Should Downloading Music really be free for everyone to read please!

[Gigglygyal]

Over the past few years, we

[Fawnish]

Yes, you're not the first one as I can see. I believe is a trick question, as the thread title is "Should downloading music really be free for everyone?", but the poll question is "Should downloading music be illegal?"

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"

[Gigglygyal]

There's one imporant thing I didn't see here: What if (copyrighted) music was purposedly released on P2P networks or the Internet in general, by the artist(s) themselves? Ie., a local, unsigned band that wishes to promote its songs.

[Gracie W]

I think this (Denis Battista) spam was from a RIAA mouthpiece. I think that it was deliberately done that why, so people like some of us (like myself) who didn

[Rob]

I think the question is too generic.


It should be illegal to download copyrighted works without permission but there should be a places where you can 'legally' purchase the music. The music that is obtained legally should be in such a form that the buyer can use it in any (legal) way.

For instance, if I purchase some new song that comes out over the internet, I would like the ability to play it with a player of my choice and burn it to a CD to play in my car and stereo. As far as I have seen, with the current implementation this is not possible. It appears most 'distributors' are releasing the music on the internet for sale in a proprietary format that must be played in their player.

I believe that until this is changed 'online music piracy' will continue.

On the other side, I think that for unsigned artists the internet can be an excellent way of getting their music to the public. Most people would not go out and purchase an unknown group without ever hearing the song, so using the internet to create awareness can really help.

[Eric L]

Downloading music should be free.
But: If you are downloading copyrighted music which are sold in the stores it should be disallowed.

But why do you think so many people keep downloading?
Because they cant afford it? Yes and no.
They surely can afford to buy some CDs but keep in mind that the CDs are getting more expensive every year.

Why should I pay 15 - 20 bucks for a record I can download for free (of course there's the cost for the internet connection.)?
Whats the difference? If I buy a CD in a store I get a plastic cd box with some plastic cover which does nothing than pollute the enviroment

What I want to say is that the big corporations shouldnt go sue everyone for downloading mp3s or sharing mp3s but to reconsider their publishing strategy.

[pharmdcougargal12]

I really haven't been following it too closely, since I don't use P2P to download music (well, maybe 3 copyrighted pieces a year) - but aren't they already adding a surcharge to CDs now (maybe only Audio, not sure about data)? Is this money going to the RIAA? If so, shouldn't garage bands recording their own music be perturbed at having to pay this surcharge?

[LINDSAY HEMNES]

Sorry. I voted wrong!!!!!!!! Meant to vole NO!!!

If I buy a book, I can have every friend in the neighborhood read it, without the printing industry is coming running, screaming on top of their lungs. RIAA is a big darn bully. RIAA think that because of slumping sales, the Internet and p2p is to blame, I remember when a LP was costing *****00-$3.00 and the sale was booming. Now the same albums is costing $10.00-$16.00, which is absurd, the album have paid is self many time over to the recording industry. And the BS RIAA is running that is to protect the artist is, as we all know BS. They do not pay the artist squat. Only artist like Rolling Stones, Michael [edit] Jackson and top artist like them, is getting paid. I download music so I can get the songs I like and not have to buy 15 CD to get the song I like, but, yes, I still buy CDs. I just wish that I could buy the album direct from the artists. Without the inflated RIAA prices!!

Have to edit... we don't want you getting sued

[Barbiecouture]

And only three choices. Perhaps we should invite the Palm Beach voters up here so they can call us idiots for a while.

[mrsix12346]

On this issue I sometimes feel a bit like Ash in Army of Darkness (Evil Dead 3) after he breaks the cursed mirror and his evil alter-ego splits away from him.

On the one hand, I'm a musician, I like being paid for my work and I expect to get royalties for CDs that are sold with music I've written. I feel sorry for artists who have sweated blood and tears to become successful and yet lose x% of their income through piracy.

But on the other hand, I ask myself "Which do I prefer? Paying $20 dollars or downloading it free?" Doh.....let me think..... Many connected computer users have got used to loading their P2P software and getting whatever music, film or software they want. This, whatever your attitude, is going to be a very difficult tide to turn and the big labels declaring all-out war on their potential customers is not going to help things (in fact it's going to push more people towards file-sharing). The anti-copy systems that they've spent $$ developing are a complete joke as most of them are cracked before they're even released. Proprietary formats simply aren't viable and destroying one file-sharing protocol will simply be followed by the rise of another.

My evil alter ego would also argue that the artists who most suffer from piracy also earn vast amounts of money through TV appearances, concerts, endorsements, merchandising. Their label loses more, as it takes a far bigger percentage (poor Sony, poor EMI, how I weep for them). Smaller artists can actually win because having their music widely distributed will get them more concerts, TV appearances, better recording deals etc. - considering that most independent labels do a pitiful job in promotion.

But don't listen to him. He's totally immoral.

-Buy CDs, so that the big labels can purchase their own records to give them a better chart position.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can spend $$ promoting the top artist in their catalogue while neglecting the others.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can brainwash kids into listening to annodine mush with carpet-bomb marketing.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can swallow up independent labels and make them 'commercial'.

..I could continue, but I think you probably get the point.


Possible utopian future?

- Digital distribution by internet or shop terminals to memory-card-based walkmen or portable storage units (vastly reduced production and distribution costs).
- Premium enhanced interactive editions of albums published on DVD.
- No encryption. If you can decode it to listen to it, you can copy it so there's no point.
- Promotion almost entirely on the net (reduced advertising cost).
- Resurgence of independent labels taking advantage of reduced costs who can now use net distribution to compete with bigger labels.
- Big labels forced to spread promotion budgets over their entire catalogue instead of just the top artist to compete with the range of indie music.
- Increased diversity in commercial music.
- Low price-per-download or low subscription fee to incite people to pay for a quality service with good catalogue of music with fast, secure downloads.
- Generous free downloads to whet peoples' appetites. This results in returns through concerts, movie tie-ins, merchandising, DVD sales etc.
- Macterminator becomes world-renowned producer, svengali of several popular all-girl groups.

er...yes...quite