I have to wonder what fans feel about this? As I looked on a torrent site I noticed it\'s on a popular torrent site with 17 seeds and 58 leeches. I understand that\'s alot of money to lose. But can you expect people to not listen to these sets if they don\'t want/or can\'t afford to spend 200?
Do you feel that most people who aren\'t going to pay 200 for someone to share this it\'s still bad and blasphemous?
I will give my side of things. I am a longtime veteran listener of Buckethead. I have bought pretty much every project since 05. I am conflicted in paying 200 for a CDR set especially when I have contributed so much to paying for cd\'s. I think it\'s awesome that Buckethead is so dedicated to getting his work out. But I am conflicted in paying 200 for a box set. I am getting a computer and I still have alot to catch up from 06.
I am also conflicted that I want to download this and listen. I plan on buying several releases from TDRS from 06 including Pepper\'s Ghost from this year. And I wonder what everyones thoughts are on this for a semi-supporter of Buckethead who has 80 percent of his work and supported this store with at least 10 releases. What is my responsibility as a fan?
Is it still wrong to download a torrent like this. if people who normally wouldn\'t buy it, and it\'s out there for people around the world to listen? I will be honest with you and say I download albums here and there on torrent sites. I feel alot of music fans do the same thing and still support the artists they love. I also think that alot artists download just as much as me on these sites as well.
Isn\'t this to be expected in this day and age?
I wonder what Travis thinks about people downloading projects of his who may not have the money to go all in but download from torrents to hear what they are missing.
I don\'t want a lecture, it\'s just obvious to me alot of people are in the same boat. I am trying hard not to download "In Search of" and If I did I would just buy alot releases I missed from 06.
Be honest with yourself when you respond. Don\'t preach if you know that you download as much as me. I believe that many people are in the same boat and position as me. Which is : I support the artist when I can but let\'s be realistic. Not everyone is going to buy every cd on the market someone puts out.
Is that person condemned in a music community for not full on hardcore support? I don\'t think so. Let\'s be real,TDRS folks. Most people who are audiophiles who use computers delve/dabble into the areas I am talking about
I give the floor to the TDRS Board.
(Here we go)
(controversial subject)
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
torrenting/sharing copyrighted material is ALWAYS wrong.
and we actually managed last night to get at least one seeder who put the 13 wedges set on a private torrent site to take it down.
there is a BIG discussion over at the tk board about the pro´s and con´s of filesharing. so i just post what i said there.
copyright is a fact. copyright infringement is illegal.
there is no way to take on that with a philosophical / ethical discourse.
its a crime. period.
BUT it is a big difference on how filesharing affects the single artist.
the "big" ones could care less, but an independent artist, like buckethead and travis have a real financial disadvantage.
it is practically stealing from their pocket. instead of beeing happy for bucket, that a musician of his quality can make a living off of his music and still stay as independent as possible, people go and give away HIS work for free!
and sure I dont believe all the "its for the sake of spreading his music" apologies.
if someone torrents 25 official buckethead releases at once, do you really think many folks who dl this, go then and buy all this music once again online or in a store just to own the cd?
any artist like bucket depends on record sales even more than the folks you see on the music channels.
just look at the CSS - repressing : they are willing to start this whole action for 50(!) preorders.does this give you a picture on what financial level independent musicians operate?
sure, many of you are very young and grew up with filesharing as a cool thing. so its not about to condemn a person. its all about making you think about what youre doing. act responsible. support your artist by BUYING his work. and dont make yourself believe filesharing copyrighted material helps any independent artist in the long run.
no, it will kill them. thats the fact.
no record sales - no money comes in - no money to live - no money for a new record...end of career..... back to a shitty day job and play music with bots just on the weekend.
You said it d6! All anyone should think about is how can Bucket release new cd\'s without money? Period.
I\'m in the same situation as yourself for one thing : I can\'t order the whole set now.
I have bought every single disc Buckethead has been on since the beginning of his carreer (maybe except a couple of compilations that don\'t have otherwise unavailable material).
It is the first time that I can\'t buy a new Bucket project. I have only ordered one disc of thisinsearchofthe project. I hope I\'ll manage to order more later.
BUT I won\'t get the music for free. If I can\'t buy it, then I don\'t deserve to have a free listen.
And, $200 for a 13 CDR set is not that much. My problem is that we have not been warned earlier... and couldn\'t save money for this.
QuoteI\'m in the same situation as yourself for one thing : I can\'t order the whole set now.
I have bought every single disc Buckethead has been on since the beginning of his carreer (maybe except a couple of compilations that don\'t have otherwise unavailable material).
It is the first time that I can\'t buy a new Bucket project. I have only ordered one disc of thisinsearchofthe project. I hope I\'ll manage to order more later.
BUT I won\'t get the music for free. If I can\'t buy it, then I don\'t deserve to have a free listen.
And, $200 for a 13 CDR set is not that much. My problem is that we have not been warned earlier... and couldn\'t save money for this.
I\'m in the same boat as your bornalive as in I only ordered one disc. But when I saw the "In Search Of" set on torrent sites I just couldn\'t download it cause I felt like it wouldn\'t be the same, maybe thats just me though.
On another note I was wondering how the numbering of single discs are going to go. Are they just gunna get a number, then when you order more you get different numbers, or can you have it so Buckethead signs the cover with the same set number as your already purchased disc(s)?
Anybody who wants these wonderful CD's should do what I did....
F**king Buy it!
That's kind of the bottom line.
If you are downloading this you are a thief. If you are sharing it you are a criminal and a piece of shit.
I\'ve paid $200 + $11 postage
Is "In Search Of" protected by copyright?
sure it is copyrighted!
it has no written copyright, bc there is nothing on it a "regular " cd has. not even a tracklist and whatnot. its the concept of it. tho it IS still buckets work .
so as soon as it´s finished, its copyrighted by buckethead.
and heres the legal background to it. the USA joined in 1989.
The Berne Convention
The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work,and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention.
The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The USA did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.
I think downloading these albums is even worse than doing it with a normal release. Buckethead is going out of his way to provide this music to his fans. Plus, I would assume most of the money from the sales actually goes to Buckethead, and not to some huge corporation that publishes the music. So, by downloading these, you are really taking money from Buckethead, money that he definitely deserves for all the great music he has brought us. Anyway, I would not download them (unless I was going to buy them anyway at some point) and hope you decide not to.
I don\'t have any problem with downloading stuff from an artist who\'s dead or multibillionair or when 95% of the money goes in the distributor\\label pockets. But I never download albums from independant or small artists.
Quote
No one here is going to condone illegal downloading of Buckethead\'s music no matter what type of lengthy rationalization accompanies it.
You\'d be surprised
Torrent sucks quit ripping off Buckethead! Its one thing to share live performances because Buckethead encourages people to audio and video record his shows for free. But to copy something that is sold on this "Official Site" of his recordings is not cool at all. The guy works hard for a living and for the fans so don\'t rip him off!
Quote
You\'d be surprised
I agree. There\'ll always be a few rotten apples in the bunch, that are disloyal and would rather download the music in order to save a buck. Or, in this case, a lot of bucks. Still, I think it\'s horribly wrong, but it\'s always going to happen no matter where you look.
like i said at the .tk
yeah it sux, but the people unlawfully downloading material are not getting the actual set. i\'m getting 13 individually numbered cd cases that are drawn on by b himself, i\'d pay a $1000 for that, and thats with no music, lol. it just sux for b, cuz thats his art and soul being downloaded for free. but those people can never have what the people who bought it have.
I\'ve downloaded past albums, but only because they were out of print. I\'m pretty sure that\'s legal. Or so says the .tk board.
Quote
Is it still wrong to download a torrent like this if it\'s people who normally wouldn\'t buy it, and it\'s out there for people around the world to listen?
That\'s a damn good point. I discovered Buckethead from my friend who burned me a copy of Giant Robot. I didn\'t pay for that. I got it copy from someone else. OOOOH, I\'M A THEIF!!
Buckethead needs his money. Indeed he does. And he disserves it. But people who can\'t afford the stuff aren\'t evil for downloading his $200 album, not by a long, LONG shot. First, Bucket wouldn\'t get any money either way, and second, it may (and usually does) spark their interest in the artist, causing them to actually buy other albums.
People like to dabble in music, as "JSTHERACON" stated. A lot of people download music so they can actually what the band sounds like before they go out and buy the CD. And then when they really like it, they buy their music and a lot of times buy the album they downloaded as well because they feel bad about it.
Yes, downloading music is against the law and very wrong, especially when done to small artists like Buckethead. It is disgraceful. However, downloading a fucking Beatles album isn\'t morally wrong. They\'re all dead. Downloading a $200 album isn\'t morally wrong either, if you\'re a broke 13 year old kid with shitty parents who wants to hear what the album sounds like.
In short, if you have the money and you donwload this, I would probably want to punch you in the face. But don\'t throw all illegal downloading into one barrel. Just because it\'s illegal doesn\'t mean it\'s wrong... look at gay marriage. That\'s illegal in like 10 states. Why? Who knows.
Yes, downloading music is against the law and very wrong, especially when done to small artists like Buckethead. It is disgraceful. However, downloading a f**king Beatles album isn\'t morally wrong. They\'re all dead. Downloading a $200 album isn\'t morally wrong either, if you\'re a broke 13 year old kid with shitty parents who wants to hear what the album sounds like.
^ Get your facts right before you run your mouth.
Theres also a diffirence of downloading to hear what someone sounds like, compared to 13 cds. Really if its 2 songs or somthing and it sparks your intrest to buy more great. But downloading 13 cds in one big package isnt "getting a taste". Basicly what you said is pure ignorance.
Quote
Yes, downloading music is against the law and very wrong, especially when done to small artists like Buckethead. It is disgraceful. However, downloading a fucking Beatles album isn\'t morally wrong. They\'re all dead.
When did Paul and Ringo die?
Yo Keagan, you should get your facts straight. This is not a $200 album or cd. It is 13 cds that are $20 bucks apiece. If someone cant afford $20 for cd, they can get a job.
QuoteYo Keagan, you should get your facts straight. This is not a $200 album or cd. It is 13 cds that are $20 bucks apiece. If someone cant afford $20 for cd, they can get a job.
Actually my facts are straight, I was talking about the torrent of "in search of the" which had all 13 cds in one. I agree about the job part.
Whoever made the comment about that 20 album Buckethead torrent is totally right. I mean, 20 cd\'s at once?? You couldn\'t soak in all that music in a year.
But, I\'m sick of hearing people argue that file sharing always hurts an independent artist. If it hurts anyone, it\'s the big boys. Say, for instance, you download a Red Hot Chili Peppers CD. Who hasn\'t heard of them? You know what you\'re about to get, and you aren\'t likely to pay for it.
But the kinds of people that listen to independent artists over mainstream artists are generally the types of people who truly appreciate music, and understand how much some of these artists struggle. Personally, if someone recommends a band to me, I\'ll check them out first (whether I download a CD, get a mix from a friend, or hear them live) before I buy anything by them. If I like what I hear and I expect them to make more music, the logical thing to do is buy the CD. It\'s simple.
Moreover, a guy like Buckethead is totally different. I hadn\'t heard about him through friends, but rather through an article years ago in a guitar magazine. During October of 2005, I read that Buckethead was collaborating with Serj from SOAD, and I wanted to check it out. I downloaded it because I had heard amazing things about Buckethead, but had never actually heard him. Fast forward to today. It\'s only been a year and a few months since this guy revolutionized the way I look at music, and I\'ve already BOUGHT 33 cd\'s (including ISoT and Pepper\'s). And I bought That 1 Guy\'s cd after a concert too. In total, that\'s about 500 dollars from me alone in less than a year and a half. In fact, I originally paid for a digital download of Inbred Mountain at Travis\'s store here, and when I saw Buckethead live last September I bought it out of respect, and so I had a hard copy of it since Buckethead means so much to me.
I\'m quite sure there are others exactly like me, just like I\'m sure there are people who download his stuff and never pay for it. But the people who don\'t pay for it would likely never discover him in the first place. I\'m not saying that justifies anything, but it\'s a point to ponder when you could lose hundreds of dollars in sales from guys like me.
I\'m guessing the original poster hasn\'t seen the "Artist Support" page since he asked Travis for his opinion on the subject. Since no one else has mentioned it, I will...
"I have been asked on many occasions what I think about music downloading, file trading and music on the internet and its effects on the music business. I want to be clear here, I\'m talking about out of print studio recordings, live recordings, videos and other art produced by working artists that are commonly traded or downloaded freely.
As long as there has been music or art there has probably been the question, how does the creator of things we all enjoy get compensated for the time and talent he or she puts into creating those things? After all, art is not something you have to have to live, it\'s just something that\'s hard to live without. In other words it\'s not life-sustaining, it just makes living more enjoyable. I also think that since the beginning of art there have been the people who make it, the people who consume it and the people who make money off it, and these are three distinct groups of people. In the past it was the collective society or the ruling elite who were patrons of the arts. The Pharaoh, King or socialist state realized it was in their interest to patronize the arts, to show their power or status. With the coming of the digital age, the traditional roles for the players have changed. While multi-international corporations struggle with how to control access to digital art, I have been thinking about how does the independent artist cope with the age of easy digital copying. First I have to say I have not been one of those who thinks file trading and sharing is necessarily a bad thing, particularly for the struggling independent artist. After all, if someone thinks enough of your art to share and trade it, is that necessarily a bad thing? I think at the moment the state of things is that it\'s just a fact of life: If you create digital art, it\'s going to propagate out of your control. At the moment I don\'t care too much about what the people who traditionally try to make money off of artists are going to do; they always seem to land on their feet. It\'s how can an artist continue to produce art while never being compensated for it? The fact that the art is hard to find, out of print, copied or bootlegged doesn\'t matter, because the artist is effectively put out of work and must seek another form of livelihood. It\'s like if the local food store stopped charging for food, how long would they keep stocking the shelves. I think here is where the consumer of art has to step up and help out. Let\'s just say it doesn\'t matter where you get your art or music ( I\'m not talking about store bought still in print music here, I hope that\'s a no brainier). It\'s everywhere, having propagated like the endless chain of life. You get it by downloading or trading wherever you happen to find it. On the internet, on someone else\'s computer or handed to you on a ridiculously cheap-to-produce disc. If you love the art and you listen or look or experience the artist\'s creativity and it means something to you, here\'s where you can make a big difference. Seek out the artist and make some small payment in appreciation; at least pay the royalty that the artist might have gotten in days gone by. Think about the bargain you\'re getting because of the way you acquired your art: You saved on packaging, shipping and the overhead that large media companies try to exact from artists. If you can find a CD by an artist you like at a retail outlet, you can be pretty sure a royalty is being paid (hmmm, I hope, anyway). Here we offer downloads of CDs that are hard to find, the artists still owns the copyright to this material and you can be sure the artist gets their royalty directly. If you can\'t find it any other way than trading and it becomes meaningful in your life some way, I think it\'s important to seek out and become the patron of that artist. One of the biggest misconceptions I read about justifying not paying for art is that the artist is somehow wealthy and won\'t miss the revenue. I can tell you working for over 30 years with artists who are surprisingly well-known that this is just not usually the case. Most of them live month to month like the rest of us. I hope this is something you will think about.
This page is where you can make a contribution to an artist\'s royalty for art you have acquired by whatever means and you think enough of it to seek out that artist and compensate them. Think of it like shareware, if you use it, pay something for it. I\'m going to start a row of donation buttons for PayPaling contributions to artists I work with here. Give whatever you like, but a donation of $4 or more will better survive the minimum take by the credit-card companies. I hope next time you give a disc to a friend, you will say, "This is some great music. If you love it as much as I do, I know a place you can show your appreciation, pay your fair royalty, directly to this artist."
Thank you,
Travis"
Quote
Get your facts right before you run your mouth.
Theres also a diffirence of downloading to hear what someone sounds like, compared to 13 cds. Really if its 2 songs or somthing and it sparks your intrest to buy more great. But downloading 13 cds in one big package isnt "getting a taste". Basicly what you said is pure ignorance.
Yes, there is a difference. However, there is no difference between getting 13 disks you can\'t pay for and getting one disk you can\'t pay for. Nothing of what you blabbered has any relevance to this discussion, at all. What you just said is pure idiocy, obviously born from childlike frustration at the fact that I justified something you\'re blindly against.
Get a brain before you run your mouth.
What do you think of a bucket fan who owns about 10 albums, and plans to buy the ones he samples?? Tour only cd\'s do restrict fans. At the shows for elephant man and inbred I wanted to be up front, so I couldnt go to the back to purchase a CD. I haven\'t downloaded any of the cds, but occasionally a track or two pop up on myspace to be listened to.
QuoteI\'ve downloaded past albums, but only because they were out of print. I\'m pretty sure that\'s legal. Or so says the .tk board.
It\'s not legal to download albums just because they go out of print. And for the record, that isn\'t the general consensus at the .tk board either. Permission is always sought from Bucket via Greg or Travis or whoever before any oop material is shared. e.g. Permission was granted for the Giant Robot NTT & Blueprints downloads and to share the Binge Vids.
QuoteHowever, downloading a fucking Beatles album isn\'t morally wrong. They\'re all dead.
That is, bar none, the funniest comment (albeit unintentionally) I\'ve ever read on the internet! I laughed so hard I actually started crying...thank you so much, you really brightened up my day!
haaa, yes, snubnog + bigbri - that beatles comment IS funny!!
aaah,the double-edged sword that is illegal downloading!
Quotehaaa, yes, snubnog + bigbri - that beatles comment IS funny!!
Hehe heh...it works on so many levels..you can\'t write material that good!
