Do You "Steal" Music?

No and Yes I am being honest and Yes it's is stealing!

I can be honest that I have a lot of illegal software, I think about 99% [1% is freeware] of my application software [incl. my OS] is illegal and about 50% of my games, which I hardly play anymore except for RavenShield occasionally and that I bought cos it's such an awesome game.

Why don't you consider owning music you've never payed for not stealing? Just face the facts!

Originally posted by BlueRhino
It kinda seems here that You are accusing Me of stealing! Did I say I stole Music?
I don't accuse you of anything but you said yourself:

Originally posted by BlueRhino
personaly I dont think its stealing

Downloading and/or sharing music [f.e. via p2p programs such as KaZaA or via any other way f.e. FTP, IRC, NG] is illegal, and is stealing, period.

Now what exactly do you NOT consider stealing other than buying music? Buying music is obviously not stealing so you cannot have meant that...so I came to the conclusion that you consider the illegal sharing and downloading of music *not* as stealing the music whether you active participate or not is beside the point [cos I cannot know whether you download/share music illegal or not - it's what you said in your first post what I am questioning]. If this is a wrong conclusion then please clarify what you exactly mean with "personaly I dont think its stealing".

Yep, I can understand that reasoning. Looking at it Black 'n' White tho, it's still stealing and in that light I've to withdraw my first answer and change it into a Yes, cos I've ripped some audio cds from a mate of mine.

I am not a saint, as I already pointed out...99% of my software is 100% illegal but I simply state as it is, illegal - stolen. Ripping cds from a mate is actually stealing in my eyes, so Yes I apparently also have stolen music [it didn't crossed my mind yet, was only thinking of on line downloading/sharing which is far more worse but nevertheless, stealing is stealing...].

Darn not am I only a software thief, also a music thief. Bleh!

Cheers BlueRhino :D

The problem with this "stealing" is everyone has a very hard time feeling bad for the poor RIAA + cartel when the artists get literally pennies off the sale of an album (not to mention they don't even get those pennies when they first start out since they "owe" the record company for promotion etc...what other business do you know that you enter into a contract where you provide some service (making music) and then on top of that you are expected to pay the other party when all they have done is promote the service you provided which makes them money too?) and the RIAA/labels just get richer.

My problem with the holier-than-thou folks who would point a finger and say "omg you're bad you are stealing" is that a) you just categorized between 60 and 100 million people in the US alone as thieves and b) they don't provide a suitable alternative. The RIAA + cartel are ridiculously behind the times and instead of admitting that and hurrying to catch up, they are blindly suing customers. Napster appeared in 1999 and it is late 2003 and we are ONLY NOW just seeing the first generation of digital distribution models come to fruition. It took a computer company of all people to jump-start this. Not to mention that the digital distribution models implemented thus far are insulting and go against every fair use right ever created. They want me to pay $0.99 PER SONG (which means that, if I buy all the tracks on a given album, I will often end up paying more than going to Best Buy to get the CD which I will get much more use out of anyway since I can rip it as many times as I want, transfer it as many times as I want to portables, burn it as many times as I want, SELL THE CD to my friend if I want which they make all but impossible in the online music stores) for a product that is NOT equivelant to what I would get off a CD, yet they want me to pay MORE for it than their already ridiculously overpriced CDs! And to top it off, they impose limited rights as to what I can do with the song I just purchased. With buymusic.com, you get to download a song ONCE and if it's screwed up, tough ####, no refunds. (This may have changed since launch but they were doing it that way at launch despite all the problems with the DRM licenses being screwed up.) You have to use a certain media player on your PC, you are limited to moving most tracks to an APPROVED portable 3 to 5 times (guess what? No iPods), you can only burn it a certain number of times.

I find the Apple store least offensive as in most cases you get unlimited transfers to portables, use on up to 3 computers and essentially unlimited burns. I still don't like the idea of being told what I can and can't do with something I purchased though.

Yeah I do it on occasion. It is stealing though. I do manage to get around and buy the album if it is good.

