Music downloads, how legal is legal enough?

Ebenezer_Screwj

bs7 wrote:

As others have suggested, i'd read that with a pinch of salt.
Remember - according to the music industry - everyone that downloads mp3s is either a terrorist or a drug-dealer!!!

They should be reasonably content in the meantime with the fact that people are paying anything - at least there is a shift toward legal, albeit grey, downloads.

I think the biggest problem is that the cost savings from online music isn't being passed on to the consumers!

It seems "legit" download sites are only using it as a chance to increase their profit margins rather than offer genuine value for money.
i.e. an album may cost £7.99 via itunes but is only £8.75 (or less with promotional vouchers) at cd-wow.com - so for a £0.76 saving you're losing the jewel case, the booklet/cover and back cover, the cd, and postage to you - so it doesn't seem that good a deal.
You may be paying slightly less but getting a lot less at the same time.
And remember once you've got the CD you can use itunes (or many other applications) to import it onto your computer in electronic format anyway - but also have the convenience of having the CD too.

I am more than happy to use this web-site. Self-appointed arbiters of public morals are indulging in one of the luxuries of a free society. So am I.

chris73

I guess the consumer finally figured out that they are getting screwed in this country and have voted with their feet, read the poll you can't fly in the face of popular opinion.

All of these Musicians posting here have failed to mention the huge cut that the copyright organisations take out of music sales and downloads and their profit margins, why don't you tell us these figures??

If you are talking about being fair, then why is copyright law not uniform across the whole world?, and the prices set accordingly rather than country to country?. You may be able to hide behind distribution costs in regard to physical objects such as CD's to justify higher prices but why do price differences of LEGAL downloads vary from country to country, there is no physical distribution involved!.

And on the subject, why is it perfectly legal under the home recording act 1992 for an American consumer to convert their original CD into MP3 to play in the car or on their personal MP3 player, yet 14 years later it is still an illegal act to do the same in the UK without paying silly money for a license.

beachbeth

Can someone tell me what ogg is and why its so good?

andycandler

Ogg is a form of audio compression in the same ilk as Mp3. The full name is Ogg Vorbis and, with the file extension .ogg it is generally called that instead. Search for Ogg Vorbis on Google for more details.

With regard to allofmp3.com, I have used it for over 3 years now and tend to purchase the following music:

1. Back catalogue albums from artists, generally albums that are over 10 years old. I feel that the artist has had the spoils from that album already.

2. Digital versions of albums that I currently own on vinyl or cassette.

3. Digital versions of albums that I currently own on CD.

Why would i do this?

a> When labels bring out "remastered" albums or "special edition" versions of albums I cannot justify £10 for a couple of remix tracks. Paying 50p for the album makes more sense to me. Generally these re-releases happen when an artist leaves one label for another, and the old label makes a killing off the back catalogue.

b> Sometimes i simply cannot be bothered to rip the music myself. Downloading a good quality digital copy for 50p seems a good deal to me.

I generally purchase 50% of my music on CD (3 arrived today from Amazon) and 50% from allofmp3.com. I sleep easy at night and have just purchased another $10 on allofmp3.com for some older stuff.

nej

The problem is ITunes and it's ilk are a complete con. I'd rather pay the small extra to buy the CD if it's something I really want. Then again, AllofMP3 is very cheap for the stuff I'm not that bothered about... These are CD's I wouldn't have bought from a shop anyway, so nobody loses out. In fact, if the stuff is good, I may well buy the next album properly. Then you win. It's the same as me copying a CD from a friend who tells me it's good. If I like it I'll probably buy the next one myself.

I think nobody wants to do artists out of their rightful earnings though. What people have a problem with is the pigopolists running the record label who rake in far more than the artist does. I would much rather pay £5 direct to an artist than £10 to the record company.

I think the problem is that record labels realise they are un-neccessary in today's world and are trying to do anything possible to stay "in power". Given time, all artists will be able to sell their own music online directly, and cut out the label altogether. The smaller guys will be able to compete with the bigger guys more evenly, as they aren't relying on a record label that is only interested in promoting Coldplay, as they know they'll get the sales.

billshep

Anybody got an idea how Martin's gets to 'Of 3,300 voters, just 22% of people objected to using it; most people said they were happy to give it a go!' When the results were:
C. Yippee. Sounds great to me. 37.3% - (1252 Votes)
B. I'm tempted. Cheap's good, but I'm worried about the legality. 34.7% - (1165 Votes)
A. It's disgraceful. It steals the artists' work. 16.3% - (547 Votes)
D. Already there. I've used it before. 11.4% - (384 Votes)

I'd say that means 51% are against or have concerns, while the remaining 49% are OK with it....

