Legal music downloads

Delboy -

You wrote:

Colin, I'm missing those two! Please PM me!

You'll be lucky !

G G -

You wrote:

umm, Colin, if Aunt Jane is a hottie,
got an mpeg vid of her singing in the bath?

She is.

Yes I have, and no, you can't have a copy.

kazaa is great. azureus is great for bittorrent files (big file packages--tv shows and what-not).

Here's another handy tip or two: If you go to the back loading docks of grocery stores late at night, you can steal the choicest produce before it even makes it onto the shelves.

Also, look for neighbors who receive a lot of packages, you can steal them right off their front steps when they're not home!

As long as you don't have a conscience, anything is possible.

currently on kazaa, there is 2,595,579 illegal users online, on bittorrent's azureus there are 437,260 users online at this very second.

they just ain't goin' away. no matter what record companies think. everytime they close down a program, a new one springs up, or some nerd cracks it and sticks it back on the web again.

back in the free-days, i also used napster and morpheus.

kazaa is great. azureus is great for bittorrent files (big file packages--tv shows and what-not for fanvidding--i already have those shows on dvd though).

have you tried eDonkey or soulseek? they're better than kazaa
DC++ is also great

elvissessions -

You wrote:

If you go to the back loading docks of grocery stores late at night, you can steal the choicest produce before it even makes it onto the shelves.

The file-sharing sites aren't quite like that.

I reckon a better analogy would be if a guy living in a terraced row of about a dozen houses, says to his neighbours:

"Look, I just got a brand-new ride-on lawnmower.

I don't use it every day, so why don't we share it ?

X can use on the first of the month, Y on the second, and so on".

You could make a case that the other neighbours were stealing from the lawnmower retailers, couldn't you ?

They sold one lawnmower, instead of 12 !

But aren't the guys just showing initiative & enterprise ?

That's how I view file sharing.

where else do you find within a minute, without a trip to the store, just about any song, video that you never thought you'd find...

example--when i was into 70s snl...do you have a friggin' clue how hard it was to get sketches of belushi and aykroyd on snl? it was near impossible. and the best of dvds are zilch. where do you go? yeah, that's right. illegal download.

if you miss an episode of your show, and you want to watch it--why not just download it? it was broadcast on tv anyway.

not every schmo has access to rare elvis tracks. not everybody has a kazillian bucks to spend on a kazillian albums to get songs that they just want to hear because otherwise they'd never get to hear them. believe me, if i asked mammy and pappy to buy a slew of concert stuff--i'd be laughed right out of the house. it ain't gonna happen. but i still want to hear it! i love the material. and what if this material makes me an even bigger fan than i was before?

what if kids started downloading elvis tracks onto their computers and becoming fans because they have more than hound dog and jailhouse rock now available to them. the 70s material in general is never going to be heard outside of the fanatic fanbase. the little kids aren't going to be all buying fan club advertised items. the #1 hits only go so far to make somebody a fan.

and the lawnmower scenario is perfect. it's not stealing, it's sharing. because the person who made it available had to buy it. it's like lending it to a friend for their personal use.

and the lawnmower scenario is perfect. it's not stealing, it's sharing. because the person who made it available had to buy it. it's like lending it to a friend for their personal use.

Hey, I always knew socialism would take root in America! There's hope yet.

False analogy.

Lending someone your CD for a stretch of time and doing without it entirely while that person has it might be an apt comparison for discussion. But downloading perfect duplicates, often from and for complete strangers isn't the same as sharing any single item.

Last edited by elvissessions on Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

not every schmo has access to rare elvis tracks. not everybody has a kazillian bucks to spend on a kazillian albums to get songs that they just want to hear because otherwise they'd never get to hear them.

This is such an absurd argument, I'm always surprised how often the thieves resort to it. I suppose intellectual dishonesty is a small step away from any other sort.

Would you please take your argument and apply it to any other product?

Because you can't afford it or think it's too expensive or are too limited or lazy to look for it, then you steal it? I suspect there are many shoplifters and robbers who share that morality.

what if kids started downloading elvis tracks onto their computers and becoming fans because they have more than hound dog and jailhouse rock now available to them. the 70s material in general is never going to be heard outside of the fanatic fanbase. the #1 hits only go so far to make somebody a fan.

None of this is true now, and it never has been true. I got my start on pathetic clearance 99-cent greatest-hit eight-track tapes that broke after a couple of dozen listens. Then, later -- when I could afford it -- I bought more of the music I'd learned about and enjoyed.

