·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Should downloading music be illegal?
Should downloading music be illegal?Follow
What do you guys think, i have Kazaa and i download about 15 songs a week and then if i choose to i burn them onto a CD.
we all remember acouple of months ago how the music business sued this 14 year old girl or w/e and some other people, think the corporations would go after 20+ year olds who have about 1000 songs downloaded then some 14 year old girl who has 100 songs.
personally in my opinion downloading music shouldnt be illegal because all your doing is listing to songs in your house every once and awhile and come on people, who actually just listens to music in there house all the time? but should burning songs onto a CD be illegal? im not sure, and even if it was i would do it anyways, kinda like emulaters and roms for your pc.
but anyways its just greedy *** artist who are crappen there pants because people are downloading there music and burning it so instead of those artist flying around in there 500,000 dollar jet they have to slim down to a 250,000 dollar jet, ah poor babies :(
Of course it should be illegal. The creator (or publisher) of the music gets the right to say under what circumstances the music may be distributed. If they didn't, there'd be very little commercial opportunity in the arts. If some artist wants his work to be free to the world, he's welcome to distribute it for free. This is true now more than ever with internet distribution.
Theft from a millionaire is no more justifiable than theft from a pauper.
Edited, Tue Mar 30 15:04:04 2004 by Jophiel
Theft from a millionaire is no more justifiable than theft from a pauper.
Edited, Tue Mar 30 15:04:04 2004 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It is illegal. of course it should stay illegal, its theft. and its not a greedy artist, its a greedy recording company. artists make an average of what, a buck thirty five a cd? and thats not counting recoupment... cd prices could be cut in half, royalties could double, and recording companies could STILL make money.
I *SWEAR* you hadn't replied when I sent mine in ;->
Quote:
Theft from a millionaire is no more justifiable than threft from a pauper.
Look how few new bands are making it now compaired to 20 years ago, i am talking real bands not teen pop crap like Justin trousersnake and Christina F*ckmelater.
All copying does it remove funds for new bands or new games for that matter, hell throw new films in from loss of DvD sales
So yes copying music / Games / DvD should be Illegal and i can honestly say i have never copied or bought a copied CD / Game or DvD.
Personally I don't think it should be illegal to download the music, but illegal perhaps to distribute the music. Whether it's by burning a cd and selling it, or sharing your files. I admit to downloading music. Not much though anymore. A few years ago I had over 30 hours of downloaded music. Now... I think maybe 2 hours, and a very large part of that music is stuff I myself have taken off cd's that I have bought at a music store. A lot of times I'll download songs from groups that I haven't heard before. If I find that I like them, I'll go out and buy the cd. If I don't like them, than I'm not going to buy their cd, and since I don't like the music, there really isn't any point to have it on my computer. So I'll delete it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say things like, "The damn greedy musicians/recording companies blah blah blah." But I would say that I don't think it's as big a deal as they're making it out to be.
I wouldn't go so far as to say things like, "The damn greedy musicians/recording companies blah blah blah." But I would say that I don't think it's as big a deal as they're making it out to be.
Never have I downloaded a single song. I am so pure.
It's the OS that costs hundreds of dollars, and the productivity suite that costs hundreds of dollars and the graphics editor that costs hundreds of dollars that I am guilty of pirating. F'uck Microsoft and Adobe.
It's the OS that costs hundreds of dollars, and the productivity suite that costs hundreds of dollars and the graphics editor that costs hundreds of dollars that I am guilty of pirating. F'uck Microsoft and Adobe.
I do admit, I have downloaded songs I already own... its easier than finding the cd
It definately should be illegal. I'm definately VERY guilty of it myself, but that's doesn't mean it's right. There are a lot of sites popping up with legal downloads, so that's good.
I'll pay 50-75 cents per song, but I'm not looking to pay $1 or more. I'd be buying/downloading in bulk and it would be too expensive otherwise. I want to do the right thing and pay, but if it's too expensive, then I'll just get it free. Since people are already downloading it free, making it cheap is better than giving it away so it should work better for everyone.
