#64 by Skinner Iben - 8/1/2003 7:38:12 PM Who said you can get music for free?You must first buy a computer,mine was not cheap.Then you need to pay the electric bill,and for me the phone bill.Then you pay the internet provider.Then you spend a lot of you free time searching and downloading,how much is your time worth?You get a song who knows what it is or how it will sound until you listen to it.Mostly file sharing is good for getting songs that are not even available any more.By the time your done it would have been less expensive to buy the thing at a store if you could find it.Free they say, nothing is free.I think the problem today with music is it ain't what it used to be.

your kidding right?

Maybe I'm missing something... your not going to pay the artists for the song because you bought a computer?

I don't understand (well I do but lets not get into that) why the artist should not be paid for making a work.

The RIAA methods are sucky at best, but so say sharing mutlipul file to hundereds of people is not stealing is ludacris... like the rapper.


I can understand 2 or 3 copies made but allowing anyone to just copy your bought music or music you found somewhere is pretty out there.


I would agree that the music indrustry neeed a new business model. The P2P thing could make the artist allot of money, help new artists and new record labels and support the Music idnrustry and distribution. Make it say your pay to get on and once your on you can share all the music files you want with others, create communities, and everything. Get new artists stuff, hear new music releases.

Cool idea huh? Its different from Apple's because you are sharing files with others. You pay to get on and the money goes to all artists who are registered for a percentage in royalties and support distubution and other music thingies


Would you pay 100 dollars a year for all music, vidoes and what ever anybody put on thier computer? Better than going to jail and paying a fine.

(Boy, I wish I had 10 mil to start that business up. I would.)

The problem with chasing the music steelers is that you can't find them unless you brake the law.And violate everyone's privacy rights.

Umm, how do you figure that finding the swappers is illegal? And As for privacy rights, its not right for them to be able to get the names/addresses of swappers without even proving they did anything wrong...

It is kind of hard to believe a bunch of people would feel they need to protect a corrupt outdated industry whose strong-arm tactics are modeled after the Black Hand in theory and application.

Ill start with:
There's no doubt that downloading copyrighted material is illegal, anyone who says otherwise is dillusional. However, just because it is illegal, and there are penalties won't stop people from doing it.
The question is how we will handle it. Should "wage on a war" on file sharing as we have on countless other social deficiencies such as the war on crime, the war on drugs and other various other programs which only succeed in costing taxpayers billions and putting people in prison.

Yes!!! That's exactly what we should do, we ought to put the 60 million americans who use file-sharing programs in prison. Our prison population isn't large enough yet, we ought to put 20%+ of the population in there. But wait! That's not enough yet, let's finacially ruin them as well. Oh yeah and you 'innocent' folk, expect your taxes to at least triple.


End with:
The majority of people realize that technology currently allows the individual to produce, record, mix and distribute their own music. All it takes is a little bit of hardware, some software and a CD burner, at a total cost under $500 (if you shop wisely).

There is no real need for large record companies any longer, and they know this. (well except for stealing money out of the artists hands. If you're a large corporate entity, screwing people over is always a good way to go it seems of late)

Good night.

PS: I have not bought a single CD produced by a major record label since 1999 and not because I download it, I simply don't listen to that complete and utter garbage and I know many other people who think and have done the same. Drop in sales may partially be due to file-sharing, however a large portion of former customers see no appeal in most music which has been put out there in the past couple of years.

I can only assume people haven't read Janis Ian's excellent statement about this "debacle". I'll post a couple highlights here for you and recommend (again) you read the entire article: http://http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

quote:

"Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.

Realistically, why do most people download music? To hear new music, or records that have been deleted and are no longer available for purchase. Not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can't find anywhere else. Face it - most people can't afford to spend $15.99 to experiment. That's why listening booths (which labels fought against, too) are such a success.

One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money.

Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet…and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing.

Am I suspicious of all this hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am I concerned about losing friends, opportunities, my 10th Grammy nomination by publishing this article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong, and when they're that wrong, they have to be addressed.

The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free downloading.

Nonsense. "

a couple more gems from Janis' heartfelt, well researched and extremely informed commentary (she's an artist with 37 years of experience with the record companies and 10 Grammy nominations)

"There is zero evidence that material available for free online downloading is financially harming anyone. In fact, most of the hard evidence is to the contrary.

It's absurd for us, as artists, to sanction - or countenance - the shutting down of something like this. It's sheer stupidity to rejoice at the Napster decision. Short-sighted, and ignorant.

Please note that I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. I am not saying copyrights are meaningless. I am objecting to the RIAA spin that they are doing this to protect "the artists", and make us more money. I am annoyed that so many records I once owned are out of print, and the only place I could find them was Napster. Most of all, I'd like to see an end to the hysteria that causes a group like RIAA to spend over 45 million dollars in 2001 lobbying "on our behalf", when every record company out there is complaining that they have no money."

 

Fine....but how does she propose to have copyrights AND file-sharing NOT mutually-exclusive?

