Tell Me :
Talk
You don't have it yet. Just because you have ordered the CD, with the amount of releases not counting for anything by the way, does not justify to download it. If I go buy a toothbrush, I don't open the package and try to brush my teeth with it to make sure it feels good in my mouth.
JumpingKentFlash
I also resent some practices by the industry like putting out a box set first with unreleased tracks, then all of the albums with bonus tracks, then 2CD collectors editions of the classic albums and so forth. But then again: nobody is forced to buy them. It's all up to you!
For example: When David Bowie's albums were re-released for the first time around 1990, I bought them all because they were beautifully packaged and all carried bonus tracks. When David switched to EMI and the albums were re-released once again WITHOUT the bonus tracks but "24bit remastered", I didn't give a shit and just ignored them.
As for the hight price of SAL - the Japanese edition: This is mainly because of currency rates. The Japanes Yen is just too "expensive".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:43 by Greenblues.
Yes I know that I can just turn off the CD when it gets to the bonus tracks. Of course I can. That I don't want to is not laziness though. I always felt that there has to be an effort involved in listening to music. It's important. This is also the reason why it's more enjoyable listening to an LP than to a CD (Well, one of the aspects). A CD should run from the first track to the last track without nothing put on as a bonus. It ruins it for me. I don't want to hear Word On A Wing followed by Fame '90 (And WOOF that track is awful).
The new ones aren't expensive either. Start by buying your fave album and then decide if it's worth a complete Bowie collection substitute. For me it was.
JumpingKentFlash
Hunky Dory is great. Only thing that bugs me about it is the way they recorded acoustic instruments. They all sound like they're recorded outside the instrument (Acoustic guitars doesn't have a warm "inside" feel, and pianos also sound cold). Of course this could be on purpose and be an artistic approach, but I'm not too fond of that sound. It should sound like No Expectations IMO (Best ever acoustic guitar sound).
JumpingKentFlash
See, our (my) point is that the present copyright laws DO NOT "encourage new artists, and quality music and diversity", not at all! Therefore, from this point of view, it is a BAD law.
It is an attempt to be a good law only from the point of view of recovering corporation claims. Yet, I don't understand why payment of a plummer's bill is a mere contractual obligation while payment of Virgin's bill should be enforced by the police.
One final note, the fact that publishing a group of songs in a CD (or lp) format is no longer profitable does not mean that artists are not pushed to produce new music. They continue doing so, because that is what they do in life, but very simply they make the money in other ways.
C
That doesn't justify downloading at all if you ask me. If you feel that they cheat you that doesn't mean that you should cheat them. If you do so, you become just as bad as you think they are. You become your foe. Same as with death penalty really. Just because I killed a man (For the record: I didn't....... YET! MUUAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
) doesn't mean I should be killed for it. The phrase "Eye for an eye" is just about the worst phrase in the world. Whatever happened to try understanding a problem and finding a solution to it, rather than killing it off and thinking everything's all right?
JumpingKentFlash
ah ah, dear ssoul i will have appreciated much if you would have considered all of my post and not just cut and paste that sensible statement which is , of course, if you read all the post completely a rhetoric question. But maybe it is my problem with the language
all i've read is about a bad law on copyrights that rips off artists AND users of a technology. The newspapers quoted above tells the story better than me of course.
10 years ago i was spending say the equivalent of 150 euros for the phone line for national calls only (due to a monopolistic market occupied by a state company) now i spend the same amount of money and i phone whereever and have full access to the internet 24h a day with a broadband connection.
well i think it does make sense if i imagine a near future where with the same amount of money i phone i surf AND i pay the copyright of my "free" download thru the payed connection.
that is the bandwidth provider sells me a package where the copyrighted fee is included
the headlines quoted above go right in this direction
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:38 by maumau.
a lot of plain misunderstanding here too sssoul!
where i say that i have faith in the "goodness" of the bandwidth providers???!!!
and again "it's not my problem" means the problem has not its resolution enforcing a prohibitionist law upon me and everyone who PAY for the connection
"i still don't see how paying bandwidth providers for access to music is "free""
see my previous post up here and the headlines quoted earlier in the thread for some ideas
I respect your policy for your site bv - and of course your opinions. In fact i did not put any link to any source.