Tony

Originally posted by tubedogg
I'm guessing since you're here that you don't feel that Apple has no "inherent" right to make money from iPods, right? So why are artists different? And don't give me the "cause i just get a copy" bit cause that can be applied to anything, including an iPod...you don't get the original iPod, you get a copy of the iPod and Apple still has their original.
In order to get a copy of that original iPod, I would have to deprive someone (a store, or perhaps an individual) of theirs - either by trading with them for it (aka buying it), or by taking it without their consent (stealing it). In the case of music, I don't have to deprive anyone (original creator or otherwise) of their property to acquire a copy.

If I could magically make an iPod materialize instead of buying one from Apple, that wouldn't be stealing either - even though it would interfere with Apple's ability to sell one to me.

Originally posted by FlightSimGuy
In the case of music, I don't have to deprive anyone (original creator or otherwise) of their property to acquire a copy.
Well lets say only one person will buy the original CD and all other millions/billions of people will get their copy out of that single original bought cd [ok it's an extreme example but nonetheless]. Do you think that the artist is being deprived of income, after maybe spending years in order to make that album/music?

I think alot of people forget the artists who are actually making the music and devoting a great deal of their lives for it...

I must admit, already did in a way, that if I buy a CD then it's my property and I should be able to do with it what I want ??but compare it with buying/owning a gun...it's your property but depending on what you do with it you uphold/obey the law or breaking it.

Stealing is stealing and buying music instead of copying/downloading it [or whatever] is the only righteous thing to do. In my eyes there's no discussion since if you do not buy the music, the maker of it [the artist] is not getting his rightful money for making it in the first place.

Remember what I already posted:

Originally posted by godcha
I am not a saint, as I already pointed out...99% of my software is 100% illegal but I simply state as it is, illegal - stolen.

Darn not am I only a software thief, also a music thief. Bleh!

Originally posted by BlueRhino
if CD prices do not fall very far, and very fast
That I fully agree with and my number ONE artist Sarah McLachlan says following :

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2003-09-10-piracy-cover_x.htm
Canadian singer Sarah McLachlan has her own opinions on the high costs of CDs, piracy and greed: "The industry needs to listen to what the kids are saying. If they can't afford a CD, I don't blame them (for file-sharing). Lower the #### price!"
McLachlan and her record label, Nettwerk, are pricing her new album,Afterglow, 20% below the usual suggested retail in Canada (U.S. prices not set).
[i]Afterglow will be released the 4th of November 2003.

I pay for a new CD in the shops around ? 20-22 [living in The Netherlands, Europe] and REALLY want the price to drop drastically. It's usually not the artist wanting so much money for their music, it's the industry which is so greedy...

P.S. I own every album from Sarah McLachlan, and much much more ??no matter what the costs are...I will buy all her stuff! :D

Originally posted by godcha
Well lets say only one person will buy the original CD and all other millions/billions of people will get their copy out of that single original bought cd [ok it's an extreme example but nonetheless]. Do you think that the artist is being deprived of income, after maybe spending years in order to make that album/music?
Nope. Being deprived of something means that you first have to posses it, and then it has to be taken away from you. The artist never possessed my money, so he is not being deprived of it if I refuse to buy the CD. The artist may have spent their whole life working on some CD, but that does not entitle them to make a penny from it. A free market means they can try to profit from their work, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed. Perhaps the copyright infringement will be what causes them to fail in that attempt (not likely, though), but that doesn't make it theft because they are not being deprived of their property.

Remember: being deprived of property you possess, and being "deprived" of income that you never possessed in the first place (and are in no way entitled to posses) are totally different things.

Originally posted by godcha
Stealing is stealing
..and copyright infringement is far from it. :)

Originally posted by FlightSimGuy
Nope. Being deprived of something means that you first have to posses it, and then it has to be taken away from you.Try again. That may be A definition of deprive, but so is this:To keep from possessing
The artist may have spent their whole life working on some CD, but that does not entitle them to make a penny from it.That is absolutely correct. HOWEVER, you fail to note the extension of that, which is that if they then make that product available in exchange for money, you don't have to buy it, but you are not entitled to posess it unless you do, or you are otherwise given permission to posess it. Even if one says copyright infringement is not stealing, you don't seem to view copyright infringement as a crime either, which is where I have a problem with you.

