Music piracy continues despite legitimate alternatives

hey i'm not really surprised. i think a lot of people still don't see why it should be illegal and i'm sort of one of them. think about it: it's perfectly legal to go buy a cd and rip an mp3 of one of those songs to your hard drive. well that mp3 file is legally mine/their's (however you wanna put it) so why shouldn't i be able to do what i want with it? it's my mp3 file to do what i want with.

First thing is first, I understand as to how easy it is to pirate music, and software, as I have from time to time done it myself. However, due to recent realizations I have also come to terms with the fact that though, I may have bought the CD, and converted the songs to mp3, I also bought a license with the cd. Let me explain.... when a person buys any type of media (movies, music, software, games) they agree to a license, a copyright that is, stating that they will use this "media" for personal uses. Giving and taking songs breaks this copyright, and is thus considered stealing. You cannot buy media without agreeing to the copyright. They go hand in hand. it's just how the legality of it all is set up. So in theory, the song is never the owners, rather it belongs to the organization that bought the copyrights, and you gained right to use it in paying for it. just thoght you would like to know. Like I said I have downloaded stuff myself, but this is in response to the comment submitted by someone_7

Sad, really, really sad imo. I'm one of those people who've always known and believed it to be wrong. One of the few, the proud ... and personally I've grown to really like using iTunes, glad there is finally a legal way to get music online.

Just my 2 cents, you can stop listening now.

I don't want to sound negative, but how many of the people that are planning to buy music online will actually do it and how many of those are pirating at the moment?

the artist gets approximately 10 cents for each iTunes song I buy. the other 90 cents are split between apple and the recording industry, neither of which I'm particularly interested in supporting. i have purchased from emusic in the past. the artist got 50% of the profit before they switched to the subscription model. i'm not sure how that works now.

also, breaking a copyright is not considered stealing in the eyes of the law, despite what the copyright holders want you to think. it's considered to be just what it is: breaking a copyright.

Exactly. Plus: the average Joe is not aware of any license that comes with music. The notion of copyright and what it actually means is quite unknown to the majority, until they themselve experience what it comes down to.

There are plenty of bands these days that gotten big with a generous amount of help from file sharing. The industry is changing, and huge record companies won't be needed for much longer to get bands heard. This is a good thing. Eventually Musicians won't have to get raped by some huge corporation in order to make it big. People will still pay to see the bands (Which is generally where they currently make their money anyhow.) and fans will still buy the CDs just to have the collection. The way I see it the only victims are the Corporations that have been raping the industry for years.

Used to be there were a tonne of little record companies doing whatever they could to get their music heard. If file sharing had come along back in the eighties, we'd probably have a much more diverse range of music to listen to today. You wouldn't hear the same music all over the dial like you do now. (Ok, I'm just getting crusty now. I'll shut up.)

I just won't buy their crippled, DRM'd shit files when I can make my own off a CD with my own balance of size vs quality AND play them on the same devices that their POS files play on AND use them on my portable and my computers without worrying about the stupid DRM breaking on me. And I can also use the CD when I don't have a computer handy. So there. When I can get portable files that can be burned at full quality to CD then maybe I'll think about it, and even then a CDs worth better be less than $10 to make up for the time I spend downloading it and their lack of distribution network costs.

You can make CDs with DRM. What are you talking about?

well, i've watched the dig music battle keenly and the copyright issues that go with it. but i dont need to get into any of that now 'cause Astro already hit the maj points. you buy software and music, you purchase a LEASE. legally, you don't own it - though many people with the misconception think 'i'll buy it, i'll do what i want with it'. that is often the case with computer software. don't be too suprised to see in the near future an end user license agreement packaged with your next CD

what i will say is that i think copyprotecting CD's themselves to not work in computers is hellishly wrong. like st_nick said, i like to rip my cds into a quality and file size i like. i also like to make mix cds or put an album on my portable harddrive so i can listen to them at work, home, or at school with ease. this is an issue that is only going to get more out of hand in the next few years, and not better - unless one of two (or in a miracle, both) things happen: music companies admit to taking more then their fair share of monies from an artist and split the profits better, or people come to realize a system such as i-tunes is a lot more inexpensive and less evil then buying an album at tower for 18$. at least with itunes more of your money is going to the artist then if you don't buy online, and at least their getting SOMETHING rather then nothing from when you pirate it.

hey maybe we'll get lucky, and in the future all artists will be independent and deal directly through a system such as i-tunes, profits go 50/50, and the world is a happy place.

selfless promotion: myself, as a music reviewer, and the rest of the staff at the music information website i write for, keep tabs on this topic and thea cook has written a feature article on the battle. for anyone interested, check out mxdwn.com and look for it under the feature articles. the site is Mixxed Down.

