Linux friendly music store arrives!!!

[Kernel Sanders]

http://www.play.com/Music/MP3-Download/6-/DigitalHome.html

It's direct from play.com! All the latest albums and releases, no software to install, and 100% DRM free MP3's :guitar:

Ok, so it's not ogg, but it's a start!

This is the first music store i've seen that all it needs to work on linux is the easily accessible mp3 codecs.

I'm very very excited about this, and the best part is that all the music is cheaper than iTunes and other IE based music stores! :guitar:

Enjoy ;)

[Vitamin-Carrot]

??? I dont understand
Why do we need a linux friendly music store again?

[jaytek13]

??? I dont understand
Why do we need a linux friendly music store again?

As witnessed by the thread in the backyard, there is still plenty of us around that don't think illegally downloading music is, erm, "ethical."

[k2t0f12d]

And some of us who feel that the DMCA is neither constitutional, nor "ethical", and is a poor excuse to tell other people that sharing isn't ethical.

[jaytek13]

And some of us who feel that the DMCA is neither constitutional, nor "ethical", and is a poor excuse to tell other people that sharing isn't ethical.


But, as the OP stated, this service is free of DRM, so we can all rejoice!

[jken146]

Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/) and Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/) are better IMO.

[k2t0f12d]

Do they offer lossless? I don't need no stinkin' lossy! :tongue:

[Kernel Sanders]

??? I dont understand
Why do we need a linux friendly music store again?

Because some people want to obtain music "ethically", and at present no other music store offers the latest albums or individual tracks for a fair price to linux users. iTunes doesn't work on Linux, and the rest of them are basically IE plugins, which are again useless on linux.

I decided to let you all know because if, for example you wanted to get a latest high profile album in a DRM free format, legally, for your linux OS, you now have somewhere to get it.

Jamendo and the like are excellent, but for obvious reasons they don't stock the high profile commercial stuff (if you like that sort of thing).

Sorry if this isn't helpful, and you'd all rather torrent the music you want :(

[k2t0f12d]

Legal and ethical are neither mutually inclusive nor mutally exclusive states. If you think that paying money to a third party distributor that only renders 1/6 pf the world's musicans does musicians any good, go and live free. It has nothing to do with ethics, however.

[hhhhhx]

yay! ............ except i use cd's

[Kernel Sanders]

Legal and ethical are neither mutually inclusive nor mutally exclusive states. If you think that paying money to a third party distributor that only renders 1/6 pf the world's musicans does musicians any good, go and live free. It has nothing to do with ethics, however.

I agree, but in the case of legally purchased music, it's ethical and legal because the artists receive remuneration (albeit in very very small quantities), and support in the form of the record companies having more reasons to keep them on.

If you just go ahead and torrent the music, you aren't contributing to the demand, the artist receives less, you're not a +1 to the people that support that artist, which means that the record company have less incentive to keep the artist on.

Don't forget, not all artists are millionaires with a fleet of ferrari's. There are some lesser known bands out there on much smaller contracts who's in the "make it or break it" category as to whether the record company keeps them on. Torrent their music and you are potentially causing them real harm.

Since I primarily go for the lesser known bands who are always a hair's breadth away from being dropped, I welcome a legal source of music for my Linux install :)

It allows me to support them and not break the law :)

[k2t0f12d]

The relative wealth of recording artists isn't something I consider when getting music. My primary concern is that supporting a recording oligarchy that thinks copyright trumps constitutional rights and imprisons people for longs periods of time for it is immoral, unethical, unjust, and lacking good judgement. Life is short enough, no one should be put in the pookey for sharing stuff. I'm all for supporting the musicians gratuitously by any means, so as long as anyone who is allied with the R.I.A.A. never sees one thin dime, ever.

[Peyton]

Then just don't listen to artists on major record labels.

[k2t0f12d]

Don't be ridicuous. We have also have RADIO. If I overhear a radio playing a song...am I a pirate? :shock:

I think that rights come first and how people get paid to do what they do sorts itself afterward just fine. We didnt have this problem prior to the digitalization of everything, which simply kills traditional forms of distribution.

