I own 3 copies of AC/DC’s Back In Black album on wax, plus two copies on CD, and a cassette somewhere. If I download Hell’s Bells from a file sharing site, then block sharing to others, where is the problem? I bought the damn song 6 times.
Also, the 2 CD’s I referred to are half of what I owned (2 were stolen during parties). I have paid Atlantic a lot of money for these songs, any way I can defend all of us if I can somehow get sued?
This is serious, I love showing Hollywood that sometimes technecalities are not the best defense.
Personally, I agree with you. But I don’t think you’ll ever be able to prove that everyone who has downloaded a song has bought it at one point or another.
If it weren’t for filesharing, I wouldn’t know of 90% of the bands I’ve learned of in the last few years, nor would I own 90% of the CDs I’ve bought in the last few years. But most of the albums I’ve bought have been from tiny little record labels in Europe that the RIAA probably doesn’t “represent”.
I download, but then move the songs so that I’m not sharing. And like Lord Ashtar, If it wasn’t for downloading then I wouldn’t have gone out and bought half of the CDs I own.
What’s wrong with “try before you buy”? Unless it’s pick n’ mix sweeties - that’s just plain wrong…
No, you didn’t get the point of the OP (I didn’t expect anyone to) but you were very,very close. These are songs I’ve bought multiple times, and still own.
I bought, say, Hell’s Bells, at least 5 times according to albums in my family room right now. I was hoping to find a way I could be prosecuted for downloading these songs that I have multiple license to.
I realize there is a difference in downloading/uploading.
If I download Have A Drink on Me, and refuse an upload, can RIAA come after me (please do!)? Maybe I’m not stating this the way I want to
They don’t like that because that way they can’t pick the one semi-decent song on the album, play it ad nauseum on the radio, and expect you to shell out $18.00 for the other 15 songs only to find out they are utter crap.
If you don’t like the other 15 songs then don’t buy the album, go buy the single. If a single isn’t available, then tough shit, you don’t have the right to steal it.
IIRC, they’re not going after downloaders, they’re going after sharers. If you’re sharing, it don’t matter if you bought it 100 times, you’re still not allowed to make a copy and give it away.
You are correct Cheesesteak, they are going after people sharing files, and out of those, only the people sharing a shitload (1000 or more tracks), as they are the biggest fish.
I think what they are doing is stupid and counterproductive, but that’s a whole different ball of wax.
I didn’t say you did have the right to steal it. I just said that’s what the RIAA doesn’t like about file sharing. Sure, they trumpet that they and the artists are losing money and all that, but what they truly don’t like is that people aren’t buying the album for one or two songs anymore.
Well, as surprising as it may seem to some of you, I personally don’t have a problem getting MP3s for music I already own.
Example: Years ago, I bought an LP (yes, this was during the LP days) for a rather obscure soundtrack. The LP had a scratch in it. I was just a kid and kind of timid, but I steeled myself and went to the store and got the LP exchanged (with the “fish eye” from the clerk). Guess what? The second LP also had a scratch. In the same place. I was too scared/timid to return the LP yet again, so I just lived with it. But later on I tried again, and bought the soundtrack again. It also had a scratch. I gave up.
Years later, I encountered a fellow who knew somebody who had ripped his (non-scratched LP) to MP3. He let me have copies. I took them.
Dammit. That record company sold me two defective records. I just wanted a copy of the music that was “listenable,” and no CD of the soundtrack was available. (Had a CD been available, I would have bought it in a heartbeat, as I have with all the music that I already own on LP.)
I think there is a huge difference between downloading copies of music you already own, and downloading music that you don’t own, and don’t ever intend to own.
Seriously, I am working on a book right now (yeah, you read that right—a book) so I don’t know if I have the energy to battle in another copyright/intellectual property rights thread. Or I had better not. My plate is full. (macMall just delivered my copy of Adobe InDesign CS today, to use to layout this book! Woo hoo!)
Stealing music is absolutely wrong, no question about it. You should always, always leave a copy on the machine you’re downloading from.
Seriously though… it is, technically, illegal to download music you’ve already purchased, just like downloading any other music without paying for it. But if you don’t share, you’re probably at no risk of being sued. There are too many downloaders for the RIAA to go after them all, so they’re focusing on the suppliers.
I’ve done it myself - bought an album online, then downloaded the tracks while waiting for it to come in the mail. No reasonable person could find anything wrong with that. And if I happen to lose any of the handful of tracks I’ve bought from iTunes Music Store, I won’t hesitate to download them from a P2P service, because I’ve already paid for them.
This is indeed a very worn out discussion, isn’t it? It’s on a par with the typical “tailgating” discussion which shows up here every 3 or 4 weeks in the BBQ Pit.
There isn’t a definitive answer. The technology crept up so fast that no one could have foreseen this just 10 years ago. (Well, very few people at any rate).
I liken this subject to the morality of speeding on a deserted highway. Sure, the law says it’s not allowed. And if a cop catches you, you’re busted. But there are others who would argue, problem? What problem? Who suffered? There was no crash, no one got hurt. What was wrong with speeding in that scenario? Sure, I’m not talking about speeding when there’s other traffic around, but on a deserted “dead straight” highway? What was wrong with that?
And for everyone who argues that there was nothing wrong with it, there’ll be a bunch of people who will argue it was reckless and stupid and dangerous etc.
However, if there was a technology which point blank “100% prevented” a car from speeding on a dead straight deserted highway, then the discussion would be moot because the ability to speed would be taken away.
And that’s my point here - when it comes to downloading music, currently there is NO foolproof technology which exists which can prevent it - ergo - the discussion rages and rages.
