Discussing leaks

[Eugenics]

I've often wondered whether people who use the internet are more likely to be douchebags, or if trolling the internet turns people into such cunts. It's an interesting question as we move forward and the percentage of people tooling around on their computer all day increases.

It's sad to watch as the internet culture moves toward this shared conscience that anything digital should be totally open and free. There are certainly merits to the widespread sharing that goes on, people have mentioned those already. Unfortunately, I feel like everything gets cheapened in the process.

Nevertheless artists and labels have to adapt. I'd say as soon as the album is mastered, fuck it get it on any and all digital download stores immediately. That being said, cram the physcial release with shit that cant be duplicated to give incentive to people who are willing to pay. I think this could help sales a lot, even if the unit price goes up. I'd pay top dollar for artist signed digibooks. While you're at it, release the discs in album sized books. I would have paid 4x for the SL digibook if it came in an LP sized book like Jethro Tull's Living in the Past record. I'd have that book on my coffee table permanently. Travis' art at that size...

Other things that might be more realistic to include exclusive to the physical release could be promotions like discounts on Opeth merchendise, links to demos or other studio outtakes/home videos. All of this could be kept exclusive with some kind of license key like video games have. One unique key per unit. Key's get shared, the key generators get cracked.. yeah eventually, perhaps. Judging from the anti-piracy posts in this forum I'd guess most of us who'd pay for these extras would be less likely to share then to just give you knob-slobbing pirates the one finger salute.

I speculate that Opeth is taking steps in the direction you are suggesting by releasing albums in 5.1 DVD mixes. Only problem is not everyone has 5.1 yet. I agree with you though, the book thing is a good idea.

 

[Frosties]

But your not taking it. The word take implies that the person no longer has what has been taken, so that word really isn't applicable.

If I DVR, which is what the product is for, the complete 3rd season of Lost on ABC when it airs, am I stealing? I no longer have to buy the DVD's and I'm not paying for those episodes. Same basic premise, same grey area.

Again, I'm not saying it's not wrong. I'm saying it's not the same as taking someone's car, stealing someone's CD player, ect. Yes, the person that made the item isn't getting compensated for it. However, your still not taking it. Hence, grey area.

Well, obviously you're not going into Mike's house and stealing his own personal Watershed copies. It doesn't matter. The fact is, you are taking a product that is not yours, keeping it, without paying for it, even though the only LEGAL way to get it is to buy it.

 

[affinityband]

yawn the whole point in not discussing a leak is because essentially this forum will have about 3 times more lurkers than actual members. The forum is easily accessed for anyone to view that stumbles across the opeth website and thus if discussions of leaks of the album are being discussed here it will only encourage those people to download it because they may not have been aware of it before.
for all the babies that will reference 'mike willz mak musik nomattor what, becuaz hes sed so in an interview\' are idiots, because of course he would but he has a family to support.
Anyway gunna admit that i did infact download. But in essence i am listening to something i have already paid for. But i at least have the courtesy not to give my two cents on every detail in the album for all to see and pass judgement whether they are going to buy the album or not.
so to summerise, dont create threads for the world to see on the bands OFFICIAL forum you girls.

 

[Tepheron]

Well, obviously you're not going into Mike's house and stealing his own personal Watershed copies. It doesn't matter. The fact is, you are taking a product that is not yours, keeping it, without paying for it, even though the only LEGAL way to get it is to buy it.

I've read though this thread and find it rather surprising that you don't get what others are saying. You'd rather present the problem in your own way and only see it that way.

What (I think) people are trying to say it that if you download an album, you are not actually taking the product because no product is missing.

On the OTHER hand, you have acquired a product, but no one has gotten any payment for it.

But the two together, and you'll see that it is, in fact, a very grey area.

 

[noura]

dont create threads for the world to see on the bands OFFICIAL forum you girls.

I'm sure you can think of a better 'insult'

 

[Metalstrm]

It is a grey area.

I also believe that these 'leaks' are somewhat rigged and that in the end, they help the record label. As every music executive in his right mind knows, illegal downloading leads to more recognition, and more recognition leads to better sales. If it weren't for illegal downloading, most people here wouldn't have heard any Opeth song, and they surely woudn't have gathered their semi-cult following. One reason I believe this particular leak was rigged is that only 2 songs leaked out at first. Any pirate worth his time would simply rip the whole album and put it on the net, and not select a couple of songs. About the full album leak, I really cannot say. But I wouldn't be surprised that the publishing company tests fan reaction by authorizing these 'leaks' so as to make extrapolations for potential numbers sold when actually released, and hence the necessary preparations. I'm not saying that this is the way that it happens, but it seems plausible to me.

