RANT on Piracy [Archive]

Badger

02-27-2012, 12:47 PM

I don't know any club dj's that DON'T share tracks. Nothing wrong with sharing music. A-Trak said he would swap hdd's with other dj's to learn new sets often....

This is the exact reason that I cringed when I saw that A-Trak quote long ago... because I knew that so many of the little wannabes of the world would start using HIS pathetic behaviour as an excuse to start stealing their own music, because "if A-Trak does it, then I can too (or should too)."

Just because A-Trak does something doesn't make it right. Just because he's well-known doesn't make him any less of a thieving piece of crap. He's just a thieving piece of crap who really should know better.

As a DJ who actually buys the music I need and DOESN'T share tracks (with very few exceptions, such as the ones I've legally produced myself)... I tend to resent those "DJs" who are freely and illegally passing around the tracks for which I have shelled out my hard-earned money, strictly because I choose to play by the rules and those other DJs somehow think they're "above" the rules.

If all the DJs pirating their collections choose to do everything that A-Trak did because "A-Trak is doing it," then hopefully one day A-Trak will walk out in his front yard and set himself on fire. The resulting immolations around the world will make the DJ industry a lot better, overall.

If you're going to play in the real grown-up DJ world, then you need to act like a grown-up. If you love the music, then you need to buy the music. Stealing music doesn't make you a respected DJ... it just makes you a thief and a disgrace to the industry.

Badger :badger:

Defiance

02-27-2012, 12:56 PM

http://jeremygohblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wpid-tumblr_l9z3t8oCbJ1qzl2uzo1_500.jpg

Signal Lost

02-27-2012, 12:58 PM

thehadgi

02-27-2012, 01:18 PM

so angry! :argh: :argh:

Sween

02-27-2012, 01:26 PM

As per George Takei this morning...

To err is human... To arrr is pirate!

Arrrrrr! :argh:

BuddyUK

02-27-2012, 01:32 PM

BuddyUK

02-27-2012, 01:39 PM

In addition do not value A-traks opinion on anything.

TopangaS2k

02-27-2012, 01:44 PM

I enjoy paying for tracks since i feel the selection of music is always much better, you get album art, and you can choose your format which is a big plus if you love Wav files...
Pay for quality!

And to BuddyUK^^, I disagree with your statement... I used to look down at digital but i see its potential...It is the furutre so get used to it. If you love spinning stricly vinyl than good for you. Truth is, with some of these newer setups i see dj's getting more creative with the music by focusing more on effects and other elements. I personally spin with cd's so im kinda somewhere in the middle but I still dont think vinyl is the logical way to go these days and ive come to try and appreciate digital for what it can do.

edit: sorry to get off topic...Back to anti piracy... :]

thehadgi

02-27-2012, 01:49 PM

oh noz, thread heading toward vinyl vs digital again :facepalm:

back on topic. piracy = dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

http://wtfcontent.com/img/130200526075.jpg

Sigma

02-27-2012, 05:40 PM

Imagine if you put out a mixtape on SoundCloud. Then, one night, you go at that nice lounge in your area. And you hear your stolen mix playing on the PA system! I'm sure you'd be exploding in anger. But hey, making money from other's work without paying is not piracy it seems! (Funny how when the pirater gets himself pirated, the story takes a new perspective).
The difference there, is that if a DJ is playing your entire mixtape in a bar then he's almost certainly doing that to pass it off as something he'd made. That would be the equivalent of me posting a track by The Prodigy in the production section on here and saying "I made this!", so it's not the same thing as piracy.

If you even put up a mixtape on SoundCloud in the first place, then you're guilty of copyright infringement just like pirates, unless you get clearance for all of the tracks.

My attitude to piracy is "try before you buy, but don't forget the 'buy' part when you like something". Back when I was a kid, people at school used to make mixtapes for each other (unmixed comps on tapes) and that would get them into certain singers or bands, which means they then became a fan and went on to buy their records. It's probably why some research done into this yields results like this: -

The Norwegian study looked at almost 2,000 online music users, all over the age of 15. Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

peterwo2e

02-27-2012, 06:06 PM

thehadgi

02-27-2012, 06:09 PM

just like you can't prove your friendly priest is a pedophile.

this post for the win. comparing piracy to pedophilia :err:

Sigma

02-27-2012, 06:11 PM

Hamza21

02-27-2012, 06:18 PM

The difference there, is that if a DJ is playing your entire mixtape in a bar then he's almost certainly doing that to pass it off as something he'd made. That would be the equivalent of me posting a track by The Prodigy in the production section on here and saying "I made this!", so it's not the same thing as piracy.

If you even put up a mixtape on SoundCloud in the first place, then you're guilty of copyright infringement just like pirates, unless you get clearance for all of the tracks.

My attitude to piracy is "try before you buy, but don't forget the 'buy' part when you like something". Back when I was a kid, people at school used to make mixtapes for each other (unmixed comps on tapes) and that would get them into certain singers or bands, which means they then became a fan and went on to buy their records. It's probably why some research done into this yields results like this: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

Agreed! I would also add I 1000% support file sharing. File sharing is not piracy. I refuse to believe the illogical non-sense that a file is not my property and I don't have the right to do with it as I please. bullsh*t!! I have no problem with what A Trak did. Back in the day DJ's always trading records. Most of us from those days don't accept a file as license and not property. Look at J Rocc and DJ Spinna and other remixers they trade the actual master studio tracks amongst themselves. It is known by the labels when certain remixers work on a project that the remixers will trade files with their peers. It's not a secret.

People need to face facts file sharing is the new radio, the new vehicle to get noticed,gain listeners and customers of your brand. As a blogger for over 6 years I dropped plenty of albums by little known artists on my site and many thanked me for promoting their stuff. File sharing is my view is not piracy! Piracy is using another product for your sole benefit such selling a copy of DVD on street. File sharing between dj's or blogposting is no different promotion giveaways in my opinion and I will never change my mind on that.

Hamza21

02-27-2012, 06:26 PM

music pirates and those that are against it but yet some are hypocrites. is a moral issue can't prove the next dj is a pirate. just like you can't prove your friendly priest is a pedophile. i' been a member of a few mp3 record pool's and video pools i can't prove that their music is legal or illegal but I'm lining somebody's pocket. i feel good and i leave it at that,

Very few DJ pools are 100% legal. Even older establish pools sell "illegal" downloads. If you pool allows to download a track older than 5 years (unless the material has been released by labels) it's an illegal download. DJ Pools are for new music and not intended to be sound libraries for deejays. However since a pool is a business they give their customers what they want and the labels look the other way about it since most labels don't make any money from pools anyway. There looked upon at promotion giveaways by labels. Artists,songwriters,producers don't receive any royalties from pools.

Jimanee

02-27-2012, 07:21 PM

BuddyUK

02-27-2012, 07:40 PM

Just a few thoughts:

Hey didn't we used to get paid loads more? I mean really us DJs used to get paid large amounts because we had to buy large amounts of vinyl, that's gone now, so where do we get paid to buy our tunes?

I don't pirate myself, I gets my tunes from cheap MP3 sites, does it upset me that the artists of the chart swill I'm buying only get 15 pence per track, not in the slightest.

I only pay full price for tunes that I love and that happens about 3-4 times a month

i know producers and Label owners who say the same, the money has disappeared along with the record shops and distributors, who is making the money from the small amount of people who actually BUY digital tracks, look into it man, fcuking con job bro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-2HKDljJbA

peterwo2e

02-27-2012, 10:11 PM

this is exactly my point. when i join a music pool i ask them if they are legit they say %100 percent YES. are they B.S ? who do you ask?

Era 7

02-28-2012, 08:04 AM

Agreed! I would also add I 1000% support file sharing. File sharing is not piracy. 1. I refuse to believe the illogical non-sense that a file is not my property and I don't have the right to do with it as I please. bullsh*t!! I have no problem with what A Trak did. 2. Back in the day DJ's always trading records. Most of us from those days don't accept a file as license and not property. 3. Look at J Rocc and DJ Spinna and other remixers they trade the actual master studio tracks amongst themselves. It is known by the labels when certain remixers work on a project that the remixers will trade files with their peers. It's not a secret.

1. your opinion but nothing to back it up. just because you "refuse to believe it" does not make it right

2. keyword is TRADE. nobody has more in the end.

3. it is their own work. not somebody else's

jazzyj

02-28-2012, 08:47 AM

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/237/236/8cd.png

Hamza21

02-28-2012, 11:13 AM

1. your opinion but nothing to back it up. just because you "refuse to believe it" does not make it right

My experience backs it up and it's your opinion it's not right. Look I stated before I will never deviate from the position I can not do as I please with my property.

2. keyword is TRADE. nobody has more in the end.
file sharing is trading.

3. it is their own work. not somebody else's

You're wrong who wons the copyright to motown songs? not J Rocc or DJ Spinna. When they are given the master studio master tracks to remix they also make copies and trade the master tracks between themselves. There is about dozen or so famous dj's who do this and the labels know about but look the other way .

Hamza21

02-28-2012, 11:25 AM

this is exactly my point. when i join a music pool i ask them if they are legit they say %100 percent YES. are they B.S ? who do you ask?

A dj pool is not an online music service for deejays. It is promotion device for labels to release new artists and gain promotion for established artists. Unless the material is was re-released recently you shouldn't see any music older then 10 years old. Most online DJ Pools are only 5 - 10 years old and they don't have permission to rip any track they want and provide to their customers. Again no Dj pool is 100% legal nowadays since most pools allow anybody to join. If a pool doesn't have what the majority of clients (dj's) want then they will go elsewhere so pools in order to keep their client base satisfied resort to illegally provide any song their clients want. That's not how a DJ Pool is supposed to operate.

fueledbymusic

02-28-2012, 11:40 AM

I agree with the "try before you buy" thing 122% myself

Austin GoGreen

02-29-2012, 03:32 PM

This is the exact reason that I cringed when I saw that A-Trak quote long ago... because I knew that so many of the little wannabes of the world would start using HIS pathetic behaviour as an excuse to start stealing their own music, because "if A-Trak does it, then I can too (or should too)."

Just because A-Trak does something doesn't make it right. Just because he's well-known doesn't make him any less of a thieving piece of crap. He's just a thieving piece of crap who really should know better.

As a DJ who actually buys the music I need and DOESN'T share tracks (with very few exceptions, such as the ones I've legally produced myself)... I tend to resent those "DJs" who are freely and illegally passing around the tracks for which I have shelled out my hard-earned money, strictly because I choose to play by the rules and those other DJs somehow think they're "above" the rules.

If all the DJs pirating their collections choose to do everything that A-Trak did because "A-Trak is doing it," then hopefully one day A-Trak will walk out in his front yard and set himself on fire. The resulting immolations around the world will make the DJ industry a lot better, overall.

If you're going to play in the real grown-up DJ world, then you need to act like a grown-up. If you love the music, then you need to buy the music. Stealing music doesn't make you a respected DJ... it just makes you a thief and a disgrace to the industry.

Badger :badger:

We're not using his "pathetic" whatever as an excuse... it's just what we do. Sorry. I've shared music with a lot of DJ's, one of which I won't name but is a tour DJ with a pretty well know group here in the U.S. We're promoting the artist.. Get over it.

thehadgi

02-29-2012, 03:40 PM

Well everyone will do what they want, but bewarez to the sharers... hope you don't drop the soap if you ever get caught :hump: :spin:

Austin GoGreen

02-29-2012, 03:44 PM

Just using other people's work freely in order to make money is non sense, unless those people have agreed that you do so.

Just like a moving company pays for its trucks.
Just like musicians pay for their guitars, drums, etc.
Just like a restaurant pays for the food it serves.

A DJ should pay for its music. It's a business.

If you pay 4000$ on gear and can't even bother paying for your tunes, you hould reconsider your career choices.

Just because piracy is copying, or because some say it does not hurt the artist, it still remains that this artist worked hard on producing a track, invested in a studio and often has years of musical experience.

Imagine if you put out a mixtape on SoundCloud. Then, one night, you go at that nice lounge in your area. And you hear your stolen mix playing on the PA system! I'm sure you'd be exploding in anger. But hey, making money from other's work without paying is not piracy it seems! (Funny how when the pirater gets himself pirated, the story takes a new perspective).

I paid for my equipment just like restraraunts pay for their equipment/food. They do not, in most cases, pay for recipes they cook...

The original chef who created pizza sauce isn't getting paid for every pizza sold.

The original drummer isn't getting paid for his compisition of #1 most used break beat (Amen Break) which is still used in today's pop music.

