downloading music for free! whats your opinion?

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by kalimus

That's beacuse most of his fans are 14 year old girls who don't know how to operate a computer.

They learn very early... My 12 year old Granddaughter probably operates a computer better than most people on this forum

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Well firstly, I'm surprised how you find the download of an unreleased CD to be in violation of the law, but a released CD not. Isn't the action of uploading an unreleased CD onto a torrent making it "freely available?" What does it matter if the CD is in stores or not? And no, your having heard it doesn't make it theft, your possession of it does. The instant you download it, it belongs to you (see the borrowing analogy below).

No, I said uploading an album is illegal (especially if it's prior to the official album release date).

Secondly, I would share your opinion of borrowing a CD from a friend, except that many songs that are on torrents are there from the same "leaching" settings. Many of those songs were likely not purchased by the person that uploaded them ether. That's speculation on my part, because there is no way to confirm nor refute it. But the nature of a torrent being what it is... I believe my assumption is the safer bet.

Hence my clarification above. The person who originally uploaded the album broke the law. But in the digital world, once a file has been created on the internet, it cannot be un-created. So, at that point there are two files on the internet; one that requires a financial transaction and one that doesn't.

I use the store analogy because while in the store, that album is not owned by you... in that case, you aren't stealing from the artist, you're stealing from a store. So from a pure "who gets the money" standpoint, you're supporting the artist by stealing it from a store instead of stealing iit online. Every download online, is a CD not bought or stolen. The artist doesn't get any of that money. In a store, the artist (label) already received the money. Although... this is about to tangent wildly so I should move on....

The analogy would make more sense like this:
The original uploader acquired the album from the store. Anyone and everyone who is downloading the album is making free copies off of the original acquired album... Truth be told, none of the downloaders know if the album was acquired legally or not. In the case of an album that has not been released yet, it's obvious. But after an album is released, who knows.

Whether you take a physical media or a digital media, it's the same. What you do, is listen first and pay if intend to keep it. But most importantly, you are taking it before you pay for it. It's not something you are "borrowing". What you do with it after you take it is irrelevant in my mind. You aren't borrowing something that someone purchased, and then returning it. You haven't taken it from anyone's hands, causing them to no longer have it. When you download it, you now possess a copy, while the originator still possesses it.

By that logic, in relation to digital files, you're implying that any copy of a purchased product is violating law. So, if I buy an album and then go rip the album onto my computer, since that is a copy, it's against the law because I now have two copies of the work but I only paid for one. I know that's not what you really mean, but that's how that logic will get applied in the legal sense.

Lastly, I believe it is the uploader and the downloader that are in violation of the law. The uploader is providing an unauthorized distribution. The downloader is receiving an unauthorized copy. Why music is looked at any differently than computer software is beyond me.

And here's where we diverge. I agree that the uploader broke the law. But I believe once a file is made freely available on the internet, then that file becomes open content. The RIAA will oppose this opinion until it is blue in the face, but they should try asking Paris Hilton, or any other number of celebrities who have scandalous photos or videos disseminated to the internet whether they can control something once it's out there.

Where what you are doing specifically might be morally acceptable to you or others, doesn't make it legal. I can only debate legality, because morals are truly not universal so many can not be "right" or "wrong". If intent was the basis on which a law was judged things would be very different.

This is an interesting conversation... because it's really based off our subject view of intent. Your intent is not to steal, assuming what you say is true (I have no reason to believe otherwise). So although legally wrong, is it morally wrong if your intent is innocent? Dang morals.

I think it's morally wrong for the record labels to shaft their artists the way they do, but nobody bats an eye.

I'd rather go to an artist's shows and buy their merchandise so that I know the majority of my money is going directly to the artist I like instead of just buying their album and knowing a miniscule fraction of the money I just spent ever makes it their way.

If that means I get labeled a thief or a pirate along the way, then so be it. I've always thought it would be fun to wear an eye patch...

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I think it's morally wrong for the record labels to shaft their artists the way they do, but nobody bats an eye.

I'd rather go to an artist's shows and buy their merchandise so that I know the majority of my money is going directly to the artist I like instead of just buying their album and knowing a miniscule fraction of the money I just spent ever makes it their way.

If that means I get labeled a thief or a pirate along the way, then so be it. I've always thought it would be fun to wear an eye patch...

ARGH dangit! I can't quote the parts that you put in my quote when you quoted me!!!! I don't think.

