930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: kosmo vinyl on July 30, 2003, 03:41:00 pm
-
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/ (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/)
check your ip address or username
-
Damn. I didn't make the list
-
Are you sure that this is safe to use? In other words, will they use it to collect addresses to monitor? I don't trust Big Brother at all!....nor the RIAA! :D
Okay, I know I'm making light of a situation, but seriously, if all of these people would band together and refuse to pay the fines and opt for prison instead (yeah, not a great choice) it would overload the judicial system so badly that they would have to pressure the RIAA to opt for some other tactic. Just a thought. :p
-
there's a difference between eff and the riaa... eff is standing up for the rights of file swappers and is only comparing your info against who the riaa is subpeoning records for.
-
Please let markie be on that list.
-
the thing about what the riaa is going after seems a bit going after a needle in a haystack...
are they going after people's isp user ids or file sharing sw ids. one could always change the id on kazaa for example.
if they are going after ip address they best be going after people who have permanent or static ip addresses, because my ip address can change everytime i connect to the network. most people don't pay the extra fee to have a static address. the ip address i'm using right now could have just been used by another person who was file sharing. it seems that riaa would have to have pretty solid proof if using dynamic ip addresses to subpeona someone.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
the thing about what the riaa is going after seems a bit going after a needle in a haystack...
are they going after people's isp user ids or file sharing sw ids. one could always change the id on kazaa for example.
if they are going after ip address they best be going after people who have permanent or static ip addresses, because my ip address can change everytime i connect to the network. most people don't pay the extra fee to have a static address. the ip address i'm using right now could have just been used by another person who was file sharing. it seems that riaa would have to have pretty solid proof if using dynamic ip addresses to subpeona someone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104281.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104281.stm)
-
I can't help but think that some of this is only a bunch of scare tactics. Bastards!
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
I can't help but think that some of this is only a bunch of scare tactics. Bastards!
Of course it is. They don't want to sue everybody. They want to sue just enough people to make it clear that there are consequences for stealing and distributing copyrighted works.
-
it's a shame the riaa would rather litagate then negotiate... record companies have been shooting themselves in the foot for years and feel that can blame their woes on people who download music files from the internet.
nevermind that fact that the dvd provides a better value for the money than a cd and is almost the same price. or that a majority of cds i buy are promo copies or independent releases. the record industry needs to change how they distribute music.
-
Just one band's point of view......
________________________________
Downloading Works For Elbow Downloading music is not a problem for
Elbow. In fact, they've used the Internet to release the first song
from their new album 'Cast of Thousands" and want people to send it
to their friends.
The reason they went online first was because the song they wanted to
introduce the album with didn't necessarily fit in with radio formats
or marketing strategies. "We wanted to put something out and
wanted 'Ribcage' to be the first song people heard from the album"
bass player Pete Turner tells Undercover News. "We knew we couldn't
put it out as a single because it is far too long at around six and a
half minutes. You can't have a single any longer than four minutes
unless you are Radiohead. We put it on the Internet low-key so that
people into the band could download it. We didn't restrict it. We
made sure people could send it on to their mates".
While the U.S. recording industry is trying to bring in a law that
makes the downloading of even one song earn the downloader 5 years in
jail, for Elbow people hearing their music for free is a good
thing. "I don't have a problem with it, really. People can always get
their hands on free music, whether they tape it or just steal it"
Pete says. "I want people who can't afford to buy it to still hear
the song. I think live is where the whole thing goes. Especially from
touring you can make loads of money. I'd rather people come and see
the live shows and if downloading ours songs for free means they will
do that, then that is fine for me. People need a bit of convincing,
so downloading something for free is the perfect way of doing it. I
really like artwork and looking at the artwork on the inlay card
while I'm listening to music sometimes, so I think people will go and
buy it anyway even if they have downloaded it".
Elbow are about to release their 'Cast of Thousands' album through
V2 / Festival Records.
by Paul Cashmere
-
Elbow, as the copyright holder, has every right to distribute their music and allow others to do the same. More power to 'em.
-
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
I agree, people who think music should be free are missing something, but I think the RIAA are more than slightly misguided in the ways they combat the problem.
-
Not me. (http://RIAA.youaremyfriend.com/) They wouldn't dare.
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
I'm in total agreement with you.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by RatBastard:
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
I'm in total agreement with you. [/b]
I'm in agreeance as well.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I'm in agreeance as well.
i was going to say that! :p
i really am on both sides of this issue... stealing is stealing.. whether its from the internet or from a store. however, i have never downloaded entire albums and burned them onto cds. when i download music, i stop sharing it, and put it on a playlist to listen to when i'm working on the computer. so i don't feel as "bad" (for lack of a better word) as someone who downloads and burns entire albums daily.. music shouldn't be free, but i am getting sick and tired of paying 18 bucks for a cd! yes, there are some independent stores and cds with cheaper prices, but overall, the cost of cds is way too expensive (unless it's a used cd, which is more reasonable)
basically, what i am saying is that i believe there are certain degrees of severity when it comes to downloading, and if the music industry weren't increasing the price of cds, downloading music may begin to slow down when people can finally afford to buy their favorite albums.
one question - even though i don't share songs, can i still get into trouble with the riaa (granted that they actually do hunt down everyone.. pssh yeah right)?
-
It's not stealing for the same reason taping Seinfeld on my VHS is legal or allowing my father to "borrow" my Celine Dion collection. And remember, the media was purchased. I'm not hacking into anyone else computer unknowingly. The common technology supports this. And remember, it does cost an awful amount of money to fileshare: computer, internet provider, blank discs, and most importantly... time. We don't ride horses to work anymore because the common technology allows us not to. This is a recording industry dilemma. Not a "is it stealing or not" personal dilemma. I don't think any of this would be a problem in the slightest if CD's were $6. The people making money in music in the year 2003 would dwarf the people making money in 1973 at those prices.... $15 dollars plus is corporate greed and consumers are realizing there is an easier way. I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price". I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording. But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.
-
Originally posted by myuman:
I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price". I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording. But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.
i think 10$ is a perfect price for a cd... remember when olssons stopped carrying that new linkin park cd because it was like $20 but only had 30 minutes worth of music on it? where is the reasoning that you get what you pay for there? i would own a lot more albums if they were cheaper (obviously)... but i still think it's wrong to copy an entire cd and burn it onto a cd.
-
ggw is probably a bit more verse in if this would be covered by "fair use" or not... eff and other organizations are stepping on a lobbying for the p2p users like yourself. is downloading a song or two really any different than getting a mix cd or tape from a friend? making a mix cd is something which apple touts as one of the top uses of thier machines.
all of this shows how instead of fighting new technology which the record always does... cassettes, cdrs etc they should be adapting to them. it clear by the popularity of p2p systems that people want and have embraced a new method of distribution. yet the record industry wants to stick to the traditional method of physical product.
it's ironic that the record industry chooses to fight a system which has already been developed, thus saving to having fund a new distro system. and there is no need to deploy new infrastructure and pay of bandwidth, it's already be payed for via isp fees, again saving money. yet it's make more business sense to pay people to track down file sharers and flood the p2p with fake mp3s.
i'm all for paying for the digital rights to an artists music, but i will be damned if i'm going to pay almost as much for them as i would for a physical cd or record. especially if i also choose to buy the cd after auditioning the digital version. which is why i find itunes and buymusic.com laughable.
record companies need to establish record pools using a p2p system. let us serious music buyers pay for and get access to music especially for those artists who we want to check out based on a review or for a record that may only be released in uk for instance.
rant off
-
Originally posted by paige:
i have never downloaded entire albums and burned them onto cds. when i download music, i stop sharing it,
[/b]
Thanks for the tip..I'll go into a jewellers tonight and steal myself my favorite Omega watch, not everything in the store. I won't let anyone else borrow the watch so if I get caught I can tell them paige said it was okay.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Thanks for the tip..I'll go into a jewellers tonight and steal myself my favorite Omega watch, not everything in the store. I won't let anyone else borrow the watch so if I get caught I can tell them paige said it was okay.
good analogy. :roll:
kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd? the technology and the industry are changing... and although this seems like a much more drastic progression, the riaa is wasting their money and energy trying to fight something that could prove to be their most valuable ally. the record industry is already failing as it is.. they should be doing whatever they can to be altruistic to the listeners rather than punish them for every little song they've downloaded.