Trust me, if you knew me, you would be shocked I was arguing against you on this, but you are totally off-base on this particular point.

Originally posted by godcha
[prices are too high due to the whole industry surrounding artists [record companies, distributors aso].
[/B]

The main reason that P2P networks exist is because of the High Prices of CD's. I think that The artist should control the price of their CD, or atleast get some say in what dealings go on. Instead of suing everybody, A meeting should be held, and the general public will send in their most trusted "advisers" and new CD Prices will be negotiated (ex: $7 down over 4 years)

quote:
------------------------
To keep from possessing
------------------------

Tubedogg is right on this matter, My mother is depriving me of a 2nd Ipod because "I dont need it"

When I said "trusted advisers" I was referring to me :)
And what a fine president you Americans have...

Thanks liamliam.

So only about US$ 2 [from a US$ 17 CD] goes to the artist/songwriter and the rest to the industry surrounding the artist. I would have thought that at least 1/3 of the retail price would be for the artist; guess I was way off in thinking that.

As already said, the prices of CDs really have to be lowered!

Originally posted by godcha
Thanks liamliam.

So only about US$ 2 [from a US$ 17 CD] goes to the artist/songwriterNope, it's actually closer to US$0.02 (2 cents) than 2 dollars. It's a bit more than that (10 cents on avg IIRC) but it's nowhere near two dollars.

Heres a way to cut out the middle man...
Make an Awsome Main website thats easily accesible (like www.music.com or something) and let the artists do all there songwriting in the garages (where all good music comes from) and let them edit their music on there Mac (heheh) and then they just upload there tracks to the website, with an attached desired price per song (ex 25 cents each) this way ANYONE could upload music and pick there own prices...I cant realy decribe my idea...But it my head it sounds good...

Originally posted by knarf135
Yes it is BlueRhino... there need to be a way small bands can sell music on the net for what they want.

What did I say? I dont understand your question

Originally posted by sraphim
The term "steal" is actually rather inappropriate to use in this instance. My reasons are not that of "RIAA is evil anyway" or "artists don't ever see the money" nonsense justifications, but rather, of simple legal definition.
.

You have got to be kidding me... Get a Life

I apologise if I'm repeating what's already been said. I just don't have time at this exact moment to read ALL the posts on this topic.

But, here's the deal: under any legal language, it cannot be defined as stealing; no material goods are stolen. It is copyright infringement, and it IS illegal.

That being said, I used to jack free music, but these days, I own so much music legitimately, that I really don't hafve the storage capacity for any ill-gained music...

it isnt stealing, its shareing.
:p

nothing wrong with that.

Its just not right to pay 15-25$ for one good song. Who cares how much money the artists get. We all know what they do with it...Bling-Bling and housing. If I had millions of dollars I would invest it into companies or buy lots of highly wanted property. Anyway, the problem with stealing music (besides teh legal issues) is that its even hard to find the song usually thats not corupted.

downloading music is not stealing if you own it surely - you are just too "lazy" to rip it yerself...

Oh, and I've just lost the entire CD collection officer, I'll just delete the songs now, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Good day to you.

;)

I like the argument of theoretical profit being meaningless, because its very true. Its also true that posessing music without paying for it is illegal. I know that if file sharing networks and CD burners had never been invented, I would have a lot less music, but I would also have bought more legit CDs :P. I "steal" music, but you have to use your own better judgement about what music you "steal". For all my favourite artists, I will go buy their albums, pay to see them perform etc. I'm supporting them because I like their music and want them to do well.

I use Kazaa to download music I dont like when burning CDs for mates etc, because I couldn't give a s**t about wether or not some giant multinational label and artist gets my $$$ or not.
It becomes an interesting moral debate, doesn't it??

Yeah I agree, there's a lot of that going on in Asia, and although they look 100% legit and you could swear the software/music was the real thing, it's really professional large scale piracy.

well 2 tell u the truth i download music illegally sometimes

I can't deny that a good amount of my MP3 collection is downloaded.

