# music downloading



## OULobo (Sep 19, 2003)

Opinions on the subject. (Something more substantial than yea or nay would be appreciated.)


----------



## OULobo (Sep 19, 2003)

I guess I can throw mine out there first. 

I think that for the past few decades musicians have been making way too much money (and in a not so honest way). The musicians of the past did what they loved because they loved it. They couldn't sell albums before recordings were invented, so the average musician was poor, but good at what he did.  If you weren't good no one would let you play at their venues like inns and taverns. Either way the money was paultry so you had to love what you did or it was a hobby and you still did it because you love it. Now music is full of prepackaged corporate musicians who don't write their own music and kids who just dream of the rich rock/pop star lifestyle. For this reason I just have no sympathy for their loss of income. Consequently, I say the same about pro atheletes. These people entertain us and I don't think they should be making as much as they do when honest hardworking people who have essential society supporting or progressing jobs, like teachers, factory workers, ect., make so little in comparison. 

Now for the industry stooges. These buggers, besides the fact that they will sue a 12yr. girl, have artificially inflated the price of music for decades. The process of producing music is relativly cheap compared to even other etertainment industries. Ever wonder why movie DVDs are cheaper than music CDs, when the music CD technology has been around longer (but never really lowered prices) and the movie industry can and does easily justify large budgets. The music industry has been caught price fixing in the past and has just paid a slap on the wrist and continued to gouge the public. Finally, the music industy has been manipulating the sheeple. . . I mean people by shoving music down the throats of listeners by every form of media available, which the consequently own or have isway in, the vast majority of. Ever wonder how, generally accepted as horrible, music continues to clime the charts; easy, play anything long enough and people willstart to love it. The quote a currently popular phrase, "It looks like it is time for a regime change." Thank God, there is a new form of media that can't so easily be controlled by corporations and big money. 

:soapbox:

Alright, now any comments.

:armed:


----------



## FiveSwords (Sep 19, 2003)

I whole-heartedly agree.

The RIAA has been ripping off consumers and musicians for a long, long time and the sheeple (I really like that term  ) continue to take it with no questions asked.  Our society has become way too complacent and apathetic with big corporations and government (which are pretty much the same entity now), which is one reason America has become so corrupt and greedy.

Musicians have the best job in the world and they ***** about us not buying every single piece of garbage they spew out in mass quantities.  I would be happy making a tiny fraction of what most of these artists make if all I had to do was sit around and play guitar for people all day.  I would play for just rent and food if I could get away with it.

As for digital music, it's part of the evolution of music.  It's a new medium, and if the industry is too dumb to figure out that this is what people want and then adapt their business model to suit it, then too bad for them.  Music downloading isn't the cause of your problems, and there are many more reasons for CD sales being down:

CD sales were up at the height of Napster
Economy crashes, CD sales went down
Industry released fewer CDs
Most releases were pre-manufactured crap
People got tired of paying $20 for a CD
People boycot because they hate the RIAA
So, in conclusion, buy independant.  Those guys love making music.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

I used to use Napster all the time...downloading tons of stuff.  Much of it was shortly thereafter tossed cuz, well, it sucked.

During that time frame, I bought an average of 5-10 CDs a month.  Since they took out Napster, I've bought about 5 cds totally, all from alternative artists.

The music industry puts out overpriced boring crap, then says its our fault sales are down.  Right.

It has to be the P2P downloaders.  It can't possibly have anything to do with high prices, a boring product and professional level bootleggers from the orient.

Its like the movie industry...they claim is us smuggling our camcorders into the theaters...though most of the movies floating around were available -before- the films were out in theaters, often times before they were even previewed.  Maybe they should fix their own houses?


If the music industry wants to improve things, they should embrase the p2p concept.  Lower their prices, invigorate their product so it is more exciting and follow the lead of the movie industry by packing more stuff into the product.

If a CD cost $10 I'd be more inclined to pick it up, as opposed to the $20 it is now.

But, I guess the answer is to just sue dumb folks who use kazaa or little kids.  After all, its so much easier to be a bully than to be inovative.

As for me, I -refuse- to buy -any- CDs from artists associated with the RIAA. I will obtain it through alternative means where I can, and do without otherwise.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go snag some legal tunes from e-music.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2003)

If I wanted to be spoon-fed crap, Id continue listening to "The New Rock Alternative" radiostation or watching MTV.  But since I choose not to, I download... How else am I going to find out about the music *I* like.  None of those sources play it. 

