What is your opinion?

[revorhythm]

Kinda hijacking a second topic from the "By what means do you purchse music" thread. But what is everyones opinion of filesharing, and free downloading?

 

Im kinda in the middle, if i know i like something i buy the CD. But too many times i find myself buyin CD's for one song, and cant justify that anymore. So i download it. Also, since im getting into different music, I like to see whats out there first, and then go purchase something. Another concern, is many times theres no way to buy the music your looking for. Like when you find rare copies of songs online, that arent on any record.

 

So what are your thoughts?

[Danzilla]

If it's authorized by the artist & label, like at 7spin records, go ahead. As more songs are available for download as individual songs rather than the full album, just get what you want. But only use it for yourself; don't go passing it out willy-nilly (unless authorized as above). I think it would help if artists and/or music shops had a sample stream you could listen to prior to buying. I agree, there's so much out htere, and you "hear" (read) ABOUT it, but haven't heard IT yet, so you might be taking a chance.

Caveat emptor, and don't be rippin' off your fellow artists.

[Dr. Ellwood]

I vote for file sharing! unlimited and completely open. Bands make their money off touring and merchandise by-product. The record labels can kiss my skinney little ass!!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I started out in this business as a player. I also am a songwriter. As a songwriter, in support of other songwriters, I would only consider downloading from authorized sites, where the people responsible for making the music get paid, instead of the site hosts who steal it.

 

It doesn't matter what I can or cannot afford. Right now I can't afford a new laptop, so I'm typing on one with a broken A key. I still won't be stealing a laptop or buying a hot one any time soon.

 

Bill

[LPCustom]

I think you should be able to download whatever you want as long as it's properly authorized.

 

Downloading copyrighted music that has not been authorized is stealing.

 

But people have probably been stealing for as long as there have been people. And it's not going to stop. Ever.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

This question always ends up in an argument, and a lot of really stupid positions and justifications are taken by the participants. So I'm going to say one more thing, then bow out of this thread.

 

It is a matter of morals. Period.

 

If you walk down the street and se a blind man sitting on a corner, and there is a $5 bill on the sidewalk by his cup, what do you do? Do you walk on by? Do you pick up the money and slip it in your pocket? He'll never know, and nobody gets hurt, right? Or do you pick up the bill and put it into his cup? That is the moral dilemma. How did your momma raise you?

 

Bill

[Mudcat]

Originally posted by LPCustom:

I think you should be able to download whatever you want as long as it's properly authorized.

 

Downloading copyrighted music that has not been authorized is stealing...

This is reality folks. I have too many friends trying to make as songwriters to start (unauthorized) downloading of music. To me file-sharing is the same as shop-lifting a CD from Tower.

[revorhythm]

I hear ya on the stealing thing, which is why if i like it i buy it if i dont i get rid of it. I guess one huge question is the last thing i brought up earlier. What about songs you find, but cant buy anywhere? things like rare performances or rare b-sides. also, sometimes you cant even buy the record they were on. There are some Social D songs that were only but on special copies of records, but from what i can find, they dont make the special editions anymore. in these cases i feel its alright. what about you guys?

[Mike Gug]

I have no problem buying or selling a used CD. That piece of plastic is mine.

 

The intelectual property, which is the song, is not. For some reason, I have no problem saying to someone, "Hey, I like that disc we're listening to. Can I have a copy?"

 

I shared intelectual property with cassette tapes and vinyl for many years. I don't seek out music on the net for free downloads. For whatever reason, I draw the line there. In all thruthfulness, I can not explain why I draw my line there, but the "fishing expiditions" seem too malicious for my tastes.

 

revo, you're only hijacking if you take the thread a different way. New threads aren't hijacking.

[Pappy P]

I download from Authorized Sites only. I always pay, that's just my way.

 

I still like buying CDs though. I only download if I just want one song.

 

As a songwriter, I'm thrilled to give my recordings away for free to anyone that will listen.

 

But I do think that record companies and artists should get thier fair share. It is very costly to record and produce music, then package and market.

