MP3 downloading

[Bobmi357]

The RIAA sued a 12 year old girl, is that fair?

More than fair. Her parents are at fault for not monitoring her internet activities.

 

[Bobmi357]

I, personally, have no problems DLing shareware music. You can call me all the nasty names you want. The RIAA is not looking at the art of making music, it's solely into capitalizing off of it.

No, RIAA is merely an industry organization representing multiple companies. RIAA itself produces nothing. Its akin to the ACM for the IT industry.

I'm sorry that people who are struggling musicians really believe that my DLing affects them. When our CEO talks about budget crisis and the bad economy making it impossible to compensate me for my work, I almost buy it-except that I know they are continuing to bank millions of dollars and couldn't care less that I'm short on rent.

So your CEO's actions justify your stealing? WOW! Well I guess its only fair. Seems kinda silly to point your fingers at your CEO and blame him for your theft, did he make you do it? Did he hold a gun to your head? Did he sit you down and tell you "Hey, lets rip off a bunch of artists/programmers/studios"?

Nope... doesn't wash, find another excuse.

For the record, the last time I checked, there were over 20,000 installations of the software I was selling for a paltry $19.95. How many copies did I sell before the roof caved in? Less than 200. So it isn't a matter of what I believe, its a matter of what I know is a fact. Had I sold just half as many copies as whats installed, I wouldn't have been rich, but it would have made things easier. When I found the program on a pirate ftp website I knew I was fucked. I spent 6 months full time working on that program, and earned less than four grand for my efforts. Gee thanks.

If I buy a CD it's mine. If I feel like sharing it with others for free, that's my right.

You're right, you can do whatever you want so long as you don't attempt to make a profit off it.

If you wanna make money-tour.

Tour? LOL! Well I'm sure I'll be able to pack in the stadium. Come see Bob and his amazing keyboard! Watch him program dangerous Do loops and the breath taking IF/THEN/ELSE statement. Get serious. For every musician capable of touring, there are 10,000 that are totally unknown, but do manage to eek out a living with their music.

I doubt that any of you spitting venom about this, would have any problems recording a program or movie from your cable TV, and probably have recorded VCR tapes in your collection that have been passed around to your family or friends.

Actually I own several hundred videos, all purchased previously viewed from the supermarket. But like I've said earlier, you have the right to copy something which you purchased, so long as you are copying from the originally purchased media.

The RIAA needs to spend it's time and energy catching up with technology instead of prosecuting artists' fans.
These "entertainers" like Britney Spears and the like, that are getting DLed for free spend their life getting shit for free.
I doubt Britney spends a dime for her entertainment or the designer shit she whores.
There has been quite a few artists that I have discovered from DLs. I have no problem going to their concerts and spending $80 to hear them perform, or sporting some of the fashion they are hocking.

This isn't about what Britney gets for free. Its about protecting one's intellectual property. If I am going to commit significant time and effort to build a new software program to sell, then I have the right to sue anyone that obtains a copy of said program illegally.

My programs used to be cheap, dirt cheap, 20 bucks for a program? Thats unheard of these days. Now instead I've had to hire a lawyer to protect my interests and had to raise the price to cover his costs. Why? Because of people like you that see nothing wrong with stealing my efforts. I don't own a lot of CD's, but those I do own have all been purchased, and I'll support RIAA, but I blame idiots that copy this stuff for the high price of those albums. It wouldn't be that high except for your actions. You forced RIAA to spend ungodly amounts of money on copy protection research, you forced RIAA to spend ungodly amounts of money on lawyers and lawsuits.

I don't like RIAA or their tactics, but in the absence of people's honesty, I have to support what they are doing. They are the only folks that are trying to see that the copyright laws are enforced.

Copying is theft. Plain and simple. You may get away with it today and perhaps for the next few years, but sooner or later you're going to get nailed for it.

 

[alricflaim]

OOOOH! Lookie here! We found ourselves a good old fashioned fight!

Where to start...where to start.... I know! At the Top of the list!


SultrieSweetie - Thank the gods that there's a few other people out there willing to argue this side of the issue besides me. You've hit the nail on the head with your talk of musical Shareware. I have actually bought more music since I found the p2ps then before.

For those of ya all that are still actually reading my comments, here's a litte math. On my shelf of music I have about 252 CDs that I bought and paid for. Some of them might be my wife's but she thinks as I do, so that doesn't matter for the purposes of my calculations.

