• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Ever download mp3s "illegally"?

TheRookie

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
I'll add the contrarian view to Brian's comments. I was an undergrad during the height of Napster (1996-2000). I didn't have a single friend who bought a single CD during the entire period. I did, however, have many friends who downloaded 2-3000 songs during that period and a few who quit buying movie tickets as well, opting to watch pirated early cuts over the web. A lot of these same kids bought 3 or 4 CDs a week during high school, so at least in my small sample, downloading eliminated a lot of CD purchases.
 

alaaro

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Maybe I am misinformed, but I thought I heard that people who only download, and do not share are getting sued now? Is that wrong? I would love to start DLing again, when I was, I was only sharing video clips (sports, commercials, music videos, etc), but I stopped since I heard downloaders are getting busted, even if they dont share.
 

mofo

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
honestly, since i started downloading mp3's i haven't bought an album...i am also a starving college student....
wink.gif
...
 

Brian SD

Moderator
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
128
honestly, since i started downloading mp3's i haven't bought an album...i am also a starving college student....
wink.gif
...
how many albums did you buy before you started downloading? one-five per week? one-five per month? one-five per year?
 

Dakota rube

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
237
I have not studied the demographics of p2p users, but I'm guessing I am at the far end of the "old" spectrum. I have always owned a lot of recorded music (when I was in college I had over 1,000 lps). Nevertheless, I found I had stopped buying music. When I first discovered Napster, and then LimeWire, I browsed a lot and downloaded a little. But I also noticed I was spending a lot more time in record stores buying cds or at the library checking out new music. I'm guessing that I am probably spending more now on cds (adjusted for inflation) than I ever did in the heyday of my music acquistion phase. I am willing to wager, however, that members of younger generations, who've always had p2p sharing at their disposal, don't spend nearly much on recorded music than mine ever did.
 

hopkins_student

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
3,164
Reaction score
176
I agree with Brian on this one, the amount of music that I purchase has definitely not decreased in the wake of file-sharing software. However, the amount of bad music I buy has decreased substantially. I no longer buy a CD for only one song if the rest of it sucks, instead that money might be used for buying a CD with songs I consistently like, just none I like as much as the first single. Strangely enough, it seems like it's the really bad artists that are the ones so strongly opposed to file sharing. Their business certainly has suffered as I no longer purchase on the basis of a single song. I'm looking at the stack of CDs/SACDs next to my computer, and they're almost all artists I started listening to by downloading MP3s, and because I liked their music I purchased the full disc. Several of these discs include Journey's Greatest Hits and Mile's Davis's Kind of Blue SACDs and the Ray soundtrack.
 

Dakota rube

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
237
Strangely enough, it seems like it's the really bad artists that are the ones so strongly opposed to file sharing.
Is this similar to how only really ugly women truly believed in the free love movement? (From my own personal experience, at least)

Seriously though, h_s, I think you've captured the essence of my experience. I can't remember the last disc I bought that was relegated to the trade-in pile. That certainly wasn't the case before p2p.
 

alaaro

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Sorry to post this again, but the posts kind of took off on a tangent, and I didnt get any responses...

Does anyone know if the RIAA is targeting people who only download and do not share? Is that considered illegal to DL if you arent sharing?

Thanks.
 

ken

Banned by Request
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
80
I think p2p downloading is good the way it is. My opinion hasn't changed a bit. Artists don't lose jack from having mp3s shared on the internet. The amount of music I buy (and all of my friends) did not decrease due to music downloading. In fact, it seems the more music I download, the more music I buy.

If record companies seriously think that every time I download an album, they lost money because I would have bought it, they are smoking crack. No way could I, or would I ever make blind purchases of albums of all the bands I am interested in hearing. Either I download a lot of music and get to hear a lot of music easily on my computer, or I don't download a lot of music and have to search for other means to hear the music (mixtapes, etc).
There's plenty of places to get free samples of bands legally. Amazon.com, mp3.com, etc. etc. Just because you and your friends buy more music since the dawn of file sharing doesn't mean everybody does. One of my buddies, who claims to be neck deep in scenes from here to Indiana, hasn't purchased a real record from a real store in probably two years.

It's a wonderful test of morality, I think. Here we have an opportunity to do something that is clearly wrong (benefiting from the work of others with no reciprocation) with absolutely no consequences. Forget about music or how the industry reacts to file sharing (which seems to be pumping out bands with people who look good on t-shirts and in videos), let's think about if this is really helping us toward goodness. Not to mention the fact that now any trio of Saliva-listening geeks can record a record in their basement, share it with all their friends, and claim to be a band w/o touring or sleeping on floors and eating MacDonald's three times a day.

Ever notice how venues have to have a decently-known act to get anybody to come out? Nobody goes just to check out a few bands anymore; they can do that at a much lower volume while eating potatoe chips at their computer. Sure, Postal Service and Cursive shows are always crowded, but nobody's there to check out My Other Car is a Kayak or Over and Over. Ugh...when did this scene get filled w/such elitist jerks?.

