Downloading Music: Where do you find yours? Is P2P wrong?

[Modem Butterfly]

A couple of years ago, I got a Sony Minidisc Walkman for my birthday. I loaded all kinds of music onto it, both from my legal collection of CDs and from an illegal file sharing service. Lately, I've been thinking of upgrading to a HD device, probably the latest version of Nomad, the Zen by Creative, which has 30 Gigs and can hold many thousands of more songs than I currently have. Which means, of course, more downloading.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on downloading music. Do you do it? Where do you find it? Do you pay for it or do you get it from a P2P service?

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I'm an iPodder (and use iTunes for music management)...

P2P music swapping is wrong, IMHO...

[cdb]

6. It isn't wrong....

First, I buy, say, Abbey Road on vinyl. In 1970 or so... then I record it to cassette for my car in 1975 or so... I already own the music, since I paid for it. I should be able to download it to play on my computer, mp3 player, or burn it to a CD if I want, to play it whenever and wherever I want. I bought it a long time ago... and I do not feel compelled to buy it over and over again, when the music industry or technologists create a new format. Minidisc, mps, Ogg Vorbis, whatever.

[tx_dem41]

19. Yep, just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

If you buy a book once, do you feel like you can shoplift the same book title from the bookstore whenever any new edition comes out?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Wrong analogy. Try "digitizing it with a scanner".

But you, of course, are already aware of that.

[WillowTree]

49. Here's the problem with *your* analogy.

If I buy a book and I want a copy of it, or portions of it, for my own use, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with making a copy via copy machine or scanner. I'm also entirely within my rights to lend the book in its entirety to a friend to read. I have no right, however, to make copies of that book to either sell or give away to others so that they can have their own copy to read and keep without him/her having to purchase it and reimburse those who produced it and those whose intellectual property it is.

It's the same deal with music. I've taken to making copies of my CDs that I want to use in the car because too much can happen to them there (theft, heat, cold etc) and I keep the originals in the house to use there. I have no right, however, to make copies of my CDs to swap with my friends for copies of CDs that they've purchased that I might want so that we each manage to get "two for the price of one". That is, for all intents and purposes, what stealing music via Kazaa etc is.

If you want the Abby Road music that you purchased back in the '70s to play in your CD player or your MP3 player, get the necessary equipment and software to load it into your PC and convert it to the format that you want. That's what that equipment and software is for.

Oh, and just for fun, try looking up "copyright infringement". The first reference under "copyright infringement" in my copy of The Original Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases is "literary theft". Words, apparently, don't twist as easily as you would like.

The mental (not to mention ethical) machinations people will work in order to convince themselves that the dishonest things that they do aren't really dishonest never cease to amaze me.

[tx_dem41]

51. Mind explaining your distinction?

And you can drop the "new edition" from my analogy and add "same edition". It doesnt matter to me.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. See post #14

Also, ask the bookstore owner which of the two he'd rather happen. You'll be surprised to find s/he'll consider shoplifting to be WAY worse.

[tx_dem41]

Okay...I read it. So you admit its illegal.

That's all I was looking for.

[cdb]

31. Nope, because a new edition may have a different cover, typeface or intro

But I refuse to pay for the SAME THING over and over again. As far as I am concerned, if I digitize my vinyl or download it, it's the same track from the same album. And I already paid for it.

[BurtWorm]

39. I agree if YOU digitize it, but if you download someone else's

digitization, isn't it something different? If you put your digitization online for others to download, though, I am agnostic on what the harm in that is as long as you are not profiting from it. I'm trying to imagine what the real harm in that is, except that the person who created it is prevented from collecting royalties from people who are not paying into the royalty trust system but getting their works anyway.

I'm really agnostic on the issue of intellectual property. Part of me thinks IP is an incursion of capitalism into an area where it really doesn't belong (the commons of culture), but I like the idea that certain geniuses who weren't appreciated in their time might get rich if a later period discovers them, whether via another artist's reproduction of their work (i.e., a cover of an old song) or a new medium for delivery of their original art works (i.e., a CD of an old vinyl record).

[mattclearing]

96. I am agnostic on the issue of intellectual property too, as you say.

If the point of IP is to make money from art and literature and turn cinema, music, and books into property that can be leveraged for financial gain, I think the market is evening that out.

Digitization is the great equalizer. One beauty of p2p is that artists that tour are relatively unscathed, but shitty pop artists that don't (or can't) perform live are punished accordingly, because their main revenue stream (album sales) are depressed.

Also, the democratization of information that results from digitization is a big leap for self-expression. Anyone can record an album, burn it, and print out professional quality liner notes, all with your standard PC or Mac and a color printer.

The Internet guarantees a greater possible audience for independent artists, and should herald the destruction of the major media cartels in the long run.

The legislation that is continually being proposed to deal with this sort of thing is terribly dangerous...most seem to do away with the fair use standard, which would enable corporations to charge royalties for citations in academic work.

I can't imagine having to pay money to write a paper.

Anyways, I digress...

[tx_dem41]

52. So you could go into the record store and just shoplift that same..

vinyl albumn? No problem with that?

[UdoKier]

74. Bad analogy. Then the bookseller loses the physical book.

We are talking strictly about intellectual property. The record industry fat cats don't lose any physical inventory, and their sales have been flat, but have not plummeted, despite their sky-high prices. iTunes is a great innovation for people to download "legally" for the first time, but I agree about tracks you already own in other formats. You already own the intellectual property, why should you feel bad about getting the same track in another format, from a person who has mutually consented to swap with you?

[tx_dem41]

77. All this dismissal of intellectual property, most owned by people...

that make very little money, sounds like it belongs on a fundie board, not at DU.

[UdoKier]

80. What on earth are you talking about?

What does this have to do with religion?

Have you just run out of arguments or something? I don't defend downloading tracks you've never paid for....

[tx_dem41]

82. But you do defend the raping of intellectual property...

the majority of it which is owned by people who don't make millions (or even several thousands) off of it.

Oh, and I guess I should have said "freeper" board.

[UdoKier]

83. No. I just think that once you've bought it, it's YOURS.

Why do you want people to pay AGAIN for the same intellectual property that they already paid for on LP, and maybe even again on cassette?

If you're talking about the underpaid artists (as opposed to the overpaid record companies) - they've ALREADY MADE their cut from me, the FIRST time I bought the record.

