Downloading free music. Options

[GothpunkGClover]

Why is it illigal, should it be legal? give me you're thoughts.

[flaymzofice]

if they didnt want it to be legal they shouldnt have programs where people can d/l things.

That's like what someone else said before; tools exist which can facilitate murder, but which of course, is not the purpose for which it was intended. Does that mean murder should be legal?

do you know how much money van gough got for his art? i'm pretty sure he got none. if you're in it for the money you're not really an "artist" in my opinion.

The term 'artist' has been semantically extended to include those beyond painters. It is well accepted that art increases with value posthumously so this analogy fails on custom.

Now...the RIAA...im against them. Yea..free music should be illegal..but the way they're handlin it is totally wrong. Suing college kids, uploading fake music, and threatening to shut down kazaa n morpheus...thats stupid. they should just support iTunes or somethin like that...and not resort to force.

It's a few against many; as many others have noted, there really are very few options open to them in terms of enforcing the law. It may seem like bullying what with a big corporation targetting a population notorious for having very little financial means to begin with, but they are the primary culprits. You're hardly going to go after an accomplice when you can get the murderer himself, right?

As for why it's illegal, well, kryogenix has already explained that all creative works are intellectual property. Why do you think some of the layout designers here at this very forum, get pissed off when people jock their code and steal their layouts without giving credit? It's ignoring the initial effort, time and inspiration behind the product.

Copyright laws have formally existed since 1911 but the idea behind it goes back even further. Laws have simply been amended consequently to encompass the development of the digital era.

People have mentioned a compromise; well what do you think software such as iTunes is about? $.99 for a song is pretty damn acceptable if you ask me. Obviously when you hold it next to free, it's never going to measure up but if you made the downloading of all music legal, where would you find the deterrent against mass exploitation? Some people have said they do fear being caught and punished; floodgates will be opened for DVD copying to be made legal and all other forms of creative work, which begs the question: where does one draw the line?

As you've basically all said, downloading may be illegal but the majority of you still do it and I admit that I do too. It's just convenient. Simple as. Why get dressed to go out to a shop and buy a CD when you can lie in bed and have the same songs in your hands at the click of a few buttons?

I think it's important to point out that musicians/performers may be 'overpaid' but it's not through royalties. Concerts and touring are indeed a huge part of their income but it's sponsorship which really lines their purses. Just look at all the endorsement deals Beyonce has under her belt. If the sponsoring companies think the performer is worth the amount they're being paid in endorsements, then the sponsored party is hardly going to ask for a reduced sum, are they?

The real victims of our downloading culture are new and upcoming artists who require the capital recording companies invest to develop their music. By taking away from recording company profits, we're actually hindering the success of undiscovered and unsigned talent. Case in point, Misteeq, a UK R'n'B/Garage girl group had a string of hits here in the UK and were on the brink of breaking the much coveted US market when they were dropped from their record company...who had gone bust. Yes they could have been signed by another company if they were 'that good' but the point is, they were denied continued success because they were without a recording company to back them.

[*mipadi*]

It's a few against many; as many others have noted, there really are very few options open to them in terms of enforcing the law. It may seem like bullying what with a big corporation targetting a population notorious for having very little financial means to begin with, but they are the primary culprits. You're hardly going to go after an accomplice when you can get the murderer himself, right?

The thing is, the RIAA also uses a lot of techniques, or imposes a lot of rules, which are of dubious legality. A lot of the lawsuits they file may not even be based on law and would in fact lose if given a fair trial, but they never make it that far. The pockets of the RIAA are much deeper than that of the private citizen, so given the chance to go to court or settle out of court, many innocent people simply settle out of court because it's cheaper. The RIAA is just another example of a corporation exploiting the masses by taking advantage of its deep pockets, top-notch legal counsel, and extensive lobbying capabilities. When a private citizen issued by a corporation, his access to justice is disproportionate and largely unfair.

As for why it's illegal, well, kryogenix has already explained that all creative works are intellectual property. Why do you think some of the layout designers here at this very forum, get pissed off when people jock their code and steal their layouts without giving credit? It's ignoring the initial effort, time and inspiration behind the product.

As a somewhat tangential note, there are mechanisms by which so-called "intellectual property" can be protected, at least as far as credit goes. Licenses such as the GNU Public License, the BSD License, and the Creative Commons licenses, among myriad others, can give an author legal recourse to require credit, while allowing others to make use of his work.

Furthermore, the question is really whether "intellectual property" is a fair term. Is it "property" in the traditional sense? And are creative products, or works that expand human knowledge, really something that should be kept tightly under wraps in the first place, or should they be freely shared with the world? Should the answer to that question be applied generally, or is it up to each author? Does the benefit to humanity outweigh the benefit to the individual?

Copyright laws have formally existed since 1911 but the idea behind it goes back even further. Laws have simply been amended consequently to encompass the development of the digital era.

Ah, and that begs the question: Can copyright laws that apply to written media (i.e. books) apply to other forums of so-called "intellectual property", such as software, music, and movies? In other words, is all media the same? Should all media be protected equally or identically? And, most importantly, what was the original goal of copyright law, and does copyright law still protect those original goals?

Copyright law is not even a part of our Constitution; the Constitution only authorizes Congress to establish copyright law, if need be. Why is that?

It's important to note that copyright law is not meant to protect publishers, or even authors per se; rather, it's meant to encourage authorship, and to help spread creative expression. You have to ask yourself: Is copyright law, as used today, still encouraging free expression and authorship—or is it hindering it?

People have mentioned a compromise; well what do you think software such as iTunes is about? $.99 for a song is pretty damn acceptable if you ask me. Obviously when you hold it next to free, it's never going to measure up but if you made the downloading of all music legal, where would you find the deterrent against mass exploitation? Some people have said they do fear being caught and punished; floodgates will be opened for DVD copying to be made legal and all other forms of creative work, which begs the question: where does one draw the line?

Where does one draw the line, indeed?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the traditional means of distributing media such as music and movies is rapidly become passé in the digital age. Why should I pay $20+ for a CD when I can download it for next to nothing? Sure, there has to be some infrastructure to enable such downloads, but the distribution of electronic media over the Internet is miniscule compared to the distribution of physical media such as CDs (or tapes and records in a bygone era).

Industries come and go. Eventually some fade away and become cost-ineffective. A truly evolutionary business adapts to marketplace trends. Record companies can either come up with a way to make money from music downloads—and there are ways—or they can whither and die.

I think it's important to point out that musicians/performers may be 'overpaid' but it's not through royalties. Concerts and touring are indeed a huge part of their income but it's sponsorship which really lines their purses. Just look at all the endorsement deals Beyonce has under her belt. If the sponsoring companies think the performer is worth the amount they're being paid in endorsements, then the sponsored party is hardly going to ask for a reduced sum, are they?

And here we have a good example of how media companies and artists can continue to make money. People will never stop going to concerts. There's nothing like seeing a live band. The best stereo system in the world can't capture the essence of a live concert. The same goes for movies: Until we have enormous movie screens in our houses, some movies just have to be seen on the "big screen". Going to the movies is such a part of our culture that it's not going to go out of style anytime soon.

On the other hand, maybe record companies and movie studios can reduce costs by not releasing so much crap. Most movies aren't worthy of being scene in a theater; they look just as good at home, on my small TV screen. Likewise, most music is stuff I don't even want to hear recorded, let alone hear live. Maybe record companies and studios can win back some fans when they stop turning art and music into a marketable, commoditized product. But I digress.

The real victims of our downloading culture are new and upcoming artists who require the capital recording companies invest to develop their music. By taking away from recording company profits, we're actually hindering the success of undiscovered and unsigned talent. Case in point, Misteeq, a UK R'n'B/Garage girl group had a string of hits here in the UK and were on the brink of breaking the much coveted US market when they were dropped from their record company...who had gone bust. Yes they could have been signed by another company if they were 'that good' but the point is, they were denied continued success because they were without a recording company to back them.

The nature of digital media, however, is such that a band doesn't need a record company. Recording equipment is inexpensive, especially if one is willing to make an investment that could become a career. The costs of distributing digital media over the Internet are miniscule. The great thing about the age of electronic media is that artists are no longer beholden to recording behomeths—they can self-produce and self-distribute. I think Apple even lets some independent artists place their tracks in the iTunes Music Store.

In fact, I posit that an artist today wouldn't even want to sign to a major label, if he really took the time to think about. The contracts that artists sign with major labels are so one-sided that an artist might be better off trying to go it alone. At least he'd stay true to himself and his art, even if he didn't make a lot of money (and, hey, aren't artists supposed to be poor and starving, anyway?).