As most of you have probably done in the past, downloading songs recently have been on the crackdown and "free" music is rare to come by... what are your views on the legalities and or the ethics of such?

i think its stealing and what the government is doing is a good thing and the reason being it messed up my computer. (my sis downloaded stuff that got virus' in our computer)

I download stuff to see if I like it. If I do, then I buy the CD. If I don't, I delete it. Simple as that.

i think its stealing and what the government is doing is a good thing and the reason being it messed up my computer. (my sis downloaded stuff that got virus' in our computer)


First off, mp3's can't carry viruses so the reason your computer got messed up isn't cause someone was downloading music.

The government isnt doing anything. They are actually laughing at the whole situation. It's the evil RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) who is whining because they would like to make it seem like they are losing billions over this whole thing when in reality, it's very far from the truth.

My whole outlook on mp3s is this. A lot of newer bands because of them have been able to get their music out to people a lot easier than they use to. It's a great promotional tool because once an mp3 takes off and everyone is asking for the song, the band gets noticed by the people higher on the food chain. As for the bands who are already well established in the music industry, it's forcing them to make more than one good song to carry their popularity. I am one of those people who refuse to buy an album for one good song while the rest of the album is crap. If I like what I hear after 3 or 4, I will buy the album.

It's giving the music industry a turn around and forcing it to become better all around. The RIAA is just whining because they were short a couple million bucks because the artists THEY SIGNED can't pull their weight and make decent music... thats my 2 cents.

CJ

^ true... thanx for the comment, yo.

prolly the only reason that mp3s are good is because of the fact that "small" bands can grow due to the mass availability but the bad (by far!) outweigh the good

my personal conviction (despite the collection of 1500+ mp3s on my comp, is that it is outright theft and if you're downloading, you should still support the artists by buying thier stuff

but when you buy, if you wanna help them the most, buy thier stuff at the concerts because then the profit goes straight to the band and not to the retailer which just then sucks about 80% of the profit away from the band and leaving the artists themselves out to dry.

[i feel better now, thanx for asking ! :-)]

Thats what everything is about... profit. Money. Basic human greed.
I have nothing against the mp3s its actually a good thing for me because of where I live. Good Christian music is virtually unobtainable. Only thing we got is what sells. Hillsong, Country and Western and Worship.

I want Demon Hunter and Eternal Decision!
But noooOOOoooo they can't be bought in this country.


I think there is a limit though to when it gets outta hand. If some1 downloads every song on an album then burns it to cd without buying the album thats pretty much stealing.
But something like Godcore or mp3.com where they have the bands permission to put stuff up and circulate it round the net I see it as ok.

well of course, if the band lets you know that it's okay for you to d/l certain songs, go 4 it... they gave you permission, it's like a gift and then it's not a theft.

Actually it isn't theft and it isn't stealing. If anything it would be "copyright infringment" which is VERY different from theft and stealing. :)

John actually wrote about this in his last news letter. Though a lot of bands don't make squat on selling albums apart from the bands who MIGHT get .07 per cd (When you multiply that by a few million copies, thats a lot of money.), what it does do is give the label money to use towards things like promotion and exposure for a band. Plus, the more albums the band sells, the better chance a band has for a renegotiation for a new contract worth more money. So technically, it is stealing.

What I have a problem with is the RIAA throwing lawsuits around to everyone and everything they THINK is uploading mp3s. Today marks a new round of 200some court orders to people using Kazaa and Gnuntella servers who are uploading MP3s. It has turned into a joke really because it's not about teaching people a lesson anymore. It's about the RIAA trying to make its back pocket a little thicker. I think the way they are handling the situation is very wrong and immature.

CJ

Actually it isn't stealing or theft by any definition!

It is copyright infringment which is a civil offense. It is handled by a civil court (not a criminal one), and the plantiff is another private entity, not the state.

Stealing/theft is depriving the original owner of the item in question. Copyright infringment is using an idea, trademark, or information without the proper granted rights from the copyright holder.

Shoplifting is stealing; the original owner is deprived the item. Distributing copyrighted music over a P2P network is copyright infringment; the coyright holder didn't give you permission.


Note that just because someone downloads an MP3 that doesn't mean that is lost revenue for the copyright holder. There is not an equal ratio between downloads and lost sales. In other words people might be listining to music they never would've paid $16 for, but since they can download it for free, why not try it out? Therefore I would venture to say that the majority of downloads nowadays are not lost potential sales.

What the RIAA is doing is shooting both of their own feet while jumping off of a bridge with a noose around their necks. They lost out because they didn't adjust their business model to fit the times due to lack of R/D. Now that their business model is slowly evaporating they are doing everything they can to keep it intact. Unfortunately when a business sues their customers (or potential customers), their customers tend to usually have a bad taste in their mouths. The more people get sued the more general and cultural contempt there is for the RIAA which means more boycotts and more independent music.

They are fueling their own fire and giving people many reasons to go elsewhere for music.

The one thing the RIAA DOESN'T want is for ANY of these cases to go to trial. First of all it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person in question actually committed copyright infringment. Secondly, if they were to lose (and they probably would), it would set a precedent that would send them down the tubes almost overnight. For these reasons they like to settle very quickly and quietly with the defendents.

It is still stealing! Illeagal copies (including distributed MP3s) deprive the artists of a sales. let me give you an example, If I buy 1 Alien Youth CD from Skillet and burn 3 copies of it and give it to my friends so they don't have to buy it, I have stolen 3 Alien Youth CD's from Skillet. Even though I have not stolen 3 produced CDs, I took 3 purchases away from Skillet.

Wait a second, but MP3s aren't full CDs and I don't download full CDs either. It can still be considered stealing, If you download the MP3s of the tracks you like, than you don't need to but the CD, thus you stole parts of the CD, and since CDs aren't sold in parts (1 or none), you stole a sale from them.

as for downloading sample (30-60 second of a 3-5 minute song) MP3s, that is usually some thing diffrent, they are giving you a free sample. The recording companies and artists put them out there so people WILL listen to and so that they can get excited then buy their CD when it first comes out.

good thinking and good reasoning agent_c68

You are both right in legal and moral issues reguarding mp3s. The fact of the matter is, any way you look at it in the moral sense, it's stealing.

Now the question on my mind at this point is, how can the owners of Zpoc (That Xian (Christian) file sharing program) justify what they are doing?

CJ

Now the question on my mind at this point is, how can the owners of Zpoc (That Xian (Christian) file sharing program) justify what they are doing?


I'd be curious to hear their response to that question as well.

so my thoughts on the whole matter...

first of all, let's be careful exactly how we say things. to say that mp3s are bad, is simply ridiculous - it's a technology, a file format. If anything, it is the file sharing of copyrighted works that is in question. notice i say copyrighted works - if TerraSin wants to freely make his songs available on KaZaa, he should have that right and more power to him.

