Uninstall Kazaa. Instead find the free Kazaa lite and install it. Kazaa lite is modified especially to avoid the many pop up ads that come with the regular version of Kazaa.
Once you have your MP3's downloaded to your hard drive it is a matter of just burning (copying) them on a CD. You will need to have software to do this. I like Roxio's Easy CD Creator Platinum.
I think there may be some basic CD burning software built into windows XP. Try right clicking on the MP3 file and see if you find a menu for "Copy to CD" or something like that.
Now if you have MP3's on a CD they may not play in a regular CD Player unless it is compatible. You might have to convert those MP3's to the type of file that can be played on a home CD player or car player. Easy CD Creator and other burning software does this.
John R.
Downloading and copyng rented DVD's will be next. DVD burners are here to stay and getting cheaper all the time. If I were an executive in the the music and movie industry I would be worried.
My version of Nero automatically converts mp3s to the wave (or "cd") format when burning them to cd, when one selects the create "audio" cd mode. You might consider obtaining a copy of Nero.
I'm sorry, I just really don't see the difference between downloading MP3's and walking into a CD store, grabbing one off the shelf, and walking out without paying for it.
I know of someone who has over 3,000 MP3's and counting. Can he be arrested for owning those? Is it against the law for him to possess those? Has he broken laws by downloading those? ( I really am asking, I do not know the laws in this matter).
If so, half our high school students and 3/4 of our college students will be in jail someday.
[This message was edited by igotout on April 29, 2003 at 1:35.]
John: It depends. If he publishes them for download on a Napster-type service, then the record companies could say the combined value of 3,000 MP3 songs (typically costing $0.99 per legal download from pay-MP3 sites) exceeds the $1,000 limit on aggregate value and it is a Federal offense at that point. Plus, there's a 180-day window for the aggregation, too. If he published fewer, over a six month period, they all count together. Check out the Ubiquitous Mike thread for the sections in the US Code.
Merely owning them is another matter. Unless the copyright holders can prove he furnished the copies to others, their main cause of action is against whoever copied it in the first place, or distributed it down the chain to him. I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on that, but it's sort of like moonshine--you can make all you want, but it's illegal to sell it, give it away, or transport it unless you pay the appropriate taxes on every gallon.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Thank you very much guys for the info I requested. I've downloaded 3 songs so far, mostly Stones tunes and one Cocker tune all of which I own already on vinyl.
Since this venue considers what I did file sharing and so far the courts have agreed, I'll rest well tonight knowing that the cyber cops won't be knocking on my door anytime soon. -->
I have reported you to the FBI. Expect Men in Black to show up at your doorstep soon.
Zixar, I like the Moonshine analogy. (I be from Kentucy originally).
So this person who has over 3,000 MP3's.... is he stealing? From whom? Who has he harmed?
It appears he has not broken the laws of the land if he has his file sharing capabilities turned off in his Options in his Kazaa lite program so that others can not download from him.
I know of a teenager who recently PURCHASED a Donovan CD because she was able to discover Donovan by downloading a few of his songs. In times past she may have never heard or heard of Donovan. This is an incident where downloaded MP3's helped put money into an artists pocket. If this popularity grew it could mean a revived career.
Right now the recording industry's overall revenues are down $1 Billion from previous years.
Who is it hurting? The musicians, the record companies, and all employees associated with the production and distribution of music CDs.
Sure, one person got turned on to Donovan, and purchased a CD. But more people will just download more MP3's instead of purchasing CDs.
Let's look at it from a different point of view. Suppose you were a writer for a magazine. Suppose you got paid on a per magazine sold basis. Suppose one person bought the magazine, then retyped YOUR article and emailed it out to 10 of his/her friends, who each emailed it out, and so on.
So your article actually gets read by 5 million people, but the magazine only sold 10,000 copies.
It's a tricky subject. On one hand, John is right, in that nothing tangible gets stolen. However, Steve is right too, in that each downloaded song is generally a song that now the artist will receive no compensation for.
Fact: It's legal to tape a song off a CD you own.