However, I no longer use Kazaa, Napster, Soulseek or anything like that... I rely on friends to provide me music to "try" and see what I think.  Not only has this cut my music exploration, but It has dropped my CD purchasing from 5-10 a month to ZERO.

I have not purchased a new CD for almost 6 months, not because I can RIP OFF the artists, but because I have no way of finding anything new...

I also will not EVER purchase ANYTHING conected with the RIAA, and the MPAA is growing on my list as well... although I havn't stopped purchasing from them.

I firmly believe the RIAA, their associated Artists and Management people, and affiliates ROB CHILDREN.

Ahem.  Sales are NOT down because the Filesharing, sales are down because:
*
A) CD's are WAY WAY WAY overpriced, considering the target market.
B)  MOST OF TODAYS MUSIC BLOWS CHUNKS.
C) PEOPLE LIKE ME STOPPED BUYING MUSIC BECUASE WE ARE SICK OF THE RIAA's STRONGARM, BULLYBOY, NAZIESQUE TACTICS *

And.  I DEFY the RIAA to take me to court and prove a SINGLE SONG on my hard drive is not on a CD, TAPE, RECORD, or other media that I own or owned that was purchased legaly, or that those MP3s were not in fact recorded off the radio tuner in my PC... And in the case of OWNED, (as opposed to own) prove that I willingly gave it up or sold it, as opposed to the fact  that it isnt a legal backup copy (fair use) of somthing that wasn't broken or destroyed inadvertantly.  FK the RIAA. 

Rant Over    :soapbox:


----------



## Elfan (Sep 19, 2003)

In few words:

- White area: real free music, like IUMA
- Almost White: Old stuff where the original arthur is dead or no longer holds the copyright (Beatles for example)
-grey: Stuff you can't buy in the US or anything older than 14 years
- Darker shades of grey: more resent stuff
- Black: More recent sutff + selling it


----------



## OULobo (Sep 20, 2003)

Wow, in terms of RIAA, 4 against (vehomently), 1 fairly neutral, none for. Will no one stand up for and defend the facisist, evil, theiving recording groups? Guess not, oh well. Muwhahahaha.


----------



## Elfan (Sep 20, 2003)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10275

Plugging it again.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

Sure, CDs are overpriced. So are cars, pizzas, and movie tickets. Music is being stolen because it _can_ be stolen.

I partially agree with *Elfan*'s color code system. (Is he in charge of the terrorist warning system too? ) There are e-books put on the Net that are not technically legal, but there would be no other feasible way to get them because they're out-of-print. This is a grey area--can it really be stealing if you couldn't buy it anyway?

But, I have no doubt that J.K. Rowling lost sales on HP5 because the book was up on the Net within 24 hours of it going on sale. If nothing else, some people will wait for the paperback version instead.

If we were talking about food or medicine it might be different, as in underdeveloped countries ignoring patents to produce cheap AIDs medicines, but stealing music is just that--stealing. It's a small crime for any one individual but could end up being a big problem for musicians in general.

Would anyone who is sticking up for their right to steal music care to prove their dedication to this concept by walking into Wal-Mart, grabbing a few CDs, and walking out of the store without paying for them?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *
> Would anyone who is sticking up for their right to steal music care to prove their dedication to this concept by walking into Wal-Mart, grabbing a few CDs, and walking out of the store without paying for them? *



AH...  But that is not the same...

A cd is a Physical Object.  Raw Materials went into Pressing that CD.  If the CD manufacturer has enough aluminum foil to make 300 cds, than only 300 cds are produced.  If I steal that CD from wal-mart I am stealing Plastic, Aluminum, Paper, etc etc... a PHYSICAL OBJECT, with a limited physical quantity.  

Code, whether in the form of an MP3, software, or even a video stream, is INFINATLY Duplicatable. If I come to your house Pop your Brittney Spears Cd into your CD player, and make a tape of it and go home, what did I steal from you?  Hmmm.    The only limit to the "number" of copys of that code, in theory, is an artificial limitation created by the "Intelectual" owner to increase demand and profit. 

