Printable View
well it was good when it started. But i guess all good things...
I'm starting this thread so everyone can throw in their .02$ on the whole 'issue'. I think more is lost by ruiining napster then would be by letting it be.
For those that havnt been on napster lately, here's an example my usual shared collection is about 500 songs. 8 of those get through the filters.
Please no flames and lets keep things intelectual. Please no posts that just say "yeah it sux"
Ok here we go...
It is a shame though for Napster as they have obviously put a lot of money into this , but unfortunatly this sort of Legal Piracy is affecting the recording industry. I have no problems with MP3 sharing, infact I share all mine with anyone who wants them, but I do also support the artists as well if I feel I like the music enough to buy it. I used Napster mainly to listen to other tracks off albums, that are not played on the radio.
Oh well, at least Imesh is still running for the time being, but they are being pressured as well to introduce filters.
Oh BooHoo! "I can't steal from Music Artists anymore!" Good lord, can you imagine what Microsoft would do if there were an ability to "trade" office programs over the net for "evalution purposes"?
Sit back and think about it. It's theft. I want these songs and I don't want to pay for the property. Please... And as far as the "I just want to try it before I buy it bit." , well, most artists have a web page up where you CAN go sample pieces of thier music for free.
True but, some tracks on a lot of the artists sites are snippets. I will admit though that a lot more artists are getting better at putting music on their sites in streaming format so you can actually listen to the whole track.Quote:
Originally posted by FooL:
Sit back and think about it. It's theft. I want these songs and I don't want to pay for the property. Please... And as far as the "I just want to try it before I buy it bit." , well, most artists have a web page up where you CAN go sample pieces of thier music for free.
Napster was no worse than taping a CD or burning a CD of music for your friends.
Hell, recording a TV program on your VCR is just as illegal!!!! Most people don't know that, but nobody tries to stop that do they?
Quote:
Originally posted by FooL:
Oh BooHoo! "I can't steal from Music Artists anymore!" Good lord, can you imagine what Microsoft would do if there were an ability to "trade" office programs over the net for "evalution purposes"?
Sit back and think about it. It's theft. I want these songs and I don't want to pay for the property. Please... And as far as the "I just want to try it before I buy it bit." , well, most artists have a web page up where you CAN go sample pieces of thier music for free.
First of all you can get microsoft products for 'evaluation' on networks like gnutella. but more importantly if napster is stealing so much from artists then why was it that last year was a record breaker in music sales?
Artists copyrights set aside.
A lot of the music i have shared is not copyrighted. it's just random stuff off the net. But it still gets filtered. What's with that?
Actually, back in the days when they were first becoming popular they tried to, but they couldnt.Quote:
Originally posted by RoccoSiffredi:
Hell, recording a TV program on your VCR is just as illegal!!!! Most people don't know that, but nobody tries to stop that do they?
Burn.
Actually, no. At least in the U.S. It has never been illegal to record TV programs any more than it has ever been illegal to record songs off your radio. The illegality only comes into play when the recorded media is distributed to others. The law states that one may record transmissions for "personal use only."Quote:
Originally posted by RoccoSiffredi:
Hell, recording a TV program on your VCR is just as illegal!!!! Most people don't know that, but nobody tries to stop that do they?
As a Libertarian I am a full supporter of property rights. When a songwriter/composer signs a contract with a record label, the notes and words that they put down on paper to be sold by the label become the property of the label. When a musical performer signs a contract with a label, their studio and live (in some cases) performance recordings become the property of the record label. These individual are compensated by the record label for their efforts and in most cases they also recieve a small percentage of total sales. The bottom line here is that the notes, words and performances are the property of the record label. So when I hear people say that Napster is stealing money from the starving artists, it is simply not true. Songwriters and artists will get paid whether the album sells or not.
However, the record label is the rightful owner of the music once it is recorded and prepared for distribution. Any attempts to copy or redistributed the music without the consent of the label is therefore a violation of their property rights.
I have personally sampled Napster a few times to locate songs which are either Public Domain or no longer in print. That is the fullest extent of my use of Napster. I believe the record company is due their fair compensation for the music. I also believe that the songwriters and artists are due a fair and accurate picture of how popular their music is. Napster prevents both of these from occurring.
