1 for the record companies

[442w30]

I only buy used CDs for 1.99-5.99. that to me is a fair price for a disc.

Until they drop it down around that price, I'll only be extorted for new CDs when I have to have something and am too lazy to find it elsewhere.

With newer music, I'll download a tune from iTunes, but that sucks because there are 4 people in the house. What do you say to your kid when she wants to hear the "Fergilicious" tune your wife put on here iPod? You say "listen on mom's PC, or her iPod, it's illegal for me to put it on 2 iPods" or better yet "I don't want Fergie's record label to miss their $1.99, let's charge more on the CC so you can have a second legal copy"- yeah right.

I strip the DRM out and put it on both cause I paid for it and it's one household. That's a pain and should be covered by fair use cause their all my damn PCs/iPods the family is using anyway, I bought all of them.

[VitaminG]

Regarding the gal that owes $220,000 in damages.....the phrase "try to get blood out of a turnip" comes to mind. Do they really think they're going to get the money out of the person? Legal folks....is it possible to garnish wages or something similar for this sort of thing? More than anything this just sets an example....but not sure what they're trying to accomplish. As witnessed in this thread it just makes most people want to resist the music companies even more.

how much could they really garnish anyway? Assuming they could legally deduct 5 thousand a year from her wages without plunging her into poverty, it'll take decades to reclaim the fines. Even if she is wealthy and can afford a lot more than that, it'll still take quite a while to get that sort of money out of her.

Or do they order her to pay up in full or throw her in jail?

[ApeDosMil]

She's better moving out of America then dealing with this bullshit the rest of her life.

[LouSiffer]

Can she file Bankruptcy on it?? If so, do it, move to Florida for six months, have your credit score reset and viola. Its a pain...but, maybe a way out.

As for file sharing, I have said this over and over.....way back when I converted to CD's cuz I was promised that their prices would come down when it was more popular ( at that time.....aorund $13.98 for CD and $7.98 for cassette ), it would be moved to cassette prices. Well, the prices went up instead of down and CD's are much easier, cheaper and faster to make. Sure, they gave us a $1.00 back for each CD we bought up to 50 CD's or so, but, what about the near 1000 CD's I purchased. We got hosed so I hose back.

Secondly, they make the debate about this End User user clause that is built into the disc insert. I didn't go to a CD store to buy a clause, I went to buy a CD. If I open said CD and disagree with the terms, I can not get a refund out of it, I am told that it is mine to keep.

Imagine me selling you a sealed item. You open it and inside , the end user agreement states you are to pay me $50.00 a week for the rest of your life. Its a different than the CD theory, but, its not the theory in question, its the use of End User Agreements that is.

Imagine going into a grocery store and buying Mac and Cheese and once you get home, you see there is a clause on the inside of the box that states you can not share that Mac and Cheese with anyone else.

I know you can make rebuttles to these and I can make rebuttles about your rebuttles all day, but, isn't that the whole point of the courts? -Lou

[442w30]

Agreed. The "fair use" argument is you paid for the music, you can use it how you please, just can't redistribute.

Problems arise when you are told you just have a license for the music.

Can someone answer this?
If I lose the cover to a CD, do I own the music? Or was that the license?
If I lose the CD, but have the cover (license), can I download it or copy it from my neighbor?

What happens if I give the cover to neighbor A and the CD to neighbor B. Who rightully can have the music?

If I own a record or tape, can I copy my neighbor's CD legally if my last record player broke?

I don't think that this has ever been totally answered.

[delt]

Music companies get nothing when a used CD is sold, and they hate it. There have been lawsuits over this and the record companies have always lost.

Are you joking? Record companies suing people for selling second-hand CD's??
I think my respect towards them has dropped even lower now.

[Spivonious]

is anybody aware of a site offering 100% lossless, legal downloads?

Does iTunes offer lossless tracks for a little more money? I don't use it but I remember reading that somewhere. Or maybe that was the DRM-less tracks...

[LouSiffer]

My other question/point I forgot to make was: If I don't buy the CD, but download its songs, how can I be held liable to the End User Agreement? I don't know what their terms and conditions are inside that packet. Don't want to either. Thats why I didn't buy it to begin with.