[cprofitt]

And some of us who feel that the DMCA is neither constitutional, nor "ethical", and is a poor excuse to tell other people that sharing isn't ethical.

Fine. Lets skip the ethics debate.

Sharing music is illegal in the US.

I personally think that the answer is that musicians should start to self-distribute their music at which point they could charge around $2.00 an album and still make the same as they do now.

I personally do not agree that just because it is easy to copy some thing that the artist, writer or musician should not be paid for their effort, but if you feel that is ok I certainly hope that you feel the same about the 'work' you produce.

[cprofitt]

The relative wealth of recording artists isn't something I consider when getting music. My primary concern is that supporting a recording oligarchy that thinks copyright trumps constitutional rights and imprisons people for longs periods of time for it is immoral, unethical, unjust, and lacking good judgement. Life is short enough, no one should be put in the pookey for sharing stuff. I'm all for supporting the musicians gratuitously by any means, so as long as anyone who is allied with the R.I.A.A. never sees one thin dime, ever.

((feels urge to engage in debate))

No, I am going to step away... after making one suggestion... please do what you can do to support your belief in a legal manner. I do not mind your convictions, but I do mind when people think they can break the law just because they can rationalize it... that kind of reminds me of Nixon and Bush.

[k2t0f12d]

I personally do not agree that just because it is easy to copy some thing that the artist, writer or musician should not be paid for their effort, but if you feel that is ok I certainly hope that you feel the same about the 'work' you produce.

You are imagining things, I never said that any musician should not be paid, only that the distributors of music that supress the rights of others and have them thrown in jail for sharing should not be paid. I pay the artists whose work I admire. Any copy of the fruit of my "work" that I offer for public consideration can and should be used within the rights of the people who admire my work and/or find it useful without abridgement of their freedom. No one's ability to earn a living trumps the rights of others to share.

[Peyton]

So, in your opinion, is it right or is it not right to pirate music from major record labels?

[k2t0f12d]

So, in your opinion, is it right or is it not right to pirate music from major record labels?

My opinion is that there is no such thing as what you have just described.


when we fight the music wars, and the RIAA, and the recording companies say, "but it's piracy", they are lying. They want us to believe that they are concerned that some of the audience will cease to pay. Five percent more will listen for free, or ten percent, or fifteen percent. That's not the problem, that's not the fear. The fear is that a hundred percent of the creators will go elsewhere. That the old systems of distribution will be deserted entirely by the people who make the nothing that is sold. And then they lose not a little, not a lot, but everything.

[banjobacon]

And some of us who feel that the DMCA is neither constitutional, nor "ethical", and is a poor excuse to tell other people that sharing isn't ethical.

The DMCA is irrelevant. "Sharing" has been illegal for long before it ever came into existence.

And I really wish people would stop calling it sharing. But this isn't what this thread's about.

[ice60]

i've never been to an online music store, i think that's right?? what about the amazon one, i thought that had drm free music, does that work with linux?

[k2t0f12d]

The DMCA is irrelevant. "Sharing" has been illegal for long before it ever came into existence.

Are we to simply take your word for that? Is it not so, that before Edison, before recording technology, the only possible way to even have music was sharing?

[Spike-X]

If I overhear a radio playing a song...am I a pirate?

According to some, yes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm).

[banjobacon]

what about the amazon one, i thought that had drm free music, does that work with linux?

You can buy single tracks without a problem, I think. I've read that you need Amazon's client in order to purchase full albums, but I've never actually used their MP3 store, so that might not be right.

I also think Emusic is OS-independent.

[k2t0f12d]

Woo hoo, play your radios! Civil disobedience!

[banjobacon]

Are we to simply take your word for that? Is it not so, that before Edison, before recording technology, the only possible way to even have music was sharing?

:roll:

[ice60]

You can buy single tracks without a problem, I think. I've read that you need Amazon's client in order to purchase full albums, but I've never actually used their MP3 store, so that might not be right.

ok, thanks. i thought your nick was ban jono bacon lol :D

[Pethegreat]

According to some, yes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm).

