Downloaded Music

[King of the Americas]

Why is the Music Industry 'protected with copyrights', from those who would record events, people, and their doings to share with others in the form of Media?

History makers...those who would take part in Free Press. 'Recording what you see and hear', and then replicating it for mass consumption.

Why CAN'T I use my recording device to replicate what I see and hear, so that I can share it with my friends and relatives???

Call c-span NOW to ask this question of the record industry rep.

[Tmy]

Congress is in the back pocket of these corporations (for example: Disney) so they screw wh the copywrite laws in order to keep everything out of the public domain thru perpetual copywrites.

[King of the Americas]

Hey, if you are OUTSIDE your home...I'd almost consider that public domain.

But if you are on the damn radio or television, you'd better damn well know that is public domain!

---

How do I go about e-mailing this to Senator McCain's Office ASAP:

Please ask the Senator to ask the Record Industry Reps these questions:

"Don't Americans have the right to Free Press? Aren't we legally protected by an Amendment Right to record that which we see and hear for the sake of replication and even mass comsumption? Why should the music industry be protected from historians?"

---

Right NOW, he is in committee discussing ownership of Media outlets and the FCC.

[Supercharts]

Apple.
iTunes.
iTunes store.
.99/download

Again, Apple is the innovator.

:D :D :D

[Victor Danilchenko]

Copyright and patent laws are our society's contract with authors and inventors; in exchange for a limited control over distribution and replication of their works and inventions, respectively, society gets the benfit of the said authors and inventors continuing to create and invent. it's a purely pragmatic contractual arrangement.

Now the current situation, with the Mickey Mouse Copyright Law, is a travesty of the purpose of copyrights; but the flaw lies in misapplication of the said concepts, rather than in the concepts themselves.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Apple.
iTunes.
iTunes store.
.99/download

Again, Apple is the innovator.

:D :D :D

I hope that this takes off. Many people have advocated such a system - cheap price, low restrictions on use, lots of selection. It should kill some services like Kazaa that rely on spyware to make money. I would much rather pay 99 cents a tune for a reliable, legitimate service than worry about spyware, etc. Unfortunately, I can't. I have to wait for a windows version, and for it to cover Canada.

From what I understand, the songs are in a different format than mp3. Does anyone know if they are convertible to either mp3 or a format that a regular cd player can use?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Thanz

From what I understand, the songs are in a different format than mp3. Does anyone know if they are convertible to either mp3 or a format that a regular cd player can use?

I understand that it's part of the deal that you can burn the songs on to a CD in AIFF format.

If you wanted, you could rip them straight back off into mp3, even if there was no other way of getting there.

[King of the Americas]

"...in exchange for a 'limited' control over distribution and replication of their works and inventions, respectively,..."

'Limited control' is the interesting term here.

Look, I think that if an artists makes 'good copies' of their work, people will pay for them, if they are of a good value to them.

And herein lies the problem with everlasting patents & copyrights.

Moreover, these things were NEVER intended to slow down or hault technology and its development. Which is EXACTLY what is happening in making 'criminal' file sharing programs.

I think the Record Industry is the dying middleman, trying to use the law to extend their artificial lives. Musicians deserve MORE than a few cents from each album, and have proven themselves technology capable of dealing directly with their fans.

[Earthborn]

.99/downloadI think that is rather expensive! I used to use AudioGalaxy but it suddenly became a paid service: $0.99 per download. Problem is, I wanted to download an old song of Billie Holiday, which is in public domain for quite a while. I bought a complete CD for 5 Euros. For the same price I bought a double CD of Nina Simone...

99 cents per download is a good idea for the latest popsongs, but much music is much cheaper to buy as a CD. It would be best to have different prices for different kinds of music, depending on how many people want it.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Thanz

From what I understand, the songs are in a different format than mp3. Does anyone know if they are convertible to either mp3 or a format that a regular cd player can use?

The format is called AAC and is part of the MPEG-4 specification. If you have Quicktime 6 (if you are on a Mac) you should be set. The codec should work both ways so you should be able to produce standard audio CD burns from your desktop that will play in any CD audio player that does not gag on CD-R's (like my 2nd generation Panasonic DVD player) or burn mp3 formatted audio CD's. AAC is supposed to sound better at lower bit rates than mp3 which is why Apple chose 128kbps compressed AAC for the iTunes store. If you are on Windows, I am sure somebody will build an AAC codec (if one does not already exist) that will work with Media Player or WinAmp. Not sure about Linux but I can guess what that will involve.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Apple.
iTunes.
iTunes store.
.99/download

Again, Apple is the innovator.

:D :D :D

Hear, hear. Do you know of a Mac-friendly peer-to-peer client like Kazaar? I'm really missing Napster...

[max]

I have a friend in London who opened a record shop about four years ago. It was his pride and joy. he is only 40 now so he had done well to buy a property etc in the big city. When I last saw him (jan) he looked down in the dumps and said he didn't know how much longer he could cope. The customers had declined in numbers....
1.....cos of supermarkets cutpricing CDs
2.....people downloading from the net.
I feel so sorry for him. He didn't rip customers off but being a small shop his turnover wasn't big enough for him to do cut price. He also specialises in records difficult to come by.
If we continue to download and supermarkets diversify in every which way , a lot of honest,hardworking people like my friend will lose their jobs

[Psiload]

Originally posted by max
I have a friend in London who opened a record shop about four years ago. It was his pride and joy. he is only 40 now so he had done well to buy a property etc in the big city. When I last saw him (jan) he looked down in the dumps and said he didn't know how much longer he could cope. The customers had declined in numbers....
1.....cos of supermarkets cutpricing CDs
2.....people downloading from the net.
I feel so sorry for him. He didn't rip customers off but being a small shop his turnover wasn't big enough for him to do cut price. He also specialises in records difficult to come by.
If we continue to download and supermarkets diversify in every which way , a lot of honest,hardworking people like my friend will lose their jobs Oh well... just like all those poor harworking, honest buggy whip salesmen who lost their jobs after the introduction of the automobile.

Right or wrong, like it or not, file sharing via the net is here to stay. The writing has been on the wall for the last five years, and no amount of recording industry threats and cajoling, or brick and mortar outlet woe is me is going to wipe it off.

Napster is dead! Long live Napster!

[max]

Psiload
True, times is a changing. What do you think will happen eventually to the pop artists? Will they be paid a 'normal working' wage? If millions of records don't get sold cos it's accessable on the net, the music companies will lose out. Maybe in time nobody will be bothered to record music