But I don't steal 'everything' - I buy all of my DVD's (70+ at last count), and I do still buy a lot of the albums that I really like.

So I am not trying to justify my stealing.. just that I don't steal 100% of the media I own!

I must admit that I have downloaded music from WinMX, but no one seems to have even thought of cracking down on this software so I don't really care.

However recently I haven't downloaded anything. In fact I have actually started buying the albums of some of the songs that I have downloaded because I felt that I liked the songs enough to warrant buying them. You will actually find that a large proportion of music downloaders/sharers actually have quite extensive CD/LP/Cassette collection, although this is not true in all cases.

But here's a question...

What if the songs that you want to get are live songs that were never put onto CD/LP/Cassette and are not available through the stores? Where do you people stand on that? I have downloaded several live concerts mainly because no one owns the rights to those and they are not on any form of media besides the person that recorded it.

Also you consider TV and VHS/DVD recording is the biggest legitimate version of P2P sharing. How many people have recorded a video/DVD and maybe lent it to someone who missed that program? By the same standards this is illegal but no one cares one bit about this.

When was the last time you heard about the BBC/ITV/Channel4 suing someone because they recorded a program and lent it to someone? It doesn't happen, but it is the same infringement of copyright laws.

Another thing, shops/supermarkets/clubs etc shouldn't be allowed to play music because they have only bought the original CD etc and by civil laws these are not to be broadcast in public, so why don't these big companies go after the bigger fish and sue shops for doing effectively the same thing as P2P file sharers.

Originally posted by Nuke666
Yeah I agree, there's a lot of that going on in Asia, and although they look 100% legit and you could swear the software/music was the real thing, it's really professional large scale piracy.

of course the source of the material is copyrighted in some country somewhere else. but not all countries are bound by law (as stated in that countries constitution) to honor other countries copyright protections. legitimate businesses operate under the laws of thier country, and sell bill gates wares for 1$ a cd. the question was, are you stealing? Are the countries of Nepal, Burma, parts of India like Sikkim thieves? I say not. Are those citizens that make less than 100$ a month and pay 1$ for a new MaryJB cd criminals? I again say not.

most westerners look at things from a very narrow and myoptic point of view. narrow in time as well as space. many cultures on this planet can't even comprehend copyright laws cause the concept just does not exist. will global capitalism "fix" this? Again, I say not - in my lifetime.

Originally posted by stark23x
The record business is in a shambles, and pretending that downloading has nothing to do with it is crap. Of course it does. It's the primary *direct* reason.

The truth is in the underlying reasons why people download, and that is usually wrapped up in A) getting something for free, and B) punishing the record industry for beating artists to death while releasing millions of hours of crappy music for ridiculous prices over the years.

I highly doubt you have the data to support this claim that the problems with the recording industry are directly related to filesharing. Circumstantial evidence exists (there has been an overall drop in CD sales in the past years when filesharing was becoming popular) but as I am sure you are aware, a trend like that is not proof. There are mnay variables that determine record sales, and to assert that you have sorted through them all and proven that it was filesharing that caused the loss in sales is redicilous. If you have such good evidence that you felt the need to put the word direct between ** to emphisize how strong your evidence is, please post it so we can all share in your discovery.

BTW, as I mentioned before, I do d/l music, so I am guility of copyright infringement (remember this is a civil crime, not a criminal act like theft), but I place the blame directly on the RIAA. Technology will continue to advance, and just because they are growing fat and rich off the system they had before the digital era, does not mean they can try to legally halt the progression of technology. People want their music digital and portable. The RIAA needs to get on board and focus on the future of music, not try to battle in the courts for a return of the past.

This is why I d/l all the songs I want legally from itunes, unless they are not available. Think of this solution: buy all the songs and albums legally from itunes. D/l all that have not been made available yet on itune (or another legal d/l site) from limewire or whatever. This would create pressure in the market to make all music legally available from d/l sites and complete the shift of music into the digital age. Think of it, you could completely elimiate the cost of making CD's, printing CD covers, shipping, distrubtion, the middle man mark up, etc. Music costs go down, and availability goes up. Plus its all digital and portable!

