file sharing

[PoofBird]

All discussions concerning filesharing, p2p and the RIAA


to start it off: i just discovered a new (to me) system of file sharing

Bit Torrent

it allows me to watch my precious Enterprise episodes in the netherlands. Often they appear online even before the first airdate.

The idea is:
You get a little program that integrates with your browser.
You look up (google) a link for the file you want.
You click, and the download starts.
Now, the key to this is, you download from a server (that constantly changes) but also from everyone else that is currently downloading that same file.
This means it will use up quite some bandwidth, both up and down, but the more people download a file, the faster it goes.
I just got Enterprise 3x02 within an hour (that is 430 MB).
That is fast, as the first proper copies will appear on Kazaa in one or two days.

what do you think? good system?
will it change the world of p2p, or is it only for hardcore birds like myself?

[Death]

if you are looking for files on google doesnt the slim your chances of even finding a file? i think i missunderstood this somewhere.

[PoofBird]

it's about files that are on temporarily.

new episodes and films are put online.
someone puts the url on a newsgroup, which can be searched with google.
If you have bit torrent, you can access that file and download it.

[SunFlower]

Oohhh you already got Enterprise 3x02!! :nana: Gimmegimmegimmeeee

[Tempus]

After the 12yr old girl who got her mum's ass sued because she downloaded stuff off Kazaa, I have removed all P2P systems off the computers in our house. Don't trust them.

I stick with newsgroups and mIRC downloads.

[Thoaar]

i must've wandered in here by accident - I was lookin to spy on a debate ;)

[The_Cyclops]

Not that I condone anything like this sort of thing. I've locked down most of the ports on my network that p2p people love.

But hop on over to http://www.lickmytaint.com for a very good Bit Torrent link service.

Enjoy!

[Seraph]

Although file sharing is actually pretty wrong.. i think the majority of the world who own computers DO or have at one point downloaded songs, movies, etc off a peer-to-peer network.

I understand why there are so many people taking action against the users that do tho, because one day those singers,etc. wont be making any money at all, if all we do is download!! Then they wont want to sing/make programs anymore, because they arent making any money!! haha.

Just a suggestion... for you people that DO download and stuff...
-If you have Kazaa, get rid of it. Its swarming with spyware and government. Kazaalite is *Better* but doesn't mean it'ts going to prevent you from being caught.
-If you want to download songs/movies/whatever be careful how you go about it. E.g. Dont download mass amounts at a time.
-DONT SHARE YOUR FILES/MUSIC/MOVIES/SOFTWARE!!
Let me repeat that again... DONT SHARE YOUR FILES/MUSIC/MOVIES/SOFTWARE!!
'Shared files' is what ANYONE can see. Meaning, government randomly looks at your shared files.. finds out you own hundreds of MP3's... Woops?? Too late. SUED!!

..And an even better suggestion is DON'T download, support your favorite singers and software companies ;)

Anyways... happy downloading :nana:

[PoofBird]

Most of the things I download are things I cannot afford.
The companies don't loose any money on me, because if i would have to pay for it, I just wouldn't bother using it.
Now I learn a lot of different software, aquiring loads of skills in little time. If at any point I need to use these skills professionally, I will buy the product.
If I wouldn't use an illegal version, I'd never get the skills, and would never buy anything in the near of distant future.
So my pirating is actually increasing the possibility that i will buy their product.

With music: I buy a lot of music. MP3 allows to me to learn about 20 times as much artists and releases. I don't use Kazaa for this, but mainly Soulseek and Direct Connect.
I don't have any trouble doing this. I am actually supporting these artists. If I like them I will buy their products eventually or visit their gigs. If I don't like them, I won't buy it, In either case, no one looses money when I download.
By my downloads, an increasing number of artists has an increasing chance of making money off me. The difference is this: i have a larger group of artists to choose from.

The problem is, this thievery is fundamentally different from any other forum of stealing. If I steal from you, i take something and afterwords you have lost it permanently. I steal your sandwich, car or lolobal, you'll have to buy a new one.
With p2p i steal your music or movies with your consent, and we'll both have a copy.
However, I also steal, indirectly, from the artists and producers. Again, their not an item short, but they claim something has been stolen because i didn't buy it.
P2P users say, it's not stealing because you're not missing anything.
Both trains of thought are legitimate, and both do unjustice to this new form of theft.
As the companies say: if I download a CD, they don't get their 20 euros worth. That's stealing.
That is also a fundamentally flawed logic. I download 20 to 30 times more music than I would ever buy. I still buy occasionally, though I realise that some do not. Still, I'm getting acquainted with music, artists, films, tv-series and software, that otherwise I could never afford. It's the best PR-stunt ever! If I find anything I really like, I'll buy the cd, or just the t-shirt, or visit the gigs.

Furthermore, it's just like the American war on drugs. They are attacking the small users. Where do you think all those files come from? Are they encoded by the millions of Kazaa users. Most of them aren't.
They come from a small group of encoders and hackers, who use IRC, UseNet newsgroups, run DC-hubs, use Bit Torrent and networks of FTP servers to get things in the open. It's not hard to find where they reside, their not even really hiding. They'll be much easier to track down than millions of small users.
Then why go after the small guy?

Because they know they can't win!
It's useless! For every hacker caught, ten new will stand up. For every p2p system that is threatened, twenty new ones are developed.
They are only trying to scare us. Trying to change our sentiments and then maybe eventually our morals about p2p theft. It's not going to work.

[Seraph]

You're right.

Very right in fact.

Sooner or later the internet will be taken over by hackers. Not as a bad thing for us users, but for the goverment and anyone else trying to take action. I dont mind hackors, its crack0rs i cant stand. They are pointlessly destroying the internet, as entertainment!! TUT.

I dont buy alot of music because, i mean.. hell!! Why pay money for it if i can get it for free (?)

But then again, thats where i am considered the 'bad guy' on the net. Its hard NOT to .. its almost like putting a piece of chocolate in front of my face and telling me i cant have it. Surely you will take it, as long as nobody is looking. But sooner or later.... someone will notice, no? :mad:

I do however, support the artists i like. When i REALLY REALLY REALLY liked the Red Hot Chili Peppers, i went out and found EVERY cd they EVER made.. and i still own them to this day. Ill either REALLY support an artists i like... or they are 'OK.' I mean If you can only produce ONE decent song on your album, its not worth a dime. Its much easier to download that ONE song, than it is to go out and buy the album or the single.

I dunno... we're all bad guys.:nana:

It's all going to be a vicious circle for some time.

Everyone will keep downloading until they get a big scare in all honesty, we've yet to see it.

One 12 year old girl, is JUST SICK... C'mon, get someone who has thousands, MILLIONS on their computers!! THAT would be a shock! LETS GET THEM HEADLINES!!! Until then... no stopping anyone. ;)

[shaun680]

Bit Torrent is a good system, but it relies on people not being complete asshats. For example closing the program once they've finished downloading so that the rest can't benefit from their upload.

As far as downloading music, I do it but I never download whole albums, if I like about 4 or 5 tracks of the album, I'll buy it.

I'm starting to get a bit irritated though by people who justify downloading whole albums either because "they're too expensive...lower the CD prices and we'll buy them" or "the money doesn't go to the artists, it goes to corperate fatcat record label bosses!"

To me, this is like saying "Yeah, I stole a car from a showroom the other day. But it's not stealing! How do they expect me to pay £12,000???? Make it a bit cheaper and I would! Plus even if I did pay that much, a lot of the money wouldn't go to the people who work on the production line, so it's ok."

Music is a privilege, not a right. If you can't afford it, then it's not some sort of God given right for you to steal it. Fair play if you download a few single tracks from albums because you don't like the albums only those songs. Or if you actually use P2P programs to sample an album before buying it. If you do steal it, please don't try to justify it.

If you're downloading whole albums and burning them to CD then the whole "make CDs cheaper" argument doesn't really enter. A CD is £8.99. At the moment you're downloading it for FREE and spending 40p on a CD-R disc. And you're telling me if they knocked a few quid off the price of the real CD, you'd stop paying 40p and start paying £5.99?

Downloading software, yes I do it occasionally. I know what I'm doing is illegal, I'm not proud of it and I feel bad about it a lot of the time. I wont try to justify it.

Obligatory "dons fire proof suit"

P.S This doesn't mean I agree with what the RIAA are doing

[Dr-Electro]

Someday I will have to try bit torrent. I have not been very interested in file sharing and the like, just because I don't give it much thought. Someday my interests may shift that direction, but what the heck. I surf the globe and beyond looking for my own interests.

I hope the RIAA and their ilk, particularly Metalica, choke on their gold records. Legal or not, I don't think they have the right to bee so greedy. (There is an issue I may start on soon. Corporate greed!)

[Obscurious]

Personally, I do download whole records, but not for the sole purpose of burning it to a CD so I don't have to fork out the money for the real album.