On my Hard drive right now I have 495 MP3s. I also have about another 300 archived. Alright. Now lets subtract from there a reasonable number for overlap with my CD collection (It's easier to DL a copy of the song then to rip it for burning mp3 discs to carry with me) say....well I'll tell you what. I'll say 25. so that makes 770 songs.

THe average CD has what, 13 tracks on it? So by that math you can take my MP3 collection to be the equivillent of 59.2 albums, call it 60. That means that 23% of my CD collection is downloaded. Lazy downloading pirate huh? I find a band I like, and I go out of my way to buy CDs, or go see em in concert when their here.

Next on the list is Mary Hall. The RIAA has threatend, not sued a 12 year old girl, several grandparents, and one 60 year old woman who has MAC (Mac can't use Kaaza but they said she was anyways) in their quest for more money. And they never take anyone to court. They threaten them with a court case but then offer to settle for a smaller sum of money and a public statement about how they've seen the evils of their ways and will never again download anything.

Usually their targets have been people in lowerclass poor familes, or college students. The kind of people who can barely afford the settlment, let alone what the court costs would have been.


Sheath, you're up now. You're right, I am an ass. I never claimed to be otherwise. I won't deny it, in fact I admit it fully.

That being said, why should I provide evidence that supports your side of the arguement? Shouldn't that be your job? In any sort of debate, even the kind on the internet where we need to wear asbestos underwear You don't need to prove the otherside's point, just your own. Maybe you can provide us with some links that you asked me to offer up. And while you're at it, did you notice that my links came from a variety of places, not just say.....boycottRIAA.com? MSNBC, NYTimes, Wired, SFgate. Reputable sources from all sorts of places, not just one spot.

I could also quote some of the musicians I know who gave me Mp3s of their work to add to my Kazaa list so that more people would listen to it.

Midwestyankee, your questions weren't posed at me, but I'll answer them anyways. Someone takes my work and claims it as their own? Fuckem' they need to discover the world of hurt. Downloaded my essay of the net without knowing it was mine? aside from the issue of how it got out there, they don't need to meet mister hammer.

But your questions don't have much to do with the issue at hand. I never claimed the songs I've downloaded are my own work. I'm not the inspiration behind the songs, or the writer, or singer, or musician of any sort that made them. It's a little different when someone takes something of yours and claims it was their own. Cite me for my work, that's fine, but the moment you take something I did and say you did it, then you're in the wrong.

Someone gets an equal grade as me when they turn in something they got off the net? sucks to be them. It doesn't hurt me any that I got the grade I deserve. I worked for my mark. They cheated. All they are doing is hurting themselves. Without doing the reasearch needed themselves, they aren't practicing their skills. They'll be found out when it comes exam time (and they are, I know) and I get better marks because I know my shit and they don't.

BTW congrats if you actually read my whole post instead of skimming it. It's long drawn out, and a little scattered, but then I wrote it, so it's bound to be all over the map.

 

[Ljbonobo]

Ljbonobo: a couple of questions for you, if you don't mind.

1. Would you consider it fair if one of your classmates "borrowed" a large project on which you had worked long and hard so that he could turn it in for a grade?

2. Let's say a classmate is found to have bought a term paper from an online service and gets a high grade for it. In the same class, you turn in your own work and receive the same grade. Do you believe your grade is somehow worth more than your classmate who plagiarized?

3. A historian reads several hundred books in preparing his own book on a major figure in history. A few years later someone discovers that an important passage in the historian's book, in fact the passage that was quoted during the ceremony in which the historian was given a prestigious award for the work, was copied verbatim from an obscure work published several decades ago. Does the historian deserve the prestigious award?

Intellectual property comes in many forms and people receive compensation for it in many different ways. Where do you draw the line on honesty for yourself? Is it at the barrier between convenient and inconvenient, or is it at the threshold between harming someone else and allowing someone else to earn her living?

Just asking.

1)
If you look at the scientific world, one in which I am a member of, it happens all the time. Its called research and each and every scientific idea is built upon those before it. All you need to do is properly document where you got it from. I've done it, had it done from my work and experiments, not a big deal.

2)
My grade is worth one thing. It shows that I did the work required to get that grade. Therefore at some point down the line, I know how to repeat that sort of work again at that level. The classmate doesn't, and will be fucked. The grade is only a way of evaluating the quality, and I'd probably laugh at the classmate.


3)
As long as the historian properly quoted the passage and then documented where he got the work there is no issue. That's completely allowed and considered correct. The art is in the combination of all the sources and data you collect into a meaningful and cohesive work. In fact having all those sources makes your work that much more appropriate b/c it shows you are not just coming out of left field. You have the sources to back up your standpoint and the data to show you are correct. I see nothing wrong with this.



