flyfisher

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381411508' post='2238676'] If you have "no intention of buying" it then why do you still harbour an intention to acquire it? [/quote] Motivations are irrelevant to the issue of whether the artist is losing anything. There could be a million reasons why someone might copy music instead of paying for it (more likely a different reason why millions of people copy music) but none of them make any difference. The point is that copying music doesn't mean the artist loses anything. I would suggest that, historically, music sales may have been higher because people would buy music they didn't feel great about because there was no alternative. I'd bet we all have records we've bought, played once and never played again. Well once upon a time that would have been a sale. These days we still listen to loads of music once, but we do it through spotify or youtube and if we don't like it we move on. Yet we still buy the stuff we really like. [quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381411508' post='2238676'] What about independent releases? What has the music industry at large got to do with some poor wee band that has invested their own hard cash into getting a CD out there? Are you going to acquire that rather than buy it? [/quote] What has an independent, self-funded release got to do with anything? All that matters is whether people like the music or not.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381396732' post='2238373'] You'd be 'stealing' the opportunity that BMW would have had to legitimately sell that person a car. [/quote] On the contrary, you'd be [u]creating[/u] an opportunity for BMW to sell the theft victim another car.

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381396298' post='2238369'] You may not have deprived them of anything physical, but you have still deprived them of an opportunity to earn. [/quote] That's what the music industry want you to believe and how they calculate their 'losses', but I don't see it myself. If I have no intention of buying a piece of music then I'm not an 'opportunity to earn' as far as that artist is concerned. If I then copy that music for free, the artist has lost nothing. I wouldn't have bought it anyway but no one else is being deprived of the opportunity to buy it for themselves. So how has the artist lost anything?

. . . but not theft!

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1380809866' post='2230906'] My folks house was flood damaged a few years back and [b]apparently there is a separate pot of money from the government which insurers can draw against for this[/b]. When the bloke came to assess the claim he insisted that we needed every door frame and every bit of work custom made by a relevant craftsman to its exact condition before the flood, bespoke carpets and everything... didn't use a single off the shelf part...presumably they were getting us to spend as much as possible then putting their bit on top to draw from the government pot.... dishonest bas***ds. [/quote] I think that was changed earlier this year and it was quite controversial because some people could no longer get flood insurance. I recall a R4 programme about it which explained how insurance companies use postcodes to highlight the risk areas. Unfortunately this creates many anomalies, like the guy with a house next to a river and couldn;t get insurance even though he was so high up the valley that if the river ever got up to him half the country would have been undrwater!

[quote name='Jus Lukin' timestamp='1381389638' post='2238251'] But shouldn't it be? I wouldn't buy a BMW, as they aren't really my taste and are too expensive- how would that make it right for me to drive off in one if I found it unmarked and with the keys in? "It's not like I was ever going to buy it!" I know that's not perfectly analogous, but it's roughly the same principle. [/quote] Unfortunately it's not even remotely analogous because copying music doesn't deprive the rightful owner of anything, unlike your BMW example. If you had a Star Trek style replicator gizmo and could create a BMW from thin air, what harm would you be doing to anyone else?

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381346097' post='2238005'] But yes, the artists aren't getting a lot of money from it and this does sadden me. Personally, I blame the record labels. They completely failed to tackle the new online market years ago and instead went about suing their fans who wanted to listen to the music and downloaded it illegally. They never gave those fans a viable alternative. It was up to Apple and iTunes and the likes of Spotify to make something of it all. Apple must be laughing so hard at the music industry right now, they've made millions because the music industry stood there not knowing what to do and Apple swept in and well, richest company in the world blah-blah-blah. [/quote] Excellent points. Another example of 'lions led by donkeys'.

[quote name='Jus Lukin' timestamp='1381350917' post='2238096'] There are a lot of musicians for whom every penny still counts to help them make their living, and every bit of lost revenue is another nail in the coffin of their flimsy career. [/quote] Fair point, except that downloading a song for nothing is no indicator of lost revenue.

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1381344745' post='2237975'] I honestly don't think 99% of people give it this much thought - people in general are just greedy selfish bastards who'll take anything if it's cheap or free & don't give a f*** about how this impacts on the person who makes that product, regardless of what it is. [/quote] How does downloading a song for free impact the writer and/or performer if the alternative was not bothering to listen to it at all, never mind actually buying it?

Not consciously, I agree, but during the few milliseconds they occasionally do think about these things, millionaire rock stars are, I'd say, a significant element of why they think of such copying as a victimless crime. And, let's be honest, it IS a victimless crime if the choice is to copy a song or not buy it at all.

