So I did a little research today on the internet and came across some frightening articles on cnet.com about how RIAA is still doing its thing, and has finally taken some music sharing people to court. Now, I'm no bigtime downloader, I mean seriously, the stuff I download is mostly very obscure stuff that no one cares about anymore. All I want is one song, not some $10-$20 CD, and frankly, I would go without rather than buy the whole CD. However, we all have an IP address that goes out when we do whatever we do on the internet, and they are tracking everyone. I really hate RIAA :hammer: , and I really hate how anal the recording industry is about stopping the supply of music downloads to the public at reasonable prices :mad: (and I mean ALL SONGS AVAILABLE...damn it all). But, I also don't want to be the one picked on. Downloading unauthorized copyrighted material is a felony and the fines are obscene (BS if you ask me :rolleyes: ). So I am done downloading MP3s from winmx.

What I want to know is does anyone know a site yet where I can download 80s music for a reasonable fee, that supplies normal MP3s that don't have any of the copy protection crap or expiring dates? I doubt it even exists but I thought I would ask.

SJ:cry:

I can't answer your question about an mp3 website, Speleojeff, but I can offer my personal insight on the file sharing situation.

First of all, I believe file sharing is fine to a small degree, as we should have an opportunity to listen to a couple examples of songs by a certain artist if we are trying to decide whether or not it is worth buying an album. Also, realize that there have been literally thousands of songs released on phonograph records over the years that were never reissued on CD (particularly B-sides of 45's), and the only way a dedicated music lover can obtain copies of such songs is through file sharing. It also happens that a new artist becomes a huge success in another country and it is virtually impossible for someone to buy an album if that artist is unknown in his or her home country. Again, that's where file sharing can be an advantage.

I do, however, strongly disapprove of sharing mp3's of songs that anyone can easily pick up at the music store down the street. The future of the music industry relies on profits from CD sales, and it will be an impossible task to completely eliminate piracy on the net. However, there is one thing that can be done to help solve the problem. There was an article in my local newpaper last year explaining that a major contributing factor to illegal file sharing is the fact that very few hit songs are being released as singles nowadays. Back in the days we bought our music on vinyl, virtually every hit song was available on a 45, and this worked great for schoolkids who could make enjoyable use of the dollar they earned for mowing the lawn. Today record companies see they can increase profits by phasing out singles and requiring consumers to purchase a whole album just for one great song they hear on the radio. Most kids in grade school aren't going to conjure up the $20 to buy an album from a routine round of house chores, so they will have little option other than to steal their favorite tunes from the net and spend their dough on movies or video games.

I personally don't see it a necessity for record companies to not release singles to stay in business, and at the expense of no more than just a few percent of potential profits, they can help resurrect the music community from the clutches of underground bootleggers. After all, making $2 on the sale of a single is a lot better than making nothing from a trade of an mp3 file, and the albums are still going to sell as fans grow attached to the artists they like.

RockBoy83

Uh oh...I can sense an discussion coming up here... :lol:

First: I actually don't know any site which is offering 80s music legally, and if the record companies who are already running such sites like popfile.de are offering an 80s sector, you can be almost sure that the tracks which are available there will be the same you heard over and over again - or would you pay 99 cents for a track that you've never heard before from an artist you've never heard before?

And now...the discussion: ;)

Okay - according to the laws, it is a felony (or a crime if you are a record company exec :lol: ) when sharing encoded music files. And to a certain point, I can understand it, as you do nothing more or less than ripping the company, the traders and - most important - the artists off. On the other hand, it's mainly the profit policies of the record companies which are encouraging file sharing, because the consumers are feeling ripped off.

It's not that the quality of music had become worser over the years (apart from boygroups and girlie pop, Metal freaks are free to add Metallica here :laugh: ), the "One Hit Wonders" of the 80s are a perfect proof that some albums had better not seen the light of day. But shelling out 20$ for an album?
When I had started to collect records, the 45's went for $2.49, 12" for $4.99 and complete albums for $9.99 (average). Today, the single format is extincted, MCDs are going over the desk for about $6.99 and the albums...although the raw production costs for CDs are way cheaper than back in the days of Vinyl.
Now, if the record companies are sharing the opinion that signing mega-multi-billion Dollar deals and stacking up more and more profits (until 2002, the profits were growing despite of the massive file sharing) is what makes them happy, that's fine for them, but please don't expect from me that I'm supporting such policies. It's not that I'm condemning the companies for making profits...but when the profits are becoming obscenely huge without the respective value in return (for 20$, I demand at least a night with Britney Spears :D), then I'd rather give my money straight to the artists than feeding greedy companies and "authorities" like the RIAA or the GEMA who had turned into cash-printing machines itself.

Please allow me to share my 2-cents worth. My take on file sharing is this. Since the RIAA is so greedy, then I feel that it is perfectly OK to share files at will. If this offends anyone, I apologize, but I don't have any sympathy for the RIAA. They have made it very difficult for small independent radio stations to broadcast on the internet. I'm sure this sounds heartless, but if you've been in my shoes, you know where I'm coming from. Personally, I believe file sharing doesn't hurt music artists much, as there are still a lot of people buying CDs and tapes left and right. I just don't want to give the RIAA another red cent because of their lust for money and power. If I had the cash, I would share a small sum of cash to the musical artists (songwriters, musicians, singers, etc.) for their effort, but not the RIAA. I'm sure that there will be some mixed feelings about this, but that's what makes the USA great...our freedom of speech. In other words, my opinion is to share like crazy! :)

I did a bit more searching, typing 'winmx RIAA' and getting articles about how they aren't targeting winmx peer networks now, just sending occassional threatening notes with nothing behind it. They are targeting Kazaa right now and don't really have a way to go after winmx users very well, or any of the other p2p networks. Plus, there are just too many users. Turn 4 million people into felons? Please. One of the last songs I downloaded was from some guy in Japan.

Check cnet for a new article. Those 4 college students who were sued by RIAA ended up settling for $12-17K each. How absurd.

HEY 80s MUSIC ARTISTS OUT THERE! URGE YOUR LABELS TO RELEASE YOUR MUSIC ONLINE SO I CAN GET IT. I WANT MORE JAMMY JAMS!!!!!!!

SJ

KazZa is kind of like, napster which closed down a while back. Pretty much a search engine and you can locate a variety of 80's songs

Legal download site http://www.emusic.com/pitch.html

The only time I use a download program is to check out artists/groups I want to know more of. I hate paying $18.00 or so for CDs. I wish record companies would lower the prices of their products. If there was a subscription service out there that didn't cost that much I'd pay for it. Emusic is a bit much IMHO. Why not pay $.50 a song or $5 a month to get as many songs you want.
I know that some record companies have screwed with their artists *coughVirginRecordscoughXTCcough*. Sometimes the artists/bands are brainwashed in a way to sign a reocrd contract and then then they have to do what the record companies tell them, which stiffles creativitiy IMHO.