M-13 - Music Piracy - [Kazaa and Morpheus shut down...]

[JofpGallagher]

Hello. You can read my opinion or skip it and write down your opinion about music piracy. I’m interested in hearing your opinions. Thanx.

I was reading this morning about Music Piracy, Kazaa, the right of Free Speech, and the right of Copyrighted artists’ works. I don’t have a strong position to any side. However, it makes me think. I have no more than 6 songs in my PC, all of them are rare Oasis songs (Like “Solve My Mystery�) never released on any album. I have, probably less than 15 CDs that are actually burned from an original album, and must of them have been given to me from friends that say “Hey you gotta love this one, I burned it for you�.

I have NEVER downloaded Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus, and whatever software used to “share� (Steal?) files. I asked to a friend to download the 6 songs I have in my PC as well (I have to admit it) as three CDs of Radiohead’s b-side & rarities, and the never released second album of The Seahorses. (But, how could I have bought it?)

If I like a band, I buy its album. It seems fair play(?).

Impress me a lot how people boost his hard drives capabilities saying that “I have more than 1,000 songs on my PC�. I have a friend who has more than 300 CDs from which less than 50 are originals. I think this is a delicate issue. If the piracy grows and grows what is gonna happen? In my country people sell burned CDs in the street like it is the most “natural� thing in the world.

I’m not blaming people only. I think there is a big deal in bad management in the music industry. How much can cost to record and promote an album? Suppose that an album cost one tenth of the budget of a expensive movie, let’s say, $100 millions (And I think I’m exaggerating a lot). The retail price is $14, thus assuming that the entire value-chain (From the record company to the retailer) carries the cost of putting a CD in the market, it will take 714,000 CDs to cover the costs which is not easy to make (Most artist do not sell that amount of CDs). After that, the gain is huge since only one CD is the expensive, the first one. The rest are just “burned� copies from the original. This makes me wonder, what about albums already recorded? For example a Beatles CD has already covered its cost, ages ago before the CD appeared, but still it is sold for $14, I’d say that 95% is profits for someone (Jesus, they could offer lower prices from this ones and still make huge profits). Record Seals are battling and allocating lots of resources to avoid piracy, but I think they are doing very few to improve production costs and offer cheaper prices. Technology advances have made many things cheaper and cheaper, but not a music album. Their prices only grow.
And it’s not only music. I have a friend who from time to time downloads an entire movie (while sleeping), so next day he has a new movie to watch. Also, I know that you can get an entire books through the same way.

I think a burned CD is steal not to mention that for me has zero collectible value. What do you think?

[Percy Weasley]

Well, I must say I was guilty of having a large number of songs I didn't purchase, I had (before my hard drives partition tables got screwed over) somewhere around 2,000 songs. Now I have just a few and am happy with that. I enjoy buying music, and if I like an artist I try to buy a new album by them inside the first week of sales which is the best time to buy because it boosts the ratings of that artist as far as the recording company is concerned. Aside from that though I must say that I have a number of issues with copyright laws and while I can not say that I think it is right to just steal, I have no problems listening to some of an album before I decide to buy it. For those of you who listen to your everyday stuff thats played on the radio this is no problem, but I listen to things that aren't played on any radio station, at least not where I live. so my alternative is to download the album, listen to it and decide if I wan't to shell out the 15-20 bucks for it or not. I suppose I just think that right and wrong had to be somethign you decide for yourself, I go with my gut feelings and take it from there.

[::Revolutionary::]

I dont mind downloading music...I have about 600 music files downloaded on my computer...I just dont want to cash out for a CD, especially when I can get the music for free :D. The only CD's I have ever bought are RATM CD's(EDIT: And lord of the rings), which is kinda ironic as they are one of the only bands who dont mind there music getting downloaded without cost.

[triki1988]

Actuallly, I think I would get jailed if the government officials went trhough my iTunes list and my CD wallet. I have at least 28 burnt CD's and more than 11 hours of music stored in my computer, which, really isn't that much, but since I shouldn't be doing it, then it's bad.

[Emma]

I have not downloaded anything from the internet. I don't know how.

I have however, copied favorite CDs so that I have the same in the car as I have in the house. But I have bought the original originally.

I think that if the piracy continues, the quality of the music that the public that does not pirate will suffer.

[j_thunders]

The whole thing is really sad, because it all boils down to a lot of young kids getting ripped off by major record companies that charge anywhere around $18 for a new, single-disc album. I know a lot of people will agree that $18 is a ridiculous asking price for an album. A single-disc album! I would expect to see that price only on a double album, or a rarity, or something that would justify a price like that.
The reason I use young kids as an example is because almost every person I know (my age) downloads music. And if you're older you probably know where to find CDs for cheap, and you can actually get in your car and drive to an independent music store where you will save money. I, personally, only download to preview songs, and that's only after reading album reviews so I know what I'm in for. 99% of the time, I end up buying the album, because I do my research before I download, so I'm usually confident that I'm downloading something that I'll end up liking. I have never downloaded an entire album. Since I don't have any program like Kazaa or Morpheus (I only have RealOne Player, and you can search for songs and stuff, but it isn't like either of those programs). The only CDs I have burned contain tracks off of albums I've purchased, so it's like a collection of my favorite songs.
I think everyone has a right to preview music before they buy it, since obviously the radio won't introduce you to anything worthwhile, and MTV just plain sucks. It's sad that the only way I can hear good music without help from the internet, is in a movie or something. And any music that I've gotten interested in by way of television isn't because of VH1 or MTV, I can tell you that right now. Occassionally, VH1 will show something worth watching after midnight, but it's usually only when some punk musician dies and they start running documentaries on the entire punk movement. Which would be cool, but they only do it when someone dies. It's sickening.
I could easily burn all of my CDs, but then I think that some of the musicians I listen to aren't very well-known, and they deserve the money. I mean, we don't hesitate to pay doctors that much, so why should helping out a struggling musician be any different? And that money isn't just going to them. It's going to anyone associated with them. Besides, there is no excitement in burning CDs. I get a rush every time I buy an album, and can listen to it knowing that I have the actual thing and not just some second-rate copy. Cover art and liner notes are usually cool.

[j_thunders]

I also found out that I bought, or received as a gift, a little less than 90 CDs in the past year or so. I bought most of them, of course. But the only things I've ever wanted for Christmas and my birthday are CDs, basically. At certain stores, I can get discounts for buying as many CDs as I do, and that helps sometimes. And the CDs I buy are usually priced at around 9 to 11 dollars, but I still think that is too much to pay. I'll also buy used CDs if they're in good condition and aren't scratched, so that takes a lot off the price.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by j_thunders (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288851#post288851))
The whole thing is really sad, because it all boils down to a lot of young kids getting ripped off by major record companies that charge anywhere around $18 for a new, single-disc album. I know a lot of people will agree that $18 is a ridiculous asking price for an album. A single-disc album! I would expect to see that price only on a double album, or a rarity, or something that would justify a price like that.

Well, flip the coin and it's the artists getting ripped off for having their music downloaded illegally. Yes, a lot of artists are rich already, but that doesn't change the fact that you go out and buy music. That's the system that's in place. If young kids can't afford an album, then they either work for some spare cash from friends or family or they wait.


The reason I use young kids as an example is because almost every person I know (my age) downloads music. And if you're older you probably know where to find CDs for cheap, and you can actually get in your car and drive to an independent music store where you will save money. I, personally, only download to preview songs, and that's only after reading album reviews so I know what I'm in for. 99% of the time, I end up buying the album, because I do my research before I download, so I'm usually confident that I'm downloading something that I'll end up liking. I have never downloaded an entire album.

I buy my music CDs from all the major outlets at the same price as everybody else. Even independent music stores charge. The fact is, that the internet has created a lazy generation who, even if the CDs were say $5-10 would still download them. I tend to buy what I think will be good. If I don't like it, then I'll take it back and exchange it.

I have bought over a thousand music CDs over the years and I enjoy the experience of purchasing a new album. Downloading albums just isn't the thing for me. Yes, it's cost me a lot of money over the years, but if I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't buy it.


--ADMIN HAT ON--

Bare in mind please, rule 7 of the forum rules.

7. CoS Forums does not encourage members to openly discuss file sharing activities. Whilst we understand that file sharing is a fact of life and will be continued by a lot of people, we will not allow members to openly support this activity publicly. Any threads which discuss, request or encourage downloading of illegal material such as the HP Movies or MP3s will be deleted by staff. This will be followed by a cautionary Private Message from our staff advising [[username]] to refrain from posting such threads. They are supported by the forum rules and CoS Forums disclaimer, which justifies our right to remove such threads.

You're welcome to discuss this topic, which I'll move to Knockturn Alley, but please don't post any links to file sharing websites. This thread is for debate only and will be monitored.

[lanifiel]

I'm sick so I'll make it simple.

Downloading Songs and Albums is illeagal unless the Artist gives their approval.

[::Revolutionary::]

Originally posted by lanifiel (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288888#post288888))
I'm sick so I'll make it simple.

Downloading Songs and Albums is illeagal unless the Artist gives their approval.



Godbless RATM:D

[Kevin]

I've got a number of mp3's mainly radiohead gigs.
I don't see it as stealing if it's the concert.
I downloaded the leaked version of radioheads new album to see what it was like. I will buy the album and it's first single there there

[Moontrimmer]

I have cd burner on my comp, but my dad is strict about letting me burn songs on a cd. Maybe thats a good thing.
I believe there are sites out there that have the artists permission, but you have to pay.

[triki1988]

I also have a question, if singers love singing so much, then, why should they expect to earn money for doing something they like?
I don't get paid for posting at CoS.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by triki1988 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288925#post288925))
I also have a question, if singers love singing so much, then, why should they expect to earn money for doing something they like?
I don't get paid for posting at CoS.


I don't get paid for working on CoS ;)

[Percy Weasley]

Originally posted by lanifiel (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288888#post288888))
I'm sick so I'll make it simple.

Downloading Songs and Albums is illeagal unless the Artist gives their approval.


Actually isn't it more the recording company that has power over that sort of thing. I mean they are the real evil in the situation, we may whine about getting ripped off but what about the artists, seriously. unless they are playing to the market and just writing what sells it can very difficult to make much at all as a musician. I am sure that all the really popular artists are rich, but most of the time what sells is what is marketed not what is really good music. anyway...I digress. what I am trying to say is that the companies rip us off not the artists

[lanifiel]

Originally posted by triki1988 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288925#post288925))
I also have a question, if singers love singing so much, then, why should they expect to earn money for doing something they like?
I don't get paid for posting at CoS.


No, but this isnt your job is it. This is just something we do for fun. Artists play music for their livelyhood...

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by Morgoth (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288880#post288880))
Well, flip the coin and it's the artists getting ripped off for having their music downloaded illegally. Yes, a lot of artists are rich already, but that doesn't change the fact that you go out and buy music. That's the system that's in place. If young kids can't afford an album, then they either work for some spare cash from friends or family or they wait.


I know, kids are lazy. And I hope I already made the point that I don't care how rich (or poor) the artist is, I'll always buy the album myself. I'm not blaming the artist. I actually know of more musicians who have tried to sell their albums for $9 instead of a higher price so that maybe someday, people will stop downloading music because they'll be able to afford it again. The artists aren't the source of the problem, and the downloaders aren't either. I don't know who to blame--the people who make downloading music possible, or the people who have increased the price of albums. Because when an artist is getting ripped off when people download their music, they have to increase the prices of their albums, which in return gives people even more of a reason to download--album prices are too high. It goes in a circle.

[mouood]

I download albums and mp3's, but if I like the album I keep it on there, then I buy it and re-rip it so the mp3's are legal. But if I download an album I don't like, I delete it and don't buy it. I don't see the harm in that. CD's are still too expensive (for me anyway), and if I buy one I don't want it to be bad.

[MaynardIsReal12]

Originally posted by j_thunders (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288968#post288968))
I know, kids are lazy. And I hope I already made the point that I don't care how rich (or poor) the artist is, I'll always buy the album myself. I'm not blaming the artist. I actually know of more musicians who have tried to sell their albums for $9 instead of a higher price so that maybe someday, people will stop downloading music because they'll be able to afford it again. The artists aren't the source of the problem, and the downloaders aren't either. I don't know who to blame--the people who make downloading music possible, or the people who have increased the price of albums. Because when an artist is getting ripped off when people download their music, they have to increase the prices of their albums, which in return gives people even more of a reason to download--album prices are too high. It goes in a circle.


You make a great point j thunders. I think I might be the minority of kids my age (12) who actually does buy any cds. It makes it feel more real than sharing it off the internet.

What I don't get, is that record execs charge 18$ for a cd that cost 2 cents to make, and they complain that we are stealing. :rolleyes: Oh, well, I don't download songs that much. And the ones that I do, our mostly already released.

[zora_domina]

I myself have only downloaded the 2 or 3 songs that I could never possibly find on cd anywhere. And of those, one of them was for an album that had yet to be released, and then I bought it through mp3.com when it DID.

I don't believe that in and of itself, it is wrong to download things - but, if the product is available, go out and do the band or company or whoever a FAVOR by paying for it. They did the work - not the guys who snagged it off their album and made it available for free.

I admit that I had a copy of psp 7 (the full version, not their 30 day trial) that I got from a download site. I use the program every day of my life, and so I got WAY guilty... when I saw it available at a store for about 100$ I figured that it's WAY worth my while and money to reward them for a job well done.

It's another whole matter when there IS no released item. I have a vinyl copy of something that has NEVER, and WILL never be released on disk. I'd KILL to have it on cd, but I don't even own a record player any more - and it'd cost me a bundle to get it converted (not to mention the horrible quality such a thing would be... since it's a favorite album and has been played MANY times). So, in that case I'd hope and pray for someone to have it available for downloading.

I do a lot of online cyberpets and images, and so I do understand the work that goes into making something special. but I'm making my work available to people who want it. When there's nothing to actually get your hands on, physically, someone will do something about it on a private level.

Just hope that the recording industry finally clues in that their cds are about 200% too expensive, and starts making them available cheaper for more people to buy. (why haven't they? I'd be buying LOTS more things if only I could afford them! I just spent 25$ on 3 albums at a used cd store though! duh! why pay that for ONE!)

-zora

[DocHollidaywe]

I think it is fine to download music for your personal computer use, not for burning off and selling

[LewsTherin]

I've downloaded many songs from the Net, and recieved many from friends. I don't feel guilty about it. In fact, if I like what I hear with the song I download, I go out and guy the CD. If I don't, I get bored of the song and delete it.

I just don't see the point of buying a R120 CD just for one song. That's ridiculous. I will try and find the single, but if I can't I download the song. I mean, why should I pay good money for a sub-standard album when I can get the one song I want for free? I will buy good music, because I think it deserves it, but not a one-hit album with a bunch of fillers. Also, you sometimes cannot find an album anymore, no matter how much you want to buy it, and the Internet is often the only place you can find it.

