Cinnie said:

minneapolisFunq said:

Should it be an issue if the music is out of print?

If I can't purchase the album in a store, what is wrong with downloading it for free?

Why isn't selling used albums illegal?

So you're saying you know about used music stores but will download something if it is out of print.

Definately, because not everything is available in the used record stores. They only have it if someone else has sold it to them. If you wait around for a used record store to get a particular song or album, you may never get it because no one has sold it to them. They can't just order it from the label like they used to.

lastdecember said:

Cinnie said:

True. They just need a ruling of precedence that will stick on all future lawsuits.

Like i said before if something BIG happens like say SONY or UNIVERSAL taking out a lawsuit against say GOOGLE because these download sites are all in Google's search engines, shit will fall QUICK. Trust me, money talks, and if Google gets hit with losses that labels have taken, this thread would be irrelevant. And i can tell you that this is already being discussed.

Cause it works like this, Now im an indie filmmaker/theatre writer producer do my own shows etc...i have things up on the net and work with actors that they have put up for their own benefit, now if i find any of my clips being downloaded, why wouldnt i want to take action? Now multiply that if the whole motion picture and recording industry hit google in the ass with a multi billion zillion dollar lawsuit?

[Edited 1/9/11 14:17pm]

google is just a search engine... it is NOT their responsiblity for what others decide to put on the internet. Even if they get sued there is NO way google will be able to filter out everthing. And people are only trying to attack google because they know that google has money.

Oh you Don't worry about anyone downloading your "clips"

Cinnie said:

minneapolisFunq said:

Should it be an issue if the music is out of print?

If I can't purchase the album in a store, what is wrong with downloading it for free?

Why isn't selling used albums illegal?

So you're saying you know about used music stores but will download something if it is out of print.

I purchase vinyl and download ripped albums.

Buying used albums isn't any different than downloading. I'm not paying the label who produced the product and that is the issue when it comes to illegal file sharing. Right?

When it comes to out of print music, I couldn't even buy it legally if I wanted to, so what is wrong with downloading it?

U dig?

you don't like anything unless its funk...

vainandy said:

People are just getting smarter and paying what the music these days is actually worth....nothing.

Also worth noting....no matter WHOM gets sued ..nor for how much......

This fight was virtually OVER the day the lightbulb went on in Sean Parker's head. The P2P Gnutella genie is out of the bottle & NO AMOUNT of litigation will put it back in.

TotalAlisa said:

lastdecember said:

Like i said before if something BIG happens like say SONY or UNIVERSAL taking out a lawsuit against say GOOGLE because these download sites are all in Google's search engines, shit will fall QUICK. Trust me, money talks, and if Google gets hit with losses that labels have taken, this thread would be irrelevant. And i can tell you that this is already being discussed.

Cause it works like this, Now im an indie filmmaker/theatre writer producer do my own shows etc...i have things up on the net and work with actors that they have put up for their own benefit, now if i find any of my clips being downloaded, why wouldnt i want to take action? Now multiply that if the whole motion picture and recording industry hit google in the ass with a multi billion zillion dollar lawsuit?

[Edited 1/9/11 14:17pm]

google is just a search engine... it is NOT their responsiblity for what others decide to put on the internet. Even if they get sued there is NO way google will be able to filter out everthing. And people are only trying to attack google because they know that google has money.

Oh you Don't worry about anyone downloading your "clips"

well its already happend with clips ending up on youtube from actors/actresses that i have worked with and they informed them and got them removed. My theory is if i get ripped off, im coming to the persons house and taking what i want, because why should i have to pay when they dont.

My shows brought in 26,000 last year to my theatre company, you think having one job in this obama economy pays the rent?

If people were only downloading things that could absolutely NOT be found in ANY record stores then I would agree that it's not stealing. And I've asked the question about used music (in any format) many times, because the artists don't see a penny of that money, either.

However, that's not all people are downloading. So yes, it is stealing. There is no way to logic out any kind of answer to the contrary. You can go to any number of places and download pretty much every new release (single, ep, full-length, 7 inch or 12 inch) the same day they hit stores. Major label, indie label - makes no difference. And if you can't get them that day you'll be able to get them a couple days later. That IS stealing. No matter what your opinions of the record industry may be, their figures don't lie. Sales are down dramatically over the last decade and they continue to decline sharply each year.

People cant have it both ways though they bitch about "shit music" but also feel they should get it free. SHIT is judgemental as someone else on this forum pointed out, i think say...Keri Hilson is shit, someone else thinks she is a freaking amazing talent, so, now we say because its "shit" you can have it for free?? Sorry folks that doesnt wash, im not defending labels because i know their practice, but there practice has been going for a long long time, and to use "Todays music" as a scapegoat for the rights to take something (which you legally do not have, sorry to break your heart). Sure its easy, because its cheap crappy digital BS, but dont complain when it gets shittier and shittier and you cant find what you want, it cant be both ways anymore, that SHIP sailed way back in 1992 when ya'll got in the soundscan frame of mind, and still think that sales and week one matter anymore, shit its been 20 years. You will never stop this whole downloading issue until you make something difficult, lets face it, its done because its EASY , people are fucking lazy, do we not realize this already how lazy people are? thats why most of them are fucking obese, laziness. This wasnt an issue before because everything was on cd, and it took time to rip it, upload it, put the shit on a website etc....by the time you did that the cd was already in stores for a week. Now the files are outhere weeks before, shit im seeing files on albums that arent out till March-April 2011. Its a whole new business, and if you think people at labels are NOT PROFITING from LEAKING albums you are so in the dark, there are cats that are getting paid with turning over such and such's new cd a month early, its going on all over the place, and who cares? Well it seems the people care but just say "who cares its only the labels" wow its amazing that people still think LABELS are losing money. Sorry folks they are still the fat cats and they still get paid, if they have to sell you Snookis Mixtape to make a buck they will, they dont care, and they are making just as much now as they were.

lastdecember said:

People cant have it both ways though they bitch about "shit music" but also feel they should get it free. SHIT is judgemental as someone else on this forum pointed out, i think say...Keri Hilson is shit, someone else thinks she is a freaking amazing talent, so, now we say because its "shit" you can have it for free?? Sorry folks that doesnt wash, im not defending labels because i know their practice, but there practice has been going for a long long time, and to use "Todays music" as a scapegoat for the rights to take something (which you legally do not have, sorry to break your heart). Sure its easy, because its cheap crappy digital BS, but dont complain when it gets shittier and shittier and you cant find what you want, it cant be both ways anymore, that SHIP sailed way back in 1992 when ya'll got in the soundscan frame of mind, and still think that sales and week one matter anymore, shit its been 20 years. You will never stop this whole downloading issue until you make something difficult, lets face it, its done because its EASY , people are fucking lazy, do we not realize this already how lazy people are? thats why most of them are fucking obese, laziness. This wasnt an issue before because everything was on cd, and it took time to rip it, upload it, put the shit on a website etc....by the time you did that the cd was already in stores for a week. Now the files are outhere weeks before, shit im seeing files on albums that arent out till March-April 2011. Its a whole new business, and if you think people at labels are NOT PROFITING from LEAKING albums you are so in the dark, there are cats that are getting paid with turning over such and such's new cd a month early, its going on all over the place, and who cares? Well it seems the people care but just say "who cares its only the labels" wow its amazing that people still think LABELS are losing money. Sorry folks they are still the fat cats and they still get paid, if they have to sell you Snookis Mixtape to make a buck they will, they dont care, and they are making just as much now as they were.

So totally incorrect. Labels are making far, FAR less money than they used to. Becuse of it the number of people they employ has dropped dramatically. And they most certainly DO NOT want the product that they've often been paying people to work on for up to a year to be leaked for free. Also, most leaks come from studio engineers, pressing plant employees or the hacking of servers, hard drives and portable media devices.

Cerebus said:

If people were only downloading things that could absolutely NOT be found in ANY record stores then I would agree that it's not stealing. And I've asked the question about used music (in any format) many times, because the artists don't see a penny of that money, either.

However, that's not all people are downloading. So yes, it is stealing. There is no way to logic out any kind of answer to the contrary. You can go to any number of places and download pretty much every new release (single, ep, full-length, 7 inch or 12 inch) the same day they hit stores. Major label, indie label - makes no difference. And if you can't get them that day you'll be able to get them a couple days later. That IS stealing. No matter what your opinions of the record industry may be, their figures don't lie. Sales are down dramatically over the last decade and they continue to decline sharply each year.

Well thats all the straight truth that sometimes people just cant GRIP at this point. The used thing is interesting because i talked to a record store owner in manhattan and he said that used is the only thing that keeps them open, its like their "margin" maker.

lastdecember said:

TotalAlisa said:

google is just a search engine... it is NOT their responsiblity for what others decide to put on the internet. Even if they get sued there is NO way google will be able to filter out everthing. And people are only trying to attack google because they know that google has money.

Oh you Don't worry about anyone downloading your "clips"

well its already happend with clips ending up on youtube from actors/actresses that i have worked with and they informed them and got them removed. My theory is if i get ripped off, im coming to the persons house and taking what i want, because why should i have to pay when they dont.

My shows brought in 26,000 last year to my theatre company, you think having one job in this obama economy pays the rent?

its STILL NOT GOOGLES RESPONSIBILITY... the person who actually puts the file online should be held responsible.

your not going to the "Person's house" your going to middle man... who has NOTHING to with it

if everyone decides to sue google, then what would happen, it would be hard to find websites or anything....

TotalAlisa said:

lastdecember said:

well its already happend with clips ending up on youtube from actors/actresses that i have worked with and they informed them and got them removed. My theory is if i get ripped off, im coming to the persons house and taking what i want, because why should i have to pay when they dont.

My shows brought in 26,000 last year to my theatre company, you think having one job in this obama economy pays the rent?

its STILL NOT GOOGLES RESPONSIBILITY... the person who actually puts the file online should be held responsible.

your not going to the "Person's house" your going to middle man... who has NOTHING to with it

if everyone decides to sue google, then what would happen, it would be hard to find websites or anything....

But the middleman can go down just as easy as we all know from just knowledge of how the law works, unfair as it may seem. If someone steals something and gives it to you and then you in turn sell it, you are just as liable and can be held accountable. Google is not holding these files itself but it is enabling it to be found, which can be used in litigation, now Google may not have to pay but it can be forced to look deeper into what is in their search enigine. I mean if they are making it able for "child porn" to be found should they not be held accountable too? they more or less are telling you where to go for it, thats all im saying.

lastdecember said:

TotalAlisa said:

its STILL NOT GOOGLES RESPONSIBILITY... the person who actually puts the file online should be held responsible.

your not going to the "Person's house" your going to middle man... who has NOTHING to with it

if everyone decides to sue google, then what would happen, it would be hard to find websites or anything....

But the middleman can go down just as easy as we all know from just knowledge of how the law works, unfair as it may seem. If someone steals something and gives it to you and then you in turn sell it, you are just as liable and can be held accountable. Google is not holding these files itself but it is enabling it to be found, which can be used in litigation, now Google may not have to pay but it can be forced to look deeper into what is in their search enigine. I mean if they are making it able for "child porn" to be found should they not be held accountable too? they more or less are telling you where to go for it, thats all im saying.

google is a freaking search engine, they use key words, they dont claim or control what is out there. If someone is using google for child porn, the person who put the child porn on the internet should be accountable NOT google....

if what you are saying about look deeper in search engine, then they won't exist because that will be impossible.

What about yahoo, bing, ask, etc. Why not sue them too???

it just sounds like you are trying to get money from google, and not try to take out the real thieves who are stealing the files and putting them up. Google should not have to pay and i hope they don't.

Even without google, people will maneuver through the Internet to find those items, i know a Internet Genius who can get ANYTHING from movies, music, ect and movies that aren't even out yet and still playing in theaters, and HE DOESN'T NEED GOOGLE...

TotalAlisa said:

lastdecember said:

But the middleman can go down just as easy as we all know from just knowledge of how the law works, unfair as it may seem. If someone steals something and gives it to you and then you in turn sell it, you are just as liable and can be held accountable. Google is not holding these files itself but it is enabling it to be found, which can be used in litigation, now Google may not have to pay but it can be forced to look deeper into what is in their search enigine. I mean if they are making it able for "child porn" to be found should they not be held accountable too? they more or less are telling you where to go for it, thats all im saying.

google is a freaking search engine, they use key words, they dont claim or control what is out there. If someone is using google for child porn, the person who put the child porn on the internet should be accountable NOT google....

if what you are saying about look deeper in search engine, then they won't exist because that will be impossible.

What about yahoo, bing, ask, etc. Why not sue them too???

it just sounds like you are trying to get money from google, and not try to take out the real thieves who are stealing the files and putting them up. Google should not have to pay and i hope they don't.

Even without google, people will maneuver through the Internet to find those items, i know a Internet Genius who can get ANYTHING from movies, music, ect and movies that aren't even out yet and still playing in theaters, and HE DOESN'T NEED GOOGLE...

First it goes for any search engine, Second Google's hands and others are not clean in this matter because they also sell advertising to illegal sites, this is known, all those banners above on these sites like FilesTube and Rapidshare and others that allow illegal links all get money when u click on them, which is also in turn link into the search engines, its business, Google and Yahoo are not just search engines they are corporations just like "labels" that we discuss, i dont understand how we "trust" one corporation and not another, since they all operate under one umbrella, which is the selling of media, regardless if its legal or not.

The supplier and the enabler all go hand in hand, if someone shoots someone else, you have to not only hold the shooter accountable, but the person that sold them the gun too. If that turns out to be "any" search engine then hit them where it counts too, if we despise people like "rich" artists why do we love "google" so much, they get billions in payouts while average americans cant pay rent, so i have no sympathy for them if they get named in a suit by whomever, its all one corporate greed.

vainandy said:

People are just getting smarter and paying what the music these days is actually worth....nothing.

It doesn't just apply to modern music though, which I agree is lacking in quality, it applies to older stuff as well. People are downloading music from every era and so every single recording artist in history is losing money. Many of the golden oldies don't get much radio play or concert ticket sales anymore so they do rely a lot on the money coming from their back-catalogue as income. Recording artists don't get pensions as far as I know and a lot of them weren't smart enough to save money from their peak to use when they aren't popular anymore and so a lot of them are probably becoming very poor indeed!

JamFanHot said:

Also worth noting....no matter WHOM gets sued ..nor for how much......

This fight was virtually OVER the day the lightbulb went on in Sean Parker's head. The P2P Gnutella genie is out of the bottle & NO AMOUNT of litigation will put it back in.

I disagree, it would not be hard to shut down the major filesharing sites and the like and prevent new ones from being made at all. If they were to create some sort of softwear to encode CD's that prevent the files from being uploaded onto an internet server then the problem would go away completley. I remember uploading a cover of Prince's "I Could Never Take the Place of Your Man" I did onto Myspace and it wouldn't let me because it recognised the title as copyrighted material, why can't that be used for other sites?

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

minneapolisFunq said:

Cinnie said:

So you're saying you know about used music stores but will download something if it is out of print.

I purchase vinyl and download ripped albums.

Buying used albums isn't any different than downloading. I'm not paying the label who produced the product and that is the issue when it comes to illegal file sharing. Right?

When it comes to out of print music, I couldn't even buy it legally if I wanted to, so what is wrong with downloading it?

U dig?

Okay so if it is in print you'll pay for it?

luv4u said:

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

I don't think back in the day anyone cared. I used to tape songs onto TDK cassettes off the radio and/or tape my LPs or 45s. EVERYONE did it. I even taped an album or two for friends.

I don't remember artists or the industry squaking about it then.

They cared. There's been a lot of discussion (and a few good books) about how we progressed to this point. The difference is that music sales never took a serious and/or continuous downturn until the advent of P2P and torrent file sharing.

TheScouser said:

JamFanHot said:

Also worth noting....no matter WHOM gets sued ..nor for how much......

This fight was virtually OVER the day the lightbulb went on in Sean Parker's head. The P2P Gnutella genie is out of the bottle & NO AMOUNT of litigation will put it back in.

I disagree, it would not be hard to shut down the major filesharing sites and the like and prevent new ones from being made at all. If they were to create some sort of softwear to encode CD's that prevent the files from being uploaded onto an internet server then the problem would go away completley. I remember uploading a cover of Prince's "I Could Never Take the Place of Your Man" I did onto Myspace and it wouldn't let me because it recognised the title as copyrighted material, why can't that be used for other sites?

P2P doens't invlove SITES....it's just data between indidiviual computers. The source code is both out there & infinitely editable.

Protective encoding has already been tried & failed. If you can play a CD...it can be ripped (not to mention 20 other ways of encoding a digital file).

The web stuff will stop Stateside (blog sites, etc), but not likely abroad where these laws will remain un-enforcable.

P2P is a a fact of life...just because the code isn't distributed by high-profile sites like Limewire, Frostwire, etc...will not prevent people from getting it / writing it & then moving data amongst themselves. It's all ones and zeros & too frequent to be tracked & litigated. Not financially or practically tenable.

Cinnie said:

minneapolisFunq said:

I purchase vinyl and download ripped albums.

Buying used albums isn't any different than downloading. I'm not paying the label who produced the product and that is the issue when it comes to illegal file sharing. Right?

When it comes to out of print music, I couldn't even buy it legally if I wanted to, so what is wrong with downloading it?

U dig?

Okay so if it is in print you'll pay for it?

I have no problem with paying a record company for producing music that I enjoy, but how am I supposed to pay the piper if the piper isn't offering the items I want to pay for?

[img:$uid]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/11/340x_ziuzlpo1kxi.jpg[/img:$uid]

"Blaqueknight doesn't care about illegal downloading!"

minneapolisFunq said:

Cinnie said:

Okay so if it is in print you'll pay for it?

I have no problem with paying a record company for producing music that I enjoy, but how am I supposed to pay the piper if the piper isn't offering the items I want to pay for?

Including that CD that comes out next week. How can you pay for it if they won't sell it to you!!!

What people arent getting is its all irrelevant and comes down to your taste, if you dont like the music, go elsewhere, just because you think it sucks doesnt mean you can take it without paying for it and use that as your excuse. I mean i dont like waiting for the subway, does that mean i can jump the turnstile everyday because i feel i shouldnt have to pay for the ride? The big bad label crying is played out, if you dont like the music go find something you like, go to the movies, you cant take everything that you feel sucks and shouldnt have to pay for. Download whatever you want but at least OWN up to what you do, stop this pathetic two year old mentality of "i dont like the music i shouldnt have to pay boo hoo".

lastdecember said:

What people arent getting is its all irrelevant and comes down to your taste, if you dont like the music, go elsewhere, just because you think it sucks doesnt mean you can take it without paying for it and use that as your excuse. I mean i dont like waiting for the subway, does that mean i can jump the turnstile everyday because i feel i shouldnt have to pay for the ride? The big bad label crying is played out, if you dont like the music go find something you like, go to the movies, you cant take everything that you feel sucks and shouldnt have to pay for. Download whatever you want but at least OWN up to what you do, stop this pathetic two year old mentality of "i dont like the music i shouldnt have to pay boo hoo".

Yep. That's a large part of what I was trying to get across. It IS stealing. If you don't feel bad about it, fine. I download music myself and I don't work for the RIAA, so I'm not judging you. But don't pretend that whatever excuse you're making actually justifies the act. It's the theft of a product that was meant to be paid for. And in this day and age there is VERY little that you can't find for sale someplace. I understand there's a bit of this and a bit of that that's out of print. But it's such a ridiculously small percentage of the BILLIONS of files that have been downloaded. I also understand some things are just limited and hard to find. I understand this because I hunt for some of them myself, intending to purchase them. When I can't find them, or if I just want to hear them to be sure spending the money is worth it, I download them. But when I do so I'm fully aware of the fact that I am stealing something that an artist, label, manufacturer and distributor worked to put into a store for people to buy.

Not sure if this has been discussed yet or not, but I do believe that the all encompassing subscription services that several companies are working on may finally alleviate some illegal downloading. The money being made/lost still won't equal out. But it may begin teaching a new generation of music listeners to pay for most of their music again.

BlaqueKnight said:

[img:$uid]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/11/340x_ziuzlpo1kxi.jpg[/img:$uid]

"Blaqueknight doesn't care about illegal downloading!"

...while still sportin the "Mike Myers face" here....

I admit, I download songs here and there.

No where NEAR as much as I used to tho.

What I do these days is I'll download a couple songs from an artist, and if I like 'em, I'll buy the album the songs came from off of iTunes or Amazon.

.

[Edited 1/10/11 1:29am]

i'm a pirate. argghh.

purplemookiebut said:

i'm a pirate. argghh.

a female pirate?, uummhhm

I'm all for buying music.