Quotetorrenting/sharing copyrighted material is ALWAYS wrong.
and we actually managed last night to get at least one seeder who put the 13 wedges set on a private torrent site to take it down.
there is a BIG discussion over at the tk board about the pro´s and con´s of filesharing. so i just post what i said there.
copyright is a fact. copyright infringement is illegal.
there is no way to take on that with a philosophical / ethical discourse."
its a crime. period.
BUT it is a big difference on how filesharing affects the single artist.
the "big" ones could care less, but an independent artist, like buckethead and travis have a real financial disadvantage.
it is practically stealing from their pocket. instead of beeing happy for bucket, that a musician of his quality can make a living off of his music and still stay as independent as possible, people go and give away HIS work for free!
and sure I dont believe all the "its for the sake of spreading his music" apologies.
if someone torrents 25 official buckethead releases at once, do you really think many folks who dl this, go then and buy all this music once again online or in a store just to own the cd?
any artist like bucket depends on record sales even more than the folks you see on the music channels.
just look at the CSS - repressing : they are willing to start this whole action for 50(!) preorders.does this give you a picture on what financial level independent musicians operate?
sure, many of you are very young and grew up with filesharing as a cool thing. so its not about to condemn a person. its all about making you think about what youre doing. act responsible. support your artist by BUYING his work. and dont make yourself believe filesharing copyrighted material helps any independent artist in the long run.
no, it will kill them. thats the fact.
no record sales - no money comes in - no money to live - no money for a new record...end of career..... back to a shitty day job and play music with bots just on the weekend.
I strongly disagree with you on several fronts.
1) it\'s not a copy it\'s a sort of dub of material. DCRM License is not able to prosecute people who share files. Why do you think these torrent sites are still available? It\'s in essence like trading tapes, only this time there is no "tape" I have to be humored at this when people tell someone it\'s illegal when it\'s not. It isn\'t! Only when money is trading HANDS. They never will. It\'s an RIAA fraud and a mockery to anything in a court room. You will get laughed out if you try to get someone sharing files on a peer 2 peer.
2) You aren\'t copyrighting anything it\'s being traded for no compensation. I know alot of artists & their supporters want to kick and scream but there really is nothing an artist can do about this. Except say it\'s Illegal and immoral under false pretense. But usually people who say this are projecting because they feel guilty about doing the same thing. I AM being honest with you. There are artists who preach this message of downloading is stealing and do the same damn thing that most are doing.
3) People are giving his work away for free in exchange for exposure. I think that\'s the hit that Travis and other artists who are defiantly against this are going to have to face.
4) You don\'t have to believe that they aren\'t sharing the music for the love of his work. But you have to come to terms that is what is going to *FOREVER* happen. There will be no serious legal case for ANY of these uploaders on these torrent sites. I gurantee you that. Because this is the fact it\'s not a tangible property.
5) A Buckethead fan who preordered the set put this up. Fans/Artist/Label have to come to terms this is the hit you have to take. But that\'s the sacrifice of an artist these days. Whether it\'s a tv series (Which is constantly downloaded btw and most actors/actresses don\'t give a damn because it\'s exposure and promotion leading t their other projects) There is no easy answer because artists are going to have to sacrifice part of the compensation for the exposure. I know alot of people are religiously against this.
But that\'s the way of the world to get the name out.
That\'s what everyone on here is going to have to come to terms with. That you might be DAMN wrong in the longrun.
6) I believe independent artists have benefitted from this in more ways than anyone can imagine. I think the big difference is the supporters will buy and support selectively when it comes to artist who is prolific like Buckethead. And D6, you will have to come to terms with this eventually. The rules of art and commerce are changing. NOTHING is set in stone.
continued)
7) The issue of stealing out of pocket. That\'s not known whether this downloader or will support or not. Some just don\'t buy music,period. So in a weird sense, I\'d rather that person hear it and pass it to someone who becomes a supporter. Now I know alot of people want to stand on the pulpit and pretend that they are morally righteous on this issue. That always occurs in a predicament like this.
8) Do I think alot of people who download a discography will purchase the cd\'s from TDRS? It depends on the person individually. But I do think if he is a audiophile and purchases cd\'s will buy directly if he has the income to do so. If he isn\'t a audiophile, then he isn\'t going to. You can\'t just make a blanket statement like, "Of course they won\'t" That\'s just not the case for people who consume music
9) The Big companies do care about filesharing. It\'s discussed on industry boards about the rampant sharing. But that\'s in our DNA,D6. The more you try to stop it and say "you can\'t" we do,period. Nothing you say will ever change that.
10) What does that say about a TDRS fan who puts it up to people will likely not hear about it? Is he morally wrong? I don\'t think so. Because let\'s face facts:There is only a small percentage who are going to pay for a CDR set for 200 or 20 a cdr. Everyone is going to come to terms with this. That\'s why I say: It\'s better to take the hit and just realize people are listening to it around the world who would not listen to it. And thus inspiring more creativity in this world.
11) Bucket is going to have to come to terms with this. He can think of these as promotional digital copies. Did we get mad at reviewers,dj\'s,promotional men etc for having the product without compensation? Hell no we didn\'t. Buckethead & Travis are going to have to face the reality that his work will be distributed freely around the world. BUT...I do believe that this works out for him more than we can possibly imagine. There\'s no way to account for a loss of sales from downloaders. Because we don\'t know what their purchasing
12) Did Buckethead pay royalties to every single artist/producer/director/actor/recorded source that he sampled off his records? I\'m guessing he didn\'t. Which is another simple truth. We all share what we love even if it\'s conflicted legally or morally,D6. And it will never change.
13) This myth about artists going out of business because people download. This is a myth that has root in "RIAA",D6. It\'s sort of like the fear tactic that this administration uses to fund the war on terror abroad.
There is no basis for it. It\'s been going on since 1999.
The people that support will support. But let\'s not be insane,D6. No one is going to buy every single release so just because some sales may be tapering off and slower than others. That doesn\'t mean it\'s because everyone is downloading the releases and not paying.
Moreso alot independents are benefitting from this because they are marketing correctly. Usually the ones who do not adapt or evolve to the current times will perish or fold. That is why alot independents are surviving because they realize RIAA isn\'t right about the downloading issue. It\'s a good system of distribution.
Those that support do, and there are those who don\'t. Whether it\'s lack of income or general interest in that kind of voracious response.
14) I would bet you money up front,D6. That Buckethead has benefitted from all these downloads all over the place. I don\'t care what anyone says. I bet you TDRS has had a spike in business because of the downloading this freely. I know it\'s a paradox. The more you give away, you get back eventually. There are some restaurants where the patrons can eat for free. I know that\'s insane to people in a business. But that\'s a culture that some of you can\'t understand.
15: CSS isn\'t known that well. How many people about TDRS who are Buckethead fans? Where\'s the marketing? Where\'s the banners? The fans should make some banners for CSS (and others) and maybe Travis should do a press release for it explaining his releases. You can get on a free P.R. wire on the net that helps visibility and marketability. So the excuse of the budget? That\'s out. I\'m guessing CSS isn\'t a important release.
But you can put it on a press wire for free.
Plus TDRS has a disconnect of the blogs in guitarville and musicville in general. I notice that and I come back here and I think we need to get a blogroll to get the word on the music out. But this 20 a cdr for In Search of? Oh, you gotta be kidding me. We are going into losing interest territory where you could potentially gain a influx of customers with this set. D6. sometimes you have to take a step back and look at things in perspective.
16) IMO, In search of is overpriced on the market for a single CDR. I know artists want to make a gain of profit. But you have to remember:everyone has music to sell in the world in this global village. It\'s not that "obscure" as it once was. Which kind of takes some of the allure out of it. Do you know how many companies would say "20 for a scrawled CDR? Do you know what you are doing? " No one is disputing the love that Buckethead has for his fans. But not many artists are selling 20 for a CDR (not including shipping) unless it\'s from Japan or a distant foreign country.
We are in a slowing down economy and it\'s important for all artists to know that and fix their prices for the times in which we live in.
17. It\'s not a fact it\'s a myth that is unproven,d6. I can tell you that music will become free just like anyother media in the 21st century. But it will also still be a business.
The support will always be there just don\'t start jumping up and down if the sales plummet in the coming years because of the impending economic crash.
Im sorry but it\'s not cut and dry. We have close to a decade of downloading music. And the Bernes act isnt going to hold up against a digital medium.
That war was lost a long time ago. You would get booted out of court. If you cited the Bernes act. It\'s not going to hold up in 2-0-0-7
Blame this on the RIAA.........
QuoteAnybody who wants these wonderful CD’s should do what I did….
F**king Buy it!
That’s kind of the bottom line.
If you are downloading this you are a thief. If you are sharing it you are a criminal and a piece of shit.
This kind of response will always get you demolished with download numbers. Look at metalica\'s numbers and other acts who tried to take on the downloader. They got literally smashed to the pavement and back again. If this went public with your reaction you would have the seeders up to 400 by now. It\'s counterproductive.
It\'s up to 85 seeders now for In Search of.
Immediately when you pull out a negative reaction to anyone who downloads.
I want to tell you something,Colmatose. Alot of your favorite artists download immensely just like alot of us.
It\'s alll hypocrisy and theater and fear of the evolution of technology in distribution of music.
Quote
I agree. There\'ll always be a few rotten apples in the bunch, that are disloyal and would rather download the music in order to save a buck. Or, in this case, a lot of bucks. Still, I think it\'s horribly wrong, but it\'s always going to happen no matter where you look.
Horribly wrong? I disagree with this one wholeheartedly. Alot of people who will dl this wouldn\'t spend that kind of money. Is it a grey area? Sure, but what isn\'t in life?
I worked in a music store and I tell you what makes people stray away from the artist. When you jack the price just because of who you are. When you are prolific and you have a slew of releases in a short amount of time.
I think we can safely say that most people in the Buckethead community will pay if they have the money. And those new to Buckethead, they don\'t know about TDRS.
I am on the fence if I will pay because It\'s a CDR. I might just wait for the TDRS download or I may not.
But don\'t think just because someone downloads that makes them a thief or immoral. That\'s some hypocrite crap. Because your favorite freaking artists or friends are doing it right now as we speak somewhere in this world. And you wouldn\'t dare say that to someone you idolize or look up to.
This is a culture. I download freely and I always observe reactions on this issue. It\'s controversial but the worst kind of backfire you can imagine will come from judging and demonizing.
Believe me even the people who come out against downloading ARE downloading. It\'s all just a dramatic theater show on the internet. I know all the standard answers when someone opposes it.
Now I don\'t know about here, but like Colmatose said you would be surprised who downloads broadly in the music community.
I don\'t think I will stop either. I will keep supporting artists when I can afford to. But if someone has something to share I will check it out. (And so will your favorite artists as well and the listener in that community chiming that downloading is wrong. Usually the one who is the loudest is just projecting)
:o
... I think someone struck a chord with that dude
wow, what a reply. take it a lot of it is adressed to me, since you quoted my post.
but I cant read it. I worked (was painting ) all day....so I dont wanna make my eyes bleed...... no pun intended.
said my opinion already. just have to add.
if you go to the "artist support" section, you can read what travis says.
and I can sum my point of view up in 3 sentences:
torrenting/ filesharing free material is a great thing. and its with the permission of the artist.
torrenting/ filesharing of copyrighted material is a rip off. and its without the permission of the artist.
because in the end ITS THE ARTIST WHO CREATES. IT IS HIS WORK,no artist - no music - what are those folks gonna download then?
I am on the fence if I will pay because It\'s a CDR. I might just wait for the TDRS download or I may not.
I dont see that happening anyime soon. Its limited edition for a reason. If it was available for download people could burn their own disks them selfs and sell it off as the real deal. Yes they could do that now, but it would be alot cheaper and faster for them to just download it. Hence the fact that it is limited edition.
QuoteThat is, bar none, the funniest comment (albeit unintentionally) I\'ve ever read on the internet! I laughed so hard I actually started crying...thank you so much, you really brightened up my day!
Why thank you. I realise they aren\'t all dead now... don\'t blame me on that one, I\'m not a Beatles fan; I wouldn\'t know/give a damn. I\'m sure the ones still alive are rolling in cash, anywho.
My points still stand, however funny you find the Beatles comment. Rolling all downloading into one barrel and calling it "immoral" is stupid, and hating it because it\'s illegal is stupid.
"copyright is a fact. copyright infringement is illegal.
there is no way to take on that with a philosophical / ethical discourse.
its a crime. period."
Yes, it is a crime. But those of us who don\'t blindly follow what people with authority say and actually think for ourselves can have mature conversations about these things. If anything should be questioned, it should be law. Changed, maybe not. But ALWAYS questioned. I don\'t see how you could actually believe this. Philosophical/ethical discourse is the only way to deduce if these laws are right or not... and I assure you, just because America says it\'s wrong, doesn\'t make it wrong.
Our government is not infallible.
Quote"copyright is a fact. copyright infringement is illegal.
there is no way to take on that with a philosophical / ethical discourse.
its a crime. period."
Yes, it is a crime. But those of us who don\'t blindly follow what people with authority say and actually think for ourselves can have mature conversations about these things. If anything should be questioned, it should be law. Changed, maybe not. But ALWAYS questioned. I don\'t see how you could actually believe this. Philosophical/ethical discourse is the only way to deduce if these laws are right or not... and I assure you, just because America says it\'s wrong, doesn\'t make it wrong.
Our government is not infallible.
A perfect reply.
Here\'s the real crime ...
Filing down these sonic shards to nubs!
MP3s sound hollow and thin.
QuoteHere\'s the real crime ...
Filing down these sonic shards to nubs!
MP3s sound hollow and thin.
Basically the main reason I don\'t download music.
QuoteHere\'s the real crime ...
Filing down these sonic shards to nubs!
MP3s sound hollow and thin.
Sadly, I don\'t have a portable CD player right now (threw mine at a wall... not out of anger, just because it stopped working and I thought it\'d be fun) so I just use my MP3 player for music anyways. A valid point nonetheless.
Quote"copyright is a fact. copyright infringement is illegal.
there is no way to take on that with a philosophical / ethical discourse.
its a crime. period."
Yes, it is a crime. But those of us who don\'t blindly follow what people with authority say and actually think for ourselves can have mature conversations about these things. If anything should be questioned, it should be law. Changed, maybe not. But ALWAYS questioned. I don\'t see how you could actually believe this. Philosophical/ethical discourse is the only way to deduce if these laws are right or not... and I assure you, just because America says it\'s wrong, doesn\'t make it wrong.
Our government is not infallible.
true enough. laws aren\'t always right. But let\'s step away from the law for a moment. Let\'s consider all the ways you personally screw over others when you download entire CDs. Even if you were a complete anarchist, I\'d suspect that on some level you might care about how your actions affect others, particularly those artists whom you claim to enjoy and respect.
The artists aren\'t doing this as a hobby. This is their profession. This is how they pay their bills. When they record music, they are working. The songs and CDs they create are their property. They have the right to be paid for their work.
You wouldn\'t expect a chef in a restaurant to give away his meals for free. You wouldn\'t expect a dentist to pull your teeth without payment. So why would you expect an artist to give away their work for free and smile about it?
When you dl entire CDs from indie artists like Bucket, you really are taking money right out of their pockets. In addition, you\'re also screwing over the rest of us. Just as shoplifting results in higher prices in stores, if the artist loses CD sales to torrent downloads, it will lead to higher prices and less music.
"But I want to hear a sample!" is not a valid argument either. THere are plenty of places to hear Bucket without ripping off entire CDs: his MySpace, all the YouTube links where he\'s kindly allowed people to tape his shows, his own site, this site, etc.
"but I can\'t afford it!" So? Life\'s not fair, and we don\'t always get everything we want. That doesn\'t mean you have to resort to theft. Get one CD instead of the whole set. save up. Even if you\'re a kid, you can always babysit, shovel snow, deliver papers, whatever. Of course, that means you\'d have to take the high road and EARN what you want, instead of taking the easy way out and stealing.
Yeah, there are always going to be people who download complete CDs. just realize that you are in fact stealing, and don\'t try to make it into some noble gesture of rebellion. you\'re taking something that does not belong to you without paying for it. dress it up however you wish, but realize you really are negatively affecting the artist.
Buckethead needs to eat too. Make sure to reimburse the artist.
I haven\'t ordered ISO yet, but I am looking forward to it.
BTW, Buckethead...you totally ROCKED at the Vic in Chicago. You RULE!
I think of that day everyday...I have never had so much fun.
QuoteIf anything should be questioned, it should be law.
yea those pesky child porn laws should be questioned and we need to rethink this whole drunk driving stuff too, oh yea and lets not forget murder i mean there are so many folks wrongly imprisoned for killing other folks.
Quote
yea those pesky child porn laws should be questioned and we need to rethink this whole drunk driving stuff too, oh yea and lets not forget murder i mean there are so many folks wrongly imprisoned for killing other folks.
Yes. Let\'s question.
Should we legalize murder?
No. People have the right to live.
End of questioning.
Obviously not all law is bad, LIKE I SAID. But that doesn\'t mean all law is good. Blindly following law is absolutely positively one of the most idiotic things one can do. It is pathetic, cowardly, and counter-productive as far as the advancement of society is concerned.
"When you dl entire CDs from indie artists like Bucket, you really are taking money right out of their pockets. In addition, you\'re also screwing over the rest of us. Just as shoplifting results in higher prices in stores, if the artist loses CD sales to torrent downloads, it will lead to higher prices and less music."
Yes. But if he wouldn't get a sale anyway, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, it wouldn't matter. At all.
"There are plenty of places to hear Bucket without ripping off entire CDs: his MySpace, all the YouTube links where he\'s kindly allowed people to tape his shows, his own site, this site, etc."
Congratulations. You know where else you can get his music? By downloading his CDs. And if you wouldn't have bought them anyway, it wouldn't do any harm at all, just as watching Youtube videos do no harm.
"but I can\'t afford it!" So? Life\'s not fair, and we don\'t always get everything we want. That doesn\'t mean you have to resort to theft."
