I spend way too much on concerts and merch to be able to afford CDs.

The medium has changed, get with the program biatches.

Well, geez, I could have told them that. People who download and actually LIKE the music are more likely to actually buy the albums in one or another medium, just so they can have it. What always drove me nuts was when I'd hear a song on the radio, love it, buy the album, and realize the other 8-15 songs were complete garbage. The ability to "preview" the entire album is invaluable.

Researcher Peter Bradwell said the findings should force companies and politicians to 'wake up to the changing nature' of the music industry as the Government plans to disconnect illegal downloaders from the internet in a 'three strikes and you're out' rule.

Are the brits really going to go forward with that 'three strikes you're out' rule? if so, that's amazingly asinine. how do you enforce something like that? And how could you really keep a file trader offline? I mean, i'm never more than 10 minutes from an open wi-fi hot spot and I live in the middle of nowhere. someone in a large city could find ways to jack someone else's spot and download with impunity and any trace you run won't find them, it'll get the poor schulb who's wi-fi spot they're using.

Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Skail: Well, geez, I could have told them that. People who download and actually LIKE the music are more likely to actually buy the albums in one or another medium, just so they can have it. What always drove me nuts was when I'd hear a song on the radio, love it, buy the album, and realize the other 8-15 songs were complete garbage. The ability to "preview" the entire album is invaluable.

A big steaming pile of this.

Specious argument is specious. The appropriate comparison is to the counterfactual case; i.e., what would be the expenditures by those individuals in the absence of the availablity of free illegal downloads?

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

I've never understood this attitude. you'd have to be completely ignorant of the situation to sit there and just 'hrmp. well it's illegal and so there! LALALALA! NOT LISTENING! LALALALA!'

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

GAT_00: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

feckingmorons:
If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Nope, it's civil disobedience. Check this out. Look at how much money the entertainment industry is spending to keep the laws in their favor.

Now, I don't know about you but I don't have $48,418,658 lying around to hire lobbyists and bribe lawmakers. So how am I supposed to compete with that? Gandhi said that we have no obligation to obey an unjust law...and that by ignoring an unjust law, by making a mockery of that law, we force that law to change.

Consider file trading a modern version of civil disobedience. we're telling the corporations that they can write whatever bad/unjust laws they want and we will STILL ignore it.

feckingmorons: Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Ok, I'll give you a personal example why your ideas are outdated. A friend of mine loaned me all of West Wing to watch, after she convinced me I should watch it. She was right, it's awesome. I've watched other episodes from time to time online. It's also going to get me to buy the whole series. Grabbing a song online is equivalent. There is a straight correlation between what is "theft" of TV shows, movies, and music and buying more of those shows and music. Why should it be illegal? I've personally proved time and time again that the law is idiotic because it prevents increased sales.

I'm in love with legal downloading, even though I was reluctant to embrace it at first.

Fact is, the cd is simply a horrible medium for music and while better than tapes, today it's just not important anymore. I remember the days right before leaving on a trip, and having to choose about 20 cds because more than that would start to be burdensome. Now I can get literally days worth of music on an iPod. I really don't care for a comeback to the days when I couldn't listen to what I wanted exactly when I wanted.

On other hand, I also really love music and I find a iPod on its own to be too impersonal. I still like to own a physical copy of the music I listen to.

I stopped buying cds long ago and only buy vinyls instead. If I love a band/record, I simply buy the LP or EP, then illegally download the tracks. If I want someone's record but I'm not that bothered with having a physical copy, I simply go on iTunes and buy it.

The only mp3s I have that I do not own are basically live/never released sessions and songs, or records that I can't even find on eBay. If they get reissued, I buy them then. If not, well, not exactly stealing.

Illegal downloads are also a great way to sample an album first and know if its worth buying. It's also a relief to be able to spend money wisely and not spend $15 on a record I'll actually hate.

Also a great way to discover bands.

Owners of Record Companies and artists that fight against illegal downloads are stupid. If you produce great material, people downloading it illegally can only help your career, because they most likely would not have heard of you otherwise. Adapt to the new reality, embrace it fully and quality will always be rewarded

/Bought a record from the late 70s a few weeks ago, and inside the sleeve there was an old warning from the UK that said: "Copying music on tapes will kill the music industry". Always good for a laugh.

are we suppose to be shocked that people that care about music use every way possible to obtain songs?!

/Love legal downloading and too tired of beating my head against the wall explaining how stealing is stealing

Weaver95: Are the brits really going to go forward with that 'three strikes you're out' rule?

It's an upcoming bill. Despite the government's own research indicating that it was counter-productive, the leading ISPs asserting that they will not provide user information in the absence of a court order, etc.

