MP3 downloading

[sultresweetie]

Very nice post, Lou, and I agree whole-heartedly.

Thanks for sharing... Sultresweetie

 

[Distortion]

I find that I do download music simply because it is a lot easier then going to a store, finding a cd, and buying it just so I can hear one song off it for a little while. If I hear something neat on tv or radio, I can just go over to my computer, grab it, and get good ole instant gratification in a few minutes.

I have to be honest, when it comes down to it, choosing whether to pay a good chunk of money for really only one interesting song or downloading it is not a hard decision. My morals are not worth the 12-14$ I suppose that's pretty lame, but I'm not going to lie.
A lot of times im looking for something that isn't even on cds anyways. Finding anime theme songs or videogame music remixs is not even possible for the most part.

If anything I think music is pretty softcore as far as pirating goes. They should be more concerned with people who download and trade dvds or programs.

Also, I can realize what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm ok with that. I guess I'm just not the nicest person really. I don't even really think about it any more, anything so easy to do doesn't even feel like stealing. I know it is, but... I just don't really care. Lately tho, it's been like that with me for everything. Apathy seems to be all I feel. Hard to even stay awake somedays and not just drop on the floor and fall asleep.

 

[alricflaim]

Thanks Lou

You expressed, in far better words then I ever could the point of view many of us downloaders. I salute you for that.


Sultriesweetie hun, I think you might wanna tone it down a notch. I agree with your point of view, but...antagonizing them won't help much.

I might be a dick, and am not likely too popular with em, I have found in my time here that Sheath and CelticFrog can actually carry on a good conversation. Maybe it's just this issue is touchy.

Having said that...I take offense at the suggestion that I have a lack of education on this, or any other subject that I choose to open my mouth on. I've read numerous articles from both sides, and while I haven't read the ones you pointed out yet Sheath, the suggestion that I am ignorant and could care less what you say offends me. My first reaction was to flame rather roughly, but I bit my tounge. Please bite yours next time.

hersixstring...The reason I don't feel the need to offer articles that support your side of the argument is that that doesn't help mine. In any debate, the object is to prove the validity of YOUR OWN argument, not the other sides. I'm arguing for the pro-downloading side, and to offer articles to the contrary hurt my argument.

I'm not adverse to seeing your point of view, indeed I welcome it. Challenge me! Prove me wrong! I'd love it if you can. Convince me of the error of my ways. But do not think for one second that It's worth ignoring my comments, or my posts because I don't see eye-to-eye with you.

 

[Mskey]

First off, this is her hubby, not her. For some reason, we can't have 2 id's on the same computer, it messes up both of our login attempts, so don't blame her for this post (and you know who you are )

Secondly, I used to use Napster until they were shut down, then went to Audiogalaxy, and finally ended up using Bearshare. A very good DL program, searches for more then just music. I use it to download MP3s, videos/movies, and pics.

The MP3s that I download are either hard to find stuff, like remixes, dance mixes, TV theme songs, skits off of comedy shows like SNL or Monty Python, and various other ones that I can't normally find elsewhere; or it's songs that I like, but don't like the whole album or am sampling to see if I want to buy the whole album, since all the radio plays are the same few songs over and over, never going deeper into an album then about 3 songs. But they're better then MTV, whop only has about 7 vidoes total in rotation. There are only a handful of artists that I will spend $16-20 on a CD for without listening to some of the album first. I agree with those that say paying out that much money for garbage is a waste. To put it in terms we all can understand, I had to work about 2 1/2 hrs. to buy that CD (after taxes). I could have put half a tank of gas in the minivan, or taken the family to Wendy's, or taken the wife and I to a movie. That's giving up a lot for 1 or 2 good songs and about 14 POS's, and I refuse to do it.

