How do you feel about being able to share mp3s online?
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
I personally like Apple's solution better. You pay $1 for each song you wish to download but you get higher quality recordings with (hopefully) fewer headaches than with the file sharing services like unexpected disconnections in the middle of a download or songs that are basically useless cause they have pops or some other crap in them.
Sharing music online has really come under fire but it's no different than making copies of audio tapes or CD's which people have been doing for years... it's just now it's more easily accessible.
I'm an audiophile so I personally prefer buying my music on production run CD's or even on DVD when "my music" is available in that format (5.1 Surround and other enhancements)
Posted by Glenn S. Harris (Member # 2190) on :
When you participate in on-line file sharing you make these files available to many people whom you do not know. This is more like distributing a product than sharing one of your old cassttes with a friend. In this respect, I believe file sharing violates certain legal restrictions that the industry has placed on their product.
Personally, I have used on-line file sharing to listen to music I've never heard, and to acquire one or two songs here & there to learn (I play the guitar). Music that I enjoy listening to repeatedely I purchase on CD or get a copy of the original CD from a friend. I too prefer to have the recording as the artist intended it . Generally, I don't really feel sorry for any millionaire rockstars and record execs who file sharing may be slightly reducing profits for.
As far as struggling artists, it's generally the case that free acces to their music online just helps with promotion.
The illegal distribution of copywrighted materials over the intenet will continue in some form or other as long as the internet exists.
I believe, however, that as information technology becomes more complicated, there will simply be less and less people who can benefit from it.
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
I don't have a problem with it besides you get into less trouble than asking for artwork or fonts. Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
I don't see anyone should have a problem with file sharing. I'm always happy when someone takes my designs and hard work to a competitor without paying me for it. Surely, if I have it on disk instead of paper, it makes it all the more proper and right.
Posted by Bruce Deveau (Member # 1600) on :
Wow, I finally agree with Glenn Taylor on an issue...Downloading music is not like copying a cassette or disc which you purchased. It is more like walking into a record store and putting a few choices in your pocket without paying. It's stealing, period. As artists, we should recognize that fact better than anyone.
Bruce
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Oh, admit it Bruce. You agree with everything I say. Posted by Joey Madden (Member # 1192) on :
Artists are few but signmakers are many. Many choose to get it for free and pay in the long run. I personally don't want anything for free.
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Ok, I'm gonna be the bad boy on this topic...
I play drums and download songs. After I burn a few songs onto a CD, I put on a pair of headphones and enjoy playing to and learning new stuff. Am I going to redistribute it for profit? No.
Ever copy a video tape or record a radio signal onto cassette? Back in the day I think we all have. Because we could.
When the technology surpasses the industy, stuff like this is enevitable. The recording industry simply has not kept up with the techies again. Mass reproduction has happened since cassettes were invented.
As sign makers, we have all seen what a scanner and a plotter can do to copyrights. I doubt too many of us are sending royalty checks to a webmaster when we grab a file off of the internet and convert it for our oun needs.
Programs like Morphus and Kazaa are based on "file sharing", not unlike the way we share our knowledge and experiences here in Letterville.
Just a few thoughts.... Rapid
Posted by Kimberly Zanetti (Member # 2546) on :
Yes, I do download music and movies. Considering that I have a library of over 2500 albums, 500 CDs and close to 500 cassette tapes, almost all purchased, I feel that I have done my part in supporting the music industry over the years.
I made some copies of FINDING NEMO last month and gave them to friends with small children but every single one of them had already paid their money and seen it in the movie theater at least once, including me.
A great deal of the music I download and burn is stuff that I already have on albums but want to put on CDs that I can listen to in my car.
Posted by Rob McCauley (Member # 2735) on :
Back in the day I had over 200 cassettes worth of music, 80% of the stuff I download now is for the purpose of updating the format to CD. I already paid for it once! I've even used it as a way to sample a whole CD and then gone out and bought the thing. I'm probably the exception to the typical Gen X/Y slacker who never buys stuff retail though.
Posted by Kissymatina (Member # 2028) on :
I think it's been approached the wrong way.
Here's how I think it should work. The site controls the quality of the song so you don't waste time downloading from someone else to either get cut off in the middle or get nasty quality. You pay a small fee to download it (maybe a $1 a song like vector art from roland's site). The artist gets a cut of this fee. I think they'd see their income actually increase, if it were done right. I am not fond of the idea of totally eliminating music sharing, as some want to do. A few years ago, one of my old favorite cassettes died. I searched online to buy the cd to find out the cd is out of print. My only option: napster.
