what is current limit on songs?

  • 10 February 2006
  • 29 replies
  • 5159 views


Show first post

29 replies

Userlevel 2
The fact is, it seems to me, that if some band, or ANYONE for that matter, wishes to give away music or anything else - a gift, no payment required - then bully for them. The problem with this most off-topic discussion is that SOMEONE ELSE is giving away music, and that someone has a most dubious connection with the originator of the product.

The bottom line in my opinion is that whenever I obtain some object of value I should give value in return. I buy a Zone Player, I pay for it. I have a friend come round and help me paint the walls, I'll go help him sometime remove a tree - in short, we have a society in which value received is compensated with some sort of value given. Obviously we use money for the most part, but barter works well enough.

My thoughts in this are that if an orchestra, a band, some singer, records something for my benefit and I want to obtain my own copy to play at home, with my family or whenever, then I need to provide some form of compensation to the artist or artists. The more a performance is liked, the greater the reward and the more incentive to do it again! The law, to the extent possible, attempts to mandate this; it all seems reasonable enough to me. But here we have a medium, music, that lends itself very conveniently to network transport; furthermore, this very transport mechanism enables both the originator and the recipient to remain, essentially, unknown and hidden from view. So, we have a market for music where no value is exchanged - it is all one-sided, one individual purchases a recorded source of music and can make it available to tens of thousands who need pay nothing.

Sorry to disagree with so many - but I think this is wrong. It goes against the general philosophy of an open democratic society based on value-exchange for services rendered, and all it can do in the end is render the value of creating music null and void.

If there are other methods that compensate artists for free music distribution, then one might argue that Internet music exchange is fine and dandy - but I have seen no such method. Since the concept of recorded music there have been stores where one might go to buy records and tapes, there are concerts and recitals, talk-shows and lectures, all where artists can obtain value - but it seems to me that the corner-stone of their effort lies in the "recording," that tangible object one can play repeatedly on some device to listen to their work. This is the method whereby historically an individual in the music profession would appear to obtain their greatest value; and the Internet and illegal file-exchange systems are severely impacting that revenue stream without offering an alternative.

One might mitigate this loss by increasing concert fees, lecture fees or other public performance payments, but people might simply refuse to pay and we are back at square-one. And besides, many artists do not play much in public and rely on recordings for their income.

You might argue, as some have done, that if you paid for an LP, CD, tape or whatever so you have the right to download the mp3 version from a site like AllOfMp3 for pennies or some other site for free. Perhaps this makes sense for people who have already paid once for a copyright; but, I for one, think that indiscriminate copying and distribution of someone's work should be illegal.

We have this problem with software piracy today and there is a significant battle to put a halt to it. I wonder how many of the programmers who freely download music would have no problem with others downloading their programs at no cost. There have always been black markets in art, booze, people, food... And we'll always be battling them.

I totally disagree with any country which thinks that legalized cost-free distribution of music is acceptable but, hey, they have a right to do what they wish - supposedly - at least with their own artists; for foreign performers they should follow the requirements of that performer's country. It seems to me though that there will be an inevitable backlash one of these days, and we will all lose. What troubles me is that we may well not see it happening, as it happens - it's rather like wondering what John Lennon might have given us had he not been killed.

It's never easy.

Lawrence
[ ... ]
You might argue, as some have done, that if you paid for an LP, CD, tape or whatever so you have the right to download the mp3 version from a site like AllOfMp3 for pennies or some other site for free. Perhaps this makes sense for people who have already paid once for a copyright; but, I for one, think that indiscriminate copying and distribution of someone's work should be illegal.
[ ... ]


If we are using the "fair use" model, then the fee for the above download is payment for the convenience of the rip, not use of the music by the end user (assuming that they own the CD or LP).

In this context (facilitating the reformating of owned music), the artist has a small beef with AllOfMp3 because AllOfMp3 is profiting from use of the music, but not the in the originally intended context (listeneing).

Obviously, there is some potential for misuse of the AllOfMp3 service.

Any artist performing in public, risks some "leakage" of their talent through unauthorized recordings. At this point absolute control would require a strip search of all concert attendies and confiscation of anything that looks vaguely electronic.

I think both sides are digging deep holes for themselves. Each is playing hardball and taking no prisoners. I think that the content providers should lighten up a bit, realize there there is public relations value in a reasonable leakage, (The Greatful Dead come to mind -- they encouraged private recording at concerts), and educate the consumer that a fair value exchange is necessary. Certain users are not helping when they tout that, through use of technology, smart people never need to pay anything for music.

We are well along the path to a locked down, pay per listen world.

---

Legislators respond to banging on the table. The content providers are very effectively bringing their message to the top of the pile. Unless more consumers use their voice, the content providers will have it their way
Userlevel 2
We are well along the path to a locked down, pay per listen world.


I agree, and similar energy is building for email - pay per message - using the excuse that this will stop spam. What is needed I think is a little consideration on all sides of the desires and wishes of the other; some compromise, knowing it is an imperfect world but we wish the best for everyone.

Here's hoping.

And - focused again - I still think 40K is enough!

Lawrence
Userlevel 2
I'm not sure that this conversation is all that productive anymore... the current limit in Sonos is 40,000 tracks. People should compensate artists for their work, if you're obtaining your music thru means that are morally acceptable to you, thats great... if not its probably not within the scope of this forum to debate.

thanks,
G

Reply