Downloading Music

[monsieurdozier]

Downloading Music without paying for it. Right or Wrong. Even if it is wrong, do you still do it anyways?

I understand why the recording industries are trying to stop downloading to happen, but I almost agree with it for two reasons:

1) I see it like the radio, even though radio songs are only supposed to be teasers of the actual album.

2) And I wouldn't have bought their CD anyways. Now if it is a band I truly love, My Chemical Romance, as an example, I go out and buy their CD to support the band. Otherwise, I wouldn't go out and buy a CD from some band I really don't care about, but wouldn't mind listening to them on occasion. Nor would I buy the whole CD for one good song.

[mostwanted]

I'm going to say yes, it's okay for two reasons

1) I personally benefit from it.
2) There's no solution to the issue if you do consider it stealing.

There is no use in treating digital content as if it were the same as material objects. The main thing that separates digital content from tangible objects, is the fact that there is no difference in cost in producing 1 product or an infinite number of copies.

Basically, there is a basic supply-demand equation in our system of economy, but with digital content we have suddenly introduced infinity as a factor in it. If anyone here has any basic sense of mathematics, they should know that trying to catch up with infinity is impossible, it's always going to be a brick wall, so all these attempts of encapsulating digital content with restrictions and tough laws are ultimately futile. The solution would be when the music companies realise that infinity is a gift, not an obstacle, and redefine the economics of music so that they can benefit from it too.

Edit: Maybe I should mention that I don't actually download music, pirated or not. I despise the quality of and work usually involved in illegally downloading music off the Internet. That's not saying I don't pirate music, though.

[American_Outcast]

I think there are cheap ways to download music. To buy music, which I rarely do anymore, there is EMusic. There is also SoundClick.com that promotes unsigned or unknown musicians. With the argument against the recording industry, there is one thing many people over look. The musician. Even if they suck or their music is for money rather then real music doesn't matter.

I feel the recording company itself has gone way to far but at the same time I support the musicians and can't just use something they create without paying for it unless they say it is ok.

On the other hand I am tired of the recording industry giving us music they think they can sell and over looking excellent artists and excellent music. So almost all of my music now comes from Soundclick.com There are some excellent musicians from all over the world covering all genres plus at soundclick.com.

[FuturePilot]

....

[Circus-Killer]

okay, i voted on the itunes option, although i dont use itunes for several reasons for which im not going to go into details about now. but i do buy mp3's online from this one russian store. but i only buy them to hear the disc fully before i buy it. its only like $1 an album, but if i like the album, ill buy the actual cd, and if i dont, i delete the mp3s.

i completely disagree with having mp3s that you dont own. if you like an artist enough to have an mp3, then you like them enough to buy their cd. theres not a single mp3 on my pc that i currently dont have on the original cd. the only reason why i have all my music in mp3 is for convinience. not having to reach for a cd every time i wanna listen to it. and also for my mp3 player in my car. my original cds never leave the house. :guitar:

[LowSky]

I chose the itunes option..

I think music should be easily availible. But people shouldn't steal. I also think artist should release their "singles" for free and if people like thise they might want to pay for the album

[ontik]

You're missing an option.

I have DL'd some stuff for free (usually when I can't find it via commercial sites) but buy quite a lot too. Beatport.com FTW!!!! Mainly because what I can get there, I can't get anywhere but also because its so well laid out and you get high quality files at damn cheap rates. eg I can buy 1 song for $1.50 -2.50 whre it would have cost me $15-20 for the ep, and I don't have to record it either.

ontiK.

[dasunst3r]

Given that the MAFIAA is no better than a bunch of liars and crooks, I still pay for music only out of my philosophy of fairness. Sure, my collection of music isn't quite as big as other people (it's still < 1,000), but at least half my collection is ripped off CDs or bought off iTunes (with DRM stripped -- that's the only way I'll stick it to the man for now)

[bruce89]

Downloading (whether legal or not) is evil full-stop.

