Mr. Foxen

Listening to lots of music is the problem. More stuff for new stuff to sound like.

[quote name='bigjohn' timestamp='1361495372' post='1986716'] Well yes. An that's never gone away has it? And that's not what I was talking about and well you know it [/quote] Development seems to have gone away, could do with it back. Seems to be heading that way as I can still find some music that interests me, but its hard to get among all the 'influences' in absence of ideas.

I vaguely recall discussion about 'foreign' marked valves when I was selling some on BC, which may well have been those.

"the traditional music distribution system" was hearing it played, figuring how to play it, then playing it to people some of whom would do the same. Music developed through chinese whispers. Now we get 10 million rehashes of Beatles classics with production that makes it sound dated in 5 years.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361469422' post='1986236'] It's not clear though is it? [/quote] The fact downloading is a concern makes it clear. If they had no problems, then they would have no concern with the way things as they are, but quite a lot of campaigning for change in the law is happening. Hence this thread existing, headed by industry led misconceptions about the current state of the law.

[quote name='dragan' timestamp='1361465210' post='1986135'] I should lost ownership on the bass so you would share sympathy,eh? [b]" €3000 is a lot of cash for a bass & IMHO the guy couldn't commit to that kind of outlay without physically seeing it, no matter how good the pics are." [/b]-that goes in his defense? as I said, I am not robbed,but like clearly pointed - this guy saw bunch of photos,he presented him self as a Vox admirer,he clearly stated that he is buying the bass if I just arrange delivery. He said he is playing Vox Phantom bass for well over 35 years and he desperately wants to buy the one. He didnt said[i] "If you deliver, I will check and think,he said - I am buying the bass,do you need a cash deposit first[/i]"etc etc... Thank You Kevin and others!!! [/quote] If I'd arranged a personal courier for an instrument to take it overseas by their very own hand, I'd feel pretty robbed.

If the guy had E1000 on him, sounds like it was the plan all along. If the price is agreed, its done, if there is an unforseen problem, don't complete the deal, don't try and renegotiate with someone who isn't a party to it, and if a third party is doing both parties a favour, putting them in the spot like that is serious bad etiquette.

It is more it will go if it doesn't change, or it will change because of the massive downside of not doing so. The music industry is already too bloated to sustain itself, that's clear enough.

Have a look at the internals of the mullard and Brimar. If they look the same, then the sounding different is because one of them is going a bit wrong. They are the same valve with different labelling, unless they were made far enough apart in time to have design changes (or possibly some of the foreign marked Brimars, I don't see that many of those).

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361415857' post='1985729'] However, to be perfectly realistic, there's no way that the large established labels are going to be able, or indeed willing, to adopt that same business model that only exists because of current legal vagaries. [/quote] Gutted for them. Central heating, electricity and child labour laws really wrecked the chimney sweeping business, probably need banning. Or at least morally, should keep burning coal in your house, otherwise you are a bad person who doens't want children to have gainful employment. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361440117' post='1985877'] I have to say, though, that I'm rather disappointed that, amongst all the moral wrangling, no one picked up on my point about file sharers being the ones that spend around 10x more on music than non-sharers. [/quote] That cigarette industry, it doesn't rely on people who've never been offered a fag by their mate. Doesn't seem to fussed by people rolling their own either.

This goes back to that thing where music existed before the recording industry existed.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361414552' post='1985717'] Record company opinion is, obviously, that copying and sharing is wrong - they've expressed that in no uncertain terms. They still release music every other week - that doesn't make their opinion invalid no matter how hard an argument anyone throws at it. [/quote] Depends on the label. one that released the Caricatures CD found it through file sharing, and ha no problem with ongoing digital distribution. Seems to be how modern labels work. A company in the business of distributing copies of material saying that copying and distributing material is wrong, apply that to other industries [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] Are you focussed more on gigging, recording or just playing for your own enjoyment? [/quote] I focus on making money. Its my upbringing/culture. I tend to enjoy doing that, and I enjoy playing. Recording is a bit of a ballache though, people listening to a gig will probably miss the mistakes, and I only have to hear each once, not so with recording. Not unfamilair with helping out with other bands recording in the studio though. How's it relevant? [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] you aim to get paid for gigs [/quote] The people who make money from paying gigs, for the most part, are playing in bands playing copies of songs. Except its called covers then. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361414670' post='1985718'] Assuming you see gigs as the earner [/quote] Ha, this part made me laugh a bit. I have been paid £20 (backline hire really) and one stick of juicy fruit (with instruction to not chew it all at once) from gigging.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1361413088' post='1985710'] If an artist decides that they don't want their material shared then they have a perfect right to express that opinion. [/quote] But recording and releasing said material is a very strange way to express that opinion.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361410695' post='1985693'] I'm not even sure what you've managed to take out of context to hit that far wide of the mark in response to what I was saying. Why does someone have their house painted? Because they want it painted, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does someone get some music? Because they want the music, no practical reasons, they just want it. Why does a band record their music? Generally for promotion and sales. Very practical reasons, they generally need to do it to keep going and being productive and progress as a band. [/quote] Why does a band record their music? Because they want a recording. The specifics of why they want it don't matter any more than if someone wants their house painted so it looks nice for sale, or so it looks nice for rent, or so it lasts a bit longer in the weather. There are very practical reason to want your house painted, so its same deal as recording, but often, its done for vanity, even if that vanity blinds the artist to the fact no-one else cares enough to buy their record. Fact is the recording studio provides a service to the band like the painter provides a service to the homeowner. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361411937' post='1985703'] When have I said people don't deserve free music? My band's about to release a free download that anyone can get just by clicking the link, you're basing your whole judgement of me on one opinion. I'm not going to go back into the original debate because I said I'd leave it and I will but don't think because I've said I'll leave the conversation that you can post personal attacks on me. [/quote] All the stuff where you insist downloading should be illegal, or frowned upon is where you don't deserve your stuff downloaded. Since downoading is currently a free and unrestricted thing, demanding it be restricted is pretty good grounds to have that restriction applied to you. Its your personal opinion sure, so it can be applied to your personal situation, of being in a band that wants people to download your stuff, which is the thing you want restricted.

If the studio gets paid, the studio doesn't care how many records they sell, its nothing to do with them. The end product isn't even down to them, it can get sent to be mixed and mastered elsewhere, and there is some real art there, but oh look, no ongoing payments for the work. With the painting, does the house being a rental property or a home make any odds to to the painter's pay? No.

I just spotted this [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1361103875' post='1981033'] When you make a living from selling copies, taking those copies wothout paying is theft. [/quote] [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1361403938' post='1985630'] Now that you mention it; I was at a record fair in Edinburgh, early 90's. I was there with a bootleg CD looking for the guy who sold it to me to try to get another copy. As I spoke to the guy he said to me "If you want to keep it put it away NOW!". I looked around & the place was being raided by the PRS and a large police escort. Out pf a decent sized hall with around a dozen+stalls within an hour there was one single table with 2 shoeboxes of CDs on it - all of the rest was lifted. The guy saw it as a hazard of his game & explained to me that owning a bootleg isn't illegal - copying & selling them is. [/quote] so there is a guy who makes his income, to some extent, no idea if its a living, selling copies, having those copies taken.

Still all the stuff about recording doesn't work. People can pay for recording just like they can pay to have their house painted. Even if no-one pays to look at their nicely painted house, the painter still gets paid. Producing CD stopped being practical some time ago, same with vinyls, hard formats are no longer practical, its done anyway, because people like them as indulgence. There are a great many industry sectors existing on entirely impractical and unnecessary indulgence. I am absolutely convinced that the quality of music will go up once the studio polished turd is no longer a commercial prospect.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361405943' post='1985660'] People can quote innumerable things which are both illegal and wrong, wrong but not illegal and not wrong but illegal. [/quote] This thread is about a law that is made up though, and how people should comply with it, even though it isn't a thing.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634'] I said it'd be rare to find any and without any funding for the recording industry, it would. If people didn't buy recordings and provide income, people (especially small bands) couldn't justify the expenses of going into a studio. Studios would shut down through lack of work etc and the whole industry would shrink until there were very little recordings left. [/quote] The massive amount of recordings available in unsigned members sigs here, kind of shows that is far from the case. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634'] The wording is pretty important, I agree, but that doesn't change that you knew what he meant and telling him he's wrong then launching into an argument with anyone that dares disagree isn't the way to approach it. [/quote] I knew what he meant, in that it was a bunch of total misconceptions about the situation, hence pointing out the issues with it. If someone keeps asking the same question, the answer will likewise stay the same. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']Also, you're right about the quote of mine you posted, but at the same time, they're giving access to those downloads to people in countries where it is illegal, thus breaking the law still. [/quote] It isn't breaking the law if its legal, laws in one country don't apply in another country unless they are annexed or something. Filtering of information coming across a border is censorship again. Blasphemous images are illegal in some countries, hosting such a site in another country where it is accepted isn't illegal, even if that site can be accessed from such a country. [quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361404156' post='1985634']Censorship is denial of knowledge, expecting people to pay for access to knowledge in the public domain is totally different. [/quote] Public domain knowledge being a paid for privilege is exactly censorship.