Theft is bad because it hurts people and their sales. Like I've said (what, three times now?) if he wouldn't get a sale anyway, because they can't afford it, it hurts nothing, and therefore is not morally wrong at all.
"Yeah, there are always going to be people who download complete CDs. just realize that you are in fact stealing, and don\'t try to make it into some noble gesture of rebellion. you\'re taking something that does not belong to you without paying for it. dress it up however you wish, but realize you really are negatively affecting the artist."
Pure trash. It's as if you didn't even read my first post. I was never, ever making anything noble of rebellion. The only arguments I've made are "not all illegal downloads are morally wrong" and "following law blindly, just because it\'s law, is stupid." These are still very true. As I've said (four times now) in the situation I proposed, it does not hurt the artist. AT ALL. The broke 13 year old who downloads Bucket's albums because he wants to hear them is not walking into Bucket's house and stealing it. He's getting a copy from someone else, in no way harming the artist. This is an example of an illegal download that isn't wrong.
Also, downloading an album that is out of print is not morally wrong either. The artist isn\'t selling the album anymore, and is thus not making any more money off of it. Downloading the album then hurts no one.
solar in no way do i mean this with ill will...
but you are a glistening jewel of colossal ignorance
if you arent(werent) going to buy a CD in the first place and you still download it without paying for it is still theft. The keebler elves want everyone to buy and eat their cookies, myself i eat (and buy) chips ahoy. So using your logic i can go into any store steal me a box of keebler brand cookies eat em and say i wasnt wasnt gonna buy em in the first place. Debate over... you lost
Quotesolar in no way do i mean this with ill will...
but you are a glistening jewel of colossal ignorance
if you arent(werent) going to buy a CD in the first place and you still download it without paying for it is still theft. The keebler elves want everyone to buy and eat their cookies, myself i eat (and buy) chips ahoy. So using your logic i can go into any store steal me a box of keebler brand cookies eat em and say i wasnt wasnt gonna buy em in the first place. Debate over... you lost
Wrong. Theft is a bad thing because it hurts people, rips people off and takes money away from people. Downloading a CD you would never pay for in the first place is neither stealing a CD from the artist, nor stealing money from the artist. The artist loses nothing... not a CD because you aren\'t walking in a stealing a physical CD from him, and not any money, because even if you didn\'t download it he wouldn\'t get the money anyway, because you couldn\'t afford it in the first place and therefore could never have bought it.
That\'s, what, the fifth time I\'ve said that?
You lost this debate before you even began. I proved your argument wrong before you even said it. Stop wasting my time.
justify it anyway you want but at the end of the day you have someones art and/or intellectual property you didnt pay for given to you by someone who didnt have the right to give it to you.
Quotejustify it anyway you want but at the end of the day you have someones art and/or intellectual property you didnt pay for given to you by someone who didnt have the right to give it to you.
Did Buckethead clear all those music//movie/tv/cartoon samples he used on his albums and everything he reinterpeted on the guitar? We can play this game all day. I bet you a C note he didn\'t. You would lose that C Note in a heartbeat. Thus Mr Bucket used samples illegally of what? Intellectual Propert.y Was he given the right to use it and authorized? No...Once again entering the grey zone. (Which we all do..it just depends how far we individually go)
No one is pure and saintly. That\'s what Im trying to express to everyone. All of our halo\'s tilt I believe. All Halo\'s tilt.
We will debate this endlessly and I thank those for their passion and replies. I will continue to support TDRS as much as I feel the desire/passion to do so. But to call someone immoral or a thief?
The internet just made it vastly clear we all live in a grey zone. And the one thing that really surprised me is the response of demonizing and judging for someone who is a voracious downloader. To me, that was kind of a shock coming from Buckethead listeners.
I will reiterate again:
"All our halo\'s tilt"
P.S. Usually the loudest in response and defiance to something is the culprit. Just something to think about.
and no....you won\'t go to alleged Illegal Filesharing Hell.
Quotewow, what a reply. take it a lot of it is adressed to me, since you quoted my post.
but I cant read it. I worked (was painting ) all day....so I dont wanna make my eyes bleed...... no pun intended.
said my opinion already. just have to add.
because in the end ITS THE ARTIST WHO CREATES. IT IS HIS WORK,no artist - no music - what are those folks gonna download then?
This is what I love about being a individual. You have a view and I have a view. I buy what I feel inside I should buy. I have interviewed artists and you know what most of them tell me? Go ahead and do it because we all seem to delve into that. No Lie. The rest just usually say "I dont know" RIAA effed this up,imo. They effed this up more than you can imagine or fathom.
Whether it\'s an album or a 100 disc set. The lines are blurring. This is the truth coming you at full speed. There will be no stopping anyone from mediasharing on the net freely? Hell, they got Ghostrider on the net.
Now maybe people should get prosecuted for illegally going into a theater and recording on a digital camera a film.
Now Im not going to ask every artist if it\'s okay to dl their work. Because......
1) I can\'t reach them
2) That\'s kind of stalkerish
3) There\'s hundreds of artists we listen to
4) I support the hell out of artists. This is just my personal choice.
You know, when you think about it. It\'s rather silly. It\'s a culture of people who fileshare. I know alot of people don\'t understand it and i respect that
Blame this on the RIAA. They launched the war on downloading music with Napster. THAT case killed them ..literally made them a laughing stock.
THEN they tried it with Metalica.
There is a guy named Lord of the borrowers- he has the most files/media/software/games of anyone in the internet. Is he a despicable person because this is what he believes in sharing?
Before you answer that and call him a disgusting immoral thieving person. Which some would do immediately. He\'s handicapped and he found something that gives him joy and keeps him busy. He has helped so many people. And yes technically it\'s a bit crazy that he downloads everything in the world. But people have been so ultra c brainwashed. Sometimes we need a person like that in the world. I know it\'s a paradox that alot of people don\'t want to accept. But it\'s more true than most of us will ever know.
I know it\'s alot for people to wrap their head around "WHAT Are you saaaying"
I\'
Alot of the artists appreciate this open filesharing privately. They see these people as street teamers and promoters of getting the word out.
So for those silently lurking on this thread scared of being denounced or demonized or lectured at, know this.
Alot of the artists are with you on this controversial issue. And I know the artists some of them are holding their tongue with different views. But this debate will never be over.
I believe it helps the artists and alot people are just scared because of the outcome of sales in the future.
The supporters will always be there. And I will always support TDRS, as I\'ve stated already.
This nonchalant attitude "Tough if you don\'t have the money. You can\'t listen to it"
It\'s over. The filesharers/torrenters brought the hammer down. What did closing Napster down do? It did nothing. It just made something even stronger than it was before. People around the world are listening to a artist they never would have. It\'s a great thing and I think people are just scared of change as usual.
Check this out:
There are torrent sites (I kid you not) of people who have the latest movies in theaters of an above average and sound quality. These people go into the theater with a light on their digital camera. The MPAA doesn\'t do a damn thing about them. Because they are scared of what nappened with RIAA and Napster
It\'s your neighbor
It\'s that artist you idolize
it\'s your college professor
It\'s your girlfriend
could be your parents
it\'s all races,all creed,all religions and all ages
And I gurantee you that they changed people\'s lives by some of their seeding of their music or movies or books.
So in that regard, I think it\'s really a positive thing,imho.
Quote
Did Buckethead clear all those music//movie/tv/cartoon samples he used on his albums and everything he reinterpeted on the guitar? We can play this game all day. I bet you a C note he didn\'t. You would lose that C Note in a heartbeat. Thus Mr Bucket used samples illegally of what? Intellectual Propert.y Was he given the right to use it and authorized? No...Once again entering the grey zone. (Which we all do..it just depends how far we individually go)
Not.
Um, given the myriad lawsuits that have arisen from sampling over the past 15 years, and given the fact that Buckethead\'s a longtime professional, ten to one, everything that\'s been used has either been cleared and paid for appropriately, is in the public domain, or has fallen under fair use restrictions. These things happen behind the scenes. Bucket\'s own music is licensed by BMI, so I\'d trust that he is fully familiar with rights requirements.
Oh, and playing cover tunes and interpreting other people\'s music during a live performance falls under different restrictions...most of the time the venue has a license with BMI or ASCAP so it\'s up to them to pay, not the artist.
Quote
Wrong. Theft is a bad thing because it hurts people, rips people off and takes money away from people. Downloading a CD you would never pay for in the first place is neither stealing a CD from the artist, nor stealing money from the artist. The artist loses nothing... not a CD because you aren\'t walking in a stealing a physical CD from him, and not any money, because even if you didn\'t download it he wouldn\'t get the money anyway, because you couldn\'t afford it in the first place and therefore could never have bought it.
That\'s, what, the fifth time I\'ve said that?
You lost this debate before you even began. I proved your argument wrong before you even said it. Stop wasting my time.
You have indeed said this several times, but your logic here is still seriously flawed.
