Music Download bootlegs on ABC

[AnimEdge]

Im watching on ABC their talking about how mp3 downloading and 'bootlegging' really effected the music ind. and i have ta say its the smartest representation of the truth, its about time someone in the news didnt go with RIAA and there internet is killing the music ind. ads. even if they use there "dumb" report tatics, ya know, reporter:"What people are downloading gazillion mp3s over the last someodd years and its not effecting anything?!?!?!?111", "yes tom, bla blah blah"

Anyhow its the best representation of the real truth i have seen yet

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I missed that. What's the summary?

 

[AaronLucia]

......................?

 

[bignick]

napster unleashed pandora's box on this matter...at times, kazaa alone accounts for up to half of all internet traffic...

i don't see anything the record company will be able to do about the problem, the file sharing programs themselves are legal

Napster was ruled illegal because of central servers that kept track of which users had which files...a user had to connect to those servers to do a search, when the user requested a certain song from another user, thats when it became a peer-to-peer connection between those two users

file sharing applications today, like kazaa and gnutella, use a completely peer to peer architecture...that is, everything is done independently of central servers...therefore the companies have no control over what's traded...

even if the companies get shut down, which is very unlikely, the applications themselves don't need the companies so they'll continue on...

as for the RIAA's lawsuits against end users...kazaa, on average has around 3 million people logged in and sharing, worldwide...i believe that the RIAA has filed around a thousand lawsuits...

about .00033% of users...file sharing is here to stay...

 

[Silat Student]

Yeah, the anti-sharing advertising campaign is really starting to get funny. I was in the mall today (my annual mall trip, I usually get irked by the people and leave rather quickly but this was a family outing) and I saw a little billboard expounding on the evils of file sharing and the punishment of what happens when you get caught.... According to Brother Nick up there a friend of mine has less than a .00033% chance of getting served (less because I.....*ahem*....this friend is on a less well known program). Even if they do decide to go after the program that the friend is on there's still probably a less than 1% chance of any legal procceedings actually happening, sounds like decent odds to me.

 

[TonyM.]

"File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I used to use Napster heavily. Musta downloaded a few terabytes back then.
Funny thing.
I spent more on cds too as I was able to check out new bands, preview old bands, and find stuff I'd never even thought of.
(My gods, the Star Wars parodies alone numbered in the thousands, most not available any where else.)

The music and movie industry fail to mention that their profits have been going up, despite their skewed claims.

Same as the software industrys piracy claims.

Oh, I don't doubt it does cut into their sales a bit. I just think being able to check something out for a while to be certain it's 'you' leads to more sales. After all, they refuse to acknowledge the idea that what they were putting out was crap that people didn't want which effected sales.

Case in point. I like a band called Running Wild. Well, some former members formed X-Wild. I snagged some MP3s to check them out. They weren't bad, but not anything I wanted to listen to regularly. That saved me $45 (import cd), which I then used to order the full Running Wild CD library (after discovering through Napster that the band was still around and hadn't disbanded in the 80's like I had been TOLD! by the music stores (who couldn't get the CDs for me).

So, thank you Napster, Amazon and CDNow, and FU RIAA.
I probably spent $5,000+ on new cds that I would never have even knew existed without the P2Ps.

Now of course, it's different. Not worth the risk especially considering my ISP is one that did roll over and say "yes massa" to the RIAA and MPAA.

So, I put my money into other things now.

BTW: If ya like Metal - check out Iced Earth's latest. It's excellent! Discovered them thanks to MP3's as well...just bought the $25 extended CD as a result.

 

[Sapper6]

"File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.

LOL...

:bs:

obviously, Tony, you are little mis-lead. stop listening to everything you read, see, & hear. there's more to the truth than what the RIAA would have you to believe.

btw, there are still musicians out there that will tell you file-sharing has helped their overall sales of albums & concert tickets. take the dave matthews band for example. they encourage it and allow their fans to tape live shows for distribution on the net, etc. DMB will pack any stadium out there for as many shows they are willing to play. and as Kaith pointed out, file-sharing can actually help a potential consumer make a decision as to whether or not they purchase cds or tickets. try before you buy. we may download to our heart's content, but true fans will always still buy the record.

 

[bignick]

"File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.

that's not BS at all..he's absolutely right...you're stealing copyrighted material...and not just music anymore...movies...video games...

but like kaith said..if i like the artist i'll buy the cd...point in case...the beastie boys came out with a new cd a few months ago...i like the beastie boys but i was doubtful that they still had "it" in them...so i downloaded 5-6 songs of the new album...liked what i heard...and went out and bought it...

not saying everybody does this...but i know quite a few do...

 

[Cryozombie]

Im still trying to dicern the subtle differences in the copyright laws and piracy...

Maybe someone can explain...

If I use my DVD recorder to record a Movie I rent off of Digital Cable Pay-per-view, and save it in my home library thats 100% legal.

If I rent the same movie from Blockbuster, and burn them, It is ILLEGAL.

If I go to a site offering a free sample MP3s of say... "Rush's Greatest Hits" and download some of the full length songs they offer there for free as MP3s, Its legal.

but I download the same exact songs from Kaaza, its illegal...

Uh...

er...

um...

:idunno:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I have a huge collection of MP3s, a great majority of which are archives of old vinyl lps I no longer can listen to due to not having a turntable. I didn't burn them from the vinyl, but downloaded them.

Did I break the law? I own copies of some albums in vinyl, tape, cd AND DVD format, as well as MP3. The mp3's are illegal though. ????

It's all nuts.

 

[bignick]

that's one of the problem's the RIAA and the movie industry have gotten themselves into...you are allowed to make copies for your own personal purposes if you already own the material..

but these companies are trying to stop all copying...which is illegal...you have the right to back up your own property...but the industries are adding security that tries to make it impossible for you to do so...

which is very ineffective by the way...as soon as they come out with a new security feature it's broken within weeks, if not days or hours...so they have to spend all this money on R & D to develop the "security" when it has done absolutely no good...anyone with an ounce of determination can copy any DVD, software, CD...anything

 

[AnimEdge]

(Part 1)that's one of the problem's the RIAA and the movie industry have gotten themselves into...you are allowed to make copies for your own personal purposes if you already own the material..

(Part 2)but these companies are trying to stop all copying...which is illegal...you have the right to back up your own property...but the industries are adding security that tries to make it impossible for you to do so...

which is very ineffective by the way...as soon as they come out with a new security feature it's broken within weeks, if not days or hours...so they have to spend all this money on R & D to develop the "security" when it has done absolutely no good...anyone with an ounce of determination can copy any DVD, software, CD...anything

(Part 1)
Are you allowed to is the question, it depends who you ask, if you ask the majority of the bands them selfs, the probly dont care if you make a copy of there music as a back up, chances are they do it themselfs as well, if you ask the compainy that sells the cds, they will say no, why? becouse if you damange your cd, your have to buy a new one, thus they make 20 bucks.

Now movies, are generally the same thing, the people who made the movies, the directors and so on, chances are made there money before it got made, unlesst hey do a liecenceing deal, so they probly dont care what you do, there allready paid, but the releasing compiany do care becouse they make the money off the home release and so on.

(part 2)
The movie and music compainys(the people that sell the cds, and the dvds not the people who make them(artist,directors,ect)) create these 'Copy Proof' cds, weather or not you have the right to back it up is said in part 1
Now you are correct, if there is a will theres a way, some people love these to come out just for the chalaanges of breaking the algarithim used to encrypt the code, the might not even care about the music or distrubutiing the mp3s, they just like the challange, now there are some that crack it to "keep the music free" or whatever

A Great story about the copyright cds comes from the creaters of cds: Sony and Phillips, in short they those compainys created cds, the OWN the copyright to the actuall CD and how the data is stored on the cd. So when universal and so on started to release Copyright cds, Sony sued them,
Sony sued them saying that there copyright cds, are vialating there copyrights on the cd itself. Sony said they created a cd to freely transfer data and so on and by making it so this data is 'copyrighting' vialates the copyright, and so they said that the only was Sony will not sue them, is by 1) Never calling them a CD or Compact Disk, by having to redesign the transfering of data and how it holds data, these CopyrightCDs have to be in a totally diffrent area in any cd selling area, they cant not be mixed into the same group, they have to be on a totally diffrent shelf and so on, they cant be played on nomal cd players(they cant be anyways), and so on, or 2) they can stop making copyright cds, and thus, you dont see copyright cds anymore.

