Illegal downloading, file-sharing and what i think- what do you think?

[Big_Stu]

Universal reckon 4 years tops for CD & DVDs. By then there'll be more big BB style laws & tracing capabilities in place to nail illegal downloading to a door, like they're doing now with limited success, hence the huge penalties when they do - trying to scare folk off like the prison sentences after the riots.
Of course the trend won't stop there, & some will romanticise it - like the gangster bootleggers on 30's USA - and there'll be small fry copiers, who will get nailed - and the bigger ones who won't, just like income tax now.
And so it'll go round and round and round - a lot like this thread ............ or a record, remember them?

Now that this thread is in it's twilight aren't we about due another one about vinyl & CDs quality comparisons?

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361389286' post='1985266']How much would you have made or lost if you sold 0 copies and no-one copied it?[/quote]

I think you're intentially trying to be obtuse.

Pirating says that either:

A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else.

Or

You think everyone should be get all their music for free and no one should get any money from recorded music (thus basically shutting down the entire recording industry, making it so that you and everyone else will very rarely get any music, free or otherwise).

Maybe you can share a third option where you put yourself on the same level as everyone else and there's a way that people that put the effort into writing and recording music (for music's sake rather than, say, a sound track for a film) can afford to do it for a living, but I can't see one myself.

Legally, you're right, downloading music isn't illegal (unless laws changed since I was at college), it's the sharing that's illegal. It doesn't make it any more right from a moral view though and that you're supporting any kind of piracy doesn't say much about your character.

Either way, I'm sure you're just trolling the forum for the sake of an argument so it's not worth getting worked up about. You either have morals or you don't, I'm sure reading this post (or any others) won't put make you see common sense.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587']
I think you're intentially trying to be obtuse.

Pirating says that either:

A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else.

Or

You think everyone should be get all their music for free and no one should get any money from recorded music (thus basically shutting down the entire recording industry, making it so that you and everyone else will very rarely get any music, free or otherwise).

Maybe you can share a third option where you put yourself on the same level as everyone else and there's a way that people that put the effort into writing and recording music (for music's sake rather than, say, a sound track for a film) can afford to do it for a living, but I can't see one myself.

Legally, you're right, downloading music isn't illegal (unless laws changed since I was at college), it's the sharing that's illegal. It doesn't make it any more right from a moral view though and that you're supporting any kind of piracy doesn't say much about your character.

Either way, I'm sure you're just trolling the forum for the sake of an argument so it's not worth getting worked up about. You either have morals or you don't, I'm sure reading this post (or any others) won't put make you see common sense.
[/quote]

Downloading: not piracy. Covers that. Congrats on the observation that people are individuals though.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361400570' post='1985565']
Out of interest, when are you releasing an album?
[/quote]

Album is out, its linked in sig. Not happy enough with current thing for a serious recording, but live one is also linked in sig, not really hard to spot. If you go and look at people's sigs on this forum, there are several hours of music linked in this thread. Its kind of a hint that people want you to download it, because they make music for people to listen

[flyfisher]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587']
A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else.
[/quote]

Now there's an interesting statement. Isn't it obvious that everyone has different morals, courtesy and common sense? That's what makes people individuals isn't it?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361402245' post='1985602']
Now there's an interesting statement. Isn't it obvious that everyone has different morals, courtesy and common sense? That's what makes people individuals isn't it?
[/quote]

Morals, courtesy and common sense; the definition thereof; variance in 'application' and the individual.

Now there's a 25 page thread in itself

[color=#ffffff] [/color]
[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited February 20, 2013 by skankdelvar

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361401863' post='1985595']Downloading: not piracy. Covers that. Congrats on the observation that people are individuals though.[/quote]

So you're being pendantic about the term used. I've seen your posts and you seem intelligent enough to know exactly what the OP meant (assuming you read his post, at least). Your patronising comment doesn't really help show your post in a better light though.

I'm sure everyone that's posted in this thread is aware that the topic is about illegal file sharing and the downloading from sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission. It seems silly to get into arguments with people for no real reason by pretending you're misinterpreting what's actually being said.


[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361402245' post='1985602']
Now there's an interesting statement. Isn't it obvious that everyone has different morals, courtesy and common sense? That's what makes people individuals isn't it?
[/quote]

You're spot on, everyone does have different standards. This is one of those areas though where someone's working with the aim of making money and other people are taking advantage to benefit from the work without paying their dues for it. The only grey area I can see (morally) is if you [u]DEFINITELY[/u] wouldn't have bought an album but own a copy of it, though if you are so sure that you definitely wouldn't own it, then there's no point having a copy anyway since it's obviously something you don't like or won't get any use from.