Goes without saying that i'll buy sal (the cd, the movie ticket and the dvd when it comes out) as i do with a lot of other music
in fact i probably spend mor money now (in absolute numbers) then 20 years ago. Just because i have more now then then....
Of course - and luckily - I listen to more music now. And this process, as desribed by others above, has opened wide this market with many chance of profit for many (if it were really open...)
Sure I "dont put myself above the law" i use a technology that i pay for and criticize in public this law. I even give money to politicians that work to change the law in Europe and in Italy, i signed petition etc
So, far from "being not my problem", i take a good care of it and hope for a change
Now here you touch a sensible note: the avarage price for a medium beer (0,4 liter) in a pub in Milano is from 5 to 7 euros!!!
This is what I call immoral!!!
C
Such as?
Check out the Hot Stuff page.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:12
Quote
Chrissie
Well I downloaded it...
and listened to it on my car radio...
I don't feel like a thief because I downloaded it yesterday and 2 days ago I ordered
-) the Double CD Version from amazon.com
-) the Single CD Version from amazon.com
-) the USB Version from amazon.co.uk
-) the Japanese Version from cdjapan.co.jp
-) the 6track promo sampler from ebay
So please tell me I'm a thief because I downloaded something to hear in advance which I already ordered AND PREPAID days beforeLOL to you all out there !
my best !
You don't have it yet. Just because you have ordered the CD, with the amount of releases not counting for anything by the way, does not justify to download it. If I go buy a toothbrush, I don't open the package and try to brush my teeth with it to make sure it feels good in my mouth.
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:21
>> the elitists stances <<
what "elistists"? you mean people who have different principles than you about this?
and ... by "free official downloads becoming the norm", do you by any chance happen to mean
"included in the charges you pay for internet access" or "included in the price of some gizmo you have to buy
(which by the way will most likely not be compatible with your existing gizmos,
so using it will entail also "upgrading" your whole system every couple of years)"?
but yeah, if you have an idea for a new approach to distribution that lets music lovers access music
and ensures that artists get fair compensation for what they do,
and that it's all set up to encourage new artists, and quality music and diversity,
and not just lowest-common-denominator junk, then by all means tell us how it'll work.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:30 by with sssoul.
what "elistists"? you mean people who have different principles than you about this?
and ... by "free official downloads becoming the norm", do you by any chance happen to mean
"included in the charges you pay for internet access" or "included in the price of some gizmo you have to buy
(which by the way will most likely not be compatible with your existing gizmos,
so using it will entail also "upgrading" your whole system every couple of years)"?
but yeah, if you have an idea for a new approach to distribution that lets music lovers access music
and ensures that artists get fair compensation for what they do,
and that it's all set up to encourage new artists, and quality music and diversity,
and not just lowest-common-denominator junk, then by all means tell us how it'll work.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:30 by with sssoul.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:31
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? 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
I also resent some practices by the industry like putting out a box set first with unreleased tracks, then all of the albums with bonus tracks, then 2CD collectors editions of the classic albums and so forth. But then again: nobody is forced to buy them. It's all up to you!
For example: When David Bowie's albums were re-released for the first time around 1990, I bought them all because they were beautifully packaged and all carried bonus tracks. When David switched to EMI and the albums were re-released once again WITHOUT the bonus tracks but "24bit remastered", I didn't give a shit and just ignored them.
As for the hight price of SAL - the Japanese edition: This is mainly because of currency rates. The Japanes Yen is just too "expensive".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:43 by Greenblues.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
James Lynn
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:38
You make a good point Fair compensation. Was charging $25 a CD fair back in the day, when "they" had all the leverage, or is fair now the $8 they can now charge, because their just happy you'll buy it at all. Face it its soon a thing of the past. Perhaps you'll say fair compensation is the free market. Well obviously the free market has spoken literally in recent times. I mean Free literally, by the way! I am happy its more of a level playing field pricewise, because they know they don't got you anymore", but they will be just happy if your "at the game on discount terms" so to speak. The end result is its good for the masses, the recent trend that is. The industry is a dying breed. They even acknowledged it numerous times at the Grammy's. Antiquated concepts will soon and are being replaced. Don't worry they are still and will forever be rich. Worry about us not routinely getting overcompensated ! Mr Cohl will make sure prices will continue to go up next tour. Funny thing, as filthy rich as he is, he probably "illegally" downloads his Stones fringe materials. A schister is a schister. I'm a consumer advocate. That is my concern. MEZ
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:41 by James Lynn.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 11:41 by James Lynn.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:42
Quote
GreenbluesFor example: When David Bowie's albums were re-released for the first time around 1990, I bought them all because they were beautifully packaged and all carried bonus tracks. When David switched to EMI and the albums were re-released once again WITHOUT the bonus tracks but "24bit remastered", I didn't give a shit and just ignored them.[/quote
Ah but you shouldn't. The new Bowie remasters are way better than the old ones with bonus tracks. I've had many of those old ones, but I sold them all. The reason being that the new ones are far better and that bonus tracks at the end of the CD ruins the experience.
