Should you let your kids download music?
Should you let your kid download music from P2P networks? Is it legal? Is it safe?
Kids can use their computer to buy and download music from sites such as the iTunes Store or Amazon, or they can use their computer to download music at no-cost using peer-to-peer (P2P) applications such as LimeWire, FrostWire, BearShare and BitTorrent. Should you be allowing them to do the latter? Simple answer: no.
Photo by Daniel Foster
One problem with P2P networks is that the files shared over them are often infected with malware – your daughter may think she’s getting a Miley Cyrus song, but she may actually be getting a password-stealing Trojan (and if you and she share the computer, that could be bad news for your bank account!). But a much greater problem is that sharing copyrighted songs in the manner is illegal – and the penalties can be enormous. The RIAA have sued more than 30,000 people – mainly young people – and, in one recent case, student Joel Tennenbaum was ordered to pay the Recording Industry of America $22,500 for each of the 30 songs he had downloaded – $675,000 in total. Ouch! That’s was pretty expensive music!
But I’m in Canada! Downloading music is legal here! Erm, isn’t it?
Yes, probably. But maybe not. Wikipedia discusses the issue in some detail. Until the legal position is absolutely clarified, downloading simply may not be worth the risk. Would you like to be sued for $22,500 per song in a test case brought by the RIAA?
Years ago we had reel to reel and taped off the radio with great abandon and joy! Today in the digital age we have computers and other ways in which to “tape” our music. Does it harm the “industry” and “artists”? No more so than it did years ago. Today , it’s just a quicker process. I see nothing wrong with “sampling” tunes. Another point is, those that are downloading in stead of buying them are not helping the “loss of sales etc.” as they are unlikely to be buying the product anyway. How about those that really can’t afford to buy. Are they too breaking the law because they taped something or “borrowed” an album or two? I should think NOT! The local library here allows us to “borrow” them. This is CANADA not the US…..STUFF the RIAA and it’s heavy handed tactics. They are not loosing any more now than they did then (60′s and 70′s).We also pay a premium on recording media as well. Kinda like the GAS premium the big guys and the Gov. sokes us for to pay for their “missdeads”! Greed is the driving force behind these people and PAYOLA to the Government and lobby groups keeps it going. Leave the kids alone and let them download……..HELL….maybe they’ll actually hear someone with some talent for a change and go out and buy a disc or two. Price the product in a reasonable range as well. Many things to consider…..but I hope CANADA takes a stance and kicks these RIAA people right in the….WALLET! Food for thought!
hey all
i dont get why people still pay per song , all of you need to look at http://www.napster.com it is 100% legal you pay 15.00$ a month for unlimited downloading the only catch is this you are”renting” the music so you must continue to be a napster member and once a month re log on to napster to renew your music licence also you can take the music with you on up to 3 or 4 mp3 player i forget how many your aloud as long as the mp3 player contains DRM (DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT )
What a ridiculous article. Was this written strictly as propaganda for RIAA? seriously, anonymous and unknown make very quality points but they also miss what I would consider a wrinkle in the whole system. Record company’s make bajillions of dollars every year, some artists make a foolish amount of money as well. so i am supposed to pay whatever for a cd that is likely to be garbage anyway so whoever can make this unfathomable profit? it is an absurd idea to pay people who make music more money than people who can save your life or actually drastically increase quality of life, ie doctors, teachers (one saves lives the other is responsible for YOUR children for a majority of the day). The day I purchase another song is the day that the artist is making a modest wage, not only do they make this stupid amount of money, they provide our children with poor role models to boot. of course artists and actors and whoever else is going to cry and whine about it, wouldn’t you if you made ten million dollars one year and then nine million less because of downloading? it should never have gotten this way and the current state of things is a backlash of this foolishness, and nobody cares and nobody should, which is why such a large percentage of people download. yes there are viruses but there are more viruses on pornographic websites which account for 72 million monthly visits worldwide. regardless of your views regarding this, viruses are generally not spread through p2p downloading, and if they are, get a virus scan or a mac, or use linux or some operating system with minimal exposure. As far as legality, the only reason it is illegal is because the industry has so much money tied up in lobbying power that they actually have some say in the laws that govern the likes of you and I. RIDICULOUS. that’s like the government passing a law that says nobody is allowed to share socks because the sock company’s say it cuts into their profit. I like the approach that i believe it is Sweden took where they have a pirate party which actually fights for the right of p2p file sharing. those involved in these industries, where all eyes (especially the young) are pointed, those who are supposed to be role models, have abused the power that they have been GIVEN long enough and it is time to knock them down a peg or two. PS. sorry to all independent artists who dont make a lot of money but you know what, collateral damage, first things have to change, then you get your shot.
Look downloading music through torrents while for the most part being morally wrong in my opinion. there is something to be said for it. for someone who is unsure of whether or not they will enjoy the new album of whatever artist they are downloading they can pre-screen the album and if they dislike it they delete it and if they like it then they SHOULD go out and purchase the album to support the artist. You can’t expect them to make music for a living if they can’t make money doing it! Another point is that for people who are fans of very obscure genres of music such as myself or for people who listen to artists whose back catalogs have long since gone the way of the dinosaurs it’s an effective tool for us to use so we can find the music. Itunes unfortunately while having a plethora of various genres and artists sadly lacks many artists who’s record labels don’t do business with apple. So unless we can find that music elsewhere we may have to download it. Downloading just because you feel music should be free and you think you should be able to do whatever you want? WRONG! downloading music as a temporary solution until you can find a way to purchase it legally and support the artist? Fair and Right!
i think a company such as apple (itunes) or amazon wrote this article just how the cable companies made ads to deter people from stealing satellite signals. this is legalized crime. $22,500 for a song. that is crazy. they should be counter-sued.
Lol, imagine If everyone guilty of getting their music off limewire or torrent were caught, we’d all be screwed. But I do advise people to support their fave musicians, by paying for the songs!!!!!!!!!!!
for their next survey they should ask people what they think of the ISPs instating bandwidth limits and throttling P2p and high bandwidth programs such as online games.
why is bittorrent illegal? Isnt legal and illegal supposed to reflect cultural values and societal views of right and wrong? If so many millions are using p2p, then we obviously dont think its wrong. The only people who think its wrong are the people who cant make any money off of it. Its disgusting – if the Canadian government ever bows to this ridiculous industry pressure I will be very disapointed. Musicians should make money like they did in the old days – selling tickets to live shows that people want to see.
Nobody commenting mentions that it is just plain wrong to do this. Just because everybody does it, doesn’t make it OK. But nobody cares about legality or morality any more, do they? Just if they get caught or not. It’s a very sad world and it’s only going to get sadder.
On the surface, this is an interesting article that raises an interesting debate. However, Rhonda Callow, you need to do a little more research and be careful about the scare tactics you employ. Joel Tennenbaum is an american student. To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA has been unsuccessful with prosecuting a Canadian citizen.
Furthermore, the RIAA has agreed that it will not initiate any new lawsuits in regards to online music sharing. However, current cases the RIAA has started will be seen to their end. In other words, this article regarding the current state of the RIAA and the situation of illegally sharing music protected by copyright is too little too late. You refer to Wikis, well here’s one for you that backs up what I say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_America. One doesn’t have to go further than to type “RIAA” into Google to find out the current news, and that particular site I referenced isn’t the only one…
Is music sharing illegal? Yes, in the techical sense. However, it’s not easy to enfore, as I’m sure the RIAA has discovered. Is it moral? Heck, no – artists & other people associated with them make a living from producing songs, and selling them to the public. One could argue that people like Madonna make billions, and sharing a few songs won’t hurt them a bit. Well, maybe not, but what about other people who are indirectly responsible for Madonna’s work? They’re regular guys & girls just like you and I. Undoubtedly they are simply earning a living to support their families, too.
However, despite the legalities and the moralities, people will share music whether it’s illegal or not. Remember when audio cassettes were the greatest thing since sliced bread? The music industry had an issue with that medium, too. Do you know that it remains illegal (yes, even in Canada) to simply record from a radio station? However, people do it all the time. No one ever got into trouble unless they used it beyond their personal use. I think this is how the digial age will eventually end up, too. It’s interesting to note that the RIAA doesn’t have a mandate for going after anyone who tries to record the very same music from radio stations, or online radio stations who stream their broadcast. Technically, one could argue this is also taking away from CD sales.
As for the $22000 per song Joel Tennenbaum was sued for – this number wasn’t just pulled out of thin air. Joel contributed to his problem when he not only downloaded the music, but shared it as well. He admitted to having more than 30 songs, but only 30 songs are in question (no doubt these are recent releases & such). When he started sharing, he contributed to the loss of royalties for these songs. Taking several issues into consideration, they felt $22000 per song was adequate justice. This in itself opens up yet another debate.
At any rate, getting back to the article – it’s fluff at best, and I’m not impressed by the scare tactic. Yes, it’s illegal to share copyright material. But the RIAA has refocused their efforts onto the ISPs instead. The RIAA has removed much of it’s bite, and has had little to no reach in this country. In short, this issue is going to be around for a long time to come, and chances are very good you can continue to illegally download music without fear. Is it right? No. Is it good to let our kids do it? No. But is it going to happen anyway? Oh, yes. Like it or not, when we’re not looking, your children and mine will download anything they desire – we can only teach them so much. We can’t be a watchdog for their entire lives, and at some point we have to trust they are doing the right thing.
You ever notice if you kick a homeless person in the shin, the cops arrest the homeless guy. If you kick a rich guy in the shin you go to jail and he wins a law suit against you because his hair is falling out from the traumatic experience, and his shin has recovered just fine. So if you want to play with the rich then you better be able to pay. Don’t download music, listen to the radio, it’s free. There has to be 50,000 radio stations in north america, there must be one you like.
YOUR ALLOWED TO DOWNLOAD IN CANADA
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/
2007: RCMP Tolerates Piracy for Personal Use
Around the same time that the CRIA successfully took Demonoid offline, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) made it clear that pursuing Demonoid’s users is not a priority for them. Demonoid came back online in April 2008, but is now hosted in Ukraine.[17]
According to the RCMP it is impossible to track down everyone who downloads music or movies off the Internet. The police simply do not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.[18]
“Piracy for personal use is no longer targeted,” Noël St-Hilaire, head of copyright theft investigations of the RCMP, said in an interview with Le Devoir. “It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it,” he added.
St-Hilaire explained that they would rather focus on crimes that actually hurt consumers such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, as well as ones that affect organized crime.
The RIAA probably sued $22,500 per song because they may have lost a lot of money. The song is worth $0.99 on iTunes. People forget that if you download from P2P sites like BitTorrent, you are probably also uploading. This means not only are you steal, you are also aiding in illegal file sharing to millions of other people. Currently, the law gives the owner (especially in music and movie copyright holders) a lot of power to decide what they can get because there is no real way to determine their actual loss.
They can sue you for more than 99 cents because you acquired it illegally. If you steal a car, you’ll have to do more than just give it back. The law is certainly a bit odd in Canada (you can download but not upload), but that doesn’t excuse ethics.
If you don’t want to pay a buck for a chocolate bar, don’t get the chocolate bar.
If you don’t want to pay the 99 cents for a song, don’t get the song.
kids spend A LOT of money on concerts and their favorite band’s paraphernalia. who cares if they download.
i’m tired of record companies whining about how they’re not making any money because of the internet. BS. the internet has allowed them tons of FREE marketing. if they’re not smart enough to figure out how to use that to their advantage, they’re not doing their jobs.
times have changed.
record companies should embrace the fact that music is so readily available and need to be more creative in the way they market their clients. they’ve become lazy and are looking for the quick buck.
if they produce a quality product, it will be profitable.
U know it doesnt matter what any one’s personal opinion is.If where you are located music sharing is illegal then don’t do it. It does not MATTER if you get caught or not. It’s the wronge thing to do. If where you are located u can’t drink till the age of 21 the don’t do it. It does not MATTER if kids in france can drink wine the point is u DON’T get to do it.
If you take pictures of artwork in a museum, will the same thing happen if you shared them on the web?
mp3 is also low qualty and I consider it a sample.
Rich get Rich, poor get poor, and then there was chaos:D
Let the Capitalist world be reminded that the CDN Fed. Gov. has taxed recording media such as blank CD’s, Tapes, etc. for the purpose of paying the Artists for the legal downloading of their music, songs, etc., simply backs up the Supreme Courts Ruling. Any lawsuits against any CDN downloader by foreign powers such as the RIAA would be very much like ‘Barking up a dead horses ass’.
Downloading should not be illegal… and the RIAA has got to realize that they are in the wrong for sueing these people. What all recording industry associations, organizations, record labels, managers, artists etc… must realize is
1. THE FANS ARE NOT WRONG. They are following the trends in technology, and right now that means free downloading.
and
2. TECHNOLOGY is leading the change in how we aquire music, and all media for that matter. You can’t stop technology.
When the RIAA sues people for downloading music, what they are actually doing is pushing away the people who are AQUIRING the most music – AKA: big music fans with big music collections. The RIAA and all music industry people must realize that you have to treat these ‘illegal downloaders’ as big consumers, fans of music, and FIND ANOTHER WAY TO CHARGE THEM, for example via a service fee built into your Internet service.
This means the that aquiring media will become more service-based rather than product-based. This is a very slow process that will take years to change. But change is always slow, and new technology always wins out.
From and artist, and record industry perspective, downloading should not, and in the future will not, be illegal. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE ARTISTS ARE GETTING PAID THEIR DUES and $
For anyone who stayed with me through this, why don’t you check out Get Bent Records, at http://www.getbentrecords.com Independent music for the thinking person in all of us.
Peace
you Rhonda are a stupid parrot.
Just parroting the party line
Do the Math is right and then some.
the record industry should stop whining and figure out how to get into the 20th century (no misprint)
plus the very vast majority of artists welcome p2p as that’s how they get known.