Now... lets go a step further.  It is LEGAL for me to RENT a movie on PayPerView record a copy, and never rent that again.  Its NOT Legal for me to go to Blockbuster and rent that same movie and Copy it... Why?  What exactly is the difference?

Now, what is the difference between me Buying a CD, Ripping it, and using it in the MP3 player in my car, or me downloading the same song, because its faster than ripping the CD I bought?  

Oh yeah, one is legal, the other is not.  Thats the differance.

Whats the difference between me recording FOR FREE a song from the Digital Radio Tuner in my PC or Downloading it for FREE from KAZAA?  

Oh yeah, one is legal, the other is not.  Thats the differance.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Would anyone who is sticking up for their right to steal music care to prove their dedication to this concept by walking into Wal-Mart, grabbing a few CDs, and walking out of the store without paying for them? *



Shh...you're giving away my sekret funding source for MT. 


Seriously, The radio stations don't play what I'm interested in.  I can't afford to drop $20 on a crap CD.  Often, I only like 1 track, not the whole album.  The music industry needs to find a profitable way to allow me to easily find new music.  So far, their solution has been to keep prices high, release crap and target 12 yr olds.

Give me back my Napster.  If I can try em before I buy em, I'll most likely buy more.  I'll also download more, but that helps me find what I want.  I see it as no different from going to the bookstore and reading the magazine b4 buying it.  Often times, I'll read it all and leave it there.  But, often I find something I must have, and buy it.   Sure I could just hit the library and photocopy it, but I (and many many others) will show my thanks by dropping some coin.

Remember, Shareware worked for over a decade in the software world...and today we have Wolfenstein and Unreal and more from it, still shareware at their core.

The music industry should look at that idea and adapt it to their industry.  Charge a flat monthly fee to access their backlogs.  There is -so- much outta print now that we want, yet the only way to get it is to trade scratchy mp3's.  Imagine if they put it out in a high quality mode?  I'd pay for a subscription.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> *Oh yeah, one is legal, the other is not.  Thats the differance.  *



I'm unsure of your point...is it that you're opposed to the law and hence feel it's OK to disregard it, or is it that you're opposed to the law and hence feel that what you are doing is in protest of it?

I agree that stealing a physical object has a more easily defined cost than stealing a piece of intellectual property. I'll agree that copyright laws are not as simple as some laws. Of course, they make more sense than tax laws, and I assume you pay your taxes.

Kant's Categorical Imperative requires us to ask: What if everyone did this? The answer, of course, is that we'd have much less music to steal as fewer people would write music if there weren't financial rewards. Many garage bands hold on in the dream of someday making millions--would they keep trying if they thought that someday they might make pennies? The outsized rewards encourage many people to try, bringing the best to the top--the same as for professional sports. Some people would play for the love of the game, but many excellent players would drop out early if the NFL had a salary cap of $50,000/year. Those "excess" profits for an individual may serve a purpose in drawing people to play in the lottery.

I'm reminded of those who seek to lower the prices of pharmaceuticals, claiming the pharmaceutical companies make profits that are too high. I agree--but a price will be paid, in the creation of new drugs through money reinvested into research.

I think CD prices are too high. But I don't see how that justifies stealing the product that they actually contain. And clearly, repeated copying and distribution violates the copyright holder rights and lowers sales overall, even if some people hear the music, like it, and go out and buy a CD. (Of course it doesn't lower their profits as much as they claim--they assume anyone willing to steal the music would have been willing to buy it too, which is obviously not the case.) I'm not going to chastise anyone for doing this, but let's be clear--if you download Eminem's music, you're a thief. Worse yet, you're a thief with poor taste in music.

Copyrights and patents exist for a reason. I believe that they enhance creativity and hence are a benfit to the system.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *The music industry needs to find a profitable way to allow me to easily find new music. *



If you mean that they should do this for _their_ benefit, I agree. If you mean for _yours_, then I say that it's their product, and they can run their business into the ground if it pleases them. this isn't food or medicine we're talking about here--and music is freely available on the radio, available at your local library for check-out, and so on--leta lone that it's often available as part of your cable package (we have 30-some channels of DMX).

As a suggested business model for them I agree with much of what you say, though I don't quite buy the Shareware analogy. (That did work surprisingly well though.) As a justification for taking their product because one believes that they should be giving it away for free anyway--No.



> *I see it as no different from going to the bookstore and reading the magazine b4 buying it.  Often times, I'll read it all and leave it there.  But, often I find something I must have, and buy it.  *



But usually you can do the same thing with the music--at the same bookstore. Certainly this has been my experience at Barnes and Noble and at Borders--you can listen to (nearly) anything, and often to all of it. Simialrly for many CD stores. Plus, you can hear the highlights for free on the radio.

I agree that they need to adapt and that they're cutting off thei own noses with the appraoch they're taking.

But, people are ripping them off because it's easy. I'm not surprised and they shouldn't be either, but that doesn't excuse it!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2003)

Yes, I could goto my local Borders or B&N, and -IF- they had it in stock, I might be able to listen to it.  But thats a lot of work for what is often a spur of the moment thing.  Case in point:

I was talking to a gal in Toronto a few months back. She said "Did you ever hear of Tenacious D?" I said "No."  She recomended a few tracks.  Ok, so I fire up the ol P2P, snag em, and give a listen to em.  I liked em.  Liked em enough that I'm not a Jack Black fan, and have been slowly working on obtaining legit copies of their cds.

By the time I had gotten around to hitting the music store, I most likely would have forgotten the name.  Additionally, my local shops don't seem to stock em, so I'd have to special order em, and buy em wether I liked em or not.

Because of the old Napster network, I discovered that a band I liked (Running Wild) was still around and had been putting out albums regularly.  I've been trying to buy their stuff for a decade and no luck.  Out of print in the US.  Ok, snag the tracks, yup, still hard n heavy, so swing to Amazon and put the order in.  (actually cdnow.com was used to buy the imports).

The argument that all these teeners who are amasing the billions of mp3s is the same as those who argued the piracy thing a decade ago.  No 14 yr old is going to pay $600 for photoshop.  You have therefore lost nothing.  

Is it stealing?  Yes.
Is it harming the industry? No.

The Industry does more harm to themselves by releasing overpriced regurgitated pap, rather than inovative quality at a fair price.

Considering that I paid $35/CD for the imports, its not about the price.  But one can only listen to the BackDoor Boys, or Twitney Spears so long before one yearns for someting with some content.

:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I agree that stealing a physical object has a more easily defined cost than stealing a piece of intellectual property.*



"Copyright" is having the sole right to make copies of a work. Technopunk's point (I think) was that by downloading a copy of at artists song I do not "take" that copyright, I violate it.



> Kant's Categorical Imperative requires us to ask: What if everyone did this? The answer, of course, is that we'd have much less music to steal as fewer people would write music if there weren't financial rewards. Many garage bands hold on in the dream of someday making millions--would they keep trying if they thought that someday they might make pennies? The outsized rewards encourage many people to try, bringing the best to the top--the same as for professional sports. Some people would play for the love of the game, but many excellent players would drop out early if the NFL had a salary cap of $50,000/year. Those "excess" profits for an individual may serve a purpose in drawing people to play in the lottery.



From http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html:
"The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my honourable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely any perceptible addition to the bounty. "


> I think CD prices are too high. But I don't see how that justifies stealing the product that they actually contain.



Not buying CDs will certainly cause the price to fall.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Is it stealing?  Yes.
> Is it harming the industry? No.*



At the current level I believe it is costing them money. Extra sales that they get in cases like the one you cite are surely dwarfed by lost sales. This is not only because of specific sales not being made because someone has the music already, but for another reason that is a bigger issue for the industry: People simply not getting in the habit of having CD collections. The industry wants people to be in the habit of buying CDs of artists they like, and wants people to have pride in their collections and hence spend money on them. This is much like Pepsi wanting you to get in the habit of buying Pepsi, not Coke...or your coke dealer wanting you to be in the habit of coke, not heroin. _The loss of this habit is probably the bigger threat to the CD industry._ Large numbers of people will end up simply not buying music they can't steal because they aren't in the habit--it's not part of their routine. I have two CD players set up in my house, one in my car, and a portable one for extended travels. Will these kids invest in even one CD player? Will buying CDs seem wise if they can only play them on their computer, slowing it down and suffering with crummy speakers?

