Music Downloading Poll

[Lorne The Host]

If I didn't download, I wouldn't buy. Most of the music I listen to I've heard through the internet.

If an album doesn't sell, it's because it blows not because it was downloaded and there are countless examples for this.

Anyway, I won't be bothered by the RIAA and stuff, of all my mp3, maybe 5% or so is RIAA-related, the rest is independent, underground and what not.

 

[LazyDolphin]

Originally posted by nerd4hire
I'm curious about I tunes and other online music services. I'm not sure I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong OK.

You're paying 99 cents a song, meaning it's about 17 bucks for an album. So there's no real saving, you just get selection of what songs are on the album, then you have to burn it yourself.

Itunes comes with some kind of DRM doesn't it? Meaning you're limited either in what sorts of devices you can play the songs on, how many of copies you can make, or how long they'll last.

The money goes directly to the Music Industry (again I emphasize: not the musicians) doesn't it? As I understand it the musicians rarely get a nickel. How does that make you feel less guilty?

As I heard it Itunes is not at this time making any profit no matter how many sales they make. The 99 cents per song goes directly to the music industry. Doesn't this mean the price will have to go up once the business is established?

99 cents per song is correct for a la carte downloading, N4H, but if you download an entire album of 17 or 18 songs, it's somewhere between $5.99 and $10.99. Bulk discount. 🙂

As for DRM...you can burn up to ten copies of the same playlist to a CD, although you can burn infinite playlists. The songs ARE in a proprietary, copy protected format (you can have 3 PCs licensed with the same iTunes account, so I have my home and work PCs and my laptop licensed) but if you really have a need to propogate them to other machines (like MP3 players other than Apple iPods) you can burn them to audio CD format and then extract the audio CD back to your hard-drive as MP3. Which, granted, is probably more trouble that it's worth.

And it makes me feel less guilty because, for better or worse, the record companies OWN the music, not the musicians. I don't necessarily agree with the power structure of the music industry and I agree that musicians (especially smaller bands) should see more direct profit from their work, but I feel less guilty because I'm not stealing the music from the OWNER of the music, even if that owner is an oily middle-aged suit with a bad toupee and an insincere smile. To me (and this probably makes me a fuddy-duddy) stealing is stealing, even if I don't think the "rightful" owner deserves to own what they own.

 

[nerd4hire]

Originally posted by LazyDolphin
even if that owner is an oily middle-aged suit with a bad toupee and an insincere smile.

Oh, so you've met Hilary Rosen then, have you? LOL

Thanks for the Itunes Info BTW.

Hilary Rosen

 

[LazyDolphin]

LMAO! Oh, come on now....did you see the 2003 "Babes of the RIAA" Calendar? 😉

Rock on, n4h.

 

[Rayne]

If I do...which isn't very often at all, I do it without a care...

 

[rene]

i used to download but now i have no time to do it i mean it takes a long time to do it but the artists know they would do the same if they werent the ones makin the music

 

[nerd4hire]

Have you ever heard what Courtney Love has to say about the way Industry rips musicians off. It's Wild.

Here's a link:

Courtney Does the Math

It's interesting how a few people on this thread have mentioned Indie music. I have this theory that goes, "one of the main reasons Industry has become so desparate to stop filesharing they're suing 12 year olds, is because they're afraid of the independents. It isn't because the big labels think they're losing money."

Independent labels have actually noticed an increase in profits since filesharing began. Artists now have the option to separate themselves from the big labels by using the internet to get their music out to the people.

In the old days, you couldn't be heard without radio, and Industry controlled access to the radio stations.

Industry was able to use this leverage to extort the musicians into giving away their copyrights, and signing contracts that amounted to little more than theft.

I don't think Industry is really worried about losing money. There are successful models for making money with the new technology. I think industry is worried about losing control.

If you get sued, it's to show the musicians who's boss.

That's why I don't mind downloading. I don't really feel like a lawbreaker, (even though I probably am). I feel more like a poacher of rabbits in Sherwood Forest. If I'm breaking a law, it's a bad one. I don't worry about it any more than I'd worry about tearing off one of those tags on pillows that tell you it's illegal to remove.

