Slashdot Mirror
UK's Legalization of CD Ripping Is Unlawful, Court Rules
Last year the UK finally passed legislation to make the copying and ripping of CDs for personal use legal. After the legislation passed, several groups of rightsholders applied for a judicial review, arguing that the change would cause financial harm to them. (They suggested an alternative: taxing blank CDs and storage devices, sharing the resulting funds among rightsholders.) Now, the UK's High Court issued a ruling that agrees with them: "the decision to introduce section 28B [private copying] in the absence of a compensation mechanism is unlawful." The exceptions in place for private copying are now unlawful, and the UK government will need to amend the legislation if it is to have any meaningful effect.
Rightsholders keep pushing the fact that we're buying a personal use license to the media when we buy a CD/DVD/etc, so why is making a mere copy for personal use unlawful in any way?
You can't have it both ways, greedy bastards.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
wtf did the comments links go?
It wants its controversy back.
Please bring back a "Read more" or "View comments" link/button. It feels very unnatural to have to hunt for the # of comments or click the title.
CDs? Like people used to use in the latter part of the 1900s?
Next they'll say I can't make my own buggy whips.
Bunck of fucking arseholes are trying to get a levy on blank hard drives.
Well, I'm not paying for music twice. If I have to pay for music when I buy the hard drive, no bloody way I'm paying again.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That means that with that license to use, in perpetuity, if the media becomes damaged, then the rights holder will ship out, for free, replacement media for said license.
If they don't want to do that, then allowing license holders to make private backup copies of their licensed products is the only way to go.
Perhaps a major class-action lawsuit against the RIAA/MPAA and every Recording and Movie studio should be made to get a final decision on whether it's the media we purchase or the license so that they can no longer flip-flop which it is based on how they want to limit our rights.
This does not stop the UK from allowing private backups and copies -- many EU states* do. This is a violation of EU regulations, where, if such copying is allowed, there must be compensation from government.
This typically takes the form of an extra blank CD or DVD tax, or tax proportional to the memory size of the device (bigger can hold more copying.) Presumably direct payments taxed some other way are also acceptable.
But sorry, welcome to...
* The United States of Europe! All mere States shall be broken to the saddle of the Federal Government. Muahahahahaha
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Isn't by definition a new law legal (assuming it isn't against a constitution or any higher law)? Is the only threshold that it would not cause financial harm if that is the case most laws should be illegal as they all cause financial harm to someone.
They suggested an alternative: taxing blank CDs and storage devices, sharing the resulting funds among rightsholders
My company buys thousands of hard drives used for data centre storage and DVDs for backups. Why the hell should I pay extra for them so that the money is sent to the entertainment industry when no data that goes on those drives will ever relate to them?
OK, make it a crime, with a 1 pence fine for each track copied.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
because we can't rip her to archival media.
Can we please get lightbulbs banned already, or at least tax them so that the candlemaking industry is compensated? Maybe horsebreeder and wagon makers should get a cut of car sales? Since when was it the government's job to protect corporate profits? I mean, guys, at least pretend...
X
"Instead of keeping copies free, they suggested that a tax should be applied to blank media including blank CDs, hard drives, memory sticks and other blank media. This money would then be shared among rightsholders, a mechanism already operating in other European countries."
So in some European countries you already pay a royalty to music companies on all blank media regardless of the intended use? Does the Red Cross pay music company royalties on the blank SSDs in their new laptops? Do researchers at the large hadron collider pay a music royalty on the blank USB drives used to store their data? Do individuals pay music company royalties for the blank SD card used in their personal cameras?
You guys still haven't figured out this taxation without representation thing.
Yes
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
People don't care. Just give your money to the people that already have plenty and shut up.
It all looks like some old re-run of Who's the Boss followed by Golden Girls. Who buys blank CDs to copy ripped music anyways? It is all being saved in hard disks and SDcards anyway. Blank DVDs and CDs have gone the way VHS cassettes and D-90 audio cassettes have gone. Create a tax, limit it to these media, make sure the tax is not extended to hard disks and SD cards, and make the ripping legal.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
> This attitude of piracy hasn't helped anything whatsoever. Before piracy, we had Trent Reznors, Joe Satriani, and many other good artists promoted.
If you think that "piracy" and "freeloading" are anything new then you're an idiot. Perhaps you're just some cluless tweener that's simply too young to have experienced the world "pre internet".
Entire sub-genres of music only got a foothold through rampant piracy before relevant gatekeepers decided to relent.
The idea of new bands being put through the meat grinder paying their dues is also nothing new. I guess they just whined about it less and just stuck it out.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Buy used CDs only, and cleanly sidestep the greedy bastards. Support your favorite musicians by going to live performances instead.
I've perfected a system for aquiring new music. First, keep a permanent list of artists/albums you are interested in. Any time you hear music that interests you, record it to the list. My current list has about 300 line items. I will probably never get to cross them all off the list in my lifetime, but the point is to have a ready list to guide your used CD purchases (never just go and browse). Next, every few months or whenever you feel like it, go to an online used CD store like secondspin.com. It has to be online because you need a vast selection to make this work. Then, simply go down your list and search for each one (or whatever catches your eye, as long as it comes from the list). Give yourself a threshold for price, for example $6 per CD, and stick to it. This is important because it needs to be cost-effective to get the most out of the plan. Narrow down your choices to about 10 CDs and make the purchase. When they arrive, archive each CD to your music collection in FLAC format, and put the original away in storage. The original CDs don't have to be in perfect shape. They only need to archive perfectly, because once they are archived, you have a perfect master from which you can derive MP3s or any other format, any time you please. Enjoy your new additions to the collection and repeat the process when you feel the need for some fresh material.
I have amassed a collection of hundreds of CDs this way, resulting in a very large FLAC archive. I started doing this over 10 years ago when storage wasn't cheap, but now it is. I create playlists using a homebrew tagging system and MPD with the Sonata frontend, and simply play the FLACs directly off the master archive. Tip: chown the entire archive to root:root to eliminate the chance of any rogue software messing with it.
Well, at least we have something that's not just pulled from the nether regions of whatever judge happens to be deciding a case. In a forum full of IT geeks, it should really not be controversial that there should be well documented policies and procedures and that you should actualy follow them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not being British, I am not familiar with the higher law the court referenced.
Can someone please explain which law guarantees the companies in question immunity from financial harm?
Because there is no such law in the US - if Congress passed a law saying it was legal to rip CD's, they would have to argue that said law violates one of the amendments of the Constitution. They could also claim they were entitled to compensation via certain treaties, but that would not invalidate the original law, just declare that they are owed compensation.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It is the outlawing of personal use copying which is clearly illegal.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
Before piracy, we had Trent Reznors, Joe Satriani, and many other good artists promoted.
Uh, dude, you do realize that Nine Inch Nails have been uploading their new albums to torrent sites, right? Because they figured that exposure through those sites sold more copies of their music than trying to stop piracy?
And that piracy has been the norm since the invention of the cassette tape? What do you think those dual-tape cassette decks my generation grew up with were for?
It is, in fact, the outlawing of personal copies that is illegal. Please adjust your ruling to reflect this fact.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
It is posts like this that make me chuckle to myself every time a UK citizen goes off in a 2nd amendment thread about how his country is so freaking awesome.
If you look at how commercially successful musicians made a living for the past 800-1000 years, its *always* been sponsored in a round about way by the rich & powerful of the time to serve their interests. Whether it was the church, aristocrats, or CEOs.
There was always folk/"pop" music you would have heard in taverns, schools, family gatherings, etc, but it wasn't until the invention of the phonograph that large portions of that were capable of being preserved and nobody every "made it big" hammering out drinking songs in the corner pub.
The explosion of recorded pop music that started in the 1910s - 1920s with jazz, ragtime, & similar only occurred because a special combination of technology, companies out to make a buck, and a relatively high level of disposable income. As time went on, the culturally uniting effects of music as well as increased available of technology with the radio, then record, and CD (with magnetic media scattered throughout) made it possible for companies to make ever increasing profit. They promoted artists to make more money. Period. You have to realize that very, very few of the total musicians for any given genre that has ever hugely taken off make any real money. How many jazz musicians do you think were working other jobs for every Miles Davis? How many singer song writers for every Jimmy Buffet out there are just smoking pot in their mom's basement and working at walmart? How many people are shredding on a Les Paul at corner bars for every Joe Satriani out there?
Point being, making pop music never has, and never will be a viable way to make a living for all but a very, very small portion of everyone who has an interest in making music.
What the internet has done for music that is I see as good on a whole, is made it possible for literally anyone on the planet to create a song that is heard by millions if only enough people actually like it. Sure, commercial entities can play a role, but the entire concept of a viral video is that it tugs at some common thread that runs prevalent enough through humanity as a whole to be of *interest* to millions in a day in age where attention spans are shorter than ever and there is more music at your finger tips that you could ever listen to in a hundred life times.
Sure, youtube sensations like "what does the fox say" and "gangam style" lack a certain degree of complexity and craftsmanship compared to, say for example the work of Led Zeppelin. But does that doesn't make them any less "good" in their own way.
The music industry that you seem to describe as knowing & loving from what I would say is the mid-to-late 1990s was just a brief "blip" in the much bigger history of music, that I agree is in inevitable decline, but such is the way of the universe.
It's 'unlawful' (haha) because they don't like it, they think they won't make as much profit because of it, that's why.
Of course in reality they're squabbling over nothing at all, becuase nothing they do is going to stop people from ripping CDs anwyay. They may as well try to put a tax on people's ears, for all the good it'll do them.
You know ... you're such a motherfucker, when you were born, the last part of you to come out of your mom's vagina was your penis, and only reluctantly.
You are single handedly the reason why more and more site forums want to kill off anonymous comments because of mental asylum worthy comments like the above.
Hows the weather down there in -1 land? Don't worry if you are not there yet; you soon will be.
Quadraphonic audio?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
To hell with it! The Mafia cannot be made illegal - it would be a crime!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I personally know a musician that makes a living selling CDs, gigging in people's living rooms and tiny venues, and even selling futures for new work.
It's possible, but you need to create, maintain, and promote your own brand.n Kinda like what the labels did years ago.
Of course, live music isn't what it used to be. People have always wanted productions, but most new 'concert musicians' seem to rely on the theater, less on the music, with notable exceptions.
'Killed the music industry'? I see more music than ever available.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And from what I understand, the whole thing is just a complete failure:
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2009/09/proceeds-of-canadas-blank-media-levy.html
and
https://torrentfreak.com/canada-increases-music-industry-subsidy-on-blank-cds-081213/
Any chance of this ruling being reversed?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And a UK citizen could put that content on a CD.
So I'd like a piece of that black CD tax you collect.
thank you, please mail the check to the US Federal Reserve, I'll use it as a tax write off.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Before any of this, I listened to Dark Side of the Moon for weeks before it was available for sale. Taped it from WABB (now WABD) on a Sunday night, copiend from the Revox reel-to-reel to a cassette repeatedly as I wore that out.
Bought the album the second day it was on sale. Copied that to reel-to-reel and cassettes to play as much as I could.
Bought the CD the week it was released.
And ripped the CD to my computer, then to Google, and listen to it entirely too much.
I bought it twice. No, I do not intend to buy it again. I still have the CD, but new puters are coming out without CD drives. This alone may make the ripping debate die, as I have to re-rip my collection to new formats for 'permanent' retrieval.
Don't call it archiving. It's just alternative playback.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
First off. People rip CDs for personal use anyway, it hasn't stopped, no one cares that they aren't supposed to. In fact in many countries I believe legal backups for personal use is allowed.
Second, they shouldn't be allowed to try and demand more money because we listen to their music on a different device. E.G CD player or mp3 player.
If we purchased the content, it's none of your fucking business what device I choose to listen to it on.
Third, all they're really trying to do is get money for content no one wants or buys anymore. E.G Taxes on blank CDs. I personally don't know anyone who copies a ton of music to cds anymore. I personally don't have a CD rom at the moment, but when I do I use it for long term backups of things I can't replace, like family videos.
Since when are they entitled to make money off of that?
Try listening to some independent music.
http://rogerclyneandthepeacema...
Live concert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Copying CDs is not theft. Nice try :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... apparently you managed to find your way here in order to post this so it cannot have been much of a problem for you.
But how many people didn't figure it out. And how many valuable comments were lost as a result?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Dear content industry,
I survive without your content.
Not very easily, at least if you live in a city. You need food to survive. If you buy this food at the grocery store, a percentage of what you pay goes toward royalties for playing music over the speaker system. If you instead grow all your own food in a victory garden, you may be committing a zoning infraction, as in the case of Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan.
You're forgetting the countless incredible pieces of music which is instrumental/synthesized only.
Which orchestras perform to live paying audiences.
Support your favorite musicians by going to live performances instead.
That might work in some countries. But in a large part of the industrialized English-speaking world, the drinking age is 21, and people who aren't old enough to drink are barred from even entering drinking establishments. What is a high school student or college underclassman supposed to do if his or her favorite musician plays only an age-restricted show within reasonable travel distance?
Everyone who imports, manufactures or sells storage media (harddrives, optical media, game consoles, phones, mp3 players etc.) are required to pay these fees. This only applies when sold to consumers; corporate customers are exempt. What is weird is that game consoles, which are typically unable to even be used for copying, are covered by this. Every year the organizations keeps expanding the scope of the laws. There have been talks about a generic 'broadband tax' for years. In the current example, I belive that is the end goal; start with something people think is unimportant, like optical media in today's world. Get the legal boilerplate in place, then scope creep with the argument that it 'has to keep up with the advancing technology'.
I hope this help you guys to understand the consequences of such a system. Sources:
> Thank you, pirates. You got your freebies, but you destroyed everything in the process and killed the music industry as a whole.
Gee, let's conveniently ignore the facts:
* http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... or http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
* https://torrentfreak.com/bitto...
* http://business.time.com/2013/...
All the numbers relating piracy to lost sales are complete imaginary and bullshit. There has never been a financial statement listing the dollar amount of piracy.
Shhhh! The adults are trying to have a conversation!
Now: Go back to your containment unit (aka 4CHAN) and stay there, or we'll have to use The Hose on you again.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Excellent rant. There's just one problem with it: piracy actually increases music sales.
I'm sure that some people have bought music after listening to a pirated version. I'm sure hundreds of times more people have not bought music because they already had the pirated copy. If you have some documentation that shows that there are more people that buy the music after pirating it than don't, I would love to see it and I'm sure that lots of other people do as well.
But that being said, there is no reason why the record industry has to give any kudos to people who pirated and then came back and bought later. I could go to the grocery store 1,000 times and pay for the groceries, but the one time I walk out without paying, they can have me arrested. Even if I then offer to pay them for the groceries, they can still hold up the charges.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
(They suggested an alternative: taxing blank CDs and storage devices, sharing the resulting funds among rightsholders.)
Canada tried this, and naturally, it didn't satiate the rightsholders' infinite greed for long. Don't do this, it's pointless.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Fair point about the Biebers, Brittneys, Iggys, Kanyes, and Taylors of music these days.
But just to be a bit pedantic... You can't really properly call Nine Inch Nails a band. NiN is basically just Trent Reznor in his studio producing. When he feels like making a bit of extra cash touring he hires whatever guitarists and keyboardists are available, has them learn his songs, dresses them in black for a a few months, and still uses a drum machine to keep the beat.
Imagine all the people...
I mean if i buy a song on itunes it automatically syncs with my iphone and ipad all of a sudden i have 3 copies of the same song are they trying to say thats illegal?
what am i supposed to do with a cd? I haven't even seen a player in a couple years of friggin course i'm going to rip it into itunes and throw the coaster away.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
So apparently they want a special tax just for them, to pay for the cost of "piracy." At the same time they want it to be completely illegal to format shift any of your personal music, or rip in any way. How they think this is logical I'll never know.
How nice they think they can get the government to collect free money for them also. I'm not opposed to a blank media tax, but the money should stay in government coffers and never go to the pockets of a special interest group.
But if indeed a blank media tax is really going to offset the cost of piracy (and really that's the only justification that can be offered for such a tax., then logically, since the cost of copying is already paid for, there should be no prohibition on copying whatsoever. But no, they want to have it both ways, which benefits only them and offers consumers no benefits.
Am I the only one who finds the removal of the "read more" links on the front page to decrease the usability of the web site dramatically?
Before any of this internet nonsense, I found an unlabeled cassette tape in a desk in my chem class in maybe 1985. It turned out to be a comp, that after playing it for friends, turned out to be mostly Black Flag, Dead Kennedys and Suicidal Tendencies. I proceeded to buy every album I could find, not only from those bands, but bands like them, like Hüsker Dü. Relevant to piracy in general, but not the the OP.
Relevant to the OP, I own this album. I bought it. I am going to put it on my hard drive, make tapes of it for my old car that only has a tape deck, and put it on my mp3 player, because I want to listen to it everywhere, because I dig it.
This is nonsense, to stop people from listening to music the paid for, wherever they want to listen to it.
I love what you are doing. I have a similar scheme myself but has not yet advanced it to full aquisition mode. I have actually heard people complain even about this, despite it being completely legal. It amazes me; when corporations skew the laws in their favor, it is for the greater good. When you follow the laws, but simply don't do it exactly as someone else intended, you are bad.
It seems you can only be a good citizen if you spend money, and spend frivolously. Personally I like to save money for the fun of it and then I give it to people in need. The irony of that being, by inference, evil is great fun.
In Sweden, we are actually allowed to share music between friends because we actually have fees on blank media. I am not sure that is allowed for "ripped" music, perhaps only full disc-to-disc copies. Nevertheless, if legal, you could even do this on "crowdsourcing" basis with local friends..
I have a record with a sleeve that says "home taping is killing music" with an amazing cassette skull and cross bones:
http://nathanbeach.com/noteboo...
Metalica, ironically enough, comes to mind. They had a following before they even had an official album, thanks to bootlegs of local gigs that started making rounds.
How about all the pirates that wouldn't have bought the album in the first place? I think both of you can be right. Pirating increases the total "market" (people experiencing the music) and potentially the total market (people buying the music, or going to your concerts). There is an opportunity cost associated with finding/trying new music. Especially if you are into stuff a bit off mainstream (progressive death metal anyone?) you often have to special order albums. Special ordering an album for $25 and then coming back to the store to pick it up in a week so I can tryout a band my friend said is cool isn't happening. Paying money for bits I download isn't happening either. I've gone to concerts and bought merch from bands I originally discovered because I was referred to them by a friend and then acquired their albums.
If I had to find them online and order it then deal with receiving the package in the mail or whatever ... no thanks. mp3 has become the "have you heard that song on the radio" or modern society: get over it. They have to make money in different ways because media on a disc is indistinguishable from media on a torrent. Also, I don't think because you are good with a guitar you deserve 10M a year but if you are good with a keyboard you get 100k is fair either. Merch/concerts is a better way to go: I think distributes the money to artists in a more balanced way, saves the waste of printing CDs, removes the justification for music label control ("we need 80% of the revenue because we have the production costs to pay for") etc.
So by that logic, only adults are copying music like crazy while teenagers are too honest to engage in such illegal activity and, considering the possibly crippling consequences, rather buy music.
And here I was, thinking it was the exact opposite. What a fool I am.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The dream of "making it big" has been dead a long while before the internet facilitated copying music. Music that's "big" today is something that's made to be a "hit", crafted and trimmed, with tons of marketing behind it to bullshit people into thinking that it's something great. Add a music video, pay some radio stations to put it on heavy rotation and presto, instant chart breaker.
Music is a business. Manufactured, marketed and sold. If you think it's something where you little "artist" could play any significant role you're way overestimating your importance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd be surprised if even one person had ever been prosecuted for ripping a CD for personal use. Commercial use/bootlegging/counterfeiting - of course. But I have never even heard or read of anyone suffering any penalty for ripping a CD for themselves. How would it be detected? Who would care? It's a civil matter so there is no involvement of the police or the state. How would the rights holder(s) ever detect the event of a copy being made, or be able to prove the provenance or a copy "discovered"?
In short it's a nice bit of make work for the lawyers and is of zero concern to everyone else.
btw I used to work at a regional police HQ and the gym CD player ran on ripped CDs and home burned compilations ha ha ha. Nobody gives a fuck - not the politicians, not the police, not the magistrates, not the state, not the performers - only the music industry lawyers.
But if anyone can cite even one verifiable instance of a person in England or Wales being sued, successfully or otherwise, for ripping an audio CD for personal use please, please, please post a link.
Last year the UK finally passed legislation
No it didn't, as the article linked shows. The Government (via the Intellectual Property Office) issued guidance.
After the legislation passed, several groups of rightsholders applied for a judicial review, arguing that the change would cause financial harm to them.
FYI - legislation in the UK cannot be overturned by a court.
There is plenty of evidence to support BOTH sides of this argument but there is documentation that indicates piracy doesn't harm the music industry as much as they say it does and in some cases may increase sales:
CBCNews
Case for Promoting Online Sharing
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Well I'm a fully grown adult and I'm discovering more brilliant music than I can keep up with by listening to indie and unsigned podcasts, Internet Radio stations and Bandcamp. My thing is electronic music and love bands like www.ixband.co.uk or soundcloud.com/plike-1
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The real reason is that nobody (present company excluded) cares about these things. They just do what they want to do. And if they can't: all you get is *shrugs*. But then the "blokes" will have their ales and discuss "footy".
It's about time politicians, at a sufficiently high level, start feeling that it'd be more to their advantage to listen to consumers, than it is to keep collecting from their "campaign-donating", "wining-and-dining", "meeting-and-greeting" corporate media-industry lobbyists.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
No, the correct analogy would be that you took a digital picture of the groceries and left. They still have their groceries.
I wasn't aware that a digital picture of groceries had the same nutritional value as the groceries themselves.
It's funny that he mentioned Trent Reznor because there probably isn't another artist out there that has been screwed more by the record companies. He only started making money when he got his music out there on torrent sites and let his fans pay a reasonable fee to download his music directly from his site. He's the model for what all artists should be doing now. Cut out the record companies and let the artists be supported directly by the fans. Trent is making more money today then he ever did using the old record company promotional model.
If this whole charade was deliberate. They've never, ever gone after people for copying CDs for home use even though it was illegal. Then it became legal, got reversed and now they're back where they were PLUS they have a nice new levy.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I'm an American here. In what context is the UK's regulation permitting copying of CDs ruled to be unlawful. I haven't read TFA yet, but it sounds like they're saying that this rule is at the national level. Is there some supranational organization that prohibits this or something along those lines?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I assume this means they re-issue when the cd no longer works. (must see if my cd's still work - they must be around here somewhere).
Exactly. I'd dub a copy from friends in elem. school until I'd saved enough allowance to buy the albums. Then I bought them again on CD later in high school/college, many of them more than once (damage, theft, etc.). Even the odd vinyl. By this time I was attending shows, buying merch.
Yet somehow we're the leeches. Gotcha.
Hell, Reznor was an OiNK user.
There is no such thing as too much Pink Floyd. Only days of hunger when they are unheard.
If they kill off your comments too in the process, I guess it will have been justly done. You hypocritical little bitch.
That was the 8 track wasn't it?
You got no bites, even after obviously missing the entire point to which you were replying, but I still think you showed true professionalism with that post and I award you a score of 6/10. I would have given you a 7 if you had replies. I would have awarded a solid 7.5 or 8 if the other AC had replied with anger and/or vulgarities.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'll stop all of the torrenting of music that I do, but only if copyright is severely limited. A simple 10 year years is more than enough. Anything from before that is up for grabs. Deal?
Seriously though, if they're not going to put anything back into the public domain in a reasonable time (read: in my lifetime), they can pound sand.
...
PS: this is a Gregory Isaacs record from 1982.
Memories, Dark Side of the Moon in real quadrophonic on an 8 track
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
... then the media companies do not consider you to be a market they seek. ever see a linux app from them? bsd? they seem to not want this small portion of revenue.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You know, in 2009 I downloaded an album from TPB by a fairly obscure jazz pianist. He decided to use torrents to promote his music: His album is named 'Share' and the album art contains the text 'Copyright is for losers'.
He's still obscure. Probably under 1000 people downloaded it. Last.fm counts 8 200 unique listeners.
Baptiste Trotignon, in case you're interested. Good music, in my opinion.
You need to be popular to be popular on the pirate sites.
"Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
In the fruit and vegetable section no, but for the majority of the breakfast cereal aisle the difference in nutritional value may be less than you think.
Talk about pirating :)
... I dispute the claim that piracy is killing music or that there is no good music to be heard today. If anything there is so much of it out there that it's a golden age. Sure, music discovery via radio will find you nothing but crap, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of working musicians making their way using the current tools: playing shows, selling vinyl, giving away digital for cheap or free, getting licensing and sync deals, using the Internet to spread the word. Labels and radio are pretty much dead, but music is very much alive and well.
It's OK, before your elightening post, I wasn't aware that music of any sort had nutritional value. Seriously, as a poster mentioned earlier, I remember life pre internet. I was a HS student from 90-94. Sharing via cassette tapes/mix tapes was the way it was done back then. This was before, buying copyright laws became vogue. The movie industry had just gotten their collective asseÃY handed to them by the ruling regarding VHS and time shifting.
If your seriously comparing shoplifting 1000 time vs copying your CD to mp3 and listening to it 100p your delusional.
Just because you grew up in a generations where you've been brainwashed by the media doesn't make it right.
Ripping my CDs solves the disappearing problem. So long as I can convert to current formats before the old ones perish from the market.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The music industry shouldn't have been an industry in the first place.
Disclaimer: This reply does not constitute a validation of your argument in any way.
Requiem for the American Dream