Are you an evil MP3 downloader?

[olena]

No. The only music I download anymore is concert audio recordings from Choral web sites for study purposes. I have bought some mp3's from various sites.

 

[jazstar87]

i kinda do for disney stuff but i am getting better since itunes has a music store.... I always get gift card to there.

 

[ksjayhawkfan]

Im just getting around to commenting on my vote. I voted Yes. I do have the software on my PC, I used to download all the time, but when all the legal junk started up I quit. No I dont use a paid service, I just dont download at all anymore.

 

[Spinning]

not to totally hi jack this thread but since it seems lots of people know about mp3's maybe you guys can help me.
I down loaded a song from ITunes with my free win bottle cap. But it didnt' down load as an MP3. So I can't use it how I wanted to. So did I down load it wrong or is that how they are down loaded.

As for steeling MP3....ummmm not computer swavy enough to even down load the paid ones correctly...so my answer would be no.

 

[chadfromdallas]

its "download" and iTunes downloads in ACC format.

 

[Spinning]

Who knew...down load Download! Not a computer person!

So what sites can download MP3's?

 

[chadfromdallas]

So what sites can download MP3's?

Illegal ones. The pay sites are ACC or WMA protected file types.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

There have been very few albums/CD's in the history of the industry that have had pretty much every song be a hit. Def Leppards Hysteria or Michael Jackson's Thriller are one in a million long shots. Most albums will have 2-4 singles and a few other very good tunes, with the rest being filler. To expect anything more is unrealisitic.

Anne

That's a matter of personal taste. I don't think the person who said this was saying she was concerned about every song on the cd being a #1 smash hit with the general population.

Case in point for me....Counting Crows' August and Everything After had their first big "hit" Mr. Jones. For many people, this is the only CC song that they have ever even heard of. It's my favorite album. I could listen to it a gazillion times and never get bored. None of the other songs on that album made the charts to the best of my knowledge.

CC is my favorite band. I buy every album they produce. I see them every time they come around. In my opinion, they are the greatest band, ever.

BUT for the longest time, I wanted to get a copy of them singing a cover of the 70's song "Caravan". This song does not appear on any album. The only version of it you can find is on MP3 from people who recorded the concerts live (I believe CC is usually okay with this as long as people are not profiting off of the cds).

You best believe I went on Kazaa and got me a copy of it. No one made a profit off of this recording, they just did it live, someone taped it and it wound up online for fans to share.

Now, given how much I adore this band, I can't undertsand why someone wouldn't just hop onto Itunes and get the single for Mr. Jones if that was the only song they liked. Spending that much time looking for something so easily available legally seems like more trouble than it's worth

But if someone wants to go on an illegal site and get a live recording someone took that you could not buy anywhere if you tried, I really do not see what the problem is.

 

[Spinning]

Ok so in other words sites like Walmart, Itunes and such don't download anything as MP3's? I am not trying to be a pain. I honestly don't know how to do this or really have paid much attention to it. But I would like to be able to put music to my photo CD's. I have looked at the different sites. Then I downloaded legally from Itunes. But found it won't work in my photo program. the program I am using requires MP3's.
Paying for it isn't the problem. Just knowing what to do is.

 

[disneysteve]

I do have the software on my PC, I used to download all the time, but when all the legal junk started up I quit. No I dont use a paid service, I just dont download at all anymore.

This describes me exactly. To me, the choice is download for free or do without. I just don't value the music enough to be willing to pay for it. I probably buy a CD once every 2-3 years and that will usually be a soundtrack for a Broadway show that I go to see and really like. Other than that, I'm perfectly happy with the music I already own, stuff I've previously downloaded or stuff I borrow from friends or the library. Plus I don't have a CD player in the car so I listen to the radio.

 

[disneysteve]

Ok so in other words sites like Walmart, Itunes and such don't download anything as MP3's? I am not trying to be a pain. I honestly don't know how to do this or really have paid much attention to it. But I would like to be able to put music to my photo CD's. I have looked at the different sites. Then I downloaded legally from Itunes. But found it won't work in my photo program. the program I am using requires MP3's.
Paying for it isn't the problem. Just knowing what to do is.

If I'm not mistaken, what you need to do is burn your Itunes downloads to a CD, then reimport them to convert them to MP3 format. Perhaps someone else could walk you through the process.

What format does Napster use for their downloads?

 

[WDWHound]

I voted yes in the poll, though I haven't actually done this in ages.

My thought is that this is not an ethics problem (despite the blathering of some), but rather a technological problem. Few know it, but when radios with cassette tapes first became a very popular medium, there were lawsuits by groups such as the RIAA to try to ban them, simply because their music could be recorded (and redistributed) by the listener. The recording industry lost, and was forced to change.

The whole crusade against music downloading strikes me as nothing more than resistance to change by the same people that were against the cassette player. New technology cannot be easily legislated against, and I hate to tell you, but peer-to-peer networks aren't going away any time soon. The recording industry has made a good first step in making downloadable music more accessable through sites like iTunes and such, but it's only a delaying action in my opinion. There is no way to completely stop the technology, and the recording industry needs to realize that.