True, many people hide behind the solemn fact that the band sees little of the sales money. But you have to realize that there is a very firm truth behind that. I paid $34.49 (Cdn) for a Mum album this weekend. I had previousely downloaded the whole album and loved it. So despite the appalling store prices, I still feel it's important to own the album ATLEAST as memorabillia.

As for RIAA, they are shite. Artists should not be angered that people are downloading their music. People have been copying music for free for a while now (tape recorders were just the beinning). Musicians should realize (and some do) that the point of BEING a musician is not to make millions upon millions of dollars, but to make people happy through the music you produce.

What ever happened to traveling minstrels?

[Pseudo]

File sharing - while it isn't stealing in a "depriving someone of their property" way, is still stealing in a "taking something that doesn't belong to you" way.

Any justification you'd like to come up with won't get around that - if you're downloading music etc. you're a dirty thief (and you know it)

The 'defence' I loathe the most is the "well, I only download it because I can't afford to pay" - then do without

It's not like you have to listen to the song - it's a luxury item.
Don't try to dignify your stealing.

You do it because it's easy and you can get away with it.
The same reason most criminals have for committing their crimes.

I may be coming across a bit harsh here, but I don't do tact and these are, at the end of the day, poor excuses for what is basically a black and white thing.

Don't people have morals any more ?

Just because something is possible, and you are unlikely to get caught doing it, it doesn't make it right

[rabid anarchist]

Artists shouldnt be producing music purely for money.
On the other hand, money means they can afford to focus entirely on producing music, rather than trying to do two jobs to earn enough to live on.
I download a lot of music, true.
Chances are i wont go and buy their cds.
BUT if they were cheaper, chances are more likely that i would.
I own about 700 tracks. If i were to buy every CD for these tracks, well, i wouldnt.
So do without? When i can download em? Pfftt...
I dont really care if what i do is considered wrong.
I go to gigs, i pay money for that. I will happily pay to see a band i like live.
Also, its easier to play tracks on my computer than in my stereo tbh. not that that is a good reason to download.

But it doesnt bother me, so im unlikely to stop.

So Sue Me
:p

[Jiperly]

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2003/commentary030912ram.htm

How do you sink the ship while saving the passengers?

[PoofBird]

Some points I haven't mentioned yet...

a) a lot of artists endorse piracy and downloading. Some gits like metallica are against it, but a growing number is pro. Why? because they realize the money they loose by that does not weigh in with the free PR and publicity.

b) artists care not only for money, but for getting their music across. I am a musician myself. Do I mind people downloading my music? Not in the slightest, everyone that downloads is a potential new fan. I can reach and convince downloaders more easily than people in shops. I can only benifit from downloaders in the long run. They'll know my name, and are more likely to buy a cd, buy a t-shirt or visit a gig in the future.

c) the hardcore pirats of the music industry are the first and foremost endorsers of supporting the artists. They are the music buyers, they buy cd's and will always endorse the public to buy cd's from the artists you like. They do, however, disagree with the marketing tactics of the big 5 companies, and suggest buying from smaller, independent labels and companies.

I do have morals. Anyone saying, based on my opinions on file-sharing, that I haven't, is mistaken, and generalizing in an offensive way.
I hate injustice, and do my fair share to prevent it.

I am not trying to justify this, as I know I'm a dirty thief.
I am justifying it, while I know I don't do anything wrong.

This has to do with something I call Differentiation of Taste.

I like melodic guitar-rock/guitar-pop. That is my main taste, though I like electronics, hiphop and punk as well as classical.
What the main companies want me to buy is: RHCP, Coldplay and maybe Travis.
Those are good bands, no doubt about it, they appeal to a massive audience and that is because they do their job well. Period.
Now, Internet and p2p allow me to seek out similar bands and listen to similar, yet slightly different music. I've heard hundreds and hundreds of similar bands over the years. Downloaded dozens and dozens of complete albums, and often burnt them to cd.
Now what happens: I find I like bands like Spoon, Starfighter and Leaves better (eg: the 3 cd's I bought just 2 days ago), and I visit gigs by bands such as Kashmir, Admiral Freebee, Eastern Lane and Keith Caputo.
Those bands may never appeal to the mass audience, but they have in abundance exactly that which appeals to me in music. They have that little bit, more than RHCP, Coldplay and Travis.
Another indie fan will find their search lead to Gay Dad, Suede, Super Furry Animals and the Verve, someone else goes to Alfie, Mull Historical Society and Arab Strap.

