Music Downloads ('off topic', a bit)

I need advice (even though it's a bit 'off-topic'.) I always used Audiogalaxy.com for my free music downloads. Sadly, it became 'defunked' a couple of weeks ago because of legal problems (the Napster story.) I have been using WinMX, but I'm not getting on with it very well. Remembering that I (like probably most of you) like really obscure stuff, Kaazaa is no good because it only deals in Whitney Houston!
Do any of you have any good suggestions of other sites I could use to download some FAB MUSIC? (I would be forever in your debt if you could give me top tips about an Audiogalaxy replacement.)

Many thanks,
Mrs Carnaby (a.k.a Amanda)

Kazaa and morpheus are only as good as the user's collections on it at the moment... I have a gigantic collection of exotica and tiki mp3's... and I would like to share it - why don't we who have these mp3's on Tiki Central agree to use a particular program and share our incredibly strange music? We'll need to know each others usernames on the program so we can browse one another's libraries for stuff we don't have. Personally I like morpheus... http://www.musiccity.com/

What a GREAT idea!

I use WinMX and SongSpy

On 2002-07-04 10:38, MrsCarnaby wrote:
I always used Audiogalaxy.com for my free music downloads.

The music is not free; technically you're stealing. Not trying to be the Ethics Committee here -- I do stuff that's illegal (breaking the speed limit for example), I just wanted to set it straight that owning music, in general, is not free.

~Hanford

by the way, I wrote my previous post because I'm torn with MP3 trading. Although I own most of my music collection, I have collected MP3s that I don't own. And I don't feel good about it.

I work in the software industry and I don't condone software piracy; I don't think it's right. Copying and trading MP3s is very similar -- they're copyrighted, and were created to be sold.

And if I made an album of music I'd want people to buy it, not trade it for free. And if I wrote a book I would not want it being traded back and forth on the Internet.

But there are a lot of people who, not only do it (as I have done) but honestly, truly, deeply in the bottom of their heart believe that they're not doing anything wrong and that all music should rightfully and legally be free. I don't agree with that. That's why I posted my first post.

So, while I've done it, I've never kidded myself about legality of what I was doing.

Okay, I'll get off of the soapbox now.

~Hanford

And to MrsCarnaby: This isn't about you or your post, it just happened to be the trigger. I don't know the context in which you wrote "free" and I'm not assuming anything about your ethical standpoint on the subject. In short, this post of mine is not directed towards you. I'm just ranting :)

Well there's a lot that's already been said pro and con about mp3 trading all over the internet.

Those of this group though that feel certain they would not be able to find, much less afford an old exotica collection were it not for mp3's, let's hook up and do some swapping.
And when you see a Les Baxter record in the local thrift store, buy it and feel good that the proceeds will go to Mr. Baxter's family.... er, nevermind, they'll go to an oppressive religious org offering marginally efficient help to the needy along with a host of thinly cloaked ulterior motives...

Quite a few more interested folks need to post and then we can decide on a program...

Hanford, sorry if I spoke out of turn (and don't worry; I didn't take it personally :))

When I said 'free', I actually meant a service where you don't have to pay THEM
to steal from others! I don't really know how such systems work, to tell you the truth. I know that I have uploaded music (usually REALLY rare sixties stuff) and thought that I was making what I had already bought 'available' to others who might want to hear it (sort of like putting stuff on a cassette for someone.) I guess I saw it as a 'hippy ethic', sharing what I enjoy with others (and them sharing with ME the stuff I'd been searching for.) I'm in no way trying to paint myself as a 'happy innocent'(far from it!), but I've always felt morally 'off the hook' on the issue because the vast majority of what I download is either no longer available in the shops (or so incredibly rare as to be a quest akin to the one for the Holy Grail finding it.)

With this in mind, I've always been incredibly grateful to services like Audiogalaxy and such for allowing people with odd tastes to 'share'. If I happen to have some totally obscure 45' from a non-charting Rotherham band (circa 1966), I'll upload it thinking; 'I can't be the ONLY one who likes this rubbish? But I'm probably one of the few people who OWNS this rubbish - let me put it out for others who might be interested.' If the record is no longer available in the shops, I genuinely (genuinely) don't feel that I'm harming anyone by either uploading or downloading it. I sort of feel as if I'm helping 're-popularize' some of the bands/musicians I like (even if it's only on a VERY small scale; a collective TWO PEOPLE WORLDWIDE downloaded my upload of 'The Crystal Bus-Stop's' non-charting B-side 'Gotta Getta Girl' (1967) - one of whom 'aborted' half way, sending a message; 'This is crap'! Hee hee.)

