[Superchicken]

I recently spent like 94 bucks on the iTMS, but I happened to find an album by a band I now really like a lot (All Star United)... their latest (as of 2002) is not on iTunes but their older stuff is. I finally found it on Acqlite so I DLed the newest one. I'm thinking about maybe just sending the band ten bucks in the mail (There's no chance they get more than that off a CD considering they sell it for 3 bucks on their site).

With this I also bought the latest Element 101 album, and have DLed almost all of their first album which isn't available on the iTMS. I never actually used to pirate, but with the law in Canada saying this sorta thing's legal, and since I can't buy it (in some cases I'd have to order and in others I couldn't even do that) I feel better about DLing stuff. I'm the type of person who likes to own whole albums so I prefer using the iTMS when I can because it's easier to get the albums and at least then some cash goes to the artists.

I used to never Download because I liked the idea of owning the physical CD... that said since I started using the iTMS... I really don't miss my CDs... so then I ask you...

Do you Download off p2p services more or less since the launch of the iTMS?

[Randman]

So you're asking people if they continue to steal, or steal less?

My music purchases have skyrocketed since iTMS. I spent more than $500 last year, which is probably more than the previous 2 years of CDS.

As far as piracy, I think I have 2 songs from the Napster days. I did try the Russian site, but it turned out to be a gyp. I tried Paul McCartney's GH and after 30 seconds, each song petered out.

No thanks. I guess some people think it's ok to steal and ever more idiots think it's ok to brag about it.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Do you Download off p2p services more or less since the launch of the iTMS?

about the same.

/haven't downloaded a single song from the itms. and as long as they have drm "built in", i won't.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by Randman:
So you're asking people if they continue to steal, or steal less?

My music purchases have skyrocketed since iTMS. I spent more than $500 last year, which is probably more than the previous 2 years of CDS.

As far as piracy, I think I have 2 songs from the Napster days. I did try the Russian site, but it turned out to be a gyp. I tried Paul McCartney's GH and after 30 seconds, each song petered out.

No thanks. I guess some people think it's ok to steal and ever more idiots think it's ok to brag about it.

I'm not bragging. Nearly all of the stuff I've downloaded would be in excess of 20 dollars CND to get a hold of, in most cases the artists have broken up, in some cases the record labels have died too. There's no way for me to obtain nearly all of what I've downloaded. In fact when it comes to one band I'm thinking about sticking a cheque for 20 bucks in an envelope and sending it to their mailing address.
Have you ever thought of not being an ass?

[paully dub]

I suppose if you use the term Pirate or Stealing that says something.

I'm vexed. I was given an iTunes certificate. Found some albums that were rare enough and I downloaded them. But since iTunes 4.7, it's annoyingly hard to remove the drm, via hymn.

[Randman]

Then you should have been more clear in your initial posts. Besides, you are the one using the term "piracy".

While your intentions may have been positive, it's still stealing. And it's still the same as asking people if they shoplift. And if you can't deal with contrarian views, perhaps you should reconsider posting. If not, there's always the ignore list.

The bottom line: I've never been a fan of p2p stuff because in my mind, stealing is stealing. If someone else wants to rationalize such actions, so be it. But to justify something dishonest (hence your usage of "piracy") and crowing about it seems wrong in my book.

That's my 2 cents. Or transferred to Canadian, my .024 cents.

[Mastrap]

I am amazed, chicken. I remember the extremely hard time you gave your sister about downloading music, how it made her a bad Christian and dishonest person. Did bible corrupt you?

[Mastrap]

I am amazed, chicken. I remember the extremely hard time you gave your sister about downloading music, how it made her a bad Christian and dishonest person. Did bible college corrupt you?

[Goldfinger]

I still buy a lot of CDs and I still download a lot of music illegaly. I couldn't care less really. I don't buy from the iTMS since it's a) compressed music so I can't reencode my music when a better format (than AAC) comes a long and b) I wan't something I can hold and c) I want my music to be safe from a HD crash, and I don't want to buy 100s of CD-Rs to backup because they need to be replaced anyway.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I buy about 5 more a year

BUT I LIKE WHAT I BUY MORE.




i would say pirating introduced me to more bands that i enjoy than any magazine, article or word of mouth put together

[Ghoser777]

I never understood the obsession with 0 DRM music. The only thing its stopping me from doing is quickly distributing it to all my friends.

