Disable Download Feature?

[CloudFyre 848]

At the end of the day, if there's a song you REALLY want to download that isn't available, you can always record it with Audacity or something. (That's what I do with songs I like on soundcloud that aren't available for download.) That's already been established.

 

However, was Pony.fm originally supposed to be a place for artists to sell music? If people are so concerned about piracy and stealing other people's work, look at, for example, the Newgrounds Audio portal. All the music there is free for download, made by people who bought DAWs and whatnot too. However, I've never heard of any problems with music plagiarism, or artists having a problem with people downloading their music for free there.

 

Just my 2¢ on this.

 

 

Considering I used to tape a mic to the speaker on a radio to record music, then trim and clean it in Audacity when I was a young kid and didn't have access to good enough internet for just torrenting music or using Youtube2MP3 software...

 

I can safety say disabling downloads doesn't do squat and just inhibits use of the service.

As Feld0 said, you won't be getting the lossless version. You'll be getting something that's decidedly sub-par in terms of quality (even if most people can't tell a huge difference).

 

That aside, the focus isn't so much the prevention as much as it is the intent. It sets a very specific boundary between what is legal and what is not - and that forces a choice, be it legal or illegal. It's up to the user to determine whether they're going to abide by the rules, or choose to break them. (I would hope that the populous would have enough character to honor another person's wishes, especially if it's another musician. I wouldn't want you stealing things from me, thus I won't steal things from you, etc.)

 

 

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

As Feld0 said, you won't be getting the lossless version. You'll be getting something that's decidedly sub-par in terms of quality (even if most people can't tell a huge difference).

 

That aside, the focus isn't so much the prevention as much as it is the intent. It sets a very specific boundary between what is legal and what is not - and that forces a choice, be it legal or illegal. It's up to the user to determine whether they're going to abide by the rules, or choose to break them. (I would hope that the populous would have enough character to honor another person's wishes, especially if it's another musician. I wouldn't want you stealing things from me, thus I won't steal things from you, etc.)

 

 

Lossless is a subjective term, most people outside of audiophilles that have spent their life comparing equipment won;t see a difference because finding the loss in quality requires comparing the two files and actually seeking it out. 

 

And, I'm not a musician, I'm a writer and artist, but I'd be happy if someone liked my stuff enough to want to download it and keep it around, because I work for enjoyment and part of that enjoyment is seeing my stuff make people happy. 

[CloudFyre 848]

Lossless is a subjective term, most people outside of audiophilles that have spent their life comparing equipment won;t see a difference because finding the loss in quality requires comparing the two files and actually seeking it out. 

 

And, I'm not a musician, I'm a writer and artist, but I'd be happy if someone liked my stuff enough to want to download it and keep it around, because I work for enjoyment and part of that enjoyment is seeing my stuff make people happy. 

Lossless is NOT a subjective term. It has a very specific definition.

 

Years ago before I was a musician, I pirated pretty much everything. However, I wouldn't take anything but lossless. (Since that time I've burned a few hundred dollars buying the entire library legally. I figured if I was to become a musician in the future, I'd like people to buy songs - so why wasn't I doing the same for other artists?)

 

Yeah, I like seeing people happy too. Great. You work for enjoyment, and that works for you. Just remember that there are other mindsets out there. While all musicians write for fun, some people would like to write music as a career on top of that - and that means that anyone downloading without permission is killing that possibility. When you fully understand the sheer amount of time and effort it takes to produce a song that you'd find on Beatport or Itunes, you'll also understand why it angers artists so much when people rip the songs without permission.

Edited April 28, 2013 by CloudFyre

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

Lossless is NOT a subjective term. It has a very specific definition.

 

Years ago before I was a musician, I pirated pretty much everything. However, I wouldn't take anything but lossless. (Since that time I've burned a few hundred dollars buying the entire library legally. I figured if I was to become a musician in the future, I'd like people to buy songs - so why wasn't I doing the same for other artists?)

 

Yeah, I like seeing people happy too. Great. You work for enjoyment, and that works for you. Just remember that there are other mindsets out there. While all musicians write for fun, some people would like to write music as a career on top of that - and that means that anyone downloading without permission is killing that possibility. When you fully understand the sheer amount of time and effort it takes to produce a song that you'd find on Beatport or Itunes, you'll also understand why it angers artists so much when people rip the songs without permission.

But what constitutes losses is a matter of opinion, there's loss-less on a technical level, then there's loss-less on a practical "how does it sound" level".

 

Then I think the question has to be asked, if I need money as a incentive, do I really want to be doing this, is it worth it? I'd also like to add that most commercial artist make their money off shows, concerts, TV performances, royalties when the song is used, T-shirts, whatever and record sales are a small portion of it. Most of the complaining comes from the record companies themselves, who really don't deserve much. 

Edited April 28, 2013 by Shoboni

[CloudFyre 848]

But what constitutes losses is a matter of opinion, there's loss-less on a technical level, then there's loss-less on a practical "how does it sound" level".

