Are you a Pirate?

Zascar

Obviously if you play mostly Vinyl then you can't download, but for other music, do you buy everyhting, either on CD or Mp3, or would you be partial to a little P2P downloading from time to time, or all the time?

Karoma

Arrrrr.

tman

if it's for home use, then i have no problems with downloading.
if it's for a mix that i'm going to put online or hand out to people, or for playing out, then i would only consider using music that i own. be it cd/vinyl/legal mp3

Karoma

tman wrote:

if it's for home use, then i have no problems with downloading.
if it's for a mix that i'm going to put online or hand out to people, or for playing out, then i would only consider using music that i own. be it cd/vinyl/legal mp3

That's still naughty according the major record labels.

Zascar

Yes but due to the unbelieveably slim chance anything is going to happen to you, people still aren't scared off... They sometimes fail to see that distributing via mp3 can help spread the word and have massive positive impacts. Just look at the artic monkeys! Ok U2 and Madonna may not need this, but most dance music I would listen to is not very well known, and I'd say the producers would appreciate being promoted.

"Its not about the money, its about the Music..."

Rollo Tamasi

I download it all! Why pay when you can get it for free?

Last album i bought i think was the Magic Numbers. If i downloaded it i could delete it from my PC but since i paid for the heap of **** it sits on a shelf gathering dust.

Downloading illeagally is JUSTICE for all my crappy mistakes in the CD shops!

Chucky the tree

I mainly download sets so it doesnt make a difference. I try get my mp3 legally but if i cant i will download it.

John

I can't believe I'm still the only person who voted for I only ever buy all of my music - stealing is Wong. Does this make me the saint of this forum?

mada999

only when i wear my eye patch.....

downloading is baaaaaaaad!

Anima

I don't like the idea of ripping of my favourite artists but I do like the idea of free music... bah!

11811

i wouldnt download much,just hard to find stuff or else one or two songs off an album i might go and buy.to be honest downloading free music has introduced me to a lot of artists i havnt heard off.

Tar.Aldarion

Mostly download, I'll buy something if I deem it worthy, sometimes more than once, ala roots, dancing on tables barefoot and fallen.

Zascar

Cuddleworthy wrote:

to be honest downloading free music has introduced me to a lot of artists i havnt heard off.

I'm the same without a doubt. I'd say mymusic knowledge would be about 20% of what is it now if it weren't for me dwnloading random stuff. Very hit and miss but you occaisionally find some gems...

Zascar

Chucky the tree wrote:

I mainly download sets so it doesnt make a difference.

Actually I've always wondered about this... Why is it legal to download sets of lots of different tunes, but illegal to download them individually?

John

It's not legal to download anything (a set or an individual song) unless the site has permission to offer it for download.

Zascar

Then how do we get away with all the mixes posted in the stickied posts on this forum?

Tar.Aldarion

John2 wrote:

It's not legal to download anything (a set or an individual song) unless the site has permission to offer it for download.

Or if the band give you permission to download a lot of their stuff, like Evanescence with most of their music. \o/

Surely mixes etc are illegal as noted above?

Helix

i download practically everything, and one of my justifications for that is that the artist makes next to nothing from sales, the money is made from gigs

so i pay to go see them instead, therefore making them far more than they would if i just bought a few cds or records

John

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Or if the band give you permission to download a lot of their stuff, like Evanescence with most of their music. \o/

Yeah, I meant permission in its broadest sense.

John

Helix wrote:

i download practically everything, and one of my justifications for that is that the artist makes next to nothing from sales, the money is made from gigs

so i pay to go see them instead, therefore making them far more than they would if i just bought a few cds or records

They make next to nothing for each disc sold maybe but record contracts are essentially loans that sales pay off. The more records you buy, the less the artists you like will be in debt (even thought they won't be getting that much money direct to their pockets). Also, if you buy them direct from the artist from their site or gig, they get all the money that a record store would normally pocket.

Rollo Tamasi

John2 wrote:

It's not legal to download anything (a set or an individual song) unless the site has permission to offer it for download.

mixes are not illegeal as long as the person behind the mix is not selling the mix for finanical gain. A way to get around this is to sell your mix in a shop and provide an album cover and to state that you're selling the art and not the music and then you can charge for the mix. Volia!

Zascar

Helix wrote:

i download practically everything, and one of my justifications for that is that the artist makes next to nothing from sales, the money is made from gigs. so i pay to go see them instead, therefore making them far more than they would if i just bought a few cds or records

Exactly, album sales are there to fund the recod company, who in turn promote the act. Most things I listen to does not get 'promoted' to me anyway. Real money is made from touring, so I pay huge fees to see them live.

jonny68

I download it all! Why pay when you can get it for free?:cool:

Helix

John2 wrote:

They make next to nothing for each disc sold maybe but record contracts are essentially loans that sales pay off. The more records you buy, the less the artists you like will be in debt (even thought they won't be getting that much money direct to their pockets). Also, if you buy them direct from the artist from their site or gig, they get all the money that a record store would normally pocket.

it not the artist whol ever be in debt, itll be the label, and as ive said on here manys a time, labels arent needed any more

Tar.Aldarion

jonny68 wrote:

I download it all! Why pay when you can get it for free?:cool:

Because I want to support the bands I love and that I think are talented.

John

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

mixes are not illegeal as long as the person behind the mix is not selling the mix for finanical gain. A way to get around this is to sell your mix in a shop and provide an album cover and to state that you're selling the art and not the music and then you can charge for the mix. Volia!

I'm afraid you're wrong. It's still an unauthorised copy of copyrighted material. Unless you've got permission to include a song on a mix it is against the law to include a song on a copy. You buy a recording, you only have the right to listen to it and (depending on who's interpreting the fair use law) to make a copy for your own personal use. By your logic I could make a mix of the latest charts, make some art and charge a lower price than a Now album and I'd get away with it.

Helix

John2 wrote:

I'm afraid you're wrong. It's still an unauthorised copy of copyrighted material. Unless you've got permission to include a song on a mix it is against the law to include a song on a copy. You buy a recording, you only have the right to listen to it and (depending on who's interpreting the fair use law) to make a copy for your own personal use. By your logic I could make a mix of the latest charts, make some art and charge a lower price than a Now album and I'd get away with it.

mixes are technically illegal, but NEVER chased up because its free promotion for the producers whos tracks are on them

Executive Steve

i'm not a pirate... at all...

i download vast amounts of mixes, but they don't count imo... plus if it's a good mix with plenty of tasty forthcoming stuff then i know for sure i'll be picking the tune up when it hits the shops...

i'll download a low quality mp3 clip if the label posts one up on their site, and even then i'lll usually delete it straight away so i don't get sick of it...

even then i prefer getting a tune in a mix so i can hear how it works in the mix and whether or not you can do anything interesting with it...

i spend a lot of money on records, i'm not particularly wealthy but i take pleasure in owning the vinyl and knowing that the label owner, the mastering engineer, the cutting house, and the producer all got paid peanuts and can stay one step away from the dreaded day job...

tman

John2 wrote:

I'm afraid you're wrong. It's still an unauthorised copy of copyrighted material. Unless you've got permission to include a song on a mix it is against the law to include a song on a copy. You buy a recording, you only have the right to listen to it and (depending on who's interpreting the fair use law) to make a copy for your own personal use. By your logic I could make a mix of the latest charts, make some art and charge a lower price than a Now album and I'd get away with it.

dance labels aren't quite the money grubbing **** that pop labels are.
Tidy Trax are the first dance music label to ever complain about people putting their tracks on a promo mix, and they only ever follow this up if the mix features promo material from the label or more than 20% of their material. (i just made that last figure up... it's something similar though)
that's fine with me though, they went to **** years ago:p
the whole legality of putting tracks on a mix is a major grey area. part of it is covered by the fair dealing/usage policy... but i can't really be bothered reading through any of that bollocks.
long story short, it's pretty much alright to put copyright tracks on a promo cd, so long as they're mixed into or out of another tune. which is what is where you went badly wrong with your last point.
get off your high horse mate. i use mixes as a source for hearing and subsequently purchasing music that i otherwise might not have heard.("Bangkok Impact - Junge Dam" for example...) not all mp3 downloads are taking money away from the artists

jonny68

Most of the stuff i download is not of a commercial nature anyway ive 11,500+ MP3 files in the Soulseek folder and while there would be a few instanly recognisable albums quite a lot of the stuff is far from commercial as im not really into commercial music and never have been,so is someone gonna sue me for d/l some obscure German breakbeat album :rolleyes:

jonny68

And another thing if a P2P like Soulseek which is easily the most popular along with LimeWire was illegal they would've had it closed by now,it's far more popular than Napster ever was,and even if they manage to close it another one would replace it almost imemdiately..long live Soulseek and file sharing,and 2 fingers up to the greedy corporate labels.:cool:

John

tman wrote:

dance labels aren't quite the money grubbing **** that pop labels are.

