garry cobain

What artists get paid though Joyrex? Do we get paid? Or do those fees goto the top40 artists? The way those roylaties are divied up have nothing to do with what is actually being aired.

If you're a member of the PRS/MCPS then you will indeed get paid if your stuff gets aired....

  On 9/9/2009 at 6:28 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 5:39 PM, Drahken said:

Hey guyz, ever hear of the radio? Its this awesome invention where you can listen to whole songs for free and record them if you like. The record industry is doomed.

 

Thing is, the artists get royalties for radio airplay - so it's not "free", as you listen to advertising or pay a fee if it's subscription-based satellite radio.

 

  On 9/9/2009 at 5:42 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

didn't people used to record stuff from the radio onto cassettes? i can't believe that was legal

 

It was, (and some would argue still is) under the doctrine of the Home Recording Act, which basically stated you could make one copy for personal use, as long as you didn't profit or redistribute. The Digital Millennium Recording Act did away with much of that, to address the new lossless formats of the computer age.

 

Posts like these make me realize either you two are terribly young and/or uninformed as to basic copyright law.

i'm 17, i don't know this stuff

  On 9/9/2009 at 8:26 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 6:28 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 5:39 PM, Drahken said:

Hey guyz, ever hear of the radio? Its this awesome invention where you can listen to whole songs for free and record them if you like. The record industry is doomed.

 

Thing is, the artists get royalties for radio airplay - so it's not "free", as you listen to advertising or pay a fee if it's subscription-based satellite radio.

 

  On 9/9/2009 at 5:42 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

didn't people used to record stuff from the radio onto cassettes? i can't believe that was legal

 

It was, (and some would argue still is) under the doctrine of the Home Recording Act, which basically stated you could make one copy for personal use, as long as you didn't profit or redistribute. The Digital Millennium Recording Act did away with much of that, to address the new lossless formats of the computer age.

 

Posts like these make me realize either you two are terribly young and/or uninformed as to basic copyright law.

 

i'm 17, i don't know this stuff

i didn't grow up with this stuff. and even if i did i don't remember any of it, and i don't study law

you should tell him to make some decent music again rather than the hippy garbage he's been churning out for the last ten years

more of the lifeforms and dead cities era?

  On 9/9/2009 at 9:54 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

more of the lifeforms and dead cities era?

Regardless of whether you like their rock stuff (and they are recording a new electronic album) I have sympathy for indie musicians trying to put out their own stuff. Fsol went thru so much shit with Virgin records and almost disbanded permanently. Now these two are trying to run an independent label and distribute their work digitally, which is a pretty good setup for a band site, but if their meager income (and I'm sure it is) gets cut then they can't fund things like their recording studio or self financed DVD they're working on. And yes he did contact u personally instead of sticking some twat lawyer on u sending a cease and desist. It was the right thing to take the tracks down.

  On 9/9/2009 at 9:30 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

i didn't grow up with this stuff. and even if i did i don't remember any of it, and i don't study law

So you admit to not knowing your rights about any of this stuff but decide to try and argue head on with an artist who has been dealing with the music industry for about 2 and a half decades about why you're illegally distributing his tracks. That's pretty audacious

  On 9/9/2009 at 10:14 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 9:30 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

i didn't grow up with this stuff. and even if i did i don't remember any of it, and i don't study law

So you admit to not knowing your rights about any of this stuff but decide to try and argue head on with an artist who has been dealing with the music industry for about 2 and a half decades about why you're illegally distributing his tracks. That's pretty audacious

Ginormous Brass Balls Award™ goes to Calx Sherbet!

okay, unless we are going to talk about FSOL music, can this just get locked? my self esteem is bottomed out

  On 9/9/2009 at 9:56 PM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 9:54 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

more of the lifeforms and dead cities era?

yeah, that kinda stuff was the best FSLOL by far imo

did you mean to say FSLOL? lol

okay, this is embarrassing on my part, but Garry wants me to post this so he can see it here

my apology to him (from hours ago)

"i'm actually really sorry. my response to you was innappropriate. i probably shouldn't have responded to you in such an angry mood. but your music i uploaded is gone, and i feel bad about what happened. i don't think we need to hate each other"

his response

  Quote

ah nice

ploy . . .I like it !! Act contrite here in private to me but run a parallel

campaign on a forum where you use my responses and act aghast and paint me as

the "uptight out-of touch" musician who punishes a simple fan who innocently

shared an mp3. Now we both know that isn't quite the real picture here though

don't we ??.Not very original . . .watching too much TV !! Its pretty obvious

from my history and attitudes that I don't quite fit that archetype !! But

actually yes I do think your response was inappropriate. i wrote to you openly

to discuss what your reasoning was for uploading my whole album ( I could simply

have reported copyright infringement ) your response was unfortunate really . .

I am not particularly bothered about the uploading . I was interested in hearing

your reasons. You basically confirmed you have no respect for considering the

rights of others . .even the rights of the actual OWNER . . this actually

bothers me far more !! As i said edits of tracks or several stand-out tracks

from an album would be one thing but every track ( even the dodgy ones ha ha !!

) seems to me quite clearly to point to a different agenda. . .I fully

understand the various implications and positives of the freedom of the digital

age and actually we ( as FSOL ) encourage a lot of it so I find your attempts to

frame me in this light rather humorous. . .to reiterate . Now . . post

this response AND yours above and btw . .HATE??? what's that ?? Hello and love

to everyone !!!!!

my response

"hold up. i made my thread on this whole argument BEFORE i apologised. i regret making the thread, and that is why i apologised to you. there isn't anything i can do about the thread, it's just kinda stuck there forever. i haven't said a bad word about you ever since, so this isn't a ploy."

and lastly, his final word

  Quote

as i said post my response and your apology and then I think you'll have at least have represented the situation fully and not framed it and me as I think you have at present

 

gaz x

so there we go. /thread

facepalm all you want

so FSOL read watmm? lol

lol, i guess someone told him. or maybe they do just for the hell of it

  On 9/9/2009 at 4:46 PM, kokoon said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 4:38 PM, Joyrex said:

You Sir, are a penis of the highest order.

 

Providing sample tracks here and there, not FULL FUCKING ALBUMS, is the way to show your love for a group and promote their music (even though they never asked you to in the first place). You are not encouraging anyone to go and buy the full album or other albums when you give away an entire release - you're removing any incentive to actually go and buy it since most will think, "hell, I've already got it, why would I go spend money on it - I'll just go buy something else with the money Calx Sherbet saved me." Twat.

 

Did you even stop to think this through? Why do you think the smaller labels (and now the artists trying to sell direct) are going under? It financially becomes unsustainable when somebody can search Google for "[insert artist name or album name here] rapidshare" and come up with a whole fuckton of sites like yours that give it away with no consideration to the fact you're taking sales away from the artist, and removing any incentive for the prospective fan to go buy it themselves, be it physical or digital.

 

All you're doing is trying to increase the size of your already non-existent e-penis by offering somebody else's hard work for free without consulting them or even giving some thought to how it would or could benefit the creator.

 

And to go around saying you're the admin of a domain you don't even own, let alone have nothing to do with is fucking sad, and a bit dangerous if someone ever decided to pursue any action against you and implicated that domain in the proceedings.

 

Do the right thing, send a heartfelt apology to FSOL and promise to never do such a thing again.

true dat

i mostly agree with this, there seems to be a huge disconnect with younger music fans especially with why file sharing of commercial releases can actually hurt the artist in question.

i've had arguments with various members on here who brag regularly about how they never buy any music and when pinned down to why they claim to love a certain artist but only steal from them their response is 'artists dont make money off their music anyways' . talk about circular fucking logic

And i dont mean to be age discriminatory, i really do believe people raised on ipods and mp3s look at the relationship between musician and how they make money very different if at all

  On 9/10/2009 at 1:42 AM, kaini said:

so FSOL read watmm? lol

more likely they are just internet savvy and have google alerts on , the moment calx posted that im sure it came up in their gmail with a clickable link to the thread right there

well that seems to have ended on a positive note

batcocks all around

edit!

  On 9/10/2009 at 1:53 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 4:46 PM, kokoon said:

  On 9/9/2009 at 4:38 PM, Joyrex said:

You Sir, are a penis of the highest order.

 

Providing sample tracks here and there, not FULL FUCKING ALBUMS, is the way to show your love for a group and promote their music (even though they never asked you to in the first place). You are not encouraging anyone to go and buy the full album or other albums when you give away an entire release - you're removing any incentive to actually go and buy it since most will think, "hell, I've already got it, why would I go spend money on it - I'll just go buy something else with the money Calx Sherbet saved me." Twat.

 

Did you even stop to think this through? Why do you think the smaller labels (and now the artists trying to sell direct) are going under? It financially becomes unsustainable when somebody can search Google for "[insert artist name or album name here] rapidshare" and come up with a whole fuckton of sites like yours that give it away with no consideration to the fact you're taking sales away from the artist, and removing any incentive for the prospective fan to go buy it themselves, be it physical or digital.

 

All you're doing is trying to increase the size of your already non-existent e-penis by offering somebody else's hard work for free without consulting them or even giving some thought to how it would or could benefit the creator.

 

And to go around saying you're the admin of a domain you don't even own, let alone have nothing to do with is fucking sad, and a bit dangerous if someone ever decided to pursue any action against you and implicated that domain in the proceedings.

 

Do the right thing, send a heartfelt apology to FSOL and promise to never do such a thing again.

true dat

 

i mostly agree with this, there seems to be a huge disconnect with younger music fans especially with why file sharing of commercial releases can actually hurt the artist in question.

i've had arguments with various members on here who brag regularly about how they never buy any music and when pinned down to why they claim to love a certain artist but only steal from them their response is 'artists dont make money off their music anyways' . talk about circular fucking logic

And i dont mean to be age discriminatory, i really do believe people raised on ipods and mp3s look at the relationship between musician and how they make money very different if at all

this is true also. but i sure as hell would never brag about stealing music, that's pretty dumb. i still buy it.

i havent seen you personally doing it but go on soulseek and chat people up in the IDM room, a good portion of people there will be proud to announce that they steal all the music they listen to

i have a few friends who brag about how clever or savvy they are on the internet, the kinds who have spindles full of torrented movie DVD-r rips also like to espouse their lack of funds spent on the music collection in their ipods. i know many people with this mindset, its almost like a 'haha im a consumer and i outsmarted the corporation' or something withoung remembering that the person working for the corporation and/or small label , the musician is most likely not rich.

lol, they make it sound like stealing music is an acquired skill or something to be impressed with

youtube is really cool for listening to old out of print rave and hip hop stuff. it seems less satisfying to pirate or stream music that's actually really easy to find though. more artists should do the last.fm thing...

didn't cobain do a video of arguing with a religious nut in a park or something?

why would he get into a fight with a religious dude?

Future Sound of PWN