Thread
Posts in chronological order
Pretty interesting mix Thanks!
Yes, nice but official (Hollywood Promo from 1991, Rocks CD series from 1991)....
Yes, this remix is official. Please take it off!
most promos are only official for radio stations and not for buying. And i think that the promo cd isn't available anywhere. Except internet and collectors. But ok...
I don´t mean it so serious, but these songs can only the beginning (maybe the end of this great web site!)
no, it's ok. I just thought, if it's no longer available in the shops it's ok to share it here
I´ve got this and a edit of the remix. These to remixes of "Hammer To Fall" are the best I know...exapt the "Headbangers Mix".
TO my mind, if you cannot walk down to Tower Records or wherever, it is not considered "Officially Released".
In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here...
In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhoun wrote: [/QUOTENAME]TO my mind, if you cannot walk down to Tower Records or wherever, it is not considered "Officially Released".
In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here...
[/QUOTE]
Although I see your logic, the RIAA do not. If it has been officially released, then it can not be shared.
This self-censorship helps keep this site open, (unlike others which have been forced to close).
For obvious reasons, this is a one of the most favourite forums in here, and it's not too difficult to abide by the sloitary simple rule - if it's official, keep it out.
In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here...
[/QUOTE]
Although I see your logic, the RIAA do not. If it has been officially released, then it can not be shared.
This self-censorship helps keep this site open, (unlike others which have been forced to close).
For obvious reasons, this is a one of the most favourite forums in here, and it's not too difficult to abide by the sloitary simple rule - if it's official, keep it out.
I understand perfectly well the "rule", but that does not mean that I have to AGREE with it.
If folks up top were so worried about this kind of thing, they would make these tracks accessible, over the internet, at $1.99 a pop.
If folks up top were so worried about this kind of thing, they would make these tracks accessible, over the internet, at $1.99 a pop.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhoun wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If folks up top were so worried about this kind of thing, they would make these tracks accessible, over the internet, at $1.99 a pop.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Mr Haystacks!. But then they would go and do something stupid like making such tracks available only in the US - but not in Europe or Australia.
I do not agree with theft, but sometimes, as consumers we are chased down that road.
For example, I buy a lot of DVD movies. Sometimes I buy DVDs from the states as they have better (uncut) versions of the film, perhaps more extras, (or more usually) because they come out so much earlier over there.
But to stop this free trade, they then came up with regionally encoded discs. I mean if I buy a 'Mary Poppins' DVD from America, how does this effect the Disney company? They still have their profits whether or not my DVD was bought in the UK.
However, to circumvent the whole stupid procedure, folks began uploading film to bit-torrent (or wherever), thus bypassing the need to purchase incompatable DVD in the first place!
Talk about herding the massing towards downloading!
Now I see far more region '0' discs, and a lot less of those stupid encoded ones. (Besides, it was always easy to hack the DVD player in the first place!).
I guess what I am saying is that I agree the moronic companies are acting like ludites, and there are far better and efficient ways to deal with the internet as a medium, but until that day arrives - I guess it's better safe than sorry.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Mr Haystacks!. But then they would go and do something stupid like making such tracks available only in the US - but not in Europe or Australia.
I do not agree with theft, but sometimes, as consumers we are chased down that road.
For example, I buy a lot of DVD movies. Sometimes I buy DVDs from the states as they have better (uncut) versions of the film, perhaps more extras, (or more usually) because they come out so much earlier over there.
But to stop this free trade, they then came up with regionally encoded discs. I mean if I buy a 'Mary Poppins' DVD from America, how does this effect the Disney company? They still have their profits whether or not my DVD was bought in the UK.
However, to circumvent the whole stupid procedure, folks began uploading film to bit-torrent (or wherever), thus bypassing the need to purchase incompatable DVD in the first place!
Talk about herding the massing towards downloading!
Now I see far more region '0' discs, and a lot less of those stupid encoded ones. (Besides, it was always easy to hack the DVD player in the first place!).
I guess what I am saying is that I agree the moronic companies are acting like ludites, and there are far better and efficient ways to deal with the internet as a medium, but until that day arrives - I guess it's better safe than sorry.
Just out if interest:
In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple.
The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough.
But under close examination, what do you get for your money?
No disc, no artwork, and minimal information.
At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc.
So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical?
Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK?
After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from?
In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple.
The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough.
But under close examination, what do you get for your money?
No disc, no artwork, and minimal information.
At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc.
So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical?
Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK?
After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just out if interest:
In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple.
The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough.
But under close examination, what do you get for your money?
No disc, no artwork, and minimal information.
At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc.
So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical?
Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK?
After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from?[/QUOTE]
I fully agree. I bought a Creative player a few weeks ago and haven't downloaded anything from legal sites to put on it. The songs I have on it are from my own personal cd collection....
In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple.
The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough.
But under close examination, what do you get for your money?
No disc, no artwork, and minimal information.
At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc.
So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical?
Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK?
After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from?[/QUOTE]
I fully agree. I bought a Creative player a few weeks ago and haven't downloaded anything from legal sites to put on it. The songs I have on it are from my own personal cd collection....
I personally would not pay to download music that I can buy on CD. In my mind 99 cents a track is a rip of. Why would I want to pay $10 for an downloaded album that has not artwork or case? It makes no sense to me.