Just my
I'll pay 50-75 cents per song, but I'm not looking to pay $1 or more. I'd be buying/downloading in bulk and it would be too expensive otherwise. I want to do the right thing and pay, but if it's too expensive, then I'll just get it free. Since people are already downloading it free, making it cheap is better than giving it away so it should work better for everyone.
Just my
Alot of people are confused on the issue though - They call it theft. It's not.
It's copyright infringement. There's a very big difference. Theft is a felony. Copyright Infringement is a civil matter.
You can't be arrested for downloading music. You can be sued.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just another pirate.
It's copyright infringement. There's a very big difference. Theft is a felony. Copyright Infringement is a civil matter.
You can't be arrested for downloading music. You can be sued.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just another pirate.
yes it should be illegal but you shouldnt have to pay for a CD twice. my car's been broken into and my cd's stolen more times than i would like to remember. buying them again and again is painfully painful.
EDIT:
anyone see something wrong with that?
EDIT:
Quote:
Delayed:
You must wait 20 seconds between posting messages as spam prevention, you are just too fast darnit!
54 seconds remaining...
You must wait 20 seconds between posting messages as spam prevention, you are just too fast darnit!
54 seconds remaining...
anyone see something wrong with that?
What are you a f'ucking Democrat? Those artists created something that you enjoy so why shouldn't you pay them for what THEY created. Because a person makes a very good living gives you NO right to take their property and use it for free by obtaining it from the internet via Kaaza.
It is not illegal to download music. It is illegal not to pay for it. The getting caught issue convinces me.
Is is NOT illegal to rip your own CD, which you have purchased, to use on your MP3 players or PC. Is is NOT illegal to have a backup copy of a CD to use in the car in case it gets stolen. It is illegal to distribute or sell the copies. You can also back up legally purchased software.
I do agree that downloaded music "should" not cost $1 each song, the savings of not producing the CD, not distributing etc, means they are making MORE money off downloads (SOE does that too).
As far as software downloading, companies like MS started harassing the people who BOUGHT their software, like with Office 2000, forced registry, and long delays online to get keys, and making you explain why you want to reload it on your new hard drive and why you want to load it again because you got a new mother board. We had so much trouble with our legally purchased version, we downloaded the "good" version to avoid the harassment they gave legitimate customers. The legal software has not been touched since, but the broken version has been installed every time I wipe my drive and start over. I will be VERY reluctant to buy another version, though I had bought all previous ones. I will not pay large dollar amounts to be harassed.
Is is NOT illegal to rip your own CD, which you have purchased, to use on your MP3 players or PC. Is is NOT illegal to have a backup copy of a CD to use in the car in case it gets stolen. It is illegal to distribute or sell the copies. You can also back up legally purchased software.
I do agree that downloaded music "should" not cost $1 each song, the savings of not producing the CD, not distributing etc, means they are making MORE money off downloads (SOE does that too).
As far as software downloading, companies like MS started harassing the people who BOUGHT their software, like with Office 2000, forced registry, and long delays online to get keys, and making you explain why you want to reload it on your new hard drive and why you want to load it again because you got a new mother board. We had so much trouble with our legally purchased version, we downloaded the "good" version to avoid the harassment they gave legitimate customers. The legal software has not been touched since, but the broken version has been installed every time I wipe my drive and start over. I will be VERY reluctant to buy another version, though I had bought all previous ones. I will not pay large dollar amounts to be harassed.
sorry sorry double double post post
Edited, Tue Mar 30 20:32:41 2004 by Kelti
Edited, Tue Mar 30 20:32:41 2004 by Kelti
Isn't this #27?
Yes, illegally downloading copyrighted music should be illegal. Legally doing so should not.
I pay for what I download and I'm not upset about doing so.
