You can't do that these days, you need to sign your soul over to the RIAA if you want to get published.forgivin said:
Upvote
0
Your Thoughts On Kazaa
- Thread starter Phleace
- Start date
burrow_owl
Senior Contributor
- Aug 17, 2003
- 8,561
- 381
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
"And while youre at it you fund the project with your own money."
most of the bands i like and most of the bands i know do just that. most of em lose money on cds and make it back by performance.
that's interesting that you didn't address my initial point, which is that most pop music doesn't have sufficient quanta of originality. i'll take that as concession.
most of the bands i like and most of the bands i know do just that. most of em lose money on cds and make it back by performance.
that's interesting that you didn't address my initial point, which is that most pop music doesn't have sufficient quanta of originality. i'll take that as concession.
Upvote
0
forgivin
Christian, Gamer, DJ
- Oct 6, 2003
- 366
- 20
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The reason I didn't address that was because you find unoriginality in all music genres. But it all boils down to personal opinions. Your opinion of original music may differ dramatically from my opinion. I addressed the fact that no matter how bad it is, you shouldn't get it for free unless the owner of that song wants it to be for free. If a song were so bad then why would anybody want it? And if you only get songs that you think are original why wouldn't you buy it so the owner of the song get what they deserve for making such an original song?burrow_owl said:
Upvote
0
burrow_owl
Senior Contributor
- Aug 17, 2003
- 8,561
- 381
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
"But it all boils down to personal opinions."
no, not really. There about 4 or 5 progressions that are continually recycled. append progression y onto x for a chorus, and you got yourself a pop song. that's not even close to the kind of creativity evinced in other media. This collage method of composition has been recognized as a challenge to the very notion of originality in every other medium. absurd. note: i didn't say anything about bad or good; just original/not original. If i do a cover version of some song, it can be very enjoyable while obviously not being original.
"you shouldn't get it for free unless the owner of that song wants it to be for free."
that's not how it works with copyright. the ability to charge and restrict rights is directly moored to the originality of the piece; so we can drop the good/bad concept and the free/charge (that latter argument), since both are irrelevant.
the only question is whether there's a modicum of creativity. I say no. I could make program a graphing calculator to write pop songs - it seems to me that you couldn't do that with any other form of art in which there is actual creativity.
this may be a mistaken way of thinking about it, but you'll have to help me see how. intuitively, i could see why one would disagree with that (if a graphing calculator could replicate it, how original could it possibly be?), but i can't seem to flesh the objection out.
oh yeah: i'm just talking about your basic pop music, not jazz or classical or minimalism (that's a whole other thing that'd be fun to go through, though)
no, not really. There about 4 or 5 progressions that are continually recycled. append progression y onto x for a chorus, and you got yourself a pop song. that's not even close to the kind of creativity evinced in other media. This collage method of composition has been recognized as a challenge to the very notion of originality in every other medium. absurd. note: i didn't say anything about bad or good; just original/not original. If i do a cover version of some song, it can be very enjoyable while obviously not being original.
"you shouldn't get it for free unless the owner of that song wants it to be for free."
that's not how it works with copyright. the ability to charge and restrict rights is directly moored to the originality of the piece; so we can drop the good/bad concept and the free/charge (that latter argument), since both are irrelevant.
the only question is whether there's a modicum of creativity. I say no. I could make program a graphing calculator to write pop songs - it seems to me that you couldn't do that with any other form of art in which there is actual creativity.
this may be a mistaken way of thinking about it, but you'll have to help me see how. intuitively, i could see why one would disagree with that (if a graphing calculator could replicate it, how original could it possibly be?), but i can't seem to flesh the objection out.
oh yeah: i'm just talking about your basic pop music, not jazz or classical or minimalism (that's a whole other thing that'd be fun to go through, though)
Upvote
0
Well... I think Kazaa is just not as safe..... new law passwed to track people who download MP3's and Movie Files, and then fine them up to 15,000 Dollars, Just not worth Risking, besides the risk... there's too much spyware and slows down your startup at times.
