Should Downloading Music really be free for everyone to read please!
 

Over the past few years, we’ve been asked just about every question imaginable about downloading music. We try to answer all of them and present here answers to the ones we get most often. To see the Q & A on our current lawsuit against Napster, click here.

Q. Does uploading music on the Internet hurt anybody? Isn’t it promotion for the artist?
A. When you post digital music files on the Internet for anyone to take and keep, it’s not promotion but distribution. It's up to the artist and copyright owner to decide how their music will be heard, distributed and promoted. Though most people do not realize it, only about 15 percent of all releases sell enough copies to make a profit and those record sales support the other 85%, including those from new and emerging artists. When someone decides to take distribution into his or her own hands, that decision can impact not only the artist whose music is being taken, but the artists that may have been supported by those sales. It’s also important to remember that sales of recordings don’t just support the musical artist. Piracy cheats producers, composers, sound engineers, studio musicians, publishers and vocalists out of their share of royalties on which they generally depend for their livelihoods.


Q. Is uploading music from a CD that you own onto an Internet site for other users to download a violation of copyright law?
A. Yes. Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising. But it’s a very different matter – and clearly neither legal nor fair – to make a copy of that CD or even one song available on the Internet for others to take.

The sound recording copyright holders own the music itself, and have a number of rights under current federal law that include the right to control the reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and various digital transmissions of their works. Therefore,

Creating unauthorized MP3 sites by copying sound recordings to a server for other people to download and/or offering such recordings for download is a violation of copyright law.
Making tapes or CDs of recordings downloaded from the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law.

Q. Isn’t it within my First Amendment right to post recordings to my site for other people to download?
A. The First Amendment does not grant a right to infringe copyrighted works.

The RIAA and the music industry as a whole are dedicated to protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans, including the rights of artists to be heard, even if their lyrics are offensive to some. If you are interested in learning about First Amendment issues that are currently facing artists, you should check out the Freedom of Speech section.


Q. What can happen to me if I am caught infringing a copyright law?
A. If found guilty of copyright infringement, federal law provides for civil remedies that may include substantial monetary damages and liability for attorney fees incurred in bringing an action. Criminal penalties may be imposed if someone willfully infringes a copyrighted work, even if no profit is derived from the activity. Thus, people who barter, trade or even give away copies of infringing works may still be criminally liable and subject to prosecution. The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act specifically outlaws this activity on the Internet. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement include up to six years imprisonment, up to $250,000 in fines, or both. Students may also be subject to disciplinary action at their school, by the school’s own faculty, if it is determined that school computer policies have been violated.


Q. What is the relationship between offering music files for download and the Fair Use Doctrine?
A. The Fair Use Doctrine allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the copyright holder, but the limitations are significant. Typically you can use quotations from copyrighted books and articles and musical compositions for education, comment, criticism and other such uses. Whether the court allows you to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform copyrighted works under this doctrine depends on many circumstances and includes the following determinants:

the nature of the use (i.e., was it for commercial purposes or not);
the length of the excerpt (i.e., how much of the whole work; does the excerpt use the most distinctive part);
how creative the work is (and sound recordings are always creative); and
how the use will impact the market for the original work.

Q. How can I legally put music on the Internet?
A. The answer to this question may depend on how you propose to use these works. For example, if you plan to offer a webcasting service, you may be eligible for a statutory webcasting license whereas if you plan to offer an interactive service, you will need to obtain rights from each copyright holder. See the Licensing section for more information.

In general, if you want to reproduce, distribute, and digitally transmit recorded music online, you will likely need licenses from several organizations and companies. For example, for the copyright in the sound recording (the song as it’s recorded), you’d need a license from the copyright owner, typically the record company, or for an artist owned company, from the artist. For the copyright in the musical composition (the song itself), you might need a "DPD" (or Digital Phonorecord Delivery) license from an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency and you might need a license from the performance rights organization that represents the songwriters, typically BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC. You can usually find who you’d need to contact by looking at the liner notes from the CD of the artist you are interested in reproducing and/or distributing.


