Legal music downloads? (1 Viewer)

[Jose G]

My understanding is that music downloads are not legal unless we pay for them. What's the deal with all these 100% free download sites that claim to be legal file sharing sites?

 

[EricSchulz]

There are SOME free legal download sites, but they usually consist of unsigned artists or an occasional work from a major artist as a promotional tool. HOWEVER, at this time there are no truly legal file-sharing sites. In general, if you are downloading from one or more other users, it's probably not legal. (For example, when you download from iTunes, you are downloading from their server, not another iTunes user or users.) Does that make sense?

 

[Dave Morton]

I've been downloading concerts from artists that allow taping from http://db.etree.org . I've been digging the Derek Trucks Band. Also, his wife, Susan Tedeschi has some great music herself.

 

[Jose G]

Thanks, folks. That makes a lot of sense and confirms my thinking on the matter. I'll check out that website, also. The itunes deal is pretty good. My issue with the limit of 6 or 7 burns was never a real issue until last week when I wanted to burn a birthday invitation CD mix for my 8 year old and could not make the 15 disks. Not a huge problem in the end, however.
Thanks, again!
José

 

[John McM]

I saw an ad in Blender magazine that the new pay-Napster has switched to a flat monthly fee? Is this true? This sounds way too good to be true considering how money-hungry the RIAA is known to be.

About legal downloads... 99 cents is too much for one song. Sorry, but it is, it evens out to the same price as a cd in the store if you download the whole cd... and isn't the whole thing that mp3's are inferior to cd's? You can buy a cd at Best Buy for $13.99 and sell it when you're tired of it... if you download that same cd for $13.99, you're stuck with it till the end. I think a flat monthly fee is the way to go, ala $25 a month or something in that vein. 99 cents is too much for one measly track. And frankly, I don't care about "you're ripping off the artists", sorry... funding Britney's leer jet is hardly at the top of my priority list.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Then I hope you won't mind then if I take your salary then. Funding your lifestyle isn't my priority.

Not all artists are Britney (thank god), and the overwhelming majority are not making much, if any money.

The last thing illegal download sites will be advertising is that they are illegal. If you think the cost of downloading is too expensive, then buy the CD.

BTW Jose, if you are doing what it sounds like you are doing, making mix CDs and distributing them is also illegal.

 

[John McM]

no... I spent way too much money in the past blowing my money on music. I am just starting to get to a point I am content with what I have in the bank, and slashing cd purchases out of my plans have been a great deal with that.

As long as E! and VH1 are going to show specials about the "fabulous" spending habits of the top pop stars of the day, I am not going to feel bad if I decide to download a track by the artist. I am older than Britney Spears, I can probably outsing her if it came to that... and yet that heffer spends more money on one pair of shoes that I have in my entire closet. I do NOT feel sorry for her if someone downloads a song. I get by enough to take care of myself, without worrying about pampering spoiled media whores who flaunt how much better they are than the common man because of their money... THAT WE GAVE THEM.

And you talk about "not all artists are like that". True... but the artists I listen to are mostly well-off. I can't name any "starving artist" folk musicians I listen to. Maybe if that was my type of music, I'd feel differently, but just about every cd I have in the car is by someone who is a millionaire at the least. I might love their music, but I love myself more.

And why is it so wrong for Jose to burn a cd (of tracks he paid for) for his 8 year old? You RIAA people are ruthless... many 8 year olds don't even get allowance, so why is it wrong if someone makes a birthday cd for HIS OWN CHILD of his fave music? Have a heart for crying out loud.

RIAA people are scum and the music industry deserves to pay for unleashing the crap it's unleashed onto the world. Music's no longer relevant anyways, a point proven when Usher is getting nominated for countless Grammys.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I just gotta jump in here. Since when is it cool to steal from anyone? Pirating music, software, movies, etc. is not cool and should be illegal. How would you like it if you wrote a book, wrote a song, wrote a software program and then copyrighted it and found out someone was copying it and distributing it with out compensation to you? Whether it is Miss Spears, or Paul McCartney, the artist deserves to get compensated for his/her work, period. BTW-I download a lot of music and burn my own compilation CDs, but......I download them from Wal-Mart's music site at $.88 per track. Cheaper than buying a CD at the store and I get the music I want. Is it righteous indignation or are people who pirate music, movies and software just plain CHEAP!!

