It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[wade_b]

She didn't go after a torrent tracker site. Read the thread before commenting. She went after a blog that reports news about torrent sites, mostly legal in nature, not a tracker site.

"Reports news about torrent sites."

Such as letting people know which torrents are available, and where to find them?

And then reacted in a less than stellar manner when several people tried to calmly explain her mistake and point her in the direction of the real pirates.

Wait a minute here.

The torrent tracker sites aren't "the real pirates" - they just post links, right?

Yet it is obvious that if one exerts pressure on these tracker sites, that they will remove the links.

Have you ever heard of "aiding and abetting"?

I'm sick and tired of hearing this jive about "we don't host the content, so we're not culpable".

If you assist and/or enable the commission of a crime, then you are at the very least ethically culpable.

It's a shame that our laws have not kept pace with technology.

I'm not condoning her actions, but let's focus on the real issue here instead of slamming this woman's behavior.

Some of you all should be ashamed of yourselves for gloating over her behavior.

Do you laugh at the "crazy man" walking down the street?

Do you make fun of the quadriplegic in the wheelchair?

Why is it acceptable to gloat over someone else's bad behavior - does that make you feel superior in some way?

 

[Gawd]

"Reports news about torrent sites."

Such as letting people now which torrents are available, and where to find them?

Not really. To find that out you just need to type in a key word on a torrent tracking site, and it will find all the torrents for you.
go here Invalid Link Removed and type in carol kaye to see how easy it is. There's no use for a blog to tell people where to find torrents.

Torrent freak talks about news about bit torrents. Such as court cases, legal issues, etc. www.torrentfreak.com see for yourself.

 

[wade_b]

Not really. To find that out you just need to type in a key word on a torrent tracking site, and it will find all the torrents for you.
go here Invalid Link Removed and type in carol kaye to see how easy it is. There's no use for a blog to tell people where to find torrents.

Torrent freak talks about news about bit torrents. Such as court cases, legal issues, etc. www.torrentfreak.com see for yourself.

I know how bit-torrent works.

And it's obvious by the name and the slant of the content on torrentfreaks that they advocate the use of bit-torrent for illegal purposes.

So technically she was "incorrect", but ethically that site stinks.

Notice the "top 10 most pirated movies on BitTorrent" post at the bottom of the page.

Don't even try and feed me that load of c**p about how this is "informational" - I wasn't born yesterday.

 

[Gawd]

I know how bit-torrent works.

And it's obvious by the name and the slant of the content on torrentfreaks that they advocate the use of bit-torrent for illegal purposes.

So technically she was "incorrect", but ethically that site stinks.

Notice the "top 10 most pirated movies on BitTorrent" post at the bottom of the page.

Don't even try and feed me that load of c**p about how this is "informational" - I wasn't born yesterday.

I'm not sure why you're getting hostile. From your last post it seemed like you didn't know how it worked, sorry for misinterpreting.
I'm not advocating the use of bittorrents. Yes, of course torrentfreak does encourage bittorrent use, but that has nothing to do with actually making them directly accessible. What they talk about may be something you disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that they are only a blog. So filing a claim with them, won't get anything done at all, whether they like torrents or not.

 

[wade_b]

I'm not sure why you're getting hostile. From your last post it seemed like you didn't know how it worked, sorry for misinterpreting.
I'm not advocating the use of bittorrents. Yes, of course torrentfreak does encourage bittorrent use, but that has nothing to do with actually making them directly accessible.
What they talk about may be something you disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that they are only a blog. So filing a claim with them, won't get anything done at all, whether they like torrents or not.

I'm not hostile towards you, I don't even know you.

I'm just sick of this mentality that holds that if something is not illegal, it must be right.

Whatever happened to ethics and morals.

Wrong is wrong, and in this thread we have all kinds of people discussing the legality of the blog and bashing Kaye's temperament.

But not one single person has weighed in on the ethical side of this issue, and I find that disturbing and quite sad.

TorrentFreaks caters to pirates and thieves, and I don't care how legal it is - what they are doing is wrong, period.

 

[Gawd]

I'm not hostile towards you, I don't even know you.

I'm just sick of this mentality that holds that if something is not illegal, it must be right.

Whatever happened to ethics and morals.

Wrong is wrong, and in this thread we have all kinds of people discussing the legality of the blog and bashing Kaye's temperament.

But not one single person has weighed in on the ethical side of this issue, and I find that disturbing and quite sad.

TorrentFreaks caters to pirates and thieves, and I don't care how legal it is - what they are doing is wrong, period.

There is several pages of a debate about the moral ethics earlier in this thread.

But the point is that when dealing with legal matters, especially online, none of that really ties into it. Besides, a blog is just a blog, people do have the right to talk about whatever they want, it's not wrong for people to exercise they're freedom of speech and thought. And whether or not they advocate file sharing, is no one's concern but theirs and the law (in the case that they get caught).

Mrs. Kaye can't take anyone to court for talking about bittorrents, nor can she take google to court for being a search engine. The ethics of attacking people who attempt to help you is another discussion as well, which has been gone over.

Either way, Mrs Kaye isn't going to get anywhere closer to her goal of removing her material from file sharers, unless she focuses on the sites where those files are actually accessible. So until she figures that out she's just wasting time, money, and energy, not to mention souring her reputation.

 

[wade_b]

But the point is that when dealing with legal matters, especially online, none of that really ties into it. Besides, a blog is just a blog, people do have the right to talk about whatever they want, it's not wrong for people to exercise they're freedom of speech and thought. And whether or not they advocate file sharing, is no one's concern but theirs and the law (in the case that they get caught).

I'm not disputing the right to free speech, and I agree that she is apparently in this one instance "going after the wrong people".

But she is right to be pissed off at that blog and anyone else who advocates and enables theft of her property.

People are also free to express their love for young children.

That doesn't make it morally or ethically right to do so.

 

[wade_b]

Regardless of the semantics of stealing, this argument is flawed because it makes the following assumption: that, had I not been able to copy the song illegally, I would have paid $1 for the song. I think some reflection on this assumption will show you that it is flawed, for much the same reason as thinking that a kid that steals a laptop would have went and bought the same laptop had the opportunity to steal it not arisen (and the answer is not, in the general case, "he couldn't afford the laptop").

It's obvious that you are not a working musician that depends upon sale of music for a living.

Please take your views to slashdot: I don't think you'll find much support for your views among the working musicians here.

 

[Gawd]

I'm not disputing the right to free speech, and I agree that she is apparently in this one instance "going after the wrong people".

But she is right to be pissed off at that blog and anyone else who advocates and enables theft of her property.

People are also free to express their love for young children.

That doesn't make it morally or ethically right to do so.

I don't know if she is right to be pissed off, sure she has the right to be, but a calmer approach to this probably would have wielded better results than getting hot headed did. Also, there are an increasing amount of bands/artists who advocate the sharing of their material through bittorrents, are they wrong for not being pissed off? I guess it's all a matter of perception.

 

[wade_b]

I don't know if she is right to be pissed off, sure she has the right to be, but a calmer approach to this probably would have wielded better results than getting hot headed did. Also, there are an increasing amount of bands/artists who advocate the sharing of their material through bittorrents, are they wrong for not being pissed off? I guess it's all a matter of perception.

It's always easy to play armchair quarterback though.

You've never said anything in anger, or frustration?

You will stand behind every word you have ever uttered, and offer those words up for the scrutiny of the entire planet?

The artists that are offering their works for free are either already established through traditional means (Radiohead, NIN) or unknowns with nothing to lose.

Tell me this: if Radiohead never had their hit single "Creep" and subsequent album sales, would they really be in a position to give away their music?

Also - notice how they have remained a popular concert draw but without another hit single or much radio play.

Doesn't it make sense in this context for the band to try and generate public awareness of their songs?

They're making most of their money off concerts, so it makes sense to "give the music away": that's called a "loss leader", and they will profit from increased concert attendance.

Someone like Carol Kaye depends on the income - she has no record label sucking up most of the profits from sales, she produces the materials herself, and has no concert revenue to fall back on.

The other common factor in the "big acts" that give their stuff away is that they are no longer bound by contract to a major, but they ALL STARTED THEIR CAREERS by being signed to one.

This "new model" flaunted on geek sites like Slashdot has not worked, and will not work, without the traditional media sales model already established.

ONe more thing: who do you think finances that big tour for a new band?

If you take away the media sales model, then how will bands be able to finance the revenue-generating tour?

Remember, you've removed the "useless" record label and are distributing your music for free.

This new model is jive and will not work - not for the artist, and not for the consumer.

 

[Gawd]

It's always easy to play armchair quarterback though.

You've never said anything in anger, or frustration?

You will stand behind every word you have ever uttered, and offer those words up for the scrutiny of the entire planet?

The artists that are offering their works for free are either already established through traditional means (Radiohead, NIN) or unknowns with nothing to lose.

Tell me this: if Radiohead never had their hit single "Creep" and subsequent album sales, would they really be in a position to give away their music?

Also - notice how they have remained a popular concert draw but without another hit single or much radio play.

Doesn't it make sense in this context for the band to try and generate public awareness of their songs?

They're making most of their money off concerts, so it makes sense to "give the music away": that's called a "loss leader", and they will profit from increased concert attendance.

Someone like Carol Kaye depends on the income - she has no record label sucking up most of the profits from sales, she produces the materials herself, and has no concert revenue to fall back on.

I don't expect anyone to never get pissed off. But there's a difference between getting pissed off in the heat of the moment and saying something stupid. And Carol's case, of getting pissed off, looking up torrent and coming across a blog website, finding their contact information, and taking the time to type something stupid, than proceeding to file claims with that site, and google, without really knowing what's going on, and than replying to emails from fans and saying more stupid things.

I think during the whole process of her learning about her material being available, to insulting good intentioned fans, she had plenty of opportunity to calm down. But she remained hot headed in each situation.

NIN and Radiohead are a bit different, they actually make the material available themselves for download. But there are many other bands, who are not as well off that advocate pirating their material. And you're right, they do it because they make their money from live shows.

I don't know about Carol's situation with her income. But that was sort of my point about it being about perception. From her perception, of relying on the income of records, it's bad, from someone who relies on the income of shows, it's a good thing. So there isn't quite an absolute right or wrong position on pirating music, it changes from artist to artist.

 

[wade_b]

NIN and Radiohead are a bit different, they actually make the material available themselves for download. But there are many other bands, who are not as well off that advocate pirating their material. And you're right, they do it because they make their money from live shows.

Who finances those live shows?

Are these trust fund kids, with cash to burn?

Certainly they're not going to get a loan from a bank, not easily and not in this recession.

Or is it that they already made their money off of a traditional record deal, and are now able to finance themselves?

Can't you see how jive this "new way" really is?

Do you really want a situation where only the well heeled and/or well connected "beautiful people" will ever have a chance in the music industry?

 

[Gawd]

Who finances those live shows?

Are these trust fund kids, with cash to burn?

Certainly they're not going to get a loan from a bank, not easily and not in this recession.

Or is it that they already made their money off of a traditional record deal, and are now able to finance themselves?

Can't you see how jive this "new way" really is?

Do you really want a situation where only the well heeled and/or well connected "beautiful people" will ever have a chance in the music industry?

Bands like Dillinger Escape Plan, BTBAM, Protest The Hero, and so on. They built up their career through playing small live shows for years, and have slowly become more successful. Until last year BTBAM was still playing small venues like pubs, this year they had their first headlining tour and played decent sized concert venues. No silver spoon, this is after 6 albums. But they're doing great for a progressive death metal band.

A lot of bands are learning to avoid major labels like plague because all they do is put you in debt. Bands don't get a big cut from record sales (sometimes no cut at all), and are put on a very small food allowance on tour (I've heard as low as $15 a week). Live shows is where new bands make their living these days, not from record sales. There's a reason that bands like NIN have gone independent, Trent Reznor's battles with record labels is well documented, he went through years of them screwing him over, and they still do with material of his that is still licensed by them.

A lot are seeing the bittorrent thing as an effective way to begin phasing out the labels entirely, and put power into the hands of the musicians.

 

[clearskys]

so tired of hearing from her. and she is overated

Overrated according to who? You? Sorry to say this but she is definitely not overrated compared to you, that much is evident.

 

[Jeff Bonny]

Overrated according to who? You? Sorry to say this but she is definitely not overrated compared to you, that much is evident.

The guy you're responding to hasn't logged into Talkbass since Feb 25, 2011.

 

[Josh Pelican]

The guy you're responding to hasn't logged into Talkbass since Feb 25, 2011.

Don't bother attempting to argue with him. He joined TalkBass just to bump a three year old thread and say that.

 

[Roy Vogt]

You have to be really careful when you bump a Zombie thread....It will come after you and attempt to eat your brain!

 

[Jeff Bonny]

Don't bother attempting to argue with him. He joined TalkBass just to bump a three year old thread and say that.

Not me man! I was just sayin', y'know? The +/- Carol thang was pretty played out a decade ago.

 

[mcm]

She's so damn overrated.

 

[guy n. cognito]

She's so damn overrated.

You didn't really read the last few posts in this thread, did you? At least your position is consistent.