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1361403585' post='1985623'] is this absolutely, definitely, verifiably true? (and do you have a link to something official that would make me believe it) Is it perfectly, completely, wonderfully legal and not copyright infingement to download (not upload) something from online without the copyright holder's permission? Or however one wishes to phrase it. And does it refer to anything? Films, software, etc. [/quote] Thing about Law is it mostly says what you can't do, outside of exceptions there to something you broadly can't do. Downloading isn't copying (because beforehand, you don't have the thing to be copied) so copyright isn't applicable. Check articles (ones written by people worth paying attention to, not label bosses crying etc. actual law articles, because journalists are laypeople for the purpose, plus being in the media, have an agenda) on the subject (specific to UK, since US law is different) and note lack of references to downloading being illegal, aside from use of 'illegal downloads' in quotes or using it all over, then any hard reference actually referring to 'shares', and care to reference 'file sharing' in any cases. The term 'downloading illegal copies' comes up (the copy made that is uploaded would be illegal in the UK, but not necessarily in the location the uploader is) Check total lack of any successful legal action regarding downloaders. Various acts you could take with your legally obtained copy could become an infringing copy action, but that's about where its the same as you doing it with a thing you bought, which shows up about where people trying to make that claim need to get off.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361402705' post='1985609'] So you're being pendantic about the term used. I've seen your posts and you seem intelligent enough to know exactly what the OP meant (assuming you read his post, at least). Your patronising comment doesn't really help show your post in a better light though. I'm sure everyone that's posted in this thread is aware that the topic is about illegal file sharing and the downloading from sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission. It seems silly to get into arguments with people for no real reason by pretending you're misinterpreting what's actually being said. [/quote] It is pretty important since using the wrong words is first clue that someone doesn't know what they are saying. See thread title: 'illegal downloading' isn't a thing, because downloading isn't illegal. In some places "sites or torrents that host and/or distribute copyrighted music without the owner's permission." are not illegal. We used to have this thing in this country where we applied our laws and 'morals' etc. to other countries, it was called the Empire. It isn't existent any more. Once you've removed the false notion of certain things being illegal, you are left with doing things that it is possible, but not certain, that somebody, somewhere, might not like. And that is a pretty poor reason to start telling people what they can and can't do. Especially when that thing is exchange of information, restricting that is known as 'censorship' and should be one of those big nasty scare words.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587'] I think you're intentially trying to be obtuse. Pirating says that either: A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else. Or You think everyone should be get all their music for free and no one should get any money from recorded music (thus basically shutting down the entire recording industry, making it so that you and everyone else will very rarely get any music, free or otherwise). Maybe you can share a third option where you put yourself on the same level as everyone else and there's a way that people that put the effort into writing and recording music (for music's sake rather than, say, a sound track for a film) can afford to do it for a living, but I can't see one myself. Legally, you're right, downloading music isn't illegal (unless laws changed since I was at college), it's the sharing that's illegal. It doesn't make it any more right from a moral view though and that you're supporting any kind of piracy doesn't say much about your character. Either way, I'm sure you're just trolling the forum for the sake of an argument so it's not worth getting worked up about. You either have morals or you don't, I'm sure reading this post (or any others) won't put make you see common sense. [/quote] Downloading: not piracy. Covers that. Congrats on the observation that people are individuals though. [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361400570' post='1985565'] Out of interest, when are you releasing an album? [/quote] Album is out, its linked in sig. Not happy enough with current thing for a serious recording, but live one is also linked in sig, not really hard to spot. If you go and look at people's sigs on this forum, there are several hours of music linked in this thread. Its kind of a hint that people want you to download it, because they make music for people to listen

Not repeatedly producing variations on the same false analogy expecting it to not pointed out each time is probably a good call. I'd be interested to hear a new point though.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361398232' post='1985515'] But if you avoid paying for it, then you aren't even getting caught up in the "Dictating what the person who has paid good money for it does with it". [/quote] If the person that buys it decides to send you a copy of it, is that up to them, or can someone tell you that you can't have what someone gave you?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361391231' post='1985332'] If someone invests their time and money in making something and sells it through channels designed to inhibit free distribution (however faulty), it seems only polite to respect their wishes. [/quote] Its the bit where their wishes extend to dictating what the person who paid good money for it does with it subsequently that is dodge.