Johnnystorm

Phil Morse, post: 22423, member: 2 wrote: Good luck with your Tumblr 🙂

Thanks Phil!

D-Jam, post: 15764, member: 3 wrote: I think there are plenty of free and legal resources for music now that even the broke DJs have no excuse to pirate.

My only debate I have on media rights are when I am told what I can or can’t do with it. If I decide to re-edit a tune for myself and use it…I should not be sued UNLESS I’m giving it away or selling it. When I say “re-edit”, I mean when the tune hasn’t changed much, but I might have rearranged it to lengthen a break or shorten the tune.

In terms of movies, I get mad when it’s suddenly “illegal” to take a DVD I bought legally and rip/convert it for my own personal use on a mobile device. It’s gouging customers to tell them if they want to play a movie they legally bought on DVD on a mobile device, that they have to shell out more money for the digital file. It’s the same when I decide to change the ID3 tags or file name to suit my needs on a music file.

I figure as long as I’m not giving it out to everyone, I should be able to do whatever I want with what I legally paid for.

Yeah I agree with you on this one hundred percent, I’m just getting tired of some of my friends always saying there’s no point in buying music when you can just get it for free. I mean yeah sure you can get it for free, but that doesn’t mean its going to be perfect like it would be from buying it online or whatever.

mr_john, post: 15558, member: 87 wrote: Music is over regulated and artists are over compensated for it. Money should not even be a factor, but the wonderful system of capitalism saw to that. Personally I would feel pretty damn good about life if my album was the top downloaded thing on pirate bay. Do I have to make a living? Yes, and there will be people that buy albums sure. But that’s not how you make a living as an artist. TOURS are how you break even. And it’s never the “up-and-coming” artists whose albums get pirated. It’s the enormous names who have more money than they know what to do with.

What brings in more profits? Album sales or album exposure? If you can spread your music around 10 people at 5 bucks an album great. If you can spread your album to 100 people for free isn’t that better? Don’t you create a larger fan base who then buys merchandise, goes to shows, tells their friends, and buys albums later?

The thing holding these “fringe” artists back isn’t album sales, it’s exposure. Half the reason the sales even matter is because they are what the charts are based on.

No matter how you see it, people should still buy the tracks regardless of how much money the artist already. Getting it for free is what’s causing the decrease in music sales. I’m very much against this, unless an artist decides to give the track or album away for free.

LoveLand, post: 15497, member: 1225 wrote: some emerging artist choose to provide their tracks for free to download to get exposure on the underground. what do you think about that ? sghould it be stopped also ?

You read my post wrong, that wasn’t what I was even getting at. I’m talking about producers who are signed to labels and producers who put their tracks on beatport, Itunes, etc. If you wanna give your track away for free then cool, but I’m sure producers who put their work on beatport or whatever expect people to buy the track and not just download it for free.

Cybertrash, post: 15444, member: 281 wrote: I agree, music should be bought and paid for, what I don’t agree with are the increasingly draconian, privacy-threatening copyright laws that are being drafted, as well as many western government’s blantant pandering to the big content industry (RIAA/MPAA)

Oh I’m totally with you on that one, I agree I think the Government is pushing to hard on those laws they should think of other ways for copyright laws.