For you guys that have MP3 players

[CockyTatGuy]

I think I have found the greatest program ever if you have a portable mp3 player such as the Zen Jukebox, RCA Lyra, or IRiver. The Yahoo Music Engine Unlimited gives you access to over 1000000 songs for 7 bucks a month. Here is the good part, if you want a to put the song onto a CD it costs $.79 a song, but if you just want to download it and send it to your mp3 player it is free. I have been going through and getting all my favorite albums, from Ron White's "Drunk in Public", to "The Essential Isley Brothers." I reccomend that if you are into music at all to try it out. One last thing, it doesn't work with Ipods.

[LedCock]

I download my music for FREE. I use Limewire and you can find just about every song or album there. The sky's the limit. If you look up a song and can't find it, it doesn't mean it won't be on there later when someone that has it logs on.

[Cianne]

I download my music for FREE. I use Limewire and you can find just about every song or album there. The sky's the limit. If you look up a song and can't find it, it doesn't mean it won't be on there later when someone that has it logs on.

You mean you pirate your music for free right?

[JerryBeeds]

You mean you pirate your music for free right?
Does that bother you?

[GeauxTo]

I think I have found the greatest program ever if you have a portable mp3 player such as the Zen Jukebox, RCA Lyra, or IRiver. The Yahoo Music Engine Unlimited gives you access to over 1000000 songs for 7 bucks a month. Here is the good part, if you want a to put the song onto a CD it costs $.79 a song, but if you just want to download it and send it to your mp3 player it is free. I have been going through and getting all my favorite albums, from Ron White's "Drunk in Public", to "The Essential Isley Brothers." I reccomend that if you are into music at all to try it out. One last thing, it doesn't work with Ipods.
CockyTat,
Do you know if you can drag the MP3 files onto a CD as data rather than converting? That would be great. A CD will hold about 70-80 MP3 songs as just data. They will then play on a digital CD player.
;)

[uscrebel]

I download my music for FREE. I use Limewire and you can find just about every song or album there. The sky's the limit. If you look up a song and can't find it, it doesn't mean it won't be on there later when someone that has it logs on.

Dude,

While I am sure that lots of folks do this, you are the first I have seen admit it in a public forum like this. As it turns out, according the the Digital Copyright Law, the Recording Industry Gestapo could ask the admins to identify you and then you, too, can know the joy of paying ASCAP and RIAA fines and fees.

I have friends who are composers, engineers, performers, and producers who rely on folks paying for their work.

If you are going to be a dipwad and steal from my friends, at least keep it to yourself.

[Cianne]

Does that bother you?

Not gonna run around proclaiming that I get the songs for free when I'm really stealing.

[CockyTatGuy]

Do you know if you can drag the MP3 files onto a CD as data rather than converting? That would be great. A CD will hold about 70-80 MP3 songs as just data. They will then play on a digital CD player.

Actually at 4 megs a song you can get about 162 songs on a 650 meg CD, but you gotta have an mp3 compatible CD player in your car. I haven't tried to make an MP3 cd yet, but I will check on it and let you know something. But to me at least it makes more sense to just use the mp3 player that I can carry around with me and plug it into my RCA adaptor when I am in the car. Also, I just want to apologize to Capt. Jack Sparrow up there, I forgot that some people are owed what they want and don't have to get things the honest way.

[uscrebel]

CockyTat,
Do you know if you can drag the MP3 files onto a CD as data rather than converting? That would be great. A CD will hold about 70-80 MP3 songs as just data. They will then play on a digital CD player.
;)

For the record, Geaux Geaux, once you pay for a song or movie, even just to rent it, according to the Digital Copyright Law, you may make a copy of it as long as you do not give or sell it to someone else.

For instance, if you go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD, you may make a copy of it because they rental limitation is about ownership...not the number of viewings.

The same would hold for the Music Service that CockyTat is talking about. There are several software applications available to assist with this. The Recording Industry is not concerned about such software because you must first pay for the music before downloading. (For instance JHymn is a product that "de-authorizes" tunes downloaded from the Apple Music Store so that they can be converted to MP3 and "stored" on CD. There seems to be a flavor for each of the music services available out there.

For the record, as a Mac user, I frequent the apple music store. They offer three free tunes (usually obscure, but often interesting) each week and even at 99 cents per track I find I am willing to buy some things. A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled across a copy of Copland's Appalachian Spring and Rodeo for $1.99.