People can share their files if they want to. Kazaa may make it easy to download songs and the like, but even if it was shut down, people could still link and distrubute music. You can't stop this kind of thing. I've lent many CD's of mine to friends so they could rip the CD to their PC. I don't see anything wrong with this. They get to hear what the CD is like, and if they want, buy it. I don't make money off this, and neither does my friend.

[DragonslayerX]

Well, I'll download songs, but most of the songs I have downloaded, I actually have or had the CD, but it is not near my computer, or it is too scratched for a quality song.

I do not feel guilty for it, simply because I do usually buy the CD's. I own 1 burned CD, which I burned off of a CD my stepbrother had. Which was a good thing, considering he got all of his CD's stolen. So, basically the only thing I use file sharing for is to see if the music is something I'm willing to pay $20 for, or to get songs which are never released.

[go_anna40]

I haven't downloaded much things that are counted as illegal. Though my brother has downloaded programs such as Kazaa and Morpheus for music downloading reasons, but I have told him to delete those programs off.
I have one burnt CD, which is a soundtrack and I burnt it off my other brother, which I find okay.
I don't see much in it, this world is full of lies and deceit, you know, just one burnt CD really ain't going to hurt. Though there is always that little voice in your head, that guilty factor.
I guess I'm a bit undecided.

[dumbleedore]

I download a lot of stuff. But if I am downloading a heap from the same artist, I go and buy the CD. And a lot of the stuff that I do download is stuff that I can't find on CD here where I live. It can cost me up to $50 to get a CD in at times. And I don't want to be paying that much. Plus, a lot of the songs I like are on US release only CD's, which are even more to get in. It was going to cost me $64.95 to get Evanscence's CD (although it's released here in 2 weeks anyway for cheaper, so i'll wait).

But any artist who hates people downloading is just in it for the money. Avril Lavinge had the perfect stance. She doesn't care if people rip her music off, just as long as someone is listening to it. And that's my opinion to. They shouldn't be concerned about not getting the percentage of the sales that they get, but that there music is out there, reaching people, touching people.

[Midnightsfire]

Haven't read all the posts here, however, from what I recall, the actual cost to create a CD is roughly less than $2 (around 1 pound). We, the consumer, will pay around 7 to 10x for that CD.

I admit this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33972-2003Apr24.html) irritated me. (The RIAA and MPAA's legal approach is ham-fisted and dubious in my opinion.)

From the article: The RIAA, many musicians and other copyright holders have argued that the increase in file-sharing during the past several years has seriously eroded music sales.

Disagree. Crappy music has seriously eroded music sales. That and CD prices rising above and staying above what the market will bear, file sharing or no.

In general, the way I see it is this: the corporations are the ones who started this theft. They started by siphoning off most of the money that come in from CDs to pay themselves, ensuring artists get much less than they deserve. From a $15 CD, the artist(s) who produce it get pennies. Then, they attempt to rob me by jacking up the price to many times what it took to produce the CD. Now they get all uppity about theft when someone decided to do it to them? Maybe they could try producing good music, lowering prices and enticing me to pay for music instead of trying to hack my computer. Did they think that inflating the prices of CDs was going to be a good idea?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with trading music with others. Selling is one thing, but I trade music with my friends all the time.

And on another note:

Judge: File-swapping tools are legal (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/998363.htm)

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by dumbleedore (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=290156#post290156))
But any artist who hates people downloading is just in it for the money. Avril Lavinge had the perfect stance. She doesn't care if people rip her music off, just as long as someone is listening to it. And that's my opinion to. They shouldn't be concerned about not getting the percentage of the sales that they get, but that there music is out there, reaching people, touching people.


I'm sure Avril Lavigne wouldn't feel that way if she were a struggling musician who needed any money she could get ahold of just to get by. Because remember, there are more non-famous, poor musicians than there are famous, rich ones. That's why it sickens me to see a famous artist complain when their new album doesn't go multi-platinum. Most musicians would be happy if their album sold a few hundred, or at most a thousand copies in all. I don't understand everyone's fascination with pop stardom, I guess. Everyone wants that hit song.

And besides, would you steal a painting from a museum? A painting that some artist may have worked on for years to perfect, only for someone to tell them that "it's just art" and to take it from them without the artist getting anything in return? Probably not. Then why do the same to a musician who may have worked just as hard, if not harder, to write and record an entire album?

[Sirius83]

I'm going to flip the lid on this. If it weren't for MP3's, i won't have half the CD's i currently own. When a single comes out i download it, and if i really like it i check out more stuff by the artist. Following this, if i think the artist is really good - i go out and buy the CD. I have a lot of MP3's, but if not for them, i won't have bothered buying half the CD's i own. I also know many people like myself. I also know that MP3's are a good way for new bands to get a name out there. Many people look at the bad side, but what about these upsides?

EDIT: Perhaps if CD's weren't so overpriced, i wouldn't mind buying the CD without needed to listen to more of what the music on it is like. However, these days CD's are very much overpriced, so i would only buy a CD that i really want. The overpricing of CD's is more responsible for the lack of sales than piracy. As i said, the "piracy" gets the artists more exposure and makes someone want to buy their CD if they sound good. I for one won't buy an entire album after hearing a single on the radio.

[OrioCookie]

I was watching a flash animation which made a good point. It was about Metallica's veiw on file-sharing, and the main character says "Um, Lars, I remember when you guys were trying to get people to listen to your tapes for free......so lets not forget our roots."

[daniel4hp]

I don't download music. I don't listen to much music, really, but that music I do have I buy. Whether or not it is legal, I feel that it is better to go to a store and buy the music the artist worked hard to make, rather than download it off the internet for free. I just don't feel its right to download... :shrug: And then, I like the feeling of buying something. Its not the same to download it.

[periwinkle-blue]

Originally posted by Sirius83 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=290330#post290330))
I'm going to flip the lid on this. If it weren't for MP3's, i won't have half the CD's i currently own. When a single comes out i download it, and if i really like it i check out more stuff by the artist. Following this, if i think the artist is really good - i go out and buy the CD. I have a lot of MP3's, but if not for them, i won't have bothered buying half the CD's i own. I also know many people like myself. I also know that MP3's are a good way for new bands to get a name out there. Many people look at the bad side, but what about these upsides?

EDIT: Perhaps if CD's weren't so overpriced, i wouldn't mind buying the CD without needed to listen to more of what the music on it is like. However, these days CD's are very much overpriced, so i would only buy a CD that i really want. The overpricing of CD's is more responsible for the lack of sales than piracy. As i said, the "piracy" gets the artists more exposure and makes someone want to buy their CD if they sound good. I for one won't buy an entire album after hearing a single on the radio.


I am in the same shoes as Sirius83 :yup:

Although I should get more than a slap on my wrist for downloading songs, which I don't know whether the artist allowed that or not, I think mp3 widen my music interest way more than what my local music scenes and sources could offer me.

In fact, I've only downloaded songs which are close to impossible to get it here, especially if it's from faraway country like Russia (for example, Zemfira) and songs from underground scenes from another country.

Likewise, I do agree with LewsTherin, that I don't think I can afford to buy the whole album just because I like one or two songs from it. In fact, CDs and cassette albums here are quite expensive (around RM35-RM45 for CDs or USD 133 - USD 171), and I couldn't go and buy every single albums that I like twice a month.

However, I do go and buy the albums when I like more than five songs that I've downloaded from the same artist/band. I am all for supporting the art that I like :)

[JofpGallagher]

Originally posted by Percy Weasley (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288724#post288724))
... I listen to things that aren't played on any radio station, at least not where I live. so my alternative is to download the album, listen to it and decide if I wan't to shell out the 15-20 bucks for it or not. I suppose I just think that right and wrong had to be somethign you decide for yourself, I go with my gut feelings and take it from there.

Percy (or Weatherby??..:lol: ). I understand you perfectly. Put in my shoes, I live in USA and I love Britt-Rock, so, how can I get to know bands like The Libertines or Six By Seven if once in a year I can listen Oasis's most known song on any American radio (I'm talking about Wonderwall).
Normally, my sources are magazines, (NME), friends, people on forums like this one and the most important WAS (because MTV shut it down) MTV radio station called Britt-Rock.
Percy, I just recently discovered a new source. It's www.launch.com, It's a mega radio-videos you can set with your preferences. Just go there a have a look. It's pretty nice place. It's free and Legal!!!!! Be aware, this is a yahoo place, it's only for listening, not for downloading. You can't download a song in here!!

Originally posted by j_thunders (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=288851#post288851))
I think everyone has a right to preview music before they buy it, since obviously the radio won't introduce you to anything worthwhile, and MTV just plain sucks.
I second that!!! Some stores in the U.S. have been doing efforts to put more station where you can listen previews of anything. But it's just few seconds and sometimes you need a little bit more than that to appreciate a musical work.

Besides, there is no excitement in burning CDs. I get a rush every time I buy an album, and can listen to it knowing that I have the actual thing and not just some second-rate copy. Cover art and liner notes are usually cool.


:clappy: Thunders!!! Bravo...you think like me. There is not excitement with a burned CD. It's kinda a bland food. As I said, there is zero collectible value from a burned CD. It's like a tape in its time. BTW, now that I listen Punk, I remember you :o Right now, I'm listening one of the best song of the Replacements (Unsatisfied)...

Originally posted by MaynardIsReal12 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=289204#post289204))
I think I might be the minority of kids my age (12) who actually does buy any cds.
What I don't get, is that record execs charge 18$ for a cd that cost 2 cents to make,
I noticed that somebody rated this (13)...hehehe...If you are 12 you are no supposed to read this (Not to mention to discuss it...) :lol: But I want to let you know that to record a CD cost more than that, Midnightsfire says that in average they cost $2 and I believe that figure. It involves many, many things that I ignore, but I agree that Music Companies are doing poorly to bring a product (CD) in a competitive price.

Final comments.
I'm very pleased that most of you see that music piracy is an illegal action, which I agree. I think we have the right to listen music before purchasing something. It's a natural rule seller-buyer. If you want to buy a car, you are allow to test it. I don't like to buy CDs blindly. For that reason I use internet radios, like MTV radio or the link I mention before (www.launch.com) which are legal and allow you to search for artist, songs, etc. Then you listen and can judge them. If you like you buy the album. That's what I usually do unless a very good friend of mine, who knows my tastes redommends me to buy such or that album....

[Tarawyn]

I only download music and keep it under a few circumstances:

- To demo the music
- If I'm already planning on buying the CD after demo-ing the music
- If I already own the CD and I can't find it, or it was scratched, or I can't be bothered to look for it at time X. For example, I'm downloading music from the Two Towers soundtrack and have absolutely no guilt because I bought two copies of it. I just need to find them!
- If the CD is no longer in circulation

Really, downloading music is more of a way for me to avoid headaching than anything else. Piracy is illegal, but it's not going to go away all too soon, and if you're valid in downloading, go ahead. I don't know where I stand on CD burning - I never put much thought into it.

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by JofpGallagher (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=290440#post290440))
Percy (or Weatherby??..:lol: ). I understand you perfectly. Put in my shoes, I live in USA and I love Britt-Rock, so, how can I get to know bands like The Libertines or Six By Seven if once in a year I can listen Oasis's most known song on any American radio (I'm talking about Wonderwall).

Haha...that is the only Oasis song I've ever heard on the radio, now that I think about it. And the only video of theirs I've ever seen on television was the one for Champagne Supernova (which I only saw once a few years ago, and thought it was cool).

Normally, my sources are magazines, (NME), friends, people on forums like this one and the most important WAS (because MTV shut it down) MTV radio station called Britt-Rock.

Me too, except for the friends part. As much as I love them, I can't say the same about the tastes in music. Talking to people on different message boards is the best way, in my opinion. Magazines are good as well, but sometimes they can have biased opinions and you don't know which one to trust. People you talk to on the net seem to be the only honest ones. Internet radio is great as well. I've never listened to MTV's radio, but I used to listen to VH1's, and then now I go to MSN because they have at least one good station for (you guessed it) punk music. And they'll actually play the NY Dolls and Richard Hell. I think the station is named "Pretty Vacant", after the Pistols song.

:clappy: Thunders!!! Bravo...you think like me. There is not excitement with a burned CD. It's kinda a bland food. As I said, there is zero collectible value from a burned CD. It's like a tape in its time. BTW, now that I listen Punk, I remember you :o Right now, I'm listening one of the best song of the Replacements (Unsatisfied)...

You flatter me :o
Unsatisfied is a great song. Let It Be is one of those albums that I'm glad I picked up while still a teenager. The lyrics are perfect. I don't know what it is...Paul Westerberg has some kind of ability that allows him to tap into people's minds. He knows what everyone my age is thinking or worrying about, and in 20 years I'm sure I'll still be listening to that album.

[JamesI]

I've read the opinions here, and I agree and disagree with quite a few of them.

I have Kazaa on my computer, and.. well...

I like some music that I get recommended off friends. I download this. This is bands, that don't have a record company, and give their songs as free for all.

Then there's the other things. I downloaded 2 Avril Lavigne tracks, and went out and bought the album.

But what about if I only want one track? I only have two albums on my computer. They are riipped. The rest are single tracks. If I want a single track, should I really have to go and shell out £10-15 for a full album that probably hasn't got as good material?

I generally do download popular music too. I never download albums, just groups of tracks. I feel record companies rip everyone off. The artists, and the consumer.

I'm getting a CD Burner for my birthday in a few months. I won't burn full albums, partly because my connection would take a long time to download them, and partly because if I want a full album, I'd rather have it with inlay, lyrics etc. So I'd go out and buy it. I'll only burn compilation CDs. My favourite tracks, on a CD. I won't sell them (the culture is too popular now, nearly everyone has a CD re-writer), and anyway, I believe that making profit of which should be other people's is wrong. If all I want is a complication album, I might have to pay £200 for 15 albums, because I only want 1 track. So £200 for 15 tracks. The rest probably won't be worth listening to.

Hope that all made sense, I've rambled for way too long.
James

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by JamesI (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=290695#post290695))
I'm getting a CD Burner for my birthday in a few months. I won't burn full albums, partly because my connection would take a long time to download them, and partly because if I want a full album, I'd rather have it with inlay, lyrics etc. So I'd go out and buy it. I'll only burn compilation CDs. My favourite tracks, on a CD. I won't sell them (the culture is too popular now, nearly everyone has a CD re-writer), and anyway, I believe that making profit of which should be other people's is wrong. If all I want is a complication album, I might have to pay ?200 for 15 albums, because I only want 1 track. So ?200 for 15 tracks. The rest probably won't be worth listening to.