Anyway, the fact remains that piracy works both ways, and that the real fanbase of any band (which piracy helps to enlarge) will always buy the album, even if available for free download. The rest of the people (who could care less) wouldn't have bought the album anyway. And don't expect Mike or any other band member to comment about this, except in the negative. The label would have his head on a platter if he encouraged piracy, even though he probably knows that it could help his band achieve more recognition. Remember, in the end it's the label that controls the music.

 

[cheesemason]

But your not taking it. The word take implies that the person no longer has what has been taken, so that word really isn't applicable.

If I DVR, which is what the product is for, the complete 3rd season of Lost on ABC when it airs, am I stealing? I no longer have to buy the DVD's and I'm not paying for those episodes. Same basic premise, same grey area.

Again, I'm not saying it's not wrong. I'm saying it's not the same as taking someone's car, stealing someone's CD player, ect. Yes, the person that made the item isn't getting compensated for it. However, your still not taking it. Hence, grey area.

Your argument means counterfeiting money is okay. If you use a five pound note to make forgeries, the original five pound note is still there but you have all these extra ones

Illegally downloading is wrong, there is no grey area at all. People these days drive me mad with their attitude that they have the right to have everything they want now. Finally getting something you've had to wait or save for, makes the thing even better. You appreciate it way more...

 

[cheesemason]

Anyway, the fact remains that piracy works both ways, and that the real fanbase of any band (which piracy helps to enlarge) will always buy the album, even if available for free download. The rest of the people (who could care less) wouldn't have bought the album anyway. And don't expect Mike or any other band member to comment about this, except in the negative. The label would have his head on a platter if he encouraged piracy, even though he probably knows that it could help his band achieve more recognition. Remember, in the end it's the label that controls the music.

So if you arent in the real fanbase you would have never bought the album? If a new album comes out that you are only slightly interested in and you download it, you probably will never buy the album. However, if you dont download it, you may hear tracks on the radio, at friends houses, at a gig and decide you wanna check it out so you go buy it.

People dont wanna take risks on CDs these days. I've bought loads of CDs that i'm not sure whether I will like or not, sometimes i win, sometimes I lose. But if i'd downloaded them first, there are a lot of bands who will have missed out on my money. So I would have almost stolen that money from them

 

[Metalstrm]

Your argument means counterfeiting money is okay. If you use a five pound note to make forgeries, the original five pound note is still there but you have all these extra ones

Illegally downloading is wrong, there is no grey area at all. People these days drive me mad with their attitude that they have the right to have everything they want now. Finally getting something you've had to wait or save for, makes the thing even better. You appreciate it way more...

Well, it's more okay than actually stealing it from someone.

Just joking. The difference here lies in the fact that counterfeiting only helps the counterfeiter, whereas distributing music illegaly helps both sides. The real question is, does it help the record label enough so that the pros of wider recognition outweigh the cons of illegal copying? That is hardly an objective question and is a bit useless to discuss unless some kind of research is carried out that compares band music sales per capita before the digital age and now.

 

[Metalstrm]

So if you arent in the real fanbase you would have never bought the album? If a new album comes out that you are only slightly interested in and you download it, you probably will never buy the album. However, if you dont download it, you may hear tracks on the radio, at friends houses, at a gig and decide you wanna check it out so you go buy it.

People dont wanna take risks on CDs these days. I've bought loads of CDs that i'm not sure whether I will like or not, sometimes i win, sometimes I lose. But if i'd downloaded them first, there are a lot of bands who will have missed out on my money. So I would have almost stolen that money from them

What you said is true, though in my case I wouldn't have bothered buying a CD if I hadn't heard the music before and not liked it. Still, theres the other pros that i mentioned, wider recognition, etc.

 

[cheesemason]

Well, it's more okay than actually stealing it from someone.

Just joking. The difference here lies in the fact that counterfeiting only helps the counterfeiter, whereas distributing music illegaly helps both sides. The real question is, does it help the record label enough so that the pros of wider recognition outweigh the cons of illegal copying? That is hardly an objective question and is a bit useless to discuss unless some kind of research is carried out that compares band music sales per capita before the digital age and now.

But every band now has a MySpace page or will have free samples on magazine covers, their own website etc etc. If you wanna check out a band you can do it in very many legal ways. Saying people do it to check out bands to see if they like them isnt a good enough excuse. The 'it helps the music industry as a whole' thing is just looking for ways to justify it

 

[AnTz0r]

I speculate that Opeth is taking steps in the direction you are suggesting by releasing albums in 5.1 DVD mixes. Only problem is not everyone has 5.1 yet. I agree with you though, the book thing is a good idea.

5.1 is just as easily downloaded these days as mp3

i got the still life reissue for the artwork though and i like it. would have loved it in a bigger version.

 

[vhou812]

But every band now has a MySpace page or will have free samples on magazine covers, their own website etc etc. If you wanna check out a band you can do it in very many legal ways. Saying people do it to check out bands to see if they like them isnt a good enough excuse. The 'it helps the music industry as a whole' thing is just looking for ways to justify it

I agree. It's easy to legally check out bands before you pay any money. I do think that every time you download a track illegaly, you're simply taking money out of the artist's pocket ultimately and that can't be right.