You end up with a low quality piece of crap / low quality piece of crap with DRM, which is marginally cheaper than a CD.

[monsieurdozier]

There are alot of people saying why they don't download for free. Yet according to the poll most people tend to do download for free.

So free downloaders, why do you? I'm really interested in hearing both sides of the arguement.

Monsieur Dozier

[Iandefor]

Sure, I love downloading music for free.

Where would I be without CC'd music that was redistributed without charge?

[Kingsley]

I download freely because music, software, etc. is "right there" and I have a fast connection. IMO, there's no point in buying music off sites like Itunes when the same music is easily available for free online with little or no consequences. As far as supporting the artists that I like to listen to, forget it. Rap is my favorite genre and it's well-known that most rap artists produce songs about having lots of money and hustling. So if you look at this from a certain viewpoint, I'm not being hustled when I download music!

[Spike-X]

Downloading (whether legal or not) is evil full-stop.

You end up with a low quality piece of crap / low quality piece of crap with DRM, which is marginally cheaper than a CD.

What about flac files?

[stalker145]

There are alot of people saying why they don't download for free. Yet according to the poll most people tend to do download for free.

So free downloaders, why do you? I'm really interested in hearing both sides of the arguement.

Monsieur Dozier

I voted to "stick it to the man" since it's the closest.

I stay well away from downloading any copyrighted music due to 'legal issues'. I do, however, frequent Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) for the majority of my tunes.

While, as mentioned, one doesn't get the highest quality when downloading music, I don't need super-high quality. I listen to my music on tinny laptop speakers or on my MP3 player while running (who can tell the difference between high and low quality when huffing and puffing on a run?).

There are a lot of good groups out there... you just have to wade through the mediocrity to get to it.

[tehet]

Funny story. Someone I know does reviews for an on-line magazine. He got a new album for review but it wouldn't play in any of his devices. Turns out the DRM-stuffs on there prevent you from playing it on any device that can play burnt and/or mp3 disks. So he had to download the tracks in order to do the review ...

Supposedly only review copies are affected, though I'll make sure never to buy anything from that label again.

Where I once replaced all worth while d/l-ed music with proper copies I'm less and less inclined to do so these days.

[Soarer]

I think the question is more complex. I wouldn't use iTunes, partly because of the DRM but also the poor quality and high cost.

Since it now seems allofmp3.com is actually legal (until the next court case) I think they provide a useful model of how it could work. On there, an uncompressed album costs approximately $6, compressed about $3. This should be enough to pay the artists, but would not cover the massive overheads of the record labels. Who would pay for all the Britney advertising?

Now we have the internet and search engines, and can preview music before buying, do we really need those labels to 'discover' artists for us, and have them pushed to us on TV and in the press? If the answer is no, as i believe it is, the model is broken and allofmp3 shows one way to fix it.

I would happily pay this kind of money for music, even though I could get it for free on P2P. But I won't pay $15+ for an album on CD or on iTunes. Who is stealing from whom in that case?

[click4851]

once it becomes digitized, its almost impossible to stop it from being copied. As a band tries to make a living, do they just live off their live shows...? Just chalk up any recordings as advertizment?...who knew moving from tape and vinyl combined with broadband internet would reveal such a puzzle.

[n3tfury]

Funny story. Someone I know does reviews for an on-line magazine. He got a new album for review but it wouldn't play in any of his devices. Turns out the DRM-stuffs on there prevent you from playing it on any device that can play burnt and/or mp3 disks. So he had to download the tracks in order to do the review ...

Supposedly only review copies are affected, though I'll make sure never to buy anything from that label again.

Where I once replaced all worth while d/l-ed music with proper copies I'm less and less inclined to do so these days.

and i wonder why they implemented such moronic measures? HMMMMM

[bruce89]

What about flac files?

Obviously it is excused.