One additional perspective: Napster has started a revolution in file sharing that the RIAA or MPAA will not be able to stop. Eventually they will need to give in and use this technology to their advantage (just like they have with VCRs, dual tape decks and CD-RW.)
my downloads from Napster where tracks where i had already had the album on cassette or Vinyl so the artist has already had my cash
there is that, valid point.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsunami:
my downloads from Napster where tracks where i had already had the album on cassette or Vinyl so the artist has already had my cash
but the legal document defining who has what, does what, allows what, when and where would be so huge and time consuming and costly to produce; i cannot forsee this ever becoming law.
I figure if people want MP3's, their gonna get 'em one way or another (email for instance if all else fails.) I say let Napster go free, and the greedy record industry and Metallica should just try to find a way to legally either capitalize on it, or regulate it. Either way, more power to the more powerful! Anyway, I think the record industry should be abolished. How do they earn money anyway? It seems to me that they are the ones stealing most of the money. They don't create, and they aren't artist's. Offspring doesn't seem to mind letting people download music from their website, so why should anyone else? Art and music is there for all to appreciate, no matter what canvas the artist chooses, and it should be there to be appreciated without monetary compensation! Go Napster, and Go real artist's and musician's!!! (Damn!,... I think that was more than 2 cents,... That had to be about $0.86 at least. And what the hell am I doing up at 3:11am Saturday morning???)
My opinion on MP3 file sharing as a whole: it's fine. The record industry has not only been stealing from the people but the artists too. That's really why only a handful of artists are complaining and there are many more coming out in support of Napster (Dave Grohl of Foo Fighters, Prince, Offspring, Limp Bizkit, even Fatboy Slim's record label). While MP3 file sharing can never be stopped (there's always FTP, and I'm inventing a new open-source protocol), record labels should bring down the price of CDs to $5 or even less...I mean, seriously, it costs them about 50 cents to make the damn things, even then they are making a huge profit. Then maybe I'll buy a CD.
Just think about it for a second...60 minutes of music for $18. If you think about it enough, you'll see that it is an absolutely absurd number.
That's my $2.00.
60 minutes if your lucky its usually like 45 and if its more its usually filler.Quote:
Originally posted by Insane Monkey:
[BJust think about it for a second...60 minutes of music for $18. If you think about it enough, you'll see that it is an absolutely absurd number.
That's my $2.00.[/B]
exactly. there is going to be a way to trade MP3's no matter what. There's nothing anyone can do about it. I use it because there are a lot of songs i like that are not on cd or no longer produced. I also like a lot of singles but damn sometimes $5 for a single. get real. Any way most of us have supported the artists in one way or another, through concert, tapes, tshirts etc.
I also tried to make my own mp3's from tapes or records and it sucked so if someone has a cd quality version i want it thats all.
oh well there's always a way to get it.
I think its a damn shame. I've used Napster several times. I downloaded some Everclear tracks, mostly acoustic radio edits or live tracks that aren't available in any other way. I think that this is an acceptable use of Napster - heck, i wasn't even that big a fan of Everclear before i downloaded those tracks, i'd just heard a couple of their tracks and liked them. I now have seven Everclear CD's that i have purchased from Amazon.co.uk over the last 12 months. I'd say Napster was doing many artists a favour, airing their work to those who wouldn't normally have access to it, or been interested in it. Sure, there will always be those id10ts that insist on downloading 100's of MB's of music and its those same people that have ruined Napster.
Personally i had a lot of quality issues with the stuff available on Napster - hell, i ended up downloading some of those acoustic tracks 10 or more times from different sources because some were just awfully encoded...
*** WARNING! CYNICAL SARCASM ALERT ***
Stealing music is stealing music, there's no grey area involved.
The sad thing is not that people do it or that people justify it. It's that the overwhelming MAJORITY of people do it and justify it.
Personally, I believe that intellectual property rights should be abolished -- in an ideal society. Unfortunately, we will never live in a society where that would be practical. So we are reduced to theiving off of people who are theiving off of us.
Ain't it great to be human?
P.S. Here's my justification -- I don't lose any sleep at night for stealing MP3s... their original owner still has 'em, and I wasn't gonna buy their CD anyways, so they haven't lost any money in the end, have they?
*** CYNICAL SARCASM ALERT OVER ***
I just hope some of you have show the same degree of magnanimity when your customers display the same 'appreciation' for your artistry with their computers or whatever other services/products you sell to make a living.