It makes no difference who or what she is...or how long she's been a muso...this situation is new to any and all of us and needs some hard thinking.

Reality is that file sharing is public distribution of artwork without artist's consent.

Truth be known, it's simply time for a beer...

this situation is new to any and all of us and needs some hard thinking.

Exactly. What it doesn't need is a knee-jerk reaction from legislators who are too eager to please any corporate interest with enough lobbying funds.

Reality is that file sharing is public distribution of artwork without artist's consent.

Wrong. You're assuming it's without the artist's consent. Exposure is the most precious comodity an artist gets and "most" recording artists benefit from file sharing. So do most record labels but they don't have the sense to realize that. Consent has been granted by hundreds of artists.

 

But You can guarantee not ALL OF THEM....and therein lies the criminality...

#81 by DavidK - 8/2/2003 12:39:53 AM I can only assume people haven't read Janis Ian's excellent statement about this "debacle". I'll post a couple highlights here for you and recommend (again) you read the entire article: http://http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.htmlquote:"Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped

I read that and I still don't agree with it. It does hurt more artist then Ms. Dion

One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money.

Exposure? The artist gets exposure is all well and good but at a certian point the whole wolrd can know you exist and you'll still not get enough money to make the music and the TIME it take to make it (more than 500-1000 USD that is to start)

Not sure what to say about the rest with the 25 albums and not getting any royalties (unless the albums was a total flop and no one uses them dispite the Grammy nominations)


While I would agree that most people use P2P just to see if they like a song or want that album or just to get hard to find music, most is not all and I know for a fact becuse I went to college and saw all the people downloading and saying they get a whole album and say they will never buy a CD again that there is allot of people who never intend to buy a album even if they like it.


I think the real poit it that

1)
Stealing is wrong
2)
The RIAA is right about copywrights
3)
The RIAA is wrong about how to go about stopping the download problem
4)
The population as a whole did not know about P2P until the RIAA sued Napster
5)
Most people will take for free before thinking about the artist
6)
The Music Indrustry should stop making Lawyers a forthought and make them an afterthough and get on board with P2P and make it ligit useing a variation of my proposed P2P plan stated above, Apple's iMusic and Rhapsody's download system.
7)
Reduce penalties for those caught stealing. The current fine stratagy is not the best. Bankrupting parents of children who use P2P is not the goal


8) Mostl importantly the RIAA is going after those who have 1000's of songs on thier computer and lets other download them. Not the 300 or so people (and if they are going after people who have 300 or so songs that is a bad idea as well)

The simple fact is that record companies and executives will soon be a thing of the past as they should be. It makes me laugh to see people who have a very good sense of morality defend the record industry which is made up of the foulest breed of hyena on the planet.

People say the downloading of free music is hurting the artist, well if it is then set up a system where online stores are giving the music downloads for a reasonable fee or flat annual subscription rate. Maybe people don’t realize it but the artist has been robbed long before the advent of the internet or Napster. They have been robbed so badly by record executives that criminal prosecution should probably be considered.

Artists hardly even make money from recordings because of corruption; it is almost a lost lead for the artist so they can sell their tour where they can actually get paid, the artist really only makes money when they play live, as for the money for the recordings? Where does it go? Record execs el pocketos, and why, in this age when all new recordings can simply be put online for download, cutting out all the unnecessary profiteering, or middleman so to speak.

The people would be getter a cheaper and more convenient product, the artists will probably get paid better, and the sharks that once controlled the industry with an iron fist will have to find another haunt because the industry they once corrupted and dominated has been streamlined and made efficient by the computer age. I would say that you can expect these leaches to claw at the ice as it cracks beneath their feet, trying to rob the artist and the people for as long as their legal teams can keep them alive.

Hmm. I wonder about the case where people download MP3s to replace LPs that they own.

I own a ton of records that I paid for but can no longer listen to becaue I don't own a turn table. Is it wrong to download those MP3s?

I recorded them to my pc. Was some work, though.

Maybe the people just have to show the judge that they actually do own the records.

Maybe the people just have to show the judge that they actually do own the records

maybe... but it will be very expensive lawyer that shows them to the judge, not a "people". Once you are in court defending yourself against a $100,000+ lawsuit, you are screwed finacially. It's like getting cancer but your health insurance doesn't cover it.

I own a ton of records that I paid for but can no longer listen to becaue I don't own a turn table. Is it wrong to download those MP3s?

That is a very interesting question indeed. I do the same thing and started feeling a bit anxious when I read of this RIAA deal. It doesn't seem intrinsically wrong, but I sure don't know if it is or not. I still don't quite get the difference between recording a whole season of Babylon5 on VCR and downloading the same season from some PtP network...yeah, yeah, yeah, distribution..blah, blah, but the end result is the same.

I would like to know the answer to your question Frogboy if anyone can give a legally correct answer.

I've got about 4Gb of mp3's on my desktop system. All but about 30 songs are from my records and CD's that I ripped for my own use. They're all legal (except maybe the 30 or so that came from friends or my son).

