I've got problems with the RIAA and the MPAA because of the methods they use to protect their copyrights, in the way of: background programs, hindering the owners right to copy to a digital format, attempts to illegalize certain hardware/software, and attempts to infringe on property rights.

My problem with these methods is that they more often hurt or inconveniece people who are following the law than serve as an actual solution to the piracy problem.

But nothing the RIAA is doing justifies stealing. It's a simple concept of logic and ethics called "two wrongs don't make a right." Furthermore, even if it was a valid argument, a lot of it rests on the idea that every label belongs to the RIAA, and that isn't the case.

I don't steal music.
I liberate it.

-There will be a digital revolution, Recording Industry Association of America. And look out, it's comin' up fast.

Have you lost your ****ing mind?

God damn, people, at least have the decency to admit that you're stealing it. I download music, but I don't try to justify it with this digital revolution bull****.

You beatniks should go read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's even free.

(it was a joke for the most part, and so is this for the most part)
It's doubtful I have much in the mindular region nowadays, but let's look at it this way:
Let's imagine that the Artists of the RIAA are... say... Oil pumps, oil pipelines, oil lip-synchers, etc. And let's say that the songs of the Artists of the RIAA are the oil. Delicious, precious, O I L. And let's say that the RIAA is, I dunno, a region of the world packed with religious fanatics, dictators, and the occasional opium field (let's say that Opium is... eh... music videos).
Now, all I'm doing is using a Coalition of the Willing (Torrents are literally that) to zip in, Liberate (it earned the capital) the oil from the dictators and religious fanatics, and zip out.
Now, the evil dictators have stolen (music from people of color throughout history, notably African American blues and Jazz singers, even old slave songs) Weapons of Mass Destruction from the Soviets and the Americans and whoever else you can name, and now they're coming after us. These WMD's, however, are real. Copyright "protection" that's more like corporate script-kiddy tactics.
So, I'm calling for a bloody and useless war that maybe, just maybe, just maybe, might free some Artists from the evil...
OK, I think I lost track of the metaphor.
Oh well, whatever, let's just call it at "I use them for backups" and leave it at that. Fair Use for the block, ACLU for the win.

-(I bet you never thought I could bring the "War on Terror" into this, didja?)

whine whine whine

who gives a **** if some musician somewhere cant eat?

its no skin off my nose, they can always get a second mortgage.

Downloading music is not theft, it's copyright infringment. If you folks are going to argue about the legal issues involved, at least use the correct terminology. I don't know what countries you folks are from, but the last time I checked, in the United States of America, downloading music isn't considered stealing by anyone other than the RIAA. Please stop helping the RIAA spread their disingenuous message.


While calling it a digital revolution may be a bit far, although probably not, there definitely is a growing movement of consumers and companies that back such philosophies. Creative Commons, Electronic Freedom Foundation, etc. I know that many people find it difficult to believe, but many of us are totally against concepts such as copyrights, intellectual property, digital rights management, etc. There is a growing movement and it's fine to poke fun at someones description of this movement, but there's no denying that it's real and that it's having an effect.

That's all for now...time for work.

Mentat... I disagree, it is theft.

I understand, it's theft. But that won't stop me downloading music, because music industry puts out their CDs far too expensive, and is bloated just like the government. I download music because A) I'm cheap, and B) Because I know that if I keep doing it, along with millions of others, the record companies will have to change to stay alive. When the recording industry gets it's act together, then we'll see if buying a $5 CD, with 20 songs on it (Instead of that 10 song BS), is worth having a physical backup with a higher sound quality

So... since it's already possible to steal intellectual property, we might as well make it MORE convenient to do so?

Since burglars can break through my windows and steal everything I own, I might as well move my most valuable property to the lawn and leave my door open at night...

What the RIAA does, is theft.

