Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
'not authorised', yet they're pointing people to where they can hear the streams all the same?
Google showing links to illegal downloads. In both cases I don't think Google/Pitchfork should be held responsible for the content of other websites.
I don't think its impossible to argue that they shouldn't be promoting illegal content.
It's less clear cut with google (I guess) but, whilst Pitchfork might not be hosting these, they've made a concious and knowing decision to link to them.
google is a search engine, Pitchfork is a collective of music writers
google technically links to child porn if you wanna go down that route
a lot of forums remove them.
If pitchfork was a print magazine and printed links to illegal url people would think that was dodgy
its probably going to end up impacting the quality of reporting that Pitchork will be ble to do if they keep linking to these things without the permission of the artist. Ultimately they should be focusing on the day today stuff of getting interviews and releasing their own material, and not risk the respect they have from musicians by linking to unverfied or unwanted leaks.
Ive got so used to typing it that way after hundreds of morris-related posts.
In any case, they're only streams... and it's only 2 songs... one of which is a B-Side. And I would think most people will already have decided if they're going to buy the 7'' (and/or the full length record), illegally download it, or do neither.
In conclusion I'd say they've lost Panda Bear absolutely no money by doing this and perhaps even earned him some more through publicising the tracks.
i was gonna post another "THIS IS SO WRONG" post, but you've convinced me otherwise. good posting.
I feel that you may be speaking sarcastically...
When Pitchfork ran a story on David Byrne suing a candidate for using "Road to Nowhere" in an ad without permission, the writer concluded the piece, "Maybe somebody needs to get Florida's politicians together for some sort of copyright law seminar?"
...which was immediately followed on the page by an embedded YouTube video of a performance from the Late Show with David Letterman, ripped and posted without CBS's permission. Does that bother me? Not really. But I certainly don't need Pitchfork writers preaching to me about copyright law when it's politically convenient for them.