Maybe if they focused their energy on putting out better products and not fleecing their customers instead of suing 13 year olds, they might find a solution for themselves.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong, though I wont accuse you of blathering . I agree that the music companies need to find better solutions for dealing with the digital age, but that doesn't make stealing from them valid. I just don't understand the idea people have that they have a right to take something they didn't pay for. I don't care if you think the music industry isn't making a decent product available at a reasonable price. If you don't feel their product is worth the price, don't buy it, but this is not a justification to steal it. Any other way of looking at it is simply rationalization trying to justify getting something you want for free.

You want to force the RIAA to change, stop buying the products you find unreasonable. If enough people do that, the willl be forced to change in order to continue making a profit. However, you have no right to steal from them to make your point.

As for the cassette tape example, its a red herring. Casettes are analog and don't allow the user to make infinite copies without a loss in quality the way digital files do. I agree that cassettes should be legal, but you have never had the right to make copies of that cassette and give them to your friends without paying a distribution fee, yet this is EXACTLY what file sharers do with MP3s. Finally, I am not against file sharing per se any more than I was against cassettes. The technology is great and has lots of valid applications. I believe the technology should be legal, but the use of it to share copyrighted materials should be illegal. This is where the RIAA and I disagree (they want to ban the technology), but just because the technology is valid doesn't make using it to commit a crime valid.

 

[disneysteve]

As for the cassette tape example, its a red herring.

Let me say first that I am not arguing in favor of illegal downloading. Just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being illegal.

Do I have the legal right to record a song on the radio? If so, why is it okay for me to get the song that way but not okay for me to get the same song online? Either way, I get a copy of the song to use as I please without paying for it.

Someone stated earlier that it is legal for me to download a song that I already own. Once I've recorded a song from the radio, assuming that is legal, does that then constitute ownership and allow me to download another copy of the song?

I think the digital issue is also a red herring. I can transfer a cassette or an LP to digital form. Yes, the quality isn't the same, but the average person really doesn't care.

 

[WDWHound]

Let me say first that I am not arguing in favor of illegal downloading. Just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being illegal.

Do I have the legal right to record a song on the radio? If so, why is it okay for me to get the song that way but not okay for me to get the same song online? Either way, I get a copy of the song to use as I please without paying for it.

It is legal to record off the radio becuase the radio stations have paid a fee that to the record companies to compensate for you ability to do this. You pay the radio station by listening to their ads. When you download an MP3, no one pays anyone for the rights.

Someone stated earlier that it is legal for me to download a song that I already own. Once I've recorded a song from the radio, assuming that is legal, does that then constitute ownership and allow me to download another copy of the song?

I am not sure of the specific laws, but you are allowed to make copies of anything you own (ie purchased) for you own personal use. You may not give those copies to others, which is why file sharing is not legal.

I think the digital issue is also a red herring. I can transfer a cassette or an LP to digital form. Yes, the quality isn't the same, but the average person really doesn't care.

But it is still illegal unless the the file you create is for your own personal use and the tape was created legally. If you record a song off the radio to cassette tape and then make an MP3 strictly for your own use, there is nothing wrong with that. The radio station paid for your right to have that copy. However, once again, you may not share that copuy with anyone. Ifsomeone else wants a copy, they need to either buy it legally or spend the time taping the radio (thus supporting their advertisers) to get it themselves.

 

[wvrevy]

I'm sorry, WDWHound, but I am NOT wrong about this. The exact (and I imagine it's pretty close, word-for-word) argument you are using was used by those parties to argue against tape recordings. At the time, tapes were about as good as it gets in terms of quality, so that wasn't an issue, since they didn't have anything better at the time. It is NOT a red herring, it is an extremely salient point. When it happened before, the recording industry adapted by increasing costs in other places. The technology has changed, and the record industry must adapt again. Instead, they are running around, calling press conferences in front of their mansions, complaining about how much they've been hurt by the people at Napster

I'm not saying anyone has a "right" to do anything, nor am I saying that there is no product out there worth listening to. What I am saying is that this is not the primary issue. The issue is that the technology is not going anywhere, and is, in fact, becoming more widely spread, despite the legal bullying of the RIAA.

 

[jfulcer]

Ok so in other words sites like Walmart, Itunes and such don't download anything as MP3's? I am not trying to be a pain. I honestly don't know how to do this or really have paid much attention to it. But I would like to be able to put music to my photo CD's. I have looked at the different sites. Then I downloaded legally from Itunes. But found it won't work in my photo program. the program I am using requires MP3's.
Paying for it isn't the problem. Just knowing what to do is.

Ok, this is what could be considered an 'end-around' the copy protection scheme, but I'll tell you anyway. It allows you to use the files you download in the manner you see fit. Of course, I assume no responsibility if you use this for nefarious means.

