I'll admit that part (an insignificant part) of my blues collection was KaZaa'ed, and I have overlooked my son's infrequent indiscretions. But personally, I believe the absorbitent cost a CD surely gives the consumer a bit of licensing of his own...

I am a retired Rock Musician, and I now work over the internet, so I can sortof understand both worlds of this one to a small degree. Granted, in older days a tape recorder and a radio would allow you to pirate music by recording it, but the music industry still flourished because there was always that one song that never coma onto the radio that everyon always wanted, or if you wanted to hear an entire album, you had to buy it. Kazaa and such file sharing utilities have now given music lovers a psuedo "radio on demand" allowing people to pick and choose what songs that they were able to "record" and plaback anytime you wanted.....now you can get the b-side of an album in a matter of minutes, whereas before file sharing came out, you either had to borrow a copy of the album or go out and buy it to be able to hear it. This is why the music industry is so up in arms about file sharing....because why should they work so hard to write music (which is their basis of income), package the albums in neat little CD cases and ship the albums to the stores when only a few people are buying the album because the rest have discovered a great way to get all of the same music without paying more than a monthly ISP charge? What it boils down to, is yes File sharing has made music so much more accessible to the general public, and yes the profits of the record companies have dropped considerably....should they be able to sue for this? I would say that yes they should be able to sue, but yes they should go after the companies hosting these programs and not after the individuals using the programs. EVen though these file-sharing programs do explicitly say that they are not to be used for illegal sharing of files, the average person doesn't take the time to read a EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) nor do they actually care what it has to say when you click the "accept" button down at the bottom. So, yes the file-sharing programs should technically be the ones at fault, but they aren't because of the EULA......which means that the recording industry can only go after the end user at that point because the file sharing companies have covered themselves with the EULA.....

That's my two cents.....should they be able to sue? I'm not the one to answer that.

I agree, recording music from other sources has been done since music started being sold in stores and we became able to record. record to cassette tape was a favorite of mine so I could take my music into my car. even now, I belong to a dvd club, and when I get one I want to keep, I copy it to vcr. is it illagal? probably. after all, so many of our so called freedoms have been taken away and now called illegal. just one more thing to keep us down..........

In some ways, the record companies have reaped what they sowed. That said, it cannot be viewed as either ethical or legal to steal music. If I decide that a loaf of bread is overpriced at the grocery store, does that give me the right to steal it?

It is not just individuals that have had lapses. A lot of churches have used copyrighted music without paying for it. Many church youth groups have shown videos, without a copyright license, that are clearly labelled for home viewing only. And many churches have illegally copied or duplicated copyrighted software programs onto their computers. Sometimes these things are done out of ignorance, but often people just don't care.

Joel Thomas

Jerry,

If you think the law should be different on music copyright, by all means lobby Congress to change the laws. But if you are advocating disobeying laws just because they are unpopular, then I think that is troublesome.

If anyone can get the music for free on the internet, how are the recording artsists to make money?

Do you also feel that you are entitled to scan a book and place the entire contents on the web for anyone to download for free?

Bread can't be easily compared to a song for the purposes you used, because when you buy a CD you aren't buying rights to the songs themselves.

Joel

serves em right for gouging us on CDs all those years

I dont think that downloading should be illegal, where i live the prices of CD's has gone down by six dollers, to improve the retail. But once Kazaa and Limewire and Imesh are shut down and people start to buy the CD's again, the companies are probably going to raise the price back up to where it was recently sold. there making us think that the price is going to stay low, but it most likly wont, its just there way of more poeople buy them.

i think its stupid that u cant down load music the artists have enough money.

i agree w/ jessica!! KazAa rocks! Rock on!!

music was made to be downloaded and every thing happens for a reason so downloading music was just ment 2 be. the government sux and i dont like them. most of the laws areobviously needed but downloading music? the artistz shouldnt publish their songz if they dont want pple 2 down load them. 50cent is cool he said he doesnt care if pple download his music he write songs for the pple n/e ways. unlike LL Cool J who's all freakin out and crap. he's stupid anyways. did u no ll cool j stands for ladies love cool jeans? screw him well g2g bye

i think that downloading music is just fine... wny should we have to pay for something that they posted on the internet?? why would they make blank music cds if we arent aloud to download music?? thats just crap i think... whatever...