[jacob01]

yea i believe it is stealing but i also believe that the companies are charging way to much for the music. the artist hardly gets any thing and the recording companies make billions by jacking up the prices. if you think about it the recording companies are in a way like ms they make billions and no one does any thing because they want it so they give in and since all recording companies do it people don't realize they are getting screwed.

but any way, with out the recording companies their would be no music or it would be harder to get the music so im not really complaining other than saying they charge too much and jack the prices up.

yea if you think about it 99 cents for a song is allot especially when it is bad quality and when it has all this protection on it limiting you from playing it on another device.


btw what percent of the money from an album you purchase goes to the artist? i don't believe they get much

[Alterax]

The poll is flawed, as there are some groups that actually WANT you to download their music. This does not make it illegal (or immoral), and I am in no way opposed to downloading their music for free and legally.

[aysiu]

the artist hardly gets any thing and the recording companies make billions by jacking up the prices.
btw what percent of the money from an album you purchase goes to the artist? i don't believe they get much It really depends on the artist:
http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/are-you-sure-the-music-youre-downloading-isnt-hurting-the-musicians/

[monsieurdozier]

The poll is flawed, as there are some groups that actually WANT you to download their music. This does not make it illegal (or immoral), and I am in no way opposed to downloading their music for free and legally.

The Poll and the thread are asking about downloading music that you are intended to pay for without paying for it. Music that is intended to be free to download is not a part of the poll for a reason, it is about music that you are -not- intended to download without paying.

Monsieur Dozier

[jacob01]

i found an article explaining a bit about what i was talking about but this is itunes other distributors may be different.


Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing. (Sources: major label musician's cut Apple's cut For a thorough explanation of how recouping screws musicians, see Confessions of a Record Producer by Moses Avalon)
Nothing changed

here is where i got this quote from

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

here is another example http://digg.com/music/Musicians_get_4.5_cents_for_songs_sold_on_iTunes

[Alterax]

The Poll and the thread are asking about downloading music that you are intended to pay for without paying for it. Music that is intended to be free to download is not a part of the poll for a reason, it is about music that you are -not- intended to download without paying.

Monsieur Dozier
*Reading the title of the poll* Says nothing distinguishing free tunes from non-free.

[stmiller]

**begin rant** :KS

Personally I think all 'top 40' pop music today sucks ***. I don't care to buy it, download it P2P, or buy a CD. The money all goes into the pockets of evil corrupt record label CEOs anyway.

All of the big hit bands today are all manufactured, too.

The big pop stars do not compose, write, create, or do anything for 'their' songs, the singers are simply an icon for the package. Do you think Britney Spears knows what a D major scale is? Or knows the notes in a C major triad? Someone in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin) creates all of her music, for instance.

I do like to support small indie artists and self-promoting bands who avoid the entire record label-RIAA route. I subscribe to emusic for the good indie bands there, fwiw.

[the_darkside_986]

I'm not saying I will d/l it, but I refuse to ever purchase any albums from any label associated with the RIAA.

These are thugs who have sued college students, ones who would not have had money to buy the music anyway. I wish nothing less than for the RIAA to die in a fire. They are lying when they say that d/ling has seriously damaged their revenue, but I wish it were true. I wish it were so true that it would render the group bankrupt and unable to pay for lawsuits against innocent people.

[American_Outcast]

They go after anyone at any age. A few years ago I remember a 12 year old girl was being sued by them because she shared a song with someone on the internet. That is only one story out of many including colleges.

Now illegally down loading music is not fair to the artist but the recording industry doesn't care about them or anyone else. They care for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


I support Emusic and SoundClick. Even though artists are unsigned or not the well known I have bought music from soundclick to support the musicians.

[Spike-X]

Funny story. Someone I know does reviews for an on-line magazine. He got a new album for review but it wouldn't play in any of his devices.

At that point, I would have told them to shove their album up their ****.