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:56
Thanks for the info, Kent, I never compared them soundwise so really I didn't know. As for the bonus tracks. I know what you mean and there's some justice in the "pure album" approach. On the other hand one is always free to listen to the album portion only. And I think EMI's motives were different than yours. IMO they just wanted to recreate those "unreleased" tracks for future use. Anyway, I'd always keep my first-reissue-items, even if I'd buy some of the new ones. Each of them brings memories of the time I bought them, and perhaps someday they'll get very sought-after ;-) (OK I know, they sold tons of them, so this is only a small option).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 12:10 by Greenblues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 12:10 by Greenblues.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: March 28, 2008 11:57
>> You make a good point Fair compensation <<
i'm glad you like it, but please note that i'm talking about fair compensation for the artists,
not the record companies (or bandwidth providers or whatever other middlemen).
as i keep saying: i will be very happy if someone would point out a way i can
rip off the big bad corporations without simultaneously ripping off the artists.
i still don't see how paying bandwidth providers for access to music is "free",
nor do i share maumau's faith that bandwidth providers will "automatically" be better to artists
(or to music, or to music lovers) than record companies traditionally have been.
and "it's not my problem" doesn't seem very thoughtful to me (possibly because - as i've noted -
whether artists are compensated or not has been a very immediate problem for me.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 12:14 by with sssoul.
i'm glad you like it, but please note that i'm talking about fair compensation for the artists,
not the record companies (or bandwidth providers or whatever other middlemen).
as i keep saying: i will be very happy if someone would point out a way i can
rip off the big bad corporations without simultaneously ripping off the artists.
i still don't see how paying bandwidth providers for access to music is "free",
nor do i share maumau's faith that bandwidth providers will "automatically" be better to artists
(or to music, or to music lovers) than record companies traditionally have been.
and "it's not my problem" doesn't seem very thoughtful to me (possibly because - as i've noted -
whether artists are compensated or not has been a very immediate problem for me.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 12:14 by with sssoul.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 12:25
Quote
Greenblues
Thanks for the info, Kent, I never compared them soundwise so really I didn't know. As for the bonus tracks. I know what you mean and there's some justice in the "pure album" approach. On the other hand one is always free to listen to the album portion only. And I think EMI's motives were different than yours. IMO they just wanted to recreate those "unreleased" tracks for future use. Anyway, I'd always keep my first-reissue-items, even if I'd buy some of the new ones. Each of them brings memories of the time I bought them, and perhaps someday they'll get very sought-after ;-) (OK I know, they sold tons of them, so this is only a small option).
Yes I know that I can just turn off the CD when it gets to the bonus tracks. Of course I can. That I don't want to is not laziness though. I always felt that there has to be an effort involved in listening to music. It's important. This is also the reason why it's more enjoyable listening to an LP than to a CD (Well, one of the aspects). A CD should run from the first track to the last track without nothing put on as a bonus. It ruins it for me. I don't want to hear Word On A Wing followed by Fame '90 (And WOOF that track is awful).
The new ones aren't expensive either. Start by buying your fave album and then decide if it's worth a complete Bowie collection substitute. For me it was.
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:23
Hey Kent, but listen to the wonderful bonus tracks on "Diamond Dogs"! "Dodo" for example... But I reckon, you got that on a box set anyway. But I'll try the new ones. Might start with the "Ziggy Stardust" soundtrack,though cause that one sounds substandard within the old edition and the new one's reported to sound fantastic (within it's very own limits).
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:32
Not a bad one to start with for sure, but I always felt it was a bit overrated. I like Hunky Dory better from around the same era. The Berlin trilogy is for sure one of the best bets in the new series. Listening to the instrumental tracks on Heroes. It's a whole new experience. V-2 Schneider is also much better. It really kicks ass.