I buy a lot of cds. There are a lot I don't buy because I only like 1 song on the cd & it isn't worth $15 to me for 1 song.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
I agree Chris. That is why I like sites such as MP3.com. You can download songs for free as well as purchase them.
The ones that are for free are done so with the full knowledge, permission and encouragement of the artist/owner.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
Kimberly,
Finding Nemo is already out on video??
Hastings, here I come!!! I hope they have the DVD!!! Posted by Mark Rogan (Member # 3678) on :
Downloading songs with the intention of adding them to your collection (I don't care how big it is or how much you may have already spent on albums CDs) BUT without ever intending to buy the song or album is just stealing. No gray areas. Someone made something to sell and you took it without paying for it. It's black & white. AND I'm not passing judgment on anyone-wheteher they do or don't download songs. I just don't think one should try to rationalize away the fact that they are taking something they didn't pay for. If you want to take songs, take 'em. But don't try to put a spin on it to make it feel legit.
Posted by Glenn S. Harris (Member # 2190) on :
Perhaps there is a bit of a "Robin Hood" mentality when it comes to downloading popular music. I think, in the past, people had alot more respect for musicians, their products, and the industry in general. Perhaps much of this is an actual repercussion of the music industries' practices in the last 10 years or so? For one thing: if you type in "Britny Spears" on your file search your going to get ALOT more stuff available than say, oh I don't know, "Steely Dan", "Buddy Hollie", or even "The Bennie Goodman Orchestra". On the other hand, I can pretty easily find any song, image, movie, video game or software program to download on the internet at any given moment. I admit I have taken advantage of this fact.
"I'm not sayin' it's right, I'm not sayin' it's wrong; but say la vee...."
Posted by Pam Eddy (Member # 1858) on :
Muscians may enjoy their jobs creating music as we enjoy our jobs of creating signs, but the money generated from the sales of our talents is what puts food on the table and motivates us to do more. Also, the better the song, the more albums are sold. If everything a music artist does is given away for free,( or a good profit margin is not there,) who is going to put the effort into writing good music in the future? I would like to see (or hear) good quality music and pay for it rather than a lot of low end music for cheap. Where is the motivation to write good music to sell if you are going to loose money on it? Musicians have to re coop the overhead and other cost of making music and deserve a profit too.
Just my thoughts.
Pam
Posted by Glenn S. Harris (Member # 2190) on :
Well, that's one of the arguments. That the only musician's who have a problem with their music being traded on Kazaa are already multi-millionaires.
Most of the up & comers just like the extra exposure.
Posted by BrianTheBrush (Member # 1298) on :
I view it in much the same manner as I view the illegal duplication of clip art collections and programs.
Some people put fruit loops in their bowls based on the royalties they get on copyrighted clipart. hen someone "shares" by copying a cd full of clip art... they are taking money out of the pockets of illustrators who have worked hard to earn that money.
The same goes for music, movies, still images, and ANY copyrighted works.
keep on keepin on
Brian Briskie
Posted by Stephen Deveau (Member # 1305) on :
We had someone here this past weekend arrested at a Flea Market for downloading and burning CDs!
Selling them off to the public for $5.00 a Crack. close to 500 copys seized.
So I say Pay your buck for personnal use..... But pay the royalty for Commercial use... Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Posted by Bill&Jane Diaz (Member # 2549) on :
Some who have posted here are comparing music with creating visual art. I see some basic differences. When I develope a logo for someone, I get paid for its development and its completion. I then put the image on a disk for the customer in a variety of formats for his use. At this point he is released of any further obligation to pay me for my creativity. Hopefully he will order a sign from me with the logo on it.
The gray area for me is with residuals. In music a person can write a song. If the song is duplicated or reproduced by others he gets a kick back. There are cases of people who have written 1 song that for whatever reason became popular. The songwriter has then been compensated every single time that song is rereleased by others. Some of these artist and even their families after they are dead are continually compensated for that one effort. Laws have been instituted to protect these folks. As commercial artisans we are not afforded that kind of comensation. Does that make our efforts any less creative? No! Some smash hits were jotted down on napkins as kind of an after thought over a cup of coffee in 5 minutes, and the most irritating thing about the music industry is that the producers decide what becomes popular more so than the public. Everyone knows somebody who has extraordinary music ability and tries their entire life trying to make it, but for whatever reason they don't get that break into the big time. Maybe they don't have the right look for a video, or maybe they wouldn't tweak their song for a cigar smoking producer who only looks at the money or fashionable side of it. To me this whole topic is a wakeup call for the music industry who has gotten greedy over it all.