Now about what they said on ABC
They went to people who checked and compaire the cd to downloading, to see if they can have proofthat mp3 downloading is killing the music indestry, long story short, it takes about 5,000 downloads to stop the sell of 1 cd that is when you get down to spacifics, but on the grande scall that they showed that over all they diffrence from before and after mp3s downloading came out they diffrence in sales are so small that it is almost not noticable

But though the cd people show that people are buying 1/3 less cds in 2000s then they did in the 1990s, and they just proved that mp3s are NOT the cause of this, they said that everyone is mixxed up, that in the 2000s they yes they lost 1/3 but technicly this should be the normal level, and that infact they gained 1/3 in the 1990s and what is now is the normal level, but how can they gain 1/3 in the 1990s and lost it?

Well first off Rap became increadbly popular along with the whole boy bands, this greatly boosted sales becouse no one has ever heard od rap or nsync, but now in 2000 people have heard it befroe and no longer care, it is no longer new

People and kids had more money in the 1990s then before, thus more money to spend on cds, and now that they dont have as much money, they dont buy cds

Also everyone was jumping on the cd bandwagon, all babyboombers was buying cds of bands they had on vinal and so on, well now they all own all the cds of there past that they want.

That is what they said about the music selling and mp3
heres about the mp3s downloading

There used to be a thing called a 'Single', where you can buy just a few songs from a band you like for like 3 dollars.
The cd selling people (sece it costs as much to make a cd with 1 song as it does a cd with 12 songs(printing and distributing wise)) they fadded out singles, when they did this a thing that abc called "The Chubthumpa Theiory " came into place (Chubthumpa is the name of the band that did the song
"When i get knocked down, i get up again, your never gonna keep me down" song) This one song became a phenomanaon and everyone went out and bought there cd for that song, this cd cost 15-20 bucks, everyone that ABC asked about this band said that the other 12 songs on that cd was the WORST songs they have ever heard and everyone refused to by there next cd. Now im sure there are a lot of you that have bout a cd for 1 or 2 songs, and hated the rest of the music on that cd and was pissed that you just spend 20 bucks on 2 songs, then napster came out, and everyone loved listing to JUST the music they liked, but not only can they losten to the music they like, but they can freely listen to music of people and styles they never heard of. Music perfessors are saying that during this "era" that more music was going to more people then any other time ever in history.

Now the RIAA started saying we where killing the music indistry(just liek they said when radios came out), actually people might be buying less 'popular' music and buying more of the bands that they never hear on the radio(AE: I persanlay dont listen to the radio, 90% of my 3k songs are japanese and Rock/Metal bands you will never or very rarly hear on the radio, also i own the high majority of the american or bands that are avalable in the US that i have the mp3s for) So ABC stats that people are making up for the lack of 'singles' and are tired of buying a 20 dollar cd for 1 song they like, so that they started using to napster, they can now get the songs they want to have(and free helped),now the RIAA are stating taht this transfer of music on line, is causing cd sells to drop, there not, ABC proved that mp3s are not effectig overall sales, but now people instead of buying the cd for 1 song,(would you spend 20 bucks on a cd that you know you only like 2 songs, or a cd you downloaded and like 10 ot of the 12 songs?)

I was glad that a news group stated the known truth and challanged the RIAA statements

 

[bignick]

(Part 1)
Are you allowed to is the question, it depends who you ask, if you ask the majority of the bands them selfs, the probly dont care if you make a copy of there music as a back up, chances are they do it themselfs as well, if you ask the compainy that sells the cds, they will say no, why? becouse if you damange your cd, your have to buy a new one, thus they make 20 bucks.

Now movies, are generally the same thing, the people who made the movies, the directors and so on, chances are made there money before it got made, unlesst hey do a liecenceing deal, so they probly dont care what you do, there allready paid, but the releasing compiany do care becouse they make the money off the home release and so on.

you are legally allowed to make backup copies of material that you have purchased for your own purposes...you are not allowed to distribute or sell them in any manner...you are allowed...no if's, and's, or but's about it...which is why there's such an uproar about the actions of the RIAA and the movie industry in trying to block ALL copies of material...not just illegal copies...

 

[Cryozombie]

they fadded out singles, when they did this a thing that abc called "The Chubthumpa Theiory " came into place (Chubthumpa is the name of the band that did the song
"When i get knocked down, i get up again, your never gonna keep me down" song) This one song became a phenomanaon and everyone went out and bought there cd for that song, this cd cost 15-20 bucks, everyone that ABC asked about this band said that the other 12 songs on that cd was the WORST songs they have ever heard and everyone refused to by there next cd.

Chumbawumba.

That CD really really did suck. Im glad i never bought it... but I have purchased a few that I looked at later and went "What the F was i thinking, the only good song was the single..."

 

[Xequat]

"Also everyone was jumping on the cd bandwagon, all babyboombers was buying cds of bands they had on vinal and so on, well now they all own all the cds of there past that they want."



Good job, AnimEdge. You summed up what most people are not saying. When CD's first came out, they were new and exciting, so everything was recorded onto CD and cassette tape. Over time, people stopped buying new releases on cassette and only bought them on CD. At the same time, they were converting their old favorites that they had on tape to CD by buying old releases as well. It just so happens that Napster came out around the time that Best Buy actually stopped selling cassettes, so rather than blame their loss on new technology not being so new any more, they shifted clame to Napster. Sure, it's stealing, but as Kaith has said, it also could increase sales by exposing people to singles that they otherwise couldn't get without buying an album for 15 bucks only to find out that the only good song on it is the one you hear on the radio. I have downloaded stuff to try it out and then I go buy the CD if I like it. But the record sales have dropped because they increased so much after the CD invention and couldn't hold.

Check the sales of movies. When DVD's came out, overall movie sales went up. Now that everyone has their VHS converted to DVD, the movie sales have levelled off again. New technology brings in a new market; but when it's not new anymore, it returns to where it was.

 

[Master of Blades]

Its kind of interesting listening to adults speak about this. I was sitting with my mates the other day having this exact same discussion.

Im not gonna repeat whats been said and done, but in my opinion its got less to do with us and more with the artist. They have to realise that downloading music isnt going away anytime soon and your marketing and stuff needs to be based around that fact. Quite a few of my favourite rappers (Yes I like rap music, shoot me) became famous using the internet. Take a guy called Aesop Rock for example, he started by putting his tunes on the net and getting them famous like that. His last album was voted in the top 100 albums of the year (ALTHOUGH it was number 98). Downloading Music could really make the music industry that much better, or it could destroy. In my opinion, its more up to them.

But what I dont understand is isnt the same thing happening in the gaming industry. And thats one of the fastest growing industrys around?

If Im wrong leave me be, Im just an uneducated youth trying to be intelligent

 

[someguy]

There are plenty of games out there.
Mostly there are he really old games. Some how I doubt the company Hot-B USA gives a ____ if you go download shingen the ruler and play it. Most of you probably don't know who they are or what shingen the ruler is but some how I don't think that they would care if you got an rom of it. Heck it would be pretty hard to find it now days. Although I have it and for some reason am playing it now. On the cartridge that is.
Now Square might get annoyed if you start putting out one of there latest games but then again how big was say FFX. So how many people would steal it.
So does any one here know exactly what the laws on downlaoding old games is.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Do a Google search on "Abandonware".
Some companies don't mind, others are nuts over it.

 

[Flatlander]

Two things.

If I own something, I am free to share with anyone I choose. I just cannot profit off of copyright material. I'd like for someone to just try and tell me I can't share what I choose.

Second, Chumbawaumba sucked, Technopunk. Even the single. All of it. Sick, sick trash.

The third of the two is - irrespective of how anyone tries to prohibit anything on the internet, resistance is futile. Too many borders, too many jurisdictions, too much initiative and creativity on the part of users, and NEVER enough funding to put towards policing. Quite simply, it is unpossible.