Conspiracy Against Shareaza and Open Letter to the Recording Industry
Written by enigmax on January 02, 2008French recording labels are suing three P2P software vendors, including Shareaza. They make many false claims against Shareaza in order to win in court. This is an open letter to them, setting the record straight and a look at MusicLab who now control iMesh and Bearshare, and has recently hijacked Shareaza.com.
La Societe Des Producteurs De Phonogrammes En France (SPPF), which represents recording labels in France, is suing three P2P software vendors, Shareaza, Azureus and Morpheus. They are suing because recent French legislation suggests that all P2P programs must have a feature to block the transfer of unauthorized copyright media, a feature the mentioned clients don’t have. More detailed background to the case can be found here.
An important player in this action is one Jonathan Nilson, so to begin, we need to clarify exactly who he is and how he fits into this legal action against Shareaza. TorrentFreak spoke to Wout000, an admin at Shareaza. He told us:
“Shareaza.com was firstly registered by Mike Stokes, the creator of Shareaza. Mr. Stokes registered the site, and went live with his groundbreaking client ‘Shareaza’ that contained multi-network swarming and the revolutionary network G2.
Mr. Stokes was, at that time, unemployed. When Shareaza gained popularity and was noticed by other companies that use P2P networks in their programs, he received a job offering. He went for it but this meant he had to leave Shareaza to other developers and distance him from the client. Therefore he made Shareaza open source and transferred the domain to a user he trusted. This user was Mr. Jonathan Nilson.
Mr. Nilson has had control over the domain name for years, and is being prosecuted because of that. His name was the only viable name they could dig up (whois) and therefore he is being made responsible for the entire Shareaza vs SPFF debacle. He has cut communication with the Shareaza team and doesn’t respond to emails. The calls that are made to him, end up in a legal banter that is forced upon him by his lawyers. Mr. Nilson has no ties whatsoever to the Shareaza community at present and this will presumably remain this way.”
Recently, we reported that the Shareaza.com domain had been ‘hijacked’, in that it is no longer controlled by Mr Nilson but is now in the hands of MusicLab - who just happen to be associates of SPPF. Mr Nilson would neither confirm nor deny that he had sold the domain, but speculation from sources close to the case suggest that he may well have sold the domain to MusicLab - after striking a deal with the prosecutor to drop the case against him.
Speculation maybe, but it can’t be denied that MusicLab like getting control of P2P related domains, with assistance from their friends in the RIAA. Neither can it be denied that they took control of iMesh as part of its settlement with the RIAA and that iMesh is run by Robert Summer, ex-Sony boss and ex-president of the RIAA.
MusicLab also took control of BearShare as part of its settlement with the RIAA and also now hosts those services on their server located at 207.232.22.55. MusicLabs, it seems, is taking each P2P client one by one - and assimilating them into a Borg-like collective.
And now, in 2008, it’s also impossible for MusicLabs to deny that somehow, the Shareaza.com domain name owned by Mr Nilson now points to the very same server detailed above, where they have created a fake Shareaza site, complete with graphics taken from the official site, in order to pass off their software - most likely an iMesh clone - as Shareaza. It’s not, it’s a complete scam designed to ruin the good name of Shareaza, by trading on its success to draw traffic to a counterfeit site.
Also on the same server was shareazaweb.com, another Shareaza scam site but they’ve taken that down now.
Anyone noticing a pattern here?
Open Letter to La Societe Des Producteurs De Phonogrammes En France
Refutation of claims made by the SPPF against Jonathan Nilson and Shareaza
The Writ of Summons issued before the Paris Regional Court on 18th September 2007 contains many fanciful claims against Jonathan Nilson and Shareaza. Many of the facts as they are presented in that document are simply not true, and have resulted in great harm to Nilson and the Open Source software project Shareaza, namely legal threats against a person not residing within any French jurisdiction and the loss of the shareaza.com domain name.
Nilson does not receive money for Shareaza
The most serious (and false) claims made by the SPPF is that Shareaza is a commercial software product and that Jonathan Nilson has benefited financially from his involvement with Shareaza.
