. I have hundreds of hundreds of officially bought CD's its just that I am so sick of politically correct stances by people whom I see accept burned official mixes daily but would come out and say its wrong. Hypocrisy is worse than piracy to me. I stand by the Japaneese import fiasco. Is it their perogative to screw their base yet again? but of course hey its America. Cohl qualifies as prime example of capitalist greed. They knew putting the 1 song on a Japaneese import they would get their base buying both at a total cost of $75 or more. That tactic is lame, especially as its directed at their hardcore base. Just go to the Japaneese CD thread to see, people are torn as to purchase both. In the end they will relent, as diehards and completists and Mr Cohl & Sir Mick knew this. Duly compensated versus, "bend over" greed, repeatedly from their camp ad nausium gets intolerable. Lets call things as realists not idealists. Think before forking over an additional $51 to Michael Cohl incorporated. Off topic but Do you think Mr Cohl has done right by you as a diehard fan since his regime took over power? Please do not say your ok with his tactics. Talk about unethical!! please. It's not all about the money!!!! I thought Sir Mick was stating that as much in Neo Con.(Haliburton & oil greed) It's all greed, and in fact he seems hypocritical in his artistry vs his acceptanced practice of greed from his regime. But I digress! Lets hope Cohl gets the boot soon, so as you may get a fair price and not a "bending over" because of your love and devotion for The Greatest Band in the world. MEZ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 09:40 by James Lynn.

one more time: buying one disk compensates the copyright owners for one disk, not for one disk + a copy for someone else.
except maybe in Germany, if open-g's right about multiple copies being permitted -
but a] that simply means multiple royalties are calculated into the price of each disk sold,
and b] someone else said that's not actually correct anyway.

if you don't want to buy the Japanese version - or any other version - then don't.
if you want to buy all the various versions then do. or choose one version that will suit you and buy that,
or not, if that's what you're comfortable with. other people's choices are theirs, yours are yours.
it's pretty simple, really!

>> You are a noble individual if you ... <<

it's not a question of "nobility" - it's a question of doing what one feels comfortable with.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 10:14 by with sssoul.

Quote
James Lynn
Charging $51 for 1 bonus track is unethical in my humble opinion. That is a travesty to hard core die hard fans. Who else is that aimed at? The general fan who is going to seek out a Japeneese import?

I think the bonus track on Japanese CDs is not particularly a Stones thing nor is it about ripping off hardcore fans. In my experience, many Japanese CDs by various artists contain bonus tracks. The record companies in Japan do this to encourage Japanese people to buy the Japanese made CD which is generally much more expensive than the imported US version.

What a heavy debate, love it. A couple of weeks ago I posted a statement that said a young fellow at work wanted to hear some boots from the Stones I had told him about. Well I made him a boot and loaned him some official cds. He has since bought ABB and ordered some other official releases that he would never have bought. He now loves the Stones and wants more. Aint that a win.He is 17yo and all he had ever heard was about 3 songs any radio station will ever play and was so turned off, not now. Like me, he now loves the Stones and hates radio, Thats 2 wins.So downloading boots is good for the Stones, I think thats why they accept it and keeps them in mind for fans in between official releases.

But terraplane The Stones must of granted that permission, and knowing the benefits they'd reap from it, aside from just the Japaneese public, even if that was the sole intent of the Japaneese marketers. Will Undercover be released as A CD single in the US? Why not? They'll make more $ by this other tactic because youll have to in essence buy a duplicate full double CD again. But to each his own. Personally I'm just pissed about it. You can buy it yet still be upset by the greed because "they have you." Its the smae as paying for a $8 beer and $5 dollar hot dog at a sporting event or concert. They know they have you. Maybe I can get Undercover as a "gift" from a relative or friend or friend of a friend. I assume Micks children get their offical stuff free but what about his nieces or cousins, or cousins cousins for that matter. Where would he draw the line of acceptability. How about his friends or would he condone a friend of a friend?? Is anyone a distant relative who may wish to grant a "gift". Why should his cousins cousin be any different than me or you? Hmm this arguments getting capricious. But there is a huge "grey" area nonetheless. Many bands are offering their CDs free or free downloads it is the inevitable wave of the future. But don't worry thats why ticket prices are in the hundres nowadays because they must get their money in some fashion.But if you boycott the concert and save for DVD surround sound you reap the benefits every which way as I see it. Perhaps you can still in turn get a ticket as a "gift" by some means. Last statement anybody here think Mr Cohl is ethical? MEZ

I feel your pain James. I remember buying 'Still Got The Blues' by Gary Moore when it came out. I quite liked it. Then I had to buy the Japanese version to get one bonus track. I saw it in the shops the other day as a remastered version with 5 other bonus tracks so I bought it again. Therefore, in reality I have paid three times for the (largely) same CD.

I think a reasonable thing in this situation would be that the record company/artist makes the bonus track available as a paid download eg, $1 for the extra track.

Terraplane that would be too simple and ethical a premise for this regime. Make no mistake the regime is unethical in and of itself!! Whiskey you make a great point as well, which holds true very often. That is why its only a matter of time before free official downloads is the norm. Wonder if the elitists stances would than change, in conjunction with the normative change.

Those of you that are against, are you against simply because the law says its illegal or are against from an unethical philosophical stance? Being unlawful and unethical are completely two seperate entities. My point being, if because as some of you state, its unethical than remember that when in a few years time it becomes the legal norm ,please hold firm to your position nontheless, on philosophical moral relativist terms. MEZ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:22 by James Lynn.