Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse

[Calum]

I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?

i think so, though i can't go back and refresh my memory because something on page one of the thread is blocked by my work's firewall. I understand what you mean, but i still think that if you are going to reply to someone, it's generally pointless not to read what they actually said.

Huh?
What I am advocating is prohibition of licenses that prohibit sharing, if you want to put it like that.
I don't understand your point here whatsoever, because therefore we're screwed eitherway.

clever response but no, you're not quite proposing a prohibition of prohibition, plus, two wrongs don't make a right.

Creators being able to release their output under whatever conditions they choose is not prohibition. i am the rightsholder to my created works. if you want to use one of my songs in (say) a computer game, then i should have been able to specify in the licence for that song what the conditions are. In practice there are fairly normal and sensible de facto standards for how this is done, with creative commons released music becoming more popular. The choice of licence then (especially in a world where more and more artists are "independent", rather than the rather sad "unsigned") becomes an important business decision, and legislating against the artist's choice of how to licence their own intellectual property is not protecting anybody.

You want to use a song for free in your film (for example)? Go and find a song that allows this in the licence, or write your own. Why is this a problem for anybody except those that want to "liberate" music for their own use (ie: to imprison this music into their own projects). Arguably the song would get more exposure if it allowed free reproduction or arguably it might make more money if it didn't (or not, because of lack of exposure), but i firmly believe this is the rights holder's right to decide which model they will go for, see why? because they are the rights holder! Make your own damn song/book/film etc if you don't like it.

Nope, the more i think of this it's the legislators who are stealing here, not the public, and its our rights being stolen, not our music.

I am not saying I have the hard and fast solutions. I simply believe that the world can operate like this, without the roofs falling from above artists heads (and I believe that's all I've tried to defend thus far). This doesn't mean I believe we will have more or better art, or that I know what the world will look like. But certainly, if we aren't prepared to consider the idea, then we'll never know.

you're right about that, but i think you might be wrong about this "roof". The situation we're all used to in the music industry is new. it was created in the mid 20th century, on the back of the takeoff of telecommunications and cheaply copying recorded media. Now the world's saturated with recorded output and recordings and multimedia have advanced to the point where there are a lot less natural restrictions on the music, and ironically, we're back to a position like before the 20th century where music (and art and writing etc etc) are chiefly amateur pursuits, with some people being sponsored by patrons (like Groove Armada and Bacardi).

What i'm saying is i think it'd be a mistake to assume we can or should maintain the 20th century model indefinitely and artificially. If we try, and that's not the way the market goes, then ultimately these regulatory efforts will fail. Remember the parable about the oak and the willow? the supple willow survived the storm by bending in the wind, while the strong but unbending oak was destroyed.

[Calum]

Yes, I've heard pitch correction used and I simply disagree, it's brilliant if used correctly. There was an item on the radio about it, some DJ who couldn't sing recorded a song, got some expert in pitch correction software to play with it and he sounded great. Apparently nearly everyone in the audio industry uses it these days and no doubt you've heard it without realising it.

i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?

Sorry but if you can't sing, then don't. Or learn. Or just sing as best you can and maybe it'll still sound good and people'll like it. I am aware (strangely enough by using my ears, as i said your ears are the judge) that far too many pop records are soaked in autotune and are heavily overproduced in protools as well, but this doesn't mean it's "good". The voice is an inherently microtonal instrument. Surely only the most simple vocal parts require literally no movement when going from one note to the next, even if you quantise it for quarter tones, you'd be able to hear the artificialness when sliding from one note to another, and obviously quantising any finer than maybe a semitone or quarter tone is pointless because it's for people who can't sing.

No wonder the industry's falling on its arse if autotune is not only acceptable but somehow being put forward as superior to actually being able to sing.

eg: T-Pain vs Otis Redding - who can sing? Who sounds better on their records? You decide.

[Aloone_Jonez]

i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?

Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.

You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?

[Calum]

i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?

Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.

don't be such a self righteous wanker. "inferior analogue formats"? it's a contradiction in terms! if something is an analogue of a sound, it is not inferior to a digital representation. Analogous recordings are superior to representations. And your superior "you're not worth my time" attitude only serves to show that you don't even believe you could have a discussion with someone who doesn't already agree with your point of view.

If i were you i wouldn't be as proud of that fact as you seem to be.

You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?

i don't give a fuck about that, any digital system has speakers too you know, big deal? Why are you attempting to steer the issue away from autotune anyway? is it because you just got pwned?

I might clarify one thing though, i am not "against" autotune as a technique or effect, i am just saying that as a substitute for hitting the right notes, it's laughable. can you imagine applying autotune to a lead guitar part on the questionable basis that it would improve the guitarist's performance? Very silly.

[Calum]

furthermore i'm not "against" digital either, and i just wanted to point out that you not only steered the discussion away from what we were talking about, but you've also turned this into a "which is better" argument, when it was actually about whether you can tell the difference between one thing or another. You claimed i couldn't tell the difference, i maintain that that's ill-informed garbage just like when you claimed scotland always votes predominantly Liberal, without checking your facts, because you know best.

Generally, for anyone who's interested in the subject of legal/illegal and moral/amoral digital distribution, here's enough discussion to make you blue in the face and sick to the stomach: http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/

[Aloone_Jonez]

don't be such a self righteous wanker.

I stopped reading after that.