[Hairy_Palms]

i download illegally, but i also buy CD's. i dont download from itunes because their selection sucks and their pricing sucks, ive got no problems paying for a CD (tangible) but i wont pay for a low quality DRM filled POS, if i bought every CD i wanted to check out then id lose my paycheck and only like a third of the albums id bought.

[TheMono]

First off, it depends what you mean by permissable. If you mean the legal incidence, then open and shut, it is illegal on P2P and the like. However, assuming you meant morally, it is an interesting question.

Hypothetically speaking (of course), someone might operate on the principle that if an album comes out that they really want, they will go out and buy it. However, if music comes out that they don't really want enough to buy it, then they download it as they wouldn't have bought it anyway, therefore nothing is lost.

Moral platitude? Maybe. I don't know. Possibly it's just cognitave dissonance to justify my (hypothetical) actions.

[corevette]

Downloading (whether legal or not) is evil full-stop.

You end up with a low quality piece of crap / low quality piece of crap with DRM, which is marginally cheaper than a CD.

Unless you download FLAC files :-P

[lisati]

If the artist has made the download available for free, why not?

[Seisen]

Well people download music for free because they don't have the money to buy the music.

[Bannor]

I am a bit wishy washy on this issue. the music industry is definately clinging to an old business model that is broken. Rather than inovate they are suing. But the artists deserve to get paid. Perhaps the new model is free music for everyone and pay to see the band live. Obviously the MPAA would not like that too much. However in that system anyone could be a rockstar.... break out the crisco honey, it's time to get back into my old leather pants.

[init1]

Downloading Music without paying for it. Right or Wrong. Even if it is wrong, do you still do it anyways?

I understand why the recording industries are trying to stop downloading to happen, but I almost agree with it for two reasons:

1) I see it like the radio, even though radio songs are only supposed to be teasers of the actual album.

2) And I wouldn't have bought their CD anyways. Now if it is a band I truly love, My Chemical Romance, as an example, I go out and buy their CD to support the band. Otherwise, I wouldn't go out and buy a CD from some band I really don't care about, but wouldn't mind listening to them on occasion. Nor would I buy the whole CD for one good song.
It's wrong, but I still do it. But I don't do it often.

[adamorjames]

Well people download music for free because they don't have the money to buy the music.

My opinion too

[Bachstelze]

I consider it wrong, therefore I do not do it, and never did.

[rsambuca]

Well people download music for free because they don't have the money to buy the music.

I think this statement is completely false in 99% of the cases.

Life is all about choices. How many of these people that you think can't afford the cd will by a few cans of pop a week, a chocolate bar here and there, bag of chips...

They have the money, they just choose to spend it elsewhere. They download the music because they can, not because they can't afford it.

[Henry Rayker]

My opinion on the subject is pretty complex. Because of the way the music industry has gone (a disk full of crap + 1 good song; way too easy to get a disk out there; over-produced fake ********) I don't just go buy cds. I will admit, I download a lot. When I like something, I typically see the band live, or I order the disk directly from their label or something...whatever I can do to get more money in their pockets (buying directly from the label cuts costs associated with the middle man selling it to you).

However, I think it should be said that the music I listen to doesn't typically have a mainstream outlet; you can't exactly turn on the radio and hear Heatmiser or Langhorne Slim or the Two Gallants...many many more....

Another point: I don't see it as wrong to not buy music if the creative force behind the music is deceased. Elliott Smith, for example, has been dead for a while. I download his music, but make donations to charities I know he would appreciate, such as Outside/In. I don't see why I should pay his family/record label for HIS creativity.

Because I listen to smaller bands, I have actually had the chance to talk to a few of them about the idea of downloading their music...most of them don't mind because it is just a way to promote the stuff. Their opinions might have been swayed by the fact that I'm at their show, wearing a new shirt from their merch stand with a copy of their album in hand, but that's just the way I do it anyway...