I imagine 99% of people (including myself and the majority on this forum) have had a pirated copy of something at some point, even just copying someone else's CD onto your MP3 player for example, but that doesn't make it right, no matter how much you think you can justify it. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that anyone that does own copied music is the devil incarnate, I just don't understand how people think it's justifiable.

[heminder]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587']
You think everyone should be get all their music for free and no one should get any money from recorded music (thus basically shutting down the entire recording industry, making it so that you and everyone else will very rarely get any music, free or otherwise).

[/quote]

It is a good thing when an industry dies from obsolescence - it's a signal that it is no longer needed and society can move on without it. Have a read of this article: [url="https://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/"]https://torrentfreak...tor-fee-110821/[/url] it talks about exactly this.

The statement that we will no longer listen to recorded music is utterly false. I'm listening to [i]more[/i] recorded music now (which [b]isn't[/b] produced by the old "industry" and big labels) than I was during the era of cassettes/CDs.

Edited February 20, 2013 by heminder

[flyfisher]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361402705' post='1985609']
You're spot on, everyone does have different standards. This is one of those areas though where someone's working with the aim of making money and other people are taking advantage to benefit from the work without paying their dues for it. The only grey area I can see (morally) is if you [u]DEFINITELY[/u] wouldn't have bought an album but own a copy of it, though if you are so sure that you definitely wouldn't own it, then there's no point having a copy anyway since it's obviously something you don't like or won't get any use from.

I imagine 99% of people (including myself and the majority on this forum) have had a pirated copy of something at some point, even just copying someone else's CD onto your MP3 player for example, but that doesn't make it right, no matter how much you think you can justify it. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that anyone that does own copied music is the devil incarnate, I just don't understand how people think it's justifiable.
[/quote]

So what's your take on that study that concluded that file sharers spend around 10x more money on music than those who don't file share? http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

The argument against file sharing seems to be that it deprives artists of income, yet that study suggest that the file sharers are contributing the most to artist's incomes.

So what's the thing that's actually 'wrong'?

Edited February 20, 2013 by flyfisher

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361402705' post='1985609']
So you're being pendantic about the term used. I've seen your posts and you seem intelligent enough to know exactly what the OP meant (assuming you read his post, at least). Your patronising comment doesn't really help show your post in a better light though.

I'm sure everyone that's posted in this thread is aware that the topic is about illegal file sharing and the downloading from sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission. It seems silly to get into arguments with people for no real reason by pretending you're misinterpreting what's actually being said.
[/quote]

It is pretty important since using the wrong words is first clue that someone doesn't know what they are saying. See thread title: 'illegal downloading' isn't a thing, because downloading isn't illegal. In some places "sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission." are not illegal. We used to have this thing in this country where we applied our laws and 'morals' etc. to other countries, it was called the Empire. It isn't existent any more. Once you've removed the false notion of certain things being illegal, you are left with doing things that it is possible, but not certain, that somebody, somewhere, might not like. And that is a pretty poor reason to start telling people what they can and can't do. Especially when that thing is exchange of information, restricting that is known as 'censorship' and should be one of those big nasty scare words.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361402662' post='1985608']
Morals, courtesy and common sense; the definition thereof; variance in 'application' and the individual.

Now there's a 25 page thread in itself

[/quote]

. . . at the very least I should think.

[Zenitram]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361403263' post='1985618']
because downloading isn't illegal[/quote]

is this absolutely, definitely, verifiably true? (and do you have a link to something official that would make me believe it)
Is it perfectly, completely, wonderfully legal and not copyright infingement to download (not upload) something from online without the copyright holder's permission?

Or however one wishes to phrase it.

And does it refer to anything? Films, software, etc.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361402705' post='1985609']I imagine 99% of people (including myself and the majority on this forum) have had a pirated copy of something at some point, even just copying someone else's CD onto your MP3 player for example, but that doesn't make it right, no matter how much you think you can justify it. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that anyone that does own copied music is the devil incarnate, I just don't understand how people think it's justifiable.[/quote]

Now that you mention it; I was at a record fair in Edinburgh, early 90's. I was there with a bootleg CD looking for the guy who sold it to me to try to get another copy.
As I spoke to the guy he said to me "If you want to keep it put it away NOW!". I looked around & the place was being raided by the PRS and a large police escort. Out pf a decent sized hall with around a dozen+stalls within an hour there was one single table with 2 shoeboxes of CDs on it - all of the rest was lifted.
The guy saw it as a hazard of his game & explained to me that owning a bootleg isn't illegal - copying & selling them is.

