Music Club Activity #1

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Hey Music Club Members! It's time to have a discussion/debate. It's no secret that in the past 5 or 6 years, the music industry has experienced a sharp downturn, mostly due to peer-to-peer file sharing programs such as Napster. The music industry's largest target market (teens and young adults) have turned to the internet for their music needs, where songs can be downloaded for free. After numerous lawsuits, programs such as ITunes have popped up...where songs can be purchased for a small fee. However, illegal music downloading still continues.

So here's the question: Do you think it's wrong to illegally download music, and why? Do you download any music, legally (ex. ITunes), or illegally (ex. peer-to-peer filesharing programs)?

Note: Everyone's opinions WILL be respected here. And there are good points to be made for both sides of this issue.

Brooke / Gryffindor

Comments

[bartendersgirl.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong. No. Especially if you look at the prices of what CD's are for just maybe one or two good songs on it. The prices of CD's has not gone down in ten years, unlike other products.

The big record companies are making tons of dollars from producing the same kind of sounding music over and over. Half the people that download are colledge students and high school kids. People that can't really afford to spend a gazillion dollars on CD's for just a couple songs.

On my old comp, when I had Kazaa, yes, I did download music, and if I had Kazaa on my currant comp, I'd do it again. I refuse to pay $13 to $20 bucks for just one song.

Nikkie//Gryffindor

[memyselfandi87.livejournal.com]

It depends on the situation. I do both, whether you define it as "illegal" or not. I have downloaded music "illegally," as in downloading a song or album or two from sites such as yousendit simply because it's convenient. I haven't gotten in trouble yet for it, and I don't plan to stop anytime soon.

With that said, however, I still have iTunes, and I do buy giftcards for myself so I can load up my account with money so I can buy music as well.

Anyway, my point is, I do not think it's wrong to "illegally" download music. I think it depends on the artist's personal preference, not the record company. If the artist wants their music to be easily and readily accessible, then their music should be easily accessible. The same should be true if the artist wants their music to be exclusively purchased. Of course, if they were like the latter, then I wouldn't think they'd be worth a second listen. :)

Kristina//Hufflepuff

[2weeks3days.livejournal.com]

I agree, it should be what the artist prefers. One of my favorite bands, Radiohead, would much rather their music getting around than their record company, Capital Records, computer-locking their CDs so no one can listen to them on their ipods.

Karina, Slytherin

[rhowan-jane.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the artist's personal preference, not the record company. If the artist wants their music to be easily and readily accessible, then their music should be easily accessible. The same should be true if the artist wants their music to be exclusively purchased.
See, this is the thing: no one put a gun to that artist's head and forced them to sign a contract with a record company. If they really wanted their music to be easily and readily accessible on the internet, it would be available for free, legally.

Of course, if they were like the latter, then I wouldn't think they'd be worth a second listen.
But there ARE artists like that, and when you download their music without paying for it you are telling the record companies that they ARE worth a second listen.

If people downloaded only free songs and did not purchase CDs that were not worth it to them, the recording industry would not be able to point at lost dollars. As long as people download music "illegally", which I guess means the same thing as illegally, because it IS illegal to violate a copyright law, whether you think of it as fair or not, the record companies can say "that is money we should have had" and they are correct.
If no one were buying or listening to the music, they would be forced to lower CD prices until it was worth it to consumers to purchase.

Rhowan//Ravenclaw

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong either. I know for a fact that a lot of unknown bands encourage use of peer-to-peer programs because it gets their music out there which is like free publicity. It costs the big companies 3 CENTS to make a CD that they charge $19.95 or more for. Hell even the singles are are $6.99 or more now. For one or two songs that is rediculous. But like I was saying, the little bands encourage it because word-of-mouth publicity is more appealing because it means people liked you and told thier friends and the people who download the songs or CD's will most-likely spend their money on something else the band sells like t-shirts or buttons. And when that band goes in to a town they are more likely to have poeple show.

