what to use instead of oink and torrents for music?
Since the recent raid on OiNK.cd, there have been many questions regarding the future of file-sharing and music communities. Fortunately, six years after Napster left us, file-sharing has become a widely spreading phenomenon. And with it, the growing dissatisfaction for major labels and the organizations that claim to protect the music. It is a growing truth that these people play by the rules of control freaks, who seem to want nothing greater than to tear their artists and fans apart. What the RIAA now calls "stealing," one might call "promotion."
would you not want to observe a painting in great detail before making a purchase on it?
MUSIC FANS LOVE BUYING ALBUMS, GOING TO SHOWS, & BUYING MERCH AS MUCH AS THEY LOVE LISTENING TO THEIR MP3s & FLACs!!!
[so all torrents aside...] :
- Google: Surprise, surprise. OiNK wasn't kiddin' when he said his site was no different than Google, and boy, do they house some infringing results. With an extra line of code or so ("megaupload" "rapidshare" etc), you'll be on your way to finding free music in no time. Some sites will save you the trouble and add the extra string for you...
link: ShareMiner [google search hax] - mp3blogs: Blogging has become a huge online fad (you're reading this, aren't you?), and is also a great way for people or groups to share their musical interests with others by means of album sharing. A query of the "artist name" and "album name" gets you a long ways.
link: Google Blog Search - Soulseek: This nifty p2p application focuses soley on sharing music by building a network of friends. The program is free of cost and spyware, and has a great community of music lovers. Setup may require forwarding a port and whatnot, but people will be glad to help you. EX-OiNKERS: there's already a room with dozens of members currently chatting or idling!
link: SLSK - forums: ah, the heart of the internet lies in the history of group discussion, via message boards, BBSs, chats, etc...
link: the internet?
31 comments:
Don't forget Usenet Newsgroups, still a great source for everything imaginable (and if you thought OiNK was fast, prepare to be stunned). No ratio requirements either!
keep in mind that usenet is currently being sued by a number of large record labels. also, don't forget DC++ -- if you find a good hub, you're golden.
Usenet is not being sued by anyone. Usenet.com is being sued, there's a big difference.
Don't forget http://www.AudioRaider.com
Reagarding Slsk:
Shush.
That would be true if Google were a members-only site organized to facilitate sharing of copyrighted music, where membership status was determined based on the quantity of content one made available for other members.
Your "painting" analogy isn't very good. You can't tell the difference between a copy of music and the original. It would be like having a famous expensive painting and then having a perfect likeness made and giving that to someone. No one is going to be able to tell if it's the original work or not once it's playing on an iPod.
Besides, calling something "promotion" is just being silly when you don't pay for music that you listen to all the time that is stealing. I would say that is you download some music and really like it and then buy the music that would be fine. But you and I BOTH know that we have stuff that we have downloaded that has been on our computer for the past 7 years that we have listened to hundreds of times and never bothered to pay for.
There has to be a better way to bring "promotion" (real promotion) and "supporting the artist" together. I think something like streaming music across the internet is probably the best way to do that. You can listen (or look at) the full work without having to pay for it, and no one like the RIAA is going to scream at your because you didn't pay for it. It you like it you buy it (maybe scale back on that 99 cent price tag though...) and you can put it on your media player. (whatever that player might be.)
Weak analogies aren't going to help your cause at all... it just sounds like you're trying to justify stealing.
~B.
Here's google-like site that sums it all up:
http://seeqpod.com
this is the future as far as I'm concerned...
Never Forget Guys!
http://www.cafepress.com/neverforgetoink
Warez-BB.org - over 400k members dedicated to the cause.
B -
The common person can't tell the difference between a reprint of a painting and the original these days. Some reprints even match the texture. Further, you can print out pretty good replicas of copyrighted paintings with pretty cheap printers these days.
What's the difference between someone printing an autobot sticker on their home printer using an image on the internet and someone downloading an mp3 of the latest metallica song?
yes, please do not talk about soulseek. we would very much like to continue using it.
let me share you a story...i am a mild depeche mode fan .
they came to romania and had a concert . i loved the concert so much athat i bought a CD .
It was the..first original C i have ever bough. Because i saw them on stage . And because i decide to honour them.
end of story .
Nice comparing two different things.
A site that hosts a .torrent file, and a site that links to a site that hosts a .torrent file.
Its like comparing someone who has a CD from a band, and a person who has a blank cd with the bands name on it.
ANother, is newsgroups or
Typping in Google the song u want to hear and then YouTube or MySpace after it. No downloading or grey legal issue!
Im sure this could be done on the iPhone too, someone just needs to make some sort of YouTube music video player type app for the iphone.
I will never pay for music, I will pay for a cd or for a concert or to support a band but not for music
The reason i will buy a cd, go to a concert or support an artist is because i like this artist ant the reason i like this artist is because i can hear it on radio, on tv, at a friend's house or download it
But liking the artist doesn't necessarily means i will buy the cd or go to the concert simply because i can't afford to buy every cd i like and go to every concerts i want.
Then i realized that artists make very little money on cds and much more on concerts except fot the megastars promoted with millions of $ but that's what i call industrial music and often i don't like it.
so i go to concerts often, buy cd rarely and download all the time.
I agree there has to be a more reasonable solution to the P2P fashion and streaming full ablums sounds like a good way to go. I believe Rhapsody offers, or at least used to, a service that you pay for monthly and allows you to listen to whatever albums they have available. Since there's such a bitch-fest about quality in downloads (which I think is hilarious) they could offer the streams at low quality to prevent people from ripping from the streams.
