Do you buy CD's?Music

[35mm]

I never said it was wrong. Are you calling me a hypocrite? I do do it.

No, no. You got me all wrong.

In fact it was the other way around. I was agreeing with what you were saying and I used your line to get that off my chest.

What's more, I would never call anyone an hypocrite without having evidence of such. As I said, that is my personal experience, cases that I have witnessed.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Even if I am d/ling illegally... I so do not feel bad because there are more of you rich ass lucky morons with T1 connections d/ling ALBUMS hand over fist.

 

[livemusic]

I agree with what Diabolical Mask said earlier. I would not be buying more albums then I do now if I didn´t download music.

 

[RFTurismo]

I use to not buy CD's. But ever since Ra's "Duality" came out I don't know why but I've been buying CD's. Like for example I used my vacation money to buy the following:

-Beck - "Guero"
-Foo Fighters - "In Your Honor"
-Billy Corgan - "TheFutureEmbrace"

I was going to buy "Crimson" by Alkaline Trio when that came out but my brothers friend copied it for him and my brother gave it to me.

 

[Sage]

Even if I am d/ling illegally... I so do not feel bad because there are more of you rich ass lucky morons with T1 connections d/ling ALBUMS hand over fist.

So if I sock some innocent old lady on the street for the hell of it, that's not so bad, since other people kill old ladies?

You're using a larger crime to support a smaller crime. That makes negative sense.

For the record: I support P2P for sampling, all the way. But not for keeping the songs/albums. That's theft.

I can't believe the same people who wouldn't steal anything from a store would be willing to steal online, just because there's a veil of anonymity.

 

[VIPFREAK]

So if I sock some innocent old lady on the street for the hell of it, that's not so bad, since other people kill old ladies?

You're using a larger crime to support a smaller crime. That makes negative sense.

For the record: I support P2P for sampling, all the way. But not for keeping the songs/albums. That's theft.

I can't believe the same people who wouldn't steal anything from a store would be willing to steal online, just because there's a veil of anonymity.

And ripping off the customer is ok? no thanks... I'll give them part of their own medicine. I got ripped off enough when I was younger. Oh and yeah when the reality is "people are killing old ladies" then me "beating" them are ok.

 

[Sage]

And ripping off the customer is ok? no thanks... I'll give them part of their own medicine.

Do you really thinking $0.99 a song is a rip-off? Like Giles said, if you're not willing to pay that for a song, then the song's not worth listening to in the first place.

Secondly, (putting what I just said aside), it's not a rip-off if you don't buy it. That's the beauty of capitalism – if you don't think the product's worth it, you simply don't buy it.

I think the Aston Martin Vanquish is absurdly priced – that doesn't give me a right to steal it though, no matter how badly I want one.

Look at GM: enough people thought GM vehicles were overpriced, so GM slapped on all those rebates and the Employee Discount thingie and all that. The market will change if the customers show their frustration; but stealing is not a valid way to show your frustration – boycotting is.

 

[VIPFREAK]

The market will change if the customers show their frustration; but stealing is not a valid way to show your frustration – boycotting is.

Hence why I use my Mp3 player to record straight to .Mp3 format, ripping off of Streaming music or d/l legally from that Russian site that's getting more popular (hey it's still legal so far, Not to mention Copyright protection free). If I'm desperate then I'll use P2P. BTW, it's not the music I'm Boycotting it's the Damn RIAA we are suppose to be boycotting. Since the beginning the Artist are the ones that lost the most and I haven't hurt them as much as others.

 

[Shannon]

Do you really thinking $0.99 a song is a rip-off? Like Giles said, if you're not willing to pay that for a song, then the song's not worth listening to in the first place.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Add in the low bitrates and DRM, yes that $0.99 is a rip-off.

 

[Duke]

Okey, what do you say to this, Duke (and other anti p2p-people):

I am a college student (or will be this fall). I need to pay for tuition and other expenses. I don't have time for a job, because of my studies, so I hagve no spare cash. I love music, and want to hear good new music, but I have no money to buy CDs, so I download them (for free). If I don't download them, I have to listen to the radio, and sit through tons of ads and talk and other songs that are played the crap out of, which really irks me.

Downloading music illeagly is a free source of joy. I don't want to go through college listening to the same old music, I'll be bored as it is, and I don't want to be more bored.

Free to who? That music wasn't free to the musicians who made it, or the studio that recorded and engineered it, or the record company that promoted it. All of those people had a huge amount of time and money invested in that music.

The reason the radio is free to you is that the cost of broadcasting is underwritten by the advertising revenues. Again, the radio is not "free", but it's just that someone is willing to pay for it for you, in exchange for the chance that you'll hear there ads.

But it's not "free". And the only reason the downloaded music you have is free is because it's stolen. And for the sake of all the idiots out there, I'm not talking about free promotional downloads offered by bands or record companies themselves.