Again, just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by jman1423
i havent read all 5 five pages of this thread so i dont know if this topic has been covered yet. has anyone thought about radio? anybody with basic knowledge can record songs from a radio. i don't see why the riaa is cracking down on radio stations, they've providing free music to the public for centuries.

radio has advertisements and sounds like crap

the concept of personal property and ownership is not as universal as you think. hindi artists distribute thier work for 1$ a cd, so why shouldn't old has-been westerners do the same? in fact, many people here would question the logic of paying more for music that's 30 + years old. and just because a young asian listens to western music qualifies them to understand the insanity of the west is crazy in itself. you are just putting your values on people who care not for them, nor comprehend the stupidity of modern global capitalism.

Oh, and I forgot. How exactly is jiggles "insulting all westerners" by saying the west is crazy when it comes to selling music. Maybe you could take a step back and realise that yes, capitalism is a ruthless ####### sometimes

I dunno. it's a very hazy subject.. i technically "steal" music.. it's just not practical to pay 1$ per songs.. especially when you already own the songs like if u already have the cd.. the sharing companies all say and has been proven to be innocent.. they say that they're like a vcr... they just supply resources and the people choose wat they wanna share... yea... the smallest 3g ipod holds 2500 songs..(approx) paying 1$ each?!?

the copies of CDs in Nepal cant be legit because then everyone in the U.S. would just buy imports. So technically he is stealing. <i>technically<i> but i in no way am i condoning his actions.

Also in the first couple of pages people were complaining about prices, but, although they are outrageous, if you can afford an iPod+accesories+insurance+taxes u can afford to buy plenty of albums or singles off of itunes

Lastly, RIAA doesnt care about VCRs or Radios recordings, TV & radio are paid by commercials. this is how the music undustry should run. u know how much Sharman Networks (owners of KaZaA) makes? their income comes from solely commercials and all they had to do was make the program (not that hard)

how many songs did they let u download before? how much?

Originally posted by andrew
how many songs did they let u download before? how much?

Emusic was $9.95/month and unlimited d/l's.

Originally posted by KoMaN
I'm not trying to say that I am only doing it because others are, but I dont think it is fair to pay for something when there are others who are getting it for free.

Logic like that means you will never have to buy anything since I'm fairly certain that somewhere, someone is or has stolen almost everything imaginable. Perhaps, since you don't have the money to buy things, you should a) wait until you DO have the money or b) work on getting the education you will need to get a good job after school so you will have the money to buy things.

And just one more little lesson in life: Making anything and selling it is about making money for the maker, and generally never about making money for the buyer. You will rarely buy something that will increase in value while you own it.

i don't "steal" music, but i don't find anything wrong with it really. i just prefer the convenience of having the whole cd, and just putting it on my hard drive.

Wow, so you think you have a *right* to steal it just because you don't have the money?

The same as you have the right to act like a d***head when you just dont know any better. =)

I dare you to tell me you've seen the financial statements of every artist on your hard drive.

Irrespective of who owns what and how much, I was trying to say that the music artists should be satisfied that they have the privelage to do something they love - something that many other people will never have the oppurtunity to do. It should not be about the money.

As for the kid in the Nike factory? Please. We're talking about someone who owns an iPod.

No we are not . The question was about stealing music. It was only remotely related to someone who owns an ipod. Get it right.

And lastly stop trying to be politically correct only for the sake of it. You obviously are so hostile about this because it is against the law.

*sigh* I have no idea why I even bother. Sorry for the long post everyone.

Talk about ignorance. You're making a lot of judgments about me, and you're not paying much attention.

Are you even reading what I am writing? Am I speaking another language?

You are the one who is not paying attention. Your trying to puts words in my mouth and glorify your own opinion.

I'm about the least PC person around. You'll never find out, because you don't look beyond the surface.

Wtf? Where did you pull that from? Beyond the surface? Please explain.

Just admit it...you're stealing and you can't justify it.

