BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Audiogalaxy: dead

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Grey Area
19:35 / 18.06.02
SoulSeek seems to be working for me right now...even just reading the chat logs is fun in itself. The "original users" seem quite upset that 3000+ refugees are rampaging through their territory. Poor little things. Never seems to occur to them that this way they have much more access to much more music.
 
 
bio k9
20:10 / 18.06.02
I got a pop up message from ADMIN. that said "goodbye soul seek". Anyone else get that?
 
 
nikon driver
21:36 / 18.06.02
shit...i just got that message too. now things have gona a bit weird and i'm unable to search for songs. still checking it out though.

plus, on my transfers i'm getting 'remote: banned'. what the fuck is that about. have i been banned by another user(you can do that!) for no reason?

i'll be back when i've figured it out.
 
 
nikon driver
21:51 / 18.06.02
okay, so about the admin message. apparently it was posted by a disgruntled admin member of soulseek pissed at the audiogalaxy posse migrating to soulseek. it was actually them saying goodbye to all members as they leave the site for good(or something). more info here.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:51 / 18.06.02
I got the same message, but it didn't do anything to stop me from downloading, sharing, and chatting on the site.

SoulSeek allows users to choose whether or not to share their data - while you can choose to ban people on a individual level, you have the choice to only allow those who you choose to be on yr buddy list to download from yr harddrive. I doubt anyone singled you out to ban from downloading yr files, unless there are some xenophobes there who resent the new AG exiles coming to the service. I can't understand why they'd feel that way, since it expands the collective library, but what can you say...some people are just dim-witted reactionaries. As I've been playing with SoulSeek, it's becoming pretty clear to me how it works, and I like it more than Filetopia.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
22:42 / 18.06.02
D: spectacular display of point-missing, methinks. The idea is that people should get paid for producing information, not for selling cds.

Ah well, you guys who defend Audiogalaxy use some really strange comparisons and arguments sometimes
Nah, that's just me.

Oh, and cheers to everybody recommending alternative file-sharing systems.
 
 
Turk
00:35 / 19.06.02
Thank you, The Sinister Haiku Bureau, possibly if I wanted download free music as much as you I'd suddenly find that wow man you make sense.

"If you've not read the summaries of a typical record contract that I linked above, I strongly suggest you do so."
Yes, it's interesting I'll try figure out what we're saying here. We explain how much musicians are already being stiffed and use that as a reasoned argument for why everybody should be allowed to pirate their work. Oh and personally I begin to get bored of any article that explains file-sharing on the internet is not piracy... because it just damn well isn't, okay?

"Fact is that there's very little way for anyone who likes music outside a defined set of genres to try new records, other than shelling out for them. Most of us can't do that all the time, regardless of sticker price."
Well blow me, you can't afford to do something you'd like to do. I wish I could believe that gives me the right break the law!

The rest of what you said is boring and doesn't mean much. Sure there is a terrible system in place, doesn't particularly make copyright infringment via Audiogalaxy or its bretherin any more legal.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
01:25 / 19.06.02
D, I think you should remember that laws and legality don't always work in the interests of ethics, and second, that what might an action in the interests of 'ethical compensation' for some people is a horribly unethical treatment for others.

Consider the ramifications the collapse of Audiogalaxy has on unsigned and independent artists. This guy was kind enough to quote me on his blog today, and I'm going to return the favor here cos he makes the argument very well:


6/18

I'm talking like an addict. For the past few months, the first thing i did in the morning before work, or the last thing before going to bed at night was to download a few songs. Sometimes i wouldn't even listen to the song. I just liked the idea of being able to listen to it. I have plenty of songs to catch up on now, but the RIAA has disturbed my ritual. It turns out that some of those Stephen Foster covers were rather limp, and i didn't even get good traditional versions, just generic interpretations.

Still it deeply bothers me that the RIAA did what they did. Audiogalaxy was not Napster-like. They had a pretty good system for blocking songs. When i wanted to truly pirated stuff, i'd have to go to Kazaa. The lawsuit they filed said that Audiogalaxy worked like Napster, and that's an outright lie.