I did not see the source say if it was subscription radio or the public radio. If it is pubic radio then they don't have a case. The people who heard the music also heard the commercials.


I personally think that the answer is that musicians should start to self-distribute their music at which point they could charge around $2.00 an album and still make the same as they do now.
I would like to see artists self distribute. I would be happy paying $5 to $10 for an album if all the profit goes to the artist.


Jamendo and Magnatune are better IMO.
Both of the sites lack .flac files which are superior in quality to everything. Hopefully as bandwidth comes down in price we will begin to see .flac files for download.

[k2t0f12d]

http://blog.wired.com/music/images/2007/10/19/rh.jpg

Proof of concept (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html)

[Spike-X]

Woo hoo, play your radios! Civil disobedience!
Fight the power! Kill whitey!

[Peyton]

My opinion is that there is no such thing as what you have just described.

You dodged the question. You keep talking about the RIAA violating a right. What right is being violated, and where does this right come from? Please, be concise.

[days_of_ruin]

emusic already is linux friendly.

[ticopelp]

emusic already is linux friendly.

\\:D/

[Roger Mudd]

Back to the topic at hand...
The prices are a little steep for those of us in the States. But it's good to see more competition out there.

[areteichi]

You dodged the question. You keep talking about the RIAA violating a right. What right is being violated, and where does this right come from? Please, be concise.


So, in your opinion, is it right or is it not right to pirate music from major record labels?

To respond on behalf of k2t0f12d, when you coin the term "to pirate", you are already denying and ruling out the possibility where one is able to share songs from major record labels and still be legal. That is because 'to pirate' by definition means that you are involved in an illegal activity. Thus by calling the sharing or transferring of music 'an act of pirating', you have assumed antecedently that such activity is an illegal one. In other words, you've made that assumption (which k2t0f12d probably feels that you weren't warranted in making) and hence he has no other way but to respond:


My opinion is that there is no such thing as what you have just described.

[Peyton]

So then let him prove that it's legal.

[forrestcupp]

Maybe ethics are subjective, but the law is the law. I don't really want to do anything illegal just to prove a point about my beliefs on the music industry. That's not a priority in my book of ethics.


http://blog.wired.com/music/images/2007/10/19/rh.jpg

Proof of concept (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html)

Radiohead did a major thing when they released their record in this way, and they succeeded. Radiohead is a respectable band in my opinion. But if we're honest about it, the only reason they grew to the point that they could succeed in this fashion is because some record label saw their talent, made a gamble, stuck their neck out, and put them in the limelight. I doubt if anyone on Jamendo trying to go it alone is making that kind of money.

I hate how some labels run their business, too. But they serve their purpose and they shouldn't be expected to do what they do without making any money off of it. Just maybe not as big of a cut as they do.

[k2t0f12d]

You dodged the question. You keep talking about the RIAA violating a right. What right is being violated, and where does this right come from? Please, be concise.

In United States copyright law:

§ 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings

(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.

It looks like you are right. The R.I.A.A. do not appear to be abridging other people's rights, rather, they are exercising an exclusive right that United States copyright law does not grant them over non-commerical copies of protected works.

[areteichi]

So then let him prove that it's legal.

I care less to which way this debate goes but I'm afraid that the burden is on you to show that the 'transferring' of music is an activity of a 'pirate'.

[cprofitt]

You are imagining things, I never said that any musician should not be paid, only that the distributors of music that supress the rights of others and have them thrown in jail for sharing should not be paid. I pay the artists whose work I admire. Any copy of the fruit of my "work" that I offer for public consideration can and should be used within the rights of the people who admire my work and/or find it useful without abridgement of their freedom. No one's ability to earn a living trumps the rights of others to share.

1. If you share music and those that you share with get a 'permanent' copy of said music those you shared with have NOT paid the artists for their work. If you share with others who bought the CD or digital download and keep a 'permanent' copy you have not paid the artists.

2. The music distributors have not suppressed your rights in anyway shape or form. I am not aware of any philosopher in western thought who ever put forth such an argument.

