GEN
Active topics
  1. Those of you who know me, and the bulletins i have posted, know me to be aggressive, politcally incorrect, to the point, and when its called for very,very angry.

    Right now, that is the state i am in.

    Paul McGuinness has been working in collusion with the British Government, and fellow fatcats in the music industry to destroy filesharing on the web.

    "According to The Times, a draft bill -- known as a "green paper" -- is being circulated in Britain recommending that Internet service providers become a kind of police force for copyrighted content, with anyone who shares such content illegally automatically subject to a "three strikes and you're out" rule. After two warnings, the draft legislation says, they would have their Internet access cut off.

    This has been drafted in collusion with Music Industry FatCats like McGuniness, who continue to push the lie that a lot of money goes to an individual artist when a CD is bought, this is in and of itself a lie.

    He accused the tech industry of being "extremely socially irresponsible" - to a room full of music executives who've made millions out of pedalling (admittedly often entertaining) tales of sex, drugs and murder.

    He castigated the tech industry for adopting "hippy values" that the music biz itself shamelessly promotes on one hand, while on the other conducting itself with all the decorum of a school of sharks.

    He lectured the tech industry on not understanding the "special value" of music, as if this "special value" should imply special treatment.

    He's predictably concerned about file sharing, Apple iPods and illegal downloading, saying companies like Yahoo and AOL should be prosecuted for illegal filesharing, and downloaders should be legally barred from accessing the internet if they continue to download.

    Others like him go further and argue for all internet connections to be monitored and taxed, so much the better to keep the music industry forever in drugs and limos.


    Now time for a good ole' Macphistfly Rant....


    Who the hell does this man think he is?
    Fair enough, it is my own belief that he has brought to the world the greatest band on the planet, but it is absolutely not his right (or ANYONE else's right) to regulate what we have access to and can download. What this is essentially another step in, is regulation of the internet, essentially the last great free speech Zone on the planet. Mainstream media tells nothing but lies, if you were the one spreading them wouldn't you wanna cut off the lifesource of something provides the truth. And if you were getting an extortionate amount of cash from young bands and you were threatened by their music reaching a larger audience of people and in the end making them MORE money and getting them MORE promotion than it does YOU, wouldn't you want to cut it off as well.

    And once they get the torrents, what next? You think they won't be checking Filesharing networks? Rapidshare? Megaupload?

    Kiss them goodbye, if this starts, that will have to follow.
    And then even this site will be rendered ineffective, because men like Paul Mc Guinness, already Billionaires, want a little extra cash in the pocket.

    Well f**k that, i say its time we within the U2 fanbase rose up and told him what we really think.
    I'm going to start a petition on our behalf, and on behalf of Music lovers around the world to unite under the banner for a love of Music, unrestrained by government and corporate interference.
    Even those of you who choose to use iTunes, and i'm sure you may very well be in the majority here, have to stand up and say something.

    It is YOUR rights that are being challenged, and it is YOUR responsibility to defend them, before it is too late.
  2. apologies for posting in the wrong forum. Please switch.
  3. Originally posted by Macphistflyapologies for posting in the wrong forum. Please switch.


    Moved..
  4. Music download kills the music industry and Ipods help to spread it out...I think that downloads should be banned, permanently...and then it would be just like old days...ohh, vinyl discs.
  5. Studio albums are to be bought and not stolen.

    I am happy that U2 are okay with us 'sharing' the live material. Not profitting or selling but sharing.

    So if McGuinness means killing things like this site too... that'd stink. But truth be told, they DO own the rights on THEIR music.
  6. Originally posted by thechickenMusic download kills the music industry and Ipods help to spread it out...I think that downloads should be banned, permanently...and then it would be just like old days...ohh, vinyl discs.


    I agree with this mostly....but let me ask you this. What about out of print material? Should downloading out of print stuff be banned?
  7. Originally posted by anstratdubh1979

    So if McGuinness means killing things like this site too... that'd stink. But truth be told, they DO own the rights on THEIR music.


    Yep, so let's all download every bootleg before we get shut down...
  8. Originally posted by thechickenMusic download kills the music industry and Ipods help to spread it out...I think that downloads should be banned, permanently...and then it would be just like old days...ohh, vinyl discs.


    Wouldn't vinyl be the days? We've still got some great vinyl records - Michael Jackson's Thriller (the original!)

    I don't buy from iTunes and I never have, nor downloading from 'pay-per-MP3' sites. But Steve Jobs has kind of slowed illegal downloads - it hasn't stopped but it's reduced and people are buying from iTunes because they want to do the right thing. I just want something to play my songs without having to carry around a CD player and the MP3 player is good for that.

    As for how I do buy my music...it's all from CDs I've paid for out of my own money. I download live music but it's not like that's gonna harm the industry. This can be put down to the fact that 80% of the live shows featured on the download sites (here, Guitars101, various live blog sites etc) haven't ever been released officially, and therefore who is losing money?

    The next thing is that I don't think you should be banned at the ISP level. As far as downloading music goes, it's not exactly 100% legal but the ISPs aren't going to cut off your access - they've got you as a cash cow, bringing in maybe 0.1% of their monthly revenue. And he can't be serious about the iPod issue...which band signed a contract with Apple for revenue on the music on the iPod - hint: it's not the Beatles.

    Surely Paul McGuiness has realized after all these years that sites like iTunes, SonyConnect, Universal, mobile phone download sites etc, enforce DRM (digital rights management to control how that music or video clip is used). But is that unfair to those purchasers? Indeed. But they're not breaking the law on your legit purchases (which actually surprised me).

    Originally posted by MacphistflyThis has been drafted in collusion with Music Industry FatCats like McGuniness, who continue to push the lie that a lot of money goes to an individual artist when a CD is bought, this is in and of itself a lie.


    You're on the money. 3% of the money from a CD goes to the artists who take the time to record it. That leaves 97% to the record companies. So for 10 CDs sold, the artist gets just 30% total (out of 1000%). The record company is getting 970% of the profit.

    Originally posted by MacphisflyFair enough, it is my own belief that he has brought to the world the greatest band on the planet, but it is absolutely not his right (or ANYONE else's right) to regulate what we have access to and can download.


    You cannot act as Big Brother for a population count like Britain. That's a big number. And as we've discussed here before, people always and will find a way around this sort of stuff - no matter how hard the record companies try.

    Originally when DVDs were introduced the movie studios told us that it'd be impossible to defeat the code (called Content Scrambling System) to copy the movie. Just a year later (in 1999), a Norweigan computer coder named Jon Johansen, reversed the code on his system to do so. And the reason? He wanted to watch his legitimately-purchased DVDs on his Linux system which was actually illegal at the time? Can you get past the code on DVDs to copy them? Yes, you can.

    Originally posted by easports43I agree with this mostly....but let me ask you this. What about out of print material? Should downloading out of print stuff be banned?


    Not if you cannot get it anywhere else. A 50-year rule applies to after the death of the author. However, some artists (print, music, visual) are fighting to extend it to 75 years. U2, Paul McCartney, Sting, Annie Lennox come to mind.

    So you're free to download all the Beethoven you want.



    Originally posted by anstratdubh1979Studio albums are to be bought and not stolen.

    I am happy that U2 are okay with us 'sharing' the live material. Not profitting or selling but sharing.

    So if McGuinness means killing things like this site too... that'd stink. But truth be told, they DO own the rights on THEIR music.


    Your whole statement is on the money. You shouldn't steal the albums, that's some hard work they've done for many years on some songs. U2 probably don't mind sharing live stuff for no profit (in fact McGuiness has said several times he's fine with it).

    However, I'd like to see - and I know many others too - more songs on an album. 10 or 11 songs is crap. Why not a couple more to boost it to 12 or 13? Surely it's not that hard, most CDs hold 70-80 minutes of music now.
  9. I agree with McGuiness.

    If you download official material, you stole it. Bono and band has been saying that they don't have problem with unofficial live recordings (bootlegs) so...
  10. I think that things that are not avaliable in your area and out of print are ok to download...And mp3 player can be useful, they are not "wrong" by themselves, but that they do encourage music download, and we know that the greater part of music downloads are illegal.
    About more songs on the album...most albums with a lot of songs have a lot of filler tracks. I prefer to have one good 42 min album, with all good songs, than and 80 min album on which only half of it is worth listening. Remember the 60s, 70s and 80s, I don't see many filler tracks on those albums. It's not because you have a big media, that you have to use all of it. Usually, quantity is an enemy of quality.
  11. Originally posted by thechickenI think that things that are not avaliable in your area and out of print are ok to download...And mp3 player can be useful, they are not "wrong" by themselves, but that they do encourage music download, and we know that the greater part of music downloads are illegal.
    About more songs on the album...most albums with a lot of songs have a lot of filler tracks. I prefer to have one good 42 min album, with all good songs, than and 80 min album on which only half of it is worth listening. Remember the 60s, 70s and 80s, I don't see many filler tracks on those albums. It's not because you have a big media, that you have to use all of it. Usually, quantity is an enemy of quality.


    It can be an enemy to quality, and probably the reason they stop. When you've got a good thing going, you're not gonna fuck it up, are you? I'd like to have an album with 10 or 12 songs, where 80% of the songs are good (withstanding one or two) rather than an album full of crap which nobody could care less for.
  12. buy all that you can of the commercially released stuff and use other means to obtain that which you cannot buy. Thats fair enough