According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project recent survey, 36 million Americans have used ways outside of traditional paid services or P2P (peer-to-peer) networks, like Kazaa or eDonkey, to gather and swap music and video files.
19% of them download music from someone else’s iPod or MP3 player, while 28%, get music and video files via email and instant messages. People also use music and movie websites, blogs and online review sites.
21% say they still use P2P, although people may now be less likely to report peer-to-peer usage due to the stigma associated with the networks.
Don't forget the intranets at universities...
Why the heck is it that none of these reports discuss one of the largest and easiest ways to download illegal music? It's called newsgroups or usenet, something virtually all major ISP's offer for free. alt.binaries.mp3.<genre> offers music of virtually every imaginable genre and my own ISP has a 3 month retention, meaning that everything posted stays on the server for three months. At this moment I can access several dozen MP3 newsgroups through my ISP and can easily download LITERALLY over 100,000 MP3s at my leisure.
I just do not understand why this medium, which has existed since before the Internet existed as we know it today, is still such an "unknown" to so many people. Usenet should be the greatest threat to illegal downloads as it is the absolute easiest to use and most ISP's clearly state in their TOS they do not monitor, track or pursue those who use it.
I just do not understand why this medium, which has existed since before the Internet existed as we know it today, is still such an "unknown" to so many people. Usenet should be the greatest threat to illegal downloads as it is the absolute easiest to use and most ISP's clearly state in their TOS they do not monitor, track or pursue those who use it.
because they are smart enough not to blab about a good thing?
S
S
MY IRC is older than your USENET
Blab? Talk about a hellajoke. USENET is not discussed because it simply CANNOT be controlled under any circumstances. Given that it is older than the Internet and uses entirely different sets of rules, then there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do about it.
The "idiot" here is not me. It's the RIAA with pie all over their faces since they cannot confront the one medium of file sharing that they are totally powerless over. My mentioning it here has absolutely zero effect on the argument "because they are smart enough not to blab about a good thing?"
TeraNews, EasyNews and a host of other providers offer premium highspeed newsgroup access for a small monthly fee if your ISP does not allow newsgroup access. I do not see the RIAA slamming the gavel down on those providers, when they are a thousand times more responsible for illegal file sharing and downloads.
The "idiot" here is not me. It's the RIAA with pie all over their faces since they cannot confront the one medium of file sharing that they are totally powerless over. My mentioning it here has absolutely zero effect on the argument "because they are smart enough not to blab about a good thing?"
TeraNews, EasyNews and a host of other providers offer premium highspeed newsgroup access for a small monthly fee if your ISP does not allow newsgroup access. I do not see the RIAA slamming the gavel down on those providers, when they are a thousand times more responsible for illegal file sharing and downloads.
What is Usenet?
(Get it?! Nobody knows what it is, or that it exists, or HOW TO ACCESS it!)
(Get it?! Nobody knows what it is, or that it exists, or HOW TO ACCESS it!)
>MY IRC is older than your USENET
IRC started in 1988
USENET started in 1979
Anyhow usenet is dying a slow death anyhow... many ISP's don't even offer it anymore...
Besides if your isp is not monitoring it it does not mean that someone else is not monitoring it considering usenet traffic is not encrypted....
IRC started in 1988
USENET started in 1979
Anyhow usenet is dying a slow death anyhow... many ISP's don't even offer it anymore...
Besides if your isp is not monitoring it it does not mean that someone else is not monitoring it considering usenet traffic is not encrypted....
private dumps kids : )
Personally I have found the eMule Plus variant of the donkey network to be the most rewarding. However, I too love the fact that USENET is relatively untrafficked (in comparison to other mediums). USENET and IRC are the way that "old timers" (e.g. those who where on "the Internet" when the version of Netscape was less than a whole number... 0.93) get around. USENET has molded with the times by virtue of the stuff you find posted out there. I often worry about my usage being tracked in one way or another, but I only use it when I can't find what I'm looking for elsewhere.
On a side note, RIAA's biggest problem is not that it can't shut down peer-to-peer networks. It's biggest problem is two fold: first, musicians become musicians now because of the fame and fortune... not for the love of the music (e.g. Metallica). Second, the RIAA companies and executives have LONG, LONG enjoyed royalties that were so far above and beyond the original cost of the music that their complacency (with new mediums) and "hoarder"-like attitudes blind them to truly revolutionary marketing and delivery mechanisms. Had they jumped on the Internet and P2P bandwagon sooner, the general public would have been more mesmerized by the fact that they can get "music on the Internet now" than they would have been with something as "geeky" sounding as peer-to-peer file sharing. Think about it from a technology-ignorant consumer's perspective.
At any rate, I never intend to stop uploading and downloading. The music has been overpriced for as long as I've had ears to listen with AND most software tags are fairly exhorbitant for bugs that never get fixed and functionality that I'll never use. Besides, I'm of the mindset that the Internet was never intended to be the exclusive commercial playground of the Fortune 500 corporate monolith. I refuse to P[L]AY the game.
On a side note, RIAA's biggest problem is not that it can't shut down peer-to-peer networks. It's biggest problem is two fold: first, musicians become musicians now because of the fame and fortune... not for the love of the music (e.g. Metallica). Second, the RIAA companies and executives have LONG, LONG enjoyed royalties that were so far above and beyond the original cost of the music that their complacency (with new mediums) and "hoarder"-like attitudes blind them to truly revolutionary marketing and delivery mechanisms. Had they jumped on the Internet and P2P bandwagon sooner, the general public would have been more mesmerized by the fact that they can get "music on the Internet now" than they would have been with something as "geeky" sounding as peer-to-peer file sharing. Think about it from a technology-ignorant consumer's perspective.
At any rate, I never intend to stop uploading and downloading. The music has been overpriced for as long as I've had ears to listen with AND most software tags are fairly exhorbitant for bugs that never get fixed and functionality that I'll never use. Besides, I'm of the mindset that the Internet was never intended to be the exclusive commercial playground of the Fortune 500 corporate monolith. I refuse to P[L]AY the game.
usenet gets its files fxped by private dumps.. no matter what you use it starts from private servers... so thats the oldest way, welcome to the scene
[removed by Admin, more details here: http://www.newsrover.com/index.htm]
http://www.internetstandard.com.pl/ftp/pobierz/pc/125.html
What is Usenet? This is Usenet.
http://www.internetstandard.com.pl/ftp/pobierz/pc/125.html
What is Usenet? This is Usenet.
lol - i agree 100% re; sharing. Sharing is a completely natural trait only it is not compatable anywhere money is involved. I think music has been perverted by "fame & fortune" and u can hear it in the music. The day fortune is removed from this industry will be the death of "paint by numbers music" wimho will see the return of the true artists. LET FREE DOWNLOADING RULE!!!
>Anyhow usenet is dying a slow death anyhow... many ISP's don't even offer it anymore...
If your ISP doesn't offer usenet, there are lots of pay services, $10 a month or less.
I guess usenet doesn't get mentioned because most people don't know about it, and they don't know how to use the software. But it definitely does rock.
If your ISP doesn't offer usenet, there are lots of pay services, $10 a month or less.
I guess usenet doesn't get mentioned because most people don't know about it, and they don't know how to use the software. But it definitely does rock.
Bottom line is if you want the music it is there to get no mater how you get it
Musicians and the labels are extremely overpaid. Start cutting some salaries so music can be purchased at a reasonable price, and maybe the lure of P2P will fade.
Now go buy some rims from P Diddy and all will be a ok.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297434/
Now go buy some rims from P Diddy and all will be a ok.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297434/
we are in the computer age now. RIAA got upset when cassette recorders cam out, they got upset when CD-r came out, Remeber DAT from not too long back? DVDR gave RIAA the same agita(spelling?).
RIAA, GET OVER IT!!! you were unable to stop the other media formats, the only thing that is different now is that you have the ability to find out WHO is trading their music to their "friends" and are able to sue your customers....that's nice of you!!!! The more you fight this fight.....the deeper you are pushing everyone underground. The more you fight this fight, the more you are alienating everyone from your cause. I haven't heard much from the artists on this: Maybe your contracts forbid them from talking against you?
