Do You Pirate Music?

[Cassie]

While I may be a 16-year-old who doesn't see anything wrong with sharing music,
You mean besides the fact that it's illegal?

[mpw]

...you are the one who goes down...
Trust me, there's only three members of this forum I'd go down for, and you are not one of them.
...insulting me and then denying that you have gone down several levels and insulting me once again...
Show me the insult.

I've said that you're a thief, something you don't deny. I've said that you're a child, it was you that claimed to be 16years old; a child. I've said you don't understand that stealing is wrong, you argue you have a high moral code... but don't see that stealing is wrong if done over the internet.

Exactly where have I insulted you? I remind you that it is you that said "**** you" to me.

...Does that ring any bells?...
Yes, of course. It's a question I posed earlier, not a statement, a question. The implication was that I was 'low' by stating my opinion based on the facts you and the other poster had supplied, I merely asked the question to highlight that, as self-confessed thieves, you were pretty low yourselves.

...You seem incapable of responding to an argument...
Other than plain facts what do you expect me to say to a thief whose only argument is that he'll steal what he wants because he doesn't think stealing and cheating is wrong?

It's very, very simple you are stealing what is not yours, and that is wrong.

My argument is not even solely about whether it's against the law, as there are plenty of daft laws; but what you're doing is wrong.

Provide me an argument as to why you believe you have a right to own a product of somebody else's effort without paying for it?

And think about what you want to do for a living in a few short years, and how you're going to feel when people don't pay you for your hard work... or do you feel entitled to a free ride then, planning to sponge off others, parents/family/friends/partner/tax-payer?

[wmw71190]

Yes, I pirate music on occasion. I know it's illegal, and wrong. But for the prices that some companies charge for CD's, and how little of that money goes back to the artists, some of those CEO's are to blame. If I download a CD from an artist that I really like, I will definitely pay for it. For example, if I get the torrented version of Viva la Vida, like it, I go on iTunes, and download it with my iTunes money. I don't steal unless I feel like I'm going to get screwed out of $10 for crappy music.

If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's just my personal decision.

[iParis]

Yes, I pirate music on occasion. I know it's illegal, and wrong. But for the prices that some companies charge for CD's, and how little of that money goes back to the artists, some of those CEO's are to blame. If I download a CD from an artist that I really like, I will definitely pay for it. For example, if I get the torrented version of Viva la Vida, like it, I go on iTunes, and download it with my iTunes money. I don't steal unless I feel like I'm going to get screwed out of $10 for crappy music.

If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's just my personal decision.

I like your way of thinking.
I would do that but there's the part where I don't have the money to buy CDs (hence I'm only 15).

[Compile 'em all]

It's very, very simple you are stealing what is not yours, and that is wrong.


Stop repeating the word "stealing". Downloading a copy of a song that someone else is sharing to listen to ain't stealing. Would you consider it stealing if I bought a book and after reading it I gave it to you? would you be stealing that book since I gave it to you?.

Sharing was never a bad thing. People that oppose music sharing are those that want more for themselves and less for everybody else. If you make good music, people WILL pay for it.

[jpmittins]

You mean besides the fact that it's illegal?



Except it's not illegal. Someone who bought the music originally is merely sharing it across the internet. Since they purchased it, it is there's to do as they wish with it.

Trust me, there's only three members of this forum I'd go down for, and you are not one of them.

Mature. You know, there's young people on this forum who's minds you could be corrupting.

Show me the insult.

Well, first you called me a dumb kid, then a dumb thief, and then when someone said that what you had said was really cold, you merely said that you were merely going down to "my level". That sounds like you don't normally deal with children and are instead "dumbing down" your speech to an insulting level so I could understand you.

I've said that you're a thief, something you don't deny. I've said that you're a child, it was you that claimed to be 16years old; a child. I've said you don't understand that stealing is wrong, you argue you have a high moral code... but don't see that stealing is wrong if done over the internet.

I'm not a thief; see my earlier post. I am hereby declaring that all internet pirates are actually swashbucklers. I am actually a swashbuckler, not a thief or a pirate.

However, I don't think 16 is really a child. Child is more like under 10. After that, until 13, you're a pre-pubescent person. Then a teenager. Then you're a young adult at around 16/17. At 18 you're an adult. So I think it's insulting that you continue to call me a child. However, when you say I don't understand stealing is wrong; guess again. I have never directly stolen music. As I just said to Cassie, swashbuckling is simply sharing of an original copy with a large group of people. And abut my high moral code; let me give you a few examples. I have never plagiarized anything in my life, no matter how much time it would save me. I have only read Cliff Notes/Spark Notes twice in my life (which is stealing information); both times I had already read the book and I was looking at them to make sure I had understood the book. Thirdly, when my uncle died, we could not find a will and just took everything instead. I felt bad about that, thinking that I was possibly stealing from somebody who he could have willed something to someone. To me, taking something from a dead guy's apartment that you're not sure belongs to you it just graverobbing without the dirt.

Exactly where have I insulted you? I remind you that it is you that said "**** you" to me.

See part of my above post to see how you have insulted me.

Yes, of course. It's a question I posed earlier, not a statement, a question. The implication was that I was 'low' by stating my opinion based on the facts you and the other poster had supplied, I merely asked the question to highlight that, as self-confessed thieves, you were pretty low yourselves.


Other than plain facts what do you expect me to say to a thief whose only argument is that he'll steal what he wants because he doesn't think stealing and cheating is wrong?

I have said multiple times now, I am not stealing. Swashbuckling music is no different than one person distributing his/her (because buccaneering accepts all people, of all race, color, creed (and gender, religion, political view, etc)) own CD to a group of friends. P2P is just on a larger scale. Besides, it is not stealing unless I personally cause the artist to lose profits on a CD. Since I never caused the printing of a CD, I never stole money.[/QUOTE]

It's very, very simple you are stealing what is not yours, and that is wrong.

My argument is not even solely about whether it's against the law, as there are plenty of daft laws; but what you're doing is wrong.

Provide me an argument as to why you believe you have a right to own a product of somebody else's effort without paying for it?

Okay, imagine somebody makes a coat. Now imagine somebody makes a machine that allows the duplication of said coat, at such a negligible cost that nobody really cares about the price. Now, if you had this machine and you know a lot of people who need/want a coat, but are incapable of buying it, are you going to give them that coat, or make them pay for it?

Now substitute the idea of a coat making machine with a music album that is being shared through the internet; but-and this is important-the original copy was bought and is merely being shared. Is that so different?

And think about what you want to do for a living in a few short years, and how you're going to feel when people don't pay you for your hard work... or do you feel entitled to a free ride then, planning to sponge off others, parents/family/friends/partner/tax-payer?

Well, in a few years, I could very well be working at a Wawa, or a Rite Aid, or a McDonalds, or some other crappy job, so I really wouldn't care if my products got stolen.

[Gray-Wolf]

Jp, you may want to throw in the towel on this discussion. You loose ground with each post. There is NO justified reason for pirate downloads. This said, Maybe a Mod should lock this thread? :rolleyes:

[Lau]

Would you consider it stealing if I bought a book and after reading it I gave it to you? would you be stealing that book since I gave it to you?.


Unless you delete your copy of the music on your computer when you share it with someone, a better analogy would be that you bought a book and copied the entire thing, bound it, and gave the copy to someone else, whilst keeping the book for yourself.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Except it's not illegal. Someone who bought the music originally is merely sharing it across the internet. Since they purchased it, it is there's to do as they wish with it.

Do you really believe this?


Okay, imagine somebody makes a coat. Now imagine somebody makes a machine that allows the duplication of said coat, at such a negligible cost that nobody really cares about the price. Now, if you had this machine and you know a lot of people who need/want a coat, but are incapable of buying it, are you going to give them that coat, or make them pay for it?

Now substitute the idea of a coat making machine with a music album that is being shared through the internet; but-and this is important-the original copy was bought and is merely being shared. Is that so different?