As the SPPF itself notes, the Shareaza software is Open Source and the code is available to anyone at no charge via the SourceForge site also named in the Writ. There is no charge, fee or any other form of compensation made by users of the software to anyone involved with the development of the software, including Jonathan Nilson. The former shareaza.com website did not contain any form of advertising material. The Shareaza software did not and does not contain any form of advertising material. Examination of Shareaza’s source code will reveal that no user information is sent back to the Shareaza development team that could be used to generate financial income (such as statistical information on files being accessed by users or personal information that may be used to contact Shareaza users for commercial or other purposes).
In summary, there is absolutely no money involved at any level of the Shareaza project. It is given away at no charge to anyone who wants to use or modify it.
The real extent of Nilson’s involvement with Shareaza.
Jonathan Nilson is not actively involved with Shareaza at all. His only involvement is on an intermittent basis and consists solely of registering the Shareaza.com domain name and listing himself as the administrative and technical contact for it as required by the governing internet body ICANN.
The SPPF claims (in some parts) that Shareaza.com is “clear[ly] and without possible question” a company and that Jonathan Nilson is that company’s representative. In actual fact, Shareaza.com is not a company (later admitted by the SPPF) nor is it facilitated by any company and Nilson is simply the individual who registered the domain name. As the cost of registering a domain name is nominal and may be done in advance for periods of up to 10 years, it is easy for a registrant to forget their registration details and there are many thousands of domain names on the web which are no longer maintained by their registrants.
False claim of financial loss
The SPPF claim to represent independent producers of recorded music (as defined in the Writ) and that it’s members have suffered financial harm as a result of users of the Shareaza software downloading music protected by copyright. The author of this letter challenges the SPPF to either provide proof of these claims (rather than continuing to make the vague assertions such as those included in the Writ), or to accept the following:
- That Peer To Peer software, including Shareaza, actually provides independent music producers with a free platform with which to promote (a) their music, (b) their live performances and concerts, (c) merchandise such as t-shirts, stickers, pins, etc and (d) the artist’s and/or producer’s website where other offers can be made to P2P users and the general public,
- That many independent producers and artists already use P2P software and networks in this manner to promote their creative works,
- That many independent producers and artists actually encourage the use of P2P software for the purposes of sharing their creative works,
- That many independent producers and artists have spoken publicly on the topic of P2P software and credit its usage and the sharing of their material as having a significant and positive effect on the revenue they receive from the production of their creative works.
- That if their members were surveyed, the majority would not agree with the SPPF’s actions in bringing this suite, despite the membership rules requiring them to do so.
Further to this, the SPPF claims that if people are able to obtain music at no charge, there is no reason for them to ever pay for music. This argument is clearly and demonstrably false. The cost of a glass of tap water is so small that it may be considered to be free, yet there is a multi-billion dollar per year global industry dedicated to providing bottled drinking water at a comparatively high cost to the consumer. As can be seen from this example and other examples specific to the music industry, even if something can be obtained at no cost there are still many people who are prepared to pay for it.
Shareaza Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
The SPPF claims that Jonathan Nilson benefited financially from his involvement with an Australian company registered as Shareaza Pty. Ltd. While the author of this letter has no direct knowledge of this claim, there are many scenarios under which such a company may be registered which do not involve Nilson benefiting financially and which are more plausible than the SPPF’s claims.
By way of some background, Shareaza’s original creator and sole developer Michael Stokes released the source code for Shareaza to the public under the GNU GPL v2 license on 1 June 2004 and until then he had been the only person with access to the source code. After releasing the code to the public, Stokes left the project and worked on the development of another software program named Mercora. Mercora used a similar method to Shareaza for the sharing of music files between users, however it was financially supported by payments from users and some of this revenue was paid to royalty collection societies and thus the artists were renumerated for the music being shared.
The author submits that it is more likely that Stokes had intended to steer the development of Shareaza towards this form of business model and later abandoned the idea than it is for Nilson to have and continue to benefit financially from the company Shareaza Pty. Ltd. Had the music industry, represented by the SPPF and similar organizations operating in other countries been willing to embrace a global web-based marketplace and adjust their business models in a competent fashion, Shareaza Pty. Ltd. may have been allowed to develop the Shareaza software in such a way as to provide a great opportunity for the SPPF’s members, however this opportunity was wasted and the company was de-registered (as the SPPF notes).
