I am a DJ that plays pretty much everything but country. Do you guys know how hard it is to stay current with music. my biggest prob. is getting radio edit songs. i cant do that buying the cd or trying to find it on vinyl. ive been trying to keep up with the songs on the radio and as of right now i have about 50-755 of what will be played on a rap station. but if i were to try and get all my house, techno, alternative, and pop legally i would never make ne money. even with dj discounts it still costs a crap load of money. oh well thank god for gnut and a t-1.
I'll admit it. I have stolen MP3s. Last Christmas I would download an album cover from Amazon, as well as a song list. I'd go to Napster, download every song off that list, and burn it to CD. I'd then make a nice cover, spine, and back cover for the jewel case in Photoshop. Saved me a ton in Christmas present costs.
I should really be in jail right now. I am a bad, bad man.
Of course I have changed my ways, and promise NOT to use Napster this year for my Christmas shopping.
(actually, I'm bored with MP3s really, and haven't downloaded any in the last 6 months at all)
I can't find MP3's anywhere. All my firends have Morpheus or Kazaa and I can't use them because I have a Mac. I mostly try to find a song then buy the CD if I really like the band.
I buy CDs still. When Napster was out I bought an assload of CDs, more than I ever would have without Napster. But so little good new music (in my opinion) is coming out now.
Until recently I had never stolen music and I was adamantly opposed to it and I will tell you why all your rationalizations are nonsense.
However, now that I have learned about the music industry and how their monopoly is completely responsible for destroying the radio stations and music itself I plan to never give them a dime of my money again. I just got some Lucinda Williams albums from the library to listen to. If I like them I most certainly will find a way to buy a T-shirt from her or something. That way she'll get the $15 she'd get if I bought all her albums and the music industry get's nothing.
Now, let me tell you why all the rationalizations for stealing music are wrong. The modern world is so screwed up because people have no integrity. Unless you are DEADLY honest with yourself, the lies get bigger and bigger. My grandfather was so honest he wouldn't even lie on the phone to say that someone wasn't there when they really were. You start with little lies and they get bigger and bigger until you're a sleazy money grubbing Yuppie.
The idea that CDs cost too much is nonsense unless you actually know all the costs involved in every step and you are sure the prices are inflated because of lack of competiton. This may very well be true but you would need an accountant's knowledge of the situation. Just because you feel $15 is a lot for what you are getting is not relevant. You couod say Apple charging $1699 for a G4 is too much but they LOST money for fiscal 2000 so how much you desire to pay is not relevant. Explaining EXACTLY how competition is cut off is.
The idea that you are getting ripped off because a CD has only two good songs is also nonsense. People have been buying CD's for years with only two good songs. If you paid $15 for two good songs then they were $7.50 a song. The fact that the CD had extra stuff you didn't like is not relevant. The value of something is what you are willing to pay for it. If I sell you a pound of gold and a hundred peanuts for $50,000 you can't ask me to replace some of the peanuts with more bars of gold. You paid $50,000 for the gold and the peanuts were irrelevant. If you go to a Chinese restaurant and get a pound of shrimp and vegetables for $10 you can't ask them to replace all of the vegetables in the dish with more shrimp. It's ridiculous top say you are buying 15 songs on a CD for $1 a piece. That's not how it ever was. The price of the good song was what you were willing to pay for it and unless you can prove that there is a monopoly (which there IS but some people don't know that and are just complaining freely) you can't claim the song should cost less.
And finally there is this nonsense about "I'm not really stealing because I'm just copying a CD someone else already paid for." True freedom means that each person can live their life without being unjustly affected by another. If I write a song it is mine and I have the right to sell it any way I like. I have the right to say that each person who keeps a permanent copy of my music must pay me for it. IF YOU ARE AN HONORABLE PERSON you don't take something that belongs to someone without fully honoring the terms of the agreement. If you rent a costume from a shop and they say "Don't smoke while wearing the costume." you must do that. You don't make your own rules. When you get a paycheck for an hour's work you are agreeing to work for that hour. You don't then not do what the boss says because you don't think it's that important. You agreed to do exacly what the boss wants for an hour and you don't take the money without honoring the terms of the agreement. The fact that music can be copied does not give you the right to use it without meeting the terms of the agreement the musician decides.
