>> an argument for the criminalization of sharing of digital copies <<

of course it's not "an argument for the criminalization" of it - copying stuff was illegal in the days
when people copied LPs onto cassettes too - it didn't need to be "criminalized", it was already illegal.
the point is that if home copying wasn't such an Issue To Discuss 20 years ago, that's mainly because
it wasn't anywhere near as widespread as it is now: the technology at the time did not allow
near-instant global proliferation of music with relatively low loss in quality
(and if you've forgotten how a cassette copy of a cassette copied at home from an LP sounded ...
go back 20 years and try it!)

now we have different technology, plus a generation of people who grew up with the technology,
and an attitude that's often no more thoughtful than "since i can get away with just taking whatever i want, i will!"

so as Lorenz said, the proverbial cat is out of the proverbial bag, and it ain't going back in there on its own.
i'm interested in what's going to happen next, because clearly some new way of distributing music
needs to emerge. i just always hope folks don't forget that artists need to be paid for what they do.
they aren't songbirds, and even if they were: songbirds have to eat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 22:23 by with sssoul.

I agree with @withsoulll. Everybody should do what they think is right in this respect. I don't feel like preaching that it is all theft. I don't even think it's theft if people just grab it and not buy it. ( The MP3s are 128K only so I am still anxiously waiting for the CD )

@ChrisM says that when it's not a source of revenues downloading is OK. That's not a bulletproof criterion. Many artists don't make a penny on record sales. All is often first charged as promotional costs by the record company.

In a way downloading is understandable given that record companies are such total @#$%&. If they put out 5 versions at 20 different dates worldwide they do this just to make us buy all that stuff. Just put out one version for a decent price and a lot more people will buy. A lot of the misery is caused by their shortsighted greedy marketing strategy. As @liddas says flat fees could be a solution.

But I still think that everything was better in the old days. On April 20th 1986 I ran into the record shop to buy Dirty Work on vinyl first thing in the morning. It was a beautiful day and it was great. I played the record ten times or so that day.

Last saturday I went to the closing sale of a record shop just down the street here. Nobody was even bothered to buy those CDs at half price. I guess it all started going wrong with those damn CDs. Vinyl was much better.

what i think sssoul you dont see in the picture is how much profit has been made out of the new technology - and a lot right out of the fact that you and me can download with it

you look at the technology only in the perspetctive of the user

try and look in the perspective of the seller and how much money they have made out of - say - the wide spread of music consume that the technology allow

THERE is the money, i think, also for the artist that is the market that need artists to provide content for the media whatever the media are

to me it is quite clear that the artist "need to be fed" is the obscene alibi of the companies that want "controlled market" to work less and keep high profits



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 22:17 by maumau.

>> so the money for the artists is already there... <<

where?

sorry, but it sounds like you mean something like "the record companies have always screwed artists
so why should we worry about them" - and i don't believe you really mean that.
i believe (until further notice!) there should be a way that the artists and the art-lovers can both thrive,
and the corporate middlemen who have been ripping everyone off so long can go stuff themselves.
that would be lovely. i just don't see how that will come about if people don't think about it.
so i like people to think about it.

>> the seller and how much money they have made out of - say - the wide spread of music <<

but maumau honey: the artist creating music we love is not the corporation getting rich selling the technology.
are you really saying we should just relax, because surely those corporations will suddenly start paying artists,
since we don't want to pay for music anymore?! i'm sorry, but that's a very bizarre notion.

>> to me it is quite clear that the artist "need to be fed" is the obscene alibi
of the companies that want "controlled market" to work less and keep high profits <<

yikes - where did that come from?! i'm just guessing but i sure hope you mean
that when record companies say that, it's an "obscene alibi", since they have a tradition
of ripping off artists as much as they can. but again: the companies you're angry at are not the artists.
so show me a way to rip off the wicked corporations, but at the same time allow the artists and us to thrive,
and i will be all in favour of it. meanwhile, the artists do have to eat, and pay bills,
and pay for the time/equipment/technology to make/market the music that grooves us,
and ripping off artists just because you're pissed off at the big bad corporations
is not - to me - a very satisfactory or thought-out response.

... and in case it helps you understand the angle i'm looking at this from:
these are my own views, not just junk that i read in some record-company PR statement or something.
and it's the artists in the equation that i'm asking you to think about, not the corporations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 00:02 by with sssoul.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 06:52 by parislocksmith.

Sorry to disturb a complex discussion about ethic and legality of downloading what from where guys, I would like just to look at the dowloaded stuff from ... another point of view.
What does remain in your hands, in your hears, in your eyes, in your soul managing only digital files after three, five, ten years? I'm try to pass to my daughters love for records 'couse are pieces of life, the soundtrack of our ages. The Stones are the best soundtrack of our ages, but we love them also for their historic LPs, singles, artworks, posters, written comments, pictures and all the rest you can find out and touch IN A RECORD.

A stored wav, mp3 or any kind of downloaded file will never allow you to experience the same emotions ....

Sod the downloading - does anybody know what time the dancing starts?

>> does anybody know what time the dancing starts? <<

[kicking off shoes & turning up Rolling Stones Now way loud]

Quote
with sssoul
>> so the money for the artists is already there... <<

where?

sorry, but it sounds like you mean something like "the record companies have always screwed artists
so why should we worry about them" ....

of course i could not explain myself. try again.
we need to find a way to make artists live out of their art.
we have a technology that allows free sharing of art files.
is this technology free for you and me?
no. it costs less and less (and give us more and more bandwidth - why?)
but since more and more people are using this technology
the provider of it is making more and more profit out of it
so i pay for a service and the company make huge profits
the company makes profit pointing at the broadness of the band
what's the use of a broadband (what was the use of a tape recorder?)
so..
if, as liddas say, they want to ask me flat rate for copyright... we can talk about and it is surely a step out of bare protectionism
still i think the the mass of money that we are paying should be enough for everyone in the business that is
the providers of bandwidth
the providers of content for the medium

Feel free to copy music as much as you like, but not through IORR. I am not a big fan of record companies in general, but as long as they have a legal right to their works, and common law is saying it is illegal, it is illegal. So I don't want to offer IORR as some sort of download center for legal official releases. We are all fans, we do all buy their records, and we do all have plenty of excuses for doing something that is not legal, like speeding with our cars or cheating on tax, but be honest, we do all have limits and moral as well. That is my take on this. I am not a big moralist, I have plenty of speeding tickets, but I do actually pay all my tax.

Bjornulf

>> the mass of money that we are paying should be enough for everyone in the business
that is the providers of bandwidth <<

yes, and where does paying the artists come into all that?
who's supposed to do that - the providers of bandwidth? what would motivate them to start doing that -
just to get us to download more stuff? so they can charge us more and more for the bandwidth?
gee - that would be a big improvement

and why would a bandwidth provider treat the artists any better than the record companies have?
what would their motivation be to treat artists and their music well?
sorry but it sounds like more of the same old same old to me ... only with a high-tech gloss
that doesn't appeal to me personally. i am pretty sure i like the wandering-minstrel version better.
but if you like the above idea, and if you feel like your downloading will somehow contribute to bringing it about ...
carry on! i guess



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 22:49 by with sssoul.

It's impossible to have a right or wrong answer on this issue. Personally, I don't have any problems with people downloading music illegally. To focus this purely on us being Stones fans,I think they've probably made plenty of money from us over the years. When I'm paying £500 ($1000) to see them for 3 nights at the o2 in London (albeit tremendous shows) I'm not feeling guilty for downloading 'Shine A Light'.

What about the DVD all us fan club members were promised?

Years ago, when Mick and Keith were desperately searching for Muddy and Chuck albums they would have downloaded them illegally if the technology was around. I remember taping songs of the UK Top 40 onto cassettes back in the 80's. It's on a larger scale now because of the internet but the profits made from online fanclub memberships and merchandise are massive and will continue to be.

