Should we feel guilty for downloading music? Musicians biggest revenues aren't from the sale of records, but rather from the ticket sales from their concerts. The record labels take in most of the monies from the sale of albums. I can't stand buying a CD and the majority of the songs on the album are just filler cr*p., IMO. There are also rare and imported songs that you can't find anywhere, remixes and small artists on even smaller labels that you can't find in a Walmart or on online stores. Do you think people should be punished for file sharing?

This is actually a pretty good topic to debate(More worthy than casual conversation )

Personally I can say I do download some music and listen to a few songs from a new artist, if I like them I tend to support that group or singer and buy the album. Now on the case of classical music(such as Vivaldi), I tend to download them from Kazaa.

No, I don't think people should be punished for file sharing. I would, however, like to think that when we say sharing we are actually talking about sharing, and not somebody working to make a profit through illegally redistributing a product.

My computer is in too pitiful of shape to even dream of downloading free movies or music -- not to mention it has no sound -- but as I understand it most of the sites people visit are free without anybody making a profit, save maybe the owner of the site from advertisements. If this is how it works, I certainly don't have a problem with it.

When I upgraded computers this year I got one capable of file sharing, but I haven't used it---not yet anyway.

Back in the day the hue and cry was about home taping. Record labels ran to Congress asking for protection and bans on selling of blank audio tape. I suspect those same jerks would long for those days now.

My concern is with taking the money out of the pockets of artists. The record companies can go hang for all I care. However, most musicians make the money from touring and performing, not CD sales. Still, this is a whole new way of listening to music and I don't think it's going to stop anytime soon.

We may be looking at the beginning of the end of recorded music in the way we have known it. Only time will tell if this a good or bad thing.

Do artists make most of their money from live performances? That's surprising to me. I thought they made most of their profit from recording contracts.

We downloaded a lot of music from Napster before it went bust. Now, my husband feels guilt so we don't do it anymore. I think it would be difficult and unreasonable to enforce punishment for downloading for personal use. However, if a person is downloading for profit, it should be a crime.

I download a lot of music but I do it legally: songs that are posted by the musicians themselves to be downloaded, or songs that Amazon posts as free samples. Often it's stuff the record companies wouldn't touch because it's by unknowns or has little commercial appeal. And it's good, often much better than what they're pushing.

I think the music and film industries have gone way overboard with their efforts to make copyrights draconian and exclude all "fair use" copying. Until they get a clue, I won't be buying any new CDs at all. And no, it won't be because I'm pirating music: I don't need to, there's enough good stuff out there that's legal to download. If I must have a particular CD, I'll buy it used.

All the politicians who've been doing their dirty work are now on my "must defeat" list, with Sen. Hollings and Sen. Hatch at the top of it.

That's a fairly common belief Mrs. Pigpen. Unfortunately for the artist, most record contracts are as Prince described them: "They ain't no pension plan."

Here's a link to an article to why recording contracts are so pernicious:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol1...sic.labels.html

It's all too easy to say that it's ok to swap music because most of us have done it or know someone who has.

A simple analogy points out why trading music is bad.

If I write a piece of software, just for fun let's call it "Windows," and I decided to sell that software, maybe make it my goal to have it running on every computer in the world, well I own that software.

It is completely reasonable for me to expect that only those who have paid to use the software will actually use the software. It is completely reasonable for me to consider those who use the software without purchasing it thieves. It is completely reasonable for me to demand my government put in place a system allowing me to enforce my ownership rights against those who don't pay.

Yeah, it stinks. Swapping music is soooooooo easy. It sure seems like it should be free. After all, it's been free up until now.

But, music is intellectual property. As easy as professional musicians make it look, it is not easy. It takes years to get good, and dedication to maintain it. It takes practice to write good songs, and technique to record and mix them. These are the tools of the trade. We would never demand other skilled workers donate their work to the public domain.