 

Personally, I will not pay more than twelve dollars for a CD. If it costs more than that, I don't need it.

 

I usually have to wait for a used copy at Half Price used books.

[LPCustom]

Originally posted by revorhythm:

I hear ya on the stealing thing, which is why if i like it i buy it if i dont i get rid of it. I guess one huge question is the last thing i brought up earlier. What about songs you find, but cant buy anywhere? things like rare performances or rare b-sides. also, sometimes you cant even buy the record they were on. There are some Social D songs that were only but on special copies of records, but from what i can find, they dont make the special editions anymore. in these cases i feel its alright. what about you guys?

If it's not possible to buy it, I don't really see a problem with getting a copy any way you can. If it's not available for sale, you are not taking money out of anyone's pocket by obtaining a copy of it. I have two songs in my library like that.

 

Now, having said that, if it DOES become available I will buy them. It is not my intent to steal it. But it's the only way I can get it. And since it's not for sale _anywhere_, there is no potential sale lost. Intent is part of the law and I had/have no intent of depriving anyone of the benefits of their labors.

 

One example of the above is the song "Wouldn't It Be Good" by Nik Kershaw. For several years the CD "Human Racing" was unobtainable. A couple of years ago, it was remastered and re-released. I bought it when I finally found a copy and removed the song that I had downloaded from someone's vinyl recording.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

I will download ONLY from sites that clearly state that they have license to do so. I'm not about stealing music.....or software...or movies...

[Squ]

In my opinion, this would be the best case scenario.

 

Download an album/song/couple songs or what have you. If you like it and plan to keep it, send the band $5. $5 is much more money than the band makes if you buy it from a store. It is also much less money than you would pay if you bought it from the store. Thus: Big record labels lose, and the bands and the fans win.

 

What do you guys say to that?

[Mass Effect]

I used to download illegally all the time. That was years ago. After awhile I started having a guilty conscience over it so I just deleted all that stuff.It's hard to enjoy the music when you know you got it in a dishonest fashion.

 

I much prefer to have the CD and the better audio quality that goes along with it. iTunes does come in handy though. It was cool to find "Thunderbird" from Thelma & Louise on there. Not an album I would bother to buy, but well worth a 99 cent download for that song.

[MadStrum]

I download illegally when I hear about a band, but cannot find any samples to listen to. I know iTunes has samples, but they're only 30 seconds! At least let me get from the beginning to the end of the 1st chorus ya?

If I like it, I'll buy it from my local cd shop tho'

 

Pier.

[revolead]

Mike - If you do a search in the archives for music downloading, you can find a bunch of opinions about the subject. As a general rule, you already know I'm basically the same as you, but there's always exceptions when money is no object.

[BiC]

I'd say as long as the site is legal & legit, go for it. IMO, professional musicians, or more the less their reps, nowadays are forced to jack up ticket prices along w/ all the merchandising because of "loss" of sales due to illegal downloading. One way or another, we all will pay for it eventually.

 

Gosh, if I remember correctly, my VH 1984 ticket was around $16.00. My, how times have changed.

 

God Bless

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by ellwood:

I vote for file sharing! unlimited and completely open. Bands make their money off touring and merchandise by-product. The record labels can kiss my skinney little ass!!

Ahhhhhhh. So refreshing well worth a repost !!!!

 

As an American Constitutionalist, I believe in a free market economy and natural competition.

File sharing keeps the game from being rigged like a Casino Game - "heads Warner Brothers and/or the Big 6 (have they all merged yet?) wins, tails band loses"

 

I think that file sharing forces bands to be more creative in their marketing approach to entice people to buy the original.

 

Plus, unless your Michael Jackson or Metallica, etc. . . you don't make jack off record sales

Read the Book, Confessions of a record Producer by Moses Avalon and be sobered regarding how you get hosed when you "sign up" and "bend over". That kinda party is definitely

B.Y.O.V. - Bring Your Own Vaseline - cuz they ain't usin' it.