Yes, illegally downloading copyrighted music should be illegal. Legally doing so should not.
I pay for what I download and I'm not upset about doing so.
No, in #27 I did not rant about MS (though I could have, I like to rant about them).
I think this is #27C
I think this is #27C
Quote:
It's copyright infringement. There's a very big difference. Theft is a felony. Copyright Infringement is a civil matter.
It's a violation of the right of the artist/publisher to choose for their own how the work of art (and I use that term loosely for much music) will be distributed. It takes money from the artist/publisher because you have gained something from them that was intended to be purchased without purchasing it -- regardless of how much money they might have. I consider that theft.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The issue is a bit more murky then a simple: "Should it be illegal". It is a matter of violation of copyright, but it gets more muddled due to the recording industry "middleman".
What you've got to remember is that industries (like the RIAA) grow as a result of a need. In this case, there was this new technology (phonographs) that allowed for music to be recorded and replayed later. However, it cost a lot of money to make the recordings and the equipment was prohibitively expensive. Thus, the "industry" of making recordings is born. It pays the overhead cost of purchasing the materials to make the recordings and allows the artist and the customer to do business through them.
That was all well and good while making and distributing recordings of music was too expensive. With the advent of digital media and CDs, the costs per unit dropped to nearly nothing and the RIAA made a killing since they were still using the same distribution/advertising methods. They just decreased their costs while everything else stayed the same. Unfortunately for them, this was short lived. Digital media quickly passed to purely digital recordings on computers. Combine that with the rise of the internet, and suddenly anyone could record music, anyone would produce music, and anyone could distribute the recordings of said music. Oops! The RIAA has basically been squeezed out of business. There is no longer a "need" for them.
Much of the legal wrangling going on is really the thrashings of that dying industry. They're trying desperately to put the lid back on the Digital Media genie bottle, and failing pretty miserably.
Having said all that, artists still expect to make some money for their art. I do think that the era of the "superbands" is past though. There just wont be the concentrations of cash in a small area in the music industry in the future. What's going to happen is that sites will appear (already are really) that will charge for downloads. Artists can upload their music to the site and set up a fee on a per-song, or per-album setting. The site gets a chunk and the artist gets the rest. The idea being that a lot of folks will pay a quarter for a song, or a couple bucks for a whole album. Since this is about what the artists actually get off their record sales already (recording company gets the rest), this is a very good deal for them. All we've done is cut out the middleman.
It's going to take awhile to get there though. The RIAA is going to try really really hard to keep the old method of copies of music on a disk shipped to retail stores as the primary method that people get their music. That's why there's so much piracy going on though. If you are given a choice of buying a CD for $20+, or just going on some site and downloading it for free, which will you do? Yup. Alot of folks will just download it. You change that to a much cheaper "pay for download", perhaps with some goodies thrown in (autoformating for a CD burner if you buy the album, perhaps with downloadable silkscreen cover art), lots of people will not bother "stealing" music just to save themselves a buck or two.
So yeah. It's a copyright violation for sites to provide those works for free on the internet. It's a real grey area whether it's a violation to simply download something though. You can't necessarily know if something is copyrighted material or not. Only someone who purchases the original, and then chooses to make copies available to others via mass distribution can with 100% certainty be accused of copyright infringement. Of course, it is a civil issue, so you can sue someone for anything. Right now, the RIAA has the legal clout and money to do this. I think that'll change really soon though.
The "right answer" is to push for a real, workable, digital music distribution system on the internet that reflects the real costs to the distributer. Clearly, if all these sites are willing to host this data "for free", then it just can't cost that much to distribute this stuff, right? There's a very good business model in there. The only reason it's not being taken is because the RIAA are dragging their feet because they know they'll lose their cash cow once that happens. I don't think stronger legistlation is needed. I think that artists need to step up to the plate and start dealing with internet distributers instead of the "traditional" recording businesses. I also think that other media businesses need to take heed of this change as well. Radio stations should not have their play lists dictated to them by the RIAA. That's one of the final artificial strangleholds that's allowing that industry to keep music in the dark ages. As long as they control the playlists, they control what people hear about. Thus, they can make sure that only their artists are the ones that get the most play, and that their artists are only available via the "old fashioned" method of buying a CD for 20 bucks in a record store. Remove that blockage and their whole system falls, artists can get their music played and purchased, and internet distribution of the recorded media becomes viable.