As for me personally, I have downloading minimal music via file sharing, probably less than 50 songs. Most have been such poor sound quality that they were instantly deleted. I've downloaded some rare songs, some songs that are allowed to be distributed, and that's about it. I have never downloaded a whole CD, nor have I downloaded any music prior to its release date.

Mike

As Izdaari said, there are legitimate places to download music from. MP3.com is a fantastic place to learn about new bands from all over the world, and I patronize that site frequently.

Have I used filesharing services? Yes. Is it right to do so? Probably not, but as a person who purchases a large number of CDs, especially of indie bands who get no radio play, filesharing is a very good way to hear a new band before going out and purchasing a whole album and then finding out that it is awful. I have discovered a huge number of great bands in this way.

Right or wrong, filesharing is not going to go away. Rather than fighting a losing battle, record companies should be trying to figure out a way to use the technology to their advantage.

Is it the fifth amendment that grants you the right not to have to say anything??

I have downloaded music. Mostly because a lot of stuff I like simply cannot be gotten for love or money!

Example.

Ten years ago I bought a cassette by Michael Stearns (A composer of ambient music) called 'Planetary Unfolding'.
It was a great album, very 'spacey' and relaxing, and good to draw to. Then one day it went missing. I cursed and spat and kicked the cat, but all to no avail. It was long gone.

So of course I went down to the shop and asked them to order a new one. (Several years had past since I bought it)
But they came back and said, it was no longer in stock. Well I still had the cassette box and sleeve, so I wrote to Hearts of Space to ask them if they could send me a copy or if they knew how to get one.

No answer.

I tried again, this time by e mail.

Still no answer.

In vain I scoured the net.

Finally my friend installed Kazaa on my computer and downloaded me the six tracks which make up the 'Planetary unfolding' album. In less than forty minutes he had succeeded where I had failed for seven years!

Is it immoral? I don't know but I'm sure glad to have the album again.

And I also know this; I spent a small fortune on audio cassettes once, and now they are just gathering dust on the shelf because my stereo does'nt play tapes...

People should not be punished for file sharing.

However, people should be punished if caught, through due process, of breaking the law.

File sharing in and of itself is just as much a tool as a radio, 8-track, audio cassette, betamax tape, and VHS is.

Each and every one of those was challenged in court by the RIAA or it precursors, for the same reasons file-sharing is being challenged.

File sharing in and of it-self is a great technology. Server bandwidth costs are huge. However, we have tons of poeple, who pay for unlimited use accounts that don't use anywhere near their alloted amount of bandwidth - and who would be happy to share some file available for download.

Consider:

You have 1 big server. Tons of bandwidth. Tons of users. Result = Big bills, slow downloads.
You have millions of individual users. Small bandwidth individually. Tons of users. Result = Small bills, fast downloads.

Removed links to unauthorized software distribution sites.

Have fun, and only download the legal things,

Robert

p.s. Did you know that the Terms of Agreement to post on this site, say I cannot promote or support pornography? Apparently, the owners of this site think that Pornography should be in the same catagory as "illegal activities." So much for "Free speech for everyone!"

Greenring7, unless you can relate this to the topic in some way, it does not belong in your post. If you have a problem with the administration of this site, you can discuss it via PM or in the Comments and Suggestions forum. Please do not derail this thread.

Who gets to determine whether file sharing is, in and of itself, breaking the law? Not the RIAA/MPAA, certainly, but not Joe Random Pirate either. I hang out with a lot of the people who wrote various file-sharing programs, I think it's ridiculous to prosecute them for how a tool is used, but the users themselves who knowingly publish copyrighted material are violating the law. Maybe the law needs to be changed, or breaking it should be considered "civil disobedience" - either way we could have a whole other debate about that - but publishing or downloading a copy of Matrix 2 is still illegal.

Theft is theft.