And just because I can. Yes I do have a peer-to-peer program that I use to download songs. I use Limewire Pro 3.1 i believe it is, which is tecnically the version you're suppose to pay for but it's not my fault that they allow people to download their program on their program for free >.>. But I think I should say this. If I can afford it and I believe a CD is worth it and I know the band will actually benefit from my money, I will shell out the money to buy an actual CD so that they know I do support them, but I really don't want to support a company. Which is kind of ironic for the profession I want to be in...

Jen//Hufflepuff

[cherrysk8fan.livejournal.com]

I really think it depends. If an artist specifically opposes file sharing, as a fan of the artist, one should respect his/her opinions. On the other hand, some encourage sharing of their music: word of mouth publicity is a beautiful thing.

From a personal standpoint, I've definitely been known to download music via LimeWire...however, usually when I only want a song or two, or if I'm looking for something ridiculously obscure, like random concert band pieces and bits of classical music skaters are using in performance. I buy full albums if I think I want the whole thing. If it's a single, I'm much more likely to just download it and go. If it's the entire soundtrack to, oh, let's say, RENT, which I will listen to in its entirety half a million times, I buy the CD.

I go to a large university, and my computer is plugged into the university network, which has been known to track file sharing. It's rather dangerous to share music files, unless you want to pay the extremely heavy fines. (And when it's higher than four years of tuition...trust me, SO not worth it.) Our administration is currently working to sign us up for some sort of subscription service (the name escapes me at the moment) which will allow students connected to the university network to share files without being charged a fee. (At least for one semester.) Personally, I think that's a brilliant solution, at least at the college level, providing there are actually files shared in the new program.

Caitlyn//Ravenclaw

[skadi101.livejournal.com]

For a long time I haven't had a job and I just couldn't afford to pay $30 for each cd that my many favourite bands bring out. What I did was download one or two songs from a p2p program and then get the cd (for free) at the library and burn it to my pc. This didn't always work because some of the time the cd I wanted wasn't stocked by the library. So in those cases I would illegally download the album from a P2P network. In fact, just last night I downloaded an album from LimeWire. I've never used iTunes because I don't have a credit card, and I couldn't afford to buy the gift cards.

BUT, now that I've secured myself a part time job, I do plan on paying for my music. I'm all for supporting the smaller bands. But it will not stop me from using p2p. I'd be less inclined to buy the cd of a big band who is already worth millions, just on the principle of the thing.

No, I don't think it's wrong to illegally download music. It's unfair to charge as much as $30 for albums that sometimes only have 11 songs on them! Until record companies lower their prices, I think it's fair to say that file sharing will continue.

[rhowan-jane.livejournal.com]

But record companies will not have to lower their prices as long as people are downloading music illegally. Right now they can point at downloaded songs and say "that is money that we SHOULD have had". If people only downloaded the free and legal songs and did not purchase CDs they did not think were worth whatever the price, THEN companies would be forced to lower their prices.

It may not be fair to charge $30 for an album (you could always buy them used, though), but it IS legal. Copyright infringement is not.

Rhowan//Ravenclaw

[imthelobster.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it's wrong to download music. I think that music shouldn't be about the money, but about the music. However, when I do download music, if I really like the songs, I will go out and buy a CD by the artist, to support them.

I tend to find my music via Limewire, but if I want an entire album? I will go and buy it. The problem with buying a $23.99 album, with me, is that I don't want to buy something for only one song, and then have the rest of the album be crap.

Amy/Ravenclaw

[meidinhell.livejournal.com]

That is my opinion too. I buy albums to support upcoming artists, but I very rarely buy albums from already established artists or groups, since they already make all the money they need from concerts. Let's face it - if you buy the latest Michael Jackson album, where does the money go? Mostly to the industry. To buy an album from a not-yet-famous artist or group is a different thing, it's more like voting for their continued road to success.

Meidi | Ravenclaw

[imthelobster.livejournal.com]

Mmm. Am I allowed to argue both sides?

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Sure! I would.

[maegwin-of-hern.livejournal.com]

I'm a little torn in this matter. Generally, I'm not very fond of illegal music downloads, since they are, well, illegal. I'm definitely against downloading movies, but that's a different matter.
However, there's a grey zone in there. Copyrights end after 15 years (which is probably the reason why there's a whole bunch of 80's-cover versions right now), so with all my ignorance of the law there, I think it's no problem downloading older songs. Same with classical music, I think.
Sometimes it happens that I like one or two songs from a band that I normally don't listen to. So what's the point for me to buy a whole CD from which I don't even want to have the majority of songs? True, there are singles, but that's just as pointless to me. I don't listen to just one song over and over again. If I put a CD in my disc player, I want to hear several songs without having to change the CD every five or ten minutes already. Means that if I really buy a single, I'll end up copying it onto my computer and listening to it there. The CD itself is of no further use to me.
And what about songs / albums etc. that you don't even get anywhere else, because they aren't produced anymore? Is it still illegal to download those?

Also: the same companies that complain about their copyrights being violated also make quite a fortune by selling exactly those programmes and software with which downloading is made possible (Sony, for example). That's pretty hypocritical.

Nicola
Hufflepuff

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

I used to download music from the internet purely because I can't afford to buy it. It costs record companies 11p to make a CD, yet they charge £15.99 for them? Also I use the internet to download songs by band I've not heard before but people have recommended to me. Because then I can see fi I liek them, and if I do then I'll be more likely to buy the Cd whereas I'd never dream of buying the CD if I'd not tried ot any music by them.

It's just to stop record companies making money, but they get loads surely? Music is important and shouldn't just be for those few people who can afford it.

Pixie // Hufflepuff

[amethystwind.livejournal.com]

While I don't really download music illegally, I tend to burn CDs from friends which is pretty much the same thing. Like people have already pointed out, CDs are rather expensive and as a high school student, I have a limited budget and I can't really afford to buy all the CDs I want, especially if I'm not sure that I'll like everything. The one thing I do download is foreign music. I listen to a lot of Asian music and a lot of times, it's hard to buy the CDs I want for reasonable prices. Singles are around $20 and I've seen albums going for $40 and that's a little out of my price range.

Back on topic, I don't think it's really wrong to download music especially if you just can't get the CD for various reasons or if the artist has no problem with it. It shouldn't be the company's decision in the first place so unless the artist hates the idea of their music being shared illegally, I'm all for it.

Alison, Slytherin

[f4l.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong if the band you're downloading from are a well known group with plenty of money going there way. I try not to download much of the newer artists music, but because of a lack of money I find myself doing it anyway -_- Um, no no because CD's are too expensive. It's actually ridiculous.

I download music frequently yes.

Mel // Gryff.

[nyreak.livejournal.com]

Like just about everyone else has already pointed out, there is a thin line when it comes to downloading music. Myself, it is very rare that I will do it, and if I do, I can say that, generally, if I like the music I will purchase the CD after. Yes, even if it is for one song.

There are a few other instances that I condone downloading music that isn't paid for:

• When bands actually put their music out there so that people can hear it and become acquainted with them. Quite a bit of the newer bands will do that so their music can be heard faster than it would be waiting for the radio to play it.


• Extra tracks that, for some stupid reason, the folks that live in Japan get on their CDs but those of us in the US don't. It's either that or pay exorbitant amounts to order the Japanese version of a cds for those few songs that you can't buy anywhere in the US. I have looked on itunes and such, and I can't usually find the songs there either. Apparently, since such a large amount of the population there downloads music they figure that the only way to get them to buy the cds is to give them extra songs. Why is that fair to those of us that already buy their cds in other countries?


• 'Testing the music' as it were. I know that you can hear snippets of songs on places where you purchase CDs, but if you aren't familiar with the band at all, a 30 second snippet might not be good enough for you. Some bands will put full songs on their webpages, and that always helps me a great deal, but if they don't, then I'd still rather hear an entire song or two before I give them the $15-$20 for an entire CD. Like I said before, if I do like it, I will go out and buy the CD.

Also, what makes it so much different than those of us that grew up before cds were popular using a tape recorder to record all of our favorite songs off of the radio? I know I did it all of the time, but you can't do it as easily nowadays because most stereos don't have the record option on them.

That said, I do feel that it's fine for people to use p2p as a way to supplement to their music libraries, as long as their purchasing the music that they really like and supporting their favorite artists (especially the new artists), but I don't support the idea of strictly downloading music and not bothering to purchase anything.

