Getting Music!!!!

[WeldPhaser]

Hey guys,


I've just started getting back online in May, and I've been having trouble finding free music online.... At least safe free music..

I downloaded a program called uTorrent, but I'm honestly a bit scared to download any of the files it finds.... I already got a virus just searching once...

Can anyone tell me how they go about getting tunes, and please don't tell me iTunes... I'd maybe get a Rhapsody sub, but wanna check out the free avenues first.........

Thanx

[bikes]

spotify. not close. pay the $10 a month as well. not close.

[kiwiMark]

confirmed. also confirmed pay the $10. support this breath of fresh air of how the world should work.

[WillburForce]

I do love Spotify, but get very pissed off at the lack of depth of music on there. If you are looking for something vaguely obscure it ain't on there.

[OngBonga]

I use soulseek (to download legitimate material of course), it's slow but the depth is superb, I have very specific music taste and rarely am I not able to find what I'm looking for.

[!Luck]

pandora and pay.

[bigred]

I don't get music

[Chelle]

wait the interwebs still has music?

i am in amazement.

[Galapogos]

I don't get music

We know: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...st-187393.html

[givememyleg]

pandora, spotify, itunes, amazon...

if you're looking to steal music that's a whole nother story and don't expect ftr to point you there.

[kiwiMark]

Before spotify I used to use grooveshark, if you want further options (or for people reading this thread from a country where spotify isn't yet available). IIRC the consensus was pandora is better than GS but pandora was US only or something.

[OngBonga]

It really is the most ridiculous use of the word "steal". What are you stealing? Ones and zeroes? Sound waves? If I shut my eyes and turn off the sound when a McDonalds advert comes on youtube, am I stealing the song that follows?

[kiwiMark]

I disagree with The Man trying to treat media like physical objects equally as much as I disagree that it's not stealing to, say, torrent an album.

[Micro2Macro]

It really is the most ridiculous use of the word "steal". What are you stealing? Ones and zeroes? Sound waves? If I shut my eyes and turn off the sound when a McDonalds advert comes on youtube, am I stealing the song that follows?

intellectual property.

[givememyleg]

If I shut my eyes and turn off the sound when a McDonalds advert comes on youtube, am I stealing the song that follows?

your analogies never cease to amaze.

[OngBonga]

intellectual property.

Is that something I can take off someone? So they haven't got it anymore? Like, you know, an actual thing, made of actual matter? It's fucking ridiculous. Sorry, but I just don't get it. The internet could be the music industry's biggest weapon when it comes to promoting their bands and artists, but no, they have to be greedy and insist that everyone who wants to hear a piece of music has to pay for it.

I pay for music I own. Like, on CD, Vinyl. I have a large collection. Often, I buy something because I downloaded it and liked it. Now, if I don't download it, then I don't hear it, and I don't buy it.

Pure fucking greed, that's what drives the industry. And they dare to call us thieves.

[jyms]

Richest Rappers 2012 – Forbes Wealthiest Hip-Hop Artists ‹ The Richest People In The World 2012

Pretty sure they are doing ok even with all the downloading.

[givememyleg]

i'm pro-internet, pro-technology, pro-piracy, and pro-downloading, just wanted to avoid ftr promoting anything illegal is all.

this kind of sums it up:

[givememyleg]

Is that something I can take off someone? So they haven't got it anymore? Like, you know, an actual thing, made of actual matter? It's fucking ridiculous. Sorry, but I just don't get it. The internet could be the music industry's biggest weapon when it comes to promoting their bands and artists, but no, they have to be greedy and insist that everyone who wants to hear a piece of music has to pay for it.

I pay for music I own. Like, on CD, Vinyl. I have a large collection. Often, I buy something because I downloaded it and liked it. Now, if I don't download it, then I don't hear it, and I don't buy it.

Pure fucking greed, that's what drives the industry. And they dare to call us thieves.

your argument here is pretty bad. you're basically saying "i can't hold the music in my hand so i shouldn't have to pay for it them greedy fucktards blaaaaah." music is music. do you really think that back when cds were popular you were paying $20 for a plastic disc? no, the physical materials cost maybe 5 cents, the other $19.95 was because of the content the cd contained.

overpriced? maybe. too many people sticking their hands in as middle men? probably.

but just because technology is shifting doesn't mean digital downloads don't count as actual property because you can't touch them with your hands or shove them up your ass.

[OngBonga]

Of course my argument is bad, I live in a dreamworld where everyone who doesn't like it can fuck off. But I'm not a leech, I pay for music if I'm getting something physical, so I find it offensive to be branded a thief tbh. Maybe I'm breaking the law, whatever, law sucks, but it's not the same as stealing a cd from the shop.

