1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Most recent download and why?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [DB]' started by Dad, Dec 28, 2002.

  1. Dad


    Dec 5, 2002
    Kingston ns canada
    Maybe it was a tune or a great screensaver or some free shareware to manage some stuff for you, I'm curious.

    My son and I just joined the over 4 million seti@home.com users and in the process from the Canadian site learned that Kazaa is corrupted and Kazaalite.com is clean.

    Neat stuff out there. What was your last down load?
  2. Hmm, knee-jerk?
    File-sharing and the freedom of information is what the internet is all about.
    I can understand why people get upset at losing money because of it. Not going to stop me downloading music though.
    You know, I really don't think that Cobain, Morrison, Hendrix, Jaco, Elvis, etc, etc. are going to give two hoots about it.
    Not only that, but its a great medium/platform for new artists to get their stuff heard. Like it or not, it's here to stay. I doubt that any security measures can prevent it either. As one of my old college prof's said.. "What can be done in software, can be undone in software"

    Very knee-jerk reaction Ed. I'm surprised.
  3. Theft is theft.
    Dressing it up with a lofty euphemism is knee-jerk.
  4. furiously funky

    furiously funky Guest

    Dec 28, 2002
    I think 'screensavers, free shareware and joined such and such' were metioned in the FQ, all of which are offered or advocate downloading including music on 'kazaa or kazaalite' whichever you prefer, isn't that is the purpose of these sites?

    ps you can also purchase and download info online nothing was said about theft ... initially!

    In the land of the Blind the one-eyed man reigns supreme! The Navigator
  5. My initial reply to you Ed, was to highlight the fact that the initial poster had in no way condoned or even mentioned your so called "theft". He was simply asking what peoples latest software/shareware/freeware download was. Then you jump on his back about stealing stuff from ppl's houses if they give him their address.
    That's where my knee-jerk comment came from.

    The rest of my post was all my opinion.
    If a musician makes a recording, and puts it out there, and then expects nobody to make a copy of it and distribute it, so that the musician can make the most money from it, they are sorely mistaken.

    This has been happening since the days of the tape-recorder. This has not killed the music industry (although, I wish it had killed a lot of the big label names and the drivel they produce), nor has it killed the independent artists.

    I'll admit that I often download music over Kazaalite, and I will continue to do so. It's a great way to taste music that is new to me. I had never heard of artists like Marcus Miller, Stanley Clarke, Vic Wooten, etc. etc. until I found talkbass. I'm not going to go out and buy material from all these guys without knowing what they sound like first. If I like what I download, then I will most likely end up buying the respective albums. And I'm sure this holds true for a lot of kazaa users.
  6. grackle


    Sep 27, 2002
    Washington, D.C.
    I am continually surprised at the number of posts I encounter in online forums on the topic of music "file sharing" that seem to start with these assumptions (among others):

    1. Downloading pirated music isn't hurting musicians, at worst, it's just "sticking it to the man" -- aka the record industry.

    2. Information wants to be free. This is a physical law as inevitable as the law of gravity.

    3. Physical products (like a CD, or a car) have "real" value, but intellectual or digital products (like a song or a movie) have no intrinsic value -- they cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be stolen.

    4. Attempts to control the sale and/or use of intellectual or digital products is a government-industry conspiracy to abridge the First Ammendment rights of all Americans.

    5. It's okay to do it, because I can.

    If you are hankering for a big dose of this thinking, just pop over to http://www.slashdot.org and search for terms such as "RIAA" and "copyright."

    In my opinion, although most of the pro-"file sharing" posters on that site probably view themselves as civil libertarians, their posts demonstrate very little understanding of copyright law, the music business, or what it means to be a working musician -- I think they're just cheapskates!

    And if the time ever comes when I can make some extra scratch from one of my recordings, I'd like to have the choice to do it on my own terms, without unwanted "help" from third-party "sharers."
  7. anonymous0726

    anonymous0726 Guest

    Nov 4, 2001
    Unless you're the Federal Government.

    I'm a little more ambivalent on the piracy thing. One one hand, Ed has it absolutely right. On the other hand, I've discovered and then spent money because of some copy of something that I either found or was sent.

