looking for an entire Metallica album

My well defined sense of hypocracy is immune to these arguments.

I have never stolen anything. Well, maybe shoplifted candy whne I was a stupid kid, but other than that ancient infraction, I do not steal.

I do support the business model written about there. What makes you think otherwise?



I volunteer alot of my time... I guess in that sense you could say I work for free in some cases.

What that has to do with a greedy recording industry charging me $15 for a CD with MAYBE two good songs on it, I dunno. If anyone is a thief, its them.

-Ghoti

Then use iTunes and buy only the songs that you like for $2

Alas, but I've been dangerously lacking in the companionship of someone so obviously unemployed, and so drought and famine resistant as your obviously over 250 lb. body, with so much free-time on your hands, that all you can do is compulsively hit the "New Posts" link all day to see if anyone is paying attention to you; and then with the tortured anger of a guy who hasn't been laid since Bush was president, the elder Bush, spout paragraphs of the most transparent, lonely, mother's-basement-living, Lars-loving, troll-sucking, unimaginative crap, just to prop up your own ego, you never realize that it's so easy and so cowardly to be such a big shot tough guy, IN A FORUM, haha. Congrats on your small victory. You should at least act like you have a life, I mean keep some sort of illusion goin' here, maybe someday you will know the love of someone again, and not die alone.

Typically this is what I do now, actually.

Of course, some artists are not available there. Not that I would buy it now (fuck Lars), but try searching the iTunes store for Metallica. Or even something I might want to buy like Led Zeppelin... nowhere to be found.

So maybe I buy that Houses of the Holy CD at SoulessMusicStore (worth the cost even at double the music bandits prices), take it home, and rip it with iTunes to put it on my iPod... BUT WAIT! RIAA says that's not fair use!

That just aint right.

-Ghoti

It seems my "small victory" has royally upset you... even though it's only "IN A FORUM".

The rest I can laugh off. As many here are aware, I'm not anonymous. That makes your comments look even more pathetic and desperate. Nice job.

Just a gentle reminder that while intellectual property rights are a fertile ground for discussion, personal disputes and attacks aren't appropriate--please see the forum Guidelines for details.

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

"The only love that lasts forever is the one where you die first."

Gotta go with the "RIAA Are bigger thieves than the free downloader community could ever be" argument. 15$ for a cd with around 12-16 songs on it. Usually, i'll only like 3 or 4 of these. Ripping those songs you like? Even AFTER you've paid the extortive & ridiculously high price? Thats a paddlin'.

We give folks a way to download things legally (iTunes, New napster, etc) and it takes off like a rocket. This proves, if nothing else, that J. Random Person is usually honest

Meanwhile, The RIAA are busy suing grandmas, highschoolers, dead people, college students, etc. for filesharing. Way to go.

I never did like metallica, and i like them even less after the whole lars incident.

I hope that the record labels DIE, i hope CD's as a medium for music DIE, and most of all, i hope the RIAA dies a quick and very painful death to the wallets of the fat cats behind it. Commence the fall.

*puts on 2 layers of flame resistant clothing*

I agree. I just don't agree that because one is bad the other is good.



I did some research a couple of years ago comparing cost increases for a variety of products over the last 30 years. The album/cd actually faired best. One of the other products increased in cost something like 400% ... and that's accounting for inflation. The numbers I did don't support the assertion that the music industry is any different than any other industry. In fact, CD's contain more content than albums ever did and cost hasn't significantly increased given inflation for all products over that same period. That's not to say the cost couldn't be lowered. But back when music wasn't available via the net, the People gave that industry the power it has today. And the People can take it away. But that won't happen if people are downloading music out of "spite" instead of taking away the only thing the labels now have available - our attention. Attention made Google a huge company. They "give" away searches for free. The music industry will increasingly leverage that same kind of thinking. They'll survive thanks to piracy.

{Edit: Just found this cool link via boing boing comparing console prices: Link. Makes the new PS3 price not look so bad.}





No it doesn't. It proves that people weigh Risk to Reward and have decided it's not worth taking a chance. Especially if, as you say, only 3 or so tracks are worth purchasing. That's $4 to get what they want instead of $12 ... and instead of Free with a Possible Lawsuit. iTunes hit the sweet spot. No surprise that behavior followed, but it doesn't prove people are "usually honest".



