what Shine a Light thread has been closed? there are at least two going strong about the leaked download.
meanwhile, the rules i know of for the Hot Stuff page are that officially-released stuff isn't okay to post.
i think it's fair to assume that BV's sussed out the situation and knows why he has those rules.
any one of us can always start our own sites and post whatever we want just to see what happens ...

Quote
with sssoul
what Shine a Light thread has been closed? there are at least two going strong about the leaked download.
meanwhile, the rules i know of for the Hot Stuff page are that officially-released stuff isn't okay to post.
i think it's fair to assume that BV's sussed out the situation and knows why he has those rules.
any one of us can always start our own sites and post whatever we want just to see what happens ...

The one you commented on Re: rants
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 27, 2008 08:08

oh that one - so let's say it was closed because i was getting too contentious.
it happens. the Specials had a song about that too :E

Bitch? Hey Little Rich Girl? Do tell.

A Message to You Rudie :E

piracy is what that song's about? Never listened to the lyrics in the verses.

cc, the song i mentioned has nothing to do with piracy as far as i know.
it was just the first Specials tune that came to mind in response to the previous post -
charmed as i am to be suspected of being rich :E

Only kidding with sssoul. Loved The Specials and saw them loads of times. Their drummer Brad is a good mate who lives around the corner from me in north London.

well give the man my regards in that case, and thanks & praises! the Specials shook my tailfeather real fine,
though i never had a chance to be at one of their shows ... not yet, that is:
i heard they're planning to get something together musically this year - is that right?

now I geddit... well, don't they have a song about cocaine, or am I thinking of the Beat? Too many vices to sort out...

There's been talk for a long time about a reunion. Unfortunately it seems as if it will be purely for monetary rather than artistic reasons. As you can imagine most of the group are up for it but Jerry Dammers and Terry Hall were/are the sticking points. But with not much else happening on either of their itinararies right now the chances are better than ever. It'll probably be to help a worthy cause such as Love Music Hate Racism.

Still no answer on why this thread was closed. It would be interesting to get BV's view on this especially as the subject of downloading has become one of the most hotly debated subjects in recent times on this site.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Still no answer on why this thread was closed. It would be interesting to get BV's view on this especially as the subject of downloading has become one of the most hotly debated subjects in recent times on this site.

Probably too many SAL posts I would think. There's a Shine A Light thread with around 30 pages. It's the only one needed really.

JumpingKentFlash

Rudy A Message To You - Dandy Livingstone 1967 - Covered by The Specials

A message to the Rude Boys ... Jamiacan getto hoodlums from the mid-sixties



ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 12:45 by Rockman.

a great, in-depth look at The Specials story
plus new interviews, in May's Mojo.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Silver Dagger
Still no answer on why this thread was closed. It would be interesting to get BV's view on this especially as the subject of downloading has become one of the most hotly debated subjects in recent times on this site.

Probably too many SAL posts I would think. There's a Shine A Light thread with around 30 pages. It's the only one needed really.

That's no reason for closing a post, especially as the subject matter was perhaps considered contentious. There's been loads of instances of several posts on the same subject in the past.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Silver Dagger
Still no answer on why this thread was closed. It would be interesting to get BV's view on this especially as the subject of downloading has become one of the most hotly debated subjects in recent times on this site.

Probably too many SAL posts I would think. There's a Shine A Light thread with around 30 pages. It's the only one needed really.

That's no reason for closing a post, especially as the subject matter was perhaps considered contentious. There's been loads of instances of several posts on the same subject in the past.

I know. I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot me.
I guess BV don't want to spend time melting threads together (He has melted previous SAL posts into the "official" SAL thread). I guess that if you find the stuff deleted again and post it in the "official" thread, it will be allowed to stay there. But not if it's about downloading the SAL soundtrack. I don't think that's allowed to even mention here, let alone making threads about it.