[tx_dem41]

88. Well, at least, you might have a day in court on that defense.

Well, perhaps a second or two. My advice to you: Keep your receipts.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

128. Wow. Not over-the-top in the least, aren't we?

What's next, "Artist Holocaust?"

[tx_dem41]

133. I guess it depends on your perspective.

Whether you are the creator or the thief.

Thanks for the new pejorative term by the way. :-)

[kcwayne]

20. You are legally able to listen to your music and copy it

But when you download music from other sources, it is not your music, and you have no rights to it.

If you want to digitally encode your tunes off the vinyl that you purchased in 1970, have at it, you are within your rights. But you have no more rights to music encoded or distributed that you have not paid for than you have to hop into the same model car that you own, where ever you happen to see it.

[Renew Deal]

29. That's not P2P file swapping.

You're not giving it or a copy of it away to anyone while keeping a copy for yourself. That's when it's wrong.

[Occulus]

41. Is it theft when

I pull it out of the air in a wi-fi hotspot?

After all, the legit copy is traveling over the airwaves in and around your home is you're using wireless. If your home isn't shielded, I can sit on the curb- on public property- and download your song from the airwaves around your house. Said airwaves are also public property.

Am I missing something here, or does the use of wireless technology enter copyrighted information onto public property if the user is unaware of the fact that their signals can 'leak'?

(It would take a bit of effort to do so, but I've seen it done on TechTV. Two guys drove down a major financial district somewhere and ripped account numbers, balances, and so forth right out of the air. It was amazing, and the legal implications are interesting to say the least.)

[tx_dem41]

53. The "legal" implications might be interesting....the "moral" ..

implications are quite simple, actually.

[Occulus]

54. Very.

If it's on the public airwaves, how is taking it 'immoral'?

Is some information available to the public 'immoral' to simply obtain?

That's news to me.

[WillowTree]

63. You're confusing...

....what you are able to do with what it is honest and ethical to do. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right for you to do it.

[WLKjr]

2. Sometimes I can't find what I am looking for and can only find it on P2P

Other than that, I used to download a lot of stuff over p2p, but when iTunes came out, I started buying them. I am an iTuner now and recommend it to anyone who asks me about music at work.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neecy]

4. Done both...

If there's something I like, I buy it, either on CD or on a pay d/l. I think you should support the artists you enjoy, and not screw them with P2P.

That said, I'll admit that I occasionally browse Shareaza, and I've downloaded perhaps five or six tracks that are so obscure I can't find them elsewhere.

[ThreeCatNight]

5. My advise....Newsgroups

Check with your ISP and see if they support news groups. Tons more music than a P2P, plus not waiting time, and speeds as fast as your connection.
Plus access to movies, games, warez etc.

[Occulus]

8. And the hysterical part is

Newsgroups have been around for FAR longer than P2P/"Filesharing" application, and it was never noticed and still has not been puiblicly condemned as a threat by the MPAA, the RIAA, and other organizations.

The same is true for the sharing channels on IRC. The only difference? Fewer people know how to use them because they require a bare minimum of technical skill.

On newsgroups, the information cannot even be used as posted; it must be assembled by the end user. I wonder what the legalities of that might be; after all, copyright is copyright. But then if you look here:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt

You find at the link
Posted on this forum now,
DVD encryption.

It is a haiku,
From its start until its end,
And so legal is.

First Amendment Rights!
These are what allow me to
Link to this haiku.

[callous taoboy]

65. What is warez?

[iconoclastNYC]

107. Warez=anything you should buy

but you copy instead, applications, games, porn, music, videos.....

[ikri]

7. A lot of music I like can't be found elsewhere

A lot of the music that I enjoy simply never gets radio or TV air time. It is rare to find CDs available in the stores too.

I've often searched for a song or an artist who's music I enjoy and found myself looking that the collections of the people who have those songs. I've often downloaded a song I've never heard of & discovered that I enjoy it.

Doing this has led me to purchasing the albums.

With radio stations, in the UK at least, playing virtually nothing but the latest boy-band garbage it is hard to hear new music any other ways.

In some cases I even discovered that the bands themselves are so sick of the lack of air time that they are willing to make their songs available freely online just to get them heard.

The music industry is complaining madly about how sales are suffering due to P2P networks. Unfortunately, again here in the UK at least, they're lying through their teeth - UK music sees record album sales

I have every sympathy for the musicians who are being hurt by all this. But often they're being hurt by the music industry NOT by the P2P networks.

[KharmaTrain]

10. P2Ps Have Saved A Lot Of Music

Thanks to the boom of Napster then Kazaa and others, a lot of great old music...recordings the record companies hadn't released in decades...started becoming available...

Some of these tunes were over 50 years old and now can shead a new light on lots of amazing and truly revolutionary performers and songs. There's a ton of old R & B and Top 40 that has been restored and, just like movies, have been saved and can be passed on to inspire future musicians.

Frankly, having worked in radio and with the record companies, I have little sympathies for them, since for decades they monopolized the distribution and production of popular music and made it very difficult for alternative sounds to be heard. We now have many sources of sounds to choose from and it's thanks to the computer networking of many fans and collectors who were able to bypass the filter of profitability and control set up by the large record companies.

You're not hearing them cry poor these days...I guess sales of J-Lo or the flavor of the moment is up. It also started them to work with the digital world, not against it. So on balance, I don't think Peer to Peer was/is such a bad thing.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. That's a good point

I will probably always use P2P for the really rare stuff. But I'd rather pay for a copy that I know is clean and legal. But if all else fails...

[Redstone]

9. Do you steal books too? How about paintings?

If you buy a CD, I believe it's fair use to re-record it for your own use in whatever format you want to. You should not have to pay more than once. Absolutely.

However. If you just download it, or get it via P2P, without paying anything, it's theft, pure and simple.

I used to be a songwriter, and God damn it, those songs are my property. I worked to make them, and nobody has a right to use my property without paying for it!

If you were a farmer, would you think it was OK for people to stop beside the road next to your field and just take your crops that you worked to raise?

If you were a painter, would you think it's OK for people to upload a high-resolution scan of one of your paintings, so others could download it and print it on their printers, instead of buying a lithograph that you make a profit on?

Do you work for free? No? Then why would you think songwriters should? Songwriters get paid royalties only on recorded copies of their songs, so the bullshit argument that "well, performers can make their money on concerts if everyone just steals their songs" applies even less.