Yes but downloading music isnt stealing. It'd be more like burglars coming into your house and making a copy of everything you have

As for the issue itself, of course downloading music is wrong. I download music to see what an album or an artist is like. I wouldn't spend money on an album i've not heard any songs from. Then if I buy the album or see the band live, or buy the band's merchandise the band and record companies are in profit not loss because I downloaded the album. Since I wouldn't have ever heard the album had I not downloaded it in the first place.

I take issue with this. Sure, CDs are produced (they have to be) but you're not going to somehow get double content by bringing the RIAA to its knees. If I only want to put 10 tunes on my album, then that's all that's going on my album. I don't see a drop in price from $20 to $5 - recording companies already take a loss on most releases as it is. And what exactly do you mean by waiting for the record industry to get its act together?

I think you need to realize that in addition to sticking it to the big recording companies, you're also sticking it to musicians.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I buy CDs of bands I like. Cake, beck, etc. However, I hate it when bands release a new CD with 10 songs on it for $20, it's just a rip off. I just feel that bands are A) Being pushed into releasing content, when they themselves aren't ready to release the content, and B) Getting lazy, and releasing albums they know are subpar, which they know they can sell for the same ammount of money

Okay... another parable: I spend the better part of a year and a lot of money accumulating a rare book collection from around the world.

Then, in a day, someone gets all the same books for free.

Doesn't that sort of devalue your effort and expenditure? There's little sense in me spending a lot of money on expensive music if everyone around me can get the same stuff for free and very often without consequences.

Also, while I'm glad you follow a personal moral code and can justify your music-garnering practices, I'm not so sure that you're an accurate cross-section of the music-pirating population.

I feel that bands almost always make more money with live shows and touring than just releasing records, though. And then there are people who will go to a show, buy the live show recording right after, get a t-shirt, and get a CD.

I think a more approriate analogy is:

I sign a contract with major label [insert label here]. I'm now some $x in debt to the recording company. 200 people nation-wide buy my album. That's going to be about $2,000 to $3,000, incorporating a 100% markup on retail vendor's part, returned. Everyone else downloads those ripped songs.

Record company decides you aren't worth the cost if you make so little money. You don't get another album.

TOO MANY IN A PIRATE THREAD!

The United States Supreme Court disagrees. I realize that folks in other countries have different laws, but I'm strictly referring to the legal implications within my country.

My thoughts on the matter exactly. I went to FYE, bought 2 CDs, total came to almost $35. TWO CDs. Two NORMAL, CDs. Not some "2 disc special edition greatest hits" CDs. $20 for one CD is absolute insanity. And, I can't afford that. I'll sample some bands in [program I shall not name] and then, if I like them, go buy the CD. I don't download the whole CD, just a few songs. And music I've downloaded, unless I torrented it and got the whole CD does not go in my media library.

I've got 2 CDs that I actively listen to on my computer that I don't own. Why? Because the bands are rare, and I just don't have the money to spare to buy their albums right now. But you know what? When I get the extra money (few weeks) I AM buying those albums because I like the bands.

OK, yes, maybe what I'm doing is illegal. But I'm ultimately supporting the bands, because I buy the CDs. Can't justify it, because it is illegal, and I know some bands have music on their sites for download. I just prefer to listen to a wide variety of their sound before I go drop up to $20 on ONE CD!

And tracer, I think that musicians are already getting screwed as it is. The big record labels dominate the industry, and leech of the talent of others. There's so much greed at the top, that the guys actually doing the good music are getting screwed.

Downloading music is a way to get around the recording industry's bloated nature. However, I understand that the artists get screwed. I generally only download music I would not normally buy, and still by CDs by my favorite artists. But it pains me to know that Im paying for the distribution, label, etc... and not for the music itself.

When I say "get it's act together", I mean that the recording industry is going to have to react to people downloading music. That means providing alternatives that beat FREE MUSIC, which means that they need to actually DO SOMETHING to recieve people's money.

I remember a thread, last year or sometime when we talked about this. Someone said that if you want to support the musicians, you're better off pirating the CD and sending them a check for $10. Just something I'd like to say.

I don't believe that's justification for pirating songs. Either an album is worth owning or it's not; there's no middle ground. If listening to it entertains you then you need to pay for that entertainment.



I disagree - this statement really depends on the circumstances. If I play one night at some club, that's say $70. If I have a bunch of CDs on me to sell at that gig, that's say $20 each. However, if you're Bob Dylan (who's been in a perpetual state of 'on tour' for years now) then you probably do make a huge amount of money off of your concerts.



I don't get comments like this. I mean, if you're not a musician (specifically, a pro), how would you know who's getting the screwing? Record companies can't just do whatever they please - musicians are capable of negotiating fair contracts. For instance, did you know that there's a musician's union?



What exactly do you mean?



This is not justification for pirating music. I don't have money for a car, but I can't just go down to the dealership and help myself to one because I'll have the money in six months. "The bands are rare" doesn't help your argument. I like jazz, but my local record stores mainly deal in pop. If I want a particular album, I usually have to go to the big city. Tough.



This is also not justification. If you can't afford the price (or just plain don't like it) you can't have the CD. If you only want a couple of songs, get them off iTunes.



Why do you think the recording industry is bloated?

quick and easy justification: its friggin free

Yeah, which is why I think most people do it. I'm mainly arguing against people who say they pirate songs because they have no choice, or becaues it's not fair, etc.

And that's all you have to say. Justifying it with elaborate "OMQ the artist doesn't get enough of the monies!" excuses is just retarded.

Studying? No. But when highschool drop out joe can be just as successful (if not more so) then someone who gets a Masters or even PhD in Music...you have to take a step back and re-evaluate things. Is it a legitimate career? Yes, by definition, it has proven itself to be "legitimate". But no, I do not believe that society should support it in the way it does, nor do I believe the RIAA or others should be allowed to milk something for far more than it's worth. ESPECIALLY when the "artist" themselves receive a very small proportion.

Where do you get the idea that "the majority of musicians work their whole life and then retire with their pension"? Are we even talking about the same people here? There's a fundamental difference from the kids that go on to become "one hit wonders" or even became successful enough to stick with it for 10 or so years and those that have formal training in music and go on to teach it. I mean, do you honestly want me to sit here and name all of the Pop culture "artist" that have dropped off the face of the Earth after just a few years?



And I'm arguing that the music isn't worth what the economy (thanks to the RIAA) has "bloated" the value of music to be. If you cut the middle man (the RIAA), you could produce CD's in your basement, promote, & distribute them, for a retail price of $5 and you'd make just as much per CD (if not more) as you would if the RIAA was doing the same thing for you.



Well, since CD sales have dropped since the introduction of iTunes and other services...I'll let you connect the dots on that one.



Again, it goes back to the diffrence between supporting the band and supporting their label.



Except that, under a label deal, you won't make anything near $20 per CD. In fact, you'll be lucky if you see $0.10 per CD. Seriously, you need to do some research. Artist get screwed, which is why I said you're better off making your own label company in your basement (which is the growing trend).



No, not really. Young bands don't get signed to large labels if they don't make a tons of concessions. If they don't sign to a large label, then they generally don't make it (short of maybe a "one hit wonder"). Of course, there are exceptions, but it's rare. Also, the label company ussually gives them a 'bottom line' quote estimate. If more Artist recieved a quoted percentage estimate, they'd probably be far less inclined to sign.



He means, it's like having a manager that takes a 95% cut of your earnings. Sound fair to you? I didn't think so.



That's not a very good analogy considering that I don't have the money for a car right now either, but I could literally go down to a dealer and help myself to a car (with $0 down, no payments for 6 months, and financing through them). As for the rest of this quote, you've only proved that you're in it for the money and have already day dreamed about how you plan to spin your millions if you "make it".



Except that it's already been explained SEVERAL TIMES how artist are loosing money with iTunes. It has also been explained SEVERAL TIMES how even 2/3 of entertainment artist believe that P2P music downloading has made a POSITIVE impact on their success! What part of that do you still not get?



You have no clue, do you? Seriously, you need to research your "profession" some more...

They wouldn't get the $10 regardless, because if I can't get it for free, I'm not going to buy it.

...I quit. I don't know what to say.

Honestly. I go to music college. I've sought out and talked to all kinds of musicians who work in all kinds of capacities in the industry. I have checked it out. Would someone who's trying to make it as a musician back me up here? Schming? Seb? Sugarless? Anyone?



This is pretty insulting. I'm not studying music to make zillions of dollars and play sold-out arenas. Do you know what I really want to be? A studio player and a teacher. That's it.

I am a musician. I create music. I decide whether you get my creation for free or not. It's as simple as that.

Yeah, if my band was offered a contract by some major label, it would probably be a crappy contract that would screw us over. But it's still our choice whether to sign it or not, and if we do choose the crappy contract it doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to download our music for free. By signing the contract I may have given the record company permission to do whatever they like with my music, but I haven't given you permission to download it...

And what does the lengh of the artist's career have anything to do with it? If some guy drops out of highschool and writes a song consisting of the only two guitar chords he knows, but it's a great song that millions of people around the world love, and are willing to pay for, what's wrong with that? Are you saying his song should be free because he doesn't have a degree in music? What kind of logic is that? You could have a degree in music and create music that is alot worse than some guy who never studied... almost anyone can get a degree if they really want to, but not everyone has the talent to write good music that people are willing to pay for.

Not at all.
Someone spends 30 dollars on the Harry Potter book, I check it out at the library, or a friend loans it to me, or my camp counselor reads it aloud for the cabin, or I attend a reading of it at a library, whatever.

-Clearly, I'm stealing from JK Rowling. Scholastic, therefore, must sue me for 190 grand, because, you know, I'm a filthy thief.

First off, sorry if this has already been said but I haven't read al the posts.



In the UK it is ILLIGAL to record music off the radio, a lot of people don't actually know this but Galaxy FM do say it now and again. It's considered the same as taking a video recorder to the cinema.

Keep in mind that I see the points that both sides have in all of this. But also keep in mind that P2P is here to stay. So you can either support lawsuits against 12-yr olds or you can find a way to live with it. For a moment, however, let's put things in perspective.

To share a song (especially a CD's worth) someone has to go out and buy it.

This is considered to be "unexceptable". However, the following have yet to be labeled as that:

To share a video game/movie, someone has to go out and buy it. What makes this example worse, is that video games/movie are often resold without proceeds being paid to the publisher. This is further compounded by the fact that video stores often rent these things out. After some time, they eventually sell them. All without giving proceeds to the publishers. Technically, this is a larger copyright violation then P2P.

So, hypothetically speaking, what if I setup an online business (complete with a business license) that specializes in renting video games and movies. What if the business transactions took place over P2P and What if I rented these video games and movies for free? What if I wanted to expand to renting music out for free as well? Hypothetically speaking. The terms of the renting is indefinite subject to on demand by the owner (my business) in which the renter then has (7) days to comply with by renturning the rented material.

Also, keep in mind, that most states have no laws preventing a renter from sub-renting under the same terms as the initial rental.

Has anyone read this article by Steve Albini?

The problem with Music.

I really recommend reading this if you want to know how bands get screwed when signing a major label.

Oh, and last year someone here posted this other article, which explains how the RIAA steals from artists: Courtney Love does the Math

That's not at all like P2P sharing. Throughout its entire use, there is only 1 book.

A single library book can get read hundreds of times. Thousands, even.
And I happen to know that thirty children in my 3rd Grade class all read the same copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (and the teacher, too!)

-It's called Fair Use.

Your analogy is the same as me lending a CD to a bunch of people and they listening to it. P2P is me lending a CD to a bunch of people and they all copy it. Throughout all of your examples, there is only one book. It's not the same as P2P file-sharing.