[Micro2Macro]

Richest Rappers 2012 – Forbes Wealthiest Hip-Hop Artists ‹ The Richest People In The World 2012

Pretty sure they are doing ok even with all the downloading.

I would guess the bulk of their net worth doesn't come from personal music sales

[Galapogos]

I would guess the bulk of their net worth doesn't come from personal music sales

Yes, I'm sure 50 cent's brilliant mind and keen business sense that got him to where he is today.

17 Tweets By 50 Cent That Prove He’s An Idiot : The Lion's Den University

[bikes]

Yes, I'm sure 50 cent's brilliant mind and keen business sense that got him to where he is today.

17 Tweets By 50 Cent That Prove He’s An Idiot : The Lion's Den University

Not sure if serious.

[JKDS]

Ong. Its breaking the law because you dont have the right to copy the material. Thats it. The whole "piracy = stealing" campaign is retarded and misguided.

[Micro2Macro]

heh, 50 cents tweets are pretty hilarious. mght have to make a twitter and start following

[Galapogos]

heh, 50 cents tweets are pretty hilarious. mght have to make a twitter and start following

Probably my favourite tweet ever made is:
"Yo todays been a good day so far but the roof of my mouth is sore cause I eat something that was too hot" -- fiddy

[kiwiMark]

But I'm not a leech, I pay for music if I'm getting something physical, so I find it offensive to be branded a thief tbh.

and the point that's trying to be made to you is that you were never paying for "something physical", and also that you are a thief. thief.

[CoccoBill]

your argument here is pretty bad. you're basically saying "i can't hold the music in my hand so i shouldn't have to pay for it them greedy fucktards blaaaaah." music is music. do you really think that back when cds were popular you were paying $20 for a plastic disc? no, the physical materials cost maybe 5 cents, the other $19.95 was because of the content the cd contained.

overpriced? maybe. too many people sticking their hands in as middle men? probably.

but just because technology is shifting doesn't mean digital downloads don't count as actual property because you can't touch them with your hands or shove them up your ass.

The argument isn't that piracy is stealing something physical, it's stealing someone's profits. All the nice calculations done about the costs of piracy presume that an illegal download equals a lost sale. This of course is bollocks. I'm sure some college kid torrenting 10000 albums would have bought all of them if he didn't have access to them illegally, hence the industry just lost 10000 record sales. However, the lost sales are the only metric I agree with, that is something that can actually be said to be lost due to piracy. All kinds of moral arguments condemning piracy just because it's "wrong", or you "shouldn't be getting that for free" are just pointless jealous whining, if someone can get something for free and no one loses anything, how is that bad?

[kiwiMark]

^ agree that a download doesn't equal a lost sale, by any stretch of the imagination. If you're implying that the college kid downloading 10,000 albums wouldn't have paid for any music at all if it wasn't freely available to him, I can't agree with that.

[rong]

Good hoes would boost male moral and fix the recession Lololol

[OngBonga]

and the point that's trying to be made to you is that you were never paying for "something physical", and also that you are a thief. thief.

You quoted me. You stole my words. Thief.

[kiwiMark]

Where do you see the difference between 1s and 0s on a fancy laser disc and 1s and 0s on your computer, out of curiosity? Just because they set up the magic laser disc so you can't change the 1s and 0s?

[kiwiMark]

Also you know that this is the internet so I can't resist trying to troll and provoke but I really do find this topic super interesting

[OngBonga]

The difference is when you take something away from someone. You take money out of my bank through online means, well that's ones and zeroes, but I no longer have that money. You come and copy everything on my comp, you might be breaking a law, but you're not stealing anything off me, unless you use passwords to break into my bank account or whatever.

The whole concept of intellectual property is ridiculous to me. Like, I own that thought, I own those sounds, that collection of words in that order, that beat, hi-hat and wobbly bass... Intellectual property is a concept designed to make people pay for everything imaginable, from hearing stuff to seeing stuff. If you're not paying for it directly, the advert is, and if you're not paying for it, and no advert pays for it, you're a criminal.

Fuck that. My two fingers aloft.

[kiwiMark]

What about, say, a shareware computer game?

[OngBonga]

What about, say, a cooking recipe?

[kiwiMark]

No but seriously, so you think if somebody makes a shareware game he/she shouldn't be compensated for it - or rather that all people should have free access to it - because it's just airy fairy indefinable intellectual property and only 1s and 0s on a computer?

[JKDS]

Music is copyrighted material. As such, certain exclusive rights are granted to the holder of the copyright. Such rights include the right to
-Produce copies or reproductions of the work, and to sell those copies
-import or export the work
-create derivative works
-perform or display the work publicly
-sell or assign such rights to others
-transmit or display by radio or video

When you pirate, you are violating the copyright. Thus, you are breaking the law. What i referenced is USA law, but im positive the UK and other EU countries have similar copyright laws.

