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?).

[flaymzofice]

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.

What techniques? Which rules? Is it fact that the lawsuits filed are not based on law? I'm in the UK and therefore not familiar with the manner in which cases are handled in the US but I am wondering whether corporate lawyers are in fact as aggressive as you seem to be painting them?

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.

I used the comparison of the layouts offered at cB to bring the analogy closer to home but credit and actual reward are obviously different as you have pointed out. Again, talking about law with relevance to British legislation so you'll have to forgive the disparities.

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?

And what is the 'traditional' sense in which the term 'property' is used? The whole concept of intellectual property is purely as an extension of self...depending on which theory justifying the existence of intellectual property, one follows. That would lead to a digression from the original topic since the arguments for and against intellectual property seem to go in circles. There is however, a distinction to be drawn between creative products, and those which expand human knowledge. I would hardly say 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' (by Britney Spears in case anyone is wondering), expands human knowledge, so why should it not be subject to copyright laws? (as applicable under British law). If a musician/performer has to put a certain amount of hours and effort into the product, why should they not be rewarded simply because it benefits society? It really depends if you are a supporter of laissez-faire or socialism - again, I digress.

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?

Why should software and books not be regarded as the same? Does the same amount of graft and attention not go into the produce of either? The original goal of copyright is a question which can only be answered subjectively - whether one falls on the side of encouraging production of creative works, or whether one believes every author should be entitled to reward for his time and hard work?

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?

Actually, the Rome Convention of 1961 does that very thing - it is specifically intended to protect 'neighbouring rights' i.e., those of publishers and broadcasters; those financially/orginsationally responsible for the product. As to the encouraging of authorship being the purpose of copyright, again, it depends which theory you follow (and obviously, you believe it is to encourage authorship).

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?).

Well certainly the emergence, and more importantly, success of those musicians through sites such as Myspace, prove what you say and I do agree that signing to a record company isn't as fundamental to a performer's success as it once was. And certainly there is a rather large difference between the manner in which business is conducted at a 'major' label and an independent one. But the intents of artists really is subject to differing opinions; they all claim to be doing it for the music but a certain amount of corruption will always seep into such apparently innocent motives.

[*mipadi*]

What techniques? Which rules? Is it fact that the lawsuits filed are not based on law? I'm in the UK and therefore not familiar with the manner in which cases are handled in the US but I am wondering whether corporate lawyers are in fact as aggressive as you seem to be painting them?

US copyright law is still somewhat murky on whether distributing music and movies over P2P networks is illegal or not, but the aggressiveness of corporate lawyers often allows corporations to essentially create their own brand of justice. Say, for example, the RIAA catches me distributing 1000 songs over a P2P network. They sue me for, say, $1000 a song, for a total of $1,000,000 (this is a pretty low figure, too—the RIAA has tried to sue people for hundreds of thousands of dollars a song in some extreme cases).

In the US, however, parties in a lawsuit can settle the lawsuit out of court, generally for a sum of money. So while suing me in court, the RIAA might contact me and say, "We're suing you for $1,000,000, but we'll be willing to settle out of court for $20,000."

Now, I might be within my legal bounds to distribute those songs. I might win in court. But hiring a team of lawyers that could even approach the quality of the RIAA's would be astronomical; corporations have a lot of money and can hire the best of the best. In the end, I might win, but it still might cost me over $20,000—not including all the time and effort I'd have to put into the case. So it might just be in my best interest to settle out of court and "make it go away." Thus the RIAA has bullied me into paying them without having to prove their legal ground.

This is what happens to a lot of people, because the RIAA sues college students, grandmas, poor families, and the like—people that don't have the same access to "justice" that the RIAA does.

Granted, if I really wanted to push the issue, such defendants could contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation or maybe even the ACLU, but there's no guarantee such a group would take up the case.

And what is the 'traditional' sense in which the term 'property' is used?

The traditional Lockean view of property generally deals with tangible items, not intangibles like thoughts and ideas. I was referring to that notion.

I would hardly say 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' (by Britney Spears in case anyone is wondering), expands human knowledge, so why should it not be subject to copyright laws? (as applicable under British law).

That's relying on the assumption that it should be protected under copyright law, which hasn't yet been established. I ask, why should the distribution of a song such as "Hit Me Baby One More Time" be limited? I'm certainly not saying that Ms. Spears deserves no credit for her work, merely that I should not be prevented from giving a copy of her song to a few friends, even if I do distribute it over a network. I'm not "stealing" anything from her, as such electronic copies are easy to make, so notions of "stealing" clearly don't apply here. This is the thorny issue of intellectual property: Unlike physical property, it can't be "stolen" in the traditional sense.

If a musician/performer has to put a certain amount of hours and effort into the product, why should they not be rewarded simply because it benefits society? It really depends if you are a supporter of laissez-faire or socialism - again, I digress.

An interesting question, to be sure. I posit that a performer can be rewarded for her work; there are ways to make money in music, art, film, or writing, beyond the traditional models of distribution. However, the business models of "art" are changing, and those who want to survive must adapt. A musician can still be rewarded, but why should she be continually rewarded, over and over, especially when I can easily distribute her work at no cost to her, so she isn't really losing money per se?