Honestly, if I didn't download music, I would just listen to the same stuff over and over again; I've been burned way too badly with terrible cds that just have a good "radio single". I don't have the kind of money or patience to just go out and buy a bunch of disks while looking for something new; I support the bands by going to their shows, buying their merch and letting other people know about them.

Additionally, I've performed as part of a band in the past, as well as knowing many professional or semi-professional musicians, I can definitely see where word of mouth and my type of attitude can help generate dollars.

The RIAA and record labels have stolen far more money from the artists than the internet ever did.

[Acglaphotis]

There are alot of people saying why they don't download for free. Yet according to the poll most people tend to do download for free.

So free downloaders, why do you? I'm really interested in hearing both sides of the arguement.



Where i live, cd's are like 40$ american dollars. The music we get is always old, like from the 2006, and is cheaper and easier to download from Ares.

[glupee]

I am a bit wishy washy on this issue. the music industry is definately clinging to an old business model that is broken. Rather than inovate they are suing. But the artists deserve to get paid. Perhaps the new model is free music for everyone and pay to see the band live. Obviously the MPAA would not like that too much. However in that system anyone could be a rockstar.... break out the crisco honey, it's time to get back into my old leather pants.

I like the idea of free music for everyone and paying to see the band live, after all nothing can ever compare to live music. Sure anyone could be a rockstar under this system, but without mass marketing of garbage 'artists' people would have to make up their own minds on what they like and experiment with different sounds. Artists would have to try to be better and we could finally see something good and new again.
I just don't see the need for the MPAA, just an overpaid middle man. so until, if ever, the industry does a 180 or just disappears i'm gonna keep downloading from major labels (not that i listen to much from that realm, except for dead people and old people that are so loaded that i couldn't care less whether they're against dling or not) and hitting up small indie shows and other worthwhile concerts FTW!

[aysiu]

Am I the only one who thinks the artists put out by major labels are not necessarily crap artists or "garbage 'artists'"?

Sure, some of them are. But so are a bunch of independent artists, too. It's all a matter of taste.

[glupee]

Am I the only one who thinks the artists put out by major labels are not necessarily crap artists or "garbage 'artists'"?

Sure, some of them are. But so are a bunch of independent artists, too. It's all a matter of taste.

i'm generalizing. IMO it's just that nothing new seems to come out. Even if it sounds half decent it sounds a lot like something else, and while all music is based and influenced by previous generations a little innovation also helped and it's just not something that happens anymore.
About independent artists, I would say for the most part they're worse, but i don't have to see and/or hear them/about them everywhere i go and since they're just trying to get out there they tend to be a little more innovative. So even if they do suck, at least it's different and they're doing it for the art cause we know they're not getting paid!
But you're absolutely right, it's a matter of taste. But it's also the reason why i dl music.

[monsieurdozier]

Another question posted to the readers, without making a new thread.

How do you feel about downloading other bits of information, such as software (Non-Opensource), e-books, etc.?

[American_Outcast]

Music Download Trial Starts in Minn. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201029.html?nav=rss_technology)



Most of the 26,000 people the record industry group has sued have settled by paying a few thousand dollars.

26,000 USDx3,000 USD=78,000,000 USD


But lawyers for the defendants say they've settled because trials cost tens of thousands of dollars.

26,000 USDx30,000+ USD=780,000,000+ USD


"She came into my office and was willing to pay a retainer of pretty much what they wanted to settle for," he said. "And if someone's willing to pay a lawyer rather than pay to make it go away, that says a lot."

There have been no claims that either of Thomas' children _ ages 11 and 13 _ were involved in music sharing.

Thomas is at risk for a judgment of more than $1.2 million. The recording association is seeking damages set under federal law, of $750 to $30,000 for each alleged copyright violation.


This will be interesting to keep an eye on.

[monsieurdozier]

What I find interesting about that article is that RIAA is only suing people who -share- the song, rather than just download and not share.

Is there any -legal- way they can search your computer for files you are not sharing? I doubt there is, but if there is, would that not be a HUGE invasion of privacy.

Monsieur Dozier

[American_Outcast]

What I find interesting about that article is that RIAA is only suing people who -share- the song, rather than just download and not share.

Is there any -legal- way they can search your computer for files you are not sharing? I doubt there is, but if there is, would that not be a HUGE invasion of privacy.

Monsieur Dozier

But remember in the US we have a lot of laws, some we aren't even aware of, that may allow them to do just that. After all they are trying to get ISP's to keep records even longer and report illegal activity (Or be seriously fined plus other penalties if they don't.) They say these laws are to battle child porn and terrorism, which is good and I agree with that. But tell me one law they pass to battle serious problems that they don't eventually expand to cover not so serious problems or no real problems at all. Laws that end up affecting your average non-criminal citizen one way or another. They get their foot in the door with real problems and real issues, they get some laws passed and then they have a field day with it and expand it beyond what it was originally intended for.

But for now it appears the RIAA is suing the ones who share illegally. But like I said this may change soon.

[pedrotuga]

Interesting thread, and interesting opinions. Nice that people is debating respectfully instead of just dump the usual "it's stealling, you are comiting a crime" or "screw them... i download".

As somebody said before, i don't think it will be possible to apply a model of purchase with this. Record lables will disapear. Musicians will have to work for living like everybody else does everyday.
Record labels will dispear as they are obsolete. This is progress. People will have to realize that intelectual propriety wont be enough to make a living.

I love music, i found jamendo.com on this thread and i am already checking it out. Good stuff.

[jacob01]

**begin rant** :KS

Personally I think all 'top 40' pop music today sucks ***. I don't care to buy it, download it P2P, or buy a CD. The money all goes into the pockets of evil corrupt record label CEOs anyway.

All of the big hit bands today are all manufactured, too.

The big pop stars do not compose, write, create, or do anything for 'their' songs, the singers are simply an icon for the package. Do you think Britney Spears knows what a D major scale is? Or knows the notes in a C major triad? Someone in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin) creates all of her music, for instance.

I do like to support small indie artists and self-promoting bands who avoid the entire record label-RIAA route. I subscribe to emusic for the good indie bands there, fwiw.

yup

[rfruth]

There are ways to legally download music / ebooks etc and if I can't find a way I'll do without - signed not a thief :)

[handy]

Broadband spreading throughout the world in combination with technology like bittorrent & other P2P methods has made the old business model redundant regarding music distribution in particular.

I don't think that iTunes is anymore than a transitional step towards the transparent payment made to copyright holders via our phone or ISP account.

I believe that we will end up being able to download as much as we want of anything for a minimal payment per year, eventually.

So I chose Yes, Freedom all the way! Stick it to the man! because I believe the more pressure that is put on the corporations & governments the sooner they will realise that they must do what the people want.

The following movies (also listed in the A Documentary on Piracy thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=561229)), are very educational on this topic, these are all links to google video's, they are also available as torrents:

On.Piracy Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3011602580477307231)

On.Piracy Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2086992039557619301)

Piracy is Good? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1720068211869162779)

Good Copy, Bad Copy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4323661317653995812)

The following is from another thread also, it is old though still relevant:

Net Neutrality (http://www.flixxy.com/internet-network-net-neutrality.htm)

[Celegorm]

I think downloading music is about as morally wrong as driving 5 mph over the speed limit. Which is to say, I personally don't download music, just as I personally don't speed, yet I don't think any less of those of my friends who do (unless they drive recklessly or try to make money by selling pirated songs to others- which isn't so common and is definitely not permissible).

[lespaul_rentals]

So free downloaders, why do you? I'm really interested in hearing both sides of the arguement.