Upvote
0
forgivin
Christian, Gamer, DJ
- Oct 6, 2003
- 366
- 20
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
burrow_owl said:
You seem to take music to serious for me to understand. I hear cover songs all the time and you can hear a performers original style all in that song. Van Halen doing Roy's Pretty Woman, Aerosmith doing the Beatles Come Together, Whitney Houston doing Dolly Partons I Always Love You, Run DMC doing Aerosmiths Walk This Way, and on and on, all the way to todays stuff.
Yes I can, my son took a picture of a bush with flowers and loaded it into Photoshop and now it looks like a painting worth thousands of dollars.
Do you know why Pop sells more than independent music? I say its because most people don't care who wrote it, who did it first, who can do it better, they are just happy hearing something they like. If they didn't like it they wouldnt listen to it, let along downloaded it or buy it.
Upvote
0
lunachick
Well-Known Member
That's not what burrow_owl is saying. I don't think you quite understand what he means. The above examples you give of cover songs are all authorised uses of copyright, and royalties would have been paid to whoever owns the copyright.forgivin said:
What burrow_owl is saying is that an original song is not all that original in many cases. Remember The Rolling Stones suing Verve a few years back for their song "Bittersweet Symphony", because it sampled a symphonic remake of the Rolling Stones' "The Last Time". Now had the Verve not sampled it, but emulated it pretty closely, they may still have been sued by the Rolling Stones for plagarism even though the Stones built their careers on emulating Robert Johnson, Wille Dixon, John Lee Hooker and Bo Diddley!
Anyway, being the post-modern nihilist that I am, I agree with burrow_owl in that there is very little that is truly original. It's all been done before, man.
That said, copyright infringement is theft.
Upvote
0
Quite aside from the copyright issue, Kazaa and other programs like it come along with adware and spyware that could be just annoying or can cause real problems for your computer. Nothing is free.
Upvote
0
Palatka44
Unabashedly Baptist
- Jul 22, 2003
- 1,908
- 94
- 67
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Everyone in the music industry should get real jobs and lets get back to every family coming together on the front pourch making and singing songs of the folk variety. It is afterall the driving force of the hip-hop fair. With todays technology it would be simple to mix your own style.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
In regards to the music industry,
I think the real issue here is the big record companies do not want to relinquish their control over the power/ability to promote some musicians/artists and therefore justify why they should get top $$$(%) of the CD revenue.
Online music sites may be a solution where listeners can download the song/music in mp3 format (very small size) after sampling and payng for it. This means more opportunities exists for those >thousands++ of artists who did not make it to the major recording studios. It cuts out the middle man and the cost per CD/music file(s) is significantly lower & more reasonable (which listeners would pay to support their fav. artists). Consequently artists should get more for their creative work.
hxxp://3w.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000375.html
Where the Money Goes
Terry Fisher's data on where the $18 paid for a typical music CD goes: $7.00 to the retailer, $1.50 to the distributor, $9.31 for record company expenses (including performer and composer royalties of $2.85), and $0.19 for record company profit.
Interesting point:
A Musician's Take on File Sharing, DRM, and Copyleft Licensing
written by Miriam Rainsford: a composer, singer and songwriter in classical, electroacoustic and underground dance music.
hxxp://news.dmusic.com/article/6867
excerpts
Musicians are often unwilling to speak out against the tight constraints of their record labels, afraid of biting the hand that feeds. But an increasing number of artists are embracing the changes in digital technology as a potential revolution which may free them from the shackles of the commercial record industry
....
However, regardless of one's position either for or against P2P, it's clear that file sharing has indeed proved a direct threat to the establishment, as it decentralises control.
....
We as musicians are tired of being subject to the whims of middlemen, who take a greater cut from our earnings than is reasonable. Like the mediaeval peasants, we are seeking change and revolution - but when musicians revolt, they do so with creative flair. We are exploring solutions such as mediAgora and copyleft licensing as a means by which we can return the balance of power to where it rightly belongs, with those who create the music.