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:33
Lets see:
$450.00 For A Ticket
$55.00 for a T SHIRT (Probably made in a sweatshop somewhere at a cost of $3.00 or less)
$25.00 for a lousy made hat
$100.00 for a "fan" club membership, that doesn't send you what they promised.
$20.00 for a show program
and on,and on.....
Illegaly? No .. Obscene and immoral.. HELL YES.
Posted by: georgelicks ()
Date: March 27, 2008 04:01
In about 20 hours, about 8,000 full downloads from a torrent site alone.
Payback is a bitch. Right Cohl,Mick,etc?
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 13:38 by ROPENI.
$450.00 For A Ticket
$55.00 for a T SHIRT (Probably made in a sweatshop somewhere at a cost of $3.00 or less)
$25.00 for a lousy made hat
$100.00 for a "fan" club membership, that doesn't send you what they promised.
$20.00 for a show program
and on,and on.....
Illegaly? No .. Obscene and immoral.. HELL YES.
Posted by: georgelicks ()
Date: March 27, 2008 04:01
In about 20 hours, about 8,000 full downloads from a torrent site alone.
Payback is a bitch. Right Cohl,Mick,etc?
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 13:38 by ROPENI.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:35
Artistically you're right. Hunky Dory is a "heavenly" nice experience. And the Berlin trilogy, well, just mysterious and cool, especially when you've lived in Berlin as me.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:41
Always did this before, almost not at all nowadays.
I see it as an ephemeric era.
I see it as an ephemeric era.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:49
Quote
Greenblues
Artistically you're right. Hunky Dory is a "heavenly" nice experience. And the Berlin trilogy, well, just mysterious and cool, especially when you've lived in Berlin as me.
Hunky Dory is great. Only thing that bugs me about it is the way they recorded acoustic instruments. They all sound like they're recorded outside the instrument (Acoustic guitars doesn't have a warm "inside" feel, and pianos also sound cold). Of course this could be on purpose and be an artistic approach, but I'm not too fond of that sound. It should sound like No Expectations IMO (Best ever acoustic guitar sound).
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:55
Hmm...you're right with No Expectations, beautiful acoustic sound. But with Hunky Dory...I think it's really perfect, even sound-wise. Maybe I don't miss the "natural warmth" because the slightly "artistic" feel you mention fits Bowie so well.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 13:56
But then again: Every artistic approach fits Bowie The Chameleon.
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:01
Yeah - perfect approach he has. Cheers Kent! Work is calling :-(
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:03 by Greenblues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:03 by Greenblues.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:05
Quote
with sssoul
but yeah, if you have an idea for a new approach to distribution that lets music lovers access music
and ensures that artists get fair compensation for what they do,
and that it's all set up to encourage new artists, and quality music and diversity,
and not just lowest-common-denominator junk, then by all means tell us how it'll work.
See, our (my) point is that the present copyright laws DO NOT "encourage new artists, and quality music and diversity", not at all! Therefore, from this point of view, it is a BAD law.
It is an attempt to be a good law only from the point of view of recovering corporation claims. Yet, I don't understand why payment of a plummer's bill is a mere contractual obligation while payment of Virgin's bill should be enforced by the police.
One final note, the fact that publishing a group of songs in a CD (or lp) format is no longer profitable does not mean that artists are not pushed to produce new music. They continue doing so, because that is what they do in life, but very simply they make the money in other ways.
C
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:08
Quote
ROPENI
Lets see:
$450.00 For A Ticket
$55.00 for a T SHIRT (Probably made in a sweatshop somewhere at a cost of $3.00 or less)
$25.00 for a lousy made hat
$100.00 for a "fan" club membership, that doesn't send you what they promised.
$20.00 for a show program
and on,and on.....
Illegaly? No .. Obscene and immoral.. HELL YES.
That doesn't justify downloading at all if you ask me. If you feel that they cheat you that doesn't mean that you should cheat them. If you do so, you become just as bad as you think they are. You become your foe. Same as with death penalty really. Just because I killed a man (For the record: I didn't....... YET! MUUAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
) doesn't mean I should be killed for it. The phrase "Eye for an eye" is just about the worst phrase in the world. Whatever happened to try understanding a problem and finding a solution to it, rather than killing it off and thinking everything's all right?JumpingKentFlash
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
Made In The Shade
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:10
I downloaded the music and will spend the weekend listening to it.