It's democracy at it's fullest. Maybe you don't buy albums now, because you don't have the proper squids, but you'll learn to differentiate your taste to exactly that which appeals to you most. You will want to buy that later

Without p2p i would probably remain fairly closed minded about musical styles. Now I have the freedom to explore the wealths of Ninja Tune. Probably I won't like some of the artists, while some will appeal to me. Guess what, if Amon Tobin plays anywhere near me, I will visit his gig. Who does Amon Tobin have to thank for that? Teh Interweb!

is music a luxury? Britney Spears might agree, and so will Limp Biskit. I think 99% of artists will disagree. Artists want to be heard, that's why they're in the game. Of course they like money, and they like sales. But more than all, they want you to listen.

I strongly believe in the human desire to own things. Libraries never stopped people from buying books. Video renting never stopped us from video buying. Software piracy never prevented video games from becoming a major and ever growing part of the entertainment industry.

It's not to hard to get pirate copies of the newest games, or tape your films from tv (and now downloading them). Still, we want to own the stuff we really like.

So that is where both we and the artist win, concerning p2p. We get to choose what we really like, learning what it is we admire. We can, and will, finally buy off the artists we like best. And that's what the RIAA wants to prevent. They're selling us the prefab crap we were brainwashed to like.
I admit: it's not all bad, far from it. But if you take the trouble to search for similar artists, you'll always find something that appeals to you more than that big glittery name. Chances are, that artist is signed to an independent label.

Downloading films might stop me from renting them, but I'll buy them more easily.
The possibility of downloading illegal software gave me photoshop, image-ready, and developing Java and Flash skills. All of which I'd never consider if i had to pay for them.
Yet if I choose to go on with one of those, I'll buy the product. And then, I'll fully endorse them.

I'm not trying to justify a crime, I'm arguing that it's hardly a crime at all.

[rabid anarchist]

The article has a point.
Maybe artists should just put their tracks on the web, and make money out of gigs and merch?

[macky]

but they need MORE MONEY!!!!!!!!
:nana: :nana: :nana: :nana: :nana:

[Pseudo]

Originally posted by PoofBird
I'm not trying to justify a crime, I'm arguing that it's hardly a crime at all.

Some very, very good points there.

Despite my ever-so-slightly hardline stance when it comes to stealing things, I can see why people do this.

There are definitely benefits to both the artist and the consumer (the publisher gets arseraped, but they're a big faceless corporation so no-one cares about them. Myself included)

At the end of the day, you do need slightly loose morals to be able to download things that you know you really should be paying for.

And, while my own morals don't prevent me from being a sadistic, egotistical, self-righteous bastard; they do prevent me from stealing things.

The only real thing I have against file sharing is so many people getting something for free that the rest of us have to pay for.

It's not fair </whiny teenager>

[rabid anarchist]

So get yourself broadband and Kazaalite.. :p if you dont have em already..

Its like all things, some people will get them cheaper than others. Or for free..

[shaun680]

Originally posted by Rabid Anarchist
Chances are i wont go and buy their cds.
BUT if they were cheaper, chances are more likely that i would.

You're telling me that if they knocked a couple of quid off CDs, you'd stop paying £0 and start paying £5?


Originally posted by PoofBird

b) artists care not only for money, but for getting their music across. I am a musician myself. Do I mind people downloading my music? Not in the slightest, everyone that downloads is a potential new fan. I can reach and convince downloaders more easily than people in shops. I can only benifit from downloaders in the long run. They'll know my name, and are more likely to buy a cd, buy a t-shirt or visit a gig in the future.

You get a huge local following and become big. You can't afford to make CDs etc independantly, so you sign up with a record label. Everyone downloads your music instead of buying it from stores, and poor sales cause you to be dropped by your record label. Free publicity etc wont mean anything then.



c) the hardcore pirats of the music industry are the first and foremost endorsers of supporting the artists. They are the music buyers, they buy cd's and will always endorse the public to buy cd's from the artists you like. They do, however, disagree with the marketing tactics of the big 5 companies, and suggest buying from smaller, independent labels and companies.

They are supporting the artists by buying one CD, and sending the tracks over the internet to god knows how many people? The artist will then benefit from one CD sale whereas instead they could benefit from thousands. Of course this is a huge exaggeration, I know there are many benefits from downloading music (which I make use of), my main problem is with the people who download whole albums and burn them so that they dont have to buy a copy. I don't like the idea of the people who abuse the service being in the spotlight, but everywhere I go on the internet they seem to be the majority.



I strongly believe in the human desire to own things. Libraries never stopped people from buying books. Video renting never stopped us from video buying. Software piracy never prevented video games from becoming a major and ever growing part of the entertainment industry.

When you're downloading music, you're not renting it you're keeping it. Fair enough I suppose if you delete the files after a week, but who does that?!
The software piracy thing is kinda like the whole water/wine parable (not religeous so may not have remembered correctly).



So that is where both we and the artist win, concerning p2p. We get to choose what we really like, learning what it is we admire. We can, and will, finally buy off the artists we like best.

Maybe this is where my point is flawed. I can't see how someone would download a whole album for free, and then a year or so later go out and think "hmmm, I suddenly want to own a copy of this" and spend the oh so extortionate price of the CD.



The possibility of downloading illegal software gave me photoshop, image-ready, and developing Java and Flash skills. All of which I'd never consider if i had to pay for them.
Yet if I choose to go on with one of those, I'll buy the product. And then, I'll fully endorse them.

If they're not out of business by the time you need a legitimate copy :p


P.S I agreed with everything else you posted.

[rabid anarchist]

As it happens, possibly. The chances are increased.
I brought a cd in a sale the other day for £2.99
Id already got most of the tracks on my computer.

Im not saying i would every single time, no. But im definitley MORE LIKELY to buy it, the cheaper it is.

Which was my point.

[Dr-Electro]

On the moral hand:

"Thou shalt not steal" *thunder, lightning, fire, brimstone, burning bushes, all that paraphernalia*

On the practical hand:

"I'm so poor I have to decide each month whether to pay all the bills or buy something to eat." *downtrodden, broke, crying in dirty drinking water*

So, where's the balance? There is none. The teeter-totter is tilting more and more toward the greedy corporate robber barons. One day, their collective fat ass will hit the ground with a resounding THUD and the rest of us will be flung off the high end to come to earth with a horrifying deadly splat. Do those fat asses care about us? Hell, no they don't. All they care about is lining their own golden parachutes. I am beginning to lean more toward the practical side of this argument anyway. So what if I get caught stealing? What are they going to do? Throw me in prison and feed me three times a day?

[Drachewyn]

IMO if they can find the money for their internet connection, cheapest I have seen is $9.95 a month most expensive I have seen was for broadband at $35 up a month, they can afford to buy CD's.

I have a lot of MP3's and if they came too look at what I have... so what? I can pull out cassettes by the armful and record albums showing that I have already purchased this music.

I seldom download anything I don't already own and have paid for. The only difference is that I am getting it in a different format so I can enjoy the music on my computer.

The few things that I do get exposed to via friends etc. that are different artists get put on my wishlist at amazon.com if I really like them so at least in my case file sharing is helping them with sales.

Anyway, I really like these new buy one song for around $1 sites that are coming around. That is something I will get more into as often I only like the one or two songs.

I will be sure also to keep every single receipt in case they come poking around trying to sue me for it.

There are right ways and wrong ways to file share just as there are right ways and wrong ways to stop it. The RIAA are going about it all wrong.

Up until recently I didn't have a CD burner and now that I do I have to say the reason I got one had nothing to do with burning music CD's but rather freeing up space on my hard drive by burning data that I don't immediately need.

Also for making back up copies of my creations like my websites, flash movies and graphics etc. I also make sound loops and such that I would like to make back ups of.


That is my two cents.

[Pseudo]

Originally posted by rabid anarchist
So get yourself broadband and Kazaalite.. :p if you dont have em already..

Its like all things, some people will get them cheaper than others. Or for free..

I don't have a problem with people getting perks that they've earned - but when they're stealing, then I get annoyed.

-

Oh and Re: the 'I can't afford CDs' point that keeps surfacing - if you can't afford something, you do without

I'm not exactly the world's richest person; I definitely can't afford to buy all the CDs/games/etc. I want - so I wait until the price comes down, or until I can save up enough to be able to afford these luxuries

You don't magically deserve all this music - acting like it's your god-given right to steal is the attitude that pisses people off.

[PoofBird]

I recently read in the paper: an interview with some executives of the biggest Dutch independent record labels.

they were, at first, against the piracy. CD sales going down and all.
Now they don't care anymore. Why? It's not their cd sales that are going down. The major companies are loosing some, but no-one knows for sure what the reason behind that is. We're in a worldwide recession!
The minor companies are having actually selling more albums then ever! It's always been hard for those companies to get across to the public, and they find internet makes it easier and easier.

