I steal music.

[MMski]

Originally Posted by jihadjoe75

Work is slow right now and I feel like ranting...

I'm a college student who makes $8 an hour for my campuses IT support dept and quite frankly, I cannot afford to pay $10-$20 for a CD. Yep, I'm a pirate and I have been for a very long time. Although I do buy music on occasion. This last month, I've bought two CD's. One being Frontier Ruckus's new album and Cursive's new album, both absolutely worth my $14.

If music is free and I'm short on cash, I'm absolutely going to download it. Even if all of a sudden the main stream music industry started putting out genuinely quality work, I would still not buy it -nor would 98% of the other people my age. Hell, I can personally say that I do not know a single person my age that does not steal music.

Morally, there is little difference from stealing a CD in a store that stealing it online. It's just that when your sitting in your bedroom clicking through TPB or Demonoid it simply does not feel like stealing, especially since you know that your chances of getting caught are very, very low.

It's been said a million times, but the days are changing and the recording industry is not. It's unfortunate considering the amount of people that feed their families through this industry, but maybe in the end of all this people will start focusing on their art, rather than money. If piracy continues, maybe more really great art could come out of it. Art obviously doesn't necessarily feed a family though, but was it ever supposed to?

Now, dear recording industry, if you can give me an unlimited library with lossless songs... hell, I'd probably pay twenty-sum bucks a month for that. Unfortunately, I'm assuming the other %90 of the population that can't recognize the difference between a lossless file and one of those bullshit 128kbps songs you can pay a dollar for on itunes. So yea, in regards to making money with music, we musicians are mostly just effed. I'd start promoting your concerts more and make a few nice t-shirts, cause that's usually what people my age spend money on when they support a band.

In the mean time, I will personally be giving my music away for free, because it is, quite frankly, not worth $10 for an album. I just like it when people listen and enjoy my songs.

Thanks for listening to my rant. It's been a long day.

With love,
Joe Hertler

---

I've read tons of your messages so far and I would first like to say thank you very much for commenting on my rant. I know it came off as inconsiderate and arrogant and I apologize for that. If you'd like, I wrote a response to all of this on page four. It's a bit long, but I'd ask you to read the whole thing if you get the chance. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I hold great admiration for those on this forum who have taken the plunge into professional music and succeeded.

You can read my response by clicking here.

I'll make sure to tell Frontier Ruckus you're buying their music

They booked out the entire month at the studio I'm working at.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

all technology should be regulated for the legal uses. some banned - but I think that's extreme. machine guns are banned, but pistols are not. both are governed by laws. guns are technology. so is television and there are regulations about what can be broadcast on it, when and how.

this really isn't that hard of a concept.

technology and laws to govern it's uses.

simple.

So again, what laws and regulations should be put in place for such an invention?

obtuse semantics. copyright infringement IS theft. fencing is theft. stealing something from someone, reselling it and profiting is fencing.

Copyright infringement is not theft in the eyes of US law, but feel free to have your own personal definition.

well I guess they are for Copyright Infringement... I mean, it's not just theft... he infringed copyrights!

he knew what he was doing was wrong and harmful. there are laws, he broke them. maybe the laws should be changed. maybe his behavior should be changed...

You're right, had it been for actual theft (you know, stealing three CDs from the CD store) he would have received a much, much lighter penalty. I do agree the laws should be changed.

he will loose.

just like the woman in ohio. all he can appeal is the sentence not the crime. the courts are not being friendly to these cases wasting time when the defendants have already been proven guilty once, and by jury.

I imagine he'll win, the sentence is what should be adjusted for reality. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that downloading 31 songs shouldn't result in a 675,000 dollar fine.

I think 500 dollars would be much more reasonable.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I think 500 dollars would be much more reasonable.

if that happens - and it might - it sets precedent for massive claims and collections via ISP enforcement. I can see a cottage industry set up to settle - like parking tickets, automated red lights and bill collectors - bring it on.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

if that happens - and it might - it sets precedent for massive claims and collections via ISP enforcement. I can see a cottage industry set up to settle - like parking tickets, automated red lights and bill collectors - bring it on.

I'd much rather see that than wholly unreasonable penalties for a select few. I think if your hope of a world where lots of people can get busted for downloading comes true they'll have to adjust the penalties downward.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

You're right, had it been for actual theft (you know, stealing three CDs from the CD store) he would have received a much, much lighter penalty. I do agree the laws should be changed.

something we agree upon - I have a feeling the laws are changing - we'll just see how they fall...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I'd much rather see that than wholly unreasonable penalties for a select few. I think if your hope of a world where lots of people can get busted for downloading comes true they'll have to adjust the penalties downward.

