If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think you guys missed my point... I personally always pay for my songs... vinyl or downloads... ive been doing this since 2000 when I first started.
My point was... who cares as why would you even ask. Let the DJ do his thing and you do your thing. NOT - this is the copyright infringement police...time to kick your arse.
come on now... you never dj'd with someone, heard a kick ass tune and asked who it was or where he got it? and the whole blow up came well after the party had ended... not during.
"only dead fish swim with the stream..."Malcolm Muggeridge
come on now... you never dj'd with someone, heard a kick ass tune and asked who it was or where he got it? and the whole blow up came well after the party had ended... not during.
yes...i have many times... ive heard soulseek quite often. i personally dont get pissed.
"yes...i have many times... ive heard soulseek quite often. i personally dont get pissed."
that's because apparently you have no personal stake in it.... and/or it's not your livelyhood as it is mine and most of my friends. point is said dj got paid $300 for playing stolen music. it's wrong period. for the record, i don't make it a point to ask/pester a dj about his or her's music. this was a weird one off situation that got way out of hand.... glad to hear you buy your music though.
"only dead fish swim with the stream..."Malcolm Muggeridge
i havent read all the posts in this thread, but if you havent already done so, post this guys name so we can all berate him publicly for being a theiving asshole.
I didn't catch that in your first post or later ones. If he swung at you first then you shouldn't feel too bad because you were protecting yourself. I'd only feel bad that it escalated to where there was a fight.
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte
"yes...i have many times... ive heard soulseek quite often. i personally dont get pissed."
that's because apparently you have no personal stake in it.... and/or it's not your livelyhood as it is mine and most of my friends. point is said dj got paid $300 for playing stolen music. it's wrong period. for the record, i don't make it a point to ask/pester a dj about his or her's music. this was a weird one off situation that got way out of hand.... glad to hear you buy your music though.
arguments for or against the morality of using freely downloaded tracks are irrelevant. the technology is out and people are going to exploit it. its being right or wrong doesn't change the fact that people will do it. unless there is something that deters this sort of behavior, it will not stop. since it won't stop, it will become normal. actually, it already is. and no dj is forced to divulge where he/she gets their music nor asked to pay royalties when they play it.
anyway, being a dj and attempting to become popular playing other people's music is already questionable. it's not stealing, but it is, in many ways, taking credit for the work of others. so this moral high ground of "buying" instead if "stealing" is pretty shaky if you ask me.
the comments about the quality of music downloaded (<320kbps) will be obsolete once file transfer rates increase to the point of being able to download whole songs in .wav format, which is upon us now.
this just represents a fundamental change in the entire realm of intellectual property. i think that the propagation of free music technology (like Soulseek) puts more pressure on artists to add something to their live performances that can't be captured in a song.
finally, remember that the music industry and "superstars" and getting rich, etc. is only a recent 20th century phenomenon. music used to be something people would make very little money on, even if they were masters. so, in a way, we may be returning to an earlier state of affairs.
MP3 file sharing has been going on for many years...before MP3 there was MP2 and MPEG itself; all the technology did was create a better compression/file size ratio since hard drive space was at a relative premium back then.
Some said Napster revolutionized things; it didn't revolutionize the technology, it just took sharing and made it widely available to the masses who had barely a clue how to get stuff like this (those who knew through BBS, FTP, IRC & Usenet's knew)...once that happened, others merely followed suit.
I wouldn't worry about that kid anyway; it sounds like he barely gets gigs anyway as is...it's not so much the fact he gets his music all the time off of Soulseek, but if he's a prick and all high about it, then he won't get very far...
Besides Soulseek is so yesterday anyway...I get my fresh music elsewhere
FM
"Nowadays everyone is a fucking DJ." - Jack Dangers
What record did you loose your virginity to?
"I don't like having sex with music on- I find it distracting. And if it's a mix cd- forget it. I'm stopping to check the beat mixing in between tracks." - Tom Stephan
anyway, being a dj and attempting to become popular playing other people's music is already questionable. it's not stealing, but it is, in many ways, taking credit for the work of others. so this moral high ground of "buying" instead if "stealing" is pretty shaky if you ask me.
no offense, but i think thats pretty far from the truth. a good dj doesnt just play other people's music, they create something more than the sum of the parts to a set. there in lies the talent in being a dj. no one in their right mind pretends to take credit for someone elses work, and the way we prove we're not is by PAYING the person who made it. its a sign of appreciation, and if you can you thank the shit out of them for producing a killer track. no one who knows anything about the dj business should think otherwise.
no offense, but i think thats pretty far from the truth. a good dj doesnt just play other people's music, they create something more than the sum of the parts to a set. there in lies the talent in being a dj. no one in their right mind pretends to take credit for someone elses work, and the way we prove we're not is by PAYING the person who made it. its a sign of appreciation, and if you can you thank the shit out of them for producing a killer track. no one who knows anything about the dj business should think otherwise.
Yes I agree with this statement. It's simple, without producers there are no DJ's and without DJ's there will be no producers..... to an extent...... and if a DJ is getting paid for playing other people's music then it is only right that those "other peoples" get paid as well??
It's not about moral high grounds, it just about morals.
the way we prove we're not is by PAYING the person who made it. its a sign of appreciation, and if you can you thank the shit out of them for producing a killer track.
people do not spend money on music because they are "paying tribute" to the artists involved. they pay for it because that is the way the market is set up. if human nature was such that even low income people would pay tribute for things they liked even if they didn't have to, then all good products would be free.
i give my money to coca-cola not because i think they deserve tribute for having good soda, but because it's the only way to get the soda out of the machine.
not to mention the fact that most dance music contracts are paid up front, so the money spent on the records never gets to the artist anyway, but that's not the point.
Originally posted by day_for_night
no one in their right mind pretends to take credit for someone elses work
i beg to differ. many djs act as if they are creating what they spin and become known for it, like Oakie or Tiesto. if we're going to accept this behavior, we will accept piracy. both are cases where credit is not being given, but the artist's music is still being heard by in the clubs, and thus permeating a larger audience.
sooner or later, people are going to realize that this industry has been permanently and irrevocably changed. right or wrong, that's the way it is. sorry.
Yes I agree with this statement. It's simple, without producers there are no DJ's and without DJ's there will be no producers..... to an extent...... and if a DJ is getting paid for playing other people's music then it is only right that those "other peoples" get paid as well??
It's not about moral high grounds, it just about morals.
no, no morals at all, just supply and demand. now there is a free supply. simple economics.
DJs and producers aren't going anywhere because we love to do what we do. music piracy is just a fact of life now. of course it's fair to get paid for what you do- i'm not saying it isn't. i'm saying that, since it's virtually impossible to force people to stop pirating, that we need to roll with the punches. we need to adapt.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment