However, it's not yours or their property to share. The SONG belongs to the copyright holder (songwriter/publisher) while the RECORDING belongs to the recording owner (artist/record company). All you own is the license for personal use, not to share it around. You fundamentally attack the very essence of copyright itself - that is the right of the creator of an artistic work to maintain any ownership over their intellectual property. This of course is the same thing as telling me my career is invalid, and you would prefer me to never see any return for my work.

And you wonder why I get pissed off.

Quote:

Secondly, I'm not worried about the legislation outlawing VCR's - but I'm extremely worried about it outlawing PC's!!!! CDRW drives are standard equipment on ALL PC's being manufactured today. That - coupled with the availability of P2P software - makes your basic home computer FAR more likely to be targeted as a "dual use" device that has the potential for copyright infringement.

If that's what it take to get it through to you guys that you are seriously harming creators of music so be it. Bring it on.

Quote:

I personally think the impact of P2P sharing is blown greatly out of proportion by the RIAA and others. I admit I could be wrong because I base this on personal experience. I've downloaded many music files in order to make "compilation" CD's. The files include songs by various artists (and sometimes specific artists to create a "Best Of" type album) and it also includes different genres of music.

And that is a crime, immoral and theft Cerek. You have stolen those songs. RENDER UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESARS. You do not own the right to make a compilation CD from songs you haven't purchased.

It's easy for you to say the RIAA have blown this out of proportion. It's not your career being flushed down the toilet by unthinking theives.

Quote:

The plain fact is that I would have spent around $200 or more to get these songs off the original CD's because there were usually only 1 or 2 songs on a specific CD that I wanted or liked.

Yep. That's the whole point. YOU COULD ALWAYS LIVE WITHOUT THE SONGS!!!!!! If you can't afford a mercedes, does that give you the right to steal it??? Consumerism gone mad. You won't pay what the artist has asked, so you steal their work!

Quote:

And that is another thing that P2P could accomplish. It could force artists to start producing better quality music and including a larger number of good tracks on a CD rather than putting the one or two tracks they expect to make it as singles and then just putting "filler songs" on the rest of the CD.

Taste is subjective Cerek. One mans trash is anothers treasure. Of the 34 records I've been involved in, no track has ever been thought of as a filler, despite those that end up buying the said records perceiveing differing songs as such. What you perceive as a filler, another person perceives as a gem and vice-versa. TASTE TASTE TASTE. Again, not liking the full product is no excuse to steal what you do like. Weigh up whether the one song on an album is worth $15 and buy it. Plenty have done it before you. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars.

Quote:

Sadly for me - but happily for the supporters of P2P regulation - I lost ALL of my files when I had a new HD put into my machine. So I no longer have the files nor do I have the software to obtain them. Because of all the spyware associated with ALL of the P2P software (even KaZaa Light), I am seriously considering NOT downloading ANY of the P2P programs.

Good. I don;t own any and have never ever ever downloaded one song illegally. It's not that hard.

Quote:

Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot". I'll have to abide by whatever decision is reached, but I'll never agree that anti-P2P is a good thing - because I believe it violates the privacy of each of us as individuals, but again, that's just my opinion. YMMV.

Well the privacy of individuals wouldn't be violated if they obeyed the law, and didn't immorally steal our work. That's the consequence everyone is going to have to live with now.

This issue seriously pisses me off.

"It could force artists into producing better music"

Screw you Cerek. We do the best we can. If it's not good enough for you you could always have a go yourself instead of stealing songs.

I'm out. This is sick.

Yorick, no crap it pisses you off -- I was waiting for your reply. You know I disagree with music sharing. However, I do think the technology that allows one to make personal copies for their own use (such as mp3s for running, etc) should not be challenged. And, I gotta say, your attitude about the thing is over-the-top. Everyone likes to protect their way of living, but at what cost? People who do what I do who feel the way you do about their profession's right to step on toes for a buck are called ambulance-chaser, sharks, and other bad names. If you are seriously advocating outlawing copy technology, you got issues. Well, at least it'll never happen, so I can rest easy.

Q.Who do you think invented the technology to copy flim and music?

A.The same companies who were legally obliged to protect their artists work.

Conflict of interest anyone? Smell a class action?

If record companies had really wanted to protect artists work, they would not have made blank cassettes, minidiscs and CDburners, and now DVD burners, available to the public.

And it's not just my job Timber. It's millions of jobs, it's art and music down the drain, it's an entire culture of subsidised art flushed down the toilet. It's as much a love for the artform as anything else that get's me going.

Now mind, I have no problem with culture changing, and I have no doubt humans will keep creating music. But it is the way that this has happened that's disgusting. People stealing and using every argument they can to talk themselves into the LIE that what they are doing is ok. Or even on some sort of moral crusade. All it is is theft. Hypocritical theft. Kicking people in the teeth who are already being kicked in the guts.People love to cite a Britney, or a Metallica, and completely ignore these people are in the top 1% (if that) of people relying on music sales for their food, or trying to get their work released.

Anyway, you know what's happened?

Many of the best musicians are now doing advertisements. Some of finest musical minds of the 21st century are being wasted on 30second spots covered by a voice over, following the whims of execs, trying to follow a fickle public too lazy to pay for recorded music.