No artist ever ripped off a customer by selling her/his product (unless they didn't show for a live performance and no refunds were forthcoming). Did someone hold a gun to your head and make you drop $18 dollars for a CD? If you don't want to pay, listen to the damn radio!!! And if one artist distributes work for free, that means every artist's work should be free?!?!? And, the "It's ok to steal 'cuz I never liked it enough to ever paid for it" argument--Geez, then why would you listen to it in the first place??? Come on people, get a brain. The logic of these "I have a right to anything I want for free" is absolutely appalling!!!
Sowulo, I actually AGREE with you, the whole thing is appalling. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
What I was saying is that too high a percentage of the human race is more willing to steal than pay for something.
So what do you propose we DO about it?
Self-policing has obviously been a disaster. Declare martial law? Who trusts the government to regulate this properly? Should we let the corporations do it? Yeah, I definitely trust people like Bill Gates more than George W... okay, who else could we put in charge? The Pope? *snort and unprintable comment*
Awright, here's a suggestion: Let's start a movement to elect Scott President of the US, and all of the Moderators and Tech Gods his senators, congressmen, and other allies...
Seriously, I think that would work a lot better than any real solutions that will ever be attempted.
We just did something. We spoke up and pointed out the flaws in people's justifications for thievery. No law will ever stop crime entirely but it can be reduced when the members of society in general support the purpose of the laws it creates....Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam:
So what do you propose we DO about it?
Yes, I am an idealist in many ways....Often, I feel like Don Quixote, jousting at windmills, but damnit, I just couldn't face myself in the mirror if I didn't speak up when I believe something to be wrong.
Sowulo, don't ever feel ridiculous for standing up for what you believe in. There ain't anything else worth standing up for in this world.
First off, MUCH RESPECT to Scott, Windrivers and the MODs for always siding with the law when it comes to software and keeping the warez ****e to a minimum. After all, we are in the information industry, and this site and these forums represent an upstanding , professional community.
...that being said...
I am NOT IN the music industry, I do not WORK in or work for the music industry, and I therefore have no motivation to keep it legal for them, other than my conscience-- at present about as thin as my wallet. Sooo, I say f%*k it. If you are hungry enough to get the stuff for free, more power to you. David Geffen and Metallica aren't living the hard knock life on account of my couple of Gigs of MP3s (half of which are so poppy and hissy that i don't listen to them anyway).
Delete this if you guys want, but i don't give a rat's a$$ if it's legal or not. I smoke bud too, so my respect for the law deteriorates with inconvenience and differences of opinion with the laws (which in my country are MADE {YES!!! its TRUE!!!} by the same a%%hole corporations that are trying to keep Napster and my Pot away from me).
so F**K MetaLLica and all their stupid fans. I'll NEVER listen to those WANKERS again! I saw those pecks at Lolla a few years back- what a let down to boot.
And YES! I HAVE purchased music because I loved the MP3s so much that I wanted sound quality, artwork, and to show my 15 bucks worth of support for the arts.
We all have our vices. And if the worst thing somebody can say they've done is violated copyright law with a few MP3s, good for him, he ought to be cannonized.
Just my humble opinion. Why should I give a sh** about the music industry? Look what they did to Tupac after he died. A$$holes. Its all about the money...
All about the money.
The laws only exist to protect the label's money. Laws they bought with all their money.
AMERICA IS all about MONEY. And Metallica, buch of WANKS, are all about money, F**k 'em.
I love Dave Grohl...
I don't expect this post to last long, and if I piss anyone off, well, sorry. I had a long week.
I just love "situational ethics"...they're soooo convenient.... :p
Slash and burn your way through life..."I'll just obey the laws I agree with and to hell with the rest of you...." Thank god most members of society don't follow this code. We don't protect the rules regarding software copyrights, etc. because of the effects on our income, we do so because it's the right thing to do. Damning the music industry or anyone else for lawfully creating/generating income while advocating for the laws that protect one's own income is just naked hypocrisy at its ugliest.