Gosh, it still sounds strange when I hear people say they buy albums that they end up only liking one track off of. I can't even remember the last time I bought an album I disliked, or an album that I only liked a few songs off of. I think I got better with reading reviews and listening to clips off the internet, and really finding out a lot about the type of music before I buy CDs. After I started doing all this, I was able to easily find CDs that I knew I would like before even hearing the whole album. And with the type of music I listen to, some of the bands might only have 5-8 tracks on an album. Like when I bought Fun House (The Stooges) and it only had 7 tracks, but it turned out to be one of my favorite albums of all time. Same thing for White Light/White Heat (The Velvet Underground) which has 6 tracks. They're both 2 of my favorite albums EVER. After all, it's not quantity that matters, it's quality. I wouldn't buy an album with 18 tracks instead of one with 8 that I would like better just because it has more songs. I can't possibly imagine that music has gotten to the point where it's hard to find more than 1 track that you like off of any given album. Are these artists more mainstream? I'm not trying to direct this at you, JamesI. What you started to say about the 1 track thing just gave me something else to ramble on about.

[Tarawyn]

Some artists have a wide variety of music or write one song, maybe two, that's extremely different from the rest of their music. When you combine this with a rather random musical appetite (like the one I have) that takes in a very small bit of everything, and it's almost impossible to find an album that you can like more than a little bit of. Very basic example - Verve Pipe's "The Freshmen" is, from what I've demo-ed, very different from what they usually write - not electric, a slow-paced song. The album it's on, Villains, has 13 tracks. And it's a one-of-a-kind song, the only one I like by them. I could understand why someone wouldn't want to buy a CD for $18+ when they only liked 1/13 of the album.

Trying to drag this back on-topic...

[JamesI]

Yeah. Most songs I like aren't mainstream.

And most of the songs are very different from what an artist/band usually writes.

[JofpGallagher]

As I said before. I think buyers have the right to "see" (in this case listen) what are they buying. It's my money, and if I'm going to spend it, I'd like to know in what. However, if people is gonna buy an album because they like more than 50% of the tracks, then few people would buy CDs. I have bought some albums just for one song. For example, I bought "Jar of Flies" (Alice in Chains) just for the song "Don't Follow" and I don't regret the purchase since the album ended being very good even though it has only 7 songs.

[JamesI]

I can't find the songs I like on albums half the time anyway.

[Kingdom Ops]

Woo downloading, yea I do it a lot, but what can you do. I'll admit i've done my share of illegal things on the net, free PSP7 and then...er fixing the 30 day trial thing, but I ended up buying it later on, because my "fix" didn't work right.

I download a lot of music. I had upwards to 1000 mp3s on my old HD before it crahsed and burned. I download a lot of anime songs, stuff that I can't get cd's for. I also get a lot of J-Pop, stuff that i'd have to pay 20-40 dollars just to get to my house. I can't help the fact that nobody will hire me and I can't get money. I'll confess that I've downloaded mainstreme stuff just to sample cd's and then go and buy them, NFG Sticks and Stones is a great example of it.

I think the record companies just need to suck it up. People found a way to get past their insane prices(unless you goto Best Buy when the cd first comes out, woo 10 bucks). Maybe if the prices drop and I get a job, i'll stop downloading music. Oh and I'd say i've gotten my fair share of cd's with a couple songs that I like on them, bloody Godsmack cd...

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by JamesI (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=290754#post290754))
Yeah. Most songs I like aren't mainstream.

And most of the songs are very different from what an artist/band usually writes.


Okay, I see what you're saying.

I've learned not to buy albums that I've only heard one "hit song" from. I would buy an album that I'd only heard one song from, as long as that song wasn't a hit. It sounds confusing, but it's much easier for me to trust an artist who isn't popular rather than one who is. Critics tend to not tell the truth about an album if a really well-known, supposedly "good" artist puts out an awful album. They'll try to feed you lines like "In this album, (name of artist) tries a different approach than usual and blah blah blah". And it's all because they don't want to admit that a popstar they had put so much faith and hope in has failed to deliver that #1 song their second time around.

[DragonslayerX]

I tend to not listen to critics at all, in any form of entertainment. I usually won't buy a CD until I have heard a few good songs from it, with exceptions to artists I feel I can "trust" to put out a CD I will find at least a few good songs on.

So, in a way, the idea of filesharing can be used as an advertisement for a group. For example, an artist only puts outs 1 single at a time, and usually only 3 or 4 singles from 1 CD (this varies based on popularity and such). So, I may not realize I like a CD until after they are about to release their next album, unless I have downloaded a few songs from the CD on filesharing.

[nfh_aftran]

Ok, I admit, I download songs and burn cd's. I don't have too many(around 250 songs) I don't sell them, they're for my own personal use, and if I download an entire cd(which I haven't yet) I go out and buy the cd. I haven't had that problem yet, because, most of the time I only like a few songs off a CD. Also, a lot of times you can't find that song/cd anymore. So, yep, I like downloading songs. It's really more of a pastime now.

[dobbygirl]

I've never downloaded any music, but it's not like I haven't thought about doing it. I have a very broad taste in music, as such, I have purchased many CD's over the years that only have one song I like on it. I never had this problem when I was in my teen (and younger) years. Why? Because back then, record companies put out things called singles. You know, little round 45's that contained an A side and a B side. I had a huge collection of 45's that cost about $1.50 a piece and if I happened to buy three off the same album (or liked at least three songs), then I would go out and buy the whole album. So record companies were making a killing off of me. Now though, I usually wait and see if I can find the CD used, especially if I only like one song. I can usually get them for $5-$8. If I buy 3 full priced CD's by a single artist (not counting CD's like "NOW) in one year, that's a lot.

In my opinion, record companies did it to themselves. They stopped putting out singles, banking on people shelling out outrageous sums of money to get the one or two songs they liked the only place they could: on the album. Is it any wonder that the NOW series of CD's are consistantly on the Billboard Hot 100's chart?

[lanifiel]

I just dont understand why you guys dont hit up one of the pay Mp3 sites, it costs like 10 Cents a song...

[JamesI]

You need a credit/debit card for a start.

[zora_domina]

If the music producers would actually front a CHEAP download site, I'd be on it in a shot. But yes, the main problem for the pay-per-song sites is that you MUST have some form of credit to do so, and it's become a bit more difficult for people to "cheat" on their info (if you're underage and trying to get your parents card numbers, etc) the way it used to be easy if all you needed was random numbers to appease an id confirmation (as yahoo used to do).

I would love to pay for just one song or two from any given album, and mix my own. That is the ONLY reason I want to download music, though - because I respect the artists who have taken the time and effort to make their music for us.

I have a couple disks from bands who would NEVER be played on a radio station, not even a college radio, because they're just too odd. The only way to get that stuff prior to getting on their mailing list was to download off mp3.com and now that's not possible any more - least for me, my account changed and I couldn't figure out how to get back into it. I bought the album just by the first 15 seconds of music I heard - but now I can get them from the group directly which is nice.

But how can you know until you hear the music in its entirety?? I know if I'm going to like something within a few seconds, but even then sometimes I've been very wrong about an artist I really like and buy their stuff just because it's "them". (NIN for instance... but thankfully Orb has been far better recently than their last effort before it... which I bought and hate.)

And I agree with the feeling that if it's out of print, and the company has no intention of putting it out again, that's their own fault. If people are seeking it, there is CLEARLY a market! Even if it's just a print of like 1000 or "on demand", why the heck NOT print up those few copies and make them available again?!

Sheesh - the record companies are clearly hiding their heads in dark places... it IS their own fault that they have to complain about how much "ripped" music is costing them. But if they would listen to the people who download, they'd understand how they could change the situation almost overnight. Repricing their releases and accepting the facts that they would have to take pay cuts for it.... gee. can't do that can we??

-zora

[Moonlight]

I don't listen to music lot but sometimes I find things that take my fancy. If I can't find it in the shops, I'll download it. If I do manage to find it I'll buy to rest my conscience.

I don't know if this is relevant, but it's also about piracy. I don't know why, but some strange people managed to type up all the Harry Potter books on word. I already own the books so I downloaded it.

And it's the same with video games, I already own the game, but I'd download it so I can get a certain screen capture or save it at a certain place.

But that's just going slightly off the main point...

[DogStar87]

I download music from Kazaa and Bearshare. I don't feel guilty about it mainly because I take too much time to enjoy the music. My life is built around music, and I know I couldn't live without being able to download it. I believe that artists and musicians should get alll the credit and money they deserve for their work, however there is nothing I can do about people downloading free MP3s, so what would be the point of stopping doing something I enjoy? I mean, I do need to buy a computer and an interent connection before I download the songs, I'm not just bending down and picking them off of the streets.

[deathwish]

i would say 2/3 of my cd's have been burned, out of 150 cds i guess that is a lot. i think the music industry had it coming, also an amusing thing to learn is that the music industry created the tech. to burn and is profiting off it. besides if they want people to buy there music they need to stop investing in playboy wonders who only last 3 yrs. maximum. the same problem happened to the movie industry with vcr's i think they will get over it

[DragonslayerX]

First of all, how did the music industry cheat the technology to burn?

Next, it isn't so much about the music industry, so much as it is about the musicians. I mean, when you steal their property, then you are taking food off of their plates. This may not seem like much of a problem for bands like Metallica, but what about those groups that only last a maximum of 3 years? You cannot claim that they do not deserve the money, if you are downloading thier music, because it's obvious you like the songs made in that short time, at least.

[Benzo]

For those who think that this piracy is bad for the industry, it is not true in my case. I bought 10 CDs in the last ten years and went to 3 shows. All this happen because I discover some music through mp.3. I was not listening much music beside radio and some French classics I have but now I am more tuned to what is produced.

Bleh, Not a very strong point, but what can I say? I agree with those who think it is illegal, because it is. It is not the legacy that bugs me but I think it can 'kill' many good bands, artists because they don't receive their royalties.

[zora_domina]

I wish more bands of any kind would go to a straight online-only distribution process. I mean, you can get your own "airtime" online with radio-type broadcasts, why not one that highlights local or uncommonly found bands? With the widespread use of the internet as a radio-listening tool, I think bands would greatly benefit.

I bet that their managers and producers of course, have some negative things to say about that... Because they don't get paid for that kind of release. Gee, y'think?

Bands deserve their money - their management and company producers, don't. So it would be strongly in the interest of the music "industry" at large, to abandon their big-name companies and burn their OWN darn discs... Mp3 does it for their sponsored bands... why not more??

-zora

[deathwish]

i said created not cheated the technology to burn they cReated there own demise, you see created sounds like cheated if you misplace the r with an h something i didnt do, go back to school and learn to read it is surprising the rate of illiteracy you can find on a forum

[lanifiel]

Hello deathwish.

I'd just like to ask that you not insult people at the board. I agree that grammer is important, but I would to stress that the staff here will not tolerate it.

Thanks.

[JofpGallagher]

I second Lanifiel, deathfish,
There are always manners to correct people nicely. Keep in mind that thing called "the second chance" It has helped me a lot in my life. Maybe DragonslayerX was in a rush and didn't read carefully your thoughts. It happens to me many times too. So he deserve the "second chance" I'm talking about. And DragonslayerX has post many many interesting posts in this board, and he took the time to read your insights...So you just may simply correct him and say thanks. :D

[DragonslayerX]

In order to get this thread back on track...

As a way of combatting internet piracy, a few muscians and labels are flooding file sharing programs with decoy copies of thier songs, in hopes of annoying would-be pirates enough to make them want to go out and get the CD, or at least go to a legitimate mp3 site.

So, how do you feel about this way of fighting file sharing?
Do you think it will be effective, or will it just be a minor annoyance for file sharers?
What do you think would be a better way for mucisians to combat file sharing programs, so that they can still get paid?

[JofpGallagher]

Originally posted by DragonslayerX (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=294416#post294416))
In order to get this thread back on track...

As a way of combatting internet piracy, a few muscians and labels are flooding file sharing programs with decoy copies of thier songs, in hopes of annoying would-be pirates enough to make them want to go out and get the CD, or at least go to a legitimate mp3 site.

So, how do you feel about this way of fighting file sharing?
Do you think it will be effective, or will it just be a minor annoyance for file sharers?
What do you think would be a better way for mucisians to combat file sharing programs, so that they can still get paid?

What do you mean by decoys? Do you mean songs with some imperfections? So people believe they have the "original" when really what they download is a poor copy? I say this because a friend of mine gave me a "copy" of Oasis Heathen Chemistry before it was released, and the sound was pretty bad, the order of the songs were different, and it didn't have "The Cage". (The CD ended in my trash can). I bought the original.
I think that that could be a way to discourage people to download songs. It will be sorta like spamming the file-sharing songs servers with low-quality material. It may work.
A way to improve sales of "original" albums could be improving general management in the music industry. I think the price for a new CD is high. It's an economic law. Technology (CD burners, Internet) has shifted the demand curve to the left, decreasing the demand for original material. So, the logic implies that the supply has to decrease prices or production costs in order to regain "lost clients" or gain "new clients". The problem is that you are fighting against "For almost Free", and you can't beat that!!
I have seen some different ways music industry is trying to discourage piracy. For example, you may offer CDs with some extra stuff you can't get on Internet. The White Stripes album "White Blood Cells" comes with an extra DVD disc with 4 videos & interviews. Bon Jovi's "Bounces" was offering the opoprtunity to win some prices with the purchase of the CD.
I understand that "new" material msut be expensive, but why the old too. You can't buy an Etta James album at a lower price than an album of Je-Lo.
The big problem here is that governments have done few or nothing in Internet laws (regulations). Free Speech concepts are messing up every attempt from government to put some order in the chaos.
And anothe issue is that Internet has also brought the opportunity of new bands to be listened by many since their music will not be aired on commercial radios. So, it has pors for some,, and cons for some others.

[DragonslayerX]

No, it's even worse than just poor quality sounds. I mean, they are trying to flood these file sharing networks with decoys that look like legitimate mp3 downloads, but are in fact not the actual song.

For instance, Linkin Park did this with their new CD. They flooded the networks with files that looked like their songs, but when you listened to them, it was a message from Linkin Park talking about how file sharing was illegal and you should pay for the CD.

Others are not as bad. Some companies have sent out the songs, but then only play a small sample of the song and then go into some kind of message, or play the message sporadically during the song.

The hope is that there will be so many of these decoys, that when you try to download a song, it could take a couple of hours to find a real copy of the song.

These companies (these are companies being hired by music officials) are even offering money to people who share the decoys, so they are trying to turn the file sharers against the file sharing network.

[JofpGallagher]

Well Dragon, I hadn't listened about it, but it sounds a good idea to battle music piracy or at least it'll put a stone into the shoes of some. However, that can solve certains problems but not all. For example, In Latinoamerican countries, people sell burned CDs on the streets like it was candies. These sellers actually buy the original, but they obtain substancial gains from selling copies 8 times less the price of a new one. Even worse, there are places where you can "rent", you're listening well, "rent" original materials for a day, which is enough time to make a copy. In this millionaire business there is not Internet involved. Just lack of law enforcement and anarchy. The local musician is among the most badly hit. He relies practically in doing gigs constantly to get some money for his/her substain.

