Internet downloading poll for my CJ class

[mrnoodle]

Illegal but they deserve it. Male, 34.

I don't do it myself, simply because I don't have broadband, and I like having CD jackets. But as far as illegality goes, I think it's almost akin to taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, blowing it up and framing it. If someone wants to see the original, they can go to the Louvre. Most people would prefer that over a copy anyway.

Anyway, it's been going on ever since they invented two-deck tape players. Maybe before that. People who don't have the money for an album get a copy from their friends. If the damn things didn't cost almost 20 bucks each, maybe more of us would buy from the store.

[perth]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
... and I like having CD jackets.

That's another good reason in my mind. Most of the stuff that comes with a disc is either a necessity or fluff, but damned if I don't love it.

Example: Aimee Mann's latest effort. First off, the case wouldn't be out of place next to your books. The bonus disc is a bunch of live recordings, and sandwiched between the two discs is one of those "artsy, underground" comics. I don't know why I dig it, I just do. Granted, stuff like this isn't common with single album releases, but that's what boxed sets are for.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by perth
Example: Aimee Mann'slatest effort.

I saw this Cd listed on her labels site and was seriously considering buying it (you can buy it directly from her label here with the first 2,000 copies individually numbered and available only there). I already have the original Lost In Space Cd so my question is; Is the second disk worth it in your opinion?

[Elspode]

Male, 47, and not only do I know it is illegal, but I also know that downloading movies is illegal, and I do that, too.

However, I only download movies that I would never pay to see anyway, so they aren't losing anything from me. Sooner or later, they come out on cable, and I pay out the ass for that (I pay over $200/month for cable and broadband, because I have *all* the bells and whistles you can get, plus a cable box on every TV in the house).

I also download only songs that I wouldn't buy. If I want a whole CD, I go buy it. If I want a single song, I download it.

[perth]

Originally posted by Brigliadore
Is the second disk worth it in your opinion?

Well, but the first disc is better. I listened to the second disc 2 times, and have listened to the first disc ever since. I think it's worth it from a completist's point of view, but only if there aren't other discs catching your eye at the same time.

[russotto]

Illegal, and I don't do it. But not because it's illegal. But because I don't listen to music. I also don't buy CDs, pay for downloads, or listen to music radio.

Oh, AND they deserve it. For a whole litany of offenses.

[kerosene]

Originally posted by perth
3. I have enough disposable income now that I can afford the CD's I want.

WHAT?!?!?!?

[wolf]

Maybe he doesn't want that many CDs?

(trying to save your sex life for you, buddy. You may have to buy her something to make up for the comment.)

[Troubleshooter]

Ok, paper's done and turned in.

Thanks for the help guys.

[SteveDallas]

So? What were your conclusions? Post it with a poll.. we'll all try to predict what grade you get!

[Torrere]

illegal, and I support it.

I downloaded music for a while, but now I am more likely to buy CDs.

Audiogalaxy definitely shaped my musical tastes. I'm not sure what I would be listening to without having used it, but I think that my musical tastes would be more narrow.

I don't like corporate control of culture. I don't want ClearChannel to decide what we should or should not hear, based on how much record labels pay them.

The law is too massive and too corrupt to be an arbiter of right and wrong, and it should not be an arbiter of right and wrong. When it is illegal to do activities that an unmanageably large portion of the population does, when the law has it's fingers in too many things to be enforced, I think that the law needs to be changed.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by headsplice
Yes it's illegal, but to be honest, I don't really care. From the numbers that I've read (and can't reproduce, oops), most of the money from album sales ends up going to the Labels anyway (for reimbursements of advertising, engineering, recording, etc...), and I feel bad about 'taking' money from the hyper wealthy at all. I pay to see live shows all the time (which goes directly to the artist) and if there were a way for me to send money to the artist directly for the CD (a la TC favs the Rhymesayers Collective), I would pay for more of my music. But there isn't, so I don't.
Male - 26

addendum: I don't file share at all (i.e., Kazaa, Bearshare, etc...), my methods for obtaining music are one of the ancient protocols of the net.

You have a very warped sense of the industry.

-sm

[perth]

Originally posted by wolf
Maybe he doesn't want that many CDs?

Actually, that's exactly it. I use to have an extremely large collection of CD's but after their theft, I've become very picky about what I buy. So its a big thing if I do buy more than, say, 1 CD a month.

Oh, and hon? We have more disposable income than you think. It's just that most of that gets disposed of in clothing purchases made by you.

(I figure now that I've accidentally started dgging this hole, I might as well see how deep it goes.)

[Troubleshooter]

Here is my portion of the paper. A little thin, but I wasn't going to rehash a long running and well documented argument.

I quoted the RIAA on their opinion and then followed up with this:

People, on the other side of the argument, fall into several categories. In my opinion, one of the most important is the concern over security issues. According to a Wired Magazine News (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html) article the RIAA attempted to have an amendment to the USA Act, section 815, an anti-cyberterrorism section, that would have exempted them from prosecution for hacking the computers of people they thought were sharing music. They wanted to be able to enter a person’s computer and disable file sharing capabilities and delete supposedly unauthorized content. This is a legitimate privacy and security concern. Peer-to-Peer file sharing is a legitimate platform for the exchange of personal files and data, but if a person happens to be using one of the proscribed file sharing programs, that person runs the real risk of having their computer invaded, or worse, crashed and data lost.

On the moral rationalization side of the argument, many people argue, and not without some merit, that the RIAA and the recording companies actually compensate the artists so little that they have no problem downloading music and then going to the concerts so that a larger percentage of the money goes to the artists themselves. While not an untenable position it still suffers from the problem of being illegal.

And lastly I’ll mention the people who will download regardless. They fall into two camps primarily. The first camp is composed of those who don’t care if it is legal or not and simply want their music. They know it’s illegal and don’t care.

The other camp is composed of the group of people who believe that all information should be free. It’s not a position I find to be defensible on several points. The relevant point here is that if it is given away for free then what is the motivation for producing it in the first place? Without some compensation for the effort and materials involved where does the money come from to pay for all of that come from?

For myself, I believe that the downloading of music is illegal. The personal use contract that is included with albums allows for a single copy to be used only by the owner for their use only and not for the purposes of financial gain. While there is no financial gain from sharing, allowing others to have copies of that album exceeds the allowed by the contract. I agree with the moral concerns about the rights of artists and their just compensation, or lack thereof. They receive a very small share of the price of an album. But that doesn’t make sharing legal.

As a long-time member of the internet and technical communities, one thing I have learned about computers and software is that the better mouse trap lasts only about a week. Every form of copyrighting lasts no more than a month before the reverse-engineering groups have a program to undo them. And in the most spectacular case, Microsoft’s Activation Program, they managed to break that and release it before the product even made it to the shelves. The internet is going to continue to be a thorn in the side of copyright, intellectual property, the Illuminati, and governments for a long time to come. There is presently no effective and practical means to encrypt data securely that can’t be broken or shared, and there isn’t one on the horizon either.

Recording Industry Artists of America
http://www.riaa.com
Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com
The Cellar
http://cellar.org/

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
The other camp is composed of the group of people who believe that all information should be free. It’s not a position I find to be defensible on several points. The relevant point here is that if it is given away for free then what is the motivation for producing it in the first place? Without some compensation for the effort and materials involved where does the money come from to pay for all of that come from?

If the only motivation on an artist is money, then it's not likely to be particularly good art. But that doesn't break the argument - even a highly motivated artist may not have the ability to realize their goals without access to the money. In short, I'd replace "motivation" with "opportunity" or "ability".