I'll take the criticism if I deserve it!!! - Page 5

I agree Rik, but the record industry in this country is way overstepping their bounds IMO.

At home I listen to CDs only. I don't like MP3 SQ. I buy all of my CDs. I've never ripped a CD and then sold it to get cash back. I also believe that if you like an artists music, you should support them, so that they can continue making music. However if I buy a CD and I want to copy it for my car, motorhome or iPod, I don't want to listen to some overblown, self important pinhead tell me that I can't do that.

The problem is with people who have no regard for the musicians they listen to, and don't want to pay anything at all for that privilege. People who pay for their music, and want to make a copy of it for their own use is perfectly acceptable to me. This is what the OP's original post reflected to me.

My generation was brought up copying music to reel to reel, then later onto cassette to have as pristine a copy of the original album as possible. People didn't take advantage of the situation, and it wasn't an issue the record companies complained about. I can certainly understand their issue with complete piracy, but that's a different situation, and should not be treated the same.

Correction.

Want to support the artist? Go to a concert.

There are some artists (Jack Johnson for example) that fully support 'music sharing' or whatever you want to call it. He's said that he's successful because of freely sharing bootlegs of his music with people and still supports it.

I think it is self evident that artists benefit from people buying their CDs for the obvious reason that if they didn't, they wouldn't enter into contracts with record labels to have CDs produced.

They may benefit more from people going to their concerts than from people buying their CDs, but that does not invalidate the latter.

Furthermore, the artists don't really have any intrinsic right to be supported. When I buy a CD, it's not so much out of a desire to support the artist but rather because they aren't giving away the music for free, they want to have money in exchange. They can't stop me from getting the music for free, but that does not make downloading it right.

Now, I suppose in practice the artist gives some rights to the record label, and so when I buy the CD the majority of the money goes to the record label instead. But nevertheless, the artist made the deal with the label legally, and without compunction etc., so in turn I respect the right of the record label over the music. Even though the number of RIAA supporters is less than the number of Neo Nazis, that does not mean they have no rights at all, it just means they are asserting more power than they ought to have.

I think to some degree the problem with downloading music is that it is so easy to do and no one feels the need to hide it. So people don't really think of what they are doing until the topic of pirating music comes up and they feel the need to justify themselves with various arguments which are truly retarded, such as, the RIAA is corrupt so I can download music, the record labels are corrupt so I can do it, the band makes more money off concerts than off CDs so it doesn't hurt them at all if I download, people in Africa are starving, therefore downloading music is ok and anyone who complains should first deal with world hunger, we all drive over the speed limit, therefore, anyone who complains must be a hypocrite because they are breaking the law and yet have the gall to accuse others of wrongdoing, I don't have enough money to buy all the CDs I want, therefore I can download huge collections, because the record label is rich, when I download I am pulling a Peter Pan, the ability to download anything you want lets you sample everything, therefore, it's ok if I download 80 CDs if I pay for 4 because otherwise I would pay for 0, etc. and they are all (to my mind) bogus.

I've pirated a fair amount of stuff, and will probably continue to do so in the future and commit various other morally dubious acts too. But I've never felt the need to justify my actions as being right, or even as being not wrong. This is not to put myself up on a pedestal as being honest with myself or anything, but it's just a little hard for me to believe that so many people would consider pirating music acceptable if they didn't have to justify their own piracy. Maybe that shows I am narrow minded or lacking comprehension, maybe it doesn't.

Edit: Damn, that was a lengthy rant. I now await for someone else to post an equally lengthy rant about how I am a retard.

What about this scenario: You want some obscure songs from the 70s/80s (or whenever) that simply are not available to buy anywhere.

If you (by chance), found them available for download, what would you do? Well, I would - and I have downloaded them. Some stuff is impossible to buy because it just doesn't exist anymore, and if I find it for download, I think it's a miracle because there's no other way I could have 'acquired' it.

In that case - I can't be depriving the artists of anything, since I can't buy it in the first place. Surely this can't be 'illegal' - or am I expected to send some money to the artist in the form of a postal order or something???

I think in such cases you could consider the music as being analogous to software abandonware. I've never heard of anyone complaining about that and I don't see any reason to.

Unless they were only released online (in the 70s/80s haha), they have to have been ripped from something. They exist. 1984 was only a story, it had nothing to do with the actual year thankfully.

I agree with this as well. A musician who makes all his money off record sales is either a liar or lazy, and quite probably very poor. There is SOOOO much more money to be made from a live performance. People don't realize that when a record is sold, the majority of the profits got to the label and any other company involved in producing and marketing it. At a live gig, there is a much larger profit merger, with more profits going directly to the band. And also remember merch sales.

Frankly, I've actually never seen or heard too many artists going out and saying what a great job the RIAA is doing, and how they just LOVE their labels. The RIAA cares very little for the well being of the artist. They care just enough so that they can line their pockets with cash while boning us with every CD sale.

You are partially correct IMO. The artists certainly benefits from the sale of albums...but not from the profits earned from those sales. The amount of money earned is not nearly enough to allow them to continue making more records without another source of income.

The benefit is that they are getting their music into the hands of the public. They are getting heard. If a band/label were to release an album completely free of charge, do you think it would seriously hamper they're ability to make and perform new music? It could very well boost their concert sales if they are any good. A free album means more ears will be listening to it, which in turn means more people show up to the concerts.

Plus, do people like Britney Spears really need more money?

This is a valid point and often overlooked. If the RIAA manages to confine personal use of already purchased music, then it will only cause more and greater issues to arise. Currently you can go to the library and borrow a CD, but is that illegal? You can borrow a book legally, so where's the difference? I think that is the part that has been stated and restated thousands of times. I think it's clear that artists make some money, and other benefits, from releasing CDs, but that's not the whole story. For some of us, it's about owning the item, the collection, the artwork. I have a number of autogaphed CDs and you can't sign MP3s. I don't go to concerts much anymore for various personal reasons, but does that mean I cannot support the artist in some fashion? I'm not an RIAA supporter, but I do like owning CDs, books, artwork, etc. I believe in try before you buy, which is why I prefer to shop in places like Barnes & Noble and Amazon, where I can listen to a sample. I think it comes down to each of us finding our own personal way to enjoy our music at the least possible suffering to the artist and others. I personally am not fond of copied movies, radio, television.. it's just not my thing, partially because we just can't have everything in life.

I think those people who compare taping off TV or radio in days gone by or sharinga mixed tape with friends have missed the point a little.

In essence, there is no difference between the acts above and todays P2P sharing - all of them breach copyright laws. There are a few exceptions that have been tested in the courts, as already mentioned, such as time-shifting and accepted as reasonable use.

The primary difference is one of scale. If you load an album onto a P2P site it can be accessed and downloaded by hundreds of millions of people. In days gone by you simply couldn't distribute an album to that many people without a complex production and distribution network.

Portable media can hold throusands of albums. You can take your entire music collection (and more) over to your friends house in one hand. And, in a matter of minutes provide them (and vice-versa) with a lot of music. And, of course not to mention the pervasiveness of CD burners.

Artists and record companies are losing truckloads of money because technology has made it so easy to share and distribute music.

When we see cases of knock-off products (headphones anyone) appear on eBay we get all concerned and jump on our soapboxes about the fact that certain countries don't do enough to enforce IP protection.

What's the difference between a someone selling a fake set of headphones and someone copying a set of CDs and onselling the original media? They are both breaches of IP Rights.

No, it shows a high degree of maturity, which is more than what can be said for many of the others here. Thank you for that post.

--Chris

ROTFL!! Thanks for that. The Siren needs to sound again after all these uptight posts about Money/Music/Ethics, to burn or not to burn, to sell high and buy low in a perfect world of capitalism. No one is living a pious life here, besides, we all have the spirit of sharing.

To RICKSOME and his guilt complex confession, "Dominos Vo viscum, Ergun Espirit a tutu".

There that about does it. Back to listening to shared files of Live Zep, who have provided Tapers Section in the past-I have a ticket to prove it- and aren't short on coin, in the freedom of my legally purchased condo.

Waaambulance? ROTFL!