Redstone

[Occulus]

13. My response:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt .

You can't stop this, man. You can't. No one can. It's like screaming into the wind.

I would suggest you alter your definition of "theft". No one's stealing anything here; the work product is still available by its ownder to be sold.

By the logic of some who support the RIAA, if I sing a popular song to a group of friends, it's considered a "public performance". What if I decide to belt out some popular song a capella on the street corner and someone tips me a couple bills- is that "theft" by your definition?

Suppose I memorize a whole book, line for line, and tell it out from memory to a class- have I "stolen" the book?

If there were a technology that forced everyone who heard a song played on radio to instantly forget the song they just heard, would you be against something that would defeat the memory erasure? It sounds ridiculous, but then, nobody would have thought fifteen years ago that we would seriously consider hardware put into computers that would force them to be unable to copy some information. We all would have said it defeats the purpose of computing, harms 1A rights, etc.

How far will we let them go before we start saying "you people make too bloody much money for the tripe you produce"? I've had a general boycott in place of ALL RIAA members for about a decade- I refuse to even listen to the radio, will not watch MTv, and haven't bought a single CD in all that time.

Ten years. I've sat and watched them all whine louder and louder while at the same time posting record sales. The only people who actually believe P2P "harms" the music industry are the ones who have swallowed the industry line.

For my part, I'd like to see a "hard limit" on copyright of not more than seven years, after which all copyrighted information, including computer software, becomes public domain by default.

I'd also like to point out that, for all practical purposes, everything on the internet is also default public domain material, whether officially proclaimed as such or not and whether legally made so or not. Once it's online, you can't get rid of it.

Online material is online for good, and the RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of whiners. May they both crumble and fall apart in spetacular public fashion.

And by the way: I'm a composer and have been since I was thirteen years old. Once you perform something for any person, even one, you are giving it away with your blessing, regardless of what the law says about it. If you don't want there to be potential for others to use your work in their own or for themselves, don't perform it and don't publish it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. If I steal a book or a painting...

...the previous owner of the book/painting (not to mention the general public if from a library or museum) doesn't have it anymore.

The only way I can think of "stealing music" is shoplifting CDs.

Unauthorized copying IS a violation of the law, but a different one - it's called copyright violation (duh). Calling it theft is just a disingenious way of adding oomph to one's rhetoric.

[Redstone]

16. Split hairs all you want,

using someone else's property (real or intellectual) is illegal. Simple theft, copyright violation, trespass to chattels, call it whatever you want to justfy it, I don't care.

Furthermore, it's immoral. I though we "Democrats and liberals" or however it is that we describe ourselves in this group had a little more respect for other people than that.

I thought we were supposed to be the good guys, who try to do what's right.

I'm damn disappointed.

Redstone

[Occulus]

17. Wrong there.

"using someone else's property (real or intellectual) is illegal."

Incorrect. I can use a small quote of your material to educate, inform, or entertain without your knowledge or your permission. That is called "fair use", and it's why, for example, The Daily Show can get away with showing news clips from other networks.

"Furthermore, it's immoral."

Are the "weird Al" parodies immoral? No. Yet, they would not exist without the original copyrighted work.

We are the good guys, which is why we recognise that copyright as we know and practice it today is a pile of steaming mutes. The US copyright laws are what are immoral- how long is it, again, that a work can be copyrighted? Even after the original author is dead, the family or corporation of the owner can extend, and re-extend, and extend again, their copyright, keeping it forever out of the realm of the public domain.

That's what's immoral. Not the fight against it.

PS: It's interesting, isn't it, that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to run out, Congress extends the time period copyright is granted?

Immoral indeed....

[drbtg1]

23. Not just The Daily Show. The movie Outfoxed as well

Of course, if Outfoxed was as successful as F911, I think we'd see another copyright law change.

Weild Al's stuff is considered parody, specifically protected under copyright law.

As far as Mickey Mouse goes, I thought copyright law was changed about 25 years ago, from 26 years (renewable for another 26 years, then becoming public domain) to "creator's" life plus 50 years while adding a provision for a creator (or heirs) to take back copyright from a company after 52 years if the copyrighted work was not done under "work made for hire" rules and the copyrighted work was made during the original 26+26 law (a provision we'd never see today). Has there been another significant copyright law change since then?

[Occulus]

33. I think there was

I think it was buried somewhere in the DMCA. Last I heard, it was effectively something between 78 and 90 years, but I could be very wrong on that.

It's all so bloody murky. Clarity and copyright law aren't particularly close friends....

[drbtg1]

43. Wow, I'm very surprised to hear that

If that was put into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998(which I thought was mainly for the protection of copyright holders against illegal distribution in an increasingly electronically connected world), that would theoretically put a limit when before there realistically wasn't one.

When I wrote "creator's" life plus 50 years, I put creator's in quotes to signify that it could be a person OR an entity (P.C., S-Corp, L.L.C., whatever). That entity's life could go on forever, never reaching the 50 year addition. In essence, an eternal copyright, much more than 78 to 90 years.

I just can't see a Republican Congress in 1998 doing that, but I guess I'll have to take a closer look at the Act.

[Occulus]

47. I think you're right, actually...

except, didn't the DMCA affect all copyrighted works, not just digital ones?

And thanks for correcting me by pointing out that current copyright law is effectively eternal as far as we are concerned. By the time Mickey Mouse enters the public domain we will all be dead, and that is a greater wrong.

Copyright law will change, by consent or by force. Force, here, shall constitute filesharing and the like; those 'battle lines' have been very clearly drawn. When the jpublic becomes unable to transfer their .mp3s to their players, or their favorite TV shows to their hard drives, there will be a response, and that response will, under the law, be illegal (hackin of DMA chipsets, for example, or use of older machines without those chipsets).

[drbtg1]

127. IIRC, it would affect all copyrighted works, but...

it was in the manner in which it affected the works that was primarily in the digital world. DMCA, I think, basically gives the US approval to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)treaties but also tacked on other related provisions, such as outlawing cracking copy protection methods (i.e. macrovision, css) and forcing internet stream broadcasters to pay royality fees (in a manner similar to how radio staions pay royalties for broadcasting songs). So yes, DMCA affected all works, but in a limited manner. I think it still preserves "fair use" though.