Poor spelling is usually indicative of a poor education. Poor education leads to wrong thinking. This person obviously knows nothing about the capitalist system, the rights of individuals and what it feels like to have something stolen from you.

Sew their ;-)

I would also like to comment that I have set up a page on my website dedicated to the Real Artists for Downloading Music. I just started it and I don't have that many yet. But if people could give me some names I would be more than happy to put them up there. So we know the true artist's to support.

We'll call it a sort of a protest. And what we could also do is become hipocrits. Why don't we buy the artist's who support downloading. And download the artist's who are against it. That would get some attention. If we start buying cds of the artist who support music let us see how many artist will reverse their beiefs. And the ones who do change we know are only in it for money. The ones who stand their ground even if it is still against downloading we know that they are true Artists.

Check out my site www.geocities.com/smittie61984 It's under "Real Artists for Downloading Music"

I need to make a correction to an above statement. I commented that someone can cover my song after 70 years of it's birth. I meant to say 70 years after I die. I apologize for my mistake.

In my own opinion, I think there are two sides to this. I think that although it is illegal and people still do it, they shouldn't be prossecuted because the programs to get these songs are only a click away. But then again if I was in a band, I can understand why they would want to make it illegal. Maybe it would be easier if we just had to pay a small amount to download the program and a small amount of money for every 10 or 15 songs. That way it would please both sides.

I think that CD prices should definitely be lowered, but that you should not steal music just because you don't like the high prices. If you're going to listen to music, shouldn't it be good enough to buy? Besides, you can always find good deals on CDs from internet retailers such as Amazon and CD Universe. Overall, this discussion is definitely a good one, and has helped me to write my persuasion speech for English class.

The thing that the R.I.A.A. is trying to implement,
ex post facto, is monopolistic control of the
original author's copyright rights.

I am a performer, songwriter, and recording artist.
I disagree with the R.I.A.A., N.M.P.A., Harry Fox,
the entire movie industry and its M.P.A. and
M.P.A.A. and most of the two performing rights
associations, ASCAP and BMI, on their suing young
downloaders. None of the money they sue for goes
to the artist, believe it.

I mentioned all of the above because they are
really all the same people, the un-creatives.

The "un-creatives" are record companies, labels,
publishers, which are one and the same, that
do not have the ability to create music themselves,
but do have the ability to steal music.

That's the first side.

The second side is the downloaders.

I've heard every excuse there is for not paying
the artist for the music from both sides now.

To the downloaders: And it's a bargain to pay
something like $600.00 a year for Internet with
DSL? Personally, I think the price of a CD is
the best bargain there is; it hasn't changed
since the 1960's. While everything else has gone
up.

But I have written amicus curiae briefs in
support of downloaders, to stop the RIAA from
stealing a right. There is no contract that
currently recognizes the Internet medium for
distribution and therefore the RIAA has no legal
claim to collect. They have to have an updated
contract from the author to collect for the new
medium. And this nullifies all lawsuits against
downloading. It also supports the rights of the
artists to negotiate these rights. And these
rights were not specifically granted because the
Internet did not exist at the time. Secondly,
a contract cannot include uninvented mediums,
the rights to new mediums are the sole property
of the author. Furthermore, an author has the
right to revoke any license, including a record
contract, at his sole discretion.

Janis Ian has supported downloading. Saying that
it has increased her sales by something like 400%.

That has been true of all past innovations, such
as records, tapes, etc.

Originally, people were sued under Copyright Law
for handcopying music manuscripts. That should
dispel any ideas that copying isn't copying, no
matter how it's done. Fakebooks and other music
manuscripts were illegally published by companies
that didn't have a license, i.e., a contract to do
so.