Finally, any song that you can download can be put on and iPod...even from the Yahoo Engine.

[JerryBeeds]

Dude,

While I am sure that lots of folks do this, you are the first I have seen admit it in a public forum like this. As it turns out, according the the Digital Copyright Law, the Recording Industry Gestapo could ask the admins to identify you and then you, too, can know the joy of paying ASCAP and RIAA fines and fees.

I have friends who are composers, engineers, performers, and producers who rely on folks paying for their work.

If you are going to be a dipwad and steal from my friends, at least keep it to yourself.
I guess they'll have to buy the porsche instead of the ferrari... :rolleyes:

[Neo]

Dude,

While I am sure that lots of folks do this, you are the first I have seen admit it in a public forum like this. As it turns out, according the the Digital Copyright Law, the Recording Industry Gestapo could ask the admins to identify you and then you, too, can know the joy of paying ASCAP and RIAA fines and fees.

I have friends who are composers, engineers, performers, and producers who rely on folks paying for their work.

If you are going to be a dipwad and steal from my friends, at least keep it to yourself.


Well, you need to consider this USCRebel before throwing out insults.......

Here's a few past posts covering my view of the RIAA.

I've been crying bull.... on the record labels' claims of all the money they're losing because of file trading for years now. At the height of Napster's prominence, record sales were at an all time high. It wasn't really until the RIAA started making lots of noise that sales started to slip and I'd attribute a lot of that to the lack of good, quality music available. The music industry has started treating music like something they can just manufacture and make successful. It doesn't generally work like that. And in their claims of losses, they fail to take into account the, probably large, number of people that download music that they would never have bought in the first place. If I download the latest U2 song and was never going to purchase that song, the music industry hasn't lost revenue on that song. But they count it as a loss. Anyway, some Canadian guy did the research and the numbers just don't back up the RIAA's claims.

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/



Top music labels try to raise prices for downloads
By Scott Morrison in San Francisco and Tim Burt in London
Published: February 28 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 28 2005 02:00


Some leading music labels are in talks with online retailers to raise wholesale prices for digital music downloads in an attempt to capitalise on burgeoning demand for legal online music.

The moves, which suggest the labels want a bigger slice of the fledgling market's spoils, has angered Steve Jobs, the Apple Computer chief executive behind the iTunes online music store.

But music executives expressed caution about their ability to push through unilateral price increases. Among the biggest groups, Universal Music and Sony BMG are known to be particularly reluctant to disrupt the market for downloads.

One top label said it would not raise wholesale prices now because the market was not yet mature enough for an increase. The three other music labels - which also include EMI and Warner - refused to comment.

Analysts, meanwhile, are warning that price rises could exacerbate internet piracy, which is thought to cost the industry about $2.4bn (£1.2bn) a year.

Music industry executives said introductory wholesale prices for digital tracks had been set low to stimulate demand, but Apple's success had prompted concern that they may now be too low.

The effort suggests several labels believe demand for online music is robust enough to withstand higher prices, despite the fact that online sales are estimated to account for about 2 per cent of total music sales.

Michael McGuire, analyst at Gartner, said the move could backfire because consumers who buy music over the internet are accustomed to paying 99 cents or less for downloads.

Wholesale prices are thought to be about 65 cents. "It seems to me to be singularly bad timing," he said, adding that an increase could send fans back to underground services where they could get illegal music tracks free.

http://financialtimes.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=FT.com+%2F+Industries+%2F+Media+%26+internet +-+Top+music+labels+try+to+raise+prices+for+download s&expire=&urlID=13377606&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F3d9b6fee-892d-11d9-b7ed-00000e2511c8%2Cft_acl%3D%2Cs01%3D1.html&partnerID=1744

My Opinion: This is exactly why piracy is so rampant. The pure greed of the companies and artists. The average costs in manufacturing a CD over the whole industry is $0.02 1/2 and the price of an average CD is $14 and up. What's wrong with this picture???
Mostly, on any given album nowadays, there's only one or two songs on an album of 17 tracks that's worth anything. So when people have the legal option to purchase individual tracks, they wanna up the price on us.

Screw em!


I agree. A studio-issued CD will always sound better than a homemade one.

When Metallica started suing Kazaa users, they were suing their fans. What kind of BS is that? Talking about cutting your own throat! Since then, Metallica's newest albums haven't gone platnium and I wonder why??? :rolleyes:

No for one reason.

