Is it wrong to share songs if not available to buy
47 replies - Subscribe as RSS Feed
StephenDH said on November 13, 2006 22:46:
There is consequences to everything.
I don’t and will not participate in song sharing by any artist.
People who share songs need to be aware though that there are people being caught for doing so all over the world and are being sued by record companies. Apparently downloads etc can be traced back to an individual’s computer. I guess if you file share songs then you could be putting yourself in a situation.
Also using TDR to file share songs does hurt the trust between Roxette and this site. Funny enough there was a thread on here a while back where some people expressed their suprise that TDR is not a recommended website by Roxette in the releases (booklets) that were released this year. This of course was after the file sharing of new Rox Box songs. As I said there is a consequence to these sorts of actions.
Also some people on here once they got the new songs from the Rox Box through file sharing did say they now were not going to buy the new releases.
The question is are you prepared to accept the pontentially costly consequences of sharing songs buy Roxette, Per, Marie or any other artist for that matter?
tevensso (moderator) said on November 13, 2006 20:54:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all against some kinds of sharing. But using our forum is what we are against, as it hurts us against Per’s trust.
Per said once in a chat that the stuff had to be REALLY RARE to be approved by him. Take it for what it’s worth.
whateveriam said on November 13, 2006 21:41:
Well, if it encourages people to go out and buy the official stuff, I don’t mind...and believe me it works!
meradi said on November 13, 2006 21:53:
Personally, I think if something is rare enough, it’s nice to share. But, we have to balance that (all the rare stuff people share) with the artist’s right to the contrary.
The artist has a right to royalties/money to be made off whoever gets a copy of the song. Sharing goes against that.
The artist has a right to not share. Maybe some things are very rare because Roxette wants it that way. If I wrote a song that I ended up not really liking, I would have every right to restrict who gets to hear it. If they want no one to hear it, that’s their right too.
abysmo said on November 13, 2006 22:24:
I think that these old rare songs or forgotten demos is not intended for releasing, so if hard fans find it on the web and download it, I don´t see problem here.
But on the other hand, there´s an author and owner of copyrights and it´s his / her property. So it´s up to him / her if he / she allow it or at least accept it. Of course, he / she can refuse.
Lantartida said on November 13, 2006 22:37:
Thank you all. I’ve understood the question. No more sharing here as far as I am concerned. Sorry if I did it before (I think I asked for really rare songs: View from the bridge, Beating heart and some rare covers).
ally77 said on November 13, 2006 22:58:
Yes I accept the consequences! If I go down I am taking a lot of other Roxette fans with me... lol ;)
cgvazquez said on November 13, 2006 23:13:
I download songs but i preffer to buy an album...if i download something, then i go to the record shop...i always do the same.
ally77 said on November 13, 2006 23:35:
Yes but what they are saying is sharing songs that are not allowed to be bought in the shops.... like the demos currently on www.roxette.se ;)
Lantartida said on November 14, 2006 09:57:
Sometimes it is difficult to understand. You can share a (rare or not) song or a CD with your friend or your lover but not with a fan that just wants to listen something difficult to find or buy.
But I really understand what moderators are saying.
mareo said on November 14, 2006 14:50:
I understand that there are at least some types of songs that can be share... for example, the songs from “Party!” I just saw that the thread was closed, but not because it lost its purpose (it really did lose it), but ’cos we shouldn’t share stuff. Isn’t Party! rare enough? Or does somebody want to make money selling it? I don’t understand the moderator’s comment on the “Party!” thread. For the rest, I think the moderators are right most of the times. Pictures are also supposed to be copyrighted, or no? I was jsut thinkig...
coyboyusa said on November 14, 2006 15:58:
i take pers approach to this, so long as the song exists somewhere be it on vynil or cd and is in some way available to purchase, regardless of how you have to get it and it’s in print then no you shouldn’t be making illegal copies. However per has never said sharing live shows is a bad thing, and personally it’s live where roxette shines the most. Ironicall I just sent someone the stars ballad version this moring and got a good reaction for it :)
rox-kuryliw said on November 15, 2006 02:17:
coyboyusa so havent you contradicted yourself ?
Room_service said on November 15, 2006 03:24:
Tell me on which CD in print I will find “Chances (Dance Hall version)”, for example, and I will buy it as soon as possible. Don’t say “it is available on the Chances 12”“, because that release has been deleted for almost 20 years and it is almost impossible to find nowadays.
If Per doesn’t wanna re-release “dull 8-minute remixes”, he should face the situation and accept we are getting stuff like that in mp3 format from other fans. But no, he included all the tracks we already have in official CD’s again. Sorry, mate, but I download and will keep doing it. Consequences or not, I don’t really care.
royalball said on November 15, 2006 06:10:
Well, if it’s no longer available to buy then what else is one to do?
The music industry needs to get with the digital world and have it available for download. Then the industry’s argument is that the artist isn’t getting paid, but that’s not the consumer, or the artist’s fault.
The record company or whoever is in charge of the industry could easily allow for legal download on itunes, or wherever for those out of print songs.
ally77 said on November 15, 2006 08:11:
Well said Room_service.... I think Per would do the same thing if he was in our shoes!
rox-kuryliw said on November 15, 2006 10:59:
if roxette made all this avaliable to buy for like 50p a track, fans would snap them up weather he thinks there good or bad. missed window if u ask me.
daniel_alv said on November 15, 2006 11:43:
I don’t see any harm in downloading songs that are not aviable to buy...
whateveriam said on November 15, 2006 20:00:
’Tell me on which CD in print I will find “Chances (Dance Hall version)”, for example, and I will buy it as soon as possible. Don’t say “it is available on the Chances 12”“, because that release has been deleted for almost 20 years and it is almost impossible to find nowadays.’
Yeah, and the last copy I found was 75 quid!!! I cannot afford that, so it has to be a download, or not eat for a long time...
ally77 said on November 15, 2006 22:38:
and it would be pointless also to buy a record if you have no player... unless you are buying just to collect!
Santi said on November 15, 2006 22:45:
The bad thing about downloading stuff, unless it’s very hard to get, it is that whatever it is “for free” loses not only its price but also its value.
So these rare things, interest us because they’re hard to get, and if they weren’t, we would hardly mention them.
I know of some people that downloaded the whole discographies of lots of bands and they never listen to them because probably they don’t have time, and once they got them, they don’t have the interest either.
Thinking beyond legal issues I think it’s good that some things have a price because it makes them more worthy :)
meradi said on November 15, 2006 22:52:
To those that believe there’s no harm in downloading songs which are not available anymore – maybe true in an economic sense, maybe not. But, think about it – if I were an artist, and I knew everyone had already downloaded a song, I wouldn’t even bother re-releasing it on CD, since all you smarty-pants fans have it already.
I think if people would just be quiet about it, that’s one thing. But then there’s those who advertise it, shout out, “I’m going to download it” or “I’ve already downloaded it” and then there goes any incentive for a re-release on CD.
Judith (moderator) said on November 16, 2006 05:53:
tevensso
moderator 11/13/2006 21:54
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all against some kinds of sharing. But using our forum is what we are against, as it hurts us against Per’s trust.
Per said once in a chat that the stuff had to be REALLY RARE to be approved by him. Take it for what it’s worth.
–
Just in case it wasn’t clear ;)
Since we can’t and won’t decide what is REALLY RARE and could be shared, we are at the same point: we simply ask you not to use our forum for this purpose.
Thanks.
ally77 said on November 16, 2006 07:42:
Nice to see the mods working on this now, shame it was not like that a couple of months back.... lol
whateveriam said on November 16, 2006 13:49:
and it would be pointless also to buy a record if you have no player... unless you are buying just to collect!
I do though, thats what makes it worse!!!
LittleSpooky said on November 16, 2006 16:11:
I grab mp3s of songs that I like, and I don’t want the whole album because I think it’s crap. Then there’s Roxette / Per Gessle / Marie Fredriksson. I CAN’T get my hands on a lot of stuff anymore unless I ask people here to buy it and mail it to me because a lot of sites WON’T ship to the US. And a lot of times, the mp3s of their stuff I get, it’s for me to “test” and see if I want to add the album to my collection. Why buy something for $15+ when I won’t listen to it but once every 3 years or so? (I have some CDs I haven’t listened to in that long, yes)
I have a few albums, and that’s because I couldn’t find the CD I’d originally owned, and after getting it, I found it (and then deleted the album outta my mp3 list). So, that’s my take. I’d be happy to pay Per personally to have all of his music (as GT / Solo / Roxette). Tell me where to send the money and as soon as he gets it, he can ship it to me.
Judith (moderator) said on November 16, 2006 18:19:
ally77 11/16/2006 08:42 new
Nice to see the mods working on this now, shame it was not like that a couple of months back.... lol
–
nice that you like to bring this up again and again, even though we have explained none of us was online at the time the songs started to be spread on 11/09 :( Everything was removed accordingly as soon as one of us could get to TDR anyway.
I would like to add we have always worked on this, and you know that we have always removed links to mp3s in the past. Just that now we are more strict, especially because we have realised some users cannot think for themselves and have to be reminded about issues like this one ;)
tavo said on November 16, 2006 18:44:
quote:
“Tell me on which CD in print I will find “Chances (Dance Hall version)”, for example, and I will buy it as soon as possible. Don’t say “it is available on the Chances 12”“, because that release has been deleted for almost 20 years and it is almost impossible to find nowadays.
If Per doesn’t wanna re-release “dull 8-minute remixes”, he should face the situation and accept we are getting stuff like that in mp3 format from other fans. But no, he included all the tracks we already have in official CD’s again. Sorry, mate, but I download and will keep doing it. Consequences or not, I don’t really care.”
room service, i couldn´t agree more with you. that´s exactly what i think. instead of releasing new material, per is trying to sell us the same songs over and over again. and yet he uploads the unreleased demos for a short period of time without allowing us to download it. now, wouldn´t it have been easier to release the rare stuff on an official cd? i would have paid whatever he wanted me to. now i got those songs for free anyway...
ally77 said on November 16, 2006 20:47:
Ahhh but Judith that is wrong because if I remember correctly you posted about the songs and hearing them and others on here remember that too.... ;) and at that time the topics in question went on for a long time........
Besides when people are singled out for no reason I am not likely to let it ever drop.... because it was downright out of order the way certain people where treated here at the time....
.... but its in the past.... and so I won’t continue to dwell on it!
whateveriam said on November 17, 2006 07:41:
’If Per doesn’t wanna re-release “dull 8-minute remixes”, he should face the situation and accept we are getting stuff like that in mp3 format from other fans. But no, he included all the tracks we already have in official CD’s again. Sorry, mate, but I download and will keep doing it. Consequences or not, I don’t really care.”’
It’s a shame though...he doesn’t realise how good some of those mixes actually are.
rox-kuryliw said on November 13, 2006 20:48:
I wondered what everyone else thinks .
Is it wrong to share roxette songs which are not available to buy ?
I know the mod’s view, Just wondered what others fans think.
Personally my view if anyone wants to hear for example
Stars ballad version, i see no problem at all to share it. No problem at all.
Log in to reply