Fact: It's legal to tape a song off of the radio.
Fact: It's illegal to sell either tape.
Before, the music biz had a built-in remedy--generation loss. If you've ever photocopied a photocopy, you'll see generation loss. Since the copies aren't perfect, repeated copying degrades the source material with noise or fidelity loss. Yes, you could tape off of a copied tape, but do this 3 or 4 times and the copies from each successive generation become practically useless.
Photocopiers did not destroy the book trade. Cassette recorders did not destroy the music trade. VCRs did not destroy the film trade. So why the fuss?
CDs aren't subject to generation loss. If you copy the data off of one, byte by byte, and put it on another, it is indistinguishable from the original. With computers, a person can borrow a friend's CD and make a perfect duplicate. A copy off that duplicate will still be identical to the original, and so on.
The built-in safeguard for CDs used to be the sheer size of the data involved. The text of a 400-page book is about 1 megabyte. A single CD stores an album in 660 megabytes. The average song would take up 30-60 megabytes, a huge file to transfer over a modem.
A few years back, however, some sound geniuses came up with a way to compress those 60MB song files into 3-5MB each. It's now known as MP3, and it's based on psychoacoustics--throwing away the bits of data representing sounds being masked by louder sounds, sort of. It's taking advantage of quirks in human hearing to get away with this. Since the MP3 encoder actually throws data away, it's called lossy compression.
Is that good enough to consider MP3s equivalent to lossy photocopies or cassette tapes? Well, only in the case of multiple CD->MP3->CD->MP3 copying and extracting. When you copy an MP3 back into the standard CD format, the program has to expand it back from 3-5MB to 30-60MB. Without the original data though, the burner can only make educated guesses (which are still pretty good) on how to fill in the missing data. Down-generations of MP3s recorded this way start to take on a metallic distortion, but it takes more generations to degrade the recording substantially than cassette generations do.
I don't know if I've made the situation any clearer, but that's more or less what's going on.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
But more people will just download more MP3's instead of purchasing CDs.
___________________________________
Steve, I think you are right about that from what I can tell. Unfortunately (or fortunately for some) I can almost gaurantee this same thing is going to happen with DVD's!
A person will rent from Blockbuster, go home and just make a perfect copy as described by Zixar so succintly. In fact while he's at it he he will make an extra copy for his brother and grandma. At any given time thereafter, he will be able to burn another copy. Talk about revenue loss!
However, I think we are starting to see a slowdown in MP3's. I still see people with lots of MP3's buying CD's and more so now than before when it was a novelty. Some MP3's sound lousy. But the CD's are excellent quality.
Microsoft has nailed it! They need to follow their lead. How many of us copied Windows 98 or Office. (C'mon...get honest.)
Try doing that with a Microsoft product today and you will not be very successful. Their registration process prevents pirating for the most part. The music industry needs technology that will help prevent copying. I would not want to be in their shoes.
Of course, you could just get the StreamRipper plugin for the Winamp MP3 player and record the MP3s off of ShoutCast.com's Internet broadcasts, just like taping off of radio... ;)-->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Datway - Steve VanZandt (sp) from Bruce Springsteen's group. would agree with you. That is what he basically said on a talk show the other night. He said it has become too comercialized due to videos and other marketing. They go with what sells and therefore a lot of true talent is missed.He said this was not true in the 60's, early 70's. He said there is a dearth of good stuff right now.
He has a radio syndication that is popular and growing because he plays non mainstream stuff that is overlooked as well as introduces new garage bands.
He is pretty knowledgeable it appears. After all, he is in the business for sure.
Well, Datway (the poster formerly known as InDebtSaysWho (tpfkaidsw)), I am not disputing what you are saying about the commercialism of the music industry.
And many artists out there, disgusted or otherwise put off by the hoops you have to jump through, or the idea of compromising their artistic integrity, that produce and market and sell their own CD's.
And while you may be right to say that the music industry overcharges for their product - and again, I feel that way too - the issue isn't whether or not they are greedy.
A company, an industry, or even a person, can charge whatever someone else is willing to pay. And if that other party is not willing to pay, then that other person should walk away without the product or service.
To do otherwise is theft.
You are saying that many people steal from the music corporations because the big corporations are greedy. That may be *ONE* reason. It may be a major reason. But let me ask you this - would the situation disappear if those companies charged half of what they charge now? One fourth?
I really doubt it.
And just because these people say that they have a good reason to steal does not make it right. Stealing is still stealing.
Datway, you seem to be taking this rather personally. Also, I feel like your replies are meant to be somewhat of an attack on me. Having read many of your prior posts, I sort of think that this is probably not the case.
Anyway, the difference between hearing it on the radio and recording it for personal use, and recording it from a CD and distributing it, is this:
for one thing, there is an inherent difference in quality. For another, when it's played on the radio, the DJ will often talk during the beggining and ending of a song while being careful not to "step on" the lyrics. And third, when a song gets distributed via a file-sharing service, the reason for it is so that other people don't have to pay to have a copy of this song. Sure, many will say that they are "previewing" the song. But if they like it, do they delete it and buy the CD? or at least send in a check for, say, $1 to the artist?
Please keep in mind that the artists get paid on a per-CD sold basis.
You are probably absolutely right when you say that the laws are extremely vague when it comes to this situation.
But aren't the laws for the lawless?
Do you feel that it is ethical for people to share MP3's the way they are being shared?
Recommended Posts
Steve!
Well, it *is* stealing . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Uninstall Kazaa. Instead find the free Kazaa lite and install it. Kazaa lite is modified especially to avoid the many pop up ads that come with the regular version of Kazaa.
Once you have your MP3's downloaded to your hard drive it is a matter of just burning (copying) them on a CD. You will need to have software to do this. I like Roxio's Easy CD Creator Platinum.
I think there may be some basic CD burning software built into windows XP. Try right clicking on the MP3 file and see if you find a menu for "Copy to CD" or something like that.
Now if you have MP3's on a CD they may not play in a regular CD Player unless it is compatible. You might have to convert those MP3's to the type of file that can be played on a home CD player or car player. Easy CD Creator and other burning software does this.
John R.
Downloading and copyng rented DVD's will be next. DVD burners are here to stay and getting cheaper all the time. If I were an executive in the the music and movie industry I would be worried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
My version of Nero automatically converts mp3s to the wave (or "cd") format when burning them to cd, when one selects the create "audio" cd mode. You might consider obtaining a copy of Nero.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Yeah, I have heard good things about Nero as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I'm sorry, I just really don't see the difference between downloading MP3's and walking into a CD store, grabbing one off the shelf, and walking out without paying for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
How about if a friend tapes a CD for you? Stealing?
:)-->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Zix: pretty much
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I know of someone who has over 3,000 MP3's and counting. Can he be arrested for owning those? Is it against the law for him to possess those? Has he broken laws by downloading those? ( I really am asking, I do not know the laws in this matter).
If so, half our high school students and 3/4 of our college students will be in jail someday.
[This message was edited by igotout on April 29, 2003 at 1:35.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
John: It depends. If he publishes them for download on a Napster-type service, then the record companies could say the combined value of 3,000 MP3 songs (typically costing $0.99 per legal download from pay-MP3 sites) exceeds the $1,000 limit on aggregate value and it is a Federal offense at that point. Plus, there's a 180-day window for the aggregation, too. If he published fewer, over a six month period, they all count together. Check out the Ubiquitous Mike thread for the sections in the US Code.
Merely owning them is another matter. Unless the copyright holders can prove he furnished the copies to others, their main cause of action is against whoever copied it in the first place, or distributed it down the chain to him. I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on that, but it's sort of like moonshine--you can make all you want, but it's illegal to sell it, give it away, or transport it unless you pay the appropriate taxes on every gallon.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Thank you very much guys for the info I requested. I've downloaded 3 songs so far, mostly Stones tunes and one Cocker tune all of which I own already on vinyl.
Since this venue considers what I did file sharing and so far the courts have agreed, I'll rest well tonight knowing that the cyber cops won't be knocking on my door anytime soon.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I have reported you to the FBI. Expect Men in Black to show up at your doorstep soon.
Zixar, I like the Moonshine analogy. (I be from Kentucy originally).
So this person who has over 3,000 MP3's.... is he stealing? From whom? Who has he harmed?
It appears he has not broken the laws of the land if he has his file sharing capabilities turned off in his Options in his Kazaa lite program so that others can not download from him.
I know of a teenager who recently PURCHASED a Donovan CD because she was able to discover Donovan by downloading a few of his songs. In times past she may have never heard or heard of Donovan. This is an incident where downloaded MP3's helped put money into an artists pocket. If this popularity grew it could mean a revived career.
Just another viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Right now the recording industry's overall revenues are down $1 Billion from previous years.
Who is it hurting? The musicians, the record companies, and all employees associated with the production and distribution of music CDs.
Sure, one person got turned on to Donovan, and purchased a CD. But more people will just download more MP3's instead of purchasing CDs.
Let's look at it from a different point of view. Suppose you were a writer for a magazine. Suppose you got paid on a per magazine sold basis. Suppose one person bought the magazine, then retyped YOUR article and emailed it out to 10 of his/her friends, who each emailed it out, and so on.
So your article actually gets read by 5 million people, but the magazine only sold 10,000 copies.
Who is that hurting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
It's a tricky subject. On one hand, John is right, in that nothing tangible gets stolen. However, Steve is right too, in that each downloaded song is generally a song that now the artist will receive no compensation for.
Fact: It's legal to tape a song off a CD you own.
Fact: It's legal to tape a song off of the radio.
Fact: It's illegal to sell either tape.
Before, the music biz had a built-in remedy--generation loss. If you've ever photocopied a photocopy, you'll see generation loss. Since the copies aren't perfect, repeated copying degrades the source material with noise or fidelity loss. Yes, you could tape off of a copied tape, but do this 3 or 4 times and the copies from each successive generation become practically useless.
Photocopiers did not destroy the book trade. Cassette recorders did not destroy the music trade. VCRs did not destroy the film trade. So why the fuss?
CDs aren't subject to generation loss. If you copy the data off of one, byte by byte, and put it on another, it is indistinguishable from the original. With computers, a person can borrow a friend's CD and make a perfect duplicate. A copy off that duplicate will still be identical to the original, and so on.
The built-in safeguard for CDs used to be the sheer size of the data involved. The text of a 400-page book is about 1 megabyte. A single CD stores an album in 660 megabytes. The average song would take up 30-60 megabytes, a huge file to transfer over a modem.
A few years back, however, some sound geniuses came up with a way to compress those 60MB song files into 3-5MB each. It's now known as MP3, and it's based on psychoacoustics--throwing away the bits of data representing sounds being masked by louder sounds, sort of. It's taking advantage of quirks in human hearing to get away with this. Since the MP3 encoder actually throws data away, it's called lossy compression.
Is that good enough to consider MP3s equivalent to lossy photocopies or cassette tapes? Well, only in the case of multiple CD->MP3->CD->MP3 copying and extracting. When you copy an MP3 back into the standard CD format, the program has to expand it back from 3-5MB to 30-60MB. Without the original data though, the burner can only make educated guesses (which are still pretty good) on how to fill in the missing data. Down-generations of MP3s recorded this way start to take on a metallic distortion, but it takes more generations to degrade the recording substantially than cassette generations do.
I don't know if I've made the situation any clearer, but that's more or less what's going on.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
__________________________________________
But more people will just download more MP3's instead of purchasing CDs.
___________________________________
Steve, I think you are right about that from what I can tell. Unfortunately (or fortunately for some) I can almost gaurantee this same thing is going to happen with DVD's!
A person will rent from Blockbuster, go home and just make a perfect copy as described by Zixar so succintly. In fact while he's at it he he will make an extra copy for his brother and grandma. At any given time thereafter, he will be able to burn another copy. Talk about revenue loss!
