http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3301831

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5144558.html?tag=st_pop



Although I'm sure Massassi has gone through this topic a million times, this is big news. Any comments to add?

BTW, do you think the going price to download a song legally is fair and reasonable? For iTunes, it's going for $1.00 a song, which I think is still too much. Discuss.

------------------
Space Colony Inc. Phoenix Suburban City Dereliction

A $1 isn't unreasonable. You can get a whole album for less than that, but if you only want a select few from an album, you pay a few bucks.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Its at times like this that Im reminded of something Heinlein once said...


------------------
The future is here, and all bets are off.

Were the companies not allowing users to purchase their songs at going rates of $1/song, GBK, I would agree with you. However, simply because you want to be able to enjoy other peoples' hard work without compensating them is rather blatant display of Robin Hood-esque naiveté.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

They are offering lossily encoded files for that price, even packed with DRM

------------------
Of war, we don't speak anymore

Well dont look at me, I havent downloaded an mp3 in a long time.


...I had written a rather lengthy argument with this post, but I decided to scrap it. I dont want to see this thread erupt into a flame war.

------------------
The future is here, and all bets are off.

$1 for an individual song is too much. My reasons are as follows.

1. The sound quality isn't equal to that of the music we're accustom to hearing on standard audio cd's, although I must admit that the average listener can't tell a difference.

2. In some cases, $1 for a song is more expensive than if you were to buy the CD at the store.

Example:

Orbital - The Altogether (22 tracks)

BestBuy = $14.99
iTunes (if it's even available) = $22

Example 2 may not be the best example, but you can clearly understand what I'm saying. There is no way in hell that a tangible CD should cost less than its lesser quality mp3's. In my opinion, 25-50 cents should be the going price for mp3's from places like iTunes. That's a bit unrealistic at this point, and that's only one of the many reasons I and millions of others are going to continue to download our music illegally.

It's inevitable, more and more artists are going to be bypassing the RIAA by simply selling their mp3's via the internet. Prices will remain high for now, but they will drop when it's more cost-effective.

Also, I'd just like to add that the majority of music that I listen to isn't available on these pay services. When it is, and when prices drop to 25-50 cents you'll see me on the bandwagon, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

/me goes back to leaching his illegal music/movies via underground FTP's.

------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

I don't know GBK personally, but the average downloader (which GBK says he isn't) in my opinion would be quite happy to compensate the artist. They simply aren't going to do so by over-paying. When mp3 prices are reasonable, you'll see more people compensating the artists, and less people compensating the RIAA.

You may not like the fact that people don't want to go backrupt to enjoy all of the music they wish to listen to, but you might as well get used to it, because we're winning this idiotic battle. If I were to go back and pay $1 for all of the music that I've downloaded over the years, I'd be spending more on mp3's than I do on a college education. That my friend, is utterly ridiculous. Music is for entertainment, and if the RIAA wants to lie and cheat its way into the pockets of hard working people all over the word, I say to hell with them. The RIAA's days are numbered.

$7+ for movie tickets just to see a movie. You don't even get to own it. $14+ for audio CD's that you aren't legally allowed to share with your friends. Something sounds fishy to me.

------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

[This message has been edited by MentatMM (edited January 22, 2004).]

If Kazaa exists and you can download whatever you want for free, than I don't give a damn whether or not it's "right" to do that and not pay the artist.

When I illegally download a song by 50 Cent, five other people go out and buy his latest CD. Therefore, he loses money to me, but makes it all back with those other five people. All these artists are filthy rich already, and their record companies are even richer. I frankly don't care if they lose money because of me downloading their music for free. Call me Robin Hood, but I don't give a damn. 90% of the music I have is from Kazaa, and I have no problem admitting that.

------------------
Interesting Fact: Ivan the Terrible ordered an elephant executed because it failed to bow for him.

Wow. What if everyone had that mentality?
"It's okay that I'm stealing this, because the next five people are sure to buy it..."

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

You have to remember that $7 to see a movie actually reimburses the people who made the movie. Movies today arent cheap.

------------------
please

well i can understand the movie thing i mean it is damn worth it to see a movie on a gargantuan screen for $7

But i don't like how the RIAA is saying the piracy is making the artist and people that go into developing the music broke. In most cases the Record companies get a huge profit out of all sales while the actual creaters get small percents. IMO it's just a bunch of super rich people complaining about not being as rich



------------------


---Thomas jefferson, Declaration of Independance.

But you can download an album for a set price rather than paying for each song.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

The way I see it is the RIAA cannot win. They can't scare people into not using Kazaa because the chance of being sued are almost a million to one.

I personally will just have mp3s to download on my site when I'm famous. The CDs you buy at the shops will just be better quality and will have extra features.

------------------
tristan is the best friend of the jedi

"I am the signature virus! Copy me into your signature so that I can take over the world! Moohahahee!"

to get kazaalite/++ whatever you have to pay to get onto the network nowadays

------------------
<Genki> oh, where are you going, with beards all a waggin, no knowin no knowin what bring dear Mr. Baggins, and Balin, and Dwalin, here down in the vally Ah ha!

No, you won't. A lot of people who are pig-headed brats will simply say, "Why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?" You talk about "supporting the artist," in reference to a previous thread, but you immediately turn around and say, "Let's deprive them of their income!"



You're quite right it is an idiotic battle. It's idiotic that people are willing to do whatever it takes simply to sate their own wants, regardless of whether or not it deprives artists of their due. I'd like to get Stephen Lynch's CDs, and Lewis Black's. I think they're hilarious. But I'm willing to wait long enough for prices on them to drop, or for them to become cheap on eBay.



I steal a Ferrari. Because five people are impressed by how cool my car is, they go out and buy their own Ferraris. Therefore, the car company loses money to me, but makes it all back with those five other people.



So, by depriving the artists of what they do earn, you're somehow bettering them?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

EH, Wrong Genki. Kazaa Lite is still free because it's a pirated piece of Kazaa which runs on free P2P searching servers. It's not pay. And like Menat said, when it comes down to a reasonable price I'll HAPPILY reimburse the artists. But I'll guarantee you iTunes doesn't have Cusco or Mars Lasar, or a lot of stuff I listen to. Doesn't matter anyways, I've been listening to OCRemixes, free and legal. Fun.

------------------
There is no signature

You know, people downloading piles of music doesn't annoy nearly as much as those who then try to justify it so they can feel good about themselves and retain the moral high ground.

"But artists only see a small percentage so DAMN THE MAN!"

"Artists make all their money from concerts, they won't miss it!"

"It's potential money! I'm not really stealing!"

You can dress it up any way you want to but when it comes down to it you don't want to pay for it and this way you don't have to. Is that so hard to admit? If you're going to do it, do it, but please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming there is nothing wrong with it.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

That's actually not true. The old websites have been bought out and turned into something completely different. K++ is still under development, even though they were put under some legal strain by Kazaa. It's just gone underground. Do some research and you can find the latest version. Not to mention there are like 8 K++ clones out right now to boot. They work the same way, just a different GUI and a different name.



------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

It might be nice if they did what Canada did. Make P2P file sharing legal, and put a tax on mp3 players that go to compensating the artists who originally put the time and effort into the song. Because realistically, they will probably never file a law suit for every single person that downloads mp3's.

------------------
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

-Albert Einstein

I realy wonder why people think they should deserve to own something because they paid money for it. the price for new realese videos where i live is six dollars yet nobody complains that they should be able to keep it. It does cost money to make songs and simple concerts are not going to get enough money to make a living. They need to make money to pay for things just like everyone else.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

IMO opinion, downloading mp3s just for enjoyment and not for profit isn't illegal. Basically you can do the same thing with sharing burnable CDs or even casette tapes. Make those things illegal then I will worry about the legalty of it. Otherwise, it's just being hypocritical and I refuse to give a care anymore.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

No, I do not believe the RIAA's days are numbered. Never underestimate the power of a large organization's influence on Congress. And since the 535 members of Congress have little or no understanding of how the internet works, they will be convinced--with the assistance of a sizeable kickback--to create some sort of program to get all American based ISPs to come up with a way to stop its customers from using p2p.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

Exactly what I believe. All of these artists are MILLIONAIRES and their record labels are BILLIONAIRES. They will always have the money pouring in, and will continue to stay rich.

And as for whoever said, "What if everyone had the mentality that someone else was going to buy it?" That's completely hypothetical, because there will ALWAYS be people who buy music and movies, whether or not they can rent them or get them for free off Kazaa. Yes, hypothetically if everyone thought like I did, then the artists would be broke, but that would never happen.



------------------
Interesting Fact: Ivan the Terrible ordered an elephant executed because it failed to bow for him.

Are they cracking down on WinMX users? if so i need to tell my friend

Because these artists have incomes with at least 5 zeros, does it make it right to take away someone's work?

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

here's how i justify over 99% of the mp3s i downloaded with kazaa (or some other p2p thing) *points to his large selection of cassettes and records* it's less of a hassle to download them than to disconnect my stereo and drag it in here just to copy from the tape or vinyl source

the rest of it... is stuff i download before i buy the album...

------------------
wang is within all

So....Is this friend of yo....YOU ARE YOUR FRIEND OMG WAREZ!!!! STOP DOWNLOADING MUSIC YOU HEATHEN!!!

------------------
Gondor has no pants.
Gondor needs no pants.

A person creates something we enjoy. Justice says we compensate them:

a)Because we are getting something out of it. Enjoyment is something.

b)People put Time and work into this. And not just the artist. Time=Money. Ever think about Bob from accounting? Maybe he needs vacation time with his family, but has to put in overtime because the company is cutting his pay. Maybe he has a kid who needs braces, but he's being laid off because you gave the record company a perfect excuse to.
Of course not, this is an evil, faceless corporation. It's ok because I don't have to look anyone in the eye as I rob them of their livelyhood.

c)Our economy works on the principle that entrepreneurship happens because of profit incentive. Maybe that underground band will never make it big because no one wants to take a chance in a profitless industry anyway.

d)There are legitimate ways to let people know your displeasure at high prices. Organized boycots. They'll listen to you if you stop watching their films, or listening to their music. And you'll salvage your integrity, the most important thing you'll ever have, since your won't be stealing.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited January 22, 2004).]

You know, there's a character in a book called "The Great Gatsby" that's just like you. When told a comment about how much of a poor and dangerous driver she was, she simply replied that it was up to everyone else to watch out for her. The implied message was that she was an irresponsible youth that had no care for the welfare or concerns of others, and that her immaturity was a danger to many people.



I'm not sure who you're talking about when you say artists are millionaires. Our Lady Peace isn't a group of millionares. Cold isn't a group of millionaires. Staind isn't a group of millionaires. The only bands or artists that are millionaires are the ones that have some financial brains and have had longetivity - bands like Metallica and artists Ozzy Osbourne. Now, for lesser-known bands, such as Chevelle, Memento, Days of the New, Dope, Earshot, Flaw, and Gravity Kills, this stated belief of their financial success seems to be...flawed, to say the least.

Artists always have money pouring in? Study the 80's, and you'll see no better of an example as to how unstable the financial success of a band truly is. Hell, the 80's and early 90's were filled to the brim with one-hit wonders.



Here lies the fallacy in your argument. What one believes is not necessarily fact.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited January 22, 2004).]

I would argue with everyone here, but Wolfy just posted everything I would have said. (Except I would have used better bands for examples. )

no but thanks for putting words into my mouth


I mean we're talking millions of dollar profits going to if you take all those piracy sale loses. So what now? Most of the people being sued are not exactly millionaires (maybe some who knows). But i'm gonna assume they are just average joes, what i;m getting at is that RIAA has the potential to ruin peoples lives just so they can buy that extra ferarri or take that extra $20,000 vacation in the bahamas or something.

------------------


---Thomas jefferson, Declaration of Independance.

[This message has been edited by TwistedSoul (edited January 22, 2004).]

me pats his radio

------------------
In Tribute to Adam Sliger. Rest in Peace

10/7/85 - 12/9/03

No copyright on the Declaration of Independence.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Man, I don't know any other better debaters than Wolfy. You should join a debate club... or something.

I haven't downloaded a song off of a P2P network for a long time, but I still get a ton of free, legal MP3s everyday. A record label's website usually supplies several free MP3s for their bands, and everyday I load up on new music... and it's all legal. Do a search for a record label you like, and 9 times out of 10 they'll have full downloadable MP3s on their site.

And don't forget, websites like http://www.mp3.com (under construction) and http://www.epitonic.com are loaded with free legal MP3s. The way I find new music; it helps the artists out, and I get what I want. Simple. And of course, it's a great way to find new great bands.

------------------
Space Colony Inc. Phoenix Suburban City Dereliction

I'm quite willing to admit downloading music is probably illegal and quite possibly unethical, but it isn't stealing. Taking is quite obviously different than copying.

Heck, if you want a rationalization, I'm merely timeshifting: something which has been perfectly legal ever since Betamax recorders. If I hear a song once over public airwaves from a licensed broadcaster, I have a legal right to record and listen to it privately forever afterward. There's no functional difference between copying from the radio and downloading from a filesharing program.

Here's another idea (Robert Cringley's originally): Nearly every audio CD you own spends nearly its entire existance sitting idle. If you had everyone who bought music pool their collective rights and ensured that each song was being played only once per album, everyone could have practically unlimited access to almost every song published, legally, with only minor monetary investment.

Current laws are obsolete: they aren't equipped to deal with the new possibilities that technology allows for.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 22, 2004).]

I'm man enough to admit that my stealing of 7GB of music is completely and totally immoral and wrong.

I just don't care.

Now there you go.

Do whatever you wan't, just don't try and tell me it's ok.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Good trips to the Bahamas don't cost just $20,000.

Sorry if I misinterpreted it, but, the way I read what you posted, it sounded like you had this impression that people within the artists, labels and artists alike, were big, fat white guys in suits using Benjamins to light cigars (ah, the classic portrayal of the robber baron ).

If the artists get a very small percentage, and that percentage eventually turns to an income that's so little that profit is near non-existant, how are you helping the band? Record companies, when they sign a band, are making an investment, much like a stock broker. And, much like a stock broker, if it looks like the band won't make them a profit, they'll drop them like rotten eggs.

Additionally, the difference between recording off of your radio and ripping a CD and distributing off of the internet is that the radio station paid for the rights to broadcast it for public enjoyment. When you bought your CD, you paid for the right to have that one copy, and that one copy alone. Play it at parties or similar social gatherings; that's fine and perfectly legal.

In response to the "it's only ones and zeroes" argument - you watch someone caught with child pornography try and use that exact same argument, and you watch as the justice system laughs it out of court. In cases such as these, the content is what matters, not the format.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited January 22, 2004).]

Wolfy: Somewhere at some time a radio station has played every single song in my collection.

Also, I'd like to see something establishing the legality of playing copyrighted music at noncommercial gatherings.