What is interesting is that it appears to be some of the ones agreeing with piracy in this thread who also OK'd "flipping" gear in the sales section on BC too.
Caveat Emptor indeed.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361402777' post='1985610']
It is a good thing when an industry dies from obsolescence - it's a signal that it is no longer needed and society can move on without it.[/quote]

i agree with you, but I doubt that countless miners, shipbuilders, dockers and retail sales employees would consider it a good thing. And to be fair, the record industry isn't so much dying from obsolescence as from a combination of factors, including unadventurous artist development and the loss of its monopoly of distributive channels

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361402777' post='1985610']
The statement that we will no longer listen to recorded music is utterly false. I'm listening to [i]more[/i] recorded music now (which [b]isn't[/b] produced by the old "industry" and big labels) than I was during the era of cassettes/CDs.
[/quote]

In Johnny Cash's autobiography he mentions how - in the 1930's - his father refused to listen to the radio or to recorded music on the grounds that - being recorded - it was not 'real' and was thus worthless. For him, 'real' was a live, unrepeatable and unique performance in the presence of the listener.

Bearing in mind the degree of artifice to which most musicians now resort when recording, I am tempted to agree. Most records are not records as in the sense of a historical record, but are instead static constructions. The unvarying performance from play to play and the repetitious nature of broadcasting creates a straitjacket from which the performer cannot subsequently escape.

"Play it like the record, you c**t" says the audience while the 'artist' dies inside. Frankly, the record is the devil's work and - incidentally - put lots of gigging dance bands on the scrapheap. But then - as a wise man said - it is good when an industry dies of obsolescence.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361403096' post='1985616']
So what's your take on that study that concluded that file sharers spend around 10x more money on music than those who don't file share? [/quote]

As a practised massager of statistics, I'd turn that on its head and say that:

i) People who aren't that interested in music don't file share because if they don't spend that much on music they won't be bothered about saving a few bob.

ii) People who are more interested in music are more likely to evade payment, which bears out the whole 'Rock & Roll kids are dangerous hoodlums' proposition so widely bruited in our comparatively recent past. Further examination of the study would no doubt reveal that this group spends more on Brylcreem, flick-knives and leather jackets than the average citizen.

Does this make it right. Yes.

And no.

Or maybe.

Edited February 21, 2013 by skankdelvar

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361402777' post='1985610']
It is a good thing when an industry dies from obsolescence - it's a signal that it is no longer needed and society can move on without it. Have a read of this article: [url="https://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/"]https://torrentfreak...tor-fee-110821/[/url] it talks about exactly this.

The statement that we will no longer listen to recorded music is utterly false. I'm listening to [i]more[/i] recorded music now (which ISN'T produced by the old "industry" and big labels) than I was during the era of cassettes/CDs.
[/quote]

I think (and hope) the recording industry is a LONG way off dying from obsolescence. That link is more relevant to digital music overtaking CDs in sales by making the technology obsolete than the recording industry as a whole.

Nowhere did I say that we wouldn't listen to recorded music any more. I said it'd be rare to find any and without any funding for the recording industry, it would. If people didn't buy recordings and provide income, people (especially small bands) couldn't justify the expenses of going into a studio. Studios would shut down through lack of work etc and the whole industry would shrink until there were very little recordings left.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361403096' post='1985616']
So what's your take on that study that concluded that file sharers spend around 10x more money on music than those who don't file share?

The argument against file sharing seems to be that it deprives artists of income, yet that study suggest that the file sharers are contributing the most to artist's incomes.