RIAA, GET OVER IT!!! you were unable to stop the other media formats, the only thing that is different now is that you have the ability to find out WHO is trading their music to their "friends" and are able to sue your customers....that's nice of you!!!! The more you fight this fight.....the deeper you are pushing everyone underground. The more you fight this fight, the more you are alienating everyone from your cause. I haven't heard much from the artists on this: Maybe your contracts forbid them from talking against you?
How about you fools actually listen to real music? Any musician that is afilliated with the RIAA needs to be shot. Real music is the music which they play for the love of it, and not for the money. Sure, it may sound good, but in the long run it just simply fucking doesn't matter. These artists don't give a fuck about you, they are only interested in your money.
There is literally thousands apon thousands of underground bands you probably never heard. prusue them. They don't care about your money, they just want you to listen to their music. They do it for the love of it and it is usually a shitload better than the mainstream shit.
RIAA does obviously need to go down, though. Fuck copyrights. The sad thing is that the average music consumer doesn't care how much it costs, and probably are not motivated enough to get up and protest. It is indeed, sad. It costs less than 1 dollar (and cheaper when you make them in bulk) to make a cd WITH a colour booklet and all. The record companies whom are affiliated with the RIAA charge up to $20 and sometimes $40. Think of a profit of $19.50 times 30 million?.
Fuck those artists, the profits are fucking sickening. Bring down the fucking system, STOP buying their shit!
and above all, *** CAPITALISM. This is why this shit is happening. Music is ingrained with culture, and you should NOT have to pay for culture.
There is literally thousands apon thousands of underground bands you probably never heard. prusue them. They don't care about your money, they just want you to listen to their music. They do it for the love of it and it is usually a shitload better than the mainstream shit.
RIAA does obviously need to go down, though. Fuck copyrights. The sad thing is that the average music consumer doesn't care how much it costs, and probably are not motivated enough to get up and protest. It is indeed, sad. It costs less than 1 dollar (and cheaper when you make them in bulk) to make a cd WITH a colour booklet and all. The record companies whom are affiliated with the RIAA charge up to $20 and sometimes $40. Think of a profit of $19.50 times 30 million?.
Fuck those artists, the profits are fucking sickening. Bring down the fucking system, STOP buying their shit!
and above all, *** CAPITALISM. This is why this shit is happening. Music is ingrained with culture, and you should NOT have to pay for culture.
I think its pretty straight forward. Technically Efficient people find a way to share files, in come cases and with some mediums they find ways to simplify the method so that layman users (ie: the majority of computer users) can click and download with little technical knowledge. Once something becomes maintream and widely used by the public then it also becomes large scale media ripping. This is when the companies whos products are being ripped take notice. USENET would not fall in that category.
I don't think IPOD transfers does and ever will fall under the category of mainstream ripping like P2P. TV broadcast recording and VHS copies are left alone in my opinion because it is hard to use these methods on a large scale and does not make the content available to the masses. IPOD ripping requires two people to get together and the content is far from complete compared to the online catalogue. The process is pretty small scale.
On another note, I think the main issue with the RIAA and MPAA is a little concept called "Scale of Econonics". Music and movies no longer require a physical medium like DVDs and CDs to become useful. Their products, like it or not, have lost value per unit. I think if digital music came down more in price (say 25 cents a song) then legal music downloading would skyrocket as would their revenue.
But until then....
I don't think IPOD transfers does and ever will fall under the category of mainstream ripping like P2P. TV broadcast recording and VHS copies are left alone in my opinion because it is hard to use these methods on a large scale and does not make the content available to the masses. IPOD ripping requires two people to get together and the content is far from complete compared to the online catalogue. The process is pretty small scale.
On another note, I think the main issue with the RIAA and MPAA is a little concept called "Scale of Econonics". Music and movies no longer require a physical medium like DVDs and CDs to become useful. Their products, like it or not, have lost value per unit. I think if digital music came down more in price (say 25 cents a song) then legal music downloading would skyrocket as would their revenue.
But until then....
Why does everyone refer to downloaded mp3's as illeagal, when all the court cases so far are cival cases.
The only criminal cases have been with ISP's and commercial hosters, not personal Internet connections in a house.
Show me a criminal lawsuit involving a single dwelling house.
And now the power has been removed from the RIAA to form bugus cival lawsuits, so I really don't see what the problem is.
It is one of those things where mass histeria and propaganda has taken all the logic and reason out of this issue.
The only criminal cases have been with ISP's and commercial hosters, not personal Internet connections in a house.
Show me a criminal lawsuit involving a single dwelling house.
And now the power has been removed from the RIAA to form bugus cival lawsuits, so I really don't see what the problem is.
It is one of those things where mass histeria and propaganda has taken all the logic and reason out of this issue.
Hey Profuse what is wrong with Capatalism,do you really think humans are motivated by anything other than self interest?
Take a long look at Communism,looked good on paper didn't it,well It didn't work because people are naturally greedy.
If the music industry collapses because of file sharing which I dont think it will then we will be stuck with artists that really arent motivated,people work better when they have something to gain and the most suitable gain is MONEY,because money can get you 'Things' and things are important.
I once believed as you did,I once hated Capatilism upto a few years ago but after studying much over the years I believe that monatary motivation is the only true motivation as it has a direct tie with survival and after all we are still primitive man.
Take a long look at Communism,looked good on paper didn't it,well It didn't work because people are naturally greedy.
If the music industry collapses because of file sharing which I dont think it will then we will be stuck with artists that really arent motivated,people work better when they have something to gain and the most suitable gain is MONEY,because money can get you 'Things' and things are important.
I once believed as you did,I once hated Capatilism upto a few years ago but after studying much over the years I believe that monatary motivation is the only true motivation as it has a direct tie with survival and after all we are still primitive man.
Why is capitalism bad? it's not hard to answer that at all. Capitalism oppresses people. It creates classes, the rich and the poor, the rich being the minority. The rich slave off the poor.
Of course you don't see it directly, but it still exists, you just don't see it here. Ever heard of sweatshops?
If people really were only motivated by money, why the fuck are there thousands of bands out there who do it for themselves and don't give a shit about the money? Soviet communism failed because it wasn't communism anyways. Stalin incorporated the "statist capitalism" into the USSR after Lenin died.
You really need to read up a bit and get into the scene. There are people who actually live out anarchism (affinity groups, collectives, blocs, etc..), so it does work and is not just a theory or something written down on paper. Most people would be motivated enough to be working for their common man and not for themselves. The only people who are motivated by money are the people who don't give a fuck about the people around them. (Wo)Men are not fucking islands. Once you grow to accept that, it's not hard to accept anarchism or the like.
Before you make assumptions, PLEASE actually read into it. Don't accept the bullshit your american history teacher feeds you.
Of course you don't see it directly, but it still exists, you just don't see it here. Ever heard of sweatshops?
If people really were only motivated by money, why the fuck are there thousands of bands out there who do it for themselves and don't give a shit about the money? Soviet communism failed because it wasn't communism anyways. Stalin incorporated the "statist capitalism" into the USSR after Lenin died.
You really need to read up a bit and get into the scene. There are people who actually live out anarchism (affinity groups, collectives, blocs, etc..), so it does work and is not just a theory or something written down on paper. Most people would be motivated enough to be working for their common man and not for themselves. The only people who are motivated by money are the people who don't give a fuck about the people around them. (Wo)Men are not fucking islands. Once you grow to accept that, it's not hard to accept anarchism or the like.
Before you make assumptions, PLEASE actually read into it. Don't accept the bullshit your american history teacher feeds you.
Whoever said that dumb sh*t about capitalism should read a few books. Yes, music is a part of our culture, but for thousands of years people have been getting paid to play music. What you said is analogous to saying that since medicine is part of our culture then doctors shouldnt get paid.
The future of music is simple - bands will have to make money off touring and giving listeners what they really want: concerts. If you are a good musician you should be able to make money from your concerts - not from sitting on your ass collecting royalties. Maybe this will be a good way of weeding out worthless 'artists' like Ashlee Simpson and put together pop bands.