You are comparing apples to oranges. Intellectual property within the academic community is vastly different than musical property.

I download music, software, and movies for a few reasons. I download music b/c I don't like paying all that money for a CD that costs mere cents on the dollar for them to make. Yes I know that will get me flamed to high heaven, go ahead I have an asbestos casing on my monitor for flaming problems . In my perspective you see all the artists complaining that I'm destroying their money making skills, I understand that but don't see the high executives of those companies taking any pay cuts..... The dixie chicks, after their incredibly sucessfull first album and tour (i'm thinking platinum in sales but i may be wrong), actually lost money on the deal if I recall correctly from the CMT Or GAC special I saw on them, how is the right? I'm sure their record label didn't lose money and that was before dl'ing music became so huge, so that couldn't have been the problem it is now. Also, dl'ing music off the internet is the same as recording a cable tv show, or recording off of the radio. The music was paid for at some point. The radio industry pays for the music they play (unless you are playing college radio generally in a noncom station), and the tv company pays for the rights to that tv show. When you download a song off the internet, the problem is that its almost a perfect copy as the the original, when you record off a radio, or the tv, its not as good as the original. That was the issue a lot of people saw with it in the beginning.

Downloading software. I do it rarely, but primarily just to try something out before I buy it.

Downloading movies...I don't do it now, but did it primarily as an entertainment issue while at college. I also used it to compile libraries of my favorite tv shows that are no longer available....When was the last time you saw the muppets or alf on tv? You don't, however, I have most of their shows in entirety available to me.

Flame on people, I'm ready for it.

 

[midwestyankee]

Re: OOOOH! Lookie here! We found ourselves a good old fashioned fight!

Where to start...where to start.... I know! At the Top of the list!


<SNIP>

Midwestyankee, your questions weren't posed at me, but I'll answer them anyways. Someone takes my work and claims it as their own? Fuckem' they need to discover the world of hurt. Downloaded my essay of the net without knowing it was mine? aside from the issue of how it got out there, they don't need to meet mister hammer.

But your questions don't have much to do with the issue at hand. I never claimed the songs I've downloaded are my own work. I'm not the inspiration behind the songs, or the writer, or singer, or musician of any sort that made them. It's a little different when someone takes something of yours and claims it was their own. Cite me for my work, that's fine, but the moment you take something I did and say you did it, then you're in the wrong.

Someone gets an equal grade as me when they turn in something they got off the net? sucks to be them. It doesn't hurt me any that I got the grade I deserve. I worked for my mark. They cheated. All they are doing is hurting themselves. Without doing the reasearch needed themselves, they aren't practicing their skills. They'll be found out when it comes exam time (and they are, I know) and I get better marks because I know my shit and they don't.

BTW congrats if you actually read my whole post instead of skimming it. It's long drawn out, and a little scattered, but then I wrote it, so it's bound to be all over the map.

I did read your whole post. In my experience, this is medium length at best, by the way.

My questions were aimed at the broadening the discussion of the concept of intellectual property, just as Bobmi37 has been doing with his software examples. They were not meant to be analogs for downloading music via shareware applications. They were meant to get people thinking about other venues in which theft of intellectual property may be considered the wrong thing to do. So if it's wrong to steal the use of intellectual property in one venue, why would it be acceptable in another?

 

[midwestyankee]

1)
If you look at the scientific world, one in which I am a member of, it happens all the time. Its called research and each and every scientific idea is built upon those before it. All you need to do is properly document where you got it from. I've done it, had it done from my work and experiments, not a big deal. If you look carefully at my example, there was no appropriate attribution of the work. In the scientific community, where duplication of research results is a desired part of the process, attribution is a form of compensation.

2)
My grade is worth one thing. It shows that I did the work required to get that grade. Therefore at some point down the line, I know how to repeat that sort of work again at that level. The classmate doesn't, and will be fucked. The grade is only a way of evaluating the quality, and I'd probably laugh at the classmate. I did not claim this was analogous to the songwriter's situation. This was only a question to suggest you think about how you feel when someone else claims your work as his own and receives a benefit from it. That's the theft of intellectual property - unless your work used little intellect (which I doubt).


3)
As long as the historian properly quoted the passage and then documented where he got the work there is no issue. That's completely allowed and considered correct. The art is in the combination of all the sources and data you collect into a meaningful and cohesive work. In fact having all those sources makes your work that much more appropriate b/c it shows you are not just coming out of left field. You have the sources to back up your standpoint and the data to show you are correct. I see nothing wrong with this. My example could have been more clearly stated. In the actual case this was based upon, the historian provided no such documentation. Again, as in the scientific community, documentation and attribution are the coin of the realm.



You are comparing apples to oranges. Intellectual property within the academic community is vastly different than musical property. Really? How so? Are not both created for the purpose of advancing the career of the individual thinker or creator? Are not both created for the purpose of generating income, advancement, or other similar benefits?

I download music, software, and movies for a few reasons. I download music b/c I don't like paying all that money for a CD that costs mere cents on the dollar for them to make. Yes I know that will get me flamed to high heaven, go ahead I have an asbestos casing on my monitor for flaming problems . In my perspective you see all the artists complaining that I'm destroying their money making skills, I understand that but don't see the high executives of those companies taking any pay cuts..... The dixie chicks, after their incredibly sucessfull first album and tour (i'm thinking platinum in sales but i may be wrong), actually lost money on the deal if I recall correctly from the CMT Or GAC special I saw on them, how is the right? I'm sure their record label didn't lose money and that was before dl'ing music became so huge, so that couldn't have been the problem it is now. Also, dl'ing music off the internet is the same as recording a cable tv show, or recording off of the radio. The music was paid for at some point. The radio industry pays for the music they play (unless you are playing college radio generally in a noncom station), and the tv company pays for the rights to that tv show. When you download a song off the internet, the problem is that its almost a perfect copy as the the original, when you record off a radio, or the tv, its not as good as the original. That was the issue a lot of people saw with it in the beginning.

Downloading software. I do it rarely, but primarily just to try something out before I buy it.

Downloading movies...I don't do it now, but did it primarily as an entertainment issue while at college. I also used it to compile libraries of my favorite tv shows that are no longer available....When was the last time you saw the muppets or alf on tv? You don't, however, I have most of their shows in entirety available to me. These arguments do not wash. In the first instance, you claim that you are doing no harm - or worse - even less harm than others, as in the industry executives whos decisions appear to be depriving artists of some income. Their behavior has nothing to do with the ethical quality of your behavior. In the second instance, trying something out before buying it, you are suggesting that what you are doing is comparable to trying on a shirt prior to purchase. That's fine so long as you leave the shirt at the store. Do you faithfully destroy all these files of software that you do not later purchase? Just curious. Your final example, copying old movies or tv shows for personal use is the only one that has much merit. Few people argue with the ubiquitous use of the VCR to record television programming. Perhaps that's because we assume that the various artists involved have already been adequately compensated. More importantly, they are not in the business of selling multiple copies of something in order to make a living.
Flame on people, I'm ready for it.

No need to flame.

 

[alricflaim]

midwestyankee

The difference is that I'm not profiting from my downloads. I'm not selling them, or even claiming they are my own. I'm using them for my own enjoyment.

I'll admit, and even agree, that if I download something, I might be causing someone to lose a sale. I'll download a song, or maybe even a whole album, and decide if I like it or not. If I don't like it, and haven't bought the album, No one's lost a sale. I wouldn't have bought it anyways. But if I do like it, and I can buy it, I usually will, when I find it.

I buy more music now that I download, and I go to more concerts too. It doesn't just have to do with the fact that I have more money, that plays a part, but it's more because now I can hear things that I wouldn't otherwise hear. Or watch a movie that I'd otherwise have waited to come on PPV or DVD, rather then gone to see in the theatre, because I wasn't willing to pay for tickets to see something that didn't look really good.

I don't always buy stuff after I've found I liked it online, I'm more then willing to admit that. But there's always going to be, and as far as I know always has been this sort of thing ever since the ablitlity to record things has been given to us.

BTW, anyone know of the porn industry complaining about downloading? They're (If I remember correctly) a bigger business then hollywood or the Recording industry. And we all know that the number one downloaded thing on the net is still porn, but I've yet to hear word one from the porn industry about this. I'm curious to know what they think.

 

[midwestyankee]

Re: midwestyankee

The difference is that I'm not profiting from my downloads. I'm not selling them, or even claiming they are my own. I'm using them for my own enjoyment.

I'll admit, and even agree, that if I download something, I might be causing someone to lose a sale. I'll download a song, or maybe even a whole album, and decide if I like it or not. If I don't like it, and haven't bought the album, No one's lost a sale. I wouldn't have bought it anyways. But if I do like it, and I can buy it, I usually will, when I find it.

This is the crux of the problem. You are causing someone to lose a sale when you download and then do not purchase the music. And since you admit that you "usually" buy later, that means that sometimes you don't. That, as much as we might not like to think of it in these terms, is theft.

I buy more music now that I download, and I go to more concerts too. It doesn't just have to do with the fact that I have more money, that plays a part, but it's more because now I can hear things that I wouldn't otherwise hear. Or watch a movie that I'd otherwise have waited to come on PPV or DVD, rather then gone to see in the theatre, because I wasn't willing to pay for tickets to see something that didn't look really good. Question: if it were not possible to preview (your interpretation of what you do, as I see it) without making a recording for your own use, would you still do so? Or is the "previewing" aspect of your downloading a rationalization for getting music on the cheap?

I don't always buy stuff after I've found I liked it online, I'm more then willing to admit that. But there's always going to be, and as far as I know always has been this sort of thing ever since the ablitlity to record things has been given to us.Yes, illegal copies have been a problem for a long time. However, early copies were no match for digital copies, and the existence of the Internet has exacerbated the problem a million fold.

BTW, anyone know of the porn industry complaining about downloading? They're (If I remember correctly) a bigger business then hollywood or the Recording industry. And we all know that the number one downloaded thing on the net is still porn, but I've yet to hear word one from the porn industry about this. I'm curious to know what they think. If you're referring to the downloading of still images, then I don't know if this is a good analog for downloaded music files as the still images, when posted by their originator, are knowingly made available or access to them is being sold by subscription. As for the sharing of video clips through file-sharing venues, I have read of complaints. Further, the stealing of images between websites is a problem that does get some attention within the industry. They just don't take their problems to the New York Times.

 

[Ljbonobo]

The problem of copying music illegally has been around as long as methods to do it have been around. It has only become a major issue because of 2 things.
1) The ability to decode straight from the CD source a .wav file, which is the most accurate and the largest file, or any of the other mpeg layered files of which MP3 is the most popular format.
This causes a problem b/c off the radio you are only getting FM stereo quality, with the computer, you can get digital virtually identical quality
2) THe widespread use of the internet allowing such copies to be widely disseminated.

I choose to do it, and aware of what I am doing, continue doing it. I disagree with the motives and strategies used by the RIAA and the music industry in general, and this is but one way in which i choose to fight back.

 

[ABN_Ranger]

Ya know... It would be just friggen great to see a few of these music "thieves/pirates" to get prosecuted and sent to jail... not some cushy resort jail... but a serious "Oh my god... I'm the whole cell blocks bitch" jail. Then maybe people would stop stealing my friends music and actually go out an buy it, like every other honest person. Just my opinion, well call it a dream if you like. Either that or like I said earlier... public hangings. Seriously... make examples of some of them, screw settlements... crucify them. Publically and brutaly. I think start to end the whole downloading debate. Like I said.. just my opinion on the matter.

J

 

[Guest]

Re: OOOOH! Lookie here! We found ourselves a good old fashioned fight!

 

[sheath]

Re: Re: OOOOH! Lookie here! We found ourselves a good old fashioned fight!

In response to this, I'm sure sheath will post her own links. In the meantime I'm expecting those of you who download music illegally to at least be educated on what you are doing to the songwriters and artists.

I will post my own links, though at the rate this conversation is degrading, I seriously doubt it is worth my time. It seems the 'I'm going to get what I want when I want it for FREE' crowd is immune to listening to those of us who see our bottom lines affected by their actions.

Lack of education is the whole problem, really.

And in place of that, unfortunately, there are lawsuits.

*shrugs*

S.

 

[sheath]

Here are some from my own folders to help get you started on the road to educating yourself about what downloads do to songwriters and artists.

Why You Should Care About Downloading
A Short Lesson on the Lawsuits
Words from those who actually lose money
More food for thought
Testimony from an ASCAP Songwriter

Start with those, and then I will link more.

PLEASE NOTE! Almost all of these websites, especially musicunited, have many links in them. "Why you should not download", etc...please look through all the site, not just the page I linked. Very valuable information there.

S.

 

[Ljbonobo]

I have but one last comment for today.
Yes I do download some illegal MP3s but I actually prefer to use Morpheus and Kazaa like programs to get the up and coming artists that don't have major record deals, along the lines of what mp3.com used to be like. When you give me other sources to musicians like shelby cole and such whose only source of music is either her concerts or off one or two websites that she's on, that's not much. I like the unique artists that I can't find anywhere.

I have downloaded illegal MP3s in the past. I still download some software and tv shows. However, the passion and the well thought out arguments for the non illegal side have won some serious thought in my head. I would prerfer to discuss this further in a rational way rather than the slapdish way its being debated on here. I guess until you talk to people who are actually being screwed by what you are doing you don't realize it. Thank you.


I still hold my thoughts that the music industry is messed up where artists get pennies while the CEO's get rich, but I guess its just the same as every other part of american society in that respect.

I used to work in college radio. I got used to having all the nonames and the artists before they got big, that's what has me hooked on MP3s. There really isn't anywhere else to get that, that I am aware of.

I apologize for getting pissed off and fighting an argument that I really had no solid arguments for. Thanks for pointing that out so bluntly. Sometimes that's what it takes.

 

[CelticFrog]

I have but one last comment for today.
Yes I do download some illegal MP3s but I actually prefer to use Morpheus and Kazaa like programs to get the up and coming artists that don't have major record deals, along the lines of what mp3.com used to be like. When you give me other sources to musicians like shelby cole and such whose only source of music is either her concerts or off one or two websites that she's on, that's not much. I like the unique artists that I can't find anywhere.
I, too, like the unique artists that are next to impossible to find anywhere. But I also tend to listen to college radio stations when we're stationed in areas that have decent ones. Sources are available to no-name musicians. They are hard to find but generally worth the effort. Having said that, there are also plenty of places that offer the free MP3s legally by these artists. I'll have to find one and link it later.

I have downloaded illegal MP3s in the past. I still download some software and tv shows. However, the passion and the well thought out arguments for the non illegal side have won some serious thought in my head. I would prerfer to discuss this further in a rational way rather than the slapdish way its being debated on here. I guess until you talk to people who are actually being screwed by what you are doing you don't realize it. Thank you.
Lit is great in part because we can have all sorts here without really having to acknowledge our own status in society. However, sometimes that can create rifts as well because of things as simple as this thread. There are two main schools of thought regarding this issue and sometimes people forget that some of us here actually do have our careers affected by the opposite school of thought. I hope that the next time someone thinks about what you've just said, they'll think again about some of us real people being screwed.

I still hold my thoughts that the music industry is messed up where artists get pennies while the CEO's get rich, but I guess its just the same as every other part of american society in that respect.
Yes it is. Some people get fucked out of a good income because of the higher ups. Others don't get fucked as bad. But the majority of american business is built around making money off of the people under you. A monarchy of sorts.

I used to work in college radio. I got used to having all the nonames and the artists before they got big, that's what has me hooked on MP3s. There really isn't anywhere else to get that, that I am aware of.
I too used to work in college radio. It's what got me started in songwriting in the first place, and really hit home on many levels how much some artists do struggle before they make it big time. However, in my case, we were also very well informed about music piracy even before the internet p2p programs were available. So I guess I got an early start. Then again, I was working in college radio at 15.

I apologize for getting pissed off and fighting an argument that I really had no solid arguments for. Thanks for pointing that out so bluntly. Sometimes that's what it takes.
K is a very blunt person. And hard to argue with.
Having said that, sometimes the full effect stuff like this has on us is downplayed even by the affected because we tend to like the anonymity of being here. We don't like getting screwed, but we don't want to tell you how bad we're being screwed because you might put together who we are. Thank you for actually taking some of our words to heart.

Ang

 

[midwestyankee]

CF: nicely done.

Ljbonobo: glad to see that you paid attention to what you read here. It takes more than a little bit of intestinal fortitude to post, "I apologize for getting pissed off and fighting an argument that I really had no solid arguments for." as you did.

Good discussion takes thought and sharing, which is what we got in part here. That, my friends, is part of the beauty of this community we call Lit.

 

[sheath]

I have downloaded illegal MP3s in the past. I still download some software and tv shows. However, the passion and the well thought out arguments for the non illegal side have won some serious thought in my head. I would prerfer to discuss this further in a rational way rather than the slapdish way its being debated on here. I guess until you talk to people who are actually being screwed by what you are doing you don't realize it. Thank you.

You have just won an incredible amount of respect from me. We might disagree, but that is beside the point of this particular post. As midwestyankee said, it takes one hell of a lot of fortitude to look at the other side of an issue with the obvious open-mindedness you have shown.

Your good integrity is VERY clear.

S.

 

[sultresweetie]

You know what? I don't fucking apologize for DLing music and I don't see any reason to be persuading by a group of disrespectful and rude people on the internet who want to name-call, and suggest that I'm a horrible person and deserve to be killed, because I download songs that I enjoy. Music brings a lot of joy into my life and I appreciate the art. Only in America would businessman be so fucking uptight about capitilizing off of sound that it would punish those who listen.

Pop artists make money off of being living billboards-not from CD sells. I doubt you would ever find a "struggling artist" in my collection of MP3s.
If it makes you feel better, you hateful nasties don't have to worry about your precious Country diddies ever making it into my collection, because I think country music sucks shit.

Here's a lil diddy of mine, FREE from me to all of you hysterical RIAA lackeys.....


KKKKIIIIIIIISSSSS MYYYYY FREEEEE MUUUUUSIC LOOOOVING ASSSSS!

 

[sheath]

If it makes you feel better, you hateful nasties don't have to worry about your precious Country diddies ever making it into my collection, because I think country music sucks shit.

Here's a lil diddy of mine, FREE from me to all of you hysterical RIAA lackeys.....


KKKKIIIIIIIISSSSS MYYYYY FREEEEE MUUUUUSIC LOOOOVING ASSSSS!

Your maturity level just hit an amazing low.

Thank God for the ignore function.

S.

 

[CelticFrog]

Your maturity level just hit an amazing low.

Thank God for the ignore function.

S.

I don't think it had far to go, considering other drivel, but yeah.

I second the ignore function with flair, babe.

Ang

 

[TNRkitect2b]

You know what? I don't fucking apologize for DLing music and I don't see any reason to be persuading by a group of disrespectful and rude people on the internet who want to name-call, and suggest that I'm a horrible person and deserve to be killed, because I download songs that I enjoy. Music brings a lot of joy into my life and I appreciate the art. Only in America would businessman be so fucking uptight about capitilizing off of sound that it would punish those who listen.

Pop artists make money off of being living billboards-not from CD sells. I doubt you would ever find a "struggling artist" in my collection of MP3s.
If it makes you feel better, you hateful nasties don't have to worry about your precious Country diddies ever making it into my collection, because I think country music sucks shit.

Here's a lil diddy of mine, FREE from me to all of you hysterical RIAA lackeys.....


KKKKIIIIIIIISSSSS MYYYYY FREEEEE MUUUUUSIC LOOOOVING ASSSSS!

Yanno, you have been warned by people here. You have not only admited but bragged and lauded your practice of wilfully downloading music that you do not pay for. Your IP address has been logged by this site. It wouldn't take a brain surgeon of a lawyer to supoena this site for your IP, then sue the living shit out of you for stealing music. Have a nice day, and I hope you have the funds for your court case.

 

[VSE]

late night ramble mode engaged

Sadly I obviously fell into the rare category of someone who used "free" MP3s to sample a band before I shelled out the full whack for a CD with one song I liked and 14 tracks of utter rubbish and bought a lot more music as a result.

That said I couldn't find any fault with Metallica when they first kicked off against Napster, nor in some respects can I argue against the principle that organisations like RIAA are fighting for, it is just the way in which they are going about it.

To be honest I dont want a CD, its something else to have to store somewhere, I dont care about an inlay card or anything else physical, all I am interested in is the song. My music player already displays the album title, track name, author and artist and is perfectly capable of showing me the lyrics as well if they are on the database. Put your entire sodding catalogue online, all those tracks I cant find because its not worth knocking up a CD can be online can be made available, making money. Its not frickin rocket science, the technology has been out there for ages, and with broadband becoming the norm and storage cheap as chips ( 2p, about 4c per song at UK retail prices for storage in initial outlay).

I've got a phone that takes 512MB storage cards and playsback MP3 and WMW, AVI, MPeg video ffs. I walk past a radio playing a song I like the sound of, I use the (already working) facility where I dial a number, hold my phone to the radio for 30 seconds then hangup. 5 minutes later it texts me back with who the band is and what the song is called and charges you 50p or something each use. Stick a link at the bottom of it that takes me to a page giving me information on the band and allowing me to download the full track (with video as an option) to my phone and charge £1-2 or something to my phone bill, I get home later on and upload it from the phone to my PC music collection. Record company gets £2 because I happened to hear a tune I liked passing by a radio. European mobile phone companies are desparately trying to promote data services and most of that at the moment is funnily enough downloading ringtones of the latest chart hit.

Instead they are trying to force people down a route that a sizeable chunk of their customers are demonstrably showing they no longer want to follow. In case any of you lot have the ear of any execs, heres a really simple suggestion: Make it easy for us to download the music we like so we can play it on all these funky gadets we use everyday.

I dont object to paying for music, I just object to being forced to buy the music in a format that isnt relevant to me and having to pay through the nose to do it.

 

[sultresweetie]

You're threatening me now? LOL. Truly pathetic. Warn me of what? I do believe this is a free speech site.
FLAME AWAY, assholes.


You people have the nuts to call me immature? You can't even contain yourselves enough to argue a point without flaming people and now you threatening me when I fling shit back in your direction? Weak ass Chicken shits...Dish it out, but you can't take it, hunh? LOL.
I can shit disturb with the best of them- You wanna bring it-THEN BRING IT!

 

[Lou Nuttick]

I'm a newcomer, both to this thread and to this forum. I've read through the thread, but not other related threads in this forum, and hope I'm not making points already beaten to death elsewhere.

I have mixed feelings about this issue, although I lean toward the file-sharing side of the argument. My inclination is based on philosophical grounds; it is not a rationalization for file sharing, since I have never used Napster and Kazaa, and have only downloaded a few free mp3's from mp3.com years ago. If it makes any difference, my CD collection stands at about 1200, and my LP collection about the same, though the number of new titles I've bought in the past three years probably number only in the single digits.

The first thing that strikes me in this debate are the loaded terms: words such as "theft" and "piracy", used to slant the listener's perception toward a certain viewpoint. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer, since it is not property in the accepted sense of the term. Likewise, file sharing is not theft, since it does not deprive the holder of use of the original from which it was copied.

The real argument as to the morality of file sharing is this: who does it hurt unfairly? I've noticed some of the posters on this thread are musicians who have asserted that file sharing has "stolen" their means of making a living. Perhaps, and perhaps not.

Consider that a hundred years or so ago, chefs and musicians were in much more similar circumstances than they are today. The chef would create in the kitchen, and his creation would be enjoyed by the diners. The musician would create in his venue, and his creation would be enjoyed by the listeners. They were both paid for their services, and then went home. If they wanted to be paid again, they performed again.

And then a wonderful thing happened for the musician. Technology was developed that allowed his performance to be recorded, so that his creation could be enjoyed again and again, without his having to perform again. Does this mean that the musician's creation is more meaningful or more vital than the chef's? (Or the furniture maker, or the tailor?) Is the musician so much more deserving than these others that he should be given the chance that one creation could mean that he doesn't have to work again in his life? I submit that he is not; the musician is just more fortunate in his medium.

This medium enabled the creation of The recording industry. Built on the economics of scarcity, it grew quite large. Though not a single company, the industry was still very monolithic. Prices were amazingly similar, and the customer's alternatives were few. The customer had to purchase the discs to get the performance, for he couldn't make them on his own. However, as is often the case, what technology had given, technology also took away. The basis for that economic model no longer applies and is currently upheld only by artifical constraints.

Does this mean that music will no longer be made? Of course not. Musicians will make music because it's in them to do it, just as Literotica demonstrates that writers will write, whether paid or not. One can even argue that the music will be purer, because what they play will come from the heart, not from an industry executive's calculation on what's good for the bottom line.

Does this mean that the musician will suffer unfairly? The musician will likely think so, but I'm not so sure. I like to make music myself, though I am aware that I have not the talent to inflict myself on anyone but a very tolerant loved one, and am thus aware how very difficult it is to be at the level of the best. It is equally difficult for me, though, to craft fine furniture or to paint a beautiful landscape. So is it unfair if the musician should find himself again on a par with these other artists or artisans whose outcome relies on talent, skill, training and application?

Fair or not, I believe the handwriting is on the wall. The technology genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back in. The music industry will change. The only question in doubt is how severe the growing pains will be.

I think neither extreme - that the content is property that can be totally owned, or that it should be free for the taking - is correct. I do hope that the new system that evolves will be one that's more fair toward both musicians and listeners, but wouldn't mind seeing a manipulative industry undergo drastic reorganization. (I avoided using "greedy", but "manipulative" feels appropriate.) I think it will.


Regards to all,
Lou (who?)


p.s. I apologize to the ladies on the forum and mean no slight in using only the masculine gender. English is not gender neutral, and it's just too awkward when I try to make it so.

 

[sultresweetie]

late night ramble mode engaged


I dont object to paying for music, I just object to being forced to buy the music in a format that isnt relevant to me and having to pay through the nose to do it.

EXACTLY, but be prepared to be accused of making excuses because you are a "thief", "hyena", "whiner", and "lazy"

Oh and your preference should be punishable by death by the folks here, and your free speech is not appreciated in this genre, no matter how cogent your post is.