So what's the thing that's actually 'wrong'?
[/quote]

Benefitting from something someone's spent time and effort (and most likely money) to create then put into the public domain with the trust that it will provide for them, feed them and put a roof over their head then having the public enjoy the content (being broader than just music as piracy covers a wide range of things) without supporting the people involved should be fairly black and white, at least to me it is.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361403263' post='1985618']
It is pretty important since using the wrong words is first clue that someone doesn't know what they are saying. See thread title: 'illegal downloading' isn't a thing, because downloading isn't illegal. In some places "sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission." are not illegal. We used to have this thing in this country where we applied our laws and 'morals' etc. to other countries, it was called the Empire. It isn't existent any more. Once you've removed the false notion of certain things being illegal, you are left with doing things that it is possible, but not certain, that somebody, somewhere, might not like. And that is a pretty poor reason to start telling people what they can and can't do. Especially when that thing is exchange of information, restricting that is known as 'censorship' and should be one of those big nasty scare words.
[/quote]

The wording is pretty important, I agree, but that doesn't change that you knew what he meant and telling him he's wrong then launching into an argument with anyone that dares disagree isn't the way to approach it. Also, you're right about the quote of mine you posted, but at the same time, they're giving access to those downloads to people in countries where it is illegal, thus breaking the law still. Claiming that expecting people to pay for music amounts to censorship is to the extreme. Censorship is denial of knowledge, expecting people to pay for access to knowledge in the public domain is totally different.

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1361403585' post='1985623']
is this absolutely, definitely, verifiably true? (and do you have a link to something official that would make me believe it)
Is it perfectly, completely, wonderfully legal and not copyright infingement to download (not upload) something from online without the copyright holder's permission?

Or however one wishes to phrase it.

And does it refer to anything? Films, software, etc.
[/quote]

It's true. The illegal part is hosting and sharing the music. Downloading it is legal as long as once you have it, you don't distribute it yourself. The illegality of it comes from copyright laws which prevent it being copied rather than actually possessing the material IIRC. It's the same rules about selling second hand CDs, software etc, as long as you're not allowing the copying of it, it's legal.

Edited February 20, 2013 by ThomBassmonkey

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361403971' post='1985631']
In Johnny Cash's autobiography he mentions how - in the 1930's - his father refused to listen to the radio or to recorded music on the grounds that - being recorded - it was not 'real'. For him, 'real' was a live, unrepeatable and unique performance in the presence of the listener.

Bearing in mind the degree of artifice to which most musicians now resort when recording, I am tempted to agree. Most records are not records as in the sense of a historical record, but are instead static constructions. The unvarying performance from play to play and the repetitious nature of broadcasting creates a straitjacket from which the performer cannot subsequently escape.

[/quote]

Now there's a can of worms!

I agree that 'recording' now has a somewhat different meaning to the days when The Beatles recorded their Please Please Me album in a single day (just to keep to topical examples ).

However, there's surely no doubt that even a piece of music that has taken many years of elapsed time, gazillions of CPU cycles and umpteen mixes and remixes is still a creative work of art, even if it cannot be precisely recreated in a live performance. They are just different forms of the musical art.

It's akin to the photo-vs-image debate that rages in photographic circles between the traditional wet chemistry types and the digital photoshopping types.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1361403585' post='1985623']
is this absolutely, definitely, verifiably true? (and do you have a link to something official that would make me believe it)
Is it perfectly, completely, wonderfully legal and not copyright infingement to download (not upload) something from online without the copyright holder's permission?

Or however one wishes to phrase it.

And does it refer to anything? Films, software, etc.
[/quote]

Thing about Law is it mostly says what you can't do, outside of exceptions there to something you broadly can't do. Downloading isn't copying (because beforehand, you don't have the thing to be copied) so copyright isn't applicable. Check articles (ones written by people worth paying attention to, not label bosses crying etc. actual law articles, because journalists are laypeople for the purpose, plus being in the media, have an agenda) on the subject (specific to UK, since US law is different) and note lack of references to downloading being illegal, aside from use of 'illegal downloads' in quotes or using it all over, then any hard reference actually referring to 'shares', and care to reference 'file sharing' in any cases. The term 'downloading illegal copies' comes up (the copy made that is uploaded would be illegal in the UK, but not necessarily in the location the uploader is) Check total lack of any successful legal action regarding downloaders. Various acts you could take with your legally obtained copy could become an infringing copy action, but that's about where its the same as you doing it with a thing you bought, which shows up about where people trying to make that claim need to get off.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587']...Pirating says that either:

A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else.

Or...[/quote]

Good evening, Tom...

