Forums | MacLife

So what? I cant be wrong. I thought so, but there aint no right!

that wasn't in my CD

It's hurting the artists who created the music.

They don't look like they are hurting from anything else other than a new piercing.

www.musicfromemi.com

If you follow this link, it at least takes you to the iTunes music store. (Or Liquid Audio, Full Audio, Rhapsody, Pressplay)  No link to Buymusic.com?

Anyway, iTMS doesn't even carry the new Jane's album, which is why I had to buy the CD in the first place.  But it ripped just fine and it's now on the iPod, so I have no real complaints.  I wonder if the major labels are rethinking the wisdom of on-disc copy protection given the popularity of the iPod and other MP3 players.

I suspect the disclaimer comes from Capitol Records and not the band.  The only disclaimer you saw on Jane's albums back in the day was something to the effect of:

"Do not stare too long at the weird nudie pic on the cover or your eyes will boil in the sockets and your small intestine will crawl up your spine and throttle your brain."

I still think that message falls under the category of "You treat people like criminals..."

Are you sure they are each multi-millionaires? Or is this assumed because they are a band, with a record deal, that tours and makes videos and was popular in the mid 90's?

People either talk about commercially successful bands like they're the scum of the earth for wanting to continue to be successful or talk about them as if they're divine. Sometimes one or the other may be true. I personally think they have a right to profit from their work and not have people listening to their work without giving something back. It's not my place to tell them they don't deserve it, especially since I don't know how they spend it.

I'm not necessarily against file sharing because I know that a lot of people use it for unevil purposes. But I'm not against an artist requesting their work not be distributed without permission. I am against fear campaigns.

Why would you spend twenty dollars on a CD when you can get it for fourteen?

I don't have any problem with that note.  And I don't see any reason to hate them for being successful capitalists. 

The truth is, that from the beginning, CDs have cost less to produce than cassettes.  In fact, they only priced them as they did because they were new, and the original intention was to lower the cost as soon as they became popular.  However, they became so big, so fast, that the music industry decided it wasn't necessary. 

Give away illegal copies of discs or lend discs to others for copying.  Whats the differance between that and what I used to do when i made copies of tapes back in the day.

There is no difference.  The only difference to speak of is that CDs are digital media and can be transfered over the internet.

BOLD PREDICTION AHEAD

Despite thousands of swapped not bought copies of new albums...

Talented musicians will never be backstage after a show and hear the words "Dude, we are out of beer".

hear hear!

hell, i wash cars for a living right now (i'm a college student, gimme a break) and there's ALWAYS a little left over for some brewskis...

Is this just another post that's turned into whether or not pirating music is right or wrong?

Here's the deal. Pirating music is wrong. I really don't understand how this is debatable. As in the cd jacket, the copyright is not yours, and the music is not yours to distribute. Is it fair that the record companies take the lion's share of the profits? Yes. Why? Because it's in the contract signed by the bands. Is music overpriced? In my opinion, yes. It makes no differance if the band or the record company is starving or rich. It's still taking something that doesn't belong to you. And about copying cassettes? It's no different, but that's illegal as well.

I am just as guilty as music piracy as the next guy. I'll admit to it. I have downloaded many albums. I am wrong.

However, I think it's evident that we've reached a crucial turning point for music. People are complaining that it's the artists that are hurt from piracy, and perhaps that's true, but I think the digital age has done something far more significant to the propogation of music. Consider why record lables were created in the first place; their function was to record and distribute music, and as recording technology (good tech atleast) has always been expensive, and no artist has the means of distributing millions of cds, the record companies found their nitch and made their money fair and square. They were a necessity, and they capatalized on this like any man would.

The thing is, we've completely negated the necessity of the recording industry. Hell, i've got $400 of recording equipment in my basement and I can create some nice sounding music. For $1000 I'd be great, and any serious artist would no doubt fork this over. Plus, today the artist has the means of distributing millions of copies all over the world, faster and cheaper. Surely, if this trend keeps up new companies, more or less online record companies, apple store type deals to promote the good music, and I can imagine this means more money to the artist.

My point is, music has exsisted long before the record companies, so I can't see why it won't exsist after they're gone. Is it still wrong to pirate music? Yes. Will this stop anyone? No.

FYI, I listen to a lot of non mainstream music. I really like the rap group Ugly Duckingling, and instead of buying their new cd, I downloaded it and paypalled $7 to the group for the hours of entertainment they provided. That's still immoral probably, but I feel better.