Illegal Music Downloading

[CP/M User]

Tattoo'd Lady wrote:

let me ask you all a question, if you were practically dirt poor and love music, would you not try to find alternative ways to find and listen to music that you wanted to? i want you all to think about what you would do in that situation. would you go on just listening to the same 200 songs on the radio each day and live off of hearing a new cd once every two or three months or maybe even four months? or would you find a way, legal or illegal, to enjoy what you love?

Sadly at one stage I almost sold my Music collection because I really wanted a computer, though didn't have the kind of money for it! I sold a couple of other things instead and the rest was history, I told my folks I needed the cash and was going to sell my CD collection because I was spending my earnings on it, they thought I was making a mistake and that I should reconsidered. I considered, but in the end I felt I couldn't be bothered cause I had so many CDs to simply haul down to the music shop to sell. But I don't think I would have got a lot for them because back then I was thinking in terms of prices I had payed for it new, where the reality probably would have been I would have only got a 1/4 of the value back.

Personally though I built a music collection from scratch while I was still studying at school in my Teens and the great thing about it is once you have a collection you can go back and listen to it whenever you want and if you have to tightly budget and life in a different way, then at least you still have a music collection to listen to.
But the problem with lots of this modern-day music is in 3 or 4 years time, it's merely history, sounds outdated or nobody wants it - so it's yesterdays news. Which is why I more for the music which is going true for a long time to listen to. Some old music can be like that though, though mainly because it's overplayed and/or over hyped, so you really have to be careful in terms of what you pick to ensure it's going to have the same appeal that it first had to you when you first heard it - sadly though some songs I first heard have lost their appeal!

[Hepcat]

LXA:

What they are pretty much saying is "If you are poor, you don't deserve to have the right to listen to music.".

You don't understand the concept of a "right". If you cannot do something by your lonesome, if you need someone else to cooperate to do whatever, then that something is not a right. Quite simply in order for your performance of whatever to be guaranteed, someone else must be coerced into cooperating. A right doesn't involve anyone else's cooperation.

Thus free speech is a right, but a job, education, music, none of those are rights. What you have is the right to seek a job, to seek an education, to seek music. Surely you're not advocating that someone be forced to provide you with these things at gunpoint?

[Tattoo'd Lady]

Originally Posted by Lord Grendel Hmmm...I reserve the right to do whatever I want with a CD I have purchased. I have paid legally to own the songs, and if I Rip a backup copy with a non-compliant CUE sheet and convert it to FLAC and burn it to DVD then that is my business and no one else needs to worry about it. Having lost most of my vinyl years ago in a cataclysmic fire, I now have Back-ups of All my most cherished CD's safely stored in a Fireproof safe. I am not going through replacing all my stuff ever again, not while I have the tools and the knowledge to protect my investment myself.

i have no problem whatsoever with the owner ripping the cd for backup or better quality or whatever. i don't even having a problem with the owner lending it to a few friends so THEY can rip it. but i do have a problem when people think letting their friends rip cds is okay and downloading is wrong. because as hepcat said, they are the same exact thing

[annie]

Originally Posted by Tattoo'd Lady i have no problem whatsoever with the owner ripping the cd for backup or better quality or whatever. i don't even having a problem with the owner lending it to a few friends so THEY can rip it. but i do have a problem when people think letting their friends rip cds is okay and downloading is wrong. because as hepcat said, they are the same exact thing

I agree. I do not copy friend's CDs because I want the original with the cover and booklet. If I give away a CD, I buy another one rather than making a copy of it. I simply do not trust that a copy is as good as the original. Just call me crazy.

[flipflop]

Originally Posted by CP/M User Tattoo'd Lady wrote: let me ask you all a question, if you were practically dirt poor and love music, would you not try to find alternative ways to find and listen to music that you wanted to? i want you all to think about what you would do in that situation. would you go on just listening to the same 200 songs on the radio each day and live off of hearing a new cd once every two or three months or maybe even four months? or would you find a way, legal or illegal, to enjoy what you love? Sadly at one stage I almost sold my Music collection because I really wanted a computer, though didn't have the kind of money for it! I sold a couple of other things instead and the rest was history, I told my folks I needed the cash and was going to sell my CD collection because I was spending my earnings on it, they thought I was making a mistake and that I should reconsidered. I considered, but in the end I felt I couldn't be bothered cause I had so many CDs to simply haul down to the music shop to sell. But I don't think I would have got a lot for them because back then I was thinking in terms of prices I had payed for it new, where the reality probably would have been I would have only got a 1/4 of the value back. Personally though I built a music collection from scratch while I was still studying at school in my Teens and the great thing about it is once you have a collection you can go back and listen to it whenever you want and if you have to tightly budget and life in a different way, then at least you still have a music collection to listen to. But the problem with lots of this modern-day music is in 3 or 4 years time, it's merely history, sounds outdated or nobody wants it - so it's yesterdays news. Which is why I more for the music which is going true for a long time to listen to. Some old music can be like that though, though mainly because it's overplayed and/or over hyped, so you really have to be careful in terms of what you pick to ensure it's going to have the same appeal that it first had to you when you first heard it - sadly though some songs I first heard have lost their appeal!

I think this is typical of people with big collections like myself. We all started early - I bought my first full-length album at 12 - and we've slowly added to it and seen the collection grow over the years.

Some seem to think that a music collection should be a quick fix solution but it takes time, money, patience, dedication. Simple as that in my book. I remember pining away, yearning for that big music collection. For years buying albums was my priority and it's payed of with a big collection now. But thinking it'd come for free or over night... that's not right in my book.

Could be I'm old fashioned Just like Annie I won't settle for a copy of anything. I need the cover and the booklet or insert. And I need to hear it on my stereo. I can listen to music on my computer but that's still 'cheating' in my book.

Yup, this whole debate must be a generation thing too

[flipflop]

Originally Posted by Soot and Stars Does anyone here really know what it's like to speak for the poor? I can't! When I think of someone who's poor I picture someone who doesn't have the luxuries of a roof over the head and food to eat. As Hepcat stated, I don't picture the poor with a computer and internet! Just say it's your priorities that don't fit with music and I can respect that more. I'll say this for me! I'm not going to buy a new car or a car with any luxuries or vanity when I buy another one. For example, a fancy car is not a priority for me. I'll buy an ugly as hell car and the ONLY thing I want from it is to run. I make cheap decisions because I'd rather spend my money on music. Unless, I get a family then music is my priority over booze, cigarettes, cable television, video games, junk food or any other luxury I could add into that mix. I just think poor is used by too many who don't know what poor truly is! I feel lucky to even have enough money to be able to prioritize how I spend it.

Absolutely, post of the week! For me my priorities were about 45/45 on beer and music and 10% on food. For years and years. Didn't care about ANYthing else. Of course, back then what the younguns nowadays call 'the internet' had yet to be invented and the world was still in black and white but still...

Poor is when your one priority is being able to buy food and afford your rent, simple as that. Being poor as a single guy is far from the same as being poor with a family to feed, that's one thing. Being poor and yet being able to buy music is another thing - that's how it was for me. Didn't have a lot of money at all but what I had went towards beer, albums, concerts. And occassionally food

Wanting the music but not wanting to spend the money on it is just a** backwards to me. Just my opinion but still that's how I see it. Could very well be a generation thing as well. Growing up without the option of getting music for free unless I'd turn to shoplifting probably shaped my view of this issue, sure.

Anyway, shoplifting vinyl was never gonna be the easiest trick in the world so maybe that stopped my criminal career before it started

[Tiny Tim]

Originally Posted by Zombeels Actually, I remember reading the inventor of the compressed file (mp3) approached the music industry and they told him to take a hike. If anyone can interject with what actually happened, that would help.

What actually happened is that the record company execs were too busy doing coke off of hooker's asses on Bono's yacht to give a damn what some greasy computer geek had to say. It was corporate arrogance plain and simple.

The free market has spoken, and it says you can't make f*ck you money selling CD's anymore. The record companies had their heads in the sand about this for too long. Now they must die. The demand for music is still there obviously, so somebody else will come up with a profitable way to provide it. Nothing lasts forever, and the record companies fifty year old business model for selling music is no exeption.

[Tiny Tim]

Originally Posted by Hepcat Granted I don't "pity" the record companies either but you seem to be arguing that they waived their legal copyrights by not being proactive in their protection. To me though it seems that the record companies have been very energetic in acting to protect these copyrights right back to Napster in the late nineties. What else could they have done? Not invent the internet? Well actually they didn't. That was someone else. Or are you saying they shouldn't have gone to digital in the first place? If so, I won't argue with you. But I suspect the downloaders wouldn't be at all happy with all music being in analog form.

There were several things they could have done at the beginning. They could have encrypted CD's so that they couldn't be ripped onto hard drives or they could have flooded the P2P market with bad files or even viruses. Either of these actions would have given the act of illegal downloading the reputation for being something complicated and risky instead of something any middle school kid could do.
Sony tried encrypted discs in the mid-00's, but shrunk from criticism that they were, in effect, punishing what few CD buyers they had left. While no record company will admit it, there was a rash of terminal MP3 files released on the internet in around 2004. If this was actually the record companies doing, they probably stopped due to potential liability issues.
In any case, it was too little too late. If they had done this in say, 2000, it may have nipped the whole problem in the bud. Or at least forestalled it long enough for the record companies to come up with a coherent alternative. Instead they sat on their hands and tried to protect their bonuses by laying people off.

[Tiny Tim]

Originally Posted by flipflop Yup, this whole debate must be a generation thing too

I don't know Flip, I'm almost as old as you. And as I said earlier, I've made copies from friends or the radio from the very start. To me it was never about the package, it was all about the tunes.

[Foxhound]

Originally Posted by Tiny Tim What actually happened is that the record company execs were too busy doing coke off of hooker's asses on Bono's yacht to give a damn what some greasy computer geek had to say.

I don't believe you. Do you have any pictorial evidence?

[Hepcat]

Originally Posted by Tattoo'd Lady my point is, cds costing too much is totally a fair excuse because there is too much coming out and being too expensive to try and enjoy all of the music you want.

Welcome to the real world. I can't "enjoy" all the Ferraris I want either, or all the $150,000 speakers, or all the smoked sprats and catnip. But it's not that I don't have the right to enjoy these things. It's not forbidden by law. It's the ability I don't have because I lack the money. And there's nothing wrong with that. We all have to prioritize and ration ourselves within our means.

Originally Posted by LXA Its the record company that cares about it mainly, more so than the band, even though the record company makes most money out of the bands music. The only bands I've seen complaining about the illegally downloading "issue", are filthy rich, so obviously, they're just being greedy.

You're actually touching on a key point. Consider. Album prices, T-shirts and concert tickets all cost about $4 in 1967. The radio was free. Albums cost maybe four times as much today, band T-shirts ten times as much and concert tickets around forty times as much for big name bands. The radio is still free for the most part. The record companies only derive revenue from CD sales and radio play, which are the two areas that have seen relatively restrained price increases! But the prices for the two items where the bands themselves set the prices, concert tickets and t-shirts, have skyrocketed! And the record companies don't share in these revenues.

So is it the record companies, or the artists, who are demonstrating the greed?

Originally Posted by Tiny Tim The free market has spoken, and it says you can't make f*ck you money selling CD's anymore.

I agree. CDs are cheap.

[flipflop]

Originally Posted by Tiny Tim What actually happened is that the record company execs were too busy doing coke off of hooker's asses on Bono's yacht to give a damn

Sorry, that wasn't record execs, that was the Italian PM Berlusconi. And yeah, there's photo evidence

[flipflop]

Originally Posted by Tiny Tim I don't know Flip, I'm almost as old as you. And as I said earlier, I've made copies from friends or the radio from the very start. To me it was never about the package, it was all about the tunes.

Your waaaaay older buddy, sorry!

Yeah, well, there's always the odd old fart trying to keep up with the young'uns, eh?

Of course there are exceptions and of course I'm assuming but I'm thinking there's a majority of young people pro-downloading and a majority of older people against it. Kinda. Ish.

If I didn't care about the package, the photos, the lyrics or anything I'd just be plain listening to the radio. Why bother with downloads at all. Internet radio would do fine where FM radio sucks too hard.

[Tiny Tim]

Originally Posted by flipflop Your waaaaay older buddy, sorry! Yeah, well, there's always the odd old fart trying to keep up with the young'uns, eh?

Let the record show flip flop does not share his age.

And yeah, I guess I've been trying to keep up with the young'uns since 1976.

If I didn't care about the package, the photos, the lyrics or anything I'd just be plain listening to the radio. Why bother with downloads at all. Internet radio would do fine where FM radio sucks too hard. Today 10:45 AM

I also like to make my own playlist.

[rollingstoned]

I'm okay with downloading music because I feel the band/artist should just tour to raise money for themselfs, instead of just releasing 1 album every couple years just for a couple of radio hits and no touring.