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Oh good grief. There is a huge difference (at least to me) between downloading songs illegally (whatever your opinion of the artist) and burning a mix CD for someone or someones. If you don't like an artists lifestyle or the artist themselves, then perhaps you shouldn't listen to their music, or just get over it and pay the money. Reminds me of all the losers out there downloading games illegally because they're too expensive. Well guess what, that $8000 HDTV I wanted was too expensive as well, that doesn't mean I'm going to go steal it because I want it anyway. Its the same thing, like it or not.
I burned mix tapes for friends all the time in high school. There's no difference. It would be a different story if I was making mix CDs and selling them.

 

[John McM]

ok, I will defend myself. I've bought over 3000 cd's in my life, and plenty more on vinyl and cassette over the years. Most of the music I download are usually dance remixes usually only available on vinyl (I like my music ON CD) and older music that I already have on vinyl or cassette... but would like having it upgraded to cd. I have paid my dues to the music industry. Plus, music isn't what it used to be, back in the 80's and even early 90's, I loved the majority of the albums I bought, nowadays there might only be 3 or 4 albums that really "grab" me a year. IMO, you're only as good as your last album, so when Gwen Stefani, David Bowie or Madonna release their next albums, I will gladly buy it because I loved their last albums, but I more than likely WON'T buy a Celine Dion album for awhile because she hasn't impressed me in several albums. If the music is worth owning, I'll pay for it, but if it's not, their loss. Albums aren't as consistantly good as they were 20 years ago. Look at some of the albums that were big in 1984... "Purple Rain", "She's So Unusual", "Thriller", "Private Dancer", "Madonna", "Break Out"... these albums were consistantly good start to finish... and to this day I still break them out. Maroon 5's "Songs About Jane" was the only "big" album in 2004 that I honestly can say that about, most of the albums I liked last year flopped because crapheads like radio, MTV and payola wouldn't push them.

 

[Jose G]

Wow! This has been quite the thread. I want to thank all of you for your feed back. It never dawned on me that making cd invitations for my 8 year old with 4 tracks on each cd might be illegal. Is this so even if the artist is no longer alive? I guess it is- someone has the rights to that music, right? I'm throwing 50s b-day party for her. The music was from Elvis and Buddy Holly. Great stuff! Since it sounds like this is illegal- the mixing and giving of a cd song mix for others to hear, I guess I would have to ask everyone to return the cds to the party when they come to celebrate. Bummer! :frowning:

 

[EricSchulz]

I don't think that is illegal at all. You have a limited number of times that you can burn a track from iTunes and you weren't out selling the CDs, you gave them as invitations to an 8-year old's party. You would get on every talkshow in the country if the RIAA tried to go after you!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I hate to break it to you, but all of these venues play what SELLS. Downloading (illegally) instead of buying the music you like just means labels will be looking for more of the crap they can sell, leaving the better and lesser known artists out in the cold, with no support. While the artists may not see a lot of money per album sold, every unit moved means better label support and more leverage to have the label back them up with advertising and bookings.

 

[John McM]

you really need to gain a heart, Mr. Grinch. He isn't selling it. I really hope you don't have any children because you sound like you'd be a mean parent. Imagine "Daddy, can you buy me the Usher cd for my birthday?", "hell no kid, that's illegal. You're 5, buy it yourself".

 

[John McM]

actually, the "Flopped" albums I liked were from established artists (Melissa Etheridge, Janet, Kylie Minogue), and the ones I did like I did wind up buying after hearing them. So please don't tell me what I did or didn't do with those artists. And I wouldn't have bothered checking "Damita Jo" out if it wasn't for downloading, because after the piece of crap "All For You" album, I swore off buying another Janet cd. I have bought enough albums in the past that sucked because the one or two singles, that now I refuse to pay for an album until I've heard it all. It's called learning from past mistakes.