 

[Faithy]

I download music. I don't feel guilty, but I'm afraid of being arrested.
Or should I say I USED to download. I can't get a decent song off of Kazaa as of late. Everything has some distortion in the middle, this obnoxious screeching. So I have pretty much given up downloading. I do believe the what the RIAA is doing is total crap. Here us something I posted at a different message board a while back..

"What pisses me off about this whole Kazaa thing is that they are offering to not prosecute ppl if they report all their files to the company and then delete them. Like WTF is that?? How am I suppose to remember what files I DL-ed and what ones I up-loaded? I sure as hell am not going to delete them all, considering I have payed for 90% of the music on my computer. And some of my cd's have been stolen or scratched or lost since I up-loaded them. So what I am suppose to go out and buy all new cd's to replace the ones I already payed for just so I can re-upload them to avoid fines???? I do not think so.

PLUS does anyone know about that lawsuit that was passed last year, saying that the record companies owed all of us millions ( or billions ) of dollars from over charging the past 10 years!!! there was a settlement that you had to sign up for, and it was agreed that everyone who signed up would get like 20 bucks a person (or less), but if to many signed up all the money would go to charity.
Well I and most of my friends signed up, and haven't seen a penny, so they overcharged us all these years, got busted and now they are giving OUR money to a charity. I am sure if they had asked the public they would have said why give the companies a Tax write off, give us our money back!!
So it was estimated that each cd was overpriced 1 to 3 dollars a cd on average. I have bought hundreds I mean Hundreds of cd's.. I can't even count how many.. I know I have about 200 by my computer, 300 to 400 in the living room, 80 or so in the bathroom, ( cause I listen to music in the shower, lol.. Probably TMI, haha) and god knows how many scattered elsewhere through out the house. So lets say I have on the low average 600 cd's.. times that by only 2 dollars a CD and what do you get?? ====> 1200 dollars!!!!!!!!!
That's a **** load of money, and yet they want to prosecute us for downloading MP3's??
I say they fu**k off, let us download as much as we want, and call it even. They want to charge 99 cents a song to download, so that means I can download at least 1000 more songs before I am even close to caught up. So what do you all think of that.. Maybe I am just rationalizing downloading for myself, but if they do owe us money I only think it is fair that we somehow get repaid. Giving to charity is great, but how does that repay us? We don't get credit for it, they do, so they get a HUGE tax break for donating, never pay the people back and then sue all of us for thousands of dollars.. I think that is really f**ked up. What do you think???"

And I got my Rolling Stone today in the mail and what do I see, some guy downloaded about 300 not thousand, but three HUNDRED songs, and was sued. He SETTLED for 10 thousand dollars. Ten frickin thousand dollars for 300 songs... I can't even begin to explain how wrong I think that all is.

 

[nerd4hire]

I sympathize with you Faithy, and agree with everything you say.

BTW here's an interesting tidbit concerning the corrupted files on Kazaa.

Did you know many, if not most of those files are placed there by companies hired by the music industry? This is a documented fact, and I can post URLs for reference if required. They've admitted it.

There are solutions to the problem. PM me if you'd like some suggestions.

 

[Tru_Davies]

If they didnt want people to do this stuff then y the hell have music at all. If they are so scared of it happening then thers a thing you can put on the cd that dont allow it to be plaied on a computer. im sick of ppl being so worried all the time thaty cant get you if they dont no who you are or where you live.

 

[nerd4hire]

Yeah... the "thing" they put on CDs, DVDs, and non-fileshare downloaded music is called DRM (Digital Rights Media). It controls stuff like how many times you can play a song, where you can play it, and if or how you can copy it.

The problem with DRM is it can be defeated by hacks easily discovered from an online search.

You're right. They don't immediately know who you are and where you live. Up until a week ago though, it was easy for them to discover it.

They would have your IP (you're internet address) and your ISP (the name of your internet service provider).

Up until a week ago they were able to use something called the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to force your ISP to give up your home address without a warrant.

This loophole was struck down in appeals court last week. Now the RIAA has to lay an actual charge against your IP before it can demand your personal information from your ISP.

The RIAA claims this will not stop the lawsuits.

It will however slow them down. It's unlikely anyone with less than 1000 copyrighted files in their shared folder will be sued from this point. The legal process is too complicated to make it worth their while.

BTW did you know downloaders aren't sued. Only uploaders.