There was an article out a few years ago about how this band nobody had really heard of had a top 10 selling album. The trick? They only priced it $10. Compared to the $16-18 that others were charging, most people had no problem paying so little. I bought a CD a few years ago for only $10 by "The Calling" based on one song that they played during Star Trek Enterprise. I liked the album, it had about 4 songs on it that I fell in love with. The point? That music labels and bands don't need to charge as much as they do to make money, and in fact that by charging less, they actually sell more. Do they have a right to profit off their work? Hell yes. But to gouge the price because they're greedy. They've been doing that since the phonograph was invented and now that the internet is here, the fans can strike back, and they don't like it.

One more question and I'm off the music. What's the difference between me DLing a song off the internet for my personal use compared to borrowing the album from my friend and copying the whole thing? Do you realize how hard it is to find the whole album on the internet?

The videos/movies that I download are few and far between. I have about 3 videos and about 2 movies. The videos are ones that you can't find elsewhere (Closer done to Anime ) and the movies aren't even full movies, but clips from either homemade pornos or soemreally good hockey fights (especially Avs. vs. Wings).

Same with the pics. Most of them (almost all) are pornographic to one degree or another.

Agree or disagree, I don't care. Like I said, what's the difference between DLing off the internet or borrowing my friends album and making a copy? To me, there isn't one. And if I like what I hear, I'llbuy it. If not, then I'll buy diapers, food, or whatever else that money was needed for instead.

 

[shy little fairy]

stop celling blanks

Maybe they should stop selling blank cds and devices to record stuff like that....maybe that will solve the problem

well, personally, i think it would be ridiculous to stop selling blank cd's, because they are not all mainly used for making illegally bruned cd's. i myself HAVE to use blank cd's for many school projects, etc - such as powerpoint presentations, which could not possibly fit on floppy disks (even SEVERAL), and while i myself have a zip drive, many others do not, so it doesn't help me transfer any data, or give a class presentation (which i often do w/ a cd i made). ALSO, most of the songs that i like from my cd's, i copy onto my computer, so that i can burn a mix that i like. i think that's legal, and fair - i have the cd, i'd just like to be able to take 2 cd's on a plane ride instead of my whole collection.

so my point is that people should not assume that all blank cd's/ cd burners are being used for illegal purposes.

 

[horny_boi]

wow a long post on copyright issues. . . . A lot has been said and most of them are quite good points!

from a different perspective,
I live in australia, I want to listen to some chinese songs, or chinese tv shows, But they can not be bought in australia!
is it wrong for me to download them ?
right or wrong i still do it.

Believe it or not, When i go back there I still Buy the cds and dvds of my favourite artists/movies/tvshows etc

I bring this point up because, Piracy in asia is EVERYWHERE!! if everything the RIAA said was true about their profits and losses due to people downloading mp3's then their industry would have gone bankrupt ! but they(asian industry) survive! they even tour and do concerts which is better for the fans and for the artists/industry!

Nearly everyone i know all burn cds, download music, download movies, download anime, burn software cds,games etc! (including myself)
But as previously stated, it is like testing to see if it is worth buying, wrong or right it will continue no matter what i just hope RIAA will stop using their current tactics as they are unjust

 

[BirdsWife]

I know this is a serious discussion, and I am enjoying reading such a variety of posts on the subject, but I just had to comment on one thing.....

I can't believe Bobmi357 used Brittany Spears and the term intellectual property in the same paragraph!

This isn't about what Britney gets for free. Its about protecting one's intellectual property.

 

[midwestyankee]

I know this is a serious discussion, and I am enjoying reading such a variety of posts on the subject, but I just had to comment on one thing.....

I can't believe Bobmi357 used Brittany Spears and the term intellectual property in the same paragraph!

He does indeed have a unique gift for combining the sublime and the ridiculous, doesn't he?

 

[sheath]

Re: Thanks Lou

I might be a dick, and am not likely too popular with em, I have found in my time here that Sheath and CelticFrog can actually carry on a good conversation. Maybe it's just this issue is touchy.

Having said that...I take offense at the suggestion that I have a lack of education on this, or any other subject that I choose to open my mouth on. I've read numerous articles from both sides, and while I haven't read the ones you pointed out yet Sheath, the suggestion that I am ignorant and could care less what you say offends me. My first reaction was to flame rather roughly, but I bit my tounge. Please bite yours next time.

Thank you for the compliment. Indeed, I have found that your posts are very enlightening and substantial. I usually enjoy reading them. This topic, however, IS a very touchy one for me. As if you hadn't noticed...

I did not mean to imply that you are 'ignorant'. You aren't, and anyone who reads what you have to say knows that, including me. However, I feel that if you had looked as deeply into the issue as addressed by songwriters/artists/labels, you would have a much wider view of what each download does to the bottom line of those who have to feed their families through that music burned onto that CD.

So far as I am concerned, I am not ignoring your posts. I am paying attention to everything you have to say. I disagree with the vast majority of it, but that does not mean I ignore you. I'm sure others here, like celticfrog and hersixstring, will also continue to pay attention. (Those who flame like sultresweetie, however, will be victims of my ignore function, and who could blame me for that?)

The following paragraph does NOT pertain to you directly, alricflaim. So please don't see it as a 'flame' of any kind...it's a general comment.

A part of me wants to drop out of the discussion right now, for what is happening on this thread is typical of what happens everywhere that downloading is questioned: those who download just seem to shrug and say it's not a big deal, those of us who lose money from downloading know it IS a big deal, but the downloading argument never seems to want to open up enough to listen to the facts of what OUR bottom lines see. Those of us affected by downloading have to understand the other side, because we are the ones caught in the crossfire. Those of us in the industry know damn good and well it is a problem. But if it doesn't affect someone's bank account, it is easy to say it isn't a problem. That's just the way it works, with everything in this world, not only downloads.

The more heated this conversation becomes, the more I realize it might be a foolish cause to fight the battle here on a board in a war of words. And again, that's only a small part of why we have to resort to lawsuits to get the point across.

S.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Well I am here just to prove a point. In various situations downloading can be detrimental to the industry, but in my situation they gained more money from me then they would have otherwise. Before I started downloading songs I didn't own a single CD and didn't intend on buying any. Once I started downloading I could sample things before I bought them and I do buy very often the things I download. I mainly use downloading american songs as a tool to decide if I would want to buy the CD in the first place. If I like it I will, if not I won't *shrugs* thats when I delete it. Do people feel that in that instance it is pirating? I don't mean legally, since legally any downloading is piracy, but personally. They are gaining sales from me they wouldn't have gained PERIOD any other way. That is just how I feel about american music.

On the other hand most of the music I listen to is from japan. I buy as much as I can, but I won't say I am as good about it as it can cost as much as 40 dollars for a CD depending on it's availibility (and in any case any buying I have to do online, which makes some CD's nearly unavailible to find in any way). I buy CD's from the artists I like and support them as much as I can.

Do I still have MP3's? Yes I do. Do I feel bad for some artists? Yes I do. Does that stop me, no not in the least. I feel that if more people were like me and bought what they listen to on the computer then we wouldn't be having this issue in the first place. My 2 cents. ^_^ and please no flames directed towards me, I'll join in an intellectual debate but I just ignore flamewars.

-Zergplex

 

[Alyx]

Sultresweetie said:

“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.”


I’m just curious. Did anyone else happen to see the hypocrisy of this statement? So, your CEO can’t “compensate” you for your work. Which justifies, in your mind anyway, you being unable to “compensate” an artist for their work? Since you’re short on YOUR rent, it’s okay to make others short on theirs, right? Please, try to find another argument for your position. This one just doesn’t work!

 

[Bobmi357]

This isn't just an issue about music or video people. This issue affects;

Poets
Authors of Fiction
Art/Graphic Designers
Song Writers
Lryic Writers
Software Authors
Videographers
Joke Writers
etc...

While everyone seems to have all these noble reasons to condone their actions, not one of you even bothered to comment on the losses I can document as personally affecting me and my company. Not one comment because its an argument you can't even hope to win.

You all have such noble reasons. "I pay too much in canada", "I can't get what I'm looking for in my region", "I'll copy and to hell with anyone else (thanks sultry)", "I'm tired of feeding big business". I've got news for all of you, your reasons won't stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law. Face it people. You are breaking the law plain and simple. The law says you what you can and cannot do. If you don't like it, then complain to your elected officials and get the law changed. Although I can categorically state that if they remove all copyright protection, I for one, will cease to offer any new products. And probably so will others like Sheath. What reason would we have if we can't protect our efforts?

Perhaps Sheath doesn't spend 6 months writing one song like I may do writing one program, but does that make her time any less valuable? Sheath does something I couldn't even attempt to do and I respect her for that ability. Creativity isn't easy, whether its in creating a new program, or writing a song or a poem it takes time and effort. I can assure you, these things do not happen overnight, and in some cases we agonize over details that would drive any sane person nuts. Stephen King tried putting a book online, it was a miserable failure due to illegal copying. And frankly I don't mind paying for his books.

If its the format of the CD's you don't like, go to iTunes, download your songs for a buck a pop and burn yourself a CD. It is that easy. Between the cost of the tunes and the blank CD, you'll still save a couple bucks off the 20 buck album price tag.

The issue here is really quite simple. Someone works long and hard on producing a work for others to enjoy and use. Be it a program, a song, a poem, a picture or a story. Downloading a copy of that work without compensating the creator cheapens his/her work. Makes it harder for the creator to continue producing work for your enjoyment, and in some cases makes them give up entirely.

This will probably be the last time I post to this thread. Mainly because you thieves can't see why I take this as a personal attack. You have your opinion and I have mine, and neither will change the mind of the other. All I can say is someday I hope someone steals from you like I've been stolen from. Lets see someone taken away a nice chunk of your income and then see if you continue to smile. And when that happens, remember your comments here. You've will have no right to complain about it.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

I'm sorry to hear you won't be posting here Bobmi, I realize this is a very personal subject for you and I'm sorry you feel like your words are being ignored. I can at least say I have heard everything you have said and agree with a good deal of it (if not all), it's just that some people are a heckva lot more vocal about it. As I said I'm sorry you will be leaving.

I hope a few of the other posters will be staying? It's an interesting debate thusfar.

-Zergplex

 

[CelticFrog]

I'm just going to say I agree with everything Sheath had to say in her latest post. Completely.

Alric, you are an intelligent person, and even more so to understand why Sheath and hersixstring and Bobmi and I take this issue very personally.

I likely will follow this discussion but feel there is no more need for me to post because it won't influence anything.

Zerg, as much as I like you, I have one thing to say; you might think this is an interesting debate. I see it quite simply as a load of bad excuses and unrealistic justifications facing off against the people that are affected by the unlawful actions that are the issue. </Zerg note>

By all means, if people want to keep trying to justify their actions and blather about how they're only going to download more because of this discussion, go ahead. I will read, shake my head, roll my eyes, and go about my daily life. I will continue creating that which I attempt to make a living by (which, coincidentally, includes more than just songwriting -- thanks Bobmi for reminding me how much of my stuff really can get pirated ) and I will continue to see my work get pirated.

Yes, it's unlikely that it'll stop. But it's also unlikely that those of us who get shorted by it will stop fighting for our rights.

Ang

 

[Zergplex]

Zerg, as much as I like you, I have one thing to say; you might think this is an interesting debate. I see it quite simply as a load of bad excuses and unrealistic justifications facing off against the people that are affected by the unlawful actions that are the issue. </Zerg note>

I'm sorry you feel that way *shrugs*. I feel this could be a very good topic, if those who download songs would open their minds to your point of view and that those who are hurt see this as less of a personal attack.

Not as much a reply to CF but more to this thread in general (both sides). No one will respect a point of view unless their point is equally respected, weither you agree with it or not *shrugs*. Both sides seem to be disrespecting the other side in various (but not all) posts. Honestly I can't agree with any of you thusfar, just because no one is listening to anyone that I can see. Respect for an opinion needs to come before either opinion can change.

-Zergplex

 

[VSE]

those who download just seem to shrug and say it's not a big deal, those of us who lose money from downloading know it IS a big deal

I can only say again that make it as easy for me to buy the music as it is to get it for nothing and I will buy it. Right now I go to concerts, if you dont tour, you dont lose any money from me, but you dont earn any either. having to go out specificaly to buy a CD I could download in under 10 minutes and then find increasingly that it wont work on my PC (which is my stereo, DVD player, games platform and workhorse) is no use to me.

I sympathise with the artists/authors/coders etc in this, but your "bosses" are letting you down on this issue. Let me make this clear again I WILL HAPPILY PAY TO DOWNLOAD MUSIC IN MP3. I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO DRIVE TO A SHOPPING MALL, FIGHT FOR A PARKING SPACE, QUEUE IN A RECORD SHOP TO BUY ONE SONG AND HAVE TO PAY £15.99 FOR IT, WHEN I CAN DOWNLOAD IT IN 30 SECONDS AS SOON AS I KNOW WHO THE SONG IS BY AND WHAT ITS CALLED.

Give me 5% of what you offered that talentless shithead Robbie Williams for 1 album and I'll set you up an online system that lets people order music.

 

[horny_boi]

bobmi

your reasons won't stand up for 10 seconds in a court of law. Face it people. You are breaking the law plain and simple. The law says you what you can and cannot do.

10 seconds? law is not black and white, get a decent lawyer and you can win the case, Appeals against the RIAA's actions have actually won the RIAA has just started a big long legal battle which they can afford to do. . .but it is just a big waste of money making lawyers rich

 

[PinkOrchid]

 

[CottonSilk]

I'm not on either side (I don't download music) but I always note that the fact the RIAA has settled for price fixing for years(how many of you got/will be getting your little settlement checks?) as well as the fact that they totally ignore all fair use laws/rulings seems to get forgotten all the time.

They are also misrepresenting copyright law penalties. The penalties were not ment for individuals, but for bootleging companies, etc. I'd have a much better opinion of them if they told about fair use in their campaign and what is not fair use.

I'm also against the fact that the "limited" copyright clause has now been extended for 90 (?) years. At least the courts actually took notice this time. Limited does not mean unlimited extentions.

I'd like to propose a little problem.

I give a copy of a CD to a friend. A physical CD. Under fair use this is allowed.

I put the same CD online and password protect it so only this friend can get it. Not just anyone. Now I have in theory broken copyright law according to the RIAA.

Why is the second case any different?

 

[Alyx]

CottonSilk said:

“I'd like to propose a little problem.

I give a copy of a CD to a friend. A physical CD. Under fair use this is allowed.

I put the same CD online and password protect it so only this friend can get it. Not just anyone. Now I have in theory broken copyright law according to the RIAA.

Why is the second case any different?”

**********

I thought this would be obvious. By handing your friend the physical CD, there’s the chance that, he/she may like it so much, he/she will go out and buy it.

By placing the CD online for your friend to download, you’ve now made a copy of that CD. One CD worth of music paid for, two CD’s worth of music in existence. Now your friend won’t have to go out and buy it for him/her self.

Back before CD’s or the internet, this happened with tapes. It was still illegal, but harder to track. By downloading music from the net, you’re still committing the same crime, but now you’re easier to track down and be held accountable for it.

 

[CottonSilk]

Sorry, I meant to say that the physical CD was copied as well.

I beleive the tape thing is legal from a case via the Supreme Court. Although VCRs may have been the issue. I'm reasonablely sure the physical copy for a friend falls under fair use and is not illegal.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure about the case.

EDIT

Actually what I think about the whole mp3 thing is . . .

It is 99.99% of the time illegal. Only exception is the artists that allow their music to be traded with consent.

Now I think it's pointless to argue if it's wrong or not because it's a morality issue and depening on peoples moral definitions they'll come to their own conclusions. Some may change their minds others won't.

I understand the stealing arguement and agree with it mostly. Although speeding, jaywalking, etc is also against the law and I don't ever see people sending in a couple hundred voluntarily whenever they break the law and don't get caught (i.e. go 10 mph to fast). Again this comes back to what someone beleives is actually wrong. Some think hiding a dollar from the IRS is OK, others might think this is wrong.

Some people might download out of ignorance of the law, for fun, to get back for price fixing at $20, etc.

I see how both sides have valid arguements, but I honestly don't see why one is better then the other. Sure I see why one might hold more legal water while the other requires a different interpretation of things.

So basically the legal question isn't up for debate most of the time. The right vs. wrong question is although no one can really claim moral superiority.

Sorry for the spelling stuff I'm tired.

 

[Bobmi357]

bobmi

10 seconds? law is not black and white, get a decent lawyer and you can win the case, Appeals against the RIAA's actions have actually won the RIAA has just started a big long legal battle which they can afford to do. . .but it is just a big waste of money making lawyers rich

Decent Lawyer or not, copy one of my programs and I'll see you in court. I have the right to have you charged with criminal violations of the copyright laws if you try to make money off my material, and the right to sue you for personal damages if you don't. The law is pretty black and white on the issue even if you don't think so.

Besides, I wouldn't have to worry about lawyers fees and lining the pockets of lawyers if you weren't so dishonest.

 

[Alyx]

I don’t think this is a moral issue. It’s a legal issue. Take the No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) passed in 1997. Here’s a quick summation of the law from the RIAA website (http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp)

“No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) sets forth that sound recording infringements (including by digital means) can be criminally prosecuted even where no monetary profit or commercial gain is derived from the infringing activity. Punishment in such instances includes up to 3 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. The NET Act also extends the criminal statute of limitations for copyright infringement from 3 to 5 years.
Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works (as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. Individuals may also be civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per work infringed.”

You can read the law yourself if you’d like. You can find it here: http://www.cyberlaw.at/materialien/usa/hr2265.html

Let’s try to understand the issue at hand. RIAA, while I’m sure they’d love to nail anyone who’s ever illegally downloaded a single song from the net, knows they cannot do this. Not in a practical sense anyway. What RIAA is looking for are those who maintain the servers, create the programs, and/or download hundreds of songs. They’re looking to nail the GROSS violators and hope it will be a warning to the rest.
RIAA’s mistake was in thinking that music sharers would understand the warning. Personally, I think they ascribed music sharers with more intelligence than they obviously have. If someone cannot understand that theft, be it your car, or your music, is still theft, then they obviously have fewer brain cells functioning than normal.

Flame away if you’d like. I know this post and others like it will not change the mind of any downloading thief out there. My only hope is that, if you are a gross violator, RIAA catches up with you. You think you can’t afford music now? Try paying the fines!

On an unrelated issue, my husband pointed out that if I’m not careful, I might just break 100 posts. I’ve been here a year now, and the thought of breaking 100 posts is enough to drive me back into lurking!

 

[Bobmi357]

On an unrelated issue, my husband pointed out that if I’m not careful, I might just break 100 posts. I’ve been here a year now, and the thought of breaking 100 posts is enough to drive me back into lurking!

Only 7 more posts til you get yourself an avatar Alyx. At your rate that should take you another fourteen months.

 

[way22hot]

I wonder

If I own albums (yes some people still own albums) that I bought and paid royaties for .But now I want it on c/d Why
am I paying royalties agian ? should my royalties go to the people that created the technology or to the artist?