Sax on the Web Forum banner

No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate

28K views 99 replies 32 participants last post by  Pete Thomas 
#1 ·
New York Times blog about copyright issues, piracy, etc.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-copyright-debate/

blog post by Jason Robert Brown that started it
http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php

blog by Georgia Stitt (wife of Jason Robert Brown)
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/jason-robert-brown-debates-rationalization-of-theft/

blog by George Ou in which he responds to all the pro-piracy arguments
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/jason-robert-brown-debates-rationalization-of-theft/
 
#2 ·
I read two of those links and my head is still spinning. I had no idea that people were pirating sheet music online like they do audio music! That is amazing, but now that I think about it, not too shocking......

So my personal opinion is that there is no easy answer in the copyright debate!!!

*by the way, the plagiarism of the title of this article is purposeful for irony.
 
#3 ·
One of benefits for me of reading this was finding the site (for the US anyway) where one can make legit purchases of copyright protected sheet music. I had not known of this site before:

http://www.sheetmusicdirect.us/search

I believe that many people will want to do the right thing, if they are told how they can do this.

Full disclosure: I will admit that I was one of those who made copies of other people's vinyl LPs (LPs that I did not own) using my stereo cassette deck during my college years.
 
#4 ·
Full disclosure: I will admit that I was one of those who made copies of other people's vinyl LPs (LPs that I did not own) using my stereo cassette deck during my college years.
And mixtapes! Now mix CDs.
 
#6 ·
I am going to swim up stream here. And I have a very good flame suit. So here goes.

One thing the pro piano player said is: But copyright, like the people who originate the material and the industries that promulgate it, has a lifespan. I think that sums up my attitude about music. Performers, writers, and publishing companies are trying to perpetuate something they did years, sometimes decades ago while the rest of us keep plugging away at our jobs/professions cranking out new product/service, while a person who wrote a song 30 years ago still wants to get paid for that single task. On that I call BS. The government is fully behind this nonsense by creating laws and enforcements and the only entities that can perpetuate a continuous stream of revenue from something they did 20 years ago or so are government workers through retirement programs the real world can't afford to do... do we see a pattern here? I am talking from experience here as well. One of my many hard earned talents is computer programming. It is one of the few things I do well and enjoy. I have written hundreds of programs ranging from accounting to OS utilities. Many, nay, most have been copied and passed around. I filled a niche when I wrote the program, I was paid for my effort, and I moved on to the next project.

I think it is a huge mistake for the music industry and musicians to limit what music can be performed and where. It stifles the whole point of music in the first place.

As always, JMHO.
 
#7 ·
I think it is a huge mistake for the music industry and musicians to limit what music can be performed and where. It stifles the whole point of music in the first place.
The music industry hasn't limited in any way what music can be performed and where. The issue is about compensation for it. Some believe it's there "right" to not pay. It's usually justified by that person saying they can't afford it, but they need it, much like the girl in the blog said. Then others believe if you can't afford it, then you can't have it. Usually the side your on is dependent upon how closely related financially one is to the issue. When it's your livelihood, it's a pretty hot subject. Bottom line is it's stealing. There can't even be a rational argument to the contrary. The only thing that's stifles the music and creativity is the lack of revenue these days. It's very expensive to make good albums. The sales are so low for all genres (there was a report in the last few weeks in billboard that sales had it's lowest week since 1972), that the recording budgets cannot support quality work. It has to end.
 
#11 ·
in vancouver, during the Olympics, street buskers were required to pay royalties for the songs they performed. That's complete neurotic lunacy, but that's where the argument takes this.

John Coltrane never made much from My Favorite Things, the bulk of the money went to the estate of the copyright holder of the composition (which is rarely the artist) which is tragic as it is insane and yet, that is where this argument takes us.

