Can't we all just get along? ;)

Look at the ticket prices. Your answer IS there. This isn't about art(anymore).

ALTHOUGH, I think Christine's new album would be a Perfect example of doing it for the art of it. :woohoo:

Actually, it is. Getting something for free that you would normally pay for is called stealing, there's just no other way around it. By downloading it, you eliminate the potential of the sale. I don't see how that can be more clear.

------

And yeah, essentially it costs less than a dollar to make a CD. Do any of you realize how many people actually make it big in the record industry? Try less than 1% of the industry. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to build an adequate recording studio, and we're not just talking Pro Tools here. Major labels literally have to have a handful of major stars a year-- HAVE TO. This is why the "scene" changes so frequently.

And of course, the public's perception of the industry is awards shows and MTV's Cribs with seemingly mediocre performers with four houses and 5 million dollar diamond studs in each ear, but that performer is few and far between. There are still millions of other bands (on major labels even) in tiny vans travelling across the country playing clubs.

I imagine FM definitely broke even with this whole thing. They were getting $750,000-a-show, and that's just for performing (at least in 2003). Revenue is revenue, no matter what.

if i buy say you will, the download doesn't really cut into their record sales, does it? And, even with what you say, i feel the fact that i bought Timespace 3 times (1 tape, 2 cd's) and The Dance twice, and paid to see them twice in 2004, will help to keep them afloat...

I don't know where you're getting the idea that by making a copy of a song, it's suddenly legal to spread around. If I buy the CD, and burn a copy for you the potential sale to you is eliminated. An addition to the sale? What? :eek:

For your reading enjoyment: Highlights from A&M V. Napster

Downloading songs is considering "wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works" = direct copyright infringement. By ripping a song form a CD you are not transforming the song, you're just putting it in a different medium.

I think a good bulk of people think downloading is okay because hey, Fleetwood Mac is a "supergroup" and they have millions of dollars and spend their days in Hawaii sipping teas. It's not okay. And buying a thousand copies of SYW doesn't justify burning one.

Wait, if I bought Say You Will, then burned an extra copy for myself...haven't I already bought it, while also not eliminating a potential sale, while also burning a copy? Whatever. It's good to know there is one person out there who's never burned anything. Kudos to you. Thanks for popping in to clarify for everyone. :wavey:

:shocked:

I can't BELIEVE there are people getting so lit up about downloading/burning albums. The deal is that it happens anyway..people steal CD's from stores,people download,burn,whatever...not everyone can afford every single piece of music that they want. It's wrong,but it happens anyway!
The main thing is that the music is heard & appreciated...there are even artists out there that value that more than the money (can you believe that! :eek: OMG! ;) )
And at the end of the day,there are far worse crimes happening in the world.Artists know what they are getting into when they choose music as their career..they especially know that if downloading doesn't ruin 'em then the label's probably gonna screw 'em over anyway!

-Bryan

Well, I have to say that I have never burnt a CD... ever.

However, that is my personal choice for my own personal reasons. I have produced two CDs on my own and it costs a lot of money and I just can't justify burning CDS. I'm from the old school. Really old.

Besides, I like the booklets with the lyrics and, hopefully, liner notes and cool pictures.

Amber- I know what it's like to have NO money and to have to freak out about every cent. It sucks and I'm sorry you have to deal with it.

Lux- I also know what it's like to not have food and that REALLY sucks. I was homeless for a short period in my early twenties and that combined with the Bush Sr. recession really slammed me when it came to the necessities in life. I hope things get better for you soon.

I understand why people burn CDs, but I don't think it's cool. If I can't afford the music, I don't buy it and don't possess it. As a former semi-professional musician, I know what it's like to try and get people to actually buy your product that you worked long and hard to produce. These days, I just give away the surplus of CDs that I have laying around. But that's my choice to give them away- I'm not making my living as a working musician.

I had never burned a cd, either, towie. I don't think it's super cool. unless it's another copy for me. But someone gave it to me. But, if i buy the CD used, does the artist still get money, again? I didn't think so. I buy a lot of my CD's used (a lot, ha!, i only have like, 20) but anyway

Ah, i didn't even know whether the artist or record company got the used sale money. I guess someone besides the shop would have to, or they'd shut those places down. I'm not sure how it actually works, but yeah, if the record company gets money, they would probably rather have it resold. :confused:
How mysterious. I don't want to research it right this second, though... :p

Wow! A little defensive here, eh? Calm down, folks.

