benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sorry Jeff, but that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You can break anything down to its essential parts. Music is sound in the same way that books are words, Picasso paintings are just paint and canvas, golf courses are just land. It ceases to be just sound as soon as someone works to compose it. Books, paintings, and golf courses can be touched. Hearing a leak is literally just experiencing sound, it's not like stealing a CD or LP. There's entitlement to those. Hearing a leak is just experiencing sound - reading a book is experiencing sight - eating a sandwich is experiencing taste. How many senses have to be used for something to count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 everyone is playing the blame game, but a lot of the people pointing fingers have downloaded the album too. there's no rational explaination for a situation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Hearing a leak is just experience sound as reading a book is experiencing sight as eating a sandwich is experiencing taste. How many senses have to be used for something to count? We're on different wavelengths here. You're comparing sound with physical entities. If I walk around my neighborhood and hear someone playing a CD, it's a lot different than if I went in and stole that CD. Walking around and hearing someone play a CD is different than downloading and listening to one. What about e-books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czurek13 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Am I the only one who thinks sometimes it is just more fun to wait and build the suspense till the release. I will admit I'm worried they will wait months before announcing a vi yl version though I'd also like to point out to those who say why does thrice deserve better than being stole. I would say not only do they try and deliver an actual well made album but they also donate to charity and the majority of downloaders will not purchase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 bands make far more from touring than they do from CD sales. even if an album goes platinum. many people who downloaded the leak will go see them live. quite a few of those people will buy a t-shirt as well. even with the leak, i'm willing to bet Beggars will sell at least 30,000 first week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 bands make far more from touring than they do from CD sales. even if an album goes platinum. many people who downloaded the leak will go see them live. quite a few of those people will buy a t-shirt as well. even with the leak, i'm willing to bet Beggars will sell at least 30,000 first week. Sure, that doesn't make it ok to download something, though. It's just something people use to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentoage Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 who really wants to hear a shitty web-rip that's watermarked anyways? i mean, it's not even close to the original quality of the recording / not how the record is meant to be heard. i get that people still will want to download and listen to this, but, said shitty quality ruins it for me completely. i would rather just wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 bands make far more from touring than they do from CD sales. even if an album goes platinum. many people who downloaded the leak will go see them live. quite a few of those people will buy a t-shirt as well. even with the leak, i'm willing to bet Beggars will sell at least 30,000 first week. Sure, that doesn't make it ok to download something, though. It's just something people use to justify it. get off your high horse. there's no pleasing either side, especially people against downloading. illegal downloading will never stop, you're fighting a battle you will never win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sure, that doesn't make it ok to download something, though. It's just something people use to justify it. get off your high horse. there's no pleasing either side, especially people against downloading. illegal downloading will never stop, you're fighting a battle you will never win. I'm not on a high horse. I've downloaded plenty of albums. But I know it's wrong. All I was saying is that the reasoning behind saying "but they make money touring" or "But I'll see them live is flawed." They are two different products. You're kidding yourself if you think that justifies downloading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanunreal Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 just because of this, i'm gonna go support my local record store and pick up a copy of illusion of safety on vinyl. this is silly, leaks happen, people still buy things. welcome to 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertthemute Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 who really wants to hear a shitty web-rip that's watermarked anyways? i mean, it's not even close to the original quality of the recording / not how the record is meant to be heard. If its not how the record is meant to be heard why is this the version that reviewers are using to write their reviews and form their opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 get off your high horse. there's no pleasing either side, especially people against downloading. illegal downloading will never stop, you're fighting a battle you will never win. I've downloaded plenty of albums. now everything you've said against illegal downloading is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I've downloaded plenty of albums. now everything you've said against illegal downloading is irrelevant. No it isn't. I know it's not right and my doing so doesn't mean that it is. Besides, I wasn't arguing about whether or not it's right or wrong. I was pointing out that your excuse as to why it is ok is wrong. Your argument is the same as this: Person A stole a chocolate bar from a store and said it's not a big deal because they buy milk there all the time. Person B used to steal chocolate bars sometimes as well but did not make excuses. Person B can't tell Person A that stealing the chocolate bars is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 My other, and main point, was that Jeff is an idiot for saying music has no value because it can't be touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante3000 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 My other, and main point, was that Jeff is an idiot for saying music has no value because it can't be touched. Lawyered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedavidescapeplan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I