Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/24/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Been looking for a way in since I heard that PB was going down some months ago.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
cheers!
08/21/09
it searches all the top 10 or so and sorts by seeds, peers etc.
check it.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Music is so cheap now, even physical copies. And I have tons of legit video options, two of which I pay for: Cable TV, Netflix, Netflix streaming, Hulu.
The only hiccup is software - which tends to be ridiculously expensive for non-professionals who can either expense it or write it off. But whatever, I'll deal with not having CS4 Professional.
08/21/09
Guys, you're not looking at things 4th dimensionally here.
It's one thing to steal just because you're lazy, but imagine I download something and I like it. In this case I simply buy it. If I don't like it, I'm glad I didn't spend the money and move on. It's just a try before you buy mentality, the same as with a car. I pay for what deserves to be paid for and support who deserves to be supported.
The landscape is just different today. Music/Movie companies attempt to shovel us with all sorts of garbage these days and piracy as evolved as a way to weed out what shouldn't particularly exist in the first place. Call it Darwinian market progression if you will, but I just don't see it as wrong.
08/21/09
With music, if I'm considering an album, I have a plethora of pinatas available to me so as to allow sampling of the tracks before purchase, I can even purchase single tracks from an album individually. If I find I prefer to archive vast quantities of songs, I can enter into a subscription based service for a nominal monthly fee, or I can purchase physical copies used for a fraction of the retail price.
Movies are a somewhat different field, as repeat consumption on the part of the individual isn't always guarantied. Fortunately, I can still watch trailers and read any of the many reviews before purchasing a dvd or theatre ticket. If I wait, I can watch it for the cost of a rental or free on television or the internet.
Most software/games have trial or demo versions available, though a expanded landscape here would be preferred.
08/21/09
Imagine where we would be today if we maintained the options present to us only 5 years ago?
08/21/09
This would imply, that, while possibly slower, we might not have had the same degradation in user experiences due to progressively more ambitious piracy prevention software.
I suppose one could argue parallels to the stem cell debate. With embryonic stem cell approaches offering faster results while slower skin cell based methods attempting to avoid many of the ethical dilemmas inherent.
08/21/09
First, anything "can be argued," and DRM free mp3s are showing that the industry is now realizing that DRM isn't the solution.
Second, way to bring an unrelated and highly controversial subject (which you clearly no next to nothing about) into light and further isolate yourself from the mainstream.
Not a way to win an argument, friend.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
These will be explored fruitfully, I hope.
08/21/09
are you telling us you're bi-curious?
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
This is why:
06/19/09
Key words "PAY A GUY".
It costs money to make music. Instruments cost money. Production gear costs money. Studio time costs money. An engineer worth a damn costs money. It costs money to have an album mastered, so that it sounds appealing to the masses. It costs money for a decent website.
All you people who think that all artists are OBLIGATED to give you their product for free, F*CK YOU!
I have almost 10k invested in my home studio. And it's not even that much of a studio. How do I recoup that investment without charging money for MY BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS? And I'm about to spend another grand just to promote my new album, and even more to have it mastered, and make CD's for promo purposes.
Labels are necessary. They help the artist sell their product so that they can concentrate on making the product. OOOH, but the major labels are BAAAAAD. Where do you draw the line of "major"? Is Metropolis records a major label? The VNV Nation song mentioned in all the articles is on that label. most people have never heard of them, but they're the biggest label for industrial music right now. And I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that VNV Nation paid for everything up to the mastering stage.
It is the artist's or rightsholder's decision to give music away for free, not yours to take it.
Yes, the jury award is outrageous in inappropriate to the crime. But she's the one who decided to take it to trial.
Oh, and all of my previous work is available for free, to share. Bu that's MY decision, not yours.
06/19/09
I personally find it interesting that all these sharing and copyright rules apply to music and film, but you take a visual artist and the jpegs are all over the place for people to download and no one gives a crap.
The artist in this case puts in the same amount of money and work...if not more - instruments, hard drives, master tapes - all that equipment can be reused easily. Art supplies, not quite so. Of course, there is natural media software such as Painter and ArtRage, Wacom tables that last for a long time and so on but then there is no "original" to sell. But I digress.
Anyway, the artist makes a painting, can sell the original and prints, or anyone can nab a jpg and have it for free and post it wherever and no one will do a damn thing. It is also copyright infringement, but there's this amusing double-standard whereas the visual artist's legal case is a joke but the musicians is serious business.
I wonder how many of the people who are anti-music piracy have never downloaded a piece of visual art. I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I would guess very, very few - if not none.
Maybe there should be a VAA (Visual Artists Association) to sue people for 80 grand apiece for all the jpgs of artwork and professional photos they downloaded off the internet.
06/19/09
Can she escape this lunacy by moving state?
06/19/09
Moving state? Pah. No need for that. File for bankruptcy. I don't know what bankruptcy is like down there, but up here they only take/sell actual luxuries - jewelry, one of your cars (if you have more than one) and so forth.