In the old days when I made a cassette copy of an album for a friend or my car, I think the industry whilst discouraging this, understood that these were one-offs..I wasn't making hundreds of copies of the album and then selling them and I didn't know anyone that did. The technology available now means that thousands of people can get their music for nothing via file sharing and that seems like robbery to me.

In terms of Opeth and this forum, I think the rules regarding leaks are clear and that's it really...

 

[Markitos`s apprentices]

what leaks?

 

[outerone]

Since we cant discuss the the thing that cant be discussed here... What is another forum where fellow Opeth fans are discussing the thing that cant be discussed? Im not looking for some forum where Justin Timberlake fans talk about music but there gotta be some forum other than this where Opeth fans talk, anyone know thsi magical place (link)?

 

[Frosties]

But every band now has a MySpace page or will have free samples on magazine covers, their own website etc etc. If you wanna check out a band you can do it in very many legal ways. Saying people do it to check out bands to see if they like them isnt a good enough excuse. The 'it helps the music industry as a whole' thing is just looking for ways to justify it

That's true.

The fact is that cd sales on the whole are going DOWN around the world. I know many people (in fact, all of my friends) who don't buy cd's at all and only download.
In certain areas, yes, downloading has helped bands, especially beginner bands. Which is why usually bands who are just starting out and only have a release or two under their belt, put up their own album to download or stream on the net. But that's their choice.
The facts are that piracey is hurting bands and labels. You can't argue the numbers.

And to the dude who said that he thinks the leak is planned because only two songs were released at first - those two songs were released digitally first by Roadrunner - ie, you had to pay to download them.

 

[dew]

What's the difference between this topic basically acknowledging the leak and the other topic?

 

[Eternalnow]

How about the average young western citizen is a lazy dork who doesn't know he has won the lottery of life ( there are 800 millions-1 billion people living with great comfort out of more than 6 billion) thinks that because he breathes air, he is entitled to listen to every album, watch any movie or tv series he likes and will try to convice anybody with the most unforgivable rethorics that downloading copyrighted material illegaly isn't such a big deal because every body ( e.g western spoiled young citizen) does it.

Meanwhile, the independant music store as a whole is dead and Virgin is reducing its space dedicated to selling cds by the minute.

The Interwebz has already won.

But has the music too ?

I am not sure ...

The hypocrisy on band forums is pathetic, you cannot talk about leaks on a band's forum but you can do it with evey other band ?

Opeth Leak ? Bad

Ihsahn Leak ? Good

Give me a fucking break !

Hmm, you should re think your argument there, friend. I don't think its just Westerners that are downloading stuff. In fact, people download all over the world. I don't necessarily disagree or agree, but your facts are fucked up.

 

[Metalstrm]

But every band now has a MySpace page or will have free samples on magazine covers, their own website etc etc. If you wanna check out a band you can do it in very many legal ways. Saying people do it to check out bands to see if they like them isnt a good enough excuse. The 'it helps the music industry as a whole' thing is just looking for ways to justify it

Hmm, I don't know about the others, but I don't sample bands with one song anymore. When I listen to bands I usually listen to whole albums at a time, it's become the smallest 'musical entity' for me. So you don't think that piracy spreads the word around quickly? In my case, I heard Opeth first when a friend of mine managed to copy an album of theirs and gave it to me. This was in 2001/2, before the whole torrent thing and mass piracy really took off. Since then I've bought all their stuff. Anyway I look at it, it has two sides to the story.

 

[TheCrackedJack]

Your argument means counterfeiting money is okay. If you use a five pound note to make forgeries, the original five pound note is still there but you have all these extra ones

Illegally downloading is wrong, there is no grey area at all. People these days drive me mad with their attitude that they have the right to have everything they want now. Finally getting something you've had to wait or save for, makes the thing even better. You appreciate it way more...

I've said it so many times, but I've never claimed it to be morally right. Nor have I ever said that I, myself, actually download any leaks or otherwise. I simply said it's not the same as taking a CD from a store. You drive me a little mad by claiming things people never actually say (if those last sentences are pointed to me at all). I can defend speeding for many reasons, but actually I'm a pretty slow driver.

It's also funny how you or nobody else answered my Lost question. I think it's because you know I'm right and you don't have a comeback to it. Think about the question and if you get conflicting thoughts, you'll see where I'm coming from.

Your right, counterfitting is illegal and for good reason. It's not illegal because of simple copying, it's illegal because it's devalues our currency. Our money wouldn't be worth anything if everyone copied money as freely as music is copied today. And I know your going to say something like "If nobody bought music, there would be no releases either." But it really not the same, even though I appreciate the thought.