I'll keep dowloading the odd album and I won't think twice about it. If that makes me a thief fine. I bet 99% of artists breaking into the music business within the last 5 years have downloaded music illegally and not thought twice about it, when they're earning a great living they may think twice then as it directly affects their own pockets!

May the debate rage forward!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 23:02 by flairville.

What if a roadie close to the band offerred you a "signed" CD of one of their official releases. Each and every one of you who are against copyright infringment would not accept it, or throw it away, if it came in the mail? Cmon man. Is that copyright infringment if you accepted it? A CD shop is closing and the owner is a "friend". He gives you a Stones CD. You wouldn't accept it? Is that copyright infringment? You can say these are 2 minor trivial exceptions but I can give you umpteenth examples. What constitiues a "gift"? Do we need to see a receipt 100% of the time. The person giving the gift may have received via "black market". How do you know you are not infringing. All I was saying from the beggining we can all take the position its wrong etc but......... You would not partake in any above or similar such scenerios. If you would you are just as wrong No? Its a slippery slope. I think by giving me a "mix" of Black Crowes stuff I fall in love with, I may by their catalogue. They may ultimately make more $ off me. I was simply stating it occurs just about every person I v'e known, and see it occurring at my state office daily. But yet these same people would probably come on this board, or a sililar one, and say copyright infringment is wrong. Lets just be real folks. If you have never ever ok step foward. My challenge was to look in your collection of CDs, Movies etc and are you guilty: Always, Frequently, sometimes, rarely or never. If you claim your against, I challenge you go discard all itmes you are not certain about or may have been "bad" in the past. How many say never, nothing whatsoever in their collection. That was what I put out there. Anyone innocent people? Step foward, but be careful a fellow trader here may know you accepted a rare B side release or bonus track like Undercover Of night. Are you going to pay $50 for that one track when they could put it out for $1 on Itunes MEZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 01:33 by James Lynn.

Everybody might make up their own rules. If I think beer is too expensive I might take some extra beer in my pockets at the shop. All the shop owners in my country are millionairs so that would be no problem for them. I think my neighbor makes double money vs. me so I think it is only fair that I take some of all he have like stuff in his garden and may be if his door is onen and he left some money may be it's more deserved for me than him. It's all about moral and what is expected from us. Some laws are awful, but if beating up a criminal is illegal then I would not do it, even if I sure would love to do all sorts of things in my private little life of anarchy, if there was such...

Bjornulf

Quote
James Lynn
What if a roadie close to the band offerred you a "signed" CD of one of their official releases. Each and every one of you who are agains copyright infringment would not accept it or throw it away if it came in the mail? Cmon man. Is that copyright infringment if you accepted it. A CD shop is closing and the owner is a "friend". He gives you a Stones CD. You wouldn't accept it? Is that copyright infringment? You can say these are 2 minor trivial exceptions but I can give you umpteenth examples.

These are 2 examples of something that has nothing at all to do with copyright infringment. Promo-issues of CDs, and CDs allread paid for by the recordstore...how can you compare these things with illegal downloads of official albums ?

>> Are you going to pay $50 for that one track <<

no need to pay $50 for that one track - buying the 2-disk set with Undercover from Japan
came to $51 including postage. but if you're asking if anyone's decided to buy the official release with Undercover:
yep, sure have! and the decision doesn't lead me to feel like "challenging" anybody. isn't it strange

that brings up an interesting point...

So if a friend gives a CD that he or she payed for, that is not stealing it. But if they burn you a copy and keep there's than what is that? Ive gotten music that way before.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 23:57 by ryanpow.

I don't really see how this is a "complex" issue.

If you break the law, you just don't ever tell anyone about it.

hmmm.....i didn't download it. i think i assumed that
it was an early downloadable release that you had to pay for....
from an iTunes-type place....(2 songs currently on iTunes)

sometimes record companies/bands etc.. will release albums online early.

i plan to purchase the 2 disk set....debating whether i should hold out for japanese version.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 00:00 by sweet neo con.

Quote
ryanpow
So if a friend gives a CD that he or she payed for, that is not stealing it. But if they burn you a copy and keep there's than what is that?

If a friend gives you her/his CD, you are getting it in this friends expense. If you get a copy, you get it on the bands expense.
Nevertheless...IMO - checking out an artist your not familiar with, by getting a free copy, is almost like PR for this artist - it's different with albums/artists that you know is worth your attention.

Quote
ryanpow
that brings up an interesting point...

So if a friend gives a CD that he or she payed for, that is not stealing it. But if they burn you a copy and keep there's than what is that? Ive gotten music that way before.

It depends on the law of the country you live in.
here in germany it is allowed to give 7 copies as gift to friends and/or relatives - but without getting paid or the like.

yeah, its a good way to get into an artist.

I agree that its good PR because You can only get so much music from someone else's library... eventually your going to want to go out on your own to get an album or albums you want and going to the store is often the fastest way to get it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 00:04 by ryanpow.

giving people legal copies of albums is also a good way to turn them on to a new artist -
just as effective as unofficial copies. and worth pointing out now and then

>> here in germany it is allowed to give 7 copies as gift to friends and/or relatives <<

interesting! not very enforceable, i reckon, but an interesting approach. doesn't itunes or someone like itunes
also have the same deal - allowing seven downloads for the price of one? something like that.
it's all calculated into the price, obviously, so it's a bit of a ... mixed blessing, shall we say :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 00:17 by with sssoul.

Quote
Whale
ChrisM says that when it's not a source of revenues downloading is OK. That's not a bulletproof criterion. Many artists don't make a penny on record sales. All is often first charged as promotional costs by the record company.

That statment should be qualified to read as when it's not an offical release and is not a source of revenue for the artist or the legal owner of the recording. So long as that criteria is met then I don't see a problem. I was surprised to read that many artists don't make a penny on their recordings. Given the proliferation of illegal downloading this is not too surprising but I take it this is not what you mean Whale.

One of my favorite quotes by Al Bundy:
It ain't cheating if you don't get caught.

Bjornulf

Is the free download from IMEEM legitmate? authorized?


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
open-g
It depends on the law of the country you live in.
here in germany it is allowed to give 7 copies as gift to friends and/or relatives - but without getting paid or the like.

Chris M, I'm not sure if this old rule of "7 private copies" is still applying in Germany. I even think it was a little bit different before: You were allowed to make up to 7 copies for PERSONAL USE, but weren't allowed to distribute them. By buying an album you get a right of use for yourself (a one-person-license if you will), but sadly for nobody else.

Quote
ryanpow
So if a friend gives a CD that he or she payed for, that is not stealing it. But if they burn you a copy and keep there's than what is that?

The thing is that for every new copy, there has to be one payment. So if you give your CD away to somebody else without copying it for yourself there's still one payment (yours) and only one copy (sadly you gave it away). Whereas if you copy the CD first and then give it away, there are two copies now but only one payment. And this is where the law kicks in...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-28 01:12 by Greenblues.

It's hard to make sense of all the arguments. So much being written.
I wish I had another bottle...
But anyway, aren't we all melancholic for the vinyl days? Didn't all that sound so much better on a vinyl record? Don't we have nothing left to dream on?
OK, OK,.. I will go to sleep now.

Vieliecht so Greenblues but my statement was geared towards "unofficial" releases, not commercially available ones. It is my belief that if one obtains an offical release by recording a borrowed copy then it is the same thing as not having paid for it. I don't take issue with those who do this, it's just something I won't do.

Me neither, Chris M. I'll do the same as Whale and go to sleep now.

And yes - the vinyl days were great. Never thought I'd say something like this in those good old days ;-) Man, I was sooo keen to get my first CD then.