Peer to Peer File Sharing

[mondo joe]

[Redstone]

1. I know I'll get nitpicked to death about this, but...

(Copy of my post in GD, not sure if that violates a DU rule, but this subject makes me angry):

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.

Nitpick away if you want, but I am not entering into any discussions about this. Not to be hostile, but I was astonished to see the arguments about my post in GD. I really thought we DU types were the "moral high grounders," and had some respect for other people and their work.

Redstone

[chenGOD]

5. It's actually copyright infringement, but otherwise I agree.

I use P2P for the following purposes:
to download live shows
to download DJ sets
to download albums that I have on vinyl
to download music that has been licensed for free download (but usually you get better speeds downloading directly from the website the record was "released" on.
to download albums that are extremely rare and are out of print.

the last one is kind of stretching things, but I figure that a) I'm not gonna pay 500 bucks for a record, and b) since it's out of print and the only way to buy it is off some guy on eBay, the artists involved in the production of the record have already recouped as much as they ever were going to off that record (if I see the record in a record shop, I'd pick it up in a hurry...).

[mcscajun]

2. I'm with Redstone -- it's theft, plain and simple

There are quite a few taper/trade-friendly bands that put their music out on the 'net. If you want to download that stuff, fine.

Taking music from other sources that is available in the marketplace is just stealing.

Aside from that, there is the Security Issue. I do 'tech support' for a few friendly families and the ones who have the most problems with crap on their PC are the ones with kids doing peer-to-peer trading. You can spend a whole lot of time and effort protecting your PC; anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware and anti-adware programs, and then blithely open the door to all the crap by connecting to people you do not know and leaving the connection open to the world. Yeah, that makes sense.

[bigmonkey]

3. Some songwriters want their stuff shared.

Look up Janice Ian. The law and the technology have to allow sharing when the artist wants it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. I look at these services as a replacement for what FM radio used to be

Since the corporatization of radio (i.e. Fear Channel) the choice of music you can actually hear on the air has shrunk considerably. So then, how is downloading a song or two any different than it used to be when you could hear them on the radio?

Then there's the issue of pre-released albums. Let's face it, if an entire album is available for download online weeks or even months ahead of it's official release date, it's because the record company leaked it. They did this before the internet existed as well, and thousands of people would tape these albums from their pre-corporatized FM rock stations. And 95% of them would go to the record store the day the thing was released and buy the album, cassette, 8-track or whatever. It's free advertizing for the label to circulate the album and get the "buzz" about it moving. They all do it, and for them to complain about the tracks being on the net is bullshit.

Once an album IS available in your local record store, then you should buy it, by all means. MP3's are a lossy format that are far inferior anyway, so why the Hell would you want that instead of the real thing anyway? And that is exactly why I would never PAY for an MP3 download.

As for bootlegs - live shows and other material which cannot be purchased in any record store (at least not officially) - I am 100% in favor of online trading of these recordings in lossless formats such as SHN or FLAC files, and I don't believe the corporatist fascists at the RIAA should have one goddamned thing to say on this subject. Since the labels don't put the material out for sale, how can they claim to lose money from it? Furthermore, if the profit of bootleggers is the issue, then the industry Nazis should actually encourage open trading of boots online.

And then if the labels want to release the material, chances are the sound quality alone will be reason enough for most fans to buy the "official version" of the material. The Beatles Anthology series, the multi volumes of "bootleg" releases from Dylan & Zappa, and Bruce Springsteen's "Tracks" box set are just a few examples of what happens when record companies finally get a clue. And of course you have bands like Pearl Jam, Phish, and the Dead who have have released dozens of shows on CD.

The thing that's causing the music industry slump is simple: LACK OF QUALITY material. Geezus, this decade has been the most pathetic for music that I can remember. I can honestly say that I can count the number of new CD's I've bought since 2000 on 2 hands. An industry that depends on Twitney Spears, Jessica Simpson (and her even less talented sister) and Creed to keep it going is an industry in deep shit.