File sharing on the net

2

Comments

  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    well thats the thing. the internet is a global thing. what scares me are the torrent sites being shut down one by one. I suppose it will come to individual ISP networks doing the dirty work of enforcement.

    A lot of musicians seem to be interested in releasing their music like Radiohead did with their recent album.

    Surely if the artist is offering their music for free then it is not illegal to download it from somewhere else. But I am not sure.

    Edit: Reminds me of when in an interview a couple of years back Bjork encouraged people to download her album off the internet.
  • Pegasus
    Pegasus Posts: 3,754
    even flow? wrote:
    Buy the albums you cheap pricks! :)
    Collin wrote:
    I recently bought a Kings of Leon album and it's protected against copying. I can't put the music on my computer and that sucks because I want it on my mp3 player. So now I'll have to download the album, but first I'll need to get a file sharing programme.
    nuff said..

    a copy-protected CD is in my book faulty and would go back straight to the shop.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    I don't think file sharing will ever stop. As the government and record labels catch-up with current technology, new technology is being developed to out smart them. Many artists, like Radiohead, are realizing that the money is not in records sales anyway but in touring. So instead of loosing the little money they make off of CD sales they take it straight to the people. The music industry can't stop the change all they can do now is accept it and evolve to fit the times.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't think file sharing will ever stop. As the government and record labels catch-up with current technology, new technology is being developed to out smart them. Many artists, like Radiohead, are realizing that the money is not in records sales anyway but in touring. So instead of loosing the little money they make off of CD sales they take it straight to the people. The music industry can't stop the change all they can do now is accept it and evolve to fit the times.

    Yah but theres an article about Radiohead's release which said that they made more money out of it by by-passing the record label. All in all they ended up major winners.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    NoK wrote:
    Yah but theres an article about Radiohead's release which said that they made more money out of it by by-passing the record label. All in all they ended up major winners.

    Because they did not encure the manufactoring costs. What Radiohead did is what record labels after to embrace. Put the record out there for download and let people pay what they want. A report stated that the average person payed something like $7.00 for the download. Without all the manufactoring costs the records labels and the artist can still make money and the consumer will no longer be paying $20.00 for a new record.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't think file sharing will ever stop. As the government and record labels catch-up with current technology, new technology is being developed to out smart them. Many artists, like Radiohead, are realizing that the money is not in records sales anyway but in touring. So instead of loosing the little money they make off of CD sales they take it straight to the people. The music industry can't stop the change all they can do now is accept it and evolve to fit the times.

    but if ISPs get involved they can certainly put a huge dent in it. block ports, kill websites, etc. Oink was recently shut down. while the concept of file sharing will never go away, I think we are headed towards it being vastly different then we see it today.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    but if ISPs get involved they can certainly put a huge dent in it. block ports, kill websites, etc. Oink was recently shut down. while the concept of file sharing will never go away, I think we are headed towards it being vastly different then we see it today.

    Well if the record industry embraces it it will definitely be different, but even with all the crackdowns people will find a way.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    NoK wrote:
    Yah but theres an article about Radiohead's release which said that they made more money out of it by by-passing the record label. All in all they ended up major winners.

    i wondered how that worked. i was recently asked to sing (studio work) for a band who said they will be doing internet marketing. the website is called broadjam. we'll see what happens.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    even flow? wrote:
    Buy the albums you cheap pricks! :)

    the artists don't make as much on the CDs as you may think. every time the song gets played on the radio; the artist gets 1 cent. (this was the price in the early 90's). between studio and production costs; there's not much money left.
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    onelongsong wrote:
    i wondered how that worked. i was recently asked to sing (studio work) for a band who said they will be doing internet marketing. the website is called broadjam. we'll see what happens.

    As mammasan just said they did not have to pay for the manufacturing costs of the CD. In addition, by not promoting it through a record label it meant every penny of the profit went directly to them (other than the bills they had to pay when it came to downloads). Obviously, since they offered it for free they were relying on the ethics of people and it worked out.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    its really mind bobbling if you think about it. not sure if many people know but you can literally get everything on the net. (in terms of music, software, movies, games, etc). all of it. not just some but ALL.

    someone can download entire catalogs of music as fast as your internet connection allows.

    I guess thats where I'm going with this. that is going to be stopped or extremely slowed down.

    its going to be a big cat and mouse game for those wanted to sell legally on the net and for those trying to get around it.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    i don't think it can be stopped and i think trying to would be as effective as the war on drugs and terror have been.

    as to the legality, im enrolled in entertainment law next semester... i'll get back to you in may ;)
  • JaneNY
    JaneNY Posts: 4,438
    mammasan wrote:
    Because they did not encure the manufactoring costs. What Radiohead did is what record labels after to embrace. Put the record out there for download and let people pay what they want. A report stated that the average person payed something like $7.00 for the download. Without all the manufactoring costs the records labels and the artist can still make money and the consumer will no longer be paying $20.00 for a new record.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head here - what is heading toward obsoleteness (is that a word?!) are the large music labels. Not only did Radiohead do this but the new Saul Williams/Trent Reznor record as well - they gave the option of 192kbps for free or $5 for choice of Flac or 320kbps, so the artist makes some money bypassing a record label. I would hope more artists do this. (The album would have been a bargain at twice the price)

    But record labels are trying to implement something else called 360 deals where they get a cut of the touring/merch revenue also.

    I don't download studio stuff, but I've downloaded plenty of live stuff. I'd be sorry to see p2p go away.

    If you're interested in the future of the music business, there's this guy called Bob Lefsetz who writes a lot of interesting columns. http://www.lefsetz.com
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    onelongsong wrote:
    the LP is copywritten against copying and selling or public broadcast. when you buy the LP; you buy the rights to use that music for personal use and you can copy it to any media you want; as long as it's for personal use.
    you can check with a lawyer but i already have.
    btw; my fav song on that LP is the bucket :)

    why did you check with a lawyer? i thought you were one.

    cool about that isp thing... im' a super secret james bond spy too!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?

    If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
    How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?

    i've asked that question of anti-downloaders before. they seem to say it has to do with how many people can hear it. when i ask them how many is too many, they can't answer. i buy a ton of cd's. if i download, it's only to hear it and see if it's worth me buying. i often buy on a whim off friends' recommendations. but almost every cd i do buy is used. the only cd's i buy new are ones by artists i wouldn't download anyway becos i just love the band and wanna hear their every release.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    South of Seattle wrote:
    Hmmm. I copied it to my computer.

    Milk ;)

    Maybe there's something wrong with my computer.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    Collin wrote:
    Maybe there's something wrong with my computer.

    Actually it was the same with the "A perfect circle" cds but after installing specific plug ins media player was able to identify the CD and rip it. The only problem was with the first song.. it was never able to identify the first song.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?

    If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
    How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?


    I think that used cd stores would be even worse because someone else is making a profit on the cd's. It's like ticket scalping, a third party is making a profit on someone else's work whereas for downloading like torrents, no one is making a profit on in.

    Technology will always be ahead of the laws on this... I remember in college when napster was big, that got shut down then file sharing like kazaa popped up, and now with things like bit torrent, you can basically download any cd or dvd that you could want. They could arrest a thousand people and it would just go more underground...
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't think file sharing will ever stop. As the government and record labels catch-up with current technology, new technology is being developed to out smart them. Many artists, like Radiohead, are realizing that the money is not in records sales anyway but in touring. So instead of loosing the little money they make off of CD sales they take it straight to the people. The music industry can't stop the change all they can do now is accept it and evolve to fit the times.

    But if all of the money is in touring and the little bit of money from CDs goes to zero money for CDs, what motivation is there for bands to record albums? I mean from everything I have read recording a studio album seems like a lot of work, and if for the same amount of effort you can tour and make way more money, could it get to a point where most bands are just touring and releasing offical bootlegs? I like studio albums so to me if that ever happened I would be very annoyed.

    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    Something that's been on my mind lately: If sharing files over the internet is illegal, why is it legal to buy and sell used cd's?

    If someone buys a cd, the record store and the label get money. But say they decide to sell it back to the store. Then the store resells, the cd. Now another person is getting access to that music but the label hasn't made anymore money. And say they sell it back and someone else buys it. Now three people have that music but the label only got money for one sale.
    How is that different than one person buying the cd and uploading it to the internet?

    I remember back in the days before internet downloading, there were artists speaking out against used CD stores. I think it was Garth Brooks who would protest outside of them and do that sort of thing.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats the problem. I think ISPs are going to be all too willing to get involved. file sharing does nothing but slow down their networks. I think we are in the golden age of file sharing where its all out there for the taking. i'm afraid that will come to and end sooner rather then later.

    I often wonder. When I signed up, my ISP offered unlimited bandwidth. They tried to change this and soooo many people changed providers and the complaints were 24/7, so they dropped the extra fees for going over a certain amount of gigs. Now it's back to unlimited.

    They'll might put cap back on at some point, but there's enough competition where I am, that one guy will remain unlimited and will grab all the business which forces the others back to unlimited. This already happened once before.

    As far as privacy, it's essentially impossible to trace the file itself as it comes from several different people. The bit torrent program could even employ a rotating encryption routine that would activate randomly between individual peers, which would shut the ISP out of the equation altogether aside from bandwidth monitoring. The only risk of getting caught is when you download from honeypots, which is why it's important to use an aggressive set of exclusion lists of suspicious, and known IP addresses so that you don't risk sleeping with the enemy and potentially get sued. Exclusion lists are not 100% infallible, but pretty close.

    There will always be some way of getting around it. The entire internet (globally) would have to be controlled from one central location, and that system would have to be so insanely complex it would not even be practical (or even possible with all the different govt's and red tape)

    That's the beauty of distributed file sharing. It's just a matter of whether the lines remain unlimited. Router technology will need to advance as it's the current bottleneck in maintaining the bandwidth curve. It's near impossible to max out fiber lines from my understanding.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Categories