Prog Attack IV is ready.

[mad rhetorik]

Go fuck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?

I'm with ya Sloshy. This Crux guy smells funny, if you get my drift.

[3-LockBox]

>"OK, progheads. Who wants a copy?"<

I have heard a few of those groups from Demetrio's comps, and I own Glass Hammer Shadowlands and I like it pretty well. (GH and IQ remind me a lot of Camel)

[DariusNYC]

One point about the legality-copying theme in this thread:

A few people, including the original complainer, are blending together two separate issues, and it would help to keep them separate:

First, is it legal or illegal to do what DPM is doing? There may be a clear answer to that or it may be a gray area.

Second, is it wrong to do what DPM is doing?

You could say there's a third question as well: Are any of us likely to ever get in trouble for doing what DPM is doing?

Let's not mix these up by arguing against a statement that this is illegal by saying that it shouldn't be so. Whether it should be illegal and whether it is are totally different questions, and arguing that way truly is wishful thinking.

Also, arguing it's illegal is not an argument against someone saying why they don't think it's wrong. Lots of things that aren't ethically wrong are illegal, and lots of things that aren't illegal are ethically wrong.

Someone could admit it may be illegal, in response to the first question. Then say he believes it's not ethically wrong, in response to the second question. And, if he thinks the answer to the third question is, that the law almost surely wouldn't be enforced against someone like him, then it sounds like this person should have no problems with distributing comps once in a while, to a few friends. Right? I bet that's the position that a lot of us take.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I think you're right on here, Darius. I think we should all accept that this is in fact illegal. Crux should accept that trading comp CDs is not the only illegal activity that some people don't get upset about.

I've spent a fair amount of time on the Asylum's Outside board pointing out to people that when they post copyrighted articles verbatim, rather than posting an excerpt with a link, that they are engaging in a potential violation of copyright infringement. I think most of us understand & accept that this applies to comp trading as well. I started doing this because in a discussion of file-sharing elsewhere on that site, one of the more obstinate jerkoffs put up a nt post with a subject line that suggested that because I didn't buy the RIAA argument against file-sharing lock, stock, and barrel, that I must be a file-sharer. Something about ripping software. I'd never had ripping software on my computer. However, this other guy regularly posted copyrighted articles from newspapers. That was okay, I guess.

Much as every police officer on the road does not pull over every vehicle exceeding the speed limit, I think it helps to understand that the RIAA has been going after people who are offering 1,000 or more songs for download through file-sharing services. Not comp traders, or people who have illegally used file-sharing software to download a few songs, either. And they haven't gone after people who only download but don't allow others to download from their computers. If you don't have a great number of copyrighted MP3s in a shared folder, they wouldn't be targeting you, to the best of my knowledge.

Not all their lawsuits are going to fly. There are privacy issues at stake, and IPs such as Verizon did go to court to see to it that the RIAA's subpoenas under the DMCA would be refused. I don't remember what the outcome was, specifically. But I do remember that the RIAA sued an elderly woman wrongfully. Her IP address had been spoofed & whoever it was the RIAA actually downloaded from had a bunch of new-ish top 40 stuff, gangsta rap, stuff like that. The elderly woman had a Mac & couldn't have been file-sharing anyway. Yet she was dragged into court.

If a musician is going to look at this site & see that copyrighted materials are being illegally traded & decides he wants to do something about it, go for it. Somehow I doubt it. I think most musicians understand that the majority of income derived from the vast majority of bands comes from live performance and merchandising, not label-paid royalties from record sales. Most musicians understand that if the latter-day equivalent of mix tapes are traded amongst potential fans, that new fans are potentially created. New fans that might not have otherwise been created. The more fans, the more likely it is that people will go to see the musician in question if & when they happen to perform live in the potential fan's area. And perhaps purchase their merchandise. Or even purchase their albums. Wait, wasn't that why this was illegal? Because people were trading one copyrighted song that should have been purchased and not given away?

Well, yes, it is technically illegal. So go ahead & finance a lawsuit to target someone who's trading comps. This is a joke, right? I think I saw a post that said something about a search warrant? I mean, that's over the top. Tell you what, come & get me. I'm on the Lower East Side & I've got a few comps that people have sent me illegally.

The reality is that the RIAA is targeting pre-teens, teenagers, and college age-adolescents, for the most part. That's where most of the file-sharing is being done. If someone wants to bleat that a bunch of audiophiles trading comps is illegal, go & try to do something about it. I picture a judge laughing at an RIAA lawyer. Wait, the RIAA would never have one of their lawyers working on such nonsense. Maybe somebody else would. Maybe not. Either way, I don't think anyone on this board is in any danger. I do think it's wise to perhaps not be so blatant about offering comps for trade, as a more discreet approach might ward off some of this nonsense, but there's certainly nothing illegal about posting a tracklist & saying hit me w/a PM offline if this looks interesting, or something like that.

This community has been trading comps for years. In the late 1970s & early 1980s the RIAA told us that home taping was killing music. Today someone who knows a musician thinks that person would object to one song being used on a comp. That may be true, but if it is, that musician is misguided in my opinion & doesn't understand that the people who hear the illegally shared recording may become potential fans. If they don't hear that illegally shared recording then the chances are slighter this will happen. Is the big picture really that difficult to see here?

Rationalizing illegal activity may not be the greatest thing, but let's keep in mind--perhaps most importantly--that prior to the AHRA only 12 years ago, making ANY copy of a copyrighted recording--even if it was only for use by the person who paid for the recording--was "illegal." Any time any person made a cassette tape of a record for any purpose, they were breaking the law. They were not prosecuted. And I'd be quite shocked if anyone were prosecuted over comp trading. It's simply too vague & doesn't lead to enough of the type of activity that the RIAA is in fact interested in prosecuting. Filing lawsuits costs money. When comp traders are prosecuted then I think it'll be enlightening to shareholders of the corporations that own labels what's being done with their money. In the meantime, if you want to focus on illegal activity, go after people who spit on the subway or smoke a joint in their residences.

[DariusNYC]

I'm with ya Sloshy. This Crux guy smells funny, if you get my drift.

In my opinion, although Crux is clearly not Mr. Personality, and he would've gotten the greater benefit of the doubt if he had first made some good-natured posts on musical topics before posting on this point, I don't think he's a troll and I think this issue is one he has strong opinions on, and one that's worth considering seriously whether or not one agrees with his views.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I could've started a new thread for this, but I just SO like the idea that I'm continuing to post in an old thread about prog. Well, it was supposed to be about prog. What the heck made me open this thread anyway? I guess it was because it's not often that threads about prog grow an extra two pages.

Anyway, there's been a study released by the Pew Center about the views that musicians hold on file-sharing. Excerpts:

...musical artists typically sit out the rhetorical crossfire over copyright protection. This silent majority is the central focus of a new survey on Internet file-sharing, which discovered a significant sentiment: Most artists don't view unauthorized swapping of music and movies as a threat to their livelihood, even if many think it should be illegal.

While the study, released yesterday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, found that about half of the artists it surveyed think unauthorized file-sharing should be illegal, it also concluded that "the vast majority do not see online file-sharing as a big threat to creative industries. Across the board, artists and musicians are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use," according to the study, which also found that "two-thirds of artists say peer-to-peer file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all to them."

"The study by U.S. researchers ... suggests musicians do not agree with the tactics adopted by the music industry against file-sharing. While most considered file-sharing as illegal, many disagreed with the lawsuits launched against downloaders.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec6.html

And another one from the NY Times at

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/arts/06down.html?th

Also

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4067031.stm

and

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,65927,00.html

and if you really dig reading what I presume is essentially a very similar report on the survey, you can go to

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6997352

also. If you'd like to see the survey itself, it's at

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_...ans_Report.pdf

I guess the guy from "Stadium" or whatever the heck that band's name is was in the minority on this.