Yeah, Hugo, theft is theft. And fascism is fascism, which is the direction the RIAA and MPAA are going, and Hatch and Hollings are their bought and paid for lapdogs. Just my humble opinion of course.

it depends on what you do with it. if you download some songs, and burn one cd for your self, I don't mind, and it isn't piracy. now if you download an entire album, and burn ten thousand copies and proceed to sale those copies then you should be punished.

most people simply download music for their personal use. this is fair use. I can buy a CD, make a copy (or more) and GIVE it to a friend. this is what you do when you digitize the music and transfer it to a friend (who's to say who is my friend and who isn't)

most artists don't make a lot on record sales. the RIAA tends to get most of the money, then the label, and finally the artist, who receives a fraction of record sale revenues. most artist make a majority of their money from merchandise and live performances, because most people still want to see someone live.

what it comes down to is instead of someone (metallica for example) making 30 million they only make 27 million. the RIAA complains they lose money because of file sharing, but the fact is they don't really lose that much and what they do lose is because of producing poor products.

I have no problem downloading free music from grokster, because I refuse to pay 20 bucks for one or two good songs, and ten crappy ones. I also don't feel what I am doing is wrong, legally, and especially morally, because I am not burning CD's and selling them, only downloading music for my personal use.

I agree with you Unabomber.

I cannot count the number of songs I've downloaded. I think the fun part of downloading music is alot of the rare tracks that you can't find by conventional methods. I love to arrange songs and mix and match them for what ever mood I'm in. To me, the traditional, going to a store and being limited to the selection is becoming so outdated and wil eventually fall to the way side. But I definatly wouldn't copy a cd and then sell it. I might ask for dinner if I'm making a CD for someone special though...

I don't feel stealing my neighbor's VCR is wrong. He can afford to buy another one, and I am only using it for my own personal use.

Cyan, that "p.s." remark does directly relate to the topic at hand, as I was trying to give a "wink, wink" under the table remark, that file sharing is a great way to share pornography in a legal and hassle free way.

Admittidadly, professionally produced porn is sometimes better, but it is not free and you have to deal with other things, namely, the stigma of actually going to a porn store.

Of course, for me to actually say this, I would be encourag[ing], promot[ing] pornography, which according to the Rules and Guidelines results in an immediate ban, regardless of its complete relevance to the topic at hand, namely, showing a completely legitimate way that filesharing can be used legally.

Additionally, Hugo - the filesharing application is the VCR. A proper analogy would be,"Copying his movies are ok, because he still has them."

-Robert

File sharing is mostly due to artificially inflated prices on the part of the music industry. I download a lot of music. I download it when my original CD is scratched, I download it to sample a new album I am looking to buy, I download it to give artists I have "heard about" but never "heard" a chance and I download it when I can't find the band I'm looking for anywhere else.
A *lot* of the CD's I have bought have been the direct result of downloading most of, if not all of, an album. For everyone I know owning the "real" CD is always preferential. I have recently downloaded the entire new Radiohead album. Am I going to go buy it? You bet I am.

File sharing has NOT lowered record sales. The record industry is losing more money on lawsuits, lobbying and bad PR than they do from some shmoe in Albany downloading a few CD's.
It's not going to stop; every time they ban one program a new one pops up and, unfortunately for the US Legislature, we DON'T own the internet and regulating that beast is just impossible.

If they want more people to buy CD's they need to lower their prices. Period.

I agree with the majority of the posts on this topic. Downloading music for personal use should not be regulated by the government. The real problem comes when that music is distributed as pirated music. Of course, I think that piracy of any form of entertainment is not right. I personally download music all of the time, and it is strictly for my own personal use. I love music, and when I come across a new band that I want to explore, downloading seems the only way to do this, as the majority of the time, it is an independent, or obscure band. The same goes for certain songs--very obscure, and hard to find in a record store. So, as long as one downloads for personal use, and not profit, it should stay legal.

Hugo, that's a flawed analogy. If you steal a phsyical object from someone, they no long can use it or distribute it. If you download a song, the record companies can still use and distribute that song. It's apples and oranges.