I really wanted to address this:

By that logic, in relation to digital files, you're implying that any copy of a purchased product is violating law. So, if I buy an album and then go rip the album onto my computer, since that is a copy, it's against the law because I now have two copies of the work but I only paid for one. I know that's not what you really mean, but that's how that logic will get applied in the legal sense.

It is actually legal for you to make a copy of an album you bought to keep as a backup. The law specifically talks about this. You paid for it, and it is now your property. However, the law says that if you distribute those copies, that is illegal. Both for the provider and the recipient. That's why I maintain both parties are guilty. The uploader could be "more guilty", but the downloader is guilty as well. That's the entire reason DRM exists in the first place. DRM isn't designed to effect the purchaser, it is designed to effect the person who wrongfully obtained it via distribution or download. The two files on the internet you referenced... one was purchased, and the other is not by law supposed to be there.

On a side note, I find it interesting that you brought up the photo thing. Unlike other digital media, the person in the picture or home video has no rights to it at all. There was recently a big story about this (can't remember what it involved) and allegedly there is supposed to be a ruling or law or something in the works to provide the person that protection. This is unlike music/movies/software because those things are considered to be intellectual property where as currently, the photo or home video is the property of the person who took it.

Also. It's not that fun to wear an eye patch. You run into shit. No bueno


ETA: Has something to do with this: http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/30/int...s-protections/ It's not JUST about pictures and the likes, but it's included. It was tied to another event somewhere... can't find that just yet...

[CamaroSkooter]

Right, as far as legality is concerned, the two things are almost mutually exclusive. So, I wasn't trying to use one to legally justify the other.

All I'm pointing out, though, is that once something is made available electronically, the "author" cannot keep control of it. It's just physically impossible.

The fact is, there are places that do not require any kind of registration to be capable of downloading all sorts of stuff. Until every one of those places are shut down or forced into requiring monetary fees in order to be utilized, the material will remain freely available to anyone who has a clue.

Call me frugal, but I don't want to purchase an album if I'm going to get home and find out it sucks. Especially when every store I've ever been to has a very strict "no return" policy on any physical media. I don't like the concept of my hard earned money going to people who knowingly and intentionally pilfer crappy music, especially when they have no intention of giving that money back if the customer is unhappy or unsatisfied with the product.

[Blk-Ice]

There is no need to pirate music anymore. There are too many free music streaming sites these days!

[CamaroSkooter]

If you're okay with the audio quality of streaming music...sure...

[Blk-Ice]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

If you're okay with the audio quality of streaming music...sure...

Actually i am....it works on my walk to work from the parking garage.

[CamaroSkooter]

But for everyone else, that audio quality will never be acceptable. Plus, streaming music doesn't allow you to create playlists of your favorite songs...you're just at the whim of whatever the programming "thinks" you'll like. And in most cases, if it plays a song you don't like, you only have so many skips allowed per hour or per day. No thanks

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by GroundPilot

No it will not, though it may kill the ability to make money from RECORDED material, but then again until modern times musicians made money from the PERFORMANCE of their songs.

So Frank Sinatra didn't make a lot of money off record sales in the 1950s? Elvis Presley didn't make a lot of money off a record sales in the same time?

The cost to make those live performances, at the venues the fans have become accustomed to, with the way the fans have come to expect the production of those performances, is very high.

So what's that mean? Higher ticket prices. Fans won't pay 500 bucks for a regular seat. The recording aspect makes no money. What's the outlook? A vibrant music industry?

[Rockhead]

Originally Posted by midnighter

Free doesn't come without a catch.

That's what she said.

[Blk-Ice]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

But for everyone else, that audio quality will never be acceptable. Plus, streaming music doesn't allow you to create playlists of your favorite songs...you're just at the whim of whatever the programming "thinks" you'll like. And in most cases, if it plays a song you don't like, you only have so many skips allowed per hour or per day. No thanks

Guess you never heard of Spotify Premium.....dont knock it till you try it.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Blk-Ice

There is no need to pirate music anymore. There are too many free music streaming sites these days!

Originally Posted by Blk-Ice

Guess you never heard of Spotify Premium.....dont knock it till you try it.

The Spotify Premium subscription costs money, no? (after the first 48 hours)

[midnighter]

Originally Posted by Rockhead

That's what she said.

Nice!

[GbrilliantQ]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

The Spotify Premium subscription costs money, no? (after the first 48 hours)

Like 10 bucks a month. The wife has it. It's actually pretty sweet.

Sent from my Note 3