It's also disturbing how the RIAA made certain that the unsigned were yanked from the site to protect what the RIAA claims as its own. My friend Damien is blocked just like everyone else. He's not on a record label. He's told me that he's been selling more albums than ever because of Audiogalaxy, as more people become familiar with his songs. What does he do now? Even if he took the time to fill out the forms to show what songs he gives them permission to share, and pays a notary or lawyer to make certain the document is all legal, Audiogalaxy is still dead. The party has been killed. This kinda links up to the Supreme Court decision yesterday, on how it's impermissable to require people who go door to door of other people's houses to register with the local government. It doesn't stop criminals from doing what they do, but creates a barrier for normal citizens than hinders their rights to assemble peacably and to free speech. Somehow it's more important to protect the property of corporations (which they may or may not have acquired legally! The burden of proof lies with the broke, the dead, and forgotten to reclaim their music) than to reserve the freedom of citizens to indulge in the exchange of ideas and property that are not protected by billions of dollars.

This is the same organization that is trying to get a percentage out of used CDs. There is no difference. Some judge needs to see and understand that. Certain rights must be reserved to the record companies, but to allow them to bully everyone like this is absurd.

It's too bad that i get more worked up over this than i do about oil corporations or the drug companies.

I never did get to download all of those King Oliver songs. Damn it to hell. and i never got those Steve Harley b-sides that Damien was so sure was on there, but were never online when i was.

Incidentally, i do know that music recorded before 1978 has 95 years after the copyright was secured to expire, but think about the logic of that, and how the artists were abused and exploited, and whether the members of the RIAA have any legitimate claim over the music that they hoard.

6/17

evening

Unless something changes, I'm certainly going to remember this date. Audiogalaxy is dead. The whole fucking thing. The RIAA had them block everything, even unsigned artists. In fact, one has to give Audiogalaxy permission in order to allow them to share the music now. Reading the lies on the RIAA site makes my blood boil.

There's something quite ironic about how last night i was trying to download songs by Stephen Foster after watching the American Experience on PBS last night. The publishing companies left him a pauper from their dishonest dealings. This was the first professional pop song writer, and they drove him to an early death with their dishonest greed.

Now they want to keep everything that they have stolen over the years, bleed everyone dry over packaging of CDs that they have no love or pride in, artists that are often enough long dead and their descendants are not seeing a penny, and bury it all under the dust of decades.

I cannot even make sense tonight because i'm so mad. The RIAA is right up there with the Bush Empire on my shitlist. Why must the bad guys keep winning so much lately?
 
 
videodrome
02:05 / 19.06.02
Ah, I see, D. I now understand that you're not actually interested in talking about this. Sorry I took the time to write out my boring post.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
02:11 / 19.06.02
Yeah, videodrome, that kinda threw me as well. I wasn't sure if he'd somehow thought your comments were by me- his post kinda reads like he's addressing me for your comments...
 
 
Turk
03:41 / 19.06.02
"My friend Damien is blocked just like everyone else. He's not on a record label. He's told me that he's been selling more albums than ever because of Audiogalaxy, as more people become familiar with his songs. What does he do now?"
That's unfortunate, but if he's relying on a service that he surely knows is continuing to facilitate the widespread infringement of copyright and which can't suitably sort itself out it's more difficult to sympathise.
The personal freedom argument is a funny one, possibly a valid if internet services like Napster and Audiogalaxy weren't such an obvious violation of rights.
Call them a victim of their own success if you like, it always was a ridiculous situation. Possibly something best understood by the unaffected bystander, those who do not use the internet?

"It's too bad that i get more worked up over this than i do about oil corporations or the drug companies."
Shame shame shame. It's sad when what otherwise may have been cool liberal-types turn to bitching out of cheap self-interest and prostituting the plight of struggling musicians to argue for a freedom they never should have had. Strange too that they're calling for rights not to be upheld. I guess we all have our price and can all convince ourselves what we like is right if we like it enough.
 
