illegal music downloads

Opps! now I did...okay now we have a testimony
and we should take it to heart! That to me
is the final arbiter.

Thanks Brother Curtis by all means

list you tour dates and free samples

 

God can make anything good. It would certainly not justify it however. Like I said, if the artist gives permission, that would be ok.

Joseph Botwinick

 

wtrsju, I don't see how anything can be gleaned
good out of the massive stealing and illegal
downloading...what are you alluding to..do you
have an idea that I am blind too.

permission by the artists is the only
thing I can see...with the help of a team
of fans or supporters..you do see that now
on some artists webs sites you can join their
team to promote the artist.

sincerely
Aslanspal

 

I look at Metallica's example. There isn't a band that loves their fans more, or gives them more for their money, but thay are vehemently against file sharing.

It does rip the artist off.

 

Ok got ya wtrsju, I just thought you had the idea.

So many resources out their to get your music
heard especially on the internet.

for beginners try this one

http://www.artistopia.com/

to answer your question yes you can use file
sharing to get your music heard with legal consent
and if its good then it will have a life of its
own.

 

I thought you were the one acting as an agent of the law here. If you want empowerment, I've given it to you. Go bananas.

Just realise that not only will nothing happen, I will be laughing at you.

 

I probably buy more music than most of the posters in this forum combined. If you look at my first post in this thread you will note that I have about 10 burnt cd's in my total collection of about 1200. That's 10 cd's which were given to me on recommendation from friends or coworkers that after listening to, I would never have bought. The artists themselves have lost not one single penny because there was never any chance I would have given them my money.

So let the self righteous judge, I couldn't possibly care less.

 

So you are saying the burnt cd's actually
encouraged you to buy the artists and buy
the cd?

Okay

If I was to put what you say on a scale then
and weigh it you are doing more good than harm?

The attitude of the first post, kinda set the
theme of the thread (sue me)...perhaps if you
would have explained like you just did then
personalitys and challenges could have been
mitigated.

I still stand that whether if you burn it or
friends burn it for you,even on a small scale, even if it inspires you to buy more ...it still supports the culture of those who do it in mass.

I think what you are saying is you don't necesarily support illegal downloads but it happened and it happened on a small scale and that
it actually inspired you to put more money in the
artists pockets..I am not going to codemn you
to hell for that.

But respectfully don't be apart of the culture
that sees it as a whim or nothing of harm...because it does harm the artist. Perhaps
not in your case,but once added up in total it
does.

I am glad you enjoy music like I do and look
forward to your posts on music critique.

I still have a problem with rap but I am open
to a hybrid of rap and pop fusion...I do like
Alicia Keys "Karma"

sincerely
Aslanspal

 

You are downloading 1s and 0s....and can get into big trouble with Microsoft doing it because they have held the 1 & 0 patents for years

 

That's good Pete ( no really it is funny) looks like we are in a catch 22 situation here.

 

In Australia, a CD is about $29.95 which I think is a rip off, yet what I try and do is wait until it has been out for a while and go get it in a department store significantly cheaper.

Anyway why would anyone want to download any of Microsofts programmes? What a waste of time and to take the risk of them hauling you through the courts for it? Why wouldent you just move up to Linux which is free of charge anyway, as are most of the programmes for it. Not only will you being doing it legally, but you are getting considerably better software.

Also, if people are doing it tough financially, why not listen to music that is legally provided free for download online, you may well find a number of artists that you like better anyway!

 

Whoa, hold on there my little hombre. I'm not the one with the attitude here. If anyone's got an attitude it's Johnny Law over there who came in with guns blazing calling me a thief and offering to report me to the proper authorities so that I might be punished.

I'd say the majority of music I purchase comes from albums I've borrowed and enjoyed, then went out and bought. Considering the fact that it is legal to make copies of already purchased music for personal use, what difference does it make if I borrow an album, dislike it and decide not to buy it, or if someone hands me a burnt disc, I don't like it, and decide not to buy it?

In any case, despite Joseph's futile attempt to execute the letter of the law, the modern campaign against music piracy is being waged against the real culprits: those who upload music files and provide access for hundreds of thousands of downloaders. That's where the RIAA is losing money. People have been recording and passing out copies of albums and mixed tapes for decades. That one at a time stuff is not what the recording industry is after.

 

Uh oh...looks like Pete has a copyrighted article from The Onion mirrored somewhere else!

Anyway, I think one thing is that young people today have grown up during the Internet boom where lots of thinga are available over the ne, both free and paid, both legal and illegal. There has become an expectation that if you can download it, it's yours.

While I disagree with the heavyhanded tactics the RIAA has taken, downloading copyrighted music, software, movies, books, etc. via an illegal channel IS theft. Are there degrees of theft? Undoubtably. But morally, is it any different to steal music online and robbing a bank?

Thou shalt not steal (unless it is something you can download).

Not trying to be a moralizer, but I do have a problem with it. Saying one wouldn't buy the music doesn't excuse it. If you wouldn't buy it anyway, then don't download it either. If you use it, the artists, songwriters, and yes, even the evil record company, is entitled to payment.

This is my opinion, but I am not condemning anyone.

 

Ben, I didn't say anything about downloading Microsoft programs I said they had patented 1s and 0s, so everything downloadable (mp3, eze, zip, jpg, even Linux stuff) means $$$ to Microsoft


Magnetic Poles, no, not my site Although maybe I should go to the police now and report myself for linking to a copied page

 

Even then, I would exhort everyone to be VERY CAREFUL about doing that. Remember: the music you are dowloading belongs to the music companies. Even if the artist does not object to it, you could still be in trouble with the recording company. For example, look at the Grateful Dead: they usually had a section set up in the front of the stage for those who make copies of the concert and sell it (i.e. "deadheads"). If you really think about it, the recording company with whom the Grateful Dead signed the contract could go after those who are doing this.
Another example would be the Beatles catalog. Paul McCartney may tell you it's okay to download songs that were done by the Beatles, but EMI (I think that is who owns Capitol Records now) own the recordings, and Michael Jackson owns the actual songs.

Either way: proceed with caution.

Hope all is well with everyone,

BiR

 

If a piece is copyrighted, then it is illegal to download it without paying for it. With some services, you can buy song by song. That is not illegal. Title 17 also has a personal use allowance, as well as educational and technical allowances that allow copying of copyrighted material in certain instances. So if you own a legitimate CD, you can copy it to your computer for your personal listening, I believe. You cannot copy it to someone else's computer for their personal listening, or make a copy for someone else to listen to.

If someone has 1200 CDs and 10 of them consist of stolen songs, that person is still a thief. You see, the percentage makes no difference. If Bill Gates steals $100, then he is a thief. Justifying it by saying "I wouldn't buy them anyway" is irrelevant. If you wouldn't listen to them, then get rid of them. It is also irrelevant that someone might not prosecute. Stealing is stealing whether you get caught or not.

Some artists make their songs available for free to get their name out and get publicity in hopes of bigger things happening. Some make them free just to make the, similar to open source software.

 

In the technical sense of the law yes. In reality, no.

There is no practical difference between borrowing a cd from a friend and deciding not to purchase it for myself, or taking a burnt cd from a friend and deciding not to purchase it for myself.

In either case the artists and recording/distribution companies would never have gotten a dime of my money regardless. I simply listened to the music and decided not to purchase it.