On Tuesday I will spend money of purchasing the official 2-CD release.
Next Friday I will spend a few more bucks to go & see the movie in IMAX with a few of my concert buddies.
The next day I will plunk down a few more dollars to see it again, in a regular theater, with my wife and kids.
So, where is the harm exactly? I totally understand where BV is coming from, and he did what he had to do. But I, for one, feel no issue because I purchase every product, more or less, this band puts out there. My penchant for downloading bootlegs does not impact my practice of also spending my money on the band.
On Tuesday I will spend money of purchasing the official 2-CD release.
Next Friday I will spend a few more bucks to go & see the movie in IMAX with a few of my concert buddies.
The next day I will plunk down a few more dollars to see it again, in a regular theater, with my wife and kids.
So, where is the harm exactly? I totally understand where BV is coming from, and he did what he had to do. But I, for one, feel no issue because I purchase every product, more or less, this band puts out there. My penchant for downloading bootlegs does not impact my practice of also spending my money on the band.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:18
Quote
with sssoul
>> 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?
ah ah, dear ssoul i will have appreciated much if you would have considered all of my post and not just cut and paste that sensible statement which is , of course, if you read all the post completely a rhetoric question. But maybe it is my problem with the language
all i've read is about a bad law on copyrights that rips off artists AND users of a technology. The newspapers quoted above tells the story better than me of course.
10 years ago i was spending say the equivalent of 150 euros for the phone line for national calls only (due to a monopolistic market occupied by a state company) now i spend the same amount of money and i phone whereever and have full access to the internet 24h a day with a broadband connection.
well i think it does make sense if i imagine a near future where with the same amount of money i phone i surf AND i pay the copyright of my "free" download thru the payed connection.
that is the bandwidth provider sells me a package where the copyrighted fee is included
the headlines quoted above go right in this direction
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:38 by maumau.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:27
Quote
with sssoul
>> You make a good point Fair compensation <<
i'm glad you like it, but please note that i'm talking about fair compensation for the artists,
not the record companies (or bandwidth providers or whatever other middlemen).
as i keep saying: i will be very happy if someone would point out a way i can
rip off the big bad corporations without simultaneously ripping off the artists.
i still don't see how paying bandwidth providers for access to music is "free",
nor do i share maumau's faith that bandwidth providers will "automatically" be better to artists
(or to music, or to music lovers) than record companies traditionally have been.
and "it's not my problem" doesn't seem very thoughtful to me (possibly because - as i've noted -
whether artists are compensated or not has been a very immediate problem for me.)
a lot of plain misunderstanding here too sssoul!
where i say that i have faith in the "goodness" of the bandwidth providers???!!!
and again "it's not my problem" means the problem has not its resolution enforcing a prohibitionist law upon me and everyone who PAY for the connection
"i still don't see how paying bandwidth providers for access to music is "free""
see my previous post up here and the headlines quoted earlier in the thread for some ideas
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:45
Man, this thread should be banned for it takes away too much of my precious time to read all the interesting points of view. What I've read so far is very helpful to think about the ethics of downloading copyrighted music (opposite to bootlegs, which discussion we've had before).
I think it is nice that a lot of posters above just stuck to describing their own habits and morality and kept away from judging others. This is helpful to explore all angles.
Following this tradition I must admit that I do sometimes download music that is copyrighted, because I want to hear what an artist is about before I buy his/her music. Sometimes this leads me to buying the album, if I find out the product is worth my money, and sometimes I conclude it's not my cup of tea and a total waste of disc space. So this way downloading is helpful to spread the music amongst new listeners who don't have the time to go to a record store to listen to the album with headphones.
In case of the SAL-CD I must admit that the availability of the treasure under my fingertips was too much to resist. I did download it and of course I will buy it as soon as it's available. I usually don't do it with a band or artist of whom I know I can trust his/their output. With The Stones of course there was no doubt it would be worth every penny. Would it have been a studio album, I don't think I would have downloaded it, because it is so much fun to listen to all the new songs after bringing home the disc you just bought, thumbing through the booklet etc (a joy they took away from me with ABB ). But with SAL I knew all the songs, so no surprises there, and all I was curious about was how they sounded.