Q. Is it illegal to post music on a website for downloading even if I don’t charge for it?
A. Yes. The question of whether or not you are charging does not impact the answer to whether or not you are violating copyright law. If you don't hold the copyright, you can't sell or even give away unauthorized copies of the sound recording without permission. In addition, the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act, which amended Section 506 of the Copyright Act, clarified that even if a site barters or trades infringing materials and doesn’t charge or otherwise make a profit there still may even be criminal liability. Additionally, you may face civil liability, including statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copyright infringement, even if you’re just giving away the files.


Q. Doesn’t the First Sale Doctrine allow me to share my own music?
A. The First Sale Doctrine does allow you to resell or give away the copy of the music that you bought, but it does not allow you to distribute copies of that music by making it available on an Internet site for download, or sending digital files to friends. For example, if you buy a CD and then choose to give that CD to your friend, that’s ok. But you can’t take that CD and make infinite copies available on the Internet – while you keep the CD or a copy for yourself.


Q. Can I offer music for download from my site without permission from the copyright owners if disclaimers are posted on the site that say "promotional use only," "buy the CD," "educational use only," etc?
A. No. If you reproduce and/or distribute sound recordings without a license, you are violating copyright law no matter what your website says.


Q. If I just download sound recordings, is it still a copyright violation?
A. Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.


Q. The digital music files I upload/download are less than CD-quality. Doesn’t this make it OK to copy and trade?
A. The quality and file format of a recording has nothing to do with whether a copyright is infringed. Whether the sound quality is good or not is beside the point. To make reproductions and/or distributions of sound recordings, regardless of sound quality, you need the authorization of the sound recording copyright owner.


Q. If I upload or download a sound recording and leave it on my drive for less than 24 hours, am I still liable for copyright infringement?
A. Whether you upload or download a sound recording for 24 hours, 24 minutes or less has nothing to do with whether or not you are violating copyright law.


Q. If a website doesn't display a copyright notice, is the music still copyrighted or is it okay to reproduce, distribute, or download?
A. In the U.S., almost every work created privately and originally after March 1, 1989, is copyrighted and protected whether or not it has a notice.


Q. Is offering downloadable sound files of recordings that are no longer in print still a violation of copyright law?
A. Copyright law grants the owners of sound recordings the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their recordings. Thus, even where a recording may be difficult to find or is out of print, it is illegal to reproduce and/or distribute it (even as a sound file and for free) without the permission of the sound recording copyright owner. The term of a musical work copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years, after which the work becomes a part of the public domain. The term of a sound recording copyright is generally 95 years, after which the work becomes a part of the public domain.


Q. Does moving an unauthorized music site to a server outside the U.S. make it legal?
A. U.S. law may well apply when the uploading and/or downloading takes place in the United States, even if the server is physically located in another country. Additionally, the copyright laws of foreign countries are, in many cases, similar to those in the United States. U.S. trade law allows the Office of the United States Trade Representative to take action against those countries that fail to provide adequate and effective copyright protection and market access.


Q. Is it illegal to link to other sites that have unauthorized sound files, even if my own site doesn’t offer any?
A. Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.

Contributory liability may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. A link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files.

Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a linking site, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and receiving revenue from banner ads may be evidence of a financial benefit.



Q. What is the relationship between digital download devices (such as the Rio) and the Audio Home Recording Act? Didn’t the RIAA lose that court case?
A. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 covers devices designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings and provides these devices, and their manufacturers, with some protection from contributory copyright infringement claims. The RIAA recently settled its case against Diamond Rio on this issue, but the outcome of this proceeding does not impact the rights of copyright holders to protect their music.

When digital recording devices such as the DAT and Minidisc became available to the public, consumers had for the first time the means to make very high quality recordings of the music in their collections, and to make copies of those copies with virtually no decrease in sound quality. To compensate for the fact that some level of piracy would result, and to provide the manufacturers and consumers immunity from a contributory copyright infringement liability suit, the AHRA required manufacturers of digital recording devices and media (such as DAT tapes) to: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty (to the copyright holder or artist) on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial copy management technology which prevents the copying of copies. To learn more about the royalty system of the AHRA, see the section on AARC.

When digital download devices (such as Diamond’s Rio player) were introduced, the RIAA felt they should be considered digital recording devices under the AHRA. This finding would make them subject to the same laws – and would also provide them with the same protection from contributory copyright infringement liability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that, since these devices were considered to be computer peripherals, that made them multipurpose devices (such as general computers and CD-Rom drives), which are not covered by the AHRA. This means that manufacturers are not required to pay royalties or incorporate serial copyright management technology protections. However, it also means that neither the device manufacturers nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from a suit for copyright infringement.


Q. Does the RIAA want to make MP3s illegal?
A. No. MP3 is simply a compression technology. Its use has had a very positive impact in terms of allowing the music industry to discover consumer interest in online music. At the same time, the RIAA has had some concern with this technology, arising from the fact that it can be used to distribute pirated copies of music. The RIAA does not endorse – or veto – the technologies that its members use to promote and distribute their recordings. Several of our members have used different formats to electronically distribute their music. MP3 is a 1992 technology and it appears likely based on current industry trends that its use will be supplanted by newer, faster, higher quality technology that also offers the ability to protect copyrights when desired.


Q. Does the RIAA want to censor the Internet?
A. The RIAA – and its members – are committed to the widespread use of the Internet as a new means for reaching music fans. The Internet offers exciting ways to do everything from helping music fans discover new artists to actually delivering that music to them. Record companies are excited about, and are actively pursuing, the vast promotional opportunities of the Internet. For more information about what RIAA members are doing online, visit Member Labels Online. At the same time, the RIAA will always be committed to fighting music piracy, whether it is online or off.


Top of Page

printing instructions

There's one imporant thing I didn't see here: What if (copyrighted) music was purposedly released on P2P networks or the Internet in general, by the artist(s) themselves? Ie., a local, unsigned band that wishes to promote its songs.

I think the question is too generic.


It should be illegal to download copyrighted works without permission but there should be a places where you can 'legally' purchase the music. The music that is obtained legally should be in such a form that the buyer can use it in any (legal) way.

For instance, if I purchase some new song that comes out over the internet, I would like the ability to play it with a player of my choice and burn it to a CD to play in my car and stereo. As far as I have seen, with the current implementation this is not possible. It appears most 'distributors' are releasing the music on the internet for sale in a proprietary format that must be played in their player.

I believe that until this is changed 'online music piracy' will continue.

On the other side, I think that for unsigned artists the internet can be an excellent way of getting their music to the public. Most people would not go out and purchase an unknown group without ever hearing the song, so using the internet to create awareness can really help.

Downloading music should be free.
But: If you are downloading copyrighted music which are sold in the stores it should be disallowed.

But why do you think so many people keep downloading?
Because they cant afford it? Yes and no.
They surely can afford to buy some CDs but keep in mind that the CDs are getting more expensive every year.

Why should I pay 15 - 20 bucks for a record I can download for free (of course there's the cost for the internet connection.)?
Whats the difference? If I buy a CD in a store I get a plastic cd box with some plastic cover which does nothing than pollute the enviroment ;)

What I want to say is that the big corporations shouldnt go sue everyone for downloading mp3s or sharing mp3s but to reconsider their publishing strategy.