When Napster was happening I tried it and downloaded a bunch of songs from someone I had just seen in concert, Sarah McLachlan, and the quality of the rips was terrible. I went out and bought 3 of her CD's plus a couple other CD's of artists I had downloaded some samples of. I stopped using Napster after just a week or so because I didn't like the quality and I was on a dial-up at the time.  The only Napster songs I still have are some I also have the CD's or vinyl for but never bothered ripping them. I haven't done anything illegal but would my collection be viewed as evidence of a crime?

I think the record industry would say if you own the record, but have no turntable, you should buy the CD.

The law however would allow you to record CD's of your records, or make tapes of them. As far as downloading goes, why would it be any different? You've already paid the label's royalties for the album's content by buying the record. Interesting question...

#88 by Scribe Frogboy - 8/2/2003 12:58:43 PM Hmm. I wonder about the case where people download MP3s to replace LPs that they own.I own a ton of records that I paid for but can no longer listen to becaue I don't own a turn table. Is it wrong to download those MP3s?

In the days of vinyl there was a warning on records saying something to the effect of “do not make illegal copies of this record.” Basically what that meant legally was that if you were caught reproducing the album by making even one cassette tape copy you were by definition, and by those standards breaking the law, I do not think a person on the planet would have ever abided by that law, because it was as ludicrous as the warning “do not remove this label” on mattresses.

I would imagine that the warning indicating that any form of duplication is illegal would make any case in which the music removed from the actual vinyl illegal.

I could be wrong maybe there could be a license type of argument.

I think that the main thing that I would find wrong is.
Selling copies of music for your own profit.
If you aren't selling copies I don't see much wrong with that.
Just my personal opinion.
I think that making a big deal of file sharing just backfired on the record industry and made them look greedy.
But we all know they aren't greedy don't we.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5056162.html?tag=nl

Not excatly on the subject, but...
I think there is a way coming very soon to download those songs you really want.

Secondly, DavidK, it is amazing how it is so hard to get to the music you want to get to and not even sure it is the song you wanted or a virus or a really bad copy. Yet for what ever reasons it is still so popular. (I do believe it is popular but only to College/Highschool students and a few who work at places where there is a high speed connection)


(There may be a few DSL/broadband users who seem to have allot of time on there hands downloading music)


I have always felt that the RIAA was focusing on the wrong thing. The money should have been on making a legal alternative (while at the same time run a knowledge program on why you shouldn't download files... I saw the ad they did run 3 times and other add were so attacking that instead of informing people they were threating people of which doe not work for College/Highschool/Junior students and people hiding behind work office connections)


Anyway...
I feel by next year most of the complaining will be over. iTunes, MusicMatch and Napster 2.0 like programs will provide most of the music that people downloading in the first place. They would have worked out the penaties laws and punishments so its is not extreme.


And the 'why pay for it when you can get it for free' argument will end.


It is possible that the indrustry will have to change reguardless. Hopefully it will not be the same.

I do and will never think there is 60 million people downloading music. Or believe the fact that they would ever have bought the music in the first place if they couldn't download it for free.

Hey has anyone here tried MusicMatch? It has allot of sounds on their. Not to many catogories but maybe something there you want.


I love the radio stations!!! songs I never heard of are there. Even Blue grass!! I love blue grass.

One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love

Exposure helps artists, yes, but putting songs on a P2P network is a different type of exposure all together. How many people do you think search for music they havn't heard before online? Maybe .001%. the other 99.999% are searching for music they've heard on the radio. In other words, if they are downloading your music on a P2P network they've ALL READY HEARD OF YOU! A better alternative are the new sites that advertise new music and help newer artists get well-known in the world. (These sites also usually offer free mp3's for download.)

That is a very interesting question indeed. I do the same thing and started feeling a bit anxious when I read of this RIAA deal. It doesn't seem intrinsically wrong, but I sure don't know if it is or not. I still don't quite get the difference between recording a whole season of Babylon5 on VCR and downloading the same season from some PtP network...yeah, yeah, yeah, distribution..blah, blah, but the end result is the same.I would like to know the answer to your question Frogboy if anyone can give a legally correct answer.

Technically, downloading music even if you already bought the CD is illegal. Ripping music to your hard drive or making copies of it for yourself is legal (fair use). I don't think downloading music that you've bought is actually morally wrong though. Also, I think it's illegal if you tape Babylon 5 on your VCR, too.

The simple fact is that record companies and executives will soon be a thing of the past as they should be.

Yes, this must seem very threatening for the record industry. With new technology it is entirely possible for an artist to make a living without any help whatsoever from a record label. I think we'll soon see a trend away from CD's and toward (legal) downloadable music. The best thing the record labels think they can do to keep stuffing their pockets at the moment is try to discourage the use of new technology that might put them out of buisiness. However, I don't believe we are at the point that CD's can be forgotten yet. There are still a lot of people (including myself) that don't have broadband internet access.