'Lord' Mandelson is in the pocket of the media industry. There's every possibility we'll have a new government before this is put before parliament, but with Murdoch backing the Conservatives it's hard to imagine they'll be any more open to reality.

I'm downloading 8 albums right now and last time I legally paid for music was 19 yers ago (Technotronic) so I'm getting a kick out of some of these replies

feckingmorons: GAT_00: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Yeah. I think I'm the only person I know who doesn't download music illegally. If I hear a song I like I might search online for additional tracks, using sites like Deezer (which is really pissing me off lately, but that's another story). Then I either buy or lose interest.

FarkinNortherner: Weaver95: Are the brits really going to go forward with that 'three strikes you're out' rule?

It's an upcoming bill. Despite the government's own research indicating that it was counter-productive, the leading ISPs asserting that they will not provide user information in the absence of a court order, etc.

'Lord' Mandelson is in the pocket of the media industry. There's every possibility we'll have a new government before this is put before parliament, but with Murdoch backing the Conservatives it's hard to imagine they'll be any more open to reality.

I think the UK is going to see an explosion of file trading if that law goes into effect.

/Hot, like my music collection.
//Probably spent more on music than I'd ever like to know.

I've spent many times more money purchasing music in the going-on-14 years I've been a netizen than in the 20 years prior to my discovery of the internet.

The reason why can be succinctly summarized in one sentence: "With the Internet's aid, I know exactly what is is that I'm buying."

The Internet is a tool.
I like to believe that I've used that tool wisely (with regard to my exposure to music [and film and books and other collectible tangible expressions of creativity]).

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

I was constructing an argument as to why your comparison was so dissimilar to the current situation when I realised that it just was not worth it. If you truly believe your comparison is adequate then I doubt my wasted time and effort is going to change your mind.

Oh, and if konigforst happens across this thread, I checked out the Mordant Music comp. I rather liked a good bit of it, although there were some tunes that were blah.

Shackleton is the new Muslimgauze.

I download a metric ton of music. if I don't like it, I delete it. if I find myself listening to it often, I buy it. last year I bought about 60 cd's. it's only November of this year and i've already surpassed that with 66 purchases. I buy what I like. if an album sucks, fark it. I hate blind purchases and you should too.


/also always goes and sees a band I like whenever they come through town, and about half the time end up buying the cd directly from them or a tshirt.

Japancakes: The reason why can be succinctly summarized in one sentence: "With the Internet's aid, I know exactly what is is that I'm buying."

this. With the internet, I haven't "Bought Blind" (made a purchase without knowing what I'm getting into) in years. Yeah, impulsive buys can be rewarding, but more often than not, I only like one or two tracks. Generally the only thing I buy without previewing first is an artist I already like anyway.

Well, I can't download vinyl.

Lumber Jack Off: I download a metric ton of music. if I don't like it, I delete it. if I find myself listening to it often, I buy it. last year I bought about 60 cd's. it's only November of this year and i've already surpassed that with 66 purchases. I buy what I like. if an album sucks, fark it. I hate blind purchases and you should too.

I'm a pretty staunch anti-downloader, but what you've described sounds like fair use to me. Or at least as fair as it's going to get. It's assumed that a person who buys music is going to listen to it more than once.

I object to people substituting illegal downloads for music purchases.

As far as blind purchases go, I've bought more than my share of CDs on the strength of a single song, only to be disappointed by most of the tracks.

There's a music chain where I live that lets browsers scan the barcode of a CD and listen to the first 30 seconds or so of every song on a given album. Is this commonly available elsewhere?

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

had you actually read any of the law you're yapping about you'd know that it's "making available for download" that is illegal, not downloading itself.

Immoral, insensitive and fattening, sure...but not illegal.

If Castro wanted to f*ck with the US, he'd upgrade his country's infrastructure and host enormously powerful servers that allowed people to pirate content to their heart's content. Then charge a minimal fee to access his servers. He'd make a metric assload of cash by simply giving digital pirates a safe harbor.

I love how the record industry slaps on a halo and pretends that they have nothing to do with creating the very environment that exists today. I still buy CDs and records, and I still download a ton of music, primarily old catalog stuff that I once owned on cassette or otherwise. If I really like the album and the sound is really complex/nuanced/dynamic, I'm buying it on vinyl. MP3's compress and clip the sound, and I don't care if you can't hear the difference because I can. I'll probably never get rid of my CDs, and I definitely won't get rid of the vinyl. And I will not stop downloading music.

spleef420: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

had you actually read any of the law you're yapping about you'd know that it's "making available for download" that is illegal, not downloading itself.