 
RadJose
06:45 / 19.06.02
i don't know... i can honestly say i've never used AudioGalaxy, and that i'd been off Napster for a few months before it was killed, i did use WinMX a month ago and liked it, but i always DID use it to find new artists and to hear what my friends were talking about, and to find those misc B-sides and Sndtrk songs that i can't ever seem to find in real life... i also a year and 1/2 ago signed up for EMusic Unlimited for $10 a month and get all i can, it's leagal and all, but with as much as i download i can't seem to think they make much money at all of that either... the point of USED CDs is a good one, for people like D should be rallying against those too! the only people that make $ off selling those are the stores... and who GETS those CDs before release dates and puts them online weeks to months in advance? maybe the RIAA should look into that too if they are REALLY into this whole "no file sharing business"... i support file sharing plain and simple... i don't support gettin something for nothing and turn down my friends that offer to make me a burn or a CD or to rip it onto my hard drive, i tell them i'd much rather have a mix tape or CD, which i'm sure the RIAA hates too and could stop if they could find an easy target
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:07 / 19.06.02
Radjose, it's already been mentioned in this thread that the RIAA is attempting to changes sales laws so that they can get a cut of the used record market. However, what they plan to do goes against all legality, and will only work if their lobbiests successfully swindle the US Government. (This sort of thing does happen all the time, so it's not too unlikely.)

For more about the RIAA's plan to go after the secondary sales market, go here.
 
 
The Natural Way
12:21 / 19.06.02
D(avid la groin): "I wish I could believe that gives me the right to break the law!"

Oh my God! The LAW!
 
 
_pin
12:32 / 19.06.02
That's unfortunate, but if he's relying on a service that he surely knows is continuing to facilitate the widespread infringement of copyright and which can't suitably sort itself out it's more difficult to sympathise.

Yes, what a clearly stupid and ignorant man, to give himself exposue where it is possible too. My my, the sheer folly of self promotion.

And why aren't you against libraries?! It's not like, after reading a book there, most people go out and buy it! They might go back and check out other stuff the writer's done, or get it out again, but ther's very little incentive to actually buy a copy of a book you've read already.

File sharing could have given greater exposure to struggling artists and cut the reliance on major labels (a good thing, if they spend their time censoring music to cater for Wal-Mart and stealing the copyrights to artists work so they have no control over it [I think people should have a say as to wether album tracks are so forth are avalible for download- b-sides, things for soundtracks and uber-rarities, as well as live tracks are iffier]), and instead getting money from the people who allow their songs to be distributed. This would also have reduced their need to go for mass appeal and their existing fan base. New people could be getting into them all the time, and there'd be money for them even if not many people downloaded them (tho obviously more for people who got downloaded a lot).

Think of that! Art! Avalible for a small sum! To lots of people! It'd be like some sort win-win situation... And I'd still buy albums. Especially if someone took some fucking time and thought into the inlay and presentation of it. And some consitency in quality and didn't just have three singles and some sub-title track filler wank. And if they maybe just fucking cared. And besides, I couldn't stand having just the album in little floating-around mp3's. I'd still much prefer to have eclectic mp3's and proper real actual albums. And I'm sure many people feel the same.

Now take a moment to sit back and think of that. A world where art was made avalible to a significantly larger proportion of it's possible fanbase then it currently is for little money to each individual person while the artists themselves still take the same cut as they would from record sales without artisitc compromising as well as a drive towards a generally higher quality of songs and attention being paid to the presentation of ceedee's and eveyrone winning except a bunch of money hunger bastards hell-bent on fads for profit, the manufacture of desires and ripping poeple off. Fuck me! It's almost like a better world!

Feel free to prove me wrong on every point, and bear in mind that I can't actually download songs because I have an amazingly tempermental Mac and that when I used a PC and had Napster, almost eveyr singlesong I downloaded I now 01> have on an album or compilation or single (wait! are they evil too?) 02> thought it blew arse and couldn't be bothered with (this is their own fault for making shit. If they made better music I'm sure I'd have got the record. Maybe they're all complaining cos we'll just notice they're crap? What a thought... ) 03> got on ceedee then realised that the rest of the record blew and gave it back (without copying it! For real! Some people give back records properly!). So fuck yr "vested interest" crap.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
12:39 / 19.06.02
for people like D should be rallying against those too!

