What music service are you using?

[Evil Inside]

I'm still using KaZaa lite. I download tracks, listen to them for a while then buy the cd if I like it.

I'd buy from the iTunes store if they had more of the music I listen to.

[SpideyPod]

iTunes.

But then again if I want to stay legal AND use an iPOd there is not much choice for big label music is there?

[loki102]

ever since itunes for windows came out, i've been using it but before i would occasionally use Kazaa

[Erty]

Direct connect. Absolutely the best if you want full albums and not just a single track. But I mostly download albums I already have...
Or well, used to have. I had _all_ my albums in a case, and then one day the case just dissappeared...don't know where it is :/ I think it was when I went skiing. $100+ of music just gone :(
But now I have almost all my albums on my computer and iPod anyway :)

SpideyPod: it's not illegal to download music from Kazaa/DC/whatever, not even if you don't own the CD's.
What is illegal is to let people download from you...

At least that's how it is here in Sweden.

[SpideyPod]

Well Sweden isn't the US and as far as I know downloading and sharing is illegal here in the states.

So far the RIAA has taken the approach of focusing their lawsuits on those that are sharing the most music as opposed to those that are downloading the most.

As for your example, a while back I was the unfortunate victim of having my car broken into. My CD book with 200+ CD's all gone. Not a good felling. I have since reconstructed much of that collection.

[RichP]

I've used Napster and Musicmatch, and iTunes is the best.. until you actually buy music. AAC is largely useless me, I need WMA or MP3. Only having used Napster for a day, it will be where I buy most of my music from.

[Evil Inside]

Originally posted by SpideyPod
Well Sweden isn't the US and as far as I know downloading and sharing is illegal here in the states.

So far the RIAA has taken the approach of focusing their lawsuits on those that are sharing the most music as opposed to those that are downloading the most.

As for your example, a while back I was the unfortunate victim of having my car broken into. My CD book with 200+ CD's all gone. Not a good felling. I have since reconstructed much of that collection.

If file sharing and downloading of music is officially determined as "illegal",wouldn't it be punishable as a crime and subject to a fine and/or imprisonment?

Personally, I think the RIAA is a greedy bunch of thugs who are using file sharing as an excuse to keep cd prices high.

When CDs were first introduced in the early 80's, the RIAA promised that cd prices would come down as the cost of production goes down. The cost has gone down, but the retail prices of CDs have gone up. You do the math. The artists still get a small fraction of the sale price, that's why concert tickets and t-shirts are so expensive. DVDs are a newer, more expensive-to manufacture media, and they are about the same price, sometimes cheaper. Won't you think that a movie that cost 300 million to make would cost more than $15 to buy on DVD? Granted, movies make most of their money at the box office in the form of ticket sales, but the initial cost to make the movie is much higher than a CD.

The RIAA created this gray market. They created this problem. The revolution of file sharing is their own creation.

I refuse to cower in fear of the RIAA - that's what they want. This is the whole reason behind suing people. They are trying to scare the mass population in an attempt to keep people from file sharing. Their message: No One Is Safe. not 12 year old school girls, not 70 year old grandfathers. They are trying to strong-arm us.

The RIAA is not concerned about musicians, they are only concerned about making more money and having control. As long as there is a network of file-sharers, they will never have complete control.

I will download, rip and do what ever I choose with the tools that are available to me. I support the bands I like by buy their albums, DVDS and attending their concerts.

[SpideyPod]

Originally posted by Evil Inside
If file sharing and downloading of music is officially determined as "illegal",wouldn't it be punishable as a crime and subject to a fine and/or imprisonment?



That is correct. Fines have been the order of business for the RIAA.

[SpideyPod]

Originally posted by Evil Inside

The RIAA is not concerned about musicians, they are only concerned about making more money and having control. As long as there is a network of file-sharers, they will never have complete control.

I will download, rip and do what ever I choose with the tools that are available to me. I support the bands I like by buy their albums, DVDS and attending their concerts.

No matter if you are for or against file sharing there is no doubt in my mind that the RIAA only cares about the musicians to the degree that they put money on the already fat pockets of music execs.

I think artists should be paid for their work but in no way do I have any sympathy for the record labels or the RIAA. As you correctly stated their price gouging created an environment where file swapping was a very appealing alternative to $18 CD's for 10 songs, 2 or 3 of which you have any desire to own. I think services like iTunes and Napster have the right idea. But as many have pointed out artists still are not being properly compensated for their work. Labels still get to big a piece of the pie.

