I think you can only make a difference on a personal level to have an impact, ie giving and endless amount of harassment to people who download and not pay, you know, call them you cheap friend, tell them if they don't want to pay they should stick to crappy radio or something like pandora that gives royalties, or my favorite: when you go to dinner parties at their house steal as much as you can, candy bowls, toilet paper, or CDs/ computers if you want poetic justice. You can return them after a week and explain you point, or pawn them off for records... This may be why I don't get invited to housewarming parties...

When I download a photo of Mona Lisa on my computer, do I steal Da Vinci's work ?

It's the same, when I download an mp3, I don't think I steal a drum machine or a reel.

stardoktor, on 07 June 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

buy everybody a copy? yeah!

toomuch, on 07 June 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Old skool 1337 hacker approach.

Anyone remember Napster? When it was 'free'?

There were plenty of corrupt files out there. Nothing with viruses - but there were mp3's with deliberate clipping or high pitched screeching that would just pop up 30 seconds into a song and would literally make your eardrums bleed. You'd never know it until you went to go listen to the song.

Some of those files were uploaded to Napster by the labels in an effort to stop piracy.

Of course it didn't work.

I wouldn't worry abot it really. the people that are downloading are going to buy a copy if they were going to buy a copy in the first place. those who are not going to buy the album were not going to buy anyway. right?

whirlygirl, on 07 June 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

Yes, I remember this.

Thesouphead, on 07 June 2010 - 10:04 PM, said:

I am not condoning the illegal sharing of Further right now, especially when the Bros and co. have done such a concerted job of avoiding the leaks, and doubly especially not on their site. However, thesouphead has an excellent point.


EDIT:

I just saw this from whirlygirl on a pinned topic:

"It's the sharing of illegally obtained tunes, and posting of it here out in the open that causes the problem. We as fans will buy the albums like we always do. And I think Tom and Ed know that and trust that. But the same can't be said for passersby who are trolling the site looking for free stuff when they don't intend on purchasing the album."

An excellent counterpoint, even if it is not 100% in context...

This post has been edited by satur8: 08 June 2010 - 3:23 AM

whirlygirl, on 07 June 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

That's a pretty good idea. We should upload a bunch of versions of Further that go "BUY THE F---IN ALBUM!" every 15 seconds.

toomuch, on 07 June 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Why didn't I think of that! Revenge for Tom and Ed...

inchemwetrust, on 07 June 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

Awesome!

Maboul59, on 08 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

No because there is no copyright on the Mona Lisa. The artist is long since dead. So its not at all the same when you download a piece of artwork or music that is under copyright.

OK, replace Mona Lisa by a recent painting whose painter is still alive. Is it illegal to download a photo of this painting ?

Maboul59, on 08 June 2010 - 06:10 PM, said:

Its a grey area. Its all about what is termed as 'fair use' under copyright laws. If you went into a David Hockney exhibition in a national gallery and took a snap of one his artworks for your website then you may or may not be allowed. There have been cases of artists getting in contact with website owners to tell them to take stuff down. If you tried to make money from the photo you took in any way shape or form then you could obviously expect to hear from David Hockney's lawyers

The term 'fair use' may or may not be strictly applied in copyright cases, it just depends on how much the artist in the question feels they're loosing out.. In the music industry bands and artists feel they're loosing out to a huge extent financially. It's simply not 'fair use' if you get Further and post it online for all to download for free and if you do download it for free then its not fair to the Chemical Brothers who get absolutely jack all for all their hard work. Its as simple as that.

As much as i don't support piracy, i also don't support big record companies.
More and more i see Digital downloads only, special country releases, limited-sales, elitism in commercial availability..... and many other tricks just to milk customers like you and me.
I know Tom and Ed have no choice, but i don't plan on spending 150++ quid just to complete my discography and enjoy their work.
What is too much, is too much!
I'm no millionaire, i'm a college student with no income, and i will support their work by buying their stuff whenever i have the opportunity and the resources, but noone can tell me that i'm disrespecting The Chems by just trying to enjoy good music.
And iTunes/EMI/Parlophone can stuck their special releases up their asses!

Sorry, i'm a bit furious with lots of things going on in my life right now, maybe i'm wrong about this...