And to whatever Einstein was asking about copying CDs - if you own the CD, you can make copies for your own private use. That's covered by the 'non-simultaneous use' clause. In other words, if you make a copy of your favorite CD to leave at work and one to play in your car, it's perfectly OK because you can only listen to one of them at a time. But it's still stealing if you are burning CD copies of other peoples' CDs.

And to whatever other Einstein said that stealing music is not like stealing a car, you're wrong. Look up the concept of "intellectual property". Even though a song is not a physical thing, it is still OWNED by its creators and whoever those creators have signed legal contracts with.

All you people are doing is trying to rationalize theft, pure and simple. If you do some actual thinking and you investigate the nature of copyright laws, you'll see that not only is the RIAA fundamentally right, but that bands like Metallica are legally compelled to prosecute copyright infringement, or else they risk losing legal ownership of their own songs. If they don't prosecute, the law assumes they are abandoning their rights of ownership and the songs pass into the public domain.

Hence why I use my Mp3 player to record straight to .Mp3 format, ripping off of Streaming music or d/l legally from that Russian site that's getting more popular (hey it's still legal so far, Not to mention Copyright protection free). If I'm desperate then I'll use P2P. BTW, it's not the music I'm Boycotting it's the Damn RIAA we are suppose to be boycotting. Since the beginning the Artist are the ones that lost the most and I haven't hurt them as much as others.

Why does anyone think that the P2P part has anything to do with it? If you get the music dishonestly - record it off of MistaX's radio, get it from some Russian site, etc, IT IS STILL THEFT.

How is some site in Russia "copyright free"? The musicians or companies with rights to the songs still own that copyright, no matter where the file happens to be hosted. It's not like you can mystically make that go away just by changing the location of the server. Now, it may well be harder to prosecute them, but it in now way changes the illegality of it.

All this self-righteous rationalizing is really making me want to puke. I can't believe what some of you brats think you're entitled to do.

 

[Iceman]

Here's a thought for all of you:

With such divided opinions here, the only common ground I can see this that all of us would like to be able to sample tracks before we buy a CD. It's only normal for a consumer to evaluate the quality of a product before it is bought. What if there were a website, program etc. that allowed you to download any songs for free, but only listen them to a limited number of times. After maybe 3 plays or so you would have to pay the 99 cents to keep the song. This way you wont have to pay to evaluate the product but it wouldn't be taking anything from the artist. Could this be a legal option? I know I would LOVE a well organized track sampler.

 

[Duke]

Sure, that would be a great idea. And a lot of musicians host their own sites with downloadable songs or even albums. There's a link to one such site in my signature.

They're perfectly in their right to give away their own music. Heck, I have a couple free CDs that I got from a band in New Jersey, through requests on their web site.

A well organized sample service would be great. And in fact almost nobody has a problem with using P2P or other copying methods as an informal sampling system... but the burden is then on the sampling person to be honest and buy the CD or delete the songs they don't like.

That's just like how shareware works... theoretically.

 

[Iceman]

I would only use a service like this if it was extensive, easy to use, and featured many artists. The fact is, P2P can be unreliable, virus infested and sometimes a pain in the butt to find rare songs/artists etc. Why not clean it up for the consumer and offer a service that has the potential to open up new music to everyone? If done right, it could bring the benefits of P2P and pay sites together.

 

[Shannon]

Here's a thought for all of you:

With such divided opinions here, the only common ground I can see this that all of us would like to be able to sample tracks before we buy a CD. It's only normal for a consumer to evaluate the quality of a product before it is bought. What if there were a website, program etc. that allowed you to download any songs for free, but only listen them to a limited number of times. After maybe 3 plays or so you would have to pay the 99 cents to keep the song. This way you wont have to pay to evaluate the product but it wouldn't be taking anything from the artist. Could this be a legal option? I know I would LOVE a well organized track sampler.

I suprised that hasn't already been implemented on .wma files with Microsoft's crappy DRM. But honestly, who uses .wma? Any other format (such as MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC, etc) would require the track had some kind of playcount marker embedded in it that incremented with each play. A special decoder would then be needed to notice this playcounter and not decode the file after 3 plays. That would be all to easy to get around then as users could just use another decoder that doesn't take note of the playcounter.

Example: I read somewhere that record labels were thinking of embedding a secret message in the files recorded from their artists. A special decoder would then note this secret message and play it. So half way through your newly pirated album you'd hear a big RIAA execute give you a firm warning about piracy. The solution? Just use a decoder that doesn't notice this message.

In the end, no matter what the music industry tries to prevent piracy will never end up working.

 

[James2097]

I will only buy a CD if I KNOW what I'm getting, or I have enough respect for the artist that I just know its gonna be good anyway. I will sometimes buy CDs of artists that I haven't heard, if the album in question is thought to be really good by sources that I respect (ie mates, NOT reviews in newspapers etc..).

