I would not pay to download... f that. And I favor Myspace over facebook. It's the OG networking site :)

Shrie says "f that" to paying to download songs. Do you steal CDs from stores, too? Do you sneak into clubs without paying? Why do people have this entitlement feeling about the Internet, that if it's available online it should be free?

However, the wording of that article suggests that Shrie might not have to pay to download songs from MySpace. It doesn't actually say the plan is to sell music; rather, it says they want to "distribute" it and downloads will be "supported by advertising." Does this mean simply more banner ads? Would they add audio ads that you'd get along with the music, or some kind of video you'd have to watch before the download started?

I might consider getting music from MySpace if it wasn't already available on iTunes, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

As for social networking sites, FaceBook has a much better user experience than MySpace, but in terms of actually networking it's more difficult than MySpace. And MySpace has both music and blogs. So I prefer spending time on FaceBook, but it hasn't replaced MySpace, either.

Ha! I knew someone was going to kick my ass for saying that... just waiting to see who. I actually download a lot of free music (call the authorities), but I also buy more cds, LPs and go to more shows than almost everyone I know. Take that!

I just like Myspace because its a format I know. I in NO way support Rupert Murdoch, which is another reason I wouldn't buy music from Myspace.

Um, can't you already download from music pages on Myspace for free if the band makes it available? Would they take that away I wonder?

"I in NO way support Rupert Murdoch, which is another reason I wouldn't buy music from Myspace."

Word up on that one.

Re: "It's the OG networking site"

What about poor friendster? I thought it was the shizz when it first came out. Now I barely remember it exists!

I thought some bands already sold their music through MySpace (with those little boxes on their page), but that must not be connected to the site.

I'm on both Myspace and Facebook, and while Myspace is a pain in the ass a lot of the time, it's still relevant because nearly every single band in the world is on there (literally) and put songs up. It really is the best thing for music writers. Until all of the bands on Myspace migrate to Facebook (like lots of both Dana's and my friends have), Myspace will still be relevant.

And I'm in favor of more places to download music, not fewer.

Fact: If you use MySpace at all, you're already supporting Murdoch and Co. You don't have to buy anything, or even click-through on any of the ads. Just the fact that the site's got your and millions of other people's attention everyday allows them to fill their coffers with advertising income. I'm not necessarily suggesting a MySpace boycott or anything dramatic like that, but you can't say that you're not helping the wealthy right-wingers get even wealthier. Why do you think they bought the site in the first place?

Yea yea yea... and if you're eating anything but organic vegetables you're poisoning the earth. We can't stop EVERYTHING in order to be pristine humans.

When I joined Myspace Murdoch wasn't in the picture. And we ALL help wealthy right-wingers get more wealthy... unless you live in a cave and don't consume anything. I don't like Murdoch, but I don't like Wal-mart either. I don't like strip malls or suburban sprawl. But such is life... we make our choices and move on.

I think myspace and facebook can coexist peacefully! I use myspace to keep up with my bands, and facebook to keep up with my friends!

Shrie, you are correct that our world is so interconnected that it's virtually impossible not to inadvertently contribute to problems that you're ethically opposed to. Even organic veggies aren't 'green' if they were trucked halfway across the country to get to you. I just like to be as up front as possible about the compromises I make. I don't use MySpace, but if I had, I likely would have left it when News Corp took over. Unless, of course, I had already become so hooked on it that giving it up would have been too painful. This is the case with most MySpace users, who have conveniently chosen to overlook who's running the show.

It's pretty much the same with illegal music downloading. All the excuses and rationalizations people make justifying it, and there are hundreds of them, make me laugh. I buy music, but I also download a lot of music too. Is it legal or ethical? No. Why do I do it, then? Because I want the music, it's easy, doesn't cost me anything, and I'm likely get away with it. Same reason that everyone else does it. That makes me a less than completely ethical person. I can deal with that. Some people can't, and therefore have to come up with transparent and generally laughable justifications that makes them feel better about themselves. Better to be honest with yourself and know yourself, I think.

Yea... exactly. I don't care that I download music, because I DO spend a lot on it as well - thats not a rationalization, it's just the damn truth. I'm not so self-righteous as to think that I'm better than anyone else (ethically anyway). And I guess I'm just not strong enough (or care enough) to quit Myspace when I moved across the country to a place where I know nobody, and need a good way to keep in touch with friends. So.. until everyone else wises up to Murdoch's evils I'm going to continue to Myspace so I can say Whaddup to mi amigos, however "unethical" that may be.

Well what I don't really understand is how having a Myspace account helps Murdoch in any way. I mean, they're free, so its not like we're say, buying his newspapers or American Idol merchandise. I know he gets money off of advertising, but those ads would be there whether I went on myspace or not. I think maybe better time would be spent getting to the root of the problem: corporations are allowed too much power to monopolize and are not held responsible for their dirty deeds. And you can't solve that by boycotting a free website.

Yeah, I thought SNOCAP was already myspace's way of digitally distributing music (and I have music available via SNOCAP). So, color me confused.

"I know he gets money off of advertising, but those ads would be there whether I went on myspace or not."

Well, I would guess that how much he can charge for those ads in some part depends on how many MySpace members view those ads embedded in their homepages or whatever. (As I said, I don't do MySpace.) I'm not in advertising either, but online ads prices are often based on traffic, aren't they? So if you're going to MySpace, and seeing those ads (for anything), you're helping Murdoch make more money. But like everything, there's a cost/benefit ratio to consider. For many (most), giving up their MySpace account would be far costlier than adding a few pennies (?dollars) to Murdoch's pile.

Of course if I'm wrong on any of this, I'll be happy to be enlightened.

"I think maybe better time would be spent getting to the root of the problem: corporations are allowed too much power to monopolize and are not held responsible for their dirty deeds. "

Agree completely. Big business has been given a free hand for the last 8 years.

"And you can't solve that by boycotting a free website."

That's the crux of the problem: it's not actually free (nothing is). Someone is paying for all those MySpace ads, and that cost eventually trickles down to you, while the money trickles up to Murdoch. That's how capitalism works.

And if ENOUGH people boycott ENOUGH things for long ENOUGH, yes the city, state, country, world could be changed. But that rarely happens.

Yeah randy I see your point. I wish I could be free of the Myspace monster, but unfortunately...I guess I can only hope to make up for it by voting Obama!

Just because I feel like opening a volatile can of worms:
I don't have any ethical problems with downloading music for free, because I don't believe it's stealing.
When an item, like a CD, is stolen from a traditional music store, the store has lost stock. It hurts them. In the most basic terms, stealing in the usual sense deprives someone of something that is rightfully theirs.
When you download a CD, no one is losing anything. No store has to restock that CD. It's a copy that was made without cost to anyone. What's being "stolen" is what I would call "potential profit." The person who now has a free copy of an album on their hard drive is no longer a viable consumer for that particular album.
In my case, I download albums for two reasons: A) I already own it on vinyl, or B) I can't afford it -- usually the latter. Am I, then, doing anything wrong by acquiring music for free, without causing anyone to lose a physical product, and with no possibility that I would be able to pay for it instead?
(Yes, I have bought physical copies of albums I'd previously downloaded. And yes, I realize that puts me in the minority of downloaders.)

KS, I think we're both on the same page. I download, buy, go to shows etc constantly. So... I agree.

Let the hating begin!