The utility is not diminished to zero, but it is diminished. If you allow people to download a song from you, you reduce the market for (the rights to) that song. The fact that duplication costs for music are negligible really doesn't make that much of a difference. As with many other kinds of products, the amortized costs of development/promotion/etc. are a legitimate part of the unit price, and illegal duplication reduces the number of units over which that cost can be spread.

I do not have a problem with people downloading my music, but that's just me. It should be up to the artist. The thing is, songs are created things, whole and complete. Is it OK to download a new Steven King novel, "for personal use?" That novel, too, is a whole and complete entity. Why do we classify songs differently? As a songwriter, the song is my output; for a novelist, the novel is her output.

Economically, pirating music off the internet hurts the record companies far more than the artist. Artists are rarely rewarded much for album sales. Record contracts suck, that is the reality.

I've said before and i'll say it again...i download and burn music. i try my hardest not to buy any. in the last few years, i can remember only buying one cd for myself. that was only because it was a brasilian artist that i couldn't find anywhere online and was definitely worth the overseas purchase. i spend enough on records. that's my contribution. now that i'm using cd players with my vinyl, my vinyl purchases have cut down too, so i win again. until artists start worrying about euphoric's bank account, i'm not worried too much about theirs. anyways, a majority of the artists make money from touring and other ventures, not off album sales. i'm not gonna deprive myself of music because i'm not filling the pockets of some artist who doesn't know me from a hole in the wall. they can get a second job with a steady paycheck if they're really making music because they love it. if they're doing it for the money, then I win again because they're not getting any from me.

I think the bulk of this debate is ridiculous.

First, the record companies went through this same crap when the casette tape came out. So, what happened? There was a surcharge on the tapes and cassettes never did make a dent in their sales.

Secondly, why are they assuming that everyone who has broadband is burning CDs while everybody with a stereo can STILL record anything they want without a damn computer? Did people all the sudden quit listening to stereos and buy broadband?

Lastly, the quality factor. People assume what you download is what they are selling. And that is NOT true. For one, MP3's are compressed files. They can never be the same quality. Next, people that rip these things are idiots. They use a bogus bitrate (to keep the download sizes small), have hard drives that skip, and make a mess out of what they record.

I download music all the time because I play in a cover band. I burn CD's for all the band members so we all learn the same version of the song (maybe the RIAA should be paying me, huh?). I can't count the number of times that with the crappy bitrate, parts of the song were missing, the song started over again in the middle of the track, or another song by another artist is in the middle of the track.

Then, we get to my personal favorite. I downloaded a song by Nickelback we thought about doing. But it wasn't Nickelback. It was some crappy garage band trying to get their original music out by hiding it in something popular.

The ones that SHOULD be bitching are the software companies. You don't have to but software anymore. You can download an exact replica (because it's all digital) of almost anything you want with the cracks, serial numbers, and anything else needed to run.

The RIAA is playing into the public's sense of common decency, but they are as culpable as anybody and relying on the court of public opinion to monopolize the market. Anybody that is not a big artist would be thrilled people are downloading their music because in the end, the artist is making more money.

The RIAA should be concentrating on putting better music out. Not more.

What if....

1. I tape music video's on my VCR and watch them whenever I like at home.

2. I tape every episode of Friends on my VCR for watching at home whenever I like.

3. I download and burn a CD of miscellaneous songs from my computer to listen to whenever I like at home.

4. I keep a cassette tape ready in my stereo and record miscellaneous songs off of the radio to listen to whenever I like at home.

Are all of these actions illegal? If not why not? What, in the eyes of the law, makes downloading content from my computer and burning it to a CD for personal use any different from recording content from radio or television and burning it to a cassette tape for personal use?

Danya, those are all legal because of the Fair Use principle, which however the RIAA and MPAA are doing their best to undermine and eliminate. More than you ever wanted to know about Fair Use: link.

