its really mind bobbling if you think about it. not sure if many people know but you can literally get everything on the net. (in terms of music, software, movies, games, etc). all of it. not just some but ALL.
someone can download entire catalogs of music as fast as your internet connection allows.
I guess thats where I'm going with this. that is going to be stopped or extremely slowed down.
its going to be a big cat and mouse game for those wanted to sell legally on the net and for those trying to get around it.
Because they did not encure the manufactoring costs. What Radiohead did is what record labels after to embrace. Put the record out there for download and let people pay what they want. A report stated that the average person payed something like $7.00 for the download. Without all the manufactoring costs the records labels and the artist can still make money and the consumer will no longer be paying $20.00 for a new record.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here - what is heading toward obsoleteness (is that a word?!) are the large music labels. Not only did Radiohead do this but the new Saul Williams/Trent Reznor record as well - they gave the option of 192kbps for free or $5 for choice of Flac or 320kbps, so the artist makes some money bypassing a record label. I would hope more artists do this. (The album would have been a bargain at twice the price)
But record labels are trying to implement something else called 360 deals where they get a cut of the touring/merch revenue also.
I don't download studio stuff, but I've downloaded plenty of live stuff. I'd be sorry to see p2p go away.
If you're interested in the future of the music business, there's this guy called Bob Lefsetz who writes a lot of interesting columns. http://www.lefsetz.com
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
the LP is copywritten against copying and selling or public broadcast. when you buy the LP; you buy the rights to use that music for personal use and you can copy it to any media you want; as long as it's for personal use.
you can check with a lawyer but i already have.
btw; my fav song on that LP is the bucket
why did you check with a lawyer? i thought you were one.
cool about that isp thing... im' a super secret james bond spy too!
Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?
If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?
i've asked that question of anti-downloaders before. they seem to say it has to do with how many people can hear it. when i ask them how many is too many, they can't answer. i buy a ton of cd's. if i download, it's only to hear it and see if it's worth me buying. i often buy on a whim off friends' recommendations. but almost every cd i do buy is used. the only cd's i buy new are ones by artists i wouldn't download anyway becos i just love the band and wanna hear their every release.
Actually it was the same with the "A perfect circle" cds but after installing specific plug ins media player was able to identify the CD and rip it. The only problem was with the first song.. it was never able to identify the first song.
Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?
If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?
I think that used cd stores would be even worse because someone else is making a profit on the cd's. It's like ticket scalping, a third party is making a profit on someone else's work whereas for downloading like torrents, no one is making a profit on in.
Technology will always be ahead of the laws on this... I remember in college when napster was big, that got shut down then file sharing like kazaa popped up, and now with things like bit torrent, you can basically download any cd or dvd that you could want. They could arrest a thousand people and it would just go more underground...
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I don't think file sharing will ever stop. As the government and record labels catch-up with current technology, new technology is being developed to out smart them. Many artists, like Radiohead, are realizing that the money is not in records sales anyway but in touring. So instead of loosing the little money they make off of CD sales they take it straight to the people. The music industry can't stop the change all they can do now is accept it and evolve to fit the times.
But if all of the money is in touring and the little bit of money from CDs goes to zero money for CDs, what motivation is there for bands to record albums? I mean from everything I have read recording a studio album seems like a lot of work, and if for the same amount of effort you can tour and make way more money, could it get to a point where most bands are just touring and releasing offical bootlegs? I like studio albums so to me if that ever happened I would be very annoyed.
Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?
If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?
I remember back in the days before internet downloading, there were artists speaking out against used CD stores. I think it was Garth Brooks who would protest outside of them and do that sort of thing.
thats the problem. I think ISPs are going to be all too willing to get involved. file sharing does nothing but slow down their networks. I think we are in the golden age of file sharing where its all out there for the taking. i'm afraid that will come to and end sooner rather then later.
I often wonder. When I signed up, my ISP offered unlimited bandwidth. They tried to change this and soooo many people changed providers and the complaints were 24/7, so they dropped the extra fees for going over a certain amount of gigs. Now it's back to unlimited.
They'll might put cap back on at some point, but there's enough competition where I am, that one guy will remain unlimited and will grab all the business which forces the others back to unlimited. This already happened once before.