Anyway, my p2p use is WAY down. I would only use it if I can't find it on the iTMS and I really want it, and I'll delete the downloaded files when it does show up on iTMS. The song files are always better quality (meaning less corrupted data, not higher bit rate).

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Randman:
And it's still the same as asking people if they shoplift.

It is not the same, since no direct loss is involved. I have downloaded ~10.000 songs from p2p, yet no one has lost a penny (I actually buy more CD's now than pre-2000).

[Ghoser777]

They're both illegal. It's the same argument people make when they go to the library and photocopy a book - they weren't going to buy it anyway. But how can you be so sure? If there were no p2p, I bet there's a lot of songs that p2pers would buy that they currently don't. I do think online music stores are slowly changing this, though.

[typoon]

I Download from iTMS and "sample" music I may eventually purchase by downloading from P2P networks. I also rip from CD's that I have purchased. The only thing I don't like about iTMS is the 30 second clips. It's hard to tell if I am going to really like a song from the 30 seconds I hear from iTMS or any other place. I would rather download it from a P2P network listen to it then buy it if I like it. If not I just delete it. I'm not going to waste my money on a song I don't like. Sounds like a waste of bandwidth? Maybe the way I rationalize it is that if the artist deserves my money they WILL get it. If not I'm not going to give my money to them why waste money on a track I'm not going to like?

People complain about Apple's DRM. I think people are nuts for doing so. I'm sure if Apple could have not included it they would have but they have to cater to the record industry. Also they have the MOST LIBERAL DRM of ANY of the music stores. Is it a Pain? Yes. Does it really affect the way you listen to music? I don't think so. I mean you CAN put your music on UNLIMITED iPods, you CAN burn unlimited mixes even though you have to change up at least the order of one track to burn after 7. Also they increased the number of computers you can now authorize. I do agree their shouldn't be any DRM, but unfortunatly their is. While it IS restrictive in some ways it's not as restrictive as it could be.

[Cody Dawg]

pi·rate

1. One who preys on others; a plunderer.

2. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.

3. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.

Pirating IS theft, plain and simple.

And this comment:

by Busemann
It is not the same, since no direct loss is involved. I have downloaded ~10.000 songs from p2p, yet no one has lost a penny (I actually buy more CD's now than pre-2000).

Is an ignorant one.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:

And this comment:

Is an ignorant one.

Why is that? According to a CNN article recently I believe it was they said that because of the P2P networks it is helping more than hurting the record industry because people end up buying more CD's.

That said I think it's the CRAP that is coming out of the record industry that is hurting them more than people downloading from P2P networks.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

how about more traditional forms of pirating like ripping CDs other's buy?

If that is pirating, then i steal and help others steal. but at the same time, i still buy CDs from the bands i discover through this.

[cjrivera]

I have only downloaded a few noniTMS songs (3-5) since iTunes came out. And these were songs not found on iTMS. Since iTMS, I have virtually stopped using p2p programs. To me, $1/song is well worth it.

Originally posted by paully dub:
But since iTunes 4.7, it's annoyingly hard to remove the drm, via hymn.

Really? I use hymn all the time and I haven't had any problems.

[rozwado1]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Do you Download off p2p services more or less since the launch of the iTMS?

Yes.

[Cody Dawg]

All I am saying is that downloading and not PAYING FOR THE PLEASURE OF USING ANOTHER PERSON'S ART is wrong.

[drive-thru]

My use is pretty much the same as typoon's. I use P2P downloads as my full-length previews. I use the iTMS previews to make sure I downloaded the right song (P2P can be unreliable for rarer music).
If I like an album enough that I listen to it enough I will buy it when I can. My 'to buy' list usually has about 4 albums in, by the time I buy one I find another to buy.
I wish there was a better way of doing it, but full-length iTMS previews would not be practical from a business point of view.

It's not right, it's not legal, but I'd rather do it this way than not discover (and pay for) good music.

As far as the iTMS, I refuse to pay £7.99 for an album at 128kbps when I can usually get the physical CD for £8.99 (at CD quality). It's just not good value if you buy albums and not single songs, and I never buy single songs. I do, however, make sure I get the free song every week. I've been very impressed by some of them.
I don't understand the complaints about Apple's DRM, but I can't imagine a situation where it would ever restrict my use of my music anyway.

Question: If you wanted to burn 7 copies of the same mix to give to friends would you have to change the song order? Could you change something insignificant, like the name of the playlist or a song, and get around the DRM limit?

[gatekeeper]

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."

-- Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Dowling v. the United States

Yes, copyright infringement *is* illegal. No, it's *not* theft.

[hardcat1970]

Originally posted by Randman:
So you're asking people if they continue to steal, or steal less?

My music purchases have skyrocketed since iTMS. I spent more than $500 last year, which is probably more than the previous 2 years of CDS.

As far as piracy, I think I have 2 songs from the Napster days. I did try the Russian site, but it turned out to be a gyp. I tried Paul McCartney's GH and after 30 seconds, each song petered out.

No thanks. I guess some people think it's ok to steal and ever more idiots think it's ok to brag about it.

i am sorry my friend, but the russian site has really working well for me. After spending over 600 dollars for 697 songs in itms, i bought 710 high quality 192kbp mp3, over 4GB music with only spending $40!

The site allows me to complete most of my favorite artists' catalog. And most importantly, i think the website is legitimate online music site because there is no copyright laws in Russian.

Another way of my saving method is i purchase a particular CD immediately after it releases, and ripped it into hight quality mp3, then resale the CD in amazon for $2 loss. Then i would own the album for only $2.00 compared to $9.99 in itms.

I know people saying mp3 can't compare to CD quality, but i haven't really listen to a CD in three years....

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by hardcat1970:
And most importantly, i think the website is legitimate online music site because there is no copyright laws in Russian.

There are copyright laws in Russia, but they have compulsory licensing so anyone can distribute music as long as they pay royalties to a collection agency.

Whether any or much of this money ends up in the hands of artists is a different question. The argument I keep hearing in discussions such as this is "Use iTMS, they screw the artists less!". Then there are those who point out that artists aren't technically getting screwed by iTMS, because nobody forced the artists to enter into their contracts. Nevermind that the same silly* concept applies to the Russian site. Nobody forced the artists to release their works to the public.

*Just because something is legal doesn't mean nobody's getting screwed.

v. screwed
4. Slang.
a) To take advantage of; cheat: screwed me out of the most lucrative sales territory.

[ReggieX]

Haven't bought a single song from ITMS, probably won't in the future either. My physical music buying and my downloading remain at about the same levels as they have over the past few years. Although I went nuts these last 2 months tracking down stuff through GEMM.com and eBay.

[wdlove]

I am one that doesn't have any pirate music at all.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by wdlove:
I am one that doesn't have any pirate music at all.

wdlove!

you don't know what you're missing!

[Cadaver]

I'd say that since the iTMS, I spend more on music than I have in years. And not because I was downloading illegally. I never really did that (yes, a few times during the original Napster craze, but not more than a dozen songs or so - honestly), but I hated buying CDs of groups I only marginally liked just for a song or two.

Since the iTMS opened here in the US, I've spent nearly $350. I don't think in the two years before I spent that much on music.

Record companies are making more money off me these days than before...

[d0ubled0wn]

Back in the day I'd use Kazaa to dl songs and I'd justify it because I didn't want to pay for a full album when I only wanted 1 or 2 songs. After iTMS debuted I stopped doing that and have since bought over 300 songs from iTMS and only CDs that I thought were worth buying. I'm not bothered about the DRM or the compression... my ears can't tell the difference between CDs and aac compressed songs.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Yes, copyright infringement *is* illegal. No, it's *not* theft.

Ah, a voice of reason...

[euchomai]

I want to know more about Canadian law, if Superchicken is operating within the laws of his country he is doing fine. I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about downloading music if the US gov said it was fine to do.

To me it's the same as the Russian site, let's be honest, it is marginally legal.

[hardcat1970]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
There are copyright laws in Russia, but they have compulsory licensing so anyone can distribute music as long as they pay royalties to a collection agency.

Whether any or much of this money ends up in the hands of artists is a different question. The argument I keep hearing in discussions such as this is "Use iTMS, they screw the artists less!". Then there are those who point out that artists aren't technically getting screwed by iTMS, because nobody forced the artists to enter into their contracts. Nevermind that the same silly* concept applies to the Russian site. Nobody forced the artists to release their works to the public.

*Just because something is legal doesn't mean nobody's getting screwed.

first of all, i don't like to steal. I hardly download tracks from p2p networks. I used to buy a lot of CDs and digital tracks from itms, but i find it hard because i can't continue to do this when i am not earning more. I got to find a way to buy tracks within my budget. That is why i pay for a CD and then resale it for a loss, and also buying tracks from the russian sites. I think i pay less this way for music compare to buying from itms.

And I feel sad that the artists are ripping off by their music companies but i don't think it is my best interest to support them from being ripped off. The music industry is evolving, they have to find another way to make money.

As long as i am paying legally to obtain tracks, i have no shame of it.

[Sherwin]

I don't use iTMS. I download off P2P to preview songs. If I like them I go buy the CD, if I don't like them I delete them.

I might go iTMS when they start offering full AIFF quality (yes, my ears can tell the difference). Until then, no thanks.

[SafariX]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I recently spent like 94 bucks on the iTMS, but I happened to find an album by a band I now really like a lot (All Star United)... their latest (as of 2002) is not on iTunes but their older stuff is. I finally found it on Acqlite so I DLed the newest one. I'm thinking about maybe just sending the band ten bucks in the mail (There's no chance they get more than that off a CD considering they sell it for 3 bucks on their site).

With this I also bought the latest Element 101 album, and have DLed almost all of their first album which isn't available on the iTMS. I never actually used to pirate, but with the law in Canada saying this sorta thing's legal, and since I can't buy it (in some cases I'd have to order and in others I couldn't even do that) I feel better about DLing stuff. I'm the type of person who likes to own whole albums so I prefer using the iTMS when I can because it's easier to get the albums and at least then some cash goes to the artists.

I used to never Download because I liked the idea of owning the physical CD... that said since I started using the iTMS... I really don't miss my CDs... so then I ask you...

Do you Download off p2p services more or less since the launch of the iTMS?

Do you post on Anandtech?

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by euchomai:
I want to know more about Canadian law, if Superchicken is operating within the laws of his country he is doing fine. I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about downloading music if the US gov said it was fine to do.

To me it's the same as the Russian site, let's be honest, it is marginally legal.

Current Canadian copyright law states that both downloading and uploading off p2p services is entirely legal. The RIAA (well their Canadian version) is down right pissed at it. That said they get a levy for every blank CD anyone buys, something like 25 cents a CD.

I should note that I have nothing on my PowerBook that I could buy on the iTMS. There are a few albums (at least ten) that I really want but am waiting till I have the cash to spend on the iTMS. There's even one I can't get off there, but I absolutely love the band so I'm going to wait and order it from my school's bookstore.

That said stuff like Kids In The Way's demo which was never really sold, but has two quite good songs that didn't appear on their first album, I feel no problem with grabbing off a p2p service. Heck both Calibretto and Ace Troubleshooter say that they don't mind at all if people download their old stuff off p2p services since you can't buy it.

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't use iTMS because I don't truck with DRM.

Ghoser777--

I never understood the obsession with 0 DRM music. The only thing its stopping me from doing is quickly distributing it to all my friends.

That's because you're shortsighted. If Apple ever turns off their system, it might prevent you from making real use of the music yourself. Furthermore, some distribution to your friends is perfectly legal, but DRM interferes with it anyway.

Frankly, I find the whole thing to be designed by copyright holders to take advantage of the benefits the law gives them while not living up to the responsibilities that come with those benefits. Works must meaningfully enter the public domain. They must not be overprotected prior to that, and not protected at all once they're there. DRM is a stupid mechanism; it doesn't know when you are or are not doing something illegal. Hell, courts often have a difficult time.

To this end, I would like to see copyrights revoked for any work that is encumbered with DRM by the copyright holder or with his authorization, and publicly funded attacks on DRM schemes so that the newly public domain works encumbered by them could be properly made available to the public -- and all that merely because I don't think that it's quite possible to make it outright illegal.

It's very dangerous, however, and prevents a lot more than you think.

CodyDawg--

All I am saying is that downloading and not PAYING FOR THE PLEASURE OF USING ANOTHER PERSON'S ART is wrong.

That's actually an amazingly unusual claim that AFAIK virtually no one agrees with.

For example, I can download the complete works of Shakespeare pretty much effortlessly. And Shakespeare doesn't get a penny. And the law is entirely in support of me on this.

I think you have misunderstood the reason why we have copyright. We don't have copyright because we want to pay authors money. If we wanted to give them money, it would be easier to just mail checks to them.

We have copyright because it is felt to promote the public interest in having original and derivative works be created and in having those works be as unencumbered by restrictions as possible. Hell, there's no morals involved at all; it's just utility.

Feel free to have your own weird moral views, but I'll bet money you don't live up to them, in particular with regards to works derived from public domain works.

Gatekeeper--

There are copyright laws in Russia, but they have compulsory licensing so anyone can distribute music as long as they pay royalties to a collection agency.

Nobody forced the artists to release their works to the public.

Of course, the problem is that at best this is legal in Russia, but if the user of the service is not in Russia, the user is still probably breaking their domestic law. Certainly, having looked at the situation, I have no doubt that a person in the US who downloads from sites such as allofmp3 is themselves an infringer.

And furthermore, I'm dubious as to its legality in Russia, but I'm no expert in Russian law, particularly as to how it interplays with their treaty obligations that would tend to preclude this. (just as the WTO has been getting after the US for violating the Berne Convention in having our 110(5)(B) exception)

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Randman:
The bottom line: I've never been a fan of p2p stuff because in my mind, stealing is stealing. If someone else wants to rationalize such actions, so be it. But to justify something dishonest (hence your usage of "piracy") and crowing about it seems wrong in my book.

[demograph68]

http://www.torrentsearch.com/

[hardcat1970]

"Of course, the problem is that at best this is legal in Russia, but if the user of the service is not in Russia, the user is still probably breaking their domestic law. Certainly, having looked at the situation, I have no doubt that a person in the US who downloads from sites such as allofmp3 is themselves an infringer.

And furthermore, I'm dubious as to its legality in Russia, but I'm no expert in Russian law, particularly as to how it interplays with their treaty obligations that would tend to preclude this. (just as the WTO has been getting after the US for violating the Berne Convention in having our 110(5)(B) exception)"

Let me point out that i am not encourage anyone to rip off the artists, but according to the copyright law, when i purchase a "imported" music for personal use, then it is perfectly legal. However if i trade those songs in p2p network, then i would infringe the domestic copyright law.

http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm

[Toutgood]

Har matey, me pirates more than evaaaaarrrrr!!!!

[cpt kangarooski]

hardcat1970--

Let me point out that i am not encourage anyone to rip off the artists, but according to the copyright law, when i purchase a "imported" music for personal use, then it is perfectly legal. However if i trade those songs in p2p network, then i would infringe the domestic copyright law.

http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm [/B]

Sorry, no, at least not in the US.

Distribution is an exclusive right of the copyright holder per 17 USC 106(3). Importation is a form of distribution per 17 USC 602. So unless an act of importation is not prohibited by EITHER 602(a) or (b) or is otherwise subject to an exception to the distribution right.

So actually a lot of importation is illegal.

But that doesn't matter. Downloading is NOT importation.

Importation necessarily involves a copy being made in a foreign country and physically transported into the US. A copy is defined in 17 USC 101 as a tangible object in which a creative work is fixed. This means that you can import via land, sea, or air, but you cannot import electronically; there's no tangible objects moving across borders.

When you download, you necessarily create a new copy of the work. The tangible medium is the memory of the receiving computer. The creative work is fixed into it. This is an infringing reproduction (see 17 USC 106(1)), as the courts have frequently found (e.g. Napster, MAI, NAFED, Intellectual Reserve).

The person responsible for the reproduction is the downloader; he initiated the process. And if that person is in the US, he's subject to US law -- the Russian government cannot pass laws that legalize actions outside of their borders.

This is how it plays out in the US. I would imagine that it's similar in most places if only because copyright law doesn't work if it can be easily and legally gotten around. That's why we prohibit a lot of imports, after all.

As for the site you linked to, it's simply awful and generally completely wrong.

[olePigeon]

I don't pirate because the music I listen to doesn't suck. Every track on the album is worth the money I spent on it. iTMS just made it cheaper for me to enjoy it.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by typoon:
Why is that? According to a CNN article recently I believe it was they said that because of the P2P networks it is helping more than hurting the record industry because people end up buying more CD's.

I know I buy a LOT more music now than I ever did before P2P and I think even more since iTMS. I P2P a lot less since the iTMS started to answer the original question, but more because of fear of the lawsuits, not the convenience of the iTMS.

[nredman]

i'd say i download less from p2p then i used to, i definitely buy alot more music since iTMS came out. if i hear songs on the radio i like i will go download them from iTMS, and more times then not i will download a few songs from a band and end up buying their whole cd.

[Athens]

I've been buying more Real CDs then ever before and downloading more songs through Kazaa more then ever before. I use ITMs to sample songs before i download them or buy them.

[Kikaida]

Less. Much less. I occasionally filter the usenet when I'm bored, but I don't have a single P2P client installed since my last OS upgrade.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[B]I don't use iTMS because I don't truck with DRM.

Ghoser777--


That's because you're shortsighted. If Apple ever turns off their system, it might prevent you from making real use of the music yourself. Furthermore, some distribution to your friends is perfectly legal, but DRM interferes with it anyway.

<snip>

How? I don't need to authenticate my machine with Apple to play my music, so I don't see the big deal. Sure, I can't authorize any new machines, but oh well. If worst comes to worst and apple folds, I'll just get hymn (or however it is spelled) and go to town - I don't think I'll feel guilty one bit at that point.

The only way Apple's DRM interferes with my sharing with friends is that I can't mass share it - I have to select a few files, burn it to a CD, then give them the CD. It's to prevent people from colluding and having one person buy the CD and copy it for 50 of their friends, which makes sense! And if you have a really really good reason to need to circumvent DRM, do it and don't feel guilty by using hymn.

[KeriVit]

What's DRM?

And how does one hear the difference between AIFF and a CD? Does it depend on the quality of your equipment?

[fireside]

i haven't really downloaded too many songs these days. only some singles, and the only albums i've recently downloaded were osts which aren't for sale in america.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by KeriVit:
What's DRM?

And how does one hear the difference between AIFF and a CD? Does it depend on the quality of your equipment?

Digital Rights Management - it's essentially a system of granting rights to a user of licensed digital content. Granting is the key word here.

We're not acutally comparing AIFF and CD here - most people when they rip an aiff file from a CD, they're getting the same quality. The problem with recording sound is that there is so much sound data to record that it would take an obscene amount of memory for just one song. That's where sampling comes in, where only parts of the data is recorded, and a little bit of the information is lost. Sound data is continuous, but data stored in a digital format generally has to be discrete. Depending on the sample rate and the quality of the compressor, you can fit more music into the same space, but you lose some quality. The lower the bitrate, in general, the worse the music will sound. In fact, CD's are not actually a loseless format like some would contend - there is sound information that is lost because of sampling. But there is a difference between a 128 bit aac file (music file downloaded from iTMS) and a 320 bit mp3 (pretty high bit rate) that some people can notice.