The CD/Music industry is a monopoly. What they are doing is against state & Federal laws. It was proven in Federal Court in the middle of last year that the record companies conspired with the manufacturers of discs and the artists to keep CD prices up to increase profits.

For example, when the 8-Track cassette came out, the prices of LP's plummeted. When cassettes came out, the price of 8-Tracks dropped. When CD's came out, the prices for cassettes dropped.

Now that SACD and DVD-Audio has been out for a while, have the prices for CD's dropped? Not one bit. They have maintained their selling price since their inception. That's why they are in court now. The initial decision was for the consumers and now the record companies are appealing.

It's BS and I say "Screw Em!" Go download the music you want from Kazaa or whatever.

[LedCock]

Dude,

While I am sure that lots of folks do this, you are the first I have seen admit it in a public forum like this. As it turns out, according the the Digital Copyright Law, the Recording Industry Gestapo could ask the admins to identify you and then you, too, can know the joy of paying ASCAP and RIAA fines and fees.

I have friends who are composers, engineers, performers, and producers who rely on folks paying for their work.

If you are going to be a dipwad and steal from my friends, at least keep it to yourself.

Last I heard Limewire is still legal. And by the way how are Jimmy Page and Mick doing? Tell them I said hi.

[GeauxTo]

Actually at 4 megs a song you can get about 162 songs on a 650 meg CD, but you gotta have an mp3 compatible CD player in your car. I haven't tried to make an MP3 cd yet, but I will check on it and let you know something. But to me at least it makes more sense to just use the mp3 player that I can carry around with me and plug it into my RCA adaptor when I am in the car. Also, I just want to apologize to Capt. Jack Sparrow up there, I forgot that some people are owed what they want and don't have to get things the honest way.
I have a boom-box type that plays MP3 CDs as well as a smaller one that I can carry around. Thanks for the info.

For the record, Geaux Geaux, once you pay for a song or movie, even just to rent it, according to the Digital Copyright Law, you may make a copy of it as long as you do not give or sell it to someone else.

For instance, if you go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD, you may make a copy of it because they rental limitation is about ownership...not the number of viewings.

The same would hold for the Music Service that CockyTat is talking about. There are several software applications available to assist with this. The Recording Industry is not concerned about such software because you must first pay for the music before downloading. (For instance JHymn is a product that "de-authorizes" tunes downloaded from the Apple Music Store so that they can be converted to MP3 and "stored" on CD. There seems to be a flavor for each of the music services available out there.

For the record, as a Mac user, I frequent the apple music store. They offer three free tunes (usually obscure, but often interesting) each week and even at 99 cents per track I find I am willing to buy some things. A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled across a copy of Copland's Appalachian Spring and Rodeo for $1.99.

Finally, any song that you can download can be put on and iPod...even from the Yahoo Engine.
Great information, Reb! Thanks much.
;)

[Jordan]

My Opinion: This is exactly why piracy is so rampant. The pure greed of the companies and artists. The average costs in manufacturing a CD over the whole industry is $0.02 1/2 and the price of an average CD is $14 and up. What's wrong with this picture???
Mostly, on any given album nowadays, there's only one or two songs on an album of 17 tracks that's worth anything. So when people have the legal option to purchase individual tracks, they wanna up the price on us.

Screw em!

Have to say that I completely disagree with this opinion, as well as the comparison made in it. The price you quote is the manufacturing cost for the physical CD. What about the cost of studio time, recording staff, advertisements/promotional materials, and all the other people involved in the process? There's a lot more going on with the money than just the cost of the CD. Then, most people will argue that there's still a ton of money made off of it even after covering these costs. While this holds true for Billboard-topping albums, something's got to balance out those that make hardly any money or even go into the hole. If a company expects to sell a million copies, but ends up only selling 300,000 copies there's a whole freaking load of surplus sitting around somewhere. And it's not that uncommon for this to happen.

If you're looking for truly free music, look at eTree or similar, who offer free (LEGAL) recordings of live music. Many bands offer completely open recording of their concerts/performances, and allow recorders to freely distribute them as long as absolutely no money is made off of it. If artists were truly "money hungry", they wouldn't allow you to do this.

And don't get me wrong, there are bands who are just looking for the money and allow absolutely no recording whatsoever. But what makes that different from any other industry? Hell, look at sports (since this is a sports site). What makes pro players think they should be able to hold out on signing a contract renewal in order to get millions of dollars more per year? This trend has obviously raised ticket prices over the years.... but most people are going to be a lot less likely to go out and steal football tickets from someone than they are to go out and download pirated music.

[Jordan]

Last I heard Limewire is still legal. And by the way how are Jimmy Page and Mick doing? Tell them I said hi.
As are most file-sharing applications...

But you're forgetting the important part, these applications are legal because they just simply allow users to share files. It is still ILLEGAL to use apps like Limewire to share copyrighted materials like music, movies, books, etc.

[LedCock]

As are most file-sharing applications...

But you're forgetting the important part, these applications are legal because they just simply allow users to share files. It is still ILLEGAL to use apps like Limewire to share copyrighted materials like music, movies, books, etc.

Point taken.

[uscrebel]

Last I heard Limewire is still legal. And by the way how are Jimmy Page and Mick doing? Tell them I said hi.

I am so terribly amused by your yokel witticisms.

First, Limewire is neither legal not illegal. It is simply a peer to peer client that allows you to share files with others. That sharing, according to law, is only of non-copyrighted material.

Second,the fact is that the music industry is not composed solely of the Jimmy Pages and Mick Jaggers, but normal working class stiffs like...well, I was going to say like you, but obviously you don't work...you get everything for free. The folks that I know don't bring home $200K per year but their jobs rely on people actually paying for what they do.

Yeah, I read Neo's rant...I am not impressed. It is based on a bizarre notion that everybody in the music industry is swimming in champagne and making seven figure incomes. I have little or no tolerance for it. My brother and my nephew are both musicians who have been caught it this as well as many of my friends and their families.

I find it hard to believe that any of you would be okay with your work product simply being taken by someone else without compensation. You can spout and rant and rave all you want about the Music Industry, but I actually coach the kids whose mothers and fathers are part of that industry and are simply workers who do their part. It is clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what a producer does or how long he or she trains to get to the point of being in charge of a production. Or a sound engineer...or an A&R rep...or studio musician.

Yeah...you guys get your panties all in a knot if the Democrats tax you and take money out of your pocket. You get upset with OPEC for driving up the cost of petroleum. But, you don't have any problem at all with stealing from people who have worked hard to make a living for themselves and their families.

Pathetic.

[LedCock]

Dude, you try to impress people with who you know and what you know. But the fact is you don't know SQUAT. Those "little guys" (Producers, engineers etc etc) usually make salary. If they work off compensation it is because they work around big name recording artists and they know they can make the big bucks. If this isn't how it works for your "friends" then they should renegotiate their contract. But if anybody has their panties in a wad and is out of work it is most likely you. It's guys like you that use these chat rooms to take out their frustrations because they can't handle them in the real world. You can come on here and like a big man all you want because you know a fist can't come out of the screen to give you the proper response. So ask yourself this. Would you say the same things you say in here with the same tone to someone in person. And I'm not talking about the kids you "coach". I mean an adult. Like say a male 6'0 235lbs. Would you? You can come back on here and blab like a big man all you want but try to pretend you are in the real world and see if it changes your tone. Who knows it might make you a better man.

[CockyTatGuy]

Wow, I bet you really impressed him with your stature there dude I mean 6 whole feet...amazing. So let me get this straight, we have guys on salary at work. Our demand has dropped by 50 percent since this time last year, so you are saying that just because we have some people who are on salary that they aren't at risk of being laid off, having to take a cut in pay at another position, or just flat out losing their jobs. It is called losing people by attrition, demand and profits have weakend therefore headcount is reduced. I mean if you know so much about companies I can give you the fax number to our HR office, we probably need a new President of Manufacturing.

[uscrebel]

Dude, you try to impress people with who you know and what you know. But the fact is you don't know SQUAT.

What the heck are talking about here? I happen to live in a place where many people are employed by the entertainment industry. I doubt if any of my friends would be impressive. They are, as I stated, ordinary folks who go to work each day and make just enough to get by.

For the record, the phrase is "You know SQUAT!" Not, "You don't know SQUAT." Unless, of course, you meant the ever popular, "You don't know Jack!" Either way you are inadvertently correct, because SQUAT is not one of the things that I know.

Those "little guys" (Producers, engineers etc etc) usually make salary. If they work off compensation it is because they work around big name recording artists and they know they can make the big bucks. If this isn't how it works for your "friends" then they should renegotiate their contract.
Once again, your rather limited view of the seems to be based on your time spent in front of your cable box. The recording business is a bit more complex. Only a small percentage of artists make significant money from recording contracts. In fact, the "record companies" themselves account for only a portion of the studio work done, but their infusion of cash assures that small studios, artists, and engineers will be able to work. For instance, a friend of mine who is a saxophonist made a decent cut last year from sessions with Josh Groban, but far more of his time was spent doing educational recordings and playing back up for artists who may never be heard beyond the San Fernando Valley.

Another friend is a producer for a secondary label of a major company. Her field is specialty recordings (Rennaisance and Elizabethan Period Music) and is completely contingent on the parent company be able to make enough to support her label. She has not had a raise in several years and is the single mother of three kids....before you jabber away...she is a single mother because her husband was killed in an accident on an offshore rig. I am talking about folks who enjoy doing what they do and like many others on this board, don't have the freedom to simply walk away from their jobs.

But if anybody has their panties in a wad and is out of work it is most likely you. It's guys like you that use these chat rooms to take out their frustrations because they can't handle them in the real world. You can come on here and like a big man all you want because you know a fist can't come out of the screen to give you the proper response.

I am not sure that I have ever been actually threatened online before. I am guessing that you know that fists do not come out of the screen because you have tried it a couple of times.

The rest of your reasoning is interesting, but it is one of those dog-biting-tail things. I not sure if you are following me here, so I will spell it out. You seem to be saying that the only reason that I had said what I said is because I know that I am protected by the cyberspace thing. I assume that you understand that your argument works the same in reverse.

So ask yourself this. Would you say the same things you say in here with the same tone to someone in person. And I'm not talking about the kids you "coach". I mean an adult. Like say a male 6'0 235lbs. Would you? You can come back on here and blab like a big man all you want but try to pretend you are in the real world and see if it changes your tone. Who knows it might make you a better man.

Let's address the 6'0 235 thing... aside from the fact that you are apparently toting around an extra 40 or so pounds. However, unless my Spider Senses are failing me, you DO seem like the sort of guy who probably attempts to settle such burning matters as copyright law with your fists. While I am sure that your friends and family are quite proud of your pugilistic skills, I will decline your kind offer at this time, but feel free to punch out your monitor.

[LedCock]

Wow, I bet you really impressed him with your stature there dude I mean 6 whole feet...amazing. So let me get this straight, we have guys on salary at work. Our demand has dropped by 50 percent since this time last year, so you are saying that just because we have some people who are on salary that they aren't at risk of being laid off, having to take a cut in pay at another position, or just flat out losing their jobs. It is called losing people by attrition, demand and profits have weakend therefore headcount is reduced. I mean if you know so much about companies I can give you the fax number to our HR office, we probably need a new President of Manufacturing.

Not trying to impress anyone with size here just trying to keep things in perspective. But that wasn't a very good scenario you just gave me with the demand being dropped by 50 percent. Why didn't you just say 100 percent and make it even more fatal. Look its a known fact that the recording industry hasn't declined in sales since this online sharing has been introduced. In fact it has gone up. It's guys like Lars Ulrich from Metallica that go around saying its digging into his profits because on the surface it seems like it would. But if anything it can only help. And since you like scenarios so much I'll give you this one. A thousand kids on the rich side of town go to a bands concert that is considered one for the ages. Two thousand kids on the poor side of town can't because they can't afford it. 6 months later one of the rich kids pops up with a pirated recording of the concert and shares it with the poor kids. So to the poor kids this is great because before they had lost interest in the group. But now the music and the feeling of the concert is fresh to them. So if only one of those poor kids goes out and buys one of the bands merchandise then its one more sale than they would have gotten.

[Cianne]

6 months later one of the rich kids pops up with a pirated recording of the concert and shares it with the poor kids. So to the poor kids this is great because before they had lost interest in the group. But now the music and the feeling of the concert is fresh to them. So if only one of those poor kids goes out and buys one of the bands merchandise then its one more sale than they would have gotten.

And that's X amount of sales lost because those poor kids might have been saving money to buy the band's CDs and now they don't have to and since you're using a concert, that's what? 2 or maybe 3 CDs worth of material? So that would be $12.99 * 3 * X = Y where Y is a good chunk of cash.

[Jordan]

LedCock, but you've got to also factor in that a LOT of bands do allow you to record their concerts.... heck, some even let you patch directly into the board. And as I mentioned earlier, "taper friendly" bands allow you to distribute their concerts as you wish as long as you do not make any profit off of the recording.

Truly "pirated" music, in my opinion of today's situations, is music that someone copies from a copyrighted (usually studio) source. Now using your theory, would it be okay for the "rich kid" to make a copy of all of his store-bought CDs and distribute them freely to the "poor kids"??

[LedCock]

And that's X amount of sales lost because those poor kids might have been saving money to buy the band's CDs and now they don't have to and since you're using a concert, that's what? 2 or maybe 3 CDs worth of material? So that would be $12.99 * 3 * X = Y where Y is a good chunk of cash.

Love your algebra Cianne. But the main point I'm trying to make is that people that otherwise could not see a concert or for that matter hear a cd by the band for financial or other reasons can now hear it and form their own opinion about the music. Chances are if they do like the music then the next time the band has a concert or a cd then that poor kid will save up for it and go see the concert or buy a cd or buy a t-shirt etc. And if they don't like the music then they can save their precious money from any future purchases from a band they don't like and it's good for the poor kid.

[LedCock]

LedCock, but you've got to also factor in that a LOT of bands do allow you to record their concerts.... heck, some even let you patch directly into the board. And as I mentioned earlier, "taper friendly" bands allow you to distribute their concerts as you wish as long as you do not make any profit off of the recording.

Truly "pirated" music, in my opinion of today's situations, is music that someone copies from a copyrighted (usually studio) source. Now using your theory, would it be okay for the "rich kid" to make a copy of all of his store-bought CDs and distribute them freely to the "poor kids"??

Sorry for the terminology mixup but when I said "pirated" I guess I should have said "recorded" the concert. I don't condone anyone making a profit off a band or any of its constituants thats not affliated with the band. But the marketing question for the day is: Why do bands sell cds? To make money, easy. Why do bands have concerts? To make money, another easy one. But these two forms of money makers are also used to market one another. When someone downloads or receives music for free they are inadvertently (uscrebel's favorite word) marketed. This keeps the consumer interested in the band and it's music. So when it comes time for the consumer to buy a band t-shirt, guess which one he is likely to buy. Is it gonna be the one he's never heard before or is it gonna be the one he listens to and likes? This carries over to any other merchandise that the band or musician sells.

[Cianne]

Sorry for the terminology mixup but when I said "pirated" I guess I should have said "recorded" the concert. I don't condone anyone making a profit off a band or any of its constituants thats not affliated with the band. But the marketing question for the day is: Why do bands sell cds? To make money, easy. Why do bands have concerts? To make money, another easy one. But these two forms of money makers are also used to market one another. When someone downloads or receives music for free they are inadvertently (uscrebel's favorite word) marketed. This keeps the consumer interested in the band and it's music. So when it comes time for the consumer to buy a band t-shirt, guess which one he is likely to buy. Is it gonna be the one he's never heard before or is it gonna be the one he listens to and likes? This carries over to any other merchandise that the band or musician sells.

So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to steal something as long as you "pledge" to buy something else later from the person you stole the original item from.

[uscrebel]

Love your algebra Cianne. But the main point I'm trying to make is that people that otherwise could not see a concert or for that matter hear a cd by the band for financial or other reasons can now hear it and form their own opinion about the music. Chances are if they do like the music then the next time the band has a concert or a cd then that poor kid will save up for it and go see the concert or buy a cd or buy a t-shirt etc. And if they don't like the music then they can save their precious money from any future purchases from a band they don't like and it's good for the poor kid.

Light Emitting Diode....

Most of America is a bit morecomplex and diverse these days than the "rich kid, poor kid" structure that you have suggested, but let's stick with it for a moment. There is no problem for the rich kid to buy a cd and then, out of the goodness of his heart, give it to the poor kid. His license for that recording and all archives of the recording transfer to the poor kid. Likewise, if the rich kid legally tapes a concert and gives it to the poor kid, there is no infraction.

If the rich kid buys a cd and make 20 copies and gives them to twenty kids, he has violated the law. Again, his license is that he may listen to what he purchases (or according to recent case law...what he rents) as many times as he wishes, but once he he transfers the original recording he relinquishes his right to maintain archival copies. (With rentals, the license cannot be transferred, so NO copies of a rented product may be transferred...this includes any "archival" copies that were made.

