I kinda opened a can of worms, so to speak, in a recent post about suggestions for music of a jazz nature to listen to....I blurted out that I had gone and downloaded one of the suggestions from a music sharing site. I was quickly chastised by some VIPs for not "paying" for said music. I copped an attitude and got out of bed later to delete my posts, me laying there stewing about being hacked on. I think it's a great way to find and SHARE music you would'nt have known about otherwise....and then you can support the band if you like them,or not. Better than buying  a bunch of stuff you don't even know if you like. If I had not had this option,I would have never heard of them..On the other hand, musicians are being deprived of their royalties with this sort of media. I know this could turn into a flamer, however, if it was enough to get me out of bed, disturbed,(not a whole lot bothers me these days,odd this did) and delete my posts on this matter,it's worth a post......what do you all think??

I would personally say buy it, and don't share it.  But I'm an old-fashioned, play-it-by-the-rules kind of a guy.   Sharing/copying is stealing, no matter how you slice it.  Unless the artist specifically intended the music to be shared, that is...

If you want to listen to it first, you can get decent previews at a multitude of online sites.  Amazon, for instance, has a 30 second clip of just about everything you can imagine.  Also, a lot of record (showing my age again) stores have a listening area, and will let you preview a CD in the store if you ask them.   If you don't want the whole album, no biggie, just download single songs from iTunes or MusicMatch, or whatever (although the 128kbps quality leaves something to be desired IMHO).

The music buying public has got it so made these days!  Why, I remember when the compressed digital audio idea was like something out of Star Trek (the original series, that is)....  

I agree with this assessment, with the same exceptions I mentioned applying to all other instances.

if they're big time making platnium albums, and selling out MSG, i say, "why not?"  small artists?  definitely not, and buy.  i honestly doubt rolling stones would mind.  sure, i'm gonna be chastised for my duplicitous attitude, but hey,  i'm a complex man.  

but in all seriousness, there are PLENTY of places to listen and hear music without having to resort to downloading it illegally.  besides going to the listening stations at your local super duper mega music store, the internet is RIFE w/ places to take a listen.

i.e. for stuff you know you want to check out, there's itunes, amazon, buy.com, grassroots.com, www.allmusic.com,

for new stuff you'd like to know about, there's www.pastemagazine.com,  www.pitchfork.com, www.kexp.org (btw, 563 is an AWFUL AWFUL man for not sharing this one with us!!! ), , etc. etc. etc.

funny, but i've been finding some AWESOME independant artists/bands on NPR's All Songs Considered website.  they have a feature called "Open Mic", where unsigned bands send in their material.  its a cornocopia!

they used to have a cool setup where 5 of the best songs they've received that week duke it out, where listeners can vote, but they phased that out for the more magazine like reviews they have now.  still i've subscribed to their weekly podcast, where i get automatic downloads of new songs and found Josh Dion, the Hope, Carol Bui, Angela Correa, From Monument to Masses, and the Fatales.

again, with all of these great resources, its harder and harder to justify file stealing, IMHO.

Yes, it is different. The radio station pays fees to play what it plays - even if you don't like it.


Slightly grey area, I think. On the one hand, it is the legitimate, licensed copy of the material. On the other hand, its sale second hand does not generate a fee to the artist. However, it's certainly not illegal and I for one have no problem with it - at some point, a license fee was paid for that copy. A large proportion of my CD buying these days is from eBay. I don't consider the behaviour of the original owner regarding copying to be my concern. If he's copied it, he's the one in the wrong.


Neither of these are a problem, of course - assuming no copy is made.


Theoretically another grey area, as is the playing of music and videos in (say) a hairdresser. The latter (and some versions of the former) can technically be deemed as "broadcast" though I have never heard of a case.

There are circumstances in which I download material:

• If I know I have the material on vinyl. I no longer own a gramophone, grandad, and have no way to rip all of the records I have boxed in the roof of the garage.
• As a precursor to purchase. This might be for a song to learn for my band, and I follow up by purchase of a CD with that song - perhaps a compilation, best-of, or the original release.
• To listen to when someone posts a "can someone tell me what's being played in this song?" question.

Anything else I simply consider theft, and no different to taking it from a store. Many of my colleagues, who I know download movies and other copyright material, consider me self-righteous and near-insane. Considering we work for a software company that makes its living selling licenses, I consider their position to actually be even more in the wrong than an average punter who downloads.

i download music if i hear a song on the radio and i just wanna hear it again then if i like it i buy the album. i don't think there is anything wrong with that!

The greater issue at hand with music file sharing is theft.  Radio stations, retailers (even 2ndhand CD shops), clubs that have cover bands, etc. are paying licensing fees to ASCAP and BMI, if they are legitimate.

Parties, a CD playing in the background at a beauty shop, etc?  Let's not get extreme.  The qualifier in this oft debated topic is profit.  The utilized method of entertainment (music) must be integral to the business at hand.  Do you make a lot of money hosting parties for your friends?  If so, is it because of the music you play?

Common sense is the guiding force people.  Unfortunately, it seems when it comes to matters of intellectual property, there are so many convaluted rulings, it makes interpretation difficult.  I always ask myself what I would expect as an artist and as a person.

This topic is a lose/lose argument since the values of one generation are different then the next.  It's not a matter of old vs. young.  For a 16 year old today, file sharing has always been around.  Being able to sign on, DL and trade music has always been an option.  For someone my age, it's just another new way to deliver music, yet it's one that allows rampant theft.

So many people really, honestly believe that if you can type some code, navigate OL and create OL identities with little chance of getting caught, then it's ok to commit acts which would be considered illegal, and definitely immoral.  Cyber crime has truly shown us the nature of human behavior.

I ask the same question to all of you who think file sharing is ok.  Would you go into a Tower Records and pop a few CD's in your coat pocket and walk out of the store without paying for them?  How about Guitar Center?  Would you walk into GC and shoplift Sonar or Acid or Fruity Loops?  Then why would you go OL and steal it?

You might find past discussions on this topic interesting. Many of us, including myself, have discussed this topic to death.  

• Copyright
• Royalty Theft
  
• Record Industry, Webcasters OK Rates
• Copyright and the Drummer

You can also read an article from several years back that I've written on the topic ... Copyright Law - Learn the Basics

*slaps to the face*

woah, always good to have a briton around to keep me real!  

and not to sound like i'm backpeddling, cause i probably am , but i havent DL'ed anything in a looooooong while.  might be because i learned to leave radio behind.


really?  do we wear yellow socks, too?  

Yeah, I wasn't thinking in terms of royalties, so in that sense it's paid for.  I saw on one of the threads that Bart referred to above that the royalties tend to be related to the exposure of the broadcast so that answers my question.  I.e., the more listeners, the higher the royalty paid.  

Now that I read Bart's "learn the basics" article, I understand it better and I'm less inclined to copy music.  

However, I can't help but wonder whether artists or architects get miffed if someone takes a photo of a piece of artwork, or of a structure.  Do I have to pay a fee to take a photo of the Sears Tower?  

Do authors get upset about their books being checked out in libraries?  Do the libraries have to pay royalties each time a book is checked out?  Are these situations the same or different as downloading music?  Hmmmm....

Anyway, according to the law, copying music or any other artistic material is ILLEGAL.  Case closed.  Whether or not any of the stipulations of these laws is logical or useful may yet be debated by some.  However, unless we intend to champion change, its a moot point.