Good LEGAL music is far easier to access than it ever has been. If you can, imagine a world without the Internet ... I know it's hard. Somehow we old-timers managed to track down LEGAL music even when it wasn't available with a click of a button or via home delivery.

downloading perfect duplicates, often from and for complete strangers isn't the same as sharing any single item.

yes it is. that's why it's called file sharing. you SHARE files. you're not stealing them. you put them on the file sharing program cause you want to share them, and people can download all they want, and you can download all you want from others

those file sharing programs are heaven sent!

Carolyn, I agree, of course.

There are just a lot of people who act as if there's absolutely no way they can overcome the so-called obstacles to doing something the legal way, just to excuse their own laziness and greed.

It's preposterous and reflects very poorly on the individuals, though, of course, they're so self-centered they just can't see doing things any other way.

Obviously, stealing music for most people goes in the same category as driving over the speed limit.

Sharing one album or track with a friend when both of you properly pay for 99.9 percent of their collection might be the equivalent of driving 5 miles over the limit and it's something "everybody" does. It's nothing to be proud of, certainly, but nobody's perfect.

But people who build up vast collections and make a point of not paying for anything are like the jackasses who drive 85 mph through a school zone and act as if it's somebody else's fault if they don't get out of the way.

Why do people -- like some in this thread -- want to go around bragging about being dishonest? That's what troubles me.

I also hope none of you law abiding citizens own any bootleg cd/dvd's..........
After all, artists are not recieving one shekel from these releases and that my friends is whats at the heart of this debate

I don't.

elvissessions.com wrote:

I don't.

then I have no debate with you. You sir are a well within your rights to call me a thief (ie. as long as you have not been taping copyrighted television shows/movies for any other purpose than time shifting)

Thanks to you all for thoughts and info on music downloads: Legal and Illegal.

I really didn't expect it to come to all this.

I've found that Napster now has a "pay for" music service as well.

I'll either go with MSN.com or napster.com.

Thanks again,

RKSNASHVILLE

elvissessions makes a good point, a law-abiding respectable point
about how one should properly acquire music.

OK, RKSNashville plans to do the legal integral thing,
and purchase songs thru the online services now available.


But - buying the songs this way does raise an issue of INTEGRITY

are you getting your money's worth?

Is the sound quality worth the price you pay?

Maybe he needs to register/purchase the same song
from 2 or 3 online services, and compare the product quality.
Compare the khz and mid-range and decibels, etc.
Is one service or the other adding spyware with each download?
putting you on a pop-up ad list to be annoyed by?

Seller's Integrity is Valid Point too. Eh?

See, sharing a song may be considered "thievery"
but the transaction of selling songs can be "larceny"

meanwhile, the record companies keep shipping out hundreds, if not thousands
of FREE cds for promotional purposes.

some wind up in the trash and destroyed,
some wind up on $ ebay $ with outrageous auction prices and bidding wars
and history proves many of those free cds/singles/albums get listed (quite authoritavitely)
with corresponding values in an official collector's guide because its:
RARE PROMO.

irony.

So, Larry Dickman's do-you-have question posed to everyone should include not just bootlegs, but promo's.

I have an old 1960s Elvis white-label promo 45.
I don't know how many times it changed hands over the decades,
but am I a thief too for possessing it?
Should I clear my conscious, make amends, put it in a sturdy envelope right now, this minute, and mail it to its proper owner - RCA?

get real.

Carolyn -

You wrote:

To be able to walk into a record shop with your own money to purchase something that you worked to buy is very satisfactory.....

Of course it is, and I do just that.

But I like to collect different versions of a song.

I've got umpteen different versions of Tennessee Waltz that I've downloaded.

Just think how many CD's I'd have to buy to get them all, assuming I could track them down.

And then each version would have cost me a whole CD, because it would be the only song on each that I wanted.

You also wrote:

There are people here, that are on pensions or very fixed incomes, but they don't expect something for nothing, it's either swapped or traded......

Well, I know, I'm one of them.

I do my 'swapping' & 'trading' by file sharing on the net.

Not so wrong, surely ?

Last edited by ColinB on Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Getting stuff for free is good...that include"s downloads from the net,this is just the way things are now,so colin and the rest of you guys who do it...more power to you.


Just a view.

well, feeling guilty,
I gathered up my Elvis promo vinyl and cds,
and mailed it all to RCA/BMG

not sure what they'll do with them when they receive them
but at least the rightful owner of that stolen music has it back!

(as if they dont have copies of those songs anyway) lol


so, let's see where those discs & records wind up in 10-15 years.

back on ebay?

a BMG exec wants one of the items as a job perk, takes it home, sits on shelf, kid inherits it, and puts it on ebay...

round-n-round we go cycle.

GG wrote:

Is the sound quality worth the price you pay?

This is one of my concerns - quality. The MSN site allows short clips of songs to listen before you purchase. The sound quality sounds excellent.

Is that the case with the free sites? What is the sound quality at the free sites?

I'd rather pay a little for a good quality download than get it free with poor quality and full of spyware and pop ups and possibly viruses.

When you go to the free sites are you just taking that chance?


RKS

RKS

The sound quality on commercial download sites is mediocre with few exceptions.

On free download sites the quality ranges from poor to excellent.

Getting stuff for free is good...that include"s downloads from the net,this is just the way things are now,so colin and the rest of you guys who do it...more power to you.


Just a view.

exactly. this is just the way things are

I would feel more sorry for the record & film companies if they hadn't ripped us for decades.

And there was nothing we could do about it.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they don't like it, do they ?

I would feel more sorry for the record & film companies if they hadn't ripped us for decades.

And there was nothing we could do about it.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they don't like it, do they ?

That is the no 1 point...and in fact the only one you need...buying cds/dvds in this country is such a rip off,and there excuse is ,we are an island and it costs more to ship over here etc...balls to that.

I buy my stuff abroad...its cheaper = FACT.

I only have downloaded 3 ep music files...i am on dial up and it takes a bloody fornight for it to download one file.

I also hope none of you law abiding citizens own any bootleg cd/dvd's..........
After all, artists are not recieving one shekel from these releases and that my friends is whats at the heart of this debate

I'm sure someone can explain it better than myself, but if one owns some bootlegs of an artist dead nearly 30 years (with much of his work on the way to becoming public domain), it's quite different from file-swapping of current working musicians. It's not about necessarily the "law" but what we think we owe musicians and the artists, and to a much lesser extent the industry. (I'm the first to jay-walk, among other petty crimes..)

So I'm no moralist on this (okay, so I called someone a thief ) but even going back to the cassette taping era ,up to the CD-burning and now file-swapping era, I've known some people who were just too cheap to shell out ever in a record store for music they purported liked. (Never mind that the copy never was/ is as good: lacking original artwork and liner notes, etc. if not of poorer sound...) The essence was that of taking something that wasn't theirs and not paying for it. Elvis boot legs are something from a dead artist, most which will never see official issue anyway (and when they do, most of us snap up the FTDs)...Bootleg fans are by definition the biggest , most fanatic fans anyway, who have gone way beyond just buying the official releases.

So if I own some Elvis boots (And I'm starting too, after buying loyally from RCA since the 1970's and continuing now with all the FTD's), that's still a bit different from undermining current artists who are producing new works.

I will concede that the whole industry concept is changing.I read in this weekend's Wall Street Journal that "the single" is making a comeback (be it a download or otherwise) and the industry is realizing that they may have reaped what they have sown by forcing people to buy a $16-18 CD for years when all they wanted was one song. And a lot of these artists just could never "carry" an album. So this could be good, as today's music is just so awful.

I consider hip-hop a cancer, by the way. Just thought I'd throw that out there to get it off my chest.

99 cents a song is decent enough to launch this new medium for buying music online

but what if the enterprise gets overhauled later and its decided that
a 3min. song is $1, but a 5 min song is $2,
and a 7min+ is more $
and Frampton's 13 minute "Do You Feel..." is an $8 song file!



- what if someone was willing to share with you 1 mp3 containing
"Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End" uninterrupted
(but it's free = illegal copy)

but the official legal paysite authorized to sell Beatles mp3s has
split that composition into 3 different files, and to get each will be $3 total

is that right?

should "Mean Mr. Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" and "Bathroom Window" be 3 separate song files, each costing 99 cents?

What if for publishing reasons, they MUST BE split and priced separately.

will you want them split and pay that way?

and let's say, you finally get sick of having to click on 3 different short files and now go use a PC program to JOIN those files into one long song file, to listen to uninterrupted.

Now, well, you've made a brand new copy (illegal copy) - sigh