I personally have paid for some songs several times. Once with a 45, then an album (try buying a turntable or a needle for your old one), then with an 8 track (I must have had a hundred chewed up by players that went bad), then with cassettes (same problem as the 8 tracks), and now CDs (soon to be replaced by a smaller version). I mean, "Come on!" Now the big and powerful music industry is taking folks to court with fines of $150,000 or 5 years in jail for sharing songs.
I say get the musician compensated in the beginning and let the rest be dictated by what the market will bare just like with our efforts. I don't see an end to file sharing so if the music industry is feeling slighted they should reinvent the way musicians get compensated for their efforts the same way we have had to reinvent our efforts in the age of computerization. -- Bill
Posted by dveenema (Member # 833) on :
I basically agree with your point Bill. I think the comparison to creating artwork is not always accurate. It's important to note that most of the fuss is being created by the record companies not always the artists. The record companies basically steal the music from the artists with their shady contracts, then hold the rights to the music, spit out cd's at a cost of 85 cents and sell them for $20. Look what happened to the Cowboy Junkies. Their record company turned out a greatest hits cd without their approval. So they told the fans not to buy it and download the songs. If the record companies would come down to earth and sell cd's for $10, they'd sell way more. Why? Because like Mike said the quality is way better. Give it a couple years it'll go away.
Posted by Stephen Deveau (Member # 1305) on :
And to think if you were in a Fix for some design work and I send you a copy of my design.. Everything turns out great and you make a sale. Later down the road you have a friend looking for something and you say....Hey wait a minute I have that and past it on again... What the Hell he's my friend! And he makes a sale. but He turns around and passes it on to his closet Friend as a favour!
Were am I in this outcome.... besides the Poorhouse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't get free Gas or Food or anything else in life and that is how the Big Boys get BIG!
So I guess I like to join the ranks with them for the money! Posted by BrianTheBrush (Member # 1298) on :
Hiya Bill & Jane...
When I campared the duplication of artwork, and of music...I should have clarified, that I was refering to clip-art collections, for which payments to the "artist" (for lack of a better term), are made solely as royalties, based on sales.
I know of many illustrators, including myself, who have contracts to design clip art; and the only form of payment for this service, is indeed royalty payments.
I should have clarified that in my initial response. Have good weekends folks!
Keep on keepin' on!
Brian Briskie
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
Just like in visual arts, there's variations in how rights to music is handled.
The only reason Joe Blow signmaker doesn't get royalties for continued use of his artwork is because he didn't have the foresight to put tight restrictions on its use, ie: handing source files over to customers.
You can't continue to get compensation for works you create when you essentially hand over the rights to someone else.
It works the same exact way in the music industry.
Some artists have the foresight to obtain copyright information on paper when they create their songs.. others screw up and their record label or others snag the song out from underneath them. Some labels even go as far as rejecting songs the artists have written, and write their own songs for artists to play just to avoid that issue. Some labels won't accept artist's submissions unless the artist has already obtained legal and verifyable copyrights on their work, as a means to protect the label in case the artist took the work from someone else.
If you want royalties for your work, keep control of all your artwork, make them available to the public to enjoy in return for licensing fees.
That's how music, software and clip-art is handled.. of course then you're faced with controling piracy but that can be handled with a clause in your contract with your distributor requiring THEM to minimize it and prosecute!
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
This is how tight the music labels have on their works of art.
The artist formerly known as Prince was in a legal hassle with his recording company. Essentially eh could perform anything without their permission. They owned him (actually they nwed prince). His recourse was to change his name and wait it out. Which he did and won.
there are dozons of music artists in the saem postition of having their works owned by a label,
Personally, I think the artists deserve every penny they get for their works. I don't care if they make billions.
>> This statement is a social fact. If you stiffle social expression you will force such expression underground. The music industry is a classic example of this social law in action.
The labels created this d'loading monster through default by violating this social expresion law. Refusing to offer music on a easy pay basis all but forced buyers to Kazaa and napster. All one has to do is look at the success of Itune from Apple. IT proves people want to be legal. They just don't want the hassle of going to a music store, deal with a rude or inadequate clerk, ordering what they want then going back a week later to get it. What a waste of resources.