took a music business class last semester and the topic of leaked albums came up so I figured I'd share what my professor had said. What I learned from my professor was that if someone downloads a leaked album, or an album that does not exist in a tangible form, the person has done nothing wrong. If you cannot go to a store and buy the cd, or buy it from itunes this means that the label/band do not own a copyright of the album yet. People can only copyright things that are tangible. So as of right now Beggars does not have a recognized copyright. While they very well may have applied for th copyright it is not officially recognized unless one of two things have happened: 1)a test pressing has been made for the vinyl release, because now this is a tangible product, or 2) they distributed the album to reviewers via compact disc. Since the status of 1) is unknown and 2) was obviously not what happened and Vagrant has no one to blame but themselves. This is why very little can be done to people who download a leaked album. This is the reason why Vagrant is considering moving up the release date. Once the album is officially released via one of these means then, and only then, can Vagrant or Thrice do anything about this other then pull down the links and make threats that at this time they cannot back up. EDIT: It is worth noting that this is why most labels don't mind if a record leaks a a few weeks before the release date, because by then they have either the cds or records made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanunreal Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 who really wants to hear a shitty web-rip that's watermarked anyways? i mean, it's not even close to the original quality of the recording / not how the record is meant to be heard. If its not how the record is meant to be heard why is this the version that reviewers are using to write their reviews and form their opinions? when is the last time production was a major part of a review? (barring the '59 Sound,s eeing as the production worries came about mostly when *gasp* the album leaked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magalvsr13 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 even with the leak, i'm willing to bet Beggars will sell at least 30,000 first week. doubt it. if i remember right, the first alchemy index set sold just over 20,000 and that was without a 3 month early leak and was almost 2 years ago. i think the second installment sold less than 20,000 its first week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I took a music business class last semester and the topic of leaked albums came up so I figured I'd share what my professor had said. What I learned from my professor was that if someone downloads a leaked album, or an album that does not exist in a tangible form, the person has done nothing wrong. If you cannot go to a store and buy the cd, or buy it from itunes this means that the label/band do not own a copyright of the album yet. People can only copyright things that are tangible. So as of right now Beggars does not have a recognized copyright. While they very well may have applied for th copyright it is not officially recognized unless one of two things have happened: 1)a test pressing has been made for the vinyl release, because now this is a tangible product, or 2) they distributed the album to reviewers via compact disc. Since the status of 1) is unknown and 2) was obviously not what happened and Vagrant has no one to blame but themselves. This is why very little can be done to people who download a leaked album. This is the reason why Vagrant is considering moving up the release date. Once the album is officially released via one of these means then, and only then, can Vagrant or Thrice do anything about this other then pull down the links and make threats that at this time they cannot back up. EDIT: It is worth noting that this is why most labels don't mind if a record leaks a a few weeks before the release date, because by then they have either the cds or records made. Your professor is wrong. Tell him to talk to a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedavidescapeplan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I took a music business class last semester and the topic of leaked albums came up so I figured I'd share what my professor had said. What I learned from my professor was that if someone downloads a leaked album, or an album that does not exist in a tangible form, the person has done nothing wrong. If you cannot go to a store and buy the cd, or buy it from itunes this means that the label/band do not own a copyright of the album yet. People can only copyright things that are tangible. So as of right now Beggars does not have a recognized copyright. While they very well may have applied for th copyright it is not officially recognized unless one of two things have happened: 1)a test pressing has been made for the vinyl release, because now this is a tangible product, or 2) they distributed the album to reviewers via compact disc. Since the status of 1) is unknown and 2) was obviously not what happened and Vagrant has no one to blame but themselves. This is why very little can be done to people who download a leaked album. This is the reason why Vagrant is considering moving up the release date. Once the album is officially released via one of these means then, and only then, can Vagrant or Thrice do anything about this other then pull down the links and make threats that at this time they cannot back up. EDIT: It is worth noting that this is why most labels don't mind if a record leaks a a few weeks before the release date, because by then they have either the cds or records made. Your professor is wrong. Tell him to talk to a lawyer. He worked for a major label throughout most of the 90's and this was backed up by several lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benchwarmer Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedavidescapeplan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I must say though, that if he was wrong, that he did a whole hell of a lot to convince us otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The thing is, it does exist in tangible form. It's on a master somewhere, and it can be copied. Here is the definition of tangible form in US copyright law: A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 If I'm wrong on the law, I take that part back. But I wasn't talking about something being legal or illegal, I was talking about something being right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts