Music Fans, be afraid...

[MySummerJob]

Well I was surfing the web and came across this...

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/entertainment/article/380978--music-fans-be-very-afraid

I really hope they don't do this. There are some songs I try to find/buy legally, but they either are lost and destroyed. So I have to download the lost songs I can't find physically. I really hope they don't pass this =/

[OrdealByFire]

I see Toronto...

I'm not worried then. :D

EDIT: Nevermind. Worried. FML.

Why would they do this? I don't think music sales are doing terrible, and neither are movie sales. If this happens, I will have no reason to live.

[monkeyfish]

Won't affect me. Won't affect the pirates for long, either. There will always be safe places on the net for them.

[OrdealByFire]

We'll see about that..

[MySummerJob]

I see Toronto...

I'm not worried then. :D

EDIT: Nevermind. Worried. FML.
I am not from Canada, I am American. If this was Canadian only, do you think I would freak out? No, I wouldn't freak out. This impacts the whole planet.


Won't affect me. Won't affect the pirates for long, either. There will always be safe places on the net for them.

I hope so...

[OrdealByFire]

Music is too damn expensive. $1 per song? I'd have $1,000+ worth of music on my iPod if I were forced to buy it. That's completely obnoxious and unfair.

Sure downloading music for free is illegal, but there are enough people willing to pay for the music that I don't think the industry is going to hell. This would suck big time if it were to happen.

I'd have to record the music off YouTube and put it on my iPod. Sheesh.

[MySummerJob]

I'd have to record the music off YouTube and put it on my iPod. Sheesh.
I think they'd find a way to make that impossible to do as well.

I say we just boycott if this passes.

[nashphx13z]

Dude...that would blow. :(

[MySummerJob]

Why would they do this? I don't think music sales are doing terrible, and neither are movie sales. If this happens, I will have no reason to live.
They are all greedy, that's why.

Isn't good enough that I buy a cd for a band that I enjoy? I guess not, I guess they just want more and more money. Money that they could use just to fill a swimming pool with cash and overflow it.

[OrdealByFire]

And this isn't something you can protest with good reason... as it is illegal. The only thing you really could say would be something about how it's expensive, and hope for at least a reduction in price per song.

[HeavyMetalKing]

I have a hard time believing this, especially because certain parts of this agreement seem like they would violate our constitutional privacy rights (for Americans, at least). I don't think the fact that it's an international law could override our rights as citizens, but then again I don't know much about international law. I guess only time will tell, though.

As a side note, I had heard something a few years ago about something similar with ISPs, only that suspected downloaders would have their internet speed cut down instead of cut off. That I could see legally happening.

[Xander730]

Big Brother getting bigger... Soon you wont be able to take dump without big brother checking to see what you ate.

[bubblegumpop]

lol "banned from the internet for a year".


good stuff!

[DeadPhoenix223]

i just buy cds. i'm fine.

[FlyGuyLXI]

Piracy. What do these people in the music industry do about this? The music industry increases the prices of their music because they claim of piracy damage. It's only going to encourage you to download illegally even more.

I mean, most of the i-Tunes songs are 1.29 now. They claimed they were also going to sell 0.69 cent songs, but frankly, I haven't seen one damn song that price.

Some people only illgeally download just so they can learn more about the artist, if they like that certain artist, that person could even buy their entire discography legally. 30 second previews just don't cut it, and full song sources for free are limited. The music industry could possibly regret this if the law passes.

Anyways, I was thinking of subscribing to Napster for awhile now, but it's coming to the point where I will have to use it.

[tridentgum0]

I wonder how they would go about enforcing that. And I did chuckle at the "banned from the internet for a year" nonsense. I'd love to see 'em try.

[OrdealByFire]

There would be some assassinations in place if they banned someone from that there interweb action.

[Oscar-Rio]

I say bring it on. We will always find a way to share music.

[DeadPhoenix223]

how can you ban someone from the internet?

[tridentgum0]

I say bring it on. We will always find a way to share music.

It would (attempt to) get rid of pirate sites, but never peer-to-peer sites (Mediafire, Rapidshare, etc.)


There would be some assassinations in place if they banned someone from that there interweb action.

I wonder how they'd go about that:

"I'm a big bad government guy and I'm takin' yer computer"

"Sweet. While you're doing that, I'll go down to Office Depot and get another one"

[OrdealByFire]

It would (attempt to) get rid of pirate sites, but never peer-to-peer sites (Mediafire, Rapidshare, etc.)



I wonder how they'd go about that:

"I'm a big bad government guy and I'm takin' yer computer"

"Sweet. While you're doing that, I'll go down to Office Depot and get another one"

They'll just keep taking them. Then you'll keep buying.

[daftuprising]

This is just gonna kill the music industry frankly. Most bands don't "encourage" illegal downloading, but very few have a problem with it. Most bands make their money off concerts and merch. Hell, it costs some bands money to sell their CD's. And I sure as hell am not seeing a band live without listening to a CD of theirs.

[Mega-Tallica]

Idiots like this is what is destroying the music industry.

[overdriveguitarman]

Dang it...

Honestly, I wouldn't have bought all the songs I have right now if it wasn't for the free download stuff. 9 times out of 10 I always end up buying songs because I really like the full song I got to listen to.

They are actually going to be getting less money in my case.

[jayou521]

I believe they would ban your household from the internet through your Internet Service Provider.

So whatever company gives you internet service would be told to remove it.

Then probably other ISPs would be notified as well if you tried getting your internet from elsewhere.

[DroolCoveredMom]

YYyyyeah, you can tell the music industry is suffering everytime you watch MTV Cribs!

[DrifterUK]

Im intrigued to know how the hell you could prove all the music on your MP3 was legit on the spot

[Mega-Tallica]

If they are going to do this, then they have to lower the price of CD's. CD's shouldn't cost more than $10. They are too damn money hungry.

[Gowienczyk]

This is relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8)

[Mega-Tallica]

This is relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8)



Those CD wrappers are sometimes hard to get open.

[Hungryfreak]

I thought most research showed that people who illegally downloaded music were overall more likely to buy music and also attend concerts/buy merch.

[DethTung]

Ooh, if Anonymous finds out, they're going to go all-out.

[CyanFunk]

Prince is probably in full support of this

[DethTung]

Prince is probably in full support of this

So is Warner Music Group. You can't even post a video of you playing a song on Rock Band from one of their bands without the audio being silenced.

This law, along with Wal-Mart's Project Impact, needs to die.

[Mega-Tallica]

So is Warner Music Group. You can't even post a video of you playing a song on Rock Band from one of their bands without the audio being silenced.

This law, along with Wal-Mart's Project Impact, needs to die.

Don't even get me started on WMG. They disable videos of music they don't even own half the time.

[Gowienczyk]

Don't even get me started on WMG. They disable videos of music they don't even own half the time.

They can do that?

[DethTung]

Don't even get me started on WMG. They disable videos of music they don't even own half the time.

I know! WMG is the new PMRC- the overprotective, annoyingly-voiced first boss of the music industry.

@Gowie: Yeah! If you put half a second of material on a video, they'll silence the whole freaking video!

[Cubecubed]

They can do that?

whether or not they can,they still do it.

[DethTung]

whether or not they can,they still do it.

We need to get Mystlyfe in here and see what he thinks.

[MySummerJob]

Ooh, if Anonymous finds out, they're going to go all-out.
I just posted this on 4chan =P

[DethTung]

I just posted this on 4chan =P

Pics or it didn't happen.

[MySummerJob]

Pics or it didn't happen.
http://zip.4chan.org/mu/res/6217435.html

[CCDaDon]

http://zip.4chan.org/mu/res/6217435.html

So that's 4chan? The layout looks like it was made by a monkey with a bullet for half a brain.

I have a very hard time believing that this would actually get passed. Maybe a dumbed down version but there is absolutely no way that even half of this stuff could get enforced.

Also I try and buy music when I can but half of the time it's not available to me to buy. Stores around me have crap music selection and I tend to listen to lesser known artists.

[OrdealByFire]

How people use 4chan, I will never know. How or why, actually.

[Sgt Pepper]

how can you ban someone from the internet?

The mightiest banhammer ever forged.

But f'reals, this is interesting. If it ever comes to be, the backlash (as this thread has shown) is going to be terrible.

[TheClashTheClashTheClash]

Yea WMG is stupid. They took the audio off one of my Clash bass covers...i disputed it obviously because Sony has the rights haha. And WMG has taken down some of my other covers but i always dispute them and always win

[Mex]

Music is too damn expensive. $1 per song? I'd have $1,000+ worth of music on my iPod if I were forced to buy it. That's completely obnoxious and unfair.

Sure downloading music for free is illegal, but there are enough people willing to pay for the music that I don't think the industry is going to hell. This would suck big time if it were to happen.

I'd have to record the music off YouTube and put it on my iPod. Sheesh.

You know, most of us that were buying music before it was possible to download songs have a hard time understanding this viewpoint. It's too expensive? It's unfair?
Are you serious?

I don't think people that pirate music are bad people, but you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.


They are all greedy, that's why.

Isn't good enough that I buy a cd for a band that I enjoy? I guess not, I guess they just want more and more money. Money that they could use just to fill a swimming pool with cash and overflow it.

Greed. Ha ha.....

Of course they want more and more money, there is no business in the history of the world that says "You know what guys, we made enough, let's just stop charging and give everything away for free".


This is just gonna kill the music industry frankly. Most bands don't "encourage" illegal downloading, but very few have a problem with it. Most bands make their money off concerts and merch. Hell, it costs some bands money to sell their CD's. And I sure as hell am not seeing a band live without listening to a CD of theirs.

It's not going to kill anything. It was fine before it was possible to DL music illegally and it will continue to be fine. Most of the people that DL music illegally around here say that they HAVE to have it, it's not a "luxury". Well then, the music industry says "So I guess you'll end up paying for it won't you?".

[Mega-Tallica]

Yea WMG is stupid. They took the audio off one of my Clash bass covers...i disputed it obviously because Sony has the rights haha. And WMG has taken down some of my other covers but i always dispute them and always win

Same here, I've gotten a few of my covers taken down by WMG, disputed them (they never respond, go figure), and since they never respond to the dispute, my video stays up. They have no right to take down videos of something THEY DON'T EVEN OWN!

[Billy-93]

I dont get nothing illegally anyway. I hate that they monitor everything though

Like big brother

[Baanu_Rass]

The only thing about this that angers me is the amount of "I think you are a pirate, therefore you are."

The border guard part is pure bull****. I use my laptop/iPod to transport music because I don't want to carry around a ****ton of CDs. 3 times accused and you are guilty? That's even worse. They could pull you in on trumped up charges if they think you use too much bandwidth.

[OrdealByFire]

I actually had a couple videos WMG put a claim on when it wasn't their music.

It's a major fail.

[FloodOne]

Waaaaaaahhh

I don't want to pay for my music, so I shouldn't have to

/sarcasm

Seriously, grow up. Everything costs money to make, it should cost money to own. I fully support this.

[Gowienczyk]

and thus the artform and integrity of music is damaged even more if the bill is passed.

[Baanu_Rass]

Waaaaaaahhh

I don't want to pay for my music, so I shouldn't have to

/sarcasm

Seriously, grow up. Everything costs money to make, it should cost money to own. I fully support this.

So when your internet gets taken away and you get fined because they thought you were stealing something when it was being given away for free by the owner we'll see if you change your story.

But we won't because most (if not all) of us know you through the internet and you won't be on for a year.

[CCDaDon]

Waaaaaaahhh

I don't want to pay for my music, so I shouldn't have to

/sarcasm

Seriously, grow up. Everything costs money to make, it should cost money to own. I fully support this.

The thing is... None of us are really against having to pay for the things we want... The reason we're against it is because it's damned near impossible to really enforce and it flat out won't end in everyone buying their music.

[killer_roach]

The weird thing with ACTA is that nobody knows what is going on with it, or what is contained within it. The only thing we know for sure is that it's largely been the content creators responsible for coming up with provisions in it, with very little oversight.

While I think a lot of the criticisms are overblown, I still don't see this ending well if it continues on its current path.

[FloodOne]

So when your internet gets taken away and you get fined because they thought you were stealing something when it was being given away for free by the owner we'll see if you change your story.

But we won't because most (if not all) of us know you through the internet and you won't be on for a year.

You must know very little about bureaucracy if you really think that a law will passed just like it is first drafted, and the "Big Brother" rhetoric is outlandish. The internet won't stay unregulated forever, that's life. I'd rather have law and order, instead of anarchic freedom any day of my life.

My argument is with the people who feel that they shouldn't have to pay for something because it's too expensive, or they have been getting it for free all these years.

I, once upon a time, had a CD collection that was worth more than $5000. When Limewire and Napster were in full swing, I was still buying CD's from a store. I don't want to hear any arguments about how this will kill the music industry.

[sillystou]

Well this sucks...

[Gowienczyk]

It may not kill the industry but it would indefinitely damage it with the way downloading is doing wonders for promotion. Besides we all know this is a stepping stone for the fascistic removal of freedom of speech from the internet.

[OrdealByFire]

Everyone all around will regret if that bill passes in the longrun for sure.

[instantdeath999]

Waaaaaaahhh

I don't want to pay for my music, so I shouldn't have to

/sarcasm

Seriously, grow up. Everything costs money to make, it should cost money to own. I fully support this.

So, even when the artist is in full support of giving their music away, they shouldn't be allowed?

Have you ever viewed a song on youtube? That is just as bad as downloading the song from a torrent. Should youtube be stripped of all music?

If someone as iconic as Robert McGuinn can see the relevancy and power in sharing music, (http://www.spinner.com/2009/10/22/roger-mcguinn-tried-to-sway-metallica-on-downloads/) then so can I.

[sillystou]

If this passes the whole interwebz will asplode. Mark my words.

[Baanu_Rass]

You must know very little about bureaucracy if you really think that a law will passed just like it is first drafted, and the "Big Brother" rhetoric is outlandish. The internet won't stay unregulated forever, that's life. I'd rather have law and order, instead of anarchic freedom any day of my life.

My argument is with the people who feel that they shouldn't have to pay for something because it's too expensive, or they have been getting it for free all these years.

I, once upon a time, had a CD collection that was worth more than $5000. When Limewire and Napster were in full swing, I was still buying CD's from a store. I don't want to hear any arguments about how this will kill the music industry.

I also like law and order. I believe the guilty should be punished, the innocent protected and that before the government serves you, you serve the government. However, in this "thing's" current form it violates one of those beliefs.

And yeah, I haven't illegally downloaded music in 2 years and probably less than 60 songs in the past 5. I can easily stop/delete anything illegal before I cross the border.

Also, isn't this unconstitutional in Canada? Section 2 and all.

[Pwnz0r3d]

If you’re accused three times (just accused, not convicted) by your ISP of using their pipes for illegally downloading copyrighted material like music, your household will be banned from the Internet for a year and forced to pay a fine. Little Susie thrice caught with her hand in the BitTorrent jar? The whole family will suffer.
**** that bullcrap

That is just utter insanity and unfair

[FCTTFAF]

Well this blows. As stated, this might kill the music industry. Simple video of mine put up on youtube about this issue. (Yeah, that's me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmVm0HJkpE8

Why did the music industry just go down the drain?

[tridentgum0]

Music shouldn't be an industry.

[jonoo24]

Greed. I haven't downloaded music since 06, before i got my new computer. Limewire hasn't touched this baby.

[Pwnz0r3d]

People illegally download music sometimes for the same reasons as they download games. DRM

i have many new albums (i download songs i cant find in a store, using YouTube), but i cant put them on my Zune or make a Party/Mix/Mood CD because of damn DRM. A company under Sony was even proven to have placed rootkits (programs that make your computer go batsh*t crazy and lock themselves in a virtual panic room) in thier CDs

This wont kill the music industry for sure, but it will bite artists in the ass just like piracy

[tridentgum0]

I pirate, and I don't use Limewire. ;)

[Pwnz0r3d]

I use a P2P called Ares.

Limewire is full of viruses. Well i just learned Ares is too, so havent dl'ed anything for a good month now

[tridentgum0]

My only problem with buying albums from retail stores is that unless the band is relatively well-known, you won't find anything from them there, and that's total bull****.

[FlyGuyLXI]

I recently discovered a J&R by my college. It's somewhat expensive, but at least they have everything, including Funker Vogt and Orphaned Land.

This is kind of out of the blue, but, is it legal to get music at the library? I mean, I do that at times, and I often find a treasure once and awhile, but being free is too good to be true.

[RainbowMist]

On the bright side, maybe if this passes I'll have a proper music store within two hours of me again... Walmart doesn't cut it.

[Mega-Tallica]

And music stores that do carry a wider variety of CD's (FYE, Coconuts, etc.) charge you double the price Wal-Mart or Target charges you. It's not fair in any case.

[Mex]

It may not kill the industry but it would indefinitely damage it with the way downloading is doing wonders for promotion. Besides we all know this is a stepping stone for the fascistic removal of freedom of speech from the internet.

I'm not sure if you're kidding with that freedom of speech bit.

Either way, not being able to afford something doesn't mean it's ok to steal it. I can't afford a Ferrari but that doesn't mean I should be able to steal one and not be punished for it. But what the hell?! It's not FAIR! I WANT ONE! ME ME ME ME!!! Ferrari makes enough money don't they?!!

It's the worst argument I've ever seen, doesn't hold water at all. If a band thinks they can benefit from their music being available for free (make it up with concerts, merch, etc) then let them make it available. Don't rip them off.

[pacifistWITHgun]

*looks at thread title*

"Oh, it's probably some dumb law a repulican from Florida wants to pass or something"

*Toronto*

FUUUUUUUUUU

Terrible memes aside, they've been talking about stuff like this for a while, and I know people who've been called by Bell about torrents... Still, there's no way they'll be able to pull it off IMO.

[tridentgum0]

Yeah, they can try, but eliminating music piracy will never be accomplished.

[pacifistWITHgun]

Yeah, they can try, but eliminating music piracy will never be accomplished.

The first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the article was "10$ if this happens they try to book me for downloading an album a band has put up for free, yet miss all the illegal ones."

Not like it would matter to them, I usually don't download from bands on major labels...

[instantdeath999]

There really isn't, and never has been, any cut and dry line or morality on the subject. Even 50 years ago, people would record songs from the radio for their own listening pleasure. Stealing? Yeah. But, they would also lend their friends their LP's. This is something that has been done for decades, and when looked at from the right point of view (although just about anything can be justified with the "right point of view"), filesharing can be viewed as an extended form of that.

Personally, I think downloading without the intention of buying the albums is wrong. However, for my own listening, I view file sharing as an extended form of "borrowing". I know I sound like I'm just trying to justify things; maybe I am. But I can say that I buy an album, one that I already have a copy of on my hard drive, to "pay the artist back".

You can also view it as a "try before you buy" type of thing. If I were curious about a band, buy the album and hate it, I've essentially thrown money down the toilet. For a Ferrari, you'd be bat**** insane not to try before you buy.

Basically; downloading is not synonymous with stealing. It's not that simple.

[Mex]

There really isn't, and never has been, any cut and dry line or morality on the subject. Even 50 years ago, people would record songs from the radio for their own listening pleasure. Stealing? Yeah. But, they would also lend their friends their LP's. This is something that has been done for decades, and when looked at from the right point of view (although just about anything can be justified with the "right point of view"), filesharing can be viewed as an extended form of that.

Personally, I think downloading without the intention of buying the albums is wrong. However, for my own listening, I view file sharing as an extended form of "borrowing". I know I sound like I'm just trying to justify things; maybe I am. But I can say that I buy an album, one that I already have a copy of on my hard drive, to "pay the artist back".

You can also view it as a "try before you buy" type of thing. If I were curious about a band, buy the album and hate it, I've essentially thrown money down the toilet. For a Ferrari, you'd be bat**** insane not to try before you buy.

Basically; downloading is not synonymous with stealing. It's not that simple.

I can try the Ferrari out, you know take it for a spin. But I can't take it home with me and MAYBE decide to actually pay for it. Can I?

While you end up paying for the album if you like it, that's great, but I'd say you're in the minority and you can't expect an industry to go on the "honor system".

[FloodOne]

I can try the Ferrari out, you know take it for a spin. But I can't take it home with me and MAYBE decide to actually pay for it. Can I?

While you end up paying for the album if you like it, that's great, but I'd say you're in the minority and you can't expect an industry to go on the "honor system".

Mex is the only one speaking sense in this thread.

The wild claims of censorship of the internet are grossly out of proportion. It seems to me that too many of you have read 1984 too many times.

[Alright_Computer]

What the ****.

[ArmsAreLoud]

This is funny because my sister just started pirating last week despite my anger about it.

Screw you, Bethany, screw you.

[instantdeath999]

I can try the Ferrari out, you know take it for a spin. But I can't take it home with me and MAYBE decide to actually pay for it. Can I?

While you end up paying for the album if you like it, that's great, but I'd say you're in the minority and you can't expect an industry to go on the "honor system".

My point is, downloading music is not some revolutionary method of stealing. It's only an expansion of what has been around for years; lending your things to friends. The internet, in recent years, has made a number of things easier; mailing to friends (know many people who hand write letters any more?), getting news (you don't even have to flip through the newspaper), you name it.

I know I've personally lent hundreds of CD's to friends... I have the biggest record collection, and I'm perfectly fine with sharing. Is this a crime? Technically, yeah, when they go home and rip all of the CD's to their music library.

I'm gonna again cite Roger McGuinn, whom I really respect. Here's the article (http://www.spinner.com/2009/10/22/roger-mcguinn-tried-to-sway-metallica-on-downloads/)

Some nice tidbits:


"I talked to Lars, but he didn't seem to get it," says McGuinn, who presented Congress with counter testimony immediately after Metallica. "He was still firmly on the side of the record companies, thinking that people were ripping him off. My attitude was like, 'Hey -- it's the new radio.' You guys ought to be glad when people exploit your stuff and get it around because that means they're going to come to your concerts and buy your merchandise, and you'll make a lot more money that way."

"I'd say 90 percent of artists on record labels don't get money from record companies," says McGuinn, who once worked as a songwriter for $35 a week. "They get it from performances and other things."

On youtube

"It's a new radio. It's a new MTV. It's a new media," he says, noting that YouTube provides valuable exposure for music. "To put it down is to shoot yourself in the foot."

Perfect proof, I think, that downloading, above all, hurts the labels over the musicians. And do not quote me on this, but I do believe I've read that a rather surprising amount of people who download music go out and buy not only the albums, but merchandise and concert tickets.

[Mex]

My point is, downloading music is not some revolutionary method of stealing. It's only an expansion of what has been around for years; lending your things to friends. The internet, in recent years, has made a number of things easier; mailing to friends (know many people who hand write letters any more?), getting news (you don't even have to flip through the newspaper), you name it.

I know I've personally lent hundreds of CD's to friends... I have the biggest record collection, and I'm perfectly fine with sharing. Is this a crime? Technically, yeah, when they go home and rip all of the CD's to their music library.

I'm gonna again cite Roger McGuinn, whom I really respect. Here's the article (http://www.spinner.com/2009/10/22/roger-mcguinn-tried-to-sway-metallica-on-downloads/)

Some nice tidbits:


"I talked to Lars, but he didn't seem to get it," says McGuinn, who presented Congress with counter testimony immediately after Metallica. "He was still firmly on the side of the record companies, thinking that people were ripping him off. My attitude was like, 'Hey -- it's the new radio.' You guys ought to be glad when people exploit your stuff and get it around because that means they're going to come to your concerts and buy your merchandise, and you'll make a lot more money that way."

"I'd say 90 percent of artists on record labels don't get money from record companies," says McGuinn, who once worked as a songwriter for $35 a week. "They get it from performances and other things."

On youtube

"It's a new radio. It's a new MTV. It's a new media," he says, noting that YouTube provides valuable exposure for music. "To put it down is to shoot yourself in the foot."

Perfect proof, I think, that downloading, above all, hurts the labels over the musicians. And do not quote me on this, but I do believe I've read that a rather surprising amount of people who download music go out and buy not only the albums, but merchandise and concert tickets.

If it was the "new radio", people would just listen to it online. But they don't. They download it, take it with them on their MP3 player, burn it to CD's to listen to in the car, etc etc.

So I have to disagree, it's not the new radio.

And yeah I understand that this is a new form of what's been going on for years. But you're forgetting that because of the nature of the internet, hundreds of thousands of people can "share" music in a short period of time. You couldn't do that by mailing somebody a tape or trading CD's with your friends.

People download music illegally because :

1. They can
2. The chances of being put in handcufss is virtually nil.

That's it. It's not a revolution or a crusade for the betterment of mankind.

I'd have more respect for the people that did it if they just had the balls to say "Look, I know it's wrong, but I don't care. I'm ok with ripping somebody off as long as I don't get caught ".

I wonder how many of the people in this thread that feel it's ok to DL music illegally would go up to one of these artists that they adore and tell them to their face why it's ok for them to steal the music. I'm willing to bet that most wouldn't do it, because they know it's really not ok.

[Runesmith]

If it was the "new radio", people would just listen to it online. But they don't. They download it, take it with them on their MP3 player, burn it to CD's to listen to in the car, etc etc.

So I have to disagree, it's not the new radio.

And yeah I understand that this is a new form of what's been going on for years. But you're forgetting that because of the nature of the internet, hundreds of thousands of people can "share" music in a short period of time. You couldn't do that by mailing somebody a tape or trading CD's with your friends.

People download music illegally because :

1. They can
2. The chances of being put in handcufss is virtually nil.

That's it. It's not a revolution or a crusade for the betterment of mankind.

I'd have more respect for the people that did it if they just had the balls to say "Look, I know it's wrong, but I don't care. I'm ok with ripping somebody off as long as I don't get caught ".

I wonder how many of the people in this thread that feel it's ok to DL music illegally would go up to one of these artists that they adore and tell them to their face why it's ok for them to steal the music. I'm willing to bet that most wouldn't do it, because they know it's really not ok.

I would do that, and then tell them that I went out and bought their entire discography, a band t-shirt, a patch, and tickets to several of their shows as a result of downloading their albums.

[Oscar-Rio]

I can try the Ferrari out, you know take it for a spin. But I can't take it home with me and MAYBE decide to actually pay for it. Can I?

While you end up paying for the album if you like it, that's great, but I'd say you're in the minority and you can't expect an industry to go on the "honor system".

Comparing music to Ferarris is stupid.

[Sarge51]

It doesn't matter to me. All my favorite pirating sites are dying out, thus making it even harder to find not-so-well-known bands that I hear about occasionally. I'm going to have to go back to using Frostwire or something but that's not too secure and the program itself is ****...

ThePirateBay is gone. Mininova is pretty much dead. IsoHunt is... well, it's still alive, but I can't find music on it too good. Now they go and throw this in my face. I'd be too afraid to attempt to pirate because getting my already worthless internet cut off for a year is frightening. I'd have to develop... -gulp- SOCIAL SKILLS. D:

[FloodOne]

Comparing music to Ferarris is stupid.

I don't see you adding anything relevant to this conversation.

Please Oscar, share with us the wisdom you possess :rolleyes:

[Oscar-Rio]

I don't see you adding anything relevant to this conversation.

Please Oscar, share with us the wisdom you possess :rolleyes:

Sorry, did you miss it?


Comparing music to Ferarris is stupid.

[FloodOne]

Sorry, did you miss it?

:rolleyes:

Awesome. I feel like I'm talking to the ******ed guy at work.

[Oscar-Rio]

:rolleyes:

Awesome. I feel like I'm talking to the ******ed guy at work.

Call me Rain Man, honey.

[BBBD]

My point is, downloading music is not some revolutionary method of stealing. It's only an expansion of what has been around for years; lending your things to friends. The internet, in recent years, has made a number of things easier; mailing to friends (know many people who hand write letters any more?), getting news (you don't even have to flip through the newspaper), you name it.

I know I've personally lent hundreds of CD's to friends... I have the biggest record collection, and I'm perfectly fine with sharing. Is this a crime? Technically, yeah, when they go home and rip all of the CD's to their music library.

I'm gonna again cite Roger McGuinn, whom I really respect. Here's the article (http://www.spinner.com/2009/10/22/roger-mcguinn-tried-to-sway-metallica-on-downloads/)

Some nice tidbits:


"I talked to Lars, but he didn't seem to get it," says McGuinn, who presented Congress with counter testimony immediately after Metallica. "He was still firmly on the side of the record companies, thinking that people were ripping him off. My attitude was like, 'Hey -- it's the new radio.' You guys ought to be glad when people exploit your stuff and get it around because that means they're going to come to your concerts and buy your merchandise, and you'll make a lot more money that way."

"I'd say 90 percent of artists on record labels don't get money from record companies," says McGuinn, who once worked as a songwriter for $35 a week. "They get it from performances and other things."

On youtube

"It's a new radio. It's a new MTV. It's a new media," he says, noting that YouTube provides valuable exposure for music. "To put it down is to shoot yourself in the foot."

Perfect proof, I think, that downloading, above all, hurts the labels over the musicians. And do not quote me on this, but I do believe I've read that a rather surprising amount of people who download music go out and buy not only the albums, but merchandise and concert tickets.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759

[Nuff_Said]

It wasn't too relevant to me back in the day, but were Mix Tapes looked down upon so negatively in the 80's/early90's?

[instantdeath999]

If it was the "new radio", people would just listen to it online. But they don't. They download it, take it with them on their MP3 player, burn it to CD's to listen to in the car, etc etc.

So I have to disagree, it's not the new radio.



That part was actually in reference to youtube, not illegal downloading.




And yeah I understand that this is a new form of what's been going on for years. But you're forgetting that because of the nature of the internet, hundreds of thousands of people can "share" music in a short period of time. You couldn't do that by mailing somebody a tape or trading CD's with your friends.



But it's still technically wrong, isn't it? You're still technically ripping the artist (or, in most cases, the label) off, only in a much smaller scale.




People download music illegally because :

1. They can
2. The chances of being put in handcufss is virtually nil.



I suppose, but seems like over-simplification to me. Really, it's why I hate sociology; making such wide-scale assumptions. Why do people listen to music? Because they can. Because they enjoy it. Because it gives them inspiration for their own music. But that would all technically fall under the "because they can" file.





That's it. It's not a revolution or a crusade for the betterment of mankind.

.

Which, when it comes down to it, is my entire point. There's no master plan or conspiracy at works. It's just people sharing music, and hopefully those who download will go out and support the artists (and just throwing in the obligatory "the labels"). In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the movie business has it worse; the amount of kids who buy tickets for pg-13 movies to get into R movies is pretty amazing, even today.




I'd have more respect for the people that did it if they just had the balls to say "Look, I know it's wrong, but I don't care. I'm ok with ripping somebody off as long as I don't get caught ".


There's a lot more to consider. It's really in a whole different league then stealing a pack of baseball cards from a store.

For one, most artists on a major record label are not rewarded most of the earnings. Guess where it goes? The label. Michael Jackson, upon the release of Thriller, was paid $2 a record sold, an amount considered absolutely staggering. Considering an album sells for at least $8, usually more, that's a lot of money that doesn't go to the artist. I'm in no way using this as an incentive to not buy albums in a stupid effort to "stick it to the man", though.

Another is to consider just how expensive of a hobby it can be, something that goes far beyond the "wah wah I can't pay" stuff. Being a musicphile is more expensive than being a musician.

And finally, it's really a tricky thing when assuming that musicians feel ripped off by everything. For every Metallica, there's a Roger McGuinn. In the early punk scene, signing a record label was a taboo, and going into the business with any ulterior motive of getting rich and famous was strictly forbidden. Would these artists feel ripped off that thousands of people are enjoying their music?

And for the record, let me stress one more time... I think downloading music illegally and never buying the albums is wrong. But then again, I have no right to say what's wrong and what isn't.





I wonder how many of the people in this thread that feel it's ok to DL music illegally would go up to one of these artists that they adore and tell them to their face why it's ok for them to steal the music. I'm willing to bet that most wouldn't do it, because they know it's really not ok.

What Runesmith said, but this did remind me of a Simpsons joke.

Homer: Elton John! I'm such a big fan! I've recorded all your songs from the radio.

Elton John: Oh, that's sweet. Have a grammy.


http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759

Heh... great stuff.

[Pwnz0r3d]

ThePirateBay is gone.

No its not.

It was down for a few hours but its still up

[Baanu_Rass]

A question for all those old folks, how much did LPs cost in the 60s?

[CCDaDon]

^I *think* they were something around $4, but the value of the US $ was alot larger than it is now.

If this gets passed Thom Yorke is going to commit suicide.

[Soratar]

Goodness, I hope this doesn't pass. One thing that I use the youtube app on my iphone for is so that I can listen to songs that I don't have. Does this mean that I could be in trouble?

[Pwnz0r3d]

Goodness, I hope this doesn't pass. One thing that I use the youtube app on my iphone for is so that I can listen to songs that I don't have. Does this mean that I could be in trouble?

Yes, if this passes and you get caught 3 times your internet is gone for a year and you have to pay a fine

[killer_roach]

^I *think* they were something around $4, but the value of the US $ was alot larger than it is now.

If this gets passed Thom Yorke is going to commit suicide.

Adjusting for inflation, you mean?

$4 in 1965, by CPI, is like $27.50 today.

[FloodOne]

Yes, if this passes and you get caught 3 times your internet is gone for a year and you have to pay a fine

That is misinformation at its finest.

[foofighterfan4Mccain]

okay so if anyone is loking for good site to download from try cabos and if this passes the world will cease to exist i have alot of cds and illegal downloads but i will NEVER use the overpriced crap known as Itunes

[Mex]

Comparing music to Ferarris is stupid.

That's awesome dude.


I would do that, and then tell them that I went out and bought their entire discography, a band t-shirt, a patch, and tickets to several of their shows as a result of downloading their albums.

You know while I think it's great that you would do that, I doubt that most people are like you. So while the band might say, "Hey that's pretty cool", I doubt they would say "Oh yeah? I bet everyone does that, illegally downloading is cool".


That part was actually in reference to youtube, not illegal downloading.




But it's still technically wrong, isn't it? You're still technically ripping the artist (or, in most cases, the label) off, only in a much smaller scale.




I suppose, but seems like over-simplification to me. Really, it's why I hate sociology; making such wide-scale assumptions. Why do people listen to music? Because they can. Because they enjoy it. Because it gives them inspiration for their own music. But that would all technically fall under the "because they can" file.




Which, when it comes down to it, is my entire point. There's no master plan or conspiracy at works. It's just people sharing music, and hopefully those who download will go out and support the artists (and just throwing in the obligatory "the labels"). In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the movie business has it worse; the amount of kids who buy tickets for pg-13 movies to get into R movies is pretty amazing, even today.



There's a lot more to consider. It's really in a whole different league then stealing a pack of baseball cards from a store.

For one, most artists on a major record label are not rewarded most of the earnings. Guess where it goes? The label. Michael Jackson, upon the release of Thriller, was paid $2 a record sold, an amount considered absolutely staggering. Considering an album sells for at least $8, usually more, that's a lot of money that doesn't go to the artist. I'm in no way using this as an incentive to not buy albums in a stupid effort to "stick it to the man", though.

Another is to consider just how expensive of a hobby it can be, something that goes far beyond the "wah wah I can't pay" stuff. Being a musicphile is more expensive than being a musician.

And finally, it's really a tricky thing when assuming that musicians feel ripped off by everything. For every Metallica, there's a Roger McGuinn. In the early punk scene, signing a record label was a taboo, and going into the business with any ulterior motive of getting rich and famous was strictly forbidden. Would these artists feel ripped off that thousands of people are enjoying their music?

And for the record, let me stress one more time... I think downloading music illegally and never buying the albums is wrong. But then again, I have no right to say what's wrong and what isn't.




What Runesmith said, but this did remind me of a Simpsons joke.

Homer: Elton John! I'm such a big fan! I've recorded all your songs from the radio.

Elton John: Oh, that's sweet. Have a grammy.



Heh... great stuff.

If it's in reference to youtube then I'd agree, it is the "new radio".

Yes it's still technically wrong. It's not the end of the world, you're not a horrible person if you do it, just like DLing mp3's isn't. I've said this from the start, it doesn't make you a bad person. There are far worse things you can do then DL some songs.

It's interesting that you mentioned thriller. At 2 dollars per album, with an estimated 70-110 million albums sold, that 140-220 million dollars for Michael Jackson. So while I fully understand that his percentage of revenue for concerts was much higher, I doubt MJ would have forfeited that 140-220 million dollars.

I understand that many musicphiles see labels as, well basically "the devil", but whether you like it or not music is an industry and the companies that give bands up front money in the form of an advance expect to make a crapload. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

At the end of the day, my view on all this is, if you want to DL songs illegally go nuts. Just don't cry like a little ***** if the organizations that are losing money because of it make attempts to stop you.

That's all.

[MrFruitLord]

Why would they do this? I don't think music sales are doing terrible, and neither are movie sales. If this happens, I will have no reason to live.

I know, downloading all those singles you heard on the radio, and those songs on Rock Band is sooo important.

[CCDaDon]

I thought music sales weren't doing that bad... That is... till I saw 50 Cent sold 20,000 copies.

That album was promoted to hell and back. It should be a 500,000 by now.(Please keep rap opinion out of this. I don't like 50 cent either.)

[back_blows]

Uh-oh. I'd hate to have my internet taken away for downloading Hunted Horse's album (which he gave away).

[Hungryfreak]

That is misinformation at its finest.

I've gone through this thread and I don't think I've seen one person try and argue that downloading music is good because they don't want to pay for it. The general consensus has been that we all buy the music, the merch and attend the concerts, anyways.

-I've heard about every Mountain Goats record through illegal download
-I bought the CDs after I learned how awesome they were
-I bought tickets to the Mountain Goats concert that went on today
-I convinced friends to buy tickets
-I bought a shirt
-I bought a copy of Get Lonely on vinyl

-Regular Joe has heard a tune or two by the Mountain Goats
-He liked what he heard, but wasn't ready to pay for the album
-He never bought the CDs
-He didn't care whether or not they were on tour
-He had no reason to buy merch at that point

That tends to be the case more often then not.

[monkeyfish]

I've gone through this thread and I don't think I've seen one person try and argue that downloading music is good because they don't want to pay for it. The general consensus has been that we all buy the music, the merch and attend the concerts, anyways.

-I've heard about every Mountain Goats record through illegal download
-I bought the CDs after I learned how awesome they were
-I bought tickets to the Mountain Goats concert that went on today
-I convinced friends to buy tickets
-I bought a shirt
-I bought a copy of Get Lonely on vinyl

-Regular Joe has heard a tune or two by the Mountain Goats
-He liked what he heard, but wasn't ready to pay for the album
-He never bought the CDs
-He didn't care whether or not they were on tour
-He had no reason to buy merch at that point

That tends to be the case more often then not.

This is how it's been with me, the "fan" method. Since iTunes pretty much killed the record store market here, the only times I search for a free song is when:

1. I've been a fan of the band/artist to the point I have most of the discography. In other words, I didn't hear a new band on the radio and think, "DO WANT" while stealing their music.

2. The song in question is hard to find. Live cuts from STP, the GnR single from the End of Days soundtrack, and the Zippy the Pinhead theme song: I would be hard pressed to find those in a Walmart.

This is no way answers whether or not it is legal, but I feel this is a very ethical practice.

[kingtonyx]

A lot of smaller bands would be hurt by this. Most people would not take a risk on a band they've never heard. These days people can hear of a band, download a song, and pass judgement on whether or not they want to go to their show/buy their CD/etc

[Flawless]

I download a lot of television from torrents, I won't lie. What legal right will they have to say I can't if this did go through?

They offer 90% of TV online on their websites free at this point after the airing date and I'm one of those people that actually buys series of TV I've gotten 'illegally'. Best example is Arrested Development, it had been off air for a long time by last year when I decided to download the whole series. Best show ever, and I would have never discovered it without getting them from torrents.

I now own all three seasons on DVD. Profit.

And while this doesn't matter, I deletedeverything after I watch it, I'm not one of these people that hoards all the media I get.

If they start coming after me and my television watching habits then they are fully admitting that they are hypocrits (Episodes free online anyways.) and idiots (I won't buy any more television).

So bring it on, it's their choice.

(Side note: I also download TV shows from the UK and Australia that I'd never get to see without the torrents, so that's another whole segment of viewer all those mass markets will lose.)

[Swivle]

What Hungryfreak said. I hear about a band, so I might torrent an album or two. What money do they lose from that? None. If I like it, next time I get the chance, I'll go out and buy it. If I really like it, I'll go to a concert and buy a shirt. How much money do they make from that? CD(s) + Concert ticket + T-shirt.

Compare that to the money they would have made had I heard about the band, and left it at that. With no avenue to go down other than taking a $20 risk, I wouldn't do it.

Music is more accessible than ever thanks to the internet, yet these companies insist on marketing only the guaranteed sellers through playing the same song/video over and over on radio or MuchMusic/MTV. How is anything more than the casual music fan supposed to reach past the force-fed stuff when the freedom of the internet is removed? Our goal is artistic appreciation, but theirs is money.

I don't know about you, but it seems like they're pulling all the blinds so that we can't look inside, then telling us to pay at the door without knowing what's inside. No, you won't make more money; people will just walk away.

[nbalive2005]

I download a lot of television from torrents, I won't lie. What legal right will they have to say I can't if this did go through?

They offer 90% of TV online on their websites free at this point after the airing date and I'm one of those people that actually buys series of TV I've gotten 'illegally'. Best example is Arrested Development, it had been off air for a long time by last year when I decided to download the whole series. Best show ever, and I would have never discovered it without getting them from torrents.

I now own all three seasons on DVD. Profit.

And while this doesn't matter, I deletedeverything after I watch it, I'm not one of these people that hoards all the media I get.

If they start coming after me and my television watching habits then they are fully admitting that they are hypocrits (Episodes free online anyways.) and idiots (I won't buy any more television).

So bring it on, it's their choice.

(Side note: I also download TV shows from the UK and Australia that I'd never get to see without the torrents, so that's another whole segment of viewer all those mass markets will lose.)

They are not being hypocritical at all, owning is a lot different then viewing. The shows are free online but can you keep them? Watch them on your tv anytime you want? Burn it then sell them to your friends? No. Its good that you delete it after you buy the "real" thing but how many people actually do that?

It's like stealing 5 baseball cards, finding out that you love them/actually worth something then buying the exact same baseball cards from a store then returning the original 5. Is this a good thing?

PS: to the guy saying you cant compare ferraris to music...you have 10k posts but (apparently) your reading comprehension and/or critical thinking is shot.

[Runesmith]

This is how it's been with me, the "fan" method. Since iTunes pretty much killed the record store market here, the only times I search for a free song is when:

1. I've been a fan of the band/artist to the point I have most of the discography. In other words, I didn't hear a new band on the radio and think, "DO WANT" while stealing their music.

2. The song in question is hard to find. Live cuts from STP, the GnR single from the End of Days soundtrack, and the Zippy the Pinhead theme song: I would be hard pressed to find those in a Walmart.

This is no way answers whether or not it is legal, but I feel this is a very ethical practice.

I agree.

Besides, just because something is illegal does not mean it is inherently wrong or immoral.

[Flawless]

The shows are free online but can you keep them? Watch them on your tv anytime you want?


Technically on these points you can. You can keep it loaded and have TV-Out on your Video card. :p

[LankanLatino]

I've been without my laptop since Feb (on a computer at work) but I DID have a decent amount of downloaded songs.
That being said, majority of the songs were from albums I then bought, or are on my list of albums to buy. There were though some songs that I can't find at an HMV or Wal-Mart
I literally ask HMV to search, they haven't even heard of the guys I'm looking for. There's a DJ who puts out awesome mixes, but he's in L.A.
My Brampton (Ontario) HMV doesn't have his stuff, I went to his site. Sent an e-mail saying "dude I can't get your stuff at any store, you don't have anything for download, I heard 10 minutes of your stuff on satellite radio. How can I purchase some of your stuff"

and got no response
yet I searched on the interwebs and got 4 albums by the guy

What do I do now?
Not have the chance to spread the word about my favourite DJ because his labels made the law that I can't hear his stuff?

[benson111]

Honestly this wouldn't be an issue if people did the right thing....?

If you cant afford it, dont steal it?

If you dont like the rules, put yourself in a position to change them?

Get a job?

All valid points. The argument that the artist doesnt lose in this situation may have been valid in the 90's, but with many artists releasing there own music on there own labels, this no longer applies. Stealing is stealing, no matter how you spin it.

Agree with it or not, it dose not matter. This will go ahead without your approval, as there is no governing party on the matter, and there for needs no input from society or a government ruling to go forth.

[Gowienczyk]

I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture here.

[LankanLatino]

again, I'll be fine if/when the law passes. I buy just about everything I really enjoy. I ask friends for album suggestions and go and buy them. Starting my own little collection. It's just the problem of the rare music, the stuff that came out on a mixtape in 93'
Music forever lost to me and possibly to anyone, because of this law.
Some people in the states own it and are legally the only people allowed to. Then in 10 or 20 years it's like the song never existed.

[Runesmith]

I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture here.

Yes. This will set forth a horrific precedent if it goes into effect.

[Gowienczyk]

Yes. This will set forth a horrific precedent if it goes into effect.

Definitely a precursor to regulating the internet; thus removing anonymity and in thus dissolving the freedoms of expression, speech and privacy.

[Mex]

Definitely a precursor to regulating the internet; thus removing anonymity and in thus dissolving the freedoms of expression, speech and privacy.

What is it you're worried about though? I mean, what do you do on the internet today, that you will be not allowed to do later?

[Gowienczyk]

Freedom of Privacy and Expression, obviously.

I think it all comes to the "Will I be able to speak my mind?" question. This essentially comes to the frightening "tyrannical" view you get with everything being regulated, your every move being monitored. It is more than it seems in theory. It is not unsimilar to one of those cold war propaganda theories or fascistic future films. It maybe is a concept that is grasping at straws, but with the way politics are; I see this as an extreme gateway to the disintegration of freedoms.

[Mex]

Freedom of Privacy and Expression, obviously.

I think it all comes to the "Will I be able to speak my mind?" question. This essentially comes to the frightening "tyrannical" view you get with everything being regulated, your every move being monitored. It is more than it seems in theory. It is not unsimilar to one of those cold war propaganda theories or fascistic future films. It maybe is a concept that is grasping at straws, but with the way politics are; I see this as an extreme gateway to the disintegration of freedoms.

Unless you plan on talking about terrorist acts against the US, I doubt they're going to care about what you choose to express online.

[Gowienczyk]

You aren't getting the bigger picture here.

[Mex]

You aren't getting the bigger picture here.

Well explain it then.

[Gowienczyk]

No opposing opinions?
No expression at all?

If you don't get what I'm trying to say, then I'm sorry but you aren't listening or imagining.

[Mex]

No opposing opinions?
No expression at all?

If you don't get what I'm trying to say, then I'm sorry but you aren't listening or imagining.

That's a huge leap. HUGE.

No offense, that's extremely paranoid.

And saying "Bigger picture" over and over again isn't helping anyone trying to understand just what you're saying.

[Gowienczyk]

I'm thinking theoretical long term effects. Opening a bill that allows the government to monitor you (not unsimilar to planting camera's or agents to stalk you, personally) to see if you do as you are told, even online will only open more policies that could narrow freedoms even more. This is not a huge leap if you think of it as a process. I'm not saying our rights will be revoked overnight, mind you.

[Mex]

I'm thinking theoretical long term effects. Opening a bill that allows the government to monitor you (not unsimilar to planting camera's or agents to stalk you, personally) to see if you do as you are told, even online will only open more policies that could narrow freedoms even more. This is not a huge leap if you think of it as a process. I'm not saying our rights will be revoked overnight, mind you.

Ok I see what you're saying. It's not impossible I suppose. But really, don't we already have that today, with the Patriot Act??

[Gowienczyk]

Like I said, it takes more than one bill and if this is passed... it will only sanction more oppressive bills and thus the theory becomes probable.

[wolfdarkside]

if this passes... well, i borrowed an album from a friend and uploaded all the songs.

if they consider this illegal, then i might want to hide my ipod when we cross the border on vacations.

[Lawdog1521]

I'm thinking theoretical long term effects. Opening a bill that allows the government to monitor you (not unsimilar to planting camera's or agents to stalk you, personally) to see if you do as you are told, even online will only open more policies that could narrow freedoms even more. This is not a huge leap if you think of it as a process. I'm not saying our rights will be revoked overnight, mind you.

Then by that argument the government has no right to track any illegal activity online? That’s what we’re talking about, not forums or political websites. It’s not an issue of opinions. They can’t regulate thought, no government ever has.

One of the things I find funny is people think the internet is private. As is anyone with the know how and desire can find out just about anything they want about a person online, be it the government or a nerd wanting to steal credit card info.

I have no problem with a system that flags illegal material to be investigated. Thought and opinion aren't in question, it's things such as stolen MP3's and child porn that are.

[Gowienczyk]

The internet is public, it always has been. But it has allowed anonymity and freedom of expression. This bill despite it's legal intentions is a footstep to disintegrating freedom.

[back_blows]

The internet is public, it always has been. But it has allowed anonymity and freedom of expression. This bill despite it's legal intentions is a footstep to disintegrating freedom.

Been watching V for Vendetta recently?

[Gowienczyk]

Been watching V for Vendetta recently?

Actually, no. But heh.

[Mex]

The part about having to prove everything on your MP3 player is legit is pretty stupid, I agree. If I bring a case of CD's over the border I'm not expected to produce receipts for all of them to show I didn't steal them. I doubt that part of the bill would be passed.

[FloodOne]

Then by that argument the government has no right to track any illegal activity online? That’s what we’re talking about, not forums or political websites. It’s not an issue of opinions. They can’t regulate thought, no government ever has.

One of the things I find funny is people think the internet is private. As is anyone with the know how and desire can find out just about anything they want about a person online, be it the government or a nerd wanting to steal credit card info.

I have no problem with a system that flags illegal material to be investigated. Thought and opinion aren't in question, it's things such as stolen MP3's and child porn that are.

Bingo.

The Big Brother theory is far fetched.

[Lawdog1521]

The internet is public, it always has been. But it has allowed anonymity and freedom of expression. This bill despite it's legal intentions is a footstep to disintegrating freedom.

Honestly, in my opinion, if you don't have the faith and conviction in your beliefs to stand up for them, your opinion doesn't really matter anyway. Hiding behind anonymity never changed anything. It's those that stand up for what they believe that change the world.

It's not as though Martin Luther King fought for equality but was afraid of what people might think.

[Gowienczyk]

The Big Brother theory is far fetched.

If you think about it, the theory isn't as mundane as people assume.


Honestly, in my opinion, if you don't have the faith and conviction in your beliefs to stand up for them, your opinion doesn't really matter anyway. Hiding behind anonymity never changed anything. It's those that stand up for what they believe that change the world.

It's not as though Martin Luther King fought for equality but was afraid of what people might think.

I disagree, but tis is the beauty of the internet.

[Lawdog1521]

The part about having to prove everything on your MP3 player is legit is pretty stupid, I agree. If I bring a case of CD's over the border I'm not expected to produce receipts for all of them to show I didn't steal them. I doubt that part of the bill would be passed.

That part's hype, it wouldn't be legal to do so. Under the 5th amendment the goverment has to prove I'm guilty, not the other way around. If they watch me steal an MP3 or the like, then sure, I'm sunk.

But anything I recieved before I was being watched, who's to say where I got it.

It's like if I see you recieve $1000 for drugs. I can arrest you and take the money. But if I just find a $1000 on you, even if I know you have no job, I can't prove where it came from so I have to let it go.

[Lawdog1521]

I disagree, but tis is the beauty of the internet.

And I respect that. That's why for the first time in my internet history I wrote "In my opinion". :)

[Gowienczyk]

Isn't that at the end of every post on the internet anyway? ;)

[Lawdog1521]

Isn't that at the end of every post on the internet anyway? ;)

That's why I don't like it. I'm also proud to have never typed OMG.


(Except just then... D'oh!)

[Gowienczyk]

I lol'd.

[Ryuzaki]

I want to listen to as much music as the rest of you.
However, I typically can't afford it.
So, to all anti-piracy preachers, what should my next step be?

[FloodOne]

I want to listen to as much music as the rest of you.
However, I typically can't afford it.
So, to all anti-piracy preachers, what should my next step be?

Get a better job?

[Ryuzaki]

Get a better job?

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Lawdog1521]

Wouldn't that be nice?

Is it wrong to wait and earn something?

[FloodOne]

Is it wrong to wait and earn something?

In this day and age, apparently so.

[Joey-Z]

When you think about it,
Music doesn't seem like a reasonable commodity. It's like charging people to look at art or listen to a poem.

It all just seems a bit trivial.

[Gowienczyk]

When you think about it,
Music doesn't seem like a reasonable commodity. It's like charging people to look at art or listen to a poem.

It all just seems a bit trivial.

:)

[killer_roach]

The biggest problem for media providers is how to deal with the multitude of alternatives that exist in the market. Supply has expanded faster than demand could ever possibly do so, and price, assuming the normal laws of economics holds, would almost have to fall.

However, when it comes to media, rights holders have near-exclusive rights to sell their content. It's monopolistic competition, and it always has been. The problem, however, emerges when the rights holders keep the "monopolistic" part of the market in mind and ignore the "competition". If the value proposition for one piece of entertainment isn't as good as it is for another, then people will move away from the first one. Plain and simple.

However, try telling that to a company whose thousands of jobs are largely tied to a pricing regime that is, for lack of a better term, woefully out of date. Something's gotta give, and the end result for somebody is likely to not be very pretty.

Such is the way of business.

[kingtonyx]

Indie artists will have to basically give away CDs if this happens.

[trueguitarist88]

when is this going to happen? cuz my friend sent me a ton of songs from thepiratebay.com. what happens when they find you have pirated songs? im afraid...

[Joey-Z]

when is this going to happen? cuz my friend sent me a ton of songs from thepiratebay.com. what happens when they find you have pirated songs? im afraid...

It said you get a restriction from your ISP for a year.

[Ryuzaki]

Is it wrong to wait and earn something?
I'm.. sorry? I think I've been unclear.
If I had the abundance to be able to spend $15-20 on a CD, I would have no problem waiting to earn music.


In this day and age, apparently so.
We are in agreement.
Never before have people tried to listen to music without paying for it.
Your generation is clearly better than mine.

[Mex]

I want to listen to as much music as the rest of you.
However, I typically can't afford it.
So, to all anti-piracy preachers, what should my next step be?

It's really up to you how you spend whatever money you have. If you don't have enough to buy all the music you want, that sucks. When I was a student I'd save for months to buy a few albums, I'd ask for CD's for birthday and Christmas presents.



When you think about it,
Music doesn't seem like a reasonable commodity. It's like charging people to look at art or listen to a poem.

It all just seems a bit trivial.

It's like any form of entertainment. Movies, theatre, live music....all forms of art. They charge so they can continue to make whatever art they are involved in.


Indie artists will have to basically give away CDs if this happens.

Or make their music available and downloadable on their websites?

[neckermanncj]

Indie artists will have to basically give away CDs if this happens.

i lol'ed

[Ultimatum]

Yet another RIAA influenced law that fails to include the possibility of some albums that can only be obtained through file-sharing methods due to being out of print. Funny how laws designed to protect music and musicians are only further harming it.

[Onslaught_fei]

Im glad I basiclly run an internet data center with a direct pipe into the web. I am big brother!

[BuRn7 CaK3]

AOTS had a thing on this on The Loop. To be honest, I hope they do it.

In a way, I kind of understand why people pirate stuff (mainly music). But others take it way out of hand.

[Ultimatum]

Ok, so how am I to obtain out-of-print records that haven't been put on an internet store for download?

[Onslaught_fei]

AOTS had a thing on this on The Loop. To be honest, I hope they do it.

In a way, I kind of understand why people pirate stuff (mainly music). But others take it way out of hand.

Youre ****ing crazy. The people who suffer the most arent pirates. Its people with user generated and free content, its people who simply get accused with no proof, its the whole fallacy of the entire prognosis that takes power away from individuals.

[BuRn7 CaK3]

Yeah see, I'm not talking about those. I'm mainly talking about the music made these days that people only download. In a way, I'd download albums that are out of print, or extremely rare to find (Hybrid Theory EP would be one of them). Or if I find that EP anywhere, it would be expensive, because of how rare that EP actually is.

Current music, not the way older stuff.

[Onslaught_fei]

A lot of music that is out of print isnt that isnt even distributed anymore owned by major record labels would become impossible to attain. Posting rock band expert fc combos could get not only your youtube account banned but your internet cut off and litigation against you. I couldnt watch this channel which I do every night at work: http://www.justin.tv/montydj_ghost

[BuRn7 CaK3]

A lot of music that is out of print isnt that isnt even distributed anymore owned by major record labels would become impossible to attain. Posting rock band expert fc combos could get not only your youtube account banned but your internet cut off and litigation against you. I couldnt watch this channel which I do every night at work: http://www.justin.tv/montydj_ghost

Confusing post. I know what you mean, and I'm not against that. Because honestly, I would be the same way. I'm more talking about the current music. Pretty much everything in the '00's.

There are people I know who download music, and if they like it enough, they'll go out and buy an album or two from the artist(s). Then there are people who only download music and never buy a single album. THOSE are the people I don't like.

[Ultimatum]

Hell, the example I use most common is the vinyl version of the Wolves in the Throne Room release Two Hunters, which has been released within the past 5 years. It has an extended track and new bonus track (about 30 minutes of new material, IIRC) and was EXTREMELY limited in print. So, not only did it sound better, it had more music on it (amazing music to boot). Should I be shut out from that even though I own a legit copy of the CD version and can't obtain the tracks otherwise?

Hell, I'd wager that there would be quite a few releases within this past decade that could eventually gain a large cult following that are already out-of-print that thousands of people will want in the coming years, is it right to shut them off from that? This happens with metalheads a lot, especially as they get more into a band's discography and go searching for their earliest demos.

[Onslaught_fei]

People who download music and then dont buy it... would they even buy it to begin with? If its not accessible for free do you think theyd go pay otherwise?

[Ultimatum]

There was a study conducted that found pirates were 10 times more likely to purchase music.

[Onslaught_fei]

Music collectors will collect music. Youtube has helped my exposure more than hurting a record label's pockets. Hell the entire used cd market hurts the record labels but they cant do anything about that.

[FloodOne]

Never before have people tried to listen to music without paying for it.
Your generation is clearly better than mine.

Except that you're not trying to listen to music without paying for it. You're trying to own it. See the subtle distinction?

[supernova1324]

People who download music and then dont buy it... would they even buy it to begin with? If its not accessible for free do you think theyd go pay otherwise?

Great question. What makes people that since downloading won't be an option, they'll automatically go buy music?

If downloading continues, the user gets to hear music that they like, the artist gets no money, but they get a fanbase and recogntion.

If there is no downloading, then the user will most likely still not buy thye music, the artist will still get no money, and the artist will not get their music to their fans as much and their music will not spread.

[Ultimatum]

Didn't think of it that way, thanks for taking the post I completely misconstrued but somehow made a relevant reply to correctly, Supernova haha

[CCDaDon]

I went a good 3 years on the internet without knowing you could download music for free on here.(Don't judge me) In that time I bought a total of 0 CDs.

It's been 2 years since then, excluding the year I've been on the PS3 browser, I've bought about 15 and I plan on doubling that amount by 2010.

[kingtonyx]

Or make their music available and downloadable on their websites?

To pay for? I don't think you understand what I mean here.

Most people will not pay for music from a band they've never heard before. Maybe back in the old days, but not anymore.

[Ultimatum]

Yeah, but the proposed law will likely do the exact opposite of what you predict.

[Lawdog1521]

Ok, so how am I to obtain out-of-print records that haven't been put on an internet store for download?

A used record store has a lot of them oddly enough.



Besides, either the copyright holders are unknown or dead and they won't be on the list. Feel free to download away. If a company does have the rights and chooses not to publish it anyway, you'll have to make due.

[Hungryfreak]

A used record store has a lot of them oddly enough.

Find me Icecross's self-titled on vinyl, please.

[Runesmith]

Find me Icecross's self-titled on vinyl, please.

Ditto on Swans' White Light From The Mouth of Infinity, too.

[BuRn7 CaK3]

I use to download music badly. I stopped and since then, I've bought a good 100+ albums.

[Lawdog1521]

Find me Icecross's self-titled on vinyl, please.


Ditto on Swans' White Light From The Mouth of Infinity, too.

The point of my post was there are places to find them legally, without stealing them. I never said it wouldn’t require work. As to finding them on vinyl specifically you’ll have to work the smaller shops and network a little bit, but I’m sure it can be done.

Is that a copout? No, because as I said, the whole point is you can obtain them legally. And here you go...

IceCross (http://www.amazon.com/Icecross/dp/B00005M6AH/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1259567236&sr=8-2)

Swan (http://www.amazon.com/White-Light-Mouth-Infinity/dp/B000S5AY30)

[Ryuzaki]

Except that you're not trying to listen to music without paying for it. You're trying to own it. See the subtle distinction?

Don't be silly. You can't own music.
If anything, they're selling you the rights to listen to a song.

[Lawdog1521]

Don't be silly. You can't own music.
If anything, they're selling you the rights to listen to a song.

I guess the concept of intellectual property is just too much for you to grasp.

Or more likely than not it’s that you refuse to except it because to do so acknowledges the fact you’re stealing.

[Ryuzaki]

I guess the concept of intellectual property is just too much for you to grasp.

Or more likely than not it’s that you refuse to except it because to do so acknowledges the fact you’re stealing.

Perhaps it is because nobody has ever properly explained to me?
You should begin.

[Gowienczyk]

Don't be silly. You can't own music.
If anything, they're selling you the rights to listen to a song.

thisthisthisthis

[Onslaught_fei]

Find me Icecross's self-titled on vinyl, please.
DOOOD! I have that! I paid over 80 dollars for it all said and done. So worth it!

[benson111]

I find this thread so funny. People trying to justify the right to illegally obtain copyrighted material. Has any one that is arguing took a step back and thought about what they are saying?

Lets take a a second here and try to look at it from the artists point of view...
They pour there heart and soul into creating something that they hope appeals to someone in the hopes that they can make a profit from, only to find out that they cannot profit from it when it can be obtained for free. Whats the reason to create that art, if they cannot fund it?
Or how about this... You work hard to get that new television that you have been wanting, and get to watch it for a few, until someone comes in your home and steals it right in front of you, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Fair?

Yea, i dont think so either.

Back in the day you went to the record store, and got to sample the records to decide if you liked what you heard, and the radio is usually what brought you into the store to begin with.

Today its Itunes and youtube. Either way, I think artists should be compensated for their addition to their craft. Plain and Simple.

[Onslaught_fei]

Benson, you are assuming that the average or even the above average rock band makes money from their album. They dont. They make the vast majority of their money from touring and merchandise.

[toymachineSH]

"I don't know why people ever, ever try to stop nerds from doing things. It's really the most incredible waste of time."

[Gowienczyk]

Filesharing is just the new (wider) form of mixtapes and burned CDs. If you participated in those two, you have no leg to stand on in the "lolololit'sbadkay" argument.

[Mex]

To pay for? I don't think you understand what I mean here.

Most people will not pay for music from a band they've never heard before. Maybe back in the old days, but not anymore.

No.

They can offer MP3's for free online. If it's so vital to them right? Hell, they could band together and make an indie filesharing website. Get some companies that want to advertise on their site and it wouldn't cost them much if anything.


Filesharing is just the new (wider) form of mixtapes and burned CDs. If you participated in those two, you have no leg to stand on in the "lolololit'sbadkay" argument.

That doesn't make filesharing ok though.

"It's not bad because people used to do it in a much less convenient way".

Know what I mean?

[Gowienczyk]

That doesn't make filesharing ok though.

"It's not bad because people used to do it in a much less convenient way".

Know what I mean?

I don't see anything morally wrong with it, but eh. Then again there is two very different perspectives in this thread, heh. Just saying that people against filesharing are being a tad hypocritical if they have shared burn CDs, mixtapes, etc. in the past. It's the same thing, the internet just makes the scope of it a lot larger. Besides, without filesharing I wouldn't exactly be listening to what I am right now. I owe a lot to it to broadening my mind and taste so I will always defend it.

[Mex]

I don't see anything morally wrong with it, but eh. Then again there is two very different perspectives in this thread, heh. Just saying that people against filesharing are being a tad hypocritical if they have shared burn CDs, mixtapes, etc. in the past. It's the same thing, the internet just makes the scope of it a lot larger. Besides, without filesharing I wouldn't exactly be listening to what I am right now. I owe a lot to it to broadening my mind and taste so I will always defend it.

I hear ya. Back in the day I made the occasional mix tape for a friend, but never got into it regularly.

As for broadening your taste in music, nobody can deny the benefits of filesharing. I think we can all agree on what people get out of it.

[Gowienczyk]

I think the pros outweigh the cons, but eh.

[Onslaught_fei]

Music isnt going anywhere. People are not gonna stop expressing themselves in music. That will never change regardless of what happens. The corporate vampiric structure will stop whoring and siphoning the life out of music. They will stop regulating and controlling how many artists and which artists get music videos or radio hits. They will stop deciding who gets exposure and when. They will stop the strangle hold of choking off smaller record labels by buying them out or buying all their shares and then killing contracts to lesser successful bands. They will stop paying for laser light jackets, 28" spinning rims, 7 digit valued estates, and materialistic visual and sonic advertising bombardment that is mainstream music reality tv culture.

Music is not going anywhere. Record companies are obsolete. Great bands will do what they do and new bands will still play with passion. A new more organic record system can rise from the ashes and charge the actual value of a CD. 6 dollars? less? maybe more? Who knows.

[kingtonyx]

No.

They can offer MP3's for free online. If it's so vital to them right? Hell, they could band together and make an indie filesharing website. Get some companies that want to advertise on their site and it wouldn't cost them much if anything.

Exactly how would one prove they have that free mp3 legally?

I doubt most people would risk losing their internet access or even mp3 player/laptop over a free song.

[ArchangelZero]

I doubt most people would risk losing their internet access or even mp3 player/laptop over a free song.

This. There's no one willing to risk that much to get a song. They could just buy it for a dollar instead....

[supernova1324]

A used record store has a lot of them oddly enough.

Wait, you guys are complaining about the artist getting no money from their albums, and then you suggest buying from a used record store?

Artists get absolutely nothing from used albums.

[Mex]

Exactly how would one prove they have that free mp3 legally?

I doubt most people would risk losing their internet access or even mp3 player/laptop over a free song.

I was talking about your assertion that preventing illegal downloads would kill indie bands.

How would they prove it? Well if you're contacted by your ISP to let you know that you're in "trouble", you could try forwarding a link to the website where you obtained the MP3. Seeing that the band is providing free music, I'm sure they wouldn't bother you.

They do have to prove that you've done something illegal before they can take any kind of action against you.

[Onslaught_fei]

I was talking about your assertion that preventing illegal downloads would kill indie bands.

How would they prove it? Well if you're contacted by your ISP to let you know that you're in "trouble", you could try forwarding a link to the website where you obtained the MP3. Seeing that the band is providing free music, I'm sure they wouldn't bother you.

They do have to prove that you've done something illegal before they can take any kind of action against you.

I have a suggestion for you: Before you partake in a side of a debate you better damn read the OP and the link because you're wrong and invalid. You only have to be accused. If I upload a Rock Band video I could potentially be merely accused of illegal music sharing. If I download something called Iron Man thats a collection of iron man fancomics from a filesharing site I could be accused of downloading the movie and lose internet access. This litigation can potentially kill sites like last.fm. I suggest you get informed about the potential law in question before discussing any further.

[bmaninc]

One of my friends was banned from the Internet for two years. He wasn't allowed to be in the same room as a computer.

[benson111]

Benson, you are assuming that the average or even the above average rock band makes money from their album. They dont. They make the vast majority of their money from touring and merchandise.

Yes I do know this. My point is that it is still illegal. I'm playing good cop here really. There is no justifiable reason to steal, unless you haven't eaten anything in days and no one will help you. Also the record scene is starting to change, more and more bands are starting to release there own music on there own labels, and to fuel that they need profit. You cannot make any profit by giving away, or having your art stolen from you.

Also how do you think bands get their monies to go on tour? Most often the record label gives them a loan for equipment and stage setups when they are starting out. Until a band is able to become self sustainable, which in time is fueled by there status and there "single" worthiness.

[bermuddy]

One of my friends was banned from the Internet for two years. He wasn't allowed to be in the same room as a computer.

that's a lot of p0rn

[bmaninc]

that's a lot of p0rn

Nope, he found a way to steal credit card numbers. This was in the early 90's.

[bood-boy]

Customs officers of signatory countries will have the right to force you to prove that all the data on your iPod or laptop was acquired legally. If Charlie the border guard suspects that even one of the music files on your Nano was obtained illegally, welcome to the world of search and seizure without the benefit of a lawyer.


ill leave my ipod at home from now on.

[bermuddy]

Nope, he found a way to steal credit card numbers. This was in the early 90's.

was his online handle "Zero Cool" or "Crash Override"?

[Lawdog1521]

I find it funny how people gleefully stick it to the music industry as a whole. Aside from hurting the artist it hurts tens of thousands of employees. Not every person at RCA or Sony is a corporate fat cat. Look at the credits in the insert of a CD. Stealing music screws over every name in it, their families, and more.

Also, in refrence to the used record store issue, that was in regards to out of print records.

[Ultimatum]

This. There's no one willing to risk that much to get a song. They could just buy it for a dollar instead....

Really?

Millions of people risk a $150,000 fine each time they illegally download something.

[Onslaught_fei]

I find it funny how people gleefully stick it to the music industry as a whole. Aside from hurting the artist it hurts tens of thousands of employees. Not every person at RCA or Sony is a corporate fat cat. Look at the credits in the insert of a CD. Stealing music screws over every name in it, their families, and more.

Also, in refrence to the used record store issue, that was in regards to out of print records.

Im sorry but music cds, (and almost all entertainment in general) are an over priced hyper inflated commodity. Those Sony, Rca, Warner, etc... are huge corporations with their dicks in a holy ****ton of things besides music as well. The record industry is actually bigger, fatter, and more propped up than it should naturally be. Im sorry if you have a job doing something in the record industry thats not necessary, redudant, or just plain shouldnt naturally exist.

Bad things occur naturally for good things to exist. Sometimes when you continue to make good things happen for longer and longer and resist the natural ebb and flow of things the crash will be harder and much more devastating than it shoulda been in the first place.

[justin19954]

They should lower CD prices to $5, then I would start to buy them.

[jonoo24]

orrrrr you could earn the money. Music is a privilege, not a right.

[MrFruitLord]

Because we can all make so much money.

[svartikins]

This has nothing to do with illegally downloading music. Well, it does. But not as much as it does with trying to regulate and censor the internet. If this passes, then what will be next? And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what scares me.

As for the music thing, are there actually any STATISTICS for people who illegally download music?

And I mean, statistics for this sort of thing:


-I've heard about every Mountain Goats record through illegal download
-I bought the CDs after I learned how awesome they were
-I bought tickets to the Mountain Goats concert that went on today
-I convinced friends to buy tickets
-I bought a shirt
-I bought a copy of Get Lonely on vinyl

-Regular Joe has heard a tune or two by the Mountain Goats
-He liked what he heard, but wasn't ready to pay for the album
-He never bought the CDs
-He didn't care whether or not they were on tour
-He had no reason to buy merch at that point

[afterstasis]

i'm always down to return to the days of tape-trading, especially now that we have cdr's, dvdr's, tiny flash drives, cheap as hell memory, etc.

i'd rather my allowance of music-cash go to actual albums than piles of blank media, though.

[Mex]

I have a suggestion for you: Before you partake in a side of a debate you better damn read the OP and the link because you're wrong and invalid. You only have to be accused. If I upload a Rock Band video I could potentially be merely accused of illegal music sharing. If I download something called Iron Man thats a collection of iron man fancomics from a filesharing site I could be accused of downloading the movie and lose internet access. This litigation can potentially kill sites like last.fm. I suggest you get informed about the potential law in question before discussing any further.

I suggest you maybe, I dunno, relax?

I see what you're referring to in the article. If you're accused 3 times. I get that. I should have clarified what I was saying. The bill will not be passed in that format, it's not going to happen. ISP's are not going to agree to waste time and money banning paying customers because MAYBE they did something illegal. Everything will be ok, there there.


Im sorry but music cds, (and almost all entertainment in general) are an over priced hyper inflated commodity. Those Sony, Rca, Warner, etc... are huge corporations with their dicks in a holy ****ton of things besides music as well. The record industry is actually bigger, fatter, and more propped up than it should naturally be. Im sorry if you have a job doing something in the record industry thats not necessary, redudant, or just plain shouldnt naturally exist.

Bad things occur naturally for good things to exist. Sometimes when you continue to make good things happen for longer and longer and resist the natural ebb and flow of things the crash will be harder and much more devastating than it shoulda been in the first place.

No offense, you're really being douchy here. Many people make a living working for these labels, studio's etc. Some of them have children and even the ones that do not have a right to not have some elitist musicphile or some casual music listening cheapass punk crap all over their career and livelyhood. Your desire for free music is not more important than these people paying their bills and feeding whomever they need to feed.

You are not a white knight of rock battling the evil music label devils. Relax.

[voodoo618]

*goes to last.fm*

*records*

[Ultimatum]

No offense, you're really being douchy here. Many people make a living working for these labels, studio's etc. Some of them have children and even the ones that do not have a right to not have some elitist musicphile or some casual music listening cheapass punk crap all over their career and livelyhood. Your desire for free music is not more important than these people paying their bills and feeding whomever they need to feed.

You are not a white knight of rock battling the evil music label devils. Relax.

Yup, let's completely forget the thousands upon thousands of bands' livelihoods completely destroyed by the institution of labels.

[Lawdog1521]

Yup, let's completely forget the thousands upon thousands of bands' livelihoods completely destroyed by the institution of labels.

The ugly truth is most bands don't suffer from the crushing oppressiveness of the studios. Most bands suffer because they suck.

And for the few that have been pushed under, it’s unfair to ignore those that rocketed. The Beatles not only had talent, they had record deals. Look at Motown. The industry pulled a lot of people up and gave them a chance.

Also, why hasn't this thread been shut yet. All the other "I don't think it's stealing threads" have been locked.

[oogabooha]

I know, downloading all those singles you heard on the radio, and those songs on Rock Band is sooo important.

"Go fudge yourself"--Chef

Some people only have music to live for (myself included), and if anything like this passes through, I would be very dissapointed with the world.

Music is an art, you shouldn't have to be instantly arrested even when you buy the album after, you can put pictures of art on your ipod, but are you going to be arrested? No. BS

[Mex]

"Go fudge yourself"--Chef

Some people only have music to live for (myself included), and if anything like this passes through, I would be very dissapointed with the world.

Music is an art, you shouldn't have to be instantly arrested even when you buy the album after, you can put pictures of art on your ipod, but are you going to be arrested? No. BS

Nobody said anything about being arrested.

Also, "I only have music to live for" is not an excuse to download illegally.

Plus I'm sure you have more than that, even if you don't feel that way right now.

[oogabooha]

Nobody said anything about being arrested.

Also, "I only have music to live for" is not an excuse to download illegally.

Plus I'm sure you have more than that, even if you don't feel that way right now.

Let me re-phrase that.

Music is what most people's lives revolve around (I certainly know teachers and friends who are like this), and with that fear of always being monitored like a little-sibling, it will be hard.

I know it isn't an excuse to download illegally, I just think this whole law is retarted, just as retarted as that law about how gays should be executed.

[Mex]

Let me re-phrase that.

Music is what most people's live revolve around, and with that limited choice, it will be hard.

I know it isn't an excuse to download illegally, I just think this whole law is retarted, just as retarted as that law about how gays should be executed.

Umm. Wow.

Most people's lives don't revolve around music. Everyone likes music, I'll agree to that.

Also, comparing an internet ban for illegal downloading to executing "gays" is probably the stupidest thing I've seen on these forums. That's saying ALOT.

[instantdeath999]

Music isnt going anywhere. People are not gonna stop expressing themselves in music. That will never change regardless of what happens. The corporate vampiric structure will stop whoring and siphoning the life out of music. They will stop regulating and controlling how many artists and which artists get music videos or radio hits. They will stop deciding who gets exposure and when. They will stop the strangle hold of choking off smaller record labels by buying them out or buying all their shares and then killing contracts to lesser successful bands. They will stop paying for laser light jackets, 28" spinning rims, 7 digit valued estates, and materialistic visual and sonic advertising bombardment that is mainstream music reality tv culture.

Music is not going anywhere. Record companies are obsolete. Great bands will do what they do and new bands will still play with passion. A new more organic record system can rise from the ashes and charge the actual value of a CD. 6 dollars? less? maybe more? Who knows.

The very idea of music ever "dying" is completely stupid, to be honest. Music has always been around in some shape or form, and will always be around.


Yup, let's completely forget the thousands upon thousands of bands' livelihoods completely destroyed by the institution of labels.

I've actually been doing a bit of research into the music industry (a topic I normally avoid) for a project. I have to say, a lot of it is pretty disgusting... music is almost treated as a brand of trendy clothes.

[bermuddy]

i'm lol'ing pretty hard

[Mex]

i'm lol'ing pretty hard

I don't blame you :D

[bermuddy]

the "music is my life" comment is overly dramatic as is comparing illegally downloading music to what essentially equates to genocide.

[instantdeath999]

the "music is my life" comment is overly dramatic as is comparing illegally downloading music to what essentially equates to genocide.

Random comment: I absolutely love when people post on their facebook pages (I don't have one, but I had to watch a friend use it... for 2 hours!), and so many kids love putting "MUSIC IS MY LIFE!!!"... then when it comes to what artists they like, they name about 3 or 4 very similar artists that doesn't exactly support the previous comment.

Ah well.

[Mex]

Random comment: I absolutely love when people post on their facebook pages (I don't have one, but I had to watch a friend use it... for 2 hours!), and so many kids love putting "MUSIC IS MY LIFE!!!"... then when it comes to what artists they like, they name about 3 or 4 very similar artists that doesn't exactly support the previous comment.

Ah well.

What do you mean? Lil Wayne isn't worth basing your life around?? Aww crap I been doin it wrong ;)

[bermuddy]

who's down with lil' weezy? it's all about dat lollipop.

[bermuddy]

to be fair, i'll accept "music is my life" from people who earn a living through music. otherwise, no go.

[oogabooha]

I DID re-phrase it, most people's lives that I know usually are based off of what music they listen to. An example could be:

"Oh, I downloaded an album by this indy band, their songs have an up-beat feeling, so I will probably buy their album when I get the chance. Man, these songs make me feel happy"

[instantdeath999]

to be fair, i'll accept "music is my life" from people who earn a living through music. otherwise, no go.

What if I live on wellfare, survive on crackers and water I drink from the gutter, and sit in the middle of my one room apartment, picking my belly button and listening to downloaded music all day, until I lose my hearing a few years later?

[bermuddy]

I DID re-phrase it, most people's lives that I know usually are based off of what music they listen to. An example could be:

"Oh, I downloaded an album by this indy band, their songs have an up-beat feeling, so I will probably buy their album when I get the chance. Man, these songs make me feel happy"

i'm assuming you're in highschool.

[Banky71]

What if I live on wellfare, survive on crackers and water I drink from the gutter, and sit in the middle of my one room apartment, picking my belly button and listening to downloaded music all day, until I lose my hearing a few years later?

Then you have no life and music is a part of you not having a life.

[bermuddy]

What if I live on wellfare, survive on crackers and water I drink from the gutter, and sit in the middle of my one room apartment, picking my belly button and listening to downloaded music all day, until I lose my hearing a few years later?

then youd have bigger things to worry about than DLing music illegally.

[Gowienczyk]

Then you have no life and music is a part of you not having a life.

:rolleyes:

[instantdeath999]

I'd rather listen to music then "have a life", which by American standards, is going to parties, getting drunk and watching football :o

[oogabooha]

I'd rather listen to music then "have a life", which by American standards, is going to parties, getting drunk and watching football :o
^^

[Banky71]

I'd rather listen to music then "have a life", which by American standards, is going to parties, getting drunk and watching football :o

Last night I mixed it up and got drunk at a basketball game to be fair.

[afterstasis]

I'd rather listen to music then "have a life", which by American standards, is going to parties, getting drunk and watching football :o

well, i don't like football... then again, i imagine drinking/partying would suck without music.

oh, sorry, i blanked out...

[Gowienczyk]

Football is uninteresting anyway.

[afterstasis]

football fans, be afraid...

[instantdeath999]

Football is uninteresting anyway.

Get out of America...

... nah. I can kinda-sorta see the appeal of football, but I'd rather swim in a fish tank full of piranhas and live grenades than sit through a game.


well, i don't like football... then again, i imagine drinking/partying would suck without music.

oh, sorry, i blanked out...

Real alcoholics drink silently in a dark room, face up, with someone else's vomit deeply lodged in their throats.

[afterstasis]

alcohol fans, be afraid...

[Lawdog1521]

I love the argument that people can’t afford to pay for the music they put on their ipod.

It’s like saying you can’t afford gas to put in your Mercedes Benz and expecting me to feel sorry for you.

[Wolfbeckett]

I don't want to get involved in the debate proper, so I'm just going to give my opinion and then back off. Regardless of whether you pirate media or not, you should be against this "trade agreement" as written. Yes Mex, I know you think it won't pass like that, if they change it then we can have a whole new discussion about it. The fact is that right now it is written as we see it and that is the agreement I am arguing against, not one with hypothetical future changes.

The idea that any group of people should have the right to monitor our every move like that is, frankly, frightening. Somebody said something like "some of you have read 1984 too much." I would say that some of you have not read it enough. The point of that story is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the thought that something like this can be passed on an international level with no input from the citizens of the affected countries is disgusting. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but whenever I hear about something like this I have visions in my head of the whole system rapidly sliding down the ol' slippery slope. This getting long and I have to get back to work so that's all I'm gonna say for now.

tl;dr version: I don't give a **** about piracy, anything they try to enforce can no doubt be worked around, but the very concept of this level of observation of citizens is what has me pissed off about this.

[Mex]

The idea that any group of people should have the right to monitor our every move like that is, frankly, frightening.

I agree actually.

But, what makes you think they can't do that right now?

[Ultimatum]

The ugly truth is most bands don't suffer from the crushing oppressiveness of the studios. Most bands suffer because they suck.

And for the few that have been pushed under, it’s unfair to ignore those that rocketed. The Beatles not only had talent, they had record deals. Look at Motown. The industry pulled a lot of people up and gave them a chance.

Also, why hasn't this thread been shut yet. All the other "I don't think it's stealing threads" have been locked.

Except I've known many professional musicians, and I know from them how hard it is to make it.

Straight from my teacher, who's been playing professionally for at least 30 years: "If you expect to eat everyday, don't play music professionally."

The reality is that your success has no bearing on how well you can play your instruments or write songs. More often than not, your success is determined by how well your band's image and sound fit into what the labels decide is "the next big thing."

Major labels generally only go for safe bets, which means, any band that doesn't really innovate or bring anything new to the table. Of course, there are always smaller labels, but those smaller labels have much less distribution power and bring in much less money for the bands. These smaller labels would probably also be affected the least by piracy as well.

Anyway, the issue at hand really has nothing to do with piracy and has everything to do with our right to privacy.

[Gowienczyk]

The reality is that your success has no bearing on how well you can play your instruments or write songs. More often than not, your success is determined by how well your band's image and sound fit into what the labels decide is "the next big thing."

That is unless you become a studio musician, of course.