Off Topic Messages

Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:36 am

We're living in a world in which for as little as $60 a year you can legally download more than 1,000,000 songs (that's right, all 1 million if you like) and store them on any compatible portable device or play them through your computer for free.

And though it's never going to satisfy the extreme audiophiles, it's at bit rates up to 192, which is certainly as good as all the rinky-dink illegal sites people here are bragging about.

That's not 99 cents apiece or even 79 cents apiece. That's as little as $60 a year for all the music you can download from services such as Rhapsody, Napster or Yahoo! Music Engine.

And yet people are still whining? It's remarkable to me. It really is.

Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:39 am

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


Not true, and surely you know that, GG.

Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:52 am

that's why it's called file sharing. you SHARE files.


Elvisgirl, if you can't do better than that, there's little chance for you -- not that I held out much hope anyway.

If you swap kiddie porn on the Internet -- like Michael Jackson might -- they'd call it "file sharing," too.

That doesn't make it legal or right.

Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:24 am

elvissessions.com wrote:
Now, well, you've made a brand new copy (illegal copy) - sigh


Not true, and surely you know that, GG.


IT IZN'T ??

a copy you make yourself would be an unauthorized reproduction,
unauthorized duplication, is it not?

Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:42 am

The Fair Use Act -- and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 -- make things pretty plain. You may legally copy your music if you were the one who bought (and still own) the original.

In fact, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 states quite clearly that copyright holders can't sue the average user for making home copies of their music.

In the good old United States, you can record it, take it apart, put it back together -- just do anything your little heart desires as long as you bought the music the right way in the first place.

Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:22 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:

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 Laughing ) 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.


Keep telling yourself that Greg......at least I admit what I am doing is wrong.
:D

Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:13 pm

elvissessions.com wrote:
that's why it's called file sharing. you SHARE files.


Elvisgirl, if you can't do better than that, there's little chance for you -- not that I held out much hope anyway.

If you swap kiddie porn on the Internet they'd call it "file sharing," too.

That doesn't make it legal or right.

i didn't say it makes it legal or right. i'm just saying that you're not stealing from the people you download from on the file sharing programs. cause you said it isn't the same as sharing any single item. but it is
Last edited by Elvisgirl on Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:41 pm

Larry Dickman. wrote:Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:

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 Laughing ) 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.


Keep telling yourself that Greg......at least I admit what I am doing is wrong.
:D



Dickman, I don't get what you don't get about the fact that Elvis is long dead. I would never copy the work of new and current artists.

Nice and simple. Period. You're the one rationalizing.

The industry that creates these recordings is not going after people who own a few copies of bootlegs of an artist dead thirty years.

They are going after the so-called "File-swappers."

They know who the real "thieves" are. As an industry, they create the product, so they ought to know.

Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:36 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:

The industry that creates these recordings is not going after people who own a few copies of bootlegs of an artist dead thirty years.


How could I have been so stupid, of course BMG are not interested in the bootleging of Elvis material, afterall, they are not trying to keep thousands of people employed by running a profitable business......and I guess the owners and shareholders of the EOT material will not be interested in who is behind the release of the "Making of EOT" DVD...... :?

Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:42 pm

It's true, Dickman.

From what I gather here, RCA/BMG's crew of Ernst/ Semon et al. have successfully headed off the bootleggers at the pass with FTD, leaving all but the most die hard to go after audience recordings and other non-commerical material.

Nevermind the encroaching public domain factor.

Again, the big guns at labels like Sony/BMG are taking a real dent from file swappers of new and recent music, not arcane bootleg Elvis tapes! The real items (such as any real forthcoming EOT set) always trumps the invitably inferior and crappy bootleg version, more often than not.

Otherwise, that stuff would be in the headlines, not the "file-swapping" / downloading controversy.

Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:54 am

Gregory, illegal is illegal....it's like being a little bit pregnant.......
However, you seem to have convinced yourself that Elvis bootlegs are in a different category.....I cannot convince you otherwise, therefore, ever the gentleman, the last word is yours....................

Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:16 pm

Fair enough, we are going in circles. (So much for others joining in..)

Most of the bootlegging done here is on par with jay-walking.

We'd be seeing headlines about bootlegs of obscure alternates and live shows.

Instead the subject is downloading of new albums.

Big difference! Ask the industry...ask the artists/

I will concede that arguably its the same mentality. Hell, perhaps we should make an anti-bootleg argument, period. I'm not wedded to the defense of bootlegs. Both they and downloading are illegal. I don't argue that.