If that's what you call a wonderful culture, you can have it.

[ 06-22-2004, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

so what you mean to say, yorick, is that poor starving musicians, who were poor and starving before P2P ever came out, are still poor and starving? wow, its kindof like actors who are trying to get discovered.

lets be honest with ourselves too. that one percent that always gets cited is also the 1% that sees probably 95% of all downloads. i dont agree with stealing, but i do disagree with lopping off CDs for 18 dollars a pop. where is the art in price gouging because you can in a collaborative market?

AND FYI, several bands have gotten their start by actively PUTTING their music on kazaa and/or napster (when it existed). its and obvious technological advancement that most likely isnt going to stop, so bands/record labels should stop trying to look in vain at how to stop it, and start planning how to use it.

Well, Yorick, I'm not "all for" consumer culture, as you may surmise, but those 30 and 60-second spots have really put some groups on the map. I would not have bought the Dead Vegas CD if it wasn't for that exposure, and though it was not me, I bet many folks bought Moby's "Play" as a result of the same company's commercials (I already owned Moby's CD, FYI).

Additionally, it is always a whole industry we are discussing. I could lament about environmental consultants assuming the role of legal advisors, resulting in the loss of a lot of work for my profession (the environmental law market has TANKED since my graduation into it in 2000), but the salient point is that those consultants are "good enough" for many consumers.

But, let's get back to the point: surely you don't challenge my right to take my CDs and make a mix tape for MY OWN use or my right to make backup copies of my beloved BGII to protect against disk scratches -- do you? In fact, I note most EULA's specifically provide the right to make 1 backup copy.

Look, while there is a fair philosophical argument that "real musical invention" ended circa the time of commercialization of music (meaning the only "real" music is classical and folk music), I for one don't buy it and I support your industry's rights to protect itself. But, damning the technology due to the side effects is like outlawing cars because people die in car crashes -- i.e. silly in the extreme. If enforcement were better (i.e. rip Kazaa and related sites down!), I suspect you wouldn't have such a gripe.

And your argument that the industry who made the artists also made the technology and distributed it also falls on deaf ears. If it is a "conflict of interest," it hurts the whole industry, shareholders and all, as much as it hurts individual artists. I don't think you want to be attacking the industry as a whole, since it seems to share (mostly) your point-of-view.

Finally, to pick a fine nit, the industry is NOT obliged to protect the work of the artist unless the contract says so. This should not be viewed as defeating my overarching argument that the industry itself is in line with the artists and has the same basic goals.

[ 06-22-2004, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The point is that people who didn't buy their CDs before p2p can actually could be listening their music now while before p2p they had to buy a CD. I think they care less about being not so well-known and don't make much money from it.
Heck, in some people make music because they like it and if they make enough money with it they can afford to go touring and stuff. But I think they do care if millions are now listening to their music for free while they don't see anything back for it. It's not the 'poor and starving' that's important it's the stealing of their income.

I don't think so, I agree with it that a lot of people that download well known numbers but I see a lot go on after they've got these, searching less known or obscure bands. Most people here often have more unknown than wellknown stuff downloaded, just because, taking your numbers, there's 1% widely known and there's 99% less known to obscure local band.

Well I agree that sometimes CDs can be cheaper. However I know that if I pay $18 for a CD it's because of the shop. Now I don't mind paying more to the shop for the service they give me or just because the costs to send orders from a magazine are larger than buying music in the shop. Also I can go immediately to the shop and buy it (sometimes but that's because of my musical taste) while I have to wait if I order them somewhere else. But luckily there are still magazines from which you can order CDs for $9 [img]smile.gif[/img] or a few bucks cheaper than in the shop.

Even if you buy a CD for $18, the price you pay for the entertainment is really low. I calculated it and for this $18 CD I have the price per hour after a month was less than 10ct.

And what if those bands had put the mp3s on a site so that they get known and think of others who don't want to have their songs freely on the net? There are a lot of sites where they could promote their site just as well as playing their songs on internet radios. And I'm curious as to how people find new bands on p2p-networks. Did their download name pr0n or a song by a often downloaded artist wasn't exactly what the name implies? Well when I used winmx (5 years ago have quit soon thereafter) I hated it when a download turned out to be something else and threw it away.

[ 06-22-2004, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=yellow>"Screw you Cerek"?</font> [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] That's a rather harsh comment. It could also be construed as a personal attack.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should follow your own example and publicly demand that the Mods ban or suspend you for this heinous attack.

Naaaaaahhhh. I understand this is an extremely emotional subject for you, but you also know full well that we disagree completely on this subject. I'm not upset (nor surprised) by your reaction and response, but I think you should ask yourself if this is how one Christian should respond to another. Actually, you should ask yourself if this is how a Christian should respond to anybody.

Yes, I realize this is your livelihood we are talking about. I also realize that God will provide for your needs despite the theft of songs through P2P. And you have admitted yourself that the music executives steal FAR more from the artists than P2P does. I'm sorry your industry is corrupted at the top, but that isn't my fault. I understand that P2P may facilitate more theft and loss of income from the artist - but you have mentioned numerous times before that musicians were being "ripped off" long before P2P ever came around and continue to be ripped off by executives in the business. That is the point that <font color=lime>promethius</font> is making.</font>