I download a few MP3s if I'm curious about a particular artist, but I don't consider them anywhere good enough sound quality to threaten CD sales to people like me...
I would never play an MP3 on a hi-fi. Its only just good enough for those little bud-style ear phones for portable music players. CD is far far better quality.

 

[sicbeing]

Stealing music online is not the same as stealing material for the basic idea that when you "steal" it online, the person you "stole" it from still has it. Its making illegal copies, not stealing.IMO

 

[Duke]

Stealing music online is not the same as stealing material for the basic idea that when you "steal" it online, the person you "stole" it from still has it. Its making illegal copies, not stealing.IMO

Are you joking?!

What you are stealing is the intellectual property of the band that made the music. It's not stealing the physical CD, which is nearly valueless. It IS stealing the time, effort, money, and sweat that went into producing the music in the first place - that is the value.

What you are stealing is the money the band would have made, and the record company that invested in the band would have made. And that is[/i] a real thing, no matter how much you try to pretend it is not. There are victims here, even if you feel safely isolated from them and so justified in your theft because you know you can get away with it.

 

[sicbeing]

Are you joking?!

What you are stealing is the intellectual property of the band that made the music. It's not stealing the physical CD, which is nearly valueless. It IS stealing the time, effort, money, and sweat that went into producing the music in the first place - that is the value.

What you are stealing is the money the band would have made, and the record company that invested in the band would have made. And that is[/i] a real thing, no matter how much you try to pretend it is not. There are victims here, even if you feel safely isolated from them and so justified in your theft because you know you can get away with it.

You are still comparing something to another that doesnt mix.

You should say (from what youve explained):

Stealing the idea behind a car and then building your own version for your own self

Is the same as

Stealing the song from a musician and then burning your own copy for your own self

Besides the huge price difference between the two (building a car from someone else idea is ten bajillion times more expensive then buying a stack of blank cds), i think that is the same idea.

You cant compare someones thoughts, ideas, and feelings to a material item. At least I dont think so.

Is it still stealing in general? Yea, but it isnt stealing when talking about taking someone else's cd away from them. It is still very illegal, its just a copy of the product, and sometimes not even the whole copy, just parts of it.

 

[Silverzone]

okay: proof that cds aren't that expensive.

I have bought 10 cds in the past week, and it just cost me just a little over 100 dollars (us). I know that a lot of people can't afford to buy 100 dollars worth of cds, but You can consider it cheap to how much a lawsuit will cost from the RIAA. And dont say it wont happen to you, because Im sure thats what everyone else said. A lawsuit could be thousands of dollars for downloading music illegally.

The campaign to date has yielded 382 lawsuits and 220 settlements averaging close to $3,000 apiece.

I know thats a small number (but this article was from 2003) The Riaa has unlimited resourses to sue you for stealing the music. and if someone was to steal my stuff, I would do about the same (except for suing = beatings) Now if someone was stealing your stuff, wouldn't you do something about it?

and sicbeing, Stealing is stealing no matter how much its worth.

 

[Duke]

You are stealing the band's property, and the record company that invested in the band's property. Just like if you borrow a book and photocopy all the pages, or if you bootleg licensed software, etc.

It's theft. End of story.

Now if someone was stealing your stuff, wouldn't you do something about it?

Everybody pisses and moans about moneygrubbing bands and the RIAA. But there are two things they ignore:

• Those bands earned the money by making that music. A record company invested money in the band so they could make the record. Copying is theft of that money. The RIAA is there to protect that money, which is rightfully theirs, on behalf of the bands and record companies making the investments of time and cash.
  
  
• A band, or whoever owns publication rights to the music, must by law pursue people who infringe their copyright. Otherwise there is a very legal risk that they will be considered to have abandoned ownership of the music. Here's an example: You and your neighbor both have side yards that join up against each other. 20 years ago, your neighbor built a fence that's 10 feet inside his property line. He thought that's where the line was, and for those 20 years, you've been mowing the grass and taking care of that 10 feet of property. When he goes to sell his land, guess what? You can now claim it as really yours. Because your neighbor neglected to enforce the ownership of his 10 feet of property, he has now lost it to you. It's called "adverse posession", and copyright law works in a very similar way. If a band does not enforce ownership of their music, they will lose ownership to the public domain. So call them assholes all you want; they are just doing what the law requires them to do to maintain their rights.

 

[sicbeing]

You are stealing the band's property, and the record company that invested in the band's property. Just like if you borrow a book and photocopy all the pages, or if you bootleg licensed software, etc.

It's theft. End of story.

Right I agreed to that 100%. No need to bold at me.

I'll still download music. I've adapted to it. 100 bucks for music just seems ridiculus to me now, whether it is or not. I don't download music often enough to even consider leaving my house and buying it.