3. No one's ability to earn a living trumps the rights of others to share? Actually in most western thought, in particular the western thought the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is base one, no one's rights can trump anyone else's rights. So my RIGHT of hapiness (which depends on my right to earn a living) is NOT trumped by a person's right to share. (I would even dispute that people do not have a right to share).

The way to look at digital 'stuff' needs to be compared to physical stuff; IMHO. If you give a person (share) a physical object you can not have that object at the same time they can... I have no issue if you want to give out music as long as you GIVE IT AWAY and do not keep your copy. I don't believe that jsut because someone makes a product that is easy to copy they should some how not have the same protections that a person who makes a product that is not easy to copy. Then again since people that put forth arguments like yours have basically said that I can understand why the music industry is trying to make their product which is easy to copy more difficult to copy...

You can't copy a plasma screen TV... but you can copy the entire life's work of U2... does that even remotely seem fair to you?

[cprofitt]

I care less to which way this debate goes but I'm afraid that the burden is on you to show that the 'transferring' of music is an activity of a 'pirate'.

Transferring is not an issue... that means giving your one copy to someone and not keeping a copy for yourself.

Making a copy of something just because you can doesn't mean you have a right to do so. Take printing money - fairly easy to do now, but I doubt you would say that isn't a criminal act.

[k2t0f12d]

Maybe ethics are subjective, but the law is the law. I don't really want to do anything illegal just to prove a point about my beliefs on the music industry. That's not a priority in my book of ethics.

I dont believe I was adovocating that people have to distribute copies, only that people should not be jailed for doing so. No one is forcing anyone to copy.


Radiohead did a major thing when they released their record in this way, and they succeeded. Radiohead is a respectable band in my opinion. But if we're honest about it, the only reason they grew to the point that they could succeed in this fashion is because some record label saw their talent, made a gamble, stuck their neck out, and put them in the limelight. I doubt if anyone on Jamendo trying to go it alone is making that kind of money.

How much money would self-distribution have to return before it was considered a success? A thousand dollars? A hundred thousand? A million? Enough to pay the bills? How many other people will ever see the tiniest fraction of the sum that Radiohead recieved for the fruits of just one work? I think you are right, that they were able to make a fortunes on their free ablum due to the exposure they recieved through the recording industry. However, is it not the point that this method of distribution is friendly to the listener and ensures that the benefits of the money given for it go directly to those that create, rather then the amount of wealth it generates?


I hate how some labels run their business, too. But they serve their purpose and they shouldn't be expected to do what they do without making any money off of it. Just maybe not as big of a cut as they do.

It is their purpose that has become more then a little fuzzy. Do I need them to tell for me which music is good and which is not? I don't think so, since I find most of the music that does get rendered to be awful, shallow, and crass. They also provide for the distribution of the music, which is currently being done better by teenagers free of charge.

Please look at the quote I posted earlier

when we fight the music wars, and the RIAA, and the recording companies say, "but it's piracy", they are lying. They want us to believe that they are concerned that some of the audience will cease to pay. Five percent more will listen for free, or ten percent, or fifteen percent. That's not the problem, that's not the fear. The fear is that a hundred percent of the creators will go elsewhere. That the old systems of distribution will be deserted entirely by the people who make the nothing that is sold. And then they lose not a little, not a lot, but everything.

That is not a legal opinion, that is an astute observation explaining the motivation for the R.I.A.A. spread the propaganda that sharing is piracy.

[Peyton]

k2t0f12d, the bit you highlighted applies to "educational television and radio programs," and nothing more.

byagietera, 17 U.S.C. § 102.

[k2t0f12d]

Transferring is not an issue... that means giving your one copy to someone and not keeping a copy for yourself.

That isn't an activity I saw specifically mentioned in United States copyright law.


Making a copy of something just because you can doesn't mean you have a right to do so

That's true. However, it is also does not implicitly mean you do not have the right, either.

[cprofitt]

That isn't an activity I saw specifically mentioned in United States copyright law.



That's true. However, it is also does not implicitly mean you do not have the right, either.

I have not read the complete breadth of copy right law and legal decisions upon which decisions would be rendered.