Yes, I'm in the 'A' camp; my morals etc. are, indeed my own concern, and do not have to be judged or compared to anybody, living or dead. I have my conscience for that, which works just fine, thank you. I do many things which are considered illegal where I live, many illegal where you live, and many that are illegal for us both. I am the sole judge, however, in these matters, and assume that responsibility with no qualms. I have to justify my beliefs to no-one.
I have been a professional musician, I still play for pleasure, and do not believe that the 'industry' has any 'right' to exist. Musicians count, as individuals, not artificial constructs such as 'industry'.
I believe that 1 hour of my time is as valuable as 1 hour of anyone else's. If I spend 1 hour composing, that is worth 1 hour. If John Lennon spent 1 hour composing, the result is worth 1 hour. Same for Mozart, or whomsoever. Once that hour has been paid for, nothing more is due. I reject the notion of 'intellectual property' by which 'royalties' are paid, over and over again; often to dead folks heirs, whether for music, written works, 'ideas' and such. I do not consider it 'theft' to ignore this aspect of acquisition, and bypass it whenever I reasonably can. I do not steal food from supermarket shelves. That would not be right (for me; others may have different needs and/or circumstances...).

Edited February 21, 2013 by Dad3353

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1361405013' post='1985647']I do many things which are considered illegal where I live, .................I have to justify my beliefs to no-one.[/quote]

Not striiiiictly true though is it, only until you get caught, then there's .............

[heminder]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']
Nowhere did I say that we wouldn't listen to recorded music any more. I said it'd be rare to find any and without any funding for the recording industry, it would. If people didn't buy recordings and provide income, people (especially small bands) couldn't justify the expenses of going into a studio. Studios would shut down through lack of work etc and the whole industry would shrink until there were very little recordings left.[/quote]

Well, of all the new music I listen to nowadays [i]none[/i] of it is funded/backed by the recording industry and labels so I don't know why you think bands need funding from them to make a record.

Studios shutting down due to lack of work simply means that everyone is doing their work themselves and no longer need them. A laptop and an interface is all that's needed to produce music now, and more elaborate set-ups have become common with hobby recording enthusiasts whose sound quality can even rival that of big expensive studios.

Edited February 21, 2013 by heminder

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']
I said it'd be rare to find any and without any funding for the recording industry, it would. If people didn't buy recordings and provide income, people (especially small bands) couldn't justify the expenses of going into a studio. Studios would shut down through lack of work etc and the whole industry would shrink until there were very little recordings left.
[/quote]

The massive amount of recordings available in unsigned members sigs here, kind of shows that is far from the case.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']
The wording is pretty important, I agree, but that doesn't change that you knew what he meant and telling him he's wrong then launching into an argument with anyone that dares disagree isn't the way to approach it.
[/quote]

I knew what he meant, in that it was a bunch of total misconceptions about the situation, hence pointing out the issues with it. If someone keeps asking the same question, the answer will likewise stay the same.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']Also, you're right about the quote of mine you posted, but at the same time, they're giving access to those downloads to people in countries where it is illegal, thus breaking the law still.
[/quote]

It isn't breaking the law if its legal, laws in one country don't apply in another country unless they are annexed or something. Filtering of information coming across a border is censorship again. Blasphemous images are illegal in some countries, hosting such a site in another country where it is accepted isn't illegal, even if that site can be accessed from such a country.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']Censorship is denial of knowledge, expecting people to pay for access to knowledge in the public domain is totally different.
[/quote]

Public domain knowledge being a paid for privilege is exactly censorship.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361404813' post='1985642']
Now there's a can of worms![/quote]

Worms are my business and business is good.
[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361404874' post='1985644']
Thing about Law is [/quote]

Thing about law is it are oftun silly.

People can quote innumerable things which are both illegal and wrong, wrong but not illegal and not wrong but illegal. And it's entirely possible to hubristically identify the precise particulars of a situation or to find loopholes that justify almost any practise on grounds of expediency, philosophy, progress or self-interest.

Self-interest is nothing new and practically everyone does it all the time. It is so commonplace as to be almost ubiquitous, yet it does not stop us from abhorring it in others while indulging in it ourselves.

For me, the value I derive from discussions of this nature lies in the amusement I get from watching some very intelligent people expend enormous energy justifying something which might well piss on their own chips one day.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361405943' post='1985660']
People can quote innumerable things which are both illegal and wrong, wrong but not illegal and not wrong but illegal.
[/quote]

This thread is about a law that is made up though, and how people should comply with it, even though it isn't a thing.

[ThomBassmonkey]

Apologies for abbreviating posts, I have read them but this will be stupidly long if I fully quote everything.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1361405013' post='1985647']
Good evening, Tom...etc[/quote]

Since we're in the business of being pedantic about what's been said, my name's spelled Thom, not Tom.