[442w30]

My other question/point I forgot to make was: If I don't buy the CD, but download its songs, how can I be held liable to the End User Agreement? I don't know what their terms and conditions are inside that packet. Don't want to either. Thats why I didn't buy it to begin with.

I think they make you agree to the "iTunes" agreement when you install the software. That covers the downloads.

If you donload from other sites, I don't know how that works.

[marcus]

Are you joking? Record companies suing people for selling second-hand CD's??
I think my respect towards them has dropped even lower now.

I don't believe the record companies ever sued individuals over selling second hand CDs. They would if they could, but selling a used CD is obviously legal. What they did was more insidious: they withheld what is called "cooperative adversting money" or something like that to all chains that sold used CDs. This caused some chains to sue them. Here is a link to a brief description of a lawsuit filed by Wherehouse against the record labels about this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n37_v15/ai_14473355

The record companies apparently settled this lawsuit.

[yard dawg]

You can hate the labels all day but the bottom line is illegal downlaoding is stealing. We do have copyright laws. Downloading a song isnt illegal as long as royalties are paid. The labels are after people who steal what is legally theres.

Labels invest 100s of thousands of dollars in a recording. They average between $150,000 to $500,000 and up. They also invest by paying for advertising. Last I checked advertising isnt free. Alot of producers want at least $150,000 up front plus points to do a major label record. Throw in 2 engineers,session guys,rental fees,studio fees (around $2500 a day or more) and mastering fees and you can see the costs to rise. Labels front all this money at a risk. If the artist doesnt sell then they lose. If the artist sells well then the labels get there investment first before anyone gets anything else.Labels pay for manufacturing and printing. They front advances to the artist. Labels pay huge money up front gambling that there will be a return on investment. They are protecting that investment people. Its perfectly legal.

Artists have to pay for management,attorneys and other expenses including better gear haha. This money comes from royalties from cd sales. When you rip a cd for a friend that costs more than just an artist and a label. The average artist/band gets $1.60 a cd. They get and 1/8th of a cent for a downloaded song. I think thats $80,000 for a million legal downloads of a single. The publisher/owner of the song gets the publishing part of the royalties. Some artists have this some dont. So again there are more people than labels getting ripped off here. If a million people rip a cd for a friend then that costs an artist/band 1.6 million in royalties. If 10 million people illegally download a song then you cost that artist/band $800,000 more. Stealing music costs alot of people alot of money. The producers,publishers,engineers who have points and many more people are affected by this illegal downloading.Its not just labels its the whole industry.

I know it looks like a small amount of money when you as an individual gets a few songs illegally but when millions of people think the same way the numbers get huge and thats where people are missing the point of the lawsuits. It adds up. I personally dont buy cds anymore because im tired of the crap they put out. Im tired of the one radio friendly song and 9 fills. Id rather just get the hit from ITUNES. If I like the artist/band maybe support them when they're on tour. They make most of there money from touring anyway.

The bottom line is that its bigger than label greed. There are more people involved. Artists arent getting ripped off by labels like they used to. Trust me ive seen there houses. They are super rich. Also to make a slam against the labels if you check the stats you'll find that cd sales were at an all time record high during napsters peak. The labels turned people off from buying a cd when they started suing everyone. They had the legal right to but it wasnt wise in the long run IMHO.


Quick edit. For those of you who refuse to buy cds. Def Leppards Hysteria was so expensive to make it took 6 million records sold to break even for the label. Keep stealing and you'll never see another awesome recording like hysteria again because labels wont invest that much money.

[toejam]

If a million people rip a cd for a friend then that costs an artist/band 1.6 million in royalties. If 10 million people illegally download a song then you cost that artist/band $800,000 more. Stealing music costs alot of people alot of money. The producers, publishers, engineers who have points and many more people are affected by this illegal downloading. It's not just labels, it's the whole industry.

Well, if I buy an album, cassette or CD, it's now my property and my right to make a copy and do whatever I want with it. What's wrong with that?

Also, when Lars and Metallica were poor and starting out, they made copies of their No Life 'Til Leather demo. Copies were distributed for free for the metal fans to check the band out... copies of copies were made, one kid goes out of state or out of the country and makes more copies for others to check out. That demo spread pretty quickly around the world and helped the band. After touring relentlessly for years and making millions of dollars, they all of the sudden had the balls to sue Napster and whoever else "illegally" traded music files? Fuck them!
There's plenty of people out there who may have never heard of a certain band, and downloading some of their music or trading with friends may actually help them in the long run.
Why can't I sue Lars then for making copies of his albums as a kid? Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Can I sue electronics makers for making cassette and CD/DVD recorders?

