Massive boost in legal downloads over Christmas

Quote:

---

The company believes that up to 250 million tracks can be downloaded in any week on file sharing networks

---

Wow, a quarter bill, and that excludes the millions more downloaded as full albums on BT! good to see filesharing still kicking ass. I feel sorry for those who download legally. I am not knocking them for paying for it, as I buy half of my music myself (But I like to have the origionaI Cd, so I can LAME rip it). However they compress it to crap sampling rates and litter the music with DRM...If only they knew. I have downloaded 2 songs legally, a whole £1.48's worth. I urge the music industry not to spend it all at once...

I'm never going to buy a track that's DRM'd. Same with an album. I shold be allowed to do what I want with my music. Not some joe from the record company who decides what I can and can't do.

i think that you kinda got some of that wrong, my wife & i use itunes, and the quality is great, it is suposed to be "loss less" format, and if you have seen tests most people even experts can not hear the difference in a good quality rip and the origonal cd qualty! besids it is only 9.99 (or less) for a cd on itunes, much cheaper than the store. and once i get home with a cd i put it righ in my computer, rip it & burn it and put the origonal away. i tunes it is allready good to go for my wife on he ripod, if i want to use it it jsut burn a cd then re rip it so it has no DRM Duah! and then i can do what ever, & i own a legal copy.

Quote:

---

i think that you kinda got some of that wrong,

---

Which part?

Quote:

---

my wife & i use itunes, and the quality is great, it is suposed to be "loss less" format,

---

Dont kid yourself, please. Their music is at the lowest bearable quality. They do this to make the files smaller and save on bandwidth.

Quote:

---

and if you have seen tests most people even experts can not hear the difference in a good quality rip and the origonal cd qualty!

---

You are right, they probably can't. But an iTune is not a good quality rip. 128kbps isn't what I would call 'good'. It is what I would call 'standard' or 'bearable'.

Quote:

---

besids it is only 9.99 (or less) for a cd on itunes, much cheaper than the store.

---

It's even cheaper on bittorrent, and they know how use the LAME encoder...

Quote:

---

and once i get home with a cd i put it righ in my computer, rip it & burn it and put the origonal away. i tunes it is allready good to go for my wife on he ripod, if i want to use it it jsut burn a cd then re rip it so it has no DRM Duah! and then i can do what ever, & i own a legal copy.

---

If it suits you best, then each to their own. But it seems you don't know how much quality you are being cheated on. I would recommend paying for a proper copy of a CD. you may have to part with a few extra dollars, but at least (providing you rip it correctly) you are not compromising on quality.

The only thing is I played around with my brother's Ipod and it's was pretty cool. Of course he ripped the CD's of mine that he liked so that he didn't have to pay for them online. He liked my MiniDisc player, I know what was I on when I bought that.

Most, if not all of the people who purchase off of itunes can't tell the difference between an itunes downloaded song and a LAME encoded song. With music, this "quality" that you talk about doesn't matter. It's not like the difference between regular tv's and hdtv's. As long is there is no static, like on a radio for instance, people are completely fine with itunes downloaded songs. That is why there are some many legally downloaded songs now. I'm sort of ranting now, but it is all about the NORM. The NORM is why ipods and itunes are so hugely popular. Everybody is getting an ipod and downloading off itunes, so everybody else who hasn't already wants to as well. Same with the stupid as* waste of money tv download's off of itunes. Just download it off BT and convert it yourself. You save a bunch of money, but then again the people in the NORM who just want to be like everyone else don't know how to do that so they waste their or their parents money on crap and make Steve Jobs a happy fellow. Sh*t, if I could make something that could squeeze its way into the NORM, I'd be a rich man too. Any new product that has a wow and cool factor will make a lot of money becuase people want to be in the NORM and have it. The damn RAZR for instance. I swear 1/3 of the cell phone population has that eff'ing phone. Alright i'm done.

isnt cd quility supposed to be at 320kbps or higher? on p-2-p you can get 128 and higher (mostly 128) and its free! but not legal.