Shaun680 wrote:
You get a huge local following and become big. You can't afford to make CDs etc independantly, so you sign up with a record label. Everyone downloads your music instead of buying it from stores, and poor sales cause you to be dropped by your record label. Free publicity etc wont mean anything then.


there is another way between total independance and record companies. I'm talking about the major 5 companies that are disagreeing with the piracy. there are thousands of smaller, independant, yet commercial, companies you could sign up with(theoretically). It's those companies that are showing an increase in sales.

Shaun680 again
When you're downloading music, you're not renting it you're keeping it. Fair enough I suppose if you delete the files after a week, but who does that?!
The software piracy thing is kinda like the whole water/wine parable (not religeous so may not have remembered correctly).

I don't see how that is like the parable at all ;)

shaun once again
Maybe this is where my point is flawed. I can't see how someone would download a whole album for free, and then a year or so later go out and think "hmmm, I suddenly want to own a copy of this" and spend the oh so extortionate price of the CD.

That is exactly how it works for me, and many others.

last one
If they're not out of business by the time you need a legitimate copy
Software companies aren't doing bad. and if one would go out of business, would it be my fault? Hardly, as I won't by their product either way right now. I can't afford the hundreds, sometimes thousands of squids. Yet, I am increasing the chance I will buy in the future. I might just be their saviour ;)

[El_MUERkO]

I've been using BT for a good while now mainly from Suprnova, I get mostly games, play them for a week, if I like them I will buy them if I dont I delete them. I dont see that I'm doing any harm, I wouldnt have bought the games if I had no way of playing them.

Right now I'm half way thru Jedi Academy, I have it on order from play as well, I will buy this game when it comes out. I had Unreal 2, played it for a few days, didnt like it, deleted it.

I like to goto the cinema so I dont download that many movies.

[freddiestarfish]

if i had broadband, i would download more music than i do now

the problem is i live in a village
so i cant get broadband without paying over £300 just for installation.
then it is a hell of a lot a month.


finding out which would be cheaper , bband, or just buying the CD's, could be interesting

[AverageMan]

Personally, I have used file sharing software to download full albums, yet still bought the full album.

The reason?

I like to listen to music that sounds good (in terms of quality). At present, the majority of files being shared tend to be of low quality rips. IMO, anything of about 160kps or less sounds noticably poorer than CD quality even on cheap computer speakers, and I notice a difference between original copies and compressed & re-recorded up to 256kps on a proper system.

Having said that, I still listen to compressed music on my car stereo because it's far easier to carry round 10 CDs than 100, and it reduces the risk of me losing my CD collection if some scumbag robs my car. This also means I own some 4-5GB of legal MP3s. The number of artists/record companies who now put some form of copy protection on CDs has started to cause me problems encoding albums. I am considering avoiding buying CDs from these labels, despite the obvious similarity to pooping on my own doorstep.

While record companies can still afford to pay artists in the £millions for doing something which the artist enjoys, why does a user such as me have to be compromised? After all, there are many small-time or unsigned groups out there not getting paid for doing, essentially, the same job (if not better) as the big names. Is this money really deserved of simply down to their celebrity status?

[Pika Pies]

Well I haven't read the rest of the posts so this probably sounds veeeeeery off-topic. Oh well, here goes.
I think what the RIAA is trying to do is pathetic. People download music because big companies like the RIAA make cds to damn expensive!!! If they want people to stop downloading they should make albums a lot cheaper. I only download music because I'm 14 and I don't have the money to go out and buy albums. I like a huge range of bands and I just don't have the cash to buy music so I download it.
Also, a lot pf people download songs to check out what an album is like and to make sure that it isn't utter poo. They get a couple of tracks, then, if they like what they hear, go out and buy the album.
The RIAA makes a big deal out of "record sales going down" but they haven't! In actual fact, record sales have gone up!
I download music and will carry on downloading music until CD prices come down so RIAA, come and get me!

[Fruiterian]

I haven't read the thread yet, so I don't know what points have/haven't been brought up yet. I realize that this isn't proper ettiquette, perse, however, I do have an opinion.

Many of the artists complaining with the RIAA have made millions off their tours. I can understand buying a disc to help out the songwriters, they're often underappreciated and I expect that record sales effect them more than the artist and the label, both of whom get quite a bit off a sale of a CD. They're $15-$20 each, too, and I thing the songwriter gets something like... 8 cents, the label gets $4, and the artist gets $3. (I'm assuming the rest goes to the store, the producer, anyone else involved, et cetera. I read it a while ago, I'm not quite sure if those are the correct figures.) Doesn't sound like much, but they do manage to sell millions of CDs, the most popular, mainstream artists at least. All the music artists and all the shit and money they have really irritates me. A lot. But, of course, this applies to the five major record labels. They're all stupid, of course.