I was never trying to "justify" anything. I was only giving a reason for doing so - I never said that it was correct in doing so.

I know very well that I am "stealing". I never said that I wasn't.

And we *are* talking about someone who buys CDs...you know, compact discs that play in CD players?

Oh as opposed to the CDs we put in VCR players... ? :rolleyes: Don't try and to be funny. It doesnt work for you.

I got the whole "but we're Poooooooor" argument.

I never said I was "poor". I just said that I didn't have money to but music CDs. Please do the whole forum a favour and read a post before blindly replying to it.

You threw up a straw man and rather than argue against it, I burned it to the ground. Accept it and move on.

You havent burned anything - not even a "straw man" for that matter. Stop trying to win. This isn't a game.

I STEAL LOTS OF MUSIC

Oh my god what a sick c***. Lets all be like stark23x because he is so hardcore.

What you whole arugement is based upon has just been contradicted in your opening sentence.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a mid-level, say half-million album seller? Do you have any idea how little these poeple actually earn at the end of the year?

Are you one of these "mid-level, half-million album sellers"? If not then you have no right to comment.

You have no more a right to free music than I have a right to take money out of your wallet

And you have a right to free music yourself? You just admitted that you steal lots of music. And yet here you are preaching away just to be politically correct.

The gentleman that posited the arguments before you does in fact own an iPod and buys bootleg CDs.

No, the person who started this topic asked the question on whether we steal music. It did not have much to do with owning an iPod and buying bootleg CDs.

Lastly, calling me a d__khead doesn't make you credible, or even worth talking to

The feelings are mutual.

It makes you a jerk who can't read the rules of the forum.

Oh I can assure you that I am very familiar with the forums rules and policy. But seeing as your such a d***head, I couldnt possibly resist.

You do not have a right to the music, no matter what crazy theories and wild crap you make up.

Oh yes my wild theories. Very wild indeed. Particularly the ones about "straw-men" and "triple-full-time job muscians".

Being a pirate is bad enough, we could at least try to be honest about it.

See this is the part where you run out of things to say so rely on making up s*** in an attempt to prove yourself. Please point out where exactly was I being dishonest?

I have over 160GB of music, you do the math =]

You can't put a virus into a .mp3 file, sorry!

hell ya

im not gona be a hipodcrit and say i never stole music (but most of it is legal). but i cannot beleive that some people are actually saying that downloading music isnt stealing it.

obviously some people are using far to fancy language for other people to understand so im gona put it REAL simple to the people who claim it isnt stealing...

the artist, makes the music, which we all love and enjoy, they put lots of time and effort into it so we can listen to it. EVERYONE, has to pay for that CD if they want to listen to it legally, read the small print round the edges of a CD, your not even allowed to play it to friends. so if your getting something, that everyone has to pay for, without paying for, its stealing just like an example that cant be twisted to make stealing right...

you have to pay for a chocolate bar, just like everyone else, but, that chocolate bar is a few pennies to expensive, you still want to enjoy that chocolate bar but you havnt got the money...all of a sudden, ones slipped inside ur front pocket and ur out the shop. that is stealing and so is dowenloading music, u shud be paying to l;isten to a cd/music but your not

So if you borrow your buds cd case and get some of your music THAT way is that stealing? If so then YES I'M GUILTY!!!!!!! And let the RIAA catch me that way!! BWAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAA....But of course I have spent close to $3400 on the Cds I've bought. And maybe I have...oh...about 300 bux worth of music I "stole" from me buds cd case. And I aint gonna stop, so quiturbichin!!!

I download music. I guess I steal, but my country's laws tell me that it is not illegal. Morally wrong, illegal and theft, no.

I think the RIAA is monitoring this site...

5-0!5-0!5-0! PIGGIES IN THE HILLS!!!!

Seriousley why so many questions about downloading illegal music. Its making me wonder...

Btw You have 25 years from your last download... Then Statute of limitations kicks in.

Originally posted by jaypod
I download music. I guess I steal, but my country's laws tell me that it is not illegal. Morally wrong, illegal and theft, no.