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Wow, I *completely* agree with you. (I'm going to make a post giving my opinion and the basic facts, so I won't go into it all here.)

And I used to tape songs off the radio, back in the day. I asked one of my teachers about that one time and he said that it didn't prove to be a big problem for the industry because it was more difficult to tape the entire song (sometimes DJ's talk over the intros, or they cut the songs short), it was a big hassle (having to wait for the song, or editing what you recorded), and the songs weren't "at your fingertips" like they are now with downloading programs. Really, I think that tape recorders didn't affect music sales...and that's why nobody really made a fuss about it. But downloading programs have...and that's why we're seeing this uproar.

[dolface546.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it is wrong to P2P it. My cousin is in a band and they have their songs all over the place for free. Sure I will be buying his CD when it hits the shelves but I'm not going to worry about P2Ps most of the time. I do use itunes most of the time because it is cheaper than driving to a store that may or may not have the CD and spending a lot of money. With itunes you can get a whole CD for cheap or just buy the songs you like.
When I can't find a song I want I do P2P. It is no big deal to me.

Garland//Hufflepuff

[mhookermyers.livejournal.com]

It is highway robbery what they charge for a CD. I think read somewhere that the band only makes about a nickel (or it might have been a dime) off of each CD made. So, we all know where the profit is really going. I have serious issues with lining the pockets of greedy a**holes. I am very anti-corporation for this very reason.

I have been known to get the songs I want off a peer-to-peer and mail a check directly to the artist. I have done that about 25 times in the past and always the full price of the CD. I use (which I haven't done in a while) WinMX for peer-to-peer.

I think a lot of the issue fans have are twofold. First, they are spending a hell of a lot of money to buy a CD for maybe one or two tracks they have heard in which they like. I am pretty sure other fans have done the same thing I have which is to borrow the album (I am using the term album because I come from the vinyl era and by using that term I can mean both vinyl and CDs) from someone so I check out the other tracks before I drop the money on it. 45 were very popular for that reason, and they went away because record companies wanted a bigger profit.

Second reason is the whole attitude that the record companies have shown to their customers. You cannot treat people like crap and expect them to continue to do business with you. I was very serious about anti-piracy back in the 70's but both the video industry and the record industry have been so absolutely nasty that I don't feel bad about them losing money. Worse, they have been nasty to the very bands that make them their money. I only feel sorry for the bands.

Mary Hooker-Myers // Gryffindor

[laynie.livejournal.com]

I'm going to make a post later with some good numbers (like where the money actually goes). So look for it, cause I hope it'll be educational.

I have been known to get the songs I want off a peer-to-peer and mail a check directly to the artist. -- Wow, that's GREAT. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I love it!

Oh, and I call them "albums" too instead of CD's. Album is actually the industry term, I believe. ^_^

[seaborne.livejournal.com]

I've given the money directly to the artist too - usually when I've seen them wandering around after a gig. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one!

[mhookermyers.livejournal.com]

I just knew a lot of people who were in bands when I was much (much) younger. They would make cassettes of their music and sell them directly to their friends and fans. And when you think about it, record companies are always bitching about how much they spend in advertisement. The bands I knew relied on their fans to promote them. The fans always did a far better job of it than any record company at zero or little cost. I can even name one band that everyone will recognize that relied on their fans to promote their music (something funny - the record companies of the time really weren't that interested in this band because they weren't "marketable") - Grateful Dead.
Mary Hooker-Myers // Gryffindor

[musicaltwin07.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong. I think cd's are overpriced. $18.00 for 12 songs is ridiculous! Plus, like bartendersgirl said you don't want to pay all that money for cd with one or two good songs on it. However, I think you should download legally. I mean people work hard to make these songs you love so much. You should pay them for it. I don't download, mostly because I have no downloading progam that works on my computer. :(

Melissa//Hufflepuff

[my-badgers-27.livejournal.com]

I really don't think it is that wrong. CD's are just so expensive, and people just don't really want to spend so much money. Also, if you just want one song, it's pointless to buy the whole CD. It's really much easier to just go on the internet and download the song.