I never said that I didn't pay for my music, but I'm also saying that there isn't a DJ I know that doesn't share music/sets.

Austin GoGreen

02-29-2012, 03:48 PM

I hate Somalians too. http://specialsmilies.com/pixels/albums/pirates/pirate_wheel.gif

Doesn't even piss me off anymore, just take it for granted that all the digital guys just pirate the shit out of everything and have 200,000 tracks, you all sound the same and bore the shit out of me anyway, seriously doubt any of you have any skill and just let the software do it for you, my mum could do it if she actually knew how to use a computer. If I want a song I want it in my hand in record form, would rather trainwreck every track in a mix with vinyl than do a perfect mix on digital, what's the point? No challenge, no, effort, no skill. It'll be fcukng ipad djs next and I'm not even joking.

Actually they already are being used... my partner, another turntablist DJ just bought his 2nd ipad and has been fooling around with it for a lighter load. He seen a party rock club DJ in Louisville, KY perform with two ipads, rane 57, and SSL just a few weeks ago. Said he was pretty dope so he wanted to check it out....

DjDisArm

02-29-2012, 09:18 PM

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/237/236/8cd.png

:lol:

Rothgery

02-29-2012, 09:23 PM

http://jeremygohblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wpid-tumblr_l9z3t8oCbJ1qzl2uzo1_500.jpg

Does that concept also copy the money lost from the artists who worked on the track? hmmm

Rothgery

02-29-2012, 09:29 PM

[
I paid for my equipment just like restraraunts pay for their equipment/food. They do not, in most cases, pay for recipes they cook...

The original chef who created pizza sauce isn't getting paid for every pizza sold.

recipes that you cook with are not copy written. dumb analogy.

people that make pizza buy their own ingredients and make their own sauce - as musicians buy their own instruments and make their own music. dumber analogy.

electricsmooth

02-29-2012, 10:47 PM

Before any of this online piracy business existed, we were forced to buy a whole album of crap for one track that was ok. Furthermore, shortly after releasing the album, the artist would often release a track that wasn't even on the album. There was a lot of thievery going on in those days on behalf of the music industry. We used to borrow everyone's cds and have ultimate mix tape competitions.

I think something good has come out of piracy. The music industry lets you buy singles at a reduced price online- not forcing you to buy a album of complete shit music that you know the artist just put together last minute to make some $$$.

Most struggling artists normally release their music for free anyways. Last time I checked, mainstream artists were still rolling in Bentleys and popping bottles of Grey Goose (or claiming to be).

thehadgi

02-29-2012, 11:29 PM

BuddyUK

02-29-2012, 11:43 PM

electricsmooth

02-29-2012, 11:45 PM

Listen buddy, I download my stuff legally but I can provide any comments I want. Don't think you are on higher mora;l ground than me because you believe everything the media feeds you.

thehadgi

03-01-2012, 12:00 AM

You seem to believe the media when it tells you that producers are making boatloads of money

Aaand that tiny fraction, like the rappers you mentioned, making the amount they do somehow justifies piracy? I got an album coming out soon, so feel free to pirate that, because lil Wayne makes a lot of money. Plus I should give that album away for free anyways right, because it's not like I'd rather work less to support producing so I can focus more on my music.

electricsmooth

03-01-2012, 12:11 AM

First of all, I'm not pirating anything. This is a hobby for me. Not a big business venture. If I do a gig (top 40 is all that people want to hear around these parts), I'll pay for 7-10 recent popular tracks and mix them up with the rest of what i have.

I'm just saying that In the 90s, I was getting sick of buying crap. Throwing down 15-20 bucks on a cd that was complete shit. If you wanted just the single, it was 5-8 bucks (I'm talking Canada here). I'm glad the tables have turned and I can now buy a whole playlist of usable material for $50.

Lemme know when your album comes out. I'll buy it.

BuddyUK

03-01-2012, 12:17 AM

Listen buddy, I download my stuff legally but I can provide any comments I want. Don't think you are on higher mora;l ground than me because you believe everything the media feeds you.

what the fcuk are you talking about ? Not even taking a 'higher moral ground', steal away to your hearts content, don't care anymore, it's too late, been trying to warn you guys for years now, at the end of the day I think you're all talentless shits who play dull soulless crap that all the sounds the same and don't have a scooby doo about what being underground is all about. Got a problem with that lad?

electricsmooth

03-01-2012, 12:26 AM

Just a matter of time before one of you I-use-2-technics-and-real-vinyl-so-I-have-a-right-to-talk-shit-about-anyone-who-isn't-a-real-dj to show up.

Please close the thread now, God has spoken and he lives in the UK

BuddyUK

03-01-2012, 12:41 AM

electricsmooth

03-01-2012, 01:22 AM

So if you aren't even a decent DJ, what gives you the right to come here and cal everyone talentless?

I'll admit, I'm primarily a software guy. I am a straight up average DJ. What are you even arguing? A bit off topic I think.

You talk like you're the Dirty Harry of Djing. In fact, when I read your last post, I had a chuckle. Sounded like something Dirty Harry would say if he were a DJ.

TocaTone

03-01-2012, 01:42 AM

Mmmm, interesting. If Dirty Harry was a DJ do you think he would pay for his tracks? I think that's the real question here folks.

dlove

03-01-2012, 02:28 AM

I'm just saying that In the 90s, I was getting sick of buying crap. Throwing down 15-20 bucks on a cd that was complete shit. If you wanted just the single, it was 5-8 bucks (I'm talking Canada here). I'm glad the tables have turned and I can now buy a whole playlist of usable material for $50.

.

buying a shit cd makes you a bad curator. That won't change just because you're not paying the money anymore, it just means that you'll have loads of shit music for free.

dlove

03-01-2012, 02:32 AM

[QUOTE=electricsmooth;32186]

Most struggling artists normally release their music for free anyways./QUOTE]

Most underground producers, djs are holding down day jobs because hardly any fucker pays for their music anymore, that's the real situation.

either that, or their management try & get some money back by upping the performance fee. That means that underground clubs either run at a loss to promote good music, or the door money goes up. Not good, in these skint times.

Rothgery

03-01-2012, 02:46 AM

242

lulz

dlove

03-01-2012, 02:52 AM

I keep thinking this (yeah, I think in Acid Jazz.)

9q2zZL3bWrU

JuxtaPoser

03-01-2012, 05:55 AM

http://nextlol.com/images/49939-what-happens-when-you-pirate-your-music.jpg

Era 7

03-01-2012, 06:04 AM

My experience backs it up and it's your opinion it's not right. Look I stated before I will never deviate from the position I can not do as I please with my property.

and how exactly does your "experience" has any say in this? also may i recite the terms of agreement of beatport

Any copying, distribution, use or sharing is not permitted by this Agreement or applicable provisions of the United States Copyright Code, and is in violation of U.S. and international copyright and intellectual property laws.

so nope: you can't

file sharing is trading.

i again quote:
Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or entity to another.

when trading vinyl nobody has a benefit (maybe a subjective benefit but no real world benefit). you gained one and you at the same time lost one. sharing is not the same.

i really don't give a rat's ass about what you do with your stuff but don't expect to not disagree.

and to everybody that says "we promote the artist": i wanna see how fucking underground your stuff is so that it needs "promotion".

jazzyj

03-01-2012, 06:20 AM

I paid for my equipment just like restraraunts pay for their equipment/food. They do not, in most cases, pay for recipes they cook...

The original chef who created pizza sauce isn't getting paid for every pizza sold.

The original drummer isn't getting paid for his compisition of #1 most used break beat (Amen Break) which is still used in today's pop music.

I never said that I didn't pay for my music, but I'm also saying that there isn't a DJ I know that doesn't share music/sets.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

But you cannot copyright a recipe in the same manner that you can copyright a song.

Adzm00

03-01-2012, 08:01 AM

Porn is the exception to the rule.

Alex Murphy

03-01-2012, 09:31 AM

Like I said in a previous thread: I have in my possession a 2011 report from the music industry that was ordered by the majors. To make it short, it says they made more money than ever before and they are polishing their marketing techniques to make even more money. Music customers are ranked in different classes which are more or less derogatory, and it turns out that the people who illegally acquire music are also the same who will buy more music, concert tickets and merchandising than everyone else.

I cannot take side with the majors as they are clearly lying, but I don't approve of piracy either. This subject will go on, and on, and on, forever. For the kids who weren't there in the early 80s, they tried to ban dual deck tape players.

Now Aol time warner is supplying you with the internet and Sony with the hardware, yet warner music and sony music are still moaning about people using the technology they provide in the first place. There is absolutely no logic in this apart from lies and deceit, the only point is, more money. And it doesn't necessarily end up in the artist's pockets, but more like the executives and their private jet champagne caviar parties.

TL;DR lies and crooks, but piracy is baaad mmmkay.

Porn is the exception to the rule.

If that was the case, Sir Branson wouldn't have registered a virgin website (excuse the pun) under a .xxx adress ;)

He probably believes there's a ton of money to make out of it.

Austin GoGreen

03-01-2012, 10:25 AM

Not a real DJ, many would laugh to hear me called such, just a record collector, consistently held the bottom spot when we had battle stats here, just not some mug who follows the herd, hear me play you are going to hear some shit you've never heard before and I don't need no computer to do it for me, can you say the same?

Maybe that's why you're a broke DJ... I'm just keeping it real. You're blaming being broke on people pirating music in another post. I'm just saying, this post says it all ^. You call us talentless bums who follow the herd... Dude you've never heard me spin for a live crowd. First and foremost I do it for the love of the music. Second, I do it to entertain my crowds with fresh music mixed with the classics. I have a couple thousand pieces of vinyl that sit in my basement collecting dust. Get over it, times changed.

If Chuckie drops a remix to a Micheal Jackson banger and it's hot, I'm gonna grab that. No sweat.

jazzyj

03-01-2012, 10:27 AM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... let it go. I'm tired.

Finnish_Fox

03-01-2012, 03:39 PM

Not across the board... I used to have 4x or 5x copies of the same 12" and giving one or trading one to a friend was never considered theft... or piracy.

BuddyUK

03-01-2012, 04:19 PM

Maybe that's why you're a broke DJ... I'm just keeping it real. You're blaming being broke on people pirating music in another post. I'm just saying, this post says it all ^. You call us talentless bums who follow the herd... Dude you've never heard me spin for a live crowd. First and foremost I do it for the love of the music. Second, I do it to entertain my crowds with fresh music mixed with the classics. I have a couple thousand pieces of vinyl that sit in my basement collecting dust. Get over it, times changed.

If Chuckie drops a remix to a Micheal Jackson banger and it's hot, I'm gonna grab that. No sweat.

:facepalm: You and your audience deserve each other BRO.

BuddyUK

03-01-2012, 04:21 PM

Not across the board... I used to have 4x or 5x copies of the same 12" and giving one or trading one to a friend was never considered theft... or piracy.

Because it blatently isn't? :confused:

BuddyUK

03-01-2012, 04:29 PM

If that was the case, Sir Branson wouldn't have registered a virgin website (excuse the pun) under a .xxx adress ;)

He probably believes there's a ton of money to make out of it.

Believe he was referring to the fact that porn has always, and at times been the only industry that made money out of the internet, except for stock bubbles etc. even reaching back to the BBS days.

Finnish_Fox

03-01-2012, 05:59 PM

Because it blatently isn't? :confused:

Which was my point. Someone said that "in the old days", sharing tracks was called "theft".

peterwo2e

03-01-2012, 06:06 PM

:lol:
:lol:

this is funny yet so ironic.:lol:

M!TCH

03-02-2012, 07:44 AM

Porn is the exception to the rule.

Thank you. If you had to treat piracy like porn, would you still be against it? Eh? Eh?

I'm not one to tell other people what to do. Bottom line more than pirating, don't even think about playing stolen music in a position where you are making money from it. If you want to listen to your collection on your own time so be it. But making money off of stealing is just flat ass as bad as it gets. Instead of just saying don't do it which people don't want to hear, let's at least push a little bit of ethics into the equation.

Lionman

03-02-2012, 11:31 AM

Just out of curiosity... for those that are vehemently anti piracy - how do you feel about illegally downloading tv shows & films? Surely the same ethics apply to this yes?
But I'm going to go out on a limb & say that you didn't all wait until the Game Of Thrones/Boardwalk Empire/whatever box set came out before you spent the afternoon watching 4 episodes back to back.

I'll probably regret admitting this but yeah... I download some stuff illegally. I still buy vinyl & support artists that I'm especially keen on though, I try to stick to the if I really like this I'm going to buy it rule. That & there's still a vinyl fetishist in me (no giggling at the back).