This scenario, however, is speculation. The Shareaza project is no stranger to imitators who hack the freely available source code and sell the resulting “clone” or access. In any event, the SPPF has not actually claimed that Nilson was ever involved in Shareaza Pty. Ltd., only that such a company once existed and it is entirely possible that this company was registered by someone intending to engage in such actions.
The Streamcast Case (U.S.)
As the SPPF notes, the court’s decision in a case brought against Streamcast Networks, developers of another P2P application in the United States found that P2P developers and distributors may be liable for the copyright infringements of their software’s users if the developers and distributors promote the use of the software for infringing acts.
The Shareaza developers and maintainers of the Shareaza website did not and have not promoted Shareaza as a tool for copyright infringement. The website has only ever included a technical description of Shareaza’s capabilities in general and generic terms (e.g. “Download any file-type” not “Download the latest blockbuster movie”).
The fact that Shareaza has many non-infringing purposes and capabilities and does not promote copyright infringement in the manner required by the Streamcast case proves that Shareaza complies with the Streamcast ruling.
Further to this, the Shareaza developers and community are located in places all over the world and are individually subject to many different legal jurisdictions, often with conflicting legal requirements. The developers and community do however make a good faith effort to adhere to the spirit of the law by taking steps such as being “Streamcast Ruling-compliant”, encouraging the sharing of material only where it is legal to do so and referring users with questions about the legality of Shareaza’s use back to the intellectual property laws of their own country or jurisdiction.
Copyright infringement by the SPPF and associates.
Since making the accusations against Nilson, the domain name shareaza.com now points to a website that does not distribute the Shareaza software. Instead, it points to another website similar in appearance to the old Shareaza website which offers visitors an application named ShareazaV4.exe. That application is a different piece of software which the owner of the site falsely claim is the Shareaza software but which is actually a similar application that has been re-labeled and is owned and controlled by MediaLab, who are associates of the SPPF. The website and re-labeled software both use copyrighted artwork and logos from the real Shareaza website and software (without permission) in an attempt to trick visitors into downloading and using MediaLabs’ software.
The SPPF has therefore been complicit in the facilitation of copyright infringement and deception by threatening a foreign citizen with no means to defend himself in a French court and extorting from him the control of the Shareaza.com domain so that it may be used by SPPF’s associates to infringe copyright and deceive web users into downloading their own software application.
The author of this letter and the Shareaza community of users and developers are outraged by the SPPF’s actions and their hypocrisy by infringing copyright in a misguided attempt to protect their own.
Since the rise in popularity of P2P networks and software the music industry, represented by the SPPF and their international associates have refused to take advantage of new opportunities and new markets and are only just beginning to offer web users with attractive digital offerings. At the same time, they have waged an unconscionable war on competitors who refuse to co-operate with them, software developers and even their own customers.
In bringing suit against Jonathan Nilson, the SPPF have used a tactic that has been developed in collusion with their international counterparts and used the intricacies of their local legal system to force an individual with no capacity to defend themselves to bow to their demands and accept a proposition that no fair minded person would consider reasonable. It is this deliberate targeting of weak opponents that allows them to exercise control over any weaker person or organization of their choosing, innocent or guilty, without oversight as demonstrated by the fact that Shareaza’s co-accused SourceForge.net (a registered company with the capacity to respond to legal threats) has not lost control of it’s domain as Shareaza has, nor to the best of the author’s knowledge, paid a cent in compensation to the SPPF.
The author of this letter considers La Societe Des Producteurs De Phonogrammes En France to be cowardly, deceitful, underhanded and, by engaging in this reprehensible domain-raping action, a threat to any person who values a free and open culture.
End
Users can obtain the real Shareaza by visiting their SourceForge pages
Previously: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies and TV Shows of 2007
Next: BitTorrent DNA Vulnerable to Remote Hijack
54 Responses
When will these people learn that suing will not work. You shut down one app another 2 will pop up.
More detailed background to the case can be here.
=
More detailed background to the case can be FOUND here.
xx anon
talk about low blow, though that blow missed by a long part as the French “company” uses many false claims. If I were Mr. Nilson I would fight it, of course it would have to be fought in his jurisdiction legal system. But Mr. Nilson can win it hands down.