But that's just my opinion...
What you've got to remember is that industries (like the RIAA) grow as a result of a need. In this case, there was this new technology (phonographs) that allowed for music to be recorded and replayed later. However, it cost a lot of money to make the recordings and the equipment was prohibitively expensive. Thus, the "industry" of making recordings is born. It pays the overhead cost of purchasing the materials to make the recordings and allows the artist and the customer to do business through them.
That was all well and good while making and distributing recordings of music was too expensive. With the advent of digital media and CDs, the costs per unit dropped to nearly nothing and the RIAA made a killing since they were still using the same distribution/advertising methods. They just decreased their costs while everything else stayed the same. Unfortunately for them, this was short lived. Digital media quickly passed to purely digital recordings on computers. Combine that with the rise of the internet, and suddenly anyone could record music, anyone would produce music, and anyone could distribute the recordings of said music. Oops! The RIAA has basically been squeezed out of business. There is no longer a "need" for them.
Much of the legal wrangling going on is really the thrashings of that dying industry. They're trying desperately to put the lid back on the Digital Media genie bottle, and failing pretty miserably.
Having said all that, artists still expect to make some money for their art. I do think that the era of the "superbands" is past though. There just wont be the concentrations of cash in a small area in the music industry in the future. What's going to happen is that sites will appear (already are really) that will charge for downloads. Artists can upload their music to the site and set up a fee on a per-song, or per-album setting. The site gets a chunk and the artist gets the rest. The idea being that a lot of folks will pay a quarter for a song, or a couple bucks for a whole album. Since this is about what the artists actually get off their record sales already (recording company gets the rest), this is a very good deal for them. All we've done is cut out the middleman.
It's going to take awhile to get there though. The RIAA is going to try really really hard to keep the old method of copies of music on a disk shipped to retail stores as the primary method that people get their music. That's why there's so much piracy going on though. If you are given a choice of buying a CD for $20+, or just going on some site and downloading it for free, which will you do? Yup. Alot of folks will just download it. You change that to a much cheaper "pay for download", perhaps with some goodies thrown in (autoformating for a CD burner if you buy the album, perhaps with downloadable silkscreen cover art), lots of people will not bother "stealing" music just to save themselves a buck or two.
So yeah. It's a copyright violation for sites to provide those works for free on the internet. It's a real grey area whether it's a violation to simply download something though. You can't necessarily know if something is copyrighted material or not. Only someone who purchases the original, and then chooses to make copies available to others via mass distribution can with 100% certainty be accused of copyright infringement. Of course, it is a civil issue, so you can sue someone for anything. Right now, the RIAA has the legal clout and money to do this. I think that'll change really soon though.
The "right answer" is to push for a real, workable, digital music distribution system on the internet that reflects the real costs to the distributer. Clearly, if all these sites are willing to host this data "for free", then it just can't cost that much to distribute this stuff, right? There's a very good business model in there. The only reason it's not being taken is because the RIAA are dragging their feet because they know they'll lose their cash cow once that happens. I don't think stronger legistlation is needed. I think that artists need to step up to the plate and start dealing with internet distributers instead of the "traditional" recording businesses. I also think that other media businesses need to take heed of this change as well. Radio stations should not have their play lists dictated to them by the RIAA. That's one of the final artificial strangleholds that's allowing that industry to keep music in the dark ages. As long as they control the playlists, they control what people hear about. Thus, they can make sure that only their artists are the ones that get the most play, and that their artists are only available via the "old fashioned" method of buying a CD for 20 bucks in a record store. Remove that blockage and their whole system falls, artists can get their music played and purchased, and internet distribution of the recorded media becomes viable.
