SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Provides an example of how laws only matter insofar as the people agree to follow them. If everybody wants something, it will be had, irrespective of corporate fiddling.
Grooveshark was a music-streaming site that was finally shut down by the music industry last week due to the revelation of deliberate violations of copyright by employees. Employees had uploaded music tracks themselves to bolster Grooveshark's catalog, in contrast to other services (e.g. YouTube) that simply take down user-uploaded content in response to DMCA notices and are not liable for copyright infringement of the users.
TorrentFreak reports that the widely-reported "clone" that emerged soon after Grooveshark's demise is actually a reskin of another site, MP3Juices.se:
We concede that to some the idea of a reincarnated Grooveshark will be a somewhat romantic one but as we highlighted at the weekend, the practice of passing one site off as another is now really getting out of hand.
Only time will tell if Grooveshark.io will magically transform into a proper replacement for the now defunct site, complete with playlist and community features for example, but it seems unlikely.
As things stand Grooveshark.io appears to be just a re-badged/re-skinned clone of MP3Juices.se, a low-traffic clone of the original MP3Juices. In the scheme of things it's hardly likely to be an important target for the RIAA, except for one small detail. The labels now own all of Grooveshark's intellectual property – brand names and trademarks included...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 11 2015, @08:40AM
You've begged the question there. I guess about a third of the people I know well are involved with music in some way, and I'm sure none of them would agree with that statement. I have lunch with 2 musicians later, I can ask them. They certainly wouldn't agree with the "Live music sucks" part.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DaTrueDave on Monday May 11 2015, @03:44PM
I think it's pretty obvious that they are two different types of music. Studio tracks are done over and over to make it sound exactly the way they want it to sound.
Live music is, well, live. You're there at the source and you see and hear all the flaws that come with it. You also suffer from whatever crappy acoustics and equipment are available to the artists, too. You also get to see passion and nuance that can't be recorded.
The problem is when the cheap sound equipment, horrible venue, and all of the other flaws combine with a band that is touring just to make money and you get a crappy performance. This is how most big venue concerts are for me. In my opinion, no music can beat a small venue (preferably with no amplification) jam session by musicians that love what they are doing.
To say that live is better than recorded, or vice versa, is just wrong. They can't be directly compared. They're two different things.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 11 2015, @04:37PM
For me, a lot of it's genre-related, there are a few styles of music that I like where I would never have any interest in seeing the artist perform it live (E.g. most minimalism, and other things heavily reliant on simple playback of the music (e.g. sequencers), as basically the only "performance" is to press the "play" button.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @08:19PM
Yup.
DJ Bob Parlocha (1938-2015)[1] would mention that James Moody would record short little numbers (so they would get played on the radio??).
When you went to a club, however, Moody could make 1 tune into an entire set, improvising like crazy and really stretching out.
Assuming that's what everyone came to hear, everyone was in Heaven and realized that his recordings were just the commercial stuff he was required to do by his recording contract--records being just promotional leaders for the real deal.
...and it sounds like the AC is talking about Rock 'n' Roll--as in "that's close enough for...".
WRT the statements by DaTrueDave, isn't it interesting how aficionados will listen to an old, worn recording of a piece and overlook the surface noise and other defects and concentrate on the underlying art?
[1] Gonna miss not having any new stuff from you, Bob.
Best DJ on the radio in many a year (not even a close contest.)
Knew the music; knew|knew about the musicians (and let -you- know about them); NEVER willfully talked over the music.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by everdred on Tuesday May 12 2015, @02:53PM
Don't forget the crowd's ability to impact both your own enjoyment of the performance, and the performance itself. At the show last week, people around me not only tried my own patience with various forms of obnoxious mobile usage, but also the performer's, causing him to go off on one of the rants he's pretty much become known for. (Basically, "if you guys won't shut up, I can't play any acoustic stuff.")