 

Then I think the question had to be asked, if I need money as a incentive, do I really want to be doing this, is it worth it? I'd also like to add that most commercial artist make their money off shows, concerts, TV performances, royalties when the song is used, T-shirts, whatever and record sales are a small portion of it. Most of the complaining comes from the record companies themselves, who really don't deserve much. 

You seem to think that the presence of money automatically discounts the possibility of someone really "wanting" to do it. The two are not at odds. (I think that's a poor question, to be honest. Ask any professional musician out there if they "really want to be doing this" and "is it worth it". If it wasn't worth it or if they really didn't like it, they probably wouldn't be there.)

 

For me though? Let me think about this for a second - heck yeah, I want to do this. Do you know what the price tag on some of this hardware is?!?

 

For me and many others, music has to be a self sustaining hobby. I write music until the wee hours of the morning, and I love every second of it. I've dropped a very significant amount of money into starting this hobby - however, I'm going to a university in a few months, so if I ever want to upgrade or get new software, that money will have to come directly from music. All of the money I make from my real job will have to go to college.

 

Will I ever charge for pony music? Not for now. But I might later, because there will probably be a point where I want a new synthesizer.

Edited April 28, 2013 by CloudFyre

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

You seem to think that the presence of money automatically discounts the possibility of someone really "wanting" to do it. The two are not at odds. (I think that's a poor question, to be honest. Ask any professional musician out there if they "really want to be doing this" and "is it worth it". If it wasn't worth it or if they really didn't like it, they probably wouldn't be there.)

 

For me though? Let me think about this for a second - heck yeah, I want to do this. Do you know what the price tag on some of this hardware is?!?

 

For me and many others, music has to be a self sustaining hobby. I write music until the wee hours of the morning, and I love every second of it. I've dropped a very significant amount of money into starting this hobby - however, I'm going to a university in a few months, so if I ever want to upgrade or get new software, that money will have to come directly from music. All of the money I make from my real job will have to go to college.

 

Expensive equipment isn't a requirement by any means. I've seen people do amazing things with just a guitar, a camera, and amp to play it through. Digital is even easier because you just need software and the know-how to use it and write the music. 

[CloudFyre 848]

Expensive equipment isn't a requirement by any means. I've seen people do amazing things with just a guitar, a camera, and amp to play it through. Digital is even easier because you just need software and the know-how to use it and write the music. 

You're still not getting the full picture, and I'm not quite sure how I could help you see it...until you get out of a more consumer-oriented mindset and learn more about what really goes into writing music, I doubt you're going to really grasp what I'm saying.

 

 

The closest analogy I can think of is digital art. Hop on DeviantArt and look around for a while. Pretty much everyone draws for fun, and some go a step further and take it up as their main hobby.

 

Now, while you don't need software like Photoshop CS6 or Paint Tool SAI, most people buy them anyways because it works better for them, and those tools have features that you just can't get anywhere else. After a point, some artists feel that their works are good enough to sell - so while you can admire they're art online, you have to pay to get a copy or print for yourself to hang on your wall.

 

 

The same goes for music. Everyone who does it of their own volition for fun. It doesn't take expensive software, but most people pick it up because it just works better for them. You can browse and listen all you'd like online, but if the artist thinks it's good enough to sell, then people will have to pay to get a copy for themselves.

 

 

In each case, artists (both drawers and musicians) are trying to cover the cost of what they put into it, and that's fine. They can do that, because it's their work. If people expect everything to be free, they really need to step back and do a mental check. Any art or music that is given out for free is basically a gift from the creator.

 

So while it's great that people can do cool stuff with simple tools, there are a lot things that you just can't do without high end software. (And if you think writing music digitally is "easier", I suggest studying up on what actually goes into music synthesis. There is a different set of skills required, but calling it easier is a dangerous thing to say.)

Edited April 28, 2013 by CloudFyre

[FoxyCryptid 4,327]

You're still not getting the full picture, and I'm not quite sure how I could help you see it...until you get out of a more consumer-oriented mindset and learn more about what really goes into writing music, I doubt you're going to really grasp what I'm saying.

 

 

The closest analogy I can think of is digital art. Hop on DeviantArt and look around for a while. Pretty much everyone draws for fun, and some go a step further and take it up as their main hobby.

 

Now, while you don't need software like Photoshop CS6 or Paint Tool SAI, most people buy them anyways because it works better for them, and those tools have features that you just can't get anywhere else. 

 

 

That's a bad analogy because GIMP can do everything Photoshop can, and even some things it can't, yet it's the free program of the two(also, IMO, GIMP has the better user-interface as well, my tablet came with Photoshop, yet I wound up going back to GIMP because I didn't like how it functioned.)

[CloudFyre 848]

That's a bad analogy because GIMP can do everything Photoshop can, and even some things it can't, yet it's the free program of the two(also, IMO, GIMP has the better user-interface as well, my tablet came with Photoshop, yet I wound up going back to GIMP because I didn't like how it functioned.)

You're arguing semantics now. The analogy works just fine. The idea still stands that some pieces of software do things that others just can't, and it's especially true for music software.

 

All I was originally trying to say is that musicians charging for music isn't anything out of the ordinary - if someone can make money doing what they truly love, then I say go for it!