I believe the people have the right to make fair use copies. I believe that people have the right to make copies of media that does not assert a copyright protection. I also believe that the music industry has a right to copyright their product and you as a consumer have the right to buy it and agree to that or not buy it. If you choose to not buy it you do not have the right to copy it or steal it from someone else.

[areteichi]

Transferring is not an issue... that means giving your one copy to someone and not keeping a copy for yourself.

Making a copy of something just because you can doesn't mean you have a right to do so. Take printing money - fairly easy to do now, but I doubt you would say that isn't a criminal act.

I meant "transferring" as in transferring data among computers as it seems to have neutral connotations in contrast to copying or pirating. That means I can well have the original data from which I am transferring. I guess you didn't get that.

Anyways,
Once upon a time, major television stations argued that it is an illegal act (i.e. violation of copyright laws) to record anything using VHS or Betamax. For it is stealing their broadcasting signal and using it to replay without their permission. Now the laws have changed and such acts are permitted and acknowledged under law.

Again, I care less about lega/illegal issues for they do not constitute ethical behavior nor unethical. The laws that do not follow the principle of justice and ethics do not deserve to be obeyed. It is not the law that makes right, but it is the right that makes the law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure if file sharing is legal or illegal. What I am trying to say is that one should not appeal to the law to talk about the issue of ethics; or if one needs to appeal to the law to show that it is legal/illegal when having the legal issues, then scrutinize the law and examine if it ought to be followed. Why? Well my example above should answer that question.

To repeat, I am agnostic in regards to the conclusion. But I am critical about the possible method through which we can arrive at a conclusion.

[Some laws are rubbish.]

[barbedsaber]

no techno, electronica, house, trans? shame on you, shame on you all [-X[-X[-X

dont tell anyone of my secret love for jazz :oops::-$:-$

[argie]

Yay, this is nice, but I prefer CDs. For mp3s, personally I like Amie.st because they helped me discover this band State Radio which, for some reason, I really like. Most of the rest of my mp3s are ripped CDs (which is legal use where I live, I think) and local bands (some of which release as CC, the rest of whom don't care so long as their stuff is spread).


And some of us who feel that the DMCA is neither constitutional, nor "ethical", and is a poor excuse to tell other people that sharing isn't ethical.

Then get up and change it. You don't live it in a democracy for nothing.

[Krydahl]

Ethics and sharing music.

I believe that when an individual spends time creating something original – be it a song, a novel, a painting, or a piece of software – they should be allowed to choose what they do with it.

That choice includes:

Giving it away.

Giving it away but placing restrictions on what recipients can do with it (eg GPL).

Selling it (perhaps through a record company and accepting that they won't see all the profit from each copy, but expecting to get some for each).

I believe that we (members of the public who wish to enjoy the fruits of this individual's labour) have an ethical duty to respect the choice made – even if we don't agree with it.

Taking free copies of music that an artist chose to distribute through a music label is not respecting that choice – any more than an individual who takes a bit of code released under GPL, modifies it, and then sells the binary claiming the work as their own is respecting the intentions of the original programmer.

That is the ethical reason why I have no “shared” music on my computer. I do have music ripped from CDs (which is still technically illegal in my country I believe) but I own all the originals.

[forrestcupp]

How much money would self-distribution have to return before it was considered a success? A thousand dollars? A hundred thousand? A million? Enough to pay the bills?
"The bills" can sometimes become a high amount. My cousin was in a band that was signed by a label a while back. This is the simple way that I understand how things worked. Through certain connections, the record label found out about the band. They scouted them out and liked them, so they made them a contract offer. The way that offer worked was that they fronted them the money they needed to record an album (which has a lot of various expenses when done professionally), record 1 or 2 music videos, and a major P&R campaign. Also the distributing of the records. I'm sure some of the money went to living expenses, but the band definitely didn't get rich off of it.

But all of that money was a loan, and a large portion of record sales were to pay that loan back. After that money was payed back, the band was supposed to start getting more royalties from the record sales.

The point is that both sides knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed the contract. It was a risk for both sides. It helped the band become a lot more successful than they would have been on their own. And when things work out right, it is an investment for the label.