File sharing is theft.

It might be theft on a small scale, and I admit that I have done a little of it, but that does not change the fact that it is copyrighted material, in a superior form than simply taping the radio.

Izdaari, I am shocked that you would not support the private property and intellectual property rights of artists. Aren't lithographs the property of the original artist?

The difference between the radio and file sharing is that the artist gives consent to be broadcast. It is known that a broadcast can be taped/recorded. The artist does not give consent to allow his property to be downloaded by anyone who cares to do so.

Is software in the same category? Should I be able to download pirated software for free? Where do you draw the line?

That's not true.

Artists release their music to ASCAP and places like ASCAP (I'm too lazy to look them up). After that, their music is completely out of their hands. If I decide I want to record and release my version of Kashmir by Led zeppelin (Title Code: 410036929), there's nothing Jimmy Page or anybody else can do about it.

After that music is released, the artist gets payments from radio, bars, or wherever when that music is played through ASCAP. As soon as that music is released, it is up for grabs for whoever wants to use it. Most places make monthly payments based on the amount they play music.

People downloading songs are not using them for commercial use. They are not using the music they download to help them make money (like radio and bars do). They are doing nothing more than listening to what they can't listen to on the radio for free because of work schedules, etc.

You are believing what the big music companies want you to believe. The industry has been tanking because the music blows and they need a way to recover costs. Most artists would prefer people download their music because they'd rather have you listening to it than ignoring it. Their sales are going up and small labels are making more money. And big music just can't stand it.

Is it illegal to find a lithograph or art online, print it, frame it, and hang it on your wall? It would be less superior in form. How about if you use the picture as your wallpaper on your home computer without permission? I don't know that the quality of the form should have anything to do with it.

I just think that anything that is already out there for public consumption should be fair game for people to enjoy at home whenever they want. Whether it's music, poetry, books, tv shows, commercials, fliers, whatever. BTW, what is 'intellectual property' exactly? I could see if people were trying to profit from what they were doing but for personal use I don't respect copyright laws for record labels any more than I do the rights of TV show producers when I tape off of television.

I don't think it's an enforceable law anyway. For every one person they sue thousands of others are still going to be out there doing the same thing. I also think it should be no more legal to spy on people's internet usage and computer files without permission than it is to download copyrighted songs. At least IMO.

Whether or not music should be downloaded for free ought to be up to the artist. Without the artist's permission, it is theft. "Personal use" is fine and good, but look at it this way. The song is the output of the songwriter. The novel is the output of the novelist. Is it OK for me to download a copy of Steven King's latest novel (for free)? After all, I am not going to sell it, just read it for myself. Pirated software, the same thing - I'm not going to sell it, but does that make it OK to steal it?

Allow me to qualify my thoughts here - I am a songwriter. I have received numerous checks from BMI for the use of my songs, both on the radio and from television. I also have absolutely no problem with anyone downloading any or all of my music for free. But I am not every songwriter; I'm just me.

DaytonRocker is correct about the fact that the big recording companies SUCK - songwriting credits earn you barely pennies on every dollar made from a CD sale, but there is a legal issue beyond who does or does not profit.

There has been some talk about how most bands make most of their money on tour, not through recordings, and that is absolutely true - for the most part. There are many songwriters who ONLY write songs, which other people record and perform. To them, this issue can be quite important.

Also, bands (after a certain level), are helped by the publicity engine that goes hand in hand with major label recording - and that support is not going to happen for a band that is not selling CDs.

DR:


No. It is up for grabs for radio play, but not for television, movies, commercials, and such. After decades of songwriter exploitation, the cardinal rule in songwriting has become: never give away (or sell) your publishing rights to your material. Case in point is Michael Jackson allowing Beatles music for TV commercials...

Danya:


That doesn't make it right.