Somebody cares about the price, somebody always cares about the price. When it comes to money, there is no such thing as nobody cares, some one always cares.

In your case the person who is selling the coat, probably for a profit, cares about the price of the coat. If the person who originally made the coat doesn't want you duplicating his coat then you shouldn't be duplicating the coat.

See where your analogy fails in making a point?

[mpw]

Except it's not illegal...
Yes it is, sorry to bore you with facts.
...Mature. You know, there's young people on this forum who's minds you could be corrupting...
You know there's nothing wrong with sex?
...Well, first you called me a dumb kid, then a dumb thief...
No, first I called you a thief, then I called you a child, giving you the benefit of your youthful ignorance for not grasping the fact that you do not understand the rights and wrong of your actions. You were the one who first used the phrase 'dumb kid'.
...That sounds like you don't normally deal with children and are instead "dumbing down" your speech to an insulting level so I could understand you...
No, you've mis-understood what I was trying to say, even though I've since explained it more clearly to you.:rolleyes:
...I'm not a thief; see my earlier post. I am hereby declaring that all internet pirates are actually swashbucklers...
Yes you are, ignorance isn't a defense, especially since it has clearly been explained to you over and over again. The only defense you have any hope with now could be mental impairment.
...However, I don't think 16 is really a child. Child is more like under 10. After that, until 13, you're a pre-pubescent person. Then a teenager. Then you're a young adult at around 16/17. At 18 you're an adult. So I think it's insulting that you continue to call me a child...
Close your eyes and try thinking really hard that there's a great big bar of gold in front of you; now open them, is there a great big bar of gold? No. You know why? it's because just thinking something doesn't make it true.
...<clueless nonsense>...
I'm gonna skip replying to a lot of your rubbish.
...Well, in a few years, I could very well be working at a Wawa, or a Rite Aid, or a McDonalds, or some other crappy job, so I really wouldn't care if my products got stolen.
You still don't get it do you. You're gonna be happy working all day in McDonalds and not getting paid? Seriously, I really don't think you're going to cope in the world as an independent adult with that attitude.

[Cassie]

Except it's not illegal. Someone who bought the music originally is merely sharing it across the internet. Since they purchased it, it is there's to do as they wish with it.
Do you know ANYTHING about copyright laws? When someone buys a song from iTunes, they did not actually purchase that music. What they bought was basically a license to play that music on their computer/iPod/whatever. Burning it to a CD is a grey area for now. Sharing it is definitely illegal, since you don't actually own the music, you cannot deicde whether or not to share it.


Mature. You know, there's young people on this forum who's minds you could be corrupting.
Right, I'm sure you care deeply about that.




I'm not a thief; see my earlier post. I am hereby declaring that all internet pirates are actually swashbucklers. I am actually a swashbuckler, not a thief or a pirate.
I'm not even going to respond to this.



I have said multiple times now, I am not stealing. Swashbuckling music is no different than one person distributing his/her (because buccaneering accepts all people, of all race, color, creed (and gender, religion, political view, etc)) own CD to a group of friends. P2P is just on a larger scale. Besides, it is not stealing unless I personally cause the artist to lose profits on a CD. Since I never caused the printing of a CD, I never stole money.
They print the CD whether you buy it or not, they can't read your mind, you know.:rolleyes:.


Okay, imagine somebody makes a coat. Now imagine somebody makes a machine that allows the duplication of said coat, at such a negligible cost that nobody really cares about the price. Now, if you had this machine and you know a lot of people who need/want a coat, but are incapable of buying it, are you going to give them that coat, or make them pay for it?
If you want to give out those coats for free, go ahead. But in this case, the "coatmakers" have decided to charge for them. Can't afford it? Oh well.

Now substitute the idea of a coat making machine with a music album that is being shared through the internet; but-and this is important-the original copy was bought and is merely being shared. Is that so different?
The original copy was not bought.

[Gray-Wolf]

Go getem Cassie :p

[SilentGreg]

I did when I was younger and didn't have money to buy music in stores. Now that I have *some* money I buy my music on iTunes, burn it, then convert it to MP3 to keep everything consistent with what I already have. I illegally downloaded a song the other day as it was not available on iTunes and I wasn't about to fork over $20 (give or take) for an entire album with the intent to listen to one song. ;)

[jpmittins]

Jp, you may want to throw in the towel on this discussion. You loose ground with each post. There is NO justified reason for pirate downloads. This said, Maybe a Mod should lock this thread? :rolleyes:

Though you and I don't agree on the whole piracy thing, I think I have to agree with you about throwing in the towel. I will be taking a break from this thread for awhile (much to mpw and Cassie's respective delights, I am sure). I just can't fully explain myself unless I am face to face with someone. And before somebody says it, that is exactly why I am not going to pursue a career in politics or law; I'm just not made for it.

To mpw regarding all of his/her posts regarding all of my posts; I just don't think you and I will ever agree on this topic, so you may as well save your time and just stop responding to me. I know I'll stop responding to this thread for awhile (see above).

But no, I don't think a mod will (or should) shut this thread down. It's far too interesting. However, if they shut this down but brought back the fail thread, I would be all for it (who's with me?).

[c-Row]

Let's just say this thread was more interesting before everybody in here got personal. I don't care who started it, but I do care about everyone stopping at some point, which hopefully is now.

[jpmittins]

All right, I know I said I would be taking a break from this thread, but I just wanted to point out something I thought was interesting.

This thread was started on September 23, 2007. It continued for three days, garnering 82 replies. Then it got zero replies for a little over a week, when on October 2, 2007, someone brought it up again for one reply. Two days later, on October 4, 2007, two more replies arrived in a single day. Three days later, one reply, and 2 days after that, 2 more replies. This brought the total number of replies up to 88 (or 89 posts total).

On July 31, 2008, while doing a search, I came upon this thread and commented on it (I did not at the time see when the last post had been created). Since then, on August 14, this thread is on it's eleventh page, with 264 replies (265 posts) not counting the one I'm writing. I just think it's slightly ironic that a topic which was not very popular when it first began, has now nearly three times the posts (some of them very long) as it had the most recent time it seemed to stop. Interesting. I wonder why the thread seems so much more interesting now then it did in late September/early October of 2007?

[OutThere]

Except it's not illegal. Someone who bought the music originally is merely sharing it across the internet. Since they purchased it, it is there's to do as they wish with it.

Ignoring for the moment the basic tenets of intellectual property ignored here, lets apply this logic to some other situations...

If I purchase a gun is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase a car is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase prescription medicine is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase alcohol is it mine to do what I want with it?

The answer to all of those questions is no...simply because there are legal (not to mention ethical) restrictions on what you can do with it, regardless of the fact that you own the object itself. The same applies to music.

[TwinCities Dan]

Ignoring for the moment the basic tenets of intellectual property ignored here, lets apply this logic to some other situations...

If I purchase a gun is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase a car is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase prescription medicine is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase alcohol is it mine to do what I want with it?

The answer to all of those questions is no...simply because there are legal (not to mention ethical) restrictions on what you can do with it, regardless of the fact that you own the object itself. The same applies to music.

Bravo, bravo! :D

[Dmac77]

RIAA go away while I say this. Yes I do, but not often, I'll admit that every Beatles song I have is illegal, but that's because iTunes doesn't carry it, and I don't want anthology albums. I wanted the whole catalog and that's what I got.

Don

[huhwtfisthis?]

honestly, who doesn't steal music once in a while?

I know that this doesn't justify "stealing" music but itunes and other programs where u have to pay, don't have some of the songs that i want, or they are album only.

This seems to mostly happen only with classic rock, there are many albums that have songs marked as album only and the price of the whole album is more than $1 per song, so i 'steal' the songs that are album only, and pay for the ones that aren't. Also, some kickass bands aren't on itunes, such as Bloodrock, AC/DC and the Ozzy Osbourne years of Black Sabbath. so i usually use limewire to get their songs. also itunes sometimes only has partial albums, so i have no other choice but to use limewire to get the other songs, and also i have noticed with Nirvana, itunes does not sell my favorite album by them: Incesticide, so i use limewire.

if itunes had every song for $1, no album-only songs, no partial albums, then i bet most ppl wouldn't steal music as much.

but i also have heard from artists that they really don't care about fans 'stealing' their music (except Metallica, but they're just a bunch of money hungry pricks now [don't get me wrong, they used to be amazing but, in my opinion, after their album 'Metallica' they started to suck, and then sued their fans for listening to their music, which is rediculous]), they are just glad that ppl are listening to them, and the leader singer of Disturbed also said that bands don't make hardly any money off record sales, so y not steal?

[erikistired]

i used to have a large collection of questionable music (that russian mp3 site rocked), but these days the only music i have that isn't paid for is a handful of mighty mighty bosstones tracks i simply can't find anywhere to purchase. otherwise, it's all cds (ripped to aac) and itunes tracks.

[erikistired]

Ignoring for the moment the basic tenets of intellectual property ignored here, lets apply this logic to some other situations...

If I purchase a gun is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase a car is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase prescription medicine is it mine to do what I want with it?

If I purchase alcohol is it mine to do what I want with it?

The answer to all of those questions is no...simply because there are legal (not to mention ethical) restrictions on what you can do with it, regardless of the fact that you own the object itself. The same applies to music.

i wonder if using his logic could you take your gun and go around "sharing" bullets and not get in trouble for it? it's only sharing! :D

(no i'm not crazy depressed emo or otherwise planning on doing any sharing, just in case anyone might get the wrong idea!!)

[Definity]

Theft is theft, it's quite simple.

The record labels are doing it all wrong, and getting the RIAA to sue normal people (http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf) for hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds/euros, etc, I think that's quite criminal in itself. The procedures that they go through (http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenseless.pdf) alone, which often bends the law so far back it's upside down, says quite a lot.

Here in the UK, we've got legal p2p (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/13/legal_p2p_shocker/) on the horizon.


Still, I respect PirateBay (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=pirate+bay&site=&psite=0), for a reason I can't fathom.

[netdog]

I download a fair amount of legal music... primarily Grateful Dead shows.

I copy all of my CDs to hard drive and iPod.

For the latter, the RIAA may consider me in violation of my license, but I don't download copyrighted music and I don't have any music that I don't have a license for or that doesn't come free of a licensing requirements.

[Dmac77]

Arn,

You better not turn any of us into the RIAA:D:p

Don

[mannix87]

Yes, I pirate music on occasion. I know it's illegal, and wrong. But for the prices that some companies charge for CD's, and how little of that money goes back to the artists, some of those CEO's are to blame. If I download a CD from an artist that I really like, I will definitely pay for it. For example, if I get the torrented version of Viva la Vida, like it, I go on iTunes, and download it with my iTunes money. I don't steal unless I feel like I'm going to get screwed out of $10 for crappy music.

If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's just my personal decision.

Here's a response I made to somebody who said this in another forum: "Everyone knows that bands make their money from the shows and concerts that they do. Album sales make up for only 20% of their earnings."

The problem with this thinking is that it presupposes that bands are popular enough to sell concert tickets. it's so easy to forget how they got popular in the first place. somebody usually finances the early efforts, the studio recordings, the marketing and distribution, whether online or the traditional methods. this is where the labels come in. they help us become aware of the interesting bands that are out there. somebody said: 'but myspace or last.fm already does that, so why do we need the labels?" in case nobody noticed, myspace put up its own label, myspace records, precisely to pick up unsigned artists and 'sell' them globally and not just over the internet. no matter how popular Colbie Caillat was on myspace or Adele was on YouTube, I still wouldnt have heard of them, if no label picked them up.

most artists especially those just starting out do not have the financial muscle to engage in endeavors that labels are known for. & labels wont do it for free. to them it's an investment, they need their ROI. so far, one of the methods still in place for them to accomplish ROI is copyright protection and its enforcement. & we cant accuse them of being greedy either, it's just a business for them. & in return, we get to hear our favorite artists in full 24bit, 5.1 DTS glory (depending on your equipment, of course). & not through some crappy compressed mp3 file.

radiohead and NIN are able to do it now in the non traditional method because they are fully aware of their fanbases & vice versa; the latter can & will sniff out a drop of sweat coming out of Thom Yorke's forehead or be able to hear Trent Reznor sneeze a mile away, so the labels are pretty much useless for them already.

more importantly, the freebies that these bands are churning out have lower quality than if you bought the CD or downloaded over iTunes, it's no different from what's available via a streaming service or on satellite radio. if youre the casual fan, you'd be happy w/ that and same for radiohead or NIN, because they know you probably wouldnt have bought their CD anyway, so they didnt really lose anything.

but imagine radiohead starting out now, struggling to be noticed on the web amidst a sea of wannabees & we wonder where they would be without labels investing on their future; so who'll end up the loser here? arent we glad that a greedy label made us aware that the great talent that radiohead is exists? i know I am.

besides, for every talent that labels get their ROI, there's probably dozens of others that are busts. so it balances out in the end. the market forces will dictate their business anyway. notice how the prices of legal CDs are going down? hopefully, the dev'ts in technology will make it a lot cheaper for them to produce & sell records and make the pirates irrelevant and not the other way around. to which I say, let them have their copyright and let's honor it.

[Dmac77]

Here's a response I made to somebody who said this in another forum: "Everyone knows that bands make their money from the shows and concerts that they do. Album sales make up for only 20% of their earnings."

The problem with this thinking is that it presupposes that bands are popular enough to sell concert tickets. it's so easy to forget how they got popular in the first place. somebody usually finances the early efforts, the studio recordings, the marketing and distribution, whether online or the traditional methods. this is where the labels come in. they help us become aware of the interesting bands that are out there. somebody said: 'but myspace or last.fm already does that, so why do we need the labels?" in case nobody noticed, myspace put up its own label, myspace records, precisely to pick up unsigned artists and 'sell' them globally and not just over the internet. no matter how popular Colbie Caillat was on myspace or Adele was on YouTube, I still wouldnt have heard of them, if no label picked them up.

most artists especially those just starting out do not have the financial muscle to engage in endeavors that labels are known for. & labels wont do it for free. to them it's an investment, they need their ROI. so far, one of the methods still in place for them to accomplish ROI is copyright protection and its enforcement. & we cant accuse them of being greedy either, it's just a business for them. & in return, we get to hear our favorite artists in full 24bit, 5.1 DTS glory (depending on your equipment, of course). & not through some crappy compressed mp3 file.

radiohead and NIN are able to do it now in the non traditional method because they are fully aware of their fanbases & vice versa; the latter can & will sniff out a drop of sweat coming out of Thom Yorke's forehead or be able to hear Trent Reznor sneeze a mile away, so the labels are pretty much useless for them already.

more importantly, the freebies that these bands are churning out have lower quality than if you bought the CD or downloaded over iTunes, it's no different from what's available via a streaming service or on satellite radio. if youre the casual fan, you'd be happy w/ that and same for radiohead or NIN, because they know you probably wouldnt have bought their CD anyway, so they didnt really lose anything.

but imagine radiohead starting out now, struggling to be noticed on the web amidst a sea of wannabees & we wonder where they would be without labels investing on their future; so who'll end up the loser here? arent we glad that a greedy label made us aware that the great talent that radiohead is exists? i know I am.

besides, for every talent that labels get their ROI, there's probably dozens of others that are busts. so it balances out in the end. the market forces will dictate their business anyway. notice how the prices of legal CDs are going down? hopefully, the dev'ts in technology will make it a lot cheaper for them to produce & sell records and make the pirates irrelevant and not the other way around. to which I say, let them have their copyright and let's honor it.

Well, people like me don't pirate from small bands, I pirate from bands like The Stones, and The Beatles, big bands, that make/made millions from their tours.

Don

[huhwtfisthis?]

If someone steals from me (i.e. taking away bits of my property), that would bother me. But there is a difference between stealing and copying without consent. In the latter case, I continue to possess all my stuff. Of course, if my business is based on selling copies, there is a potential loss in income (potential, because the copyist could decide to buy from me at a later point, or he wouldn't buy from me anyway).

As for your second point, you ask about not getting paid for one's work. Basically, that is a risk for many professions. Look at a salesmen who invest a lot of time talking to customers that will eventually buy elsewhere. Or take an architect who designs new buildings that his potential clients don't build in the end.

Obviously, if everyone only copied music, and no-one bought the songs, there'd be no money for the musicians, except from T-shirts and concerts. So the point is, if you pirate music, do so responsibly. P2P (and youtube as well) offers a great opportunity to widen your musical horizon and learn about new bands and styles. But it only works as long as people continue to buy songs and records. The majority understands this, and for the music industry, it would be wiser to welcome them as loyal customers than accusing them of theft or robbery.

Music isn't owned by the artist, it is made by the artist for the world to listen to... any musician who disagrees with this and sues their fans for listening to music illegally are *******s.

[netdog]

Music isn't owned by the artist, it is made by the artist for the world to listen to... any musician who disagrees with this and sues their fans for listening to music illegally are *******s.

Oh yeah. Steal this book baby!

Actually, they do own the copyrights to the music, or whomever they have sold the rights to owns the rights. In any case, we don't own Tom Petty's music. He does. He just licenses it to us. He wouldn't sell you the ownership of "Damn The Torpedoes" for $12.99 for god's sake!

Now Garcia gave away the live rights to the Dead shows to the fans years ago (so long as they make no profit in circulating them) but that was his RIGHT as the copyRIGHT holder. Get it?

Garcia used to periodically bring the cops into a little bootleg store on West 8th Street when the Dead were in NY and the cops would crack down on them with confiscation and big fines. These people were charging up to $50 per show. Selling was not a right that the copyright holder had granted them. What a bunch of creeps.

I say GO JERRY!

[mpw]

...but i also have heard from artists that they really don't care about fans 'stealing' their music... ...they are just glad that ppl are listening to them, and the leader singer of Disturbed also said that bands don't make hardly any money off record sales, so y not steal?
Which artists? I'd not be surprised to find that those artist who've said that are signed to labels, so while they might be fine with giving away their music they're probably in breach of contract; maybe that's why they don't give away their music, instead they say they don't mind if you steal it. I wonder if the label caught and sued somebody for copyright infringement, whether the artist would settle the legal costs??

[RRutter]

I also pirate DVDs, applications, books, audiobooks, video game ROMs, basically if it can be stolen over the internet I'll take it. It's a personal choice. So sue me! :D

No actually don't. I don't have money to buy any of your intellectual property or I wouldn't pirate it. So I definetly can't afford fines or lawyer's fees. But I thought I'd jump on the poll.

Haha this guy is a character! Well put dude!

:apple:

[gibbz]

"A friend of mine" has pirated music in the past, and still does occasionally. Now "he" mostly thinks.. "Ah **** it, I'll just go buy the darn thing." It is amazing how the lines of right and wrong are blurred in cyber space. If you asked all of the people in here if walking out a store with unpaid merchandise is wrong, I bet the majority would say yes. Or if taking an painting from an artist without paying is wrong, yes. But if we introduce the internet and digital files, that answer is much less clear. Perhaps we have to see a physical example to get this rather than something we listen to.

[rockosmodurnlif]

There's a lot of rationalization going on in this thread, people must know it's wrong.

[OutThere]

Music isn't owned by the artist, it is made by the artist for the world to listen to... any musician who disagrees with this and sues their fans for listening to music illegally are *******s.

The reason that we have music the way it is today is because musicians can live off of the money that people pay to listen to their music. Should music become completely devalued, the only new music we will have to listen to will be made by hobbyists in their free time.

People who don't make their careers in fields that deal with intellectual property often don't understand that protecting the value of music, art, photography, writing etc is absolutely essential if we want people to keep making it.

It wouldn't make much sense if your employer said "We're going to stop paying you, but your job still needs to get done..."

[iJon]

There's a lot of rationalization going on in this thread, people must know it's wrong.

I would agree. No matter how much I download music I never really try to justify it's okay or right. I simply do it for the reasons posted above. It's free, easy to access and there is a small chance of getting caught. Plus like I said earlier, if I bought all the music I listen too then I would be broke.

On the flip side, I don't feel bad for downloading music. There are countless artists I would have never gone and seen live if I hadn't heard their music and downloaded an album. I probably see over 100 live acts a year and a very good portion of my paycheck goes right to those artists. I would be willing to bet that most artists would consider it a fair trade to download there tunes and pay a much larger portion of my paycheck to their live shows, sometimes even seeing them multiple times over the course of my life.

jon

[maxmurphy]

I actually find it quite ironic that there is such a large number of people here who pirate music! This website is based on a little company called Apple. If you are here, you probably want to support them (assuming you use iTunes)!

[jpmittins]

I actually find it quite ironic that there is such a large number of people here who pirate music! This website is based on a little company called Apple. If you are here, you probably want to support them (assuming you use iTunes)!

I had to comment on this, sorry...

Just being on this site doesn't necessitate the support of iTunes Music Store. Besides, I doubt that the majority of Apple's profits come from there; they probably come from computers and the iPod. Also, I don't use iTunes, not because I'm a cheap pirate, but because they don't always have what I want, or a full album of what I want, or a DRM free copy of what I want. So until all music in the iTunes music store is DRM free (iTunes Plus) I probably won't buy from there.

And to anybody who says all the music can't be iTunes Plus; yes it can. There hasn't been a price difference between iTunes Plus and regular iTunes in months. There's really no excuse for not offering everything in Plus and getting rid of regular.

[OutThere]

And to anybody who says all the music can't be iTunes Plus; yes it can. There hasn't been a price difference between iTunes Plus and regular iTunes in months. There's really no excuse for not offering everything in Plus and getting rid of regular.

Blame the record labels for that, they have been resistant to offering DRM free music for a long time. They're scared that it will promote piracy—which is nonsense because all it takes is one person buying the CD to distribute it to every internet user around the world.

[erikistired]

Blame the record labels for that, they have been resistant to offering DRM free music for a long time. They're scared that it will promote piracy—which is nonsense because all it takes is one person buying the CD to distribute it to every internet user around the world.

yeah the piracy is already there and well established. if someone wants to actually buy your product, you would think offering the best version would be a good idea eh?

[jpmittins]

Blame the record labels for that, they have been resistant to offering DRM free music for a long time. They're scared that it will promote piracy—which is nonsense because all it takes is one person buying the CD to distribute it to every internet user around the world.

yeah the piracy is already there and well established. if someone wants to actually buy your product, you would think offering the best version would be a good idea eh?

Amazing...there are actually people agreeing with me in this thread now. AND promoting ideas I've put out there before and they're not getting yelled at. Weird. I'm not sure if I should feel happy that not everyone is flaming me or a little pissed because other people aren't getting flamed for what I said. Ah, well, I'll just stay cool. Best course of action.

[mpw]

...I would be willing to bet that most artists would consider it a fair trade to download there tunes and pay a much larger portion of my paycheck to their live shows...
You think my Aston Martin dealer would be okay with me not paying for serving my car? I did pay full price for the car (not necessarily from that dealer though)

[rockosmodurnlif]

Amazing...there are actually people agreeing with me in this thread now. AND promoting ideas I've put out there before and they're not getting yelled at. Weird. I'm not sure if I should feel happy that not everyone is flaming me or a little pissed because other people aren't getting flamed for what I said. Ah, well, I'll just stay cool. Best course of action.
We disagree, they know we disagree, if they want to know why, they can scroll up.

[erikistired]

You think my Aston Martin dealer would be okay with me not paying for serving my car? I did pay full price for the car (not necessarily from that dealer though)

funny you say that, a lot of dealers are offering free service for a year (or however long) with the purchase of a new car these days as an incentive. :D

[Indohottie]

I used too.. but its not worth it.. i would rather just buy the music and support the musician.

[iJon]

You think my Aston Martin dealer would be okay with me not paying for serving my car? I did pay full price for the car (not necessarily from that dealer though)

Lets just say mpw, that if we were both to gather up our favorite artists and factor up what we've contributed I think you would be surprised.

I would guarantee that my favorite artists have made way more money by me paying to see them live then what you pay to just own their CD.

After reading this thread and all your other posts on this website I get the impression you're not even for the artist. You are simply MacRumors piracy police. You are just concerned with the legality of everything.

jon

[Gray-Wolf]

The irony is, depending what the country you live in, the laws they have, is if they say its illegal, then its illegal, period... :rolleyes:

[mpw]

funny you say that, a lot of dealers are offering free service for a year (or however long) with the purchase of a new car these days as an incentive. :D
Aston Martin? Anyway I'm not talking about incentive offers, I'm talking about simple not paying for the service, not being given it free. Huge difference.

Lets just say mpw, that if we were both to gather up our favorite artists and factor up what we've contributed I think you would be surprised....
You'd be wrong.
...I would guarantee that my favorite artists have made way more money by me paying to see them live then what you pay to just own their CD...
Is your guarantee a money back guarantee? Anyway, even if you're right, it has absolutely no relevance to the right and wrong in the vast majority of stealing music.
...After reading this thread and all your other posts on this website I get the impression you're not even for the artist....
You're impression is wrong.
...You are simply MacRumors piracy police...
Wrong.
...You are just concerned with the legality of everything....
Wrong.

[rockosmodurnlif]

You'd be wrong.

You're impression is wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.
Okay, but what did he get right?

[mpw]

Okay, but what did he get right?

Couldn't fault his spelling.

[huhwtfisthis?]

The reason that we have music the way it is today is because musicians can live off of the money that people pay to listen to their music. Should music become completely devalued, the only new music we will have to listen to will be made by hobbyists in their free time.

People who don't make their careers in fields that deal with intellectual property often don't understand that protecting the value of music, art, photography, writing etc is absolutely essential if we want people to keep making it.

It wouldn't make much sense if your employer said "We're going to stop paying you, but your job still needs to get done..."

Im just saying that the good musicians start making music because they enjoy it, the good one's don't start just to make money, they do it cuz they love it... and many artists that i listen to have been quoted as saying that they don't really care if ppl 'steal' their music, they are just glad ppl are listening to it and that they make barely any money of album sales, most of it goes to the record company, bands make most of their money thru concerts and such.

[almostinsane]

I pirate music. Aaarrrgggghhhh!

I also kick kittens and punch babies.

[Cassie]

Im just saying that the good musicians start making music because they enjoy it, the good one's don't start just to make money, they do it cuz they love it
Hey, musicians have to eat too, you know.
... and many artists that i listen to have been quoted as saying that they don't really care if ppl 'steal' their music, Good for them. However, I hope you know this doesn't apply to all artists, and even less to record companies. In your mind, that may suck, but it's the law.
they are just glad ppl are listening to it and that they make barely any money of album sales, most of it goes to the record company, bands make most of their money thru concerts and such.
As has been said above, people only go to concerts about bands they know... Most people don't pirate music they've never heard of.

[costabunny]

Hi my name is Rachel and I'm a pirate!

(There I finally said it, now I have taken the first step. Gosh these groups really do help, now I wonder how long until step 12?....)




(note) I do buy music I love, and have found many artists that I would never have considered before through random music downloading so in my case its actually a warped version of passive marketing...

[Astro8973]

I hate to admit it but i pirate a lot of my music. i really should quit but i dont have any money. i will buy cd's once i get a job.

[gorilly]

Lets just say mpw, that if we were both to gather up our favorite artists and factor up what we've contributed I think you would be surprised.
I would guarantee that my favorite artists have made way more money by me paying to see them live then what you pay to just own their CD.


i would say you'd be correct

and i take some issues with mannix's post - nin releasing a lesser quality mp3? they also relased flacs and other types of lossless formats.

5.1 mixing of music is a total waste of time, 5.1 is for movies. When you go and see a band live do they mix it for 5.1? do you stand with the drums behind you? a decent stereo mix is perfect. 5.1 audio for music is awful

Yes the labels invest in the band expecting a return, but its their forcasts which fail them, they expect well over the odds back.

Someone said someting to me this weekend which makes perfect sense. sell it for less, sell twice as many.

[mannix87]

and i take some issues with mannix's post - nin releasing a lesser quality mp3? they also relased flacs and other types of lossless formats.

5.1 mixing of music is a total waste of time, 5.1 is for movies. When you go and see a band live do they mix it for 5.1? do you stand with the drums behind you? a decent stereo mix is perfect. 5.1 audio for music is awful

Yes the labels invest in the band expecting a return, but its their forcasts which fail them, they expect well over the odds back.

Someone said someting to me this weekend which makes perfect sense. sell it for less, sell twice as many.

I was just trying to highlight a point. heck, I dont even listen to 5.1 audio. but I'd want that option (or at least CD quality) available if ever I wanted to listen to my favorite artist & not necessarily NIN. but somebody has to spend for that right? & I agree with you when you said that they should "sell for less, and sell twice as many". that's actually what I said at the end of my original post. & i think the labels will be FORCED to rethink the way they sell their products; hopefully not at the expense of the quality.

[mannix87]

The reason that we have music the way it is today is because musicians can live off of the money that people pay to listen to their music. Should music become completely devalued, the only new music we will have to listen to will be made by hobbyists in their free time.

People who don't make their careers in fields that deal with intellectual property often don't understand that protecting the value of music, art, photography, writing etc is absolutely essential if we want people to keep making it.

It wouldn't make much sense if your employer said "We're going to stop paying you, but your job still needs to get done..."

I agree with this 100%. I raised the same point in some other forum regarding the same subject. I even heard an argument that musicians are into it purely for art's sake. :rolleyes: to a certain extent this is true but maybe at the beginning. but reality sets in pretty quickly and the artist will find himself thinking that I have to feed myself, my family etc. so he now has to make a choice, whether to pursue a career as a musician or go to some other field w/c will provide more financial security. so if the 'calling' of being a musician is no longer as promising as it is (or used to be), I bet that 9 out of 10 musicians will choose some other line of work.

let's go even further, let's go back as far as the developmental stages of an artist. if a child shows some promise as a musician, do you think parents will even encourage their children to take up a musical instrument or take voice lessons if the parents know for a fact, that music, as a business, sucks? again, maybe initially for art's sake. but up to what extent? all the way to high school? hmmm. musical equipment arent cheap you know. it's also an investment on the part of the parents. as a parent myself, i'll only throw in money if I know that my child can benefit from this expense down the road. if I know it won't, why even bother?

so who ends up the loser here? it's us, the music fans/lovers. there may come a time that producing (selling/distributing) music becomes such a losing (& pointless) endeavor that the only music you'll hear is from some amateur hobbyist playing within hearing distance, if your lucky. & the world would be deprived of the next generation of musicians (OK, rockstars) simply because no one else has heard of them other than close friends or immediate family.
yeah, for art's sake... give me a break. :mad:

[Mr Skills]

Depending on what musical genre you are referring to - producing an album is getting very straight forward. Electronica music is really picking up, and to produce this, it does require a lot of time, but ultimately you won't have to go near a recording studio. Home studio's are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and the software is becoming easier and easier to use.

I have highlighted the most important part of your post.

Yes, there is more and more music that can be created at home (including my own band!), some of it excellent. But I would hate to live in a world that was restricted only, or mostly, to home created music.

The simple fact is, that there is a great deal of popular music that is, and always will be, expensive to do well. Some examples:

Expertise
A top producer costs a great deal of money. A top engineer costs a great deal of money. These things cannot be substituted by software.

Musicians
You want a 24-piece string section? It'll cost you. You want a really good string section? That will really cost you.

Space
You want to record that string section in a room that sonically does it justice? It will cost you.


The fact is, half or more of the major recording studios in London (including my old one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Studios)) have closed down over the last decade, and my real worry is that no-one is learning the art of making records any more.

Imagine if all the Michelin-star restaurants closed down tomorrow. You might not care, because you can't afford to eat there anyway. But all those sous-chefs and commies getting yelled at by the Chef are the next generation at the cutting edge. They learn an art that has been passed on and developed for generations. They are the people who will one day have the knowledge and confidence to break the rules; they are the people who will come up with the new techniques. I love home cooking, but I don't want to live in a world without the resources to keep people out there on the bleeding edge.

[Insulin Junkie]

(note) I do buy music I love, and have found many artists that I would never have considered before through random music downloading so in my case its actually a warped version of passive marketing...

Same here. I pirate a lot of music, but have subsequently discovered and bought CD's (and attended concerts / bought memorabilia) of bands I'd have never discovered had it not been for the music downloading. I buy albums off my favorite bands, the rest I download.

A lot of what I download are also rare / unreleased demos I couldn't get hold of anywhere else because they're not for sale, and stuff musicians distribute for free themselves.

One last word... bless archive.org and Slsk!

[OutThere]

Im just saying that the good musicians start making music because they enjoy it, the good one's don't start just to make money, they do it cuz they love it... and many artists that i listen to have been quoted as saying that they don't really care if ppl 'steal' their music, they are just glad ppl are listening to it and that they make barely any money of album sales, most of it goes to the record company, bands make most of their money thru concerts and such.

They might not start out with dollar signs in their eyes but they do start out with some concept that it is possible to live off of the money they can make as musicians. The artists that say they don't care if you steal their music most likely say that because they have already made record contracts and had they publicity they need to sell out concerts, or are so small that they'll take all the publicity they can get. Unfortunately the great majority of people who pick music up on the internet for free are most likely not going to pay $50 or $100 to go to a concert...

If all of the car companies disbanded and the manufacturing of cars was handled by the car designers and builders who simply loved what they did and financed their own projects, what kind of crap do you think would be on the road?

[c-Row]

Unfortunately the great majority of people who pick music up on the internet for free are most likely not going to pay $50 or $100 to go to a concert...

I wouldn't even flock out $100 for a concert ticket if the artist distributed his tracks for free. That price is just ridiculous.

[it5five]

Same here. I pirate a lot of music, but have subsequently discovered and bought CD's (and attended concerts / bought memorabilia) of bands I'd have never discovered had it not been for the music downloading. I buy albums off my favorite bands, the rest I download.

A lot of what I download are also rare / unreleased demos I couldn't get hold of anywhere else because they're not for sale, and stuff musicians distribute for free themselves.

Same here. I download music, but I buy plenty of music too, especially from artists I'd have never heard of otherwise. The artists I listen to aren't on the radio, and the only way to access their work is to download it.

I wouldn't even flock out $100 for a concert ticket if the artist distributed his tracks for free. That price is just ridiculous.

I wouldn't spend that much on a ticket either. Most of the shows I go to only cost ~$10-15, $20 max.

[stomplex]

As adults, aren't we all on the honor system here? :confused:

I will gladly take something for free to try out and if I like it, I will buy it!

[benzslrpee]

these rock stars should probably just get used to the idea of not being able to make millions like they used to. really, who said just because you're famous you have to be rich? welcome to the real world.

i'm sure Brittney Spears can survive on $60k a year instead of $6 million.

to those who laugh at the idea of artists making music for the sake of art...don't. Beethoven on a good day had a patron to support his music writing, mostly he had crap for luck and didn't have a patron, didn't have any money and lost his hearing somewhere. did that stop him from creating the greatest classical symphonies ever? i mean hundreds of years later there are students in Julliard and Cleveland Institute of Art studying the music of a man who didn't have two pennies to rub together for a lot of his life.

i'm pretty sure he didn't do it for the money just as i'm pretty sure Julliard would probably never include Souljaboy into their curriculum.

that being said, i went and bought three CDs yesterday: Jack Johnson's "On and On", Bitter:Sweet's "Mating Game" and "Drama". oh and i downloaded the music originally from a torrent site but i thought it was good enough to buy :eek:

oh the horror. i'm so not a good pirate.

[nplima]

guys,

Let's cut that crap about artists choosing that job for the love of music. Regardless of their motivation those people need money just like anyone else and they never got it from CD sales - the fact is that they get nothing from record sales and all they have the get from performing. Bootlegging CDs changes nothing for the artist.

[gmecca2]

At least 75% of those who say they don't pirate some sort of media. No one is that innocent.

[gmecca2]

If I don't buy it, it comes from the public library.

[hexonxonx]

At least 75% of those who say they don't pirate some sort of media. No one is that innocent.

Very true. Though I have purchased almost 3,000 songs in iTunes over the past year, I still have to say that I have downloaded things for free when I have found them.

[Phillyzero]

Yes.

Though posting on Apple forums, I'm guessing most people would be buying from Apple store.

Also, if you feel sorry about pirating some startup band, than don't, the only people who actually see CD profits are huge stars (because they are able to sell enough that the minute cut they get is still very substantial) or true indie bands that sell CDs that they get pressed for like 200 copies or something like that. Most bands with a label will get the main source of money from playing shows.

[Mr Skills]

The vast majority of bands do NOT make money from touring. In fact, going on tour can actually be very expensive until a band reaches a certain size.

[gracest]

The vast majority of bands do NOT make money from touring. In fact, going on tour can actually be very expensive until a band reaches a certain size.

Agreed. and the fact that artists are forced to turn touring revenues into a large portion of their profit has made the concert-going and festival experience significantly less enjoyable for even the successful acts. bigger price tags and ridiculous VIP packages for wealthier customers to name a few.

[iJon]

The vast majority of bands do NOT make money from touring. In fact, going on tour can actually be very expensive until a band reaches a certain size.

Are you sure about that? Every article I've read on the situation states that most bands that are worth a damn make most of their money from touring and merchandising.

If a band isn't making money from touring than I highly doubt they are making any money from album sales as well.

jon

[Gray-Wolf]

This thread is worse than the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going....:rolleyes:

[jpmittins]

This thread is worse than the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going....:rolleyes:

Why do you think I don't fuel the arguments any more? I just read it and respond in a fashion that favors neither side.

[Mr Skills]

Are you sure about that? Every article I've read on the situation states that most bands that are worth a damn make most of their money from touring and merchandising.

If a band isn't making money from touring than I highly doubt they are making any money from album sales as well.


Yes, I'm sure about that. The bands that you see on MTV make money from touring. The vast majority of bands are slogging around in vans playing small venues and maybe if they are lucky getting enough to cover petrol and a room for the night.

The truth is, starting out as an artist has always been expensive. Touring is expensive; making a record is generally expensive (although some music can be done cheaply); promotion to get noticed above the background noise is expensive (especially now that world+dog are releasing on the internet).

The most basic function of a record company is like a bank - providing the funds to make a record to a high standard and do a proper tour, and make a video and get promotion and all the rest. In return they take a large cut of future earnings.

Now, I don't think anyone's in any doubt that the current business model is, to say the least, struggling, and that it is often unfair. I can't say whether record labels in the sense we know them will exist in 10 years time. And that may not be a bad thing in many ways. But it also leaves a vacuum which means that there will be fewer artists that can afford to do really high quality productions/recordings.

I'm all for great home-made music, but I don't want that to be the only music left. My dream would be some solution that still allows bands to have the money to make really great records, but without the straight-jacket of the traditional labels. I'm just struggling to see how the first part of that will happen, though, if all the avenues for making money from music get cut off.