There's no way to stop it, yelling at people won't change their minds. The only thing that will is when they pull you away from your computer and sue you for it.

 

[Duke]

There's no way to stop it, yelling at people won't change their minds. The only thing that will is when they pull you away from your computer and sue you for it.

And, of course, when that happens, we have to listen to thousands of whining thieves who piss and moan that the RIAA are assholes for suing people that download music... frankly, I hope everybody who does it gets busted.

 

[sicbeing]

Well I haven't been sued by no one yet and I can already tell you they are. They make money off of the publicity of the p2p networks, a lot of people who download music go out and buy the cd. Most of the people who download music, then never buy it, are just people who would have never bought the cd in the first place.

Then they make money because they sue people who hold the files for upload (the users you might see with 800+ files ready for you to download them from him). Those kind of people are a bit on the extreme side, not every p2p user has 1000+ music files just sitting on their computer.

I can't imagine what kind of money the blank-cd company gets for all the blank cd's bought.

-edit-

and sorry, not everyone will get busted for downloading music, like someone said before, its impossible. (the time it would take to do it)

Also know that the lawsuits over this stuff are moslty just cases being settled by the music companies because the people don't want to goto court and -possibly- lose 20 grand when they can just give 3 grand to shut the company up.

 

[a6m5]

Only thing that concerns me with people downloading music is that rest of us, who actually pay for CDs probably get stuck with the check. Just like with insurance and banking. When somebody steal, the cost is passed on to other people.

 

[Silverzone]

Still, people are getting sued. And the cases aren't really related. which means any person who pirates music is subsceptable to RIAA lawsuits. Its better safe then sorry.

Only thing that concerns me with people downloading music is that rest of us, who actually pay for CDs probably get stuck with the check. Just like with insurance and banking. When somebody steal, the cost is passed on to other people.

^correct

One day, the Riaa will snap and have to charge extra for cds. or if that happens, the artists could easily go on strike.

 

[Event]

Only thing that concerns me with people downloading music is that rest of us, who actually pay for CDs probably get stuck with the check. Just like with insurance and banking. When somebody steal, the cost is passed on to other people.

p2p has been around for ages and people have always been downloading music, but as far as I know, CD prices have remained the same. People will ALWAYS download music or at least obtain it illegally. There's nothing the RIAA can do about it. If they raise the CD prices, then fewer people will buy CDs and more will download them. I don't think any artist could get away with selling their CDs for $20. That's more than a DVD, whihc is absurd. More people would steal them by other means instead.

 

[a6m5]

p2p has been around for ages and people have always been downloading music, but as far as I know, CD prices have remained the same. People will ALWAYS download music or at least obtain it illegally. There's nothing the RIAA can do about it. If they raise the CD prices, then fewer people will buy CDs and more will download them. I don't think any artist could get away with selling their CDs for $20. That's more than a DVD, whihc is absurd. More people would steal them by other means instead.

Good point. But last time I checked, CD prices has risen to suggested retail of $17 - $19. I think it used to be $15 or so, before people started downloading songs. I don't think that had anything to do with the people downloading, however.

Most of the CDs I buy are on sale($8 - $13), from the CD clubs(around $8) or used($4 - $10). People who were arguing Sage, that .99 cents a song is too much, you're cheapskate.

 

[Event]

Good point. But last time I checked, CD prices has risen to suggested retail of $17 - $19. I think it used to be $15 or so, before people started downloading songs. I don't think that had anything to do with the people downloading, however.

Most of the CDs I buy are on sale($8 - $13), from the CD clubs(around $8) or used($4 - $10). People who were arguing Sage, that .99 cents a song is too much, you're cheapskate.

.99 cents a song adds up. If you have only 300 songs you like, that's $297, which is quite a bit for copy-protected, 128kbps MP3s... I think it's a rip-off.

Everywhere I see CDs, I rarely see them for more than $15, unless they have bonus CDs or DVDs, or something along those lines. They way I see it, is if you do buy CDs and are paying more than $15, you are being ripped-off by a HUGE markup.

 

[a6m5]

They way I see it, is if you do buy CDs and are paying more than $15, you are being ripped-off by a HUGE markup.

I got news for you. Everytime you buy something, there's a certain markup. Electronics, cars, apparels, they all have "huge" markup. It's not like record industry is the only business that's ripping you off.

 

[Event]

I got news for you. Everytime you buy something, there's a certain markup. Electronics, cars, apparels, they all have "huge" markup. It's not like record industry is the only business that's ripping you off.

But the ones that sell them for $18 or $20 have a much bigger markup. I know all stores mark things up, I'd have to be an ignorameous to not know that. One reason I buy electronics online is that online stores like newegg tend to have less of a markup than retail stores like CompUSA. (The king of markups...)