I say Option 2.

no, CD prices are immoral on the part of the record companies

I say Option 2.


Well I'm an anti-corporatist, and I think big billionaire record companies are the greediest b*stards out there, so no I have zero, no, sympothy if they lose a little money because I download a few songs and burn them on a cd. I think there's two sets of laws in this country, one set for the rich, and the other set for regular people. So no it's not immoral, what is immoral is false advertising, DRM encrypted songs, that are supposed to be yours but are full of nazi style restrictions, over-priced garbage, and phony lip-synced songs.

Oh please, people.

First, CD's aren't flammable, so the question is ridiculous on its face.

Second, you don't need commercial music.  And even if you did, it's available for free on the radio.  Radios -- remember those?  Sure, you've got to listen to some idiot who thinks his or her jokes are more important than the music, and you have to listen to annoying commercials.  But hey, listen, turn the dial, or turn the damn thing off.  To justify your illegal appropriation by saying that the record companies are mercenary corrupt entities peddling overpriced products is just LAME.  FERRARIS are overpriced, so... I guess I'm morally justified in STEALING one right?  That's just insane.  Get a grip.

I say, BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!  ;) :D ;D





Cat

  Morality is relative, it has been said, but you all know that copying protected material is illegal...

  Burning CDs is still legal....

  Oh, just wanted to comment on choice #5...

  Ahem......LMFAO!

  Depends on the band...classic!

   Morality is relative, it has been said, but you all know that copying protected material is illegal...

  Burning CDs is still legal....


Good point -- we should clarify what we mean by burning.  Burning your own CDs onto your hard drive?  Burning your own CDs onto a blank CD so your friend doesn't have to buy it?  Downloading a song from an illegal music exchange file?

no, CD prices are immoral on the part of the record companies


Bingo. Exactly what i thought when i read the name of the thread.

'Oh we aren't selling many records.. Jack up the prices again that'll have em selling again'

You guys complain at like $15 price tags.. ok then come here and pay £15-20. Yes folks that's good old fashioned Sterling. We can pay in excess of $30 for a Billboard CD.

Bingo. Exactly what i thought when i read the name of the thread.

'Oh we aren't selling many records.. Jack up the prices again that'll have em selling again'

You guys complain at like $15 price tags.. ok then come here and pay £15-20. Yes folks that's good old fashioned Sterling. We can pay in excess of $30 for a Billboard CD.




Awww, poor bastards.  Pick up a guitar and make your own damm music.  :P

The real stealing is the rich stealing from the poor everyday, that's capitalism/fascism for you.

The real stealing is the rich stealing from the poor everyday, that's capitalism/fascism for you.


The rich don't steal from the poor.  That's just overstated.

We've been getting away with it on cassette for years and years. And just because of the higher quality and technology of recording, they now say it's stealing. If someone who owns the original CD chooses to share his/her files or burn CDs for a friend, then it is not stealing. If that person charges for the services, then it is stealing. I have never charged to burn CDs for others.

  I think it is stealing, Indy...

  Each one of those copies you presented to friends is a potential sale lost...

But isn't that the decision of the person, Dave? I think it would be stupid and non-feasable to arrest everyone who has burned CDs. They should focus on catching real thieves out in the street or on the corporate ladder. And the sale of blank CDs should more than make up for their sales loss.
   I think it is stealing, Indy...

   Each one of those copies you presented to friends is a potential sale lost...

But isn't that the decision of the person, Dave?

  I don't think so, Indy...

I think it would be stupid and non-feasable to arrest everyone who has burned CDs.

  And impossible, I'd say...

They should focus on catching real thieves out in the street or on the corporate ladder. And the sale of blank CDs should more than make up for their sales loss.


  To you and I, talking here at Decades, that sounds reasonable, however it's illegal to reproduce and distribute copyrighted material.  You know that, I know that...