I worry that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[jpmittins]

Has anyone seen the poll results lately? Yes, all the time! is just one vote behind being tied with Yes, but not often... I find that cool. Us buccaneers (see my earlier posts in this thread to get that) are about to gain the majority!

[c-Row]

If a band isn't making money from touring than I highly doubt they are making any money from album sales as well.

Some bands rarely tour outside their home country - they make money from album sales overseas as well. I don't know where you are coming from, but I guess chances to see your favourite band performing live near your area are higher than for me to see the bands I'd like to attend a concert of.

[SDLSteve]

I remember when Napster came out we downloaded hundreds of songs in two days. It was an awesome time.

Now, I don't mind buying a song for 99 cents or an album for 9.99. I still look on P2Ps though to find songs that are not available on itunes but that is now a rarity.

[Rollershapple]

Why even download/pirate songs anymore wehn theres youtube, pandora, and other sites that stream content legally?

[jpmittins]

Why even download/pirate songs anymore wehn theres youtube, pandora, and other sites that stream content legally?

Because most songs that are on Youtube are crap quality and we can't own them for ourselves. Plus, the legality of streaming video/music on Youtube that isn't yours is questionable, just like swashbuckling in general.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Why even download/pirate songs anymore wehn theres youtube, pandora, and other sites that stream content legally?
Youtube? Funny, the other day I went to Youtube so I could hear a the new My Apocalypse, I had no idea joeschmoe832 was allowed to legally post Metallica content on the web. But if I connected to him P2P and downloaded it, that would be pirating.

Let's not pretend Youtube is a panacea, there's content that violates copyrights on there too.

[benzslrpee]

Youtube? Funny, the other day I went to Youtube so I could hear a the new My Apocalypse, I had no idea joeschmoe832 was allowed to legally post Metallica content on the web. But if I connected to him P2P and downloaded it, that would be pirating.

Let's not pretend Youtube is a panacea, there's content that violates copyrights on there too.

i'm sure he didn't mean that Youtube solves the issue of copyrighted material. his logic however does make sense though, why risk your own neck p2p and torrents when you can use a Google owned company as a buffering solution? i'm sure they have more than enough flesh eating lawyers to fight with the *AA.

new questions for everyone:
- how long do you think the current *AA business model will last?
- when this current model does fall, what new method will replace it?

[mannix87]

new questions for everyone:
- how long do you think the current *AA business model will last?
- when this current model does fall, what new method will replace it?

I think the labels should seriously look into the viability of illegal sites such as allofmp3 and mp3sparks , which have recently closed down due to RIAA pressure on the Russian gov't. as alternatives to the current models (iTunes store included)

obviously, lots of people are still willing to pay for high quality music for the right price. those sites were offering files up to 320 kbps bit rates either aac or mp3 formats at around 20c (or less depending on the quality) per download. The options available to the user and the cheaper rates made them very attractive to paying customers. unfortunately, those sites were illegal nonetheless.

I guess the labels and stores such as iTunes/Amazon should find a better middle ground; say 50c per file at 250kbps (or higher) rather than 99c for low quality 128kbps; and less restrictive DRMs. if the industry is to survive, they have to adjust and do it fast.

[rockosmodurnlif]

i'm sure he didn't mean that Youtube solves the issue of copyrighted material. his logic however does make sense though, why risk your own neck p2p and torrents when you can use a Google owned company as a buffering solution? i'm sure they have more than enough flesh eating lawyers to fight with the *AA.

new questions for everyone:
- how long do you think the current *AA business model will last?
- when this current model does fall, what new method will replace it?
I thought the principle of the thing was also involved but onto your questions. I disagree with the premise of the questions as it implies that the current business model (selling music for profit through retail stores) will crumble.

[Melrose]

What I've been doing a bit lately with songs that I only like one or two off the album is go use Rhapsody's 25 free listens per month deal, and then Audio Hijack to rip it off.

Sa-weet. I've got a several songs where I otherwise wouldn't buy the album, or it's not not on iTunes.

[Tosser]

With the behaviour of the record companies in the recent years, I certainly would pirate if could stand the audio quality (or rather: The lack thereof).

[Elven]

I only download music files I legitimately am buying myself, and my collection is rather *ahem* large.

My gf keeps nagging me to sell a few cd's but I can't :eek:

[Joe Hill]

I do if it's something rare that I can't possibly find some other way, or simply is too expensive to get. I'd much rather have my music in "physical" form than only as a file on my computer.

[c-Row]

To those who are against p2p and downloading music in general - what's your opinion on a person downloading mp3 copies of songs he/she owns...

a) ... in a different format (vinyl) to avoid the hassle of recording and encoding
b) ... of copy-protected CDs that won't play on his PC (there are people who don't own a stereo)
c) ... as a replacement for a scratched and overplayed CD that won't be replaced by the label

[Dagless]

Might have said earlier but I always download game OST's after playing the game. So yea I'm not going to spend the same price as the game importing (because they don't sell them here) the album, and when you can make, or just download, a clean 1:1 version that was used in the game then I'm going to do that.

To those who are against p2p and downloading music in general - what's your opinion on a person downloading mp3 copies of songs he/she owns...

Of course they won't like it... They want the musician to continually get money for the same song from fans :rolleyes:

I used to use the Coke vouchers to get my old songs back but now I get them from other sources.

[bartelby]

To those who are against p2p and downloading music in general - what's your opinion on a person downloading mp3 copies of songs he/she owns...
a) ... in a different format (vinyl) to avoid the hassle of recording and encoding

You don''t own the rights to a digital version so you need to buy a CD/download


b) ... of copy-protected CDs that won't play on his PC (there are people who don't own a stereo)

Person needs to contact the label and complain.

c) ... as a replacement for a scratched and overplayed CD that won't be replaced by the label

Buy a new copy. It's what I've done several times in the past.

[robbieduncan]

b) ... of copy-protected CDs that won't play on his PC (there are people who don't own a stereo)


I've yet to find one that I can't rip. OK I use a Mac, not a PC, but still. Strangely older PPC Macs seem more able to rip them without stutter than newer ones...

[c-Row]

I've yet to find one that I can't rip. OK I use a Mac, not a PC, but still. Strangely older PPC Macs seem more able to rip them without stutter than newer ones...

Try Aphex Twin - "Druqks" or Wolfsheim - "Casting Shadows" ;) They will surely give you headaches.


You don''t own the rights to a digital version so you need to buy a CD/download

The artist didn't record his songs twice, so why should I pay them twice?

[robbieduncan]

Try Aphex Twin - "Druqks" or Wolfsheim - "Casting Shadows" ;) They will surely give you headaches.

But then I'd have to go out and buy CDs, which is surely not what this thread is about:p

[MacProRocker]

I would like to start off by saying pirating music is dangerous. You can ask my friend's dad. Back in the day when Napster and Kazaa first came out, we used to download music on his pc. We didn't know it was illegal. Nothing had been said about that. Well, fast-forward two or three years, my friend's dad gets a knock on his door by a sheriff who is there to serve him court papers. The RIAA was suing him for MILLIONS of dollars. Literally millions. I hope none of you have the, 'It won't happen to me!' mentality because it is possible.

Now I would like to address the point that a lot of "pro-piraters" are arguing on here. They are arguing that the artist sees such a negligible amount of money from cd sales, that they aren't sticking it to the musician, they are sticking it to the label. I am going to give you a brief description of the 'real' music industry. I am a part of it. I am a national recording artist on Silent Majority Group [ILG/Warner Bros], and trust me, it is WAY more complex than most think:

There are two major sources of income for an artist from album sales (remember this is the simple version):

1. Non-Mechanical (Performance) Royalties - These are what most people know about, the royalties that the label gets the biggest portion of. Labels have been known to keep up to 93% of performance royalties. Performance royalties go to the people who actually play on the album, whether they wrote the song or not.