The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.

[piratePenguin]

That was hilarious.

Anyways, back to my discussion with Calum. We are simply coming from two different points of view: you believe that it's an artists inalienable right to set the terms of distribution for their artwork, including disallowing sharing. Imo it is a persons inalienable right to share whatever they have: the ability to share digital media, a million times in one second, should be a massive advancement for human society, not something that is culled and discouraged. We don't know where this attitude will take us - that's something I'd love to look into one day. The effects in my mind clearly extend beyond everyone having access to all public artwork for free (notice that if someone wants to keep artwork private they can only keep it to themselves, or distribute it only to trusted individuals who agree not to use their right to share).

I know you have a liken towards free media - as long it's the artists choice, as it is today. And maybe one day we'll see majority free media even with current legislation (I see things moving that way, slightly, and it's heartening and if it were to work, it would definitely be the most satisfying way to a free media world). However, I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it.

edit:
Consider finally that all artwork (essentially) is based off of other artwork. If you lived 1,000 years ago would you be playing the same way you play today? I don't think so. This means that in a (limited) sense, "your" music came from around you.

[Calum]

don't be such a self righteous wanker.

I stopped reading after that.

The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.

bullshit, you just can't stand the heat, and now you're resorting to a complete strawman tactic, essentially saying that because you're self righteous, that means i must be wrong.

Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.

[Calum]

That was hilarious.

... I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it....

well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.

I'm not so sure. Whether it was made 1000 years ago or now, my music took a long time and some money to get into its current state. Say for example, i become mega successful in the future (ha!), for the sake of argument, should somebody who bought a copy of "Honesty And Thorns" be able to just distribute copies willy nilly, for their own financial gain? Should that guy actually own the music just because he paid me £6.50 at some point (or more likely got it for free dodgily off the internet somehow). I've already found my songs on illegal download sites, and i have heard all the "you should be grateful your music's out there for people to hear" stuff, i'm just not convinced, yet. A lot of musicians say if people like your music they want to pay you for doing a good job, i have yet to really experience this to any great extent. Time, of course, will clarify these issues within the community at large of course.

This is a similar argument to the software one, GPL, BSD licences and all that, but i'm not sure the answers are the same, because of the totally different mechanisms that lead people to create music (and physical art etc). Anyway...

PS - it's really hard for me to ignore that the only person in this thread who's thrown all their toys out of the pram and behaved in an irrational insecure manner is the guy who's english. this is the sort of thing that creates nationalist feeling, the fact that no matter how hard one tries not to be nationalist in one's opinions, there's always somebody willing to confirm their own national stereotype. Don't let your country down Alun, you're better than this. You can do it, restore my belief that everyone's an individual and isn't influenced unduly by their perceived national characteristics!

oh yeah, and kintaro said this earlier:

You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.

oops! watch that language kintaro! wouldn't want this thread binned now, would we? Nevertheless, i basically agree with kintaro, if i were to go by my own experience. i have tried the "free CD, pay what you can afford" model, and found that the CDs are a lot more popular than usual, while handing over the money is almost as unpopular as ever.

It's my view that if relinquishing some control over your copyright didn't mean people taking advantage of you financially then it would sweeten the pill considerably, so to speak.

[piratePenguin]

well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.

Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.

Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)

I'm interested in a statistic for the average $ spent on music per household per year to continue this discussion further (which I don't see), but I'll probably come back to this again instead.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.

What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.

For the record your commend didn't offend me, I've just debated things with people who behave like that before and it inevitably goes nowhere so I thought I'd not waste my time on it.

If you want to continue the discussion, review your post, remove the silly name calling and I'll respond to it.

[Calum]

Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.

What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.

my namecalling wasn't as childish as your presumptuousness.

For the record your commend didn't offend me, I've just debated things with people who behave like that before and it inevitably goes nowhere so I thought I'd not waste my time on it.

that's your prejudice, not mine, so you deal with it. You fail if you think this discussion would have been a waste of time.

If you want to continue the discussion, review your post, remove the silly name calling and I'll respond to it.

how about this, see if you can get over yourself for a minute to actually read what i said WITHOUT me having to pander to your outmoded opinions about acceptable language.

[Calum]

Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.

Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)

it is about ownership, and it's much more complicated than you seem to be saying. Unfortunately i thought you would see where i was going with this. I haven't got a lot of time at the moment or i'd do another big long reply. you'll just have to make do with me saying it's more complicated than that for now, though, sorry.

[worker201]

Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.

What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.

my namecalling wasn't as childish as your presumptuousness.

[piratePenguin]

Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.

Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)

it is about ownership, and it's much more complicated than you seem to be saying. Unfortunately i thought you would see where i was going with this. I haven't got a lot of time at the moment or i'd do another big long reply. you'll just have to make do with me saying it's more complicated than that for now, though, sorry.

Well, I think you're full of shit with this reply, sorry.

Please explain who owns this post I'm writing, and why I should own copies of this post. I clearly said above that in my opinion this is a meaningless concept when applied to1s and 0s, and that considerations should revolve around rights, and then your response is that ownership is what this is about. That doesn't fucking cut it. Is there any wonder I can't "see where you are going"? (keep believing that. btw, there was nothing about your previous post that I hadn't heard before, except your aside about stereotypes, which is one of the silliest things I saw on this forum ever, but, this is my aside and lets not stay off the point)