They also provide for the distribution of the music, which is currently being done better by teenagers free of charge.
But teens aren't "distributing" free music from Jamendo. They are distributing main stream music that has had a lot of P&R payed for by some label that is rightfully expecting a return on their investment.

[forrestcupp]

Ethics and sharing music.

I believe that when an individual spends time creating something original – be it a song, a novel, a painting, or a piece of software – they should be allowed to choose what they do with it.


+1

It is not the end-user's right to be able to choose whether something is Free or not. It is the creator's right to choose that.

[Luggy]

Wow, 7 pounds for a downloaded album. Isn't that really expensive?

I use eMusic (http://www.emusic.com/) for all my legit music needs. Everysong on their cataloge goes for around $0.40 so it's really easy to build a music collection with it. Not too many big name artists are on eMusic but if you like indie music then it works good.

[cprofitt]

Again, I care less about lega/illegal issues for they do not constitute ethical behavior nor unethical. The laws that do not follow the principle of justice and ethics do not deserve to be obeyed. It is not the law that makes right, but it is the right that makes the law.

I agree... but in all cases in which a law is not a threat to one's survival I am against violence or criminal actions being used to 'change' the law. I would be for a concerted legal effort to change the law.

So... for now I would NOT share music I bought with another person in a manner that allowed them to KEEP a copy of said music. I might share it with them in a manner that only one of us had a copy of it though. I would also love to ASSERT the music industries responsibility to provide me with a 'new' copy of music I purchased from them after the first medium they provided it to me on 'fails'. It would be, of course, at their expense. Since they assert that I don't actually OWN the CD just the right to listen to the music then they must ensure that I always have that right despite the failure of the medium that I do not 'own'.

[macogw]

yay! ............ except i use cd's

Yep. Why would I want to have my music *only* in digital form? What if my hard drive dies? Then I have to go re-buy all those songs? No thank you! And really, there's just something about getting to unwrap it and flip through the booklet and everything...I love CDs and records.

[Peyton]

Once upon a time, major television stations argued that it is an illegal act (i.e. violation of copyright laws) to record anything using VHS or Betamax. For it is stealing their broadcasting signal and using it to replay without their permission. Now the laws have changed and such acts are permitted and acknowledged under law.
Right, I can record a television show and watch it when it's convenient for me. I cannot, however, redistribute the television show.

Up until now, at least, in this thread, the advocates of software piracy have only backed themselves up by pointing to the conduct of major record companies. Tell me, then, is the enemy the law or the record companies? Using the arguments presented so far, it seems as if the record companies are the enemy. Certainly, that's the only claim that anyone has attempted to back up. So, if the record companies are the enemy, then why is the law being attacked here? If the record companies are the enemy, then why not refuse to support them as well as refuse to be supported by them? That seems like the logical response, and it has the added bonus of being perfectly legal.

[k2t0f12d]

At this point, I really regret opening pandora's box in this thread. This really deserves its own thread, and let the people who want to buy mp3's be excited w/o a wet blanket. So apologies to them.


Up until now, at least, in this thread, the advocates of software piracy have only backed themselves up by pointing to the conduct of major record companies. Tell me, then, is the enemy the law or the record companies? Using the arguments presented so far, it seems as if the record companies are the enemy. Certainly, that's the only claim that anyone has attempted to back up. So, if the record companies are the enemy, then why is the law being attacked here? If the record companies are the enemy, then why not refuse to support them as well as refuse to be supported by them? That seems like the logical response, and it has the added bonus of being perfectly legal.

I think you have your choice of words mixed up here. No one is advocating infringement against software. My position regarding software throughout the forum has been that software licensed under terms that respect human rights with respect to information and technology is good, and that which is not should be avoided until such time as its license is changed.

However, if I stretch my imagination I believe what you are saying is the participation of infringing activity with regard to audio and video bitstreams using software. I might be wrong, but Ill proceed under that assumption.