Yes Capitalism is a motivation, although it is very much disconnected form real needs or desires. "Selfish" human desire can be to, in fact, make music that doesn't suck. They could want to make good music for a number of selfish reasons that aren't money. It could be for fame or for friends (who would in turn give something else). Money is not the only motivation in the world. It's simply the most shallow and the most simple to understand (and yet the most difficult to gain any sort of real gratification from). Most importantly, it's the simplest form of motivation that you can measure, and in an ownership society you've got to be able to measure everything.
Capitalism, when applied to something that is essentially an artform such as music, tends to create other difficulties: In order to make the composition and performance of music a viable source of income, you've got to be able to cater to a pretty large audience. Our modern economic model is very much geared toward mass marketing, making the whole "targeting of niche markets" concept pretty moot unless you can sell your product in question for a great deal of money. Unfortunately most of those niche markets can't justify spending big bucks for extras like music. Thus, the mainstream always wins in these situation because there's not only millions of them, but because they tend to be a lot more frivilous with their dollars (and prone to advertising) as well.
... and the more bland, simple, and repetitive an artform (music, book, or video game) is, the more likely it is to appeal to more of those bland, easy-to-sway individuals.
Capitalism, when applied to something that is essentially an artform such as music, tends to create other difficulties: In order to make the composition and performance of music a viable source of income, you've got to be able to cater to a pretty large audience. Our modern economic model is very much geared toward mass marketing, making the whole "targeting of niche markets" concept pretty moot unless you can sell your product in question for a great deal of money. Unfortunately most of those niche markets can't justify spending big bucks for extras like music. Thus, the mainstream always wins in these situation because there's not only millions of them, but because they tend to be a lot more frivilous with their dollars (and prone to advertising) as well.
... and the more bland, simple, and repetitive an artform (music, book, or video game) is, the more likely it is to appeal to more of those bland, easy-to-sway individuals.
profuse it is quite evident that you have never experienced living in a communist regime. if you had suffered the oppresion and censorship you would never write stupid shit like you do.communism truly sucks i have been there . have you?signed judom.
CAPITALISM is the best economic system we have ever seen. As discussed above, any comparison between the standard of living in any of the communist states and the standard of living in the free market states shows how well free markets work.
Regarding music being culture and not having to pay for culture, this implies that no artist should be allowed to charge for his efforts. If a person produces something through time and effort, why should he not be able to get something in return for his labor? If he decides to exchange his creation for some money, then he gets to decide how much money he requires in order to complete the exchange. If a potential buyer decides the price is too high, then the exchange does not happen. The artist gets to decide the offer price; the potential buyer gets to decide the acceptance price. No one is forced to do anything.
It seems that some angry teens use the term "capitalism" or "capitalist" as a brand for anything they don't like. However, these angry teens don't know seem to make the necessary comparison between what mostly capitalist countries such as the USA, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland provide the world and what non-free market countries like North Korea, China (main land), Saudi Arabia (state owns all oil rights), and Cuba provide.
Regarding music being culture and not having to pay for culture, this implies that no artist should be allowed to charge for his efforts. If a person produces something through time and effort, why should he not be able to get something in return for his labor? If he decides to exchange his creation for some money, then he gets to decide how much money he requires in order to complete the exchange. If a potential buyer decides the price is too high, then the exchange does not happen. The artist gets to decide the offer price; the potential buyer gets to decide the acceptance price. No one is forced to do anything.
It seems that some angry teens use the term "capitalism" or "capitalist" as a brand for anything they don't like. However, these angry teens don't know seem to make the necessary comparison between what mostly capitalist countries such as the USA, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland provide the world and what non-free market countries like North Korea, China (main land), Saudi Arabia (state owns all oil rights), and Cuba provide.
If the music comapnies didn't charge $17 for 12 crappy songs then people wouldn't download music and make thier own cd's.
If american idol kept the good singers insted of voting them off, and keeping the ones that sing the same crap as everyone else....
If the radio would quit playing the same whiny crappy songs over and over again....
If american idol kept the good singers insted of voting them off, and keeping the ones that sing the same crap as everyone else....
If the radio would quit playing the same whiny crappy songs over and over again....
How did this news about file sharing turn in to an argumant about capitalism vs communism vs everything else? Please try not to go too far off topic. That, and flaming is pointless and only creates trouble.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Even Adam Smith recognized that monopolies are the greatest threat to capitalism. In a free market, everyone would be free to distribute any music they want. It's called competition. Competition is what keeps capitalism balanced.
When the U.S. constitution was drafted, the authors recognized the benefit of providing a reasonable incentive for authors to create new works. Thus the constitution allows congress to grant exclusive rights for limited times. The original copyright act provided a very limited set of monopoly rights that lasted 14 years and which could be renewed for a total of 28 years. Once the copyright expired, anyone was free to distribute the work.
The idea behind copyright is that society temporarily gives up some freedom. In return authors create new works which ultimately enter the public domain.
Over the past 150 years, and especially the last 40 years, congress has expanded the scope of copyright to ridiculous levels. Copyright now lasts longer than the media it is printed on!
The expansion of copyright has allowed a small set of large companies to control virtually all well-known works created in the past 80 years. This sort of centralized control is not good for capitalism. It is not good for society. And it certainly doesn't represent the balanced tradeoff envisioned when the U.S. constitution was drafted.
When copyright is completely out of balance. When the media won't give copyright a fair debate because they know the current laws won't stand up to criticism. It is easy to understand why many people do not respect it.
When the U.S. constitution was drafted, the authors recognized the benefit of providing a reasonable incentive for authors to create new works. Thus the constitution allows congress to grant exclusive rights for limited times. The original copyright act provided a very limited set of monopoly rights that lasted 14 years and which could be renewed for a total of 28 years. Once the copyright expired, anyone was free to distribute the work.
The idea behind copyright is that society temporarily gives up some freedom. In return authors create new works which ultimately enter the public domain.
Over the past 150 years, and especially the last 40 years, congress has expanded the scope of copyright to ridiculous levels. Copyright now lasts longer than the media it is printed on!
The expansion of copyright has allowed a small set of large companies to control virtually all well-known works created in the past 80 years. This sort of centralized control is not good for capitalism. It is not good for society. And it certainly doesn't represent the balanced tradeoff envisioned when the U.S. constitution was drafted.
When copyright is completely out of balance. When the media won't give copyright a fair debate because they know the current laws won't stand up to criticism. It is easy to understand why many people do not respect it.
QUOTE (Joe+Mar 27 2005, 01:12 AM)
If the radio would quit playing the same whiny crappy songs over and over again....
Ironically, those are they very songs the record industry complains about people copying.
Ironically, those are they very songs the record industry complains about people copying.
If the record companies just spend more money on some research and development to find some creative way to keep people from sharing the music we would not have this problem, and they could spend much less money on legal fees.
This is almost analogous to leaving your car unlocked and keys in the ignition, then expecting no one to take your car for a ride. The record companies are like the owners of that car. These files are free, and easily accessible by everyone. If they don’t want them shared, then they should prevent it from happening in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, I know they work hard writing and singing songs, but I work hard too just like everyone else. I work full time and I’m going to school full time for my Masters degree. I bet myself and most people work twice as hard as these entertainers, but no one is paying me millions of dollars.
Entertainers are so greedy these days; there are so many other ways for them to make money (concerts and radio). I say they need to stop whining because the technology has finally caught up to them, and until they find a way around it they should deal with life in the real world just like the rest of us.
This is almost analogous to leaving your car unlocked and keys in the ignition, then expecting no one to take your car for a ride. The record companies are like the owners of that car. These files are free, and easily accessible by everyone. If they don’t want them shared, then they should prevent it from happening in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, I know they work hard writing and singing songs, but I work hard too just like everyone else. I work full time and I’m going to school full time for my Masters degree. I bet myself and most people work twice as hard as these entertainers, but no one is paying me millions of dollars.
Entertainers are so greedy these days; there are so many other ways for them to make money (concerts and radio). I say they need to stop whining because the technology has finally caught up to them, and until they find a way around it they should deal with life in the real world just like the rest of us.