If downloading music in MP3 format is "illegal", then handcuff me and throw me away. Here's my thoughts on Metallica... When Metallica first started, they used to play small clubs in LA, and the bay area. And during their performances, they threw out vinyl singles to their fans in the audience. Why did they do that? To gain exposure. So now that they got millions in the bank, things are supposed to be different? I don't think so. By the way, when I say Metallica, I'm actually just referring to Lars (not James, Jason, Kirk, or even Dave Mustaine or Cliff.) Lars is just a greedy little evil mini-me. Again, I say,... it's not the people downloading music that's ripping them off, it's the record industry. I've seen Metallica 7 times ($30.00 each time), owned about that many concert tee's (another $25.00-$30.00 each time. And by wearing the shirts means I'm giving them free advertising as well), and own all their music on cassette and CD. I've been a fan since the "ride the lightning" days and now they're telling me I can't listen to their music in MP3 format? SCREW THAT!!! And SCREW THAT to all related greed mongers. And wake up and smell the coffee to all those who are all sensitive to this "stealing" thing as you call it. It's not "stealing" at all. Is it "stealing" if you hear the song for free on the radio? And to those of you who are so sensitive to this,... You can't tell me that in all your years of existence, you've never owned a blank tape or CD with copyrighted material on it. Just go look in your VHS, CD, and/or cassette collections. I'm sure you've got at least one or two copy's of someone elses property.
Cruehead, your MP3 collection is entirely legal if you own all their music. They aren't trying to ban YOU.
It's so sad......(shaking head in amazement....)
I posted about the RIAA stopping the release of a research project from Princeton University, Xerox, and some other school about the Napster and music sales. RIAA threatened a lawsuit against all involved if they would release it because it damages the cause of the RIAA. I assume the RIAA was shocked to find out that Napster is a good thing and find more capitalistic reason to obtain this company for themselves! (Why was BMG so quick to join Napster?? Why they still suing them? ....In case all present clients leave when it's a pay service?)
Firstly, the bulk of the music isn't "intellectual," like Britney Spears and N'Sync. Property I can understand, but I hate to see the word "intellectual" in front of that kind of music (there is plenty of intellectual stuff avaliable somewhere).
To me, Mapster isn't theft. It's along the same lines of making a tape/CD/MD for someone, except you've got worldwide friends. I use Napster because I've burned CD's for friends, made tapes, bought albums after I've heard them on Napster (I was reassured that the remainder of the album wasn't junk). It's great quality control too! Remember those wonderful 80's bands with all their songs written by old men with smoking jackets and Playmate wives??? The first track was great but the rest were worth a fart in a cup! Hmmmm....yet we all paid 17 bucks (or your currency) for lousy ONE song. It appears record companies can't throw trash out like they used to! (Why the Backstreet Boys around so long??)
If someone makes cassettes, CD's etc... for friends, family, whomever.... or maybe someone received a cassette, cd, whatever.... and this is "legal piracy" then when why are these people so harsh on Napster?? (when I say "legal piracy" I mean it's sorta legal, but it's not....hmmm....it's like you do it but no one cares) Really, unless you've never made a copy of anything for anybody you can call Napster theft, but I don't see many people in this category if any. Just because capitalism needs to be everywhere, there exists this present litigation and wonderful chicanery.
As you can tell I love Napster. I never would have heard of Tripmaster Monkey if not for Napster. I've many albums because of Napster. I am almost certain that this fight over Napster is not for protection of copyrighted works, or lost profits. It's to monopolize the online music market...... Oh by the way I'm gonna send a letter to whomever deals with monopolies because University bookstores have a stranglehold on students. My school filters out Varsity books, etc... or whatever these textbook sites for out of their cpu system. They in turn charge you 15 bucks for a 60 page notebook that has some extra stripes on the paper and 150 bones for a crappy textbook I don't even want! Off the soapbox now.....too many suds!
-aa :mad:
I used napster to try before you buy!
I can buy and return virtually anything but recorded material. Who are the crooks?