Example of an online music site that allows artists to broadly distribute and promote their work.
hxxp://3w.mp3.com/
I think the real issue here is the big record companies do not want to relinquish their control over the power/ability to promote some musicians/artists and therefore justify why they should get top $$$(%) of the CD revenue.
Online music sites may be a solution where listeners can download the song/music in mp3 format (very small size) after sampling and payng for it. This means more opportunities exists for those >thousands++ of artists who did not make it to the major recording studios. It cuts out the middle man and the cost per CD/music file(s) is significantly lower & more reasonable (which listeners would pay to support their fav. artists). Consequently artists should get more for their creative work.
hxxp://3w.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000375.html
Where the Money Goes
Terry Fisher's data on where the $18 paid for a typical music CD goes: $7.00 to the retailer, $1.50 to the distributor, $9.31 for record company expenses (including performer and composer royalties of $2.85), and $0.19 for record company profit.
Interesting point:
A Musician's Take on File Sharing, DRM, and Copyleft Licensing
written by Miriam Rainsford: a composer, singer and songwriter in classical, electroacoustic and underground dance music.
hxxp://news.dmusic.com/article/6867
excerpts
Musicians are often unwilling to speak out against the tight constraints of their record labels, afraid of biting the hand that feeds. But an increasing number of artists are embracing the changes in digital technology as a potential revolution which may free them from the shackles of the commercial record industry
....
However, regardless of one's position either for or against P2P, it's clear that file sharing has indeed proved a direct threat to the establishment, as it decentralises control.
....
We as musicians are tired of being subject to the whims of middlemen, who take a greater cut from our earnings than is reasonable. Like the mediaeval peasants, we are seeking change and revolution - but when musicians revolt, they do so with creative flair. We are exploring solutions such as mediAgora and copyleft licensing as a means by which we can return the balance of power to where it rightly belongs, with those who create the music.
Example of an online music site that allows artists to broadly distribute and promote their work.
hxxp://3w.mp3.com/
Upvote
0
I've been observing this thread for a few days now, and I've decided to toss in my 2 cents.
First, if a band says that it's fine by them if download their songs off Kazaa or something, by all means do so. Do it until you're blue in the face if you want to.
However, if the band doesn't say that, the law of the country says something else. It's wrong. It doesn't say, "it's okay if you do it for testing the music". It plain out says it's wrong. If you download music that the band has not given you permission to download, you are a breaking a law. No argument. If you choose to argue against that, then to be blunt, all laws are worthless to you.
Now what's up with people complaining about these "high" CD prices? You guys are paying $18 for a CD!?! Either you are just trying to justify your actions by saying that(most likely), or you have no clue where to buy a CD. Go to Wal*Mart or Best Buy. CDs are never over $15 there, and they generally are only $13. Don't have a Wal*Mart or Best Buy around? Buy off Amazon.com or Half.com or eBay. If you are paying $18 for a CD... that's your problem.
What's up with all this, "the author/band is stealing from me by charging high prices". Since when is it your place to decide what is and isn't a high price? If I say a Corvett is high priced, does that mean it is? No. This is just a lame way of trying to justify breaking the law.
When you go to a store and buy a CD or software program, what are you buying? A disc? No. You are buying rights to use or listen to the data on the disc. Therefore, distrubuting the data not on a CD, such as via Kazaa, is no different than stealing a CD with the data on it off a store shelf.
What about the "I'm gonna use it for now and will buy it when I get the money" deal? Sorry guys, but that's still stealing. The law says plain and simple, "no" to that. It doesn't say, "it's legal to have as long as you plan to pay for it in the future".
I do disagree with the amount of money from a CD sale is given to the retailer. However, who am I to say that's wrong? When an artist signs onto a label, they know very well how much of a profit they will make off each CD. Besides... I've never studied just how much it costs a retailer to stock the enormas amounts of CDs that they do stock. $6 going to the retailer for a CD sale may actually be what they need to stock hundreds, often thousands, of CDs.
To sum up the music thing... if the artist is okay with you doing what you are doing with their music, great. If they have a problem with what you are doing, you should stop doing it(within reason of course, an artist saying everyone should buy their CD is exempt from this).
