Sharing MP3s
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22213
Printed Date: July 18 2025 at 03:17
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sharing MP3s
Posted By: progadder
Subject: Sharing MP3s
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 12:48
Am I the only one who thinks this?
First it was copying LPs that would kill music.
Then on our cassettes it said 'Home taping is killing music'.
Now MP3s are killing CDs.
My experience is that a little sharing is a good thing.
I have bought an awful lot of CDs of bands that I had not heard before, either because a friend has given me a copy of their CD or I have listened to one or two of their tracks on MP3.
I am totally opposed to the wholesale sharing of files a la 16-year olds but if I had not had the opportunity to listen beforehand to many groups then I would not have risked spending my hard-earned cash.
My friends and I sensibly share material that we could not otherwise afford to hear and as a result a lot of new stuff is bought and indeed a good number of concerts are attended.
What do you think?
 |
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 12:53
|
I think that if you're a grown up person (e.g. you have an income) you should first try to use all available legal web services:
- Napster
- Yahoo Music Unlimited
- http://www.emusic.com - www.emusic.com
- http://www.cdbaby.com - www.cdbaby.com
- http://www.mindawn.com - www.mindawn.com
All these offer ways to listen to a LOT of music without purchasing it, for an affordable price. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: retuow
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 12:53
|
No, you're not the only one. I've bought a lot as well, thanks to the MP3's provided here once (don't like the current streaming thing though).
I have, as a matter of fact, NO copied CD's. All original material. That's one of the reasons my collection is relatively small (about 400 CD's). I cannot afford to spend more than I do now. ------------- Human beings were created by water to carry it uphill. |
Posted By: HeirToRuin
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:18
|
I fully support whatever technology has brought us. You always hear business and proponents of business and advancement saying that people need to accept the change. For example, the cable services are rapidly moving toward digital format and HDTV technology. Those of us that don't conform will be left out just like those of us that didn't want to get a CD player until it was too late. That's what is ironic. The technology has made it possible to share music for free almost instantly and with nobody having to buy an original "copy." Now all of a sudden, change is bad when it affects record companies. No, I don't think mp3 trading has hurt the music industry as a whole. I think it may hurt smaller artists that don't sell many albums. On one hand, I live in a town that is far from a music mecca unless you're into hip hop and country. There is no means for me to buy retail CDs locally that suit my interest (ie prog, metal that isn't nu-metal). On the other hand, there's the internet now. MikeEnRegalia posted some links above, and I did a search on some of them for Gentle Giant and got no positive hits. I suppose there's always Amazon.com, but they don't have a complete collection (usually the more popular releases). The question remains...how can I find a copy of Camel's Stationary Traveller. I didn't see it offered by any major internet outlet. I suppose one can always go through the trouble of contacting the record company that owns the rights to the music. Here's my recommendation...and here's what rabid downloading can force artists to do. Marillion has their own site. Tull has their own site. Portnoy even has his own site in YtsejamRecords.com. They sell their own music (although in DT's case, they're selling Pink Floyd and Metallica's music). If bands could break away from the record company and typical retail cycle, they could probably make just as much money with fewer album sales. For huge artists, they can reap enormous profits if they charge the same as retail while producing and distributing their own albums... Kevin Moore with Chroma Key offers a download password for a fee. Pay for a CK album, and you can download the whole thing instantly with lyrics, pictures, and what all else. Sure it's not a CD, but who cares. You can burn the songs to a CD. The music is more important than the CD package, and the artist gets to reap the benefits here without forking over 75% or more of the costs to executives. I'm all for downloading. It has the potential to make music less commercial and increase the artistic value while benefitting the artists more directly as opposed to lining the pockets of Elektra Records. ------------- ARTEMIA - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic L.i.E. - http://www.reverbnati |
Posted By: HeirToRuin
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:22
|
Additionally, if downloading is destroying the music industry and is
"stealing," then how do people reconcile that with USED CD STORES and
EBAY? Neither of those examples give any royalty to the artist, and around here used CD stores make a killing. They're always packed. I've bought some CDs off Ebay. Is that stealing from the artist? I'm only paying some random guy $5.00 for his old copy of Fates Warning's Pleasant Shade of Gray...and he's probably already burned a copy of it for himself. ------------- ARTEMIA - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic L.i.E. - http://www.reverbnati |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:22
|
Indeed - none of these methods for killing music actually did kill music did they?
However, I can't recommend giving away music that is the result of someone else's hard work - would you give away other stuff that didn't belong to you? As a musician, I have bills to pay like anyone else, and I'd hate to think I wasn't being paid for the work I'd done. The worst thing about file sharing is that it is an easy target for the RIAA and other such bodies, and I would recommend people not do it if they don't want to run the risk of getting caught. For example, I send my own music to people using http://www.yousendit.com, and use WinZip to hide the contents using a password to protect it. That said, on a very personal note, I do believe that there is a lot to be said in favour of sharing music around, especially if it means that people go and buy it as a direct result. That can only be a good thing for musicians. How many more hints can I drop...?  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: progadder
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:36
|
To the fellow Camel fan.
To buy 'Stationary Traveller' go to http://www.amazon.co.uk - www.amazon.co.uk
They have it for £4.20, new (about seven dollars), plus postage.
Steve
|
Posted By: HeirToRuin
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:38
There hasn't been much noise from the RIAA lately from what I recall. It seems their attempts to get ISPs to fork over information wasn't all that successful (or am I wrong?) I think the strict legal stance has been that only people who share large quantities are the only ones being watched. The average downloader who may get a couple of Mars Volta songs to check them out is in no danger at all. The reason being is that it can't be proven that the person doesn't already own the CD, cassette, vinyl, 8track, or whatever. I mean...one of the first full albums I downloaded was Opeth's Still Life buying the CD...(I didn't have an mp3 ripper at the time...and windows media only did wma format). I'm not trying to encourage people, but saying that the RIAA will catch people that download isn't accurate because there's really nothing they can do unless (a) the person is downloading huge amounts of material) and (b) the ISP tracks and reports it. ------------- ARTEMIA - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic L.i.E. - http://www.reverbnati |
Certif1ed wrote:Posted By: HeirToRuin
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:39
Actually, I already have it. I was just trying to use an example of one of the worst albums of a band that already isn't all that popular. ------------- ARTEMIA - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/artemiamusic L.i.E. - http://www.reverbnati |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:41
|
I have also bought a lot of CDs as a result of listening to MP3s. The trouble is that those of us who are like this are heavily outnumbered by those who simply use eMule or whatever to download large numbers of MP3 files with no intention of paying for any of it or buying the CDs; indeed they download the MP3s precisely to avoid buying the CDs. (Whether or not they would have bought the CD had it not been possible to download the MP3s illegally is another question, of course.) I have met people like this and I'm sure most, if not all, forum members here have too. By the way, Robert John Godfrey recently put the following notice on The Enid Web site:ONLINE ARCHIVE
The purpose of this is to make sure that The Enid's music reaches as many people as possible and does not entirely disappear when I am dead. The Enid represents my life's work and I want it and what it contains to live on in those who warm to it. Having taken this decision it may well influence the way I think about The Enid and may drive me to do some more.
People will still be able to purchase CD's from Inner Sanctum if they so wish. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 14:13
Yes, I find that annoying ... many of the high-volume sharers are even downloading much more than they could ever listen to. They should try to focus their attention on fewer albums.
I remember when I was a child toys would pile up in my room ... I always lost interest in toys once another new toy was available.
All you high-volume sharers should take a look at all the albums you downloaded and think about whether you're really listening to all that stuff ... and if you're really deleting those albums that you decide not to buy!  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Hendrix828
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 18:04
|
I 100% agree on the USED CD,Cassette,LP and DVD situation.
Now you want to talk about ripping off a recording artist or Hollywood,than look no further than the "used" section in your music,books and video stores
 The only one who benefits on them are the store/seller themsleves,and not the company or artist.That's basically just short of bootlegging.
But that's okay though,only downloading is hurting the industry
 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 18:45
|
I make heavy use of used cd stores and ebay ... and I think it's perfectly ok. I'm still buying many new releases.
BTW: Buying old releases in stores (new) is not a great help to the artist either. So buy the old releases as used cds and the current release directly from the artist (if possible). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 22:34
|
Just to make it clear:
Prog Archives doesn't encourage, admits or tolerates activities like file sharing except from legal sources, despite the personal beliefs of any of our members.
There's not such thing as big or small felony, something is legal or is not, and downloading without the authorization of the copyright owner is not legal.
If such activities are being done, is personal responsability of the member that in no case involves Prog Archives.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 03:56
|
well I do it .. sometimes I think we all do it sometimes .. (lets face it CD companies are run by fat pigs and the artist gets shafted in the end anyway) its the record companies trying to put us on a guilt trip and its easy to see why. So if you have downloaded the odd song just do what I do buy what you like and delete the files after a few plays then nobody gets hurt |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 04:43
|
Found at random;
File sharing - particularly of music and movies - is a hot topic, and won't stop being a hot topic for a while. Found at random on The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/04/ifpi_sues_more_people/ - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/04/ifpi_sues_more_people/ (I haven't got the new html encoding methods on this forum yet...) 
If you look further back into the Register's archives, you'll see stories of 11 year-olds being taken to court, yadda yadda. They're serious bullies. 
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 05:04
|
yep ... just read in German news today that in the US the Republicans are trying to raise the maximum penalty for illegal file sharing from 5 to 10 years. And even the mere posession of software which can be used to circumvent DRM or other protection mechanisms will also be punishable.
Still don't want to use Napster?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: eddietrooper
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 05:44
If everyone who owns pirate copys of MP3 is going to be punished then they will have to build jails for millions of people, because they will have to punish also people who own a pirate copy of MS Office, for example, which is also illegal. In Spain I don't know a single person who owns an original copy of MS Office at home, unless it is included when buying the computer (which is extremely unusual here). Will they all be put in jail? Not possible. For the same reasons, I don't believe that that file sharers will be punished. |
Posted By: darren
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 06:24
|
In my lifetime, I have purchased The Dark Side Of The Moon at least five times on three different formats. Would it be illegal to download a copy? The way I see it, I paid for the music, the medium it was on was destroyed or lost. I wonder how that would stand up in court if I could produce copies of scratched, warped and cracked LP's of the album I'm accused of downloading. ------------- "they locked up a man who wanted to rule the world. the fools they locked up the wrong man." - Leonard Cohen |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 06:57
|
eddietrooper: I'm sure that they'll be perfectly happy to settle out of court for 10,000 EUR. That's not a joke, that's how they do it.
darren: No, that won't help you in court. It makes sense, but not legally. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: nowayman121
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 07:44
|
I'm not opposed to people downloading music, but then again its not mine to start with, if I were a successful artist with CD's I wouldn't are if people downloaded it without paying me as long as I get credit and my music is enjoyed. I quite oftern share music amoungst my friends so they can hear what I'm listening to and I can hear what there listening to, thats how bands get known, people talk about it pass it on and if they like they'll tell their friends.
------------- Progressive: Intelligent music for intelligent people. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 11:53
I don't have an income, does that excuse me?  |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 11:54
Odd that. Why steal when you can have it http://www.openoffice.org/ - for free ? |