Downloading a CD you would never pay for in the first place is neither stealing a CD from the artist, nor stealing money from the artist. The artist loses nothing... not a CD because you aren\'t walking in a stealing a physical CD from himAh, but yes, it is stealing. When you buy a CD, you\'re really not paying for the actual plastic disc, you\'re purchasing a personal copy of the content. The songs are the product, whether they are packaged in a tangible form such as a CD or as an mp3. If there is a set price for ownership of a copy of those songs, and you do not pay it, you\'ve committed an act of theft.
And intent is really irrelevant. It doesn\'t matter if you weren\'t planning on buying the album. You\'ve still taken something without paying for it.
Again, for that 13 year old kid who downloads albums because they want the music...sorry, again, no sympathy here. If they want it that badly, they should find a way to purchase it lawfully. Instead of looking for instant gratification, how about working to earn what you want? Or do you really think that in the real world, you\'ll just be able to take whatever you please, without repercussions?
Buckethead cannot continue his career without money. He might be supporting more than just himself.
That being said, downloading his music is a value-dependent question; no way around it.
Do you believe that the State-supported "free" market (which, by its very nature, concentrates wealth) facilitates fair and just exchange? I don\'t.
I don\'t know Buckethead\'s financial status; I don\'t know how much money he makes from CDs, how much from touring, how much he can make using his skills in a different manner. Since I don\'t believe it can be demonstrated that the market facilitates fair exchange, I DO believe these questions matter.
Whats more, however, is that not every consumer\'s dollar is of equal worth, either. Someone might be a hard-working cashier, earning $16,000/yr, while another rakes in $100,000/yr profits from investments in hedge funds (ie, to gamble with capital). Throw in a third person, who works as a college professor who inherited over $1 million (67% of America\'s wealth is inherited), and consults for the Department of Defense, providing information on political and religious factions within Iraq so the United States can establish a dependent client state; and a fourth, say, an underground marajuana salesperson who sells pot mostly to cancer patients.
The first three are within the law. The last is not. One can imagine all sorts of other examples. Are all dollars earned equal?
If you happen to challenge the core fundamentals of our economic relations - and the political system that upholds them - then you will see the significance of these questions. How you challenge those principles will determine your answer to what a given person ought to do.
Quotejustify it anyway you want but at the end of the day you have someones art and/or intellectual property you didnt pay for given to you by someone who didnt have the right to give it to you.
Wrong yet again. "Intellectual property"? Yeah, sure. You would have a copy of something he created. But, we got it from someone who never had the right to give it to us?
So, when you print out a picture of the Mona Lisa, you\'re stealing from Da Vinci?
When you quote someone\'s speech, you\'re stealing from them?
When you burn your friend a CD, you\'re stealing from the artist?
When you say a joke you heard somewhere else, you\'re stealing that from the person you heard it from?
I guess selling anything over E-Bay should be illegal too. I mean, they don\'t have the right to sell things they own, right? Just like people don\'t have the right to share things they own.
You are a complete moron, and a worthless piece of human trash. Who the fuck do you think you are, making up what rights people have or don\'t have? As I have PROVEN many, many times, not all downloading hurts the artist, and therefore not all downloading is wrong. As long as we aren\'t hurting anything, we have (should have) the right to do whatever the hell we want to do, and if you\'re against it, you are a disgusting, freedom hating bastard. Shut up now.
"Ah, but yes, it is stealing. When you buy a CD, you\'re really not paying for the actual plastic disc, you\'re purchasing a personal copy of the content. The songs are the product, whether they are packaged in a tangible form such as a CD or as an mp3. If there is a set price for ownership of a copy of those songs, and you do not pay it, you\'ve committed an act of theft."
Except the artist loses money by producing thousands of copies of that CD. You are paying him for the CD, as a carrier of the art. If you couldn't buy that CD in the first place, downloading the album hurts nothing. Sixth time I've proven that.
"And intent is really irrelevant. It doesn\'t matter if you weren\'t planning on buying the album. You\'ve still taken something without paying for it."
You haven't taken anything from anyone. You did not take the CD. You downloaded a copy of the music, hurting no one. If you steal the Mona Lisa, it's theft. If you print off a copy of the Mona Lisa from you're computer, it's not. You don't have to pay for the Mona Lisa to enjoy its art.
"Again, for that 13 year old kid who downloads albums because they want the music...sorry, again, no sympathy here."
And the truth doesn't give a rat's ass if you have sympathy or not. The 13 kid hurts nothing and no one, and therefore is doing nothing wrong. Seventh time.
"Instead of looking for instant gratification, how about working to earn what you want? Or do you really think that in the real world, you\'ll just be able to take whatever you please, without repercussions?"
Talk to the people downloading the album. But I don't see why they should save up for gratification later when they could just get gratification now. That 13 year old kid needs his money for other things, and by the time he finally gets the doe, I'm sure they'll be out of print, and then he'd have to get one over E-Bay.
Oh, wait... people don't have the right to sell or share other people's art. So I guess we should make E-Bay illegal too.
Thank you Trev and phartacus for being the voices of reason in this thread! 8) I\'m glad to see that some people still have brains. Solar keeps comign up with more and more excuses why it is "ok" to steal when really its a load of crap. As for the 13 year old kid thing. Yeah it can hurt the artist. Thats also a load of crap. What if he likes it and takes the music. Tells his friend, his friend likes it, downloads all the albums. The kids parents like the music, and do the same thing. They tell their friends where they can get good music for free. It does hurt the artist. I am a student and I buy my buckethead material. If I dont have it then too bad I have to work for it if I want to hear it. I\'m not a lazy ass who sits around and finds ways to exploit laws so I can get away with stealing music from an artist I respect. The work is out there for you to make the money. you just have to be proactive.
oh by the way-
However, downloading a f**king Beatles album isn\'t morally wrong. They\'re all dead.
QuoteYou are a complete moron, and a worthless piece of human trash. Who the fuck do you think you are, making up what rights people have or don\'t have? As I have PROVEN many, many times, not all downloading hurts the artist, and therefore not all downloading is wrong. As long as we aren\'t hurting anything, we have (should have) the right to do whatever the hell we want to do, and if you\'re against it, you are a disgusting, freedom hating bastard. Shut up now.
I dont make up rights people have, im just telling you whats is the law international and otherwise. As far as the other tripe and personal attacks you spew.... I let let those words and your overall philosophy on stealing other peoples art speak about your character. But I do wanna say I find it rather ironic and quite comical that immediately upon calling me a "freedom hating bastard" you have the audacity to tell me to "shut up now".
Quote"
You haven't taken anything from anyone. You did not take the CD. You downloaded a copy of the music, hurting no one.
You really don\'t get it, do you?
You download a CD = you took the songs.
The songs = the artist\'s property.
The artist\'s property = something with a monetary value.
No matter how you take them without paying, whether you walk into a store and shoplift or go on a torrent
site, YOU HAVE STOLEN THEM. They belong to the artist, NOT YOU, and you don\'t have the right to do whatever you wish with them.
Quote
If you steal the Mona Lisa, it's theft. If you print off a copy of the Mona Lisa from you're computer, it's not. You don't have to pay for the Mona Lisa to enjoy its art.
The Mona Lisa is in the public domain, and there are no rights restrictions on it. You can\'t compare it to something that is being offered commercially in 2007. Da Vinci really doesn\'t have to worry about paying for his bills right now, does he?
Public domain art, literature and music is quite different than that of an artist who is alive and actively working. Even so, there\'s a parallel: it completely puts the creators\' rights first and foremost, before the right of the public to have free access.
In fact, art/writing/etc. cannot enter the public domain until a significant amount of time has elapsed from its creation--almost a full century. Also, the original creator must be dead for quite some time, and his or her estate cannot have re-registered it. The only real exception to this is if the creator him or herself freely and knowingly releases the work to the public domain.
Quote"
But I don't see why they should save up for gratification later when they could just get gratification now. That 13 year old kid needs his money for other things, and by the time he finally gets the doe, I'm sure they'll be out of print, and then he'd have to get one over E-Bay.
*shrug* we all have to make decisions in life. Part of being a responsible and mature human being is choosing your priorities and budgeting for what you want. If that 13 year old decides he doesn\'t want to spend his money on the CDs, he doesn\'t get the CDs. Simple.
When you decide you want something NOW and don\'t want to pay or work for it, it says a lot about your lack of maturity and character. Once you\'ve left toddlerhood, you should be able to handle the word NO and live without instant gratification. It\'s a CD. It\'s a luxury item. It\'s not air or water. You won\'t die without it.
Quote
Oh, wait... people don't have the right to sell or share other people's art. So I guess we should make E-Bay illegal too.
This is the only thing you\'ve been right about. YOu don\'t have the right to sell other people\'s work. It\'s their property, not yours. They worked to create it, you didn\'t. Period. When you go into the studio and compose and record your own CD, you\'ll have the right to tell people what to do with it. You don\'t have the right to illegally distribute others\' property.
And your eBay analogy is flawed. If something\'s being sold on eBay, it\'s already been purchased by someone and is being REsold. The seller isn\'t making additional unauthorized copies of the product. It\'s the same as buying something at a flea market.
Torrents, on the other hand, are like shoplifting or getting stolen merchandise off the back of a truck. The person setting up the torrent has essentially set up a system to make unlimited copies of the work. And the recipient is not paying anything to receive goods of monetary value.
Thanks to keagan2387 and phartacus for the support in this thread. I think I have said all I want to Solar...it\'s really like talking to a brick wall.
QuoteThanks to keagan2387 and phartacus for the support in this thread. I think I have said all I want to Solar...it\'s really like talking to a brick wall.
yea its sorta descended into the crapper
I registered just to call Solar a fucking moron..
there..
OMG I\'M NOT HURTING ANY1 BY DOWNLOADING BUCKETHEADZ MUSIC EYE NEVER BUY CDS I AM SO COOL WITH MY BATTORRENTXZ
Quote"When you dl entire CDs from indie artists like Bucket, you really are taking money right out of their pockets. In addition, you\'re also screwing over the rest of us. Just as shoplifting results in higher prices in stores, if the artist loses CD sales to torrent downloads, it will lead to higher prices and less music."
Yes. But if he wouldn't get a sale anyway, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, it wouldn't matter. At all.
Yeah and then everyone adopts this philosophy and Buckethead never gets the money he fucking deserves.
Quote
"There are plenty of places to hear Bucket without ripping off entire CDs: his MySpace, all the YouTube links where he\'s kindly allowed people to tape his shows, his own site, this site, etc."
Congratulations. You know where else you can get his music? By downloading his CDs. And if you wouldn't have bought them anyway, it wouldn't do any harm at all, just as watching Youtube videos do no harm.
that is the dumbest thing I\'ve ever read.
Quote
"but I can\'t afford it!" So? Life\'s not fair, and we don\'t always get everything we want. That doesn\'t mean you have to resort to theft."
Theft is bad because it hurts people and their sales. Like I've said (what, three times now?) if he wouldn't get a sale anyway, because they can't afford it, it hurts nothing, and therefore is not morally wrong at all.
you\'re like a broken record
Quote
Yes. Let\'s question.
Should we legalize murder?
No. People have the right to live.
End of questioning.
let\'s question what you are advocating
ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MONEY FOR THEIR MUSIC
end of questioning
Quote"Ah, but yes, it is stealing. When you buy a CD, you\'re really not paying for the actual plastic disc, you\'re purchasing a personal copy of the content. The songs are the product, whether they are packaged in a tangible form such as a CD or as an mp3. If there is a set price for ownership of a copy of those songs, and you do not pay it, you\'ve committed an act of theft."
Except the artist loses money by producing thousands of copies of that CD. You are paying him for the CD, as a carrier of the art. If you couldn't buy that CD in the first place, downloading the album hurts nothing. Sixth time I've proven that.
"And intent is really irrelevant. It doesn\'t matter if you weren\'t planning on buying the album. You\'ve still taken something without paying for it."
You haven't taken anything from anyone. You did not take the CD. You downloaded a copy of the music, hurting no one. If you steal the Mona Lisa, it's theft. If you print off a copy of the Mona Lisa from you're computer, it's not. You don't have to pay for the Mona Lisa to enjoy its art.
"Again, for that 13 year old kid who downloads albums because they want the music...sorry, again, no sympathy here."
And the truth doesn't give a rat's ass if you have sympathy or not. The 13 kid hurts nothing and no one, and therefore is doing nothing wrong. Seventh time.
"Instead of looking for instant gratification, how about working to earn what you want? Or do you really think that in the real world, you\'ll just be able to take whatever you please, without repercussions?"
Talk to the people downloading the album. But I don't see why they should save up for gratification later when they could just get gratification now. That 13 year old kid needs his money for other things, and by the time he finally gets the doe, I'm sure they'll be out of print, and then he'd have to get one over E-Bay.
Oh, wait... people don't have the right to sell or share other people's art. So I guess we should make E-Bay illegal too.
i can\'t believe this!
your ethics are quite askewed sir.you\'re saying that i can ::) have your next paycheck,allowance,etc. because i wouldn\'t have worked anyway?making and distributing a cd takes time,effort,and money to do.am i wrong in saying that?your "working at a job/doing chores at home" takes time(maybe not effort and money),correct? what is the difference between the two?the ammount of money earned might one difference,but that\'s relative.if you are going to download a cd of buckethead\'s and not pay him for it,i\'d gladly garner your wages "inconspicuously"in the same,simple electronic manner and pay him for what you stole and then keep the rest; i wouldn\'t have worked in the first place for the money,so it doesn\'t hurt you because you "wouldn\'t realize" your money was gone.that\'s essentially what you said.you think doing what you do doesn\'t hurt him financially,but it does.if i take your money,you can\'t pay the mortgage;if you take cds(in any form) from buckethead,he can\'t pay his mortgage.buy his music if you have even the smallest desire to own it(or "try" it),or he might just lose the desire to make music if it can\'t cut the bills any longer.do you want buckethead to get rid of his image(mask/kfc)and go play for ozzy and "sell out" to whoever needs a guitarist or have to get a different job so he would only have time to play a few gigs a year in san fran?i sure wouldn\'t.i\'d like him to be comfortable doing what he\'s doing now;not having to worry about cutthroats like yourself slashing his cd sales in half. ::) ::) ::) :P
Hi, I\'m Carlos. 18 years old, an avid Buckethead fan first, and a borderline-nihilistic unscrupulous thief with no remorse for his crimes second. I\'ll admit it, I have downloaded Buckethead albums several times, most of his discography actually. So yeah, I owe lots of money to big B and Travis. Why? Because I have no money, no job, I\'m supported by a single mom, and even if I could get my hands on some minimum wage I have more important stuff to spend it on, like a $4,500 debt that is driving me insane at the moment. All I can offer is a seemingly worthless promise to both Travis and Brian to contribute with a more than hefty donation in the future, as soon as I start counting with an income of my own.
So... what is my stance on the free distribution of the ISOT set? Well I personally couldn\'t simply download 13 CD\'s which have been so epically crafted with such noble intentions towards the consumer/fan/bot and act like it\'s business as usual. I just can\'t and won\'t, I don\'t know if I will ever get the money in time to order a set before Brian gets tired of the obvious hard work it takes to single-handedly produce every order, but I do know that if I never do I\'ll never listen to it. Partly out of respect, and because it wouldn\'t be the same as having those sweet, sweet doodles I drool over every day.
Tough shit, etc..
Quote"When you dl entire CDs from indie artists like Bucket, you really are taking money right out of their pockets. In addition, you\'re also screwing over the rest of us. Just as shoplifting results in higher prices in stores, if the artist loses CD sales to torrent downloads, it will lead to higher prices and less music."
Yes. But if he wouldn't get a sale anyway, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, it wouldn't matter. At all.
... I fail to see the logic in that because said person is still stealing the material. Someone not being able to afford something has nothing to do with it, If I wanted a shelby colbra, (but can\'t afford one obviously) that doesn\'t mean that I can just go steal one because I really want it... and yes, that is the same situation.
If you want something, earn it, don\'t be a cheapass. If you can\'t afford it, tough shit, not everyone gets what they want.
Rite, I am fully against torrenting music and all that because you can not debate if it is illegal or not because it is END OF! >:(
Anyway, I badly wanted the set soooooo much but I couldn\'t afford it due to the fact I\'m a 16 year old student so i got my Dad to buy it for me. Wait! Before you call me a spoilt brat or something like that, I came to an agreement with him that I would work for the CD\'s. So over the summer, I am working around the house doing jobs like wiring and garden work for my Dad and earning each CD one by one. So in the end everybody wins. I get my CD\'s, my Dad gets a tidier house and Buckethead gets the money he more than deserves. My point is that there is no excuse for illegal downloading in any form! Im using myself as an example because I wouldn\'t have had a hope in hell of getting the money for ISOT but by WORKING FOR IT, I can, in the end have a Set of my own ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is a very lazy teenager speaking here, so if people want the set but wont work for it, then I say they are not fit to be Buckethead fans! :P
^Congrats ;)
I\'ve been a long time getting the set myself. I\'m a 22 year old student but I\'ve had alot of things to pay for lately with fees etc. I didnt even consider downloading it, whats the point in that. Finally placed my order...well worth it.
QuoteRite, I am fully against torrenting music and all that because you can not debate if it is illegal or not because it is END OF! >:(
Anyway, I badly wanted the set soooooo much but I couldn\'t afford it due to the fact I\'m a 16 year old student so i got my Dad to buy it for me. Wait! Before you call me a spoilt brat or something like that, I came to an agreement with him that I would work for the CD\'s. So over the summer, I am working around the house doing jobs like wiring and garden work for my Dad and earning each CD one by one. So in the end everybody wins. I get my CD\'s, my Dad gets a tidier house and Buckethead gets the money he more than deserves. My point is that there is no excuse for illegal downloading in any form! Im using myself as an example because I wouldn\'t have had a hope in hell of getting the money for ISOT but by WORKING FOR IT, I can, in the end have a Set of my own ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is a very lazy teenager speaking here, so if people want the set but wont work for it, then I say they are not fit to be Buckethead fans! :P
Same here, 15 n\' I made a similar agreenment with my mom as well. Besides... half the fun of ISOT is recieving the personalized set.