Would have been nice if this (otherwise good) article contained a link to a legit shareaza site. I guess the sourceforge site is still good to go:
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/
Their suing Azureus?
sue microsoft then for not having anti-piracy junk in IE ffs..
[quote comment="254054"]Would have been nice if this (otherwise good) article contained a link to a legit shareaza site. I guess the sourceforge site is still good to go:
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net//quote
You’re right. Everything is ruined forever. I’m going to cry.
Hmm.. If the Shareaza.com is not owned by the Shareaza ppl and they are using a fake client. If that clent is based on the original which is GPLED they should made the source avaible which they haven’t.
Nice review of the situation. A few mistakes I spotted:
“…which are more plausible that the SPPF?s claims.”
…which are more plausible _than_ the SPPF’s claims.
“Micheal Stokes”
Michael Stokes
“music files between users, however it was…”
music files between users; however, it was… (Lots of articles on Wikipedia make this mistake, but “however” is not that kind of conjunction.)
“…the artists were renumerated for the music being shared.”
…the artists were _remunerated_ for the music being shared.
Also, what the hell? This French law is stupid and impossible. Short of trusting a central authority and establishing general censorship, how do you implement the “feature” required? If it’s open source, how do you stop anyone taking out that stupid “feature”?
And these are “independent” music labels? I thought the appeal — no, the DEFINITION — of an independent label was that it didn’t fund a monopolistic bully that attacks music lovers. Can we get an SPPF member list so we know who to boycott? I recently bought music from some French labels that RIAA Radar said were okay; I now hope they were independent of the SPPF, too.
OT: Anyone else notice piratebay and torrentleech are down???
Good article and good point #5 …
But better sue the States or the (D)ARPA for inventing the internet. Its basically the same way of thinking.
The open letter makes it all clear.
Reminds me of the first Kazaa-case.
Me hopes Sarkozy will remember that he can not download his Carla Bruni torrents anymore.
Correction: Just torrentleech seems down?
@ # 9 … TPB is working here Torrentleech isn’t.
In case you read French, here is the story
http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/40957-SPPF-radioblog-radioblogclub-autorisation-li.htm
Radio.blog.club is the French Imeem.
SPPF has said to Radio.blog.club “We are going to sue you” (for the same fallacious reasons).
Radio.blog.club says “No problem” and promises to automaticaly check with SPPF the “validity” of each song in their database by sending one email per song to the SPPF.
We are talking ten thousand songs.
Plus, each RBC’s “check” request is written in such a stringent legal way (like SPPF has to prove it really represents the song, that the song has never been posted “for free” by its producer, that the artist has really waived his “internet” rights on the song, etc, etc.) that it should take SPPF “quite an amount of time and resource” to respond properly.
It should be fun to follow.
TL said they were resetting their servers about 5:00 GMT. Their trackers seem to be down now too.
[quote comment="254147"]TL said they were resetting their servers about 5:00 GMT. Their trackers seem to be down now too.[/quote]
TPB database seems to be non functional. Their homepage seems ok
they need to start working WITH rather than against these systems. and all the open letters in the world won’t help. they need a forum or something.
It’s very sad that a company would have to lie to get what they want, and worse that they are getting away with this shit.
http://shareaza.sf.net
get this pagerank up… :D
A good letter overall, but I think the name-calling detracts from its value somewhat.
Obviously anyone reading the facts can draw their own conclusions. No need to stoop to name-calling (like “The author of this letter considers La Societe Des Producteurs De Phonogrammes En France to be cowardly, deceitful, underhanded and, by engaging in this reprehensible domain-raping action, a threat to any person who values a free and open culture.”).
It’s entirely irrelevant whether they’re cowardly or not; being cowardly is not illegal. I think the letter would have the most legal impact (and here I’m assuming someone wants to have it translated and submitted to the French court) if it only contained a rebuttal of the SPPF’s claims (with links to proofs/sources) and an enumeration of possibly illegal actions by SPPF and their subsidiaries (also with links to proofs to back the claims up). The “recording industry” doesn’t care about you, us, whatever; I think the letter should rather be addressed to the French courts and to the “community” at large.
too long! =\
tl;dr
http://sourceforge.net/svn/?group_id=110672
If Your not a moron you can find the code. I don’t know if I’d want you committing on any of my projects.