[yard dawg]

Well, if I buy an album, cassette or CD, it's now my property and my right to make a copy and do whatever I want with it. What's wrong with that?

Also, when Lars and Metallica were poor and starting out, they made copies of their No Life 'Til Leather demo. Copies were distributed for free for the metal fans to check the band out... copies of copies were made, one kid goes out of state or out of the country and makes more copies for others to check out. That demo spread pretty quickly around the world and helped the band. After touring relentlessly for years and making millions of dollars, they all of the sudden had the balls to sue Napster and whoever else "illegally" traded music files? Fuck them!
There's plenty of people out there who may have never heard of a certain band, and downloading some of their music or trading with friends may actually help them in the long run.
Why can't I sue Lars then for making copies of his albums as a kid? Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Can I sue electronics makers for making cassette and CD/DVD recorders?

Your arguement is lame to say the least. The music is copyright protected. We do have laws ya know. I dont agree with many of them but I have to go by them or else pay the price. You buy the rights to listen to that cd not reproduce it and redistribute it. The copyright laws say so. You cant pay for a pay per view event and then copy it and redistribute it can you? NO because of copyright laws. You are costing people millions and its not right. Why cant people just buy the cd if they like it? Why do we want it free?


As far as Lars goes,well he made a huge mistake because like I mentioned before cd sales were at an all time high back then and he pissed alot of people off. He was right legally but it backfired on him INMO. There is no doubt the labels need a new business model. No doubt about it but they do have the law on there side.

Yes the makers of the recorders can be sued and have been. The recording lobby has lobbied for and in some cases won the right to dictate to makers of recording devices what they can and cannot record. Sony went after cd/dvd burner companies. They were protecting there copyrighted material. Why do you think there is so much monitoring of the recording and music now? Why do ISPs monitor downloaded music now? You can lose your internet if you are caught by some companies. The music industry is cracking down on stealing there product and its backfiring on them. They have every legal right to do it but its pissing people off. Again they need a new business plan and not more control IMHO.


Oh yea dude if you were having millions stolen from you, you'd get pissed too, so dont get your panties in a wad. We all would go nuts, including me if we were being robbed for millions every year. No one here can claim otherwise and be taken serious. If I stole $100 form you you'd get pissed.

Oh yea Lars was distributing what he owned legally. Ha gave persission as the owner of the copyrighted material to spread it around. If the owner of the copyrighted song says you can distribute it then you can legally. Its all about owning the copyrights. Thats the law whether you like it or not. I dont like helmet laws or some of the hunting laws but I still have to follow them right? You will make a bigger noise to the labels just by not buying there stuff than stealing it. There are soooo many good artists who independantly produce music now that one doesnt really need label artists anymore. Just boycott the morons like I do.

[Spivonious]

Also, when Lars and Metallica were poor and starting out, they made copies of their No Life 'Til Leather demo. Copies were distributed for free for the metal fans to check the band out... copies of copies were made, one kid goes out of state or out of the country and makes more copies for others to check out. That demo spread pretty quickly around the world and helped the band. After touring relentlessly for years and making millions of dollars, they all of the sudden had the balls to sue Napster and whoever else "illegally" traded music files? Fuck them!
There's plenty of people out there who may have never heard of a certain band, and downloading some of their music or trading with friends may actually help them in the long run.
Why can't I sue Lars then for making copies of his albums as a kid? Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Can I sue electronics makers for making cassette and CD/DVD recorders?

The difference is that Lars passed out the first copies for free, with an implication that they were to be duplicated. These days instead of a cassette being passed around, we have sites like myspace where up-and-coming bands can post some of their songs for download.

The makers of cassettes and blank CDs already pay a fee to help cover any losses from illegal copying.

[toejam]

Why cant people just buy the cd if they like it? Why do we want it free?

What if I buy it and it sucks; can I return the CD and get my money back? That's another reason people would rather download stuff first.

You will make a bigger noise to the labels just by not buying there stuff than stealing it. There are soooo many good artists who independantly produce music now that one doesnt really need label artists anymore. Just boycott the morons like I do.

Good point.