Friends of mine play traditional Irish music, yet their lawyer gets a significant chunk of the profits of their CD because some of those tunes may have re-asserted their 'copyrights' and the holders can now milk the efforts of their distant ancestors. That is total neurotic lunacy, but that is where this argument takes us.

the policy is unsustainable, that is the bottom line. I stand next to your lawn and I assert that where my shadow falls is now to be considered my property and anything of value ever found there, or 500 feet below there, is mine and given to my heirs. That is just insane, but ...

for your collective amusement: and just as apropos
 
#31 ·
.......John Coltrane never made much from My Favorite Things, the bulk of the money went to the estate of the copyright holder of the composition (which is rarely the artist) which is tragic as it is insane and yet, that is where this argument takes us.........
So why didn't Coltrane just record another album of songs he composed himself? The songs he played on the "Giant Steps" album less than two years before showed that Coltrane had strong song composition abilities. No one forced him to make and release a recording of the song "My Favorite Things", so why did he do it? Why?
 
#16 ·
My avatar is my photo - but am I potentially in trouble for displaying the curtain behind me in the photo without permission of the maker? Will James Stewart be annoyed I didn't get permissiqon to display his designer shirt? And should I ask Selmer for permission to display an image of a CG Conn Ltd saxophone in the photo? Will Brendan Tibbs be more upset that his mouthpiece is on display in my avatar or that I'm using a Rovner ligature on it in the inverted position?

There was a school 'down-under' that got fined for copyright breach - the music teacher bought a copy of the score for a school performance and made 5 copies for kids to use during lessons at school. The copyright infringement fine for the school was a cool quarter million - thought that's probably only US $200,000.

And should Men At Work really have to pay a royalty scrounging company 5% of all royalties of "Down Under" just because there is a barely recognisable flute riff in it from some folk piece from over half a decade ago that was not even part of the original score?

Sometimes copyright issues just make you scratch your head...

KennyD
 
#17 ·
My avatar is my photo - but am I potentially in trouble for displaying the curtain behind me in the photo without permission of the maker?
Why? There is no copyright on a curtain

Will James Stewart be annoyed I didn't get permissiqon to display his designer shirt? And should I ask Selmer for permission to display an image of a CG Conn Ltd saxophone in the photo? Will Brendan Tibbs be more upset that his mouthpiece is on display in my avatar or that I'm using a Rovner ligature on it in the inverted position?
No to all of those, it's not the same as stealing music
There was a school 'down-under' that got fined for copyright breach - the music teacher bought a copy of the score for a school performance and made 5 copies for kids to use during lessons at school.
Most schools let teachers know what they can and can't copy. But this is one area of copyright law that I think really needs revamping.

And should Men At Work really have to pay a royalty scrounging company 5% of all royalties of "Down Under" just because there is a barely recognisable flute riff in it from some folk piece from over half a decade ago that was not even part of the original score?
That's a matter for the court to decide

Sometimes copyright issues just make you scratch your head...
I agree about that.
 
#18 ·
J. Robert Brown writes

"One of the more exhausting parts of this debate has been that I'm armed with only logic against a whole culture of very well-articulated defenses of piracy."

This mind-numbingly frustrating phenomenon is everywhere on the Internet, I have found, covering a multitude of issues.
 
#20 ·
The human race has proven time and again that we are pros at justifications and rationalizations. For good or bad, it's part of what makes us human.

John decides he needs a fence around his garden to keep out rabbits. Paul can build and install rabbit proof fences. John hires Paul to build the fence and install it around John's garden. After the fence is built, John then tells Paul, "I'm not going to pay you since I don't have enough money, but I need the fence to save my cabbages to feed my family, so it's OK to use your work for my gain and not compensate you."
 
#45 ·
Well, showing my ignorance on the subject, I didn't realize that the "fair use" doctrine was US-specific. Good for us. I suspect this would have covered the teacher in the aforementioned Australian litigation. It's nice to see our legal system taking a reasoned stance on something as all too often, we seem to set the precedent for unreasonable litigation.
 
#22 ·
IANAL, but...

Fair use is being narrowed and more stringently policed, too - mostly by that greatest of all movers of legal chance: precedent. One decision clears the way for more.

I have not yet read the OP's links (looking forward), but I would like to see this debate get away from two "strawman ideas" that tend to dominate it whenever it appears online. They are:

1) Piracy=theft. Piracy is not theft in a legal sense, but infringement. It's more about rights than property. Those throwing around the ideas of stealing or theft are typically looking to convince us that a tough crackdown is needed, and to discourage critical thinking about the issues.

2) It's about the artists. For the most part, the antipiracy fight is not being fought by, OR on behalf of, artists. It's about the middlemen: the marketers and merchandisers, the people who can't create, but only keep and count up the gate. Their interests only rarely link up with those of artists, and then only the smallest minority of big names.
 
#23 ·
Re: IANAL, but...

Fair use is being narrowed and more stringently policed, too - mostly by that greatest of all movers of legal chance: precedent. One decision clears the way for more.

I have not yet read the OP's links (looking forward), but I would like to see this debate get away from two "strawman ideas" that tend to dominate it whenever it appears online. They are:

1) Piracy=theft. Piracy is not theft in a legal sense, but infringement. It's more about rights than property. Those throwing around the ideas of stealing or theft are typically looking to convince us that a tough crackdown is needed, and to discourage critical thinking about the issues.

2) It's about the artists. For the most part, the antipiracy fight is not being fought by, OR on behalf of, artists. It's about the middlemen: the marketers and merchandisers, the people who can't create, but only keep and count up the gate. Their interests only rarely link up with those of artists, and then only the smallest minority of big names.
Outstanding post, and right on the money (no pun intended :D). Bravo!
 
#24 ·
Why isn't transcribing(copying) someone's work considered copyright infringement?

If everyone had to pay to play someone else's music, live music would die, if it isn't dead already.

Most artist I hear live tell you if it's not their composition, they are not passing themselves off as the artist.

If I sing a song in my house do I have to pay the artist?
Kid loves to play the sax, puts the time in on the horn, copies every lick he can, plays all the popular songs of his era and days gone by, transcribes solos, goes to school, or joins a band, develops some serious chops. Writes his own songs puts out a CD, and believes he deserves to be paid whenever someone plays "his" music.

I have never understood the zealousness of this sax community in "copyright infringement". But I respect it.

At the end of the day nobody owns a piece of music, and everybody owns all the music. Who owns a scale? chord? etc. we are talking about arrangements of notes, time, and space, melody and harmony, rhythm. What's original? listen to any artist you hear other artist. It's evolution.

It's a mess, I don't claim to have the answers, these are some thoughts that go through my mind on the subject. I love the discourse. Just my most humble opinion. Mayho
 
#26 ·
That was tongue in cheek Pete, what is the point when it becomes a violation of copyright? when I charge people to hear me sing it in public?

I really don't understand how when someone asks for sheet music the prevalent answer is transcribe it. Why is it ok to transcribe/copy/ steal the song? the artist is not getting paid. Once I transcribe them are the transcriptions mine to do what I wish? Mayho
 
#27 ·
I really don't understand how when someone asks for sheet music the prevalent answer is transcribe it. Why is it ok to transcribe/copy/ steal the song?
Generally people think it's OK because making a transcription and giving it to a friend, although it is technically an infringement of a copyright if what you are transcribing has a copyright, it's unlikely anyone will come after you.

But if you distribute or publish any copyright work without permission, then you do lay yourself open to the possibility of legal action from the copyright owner.
 
#29 ·
Copyright is not, in and of itself, the problem. It's the fact that it keeps getting extended just when (or sometimes just AFTER) things seen as valuable are about to go into the public domain. People wrote and performed plenty of music when copyright terms were around 20 years. Now it's what, life of the author plus seventy years, with no guarantee it won't be extended yet again when that nears its end?

At some point, the public domain will simply cease to exist (save for token examples which generally pre-date talking pictures, and works specifically released to the public domain by authors) as it is divided up among powerful interests. The entire culture will be poorer for it.
 
#35 ·
I'm not sure twhat the criteria for an "easy" answer is. It's easy as far as I'm concerned. DON'T STEAL. If someone publishes it. Pay them for it. Otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble of publishing.

Put it this way. If you pirate material from someone, how do you expect them to pay their rent? Buy food? Support their kids? Fix their horns?

Are you willing to offer your time and expertise as thief to help them do that?

If you can't come up with 4.00 for a chart, then get a job. Wash dishes or sweep a floor. Or stop spending money on beer and cigarettes (or whatever truly useless vice expenditures you DO spend money on) and put it towards buying the sheet music.