EDIT: I'm not over yet with my rant.
People seem to forget that music is ART, and ART is NOT a privilege. No matter how much i hate commercialism and mainstream, i would love if every person on the planet had a chance to listen to T and E's work and maybe change their lives the same way it changed mine.
Do you know how i got to love the Chems? I heard 'Life is Sweet' on i pirated ripped radio on the internet and i instantly loved it. And my life and my views and opinions have changed after i got to learn their whole work. I guess music has a special effect on me.
But i don't want to be "respecting someones work" by spending a whole families month income. And when you add up all the other bands i love, it's just too much...
Or maybe i'm a worse person than you Whirly, just because i don't get to live in a developed country. And while i rant and talk and while noone cares, corporations are making tons of money. The more piracy there is, the more greedy they are. The more greedy they are, the more piracy there is. Am i the only one who sees the irony here?
I guess this situation sums up Capitalism really well.

My beloved deceased grandmother used to say: "As long as there are sheep, there will be sweaters."

Biff, on 07 June 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

Biff, you don't get invited to more parties because of your improper bathing habits.

But yes, I do agree that as an individual you can remind your peers that regardless of the ease of obtaining the music, the sadistic nature of record companies, and the minimal amount of money which actually goes to the artist, you are, in fact, stealing.

However, buying a shirt or going to a show is also a great, alternative way to support artists.

igor - let's clear the air here, because I don't appreciate you unfairly singling me out. I never suggested you were a worse person because of where you live. What a ridiculous assumption!! All I did was ask where you were from, so please show me where I said you were a worse person because of where you are from. I think I've been rather balanced in my responseshere in terms of piracy - though my job is to keep leaks off the forum. but whether you or anyone pirating music - that's a personal decision, justify it all you want and speak your piece, that's your freedom of expression. At least let's agree on one thing and that is we are all fans at the end of the day.

Toby, on 08 June 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Needless to say I don't plan to make money out of my downloaded version of Further at all. On the opposite, I'll buy the CD as soon as it's released.

Toby, on 08 June 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

They're not losing anything. As I said, downloading an mp3 is nothing like stealing a drum machine or a reel. By The Way, I wish I could have bought Further instead of downloading the leak, if I had had the choice, I would have bought it obviously. But the fact is that I couldn't.

I don't want to harm the artists in any way, I just want to enjoy the music. Isn't it what every musician would like to in the first place ? A real artist doesn't give a fuck to money, as long as there are people who love his art.

But don't forget that as soon as it's released, I'll buy Further anyway. I'l even buy it twice (CD/DVD and Vinyl) and maybe another copy for a friend of mine. So at the end, the Chems won't have "lost" (I use inverted commas because it's not really a loss) anything, at least not because of me.

You can't compare fans who download the leak cause they can't wait for the album to be released and non-fans who would have downloaded the album anyway, whether the leak or a ripped version from the CD.

whirlygirl, on 08 June 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

Sorry for pointing you out, i wasn't referring to your question, but referring to you being the loudest here against piracy.
I can understand you being protective over this subject since you are a Moderator.


Also, to finish my post, i want to say that i'm not stealing anyone's work by downloading it for free, stealing it would include me selling the same product under my name, which i'm not doing.

If you download it, Tom and Ed have less money to tour with and less money to buy new toys to make the sounds everyone enjoys. I don't give a fuck if you plan on buying it when you can, if you use a torrent you're also uploading it to other people who might not be planning on buying it or people who are gonna burn copies and sell them. You are, directly or indirectly, taking food off the Chemical Brothers plate. I hope you feel good about that.

Whirly is real patient with you people, if I was mod you'd be banned for even talking about downloading it.

toomuch, on 09 June 2010 - 02:15 AM, said:

Honestly, they don't need me to download the album.

toomuch, on 09 June 2010 - 02:15 AM, said:

Do you even know where your money are going to?
You really think Tom and Ed get 100% of your payment?
The prices of music releases are the same everywhere, and are based off the US/UK/Western Europe market. You think it's fair me paying the same price with 10x less income than people from more developed countries?
Then, you'll maybe argue that i shouldn't even listen to them because i don't have enough money. Like i said, music should not be a privilege, we're going back to Feudalism and Aristocratic times when music was limited to the rich.
I think i've contributed to them enough by buying 4 CD's (can't find the first two in physical form) and by buying a ticket to their gig, and don't tell me i'm stealing food off someones plate.
I'm not discussing the leak, i'm discussing piracy in general.