I'm ok with that - it will make buying music a better value than having to pay personal infringement fines.

Like I've always said - a good enough solution is all that is needed.

[kieran kelly]

There have been a bunch of " I feel " posts ... lets see what is said legally about downloading music from unlicensed websites.

NET Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems pretty clear here how serious copyright infringement is from a legal standpoint.


US CODE: Title 17,504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

In the United States, statutory damages are set out in Title 17, Section 504 of the U.S. Code. The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court.

Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work. Defendants who can show that they were "not aware and had no reason to believe" they were infringing copyright may have the damages reduced to $200 per work.

[Lifted]

LMFAO....the thread title is an ultimate hate parade in the wrong place, at the right time.

[kieran kelly]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

You're right, had it been for actual theft (you know, stealing three CDs from the CD store) he would have received a much, much lighter penalty. I do agree the laws should be changed.
something we agree upon - I have a feeling the laws are changing - we'll just see how they fall...

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

something we agree upon - I have a feeling the laws are changing - we'll just see how they fall...

And something I disagree with both of you : ). At least legally not morally as the law seems excessive in terms of mp3 downloads.

RIAA v. Tenenbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 31 July 2009, the jury awarded $675,000 to the music companies, taking a middle option between the minimum ($22,500 total) and the maximum ($4.5 million). Tenenbaum's lawyer Charles Nesson plans to appeal; if the verdict stands, Tenenbaum plans to file for bankruptcy.

Legally speaking it seems like the verdict was correct in the fine levied .

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by kieran kelly

There have been a bunch of " I feel " posts ... lets see what is said legally about downloading music from unlicensed websites.

NET Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems pretty clear here how serious copyright infringement is from a legal standpoint.


US CODE: Title 17,504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

In the United States, statutory damages are set out in Title 17, Section 504 of the U.S. Code. The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court.

Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work. Defendants who can show that they were "not aware and had no reason to believe" they were infringing copyright may have the damages reduced to $200 per work.

I never said it wasn't a crime, I just said that it wasn't "theft".

Originally Posted by kieran kelly

And something I disagree with both of you : ). At least legally not morally as the law seems excessive in terms of mp3 downloads.

RIAA v. Tenenbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 31 July 2009, the jury awarded $675,000 to the music companies, taking a middle option between the minimum ($22,500 total) and the maximum ($4.5 million). Tenenbaum's lawyer Charles Nesson plans to appeal; if the verdict stands, Tenenbaum plans to file for bankruptcy.

Legally speaking it seems like the verdict was correct in the fine levied .

You can say that it was fair because it was in between the minimum and the maximum, but the minimum and maximum are what need to be corrected. He's appealing that it was excessive and I think he'll win.

I have a hard time believing that most people think a 675K fine for downloading 31 songs is reasonable.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Lifted

LMFAO....the thread title is an ultimate hate parade in the wrong place, at the right time.

the op made a total of 14 posts over about three months, the last being on May 19th 2009... and yet, this thread lives on!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I never said it wasn't a crime, I just said that it wasn't "theft".

You can say that it was fair because it was in between the minimum and the maximum, but the minimum and maximum are what need to be corrected. He's appealing that it was excessive and I think he'll win.

I have a hard time believing that most people think a 675K fine for downloading 31 songs is reasonable.

I have a hard time believing that most people don't think illegal downloading is a serious crime.

[Crandak]

Some day I hope to get into Heaven and there aint no thieves in Heaven.

[kieran kelly]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I never said it wasn't a crime, I just said that it wasn't "theft".



You can say that it was fair because it was in between the minimum and the maximum, but the minimum and maximum are what need to be corrected. He's appealing that it was excessive and I think he'll win.

I have a hard time believing that most people think a 675K fine for downloading 31 songs is reasonable.

The part to be clear I was disagreeing with was the penalty for the said " crime" .

I think it is great that you pointed out the difference. Honestly till you had mentioned it I had not bothered to check the specific legality of what crime the defendants were being charged.

Whether you or I think the fine is reasonable or not is not pertinent though. it is what the law says regarding the matter .. Which I was shocked once I saw how serious of a crime it is from a legal standpoint.

[spektor]

I read somewhere that music should be for free because it is art
I do not agree it does take work i buy music i still buy records love to do with i want to show the artist that i support there music and that means buying it

[rack gear]

I'm just being pragmatic - for things to change in a meaningful way there will be compromise - it's how the system works. As this is a political issue, it will be met with the politics of compromise.

I think if ISP policing (or something else with the same net result) is going to fly everyone is going to need to get something out of it.