Does file sharing equal lost revenue?
In most cases I think it does. You like the song enough to download it and keep it on your computer so that you can listen to it whenever you want right? So therefore you should be willing to compensate the artist for making that song. However, you should not necessarily be forced to purchase an entire album in order to get the one song you like. Enters iTunes - you buy a single song for $1 and that's it. Burn it to CD if you like, put it on your computer at work as well as the one at home, put it on your iPod or similar device... this is all included in the $1 purchase price. They also allow you to listen to clips of the song before you buy it... and if you want they whole album, it is normally $10 - much cheaper than buying it in stores.

another company to look at is magnatunes (http://www.magnatunes.com). They are an indie record label that makes their artists' music available for purchase online. even better, you decide how much to pay for the album - anywhere from $5 to $18 with their suggested price set to $8. granted, they only have the catalogs of their indie artists, but some of the music is really good, and the business model is phenomenal.

personal conviction
i must say that i myself used to very actively participate in illegal file sharing - i had about an 8GB collection (i know people have MUCH larger collections, but this is still a few thousand songs). Earlier in the school year, I was finally convicted enough to delete every single song I had on my computer.... everything. I still prefer mp3s to CDs, so I then ripped all the CDs that I own, and now that is the only thing I have (plus what I've recently purchased with iTunes).

I wasn't trying to say that MP3s are evil/illeagal, but that some forms of distribution (like file sharing) is. I ripped all of Alien Youth when I got it, but I did so for my own personal use (I had a MP3 player).

...I ripped all of Alien Youth when I got it...
oh so did i, and to this day all 5 cds i have from skillet are illegal copies from my friend's collection, but i dont feel overly bad about it mainly because i want the band to benefit most from it while i still get to listen to thierr music.

here's how:
i'm going to wait till the febuary show to buy at least one copy from each album to actually fully purchase the album, then destroy the illegal copies... why dont i just buy them off of half.com or something you ask? well, simply this, if i were to do so none of the profit would go to the band, and i'd be wasting my money. this also would happen even if i were to go through a retailer, only a small portion of the cd price would go back to skillet, and i'd still be ripping them off. but by buying thier cds at thier shows, all of the profit goes directly to skillet, making the most out of my money and supporting the band in the most efficient way possible.

It isn't stealing (theft) by ANY definition... it is copyright infringment. That is an undisputable fact! Check out the dictionary and the US law.

Stealing involves depriving the original owner of something.

Music is not property (although the RIAA would like you to think so); it is an intangible idea.

Just because you download the song doesn't mean you were willing to purchase the album. The RIAA wants you to believe that every single download is equal to a lost sale; this idea is utterly false!

As a matter of fact, the RIAA cannot even tell if MP3s have helped them or hurt them! Yes it is true that CD sales have dropped - however so has the economy. When an economy recesses the first place where spending is cut is on entertainment and non-essential items. Therefore just as MP3s were becoming mainstream the economy started declining (I doubt the two were related). There are many many many people that will download music from artists they have never heard of just simply to sample it before they spend $15-$20 on the album.

In fact many studies have suggested that the MP3s have actually helped to boost the sales of CDs during this economic downturn (in other words sales would be much lower if MP3s were not as prevelent) because it offers free grass roots promotion for the artists. Neither theories can be proven either way.

However if a user really likes an artist, chances are they WILL go out and purchase the album to show their support for the artist AND to actually get a physical official token of the art (for sentimental reasons).

I feel some music industry history needs to be explained here. Originally albums (or discs) were developed to promote the live shows of the artists. A lot of times the medium was given out for free or at a loss or with a very slight profit margin. This was because the majority of the income derived from the art was from the live shows; either ticket sales or booze sales. In the Christian scene it was from offering plates passed at the end of the show.

This all changed when the Beatles came out with the Sgt. Pepper Album which was multi-tracked and marked the Beatles recession off of the stage and into the studio. Their one and only source of income from that point was through the sales of their music via a physical medium. From then on this was the industry model for income. Some artists did both however realizing that if they toured they could count the profit for themselves without the money going through their record label first.

If you are on one of the Big Five record labels then you can realistically have a gold album (1 million copies) and still be in debt to the record label by about $2,000. Therefore John Cooper really means it when he said he has never made a penny on any of his albums; in fact he might still be paying off AY. The weird thing for him is that the studio and the record label (Ardent) are one in the same so it would be interesting to see what the flow of $ is there.

Sorry to side track but the point of the last couple paragraphs is that the income generating model is evolving from albums to shows. While this has been true for a while, it is even more apparent today. As an artists money is not usually made unless they tour relentlessly. The albums are simply a tool and an avenue to promote their live shows.

Assuming MP3s are actually lowering cd sales the only people that would be suffering would be the record labels and the distribution channels (music stores - excluding Wal-Mart, Best Buy etc). If the rec labels are suffering I do not feel sorry for them at all. The executives of those co's have a job to do and part of that job is R/D on technology and future trends. If they had simply found a way to embrace and capitalize off of the MP3 revolution then they would probably be singing a MUCH different song right now.


I am unfamilier with ZPoc. Someone please enlighten me.

Just because you download the song doesn't mean you were willing to purchase the album. The RIAA wants you to believe that every single download is equal to a lost sale; this idea is utterly false!


and if you read my post carefully, you'll see that i never suggested that it did...


You like the song enough to download it and keep it on your computer so that you can listen to it whenever you want right? So therefore you should be willing to compensate the artist for making that song.

i made reference to those songs that you KEEP on your computer. if you download a song, don't like and then delete it, then that's one thing. but if you keep, then that would mean that you like it. I'm still not suggesting that using KaZaa et al is an appropriate way to preview songs... i'm on the fence about that one. but if you keep the files so that you can have them long term, then i would say it is _definitely_ wrong.




The weird thing for him is that the studio and the record label (Ardent) are one in the same so it would be interesting to see what the flow of $ is there.

Actually "Ardent Records" and "Ardent Studios" are two seperate entities. They share a building and much of the same staff, but are set up as seperate businesses.


Assuming MP3s are actually lowering cd sales the only people that would be suffering would be the record labels and the distribution channels (music stores - excluding Wal-Mart, Best Buy etc). If the rec labels are suffering I do not feel sorry for them at all. The executives of those co's have a job to do and part of that job is R/D on technology and future trends. If they had simply found a way to embrace and capitalize off of the MP3 revolution then they would probably be singing a MUCH different song right now.

if the label suffers, then the artist suffers. On the front end of making a record, the label pays for everything - the studio time, engineers, promotions, etc.... but all of this falls under what they call "recoupables", meaning it is really just a loan given to the artist. Only when all of this money has been recouped does the artist actually get paid a dime. Therefore, if the record label is not making money from the album, then the artists debt is not getting paid off, and until that debt is paid, then they won't see a paycheck.

yes, the artist still makes a much larger percentage of their income from live shows and especially merchandise, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that if you download music INSTEAD of buying the album, you are preventing them from getting paid some amount, no matter how small that amount may be. And that my friend IS stealing.


I am unfamilier with ZPoc. Someone please enlighten me.


it's a christian-only file sharing program

It's not that you are stealing physical (the CD) property, but intelectual (the Music) property. The music belongs to the artists (or the record company, depends on the situation) so you are taking it from the artist without there consent (you have there consent when you listen to authorized versons, like CDs, radio, offical streams...). In my book, that's stealing.

But it helps the economy... so does car theft help the economy too? Think about it, If no one stole cars than there would be no need for auto security systems, so they get to install new systems as people out smart there old ones. you know what, in the end, it is still worng!

But again, It's not theft, it's copyright infringement... so disobeing some laws are ok? NO!!! (unless the law goes against God) We are to submit to authority, and we do that by obeing the laws the government has placed. Breaking a lesser law is as much sin as breaking the bigger law.

Agent CS:
It isn't stealing at all nor is it theft. If it were theft the person would've hijacked their copyrights to the music and would then be collecting the royalties instead of the original author. That would be theft.

But instead it is copyright infringment which does not involve depriving the owner of anything. See, in order for something to be considered theft the original owner must be deprived of something. If I stole someones car, they wouldn't have it anymore, I would. That is theft. If I jacked someone's copyrights to something, they wouldnt be collecting the royalties on it anymore, I would.

If I copy someone's song without their permission, they still have their copy, and I still have mine. The only thing that might have been lost was a potential source of revenue. That isn't stealing, its copyright infringment. Please do not call it stealing when it isn't.


The idea of intellectual property is a misnomer; It doesn't exist. The powers that be want you to think of this as property, but it really isn't. As a matter of fact, all copyrights, patents, and trademarks could be eradicated tomorrow if Congress voted so. If you read our Constitution you will discover that copyrights only exist by the mercy of Congress. They are not a right, but an option.

Walking out of a store with a CD in hand without paying for it is theft as it involves taking property.

Also the Bible was written prior to a democratic republic existing (the US) and back then no one had a say in any of the laws. If a king or the nobles made a decree, the people were supposed to blindly follow along. That is not true as our cultural foundations have moved to the point where people have rights. This began with John Locke's "Social Contract/Consent of the Goverened" and with our own Decleration of Independence. One of the ways we change the laws now is through civil disobedience. This was an unknown idea at the time the Bible was being written down.

It is also interesting to note that humanity never recognized any rights coming from God until the US Decleration of Independence was written. Previous to that, God propped up kings, and the kings granted rights to the people.

The idea of intellectual property is a misnomer; It doesn't exist. The powers that be want you to think of this as property, but it really isn't. As a matter of fact, all copyrights, patents, and trademarks could be eradicated tomorrow if Congress voted so. If you read our Constitution you will discover that copyrights only exist by the mercy of Congress. They are not a right, but an option.

Actually, copyrights and patents are an expressed power of Congress, meaning the Constitution quite clearly and literally states that Congress shall have that power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: Congress has the power...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusve right to their respective writings and discoveries."In the case of music, most often, the right to the music and words to a song is legally transferred to whatever company by the artist. But the artist does get royalties for that, no?

... but you can't say copyrights aren't in the Constitution. They're right there.

Will:
What about songs that we cannot purchase? What about songs that are not availble to buy in this country? What about remixes that don't appear on any album to purchase? There are THOUSANDS of trance songs that I cannot purchase here in the US. My ONLY option to get these songs is to download them.

While you are wrong about the stealing concept, I would agree with you that downloading an album in leu of purchasing it is detrimental to most record labels and some artists.
.
On the other hand downloading music is used as a tool to promote artists live shows. Many artists distribute their music over the Internet in hopes that you come and see their show. Why? Because they know they won't ever make a dime on the album, but they will get you for $20 or $30 at their concert.

Just to put things in perspective, a group like the NewsBoys probably gross around $30,000 per night. Someone like the Supertones probably gross around $12,000 per night. And keep in mind these are not even the big big big players in the world. Think of Metallica, Creed, and Britney.


I think the era of megastars is on its way out. The only thing at the moment which seems to be proping it up is radio.

My major in college is the recording industry. Plus I have been involved since I was about 12 so I do have some experience here.


On a different note:
In my personal opinion, I think Ardent is one of the best sounding studios in the WORLD! The sonic quality of the artists that come our of there is awesome and absolutely mind-blowing.
Some of my favorites:
ZZ Top, Skillet (#1), Sister Hazel, Seven Mary Three, Dave Matthews, BB King, Big Tent Revival, and the Gin Blossoms.
here is their complete list: http://www.ardentstudios.com/clients/clients.html

There is just something about the sound that comes out of that place.

Anyway I am not exactly sure how Ardent Records and Ardent Studios are related. Same parent company with the two different holdings? It is interesting to have a secular studio of such magnitude with a Christian record label. I guarentee you however they are playing some sort of accounting game between the two entities in their books (which could be their reason for existance). Generally the label pays the studio, but in this case that would seem to be a little weird. Maybe it is a tax trick or something. Who knows? I just like Skillet!

I think I'll start a thread on Ardent somewhere else.

The idea of intellectual property is a misnomer; It doesn't exist. The powers that be want you to think of this as property, but it really isn't. As a matter of fact, all copyrights, patents, and trademarks could be eradicated tomorrow if Congress voted so. If you read our Constitution you will discover that copyrights only exist by the mercy of Congress. They are not a right, but an option.

Actually, copyrights and patents are an expressed power of Congress, meaning the Constitution quite clearly and literally states that Congress shall have that power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: Congress has the power...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusve right to their respective writings and discoveries."In the case of music, most often, the right to the music and words to a song is legally transferred to whatever company by the artist. But the artist does get royalties for that, no?

... but you can't say copyrights aren't in the Constitution. They're right there.


Absolutely... I never said they weren't. They are, they are just optional. Congress isn't mandated to uphold copyrights and could abolish them all tomorrow if they so desired.

In fact if you read any of Jefferson's writings you will discover that the only reason that was put in there was to ensure that these ideas actually entered the public domain within a short time. Yes he wanted people to make money, but he also didn't want everyone to keep all of their ideas, discoveries and art under lock and key. So he put this in there knowing that everyone would get a short chance, and then after that it would enter in the public domain.

Unfortunately that entire system and concept has been abused waaaaaaay beyond its original intention and is actually becoming a hinderance to the very ideals it was designed to promote. :-[

i'm sure we could debate forever whether or not it is technically "stealing", but i'd rather just agree to disagree. I also agree with you that electronic distribution of music is an invaluable resource for bands that choose to take that option (keeping in mind that with the big players, it's not always up to the band, but rather the publisher and/or record label). however, i do not believe that this justifies downloading music from those bands that do NOT choose to exercise that method of distribution. just as a band should have the right to put their music online, they should also have the right to keep it from being online... it's their music and their choice. I agree that it is ridiculous not to embrace the new revolution of online music, but if they want to be stupid and lose potential customers and revenue, who are we to stop them? :)

in regards to music that is unavailable otherwise... i agree that it is a raw deal, but it is still no excuse for breaking the law. hopefully these artists would work to get their music onto some type of online catalog such as the apple music store or the new upcoming napster2.0.

Unfortunately file sharing being considered stealing is not a subjective concept. In other words it isn't something you can really argue about because it is a fact that it isn't stealing (not in this country anyway). No court, dictionary, or legal documents will ever refer to it as theft but as copyright infringment which of course is not the same thing. You could say that it might be "ripping somebody off" which IS a subjective term, but to say that it is stealing or theft is absolutely beyond any doubt completely FALSE!

Now... is it moral or ethical? That part is obviously up for debate. I can see how a lot of newer Christians that are fresh in their faith might find objections to it simply based on the notion that because you are getting something for free it is amoral. While that makes sense most mature Christians would understand that it isn't really that simple and that there are other outside variables involved. Remember the music industry is a business, and music is a product and commodity.

A really poor example would be something like this (sorry I'm not feeling creative tonight). Someone discovered a way to make milk from cows synthetically. THis means that an exact chemical copy of the milk coming from a cow can be completely reproduced for free using certian chemicals in the right proportions. All of the sudden a bunch of these milk-making machines get sold and put in every home around the world.

Each cow has a different flavor milk. Well... TG Lee/Dean/Dairy Inc whoever begin to realize that they are starting to loose money selling the original milk because everyone can copy and create it for free. So what they do is they take each cow that creates its own flavor, and they take those cows to the local county/state fair. And they charge money for people to come and see these cows on display. So what happens is, people get the milk for free and decide which flavors they really like. Then the owners of the cows that originally created the milk put the cows on display for all the world to see (for a price).

I know that is an absolutely LAME analogy, but think of it something along those lines.

Now... if milk was free everywhere and you could get as much as you want of whatever specific flavor you want, why would you pay for milk anymore? It doesn't make sense. The only reason you would pay for milk would be because you like that particular cow, and somehow it gratified you to know that you are drinking the original milk from that cow and paying the original owners for it, even though you can get the exact same thing for free elsewhere.

Again I apologize for the stupid analogy but it was the only thing my mind could come up with here at 2am.

About the exporting issue... is a WHOLE lot more complicated than one would think. There are laws, treaties, UN regulations, EU regulations, NAFTA regulations etc etc that must be followed to the wire in order to ship/sell a product overseas. In order to navigate these mazes of legalities you HAVE to hire a lawyer. Lawyers (especially international/trade ones) are expensive; I know some myself!

Therefore, unless you are close to a megastar it is very hard (if not impossible) to get your music imported/exported. It might be a different story within the EU, but anywhere else I guarentee you it is a ROYAL PITA!

Therefore even if a Hungarian artist wants to market his music to the US, he might not be able to afford it. Therefore the ONLY way people in the US can get his music is to fly to Europe and buy it, or to download it for free over the Net. That's pretty much a no-brainer (although oddly enough I do know someone who flys to Europe and buys dozens of euro-tech albums - he was born over there however).

Again, the issue is not as simple as it appears on the surface.

And I am not trying to fight or anything, but I consider myself an intellectual and I think it is very good for people to discuss these kind of issues. It is important that we all come to understand our faith and how it affects our interaction with the world around us. Threads like this are very healthy because it gets people to think about things a little more than they normally would. No hard feelings or anything. :P

~Matt



Edited for language usage.

I have heard the whole downloading a song is stealing thing for the uptenth time now. Answer me this, I can't help but wondering why prominent christian authors such as Philip Yancey and Frank Peretti aren't denouncing the evils of public libraries. After "borrowing" a book, one is highly unlikely to purchase the book because one has already "consumed" the product. Are library users not "stealing" the intellectual property of the authors? By many christian people's standards, they are. How did it come to be that "borrowing" books, a.k.a. intellectual property, is morally acceptable but "sharing" music is not? I spy a double standard.

P.S.- To the mods, sorry I put this here. I wasnt paying attention and posted it in the Skillet section. If you move it then please move it to "Mars Hill". Thanks :)

P.S.- To the mods, sorry I put this here. I wasnt paying attention and posted it in the Skillet section. If you move it then please move it to "Mars Hill". Thanks :)


it's all fixed now. :)

@udio @ddict:
Excellent point. These industries are trying to get the best of both worlds when they sell the mediums along with the content. Unfortunately that doesn't work too well in this age as we are all finding out.

If you goto the store and purchase lets say the latest Limp Bizkit album and then you break it amonth later, you SHOULD be able to get another free one. Why? Because they are not really selling the disc, they are selling the content on the disc.

Of course no one would give you a free one just because you broke yours because they would take the line that "well... we are selling the discs, and if we give the discs away we lose money".

Unfortunately trying to combine both ideas doesn't come out to a logical concept. The MP3s have started to change this and I think within 5-10 years we will see some serious reform on copyright/patent laws in this country.


Another thing, these are the same overly greedy people that tried to shut down used CD stores a few years ago. They argued that if people were re-selling the CDs, then the RIAA (and their members) didn't get a cut off of the re-sell and since their content was on it they thought they deserved a cut. Thank God that our legal system had enough integrity to give the RIAA the Polish Salute and told them to go take a hike and be reasonable.

However these overly greedy people did manage to impose a tax on all CD-Rs sold for music to help fund the "war on piracy". Whenever you buy a spool of blank CDRs that say "music" on then a certian % goes to the RIAAs coffers. The way to get around this? Purchase CDRs that say "computer" on them. Its the exact same thing.

If you goto the store and purchase lets say the latest Limp Bizkit album and then you break it amonth later, you SHOULD be able to get another free one. Why? Because they are not really selling the disc, they are selling the content on the disc.

I totally agree, if you end up with a damaged CD it should be replaced. But the stores wouldn't be the ones you go to, but the distributor/publisher. when a game of mine that required the CD got scratched, I sent it in the damaged CD for a replacment CD. the only thing it costed me was shipping of the damaged CD to there customer service centers. I know that not every company will be willing to give free replacments, but it really enforces that it is the liscence to listen to the music that they sell you, not a disk.

Well, for one, a lot of stores do carry a lifetime warranty on their cds. The Wall for instance, will let you bring back a damaged cd if you have their sticker on the case and also have the reciept of the cd with you. Kewl kewl. ;)

With books and libraries, understand that the book industry isn't near the multi billion dollar industry the music industry is. Also that the book industry isn't really run by mega greedy people looking to take a buck from you any way possible. Not to say they aren't greedy, but not to say they aren't greedy at all...

Also that the book industry isn't really run by mega greedy people looking to take a buck from you any way possible

Obviously YOU are not having to pay for college text books! :o :P

LOL! AMEN TO THAT!! someone makes money off this textbook scheme and it's NOT anyone i know!

Hehehe, that's one of the reasons that State Colleges are now going to be using E-Books instead of hard cover. You can still buy paper books if you want, but a lot of the colleges now offer the text books for free on webpages...

CJ

New 'filesharing' technology. Maybe the future of legal online?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/27/file.swapping.ap/index.html

Yeh, I read about that the other night. I don't think it will do much for file sharing, but it will definately get a point across.

CJ

A way to avoid paying high costs for college textbooks is to order them online from Europe. I've been told and even read many places there is a HUGE markup on books sold in the US.

I have heard claims that after getting it shipped from Europe within 4 days, a lot of books were still $30 cheaper than buying them online in the US or in your local college bookstore. I think it is worth investigating.

New 'filesharing' technology. Maybe the future of legal online?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/27/file.swapping.ap/index.html


Interesting idea... not practical in my opinion but whatever. Remember since it is going over the cable lines it is analog, not digital. I dont think it will replace anything, although it might catch on in a few other places.

Answer me this, I can't help but wondering why prominent christian authors such as Philip Yancey and Frank Peretti aren't denouncing the evils of public libraries. After "borrowing" a book, one is highly unlikely to purchase the book because one has already "consumed" the product. Are library users not "stealing" the intellectual property of the authors? By many christian people's standards, they are. How did it come to be that "borrowing" books, a.k.a. intellectual property, is morally acceptable but "sharing" music is not? I spy a double standard.



i thot of a rebuttal to that while i was at work tonight. (hey, i was surrounded by books, give me a break. ;) ) the corrolation between reading a library book & sharing music is flimsy. a library book you read, then return. it'd be like listening to a song on the radio. both are free for everyone to hear. all you need is certain "equipment" (i.e. a library card or a radio).

"file sharing" would be more akin to buying a book, then taking it to a photocopier & copying all the pages & stapling them together to form a new book. that is illegal. it would be stealing the itellectual property of the author.

I'm now in the strangest position. One of my Skillet CD's got stolen/lost. What happened is that I lent it to a friend who is in a hostel and yeah, now the CD is missing. I definately know he is telling the truth, no doubt. But can I now make a copy of someone elses CD. I did buy "Hey you, I love your soul" so can I now make a copy? OK. I'm probably gonna make a copy. The thing is, I think it will be hard to find the CD again, ne where near here. ???

xon, you brought up a good point that is what i live by, basically. it's not file sharing if it's for yourself. So virtually all of my CDs are on mp3s on my computer, but i don't make copies for other people. but it's interesting that you brought up the lost cd situation bc it happened to me too. my invincible cd got scratched pretty bad. luckily, i had the mp3s of it and i burnt myself a new copy. also, i've bought pod's fundamental elements of southtown twice and lost it myself both times. So this time, rather than buying it again, i just burnt myself a copy from someone else's cd.
as far as libraries go, it's not a comparison to file sharing because what is being shared is knowledge, which should be universally free. art, however (music) should not be free - it is the artistic work of the author. also, you said that no one would buy the books they read at the library. that's not true. if it's just knowledge they want, then they won't buy the book, but if they respect the author and the book as an artistic representation, then they're going to want they're own copy anyway. they're just previewing it when they check it out from the library.
also (yes, i have another point), though i don't advocate file sharing myself, i don't denounce it. i have a friend who is an avid file sharer, but he does it morally. he downloads music, decides if he likes it, then either deletes it or buys the cd. there are about 50 bands that have file sharing to thank for the copies of their albums sold to my friend. and im sure a lot of other people do that too. so while i don't do it, i don't chastise those who do.

also, you said that no one would buy the books they read at the library. that's not true. if it's just knowledge they want, then they won't buy the book, but if they respect the author and the book as an artistic representation, then they're going to want they're own copy anyway. they're just previewing it when they check it out from the library.


You are wrong... ever hear of the non-fiction section? Millions of people check out books from the library simply for pleasure and not for education and they have absolutely zero interest in actually purchasing the book because they can read it for free.

Then of course there are those who purchase the ones they like sort of as a "collectors item" much like the same way some people do with music now adays. They simply listen to many for free and purchase the ones they really like. Then again many don't.


I know it is hard to believe but yes people still read books for pleasure these days (I wish I had more time to read but alas school ironically has taken that time from me). One of these days

:-[

that is illegal. it would be stealing the itellectual property of the author.



Actually it isn't stealing because intellectual property doesn't exist. Rights to created works exist, but that isn't property. It is an artificial scarcity on an idea in place by the law of the land. It is merely copyright infringment which in this country (USA) is only a civil offense.

It would be stealing if one jacked a CD from a store. Or if one actually stole the rights to the work (hikacking the copyright itself so that YOU collect the royalties- not the original authors). But in order for it to be theft, the original owner has to be deprived of something.

I think I already covered this a few posts ago. ::)

But if you download music instead of buying it, aren't you depriving the artist of his royalties? just a thought.

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but is file 'sharing' the act of downloading music from kazaa and things like that? If it is, then it's illegal, and that's the reason I don't do it. If it wasn't illegal then it wouldn't bother me! Taking a book out from the library, on the other hand is totally legal, so long as you return it within three weeks or whatever.

IT IS PROPERTY! alot of effort is put into making the music, it not "hey, let's record ourselves playing this music I wrote last night and sell it tomorrow" it's a long process. if you say that there is no intelectual than why are there software liscenses? But your paying for the disk. NO! buissnesses use the same disk for the same program on several diffrent systems, but each liscense pay for the use of software company's program on one system. If you are saying that it is OK to jack the record companies of their music, than wouldn't be ok to jack the software companies of their programs, the movie studios of their films, or the publishing companies their books and magazines? you make it seem like an inocent thing, but it is not! Even copyright infringement is still illeagal, so it is WRONG!

But if you download music instead of buying it, aren't you depriving the artist of his royalties? just a thought.


Only if you download it in lieu of purchasing the album. So let's say you were going to go out and buy Collide and had every intention of doing so. But instead of purchasing Collide, you decided why not just download it?

In that case yes the record company gets screwed out of money because they just lost a potential sale. Notice I didnt say the artist does. Most artists never get a cent on the sale of their records; ever (John confirmed this in one of his last letters).

However I suspect that over 90% of the music being traded on the Internet right now is music that wouldn't have been purchased in the first place. Therefore the RIAA cannot assume that each download is = to a lost sale.

IT IS PROPERTY! alot of effort is put into making the music, it not "hey, let's record ourselves playing this music I wrote last night and sell it tomorrow" it's a long process. if you say that there is no intelectual than why are there software liscenses? But your paying for the disk. NO! buissnesses use the same disk for the same program on several diffrent systems, but each liscense pay for the use of software company's program on one system. If you are saying that it is OK to jack the record companies of their music, than wouldn't be ok to jack the software companies of their programs, the movie studios of their films, or the publishing companies their books and magazines? you make it seem like an inocent thing, but it is not! Even copyright infringement is still illeagal, so it is WRONG!


It is only property if you steal the medium (the disc itself) or the rights to the created works.

The problem that everyone is having is that it is eaiser to "pirate" than to purchase. Typically consumers take the path of least resistance. Since the RIAA (meaning the member companies) did not research emerging technologies they got left out in the cold. They are trying to come around but they are years behind the curve.

Software is a slightly different animal but yet similar at the same time. Software has been pirated for years and they have come up with various means to attempt to prevent that. First they had shareware... lots of free software which was a trial basis, but to get the full thing you had to pay the full price. Then the Internet came about and cracks/patches/hacks were quite abundant.

A business is at high risk if they pirate software. If they are caught, they can be put OUT of business. Therefore most try and keep on the legal side of things however the entire idea of having to purchase multiple licenses for a single disc violates a form of basic logic.

The software companies know this and are evolving a model to keep up with it. Enter subscription software. Take Norton AntiVirus for example. You can get the software for pay (or if you jack it) but you are only allowed to download the latest definitions/updates for x amount of time before they cancel your subscription. The program still works and exists and functions, but it doesnt get the latest updates unless you pay the subscription fee.

MicroSoft is working with a technology called LongHorn which is Internet based software. Once the next version of Windoze comes out if you want to use MS Office, you have to pay MS each time (or a yearly subscription) and then you download an "appelet" of it and once you are done using it the computer deletes it until the next use. Therefore you are really "renting" the software. This makes piracy VERY hard to do (if not impossible) and the path of least resistance is the legal way again.

All of this is about making biz models stay ahead of current technology. If the biz models lag and refuse to evolve, then they die and their profits are shot.

The thing I HATE the most about the whole subscription thing is that the Internet is required.
Wish those business morons would realise that although the net is popular not every1 HAS it!

I wud hate having to subscribe to MS. U end up paying more for subscriptions than u wud if u just bought the CD brand new. It's a scam by MS to make more money! I'm betting thats the real reason they shut down MS Chat. Costing them too much.

I believe Microsoft is moving out. And I don't care about their crappy subscriptionware. Businesses wil use it, But I don't think users will catch on to it so quickly. Instead I'm learning Linux. And ne way, before users catch onto longhorn (Who has a codename like that??), microsoft will already be upgrading to something else.

Gamers will not revert no it, cause as of today most games are illegal copies, and users like to own their copy, if they buy it.

But we'll just have to wait. And somehow I know that there will be cracks for this microsoft stunt. They have too many enemies, and that will make their subscriptionware, freeware (and it will be easily downloadable). If it can be coded, it can be simulated.

Does anyone else have anything to say here? This situation hasn't gone away obviously and in fact it is only becoming more relevent.

just wanted to resurrect this topic long enough to say that CCMBuzz just posted an article (http://www.ccmbuzz.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=499) explaining how Christian teens share as much music online as anyone else. I'm very sad to say that the only fans directly talked about in the article are panheads. :-\

If those morons in the record business want Christians to buy their albums then they should be released EVERYWHERE! I can think of piles of christian bands that do NOT have ANY CDs in my country! Nowhere stocks them. I do not have a credit card not have access to one so thats internet ordering out!
If ppl don't have easy access to buy the CD they're going to download it.

One thing that disturbed me is when I found a file sharing program that only had Xian music on it. Not so much that they were sharing music, because most know my standing on that, but because it furthers the hypocracy in the church. I questioned them once and got no reply for my time.

CJ

I do not have a credit card not have access to one so thats internet ordering out!

Most bands have PO Boxes that you can snail mail them to order their stuff.


If ppl don't have easy access to buy the CD they're going to download it.

Indeed. Human nature.

The only time I think it's alright to download or copy music is if something is out of print and hard to find. In which case downloading is probably the only way to get it. Speaking of which......if anyone has a copy of Argyle Park's CD (mid-90's christian Industrial which later became Cirlce of Dust then Celldweller) Please PM me.

Most bands have PO Boxes that you can snail mail them to order their stuff.

That involves practically paying double for the CD since I'd have to get it shipped over as well. I don't have that kind of money. Anyway thats exactly what I mean. Why should anyone have to goto that trouble?

If the record companies want ppl to buy the CD instead of downloading it THEY should put more effort into making it readily available.

If the record companies want ppl to buy the CD instead of downloading it THEY should put more effort into making it readily available.

Before I say anything I think I should state that I do not think downloading is ever the right thing to do but it is sometimes acceptable.

And you're right Skynes, the product has to be available if companies want it purchased. Sometimes though it's just not possible. A band like skillet doesn't have high demand. Printing extra CD's, getting a distributor to carry the product and convincing stores to carry a product that may never sell takes a lot of money. It would drive costs way up, seriously, would you want CD prices any higher?

Of course most of the downloading problem is the industry's own fault. When CD's were competeing with tapes, I remember quite vividly CD and Tape prices being about the same. You might pay a buck or two more for the CD but nothing extremely considerable. Of course this was done to convince people to buy the new product, CD's, which were cheaper to produce than magnetic tapes. Once tapes got the proverbial "Heave-Ho!" CD prices shot up........way up. I remember buying CD's for 11, 12 dollars at my local store than having 'em go up to 15 rather quickly. And don't even dare step foot into a chain store like Sam Goody or the Wall or FYE unless you are prepared to sell your soul for the latest Celine Dion disc. You can expect to pay $18-$20 an album at one of those places. Of course the entire record industry is kept afloat largely by teenagers who are jobless. I often wonder where 13 year old girls get the cash for Backstreet Boys or N'Sync disc's........it's better to not think about it.

If I can go to Staples and get 30 blank CD's for 15 bucks (and we all know the industry pays less.....much less, than retail for blank discs) you have to wonder why a $20 price tag is justifiable. Then when an alterior form of gaining the music that gives you nearly the same product for absolutly free comes along the record industry stares at their thumbs for a couple years while losing all kinds of monies (million....billions?) then just up and starts sueing teenagers who can't afford the product the industry blantantly targets them with.

Imagine I told you (and you believed), "Hey, buy this product so you can be cool. All the cool kids like it. If you want to be cool you'll get it." Teenagers, being incredibly stupid (I was one, I know), buy the whole bit hook, line and sinker. Of course since you can't afford my product(which I determine the price) you steal it, then I sue you.

It's really senseless.

With all that said I think there is a big difference between downloading some obscure indie artist whose disc is hard to find and downloading Metallica. You should always attempt to spend your money to support the artist, maybe you could download their disc then send the artist $10 and a thank you note and that way avoid paying any shipping charges.

IN any case it seems Apple computers was on to a good thing with their iTunes, something the industry completely ignored for years and years. It seems everyone was onto this whole downloading thing well before the industry even knew what MP3 stood for.

Okay, I'm getting a little sick of this pirating music deal.
I think it's fine if you burn a cd for a friend, but you can't burn copies and copies of a cd and go sell them.
Or get one from the library or something.

But I think it's fine to burn a cd for a friend or something.

The music industry, well, I'm not sure how they feel, but that's my two cents.

Cds cost 21 cents to make, the artists gets a few bucks, where does the rest of that $16-$20 go? Oh yeah, the record label. Why don't I feel sorry for them? Especially since Piracy wound up selling a ton of stuff for them. Tis free advertising. I've bought more cds that I had a burnt copy of at one point or another......

Yeah, my cd's I've bought outnumber the burnt ones.(I only have about 5 burnt cds, and about 17 non-burnt ones)


Anyways, it's the industry that gets mad you know....

Kazaa is free and legal its awesome

im lookin at getting a burner for my machine, well when i build my own machine. High End of course

Yeah, my cd's I've bought outnumber the burnt ones.(I only have about 5 burnt cds, and about 17 non-burnt ones)


Anyways, it's the industry that gets mad you know....
Hehe, I wonder how many cds I have? about 30 in my car, prob another 40 or so in my room. Plus all the stuff I got off I-Tunes.....

burned cd's.. I only have one.. and thats Skillet invicible.. dont worry as soon as I get money.. i will run out and buy the real thing.. oh yes I have two actually Invicible and Ardent worship.

I don't burn Skillet cds they asked people not to so I don't

well the best thing is too make ur own machine and customize it

I don't have any burned CD's. I do have over 300 CD's that I bought over the years. Buy CD's. It makes you cool.

buying cds makes u cool and skillet money

Kazaa is free and legal its awesomekazaa is free, but its not legal. it works just similar to the old napster. that's why phone companies are being pushed to reveal the names of users who use their services to download music through kazaa, so the RIAA can sue those users. It's a P2P client, which allows you to download copies of digital media (MP3s, AVIs) from other users' computers. it's not legal cuz they person sharing it might have the right to it, but the person downloading doesnt, according to current laws.

the only legal music download sites n software i know of so far are Napster 3.0, Rhapsody, iTunes, BuyMusic.com, and MusicNow. there might be others. but those are usually $0.99 per song or less. and with Rhapsody you can pay $10/month to listen to any album they have available as much as you want, and $0.99 per song to burn it to a CD.

BTW, John doesnt approve of burning his CDs. here's a quote from the article (http://www.skillet.org/news/piracy.html) he was in:

Panheads, the name given to fans of the Christian band Skillet, routinely ask for autographs of the group's CDs. After one concert, a fan raved about how he had all of Skillet's music and that it had changed his life.

"Then he asked me to sign the CDs and they were all burned from a computer," said band member John Cooper. "I always sign because I don't want to be rude. But sometimes I'm tempted to say, 'Man, you've got to buy it.' "

Techies are cool GO US

i dont download music but i do sometimes burn cds..however, if i really like the cd and think the band deserves my money, i'll buy it..hehe i had all of Circle of Dust and Celldweller burned then i bought them all off of amazon.com

I download some music... but I don't burn the cd. I figure if I like it enough to burn it, I should be willing to pay for it. :) That, and I don't have a cd burner... :P

Of coarse, this group is prob a good deal more willing to pay someone for their work by choice than most.

i think i need to start putchasing more music, mainly skillet and skillet stuff

kazaa is free, but its not legal. it works just similar to the old napster. that's why phone companies are being pushed to reveal the names of users who use their services to download music through kazaa, so the RIAA can sue those users. It's a P2P client, which allows you to download copies of digital media (MP3s, AVIs) from other users' computers. it's not legal cuz they person sharing it might have the right to it, but the person downloading doesnt, according to current laws.

Actually no Kazaa and Napster work very differently.
Napster: Napster took the songs from ppl's PCs and copied them to their server then distributed them to anyone who wanted them

Kazaa: Kazaa transfers the song from one PC to another WITHOUT copying it to their server.

That's why Napster got shut down and Kazaa is still open.

Ares is much better than KAzaa anyway. Kazaa comes with a pile of spyware - mainly Gator, if you remove the spyware Kazaa will shut down on you. Ares gives you the option of installing the spyware but doesn't force you to - My PC hasn't run this fast in soooo long!

yeah spyware is the last thing i need for my computer, i have a program called Ad Aware that takes care of spyware put out for free by the college network

Ad Aware is really good, I suggest it for any who wish to get rid of spyware.

also SpyBot Search & Destroy, i run both that and AdAware periodically

(I wasn't really sure where to put this thread, you can move it if you choose to)

What do you think of burning cds, or downloading music?
Personally, I think it's okay to download stuff, as long as you delete it after you get the cd.
Same concept with burning too, if you really like the cd,I think you should buy it. If you hate it, or just "like" it, then it's fine if you keep it, or give it away.

What do you guys think of that?

It's wrong.. but the market is soo dumb pricing cd's at 11.99$ when they only cost less then $1.00 to make. But the band does need support..I guess.. I think they can find it some other way tho. Click Here (http://panheads.org/boards/showthread.php?t=2066&page=2&highlight=downloading)

I think $12 is a very fair price for a cd for the time and money put into the production and promotion of it. It's when these companies start charging around $18-$22 for them that irritates me because that says nothing but "Greed" to me.

CJ

hmmm... interesting to see this question making the rounds again. You'd probably get a fair amount of insight by reading over the previous posts in this thread (if you have not already), as we have discussed this question at some length before. Since I don't think I ever got too much into it before, I'll go ahead and answer this time around...

What do you think of burning cds, or downloading music?when people talk about this type of stuff, they are typically referring to one of two main aspects of it -- legality and ethics. the first question asks whether it is really "stealing" to download music from P2P networks or whatever. Generally these arguments don't last too long because there is little evidence to support their claim. Regardless of what word you want to use to describe it, downloading music like this clearly violates current copyright law. The bible is very clear about submitting to the civil authorities that we are under (so long as they don't contradict Biblical law) (cf Rom 13:1 (http://biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=rom+13:1)). I believe this is (at least partially) what Jesus was talking about with "rendering unto Caeser" (cf Mark 12:17 (http://biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+12:17)).

the second question is one of ethics... is it ethically right to do this? I have been confronted with this question in the wake of some music download websites I've run across recently. Essentially, there is a loophole in the copyright system of several foreign nations which allows them to offer "legal" music for mere pocket change. I'm waiting to hear back from our legal expert here at work in regards to the true legality of this service, but even still I'm not completely comfortable with it. It may be technically legal, but ethically it still feels a little wonky. Many people that hang around these boards (myself included) have worked in or around the music industry for some time and see some of the not-so-glamorous sides of it. (And believe me when I tell you that the Christian music industry is no exception... in fact it's sometimes worse the their secular counterpart.) With that in mind, I know that the artist is never going to see much of anything from the $0.70 I pay for an album in russia. Believe me when I tell you that I hate the corporate middle-men as much as anybody... there are a dozen or more people between the artist and the consumer that are all taking their huge chunks out of the $12 or so you pay for a CD. I believe there are better ways to compensate an artist for their work, and I love the fact that we are in the middle of a revolutionary change in the way music gets from artist to consumer. I think things kinda suck the way they are now, and I believe they will continue to get better, but I don't believe it's okay to illegally download music in the meantime.

anyone's thoughts/reactions to what i've said?

-will

I agree with you, Will.

Burning CDs... There are 2 types of CD burning, Coping and Compiling. Coping is where you copy a disk in it's entirety, and Compiling is where you mix 2 or more CDs together. I can see how both can be both good and bad, and it's all depends on how you use it. let's say you Compile a CD so that you can play all your favorites at once without juggling CDs, I think this is okay as long as they are your CDs (ones that you bought). I aslo know that my friend copied CDs so that he could keep a copy in his car (for his CD player), I find this on acceptable, so that he doesn't lose his originals to theft or damage from sitting in a hot car all day. But I hate it when people Burn CDs to give to their friends, It's a way for them to get the music for free with out physically stealing it.

Ugh, my family has NO sense of right and wrong about this. My sister and her friends have all copied CDs for one another. My sister is currently playing an illegal copy of Sevendust. They illegally copied the LOTR soundtracks from a library, also. It ticks me off. My Dad joked around about copying a video game, but sounded serious about it for a while. I had to stress 'Piracy' upon him.

Is copying CDs for other family members within the household wrong? I mean, copying a CD so that my Dad can play it in the car on the way to work? Sounds logical to me, but I hate burning CDs for my sisters... they listen to it constantly for a week then never listen to it again. A waste of the disk, if you ask me, and it also annoys me into not listening to that artist ever again.

even tho i've done it in the past, i don't agree with copying CDs to give to a relative in your own house. what makes it any different than giving it to a friend down the street? across town? on the other side of the continent? only the fact that they are blood and they live in the same house as you. before copying came around, you had to buy two CDs. my sister and i both have "Jesus Freak" because we both wanted a copy, without having to share with the other.

Well in Texas theres a law that says that the RIAA cant crackdown on individual downloaders. Meaning that they can only go after the individual servers. Im not saying that that makes it right. I know I shouldnt, but I do it all the time. I mainly do it because one of my friends told me that some song was a good song, and I dont want to buy a whole album of some artist ive never even heard of just to hear one song. Ive also copied 10-20 CDs for a bunch of my friends. I wasnt SELLING them so i wasnt making any money off of them but I know it was still wrong. I dont do it anymore because the girl i made them for hates me now, but thats a different story. Also, if I like an artist, i will buy their CDs. Most of the stuff I listen to i would never have heard of if I hadnt downloaded some of their songs from P2P networks. For example: If I hadnt illegally downloaded a copy of "Savior" I would never have bought any of Skillet's CDs and I wouldnt be posting here about how i illegalle downloaded "Savior". I NEVER download whole albums from the internet. I just down load a few songs by an artist and decide whether i want to buy the album or not.

I've done lots of that dowloading, but that was before it was declared illegal. As soon as it was, though, I stopped.
even tho i've done it in the past, i don't agree with copying CDs to give to a relative in your own house. what makes it any different than giving it to a friend down the street? across town? on the other side of the continent? only the fact that they are blood and they live in the same house as you. before copying came around, you had to buy two CDs. my sister and i both have "Jesus Freak" because we both wanted a copy, without having to share with the other.
Yes, I do avoid copying my CDs for them. I often stop listening to them just so that others don't ask for them. Eiffel 65 isa good example... I wish I could take back all my CDs (my sister still had non-burnt ones!! >:() and the ones I copied. I haven't copied a CD in a while, and I never intend on continuing, it feels so wrong. Like they should earn the CDs themselves, and not copy mine. Also, my sister annoys me by listening to one CD constantly then never listens to it again. That's why I never pop in my Gorillaz CD... :(

Good things about burning cds:
a)if you lose the orginal, you still have a burnt one
b)you can hear new music(like if the bands website is down, or they don't have any sounds links or anything)
c)buying blank cds in a pack costs about as much as if you bought it from the store(sometimes you can get really good deal, such as 200 for $20)

Bad things about burning cds:
a)it's not right when you burn them from the library, or you're just nice to someone because you want to burn a cd from them
b)burning a cd for your sibling(you can just let them borrow your cd, its not too much to ask)
c)when 95% of your collection is burnt cds, then it's way overboard

i used to burn cds alot, until i figured out that it was wrong. i don't have a problem though with burning a copy of a cd that you bought and keeping it for YOURSELF in case something happens, like it dropping to the ground and cracking/snapping or something like that

c)when 95% of your collection is burnt cds, then it's way overboard
Hehe... about (or more) 60% of my CDs are mixes of music I own. :D

even tho i've done it in the past, i don't agree with copying CDs to give to a relative in your own house. what makes it any different than giving it to a friend down the street? across town? on the other side of the continent? only the fact that they are blood and they live in the same house as you. before copying came around, you had to buy two CDs. my sister and i both have "Jesus Freak" because we both wanted a copy, without having to share with the other.

as a parent I have no problem copying a cd for my kids. the last thing I'm gonna do is give them the original to destroy. I keep the original for the house cd player and a copy for the car. They know not to give them away so I'm not worried about that...

Well in Texas theres a law that says that the RIAA cant crackdown on individual downloaders. Meaning that they can only go after the individual servers. Im not saying that that makes it right.

Is that for sure right? Like do you know of a site that says that??

as a parent I have no problem copying a cd for my kids. the last thing I'm gonna do is give them the original to destroy. I keep the original for the house cd player and a copy for the car. They know not to give them away so I'm not worried about that...
well, that's slightly different. ;) as a parent, you know that many things that you think of as yours, your kids also tend to think of as having free reign with (my little brother's favourite in this category is my mom's soda. he's always stealing a drink or five).

you buy their stuff anyway, so it's a little different than brother/sister CD burning. mother/child burning is good for the reason you just gave. but if that child is old enough to buy their own CD, then they should. and by that point they should be able to take care of a CD well enough that you don't have to worry about loaning it to them.

Is that for sure right? Like do you know of a site that says that??

you wanna go hunting through all the Texas laws to find that? Be my guest!