Have you guys been paying attention... if you get busted downloading songs you can get some serious fines! BT is not at all safe for anyone, even if you us an IP blocker... people are having to pay thousands of dollars for getting caught! Is that really worth it? The fines are going to get tougher and tougher as they wage this war and they will wage the war as long as it takes, they have the money. Now before anyone flames back at me I am not at all about the 'man' and all that. I dont like big business telling me what I can and cant do with what I buy, all Im saying is that the stiff fines are way too much for me to risk getting caught... they can fine you some serious dough for even one song! Just my two cents, if you are going to be negative please dont respond.

Yea but if the lady who is fighting them now wins, then all these fines and crap would stop for the time being because a jury would have found that the way they are catching people is illegal so they would have to find another way, I think.

Quote:

---

Have you guys been paying attention... if you get busted downloading songs you can get some serious fines!

---

Naw you get busted for uploading & sued for downloading.

Quote:

---

BT is not at all safe for anyone, even if you us an IP blocker...

---

It’s safe enough with a little common sense..

Quote:

---

people are having to pay thousands of dollars for getting caught! Is that really worth it?

---

Use PG2. Hardly anyone has been clocked on BT yet.

Quote:

---

The fines are going to get tougher and tougher as they wage this war and they will wage the war as long as it takes, they have the money.

---

Me not scared of no RIAA.

Quote:

---

I dont like big business telling me what I can and cant do with what I buy, all Im saying is that the stiff fines are way too much for me to risk getting caught... they can fine you some serious dough for even one song!

---

The benefits vastly outweigh the risks

That lady LOST and now owes nearly 30,000 and Lethal, I hope you dont get the call... man, getting busted even 5,000 and having that on your record would not be worth 50,000 of free downloads! Guys, they can sue you and search your house and take your computers, Ipods and anything you have the files on...

"Have you guys been paying attention... if you get busted downloading songs you can get some serious fines!" Really, can you cite a case? (No you can't.) In the US no one has been "busted" or even successfully sued for downloading a song. Never has happened.

People have been taken to court and have settled with paying high fines for downloading music files. It's not wise to try to influence folks here to download music files from P2P networks since the penalty to do so is in fact costly. Having said that, here is what the Music Companys view is on the subject: What kind of penalties does the law allow and what are you seeking? Under federal law, copyright holders can sue infringers for statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 for each of their copyrighted works that have been illegally copied or distributed. We intend to leave it up to the court to decide what kind of damages we deserve to be awarded. Didn't the courts just rule that peer-to-peer networks are perfectly legal? In the Grokster case, a district court did rule that the Grokster and StreamCast networks couldn't necessarily be held liable for the illegal activities of their users. That ruling is now being considered by a Court of Appeals. In any case, the court also made it abundantly clear that whether or not a network itself can be held responsible, the users of that network can clearly be guilty of copyright infringement.

I don't encourage piracy, I discourage legal downloads.

quote No one in his right mind is going to pay upwards of $1 for lossy, inferior quality, cookie-cutter corporate 'product' drawn from tightly limited catalogues when for pennies, they can tap into not only everything the Big Four have to offer online, but also millions of other tracks, new and old, from allofmp3.com and similar sites. They can also buy from the many independent sales pages set up by new artists as well as established star performers who've discovered they can do much better for themselves and their fans online and off without the "help" of the major labels. Meanwhile, nine times out of ten, music industry 'premium' product, going out at $1 and more, isn't worth a light, which is one of the reasons OM is reporting plummeting sales. rest of the story here http://p2pnet.net/story/7500

that is the truest statement i heard in a long time.. mp3 do not have the good quality of the old records. and i do have a ton of records i use to put on tape.. and the best part i did not have to use a computer or worry about copy protection... I remember buying records when they were vinyl. I'd take off the wrapping, carefully slide it out of the wrapper, lay it on the turntable, clean it, and then carefully adjust the controls while it started playing, and then lay back with that artwork and just enjoy the magic. That's no longer part of the listening experience. The magic is gone. So is the artwork. With the mp3, the ambience isn't there and I can't hear the stick hit the cymbol before it rings. Nor can I hear the guitar pick hit the string the moment before the string rings. What's worse, the price for this junk has gone up and I can't legally put it on the reel to reel to enjoy as a long playing tape that doesn't need to be fooled with for a long time. http://p2pnet.net/story/7418