I own all the original music that I have the MP3's for. The MP3's that I downloaded of albums that sucked I deleted. They usually pop up on compilation or soundtrack CD's. Besides with all the used CD stores I happily pay $6-8 for my CD's
Personally i'm not opposed to buying cds. But I like having the alternative to download the songs i wanna hear. I couldn't buy the cds that make up my mp3 collection in a million years for two reasons, 1) i have a LOT of stuff and 2) about half of it you wont find in any stores. So, why pay for the one song on a cd when the rest is junk? If i like an artists i'll buy their cd. But if they have a song i'm gonna like for about a week i'm not gonna drop $20 for it. But, if I did I couldn't afford then 2 cds a week. So why should I pay for something I couldn't/ wouldn't buy in the first place. I used to buy the one hit wonders back before there were mp3s but after i always felt cheated and ripped off. (maybe i should have sued the recording industry) :)
Man, I hate getting involved in another Napster debate, but what the hell, it's been a while. Note that when I refer to "me" in this argument, I'm just using the 1st person perspect, not myself specificly
First off, piracy and stealing are two entirely different crimes. Stealing is me walking into Sam Goody, cutting the security band around a CD, and smuggling it out under my coat. Piracy is me sitting at home downloading MP3s.
Now, both methods give me what I want - free music. By stealing, I took it to the extreme - I physically took something that didn't belong to me, and because of my selfishness, Sam Goody, the artist, and the record label all suffered. Because I stole that one CD, it will never be able to be sold. It's mine now, and I didn't pay for it.
But by pirating the music, I just made a copy. I didn't actually take anything. That CD is still sitting in Sam Goody for some poor schmuck to buy. Granted, SG, the artist and the label didn't make any money - but they didn't LOSE money because of me either. I wouldn't have bought their lameo CD anyway.
So, look at it like this - piracy is assault and battery. Stealing is murder. Both are crimes, but I just getting tired of people referring to Napster as "stealing music". It gets old and tired after a while.
No, I don't have any justification for piracy of music. But if I'm going to do it, then I really don't need to justify myself anyway.
Okay, with that said, back to regular, good ol' Cobra.
I have a good-sized music collection. I own outright about 600 CDs. Do the math - at about 50 minutes a piece (just a nice, median figure) x 600 that's about 30,000 minutes of music. Divided by 60 minutes in an hour, that's about 500 hours of music.
My WinAmp playlist weighs in about 550 MP3 (relatively small) with a grand total playing time of 21:36:19. As you can see, I pay for a lot more music than I "steal". And let me also point out that ALL of my MP3s meet one of the four following conditions.
A) Never been released on a studio album (Hey, I would've bought "Aerosmith: Unplugged" if someone had the brains to put it on CD).
B) Be something I already own. (I used to rip them myself, but getting DSL made me very, very lazy)
C) Be uncopyrighted. Lots of upcoming bands don't have contracts yet, and just want exposure. Napster gave it to them.
D) Be out of production and impossible to find in stores anymore. Sorry, I don't do the Ebay thing, and I'm don't buy used CDs. Besides, even if I did buy used CDs, that means that Sam Goody/Artist/Record label aren't getting any for for that either, so that's right back to the whole "taking food out of Lars Ulrich's starving kids' mouths" thing again.
Anyway, think what you will. It's just that to me, Napster was a great service. I hate to see it go, because it was cool to be able to "try before you buy". Too bad the record labels couldn't have worked out a compromise, and saved Napster. I would've gladly paid a membership fee to continue using it.
I think Cobrage summed it all up pretty good there. And I hope I don't come across as offensive to anyone in my posts on this subject. I just feel very strongly about this issue.
Since Napster started censoring, I haven't purchased even one music CD. When I downloaded music off Napster, if I liked the music, I'd buy the album. Now that I can't download the music to try it before I buy it, I don't buy it. I doubled my CD collection in the short time I used Napster, now I have stopped buying music.
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, RIAA!
This is a prime example of scape goating. The truth of the matter behind the case is that the iindustry was just jealous they never thought of doing this. It's like HBO vs Sony. The problem is that they are using out dated laws to govern a new monster and yet again who really pays, us the people. We created a network of trade, free trade, where we the people could log on to a common site and trade music. Yes on the one hand it was stealing but it is no diffrent from libarys. The music industry and some artist can't stand the fact that they are not making the %95 off cd sales. We are talking about a product that cost nothing to make. The truth of the matter is that greed has made this product die. It's about time we get represented in this case. We the People. This product was made for us and I for one feel it will be a very long time before I buy a Metalica CD, or go out and buy new music. At the end of the day it's all about greed and supply and demand. I demand that we get to sample the music before we buy it. I hate getting on this rant but it's about time the industry listens to us instead of preaching it twisted value system. After all they all sample and steel from each other, so why is it wrong for us to share amoung ourselfs.
I don't have too deep of an opinion on this one since I don't use Napster alot (56K at home and firewall a t work I can't get through) but, when i did use Napster and if I had a high speed connection at home, I would and have used it for one purpose and one purpose only. Getting music for free. No, I ma not saying this jsut to get people going, but only as the truth. I justify my actions in no way what so ever. I just want to point out that there are many more people like me who use products like this to "steal". Hell, I used to shoplift from large department stores and sell the goods to people at school. In the end, I'm jsut a common thief. Honesty can be brutal and ugly, but not as ugly as a lie. :cool:
I agree with Cobra on almost all of it but I feel there is something missing from the equation.
These are some things I guess I am curious about how others feel.
1. Overhead costs of producing music have dropped by the decrease in equipment costs and media costs, however, CD's are at the same price as they were 10 years ago.
2. Napster represented an unsuccessful business model (without subscription fees) however a subscription fee based service becomes a virtually no overhead business. Users pay to download and buy their own media. Obviously the RIAA couldn't have competition so Napster is out.
3. Dstribution-wise, there is no current way to distribute music faster than the internet, I actually do own probably about 95% of what I downloaded, I wanted it in MP3 format but like most I am too lazy to take the time to rip it, T1 speed at home helped. How many others are there like that.
4. I (and I think many others) would pay $10-20 per month for unlimited downloads, but the Napster-size library (all encompassing) would have to be there too, can this be done with the current number of labels.
Without commenting on content, I would commend King Super Grover for being honest about it at least....
Now, if Napster (or anyone like them) had gone to a subscription service to which the artists and recording companies received properly negotiated percentage, I would gladly retract all my statements regarding issues surrounding the exchange of copyrighted materials.
huh? commenting on content? what, did i spell something wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Sowulo:
Without commenting on content, I would commend King Super Grover for being honest about it at least....
Content: We definitely do not agree on the ethics involved in this discussion. But at least you don't try to justify your opinion/actions and end up contradicting yourself....sometimes, the contradictions in people's justifications/rationalizations upset me more than their actions....Quote:
Originally posted by King Super Grover:
huh? commenting on content? what, did i spell something wrong.
Dude, we don't seem to agree on the ethics of ANY discusson here, unless it is actual PC realted. However, I have said in the past that I have a set of ethics that most will not agree with. One thing that i do have is honesty. I am not going to go around pretending to be this moral and upright citizen when I know that I really could care less about most everything unless it has to do with me personally. I do hold a high value to some things like my children and my family, but nothing els is really important to me in teh grand scheem of things. The less I let bother me, the less stress I have wondering about stupid petty sh@t that have no revelance in "my world" anyways. Like I said before. "Honesty can be brutal and ugly, but not as ugly as living a lie".Quote:
Originally posted by Sowulo:
Content: We definitely do not agree on the ethics involved in this discussion. But at least you don't try to justify your opinion/actions and end up contradicting yourself....sometimes, the contradictions in people's justifications/rationalizations upset me more than their actions....
Grover rules!
I always thought of Napster as a giant joke. I was LMAO from the first time I heard about it. A massively public ring of pirates, how funny that was! And they honestly thought they would get away with it! Too damn funny!
I personally own over 600 MP3's (95% I ripped myself) and the 5% are promo's, game soundtracks give out by the companys and other misc. stuff that was just too hard to find anywere...and I'm still rippin' tracks, I need more time to rip my CD collection to MP3.
I think P2P is a wonderful tool and work of software, but in it's infancy is it being greatly abused and miss treated (it's future will be like those of child stars when they get older...)
Stealing...pirating...what's the differance, your still getting something that is not rightfully yours. If someone makes a game that is based on one of my "work-in-progress" don't you think I would be mad? They stole my idea! SAME THING WITH MUSIC...they did the work and you take it from them! Try to look at it from their view. Yes they still have it and it wasn't physicaly stolen, but you did take their work...which in business would be 'considered' stealing and punished equaliy (if not more greater) then physical theft.
I have my friends bands stuff in MP3's but they asked that it not to be distributed, so it has not been (honestly in that case though, it should be for exposure...). Respect the rights and work of the bands, if they want you to 'trade' their music they will tell you and have people download it off their web sites...if they don't want this they won't do it...so DON'T DO IT! :rolleyes: