>should an infrastructure exist to download digital music for some change per track, I would support it whole-heartedly.
I agree completely with that, the point I wanted to make, is that artists DO get hurt by piracy, and just because record companies are the greater evil, doesnt mean that you are justified in hurting the artist in order to hurt the record company.
It's not the artist's fault that the record company is screwing them and the consumer, it's the record companies fault.
So instead of just pirating CDs, people should be looking at ways of supporting technologies and/or distribution methods that make record companies irrelevant, but still allow the artist to get payed. The part about the artist still getting payed becomes even more important without record companies, because in a lot of cases, it implies that the artist him / herself will very likely have to take on more of the production and equipment costs.
MP3 is an excelent way of doing that, but it relies on trust even more than traditional media. Afterall, whilst it is very easy to rip a CD, it still does take SOME effort, but it takes no effort at all to copy an mp3.
So the thing that disturbs me, is that this software is designed to encourage sharing of mp3s, and whilst that's fine if they are free in the first place, it is a very bad thing if the mp3s being shared are NOT free, whether that means they have been ripped from a CD, or bought as mp3s direct from the artist for a very reasonable price, bypassing the record company completely.
Record companies are only going to be taken out of the loop if artists feel they can trust the general public NOT to take advantage of them and pirate their music, and software like napster doesn't do anything to increase that level of trust.
If an artist says you can freely distribute his / her music, then you can.
If they dont
You cant.
Re:Does anybody care anymore that this is Illegal?
on
Easy MP3 Distribution
·
· Score: 2
As a musician myself, I find it rather disturbing that there is something like this that is so blantantly designed for widespread piracy.
I spend a LOT of my time and money on my music, and some of it, I give away on mp3.com, and am quite happy for as many people to download and share as they like. However, if I then put together an albumn, and sell it, I would like to think that I could expect people to buy it, and that I could make money off it. Afterall, if it's my music, that I have spent my time, and my money on, so I think I have a right to sell it.
MP3's and the sharing of, even with a program like Nabster, don't in themselves hurt the music industry, but the people using them to share copywrited music with people that have not bought that music DO hurt it. It is not automatically your RIGHT to hear someone elses music, something that they have put a lot of time and money into, they give you the right, either they'll charge for it, or they wont, but the right to hear it still has to be granted by the Artist.
A lot of people say that piracy like this only hurts the record companies, and not the artist, due to the artist getting only a tiny percentage of the albumn price, but they seem to miss the fact that the artist is still missing out on his / her rightful royalties.
Another argument people use, is the model of making money of merchandise and concerts, kind of similar to the 'give away the software, charge for the support' idea in the open source world. The problem with this is, that starting artists do not have a big enough fan base to make money this way. And concerts / live gigs are only appropriate for particular styles of music, and more traditional bands, and are simply impossible for those of us that rely on multitrack hard disk recording and sequencing to produce our music.
Anyway....I'm rambling and I dont know what I'm actually trying to say...
except that theft by any other name is still theft and Piracy == Theft.
>Remember, almost everybody will take something free of lower quality over something expensive (at least to most) of higher quality.
no.
Someone who wants to get a job done, and done well, will use the BEST tool that they can afford.
Price may affect the decision a little, there would probably have to be a more signficant difference in quality between a free solution, and a proprietry one, than between two solutions of simmilar cost, but it is still wrong to say that just because something is free, that someone will not pay for a better product.
At the end of the day...most people just want to do what they want to do...software, and operating systems are just a means to an end, and if someone is serious about a piece of work, they will use the means that produces the best end.
I've tried using a Virge/GX2 and that would cause my system to freeze solid periodically if i used 24 bit color, and i also have not had any luck with a Trio3D, but my old 4meg PCI S3virge (86c325) works perfectly.
hmmm.or better yet..Cubase....which is already available on two platforms (Mac & Windows)...though thier emphasis is on Mac... ...though maybe in a year or two Linux will be popular enough that they'll port it......who knows....
there is actually work being done on a Cakewalk / Cubase style app...it's a KDE app called KooBase...though i cant think of the url off hand...
from what i have seen of it...it's still got a fair way to go...but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on....
ugh.....if you must use windows...then a dual processor machine with NT would make more sense
even sound work is painful on a single processor win 9x machine....
multimedia is an area where you choose the machine and OS to suit the job.....so a Mac is probably even the better option..
but that's not the point...the question was about what was avaliabe FOR LINUX....not whether you could do it on win 98....or any other OS for that matter..
hmmm....good hard disk recording and sequencing software is the last thing i need for Linux before i can throw away windows forever........
Slashdot Mirror
>should an infrastructure exist to download digital music for some change per track, I would support it whole-heartedly.
/or distribution methods that make record companies irrelevant, but still allow the artist to get payed.
I agree completely with that, the point I wanted to make, is that artists DO get hurt by piracy, and just because record companies are the greater evil, doesnt mean that you are justified in hurting the artist in order to hurt the record company.