JumpingKentFlash

>> the problem has not its resolution enforcing a prohibitionist law upon me and everyone who PAY for the connection <<

i am cognizant of that - that's why i've said it's obvious a new approach to music distribution is needed,
and that i'm interested in what it'll be. forgetting about the artists in the equation
is something a lot of people do - not necessarily you, but a lot of people i talk to about this stuff.

i did read your posts; apologies for quoting isolated statements as springboards
to make points that i wanted to make. but i do have the impression that you believe
that broadband providers will be superior to record companies as "middlemen" in music distribution,
which is not something i have a lot of faith in. again, that may be partly because
the scenario you're describing with your provider isn't what i'm experiencing where i live;
it may be partly because when i'm paying for a service that includes something "free",
i get the sense that i am paying for it even if the vendor wants to distract me from that.

edit: sorry - i don't mean to keep adding to this discussion, but i have to get it said:
i am not arguing in favour of preserving wicked record companies' abuses
of both artists and music lovers. i'd love to see some new system that allows artists and music to thrive.

meanwhile, downloading stuff that artists should be paid for, without caring that no one is paying them for it,
isn't a solution; it's merely an element that's spurring some changes in the ways music is distributed.
what i'm hoping is that the changes will be good for music and for the artists;
but i sometimes fret that that isn't the direction things seem to be going in.

if someone thinks bandwidth providers will start paying artists for music for us,
without passing those costs on to us, and that that will create a situation in which
artists and music and music-lovers will all thrive ... okay, people are entitled to believe that. i don't.
and in the meantime artists do need to be compensated fairly for what they do -
not just at some hypothetical future point if this benevolent-provider vision works out.

good health to you - and enjoy the music



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

if you make phone calls with Skype from your computer are you stealing money from your telephone company? are you phoning for "free"?
I would answer no to both the questions
There is someone who's been smart enough to invent a service that is changing the way a lot of people use to call and to use the computer
I think that for music download the approach should be much the same
Can you imagine telephone companies that ask government to ban Skype or prosecute skypers for the use of the software?
It doesn't make sense
There sure is a way in which i could pay - not twice - but a fair price for a connection that include the payment of the copyrights. So that I can keep on downloading without risk. It is call "legalization" and it is a very useful political tool to beat any "black market" without any shortsighted "war on drugloads"

by the way, did i mention that in the soundtrack Connection is complete and rocking?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 15:59 by maumau.

Maybe relevant to this converstion... Is the practice of "hotlinking" to images on other sites akin to "stealing" bandwidth from their sites, even if sources are credited?

I've been guilty of hotlinking pictures lots of times... and I've been fairly oblivious to the implications. (Until recently, that is.)

Quote
maumau
if you make phone calls with Skype from your computer are you stealing money from your telephone company? are you phoning for "free"?
I would answer no to both the questions

That's different. You're not stealing money from your telephone company because you use a different service. If you illegally download music you are taking the product that a band has made (I.e. their music) from them without paying. Today I bought Uncut Magazine (With Mick and Keith on the cover). One of the first interviews in the issue is with Little Steven from Springsteen's E Street Band. Read that. He has some great points on the subject and I think he's absolutely right.

JumpingKentFlash

Apart from rare b-sides, bootlegs of unreleased demos, official free downloads that were only available for a limited amount of time and songs that are not on CD yet, I've so far acquired all the songs in CD quality (in most cases, used CDs), that I downloaded back in the Napster days. So Napster was just a fad, really, but unfortunately for the music business, it was one that made the stock market and banks think there was no more money to be made with music.

I don't buy at iTunes, because I prefer to have the full sound qality, and I don't buy full qality downloads, either because a manufactured CD is of higher quality in the pressing and artwork printing departments than the products of my burner and printer could be.

I buy music online by mailorder, but it's always a nice experience to get away from the computer desk, for example, to visit a CD store.
For the demographics, the writer of these lines is in his late 20s.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
...

That's different. You're not stealing money from your telephone company because you use a different service. If you illegally download music you are taking the product that a band has made (I.e. their music) from them without paying. Today I bought Uncut Magazine (With Mick and Keith on the cover). One of the first interviews in the issue is with Little Steven from Springsteen's E Street Band. Read that. He has some great points on the subject and I think he's absolutely right.

given we all agree that artists should be able to make a living of their art

you stress the direct link between the money i pay for the good (cd etc) and the "living" of the artist
I am not sure at all about the "directness" of that link in the present time
I think this is valid for a few big artist compared to the mass

i stress the link between the money the industry of the new media make out of the lure of "free" download and the "not living" of the artist

In between there are the record companies (sometimes the borders between the 2 industries blur a lot) that scream and do as much lobbying as they can to have the goverments block the user from using a technology that has been sold to him or her just thru the lure of "free download" and punish them

So the government should spend money (control, trial etc) to protect...
who?
Of course the record industry at this point of the argument put forward the "poor artist" that is being ripped off...

