I download songs. I share them via the different programs what allows one to do that. I know it’s illegal and I’ve thought long and hard about it. Thus, my two cents…
First and foremost, the RIAA could give less of a damn about the artists. The business side of the music business could give less of a damn about the artists. It’s always been like that. If you ever get the opportunity, ask Bo Diddley his opinions on how that game works. If you sign with a label - major certainly, minor most of the time - you are going to get hosed. Steve Albini wrote an interesting article for maximumrockandroll a few years back on the subject. Check it out here:
In any event, unless you are a pre-packaged product like Brittany or an out-of-nowhere phenom like Nirvana, you are gonna get a bad case of the red ass if you sign up with the big boys.
As a fan of music, I download to satisfy curiosity. Maybe I download a song because I’m curious about the band. Maybe it’s the current hot product like White Stripes, or maybe it’s something a friend recommended like Tim Carroll. Maybe it’s an old country song from my youth that I want to hear again. Often, I buy the CD if I like it. I’d give you numbers on how many CD’s I’ve purchased because of downloading, but we don’t have the time or space. I have well over three thousand CD’s, and my brother has almost two thousand. We’re sick individuals.
And furthermore, I go out of my way to buy CD’s in such a manner that will benefit the artist in question or at least an independent retailer as much as I can. I also buy a lot of band t-shirts. Yes, I’m that guy.
I rarely keep much music on my computer. As I said, most of the time, if I like it, I go out and buy it. If I don’t, I get rid of it to save space. Between, I’m crashing my computer every time I turn around, thus rendering the whole thing moot.
As a musician who plays in a working rock & roll band, I know all our profits from sold CD’s go to basically paying off the costs of making said CD. We make what little money we make via live shows and merchandise like t-shirts. We’re in the process of putting our stuff online and we’ll always do that. We know we’re never getting on Top 40 radio. We’re not pretty enough and, as Eddie Spaghetti from the awesome Supersuckers so succinctly put it recently, rock & roll records aren’t selling this year.
Again, unless you’re product, success as a musician comes from hard work, sweat, broken relationships, lots of touring, playing for four people in Buttholeville, Alabama, and pure dumb luck. Word-of-mouth doesn’t exist anymore. Record labels aren’t your friends. Music journalism is a bad joke, and more limp-wristed PR than anything else.
I download music and will continue to do so until I am forcibly prevented. The RIAA can bite me for various reasons. Hell, I ain’t got no money no how.
But that’s just me, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
Selah,
Matt
Somewhere a sperm whale and a giant squid are fighting it out in the depths of your stupidity.
Buy the album, buy the single, or don’t buy it at all, I could give one less of a shit. Don’t give me your twisted obfuscated bullshit logic to justify an ILLEGAL act. Oh, whoops! Did I just say that it was against the law, as in you are breaking the fucking law? Whoops I wouldn’t want to beat that dead horse, lest it might start to sink into your dense skull that you are doing something wrong.
CD prices need to come down, the RIAA thugs need to stop their Gestapo tactics, and people like you need to pay for their goddamn music.
**
And Mya doesn’t see a cent from that, sounds fair to me!!
**
Heh, my thick skull.
**
Wait a minute, I thought you downloaded music to sample if you would like it.
**
So if you know in advance, why do you download it? You should just head straight to the store.
**
Well perhaps you should order it from Amazon or something. There are plenty of options other then paying $30 and illegally (whoops) downloading it.
**
Hmmmmmmmm
**
No, I’m going to buy a car I get years of use out of. Does this mean I get to use a car for free if I’m not happy with GM’s pricing?
**
Normally people play an album they bought, get burnt on it, and listen to it sporadically over the years. Throwaway pop included.
You have the right of course to simply not buy the album in the first place, and if you choose not to, that doesn’t entitle you to the free mp3.
**
Oh yes, I’m the one on shaky footing here :rolleyes:
**
And both sorts of music have associated costs that need to be recouped and people trying to earn a living off of them, you know, the reason people charge for it instead of giving it away.