All you militant 16 year old suburbanites and pathetic 30-somethings still living in your parents basement that spend all day chatting on IRC and downloading illegal tunes on usenet need to get some fresh air.
IRC > all
Let's see those *** try to make AIM file sharing illegal. Jerkwads
Theft is theft. Intellectual property is still property. The erosion of ethical standards concerning electronic properties is doing serious damage to the economy of this country. Why should the Chinese pay for Science or Business software that can be stolen when we won't make them. It is no different. People who STEAL files are criminals, not heros. People who fail to understand this are pathetic. This issue illustrates how stupid Americans (and euro-swine) have become. Ignorant, belligerent, fat and useless couch potatoes. Defending themselves with arguments that would embarrass any normal eight year old. Destroying the economy while they slam fat into their hideous rictus.
Um...capitalisim isn't bad at all mmmkay? Communism sucks balls no real good living conditions ect. ect. more easily corrupted, capitalisim if theres healthy competiton helps cut down on that kinda...and to the american/euro swine guy who posted shut up you're probably just as bad as everyone else so...yeh just like, take it easy people you all care way too much about an issue that really isn't all that important...
QUOTE
Theft is theft. Intellectual property is still property. The erosion of ethical standards concerning electronic properties is doing serious damage to the economy of this country. Why should the Chinese pay for Science or Business software that can be stolen when we won't make them. It is no different. People who STEAL files are criminals, not heros. People who fail to understand this are pathetic. This issue illustrates how stupid Americans (and euro-swine) have become. Ignorant, belligerent, fat and useless couch potatoes. Defending themselves with arguments that would embarrass any normal eight year old. Destroying the economy while they slam fat into their hideous rictus.
Oh blah blah blah. Who cares? Destroying the economy? What a joke you are. And I'll bet that behind closed doors you are downloading just as much as the rest of us. So please get off your f*uckin*g high horse, would ya?
Music piracy should eventually drive down overpriced CDs, hopefully. I think a lot of people would purchase music if the price was cut in half, and also if they stop doing the old trick like putting one great track on a CD with 12 lousy tracks.
I think that this issue is different from the software issue. The reality is that music on mp3 is ultimately just another form of advertising for the real moneymaker in the music biz which is concert tours. The desire to make money off of mp3s isn't free market, it's rampant monopolistic greed.
Anyone who remembers when the napster debate started, metallica and one other band, I forget who it was, were the only ones opposed, everyone else supported filesharing. Then the riaa pressured everyone into greedmode.
When the dust settles and an unstoppable fileshare is ubiquitous and well organized, eventually bands will have to choose for themselves whether or not they want to be shared.
Those that don't will select themselves for extinction, sort of like bands that decided they didn't want to be played on the radio, or in more recent memory that didn't want to be on mtv. At that point, the mp3 pay for download services, itunes, the new napster etc. will switch to free for download sites, and just make money off of ads.
This strikes me as an inevitable end result which makes the debate over the matter kind of silly.
Anyone who remembers when the napster debate started, metallica and one other band, I forget who it was, were the only ones opposed, everyone else supported filesharing. Then the riaa pressured everyone into greedmode.
When the dust settles and an unstoppable fileshare is ubiquitous and well organized, eventually bands will have to choose for themselves whether or not they want to be shared.
Those that don't will select themselves for extinction, sort of like bands that decided they didn't want to be played on the radio, or in more recent memory that didn't want to be on mtv. At that point, the mp3 pay for download services, itunes, the new napster etc. will switch to free for download sites, and just make money off of ads.
This strikes me as an inevitable end result which makes the debate over the matter kind of silly.
Yes we are criminals!
Today we download music and software by the millions, breaking laws of intellectual property and denying profit to the corporations and the wealthy. We feel that our need outweighs their greed. Tomorrow we may break other laws, shoplifting from chain stores to make ends meet, pilfering from the boss who pays us crap. The ethics of the matter are clear: why should we work our asses off to give more money to rich people?
Today we download music and software by the millions, breaking laws of intellectual property and denying profit to the corporations and the wealthy. We feel that our need outweighs their greed. Tomorrow we may break other laws, shoplifting from chain stores to make ends meet, pilfering from the boss who pays us crap. The ethics of the matter are clear: why should we work our asses off to give more money to rich people?
Theft is paying $15.00 a cd for music. Why does every artist and there label have to be millionaires? Too me, thats just greed and they deserve what they get.
Hello all,
I for one am intrigued with the USENET option, but am quite confused by how it works....or even what it is.....
I used www.google.com ;-) to find usenets, and all I found was some $24.95/month usenet.com site, which would defeat the purpose of "free" music...
I am confused as to how to use the "newsservers to download 100,000 mp3s at my liesure"
I have verizon as my ISP, and would like to acually understand how to use this "medium".... I would like to take full advantage of such capabilities
Could anyone give me a lamens-term (literally) step-by-step overview of how to... use....USENET?
Thanks a bunch
I for one am intrigued with the USENET option, but am quite confused by how it works....or even what it is.....
I used www.google.com ;-) to find usenets, and all I found was some $24.95/month usenet.com site, which would defeat the purpose of "free" music...
I am confused as to how to use the "newsservers to download 100,000 mp3s at my liesure"
I have verizon as my ISP, and would like to acually understand how to use this "medium".... I would like to take full advantage of such capabilities
Could anyone give me a lamens-term (literally) step-by-step overview of how to... use....USENET?
Thanks a bunch
download grabit and put in you isp's server and start downloading from the groups. go to newsbin.com for more info and dont do it if you cant handle it cause you might screw it up for the rest of us.
sorry newzbin.com
Now how the hell could I screw it up for the "rest of you guys"?
One of the first posts was "USENET IS INVINCIBLE!!!!!" WE WILL NEVER BE STOPPED!!!!
I dont get it...
One of the first posts was "USENET IS INVINCIBLE!!!!!" WE WILL NEVER BE STOPPED!!!!
I dont get it...
Newsgroup access is usually provided by your ISP and you can read it with Outlook Express.
View > Goto > News
You'll need to know the settings for which server(s) your ISP offers but that's usually found in their help files by searching for <b>newsgroups</b>
View > Goto > News
You'll need to know the settings for which server(s) your ISP offers but that's usually found in their help files by searching for <b>newsgroups</b>
QUOTE (NooB+Mar 27 2005, 04:11 AM)
I have verizon as my ISP, and would like to acually understand how to use this "medium".... I would like to take full advantage of such capabilities
Could anyone give me a lamens-term (literally) step-by-step overview of how to... use....USENET?
news.verizon.net
NNTP (network news transport protocol - RFC977) runs on server port 119 . You'll need to authenticate your userid and password for verizon. NNTP is the USENET standard protocol and replaced UUCP.
The how to use is dependent upon what tool you use for mail. Most mail systems will allow you to add a News Account.
Mozilla also comes with a nice newsgroups client.
As far as the claim that USENET is older than the internet. That would depend on at which point you feel the internet really started. If you go with the start of TCP/IP, then USENET is older by a few years. If you go with the start of ARPANET, then the internet is older by about a decade. Between those two events, you've pretty much a gradual growth, and you could point at any spot as the start of the internet.
If you meant the World Wide Web, then yes, USENET is much older.
As far as the claim that USENET is older than the internet. That would depend on at which point you feel the internet really started. If you go with the start of TCP/IP, then USENET is older by a few years. If you go with the start of ARPANET, then the internet is older by about a decade. Between those two events, you've pretty much a gradual growth, and you could point at any spot as the start of the internet.
If you meant the World Wide Web, then yes, USENET is much older.
Thanks a boatload! :-)
You guys are awesome
You guys are awesome
Hey "Noob", what the heck do you want a guide to usenet for?
People who rave about usenet are a little nuts. Oh, there's tons of stuff!, they yell. Get usenet!
F**K usenet. It's full of all these stupid programs you have to use to get a simple movie or whatever....RARParLeecherNewswhatever and all the rest because anything big gets broken down into like a whole messload of different parts. If any are missing or broken, you've gotta find or repair the missing ones. Then you gotta reassemble the whole thing.