To paraphrase Richard Stallman, I'd like to get paid to stand on street corners and make funny faces at people, but the there are vast gaps between what I'd like to do and what I can actually get paid to do. In other words, the simple industry of recording music on physical media, then making money by selling that physical media/music combination, is quickly fading—there will come a point where it isn't possible to make money doing that. Artists can either adapt or die out. As I noted before, people will still pay to go to live concerts, or go to the movie theatre, both of which can generate fair amounts of revenue. So the trade isn't going to die out anytime soon, but the business models are changing.

Furthermore, services like the iTunes Music Store will continue to be popular. A dedicated high-speed server with a vast music library that is easy to use is a service that people are willing to pay for. It's certainly a lot easier than crawling filesharing networks for a track. And there are probably ways that crafty record executives could somehow generate ad revenue from music, too.

There's also the point that people will always make music for fun, too. Maybe they won't be able to make a living off of it, but there are still dedicated musicians who—gasp!—actually produce music as a hobby, and make very little money off of it.

Why should software and books not be regarded as the same? Does the same amount of graft and attention not go into the produce of either?

Simply put, it's a matter of utility vs. art. Software, for example, is produced primarily to accomplish a task—given an input, it produces a desired output. In that sense, it's not artistic. It's a tool. Yes, it's creative, but it's not designed specifically to be creative or artistic. It does something.

Even other media, such as books, have different purposes. For example, looking at my (rather ample) bookshelf, I have a number of volumes, ranging from a book about discrete math, to a book about calculus, to several tomes covering software design in Java and Objective-C, to a few novels by Neal Stephenson. Now, of course, the novels are pleasure reading, and represent a creative, artistic effort on the part of the writer. But while I find discrete math interesting, my discrete math textbook does not represent a creative endeavour—it's purely meant to spread knowledge. That's not to say it took no creativity to produce, but it's intent is not about creation or art, but rather to teach something. Likewise, the programming manuals are meant to teach something.

So they're all books, yes, but they represent vastly different goals on the part of the creators. In other words, some are utilitarian, and some are creative. Should I be limited in my ability to, say, pass along some of the figures in the discrete math textbook? Should I not be allowed to utilize or pass along some of the algorithms listed in the Java reference? Should the formulae in the calculus textbook be protected from reproduction? There's no clear defining rule as to whether the information contained in these disparate books should be protected in the same manner.

The original goal of copyright is a question which can only be answered subjectively - whether one falls on the side of encouraging production of creative works, or whether one believes every author should be entitled to reward for his time and hard work?

I dispute that the original goal of copyright law is subjective—there is a fair amount of reference material that speaks of the origin of copyright—but yes, the question is whether all authors should be rewarded in the same fashion. However, copyright was originally intended to encourage authorship and the dissemination of information, not to reap huge profits for publishing firms. But does our current copyright situation encourage authorship, or does it serve to keep ideas under the lock-and-key of publishers? Take Mickey Mouse, for example: Even though Disney does not innovate in regards to Mickey, it continues to retain full rights over the poor mouse. Is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where all ideas have to be produced from scratch, and we're not allowed to build on—or even use—the ideas of others?

I'm not saying that authors shouldn't be credited for their efforts, but I don't want to live in a society where I'm not allowed to build and expand on the ideas of others—a concept that has been around for most of human history. While I am a (very) amateur musician, most of my feelings in this regard come from my experiences as a software developer (yes, I get paid to write software, and I contribute to numerous open source projects) and a budding computer science researcher (yes, I have obtained a research appointment for this summer). It's a pain in the ass to have to re-implement a particular software module, just because someone else refuses to allow the reuse of his code. It stifles innovation, rather than encouraging it—and copyright law was originally intended to encourage the creation of new works! It's a confounding situation.

Actually, the Rome Convention of 1961 does that very thing - it is specifically intended to protect 'neighbouring rights' i.e., those of publishers and broadcasters; those financially/orginsationally responsible for the product.

Well, that was 1961—hundreds of years after issues of copyright theory had been raised. By 1961, it's not surprising to see that major publishing corporations had hijacked the spirit of copyright to support their own ends. It's not at all surprising to me to see that corporations were taking advantage of the consumer to reap greater profits. And it's certainly not surprising to see governments bowing to the demands of large corporations.

As to the encouraging of authorship being the purpose of copyright, again, it depends which theory you follow (and obviously, you believe it is to encourage authorship).

Well, again, it's not what I believe. I'm basing my contentions on a strong historical basis.

But the intents of artists really is subject to differing opinions; they all claim to be doing it for the music but a certain amount of corruption will always seep into such apparently innocent motives.

Certainly. Not all "artists" are in it for the art. But again, just because someone wants to make money doing something, doesn't mean they can. Are we obligated to pay musicians large sums of money, just because they want to make large sums of money for their work? I'd love to get paid a six-figure salary to write software, but that's just not going to happen!