I dont buy it
That is: the artist IS ripped off. The ripper is not me using a technology that someone SELL me more and more for the lure of that capacity of download.

Classic prohibitionism. Double ethics included.

The solution is a reform of legalization where I pay an amount of money that comprises different services. that is what happens now for many services (phone calls, mobile calls, internet connection, access to some kind of content)

Of course the company will try and shift the cost of the copyrights on to me. What I am saying is that the effect of a free competion market on that will balance that. In my country which is not exactly the example of a laissez-faire economy this is exactly what has happened in the last decade: same cost more services.

The example of skype is just that: a service included.

About Little Steven interview if you can quote because it's hard to find uncut here (or is it also on line?)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-29 18:14 by maumau.

Steven Van Zandt interviewed in Uncut Magazine (April 2008):
"The industry is in the biggest transistion since the LP was invented. What concerns me, and we'll have to find a way to deal with it, is the idea that music isn't valuable enough paying for. I don't like the fact that we're enabling that attitude to exist - though I don't think that was Radiohead's intention (Radiohead put their latest album up for download on their website. The user could then decide what he or she wanted to pay for it). I've written many Billboard columns on this... Any suggestion music is free, and falls of trees, well, that ain't cool. It's a lot of work. Art is not inevitable. Great art is done for the most crass and obnoxious reasons - money, sex, rent, food, ego, power. Take those away and the culture will suffer. It already is".


I think Van Zandt makes some valid points to say the least. The way I see it, if I was a musician, is this:
I put MY product up for sale and YOU'RE gonna pay for it. If I want 500$ for my new album then you choose to either buy it or not. The price isn't important. What matters is that you pay for what I made. And a price that I set. Not a price anybody else sets. If I choose to go around a record company, like Radiohead did, I'll put the album on my website for download. I think it was mentioned that Radiohead would get around 2$ for every sold CD on a record label. They didn't do that. They put it up for download and it was said that if you paid 2$ for downloading the whole album, the money would go directly to the band and it would be the same, money-wise, as if they were on a record label. One could choose to go that way. You could even decide to pay nothing for Radiohead's new album. This is where the bullshit starts. People go: "I don't want their new album, but there's one song on it that's cool". So they download that without paying for it, because "it's only one song". Pretty soon it's: "It's only one album". Then suddenly you have a computer filled with music you didn't pay a single penny for. Left are the bands. Rich or not, it doesn't have anything to do with it. You can't go out and say: "The Rolling Stones are rich enough, so it's OK to download their new album for free". Who are you to choose if they're rich enough? Maybe they don't think they are. Either way: YOU PAY FOR THE MUSIC!!!! No matter how rich or poor a band/artist is. I'm not downloading licensed music (And yes I have many bootlegs, but it is not official stuff. I have never ever downloaded a single licensed song without paying for it). I think it's low, I think it's cheating and I think it's immoral, and I will never sink to that level.

(This rant wasn't aimed at you Maumau. It's just how I feel about this matter).

JumpingKentFlash

i see JKF i understand
also I completely relate to the "cultural" problem of having things for free
I completely dig Little Steven argument that art is made of work and that work has a value
what I am arguing is: who is stealing that value?
The culture is made not only by the "idea" that you can have music for free. But also by the illusion of that "idea".
As a matter of fact when I download I am connected and that is not "for free".
Industry is very smart to make you believe that you're having it for free but you actually are not.
You could argue that I am not paying enough
I see that the internet industry has made HUUUGE PROFITS out of me and you paying "little" for the connection.
Moreover. The increase of the market base and the profits, i say, come exactly from the fact that the industry knows there is a "content" that flows on its (the industry's) net and offer more and more bandwidth to me and you. And we pay for it.
Who is exploiting the artists work and making huge money "for free" out of the whole business?

>i see JKF i understand
also I completely relate to the "cultural" problem of having things for free
I completely dig Little Steven argument that art is made of work and that work has a value
what I am arguing is: who is stealing that value?

>>>The people who download for free and/or without the permission from the artist.