It's not the artist's fault that the record company is screwing them and the consumer, it's the record companies fault.
So instead of just pirating CDs, people should be looking at ways of supporting technologies and
The part about the artist still getting payed becomes even more important without record companies, because in a lot of cases, it implies that the artist him / herself will very likely have to take on more of the production and equipment costs.
MP3 is an excelent way of doing that, but it relies on trust even more than traditional media.
Afterall, whilst it is very easy to rip a CD, it still does take SOME effort, but it takes no effort at all to copy an mp3.
So the thing that disturbs me, is that this software is designed to encourage sharing of mp3s, and whilst that's fine if they are free in the first place, it is a very bad thing if the mp3s being shared are NOT free, whether that means they have been ripped from a CD, or bought as mp3s direct from the artist for a very reasonable price, bypassing the record company completely.
Record companies are only going to be taken out of the loop if artists feel they can trust the general public NOT to take advantage of them and pirate their music, and software like napster doesn't do anything to increase that level of trust.
Copyrights protect the artist's original work, it stops others from ripping it off and claiming it's theirs, it gives credit where credit is due.
If you do away with copyright law, you do away with a persons right to be credited with the work they have done.
I dont see how anyone from programer, to musician, to author, could see how that would be a good thing.
ack....
that's what i get for changing it AFTER i previewed it...
just pretend the second last and the last sentences are switched....
No he's not
You are only paying for the right if you are paying the ARTIST
I am in Australia
I dont see how a US tax on media pays me when someone pirates my music.
Piracy is NOT about big corporations, it's about screwing innocent artists.
I dont see how it pays an American musician either for that matter.
The artists dont appreciate being fucked.
The artists own the music.
That is all there is to it.
If an artist says you can freely distribute his / her music, then you can.
If they dont
You cant.
As a musician myself, I find it rather disturbing that there is something like this that is so blantantly designed for widespread piracy.
I spend a LOT of my time and money on my music, and some of it, I give away on mp3.com, and am quite happy for as many people to download and share as they like.
However, if I then put together an albumn, and sell it, I would like to think that I could expect people to buy it, and that I could make money off it.
Afterall, if it's my music, that I have spent my time, and my money on, so I think I have a right to sell it.
MP3's and the sharing of, even with a program like Nabster, don't in themselves hurt the music industry, but the people using them to share copywrited music with people that have not bought that music DO hurt it.
It is not automatically your RIGHT to hear someone elses music, something that they have put a lot of time and money into, they give you the right, either they'll charge for it, or they wont, but the right to hear it still has to be granted by the Artist.
A lot of people say that piracy like this only hurts the record companies, and not the artist, due to the artist getting only a tiny percentage of the albumn price, but they seem to miss the fact that the artist is still missing out on his / her rightful royalties.
Another argument people use, is the model of making money of merchandise and concerts, kind of similar to the 'give away the software, charge for the support' idea in the open source world.
The problem with this is, that starting artists do not have a big enough fan base to make money this way. And concerts / live gigs are only appropriate for particular styles of music, and more traditional bands, and are simply impossible for those of us that rely on multitrack hard disk recording and sequencing to produce our music.
Anyway....I'm rambling and I dont know what I'm actually trying to say...
except that theft by any other name is still theft
and Piracy == Theft.
>Remember, almost everybody will take something free of lower quality over something expensive (at least to most) of higher quality.
no.
Someone who wants to get a job done, and done well, will use the BEST tool that they can afford.
Price may affect the decision a little, there would probably have to be a more signficant difference in quality between a free solution, and a proprietry one, than between two solutions of simmilar cost, but it is still wrong to say that just because something is free, that someone will not pay for a better product.
At the end of the day...most people just want to do what they want to do...software, and operating systems are just a means to an end, and if someone is serious about a piece of work, they will use the means that produces the best end.
I've tried using a Virge/GX2 and that would cause my system to freeze solid periodically if i used 24 bit color, and i also have not had any luck with a Trio3D, but my old 4meg PCI S3virge (86c325) works perfectly.
I'd buy it too....
hmmm.or better yet..Cubase....which is already available on two platforms (Mac & Windows)...though thier emphasis is on Mac...
...though maybe in a year or two Linux will be popular enough that they'll port it......who knows....
there is actually work being done on a Cakewalk / Cubase style app...it's a KDE app called KooBase...though i cant think of the url off hand...
from what i have seen of it...it's still got a fair way to go...but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on....
ugh.....if you must use windows...then a dual processor machine with NT would make more sense
even sound work is painful on a single processor win 9x machine....
multimedia is an area where you choose the machine and OS to suit the job.....so a Mac is probably even the better option..
but that's not the point...the question was about what was avaliabe FOR LINUX....not whether you could do it on win 98....or any other OS for that matter..
hmmm....good hard disk recording and sequencing software is the last thing i need for Linux before i can throw away windows forever........