Kazaa and Ipod

Yes you can - and very easily, too.

Now go on, get that iPod - you'll love it,

S.

i use limewie much better than kazzA

Sheesh "folks" is just such a cool word ;)

Sheesh "folks" is just such a cool word ;)

lol i wish i could be that cool

Er....what is that a new word to you "guys"?

99.999% of the population of the world is stupid. The rest own iPods.

Yes, most people don't understand that KaZaA is just a P2P program. My sister doesn't as many times as I try to tell here :P

Originally posted by slashjunior
Oh, and did anyone mention Kazaa is illegal.

Nobody mentioned it because it isn't true. Kazaa is perfectly legal. Downloading media to which you do not have the rights to is where you will encounter legal troubles.

I personally don't know why anyone would use Kazzaa or any of those downloading services. Man, I think they suck. I guess I will just buy my music! (whooaa new concept huh!)

Originally posted by seinman
Nobody mentioned it because it isn't true. Kazaa is perfectly legal. Downloading media to which you do not have the rights to is where you will encounter legal troubles.

I think 99% of people who use Kazaa for illegal purposes. Companies should take responsibility of their customers making sure they do not use it for illegal purposes. Kazaa was probably founded in the first place on the concept of sharing illegal MP3s.

Originally posted by MKR

Just to confirm, then:

* Handgun companies should take responsibility for all armed robberies committed with their products?

* Computer manufacturers should take responsibility for hacking and virus creation done on their products?

* Over-the-counter pharmaceuticals are used to home brew illegal drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are responsible for that, yes?

etc. . . .

Or is it, maybe, the end user who should be responsible? [/B]
Well, end users should be responsible, but to equate file-sharing (legal or illegal) with the sale of firearms is a bit drastic. Rarely has anyone unleashed a virus or hacked without some type of premeditation. You can hardly blame a computer company for that. In most cases, a handgun is a much more dangerous product than a computer. And in most cases, sharing files illegally is not a matter of life and death.

I don't think all providers of goods can possibly anticipate all the uses that their products can be put to, but I think they should execise a reasonable level of care.

What were we discussing again? iPods?

Originally posted by MKR
"Companies should take responsibility of their customers making sure they do not use it for illegal purposes. "

Just to confirm, then:

* Handgun companies should take responsibility for all armed robberies committed with their products?

* Computer manufacturers should take responsibility for hacking and virus creation done on their products?

* Over-the-counter pharmaceuticals are used to home brew illegal drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are responsible for that, yes?

etc. . . .

Or is it, maybe, the end user who should be responsible?

Yes and handgun companies take precautions such as requiring a license or maybe not even making guns legal at all would help.

Computer manufactures constantly build security into their computers, build firewalls etc.

Pharmacies require prescriptions.

Kazaa do nothing. They don't even attempt to control what passes through their service, which would be relatively easy considering it would be fairly easy to do.

"Yes and handgun companies take precautions such as requiring a license or maybe not even making guns legal at all would help.

Computer manufactures constantly build security into their computers, build firewalls etc.

Pharmacies require prescriptions. "

With due respect, I'm not convinced. Your handgun & pharmaceutical arguments are really government imposed regulations. Smith & Wesson doesn't require licensure and background checks; the government does. Cardinal doesn't require prescriptions; the government does. Likewise, Kazaa doesn't enforce copyrights; the government does.

As to computer manufacturers, the precautions you're describing are defensive. IBM does nothing to prevent its products from being used offensively to launch illegal hacks or viruses.

My point is: Kazaa & other P2P networks happen to be the bad guys o' the week because the RIAA is up in arms. But pinning responsibility on the P2P service providers isn't consistent with how we assign responsibility anywhere else in our system. Everywhere else, we point the finger of blame at the person who uses a tool to accomplish an illegal result. Here, we're pointing at the people who make the tool.

Originally posted by ToddW
I can understand using P2P groups to share files that have no copyrights to them. Let's say you have all your notes for Physics in PDF format a P2P program would be great for that purpose.

That's one of the best uses of P2P that i've heard. Now that iTunes Music Store is on Windows, I haven't used P2P for anything illegal. I do have nearly 4 gigs of files shared, but I own the copyright to said files, and choose to distribute them via Kazaa and WinMX because that's how I like to do things. Too bad more people haven't discovered that the legal way to do things is worth the extra money it costs to do.

No, because the primary use of cars is not to kill. The primary use for P2P is, however, illegal. That's the difference.

I just don't see that it should be 'either/or'. I say go after both groups!

Originally posted by seinman
99.999% of the population of the world is stupid. The rest own iPods. I love it! I will definetly be using that quote soon. :)

You know, it's funny because when you open your ipod it says "Don't Steal Music" on it.

