music repercussions of shutting down megaupload, mediafire, etc.

  On 1/27/2012 at 3:52 AM, YO303 said:

Rephlex player is the best of them all in my opinion. Why can't bleep just copy theirs.

i dunno....theft, or something

Richard is all new age-y and hippie now, im sure if they drop him an email he'll give them the codes for free.

  On 1/27/2012 at 2:23 AM, oscillik said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 1:34 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 1:17 PM, oscillik said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 9:56 AM, chenGOD said:

Someone mentioned public libraries. You guys do understand that authors are compensated for having their books in the library yes?

 

they're not compensated for every single person that has or is going to read that book.

 

Who ever said they were? They get some form of compensation. With megaupload - the artist gets jack shit.

Spotify pays like a trillionth of a cent per listen, and then apparently doesn't pay out in the end after all. (Like your article you linked to which I just read)

 

For the majority of artists people listen to on here, I would wager that there is some way to listen to full samples on line.

 

Point still stands. Also, when someone borrows a book from a friend, that's apparently a lost sale. Same goes for when someone borrows a CD from a friend, or a DVD/Bluray.

 

It can go round and round in circles.

What point? You didn't make one. The artists, or their representatives, reached an agreement with libraries that both sides found acceptable.

When you borrow a book or CD/DVD from a friend you don't retain possession of it. When you download something and retain it in some format, then it is more akin to a lost sale.

  On 1/27/2012 at 6:53 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 2:23 AM, oscillik said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 1:34 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 1:17 PM, oscillik said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 9:56 AM, chenGOD said:

Someone mentioned public libraries. You guys do understand that authors are compensated for having their books in the library yes?

 

they're not compensated for every single person that has or is going to read that book.

 

Who ever said they were? They get some form of compensation. With megaupload - the artist gets jack shit.

Spotify pays like a trillionth of a cent per listen, and then apparently doesn't pay out in the end after all. (Like your article you linked to which I just read)

 

For the majority of artists people listen to on here, I would wager that there is some way to listen to full samples on line.

 

Point still stands. Also, when someone borrows a book from a friend, that's apparently a lost sale. Same goes for when someone borrows a CD from a friend, or a DVD/Bluray.

 

It can go round and round in circles.

 

What point? You didn't make one. The artists, or their representatives, reached an agreement with libraries that both sides found acceptable.

When you borrow a book or CD/DVD from a friend you don't retain possession of it. When you download something and retain it in some format, then it is more akin to a lost sale.

If you burn/rip a CD/DVD you do, although same goes for burning/ripping shit from a library.

  On 1/26/2012 at 10:25 PM, jules said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 8:03 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 9:57 AM, Xyrofen said:

I'd like to hear something in its entirety prior to purchasing it.

 

still think you're in the minority

 

i dont think you are aware of how common this is. a lot of music boards with out linking rules actually thrive on this. downloading music and discussing them. I also think you are underestimating the power of pitchfork in that they cause tons and tons of downloads, not sales, just by giving positive reviews.

but people who go on 'music boards' are in the minority of people who generally pirate music. This is still a niche thing relatively speaking to mp3 file sharing at large. Im not underestimating the power of pitchfork at all, but why would you say it causes tons of downloads and not sales? I don't really understand how one can even know, you'll never be able to find out if you are a band how many people pirated your album vs how many people bought it after a Pitchfork-bump

I'm becoming quite conspiricist these days, and extremely anti-Universal, but I get the feeling that the big U doesn't just want to stop illegal downloading but rather wants to push indie music back into the background again. I know that's a jump, but in an age where Lil Wayne, Katy Perry, Nickelback, Lady Gaga, Linkin Park and so forth can all still afford mansions i don't think piracy is a threat to the extent they make it out to be. However, its also an age when you can release a noise recording on CDR from your bedroom and still get a million views on Youtube, and I think that is something Universal is trying to kill. Suddenly you don't need to be signed to this one giant corporation to be a big name. The playing field was very slowly becoming level.

Megaupload helped level the playingfield a bit, so they were shut down. That and the fact that they were going to launch their own music store, so the music company flexed its gigantic influence and had them silenced. No more piracy means that Universal can start telling the masses what's important and what's not once again, your indie acts should be constructed and funded by corporate America, like the Pumped Up Kicks band.

I dunno, whatever. I can't tell if I'm close to the mark or not here. But I don't like the majors now. Not one bit. I feel their actions are not in the interest of providing good music to people, and I think they don't care if good music is silenced in the quest to promote music that makes them money.

That's just what I feel currently. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  On 1/27/2012 at 1:18 PM, Backson said:

I'm becoming quite conspiricist these days, and extremely anti-Universal, but I get the feeling that the big U doesn't just want to stop illegal downloading but rather wants to push indie music back into the background again. I know that's a jump, but in an age where Lil Wayne, Katy Perry, Nickelback, Lady Gaga, Linkin Park and so forth can all still afford mansions i don't think piracy is a threat to the extent they make it out to be. However, its also an age when you can release a noise recording on CDR from your bedroom and still get a million views on Youtube, and I think that is something Universal is trying to kill. Suddenly you don't need to be signed to this one giant corporation to be a big name. The playing field was very slowly becoming level.

 

Megaupload helped level the playingfield a bit, so they were shut down. That and the fact that they were going to launch their own music store, so the music company flexed its gigantic influence and had them silenced. No more piracy means that Universal can start telling the masses what's important and what's not once again, your indie acts should be constructed and funded by corporate America, like the Pumped Up Kicks band.

 

I dunno, whatever. I can't tell if I'm close to the mark or not here. But I don't like the majors now. Not one bit. I feel their actions are not in the interest of providing good music to people, and I think they don't care if good music is silenced in the quest to promote music that makes them money.

 

That's just what I feel currently. Correct me if I'm wrong.

apple did also start music business and wasn't stopped as they are no criminals as megaupload is.

despite the angle you are taking, I agree with the basic notion.

Megaupload was going to release a music market and attempt to go legit and pay royalties, similarly to iTunes. Luckily for Universal, Megaupload are currently on the otherside of the law so they destroyed their major compeditor before they even had a chance of going legit.

Don't adopt your morals first hand from a source with no agenda but to make money off you.

Maaaan.

  On 1/27/2012 at 6:53 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 2:23 AM, oscillik said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 1:34 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 1:17 PM, oscillik said:

  On 1/26/2012 at 9:56 AM, chenGOD said:

Someone mentioned public libraries. You guys do understand that authors are compensated for having their books in the library yes?

 

they're not compensated for every single person that has or is going to read that book.

 

Who ever said they were? They get some form of compensation. With megaupload - the artist gets jack shit.

Spotify pays like a trillionth of a cent per listen, and then apparently doesn't pay out in the end after all. (Like your article you linked to which I just read)

 

For the majority of artists people listen to on here, I would wager that there is some way to listen to full samples on line.

 

Point still stands. Also, when someone borrows a book from a friend, that's apparently a lost sale. Same goes for when someone borrows a CD from a friend, or a DVD/Bluray.

 

It can go round and round in circles.

 

What point? You didn't make one. The artists, or their representatives, reached an agreement with libraries that both sides found acceptable.

When you borrow a book or CD/DVD from a friend you don't retain possession of it. When you download something and retain it in some format, then it is more akin to a lost sale.

Apologies if it's already been discussed in this thread or one of the other sopa/megaupload ones, but how is a lost sale a lost sale if the pirate would/will never buy the pirated media?

This notion reminds me a bit of an interesting/funny/scary article I read a short while back about Forced ARTificial Scarcity (FARTS).

  On 1/27/2012 at 5:59 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

Apologies if it's already been discussed in this thread or one of the other sopa/megaupload ones, but how is a lost sale a lost sale if the pirate would/will never buy the pirated media?

That isn't set in stone yet, its like an idea thats being floated. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/04460416581/spanish-judge-gets-it-pirated-copies-not-necessarily-lost-sales-may-boost-purchases-later.shtml

  On 1/27/2012 at 2:46 PM, o00o said:

  On 1/27/2012 at 1:18 PM, Backson said:

I'm becoming quite conspiricist these days, and extremely anti-Universal, but I get the feeling that the big U doesn't just want to stop illegal downloading but rather wants to push indie music back into the background again. I know that's a jump, but in an age where Lil Wayne, Katy Perry, Nickelback, Lady Gaga, Linkin Park and so forth can all still afford mansions i don't think piracy is a threat to the extent they make it out to be. However, its also an age when you can release a noise recording on CDR from your bedroom and still get a million views on Youtube, and I think that is something Universal is trying to kill. Suddenly you don't need to be signed to this one giant corporation to be a big name. The playing field was very slowly becoming level.

 

Megaupload helped level the playingfield a bit, so they were shut down. That and the fact that they were going to launch their own music store, so the music company flexed its gigantic influence and had them silenced. No more piracy means that Universal can start telling the masses what's important and what's not once again, your indie acts should be constructed and funded by corporate America, like the Pumped Up Kicks band.

 

I dunno, whatever. I can't tell if I'm close to the mark or not here. But I don't like the majors now. Not one bit. I feel their actions are not in the interest of providing good music to people, and I think they don't care if good music is silenced in the quest to promote music that makes them money.

 

That's just what I feel currently. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

apple did also start music business and wasn't stopped as they are no criminals as megaupload is.

ethically i think they are one of the worst media companies out there next to Sony. I just can't understand how a company that got Mp3s in the mainstream (apple) can be so bitchy and guarded wit itunes own DRM content. hypocritical anyone? its a travesty that most people still use it to buy music, its one of the shittiest and old fashioned style digital download services out there

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

Obviously a pirated download is not always equal to a lost sale, that's why I said it is "more akin to". However, in the big ass thread about piracy (not about SOPA) in GenBan I posted a few scholarly articles which showed a pretty strong correlation between piracy and decreased sales.

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:07 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

read above what i wrote...i wasn't saying there was there was on mp3 , but DRM is practically on all of the media content they sell. It's hypocritical as fuck since they are primarily responsible for turning the mainstream on to a format that was at first primarily used for bootlegging.

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:07 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

yes there is. Even the iTunes Plus tracks (the ones that supposedly have no DRM) actually do have DRM in the form of your name and iTunes account details being embedded into every track, which is considered a form of DRM.

  On 1/28/2012 at 7:19 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:07 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

 

read above what i wrote...i wasn't saying there was there was on mp3 , but DRM is practically on all of the media content they sell. It's hypocritical as fuck since they are primarily responsible for turning the mainstream on to a format that was at first primarily used for bootlegging.

The DRM is a requirement of the media cartel that provides it. One could make the argument that Apple is in part responsible for the removal of DRM from mainstream digital music sellers.

Are you saying that Apple turned on the population to mp3s? I thought that was napster myself. I remember when that shit came out - it was awesome. Made for great parties at the net cafe in Seoul (first net cafe in Seoul - very popular with expats, and they sold booze so it was a good place to kick off the weekend).

Anyways - no DRM on the music they sell, there is DRM on their video, but again, it's a requirement of the media corps.

Use of mp3 requires paying licensing fees to Fraunhofer - and possibly various other companies, the licensing for the software which encodes/decodes mp3s is fucked. Besides which, AAC is a fairly standard codec (it has been on iPods for a long time) - it is pretty widely supported now.

oscillik - does it prevent you from playing it on other computers/audio devices? No. Not Digital Rights Management

Soon the internet will be full of this shit. Thank you America for all the good you've done to the world, you are our saviors and the guardians of freedoom.

needs more eagles.

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:02 PM, eugene said:

needs more eagles.

It always reminded me of something else......

There you go

I think that if you are a net-savvy music fan like me, then you can easily download so much free music that you cannot listen to it all, thus, having no need to pay for music, because there is a limit on the time you can devote to music. That's why I'm sort of not feeling to bad for all the downloaders, even as I am one of them.

edit: because I have sympathy for underground musicians. Not the corporate hogs.

I don't think I have ever actively gotten music from any of these sites. It all seemed like a lot of hassle, slow speeds and broken links.

lol?

  On 1/25/2012 at 10:04 PM, Awepittance said:

i dont see things like media fire as an actually effective means to spread the word about a relatively unknown musical project.

 

If its on pitchfork you've already climbed the top of the mountain so to speak, if the band cared about exposure they would make at least 1-2 songs available for stream or download on their own.

 

I can't really subscribe to the idea that mediafire actually makes someone who wasn't going to spend money on a band before all of the sudden decide to support them

 

being unable to get them on these one stop shopping websites like mediafire will just make it a little bit more difficult and time consuming to download a record that is for sale. I Dont see any bad coming out of that, if people really need to download a whole album before buying it to make sure the like it i still don't understand that. With things like spotifiy and most good labels and webstores giving you substantially long previews, the argument makes no sense to me, it only does if you apply it to a very small percentage of music out there

couldn't agree with you more.

  On 1/28/2012 at 10:50 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 7:19 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:07 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

 

read above what i wrote...i wasn't saying there was there was on mp3 , but DRM is practically on all of the media content they sell. It's hypocritical as fuck since they are primarily responsible for turning the mainstream on to a format that was at first primarily used for bootlegging.

 

The DRM is a requirement of the media cartel that provides it. One could make the argument that Apple is in part responsible for the removal of DRM from mainstream digital music sellers.

Are you saying that Apple turned on the population to mp3s? I thought that was napster myself. I remember when that shit came out - it was awesome. Made for great parties at the net cafe in Seoul (first net cafe in Seoul - very popular with expats, and they sold booze so it was a good place to kick off the weekend).

Anyways - no DRM on the music they sell, there is DRM on their video, but again, it's a requirement of the media corps.