However, I think we are starting to see a slowdown in MP3's. I still see people with lots of MP3's buying CD's and more so now than before when it was a novelty. Some MP3's sound lousy. But the CD's are excellent quality.
Microsoft has nailed it! They need to follow their lead. How many of us copied Windows 98 or Office. (C'mon...get honest.)
Try doing that with a Microsoft product today and you will not be very successful. Their registration process prevents pirating for the most part. The music industry needs technology that will help prevent copying. I would not want to be in their shoes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Of course, you could just get the StreamRipper plugin for the Winamp MP3 player and record the MP3s off of ShoutCast.com's Internet broadcasts, just like taping off of radio...
;)-->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
PromisingFemales AbundantLove
[This message was edited by DATWAY on May 05, 2003 at 13:45.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
[
PromisingFemales AbundantLove
[This message was edited by DATWAY on May 05, 2003 at 13:46.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Nope, sure don't. Although if it's on broadcast TV it's fair game.
Nope, this is an untrue statement. That's what a lot of people think, but it's just not so.
Hey, rationalize it all you want, but stealing is still stealing.
The recording industry and all those associated with it have a right to make a profit.
If people don't like the prices they can vote with their feet. If enough people don't buy CD's, the prices WILL come down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
PromisingFemales AbundantLove
[This message was edited by DATWAY on May 05, 2003 at 13:46.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Datway - Steve VanZandt (sp) from Bruce Springsteen's group. would agree with you. That is what he basically said on a talk show the other night. He said it has become too comercialized due to videos and other marketing. They go with what sells and therefore a lot of true talent is missed.He said this was not true in the 60's, early 70's. He said there is a dearth of good stuff right now.
He has a radio syndication that is popular and growing because he plays non mainstream stuff that is overlooked as well as introduces new garage bands.
He is pretty knowledgeable it appears. After all, he is in the business for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
PromisingFemales AbundantLove
[This message was edited by DATWAY on May 05, 2003 at 13:47.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Well, Datway (the poster formerly known as InDebtSaysWho (tpfkaidsw)), I am not disputing what you are saying about the commercialism of the music industry.
And many artists out there, disgusted or otherwise put off by the hoops you have to jump through, or the idea of compromising their artistic integrity, that produce and market and sell their own CD's.
And while you may be right to say that the music industry overcharges for their product - and again, I feel that way too - the issue isn't whether or not they are greedy.
A company, an industry, or even a person, can charge whatever someone else is willing to pay. And if that other party is not willing to pay, then that other person should walk away without the product or service.
To do otherwise is theft.
You are saying that many people steal from the music corporations because the big corporations are greedy. That may be *ONE* reason. It may be a major reason. But let me ask you this - would the situation disappear if those companies charged half of what they charge now? One fourth?
I really doubt it.
And just because these people say that they have a good reason to steal does not make it right. Stealing is still stealing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
Last reply
Rock on
PromisingFemales AbundantLove
[This message was edited by DATWAY on May 05, 2003 at 13:48.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Datway, you seem to be taking this rather personally. Also, I feel like your replies are meant to be somewhat of an attack on me. Having read many of your prior posts, I sort of think that this is probably not the case.
Anyway, the difference between hearing it on the radio and recording it for personal use, and recording it from a CD and distributing it, is this:
for one thing, there is an inherent difference in quality. For another, when it's played on the radio, the DJ will often talk during the beggining and ending of a song while being careful not to "step on" the lyrics. And third, when a song gets distributed via a file-sharing service, the reason for it is so that other people don't have to pay to have a copy of this song. Sure, many will say that they are "previewing" the song. But if they like it, do they delete it and buy the CD? or at least send in a check for, say, $1 to the artist?
Please keep in mind that the artists get paid on a per-CD sold basis.
You are probably absolutely right when you say that the laws are extremely vague when it comes to this situation.
But aren't the laws for the lawless?
Do you feel that it is ethical for people to share MP3's the way they are being shared?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.