@ireland Have you played any of those 7'reels that you made in the 70's? You'll find in time that they're not nearly as good as when they were new. With time the iron oxide deteriorates. I have some 130 3hour reels that are useless. I've chucked my Akai quad deck. BUT I still have the "virgin" vinyls that were seldomly played. Some have been transferred to cds. And you're right the old LPs sounded better than today's cds.The music was better back then also.

Quote:

---

People have been taken to court and have settled with paying high fines for downloading music files. It's not wise to try to influence folks here to download music files from P2P networks since the penalty to do so is in fact costly.

---

It is unwise to comment so innaccurately when you haven't followed the cases. No one has settled or gone to court for music downloads.

here you go fellas www.allofmp3.com www.mp3search.ru I use these 2 sites, pay roughly 0.10 a song and have yet to have aproblem. This is legal because you are paying something and its out of russia; however they have all our new music quick. Good sites and no hassles Enjoy

P2P ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!

It is unwise to comment so innaccurately when you haven't followed the cases. No one has settled or gone to court for music downloads. Has anyone in the UK been sued? At first it was only file-swappers in the US who were getting into legal trouble, but now people in the UK have been taken to court too. In March 2005, 23 people in the UK paid a total of £50,000 in compensation after being taken to court. They admitted making up to 9,000 tracks available for other people to download from their computers. But children can't be sued, can they? In the US, the record industry says it can sue anyone, including kids. Some parents have had to pay big fines because their kids were downloading illegally. British record bosses haven't said if any of the people they sued were children, but thought it "highly likely" that some of the people that paid the fines were doing so for their kids

Quote:

---

Some parents have had to pay big fines because their kids were downloading illegally.

---

Blah, blah blah -- again false. You don't know the difference between uploading (distributing) and downloading? There is no successful suit against anyone for downloading in the U.S. Ever.

"No one has settled or gone to court for music downloads." Let's hope you won't be one the unlucky ones that have been paying those fines that you don't consider to be a settlement. About 1,300 of the lawsuits have been settled during the past year, most for payments of about $3,000. Laconia resident Dan Makely, who was sued last fall, agreed earlier this month to pay the companies $4,500.

Mozilfox - it is pretty evident that you have never really used p2p, have you. If you turn uploading off and make your sharing folder an empty one, you cannot get sued on p2p networks. You can download a million songs if you wish, you won't get caught out. As for BT, there have only been (literally) a handful of cases thus far. And if you use peerguardian, you are safer still. the chances of being sued are less than 0.01%. And by being sensible, you reduce that tiny risk more.

Lethal: I have used P2P many times even with Peer Guardian and the uploads turned off. Feeling Safe? If you are caught in the RIAA's wrath it won't be of much comfort to anyone if all the protection you think you have results in a stiff fine in the end. Besides, P2P's offer you much more than you ever bargained for. They include free for your enjoyment pleasure, all the adware, spyware and countless Virus Bugs your computer doesn't need to fend off. No thanks. Hackers love P2P network sites. There, they have a large audience to sample and tryout their latest Malicious Virus' to spread and infect countless computers on many unsuspecting innocent victims. But hey, I you don't mind dealing with all of that then have at it.

Quote:

---

Let's hope you won't be one the unlucky ones that have been paying those fines that you don't consider to be a settlement.

---

the fines and settlements are for uploaidng. there is no process to sue for downloading. People at the RIAA offices themselves probably daily download hundreds of items of copyright material without permission. do you even understand the terminlogy? It is also clear from your comments you have never actually used p2p. Stop trolling you don't even have the basic facts in hand.

Quote:

---

Laconia resident Dan Makely, who was sued last fall, agreed earlier this month to pay the companies $4,500.

