Head In the Rainbows

[occidentalis]

Does have one point though, if you download it for free from somewhere else in FLAC you won't have to feel too guilty about it creach

That's the plan

[chilli]

That's the plan

Fair enough, I reckon... I don't see how anyone but the most pedantic could find someone ethically wrong with that.

[incognito]

have u guys heardthe radiohead portishead collaborations?

realllly niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

i loveradiohead. i have some really cool rare thom york shit and collaborations if anyone wants it, ull justhafta add me to msn(im on a friend drive here) i have only realised the world of downloading music 3 days ago when i got broadband.

I likey but hard to get out of house. whocares anyways those guys are filthy rich, im not gonna weep for any lost money they endure as they get chauffered in limosines here and that, ill riptheir music anyday. i mean if they were hard up sureid buy it, but they have to much $ anyways.

[chilli]

have u guys heardthe radiohead portishead collaborations?

realllly niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

i loveradiohead. i have some really cool rare thom york shit and collaborations if anyone wants it, ull justhafta add me to msn(im on a friend drive here) i have only realised the world of downloading music 3 days ago when i got broadband.

I likey but hard to get out of house. whocares anyways those guys are filthy rich, im not gonna weep for any lost money they endure as they get chauffered in limosines here and that, ill riptheir music anyday. i mean if they were hard up sureid buy it, but they have to much $ anyways.

It is so cute how you are all excited about downloading music since you got broadband.

I hardly ever have used MSN, how do I add people to it without their email address?

[Conan Troutman]

have u guys heardthe radiohead portishead collaborations?

realllly niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

i loveradiohead. i have some really cool rare thom york shit and collaborations if anyone wants it, ull justhafta add me to msn(im on a friend drive here) i have only realised the world of downloading music 3 days ago when i got broadband.

I likey but hard to get out of house. whocares anyways those guys are filthy rich, im not gonna weep for any lost money they endure as they get chauffered in limosines here and that, ill riptheir music anyday. i mean if they were hard up sureid buy it, but they have to much $ anyways.

"Rabbit in Your Headlights" UNKLE, featuring Radiohead's Thom Yorke on guest vocals. One of the best video clips ever

[benjahman]

How sad... you comprehended so much of the thought and intent that went into every precisely constructed sentence (including the contradictions and unsubstantiated leaps in logic), but you completely failed to discern the irony that impregnated the whole thing.

Still, I'm flattered you think my writing is so incisive that you used the word in consecutive sentences... that will help me assuage the self-pitying feelings of being so misunderstood, and enable me to keep going in life.

Incisive's the word

Well sorry about that, the irony was lost on me likely given your previous comments regarding mp3 encoding. The bitrate of the audio I listen to is something that matters a great deal to me. Lossy bitrates stand out like dogs balls on good speakers run through a decent amp or high-end cans put through a decent source. Speakers especially.. a thin soundstage ruins the expansiveness of many good albums. Also at high volumes you can feel certain frequencies through their vibrations and this is often a big part of the experience for me, especially with psychedelic and dance music. Fuck itunes. Steve Jobs isn't a musician... let alone a conscientious one. There is a significant audible difference between 160kbps and 192kbps, after this point I will concede that its more a law of diminishing returns, as reflected by listening tests with large numbers of participants, still worth it for myself and many others though. I buy a lot of music online and when I do so I expect a 320kbps minimum, I try and buy WAV online whenever possible, as do mates who spin as a hobby or professionally. They do this because presumably there will be people they play to who also give a fuck about sound quality.

Radiohead are musos, they've got ears and I'd warrant they like their WAVs too. Album could've and should've been available at a higher bitrate to those donating as creach did. That simple for me. Many electronic musicians in compromised financial positions have released free albums and music at 320kbps to WAV quality because they wanted to get there music out there and heard by people as it was meant to be heard. If you've got the money, want to make a statement about the state of the music industry go the whole hog and do it right IMO. Show tens of thousands of people a viable and worthy alternative rather than a substandard one.

[Sparkster]

"

Rabbit in Your Headlights" UNKLE, featuring Radiohead's Thom Yorke on guest vocals. One of the best video clips ever

arrr. thats a cool video clip, disturbing but fitting! man havn't seen it in yonks... will have to dig up.

Portishead were meant to release an album this year... (and the year before that, and the year before that) and I'm still waiting!

You heard any of Beth Gibbons (Portishead singer) solo stuff? She released an album "Out of Season" a few years back

[chilli]

I thought this was interesting... Radiohead have made a commercial release of 5 stems from the track "Nude," and have invited remixes to be submitted to their website.

Info is HERE, but what I found particularly interesting was the remark on the iTunes store page, presumably made by the band themselves:

"You don't have any legal ownership of this music simply by cutting it up or whatever"

Well, I thought it was paying for the fucking thing that gave me legal ownership... which I still can't manage to do by the way, so I just torrented them instead, much less hassle than trying to deal with that fucking nightmarish iTunes store.

The comment, especially after the whole "pay what you want and then pay again later" thing has left me wondering a little bit about whether this is not more marketing gimmick than pushing the envelope or shaking up the industry.

I know what they mean I guess, it's just weird to say something like that given the spirit and protocol of the whole remix culture... it kind of seemed almost like they were devaluing sampling and chopping etc.

What do others think?

Edited April 7, 2008 by IllegalBrain

[The Dude]

I thought that even buying an album is like buying a lisence to listen to it. I know dvd's are just a lisence to watch it at your own home, you can't play it at say a party or conference or anything. Which i reckon is fair bullshit, vj's would be stressing... if anyone actually gave a fuck :D

But yeah you never really own the music, and technically you can't do anything with it (including remixing or sampling) thats why hip hop artists now have a huge headfuck of getting legal permission for whatever they sample. Things were much better in the day. However with the advent of internets, everything is everywhere and we can download share remix produce whatever we want for free - without getting sued for it. If i make a killaaarrgh remix of a radiohead track and release it for free they can smoke a pole if they don't like it. They're not losing any money especially as I'm not making any money.

[nabraxas]

^ yeah agree. when you download music, especially from I-tunes, it seems you don't own the music just a license.

Microsoft just got shafted for $175 million in the Indian courts. India has a tax on royalties gained from licensing. Microsoft hadn't paid any tax &, amazingly, tried to argue that they don't license but sell their software.....seeing as it says all over the packaging that the software remains the property ov Microsoft & that you have to agree to their licensing terms before you can install windows etc., this was a pretty poor argument that the Indian court quickly rejected.

story:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/new...oses-tax-appeal