-
Originally posted by myuman:
It's not stealing for the same reason taping Seinfeld on my VHS is legal or allowing my father to "borrow" my Celine Dion collection.
Wrong. Fair-use covers you for transferring music from your CD to a tape or to an mp3 but doesn't cover distribution to 12,000,000 kazaa users.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)
Originally posted by myuman:
And remember, the media was purchased.
What media? You only own the shiny plastic disc, not the music on it. That belongs to the copyright holder.
Originally posted by myuman:
I'm not hacking into anyone else computer unknowingly. The common technology supports this. And remember, it does cost an awful amount of money to fileshare: computer, internet provider, blank discs, and most importantly... time. We don't ride horses to work anymore because the common technology allows us not to.
So anything that is technologically possible cannot be illegal?
You may not be hacking into someone else's computer, but the theft is from the copyright holder, not from piMpKraCKer69@kazaa.com who is giving you the file.
Originally posted by myuman:
This is a recording industry dilemma. Not a "is it stealing or not" personal dilemma. I don't think any of this would be a problem in the slightest if CD's were $6. The people making money in music in the year 2003 would dwarf the people making money in 1973 at those prices.... $15 dollars plus is corporate greed and consumers are realizing there is an easier way. I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price". I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording. But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.
My "fence" price for a Maserati is $12,500. If they won't sell it to me at that price then I am justified in stealing it. I'm a revolutionary against the greedy corporate automotive behemoths -- I'm like Che Guevara and Robin Hood all wrapped up in one. Or maybe I'm just a common thief who thinks he can get away with it.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
-- I'm like Che Guevara and Robin Hood all wrapped up in one.
[/b]
A beret and green tights...hmmmmm, I wouldn't let Rhett see you in that little number, he might not be able to control his actions, because you know how he just oozes testosterone being the macho-man that he is and all.
-
Originally posted by paige:
kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd?
this is an example of where the movie industry was first against the vcr technology, but later embraced when they realized they could make even more money buy selling the movie to the consumer. also give them props for devolping the dvd a harder to copy format than tape and cd. and pricing them so the consumer will buy them when they get released on dvd.
-
I will put my 3 cents in:
First off, most of what i download is on emusic.com or insound.com which is legal. otherwise I download the new "radio" songs, from college radio playlists and such. But I usually just DL the singles or more from bands that have shows coming up. This downloading is never in place of a CD and i share only to people who contact me on filesharing networks.
I believe everyone is entitled to preview the music before they drop $12-$17 on a CD, and if i love what I hear I will buy the CD (case in point Mars Volta, yesterday). I dont see whats wrong with that really, I mean I suppose i could go to the record store and spend hours making the clerk open up 20 new CDs so i can listen to them, but that shit gets on my nerves when people do that.
And who really wants to listen to the radio ALL DAY long just to hear a couple new songs they are interested in? not me.
The point is, I buy 5-10 CDs a month and i drop $50 a month on shows, not to mention bar tabs that keep these venues making good money.
Do i feel like i am ripping the RIAA off....no, not a chance. But i may be in the minority.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I will put my 3 cents in:
First off, most of what i download is on emusic.com or insound.com which is legal. otherwise I download the new "radio" songs, from college radio playlists and such. But I usually just DL the singles or more from bands that have shows coming up. This downloading is never in place of a CD and i share only to people who contact me on filesharing networks.
I believe everyone is entitled to preview the music before they drop $12-$17 on a CD, and if i love what I hear I will buy the CD (case in point Mars Volta, yesterday). I dont see whats wrong with that really, I mean I suppose i could go to the record store and spend hours making the clerk open up 20 new CDs so i can listen to them, but that shit gets on my nerves when people do that.
And who really wants to listen to the radio ALL DAY long just to hear a couple new songs they are interested in? not me.
The point is, I buy 5-10 CDs a month and i drop $50 a month on shows, not to mention bar tabs that keep these venues making good money.
Do i feel like i am ripping the RIAA off....no, not a chance. But i may be in the minority.
If you go to Barns and Noble you can scan ANY cd in the store and hear a short peice of every song on the album...you're still a thief, sorry I meant sharer... :roll:
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by paige:
kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd?
this is an example of where the movie industry was first against the vcr technology, but later embraced when they realized they could make even more money buy selling the movie to the consumer. also give them props for devolping the dvd a harder to copy format than tape and cd. and pricing them so the consumer will buy them when they get released on dvd. [/b]
When Napster came along, the RIAA had a choice. Do wanna compete, bring out a better product and make a lot of money, and then sue them to get them out of business. Or should you just sue them and hope everyone pretends like this little theft thing didn't happen.
I don't condone stealing, but they blew their chance, and now people have become accustomed to getting music for free.
There aren't any good free resourses to hear music before you buy it, and hence I used to download a few tracks from artists before buying their albums.
If iTunes for example, let the artists pick say 2 or 3 tracks on the album, as the "singles" regardless of length and comercialness and let folks download those free of charge, I think that would offer a good free channel for hearing music, and then if you liked it, you could download the album.
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
But it's not stealing...It's sharing!
-
<img src="http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3929/infograph_3929.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
stabbing hookers is the best .....
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Thanks for the tip..I'll go into a jewellers tonight and steal myself my favorite Omega watch, not everything in the store. I won't let anyone else borrow the watch so if I get caught I can tell them paige said it was okay.
This is a very simplistic (and ignorant if you ask me) analogy to use. How about this one. I come up with a great idea to present to my company at the next board meeting, the only problem is, I preview it with a couple of my friends before hand. Come board meeting time, my boss opens the meeting with my idea. I ask him about it, he claims he was working with it for months. I happen to be in great standing with several lawyers and judges in the area, as well as some heavy politicians. I convince them that "stealing" my ideas before I can cash in on them is a felony. Laws then blossom condemming stealing my ideas. I choose to disregard the fact that the incident I'm drawing from could have been averted and/or used to my advantage.
Or closer yet. You find the before mentioned Omega watch not in a jewerly store (because breaking into that IS a crime) but sitting on the curb across the street. You know full well that it was dropped/left behind in the relocation process from a vehicle to the store. Mind you, the store still "owns" the watch (being the last that actually paid for it).
Lastly... the U.S. govt. long ago abandoned the process of constructing coined money with materials that cost more than the value in which the coin represents. Of course people were "taking them out of circulation". The Govt. got smart and constructed them out of "less pricey" materials to take away the motivation.
-
Here's an example -- Rather than giving away someone elses property by "sharing" it online with several million others, you simply make 3,000,000 copies of somebody else's CD or software and then distribute it for free to whoever wants it. Not a crime?
You can try to couch your thievery in tirades about how the record industry is evil or could have "handled things better," but none of that changes the fact that you are a thief.
Here's a question for you to ponder: Do you think that the record industry treats the artists well? How do you treat the artist any better when you steal the fruits of his labor and give it away without his permission?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Here's an example -- Rather than giving away someone elses property by "sharing" it online with several million others, you simply make 3,000,000 copies of somebody else's CD or software and then distribute it for free to whoever wants it. Not a crime?
You can try to couch your thievery in tirades about how the record industry is evil or could have "handled things better," but none of that changes the fact that you are a thief.
Here's a question for you to ponder: Do you think that the record industry treats the artists well? How do you treat the artist any better when you steal the fruits of his labor and give it away without his permission?
ggw have you ever, ever, ever, downloaded even one song in your entire life? i'm just curious.
-
Originally posted by paige:
ggw have you ever, ever, ever, downloaded even one song in your entire life? i'm just curious.
Sure. I had Napster and kazaa. Now I just stick to Insound, band websites, label sites, etc... If I hear about a band and want to listen to them, I don't usually have a problem finding a legal mp3.
I'm not telling you not to download -- that's between you and your conscience. I just think people ought to give up the fallacious rationalizations concerning why stealing isn't really stealing. If somebody wants to steal, that's their choice, but they ought to have the cojones to admit that it's stealing.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Sure. I had Napster and kazaa. Now I just stick to Insound, band websites, label sites, etc... If I hear about a band and want to listen to them, I don't usually have a problem finding a legal mp3.
I'm not telling you not to download -- that's between you and your conscience. I just think people ought to give up the fallacious rationalizations concerning why stealing isn't really stealing. If somebody wants to steal, that's their choice, but they ought to have the cojones to admit that it's stealing.
ok... i see your point. it's just that you sounded as though you were superhuman and had completely escaped the lure of downloading (illegally). i think that people (especially younger kids) don't know about the legal mp3 sites and other resources that allow them to get music without having to feel guilty. however, it is also hard to convince people to pay for music (iTunes) when there are myriads of songs and other media out there for free. it may not be right, but that doesn't always cross people's minds.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by paige:
ggw have you ever, ever, ever, downloaded even one song in your entire life? i'm just curious.
Sure. I had Napster and kazaa. Now I just stick to Insound, band websites, label sites, etc... If I hear about a band and want to listen to them, I don't usually have a problem finding a legal mp3.
I'm not telling you not to download -- that's between you and your conscience. I just think people ought to give up the fallacious rationalizations concerning why stealing isn't really stealing. If somebody wants to steal, that's their choice, but they ought to have the cojones to admit that it's stealing. [/b]
Yes it's stealing, that doesn't change the fact that the RIAA blew it. And anyway, am I going to find the Daryl Strawberry classic "Chocolate Strawberry" in a record store? Am I gonna hear say Gang of Four or Wire or Mission of Birma on the radio? I buy obscene amounts of CDs and attend loads of concerts. Thats where I burn [pun intended] most of my disposable income. My concience is clean. The guilt trip doesn't work on me, or anyone else who actually cares enough about music to still buy albums.
-
One of the RIAA's main points during this whole ordeal is that it is impossible to compete with free. The music industry heads aren't idiots, they're just bad at grasping onto trends.
Originally posted by paige:
however, it is also hard to convince people to pay for music (iTunes) when there are myriads of songs and other media out there for free. it may not be right, but that doesn't always cross people's minds.
-
I think people have a hard time realizing that "the music industry is evil" is not related to "downloading and distributing somebody else's copyrighted property is okay."
The first statement is true; the second is false. People seem to fall into the fallacy of believing that since the first statement is true, then that makes the second one true as well.
However, part of why the music industry is evil is that they screw the artists. If I steal from the artist, I'm really no better than the industry.
-
ggw, i think that people fall back on the first statement as justification for the second. ok, so you may be one of the very few who is just far far above the whole illegal downloading thing, but how do you expect for the other millions of downloaders to buy your point? just saying "that's wrong" with no immediately ensuing consequences isn't that threatening to a lot of people, nor is it believable. think of people who don't follow the speed limit. yes, it's illegal, but it's not like once your car goes over the limit a police car just shows up to pull you over. it's not as simple as that. (i think that was a bad analogy but oh well)
-
the riaa is out passing out expensive speeding tickets in order to prove their point that's illegal to download copywrited material. they are also hoping that it will create a chilling climate so that amount of sharing will subside and it's no longer status quo.
however the riaa will only force file sharing underground and offshore with their actions.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
the riaa is out passing out expensive speeding tickets in order to prove their point that's illegal to download copywrited material. they are also hoping that it will create a chilling climate so that amount of sharing will subside and it's no longer status quo.
however the riaa will only force file sharing underground and offshore with their actions.
i know they are beginning to go after file sharers... but do you really think that they can/will go after EVERYONE who downloads illegally? i don't know if that is possible, or if they'll have the time, resolve, and money to do so. i won't lie that it has scared me a little bit... i am considering just wussing out and deleting.. haha. but as you say, people will still find a way to share files even after it's been "ended" by the riaa. if they have those smart computer people to help track down the file sharers.. dont' you think that there are people just like that who are on the side of the downloaders? maybe.
-
They will probably go after people at random...so the chance of getting caught is probably very remote. It would be sweet though if markie got nailed and then deported for being a convicted felon....okay, okay, I'm just kidding, I wouldn't wish anything like that on anyone...(except maybe GGW ;) )
-
Originally posted by mankie:
They will probably go after people at random...so the chance of getting caught is probably very remote. It would be sweet though if markie got nailed and then deported for being a convicted felon....okay, okay, I'm just kidding, I wouldn't wish anything like that on anyone...(except maybe GGW ;) )
would he get deported back to canada? how aboot that, eh?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
They will probably go after people at random...so the chance of getting caught is probably very remote. It would be sweet though if markie got nailed and then deported for being a convicted felon....okay, okay, I'm just kidding, I wouldn't wish anything like that on anyone...(except maybe GGW ;) )
I haven't downloaded anything illegal since Napster ended. I never realy found another good mac service and I only have dialup at home. that stuff is blocked from work.
I guess the appearance of a CD game exchange 2 minutes walk away from where I live is reason enough not to bother with downloads.
But before, I only downloaded a few classic songs and stuff from bands coming to play in the area that I didnt know anything about. I never downloaded a whole album.
I doubt I am the kind of person they want to target. They really want the people who offer up thousands of songs for download.
-
yes.. how do they go about just targeting these people? i really doubt that it's completely random. i'm sure some pose a larger threat over others?
-
Originally posted by paige:
ggw, i think that people fall back on the first statement as justification for the second. ok, so you may be one of the very few who is just far far above the whole illegal downloading thing, but how do you expect for the other millions of downloaders to buy your point? just saying "that's wrong" with no immediately ensuing consequences isn't that threatening to a lot of people, nor is it believable.
Good question. I don't know the answer. I think perhaps the labels waited too long to do something about it and now there is a whole sub-generation that thinks that music is simply free. It's hard to unlearn that behavior.
Depending on how the lawsuits go, perhaps people will see that there are consequences.
Or maybe groups like www.futureofmusic.org (http://www.futureofmusic.org) will get the message across that the music industry sucks because artists have to agree to relenquish control of their works and then don't get fairly compensated but, p2p networks, in which artists have control of their work stolen from them and receive no compensation, suck even more.