People will say, "Oh yeah, that's easy" but usually only because they're addicted to that whole scene and will put up with anything just to get the stuff they want. It's surprising they even find time to talk to you because they are busy trying to get all the stuff before it DISSAPEARS! Yeah that's right, stuff gets "posted" for a very limited time, and unless you get it like seriously soon, it's gone!
"Get a really good service!", they'll say, which holds the stuff a little longer and which is also more money. And by the time you've maybe tried to stay on top of that for a while, you end up getting addicted to grabbing everything you can before it's too late!!! Trust me, I've talked to too many of these newsheads, and it's actually pretty pathetic. They burn gigs and gigs of stuff a day of stuff THEY NEVER EVEN USE just because they think it's 'fun' to 'own' a bunch of stuff that they never even had any right to in the first place.
And what kind of stuff is it anyway? I've seen some really really pathetic examples of "movies" & "music" that you can supposedly find there. And the software? Some of it will slowly eat your PC alive until everybody know who you are and what you've been doing and your computer slows to a crawl and you've got to reinstall everything before it stops working altogether. (even though it "seems" to pass all the scans)
Sure you can waste a lot of time gambling that you won't run into any of this stuff or that you won't become senselessly addicted to it all, but trust me, both will happen.
Stick to P2P if you really want good stuff. http://www.btefnet.net/ is pretty good for most TV, and google around if you to find anything else. It's out there, good luck!
Michael Sean
People who rave about usenet are a little nuts. Oh, there's tons of stuff!, they yell. Get usenet!
F**K usenet. It's full of all these stupid programs you have to use to get a simple movie or whatever....RARParLeecherNewswhatever and all the rest because anything big gets broken down into like a whole messload of different parts. If any are missing or broken, you've gotta find or repair the missing ones. Then you gotta reassemble the whole thing.
People will say, "Oh yeah, that's easy" but usually only because they're addicted to that whole scene and will put up with anything just to get the stuff they want. It's surprising they even find time to talk to you because they are busy trying to get all the stuff before it DISSAPEARS! Yeah that's right, stuff gets "posted" for a very limited time, and unless you get it like seriously soon, it's gone!
"Get a really good service!", they'll say, which holds the stuff a little longer and which is also more money. And by the time you've maybe tried to stay on top of that for a while, you end up getting addicted to grabbing everything you can before it's too late!!! Trust me, I've talked to too many of these newsheads, and it's actually pretty pathetic. They burn gigs and gigs of stuff a day of stuff THEY NEVER EVEN USE just because they think it's 'fun' to 'own' a bunch of stuff that they never even had any right to in the first place.
And what kind of stuff is it anyway? I've seen some really really pathetic examples of "movies" & "music" that you can supposedly find there. And the software? Some of it will slowly eat your PC alive until everybody know who you are and what you've been doing and your computer slows to a crawl and you've got to reinstall everything before it stops working altogether. (even though it "seems" to pass all the scans)
Sure you can waste a lot of time gambling that you won't run into any of this stuff or that you won't become senselessly addicted to it all, but trust me, both will happen.
Stick to P2P if you really want good stuff. http://www.btefnet.net/ is pretty good for most TV, and google around if you to find anything else. It's out there, good luck!
Michael Sean
Guy i just dot get where theese news comes from i think american muscic is paying a lot of money to whoever writes theese news buit if people are really moving amy form P2p the I HAVE A SOLUTION FOR YOU
ALL YOU NEED IS THE RIGHT P2P,GOOD FIRE WALL AND A VERY GOOD ANTIVIRUS
"IF YOUR COMPUTER IS REGULARLY TARGETED BY VIRUS OR OTHER MALICIOUS PROGRAM"
FIRST OF ALL YES YES YES THEESE THINGS ARE COMING FROM KAZAA,e DONKEY,IMESH,WAREZ,MORPHEUS or something like that
ALL THEESE P2P COMES WITH TROJON HORSE AND THATS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY!
YOU NEED P2P LIKE :-
SHAREZAA OR LIME WIRE (THEY ARE REALLY CLEN)
FIREWALL:-
ZONE LAB'S ZONE ALARM
ANTIVIRUS:-
UPDATED NORTON OR Kaspersky Anti-Virus
AND MOST IMPORTANT MOZILLA FIREFOX
AND BELIEVE IT YOU WOULD NEVER NEED TO PAY FOR MP3'S
:- KODEINDIGO KID
ALL YOU NEED IS THE RIGHT P2P,GOOD FIRE WALL AND A VERY GOOD ANTIVIRUS
"IF YOUR COMPUTER IS REGULARLY TARGETED BY VIRUS OR OTHER MALICIOUS PROGRAM"
FIRST OF ALL YES YES YES THEESE THINGS ARE COMING FROM KAZAA,e DONKEY,IMESH,WAREZ,MORPHEUS or something like that
ALL THEESE P2P COMES WITH TROJON HORSE AND THATS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY!
YOU NEED P2P LIKE :-
SHAREZAA OR LIME WIRE (THEY ARE REALLY CLEN)
FIREWALL:-
ZONE LAB'S ZONE ALARM
ANTIVIRUS:-
UPDATED NORTON OR Kaspersky Anti-Virus
AND MOST IMPORTANT MOZILLA FIREFOX
AND BELIEVE IT YOU WOULD NEVER NEED TO PAY FOR MP3'S
:- KODEINDIGO KID
Hey Michael Sean, go buy a Mac!
You sound like you want to be an expert. Truth is, you've just barely "discovered" Usenet yourself, and are afraid to get personally involved with it because you know that your life already sucks and you don't want the rest of the world to know how incompetent you are relative to computing.
If you were the expert you claim to be, you wouldn't be using a PC. Experts know a piece of crap when they reboot one.
You sound like you want to be an expert. Truth is, you've just barely "discovered" Usenet yourself, and are afraid to get personally involved with it because you know that your life already sucks and you don't want the rest of the world to know how incompetent you are relative to computing.
If you were the expert you claim to be, you wouldn't be using a PC. Experts know a piece of crap when they reboot one.
QUOTE (NiggerWigger+Mar 26 2005, 11:15 PM)
If the music industry collapses because of file sharing which I dont think it will then we will be stuck with artists that really arent motivated,people work better when they have something to gain and the most suitable gain is MONEY,because money can get you 'Things' and things are important.
Your argument assumes that under the music industry that artists actually make money. Yes, Capitalism is hard at work. The artist do all the work.... and the recording industry gets rich. The future is going to be written by the artists. Someday the rest of the world will stop supporting the middleman that the RIAA represents and start giving their money to their favorite artists directly. So, the music industry as we know it will collapse. But, as long as their are musicians and music fans there will always be an "industry". It's simply a matter of who gets the money and how.
http://www.atlantic-satellite.com/major_la.htm
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/diat...atribes1030.htm
http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/99/18/music-pearson1a.php
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/99/18/music-pearson2.php
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5297
Reasons to Get Rid of The Music Labels:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/reasons/index.html
Your argument assumes that under the music industry that artists actually make money. Yes, Capitalism is hard at work. The artist do all the work.... and the recording industry gets rich. The future is going to be written by the artists. Someday the rest of the world will stop supporting the middleman that the RIAA represents and start giving their money to their favorite artists directly. So, the music industry as we know it will collapse. But, as long as their are musicians and music fans there will always be an "industry". It's simply a matter of who gets the money and how.
http://www.atlantic-satellite.com/major_la.htm
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/diat...atribes1030.htm
http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/99/18/music-pearson1a.php
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/99/18/music-pearson2.php
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5297
Reasons to Get Rid of The Music Labels:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/reasons/index.html
If one would like to see a resurgence of P2P sharing, the masses need simply set up wireless routers in their homes while leaving WEP off. Should the RIAA come calling, you now have plausible deniability, in that anyone with a WI-FI card could have accessed your connection. There is no way they can trace the P2P download any further than your assigned IP address.
The majority of ISP's now feature more bandwidth than most need anyway, even heavy file sharers. "Not me" you say, "I exceed my bandwidth limit every month- I'm not opening my connection up to others". -then you need to get a life....
The majority of ISP's now feature more bandwidth than most need anyway, even heavy file sharers. "Not me" you say, "I exceed my bandwidth limit every month- I'm not opening my connection up to others". -then you need to get a life....
it is people such as yourselves that post and read newsgroups and gather to talk about these sort of topics that ruin the internet... as for the blabber who had the 2nd post, he deserves a bitch slap. peace
Usenet is Mecca. Michael Sean's comments are indicative of why Kaaza etc. is where the trouble lies. It's this that insures Usenet a long & productive life.
Stop being a bunch of foolios and get bittorrent
don`t even call Kaspersky Anti-Virus as antivirus!!!
this is a ***! only stupid users use it
this is a ***! only stupid users use it
The RIAA is just trying to blame a slump in sales on the people.
If they had some music worth anything people would run out and buy it.
they try to push off garbage for music and this is what happens. people dont feel its worth anything and they go and download it from someplace or make an mp3 off the radio of it. Parents dont let their kids buy things of a "mature" nature so they go and get it online. the industry has changed a lot in 10 years. and instead of the riaa trying to embrace a change in technology. they want to enforce an old archaic way of passing along music. if they would come up with a way of embracing the technology the probably would make a fortune. maybe they should run a napster style service wiith quality downloads available. or an itunes style. make it reasonably priced. say 10cents a song instead of $10.00 an album. sell in quantity. id bet they would make their money back in no time.we all know how little it costs to make a cd. you think they would embrace technology to make their money instead of playing Don Quixote and fighting a wind mill. sorry to ramble but thats my .02
What the RIAA really has to face, is the quality of what they are putting out there. It falls into a few genres and everything that fits in any of those genres sounds exactly the same. Cassette tapes and the ability to share 'P2P' has been around longer then the internet. It is my belief that the major record industry is seeing fall offs, because of the c**p they attempt to force on us. They tell the radios what to play, they build 'bands' and then find an artist that hits w/the public and reproduce that music as though it was a factory line. They just don't seem to get that quality and variation are what most people desire, not canned systems.
I have stopped buying 'albums' because the local artists in my region offer me much more than the bs that the RIAA squeezes through its meat grinders.
'nuf said
I have stopped buying 'albums' because the local artists in my region offer me much more than the bs that the RIAA squeezes through its meat grinders.
'nuf said
Screw the IRAA, Are they not rich enough from people like us!!?? SURE they are and here we are the POOR!! I sat SCREW THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If anyone who's in favor of file sharing was suddenly put in the same position as the musicians whose files are being shared, they would just as suddenly change their tune (intentional pun) and want to get paid.
Yeah, yeah - I know all about how free file sharing helped Wilco, but that's a happy (for Jeff Tweedy and the rest of the band) accident that couldn't possibly work to the advantage of all performers.
Yeah, yeah - I know all about how free file sharing helped Wilco, but that's a happy (for Jeff Tweedy and the rest of the band) accident that couldn't possibly work to the advantage of all performers.
Gee and i thought i was the only 1 to notice that every station sounds exactly the same as the 1 prior to it. except for the change in "genre" the material is all the same. you have a preset station for each genre and you jump around to see if there is a new sound
in any of them.. how many boy bands can you listen to at 1 time. how many times can you hear the same old "grandpa rock" tunes. how many ways can you listen to some one cuss out a kid rock tune. and finally gangsta rap...we wont chat about that. but the point is. its all the same no matter which genre you go to.
in any of them.. how many boy bands can you listen to at 1 time. how many times can you hear the same old "grandpa rock" tunes. how many ways can you listen to some one cuss out a kid rock tune. and finally gangsta rap...we wont chat about that. but the point is. its all the same no matter which genre you go to.
usenet is a pay site.
a site like piratebay is not (bit torrent)
a site like piratebay is not (bit torrent)
QUOTE
usenet is a pay site.
Huh?
QUOTE
usenet is a pay site.
www.usenet.com is a paysite, not usenet !
Wanna feed a musician? First, Thanks! Second, buy a ticket to a show. If you've got a little dough left over after the beers, pick up a tshirt. The artist makes a small % from cd sales (unless they are unsigned.) If the artist sold the cd themselves for $5, they would be making in most cases more than 5x what they get from the corporation now. Throughout history where there is talent or intellectual properties there has been a third party ready to skim profits. If anything threatens them, they defend their pile at all costs. They'll even sue children.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 27 2005, 02:53 PM)
usenet is a pay site.
a site like piratebay is not (bit torrent)
This is precisely why Usenet will never be a major concern for the RIAA. Most people are either too dim or too lazy (or both) to figure it out. Just try to explain the 3 parts of the internet, or for that matter, try to get Joe/Jane Average to understand that the web doesn't broadly define the internet, and you'll get an empty, goldfish-eyed response.
Usenet will always be there for a relatively small number of people. Period. The cost to investigate, find, warrant and prosecute the molecules-in-the-needles-in- the-three-hundred-thousand-plus-haystacks known as newsgroups, all over the world, would far exceed any profit lost to file sharing. It would be a fruitless excercise in sisyphusian slapstick for anyone in the music industry to even bother trying.
a site like piratebay is not (bit torrent)
This is precisely why Usenet will never be a major concern for the RIAA. Most people are either too dim or too lazy (or both) to figure it out. Just try to explain the 3 parts of the internet, or for that matter, try to get Joe/Jane Average to understand that the web doesn't broadly define the internet, and you'll get an empty, goldfish-eyed response.
Usenet will always be there for a relatively small number of people. Period. The cost to investigate, find, warrant and prosecute the molecules-in-the-needles-in- the-three-hundred-thousand-plus-haystacks known as newsgroups, all over the world, would far exceed any profit lost to file sharing. It would be a fruitless excercise in sisyphusian slapstick for anyone in the music industry to even bother trying.
They close one down, I move to the next one. I'll never stop downloading
QUOTE
Blab? Talk about a hellajoke. USENET is not discussed because it simply CANNOT be controlled under any circumstances. Given that it is older than the Internet and uses entirely different sets of rules, then there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do about it.
LOL. Who's the "hellajoke?" You!?
Usenet can not be controlled... Bwahahaha. The RIAA could easily stop ISPs and other providers from holding copyrighted materials on their news servers if they wanted to. That will stop people from downloading them. For the other part, with enough harasment and lawsuits, you could bet providers will start keeping track of your messages -- most ISP already add your IP or a unique number tied to you -- and could prove you put the copyright material out. That will take care of distributors.
When it comes down to DejaNews, Usenet.com, etc. being sued or handing over the violators' name to the RIAA/MPAA, you can bet they'll give it up in a heartbeat. There are ways to anonymous post, but that's not always 100% reliable... and that's not good when you need all of the messages to show up to have a complete file.
I'm not saying this will stop 100% of the messages, but they haven't completely stopped the other methods either -- just plenty of lawsuits.
QUOTE ("somdude"+)
Wanna feed a musician? First, Thanks! Second, buy a ticket to a show. If you've got a little dough left over after the beers, pick up a tshirt. The artist makes a small % from cd sales (unless they are unsigned.) If the artist sold the cd themselves for $5, they would be making in most cases more than 5x what they get from the corporation now. Throughout history where there is talent or intellectual properties there has been a third party ready to skim profits. If anything threatens them, they defend their pile at all costs. They'll even sue children.
ClearChannel et all dictate what happens on the radio. RIAA ensure they(RIAA suits) get paid. Artists make very little from CD sales or from the iTunes Music Store, for example. Somdude gets it right when he says that the way to support artists is to go to the shows. And buy the merchandise. And if you are truely concerned about supporting the artist, support local artists. Go to the bar, pay the $7 cover, see a band, buy their CD, buy a T-Shirt.
People who bitch about "music today sucks" are not getting their music correctly. They are allowing themselves to be spoonfed by corporate radio. Boycott ClearChannel, boycot the RIAA, boycott the bands who shill themselves via these outlets. If you don't, you are only perpetuating mediocrity.