Sh**
 

:( :( Sorry. I voted wrong!!!!!!!! Meant to vole NO!!! :( :(

If I buy a book, I can have every friend in the neighborhood read it, without the printing industry is coming running, screaming on top of their lungs. RIAA is a big darn bully. RIAA think that because of slumping sales, the Internet and p2p is to blame, I remember when a LP was costing $1.00-$3.00 and the sale was booming. Now the same albums is costing $10.00-$16.00, which is absurd, the album have paid is self many time over to the recording industry. And the BS RIAA is running that is to protect the artist is, as we all know BS. They do not pay the artist squat. Only artist like Rolling Stones, Michael [edit] Jackson and top artist like them, is getting paid. I download music so I can get the songs I like and not have to buy 15 CD to get the song I like, but, yes, I still buy CDs. I just wish that I could buy the album direct from the artists. Without the inflated RIAA prices!!

Have to edit... we don't want you getting sued

On this issue I sometimes feel a bit like Ash in Army of Darkness (Evil Dead 3) after he breaks the cursed mirror and his evil alter-ego splits away from him.

On the one hand, I'm a musician, I like being paid for my work and I expect to get royalties for CDs that are sold with music I've written. I feel sorry for artists who have sweated blood and tears to become successful and yet lose x% of their income through piracy.

But on the other hand, I ask myself "Which do I prefer? Paying $20 dollars or downloading it free?" Doh.....let me think..... Many connected computer users have got used to loading their P2P software and getting whatever music, film or software they want. This, whatever your attitude, is going to be a very difficult tide to turn and the big labels declaring all-out war on their potential customers is not going to help things (in fact it's going to push more people towards file-sharing). The anti-copy systems that they've spent $$ developing are a complete joke as most of them are cracked before they're even released. Proprietary formats simply aren't viable and destroying one file-sharing protocol will simply be followed by the rise of another.

My evil alter ego would also argue that the artists who most suffer from piracy also earn vast amounts of money through TV appearances, concerts, endorsements, merchandising. Their label loses more, as it takes a far bigger percentage (poor Sony, poor EMI, how I weep for them). Smaller artists can actually win because having their music widely distributed will get them more concerts, TV appearances, better recording deals etc. - considering that most independent labels do a pitiful job in promotion.

But don't listen to him. He's totally immoral.

-Buy CDs, so that the big labels can purchase their own records to give them a better chart position.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can spend $$ promoting the top artist in their catalogue while neglecting the others.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can brainwash kids into listening to annodine mush with carpet-bomb marketing.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can swallow up independent labels and make them 'commercial'.

..I could continue, but I think you probably get the point.


Possible utopian future?

- Digital distribution by internet or shop terminals to memory-card-based walkmen or portable storage units (vastly reduced production and distribution costs).
- Premium enhanced interactive editions of albums published on DVD.
- No encryption. If you can decode it to listen to it, you can copy it so there's no point.
- Promotion almost entirely on the net (reduced advertising cost).
- Resurgence of independent labels taking advantage of reduced costs who can now use net distribution to compete with bigger labels.
- Big labels forced to spread promotion budgets over their entire catalogue instead of just the top artist to compete with the range of indie music.
- Increased diversity in commercial music.
- Low price-per-download or low subscription fee to incite people to pay for a quality service with good catalogue of music with fast, secure downloads.
- Generous free downloads to whet peoples' appetites. This results in returns through concerts, movie tie-ins, merchandising, DVD sales etc.
- Macterminator becomes world-renowned producer, svengali of several popular all-girl groups.

er...yes...quite

Sounded familiar
 

I thought the original one sided post rang a bell...if someone posts something why don't they have the balls to come back and answer their original post?
Spam,propaganda? possibly...

The link,lifted from the RIAA'S FAQ.... http://www.riaa.com/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm

> Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who
> created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing
> conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for
> facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.

Flabbabbab.

You have to state, that you cannot influence, what the linked sites upload and that you take no warranty for them.

Done.

The only one responsible is the site-owner.

Top get a good and secure text for your disclaimer search for disclaimers on the web.