The "enemy" is illegitimate power sheltered behind so-called "intellectual property" laws. That fact that most musicians cannot work because the industry hedges out artists who have not signed over their rights to them is such an example. We do not need the major labels to decide on our behalf which music to which we should listen. The reality of the situation is that without the user's technical inability to make exact copies, the traditional methods of the distribution of culture are facing total extinction. The threat is not infringement, as they propogandize to us, it is with the advent of distribution paths with zero marginal cost and that have no boundries that the creators of culture will no longer need them to distribute. The only way to cover that fault in their armor is to attack the users of digital technology, and attempt to exert their interests in the monitoring and censorship of technology. Without the military occupation of the internet and the technology that is used to access it, either children will distribute for them, or the creators will abandon them and begin distributing the culture they create themselves.

I scoured documents I could find on the law in response to those who do not agree with me and discovered that the different aspects of this problem have not yet been officially resolved. Non-commercial distribution is not a guaranteed excuse in the question of copyright infringement. In fact, under fair use doctrine, the party raising fair use as a defense is judged by four points that arrive at whether the use in question is acceptable. Fair use is also not a right, it is an exception to the copyright holder's rights. The real legal beef is that communication through digital techology over the internet is a free speech issue. Copyright holders rights, properly protected, infringe on the rights of of users of computers to communicate without monitoring or censorship. The solution so far has been that the millionaries and billionaires in the distribution of culture have attacked their customers and leveraged the law by bribing governments with legal contributions to protect their business model from failing utterly due to the hole created by digital technology.

[cprofitt]

Copyright holders rights, properly protected, infringe on the rights of of users of computers to communicate without monitoring or censorship.

Heh?

How are users of computers being monitored or censored?

[billgoldberg]

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

But why would you buy music when you can download it free AND legal.

When I tested songbird 0.4 for a while I noticed you could download free music use skreem.com (i'm not 100% sure about the name).

And I presume this was legal (why else would they put it in the program).

And let's face it, most people download songs from the internet using torrents, p2p, by searching for mp3 directories using google, from usenet, ...
I don't know 1 person in my rather big friends circle who buys music. Hell in alot of european countries it's not even illegal or it's tolerated because it's common practice.

(Don't give me an infraction for this, every person on the internet knows this, I don't need any more.)

[Peyton]

I think you have your choice of words mixed up here.
Sorry. I intended to write music.


The "enemy" is illegitimate power sheltered behind so-called "intellectual property" laws.
Illegitimate power?


The threat is not infringement, as they propogandize to us, it is with the advent of distribution paths with zero marginal cost and that have no boundries that the creators of culture will no longer need them to distribute.
Alternative methods of distribution are an entirely different topic that I do not wish to discuss, but I will certainly say that I'm not against alternative avenues as long as they are legal. The issue at hand here is copyright infringement, and that is what I wish to discuss.


Non-commercial distribution is not a guaranteed excuse in the question of copyright infringement.
Of course it isn't. If I distribute unauthorized copies of song, I'm infringing on the copyright holder's rights, whether I'm out to make a profit or not. The only area where commercial intent matters (within the scope of our discussion, that is), I believe, is in determining whether or not the infringement is criminal. (Note that the unauthorized distribution of more than a certain amount of music is also criminal, whether with commercial intent or not. See 17 U.S.C. § 506.)


The real legal beef is that communication through digital techology over the internet is a free speech issue.
Sorry, but free speech isn't a valid defense for piracy.

[intense.ego]

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

But why would you buy music when you can download it free AND legal.

When I tested songbird 0.4 for a while I noticed you could download free music use skreem.com (i'm not 100% sure about the name).

And I presume this was legal (why else would they put it in the program).

And let's face it, most people download songs from the internet using torrents, p2p, by searching for mp3 directories using google, from usenet, ...
I don't know 1 person in my rather big friends circle who buys music. Hell in alot of european countries it's not even illegal or it's tolerated because it's common practice.

(Don't give me an infraction for this, every person on the internet knows this, I don't need any more.)

I believe the Skreem website states that their service is only to preview a song or listen to it once. After that you should delete it.

Anyway, what most people fail to realize here is that downloading albums or songs via torrents or P2P does not necessarily damage the artist because the majority of those people would not have bought the CD. They only download it because it is free (for them).