[OngBonga]

No but seriously, so you think if somebody makes a shareware game he/she shouldn't be compensated for it - or rather that all people should have free access to it - because it's just airy fairy indefinable intellectual property and only 1s and 0s on a computer?

I don't think you can call someone who gets airy fairy intellectual property for free a criminal.

The games industry is thriving, they're having no problem getting compensated. But they want compensating for every living being that plays the game, don't they? There's your greed.

[rong]

What about, say, a cooking recipe?

Hmm, I like that comment.

[rong]

Copy writing fish n chips would be awesome.

[givememyleg]

ongies gonna ong

[JKDS]

Cooking recipes are mostly unprotected by copyright law. Cookbooks and little blurbs about how the recipe came about usually are though.

Im starting to not understand what we're talking about now. Its pretty clear that duplicating copyrighted material without permission is illegal. thats the whole point...its copyrighted...the right to copy is protected. If you do it anyway, you're breaking the law and thus a criminal.

[JKDS]

Also, i do what i want cuz a pirate is free. But its still painfully obvious that its illegal and unethical.

[kiwiMark]

Your argument for everything seems to be "A bunch of people pay for stuff so why should I have to" but I think I'm bowing out of this one cos it's now boring

[OngBonga]

My argument is "I pay for plenty of music, why should I pay for everything I want to listen to?".

Unethical? Who decides that? Ethics is a matter of opinion, what one person finds unethical, another doesn't. I find the TV license unethical, and council tax. I think it's unethical that they put people in prison for growing weed. But someone who listens to music for free? Jesus Christ, you're a CRIMINAL. But those who make the laws, they're not criminals, are they?

Fuck ethics. When those is power are ethical, maybe there's an argument there.

[!Luck]

[d0zer]

So we can throw ethics out the window just because our politicians are corrupt? Sounds like you're part of the problem, not the solution.

[JKDS]

I pay for plenty of clothes. Why should I have to pay for everything I want to wear?

[surviva316]

Just go to the store and buy CDs.

People generally make two ridiculous arguments in response to this:

1) They're too expensive - This is false. If you get the CD itself, then not only do you get the album itself but you ALSO get included in that price the booklet that includes a ton of awesome stuff. They usually have all the lyrics to the song, which otherwise would be almost impossible to figure out just by listening to the song, and there's usually either a lot of silly artsy stuff or there are various pictures of the band/artist that add tremendous value to the listening experience. There have been many times where I heard an album, didn't know what to think of it, and then listened to the album again after looking through the album art and band pics finding my musical opinions much better informed after knowing whether the lead singer is a leopard-print-wearing rocker or a shaggy-haired emo type or if their bassist is a female.

2) The money doesn't go to the right people - Good God if I hear another OccupyHippie talk my ear off about how the artists get gypped and the record companies get too much of the cut and all this, I'm gonna snap. The fact of the matter is that the record companies do a TON of work that adds vital value to the music business as a whole, not only through their distribution (which is only getting harder and more expensive these days), but through their promotion.

Lemme ask you this: could you imagine a music world without the record companies? The music landscape would be abysmal. Believe me, as a 5-year subscriber to Rolling Stone, I know a lot about music and there's really nothing out there worth listening to that hasn't been hand-picked for us and brought into our hands as reasonably-priced and hassel-free as possible through the promotional and distributional efforts of those people.

[surviva316]

Probably my favourite tweet ever made is:
"Yo todays been a good day so far but the roof of my mouth is sore cause I eat something that was too hot" -- fiddy

That WAS my favorite tweet ever until I scrolled down a little farther:

"Man when I figure out how to use spell Check on this motherfucker you niggas in trouble" --fiddy

[OngBonga]

Lemme ask you this: could you imagine a music world without the record companies?

Aw man, it would be bliss. Someone tried to bypass the record companies by having people upload their music onto the site, and the adverts pay for those who want to download it. I think he got accused of being a criminal. What was his company name? Megaupload.

It's the age of the internet. Tell me, what do we need record companies for?

The search warrants used to raid the home of Megaupload owner Kim Dotcom were invalid, a New Zealand judge has ruled.

Action by the FBI to copy data and take it offshore to the US was also deemed unlawful.

Source - BBC News - Megaupload raid warrant 'invalid', New Zealand judge says

Who are the criminals again please?

[surviva316]

Intellectual property is a concept designed to make people pay for everything imaginable, from hearing stuff to seeing stuff.

Okay, now that I've read through the thread, I'll be srs.