No one owes you anything.

I think the answer is BMI and ASCAP and the rest need to get their act in gear, hire a few more muscles and crack this stuff down. I mean geez. What is THEIR profit margin on all this. Are they really that short staffed that they can't have a few web jockeys hunting this stuff down? Or is their complete staff a bunch of suffed shirts?

The whole thing disgusts me. I know plenty of great players and writers, composers, artist of all kinds who would be able to live a life they deserved if it wasn't for so much of this bs. All you thieves SUCK!
 
#43 ·
Big city real estate people – who have lawyers the way Marines have rifles – are particularly egregious in their pursuit of such (usually notional) bucks. They live to collect rent. And that philosophy long ago found its way to entertainment and media lawyers, who are closely related to the real estate variety and often travel in the same circles.
 
#44 ·
Re: IANAL, but...

"Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels. "

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole. If an artist chooses to release their own material in that fashion, it is their choice. many of them offer clips via myspace and facebook, etc...

If they don't, then they probably don't want you taking it.

Steve Coleman is a great example of someone who has used this philosophy to success. However, respecting the will of the artist should be paramount. Filesharing or trading is literally taking something for nothing. And if someone decides to get exploited by a label, that is their choice and not yours to make for them.
 
#48 ·
Re: IANAL, but...

"Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels. "

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole. If an artist chooses to release their own material in that fashion, it is their choice. many of them offer clips via myspace and facebook, etc...

If they don't, then they probably don't want you taking it.

Steve Coleman is a great example of someone who has used this philosophy to success. However, respecting the will of the artist should be paramount. Filesharing or trading is literally taking something for nothing. And if someone decides to get exploited by a label, that is their choice and not yours to make for them.
I don't know and never will because most of 'm aren't alive anymore and got paid per session instead of royalty's
 
#60 ·
Pete, don't be too disappointed. Musicians seldom get to be at the forefront of cultural change as do writers, playwrights, poets. Our art encourages a certain abstract and insular world view. Our craft often demands we give all our mental energy to theory and technique. And most of us feel ignored by the greater culture, so why not ignore it right back?
 
#62 ·
I started this thread because there were previous threads that tussled with the copyright question. I saw the NY Times article and followed it to the Jason Robert Brown blog. I thought he did a good job of patiently and politely explaining to the teenager what his concerns were. And for that he got called a jerk, both by the teen and in the George Ou/Digital Society blog that I linked. I also thought that blog did a good job of cataloguing most of the arguments that people use to justify free downloading of copyrighted materials as well as showing what the fallacies were in these arguments. I was intrigued to see many of those arguments appearing in this thread, though in sometimes different guises. I admit to having downloaded copyrighted materials such as recordings and that it's illegal. I would prefer that people acknowledge that rather than go through semantic contortions to construct fallacious arguments to justify their illegal behavior. I have also discovered music that I liked through legitimate sites like Pandora and SOTW, then paid to download files on iTunes or Amazon. I think that's the most ethical thing to do. I believe creative artists should be able to copyright their work and be compensated for its use. If you think it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it, you're not striking a blow against corporate greed and sticking it to The Man, you're screwing over fellow musicians.
 
#63 ·
MMM,

I might agree and in a lot of ways I do agree. If the musician is an independent. But if they are in a contract with a major label then they are working for the man. Most of the money goes to the label not the musician.

As I stated earlier I like the Grateful dead method better. Sure albums are sold by the band. But the band was/is tolerant of people coming to the shows and making tapes and trading or giving way copies of the tapes. trading not selling.

The band made up for it in buckets of cash by doing lots of shows that loyal customers came to time and time again.

I hate to break the news.... what you think are the old ways (albums etc) have only been around for around 150 years. for the other 200,000 years or so musicians made their living doing live performances.

So use your recordings to build a fan base and then milk that fan base with live shows.
 
#67 ·
to me, this is tough issue even in it's basic, most honest and pure form, apart form the greedy lawyers and executives, etc.

like rjent, i am continually designing new product, and don't get any more pay on past work, despite it's prolific, worlwide distribution and use. if you have a PC, or use the internet, there is a high probability that you are using one of my designs. if i WERE to get paid like that, i'd be retired a while ago living very well. i'd like that very much, honestly, and sometimes wonder if that wouldn't be a more fair model seeing how much profit the corporation actually makes off this product. but they make profit by NOT paying me royalties, whereas the copyright industry MUST have royalties to make profit. kinda seems like the actual producers of the product are not the real base for model consideration, but maximizing profit for the industry.
the pervasive and overwhelmingly dominant income method for my line of work is the corporate or business salary model. that means i get paid a steady income to do what they expect me to do, and that's it. nothing more. i'm evaluated annually against an aggressively compettitve and high performance oriented standard. if a get "laid off", my paycheck ends.
my designs are copied and leveraged into new designs all the time, by our corporation and rivals. i am not compensated, even if there is a lawsuit. no, i don't like that.

like pete, i think that musicians should be paid for their effort. making music, in many cases, takes a lot of hard work, study and time. it is a valid profession (it's even mentioned as an original skill in the bible). i think royalties are a fair way of compensation, given that the originator is the chief recipient. i think the ratio of profit distribution is the real problem?

copyright, to me, seems like a fair and just idea that gets exploited by greedy on one side, and ignored on the other. given electronic medium and the lack of copy control, copyright enforcement seems like fishing with a pole in a harbor-sized school of fish. the poor fish that get's 'caught' may, in fact, be doing 'wrong', but he's just doing what everyone else is and would be at a disadvantage if the didn't.
then there's that argument of copyright lifetime.
then there's the argument of it being subjective in court.
then there's the argument of being able to afford to be a musician BECAUSE of it (nowadays).
then there's ...(these my be the results of the lawyers, executives, and beuarocrats distorting and perverting the works).
 
#68 ·
Yeah. I've given up on you guys here. Simply because the "me" generation has not only taken it upon themselves to take what they want but then convince the rest of us who pay our taxes and work our behinds off that we should also pay for what you need too. Must be nice.

And the Dead weren't an independent. Who do you think put up the startup cash for those tours?

Who do you think pays for the tour busses? Know why your favorite artist comes to your town only once every ten years? Yup, because the record companies put up the travel fees based on record sales. Or the artists themselves actually depended on those record sales to buy food and gas.

So. Whine all you want about how you deserve everything you can take. Just let me know when you plan to make anything worth listening to and I will be happy to accept your gift.

And if you all think your so entitiled. What's wrong with contacting the artists estate or the artist themselves and seeing if it's okay to steal their recordings. If you do that; I am behind you all the way.

Until then try to grow a pair and act like men and women instead of a bunch of kids sliding candybars into their pockets.
 
#70 ·
Yeah. I've given up on you guys here. Simply because the "me" generation has not only taken it upon themselves to take what they want but then convince the rest of us who pay our taxes and work our behinds off that we should also pay for what you need too. Must be nice.

And the Dead weren't an independent. Who do you think put up the startup cash for those tours?

Who do you think pays for the tour busses? Know why your favorite artist comes to your town only once every ten years? Yup, because the record companies put up the travel fees based on record sales. Or the artists themselves actually depended on those record sales to buy food and gas.

So. Whine all you want about how you deserve everything you can take. Just let me know when you plan to make anything worth listening to and I will be happy to accept your gift.

And if you all think your so entitiled. What's wrong with contacting the artists estate or the artist themselves and seeing if it's okay to steal their recordings. If you do that; I am behind you all the way.

Until then try to grow a pair and act like men and women instead of a bunch of kids sliding candybars into their pockets.
my favorite artists come almost every year, but I don't know how much they are selling. I get your point, but i hope you understand that my illegal downloading has lead me to buy more records. You probably still think it's stealing, but i think you kinda hard on me because in the last year i think i doubled my cd collection(i have around 300 jazz cd's now)
 