**
So enjoy your long-term music, and don’t download the short-term music, because you don’t think it’s worth paying for. Is that such a tough concept to grasp?
**
Please point out where I said the music industry is being destroyed by file sharing. Pretty fucking please with icing and a cherry on top.
**
So go buy the single.
**
I think we are in the ignorance loop phase of this thread.
DON’T BUY THE ALBUM THEN. DON’T DOWNLOAD IT EITHER!
**
Fine, so don’t buy their “shit”, but no matter how far its head is up it’s ass, you are still not entitled to get it for free.
**
Go fight the law then.
**
And I think only listening to an album where every song is a Machiavellian masterpiece is somewhat insane and unrealistic to say the least. You then turn around and use this twisted logic to excuse you’re behavior with regards to file sharing which happens to be illegal (whoops)
**
Better then adding to it.
**
Yes, because filesharing is the only way to be a smart buyer. :rolleyes:
**
Then you erase them immediately and are off to the music store right?
**
To my knowledge, this is all possible.
**
Oh that’s right, “sampling”.
Let me tell you about this sampling stuff. I think it’s a great idea, but it’s one of those things that sounds nice on paper, but doesn’t work in practicality. The main beef I have with it is people do more then sample the music. You want to see if you like something, you DL it, listen to it for a day, then delete it and go buy the album. You don’t have the money to buy it right now you say? Delete it and add the name to a albums to go buy list. People should be free to sample it, but should not have the luxury to listen to it until they decide to buy it or not buy it. The final point is, there is little reason for a person to go buy the album, because frankly, people don’t pay money to replace something when they don’t need to.
**
Download the remaining songs.
**
I think it’s unreasonable to expect you to pay for anything.
**
Well we got the price of “the one” song down 80%, that’s a good start.
**
So because a single is 3 minutes short, you don’t own a disc changer, and have never heard of a remote, you feel you can just DL it for free?
**
I don’t think I accused you of lying, just that I find some of your justifications laughable.
**
Yes my musical stupidity is based on, playing in a hardcore band, being a recording engineer, producing hip-hop, drum & bass, getting my trip hop band signed to a label, then getting a record deal, and touring.
What’s your musical stupidity based on?
**
Then perhaps you aren’t the smart buyer you think you are. I’ve been buying music for years, and I haven’t had to rely on filesharing, nor did I get much shit.
**
That’s why the single is available.
**
Well, you must be the only person that has this problem. I know plenty of people that trade, who get any album they want complete and no problem.
**
No, it just amazes me that people think 2 wrongs make a right.
**
Are you telling me an artist should not be compensated for their work?
**
Well illegal downloading is against the law, and morally it’s pretty shitty to do as well. No?
gex gex, you can burn a CD from a song downloaded on iTunes. You can pretty much burn it indefinitely. Apple has a restriction of “10 CDs of the same playlist”, but you can change around the playlist in an infinite amount of ways and still keep buring that song onto CD. You can also share the song on three computers. You can “deactivate” from one computer and “activate” it on another computer. So it can always be on three computers.
As for the rest of your argument, all I can say is that I am all amazement by your twisted, convoluted logic.
For fucks sake, yes the RIAA isn’t fair to its artists. I think we are all in agreement about that. How that becomes a justification to screw the artists just a little bit more, makes no sense to me.
A car can only be in one place at a time; a song can be everywhere. If you use a car for a year without paying for it, the dealer can’t sell that car, and another person can’t be driving that car elsewhere at the same time: you’ve deprived someone else of a car. Not so with music.
If this were Star Trek where cars and other physical products could be replicated like music, and everyone could have a free car without depriving anyone else of a car, then why wouldn’t people be able to use them for free?
Hey, don’t stop there. Go ahead and explain how everything that’s illegal is “wrong” by definition… this will be good. Let’s hear your moral outrage for speeders, jaywalkers, and pot smokers while you’re at it. Surely you’ve never broken any laws, right?
Some people realize there’s a difference between legality and morality. Apparently you aren’t one of them.
Oh, so I have to be equally outraged by everything or I’m not allowed to be pissed about something?
**
Musicman summed it up best, you greedy fucks are all screwing over the artists.
And I suppose that getting something for free and not compensating the creator in any way shape or form is morally acceptable to you?
Yeah, it was a busy weekend, but thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
It seems to me as if you accept the fact that filesharing/P2P is not inherantly evil. A sensible position, and I applaud your common sense in this regard.
However, it seems to me that by releasing any kind of art, music, or writing, or any creative work into the world, you must inherantly accept the fact that you give up some amount of control over your work. Post a picture on the internet, someone may use it as their computer wallpaper. Write a book or a poem, someone may make a copy of it at Kinkos. Make a CD, someone may rip it to MP3 and place it on KaZaA. You may not be happy about this, but it’s a fact of life. The only way for you to retain complete control over your creation is to never share it with anyone else, and if you don’t release it to the world, what’s the point of creating it at all?
Maybe it’s the tiny remains of my youthful idealism talking (I’m 25), but I tend to believe that most people will compensate an artist or author if they feel the asking price is fair and just. Of course, the realist in me says that no matter what you do, some people will never concieve of a “fair and just” price that is anything above $0.00.
In my own personal experience, I have purchased 5 CDs in the last year, none of which I would have bought without being able to download tracks off of FILE_SHARING_SERVICE to listen to first. On the flip side of the coin, I can also think of about 5 albums that i had considered purchasing, until I downloaded tracks off of FILE_SHARING_SERVICE and realized that that album wasn’t good enough to spend my money on. If I buy the album, I will erase the downloaded tracks (because as soon as I purchase a CD I rip it to mp3 for my own use. I also make a backup copy immediately, put the original back in the case, and listen to the burned copy). If I don’t buy the album, I generally delete the tracks off of my computer, although sometimes I don’t get around to it until my drive is almost out of space.
I guess at the end of the day, it all boils down to one simple fact: If it can be seen/heard, it can be copied. If it can be copied, there will be some people who will take the free version rather then paying the creator.
Also, I can say I wouldn’t have a problem with buying CDs without dowloading tracks first, IF I was allowed to return for a refund albums that suck.
Quite right. Creating additional copies of music that has already been made, on the other hand, is free. Creating additional cars is not, hence the difference.
If you’re going to say “it’s wrong because it’s illegal”, and you don’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, then I sure hope you’d say the same about jaywalking and speeding. They’re illegal too, you know. By your logic that makes them immoral.
Except for the artists whose CDs I’ve bought to the tune of $280, thanks to file sharing… and the artists whose music I’d never buy under any circumstances… and so on.
I do it every day: I enjoy songs on the radio without paying the artists. I watch TV shows without paying the producers, or even watching the commercials. (I don’t pay the creators for those. The radio and TV stations might, but they pay the same whether I turn on my radio/TV or not - I listen for free.) I look at artwork in museums, on the sides of buildings, and on T-shirts without paying the artists. I listen to music at friends’ houses without paying the bands.
Getting something for free is only immoral IMO if it means depriving someone else, or if someone has to pay to replace the one you got for free. The latter doesn’t apply at all to copyright violation, and the former only applies in the specific cases where file sharing actually causes someone not to buy a product.
Ah, so you’re familiar with the Audiophile Geek Perspective (AGP)! I suppose your assessment might be close but that would only be because your out-of-phase Realistic stereo system wouldn’t be able to reproduce all of the data. On a decent system, I would venture to guess about half would be able to tell the difference. Geek indeed.
Again, plenty for a Radio Shack stereo, not near enough for something a little nicer. The CD medium is nearly unacceptable. Its only saving grace is portability and ease of use.
That’s right…LIGHTYEARS.
So if you had a choice between the two, you’d take the one billion?
You just made it for me. Items 1-4 on your list all occur with the artist PRESENT and approving or disapproving in the studio. Generally the artist has final cut on the sound of his recording up until the very moment it is pressed to the medium. Once it’s on disc, it’s out in the world for better or worse for mass consumption.
And also happens to be the one place where the artist is absent. It also happens to be the exact point where the damage is done.
I do, and I am not the only one spending my hard earned money on equipment to get the best possible sound from an inferior medium. It frustrates us, you couldn’t happier. We are paying more for less.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
You mean day one after the music died in the pressing…
Not arguing that.
If degraded sound quality is worth this feature to you, then you must be one happy camper.
You take a boombox fishing on the lake?
Unperceived by whom? Have you ever been present when a track is cut inside a studio? Are you aware of the frustrations that artists have regarding the final version of their collective music? There is no comparison to the sounds you hear in a studio and what you get finally from a CD player. It is a major compromise that leaves some established artists (those who have the clout to fight for it) insisting that vinyl is still pressed of their music. Did you know that albums are still being pressed for many bands?
This one’s going right out of the park, so don’t even bother fielding it…
Under California labor laws, no one can be forced to sign a personal service contract for a period longer than seven years. Yet, the standard record contract promises one or two records, and has options for up to seven - which can last up to fifteen years or more. And, after seven years, the statute of limitations runs out for the artist to file a lawsuit. Convenient, right?
The RIAA got an amendment to the Section 2855 of the California Labor Code, so they can break the seven year rule with recording artists. And, record labels can sue their artists for “future lost earnings” if the artist breaks the contract. This is the law that resulted in the GooGoo Dolls being sued by their label. The Dolls ended up owing the company over $1million, AFTER A WORLD TOUR AND A PLATINUM RECORD!!!. The members of the GooGoo Dolls launched an investigation only to find that the label had been “intentionally concealing royalty dollar amounts from several other artists’ accounts as well”.
Let’s look at the sides:Clinging to the status quo are the world’s five major record conglomerates: Universal, Sony, Time Warner, EMI/Virgin and Bertelsmann, represented by a powerful trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers supporting the Recording Artists’ Coalition (RAC), whose diverse roster of 150 members includes Bruce Springsteen, Sting, R.E.M., Bonnie Raitt, Madonna, Eric Clapton, Dave Matthews, Billy Joel, Elton John, Linkin Park, Aimee Mann, No Doubt, Puddle of Mudd, Staind and Static-X.
Key concerns from the broad range of byzantine conflicts:
Caps on contract lengths. Most major-label agreements require a commitment of six to eight albums, an obligation that can entail an indefinite term of indentured servitude. California state Sen. Kevin Murray, a Democrat, wrote a bill to repeal an amendment that exempts recording artists from a state law limiting contracts to seven years.
After RAC and the RIAA failed to reach a compromise, the bill was pulled Aug. 15. Murray plans to resubmit it next year as part of a larger package also addressing accounting practices, pension plans and health benefits.
Accounting practices. Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, has said in the past that industry accounting practices are “intentionally fraudulent.” Music writer Dave Marsh describes the process as “an entrenched system whose prowess and conniving makes Enron look like amateur hour.” Royalties, based on complex and antiquated formulas that favor labels, are disbursed only after artists pay back advances, recording costs and other expenses.
Greg Hessinger, director of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), a union representing 80,000 actors, musicians and other entertainment workers, says this recoupment method “is so replete with ambiguity, complexity and subjectivity that the only true long-term solution is a complete overhaul. Until we can bury the recoupment system, changes must be implemented that provide for greater transparency and a fuller duty to account so that artists can at least be certain that they are being paid correctly.”
Producer Steve Albini, trashing label practices in The Baffler magazine, outlines a hypothetical but typical record deal that bestows a $250,000 advance on a young band. The album sells 250,000 copies, earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties.
A California Senate hearing on accounting practices is set for Sept. 24 in Los Angeles.
Health and pension benefits. Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore’s music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits. The union, negotiating with labels since May, hopes to secure increased access to health insurance and improvements in pension participation when talks resume in October. Among 200 artists who signed a letter supporting the union’s proposal are Steve Earle, John Hiatt, Johnny Cash, Marilyn Horne, Carole King, Billy Bob Thornton and Coolio.
Copyright and ownership. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid. Artists are demanding copyright reform and a reasonable means of reacquiring their master recordings.
Payola reforms. Labels sidestep payola laws by hiring independent promoters to lobby and compensate radio stations for playing certain records. Opponents say this quasi-legal system stifles creativity and limits diversity.
The drumbeat of war has been building in recent years as artists wrestle for self-empowerment and vow to amend a system that let soul greats Otis Blackwell, Jackie Wilson and Mary Wells die destitute. Before she died, Peggy Lee was part of a class-action settlement that won unpaid royalties. Courtney Love filed suit to break her Geffen contract. Prince fled the corporate structure and pitched camp on the Internet, where he sells directly to fans. Tom Petty’s upcoming album, The Last D.J., slams industry greed.
Whatever the motivation, it seems this was the only thing that could have destroyed the monster, and I for one am glad for it. Who really gives a fuck if it’s illegal, really? I mean, it’s illegal for you to go retrieve mail from your mailbox after you have already placed it in there to be delivered, because once you place the mail in there it is the property of the Postmaster General. It’s illegal to get a blowjob in Georgia, even from your wife! Shit, no wonder Sherman hustled through here.
It seems to me if we knew more about your life we would find a few illegal things in your past as well, and then call you a hypocrite. A holier than thou mentality like yours…
Hey wait a minute! I think Reason To Believe is at least as good a song as Maggie May. But that’s IMO.
Actually that may be true in the everyday world but it won’t hold up in court. A friend of mine told me that the license agreement for Kazaa informs the user that the program is illegal. So while nobody ever reads those damn things, the lawyers can still slap 12- and 71-year-olds with them.
Many of you have almost touched on something, and that is all of the most frequently downloaded songs will eventually be played on the radio. The courts have ruled that it is legal to tape songs off the radio. And the technology now exists to transfer the songs onto a computer. So these songs are already available for free, the only difference with file sharing is that it is not subject to FCC rules.
aryk29, I have been under the impression that, to date, no click-through license has ever been recognized in court.
(This is just something I picked up in conversation with a fellow who’s a developer at ActiveState-- maybe one of our lawyerly Dopers has more detail either way?)
Not sure where this fits on this enormous heap, but here is my little tidbit.
Some of you claim that downloading does not hurt business, but it seems to me it does. Nearby there is a small record shop, a real rinky-dink little joint. Thsi guy has been selling music for years but has since been forced to close shop. He claims it is because of downloading and I believe him.
Was it just coincidence that this man must now close down? And there really haven’t been any huge music stores that have recently opened up that could be blamed. I mean, when Blockbuster came rolling into town they shut down basically every independant video store in town. I don’t think that can be argued here.
Well, it’s just a small stupid store you might say, but my point is: downloading is most certainly having an effect on music sales.
Those of you who happen to buy cds because of new exposure to artists you like and hitherto didn’t know about are in a minority. Can’t you realize that. Your noble efforts are not balancing out the millions who are not buying all of the free stuff they’re downloading.
Do you think some fifteen year old cares about being true to the musicians? Most of them are giggling their asses off that they can download so much shit for free. Kids in a candy store, all of 'em
Despite all the debate etc, there’s one analogy which strikes me as having merit.
If someone worked out a way that when a new blockbuster movie came along, that they could replicate the cinema experience on your home loungeroom wall without you having to even go to the cinema or have to pay for the price of admission - certainly, without doubt, millions of people would watch the film from home and never pay to go to the cinema again.
I’m pretty sure that an awful lot of people in movie making would freaked out by such a technological revolution. It doesn’t matter if the system only created a “copy” of the cinema experience on your loungeroom wall by copying the actual cinema screen in the movie theatre - what would count is that a truckload of people would watch the film for free and they’d do so with a clear consience too I dare say.
So ultimately, the problem here is that the modern PC has provided a technology to disseminate copies of music (above and beyond) the technological reach of the “music business” to make sure that listener’s pay their “admission price” as it were.
It seems to me that the real court case which the RIAA should be fighting is with Microsoft, and the inventors of the mp3 standard.
Also, the RIAA should consider forthwith the notion of ceasing to release albums in a digital format. They should go back to vinyl. Or to another format which can’t be hacked by a PC. That way, by extension, any and all mp3’s of a future album would, by definition be illegal.
To sue people for being human is a lost cause it seems to me. Sure, it’s illegal to make unauthorised copies of copyrighted material. The problem is when 60 million people in one country alone start to do it. At that point the law is a moot point. Hence, the RIAA needs to change their business model, and they need to seriously consider releasing music in an analogue only format I rather think.
Oh really, you believe him? I guess that settles it!
Call off the studies, folks; cheesepickles knows an unsuccessful music store owner who blames his shop’s failure on downloading. Does the shop owner know anything about the statistics of people downloading music instead of buying it? Has he done the research? Who cares! He used to own a record store so he must be an authority.
Why now, when people have been trading music on the internet en masse for at least five years? I suspect it has a lot more to do with the recession than with file sharing.
“Most certainly” according to your sample of one single business shutting down, you mean? Color me unimpressed.
Anyone can post wild-ass guesses. Where’s your evidence?
I don’t see how that would change a thing, apart from requiring the person doing the ripping to invest the amount of time it takes to actually play the material at 1X.
I have hundreds of .mp3 CDs, and I’d estimate that more than 80% of them are of (public domain) recordings from analog sources. (Hell, I have quite a few .mp3s that are taken from Edison cylinders, although by far most of them are taken from reel-to-reel magnetic tape, followed by 78rpm discs.)
As for your movie analogy, you can already download movies with near-broadcast video quality. I had The Phantom Menace in VCD form before it was released in theatres, although I still paid to see it three times over the next couple of weeks, in spite of Jar-Jar.
Comparing .mp3 vs CD to being able to perfectly duplicate a theatre experience for free without leaving your home is wide of the mark, too. An .mp3 might sound “just like” when they’re both piped through your desktop computer speakers, but, oh lordy, they ain’t the same when compare them on a middle-of-the-road stereo, unless you have a perforated eardrum, or something.
Hey, the closest record store to me just shut down this year, too, after 20 years of being the spot for collectors. Of course, most of their stock consisted of vinyl from the likes of Rush and Black Oak Arkansas, and the neighborhood that they were in has become mostly populated and frequented by Sikhs, whio’re not a demographic widely known for their devotion to 70’s hair-bands, but nevertheless, I’m sure file-sharing can be blamed for the failure of old Neptune, too.
Without file sharing, it is literally impossible for me to listen to the music I want.
End of story.
There is no other way for me to find the artists that later turn out to be my favorites. There is no other way to listen to such a wide variety of artists.
There is no other way. NONE.
As long as there is no other alternative, I will continue to download music. Music is too important to me to say “oh well, guess I won’t listen to music because there is no legal way.”
And I have recently decided that as long as there is no alternative, and as long as people are sued for doing the only possible thing one can do to listen to music, I will not buy any cd. And I have a collection of almost 500 cds - I’m not exactly the type of customer the RIAA should be willing to lose. But they did.
Which store was that, Larry? Do you live in downtown Vancouver, or the 'burbs?
You know, i really can’t imagine that file-sharing is responsible for the demise of a store that specializes in collectible vinyl. I mean, how many people buy this stuff just to get the songs? Most vinyl collectors i know do it for the vinyl.
told me that the license agreement for Kazaa informs the user that the program is illegal. So while nobody ever reads those damn things, the lawyers can still slap 12- and 71-year-olds with them.