On a logical level, I don't really disagree with this, but on a logical level, this is true of all property. Maybe the easiest example is what the fuck does it even mean that I live in US soil and not Native American soil? I mean, you live in the UK, so it shouldn't take too much historical knowledge for you to be able to wrap your head around the arbitrariness of land ownership.

For some reason, the more tangible the object is that's owned, the less arbitrary it is to you that someone can own it and sell it, but make know mistake, all of property law comes down to the motivation of defining what's mine and securing the right to be able to protect it as safely as possible or to sell it for as much as possible.

So of course intellectual property sets out to secure the capability of being able to sell every idea for as much as possible. I agree that this makes the mechanics of profiting off of intellectual property oft-arbitrary. I disagree that this makes intellectual property any less of a "real" thing than owning the shirt I'm wearing.

I'm of the crazy belief that Shakespeare deserved to have died rich and that Einstein should be financially rewarded for his work outside of the patent office (which, fittingly, wouldn't have existed without intellectual property).

I do agree on an ethical level that Sigur Ros deserve my money more than Ozzy Osbourne because Sigur Ros' intellectual property is far more valuable to me (which can't be measured in number of CDs of theirs I own) and because my money is more valuable to them per dollar than it is to someone who's a MEGA multi-millionaire (which can't be measured in number of CDs of theirs I own), and so if there is a system by which I can find more deserving (but tougher to find) artists and assure that my hard-earned money goes toward their hard-earned efforts instead of settling for whatever music there is on the radio that doesn't happen to make my ears bleed, then it's more ethical to take advantage of that. Of course, none of this has to do with law, and it's impossible to imagine a world where artists make money in proportion to the value they add to society.

I think that why this argument gets so sloppy is because people confuse legality with ethics. Either they're one and the same idea--in which case we can have a really interesting argument over whether or not you can break a decent law and still act ethically--or they're different ideas--in which case you need to be conscious of which you're trying to argue/rebut or else it gets real confusing real fast.

[surviva316]

Aw man, it would be bliss.

Shirley, I wasn't serious with that post. I can't speak to the Megaupload stuff.

[OngBonga]

I pay for plenty of clothes. Why should I have to pay for everything I want to wear?

You actually have the clothes though, don't you? Someone had to create that out of material they purchased, you having that item of clothing means that someone else can't have it.

This whole argument for me boils down to politics. I hate capitalism, it brings out the worst in people. Everyone wants as much money as possible. I just want to listen to music. I cannot afford to buy everything I download, so if I don't download, I don't have as much music to listen to. All because of capitalism. Fuck that. I love music, I want to hear new music, and I'm not stopping anyone else from listening to it, on the contrary I share music because I'm a DJ. And no I don't play out downloaded music, I play vinyl. This is my point, if I can't listen to an album, I won't buy it on vinyl, and then I don't share it.

They can do what they like, so why can't I do what I like? I'm all for anarchy. Everyone can do what they like.

[d0zer]

Just go to the store and buy CDs.

People generally make two ridiculous arguments in response to this:

1) They're too expensive - This is false. If you get the CD itself, then not only do you get the album itself but you ALSO get included in that price the booklet that includes a ton of awesome stuff. They usually have all the lyrics to the song, which otherwise would be almost impossible to figure out just by listening to the song, and there's usually either a lot of silly artsy stuff or there are various pictures of the band/artist that add tremendous value to the listening experience. There have been many times where I heard an album, didn't know what to think of it, and then listened to the album again after looking through the album art and band pics finding my musical opinions much better informed after knowing whether the lead singer is a leopard-print-wearing rocker or a shaggy-haired emo type or if their bassist is a female.

2) The money doesn't go to the right people - Good God if I hear another OccupyHippie talk my ear off about how the artists get gypped and the record companies get too much of the cut and all this, I'm gonna snap. The fact of the matter is that the record companies do a TON of work that adds vital value to the music business as a whole, not only through their distribution (which is only getting harder and more expensive these days), but through their promotion.

Lemme ask you this: could you imagine a music world without the record companies? The music landscape would be abysmal. Believe me, as a 5-year subscriber to Rolling Stone, I know a lot about music and there's really nothing out there worth listening to that hasn't been hand-picked for us and brought into our hands as reasonably-priced and hassel-free as possible through the promotional and distributional efforts of those people.

This whole post is a massive troll, right?

[drmcboy]

Lemme ask you this: could you imagine a music world without the record companies? The music landscape would be abysmal. Believe me, as a 5-year subscriber to Rolling Stone, I know a lot about music and there's really nothing out there worth listening to that hasn't been hand-picked for us and brought into our hands as reasonably-priced and hassel-free as possible through the promotional and distributional efforts of those people.

slowclap.jpg