(Post has veered quite off topic, sometimes so subtely it's hard to notice. I'm not implying Brian is an elitist jerk.)
 

hopkins_student

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
3,164
Reaction score
176
There's plenty of places to get free samples of bands legally. Amazon.com, mp3.com, etc. etc. Just because you and your friends buy more music since the dawn of file sharing doesn't mean everybody does. One of my buddies, who claims to be neck deep in scenes from here to Indiana, hasn't purchased a real record from a real store in probably two years.

It's a wonderful test of morality, I think. Here we have an opportunity to do something that is clearly wrong (benefiting from the work of others with no reciprocation) with absolutely no consequences. Forget about music or how the industry reacts to file sharing (which seems to be pumping out bands with people who look good on t-shirts and in videos), let's think about if this is really helping us toward goodness. Not to mention the fact that now any trio of Saliva-listening geeks can record a record in their basement, share it with all their friends, and claim to be a band w/o touring or sleeping on floors and eating MacDonald's three times a day.

Ever notice how venues have to have a decently-known act to get anybody to come out? Nobody goes just to check out a few bands anymore; they can do that at a much lower volume while eating potatoe chips at their computer. Sure, Postal Service and Cursive shows are always crowded, but nobody's there to check out My Other Car is a Kayak or Over and Over. Ugh...when did this scene get filled w/such elitist jerks?.

(Post has veered quite off topic, sometimes so subtely it's hard to notice. I'm not implying Brian is an elitist jerk.)
Well, you can make the argument commonly used in economics and say that if you weren't going to purchase the disc in the first place, downloading it doesn't cause any harm. It is the same argument used to explain how moonlighting and selling items without sales tax isn't necessarily bad if the customer(s) wouldn't have made the purchases in the presence of taxes.

Of course, I've said that I've stopped buying pop-trash discs for one song, and started buying real music. In the end, the volume of purchases remains the same, but it has shifted from the pop-crap artists to the real musicians, at the expense of the pop-crap artists.
 

Dakota rube

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
237
Does anyone know if the RIAA is targeting people who only download and do not share? Is that considered illegal to DL if you arent sharing?
It is illegal to possess mp3 file of a song you have not purchased, unless it was offered as a free sample, etc.; clearly a violation of U.S. intellectual property laws. Although I don't think the RIAA is focusing their efforts on people who are "only" downloading.
 

alaaro

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Thanks Dakota. I am debating rolling the dice and beginning to DL again.
 

Brian SD

Moderator
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
128
There's plenty of places to get free samples of bands legally. Amazon.com, mp3.com, etc. etc. Just because you and your friends buy more music since the dawn of file sharing doesn't mean everybody does. One of my buddies, who claims to be neck deep in scenes from here to Indiana, hasn't purchased a real record from a real store in probably two years.
I don't do the "free samples" things, because it's just not enough for me. I have to hear the album. If I can't hear the whole album by downloading it online, I'll get a friend to copy his CD for me and watch my CD case grow and grow and grow.
It's a wonderful test of morality, I think. Here we have an opportunity to do something that is clearly wrong (benefiting from the work of others with no reciprocation) with absolutely no consequences. Forget about music or how the industry reacts to file sharing (which seems to be pumping out bands with people who look good on t-shirts and in videos), let's think about if this is really helping us toward goodness. Not to mention the fact that now any trio of Saliva-listening geeks can record a record in their basement, share it with all their friends, and claim to be a band w/o touring or sleeping on floors and eating MacDonald's three times a day.
I agree here, but it sounds preachy to make the assumption that all being in a band is about is touring, sleeping on the floor in a creepy guy's house, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a song in your basement and sharing it with your friends - that's how it all starts. As for the test of morality - I care not how my habits bring me towards goodness, I only care about how my habits bring me towards good music. There are two kinds of people here, really: those who like a band after they're gained notoriety, or those who create the notoriety for the band. I consider myself one of the latter, and it appears that you would as well, but I am not quite as frustrated with the entropy in the music industry. It is sad that not many people go to the bar just to check out what bands are playing that night, but the truth is not many people ever did. File sharing is just one medium for many people to gain free access to music - if it weren't there, my closet would be overflowing with mixtapes and copies. Maybe the Postal Service (or whatever monstrosity Mr. Gibbard happens to be cranking out) wouldn't be the band that's popular, but some other horrible band surely would have taken its place, and people would still be showing up to shows half-way through the last opener's set. I am dedicated to my obsession, and I will *always* personally hand a band member $15 for their CD so they can pay for gas before I go to the record store and get it for $3 cheaper. I will drive down to the bar during a show night just to see whats happening, or on a blind recommendation. I would consider this far from being an elitist jerk, and those who sit in front of their computer with a bag of potato chips are not elitist jerks either, they're losers. I am sorry about those who never ever buy music now that they can download it, but I just don't care. I am too happy with the state things are in and the fact that my friend can tell me about the new demos he heard from some Canadian Beach Boys-influenced experimental band and I can usually hear it the same day, because there are bound to be a couple freaks who have it in their shared directory before I do. This post is pure rambling. I agree with most of your sentiments but disagree with your file sharing perspective
smile.gif
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,162
Messages
10,579,087
Members
223,884
Latest member
mickspilloto
Top