I personally don't do it illegally. I have done it on occassion, but since I just recently got an IPod, I use a program (not ITunes) that charges you for the music. It's not outageopus like a CD, and you can get any song you want.

And really, with all the free downloading there is, it would be so much easier to do it illegally. Is it bad? Yes, but people like convienience.

Melissa//hufflepuff

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, what program do you use? Because I have an MP3 player instead of an IPOD...so I can't download anything off of ITunes.

50/50

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

It's only wrong if you get caught. :)

Seriously. There are no legal notices on CD's that say, "Not for external distribution blah blah blah" like there are on movies. Not any of the ones I've seen anyway.

However- it's more than music execs who are hurting when we don't buy cd's, it's the "little people" who work shitty shifts at slave wages MAKING the actual disks at the Sony plant.

Ideally, their wages would stay the same and record label bigwigs wouldn't be making millions, but this is not an ideal world. This is the real world, and the person who suffers is the "little guy."

I'm all for free music for music's sake. But the cost is just too high all-round.

I'm split on this issue right down the middle.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[kellerton.livejournal.com]

I personally have the "music is free" mentality. I think that it should be avaliable to everyone, and you can't really put a sticker price on it.

CDs are just too damn expensive. Stores could lower their prices to $12.00 per CD and still make a decent profit, but they want to make as much money as possible. I think if they really wanted to change the situation, they would lower the prices. I would buy a full CD if it was $12.00, but not when it's $30.00. It's stupid.

That said, usually I don't listen to a whole CD by the same artist. I like only one or two songs by most artists, so it's kind of a waste to buy CDs for me, because I'll only listen to one or two songs. The mix CDs that are avaliable are very outdated and kind of crappy.

Also, as I believe some one mentioned, people were making mixtapes a long time before napster came around. This is basically the same thing, but on a larger scale. If more people had have mass-produced mixtapes, it would have been the exact same situation.

Just my two cents

Kelly//Ravenclaw

[i-heart-spoons.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that music is music and should be readily available to everyone. So, I download music. With me, buying CDs isn't really about supporting the artist, it's about having the shiny album cover art and pretty CDs (if the CD ends up having no design on it or something, I get really upset. Hahaha.) Plus, I just like having an entire bookshelf filled with CDs.

That said, if I like a CD enough, I will go out and buy it, but generally I (and other people as well) really only like a few songs on a CD. So why spend all of that money if you're only going to listen to one or two songs on a CD?

And someone mentioned this before, but it is so so much easier to download illegally than to go through the trouble of setting up an account at iTunes or some such other place and downloading music that way. On the other side of things, if it's a band that I really like and have liked for a very long time, I'll want to support the artist by buying their CD. (But this usually only happens if it's an underground, indie-label band.)

Raina//Slytherin

[theweezerlover9.livejournal.com]

I really don't think it's wrong because CDs and DVDs and CD players, and all of those media players are very expensive of late. It's annoying to have to buy a ton of music on top of that. A lot of the music on my iPod is illegally downloaded. The only stuff that isn't is from CDs I bought because I like the artist a lot, so I like to support them.
I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to get it free. Specially when funds are low.

[Er.. I'm bad at debates? :D]

Kaitlyn//Hufflepuff

[nelliewu.livejournal.com]

I can't think it's too wrong if I have done it in the past ;)

I have yet to try something like itunes or napster (now that you have to pay). and i am even more hesitant to do so after witnessing a girl in the checkout line in front of me trying to purchase a giftcard for a friend. The cashier might as well have asked for the recipient's SSN with all the information he needed from her.

I agree that CD prices are outrageous. No one wants to pay that much money for a CD that has 12 tracks and out of those 12 you come to realize you paid $13 for the single you heard on the radio. Plus, I thought we all learned from the "TLC: Behind the Music" that unless you are an established musician (like U2 and Metallica) you don't make your money off of the CD sales. You make it from touring and ticket sales.

And it's not like I only download music. I buy CDs from the BMG Music Club or at Target that 1st week of release when they are $10 or less and from a band/artist I know and have liked in the past. Plus, when I do here enough tracks from a particular artist and enjoy 90% of them, I will more than likely buy the CD anyways.