Mind you, I don't like the way Madison Avenue tries to get people into these habits any more than you do, and I'm happy to see them frustrated in their attempts to do so. But your analysis is sorely lacking--there's much more to it than decisions being made by kids about buying one CD vs. another. Kids are losing the habit of buying CDs _at all_. That's the big deal here. Switching to all on-line sales means big costs to people with factories dedicated to pressing CDs. What's forcing them to change is stealing. It's inevitable stealing, given the technology, and they must respond--but it's still stealing.

However, to your point, I do believe that thievery will force the industry to make necessary changes and that this will actually benefit the industry in the long run. I don't believe that technological countermeasures will be sufficient to stop the piracy.

Still, I am far from convinced that the Napsterites are "stealing for a good cause" in order to help the music industry. This isn't a Robin Hood situation. Any benefit is incidental.

It's wrong. I am not very exercised over the wrongness of it, but I am certainly not going to believe that what is going is anything other than stealing. Call it what it is.

Hey, when the police take you away, I'll run MartialTalk _my_ way until you get back! No more "One free Bangles .mp3 with every sign-up" like you've been doing!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *"Copyright" is having the sole right to make copies of a work. Technopunk's point (I think) was that by downloading a copy of at artists song I do not "take" that copyright, I violate it.*



Yes, there are certainly legal technicalities here. A copyright violation may expose one to both civil and criminal penalties. But making the copy violates the copyright and is apt to be both tortious and criminal in most cases.



> *
> Not buying CDs will certainly cause the price to fall. *



I agree. But that's an explanation, not a justification. I'll buy that argument if you refuse to move to the back of a bus because you feel segregation is wrong. But are high CD prices a civil rights violation? This isn't boycotting a product to make a point, it's stealing something that you want but that is nonessential--a luxury item. (I use "you" generically here--I don't mean *Elfan*.) Sure, it'll cause prices to fall--but where's the justification for this action?

I don't see the _moral_ justification here. That doesn't mean it won't achieve the desired end.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 20, 2003)

Actaully my point is not even about copywrite violation... its about not UNDERSTANDING the laws regarding it...

If I pay to rent a movie on PayPerVeiw and record it, its legal...
If I pay to rent a movie at  Blockbuster and record it, Its Ilegal...

What did I do differently in those two cases? 

If I que Up my radio Tuner and record a song to MP3 for free, its legal...

If I Download the same song on MP3 for free, It's illegal...

Again, what is the primary difference?

In both cases, the artists, management, everyone involved did not profit, so again I ask... what is the difference?  

Now, let me answer my own question for you... a SMALL NUMBER of a paranoid body of artists, unhappy with sales of some REALLY REALLY REALLY CRAPPY ALBUMS (ahem Metalica) needed a scapegoat and rallied some other artists to their cause who then hired high priced lawyers to trick the government into enacting laws in their favor... And those laws affected a narrow channel of media distribution.   

As to the comment 



> is it that you're opposed to the law and hence feel it's OK to disregard it, or is it that you're opposed to the law and hence feel that what you are doing is in protest of it



The first suggestion is closest.  We as americans are supposed to have free say in the law making process, but this is a clear cut example of how MILLIONS of americans have voiced their opinion but the money of 2 small but wealthy organizations wins out.  Simply stated, the law is unjust, and I do disagree with it.  However, if you read my previous post, I also stated that I do NOT use filesharing software, but i also will not purchase CD's from Artists on a RIAA sponsored label.   

As for a solution... I propose to continue to produce and sell CD's to those who want them, give the digital copies away for free, and continue to make BILLIONS of DOLLARS on the tickets to the concerts, Tshirts, stickers, merchandising, etc etc etc etc... that the artists sell, because more music in circulation = Larger fan base = more sold out venues.  Oh wait... Thats only Billions instead of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.  What was I thinking.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 20, 2003)

Oh... and on another note as far as the "Habit" of buying CDs to have a collection... Perhaps at that point the target shoudnt in fact be the downloaders of MP3s, but the people who are activly marketing MP3 player technology. 

My Car Stereo is an MP3 player.

My Home Stereo is a CD/Mp3 Player.

My Pc is a Cd/MP3 player.

My Portable is an MP3 player.

It is a lot easier to Download an MP3, than it is to Rip a CD to MP3 for all this hardware I have...


----------



## Elfan (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Yes, there are certainly legal technicalities here. A copyright violation may expose one to both civil and criminal penalties. But making the copy violates the copyright and is apt to be both tortious and criminal in most cases.*



 Agreed.  My point wasn't that it wasn't a crime.  Just that it was a very differnt type of crime.