As for software... I would encourage people that think software costs too much to look into alternatives. If I were to buy the "standard" programs for the stuff that I do on my computer, I would have around $2000 worth of software. But instead, I use free alternatives, or less costly alternatives. As it is, I have $200 worth of software total. Everything else is free. Now if you can't afford something like MS Office but you must have it for some class at school or something, get the student edition($150) or buy it off eBay.
The amount of Christians these days out there pirating music/software/movies is sad. They are two-faced. They talk about following the Bible but fail to follow one of the simpliest commands in it. "Do not steal". No wonder so many non-Christians consider Christians as two-faced. It's because so many Christians are. No amount of justifying something in your mind makes it right. Breaking a law is breaking a law. And breaking a law is wrong. Duh.
osm
First, if a band says that it's fine by them if download their songs off Kazaa or something, by all means do so. Do it until you're blue in the face if you want to.
However, if the band doesn't say that, the law of the country says something else. It's wrong. It doesn't say, "it's okay if you do it for testing the music". It plain out says it's wrong. If you download music that the band has not given you permission to download, you are a breaking a law. No argument. If you choose to argue against that, then to be blunt, all laws are worthless to you.
Now what's up with people complaining about these "high" CD prices? You guys are paying $18 for a CD!?! Either you are just trying to justify your actions by saying that(most likely), or you have no clue where to buy a CD. Go to Wal*Mart or Best Buy. CDs are never over $15 there, and they generally are only $13. Don't have a Wal*Mart or Best Buy around? Buy off Amazon.com or Half.com or eBay. If you are paying $18 for a CD... that's your problem.
What's up with all this, "the author/band is stealing from me by charging high prices". Since when is it your place to decide what is and isn't a high price? If I say a Corvett is high priced, does that mean it is? No. This is just a lame way of trying to justify breaking the law.
When you go to a store and buy a CD or software program, what are you buying? A disc? No. You are buying rights to use or listen to the data on the disc. Therefore, distrubuting the data not on a CD, such as via Kazaa, is no different than stealing a CD with the data on it off a store shelf.
What about the "I'm gonna use it for now and will buy it when I get the money" deal? Sorry guys, but that's still stealing. The law says plain and simple, "no" to that. It doesn't say, "it's legal to have as long as you plan to pay for it in the future".
I do disagree with the amount of money from a CD sale is given to the retailer. However, who am I to say that's wrong? When an artist signs onto a label, they know very well how much of a profit they will make off each CD. Besides... I've never studied just how much it costs a retailer to stock the enormas amounts of CDs that they do stock. $6 going to the retailer for a CD sale may actually be what they need to stock hundreds, often thousands, of CDs.
To sum up the music thing... if the artist is okay with you doing what you are doing with their music, great. If they have a problem with what you are doing, you should stop doing it(within reason of course, an artist saying everyone should buy their CD is exempt from this).
As for software... I would encourage people that think software costs too much to look into alternatives. If I were to buy the "standard" programs for the stuff that I do on my computer, I would have around $2000 worth of software. But instead, I use free alternatives, or less costly alternatives. As it is, I have $200 worth of software total. Everything else is free. Now if you can't afford something like MS Office but you must have it for some class at school or something, get the student edition($150) or buy it off eBay.
The amount of Christians these days out there pirating music/software/movies is sad. They are two-faced. They talk about following the Bible but fail to follow one of the simpliest commands in it. "Do not steal". No wonder so many non-Christians consider Christians as two-faced. It's because so many Christians are. No amount of justifying something in your mind makes it right. Breaking a law is breaking a law. And breaking a law is wrong. Duh.
osm
Upvote
0
I think we should follow the advice of this article...
STAY OUT OF COURT – USE LEGAL 'SHARING'
The Recording Industry Association of America has filed 300 lawsuits against alleged file swappers. Don't want to become victim number 301? Then it's time to switch from programs like Kazaa and Morpheus to a legal music download service. Below are the options that will help keep your life free of lawsuits. Also, songs purchased on legal services are more reliably of a higher quality than those downloaded from a peer-to-peer network where you're never quite sure if the file was properly labelled, ripped on an underperforming computer or contained a virus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emusic.com
The good: Offers songs in the MP3 format; diverse catalog of independent labels; works on any platform.