With the performing rights societies, ASCAP and
BMI, it was the movie industry in Hollywood,
California, that was the copyright infringer.
Movie companies not only used music, and
performances by an orchestra before the talkies,
they also illegally used various inventions, such
as the film camera, phonograph, etc. To combat
this, the movie industry in New York, New York,
under the patent holders Edison, Bell, and others,
founded the Motion Pictures Patent Corporation,
the M.P.C.C. That was found to be an illegal
monopoly, however, and abandoned for the M.P.A.A.

The movie companies, with by far the largest
bank accounts, are the record companies and the
publishers and labels; make no mistake, they own
or control all distribution of music. With the
small exception of the independents, who's
"independent" status is very questionable once
they sign a record deal with the majors.

The whole argument has boiled down to how the
author gets paid, not the RIAA which is currently
still stealing from the authors.

When Derek Sivers at CDB-a-by [can't spell the
site's name correctly because of censorship here]
.com announced that
he would partner with Stephen Jobs [a truly
un-creative Pirate of Silicon Valley], I advised
him to get $1.00 per song "For the artist, i.e.,
songwriter and author, the real copyright owner."

Jobs, of course, renegged and skulked the deal,
and Derek has apologized about this. Jobs does
not belong in the music industry. He is one of
"Them."

Would you pay the artist, band, whatever, a dollar
for a song you like? Of course you would! What
a bargain!

But the RIAA will not. They are so cheap, so
Beverly Hills "Merchant of Venice," that they
want to pay nothing to the author.

It is up to you, the music lovers, to contact
all of your favorite artists and tell them not
to let go of their Internet rights into the hands
of the record companies which have already stolen
most of their money.

If the artists and the downloaders come together,
the record industry will be subservient to both,
which is the only thing that leads to good music.

Right now, Megadeth and the others are puppets of
their record companies with no choice, having long
ago sold their souls to this devil, but to accept
anything and everything that the RIAA does.

And don't let out Jack Valenti, spokeman for film
and sometimes cable; the gopher for the RIAA and
the movie industry.

And go to ASCAP's and BMI's sites and find out
how to license music directly from the artist.
DO NOT GO TO THE PUBLISHERS SECTION, find the
artist and songwriter and contact them. Remember,
the publishers are the labels are the record
companies are the movie industry. Corporations
that are the biggest copyright infringers.

If you really want to make a difference, and
really want good music, it is the artists and
authors you must talk to, not the un-creatives.

Terry James

i want to get free music but i dont know how i tryed imesh and that didnt work need help downlodimg

Alright, here's my take from someone who has downloaded over 10k songs in my lifetime.
I ran through some numbers and found out something unrelevent, yet interesting. DSL, as above stated costs roughly 600 dollars a year (SBC for me costs 50 bucks a month). An average CD costs 12 bucks. For 600 dollars, you can buy 50 CDs. For the sake of this argument, let's say that the average CD has 12 songs. That equates to being 600 songs on 50 CDs. That's 600 songs for the same price as having DSL for a year... Some of the new companies have their 99 cent songs that you can legally download, so it's basically the same. BUT! I don't understand why we pay 600 dollars a year for DSL, PLUS an additional 99 cents a song... that's TWICE as expensive as before when we used Kazaa, Napster (in the glory days) and Limewire. I gave up illegal music and joined various CD clubs, taking advantage of their buy 1 get 11 free (such as BMG music) and cancell before they can ship me anything i don't want.. it's roughly 50-60 bucks for 12 CD's to get 'em and have 'em shipped to your house. Not too bad.. although it's not free. I am writing a persuasive research paper on why illegal music has not hurt the record companies as much as the RIAA complains... and have several studies done by professors at USC and Notre Dame. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated. And, to all the longhorns out there; U.T. agrees with the RIAA that "illegal" downloading hurts record companies, while Texas A&M refused to outlaw peer to peer. At any given dorm at A&M, there is a pirated movie and hundreds of pirated songs. I'll leave the ethicacy of it all for y'all to debate... Good luck!

~Luke~

Oh, and its Ladies Love Cool James. Whatever dumbass earlier said cool jeans is stupid, in addition to the dumb things they said.

I am President of The North American Phonograph Co. Which was the first commercial producers of "Articulate speech and other sounds"(this slogan is copyrighted) decided to put this file sharing thing to rest, by the suspension of the license of Recording Industry Association of America. They owe royatlies that amount to several Trillion dollars. We have sent them bills, with the amount they owe, and they never have answered. We are giving them a few months to expalin, and if they do not, we will charge Mitch Bainwol with Title 17 USC, and Title 18 USC as well as Digital Mellenium Copyright Act,Violations which will give him a $50,000.00 fine, for each and every recording, and 5 years for each copy of every recording, not made by a licensed Edison studio since August of 1894. Please visit the above website to read all documents on it.

Downloading should be legal. When people go on these P2P sharing programs, they're just downloading someone else's song file, which that person put on willingly for other to download it! So when we go to download music, we don't sneak into the recording studio and record the artists actually making their songs. If you go to your friend who's bought a CD and ask to borrow it so you can make a mix or something, that's not stealing. also, if you're throwin a party and you put on a CD you shouldn't charge people because they're listening to the music for free. all in all, yes i've downloaded music "illegally". If it's such a problem that people are actually downloading this music, then why do I still see rappers flaunting their money like it grows on trees?... exactly!... also there are enough hardcore fans out there to actually buy the Cd's of their favourite artists so the billionaire Recording company executives can relax, and the millionaire rappers should be greatful that they're possibly living out a dream or have such a rewarding, fun job. -stop your crying!

Peace

P.S. Tupac is the bomb... I buy his CD's! TRUE RAP!

>If anyone can get the music for free on the >internet, how are the recording artsists to make >money?

Touring, merchandise, actually performing their music, instead of filtering it 2700 times via computers to polish and walk away from.

In other words, the way the rest of the world makes money - and the way most musicians do - work hard for it, not work for three months, and take three years off.

I can't condone anyone stealing, but when the rich complain about not being as rich as they *could* be.... it sticks in my craw.

When the RIAA sues hardworking families for insane amounts of money to set examples... it hurts me to see it.

I'd love to see more artists sell their music directly, over the web. Toss a free song or two out for download, its great advertisement!

Could it really all be in the price of CDs? Well I can tell you that if CDs cost less (I live in England where the price is just stupid) I would definitely buy them. I always prefer to have a real CD rather than to copy it, but I just can't afford to buy CDs. I love music, downloading has opened my eyes to so much new music that I would never have gotten into otherwise, and I'd need to be a record label executive to afford all the music I've downloaded (mostly because I'd have to buy the entire CD rather than just go for a track I'd heard about).
I'm not saying illegal downloading is OK. I definitely don't agree with anyone saying 'they're rich enough' - I won't go into it I think you readers are savvy enough - as this is just silly. However, I do condone illegal downloading (obviously, as I do it) in most cases.
I can understand why the whole debate has come up, it's just the nature of the world we live in - capitalism promotes the earning of money so who are we to say 'stop, you've got enough money'? These record companies that you all hate have merely played the system and played it well, I know they're a hell of a lot richer than I am.
The question is - what is the price of their 'playing the system'? Is it to the detriment of the quality of the music we hear? Is their manipulation and control of the artists hurting music? It is in some areas, such as DJs who take samples of 2 or more songs and put them together to make another different song - I want to be able to hear that, I know I f**king enjoyed DJ Z-Trip & DJ P's 'Uneasy Listening' *against the will of record labels*, to cite just one example in an ocean of them. Their control is far wider reaching than this, though, many people don't realise how little influence artists have over their music nowadays, or at least the environment they make their music in.
If they brought down the price of CDs they'd lose out as well obviously, and from the lengths they've gone to to cap their losses from illegal downloading I can't imagine this happening anytime soon. In the end it's a shame that the people with the talent don't have the money to do what they like, and have to sign record deals to get by. Tough shit, that's the way the world works, I'm making my protest by downloading.
Finally: 99.9% (it's probably 100% but I'll put that for 'legal' reasons...) of the music I download is stuff a friend has told me about or a track recommended in a magazine etc that if I didn't download it I would never hear it because I wouldn't buy the CD. I know this is not an argument for downloading, as there is no means to stop me downloading an entire album I might otherwise have bought, but I'll put it out there.

Peace