Legal music downloads? (1 Viewer)

[Sue_New]

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Someone made the inference that we "can make near perfect copies of a CD or download near perfect copies of individual songs". The word 'near' is somewhat valid in this statement, but it's not as strong as his argument wishes it to be. What I'm saying is, when you rip a song at 128kbs rate, you are NOT getting an identical copy of the original song from the CD. If you listen to the two songs on the same quality audio equipment (mainly high-quality speakers), there WILL be a difference. Most people are happy enough with that quality to be able to listen to a great song. It's not much different than, say, hearing it over a radio frequency. To rip a song at the same quality as a CD would make a huge file, even for an mp3. Hence, these sizes of files don't get ripped frequently. 128 is the most common size. It is a modest file size and fast to upload/download, even for poor rates of transfer. It's pleasing to the naked ear, but not excellent quality. Even worse is when you burn it on a CD (as an audio wave file). Quality DOES go down another slight notch. And if you rip it off of a burned CD, quality goes down again. It may be ripped at the same rate, but there WILL be degredation in sound. I'm not a technical expert, but this is what I have learned. Just because something is "digital" does not mean it cannot be altered/changed based upon the source and final media and equipment. MP3s are not a strict duplicate, but near enough to please the ears. They are close, but not quite. But that is why we moved up from analog to digital, isn't it? It just so happens we can share in this media type as well as cassettes in the analog days.
Plus, let me re-iterate, that unless you use EXTREME care, burned media is FAR more easier to damage than studio-produced CDs. They are not meant to last as long with constant use such as daily use in the car, etc. They store fine for backups, etc, but aren't meant for constant handling. Studio-produced CDs, too, can be damaged, which is why I make at least one copy to tote around, and keep my original nice in its case available to make another copy when the other's damaged or listen to it at home. Not to mention I rip it to use in my mp3 jukebox on the computer. This is the wave of the future, folks. It really isn't worth the battle.

I still purchase CDs. Like I said, I own thousands!!! I am one of those people who download to find new artists and I buy the albums I like. Files I download and find repulsive I delete. I came into the internet and mp3s only about 6 years ago. Back then I only knew of artists that were on TV and the radio. And you know how we are force-fed certain 'artists' we should listen to. Especially with Clear Channel, who owns most of the radio stations and billboards in this town. Frankly, I don't think Britney, Nelly, P. Diddy, and the like are worth my time or my ears. When I began downloading, I used a program called Audiogalaxy. First I started with songs I knew - especially the rarer ones you loved once but don't hear on the radio anymore. Then the program began making recommendations for me based upon my tastes. OMG - I found new, exciting artists that I NEVER would have been exposed to from the radio or any acquainances. Suddenly, I could acquire their albums online (because the local stores sold the same crap the radio pushes). And I want to buy their albums. If I found I liked several of the songs, I wanted to own the album. The incentives CDs have offered and should offer to entice album sales are things like videos, games, exclusive links, etc. I, personally, like to read the liner notes and have a good-quality copy of the music I love. The CD is the only way to get that. Period. Some people are happy with the mp3s, but there are many who are not. And there ARE enough to sustain sales (given a reasonable price and incentive!).

I have purchased more CDs than ever and attended more live shows because of the exposure the internet gave me of less-known artists. Case in point: I discovered the musical group "Bond". They are popular in Europe; not well-known in the U.S. - Especially when I first found their songs. In following their career, and purchasing ALL albums (AND singles!), I flew from MN to Las Vegas just to see them live! This is music I cherish and I cherished the chance to see them live. At that concert, I was able to meet them and get their autograph! I even bought a $20 CD I already own just to get it signed! I would have never heard of them had I stayed with the force-fed crap of the radio and TV only. (I'm even learning the violin because of them!) This is only one example.

It is true that not everyone who downloads songs eventually buys the music. But more than likely these are people who wouldn't buy the album after they recorded the song off the radio back in the day. It's a new action of an old trend.

Like I said before, people are fickle. This is why the entertainment and art industries are so hard to sustain a life-long career. It is extremely competitive, and seemingly to get anywhere you need to be attractive and/or scandalous. On the other spectrum, artists with real talent will be supported by fans monetarily one way or another. One may love to paint and wish to make millions, but sometimes you have to be dead to achieve notariety. :wink: And so it goes in the arts and entertainment industry. It may be pursued for the promise of fame and fortune, but can only be sustained by the passion for one's art, even if no one's buying. This is the risk these artists take and they must be happy with themselves and their own work, ultimately. Not that one shouldn't be compensated for their work, but the audience decides it's worth. You may succeed, you may fall flat on your face, or you may need to work two jobs to get by. Welcome to the real world.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Geez, now we hear the philosophical reason for infringing copyrights. Give me a break, when it becomes LEGAL to infringe on copyrights, then you can present a valid argument. None of your arguments, philosophical or otherwise are valid because..........copyright infringement is ILLEGAL, no matter how much you yo-yos want it not to be. None of you, I repeat none of you, would want someone to infringe on a copyright you owned if it was your livelihood. That just ain't human nature folks. It doesn't matter how many CDs or vinyl albums, or tapes you have bought or how many of you have discovered starving artists/musicians through their free works on the net. You all need to acknowledge that there are those artists that DO NOT want you to download their music free and get on with your lives. It's simple, if the artist wants to give away his/her/their stuff, fine. Most don't, so respect that and don't buy their stuff, but at the same time, don't rip it off either.:frowning:

 

[John McM]

yea, but have you ever seen used bins? That is why I am much more picky with the music I buy now... if I know I REALLY like the album, I don't have to worry about going and taking it to a used place and getting paid at best 1/3rd what I spent on it originally. It's not like you can go to Best Buy, listen to it, and then take it back and say "this cd sucks" and get a full refund. Believe it or not, money isn't as easy to come by as you might think. That's why you shouldn't go ahead and invest in a jet when you've sold 500,000 copies of a cd.

 

[John McM]

you want ripoffs? talk about your friends in the music industry charging over $100 for freaking concert tickets! I think on average, somebody like Barbra Streisand, who wants $1000 for her concert tickets, is ripping her fans off more than the fans who want to download one or two of her tracks is ripping her. $1000? with that money you can buy her entire catalog twice.

why won't your nice friend Britney Spears let some of her fans ride in that nice jet of hers, since we're supposed to feel for her and think she's such a wonderful individual because she has $50 million while there are homeless guitar players on the street who have more talent than she does?

 

[John McM]

ok, the thing I notice that musicians keep saying about why they hate downloading is because.... they don't like being ripped off.

But however... that's just that. We, the consumers, have felt ripped off for years. It doesn't feel good having the tides turned, does it? The consumers are the majority and our word vetoes out yours. Release a spotty album that your heart isn't in and have half-ass songs... don't expect to be compensated for it anymore. The music industry has milked the consumers for every possible dime in the past, and once Napster and P2P took off... the ball went over into our corner, like it should be. Consumers finally decided that we were no longer going to let the RIAA take advantage of us, forcing us to buy crap cd's (remember when they stopped making cd singles in the late 90's?) for $18 with one good song because the labels were too freaking greedy to do CD singles. It's karma.

You guys ripped us off at every turn before, now it's our turn to say if you're not worth the money, you're not getting the money. Sorry, but it's how it goes. Release a half-assed album with one catchy single, suffer the consequences because we're not getting suckered into Blind Melon and Chumbawamba type circumstances ever again.

 

[ChuckSolo]

John, dude, that isn't the point. Don't you get it? If you don't like the product at the price it is offered, don't buy it...period. Nobody is twisting your arm to buy CDs or concert tickets. You can't get ripped off if you don't pay the prices. Are you physically or mentally compelled to buy music or attend a concert? No, you do that as a matter of choice. Get off your indignant high horse and quit trying to justify copyright infringement in your own mind. You sound like someone guilty trying to justify his/her crime. Do yo think for a minute that I like the prices for these things anymore than you do? Certainly not, but unlike you, if I don't like the price of something, I DON'T BUY IT, and I certainly would not infringe on the copyright!!! Would I pay 1000 bucks to see Mrs. Brolin? Hell no, but there are those who will. I don't think you really grasp the work that goes into putting on a concert or making a professional recording. The average artist has to BUY studio time to make his/her/their recordings, not ever artist owns their own studio. Rarely if ever is a recording done on the first try. You do the math. Creating a music recording or staging a concert is extremely expensive. ever seen what the insurance premiums are for a live concert? Believe it or not John, you have the power over any artist alive, from Brittney Spears to the aforementioned Ms. Streisand, withhold your money and don't buy their stuff, pure and simple. But like I already stated earlier, respect the copyright that belongs to someone else. If you really like the music, you should be willing to pay for it.

 

[Sue_New]

But PLEASE get with it. RIAA BOUGHT the Millenium Copyright law with their lobbyists. They paid people off to get their say in the courts and cover any legal aspect to suit themselves. There was no defense of the consumer or public. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And I intend to be among the outlaws." A song is not a vanishing, consumable piece. It is a wavelength for crying out loud. An mp3 is NOT the original track. It sounds like the song, but no one owns it. It is a separate entity. True copyright infringement is recording the same damn song, or damn near close and calling it your own. OR, it is copying a song, album, and SELLING it to make a PROFIT. Yes, I know the law has changed since then for the musical industry, but it's a bunch of crap. Like I said before, I *am* working to reverse this law back to its original intentions. RIAA should not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with a CD you purchase. That is exactly what that law is about. I wholeheartedly agree that persons should not SELL copyright material (bootlegs) to unsuspecting customers and otherwise. But just because the internet makes it easy to hear or sample other people's music all over the world does not make it stealing!!! Someone who purchased the album is promoting it. How is this much different than a radio station handing out promos? They gave it away. The radio station doesn't pay for it, either. Back in the day, the RECORD companies paid radio stations to promote songs and artists. Huh, imagine that. Now it's done virtually overnight for nothing. It's not these semantics that are ultimately hurting artists, but the record companies *think* they could make more dimes by trying to force people to do things their way. The customer is always right, folks.

I actually haven't personally downloaded a song for a couple of years. I don't even have any P2P software installed after my new computer build. In the same amount of time, I haven't discovered anyone new to like. I get my recommendations from Amazon.com recently. But mostly that consists of sampling albums of artists I already like to see if I'll purchase their new album (when it goes down in price!). However, I would still never purchase a new artist without fully hearing songs. 30 seconds doesn't cut it. And $15 is too much to waste. Bargain bins are for albums you always wanted but never got. They're not useful for "new" artist-finding. So how does one find some new artist to follow when the majority are not on the radio? And don't try to say one should go without the music altogether. That's really naive. And not a solution that would please the artists, I'm sure.

Not everyone has a subscription to Playboy, but those mags get passed around for all their buddies to see and *ahem* enjoy with their eyes, right? I bet Miss Nudie and the publishing company wishes all who viewed her to dough out some money, right? Well, damnit, if the guys who looked at her didn't buy the magazine, we better take their eyeballs, right? The truth is, the actual purchasers of the magazine are the true market of the product. All they can hope for is that those others who sampled the product wish to take it home themselves in its original packaging. The same holds true for CDs. This is consumerism. It is fueled by the folks with the bucks.

And yes, if an artist (not the record company solely) makes a stink of downloading their music for "free", that artist is permanently on my black list and I do NOT support them period. And no, I don't download their crap. They may have been once nice to hear, but in this case the tarnished image makes them unbearable to hear. Good riddance.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Read my previous post. The 'net is a great place to put your music up for free and get noticed if you are a new artist. But the fact is, most established artists DO NOT want you to download their music. I agree with about 75% of your argument Sue, but, the fact it, Copyright infringement is illegal, regardless of the semantics. ANY artist who wants to be "discovered" should put his/her/their stuff up on the 'net to be tried; there is nothing wrong with that. My beef is against those that continually infringe on the copyrights of those who don't want their stuff distributed for free.



Those are pretty serious charges. Sounds like some off the wall tabloid headline. Defense against what? The bottom line is you either want to pay the money for the item in question or you don't. Do you go to a department store and say "I don't like the price of this sweater" and put it in your purse and walk out? Certainly not, that would be shoplifting; you just don't buy it, pure and simple.

 

[Thomas Newton]

This is an invalid, circular argument. Infringement is by definition illegal. So speaking of it "becoming legal to infringe on copyrights" is meaningless: you are speaking of an event that will never happen.

Speaking of changing the scope of copyright, so as to make more types of copying legal, is meaningful. In that case, we would not be "making it legal to infringe on copyright". We would be saying that copyright does not include the right to restrict XYZ type of copying or distribution, and thus this type of copying or distribution is, by definition, not infringement.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Gee Thomas, what are you, like a first year law student? That has nothing to do with the point of the thread. In any case, you know perfectly well what is meant in my post. No type of made up legal mumbo jumbo is going to make it OK to copy and distribute copyrighted material without compensation to the owner unless the owner says it is OK. You guys/gals have run out of arguments so now your just being silly.:b

 

[John McM]

well, I know about inflation and all, but the way concert tickets have inflated in the past 10-12 years is just BULL. I saw Michael Jackson in concert in 1988 for $22.50... it was a very elaborate stage show, very nice sets, tons of dancers and backup (Sheryl Crow was one of them), and at the time... Michael Jackson was the biggest freaking star in the universe. With inflation, $22.50 would probably be along the $35-45 range now. Yet stars in Michael Jackson's league charge over $100 to see live (for the most part).

I can respect artists like Bob Dylan, David Bowie and Prince. Those artists are all legends, and yet their ticket prices are actually affordable. Dylan came here about 2 years ago with $30 tickets. Ashlee Simpson is coming to the same venue and wanted $50!!! who on God's green earth over the age of 13 thinks Ashlee is more established and worthy of the money than Dylan is?

It's sad when greats like Bowie and Prince can put on a (very good) show for $50-60 average prices, and then you see newer hacks like Timberlake, Spears and Aguilera who want us to pay $100 to see them. This really shows the artists who are worth the money and I don't feel bad supporting and those who are spoiled and I hope fall flat on their face. Bowie, Dylan and Prince all have talent, and have worked hard throughout the years, and are still around even if commercial success isn't always a guarentee, they are worth the money. Orlando-based pop singers who got lucky selling sex, without writing any music or playing instruments, wanting over $100 are not and would be wise to save as much as they can because when the looks fade, so will the "fans".

Like before I mentioned Streisand and Madonna (I would love to see her in concert, but never at $300... plus it's not like the luster she had in 1990 is still there), I've seen Tina Turner and Cher giving shows that are just as good, if not better, and paid all of $75 for them. Tina was worth every penny of the $75, she's a true legend in every sense of the word. While Streisand has her share of good music, no way does she qualify for charging over 10x what Tina does.

 

[Dave Bronsveld]

This is getting old. You guys have said over and over that everyone misses the "point". Just what is your point? That copyright infringement is against the law? OK, problem is most people, here at least, don't think sharing MP3s on the internet is infringement and I tend to agree with them. I look at as akin to listening to songs on the radio.


There's another point that it doesn't sound like *you* get. That is that maybe the days of making a regular audio CD and making big money on it have come and gone. There was a time when CDs were new when I ran out and rebought music that I already owned on vinyl. It was new and exciting, the CDs had such great sound quality to them and you could use a remote to access any song. Times have changed. CDs don't have the same value anymore because there are so many other new things yet you guys seem to think that you should be able to put the same old product out there forever and get the same price for it. My first DVD player, a Sony dvp-s3000, cost almost $500, today you can buy a more advanced one for $40. The CDs and DVDs though, cost about the same as they did then.


