Sharing MP3s

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:

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.

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...?

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

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.

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:

I 100% agree on the USED CD,Cassette,LP and DVD situation.

Edited by Hendrix828 - April 23 2006 at 18:08

Just to make it clear:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 23 2006 at 22:46

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/

(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.


    

Edited by Certif1ed - April 24 2006 at 04:44

MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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?

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.

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.