Now the tricky part (every question has two sides, like Protagoras said) is that sometimes I downloaded an album that I don't like to have, but one or two songs are worth to be listened to again. So to tell the truth, I do have saved some songs that I downloaded and that I did not pay for. And that is where things go wrong.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:47 by marcovandereijk.
I think it is nice that a lot of posters above just stuck to describing their own habits and morality and kept away from judging others. This is helpful to explore all angles.
Following this tradition I must admit that I do sometimes download music that is copyrighted, because I want to hear what an artist is about before I buy his/her music. Sometimes this leads me to buying the album, if I find out the product is worth my money, and sometimes I conclude it's not my cup of tea and a total waste of disc space. So this way downloading is helpful to spread the music amongst new listeners who don't have the time to go to a record store to listen to the album with headphones.
In case of the SAL-CD I must admit that the availability of the treasure under my fingertips was too much to resist. I did download it and of course I will buy it as soon as it's available. I usually don't do it with a band or artist of whom I know I can trust his/their output. With The Stones of course there was no doubt it would be worth every penny. Would it have been a studio album, I don't think I would have downloaded it, because it is so much fun to listen to all the new songs after bringing home the disc you just bought, thumbing through the booklet etc (a joy they took away from me with ABB ). But with SAL I knew all the songs, so no surprises there, and all I was curious about was how they sounded.
Now the tricky part (every question has two sides, like Protagoras said) is that sometimes I downloaded an album that I don't like to have, but one or two songs are worth to be listened to again. So to tell the truth, I do have saved some songs that I downloaded and that I did not pay for. And that is where things go wrong.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 14:47 by marcovandereijk.
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: March 28, 2008 14:47
Quote
bv
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!
I respect your policy for your site bv - and of course your opinions. In fact i did not put any link to any source.
Goes without saying that i'll buy sal (the cd, the movie ticket and the dvd when it comes out) as i do with a lot of other music
in fact i probably spend mor money now (in absolute numbers) then 20 years ago. Just because i have more now then then....
Of course - and luckily - I listen to more music now. And this process, as desribed by others above, has opened wide this market with many chance of profit for many (if it were really open...)
Sure I "dont put myself above the law" i use a technology that i pay for and criticize in public this law. I even give money to politicians that work to change the law in Europe and in Italy, i signed petition etc
So, far from "being not my problem", i take a good care of it and hope for a change
Re: Open Discussion about Downloading
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 28, 2008 15:12
Quote
bv
Everybody might make up their own rules. If I think beer is too expensive I might take some extra beer in my pockets at the shop. All the shop owners in my country are millionairs so that would be no problem for them.
Now here you touch a sensible note: the avarage price for a medium beer (0,4 liter) in a pub in Milano is from 5 to 7 euros!!!
This is what I call immoral!!!
C
Why was the Shine A Light thread closed?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: March 27, 2008 14:55
There was some interesting discussion emerging. It's a shame that we have the odd occurance of censorship on the site. Downloading shouldn't be a taboo subject.
Re: Why was the Shine A Light thread closed?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: March 27, 2008 14:59
>>>>Downloading shouldn't be a taboo subject.
I guess it's not a taboo, but it can have big legal consequences for the owner of a website if powers that be find out he's advertising downloading of copyright material. So unless you feel up to paying the penalties for BV, I guess you will understand his decision to remove the thread.
I guess it's not a taboo, but it can have big legal consequences for the owner of a website if powers that be find out he's advertising downloading of copyright material. So unless you feel up to paying the penalties for BV, I guess you will understand his decision to remove the thread.
Re: Why was the Shine A Light thread closed?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: March 27, 2008 15:43
Yes Marco , but aren't we talking double standards here. There are plenty of links on IORR to sites where you download live and even studio recordings.
Re: Why was the Shine A Light thread closed?
Posted by:
vox12string
()
Date: March 27, 2008 17:05
Quote
Silver Dagger
Yes Marco , but aren't we talking double standards here. There are plenty of links on IORR to sites where you download live and even studio recordings.
Such as?
Re: Why was the Shine A Light thread closed?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: March 27, 2008 17:21
Quote
vox12stringQuote
Silver Dagger
Yes Marco , but aren't we talking double standards here. There are plenty of links on IORR to sites where you download live and even studio recordings.
Such as?
Check out the Hot Stuff page.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1171
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10