The only time you have the right to take something without meeting the owner's requirements are when their is a monopoly ( a real one not people complaining gas costs too much), and outright greed. If you agreed to pay $50,000 for a gallon of water in the desert to save you from dying, obviously you have the right to skip out of that. I would say you have the right to sneak into a baseball game rather than paying $40 as any reasonable person would say that the players salaries are an example of outright greed. I wouldn't be against sneaking into a rock concert instead of paying $140 as long as you were sure the performers were rich beyond a reasonable level.
<strong>I would say you have the right to sneak into a baseball game rather than paying $40 as any reasonable person would say that the players salaries are an example of outright greed. I wouldn't be against sneaking into a rock concert instead of paying $140 as long as you were sure the performers were rich beyond a reasonable level.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your entire argument boils down to "It's OK to steal as long as you make sure you're only stealing from people with more money than you," is that right?
"So your entire argument boils down to "It's OK to steal as long as you make sure you're only stealing from people with more money than you," is that right?"
There is a point where you can say that you are gaining a lot by not paying for a concert ticket and the performer wouldn't feel the loss. If a person has more than maybe ten million dollars then if I didn't pay the $100 for the ticket, they wouldn't miss it in any practical way. I would still pay a reasonable price of maybe $20 if given any choice of what to pay or not to pay. When I talk about greed I mean extreme cases like players who are making $20,000,000 but they wouldn't be one ounce less happy in life if they were making $5,000,000 but 1,000s of average people are feeling a real effect on their lives from paying exorbitant prices. I would definitely steal one piece of furniture from a mansion if I could sell it to feed a million people.
I believe it's perfectly fine to download a Futurama episode that you missed and watch it and THROW IT AWAY. While you are not supporting the cmpany that produced Futurama by watching its ads, you are definitely takign part in the entertainment industry . You are showing your dedication.
If I record a show on tv which I rightfully have the right to do for personal use and fast-forward through the commercials I am technically not supporting the actors by watching the advertising, but I have the right to use my fast-forward button in any way I see fit. So how is downloading MP3's any different? I mean fast-forwarding through commercials isn't going to make the actors get paid any less and I am only 1 out of millions watching the show, so it is so minor of a loss to the advertising company and an even smaller if any loss to the actor. Downloading MP3's can go with the same concept, the artist is showing such a small loss compared to how much they are making from the paying customers that it will make a whole lot bigger difference to me if I do or don't spend $15.00 than it will to the artist that has $5.00 (or less) taken out of his pocket, besides that, there are and always will be consumers that will not download MP3's due to ethics, potential consequences, etc. that it more than makes up for the loss (if there is such a thing as a loss). But I do not understand why they count me not buying a CD a loss. I mean, how do they know if I would have forked over the 15 dollars in the first place. Just because I use the convenience and savings to download a song does NOT mean I would have bought the whole CD in the first place if napster, etc did not exhist. I don't go to the store, almost buy a CD and decide to go home and download it, I download the CD, and then I buy it if I like it, if I don't like it, it either quickly hits the trash, or I play it when everything else I have is played out and I just want background music while I am working.
Anyway, I definitely believe that as long as there are people like me who wish to download some of their music, there will always be the ones that will pay for it all, or don't pay for it at all.
Oh, yeah. I always support independent artists. And if I like a group on MP3.com I order a CD from them. I hate record labels. I wish I lived in the 50's-70's when record lables were not corrupt.
[quote]The idea that CDs cost too much is nonsense unless you actually know all the costs involved in every step and you are sure the prices are inflated because of lack of competiton.<hr></blockquote>
The thing is that music distribution IS an oligopoly and price fixing DOES occur. The strong-arm tactics used against record stores who try to undercut the "suggested retail price" are well-documented. Prices are not set by what people are willing to pay for the product. If they were, they'd be a heck of a lot lower, as Napster proved. Napster was the invisible hand of the free market at work, stomped on by the oligopoly. So the question is, is it fair to steal from an oligopoly?
Well, I would suggest that, like with any issue in a civil society, you try to change things from within the system, and if that fails, move outside it. The oligopoly has been steadily winning the legislative and judicial battles, so one might see downloading music as the moral equivalent of civil disobedience.
Of course, what makes this all moronic is that CD sales (numbers and revenue) PEAKED during the heyday of Napster. When Napster was shut down, they plummeted. Of course that coincided with the economic downturn, so two conclusions are possible: Napster spurred CD sales, or Naspter was irrelevant. Either conclusion makes the RIAA seem just a bunch of suicidal jackasses.
Have you TiVo people heard of the attempts to Napster-ize TiVo for permitting customers to *gasp* skip commercials? The TV studios (owned by the same folks as the RIAA, of course) are sharpening their knives. Coming soon to a federal court near you...