#69 ·
Lets step back and take a "big picture" view. The ease of making a perfect copy of any data(audio, video, or ...) is so easily, quickly and cheaply done that producers of these products have to operate on one of two assumptions: 1) that someday a technology will be produced to keep this from happening, and resume business as usual, or 2) that this copying product is part of the reality of our existence, and $$ to be made must come from some other element of the music world.
At no time in our history could "duplication" of any tangible product be instantly made, at the same quality as the original. And at cheaper cost than the original producers. Imagine if buggy whips could have magically been made instantly in your own home from a buggy whip you may or may not have already bought? To rip off a novelist would have required many scribes to slowly rip-off Shakespeare, and even in the modern age photo-copying it still gave you an inferior copy (although the gist of the intelectual material could certainly be transferred). It was better to just buy it. But now that is not the case. And with the net you can be connected to the entire population of the earth ...
Imagine if you couldn't make alot of money producing records? What would happen? Would the only $ you could make be from live performances? Would musicians of virtuostic abilities benefit over posers who are beneficiaries of the producers who make them what they are? Would Ashley Simpson be a star? Milli Vanilli? Dont you think some of the lack of respect for the intelectual property is a lack of respect of the processes that determine what we hear on the radio? Although I think the finalists on American Idol are talented at times, nothing illustrates before your eyes that talent is over-rated than this show that makes stars out of people simply because they have the "manufactued consent" and big $$ thrown at them. But I digress ...
The solution seems to me to be that we have to some how make live performance the key to success of a musician. The problem with this is that in this modern digital age, getting people off their arses and out to support live music is like trying to get a Brit to the dentist (just kidding Pete!) ... people are not going to shows, and people have less influence over what music is offered to them than ever before. There is no grass roots movements of musical anything any more, it starts from the top down now. Gotta go for now ...
 
#73 ·
the discovery being made, by the industry and anyone else like swampcabbage, is that telling people to "do the right thing" and pay for everything you get just aint working, no matter how much you insist and plead. it is just too easy to copy it, easy both technically and socially. it is work and time consuming to "pay" for it. expecting everyone to contact artists' estates, copyright companies, record labels, etc is just silly nowadays. it aint gonna happen in today's environment because it would take time/effort/cost for the "consumer" (versus immediate and trouble free copy) and time/effort/cost for the artists, companies, etc to handle the traffic and answer the requests (without the patent automated "no" or "write us a letter and we'll get back to you" response). consumers nowadays have mulitple hundreds, maybe thousands of songs (even albums) on their devices. many of those were bulk copied from friends or websites in a short amount of time, with no hassle or cost. every once in a while a consumer will pay for a song/album of their particualr interest/liking. this is what i see being the the way things work. screaming or guilt-ing about just gets one ignored.
.
even before this mp3 'age', i heard plenty complaining about the high cost of a CD, and the belief that most of the cost didn't even go tho the artist anyway, but to multiple middle-men and fat executives. plus, one must (reluctantly) pay a high price for an album when all they wanted/liked was 1 or 2 songs on it. and, of course, if you have physical medium, you have to have something to handle it (more $$$ and less portability).
.
i agree with johngalt - the big picture has changed too much to support the old model, and technology has changed it very fast - too fast for the previous/current industry to adapt. if that current industry is bad, then maybe it's a good thing to outrun it. what really needs ot happen is a way for musicians of all sorts (local and otherwise) to make a living...
but if one were to look at the rest of society, it might reveal a quandry for everyone else, too. downsizing and outsourcing has put many very apt people out of work. the moving of jobs/industry to other coutries to boost stock prices (show "growth" by increasing the profit margin - reducing operating costs) is a real issue that is putting non-musicians out of work/pay. so why should we expect that musicians escape the calamity? is that reasonable/fair? or better, why should folks be supportive of a music "industry" that, they perceive, is run by many of the same type of executives that make the same type of corporate 'decisions' that cost them and their neighbors jobs/houses/etc?
.
.
btw, i also hear the complaint that the modern mp3 does not require anywhere near the cost to store/distribute as the older physical meduims and are a lower quality, but the songs are still about the same price (.99-1.99/song). folks get upset about this and get a bit more hardened to pleas about "doing the right thing" and paying. it appears that the industry greed just seized another opportunity to get fat, instead of giving the customer more opportunity. good luck telling (most) people that they should pay 1 or 2 bucks for an electronic downloaded mp3.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top