[Evil Inside]

I think services link iTunes, Napster etc. should offer free, timed downloads. Files of a lower quality(128kb or less) that have 30 days, and then are either automatically deleted by the software or rendered unusable. After the 30 listening period, you have the option of purchasing the tracks which would then be replaced with a permanent, higher quality track(160 or 192kb or better) that you now own.

I personally like to buy CDs, but the high price keeps me from buying every single CD that's released unless it's by a band I really like.

[Smokin_Ferrett]

I tend not to pay for downloads. I find going to my local supermarket and paying ?10.00 for a new title CD and then transfering it to my iPOD to be the best choice for me. I don't like the idea of paying for a download and getting 'nothing to hold' in return. Also I'm getting top quality sound. Have any of you tried playing MP3 and the like through a Hi-Fi?

[Adam]

I use KaZaA lite, iTunes does not cater for my music tastes, and its not in Australia, and it costs money to buy compressed music. If I like songs, I'll just get off my butt and go to the CD shop, and get a much better package for around the same price.

[geistwerks]

this topic rears it's ugly head again, just in a different format.

just a note:
i would call itunes music store a music service.

i would call kazaa a file sharing service.

i think there is a really big difference.

kazaa is theft, but that's your own personal choice, and please don't think i'm judging you.

[coolp]

I use Napster (I have a membership) to find music, because of its look at a member's list and radio features, but then I buy em on iTunes so I can use them on my iPod.

[Sam Williams]

kazaa is theft, but that's your own personal choice, and please don't think i'm judging you.It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Both are illegal - but there is a world of difference.

[cordevax]

Originally posted by Samwise
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Both are illegal - but there is a world of difference.
Both of those statements are very true. Which is exactly why the RIAA is lobbying to get copyright infringement to legally become equal to theft.
... don't remember the exact source for this, just that it was mentionned by www.wired.com

Moreover, they're trying to reverse the burden of proof issue, i.e. if they accuse you of copyright infrigement, you hv to prove them wrong -- which effectively makes you guilty until proven innocent.

makes me chuckle because a lot of americans are so arrogant about the strength of their "democracy"... turns out you can buy anything :)

things aren't much better on the old continent tho... both germany (check heise.de) and great-britain (bbc.com) are going down the same path

and guess who's actually putting up a fight: china and russia. the irony of it all... and all this just for a couple of tunes :)

[cordevax]

sorry, double post

[geistwerks]

in both china and russia you can buy illegal copies of just about anything. street vendors sell home made compilations of music on the street. you can buy expensive software for mere dollars.

i don't think either country is a shining example of law and order, and is probably a poor example here.

[talkingipods]

Well iTunes does have many of the songs I look for, but it is right for me to download an occasional song from a game soundtrack off kazaa? Since, I cannot get that buy that song anywhere since it is not sold? Let me know what you think.

[geistwerks]

right? do you mean legal? no, of course it isn't legal. period.

and game soundtracks are readily available at online music stores and good comic/game/import stores nationwide.

[Sam Williams]

'Right' and 'legal' aren't the same thing. Neither are 'wrong' and 'illegal'.

[geistwerks]

which is why i was asking him if he meant "legal" and not "right."

have you been dropping eaves again, samwise gamgee? :)

[SpideyPod]

Originally posted by cordevax

Moreover, they're trying to reverse the burden of proof issue, i.e. if they accuse you of copyright infrigement, you hv to prove them wrong -- which effectively makes you guilty until proven innocent.

makes me chuckle because a lot of americans are so arrogant about the strength of their "democracy"... turns out you can buy anything :)



We are arrogant about our democracy because the fact is the RIAA can try to do whatever they want but that doesn't mean it will happen. It will be heard, debated, and a decision will be made which can be appealed and fought to the highest courts in the land. That?s democracy.
I am American and I believe we have every right to be proud of our democracy.

But if you are indeed from Europe shouldn't you worry less about America?s democracy and focus on trying to change what volume levels are acceptable according to the EU? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

[Sam Williams]

which is why i was asking him if he meant "legal" and not "right."To be fair, you -did- answer a question about rightness with a response about legality. Implicitly, you did equate the two.

I'm sure you know there's a difference, but there's a common perception that there is none.

---

Yes, please don't throw stones - for one thing, the noise breaches any number of EU regulations. Let's not make this a Europe vs. America thread because of one throwaway incendiary comment by cordevax... It's frankly a pretty stupid argument to have.

[Sam Williams]

I do agree that competing with illegal downloads, rather than suing listeners, is the only way Big Music will make serious inroads. For every casual music sharer who is scared away from peer-to-peer, there seems to be another whose attitude against the industry hardens, and who either refuses to buy their products or steps up their online sharing efforts.

[SpideyPod]

Originally posted by Samwise

Yes, please don't throw stones - for one thing, the noise breaches any number of EU regulations. Let's not make this a Europe vs. America thread because of one throwaway incendiary comment by cordevax... It's frankly a pretty stupid argument to have.

I agree Samwise. But the comment was so ridiculous that I think it warranted a response. The Lounge is such a large and diverse community of people from all corners of the world. And due to the political climate very often snide remarks are made especially regarding the US. In most cases they are left unchecked because loungers are here to talk about a MP3 player and all things digital music.
I have never responded before to such a comment about the US but I found cordevax's post particularly ignorant and inflammatory.

The glass house remark was merely to show no country, government or political beliefs and practices are perfect so keep the comments about them to yourself. I assure you others can make similar comments about where you call home and you would not appreciate it. This is not a political forum so if that is what you prefer to discuss then do so elsewhere.

[Sam Williams]

Hey, you absolutely had the right to reply to cordevax's post - I was certainly tempted myself, but let it pass.

I can't imagine that cordevax wrote that post (which also attacked the UK and Germany) with any aim other than to p*ss people off - and you're right that this is not the place.

[talkingipods]

Well to answer your question, "right" meant whether you felt it was legal or not. And there are many GAME songs that are not sold anywhere. They cannot be bought or downloaded anywhere in public. The only thing that might have these songs are kazaa. So, after making this clear to everyone, is it legal to download a song that you cannot buy or get anywhere else?

[Sam Williams]

So, after making this clear to everyone, is it legal to download a song that you cannot buy or get anywhere else?Legally, the availability or scarcity of material is irrelevant. The only relevant factor is the licence placed on the material by the creators, owners or distributors. If they say you can legally do something with their content, you can legally do it. If they say you can't, you can't. You need to read the licence for whichever game/s you want the soundtracks.

If you don't already own the game/s, there's very little chance that it's legal, and it's possibly immoral as well. Would you consider it moral to download a otherwise unavailable track from an album of music, on the grounds that you liked that one component of the album, but couldn't legally acquire it separately?

If on the other hand you own the game/s already, I think you're morally justified in downloading the soundtracks - and it may or may not be legal as well.

[talkingipods]

Yes, I do own the games from which I like the soundtrack. By the way, love the name Samwise Gamgee! My nehphew was him for halloween. ;)

[Sam Williams]

Haha... Well in my case, my gran always used to call me that, and it gradually spread from there.

Crikey - this is possibly even more off-topic than the nation-bashing. Oh well. :D

[cordevax]

Originally posted by Samwise
...one throwaway incendiary comment by cordevaxOriginally posted by SpideyPod
... I found cordevax's post particularly ignorant and inflammatory.
Sorry guys, I really wasn't trying to be inflammatory.

The point I was trying to make was that when industries start making the laws, as the RIAA is in this case, the resulting political system really isn't democracy anymore.
Thus the statement "I'm proud to live in a democracy" strikes me as funny.

Originally posted by talkingipods
...is it legal to download a song that you cannot buy or get anywhere else?
There's a clause in patent law that says you can't enforce your patent if you don't use it, i.e. if you own a patent on a product, but don't market it or hv plans to market it, you can't sue someone else for doing it. In your case, if that song were really unavailable thru legal means, you couldn't get in trouble for downloading it. IMO, this makes a lot of sense...

Unfortunately, copyright has no such clause, so if downloading music is illegal in your country, then it's illegal wether that music is available to buy or not.

[blue_maffu_202]

Originally posted by Evil Inside
I'm still using KaZaa lite. I download tracks, listen to them for a while then buy the cd if I like it.

I'd buy from the iTunes store if they had more of the music I listen to.
Same here. I just preview the songs on Kazza. iTunes has hardly any of the music I like so I just buy the CD's.