Well, when I used Kazaa, I mostly downloaded stuff that I wanted to hear, listened to it on the computer and stuff. And usually entices me to buy the cd anyway. So, the artist gets paid anyway. Really, I don't care if its illegal or not, moral or ethical, right or wrong. People in the world have a different opinions and justifications for them. I personally never see the point of these threads cause of a lot of the hipocritical views on it. I can almost bet that most of you downloaded something illegal or along those lines. I have. But I in turn bought the CD of that song, 9 times out of 10. That other one time I thought the song was so horrible that I didn't buy the cd. And I seriously think this will end in a flame war. Just my two cents.

------------------
Prowling out of the tundra, swinging a jeweled meat hammer, cometh Outlaw Torn! And he gives a gutteral bellow:

"I'm seriously going to hump you until you scream like a banshee!"

I was not aware of this but it's a small step in the right direction, and I give credit where it's due.



There are people in this world that would whine if mp3's were a penny each, but as I stated, the cheaper the mp3, the more people who will be willing to pay for it, if the service is good. That is obvious and I can't fathom why you would disagree with my statement.



I don't recall stating that I or anyone else should "deprive them of their income." You're trying to paint an evil picture with no basis for it.



You can't prove that file-sharing "deprives artists of their due," which is where you're losing credability. If you think that file-sharing is causing the RIAA or the artists to lose money, your logic is flawed. There has yet to be any hard evidence that file-sharing is the culprit, and I don't believe that there ever will be. Don't believe everything that you see on television.



I've been doing the same thing with a few games on Amazon. It's an excellent strategy when it comes to those things that you feel you can wait on.



This wouldn't be the first time that you've used an extreme example such as this, but I'd simply say once again that mp3's aren't Ferrari's. If you're going to create examples, at least keep them in the same ballpark. How about a debate on intellectual property rights?



Again, you can't prove that file-sharing deprives the artist. I know it's difficult to debate when there is no real evidence to support what you say, but you shouldn't pretend that your opinions are more than what they are; opinions.

I'm sorry, but I must close my response to you with a quote that is quite fitting (it's yours).





There's nothing wrong with one justifying their actions when those actions are so easily justifiable.



You're trying to put millions of people into the category that doesn't want to pay for music, and that's just not accurate. There are as many reasons to download music as there are mp3's out there, and many of those people would love to pay for music at a fair price (they simply don't want to be ripped off like they have been for so many years). There will always be people who will choose free over fair, but how about we wait until prices are fair before we debate that matter? And to comment on your last statement: No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with downloading music for free when prices are so outrageous. I feel sorry for you if you truly believe that millions of people are morally inferior to you because they illegally download music. How about we just label them as enemy combatants? Yes, that was a sad attempt at a joke.



An interesting concept. The USA is so behind in technology so it's no real suprise that their laws regarding technology are so outdated.



If people didn't feel like they owned something they were paying for, no one would buy anything (a slight exaggeration of course). I think you should rephrase what you said, I don't understand what you mean or where you're coming from.



That's quite possibly true. It's going to be interesting to see how things unfold in the near future.



I must admit, although I am one that illegally downloads music, artists do indeed have the right to be as rich as they want to be. It's simply the nature of a capitalist society.



But that still makes you an evil downloader...you are going to burn in hell for eternity!



There are many ways to compensate an artist without overpaying for their work. Many would argue that file-sharing in itself is a form of compensation.



File-sharing may not be legitimate in your mind, but it's reshaping the entire industry, and in the end, we're all going to win.

/me tries to remain optimistic.



Exactly, and many aren't willing to wait around for the government to catch on.

/me wonders what the character limit is on these forums, whether anyone is going to read all of this, and whether I'll have the time to come back and finish this debate. :/




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

You know, I'd really like to see everyone who thinks there is NOTHING wrong with downloading music to come up with an alternate way for the music industry to work.

I'm not saying RIAA's BS is justified or changes aren't needed, but if in the future the music industry was to get no money from music sales because there was no longer that intellectual copyright, how would it work?

Where would bands get the money to afford studio time to record in the first place if all the labels were gone? Just how would it work?

This is not a smart *** question, just an honest one. I see huge problems if intellectual copyright truly had no meaning in music and just wondered how that could be solved.

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

we can skip "think" and head straight for "know"

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

1) Current intellectual copyright laws have to be changed. These laws were not intended for current technology.

2) Such intellectual copyright laws really have to be enforced. How? I have not the idea at the moment. Yes, the laws will be broken. That's pretty much a given. It's just how to catch the lawbreaker, that's the question.

3) The whole pay-per-MP3 isn't a bad idea really. One can download a song or entire albums. It has to be cheaper than CD since the MP3 is of lower quality. The $1/MP3 is most definitely too high. That's RIAA pricing.

4) The RIAA itself has to stop greed mongering. I know, uphill battle. Once people are stung with greed, it's hard to turn away. But their lawyer-induced policies will only work against them.

My ideas on how to solve this problem.

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

The crappiest thing about the music industry now is that very few artists have the rights to their own songs. Most are owned by the record companies. Record companies are basically banks that loan bands money, which is paid back from the sale of the albums. That's fine, but the bands really do deserve to own their own creative material.

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

I love you.

Seriously, people who see nothing wrong with not paying artists for their work are the same people who will lead to the next generation of musicians having to have full time jobs and write music on the side just to afford studio time. Then those same people will complain that the music sucks because the artists don't put enough effort into their music.


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

0 of 14.

Jaiph: Honestly, it's up to industry whether it survives at all. Things that can't adapt, die. Some apocalyptic music survivalists say that's the solution, actually: the elimination of the entire construct in favor of small acts who live on the proceeds of listening room performances.

Ideally, musicians will realize that their average ten percent cut is pathetically small and sell their songs at a fifth of the current price and make twice as much through a DRM-free online music store. Recording studios will either lower prices to something more reasonable or be supplanted by the emerging home studios. People who currently download music illegally will pay the 20¢ to download music legally and not have to worry about the fakes, corrupted files, and nonsensical ID3 tags.

Ideally. Regardless, everything is going to change: it's inevitable.

Prolific visionary statements about technological advance aside, who among the piracy crowd actually has any idea what it costs to promote and produce a band? "But bands don't need labels, they can just record at home with the help of magic computers!" So what? It's still going to cost an arm and a leg to get it professionally done. Yes, you can get some decent quality stuff done with the right equipment, but a professional-level isn't going to be reached without a real studio, a good mixing board (not the $150 job you picked up off of musician's friend) and Pro Tools...

Seriously, contrary to what many of you seem to believe, the RIAA isn't a bunch of cigar-smoking overweight white men who run around giggling as they lights stacks of bills on fire.

Both sides are basically wrong on this issue: people continue to pirate the songs, and the RIAA continues to propogate its jackass image.

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

[This message has been edited by Tracer (edited January 23, 2004).]

Record companies invest millions of dollars in bands (recording the albums, promotion, booking the tours, and so on), and they are entitlted to get that money back.

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

I know I asked this before but I'd just like to make sure.. The lawsuits and stuff are just against Americans, right?

But the real problem of piracy lies not in Kazaa or mp3 files. Visit eastern europe or asia and you simply wont find legitimate CDs at all, save perhaps for the touristy areas. The Russian Mafia in particular is funded by pirated music and computer games, sold at markets for a fraction of the legitimate price (this is why eastern european games developers find it very hard to survive, like the guys that made Serious Sam. CRO or something?)

The effect that P2P has had must be minute in comparison.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited January 23, 2004).]

CroTeam. And that's why European and Asian releases of CDs often have tracks unreleased in America, because it encourages people to actually buy the CDs in order to get these tracks, which are often unavailable online.

One of the situations that comes to mind is that a Half-Life mod - Wasteland? - was found being sold on burned CDs in Korea. The thing was free anyway, but the fact that the development team had no idea, nor given consent for it to be sold, was an insight to just how flippant many people in Asia are toward intellectual copyright.

MentatMM, my statement that you're depriving a band of its income has a basis, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Say Band X gets signed by Label Y. Band X produces a CD, and has a hit song on the radio. In fact, the CD itself is, for the most part, enjoyed by the general populace. Label Y, having invested a large sum of money into Band X, waits for the return of its money - but wait, everyone's downloading the music for free, instead of buying the CD. How strange. Label Y, seeing that Band X isn't making back the money it invested, drops Band X. Whoops, no income!

Sure, Band X can try to go independent, but they won't make anything near the money needed to support themselves solely on their music.

------------------
"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 23, 2004).]

Tracer: Promoting bands on the scale record companies isn't necessary, due to magic computers. I was introduced to practically all of the music I listen to through friends and Google searches. If things like Audioscrobbler take off, the useful function record companies served previously will largely be replaced.

One does not need incredibly large pockets to record/edit/produce music. My best friend does music editing and he does it well. He uses one of These, some of this, and some other piddle and crap. I would delve into finding it but my time draws short.

In conclusion, he is but a 22 year old man then using his garage to record what I would deem as professional quality. The proof of his good work is the paychecks I've seen with 4 figures.

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

The hardware still costs a lot. And that includes instruments and stuff as well. You can't justify downloading songs in any way, shape or form. It is stealing. That makes you a criminal and a scourge to society. As someone who hopes to make it into the music industry, I'm not particularly pleased to see it falling down a hole created by thieves.

As a side note I have now deleted the 400MB of mp3s on my computer. *100% Legal*

------------------
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!"

I also believe the difficulty of buying things online if you don't have a credit card is a major contributor to illegal downloading. If everyone from age 13 had an electronic cash card which could be used online then more people would buy the music. And I think a sensible price for songs and albums sold online are $0.70 for a song and $4 dollars for an album, 30% going to the artists because there is now no expenditure on CDs, machinery, packaging etc.

What do you think would be a sensible price?

------------------
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!"

If the stupid record companies would split the albums into nothing but singles, i dont think people would steal as much. If the record companies bought a mass of discs for this task (billions of them actually) and put one track on one disk, people would only buy the songs they want, and wouldnt have to pirate music that they want so they dont pay $15 for 1 or 2 good songs. The record companies know most CDs dont sell because all of the songs suck except for a select few. They just need to fix their own problems without screwing over their "would be" customers.



I think that couldnt be said better, it would be an excellent idea to pitch to such stores like Wal Mart or Target, let kids buy cards that are like giftcards but cost a lil more than they are worth before they are activated, and can be used anywhere. The only place you can do that now is with American Express, but you have to buy those online anyways and you have to use a credit card just to buy them for a gift.

------------------
"Ahhhh!! I'm Burnin'! I'm Burnin!!!" - Cleaner from Max Payne 2

[This message has been edited by KOP_AoEJedi (edited January 23, 2004).]

But that would up the production cost a whole lot. Packacking, a shippinbg would be outrageous for so many CDs, making those one song CDs really expensive.

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

Whoa no, no packaging, you just download it. Simple.

------------------
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!"

That's not what KOP_AoEJedi said. I'm all for the songs being avialible for purchase and downlaod, but taking and album and making an individual CD for each song is unfeasible.

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

Four figures? Wow. That's incredible, because it's nearly impossible to have a good standard of living off of only a four-figure paycheck.

------------------
"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

YEAH DON'T STEAL SONGS! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE INSURANCE ON A FERRI COSTS?

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

That's not the only source of his income though. He is also a host at a local steakhouse. He is aware of the business not being a steady income. But he has drawn the attention of many. One of his clients is even offering to help fund an office/studio so that his buisness may grow to where it can be something to live off of. He has potential...it's just getting him to do so. I'm working on that.

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

Do you now that stealing music takes desperately needed money away from the artist themselves?

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

I don't know... how much does a ferri cost?

i say 50 cents per song would be more reasonable if they still insist on using lossily encoded files 25cents if they still insist on using DRM i would only be willing to pay $1 per song if it was true CD quality


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

Thank you, Robin Hood of Typo Forest. I'm not sure why you feel that, simply because someone has more money than you, that they don't deserve to continue to make money.

------------------
"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

Dude its a joke I don't download music honestly truth I'll even lower my firewall for 20 minutes and let you hack my drives in search of it if you want.

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

If it's $1/song for CD quality, then it's worth it, and more people will go for that than downloading it, at least the ones that want CD quality audio. They aren't in abundance, most people are fine with 128 Kbps MP3s, but still...

And I personally would want to have the option of downloading an uncompressed WAV so that I may encode it to any format I like.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

You should know that there are lossless compression methods for audio

Monkey's Audio, FLAC, Shorten, even WMA has lossless

1$/song is too much, that is the same price as a full album

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

i think this New digital Radio thing is going to amplifiy this even worse. Now people won't need to download. They can record it directly themsevles off the radio at CD qaulity.

There are other sources of imcome the RIAA can cosider. If music become now not only a audio but more and more visual. Things like advertising comes to mind. What better way to make money than to create a P2P software with a monthy fee for high qaulity unlimited file sharing or better yet. Big expensive add costs. The RIAA is beinmg very close minded about P2P. They only see what profits they are loosing but not way to adjust to peoples want. It seems, no it is certain now people want to pirate stuff they don;t care. If they ban it from the US. it will just be rapid overseas. Some people may just move to another country to steal there. The way we look at bands is also a problem. If a band became more like a product they could have their own sponors and guess what. They have the internet now, they don't need to distribute their music on cds across america. If anything they need a national radio station that plays band submitted music over the internet. Kind of like a online american idol. I mean who ever finds a way to do something like this will be in and the RIAA will be out.

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


---Thomas jefferson, Declaration of Independance.