Always on the look out for new music and came across this guy -"G D Luxxe" and could not help compare him to John, he sounds like him, uses similar musical phrases and a nice sounding vintage synths. What do you lot think? I've got a track from the album called "Make", it's called Black Sand for you to download. Here's the link. Feedback appreciated
http://rapidshare.de/files/22989460/GD_Luxxe_Make_11_Black_Sand.mp3

JG

At the risk of opening a huge can of worms here: is the link you've just posted to a freely available, artist-approved download...or is it an unapproved file-share?

I apologise for asking, but I'm concerned about the prospect of this possibly being an unapproved, copyright-breaching file.

Can open, worms everywhere!!! Tried to down load and couldn't as had to put in password. Also, no-one has ever downloaded it! So is is kosha?
Beware
Cheers

OK! OK! OK!
I've never uploaded a file on rapidshare before and I only wanted to share you this file because it's got John's influences all over it. I did not know it had to have a password Craig so I'll look into it...oh and it is Kosha!
Mr Luxxe does have a website if you google it...the sound/music samples are a bit varied. Sorry if I'm stepping on copyright but I did buy and download the album.
I'll get me coat and can opener
....This message will self destruct in 5 seconds and all that.

Just looked into it and it only needs the ID code (the 3 digits in front of all those colours)to download- thats typical of anything on rapidshare. No ones downloaded it because I only uploaded it last night

Thanks for that Jonathan...sounds interesting.
Interesting topic as well regarding copyright issues. Is it exploitation of an artist or free advertising and potential future sales? I know what I think........

I would like to think I'm not known for yelling things from rooftops but:

Distribution of a piece of copyrighted work, without permission, is theft. Pure and simple.

JG please do not take that last statement as a personal attack, but somewhere the line on unrestrained file sharing has got to be drawn.

Purchase of the album does not make it right, or legal, to upload either the whole or part for others to download. For obvious reasons.

You know, even as I'm typing this, part of me is saying "Run away! Run away!!" from pursuing this particular posture, but I can't avoid it.

Once too often recently I've run into either accidental or deliberate copyright breaching.

Both as individuals, as well as a group, we have got to be more respectful of authourship, ownership and the ability to generate income from work produced.

All that said: yep, he does seem to be a closet Foxx-ian.

Off for a cold shower and some light chanting to - kind of - untwat my brain...or something

Wise words, especially in this day and age.
But...
I wouldn't have got into John Foxx if my friend had not taped me Metamatic on a TDK D60- Home Tapping did not kill music!!
It's a question of sharing something you think others would be into. Discovery.Nothing more nothing less.
If you like it you buy into it.
It's the Sunday morning carbooters selling the all the top 40 on CD-R's that kills music and yes it does have an effect on the independent artist because the whole industry gets squeezed.
That is what I despise.

Well spoken, chap!

That said...home taping didn't kill music because 8 trillion people couldn't download a perfect, no-need-to-replace-it copy, at once.

Inclement weather apparel acquired..

I thought TDK tapes were fantastic.
Is it live or is it Memorex?!!!

Very good point and combined with 50 gig ipods no one needs CD's anymore.
But I personally like to finger the packaging, such as John's TCM CD. Hence the rise of the indie 7" vinyl..ownership of something you can handle. It's collectable and looks good on the shelf. I respect this sort of media.

Good grief, man! Have you no shame?!!

Musty 80's vinyl...Love it!! (especially that weird texture on Midge's "The Gift")
I'm off to bed
thanks for the correspondence.

I have a little bit of knowledge on the topic. My husband is a novelist, so a large chunk (most) of the household income comes from the sale of books. Nevertheless, last year, he did a little experiment and released the whole text of his latest novel for free, online, under a Creative Commons licence, on the same day it was published.

His sales went up.

It wasn't exactly free advertising as there is hosting to pay for (though permitting non-commercial redistribution puts that cost onto anyone else who wants to distribute it).

While what he writes is genre fiction (science fiction, mostly), he is with a major publisher and is getting quite well-known within the field. If you want to read it, you may, of course, download it for free from the website he set up for that purpose.

Very cool, I'll give that a read (I'm very impressed!). Interesting that sales went up, too - although it does follow that if you don't know an author and you can 'try before you buy', that if you like it you'll more than likely go out and buy everything else they've written. Excellent.

If Charlie had his way, he'd do free eBooks of all his works. It really does work as publicity - it seems that, ultimately, people like to have the nicely designed bit of dead tree. We've also bought rather a lot of CDs as the result of a free (whether official or dubious) downloads, and most of the anime I have on DVD is stuff that I originally downloaded as fansubs.

But the question is still one of choice by the original author.

If an author, of either music or written work, takes option of allowing free availability of their work for future increased benefit, so much the better.

However, another person, or group of people choosing to abuse the privelige of owning a copy of that work is an entirley different cheese sandwich.

The thing I just don't get about the whole copyright / download arguement is the way those who breach copyright always try to find someway to justify the action:

"It's helping them out by letting others know about how good they are"

"They are rich. They can afford it"

"I bought it, therefore I can do what I want with my copy"

"I didn't know it was wrong"

Take your pick.

Bottom line: if someone walked in my house on a warm summers evening, reached down, picked up my Gladstone bag, retrieved my imitation, authentic Blaenau Ffestiniog Welsh Slate wallet, opened it, took out my last months pay (in Guineas), said " I met a bunch of people on the internet I'm going to give this too, because they're my chums", and waltzed into the ivy-breathed long green light....

Do you know what?

I'd probably be somewhere north of Irked, well on the way to Peeved Central.

But in my scenario, you'd never have that cash to begin with, because no-one would've known about you to pay you. I point again to the stack of stuff I only ever bought after I heard/saw it via a dodgy download. Yeah, most of it is obscure goth bands and J-Rock - exactly the sort of stuff the major labels aren't interested in letting us pay them for.

And there's the other stack of dodgy downloads over there which consists of stuff which is only available via dubious means because the bloody record companies/DVD publishers etc don't want to make money by releasing stuff that people might actually want to buy. The original Max Headroom TV movie is in that stack - if the damn thing was available on DVD, I'd buy it becuase the quality would be much better (and it would save disk space). In this case, the directors etc are only not getting money because the thing isn't available.

That presumes, following the hypotetical path of this, that the original author was not a good self-publicist.

What's woolly here is the dancing around the central issue: choice by the creator.

If he/she chooses the option that your husband made such great use of, that is their choice.

Acquisition of material by method of non-approved download or copying, as per your Max Headroom, example is still, unfortunately, theft. That the original is not available is a great shame (I actually feel the same on this because I loved MH too) but, because it is unavailable by any authorised method, there is no way I, personally, would use that route.

Everyone involved in the creation of the original potentially loses out: actors (not getting residual), directors (likewise), production company and current coyright holders. It is not possible to use non-payment to authors, because of non-authorised release of material, as justification for such action.

Again it's another argument, however seemingly plausible, for side-stepping legal rights. These are not hypothetical examples, they are real-life facts.

The original author in this case is not Cory Doctorow, and is therefore a mere amateur when is comes to self-publicising.

Ever read a book or recording contract? There's bugger all choice for the creator, and unless you have a decent agent, the publisher will try and grab everything. The author we are discussing had to go to great lengths to persuade his publishers to let him release a free e-book - they were rather sceptical about the whole idea. He's vindicated now, of course.

Less stroppy authors will not receive the option to do anything that dramatic, at least not for now. The only authors who have done it have been in the field of science fiction, and popular among geeks. Publishers, being inherently reluctant to try anything new, will insist that it will only work with that kind of book and resist letting anyone in any other genre try it, even though it's been comprehensively demonstrated that it increases sales and makes them more money.

There is no author choice in a book contract, and much less choice in a recording contract.

Just remember that the publishers are not losing money through piracy in this case. They're losing money becuase their understanding of capitalism is so shaky that they can't work out that they can make money by releasing something for which there is demand. It's a surprise they're still in business.

Contrast this with the anime business. Fansubs are tolerated because it gives the companies who produce English-language DVDs of this stuff a massive hint as to what is popular in the English-speaking world and therefore worth licensing. There's also a code of honour among fansubbers that they will generally stop distributing a fansub when the title has been licensed. The result is that there's a load of good stuff available in English, and it's a massive business.

Of course, most of it is R1, which means I have to have a (naughty) multi-region DVD player and import (naughty) from North America.

Can you tell me exactly how the producers and publishers of Max Headroom have lost out by my actions? Put a number on it - go on. As far as I can see, they're only likely to gain, as its constant presence on the networks indicates there's enough demand to make it worth bringing out on DVD. The copyright holders are only losing out because of their own inaction.

You forget, I eat only because of intellectual property rights - I have a far greater personal interest in these things than you as my husband is one of the people allegedly being stolen from because of all this online 'theft'.

You know, there are pirated e-books of my husband's stuff online - the stuff he hasn't been able to make available under a Creative Commons licence because his publisher wouldn't let him. Is he going to do anything about it?

No.

His experience with the official free e-book release tells him that he's selling (many) more books than he would if such things were not available. It seems the 'thieves' are giving us money!

Wow! You're married to Charles Stross? I've only read The Atrocity Archive so far, but I've got Singularity Sky, Iron Sunrise, and The Family Trade, and I'm looking forward to getting the paperback of Accelerando soon. All actual bought and paid for printed books, because I prefer them to ebooks, and it's not like a download from the website will be signed by the author the way the copy of The Family Trade I picked up at Bakka in Toronto was, but I'll have to have a good poke around the website anyway.

Small world.

Oh, and back on topic, I see one of GD Luxxe's albums is available on eMusic.com. Based on the samples, John Foxx is an influence on his vocal style at the very least.

Actually, yes I have and do. No disagreement at the truth of what you say at all. Most are massively restrictive documents. But that is not my point about copyright at all.

There is choice: the choice is to sign, or not. To publish officially (ie: via a publisher / publishing house ) or not. Or, as you rightfully pointed out, to publish under a Creative Commons Licence. This presumes wishing to follow a particular path with regard to distribution: capitalistic or 'Open Source'. (Welcome to the Blog-o-sphere!) Again what you say is true in that contracts are restrictive but is again unrelated to my point about copyright.

The potential for both gain or loss of revenue is a ballanced potential. It could be argued that the company may have been on the verge of release only to be disuaded by piracy dulling the market. A similar recent example of piracy of brand new copyrighted material being downloaded illicitly may be found in the trend of TV shows being digitally recorded, loaded to the internet and for people in countries - yet to see that show - to download it. The result: lower viewing figures on broadcast in that country. Lower viewing equates to lower sales potential. lower sales potential, reduced investment against the lower return. That is the cursed flip-side of 'free' downloads.

Again, unregulated availability of coyrighted material waters the market, not enhances it.

Legally speaking, 'chipping' a DVD player to playback other countries region-coded material is not illegal or even 'naughty'. You merely invalidate your machine's warranty. Your choice. In fact multi-region (direct from manufacturer) DVD players are now becoming more commonplace. Imports are also 'un-naughty': they are legal too

I can't do that! (...I'm not an accountant). But see my point above about lower potential sales...

Says who? As copyright holders it is their choice to either release the work in their own time. Or not at all. You have no right at all to make that choice for them.

Not true. A great chunk of my career is involved in the copyrighting, protection and commercial distribution of copyrighted work. Specifically photograhy and written work, respectively. Although that work is not my own, the potential misuse of it is potentially damaging to it's creators, who have entrusted it to my organisation for safekeeping and management. The correct, legal, charged distribution of the work, allows us to reinvest in the creation of more work with both those same, and newer, artists.

I'll finish my presence on this topic with this: I heartily applaud your husband's success and approach to his work. I genuinely think it is insightful and embracing of the new opportunities for dissemination of artist work. I hope and believe there is great potential in that path.

However I return to 'choice'. All the examples you give of justified downloading (if we were to use that example), are justified if - and only if - they embrace your husband's sensibities and approach to his own work.

What I stand against is the movement of others to manipulate that which is not theirs; to make choices and decisions based upon personal motivation at the expenses of others who created that work.

Illegal downloading is bad.

Word.

Illegal copying is something that everyone has to put up with. It ain't gonna go away because you (or anyone else) don't like it. The authorities would be absolutely mad to try to go after amateur illegal copying; the best they can do is employ various techniques to try to restrict it.

ergo, since any anti-home-copying law is unenforceable, there shouldn't be any such law.

Where the authorities should concentrate their efforts is on attacking the professional cheats: the ones who make money from bootlegging. eg. I was shocked when I lived in Hungary that the student reprographics service in the college where I worked would copy entire books to order for a fee.