As far as the public's right to mp3 player use, I don't think it will change because of us directly. It will change due to the influence of market forces. Software versus hardware. Disney versus Sony redux. Yes, the battle lines are drawn, but you and I are in Switzerland for that battle.

[Ron Green]

40. I think it's right to pay for what you take. If you're not able to create

your own music, then you ought to support whatever system that fairly compensates those who do create it. A dollar for a single tune is not unreasonable. The idea that just because we CAN get something without paying then we SHOULD do that, goes against a kind of social trust that members of DU seem to generally support.

[Occulus]

45. Yet that is precisely what the public domain is for.

Uncopyrighted works, or works whose copyright has 'run out', are the public domain. They are there to be freely used by all, at no cost, and we even have a mechanism in the law that allows that to happen over a given period of time by default.

What I'm arguing is that the current length of time- decades, if we are to accept what these laws say- is odiously ridiculous, in such an astonishingly obvious and destructive fashion that I'm stunned more people here and elsewhere don't yet get it. Our copyrights are too long, too restrictive, and in the end simply commercializes and controls culture, rather than contributing to it.

We reap what we sow; look at television and radio. The same type of tripe that sells instead of truly artistic works: notice, there are no 'masters' anymore. We dot not have a Bach, a Beethoven, a Michelangelo; we have things that sell.

I'm here to blame copyright law, not to extoll upon its virtue. As it is written, it has little or none.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Get off that high horse

Disagreeing with the law is a prerogative of any democracy.

And I didn't even disagree with any law in that post -- I just clarified its meaning (what you laughably call "splitting hairs")

Sorry to have pissed on your propaganda. No, wait, I'm not.

[Occulus]

100. And so I give you this:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280

Make of all of it what you will.

[datasuspect]

25. and it is moralizing bombast too . . . .

[Redstone]

34. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

How about answering a simple question: Should people be paid for the work they do, or not?

No more "RIAA" arguments. No more "It's us against the System" arguments.

I'm not talking about the fucking "system," I'm talking about real people who do real work.

Should they get paid for their work, or not?

Redstone

[datasuspect]

38. no one said life was fair

but painting things with a legalistic moralizing brush accomplishes nothing either.

i'm sympathetic with the artist (for many people the appellation "artist" is simply wishful thinking anyway).

we're not talking about the dude or dudette who pens songs about his heartbreak, thoughts, etc. who plays at the coffeehouse or bar - they usually have a day job anyway and would probably just play to get exposure (often with minimal or NO payment). shit, i've seen people give away cd's just to generate buzz.

no.

sorry, i feel ZERO sympathy for multinational corporations.

plus, i think of it as "music liberation."

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

111. put your brush down

and don't paint me with it.

and don't even try to pull the freep card with me.

we disagree.

funny how you can deduce disdain for the working class from an unemployed WORKER.

weird weird weird.

[tx_dem41]

118. No, with that piece of news, I would say...

"sad sad sad".

BTW, I sincerely wish you luck on finding a job. I've been there. And, who knows, I might be there again. We might disagree on this, but I wish you the best.

[datasuspect]

113. and btw

i don't believe in moral absolutes.

i think that kind of thinking would be quite fitting on another type of board.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. That wasn't the argument in THIS chain of posts.

It was whether copyright violation is THEFT or not.

And the answer to that is NO. The use of the word "theft" is just bombastic rhetoric.

[yodermon]

110. waah.

Nice indictment of Capitalism you wrote, there. *That's* where your beef should be.

:nopity:

[tx_dem41]

119. Please explain. n/t

[mondo joe]

11. P2P music sharing is wrong. But adult videos however....

;-)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. I'd pay one dollar - no, two - for this song in MP3 format. Tell me where.

The A's - "Woman's Got The Power".

Can't find it anywhere. There are a few one-hit-wonders which are part of my teenage and twenties soundtrack I'd like to have again. Why isn't there a custom-CD service where you click on the songs you want, hear snippets of it and have a CD delivered to your home? Or just a download link.

Oh, and by the way: No DRM crap, thanks.

[Occulus]

15. DRM: Why do you think I'm keeping all my old computers? ;)

[tx_dem41]

21. Wow, lots of people on here able to rationalize something...

that is clearly illegal, and in many cases taking money away from working artists. Is this what being "liberal" is all about? Because, if you think it is, let me tell you...it's not.

[Occulus]

37. Actually

I'm all for artists being able to make money on their works. I just don't think they should keep the current generation from freely enjoying the work itself, which after being produced has an independent life of its own. It succeeds or fails on its own merit- at least, it's supposed to.

When you have big media companies engaging in payola to make the music popular, the question must be asked whether the music itself has any intrinsic value. After all, if it did, the companies wouldn't need to engage in payola to popularize a work; the work would stand on its own.

We need to revisit copyright law and rewrite it so all the public can be protected by it- both by being able to profit from a work, and being able to freely enjoy it when its copyright runs out.

As things stand, copyright never really runs out. If a movie was made fifty years ago, or forty, or even thirty, its marketable value as itself is questionable. My argument is that that should never be a question- producers of copyrighted works, including computer software, should only be allowed a very limited time in which to profit from the work, after which anyone may freely enjoy it.

Note the above does not actually prevent the producer of the work from further profiting from what they created; it merely allows the public free access to it, for use (including derivative works, and for software, this means source code as well) and enjoyment. That's at the heart of the public domain and 'fair use', and too many people here- supposed 'liberals' all- are willing to allow those two concepts to be undermined in the name of private profit.

When I put it that way, it sounds all too familiar a behavior, doesn't it?

[tx_dem41]

48. "Private profit" is not...

an illiberal idea in my opinion.

[Occulus]

57. we're not talking about eliminating that.

We're not talking about getting rid of the right to exclusive profits; we're discussing putting a time limit on the ability to make profit exclusively. I do think creators of works should have a copyright of some sort; however, I also feel that with society and culture moving as quickly as they do today there needs to be a limit upon copyright length which reflects this.

Seven to ten years is about all I'm willing to concede. If you can't make money all on your own on a work you created in that period of time, perhaps you shouldn't have an exclusive right to try for longer than that.

Let someone else try. That's what the concept of the public domain is for.

[tx_dem41]

60. Then you shouldn't put the cart before the horse...

and violate the copyright laws BEFORE getting them changed. At least we agree on that.