As far as I am concerned, Limewire etc have noting for me. P2P is good, and all, but BitTorrent is better, for users can get a whole album in 3 or 4 minutes, instead of just a song here and there. Also, sites like http://www.archive.org allow users to get a virtual "library card" and use it to access their library of legal mp3s and .shm files. We are talking legitimate use, here folks - presidential speeches, live shows by many bands who allow taping at their shows, and many other amazing things. And much of it is available via FTP
The whole music industry with its current business model makes me sick. Thank god for independant radio stations, or syndicated shows like Little Steven's Underground Garage
Filesharing is not going to go away. P2P will not go away. BitTorrent will not go away, Apple, Napster 2.0 and all the rest are not revolutionary. Bands like Wilco benefited from filesharing, and so did The Smashing Pumkins, whose album MACHINA/The Machines of God was leaked on the Internet, with Billy Corgan's permission, before they released it (free) on their website. Fiona Apple's newest album has no release date and is already available online if you know where to look.
The bands I know, and I'm talking locally, now, are happy that their music is heard at all. And a lot of the local bands are putting out better music than the crap you can hear on the radio.
So, while bands aren't getting paid directly when their music is shared on a P2P network(not that they really get paid directly when a kid buys the album at WalMart, either, BTW), for example, that's money in the pocket of the kid who downloaded the album, and, if he liked the music, money that very likely will go towards purchasing a ticket to the show when that band comes to town.
The RIAA has yet to produce a valid argument against filesharing as far as I can see.
-----------------
http://www.lovenotfear.blogspot.com
ClearChannel et all dictate what happens on the radio. RIAA ensure they(RIAA suits) get paid. Artists make very little from CD sales or from the iTunes Music Store, for example. Somdude gets it right when he says that the way to support artists is to go to the shows. And buy the merchandise. And if you are truely concerned about supporting the artist, support local artists. Go to the bar, pay the $7 cover, see a band, buy their CD, buy a T-Shirt.
People who bitch about "music today sucks" are not getting their music correctly. They are allowing themselves to be spoonfed by corporate radio. Boycott ClearChannel, boycot the RIAA, boycott the bands who shill themselves via these outlets. If you don't, you are only perpetuating mediocrity.
As far as I am concerned, Limewire etc have noting for me. P2P is good, and all, but BitTorrent is better, for users can get a whole album in 3 or 4 minutes, instead of just a song here and there. Also, sites like http://www.archive.org allow users to get a virtual "library card" and use it to access their library of legal mp3s and .shm files. We are talking legitimate use, here folks - presidential speeches, live shows by many bands who allow taping at their shows, and many other amazing things. And much of it is available via FTP
The whole music industry with its current business model makes me sick. Thank god for independant radio stations, or syndicated shows like Little Steven's Underground Garage
Filesharing is not going to go away. P2P will not go away. BitTorrent will not go away, Apple, Napster 2.0 and all the rest are not revolutionary. Bands like Wilco benefited from filesharing, and so did The Smashing Pumkins, whose album MACHINA/The Machines of God was leaked on the Internet, with Billy Corgan's permission, before they released it (free) on their website. Fiona Apple's newest album has no release date and is already available online if you know where to look.
The bands I know, and I'm talking locally, now, are happy that their music is heard at all. And a lot of the local bands are putting out better music than the crap you can hear on the radio.
So, while bands aren't getting paid directly when their music is shared on a P2P network(not that they really get paid directly when a kid buys the album at WalMart, either, BTW), for example, that's money in the pocket of the kid who downloaded the album, and, if he liked the music, money that very likely will go towards purchasing a ticket to the show when that band comes to town.
The RIAA has yet to produce a valid argument against filesharing as far as I can see.
-----------------
http://www.lovenotfear.blogspot.com
The public library is government approved file sharing. If I write a book and the library buys one copy, then shares it with thousands of people for free, how can I make any money? People do still write books though and companies publish them. Hmmmm.
Usenet seems to be the perfect legal defense:
Judge: Mr. X what do you have to say in your defense?
AudioGeek: Umm, all the files that I have on my device are publicly available on on the Internet (with no copywrite notices). The owners have allowed it to persists there for years.....etc..etc..
IRC is the Un touched Omega. No laws, no bullshit. Screw a song at a time, get an album at at time.
I am quite content with the fact that the RIAA and the authorities are so tied up over P 2 P trading that they ignore IRC and Usenet.
A few thoughts on some of the comments I've read here this morning:
"Wanna feed a musician? Buy a ticket to a show." Sounds reasonable, if you've never tried to earn a living playing live music. I started doing so in 1973 right out of high school. Pre-disco there was a little money to be made playing live, because bars and club owners had to have live bands to attract patrons (trans. sell booze). The going rate for a band fell when disco came in and we began competing with recorded music. Rates for live bands never recovered. Many bands in the major cities now play for nearly nothing just to get the "exposure". OLD JOKE: What does a musician do when he wins the lottery? ANS: He keeps on giggin' until the money runs out." Only a tiny tiny minority of local musicians, no matter what their talent, can make a living, or a life, out of playing live music. There's nothing better that you can do standing up with your clothes on, but as for a paycheck you can use to feed, clothe, and house yourself, or a family, forget it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Another common misconception is that file sharing is some kind noble, democratic act of benign goodness and love. Bullshit. It's theft, pure and simple. I venture to say that none of the "aristocrats" whose comments I've read here today would ever dream of entering a grocery store and indulge in taking bites out of items in the produce section, then stroll over to the snack isle, tear open boxes of cookies and eat those, and then expect to leave the store without paying for what they consumed first, or being arrested. Yet, those same arrogant SOB's feel they are on some kind of Mission From God, when it comes to ripping off song files. All who feel justified in doing so are each and everyone of you, conveniently delusional, selectively honest, and of marginal integrity.
Music like all art forms requires dedication, practice, devotion to the process of creative effort. It is time comsuming, and challenging in ways that no one who as never tried to learn to play at any other than the most rudimentary level knows first hand. Hiding behind the rationalization that you are ripping off the recording labels does not satisfy the underlying truth that many talented artists will be denied a carreer as a direct result of your greed. That's all file sharing is - greed, the acute desire to obtain something from another without giving them anything of value in return.
We musicians will be denied the opportunity to make a living at something we love. The listening public, will be denied the pleasure of the efforts of unknown, and unheard genious as the long term effect of the wholesale theft that is currently being touted by pick-pockets continues. Why? Because no person who has any self-respect, or desire to achieve something of quality in their lives is going to labor at a job they can't make money at. Bottom line - you have to feed yourself before you can make art. This is true whether you are a cro-magnon man living thousands of years ago on the plains of Europe, following herds musk ox, or you are simply a musky odored cretin with delusions of grandure living on meth in some hovel in LA. What we have now in the music business is an over supply of mediocre dilitants busily ripping each other off.
Here's a question for all you who have downloaded music files without paying the people who made the music - why should anyone bother to entertain you in the first place? What do I get out of making a serious effort to learn the art of live and recorded performance, if I can't feed myself with my efforts? Apparently, there are those who put such little value on themselves and their efforts that they are willing to play just to be able to say "I'm a professional musician". Sounds like the call of the common wannabe to my ears. CAW, CAAW. If mediority is close enough for jazz, good enough for government work, then this is a great time to own a PC.
The analogy by another post of the lending library as a form file sharing doesn't hold water for the simple reason the libraries allow you to borrow a book, not take it home and copy it for free. That is an important distiction, because once something has been copied for free enough times it can no longer be sold. The market has been tapped, and the opportunity for the people who gave their time, and souls to create the work is forever lost. End of the line.
Have you ever wondered why there are virtually no new artists of the stature of a Bonno, or a Jackson Brown, or a John Lennon in the last few years? Many of you will no doubt blame the recording companies. If you download for free you must look in the mirror for the real culprits. Without distribution, and promotion it is simply impossible for a band doing something of noteworthy quality to rise above the cacophany of annonymous song smiths flooding cyber space with forgettable bits, and bites of song files.
It is blatant hypocracy to use the greed of the recording companies to rationalize one's own personal avarice. I'm not saying the record companies are angels. I am saying two wrongs don't make a right. Simple, and true. If you all really love music, and need it as much as you do, then you aught to be willing to pay for it. If you aren't, then kiss off. Who needs to bust their ass for the likes of you? Only a fool in love with the sound of his own voice. Who wants to listen that, except maybe another dilusional fool?