[zora_domina]

While I think that on one hand it might make record producers happy, it might piss off the general buying public. I know that if I were to find a message like that instead of a snippet of a song (even the 20-second-long ones you find as teasers) I would be turned off not only from that band, but from the site that accepted the fake download.

I understand for those who plant them in *illegal* download areas - that does make sense, but in terms of advertising for folks like me (and obiously others here) who want only to hear a bit or get the gist of the song and then go out and buy the album if they think it's good?? That'd turn me right off that group.

The last time that the companies tried to make it "harder" to pirate copies of (what was it, dvds?) things, you could get around it simply by using a sharpie or magic marker and "deleting" the track off the dvd so the reader wouldn't catch it.

They're going about this totally the wrong way. As I've said, I would go to an inexpensive download-for-pay site if the producers would sponsor them - in fact I'd probably buy ALL my music that way.

MP3 used to have the "credit" system where people would actually get paid for every download that they got over a certain number - so the popular groups and songs would be rewarded by their advertising dollars. I don't think they do that any more there, does anyone know?? It seemed like an ideal method to promote and reward good, new, unsigned-with-companies bands.

-zora

[Weatherby]

There's a lot of legal sites that do let you download one or two songs from a band.
www.insound.com has an mp3 section and you can buy the cds. :)

I blame clearwater music channel.
If they didn't have their sick thing about making companies pay for an artist to be played then we could have easier ways to sniff out the great bands.
Instead talentless hacks get played and the greats are being ignored by the masses unless they download music or have a good college station.

[j_thunders]

JofpGallagher, I bought White Blood Cells with the bonus DVD all for $8, if I'm remembering correctly. It was a good deal, in my opinion. The idea to include a DVD of music videos really attracted me to buying it in the first place. I couldn't remember, but I was trying to decide between that White Stripes album and some other CD of the same price without a DVD included. And even when there is no DVD, it's cool when you can put the disc in your CD-ROM drive and watch a video that way too. Just saying, things like that make people actually want to buy the album instead of burning a copy. More artists should consider it.

[zora_domina]

>>I blame clearwater music channel.
If they didn't have their sick thing about making companies pay for an artist to be played then we could have easier ways to sniff out the great bands.
Instead talentless hacks get played and the greats are being ignored by the masses unless they download music or have a good college station.<<

Good call. It used to be the record labels paying the dj's off to play their music on the air. Now, it's the other way around. Doesn't make any sense to me, really.

Thanks for the link, btw! Maybe I can find some things I need there!

-zora

[Ali]

this is quite old news but I thought I let you all know... :rolleyes:


Web Music Sharers Under Attack

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/04/29/image507521l.jpg


(AP) The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.

The Recording Industry Association of America, citing substantial sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer “substantial� collections of mp3 music files for downloading. It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.

Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer will qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.

The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to “the real risk of having to face the music.�

“It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal,� Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online were mistaken. “You are not anonymous,� Sherman said. “We're going to begin taking names.�

Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.

“This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely,� said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer.�

Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.

“You have to look at exactly who are your customers,� he said. “You could say the same thing about shoplifters — are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion.�

Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.

“I'm sure it's going to freak them out,� Godwin said. “The free ride is over.� He added: “I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy.�

The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

“We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen,� Sherman said. “We will go after the worst offenders first.�

The RIAA said it expected to file “at least several hundred lawsuits� within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.


©MMIII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/tech/main560381.shtml

[Picko]

I'd heard about that and I'd planned to post it but I couldn't find a suitable link. Thanks for that TheWizard, it'll be interesting to see how this issue pans out.

[JofpGallagher]

Can they spy on everybody's computer like that? I thought only the U.S. Homeland Security agents could do that. Hmmm...I see a lot of protests in here (Invasion of Privacy and Free Speech).
I'm not saying that I support file-sharing. I don't support it and I have never done it. I have never installed such P2P software in my PC....
I only have 6 or 7 song on my hard disk.

Very interesting!! Thanks The Wizard.

[KingOfCheezWiz]

WOW, I'm screwed!!!! I'm gonna get sued like nothin' else. I guess I can legaly call myself a pirate :elaugh: (Argh matey). Meh, I don't care, what are they gonna do, SUE ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Dude, I'm not gonna worry that much, because MILLIONS of people use these programs. I think they are gonna go after people like me who have dl'd thousands of MP3's and the like off of KaZaA, but I'm not too worried!!!
I have a great idea of how we can fight this. Lets boycott music (Metallica in general, they started it!!!).

[Qeomash]

I haven't used one in years. The last music trading software I used was Napster. I own all but a few of the CDs that are stored as MP3s on my Hard Drive. The ones that aren't are no longer available and I'd buy them in a heartbeat if I ever find them anywhere.

I personally think it's futile. The music industry needs to adopt something like the Apple Music Store (http://www.apple.com/music/) to be able to compete. There will never be any way to stop internet piracy. No matter what, people will trade, just like they trade DVD movies now.

[WhiteSlash]

The apple music store is a really good idea. I mean it's 99cents for a song, and if you buy 20 songs, It'd add up to the price of a CD, but you'll like all the songs! With technology these days they can track you down. I've been telling my friend to stop downloading scense I heard that report on the mid day news. :)

[WaffenSS]

I hate the RIAA with a passion. I say someone should go firebomb their headquarters one empty night.

One Utah senator wanted to destroy computers that had so called "pirated" music. He actually wanted to just totally destroy any computer they though had illegally downloaded music.

[tizzy weasley]

I heard this from my friend. She's always downloading things, and I just got to learn how to do it. I guess I'll have to stop. Thanks for the news :)

[Fleur]

Yea, thanks for the news. I have some friends that has close to a thousand downloaded songs, (I have a few, not many though) so they better start to delete songs.

[Weatherby]

I heard kaaza had been spying on people last year.
Most websites do for advertising [illegal!] but they were reportedly telling on users who shared a lot of files.

[WaffenSS]

Why delete the songs, just make a huge back up on CD's

[Weatherby]

Well my concern is that not all mp3's are illegal.
A lot of independent companies share songs legally to get the sounds out since it's expsensive to get radio airplay. Infact you can't get your song on the radio if you don't pay up.

[Ali]

Originally posted by Weatherby (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=423319#post423319))
I heard kaaza had been spying on people last year.
Most websites do for advertising [illegal!] but they were reportedly telling on users who shared a lot of files.


well, if you've been installing kazaa media desktop you would have spywares (http://www.spyware.co.uk/whatis.shtml) installed on your computer, its not a recent addtion, its been there for years. the only way to get rid of them is to download anti spyware softwares (eg lavasoft - adware). you can get them from download.com

[Weatherby]

Originally posted by TheWizard (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=424173#post424173))
well, if you've been installing kazaa media desktop you would have spywares (http://www.spyware.co.uk/whatis.shtml) installed on your computer, its not a recent addtion, its been there for years. the only way to get rid of them is to download anti spyware softwares (eg lavasoft - adware). you can get them from download.com


I never used kaaza actually. Lovely rotsiepots did give me a link to get rid of spyware recently. :)
I found 250 files so it was on my computer anyway.

[Ali]

hehe, and I wonder where she got that from... :D ;)

[Weatherby]

Hmm I have no idea :D

[PrtVeela]

One day I was on Kazaa and something popped up so I said to myself Self: I think I will read it

it was allegedley from the musicians of the world, i don't know who it was from but I do what it said

It said something about them working hard to make songs, blah blah skippy, and then went on to say what I was doing is illegal :::gag me:::
Then it had this option you could Reply or cancel...who the sam hill would Reply to that...and what would u say

"ah you've caught me red-handed, I see the error of my ways, I'm sending you all the money I have
Andrea in Illinois"

i mean honestly
I only have 200 songs...that is miniscule compared to what other peeps have.

[Dark Fallen Pride]

I have that Peer gardian thing or whatever... its supposed to protect me from prying eyes...and I hope it works.

[Ali]

Originally posted by Dark Fallen Pride (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=425644#post425644))
I have that Peer gardian thing or whatever... its supposed to protect me from prying eyes...and I hope it works.


:tu: ;)

[A.M.]

I believe you can only get in trouble if your caught sharing songs. Just don't share your music and the RIAA probably won't go after you.

[JamesI]

That's what I'm hoping.

[dumbleedore]

I have 140 files in my shared folder for Kazaa. But, of those, about 30 or so are video files, so they aren't music. About 10 are picture files, so i'm down to 100 music files. About 20 of those are files that I don't share, so i'm down to 80 music files that I share.

Oh, and if this is just for america, i'm safe too cause i'm Australian.

I think I am very moral about downloading things. If I download more than 2 songs by the same artist and i like their stuff, I'll go buy the CD. It's just that where i live it can be hard to get some CD's, but i have never downloaded more that about 4 songs by the same person.

[FuruiousThird]

RIAA Guy #1: "All these people that used to buy our music are becoming alienated and turning to the internet to get music easily, what are we gonna do? Charging them $20 for a cd doesn't seem to be working..."

RIAA Guy#2: "I know! We'll sue all of 'em!!!"

[Kizz]

Originally posted by TheWizard (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=424173#post424173))
well, if you've been installing kazaa media desktop you would have spywares (http://www.spyware.co.uk/whatis.shtml) installed on your computer, its not a recent addtion, its been there for years. the only way to get rid of them is to download anti spyware softwares (eg lavasoft - adware). you can get them from download.com


Or you can download Adware Professional Edition off the fasttrack (kazaa/grokster/etc.) network. Remember this is completely illegal and unauthorised , and is just an observation.

K-Lite doesn't come with spyware. I think its time to turn the "Don't share files" option on now. If you want to know what others can find out about your collection, goto http://localhost:1214/ - assuming you have a collection.

[KingOfCheezWiz]

Maybe they should knock down the prices on CD's. If I go to Best Buy, I can get the same CD for $11 that would cost me $20 at FYE. If they start bringing down the suggested price, than more people would buy CD's. I have recorded an EP with my band (don't bother asking, we suck :grumble: ) and it isn't THAT expensive (then again, it's not cheap either). But, the RIAA needs to think of a better plan to go about doing things, they can't get all of us!!!;D

[Ali]

check this out! :D

File swappers 'buy more music'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39181000/jpg/_39181300_internetmusic_bbc_story203.jpg

Music fans who download songs from the internet go on to buy more albums, a survey has suggested.
The survey's findings oppose the music industry's long-standing argument that internet downloading is responsible for a slump in CD sales, with album sales falling 5% in the last year.

Market research company Music Programming Ltd (MPL) said 87% of its respondents who downloaded music admitted they bought albums after hearing tracks through the internet.

An MPL spokesperson said: "Downloading is actually a 'try before you buy' tool for a significant amount of people.

"It allows people to sample new music and decide whether or not to buy it - it is not necessarily a replacement for purchase."

However, downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales.

Educating users

"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said.

"That's just human nature."

The BPI wanted to "educate" people to use legitimate downloading sites that paid royalties to artists, she said, adding it was "unlikely" to push for prosecution of heavy "uploaders" of music.

This strategy is currently being pursued by the US music industry.

The survey also said 41% of its respondents declared themselves "heavy downloaders" - accessing more than 100 tracks - but that 34% of them still felt they bought more albums than they did a year ago.

Asked why they download music, the respondents were most likely to say it was "to check out music I've heard about but not listened to yet" (75%) and "to help me decide whether to buy the CD" (66%).

MPL said its survey suggested people used the internet as a way of finding out about new music, and that the industry should use it as a way of promoting new artists.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3052145.stm

Published: 2003/07/09 10:56:18 GMT

© BBC MMIII

[Dark Fallen Pride]

Originally posted by A.M. (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=426102#post426102))
I believe you can only get in trouble if your caught sharing songs. Just don't share your music and the RIAA probably won't go after you.


When you stop sharing alot of people get angery and decide to cancel your downloads...thats why I keep on sharing, its annoying when somone cuts you off when your almost done, I just transer songs to cds when I can.

[Virtuousdream]

I use WinMX. No spyware and it's very good. I've also closed off my computer from sharing so no one can access the files, there's an option to do this.

Eik if they go after download people...eik! A friend was already putting all her files on floppy disk then she realised how they wouldnt fit lol.

[invisablethestral]

I use WinMX too, and shut down my sharing folder cause it was so busy it swallowed up my incomming bandwidth! I used to use the outstanding Audiogalaxy, nothing has come close, and i notched up over 1000 songs on my PC with it. But without them, i would never of been able to get access to music that i really like.

As Dumbledore finely said, "Ah music....a magic beyond all we do here". These buisnessmen should take note!

[dumbleedore]

Originally posted by TheWizard (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=436962#post436962))
check this out! :D

File swappers 'buy more music'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39181000/jpg/_39181300_internetmusic_bbc_story203.jpg

Music fans who download songs from the internet go on to buy more albums, a survey has suggested.
The survey's findings oppose the music industry's long-standing argument that internet downloading is responsible for a slump in CD sales, with album sales falling 5% in the last year.

Market research company Music Programming Ltd (MPL) said 87% of its respondents who downloaded music admitted they bought albums after hearing tracks through the internet.

An MPL spokesperson said: "Downloading is actually a 'try before you buy' tool for a significant amount of people.

"It allows people to sample new music and decide whether or not to buy it - it is not necessarily a replacement for purchase."

However, downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales.

Educating users

"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said.

"That's just human nature."

The BPI wanted to "educate" people to use legitimate downloading sites that paid royalties to artists, she said, adding it was "unlikely" to push for prosecution of heavy "uploaders" of music.

This strategy is currently being pursued by the US music industry.

The survey also said 41% of its respondents declared themselves "heavy downloaders" - accessing more than 100 tracks - but that 34% of them still felt they bought more albums than they did a year ago.

Asked why they download music, the respondents were most likely to say it was "to check out music I've heard about but not listened to yet" (75%) and "to help me decide whether to buy the CD" (66%).

MPL said its survey suggested people used the internet as a way of finding out about new music, and that the industry should use it as a way of promoting new artists.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3052145.stm

Published: 2003/07/09 10:56:18 GMT

© BBC MMIII


THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE!!! I'm a try-before-I-buy!!! Finally proof that I ain't the only one!!!

[WaffenSS]

Arrrr Piracy, It's an evil deed... that I love

[Ali]

hehe... Mr MP3 himself!

MP3 creator speaks out

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39274000/jpg/_39274365_karl203i.jpg
The term MP3 is well-known to millions of the world's teenagers but its mere mention sends shivers down the spines of record industry executives.
The format responsible for a musical revolution allows you to compress sound into a file which is a fraction of the size of the original.