I think the biggest effective change will be to reclassify personal illegal unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted works from infringement to theft - and with it substantially lower fines, penalties, etc.

However the upshot will be a lack of ambiguity over the law and the breaking of it, this with the ability to collect fees/fines for breaking the law built into Terms Of Service agreements - no courts, just collections. BAM! right on your monthly bill. Done.

After three fines - you loose your internet for 30 days. Three more times, 60 days. Three more times, 90 days. Just like traffic laws. Internet access is a privilege, not a right - just like driving. Cars are a technology, just like the internet. How both are used is regulated with laws.

The ISPs will share in the collection revenues as will the RIAA and various other trade groups.

This would rather quickly and effectively do two things 1) stop people from stealing music both downloading & uploading, and 2) generate a lot of revenue to enforce the new laws swiftly and effectively.

Depending on how the law is written local governments may also be able to participate in a percentage the revenue.

And for those who think this draconian, they can go back underground and off the grid - with the rest of the criminals trying to beat the system.

Originally Posted by kieran kelly

And something I disagree with both of you : ). At least legally not morally as the law seems excessive in terms of mp3 downloads.

RIAA v. Tenenbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 31 July 2009, the jury awarded $675,000 to the music companies, taking a middle option between the minimum ($22,500 total) and the maximum ($4.5 million). Tenenbaum's lawyer Charles Nesson plans to appeal; if the verdict stands, Tenenbaum plans to file for bankruptcy.

Legally speaking it seems like the verdict was correct in the fine levied .

[kieran kelly]

Brilliant ideas redvelvetstudios

If you ever run for political office in NYC I would vote for you !!! ...

[Crandak]

I've long felt the isp's have the power to stop pirating but have lacked the financial incentive to do so. I think there should be a consortium of industries who rely on income from copyrighted materials such as the RIAA, MPAA, and the software industry.

This consortium should make a profit sharing deal with the isp's to meter and charge for downloads. If the isp's were shown the billions to made by this alliance perhaps they would be more inclined to not let piracy go unchecked. Itemize all the torrents and p2p downloads and uploads on the monthly bill. 99 cents per song, $7 per movie, and what ever the going rate for games and software. If people don't want to pay thousands a month for individually metered downloads they could opt for a subscription service on top of the normal isp rate for those who don't want to pay per download. Like a silver for music downloads. Gold for music and movies. Platinum for music, movies and software.

Rather than spending millions in legal fees to track and prosecute copyright infringer's. Use the money instead to create this mutually beneficial alliance.

Right now it's the attorney's who are benefitting the most from the current state of affairs.

Comcast would be prime for this since they just bought NBC and are going to see how much of their own copyrighted material they are letting slip by.

[Paul Russell]

Originally Posted by Crandak

This consortium should make a profit sharing deal with the isp's to meter and charge for downloads. If the isp's were shown the billions to made by this alliance perhaps they would be more inclined to not let piracy go unchecked. Itemize all the torrents and p2p downloads and uploads on the monthly bill. 99 cents per song, $7 per movie, and what ever the going rate for games and software. If people don't want to pay thousands a month for individually metered downloads they could opt for a subscription service on top of the normal isp rate for those who don't want to pay per download. Like a silver for music downloads. Gold for music and movies. Platinum for music, movies and software. .

How would the revenue be distributed fairly? ISRC code tracking?

[Crandak]

Originally Posted by Paul Russell

How would the revenue be distributed fairly? ISRC code tracking?

I would propose the use of a technology that's used to track child porn. There's an Australian company that has recently developed a machine called the copyrouter. This machine looks at hash marks in a file and compares it to a database of known illegal images. When a search is made for any of these files they are presented with a law inforcement screen warning them they are trying to access illegal files.

They claim this machine will detect the file by it's hashmarks no matter what the file is named, and that it has a proprietary way of circumventing encryption without actually looking at the contents of the file. My understanding is that under the 4th ammendment the government can't look at the contents without a warrant because it's tantamount to an illegal wiretap but the courts have upheld the ISP's right to look at the contents of their traffic. There are enormous 1st ammendment issues that would have to be dealt with in the U.S. let alone all the laws that govern this issue internationally.

With that said, this shouldn't, as I see it affect the average person who uses the internet for email and ebay. Just the ones who are downloading and uploading files. The software would have to be modified somewhat to use a selection structure that first looks at whether there is an ISRC code in the file. If there is let it pass, if not then it checks against a database of hashmarks supplied by the RIAA, MPAA, and software industries, and the downloader is presented with a screen that basically say's it will be 99 cents, for instance, (if an mp3) to continue with this download, or if you prefer you can sign up for our silver, gold, or platinum file downloading packages. The Recording industry, motion picture industry, and the software industry would have to share the cost of implenting this technology with the isp's, and the isp's would have to share the generated revenues with content media industries.

