Blip! - last few copies

Mayor of Dreamsville · **Joined:** Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:03 pm **Posts:** 638

I'm no expert in this field, but don't these 'torrent' sites that share music rely on users having their personal collection merely availble for other users to help themselves to?
So there is no actual uploading to a server as such, but if user 'A' is using torrent sites and user 'B' searches for a certain record and it's in user 'A's collection, 'B' can download it from 'A' possibly without 'A' even knowing that they are sharing their music. I'm sure this is how the early file-sharing sites worked and assume it's the same for torrent sites?
So it maybe that Bill's fans buy his CDs legitimately (and rip them to their computers), then illegally use torrent sites to download OTHER music, but inadvertantly share all their BN collection with the rest of the world...is that possible?
Somebody with a better knowledge of the workings of it all maybe able to put me right on a few of those points.

Jon.

James Ellis · **Posted:** Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:50 pm

Jon, that's pretty much on the ball, I use Shareza for various peer to peer downloads (nothing music related) & you do get the option of sharing your collection with other users or downloading only, the point being here is if everybody chooses the download only route the whole scheme collapses,

The more sites available, the faster the downloads are, I do down load only.

asterisk · **Posted:** Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:10 pm

Yes, that is called seeding where you get portions of a file from various individual machines until the all add up to one complete file. This is a sort of amendment to the true Peer-to-Peer system as it was designed to be used. Originally just for text to share papers on the scientific and professional level. Extremely useful for working together around the world in real time. And that is fine on a closed network protected by pass-phrases and hardware firewalls. But in the big, wide open, scary world of the internet, normally you either have to have some balls or are just plain reckless to allow any random traffic to enter your network freely, seeing and downloading specific files on your hard drive. Either that or some use ghosts (I think that is what they are called), older machines with nothing else on the hard drive. But even so, the address of that machine has to be available in order for others to access it. And this is where it tends to get a bit murky. So here I reach the end of the rainbow as to my knowledge of the specifics of file-shairing.

Andre · **Posted:** Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:30 pm

I find it all very scary. Letting strangers into your computer...

asterisk · **Posted:** Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Agreed Andre. Even allowing those you know on your computer can be a bit nervy. :shock:

Heartland · **Joined:** Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:21 pm **Posts:** 63

Mayor of Dreamsville wrote:

I'm no expert in this field, but don't these 'torrent' sites that share music rely on users having their personal collection merely availble for other users to help themselves to?
So there is no actual uploading to a server as such, but if user 'A' is using torrent sites and user 'B' searches for a certain record and it's in user 'A's collection, 'B' can download it from 'A' possibly without 'A' even knowing that they are sharing their music. I'm sure this is how the early file-sharing sites worked and assume it's the same for torrent sites?
So it maybe that Bill's fans buy his CDs legitimately (and rip them to their computers), then illegally use torrent sites to download OTHER music, but inadvertantly share all their BN collection with the rest of the world...is that possible?
Somebody with a better knowledge of the workings of it all maybe able to put me right on a few of those points.

Jon.

This is not the case with Torrent sites. You would have to create a torrent for others to download. Therefore if there are Bill torrents available they are not accidental but have been created to be shared. To be fair I think the Russian sites are more of a threat to Bills work than torrent sites.

H

Bill Nelson · **Joined:** Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:40 pm **Posts:** 14185

Heartland wrote:

This is not the case with Torrent sites. You would have to create a torrent for others to download. Therefore if there are Bill torrents available they are not accidental but have been created to be shared. To be fair I think the Russian sites are more of a threat to Bills work than torrent sites.

Exactly. From what I've been given to understand, the damage is not done 'accidentally,' at least in the majority of cases. And even if that were so, it still wouldn't account for those pirate sites who charge people directly to download entire albums. (As per the Russian sites I've mentioned, and others in the UK and in America too.) Plus, there are streaming sites who, (certainly in my case,) have no license or permission from me to stream my music, and yet have done so.

The notion of fans 'accidentally' uploading albums to the web, (even if such a thing were possible,) doesn't convincingly account for the huge amount of illicit downloading, or the unlicensed streaming of copyright recordings, nor for pirate sales from sites posing as legitimate, even though they are not. Or, for that matter, the huge decline in cd sales, (and even official downloads,) right across the board. File sharing and piracy begins with someone and ends with someone. It can't, in my opinion, be explained or condoned by putting it down to an accident of fan enthusiasm.

If fans were genuinely aware of the damage done to their favourite artists by posting their albums on the web, surely they would not do it? Is it a matter of education?
In any case, my view is that it should be curtailed. It poses a very serious threat to all those who rely on the sale of their work to survive as professional musicians.
Please, remember, this isn't something that only I suffer from, it's a desperate problem for other artists too, especially for those who operate on a very small turn-over/profit margin.

No matter how it's presented or excused, this practice blights the entire music making community, from major companies right down to little cottage industries. It seems to me that there are far too many excuses and far too little respect for those who struggle to bring some sort of uniqueness to the profession.

paul.smith · **Joined:** Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:41 pm **Posts:** 835

Perfectly put,that man......

BG · **Posted:** Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:10 am

ajobjects wrote:

Surely more can be pressed if they are needed - we are only talking about a case, CD and a modest inlay card. I appreciate Mr N doesn't want to do thousands and have them sit on the shelf for years. However having another production run of a few hundred copies is surely not beyond reason if the demand is there.

Absolutely agree, now people will be paying obscene amounts of money for these on Ebay etc . . 500 really isn't good enough, especially for those in different time zones i.e. USA - there are some extremely pissed off fans there who like myself dont buy downloads unless it's for charity as in my opinion it is money for nothing - download your own covers, download your own tracks, burn your own CD, print your own cover - Bollocks !

MondoJohnny · **Posted:** Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:23 am

You got it all wrong man! It's not like he wanted to do this! He had to cut down the production. Then because he realized people weren't even going to get any music at all, he decided to give in to something he has been fervently fighting against for years. And all that just since I've been around! Bill has stated in no uncertain terms many times that he is against the idea but what can he do? Let's see that picture again of all the CDs still sitting on the shelf. If that doesn't break your heart then you are made of stone!

www.billnelson.com

Blip! - last few copies

Who is online