1) Download AAC file or other DCRM (Digital Copyright Rights Management) encoded file.
2) Use your Itunes software (or the software you used to download from whatever music site there is) to burn your song to an audio CD - that CD will be playable in any CD player, and now
3) Use an MP3 player to 'rip' those songs off the CD into your MP3 format. One of favorite FREE mp3 players is Winamp. There is no longer any copy protection on the file.
4) Use in your photo software.

Of course, this IS perfectly legal for the use you described - your own personal use for enhancing your photo CD. It would not be legal to share this MP3 with anyone else. The problem you are facing is the DCRM ability has not been put in all pieces of software (yet), your photo software included. This is one of the major reasons why people complain about DCRM - you cannot use it for sometimes perfectly legal reasons.

 

[WDWHound]

I'm sorry, WDWHound, but I am NOT wrong about this. The exact (and I imagine it's pretty close, word-for-word) argument you are using was used by those parties to argue against tape recordings. At the time, tapes were about as good as it gets in terms of quality, so that wasn't an issue, since they didn't have anything better at the time. It is NOT a red herring, it is an extremely salient point. When it happened before, the recording industry adapted by increasing costs in other places. The technology has changed, and the record industry must adapt again. Instead, they are running around, calling press conferences in front of their mansions, complaining about how much they've been hurt by the people at Napster

But the technoligies are very, very different. For one thing, making boot leg copies has always been illegal, but no it is possible to make perfect bootleg copies and distribute them to a much, much larger audience. It was a crime then to give a copy to some one else, but the scale was smaller ( therefore less damaging) and the tapes were near impossible to trace. Now the scale is huge and I know many people who never pay for the music they have stolen.

Does the RIAA complain too much? Yes. Should they work more to find way to make the new tech work for them? Yes (even though there may not be a way if piracy become the norm). Are they part of the problem? Yes. Is this the same problem we had in the 60's and 70's? No. In those days there was no way the average Joe could distribute thousands of copies of a song and the quailty degraded severely if a copy of a copy was made. The practice has always been wrong and illegal, but now the technology makes it possible for people to commit theft on a huge scale.

I'm not saying anyone has a "right" to do anything, nor am I saying that there is no product out there worth listening to. What I am saying is that this is not the primary issue. The issue is that the technology is not going anywhere, and is, in fact, becoming more widely spread, despite the legal bullying of the RIAA.

The tech is not the problem, its people using it to commit crimes that is the problem. The RIAA has no right to try to outlaw the tech, but they have every right to prosecute those who use that tech to steal from them. Just because the tech is not going away does not justify to using it to commit a crime. I miight call their attempts to outlaw the tech "bullying, but I cant see their attempts to convict those who stole from them to be so.

 

[jfulcer]

Do I have the legal right to record a song on the radio? If so, why is it okay for me to get the song that way but not okay for me to get the same song online? Either way, I get a copy of the song to use as I please without paying for it.

If you made those tapes JUST for yourself and never shared them with anyone, then YES, it is legal (I think). But these people are being sued for sharing hundreds of songs. It's as of you took those tapes that you made and started duping them and handing them out to anyone that asks.

So if you record the radio, and turn it into an MP3 and keep it for yourself, you're ok. It's the 'sharing' part that has RIAA's undies in a bundle.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

What do you work for the RIAA or something? I mean, you're really being condescending towards some people about this issue. No, I do not think it's okay to shoplift and I told you that I don't download anymore and when I do it, I do it off itunes therefore I am PAYING for the music I download. Give me a break. I mean, wow I used to download without paying for the songs. I guess that makes me a bad, bad person and you're just so much better than I am. Give me a break.

Again, if you think stealing is bad, then yes you are a bad person. I'm not passing judgement on you. Just stating the facts. What you did was no different than shoplifting. The fact that you are getting defensive about how the law views it is something you will have to work through.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

I voted yes in the poll, though I haven't actually done this in ages.

My thought is that this is not an ethics problem (despite the blathering of some), but rather a technological problem. Few know it, but when radios with cassette tapes first became a very popular medium, there were lawsuits by groups such as the RIAA to try to ban them, simply because their music could be recorded (and redistributed) by the listener. The recording industry lost, and was forced to change.

The whole crusade against music downloading strikes me as nothing more than resistance to change by the same people that were against the cassette player. New technology cannot be easily legislated against, and I hate to tell you, but peer-to-peer networks aren't going away any time soon. The recording industry has made a good first step in making downloadable music more accessable through sites like iTunes and such, but it's only a delaying action in my opinion. There is no way to completely stop the technology, and the recording industry needs to realize that.

Maybe if they focused their energy on putting out better products and not fleecing their customers instead of suing 13 year olds, they might find a solution for themselves.

Your logic is still flawed. Theives always try to find ways around a system. Look at credit card fraud and other ways to get at your money. Look at what car thieves do to try to figure out how to steal cars, despite efforts to prevent them. I agree the music industry needs to get more modern in the way they view distribtution and their audience. But the fact that they aren't there yet does not justify the actions of those still wanting to steal the artist's work.

Im still trying to understand the justificatoin others have made concerning how much money artists may make. Why does how much money one makes make it okay to steal from that person?