uncle psychosis

Never tried one myself. For a cheap EQ/DI box I use a Hartke Bass Attack. About £40 to £50 second hand. You might also like to check out the Behringer BDI21 which is a copy of the Sansamp BDDI. Lots of people round here rave about them.

Dinosaur Jr you say? Muff. Muff. Muff. Or at least a muff clone.

I quite often think people ask stupid money for second hand pedals, but if buyers weren't daft enough to pay the stupid prices... One thing that does annoy me is people trying to sell second hand stuff for 90% of the new price because the item is "as new, only used a few times". No, its not new, its second hand and doesn't come with any kind of warranty or distance selling regs or any of the other benefits that you get from buying a truly new item from the shop. If you've bought a new pedal and don't like it then return it under the DSRs, don't bother trying to sell it at a stupid price!

So how do people feel about the second hand market? If you buy a second hand cd you get some music, the artist makes nothing, and someone who isn't the artist makes some money on the sale. The more I think about it, the more that I think buying second hand cds is a bit morally dubious too.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340102563' post='1699003'] All I can say is that from the comments I've seen here, some of you must have to put up with some real sorry excuses for "musicians". Never in the 35+ years that I've been playing in bands have I come across any of these small-minded prejudices form my various fellow band members. Occasionally, I hear stuff from people in other bands, and then I'm thankful that I'm in the band that I'm in and not in a band with them. Remember these idiots only exist outside of their bedrooms because other musicians put up with them. [/quote] A big, fat, +1 to that. Anyone who thinks there is a "right" way to play bass is an idiot. Anyway, *real* bass players use bows ;-)

[quote name='WHUFC BASS' timestamp='1340202925' post='1700965'] I agree - you no longer need to rely on the big record companies to get yourself noticed and you no longer need to be constantly chasing that lucrative record deal and be at the mercy of some jumped up A&R man. The internet really has been a revolution in terms of taking back power and giving it to the bands (where it belongs). [/quote] Yes, but its a double edged sword. Its easier to D-I-Y because of the medium but it also makes things harder in many ways. [quote] Anyone remember being ripped off £15 or £16 for a CD when they first came out in the 90s? [/quote] CD sales are dropping. However, I'd wager that for a long time cd sales were artificially high because people bought cd copies of things they already owned to replace their old vinyl/casettes (I know I did). I probably buy just as many "new" cds as I ever did, but I'm buying less cds overall because I've managed to catch up on all the "old" stuff that I didn't have on cd yet.

The "full time musicians have more time to spend on getting good" argument is a weird one. There must be thousands of bands out there who've released one or two brilliant records at the start of their career when they were nobodies and working part time in McDonalds and then when they hit the big time they just get worse, not better. Paul McCartney was brilliant, forty years ago. He's also loaded, so he doesn't have to worry about money. Has he got any better since 1970? Some musicians get better when they are able to spend 100% of their time on their music. Other musicians just burn out and run out of things to say.

[quote name='BigRedX']No but there's a difference between getting a single track from a band (in amongst a load of others) on a mix tape from a mate and downloading their entire recorded output because you're too cheap to pay for it.[/quote] [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340192385' post='1700659'] This is the real issue. [/quote] Correct me if I'm wrong, but earlier in the thread you said that piracy was a black and white issue and that anyone who stole as much as a single song was a thief and a c**t. Now you're saying that stealing a song is alright, so long as its just to put on a mixtape for your mate. Seems like you agree with me after all. Some piracy is bad. Some piracy is ok. Hooray, everyone wins.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340187545' post='1700542'] Blimey. What's all this 9 pages about then? [/quote] f*** knows [quote]Yes, it is not theft, stealing, nicking, half inching. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. [/quote] Why didn't you say so the first time then? Then we could have got onto discussing fun stuff like what colour socks you should wear for a deep Reggae tone! Speaking of which, I'm off to give some Dr Alimantado a blast. Laters

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340187061' post='1700523'] So what we are essentially arguing about is the exact legal meaning of a couple of words. The way I see it, if you download a song and the artist who recorded it wants you to pay for the privilege and you don't then you are depriving the artist of money. Somewhere along to line you have broken some law. Can we agree on that? [/quote] Yes, we totally agree. My original point way back in the mists of time was that describing copyright infringement as stealing was a silly thing to do. Copyright infringement is a crime, but it is not stealing. I was just being pedantic

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340186220' post='1700505'] You might find that whoever has paid for the rights to sell postcards/prints of the Mona Lisa has something to say about that. [/quote] That was my point. You've infringed on someone's commercial rights (which is illegal) but nothing has been "stolen". I was merely pointing out that describing copyright infringement as "theft" was factually wrong. Ethically and morally wrong? Probably, yes. Stealing? No. Plus, nobody on basschat would call you a c**t and a thief for taking a picture of the Mona Lisa and giving it to your mum!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340183978' post='1700426'] I'd also say would you feel comfortable doing a transaction in the Basschat marketplace with someone who you know advocates downloading for free content that should be paid for? I know I wouldn't. [/quote] I sincerely hope that isn't aimed at me. At no point have I advocated piracy and to claim otherwise is both unfair and untrue.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340183621' post='1700410'] IMO you are confusing piracy with some music being given away for free out of choice. It's up to each band and/or record company to decide whether or not that they give (some of) their music away for free or charge for it. If it's being given away free by all means take it. If it's not free don't take it just because some other music is. Also if you want to listen to a band there are plenty of legal places on the internet where you can do so (we'll leave aside the piss-poor royalty rates these sites pay for now). There is no need to grab an unauthorised download. Therefore the argument about downloading for trying before buying falls flat. My music tastes are pretty eclectic, but I've never needed to obtain a dodgy copy of a band's work in order to find out whether or not I'm going to like them. My band give some of our tracks away for free and we expect you to pay for others. That's our choice. If you don't like it, then you can probably find plenty of others playing music in a similar style who are giving away all their songs for free. However if you think that my band has that something extra special that other bands have wouldn't you want to pay for the music if that's what was being asked of you? [/quote] I do pay for music. All the time. I don't download illegally. I respect musicians too much for that. I've said that repeatedly. I totally agree that if a musician wants you to pay for their music then you should. But according to some of the logic on display in this thread---if you make a mixtape for your mate then you're a ****, because you've "stolen" from a starving musician. Its stupid. Sometimes bands do well out of piracy (see Twigman) and to stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore that fact is just daft. Right I really am done this time.

Anyway, I'm leaving this discussion. Its getting ugly and people are reading what they want to read, not whats actually been written. For the record: 1. I firmly believe in supporting artists and musicians (and I do, at every opportunity) 2. I believe that in many cases piracy is both legally and ethically wrong and cannot be justified 3. I [i]also[/i] believe that in many cases, piracy can actually be a good thing for artists and musicians.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340182314' post='1700361'] I can't believe people defend it. I don't give a sh*t what someone wants to call it, but if some music has a price, and some f***er takes it without paying for it, then that is depriving the people who created the music of some income. [/quote] So, if someone illegally downloads one song by an artist, and then on the back of that goes and buys three cds, a concert ticket, and a tshirt, then the artist has been deprived of income? Please. Did you believe that home taping was killing music too?

[quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340181934' post='1700341'] Well it is. It just happened to have a positive effect in the long term for his particular band. If you killed my brother I'd get inheritance. Cheers. That's a very rare occurrence and it doesn't take away from the fact that people still stole his albums.. [/quote] Eh? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I'm going to make this simple, because somehow people seem to have got confused. [size=6]Sometimes, for some bands, piracy can have a positive effect. Sometimes, for other bands, piracy can have a negative effect. Arguing that piracy is a black/white issue is stupid. [/size] That was all my point was in the first place. Somehow everyone got their knickers in a twist and assumed that "some piracy can be good" meant "all piracy is brilliant and you should all never pay for anything ever again".

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1340181677' post='1700333'] Yep - it's a lesson to [i]some[/i] bands that giving away a back catalogue which has already been recorded (and presumably the recording paid for) is a good thing. That choice should be made by the copyright owner, though. [/quote] Sounds like we agree.

[quote name='Doctor J' timestamp='1340179605' post='1700289'] If we're actually honest with ourselves, there are very few of us here who couldn't do everything they want and need to do on a bog standard Jazz bass and, I put it to you, that even owning more than one is an induglence. Why are people who have two or three applying a stigma to having more than that? At a push, you could say there could be a need for fretted and fretless but saying you [i]need[/i] a Stingray tone and a P bass tone is a bit much. [/quote] I think people have read a bit too much into some of it. For me, personally, I don't like having instruments lying around not getting used. Thats not an indulgence I'm comfortable with. If someone else gets pleasure out of having 47 jazz basses, all in different finishes, then thats cool by me. It just doesn't work for me! Like you say, though, I think there is a little bit too much confusion of the words "need" and "want" when it comes to guitars. Someone might [i]want [/i]to own 16 basses, but lets face it, they almost certainly don't [i]need[/i] to. There's nothing wrong with wanting 16 basses, but you should at least be honest with yourself about your motives

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1340181354' post='1700323'] All these justifications, excuses and explanations don't alter the fact, yes fact, that it is illegal (against the law) to pirate music, films, games, photographs, software and many other things, so taking without paying is always stealing. It's not difficult to understand; unless you’re a person who steals these products, then you'll spend time trying to justify what you're doing. Whether or not you can pick up what you have stolen is irrelevant. The fact that you can do it and easily get away with it seems to make some people think that it's OK to steal. There is some very immature reasoning going on here. Musicians justifying stealing from other musicians? Shame on you. [/quote] So what do you say to Twigman's post? He is in a band. They have success [i]because[/i] of piracy. The only immature argument around here is the one that goes "piracy is always bad". Its just not that simple.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340178282' post='1700267'] uncle psychosis, did you actually read the article in the OP all the way through? [/quote] Yes. And somehow I've ended up being the poster boy for illegal downloads despite acquiring all of my music and films by paying for them This is the problem with the internet---all I said initially was "downloading isn't necessarily always a bad thing" and somehow people have turned that into me saying its ok to take whatever you want for free [quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340178287' post='1700268'] Gosh, five minutes of my life - gone. That's like one TV advert break or something. The anti-piracy campaign thanks you for buying legally, it doesn't call you a criminal. [/quote] There's a few different ones. The one that says "thank you for buying this product" is good. I approve of that one. The one I'm specifically thinking of is the obnoxious "you wouldn't steal a car....you wouldn't steal a purse... blah blah blah" one that goes on and on. You're right, I wouldn't steal a car and I didn't steal this DVD so f**k off and let me watch the film please! [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1340178315' post='1700270'] If you want to support music, buy stuff. Not supporting bands is damaging to everyone, when people can't afford to play gigs because of expenses and can't pay for more recordings because their CDs are being pirated, it's the fans that lose out as much as the bands. It's not the band's responsibility to give you free stuff. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed that musicians can have the veiw that piracy is ok. [/quote] I assume this is aimed at me. I do support bands (more than almost anyone else I know). I don't think "piracy is ok".What I think is: "[b]sometimes[/b] piracy can actually be a good thing for musicians. [b]SOMETIMES[/b]." [quote name='Alec 'Aleb' Mills' timestamp='1340179563' post='1700287'] An example, its not just the muic industry being limited to piracy. In the game industry, last year a game called 'Cyrisis 2' had an estimated 4 million unregistered copies on the multiplayer servers after just four months of the game being released. Within that same period, they had only sold 3 million copies. This was one of the worst performances for a game. In these scenarios, it shows that 'people' will not pay for things if they can get away with it.[/quote] Someone at Crytek (the people who made Crysis 2) leaked it before it was launched. If you've got a game that millions of teenage boys want to play thats suddenly available to download but not available legally [i]anywhere[/i] then its hardly surprising it was downloaded that many times. [b]I'm not saying that its a good thing[/b], just that you can understand how it happened. Teenagers are hardly renowned for their patience.

[quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340177332' post='1700248'] It's not an inferior product at all though - it's a few commercials. [/quote] Its five minutes of commericals. That you can't skip. Every time you want to watch the film that you've legally paid for. And a big fat anti-piracy advert that as good as calls you a criminal (even though you've paid for their product). It is most definitely an inferior product.

[quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340176844' post='1700238'] It does. It showed there are a number of outlets for legally downloading and streaming things. A lack of patience because you really want to watch a TV show isn't a justification at all. [/quote] We're just going to have to agree to disagree. If people want to buy your product then making it difficult for them to do so is just lunacy.

[quote]You did pay to watch the film though. You pay your TV license right? You pay Sky/Virgin Media/BT for any package you might have? That's you paying to watch that film. The view count of advertisements on that channel etc etc is how the broadcaster makes their money, which pays for their right to show the film. Through this chain by watching that film on TV you have paid the people who own the copyright to it[/quote] My point wasn't about the legality of it. My point was purely that some people will watch stuff "for free" but never consider paying for it. Thats all. [quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340176153' post='1700230'] iTunes provides a vast library of good-quality music and is easy to use.[/quote] The last time I used iTunes I could only download sh*tty quality mp3s that were locked to iTunes. To get them onto my mp3 player I had to burn a cd from iTunes, then rip it to a format of my choosing. Maybe they've finally woken up and realised how stupid that system was. [quote]Has really it got to the point where we're justifying pirate over legal because we can't be bothered to sit through a few trailers? [/quote] So you think it makes sense for an industry to provide an inferior product AND treat their paying customers like criminals?

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1340149337' post='1700157'] What makes you think that a "collection" automatically means "instrument(s) gathering dust"? All mine get played on a fairly regular rotation because I like them all. If they don't get played, they get sold. [/quote] The bit where I said "if I'm not using them" makes me think that they'll gather dust