Album Leak (false alarm!)

[saintvox]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So you are saying that artists need to just start giving their music away and just "accept it" right off the bat before somebody has a chance to steal it and because they'll probly steal it later on anyway? Just because the times have changed and we now have the ability to do that? I realize we're talking about music right now but is this type of logic which has grown over the last couple of years continues to continue the world will be a very scary place

No I'm saying that they need to start take ADVANTAGE of the hype that it gives their music in other ways. Some artists already have. Gaga's doing quite well (sold over 50 million albums in 2 years) despite being illegally downloaded. The difference is that she knows how to channel the new music business.

It's a lie that you can't still sell A LOT of music with the biz the way it is. You just have to know how to do it.

Digital music needs to be cheaper first. I shouldn't have to pay 14 dollars for a CD that has no packaging, and isn't physical. The record label is saving money but not passing it on to us. Why not?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by saintvox

No I'm saying that they need to start take ADVANTAGE of the hype that it gives their music in other ways. Some artists already have. Gaga's doing quite well (sold over 50 million albums in 2 years) despite being illegally downloaded. The difference is that she knows how to channel the new music business.

It's a lie that you can't still sell A LOT of music with the biz the way it is. You just have to know how to do it.

Digital music needs to be cheaper first. I shouldn't have to pay 14 dollars for a CD that has no packaging, and isn't physical. The record label is saving money but not passing it on to us. Why not?

Ah. Okay that makes sense I think I get what your saying now. Not to use the food reference again, but you mean like giving out free samples so people want to have the entree

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by saintvox

It's a lie that you can't still sell A LOT of music with the biz the way it is. You just have to know how to do it.

Digital music needs to be cheaper first. I shouldn't have to pay 14 dollars for a CD that has no packaging, and isn't physical. The record label is saving money but not passing it on to us. Why not?

These are great points, and very true.

When pre-ordering a CD, it would be nice to be able to go in and download the tracks, even if it wasn't ahead of the release date.

I still buy a lot of records, and I love when the record has a code that lets you download free MP3s, or sometimes there's even a CD inside the record jacket.

Digital music is overpriced when you consider there is no packaging and no transportation costs, but the price of maintaining the developers, servers and other equipment necessary to support an digital store are likely a considerable amount.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Here's a legal/moral dilemma I have always pondered...

What is the general consensus about free downloading of music that you have already bought on vinyl LPs many years ago? You've already paid the artist for their work. But does that entitle you to an mp3 version for your iPod? How is this any different than buying a CD and then ripping it into mp3 files for your iPod today? IMHO, I feel that I am entitled to the mp3.

I've often wondered about that myself. In my case there are recordings which I've had vinyl, cassette and CD.

[Josh2003]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Here's a legal/moral dilemma I have always pondered...

What is the general consensus about free downloading of music that you have already bought on vinyl LPs many years ago? You've already paid the artist for their work. But does that entitle you to an mp3 version for your iPod? How is this any different than buying a CD and then ripping it into mp3 files for your iPod today? IMHO, I feel that I am entitled to the mp3.

You've actually only paid for a *sound recording* of the artist's work, and you can certainly continue to enjoy that sound recording on the medium that you purchased.

However, if you want the advantages of having it on a CD or as an .mp3, you need to pay for that different format. Otherwise, continue listening to the vinyl LP, or figure out a way to convert what you paid for into a different medium for your own personal use.

[used karma]

At the end of the day, leaks are gonna happen. People who planned on buying the album, will still do it.

[SaidSomething]

Originally Posted by 10milestereo

It most likely has a bunch of fake mp3 files that you can't access without a password anyway. There have been multiple rar files like this for the upcoming Kate Bush album.

Man, I can't believe Kate has a record coming too!
I hate to say this but, Aerial bummbed me out...a quick listen and it was blatantly obvious she didn't produce, arrange...add all her magic backing vocals and sounds...etc...I loved the title track...I wanna be up...up on the roof...

Now I have 2 music things to go mental over...

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I think this is an interesting subject (downloading music without paying for it). I feel like a reformed drug addict, because I used to download a lot of music on the original Napster, and then again on WinMX.

I've done a pretty good job of purging most of those downloads, though I'm sure I still have a few songs here and there.

Ultimately, downloading music without paying for it first is stealing. You can try to justify it any which way you choose, but if you were one of those unfortunate people who got busted by the attorneys for the RIAA, the judge you stood in front of would not care one tiny iota that you intended to purchase it later down the road, or that you pre-ordered it, or that you've since bought all of the artists albums after getting a free sample. Stealing is stealing, plain and simple, and music should not be treated any differently than any other product.

Sorry to sound like one of 'those guys'...you know, like the ex-smokers who preach about how bad smoking is? I feel very strongly about the subject, and typically will take any opportunity to rant about it.

I am with you 100% here. I can remember looking for, finding and downloading, old 80s songs that I hadn't heard in years. I couldn't believe it was free! lol

Seriously though, as you stated, stealing is stealing, end of story. One can justify it all day long, but it's wrong. I have to say, I'm somewhat turned off by the level of entitlement I see among many people when it comes to this kind of stuff (and other stuff in the world, too- downfall of my profession, I think). Just because you want something NOW, doesn't mean you're entitled to it! Just because it's actually *out there* doesn't make it right.

I'm old, I know this.

[saintvox]

So I have a question for you guys.

If In Your Dream leaks out on Youtube, and we all go watch the videos, did you just commit theft? What if you just listen to music on Youtube videos and never buy it.

Is that different than downloading it?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by saintvox

So I have a question for you guys.

If In Your Dream leaks out on Youtube, and we all go watch the videos, did you just commit theft? What if you just listen to music on Youtube videos and never buy it.

Is that different than downloading it?

No it's not considered "theft" to watch it on Youtube but the person who posted it there could be in trouble IMO.Usually the record companies get unwanted leaks removed pretty quickly from there.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

No it's not considered "theft" to watch it on Youtube but the person who posted it there could be in trouble IMO.Usually the record companies get unwanted leaks removed pretty quickly from there.

So, in other words, it's okay if someone else downloads stuff illegally and then gives it to you? When you listen to music on YouTube that wasn't authorized by the artist or the label, then you are effectively abetting in the illegal practice of uploading copyrighted works. And whether you download something or merely stream it, it's the same thing.

[saintvox]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

So, in other words, it's okay if someone else downloads stuff illegally and then gives it to you? When you listen to music on YouTube that wasn't authorized by the artist or the label, then you are effectively abetting in the illegal practice of uploading copyrighted works. And whether you download something or merely stream it, it's the same thing.

Copyright is a sticky thing though. Stevie herself has ran into trouble with it hasn't she? Didn't someone sue her for stealing the chorus of Sara from a poem that they sent her?

And also what about demos? That's stealing as well. Especially considering that most of them are the same thing as the actual released product.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

So, in other words, it's okay if someone else downloads stuff illegally and then gives it to you? When you listen to music on YouTube that wasn't authorized by the artist or the label, then you are effectively abetting in the illegal practice of uploading copyrighted works. And whether you download something or merely stream it, it's the same thing.

Listening to it on Youtube and downloading it aren't quite the same from a legal perspective though..That is how all those people got charged from those file sharing sites a few years back.I guess to listen or not is more an ethical dilemna..With Stevie's songs like most everyone else on here of course I'll buy the CD and more than one.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

So, in other words, it's okay if someone else downloads stuff illegally and then gives it to you? When you listen to music on YouTube that wasn't authorized by the artist or the label, then you are effectively abetting in the illegal practice of uploading copyrighted works. And whether you download something or merely stream it, it's the same thing.

Yeah, right now there's technically a loophole as far as streaming's concerned, but that may change in the near future, according to this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

[Macfanforever]

If the feds pass the new bill about a performance tax which radio station around the country got to pay when the record is played.

http://www.noperformancetax.org/

It this happens .The radio stations will have to come up with different programming without music.Like all news,talk and sports programming in its place.