>The culture is made not only by the "idea" that you can have music for free. But also by the illusion of that "idea".
As a matter of fact when I download I am connected and that is not "for free".
Industry is very smart to make you believe that you're having it for free but you actually are not.
You could argue that I am not paying enough
I see that the internet industry has made HUUUGE PROFITS out of me and you paying "little" for the connection.
Moreover. The increase of the market base and the profits, i say, come exactly from the fact that the industry knows there is a "content" that flows on its (the industry's) net and offer more and more bandwidth to me and you. And we pay for it.
Who is exploiting the artists work and making huge money "for free" out of the whole business?

>>>Let me see if I understood you right (Probably didn't): You think that because you pay for an internet connection, you feel it's all right to download? (Probably a misread of mine).

JumpingKentFlash

I would like to add a different perspective to maumau's correct notes:

General culture of the people is a value and the purchase price - as a matter of fact - is a limitation to the access to lots of forms of culture in a "copyrighted" world.

Seeing things from this point of view DOES NOT mean that I want the "poor" artist at service of the world's need of culture.

It means that there can be more sophisticated ways to reach a compromise between two apparently conflicting values - general culture AND the artists' wallet.

Why can't people see Internet as a modern radio?

When I listen to the radio - for free - is the artist loosing money?

Of course not!

Why?

Read maumau's posts once again.

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-29 19:30 by liddas.

>I would like to add a different perspective to maumau's correct notes:

General culture of the people is a value and the purchase price - as a matter of fact - is a limitation to the access to lots of forms of culture in a "copyrighted" world.

>>>>I agree that the purchase price is a limitation to the culture, but what does that justify? Stealing? Certainly not.



>Seeing things from this point of view DOES NOT mean that I want the "poor" artist at service of the world's need of culture.

It means that there can be more sophisticated ways to reach a compromise between two apparently conflicting values - general culture AND the artists' wallet.

>>>>Such as? The reason that there's a problem is that nobody has come up with a fair solution for either part in this question.
And by the way: If I was a musician I wouldn't want to lower my prices for the good of general culture. I wouldn't want to be a part of such a thing anyway. What I'd make would be for myself, and if someone likes it, and are willing to pay for it, they can have it.



>Why can't people see Internet as a modern radio?

>>>>Because it's VERY different than radio.



>When I listen to the radio - for free - is the artist loosing money?

Of course not!

>>>>I don't know about you, but I pay to listen to radio. The artist does get paid for it. I remember Keih said (In 2002 I think) that with radio, he goes to sleep and earn money.

JumpingKentFlash

liddas, if it's "the same as the radio", then why do people who want "free music" not just listen to the radio?

it's not at all the same as the radio; the radio doesn't give you entire albums without the artists' permission/reimbursement.

you like the idea of "free culture" - lovely: a world in which artists don't have to pay
for food or housing or instruments or studio time or taxes, and just generate music for us all to enjoy
as an inalienable right like the air we breathe. i love it - count me in.
and meanwhile: where can i download what you do for a living, without paying you for it?

Kent, thanks for those quotes and the points you made - i too find it distressing
that people treat music as something that has no value and shouldn't be paid for,
simply because someone (who was not a musician) invented technology that allows them
to take whatever they want without paying the owners of it, easily and without fear of being caught.

and maumau, i'm putting on Mystifies Me way loud, just for you.
i'm going out to a restaurant tonight, and since it costs me something to get there,
the petrol companies should pay the restaurant for my meal - so i won't pay, dammit! i've paid enough already!
and i'll take the salt-and-pepper shakers home with me too. someone should pay for those as well, so i don't have to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-29 20:34 by with sssoul.

Kent, Sssoul:

did you actually read what I wrote?

"Seeing things from this point of view DOES NOT mean that I want the "poor" artist at service of the world's need of culture.

It means that there can be more sophisticated ways to reach a compromise between two apparently conflicting values - general culture AND the artists' wallet."

I even used capital letters to underline DOES NOT!

My point - let's see if I can be more clear this time - is that there IS the possibility to regulate the matter in a better way, so that BOTH culture and artist's WALLET are safe. It's not utopia, it's real!!!

Again, may I invite you to read maumaus posts once more.

Or, even better, read this book (it's free).

Free Culture

(Not the only one on the subject, but handy to paste the link to this)



C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-29 20:47 by liddas.