I think it's unfair of you to assume D's position on the reselling of CDs.

Getting a cut from the resale of used CDs is not currently supported by any legislation, at least none of which I am aware. The argument against file-sharing is pretty well supported by current copyright law, though, I'd say.

You don't have to agree with D. But be fair, alright?
 
 
videodrome
14:57 / 19.06.02
Be fair? So this is what the argument is about. It's not "is this a distribution mechanism that's fair to the artist?" it's "is this a distribution mechanism condoned by law?"

Never mind that the laws were created through lobbies paid for by record companies and music publishers, not artists. Anyone who has ever bought a used CD has no leg to stand on, attacking Audiogalaxy because it's illegal. Selling used CDs may be legal but is certainly not fair to the artist. An example: On Amazon.com, for any given CD release, there's a very good chance that you'll find a "Buy It Used!" button prominently displayed. Tom Waits - Raindogs. $11.98 new on Amazon. Buy used, same page, $8.39. Does Waits see money from the used discs? Of course not. Is this legal? Yes. Is it fair? Nope. On the listing for Waits' new Alice, there's a buyer waiting, should I be interested in selling my copy. Unwilling to pay Waits for his work in the hope that someone will sell a copy for a few dollars less. Legal? Yep. Fair to Waits? Right. Fuck fair. Who cares if this is fair or not, because it's legal, right? So let's cut the artists rights smokescreen and just stand with badges on and arms crossed, eh? I think I see Mme. Rosen standing just behind you.

If a person downloads songs there's a chance (ranging from low to very high, depending on the person) that person will later pay for the CD. If the same person buys a disc used, there is NO chance they will later pay for a new copy.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
17:03 / 19.06.02
Be fair? So this is what the argument is about. It's not "is this a distribution mechanism that's fair to the artist?" it's "is this a distribution mechanism condoned by law?"

Videodrome, the articles you linked? I read them. I agree.

The only thing I was writing about was how I don't think we should assume another poster's position on an issue before he's even stated it. That's what I mean by being fair.
 
 
cusm
18:00 / 19.06.02
The whole stink is a problem in how data is handled to begin with. The data is no longer intrinsicly tied to a material object that can be easily metered financially. Take a book for example, which requires costly printing and manufacturing to get the data to you. You can sell the book to control the data and benefit from commerce. But if the medium is removed, and the data can be freely distributed and DUPLICATED, its a different model entirely, one we are not equiped to handle. The current system can't handle it, hence the problems. A good analogy is a simple tune that you hear and memorize. Since you know it now, you can sing it to someone else. It quickly becomes public domain, and the original author may or may not even be remembered, let alone paid anything for it. The information itself is free, its the packaging that we can attach commerce to. But without the packaging, as with MP3s, what do we do then to compensate the author?

I can think of 2 ways, going back to even earlier models of artistic recompense. The first being sponsership. One with means (or more likely in our society, a group of persons) sponsers the artits financially so that they are free to create more art. Such a thing might be accomplished by paypal donations and the like, much like how Barbelith is kept afloat. Of course, we lack a sensible system to manage this, and the ethic to do so is only recently becoming more understood. Still, note the difference in this model to the purchase one: In the sponsership model, you pay the artist so they can produce new art, not to compensate them for their previous work. You pay in hopes that they create more, you don't purchase what they have already created.

The second model is performance. If the artist goes on tour, people pay to see them perform. It is through ticket sales of performances today that the big bands make all their money, not from record sales. We all know artists don't make squat on records sales, but we forget the mansions Bon Jovi could buy from constant touring for years. There's where the money is at, and still at. Again, the artist is paid not for what they have already created, but to display it again.

And of course, having a physical representation of the data will always have its charm. Even if you've heard the CD many times from MP3, a lot of us will want to buy it anyway for the packaging. So that means is not entirely dead, but it is far less important than it once was. The RIAA is trying its damndest to hold on to that one model that they can't really control any more. If artists are able to adopt other models that work better with the current state of digital music, they will still find ways to support themselves with their art.
 
 
videodrome
18:17 / 19.06.02
Sorry, AP - your comment was merely a jumping-off point. Wasn't attributing, through implication, any statements you didn't actually make.
 
 
RadJose
18:29 / 19.06.02
AP, D's whole deal seems to be that Audiogalaxy's death is fair because it was illegal BECAUSE the artist were not compensated... and Videodrome put it right when he said that used CDs happen to be legal but are just as UNFAIR to the artist... I don't think my assumption was too off base...
 
 
Turk
18:37 / 19.06.02
"My my, the sheer folly of self promotion."
When it uses means that strongly encourage copyright infringement folly may very well be the best word for it.

"And why aren't you against libraries?"
Because the problem is with duplication. Drawing parallels with library books seems to be one of the misleading slogan arguments used by those forwarding the case for illegal copyrighted file-sharing. Calling the folks of RIAA liars is a bit rich if you're using the library book comparison.

"Feel free to prove me wrong on every point"
Thank you for the freedom but I shalln't bother too much.
If we lived in your whackjob world where the file-sharing public weren't as largely morally guilty as the record labels you might have a point. We don't.
One further thought. It is rather repugnant to see individuals deciding that copyrighted musicians (who of all people should have final say over the distribution of their work?) would like users to illegally downloading their work for whatever purpose, previewing or keeping. If they'd expressed a strong opinion they'd have said it was okay, seems to be assumption that's being made here and it disrespects those musicians. How dare you think for them? Oh yes, because it makes things easier for you.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
00:14 / 20.06.02
Well, if we're going to go further into the public library analogy, I should remind you that virtually every public library has to BUY its contents. Compare this to Audiogalaxy - nearly all of the music on Audiogalaxy and other p2p systems come from records which people have bought and ripped to their harddrive. A sale has been made, usually multiple sales for the same songs over and over, and other people borrow them and copy them at their own discretion, just like a public library. You can borrow cds from public libraries, you know - you can borrow them and rip them and put them on yr harddrive, burn a copy to cd, or dub them to cassette. Does this mean that they should be banned too?
 
 
Turk
00:23 / 20.06.02
Tosh with bell-ends on. Libraries do not explicitly work upon a system that requires illegal duplication, Audiogalaxy and peer-to-peer file-sharing does. Try again bub.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
00:39 / 20.06.02
D, I see there is no hope in further arguing with you. There is nothing that I can say to change yr mind, that is clear. I should direct you to a blogged response from the fellow who I quoted earlier, since he is not a member of Barbelith he responded to yr criticisms of what I quoted in his blog.:

What D wrote:
Shame shame shame. It's sad when what otherwise may have been cool liberal-types turn to bitching out of cheap self-interest and prostituting the plight of struggling musicians to argue for a freedom they never should have had. Strange too that they're calling for rights not to be upheld. I guess we all have our price and can all convince ourselves what we like is right if we like it enough.

What Badgerminor wrote:

Aw.... big bad pseudo-principled libertarian makes widdle badge cwy. Wah! Wah!

If i must explain myself, i wrote that right after i found out the murder of Audiogalaxy, and it had a more immediate, more personal effect than what the oil and drug companies do every damned day. I was embarrassed by my rage, and was trying to acknowledge a weakness on my part that ought to be corrected. However, like most exchanges with conservatives i've experienced, any attempt at acknowledging weakness to allow for the failings of humanity for the other side's argument is seized upon as a character flaw that demolishes my entire viewpoint... then they sit back smugly and gloat in their imagined moral superiority. Shame shame shame? I wish i knew more about this guy, because i suspect he's an absolute prick. I'd like to be proved wrong.

Incidentally, the problem i have with this kind of libertarian thinking is that they want to secure so many rights so fiercely that they want to secure these same rights to corporations, which they cannot see only crushes the individual's rights to the same, as corporations do not share the same punishment if the rights are violated. The whole point of a corporation is to minimize liability. Why should we afford them the same rights if they cannot bear the same responsibilites for these rights? Corporations have no legal right to exist. They are a privilege. So fuck the RIAA.

I think he gets it exactly right in the last paragraph, a perfect ecapsulation of every problem with the corporate world.
 
 
Turk
01:51 / 20.06.02
No argument about the need for greater enforcement of corporate laws. Does that make it any more moral to support a system heavily used to duplicate copyrighted material against the wishes of record labels and without express permission from the artists? Not really, it's still pretty much stealing. Two wrongs making how many rights now?
I do suppose it lets the wannabe activists out there suck-it to da man whilst enjoying the privilege of free music. If it's too much to admit liking Audiogalaxy for the illicit reasons I guess you have to get by on whatever justification works for you. I'm good I ams!
 
 
El Gato Was Right: the t-shirt
03:10 / 20.06.02
D, your anti-file sharing/pro-RIAA voice is virtually alone here. It just makes me curious: What's your interest? Is it all purely intellectual? Is it principle? Are you an artist yourself? A record exec.? An RIAA attorney?
 
 
Turk
04:03 / 20.06.02
No single reason.
I dislike people who decide to break the law because they don't like it or, as seems more often the case, because they feel it suits them, that's it easier that way. It's the rabble mentality and stretches the ethical boundaries of reasonable or 'peaceful' protest. Quite uncivilised really. I also fear the claims of simply previewing music makes the duplication of copyrighted songs via Audiogalaxy and its ilk legal in the mind of some, it clearly doesn't. The people who talk for all artists as a whole and justify copyrighted file-sharing by that means are also arse-holes, they have no right to do that. Moreover I'm sick and tired of the masses of websites and articles arguing against RIAA (often with extreme bias) and finding they then claim RIAA is the chief propagandist. After all the nonsense with the spurious comparisons to library books it's an absolute joke to call the other side the propagandist, or the only propagandists at any rate.
I'm not actually pro-RIAA, I'm anti-bull-twoddle and anti-hypocrisy.
 
 
videodrome
04:47 / 20.06.02
D, that last post of yours is the first you've made in this thread that was conversational rather than condescending. Thanks. I agree with some of what you said, but I am not with you in a dislike of "people who decide to break the law because they don't like it". Obviously, there are situations where you're right, but I don't feel this is one of them. I don't want to get too high-minded here, but to put things in very broad terms, all revolutions are illegal from the standpoint of the current regime. We may be reduced to revolting against corporate control of production, but corporations have sadly proven themselves to be appropriate targets.

I'm curious if you would argue against the idea that online file sharing has brought a lot of musicians to the understanding that there are effective marketing and distribution tools that do not require the antiquated corporate contract and all the financial wrangling that entails. That is my hope for Audiogalaxy and the like; that it is the ugly beginning of a scheme that will allow artists to control their own work. For that, I support filesharing, a step in the right direction despite the current flaws. I do not support the laws in place in the United States that govern copyright, and I do not support the selective enforcement of said laws. This is not to say that I do not believe in ownership of intellectual property, but that the scope and handling of current legislation is far out of balance. I am not a capitol hill lobbyist, so the tools I have to fight those laws include purchasing music through independent sources, from non-corporate labels (increasingly difficult), speaking out when given the opportunity and filesharing. If you have other suggestions I'd love to hear them.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:28 / 20.06.02
I agree with David: I'm so into the law.... I just want to marry it. It's the law...I mean, what more can I say.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:43 / 20.06.02
Thanks, videodrome, Pin and Flux, for your many responses...

I've got a better overall picture now, and to a certain extent I agree with you guys on some points... however, the public library comparison ISN'T on all fours with the present topic of conversation - D's quite correct on that point, at least, and if he wasn't constantly ranting like a Greenlander I'd be more prepared to read his arguments too...

So all of the people who've posted here appear to share-files as a basis for decisions on buying music, not as an alternative to buying music. And yes, Videodrome, I agree that setups like Audiogalaxy could pave the way for a different approach by artists to create new distribution channels for their work.

However...