Are you sure about that? The RIAAs brethren to the north are about to start coming after you Canadians to. Don't feel to smug about it. They found a way around the canadian courts ruling and the Canadian ISPs are rolling over to help them...

all i know is that i used to copy tapes from my friends tapes, or from the radio - but the bottom line is, if you truly like a band you'll pop 15 bux on one of their cds. besides i like having the booklet for the respective artists, and i like supporting people i like. i'm not saying its not stealing, but the radio is a form of 'kazaa' if you want to look at it that way. sure the quality isn't as high, and you prolly couldn't resell any recorded stuff but the fact is you can still take someones music without having to pay for it. when i was younger i did alot of the illegal downloading and what have you - but ever since after high school, i just don't have time to sit and download songs anyways. and besides theere is great value in having an original copy of the music so you can rip, convert to your hearts content and not have to worry about lost quality because you have the original.

i think the only reason the riaa really tightened up about downloading music was because of the people burning them and selling them for 5-5 dollars on a street corner.

Originally posted by stark23x

The record business is in a shambles, and pretending that downloading has nothing to do with it is crap. Of course it does. It's the primary *direct* reason.

The truth is in the underlying reasons why people download, and that is usually wrapped up in A) getting something for free, and B) punishing the record industry for beating artists to death while releasing millions of hours of crappy music for ridiculous prices over the years.

Yes, the record business is a shambles. Blaming the mess on P2P or other "illegal" downloading is stupid. The business is a shambles because it is run by a bunch of greedy ba$tard$ who are desperate to save their business model instead of trying to find a new one. Look at iTunes, while Apple has licensed hundreds of thousands of songs, there are still hundreds of thousands that have not been because the companies that own/license the songs are not willing to move forward. Until the Industry as a whole buys into Electronic distribution (either direct or in-direct) of some sort, the P2P community will continue to thrive.

Anyone who calls downloading mp3's with file-sharing programs 'stealing' needs to learn to use a friggin dictionary!! Stealing is physically taking the property of another without permission. Like FlightSimGuy said, you aren't taking property from someone else, you're just copying it. And don't you think shoplifting or stealing someone's wallet is worse than double-clicking on a song in Kazaa?
Also, I've purchased more CD's ever since I started downloading mp3's because I discover a lot of artists online. And if I download a couple songs from an album and really like them, I'll go out and buy the CD. But the RIAA is really stupid for suiing poor teenagers and grandmothers. If you want to sell more CD's, then charge reasonable prices instead of allowing record label executives to line their fat wallets. Or how about making some good music? CD sales started going down when Britney Spears, N'Sync, and the Backstreet Boys started topping the charts. Go figure.

All the music on my iPod is ripped from original CDs that I own. I have loads of downloaded and traded mp3s but if I like an album then I prefer to own the original.

It's just the way I am - I'm in no way trying to appear holier-than thou as most of the games I own are copies and my current OS (XP) is the only original piece of software I've ever owned (only got this 'cos it was cheap off a m8). Also, I have hundreds of pirate DVDs...

But with CDs I just like knowing I have the best quality copy and the proper booklet etc.

I voted "no" because that is the opinion of myself and the government branch that decided to add $25 to the cost of my iPod (and 21 cents to every single blank CD I buy) in exchange for private copying privileges.

"Stealing is physically taking the property of another without permission."

I have to pick up on this great quote :) Actually, consent is irrelevant to appropriation. If you owned a shop, and a foreign guy gave you a ?50 note rather than a ?5, and you accepted it you can still be breaking the law.

There are quite a few other people on this thread who've made completely innacurate statements re stealing while asserting they are the truth, so to clarify:

"A person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

It helps to look in statute rather than a dictionary when you're talking about law :)
You are definately appropriating property belonging to another. Music is intelectual property, property doesn't have to be a 'physical thing' as i think someone said - for example, you can steal credit in a bank account, which doesnt physically exist]. You're also probably dishonest, but i can't see any way in which you have an intention to permenantly deprive. I'm not 100% sure, but if anywhere its here that the definition of d/ling music as stealing breaks down.
Hope that makes things clearer :)

To get back to the topic - i refuse to say whether i d/l muusic cos RIAA might be watching ;) I dont disagree that it's illegal, but i think someone is ripping consumers off and until that changes, many people have no other viable option if they want to listen to the music.