Excellent letter - you are to be commended. =]
P.S. Personally, I enjoyed the namecalling at the end… :P
how many more tricks can these stupids dogs do?
I found this (very detailed and meaty) article to be very informative. It seems that it could stand to be polished a bit however. That’s important if not doing so introduces confusion. I found some references to Nilson’s role to be confusing.
I also find it confusing (no fault of the article’s author) when P2P defenders argue both for copyright infringement and against it. I understand the need to deal with law - and scammy capitalists who like it - that’s hostile to P2P activities while at the same time trying to make the case that other philosophies - and business models that might hew to those philosophies (P2P players) - are desirable. Depending on how well that’s done, that will no doubt determine how effective the (pro P2P community) argument will be in wining over many who are on the fence on these issues.
You know what makes conspiracies so interesting… that its one person say to another person that they were “Thinking” about doing something.
When did it become a crime to think about something but never go through with such actions?
If thinking about it did nothing to effect general population then why bother printing?
TorrentLeech is down for Hardware Upgrades. Stay tuned. Probably be back up around Thursday.
My music is downloaded from France via bittorrent pretty consistently. I give full permission for them to do so. So where does that leave me? Still, my advice for these clients would be to block french IPs and ISPs if they lose, simple as that. Simple, but horrible.
How come no one is using a DDOS attack on Medialabs? Shareaza’s reputation will be ruined by newbies who end up DL the SHITazaV4 without reading about what happened to the real Shareaza.
who cares? viva la gfy.com
I only have one thing to say about the open letter. That is damn right.
This is just another extortion trick from a group now famous for practicing economic terrorism against the file sharing comunity and its infrastructure.
Its disgusting how this is allowed to occur and how musiclabs is massively infringing the rights of the owners of the Shareaza logos, and worse stealing a name associated with an open source project to “pass off” their brand of lameware this is a an offense in law and I urge anyone downloading the fake Shareaza to sue at their local civil courts for this misrepresentaion of goods and services.
Lets see how they like facing thousands of folks in many lands,they only have to lose one case for sanctions to swing into action against them.
brokenstones is down too… :-(((
Please report this shareaza.com hijacked web site to remove it from Google’s index: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html
When will people see that these open letters just make you look like a big fat idiot?
[quote comment="254516"]Please report this shareaza.com hijacked web site to remove it from Google’s index: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html/quote
Done :)
Thats Beau-o-cra(c)zy 4 U
[quote comment="254576"]When will people see that these open letters just make you look like a big fat idiot?[/quote]
Done. Everyone using GPL-ed software and not releasing the source and denying users the same freedoms (to release/modify/distribute the software themselves) should burn in hell.
[quote comment="254576"]When will people see that these open letters just make you look like a big fat idiot?[/quote]
Rather uncharacteristic of you, Phishy, to launch ad homs at the writers.
(Is that really you…?)
Having been in the music business for four decades it is unbelievable to me that people go on and on about these nasty, greedy ‘record companies’ but don’t seem to care about all the musicians and songwriters who are now out of work and living under bridges since nobody cares to pay them for their hard work. As a kid I used to have about maybe 30 albums in my collection. Now, considering that kids have thousands of stolen files on their iPods we don’t see any increase in revenue? Why is that? Revenues to songwriters should have risen dramatically by 100% or more if this was a fair world. Hopefully the music business will deteriorate to the point that all you will get on the Internet will be CRAP recorded in someone’s bedroom. Then I look forward to your complaints. Thank goodness P2P wasn’t around when Pink Floyd and Led Zepellin were recording their classics. And the Beatles too.
RE^^^
I don’t know if you noticed, but if you are not making real money being a musician then that is not your field. Real talent doesn’t go without notice, the only reason that artist is living under a bridge is because he/ she wasn’t any good or not persistent in there craft. If your not making money, or not happy at the end of the day you got to cut your losses and venture else where. Musicians get paid no matter what … if they are good at networking, have talent, and the will to go through hell until it pays off. What would happen is that more people have access to produce what was only commercially available before, and the unknown talents of today get a platform to become professionals in the future. Lastly if you haven’t noticed the Recording Industry has become such a Cartel that they choose who is hot or not, they trade and use artists like commodity … and they stall the careers of the best, just so that an untalented act like Britney can pump out an album.