(I object to not paying the artist for their work)

beachbeth

andycandler wrote:

I generally purchase 50% of my music on CD (3 arrived today from Amazon) and 50% from allofmp3.com. I sleep easy at night and have just purchased another $10 on allofmp3.com for some older stuff.

Thanks for that. How much is $10 in pounds sterling?

ROBDOLPHIN66

At the end of the day MSE should not be condoning anything that is illegal.
There are warnings on most of the boards telling you that you cannot discuss illegal / grey topics, then they go and have a poll on this.
I don't suppose that he will be mentioning this site in his new music reviewing capacity, will he?
Very poor.

beachbeth

nej wrote:

I think nobody wants to do artists out of their rightful earnings though. What people have a problem with is the pigopolists running the record label who rake in far more than the artist does. I would much rather pay £5 direct to an artist than £10 to the record company.

I agree. They have got away for too long with the extortionate prices they charge for cd's. If there is an album I particularly like I will pay full price for it from a shop or a legitimate cd website so that I have the original cd. Sometimes you buy a cd album on the strength of two chart singles only to find that the rest of the album is rubbish which is why I'd rather download first.

Although I think cheap download sites are great I still pay for original cd's too so the music industry aren't losing out from my business. If legitimate music download sites were reasonably priced I would personally buy a lot more music than I do now.

Deluks

An interesting debate, which unfortunately isn't as black and white as some would make out.

I'm all for screwing the big record labels, who take huge liberties with their artists. There are loads of bands that get signed, release a couple of albums, get dropped due to 'poor sales' and then get hit with a bill for all the recording fees, production costs, marketing etc. etc. So from this p.o.v. I can see the attraction of not lining their (record companies) pockets even further.
But then what about the artist themselves, OK downloading the Beatles back catalogue isn't exactly gonna leave anyone struggling to pay the electric bill but what about all the independent, underground and new artists who struggle to pay for rehearsal fees, travel expenses, food etc.

I fully understand Martin's stance of mentioning the Russian site here, he freely admits that he doesn't even listen to music and has never bought a CD or record in his life.
But some of us listen to, and have a real passion for music, and would it not be very hypocritical to state that we are fans of whatever band having not bought any of their releases!

I also understand that free downloads give us the opportunity to hear new bands that we wouldn't otherwise have purchased, (lets face it buying a stack of CD's every month soon adds up, wherever you buy them from) and how many times in the past have you bought an album, having been enticed by the hit single on the radio, to find out that it a load of plop (Latest Strokes album?? :doh: )

So what to do? How to remain a diehard music lover, own all the albums, whilst still having a clear concience and a healthy bank balance?

The obvious way to recompense the artists for all the entertainment they've given you on your boring daily train journey to work?

Go to see them live is a good start. Buying a t-shirt while your there is another (buying them a pint after the gig better still! :beer: )

Of course this all adds up too, and still doesn't excuse you for getting their latest album gratis. They probably spent about 6 months writing and recording it at a cost of anywhere between £1,000 - £50,000!

Why not contact the band, look them up on their website or myspace and offer to send them money (cheque or paypal) for the album you downloaded? Send them £1 or £2 or whatever you can afford. That's probably a damn sight more than they get from their record companies anyway per CD sold, so you'd be cutting out the middleman and doing everyone a favour, you get good music on the cheap and they still get paid for their hard work.

It works like the shareware computer programs, ok most people will just keep on downloading and not paying a penny, but even if ten or twenty percent of downloaders made a minimal effort to pay the artist, then they might just be able to stick around long enough to make that killer classic album. Sgt. Pepper's was the Beatles 7th album. Exile on Main Street was the Stones 11th album, Pet Sounds was the Beach Boys 9th album. Blonde on Blonde was Dylan's 7th album, a lot of new bands these days rarely last 2 or 3 releases before money (or lack of) gets in the way, yet our burgeoning hard drives and iPods continue to fill up. :whistle: