|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 01:51 PM | ||
| Helm |
I used to be quite against filesharing. I argued with Chojin when I first started visiting these boards about it too, if memory serves. I was against mainly because the fact that such bands as Psychotic Waltz or Sieges Even had to disband because they couldn't sustain themselves with their sales, whereas everyone involved at the then prog metal scene would rant and rave about how great those bands are, simply because a friend ripped them a copy. It just burned my ass that people could be so hypocritical. Besides, as a person that might at some point get involved in the 'music buisness' it became twice a problem to be on the recieving end of this situation. But it turns out PW or said SE didn't get as much as peanuts from royalities anyway. A cd costs very little to manufacture, very little to ship here or there (mass quantities) and not as much as people would think to produce properly. Turns out Psychotic Waltz AND Sieges Even where at some point fucked by the music industry, which contributed to their disbanding. The problem isn't in piracy. The problem is in the industry. Now I don't give a fuck if people do nothing but download all day, never buying a record. The more the contribute in the downfall of the current music industry, the sooner such will occur. And it will be a happy time. I'm pretty certain than any artist that is really determined to live off his art, can put the money for a production out of his own pocket, and then circulate his music through the internet for quite less money than what a regular CD costs and very soon start generating a profit. |
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 02:18 AM | ||
| Sergeant_Tibbs |
 According to two of the riaa's criteria this is a bootleg. The whole "The Six Deadly Sins of CD Rip-offs" is about as bad as this site http://www.mavav.org/ |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 08:42 PM | ||
| Ooner |
Yeah, I don't know the happycore all that well, the Brisk + Trixxy spin of Eye Opener is the only one I have and it's one of the popular ones on Kazaa. Whoops. :/ |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 03:23 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
i think YoYo did Eye Opener here's some happy hardcore: YoYo - Eye Opener Luna C - Piano Obsession |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 02:29 PM | ||
| Ooner |
Happy Hardcore is fast bouncy hardcore electronica, generally with female vocals and upbeat happy lyrics. Download: Bang! - "Shooting Star" and "Cloudy Daze" Brisk and Trixxy - Eye Opener |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 02:12 AM | ||
| crash0814 | Happycore? What the fuck is happycore? There's enough cores already. We've got Sadcore, Slowcore and Grindcore. Do we need another one? An example of a happycore band would satisfy my curiosity. | |
| Jul 16th, 2003 02:05 AM | ||
| Ooner |
Just thinking about happycore makes my ass hurt. Super gay. |
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 08:13 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
About a fifth or fourth of my mp3s I'd wager are albums I ripped into my computer because it's where I listen to music. When I get an album, I rip it into mp3s anyway. It's usually just more convenient to download it. However, a lot of happycore shit is hard to get off of kazaa, and it gets harder with more obscure titles. Kazaa lite is helping with that, though :> I think music is moving on from buying recordings. The RIAA is throwing a fit because they will be rendered useless and die. It's the nature of technology and progress. Some years in the future, no-one will have ever bought music and will be appaled at the idea. I have well over 5,000 mp3s. AH HA HA! AH HA HA! AH HA HA HA! But seriously, acoustic bands make the vast majority of their money by performing live. Electronic groups make a lot of it through royalties. The RIAA was never a large part of an artist's income and it's that very fact that prevents any artist worth mentioning from supporting them. The RIAA are truly the architects of their own destruction. |
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:04 AM | ||
| soundtest |
Noooooo! We need to pay for music because without the RIAA there would BE no music. Just like before they were established.  Quote:
 This is begging to be a sig.
|
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 01:55 AM | ||
| FeuerAffe |
riaa I didn't know until the other day what the situation was like in other countries. Some news article said that 90% of China's music market is illegal copied CDs.  People who use downloading to make money suck.
|
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 02:10 PM | ||
| Rongi |
My god...is the RIAA run by a bunch of fucking morons!? You know what, fuck them. If anything, this makes me want to download more songs out of spite. You heard me RIAA, fuck you. |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 11:29 AM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum | Anyone who just downloads music and doesn't buy any is a fucking prick. Yes, Elton John has a plane, but his music fucking sucks anyway; it's the people who are making great music that need your support, because generally they aren't popular. | |
| Jul 13th, 2003 09:23 AM | ||
| crash0814 | Right on, right on. I wouldn't have been able to discover all those weird indie groups I love had it not been for Kazaa. | |
| Jul 13th, 2003 09:13 AM | ||
| Zero Signal |
I would never have bought all of Nightwish's albums if I had not downloaded some MP3s of theirs off of a metal newsgroup. So I guess that counts for nothing. This is the exact reason why I hate the music industry suits.
|
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 07:50 AM | ||
| crash0814 | Keep in mind that a song and a book are two completely different things. A person can listen to a song over and over again, whereas a book is usually a one-time affair, possibly two if the person in question really loves it. I mean, be fair. Do you usually read books more than once? Because if you don't, then what the hell is the point of buying the book, unless you're a collector or something? And if you do usually read a book more than once, do you read it enough times over the course of a year to buy it rather then just taking a short drive to the library and reading it for free whenever you feel like reading it again? | |
| Jul 13th, 2003 07:43 AM | ||
| Ooner |
But it's fun. ...and I appreciate that you're giving me good conversation instead of just ranting/arguing without even trying to rationalize. 
|
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 07:31 AM | ||
| crash0814 | Quit proving me wrong, damn it! | |
| Jul 13th, 2003 07:16 AM | ||
| Ooner |
The difference is listening to it for free, and OWNING it for free... you can borrow a book from the library, but you only get to keep what you remember from it, the book goes back. When you listen to a CD in a friend's car, that's sharing. When you can still go home and listen to it, and so can they, it's not really just sharing anymore. That's why the library example didn't work. Imagine if the music couldn't be easily duplicated and reproduced. You can't share a sandwich or a book or a movie or a 100 dollar bill without either using it together or splitting it up. I think that is the primary concern of the RIAA with easily copied/transferred mp3s. Their definition of sharing doesn't include distribution of copies, which is understandable. They're just going about it all the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:59 AM | ||
| DecapitatedHate |
What about shirts, patchs, stickers, and so on... I mean, it's not like you can share a ticket to a concert, there are many different ways bands can get money, but you don't see bands that are hurting for money whinning, just the ones that have too much money to begin with. I'm glad you started this thread Ninjavemon. |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:29 AM | ||
| crash0814 |
Ooner Post #1: I guess you have a valid point, even though I still don't agree with it. However, you're right on the money with your second comment. Lesser known bands do get tons of exposure from file-sharing. Ooner Post #2: Just because I don't actually have a copy of the book doesn't lessen the fact that I read it for FREE, without paying a dime to do it. And hell, who needs to buy books when I can just go to the library and pick up the book again if I fancy a second read? But yeah, again you have a valid point. I wonder if I should be offended. By the way, nice name. I have no idea where the hell you got it from, but I like it. Kinda sounds like a cartoon character. "Ooner! Ooner! He's a crazy guy!" |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:16 AM | ||
| Ooner |
Ok, just to be an argumentative bastard: The library argument is flawed... if the library bought each book at it's cover price, then made copies, bound them, and gave a copy that was JUST like the original away for free to anyone who wanted one, that would be more like file-sharing. And to continue that comparison, anyone who goes and snags a copy of Harry Potter is a bastard who should be smacked upside the face. But if someone heard about some author that was supposed to be good and grabbed a free copy of a book to check it out, no problem. Hell, they might even like it, in which case they should BUY A COPY OF THE NEXT ONE. File-sharing is a preview tool to find music you like or a way to steal, up to the individual user. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that really do use it to steal. Blame them, not the RIAA. |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:03 AM | ||
| Ooner |
Not related to the rest of my post: I have never heard a logical argument to the "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways" defense. Ok... I will argue on the side of the RIAA when it comes to big hit songs. I think that all the kids who download entire top 10 albums are little thieves and that's NOT what file-sharing is good for. What it IS good for is exposure for bands. Notice all the artists bitching about file-sharing are HUGE stars who don't need any more publicity because their faces are on billboards advertising the newest album. They bitch because file-sharing probably does hurt their profits. Fair enough... But the RIAA completely disregards that the vast majority of bands AREN'T gazillionaires. Most of them have very little exposure and would be NOTHING without file-sharing. File-sharing is running the non-mainstream music industry right now, and the RIAA is trying to shut that down because it takes just a little bit away from the top40 garbage. You bet I steal music. And when I steal from someone who I like, I guy buy their album so I can listen in my car too. That's how it should work. I hope the RIAA sues the fuck out of people with 5000 top40 mp3s on their computer and a CD case full of burned copies. I hope they leave me alone to continue learning about and supporting musicians I enjoy. |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:01 AM | ||
| Ninjavenom |
From their FAQ. If music wasn’t so expensive, wouldn’t there be less incentive to want to file-share? First, this is not file sharing. This is unauthorized, illegal file duplication – on a massive scale. Sharing is when one person gives up something for another – a half a piece of pie, for example, or the use of a car. With Napster, nobody is giving up anything because everybody gets to keep a copy. And that’s just plain wrong. "I'd like to share an idea with you." "Her and i shared the night together." "I plan on sharing my work with the world at the unveiling on monday." "Two days share but one nighttime." Need i go on? |
|
| Jul 13th, 2003 05:19 AM | ||
| crash0814 | Who said that? People like that need to be shot. | |
| Jul 13th, 2003 05:18 AM | ||
| Ninjavenom |
Taping a song from the radio for your personal use is nothing like file trading. Unlike radio, file trading allows you to search for specific songs and access them at will. Also, the quality of downloads is much better. You are able to get a copy of the whole song, without a DJ talking over it or another song being mixed in. Downloads are digital and as such don’t lose sound quality in the transfer, as you do with analog tape. Most important, the harm that can be caused by file trading over the Internet is orders of magnitude greater than the impact of off-air taping. "How is downloading a song different from taping one off the radio?" "It just is." |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