 

Just my .02 cents (not lawful money)

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Caputo:

As an American Constitutionalist, ...

You might want to review your Constitution. I believe that protection of intellectual property is covered in Section 6, but I haven't looked in quite a while. It's very early on, though. The founding fathers recognised that thoughts have value, too.

 

 

Bill

[Mass Effect]

What about tab books and instructional videos?

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by Caputo:

As an American Constitutionalist, ...

You might want to review your Constitution. I believe that protection of intellectual property is covered in Section 6, but I haven't looked in quite a while. It's very early on, though. The founding farthers recognised that thoughts have value, too. Bill

Thanks, Bill, is it in article I? I'll check it out.

Much appreciated. I guess that's what makes a forum, a forum !!!

I am all for intellectual property rights and file sharing.

Am I seriously deluded?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Caputo:

...I am all for intellectual property rights and file sharing.

Am I seriously deluded?

The question then becomes: "How can you SHARE something that does not belong to you?"

 

"Share", in this situation, is a euphemism for "I can take it and you can't stop me, fuck you." Just like a schoolyard bully.

 

Bill

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

 

"Share", in this situation, is a euphemism for "I can take it and you can't stop me, fuck you." Just like a schoolyard bully.

 

Bill

It's not QUITE like that.

 

If one side's like the scholyard bully, I wonder what you call an industry that forces you to spend 30 euro or more on a CD. I can understand Mariah Carey bullshit costing a lot of money because they have to pay for the idiot videos and her botox and all that. I can't understand why I have to pay the same amount for a Mississippi John Hurt CD. He doesn't get royalties or even a shot of botox, so why the high cost?

 

It can't be the costs of the recording itself because every Summer you invariably get all the hit singles in one big complilation. And for less than the price of a normal CD. How can that be? And how much do the actual musicians make?

 

Somehow or other, I think the recording industry is pretty much the bully in THIS story. I won't rip them off, but I'm not about to start crying over them. If musicians got even a 60-40 deal on each record sold, I'd say "fine, screw the Napster du jour", but when the only people getting hurt are a bunch of suits..?

 

EDIT: I'm still trying to work out my position on songwriters.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

.... what you call an industry that forces you to spend 30 euro or more on a CD. ....

See, that's why I don't get involved in these things.

 

To me it is cut and dried. Gibson wants $4,000 for a Les Paul. Les gets a cut. If you want a Gibson Les Paul you pay the money. Gibson manufactures, warehouses, distributes, advertises the Les Paul.

 

If I as an artist sign an agreement with a given label, and they do the promotion, manufacturing, and distribution of my product, then they are the only ones who can sell that product. You would not have heard of me if they haddn't sponsored the tour, bought air time, coerced the radio stations into playing the songs, etc. In our partnership, they did their part and I did mine. You as a consumer have a choice.... buy or do not buy. What I DON'T "get" is why this is so hard to understand.

 

Is it because the computer make stealing easy and faceless? You don't have to hold me up in an alley? Nobody knows you're a thief? If I have made my deal with a label, and you get the music from anything other than an authorized channel, you are a thief. Any justifications... "Gee, you want too much money..." are just pure selfish bullshit. If you think that my product is too expensive, don't buy it. Fair enough.

 

Bill

[miroslav]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

What I DON'T "get" is why this is so hard to understand.

Me neither...?

 

I think it may have to do with the fact that a lot of folks have a problem with the concept of "property"...when it is something that is not tangible...like music.

So...it becomes alright to steal because in their minds...they are only making "copies" of something that is "virtual".

 

See...if you switch your thinking to something like a book or a picture...its more clear cut.

If you bought one copy and then started printing thousands of copies for sharing...you would understand why the cops are knocking on your door.

But...a file...of a piece of music...well, how's that gonna bother anyone?

 

Well...when dicks take it and put it on the internet...and a million people download it...

...how many are still going to go out and buy it...???

NONE!

All that shit about..."if I really like it after I download for free, I'll honestly go out and buy the authentic version"...is BS.

It must be up to the artists and owners of the music to decide if they want to offer up a free download...a free sample...not you!

If they don't...though shit...you should NOT have it for free...just because you found a website that offers it illegally for downloading.

 

It's like looking over at your neighbors fancy new car.

Oh boy, you sure would love to take it out for a spin...but he ain't offering the keys.

So...you steal it for a little joy ride...but not to worry, you're gonna' bring it back in a bit...and...if you really like the ride...you might actually go and buy one yourself!!!

Yeah...I bet you would love YOUR neighbor if he came over and took YOUR car without your permission!!!

 

Intellectual property is PROPERTY...just like your damn car.

Stop playing the naiveté angle folks.

[Big Red 67]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

I started out in this business as a player. I also am a songwriter. As a songwriter, in support of other songwriters, I would only consider downloading from authorized sites, where the people responsible for making the music get paid, instead of the site hosts who steal it.

 

It doesn't matter what I can or cannot afford. Right now I can't afford a new laptop, so I'm typing on one with a broken A key. I still won't be stealing a laptop or buying a hot one any time soon.

 

Bill

MINE HAS A BROKEN CAPLOCK KEY! hehehe

 

I have a thousand + CD's. If I'm stealin' then I am a glutton.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Nice avatar... looks like Big Red Layla, on my laptop

 

Bill

[Tone Taster]

well, how about this?

 

Unless signed up with a company who has strict copyright prohibitions, all bands in favor of file sharing who are not signed, put a permission clause on their material or a public notice filed into the record where they are incorporated and then posting the public notice and it's reference number on their website

 

I am for voluntaryism in that respect, even if a record label chose to do that.

 

See, I like marketing concepts, too

 

What about having different comic strip series and characters and/or different artwork making it collectible, etc . . . maybe have, in the original pressed CD , discount coupons redeemable for concert ticket/merchandise discounts at the shows?

 

I just think we lack creativity in certain respects.

 

Am i sincerely deluded?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Nobody cares about the artists who want to shre their work and freely distribute it. Good on them. And there are thousands of existing sites frtom which people can give their music away. Nobody ever cared about that. It's yours? Then give it away if you want to do so. Far out. No need to register or set up a government body to handle it.

 

But that is not the problem. The problem is the thousands of sites dedicated to making the next Clapton CD available 'for free' (not mentioning the money that they drag in via the banner adds and hits, that they take home for themselves... off the backs of the songwriters and performers who should be getting paid, instead.)

[Eric VB]

There were two ideas presented here to circumvent the iron fist of the R.I. that takes about 99.5% of each sale of recorded music.

 

One was that indie bands sell their cds themselves. Cool. They can even charge drastically less ($5) than a signed band ($15) and pocket a bigger profit (say, $4 compared to 7.5 cents).

 

The other idea was that the music could be "shared". In the case of the signed band, the record company gets no profit, but the band doesn't see their 7.5 cents, either. In the case of the indie band, there was no record company, so now you're just bilking the band! In either case, the musicians lose!

 

As soon as the song you wrote (or cowrote) is in a "fixed" format -- lyrics written, demo recorded, something like that -- you hold the songwriter copyright. If you want to post it on the internet and place it in the public domain, i.e. give up your rights as copyright holder, that's completely up to you. But you cannot "share" a song that someone else has copyright to. Keep in mind that even if someone posts a song on the internet that doesn't mean they've given up copyright; it still belongs to the musicians implicitly until they explicitly give it up.

 

The same goes for artwork. You can't download any kind of image from the internet and use it without the artist's consent! Found a cool picture on the net you want to use for your cd cover? You're going to have to get permission from the artist first. It's a picture of a face and you only want to use the eyes? That's a derivative work, and the original artist still holds the copyright. (Same things holds with music, btw. That's why the songwriters to "Fiddler on the Roof"/"If I were a Rich Man" appear on Gwen Stefani's "Rich Girl".)