I hope karma catches up to you tards who think downloading is OK and you get hit by a bus on the way to school.
Is there anyway to get Buckethead albums pulled from websites such as www.albumbase.com ?
Well I first heard about Buckethead searching for guitar videos on Youtube. I found a load of songs from \'COLMA\' on it, and fell in love. I downloaded a few tracks and decided to buy the album. Now I buy all my Buckethead albums without question.
I don\'t think that\'s so wrong but I do see the problem with torrents, I think people that upload the torrents should go to hell. I mean, if I saw my work up for download I would go out of my way to sue all those mother fuckers that think it\'s right.
Good day.
i am all for p2p network/torrent sharing.
i am with JSTHERACON on this, i feel his argument is spot on.
:)
I\'m definitely on the pro-sharing side. Most of the reasons have already been said by JSTHERACON, Solar, and bhead51. I\'m also against the whole concept of Intellectual Property, for reasons that can mostly be summed up here (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm).
The "it\'s against the law" argument is nothing short of moronic as I see it. I don\'t see how it\'s possible for someone to let their definition of morality rest solely on the law, which was created by some arbitrary humans. There is no "universal truth" in the law, it is not always right - the law changes, and laws even conflict across countries.
So you\'re okay with stealing from people?
Well I\'m sure something like this has already been said, but
Stealing is taking something away from someone else so that they don\'t have it anymore. So you physically cannot steal information.
I don\'t believe information should be allowed to be owned. Information should belong to all of humanity (and if we ever find aliens, them too :) ).
People have shared music with each other for ages, and no-one ever thought anything of it. All I was thinking as I lent Appetite for Destruction to my mate James, 7 years ago, is that I wanted him to hear this music. It\'s only now that the RIAA have started this crusade, that sharing ("pirating", since they\'re trying to compare it to something far worse, I\'m surprised they didn\'t call it "murder") has suddenly become immoral.
So if you had an idea for some wonderful thing and you told it to me and I patented it... that wouldn\'t be stealing?
The fact is, you can -pardon my french- pu$$y foot around it all you want but the fact of the matter is that it is stealing.
QuoteSo if you had an idea for some wonderful thing and you told it to me and I patented it... that wouldn\'t be stealing?
Well I would hate that it was patented, because patents seem to just be used to stifle innovation. But like I said, just because I came up with that idea, doesn\'t mean I own it. A million people could have previously had that thought, yet somehow I own it?
QuoteThe fact is, you can -pardon my french- pu$$y foot around it all you want
I always thought pussyfoot just meant "tiptoe", "move stealthily" etc. I\'m not quite sure what "vagina-foot" would mean.
Quotebut the fact of the matter is that it is stealing.
It is
not stealing. The whole problem with stealing is that you\'ve taken something away from someone else. It\'s gone. Disappeared. Vanished. Missing. Absent. Never to be seen again.
They cannot use it anymore. This is clearly not the case with file sharing.
I have a feeling we are just going to go around in circles here.
people will always do it
people will always be for it
people will always be against it
everyone is wrong
everyone is right
if people are going to download music/films no matter what you say
in the 80/90\'s it was home taping in 00\'s its P2P
Just wanted to say that if you didn\'t post this message that a lot less people would know. You are just spreading the word.
you are stealing. You are taking away money that the artist would have made if you had bought it.
Bucket deserves money for the work and time he\'s put into these releases. To download say ISOT is basically denying him his wage. :\'(
Quote
It is not stealing. The whole problem with stealing is that you\'ve taken something away from someone else. It\'s gone. Disappeared. Vanished. Missing. Absent. Never to be seen again. They cannot use it anymore. This is clearly not the case with file sharing.
I have a feeling we are just going to go around in circles here.
Wrong! Buckethead is selling his music. You take his music without paying. That\'s stealing.
This whole argument "I wouldn\'t buy it anyways" is horse shit because you end up having his music anyways and he gets nothing.
though around the time of buckethead being in gnr and the rock in rio 3 bootlegs hit the p2p networks it most possiblly doubled his fan base
dont bite the hand that feeds
Hope this thing is down now...anyone heard?
http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1042153/4262178/
Theres one... People have no shame.
People have no shame? Of course they don\'t. That\'s like saying "Oh my god, that guy isn\'t ashamed of liking buckethead". Do you seriously not get the idea that people have differing philosophies?
I\'m pretty sure you totally misunderstood what I said.
Thought this recent article was interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/27/kristiansand/
And this (a little bit older):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/21/riaa_reg_interview/
For those who haven\'t seen it yet, ya\'ll should all see the documentary:
Good Copy, Bad Copy
http://onebigtorrent.org/details.php?id=1818&hit=1
www.goodcopybadcopy.net
Seeded for free download on the Internet by the creators of the film themselves...
_____________________________________________________
And for those who care or have the attention span - on intellectual property and computers, compare and contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
QuoteWell I would hate that it was patented, because patents seem to just be used to stifle innovation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, patents help innovation. Consider the pharmacuetical industry. Company A goes through millions of manhours and expense to create a cure for cancer. They do this to make a profit, it is not done out of the goodness of their hearts. If they could not make a profit from all this expense (which by the way, they have no gaurantee that it will even work, they gamble in a sense that it will) they would find something else to do to make money.
Company A\'s creativity and expense is protected by say a 5 year patent. After that time, the patent expires and Companies B through Z can manufacture generic versions of the drug.
It is unlikely that the cure would have been found, without patent protection. Not sure how this could apply to the music industry, but it would be nice if it could work this way as well.
QuoteWell I would hate that it was patented, because patents seem to just be used to stifle innovation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, patents help innovation. Consider the pharmacuetical industry. Company A goes through millions of manhours and expense to create a cure for cancer. They do this to make a profit, it is not done out of the goodness of their hearts. If they could not make a profit from all this expense (which by the way, they have no gaurantee that it will even work, they gamble in a sense that it will) they would find something else to do to make money.
Company A\'s creativity and expense is protected by say a 5 year patent. After that time, the patent expires and Companies B through Z can manufacture generic versions of the drug.
It is unlikely that the cure would have been found, without patent protection. Not sure how this could apply to the music industry, but it would be nice if it could work this way as well.
The pharmaceutical companies\' research - and its base of biotechnology, neuroscience, etc. - is mainly carried out by university departments and state agencies, paid for at public expense. That is, the public absorbs the costs and risks, and the pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, etc. (who sit on the university board of trustees, along with State reps - usually heavily lobbied by their corporate allies, if they aren\'t former execs themselves) are handed the rewards, where the fruits are then offered to the public who pay a second time - the profits going to the wealthy.
The same deal for the development of computers, the Internet, telecommunications, etc. All paid for by the public through the Pentagon system....
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19980506.htm
_________
The ownership of intellectual property, personal acclaim for innovation, and personal financial incentives have an ugly and unflattering legacy in the development of science. To name one classic example, the "race" over the structure of DNA was slowed considerably as factions formed (Watson & Crick, Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin) and deliberately withheld research results, analysis, etc. from each other instead of working together. In the end, Franklin was betrayed by Wilkins and her X-ray diffraction data leaked to Watson & Crick without her permission, which she refused to grant. With more stringent protection rules, her crucial data would\'ve surely been kept secret, perhaps as a matter of law, as would\'ve much of the rest of the research being performed.
Whats more is the absurdity and ignorance of the belief that the incentives which drive those steeped in their discipline are driven not primarily by the deep fascination, curiosity, excitement, innovation, and so on that accompanies the prospect of curing disease for ailing people and the amazing workings of Nature which holds the keys - but are instead stimulated by the insatiable need for wealth, incentives which in reality turn out people like Dr. Reddy (see first link [Zmag] below).
All that is not to mention that Big Pharma in particular is one of the most morally bankrupt industries in the U.S. - in no small part due to its profit incentive. That\'s a whole story of its own...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=108&ItemID=13287
http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal12072006.html
__________________________________________________
As a side, I see no response here to the differences in philosophy b/w Bill Gates and the free software community. If the copyright corporations could have their way, they\'d completely remove the public communal development of software like Ubuntu Linux. They\'re trying to do that and GPL3 will push the issue. The ultimate threat would be the merging of hardware and software industries (in this case the law [under the pressure of public opinion] being the only thing forbidding such mergers). If you apply "free market" principles and own the hardware and software technology, you can encode into the hardware the need for official sanction in order to run the software. Perhaps the public shouldn\'t have the right to run a free software community.
How does Linux fair on viruses and spy-ware? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
Is Linux collecting user data? No. Is Microsoft Vista? Yes - and at unprecedented levels...
http://www.wannabegeek.org/content/view/64064/137
- bhead51
Haha, I knew it! A fellow Linux user.