    The two biggest examples that I can mention personally are:

    Carol Welsman Canadian vocalist. Same genre as Diana Krall, but about 10 times the singer. A friend picked up her self-published CD at an IAJE show. Copies quickly circulated and I eventually bought all of her CDs., sold about 20 copies for her, and also at one time had a 'Lip of Lake Erie' tour set up for her, which her manager ultimately botched (one of his last mistakes before dismissal).

    Djavan Someone lent me a cassette copy of the album about 10 years ago. I almost wore the thing out before I gave it back. It was the album, ' Flor de Lis'. I spent another 5 or 6 years trying to find the thing, but it was out of print and only released in Brasil and Europe. The instant it came out on CD I bought 5 copies, knowing that I could sell the other four. I've since sold countless copies of this for him and have purchased most of the rest of his library.

    I could go on, and the above examples are debatable as extreme or unusual (unless you are me), but these types of stories on pirated material are common place with me. Does it make it right? No. Does it work to the artist's benefit? It do with me ;)
  8. i just made a cd of all Tegan and Sara stuff, but i threw on "just like heaven" by the cure and "wish you were here" by pink floyd. just liek heaven and wish you were here remind me of my boyfriend alot. and i really miss him!!!!
  9. babecker


    Mar 7, 2002
    Sykesville, MD
    File sharing is another example of something great that gets polluted by some peoples' lack of integrity -- When I catch wind of a band/artist I've never heard of before, I will often download some of their material to get an idea of what they're bringing to the table. This is the beauty of file sharing -- immediate exposure to a massive collection of recorded media. However, this positive opportunity takes a big nosedive when individuals replace buying albums they enjoy with their free internet equivalent. At this point -- when you burn an album that you've never owned and never plan to buy -- you are stealing and hurting artists' livelihood.

    So...I'll get off my soapbox...but hopefully next time you download something you enjoy, you'll have enough respect to blow a little cash in support of it.:D
  10. Sam Sherry

    Sam Sherry Inadvertent Microtonalist Supporting Member

    Sep 26, 2001
    Portland, ME
    Euphonic Audio "Player"
    Grackle, dead on too.

    Ray, it's no surprise that you are the kind of stand-up guy who actually makes good on paying for peoples' stuff. But look at what comes right after: "Oh, it's just Floyd so I'll grab it; those guys are zillionaires."

    Taking up where Ed left off, when people pirate tunes the zillionaires get punched in the arm and the Jazz Guys that take it on the chin. Talk with Jimmy Heath about intellectual property rights. I suspect he's made more from having others record his tunes than he's made from his own records. How much more would he have made if The Real Book paid him for each copy of CTA or Gingerbread Man?

    We are privileged to live in a time when we can get everything easily and honestly. Thanks to Chuck Sher, composers do get paid for their work. Thanks to streaming media, you can offer the public samples of your work without relying on everyone to be as square as Ray. Thanks to EMusic.com you can get obscene amounts of music for next to nothing, and the artists get their due.

    Ultimately it comes down to whether you want to grab whatever's easy or look yourself in the mirror. Now I'll climb off my soapbox . . .
  11. tsolo


    Aug 24, 2002
    Ft. Worth
    I agree with Ed on this one and it doesn't just involve music. If something that belongs to me is down loaded and used without my permission, it is theft. Even 'freeware' has some sort of agreement that keeps the original developer's name attached to the product.
  12. ...Can't help but wonder what the tenor of the posts would be if this were up in BG land...but that's a whole 'nother debate...
  13. anonymous0726

    anonymous0726 Guest

    Nov 4, 2001
    Tenor in the electric bass section? He'd be the one with pink Warwick.
  14. grackle


    Sep 27, 2002
    Washington, D.C.
    FWIW, the original message appears to be cross-posted there, in this thread.


    Only 10 messages total, so far, as compared to the DB thread's 16! The dark side must be relatively fired up about this topic.
  15. anonymous0726

    anonymous0726 Guest

    Nov 4, 2001
    The tenors are cross-posting now?
  16. Well, not to pull time in grade on you, but the subject was hotly debated up there a long time ago. Wasn't pretty.
    By the way, no one accuses the dark side of being fired up over anything.
    Except maybe finding a teacher. And tabs.
    OK, maybe rosin, too. You forced it out of me.
  17. Phil Smith

    Phil Smith Mr Sumisu 2 U

    May 30, 2000
    Peoples Republic of Brooklyn
    Creator of: iGigBook for Android/iOS
    I'm in agreement with with respect to the moral implications of this, but I think this culture is such that it will take anything it can take and get away with, especially if it doesn't involve directly harming someone physcially or emotionally. Take something that people want and give easy accesss to it, people are going to take it, even if they later decide that they have not need for it or never use it. Some will make a donation to show their appreciation, but for the most part people will just take it. I would imagine most of the file sharing folks are decent people. The lines get easily blurred when you can go to a site such as MP3.com and listen or download music for free. Yes, those artist have chosen to offer their music for free, but it does start a trend and that's the trend that we are seeing.

    P2P file sharing is a revolutionary concept, a sort of grassroots distribution system for stuff that people feel that they shouldn't have to pay for. The big question becomes; Why do people feel this way? On any given day there are 3 million users on the Kazaa network sharing files. I expect that number to grow and sure there are other networks as well.
  18. grackle


    Sep 27, 2002
    Washington, D.C.
    Well then you might be pleased to hear that I am looking for a teacher before I try to find some rosin.
  19. There are so many issues in P2P file sharing that are close to the musician's heart, wallet, and his decendent's mouths that it's hard to discuss objectively.
    An issue that interests me about the introduction of distributed network computing into the distro biz is how this will change the sound and style of music to come.
    Technology has always been an element to the evolution of style, whether in the physical properties of musical instruments or in the way the music is distributed.
    The printing press, recording, radio all have had an effect on the way music is played and heard.
  20. bassbloke


    Feb 26, 2002
    "In my opinion, although most of the pro-"file sharing" posters on that site probably view themselves as civil libertarians, their posts demonstrate very little understanding of copyright law, the music business, or what it means to be a working musician -- I think they're just cheapskates!"

    Probably true, but it's still surely simplistic to assume that current laws governing intellectual property embody some kind of moral purity. In fact they are largely a practical solution to practical problems: for example, what is a fair amount for an artist to be paid if a piece of music he created is played on a national radio station? On a local station with a fraction of the listeners? There are other conventions (for example the guy in a band who comes along with a melody, a chord sequence and a set of lyrics often gets all the songwriter's royalty, even though the rest of the band comes up with their own parts. why? Sometimes the guitarist's solo will sell the record. Should he get paid more than the drummer? What about problems of borrowing? When does being influenced become plagiarism?

    You may think on the whole the system works pretty well, but don't lose sight of two things:

    1 It is a series of fudges and compromises.

    2 It is an attempt to provide a solution to a problem that is rooted in SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY.

    To expand on the second point, the 16th century equivalent of Elton John could not have become rich beyond the dreams of avarice based on a talent for writing popular songs. Even very successful musicians were generally much lower down the wealth ladder and social pecking order than today. What made Elton possible was changes in technology.

    The current generation of and allocation of resources by the music industry is based upon a specific historical technological circumstance: one where it was possible to make accurate recordings of music; to mass market these and distribute them in very large numbers; to sell them at a price many millions of people are able and willing to pay; and (crucially) to restrict the distribution to people who are prepared to pay the market price partially determined by those restrictions.

    If a technological change means that it is no longer possible to restrict distribution in the way it was throughout the 20th century then another solution will need to be found to reflect the new technological reality. Some people will gain by this and some will lose. Potential losers will try hard to maintain the status quo - for example, by developing new ways of restricting distribution, appealing for government interference on moral or economic grounds etc. But if they are unsuccessful they will have to come to terms with the new reality.

    I'm not suggesting that there are not moral considerations here but they are only one of the elements that will determine the solution. The new technology - which means that people can share files with huge amounts of people - will become one of the many factors (along with things like disposable wealth, fashion, alternative forms of entertainment) that will determine the value of music and how much musicians will be paid for their services. It is not just a question of ownership, itself not always a simple matter: it also is a question of what the thing being owned is worth.