Daytonrocker, just so you know, I am emphatically NOT a person who believes for a moment the lies of the "big music idustry." My band had "talks" with both Atlantic and Virgin back in the day, and we turned both down - the deals were really horrific. On the other hand, I have a friend who's band worked up a huge grass-roots following, and when they were doing very well, they were able to dictate their terms to the major labels, and today they are one of the biggest bands in the country.

I will continue to offer my recorded music freely, because it is my personal choice to do so. Once I get my website up again (my webhost went under!), I will upload the songs from my CDs, then post a link here, just to prove it!

Bill Would Put Internet Song Swappers in Jail



Interesting article. Congress will probably take action within the next decade...

Danya

Check out this site's policy on cutting and pasting external images (without linking) and I think you might have your answer.

It's funny that if you look at the recording companies over the years, they're still crying wolf as they always have.

When audio tapes became available, they cried it was the end of the recording industry, everyone would just make copies and never buy any music.

When CD recorders first became available, they cried that they'd go out of business, everyone would rip copies and that was wrong.

When the Internet came along, they whined that everyone would share low-quality WAV files and do away with CD sales.

When P2P software came along, they were at it again, threatening people because they weren't going to be selling as much as they wanted.

You know something? The recording industry is a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY that is selling more today than at any other time in history (adjusted for the economy, of course). And they're still whining.

Somehow, I don't feel sorry for them.

Isn't it interesting that the artists who do want to provide their music for free aren't being allowed to by their record labels? The Offspring had their entire Americana album up on their own website. They told people to download it. It was their work on their website. Sony made them take it down.

Even more interesting was the fact that, while that album was the most popular download through Napster, with millions of copies of their songs being downloaded... that album was also the most highly purchased album on the charts. Yup... look at all the money they were losing...

The RIAA argument is based on one flawed claim: that everyone who downloads a song would buy it if it wasn't available for download. That's ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone who was going to buy the album would do so and not bother downloading it. In the end, there are few 'lost sales' because there were few sales to be lost to begin with. In fact, studies showed that Napster users bought more CDs overall than non-Napster users, simply because they had the ability to try before they buy.

The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot. Now that a couple of large bands have come out against file sharing (Metallica comes to mind), there are HUGE groups of people who will purposely never buy another of their albums, but will simply download and distribute them free of charge. And I feel no sympathy for them either.

Information is something that should be free.

In our society, people are obsessed with what's "theirs" or "their idea." People are suing Taco Bell because they claim that they came up with the idea of a talking Cihuawa. I think this has just gone too far.

If I download a song, I have taken nothing from you, whether you "own" that song or not. You are still free to listen to or sell that song. You are still able to sell that song to me. In the years since file-sharing became popular, per-CD music sales have gone up every single year. People are such babies about this. They demand that we pay ridiculously huge prices for CDs that take pennies to produce, and they give artists all but nothing from that profit. They force conformist producers on artists to make sure they make their music "marketable" enough. And now they want to put us in jail for downloading a song?


The music industry has destroyed music in America. There is nothing that gives these greedy rich old men to right to all the music ever created. What are they going to try next? Banning covers by garage bands? Arresting those who play music to their friends who have not bought it? Taking a cue from the software industry and demanding that customers buy a different CD for each CD player? I'm just sick of these jackles feeding off the talent of others acting so holier-than-thou. They call us thieves? How about how they steal 99% of CD profits from artist for themselves? They call us pirates? How about how they demand that any artist attempting to obtain any degree of success to bend over a barrel if they want a contract? These vultures have no skills of their own, but instead use monolithic institutes to profit from the labor of others.

The RIAA hates music. They strangle artists, they hyperinflate CD prices and they propegate terrible music. They want to make sure no one can enjoy music without paying them exhorbetant prices. Well they can go jump in a lake. America's culture belongs to no one. The more they try to destroy our rights to music, the craftier we'll get.

Record companies are theft.

Image edited out by Jaime - Here is a link to it, please check it out:
http://www.boomspeed.com/gerimonk/communism.jpg

Wow, something I agree 100% with Rattlesnake on.

I have never, and will never buy a cd without sampling it first. I have never, and will never install real player on my PC(you don't want to know what that program does to your PC), so I can't go to 98% of the websites out there to sample most of the music. So, I download certain songs, usually the most popular of the album in which it came from. If I like it, I'll go out and buy it. If I don't like it, I'll delete the .mp3 .

The record companies don't lose one cent from me downloading .mp3's. I have no intention of stopping either. Unless of course, Oren Hatch gets his way....

In response to this forum, I have to quote a band called Good Charlotte- song name- Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

"Well did you know when you were famous you could kill your wife, And there's no such thing as 25 to life
As long as you've got the cash, to pay for Cochran"

It is proven that ALL athletes, musicians, and actors/actresses are rich beyond the word. So why are they worried about them "not getting the money they deserve" when infact they are getting that and then some. I just think it's odd that it's ok for us to record their songs onto cassette from the radio, and it's ok for us to record movies and television programs onto VHS/DVD. Sure, at the beginning of every movie there is a warning from the FBI that says "this motion picture may not be reduplicated or redistributed to anyone without consent". But, if these movies/songs are not redistributed to anyone... how are people going to know if they like it or not? That's just my two cents worth!

The best thing that couple happen for music fans, is for the RIAA to fight them.

If anybody had any remorse about downloading a song in the past, no more. I think people (like me) will go out of their way to screw over the record company just to fight.

In the end, who will win?

Which leads me to a great idea. I want to start a web service where people trade CDs. It's not my fault if they keep it for a day, make a copy, and send it off to the next person.

What could the RIAA do then? Outlaw giving CD's away?

I'm all for it! Add my name to the mailing list! The record labels can't stop technology. Maybe if they didn't try to push crap off on the consumers at outrageous prices this wouldn't be such an issue. So many musicians are forced to put "filler songs" on their albums that aren't even their own work just to have a certain amount of songs on the album (I know this for a fact, because I know a member of a certain band from Athens, GA ) and the record label inflates the price of the CD for profit. If they were smart, they'd embrace File sharing by providing their own sites per label and sell the songs as MP3's. Not only would they eliminate the middle man, they could offer their entire library of music at a much cheaper cost.

If I could figure out a way to make shipping dirt cheap while making a profit (subscription service maybe), this would be great.

Everybody make a copy of your CD and send it to me. That puts you on a mailing list and enables you to select and receive the CD's you want. Don't send one back? You're off the list. You can't simply make up a new account because the of the address.

But think about it. You could actually make it a MISSION to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off the music companies. Tell everyone they can get back at the RIAA by swapping original disks.

A great motto: "Help fight the war against music terror!".

It's not instant gratification, but it's perfectly legal, cheaper (because you get an entire CD for the cost of one - unlike music subscription services), and the quality is perfect.

The RIAA would have to take their war to the CD-R companies. This would be a hoot to watch that.

Anybody got any ideas how to help me become AD's next millionaire? lol

Well, I rarely download music but I do download video all the time. I download TV shows that I want to watch (there are a couple on Showtime that I like, but I don't get the channel, and one or two decent ones on broadcast TV that I can only see if I download), as well as some movies when they come out. I have two young children and there is simply no one to leave them with. I cannot go to the theater to see R-rated movies, period. The MPAA isn't going to make a cent from me that way no matter what happens. So I download them, watch them, and if they are good movies, I buy the DVD when they come out. I buy a lot of DVDs, usually averaging 15-20 a month. If the MPAA doesn't like that, screw 'em. It's their choice between my downloading and possibly buying the DVD and not making a penny off me at all.

The MPAA and RIAA both need to realize that the sales concepts that worked even 5 years ago are totally outmoded. They're not going to stop anyone by suing their fans, they'll just alienate them and get MORE downloading, not less.

My neighbor is an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, I think i will steal his birdbath.