Immoral, insensitive and fattening, sure...but not illegal.

Both making available for downloading and downloading pirated music or other electronic files are Federal crimes.

You are simply ignoring that to assuage your guilt.

I don't care what you do. It will be you being sued or arrested or fined or imprisoned not me. Sure they can't catch all of the illegal file sharers, but they do catch a few. If you want to take that risk go right ahead.

feckingmorons: I don't care what you do. It will be you being sued or arrested or fined or imprisoned not me. Sure they can't catch all of the illegal file sharers, but they do catch a few. If you want to take that risk go right ahead.

They catch less than one tenth of one percent of all file traders currently running bittorrent clients.

One tenth of one percent. And this is after stacking the deck against free market competition. Sure, in a warped and perverted way you have a point - file trading IS 'illegal'. But you ignore the fact that the laws regarding this technology are the results of corrupting the legislative process when you say that.

Putting all that aside from the moment, let's get back to the 'one tenth of one percent' figure. Despite bribing congress and lying under oath to get their law(s) passed, nothing the music industry has done as put a dent in file trading. Nothing. It cannot be stopped. They could pass more laws, and still file trading would continue. They could pile laws so high that you could see them from orbit - and STILL file trading would continue. It's here to stay. So what do you propose to do about it?

feckingmorons: Both making available for downloading and downloading pirated music or other electronic files are Federal crimes.

You've never read the damned law. I've received multiple notices from the MPAA for making available for download, not downloading.

had you read any of the dozens of cases posted here you'd know that all of the people sued by the RIAA and MPAA were for making available, not downloading.

What if I go to the library, borrow an album, then rip it into iTunes and return it? Should that entitle EMI, Sony, Warner Brothers, or Universal to sue me?

beaverteeth92: What if I go to the library, borrow an album, then rip it into iTunes and return it? Should that entitle EMI, Sony, Warner Brothers, or Universal to sue me?

Well, that's not fair use. It would be the same thing as borrowing a book and copying it for yourself.

I knew there was a reason I liked Shakira, I just wasn't sure what it was until now.

I've never bought a CD in my life but I pirate the shiat out of music!

feckingmorons: Both making available for downloading and downloading pirated music or other electronic files are Federal crimes.

also...show me ONE person in federal prison for copyright infringement. ONE.

Wut?

People SELL music?

My 2 cents...

The amount of music out there completely exceeds any rational attempt to listen to it all or purchase it all.

30 second previews don't cut it either. You have to be able to listen to music where you want, when you want. Plus, all these legal download sites are so absolutely slow when it comes to new releases, and complete rubbish when it comes to cost and quality.

Fact is, the pirates are far more up to speed on new music and releases and far more helpful than any traditional media in spotlighting new music.

Lots of these sites like iTunes have the same problem artists had in the past with chain stores like Tower. They rip off independent artists and/or make it a hassle for them to get their music on the site.

Face it, the pirates won. Not just because they offered it for free, but because they were so ahead of everyone else.

You visit any music sharing site, they are not talking about the farking Jonas Brothers or Lady Gaga. They are talking about music that matters. The majors shoved crap down people's throats for so long, the consumers got sick of it and went elsewhere.

Good riddance, music industry.

Tatsuma: I'm in love with legal downloading, even though I was reluctant to embrace it at first.

Fact is, the cd is simply a horrible medium for music and while better than tapes, today it's just not important anymore. I remember the days right before leaving on a trip, and having to choose about 20 cds because more than that would start to be burdensome. Now I can get literally days worth of music on an iPod. I really don't care for a comeback to the days when I couldn't listen to what I wanted exactly when I wanted.


My car has its own hard drive that's connected via USB to the stereo. I've loaded it up with a ton of music and have only used a fraction of the available space. All the mp3s on the hard drive were ripped from CDs I purchased. I bet the RIAA still thinks I should pay for the privilege of ripping to the drive. They can go fark themselves.

To get a basic idea of how many times I've already paid for the same music. Dark Side of the Moon is one of the all time great albums. I went through at least three vinyl copies of that album. I had an 8-track of it (sorry, I was doing drugs at the time). I had a store bought cassette for the car. I now have a regular CD and an "Original Master" CD of it. That album has sold millions upon millions of copies. Has the price gone down? Of course not. The price is actually slightly higher than most CDs because it's one of those albums that everyone simply must have in their collection.

Glitchwerks: My 2 cents...

The amount of music out there completely exceeds any rational attempt to listen to it all or purchase it all.