Apologies for the American currency, it's what I'm used to. O_o

But there are plenty of artists out there that want their music to be heard, not so much concerned with the money but doing what they love: music is their art, their craft. They are the ones that may have so much talent but may never be heard, the ones that have a gift for melodies but not mainstream enough to be played on the radio.

Off topic // the radio sucks over here. It's total crap. All that they play is hiphop: bad, misogynist hiphop; and some oldies on other stations... but even that's a rarity.

So, anyways, the CD's are too expensive, the money isn't going into the right pockets to be worth it. The music from the major labels isn't as good as it should be. File sharing offers an opportunity to find independent bands, or those signed to other labels, and to get any of the music from the major record labels for free since they ARE too overpriced.

However, I don't download. Too much spam on my computer. I might try again soon. Get kazaa lite instead of regular kazaa.

But... I keep on getting confused on one topic: I've heard from some people that it's making the files available to upload that's the crime, from others that it's the act of downloading. gah. Confuzzlement.

That is all. ^^

[PoofBird]

Originally posted by Fruiterian
I
But... I keep on getting confused on one topic: I've heard from some people that it's making the files available to upload that's the crime, from others that it's the act of downloading. gah. Confuzzlement.

That is all. ^^

thanks for commenting :)

reading the thread might help clear up the confuzzlement

[Drachewyn]

Well I downloaded some more MP3's last night and was hit hard by NetPD and Vidius. Thankfully I have a program that blocks them from accessing my computer. :D

But they can come after me if they want. I just bought the CD I was getting the MP3's of on Ebay and just wanted to have a listen before the CD arrived... :p

[smiley clown]

But if one of your friends has a CD u dont even need to download it because u can just copy it so I dont see what the fuss is about cos were going to be able to get the CD for free anyway.

[squealpiggy]

OK first of all legally speak copyright infringement is NOT theft. There is a name for copyright infringement in legal terms:

copyright infringement

There, easy enough? OK so have any of you bought a second hand CD? How about sold one? Lent one to a friend? Played one at a party or taken it to a club and asked the DJ to play it? Did you get permission from the copyright holder? No? Well you infringed copyright. That's the leve that we're dealing with.

That's the legal side of it.

OK now the "moral" side of it: The companies that are apparently losing money thanks to P2P are the big five. And they're the ones with the crusade. Someone mentioned smaller artists that get dropped because they're not selling. Now the major labels have a policy when they begin to push a band that is a major investment. This policy is to find any similar bands to the one they have invested in, sign them up to deals and then put no money into marketing them. The band fails to sell, they get dropped... so they can go to another label right? Nope. They've signed a contract with the original company for a certain number of records, and usually they are left in debt from a company advance. An easy way of killing off potential competition. So the big labels like that are the ones that are potentially losing out, while the smaller labels who are less evil are gaining.

OK now how about the side to the argument that the record companies are losing money:

It's true, they are. You know why? It's because CDs first became popular about 13 years or so ago. The record companies saw a great idea: What if the people could be persuaded to replace all their recorded music on vinyl and tape with CDs? Very little investment and almost pure profit! Thus begins the record labels selling CDs of old music on the basis of "you already have it but this version sounds better". 13 years is plenty of time for people to have replaced their collections of CDs so people buy fewer and the poor record companies now have the degrading task of investing money into music again. Poor bastards eh? That's why the main majors are losing out, they haven't produced anyhting new for over a decade and now they damn well have to! Pisser?

At the end of the day if you wanted to clamp down on "illegal" copyright infringement it would make more sense to target organised gangs mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia where 80% of the CD market is made up of pirate copies. Don't start suing 8 year old girls...

[PoofBird]

* puts squealpiggy on a pedestal *

[titanic]

have read the whole thread and thers not much to add,

except maybe software piricy i fully admit to doing it all the time but only on old (over a year old) shareware (you know the ones where you put the licence info in and hey presto a full program)

the legal aspect... same as above i am stealing it the original creators arnt geting the cash but hey its a year old now so there sales are probibly pretty shabby by now any way

the moral aspect.... most shareware games arnt worth it 25 levels of crap with no replay value yea im going to fork out 20 to 30 quid for that

i have no morals

on another point is it illegal to put a hack on a program that you own that lets you use it without the disk in?

i only have one cd drive and i want to listen to music at the same time so apart from converting all my cds in to mp3s and playing them at the same time (reducing my game power and song quality) what else is there to do? unreal tournament lets you play without a disk diablo 2 dont, even though the disk isnt needed when playing at all but is cheaked periodicaly to make sure its there

[MrPlowHamburglr]

Someone previously mentioned about not sharing kazaa files. Does anyone know if there is a way to turn of sharing of all files in Kazaa Lite? (opposed to selecting "do not share" for each individual file)

[Cakey]

Some songs i download because i have the urge to hear it.... if i dont download it im unlikely to buy it anyway so theres no real difference. also sometimes i download songs from a few years ago by artists who are long gone... their cds are no longer available so i download the songs...

i downloaded a single from a band who will remain nameless because im ashamed haha. i kept listening to the song over and over and i liked it so much i bought the album...

i like to have the cds because its nicer to have the case, and stuff, i dont download full albums because if i like enough tracks i'll go and buy it.

but i DO download individual tracks...

when artists bring out cds that have that thing on where you cant rip them onto computer... thats silly because people will download the tracks instead of buying the album in some cases because it means that those with mp3 players or those who like to listen to their music on their comp or whatever, cant because it doesnt work in their computer drive...
i havent come across this problem yet with my mp3 player but i will soon.... and it might just well put me off buyign the cd.

[sack the chimp]

Originally posted by MrPlowHamburglr
Someone previously mentioned about not sharing kazaa files. Does anyone know if there is a way to turn of sharing of all files in Kazaa Lite? (opposed to selecting "do not share" for each individual file)

Yes, move your files to a different folder. When i first installed kazaalite, i had kazaa previously, and for some reason it automatically saved files in kazaalite and shared the empty folder from kazaa (or maybe the other way round). Just move the downloaded files once downloaded.

[Smeagle]

Originally posted by sack the chimp
Yes, move your files to a different folder.
It's much easier than that. Just go to tools > Kazaa lite options > Traffic > Disable sharing with other users.

:)

[Mushroom]

nationalise the music industry \o/

Ok, so this isn't feasible, but it illustrates my point of view which is that it's kind of sad that something as fundamental to human development as music is now a branded expensive product that people are encouraged to be forced to pay for or do without. The same could be said about water, though you don't need music to survive.

On a wider front, I know that file sharing is illegal, but with my rather left wing morals, i don't consider it entirely immoral. Poofbird's point about skills/software is one i agree with. Companies that charge people like art students extortionate amounts of money for products that would vastly help them with their course does seem rather 'not on' to me.

File sharing generally is a good technology though - when AudioGalaxy was still available, I used it to get a lot of uncopyrighted ethnic music that i have since lost and been unable to recover due to the service being removed. Another thing i disagree with is the music industry using technology whereby music times out after a certain time and you have to buy it again. This seems a really nasty way to make money, to me. I'm sure they'd start doing the same to CDs, if they didn't know it would be a vastly unpopular move and lose them most of their sales rather than boosting their profits.

Remember kids, file sharing is internet communism. Do it and fat cat record company managers won't be able to buy their third villa in California! Won't somebody think of the profits?!

-edit- i've just re-read this post and i sound like a raving leftie. Oops.

[Dr-Electro]

So, what the Hell is wrong with sounding like a raving leftie? Just be yourself. If you feel that corporate greed is wrong, you ain't alone. If that makes you a raving leftie, move over, I'm sitting in right beside you.

Corporate greed is ruining the free world. I don't consider myself a communist or socialist, but it makes me sick to watch the corporate giants get fatter and richer while the working people sink deeper into poverty and lose all hope of ever being able to retire.

The only relation between the above statements and the topic of music file sharing ties in with Squealpiggy's statements. The fat cats can all die of ass cramps for all I care. The fact that they have all the legal rights in the music business does not make them morally correct.

[sack the chimp]

Originally posted by Smeagle
It's much easier than that. Just go to tools > Kazaa lite options > Traffic > Disable sharing with other users.

:)

read the post, smeagle

[Smeagle]

Originally posted by sack the chimp
read the post, smeagle
Read MrPlowHamburglr's post, Sack :rolleyes:

You didn't answer his question, so I did.


Hypocrite

[sack the chimp]

um, fair play

(hides head in shame)

reaches for large bottle of painkillers....

[patrick93]

In Canada your allowed to use P2P for music... I don't use it tho...:weebl_lo:

[Joe G]

In Canada your allowed to use P2P for music... I don't use it tho...:weebl_lo:
NEARLY 3 YEAR BUMP!
But seriously go to beginners, read Faq's etc. and don't post in such an old thread again.