  Is it unlawful...yes...
  Can I be prosecuted for it...yes
  Is it immoral...*shrugs*
  Do I want to be prosecuted for it...gosh no...
  Am I going to be a good citizen and turn myself in to the authorities...no

I say no.  I can listen toi (and record) music from the radio, and transfer it to CD and burn as many copies as I like, just as I can record movies from the tube and transfere them to DVD - I do it all the time.  I can evan make multiple copies of tapes, DVDs.  If I can do all that legally, why should using the best technology (or simplest) not be legal?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it immoral.  But lets be honest, it's stealing.  Perhaps stealing in a round-about way, but stealing nonetheless.  I've never illegaly downloaded music, but you can bet your ass I have a few CD's that my friends have burned for me.  I know it's wrong, and it's not something I'm proud of, but I do it anyway.  Just like I used to use my pink boom box to copy cassettes when I was younger.  What can I say? 

Hell no. I love it! I've made a few for friends, but they would have no problem paying for music. Neither would I, but they don't need the money that desperately. Honkys at Sony are already rich enough.

Now, if I were making 100s of copies and selling them, that's wrong. But I'm just sharing with a few choice friends. If it's on a large scale, it's wrong. But I'm just helping a few friends out.

I have found any CDs worth copying recently. I've been checking them out at the library lately. Does that make me a cheapskate or a thief if I just borrow material? Not unless I don't pay the overdue fine, if any.
   I don't think so, Indy...


   And impossible, I'd say...

   To you and I, talking here at Decades, that sounds reasonable, however it's illegal to reproduce and distribute copyrighted material.  You know that, I know that...

   Is it unlawful...yes...
   Can I be prosecuted for it...yes
   Is it immoral...*shrugs*
   Do I want to be prosecuted for it...gosh no...
   Am I going to be a good citizen and turn myself in to the authorities...no

Okay as - probably - the only person in this discussion who is actually running a record company (www.ffvinyl.com if ya wanna know) then I'd just like to make a few points:

POINT ONE : . Me and most people in indie record labels don't mind people taking the odd track on MP3 download and sharing it around so that more people get to hear it. In fact we positively encourage it and I put 'my own' copyrighted material out on the P2P networks as a way of letting people get to know the bands we're working with, etc.

What I do object to is spawny little capitalist toerags in colleges, offices, schools or wherever COPYING whole albums - the music and artwork and even the videos - belonging to me and the bands and then SELLING THEM to their friends at a discount price, offering an INFERIOR product and paying neither me or the artist any money, and pocketing the profit. They are nothing short of thieves - make your own music, put on your own gigs, DIYF** self dudes and see how you'd like it if I put my hand in your pocket and rifled dollars from your wallet.

POINT TWO : The prices in stores are out of most record companies hands but they are always the ones that get accused of being 'fat cats' and 'rich busteds' - don't believe me? Well here's a little 101 on how it works (all money in £ sterling sorry but thats what I work in ):

a) we spend lets say £20,000 making an album for a band  including manufacturing and recording costs, tour support, video costs, advertising, PR Agents, freebies and promo goods, producers, websites and artists living expenses. Trust me THATS CHEAP !

b) To achieve a £9.99 recommended retail price - i.e. to NOT rip off the music buyers) we sell to the stores at £5.30 per CD giving the shop a good 80-90% markup. Now the distriubutor takes 31% leaving us with £3.67 per unit sold. If you're local store is charging you more - KNOW who is responsible - its the store making the profit NOT the artist/labels.

c) we operate on 50/50 profit splits with artist after costs are paid back so we need to sell 5,450 CDs before we see any profit. If I tell you that Thrice and Thursday (who are on Universal Island) only sold 7,000 copies of their albums each even with a massive marketing budget in the UK then you get to see the problems that keep me up late at night working (and occasionally visiting these fine forums for a bit of intalekshoel debate!).

Now I'm honestly not asking for any bleeding hearts or violins as I love what I do and I love rock and roll but if you are - and I know you are - going to keep on sharing music 'illegally' can you please do it responsibly and do it for free. Even when you're ripping copies of major label artists music and laughing at the fat cat companies try to remember that the first people to lose their jobs will not be the over-paid executives but the ordinary joes like you and me trying to get by on ordinary wages (trust me I dream of ordinary wages).

Just a few words from the frontline... cheers !

Okay as - probably - the only person in this discussion who is actually running a record company (www.ffvinyl.com if ya wanna know) then I'd just like to make a few points:

POINT ONE : . Me and most people in indie record labels don't mind people taking the odd track on MP3 download and sharing it around so that more people get to hear it. In fact we positively encourage it and I put 'my own' copyrighted material out on the P2P networks as a way of letting people get to know the bands we're working with, etc.

What I do object to is spawny little capitalist toerags in colleges, offices, schools or wherever COPYING whole albums - the music and artwork and even the videos - belonging to me and the bands and then SELLING THEM to their friends at a discount price, offering an INFERIOR product and paying neither me or the artist any money, and pocketing the profit. They are nothing short of thieves - make your own music, put on your own gigs, DIYF** self dudes and see how you'd like it if I put my hand in your pocket and rifled dollars from your wallet.

POINT TWO : The prices in stores are out of most record companies hands but they are always the ones that get accused of being 'fat cats' and 'rich busteds' - don't believe me? Well here's a little 101 on how it works (all money in £ sterling sorry but thats what I work in ):

a) we spend lets say £20,000 making an album for a band  including manufacturing and recording costs, tour support, video costs, advertising, PR Agents, freebies and promo goods, producers, websites and artists living expenses. Trust me THATS CHEAP !

b) To achieve a £9.99 recommended retail price - i.e. to NOT rip off the music buyers) we sell to the stores at £5.30 per CD giving the shop a good 80-90% markup. Now the distriubutor takes 31% leaving us with £3.67 per unit sold. If you're local store is charging you more - KNOW who is responsible - its the store making the profit NOT the artist/labels.

c) we operate on 50/50 profit splits with artist after costs are paid back so we need to sell 5,450 CDs before we see any profit. If I tell you that Thrice and Thursday (who are on Universal Island) only sold 7,000 copies of their albums each even with a massive marketing budget in the UK then you get to see the problems that keep me up late at night working (and occasionally visiting these fine forums for a bit of intalekshoel debate!).

Now I'm honestly not asking for any bleeding hearts or violins as I love what I do and I love rock and roll but if you are - and I know you are - going to keep on sharing music 'illegally' can you please do it responsibly and do it for free. Even when you're ripping copies of major label artists music and laughing at the fat cat companies try to remember that the first people to lose their jobs will not be the over-paid executives but the ordinary joes like you and me trying to get by on ordinary wages (trust me I dream of ordinary wages).

Just a few words from the frontline... cheers !





I agree with that :) Whole records are NOT okay to copy.

I say, BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!  ;) :D ;D





Cat
OR kick Napster Killer "Loser" Lars in the nads...but only if you can find them >:(

http://www.metallicamp.de/news/lars01.jpg

The rich don't steal from the poor.  That's just overstated.

Of course the rich steal from the poor.  They always have.  They don't call it stealing, they call it supply side economics and tax relief.

Oh, boy I'm setting myself up for trouble!
:D

Many of the CDs I have burned I have pledged to purchase at cost when I'm bringing in more disposable income.
I actually copy CDs for numerous reasons.  I suppose it is a bit immoral to copy somebody's CD when you otherwise could and would buy it.  And yes, it is stealing intellectual property.  I'm not telling anybody what they should or shouldn't do....

We all do it - even people in the major labels - so its hypocritical to say you should never, ever ever on pain of death copy music. All I'm asking is that people don'ty just glibly dismiss it as not important because when you and a team of talented people have spent years of your life working on and album - or a movie, to be fair to the world of celluloid as well - then it does have an effect on peoples livelihood when people take your work for free and, while enjoying the fruits of your labours, simply laugh and assume that your making millions. Its not always, and usually isn't, the case.

The biggest problems are really in the east and third world where unscrupulous cartels are producing millions of copies and flooding the market with low grade MP3 versions of original high quality recordings. The vast majority of people won't even notice the difference in quality or care as long as its only 50 cents a copy.

I think the issue is that movie makers and music makers are facing the same problem and the same massive shift in their operations since the advent and growth of broadband. Soon record labels/film studios will be 'content providers' and not 'product creators' and the CD and Vinyl and even DVD as we know it will be a thing of the past. I'm not sure if I'll like that as I love the 'artifact' thing of holding something like an album in my hands, especially old 12" vinyl, but then, in the words of the Elves in Lord of the rings, the Old World is dying and I'm off with Gandalf for one last party with Motorhead before we head off to the Grey Shores  ;D

Of course the rich steal from the poor.  They always have.  They don't call it stealing, they call it supply side economics and tax relief.

Oh, boy I'm setting myself up for trouble!
:D

Many of the CDs I have burned I have pledged to purchase at cost when I'm bringing in more disposable income.
I actually copy CDs for numerous reasons.  I suppose it is a bit immoral to copy somebody's CD when you otherwise could and would buy it.  And yes, it is stealing intellectual property.  I'm not telling anybody what they should or shouldn't do....
Okay...time for me to throw a wrench into this....Rappers do or do not...STEAL bits of songs from other artists but  sometime get sued....I think they should be. Oh and let's not forget how they try and justify it by calling it "Sampling" ::) YO!

Okay...time for me to throw a wrench into this....Rappers do or do not...STEAL bits of songs from other artists but  sometime get sued....I think they should be. Oh and let's not forget how they try and justify it by calling it "Sampling" ::) YO!

Yeah, well the copyright laws are oppressive!
::)

Okay as - probably - the only person in this discussion who is actually running a record company (www.ffvinyl.com if ya wanna know) then I'd just like to make a few points...



Thanks for offering an informed, reasonable perspective on the whole thing.



Of course the rich steal from the poor. They always have. They don't call it stealing, they call it supply side economics and tax relief.

Oh, boy I'm setting myself up for trouble!



Oy!  More amped-up rhetoric from you?  I used to think you were a more level-headed liberal.  ;)

Yeah, well the copyright laws are oppressive!
::)
;D

:P

Not profiting is a thin justification.  If I steal an overpriced Ferrari for my own use rather than to re-sell it, is it any less immoral?  Or if I don't steal the whole ferrari -- just some hubcaps I need?  C'mon people, you can do better than that.  Surely.

::)

is it immoral: yes, says so in the ten commandments...thou shalt not steal.

do i care: no. i'll burn as many CD's as i d.amn well please.

The difference is that I've already paid once for the CD.  If I bought a Ferrari and used the parts as a "model" to build a duplicate, manufacturing the parts myself, but buying the supplies (i.e. metal, wire, etc.) from someone else, is that stealing?


Mmmmm... I can certainly understand the argument that that's not unethical... but I could imagine a compelling argument the other way -- y'know, based on the implicit or explicit agreement between you and the seller at the point of transaction...  I'll have to chew on that...

Okay as - probably - the only person in this discussion who is actually running a record company (www.ffvinyl.com if ya wanna know) then I'd just like to make a few points:

(edited for brevity)

Just a few words from the frontline... cheers !





Neither Cat nor I have ever downloaded music from the internet, but we have recorded tunes from the radio and movies from the tube, mostly for our own use.  On a few occasions we have copied both for friends, especially out od "print" stuff.  So I would say that we try yo respect the intellectual property rights of others - to a degree.  We would never try to sell copies of anything we snagged for free. 

But the question I raised above remains.  How is recording off the radio or the TV different from recording off the net?  I appreciate and respect the rights of "authors", but if you put your stuff in the public domain, its going to get copied - and pirated. 

Bingo. Exactly what i thought when i read the name of the thread.

'Oh we aren't selling many records.. Jack up the prices again that'll have em selling again'

You guys complain at like $15 price tags.. ok then come here and pay £15-20. Yes folks that's good old fashioned Sterling. We can pay in excess of $30 for a Billboard CD.


Absolutely right. The prices for music CDs (and almost anything media based) over here are disgusting.  :(

Neither Cat nor I have ever downloaded music from the internet, but we have recorded tunes from the radio and movies from the tube, mostly for our own use.  On a few occasions we have copied both for friends, especially out od "print" stuff.  So I would say that we try yo respect the intellectual property rights of others - to a degree.  We would never try to sell copies of anything we snagged for free. 

But the question I raised above remains.  How is recording off the radio or the TV different from recording off the net?  I appreciate and respect the rights of "authors", but if you put your stuff in the public domain, its going to get copied - and pirated. 
That's been my point in an older thread about this very topic. The argument made was "Well, you get the DJ talking over part of it"....to which I say, what about the many times I've taped from stations that played entire albums with no interuption ;)

The difference with internet copying and copying CDs wholesale is that we're talking perfect digital copies and that removes the incentive to buy the original. On that level i can understand the worries that everyone involved in music has. As usual, loads of people say, what the hell, it doesn't effect me, screw you. Well in the same thread we've got complaints about the prices of CDs at the stores - do you really think they're going to come down in price if less are getting sold? We're had to put up our unit price recently because we're not shipping as many records as we were a few years ago and you can be sure that all down the supply chain the prices will start rising. And you can say goodbye to your local record stores because while all the cool young dudes are sharing music on the internet for free then its those little stores that'll be closing down on a street near you soon not the megastores which will happily sell anything - DVDs, porn, T-shirts, Ipods, whatever.

Like I said before behind every public megastar - in movies or music - there are thousands of ordinary wage slaves whose jobs depend on people buying records and theatre tickets. You're may think you're stealing from Lars Ulrich or Michael Jackson and Sony/BMG but it won't be them paying the price. Just like for all those fraudelent insurance claims and injury ambulance chased cases its us, at the end of the day, that pays the higher premiums. So strike a blow for anarchy and freedom and  buy the gawd darn record from the artists website or indie shop.

The difference with internet copying and copying CDs wholesale is that we're talking perfect digital copies and that removes the incentive to buy the original. On that level i can understand the worries that everyone involved in music has. As usual, loads of people say, what the hell, it doesn't effect me, screw you. Well in the same thread we've got complaints about the prices of CDs at the stores - do you really think they're going to come down in price if less are getting sold? We're had to put up our unit price recently because we're not shipping as many records as we were a few years ago and you can be sure that all down the supply chain the prices will start rising. And you can say goodbye to your local record stores because while all the cool young dudes are sharing music on the internet for free then its those little stores that'll be closing down on a street near you soon not the megastores which will happily sell anything - DVDs, porn, T-shirts, Ipods, whatever.

Like I said before behind every public megastar - in movies or music - there are thousands of ordinary wage slaves whose jobs depend on people buying records and theatre tickets. You're may think you're stealing from Lars Ulrich or Michael Jackson and Sony/BMG but it won't be them paying the price. Just like for all those fraudelent insurance claims and injury ambulance chased cases its us, at the end of the day, that pays the higher premiums. So strike a blow for anarchy and freedom and  buy the gawd darn record from the artists website or indie shop.


"The Internet is here, and anybody trying to fight that, which would be people who are living by certain standards and practices of the record industry -- those are the only people who are scared and threatened."
- Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit)

"The thing is, you can go after them (Napster) and stop them, but how are you going to stop... it's like put out one fire over here, theres a thousand fires. Music is ultimately going to be free."

-- Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins)

Oh Yeah Fred Durst and Billy Corgan  ::)

Sorry but its easy for some millionaire rockstar to start banging on about how it's gonna be really cool when music is, like, totally free maaaaaaaaaaan.

Yeah right, I wish.... Maybe those roostersuckers would like to throw some crumbs from the rich mans table eh? And I've yet to come across a band that doesn't need to pay for instruments, rent, food, gas, drugs, beer, whatever. I never get a band come to me and say "hey man, we want to give our music away for free to everyone and we'll pay for everything ourselves" because they can't. The models for making a living out of being a musician are just not working anymore because people don't place any value on music and th emore they get used to it being free the worse it is going to get

And you can be sure of one thing - the big labels will find a way to screw us all out of money for something somehow, its - as I keep saying - the little guys who are gonna get burned.

On a side note - its interesting how quickly Mr Napster sold his soul for the corporate dollar isn't it now that he's setting up a system for all the majors. I guess in answer to young, naive Billy Corgan THATS how you stop them - you find their price and you buy em out !!!

is it immoral: yes, says so in the ten commandments...thou shalt not steal.

do i care: no. i'll burn as many CD's as i d.amn well please.

That's the spirit! Fog de man!
8)

Thanks for offering an informed, reasonable perspective on the whole thing.

Oy!  More amped-up rhetoric from you?  I used to think you were a more level-headed liberal.   ;)

Who so you think I am, Alan Colmes?
Level-headedness is an unreasonable expectation from one whose country is being taking over by vile fascist piggies!
Thank you very much.
:P

I think it's all right to download a few songs from an artists album, so you get an idea of what the albums like. But I think if you download a whole album, and burn it, that's immoral. If you like the album, don't burn it. Show your support for the artist and buy the album. that's my opinion.

I burn CD's only because I want certain songs from different artists combined on one CD, so that if I'm going on a road trip <--i know, cliche..  I don't have to lug 20 different cd's with me so I can listen to one song on each.

Back in the 80's there was this thing called "Personics" where you would go up to the machine, insert money, and you could make a cassette and pick your songs from thousands of choices.  If they had something like that nowadays where you could pay a few bucks and make your own CD with the songs you want I'd use it.

But since there isn't, I'm gonna keep burning cd's.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/artists_not_concerned_about_file_sharing/

Musicians 'unconcerned' about file sharing
By Deirdre McArdle, ENN
Published Tuesday 7th December 2004 11:33 GMT

A survey of artists and musicians in the US has revealed that a large majority have embraced the internet and consider it to be a helpful tool to their careers.

The survey, conducted by The Pew Internet & American Life Project, shows that artists and musicians recognise the advantages of the internet and have used it to their benefit. Some 66 per cent of musicians surveyed said that the internet is "very important" in helping them to create and distribute their music. Additionally, 90 per cent of all respondents use the internet to seek out inspiration.

While the survey revealed that musicians agree that file-sharing should be illegal, they do not seem to be overly concerned about it, with 66 per cent of musicians citing it as just a minor threat or no threat at all.

In response to the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) pursuit of music file-swappers, two-thirds of all artists surveyed said that the people who run the file-sharing services should be held responsible for the piracy while 37 per cent of musicians believe that both those running the file-sharing programmes and the individuals sharing the files should be held jointly accountable. Interestingly, 60 per cent of all musicians surveyed said the RIAA actions will not benefit them in any way.

There is general agreement amongst artists and musicians on the issue of what is permissible and what is not in terms of copying digital music or material. Selling material without the creator's permission is broadly regarded as wrong while copying material for private use is seen as acceptable.

In general, the artists and musicians surveyed appear to have a balanced perspective on the subject of file-sharing and the internet. The responses indicate that they believe they have gained more from the internet than they have lost.

Around 83 per cent offer free samples of their work online and a large number have reported benefits from the practice such as higher CD sales, larger concert attendance, and more radio play; 72 per cent of musicians said the internet has helped them to make more money from their music and 69 per cent sell their music somewhere online. In contrast, a mere 3 per cent of artists say the internet has had a negative effect on their ability to protect their work.

In 2003 the RIAA began using civil lawsuits to target people who were illegally sharing music files through P2P networks and has sued in excess of 3,000 people to date. In light of thiss, Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster, has launched Snocap, a new company that he hopes will bridge the divide between record labels and P2P networks. This has developed technology that will identify digital music tracks shared across the internet and create a system to collect royalties on behalf of copyright owners. If Snocap catches on it could be the happy medium for the industry and artists alike.

Yeah you're right about the musicians. Most of them don't worry about file-sharing. They also don't worry about buying new strings in time for their gigs, turning up to studios on time, selling records or t-shirts, paying their rent, putting oil in the hire van you get them so it doesn't blow up on the motorway (happened just last week, nice one guys), etc. the list is endless.

Musicians are wonderful, idealistic, creative people who would, in most cases and I'm happy to know some exceptions, starve to death if it wasn't for their managers, labels and girlfriends. They're not worried about losing money through the internet until I turn around to them and say there's no money in the kitty for that really cool new guitar they need. Que se ra and all that  ;)

We're embracing the internet at our label and, as I've said before, we jave no problem with making freebies available to everyone (visit the site and help yourself to some www.ffvinyl.com) but as a business that makes music, we've got to make some money or everyone loses out.

I do agree though that the RIAA and BPI (in the UK) are getting too heavy handed about file-sharing. Take a chill pill guys, sheesh...

I am on a limited income due to disability...so I do NOT have the disposable income to buy CD's of all the bands and styles of music I like....and I only like certain songs from some artists...plus I like burning my own CD's with my own choice of songs,as well as making copies when those CD's wear out...so yes I download music(using BearShare)and burn my own CD's.

As far as 'how could you afford an expensive computer'...my housing staff helped me save enough money to buy it...and it was over several years I had to save for it....

If I do it, NO!  ;)
If you do it, YES!  :P

If I do it, NO!  ;)
If you do it, YES!  :P

That's about the size of it.  I have my excuse, do you have yours?
;)

I already paid for over 1,500 LP's over the years....I don't see how downloading some tracks from some of those LP's is a crime!

I already paid for over 1,500 LP's over the years....I don't see how downloading some tracks from some of those LP's is a crime!
It makes listening to the LPs a lot easier, especially it is for your own use.

I think it's all right to download a few songs from an artists album, so you get an idea of what the albums like. But I think if you download a whole album, and burn it, that's immoral. If you like the album, don't burn it. Show your support for the artist and buy the album. that's my opinion.


I have heard that the artists don't lose out, it's just the production companies.

I have heard that the artists don't lose out, it's just the production companies.


The royalties has been paid for in the buying of the LPs.

Still, if I decided to burn a whole LP...that I already bought...I don't see a problem with that either :-\\

Topic reminds me of an event from Arrested Development. One of the characters, a hadrcore Christian, is holding a party where people are literally going to burn CDs (as in fire) that are deemed offensive. But once the party happens, it ends up being a CD Burning party (in the sense we are using it here), much to the planner's chagrin.

"This party is great! I must have burned, like, 5 CDs from this kid's MP3 player!"

I already paid for over 1,500 LP's over the years....I don't see how downloading some tracks from some of those LP's is a crime!

I copied any vinyl I couldn't replace on CD onto CD-R.  If the record is in reasonable shape and the playback equipment is good, it renders fine facsimile for CD-R.

This is offtopic but:

Maxwell, I just noticed, you are from Amherst! :D That is SO cool. We are studying the poety of Emily Dickinson in my English class right now, she was from Amherst.

This is offtopic but:

Maxwell, I just noticed, you are from Amherst! :D That is SO cool. We are studying the poety of Emily Dickinson in my English class right now, she was from Amherst.

You bet!  Emily Dickinson is a biiiig deal around here.  Her house is a one of the most popular landmarks in town.  And of course there are many buildings and locales named Dickinson.  http://www.umass.edu/wsp/conferences/pictures/house.html
Her grandfather, Samuel Fowler Dickinson, was one of the founding members of Amherst College.  That's the prestigious one in town, not UMass where average dopes like me go!
::)
They also made a PBS movie in the 1970s about Emily Dickinson, The Belle of Amherst.  My local video store carries, but I've never seen it.  Not sure if it's generally available.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0202812/

I copied any vinyl I couldn't replace on CD onto CD-R.  If the record is in reasonable shape and the playback equipment is good, it renders fine facsimile for CD-R.

Thanks, Max :) I've done that as well ;)

And what about places like "Recycle Records" where I was also able to buy great copies of my LP's for 33 cents apiece? Why isn't that a crime agaisnt the industry?