The technology will not go away, as one commentator rightly pointed out. The real artists, the ones who really have something of lasting quality and purpose will. What will you do when the only songs to down load are all twenty years old, or of such poor conception and mediocre quality that they aren't worth paying attention to. Maybe, the masses will have dumbed down the such an extent by that time that it won't matter. Bread and circus's worked for the Romans for a few hundred years before the Huns crashed the party and made a mess of things. Party on, Dude!
"Wanna feed a musician? Buy a ticket to a show." Sounds reasonable, if you've never tried to earn a living playing live music. I started doing so in 1973 right out of high school. Pre-disco there was a little money to be made playing live, because bars and club owners had to have live bands to attract patrons (trans. sell booze). The going rate for a band fell when disco came in and we began competing with recorded music. Rates for live bands never recovered. Many bands in the major cities now play for nearly nothing just to get the "exposure". OLD JOKE: What does a musician do when he wins the lottery? ANS: He keeps on giggin' until the money runs out." Only a tiny tiny minority of local musicians, no matter what their talent, can make a living, or a life, out of playing live music. There's nothing better that you can do standing up with your clothes on, but as for a paycheck you can use to feed, clothe, and house yourself, or a family, forget it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Another common misconception is that file sharing is some kind noble, democratic act of benign goodness and love. Bullshit. It's theft, pure and simple. I venture to say that none of the "aristocrats" whose comments I've read here today would ever dream of entering a grocery store and indulge in taking bites out of items in the produce section, then stroll over to the snack isle, tear open boxes of cookies and eat those, and then expect to leave the store without paying for what they consumed first, or being arrested. Yet, those same arrogant SOB's feel they are on some kind of Mission From God, when it comes to ripping off song files. All who feel justified in doing so are each and everyone of you, conveniently delusional, selectively honest, and of marginal integrity.
Music like all art forms requires dedication, practice, devotion to the process of creative effort. It is time comsuming, and challenging in ways that no one who as never tried to learn to play at any other than the most rudimentary level knows first hand. Hiding behind the rationalization that you are ripping off the recording labels does not satisfy the underlying truth that many talented artists will be denied a carreer as a direct result of your greed. That's all file sharing is - greed, the acute desire to obtain something from another without giving them anything of value in return.
We musicians will be denied the opportunity to make a living at something we love. The listening public, will be denied the pleasure of the efforts of unknown, and unheard genious as the long term effect of the wholesale theft that is currently being touted by pick-pockets continues. Why? Because no person who has any self-respect, or desire to achieve something of quality in their lives is going to labor at a job they can't make money at. Bottom line - you have to feed yourself before you can make art. This is true whether you are a cro-magnon man living thousands of years ago on the plains of Europe, following herds musk ox, or you are simply a musky odored cretin with delusions of grandure living on meth in some hovel in LA. What we have now in the music business is an over supply of mediocre dilitants busily ripping each other off.
Here's a question for all you who have downloaded music files without paying the people who made the music - why should anyone bother to entertain you in the first place? What do I get out of making a serious effort to learn the art of live and recorded performance, if I can't feed myself with my efforts? Apparently, there are those who put such little value on themselves and their efforts that they are willing to play just to be able to say "I'm a professional musician". Sounds like the call of the common wannabe to my ears. CAW, CAAW. If mediority is close enough for jazz, good enough for government work, then this is a great time to own a PC.
The analogy by another post of the lending library as a form file sharing doesn't hold water for the simple reason the libraries allow you to borrow a book, not take it home and copy it for free. That is an important distiction, because once something has been copied for free enough times it can no longer be sold. The market has been tapped, and the opportunity for the people who gave their time, and souls to create the work is forever lost. End of the line.
Have you ever wondered why there are virtually no new artists of the stature of a Bonno, or a Jackson Brown, or a John Lennon in the last few years? Many of you will no doubt blame the recording companies. If you download for free you must look in the mirror for the real culprits. Without distribution, and promotion it is simply impossible for a band doing something of noteworthy quality to rise above the cacophany of annonymous song smiths flooding cyber space with forgettable bits, and bites of song files.
It is blatant hypocracy to use the greed of the recording companies to rationalize one's own personal avarice. I'm not saying the record companies are angels. I am saying two wrongs don't make a right. Simple, and true. If you all really love music, and need it as much as you do, then you aught to be willing to pay for it. If you aren't, then kiss off. Who needs to bust their ass for the likes of you? Only a fool in love with the sound of his own voice. Who wants to listen that, except maybe another dilusional fool?
The technology will not go away, as one commentator rightly pointed out. The real artists, the ones who really have something of lasting quality and purpose will. What will you do when the only songs to down load are all twenty years old, or of such poor conception and mediocre quality that they aren't worth paying attention to. Maybe, the masses will have dumbed down the such an extent by that time that it won't matter. Bread and circus's worked for the Romans for a few hundred years before the Huns crashed the party and made a mess of things. Party on, Dude!
S.S.D.D!?! 
If you can't figure it out is this day and age....
blitz3d
If you can't figure it out is this day and age....blitz3d
Usenet is not a pay site.
Usenet is not dead, it is huge.
Usenet is NOT hard to use.
So I'll say it once more for those who want info on Usenet:
http://www.newsrover.com/index.htm
and
If you don't believe me
http://www.newsrover.com/reviews.htm
What they say is no lie, THIS ROCKS!
Usenet is not dead, it is huge.
Usenet is NOT hard to use.
So I'll say it once more for those who want info on Usenet:
http://www.newsrover.com/index.htm
and
If you don't believe me
http://www.newsrover.com/reviews.htm
What they say is no lie, THIS ROCKS!
lol 14 bucks for a cd? sometimes 20? umm no..it costs nowhere that much to make it, as long as the riaa is allowed to rip us off with the crap, i approve of downloading, if the artists dont like it, they can fix the messed up industry we have today. or they can shut up and live with it.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 27 2005, 08:05 PM)
Usenet is not a pay site.
Usenet is not dead, it is huge.
Usenet is NOT hard to use.
So I'll say it once more for those who want info on Usenet:
http://www.newsrover.com/index.htm
and
If you don't believe me
http://www.newsrover.com/reviews.htm
What they say is no lie, THIS ROCKS!
Drop the Usenet bullshit already. If you want it -- it's there. The rest of us don't really give a shit and it has nothing to do with the original thread.
Usenet is not dead, it is huge.
Usenet is NOT hard to use.
So I'll say it once more for those who want info on Usenet:
http://www.newsrover.com/index.htm
and
If you don't believe me
http://www.newsrover.com/reviews.htm
What they say is no lie, THIS ROCKS!
Drop the Usenet bullshit already. If you want it -- it's there. The rest of us don't really give a shit and it has nothing to do with the original thread.
Fine, fine, so file sharing is theft and greed.
But seriously the poor music industry (boohoo) could make some effort to make it easyer to buy CD's and stuff, lower the prices, and offer free home delivery for the lazy. If they sell the album at 1 dollar they'd still be making profit (just guessing).
And then you have these 'artists' who become millionnaire just after a couple of singles... These perfectly illustrate how the system went wrong.
But seriously the poor music industry (boohoo) could make some effort to make it easyer to buy CD's and stuff, lower the prices, and offer free home delivery for the lazy. If they sell the album at 1 dollar they'd still be making profit (just guessing).
And then you have these 'artists' who become millionnaire just after a couple of singles... These perfectly illustrate how the system went wrong.
Um what about facing the realization that most human beings are thieves which is why we have laws in place to keep ourselves in check. So. What I'm saying here, and I think I'm part of the majority, is that:
I am a cheating, stealing, self preservating animal and you can keep your *** music to yourself, or put it in digital form for me to copy a thousand times over so my friend can feed himself ribs AND waste his time listening like you wasted yours creating.
I am a cheating, stealing, self preservating animal and you can keep your *** music to yourself, or put it in digital form for me to copy a thousand times over so my friend can feed himself ribs AND waste his time listening like you wasted yours creating.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.