downloading music

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by nate

If it was broadcast for free, no problem.

Now, I know of a program which records anything you play on your computer. So, you can listen to songs via proper means, record it, and have an mp3 version of the recorded song. I don't use it, but is that illegal?

[nate]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Now, I know of a program which records anything you play on your computer. So, you can listen to songs via proper means, record it, and have an mp3 version of the recorded song. I don't use it, but is that illegal?

I think it's OK as long as you use it for time shifting. You might get a bit of leeway because by the time you have an "mp3 version," it will have been compressed as many as three times (original compressed version, compressed via stream and recompressed by you) and thus, sound like poo.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

True enough. But it's also not right just because it's easy to get away with it.

The music industry has been greedy for decades, and I think it's about time things get more fair. Music is an art, and if you treat it that way, you shouldn't be concerned about the income.

It's also a product. And like most everything else for sale, the creators of the product have the right to define the terms under which it's sold. If you and I don't like the terms, we can do what we always do when the product sucks or it costs too much -- don't buy it and do without. But we don't have a right to the product, any more than we're entitled to five-finger-discount a Blu-Ray disc from Best Buy because Blu-Ray movies cost what? :

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

And just because YOU say it's right, doesn't mean it's right.

[jojo]

Suffrage was the most clear cut violation of equal protection since, well slavery.

Charging money for goods or services...well, that's capitalism.

[kaldaniels]

Is there a legal precedent to file sharing...the comparsion to the suffragette movement was absurd I might add.

Think about it...you have a formally physical only medium, that can now be transferred across cyberspace...I think unfortunately for the music industry the train has left the station on this one...what to do? I don't have the answer...but the music industry can either go the distance and try to prosecute/fine anyone caught filesharing/illegal downloading, or they can acknowledge that music theft is here to stay. I can't of a way that illegal file sharing could ever be stopped, unless you extremely deterred people from using it. I love the idea of packaging vinyl LPs with download codes...higher quality for me, plus the digital copy, plus the artist gets paid. Win win. Not that vinyl will ever save the record industry, but I'd love to see it highly promoted.

That said, the fact that file sharing is readily accesable doesn't make it right to illegally download. I don't do it, but I don't thumb my nose at people who do it. I do scoff at people who try to rationalize stealing music though...c'mon and admit it. Myself, I downloaded a bunch of stuff in college for free but you know what...I knew I was doing something legally wrong...I just knew I'd get away with it. Trying to act like you have the moral grounds to illegally steal music/files looks silly. Just acknowledge you are doing it, and recognize you won't ever get caught.

[camisadelgolf]

Granted, what I do is a form of stealing. I just don't think it should be illegal to sometimes download music, and it's not just for selfish reasons. I make a lot of money playing music, and I've never recorded a single song. I adapted, and some people haven't. Technology replaces people in the work force all the time, and it's generally for the good of the product. I want to hear better music, and I think a good start would be cutting out the whole money-making part of it. There are so many 'artists' I hear that make me think, "This isn't meant to be music. This is meant to make money." The people responsible for such 'artists' are the ones I want to see out of jobs.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by jojo

Suffrage was the most clear cut violation of equal protection since, well slavery.

Charging money for goods or services...well, that's capitalism.

That's basically what it comes down to--I'm not a fan of capitalism.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Is there a legal precedent to file sharing...the comparsion to the suffragette movement was absurd I might add.

*facepalm*
The only way in which I'm comparing the suffrage and illegal downloading is that both were/are considered illegal at one time. I, personally, don't think it should be wrong to download music in any form. It's okay to stream a song on myspace, but it's not okay to download said song to your iPod? Does that make any sense? Yes, I realize that one method is legal and the other isn't, but I just think that's a silly line to draw.

[Razor Shines]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Granted, what I do is a form of stealing. I just don't think it should be illegal to sometimes download music, and it's not just for selfish reasons. I make a lot of money playing music, and I've never recorded a single song. I adapted, and some people haven't. Technology replaces people in the work force all the time, and it's generally for the good of the product. I want to hear better music, and I think a good start would be cutting out the whole money-making part of it. There are so many 'artists' I hear that make me think, "This isn't meant to be music. This is meant to make money." The people responsible for such 'artists' are the ones I want to see out of jobs.