Nellie ~ Gryffindor

[rhowan-jane.livejournal.com]

It is wrong to illegally download music, and I don't use P2P filesharing programs.

NOW. If I wrote a popular song that people wanted to download and share, I would personally be okay with that. I would also PERSONALLY make that music available to people for free on the internet. Meaning if I couldn't sign a recording contract or whatever, I wouldn't.

I can understand, though, how someone would not want their songs freely shared all over the place if they had a contract or had paid for a CD to be made. I really don't like the arguement that music should be available for music's sake, because someone went through the process of creating that, and however much you may enjoy the music and think that was their intent in writing it (for you to enjoy).....it's still, in a way, THEIRS.

If an artist really didn't mind their music being downloaded for free, they would make it legally available for free.

If you refuse to pay $13 or $20 for one song, as I do, that's fine. Don't. An artist has to create more than one song I like before I financially support them. But I'm not going to go and break the law to download their one song I do like as a "TAKE THAT, RECORDING INDUSTRY!", either. It's not effective.

Rhowan//Ravenclaw

[rhowan-jane.livejournal.com]

I'm going to just add this here rather than typing it several times and commenting to multiple people (though I guess there would be more points in that)....
:)

If people downloaded only free songs and did not purchase CDs that were not worth it to them, the recording industry would not be able to point at lost dollars. As long as people download music illegally the record companies can say "that is money we should have had" and they are correct.

If no one were buying or listening to the music, they would be forced to lower CD prices until it was worth it to consumers to purchase.

[jissa.livejournal.com]

So, I feel that I should preface this response with the statement that I am the daughter of an Intellectual Property Lawyer. That being said, you don't need to worry, she doesn't work for the RIAA (actually, Red Hat is amoung her clients, and she not uncommonly does pro bono work against big companies like Coke, so she has a decent amount of "geek cred" 8D), and I'm not going to report anyone to the authorities.

Now, onto my actual post:

I've noticed that several people have mentioned CD cost as a reason for illegally downloading music. This seems a wee bit silly to me for several reasons.

Firstly, even if the list price of the CD is $30, there are so very many ways of legally purchasing the CD for cheaper. One can walk into Best Buy, where the CDs are usually 12.99, purchase from amazon.com, where the CDs seem to average about 13.99, purchase from iTunes, at the price of 99 cents a song or 9.99 an album, or buy the CDs used from your local music store. Any of these seem like perfectly reasonable options, and end up costing not much more than a mass market paperback, and yet no one is arguing that we should download books illegally because of their price.

Secondly, music is a luxury item that the artists put a decent amount of time and money creating and the companies put a decent amount of time and money into producing and marketing. Generally, simply because one cannot afford to pay for luxury items does not mean one deserves to aquire them for free.

Thirdly, there are lots of ways to listening to music for free out there. I have yet to go to an area that doesn't have at least one radio station which I enjoy (of course, I'm aided by the fact that I enjoy NPR), and that is wonderful free way of listening to all sorts of music. In addition, there are now many internet radio stations that one can listen to for free, as well free music podcasts available through iTunes.


I've also noticed several people discussing the idea of downloading music as kind of a "try before you buy" deal. I'm a little more torn over this idea. I certainly can understand not wanting to purchase a whole cd if you don't know what is on it, and it's clear that downloading is an easy way to figure out if you like the CD or not. However, the truth of the matter is most people who download a CD don't delete it if they decide they don't like it enough to purchase. They simply leave it on they're hard-drive (or mp3 player), and listen to it whenever they feel like it, because it is easy to like a CD without liking it enough to purchase it.

In addition, there are currently several legal downloading services that cater to just this need (Rhapsody and Napster To Go coming to my mind). They offer a cheap monthly service ($15 a month I believe) for unlimited downloads while subscribed to the service. Thus, one could subscribe to Napster or Rhapsody and try out tons of albums, thus determining which ones you want, all legally!

I've also noticed a lot of comments a long the lines of "why pay for the whole CD when you just want or two songs?" Well, that's what iTunes/Napster are for. I have to admit that I have never actually used these services myself, but I have used my friend's iTunes account (I'm really lazy . . .) and it seemed to be a very reasonable painless process . . .