[Occulus]

104. See my post #103, I think it was.

What you're saying isn't necessarily the way it needs to be done to be effective.

[gollygee]

22. I buy my songs of itunes

I think $1 is a reasonable amount to ask for the songs.

[Modem Butterfly]

24. I do, too, but I'm not interested in getting an iPod

I think they are comparable, or even better, products out there for less $$.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. See post #12. Can you help me there? (nt)

[gollygee]

32. I think with itunes

You can select a song, and go to the option "advanced" and choose to convert it to an MP3.

You can also choose to burn your songs as MP3s onto CDs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Can I look up the availability of a particular song without subscribing?

And if not, could you look up that song for me? Just to see if they have it?

[gollygee]

135. You can get itunes without subscribing or anything

but yeah I can look up a song for you.

[gollygee]

136. I did a little more research

about converting the files to mp3s. It is more work than I thought. I found directions here: http://www.winterburn.us/content.php?article.10

It might be too much work . . . ?

[benburch]

30. I buy mine from the iTunes store

With the exception of long out of print music, it is indeed wrong to use a P2P network to acquire music you do not own a copy of. If you own the vinyl, however, or a cassette, the situation is different, with the copy you receive from P2P being still licensed under the original purchase.

Note that you can get in a LOT of trouble not for downloading the music, but for SHARING it!

[New Democrat]

35. I really don't care if it wrong or not.

I still do it anyways. Why pay for music when you can get it for free. Its not like you are stealing in the traditional sense. I am a college
student. I have better things to do than give the rich fat cats a few
pennies. But my real problem is software, particularry microsoft software. Big Bill wants 200 dollars for Microsoft Office. I tell him to go fuck himself I got it pirated. He wants 1000 dollars for visual studio.net. Hey bill you can go shove that money up your ass.

As you can tell I am a big supporter of piracy, and I don't care if it is legal or not.

[tx_dem41]

50. Well, as long as you acknowledge that its illegal...just don't

come whining to us when you get the subpoena.

[Bluebear]

58. "Its not like you are stealing in the traditional sense."

oooooookie dokie. Whatever floats your boat but I didn't know there was a "new improved" way of stealing that is accepted!

[New Democrat]

61. It isnt.

When you steal, you are taking something away. When I download music, I am not taking something away from someone. They still have there music. If I stole in the traditional sense, someone else would have to be deprived of their property.

[WillowTree]

64. I'm anxiously awaiting your graduation.

Then, I presume, you will labor to produce whatever you produce and you will give it all away for free, keeping a copy for yourself, of course. What a boon that will be for all those who are in need of the products and/or services that your hard work will produce!

You, of course, will be penniless, but that will be your problem.

You're stealing. Yes, in the traditional sense. You're stealing the legitimate profits of those who produce the music and software that you seem to think you have some sort of God-given right to have for free. If you accept money for your own work in the future, it will be pure hypocrisy.

[New Democrat]

67. LOL

you have to relize that the majority of the money is not going toward the artists. It is going to the fat cats in charge. Maybe some day I'll mail a check to the guys I've "stolen" music from as long as they dont already have millions of dollars already. And after I get my degree, I am planning on giving at least 20 percent of my money to charity after all i wont need it. I already give plenty of money to charity and volunteer a lot. I just want a 2 bedroom house and a decent car, thats all I need. Maybe what i do you consider to be hypocritical but I really dont care.


But there is no way in hell I will ever pay 1000 dollars for a peice of software. That is a complete ripoff.

[WillowTree]

72. What a proper little Robin Hood!

Apparently you think it's OK to steal from those who have become rich from their labors so long as you give what you think is appropriate to those you deem to be deserving.

Still, I'd be interested to hear how you feel about it when people steal the fruits of your labors.

And, by the way, I don't have to "relize" anything. Stealing is stealing and inherently wrong no matter who you're stealing from or how you rationalize it.

[tx_dem41]

78. I'm starting to think that there is very little difference between morals.

on the Right and the Left. :eyes:

[iconoclastNYC]

114. I'm beginning to think that you can't form an opinion

without making gross generalizations.

[Medium Baby Jesus]

140. You are exactly right

"it's free music. It's owed to me. I want it. (stamps foot like petulant child)"

It's always about money isn't it? Something for nothing. For those who say they only download music they once paid for, I call bullshit.

[Beaverhausen]

102. stealing music takes money from a lot of people...not just the "fat cats"

Record companies employ thousands of people from the custodial staff to the mailroom to the human resources department to marketing to accounting right on up to the top.

Not to mention the companies that manufacture the CDs and packaging and the stores that sell them.

It is stealing and nothing you write can justify it.

[tx_dem41]

68. You know everyone on this board is talking about the copyright laws..

being outmoded due to the "new technology". But, when actually justifying theivery, you go back to that "tired, old canard" of "tangible property". Please, at least be consistent when justifying your immoral actions.

[New Democrat]

69. I'm not necessary justifying pirating music.

What I do is technically wrong. But only minor. I dont have much money and I want to listen to music. So either I pirate it, eat raman noodles, or dont listen to music. I choose the first option. Sure it may be immoral, but a lot of what the music industry does is immoral also. At lease i will admit my wrong doings.



But I am justifying pirating Microsoft Sofware. Bill has an illegal empire and charging anywhere from 100$ to 1000$ for home use software is flat out ridicuous. Bill Gates is illegally taking advantage of his monopoly.

[tx_dem41]

75. Have fun with that argument in front of the judge when you get the ..

..subpoena and are facing thousands of dollars in fines. Even judges need good laughs. Fortunately for them, you will provide one with that defense.

Do you steal food from grocery stores too from those multinational corporations?

[New Democrat]

84. LOL i wont get supoened

Its all scared tactics and far less than 1 percent get them. I will not let the RIAA harass me i dont care how many politicians they can buy out to create their ridiculous laws.


And no i dont steal from groceries, because that is "depriving someone of their property."

[tx_dem41]

86. Oh believe me....as a writer and the friends of musicians...

you're definitely stealing someone's property.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

131. What musicians do you write for? (nt)

[tx_dem41]

134. Where did you get that I wrote for musicians?....

I would have said "As a writer FOR and a friend of musicians" if I had meant that.

[datasuspect]

116. obsess on subpoenas much?

subpoena subpoena subpoena

[tx_dem41]

120. Self-delete

I made a childish remark that wasn't called for. Apology included below.

[datasuspect]

122. well that's very generous of you!

thanks for being nasty!

guess all that education and reading DIDN'T go to waste.

[tx_dem41]

126. You're right. It was nasty (as well as childish).

Sorry about that. Thanks for calling me on that.

[WillowTree]

81. I'd be curious to know...

....what it is that makes you think that you have a RIGHT to own music and/or software that you can't afford to buy just because you want it. What makes you so special that you think you shouldn't have to work to earn the money to buy the things you want? What kind of self-serving crap is it that leads you to believe that things like music and software are somehow owed to you for free just because you want them? It's not as if the things you're talking about are necessities of life.

Here's an idea. Why not just steal a radio instead? Then you can listen to music 24/7 and, in today's climate, you'll run much less risk of getting caught and you'll only be hurting one radio manufacturer and one merchant.

[New Democrat]

85. I dont really give a fuck.

I only have about 60 more years to live, and I am gonna make sure they are some good years. Why make my life of a lesser quality because some rich scumbag needs his money?

[tx_dem41]

87. I'll take a stab at this one...

because you're a self-admitted thief? It puts you on the same level as that "rich scumbag" you hate.

[New Democrat]

89. No it doesn't

Until I sue a 12 year old girl for thousand of dollars for download a britiney spears song, I am not on the same level as them.

[tx_dem41]

90. Guess again....you are, bub.

And, it galls me that you represent yourself as a Democrat.

[New Democrat]

91. are you saying you have never done anything wrong.

Downloading music is quite minor compared to what other people have done. I have never stolen "real things", murdered, raped, put anyone in danger, fathered illegitamte children and refuse to raise them, cheat on a girlfriend, voted republican or assualted anyone. I have done tons of charity work. So i download music, big fucking deal. Believe me, there are much worse people out there. Dont insult my minor vices because i know you have some of your own.

[tx_dem41]

92. Of course you have stolen real things....you've admitted it on this

thread. That stuff is owned by people who EARNED it, whose family often depends on it.

The worse thing is that you actually try to justify it. Quite poorly, by the way.

[New Democrat]

93. Answer my question

What have you done in your life that you should be ashamed of? At least im being honest.

[tx_dem41]

94. We've all done wrong things, me included. But, I realized it was

WRONG. You not only don't realize its wrong, you try to justify that its "ok".

If you're going to call yourself a "New Democrat" why don't you do something you haven't been willing to do before and EARN the title.

[New Democrat]

95. I have to earn the title of Democrat?

If that's the case then I want out. LOL

[datasuspect]

115. the majority of the capitalist system

is fucking immoral and you got all these people here DEFENDING it.

[tx_dem41]

123. No, in my case I am defending small artisans, musicians, writers, etc...

that actually feel the same way you do about corporate capitalism. The one difference between them and you is that they have a sense of morals.

[datasuspect]

124. my point is

that most small artists (especially musicians) take a great delight by exposing their work.

oftentimes, this labor goes unpaid.

i guess sharing is its own reward!

insofar as your assessment of my morality goes, way to make a sweeping generalization with so little information about me!

[ultraist]

99. Yes, YOU HAVE taken something that YOU DO NOT OWN, from someone

When you TAKE something from someone that YOU DO NOT OWN, that IS stealing.

MONEY is property. Stealing PROFITS is STEALING MONEY.

[Occulus]

103. We are talking about POTENTIAL profits.

Money they don't have yet and, quite likely, would never gain from that source in the first place. I would use as an example the college game modder who downloads a copy of Maya Unlimited, for example ($7000 retail).

,I suspect it's for exactly that reason (among others)- rampant piracy- Alias|Wavefront released Maya Personal Learning Edition, the people who make 3D Studio released Gmax, and softimage created the XSI Mod tool. Microsoft is planning a "stripped" version of its XP OS for use overseas, again likely because of rampant piracy (illegal copies are far more common overseas than legal ones, and very easy to obtain).

If they did that because people were "stealing", why didn't they go after the "thieves" instead of creating a free version?

Maybe because they finally figured out they can't stop or stay even with or even hope to catch up to the software pirates? If true, well... the pirates did all of us a gigantic favor, and also proved that outright refusal to obey an unjust set of laws can effect a major and most beneficial change.

You can't deny these free tools now exist, and I do believe piracy had something to do with it, whether the companies will say so or not.

[ultraist]

109. Sounds like a few tenants I've had

Who think it's ok to live in MY property and NOT pay because ONE DAY I will make a profit off of that investment property. I'm not talking about people who have fallen on hard times and really can't come up with the money. I'm talking about spoiled college kids who blow daddy's check on partying and feel like I owe them something and I should pay their rent.

No dice, dude. MY POTENTIAL PROFITS are worth something. IN FACT, if someone fucks me on a sale of a property illegally, I can SUE them for POTENTIAL PROFIT loss.

Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner, would you feel obligated to GIVE AWAY your profits that you worked for? I don't.

I pay taxes and make donations OF MY CHOOSING. NO ONE has the right to DICTATE who I donate to.

[tx_dem41]

121. They are only potential profits because they get stolen instead....

And, just because some issue games and the such as freeware doesn't mean that all software, etc. is freeware.

[Oublei]

36. Considering artists get a couple pennies per CD

I download music and then buy merch directly from them. That way they get a lot more money than they normally would've and I have a nifty shirt.

Most of the music that I listen to is pretty much impossible to find in most CD stores anyways. It isn't as though it's an option to go to WalMart and buy them. :\

[kwyjibo]

42. mp3s are low quality and are not worth as much as CD songs

I could see paying a quarter for an mp3, but certainly not a dollar, which is (I think) what they charge at iTunes.

Anyway, I don't feel bad about downloading music. If I find something that I really like, I'll buy the CD. I never would have learned as much about music as I have without mp3s, and my CD collection wouldn't be nearly as diverse. So.. you could say that mp3s were the reason that I bought some CDs, and those artists/record companies never would have gotten my money if I had never downloaded mp3s. If you're looking for a way to download, try Direct Connect.

[Blue_Tires]

44. ttt

[Johonny]

46. depends

Certainly there is little to gain for established artist that already saturate radio and TV. However the unknown artist that can't get on the airwaves its a great service to advertise themselves. Which is why there is great divide in the music industry over these services. While P2P can allow illegal activities it can also be used to transfer legal files from artist that want you to have their music.

[rman]

56. Nothing wrong with P2P in and of itself, however

downloading copies of copyrighted songs that you don't own, is wrong - no matter what download technology you use. Of course you knew that already.

If you want to get music of the 'net legally and/or don't want to run the risk of being fined by the RIAA, you should limit yourself to downloading free demos (mp3.com, websites of bands), pay-per-song downloads (itunes amongst others), and songs that you have already purchased on CD, LP etc.

[SF Bay Area Dem]

66. Just pay 88 cents for a song legally ---

Admittedly I used to download music from the old Napster and Kaazza... Napster was the best for that but now most of the music on the P2P's is pure crap that has been sabotaged by the music industry... meaning they upload songs that sound ok for the first 15 seconds then produce a large screech! Now I just go to Walmart.com and download the music that I want for 88 cents... I can play it on three different computers or unlimited MP3 devices... Plus I can burn to a CD! I sleep better at night... Much easier to do it this way... Even as I speak I am listening to Andrea Bochelli that I purchased online legally...

[AP]

70. Seriously. That's what a single cost 40 years ago & ipod+mp3 is a much

more convenient format than a hi-fi + 45.

[Occulus]

98. The "suck part" is....

....I don't know of a music store I can go into with my mp3 player, toss $.88 on the counter, and walk out with a single song. I have to do it online, and sorry... I don't have, don't want, am paying off currently, and will never use again, a credit card.

They need a way I can walk in and pay cash for a personal compilation of all their music and anything they can download for me. I know of no such retailer.

[UdoKier]

71. I get them from P2P. Occasionally buy from iTunes.

The RIAA's argument is that people are not paying for the intellectual property (it's not as though any physical property is being taken from them.)

Problem with that argument is, 90% or more of what I download is OLD stuff that I have already bought on cassette or LP. I have already PAID for that intellectual property and am now upgrading the format.

But I suppose downloading tracks that you have never paid for would be stealing...

[LeftHander]

73. Four freebies here:

Shameless self promotion warning...

http://soul-amp.com/MP3s.html

From my band. We're working on our CD and these are some pre-production mixes...

[onenote]

76. as a copyright lawyer

Let me clarify a couple of things:
First, the period of time during which a work is protected by copyright has evolved over the years. The most recent change was not made in the DMCA, but rather in the somewhat ironically named "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" (ol' Sonny could've used a term extension himself, but that's another story).

Anyway, the SBCTA (passed the same year as the DMCA but in a separate piece of legislation), extended the copyright duration provisions that were adopted as part of a general revision of the Copyright Act in 1976 (the previous complete revision of the Copyright Act was in 1909). Under the SBCTA, the duration of a copyright was extended from 50 years after the life of the creator to 70 years. In the case of a work made for hire (eg, when a corporate entity holds the copyright), the duration used to be the earlier of 75 years from the date of its first publication or 100 years from the date of its creation. Now the relevant periods for works for hire are 95 and 120.

The term extension law was challenged on Constitutional grounds. To be honest I didn't think the case had a chance, given that some allotted term is clearly appropriate and its asking a lot for the courts, rather than the legislature, to decide what the "right" time period is. THat being said, I thought the challenge to the law was extremely well done and came far closer to succeeding than I ever expected.

Now, with respect to downloading,etc. If you legally obtain a copy of a copyrighted work and want to sell it, destroy it, make a copy for your own personal use...no problem. But sharing it with the world so that they can obtain a copy without recompense to the creator (or to whatever entity purchased the copyright from the creator)...no soap. Call it what you will, its illegal and its wrong.

Finally, as for the claim that once something is transmitted over the public airwaves its fair game for anyone to copy...I doubt you feel that way about your cell phone conversations.

onenote

[tx_dem41]

79. Thanks for that knowledgeable contribution, onenote.

I hope some will read it. I doubt they will "get it" though.

[Occulus]

97. No, I'd prefer that were not the case

However, I openly acknowledge that police and private investigators will happily use that argument if they feel they have a reason to obtain the communication.

Thanks for clarifying which act it was that extended copyrights. I had the Bono act and the DMCA confused, there.

How do you feel about attempts to stop legal copying for personal archive use? On many CDs and pieces of software, there are measures in place on the disc that prevent my copying it so I can play from the copy, and in fact suvberting such anticopying measures appears to be against the DMCA.

So, copying something for my personal archives is itsel legal, but circumnavigating the copying countermeasures present on the disc is an illegal act.... do I have that correct? If so, it's only one more argument in favor of P2P, since the versions present on those copies usually either do not have such protection, or have ways around it present in the downloaded file.

A good example of this is Half-Life 2 from VALVe Software. What VALVe did was to attatch their game to a downloading and patching service called Steam. Steam is required for all new VALVe games; it is used for, among other things, authenticating the Steam account to the game itself. You don't actually buy the game, you buy an account that validates you use of that game.

So, you can in theory (and in fact this is how I obtained my copy) legally download the game from VALVE, buy a steam account, and activate it, and then the downloaded copy you have becomes your legitimate copy. This allows you to download and play the game from anywhere in the world, provided you know your valid Steam username and password.

HOWEVER:

Software pirates have stripped Steam from Half-Life 2; there are copies floating around the various P2P systems that have the full game, unlocked and ready to play. From what I understand, this illegal 'hacked copy' of Half-Life 2 actually performs better during gameplay than 'legit' versions, because Steam is not involved in the process (when playing a 'legit' copy, Steam always runs in the background. Right now, as I type, Steam is running the the background, doing nothing, and using 16.8M of RAM. Imagine what that does to gameplay).

Software pirates, in this case, are getting an actual better experience out of their illegal copies than the legit purchasers and owners. In fact, if VALVe uses Steam copies on their own servers, the pirates are getting a potentially 'better' experience from the game than the creators themselves.

It's been said that the "legit" Steam installations are 'crippled' in that way; they deliver slightly lower framerates than the pirated game. However, I legally cannot obtain the same experience due to restrictions in the DMCA, if it makes anticopy circumvention illegal.

Yet another reason why I think we need to totally revamp our copyright laws in favor of the public and free access of the same to created works.

Quickly, another example: Windows 3.1 and Windows 95/98. Microsoft neither sells nor supports either OS and forseeably never again will. Shouldn't these become public domain by their own obsolescence? And yet we continue to allow Microsoft to copyright a product we all know they will never again make a dime from.

I'm sure we could all come up with lots of examples of this. That's just another reason why I think copyright law needs to be revisited and drastically reformed.

[ultraist]

106. Is it ok if I make a withdrawal from your bank account via a hotspot?

If you think pirating is ok, what's the difference? I'm not "stealing" because I can access your account via a wi-fi site.

[gulfcoastliberal]

101. Limewire is the bomb

You can find audio, video, programs.

Best damn interface,no virii/spyware imbedded in the program, and fast downloads add up to the best P2P program I've ever tried. Plus, it's Mac compatible it that is your OS.

It's all free.

[Ms. Clio]

105. E-music.com

40 DLs a month for $10.00 and I don't worry about being arrested or sued.

[kliljedahl]

108. Try this link, it's free, public domain

I get all my music from here. They are all concerts taped of bands that allow taping anf file sharing.

http://www.archive.org/

Another place that's really good is:

http://bt.etree.org/index.php?cat=169

I have a 40GB external drive totally from these two sites

[durutti]

112. Copyrights should be abolished or greatly restricted. n/t

[ultraist]

117. Abolished? So you are willing to write a book with no copyright laws?

Therefore, NO PROFIT or PAY for your work?

People's work IS worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. FORCING them to give away their products is ridiculous.

We don't work for free. Do you?

[Runcible Spoon]

125. this argument reminds me of postmodern debates RE: "authenticity"

It has been convincingly argued by many theorists of postmodern bend such as Baudrillard that authenticity no longer exists, that anything created now is merely simulacra...this corresponds with different eras (political, economic, cultural dynamics associated as well) moving from creation/authenticity (associated with Western Enlightenment) to reproduction (associated with Industrial Revolution; there can be copies of an original) to the postmodern era of Western culture today (where there is no origin; everything is purely simulacra)...hyperreality is a a concequence of an increasingly globalized world where "reality" must be improved upon...it is a search for the "quintessential experience" which is idealized and thus ironically impossible for "reality" to supply, if even we could define that...Disneyland is a classic example; in my thesis I examine "celebrant" funerals, "McMansions", and "package tours"...So I guess this colors my perception of digital music and peer-to-peer file sharing, where it is increasingly difficult for me to consider anything "authentic"....I wish I could go into this more but I have to jet, will check back later and see if any interested parties bite...I think my biggest problem with the Millenium Act and other legislation is that they lacks a cohesive philosophy...and dammit a dollar a song is NOT going to persuade people to start paying for music!

[ohio_liberal]

130. I'll admit it

I never buy music. I always download it online.

[Tactical Progressive]

132. The rationalizations of music thieves are astounding

Each one more ridiculous than the last.

Some of my favorite hits:

It's gonna happen anyways. -- Well does this even deserve a response? I'll steal all your stuff. Too bad. Stop whining. I'm gonna do it anyway.

Information wants to be free. -- Information doesn't want anything. It is inert. You want to steal it is all.

$15 is too much to charge. -- No it isn't. They can charge $1500 for a CD. You have the option to buy it, or not. How hard is that to understand?

The record companies are rich. -- So what. The guy who owns the Ferrari is rich. I guess his 360 Spyder is mine, because I want it.

The artists hardly get anything anyway. -- So now they get nothing, showing just exactly how much you really care about their welfare in the first place.

It's not taking a physical object and therefore depriving someone else of it. -- Yes you are. If ten thousand people download an album, they are depriving the creator of a college education for her daughter. You alone are depriving her of a new blouse.

It's not taking a physical object and therefore depriving someone else of it, again. -- If I hack into a brokerage house and give myself 10,000 shares of Microsoft stock, I'm not depriving anyone of anything either.

Copyright is wrong. -- Unreal. Then so are home and car titles. Your house is mine. Get out, and leave my car too.


You have no right to anyone's music. Just because you hear it on the radio doesn't mean it's yours. It's a luxury item and as such it is transacted at whatever terms both parties agree to.

If you hear my music and think it's great and want to buy an album, we can agree on terms. I can say $300 for this one album - only you can listen to it, no friends - and only once, then you have to throw it away. That's the deal. You have two choices, buy it for $300 and listen to it once, or not. If you don't like spending $300 dollars to listen to an album once, then grouse about it and do without. If you don't like spending $15 on a commercial CD, same thing.

If you're going to steal music then fine. Just admit it. I can at least respect the self-awareness. Just stop with these unbelievable rationalizations. None of them hold so much as a drop of water. If it was a necessity you couldn't afford, that would be one thing, but music is a luxury item, transacted totally according to agreement by both sides. You don't like the terms, then no deal. That's the sum total of any argument about non-essentials.

[charlie]

137. What's really funny

is that there's an ocean of free music out there. Really free music, posted with the author's blessings, with the hope that you might download it and enjoy. If you began downloading 24/7 starting right now, you couldn't keep ahead of the new stuff added every day.

But nooo, I gotta have the good shit, the stuff I heard on the TEEVEE. It's my right, I'm just riding the wave of the future, information want's to be freeeeee... just don't you dare think about calling me a thief.

[Tactical Progressive]

138. I think eventually alot of music

will escape the music industry's clutches. Not by theft, but by musicians selling their music cheap on the internet. Fifteen cents a song; two dollars an album, bypassing the middleman and foregoing the advertising and radio push, at least until they become famous and can dictate more reasonable terms for themselves.

That's how technology changes markets, giving the real creators an increased measure of control and access to distribution, at least to start. Then they'll work with record companies for radio inroads and MTV video support. That stuff takes money, but at least they won't be at the mercy of record companies. They'll have some power already from successful digital distribution, with which they'll be in better positions to bargain.

[tx_dem41]

141. You have it right Charlie....

A lot of these "rebels" are just slaves to pop-crap culture. You're right about small, unsigned (and great) bands out there giving there stuff away for free. These "rebels" turn their noses up at it so they can steal the stuff that makes them just like everyone else.

Hilarious!

[liberalpragmatist]

139. I download what I would not buy

I have a huge music collection. Much of it is stuff I would not purchase b/c I'm not a big fan. Mostly it's burning from other people, not actually illegally downloading. Otherwise I buy CDs (b/c I like having something physical) or I download from the iTUnes music store.

Probably not the most ethical, but I do buy a lot of music.