As far as privacy, it's essentially impossible to trace the file itself as it comes from several different people. The bit torrent program could even employ a rotating encryption routine that would activate randomly between individual peers, which would shut the ISP out of the equation altogether aside from bandwidth monitoring. The only risk of getting caught is when you download from honeypots, which is why it's important to use an aggressive set of exclusion lists of suspicious, and known IP addresses so that you don't risk sleeping with the enemy and potentially get sued. Exclusion lists are not 100% infallible, but pretty close.
There will always be some way of getting around it. The entire internet (globally) would have to be controlled from one central location, and that system would have to be so insanely complex it would not even be practical (or even possible with all the different govt's and red tape)
That's the beauty of distributed file sharing. It's just a matter of whether the lines remain unlimited. Router technology will need to advance as it's the current bottleneck in maintaining the bandwidth curve. It's near impossible to max out fiber lines from my understanding.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I often wonder. When I signed up, my ISP offered unlimited bandwidth. They tried to change his and soooo many people changed providers and the complaints were 24/7, so they dropped the extra fees for going over a certain amount of gigs. Now it's back to unlimited.
They'll might put cap back on at some point, but there's enough competition where I am, that one guy will remain unlimited and will grab all the business which forces the others back to unlimited. This already happened once before.
As far as privacy, it's essentially impossible to trace the file itself as it comes from several different people. The bit torrent program could even employ a rotating encryption routine that would activate randomly between individual peers, which would shut the ISP out of the equation altogether aside from bandwidth monitoring.
There will always be some way of getting around it. The entire internet (globally) would have to be controlled from one central location, and that system would have to be so insanely complex it would not even be practical (or even possible with all the different govt's and red tape)
That's the beauty of distributed file sharing. It's just a matter of whether the lines remain unlimited. Router technology will need to advance as it's the current bottleneck in maintaining the bandwidth curve. It's near impossible to max out fiber lines from my understanding.
all you say is true but what I'm saying is the ISPs will be more interested in protecting their own networks as opposed to giving a shit how much we download. (stopping file sharing benefits them even though they are mostly on fiber networks) I used to work for a wireless ISP and my asshole boss would make me implement certain things in peoples modems like when you begin a P2P download the speed stays fast. once it hit a certain amount of traffic the modem would shoot down to almost dial up speed. but we were a small shop with a small network so I understand why he did it.
once ISP backbones get into the mix we could be screwed. they control ports where this shit flows. granted there are close to 50000 tcp/udp ports available so we'll see. there are too many smart people on both sides of the modem and it will be quite the battle. but then again, I dont have much of an argument when it comes to downloading. most of it is flat out robbery.
all you say is true but what I'm saying is the ISPs will be more interested in protecting their own networks as opposed to giving a shit how much we download. (stopping file sharing benefits them even though they are mostly on fiber networks) I used to work for a wireless ISP and my asshole boss would make me implement certain things in peoples modems like when you begin a P2P download the speed stays fast. once it hit a certain amount of traffic the modem would shoot down to almost dial up speed. but we were a small shop with a small network so I understand why he did it.
once ISP backbones get into the mix we could be screwed. they control ports where this shit flows. granted there are close to 50000 tcp/udp ports available so we'll see. there are too many smart people on both sides of the modem and it will be quite the battle. but then again, I dont have much of an argument when it comes to downloading. most of it is flat out robbery.
Right, bandwidth throttling. any amount of appreciable data on anything other than ports 21, 25, or 80 is pretty suspect.
It always seems to come down to getting it so that people won't complain when they're doing something wrong, so they (ISP) can squeeze it from that direction and get away with it.
When you think about it though, the average persons hard drive is around 200 gigs. Sometimes I download that in a month.
No huge surprise what's going on there.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Right, bandwidth throttling. any amount of appreciable data on anything other than ports 21, 25, or 80 is pretty suspect.
It always seems to come down to getting it so that people won't complain when they're doing something wrong, so they (ISP) can squeeze it from that direction and get away with it.
When you think about it though, the average persons hard drive is around 200 gigs. Sometimes I download that in a month.
No huge surprise what's going on there.
200 gigs pfffft j/k, but yea I hear ya. check out my ratio on a website to remain unnamed. (I will also like to exercise my 5th amendment privilege on any further information )
i've asked that question of anti-downloaders before. they seem to say it has to do with how many people can hear it. when i ask them how many is too many, they can't answer. i buy a ton of cd's. if i download, it's only to hear it and see if it's worth me buying. i often buy on a whim off friends' recommendations. but almost every cd i do buy is used. the only cd's i buy new are ones by artists i wouldn't download anyway becos i just love the band and wanna hear their every release.
I without a doubt think downloading music is stealing... same as movies etc. The difference between the two is when you are buying a CD you are physically buying the CD, nothing more. It would be illegal to make a backup of the CD and then sell it back to the Music Store. You have a right to sell that CD if you would like or even give it away. But you can't give it away to 100's of people AND keep a copy for yourself. And that is effectively what is happening with P2P.
I'm sorry to say this but no up and coming band could ever do what Radiohead pulled off. Seems you need to get your foot in the door to be able to pull a stunt like that off. The only good thing that came from Radiohead is that they are releasing their album on vinyl. For you people talking downloads you really need to listen to music in it's purest form again. Downloading?!
I'm sorry to say this but no up and coming band could ever do what Radiohead pulled off. Seems you need to get your foot in the door to be able to pull a stunt like that off. The only good thing that came from Radiohead is that they are releasing their album on vinyl. For you people talking downloads you really need to listen to music in it's purest form again. Downloading?!
whoa buddy... i love vinyl. grew up on it. own every PJ album on vinyl... have a shitty record player and need a new one
I without a doubt think downloading music is stealing... same as movies etc. The difference between the two is when you are buying a CD you are physically buying the CD, nothing more. It would be illegal to make a backup of the CD and then sell it back to the Music Store. You have a right to sell that CD if you would like or even give it away. But you can't give it away to 100's of people AND keep a copy for yourself. And that is effectively what is happening with P2P.
bullshit. i buy cd's, rip them, and sell them back to the used store all the time. most used shops have a program for this.
whoa buddy... i love vinyl. grew up on it. own every PJ album on vinyl... have a shitty record player and need a new one
any suggestions?
I still play my vinyl on my old JVC at home. I am drawing a blank on the name brand that my buddy picked up from Britain, but it was pretty pricey. It has a very heavy piece of glass to rest your albums on to cut down on "jumping". Sounds very nice. I will try and get a name for you and PM ya.
I still play my vinyl on my old JVC at home. I am drawing a blank on the name brand that my buddy picked up from Britain, but it was pretty pricey. It has a very heavy piece of glass to rest your albums on to cut down on "jumping". Sounds very nice. I will try and get a name for you and PM ya.
Comments
someone can download entire catalogs of music as fast as your internet connection allows.
I guess thats where I'm going with this. that is going to be stopped or extremely slowed down.
its going to be a big cat and mouse game for those wanted to sell legally on the net and for those trying to get around it.
as to the legality, im enrolled in entertainment law next semester... i'll get back to you in may
I think you've hit the nail on the head here - what is heading toward obsoleteness (is that a word?!) are the large music labels. Not only did Radiohead do this but the new Saul Williams/Trent Reznor record as well - they gave the option of 192kbps for free or $5 for choice of Flac or 320kbps, so the artist makes some money bypassing a record label. I would hope more artists do this. (The album would have been a bargain at twice the price)
But record labels are trying to implement something else called 360 deals where they get a cut of the touring/merch revenue also.
I don't download studio stuff, but I've downloaded plenty of live stuff. I'd be sorry to see p2p go away.
If you're interested in the future of the music business, there's this guy called Bob Lefsetz who writes a lot of interesting columns. http://www.lefsetz.com
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
why did you check with a lawyer? i thought you were one.
cool about that isp thing... im' a super secret james bond spy too!
i've asked that question of anti-downloaders before. they seem to say it has to do with how many people can hear it. when i ask them how many is too many, they can't answer. i buy a ton of cd's. if i download, it's only to hear it and see if it's worth me buying. i often buy on a whim off friends' recommendations. but almost every cd i do buy is used. the only cd's i buy new are ones by artists i wouldn't download anyway becos i just love the band and wanna hear their every release.
Maybe there's something wrong with my computer.
naděje umírá poslední
Actually it was the same with the "A perfect circle" cds but after installing specific plug ins media player was able to identify the CD and rip it. The only problem was with the first song.. it was never able to identify the first song.
I think that used cd stores would be even worse because someone else is making a profit on the cd's. It's like ticket scalping, a third party is making a profit on someone else's work whereas for downloading like torrents, no one is making a profit on in.
Technology will always be ahead of the laws on this... I remember in college when napster was big, that got shut down then file sharing like kazaa popped up, and now with things like bit torrent, you can basically download any cd or dvd that you could want. They could arrest a thousand people and it would just go more underground...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
But if all of the money is in touring and the little bit of money from CDs goes to zero money for CDs, what motivation is there for bands to record albums? I mean from everything I have read recording a studio album seems like a lot of work, and if for the same amount of effort you can tour and make way more money, could it get to a point where most bands are just touring and releasing offical bootlegs? I like studio albums so to me if that ever happened I would be very annoyed.
I remember back in the days before internet downloading, there were artists speaking out against used CD stores. I think it was Garth Brooks who would protest outside of them and do that sort of thing.
I often wonder. When I signed up, my ISP offered unlimited bandwidth. They tried to change this and soooo many people changed providers and the complaints were 24/7, so they dropped the extra fees for going over a certain amount of gigs. Now it's back to unlimited.
They'll might put cap back on at some point, but there's enough competition where I am, that one guy will remain unlimited and will grab all the business which forces the others back to unlimited. This already happened once before.
As far as privacy, it's essentially impossible to trace the file itself as it comes from several different people. The bit torrent program could even employ a rotating encryption routine that would activate randomly between individual peers, which would shut the ISP out of the equation altogether aside from bandwidth monitoring. The only risk of getting caught is when you download from honeypots, which is why it's important to use an aggressive set of exclusion lists of suspicious, and known IP addresses so that you don't risk sleeping with the enemy and potentially get sued. Exclusion lists are not 100% infallible, but pretty close.
There will always be some way of getting around it. The entire internet (globally) would have to be controlled from one central location, and that system would have to be so insanely complex it would not even be practical (or even possible with all the different govt's and red tape)
That's the beauty of distributed file sharing. It's just a matter of whether the lines remain unlimited. Router technology will need to advance as it's the current bottleneck in maintaining the bandwidth curve. It's near impossible to max out fiber lines from my understanding.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
all you say is true but what I'm saying is the ISPs will be more interested in protecting their own networks as opposed to giving a shit how much we download. (stopping file sharing benefits them even though they are mostly on fiber networks) I used to work for a wireless ISP and my asshole boss would make me implement certain things in peoples modems like when you begin a P2P download the speed stays fast. once it hit a certain amount of traffic the modem would shoot down to almost dial up speed. but we were a small shop with a small network so I understand why he did it.
once ISP backbones get into the mix we could be screwed. they control ports where this shit flows. granted there are close to 50000 tcp/udp ports available so we'll see. there are too many smart people on both sides of the modem and it will be quite the battle. but then again, I dont have much of an argument when it comes to downloading. most of it is flat out robbery.
Right, bandwidth throttling. any amount of appreciable data on anything other than ports 21, 25, or 80 is pretty suspect.
It always seems to come down to getting it so that people won't complain when they're doing something wrong, so they (ISP) can squeeze it from that direction and get away with it.
When you think about it though, the average persons hard drive is around 200 gigs. Sometimes I download that in a month.
No huge surprise what's going on there.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
200 gigs pfffft j/k, but yea I hear ya. check out my ratio on a website to remain unnamed. (I will also like to exercise my 5th amendment privilege on any further information
↓ 396.94 GB - ↑ 3.53 TB - Ratio : 9.12
I without a doubt think downloading music is stealing... same as movies etc. The difference between the two is when you are buying a CD you are physically buying the CD, nothing more. It would be illegal to make a backup of the CD and then sell it back to the Music Store. You have a right to sell that CD if you would like or even give it away. But you can't give it away to 100's of people AND keep a copy for yourself. And that is effectively what is happening with P2P.
tell that to Radiohead
dont fight advancement, embrace it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yiBxOBScikw
(youtube being the topic, but a great video
I'm sorry to say this but no up and coming band could ever do what Radiohead pulled off. Seems you need to get your foot in the door to be able to pull a stunt like that off. The only good thing that came from Radiohead is that they are releasing their album on vinyl. For you people talking downloads you really need to listen to music in it's purest form again. Downloading?!
whoa buddy... i love vinyl. grew up on it. own every PJ album on vinyl... have a shitty record player and need a new one
any suggestions?
bullshit. i buy cd's, rip them, and sell them back to the used store all the time. most used shops have a program for this.
I still play my vinyl on my old JVC at home. I am drawing a blank on the name brand that my buddy picked up from Britain, but it was pretty pricey. It has a very heavy piece of glass to rest your albums on to cut down on "jumping". Sounds very nice. I will try and get a name for you and PM ya.
thanks!