Politics Downloading Music

[White_Rabbit]

Kazaa Lite I think is doing bad things to my computer (mostly taking up space that I seriously need). Sadly, I think I must delete it.

My issue with things like iTunes and the new Napster is that most of the music I listen to is obscure. It's hard to even find what I'm looking for on Kazaa sometimes. Does the new Napster or one of the other programs where you pay to download mp3s have a lot of relatively unknown artists?

u should delete it.

and, surprisingly, iTunes does have unknown artists, just not everything. What I mean is, some songs you'll be dying to download, and you'll find that the artists don't want anyone to download them even legally, so some artists's songs you cannot buy on iTunes without purchasing the album (which are always 9 or 12 dollars not like 18 or 20 in the store) and some they just won't let you buy.

But, its still better because not everything's perfect, INCLUDING illegal downloading. And, if you ask me, the consequences of using those programs (like the viruses you unknowingly get, pop-ups, the bad quality of the music, etc) are a lot worse than the little ones you might get with iTunes, the new Napster or MusicNet@AOL.

I don't blame some of the artists. They're probably pissed off enough that people are downloading their music without paying for it like they should and they have no control over that (but its a good thing they are gaining control, what with the record company lawsuits and stuff), so I could see why they're just fed up and don't want ANYONE downloading their stuff EITHER way.

Or, maybe that's not the reason you can't download certain songs. Maybe I'm searching for them the wrong way; that's what I did once with Yeah! By Usher, Luda and Lil' John. I thought I couldn't buy it bud I had just been searching wrong.

 

[agent hidden eyes]

well, i was a heavy downloader..then when they started cracking down i stopped for 2 year..but i got ares...way better the others...i prob get 3 songs every 4 months...but if i do they are usually raries or demos that can't be bought on no cd...plus 25 a cd to make but 18 to buy, forget that..if i buy a cd...its only a artist or band i'm devoted too and respect...

 

[White_Rabbit]

:blink: my computer hasn't crashed from WinMX

Neither has mine. I heart WinMX.

i haven't had problems with WinMX either

you just don't get it, do you? just because you don't have problems with a certain program doesn't mean...ah, nevermind. criminals will be criminals. wat can you do?

 

[G$f3arl3ssG$]

:blink: my computer hasn't crashed from WinMX

Neither has mine. I heart WinMX.

i haven't had problems with WinMX either

me neither 3 years and going strong!

 

[Guest8893]

that just shows that downloading music is not only illegal but also damaging. i think the artists should get paid for their work, but do they need to be paid that much?

yea seriously. when you think about how many millions they make and you look around at the people who are struggling to get by on low income, it just feels so wrong.

So you should just take away their money? just because they happen to have more than others, you should rip them off? should you also do this with other rich people? They work for their money, just as you do. They also have to pay for recording studios, mangers, bodyguards, etc. Do you need to pay for all of that? No? Well, how do you think they afford it? By using the money they earn.

I know downloading music is wrong, and it does hurt the artist, but I still do it. Yeah, I know, I know...the whole speech up there ^ might've convinced you that I don't download. But I do. Not because I think a CD is too expensive, which, if you really like the music, you will spend the extra money, and if you don't have the moeny, then you just can't buy the CD. Do you really need to buy the newest CD of your favorite group? Do you? I can understand what those who say they only like one or two songs are saying, but still, that music was created by the artist. It is still their work. And they still deserve to be paid for it. And like the person who started this thread stated, there are other, legal ways of getting the song you want. Personally, I download to see if I like an artist enough to buy their album. When I decide I do, I don't go to Kazaa or anything to just take their album. No, I wait until I have enough money to go buy the album and support the artist.

exactly!

downloading is just WRONG. it's against the law. it's pretty much like stealing... getting something without paying for it. these singers don't even get all of that money, they only get a percentage. other money goes to managers, producers, etc. And okay, so artists make more money than a lot of other people. It's because WE, and OUR society is so obsessed with music and entertainment that we buy their stuff. They get paid because of us. If we all started downloading instead of paying rightfully, there wouldn't even be a music business.

And actually? the richer people of our country aren't celebrities. they're business people. lol. the only reason why we know about these artists and how rich they are is because they're famous. Most of the millionaires and billionaires of our country aren't even celebrities.

anyway, downloading is like the same thing as Dell producing a computer, and you go into a store and steal it. Lol.

 

[Double Agent]

downloading is like the same thing as Dell producing a computer, and you go into a store and steal it. Lol.

yeah, but if you say downloading music is stealing, would you also say that photocopying a page from a book is stealing? it is the same thing. i'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, and i'm not saying that downloading music is necessarily right, but i think the whole computer scenario is a bit of an exaggeration..

 

[Existentialist]

Unless you're downloading thousands of songs illegally, I hardly think that counts as criminal behavior (despite what the law says).

I checked out iTunes and they had half of the songs I wanted to download. Their "unknown artists" to me are pretty well known.

I deleted kazaa a while ago now to free up some space on my hard drive.

But really, it's ridiculous to pay $16 for a cd with 10 or 11 tracks. A few years ago, when artists were putting out albums with 15 or 16 tracks, it was worth it, but now things have changed. I still contend that if all stores drop their cd prices by as little as a few dollars, things would change.

 

[Double Agent]

But really, it's ridiculous to pay $16 for a cd with 10 or 11 tracks. A few years ago, when artists were putting out albums with 15 or 16 tracks, it was worth it, but now things have changed. I still contend that if all stores drop their cd prices by as little as a few dollars, things would change.

that's my problem with buying cds! you pay so much money for a few good songs and a bunch of filler. if i know i like a whole cd, i have no problem paying the money.
and exactly, if they lowered prices to like $10 a cd, more people would buy them. i know i would.

 

[G$f3arl3ssG$]

I suggest going to bestbuys.com. They give you a 30 second sample of all the songs on an album. Still, I would rather download the specific songs that I like and compile a mix CD than buy a crappy album with 3 good songs, 4 mediocre songs, and 8 sucky songs.

And that is the reason WHY I download and will continue to do so. Call it illegal if you want, but I'm not keen on forking over my hard earned money for mediocre felgercarb. With I-tunes and the 99c/per song deal, if you downloaded 20 songs, it would still be as much as paying for a CD, and I'd rather get my songs for free.

 

[Itz tha Dreila]

There is nothing wrong with downloading something off the internet and not paying for it. I do it all the time and if I went to the store and bought it all instead of downloading it, it would cost me a lot of money. It's not a bad thing to download music, movies, and other things without paying for them.

 

[Guest8893]

But really, it's ridiculous to pay $16 for a cd with 10 or 11 tracks. A few years ago, when artists were putting out albums with 15 or 16 tracks, it was worth it, but now things have changed. I still contend that if all stores drop their cd prices by as little as a few dollars, things would change.

that's my problem with buying cds! you pay so much money for a few good songs and a bunch of filler. if i know i like a whole cd, i have no problem paying the money.
and exactly, if they lowered prices to like $10 a cd, more people would buy them. i know i would.

well hey go to walmart. very cheap!! i know, not to do with downloading music, but a lot of CDs there are only $10

and photocopying a book IS illegal. or at least i think it is. i know that photocopying sheetmusic is legal unless you've already bought it, and you're just copying it for backup or something.

 

[Itz tha Dreila]

But really, it's ridiculous to pay $16 for a cd with 10 or 11 tracks. A few years ago, when artists were putting out albums with 15 or 16 tracks, it was worth it, but now things have changed. I still contend that if all stores drop their cd prices by as little as a few dollars, things would change.

that's my problem with buying cds! you pay so much money for a few good songs and a bunch of filler. if i know i like a whole cd, i have no problem paying the money.
and exactly, if they lowered prices to like $10 a cd, more people would buy them. i know i would.

well hey go to walmart. very cheap!! i know, not to do with downloading music, but a lot of CDs there are only $10

and photocopying a book IS illegal. or at least i think it is. i know that photocopying sheetmusic is legal unless you've already bought it, and you're just copying it for backup or something.

I prefer kazaa. It's easier and it doesn't cost anything.

And photocopying isn't illegal unless you copy pages of a book or something that wasn't written by you and claim that you wrote it. That IS illegal. You can't get arrested or sued for photocopying a book. Even IF it is a law, it ISN'T inforced so it's not like there's anything wrong with it.

 

[ivand67]

Fulfill the deep pockets of the high-end executives of the record industry. Go ahead and believe that sharing a few MP3s online is a horrible crime.

If you're not among the people that believe that, please do everyone else a favor and check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's web site, which grows everyday and is defending your consumer rights in the digital era:

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Electronic Frontier Foundation Defending Freedom in the Digital World</span>

The EFF is simply looking for everyone's best interests and finding solutions to all the problems that the digital world represents to the music, movie and even TV industries (and others).

I will never pay 99 cents for an MP3, a digital file which I might only listen to a few times in my entire life, and costs absolutely no money to copy millions and millions of times. I support ALL MY FAVORITE MUSIC ARTISTS, all my favorite TV shows and all my favorite movies. That doesn't mean I should be a victim of the government and the greedy, unscrupulous purposes of the Recording Industry Association of America, who for the past year has sued over 3000 of their consumers.

Make your voice be heard and if you can afford it (it's only a few bucks), join the EFF.

 

[ivand67]

Whether it's illegal or not, I think the real question is... is it ethical or unethical?

What's fair for you, the consumer, and how can you support your favorite artists without getting ripped off? And what if you simply don't have any money?

What if you wanna check out the latest song by Coldplay, or the latest songs, to make sure that buying their CD is worth it?

Now that this is a matter that could get you sued (your chances of winning the lottery ARE STILL BETTER since there's like millions of people still downloading MP3s), everyone's acting like they're great people and they wanna be legal?

Where were you five or 4 years ago with Napster? I didn't hear a lot of people talking about what was legal or not, because you couldn't get sued. But now that the recording industry could sue you (if you share thousands of files of course), now the average, AOL-type-of-consumer and the people that aren't the most knowledgeable when it comes to computers (otherwise known as n00bs or newbies, sorry but that's how these people are called) are all like, whoa, what's legal and what's not legal, I wanna be legal! I'm legal and all...

How come you weren't saying that in 1999 with Napster? Oh, that's right, cause you couldn't get caught! You weren't a target!

It's all about, "I haven't done anything wrong until I get caught, right?"

Now we see people's true concerns...

 

[AliasALIAS]

Even IF it is a law, it ISN'T inforced so it's not like there's anything wrong with it.

Maybe I should make a list of crimes I could commit so I could fill up my wallet. After all, what's so wrong if I don't get caught?

That's a philosophy that should be taught in school textbooks

I will never pay 99 cents for an MP3, a digital file which I might only listen to a few times in my entire life, and costs absolutely no money to copy millions and millions of times.

If you'll only listen to a song a few times, then why would it be important to get the song in the first place? And it's only 99 cents. I'm sure you've eaten a small cookie that wasn't satisfying and it didn't last a lifetime. That doesn't mean Mrs. Fields should be robbed of their overpriced cookies.

That doesn't mean I should be a victim of the government and the greedy, unscrupulous purposes of the Recording Industry Association of America, who for the past year has sued over 3000 of their consumers.

I agree, the RIAA is being greedy. CDs are overpriced, I myself have only three CDs in my collection. I'd have much more if I had more money or if they were cheaper. But that's out of my control. I'm not gonna go steal songs just because I can't afford them. I'm not gonna violate their wishes (not to mention legal rights) and make copies of something I don't own.

I'll admit, I've downloaded a few songs (only a few ). But just as the outrageously high prices of CDs can't be justified, neither can stealing. Not even Robin Hood had the right to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

h34r:



And by the way, the EDIT button is there for a reason. No need to double post.

 

[ivand67]

I suggest going to bestbuys.com. They give you a 30 second sample of all the songs on an album. Still, I would rather download the specific songs that I like and compile a mix CD than buy a crappy album with 3 good songs, 4 mediocre songs, and 8 sucky songs.

And that is the reason WHY I download and will continue to do so. Call it illegal if you want, but I'm not keen on forking over my hard earned money for mediocre felgercarb. With I-tunes and the 99c/per song deal, if you downloaded 20 songs, it would still be as much as paying for a CD, and I'd rather get my songs for free.

That's right and that's how millions of people think.

Until the music industry comes up with a solution to satisfy our needs in a reasonable way, everyone will continue to swap music, movies, TV shows and all kinds of stuff for free.

I could make a huge list of how the entertainment and music industry are trying to change the technology that we own so that we can't make copies of something that we own.

I'm telling you people, truly anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing technology is currently being developed, and when it does, things are gonna get nastier and nastier.

The government and the entertainment industry will try to team up with computer companies to put chips on your computer that monitor the contents of your hard drive! That's like having a camera follow you around in your own home.

And we all know how important our privacy is in America. Get ready for some more serious digital wars.

Napster started it all, and everyday there's news about new laws and P2P networks, new technologies to "try" to prevent privacy and all kinds of stuff like that.

Everytime they shut something down, like a P2P network, a new one pops up. Everytime they come up with a new technology to "try to prevent 'piracy'", that technology fails as hackers and teenagers crack it.

It's an ongoing battle...

 

[ivand67]

And by the way, the EDIT button is there for a reason. No need to double post.

Oops, sorry...

I'll admit, I've downloaded a few songs (only a few goodwink.gif). But just as the outrageously high prices of CDs can't be justified, neither can stealing. Not even Robin Hood had the right to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Stealing what? A digital file that can be wiped from my computer's hard drive in 2 seconds? If I was an artist I'd be GLAD people are listening to my songs. Maybe in the future you'll like my stuff so much that you'll pay for the CD, which are cool when the songs are actually good.

That recently happened to me with the Deftones' single "Minerva", an awesome song. It grew on me and now I'm on their mailing list, receiving e-mails from them every once in a while. There's a good chance I'll buy a Deftones CD in the future...

And I don't listen to rock stations - it was thanks to file sharing that I ever heard that song.

"How's that for spin?" - Eric Weiss, Alias.

AliasALIAS, I personally suggest you read some news over at the EFF, check out personal stories of the people that have been sued, and THEN tell me I steal stuff.

Fact is, this is not gonna go away and millions of kids that are young now will do the same thing that their older siblings are doing.

Some people are thieves and never pay for anything. Other people just crave music - lots of it, and simply cannot shell out the hundreds of dollars it would take to get it.

This has been going on for decades. People have been swapping music in different ways for so long, way before MP3s ever existed.

Hope no one gets nasty with me here!

 

[Existentialist]

I like how you said sorry about double posting before, and then do it again.

However, for the most part, I agree with you. There are a bunch of artists that I now love ONLY because I downloaded a few songs by them. They get no radio time and I've even gone hunting in search of their cds to buy.

Josh Kelley got a record deal from a major label only because he put his music on the internet for download. An internet fanbase formed, and a major label eventually got wind of him.

 

[ivand67]

I'm just gonna post my last message in this thread and never return to it by saying that:

• The industry's current attempts to turn people away from illegal downloading is not gonna work.
• If I was an exec in the music biz, sure, I'd be doing something, but not suing consumers. Contrary to popular belief of some baby boomers, this is NOT gonna work. Kids and people in their 20s are still gonna be downloading for years to come if they don't come up with a very cheap, legal alternative to Internet music downloading. iTunes is cool, but they (and the music industry, etc.) need to:
  1. Get rid of copy protection on downloads. People wanna have freedom with the stuff they buy. Regulation on a digital file will never work anyway, since it's so easy to crack it. If you search for iTunes on P2P networks, you'll find the little crack to get rid of the file copy protection not just for iTunes but for the other legal services.
  2. Come up with a flat fee rate for unlimited downloads. Just imagine the kind of money the music industry would make if people paid $20 a month for music downloads. Imagine the number of people who would sign up. Do this and come up with a good system that will give credit where credit is due and still pay the most-downloaded artists and companies.
  3. Stop lying. Internet music downloading is NOT the cause of a decline in CD sales. There are tons of other issues but the music industry always blames it on the Internet. I've read tons of reports released by the music industry on how illegal downloading is the culprit. No it's not. After I read those reports, weeks later I read thorough reports of the most thorough music research companies on Rolling Stone magazine on how it's NOT the Internet's fault.
  4. Stop targeting people. Stop suing people. Your own consumers! In many cases, your FUTURE consumers. Your future.
  5. Give people what they want. Stop trying to take down Internet radio services and streams.
  6. Apologize for the lawsuits. Come clean. Apologize to the 36-year old mother in Minnesota who got sued because her 12-year old daughter was downloading tons of music. That mother made $12/hour and was a single parent. She couldn't pay for anything and got slammed with a huge lawsuit and a $4000 fine (true story).

I don't think they're gonna do any of that though. It's gonna be a continuous problem for a lot of people...

 

[AliasALIAS]

I agree that many of those lawsuits are uncalled for, but what you're basically saying is "We're gonna keep stealing until you find a way to stop us without suing us." How can people be turned away from downloading music? There's always gonna be a way to illegally download for free, so as long as CDs cost more than a dollar, there's still gonna be some people who will download.

I like the idea of $20 a month for unlimited downloads (kinda like Netflix), but you know how many songs could be downloaded in a month? Instead of 99 cents per songs, heavy downloaders could be paying 10 cents per song. And there's still a large amount of people with dialup. I'd love to have an iPod, but with my Internet speed, I wouldn't want to wait 15 minutes for a single song. I'd rather go buy the CD... if it was cheaper. The dreaded problem. :lol:

eta: I missed the "flat fee rate" part, so I guess it would work if there was a set amount of the downloads for $20, then a small price for each song after that. Kinda like a cell phone plan and minutes, except you'll actually know when you go over. :lol:

After I read those reports, weeks later I read thorough reports of the most thorough music research companies on Rolling Stone magazine on how it's NOT the Internet's fault.

Interesting. So what's the cause of CD sales declining? Besides the high prices of CDs, I'd assume that it was because of the Internet, even if the RIAA didn't point their fingers at the old Napster and Kazaa.

People wanna have freedom with the stuff they buy.

Slgihtly OT, but though this is true, the government and producers can place almost whatever limits they want on products. Sometimes they're unreasonable, sometimes they're for safety reasons, sometimes it's for money.