I download RIAA-unregistered (which means the RIAA won't sue me) albums all the time because I like music and I'm too poor to afford every CD I want to buy. I hate the mainstream and the songs you hear on the radio. They're made for one purpose...money. They've been over-produced, smoothed and polished, and marketed to appeal to teenagers who want a generic song relating to their latest breakup or their mom saying they couldn't go to a party with their friends. And I'm not talking about emo...listen to the rock station in your town and tell me you can't hear what I'm saying. The RIAA markets this crap and expects us to buy albums for that one catchy song.

If I want an album from an RIAA-registered band I'll just download it from the gNutella network or a private tracker. There are a lot of great bands that are RIAA-registered but I have found some of my favorite bands tend to be underground, not on a big label.

So, why do I download? I download because, first off, I'm too poor to buy all the CDs I want. If I really like the band, I will usually spend the money on the CD because I'll want the jewel case with the insert and all that, but mp3s are just fine. Secondly, I often go through phases with bands, so just because I love Mad Caddies at a time doesn't mean I will be able to listen to the CD for weeks without stopping. Third, I don't like the idea of supporting RIAA labels who are filthy rich.

I'm not trying to "stick it to the man" by being like OMG I JUST STOLE A SONG IM SO COOL WHAT NOW ANARCHEE FOREVAH. I'm just trying to find music I like while supporting the bands -- not the labels -- that please me.

[aysiu]

I think it's kind of silly that there are two active threads on the same topic, but since we're moving toward putting stuff in recurring discussions instead of merging threads, I've moved these two threads to that subforum instead of merging them together.

[AndyCooll]

The Poll and the thread are asking about downloading music that you are intended to pay for without paying for it. Music that is intended to be free to download is not a part of the poll for a reason, it is about music that you are -not- intended to download without paying.

Monsieur Dozier

In which case it is a very poorly titled thread and poll, for it certainly doesn't make that clear. It's only by ploughing my way through to your comment on third page that I was able to read this explanation.

In the meantime I'd been considering how best to vote based on my viewpoint, for none of the options seemed to fit. My view of this has changed over the years, primarily as a result of the open-source movement. My conscience had gotten the better of me and I'd bought a legal XP licence and when in search of free apps (and eventually found Linux). It also made me think about my music collection, for I had plenty of downloads I hadn't paid for.
Eventually I ditched them. Now I either purchase the CD or obtain the download legally. And what I've found is that there's plenty of free and legally downloadable music once you know where to look. You can legally obtain tracks from everyone from Bruce Springsteen, Bjork and Arcade Fire through to Kaiser Chiefs, White Stripes and Sufjan Stevens. And the there's also lots of excellent music from not so well-known artists too. You just need to know where to look.
All in all, all sorts of excellent stuff. Indeed it has been eye-opening, and has changed my whole outlook on music. For though I enjoy tracks from the top names, I'm enjoying the music from the lesser known artists even more.

Good places to start are Jamendo, Spiral Frog, We7, Download.com Music, Epitaph Records and music blogs (Fingertips, Chromosome, Loudhearted Boy etc).

:cool:

[rsambuca]

Verdict is in - guilty as charged.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6525

[American_Outcast]

Clip -


And then the verdict against Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman, hits and any recent goodwill from the music industry goes flying out the window. We’re back to equating the music industry with lawsuits again. The Times reports that record labels have brought legal action against 3,000 people since 2003. The average settlement occurs out of court for about $4,000. That adds up to $12 million not counting legal expenses. Is it really worth it?

For this effort, the RIAA has alienated consumers and has looked progressively worse compared to other content companies. Say what you will about television broadcasters, but the likes of ABC, NBC and CBS are hellbent on not making the same mistakes as the RIAA. The TV industry is throwing multiple models against the Web wall to see what sticks. A lot more gets done when you’re not suing everybody all of the time.

[monsieurdozier]

I found this interesting about the case:

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9791764-38.html

If she took certain measures to protect herself, it would not have happened at all.

Monsieur Dozier