But that's just my opinion...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Great subject! There simply is no 'cut and dry' answer to the question you pose!
That's why I think the title of this thread should be...
Should committing crime be illegal?
That's why I think the title of this thread should be...
Should committing crime be illegal?
.
Edited, Jun 25th 2010 4:02am by ThePsychoticOne
Edited, Jun 25th 2010 4:02am by ThePsychoticOne
Of course it should be illegal.
The problem with it is this: People do illegal things constantly. Every day. Stupid, innocent, harmless, but illegal things.
It's illegal to videotape "The Sopranos" and give it to your freind who's too cheap to pay for HBO. It's illegal to J-walk. It's illegal to drive faster than thirty miles per hour in an urban area. It's illegal to have oral sex in many states. It's illegal to throw motor oil containers out with the rest of your trash.
Whatever.
No one cared when people made tapes of music they didn't buy because no one could point to a server and say "look at all that money we're loosing!"
Now they can. Even though they aren't
The problem with it is this: People do illegal things constantly. Every day. Stupid, innocent, harmless, but illegal things.
It's illegal to videotape "The Sopranos" and give it to your freind who's too cheap to pay for HBO. It's illegal to J-walk. It's illegal to drive faster than thirty miles per hour in an urban area. It's illegal to have oral sex in many states. It's illegal to throw motor oil containers out with the rest of your trash.
Whatever.
No one cared when people made tapes of music they didn't buy because no one could point to a server and say "look at all that money we're loosing!"
Now they can. Even though they aren't
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I had an interesting thought....
What if you owned a CD and it got scratched. Is it then legal to download the song because you already bought rights to play it? If they then caught you on it you'd just have to show them that you have the original disk?
I had a few crappy CDs I'd like to replace and wondered at the legal implications of downloading replacement songs(as long as I kept the original despite it's condition).....
What if you owned a CD and it got scratched. Is it then legal to download the song because you already bought rights to play it? If they then caught you on it you'd just have to show them that you have the original disk?
I had a few crappy CDs I'd like to replace and wondered at the legal implications of downloading replacement songs(as long as I kept the original despite it's condition).....
Quote:
Is it then legal to download the song because you already bought rights to play it? If they then caught you on it you'd just have to show them that you have the original disk?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
In Canada yesterday, grand jury ruling stated that music companies, seeking to penalize file-sharers, could not obtain the names of the downloading culprits. Why? Because file-sharing is not an infraction of Canadian copyright laws.
Whaddaya know.
Whaddaya know.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
These things go around in circles.
Originally money was made in music through concerts. Records were really advertisments, with low margin, to encourage people to attend concerts. With new technology, the cost of producing recordings drops massively, until the real money is made on the recordings. Technology moves on further, and now distribution becomes so easy that the middle man is squuezed out as Gbaji says.
Prediction: Artists will start to focus on concerts, 1960s & 70s style, to make money. And actually, I think that is a good thing.
Originally money was made in music through concerts. Records were really advertisments, with low margin, to encourage people to attend concerts. With new technology, the cost of producing recordings drops massively, until the real money is made on the recordings. Technology moves on further, and now distribution becomes so easy that the middle man is squuezed out as Gbaji says.
Prediction: Artists will start to focus on concerts, 1960s & 70s style, to make money. And actually, I think that is a good thing.
Quote:
In Canada yesterday, grand jury ruling stated that music companies, seeking to penalize file-sharers, could not obtain the names of the downloading culprits. Why? Because file-sharing is not an infraction of Canadian copyright laws.
Whaddaya know.
Whaddaya know.
I've never wanted to live in Canada before now. Feels dirty.
Recent Visitors: 348
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (348)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Should downloading music be illegal?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC