My experience with illegal downloads

I've heard the single "Mr Brightside" by The Killers several times. I found it very intriguing, and wished to hear more from this band.

I fired up WinMX and downloaded a few more cuts from their album, "Hot Stuff". I liked it. A lot.

So I went out and bought the CD.

I would not have bought the CD had I not heard the additional cuts.

This scenario, btw, has been what prompted me to buy every album I've bought the last three years.

I can see why the RIAA is complaining. Without illegal downloads, I'd have not spent all that money on their product.

Oh, wait....

:shrug:

listening to the RIAA whine about lost revenue is like listening to pharm. companies whine about generic alternitives - horseshit pure and simple.
That said, I have some rules concerning downloads. If the band is uber huge and well-known (ie. the stones), I will downlaod without any form of guilt whatsoever. But if the band is independent and fairily obscure, I will go buy the album.
Most of the stuff I listen to are little tunes from obsucre bands in the 1960's who have never released anything on CD except compilations that are hard to find. When I can - I will buy, but most of the time the stuff is unavailible any other way.
The RIAA is a thug.

I think you have to be a Salon member but I know of four bands I first downloaded legally from Salon that I've gone on to buy the album (BTW, it was Skeleton Key, Carbon Leaf, Imogen Heap and Nada Surf).

But one thing about all of those bands mentioned above - all of them had a website where I could download even more legal songs (Carbon Leaf had a ton of stuff available!). So after downloading from Salon and then the bands website I still went on to buy the album from the artist.

I listen to exclusively independant label music. The music is better and I don't have to worry about the RIAA at all.

I sample different stuff via downloads and then go buy the records to support the artists.

Where I find filesharing especially valuable is in my PC gaming. I NEVER buy a PC game before downloading a full release and seeing if the developers actually finished the game. Too many bug ridden pieces of crap get released months early these days.

I just don't know what's out there.

And while I most of my downloading these days is totally legal, I think there are many other people who are finding new music through P2P, and then spending money on bands they'd otherwise never have bothered with.

Ironically, the Killers was also one of the CDs I bought after trying out the music.

Some of the stuff I've downloaded I almost feel I should have the right to do so simply because I have a host of awesome stuff in Vinyl that's hard to find in CDs. Pretty much 99% of the stuff I've downloaded you can probably trace back to a Vinyl LP or Cassette I have purchased in the past 30 years or I turned around and bought the CD after enjoying the music!

Statement on signing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.(Pres Bill Clinton)(Transcript)
From: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents | Date: 11/2/1998
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents

Pres Bill Clinton has signed the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that limits the copyright infringement liability of online service providers. The act supports various international treaties designed to promote the interests of owners and users of copyrighted materials. Moreover, Clinton has urged Congress to act in accordance with bicameralism and presentment requirements before directing the operations of the Copyright Office.

October 28, 1998

Today I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 2281, the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act." This Act implements two landmark treaties that were successfully negotiated by my Administration in 1996 and to which the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on October 21, 1998. The Act also limits the liability of online service providers for copyright infringement under certain conditions.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty mark the most extensive revision of international copyright law in over 25 years. The treaties will grant writers, artists, and other creators of copyrighted material global protection from piracy in the digital age.

These treaties will become effective at a time when technological innovations present us with great opportunities for the global distribution of copyrighted works. These same technologies, however, make it possible to pirate copyrighted works on a global scale with a single keystroke. The WIPO treaties set clear and firm standards - obligating signatory countries to provide "adequate legal protection" and "effective legal remedies" against circumvention of certain technologies that copyright owners use to protect their works, and against violation of the integrity of copyright management information. This Act implements those standards, carefully balancing the interests of both copyright owners and users.

I am advised by the Department of Justice that certain provisions of H.R. 2281 and the accompanying Conference Report regarding the Register of Copyrights raise serious constitutional concerns. Contrary to assertions in the Conference Report, the Copyright Office is, for constitutional purposes, an executive branch entity. Accordingly, the Congress may exercise its constitutionally legitimate oversight powers to require the Copyright Office to provide information relevant to the legislative process. However, to direct that Office's operations, the Congress must act in accord with the requirements of bicameralism and presentment prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. Further, the Congress may not require the Register to act in a manner that would impinge upon or undermine the President's discretion under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution to determine which, if any, executive branch recommendations to the Congress would be "necessary and expedient." Accordingly, I will construe sections 103(a), 104(b), 401(b), and 403(a) of H.R. 2281 to require the Register to perform duties only insofar as such requirements are consistent with these constitutional principles.

From the efforts of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks who acted as the lead negotiator for these treaties, to the agreement reached by interests affected by online service provider liability, to the improvements added by two House Committees and one Senate Committee, this Act reflects the diligence and talents of a great many people. Through enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have done our best to protect from digital piracy the copyright industries that comprise the leading export of the United States.

William J. Clinton

The White House, October 28, 1998.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-53449111.html

There has been a wave of store closings and label closings, all because people are getting stuff for free. The idea that illegal downloads are good advertising comes from cheap people who think it is their prerogative to never pay for anything. Album sales are *down* sharply. There are plenty of bands who never will get to earn a living in music today. You think they're all rich- first of all, most never do, and second, how do you think the small percentage of bands that are successful got that way? Why do you think they are only singing terrible bands that sound the same now? Because the only way they can make any money is to mine the same furrows again and again. If the labels are not making as much money, they are going to go after the only people who still spend with them, the crappy pre-teen pop sector. Who I see doing this is teenagers and cheap, selfish Baby Boomers.

If we could buy albums for less than $10, a lot of us would probably give up illegal acquisition.

The problem, of course, is if you acquire every piece of entertainment legally at current retail prices, your music, movie, and video game collections will not be very big. That's why when I buy, I almost always go used.

Here is what almost happened in the 90's:

The record companies had ripped-off every band, every time with near complete immunity. Through contracts that "advanced" bands the money to make albums -but also required the bands to pay for their own studio time out of those "advances" - and guess what? The contracts also specified that the band had to use the companies studios. And (surprise...surprise) the studio time somehow always, magically, amounted to more than the advance!

All kinds of other charges would come out of those "advances", too. So a band would be terribly in debt to the record company before a single record (or CD) was pressed. Then, the contract would also specify that the band members receive pennies (literally) from each album sale. On a $15.98 CD the band might receive 2 cents. The rest went straight to the record co.

With the advent of home recording workstations and independent CD factories a new era was just beginning wherein artists would self-record and self-press their own CD's. They were going to lower prices to the 10-12 dollar range and still gain dollars rather than pennies on each CD sale. All your favorite artists especially the tiny niche ones were all going to be financially supported like never before!

oh......but wait......Napster (and other p2p) happened at just that glorious time. Now 1 damn CD actually purchased could be a thousand free downloads minutes later. And now your favorite artists aren't paid any better - very likely worse - for their efforts.

It could have been beautiful.

The record companies are completely clueless when it comes to illegal downloading.