30 second previews don't cut it either. You have to be able to listen to music where you want, when you want. Plus, all these legal download sites are so absolutely slow when it comes to new releases, and complete rubbish when it comes to cost and quality.

Fact is, the pirates are far more up to speed on new music and releases and far more helpful than any traditional media in spotlighting new music.

Lots of these sites like iTunes have the same problem artists had in the past with chain stores like Tower. They rip off independent artists and/or make it a hassle for them to get their music on the site.
Face it, the pirates won. Not just because they offered it for free, but because they were so ahead of everyone else.

You visit any music sharing site, they are not talking about the farking Jonas Brothers or Lady Gaga. They are talking about music that matters. The majors shoved crap down people's throats for so long, the consumers got sick of it and went elsewhere.

Good riddance, music industry.

I have no love for the music industry, but how is pirating "music that matters" not ripping off the artists?

Glitchwerks: My 2 cents...

The amount of music out there completely exceeds any rational attempt to listen to it all or purchase it all.

30 second previews don't cut it either. You have to be able to listen to music where you want, when you want. Plus, all these legal download sites are so absolutely slow when it comes to new releases, and complete rubbish when it comes to cost and quality.

Fact is, the pirates are far more up to speed on new music and releases and far more helpful than any traditional media in spotlighting new music.

Lots of these sites like iTunes have the same problem artists had in the past with chain stores like Tower. They rip off independent artists and/or make it a hassle for them to get their music on the site.

Face it, the pirates won. Not just because they offered it for free, but because they were so ahead of everyone else.

You visit any music sharing site, they are not talking about the farking Jonas Brothers or Lady Gaga. They are talking about music that matters. The majors shoved crap down people's throats for so long, the consumers got sick of it and went elsewhere.

Good riddance, music industry.

I don't get the logic here. Lady Gaga and Jonas brothers and the rest of their ilk are still getting obscenely rich while most quality bands are lucky to make a living wage for the few years they can tour. Then they're done - (unless they get an "after the fact" following like The Pixies.)

The new paradigm is great for the listener, lousy for the artist.

Nogale: I have no love for the music industry, but how is pirating "music that matters" not ripping off the artists?

That is a complicated issue. There are artists who care that their music is being downloaded, and there are artists who don't care. Although piracy has definitely hurt everyone in many regards, overall I feel they are growing pains that we're going to have to get through.

I think there's a better solution out there for everyone, but it's going to take someone with a lot of vision to find it, and Steve Jobs isn't that person.

Gangway Fathead: The new paradigm is great for the listener, lousy for the artist.

Well, according to this article, music pirates buy more than people who do not pirate music. I know many artists on P2P sites are putting up their own albums for download, and asking people to come to their shows and support them.

Public Enemy was recently highlighted on Fark for asking for donations to record an album. Many Farkers said they chipped in.

There's a new business model here that will benefit everyone. Someone has to find it, that's all.

beaverteeth92: What if I go to the library, borrow an album, then rip it into iTunes and return it? Should that entitle EMI, Sony, Warner Brothers, or Universal to sue me?

Technically, I think it does.

Are they going to? Of course not. Just like major league baseball isn't going to crack down on someone "rebroadcasting" a game for their friends despite the warning at the end of the game.

The library is my favorite place to steal music from. Our branch has surprisingly good selection and they get new titles in very quickly.

feckingmorons:

You're a DICK! South Carolina, whats up!

I download tons of music almost every day.
I spend lots of $ on new releases, t shirts and sweatshirts almost every week.
I am a gigging, producing musician.

Gangway Fathead: "The new paradigm is great for the listener, lousy for the artist."

Only if the artist is still tied to the RIAA via one of their record labels. Most independent artists are doing very well using the new paradigm. What's more, the music is better because nobody is telling the artist what to record. That too makes for happier artists. And crap music goes nowhere rather than getting shoved into people'e ears every ten minutes. That kind of honest feedback is appreciated by good artists because it is immediate and unfiltered by someone trying to make money off you.

OgreMagi: That album [Dark Side of the Moon] has sold millions upon millions of copies. Has the price gone down? Of course not. The price is actually slightly higher than most CDs because it's one of those albums that everyone simply must have in their collection.

just my 2 cents, but I haven't seen DSotM anywhere for more than $10. Not counting some kind of ultra-deluxe edition or something.


Nogale: I have no love for the music industry, but how is pirating "music that matters" not ripping off the artists?



I think that issue is entirely up to the artists themselves. I'm not a musician, but I do find the idea that a fan who is paying for an album is somehow "A Real Fan", compared to a fan who downloaded the same album illegally, completely preposterous.