Interesting.

The RIAA is being sued right back...and by someone who could afford to pay the legal expenses to give them a fair fight. Their case may or may not be strong enough to win at this point...but they are opting for a jury trial.

Verizon also has a case about this challenging the constitutionality of the subpoenas they received. The case will be heard in appeals court on Sept. 16.

Pac Bell's Internet arm sues music industry over file-sharer IDs

File Sharing? I do not think it should be illegal. As stated in several posts the record companies make alot of money on the actual concerts. I think it will help the signers more then hurt them. Some people arnt fortunate enough to buy CD's because of the very high prices. However downloading from the net allows the user to expirence the CD either in clips or in its full length. There for the recrod companies will make more money because the person will go to the concert even though they didnt buy the CD.

I fell kinda guilty because currently im downloading music. Oh well!

That is all
Live long and Prosper

Studies have shown very clearly that people who download music buy much more than people who don't. The RIAA is just shooting themselves in the foot, both with these ridiculous lawsuits where they will lose billions pursuing people who have no money to begin with and alienating their customers. You don't make friends by suing the people you want to be buying your product.

The music industry is completely outmoded. You can't get away with gouging the consumer on your product and producing a crappy product to begin with. That's why file downloading started in the first place, to give people a way to 'try out' an album before they bought it. And unfortunately, most of the time the album turned out to be bad anyhow. One or two decent songs does not a $17.99 CD make.

The RIAA could have made some intelligent decisions way back when this all started. They could have reduced the prices of CDs (we all know it doesn't cost them much to produce, this is just price-fixing). They could have offered individual songs for sale on CD or online at reasonable prices (who is going to pay $7 for a 2-song CD single?). Instead, they chose to sue everyone who threatens to topple their ivory towers and it is coming back to bite them. I don't know of many people now who will buy *ANY* CD, simply because of the RIAA. I have friends who will download an album and if they like it, will send $10 to the artist. Screw the RIAA.

That's an excellent idea! The recording industry screws the musicians over all the time anyway. I'd send money directly to the artist!

THE FILE SHARING MANIFESTO

So now the greedy pigs that run the music industry want to play rough. What’s the matter, their coke dealer won’t front anymore? Those techno-ghouls have been living high on the hog for the past 100 years and now they’re upset because the river of gold is down 10%. If they want to play rough, so can we. The only reason they can afford to pay their lawyers is because we all still buy CDs.

This is not about intellectual property. Just because I have a file on my hard drive and someone else can see that it's there through P2P doesn't mean that anything has been copied. If I leave my door unlocked and somebody comes in my house and copies a CD, how does that make me guilty of copyright infringement? I might not even be home at the time! No, the intellectual property issue is a tempest in a teapot that can be dealt with later. This, my friends, is about corporate power gone mad, pulverizing individual freedom, and what we can do about it.

No one deserves the kind of treatment that a few poor individuals are getting set up for. We have to act, and act now. There is only one proper response to the file sharing attack – a complete and total boycott of all new recorded music purchases. Imagine if you got a summons in the mail. This is no joke - we must support our file sharing brothers and sisters. I SAY NO PURCHASES OF ANY NEW CDS OR DOWNLOADS AT ALL UNTIL THEY CHANGE THE LAW ON FILE SHARING!! If you want music go to a show, or buy or trade used CDs.

Lets show those thugs who the real boss is – the consumer!

Copy this and spread the word!

Don't ask us to SPAM people, randyleepublic. We are a debate forum. Would you like to debate this issue with us?

I am not asking you to spam the debate threads. There are thousands of places that copies of the FSM could be posted and still not be spam. I would do it all by myself, but I simply don't have the time to try and find them all. I am asking you to seek to motivate consumers to pull together and stop the brutal madness. If you have a better method to achieve the desired result, please share it. I certainly don't doubt that one exists, I just can't see what it is right now. If you don't agree with the desired result, then, yes, of course let's debate.