It's good that you're prepared to stand up and admit you think you're better than anyone that purchases music legally and that you think it's their job to support an industry you benefit from. While I disagree (I think all humans are equal unless their actions prove otherwise, but that's just my opinion), at least you have the honesty to say it. I am curious though, if you say that one hour of your time is comparable to one hour of anyone else's time, why do you think that the time someone who buys music spends earning the money to buy music from a legal source is worth the same amount of time (i.e. none) of yours spent earning the nothing you spend on your music?

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361405402' post='1985654']
Well, of all the new music I listen to nowadays [i]none[/i] of it is funded/backed by the recording industry and labels so I don't know why you think bands need funding from them to make a record.

Studios shutting down due to lack of work simply means that everyone is doing their work themselves and no longer need them. A laptop and an interface is all that's needed to produce music now, and more elaborate set-ups have become common with hobby recording enthusiasts whose sound quality can even rival that of big expensive studios.
[/quote]

I said funding [u]for[/u] the record industry (and I don't just mean labels etc, I mean anything that involves recordings). Recordings are funded by comsumers paying for them, for the majority of people, if that funding stopped then it wouldn't be practical for them to keep producing CDs. My band often makes petrol money from CDs as well as being able to produce more recordings, realistically we'd be crippled if we didn't have an income from recordings. Recording in a studio produces a much higher quality than recording from a laptop. The singer in my band is a partner in a recording studio, he engineers all of our tracks and we still make the time to actually go to the studio because it's a better all-round experience with a better end product despite having all the gear needed at his house to do the job there.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361405418' post='1985655']The massive amount of recordings available in unsigned members sigs here, kind of shows that is far from the case.[/quote]

Again, I'm not limiting "the recording industry" to just labels, I'm including anything that involves recording. I'm sure that if the record industry shut down today there would still be people doing DIY jobs and putting music out there. The quality and quantity would be significantly reduced.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361405418' post='1985655']I knew what he meant, in that it was a bunch of total misconceptions about the situation, hence pointing out the issues with it. If someone keeps asking the same question, the answer will likewise stay the same.[/quote]

Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from but I don't see it as a productive way of posting.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361405418' post='1985655']It isn't breaking the law if its legal, laws in one country don't apply in another country unless they are annexed or something. Filtering of information coming across a border is censorship again. Blasphemous images are illegal in some countries, hosting such a site in another country where it is accepted isn't illegal, even if that site can be accessed from such a country.

Public domain knowledge being a paid for privilege is exactly censorship.[/quote]

Then I stand corrected, I was lead to believe that the laws were relevant to the areas that the sites were operating (live) in, not just the hosting area. Censorship is about keeping things out of peoples' hands and music that can be bought is in the public doman with it's full content (as on the CD) available. You might as well say that schools are censored because it costs money for people to learn, the media is a form of censorship because we have to pay to access it.

This is all getting a bit silly now and I'm very aware that I have to word what I'm saying very carefully for fear of people taking it out of context and trying to dispute things I'm not saying. I'll just say that my underlying point about piracy is that if people work to create a product that they are doing so with the aim to get paid for, then it's very fair for the consumer to make the choice of either deciding that the content is worth the asking price and they'll pay it or that they don't feel it's worth the asking price and they won't pay it. If they volunteer free downloads then that's great, everyone can benefit, but it's unfair not to respect the creator's wishes if you want to enjoy the end product. If, like Dad3353 you think you're superior to other human beings then maybe that hints at deeper problems but for the rest of us mere mortals it doesn't hurt to have a bit of respect for the people that make the things we enjoy.

[Mr. Foxen]

Still all the stuff about recording doesn't work. People can pay for recording just like they can pay to have their house painted. Even if no-one pays to look at their nicely painted house, the painter still gets paid. Producing CD stopped being practical some time ago, same with vinyls, hard formats are no longer practical, its done anyway, because people like them as indulgence. There are a great many industry sectors existing on entirely impractical and unnecessary indulgence.

I am absolutely convinced that the quality of music will go up once the studio polished turd is no longer a commercial prospect.

[discreet]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361405943' post='1985660']
For me, the value I derive from discussions of this nature lies in the amusement I get from watching some very intelligent people expend enormous energy justifying something which might well piss on their own chips one day.
[/quote]

Yep. And I think you mentioned 'hubris' as well. That's my word of the day, for sure. There seems to be a lot of it about...