Addon to the future: :-)

-More regional/local and specialized artists => Downloading just shows you the song, but the artists concert is something different. That means you have more people who get paid for producing music on the stage. That means they aren't dependent on the label, only on the stages, where they play.
-Artists could play live on the web, then they can just be asked for other songs. If fifty people in a chatroom apy 1$ each, they can easily pay the artists. Jsut get the labels out and you save a hell of money.
-Paying per donate and concerts. Noone will pay 10€ for a CD, if that same CD can be downloaded, but the mp3s should contain a code with which you can pay the artist.
- A paying system, which allows you to pay with only prozentural fees in very small amounts.

Best would be to create a bank account, which takes those fees when you upload your money (IMO). In GB they have something similar iirc.
Security need not be really heavy, because they can be limited to 50$ / 50 € Accounts. Working 6 hours to crack an account just to get 50 € doesn't really pay back.

1 more thing
 

I forgot to mention,did the original spammer get permission from the RIAA to copy and paste their website?
I ask because I cannot see any permission or acknowledement given to the author(s) of the original document.

Copyright is sometimes a one way street.
Tut Tut

Well, crap
 

I read the topic and not the poll question (which are exact opposites, BTW), so I clicked on YES. If I would have read the question on the poll, I would have clicked on NO.

Yes, you're not the first one as I can see. I believe is a trick question, as the thread title is "Should downloading music really be free for everyone?", but the poll question is "Should downloading music be illegal?"

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"

Mouthpiece for RIAA!!!!!
 

I really haven't been following it too closely, since I don't use P2P to download music (well, maybe 3 copyrighted pieces a year) - but aren't they already adding a surcharge to CDs now (maybe only Audio, not sure about data)? Is this money going to the RIAA? If so, shouldn't garage bands recording their own music be perturbed at having to pay this surcharge?

And only three choices. Perhaps we should invite the Palm Beach voters up here so they can call us idiots for a while.

Yes...Downloading should always be free and legal!!!
 

I have to agree with the MacTerminator.

In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

During that height of the Napster contraversy I worked for internet radio where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...

All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, many of them expressed that a record contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that more of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.

This whole thread is just a BOT message to get statistics on how numb we are to this issue so that the record execs and all the lobbyists in their pockets can pass new legislation or create a means tax the user for this freedom.

As if these ego driven, fascist geeks weren't greedy enough already...

In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

They are so, so NOT losing any money; and if they are it's because they are not forward thinking enough to change their infrastructure around this new digital age. And by the way...Since when was downloading a degraded ***, mp3 at a bitrate of 128k - 324k so great anyway...It's nowhere near as good as the sound of a actual CD. But this point is moot because unlike the record exec, we are moving forward and the quality is getting better.

And, although I forgot to copy and paste the quote; the first answer to the first question that started this thread about sharing MP3's being 'DISTRIBUTION, NOT PROMOTION' is innacurate, when seen from a marketing perspective.

I would venture to say 'distribution AND promotion', but not the kind of distribution that they profit from.

I don't think I need to go into the obvious senario of what it means for the artist if 10 thousand users download an MP3 of their music and how well it will promote them...Even if the music does suck, someone out there will like it, because lets face it; we all have an achilles heel in our soul that likes to be tickled.

The cost of this promotion...FREE for the Artist and the Record Company Exec...A savings of maybe 250k in marketing/promotion and a loss of 200k in CD sales (only if you include downloading the whole CD at $20 a unit). Sounds like you just made 50k. Tweek on it some more and I'm sure you can find away to cut more costs and make even more. Oh, but you're already doing that by trying to squeeze us, aren't you?

And as far as 'DISTRIBUTION'; the record industry will always tell the artist that they will have to pay back the cost of distribution in a record deal and that 'distibrution' costs money...blablabla. But look what happens to the record exec when we freely share MP3's at no cost or profit to the user except for a CPU and an ISP.

The record exec wants to find a way to tax us for it, not because he's too stupid to see that this is a grand marketing oppurtunity, but because he now sees a way to screw us in both holes by saying that we are 'unauthorized distibutors' and stealing from the artist. Excuse me, but You've been stealing from the artist since there was an artist. Can you say 'PRINCE', George Michael...


Side Note:

George Michael paid 40 million to get OUT of his contract with Sony, because they were screwing him (There's a joke there, somewhere).



At the risk of speaking for all file sharers out there, I believe we are also the greedy ones feeding our melodic achelles heel, not to PROFIT, from so-called 'DISTRIBUTION', but really to SAVE our hard earned greenbacks. So, it comes as no surprise that the finger is pointed this way and also to no surprise that we all may suffer some consequence as a result of how easily we can let our conscience be steered be fingerpointing record geeks who make us out to be the bad guys who are 'STEALING' from the artist.

Dear God, save us all from the MUSIC BUISINESS.

A record exec will go to any length to keep us from realizing that, by sharing MP3's, we are doing them a great service.

During that height of the Napster contraversy I work for an internet radio company where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...

All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, most of them expressed that the contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that most of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.


Dj Dan Busch


:o

why are CD's priced so high?
 

I just wanted to bring up some other issues/thoughts. Why are CD's priced so high? Its outrageous! The consumer is getting robbed blind, and nobody seems to care. Have been for years.

Think about cassette tapes. You can get music on cassette cheap these days. $6? $7? pretty darn cheap compared to CD's.

A CD new is anywhere from $13 to $20 or more, depending on where you buy them. This is crazy. I understood CDs being priced higher when the technology was new, but its NOT new anymore. they have been around a long time now.

A new CD should cost NO MORE than $10. tax included.

I know lots of work goes into making the music on a CD. Lots of people have to get paid.

But still, the prices are too high. their is a difference between making a profit and making a killing!

perhaps if the artists want to insure that more people buy their music and THEY, the artist gets paid, they should lower the CD prices!

How many times have you paid $15 for that cd you wanted and only ONE song is good, the rest suck?

my .02 worth. :)

To give you an idea. In the studio I collaborate with, we often order 1000 copies of the demos we record - professionally printed with a 4 page , full-colour inlay - for around $1000 (ie. $1 per unit). The bands usually sell these for $5-6 which makes them a healthy profit if they sell most of them. Obviously, for more copies, the cost-per-unit will be even less.

In this case, we don't spend much on promotion. We place a couple of mp3s on the studio's and the band's web-sites and maybe have the odd poster printed. The rest is through word-of-mouth, concerts and some local TV or radio appearances. On this basis we've managed to move several thousand copies (at local and regional level). We don't even consider the possibility of air-time on national TV or Radio as this market is almost completely controlled by the big labels.

Here, mainstream CDs (not necessarily new releases) are selling for about 21 euros - and the euro has recently been at parity with the dollar. I won't bother writing what I think about this price as most of it will be turned into asterisks by vBulletin.

The only problem with this thread is that (apart from the thread-starter) we're preaching to the converted. Almost everyone who frequents this forum is a P2P user - and we all know what the main use of P2P is. Perhaps we should find an RIAA thug forum, post the same things and see what kind of reaction we get there. :rolleyes:

Im sure they are taking plenty of time to read what's here, but you may have a point. Remember though...these guys are well perpared to take it on.

-d

Morality is a TWO way street
 

It is such a shame when the self righteous critics of mp3 downloading can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs.

The fact of the matter is the the RIAA has made the bed that it lays in a reaps the harvest of the seeds they have planted. Enough is enough, they have no compassion for the artist whatsoever and their highest priority is their bottom line. I can't blame them completely, since businesses are in business to make money but it is how you choose to do so that is most important.

I am hoping we can hear from the original poser er.. poster in his OWN words...........

Should we really hold our breath ?

Re: Morality is a TWO way street
 

Read up on downloading at MusicUnited.org
 

Whether you agree that music downloading is right or wrong, you should be aware of the consequence of your actions. Lots of information on this at:

http://www.musicunited.org

If the record industry would realize that times are changing and with new technologies comes the change in how business should be done to meet the bottom line and compensate artists for their hard work and labor.

P2P is the technology of the future for exchanging information quickly and efficiently between people in a day and age where information is needed on the fly and time is of the essence. The only way to eliminate this and other future advancements of technology and use net is by firmer laws controlling use of the internet. I hope not!

The music industry should adapt to the changing ways of our nation and create a P2P service that allows them and the artists to get paid for their work, but allows technology and the net to become a way of the future. Music available at your fingertips by a pay per download format. I for one would gladly pay for this service and I am sure opthers would follow suit.
The shame is that the RIAA had a tremendous format in Napster yet the pushed them underwater til they drowned so they could aviod the inevitable changes that these new worldwide technologies have brought to the table.
Imagine the avenues and opportunities that worldwide paid downloads would open for the RIAA and the Artists whose work may never be heard.

"Times a changin''........

Time for the RIAA to realize this and conform the way they do business!
Their old fashion greedy mentality is all that keeps this change from becoming a reality.

Just had to post a few links, sort of big picture stuff. The first one is from a recent column in InfoWorld:

The Gripe Line (Ed Foster): An Uphill Battle

"It's almost a bad joke to see how many bills to deprive consumers of digital products their rights were introduced in Congress this year..."

This article starts off talking about software, but stick with it. It goes into the efforts to get laws passed that will allow hacking the computers of P2P users. Corporate vigilante justice, enshrined as law. If they pull this off, any thinking person will shudder. This could be nothing less than the first move by corporations to take over the police powers of the state.

This link is to a recent John Dvorak article in PC Magazine.

One Buck Forty Or Die

He finsihes it up with this gem:
"The U.S. government should not be corrupted by the Recording Industry Association of America and should instead do more about (CD) price fixing. And let's stop lecturing people about legality and morality. Students in particular are not moral reprobates, nor are they fools. They are pragmatists, and they stretch the rules along with their budgets... Give up. Rethink your business model. The problem will be solved."

This article generated so much discussion on the PC Magazine Forums that he posted this follow-up:

When Is Stealing Not Stealing?

I don't always agree with him, but he's definitely asking the right questions in these articles.

As for Empire895 who laments that the opposition "can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs," I can only ask you this:

Have you ever worked for a big corporation?

There's a corporate goal, and everyone is expected to pursue it Nobody likes someone who brings up contrary ideas. Nobody's interested in opening a "dialog". Forget "reasoning" and if you have "beliefs" that differ from the corporate misson, leave 'em at home. Your job is to carry out orders that have been handed down from the top of the chain of command. If you don't do this, you're not a "team player".

RIAA has a mandate is to agressively eliminate, by any means possible, the threats to the continued AND CONTINUALLY EXPANDING profitability of the recording industry.

Corporations grow or they die. They don't want a smaller slice of the pie, no matter how greedy they've been in the past. That's called reduced earnings, and stockholders don't like it. And taking a short term loss for a long term gain is unacceptable. You're expected to have a short-term gain and a long term gain.

So the strategy is: fight like hell against any innovation that takes money out of their pocket in the short term, but lay the groundwork to profit from that innovation in the long term. That's what all these proposed laws are about. Once you can't buy a PC, a Mac, a Walkman or a PDA that doesn't have copy-protection hardwired in, RIAA will toss it's campaign against P2P like a used Big Mac wrapper.

The sad part is, by the time their plan is all sewn up, we will all have lost a lot of our legitimate rights. And they'll still be charging too much for music and screwing over artistis.

The poll is a SCAM
 

They obviously rigged the poll by stating the real question in bold, then restating using the antithesis for the poll.

That was a dirty trick, hoping that most of us wouldn't take notice until after posting our opinion. I, too, erroneously posted 'yes' when I actually support the 'no' answer.

On that note, I have personally been involved in the music industry for many years. I have close friends that have had #1 hits all over the globe. Literally. What have they got to show for it? Not as much as you would like to believe. Then where did the money go? To the record companies and their executives ~ NEVER to the artists.

There are so many examples to choose from. Look at Toni Braxton and her filing for bankruptcy not too long ago. She claimed her record company refused to pay for her promotional expenses (advertising) and even her concerts. The majority of the money she made went right back into keeping her career alive ... while the record company laughed all the way to the bank. If that were not the case, how can these companies afford to pay Mariah Carey all that money just to quit?! Plus, CD's cost the record company about $1.00 USD to manufacture. Guess again if you think the artist got the balance from what you and I paid for the same CD.

So, as a fellow artist, copy away people. Share and share alike. Let's face it, the public is always going to find a way to share music and files, so why bother fighting it. Just like when they invented the bullet-proof vest, someone invented the armor-piercing bullet.

We, the people, have to be careful as to downloading "new and improved" CD sharing & burning software. Before doing so, try to ensure the product hasn't fallen into the hands of the people trying to banish music sharing. Otherwise, you may find your favorite software no longer functions in this capacity. A simple rule of thumb: if your software 'aint broke, don't replace it.

Be aware of what your digital rights management (DRM) software is doing.

Once there was only live music, and the issue of who owned the sound after the artist produced it did not exist.

An accident of late 19th century technology (Edison) created the recorded music industry. The legal right to record music was established by judicial fiat at that time. Freelancers, commonly derogated as bootleggers, not allowed. Our right to record the music of our choice was legally stolen from us.

An accident of late 20th century technology (Napster) gave us the ability to share our recorded music over the internet. Our legal right to do this has been stolen from us in the last year in the process of destroying Napster, again by judicial fiat.

The original copyright law established by Congress ran for 14 years. It has been increased a number of times, is now 56 years and there is constant pressure to lengthen it more.

Most of us are paid just once for the work we do. Copyright holders are paid again and again for the same piece of work.

The CD industry is one of the most profitable there is. CDs retail at $15 - $20, while al its production and promotion costs average less than $3. And now we find we do not own our CDs, we are merely renting them.

Capitalism does not sell goods at cost + a modest profit, it sells them for what the market will bear. A $17 profit on a $3 investment is the moral equivalent of selling heroin. If people will pay so much more than the cost of production, the purchase is not rational, it is compulsive.

Not only should we share our music across the internet, WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO DESTROY THIS CORRUPT AND RAPACIOUS RECORDED MUSIC INDUSTRY. And file shaqring is the means.

I've just got a couple things to add to the mix. Firstly, I remember the same type of discussion when cassette recorders first became popular, the recording industry was going to go broke. DJs had to speak over the first portion of the song, making clean recordings impossible. Well, the recording industry is still here. Now we're having the same discussion. Granted, mp3s have a greater impact, but as the world changes (improves) so must the recording industry. Yes all buisnesses have the right to profit and make money, but you should not be able to legislate profits. It is a difficult situation, the recording industry supports the artists and "nurtures" them, making it possible for them to make music (blehk). Than they lay claim to the music, they own it and can sell it. This may sound far fetched, but could you be sued for walking down the street singing a song? I draw the line at profit. If you are not attempting to make a profit with someone elses music, it's probably not a crime. Granted, "make a profit" can also be interpreted other ways. If you save 20.00 by downloading a song, have you made a profit? Well thats food for thought.

Second, and my biggest gripe. Have you ever tried to replace a damaged CD? Music, software or otherwise, it aint happening. If you want to have your CD back you pay full price. With software, you can have the damaged original, be willing to send it back, be willing to pay for cost to the manufacturer. No deal, if you want it, you pay full price.

Well, sorry for being longwinded. This is a very new, very grey area (in my mind) and this type of forum cannot do it justice. Just my two cents, thanks for your patience.