Okay, so say you buy a 40gb iPod (I have a 20gb) and it holds up to 10,000 songs (yeah right, not at good quality). Well, in order to pay for every single one, you'd spend about $10,000 dollars! Holy crap! Long live p2p!

Originally posted by geistwerks
i've spent $10,000 dollars on a music collection. what's so "holy crap" about that?

I'm sorry, that comment was uncalled for. Over time it is very possible to spend that much money, but for someone to go out today and spend $10,000 dollars on a music collection when millions of people all over the world are getting the music for free, is hard to do.

My point was more that it would be crazy for someone to go out and spend that much within the time frame of a year or a few years, though even that isn't very bad.

I'm just very biased because even if I wanted to spend the money, I couldn't so I am forced to go other ways.

It amazes me that, after a cursory scan of this thread, nobody had mentioned that their music doesn't have to come from the internet to get on their iPods.

CDs. Put 'em in your computer. P2P and Music Stores be darned. ;)

Originally posted by randydecker
But I did.

Ahh! Rock on, Randy, I missed that!

Of course, most of my friends know that I'm a complete music junkie. We have our own version of P2P. Friend comes over, brings CDs in from the car, I browse through 'em and stick some of 'em into my PC. By golly, wouldn't ya know they end up on my iPod a few minutes later! :D

I'm sorry about my comments, but you know that the majority of the money that artists make is not from the CD sales, it's from merchandise and concerts.

To pay for the materials, the making, shipping, packaging and advertising for the acutual music CD, they are making very little at all.

The average person at a rock concert now-a-days spends on on average (not everyone buys merchandise) about $15-$20 on some type of merchandise at the concert and then the money they make from the tickets.

Now, are the artists really "suffering" from people not purchasing as many CD's as they used to? I think that it does make a difference, but very little.

I do go to concerts occasionally and do purchase music CD's (half of my collection is from them) but I think that it isn't as big of an issue as some say it is.

Also, many artists support music sharing because they know themselves that they make most of their money not from CD sales, but from merchandise and performances like I already said.

I do support my artists, but I can only do my part to a certain extent. I saved up for my iPod because I am a true music fan and enjoy listening to music a great deal of my time whether listening to it by itself or while doing something else.

I hope my point has been made.

Originally posted by zachhale
I'm sorry about my comments, but you know that the majority of the money that artists make is not from the CD sales, it's from merchandise and concerts.

To pay for the materials, the making, shipping, packaging and advertising for the acutual music CD, they are making very little at all.

The average person at a rock concert now-a-days spends on on average (not everyone buys merchandise) about $15-$20 on some type of merchandise at the concert and then the money they make from the tickets.

Now, are the artists really "suffering" from people not purchasing as many CD's as they used to? I think that it does make a difference, but very little.

I do go to concerts occasionally and do purchase music CD's (half of my collection is from them) but I think that it isn't as big of an issue as some say it is.

Also, many artists support music sharing because they know themselves that they make most of their money not from CD sales, but from merchandise and performances like I already said.

I do support my artists, but I can only do my part to a certain extent. I saved up for my iPod because I am a true music fan and enjoy listening to music a great deal of my time whether listening to it by itself or while doing something else.

I hope my point has been made.

Yes, but artists do make some money off of album sales. And saying you support artists and then say that you download all your music from P2P groups makes you contridict yourself. You are stealing from those artist whose music you listen to by not paying for it pure and simple. You are using their work of art without paying for it. Just because I like a painting by Picasso and cannot afford one doesn't mean I have the right to go and steal one. There is no grey area about using P2P to steal music. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.

Only a handful of the top artists make money from touring, and then it tends to be from merchandise and increased album sales rather than from ticketing. Most artists rely very heavily on CD sales, and sales figures also impact on earnings from advertising, movie soundtracks, etc.

Nor should the record companies be regarded as being somehow unworthy of earning their share. Their investment in bands, recording facilities etc. is often crucial and seldom repaid - except when they back a real winner.

Downloading is theft, and hurts the very artists you profess to be supporting.

Don't do it!

Originally posted by stark23x
That's simply not true. I work with small to mid-level artists every day, and the majority of their income is from tourig. You have to have a gold record or better before you start making merch money. Merch doesn;t start to turn a profit until you reach a certain critical mass, and that mass happens to coincide with being popular enough to sell half a million albums and tour the 2-4000 seat houses.

No one I have worked for to date has made any substantial money from CD sales, other than the value of the sales as promotion for the touring and merch. I've worked for one act that sold 4 million copies of an album and still didn't make enough, strictly from CD sales, in a year to pay his mortgage.

I agree artists make the most from touring. However, not all types of music are suitable for touring. Not all artists enjoy touring i.e. some artists rely primarily on record sales and maybe merchandise as a source of income. The fact is that it is really the artists problem. If all artists got together and agreed to all demand higher royalties or they wouldn't sign the contract then the record companies would be forced to be more generous. However the number of artists is so large this is hard to achieve.

Although it doesn't affect the artists, it affects the record companies. If the record companies were to go out of business it would have a massive effect on the economy. Thousands of jobs will be lost and there will be a possibiltity of global recession, because of all the FDI the music business provides across the globe. I learnt that in my economics lecture :D

Here, this might be an interesting read about how CD's don't help the artists as much as people may think.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/flyers.html

You recognise it as stealing and you condemn it then?

Originally posted by zachhale
I'm sorry about my comments, but you know that the majority of the money that artists make is not from the CD sales, it's from merchandise and concerts.

To pay for the materials, the making, shipping, packaging and advertising for the acutual music CD, they are making very little at all.

The average person at a rock concert now-a-days spends on on average (not everyone buys merchandise) about $15-$20 on some type of merchandise at the concert and then the money they make from the tickets.

Now, are the artists really "suffering" from people not purchasing as many CD's as they used to? I think that it does make a difference, but very little.

I do go to concerts occasionally and do purchase music CD's (half of my collection is from them) but I think that it isn't as big of an issue as some say it is.

Also, many artists support music sharing because they know themselves that they make most of their money not from CD sales, but from merchandise and performances like I already said.

I do support my artists, but I can only do my part to a certain extent. I saved up for my iPod because I am a true music fan and enjoy listening to music a great deal of my time whether listening to it by itself or while doing something else.

I hope my point has been made.

your comments about how artists make money is VERY incorrect. that's how SOME artists make money. there are a lot of music artists out there who do rely on album sales, and are unable to tour.

you obviously only listen to mainstream music, and have little knowledge of what struggles alternative and independent music labels go through to cut even. p2p is killing them. i've already posted NUMEROUS times about these matters, but i'm too darn tired to type it anymore.

you don't have a clear understanding on the subject. neither did i until i did some research, but now the balls in your corner.

your point? it wasn't made, sorry, it wasn't much of one.:(

and here's a much more relevant article:

http://www.magnatune.com/info/why

this article supports your "file sharing" desires far more, but this record label has presented a way to support p2p while getting artists paid.

the author of your article simply presents problems with current methods of music distribution and a lot of them are dubious assumptions.

you seem to be trying to justify your file sharing as some sort of anarchist model, "i can't pay, the current business model is obsolete, etc." but there is no justification in what is clearly theft.

i could add even more excuses for why i file shared (i cannot buy the music in stores near me, i suffer from health problems and can't travel easily, i have to pay $30 for an import cd, etc.) and i've been thru the wringer on this subject with jackonicko before.

fact is fact. it's wrong. but i'm not your conscience. you are free to do what you want, but to insinuate that i'm out of line because i have spent a certain amount of money to fill up my ipod seemed really ridiculous to me.

look at your signature for a moment. "my ipod makes my life worth living." no, it doesn't, and you know it. it's the CONTENTS of your ipod that make your life worth living. the ipod is just a tool. it's the music that makes everything so much better. how about those artists who help you "make your life worth living?" don't they deserve to "make a living?"

think about it.

Stealing from ignorance is still stealing, but it's somehow more excusable. You steal in the full knowledge that you're stealing, and you justify yourself with specious and spurious arguments.

Comparing your greed (you could buy music legally, without depriving artists, copyright owners and record companies of their rightful income, but CHOOSE not to) with the heroism of those who used civil disobedience as a tool in the civil rights struggle is deeply offensive. They were honourable people doing the right thing. You are an amoral self-justifying thief.

Your claims as to what artists do and don't want lead me to believe that you have little, if any, contact with major or mid-range artists.

Not only do you admit to being an unapologetic thief, but you're also incapable of reading who said what.

"Jacko here said, and I quote: "Thinking that breaking the law is the service of a greater good, makes a person about as ethical as micheal jackson or rush limbaugh." By HIS logic, that makes Rosa Parks a lazy, good-for-nothing amoral criminal. Not by *mine*."

I didn't say any such thing, you silly man. Todd W did. Though I don't expect you'll have the wit or the courtesy to apologise or to acknowledge your error.

Your self-satisfied arrogant attitude is beneath contempt and is a waste of my time. Your specious, fallacious argument that stealing other people's property and work is somehow a 'lesser evil' than paying for it is simple minded and amoral, and your disregard to right and wrong makes it a waste of breath to argue with you.

I don't intend dignifying any more of your self-justifying nonsense with a reply.