Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 04:45:54 PM
Right now, I'm listening to Dizzy.
Post by: AJ Dual on September 27, 2007, 05:21:43 PM
vs.
http://www.riaa.com/
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 05:31:55 PM
pfffffttt!
Public Domain
Post by: Bogie on September 27, 2007, 07:13:54 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 07:17:44 PM
The Evil Teenager installed that on her mommy's confuser. Said confuser got extremely bogged down with Bad Things.
Only because he doesn't know how to protect himself. Some of us do.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 28, 2007, 03:31:13 AM
Said computer was loaded down with a whole bunch of crap. Including a nice little program that would try to dial up to the internet and presumably incur long distance charges...
I had to nuke the hard drive and install Windows.
Limewire acts like a virus, IMHO.
Post by: Mabs2 on September 28, 2007, 04:13:20 AM
I hate limewire, but what else is thar?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 05:02:47 AM
They do it all the time. You do know that, right?
BTW, instead of wasting time searching for crappily encoded music ripped on some teenager's failing Dell, I just spend the time doing billable work so I can buy it. I also tend to buy trance and progressive tracks direct from artists' sites, encouraging them to do more.
"Public domain" being called on music is bullsh_t. It takes a LOT of time and effort to do and produce something creative, from commercially released music to artwork, and if you just steal it, you're an economic parasite, no different than a shoplifter or a welfare cheat.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 28, 2007, 05:05:19 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 28, 2007, 07:43:05 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 28, 2007, 07:49:48 AM
I used WinMX for a long time.
Just to clarify Manedwolf's overly-broad statement, there is public domain music, but the average computer user is too greedy, and will find it a pain researching the artists and the songs they've released for that usage.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 07:54:19 AM
Most filesharing users know quite well they're illegally stealing music from commercial labels. And honestly, when I see a sob story about some college student who got nailed with a $10k fine for DL'ing the latest "fitty cent" or White Stripes or whatever is the marketed artist du jour, all I can conjure up in terms of reaction is to point and laugh.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 28, 2007, 08:09:32 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 28, 2007, 04:33:18 PM
Post by: Phyphor on September 28, 2007, 05:31:00 PM
Post by: mfree on September 29, 2007, 08:52:08 AM
Post by: Bogie on September 29, 2007, 08:56:50 AM
Post by: Phyphor on September 29, 2007, 09:49:41 AM
But some types of music just aren't affected noticeably by decreased bitrate (like certain types of metal,) so it really don't matter.
Post by: macadore on September 29, 2007, 07:42:45 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on September 30, 2007, 04:59:23 AM
Post by: InfidelSerf on September 30, 2007, 06:12:27 AM
If you want to access the world wide library.. I suggest using the bittorrent protocol
As for the legalities involved. There are tons of legitimate reasons to use a popular and quite effective data transfer protocol like bittorrent.
Any violations of the law you engage in would be a civil case (unless your into taking cameras into movie theaters, that is now a criminal offense in the states)
...for now that is. Give the MPAA and RIAA their way and you'll spend life in prison for downloading a crap pop song that you can hear on the radio.
I don't buy music, and wouldn't if I had money to burn. I also don't download it either.
The music industry as we know it can go fall into a lake of fire for all I care.
I prefer to see my hard earned dollars go directly to artists that actually HAVE talent.
And what do you know.. there are tons of independent artists that are willing to give you their music to listen to.
Just for the word of mouth.
The traditional models surrounding the distribution of intellectual property are suffering a slow death.
I believe that it won't be too long until they wake up and realize that it's better to give the content away for free, in order to attract attention to a site that generates you ad revenue. (wow that sounds alot like radio..which I've heard is somewhat successful :p )
Which means you will actually have to produce something people want, if you want to make money off it.
If you think I'm wrong then ask yourself why there is a concerted effort to kill internet radio.
Post by: Mabs2 on September 30, 2007, 06:17:31 AM
As a musician myself, I think that music is for everyone. I believe that if someone truly likes your song, they'll pay for it even if they can get it for free (I feel the same way about games and movies).
Unfortunately, I just can't afford most things these days, but I'm keeping a list. I've already gone back and bought games that I've downloaded and enjoyed and movies as well. Unfortunately for me, this small town Wal-Mart doesn't carry much of the music I like.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 30, 2007, 11:56:08 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on September 30, 2007, 12:20:06 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 30, 2007, 12:46:42 PM
If you think I'm wrong then ask yourself why there is a concerted effort to kill internet radio.
IMO, the effort to kill off internet radio is because internet radio and internet distribution kill off the middleman, and the middleman is the record labels that suck most of the profit from the artists.
If the artist can sell directly for 100% of profits and get direct publicity, they become superfluous.
Post by: HankB on October 01, 2007, 06:25:07 AM
If you think I'm wrong then ask yourself why there is a concerted effort to kill internet radio.
IMO, the effort to kill off internet radio is because internet radio and internet distribution kill off the middleman, and the middleman is the record labels that suck most of the profit from the artists.
If the artist can sell directly for 100% of profits and get direct publicity, they become superfluous.
The CD will sell for $10 or more - and is unlikely to be "full."
Even if you amortize in the cost of recording & mastering, there's a big, BIG markup.
How much of the markup goes to the artist, and how much to the various middlemen involved?
Post by: jefnvk on October 01, 2007, 02:35:00 PM
For anyone with a .edu email address: http://www.ruckus.com
All the music is legally free, but copy protected. Many easy ways around that, though
Post by: Phyphor on October 01, 2007, 03:28:54 PM
I just pay for my music, you cheap bastards!
So do I.
But what if you like music videos?
Or independent artists?
Where can you get those?
Post by: jefnvk on October 01, 2007, 03:33:02 PM
Quote
But what if you like music videos?
If you just want to watch them: http://www.cmt.com/loaded/player.jhtml
Don't worry that it is CMT, the server is run by MTV, they have everything, not just Country.
Although, there isn't much else
Post by: Calumus on October 01, 2007, 03:58:45 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on October 01, 2007, 04:00:19 PM
Few independent artists as well.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 02, 2007, 04:35:17 AM
Quote
Just turn off sharing, and you should be alright. When running anything I'd recommend running a custom firewall called PeerGuardian 2. it blocks the ips of all known mpaa, riaa affiliates and its lists are updated regularly.
Not foolproof, as they spike downloads. If you grab one, you get a legal notice and have to pay.
And BTW, they're not stupid. They pay consultants to do that from private IPs outside RIAA and other official IP ranges.
I just have no sympathy for you if you get one of their letters and have to cough up four or five digits, because it happens every day, and you're not going to be able to fight it. They keep VERY comprehensive records of the entire download and can pull your records from your ISP if you object.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2007, 02:22:12 AM
Quote
RIAA wins key victory, accused file sharer must pay $220,000
Posted by Greg Sandoval
UPDATE (8:46 p.m. PT): A Minnesota woman must pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels after a federal jury found on Thursday that she violated their copyright.
Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of court for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury.
Posted by Greg Sandoval
UPDATE (8:46 p.m. PT): A Minnesota woman must pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels after a federal jury found on Thursday that she violated their copyright.
Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of court for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury.
Lesson: They have lots of expensive lawyers, and challenging them is like taking a bass boat with a .22 against a battleship.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9791383-7.html?tag=nefd.pulse