[p.s. i cited English Law, but thats valid for quite a lot of places, and even outside these i think the principles will be that same]

Just my luck to be following you, as I have some thoughts to cast on this question you pose. I do believe that it's illegal to record a song from the radio. My justification for saying that is that I'm a morning DJ at my university's radio station, and in order to broadcast over the internet, we had to file for another license with the FCC. I think we also had to ask ASCAP and BMI for permission. They're the "Brothers Carlucci" of the musical intellectual property rights industry; it's their job to break your knees if you don't pay through the nose to play the music they guard. Pay to play...hmmm, that sounds like the old "payola" red herring. Red-herring because, of course, it has always and will always continue to be the case that record companies pay radio stations for playing certain artists, and for not playing certain others. Now, I'm sure I'll hear from an apologist or two that I don't have any proof, so I'll save you the keystrokes. You're right, and as long as I don't make any specific accusations, it's no legal skin off anyone's nose. I'm just calling the industry of music corrupt. That's all.

And, you bring up another interesting point. No, I absolutely do not think you are stealing music if you violate the distribution policy of the downloading service to which you subscribe. You've paid for the right to use the music, so use it!

Your thoughts are interesting about recording from the radio. But I will say you are the first person who ever mentioned anything positive about what I am doing with my paid service of music.

I've always thought recording from the radio was much the same as recroding tv on to a VCR. In fact I believe Sony even went to court because of this issue back in the early 80's or late 70's and it was ruled that for personal use was ok... Than again I may be just blowing smoke out my @$$ and got my story incorrect.

Originally posted by enjoilax

Btw You have 25 years from your last download... Then Statute of limitations kicks in.

haha, of course.
http://www.emtec.com/pyrotrans/index.html
with caller ID checking. no RIAA sniffers.

also, i can hook up my old analogue modem anytime, and install PCBoard or RemoteAccess.

wouldn't you like to know....

All the songs on my iPod are from iTunes legally bought, except for two. Those two songs i couldnt find on iTunes.
1) Boyz in the hood - Dynamite Hack (Explicit); They only have clean
2) Salt Shaker - Ying Yang Twins (Explicit); They have neither clean nor explicit.

So the ones I can't get on iTunes, I "borrow" from P2P users.

i "borrow" my music~ :p

i haven't read this thread BUT. i really do find it funny that all the mac users on this forums don't hesitate to throw down tons of money for a mac that can be compared to a low end PC, but at the same time are too cheap to actually purchase the music they listen to.

If music, wasn't free, I still wouldn't buy CD's, and I wouldn't have an ipod. So there :)

I tried Kazaa for a while when a friend turned me on to it and what I liked about it was the fact that I got to sample some artist music that I never heard of before and ended up buying their CD's.

The bad thing about it was the fact that some songs had virus' embeded in them or were mislabeled a lot or had missing tags, so if you wanted to purchase the CD, you couldn't. I finally deleted it and then started hearing about the lawsuits. I got out several months before.

Now I have Rhapsody to sample and buy music + iTunes and Amazon.com to buy from. Rhapsody allows you to listen to the full song and CD before buying and I like that better than the Kazaa downloads. No virus', no mislabeling.

I think that most equate downloading music to speeding - "it doesn't hurt anyone." I do think that it hurts to some extent, but it's so nebulous and the RIAA is so greedy and belligerent that there's little guilt associated with it. If the RIAA made the case that it hurt individual artists, then they might have a point; however, I recently received a check from them because they set prices to gouge me (the recent settlement from a lawsuit involving illegal price fixing). I don't download illegally although I'm tempted to.

I do support intellectual property rights - you don't have to break in and physically steal an iPod to steal from someone. If a musician's livelyhood is based on their producing music and getting paid to do it, then aren't you depriving them by taking it from them. You can rationalize all you want to, but I would hope that there's that little voice inside that tells you the truth whether you want to listen or not.