music file sharing
 

Hey guys, for anybody who's interested I have this program called Qnext and it's basically like an instant messenger program on steroids.

The really cool part is you can set it up to share files on your computer, I have a few friends set up with it and we can all download each other's music. If you're interested go to [url="http://www.qnext.com"]www.qnext.com[/url] to get hooked up with the program, once you get set up my username is mattydread, add me to your friend list and away we go!

This is a pretty cool program!

I'm under the Username Gmanc711, I have all my Skins Clips up there to share as well.


And yes, I do have backstreet boys songs. And No, I am not gay (not that there is anything wrong w/ that)

Gmanc, they're your girlfriends right? J/K :)

When I download it, I'll be under the name MalcolmANDJemima.

Goddamn... 21 MB, I'll have to download it at work. Any spyware install with it?

no spyware

Its a Very cool Program. Defintley if you are into filesharing join up. Plus I need some more buddies... Matty is my only one. :party-smi

Names Daseal - added both gmanc (You know, before now I never noticed the n in gmanc.... and Matty.

I have all SORTS of stuff that I'll have as soon as I get high speed permanently.

Just a little update about P2P file sharing. I heard that the case against Grokster went to Supreme Court to decide whether or not the file-sharing companies should be held responsible.

As far as I'm concerned, that's kind of like holding Spray Can makers responsible when dumbass kids snort their product. As long as in the privacy statement that put it clearly "This product is not intended for illegal use." I believe that the file-sharing companies can wash their hands of any responsibility.

A defeat for Grokster is going to be a defeat that will extend to the civil liberties of all Americans.

Say I'm a telephone company... should I get charged for illegal transactions being made over my phone lines?

I think not. This is the same premise.

yea but most people only do legal things on phone lines and stuff like that. how many people have ever used a file sharing program to legally share their family photos? They were all setup to share music, porn, software, stuff like htat.

not necessarily family photos, but millions of people use file sharing everyday to download music legally from places like iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. those use file-sharing technology to provide music to its consumers...

Regardless of what P2P is used for, the venue cannot be held responsible for what illegal activities going on within it. Even though it's true that the majority of things that DO go on are very illegal, a loss by the P2P networks would be a use hit for the rest of the software industry that provides legitimate sharing/downloading services.

I think our resident lawyer, Joe Redskin, should step in and settle this

The reason Napster got shut down was everything went through a central server. Most of these companys, don't go with the same topology. Thus making them invinciable from those laws. Right now the RIAA is suing Sherman Networks (Kazaa) but doesn't look like they'll do anything. I love how the RIAA loses a class action suit where people said the quality of CDs has been drasticly reduced, yet they want 17 dollars for one. Fuck the RIAA. I've bought, and found, more artists over Napster (and to a lesser extent) Kazaa/Limewire than I would have ever dreamed without it. It's great for people like me who don't necessarily like the main-stream hiphop but realize the strength of some of the lyrics, especially by underground guys.

I'm the same way. I can't remember the last time I downloaded an RIAA sponsored song. I'm all about the unknowns.

I am now set up on QNEXT. Name is TheMalcolmConnection. I'm just sharing some stuff I have at work right now, I'll put up my TRUE server when I have high speed at home.

If you are not paying the artist you are stealing no matter how you justify it.
I'm an artist and my music is needed to sometimes feed me. I have had my music "shared" off of older unprotected sites and thus went hungry from lack of revinew from my own work.

How about if you go to work and when pay day comes around the Boss said "Hey, some people shared your paycheck sorry but it's ok with them".

"it's only a white lie"
"it's only taking what they don't need"
"I'm only a little pregnant"

The internet "can" be a great way for artist to cut out the middleman and make more money but that's not what you guys are talking about is it.

peace and pay for your music
mike [staving artist]

I only download music from the underground artists who ask explicitly to download their music and spread it around. I'm not a big "Top 40" fan. I'm a HUGE supporter of the little guy including buying CDs, going to concernts, T-shirts. I'm just not a proponent of sanctioning P2P networks only because of the ramifications on privacy that would come if the Supreme Court rules against them.

SBF, how is it any different than me letting someone borrow my CD's and they make copies?

All the music on my hard drive is music that I have purchased, this isn't a world wide file sharing program, you only share with people you choose to.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]SBF, how is it any different than me letting someone borrow my CD's and they make copies?

All the music on my hard drive is music that I have purchased, this isn't a world wide file sharing program, you only share with people you choose to.[/QUOTE]

Matty it's not different at all and both really are wrong. And the fact that you can choose who gets the stolen songs doesn't really make it any better.

peace

How are the songs stolen if Matty bought the CD's and GAVE THEM TO SOME ONE TO COPY? The CD's were bought and paid for, therefor making them his personal property.

How is this any different from local cover bands performing songs by well known artist and making a buck here and there on the weekends?

I would understand your resoning more so if Matty was running a big counterfit ring and trying to sell copied downloaded music as the origianl works and making a profit. But he is not, there is no money changing hands.

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]How are the songs stolen if Matty bought the CD's and GAVE THEM TO SOME ONE TO COPY? [/QUOTE]

The CD even says you can't reproduce and distribute. If Matty gives another person a copy the ARTIST'S chance for royalties for HIS MUSIC is stolen from him. Is Matty goning to be responsible for collecting the $15 and mailing it to the Artist? No

What if you INVENT something and hope to support your family and someone steals it and reproduces it with compensating you. Is that stealing? Is that Wrong?

This is a good thread because clearly many people don't understand this from an Artist's point of view.

peace

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]What if you INVENT something and hope to support your family and someone steals it and reproduces it with compensating you. Is that stealing? Is that Wrong?[/QUOTE]

That's not a proper analogy. If someone were to invent something, make it and then sell it to someone else who lets his friends use it. That is a much better analogy.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]That's not a proper analogy. If someone were to invent something, make it and then sell it to someone else who lets his friends use it. That is a much better analogy.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, in that case there is only one item and both can't have and use at the same time.

peace

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]How are the songs stolen if Matty bought the CD's and GAVE THEM TO SOME ONE TO COPY? The CD's were bought and paid for, therefor making them his personal property.

How is this any different from local cover bands performing songs by well known artist and making a buck here and there on the weekends?

I would understand your resoning more so if Matty was running a big counterfit ring and trying to sell copied downloaded music as the origianl works and making a profit. But he is not, there is no money changing hands.[/QUOTE]

thats kinda the point that there is no money changing hands. Had you wanted that CD, you were supposed to go and pay for it, just like Matty did.

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]Wrong, in that case there is only one item and both can't have and use at the same time.

peace[/QUOTE]
I imagine there is no law stating someone could not buy a product and take it apart and figure out how it was built. Then reproduce it and lets his friends have one at no cost and therefore no profit. That is exactly the same situation. My feeling is that the act of copying and sharing should not be illegal. I feel when you buy something you own the right to do with it what you please. Where I have problems is that software makers and hardware makers make it possible to do this. It seems to me that creating the ability to do this and doing are different in subtle ways. Only one of those gets trumped by an owner's right so the ire should be directed toward not those who do but those who make it possible to do.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]I imagine there is no law stating someone could not buy a product and take it apart and figure out how it was built. Then reproduce it and lets his friends have one at no cost and therefore no profit. That is exactly the same situation. [/QUOTE]

HAHAHA!
You re-sing and play songs from artist and sell them all you want but if you copy and distribute my music, with me playing, me singing you are stealing from me.

You can want to steal.
You can justify stealing.
You can make stealing easy.
You can say everyone else is stealing.
It's still stealing.

lol
"I didn't kill my wife, she was gonna die anyways. Besides they make these handy knives just for helping her."

If they can steal my music they can steal things you copyright too. That's what copyright protection is all about.

peace and understanding
mike

by the way, there are a lot of laws against doing what you said. Ever heard of a copyright, or a patent?

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]by the way, there are a lot of laws against doing what you said. Ever heard of a copyright, or a patent?[/QUOTE]
All of which require profiting from said infringements to justify any punishment.
Let's be honest...anybody who really thinks copying an artists music and distributing it for whatever reason is not stealing is pretty delusional. I am just presenting the basic arguments because this is a really good discussion on something our government still has yet to adequately govern. The bigger problem is that this is never going to go away. It is here to stay and musicians should get used to it. Not saying they should just accept it but they should at least know and understand that it is going to happen regardless. Anybody have a good idea on a way to stop it. I sure the US Attorney General would love a good idea.

"All of which require profiting from said infringements to justify any punishment. "

Wrong.

"No reproducing or distributing this material without expressed written permission of the artist under penalty of law".
Or something like that.

There are ways for artists to make the money but from "File Sharing".

peace

I didn't mean to cause such controversy, but basically here's the deal. As far as the starving musical artists are concerned, I know that I personally do everything in my power to support them. However, when someone downloads a copyrighted work, it IS stealing but most people tend to turn a blind eye to that fact or justify it by saying the artist's make enough money as that is.

For me anyway, it's a two-wrongs-not-making-a-right kind of situation. It's a gross injustice that people who sing bullshit bubblegum pop like Britney Spears live lives of luxury while the underground/starving artists with talent flowing through every vein are kept down because they don't have the image, don't have the connections, etc. For me, when someone downloads one of Britney Spears' songs, for one they are getting punished enough to by having to listen to that bullshit and two, I feel that that is a small way of making Britney's figurative stock plummet just a touch.

Is it right? Nope.
Is it legal? Not at all.
Does Britney deserve the money she gets paid? Hell no.

Granted, I'm sure many people would love to say,"Aren't garbage men underpaid?" or "Aren't pro-sports players overpaid?" I'm going to say that this whole post is in reference ONLY to musicians.

On the rare occassion I DO somehow end up with a "Top 40" song on my computer, I DO know that it is wrong, I don't deny that fact, however I am one (of the many) who feel that people who have dropped out of college or just have the look don't deserve the money that people are willing to drop on a album they didn't write or have much of any part in. When I see the people behind the scenes making the big bucks that the producers/executives/singers do, I'll understand that I'm hurting the little guy.

Again, I just feel like the system of "Billboard" style music is completely screwed when a company can go out and find people with "the look" and market the hell out of them into platinum-selling artists. Now THAT is an injustice and SHOULD be illegal.

garbage men make a pretty good salary, enough to afford to buy the cd thats for sure, lol.

Artists make almost all of their money by touring. They make very little on record sales. So really youre mainly screwing over the record label. Which doesnt sound quite as bad, because its a company, and not an individual like miss britney spears. heh

Guys - there's a reason the RIAA lost a class-action lawsuit for purposely making a band save songs and put them on the next CD so there would be 1-2 hits on each CD. When the RIAA starts putting out good CDs, I'll start respecting them. By downloading music, you are hardly hurting the artists at all. They get their money from shows and merchandise like skinsncanes said.

The RIAA took the wrong approach to, especially teenagers, at getting them to stop downloading music. Don't threaten them. They'll keep doing it, and you know that. I have found, and bought more CDs, because of internet file sharing than not. I do end up with big name artists on my computer from time to time, and I feel no remorse at all. Is it stealing? Damn right! Don't act like the artists freak out about music being downloaded, they don't care because they get fractions of cents off the dollar.

Also - It's not the P2P networks fault. I've gotten a lot of great, and uncopywrited material off P2P networks. The music industry is still popular, and every single one of you know that there's nothing that can replace seeing an artist live. Internet music is unreliable and often the quality isn't as good. I still buy CDs to this day, but a lot of them I put on my computer so I can just make CDs that have 17 songs I like instead of 2 I like and 12 I don't.

Exactly what I was trying to say with my rambling point... thanks for clearing that up fellas.

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]"All of which require profiting from said infringements to justify any punishment. "

Wrong.

"No reproducing or distributing this material without expressed written permission of the artist under penalty of law".
Or something like that.

There are ways for artists to make the money but from "File Sharing".

peace[/QUOTE]
Actually I wasn't making a legal argument more or a pragmatic point that it is ridiculous to punish someone for sharing something they bought when they are not profiting at the detriment to the producer. We're talking a whole different ball game when someone is reproducing a product and selling it rather than when they reproduce it and share it with friends. I think most would agree with that.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Actually I wasn't making a legal argument more or a pragmatic point that it is ridiculous to punish someone for sharing something they bought when they are not profiting at the detriment to the producer. We're talking a whole different ball game when someone is reproducing a product and selling it rather than when they reproduce it and share it with friends. I think most would agree with that.[/QUOTE]

I agree there's distinct differences between reproducing a recording and selling it in mass quantities and someone burning a copy of a CD for a friend.

After all why are blank CD-Rs such big business, you can't tell me people are using these for data only.

not trying to ascertain to one side or the other, but there was a big to do when cassettes first came out, and people were taping songs off the radio. the RIAA tried to stop this and were unsucessful...

if i have a CD, and my buddy wants to make a copy, so be it. i have paid for the CD, and am not profitting on its distribution. my buddy may like it so much that he either goes out and buys it, or buys other distributions down the road, which profits the music industry and the artists in the long run...and that is a valid argument.

downloading copyrighted material is wrong (however, i have a problem with this...if you were and are able to tape songs off the radio, isn't this the same concept?), but people will continue to do so. if you choose to do so, you do so knowing the consequences if you get caught. if you do not, that is your prerogative...

and not to discredit your argument SBF, because it is a very valid one, but when you purchase a CD for anywhere from 5 bucks to 20 bucks, 100% of the funds do not go directly to the artist. they get a very small percentage, hence why a good number of artists support file sharing, legal or otherwise. for the most part, i will buy CDs direct, either at show, or off a band's website...knowing that they get a bigger cut of the monies. however, i do understand that any download will take money out of an artist's pocket...nowadays, i download music that is readily available on an artist's website...

this is why i also support Open Source software. it gives the average programmer the ability to take an idea and make it his/her own, as long as they continue to make it open source. in college, i pirated software left and right...i was poor and needed the use of the software that I could not afford otherwise. now, you can find very affordable or free equivalents of a lot of Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc products online...including whole operating systems.

This will probably start a whole different debate but have you guys checked out [url]www.allofmp3.com[/url]

Great site for music, and yes you pay for it. Not much, but it's due to the site being located in Russia and the conversion rate makes the CD's very cheap.