The enforcement people that I talk to say that the music industry assumes that "media exchanges" will occur no matter what they do. That is, I may purchase a song or album on compact disc and then transfer it to aiff or mp3 to more conveniently listen to it. They are quite sanguine about the ability of the industry to combat this type of transfer. Almost every attempt that they have made to make a format uncopyable has been defeated within a matter of weeks. Ultimately, the fact that analog to digital converters are quite cheap ($50 - $150) means that anything that can be listened to can be pirated with only slight loss in overall quality. The do not care if you make 10,000 copies....they only care if you sell or give them away.

I have two thoughts about your assertion that stealing copyrighted material is actually a marketing tactic that encourages "poor kids" to save their money to buy an album.

First, it is silly beyond words.

Second, I find it hard to believe that the marketing departments in the entertainment industry would not be hopping all over this one if it meant that they would make $.02 more annually. They market with sex and drugs. They actually pay stations to play songs. Most entertainment interests have market research teams made up of top notch PhD's and analysts. (The head of market research for Blockbuster has a PhD in political science from the University of California and has a team that would shame the Stat and Econ departments at most midsized universities.) But you are inexorably smarter than the entire industry, knowing things that they, in their ignorance, cannot see.

I have only one request. While you are picking and choosing which laws you would like to obey and whose private property wish to respect, you may come across laws governing murder, robbery, and assault...oops, that's right you have already decided that the assault laws are not convenient for you to observe. Anyway, if you are considering murder or robbery, please consult someone first. I am betting that most folks won't care if you pirate Abba and Barry Manilow tunes from Limewire, but they might be a bit annoyed if you start start disregarding other laws.

[uscrebel]

[snip] When someone downloads or receives music for free they are inadvertently (uscrebel's favorite word) marketed. This keeps the consumer interested in the band and it's music. [snip]

Actually, my favorite word is castigatory.
I bet there are a few folks who would pay to see you ride in one.

[LedCock]

Actually, my favorite word is castigatory.
I bet there are a few folks who would pay to see you ride in one.

There you go talking like you're 10 ft. tall again. It's sad to see someone with your disease. I have a slight feeling when you are in the real world you don't act so defiant. I mean do you get on here and call people names without being provoked because there is something lacking in your life? I would think that with all the "connections" you have that you wouldn't have any time to be on here ranting on and on. Obviously you must be a very important man.

[Jordan]

Sorry for the terminology mixup but when I said "pirated" I guess I should have said "recorded" the concert. I don't condone anyone making a profit off a band or any of its constituants thats not affliated with the band. But the marketing question for the day is: Why do bands sell cds? To make money, easy. Why do bands have concerts? To make money, another easy one. But these two forms of money makers are also used to market one another. When someone downloads or receives music for free they are inadvertently (uscrebel's favorite word) marketed. This keeps the consumer interested in the band and it's music. So when it comes time for the consumer to buy a band t-shirt, guess which one he is likely to buy. Is it gonna be the one he's never heard before or is it gonna be the one he listens to and likes? This carries over to any other merchandise that the band or musician sells.
So, it's okay for me to take a candy bar from the store shelf for "free" as long as I buy the drink that I'm going to wash it down with?

I don't see how this "justification" of yours even remotely holds up. If you want to expose a "poor kid" to the music, you can loan him the CD or give it to him (or give him a legally recorded concert). Then he can make the decision whether or not he wants to spend his money on the band himself.

[GeauxTo]

Light Emitting Diode.
For crying out loud, USCReb! I leave you alone for a day or two and when I come back you are neck-deep in trouble. Don't you remember what I suggested? Go on down there and get loose on Toulouse. But Geaux Geaux is back now to protect your flanks, so go ahead and blast away if it makes you happy. You seem to be winning. And, even if you're not, you seem to be smarter. And, even if you're not; oh well, you know.
:p

[LedCock]

So, it's okay for me to take a candy bar from the store shelf for "free" as long as I buy the drink that I'm going to wash it down with?

I don't see how this "justification" of yours even remotely holds up. If you want to expose a "poor kid" to the music, you can loan him the CD or give it to him (or give him a legally recorded concert). Then he can make the decision whether or not he wants to spend his money on the band himself.

You're comparing apples to oranges with the grocery store to the music industry. But when the music industry loans or gives cd's away as you suggested then that would probably cut down on a lot of illegal copying.

[uscrebel]

For crying out loud, USCReb! I leave you alone for a day or two and when I come back you are neck-deep in trouble. Don't you remember what I suggested? Go on down there and get loose on Toulouse. But Geaux Geaux is back now to protect your flanks, so go ahead and blast away if it makes you happy. You seem to be winning. And, even if you're not, you seem to be smarter. And, even if you're not; oh well, you know.
:p


I'm sorry Geaux Geaux. I am really embarrassed. I know I promised you I would be better....and this one wasn't really that much of a challenge. I did have a couple of nice bottles of cab and I paddled around Back Bay Newport yesterday morning....but I guess that's not the Wild Tchoupitoulas, huh?

I'll head out to the woodshed and wait on daddy.

[Cianne]

With all the bands posting clips of their music on their website, the rationalization for downloading MP3s to "test" the music is thrown out.

[Jordan]

It's not really apples to oranges, as stealing is stealing. Ask any first grader, as they even know that.

Plus, the music industry isn't going to simply "give out" CDs to people who can't afford them. Hell, if you look at it that way, why don't ALL industries do that? Should Ford start donating brand new cars to people who can't afford them? What about airlines? If I can't afford to fly, should they fly me for free?

What about sporting events? The NFL players are holding out for millions more, yet ticket prices always continue to rise to fund this practice.... I don't see people thinking they should go out and get tickets for free.

As Cianne stated, just about every band has music on their websites now. And just about every online retailer has ~60 second clips of songs to listen to them first. And what about the good old radio for the "popular" music? Go to the store, and there's listening stations to sample the music before you buy. If money's an issue, then there are already plenty of LEGAL ways like these to listen to music to be sure that you actually like the CD first. I personally don't think paying $0.88/song or so is that bad of a price for getting the tracks that you actually want. Heck, most kids (regardless of financial standing) will scrounge up $0.88 cents just about everyday to go buy a candy bar or something.... just save it up and buy the music.

People seem to find it a whole lot easier to steal stuff digitally, as they're not physically taking it from someone. But the concept is no different than going to a store and jacking a CD.... with both, you get the same end product. And I'm not some goody goody that's never done it, but nowadays there are very EASY and convenient ways to download music legally (iTunes, Wal-Mart.com, Yahoo Music, etc).

[Cianne]

CDs are usually $12.99 a piece. There are roughly anywhere between 10 and 12 tracks per CD usually. $0.88/song is a steal and you don't have to deal with all the filler tracks that bands load on to CDs sometimes.

[uscrebel]

CDs are usually $12.99 a piece. There are roughly anywhere between 10 and 12 tracks per CD usually. $0.88/song is a steal and you don't have to deal with all the filler tracks that bands load on to CDs sometimes.

I agree, although the Apple Music Store goes a couple better than that. For instance. You can buy The Black Eyed Peas " Monkey Business" album for $9.99. There are 15 tracks so that works out to $.66 per track. But, if you only want 4 tracks, you can get them for $.99 each. In fact, almost every artist is way....

Queens of the Stone Age - 14 tracks $9.99
LifeHouse - 12 tracks $9.99
Get Behind Me Satan - White Stripes 13 tracks $9.99
The Capitol Years - Frank Sinatra - 75 tracks - $29.97

This BS about how much CD's cost is just that. For instance, the Sinatra Collection is $39.95 if you go to the store to buy it. Out here with .0775 sales tax, that means $42. If you go to Amazon you can get it for $32.99, but shipping will cost you 3.99 (unless you are willing to wait 5 days) for a total of $36.98.

Download the CD from the Apple Music Store for $29.97 and burn a CD on media that costs about $.10 each (I would recommend 15 songs per disk or 5 disks for $.50) Total investment, $30.47.

One issue for all of the downloaded media. These products are "authorized" for use on your computer and MP3 player. If your computer crashes or you have to replace your computer, the songs that you have archived will not play on the new machine. What I do is use a shareware program (Yes...I did pay the Shareware fee!) called JHymn. JHymn allows me to remove the authorization so that I can move my music to a new computer more easily.

I also convert all music I download from Apple's proprietary AAC format to MP3. AAC compresses a little better, but MP3 is just more universial. It also means that when I burn a MP3 CD of music, I don't have to convert during the burning process. I have all of my music archive on 3 dvd's and I have about 2 dozen MP3 CD arranged according to genre. Right now I am listening to my SKA collection which includes Goldfinger, Reel Big Fish, the Skatalites, and Reggaeton.

Bottomline, I have bought more music in the last two years through legitimate on-line sources than in the previous five or six years combined. Sometimes at $.99 a song, sometimes at $9.99 for an album.