If you are an artist who wants your music shared freely then you wouldn't submit it to this database, and if the software doesn't detect the ISRC code, or the hashmarks it let's it pass... unless of course it's child pornography then you're busted. The ISRC code is for legitimate purchases, the hashmarks are for the copyright holders who don't want their copyrights infringed upon, and anything else gets through, and p2p is used for legitimate file sharing like it's supposed to be.

I am no attorney and I'm sure the legal ramifications are signigicant. If illegal file sharers persist and find ways to circumvent this which I'm sure they'll do everything they can then it's time for the infringement suits and the 3 strikes rule.

[johndykstra]

This is a very long thread, I've browsed it a bit, but forgive me if this has been mentioned.

Let me start off by saying, that I'm in my mid thirties, and own an extensive amount of music. I worked in a record store for years to support my addiction. It allowed me to accumulate 1000's of cd's... most of which are gone now that they've all been uploaded to hard drive. Within the last 10 years or so, I've started collecting LP's. Many of these were "re-buys" of music I already had, but wanted it on the "new" format. Needless to say, I have invested many thousands of dollars to the music industry. You're welcome.

Within the last few years, I have on a few occasions, swapped a hard drive with a friend. I frowned upon this practice for a long time, but given my history of spending, I rationalized it. Big mistake. Not that I don't like getting new music, but I don't APPRECIATE it... at all. There's simply too much to take in. I used to take pride in my hoarding. Not just on quantity, but quality as well. I could call up I-tunes, hit shuffle, and know that something good was going to come out. Now... who knows what crap one of my friends gave me.

Sorry for the history, but now to my point.

I believe that there should be a royalty tax charged to the sale of ALL blank media. CDR's, blank DVD's, hard drives,...all of it. This tax would go into a pool to be split by the publishing companies, and distributed to artists based on percentage of actual sales. Of course, some people will be paying a royalty tax on media that isn't intended for copying copy-writed material, but perhaps this loop-hole will make up for the discrepancy artists have been hit with since the tape recorder. Give tax breaks to businesses that require the storage of large amounts of information...banks, etc. Like they need it, but, fair is fair. So you go in to buy a 300gb hard drive. It's now going to cost you an extra, say, $50. These things are already incredibly affordable. If you need that kind of space, chances are, you are putting art on it. If it's your own art, you shouldn't be upset about seeing to it that another artist will get paid. If you're stealing art...well... no you're not. Not anymore.

My 2 cents.

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by Bryan Talbot

There already is for some media: Audio Home Recording Act

A good start, but definitely out-dated, and short sighted.

[kieran kelly]

one thing that is working against our industry is the strange idea that downloading unlicensed music for free has somehow become a "right". When piracy is challenged the people supporting the reduction of it are vilified. The general population has "bought" the idea that the artists are not adversely affected. That is simply not true and the more true information made available the better.

I for one believe the general population wants to do the right thing , and those who want to break the law intentionally should be subject to the due penalty.

[7161]

well it's good that Heidi Montag has a real reason why she aint selling much - downloading obviously!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by m127

I do hate them, and so should other artists, producers, audiophiles, sound engineers, etc.

bad day? guess you didn't see this:

Verizon Ends Service of Alleged Illegal Downloaders - Verizon - Gizmodo

[drBill]

Originally Posted by m127

As a "record industry hater" though, I am definitely glad about everything that happened to them and that the Internet made possible.


And yeah, I have been rejoycing while seeing them whine like the greedy animals they are ever since the phenomena started several years ago.


Sorry Record Industry, EVERYBODY detest you except a few of your servants who still manage to milk a few cents out of your disgusting existence.

****in DIE DIE DIE.

LOL Couldn't get a deal, eh??

Did they tell you you weren't talented enough? Or that you didn't have the "look". Or are you just a hater?

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by m127

As a "record industry hater" though, I am definitely glad about everything that happened to them and that the Internet made possible.


A music democratization process has started globally, and there's nothing they can do to stop it now.


They are the non-processed criminals who now have to align or get the **** out.




And yeah, I have been rejoycing while seeing them whine like the greedy animals they are ever since the phenomena started several years ago.




Sorry Record Industry, EVERYBODY detest you except a few of your servants who still manage to milk a few cents out of your disgusting existence.

****in DIE DIE DIE..

LoL,
Don't you just love people who don't have a clue how things work, have the loudest voices?

The "Record Industry" is made up of individuals. The VAST majority (then and especially now) are hard working people, just struggling to stay afloat and pay the bills.
Sure it's easy to point to the 10 acts that made obscene money, and think that's how "The Industry" goes...

Get a clue.

[johndykstra]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

LoL,
Don't you just love people who don't have a clue how things work, have the loudest voices?

The "Record Industry" is made up of individuals. The VAST majority (then and especially now) are hard working people, just struggling to stay afloat and pay the bills.
Sure it's easy to point to the 10 acts that made obscene money, and think that's how "The Industry" goes...

Get a clue.

I feel you, but I think his problem is with the vast majority that are struggling, while top end executives make millions. Not that that's different from any other business model...

These are interesting times. I have some friends, used to be on Polyvinyl records. Put out a few records with them, and did ok. When they were dropped, they started their own record label, and are selling the new record themselves. Doing well I might add. This would never be possible without the internet. Did they benefit from three years of MINIMAL press support from a record label, lending them a fan base to make their venture possible...of course. But it's nothing that couldn't have been done through, Myspace, lastfm, etc... with a little free time and some cash.

Hopefully the downfall of major labels will mean the downfall of all the middle of the road nickel crap we have to suffer through. You like blues? Check out the new Fat Possum roster. Punk? Try Dischord. Hopefully gone are the days of record labels that try to release everything; in doing so, they have released nothing worth while.

P.S. Audio, I like your handle.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by m127

None of the above. Did they say that to you? I would not be surprised though, which is my point: the major record companies unilaterally deciding and controlling what goes onto radio and gets massively distributed.

I argue this from a simple audiophile point of view, even if it's hard to believe for you.

My argument is that all music products should be available to all through all major channels, just like friggin Stupidney Spears.

I detest this anti-democratic control affecting our ability to know and enjoy great music products that get hidden due to massive campaigns of shitty acts everywhere, overshadowing honest ARTISTS and their good products.

If unfunny clowns (eg, late night show hosts) are revered in such an absurd manner is precisely because they represent exactly how the big ass record industry is managed, ie, they are made kind of like small grandfathers in the industry. However, music should be free from that garbage.

I have seen many of my personal friends sucumbing to the "need" of learning politician skills at the same time they have to polish their arts IF they want to aspire to any decent deal.

That politization has affected the arts very negatively, especially in the industry in question. It's like a cancer.



Once again, thanks to the "negative effect" of piracy, to a great extent, the major industry pimpfs and dictators have had to align and re-define their game, which can only be a good thing.




Hating is not really a bad thing. There are many hateable things worth expressing and fighting against.


I do love the entrepreneurship of all small and some medium size players precisely and actively fighting the referred widespread despotic control of the pimpfs. And I do actively support them in many ways as a consumer, artist and producer.

Again, Radiohead's stand was exemplary, it worked at many levels, and conscius artists, producers and labels should follow.




.

Control? LOL You give them a lot more credit than they deserve.

Ultimately Record Companies sign, produce, distribute and promote what they think they can sell. It's as simple as that. What sells is usually utter crap, but that's what the public seems to clamor for.

If you don't like what they are selling, then you are in the minority. If there were more with your particular taste, then the record companies would be making music that fit YOUR genre because that's where the money would be. That's the beauty of a free market economy. The down side is that if you don't agree with the majority, you might have a harder time finding what you're looking for, and if you're a manufacturer or artist, you opportunities will be somewhat limited to provide your product/art. Evidenced as to how easy it is to find cheap chinese junk tools in the US, but being EXTREMELY more difficult to find quality built tools. I'm sure there are some small botique labels that cater to your tastes though.

On the other note : Hate is bad. It rots the soul.

PS - it was never my goal to "be signed" to a record label. Creatively I work primarily in the Film/TV side of things, and engineering wise, I work on others records. So it's all a moot point to me, but I find your arguements generally absurd, so I commented.

[chrisso]

m127, you have no clue..... zero clue.
That's all I have to say on that.

Originally Posted by dykstraster@gmai

These are interesting times. I have some friends, used to be on Polyvinyl records. Put out a few records with them, and did ok. When they were dropped, they started their own record label, and are selling the new record themselves. Doing well I might add. This would never be possible without the internet.

Sorry I can't agree.
Everything that's new is old.
In the late 70's young musicians tired of the big label dross. They put on their own gigs, started their own record labels and created Punk/New Wave.
That was over 30 years ago.
It's been possible since then to be quite successful outside the major label system.
The only thing that's changed is that the internet has effectively ended the choice of musicians. If they don't want to give their work away for nothing, someone else will no doubt do it for them.