Also, artists make most of their money from concerts, royalties in movies, radio, MTV, and from merchandise. Not from album and song sales.

[Vitamin-Carrot]

As witnessed by the thread in the backyard, there is still plenty of us around that don't think illegally downloading music is, erm, "ethical."

Well, I buy allmy music and then rip them and seeing as all my friends use windows they arent willing to figure out how to access my shares :-P

But now that its been explained

YAY

[k2t0f12d]

Alternative methods of distribution are an entirely different topic that I do not wish to discuss, but I will certainly say that I'm not against alternative avenues as long as they are legal. The issue at hand here is copyright infringement, and that is what I wish to discuss.

Seeing as I posted this retraction confirming your point of view:


Non-commercial distribution is not a guaranteed excuse in the question of copyright infringement. In fact, under fair use doctrine, the party raising fair use as a defense is judged by four points that arrive at whether the use in question is acceptable. Fair use is also not a right, it is an exception to the copyright holder's rights.

and was otherwise addressing the topic that you claim you do not wish to discuss. Why are you still replying to me?

[Spike-X]

How are users of computers being monitored or censored?

Several ISPs throttle BitTorrent traffic, (wrongly) assuming that all such traffic must be to do with the illegal sharing of copyrighted material.

[cprofitt]

Anyway, what most people fail to realize here is that downloading albums or songs via torrents or P2P does not necessarily damage the artist because the majority of those people would not have bought the CD. They only download it because it is free (for them).

Damage or not... if the artist holds the copyright then sharing via P2P or torrents is a violation of the law and illegal. The fact that the majority of those people would never have bought the music anyway is not relevant.

What you are saying about music could be said about people who print money (counterfeit). The only reason they do it is because its free to them... if it wasn't they wouldn't have any money.

[sajro]

The relative wealth of recording artists isn't something I consider when getting music. My primary concern is that supporting a recording oligarchy that thinks copyright trumps constitutional rights and imprisons people for longs periods of time for it is immoral, unethical, unjust, and lacking good judgement. Life is short enough, no one should be put in the pookey for sharing stuff. I'm all for supporting the musicians gratuitously by any means, so as long as anyone who is allied with the R.I.A.A. never sees one thin dime, ever.

AMEN! AMEN! As a musician and as a moral person.

I strongly believe art was never meant to be locked up in legal matters and you shouldn't be in trouble for enjoying art. My band is working on an album which will be made entirely with Open Source Software, licensed under a CC license, and distributed over the internet. To support us extra the listeners can optionally purchase an official disc and/or donate. Similar to In Rainbows.

I'm extremely altruistic. I believe life is too short to keep people from enjoying it and if you enjoy music but don't have much money, then dangit, you should still be able to listen to it.

If music started out or became all about the money to you, you're just Microsoft with a volume knob.

[macogw]

Anyway, what most people fail to realize here is that downloading albums or songs via torrents or P2P does not necessarily damage the artist because the majority of those people would not have bought the CD. They only download it because it is free (for them).
That is a common argument, and it's often used for software piracy as well. In the case of software piracy, I like to point out that then the free pirated stuff takes away from people using the Free/Open Source alternatives :)


Also, artists make most of their money from concerts, royalties in movies, radio, MTV, and from merchandise. Not from album and song sales.
And their record labels are how they get in soundtracks, on the radio, and on MTV. The record labels shell out the money for the down-payments on the merchandise. The record labels promote the concerts. The record labels get most of the money from the album sales (and I will agree that they don't deserve as much as they get), but they also spend a lot of money on the promotion of the artists and on getting the artists into a position where they can make money on all those other things you mentioned.

Regardless, downloading music for free that has not been licensed to allow that is, in fact, illegal in many countries. Whether it should be or not is something that is left to governments and courts to decide; it is not for a bunch of cheap kids on the internet to decide.

The way this thread has gotten off-track about the ethics of music piracy, I'm not sure it should stay in the Cafe.
1) it's a recurring discussion
2) the other discussions like this have generally ended up in the Backyard.

[KiwiNZ]

This thread has been completely hijacked . I am closing it