First of all, there's a big difference between burning a copy of a CD you already own to say...use in the car, and burning a CD to sell or give away. When I referred to potential sales, there is no line between used CDs or new CDs. The RI really isn't really concerned about that. They're concerned with you actually buying one of them.

Trackaghost: Taping things off TV is not copyright infringement. In fact, there is a case involving the Betamax (Sony Corp. V. Universal City Studios ) where the court ruled that while the Betamax was a contributory infringer (due to people who copy for the purpose of selling), that taping things of TV for the purpose of watching it later ("time-shifting") is okay. And you're right, there is no evidence the supports the claim that downloading is detrimental to CD sales...but there is no evidence that supports that it's helping it either.

Amber: I never said I haven't burned a CD. I never said I haven't copied something on TV. Also, there's really no point in the industry getting money from the sale of used CDs, they only need to profit once. I'm not sure how that works out but I'm sure it's complicated since the prices are so low.

Lux: It's called Copyright Law. I could care less what you do. But since I was originally responding to your claim that downloading is not stealing, I present the facts as they are.

It's pretty funny to see how creative people can be with their rationalizations.

1. Record companies are exploitative so that makes it OK
2. I buy most of my CDs so that makes it OK
3. Downloading actually helps sales so that makes it OK
4. Fleetwood Mac are rich so that makes it OK
5. I'm poor so that makes it OK

Very entertaining, though pitiful. Why don't the thieves just say "I took it and you can't stop me"? Do they feel better about themselves by providing excuses?

I did it cause someone gave it to me. I don't know why they did it. Add that to your list. What's your excuse? Or, have you never burned anything? Or downloaded anything? probably not. Thanks for sharing.

Well,I don't recall anyone actually saying it was okay,but yes,those are exactly the excuses I used to use when I would steal CD's..you're very clever :nod:
Anyways,no,It didn't make me feel better by providing excuses because at the end of the day I took them and nobody stopped me! :p


-Bryan

Here's an article...
 

about live unauthorized recordings and how the RIAA does not see it as a threat as much as some are led to be believed (The link to this article is from my trade pages):

http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhia...e-Article.html

Brian j.

OMG, I used to LOVE getting refund checks towards the end of semester. :laugh: Those were happy days in my world!!!!!!!

Sesly... :)
But, wait, refund? for ?. But when i got my loan i was like "I'M RICH! I'M RICH!"
hehehe...

Um...I was further explaining the case and it's relation to what we were discussing, and providing the link if anyone else wanted to read up on it.

I've read the school study before but it's clearly just a hypothesis. Back when Napster was new and available, I definitely used it to check out new artists and subsequently buy their CDs, but if you consider how many millions of people used the service...there's just no correlation.

If I had extra money in my account for books, they'd send a check for that amount. Or if I waived health insurance, I'd get a check for that. Happy, happy days. :thumbsup:

And as long as you buy the damn CD eventually, I don't give two ****s about the burned copy of SYW you have. :laugh:

That sounds familiar...
 

to what a Pearl Jam band member said on the SONY website when asked the following question:

Q-"Do you care that some people may make copies of the "Official Bootleg" cd's that you're selling on the Ten Fan Club website? And if so does it bother you that you'll lose money in the process?"

A-"Don't give a ****"-Eddie Vedder

:laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:
Stawwppp!

No one's saying don't download. Just be smart about it.

There are tons of great bands with websites that offer free mp3s and even some big name artists who stream their album (free) online before it's physical release. Even Fleetwood Mac did this.

The problem lies in the fact that millions of people do this every day--they download entire albums, or they burn enough so that there is really no reason to buy the actual album at all. And then, it doesn't matter if the band is wonderful because they won't have generated enough sales for the record company to consider another release.

I used to steal & steal often. I used clients like BearShare. Then I began to see just how little was even worth stealing, let alone buying.

I have done more than my fair share also. I admit, it's stealing. HOWEVER(and this doesn't excuse it), I can say, almost without exception, that I wouldn't have bought the title anyway. So, although I might've downloaded the artist's work, my effect on their checking account balance was zero.
I gladly pay for the work of artist that I know and love.

I used to download tons of stuff, both from file sharing and the iTunes store. Until I got my iPod, and started listening a lot through headphones.

Listening through headphones opened up a whole new musical world for me. Listening intently to what producers and mixers have done with music is fascinating to me, and has put a new spin on records I've heard hundreds of times (even some Mac stuff).

The problem with most downloaded music, including iTunes' AAC files, is they "sound" compressed. Hi hats and cymbal crashes sound swirly and synthesized. That pure Hammond organ sound takes on a breathy quality. Vocals seem to have less range and occasionally distort. Ripping CDs directly, either lossless or at 320mbps, eliminated or at least improved this to the point I can barely listen to compressed files anymore.

I agree - I think the sound on the CD is MUCH better.

Jesus doesn't love thieves!

Don't know if this point got cleared up from a couple of pages ago, because all of this is insufferable, but it's perfectly okay for you to make a copy of a legally purchased CD for YOURSELF. It's fine to burn one for the car, or to put the tracks on your iPod. Where that stops being okay is when you transfer or give a copy of that music to anyone besides yourself or someone in your household.

Wait until you hear SACD.

[offtopic]

That was ridiculous, stupid and uncalled for. Oh, and wrong. Luke 23:39-43... but I suppose you're fairly cool, what with your Strongbad avatar and all (I LOVE homestarrunner).

[/offtopic]

Sorry for that. Now... I haven't heard SACD (couldn't justify getting it since no FM or other favorite stuff has been released on the format). But DVD-A is fantastic. The FM DVD-As are very good, but Steely Dan's "Gaucho" is amazing. It really opens up the mix. Some of their later stuff is so good it seems to have been recorded with 5.1-channel audio in mind.

THANK YOU! My words were being a little twisted earlier.

I must be in...
 

the minority since I never downloaded/burnt official material from the 'net...

I have spent quite a-bit more money this year on new cd releases mainly due to the record companies adding extra's to official releases such as bonus discs/DVD's/etc. to lure people away from downloading releases...And I for one like this way of enticement, Hopefully others do too.

Brian j.

Jesus to the thief on the cross: "Today you shall be with me in paradise." Luke 23:42. If you're going to make off-topic snipes at people at least get your facts straight.

I see the logic of this, but I guess I have to wonder where do we draw the line? For instance, if I give a copy to a member of my household, that means they won't buy it. How is that different from giving it to a friend?

I am on the fence about the issue. I download songs as kind of testers, then only buy the album if I like it enough. But I can't say this is technically any better than someone who downloads and never buys the album, because we've both downloaded the same song for free, and according to the record industry, we're both stealing.

That being said, personally, I don't feel comfortable downloading an entire CD and burning it. But again technically the record industry doesn't see a difference.

Sure they do. When they sue people for infringment, the RIAA can charge $10,000+ per song downloaded. They usually settle for quite a bit less than that. Not sure exactly if they're looking at songs downloaded using a particular method (through Napster, KaZaA, etc.) or what...but I suppose the potential is there.

I think Hayley was being sarcastic, but it's nice to know that Jesus loves Madalyn O'Hair after all. :D

Hayley was being sarcastic, but Hayley also doesn't give a crap if anyone finds her as funny as she finds herself.

Frankly, as a person actually working in the recording industry, I'd rather make off-topic snipes than belabor anyone here with reiterating that downloading a song, a thousand songs, an album, a thousand albums- doesn't matter- is stealing in the eyes of the law, and that it affects an entire food chain of people, from the artist to their management to the top tiers of the record labels all the way down to ME.

Blahblahblahstealingisbadcakes.

Word.

I was actually waiting for you to pop in. It goes right on down to me attempting to join a job force that doesn't really accept applicants. I joke about it a lot but gosh... :shrug:

Welcome to my world. :wavey:

Ditto. I usually don't mean to offend, it just works out that way! :xoxo:

Speaking of rappers....doesn't the record industry promote STEALING when they promote groups that STEAL ooh sorry...SAMPLE other groups riffs and hooks? Atleast play your own music guys.

NO. Every sample used in any song has to be paid for. Seriously, even for a microsecond. It's funny because the licensing process is pretty simple, and a group that fails to get authorization will pay waaaay more after the fact.