Maybe I don't understand. You'd like to make it illegal to sell recorded music? And that's going to make music better?

[gilpdawg]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Nah. It won't work with mine. I have a GPS intergrated into my car stereo so I have no interest in having the radio replaced with one that'll accept iPods. It'll accept 6 CDs which is about all I can listen to in one car sitting anyway

Bummer. I couldn't deal with that. My tunes are way more important than any darn GPS.

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

*facepalm*
The only way in which I'm comparing the suffrage and illegal downloading is that both were/are considered illegal at one time. I, personally, don't think it should be wrong to download music in any form. It's okay to stream a song on myspace, but it's not okay to download said song to your iPod? Does that make any sense? Yes, I realize that one method is legal and the other isn't, but I just think that's a silly line to draw.

If the person that holds the rights to that song allows myspace to stream the song, then there's no problem. If you download the song without anyone's authorization, there's a problem. What's so hard to see here?

[nate]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Is there a legal precedent to file sharing...the comparsion to the suffragette movement was absurd I might add.

Think about it...you have a formally physical only medium, that can now be transferred across cyberspace...I think unfortunately for the music industry the train has left the station on this one...what to do? I don't have the answer...but the music industry can either go the distance and try to prosecute/fine anyone caught filesharing/illegal downloading, or they can acknowledge that music theft is here to stay.

This is pretty much what they are doing. Along with selling downloadable music.

[nate]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Granted, what I do is a form of stealing. I just don't think it should be illegal to sometimes download music,

That's because you don't create music for a living.

and it's not just for selfish reasons. I make a lot of money playing music, and I've never recorded a single song.

Here is someone who thinks it's OK to steal music (his own words) and then makes "a lot of money playing music," which I would guess is probably stolen.

Wow, what an incredible of selfishness, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

I adapted, and some people haven't. Technology replaces people in the work force all the time, and it's generally for the good of the product. I want to hear better music, and I think a good start would be cutting out the whole money-making part of it. There are so many 'artists' I hear that make me think, "This isn't meant to be music. This is meant to make money." The people responsible for such 'artists' are the ones I want to see out of jobs.

I'm done both with this thread and you. To ignore you go.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by nate

That's because you don't create music for a living.

Actually, yes, I do. At the moment, it's my only source of income, and I make a decent living doing it.

Originally Posted by nate

Here is someone who thinks it's OK to steal music (his own words) and then makes "a lot of money playing music," which I would guess is probably stolen.

Do I think it's OK to steal? Well, people don't seem to have a problem with Robin Hood. I might download a Red Hot Chili Peppers album. However, even though I think every band should make their music free to share, I don't 'steal' from bands that are struggling financially. Every time I meet an artist, I try to talk to them about downloading their music and what they think. Most of the time, they tell me they don't care and that they download music themselves.

And if you're implying that I play stolen music in the sense that I play in a cover band, I just have to laugh because I play only original songs that I wrote. I've never played a cover song in my life. If I did, I'd be making six digits.

Originally Posted by nate

Wow, what an incredible of selfishness, dishonesty and hypocrisy.



I'm done both with this thread and you. To ignore you go.

I don't see why you feel the need to go with personal insults . . .

Selfish? Like I said, what I'm doing ends up resulting in more money for those in charge of making music. Being selfish would be holding on to that money, wouldn't it?

Dishonest? I think I've been pretty honest about what I'm doing. 'Dishonesty' in my book is taking a guy from NYC (for example), moving him to Nashville, putting him in a cowboy hat, and asking him to pretend to be something he isn't for the sake of creating an image and selling more music.

Hypocritical? It's no more hypocritical than what the music industry is doing. The industry has been stealing from the artists for years. If anything, I think people in your position could be underpaid. I think the money belongs to the people who actually create and not the people who paid off the radio stations to play certain songs on repeat. You don't see me ripping off artists from Data Was Lost or Tokyo Rose or even K Records. However, I have no qualms with 'stealing' from Interscope.

Here's how I look at it. I can go to a record store and preview any album I'd like. If I like it, I can buy it. If not, I can leave it there. Instead of going through the inconvenience of listening to it at the record store, I prefer to preview it from home. Either way, my money gets to the artists in some form. I know what my motives are, and they are anything but selfish.