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1381327919' post='2237667'] I have never once heard this argument, Interesting. How have you formed this impression mate? [/quote] From observation really. I've not done any research or conducted any opinion surveys, which is why I started my post with "I suspect . . ." But we all know that people who wouldn't dream of stealing anything from a shop are quite happy to copy stuff and/or and download it for free. We all know that music has been devalued by its free availability and being given away with newspapers and magazines. We all know that concert ticket prices have soared in recent years, yet concerts still sell-out. We all know that the likes of Macca don't need any more money. We all know that people don't like 'fat-cat' bankers who receive millions for little more than moving numbers around . . . so why should we expect those same people to think it's a good thing for someone who happens to write a popular song to also receive millions? As I said, we can create all sorts of arguments about the value and sanctimony of intellectual property, we can even enshrine these arguments into law, which of course we do, so why is it that so many people are apparently quite happy to ignore these arguments and laws?

I suspect that public sentiment is against a musician being able to write one hit song and then getting rich on it for the rest of their lives. Yes, I know all the arguments about intellectual property and all that but I reckon that, when it boils right down, most people don't think it's fair that someone can do something once and live on it for the rest of their life. Joe Public can't do that with their jobs so why should musicians be any different. I think this sentiment is the main reason why most people don't have any qualms about downloading music for free. Put them in a corner and read the law to them and they'll agree it's wrong, but their instinct tells them something else and that's why copying and free downloading is so prevalent. It's also why the same people will pay £50+ for a concert ticket - they can see that their favourite artist is actually working for their money instead of just sitting on a private island while the royalties roll in.

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1381236488' post='2236158'] A "good" set up is like a "good" oil change. It's either done right or it isn't. There aren't variables. [/quote] Fair point, but how many people do their own oil changes?

[attachment=145435:nice.jpg]

Won't a Send socket be wired such that it interrupts the signal chain within the amp? (usually between the send and return sockets). If this is the case then the line-level signal will be correctly sent to the tuner and it will work OK but there will be no sound output from the amp. If the Send socket doesn't interrupt the internal signal chain, then the tuner will work OK [u]and[/u] the amp will still operate as normal. Having said, if the amp has a line out socket the that's the one to use because it leaves the Send/Return functionality available for later use. Don't use speaker cables though. These are line level signals and screend cables should be used to minimise interference. A guitar lead shoudl be fine, though it's best to keep things as short as possible.

[quote name='tonyquipment' timestamp='1380896309' post='2232105'] ONE TWO FREE FAW [/quote] Shouldn't that be 'one two FREE FAW' - or is that too obscure?

Why do American light switches operate the opposite way to UK ones?

Presumably a transparent amp is likely to have more sales volume as it could be used by a wider variety of players. A highly coloured amp might be great for one particular genre but not for another. Plus the clue is in the name - amplify = make louder. So, a nice transparent amp for volume and whatever pedals you want for tone. Perhaps?

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1380706659' post='2229147'] Within recent memory, you all may recall a member posting about a couple of brands with which they had had an issue - [b]and which did generate a threat of legal action against the individual[/b]. Thus, I think it's only fair to urge caution - both for the individual member posting, and for the administrator considering the issue. [/quote] I'd say that individuals are responsible for their own actions and if they get sued for something they've posted then that's a matter for them to deal with. The wider issue, I think, is whether BC can also be drawn into any such actions because they hosted the post in the first place. I don't know what the legal position really is, but I'd think it is practically impossible for BC (or any website) to verify the accuracy of what people post. Having said that, I can imagine it's not much fun for the proprietors to receive legal notices so I'm cool with whatever they decide to do (well, within reason!) - it's their website after all.

I know what you mean by 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' but, like it or not, The Beatles are a big part of 20th century musical history so this sort of thing is important as historical material as well as the music. I'm not a great fan of their early stuff so I can see me buying it, though it might be interesting to hear a few of the one-take-no-overdub recordings as a reminder of the days before gazillion track digital recording.

Why couldn't they carry on and just replace the guy. Is he really indispensable? I can understand that they might not want to, but that's not the same as it being inevitable.

or chippies . . . .

Or knock you up a new roof. Alternatively, if you can find yourself a more versatile tradesman . . . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1UHwZS3FE8

Too much narrow thinking going on. Why not get a Porsche? And a VW Transporter for gigging. And a Harley for the summer. And a Range Rover for the grouse moor. And . . . well you get the idea.