The bad: Restricts the number of songs you can download per month; you must download and install a separate app; no popular commercial recordings; can't stream music.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: You can choose 40 downloads for $9.99 or 65 downloads for $14.99.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressplay.com
The good: Unlimited downloads and unrestricted streams; music transfer to many portable players; speedy burning now powered by Roxio.
The bad: Somewhat pricey burns; a streamed song doesn't begin to play until all of it is buffered; no Mac version.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: $9.95 a month gives you unlimited streaming and downloading (but not burning), $17.95 a month adds 10 burnable downloads, and $179.40 a year allows unlimited streaming and downloading plus 120 burnable downloads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MusicNet.com
The good: Pretty, ad-free interface.
The bad: Must subscribe to and run AOL; slow searches; hard-to-manage playlists; streaming delays; poorly organized.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: For $3.95 a month, you can download (but not burn) 20 songs and stream 20 more; $8.95 gives you unlimited downloads and streams; and for $17.95 you can also burn 10 songs per month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iTunes.com
The good: Easy to browse, search, and buy music; no subscription fee; no extra costs for burning or moving tunes; uses AAC format; excellent integration with iTunes; fast, dependable downloads; can play files on up to three Macs.
The bad: Little information about artists and tracks; music transfer restrictions; not enough classical-music offerings.
Search: 400,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MusicMatch.com
The good: All-in-one player, ripper, encoder, burner, online radio receiver, music manager, MP3 player loader, and download service; secure songs transfer to MP3 players; streamlined interface; supports Universal Plug and Play devices.
The bad: Some performance problems; limited community features.
Search: 250,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen.com
The good: Attractive and intuitive interface; rich biographical information on artists; radio stations allow you to skip songs; lets you access your music from any Web-connected PC.
The bad: Cheapest plan won't let you download songs; can't save songs to portable players.
Search: 330,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BuyMusic.com
The good: No subscription fee; zippy downloads.
The bad: Inconsistent pricing and usage rules; limited catalog; downloaded music tied to one computer; still no transferring to portable devices.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Napster.com
The good: Easy to use; currently offers a larger catalog than the competition; lets you browse other users' music; unlimited burning of purchased tracks; tracks play on any device that supports secure WMA files.
The bad: Windows 2000/XP only; some performance issues; downloaded music tied to one computer; contains a few mislabeled files.
Search: 500,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimp3.com
The good: Offers songs in the MP3 format; easy interface; no subscription fee; unlimited burning of purchased tracks.
The bad: Several hours wait for order; no information about artists; can't stream music.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: Complete albums from $1.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN.co.uk
The good: Easy, ad-free interface; no subscription fee.
The bad: music can be played only with Windows Media Player; service is available only for UK, France and Germany.
Search: 250,000 songs
Pricing: 0.99 euro per track (about $1.10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid.com
The good: Nice clean interface; good content; AAC ripping.
The bad: Need permissions; can't save songs to portable players.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other "pay-to-play" services include:
aolmusic.com, audiocandy.com, bestbuy.com, bet.com, catsmusic.com, circuitcity.com, collegeconcerts.com, cornercd.com, dimple.com, dothehole.com, earwax.com, efetus.com, exitosmusical.com, facethemusic.com, fullaudio.com, fye.com, galleryofsound.com, independentrecord.com, instavid.com, latinoise.com, burnitfirst.com, mainstreetmusic.com, millenniummusic.com, miramag.com, mp3.com, mtv.com, musicmillennium.com, musicrebellion.com, netscape.com/music, newworldrecord.com, phillysoulclassics.com, qhut.com, rasputinmusic.com, recordandtapetraders.com, rollingstone.com, samgoody.com, spinner.com, streamwaves.com, tophitsmusic.com, towerrecords.com, windowsmedia.com.