2. Mechanical Royalties (Publishing) - This is an artists bread and butter. If it weren't for the publishing rights, musicians would NEVER make money. Most labels do not touch mechanical royalties. It is 100% through to the SONGWRITER. This does not go to the people who perform on the album, unless they also wrote the song. At last check, mechanical royalty rates were 9.2 cents per track sold. If a songwriter owns 100% of the mechanical royalties of a ten song album, they will be paid 92 cents per cd sold without the label sticking their hand in the piggy bank. Whenever you hear a band remaking a song that someone else has wrote, the original songwriter will get 9.2 cents for every cd that band sales, and the band gets their cut of the non-mechanical royalties (which isn't much).

So how does downloading affect musicians? You cut off their ONLY source of true income. Their publishing royalties. There is no way to monitor illegal downloads, so companies like ASCAP or BMI can not pay the songwriter their publishing rights.

I know this is long, and I am not saying downloading ALWAYS screws a band. Sometimes it can get a relatively unknown band's name out there, and in turn they sell more cds by word of mouth.

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone!!!

[hitman45400]

it's not illegal to download, just upload.
everyone you hear getting arrested was an uploaded, if people were caught for downloading the world would be screwed.

[mad jew]

Lax policing does not make something legal.

[iBookG4user]

it's not illegal to download, just upload.
everyone you hear getting arrested was an uploaded, if people were caught for downloading the world would be screwed.

It is illegal to download it. The reason that you usually hear about uploaders being caught rather than downloaders is that if you catch one uploader, you stop all the downloaders.

[hitman45400]

It is illegal to download it. The reason that you usually hear about uploaders being caught rather than downloaders is that if you catch one uploader, you stop all the downloaders.

See, thats why it isn't illegal to download.
because it's pointless arrest, if you upload your suppling the downloaders, those are the only people that they have to arrest.
i have asked so many people about this, including cops and my cousin is in the music industry, and says it's not illegal.
and JUST SAY your right, 75% of America would be in jail or have monumental fines.

[hitman45400]

It is illegal to download it. The reason that you usually hear about uploaders being caught rather than downloaders is that if you catch one uploader, you stop all the downloaders.

See, thats why it isn't illegal to download.
because it's pointless arrest, if you upload your suppling the downloaders, those are the only people that they have to arrest.
i have asked so many people about this, including cops and my cousin is in the music industry, and says it's not illegal.
and JUST SAY your right(and your not) , 75% of America would be in jail or have monumental fines.

[iBookG4user]

See, thats why it isn't illegal to download.
because it's pointless arrest, if you upload your suppling the downloaders, those are the only people that they have to arrest.
i have asked so many people about this, including cops and my cousin is in the music industry, and says it's not illegal.
and JUST SAY your right(and your not) , 75% of America would be in jail or have monumental fines.

Well, is it illegal to speed? If so and the consequences were as bad as downloading music then a similar amount of people would go to jail. Does that make it ok to speed?

[northy124]

Well, is it illegal to speed?

Yes it is illegal to speed in most places but you would normally get a warning unless you are a repeat offender.

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes it is illegal to speed in most places but you would normally get a warning unless you are a repeat offender.

Not if you get stopped by the Georgia State Patrol you don't :p

[northy124]

Not if you get stopped by the Georgia State Patrol you don't :p

Wow they really are hard there:o.

[hitman45400]

Not if you get stopped by the Georgia State Patrol you don't :p

this man speaks truth, i am from Georgia, too.
but seriously, it's not illegal to download.
find me a LEGIT document, writing, or anything, with sources from the government and i might believe you.

[Agathon]

I don't see why there is anything bad about the destruction of record companies. They have outlived their use. Who cried for all the smiths and saddlers that the automobile industry put out of business.

There is in fact an easy solution to this problem, a solution we already use all the time when markets fail, and file sharing is essentially a form of market failure (because the cost of prohibiting replication is itself prohibitive, and replication destroys control over distribution – hence the market system fails).

Most countries already deal with market failures in areas like health and education by funding it by compulsory taxation. Hell, a lot of music is already funded this way through arts grants (Classical music largely relies on grants).

The simplest solution would be to impose a tax on internet services (scaling with the speed of the service) and then dole out money to content creators based on the popularity of their content (It would be insanely easy to design a file sharing system that would do this).

But of course, if this happens there won't be insane amounts of money to be made, and the people who stand to lose their privileged position in society will whine and complain about it being "communism" (which it is, but they don't want to admit that Karl Marx was 100% right about infinitely replicable forms of property).

I personally don't care either way. If content companies do not endorse such a scheme, they will be destroyed and replaced by companies that do. Either way consumers win.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I don't see why there is anything bad about the destruction of record companies. They have outlived their use. Who cried for all the smiths and saddlers that the automobile industry put out of business.

There is in fact an easy solution to this problem, a solution we already use all the time when markets fail, and file sharing is essentially a form of market failure (because the cost of prohibiting replication is itself prohibitive, and replication destroys control over distribution – hence the market system fails).

Most countries already deal with market failures in areas like health and education by funding it by compulsory taxation. Hell, a lot of music is already funded this way through arts grants (Classical music largely relies on grants).

The simplest solution would be to impose a tax on internet services (scaling with the speed of the service) and then dole out money to content creators based on the popularity of their content (It would be insanely easy to design a file sharing system that would do this).

But of course, if this happens there won't be insane amounts of money to be made, and the people who stand to lose their privileged position in society will whine and complain about it being "communism" (which it is, but they don't want to admit that Karl Marx was 100% right about infinitely replicable forms of property).

I personally don't care either way. If content companies do not endorse such a scheme, they will be destroyed and replaced by companies that do. Either way consumers win.
Piracy, peer-to-peer, file sharing (call it what you will) isn't a form of market failure. That's like saying theft means that something wrong with the method of distribution.

Anyway, the premise of the destruction of the record companies is an assumption. I've heard tell of the internet bringing about the demise of many industries but yet to see it. I'll believe the end of the music industry's record companies when I see Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG etc shutter their doors. Until then it's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[jpmittins]

I'd just like to point out that the poll now states that more people download music "...all the time" then "[sometimes] but not often." I feel like my team just won, or something.

[Beric]

I've ripped most my family's classical music CD's to my iTunes library. As we own the CD's, that isn't pirating.

[hexonxonx]

I'm wondering why, oh why, is a two CD new release $29.99 at most record stores when I can buy the same thing on iTunes for $12. It's this kind of BS that makes people continue to look for free sources of that music.

I thought CD prices were supposed to be in line with digital downloads such as $9.99 an album on iTunes.

[Coldacre]

I'm wondering why, oh why, is a two CD new release $29.99 at most record stores when I can buy the same thing on iTunes for $12.

you can't get the same thing on iTunes, you can can get an mp3 of the album at a low bitrate. if you want the album at 16bit /44 KHz you have to buy the cd.


until digital downloads are lossless, you can't expect them to be the same price as a cd

[Agathon]

Piracy, peer-to-peer, file sharing (call it what you will) isn't a form of market failure. That's like saying theft means that something wrong with the method of distribution.

Yes it is a market failure. Pollution is a market failure because people cannot effectively exercise property rights over the air around their houses. Similarly, people cannot effectively exercise property rights over digital files.

Technology has simply transformed music into something that is much harder to exercise property rights over. All that is solid melts into air.

Musicians and record companies can cry about this for as long as they like, but there is nothing they can do about it.

And them's basically the facts.

[gracest]

The simplest solution would be to impose a tax on internet services (scaling with the speed of the service) and then dole out money to content creators based on the popularity of their content (It would be insanely easy to design a file sharing system that would do this).


Check out http://grooveshark.com/.

The system runs by a model similar to the one you suggested... it pays the necessary royalties for content while allowing users unlimited previews before actually purchasing music. Also just launched a new feature, Autoplay, on http://listen.grooveshark.com/ that has the same concept as, but runs better than, Pandora.