It isn't always the case though. For instance, I illegally downloaded the Tuneyards album so yeah, I deprived her of my £10 but I've been to see her play live twice, both times paying over £15 for a ticket. Isn't it more likely that she'll get a bigger cut of that money than she would've from the cd sale? That is how it works right? I am still destroying the music industry?

Adzm00

03-02-2012, 11:35 AM

I won't download music illegally.

I will download TV shows and films, but I will pay for the cinema for those films I like.

Its just different, I make money on music so there is no way I could justify illegally downloading.

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 11:35 AM

I am still destroying the music industry?

... hmm probably not but you are breaking the law, yah.

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 04:00 PM

... hmm probably not but you are breaking the law, yah.

So? Civil disobedience. I smoke herb but don't have a medical prescription for it... so, therefore, I break the law and I am completely ok with that.

Why is this in the beginner's section anyways? Isn't a bit more off-topic?

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 04:41 PM

So? Civil disobedience. I smoke herb but don't have a medical prescription for it... so, therefore, I break the law and I am completely ok with that.

Why is this in the beginner's section anyways? Isn't a bit more off-topic?

so if i come steal stuff in yo house, we cool?

SpeshulEd

03-02-2012, 04:44 PM

I find this whole conversation comical...it's easy to say "I hate illegal downloading" on a message board...it's even easier to download songs while doing it. I don't mean to pass judgement, but I'm going to do it anyway. I bet most people in this thread that claim to be against it, have done it.

Life is too short to argue about this.

If you buy your tracks legally, congrats and thank you for contributing to society.
If you don't buy your tracks and download them illegally, shame and stop bragging about it on the internet.

Also, if I buy a vinyl and then illegally download the mp3s, is it still illegal? I mean technically yes, but I also technically already own the album.

Lionman

03-02-2012, 05:08 PM

so if i come steal stuff in yo house, we cool?

That all depends. If my item is still there once you've stolen it then... yeah, I guess I'm cool with that.

*Disclaimer. Although I don't think piracy is this monstrous evil that many think it is, I'm mostly just playing devils advocate in this thread & get what you're saying.
Also, I don't think that weed prohibition & piracy laws can really be compared.

BuddyUK

03-02-2012, 05:56 PM

Lionman please send me your address YOU HAVE JUST WON A NEW IPHONE!!!!!

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 06:08 PM

so if i come steal stuff in yo house, we cool?

Stealing is immoral. Breaking the law isn't necessarily. That was the point I was making.

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 06:09 PM

That all depends. If my item is still there once you've stolen it then... yeah, I guess I'm cool with that.

:lol:

Nice one.

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 06:10 PM

Stealing is immoral. Breaking the law isn't necessarily. That was the point I was making.

ok so if u goto jail for wat ure doing ure ok with that?

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 06:15 PM

ok so if u goto jail for wat ure doing ure ok with that?

I'd be bummed and out a few hundred to a few thousand dollars... but I wouldn't think of myself any less or feel that I committed an immoral act.

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 06:19 PM

I'd be bummed and out a few hundred to a few thousand dollars... but I wouldn't think of myself any less or feel that I committed an immoral act.

well alrighty. i dun care bout morals, those are subjective. im concerned bout the law - it's written n im not tryna goto jail.

Andrew B

03-02-2012, 06:50 PM

Just out of curiosity... for those that are vehemently anti piracy - how do you feel about illegally downloading tv shows & films? Surely the same ethics apply to this yes?

I feel the same way. But then, I work in the film industry. :shrug:

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 06:58 PM

well alrighty. i dun care bout morals, those are subjective. im concerned bout the law - it's written n im not tryna goto jail.

Says a lot more about you than it does about me.

No one said morals were absolute. By my moral code, there is a difference between stealing and smoking herb. One if find to be an immoral act and I would be disappointed in myself or anyone I respect to find that they have stolen. However, FOR ME, if they smoked herb, I wouldn't care.

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 06:59 PM

Says a lot more about you than it does about me.

If u say so.... Mr. pseudo-conservative Republican.

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 07:02 PM

If u say so.... Mr. pseudo-conservative Republican.

A) Well, you freely admitted morality doesn't matter. I find that to be a bit frightening.

B) :confused:

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 07:05 PM

A) Well, you freely admitted morality doesn't matter. I find that to be a bit frightening.

B) :confused:

a) my point was u cant debate morals since they are subjective depending upon the individual's beliefs. i do care about my morals, and im sure u care about urs, but if our morals disagree it's fairly certain neither of us will convince the other to change

b) i remember u from djf1.0

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 07:14 PM

a) my point was u cant debate morals since they are subjective depending upon the individual's beliefs. i do care about my morals, and im sure u care about urs, but if our morals disagree it's fairly certain neither of us will convince the other to change

b) i remember u from djf1.0

When did it turn into a discussion about changing morals? You said someone shouldn't do something because it was a legal. I responded that something being illegal doesn't make it absolutely or universally wrong/immoral. In any case, I completely agree with what you wrote above about morals.

Not sure - is that a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing?

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 07:17 PM

When did it turn into a discussion about changing morals? You said someone shouldn't do something because it was a legal. I responded that something being illegal doesn't make it absolutely or universally wrong/immoral. In any case, I completely agree with what you wrote above about morals.

Not sure - is that a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing?

a) u brought up morals. u admitted that wat u were doing was illegal. the judge is not going to care about ur morals he's going to judge u based on law

b) a bad thing. u dont like me. s'all good.

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 07:21 PM

a) u brought up morals. u admitted that wat u were doing was illegal. the judge is not going to care about ur morals he's going to judge u based on law

b) a bad thing. u dont like me. s'all good.

You are right... I did bring up morals. I brought up morals because, based on ones moral code, they may find something to be morally sound despite being illegal, such as smoking herb. You pointed out they are subjective... and since laws are "objective" (so to speak, though that is an entire discussion in an of itself), it is entirely possible for someone's moral understanding to differ from the legality of an action. So, again, something being illegal doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Ummm... I see. I have no effen clue who you are and probably didn't on DJF1.0 either, so that is some seriously strong ambivalence on my part.

jazzyj

03-02-2012, 07:23 PM

You are right... I did bring up morals. I brought up morals because, based on ones moral code, they may find something to be morally sound despite being illegal, such as smoking herb. You pointed out they are subjective... and since laws are "objective" (so to speak, though that is an entire discussion in an of itself), it is entirely possible for someone's moral understanding to differ from the legality of an action. So, again, something being illegal doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Ummm... I see. I have no effen clue who you are and probably didn't on DJF1.0 either, so that is some seriously strong ambivalence on my part.

have fun. im out.

Finnish_Fox

03-02-2012, 07:24 PM

have fun. im out.

Likewise.

M!TCH

03-02-2012, 08:33 PM

To a number of posts above this, if you are going to apply ethics to one thing you need to be able to apply your values across the board. I'm sorry, but it's bullshit when people are okay with doing one thing but this one other thing has some different application that changes it. How would you feel if what you were doing was a categorical imperative?

Lionman

03-02-2012, 08:41 PM

Lionman please send me your address YOU HAVE JUST WON A NEW IPHONE!!!!!

Really!? A new iphone?! I don't normally give out my address on the internet but in this case...

123 Fake street
Madeupstone
London

BuddyUK

03-02-2012, 09:23 PM

Really!? A new iphone?! I don't normally give out my address on the internet but in this case...

123 Fake street
Madeupstone
London

You forgot your post code m8 :(

DJAkash

03-02-2012, 11:12 PM

Hardest genre to find IMO, is my genres, the originals in so many cases need to be found in India!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have like 100 cds from the country, thank god they make data discs. But then again, how can you tell a fake from an original in the dang country it's damn near impossible for some tracks because the artists don't produce their own cd's even!!!!!!!!!!

moyo wilde

03-03-2012, 02:26 AM

well in my opinion...eh never mind...:freak:

electricsmooth

03-03-2012, 04:19 AM

Let's end with this one. Seems to make the most sense

I find this whole conversation comical...it's easy to say "I hate illegal downloading" on a message board...it's even easier to download songs while doing it. I don't mean to pass judgement, but I'm going to do it anyway. I bet most people in this thread that claim to be against it, have done it.

Life is too short to argue about this.

If you buy your tracks legally, congrats and thank you for contributing to society.
If you don't buy your tracks and download them illegally, shame and stop bragging about it on the internet.

Also, if I buy a vinyl and then illegally download the mp3s, is it still illegal? I mean technically yes, but I also technically already own the album.

thehadgi

03-03-2012, 12:06 PM

If you find the discussion comical and don't see the point in debate, you don't really have to get involved then.

@electricsmooth If there were to be a 'final' post in this thread, it would be the same post as the first.

Piracy is bad, don't do it

SpeshulEd

03-03-2012, 01:22 PM

Piracy is bad, but this is still pretty neat!

http://www.synthgear.com/2010/diy/how-to-pirate-a-vinyl-record/

moyo wilde

03-04-2012, 03:17 AM

okay a few ideas i have had:

the concept of paying for recorded sound is relatively new.

morality is fluid and is dominated by the majority, in this case the majority have spoken, and it is no longer immoral, if it ever really was. what is the difference between giving somebody a compilation tape/cd and pirating or taping things from the radio?

music will be free, all the pirating is bad is useless.

to be upset about the inevitable is illogical and might be considered crazy.

musical artist's have and will make the bulk of their money from live performances. studio technicians will make their money. the artists will still need quality product to advertise their live performances. a lot of the big names are now signed to concert promoters as opposed to traditional labels. i think this is a good thing as it will cut away studio performers, people who can only do what they do in the studio.

smart artist's will find ways to make money and survive and even thrive in this new environment. there are numerous ways that they can create revenue streams. kanye and jay z's n!qqas in paris video which a lot of people waited for was an advert for their live performance. de la soul had an album that was attached to a nike campaign.

there is an unlimited amount of good free music that artists put on the internet for free, i am happy.

you can scour the web and put together awesome sets filled entirely with music that is given away by the artists.

is there really that big of a difference between a person who pirates and a dj who makes a mix and puts it on the web for distribution? doesn't that cut into the artist's sales as well? didn't the riaa go after djs (dj drama)?

don't neg rep me, for the most part i don't pirate, anybody who says they have never done it or never will is probably a liar.

Kid Cassette

03-04-2012, 08:34 AM

I personally prefer to own the original CD or DVD to add to my collection. Pirated movie's or albums just aren't the same.

Jonno Soccio

03-04-2012, 09:10 AM

Not a real DJ, many would laugh to hear me called such, just a record collector, consistently held the bottom spot when we had battle stats here, just not some mug who follows the herd, hear me play you are going to hear some shit you've never heard before and I don't need no computer to do it for me, can you say the same?

Brilliant.... You might not need your computer to play your amazing music that no-one has ever heard before but you still need it to write a load of bollocks to strangers on the internet.

I play mostly vinyl by the way but I did think it was possible to play music that "you've never heard before" on a lap-top. Thanks for clearing that one up though.

SpeshulEd

03-04-2012, 12:03 PM

I personally prefer to own the original CD or DVD to add to my collection. Pirated movie's or albums just aren't the same.

I can understand this, but do you really need to own a copy of Puss N Boots? Sure you could add it to your Netflix queue or you could grab it from the net in 15 minutes and watch it on your stony rainy Sunday afternoon.

People download things illegally because it's incredibly easy. It will most likely get easier. Whether we like it or not, that isn't going to change. People that make money off of movies and music need to find new ways to sell and make money from their art. The artists that also have a good business model aren't have any issues in this age of piracy making money. The ones trying to live in a world like it was 10 years ago are going to fall by the wayside.

blackfoxbb

03-04-2012, 05:56 PM

piracy may be good since it will make the industry to make it's economical model to evolve into something new and more efficient.
evolution is good, although not always welcome.

ps. I do prefer the original CD and DVD. looks better than a external HDD

mantis

03-04-2012, 11:44 PM

ps. I do prefer the original CD and DVD. looks better than a external HDD
slightly off topic, but... take a look at these pics.

this dvd is pirated in china. this is all we can buy here. you can see that this pirated copy is pretty well produced. The video quality is top class too and the box is like the original (in some cases even better than some original). This dvd cost me around 10yuan (around $1.50).

I have many like this. I love historical documentaries and buy it rather than downloading it-but its still piracy. in this case, am i really to blame?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-N0Z-GlGWqMU/T1RBbc5MW-I/AAAAAAAAAFE/7_n78v43XXk/s800/IMAG0292.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xEjV8Qz-jdM/T1RBdh4lA_I/AAAAAAAAAFM/FL8rG-NHMVQ/s800/IMAG0293.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vUqKQkj5PnE/T1RBsKx42JI/AAAAAAAAAFc/ciIQoT5GFv8/s800/IMAG0295.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UIPkAc4dtPg/T1RB3JEuIwI/AAAAAAAAAFk/0FTi5Ig-J9g/s800/IMAG0296.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TjICv4q4zks/T1RCJnCXvUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/ID2dTHCaEC4/s800/IMAG0297.jpg

and a few others that are the same - well produced fakes

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Um6Qpc2IIkI/T1RCYgBBCKI/AAAAAAAAAF0/FX7eHvmY7eI/s479/IMAG0298.jpg

Andrew B

03-05-2012, 01:36 AM

People that make money off of movies and music need to find new ways to sell and make money from their art.

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

It's especially galling that we actually have this argument on a DJ forum.

dlove

03-05-2012, 02:12 AM

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

'but I remixed it!'

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 06:48 AM

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 06:54 AM

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

again, who is complaining about it? artists or companies? The one who make the art or the one who sell it? How many bands give away for free tracks at internet to promote their work, and still make money?

I can't have a Picasso at my living room, but it's legit to have a copy of it, so what?

mantis

03-05-2012, 08:33 AM

give money to piracy is bad deal. dirt money :tdown:

yeah i guess you are right, but in china there is no other option. I dont lose any sleep about it at night.

SpeshulEd

03-05-2012, 09:49 AM

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

It's especially galling that we actually have this argument on a DJ forum.

They don't have to, they will also crumble and go bankrupt if they don't.

You're basically saying a company should never have to improve...that's just bad business. Step out of the music/movie industry and use any other example...if a company doesn't update their business model, they will not succeed in today's business world.

For example, companies should continue to make gas guzzling SUV and sell gas as the only way to power those vehicles because anyone who wouldn't buy one is a self-entitled fuck who wants electric cars and doesn't value gasoline or big oil.

And since we're on a DJ forum...what if I download a DJ mix with my new favorite song in it...the mix was not created by the original artist, but rather some random on this board. I don't buy that track because I can listen to it in the mix I just downloaded for free. So technically, I didn't help the artist at all...in fact, the DJ took money away from that artist. Yet here we are as DJ's constantly posting mixes full of others work on the Internet for free. Sure it's different than direct piracy, but if you're contributing to the artist losing money, isn't it somewhat the same thing?

BuddyUK

03-05-2012, 11:08 AM

slightly off topic, but... take a look at these pics.

this dvd is pirated in china. this is all we can buy here. you can see that this pirated copy is pretty well produced. The video quality is top class too and the box is like the original (in some cases even better than some original). This dvd cost me around 10yuan (around $1.50).

I have many like this. I love historical documentaries and buy it rather than downloading it-but its still piracy. in this case, am i really to blame?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-N0Z-GlGWqMU/T1RBbc5MW-I/AAAAAAAAAFE/7_n78v43XXk/s800/IMAG0292.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xEjV8Qz-jdM/T1RBdh4lA_I/AAAAAAAAAFM/FL8rG-NHMVQ/s800/IMAG0293.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vUqKQkj5PnE/T1RBsKx42JI/AAAAAAAAAFc/ciIQoT5GFv8/s800/IMAG0295.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UIPkAc4dtPg/T1RB3JEuIwI/AAAAAAAAAFk/0FTi5Ig-J9g/s800/IMAG0296.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TjICv4q4zks/T1RCJnCXvUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/ID2dTHCaEC4/s800/IMAG0297.jpg

Well seeing as the BBC is a publicly funded organisation and you're watching an educational documentary series of some importance, I'm not really that concerned about them losing revenue, WE the British public have already paid for the production of that series, any money they make from selling DVD's is just a bonus, hopefully allowing them to make better programmes, which they don't most of the time anyway.

moyo wilde

03-05-2012, 11:11 AM

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

It's especially galling that we actually have this argument on a DJ forum.

the main problem is that it isn't a bunch, it is damn near everybody. changing the business model is the only thing you can do. not to is well stupid. movies still have the movie theater experience. and again the whole after market of videotapes and dvds are an even more recent development that revenue stream was created in the 80's if i am correct. movies got by before that and they will get by after.

also like somebody here said it is eas to pirate
although i guess if a movie isn't good enough to want to see at the theater then there is a problem, question is, where is the problem?

also like somebody said it is too easy to pirate, like easier than purchasing in some cases, like here in china.

Andrew B

03-05-2012, 11:29 AM

again, who is complaining about it? artists or companies? The one who make the art or the one who sell it? How many bands give away for free tracks at internet to promote their work, and still make money?

The artists and the companies. Very few artists make money giving away free tracks.

And guys, I understand why the industry needs to change. I just don't like it. Perhaps I worded my post wrong. I just will never accept piracy as valid. I understand it's easy and free. Those to me are not good enough reasons.

BuddyUK

03-05-2012, 12:39 PM

You all dropped the vinyl like hotcakes and switched to digital systems that practically invite en masse piracy, as our Australian cousins say, that's the whack. Tired of arguing about it TBH felt like King Canute for years now.

SpeshulEd

03-05-2012, 12:44 PM

Andrew, I understand what you're saying...we don't have to like it, but we need to accept it - people do it because its easy, you get it for free, and there's hardly any discipline for doing it....also the government getting involved with controlling the internet via SOPA, etc is not the way to fix the problem.

Yes, its not fair, but society is downloading music illegally...this is a change brought on by society as a whole. The music industry needs to cater to society, society is its customers. Right now, society finds it easier to download something illegally then to buy it and there is no repercussion in doing so (other than hurting the music industry and the artists).

Also, lets not forget that record companies have been ripping off artists long before people were stealing their music on the internet:
http://i.imgur.com/HK3ER.jpg

Archon

03-05-2012, 12:49 PM

i dont use vinyl, so all my music is downloaded, and i do pirate a lot of it, but if its a nerw artist im really liking, or an artist i LOVE like my future husband headhunterz, ill buy the song/album to support them. be careful though, guys, contrary to [popular belief the feds DO care about pirating music. i know a few guys that have had their doors kicked in for downloading a TB or less of music.

thehadgi

03-05-2012, 12:53 PM

BuddyUK

03-05-2012, 01:05 PM

Finnish_Fox

03-05-2012, 01:22 PM

I don't understand why several industries need to completely change their business model to cater to a bunch of self-entitled fucks that don't value art.

It's especially galling that we actually have this argument on a DJ forum.

You don't understand how something like the internet might force people to come up with new business models?

It happens in all sorts of industries that have nothing to do with art - a new law is passed, a new behavior by society - if you want to remain competitive and profitable, you have to change with the times.

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 01:35 PM

question

making copies of vinyl into cassete tapes for lots of friends was piracy?
anyone did care at the time?

Finnish_Fox

03-05-2012, 01:47 PM

question

making copies of vinyl into cassete tapes for lots of friends was piracy?
anyone did care at the time?

What about someone with nothing better to do, plenty of money and that Vestax vinyl-etcher?

VHS tape - my first copy of Spaceballs was recorded off TV.

BuddyUK

03-05-2012, 02:47 PM

question

making copies of vinyl into cassete tapes for lots of friends was piracy?
anyone did care at the time?

Still had to buy the records and the tapes mate.

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 02:51 PM

Still had to buy the records and the tapes mate.

buy the record from your friend?

u still have to buy the CD now. what's the difference?

Andrew B

03-05-2012, 02:57 PM

buy the record from your friend?

u still have to buy the CD now. what's the difference?

When you dubbed a record, would you distribute it to millions of people all over the world?

Marc S

03-05-2012, 02:57 PM

people didnt then take a cassette to a club, dj with it and make money.

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 03:03 PM

people didnt then take a cassette to a club, dj with it and make money.

indeed, but the problem we're talking about is piracy into DJing context only, or in general?
Because DJs would represent less than, what, 1% of all people downloading music?
almost 100% are not making money with it.

blackfoxbb

03-05-2012, 03:20 PM

BTW

not pro or con piracy. just think that it must be discussed in full.

SpeshulEd

03-05-2012, 03:32 PM

Speshuled,

This issue with your argument is that you're giving excuses for pirating. The thread isn't 'hey everybody, the industry needs to change because of piracy.' It's about us as DJ's, not pirating music to make money off of. You can give excuses for why you think it's acceptable to pirate music, but it still doesn't make it right, regardless of if the industry needs a change or not. And yeah, society and Joe Schmo pirating music is prevalent, and it probably won't stop soon, and SOPA and the like are not the right answer. But that is not a valid argument for why piracy is ok. Like I said, we already know the industry and artists need to find a way to adapt. But the point is that if people would do the RIGHT thing, artists wouldn't have to struggle.

Saying 'everybody is doing it' is not a valid justification for why the industry needs a change. It's the reason the industry and artists have to change

EDIT: artists wouldn't have to struggle, as much

Totally understand and I'm not trying to give excuses in favor of pirating, just trying to give examples of why it is happening.

Personally, I totally agree with you, if you're making money off of another artists (as a dj) you should support the artists you're spinning. Plus I would say that most on this site, whether they're against pirating music or not, contribute to the music, labels, artists we like more so than most others. Even when stealing one, most are buying another.

Piracy is still bad, no matter how you lighten the situation. It's a still a problem that is running rampant. However, just saying that we're all in agreement that its bad, isn't really helping solve the issue.

fat8ack

03-05-2012, 04:40 PM

Finnish_Fox

03-05-2012, 06:55 PM

When you dubbed a record, would you distribute it to millions of people all over the world?

Times, they are a'changin'...

Finnish_Fox

03-05-2012, 06:56 PM

people didnt then take a cassette to a club, dj with it and make money.

Are you sure about this? I wouldn't put it past some of the people out there.

BuddyUK

03-05-2012, 07:52 PM

Times, they are a'changin'...

The scene, it is a'ruined

SpeshulEd

03-05-2012, 08:01 PM

I wouldn't say the scene is ruined, just educate those in the scene.

Also, who cares about a "scene" anyway?!

Finnish_Fox

03-05-2012, 10:05 PM

Also, who cares about a "scene" anyway?!

Drama queens?

moyo wilde

03-05-2012, 10:26 PM

you're right speshul ed a lot of industries are going to have to change their business model. the big box stores and all brick and mortar shops actually are having a problem it is called showrooming i believe. it is when people go to the brick and mortar store to see different products, feel them, ask the salesperson questions. then they purchase on the internet.

Dj_4-$hure

03-06-2012, 12:04 AM

One thing I don't get, and please explain to me...why do the same people that say don't pirate a song because the artist will make no money...true. But then when a dj ask you for the name of the track and you can't give it to them, because they gotta dig, and that song is all yours. Don't get me wrong I get that also, but aren't you in someway stopping the artist from earning money, and the ability for that person to share with others (purchase).

I have bought a lot of music, I have also pirated and these days a lot of those songs that I didn't buy, I now want to purchase because of audio quality. In the end of the day if you're serious about you're music, you'll do the right thing and purchase those tracks sooner or later. At least that's what I'm doing, so I believe pirating is good and bad, because it has enabled me to find new artist, purchase the songs i'm really interested in and the rest is garbage (to me).

I believe if you're a great artist you're gonna make it, one way or another. I think a lot of people get mad because they're now producing and think if they make it big, they don't want people not spending money on them due to this piracy deal. I remember hip hop artist use to give out their tapes for free, but now it's piracy.

-Daniel

dlove

03-06-2012, 02:24 AM

And since we're on a DJ forum...what if I download a DJ mix with my new favorite song in it...the mix was not created by the original artist, but rather some random on this board. I don't buy that track because I can listen to it in the mix I just downloaded for free. So technically, I didn't help the artist at all...in fact, the DJ took money away from that artist. Yet here we are as DJ's constantly posting mixes full of others work on the Internet for free. Sure it's different than direct piracy, but if you're contributing to the artist losing money, isn't it somewhat the same thing?

if I'm the "random", I paid for the vinyl, and if you like a track I played, you can write it down from the tracklist provided & go and find it for yourself. That's what DJ's do.

dlove

03-06-2012, 02:29 AM

I wouldn't say the scene is ruined, just educate those in the scene.

Also, who cares about a "scene" anyway?!

Those involved in it. And I'm all for 'from the mouths of babes', but I also believe in learning from elders. You want to "educate those in the scene", then have a little respect for what's gone before you, mate.

dlove

03-06-2012, 02:41 AM

Drama queens?

Call me a drama queen if you want, but after 24 years on the scene, I've never known the young ones to be so loud, so ignorant or so big headed. It's all to do with this falsity of online 'personality' leaking out into **********, believing the hype generated between peers, and includes ripping off stuff for free while forgetting where it came from, like it's an entitlement. You don't learn like that.

dlove

03-06-2012, 02:46 AM

so tell me this, (someone who believes it's ok to take a track from a mixtape & make a 'remix')

What if the mixtape had no tracklist & you didn't know the riddm/song/artist? Would you still use it?

dlove

03-06-2012, 03:01 AM

(I'm doing my rant in sections)

It used to be that a person's record collection showed where they came from, how they got to be playing the sounds the play today. The collection also served as a path for the collector to travel, with a definite trajectory. Now, in this instant, digital age, we have people deciding they don't need a collection to play out, and I think the above points are being lost, to the great detriment of roots and culture.

Marc S

03-06-2012, 03:05 AM

dlove

03-06-2012, 03:12 AM

It's our own fault - the scene itself is 'a smiling face...a thumping bass for a loving race', a vibe of acceptance. We shoulda done what the punks did before us, and sneer. It mighta made everyone a bit more humble :lol:

Rothgery

03-06-2012, 03:17 AM

As I do see your point that you are making, but you must honestly admit that the majority of pirated tracks are from well known "mainstream" artist that are in the top whatever chart on beatport/itunes/nameyourfavoritedownsite - not as so much the "gems" or hard to find tracks that some djs hold onto as "trade secrets" if you will.

When reading my above opinion, please keep in mind that I choose my words carefully, like "majority" and mainstream are used loosely to describe as an over all situation, and not every specific instance regarding the topic.

If more people put a little effort into the hobby, as in digging for tracks and buying them, rather than seaching google for beatport's top ten torrent, then we would have nothing to talk about on the matter. Thats my opinion.

dlove

03-06-2012, 03:23 AM

:tup: plus, in real life (not on the internet!), talking to young DJ's up at the decks, I'm always well impressed with their musical knowledge. The old rules still apply if you're in a proper club, regardless of what format's used.

dlove

03-06-2012, 03:26 AM

it's just a shame all the proper clubs are dying.

Alex Murphy

03-06-2012, 06:40 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/34eda8o.jpg

SpeshulEd

03-06-2012, 10:41 AM

if I'm the "random", I paid for the vinyl, and if you like a track I played, you can write it down from the tracklist provided & go and find it for yourself. That's what DJ's do.

You missed my argument...what if the listener is not a DJ and just a random listener who likes the songs you played in your mix. They have no reason to buy the tracks because you provided them for free in your mix. Hence, taking the money away from the original artists. I'm not trying to piss you off, just playing the other side of the coin. When you made the mix, did you pay a fee to the original artist in order to use the song, are you paying royalties for every download? Technically, you made a mix of someone else's work and then put it on the Internet for free download, now your listener has those tracks for free and has no reason to buy the track from the artist. It's a stretch, but SOPA was trying to stop that. If the original artists in your mix said your mix was costing them money/harming their career, you would be fined or go to jail. We all know the Michael Jackson analogy, under SOPA you could be put into jail for up to 5 years for having an MJ song in your mix...that's a year more than the doctor that actually killed him.

I think the argument you're making is that you're promoting the artist...ok fine. Wouldn't a person still be promoting the artists if they took their favorite 10 tracks and put them in a bit torrent and said "hey everyone download these tracks from these awesome artists and support the artists if you like them....OMG they're my favorite I just love these songs, download them for free now, lolololol"

Those involved in it. And I'm all for 'from the mouths of babes', but I also believe in learning from elders. You want to "educate those in the scene", then have a little respect for what's gone before you, mate.

Again, I think you missed my point and are arguing for the same thing that I'm saying. I said "educate those in the scene" - if you're the "elder" it's your job to teach the youngans the ways. Tell them not to pirate music, teach them how to dig for tracks. Teach them the ways it used to be.

Your reaction is exactly why I think scenes are dumb...you have a group of people that think they know everything and condemn those not apart of it. I'm not trying to troll here, but you didn't even read/understand what I wrote before you started convicting me of things I never said.

You know what I learned from my years not being in a scene...love and respect everyone, even if you don't agree with them.

Dj_4-$hure

03-06-2012, 10:54 AM

Those involved in it. And I'm all for 'from the mouths of babes', but I also believe in learning from elders. You want to "educate those in the scene", then have a little respect for what's gone before you, mate.

I agree with this, and without a lot of you guys, we would be lost, and DJF would be half empty. In the end of the day if you're serious about your career as a dj, you will have to purchase almost all your tracks, or no one will respect you, plain and simple.

It's a nasty habit, just like porn.

blackfoxbb

03-06-2012, 11:50 AM

It's a nasty habit, just like porn.

don't you like porn??:freak:

jazzyj

03-06-2012, 12:42 PM

So let's say....

I hacked into your home network and copied your entire harddrive of music that you as a DJ have compiled over the years.... you paid for... you use to make a living as a DJ...

I then take the music copies I took from you, started my own DJ biz, also started selling bootleg cd copies of said music.

According to some of you, this would be fine with you? Nothing morally wrong with it?

What happens when your clients spend their money on my dj services and my bootleg cds? They wont have any or not as much money to spend on you.

Still ok?

(Only throwing this out there cuz it's the only situation that I could think of where someone would steal your property but your property would still be in your possession, yet the theft would affect you)

Finnish_Fox

03-06-2012, 01:03 PM

Call me a drama queen if you want, but after 24 years on the scene, I've never known the young ones to be so loud, so ignorant or so big headed. It's all to do with this falsity of online 'personality' leaking out into **********, believing the hype generated between peers, and includes ripping off stuff for free while forgetting where it came from, like it's an entitlement. You don't learn like that.

That was a facetious response to the comment above it, which was: "Also, who cares about a "scene" anyway?!"

Never been a fan of scenes as, even in EDM with all the messages of PLUR or whatever, there is a ton of exclusion. Been a part of EDM for 15 years myself, so I know what you are saying.

thehadgi

03-06-2012, 01:59 PM

You know what I learned from my years not being in a scene...love and respect everyone, even if you don't agree with them.

respect everyone, even if you don't agree with them.

.....

even if you don't agree with them.

:facepalm:

Anyways, as for all the new age PLURb's, shooting their mouth off of about PLUR and whatnot because they tried acid once and all of a sudden now they're a philosophy major, those people really are funny to listen to. Apparently all for diversity n such, just not diversity of opinion lol

Finnish_Fox

03-06-2012, 02:01 PM

Apparently all for diversity n such, just not diversity of opinion lol

^ This.

SpeshulEd

03-06-2012, 02:48 PM

.....

:facepalm:

Anyways, as for all the new age PLURb's, shooting their mouth off of about PLUR and whatnot because they tried acid once and all of a sudden now they're a philosophy major, those people really are funny to listen to. Apparently all for diversity n such, just not diversity of opinion lol

I don't understand why you're calling me out on this. I can respect DLove as a person and still disagree with her opinion.

You have no idea who I am, where I've been, or what I've done with my life. You're basing your opinion on a few random posts on an Internet message board. I don't need to involve drugs, plur, EDM or the scene in my argument. Respecting another human being is a pretty basic life moral.

electricsmooth

03-06-2012, 03:31 PM

I don't understand why you're calling me out on this. I can respect DLove as a person and still disagree with her opinion.

You have no idea who I am, where I've been, or what I've done with my life. You're basing your opinion on a few random posts on an Internet message board. I don't need to involve drugs, plur, EDM or the scene in my argument. Respecting another human being is a pretty basic life moral.

Tru dat

thehadgi

03-06-2012, 03:56 PM

You have no idea who I am, where I've been, or what I've done with my life. You're basing your opinion on a few random posts on an Internet message board. I don't need to involve drugs, plur, EDM or the scene in my argument. Respecting another human being is a pretty basic life moral.

Correct you are sir, I could care less about who you are so don't take offense :tup: I'm responding to multiple posts in the thread, if you wanna take it personally go ahead

Alrighty, piracy is bad mmkay don't do and I probably don't have anything else useful to say hurr so I'm outty 5000

SpeshulEd

03-06-2012, 05:27 PM

Fair enough! I won't take it personally.

Honestly, scene or no scene, EDM, non edm, music, movies, software, etc...we all pretty much agree piracy is bad. I guess what I'm trying to argue through all of this is, we can say its bad, we can promise not to do it...at the end of the day, it's still happening. Saying its bad isn't stopping the problem. I think we all need to look at the bigger picture if we ever want this to stop...either that or find a way to live with it.

Finnish_Fox

03-06-2012, 05:39 PM

Saying its bad isn't stopping the problem. I think we all need to look at the bigger picture if we ever want this to stop...either that or find a way to live with it.

It is easier to take the NMP approach.

Sigma

03-06-2012, 05:56 PM

I'm not trying to piss you off, just playing the other side of the coin. When you made the mix, did you pay a fee to the original artist in order to use the song, are you paying royalties for every download?
Exactly. The defence of this is always an appeal to common practice - "it's what DJs do!", but it is still copyright infringement punishable by the same laws that are used to punish people that make tracks available on P2P networks or torrent sites. People ranting about piracy while putting out mixes of other artists' music for free and without permission are hypocrites and as you said, using the "I'm promoting music!" argument is barely any different to slapping 20 unmixed tracks in a folder then putting them on a torrent site and saying "check out these new songs/artists you may not have heard!".

BuddyUK

03-06-2012, 06:08 PM

I have a PRS licence for recorded and live music, If i upload a mix from my club is it legal?

Also I DO have permission from the original artist for one of my mixes on Soundcloud BTW.

Sigma

03-06-2012, 06:29 PM

A PRS licence is for a premises, not a person. :D

If you're playing vinyl then you don't need a personal license, but if you're a digital DJ then you need a PPL/MCPS license and that license doesn't allow you to record your live mixes at all, even for your own personal use.

Finnish_Fox

03-06-2012, 06:36 PM

and that license doesn't allow you to record your live mixes at all, even for your own personal use.

That is pure and utter bullshit. (Not what you said, the policy.)

Sigma

03-06-2012, 07:12 PM

The whole license is bullshit.

If I buy vinyl or original CDs then I'm covered by the PRS licence, which the venue is required to have, so there's no extra cost for me.

If I buy MP3s or want to use MP3s I've created from my own CDs or vinyl then the venue not only needs the PRS licence, but I have to personally pay for an extra license. That extra license starts at £300 a year and for that I can have up to 5,000 tracks at a gig, but I cannot burn them to CDRs (so they must be played off a hard drive, USB stick, or digital music player such as an iPod), I cannot edit them or pre-make mashups, and I cannot record my own live sets even for my own personal use.

Finnish_Fox

03-06-2012, 07:15 PM

BuddyUK

03-06-2012, 07:21 PM

What if I'm recording live from the licenced premises :confused:

Also you KNOW I'm vinyl only, is it just the format posted online (mp3 or whatever) that makes it illegal?

Hausgeist

03-06-2012, 07:41 PM

Also you KNOW I'm vinyl only, is it just the format posted online (mp3 or whatever) that makes it illegal?

Meh. I have records that say right on the center label that you can't play them other than just for your own listening.

SpeshulEd

03-06-2012, 07:44 PM

Sigma, thanks for jumping in here. I didn't even know about all of those policies.

I love this conversation.

BuddyUK

03-06-2012, 08:07 PM

Meh. I have records that say right on the center label that you can't play them other than just for your own listening.

Never seen that TBH

Hausgeist

03-06-2012, 08:17 PM

Never seen that TBH

I'll get a pic of one. It says something along the lines of it's not to be used for public performance.

moyo wilde

03-06-2012, 11:57 PM

http://i44.tinypic.com/34eda8o.jpg

manu i am confused is this an argument for or against pirating. on the one hand it seems to be saying that the recording industry doesn't take care of the artists, so people should pirate:teef:. on the other hand seems to be saying performing live isn't enough. so confused:freak:

Wakka

03-07-2012, 12:13 AM

i wont lie... if a certain VST or something doesnt have a demo or free verion... i pirate it to see if i like it or not. If i like, then i buy, if not... then i get rid of it. all my music is purchased, thats what youtube is for :)

Hausgeist

03-07-2012, 12:51 AM

Bah, my camera sucks. Anyway, the one I found is "Der Schieber" by Timo Maas on Hope Recordings (1999). On the b-side it says, "All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised public performance, broadcasting, and copying prohibited. (oh no it isn't/oh yes it is)"

dlove

03-07-2012, 02:04 AM

You missed my argument...what if the listener is not a DJ and just a random listener who likes the songs you played in your mix. They have no reason to buy the tracks because you provided them for free in your mix. Hence, taking the money away from the original artists. I'm not trying to piss you off, just playing the other side of the coin. When you made the mix, did you pay a fee to the original artist in order to use the song, are you paying royalties for every download? Technically, you made a mix of someone else's work and then put it on the Internet for free download, now your listener has those tracks for free and has no reason to buy the track from the artist. It's a stretch, but SOPA was trying to stop that. If the original artists in your mix said your mix was costing them money/harming their career, you would be fined or go to jail. We all know the Michael Jackson analogy, under SOPA you could be put into jail for up to 5 years for having an MJ song in your mix...that's a year more than the doctor that actually killed him.

I think the argument you're making is that you're promoting the artist...ok fine. Wouldn't a person still be promoting the artists if they took their favorite 10 tracks and put them in a bit torrent and said "hey everyone download these tracks from these awesome artists and support the artists if you like them....OMG they're my favorite I just love these songs, download them for free now, lolololol"

Again, I think you missed my point and are arguing for the same thing that I'm saying. I said "educate those in the scene" - if you're the "elder" it's your job to teach the youngans the ways. Tell them not to pirate music, teach them how to dig for tracks. Teach them the ways it used to be.

Your reaction is exactly why I think scenes are dumb...you have a group of people that think they know everything and condemn those not apart of it. I'm not trying to troll here, but you didn't even read/understand what I wrote before you started convicting me of things I never said.

You know what I learned from my years not being in a scene...love and respect everyone, even if you don't agree with them.

what should happen is, I'll put some new tracks on a mixtape and the people who like them wait until they're out on album, then go & buy the album. If people wanna be tightwads, that's up to them, but they're missing out.

My 'fee' to play the track is wrapped-up in the fact I've got a hard copy, and the pre-recorded license fee paid yearly by the club, which I work for. A fair few of the artists I play have heard my promo mixes, and I doubt very much that they'd get Sopa on me :lol:

and, your average ripper on torrent or whatever isn't pounding the streets trying to get people to come and pay to hear the artist live, I am.

I don't think I "know everything" but if something works, I'm not going to break it just because I can.

Marc S

03-07-2012, 02:43 AM

Meh. I have records that say right on the center label that you can't play them other than just for your own listening.

thats the same for ALL music you buy, ever, no record you have ever bought allows public broadcast, thats why venue's need a licence.

dlove

03-07-2012, 02:45 AM

anyway, in complete contrast to my argument, who remembers C30 C60 C90 Go?

Hey kids, it's nothing new...again.

WiWrC5dymcg

fat8ack

03-07-2012, 12:07 PM

The scene, it is a'ruined

Really? I dont think so dude. It is bigger now than it has ever been. If you think its wrong, dont fucking do it man. If you do and dont care, watch your back I guess. To each their own. Honestly, I pay for a lot of music and I torrent some too. But thats just me. If you dont like that I do torrent some music, cool, dont blame you. I pay for a lot too, does that justify the torrents, no, probably not.

All in all I feel the music industry is run by the big wigs that cant hold a note and only see money. The artist are there slaves.

I dont know I told myself I would not participate in this damn thread.......

Sigma

03-07-2012, 12:11 PM

I don't think the scene is ruined. What can make it appear that way is that new technology allows people with very little passion to jump into DJing without the high cost barrier putting them off, so there are certainly more sub-par DJs now than there ever have been, but I don't think there's fewer quality DJs or fewer DJs that have passion for what they're doing than there used to be.

Marc S

03-07-2012, 12:54 PM

^^ agreed,

Dj_4-$hure

03-07-2012, 01:00 PM

^^ This. Seems like some people believe that dj'ing is just for them, and if you didn't buy any records you don't belong here, bullshit. Music didn't come out and say... Hi! I'm music, and in order for you to listen to me you're going to have to pay a hefty price. People made music because they loved it, then the money came. It's funny that some peeps in third world countries would be looked down upon if they ever wanted to become a dj, with torrented music, even if they killed it every time, and maybe became succesful.

How can you measure someones passion, without being in their shoes. I'm not in a third world country but it sucks to be poor. If I had it my way I would buy all my music, but sometimes life just doesn't work out the way you think it's going to, and in this economy it only gets worse.

Finnish_Fox

03-07-2012, 01:15 PM

...but sometimes life just doesn't work out the way you think it's going to, and in this economy it only gets worse.

Ah, the old "would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family argument"...

dlove

03-07-2012, 01:18 PM

A lot of wicked producers are putting riddims out for a free high quality download now, anyway. You just have to know the sites, but that's not difficult if you follow the artists on twitter, ect.

Sigma

03-07-2012, 01:36 PM

How can you measure someones passion, without being in their shoes.
I don't judge a person's passion by whether they pirate tunes or not, cos all that really tells me is whether they feel piracy is morally acceptable or not. Obviously, if someone has 5,000 records then I can tell they're a passionate vinyl collector, but that doesn't say much about their passion for actually DJing.

I can judge a person's passion for DJing by hearing their mixes and by reading what they say. That alone isn't always enough for me to say "this guy is lame" or "this guy is gonna be a great DJ one day", but sometimes it is.

dlove

03-07-2012, 01:42 PM

Dj_4-$hure

03-07-2012, 01:54 PM

^^ Very true, can't argue with that.

Sigma

03-07-2012, 02:04 PM

plus, you can have loads of passion & no talent - or, you can be talented, but with a shit taste in music...the list goes on. It's impossible to judge unless you're there on a night the person plays out. They either rock it or they don't.
Some people are obviously more naturally gifted than others, but those with passion practice and it's practice that makes them good. All I ask from a DJ is that they try and better themselves all the time, cos I hate it when someone says the equivalent of "I just stand there auto-syncing top 40 tracks and doing basic 4 bar blends cos nobody in the crowd gives a shit" - the DJ is the one that should be giving a shit.

As for taste in music, I like to see DJs being themselves musically. If they're playing what they love, then whether I like it is of no consequence. For example, a lot of the music that DJ Mayhem plays makes me want to cut my own ears off, but there is no denying that he's a passionate and skilled DJ and so it's not my place to criticise him just because I don't like some of his choices of songs.

I haven't seen anyone on this site play live and I maybe never will, but I can still tell who has passion and who doesn't a lot of the time.

Hausgeist

03-07-2012, 02:12 PM

thats the same for ALL music you buy, ever, no record you have ever bought allows public broadcast, thats why venue's need a licence.

And? That was my point. Good job.

As far as establishments go (at least in the U.S.) ASCAP and BMI licensing only allows for music to be played publicly. It still does not permit broadcasting or recording. This stuff also applies to live bands playing covers of copyrighted material, not just recorded music.

Anyway, whatever. It's all academic.

P.S. The word is spelled "venues", not "venue's".

dlove

03-07-2012, 02:14 PM

Some people are obviously more naturally gifted than others, but those with passion practice and it's practice that makes them good. All I ask from a DJ is that they try and better themselves all the time, cos I hate it when someone says the equivalent of "I just stand there auto-syncing top 40 tracks and doing basic 4 bar blends cos nobody in the crowd gives a shit" - the DJ is the one that should be giving a shit.

As for taste in music, I like to see DJs being themselves musically. If they're playing what they love, then whether I like it is of no consequence. For example, a lot of the music that DJ Mayhem plays makes me want to cut my own ears off, but there is no denying that he's a passionate and skilled DJ and so it's not my place to criticise him just because I don't like some of his choices of songs.

I haven't seen anyone on this site play live and I maybe never will, but I can still tell who has passion and who doesn't a lot of the time.

I've been checking out faderwave, it's well cool for seeing our community play live, albeit in their own private spaces ;) I dunno, on one hand, I'm all doom & gloom, thinking the vibes are being threatened, but on the other, I'm thinking I'd never have got where I am today without those better than me accepting me, and my 'less than perfect' vibes.

dlove

03-07-2012, 02:17 PM

Anyway, whatever. It's all academic.

Yeah, let's keep it on paper, and do our own thing, regardless :D

blackfoxbb

03-07-2012, 02:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nySNx1r4WaA

thehadgi

03-07-2012, 04:23 PM

For those interested on actual copyright policy, you can check over here (http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?3263-Copyright-Information-Thread-Know-the-Laws) on the thread I made

Finnish_Fox

03-07-2012, 06:34 PM

the DJ is the one that should be giving a shit.

^ This. :tup:

As for taste in music, I like to see DJs being themselves musically. If they're playing what they love, then whether I like it is of no consequence.

For DJs as "creatives", yes... for a mobile DJ paid to play precisely what the client wants, I'd had to disagree.

I haven't seen anyone on this site play live and I maybe never will, but I can still tell who has passion and who doesn't a lot of the time.

Awesome.

l0ckd0wn

03-08-2012, 01:39 AM

http://jeremygohblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wpid-tumblr_l9z3t8oCbJ1qzl2uzo1_500.jpg

The best post in this thread, and ironically enough, the poster didn't say a word.

moyo wilde

03-26-2012, 02:34 AM

beating the dead horse some more.

something i have noticed is that some labels will give away low quality copies of their music, 128 or 192 kbs. i think this is partly to market to DJs, which i think is a sad turn of events.

DJArmani

03-29-2012, 11:01 PM

honestly, artists these days make most of their money off of touring, sponsors, and gigs.

epik1

03-29-2012, 11:05 PM

My thoughts on all of this are: learn with free stuff, pay for it when you start getting paid.

Goes for any software or music for me.
I'm sorry but I just don't have the cash or make enough off djing (zero monies, I'm still starting out) to be able to pay for all the tracks.

and yes, if DJing became a profession of mine, even as a side thing I would pay for all of the tracks I can even if I already obtained them for free.

mostapha

03-30-2012, 02:48 AM

honestly, artists these days make most of their money off of touring, sponsors, and gigs.

AFAIK, it's always been that way. Record deals won't pay the bills unless you're humongous, and basically no dance artists are.

Releasing tracks–apart from being for the love of music–is a promotion tool designed to get you performance gigs. It just so happens that DJs–mostly–play other people's music instead of their own at their gigs.

So, as far as general piracy…if it's legitimately easy to find the tracks you want…and they cost like $2/each……just effing buy them. If you don't care enough to pay $2 for a song, you don't deserve to DJ anywhere…not even your bedroom. You obviously don't care enough about music.

Now, when/if I make my break into production……I won't expect to make a dime from it directly. Hell…I don't care if I'm charting on Beatport…if you ask me for a copy of one of my songs and I know who you are, you'll get it. The notoriety from charting on Beatport (or wherever) gets you gigs. And having that to your credit and a label next to your name on fliers means that you can demand some level of respect or equitable treatment from promoters and venues instead of being screwed over like everyone else.

At least, that's what I'm hoping.

But, except for the fact that dance music fame is now based on Beatport (and to a much lesser extent, everywhere else) it's no different from the way it's ever been except maybe for those lucky few who created a genre. And even then, I'm not sure record sales ever really paid the bills.

KLH

03-30-2012, 05:42 AM

At the end of the day, there's an unspoken but acknowledged relationship between DJs and music publishers. Music publishers traditionally have ignored DJs because DJs expose people to music and indirectly grow music sales.

That relationship is being reexamined due to piracy. So far, music publishers haven't gone after DJs for piracy, but that may change at any time. Thus, the best course of action is to exercise prudence and avoid piracy.

There's really no need to engage in piracy morally, ethically, and increasingly financially. Just don't do it.

-KLH

zaxl

03-30-2012, 06:09 PM

intellectual property is a farce rooted in greed and a hindrance to human progress.

Andrew B

03-30-2012, 06:38 PM

intellectual property is a farce rooted in greed and a hindrance to human progress.

False.

Finnish_Fox

03-30-2012, 07:44 PM

False.

The fact it is a farce is false... but it certainly can be rooted in greed (see Monsanto) and hinder human progress.

Andrew B

03-30-2012, 07:49 PM

The fact it is a farce is false... but it certainly can be rooted in greed (see Monsanto) and hinder human progress.

Like everything with good intentions, it can and has been exploited.

mostapha

03-31-2012, 12:26 AM

intellectual property is a farce rooted in greed and a hindrance to human progress.

You're a farce rooted in ignorance and hindrance to human understanding.

moyo wilde

03-31-2012, 02:38 AM

zaxl is actually right. intellectual property is a concept that "we" have agreed to, it is not a truth. it is a made up construct, much the same as concept of ownership, money time etc in general. in addition intellectual property, does really hinder human progress for the benefit of the few, here i am not really talking about music alone.

mostapha

03-31-2012, 01:57 PM

No, you're both completely wrong. Intellectual property laws, as they are currently expressed, are a horrible injustice against humanity. The idea was the opposite.

When copyrights were invented (patents and the rest of the shit followed) it was to make it possible for book publishers to make money. As it was, no one was publishing anything, because one copy of a book in a city meant that anyone with a press could print shoddy copies and undersell the original, who was the only one paying the author.

As a result, nothing but the Bible got printed for a long time.

Allowing a short-term monopoly on production of a work–whether it be a book, a song, plans for some new device, or the formulation/synthesis information for a drug or whatever else-makes it possible for the inventor/author/scientist/engineer/whatever to make anything off of it. Without that, nothing would happen. IP laws, as they stand, slow progress from some mythical ideal that you're imagining. Yes. But the absence of IP protection stops all human development.

Now, I started this by saying you're both wrong. I stand by part of that. Moyo, you're right that IP is a human construct. So is everything else. It's irrelevant to basically any argument because throwing out human constructs leaves us nowhere.

So, philosophically, you're right. Logically, it's pointless.

If you can get through it, I can send you a few thousand pages of reading on the subject. Well, I can't send them to you. I can tell you where to buy them. They're good examples of ideas that wouldn't exist in the same form if it weren't for the ability to make money off publication.

zaxl

04-01-2012, 12:17 PM

You're a farce rooted in ignorance and hindrance to human understanding.

nice. i made a comment on an idea and you turned it into a personal attack. classy!

Spife

04-01-2012, 12:57 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to say that there is a TON of free music on Soundcloud. I've been financially struggling for a while now, but still managed to accumulate 550ish tracks from sound cloud over the past 6 months (long breaks in between track collectings)

moyo wilde

04-01-2012, 01:13 PM

@mos

i think that there would still be a way to make money, one would just have to differentiate their product, most likely by cost or quality. sure you can get a fake gucci, but most people would rather own a real gucci (just using gucci here i don't know if you want a gucci).

yes the reality is that for most people making money is an important motivator and they have to make all of the money. but now there are medicines that could be produced to save lives. but in the name of profit those meds retain a high cost. i am aware of the research etc. but at some point don't the lives lost have a value?

so i stand by my statement that it is all just a hindrance.

Era 7

04-01-2012, 02:03 PM

i honestly don't understand how this is going on. just like anyone else on the market musicians create and want to sell a product just like an aritst who paints a picture and then sells it. :shrug:

mostapha

04-02-2012, 04:49 AM

so i stand by my statement that it is all just a hindrance.

There are ways to make money. If recordings were look at as promotional tools and performance as the product, things might be a bit different.

That being said, I still disagree with your statement that IP protections are always a hindrance, especially in the realm of drugs. Without IP protections, they would never be developed in the first place. Now, there are a lot of people who can't afford them. Then, they wouldn't exist. While what we have is obviously not perfect, I don't think that particular alternative is at all favorable.

i honestly don't understand how this is going on. just like anyone else on the market musicians create and want to sell a product just like an aritst who paints a picture and then sells it. :shrug:

Painters tend to sell originals, though. Except for the really successful ones. Musicians are selling experiences or recordings. There is a difference there, not that I think musicians shouldn't get paid.

nice. i made a comment on an idea and you turned it into a personal attack. classy!

I turned it into a joke.

skoorb

04-02-2012, 07:02 AM

as our Australian cousins say, that's the whack

I have never said or heard that saying.

On topic, there are very few constants in life: death, taxes, and condoning, excusing, enjoying, or anything short of absolute, unflinching hatred of piracy on DJF getting you shitcanned.

If you dabble with piracy, or even don't give a shit about it, best not say anything at all. The only acceptable standpoint here is apoplexy.

moyo wilde

04-02-2012, 07:15 AM

actually i think that it might have been true in the past when knowledge wasn't as widespread, but now i think it would only speed the process up. i think that let say i came up with a new medicine i price it at a premium until others come up with a copy, then i need to get back to work on newer and better product. be ing first and best will always mean that you have a place in the market, it just won't be that big.

maybe i am just really idealistic. better yet i am realistic more realistic as that is the reality of the market as it exists today.

Era 7

04-02-2012, 07:16 AM

Painters tend to sell originals, though. Except for the really successful ones. Musicians are selling experiences or recordings. There is a difference there, not that I think musicians shouldn't get paid.

yeah you're right. but still musicians are like any other branch of commerce trying to sell a product. some kids are argueing that after a certain time you shouldn't be entitled to sell it anymore. why not? if you put it like that a bottle of coke should be for free too because some dude invented it 130 years ago.

mostapha

04-02-2012, 07:33 AM

actually i think that it might have been true in the past when knowledge wasn't as widespread, but now i think it would only speed the process up. i think that let say i came up with a new medicine i price it at a premium until others come up with a copy, then i need to get back to work on newer and better product. be ing first and best will always mean that you have a place in the market, it just won't be that big.

Considering how much R&D costs, how much FDA certification costs, how much marketing costs, etc. compared to just reading journal articles and replicating the synthesis……it's not viable. No one would produce new medicines.

moyo wilde

04-02-2012, 11:05 AM

basically you can cut the last two (fda cert & marketing) cause the people replicating it would still have to go through the same process. or they could sell it in countries that have less stringet requirements. i don't know how up to date this is, but out of curiosity, i just looked at a WHO website and they estimated that the percentage of funds for R&D put up by companies and the governments of countries is almost equal (circa 1998).

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/4.html

not too mention a lot of new meds use things that started out coming from traditional meds. just isolating the chemicals that actually work and finding the proper dosage. i am not saying that is a small job.

i am the 99%.

Adzm00

04-03-2012, 09:35 AM

Correct you are sir, I could care less about who you are so don't take offense :tup: I'm responding to multiple posts in the thread, if you wanna take it personally go ahead

Alrighty, piracy is bad mmkay don't do and I probably don't have anything else useful to say hurr so I'm outty 5000

It is couldn't care less.

I will keep saying it and one day you lot will get it.

Adzm00

04-03-2012, 09:42 AM

not too mention a lot of new meds use things that started out coming from traditional meds. just isolating the chemicals that actually work and finding the proper dosage. i am not saying that is a small job.

i am the 99%.

It still takes billions and years to get it to market. I have a friend in the pharma industry.

moyo wilde

04-03-2012, 09:57 AM

It still takes billions and years to get it to market. I have a friend in the pharma industry.

or they could just tell us which traditional medicine actually works and what the traditional remedy calls for.

i am the 99%.

mostapha

04-03-2012, 12:34 PM

or they could just tell us which traditional medicine actually works and what the traditional remedy calls for.

And people would die.

It's called progress.

Finnish_Fox

04-03-2012, 06:54 PM

yeah you're right. but still musicians are like any other branch of commerce trying to sell a product. some kids are argueing that after a certain time you shouldn't be entitled to sell it anymore. why not? if you put it like that a bottle of coke should be for free too because some dude invented it 130 years ago.

(Sorry, more of a reply to the quote you quoted.)

Plenty of artists sell reproductions of their art. What about photographs? Each one is an original AND a reproduction.

DJNR

04-03-2012, 06:55 PM

This thread hasn't been closed yet? :lol:

Finnish_Fox

04-03-2012, 06:56 PM

why not? if you put it like that a bottle of coke should be for free too because some dude invented it 130 years ago.

Can't speak on the Coke example specifically, but that is not at all how a patent works. Just because a patent goes belly up doesn't mean the product is or should be free - all it means is that someone else can enter the market with an identical product - see generic drugs.

EDIT - didn't Coke and Pepsi just make a very minute and small change to its formula to get away with no cancer warning? That same change can be patented.

Finnish_Fox

04-03-2012, 07:02 PM

basically you can cut the last two (fda cert & marketing) cause the people replicating it would still have to go through the same process.

Not really. In the case of marketing, for example, the big Pharmaceutical company has already done most of the legwork and paid all the money. Look at Viagra... does the generic maker really need to do anything other than announce the existence of a generic version? In most cases, these generics are well-known name brands that have already been marketed to hell and back.

As for the certification, I am pretty ignorant - is the certification for the drug formula itself or the plant/company making it? If it is for the forumula, why would they need a new certification if it is the exact same drug that has already been certified? (I'm asking because I don't know...)

or they could sell it in countries that have less stringet requirements. i don't know how up to date this is, but out of curiosity, i just looked at a WHO website and they estimated that the percentage of funds for R&D put up by companies and the governments of countries is almost equal (circa 1998).

OK... whats your point?

not too mention a lot of new meds use things that started out coming from traditional meds. just isolating the chemicals that actually work and finding the proper dosage. i am not saying that is a small job.

Right... and those companies would surely patent the process/formula.

matty1551

04-03-2012, 07:18 PM

You're all pirates whether you like it or not. You post your mixes online? Guess what, unless you have a performance license, you're a pirate. Faderwave is a pirate radio show unless they actually own the proper licenses to broadcast the tunes that are played.

Finnish_Fox

04-03-2012, 07:21 PM

You're all pirates whether you like it or not. You post your mixes online? Guess what, unless you have a performance license, you're a pirate.

Mixcloud has paid for the licensing, haven't they?

matty1551

04-03-2012, 08:17 PM

Mixcloud has paid for the licensing, haven't they?

I'm not familiar with mixcloud but my point is, the people that are openly complaining about pricacy are in fact responsible for a form of piracy themselves. Just seems hypocritical

Finnish_Fox

04-03-2012, 08:18 PM

I'm not familiar with mixcloud but my point is, the people that are openly complaining about pricacy are in fact responsible for a form of piracy themselves. Just seems hypocritical

Fair point.

mostapha

04-03-2012, 08:46 PM

You post your mixes online? Guess what, unless you have a performance license, you're a pirate.

Unless your radio station has paid for the licenses. It was a problem on musicv2. Mixcloud does it right. Soundcloud doesn't care. Youtube doesn't care. etc..

And there's a fine line between "private exhibition" and "broadcasting". It's kind of one of the things that you probably shouldn't worry about. You get in trouble…take the mix down and post online that the label/artist were being dicks.

Mixcloud has paid for the licensing, haven't they?

Yes, they do. That's the whole point. They started the site as a response to DJs on soundcloud getting in something resembling trouble.

Whether or not artists actually see any of that money is a separate issue and a huge matter of contention, but yes…they do what they can.

moyo wilde

04-04-2012, 09:41 AM

Not really. In the case of marketing, for example, the big Pharmaceutical company has already done most of the legwork and paid all the money. Look at Viagra... does the generic maker really need to do anything other than announce the existence of a generic version? In most cases, these generics are well-known name brands that have already been marketed to hell and back.

viagra still holds 50% of the market on those kindsa meds, so my statement still stands being first to market is a benefit/advantage in and of itself. also in checking i found that in england they lost their patent because of obviousness.

OK... whats your point?

my point is that half of the supposed big cost of research and development is covered by government, the people's dollars at work, so adding that in as a cost seems irrelevant.

Right... and those companies would surely patent the process/formula.

yeah and people would just use the traditional method for treating said illness, since apparently it works. making pharm almost a scam of sorts.

i am pretty sure all drugs would have to go through fda, or whatever in each countries certification. i may be wrong, though.

Finnish_Fox

04-04-2012, 12:21 PM

viagra still holds 50% of the market on those kindsa meds, so my statement still stands being first to market is a benefit/advantage in and of itself. also in checking i found that in england they lost their patent because of obviousness.

That's besides the point - the generics aren't footing much of the bill for an already marketed product. Besides, Viagara has been available for generic production for how long? I'm sure we will see that statistic change as times goes on.

There are HUNDREDS of examples... hydrocodone, for example, most of which is generically prescribed. It also came off of patent a LONG time ago.

...or the millions of Plavix generics Thailand imported on literally cents on the dollar.

Companies incur fewer costs in creating generic drugs (only the cost to manufacture, rather than the entire cost of development and testing) and are therefore able to maintain profitability at a lower price.

my point is that half of the supposed big cost of research and development is covered by government, the people's dollars at work, so adding that in as a cost seems irrelevant.

Show me numbers.

yeah and people would just use the traditional method for treating said illness, since apparently it works. making pharm almost a scam of sorts.

What?

i am pretty sure all drugs would have to go through fda, or whatever in each countries certification. i may be wrong, though.

Here you go:

U.S. generics approval process

Enacted in 1984, the U.S. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, standardized U.S. procedures for recognition of generic drugs. An applicant files an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and seeks to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence to a specified, previously approved “reference listed drug”. When an ANDA is approved, the FDA adds the drug to its Approved Drug Products list, also known as the Orange Book, and annotates the list to show equivalence between the reference listed drug and the approved generic. The FDA also recognizes drugs using the same ingredients with different bioavailability, and divides them into therapeutic equivalence groups. For example, as of 2006, diltiazem hydrochloride had four equivalence groups, all using the same active ingredient, but considered equivalent only within a group.

moyo wilde

04-05-2012, 01:23 AM

Finnish_Fox

04-05-2012, 07:54 PM

you got the link to WHO in my previous post about how pharm research is paid for, i think that is a pretty reputable source. i am too lazy to repost and apparently you are too lazy to go back and look but check it out if you want. the numbers were something like 1/3 gov - 1/3 pharm - the other third was charitable funding etc, if i remember correctly, i am rounding (so plus or minus a couple a %).

Linking me to a document is slightly different than you taking the stats you are talking about to make your point. Laziness all around on both of our accounts. :lol:

Anyways - looked at the document. Isn't in the government's interest to help fund R&D that may impact society on large scale like, say, HIV or cancer medication?

A bit off - 92% is funded by governments and pharmas (47 by high income, 3 by lowincome & 42 by pharmas)... with 11 coming from charity. (at least the table i looked at.)

people have more and more been turning to traditional medicine 1) because of the cost 2) because it is effective. don't really know what is so confusing about that.

Nothing... and I wasn't confused. In fact, I haven't talked about traditional medicine vs pharmas - just about patents on pharmas and the creation of generics. I, for one, am opposed to most pharmas unless absolutely necessary - except recreation. Xanax FTW! :P

if people were more informed, then they would just go that route or at least they could choose. but then pharm wouldn't make the big dollars would they. looked around and there are about five companies doing 10 billion +/- in income, not net rev. there are positives and negatives for both sides traditional meds and pharms.

...yah, and they do this by buying smaller companies with cutting edge drugs, milking the shit out of patent for 14 years or whatever the protection is and when it goes generic they cut their budget and workforce to maintain that bottom line. Happens regularly - buy to grow, reap benefits and the cut bait when the profits dry up.

and this thread has gone wwwwaaaaaayyyyyy off topic, although it is interesting nothing to do with djing:freak:

...or does it?

No, I guess it doesn't. :zany:

akswun

04-21-2012, 02:28 PM

GZadCj8O1-0

djwes

04-22-2012, 08:29 PM

Thank god I'm a vinyl collector, otherwise, I'd know I'd be a shameless pirate. If I like a track, if it's on vinyl, I'll buy it. If it's an mp3 however...it's just too easy not to swipe it. It's like finding a $100 bill on the ground and there's nobody around for miles. I know the producer who dropped that $100 worked hard for it. I know they deserve their money. But I can't help it - it's too easy. Once upon a time I had no money, so that was a semi-valid excuse (actually not really). Now I can afford it, so it's really pretty sad.

So thank God for vinyl, habits formed before Serato, and the fact that I'm stuck in the past and don't like anything new that's come out in awhile (except Dubstep...which I buy on wax when I can find stuff that doesn't suck). If not for all of that - Arrrrrgh Matey!

But seriously though - while I agree with the principal, you're spitting into the wind. The Internet has doomed any artist looking to make money from their content. It's going back to the beginning - making money through performance and merchandising. I may not have purchased my Skrillex mp3s, but I did drop $50 for a ticket to see him and bought a few beers when I was there. That's the best most people are going to be able to do. Preaching to the unconvertable is just gonna make them tune you out. Love music for music. Love your day job to pay the rent.

ben mills

04-22-2012, 09:32 PM

The time value of money pretty much dictates that I buy my music.

akswun

04-24-2012, 06:13 AM

Artists and the music industry has been focusing on piracy for too long. They don't get it, they need to change the way they get their money. It's a different time and content is being shared all the time. What really comes to mind is when Kanye dropped the G.O.O.D. Friday singles for Free. Mind you the quality of the tracks were all over the place. But he was able to keep MBDTF off the pirate boards until the physical copies were .... copied. What was even a better ploy was that he gave Concert ticket buyers advanced copies of the album. I know if I spent $80+ on a concert ticket tossing in the album would be the best thing in solidifying my love for the artist.
I'm sure artists now aren't looking to spend advances from the labels but looking to book tours and concerts and making their cake from those shows. Maybe when napster was around the industry suffered a loss but as technology advances and the types of media changes why wouldn't the industry follow suit? I know I used to record tv shows and rented movies on VHS and even BetaMax back in the day just so I could watch it again and again. Not to make a profit for it. But its a double edge sword with the DJing industry because we do make money from the music we purchase.

Statik

04-25-2012, 02:14 PM

At this Rate YOUTUBE is gona be illegal soon.

dima338

04-25-2012, 04:37 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Ok9X0.gif

Ashley Caveney

04-26-2012, 11:13 AM

im so fed up of these threads,

if you show me a dj how says hes never got a track off another dj or downloaded a track..

ill show you a liar...

Era 7

04-26-2012, 11:51 AM

im so fed up of these threads,

if you show me a dj how says hes never got a track off another dj or downloaded a track..

ill show you a liar...

i seem to be a liar then...FML

Finnish_Fox

04-26-2012, 09:03 PM

i seem to be a liar then...FML

You've never had any content, music or otherwise, that you did not own the license to in your entire life? Never taped anything off the radio? Never recorded something off TV?

2Liter

04-27-2012, 12:10 AM

Except a lot of artists don't tour, get sponsors, or get many gigs for any decent amount of money.

Steven Cave

04-27-2012, 11:15 AM

I'm a producer, got a few out on wax with sonicfortress records but never made a track to make £££ as there is no £££ in making tracks these days like there used to be unless of course you get some skinny tart in her underwear to sing it on top of the pops...

I've only ever produced tracks for the love of music, built 100's and give them to anyone that likes them as the reward for me is people enjoying them so the more djs that own them the more people will hear and enjoy them, isn't that what it's ment to be about?

DJ STU-C

04-27-2012, 05:20 PM

its wrong for me but i have been guilty....ish

my view is i buy my tracks from dj download or traxsource (itunes for any pop songs i quite like) i have no problem with this seeing as its so cheap now, we used to pay 12 quid a record when i started mixing and there wasnt a pirate option back then kids.

however i do use a file sharing site to get any tunes i want that are old, if i have a track on a soul or disco album i like i sometimes look for the full 12 inch version on there, so theoretically ive already paid for it... the last track i downloaded was the hot tracks remix of wham-everything she wants(see link below)..
with regards to sharing i only share what ive taken. i dont under any circumstances share bought music or my massive library of ripped cds, if ive bought them everyone else can too, and to be fair the client i use isnt mac compatible so i have to open my xp partition which i can never be bothered to do so just end up playing it on youtube a few times normally

K9N5p5Mm3ws

Alex Murphy

05-01-2012, 06:12 AM

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/game_of_thrones/1.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/game_of_thrones/2.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/game_of_thrones/3.jpg

Kingbob182

05-01-2012, 07:13 AM

I use zipDJ and itunes for stuff that's not on there. Aside from that, I download a lot of locally produced originals and remixes. Stuff you can't buy but the artist releases or it gets leaked by someone they gave it to.
Not sure on the legality of downloading unofficial remixes for free. Probably illegal but not something I'd get picked up for.
I'm not saying I've never downloaded music illegally. I still do occasionally. A big album I might download but if its good, I'll generally go out and buy it later anyway. I downloaded Nero's album, listened to it on the way to work and bought it after work that day.
I like the feeling of buying CDs. Going through a music store and picking out a CD is a weird feeling for me. Makes my whole day.
I think about music piracy the same way I think about sync buttons.
It might make life easier, but you're missing out on the best, most satisfying parts of being a DJ

mostapha

05-01-2012, 10:52 AM

It's even more annoying for BBC shows that haven't hit BBC America. Between myself, my girlfriend, and my Fraternity house, we have Hulu Plus, Netflix, an iTunes account with a decent bit of credit on it (people keep giving me cards), two cable subscriptions including every premium channel and BBC America.

And Sherlock season 2 still isn't available. One episode from Season 1 is still missing from everything except BBC America On Demand…and that was only available for a little while.

I'm with the Onion guy……I'm against piracy morally, but it won't stop until content providers figure their shit out.

malicion

05-02-2012, 04:24 AM

I have almost never payed for music itself, although I have spent probably thousands of dollars on shows, posters, t-shirts, etc related to artists. Whats the point of buying music from itunes if they get like 50% - label fees, etc and basically end up with nothing, i rather benefit them in more direct ways. The music industry isnt innovating, thats their fault. There is a few people smart enough that have though such as Louis CK - stand up comedian. He basically cut out all the middle men that protect him against piracy and other unnecessary middle men to make his comedy special ONLY $5 compared to $20 with a professional company. He also told anybody who cant afford it can go pirate it. He made double what he usually made from his shows... split it into bonuses for his employees.

Also, in a study in Europe, music pirates were found to spend more on music then non pirates.

thehadgi

05-06-2012, 10:02 PM

Buy the software you use

http://www.imsta.org/

"The music software companies are huge"
First of all, stealing from a big company is just as bad as stealing from a small company. Many of our members are tiny operations and the loss of income from piracy hits them especially hard. With just a few exceptions thevast majority of our members have less than 20 employees, quite a few are 2 and 3 person operations. The impact of software thefton these small companies is immense.

"Software costs nothing to make - a CD, manual,box"
That's like saying a record costs nothing tomake - just a CD, insert and jewel case. The fact is it costs money to make software because the companies have to pay the developers a salary. There is also major capital investment involved in having an establishment set up to develop software. Anyone who can't understand that there are costs above and beyond the physical CD is looking to justify their illicit behavior.

"Stealing software is not the same as stealing a bottle of Coke"
Stealing is stealing. Thou shalt not steal doesn't come with an escape clause. Stealing software is stealing. Because software can be copied and a bottle of Coke cannot doesn't mean that it's somehow morally permissible to steal software. Software is protected by law just like that bottle of Coke is. If it came right down to it, the law sees no difference.

"Companies release buggy software anyway, I need to use a crack to see if I like it"
We are not going to become apologists for software companies with buggy code. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that a program with tens of millions of lines of code may contain a few bugs. Even cars roll off the assembly line with bugs that are fixed with recalls. The fact that a software program has a bug, or several bugs, doesn't justify stealing it, anymore than stealing a car that's the subject of a recall.
Many people do indeed use a crack for a certain amount of time and some of them do indeed go out and buy the program but the vast majority do not. Let's face facts - a musician using a pirated copy of a software program, especially to make music [intellectual property], for any significant period of time is a sign of moral bankruptcy.

"My one crack copy doesn't add up to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things"
Let's extend this kind of thinking to the entire potential customer base. The software that you are stealing is financially supported exclusively by people who pay for it. These people feel, correctly, that they should pay for the software that they use and choose to buy. Why not make your contribution instead of getting a free ride? If everyone thought this way the music software industry would fold up and dissappear.

"Everybody is using cracks, why shouldn't I? "
Just because everyone is stealing something makes it right. There was a time when just about everyone was OK with drunk driving, did that make it right? 20 years ago no one was recycling garbage - did that make it OK? Ike is famous for saying he beat his wife no more or no less than the average man. Does that make it right? 200 years ago slavery was OK too, right? Software theft is a damaging social ill - the fact that everyone is not educated and not socially aware of the negative consequences doesn't make it right.

"The software companies are charging too much"
Every manufacturer has a right to set prices.
To justify stealing software because the manufacturer is "charging too much" is yet another sign of moral bankruptcy. Is it OK to steal a Ferrari or Mercedes Benz because, in your opinion, the manufacturer is "charging too much"? The fact is there is a vast selection of cars out there. If you can't afford a Mercedes then buy a Ford. Similarly, there is a vast selection of software tools ranging along a full pricing spectrum. If you cannot afford the "expensive" programs buy something you can afford. If you can't afford anything at all then you should do without and not resort to stealing.
A sequencer replaces a recording studio costing tens of thousands of dollars. It brings music making technology to a price point where the vast majority of creative people can have access to it. It once required hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a professional quality recording. Today the average working musician can access this technology at unprecedented and affordable prices - something musicians just 10-15 years ago could only dream of.
The vast array of virtual instrument costs 5-15%of the actual hardware equivalents just a few years ago. How can anyone claim that software is expensive? It is actuallyinexpensive by ever comparative analysis. An FM7 retails for 10% of what a DX7 did.