Now, my last comment is going to be about "you send it" and other such programs. I noticed these being lumped into the category of illegal downloads, but one of the nice things about these is that are generally not. You see, when regular tapes came out there was a lot of discussion and what not over recording and sharing back then, and the decision was reached that to share music between "a small circle of friends" for listening was perfectly legal. So if you have friend that says "ZOMG! I've become obsessed with [insert song name here]. You all totally need to listen to this right now!" and then puts up a YSI link, it is legal pretty much encouraged. And really, is pretty much what music sharing is supposed to be about . . .

OK. I'm done rambling now, and I apologize for forcing you all to listen . . .

[jissa.livejournal.com]

I've realized I make it look as though I'm against using Kazaa and what not in all cases, which is not strictly true.

And actually, nyreak put all of them in nifty bullet points (although I'm torn a bit over the last one, due to the exitance of Napster To Go and what not). I myself have definitely downloaded extra tracks available on the foreign versions of CDs (and what is up with that, anyways? It makes no since to me the US Radio Sunnydale should only have 12 tracks, while the UK one has 21!), and I fully support the sharing on unknown music meant to be so shared . . .

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Wow, you've really hit the nail on the head. Thank you for addressing the whole CD prices issue. Because I have no problem going into Best Buy, or online and finding a CD for 12.99 or 13.99 (or less). The highest priced CD I've ever seen was for 26.99 and it was some fancy, hard-to-find import. You're right...most CD's aren't that expensive.

And you're also right when you say that Albums are luxary items...people have no "right" to them. If the public had complete rights to music for free, then there would be no such thing as Copyrights. I mean, what the hell do people think Copyrights are for? They're so artists can exploit (make money off of) their intellectual property.

Anyway, I completely agree with you.

[sarahdocbb.livejournal.com]

Wow, I was begining to feel a little out numbered. And while we still are, I also feel better by your comments, very well put. :D

Sarah/Gryffindor

[jissa.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[sarahdocbb.livejournal.com]

I DO believe it is wrong. I can't stand to see people using software to steal music from artists. And while it only a fraction of what they earn, it STILL is theft. Artists work hard on new songs for their fans, just to have some person who doesn't want to pay for the whole CD download it, before it even hits the stores. Any some say they don't want to pay for just one song, off the CD, well how do they know they only want that one song, until they have heard the rest?

I personally have never downloaded music illegally, OR legally, but I do know people who have.

Sarah
Gryffindor

[jissa.livejournal.com]

OK, so I'm starting to feel like there's a bit too much "download music is EVOL" vibe here.

I do not support downloading music illegally and keeping it on one's computer or mp3 player.


On the otherhand, I don't feel that it is always neccessarily wrong. If people really are simply downloading songs in order to sample them and delete the songs after deciding whether to purchase them, I don't actually have a problem with that. Sometimes it can be nigh on impossible to hear the songs that you wish to without purchasing them, and you really shouldn't have to buy something to determine if you want it or not.


Sorry if this seems a bit of a wasted post, but I was feeling bad because the debate seems to have degenerated all towards my side . . .

[seaborne.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong to illegally download music. I'm a poor student and cd prices are too high, especially in the UK. Record companies need to realise that we're not going to stop downloading just because they start suing, we're just going to get cleverer and sneakier. Downloading is not 'killing music' any more than home taping did in the 80s. I certainly don't buy any less cds/records just because I have the soulseek and an ipod - before I had the internet I taped things off my friends and the radio.

Artists usually make more money from touring than from cds anyway so I'd rather support them that way. I also tend not to download non-major label cds, I'm happy to support the bedroom-run companies and the way I see it, they need the money more than Sony do and the artists almost always get a better deal with, say, K than with a huge corporation.

Éloise, Slytherin.

[seaborne.livejournal.com]

Oh and I downloaded a couple of tracks off the ITMS but I wouldn't again - I'm not paying for 128kpbs.

*lol* I had to...

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

Re: *lol* I had to...

[laynie.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAHAHA. I love it....