And where do you go, on-line, to buy songs like, "The Snake" by Al Wilson? How about "Sally Go 'Round the Roses", and countless other tunes that are out of print and off the market?

Frogboy I think he's crabbing about the quality of the file not if he can burn it to cd. I rip my cd's to FLAC or APE files they sound exactly like the cd and when you burn it back to cd there is no quality difference. As far as downloads go I only download music my cd store doesn't carry till the cd I ordered online gets here.

if you're remark, dleiburn, is alleging that my post meant 'the answer to all questions is an online music store', then i say: of course you're not going to find everything you ever wanted there. personally i'd rate online music having 2% of all music ever made. but it will grow. its not like you can get everything you wanted at any old music store, anyway.

i'm getting garage recordings of the velvet underground from a professor at school.

be creative.

Personally, I'd be much more likely to buy music online if those behind the almost "price fixing" nature of the business wake up and realize that it's no bargain to burn your own songs at 79 cents or 99 cents a track. The reality, whether the RIAA and Generalissimo Ashcroft want to admit it or not, is that in today's world, music has in fact become "shareware". I have (and will continue to) purchased many CD's by artists who provide me with value. I will not blindly add more CD's to my shelf that stink, so consequently, I have a "try before you buy" mentality. When painters create their work, do they force people to pay for a look at it? Instead, if, after looking at it, you decide it has a place in your home, you buy it and support the artist. IMO, music is no different. Then, we've got the case of the "re-compiled collections" of music. Often, this is music we paid for on vinyl, then on 8-track, then on cassette, and yes, even on CD. Now, they make a "mix" of their "All Time Really Ultra Super Hits", and expect people to pay again? How many times should people be expected to pay to listen to the same music? So, again, I feel that consumers now have more power than ever over how they spend their music dollars. The RIAA isn't too happy to see that we've got a choice, and I guess that's understandable. But, the bottom line is that if it's good, people *will* buy it and support it. If it's not, people can now decide *not* to pay for garbage.

well to further go on pass what geekboy2000 says. Even though I can see fault in the try before you buy reasoning (radio stations are providing the snippets of music) so you don't really have to download. But your right how many times do these poor starving artists make per song. Hmm lets see... if they wrote their own music, then they get royalties on the lyrics, and tabulation (i think that's the correct term), then they record, and get money from the studio, then they get their cut of the the radio stations that play their song, and finally more money from a concert promoting that song. So that one song was paid for at least 4 times. Man are they hard done by. I sure hope that folks can see their way to paying more for these tunes so they can feed thos young kids that are going to make money on mom or dads hard work in the form of royalties when they die.
folding up the soapbox now , bye bye

Agreed, Kibble. And, if in fact the artists share of the profits is still too small, they need to negotiate better terms. Heck, maybe the lawyers, the publishers, and the agents need to think about a change in their lifestyle, so that more of the money *does* go to the artists. And, with respect to the snippets on the radio: Yes, it's true, they do play "snippets", but it's rare that you'll ever hear a new CD in it's entirety. Why? Because they know that typically there are a few songs (at most) on the CD with "hit" potential, and it's those "teasers" that will sell the rest of the crap CD. Again, that's really why the RIAA is so nervous. With people trading songs via the internet, and "sneaker-net", they're becoming educated consumers.

Oh man here we go again..(drop shakes head and giggles as another post became a copyright discusion)

Yeah, I guess it's inevitable that it would turn this way, but I think that in my case, it was seeing the pie chart labeled as "I'll pirate instead" that got me fired up. Whether it be software, music or movies, I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment from the work of tons of artists. I do not believe they shouldn't be supported. Having ticked the "continue to download music for free" box, I think it's a shame that the poll administrator chose to label that segment of the responders as "pirates". Downloading for free doesn't imply that you aren't going to pay for the music. It only indicates that you won't pay before you play.

geekboy....to 'not pay before you play' IS piracy.