All labels are businesses, you keep telling yourself that they're not money grubbing ****

I've had dealings with a lot of "the artist comes first" labels and I can safely say that money comes first (although not always to the detriment of the product might I add).

the whole legality of putting tracks on a mix is a major grey area. part of it is covered by the fair dealing/usage policy... but i can't really be bothered reading through any of that bollocks.

It's not a grey area, it's a copyright infringement. Just because at the moment few labels are persuing people who put out mixes, it doesn't mean it's legal. Fair use only applies to your own personal use with music which is restricted enough as it is (technically it's against the law to put your CDs on your mp3 player, how ****ed up is that?).

long story short, it's pretty much alright to put copyright tracks on a promo cd, so long as they're mixed into or out of another tune. which is what is where you went badly wrong with your last point.

I see your point about my last point but I disagree that having it mix and out making it OK. My point still stands that I could do something similar and sell the artwork as much as I liked and I'd get away with it. As I said, just because nobody's getting in trouble for it yet doesn't make it right. A promo CD is one thing as they are given out for free (hence promotional) but selling mixes (sorry, just the artwork) of other people's work is just cheeky in my opinion.

get off your high horse mate.

It's a shetland pony actually.

i use mixes as a source for hearing and subsequently purchasing music that i otherwise might not have heard.("Bangkok Impact - Junge Dam" for example...) not all mp3 downloads are taking money away from the artists

I'm well aware of that, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make/listen/distribute mixes but I was questioning the notion that they were somehow above copyright law, which they're not.

Helix

theyre not above copyright law, but theyre not ever targetted either, purely coz labels all agree that it does them more good than harm

mixes for demo purposes are pure free promotion

think of it as something that remains in the law, but is no longer upheld, similar to someone who has the freedom of dublin city being allowed legally to graze their sheep in trinity college

yes the law is there, but no, its not upheld

matu

I only download to listen to tracks and I end up buying them.
remixes and stuff I dont really see a problem with downloading to be honest.

Rollo Tamasi

look at all the good that bootlegs have done for the careers of the likes of Kylie and Madonna to name but two...do you think record companies are going to sue the DJ's who remix and sample their stuff and release them as mp3's or create whites from them? not at all!

John2 give up the ghost on trying to win us over to the bright and moral side, you're fighting a lossing battle. I admire you for sticking up so much for what you strongly beleive in and i see your point on everything you say but it's getting really tiring reading your posts about it now. Sorry mate.

John

Fair enough, I'll leave you lot to your mixing desks of iniquity

Seanie M

Helix wrote:

i download practically everything, and one of my justifications for that is that the artist makes next to nothing from sales, the money is made from gigs

so i pay to go see them instead, therefore making them far more than they would if i just bought a few cds or records

This is my thinking too. Can't remember the last time I bought a CD... any CD... apart from CD-R/W's...

Seanie.

IceBox

I find the web/net/whatever is like the best record shop in the universe to preview music....so if I find something I like on line..90% of the time I will try to buy on vinyl or cd......It beats spending all your valuable time in record shops.....mp3z are pure **** for DJ'ing

Seanie M

IceBox wrote:

mp3z are pure **** for DJ'ing

Bad quality ones, yes. Don't forget, the human ear can't tell above 224kbps if its ripped direct from a cd, or if it is an MP3 copy (for almost all instruments). So 224 is my limit.

Helix

Seanie M wrote:

Don't forget, the human ear can't tell above 224kbps if its ripped direct from a cd,

not even remotely true

i could tell you the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav, and a wav and a record in a few seconds

your point would hoever be correct if you changed it to "most people cant hear..."

Zascar

what is the lowest quality mp3 you would use? Most of mine are 192k

John

Helix wrote:

not even remotely true

i could tell you the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav, and a wav and a record in a few seconds

your point would hoever be correct if you changed it to "most people cant hear..."

I agree with you totally, the difference between a high quality mp3 and a wav is very noticeable. Especially if you play it loud or on a good system. The lower parts of the low end sound weak and the highest parts of the high end sound tinny and slurred. I use mp3s for personal listening on my laptop where the speakers aren't exactly great but for any other situation it's CDs/records.

Seanie M

Helix wrote:

not even remotely true

i could tell you the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav, and a wav and a record in a few seconds

your point would hoever be correct if you changed it to "most people cant hear..."

Yeah, on instruments like cymbals/hihats - I'm the same. Thats why I said most instruments.