Just because the RIAA is being an ass doesn't mean consumers have to behave the same way.



I never cared for Lars before, but he got my respect. I don't believe his comments and his position were self-serving even though that's the general belief. I suspect he did what so many others are afraid to do (including Bono - just listen to his TED acceptance speech and watch him start a rant on music piracy only to bite his lip). Lars said what the Entitled didn't want to hear. Good for him.



I agree. But I'm not interested in becoming what I hate - especially if those actions don't really work. There's only one way to kill the labels - Ignore their Product. Even illegal downloads support them. And if people really cared they'd figure it out, but I guess they're too busy enjoying all the free music which they *need* and to which they feel *entitled*. That is when they're not stomping their feet like two year olds.

Its not as much the illegal downloading that bothers me as the fact that RIAA/MPAA/(insert your own)AA has constantly tried to remove the rights of people to do what they want to with music they have purchased, on account of "rampant piracy"


Consider the list of things that they've told us we shouldn't do:

Ripping songs from CD's you've legally purchased = BAD
Because then your music is digital, and once its digital, its shareable. And if its shareable, it ends up on the internets, somehow. Always. Remember, there is no grey area.

Making a mix CD = BAD
All cd's must be overpriced and released by a record label. And god forbid you give that CD to somebody else! HEADS WILL ROLL!

Removing overprotective DRM from music you've legally purchased = BAD
So if I BUY a song from iTunes, its locked up in a format that i can only use with apple's own horribly expensive player (Sorry, i love ipod, but you gotta give me this one.), and moreover is not an industry standard. Nothing else will play these .M4P files. And what else, i can only burn this song five times? Cd's get scratched, destroyed, eaten by your dog, etc etc. If i try to burn more than five times, i get a message saying NO WAY MISTER MAN, YOU'VE REACHED YOUR LIMIT!

I'm not even gonna start with napster.

See also the whole Sony rootkit fiasco. They should be sued to hell and back for that.
Did you hear? If you file bankruptcy, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to delete all of your sony music. Its in the EULA.


SO:
As a consumer, i have three choices. I can either:

A. Go down to (insert store name), buy this overpriced CD that i can't guarantee will play on my computer (without toasting it), car stereo, etc.

B. Buy said music online, already in digital form, already infested with DRM so you don't have to rip it in the first place.

C. Download said music from a place like allofmp3, bittorrent, kazaa, (insert filesharing network), and it will generally be in MP3 format, and free of DRM. I can do with this file what I want, when I want. How music should be.

The only problem, of course, is that option 3 is illegal. But when you're faced with those choices, what else would you want to do? Tell the folks upstairs who complain of piracy to fix their busted system and come back tomorrow.


Apologies in advance for the extreme amount of bile directed at RIAA, but i really hate that entire organization.

Consumers don't purchase music, they purchase media that contains music to which they receive a License. Not understanding this is the reason people don't understand much of what you claim is incorrectly being called "BAD".



What Sony did was illegal. Their actions however do not excuse illegal actions by consumers.



I've not. But if true, the answer is simple. Don't buy ANY Sony products. Is that so hard?




Wrong. Consumers have more choices.

D. Buy music from independent artists who grant a license they consider acceptable.

E. Don't buy anything at all and make your own instead.



Anyone can sing. Anyone can make their own music. But if you want someone else to take their time to learn how to create the music you prefer and then take their time/effort/cost to create it, then it "should be" whatever that creator wants - not what people who want that luxury demand. Consumers are not entitled to luxuries provided by other people.

There's a long list of "should be"'s: food, shelter, safety, medicine aso. Those aren't free. And they aren't luxuries either. They're necessities. They're life and death. So where is the outrage equivalent to how people react over not being able to download a song?



It's unthinking reaction to perceived injustice that will give the labels what they want. In the end, p2p piracy is what will keep them alive and prevent music from becoming truly democratized. So long as there's a behavior around which they can build a business plan, they win.

hi. I like Metallica's latest stuff. Kthxbye.

I illegally download music. I steal it, from others who have also stolen it, or from others who have purchased the CDs containing that music, and ripped the songs into mp3s.

I don't download Metallica, or Britney Spears, or any of the other crap that the public is usually exposed to with annoying regularity. I already know what they sound like, and know I'm not going to buy anything from them.

Instead, I download stuff you can't usually find on the radio, or on MTV, or VH1, or any of the other established music outlets. I download bands I've never heard of, from the HD searches of sharers that have other stuff I like. Through this, I've discovered countless bands that get almost no media exposure or PR. If I like what I hear, I seek out CDs by them, and I buy them.

I have bought 50x more CDs due to stolen mp3s than I would have otherwise. I've purchased their CDs, exposed friends and family to them, they've bought their CDs... and on and on.

There are a lot of people that abuse file-sharing by using it as a means to own entire collections without having to give the artists a dime. No doubt about that. There are also a lot of people that have bought CDs they never would have otherwise purchased without being able to hear that music first.

Like me, some people are sick and tired of the same music shoved down our throats day after day, sick and tired of paying $15 bucks for a CD with one decent song on it, and sick and tired of having no way to share good indie bands with others who have unusual tastes.

I'll continue to steal music for as long as their are unpopular bands that are thankful for the exposure.

Do you also steal new products from the grocery store until you find something that you like to eat?

I mean, I saw some new Cinnamon Shredded Wheat the other day at Harris Teeter. I thought I might like it, but wished I didn't have to pay to find out.

I may go back tonight and shoplift a box. After all, if I like it and buy more later I am doing them a favor.

All criminals make excuses for their actions. You are no different.

First things first.. you can take your self-righteous condescending attitude and stuff it up your puckered little ass.

Second, no, I don't steal from grocery stores, because those are products that are already being mass-produced, marketed, and are as available to anyone as the name brands are. Right there on the shelves beside them. Aren't they?

Now, maybe you should log off for a while and step outside, because there may be a jay-walker you can don your wanna-be-cop clothes for and tackle to the pavement in a citizens arrest.

First, there is no need for that kind of language. You only cheapen yourself by talking that way.

So it is not okay to steal well-known brand name items?

But it is perfectly okay to steal lesser known items? So if I go to Grandma's Bakery, it is okay to steal her cupcakes because I might like them and then buy more. If I don't like them, I will choose never to visit Grandma's bakery again.

So we should steal only from small business while refraining from stealing from larger corporations?

I'm not sure I understand your logic.

I would never tackle someone to the ground. That would be assault and would be a crime. I am not a criminal. You shouldn't jaywalk for your safety and for the safety of those around you. Have you not read the horror stories of people swerving to miss a jaywalker and killing others? It is a tragedy. Even though you may not respect the law, there is a reason for it.

I had my suspicions about you from your General forum thread, but now I have little doubt that you're a trolling 'forum persona'. There's no way anyone that naive has survived into their adult years without machine assistance.

You, sir, are a charicature.

If this isn't a put on by you, then I feel very sorry for you for only being able to see black and white, without enough real sight or the common sense to distinguish shades of grey and degrees.

If you're going to jaywalk, you might as well rape someone, because they're both crimes, right?

That was a list of things the RIAA says are bad. As in from their standpoint.





We agree on that much.






D. Works, but i'm talking mainstream, here.

E. is so absurd from the standpoint of J. Random Consumer that its not worth further discussion




Read what you just wrote again. Whatever the CREATOR wants. *NOT* what the record label wants. There are a good deal of creators who were mighty pissed when they found out about some of the DRM and other bullshit that was being associated with them and their music. And then some *coughmetallicacough* totally are in agreement with it, and as a result i won't be buying that particular group's music. Until at least they change their attitude with regard to screwing the people writing their paycheck.


Let me give you an example. I've purchased 1, and only 1 audio CD in my entire life. It was one of Nightwish's albums (favorite band of all time), i'm not sure which one. But anyways. I pick up this cd, price isnt horribly high.. ($9.99 in a brick and mortar music store! ) I look at who the label is, (not sure who it was at the moment), but i remember thinking they're not known for breaking CD's with this DRM crap. I know i can pop it in my computer and have it play. I know i can make a mix cd with a few songs on it if i want to. And i know that i've paid my 10 bucks and am doing all of the above legally. Overall, very satisfying, and nobody gets hurt.



How is this "perceived" injustice? Sony breaks thousands of people's computers with their rootkit. Unjust. I buy a CD and can't listen to it in my car. Unjust. Suing grandmas, college kids, dead people, etc. Unjust. Going after technology providers en masse instead of the people ACTUALLY SHARING THE FILES. Unjust. ( How would you like to have BitTorrent as a technology declared illegal just because some people use it for illegal purposes? With the kazaa precedent now in play, this is very possible. Creators can now be held liable for the illegal things people do with their programs. This is, what we call, a Bad Thing)

There always will be behavior around which they can build a business plan. Piracy has been around since the tape trading days of the 80's, and will continue to be around as long as theres an internet. And the harder they clamp down, the more it will increase. Theres a quote for this somewhere: "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free". A bit grandiose, yes, but fits nicely. If they'd concentrate on fixing their busted-ass business model and ACCEPT THE CHANGE instead of trying to fight it, they'd have more than enough money to go around, and wouldnt be throwing so much money to their lawyers.

----
In short, i feel that RIAA is a very biased, lazy, unfair entity who's disbandment would benefit everyone, from consumers to creators. And they know it. I also feel the same about the MPAA. They bitch about piracy, low ticket sales, etc, and why not? 10+$ for a movie ticket. 5+$ for popcorn. 5+$ for soda. Draconian licenses. Same problems as the RIAA.
----

Death to the AA's, death to record labels. The sooner the better.

You are turning this into a conversation of absolutes to justify your desire to steal. Basically, you are saying, "Well yes, i steal but I have a good reason and it's not like I'm raping someone."

Your attacks on me and your outlandish exaggerations are all simply ways that you choose to justify your actions.


That is not what I said. However, I did point out that jaywalking can be dangerous to yourself, other pedestrians and drivers. There is a good reason why jaywalking is against the law. You may not agree with the law.

I've seen the resulting accidents from jaywalking. Manslaughter, while not the same crime as rape can still have the same lasting impact on a family.

Trivialize it if you will for your own benefit, but I will not concede that one should jaywalk.

Reread my comment. "...what you claim is incorrectly being called "BAD""




So long as you continue to support the current mainstream system, you support the labels you claim to oppose. THAT is absurd.



Creators obviously WANT lucrative contracts more than they WANT to give away their music. No one puts a gun to their head to sign and re-sign contracts with recording labels. There was a time when major label distribution was the only way to reach a large audience. Those days are gone. They make a choice that puts money in their pocket. I don't fault them. Get real. For all the talk, anyone handed a multimillion dollar recording deal that meant the label could sue downloaders wouldn't think twice. Money trumps.



If I were I musician, I'd publicly be pissed (because it's good PR) and privately rooting for the people with whom I signed a contract. Maybe Metallica is still what they've always been: honest. And maybe the others are playing you.



Your point?



Apples and oranges. No one here is saying what Sony did was okay. Reread my previous post. Just because they did something illegal doesn't give anyone else the right to do something illegal.



Not unjust. You purchased a limited-use license. Your lack of understanding does not make the limitations unjust. It makes you a mindless consumer like most everyone else. The solution is simple: before you make a purchase, determine if the product meets all your expectations. If it does not, don't purchase it.



Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. If these people are innocent, they have nothing about which to be concerned.



Not unjust. That's a business decision that plays out every day with companies lobbying for the very same thing. The only difference is that consumers are more interested in their music than in the truly important things that go by unnoticed. That's the real injustice.



That's not what the Kazaa precedent really was. Based on reports I read, Kazaa encouraged illegal activity (and profited handsomely through other channels as a result I believe). That's illegal in many instances. Go outside and incite a mob to riot and see if you get arrested.

And btw, if this was an issue, Linden Lab would be in serious jeopardy. But LL doesn't encourage illegal activity.



I disagree. If recording artists don't sign over the rights to their creation, labels can't leverage anything. They have nothing. So in order to destroy the labels, consumers have to turn their back on the artists who sign with them. According to those who argue for illegal downloads, that should be easy since all the "popular" music is crap. Well, then stop downloading the crap.

Companies only have the power consumers (and their supposedly-representative governments) give them.




Since the 80's? haha. It's been around longer than that. But I do agree it will increase. Eventually everything created will be free. But just like the free toaster people get when they open an account with a bank, music will be turned into a controlled commodity (worse crap) by the same labels who modify their business plan to deal with that reality. The only way to end that is to ditch their signed artists - and that includes ignoring the "free music" on p2p networks.



No. It doesn't "fit nicely". The freedom to take what someone else has created is known as theft. Your distortion of context betrays your sense of entitlement.



What they do is their business. When artists sign over their rights, it's not anyone else's right to tell them how to run their business. Just as no one is entitled to demand I run my business a certain way, neither am I entitled to tell anyone else.



Good lord. Do you even know what the RIAA is??? OF COURSE IT'S BIASED!!! They have no interest in benefitting consumers. hahaha




ditto {from my previous comment re: RIAA}. What you don't know about how the system works is a LOT. I suggest you do some worthwhile research. You might start by making informed decisions about the products you purchase. And that goes beyond music. There are bigger issues in this world over which people should get their panties in a bunch.

-

Would love to continue but this is now repetitive and I'm swamped with work (this thread is the only one I've read in a while now, tbh). For those who think I'm pro-label, reread my comments. I'm very much against them. But giving their signed artists your attention is not the way to deal with them and not the way to usher in an age where artists deal directly with their fans. That's what I want. And it's why I don't participate in the downloading.

When I was in high school I would buy albums on vinyl and record them onto cassette tapes so that I could play them in my car, in a walkman, at the beach etc. This was, as far as I know, perfectly legal.

I would also tape songs off the radio that I liked. Just like I would tape television programs to watch again later.

Later, when CDs came out I would do the same thing, mostly so I could mix together songs I liked.

If I do the same thing today with a CD and put it on a MP3 player, is this any different? When did the rules change?

I understand why file sharing without permission is bad, but why is ripping by itself wrong?

Hey, i'm not saying that i'm a downloader either. Most of the mainstream music is canned crap, with few exceptions. It would be nice to get music that doesnt have this DRM crap loaded onto it, anyways. Give me MP3 any day.

Anyways..



I did not purchase a limited-use license. Show me the EULA in the CD case, please. I signed nothing. I purchased a cd to listen to, with the expectation (like everyone else) that i could listen to it. Besides, theres no way to tell (unless you count the handful of labels that mark CD's which may be DRM'ed). Its called fair use. If i buy an plain old CD, i have a fair right to expect it to play in anything that plays audio CD's. If it does not, then it becomes the label's fault for distributing faulty product that does not meet the standard of fair use. At best, i'm entitled to a refund. At worst, the label in question could be sued for fraud, depending on the scale and their attitude about the situation. If you buy a DVD, you have a right to expect it to play in anything that plays DVD's. If not, that DVD is faulty product and you are entitled to your money back! Its the LAW. And unlike the AA's, it IS there to protect consumers.


And on the other side of the coin, re the RIAA. You seemed to skip over this in both of your replies:



JUST BECAUSE ITS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

You can talk all you want to about the legalities of what they're doing, but the fact of the matter is it's still wrong.



For CD's, this should be perfectly fine. You've paid for your CD's, what harm to the label or the artist comes from you making a mix? As for songs off the radio, i'm not sure about that one. RIAA is now going after XM radio because they sell a device that lets you record songs off the broadcast. Its not illegal now, but it will be if they have their way.



Don't think it is, as long as you own the music. Or rather, the license to the music. At least, its not illegal now. If RIAA had their way, cops would be busting in your door at 3AM inquiring about that copy of Saint Anger on your iPod.

Enjoy your limited rights while you have them.

to quote:-

**Quote:
If I do the same thing today with a CD and put it on a MP3 player, is this any different? When did the rules change?

I understand why file sharing without permission is bad, but why is ripping by itself wrong?
**
Don't think it is, as long as you own the music. Or rather, the license to the music. At least, its not illegal now. If RIAA had their way, cops would be busting in your door at 3AM inquiring about that copy of Saint Anger on your iPod.

-------------------------------------------------

if you live in certain parts of europe - youve already lost - they have added a tax onto mp3 players in certain countries that pays for the music you upload onto it - so if you buy an mp3 player and a cd - then upload it to the mp3 player - you are essentually paying twice for it

reguarding copyright law - watch the video currently playing in ginko about the amen break and its multiple uses - and how its non-royalty serching group has help create a entire genre of music

we have passed the revolution stage of electronics and science - we are now in the evolution stage, taking previous ideas and upgrading/reworking for the next generation - current copyright laws stifle this, as the amen break proves, we need evolution.

fight for evolution - fight for copyright laws to be changed