#musicbrainz

aereaux: :D Yes, this!

nobody is hurt by sharing, in fact, people mutually gain by sharing, therefore it should not be against the law. The only people who dont want sharing to occur are companies making $$$ out of artificially restricting the ease of sharing with digital handcuffs called DRM.

if youre concerned that artists who make music are not going to get paid for their work, this is a genuine concern and there should be other ways for them to receive remuneration from their work instead of via selling a "copy"

"Anti-circumvention" laws are stupid, because it really refers to regaining control of bits already stored on your device.

I don't think I'd go that far. Although I've not studied this issue very much, I think a moderate (dozen years?) copyright term is good. I hate copy protection and DRM, though. I make sure to buy all my music either on CD or digital (DRM-free) download, directly from the artist if I can.

Copying a chair is different, because it takes new raw material and a lot of effort to clone a chair, therefore no one tries to prevent others from copying chairs to slow down the market for trading chairs. But digital media is different: it takes almost zero effort and no raw material to clone bits, therefore there is no inherent rivalry among this type of good, and actually makes sense to share it because it costs virtually nothi

ng to duplicate and has some value to society.

its like knowledge, you can share it on wikipedia because it helps others, and the more people who can access it, the better it is for everyone. Who suffers from the existance of wikipedia?

Yes, but it takes some effort to originate. Patents and copyrights are supposed to allow the creator to benefit from their work, and to incentivize creation.

Maybe the system is broken, and needs to be reworked to provide incentives for creation. Slowing down people from sharing by making it illegal is not a great way forward.

This is not an abstract thing, that software exists purely to facilitate file sharing, call it what you wlil but

most if not *all* of the music shared via that program will be pirated/illegally copied music

I don't really care what people do with their files but it's pretty clear what that program is used for

It used to be that artists get exploited by the labels, now they get exploited by bootleggers/pirates too even when they can cut out the label

It is good to have DRM-free music. But it is bad to allow scmucks online to distribute it to anyone without paying etc. They are separate issues and you can support DRM-free music for the sake of the customer experience (being able to use it how you want) without promoting the bootleggers/pirates magical program

This comparison with the chair is laughable, do you not understand how music is made? It's not like a photo of a chair you can send to your friends. The artists spend many hundreds of hours and years making the music. There is much more effort than making a chair for sure.

The end product is the music, that's a file or similar, but you can't plausibly claim that there is no effort going in to making it. That's just not credible.

Even the DRM-free campaigns like Defective by Design under no circumstances promote bootleggers/pirates programs. It is not credible to conflate the two issues at all!

i didnt say there was no effort in making the music, i said there is no effort in duplicating it!

if there was no effort to make the music it would be worthless

you talk about incentives but your music getting shared on bittorrent sites is a not unreasonable disincentive, building a program purely to facilitate this is a great disincentive too. you say no harm comes from this but it harms independent artists immensely, much more than big record companies

if 2 people instead of 1 hears your music, how is that bad for you?

well, for example, if you promote your music on bandcamp people can stream fro free in low quality anyway, it's just now you've lost actual sales. it's not abstract.

if you are an independent musician it really adds up

most musicians are not exactly swimming in cash

people with ethics would want to pay the artist for their work

but sharing is not bad

youre the one conflating the two issues, saying that the only way you can ensure the artist is not cheated is by artificially slowing down sharing

this is not an abstract path to some utopia run by bootleggers

you must be against wikipedia too

I think those are different. Wikipedia is full of information that is more or less old.

a work of art like music is in a different category to historical facts, sure

I think it's more about recency, though. There are things like IMSLP that are perfectly legal and ethical.

what would be wrong with bulk sharing of digital music, and when you listen to particular tracks a lot and like them, you make a conscious effort to look up the artists and give them a sizeable donation - this donation service could even be part of something like musicbrainz

I don't know. It depends on your ethical framework.

hey all'

Lo_Fidelity: lo

lol

life of artist + 70 years is a fucking long time

"right of first sale" thats an interesting concept i didnt even think of that

like if the music is unavailable anywhere except from a retailer outlet, people will have to go there to buy it

but if its sold digitally as well, people wont bother going to the store

SothoTalKer: you don't care about music though, remember? :)

personally I get all my music from bandcamp these days. especially during bandcamp fridays :>

atisket very dead?

or is my dns bad?

Rotab: Works for me.

really? huh

can you check the ip?

At least I can reach it.

etc.marlonob.info. 14364 IN A 198.143.149.150

thanks, works when i added it to my hosts file