The above comment by Peter Simmons is bullshit - misled nonsense at best.
I’ve been working in the music industry for about ten years now as a producer/engineer, and I can firmly attest to the FACT that musicians who signed on with major record labels get FUCKED out of damn near all the money made from record sales. ALL the money goes to people who have NOTHING to do with the music at all, aside from their “legacy” of just generally being on top of the whole fucking music world.
I wasn’t even born yet during the days of the Beatles, and maybe things were different back then - but the only people I see actually making money from music these days are the ones who give all their recorded music away for free and make their money from show ticket sales and merch sales. That’s the plain truth of it.
Neither musicians nor consumers have a real need for a record industry at all anymore.
Bands record with people like me for quite a bit of money - I won’t lie, but it’s not some enormous fee I charge…really, it’s not. Bands can easily recoup money spent on professionally recording their album if they get out there and bust their asses with shows and merch sales.
Free music downloads being used as promotional tools for live performances, and musicians getting paid to PLAY - not getting paid over and over and over again for what they played once upon a time on a recording - is the real future of the music business….like it or not.
Some weeks ago, the band Lamont started too give away free music on TPB.
That was a band no one (outside Sweden) would have heard off. But now they’re f*cking famous trough internet-land.
So you see, independent artists will get their recognition. No one is kicked out because he/she isn’t ‘new’ enough, or too ‘much’. You can do what you like, where your talents are.
And you will get paid with concerts, merchandising, etc…
If you live under a bridge then it’s because you joined a recording company, and then they booted you out. Because nobody likes you? -boohoo-. Maybe because the recording industries have a monopoly on what THEY want to be ‘the next music’.
Without filesharing, I wasn’t a metalhead, and I won’t go to concerts of metalbands, I won’t buy bandshirts, etc… It’s just true.
And for videos, well, every week I go to a cinema. Nothing is better then going away with your (girl)friend(s) with a lot of popcorn and cola. However, when the movie isn’t in cinema’s anymore, or the movie got bad reviews, I won’t put my money in it. Plain true, plain confession.
Give the media back too the people! Long time before recording industries, people made their own plays, their own music. It didn’t matter how much CD’s you had, how ‘much’ music you had, no, it mattered what you liked. This is happening again.
From ‘60 till ‘99, people were trying to get their music/vid collection as big as possible. That’s in my opinion, a ruthless form to work with music. Music comes from the heart, and it should go back too the heart, not in your wallet…
The hypocrisy is thick and meaty with this case.
Entrapment, extortion, coercion under duress and out-and-out theft… Fuck this all sounds like the Mob…
“Mr. Vinnie asked you a question. You don’t want to anger Mr. Vinnie, do you? He can be– …well, unpredictable.”
[quote comment="254849"]Having been in the music business for four decades it is unbelievable to me that people go on and on about these nasty, greedy ‘record companies’ but don’t seem to care about all the musicians and songwriters who are now out of work and living under bridges since nobody cares to pay them for their hard work. As a kid I used to have about maybe 30 albums in my collection. Now, considering that kids have thousands of stolen files on their iPods we don’t see any increase in revenue? Why is that? Revenues to songwriters should have risen dramatically by 100% or more if this was a fair world. Hopefully the music business will deteriorate to the point that all you will get on the Internet will be CRAP recorded in someone’s bedroom. Then I look forward to your complaints. Thank goodness P2P wasn’t around when Pink Floyd and Led Zepellin were recording their classics. And the Beatles too.[/quote]
Music shouldn’t have to be a means to make a living. It also shouldn’t be the meal-ticket for every huckster wishing to exploit and use some artist’s work. Which is all you and your ilk do, Mr. Simmons. You pretend you’re on the artist’s side until you sign them and then it’s nickel & dime time.
********************************
To the pampered artists-to-be:
I don’t feel particularly boo-hooish for someone who thinks it’s a cool ‘career’ to make their money from being a musician. While a nice thought, it more than irks me to hear musicians whining about their loss of means… No, buddy you lost a cushy lifestyle. Get over it, get on with your life and get a job. The rest of us have one. Why can’t you? You don’t have to live under a bridge. By doing that, you’re just regressing to the first phase of your wanna-be rock-star entitlement, which was holding your breath and starving until you ‘made it’.
I write music. I DJ as well. I release for free on torrent sites and host off my own servers. I don’t have any expectation of wealth and would eschew it if it came my way. I am VERY distrustful of offers I can’t control the outcome of. My music is quality, because I am writing for myself and no one else. I can’t be manipulated or coerced.
Musicians wanting to live off the appreciation of others oughtta try busking for thirty years… Those same people who dropped change into your case last week, won’t do so for thirty years. And that’s with taking into account the whole poverty angle. Eventually, they’ll tell you to get a job. So what are you waiting for?
Soon all that will be left to d/l will be quality music for music’s sake. Not money’s sake. And I will be thee contributing happily.
[quote comment="254071"]
Also, what the hell? This French law is stupid and impossible. Short of trusting a central authority and establishing general censorship, how do you implement the “feature” required? If it’s open source, how do you stop anyone taking out that stupid “feature”?
[/quote]
They Dark Side will eventually be using this concept to try to crush Open Source. It may take five or ten years, but the logical outcome of all of this will likely be that. The truth is, they don’t want Joe Average coding, writing music, making movies on their own. Mark my words, dood. The Shitwind is blowing.
[quote comment="254378"]You know what makes conspiracies so interesting… that its one person say to another person that they were “Thinking” about doing something.
When did it become a crime to think about something but never go through with such actions?
If thinking about it did nothing to effect general population then why bother printing?[/quote]
Conspiracy is the Number one convicting crime in the US. 70% of all crimes that end up as convictions in US courts are for conspiracy, or have them listed as one of the charges.
Thought-crime is upon us.
This is some more conspiracy..
Read this at the Wikipedia Talk about Shareaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shareaza#Links
They’re nuts… Take a look at the history too…
you could always go to the hijacked site and post your most damning comments there too. on the help page at the bottom
perhaps you could explain in graphic detail exactly what you do think of these type of people
[quote comment="255281"][quote comment="254849"]Having been in the music business for four decades it is unbelievable to me that people go on and on about these nasty, greedy ‘record companies’ but don’t seem to care about all the musicians and songwriters who are now out of work and living under bridges since nobody cares to pay them for their hard work. As a kid I used to have about maybe 30 albums in my collection. Now, considering that kids have thousands of stolen files on their iPods we don’t see any increase in revenue? Why is that? Revenues to songwriters should have risen dramatically by 100% or more if this was a fair world. Hopefully the music business will deteriorate to the point that all you will get on the Internet will be CRAP recorded in someone’s bedroom. Then I look forward to your complaints. Thank goodness P2P wasn’t around when Pink Floyd and Led Zepellin were recording their classics. And the Beatles too.[/quote]
Music shouldn’t have to be a means to make a living. It also shouldn’t be the meal-ticket for every huckster wishing to exploit and use some artist’s work. Which is all you and your ilk do, Mr. Simmons. You pretend you’re on the artist’s side until you sign them and then it’s nickel & dime time.
********************************
To the pampered artists-to-be:
I don’t feel particularly boo-hooish for someone who thinks it’s a cool ‘career’ to make their money from being a musician. While a nice thought, it more than irks me to hear musicians whining about their loss of means… No, buddy you lost a cushy lifestyle. Get over it, get on with your life and get a job. The rest of us have one. Why can’t you? You don’t have to live under a bridge. By doing that, you’re just regressing to the first phase of your wanna-be rock-star entitlement, which was holding your breath and starving until you ‘made it’.
I write music. I DJ as well. I release for free on torrent sites and host off my own servers. I don’t have any expectation of wealth and would eschew it if it came my way. I am VERY distrustful of offers I can’t control the outcome of. My music is quality, because I am writing for myself and no one else. I can’t be manipulated or coerced.
Musicians wanting to live off the appreciation of others oughtta try busking for thirty years… Those same people who dropped change into your case last week, won’t do so for thirty years. And that’s with taking into account the whole poverty angle. Eventually, they’ll tell you to get a job. So what are you waiting for?
Soon all that will be left to d/l will be quality music for music’s sake. Not money’s sake. And I will be thee contributing happily.[/quote]
I agree ive found better music given freely than i ever could of bought
Im not sure about all this legel stuff but i pay for my internet, so nuthing i download is free.
4 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.