And Future of Music isn't some major label lobbying group, it's a collection of independent musicians and labels run by Jenny Toomey (formerly of Tsunami and Simple Machines) who lobby the government against media consolidation, in support of on-line radio, and in support of overhauling major label practices so that artists get fair compensation for their work and consumers get broader exposure to music.
-
it appears that the riaa and their minions are issuing subpeonas and warning letters to file sharers and downloaders.
the electronic freedom frontier foundation and the p2p companies are forming lobbying groups in order to change the laws in order to allow for file sharing. but they are fighting an uphill battle against the riaa and hollywood.
ultimately i see the current effort by the riaa backfiring. it's only going to make people work harder at trading files and create even more ill feelings toward the large record companies. and in the wake of pearl jam strike out on their own i see more groups of their statue leaving the big companies.
-
Maybe if they put a few of these "file thieves" behind bars it might get the message out that theft is wrong?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Good question. I don't know the answer. I think perhaps the labels waited too long to do something about it and now there is a whole sub-generation that thinks that music is simply free. It's hard to unlearn that behavior.
Depending on how the lawsuits go, perhaps people will see that there are consequences.
Or maybe groups like www.futureofmusic.org (http://www.futureofmusic.org) will get the message across that the music industry sucks because artists have to agree to relenquish control of their works and then don't get fairly compensated but, p2p networks, in which artists have control of their work stolen from them and receive no compensation, suck even more.
And Future of Music isn't some major label lobbying group, it's a collection of independent musicians and labels run by Jenny Toomey (formerly of Tsunami and Simple Machines) who lobby the government against media consolidation, in support of on-line radio, and in support of overhauling major label practices so that artists get fair compensation for their work and consumers get broader exposure to music.
that organization seems like a great thing to come along... people should be educated about music and downloading legally so people can still enjoy their music without being thrown in jail or fined 250,000$ i guess punishment should be used as an example of threat, but when it comes down to it, instead of castigating music listeners, they should "reform" them so they don't swear off listening to music forever. i think that doing so would prevent further losses in the future.
-
Maybe if they put a few of these "file thieves" behind bars it might get the message out that theft is wrong?
Yeh! That's certainly worked with murder, drugs, rape, etc.
-
and by "reform" i meant educate them about what they were/are doing and how they should stop that but find alternate means of listening to the music they love without "giving into the Man" or whatever.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Maybe if they put a few of these "file thieves" behind bars it might get the message out that theft is wrong?
Yeh! That's certainly worked with murder, drugs, rape, etc.
I was thinking for otherwise law abiding people...like Paige for example, she's now thinking "oh shit". Thieving bastards are thieving bastards you can't change that, but when someone comes up with a creative name like "file sharing" I can understand why some folk wouldn't realize it's actually stealing, because there's nothing tangible that you've picked up and shoved in your pocket.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I was thinking for otherwise law abiding people...like Paige for example, she's now thinking "oh shit". Thieving bastards are thieving bastards you can't change that, but when someone comes up with a creative name like "file sharing" I can understand why some folk wouldn't realize it's actually stealing, because there's nothing tangible that you've picked up and shoved in your pocket.
i usually have a good conscience that tells me if something i have done isn't the most sound of all decisions.. it's easy to get caught up in the accessibility of downloading and forget what you are actually doing. and since this whole idea has surfaced in the past few months, i don't think i have downloaded any songs. i do feel guilty, because when it comes down to it i don't think it's right to take away from an artist's "fruits of labor" - especially with smaller, indie artists, but then again with huge artists like britney spears, will she notice that she has $439735 million dollars instead of $465089? yes yes i know either way it's wrong.. i'm just trying to make a point.
-
Just look at things from the artists perspective and try to put yourselves in their shoes.
What if somebody developed the technology to steal XM radio for free, and everyone justified it by saying that $200 for installation and $100/year for XM radio was too much and they already paid for the car and go to lots of concerts and buy CDs, so they feel no qualms about stealing it.
That would kind of suck, wouldn't it?
-
Good point. Similarly, the recent full page ad in the NY Times that the RIAA took out telling file sharers to get lawyers made me remove Kazaa from my computer.
As a reformed thieving bastard, I feel that I have fully reintegrated myself into society:)
Originally posted by mankie:
Thieving bastards are thieving bastards you can't change that, but when someone comes up with a creative name like "file sharing" I can understand why some folk wouldn't realize it's actually stealing, because there's nothing tangible that you've picked up and shoved in your pocket.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Just look at things from the artists perspective and try to put yourselves in their shoes.
What if somebody developed the technology to steal XM radio for free, and everyone justified it by saying that $200 for installation and $100/year for XM radio was too much and they already paid for the car and go to lots of concerts and buy CDs, so they feel no qualms about stealing it.
That would kind of suck, wouldn't it?
way to use an analogy that hits close to home :)
you have a valid point but i can't see it comparing to downloading songs. how much do you think that one song is "worth"? if people were stealing xm, i think it would have a greater immediate effect than downloading a song or two... hmmm
-
Originally posted by paige:
way to use an analogy that hits close to home :)
you have a valid point but i can't see it comparing to downloading songs. how much do you think that one song is "worth"? if people were stealing xm, i think it would have a greater immediate effect than downloading a song or two... hmmm
Let's say they found a way to steal the signal for only one or two stations. Is it fair now?
Because, they could say that those are the only two stations they want to listen to, and it isn't fair that they have to pay for the whole product when they only want a part of it. And since you won't sell them just those two stations at the price they are willing to pay for it, then it's not really stealing, and even if it is, it's your fault that they are stealing it since you won't give them exactly what they want at exactly the price they want to pay.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Good point. Similarly, the recent full page ad in the NY Times that the RIAA took out telling file sharers to get lawyers made me remove Kazaa from my computer.
As a reformed thieving bastard, I feel that I have fully reintegrated myself into society:)
As a sign of solidarity I just removed WinMX from mine.
But here's an interesting dilemma... I once had a indie band tell I should download their out of print cd off another sharing service as long as i promised to buy it if it ever gets rereleased.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Let's say they found a way to steal the signal for only one or two stations. Is it fair now?
Because, they could say that those are the only two stations they want to listen to, and it isn't fair that they have to pay for the whole product when they only want a part of it. And since you won't sell them just those two stations at the price they are willing to pay for it, then it's not really stealing, and even if it is, it's your fault that they are stealing it since you won't give them exactly what they want at exactly the price they want to pay.
ok ok ok ok i get your point!!! :o however, when youre downloading songs, you own the computer, and all of the equipment that came with it. i know you said something about this before and how we don't own the rights to the songs, but with the xm, you cant steal the signal because you need to have the xm radio itself installed in your car or house to even receive one. without the radio unit, the signal is worthless.
-
Says you...
Originally posted by paige:
but with the xm, you cant steal the signal because you need to have the xm radio itself installed in your car or house to even receive one. without the radio unit, the signal is worthless.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Says you...
Originally posted by paige:
but with the xm, you cant steal the signal because you need to have the xm radio itself installed in your car or house to even receive one. without the radio unit, the signal is worthless.
[/b]
ok, to my knowledge that is not possible, im not very technologically inclined... what do YOU know about that, thirsty?!
-
Telephone wire, a pair of braces, and a perfectly placed cloud.
-
Strangeways, Here I Come!
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
a pair of braces
once markie gets his he can be the recipient of his own xm radio! YAY!
-
Originally posted by paige:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Let's say they found a way to steal the signal for only one or two stations. Is it fair now?
Because, they could say that those are the only two stations they want to listen to, and it isn't fair that they have to pay for the whole product when they only want a part of it. And since you won't sell them just those two stations at the price they are willing to pay for it, then it's not really stealing, and even if it is, it's your fault that they are stealing it since you won't give them exactly what they want at exactly the price they want to pay.
ok ok ok ok i get your point!!! :o however, when youre downloading songs, you own the computer, and all of the equipment that came with it. i know you said something about this before and how we don't own the rights to the songs, but with the xm, you cant steal the signal because you need to have the xm radio itself installed in your car or house to even receive one. without the radio unit, the signal is worthless. [/b]
Suppose Thirsty concocted this little thigamajig that rebroadcasts XM stations onto AM wavelengths. I could say that Thirsty is just "sharing" his XM stations with me. I haven't really "stolen" anything from you, since you are broadcasting that station regardless of whether I tapped into it or not. Plus, you aren't losing any money because I wouldn't have bought your stupid XM radio anyway. And I already paid for the car and the house and the stereo.
-
Hey GGW, you're wearing one of those powedered wigs aren't you.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Suppose Thirsty concocted this little thigamajig that rebroadcasts XM stations onto AM wavelengths. I could say that Thirsty is just "sharing" his XM stations with me. I haven't really "stolen" anything from you, since you are broadcasting that station regardless of whether I tapped into it or not. Plus, you aren't losing any money because I wouldn't have bought your stupid XM radio anyway. And I already paid for the car and the house and the stereo.
i surrender! enough heckling. you win. :(
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
[QB]
As a reformed thieving bastard, I feel that I have fully reintegrated myself into society:)
Well, there is that sexual offenders registry issue, but we'll let that slide...welcome back to society, just stay the hell away from my Kathleen and Rory!
-
<img src="http://www.wccm.org/images/jm10.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
That's exactly what I pictured. You think ol' Chauncey has ever downloaded a song?
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
That's exactly what I pictured. You think ol' Chauncey has ever downloaded a song?
Wouldn't be proper.
-
Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry?
I dont have all of the money in the world, i cant buy ALL of the music I want AND go see it live....so the msuci industry can take thier pick, i can buy all the CDs and never go to a show...or i can go to some shows and download some music....well, they are still getting the same amount of money from me.
-
I at one time was under the belief that downloading was unethical, but now think very differently and am far from throwing in the towel on this debate. Let's get our heads out of the "law" part of this. The law is as ambiguous as it gets and is just guided (or mis) by current philosophy. So you mean to tell me we have reached a point where artists are going after people who want to hear their music? What 99% of the bands on the planet would do for that scenario. We are being outcast by sound of all things. I think the best analogy would be Ferrari suing me for experiencing extreme delight at their expense simply by looking at their cars (light waves that belong to someone else)... because I didn't pay for it. This is totally disregarding the fact that because of this delight I might buy t-shirts, tell someone else of my delight, or heaven forbid be fortunate enough to one day drive or own one. It's digital sound for crying out loud! And that it is somehow illegal for me to listen to it? What about the concerts, t-shirts, and (once again) heaven forbid a CD that cost in a price range that makes any other way of accessing the "sound" foolish. Back to the law: if enough people support this logic and we understand that big execs with lots of money control current guidlines... the laws can be changed (or viewed) to make this debate a forgone conclusion. We can fuss over many incidentals between there and here, but the bottom line is... it is insane to criminalize people for listening to music. If you want to profit from it, check the technology and adjust your marketing... it's that simple.
-
Originally posted by myuman:
... it is insane to criminalize people for listening to music.
Listening to music isn't criminalized, only stealing it is.
Originally posted by myuman:
If you want to profit from it, check the technology and adjust your marketing... it's that simple.
So if a girl doesn't want to be raped, she should just give it up. It's that simple.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry?
I dont have all of the money in the world, i cant buy ALL of the music I want AND go see it live....so the msuci industry can take thier pick, i can buy all the CDs and never go to a show...or i can go to some shows and download some music....well, they are still getting the same amount of money from me.
justify all you want, but if you are downloading a song which has not be released by the copywriter holder for download for either free or by purchase, it's illegal.
the thing is there is no one size fits all solution in a environment where everyone wants to acquire content their own way. personally i would like to have access a vast electronic library i can subscribe to for unlimited sampling etc. emusic is a start but not complete by any means. itunes is expensive away to pay for the digital rights to music for the serious record buyer, given the fact that i might also like to own the physcial product as well.
-
I would have to say that if i was in a band I would rather people NOT listen to my music at all if they arent paying for it. I mean, shit, if they dont have the money or the decency to pay me for what i did, then they shouldnt even be listening.
If someone enjoys my music, then they should pay me, none of this free indulging crap, PAY ME......come on, really
How genuinely American!
-
myuman...listen to it on your pooter all you want. As soon as you download it or burn a cd, you've nicked it!
Looking at the Ferrari is like listening to the song....burning the cd is driving the Ferrari away.
Sonickteam...I don't agree with your point either...if I steal a pair of Levis from the store, then like them so much I go back and buy another pair...have I stolen something?
It's like those who get cable tv without paying for it. They're stealing, but what EXACTLY are they stealing? It doesn't matter..they're still stealing.
-
Originally posted by myuman:
Ferrari
Poor analogy. A better analogy is computer software. You should pay for it right? Downloading it from a peer to peer is also illegal.
I do believe people and companies should profit from their creations.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry?
Which is why there are label sites, band sites, mp3.com, insound, etc... --- Not to mention radio, TV, listening stations, etc...
The issue is whether you have the right to take ownership of somebody else's property and distribute without any compensation to the owner.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I dont have all of the money in the world, i cant buy ALL of the music I want AND go see it live....so the msuci industry can take thier pick, i can buy all the CDs and never go to a show...or i can go to some shows and download some music....well, they are still getting the same amount of money from me.
I can't buy ALL the [insert absolutely any product here] I want. So they can just take as much money as I am willing to give them and let me have as much [insert absolutely any product here] as I want or else I'll just steal it from them.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
myuman...listen to it on your pooter all you want. As soon as you download it or burn a cd, you've nicked it!
Looking at the Ferrari is like listening to the song....burning the cd is driving the Ferrari away.
Sonickteam...I don't agree with your point either...if I steal a pair of Levis from the store, then like them so much I go back and buy another pair...have I stolen something?
It's like those who get cable tv without paying for it. They're stealing, but what EXACTLY are they stealing? It doesn't matter..they're still stealing.
Well, if didnt "steal" all of the songs i stole, then i wouldnt know about a lot of the bands that i have paid to go see or eventually bought thier CD. so....ok, i wont steal, but then i wont buy thier album or see thier show. NOW whos losing money...there is a gray area in this argument here...its not black and white stealing/shoplifting, you cant compare it to that.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[qb] Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry? [/b]
would that actually be a crime though. I mean you own the right to have the songs as Mp3s or whatever on your computer when you buy the CD.
What happens if you buy the CD and then download a song from it, that must be legal?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would have to say that if i was in a band I would rather people NOT listen to my music at all if they arent paying for it. I mean, shit, if they dont have the money or the decency to pay me for what i did, then they shouldnt even be listening.
If someone enjoys my music, then they should pay me, none of this free indulging crap, PAY ME......come on, really
How genuinely American!
If it was your band and your copyrighted work, you could give it away to whomever you wanted.
It's not your band, its not your copyrighted work, so you can't.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would have to say that if i was in a band I would rather people NOT listen to my music at all if they arent paying for it. I mean, shit, if they dont have the money or the decency to pay me for what i did, then they shouldnt even be listening.
If someone enjoys my music, then they should pay me, none of this free indulging crap, PAY ME......come on, really
How genuinely American!
Maybe they could listen to it on the radio?
-
Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[qb] Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry? [/b]
would that actually be a crime though. I mean you own the right to have the songs as Mp3s or whatever on your computer when you buy the CD.
What happens if you buy the CD and then download a song from it, that must be legal? [/b]
I was just stating that if i downloaded a song and then liked it, which caused me to go to a show or buy a CD of that band, then I "stole" from them. But that "stealing" is also the reason i have purchased a CD or ticket. hence, the gray area for this subject.
-
Originally posted by markie:
I do believe people and companies should profit from their creations.
Agreed... but the haggling here is really about the amount. We pretty much have a concensus that 10 dollars will do it. Sure, the artists I guess could charge a $1000, but then I will be more inclined to use hardware that actually reads the portion of the cd that I do own, and share only that portion with others. Oh, and I believe there is technology to read only that portion (the plastic grooves, etc.) and makes it into that sound that gives me pleasure. Software parallel: well, I think MS pretty much has put an end to that with thier own approach to people using it without paying (except the very few that really know what they are doing)... end result: rolling in dough.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Maybe they could listen to it on the radio?
they could if i was one of the 8 bands they actually play on the radio.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[
What happens if you buy the CD and then download a song from it, that must be legal?
I was just stating......[/QB][/QUOTE]
I know I was trying to highlight the greyness.
For example if they caught you file downloading, but then when they came round your house they found you owned all the CDs for those files, is that illegal?
-
Wait. before i look like an evil file sharer...i dont have files available for upload on my computer. If someone would like to upload from me , they must contact me first. I WILL share, but not at will.
And i am on Kazaa like once every other week for like an hour....i get most of my stuff from Emusic.
just to clarify...
-
Originally posted by myuman:
Originally posted by markie:
I do believe people and companies should profit from their creations.
Agreed... but the haggling here is really about the amount. [/b]
I dont see it. these items are not necessities. You only get what you want and can afford to buy. Like GGW has been saying all along.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by mankie:
Maybe they could listen to it on the radio?
they could if i was one of the 8 bands they actually play on the radio. [/b]
You could go to Ft. Reno and such places.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I was just stating that if i downloaded a song and then liked it, which caused me to go to a show or buy a CD of that band, then I "stole" from them. But that "stealing" is also the reason i have purchased a CD or ticket. hence, the gray area for this subject.
what the riaa, along with others on this board, is saying is there is no "grey" area. just because loads of people have done it dosen't make it right.
it's shame there aren't more artist like tim burgess out there. he's making available five of his songs from his solo record available to listen to. and download if you happen to know how to retrieve them from your cache. now is it illegal to have those files on my machine because i pulled them outta of my cache?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Well, if didnt "steal" all of the songs i stole, then i wouldnt know about a lot of the bands that i have paid to go see or eventually bought thier CD. so....ok, i wont steal, but then i wont buy thier album or see thier show. NOW whos losing money...there is a gray area in this argument here...its not black and white stealing/shoplifting, you cant compare it to that.
Well, the manufacturers and distributors of [insert any product here] are not marketing their product to me in the most efficient manner, therefore I am justified in stealing their [insert any product here] from them and distributing [insert any product here] on my own without giving them any compensation.
Sorry, that argument still holds no water.
-
Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[
What happens if you buy the CD and then download a song from it, that must be legal?
I was just stating......[/b]
I know I was trying to highlight the greyness.
For example if they caught you file downloading, but then when they came round your house they found you owned all the CDs for those files, is that illegal? [/QB][/QUOTE]
lol....that would be funny. not sure why you would download a song you already have. Also, what about all of those people that share misnamed files...is that illegal too?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Wait. before i look like an evil file sharer...i dont have files available for upload on my computer. If someone would like to upload from me , they must contact me first. I WILL share, but not at will.
Translation: I only distribute [insert any stolen item here] to people that contact me and tell me that they want [insert any stolen product here].
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
And i am on Kazaa like once every other week for like an hour....i get most of my stuff from Emusic.
just to clarify...
Translation: I only steal a little, so it's not really stealing.....just to clarify.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Well, the manufacturers and distributors of [insert any product here] are not marketing their product to me in the most efficient manner, therefore I am justified in stealing their [insert any product here] from them and distributing [insert any product here] on my own without giving them any compensation.
Sorry, that argument still holds no water. [/b]
But is going to a show after listening to a downloaded song "not any compensation" ? if i download 3 songs from a band, like them, and then pay $10 to see thier show, i call that...compensation.
The problem with your arguement is that you are stubborn :)
-
Originally posted by myuman:
Agreed... but the haggling here is really about the amount. We pretty much have a concensus that 10 dollars will do it. Sure, the artists I guess could charge a $1000, but then I will be more inclined to use hardware that actually reads the portion of the cd that I do own, and share only that portion with others.
Translation: If I don't like the price of [insert any product here] then I am justified in stealing [insert any product here] and distributing it without compensating the rightful owner. If the owner of [insert any product here] doesn't like it, he can either accept the price I am offering him or accept that I'm just going to take it.
Face it dude, just because it's music and you do it on your computer doesn't mean you are any better or different than the common thief on the street. I'm sure the common mugger has a clear conscience as well.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
But is going to a show after listening to a downloaded song "not any compensation" ? if i download 3 songs from a band, like them, and then pay $10 to see thier show, i call that...compensation.
The problem with your arguement is that you are stubborn :)
If Honda doesn't allow me to test drive one of their cars, chances are I'm not going to buy one and they are going to lose out on my purchase. But if Honda doesn't allow me to test drive the car. it doesn't make it ethical or legal for me to steal one off the lot.
The problem with my argument is that I am right :D
(The other problem is that we are talking about music, which people like yourself are very passionate about (rightfully so) and will often go to great lengths to get. But in the end, that passion doesn't mean that stealing isn't stealing.)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
But is going to a show after listening to a downloaded song "not any compensation" ? if i download 3 songs from a band, like them, and then pay $10 to see thier show, i call that...compensation.
The problem with your arguement is that you are stubborn :)
If Honda doesn't allow me to test drive one of their cars, chances are I'm not going to buy one and they are going to lose out on my purchase. But if Honda doesn't allow me to test drive the car. it doesn't make it ethical or legal for me to steal one off the lot.
The problem with my argument is that I am right :D
(The other problem is that we are talking about music, which people like yourself are very passionate about (rightfully so) and will often go to great lengths to get. But in the end, that passion doesn't mean that stealing isn't stealing.) [/b]
your pig headedness astounds me! I spend $50 or more every week on music whether its shows or CDs...I work in a damn record store helping people select music they will like, and so I download some songs so that i can hear whats new and help me decide what to buy and what shows to go to...it may be stealing but you placing me or others just like me in the same category as a mugger or a car thief is kind of ludicrous dont you think?
-
oh and that "Translation" thing, is really lame and you should stop it cause it's just tacky.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
your pig headedness astounds me! I spend $50 or more every week on music whether its shows or CDs...I work in a damn record store helping people select music they will like, and so I download some songs so that i can hear whats new and help me decide what to buy and what shows to go to...it may be stealing but you placing me or others just like me in the same category as a mugger or a car thief is kind of ludicrous dont you think?
Not at all. You are taking something that doesn't belong to you (stealing) and using it for your benefit.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
it may be stealing but you placing me or others just like me in the same category as a mugger or a car thief is kind of ludicrous dont you think?
[/b]
I'm not..but you are just like a low-life petty shop lifter.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
oh and that "Translation" thing, is really lame and you should stop it cause it's just tacky.
Translation: Your devastatingly effective debating tactics are rapidly wearing down my lame excuses.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
your pig headedness astounds me! I spend $50 or more every week on music whether its shows or CDs...I work in a damn record store
so, don't you get promotional pre-release samples?
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
your pig headedness astounds me! I spend $50 or more every week on music whether its shows or CDs...I work in a damn record store
so, don't you get promotional pre-release samples? [/b]
yeah...so? not from every band....which is why what i download is very very minimal...i was orignally more arguing the point, not my specific downloading habits, since really I do not feel as though I am doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
oh and that "Translation" thing, is really lame and you should stop it cause it's just tacky.
Translation: Your devastatingly effective debating tactics are rapidly wearing down my lame excuses. [/b]
hehe
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
it may be stealing but you placing me or others just like me in the same category as a mugger or a car thief is kind of ludicrous dont you think?
[/b]
I'm not..but you are just like a low-life petty shop lifter. [/b]
I've been called much worse to be honest. Stealing or not, i still feel as though i participate in the music industry much more than most. I sleep well at night. ;)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I've been called much worse to be honest. Stealing or not, i still feel as though i participate in the music industry much more than most. I sleep well at night. :D
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
since really I do not feel as though I am doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect.
[/b]
"So Mr. Kolbe Bryant, you are hereby charged with sexual assault, how do you plead"
"Oh, come on your honor, it was only one girl, that one time, I'm not doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect"
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
since really I do not feel as though I am doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect.
[/b]
"So Mr. Kolbe Bryant, you are hereby charged with sexual assault, how do you plead"
"Oh, come on your honor, it was only one girl, that one time, I'm not doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect" [/b]
I repeat.
I did not have sexual relations with those music files.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
since really I do not feel as though I am doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect.
[/b]
"So Mr. Kolbe Bryant, you are hereby charged with sexual assault, how do you plead"
"Oh, come on your honor, it was only one girl, that one time, I'm not doing that much wrong....just a little...and no one is perfect" [/b]
I repeat.
I did not have sexual relations with those music files. [/b]
Would you like to withdraw that statement before we check your monitor and keyboard for semen residue?
-
ummm, In Canada we are allowed to steal music.....Cretian said so.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
ummm, In Canada we are allowed to steal music.....Cretian said so.
eh!
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
ummm, In Canada we are allowed to steal music.....Cretian said so.
eh! [/b]
i say "eh!" you say "oi!"
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i say "eh!" you say "oi!"
[/b]
"eh!" "oi!' "eh!" "oi!" "eh!" and on that farm he had some coos "eh!" "oi!" "eh!" "oi!" "eh!"
-
You know, I've wondered the same thing. About 25% of the music I've downloaded has been stuff I've previously purchased (just to listen to at work, etc), and the rest has been music that isn't readily available (out of print b-sides, singles, etc). Not that I'm anywhere near the top-tier pirates I'm sure they're looking for, but I wonder what the cut-off is.
Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[qb] Let me create a scenario....I hear of a band, and i download a few of thier songs, and then I decide that i like them, and i buy thier CD and/or check out thier show. Well, now doesnt that seem like its benefitting the music industry? [/b]
would that actually be a crime though. I mean you own the right to have the songs as Mp3s or whatever on your computer when you buy the CD.
What happens if you buy the CD and then download a song from it, that must be legal? [/b]
-
From what I remember working there, it's not legal to own the CD and still download the songs. But you can always check www.riaa.com. (http://www.riaa.com.)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
posted by sonickteam2:
For example if they caught you file downloading, but then when they came round your house they found you owned all the CDs for those files, is that illegal?
[/b]
If you want two copies you should've bought two cd's.
-
What about things like out-of-print material? Is there some legal action against downloading those? Not that I'm worried about it, since I'm not even close to the level of pirating that some former roommates of mine were, but still...
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
From what I remember working there, it's not legal to own the CD and still download the songs. But you can always check www.riaa.com. (http://www.riaa.com.)
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
From what I remember working there, it's not legal to own the CD and still download the songs. But you can always check www.riaa.com. (http://www.riaa.com.)
ERROR: 400
Incorrect hostname.
What happens if you buy the CD rip it, then the CD becomes lost or stolen, is that illegal?
-
Originally posted by markie:
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
From what I remember working there, it's not legal to own the CD and still download the songs. But you can always check www.riaa.com. (http://www.riaa.com.)
ERROR: 400
Incorrect hostname.
What happens if you buy the CD rip it, then the CD becomes lost or stolen, is that illegal? [/b]
or if you loan it to your mate, but that wallie loses it and you still have it downloaded on your computer but you didn't keep the receipt from when you actually purchased the cd, is that legal?
-
OR!
you buy the cd..it's defective but the bastards at Tower won't let you exchange it so you go home and "share" it on your computer then burn a cd, is that legal?
-
I think there should be a system where you can download an album, but not have to pay for it unless you listen to it more than 5 or 10 times. If something is junk...you shouldn't have to pay for it. Then you can try out more because you aren't out $15 for a CD/mp3 that ends up sucking or not standing the test of time.
If you could return opened cd's, that's one thing. When I buy a digital camera and try it out but it's not the right thing for me, then I can return it. But you can't do that with music that you buy. I can't get a good feeling for an album just by "previewing" it. I need to walk to work with it on my ipod or listen to it in my car.
So downloading music fills in this "trial period" gap. I buy any album that grows on me after mp3 listenings. (before this...i would spend about $100-$200 a month on cd's, at least half of which i'd sell used in a year).
Another question...which is worse: downloading mp3's of an album or buying the album used?
-
Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
Another question...which is worse: downloading mp3's of an album or buying the album used?
that's not really relevant...it's completely legal to buy a used CD
-
The RIAA site is probably getting hacked daily because of their recent actions.
Originally posted by markie:
ERROR: 400
Incorrect hostname.
-
What happens if you buy the CD rip it, then the CD becomes lost or stolen, is that illegal? [/QB]
no
under fair use you can rip or copy the cd for personal use... if you couldn't then ipod and any other mp3 playing devices would be illegal. so having a mp3s of a personal cd which is lost or stolen would not be considered illegal because would be your archival copy of the orginial.
the whole point of what the riaa is doing is to make a stand and saying that music should not be considered free and are setting out to prove their point.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
The RIAA site is probably getting hacked daily because of their recent actions.
the address just doesnt have a period on the end of it www.riaa.org (http://www.riaa.org)
-
Ah, a slip on my part. However, recently the site has been down numerous times.
-
What if you go out and buy a CD and then rip it onto your computer and then return the CD to where you bought it? And then go home and "share" it. Is that legal?
oh, and i have a comment on used Cds. so...someone buys a CD, listens to it, and then doesnt like it, or needs heroin money, sells it back and then you buy it for $6. Thats not giving any money to RIAA...so for all intents and purposes its the same right? I mean, we dont even keep inventory of used CDs so we can't know which used CDs we have bought/sold.
So just because we are paying for it makes it legal...even if we arent paying the artist OR the label.
so in that case, if i CHARGE people to download my stuff on Kazaa , then is THAT legal?
-
I own over 3.000 vinyl albums and about the same amount of cd's. All of the vinyl and most of the cd's are still in the states because it would cost a small fortune to ship them over to England. If I download songs or albums that I've already bought once, but because of logistics, don't have access to the originals, am I a thief? If so, like Thom Yorke says..."Hail To The Thief"!
Mankie, if you would have downloaded a couple of those Interpol songs, you wouldn't have wasted $15 on the full length. Maybe that's what the record companies are afraid of! Out of curiosity, are your Rain Band, Elbow and I Am Kloot cd's store bought originals or copies? If they're copies, are they copies of downloaded songs? Is that illegal too?
Are promotional cd's illegal to buy? Can I go to jail or fined for buying them too? Maybe the RIAA should concentrate on the technology that enables songs to be ripped into mp3 files. They're about to cut off their nose to spite their face.
-
Originally posted by Yank:
Are promotional cd's illegal to buy? Can I go to jail or fined for buying them too? Maybe the RIAA should concentrate on the technology that enables songs to be ripped into mp3 files. They're about to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Here's the dirty little not so secret pratice which shows why the record industry really doesn't care about their artists and making money.
I understand why promos are important but when the market is so flooded by them that the just end up in the bargin bins for less than the price of a used cd. Of course neither the artist or the record company is making money when the promos get sold.
The record companies and the artists should be taking advantage of the new distribution system the internet provides. Charge a flat subscription fee for those of us who would normally seek out the cut rate promos. That way there is still money coming in and would get value to the digital version of the record and also in the process possibly lower the price of the physical product because people are contributing money in different ways.
-
Originally posted by Yank:
I own over 3.000 vinyl albums and about the same amount of cd's. All of the vinyl and most of the cd's are still in the states because it would cost a small fortune to ship them over to England. If I download songs or albums that I've already bought once, but because of logistics, don't have access to the originals, am I a thief? If so, like Thom Yorke says..."Hail To The Thief"!
Mankie, if you would have downloaded a couple of those Interpol songs, you wouldn't have wasted $15 on the full length. Maybe that's what the record companies are afraid of! Out of curiosity, are your Rain Band, Elbow and I Am Kloot cd's store bought originals or copies? If they're copies, are they copies of downloaded songs? Is that illegal too?
Are promotional cd's illegal to buy? Can I go to jail or fined for buying them too? Maybe the RIAA should concentrate on the technology that enables songs to be ripped into mp3 files. They're about to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I got the cd's from a friend...I assume she burned them from her private collection that she bought...or at least were given by the band or someone connected to the band, ;) Anyway, you've lived in the north west for long enough to know you never ask were it came from! :p
Look, I'm not being holier than thou on this issue, I'm just trying to get people to understand/admit that it is stealing, regardless of whatever creative name they can come up with for it. If you don't get caught then God bless, but if you do don't start whinging about it.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Look, I'm not being holier than thou on this issue, I'm just trying to get people to understand/admit that it is stealing, regardless of whatever creative name they can come up with for it. If you don't get caught then God bless, but if you do don't start whinging about it. [/QB]
Very well put, better than anything I've come up with so far. Wisdom really does come with Age. ;)
-
what if you work in the music industry and you get hooked up with free cd's all the time because of who you know and band's managers and what not? is it still stealing if they say it's ok? i think it is, based on what has been going on back and forth on this topic for 4 pages anyway.
-
404 is because the site is NOT .com it is .org!
http://www.riaa.com/ (http://www.riaa.com/)
DOH!
-
It still stands that the stealers can come up with endless excuses to justify what they do. None of them will ever change the fact that they are stealing. You are stealing, I know it, you know it, the RIAA knows it, and the artist you are stealing from knows it. That is all there is to the whole discussion at all. End of story.
BTW, I was surprised and pleased to see that so many of you agreed with my original post of my views. I was not sure what kind of repies to expect.
(See you at the Eels show!)
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by mankie:
Look, I'm not being holier than thou on this issue, I'm just trying to get people to understand/admit that it is stealing, regardless of whatever creative name they can come up with for it. If you don't get caught then God bless, but if you do don't start whinging about it. [/b]
Very well put, better than anything I've come up with so far. Wisdom really does come with Age. ;) [/QB]
So do hemorrhoids! ;)
-
to go along with Yank's comment about cd's from friends that are burned... i've noticed that on this board, a few of you have asked each other "will you have my cd's at the [insert band here] show?" and if i can recall, the aforementioned cd's were burned.. that's just as bad as downloading songs!
many bands do have ways to download songs directly through their website... but sigur ros encourages using p2p programs that are listen on their site as well... if some bands condone it and some don't, what is there to do?
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
It still stands that the stealers can come up with endless excuses to justify what they do. None of them will ever change the fact that they are stealing. You are stealing, I know it, you know it, the RIAA knows it, and the artist you are stealing from knows it. That is all there is to the whole discussion at all. End of story.
BTW, I was surprised and pleased to see that so many of you agreed with my original post of my views. I was not sure what kind of repies to expect.
(See you at the Eels show!)
As mentioned earlier, driving down I95 at 70 mph is a crime. Jaywalking is crime in a lot of states (or at least it was). Drinking at the 930 Club during a show and then driving home afterwards is a crime too. I'm sure we can think of a lot more crimes that are committed daily by all of us so-called law abiding people. I'm not trying to justify downloading, but I won't be sanctimonious about it either. There sure are a lot of stone throwers around here.
-
This is from today's Liverpool Echo.
On-The-Spot fines are set to be introduced against people who ruin Liverpool's streets with chewing gum.
People who spit out their gum on the pavements will be targeted in a new campaign designed to clean up the city streets as we head towards European Capitol of Culture in 2008.
So if any of you are planning a trip to Liverpool in the near future, leave your chewies at home.
-
And if any of you do visit
Liverpool, you can expect to see a lot of............ <img src="http://www.dodgy-scouser.com/scousers.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by paige:
what if you work in the music industry and you get hooked up with free cd's all the time because of who you know and band's managers and what not? is it still stealing if they say it's ok? i think it is, based on what has been going on back and forth on this topic for 4 pages anyway.
providing promo cds is a standard practice in the music industry... but remember it's the artist and the record company which are giving them away. as the copywrite holder they own the right to whatever they want with the material. if it means dropping loads of promos and not getting paid for them it's their choice.
-
Originally posted by paige:
to go along with Yank's comment about cd's from friends that are burned... i've noticed that on this board, a few of you have asked each other "will you have my cd's at the [insert band here] show?" and if i can recall, the aforementioned cd's were burned.. that's just as bad as downloading songs!
many bands do have ways to download songs directly through their website... but sigur ros encourages using p2p programs that are listen on their site as well... if some bands condone it and some don't, what is there to do?
be very very quiet we are hunting rabbits....
in all cases you have to abide by what the band choices to do with their copywrited material. some are more liberal than others (sigur ros and elbow).
-
Originally posted by Yank:
As mentioned earlier, driving down I95 at 70 mph is a crime. Jaywalking is crime in a lot of states (or at least it was). Drinking at the 930 Club during a show and then driving home afterwards is a crime too. I'm sure we can think of a lot more crimes that are committed daily by all of us so-called law abiding people. I'm not trying to justify downloading, but I won't be sanctimonious about it either. There sure are a lot of stone throwers around here.
i think that that is a really good point to raise, yank. while other laws we break don't sound as "horrible" as stealing does, it's still breaking the law. so i think that everyone who is like "either way you look at it, you are stealing music" should stop sounding sooo self righteous unless you abide all laws across the board.
-
A Scouser's salute to the fine people of Manchester........
<img src="http://www.dodgy-scouser.com/pics/pic1.jpg" alt=" - " />