I think what's really beneath the surface here is that you are using technology to promote art. Art is a sort of conservatine thing. You seek to create something and freeze it in time. The technology, though, is a constantly changing thing, now more so than ever.

You know, people, and human nature is the same as it's always been. Millions of people who used to be honest didn't suddenly become thieves. The technology changed. Maybe you guys could work with it instead of fighting against it.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Yes, Dave it is getting old. Problem is you COMPLETELY missed the point with this statement:



The question you all don't seem to understand is: Where the hell did they get the MP3s to begin with? That is the issue, you "free for all downloaders" don't seem to get that. A starving artist can put his "art" up on the 'net for free and that is fine. The artists that want to sell their copyrighted stuff have a right to profit from it and get paid accordingly. Sheesh Dave, technology has nothing to do with it. Technology just allows the idiots who want to circumvent copyrights to do it more easily. Why is it that this and other boards don't allow threads pertaining to techniques for copying and distributing copyrighted material? The answer is obvious, it's ILLEGAL.

 

[AnthonyC]

It is different. Radio stations pay royalties to the record labels/artists whose music is played. People who upload MP3s don't.

 

[John McM]

how are we supposed to discover new music then? I really want to know this. Most of us do not BLOW our HARD EARNED money on a cd unless it's an established artist who has impressed us enough times in the past that spending $13 for the new David Bowie cd is an investment we know we'll at least get some usage out of.

Either cry about downloaders, or get your ass in gear and record music that people will listen to and want to own. Someone like Bowie has been a friend and embraced technology, he has had his slumps, and "hours" was a terrible cd (save a few tracks). Instead of whining and bitching about downloaders (Hours came out right before the download boom), he really got back into gear and has since recorded two of the best albums he's had since the 1970's. Instead of bitching about downloading, he rose to the challenge to prove he still makes music worth buying, and he did so, and Heathen became his biggest seller since the 1980's, so his strategy worked.

 

[AnthonyC]

iTunes, the radio, even online music stations like Launch.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Anthony, EXACTLY....John, you sound like life is unliveable unless you are downloading music you don't have and without cost. Anthony is entirely correct. Don't put the blame on the artist John, it's your addiction; don't feed it with illegal downloads or filesharing is all I am saying. Most of us have already conceded that new artists should allow people to sample their works on the 'net. What kind of "new" music is it that you want to find? Methinks it's the kind that you like from your favorite artists, you just don't want to pay for it. Fess up bro' it's the paying up that sticks in your craw.

 

[Ricardo C]

A band stuck in a studio 12 hours a day, six days a week, running a space/equipment/engineering bill that will be paid out of their royalties, is working HARD for the money, too. Please stop trying to paint them all as spoiled millionaires, because you couldn't be farther from the truth in a lot of cases.

 

[John McM]

ok, I think I got an error last time...



nobody is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to go on MTV Cribs and have their shopping sprees documented on "It's Good To Be..."/"The Fabulous Life Of..." specials. All that bling-bling they're flaunting, and those nice pads of theirs... WE BOUGHT THEM!

 

[ChuckSolo]

No John, the issue is not musical tastes or lifestyles of the rich and famous. The topic IS: the legallity or illegality of filesharing and downloading copyrighted material without paying for it. For your information, I am not an RIAA person. I just happen to be a musician who knows how hard it is to produce and record music. No, I am not a musician who plays music as his sole source of income, although I play in a band that gets paid whenever we gig. I am the Director of IT for an insurance company. In my profession I have fought against any of my employees "pirating" software or any other "intellectual property" for years. If I see anyone using filesharing software at work to swap MP3s they got free on the 'net, they are fired....period. I don't care if they go up to iTunes or Wal-Mart or Columbia house and get music or software to download for personal use, even on company time, as long as they pay for it.