Internet downloading poll for my CJ class
 

Ok, I need some stuff to put in a paper for my CJ 101 class. Help me out.

Let me know how you found out how to get the songs as well.

Please hit the poll and follow up with some basic demographic data (gender, age) for me, please, please, please...

I found out about mp3s and their easy download so long ago (it was, gosh, in 99, I think) that I really don't remember how I found out about it. Probably from a friend at the callcentre I worked at.

Yeah, I use to download music, but that has stopped in recent years for several reasons:

1. Despite filenames, you really don't know what you're getting.
2. I like my music ripped at high bitrates. The ones you find online are generally 128kbps or less.
3. I have enough disposable income now that I can afford the CD's I want.
4. Really, it does feel like I'm doing something wrong when I do it. That isn't meant to pass judgement on anyone, but when *I* do it, I feel like I've done something wrong.

Male, 26. :)

What's CJ?

You didn't have a category for "Illegal and I don't do it but the RIAA is still a bunch of clueless turkeys who are driving their industry into an early grave."

-10 points on your assignment for spelling "from" wrong. :cool:

34 pedantic male

Male 23

Mostly the same reasons as perth.
5) It isn't right to do something illegal. It's a principe

An ex-boyfriend introduced me to the joys of Kazaa.

At the time I did not have a broadband connection or a CD burner, so it was nothing more than an interesting curiosity.

I don't like the idea of giving permission to others to snoop onto my hard drive, so I haven't joined up now that I do have a CD burner and broadband.

Edit to add: female, 42

I put down illegal, but I would modify SteveDallas' comment to be my true opinion.

Illegal and I don't do it but the RIAA, Clearcast and most other radio stations are still a bunch of clueless turkeys who are driving their industry into an early grave.

I expect CJ is Criminal Justice.

That it is. I'm doing a double major, sociology and criminal justice.

This is gonna suck...

That's why you want Kazaa lite. You can download without setting up a file to share with others on both but lite doesn't have the data miners and snoops.

I download to hear things, but don't save or record them.
They tell me it's illegal....I don't care.

male- jurasic

Yes it's illegal, but to be honest, I don't really care. From the numbers that I've read (and can't reproduce, oops), most of the money from album sales ends up going to the Labels anyway (for reimbursements of advertising, engineering, recording, etc...), and I feel bad about 'taking' money from the hyper wealthy at all. I pay to see live shows all the time (which goes directly to the artist) and if there were a way for me to send money to the artist directly for the CD (a la TC favs the Rhymesayers Collective), I would pay for more of my music. But there isn't, so I don't.
Male - 26

addendum: I don't file share at all (i.e., Kazaa, Bearshare, etc...), my methods for obtaining music are one of the ancient protocols of the net.

Why is it gonna suck? Are you not liking our opinions?? :3eye:

when i first heard that it was possible, it was all napster. when napster was shut down, i switched to kazaa. when they started actively prosecuting people, i stopped. now i just go to message boards, infiltrate myself into a position of trust, and start a grass roots movement of music sharing, but with stipulations not to copy, thereby complying with my uber moral standards, and the law of the land.


male 33

I used to download songs all the time. I downloaded from Audio Galaxy, BUT I only downloaded to make sure I liked other songs by the artist. If I liked most of a particular artists music I then would go out and buy the Cd. If I ended up not liking the artists other songs I kept the one I liked and didn't buy the Cd (its the artists fault for making a shitty Cd :) ). Now with all the suing and shit going on I don't download any more but only for fear of being sued. Alan and I aren't buying Cd's till the record companies stop this suing people bullshit. So now I go down to my local county library (12 different libraries all on the same system so its like one mega sized library) and check the Cd's out, rip the songs I want, and then return the Cd's. My library(s) has 90% of the Cd's I want and for the occasional one we cant find we buy second hand from someone off Ebay for a couple bucks.

I didn't vote in your poll because I am not sure how my answer works with the poll. I don't download songs but not because its illegal, only because I don't want to get sued.

That is another great example of why Alan & I aren't buying Cd's. The record company says they are suing everyone to protect the "Artists" when the artists get something like 6 cents for every album sold.

Here is another interesting tidbit of info that I read in a magazine about a week ago. Norah Jones' new album Feels Like Home sold something like 1.6 million copies in its first week of release (and like 150 thousand in the second week), numbers like that have not been done since in-sync (I don't care if I spelled them wrong) 5 years or so ago. And on top of selling 1.6 million copies the first week of release she is also the number one downloaded artist on the internet, according to a company that tracks this type of stuff. That tells me that even with people downloading her music left and right, they are still going out and buying the Cd.

It's gonna suck because i'm only just realizing the research and writing I'm going to have to do for both of those majors is going to be giant pain in my ass.

Oh well, I did it to myself...

Illegal but they deserve it. Male, 34.

I don't do it myself, simply because I don't have broadband, and I like having CD jackets. But as far as illegality goes, I think it's almost akin to taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, blowing it up and framing it. If someone wants to see the original, they can go to the Louvre. Most people would prefer that over a copy anyway.

Anyway, it's been going on ever since they invented two-deck tape players. Maybe before that. People who don't have the money for an album get a copy from their friends. If the damn things didn't cost almost 20 bucks each, maybe more of us would buy from the store.

That's another good reason in my mind. Most of the stuff that comes with a disc is either a necessity or fluff, but damned if I don't love it.

Example: Aimee Mann's latest effort. First off, the case wouldn't be out of place next to your books. The bonus disc is a bunch of live recordings, and sandwiched between the two discs is one of those "artsy, underground" comics. I don't know why I dig it, I just do. Granted, stuff like this isn't common with single album releases, but that's what boxed sets are for. :)

I saw this Cd listed on her labels site and was seriously considering buying it (you can buy it directly from her label here with the first 2,000 copies individually numbered and available only there). I already have the original Lost In Space Cd so my question is; Is the second disk worth it in your opinion?

Male, 47, and not only do I know it is illegal, but I also know that downloading movies is illegal, and I do that, too.

However, I only download movies that I would never pay to see anyway, so they aren't losing anything from me. Sooner or later, they come out on cable, and I pay out the ass for that (I pay over $200/month for cable and broadband, because I have *all* the bells and whistles you can get, plus a cable box on every TV in the house).

I also download only songs that I wouldn't buy. If I want a whole CD, I go buy it. If I want a single song, I download it.

Well, but the first disc is better. I listened to the second disc 2 times, and have listened to the first disc ever since. I think it's worth it from a completist's point of view, but only if there aren't other discs catching your eye at the same time. :)

Illegal, and I don't do it. But not because it's illegal. But because I don't listen to music. I also don't buy CDs, pay for downloads, or listen to music radio.

Oh, AND they deserve it. For a whole litany of offenses.

WHAT?!?!?!?

Maybe he doesn't want that many CDs?

(trying to save your sex life for you, buddy. You may have to buy her something to make up for the comment.)

Thanks for the help.
 

Ok, paper's done and turned in.

Thanks for the help guys.

So? What were your conclusions? Post it with a poll.. we'll all try to predict what grade you get!

illegal, and I support it.

I downloaded music for a while, but now I am more likely to buy CDs.

Audiogalaxy definitely shaped my musical tastes. I'm not sure what I would be listening to without having used it, but I think that my musical tastes would be more narrow.

I don't like corporate control of culture. I don't want ClearChannel to decide what we should or should not hear, based on how much record labels pay them.

The law is too massive and too corrupt to be an arbiter of right and wrong, and it should not be an arbiter of right and wrong. When it is illegal to do activities that an unmanageably large portion of the population does, when the law has it's fingers in too many things to be enforced, I think that the law needs to be changed.

You have a very warped sense of the industry.

-sm

Actually, that's exactly it. I use to have an extremely large collection of CD's but after their theft, I've become very picky about what I buy. So its a big thing if I do buy more than, say, 1 CD a month.

Oh, and hon? We have more disposable income than you think. It's just that most of that gets disposed of in clothing purchases made by you. :D

(I figure now that I've accidentally started dgging this hole, I might as well see how deep it goes.)

Here is my portion of the paper. A little thin, but I wasn't going to rehash a long running and well documented argument.

I quoted the RIAA on their opinion and then followed up with this:

People, on the other side of the argument, fall into several categories. In my opinion, one of the most important is the concern over security issues. According to a Wired Magazine News (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html) article the RIAA attempted to have an amendment to the USA Act, section 815, an anti-cyberterrorism section, that would have exempted them from prosecution for hacking the computers of people they thought were sharing music. They wanted to be able to enter a person’s computer and disable file sharing capabilities and delete supposedly unauthorized content. This is a legitimate privacy and security concern. Peer-to-Peer file sharing is a legitimate platform for the exchange of personal files and data, but if a person happens to be using one of the proscribed file sharing programs, that person runs the real risk of having their computer invaded, or worse, crashed and data lost.

On the moral rationalization side of the argument, many people argue, and not without some merit, that the RIAA and the recording companies actually compensate the artists so little that they have no problem downloading music and then going to the concerts so that a larger percentage of the money goes to the artists themselves. While not an untenable position it still suffers from the problem of being illegal.

And lastly I’ll mention the people who will download regardless. They fall into two camps primarily. The first camp is composed of those who don’t care if it is legal or not and simply want their music. They know it’s illegal and don’t care.

The other camp is composed of the group of people who believe that all information should be free. It’s not a position I find to be defensible on several points. The relevant point here is that if it is given away for free then what is the motivation for producing it in the first place? Without some compensation for the effort and materials involved where does the money come from to pay for all of that come from?

For myself, I believe that the downloading of music is illegal. The personal use contract that is included with albums allows for a single copy to be used only by the owner for their use only and not for the purposes of financial gain. While there is no financial gain from sharing, allowing others to have copies of that album exceeds the allowed by the contract. I agree with the moral concerns about the rights of artists and their just compensation, or lack thereof. They receive a very small share of the price of an album. But that doesn’t make sharing legal.

As a long-time member of the internet and technical communities, one thing I have learned about computers and software is that the better mouse trap lasts only about a week. Every form of copyrighting lasts no more than a month before the reverse-engineering groups have a program to undo them. And in the most spectacular case, Microsoft’s Activation Program, they managed to break that and release it before the product even made it to the shelves. The internet is going to continue to be a thorn in the side of copyright, intellectual property, the Illuminati, and governments for a long time to come. There is presently no effective and practical means to encrypt data securely that can’t be broken or shared, and there isn’t one on the horizon either.

Recording Industry Artists of America
http://www.riaa.com
Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com
The Cellar
http://cellar.org/

If the only motivation on an artist is money, then it's not likely to be particularly good art. But that doesn't break the argument - even a highly motivated artist may not have the ability to realize their goals without access to the money. In short, I'd replace "motivation" with "opportunity" or "ability".

Oh, and who bought the uncomfortable shoes because "they look sooooo cool" last night?

I'm thinking they weren't business casual.:haha:

Perth, I see a couch in your future...

You wouldn't if you ever saw our couch. Besides, I've already zoomed right past "couch" and am now going for "Back seat of the car... at the bottom of the lake".

But these shoes? They were worth it. I wouldn't call them "pimpin'", but the moniker "ass-kickinest shoes ever" would be very near the mark.

:D

All that's left is for you to move to the big city, you metrosexual whale penis.

That's OK, Perth. Make up sex is the best.;)

Illegal, and I don't mess with it for fear of prosecution :)

I don't need to be sued by the RIAA, so I don't do it.

Fuck 'em though...as far as I'm concerned, it's completely legitimate. I'm sharing my music with 2 million of my friends. If you don't like it, find a way to prevent people from making copies of cassettes and CDs.

Fucking idiots.

Male, 28

ts, this wasn't exactly as you submitted it to your teacher was it?

I hope not...that's a very poorly constructed sentence. :)

'fraid so. My southern is inversely proportional to the amount of sleep I've had.

It, of course, should have read,"Without some compensation for the effort and materials involved where does the money come from to pay for all of that?" or, "Without some compensation for the effort and materials involved from where does the money come to pay for all of that?" or something like that.

I don't want them to make ways to prevent copies. I like to burn a copy of my favorite Cd's (minus the songs I hate) to listen to in my car. That way my original doesn't get all beat to hell and I don't have to lean over and skip a song while driving. But according to the RIAA that is illegal, and if they had it their way they would be able to fry my hard drive for having the tracks on my computer. I bought the fucking Cd and if I want to burn a copy to listen to in my car its my own right.

You talking makeup sex or downloading?

Oh, I don't want them to do that either. But that's the only real way they'll stop the hemorraging, IMO.

Dude, just kick yourself in the balls now and get it over with.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day ;-)

Only the best of the best selling artists see money from their record (CD) sales. Music industry contracts first pay the label (and those $multimillion executive salaries) before the artist sees a single penny. Most artists must tour to get money because their contracts with the music labels are so one sided. Other alternative is create your own music label.

How to fix the system? Eliminate the useless fat - all those overpaid music industry executives. Best hope for this to happen? Music purchased on the internet at ten cents per song; with money going first and foremost to the artist. This is a greatest fear of the RIAA.

What was the original function of the internet? Exchanging Grateful Dead tapes. Back then, the GD permitted audience to record the live concert.

the Dead has always ENCOURAGED "tapers". There was always a section in the center of the general admission floor seats dedicated to tapers. They came equipped with booms and all.

Male, 33. Selected "why I have broadband."

If I'm downloading music, 95% of what I'm obtaining are things that I either can't find in local stores (Zappa bootlegs, obscure foreign bands, comedy, out-of-print stuff) or songs/artists that I'm not familiar enough with to justify a blind purchase. It's not that I have an extreme moral problem with downloading RIAA stuff -- I don't -- but that my tastes generally run away from the RIAA's flavors-of-the-month.

To wit, I have 12 FM radio presets and use two, MAYBE three more than once or twice a month. One is a college station that I'm rarely in range of. One is WYSP, mostly for Stern in the morning. One is WXPN, mostly for the Saturday night blues show.

(On the AM band, there's WIP for general inanity, KYW for news, and I'll flip around now and then through nutballs like Hannity and O'Reilly and Bob Grant just for the laughs. They're like Jerry Springer for the hard-right crowd.)

I am a firm supporter of Shoutcast and other Internet streaming radio, and am considering a Sirius satellite-radio subscription once I see if Opie & Anthony make the jump this summer. If I could get a car stereo that could find Shoutcast stations or others of that quality, I'd only get out of my Saturn long enough to fill it up with gas.

Most of my Internet downloading revolves around game ROMs and CDs -- Saturn, PSX, TurboGrafx, MAME. Where originals can be found at reasonable rates, I buy them. In the meantime, I go through CDRs like they were candy.

Male 36.

I know you already turned the paper in, but I wanted to share.

I don't download MP3s from the internet, because I don't want to go to the trouble of doing it. My original iMac (dinosaur) has a small hard drive, so it's just too much of a hassle.

I do have *ahem* "a friend" who has about 60 CD-Rs or so full of MP3s that he copied from someone else in person, not over the web. This "friend" has also been known to borrow CDs from the public library and copy them too. Especially Christmas music. In all instances, the music copied would not have been otherwise purchased, because this "friend" didn't like the music that much. Or because the music was not sold anywhere. This "friend" has actually purchased a few hundred CDs in stores in his life, and figures that he's done enough to support the RIAA/MPAA. He realizes that what he does is illegal, but doesn't think it is wrong, because he isn't hurting anyone.

Oh, and in case you think that "friend" is just code for myself, you

Heh... you reminded me of something I'd forgotten because it didn't fall under the category of "downloading"...

I, too, have a friend, who methodically checked out a University's complete sound effects library 5 discs at a time (the limit for an undergrad,) burned them each night, then returned the next day for 5 more. Acquired over 200 discs this way... and in case you're curious, sound effects libraries are a SHITLOAD more expensive than regular music CDs.