File Sharers beware....

[cincyreds]

Just wanted to get your opinions on this subject.

I don't do it, but I know several people who do.


File Sharing

[Franklinnoble]

Bah.

[Philliesfan980]

Kazaa and all those other programs have gotten to the point where its too fustrating to get what you're looking for. Long file times, slow connections and everything else makes you use other routes to get the end product.

[Tekneek]

I've only used it for things that are otherwise unavailable, or merely to sample something to make sure I want to buy it.

[Franklinnoble]

What the record industry doesn't want you to know is that for the brief time that Napster was really rolling along as the undisputed #1 means to download music, album sales were UP. Since they killed Napster, and have seen it replaced with all these cheaply coded, adware and spyware infested wanna-be's, album sales have gone back down.

Truth to be told - more albums were sold because more normal, everyday people were sampling free music and buying stuff they liked. Now all that's left is geeks and college kids swapping all the trendy crap that ought to die a fiery economic death, anyway.

[bosshogg23]

As an FYI Kazaa Lite doesnt have adware or spyware. At least not any that show up with Spybot Destroyer or Ad-Aware.

[AgPete]

If I could offer a suggestion to the music industry, one reason why I don't buy near as much music as I used to is that frankly, it all sounds the same. Is there a boy band that doesn't sound like the previous boy band? Is there a rap star that doesn't love bitches and money and "keeping it real" in their lyrics? Is there a calmed down "alternative" rock band with a spiffy name like Matchbox 20 that doesn't sound like the previous one hit wonder the month before?

Not to say music has never been like that. Instead of hard rock hair bands, it's gangsta rappers. Instead of teenage angst 80's rockers, it's boy bands. I think music though is really suffering from mainstream commercialism. Movies aren't far off. I can't tell you how many summer blockbusters I don't even bother attending these days. Maybe because I'm not much of a music fan, I don't follow the independent labels, but to me it feels like most bands these days bring nothing new to the table.

For me, the only difference having file sharing programs is that I might download one catchy song that I like when the alternative would be that I wouldn't even bother buying the album or even a single. Give me better music and I'll give the industry better sales.

[Maple Leafs]

My opinion? "Sharing" music is stealing, perhaps not in the same way as stealing a car, but still stealing. I think people have become so used to getting everything for free on the Internet that they can twist their mind into all sorts of neat pretzels in order to justify it to themselves, but we all know it's wrong. If someone offers something for sale at a set price and you think it costs too much, you don't get to just take it for free, period. I've heard all arguments in favor of doing it, and none of them work. There's just no justification.

Do I do it? Yep. After years of holding out, I finally installed Kazaa and grabbed a few files. Not a whole hard-drive full, but enough to brun a few CDs.

Hypocrite? Yes indeed.

[cincyreds]

Good points, AgPete.

It would be nice to be able to go somewhere and listen to the the whole album first and then decide to buy. But with all the no refund policies that best buy and circuit city and other retailers have, I don't buy nearly as much music as I used too.

I do have MusicMatch which has a feature where you can listen to one artist to see if you like their material or not.

I don't like all these bands that have 1 hit on the album but the rest of it sounds like crap. There are just way to many "filler" songs on albums these days. You can tell what songs the artist really wanted to work on and the ones they did not.

Sometimes VH1's website will let you listen to an album before you buy as well, which is pretty cool!!

[cincyreds]

I guess my question guys is.....

Are you guys afraid now that they are trying to go after individuals now, including consumers?

Do they have a chance?

[Philliesfan980]

There's no way they could even come close to catching all the individuals who partake in piracy (They are not "consumers") by definition. The industry knows that they have no shot at prosecuting anyone over this, so they are attempting to use "scare" tacticts.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by cincyreds
Are you guys afraid now that they are trying to go after individuals now, including consumers?

No, I don't think it would come to that. Maybe they'll single out a few of the biggest offenders (maybe people who are well known in the file-sharing community, if there is such a thing). Make an example, that sort of thing.

Will they come after some high school kid who's burning CDs for his friend? I doubt it.

[cincyreds]

I have an uncle who uses some of the programs and he really likes them.

Thanks guys for your thoughts.

Hey Maple Leafs, you are only 7 posts away from the magic 1,000 posts mark!!!

Way to go!!

[AgPete]

Well, the article does say there are 61 million Americans using these file sharing programs. I seriously doubt our courts can handle that case load.