Just for the record. There is technology where a music store has the ability to subscribe to a data base. D'load selections and burn to a CD in just a few minutes label and all. The savings in shipping and storing costs alone are staggering.
Its the music labels that refuse to let this happen.
There is a large number of artists who are now selling music independant online. Allanis Morriset, Peal Jam and many others. The labels don't want this to happen because it will take them out of the profits. > that is the one reason labels will not allow music downloading.
Posted by Jeremy Vecoli (Member # 2278) on :
I wonder how the arguements would apply to printed material- I buy a book, like it, and give it to a friend to read. Did my friend steal something from the author by not buying his own copy? Or what if he goes to a used bookstore? is the author getting ripped off? A used book could be lent or re-sold hundreds of times, and the author gets paid only for the first sale. How can that be right? This is accepted as normal, but has many of the same ethical implications as downloading. Personal downloading may have some issues to address, but I am not sure if "theft" is an appropriate label. You would have to prove that a choice was made to download INSTEAD of buying a new CD, to prove actual financial damages. By their very nature of being shared freely, there is no cash value. I would think theft involves a situation that results in you having less of something after it happens. How do you calculate damages and pursue a claim for a potential loss of a future sale? At what point is the product you created "out of your hands"? No answers here, just pondering.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Jeremy,
I think your analogy is in error. Passing the book around - a single existing item - is not the same as making copies of the book and passing them around. Making copies of a book and giving them out is a clear violation of copyright law.
Posted by Jeremy Vecoli (Member # 2278) on :
I have not made this "analogy" (that passing a book around IS THE SAME as making copies of a book and passing them around) that you claim I have.
I was intentionally using a different situation and applying some of the download arguments (I deliberately chose ones that did NOT rely on the number of copies made to assert damage done) to see if they had merit.
I do think the specific number of copies made has as much relavance as the number of times a tune was listened to- very little.
I hereby declare this whole download thing to be somebody else's problem!
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one 'makes' them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted, and you create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Posted by Stephen Deveau (Member # 1305) on :
The freedom of print is to help Teach or Educated a person for the betterment of their lives.
Music and some Graphics are for entertainment only. Subject to purchase on the One to One bases.
Two different Topics.
How can you say that the Person that wrote a Book or Articals, doesn't get royalties on new prints of thier work?
Even the King James Bible gets kick backs or donations to help in printing it.
[ August 03, 2003, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Deveau ]
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Just a couple of thoughts I had while pondering the whereabouts of Darcy Wakaluk...
I have a problem with the term "kick back" used as a replacement for the term "royalty". Artists don't recieve kick backs, they get paid royalties. kick backs are typically illegal, royalties are not.
Yes, Brian, people will be copying clip art discs as long as there are CD burners available. If this bothers you, then maybe you should reconsider producing clip art. I am not condoning this stuff, just expressing a thought. There are enough honest people in the world to cancel the shistheads, don't you think?
I think we all stand in different areas of this arena and feel our views are the correct ones. People being people, we can justify our own behaviour while condemning others for the same infractions.
I have my own feelings about all of this. The music industry brought much of this grief upon themselves and looks to others to remedy the situation. Gees, sounds just like society, eh? Create the problem and look to others to bail them out. No personal responsibility needed.
I would subscribe to an on-line music service if one was readily available for PC's as are for Macs. When I looked into I-tunes (or whatever) I needed to have a Mac to use the downloading software. The new PC music service doesn't allow for music to be burned to a CD. I plan investigating this further.
This is an argument that will rage for years.
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
Just for thought,
The whole Ebook venture is failing in the same light because you can only read the book you bought on the machine that downloads it. You cannot print it or transfer it to another machine. You cannot copy it to a disk for safe keeping.. And if you upgrade your reader it may shut off the Ebook you already purchased. And, worse, sometimes the ebook will shut off after so many readings or a period of time.
See, the greedy pig turns into a hog gets slaughtered.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
I can barely stand to read words on paper, much less spending spare time trying to read and enjoy them from a little screen.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
My apologies, Jeremy. That is just how your post came across.
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
After just getting home from my weekend job at the bar, a thought occurs to me.
The band that played tonight did all cover songs. They did them well, but not exactly as the originals. Do they have to pay royalties on those songs? They are certainly being paid to perform them.
Wish I had the rights to "Happy Birthday". If I got 1 penny for every time it was sung by each person in a group setting, I'd make a billion a year.