Even still, the way its going, record companies will die out before P2P even comes close. And with recording equipment so affordable and easy to learn, that's going to be a booming business come the turn.
Oh, and SoulSeek is pretty terrible. Or maybe it just is after using OiNK so consistently.
Christ you're all fucking idiots. Stop making this information public, why the fuck do you think any of this is happening? Because you idiots digg the shit then everyone and their mother knows about it. 1,000,000 bucks says Google makes it so you can't fucking search for files because of you douche bags. Way to go.
hey,idiot yourself. Do you think there's such a thing as a sharing "secret" on the internet? IF there is, then we don't , and neither do you , know about it :P
Well, it is obvious who "~B" is, hello MediaDefender...
Your rebuttle doesn't hold water even if HIS original analogy is flawed. Bottom line, unless the exact data from the CD is involved, it's not the same content, something has been removed. An MP3 or an OGG cuts out a significant part of the actual "content", the content of course being sound. WE may not be able to tell the difference, but instuments more finely tuned than our hearing tell us there is one. This leaves lossless open to criticism, but even then re-encoding (lossless though it may be), still alters the content within to an extent that could be detected. Essentially it is an approximation of the original, though a much better approximation than MP3 or OGG. Thus it is not the original work or anything like it, hence the iPod argument is irrelevent. After all, we wouldn't want to play fast and free with the facts, would we?
Moving on to your point about promotion. Firstly, none of this is stealing. The authors are not deprived of their content, last I checked this was very hard to do. All that the people can be accused of is copyright infringement, which is not stealing.
You also mention people having music on their machines they have not listened to in a long time but have not paid for either. Well, that sounds to me like a case of trying, but not buying for a multitude of reasons. Maybe it was just not very good. I would not buy something that was not very good. Maybe it's really hard to get, such as music that is exclusively from other parts of the world and is hard to get in anything but a digital form. Plane tickets to Japan are pricy, and the middle east is someplace you don't want to go without heavy body armor, neither of which I have money for. Maybe it disappeared into the underbelly of the filesystem and they have just forgot about it? We all have busy and hectic lives.
Oh yeah, and your streaming idea is crap. If one was to implement a streaming service to "try/buy" as you suggest, the internet would shit a collective brick from the massive bandwidth usage. Not to mention the hidious licensing fees that the record industry would levy on those trying to set up such services. And yes, prices need to be scaled back on digital music. Massively, especially if you are getting a compressed version. I would not pay more than $.10 for compressed music, bottom line. Offer it lossless, and I might pay current prices, but you would have to get rid of the DRM.
You also have never read Freakonomics. Basically it was found that about 90% of humans will do things honestly. The experiment was conducted using a man who started a "honor system" bagel business, and found that over the years, about only 10% of his customers did not leave payment for services rendered. This accounts for the people who claim they will never buy music anymore, ever. But this only accounts for part of the supposed 33% drop in sales, at best 10% of it. The rest, it's simple capitalism. Now that buyers more than ever have a chance to truly "try and buy", the crap is weeded out pretty quickly. The other 23% is simply the fact that now consumers are informed. Had they been truly informed before, chances are record sales would have not seen the drop they did because consumers would not have bought the shit that before they ended up doing out of ignorance of the true content.
What we see now is true sales, what we saw before is inflated sales. Inflated due to improper ways to try and buy (those "preview stations" at record stores just don't cut it), and improper marketing (ie one hit on a CD of crap). If the record industry continues it's punitive measures, soon they will be left out in the cold because nobody wants to deal with their totalitarianist BS anymore. Go tell your masters they can suck it, because they are going down in the end. It's much like the fall of communism. It is inevitable, especially now that the proverbial perestroika has started. The Berlin wall is not yet down, but the day will come.
http://skreemr.com/ is also pretty good.
I totally agree with the Freakonomics philosophy that people will act honetly 90% of the time.
Thats why we should support giving a few bucks to the artist on a site like http://www.musicneutral.com
www.exploseek.com
it p0wnz all other search engines for finding music and images and videos
it compiles the searches for you and all you do is click the links to places such as yahoo images or espew or places like that
a quick note to whoever commented on streaming music as the best way to preview and prevent piracy.
anything playing through your sound card is capturable as a wav file and thus an mp3. streaming audio doesn't protect an artist at all. someone just has to hit record on a wav recorder program as they visit your site.
torrents will never die, neither will newsgroups or P2P clients. its an impossible battle to win(similar to the war on drugs in its futility) that just keeps growing and growing. they can shut down oink, but theres tons of other torrent sites out there. they can't shut it down.
and soulseek is dope.
lol @ all the faggots bickering on this faggot blog
I agree with DC++, find a good hub and you're all set. Also, don't forget about emule / edonkey
Theres a pretty good community set up on a forum under the name of iShare. It's open membership and we're always looking for people to come and help out. It's a request/fill system and it's growing every day! COme hit it up all.
http://ishare.proboards101.com
http://honeynova.com
"Christ you're all fucking idiots. Stop making this information public, why the fuck do you think any of this is happening?" Exactly. Please take this post down. It can only lead to more problems.
People can buy iPods that hold 40,000 songs and each one is supposed to cost 99 cents? fuck that! Music is way to expensive nowadays. A monthly fee for P2P or 5 cents a song is the way to go. If the majors provided an easy place to get all music at good quality at a low price more people would buy and they would all make more money too. 100,000,000 people paying 10 cents is the same as 1,000,000 paying $10.
Post a Comment