STAY OUT OF COURT – USE LEGAL 'SHARING'
The Recording Industry Association of America has filed 300 lawsuits against alleged file swappers. Don't want to become victim number 301? Then it's time to switch from programs like Kazaa and Morpheus to a legal music download service. Below are the options that will help keep your life free of lawsuits. Also, songs purchased on legal services are more reliably of a higher quality than those downloaded from a peer-to-peer network where you're never quite sure if the file was properly labelled, ripped on an underperforming computer or contained a virus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emusic.com
The good: Offers songs in the MP3 format; diverse catalog of independent labels; works on any platform.
The bad: Restricts the number of songs you can download per month; you must download and install a separate app; no popular commercial recordings; can't stream music.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: You can choose 40 downloads for $9.99 or 65 downloads for $14.99.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressplay.com
The good: Unlimited downloads and unrestricted streams; music transfer to many portable players; speedy burning now powered by Roxio.
The bad: Somewhat pricey burns; a streamed song doesn't begin to play until all of it is buffered; no Mac version.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: $9.95 a month gives you unlimited streaming and downloading (but not burning), $17.95 a month adds 10 burnable downloads, and $179.40 a year allows unlimited streaming and downloading plus 120 burnable downloads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MusicNet.com
The good: Pretty, ad-free interface.
The bad: Must subscribe to and run AOL; slow searches; hard-to-manage playlists; streaming delays; poorly organized.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: For $3.95 a month, you can download (but not burn) 20 songs and stream 20 more; $8.95 gives you unlimited downloads and streams; and for $17.95 you can also burn 10 songs per month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iTunes.com
The good: Easy to browse, search, and buy music; no subscription fee; no extra costs for burning or moving tunes; uses AAC format; excellent integration with iTunes; fast, dependable downloads; can play files on up to three Macs.
The bad: Little information about artists and tracks; music transfer restrictions; not enough classical-music offerings.
Search: 400,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MusicMatch.com
The good: All-in-one player, ripper, encoder, burner, online radio receiver, music manager, MP3 player loader, and download service; secure songs transfer to MP3 players; streamlined interface; supports Universal Plug and Play devices.
The bad: Some performance problems; limited community features.
Search: 250,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen.com
The good: Attractive and intuitive interface; rich biographical information on artists; radio stations allow you to skip songs; lets you access your music from any Web-connected PC.
The bad: Cheapest plan won't let you download songs; can't save songs to portable players.
Search: 330,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BuyMusic.com
The good: No subscription fee; zippy downloads.
The bad: Inconsistent pricing and usage rules; limited catalog; downloaded music tied to one computer; still no transferring to portable devices.
Search: 300,000 songs
Pricing: $0.79 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Napster.com
The good: Easy to use; currently offers a larger catalog than the competition; lets you browse other users' music; unlimited burning of purchased tracks; tracks play on any device that supports secure WMA files.
The bad: Windows 2000/XP only; some performance issues; downloaded music tied to one computer; contains a few mislabeled files.
Search: 500,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimp3.com
The good: Offers songs in the MP3 format; easy interface; no subscription fee; unlimited burning of purchased tracks.
The bad: Several hours wait for order; no information about artists; can't stream music.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: Complete albums from $1.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN.co.uk
The good: Easy, ad-free interface; no subscription fee.
The bad: music can be played only with Windows Media Player; service is available only for UK, France and Germany.
Search: 250,000 songs
Pricing: 0.99 euro per track (about $1.10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid.com
The good: Nice clean interface; good content; AAC ripping.
The bad: Need permissions; can't save songs to portable players.
Search: 200,000 songs
Pricing: $0.99 per track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other "pay-to-play" services include:
aolmusic.com, audiocandy.com, bestbuy.com, bet.com, catsmusic.com, circuitcity.com, collegeconcerts.com, cornercd.com, dimple.com, dothehole.com, earwax.com, efetus.com, exitosmusical.com, facethemusic.com, fullaudio.com, fye.com, galleryofsound.com, independentrecord.com, instavid.com, latinoise.com, burnitfirst.com, mainstreetmusic.com, millenniummusic.com, miramag.com, mp3.com, mtv.com, musicmillennium.com, musicrebellion.com, netscape.com/music, newworldrecord.com, phillysoulclassics.com, qhut.com, rasputinmusic.com, recordandtapetraders.com, rollingstone.com, samgoody.com, spinner.com, streamwaves.com, tophitsmusic.com, towerrecords.com, windowsmedia.com.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
snoopyloopysk8a
#1 Stunna
If the person is like me, then they may download the music, but still go out and buy the CD just so that they can tell their friends that they have Blink's new CD and be able to show it off.
Upvote
0
No way. My daughter tried putting it on my laptop without my permission of course. As we speak, I am having a nightmare. My PC has been overrun win the ad ware and spyware. I can't even get my antivirus to boot up right. My ad zappers can no longer snuff out the pop ups. It's a mess.snoopyloopysk8a said:
Upvote
0
LilAngelHeart
~Nope,nothing wrong here~
I don't think it's stealing because it is called file sharing, you are getting files that someone is sharing with you, that's no different than someone sharing thier physical CD with me to listen to. 
Plus, like many have said, if you go by the rule of considering it stealing, then you have to apply it across the board, as in not recording off TV, or the radio, etc. It's not as if we are hacking into the company's website and getting the music that they have for sale, what we are doing is going to the site of someone(lots of people) who want to share their files. Same as going to someone's house and listening to their music collection or watching their movies, we don't pay to listen to their music or watch their movies, they are sharing it with us. That's how I see. It's like going to the library, we don't pay for those books we read either. What if we go to the library and make photocopies of pages from books there? Is that stealing? Especially when the copy machine is free. LOL! I am not getting the files from the auther or artist, I am getting it from someone who wants to share it with me. That's not stealing.
Plus, like many have said, if you go by the rule of considering it stealing, then you have to apply it across the board, as in not recording off TV, or the radio, etc. It's not as if we are hacking into the company's website and getting the music that they have for sale, what we are doing is going to the site of someone(lots of people) who want to share their files. Same as going to someone's house and listening to their music collection or watching their movies, we don't pay to listen to their music or watch their movies, they are sharing it with us. That's how I see.
It's like going to the library, we don't pay for those books we read either. What if we go to the library and make photocopies of pages from books there? Is that stealing? Especially when the copy machine is free. LOL! I am not getting the files from the auther or artist, I am getting it from someone who wants to share it with me. That's not stealing.
Upvote
0
LilAngelHeart
~Nope,nothing wrong here~
And as for Kazaa, I used to have it, but there were just too many pop ups and spyware, I don't use Kazaa anymore, I use Winmx, it is much much better, no popups and no spyware.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
LilAngelHeart
~Nope,nothing wrong here~
LOL! Also I have a biblical example of "file sharing" That Jesus Himself did when he fed the whole multitude off of the few fish and couple of loaves of bread the little boy had. LOL! The boy gave it to Jesus and Jesus "shared" it amongst the whole crowd. The croud didn't pay for it and niether did Jesus. LOL! Did the original shop keeper who sold the fish and bread to the boy have the right to insist that the crowd pay for the bread and fish? After all, he sold the boy enough for one person and the whole multitude ate his bread and fish that he made, his resipe, his bread. God just made a way to recycle or multiply the fish and bread so that it could be shared by the whole multitude and never run out. That's no different than someone who has a file on their comp and they agree to share that file with others. That's how I see it.
The boy gave it to Jesus and Jesus "shared" it amongst the whole crowd. The croud didn't pay for it and niether did Jesus. LOL! Did the original shop keeper who sold the fish and bread to the boy have the right to insist that the crowd pay for the bread and fish? After all, he sold the boy enough for one person and the whole multitude ate his bread and fish that he made, his resipe, his bread. God just made a way to recycle or multiply the fish and bread so that it could be shared by the whole multitude and never run out. That's no different than someone who has a file on their comp and they agree to share that file with others. That's how I see it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