Anyways, album sales don't really play into what the media kisses up to. Kanye West's album hasn't been all that popular (it was in the 190's on Billboard last I checked), yet the Grammy people have been kissing his ass royally. It's payola more than popular, because look at the numbers Norah Jones has sold, yet she hasn't even scored a top 20 single yet.

 

[John McM]

looks like the idea of "mixed tapes" is lost. People have done it for years. John Cusack made a movie about them (High Fidelity). People have been doing them for years, long before Napster and co., even before CD's came into play. Get your head out of the RIAA's ass long enough, mix tapes are the ultimate way to convert people to music they've never listened to before, without forcing them to buy the music blindly due to word of mouth.

It's horrible to put Jose down for making a cd of songs he paid for as a gift to his kid. That type of behavior is why I honestly wouldn't cry if the RIAA collapsed, because you guys are that cold to treat children that way. Jose bought the songs, it's not like he's selling the cd to his kid... and since it's a cd-r, it's not like the kid can go to a cd-trading post and exchange it for a "Real" CD. The RIAA's actions have really turned me off from the music industry.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Excuse me, but when did I say you couldn't buy an album for someone else? That is completely different than buying a CD/download for yourself, then making copies and giving them away. Is this really that difficult to understand? The fact that he isn't selling it is irrelevant, it isn't his to give away. I thought we learned this in kindergarten.

I suppose you'd be a grinch for expecting to be paid for the work you do. Sorry, but having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, and decades of my life to creating music, having people steal it because they are too cheap to cough up $13 for a legitimate CD is something I take seriously.

Even established artists rely on sales to keep making music. Everything in their careers is tied to it.

 

[John McM]

most established artists throw out new albums as an excuse to get out on the road and tour, and make the REAL bucks. Paul McCartney makes more money per tour than he's probably made off the royalties of his entire post-Beatles career. Hell, the Rolling Stones don't even need new studio albums to go out on tour these days, because the money they make for album sales does not compare to the money they gross live.

You sound like a real tightwad, everyone makes copies of cd's or whatever for their friends and families, the people who don't are grumpy.

You know, before my mom died, she had me promise her to stop blowing my money on music, because for years, I spent more than I was making on cd's, and I'm sorry, but her word of concern knowing the types of money problems I got into because of past spending addiction, matters more to me than strangers I don't even know telling me I should stay in the poorhouse to feed my music fandom.

 

[Dave Bronsveld]

Well, I'd say Mr Ulmer that you fail to grasp how changing technology affects the way we look at things. Of course we all think stealing is wrong. It's just that our definition is different than yours.

Remember how AT&T felt that since they owned the telephone lines they could control all the telephone services? Our definition of ownership changed because complex new technology made the old idea obsolete, and against the public interest.

Or how about when the MPAA tried to say that home ownership of VCRs was illegal because Americans should not be allowed to copy movies. Of course their greed blinded them to the windfall that VCRs would become for them in just a few years.

I've heard it said that you're "stealing" a TV show when you fast-forward through the commercials. This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the entertainment industry has either bought out or otherwize gotten the hardware manufactures to take away features that we enthusiasts really want. I believe the commercial-skip is one example.

Stealing? Nowadays it's not so simple. A case could be made that by thwarting new technologies, and attempting to thereby get higher prices the recording companies are stealing from the American Public.
Dave

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Sorry, but the artists you are stealing from don't give a damn whether you are irresponsible and incapable of budgeting for your hobbies - that is entirely your own fault, not theirs. That doesn't justify stealing from them, and I would certainly hope your mother had more sense than to suggest stealing was a viable alternative.

Just because everyone makes copies for their friends doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't illegal, and doesn't prevent the rights holders from taking legal action to stop it.

Also, citing (incorrect) assumptions about the top 1% of the industry as examples of the whole industry just goes to show the level of ignorance artists have to face. In case you also fail to realize it, gross and net are two completely different parts of the accounting process - the net being the important part.

My definition isn't important, what the law says is, unless you enjoy being sued and fined into bankruptcy. Just because stealing is easy doesn't make legal.