---

for distributing, not downloading

From CNN legal.com: (FindLaw) -- Recently, and controversially, the recording industry has switched tactics in its fight against illegal downloading. Despite fear of a public relations debacle, it is planning to SUE STUDENT DOWNLOADERS. First, however, it must identify them, and gather evidence of their illegal activity. Toward this end, subpoenas have already been sent to a number of universities and Internet Service Providers. Hundreds more are expected in September, after school starts. Meanwhile, the Recording Industry Institute of America (RIAA) has not only led the fight for these lawsuits, but also joined together with campus administrators to educate students on the law and the consequences of violating it. Face the facts, sharing music files is illegal:Whether You: UPLOAD, DOWNLOAD IT'S STILL ROCK AND ROLL TO ME!

Well good luck to you. Have the sort of mind that the RIAA are trying to drum into everyone. Look buddy, I disagree with your views 100%, and I gather that the feeling is mutual. I respect the fact that you are a good, law abiding citizen and don't like to take any risks, however large or small. Same as you must understand why myself and most others like to download the music for free ;-) Let's just agree to disagree :-)

Quote:

---

Recently, and controversially, the recording industry has switched tactics in its fight against illegal downloading. Despite fear of a public relations debacle, it is planning to SUE STUDENT DOWNLOADERS.

---

Well it just proves what, that many eneducated writers crib the RIAA BOGUS press releases? Not only has the RIAA never sued a perspon for dowlnaoding they have never successfully got ONE penny for such a claim in a settlement. Never. The RIAA has never EVER sued or collected a thing for downloads. As I said you can be certain that personell at the RIAAs regularly inadvertently download material to which they have no rights. Do you realize Mozilfox that people must be laughing at your comments. You keep confusing seveal terms. You sound like a person who just discovered the internet and hasn't a clue! lol.

You people are frak'in nuts, there are thousands of people who are being sued you just never hear about it. Check the copyright website or, God forbid, go to the court houses in your areas and check on the subject matter of who is getting in trouble for what. You did know that was possible didnt you? So many people on this site are experts, so many people think stealing is okay and that downloading from BT wont get them caught. I think most of those people also have posters of Neo on the wall and wear long trench coats all the time. People, you may get away with doing it now and might even get away with it for years but eventually it will catch up to you. Just my opinion again, but I love how the nerds and weak minded will find the need to cut and paste my comments mixed with their oh so enlightened comments. Sheesh people, cant a guy just talk some shit without people acting all gay about it? You are going to be caught for something

Quote:

---

You people are frak'in nuts, there are thousands of people who are being sued you just never hear about it.

---

Not for downloading, not thyousands, not hundreds, not one. You are confusing uploading (distributing), placing onto the net with downloading, taking from the net.

Quote:

---

but I love how the nerds and weak minded

---

If you are being mocked for coming to a tech oriented site and confusing downloading with uploading you have no one to blame but yourself. Don't get so upset at bing corrected fpr obviuos mistakes and lack of knowledge. 100% of people who use the internet dowload copyright material they have no rights to. You most likly have thousands of times. That is the reason why NO ONE, EVER has been sued for downloading.

well you know even if some one gets caught and fined they can still file the bill in the old trash can.

If someone payed a $1.00 for the mp3 track they downloaded it belongs to them,regardless of what are law states.They have the right to do what ever they want with data if they make a copy or upload it to a freind thats there right,they own it!

Quote:

---

hey have the right to do what ever they want with data if they make a copy or upload it to a freind thats there right,they own it!

---

No, they don't. They have a right to own the song and listen to it as many times as they want. But they don't own the copyright, hence they don't have the right to copy/distribute it however they please..

Fair use, which applies to all users, allows certain uses that would otherwise be illegal infringements of the copyright owner’s rights. For example, limited quotations of an excerpt from a work in a review or a news report are generally seen as constituting “fair use.” Fair use may also be found when the use is for purposes as criticism, comment, scholarship, research, or teaching. There is, however, no simple black-and-white test. The Fair Use provision of the law sets out four factors a court must consider in determining whether uses for these purposes may be judged “fair”: Purpose and character of the use—(e.g., commercial or educational?) Nature of the work—(epic poem, song, limerick, novel, opera?) Amount and substantiality of the portion used—(how much is being copied and how important is the copied material to the work?) Effect on the potential market for or value of the work—(is the monetary value of the work hurt by the unauthorized use?) These four factors are listed in the law itself; in 1967 and again in 1975, legislators asked for help from the field (including the organizations that sponsor this document) to develop guidelines to help teachers and others analyze these factors. Those guidelines appear as Appendix B and Appendix C (on music and on books, respectively). Based on this legislative compromise, the intent of the law seems to be that music educators can do several things, without having secured permission of the copyright owner: Make a copy of a lost part in an emergency, if it is replaced with a purchased part in due course Make one copy per student of up to 10% of a musical work for class study as long as that 10% does not constitute a performable unit Make a single recording of a student performance for study and for the school’s archive Make a single recording of aural exercises or tests using copyrighted material Make up to three copies to replace a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, stolen from a public library or archive (or if the existing format has become obsolete, and if, after reasonable effort by the library/archive, an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price) Make one copy of a short verbal or a graphic work for teacher’s use in preparation for or during a class The following, however, are expressly prohibited: Copying to avoid purchase Copying music for any kind of performance (but note the emergency exception above) Copying without including a copyright notice Copying to create anthologies or compilations Reproducing materials designed to be consumable (such as workbooks, standardized tests, and answer sheets) Charging students beyond the actual cost involved in making copies as permitted above

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

:hey have the right to do what ever they want with data if they make a copy or upload it to a freind thats there right,they own it!

---

No, they don't. They have a right to own the song and listen to it as many times as they want. But they don't own the copyright, hence they don't have the right to copy/distribute it however they please..

---

whoa. this is not accurate in many cases. Firsly in almost all cases you do have a right to copy it as you please. On distribution, you would not have the right to unlimited distribvution but you probably CAN sell a legally downloaded track. Even if you agreed to non transfer then it might be o.k. Since almost all media, software, entertainment content does indeed fall under a legally defined and tested right to resell the material "right of first sale," you may be ok if you do not send via the net in a way that multiple users could capture the data. On downloaded songs like iTunes, the answer is: it is unknown. There was a case where a guy placed an itune on eBay aboout two years ago order to invoke a test case. Ebay removed it due to their own policy, but there was an extensivet thread on slashdot as well as coverage by cnet which came to teh conclusin that this would need to be tested in court to see if the Apple EULA actually did forbid it and if so, trumped Right of First Sale. It is not a practical thing therefore there is no market, but there is no concensus it is illegal.

Quote:

---

you would not have the right to unlimited distribvution but you probably CAN sell a legally downloaded track

---

Naw, can't be right.. How does the origional artist gain compensation for their work?

Quote:

---

Naw, can't be right.. How does the origional artist gain compensation for their work?

---

LOL. This is basic established court tested copyright. The answere the courts have already held is they gain it from the first sale. what right would they have to get a penny from th original purchaser selling the used product? The artist/distributer copyright holder can't claim you can't resell a DVD or demand you give them any of the money. You do understand that If I wish to sell my you a DVD, book, painting I have bought, the copyright holder, distrubtor, artist, have nothing to say about it. If you wish to sell it to a third party, and that third party sells to a fourth party etc, the original seller has nothign to say aboutit and is not entitled to a dime either. In the case of purchased dowloaded songs it is a CERTAINTY that the right exists to sell the herd drive or memorystick with the songs on it. The only open question is whether if you remove your copy from the hard drive whether you can resell it. The liklyhood is you can.

Aw, sorry, read your statement wrong :S You can sell a legally downloaded track, as long as, like you say, you don't keep a backup of it for yourself..

Lethal there was a funny attempt to find out what the limits of resellign an iTunes would be when blegal blogger tried to conduct n experiment by posting an itumes on ebay. It was slashdotted I think in 2004. Unfortunatrly eBay pulled it due to their EULA before the track could be publically sold and apple asked to comment.