The Universal Music Group today is expected to release its first copy-proteted soundtrack, which will prevent users from copying the "music onto another CD or use their PCs to 'rip' tracks in digital MP3 format. The copy-protection technology will also render the disc unplayable on Macintosh computers, DVD players and game consoles, such as Sony's PlayStation 2. It might not even play in some CD players," according to SiliconValley.com. Mac users can provide feed back to Universal via its Website. <hr></blockquote>
Speaking of stealing music!
This would just encourage theft. If I can't play their CDs on my Mac (which is my primary sound system), then I'm just more inclined to steal it.
Plus, I find it tremendously ironic that the very machines that make this music cannot also play it. Macs master, post-produce and digitially enhance most of the music out there. Ever heard of ProTools??
I hate market share induced thinking. "Well, Macs only make up 5% of the market, so why bother porting the necessary software?"
Comments
I grabbed all of Cowboy bebop off of there, man talk about an amazing TV show.
'course where I live its leagle to do that
I am a DJ that plays pretty much everything but country. Do you guys know how hard it is to stay current with music. my biggest prob. is getting radio edit songs. i cant do that buying the cd or trying to find it on vinyl. ive been trying to keep up with the songs on the radio and as of right now i have about 50-755 of what will be played on a rap station. but if i were to try and get all my house, techno, alternative, and pop legally i would never make ne money. even with dj discounts it still costs a crap load of money. oh well thank god for gnut and a t-1.
If the mp3s rock, then I will buy the cd, if not, then I saved myself 15 bucks for shite.
I should really be in jail right now. I am a bad, bad man.
Of course I have changed my ways, and promise NOT to use Napster this year for my Christmas shopping.
(actually, I'm bored with MP3s really, and haven't downloaded any in the last 6 months at all)
[QB]Of course I have changed my ways, and promise NOT to use Napster this year for my Christmas shopping.
QB]<hr></blockquote>
Me too! HA HA HA HA
However, now that I have learned about the music industry and how their monopoly is completely responsible for destroying the radio stations and music itself I plan to never give them a dime of my money again. I just got some Lucinda Williams albums from the library to listen to. If I like them I most certainly will find a way to buy a T-shirt from her or something. That way she'll get the $15 she'd get if I bought all her albums and the music industry get's nothing.
Now, let me tell you why all the rationalizations for stealing music are wrong. The modern world is so screwed up because people have no integrity. Unless you are DEADLY honest with yourself, the lies get bigger and bigger. My grandfather was so honest he wouldn't even lie on the phone to say that someone wasn't there when they really were. You start with little lies and they get bigger and bigger until you're a sleazy money grubbing Yuppie.
The idea that CDs cost too much is nonsense unless you actually know all the costs involved in every step and you are sure the prices are inflated because of lack of competiton. This may very well be true but you would need an accountant's knowledge of the situation. Just because you feel $15 is a lot for what you are getting is not relevant. You couod say Apple charging $1699 for a G4 is too much but they LOST money for fiscal 2000 so how much you desire to pay is not relevant. Explaining EXACTLY how competition is cut off is.
The idea that you are getting ripped off because a CD has only two good songs is also nonsense. People have been buying CD's for years with only two good songs. If you paid $15 for two good songs then they were $7.50 a song. The fact that the CD had extra stuff you didn't like is not relevant. The value of something is what you are willing to pay for it. If I sell you a pound of gold and a hundred peanuts for $50,000 you can't ask me to replace some of the peanuts with more bars of gold. You paid $50,000 for the gold and the peanuts were irrelevant. If you go to a Chinese restaurant and get a pound of shrimp and vegetables for $10 you can't ask them to replace all of the vegetables in the dish with more shrimp. It's ridiculous top say you are buying 15 songs on a CD for $1 a piece. That's not how it ever was. The price of the good song was what you were willing to pay for it and unless you can prove that there is a monopoly (which there IS but some people don't know that and are just complaining freely) you can't claim the song should cost less.
And finally there is this nonsense about "I'm not really stealing because I'm just copying a CD someone else already paid for." True freedom means that each person can live their life without being unjustly affected by another. If I write a song it is mine and I have the right to sell it any way I like. I have the right to say that each person who keeps a permanent copy of my music must pay me for it. IF YOU ARE AN HONORABLE PERSON you don't take something that belongs to someone without fully honoring the terms of the agreement. If you rent a costume from a shop and they say "Don't smoke while wearing the costume." you must do that. You don't make your own rules. When you get a paycheck for an hour's work you are agreeing to work for that hour. You don't then not do what the boss says because you don't think it's that important. You agreed to do exacly what the boss wants for an hour and you don't take the money without honoring the terms of the agreement. The fact that music can be copied does not give you the right to use it without meeting the terms of the agreement the musician decides.
The only time you have the right to take something without meeting the owner's requirements are when their is a monopoly ( a real one not people complaining gas costs too much), and outright greed. If you agreed to pay $50,000 for a gallon of water in the desert to save you from dying, obviously you have the right to skip out of that. I would say you have the right to sneak into a baseball game rather than paying $40 as any reasonable person would say that the players salaries are an example of outright greed. I wouldn't be against sneaking into a rock concert instead of paying $140 as long as you were sure the performers were rich beyond a reasonable level.
Actually it is more or less a monopoly. However there is a difference between draining cars and pirating MP3s.
The difference? Mp3s leave a beter after taste
<strong>I would say you have the right to sneak into a baseball game rather than paying $40 as any reasonable person would say that the players salaries are an example of outright greed. I wouldn't be against sneaking into a rock concert instead of paying $140 as long as you were sure the performers were rich beyond a reasonable level.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your entire argument boils down to "It's OK to steal as long as you make sure you're only stealing from people with more money than you," is that right?
Don't ever try to justify it, there's no point.
There is a point where you can say that you are gaining a lot by not paying for a concert ticket and the performer wouldn't feel the loss. If a person has more than maybe ten million dollars then if I didn't pay the $100 for the ticket, they wouldn't miss it in any practical way. I would still pay a reasonable price of maybe $20 if given any choice of what to pay or not to pay. When I talk about greed I mean extreme cases like players who are making $20,000,000 but they wouldn't be one ounce less happy in life if they were making $5,000,000 but 1,000s of average people are feeling a real effect on their lives from paying exorbitant prices. I would definitely steal one piece of furniture from a mansion if I could sell it to feed a million people.
Anyway, I definitely believe that as long as there are people like me who wish to download some of their music, there will always be the ones that will pay for it all, or don't pay for it at all.
[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: iBook ]</p>
Where are you downloading from these days? I've found myself using hotline, as it's the best place to find full albums.
- Pook
Morpheus for PC here
On my mac often limewire, though it really sux.
The thing is that music distribution IS an oligopoly and price fixing DOES occur. The strong-arm tactics used against record stores who try to undercut the "suggested retail price" are well-documented. Prices are not set by what people are willing to pay for the product. If they were, they'd be a heck of a lot lower, as Napster proved. Napster was the invisible hand of the free market at work, stomped on by the oligopoly. So the question is, is it fair to steal from an oligopoly?
Well, I would suggest that, like with any issue in a civil society, you try to change things from within the system, and if that fails, move outside it. The oligopoly has been steadily winning the legislative and judicial battles, so one might see downloading music as the moral equivalent of civil disobedience.
Of course, what makes this all moronic is that CD sales (numbers and revenue) PEAKED during the heyday of Napster. When Napster was shut down, they plummeted. Of course that coincided with the economic downturn, so two conclusions are possible: Napster spurred CD sales, or Naspter was irrelevant. Either conclusion makes the RIAA seem just a bunch of suicidal jackasses.
Have you TiVo people heard of the attempts to Napster-ize TiVo for permitting customers to *gasp* skip commercials? The TV studios (owned by the same folks as the RIAA, of course) are sharpening their knives. Coming soon to a federal court near you...
New copy-protected CDs won't run on Macs
The Universal Music Group today is expected to release its first copy-proteted soundtrack, which will prevent users from copying the "music onto another CD or use their PCs to 'rip' tracks in digital MP3 format. The copy-protection technology will also render the disc unplayable on Macintosh computers, DVD players and game consoles, such as Sony's PlayStation 2. It might not even play in some CD players," according to SiliconValley.com. Mac users can provide feed back to Universal via its Website. <hr></blockquote>
Speaking of stealing music!
This would just encourage theft. If I can't play their CDs on my Mac (which is my primary sound system), then I'm just more inclined to steal it.
Plus, I find it tremendously ironic that the very machines that make this music cannot also play it. Macs master, post-produce and digitially enhance most of the music out there. Ever heard of ProTools??
I hate market share induced thinking. "Well, Macs only make up 5% of the market, so why bother porting the necessary software?"
- Pook