September 26, 2020, 08:57:10 am

Site design:

A lot of new content added.

Check the home page.

Thanatopsis "Requiem" Available now.

Studio Videos

Live in studio performances

"In search of" is already up on torrent sites

Started by JSTHERACON, February 28, 2007, 04:56:28 pm

Previous topic - Next topic


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.



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.
Eye Feel Fine(d)
I Feel Find
I Fell, Fin.


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.

Raw Ketchup

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,


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!!
official hippie hell survivor


aaah,the double-edged sword that is illegal downloading!
i am a nincompoop mama said!


Quotehaaa, yes, snubnog + bigbri -  that beatles comment IS funny!!

Hehe works on so many 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.

For BUCKETHEAD projects go here, what are you doing procrastinatin? Order them



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.

For BUCKETHEAD projects go here, what are you doing procrastinatin? Order them


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.........

For BUCKETHEAD projects go here, what are you doing procrastinatin? Order them