Granted, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the payment, but I think that is what the music industry faces now. From a logistical point of view, Kazaa has over 4 million users on on the average and everyone of them is downloading music, programs, video, fonts, art, and a lot more. The music industry is not the only one looking to stop this, but is the largest and most financially crippled by it. That is why they are the most vocal. (no pun intended) How many times on this web site have we linked to a photo or cartoon without paying the photographer or artist?
I've long seen the internet as a way of sharing information and knowledge, but as technologies like P2P file sharing, CD and DVD burning, and increasinly more powerful computers have shown, just about anything can be found for free online.
Just a few thoughts.
Rapid
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
We have here some seemingly enlightened points of view lost in poorly articulated arguments & some almost reasonably convincing justifications for idealogical hogwash, along with the many well stated clarifications of actual fact & of course the recurring numerous incidences of blatent idiocy.
I'm not sure I have anything to add other then that I paid for all my CD's, & I'm a musician who has, more often then not, played for free for 30 years. (by choice)
Posted by Inga Smukal (Member # 3370) on :
I didn't get a chance to read everyones post, but I skimmed through them and thought I give my two sense. As long as you can download music, people are going to. I have. Nowadays, I think CD's and concert tickets are a big rip off. Don't get me wrong, I'm saying that I can't see spending $15-$18 on a CD when I only know two songs. And going to see bands in concert in outrageously priced. I can't count how many times I've wanted to see a band or singer but couldn't afford there ticket because it started at $100 (not including the fees)
Posted by Alfred Toy (Member # 3844) on :
How do you feel about being able to share fonts and clipart online? Remember when fonts were $200. Does that justify copying them?
[ August 04, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Alfred Toy ]
Posted by Dwayne Hunter (Member # 133) on :
I use Kazaa to download music that I can't find anymore. Certain bands that I heard back in the 90's, such as Salty Dog, Kik Tracee, L.A. Guns, whatever, have music that's not to be found in music stores anymore. It's not that I won't, can't or sometimes haven't paid for the music, it's just there's no other way to find it. I've downloaded versions of songs that I never knew about. Hearing Zakk Wylde do a cover of Black Dog or Stairway to Heaven was great...but I've yet to find the CD on Amazon. I won't even try to get the local music store to order anything anymore, because they are so limited. The last time I tried to get them to order anything, the first guy was an A**hole, wouldn't even look. Two weeks later, I asked the owner to try, who told me if it wasn't in her book, it couldn't be had!!!
I've also downloaded songs from just-released CD's to see if the whole thing was as good as the songs you hear on the radio. In most cases, I'm glad I didn't spend the $20 to get one or two songs. In other cases, I bought the CD shortly after because I wanted that 'real' experience.
Posted by Bill&Jane Diaz (Member # 2549) on :
I think anything on the net that says its free whether it be freeware, shareware, free fonts, free clip art, free programs or whatever ought to be just that "free." The people who benefit by it should not be punished. If a person doesn't want what he creates copied it's up to him to find a way that it can not be copied. I think that's the case with music.
When you have a shovel that your neighbor doesn't have and he wants to borrow it, you are doing a nice gesture by letting him borrow it. You could say, "No that wouldn't be right, you need to go to the store and buy your own." There are services people charge for and services that people do gratis, like leaving behind artwork at a walldog meet.
With downloading music off the net, someone originally paid for the CD and was able to copy it onto his hard drive. If he could not copy it it could not be share with others. The music industry has not gone after Microsoft, because they made it possible on their Windows Media Player to copy CDs. Instead they are going after the guy at the bottom threatening huge punishments because he's using Kazaa to share songs with others. That to me seems absurd. They were able to punish Napster and regulate them, but Kazaa , Morpheus and others made it harder to detect sharing, because it went pier to pier. There are already attempts to encrypt file sharing to make it even harder to find out whose sharing songs.
I have had this debate with my musician buddies many times and it really gets the brain spinning. I have 1 friend who I jam with for free who is vehemently against sharing songs via the net, but doesn't think twice about playing a cover song and getting paid for it when he plays with his group on the weekends. We all listen to music on the radio. To me continually compensating musicians for their songs is where the debate rages on. The recent Supreme Court decision giving a musician's family the right to demand residuals for songs authored by their deceased relatives is further evidence of a greedy industry.
We need to define what stealing is compared to what sharing is. I can see punishing a person who downloads songs off the internet and then burns a bunch of songs to sell to others, but giving a CD to a friend and saying "Listen to these guys," and them doing the same is sharing. Being able to copy a CD has enabled this debate to rage on. -- Bill
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