> I agree. But that's an explanation, not a justification. I'll buy that argument if you refuse to move to the back of a bus because you feel segregation is wrong. But are high CD prices a civil rights violation? This isn't boycotting a product to make a point, it's stealing something that you want but that is nonessential--a luxury item. (I use "you" generically here--I don't mean *Elfan*.) Sure, it'll cause prices to fall--but where's the justification for this action?
> 
> I don't see the _moral_ justification here. That doesn't mean it won't achieve the desired end.



I just want to point out that not buying CDs from RIAA member compaines and pirating music from said companies don't neccesarily go together.

As for justificaiton, I'm not buying their CDs cause I don't want to at the current price (think econ here).


----------



## arnisador (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> *Actaully my point is not even about copywrite violation... its about not UNDERSTANDING the laws regarding it...*



I see it as a compromise between the copyright holder's financial rights and the renter's financial rights. It's a mess, but a line must be drawn somewhere. 

Put another way, I might agree, but first can you suggest a better system of copyright protection (in law, not a technological solution)?



> *
> However, if you read my previous post, I also stated that I do NOT use filesharing software, but i also will not purchase CD's from Artists on a RIAA sponsored label.   *



Sorry! It's hard to keep all the players straight.



> *
> As for a solution... I propose to continue to produce and sell CD's to those who want them, give the digital copies away for free, and continue to make BILLIONS of DOLLARS on the tickets to the concerts, Tshirts, stickers, merchandising, etc etc etc etc... that the artists sell, because more music in circulation = Larger fan base = more sold out venues.  Oh wait... Thats only Billions instead of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.  What was I thinking. *



I don't know if this would be sufficient cash or not. Remember, there are many bills to pay--musicians, managers, roadies, PR people, lawyers, secretaries, and so many many more. Limiting David Lee Roth to two homes rather than seven isn't necessarily going to cut it--all those people, and possibly investors, must be paid.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 20, 2003)

The author of one of my favorite Post Cyberpunk Novels, and what he has to say on the subject... 

http://www.maxbarry.com/max/writings/copyright.html


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2003)

Anti-pirracy safeguards in new music CD:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=9&u=/usatoday/20030923/tc_usatoday/11865096


----------



## Elfan (Sep 24, 2003)

Previous attempts at this have resulted in cripled CDs that are in violation of that little "compact disc" logo you see in the corner.  I'm not sure how this is going to be any different.

And WMA? Could they have chosen a worse format?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2003)

Someone always finds a way to counter these types of protections. I think they will need to change their business model instead. The problem for them is it only requires one person to crack it and distribute it--someone will do it just for fun/challenge.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 24, 2003)

Moral discussions aside, I have to reiterate the point that the new levels of technology that have come into play are going to allow human nature to mold certain industries to people's needs and, more importantly, wants, much to the distaste of these industrys' governing bodies. The net now allows us to dictate more directly the availability and cost of music, movies, all media in general. The idea that the industries will be able to reign in these expansions in availibility and unhindered distribution are futile and sad to watch (as it accentuates their desperate and greedy nature). It's time the industry adapts to the new technology by accepting the new revolutions in media expansion and availability and stops trying to fight it. The problem with fighting it is that for every hacker you buy to control the net there are ten that are independant and working against you.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2003)

I concur about the futility. On another front:

"Makers of Kazaa Are Suing Record Labels"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030924/ap_on_hi_te/file_sharing_lawsuit_3

They claim using KaZaa to fight KaZaa isn't fair.


----------



## Elfan (Sep 24, 2003)

Recording industry withdraws suit
Mistaken identity raises questions on legal strategy

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2003/09/24/recording_industry_withdraws_suit/


----------



## OULobo (Sep 25, 2003)

Is it true that Kazaa keeps from getting sued by locating its servers on some small south pacific island nation where there are no copyright laws. If it is then it has to be really expensive, but can you imagine how cool it would be to be located there to work.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 25, 2003)

looks like even CNN thinks this is getting rediculous. 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/24/tech.lawsuit.ap/index.html


----------



## FiveSwords (Sep 25, 2003)

Check this out:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/25/0510208&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=146&tid=95&tid=99

I sure as hell don't want any corporations, especially the RIAA,  teaching our children ethics.

:soapbox:


----------



## Elfan (Sep 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I concur about the futility. On another front:
> 
> "Makers of Kazaa Are Suing Record Labels"
> ...



Actually they say that using a cracked version of Kazaa to log onto the network is ilegal.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Actually they say that using a cracked version of Kazaa to log onto the network is ilegal. *



Yes, but their argument boils down to What's Sauce for the Goose isn't Sauce for the Gander, in my opinion.

I find it hypocritical of KaZaa to oppose them fighting fire with fire. I'm not surprised they're trying to enforce their rights, and it's fine, but I still find KaZaa claiming--in essence--copyright violation of their copyright-violating product to be amusing.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2003)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20030930/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music_4



> The recording industry on Monday announced settlements with 52 of the 261 Internet users it sued over allegations they illegally permitted others to download music from their computers using popular file-sharing software.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## OULobo (Sep 30, 2003)

I read the settlement amounts were decided on to discourage the hiring of defense lawyers. They stated that the numbers were low enough where it would be unreasonable to hire attorneys. Looks like the RIAA doesn't want to take this to trial.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> * but I still find KaZaa claiming--in essence--copyright violation of their copyright-violating product to be amusing. *



KaZaa isnt DESIGNED to violate copyright,  that is just how the tool is being used.

Hammers are not designed to kill people, but they are used to do so... should we outlaw hammers?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> *KaZaa isnt DESIGNED to violate copyright,  that is just how the tool is being used.*



This is disingenuous. The success of the RIAA suits shows that, whatever defensive language KaZaa may use, their product and ones like it are made to share copyrighted materials. Anything else would be put on a web page/ftp server instead! Only for copyrighted material is KaZaa's diffusion of repsonsibility necessary.

You might as well claim that a bong in a head shop is sold as a piece of art, not to be usedt` to smoke marijuana...or that a vibrator is a "hand-held massager" as the ads say.


----------



## Elfan (Oct 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *This is disingenuous. The success of the RIAA suits shows that, whatever defensive language KaZaa may use, their product and ones like it are made to share copyrighted materials. Anything else would be put on a web page/ftp server instead! Only for copyrighted material is KaZaa's diffusion of repsonsibility necessary.
> 
> You might as well claim that a bong in a head shop is sold as a piece of art, not to be usedt` to smoke marijuana...or that a vibrator is a "hand-held massager" as the ads say. *




Two points:

1) "KaZaa... and ones like it are made to share copyrighted material."  Its important not to think that the primary purpose of all p2p applications is the distribution of copyrighted material.  That was almost certainly the intent behind KaZaa. However, bittorrent  (http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/) is primarily for new linux isos and movie trailers and other things if that nature. Freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/) allows one to publish information without being censored. Both freenet and Bittorent can and are used to distribute copyrighted stuff but do a very crappy job at it.  However, they are excellent at what they set out to do.

2.  "Only for copyrighted material is KaZaa's diffusion of responsibility necessary."  It is also a diffusion of resources.  If I am a stereotypical poor artist, there is no way I can afford the bandwidth for a ftp site to distribute my music.  However, if I can generate some buzz and get it out on some p2p networks than I can distribute it that way at no financial cost to myself.


----------



## Elfan (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Someone always finds a way to counter these types of protections. I think they will need to change their business model instead. The problem for them is it only requires one person to crack it and distribute it--someone will do it just for fun/challenge. *



And they have:

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/


----------



## someguy (Oct 21, 2003)

I agree that sometimes its right and some times its not.
-if your getting something that is played on the radio over and over and over and over and over its wrong because you have heard it and know if you like it
-if your getting something that is impossible to get its alright
-if its something you havent heard beefore and want to know if its good or not then i think its right

that said KaZaa id perfectly legal its only what it is mainly used for that is illegal...
that sounds similar to if people should be allowed to have assult rifles due to there only purpose and ill let you figure out what i mean the rest of the way.
Not to start a debate on assult rifles just an example.


----------



## Galvatron (Oct 26, 2003)

Here's my take on the subject in general...
Someone said something to the effect that bands make too much money anyway, and it's not hurting them.
Only bands in the upper echelon of popularity actually enjoy the "rolling in dough" aspect of rockstardom.
Most signed bands make between $1.50-$1.75 per unit sold.
The bulk of the money goes to the record label. File swapping hurts primarily 'underground' bands.
I have experienced first hand what free-sharing of music does to an underground band. When I first become involved with the band I currently play for, we all made a relatively decent amount of money from our CD sales and touring, occassionally one of us might have to take a side job to make ends meet during down times. Since file sharing became a mainstream aspect of life for so many people our CD sales have dropped to a mere fraction of what they used to be. I could make more money working at McDonalds than I do off of the band at this point. What little money that comes from CD sales usually goes right back to the label to pay them for the advance they gave us to pay for the studio time to record said album. As such we are forced to tour to the point of burnout to generate any income.
It's not long before motivation to work on new albums is lost, with no promise of new music the fans lose interest, without fan interest there's low turnout at shows, with low turnout promotors stop booking you because they don't want to lose money on you.
So at this point you have to work a full time job like everyone else, which leaves minimal if any time to work on new music when those rare occasions of motivation hit you...and try explaining to a job that you need 2 months off of work to go tour.
I know too many bands first hand that have simply called it quits because their careers were ruined by file sharing.
I think a viable solution lies somewhere between creating the technology to make CD duplication more difficult to do, and lowering the price of CD's to a level that buying one actually seems appealing. I'll be the first one to admit that the price of a CD is outrageous, especially when you take into consideration how little the artist actually gets.
With infallible ability to prevent duplication, the labels would once again be able to command any price they wanted to for CD's (which is what they want).
With technology that just made it hard, but not impossible to do, combined with lower CD prices (im thinking 10 bucks and under) the general populace would probably be inclined to go buy albums again rather than just download it. The free element will always be there, but when it's easier to just plunk down a 10-spot and have it, I think bands in the underground genre will be able to sustain themselves again.
In closing, the CD sales that you deprive an artist of when you download something for free (that you havent already bought) is their livelihood. I'm sure nearly all of you would quit your jobs in a heartbeat if they stopped paying you.
Sure, it's probably not going to hurt the likes of Metallica or Puff Daddy much, but there are more bands in the underground that depend on royalites to pay the rent, and put gas in the car than there are Eddie Van Halens, who's grandchildren's grandchildren will never have to work a day in their lives...

:soapbox:


----------



## Elfan (Oct 26, 2003)

Galvatron, could you clarify what you mean by "underground?"  I would hypothesize that really unknown bands *may* benefit from music pirating (any publicity is good), super bands (U2, Britney) aren't really effected (loosing one million in sales doesn't matter as much when you make millions a year), but its the guys in the middle who are hurt (they are well known enough that the "free" publicity doesn't help and their sales die).  I was wondering how this jived with your experience.


----------



## Galvatron (Oct 26, 2003)

I classify "Underground" bands as bands that are signed to small and/or independent labels and have minimal if any airplay on radio, who's albums typically move between 5,000 and 75,000 units per release, and who's existence is generally unknown to the mainstream listening world.
These are not bands that typically gain anything from having their music pirated.


----------



## OULobo (Oct 27, 2003)

I agree the key may be to lower prices to acceptable levels. I think a ton of people feel justified in taking music, because they feel like Robin Hood. I know I would pay $10 or less for a full album even if I could download it for free, so that I could have a little piece of mind. This way I don't have to worry about the RIAA gestapo and I'm still getting some money to the industry and artists. I don't think you'll ever be able to come up with technology to stop duplication, because there will always be someone ready to beat it.


----------



## Elfan (Oct 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Galvatron _
> *I classify "Underground" bands as bands that are signed to small and/or independent labels and have minimal if any airplay on radio, who's albums typically move between 5,000 and 75,000 units per release, and who's existence is generally unknown to the mainstream listening world.
> These are not bands that typically gain anything from having their music pirated. *



Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2003)

Yet another solution:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031027/ap_on_hi_te/file_swapping_alternative_2



> a system they've built that lets MIT students listen for free to 3,500 CDs over the school's cable television network. They say it's completely kosher under copyright law.
> 
> 
> The students will share the software with other schools, who they say could operate their own networks for just a few thousand dollars per year. They call that a small price to pay for heading off lawsuits like those the recording industry filed against hundreds of alleged illegal file-swappers.
> ...


----------