[bosshogg23]

I just turned on the private messaging feature on Kazaa Lite. I wonder if I will be one of the ones to recieve a warning? *anticipation*

[vex]

Like I care, I use WinMX

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
What the record industry doesn't want you to know is that for the brief time that Napster was really rolling along as the undisputed #1 means to download music, album sales were UP. Since they killed Napster, and have seen it replaced with all these cheaply coded, adware and spyware infested wanna-be's, album sales have gone back down.

Truth to be told - more albums were sold because more normal, everyday people were sampling free music and buying stuff they liked. Now all that's left is geeks and college kids swapping all the trendy crap that ought to die a fiery economic death, anyway.

That's such a flawed argument. The reason they were up for a brief period was because the music industry had always had yearly growth. That's like saying "because I posted this message, the sun will come up tomorrow". Not enough people had been downloading music to take a chunk out of their business.

I never buy the "sampling argument" for three reasons.

The first is that if you want to sample music, you can do it through legal means such as samples on cdnow.com or band websites. The sites have paid for permission to do this or, if it's the band, it's part of self promotion and they are allowing you to have their music.

The second reason is that you *are* stealing. Again, it's like taking something from a store, but doing it electronically. It's just that no one is watching you do it (tho, the RIAA is starting to and they keep asking for scary powers like being able to look at your entire computer if you download a song).

Lastly, you're stealing both from the band *and* record label. If *both* the band and record company who own the music don't give you permission to have the song- then you're stealing it. Period. It's all well and good if some high profile artist releases some online only album. But be honest, it's just another rich blowhard who won't miss the money and who is using their celebrity status. To them, what's a million bucks when they already have a lot and can instead use it to boost their ego and peddle their politics to an eager public.

Then, again, like AgPete and others, I haven't bought nearly as many CDs in the last 5 years anyways. Partially because that's what you did if you had a little money to burn in high school and I need all my cash now and partially because I can count on one hand or at least two the bands that have come out the past few years with music I like. Unfortunately, hard rock is a dying genre.

SI

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by cincyreds
Hey Maple Leafs, you are only 7 posts away from the magic 1,000 posts mark!!!

I'll be damned...

Edit: Even though I'll probably hit 1,000 within 24 hours, I'm still willing to bet that I completely forget and use the post for something trivial. I have the short term memory of a dust mite.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You asked, I'll answer.

I think d'loading copyrighted material without permission is criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Feel free to attribute my strong feelings on the matter to the fact that a good bit of my work is copyrighted and I take a damn dim view of it being stolen or of those who steal it. Stealing my work, or the fruit of whatever talents I may have if you prefer, is the same (actually worse IMO) than stealing my car or some other material good, it belongs to me not you and you have no right to benefit from it in any way without my permission.

Perhaps the argument on this subject that disturbs me most is the one that tries to invoke price-as-justification for theft. If I set my hourly rate at $1 or $1,000,000 is my decision, just as it's your decision whether it's worth that price. What you don't have the right to decide is to take that work without paying for it.

[RonnieDobbs]

One of the guys at my house got an email from a the campus newtork gurus informing him that they got an email from the RIAA ordering him to stop sharing his files. And he wasn't unbelievable, he had ~700 songs. There are others I know (direct connect) that serve over 25 GIGS of songs, so they are taking steps to go after individuals users. It's the risk you run.

[Craptacular]

I don't think it's feasible for the industry to go after too many downloaders, although I think they can (and should) go after some of the people who host large sites.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sterlingice
That's such a flawed argument. The reason they were up for a brief period was because the music industry had always had yearly growth. That's like saying "because I posted this message, the sun will come up tomorrow". Not enough people had been downloading music to take a chunk out of their business.
SI

I wasn't really making an argument. The numbers are fact. There might be yearly growth, but it was greater than average the year that Napster was king. Maybe there's a better explaination, but I haven't seen it.

Is listening to the radio stealing? Before you tell me that artists get ASCAP royalties from airplay, let me say this - most artists don't see a dime of that money. ASCAP is a joke - ask any serious musician. They habitually fuck over 99% of the recording artists out there.

Most musicians make their living at live perfomances. Even the ones fortunate enough to sign record deals have to tour to really make a living. Rare are the Shania Twains who fuck big record producers, get a sweet album deal, and then don't have to tour to promote it.

Smaller bands and musicians love .mp3, because it gets their music out to more people, creates greater name recognition, and increases the likelihood that they'll have a good turnout at their live appearances - just like radio airplay does.

Don't shit on my sampling "argument," because I'm speaking from my own experience. I never bought an Eminem album before I downloaded his stuff on Napster. Now I own every record he's sold. File sharing made him (and several other musicians I sampled) money. I'd have never bought the CD's otherwise, because I don't like most rap, never listen to rap or top 40 stations, and wouldn't have heard his stuff if I hadn't read about him and said, "Hmm... wonder what the big deal is... guess I'll fire up Napster and see."

[Craptacular]

The biggest problem I have with the "sampling" argument is that it's OK because it helps promote music to others who wouldn't otherwise buy it. If an artist wants to use that avenue, then great. It's their decision. If Metallica doesn't want you to be able to download their songs for free, regardless of whether or not it might lead you to buy their records, it's their right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay Franklin, you tossed out a few things, so I'll round some of them up & toss 'em back your way

re: radio -- The record companies generally have the right to permit airplay of their signed artists. They in turn permit the stations to air that material. Therefore, there's no stealing involved there.

re: smaller bands, etc -- If there's some plan to prosecute users for downloading material from independent artists who authorize its distribution please point me to some info. I'd protest that myself, but I've yet to see where that's being made an issue.

re: sampling converted to sales -- I'll gladly stipulate that you did just what you said, sampled then bought. But that's not really the issue. The issue that the courts deal with is whether you had permission for the sampling in the first place. To illustrate, let's assume for a minute that the sequence you describe is how every single d'loader behaves. That'd make it a bad business decision for the labels, et al to stop the download process. But they have the right to make that decision, not the consumer.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
One of the guys at my house got an email from a the campus newtork gurus informing him that they got an email from the RIAA ordering him to stop sharing his files. And he wasn't unbelievable, he had ~700 songs. There are others I know (direct connect) that serve over 25 GIGS of songs, so they are taking steps to go after individuals users. It's the risk you run.

thats about how it works with software piracy, the big busts never take down the individuals that download it. just the people higher up the ladder. Of course the main difference with software, is that your average joe cant crack safedisc or one of the other software proctections. Anyone can make a pretty decent rip of music. So they target people that share files. I can't recall anyone being prosecuted over sharing music yet, but it seems to me they are just trying to scare people.

[cincyreds]

What would be really wild is if some artist was caught having it on his computer or something.

Say, a band member liked another bands material but didn't want to buy it, so he used file sharing to get the material.

Now that would be a story if an artist or an RIAA official got caught with it also.

[sabotai]

"If Metallica doesn't want you to be able to download their songs for free, regardless of whether or not it might lead you to buy their records, it's their right."

The sad thing is that Metallica actually thinks Napster hurt their sales, when in reality, them sucking is what hurt their sales.

I generally use Kazaa to download video (w00t pr0n), not mp3. I only download an mp3 if someone says I should hear a song. If I like it, then it generally translate into a bought CD. But I don't go downloading music to make CDs out of.

Another thing I use it for is to download music I already have to burn "mix" CDs. I have a broadband connection, so it's just a lot faster for me to download the music than to rip it off CDs I have.

A side note, does anyone else feel a little uneasy over how loosely the word "hack" is thrown around? The record industry really "hack" KaZaA? If all they did was send out a bunch of PMs...then no they did not.

Another side note: Metallica really blows now. That's what hurt your CD sales Lars. You suck now! You have neough money, buy a frickin clue.

[Bee]

Not to threadjack too much, but I have a question.

Are the streaming audio mp3's legal? The ones that you can't download, but can listen to via internet radio or on the various websites where you click a link and listen to sample songs from a CD?

[sabotai]

dola,

Didn't the record companies get busted for price fixing while they were talking about "moral issues" with sharing music?

[sabotai]

"Are the streaming audio mp3's legal? The ones that you can't download, but can listen to via internet radio or on the various websites where you click a link and listen to sample songs from a CD?"

Yes, and the internet radio stations have to pay to play that music just liek radio does.

[Samdari]

You know it is funny that people bring up radio. This whole fighting of file-sharing the RIAA is doing is very reminiscent of a similar fight against radio. Back when radio stations began playing commercial records, the record companies considered that to be others freely giving away their commercial product and tried to sue everyone who did it. Now, they make kickback payments to programming services so that every pop station in the country has 16+ hours a day of Britney Spears songs, and radio is considered an essential tool for promoting record sales.

That said Franklin, no matter how misguided these companies may be in missing out on what you consider to be a great marketing tool, since they own the intellectual property, they get to decide how it is distributed, promoted, etc. Whether or not you feel you are hurting these companies, or even doing anything wrong, you ARE stealing what is theirs.

Don't think I am sitting on my high horse here either, just stating facts. I sample complete pieces of music before I buy, and have been known to do the same with software if no demo is available or one is but is too limited. The fact that I either stop stealing, or pay for what I stole later, or that I pay for EVERY (EDIT: MOST) piece of intellectual property I continue to use, does not mean that I did not steal it initially.

I have to disagree with Jon on the price-as-justification issue, but only in a specific instance. I feel that Microsoft has used criminal means to reach their virtual monopoly. Since their price points can be set without worrying about competitors they have illegally destroyed, they are in a way stealing from me every time I pay full price for one of their products. I gleefully pirate every piece of Microsoft software I can get my hands on, and actually feel like I am doing the world some good when I do it.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Okay Franklin, you tossed out a few things, so I'll round some of them up & toss 'em back your way

I love clever baseball metaphors.

re: radio -- The record companies generally have the right to permit airplay of their signed artists. They in turn permit the stations to air that material. Therefore, there's no stealing involved there.

Not my point (admittedly, I may have done a poor job making my point). My point is the artists don't directly benefit from the airplay. They get secondary benefits - increased record sales (which benefit record companies more than the artists), and better attendance at performances, because people sample the songs on the radio... just like they do on the Internet.

re: smaller bands, etc -- If there's some plan to prosecute users for downloading material from independent artists who authorize its distribution please point me to some info. I'd protest that myself, but I've yet to see where that's being made an issue.

As you put it, it's not an issue. Most working musicians are small independent artists. The record industry really needs to be more honest about their case. They're not sticking up for the little guy. They're blaming slow sales of the 1% of musicians they represent on file swapping. That same 1% of musicians really isn't hurting from file swapping. The record companies don't give a shit about the other 99% of musicians that aren't at all negatively affected by file swapping. What pisses me off is that record companies are presenting this case as if we're taking food out of somebody's mouth here. This could not be further from the truth. Is file swapping stealing? Maybe... but if anyone is getting robbed, it's the record companies... NOT the musicians... and the record companies do more to rob musicians than file swapperd do to rob record companies.

Yeah, that was a painful paragraph to read. Sorry.

re: sampling converted to sales -- I'll gladly stipulate that you did just what you said, sampled then bought. But that's not really the issue. The issue that the courts deal with is whether you had permission for the sampling in the first place. To illustrate, let's assume for a minute that the sequence you describe is how every single d'loader behaves. That'd make it a bad business decision for the labels, et al to stop the download process. But they have the right to make that decision, not the consumer.

Personally, I think the courts should find bigger fish to fry.

[korme]

Hmm, if they go after people I'm not really worried.

I currently have 1,493 songs on my computer.. but I do not share.. used to be because on my slow dial-up I couldn't download anything when someone was downloading from me..

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Samdari

I have to disagree with Jon on the price-as-justification issue, but only in a specific instance. I feel that Microsoft has used criminal means to reach their virtual monopoly. Since their price points can be set without worrying about competitors they have illegally destroyed, they are in a way stealing from me every time I pay full price for one of their products. I gleefully pirate every piece of Microsoft software I can get my hands on, and actually feel like I am doing the world some good when I do it.

We are agreed on this. I haven't bought anything from Microsoft in ten years... but, then again, as a professional IT manager, I don't have to steal it, either... every company I work for is licensed, and I get it free.

The virtual monopoly arguement could be tweaked and made against the record companies... but I'm getting weary of this topic already.

[cincyreds]

I remember when I was at a younger age and only got an allowance of $10 a week. I didn't have the money to go buy a record or cassette if I liked it enough(old Van Halen, Police and etc.).

I do remember recording some of my favorite songs off the radio, just so that I could have that song to listen too all the time.

My brother used put a cassette in his stereo cassette deck, every night before he went to bed and would record whatever was played that night, sometimes it was like a TOP 10 most requested or something and he would have those songs. Then he would put the ones he really liked on one cassette.

I think just about every person in the world would be guilty of doing this at least one time or another in their life, don't you think?

Was that stealing?

Sometimes if you liked a certain song enough, you would do what you had to do get that song. Or if your buddy had the record, he would let you borrow it so that you could make a recording of it.

Who hasn't done this? I think you better arrest 99% of America then.

[Easy Mac]

I'm one of the ones who tends to "sample" music, and I'm ok with that. I've probably bought 20 CD's this year from smaller bands who I happened to find through file-sharing services. My songs on the computer mainly consist of more popular songs and songs 5 years or older. Of course, the school restricts bandwith for peer to peers all day, except from 2-6 am, so I dont worry about the RIAA im'ing me at 2 am telling me to stop.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by sabotai
"If Metallica doesn't want you to be able to download their songs for free, regardless of whether or not it might lead you to buy their records, it's their right."

The sad thing is that Metallica actually thinks Napster hurt their sales, when in reality, them sucking is what hurt their sales.

...

Another side note: Metallica really blows now. That's what hurt your CD sales Lars. You suck now! You have neough money, buy a frickin clue.

I couldn't agree with you more- the last album I've bought was Load and that was a mistake (actually, I bought S&M and that was great but that was mostly old stuff).

However, for the purpose of this argument- that's a non-sequitor. They own the music so they and the record company get to determine how to distribute it. Just because I don't like, say Toyota, doesn't mean I can go grab a brick, smash into the local dealership ala Gone in 60 Seconds ("That's not a tool! That's a damn brick!"), and test drive it to see if my opinion can be changed.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Not my point (admittedly, I may have done a poor job making my point). My point is the artists don't directly benefit from the airplay. They get secondary benefits - increased record sales (which benefit record companies more than the artists), and better attendance at performances, because people sample the songs on the radio... just like they do on the Internet.

Yes, but it is part of their recording contract- for good or ill. Whether the near-monopoly powers that record companies weild is right or not, that's another topic you alluded to and that's a very valid disagreement. However, until they are broken up, it's still illegal regardless.

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Personally, I think the courts should find bigger fish to fry.

Well, we definately agree on this. But it is their Constitutional right to do this as much as it is for some idiot woman to sue Mickey D's for hot coffee she spilled on herself.

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sterlingice
I couldn't agree with you more- the last album I've bought was Load and that was a mistake (actually, I bought S&M and that was great but that was mostly old stuff).

SI

Agree with the Metallica now sucks point, but I have to say, S&M was crappy, too.

[mckerney]

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

As far as CD sales dropping, is it any surprise to them with lack of quality (when eminem is one of the best selling artists...) and their price gouging?

I've bought more CDs because of the internet than I otherwise would have otherwise. I've heard several artists say that they don't really care about it, and some actually think it's actually for the better because they enjoy their shows more when everyone knows the song and sings along with them, much like they did when they were younger with tape copying.

like Dylan Hicks sang:

The music had power and it was only ours
and not some companies market share.

[Craptacular]

I love S&M.

[Fidatelo]

I have a beef with the Music industry, and one that extends now to the Movie industry as well:

Why do CD's and DVD's cost so much? Isn't it way cheaper to make a CD or DVD then it ever was to make tapes? Why has that savings never been passed to the consumer? In fact, it's always cost more to buy a CD or a DVD than a tape! I don't understand why I have to pay $17 canadian for a CD that costs pennies to make?

And you know what? If the band was getting a bunch of that extra cash I'd be pretty ok with it, but they still get hardly any money from album sales (unless they are already HUGE). Nope, the money goes to a whole pile of industry fat cats that spend all their time fucking hookers in their Beemers.

So you know what? If those Assholes have no problem ripping me off then I'm not gonna lose sleep because I download some songs that I will likely only enjoy for 3 days anyways.

[sabotai]

SI, I wasn't putting it up as an argument. I think that was pretty obvious.

[illinifan999]

I'm a criminal. I have no ethics. Now Nelly can't go get 25 inch rims put onto his car because I downloaded his songs for free instead of paying for them.

[sabotai]

illinifan, for this crime, I sentance you to a term of no less than 6 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

[illinifan999]

Originally posted by sabotai
illinifan, for this crime, I sentance you to a term of no less than 6 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Sounds painful. I will have my attorney appeal the conviction. It was racially motivated!!!!

[Franklinnoble]

Lundberg fucked her.

[cincyreds]

illinifan, for this crime, I sentance you to a term of no less than 6 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

LOL!!!

[sabotai]

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

[Franklinnoble]

"You've been missing a lot of work lately"

"I wouldn't say I've been MISSING it, Bob."