One would have to do the most impressive mental gymnastics the world has ever seen to even come close to making such an 'argument'

SO if apple has no DRM on the music or video they sell why is it that video and music i bought on the itunes store can only be copied to 5 registered devices? and you're also saying apple doesnt do it but they're forced to do it by media companies, huh? and yeah dude the Ipod is why Mp3s took off, not napster. So yeah it's still completely inexcusable in my book that apple used DRM at any time for music purchases, if it's the 'media companies' than why was the same content available on other music buying services with no DRM at the same time? Your one sided defenses of apple are becoming increasingly thin. Sorry but there is absolutely no argument that can be made that Apple's use of DRM and their subsequent coat tail riding on the popularity of Mp3s to sell Ipods is not a hypocritical hilarity

that SOPA video nene posted in another thread shines a bright light on Apple's obsession with control over how many times a user can copy a file or how they can use the devices they bought. IT's things like this that make me stand in amazement when users actually defend them

  Quote

Apple itself is happy to employ DRM to keep its own products from being used in unapproved ways.

The most obvious is the fact that the company uses DRM to guarantee that iPods and iPhones can't be used with any other software besides iTunes. Not only that, but Apple also uses technology to block out non-Apple devices from syncing with iTunes—à la the Palm Pre saga.

 

edit: so after doing some reading it looks like you are referring to the post 2009 version of the Itunes store, i mean any improvement over the horror that is DRM 5 devices only i welcome. It's just that the itunes store existed far longer than that employing inconvenient and insulting DRM for years

If there is a new artist, I will dl their album via one of these sites. Now if I do this I will pay top dollar to see them live when they roll through town. Also as an artist I'd want people to show up, dance and buy the physical product from me. It's the only way this day in age to make a few bucks. So if it takes me giving it out for free in order to gain fans that's a small price to pay. And if they enjoy it I'm sure they will support.

  On 1/28/2012 at 8:29 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 10:50 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 7:19 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/28/2012 at 6:07 AM, chenGOD said:

There is no DRM on MP3s purchased through iTunes....

 

read above what i wrote...i wasn't saying there was there was on mp3 , but DRM is practically on all of the media content they sell. It's hypocritical as fuck since they are primarily responsible for turning the mainstream on to a format that was at first primarily used for bootlegging.

 

The DRM is a requirement of the media cartel that provides it. One could make the argument that Apple is in part responsible for the removal of DRM from mainstream digital music sellers.

Are you saying that Apple turned on the population to mp3s? I thought that was napster myself. I remember when that shit came out - it was awesome. Made for great parties at the net cafe in Seoul (first net cafe in Seoul - very popular with expats, and they sold booze so it was a good place to kick off the weekend).

Anyways - no DRM on the music they sell, there is DRM on their video, but again, it's a requirement of the media corps.

 

 

One would have to do the most impressive mental gymnastics the world has ever seen to even come close to making such an 'argument'

SO if apple has no DRM on the music or video they sell why is it that video and music i bought on the itunes store can only be copied to 5 registered devices? and you're also saying apple doesnt do it but they're forced to do it by media companies, huh? and yeah dude the Ipod is why Mp3s took off, not napster. So yeah it's still completely inexcusable in my book that apple used DRM at any time for music purchases, if it's the 'media companies' than why was the same content available on other music buying services with no DRM at the same time? Your one sided defenses of apple are becoming increasingly thin. Sorry but there is absolutely no argument that can be made that Apple's use of DRM and their subsequent coat tail riding on the popularity of Mp3s to sell Ipods is not a hypocritical hilarity

 

that SOPA video nene posted in another thread shines a bright light on Apple's obsession with control over how many times a user can copy a file or how they can use the devices they bought. IT's things like this that make me stand in amazement when users actually defend them

 

 

  Quote

Apple itself is happy to employ DRM to keep its own products from being used in unapproved ways.

The most obvious is the fact that the company uses DRM to guarantee that iPods and iPhones can't be used with any other software besides iTunes. Not only that, but Apple also uses technology to block out non-Apple devices from syncing with iTunes—à la the Palm Pre saga.

 

 

edit: so after doing some reading it looks like you are referring to the post 2009 version of the Itunes store, i mean any improvement over the horror that is DRM 5 devices only i welcome. It's just that the itunes store existed far longer than that employing inconvenient and insulting DRM for years

I never thought that the 5 devices limit was particularly onerous, but whatever. Again, the music sales would not have been possible without DRM at first - due to the media cartel. read Jobs' thoughts on music from 2007.

MP3s were popular long before the iPod (not even the first portable mp3 player) - Napster was around for 2 years before the iPod even launched, and looking at the history of napster it peaked in February of 2001 - again before the iPod was available. when it peaked it had 25 million users world wide. And that was in 2001. It was extremely popular on campuses with their high speed networks.

Interestingly - the labels were not sue happy at the time - but certain jackass bands were:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/942090.stm