September 26, 2020, 09:08:14 am

New
Site design:

A lot of new content added.

Check the home page.


New!
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

Solar

March 02, 2007, 11:36:59 pm #45 Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 11:39:50 pm by Solar
"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.

phartacus

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  

Solar

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.

phartacus

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.

JSTHERACON

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.













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

JSTHERACON

March 03, 2007, 04:35:03 am #50 Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 04:48:22 am by JSTHERACON
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.

























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

Trev

March 03, 2007, 05:37:55 am #51 Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 05:54:24 am by Trev
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.

Trev

March 03, 2007, 05:47:15 am #52 Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 05:49:01 am by Trev
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 him

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.

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?



bhead51

March 03, 2007, 05:53:12 am #53 Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 11:05:24 pm by bhead51
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.

Solar

March 03, 2007, 11:20:41 pm #54 Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 11:30:28 pm by Solar
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.

Solar

"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.
 

keagan2387

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.

phartacus

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".    

Trev

March 04, 2007, 03:20:48 am #58 Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 06:37:48 am by Trev
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.

Trev

March 04, 2007, 03:36:58 am #59 Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 03:44:49 am by Trev
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.