I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that for people like myself (and probably for the previous poster), these download sites operate more as an 'obscure music club', with the music which is being downloaded previously bought by whoever 'uploaded' it, the thinking behind it being that if we arbitrarily met another Crystal Bus-Stop fan on the internet, we'd have no qualms about making them a cassette and posting it - with the 'server' (be it Audiogalaxy or whomever) acting as the 'cyber post office' and allowing us to get a piece of music from one side of the world to the other. I honestly (honestly) can't see this as 'piracy', as the 'uploader' is happy to share what he/she has already bought (usually after either a long search or an amazing piece of luck!) with others who are interested.

In saying that, I realise that I'm talking about a tiny (tiny, tiny, tiny) pocket of people who use these download sites as an 'Obscure Music Club'. I suppose the ideal would be to HAVE 'obscure music clubs', properly 'sanctioned', whereby fans of a particular type of rare music could upload and download in the knowledge that they have already purchased said music and are sharing it with friends (like we used to in the days of cassettes.)

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on it; I'm aware that there are differing opinions on the topic, but as I've suggested, I've PERSONALLY always felt morally 'off the hook' because the stuff I upload/download is usually not available to buy. In saying that, I'm aware that there are probably 42,000 people downloading Britney Spears as I write, and that those of us who DO use these sites as an 'obscure music club' are feeding into this sort of piracy.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I gave anyone offence. 'Trouble' IS my middle name, and as it follows me wherever I go, I knew it would be only a matter of time before I got into trouble at Tiki Central; at least it's 'out of the way' now! (Hee hee!)

All best,
Amanda :)

[ Edited by: MrsCarnaby on 2002-07-05 01:37 ]

As an online broadcaster, all this is of vital importance to me. The idea that it's stealing is only true as long as the DMCA stands and there is some movement in Congress to end it.

You don't pay GM when you buy a used car, you don't pay Capitol when you buy a used CD. There are things to be said along those lines. I can't say too much here. The soap box isn't where I am on this board.

But, here is the catch of it all. The majority of users of file swapping are 20-40 year old guys looking for obscure music. this is a fact (studies prove it). So a service only becomes useful if it's huge enough to have all this obscure stuff. So no one will pay for a service because it won't have anything on it. It has to be free to be worth joining.

Once any site gets to that critical mass, it will get shut down. So, what is needed is a place for people to share more specific stuff maybe. I don't know.

Personally, I do not share much of my obscure stuff. I'm stingy. I have recorded a lot of vinyl, and I may be one of a very small number who own an mp3 of "The Waikiki Boys - On the Beach at Waikiki - Hawaiian Holiday" or whatever. I'll share with some people, but not everyone. I don't know why. I put a lot of work into it, that's why. But the original artists did too. So that explains their view.

The problem boils down to finding a way to charge people an amount they can live with, and that doesn't kill the sharing industry. Let's face it, I may download 30 songs, and keep 3. Why do I pay for 30? I can listen at the used CD store and even the new CD store for free.

Where do I swap files? audiognome.com It's not nearly as easy to use as the others. But I am dealing with it.

On 2002-07-05 07:22, Swanky wrote:
You don't pay GM when you buy a used car, you don't pay Capitol when you buy a used CD. There are things to be said along those lines.

True. But in both of those cases there's a transfer of ownership, and the transfer of the right to use them.

I can sell a used copy of Adobe Photoshop and Adobe doesn't get the money. Their user agreement say I can do this. BUT, if I let you copy the Photoshop CD, or if I keep a working copy of Photoshop on my computer when I sell the CD, then we are clearly pirating. I see no difference between bootlegging software and bootlegging music. They're both copyrighted works, they're both worth more than the media they're delivered on.

Broadcasting is a different story, since it's not on-demand. The whole record industry works off of the fact that people who really like music they hear on the radio will want to play it on-demand and therefore spend the money to go out and buy it on CD.

Just more thinking,

~Hanford

PS. I'm not mad at anyone here and I'm not trying to enforce some sort of "Tiki Centralites don't do Napster" thing, I'm just airing my opinion to a group of peers who I respect

Most stereo systems have cassette recorders and most cars still have players. What's the difference between downloading a song or recording it from the radio? That's legal, isn't it?
That said, I mainly stick with obscure, out-of-print recordings. There are always exceptions, though. I once did a search for "Baby One More Time" just to see how many hits WinMX returned as opposed to, say, Esquivel's "Mucha Muchacha." Astounding results. I don't buy the argument that the majority of MP3 traders are looking for obscure stuff, unless Britney is now considered "obscure." :wink:

The fact that there are more hits on a Britney song than Esquivel does not invalidate the fact that more people are searching for the obscure than the popular.

On 2002-07-05 15:08, Biotron2000 wrote:
What's the difference between downloading a song or recording it from the radio? That's legal, isn't it?

Legally? I don't know. I do know that the station (supposedly) has legal right to air it, so you're getting it from a source that has legal right to distribute it. I do remember at one time blank cassettes had a tarif on them that went back into the recording industry. I don't know if that's true anymore.

~Hanford

The fact that there are more hits on a Britney song than Esquivel does not invalidate the fact that more people are searching for the obscure than the popular.

Is it really a fact that more people are searching for obscure? I haven't seen any hard data in this area...

Also, the ethical conundrum I face with MP3 has nothing to do with the intent of song-swappers and what their interests are, as much as it has to do with the interests of the performers/artists/copyright holders.

~Hanford

How I like my music served up in order of preference:

1. Brand new vinyl
2. Second hand vinyl
3. Brand new CD
4. Second hand CD
5. Cassette
6. MP3 files (If that's the only way I'm ever going to hear a track)

I can understand people trying out new stuff by downloading MP3'S, or using them to fill up gaps in collections that are otherwise impossible to fill. ( Note to record companies - release this rare stuff!!).
Downloading a whole readily-available album is just lame.

When buying music, the whole package is important, particularly the artwork. Those Martin Denny albums look pathetic when
reduced to fit the CD size, but having an burned CD of 'Forbidden Island' is even worse. (Even if you download a jpg of the cover).
One of the joys of visting friends houses is to have a good look through their music collection. I'd have more respect for someone with a collection of Rod Stewart & Dire Straits albums on vinyl than someone with a mass of home-burned CD's.

Saying that, I blame the greedy record companies themselves for trying to kill off vinyl, and make themselves a big profit flogging CD's. If they hadn't foisted CD's onto us with such force, we wouldn't be so digitalised. It's not that big a jump from a
soulless little CD to a hard drive full of digital sound files.

Trader Woody

On 2002-07-08 08:58, Swanky wrote:
I don't say it as an ethical point, but as a business point. Assuming it's true, then it makes it impossible to build the business of MP3 swapping.

File-swapping shouldn’t be a business. It makes no sense business-wise, because for it to be legit and fair, the copyright holders of every song on the service should (A) have given permission for it to be there and (B) get money when the song is swapped, if desired.

So the system needs to correctly identify each song, who is the copyright holder, and determine whether or not the copyright holder has given permission to swap the song, and for how much in royalties.

The only accurate way to do that is to exclude all mp3s except those that have been verified by a human being or a checksum process. It would basically exclude all the obscure, independent, and rare music. In other words, if MP3s of The Fishermen (a local SF band with no releases) are on my PC, these services should either (A) find a way to pay the fishermen when the file is shared (impossible on a mass scale) or (B) exclude it from being shared.

~Hanford

On 2002-07-08 08:58, Swanky wrote:
No one will pay to join to swap, because the point is to tap into a large base to find the stuff you want. But to have the base, you need to be free.

A similar argument goes for record companies selling their complete music archive online. Why should they sell MP3s online when the preferred, number one, cost-free and guilt-free method is by using a free file-swapping service? They’d no doubt be selling their music to a small percentage of people who would then turn around and file-share it, so the theory goes. For legit online sales of MP3s to go into full swing, file sharing needs to first be pushed to the fringe.

I have no doubt that eventually we’ll see record labels offering on-demand versions of every song/album in their archives available for sale through their website. Why? Because to a lesser degree they do that today. They release and re-release as much of their old catalog as is financially viable. But with online on-demand creation/delivery of the product, the financial risks of selling music goes waaaaaay down, because you’re not having to produce CDs, you’re not stocking warehouses, and you’re not trying to predict demand.

But, for that to happen, file-sharing, not just in practice, but in concept, has to become more taboo. If users don’t think there’s anything wrong with it (and seeing people protest Metallica when they sued Napster proves that there are plenty who feel that way).

(all in theory, anyway)

~Hanford

On 2002-07-05 00:57, MrsCarnaby wrote:

...a collective TWO PEOPLE WORLDWIDE downloaded my upload of 'The Crystal Bus-Stop's' non-charting B-side 'Gotta Getta Girl' (1967) - one of whom 'aborted' half way, sending a message; 'This is crap'! Hee hee.)...

All best,
Amanda :)

[ Edited by: MrsCarnaby on 2002-07-05 01:37 ]

Yes I know this is an OLD thread...

I cannot seem to find any reference of "The Crystal Bus-Stop" anywhere and am curious if this is the song cited as performed by California Ramblers.

And, what pray tell was the A-side song?