33 replies to this topic

[Bizarro]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31833.html

that link is for an interesting article about the RIAA's crackdown on music file sharing.  i was wondering how you guys feel about this issue?

i don't think file sharing is theft.  its a copy of something so you aren't actually taking anything.  music is a very difficult thing to say you own because a person can hear the song and start singing it.  do they have to pay you if they hum it in their head?  i mean, that is a copy of your intellectual property too, right?  its also culture, which is very difficult to own.  i think the problem is that people refuse to pay high prices for things that aren't worth it- like 20 bucks for cd.  if prices were more reasonable and offered online, i think people would pay.  

ive always bought cds.  i have a huge collection, but honestly i haven't bought one in 3 years at least.  that probably has more to do with my own disgust with music that is coming out these days than music ive downloaded.  if i find a band that has more than one song i like, i will buy the cd.  if not, i will download that one song, listen to it for awhile, then delete it.  im not a person who listens to a lot of music, but when i create art i put my headphones on.  a lot of my downloaded songs are from cds i own, but am too lazy to dig out of my collection to encode into MP3's.  

i think copyright laws are getting a little outrageous these days.  as an artist, i find a lot of copyrighted pics on the net that shouldn't be copyrighted.  for example, a regular old pic of dirt.  why would someone copyright that?  it just pisses me off to see people taking copyright too far.  all these restrictions on free flow of information irritate me.  the internet started off on the right foot, but now its getting way too restricted to be useful for information purposes.  lots of sites are charging money for access these days.   i know bandwidth costs money, but its still disappointing.  

[Saru]

I personally don't have anything against peer to peer file sharing. If anything, programs such as Napster and Kazaa actually encourage a lot of users to buy music that they otherwise wouldn't. It gets more people interested in music as well, you don't need to shell out £10 to try out a CD that you think you may like, but don't want to risk buying.

As you say there have been a lot of crackdowns on file sharing recently, including some Kazaa users being arrested at random to try and put people off. I don't think it's going to be possible to stop this from happening, there are too many ways of doing it, too many people involved and too many programmers willing to create something to counteract any measures taken to restrict or control file sharing on the Internet.

[angel_psychic]

I agree with what you said.  My husband is in a band,  and if/when we get our music in a site I feel like it would be like free advertising.  If people like the songs the band plays,  they will be more apt to but the album.  You can record songs off the radio as well as sharing files,  and that does not deter customers from buying the cd.

[bigsteff]

i have a question about file sharing...music songs for instance

surely the only person breaking the law is the person who converted their music cd into mp3 format for sharing on the net

and as you are then downloading an mp3 ,it's not really the same piece of music that was originally recorded,,,if i'm correct in thinking mp3's have all the sounds below and above our hearing range removed and that is why mp3's do not have as big a file size....therefore it isn't really the same piece of music

well   

[dust19]

that is a good theory Bigsteff,

one could also say,

"I'm just transferring Binary Data, It's not music until the other party's computer decodes it again"

It's hard to regulate something that doesn't physically exist.

Sure they can crack down on peer to peer or whatever, but what about USENET? Can't regulate that can they? It's too hard and all anonymous.

[dAz]

File sharers can check a new online database to see if they are wanted by the recording industry. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a site where users can plug in their file-sharing user names. That name is checked against the list of those subpoenas filed in the Washington, D.C., district court. The group, which is gleaning its information from the publicly available Pacer database, said it will be an important resource for those who are concerned that the recording industry might be seeking their identities.

"The recording industry continues its futile crusade to sue thousands of the over 60 million people who use file-sharing software in the U.S.," Fred Von Lohmann, senior attorney with the EFF, said in a statement. "We hope that the EFF's subpoena database will give people some peace of mind and the information they need to challenge the subpoenas and protect their privacy." The EFF said the database includes 125 subpoenas issued through July 8. The group will update the tool as the records become available.

Source: Wired

[Starlyte]

Personally, I've never downloaded a single song, but one time gave a friend of mine a list of about 150 songs and he got every one for me.  I do burn CD's from others and make compilation CD's all of the time (from my own CD collection), but was always weary of downloading music.  I have a weird fascination with having to have the original CD so I think that curtailed the urge to download music, for me anyway.  And the 150 songs I had my friend download were from tapes I owned that I didn't want to re-purchase on CD.  I don't see anything wrong with music sharing though.     

[Bizarro]

come on, Starlyte... everybody's doing it.  just download one song.  i know you like System of a Down.  just one song.  what about a James Taylor song?  you don't need that cd.  you just want the one or two good songs.  come on, just do it    

[connecian]

I was always under the impression.. much like the old fashioned tapes...
if you are recording,,,burning and /or downloading for your own personal use.. there is nothing illegal. It is when you are selling them that it becomes copyright infringed and then illegal

I do have downloaded music.. some that you can not find on CD's.I feel as long as it is for personal use and not being sold.. it is not infringing.  

[Anirbas]

ah I have to completely agree wiht connecian! I am tired of buying CD's that cost 20 bucks to get two good songs off of it! I want to mix my own CD's (i put country then rap and some heavy metal and then some bluegrass) and i want the music industry to shut up - they make enough money

[neen]

Yes I agree too Anirbas, why pay so much for just a couple of songs when you can get it for free......although I still end up having to pay because I'm constantly going over my download limit But it's worth that couple of extra dollars me thinks   

[Dowdy]

I download stuff that i won't buy anyways. Like music, programs, security programs, movies and other stuff. I would never pay for stuff ike this and if it was impossible to get it off the internet or a friend i'll just simple do without it.

I have over 40+ full version games and i have not pay for a single one. I dont download them, i get them from relatives overseas, friends and the video store. Call me cheap, but i'm not paying for it

[Althalus]

I do not like file sharing i you have to pay to do it, an example would be where you pay twice the amount for a file of say a song, where if you went to a shop and bought it you would not pay as much, thankfully it is not done like that yet, but it will only be a matter of time until it is.  

[Starlyte]

[Naveed]

When the hell are record companies gonna find out that file sharing actually helps them? Most of the new bands coming out owe their fame to file-sharing, or Fred Durst *sarcastic tone on the Fred Durst* The majority of new bands use p2p as a way to gain fans. I've read a lot about new bands that get famous because of p2p. Also I think bands like Metallica a so freaking stupid for sueing file sharers, and screwing up Napster. They forgot that the only reason they even became famous was  because ppl copied and gave out their songs. If it weren't for fans copying music Metallica would have never been famous. Oh well, Metallica got what is coming to them anyways. Their most crap filled record to date. The songs are so choppy that it sounds like they recorded it in a blender. Don't get me wrong, I like their old stuff, but they have really gone down hill.

One more thing. I use file sharing to try out cds before I decide to buy one. I like to make dead sure I'm gonna like a cd before I buy it like most ppl. So where they get the idea that they loose money from p2p, I have no clue.

Lol, one more thing about how stupid copyright laws are getting. A lot of guitar tablature is being destroyed because it's a "Copyright violation" Metallica had one of the biggest Metallica tab archives shut down. Also it's very evident on Christian guitar tab sites to. And if the site isn't shut down, it's tabs or chord pages have to be lyric free because ppl apparently can copyright lyrics, but not the chord and note patterns. The funny thing about the Christian ones getting shut down is that almost every Christian muscian/band has played most of the songs that there are tabs of because they are worship songs that almost everyone does. So if all those bands use the songs, how is it not a copyright violation when apparently the tabs are?