My answer in that poll was by necessity the 'I'm not interested in music' option because none of the others was appropriate.

Again a poll is not optioned correctly....

I don't agree, Jafo, though I respect your opinion. Playing and *never* paying, is, IMO, piracy. Downloading, listening, and deciding whether or not it's worth buying, is a different thing. If a download ends up being garbage, I'm betting most people end up trashing it to free up disk space anyway. The music that is kept, burned and enjoyed *should* be paid for. The shareware principle, as it applies to software is good, and I really believe that there's no reason why the same philosophy shouldn't apply to creative works in the music genre as well. If I like WindowBlinds and use it regularly, I pay for it (I have, and am an ODNT subscriber). Stardock makes it easy for people to sit back and kick the tires before taking their cash (as do many other software companies). I don't know about you, but whenever I see software offered for sale without a trial download, I steer clear of it. In many ways, the content of a CD is far more mysterious than a software app. You've heard one or two tracks on the radio. It gets mixed reviews. You *think* you want it. You buy it, and find that you've just spent between $12 and $20 for two decent songs. Downloading, and "play before you pay" takes all the mystery out of the process. You buy it *after* you've heard it, and *after* you've decided it's worth it. Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse now.

geekboy....You can 'not agree', but you will be wrong.

The act of uploading/downloading a music file without the artist's [or his agent's] permission, no matter what the reason or motive is public distribution....and is a violation of copyright, ergo 'piracy'....

Right. Well, thanks to the RIAA's thug lawyers, by definition, that might very well be true. What I'm saying though, is that it doesn't matter. They can try to legislate their way (and have) toward making it a crime to "try before buying", but it's too late. In today's modern world, the barn door's wide open, and there's no closing it. Instead of trying to paint everyone as a criminal, the record industry should be working on ways to win consumer loyality by making such a shareware system a reality in some way, and/or offering tracks at *very* significantly lower prices. 79 to 99 cents a track is ludicrous. As another recent example of the insanity that they're trying to ram down our throats: The Beatles "Let it Be Naked". After all the other re-releases of Beatles tracks over the years (including the Anthology collection), now Paul McCartney has decided that folks should pay (full price, of course) yet again for the same songs. This is just one reason, why people *are* downloading before buying. For those who never owned Let it Be in any format, it might be worth it. But for folks who bought the album, some of the other re-releases/alternate takes, this is nothing short of robbery. Personally, I give a "tip of that hat" to anyone who listens first, and then says, "S*rew you Paul, enough is enough". OTOH, if that CD was released at $5.95, the artist and industry might be demonstrating an understanding of what represents value, and what doesn't. I don't think the music downloading public wants or expects any more than that. Treat us right, and we'll buy your music. Keep ripping us off, and well, we'll do what we have to do to spend our money wisely.

____________________________________________________
You know, if these music companies really wanna be smart about it, they should just let us download their music. It's mp3's for crying out loud. MP3's suck as opposed to .ogg files. If people want the music in full quality they have to buy the cd and all. Or an even better idea would be to set up an electronic customization program over the internet. That way, you won't get songs that you don't like on their cd's. Here's my idea, I don't know if this is any good, but here goes.

CDs will be custom made. The customer will get to choose from all of the songs that the artist has made and select the ones that they want. If they select more songs than can fit on a cd, it will just spill over to another cd and the customer will be charged by song. Each song will have an individual price depending on how popular that song is. The server will then burn the cd, use all the info that you typed into the form to be able to print a shipping label and box it and send it to you through the mail just like any other online purchase.

If I ran the music industry, that would be what I would do. I especially think that the individual pricing with each song would be advantageous. Less popular songs will be cheaper, more popular songs will be more expensive. Oh and if someone wants just one song, they can buy just that song. That way, people will actually buy from the artist instead of getting it illegally online. The psychology here is that the customer doesn't want to pay for a whole cd to get just one song, so they figure, well then i'm downloading it off the internet since I can download exactly what i want when i want it. Its in the interest of the music industry. If a song is really really popular than the artist knows that something was done right with that song, perhaps even take the most popular songs into consideration when composing new songs. It could help the music industry evolve and improve, plus musicians get feedback from consumers directly by looking at the sales of each song.