But a name which will be unfamiliar to many is that of Karlheinz Brandenburg - the German researcher who was one of the inventors of MP3.

He first began working on a way of making small sound files some 20 years ago as part of the doctorate thesis.

"We had dreams from the start," he told BBC World's ClickOnline.

But he never expected his work to achieve the popularity or notoriety it has.

"In 1988 somebody asked me what will become of this, and I said it could just end up in libraries like so many other PhD theses," he recalls.

"But it could become something that millions of people will use, that was the dream."

Discerning ears

Dr Brandenburg finished his thesis in 1989. But that was just the start of the story.


My sympathy is always with the artists and even with the record labels. They should get paid for the work they do
Karlheinz Brandenburg
He went on to join the Fraunhofer Institute, one of Germany's most prestigious research facilities, and contributed greatly towards making MP3 what it is today.
Now, it has established itself as the de facto format for sharing music over the internet, even though rival formats have since been developed.

The big challenge in the early days was making sure that none of the sound quality was lost by squeezing a song into a smaller file size.

The researchers aimed for a MP3 file that would sound just like the original to discerning ears.

"There was a lot of testing," says Dr Brandenburg. "I remember sitting at the computer with very good headphones and always listening to a few items.

"I must have listened to some a thousand times."

One of the problems he faced was coping with the many different types of music. Each style, from pop to classical, reacted differently when it was compressed and it was hard to predict how much the sound quality would suffer.

New opportunities

The emergence of MP3 turned the music world on its head. Here was a format that allowed high quality music to be transferred over the internet and straight in to people's home computers.

With the advent of file-sharing services like the now defunct Napster, millions of people were downloading music, in many cases without paying for the tracks.

But Dr Brandenburg does not believe that by creating the MP3 format, he is contributing to the demise of the record industry.

"People should have easier access to music," he says. "They should be able to listen to it wherever they are and still pay for it.

"My sympathy is always with the artists and even with the record labels. They should get paid for the work they do.

"I don't like the Napster idea that all music should be free to everybody."

Instead Dr Brandenburg argues that the record labels need to look at ways of using the technology, rather than fighting it.

"There are so many new opportunities for the music industry if they catch on and use the technology."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3059775.stm

Published: 2003/07/13 10:19:31 GMT

© BBC MMIII

[Silent-Rhapsody]

Originally posted by invisablethestral (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=445641#post445641))
I use WinMX too, and shut down my sharing folder cause it was so busy it swallowed up my incomming bandwidth! I used to use the outstanding Audiogalaxy, nothing has come close, and i notched up over 1000 songs on my PC with it. But without them, i would never of been able to get access to music that i really like.

As Dumbledore finely said, "Ah music....a magic beyond all we do here". These buisnessmen should take note!


I also use WinMX, and I find it fantastic. How do you shut down the sharing folder? I've been meaning to for some time now, and the help section isn't up yet.

As for file-sharing in general, I believe that it is an excellant way to get the exposure the artists are looking for and lead many people to buy their albums. Also, what about music that is public domain? Like Mozart, Bach, and the like?

[Hagar]

They'll only be able to sue like .002% of users, so they'll just have to get used to it. As for spyware, kazaa's is just seeing what sites your on, then they sell the info it to companies. The RIAA will just get your IP, and find you with that. When VCR's first came out a lot of companies got mad and said it was illegal to record shows, so the greedy RIAA will just have to ajust

[Amylou]

What do all of you think about them trying to shut down Morpheus and Kazaa. Are any of you against downloading music. Just wondering b/c I just got a C.D. burner and have Morpheus and think this sucks. Just wondering. Comment if you want...........

[Stallion1]

I think its a really bad idea to ban that b/c for one I only like certain songs of some bands and I know there are alot of people like me and nobody wants to spend close to 20 bucks for a few songs. Also it will give people a chance to sample the full song of either a new CD or a new band and if they like the songs most likely they will buy it. So this is just my belive on the banning of downloading songs.

[Hagar]

They can't stop it, theres like 10,000,000 people doing it and at most they'll be able to sue like 20,000, thats .002% of everyone doing it. The stupid greedy RIAA is just gonna have to get along without a few extra nillion a year, its not like they're going bankrupt, although they diserve it. When VCRs first hit the market companies were saying it was illegal to record tv shows, and when radios first started playing music, companies said it was illegal to let people hear their music for free. Fact is they'll just have to get used to it

[Amylou]

Thank you...that's exactly what I think. Some of the songs I download are off of a $20 c.d that only had 1 or 2 good songs. I think it's absolutely ridiculous and even if they do shut these 2 sites down, which I hope they don't, but people are still going to find another way to download music.

[Stallion1]

And I'm also angry at several of these bands that have been around for quite a while and they are angry b/c they arn't getting more money??? Well they are filthy rich how much more money do they want? So I agree with Hagar, they will just have to get used to it.

[lanifiel]

Greetings minions of destruction!

I'm just here to remind you of the rules:

7. CoS Forums does not encourage members to openly discuss file sharing activities. Whilst we understand that file sharing is a fact of life and will be continued by a lot of people, we will not allow members to openly support this activity publicly. Any threads which discuss, request or encourage downloading of illegal material such as the HP Movies or MP3s will be deleted by staff. This will be followed by a cautionary Private Message from our staff advising [[username]] to refrain from posting such threads. They are supported by the forum rules and CoS Forums disclaimer, which justifies our right to remove such threads.

Now, while thats the rules, we are more than happy to allow this thread to continue so long as you do not activly post links to file sharing sites or ask for files. I'm also sending this to Knockturn alley for a more debate style :)
----

Right now thats out of the way, I'd just like to say that I'm fully against the downloading of anything that others pay money for. We're at a site that is about the love of a book which someone has worked very hard to write and create. We all enjoy and love the Potter books and think that being able to Download the book free of charge is one of the worst things that could be possible. The same can be said for Music. Artists put alot of effort and time into thier music and I dont think its right for you to complain about having to buy their music.

[Cat]

But people generally download one song at a time, lanifiel, not albums. That's like reading a few pages without buying the book - hardly criminal. If you only want one song you're not going to buy the whole album, anyway, so nobody is losing any money there. Besides, it could be argued that music videos on television give the song away for free.

I download from Kazaa to make compilations CDs of random and rare songs.

[WaffenSS]

Many great bands have been discovered and became popular because of file sharing/tape trading. Look at Metallica roots, they got popular from all the bootlegged tapes being spread about, and then Metallica turns their back on the people that trade tapes, etc etc.

File sharing has its pro's and con's. But when CD's cost $20 bucks, that is to much, do they expect the public to take it? They shouldn't cause the public won't if they don't have to, which is why piracy is so popular. I'm sure if CD's only cost like $10 bucks, there would be way less piracy. I like the idea of paying a small set fee for any song. Like $ .50 a song would be just fine, a $1 a song is a little to much.

A lot of artists only have one good song, so why should someone pay for the rest of their junk?

A lot of the music I like I can't buy at any local stores, a lot have to be special ordered, and I don't want to have to pay that extra fee.

I don't like the idea of the recording company getting money from the music of a dead artist

If you do use Kazaa, get Kazaa-lite, it had less spyware.

[firebolt2000]

I agree with music downloading. First of all, it would probably take my computer a long time to download a whole album, and it would ruin my computer too. Secondly, I only download like two or three songs from one artist per album, so it's not like I am preventing them that much money, because if I didn't have this downloader, I wouldn't buy the C.D. I don't see why I should waste eighteen dollars for a whole C.D. when I only like two of the songs. If we take this seriously enough, anyone could ask, 'well what about recording songs off the radio?' We are stiil taking their songs without authorized permission and not in some way paying the creator for their work. People can get stuff from anywhere without paying the manufacturer and maker, so we can't only look at computer programs and disable them, they should do it to everything if they are that serious about it.

[Amylou]

Originally posted by firebolt2000 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=466864#post466864))
'well what about recording songs off the radio?' We are stiil taking their songs without authorized permission and not in some way paying the creator for their work. People can get stuff from anywhere without paying the manufacturer and maker, so we can't only look at computer programs and disable them, they should do it to everything if they are that serious about it.


Exactly!! I don't think the artists/companies/manufactorers are losing any substantial amount of money when most only download one or two songs from a c.d. Thanks to all who agree with my post.

[Midnightsfire]

Hmm...This is disturbing.

Record labels send ISPs subpoenas in piracy battle (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/18/music.riaa.reut/index.html)

[MadMagic]

I can see where some record labels come from. But most of the stuff I download is like one song that I like from an artist and something that I wouldn't buy anyway.

In other cases though, I have downloaded songs from those websites from new artists to see if I like them or not. Hearing their music first is the only way I am going to go out and buy a cd. And if I download something that I like enough I am most likely going to end up buying the cd. So I think that it really works both ways. I don't think that people should just downlaod whole records though.

[j_thunders]

Originally posted by Amylou (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=466565#post466565))
What do all of you think about them trying to shut down Morpheus and Kazaa. Are any of you against downloading music. Just wondering b/c I just got a C.D. burner and have Morpheus and think this sucks. Just wondering. Comment if you want...........


A lot of my favorite artists really aren't rich. I mean, I can't honestly say that any former (surviving) members of The New York Dolls are living off of the earnings they made while the band was still together. These people still have to find normal jobs just like you and me, and if they have time to do music on the side, they will. But I can't act like the music that they might be creating would sell a lot or anything.
Knowing that this is true in the cases of many musicians, I don't download music. I buy CDs--I like having the real thing there, liner notes and all. I do shop around for the best price though. You'd never catch me in Sam Goody or FYE.

EDIT: I just want to clarify that I think downloading is a good way of previewing music before you buy it, but sadly, a lot of people take it too far. And those unknown bands whose songs you're downloading aren't getting any payment for it when you decide to get all of their songs through file-sharing programs. Yeah, now that's what I call support...

[rotsiepots]

I agree with j_thunders -- downloading music, in moderation, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I do have certain issues with people who download millions of songs and burn them for their own profit, but I really don't think targeting individuals with a small number of songs on their computer is necessary or justified.

Perhaps they'll start banning CD burners too? These things have a habit of snowballing. :rolleyes:

[Midnightsfire]

If they target the companies that sells the technology then they might be able to control what they view as a problem. But then they would never win any legal battles regarding such since that would mean taking billion dollar companies to court which would then get tied up for years in litigation.

[Hagar]

Burning music and selling it for a profit is definatly wrong, you can get in lots of trouble for that.

[Crystal]

I come at this from a slightly different angle! The style of music that I mainly listen to is english folk which is almost all non copywritable because the tunes are centurys old. The whole point of this music is that you share it! I can hear a folk song on a CD etc and there is nothing stopping me using it in a busking set, especially as I'd change the arrangment to fit my own voice.
However music which is under copywrite is more difficult, obviously making money from it is illegal, as is copying it without paying. If Kaazaa etc started charging a small fee (say 50p) per piece and then giving a small part of that to the artist then these problems wouldn't occur.

[Simbrie]

I have slightly different reasons of downloading music...for one thing, most of the music that I enjoy I can't find in available cd stores, like folk, medieval, indian, stuff like that. And the cd's I find there that I do like, my parents would defenetly intervene. Their overlyprotective of me (funny looking cd covers, instant no no), They don't let me use my own money (college) and they also see no point in buying a cd for me, now that they know I can download them off internet. I swear, the only cds I own are disney soundtracks (gifts), anime songs (from chinatown...-.-), TTT: soundtrack (gift) and a Natural SOund: wolves (it was 4.99, clearance)...mmmyup....

making a profit out of these, though, I'm totally against, but there's nothing much I or anyone can do about it, so bleh....um, I'll go now....

[DivineScheme]

Originally posted by Dark Fallen Pride (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=445453#post445453))
When you stop sharing alot of people get angery and decide to cancel your downloads...thats why I keep on sharing, its annoying when somone cuts you off when your almost done, I just transer songs to cds when I can.


I think that's funny! My sister and I always cut people off before they're done downloading! HAHAHAAH! *ahem*

Laters....

[DivineScheme]

Originally posted by Dark Fallen Pride (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=445453#post445453))
When you stop sharing alot of people get angery and decide to cancel your downloads...thats why I keep on sharing, its annoying when somone cuts you off when your almost done, I just transer songs to cds when I can.


I think that's funny! My sister and I always cut people off before they're done downloading! HAHAHAAH! *ahem*

Laters....

[bellatrix669]

I'm not sure about this, but I think even downloading songs that are in the public domain may even be considered illegal, due to the fact that someone still has to perform the tunes. For example, if you download the Boston Symphony playing the 1812 Overture, they could still sue you since you in effect "stole" from them.

[Mad-I Moody]

This is crazy. If CDs were reasonably priced in the first place, more people would buy them. I'm sorry, but it has to be a spanking good album for me to spend 20 dollars for 16 songs. I don't download a lot of music, and I've taken my shareware off of my computer since all of this emerged, but I still say that this is a load of dung. I wish that the US government would concentrate their efforts on getting their junk together over in Iraq, because I'm tired of hearing about a new US soldier getting shot every other day.

There are more important things than shutting down KaAzA and Morpheus....that's all I'm trying to say.

And why are they going about it this way? Isn't there some way for the m to just shut down the KaAzA domain? Why sue people who probably aren't going to have enough money to pay them anyway?

[Aeglos]

Downloading music is illegal what ever way you look at it. Go in to a shop steal a cd, and if your caught say you just wanted to try it, see what they say.......

And to those who say CD's should be cheaper....
music is a luxury they can charge what ever they want for it. if you don't what to pay for it don't buy it. there not forcing you to. you don't need it.

[bellatrix669]

It just seems counterproductive to go after those that are most likely to buy CDs, anyway. After all, as was earlier indicated, downlaoders do buy more music than the average consumer. I am aware of the illegality of downloading music; but I do it anyway for two reasons: 1. It allows me to obtain music that I would otherwise be unable to get and 2. It is more convenient to download than to go to a brick-and-mortar store. I would have no problem with some of the legit downloading sites if they didn't charge the same rates per song as in a regular music store (20 bucks for a CD with 20 songs [if you're lucky] pretty much equals the 99 cents Apple makes you pay per track) because, like most 18-year-olds in college, I don't have that much disposable income.

[Midnightsfire]

Soo...When will recording music from the radio be illegal?

[Morgoth]

What's amusing is I am part of the generation that never had file sharing or any of that stuff. I had to earn the money to buy CDs, which meant I worked, did odd jobs and saved up. It's called patience and I was told that if you can't afford a thing and you can live without it, then you don't need it, at least not urgently. I enjoy working and earning the cash to buy CDs and DVDs. It's a rewarding part of an otherwise laborious 9-5 existence.

I think file-sharing highlights amongst other things a sense of laziness in people, a lack of willingness to do some hard graft to pay for the CD. There are plenty of opportunities for people to be earning cash and if you're underage, then odd jobs for family or friends, get you into that working spirit, which you'll all have to do one day anyway.

People say that musicians are too rich today. Did you know 80% of bands will largely go undiscovered, yet they'll do gigs and invest money from jobs into their band just to get enough money to record a demo tape hoping to be discovered. If record sales are badly affected by downloading music, then the likelyhood is, bands that have potential will be less likely to be discovered, because record companies cannot or won't be willing to sign them on risk i.e. take a chance with new innovative acts. I don't think I've ever seen the music industry so stale. In the mid-90s, new bands were being signed all the time and it was great. Nowadays, new acts come and go after a couple of albums, which is sad.

So groups like Metallica are mega-rich, but that doesn't mean they haven't worked and spent long hours putting their album together, then going on long tours to promote it. There is hard work put in on their part as well. Yes, they maybe rich, but that's just tough luck for the rest of us. They weren't all rich once and at some point they had to work hard and endure some trials to get where they are today. Simply saying a band is rich enough already is a sour argument to make and to me, is just not a convincing point to make.

Don't mis-understand me, I'm not a great campaigner for record companies. I too, think that CDs are over-priced, but I wouldn't use file sharing to download albums. That means I'd have to burn them onto a CD and that's more effort than it's worth. Maybe I'm the lazy one? ;D It's a matter of choice and obviously I don't claim to be right, but I'm not wrong. It's just I think the debate needs a counter-balance right now, just to get people thinking a bit more :)

[Hagar]

All the RIAA is doing is trying to scare everyone, they know they can't stop it, its gotten way too big

[Crystal]

Originally posted by Midnightsfire (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=476668#post476668))
Soo...When will recording music from the radio be illegal?

It is!, in Britan at least!

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by Crystal (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=477679#post477679))
It is!, in Britan at least!


Where did you hear that?

[Kizz]

Originally posted by Morgoth (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=477713#post477713))
Where did you hear that?


Are you missing a :rolleyes:?

It's copyright theft, so's the recording on VCR/DVD (or any medium) of copyrighted material. They can't control it, and they've given up trying.

Anyone remember those one-tape mono radios (with no-microphone), what was the point of the record button if not to record off the radio? - no one has ever been sued for that kind of copyright infringment to my knowledge, but just so the copyright owners have legal ground it's against the law.

I was under the impression Morpheus was kicked off the fasttrack network when they encrypted the Kazaa network login communication back in Feb 2002 (version 1.5 of kazaa). (It's a single UDP packet to the previous supernode it was connected to...I can't make heads or tails of the contents though)

[DsX Phoenix]

Originally posted by Mad-I Moody (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=473230#post473230))
And why are they going about it this way? Isn't there some way for the m to just shut down the KaAzA domain? Why sue people who probably aren't going to have enough money to pay them anyway?


Because, they have no legal grounds to shut down Kazaa. They've already tried, but a judge dismissed the case saying that even though people were using Kazaa to perform illegal acts, Kazaa wasn't responsible.

Also, because even if they shut down Kazaa, another program would pop up, continuosly. However, if they make people believe that by uploading your songs will get you sued big time, then it will stop people from uploading their music. And Morgoth, you may have lived before a time when people shared music online, but don't tell me you never "stole" from the music industry. Because, copying any copywrited material is considered stealing. Are you telling me you never had a friend record some songs onto a tape for you? Or, you never recorded a movie from TV? Because, that is illegal, too.

As for CD's being overpriced, they are. And, this is one of the main reasons people fileshare. It's economics. You are unwilling to pay the outrageous price for a new CD, so you find the next best alternative: downloading songs online. I garentee you that if CD's were $10, record sales would be up, and filesharing would be down. And, I have seen CD's sell for $10. The day after St. Anger went on sale, it was only $10 at Circuit City. I was looking in the store, and noticed the price, and immediately picked it up. Why? Because I was willing to pay $10 for 11 songs, but I would not have paid $20 for the CD.

Oh, and there's a new online music store called buymusic.com, where songs are only $0.79.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by DsX Phoenix (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=477807#post477807))
And Morgoth, you may have lived before a time when people shared music online, but don't tell me you never "stole" from the music industry. Because, copying any copywrited material is considered stealing. Are you telling me you never had a friend record some songs onto a tape for you? Or, you never recorded a movie from TV? Because, that is illegal, too.

I had Kazza for about a month before I decided it was a waste of time for me because I had all the music I would have probably downloaded anyway :D And if a CD isn't on sale in the UK, I buy from abroad. I have bought my own CDs, then made a compilation CD for my car, so that's probably breaking a law somewhere, but at least I'm not (a) stealing from the artists as I bought the records to begin with or (b) selling the CDs and (c) No one has rides with me, so I'm not broadcasting the music to an audience :p

The Audio Home Recording Act as far as I'm aware allows for the use of home recording. The law has been changed though to include digital media and there is a lot of confusion as to whether a VCR recording is now illegal or not.

As for radio, like TV, the songs broadcast are done so with the consent of the producers. Radio & TV stations have licenses and therefore I don't believe it is illegal to record off of them. However, if you record and sell/rent the music, then of course you're breaking the law.

As for CD's being overpriced, they are. And, this is one of the main reasons people fileshare. It's economics. You are unwilling to pay the outrageous price for a new CD, so you find the next best alternative: downloading songs online. I garentee you that if CD's were $10, record sales would be up, and filesharing would be down. And, I have seen CD's sell for $10. The day after St. Anger went on sale, it was only $10 at Circuit City. I was looking in the store, and noticed the price, and immediately picked it up. Why? Because I was willing to pay $10 for 11 songs, but I would not have paid $20 for the CD.

The novelty of cheaper CDs would soon wear off as people would start complaining that those CDs are over-priced and I can't honestly see how a 15 year old with no regular income is going to abandon the easy life of downloading in favor of washing cars and doing more chores for extra cash. The problem is, people are used to the easy life with file-sharing. It's not just a tool of economics, it's a way of life for some people and that is why giving it up would be very hard to do.

[Mad-I Moody]

Originally posted by DsX Phoenix (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=477807#post477807))
Because, they have no legal grounds to shut down Kazaa. They've already tried, but a judge dismissed the case saying that even though people were using Kazaa to perform illegal acts, Kazaa wasn't responsible.

well, I must say that that just seems silly. I mean, c'mon...
"Well, we won't shut down the meth lab because it's not responsible for the people who create the crystal meth."

"We won't confiscate this arsenal of weapons because it isn't directly responsible for the kids who mowed down their classmates."

without the KaZaA to perform the illegal acts, the illegal acts could not be performed. Or am I missing something? Can music be downloaded WITHOUT a program like Morpheus or KaAza?

I'm not attacking you, DSX, I'm just reeling from the marvelous logic of our justice system. :angry: :banghead:

[Kizz]

Originally posted by Mad-I Moody (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=478053#post478053))
without the KaZaA to perform the illegal acts, the illegal acts could not be performed. Or am I missing something? Can music be downloaded WITHOUT a program like Morpheus or KaAza?


If I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that the clever thing to do would be to ban KaZaA, WinMX, Groksta and Morpheus (although Morpheus shouldn't be working as of Feb. 2002)? (if I haven't understood - please grill me as appropiate)

We all saw what happened after Napster - central servers the network was dependant on, with every attempt to stamp out filesharing the programs will grow more advanced, even more unstoppable, give me 6 months and i'll give you a new P2P client. (actually i'm working on something else ;) )

The only way to end filesharing is to get rid of the internet altogether...

[Mad-I Moody]

you have a point. However, suing people who don't have the money to pay you in the first place....reposessing everything they own...whatever -- they plan on doing this to all of the millions and millions of people that fileshare? No, they plan on "making an example" of a few. Which is not fair. If they punish one, they need to punish them all...so, obviously, since this is a big undertaking and probably not possible to punish ALL filesharers, I personally think the government could find a few bigger fish to fry. I know this isn't the RIAA's place, but with all the time and money we're putting into this, could we re-allocate it to something more -- erm -- important? Pressing? Global?

[DsX Phoenix]

Originally posted by Mad-I Moody (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=478053#post478053))
well, I must say that that just seems silly. I mean, c'mon...
"Well, we won't shut down the meth lab because it's not responsible for the people who create the crystal meth."


Well, it may seem silly, but the point is, filesharing programs such as Kazaa do have legal purposes, so the best little quote for an example would be more like,

"Well, we won't shut down this motel and arrest the owner because several drug dealers and prostitutes use it."

Also, if you read the Warning screen when watching a movie, it says any "unauthorized" recording is illegal. This means, it is illegal to tape the movie without consent from people who own the rights to the movie.

And, when an NFL game comes on, it says the same thing, except it says, "without express written consent from the NFL", so I am assuming recording things from TV is illegal, also.

Mad-I, the "few" the RIAA is trying to make as an example are the ones in which the RIAA believe are uploading, or sharing, the most music. So, the move isn't just to set an example, it is also a way of cutting off this monster's head: without the main uploaders, there will be no music to download, and since we will be scared to be sued like the other people, we will stop uploading music.

And I do believe the RIAA is planning on continueing this action until file sharing is dead.

[Agent Jamon]

Ok i think downloading music is wrong...I feel very sorry for all the artists who put the time and effort into making music and it just gets fileshared. I hope filesharing gets stop cause its not fair to record companies or musicians...

Lataz
Jamon

[Mad-I Moody]

Originally posted by DsX Phoenix (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=482804#post482804))
Well, it may seem silly, but the point is, filesharing programs such as Kazaa do have legal purposes,


What are the legal purposes of these programs? (I'm just curious)

[Kizz]

^Kazaa comes with AltNet, a way of delivering encrypted authorised media, but for every authorised file at the moment, there are a thousand unauthorised ones. (just to give both sides some ammo :) )

[Sebastian06]

*downloads songs* I love being a felon. :p

[PhoenixUK]

I download a lot of stuff of KaZaA. The reason is that I don't have enough money to buy loads of CD's but listen to music for most of the day, so I'd get bored if I could only listen to the songs I bought. If CD's were sold for a reasonable price then I wouldn't download music.

That said, I always buy the CD if it's from a small artist, because I reckon they need support. But I know someone in the music industry, and they said that in reality a CD only costs a few pence to produce, and about 85% of the costs are just going to artists who are already rich. The music companies should make their tracks available online for a small price so that people can chose the tracks they want, and burn them onto CD, instead of trying to crush KaZaA. Anyway, does no-one think that it's ironic that Sony Music Entertainment is fighting KaZaA, Grokster and Morpheus in the courts while Sony Electronics profit from selling MP3 players that encourage people to download music?

Edit: By the way, I should have recommended to you www.totalrock.com - it's an internet radio station with no ads that plays music that you can't hear on the radio normally. But cause it's streaming, it's all okay and legal because you can't download the songs.

Oh, and to P2P users, a warning. Be careful, 75 lawsuits are being bought per day against users of file-sharing networks. And the punishment for first time use is 5 years imprisonment or a £155,000 fine (around $225,000). That's enough to buy a lot of CD's.

[JofpGallagher]

I don't consider illegal to burn or record your own CDs with selected music you pick from your own CDs. I do that all the time. I mean, I like several bands, so I built my Special CDs from CDs I paid. Now it will be illegal if I start to sell those CDs with my selected music. It's like in the old times when you recorded a cassette. Stores sold playing-recorders devices....so what for? Well, just for you to make your own tapes from your original tapes you paid in stores.
About the overpriced CDs, I insist in highlighting that it could be expensive for new materials, but why should we pay the same price for old music that was not intended to be "Digital" quality. I don't buy that "thing" recording companies put in a Led Zeppelin album like "DIGITALLY RE-MASTERIZED". In my opinion that is a fraud! Old albums were recorded when CDs were not around, thus the quality is inferior, but the price of a Led Zeppelin album is even greater than a new Album from a new band that was recorded with the latest digital technology......

[Kizz]

Anyway, does no-one think that it's ironic that Sony Music Entertainment is fighting KaZaA, Grokster and Morpheus in the courts while Sony Electronics profit from selling MP3 players that encourage people to download music?

It does seem funny. I've been looking for this for a while:

iTunes Music Store (http://www.apple.com/music/store/) - 200,000 legal MP3s at $0.99 each

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet - but that is a very very popular site at the moment. For their sake I hope they've tagged them with some kind of key to indenfy their origin, otherwise it could provide some defense to file traders when they say they brought them there.

I was just about to submit - this isn't advertising and it is relevent to the discussion over the future of KaZaA.

[vickygirl4]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with downloading anything from the internet! I download music, music videos, movies, software, etc. etc. etc. Music is overpriced and most of the time the cd is half empty. $20 for 40 or so minutes of music is absolutely ridiculous! Especially, since more than half of that goes not to the artist, but to the record company. If music was priced fairly, I think most people who download music would go out and buy the cd.

Even if Kazaa is shut down, the music industry can't stop people from downloading music! P2P servers are not the only way to download music, there are plenty of sites (mostly russian) from which you can just download tons of music.

[Midnightsfire]

Well, the bad news is, it looks as if the RIAA wil sue everyone they can. The good news is, that it will take 2191.78 years to get to everyone (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10733).

[rachael_22090]

i download music and so do most of my friends i have downloaded way over 100 music files. i mean there are even websites where you can watch movies for free whenever you like! but i buy some of my cds too. i just dont understand why you shouldnt download music i mean if the program is there take advantage of it. i understand how the artists would feel if they were loosing money out of this but u dont hear them complaining. it is the big businesses that are making such a fuss. and i think they overcharge anyway... that is just my opinion.

[Crystal]

I don't consider illegal to burn or record your own CDs with selected music you pick from your own CDs. I do that all the time. I mean, I like several bands, so I built my Special CDs from CDs I paid.

How do you feel about borrowing CD's your friends have bought, or CD's from a library, and recording those? I don't have a problem personally, but then most of my borrowed CD's are review copies lent to me by my father.

[JofpGallagher]

How do you feel about borrowing CD's your friends have bought, or CD's from a library, and recording those? I don't have a problem personally, but then most of my borrowed CD's are review copies lent to me by my father.

I have no problem with that neither. Your friend or your father paid for the CD. I have had friends who have copied some of my albums (Entirely). I know that it sounds pretty similar when downloading a song on Internet, but it's not the same. On the Internet you will not pay anything at all (ISP connection only ;) )...your friend will not have an unlimited amount of different bands or music so eventually one has to buy something you can't find on your friends stock.

Regarding with the material you can get from a library...I'm not sure, but I guess it's illegal to copy a book. I guess youu can make a copy of a chapter, or some pages for your own studying purposes, but you cannot copy an entire book. Well, I guess it will be the same regarding with music or movies.

******
OFF-TOPIC
Reading my last paragraph ^ I came up thinking that in the U.S., libraries never (Or rarely) have the book teachers assign. For example, my economic professor assigns a book you cannot find on public libraries or in your university library. They (Educational Institutions) make you pay for the books professors recommend. It's a conspiracy!!!...I know that in other countries, you could get the book professors assign on the libraries, so you can avoid buying it. Books are very expensive and finding the books in the libraries is a BIG deal for poor people. I don't know what do you think about it...
::

[vickygirl4]

Downloading music is not stealing. The definition of stealing is taking something away from someone and by doing so, depriving them of that thing. The sharing of information is not stealing, because no one is deprived of anything, no property actually exchanges hands. As for implied damages suffered by the musicians, it is impossible to prove that if people couldn't download music they would actually buy the cd. Personally, I download some artists whose cd's I would never buy, even if I couldn't download their songs.

[bungo mungo]

As long as bands/musicians don't put out a quality product, then I feel no qualms about downloading. Though I will say, the price if you get caught, is pretty hefty. I know I have stopped downloading for a while to see which way the wind will blow on this.

It's just ridiculous to pay almost twenty dollars for a CD that only has two or three good songs...

[GonzoBean]

I heard that the recording industry is just getting the people who were distributing the music. So the people who downloaded even just a couple of songs should be safe. I think they just want more money, honestly. But whatever.

[Metabee]

I say, KAZZA FOREVVA!!!!

[Metabee]

I say, KAZZA FOREVVA!!!!


If I can rip it, I WILL!

[Phoenix_Fawkes]

I just Download the songs and listen to them same with movies... But I dont sell them or anything.. I just watch them or listen when I want to!

[Loz]

Where I live new releases generally cost at least $20... and 2 compilation CDs generally around $28 - and often only have songs which have been played to death on the radio/video shows. I have a really eclectic taste in music, and not much money, so I like to download my music. When I save up my money and buy CDs I find I only like a track or two, maybe 5 out of the 15 - and these days it usually is only 15 tracks which is offered. I often feel incredibly disappointed, and cheated. CDs are often limited to one artist or style of music, but i can organise my MP3 playlist however I want.

In most cases music artists aren't the ones who lose out via piracy, the music companies are. I know it's bad, illegal and possibly immoral of me to download my music the way I do but music is meant to be enjoyed by the masses. I'm a music-freak and wouldn't survive without hearing something new. Plus - music companies still gain a lot of money through sales, and marketing the brand name of a star (take Britney for example) - and then there's copyright, etc.

Okay, so what's my point? I don't have one... I just thought I'd contribute to the conversation.

[haycheng]

I always end up buy the CD anyway. The download quality is bad compare to the real CD. Beside, I always have a slight odd tast on music. However, from now on, I can only buy CD base on my peer recommand. I will buy less now(I am still saving money for some of the CD, so it wont matter much)

I believe the CD is overprice though. I hope one day we can get CD quality directly from the singers.

[Amadeus]

I won't deny that I use Kazza, but if the songs are good, I buy the album whether I have the entire album downloaded on my computer or not. (I collect CDs....)
Also, I've found Kazza useful since it allows me to have access to some of the rare songs (European/Asian language songs or really old ones) that I could never manage to get my hands on...
As for me, I am a pro-Kazza person.

[jmk623]

Although I don't use Kazaa or Morpheus, I use Korean sites, like Bugsmusic and Soribada. These two sites are being sued by singers and album companies.
Anyway, I use them for finding rare music and for albums that are too overpriced. Like Japanese albums and American music even. (It's kind of expensive out here.....shipping costs, I guess.) And I'm sorry to say, Korean music isn't all that great. Less and less tanlented singers are debuting, most of them are flashing good looks. I download songs that are okay, but not buy the albums(because the rest of the songs are......yuck!) It saves me money that way. Buying the albums that are worthwhile.

[DRxD]

I have over 1,500 songs on my computer (honestly I'm not trying to brag), and no I don't feel guilty.

I'm not going to pay $15 for a CD I might not like, so I download the music. Then there's music I can't find in the stores. And if I like 1 song on a cd I'm not paying 15 dollars for it.

[Morgoth]

So how much money do you think you've saved in downloading 1,500 songs?

[Kizz]

So how much money do you think you've saved in downloading 1,500 songs?

In the UK 1,500 singles on CD would cost £6,000 max, if you were really lucky then something like £2,500. Purchasing them legit from iTunes would cost $1,485.

I'm assuming each file is on average 4 Mb * 1500 = 5.859375 Gb (Gig =2^10 Mb). On a very good connection at a sustained average transfer rate of 80Kb (good for a 512k downlink). I make it 21.3333 hours irr. which seems accurate I think. That's less than a day on a broadband connection, minimum contract for most UK providers is a year, at £30 a month that's £360, which means someone could save over £3,000 from buying the CDs in the UK, or around $1,065 in the US from iTunes - legal. These are just some random calculations, i'm not trying to prove filesharing saves money, as that's not alot compared with the fine and legal fees should you chose to try and defend yourself (-quite futile).

[JofpGallagher]

Kizz32,
Nice math. However, and for fun, you may also consider the following costs:
1) Time you spend downloading and searching those songs. You just cannot find those 1,500 songs in just one search. Time worth money.
2) Cost of storage (Hard drive space)
3) We have to consider than from those 1,500 songs many can come from the same album so you cannot include same albums more than one time.
4) PC depreciation for usage. Electricity costs.
5) Maybe other non-monetary costs I can't think of right now.

I did this for fun....hehehe :lol:

[Kizz]

:D Fair points,
1)the internet connection cost covers an entire year, so I think the time it takes to search is included in the cost.
2)A Seagate 20GB HDD i'll cost £40, the higher capacity you go the more value per gigabyte - that's £2/gig which isn't good value.
3)That's why I couldn't give an accurate answer for the cost of CDs, but we do know the cost for legit downloads from licensed distributors - US $1,485. I think we can say this is probably cheaper than if you bought the CDs. Which means you're actually saving less.
4) It costs £1 to run my house for a few days :D PC depreciation - fair dues I guess :lol:
5) Medical expenses for RSD from typing in the names of 1,500 songs - just try putting your hand over the mouse...ouch.

Just think - if each file is 4 mins long, that's 100 hours...

On a different note, if they can take down the fasttrack network they deserve to...and that's just given me an idea :D

[Pucko]

I download songs from the web but I don't use a file sharing program cuz it's dangerous. It opens you computer to every other user of that program. Someone told me that real artists don't mind having their music on the web, they see it as sampling their art. But other artists who can't sell enough CDs complain that it is taking away from their sales.
I will continue downloading music as long as I can for free, because frankly, artists (not to mention record companies) have enough money as it is, they don't need mine.

Burning CDs is only wrong if you sell them for money, but giving them to friends or whatever is OK cuz you paid for the CD so you reserve the right to do (almost) whatever you want with it.

[Kizz]

Burning CDs is only wrong if you sell them for money, but giving them to friends or whatever is OK cuz you paid for the CD so you reserve the right to do (almost) whatever you want with it.

As far as i'm aware it's ok to backup the data that you own a license for, in purchasing a CD you do not own the rights to reproduce it - if you read the insert on most mainstream CDs it will have a notice saying reproducing in any means is...unauthorised, so ripping it/copying it for personal use it technically illegal, but too petit for any court to uphold as a violation of the license -as the copyright owner isn't losing out. In buying any CD you do not own the intellectual property it contians - you own the medium and a license. Giving copies to friends is illegal, but it's too difficult to police.

I wouldn't worry about people hacking you through p2p programs, windows normally has enough exploits and unchecked buffers to satisfy any black hat.

[Midnightsfire]

I don't know how effective this may be, but I suppose it may not hurt to try.

Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA! (http://www.eff.org/share/petition/)

poo...Americans only...(It is about the Recording Industry Association of America, so I guess that makes sense.)

Oh well.

[Dark Fallen Pride]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, I can't remember and I don't feel like looking through all 6 pages, so...

Boycott the RIAA!!!

http://www.boycott-riaa.com


The site is slow (for me anyway) but it lets you know whats going on and everything.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

The music industry is just totally idiotic - since when does suing your customers make people want to buy from you?

[haycheng]

We just have to take a stand. I also visit a hi-fi site. The conclusion is to buy used CD, or go with the independent music or some music made by members:lol:.I am sure one day they will get the idea and drop the price.

Honestly, Non-pop music is not priced as high(still high in my opinion).New age and classical is around 13-14 per CD. Only pop music is charged for 18-20.

[PrtVeela]

hesdead-dealwithit lol! YEAH! what happened to "the customer's always right"?

[Animagi rock!]

They're only suing people in america right? I'm off the hook, then, at least for now. But then I don't have very many music files on my computer anyway. Most of the time I only download tracks if someone recomends a new band to me and I want to listen to a few of their songs before I buy the CD or if I just like one song on the album and don't want to buy the whole CD just for that song. I've never downloaded whole albums. D*** my conscience :p .

[TheBoss]

i dont mind it at all.. i used to love napster, that was great, but Kazaa is getting better..

nowadays its getting harder to get the music you want, all those 'fake' songs that they put out... course its smart for them, they need to make money..

personally, i just download the music when its not good enough to buy, y'know? for example.. why spend $20 on a cd where i like 3 songs?? pointless! im not wasting my money! if you made a good CD i'd buy it!

[Dedalus]

I do download songs, but only for demo purposes. I don't have a lot of money so I'll, like others who have replied, try-before-I-buy. I'll never download whole albums but one or two songs and if I like them, then I'll buy the album and delete the songs. If not, I'll just delete the songs anyway.

I don't like the argument "but the musicians are already rich!". Not all are, and how do you think the ones that are got the money in the first place? Their music is their livelihood. They play music to earn a living. It's our hobby to listen, but it isn't just their hobby to play it ... so why she would steal of them, indulging our hobbies to ruin their jobs? Listening to music is a luxury, and like all luxuries we should pay for it. You wouldn't refuse to pay the window-cleaner just because you think clean windows should be something everyone should have, would you?

I prefer buying the album, anyway. There's something more whole about a proper CD. Not in quality or anything like that ... it's hard to explain. I just feel like some of the hearts been taken away when you download songs, because you can download all kinds of songs on to the one CD, where as buying a CD is purely for that one band, and they get (part of) the money for it and you get the album sleeve and all sorts. It just feels better.

[daniel4hp]

I will continue downloading music as long as I can for free, because frankly, artists (not to mention record companies) have enough money as it is, they don't need mine.
Following that logic, if a store is doing well, you're entitled to go in and take whatever you like, because they're rich enough to get by, and don't need to you to pay for what you take.

[JofpGallagher]

Following that logic, if a store is doing well, you're entitled to go in and take whatever you like, because they're rich enough to get by, and don't need to you to pay for what you take.

Not only that Daniel. Why not going to a Microsoft store and grab Windows software since Bill Gates is very rich. Or go to a Toyota Dealer and drive away a Corolla. Toyota is in good financial situation.

I see that the point is not downloading music because music industry and artists are rich. I think one cannot use that as the excuse for downloading music as the one you quoted.

In addition, I have just read an article that appeared published in the Wall Stree Journal today. It has an interesting comment for those who download songs because they just like one song from the entire album:

"I like the middle part of an oreo. Does that mean I can just steal them?"

[haycheng]

I agree with you. It is still illegal to download music. However, I have some question about the ownership of the such property. I know for a fact that research such as drug have the ownership for 20 years. Then anyone can make the drug. How it work for moive and music though? (also other software?)

I believe we can vote by not buying music from RIAA. We could also trun to legal download music. The quality would not be as good as a well make CD though. Honestly, most of the Pop-music are not well record anyway. We do not have to buy the CD.

[Loz]

Copyright extends for 50 years... so after fifty years it goes into the public domain and can be snapped up... hence all the Dracula things you find, and the resurgance of period pieces. That's movies, anyway. As for music, I'm fairly sure it's the same deal, since music is held under the same copyright act.

[Midnightsfire]

I agree with you. It is still illegal to download music. However, I have some question about the ownership of the such property. I know for a fact that research such as drug have the ownership for 20 years.
Umm..in regards to drugs, that has changed. Patents on drugs are only viable for 17 years now.

Just a little note...

[haycheng]

Thank you. I forget the exact year. The only reason I know is a drug I am taking is being researched by another company(they want to improve the drug base on other company reserch).

[vickygirl4]

Why not going to a Microsoft store and grab Windows software since Bill Gates is very rich. Or go to a Toyota Dealer and drive away a Corolla. Toyota is in good financial situation.

I see that the point is not downloading music because music industry and artists are rich. I think one cannot use that as the excuse for downloading music as the one you quoted.


But that's exactly it, downloading music is not the same as driving away in a Corola! By stealing a car, you are depriving someone (the car dealership) of that particular car. But when you download music, no one is being deprived of anything. The recording company does not have one less song now, it has the same amount of merchandise that it had before. Therefore, the only damage that the company experiences is implied. However, these implied damages cannot be proven. When someone downloads a song, there is no guarantee that if they had not downloaded the song then they would have bought the cd. I download songs of some artists whose cds I would never buy. It's illogical to say that a certain person who downloaded a song would have bought a cd had he not downloaded that song.

Downloading music is just sharing information. For people who know how computers work, all music downloaders are really doing is just exchanging a combination of 1's and 0's.

As for the microsoft software, I'm afraid that's a bad example, because that is being downloaded too. Or it can be bought at a bazaar in some country like Russia or Turkey for $1 or $2. Like music piracy, this is also not stealing and should not be illegal. Especially since microsoft products are absurdly expensive and don't work properly.

[JofpGallagher]

But that's exactly it, downloading music is not the same as driving away in a Corola! By stealing a car, you are depriving someone (the car dealership) of that particular car. But when you download music, no one is being deprived of anything. The recording company does not have one less song now, it has the same amount of merchandise that it had before.

A doctor performs a complicate surgery, he will have no less or more hands or fingers. The doctor who entered the operation room is exactly the same person who went out after the surgery, So, according to your logic, he will not be entitled to receive salary.

Downloading music is just sharing information. For people who know how computers work, all music downloaders are really doing is just exchanging a combination of 1's and 0's.

Yeah, but somebody has to do that combination of 1's and 0's you can transform into the music and sounds you love. Somebody has done some work, and downloaders are not paying for that. Many not even saying thanks!

As for the microsoft software, I'm afraid that's a bad example, because that is being downloaded too. Or it can be bought at a bazaar in some country like Russia or Turkey for $1 or $2. Like music piracy, this is also not stealing and should not be illegal. Especially since microsoft products are absurdly expensive and don't work properly.

I have to disagree in that too. Buying those CDs for $1 or $2 is stealing, and even worse than that. There is a person (The seller of those $1 or $2 CDs) who is receiveing a profit after some others worked hard. At least downloading music is free and no one is getting money ilegally.

[JofpGallagher]

Copyright extends for 50 years... so after fifty years it goes into the public domain and can be snapped up... hence all the Dracula things you find, and the resurgance of period pieces. That's movies, anyway. As for music, I'm fairly sure it's the same deal, since music is held under the same copyright act.

Loz,
In grand part due to Disney Corporation who was about to lose its multi-millions ($) copyrights, those copyrights were increased from 50 years to 70 years. So now Disney corp will have up to 2023 to ask to the congress for another extension...ahhh...the world of $$$$... :shrug:

[ArmachiA]

Honestly, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The RIAA is just being Greedy and want all the money they can get and people are downloading because they are being stubborn and don't want to support their favorite artist by going out and buying the CD.

I'm guilty of downloading, but I don't download American music. I download Japanese music, and the only reason I do that is because I'm not going to be hearing it on the radio anytime soon. So I download, listen to it, and if I like it I buy the album.

People are always complaining about how expensive CD's are... but I go to Wal-Mart and see that they are only like 13 or 14 Dollars. Best Buy even sells them for like 10 bucks if it's a new release. This isn't very expensive to me. Imagine paying 25 dollars for a CD and 10 dollars for a single! That's how it is in Japan and on Websites that sell Japanese albums like www.yesasia.com. However, the QUALITY of CD's are HORRIBLE now-a-days, there are one or two good songs and the rest is filler! No one wants to buy that. The music industry is pumping out Here Today, Gone Tomorrow Bands and Artists on a daily basis putting all their chips on us buying the first CD, then forgetting about so they can move on to the "Next Big thing". Nowadays there wouldn't be any Johnny Cash's or Frank Sinatra's, or Even Elvis Presley's because the first CD has to do multiplatnium or they want nothing to do with you. They don't nurture artists anymore, they just want the money. OF COURSE we as a people are going to get sick of this. And with the rapid decline of the worth of the single (You can barely find them anymore) it seems harder and harder to find the song you want. So what do you do? Download it of course, it's just easier that way.

The music industry needs to wise up about how ignorant they are being before we'll buy CD's again. The LAST thing we need is another Britney Spears or Good Charalotte, we have too many of those already,

[haycheng]

Try some good old classical or new age. Some of the new age are pretty good. As for classical, I am sure you can find some good music. CD still have better sound if they actually spend the time to mix the CD and do the record carefully.

[Loz]

Loz,
In grand part due to Disney Corporation who was about to lose its multi-millions ($) copyrights, those copyrights were increased from 50 years to 70 years. So now Disney corp will have up to 2023 to ask to the congress for another extension...ahhh...the world of $$$$... :shrug:

Really? :huh: I wasn't aware the copyright act had changed. Ahh well, in Oz it hasn't.

*ahem* downloading music is bad, but making people pay hundreds/thousands of dollars for doing so is wrong too.

[ArmachiA]

Try some good old classical or new age. Some of the new age are pretty good. As for classical, I am sure you can find some good music. CD still have better sound if they actually spend the time to mix the CD and do the record carefully.

I listen to EVERYTHING. I am a big time music person. I swear I have like 700 Cd's. I used to buy like 100 American Cd's a year up until about 2000-2001 when the quality of music went down, now I'm lucky if I'm interested in 10 American releases a year. I really miss the days when I cared. X_X

But I do listen to classical and the like, my have a really open mind when it comes to music (Hence why I listen to stuff in another language ^_^)

Honestly, if a person like me can become disillusioned with music I can understand why people are downloading... it doesn't make it right... but I understand. And attacking your customers the way the RIAA is doing isn't going to help.

[JofpGallagher]

I listen to EVERYTHING. I am a big time music person. I swear I have like 700 Cd's. I used to buy like 100 American Cd's a year up until about 2000-2001 when the quality of music went down, now I'm lucky if I'm interested in 10 American releases a year. I really miss the days when I cared. X_X
Ohh!!! but Americans are not the only bands that sing in English. I will never be dissapointed of the British-rock quality.
About 75% of my CDs are from British artists!!! :D
Australians do pretty good music too.

[invisablethestral]

I agree with fining people who are sharing 1000's of songs, 100's of albums through file sharing programs. Its a clear indication that someone doesnt buy and support artists and musians, even if the music is easily and quite cheaply accessable to them. If it were a random collection of songs through someone downloading for a trial listen before deciding its worth parting with their cash for an album, then i think that is okay. That is what i do. If i hadnt, my discovery and passion for music would be non-existant. Since i started downloading like that a few years back, my cd collection has increased massively.

So the situation is a flipside. One one hand its right to ban people if they take it to an extreme. On the other, its not right to fine the experimentalist. People shouldnt be fined for curiousity.

On another note, certain bands and musians support the file-sharing. I would certainly never of heard of a lot of american bands like Modest Mouse and Built To Spill if it werent for the internet. If music is recorded for the love of music rather than for the corperate money greed that litters pop music in these times, then the artists should be happy that their music is spreading beyond the natural boundires of land or critic.

[PhoenixUK]

The phrase 'biting the hand that feeds it' comes to mind when I think of the RIAA.

[ArmachiA]

Ohh!!! but Americans are not the only bands that sing in English. I will never be dissapointed of the British-rock quality.
About 75% of my CDs are from British artists!!! :D
Australians do pretty good music too.
Hehe, yeah, I do like a lot of English bands too! AND some Australian ones!
But I was just poitning out American music since that's what this is all about :)

[vickygirl4]

This is a case of supply and demand. The music industry is attempting to sell its product for a price that is higher than what customers are willing and able to pay. It is only logical that the music industry should lower cd prices to reach an equilibrium in which the supply and demand will be balanced. Then the quantity demanded by the consumer will equal the quantity supplied by the producer and the price will be acceptable to both parties. If the price were reasonable most people would then stop downloading music.

[JofpGallagher]

This is a case of supply and demand. The music industry is attempting to sell its product for a price that is higher than what customers are willing and able to pay. It is only logical that the music industry should lower cd prices to reach an equilibrium in which the supply and demand will be balanced. Then the quantity demanded by the consumer will equal the quantity supplied by the producer and the price will be acceptable to both parties. If the price were reasonable most people would then stop downloading music.

I'm pleased to see people with knowledge in a fascinating area like Economics! :)
My opinion from the economic point of view differs a little bit. It's not that CD prices have to go down to match the demand. Basically the demand curve has not switched. It's the same! What happened is that a new supplier has entered to unbalance the equillibrium. The new supplier (Kazaa and alikes) came offering the same product (Music) for free, and you can't beat that!!!

I grant you the idea that if CD prices go down, sales (Volume) will increase, that it'd be expected. But lowering the price will lower the willingness of suppliers to sell the amount of CDs that are going to be demanded, hence a huge shortage would arise.

The problem is not lowering the price, it's that you can't beat "for free".

[Kizz]

The problem is not lowering the price, it's that you can't beat "for free".
That sparked something in my head...if you can't sell something for money maybe they should improve the product. I don't beleive the quality of music has got any worst, as far as I'm concerned alot of it isn't to my liking, and that's fine - people can have their rubbish if they want it and I accept music isn't going to get any closer to my liking. But there is still the possibility of improving CDs so that they are favoured over downloads...just the little question of what would make you buy them...bundling with HP merchadise maybe a good start. Interesting post vickygirl4.

[ArmachiA]

This is a case of supply and demand. The music industry is attempting to sell its product for a price that is higher than what customers are willing and able to pay. It is only logical that the music industry should lower cd prices to reach an equilibrium in which the supply and demand will be balanced. Then the quantity demanded by the consumer will equal the quantity supplied by the producer and the price will be acceptable to both parties. If the price were reasonable most people would then stop downloading music.
A record comapny is going to do that. I can't remember the name of the company but Mary J. Blige is signed to them. They are lowering their CD prices to 10 dollars in hopes that people will buy more of them. The other record companies are taking a "Wait and See" approach and are going to see how the company does. It's in this weeks issue of Entertainment Weekly (The one with Johnny Depp on the cover) if you want to read it for yourself.

[vickygirl4]

That sparked something in my head...if you can't sell something for money maybe they should improve the product. I don't beleive the quality of music has got any worst, as far as I'm concerned alot of it isn't to my liking, and that's fine - people can have their rubbish if they want it and I accept music isn't going to get any closer to my liking. But there is still the possibility of improving CDs so that they are favoured over downloads...just the little question of what would make you buy them...bundling with HP merchadise maybe a good start.

That's actually a really good idea. I personally sometimes buy cds just to get the pretty cd jacket! So if the cd was improved and had somekind of advantage over downloads, people would probably buy cds rather than use p2p's.

The problem is not lowering the price, it's that you can't beat "for free"

That's a really good point. I agree that some people will still download music, but I think the majority of people choose to download not because they don't want to pay for cds, but because they don't want to pay ridiculously high prices. Maybe I'm too optimistic in human nature, but I think the majority of people would buy music if it was reasonably priced.

[Phoenix_Fawkes]

RIAA putting viruses on Kazza ect ect.. You know that screeching sond on some songs thats thanks to the RIAA! You see the thing is that On most CDs theres only one good song usually so why waste money on o4 minutes of soemthing you like hwen you can just download it... And on the radio yo can tape a song and thats ok????? RIAA are greedy SOBs that need to get a life. Its US that make the artist its us that can break them to! So screw the RIAA and screw the artists that are with them! Mettalica started all this **** and I hate them for it!

[Sarmi]

I'll admit that I do download music and make a CD. I don't consider that stealing. It's just like listening to the radio and taping your favorite songs. I do consider it stealing when you start selling those CD's. But if it's just for personal use, then there's no harm in it.

Sarmi

[Picko]

I've downloaded probably 800 songs. However I wouldn't have bought the singles or albums if they weren't downloadable. I buy precious few CDs so essentially I haven't taken potential profits away from the manufacturer or the retailer. Is what I do right? Doubtful but as I said I wouldn't have bought the albums or singles anyway - not when I could hear them on radio for free anyway.

The problem for the record industry is providing an offer to the consumer that is enticing even though it's more expensive than 'for free'. Currently the prices of CDs are too high to be competitive with the file sharing industry - that is quite obvious - but if the price is lowered by say 20% some people would look at the fact that the album they receive is now official, with lyrics and correct labels and what not and would view it as a incentive to get the official product. At the same time some people still wouldn't see it as being worth it - myself for example. The Record Industry needs to get clever very quickly, so far they've done everything but face the real problem - price. At the end of the day is very simple economics - demand and supply (currently the bane of my existance :D).

[ArmachiA]

Mettalica started all this **** and I hate them for it!
Did you know Lars actually retracted his statent?? He was doing an interview with VH1 and he was like "I wasn't agianst downloading the music, I just didn't want them to do it before the album came out."... I was like WHAT!? That isn't what he said a few years ago.

Anyway, I think it was started by them, but it would have been starting by someone else if not them. They were just the ones pushing it out into the open. Mostly the record companies are mad because CD sales are dropping.

[Midnightsfire]

Turning the tables on record labels (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/09/24/kazaa.sues.ap/index.html)


Makers of Kazaa suing record labels

Turning the tables on record labels, makers of the most popular Internet song-swapping network are suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement.
Sharman Networks Ltd., the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing the entertainment companies of using unauthorized versions of its software in their efforts to root out users. Entertainment companies have offered bogus versions of copyright works and sent online messages to users.

Sharman said the companies used Kazaa Lite, an ad-less replica of its software, to get onto the network. The lawsuit also claims efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network.

Trying again

Sharman's lawsuit also revives its previous allegation that the entertainment companies violated antitrust laws by stopping Sharman and its partner from distributing authorized copies of music and movies through Kazaa.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson rejected those claims in July but last week allowed Sharman to try again. Sharman is incorporated in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu with main offices in Sydney, Australia.

Firing back

The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."

Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, a division of CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner, declined to comment on Sharman's latest lawsuit.

Recording companies sued 261 music fans this month, claiming they were illegally distributing hundreds of digital song files apiece over the Internet. The industry trolled file-sharing networks such as Kazaa and downloaded song files from users' computers.

Once the industry determined a downloaded song file was a copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access providers to find out who was behind the account used to log onto the file-sharing network.

RIAA drops one lawsuit

Meanwhile, the recording industry group has dropped one of the 261 lawsuits, a case filed against a 66-year-old sculptor who apparently was targeted in a case of mistaken identity.

Sarah Seabury Ward, of Newbury, Massachusetts, was accused of illegally sharing more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa, including rapper Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug." The music companies threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song.

After Ward's lawyer complained that Ward is a "computer neophyte" who never installed file-sharing software or downloaded any songs, the case was dropped in federal court in Boston on Friday.

[Midnightsfire]

41 More Sued Over Music Downloads (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2003-12-03-riaa_x.htm)

Despite bad press for turning on its customers, the recording industry said Wednesday that it would sue 41 more people, alleging they illegally downloaded music from the Internet.
Another 90 people were warned of pending copyright-infringement lawsuits.

Since September, the industry has sued 341 U.S. consumers in a bid to stem the tide of online music piracy, which the industry blames for a 31% drop in music sales over three years.

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels, says the campaign is showing "new signs of success," and research supports it.

Nielsen/NetRatings says the average number of users on Kazaa, the top music and movie trading program, has dropped 53% since June — when the RIAA first warned of lawsuits.

More than 200 lawsuits have been settled. Most often, defendants pay fines of $1,000 to $3,000 to avoid court.

"The average teen daughter is no longer downloading," says Jorge Gonzalez, who runs the Zeropaid.com file-sharing information Web site. "Her mother has been scared by the RIAA."

Meanwhile, more advanced users are migrating to other systems, where they can be anonymous, Gonzalez says. Some college students, for instance, are forming private networks to share songs among themselves. Also, many users have migrated to legitimate alternatives introduced this year from Apple, MusicMatch and Roxio (the revived Napster).

Apple's iTunes Music Store has been the most successful, selling 17 million songs online at 99 cents per tune. Wal-Mart.com is expected to soon launch a service with lower prices. That would help mainstream paid services.

"A lot more legitimate sites are up and running, and a lot more are coming," says Phil Leigh of market research firm Inside Digital Media. "The content is there, and we're seeing real progress."

Matt Broberg, 19, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, hasn't tried the pay services. He used to download from Kazaa but stopped in the wake of the litigation. "The lawsuits have had an effect on me and my friends," he says. "Kazaa used to be the biggest thing around. Not anymore."

Some file sharers, estimated at about 60 million worldwide, say they are undeterred.

"The odds of being singled out for a lawsuit are 56 million to one," Indiana University student Campbell Vertesi writes in an e-mail. "The odds of being struck by lightning are about 90 times greater, but I still go out in the rain."

Nielsen analyst Greg Bloom also says the lawsuits have only increased interest in illegal file-swapping in Europe, where no lawsuits have been filed.