Flux, your argument that people don't stop playing music because they aren't making any money is horribly wrong. People do it all the time, all over the world. Where they have families to support, and the whole time they're making said music they've got a second job, meaning they can't go on tour (where received wisdom appears to suggest that there's oddles of spondoodles to be made?)... and as for making money from selling their songs to advertisers, people call that selling out or some such shit, don't they? Always assuming your music is the kind of thing advertisers want to buy... and if it was, wouldn't MTV/radio/a record company have already snapped you up? Plus you don't appear to have engaged with my 'commodities' argument. If I came over to your house and wiped your hard drive of any music you'd downloaded, would you be miffed at me?

I just don't see how people can justify sharing files without the consent of the artist, when said artist has already stated that they don't approve. Fuck the legal/illegal argument... we all know copyright infringement is against the law. Audiogalaxy were idiots to think the RIAA would let them actually get away with it, and if any of were seriously shocked, then unfortunately you're probably a little naive yourselves. But fuck that for a second. People ARE actually burning whole pirated albums from online sources. The Eminem and Oasis new releases are probably the two most recent large examples. And the more people that get cheap online access with faster connections, and the more technology moves forward, the easier it's going to be to do this.

Now I understand that y'all are principled, but against the corporate stranglehold on music, and I agree with you. But the majority of bootleggers have the same attitude that the corporations do - Make Money For Me - just guerilla methods. I don't agree with that, and now I don't agree with the actions of the RIAA. But surely it's best to enact safeguards against artists being ripped off without their consent (one might argue that signing a rip-off record contract has an element of tacit consent to the terms of said contract)? There weren't any such safeguards with Napster, and as far as I can tell there weren't with Audiogalaxy... and probably not with any of the other facilities you've cited in this thread.

When the record industry falls, as you're all hoping it will, what's to stop the above facilities from throwing all music free to the public, and refusing any artist the potential to make money TO LIVE ON from their work? Surely they should be working with the artists now to set up safeguards to prevent such a thing, and to take legal action against those who refuse them the right to own their own material?

By the way, I was emailed by a gentleman calling himself 'Jack Black' who saw fit to insult me in a rather childish style for my previous comments in this thread. His email address is 'garycoleman187@hotmail.com'. If this little boy is any of you people, please engage with the thread here instead of weakly flaming me and spamming my inbox, and do not waste my time. Cheers.
 
 
some guy
11:48 / 20.06.02
Tosh with bell-ends on. Libraries do not explicitly work upon a system that requires illegal duplication, Audiogalaxy and peer-to-peer file-sharing does. Try again bub.

Just FYI, in the US it's perfectly legal to duplicate media you have paid for provided it's for non-commercial use. This is spelled out in law, although it remains to be seen whether these protections or the DMCA wins out in the end.

P2P networks also do not require illegal duplication - they could legitimately be filled with MP3s from unsigned bands, artists who support the new paradigm, open-source software etc. If the RIAA wants to prevent their intellectual property off P2P networks then they can certainly try, but to force closure of the networks (which are increasingly decentralized and will eventually be impossible to turn off) is ethically dubious. It'd be like closing PCH because someone used it as a getaway route after robbing a bank...
 
 
some guy
11:52 / 20.06.02
I dislike people who decide to break the law because they don't like it

So you've never driven over 55 then?
Never sold on a personal item without forwarding tax?
 
 
some guy
11:57 / 20.06.02
Final thought: Didn't Napster at its height have 70 million subscribers? Surely that's a pretty good reflection on public opinion on the matter. Interesting that the government seems more interested in listening to a handful of rich lobbyists than a voting block like that, huh?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:09 / 20.06.02
I'm just wondering, incidentally, what D's - or anyone else's, for that matter - view is on making a tape or a CD copy of a disc for a friend? A compilation tape or MD selection would be the process of sharing in a different way, right? I'd be very surprised if there were people here who hadn't taped things for their friends in the past: where's the difference?

Oh, and a small request: could we keep the condescension (on both sides) on a short leash, please? This is, after all, a conversation or debate, not a fuckwittery contest.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply