Where can I legally download Japanese music?

[kyuuketsuki]

Abe, that is all well and good, but some people like to support the artists they enjoy. Especially if they deserve support. I buy every new B'z album that comes out, and every new album or single that I don't own that I see in stores. Same goes for Vai, Satch, and several Jazz musicians. There are also Trance artists whom CDs I buy. Its about supporting the artists you like, and unlike the misconception, not everything goes to the Label. Also, it is nice to have the physical media in your hand.

[A.E.]

Abe, that is all well and good, but some people like to support the artists they enjoy. Especially if they deserve support. I buy every new B'z album that comes out, and every new album or single that I don't own that I see in stores. Same goes for Vai, Satch, and several Jazz musicians. There are also Trance artists whom CDs I buy. Its about supporting the artists you like, and unlike the misconception, not everything goes to the Label. Also, it is nice to have the physical media in your hand.

It's safe to say that 90% of my music is composed and/or sung by dead people, so who could I have been supporting? Sinatra's son? Or the money-grubbing company that distributes his albums?
Now this is in no way a matter worth discussing; nonetheless, what I find absolutely infuriating is that youtube has blocked my video that I had uploaded of a Beethoven's music piece, because UMG "owns" the copyright for it......

Spoiler:

[img height=300]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/ ... 3dh6df.jpg[/img]

Now I understand that the pianist himself who decided to record the music piece has some kind of involvement in the song being distributed, but in no WAY should he be accredited for the entity of the piece!!!!
It's just an excuse for those companies to extend the copyright of a completely copyright-inapplicable song

[kyuuketsuki]

Abe, that is all well and good, but some people like to support the artists they enjoy. Especially if they deserve support. I buy every new B'z album that comes out, and every new album or single that I don't own that I see in stores. Same goes for Vai, Satch, and several Jazz musicians. There are also Trance artists whom CDs I buy. Its about supporting the artists you like, and unlike the misconception, not everything goes to the Label. Also, it is nice to have the physical media in your hand.

It's safe to say that 90% of my music is composed and/or sung by dead people, so who could I have been supporting? Sinatra's son? Or the money-grubbing company that distributes his albums?
Now this is in no way a matter worth discussing; nonetheless, what I find absolutely infuriating is that youtube has blocked my video that I had uploaded of a Beethoven's music piece, because UMG "owns" the copyright for it......

Spoiler:

[img height=300]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/ ... 3dh6df.jpg[/img]

Now I understand that the pianist himself who decided to record the music piece has some kind of involvement in the song being distributed, but in no WAY should he be accredited for the entity of the piece!!!!
It's just an excuse for those companies to extend the copyright of a completely copyright-inapplicable song

They aren't claiming the copyright to the composition, they are claiming copyright to that particular performance. There is a big difference. If you performed that piece and posted it to Youtube, they could do NOTHING about it. In fact, youtube it, and see how many pianists play it without reprimand.

Also, you insult Beethoven by even DARING to call any one of his masterpieces a "song." Unless of course you are going to make the argument that Beethoven, was in fact, the first A capella artist ever. To refer to a classical piece of music, either call it that or a composition. Songs involve VOICES. 

So you are saying Sinatra's family has no rights to gain any money from his father's doing? Also, find me a time when it wasn't about money, and I'll eat my hat. Warning: Do not bring classical in to it. If we lived during that time, we could not hear Beethoven's work unless it was in church. Performances were expensive, and hiring a chamber group to play at your home was even more so. So the fact that these companies are using their resources to record, and distribute the media they deserve some money. Otherwise, believe it or not, you would likely never have heard of Mr. Sinatra's work. I'm constantly amazed at how brazen people can be when it comes to music. Yes, music shouldn't cost as much as it does, but as it is now, THE INDUSTRY IS LOSING MONEY! Why? Because people don't BUY music anymore. I personally don't think we can afford another collapse of another major label. We started off with 6, and now we are down to 4. If we lose any more, I fear that the music industry will have greater problems.

[Shuusgirl]

Abe, that is all well and good, but some people like to support the artists they enjoy. Especially if they deserve support. I buy every new B'z album that comes out, and every new album or single that I don't own that I see in stores. Same goes for Vai, Satch, and several Jazz musicians. There are also Trance artists whom CDs I buy. Its about supporting the artists you like, and unlike the misconception, not everything goes to the Label. Also, it is nice to have the physical media in your hand.

Yup, it's to support the artists.  I want to be an author, so I'm a little touchy about pirated anything (uploading books that aren't in the public domain is getting to be a real problem).

[A.E.]

They aren't claiming the copyright to the composition, they are claiming copyright to that particular performance. There is a big difference. If you performed that piece and posted it to Youtube, they could do NOTHING about it. In fact, youtube it, and see how many pianists play it without reprimand.

Also, you insult Beethoven by even DARING to call any one of his masterpieces a "song." Unless of course you are going to make the argument that Beethoven, was in fact, the first A capella artist ever. To refer to a classical piece of music, either call it that or a composition. Songs involve VOICES. 

So you are saying Sinatra's family has no rights to gain any money from his father's doing? Also, find me a time when it wasn't about money, and I'll eat my hat. Warning: Do not bring classical in to it. If we lived during that time, we could not hear Beethoven's work unless it was in church. Performances were expensive, and hiring a chamber group to play at your home was even more so. So the fact that these companies are using their resources to record, and distribute the media they deserve some money. Otherwise, believe it or not, you would likely never have heard of Mr. Sinatra's work. I'm constantly amazed at how brazen people can be when it comes to music. Yes, music shouldn't cost as much as it does, but as it is now, THE INDUSTRY IS LOSING MONEY! Why? Because people don't BUY music anymore. I personally don't think we can afford another collapse of another major label. We started off with 6, and now we are down to 4. If we lose any more, I fear that the music industry will have greater problems.

Well, that's why it's not worth arguing......
You are in every way correct, and I can't dispute it.
but in my case, more than 90% percent of the music that I listen to is from the baroque, classical, tansitional, and romantic period, so it's almost pointless to argue about legality when the composer has been dead for more than a century. Call me a selfish [abbr=which I evidently am]bastard[/abbr], but why would I care about the collapse of of any other Label when 90% of the music that I will ever listen to has already been recorded (again I'm only bringing this genre of music to here, because it applies to my case).
And regarding Beethoven, he did compose songs, and they are called "lieder"; and if I seemed to have insulted him by calling any of his compositions a "song", then, on the same principle, you did generalise his genre of music by calling it, "classical".
Again, I'm not here to start an argument about piracy here; the way I see it, when one buys something, he is free to do whatever he chooses to do with it; no one is forcing him to share it online.......

@Shuusgirl: Megan Lisa Jones has first promoted her book, Captive, through P2P sharing; if one really likes a book, he will buy a hard copy of it...

[Shuusgirl]

@Shuusgirl: Megan Lisa Jones has first promoted her book, Captive, through P2P sharing; if one really likes a book, he will buy a hard copy of it...

But it's miles apart for an author to offer it online, another to have it put up illegally.  Yes, if someone really likes it they'll probably buy it, but it's also replacing libraries.  And that's a huge downside, because libraries can buy more copies of a book than a single person can.

[kyuuketsuki]

They aren't claiming the copyright to the composition, they are claiming copyright to that particular performance. There is a big difference. If you performed that piece and posted it to Youtube, they could do NOTHING about it. In fact, youtube it, and see how many pianists play it without reprimand.

Also, you insult Beethoven by even DARING to call any one of his masterpieces a "song." Unless of course you are going to make the argument that Beethoven, was in fact, the first A capella artist ever. To refer to a classical piece of music, either call it that or a composition. Songs involve VOICES. 

So you are saying Sinatra's family has no rights to gain any money from his father's doing? Also, find me a time when it wasn't about money, and I'll eat my hat. Warning: Do not bring classical in to it. If we lived during that time, we could not hear Beethoven's work unless it was in church. Performances were expensive, and hiring a chamber group to play at your home was even more so. So the fact that these companies are using their resources to record, and distribute the media they deserve some money. Otherwise, believe it or not, you would likely never have heard of Mr. Sinatra's work. I'm constantly amazed at how brazen people can be when it comes to music. Yes, music shouldn't cost as much as it does, but as it is now, THE INDUSTRY IS LOSING MONEY! Why? Because people don't BUY music anymore. I personally don't think we can afford another collapse of another major label. We started off with 6, and now we are down to 4. If we lose any more, I fear that the music industry will have greater problems.

Well, that's why it's not worth arguing......
You are in every way correct, and I can't dispute it.
but in my case, more than 90% percent of the music that I listen to is from the baroque, classical, tansitional, and romantic period, so it's almost pointless to argue about legality when the composer has been dead for more than a century. Call me a selfish [abbr=which I evidently am]bastard[/abbr], but why would I care about the collapse of of any other Label when 90% of the music that I will ever listen to has already been recorded (again I'm only bringing this genre of music to here, because it applies to my case).
And regarding Beethoven, he did compose songs, and they are called "lieder"; and if I seemed to have insulted him by calling any of his compositions a "song", then, on the same principle, you did generalise his genre of music by calling it, "classical".
Again, I'm not here to start an argument about piracy here; the way I see it, when one buys something, he is free to do whatever he chooses to do with it; no one is forcing him to share it online.......

@Shuusgirl: Megan Lisa Jones has first promoted her book, Captive, through P2P sharing; if one really likes a book, he will buy a hard copy of it...

I'm well aware that Beethoven composed Lieder as well, but you were referring to something played by a pianist, which means it wasn't lieder, and thus not a "song." Get your musical terminology right! If you were uploading a Leider of Beethoven's it would have likely been performed by a vocalist and piano accompaniment. And it is still considered classical music btw. Depending on the time frame of the work you are listening to is either the Classical period or Romantic. (oh yeah, since I didn't know what piece you were referring to most of Beethoven's work was Classical, so it is safer to call it that)

As for the copyright, I'll say this again, since you don't seem to understand it. Beethoven's work was never recorded, had it not been for his manuscripts we would never have heard any of it. By your argument, then every artist who does not compose their own work, should not be seeing a penny, because it was written by someone else. Brilliant, let's just destroy one of the foundations of music!

And regarding your comment to shuusgirl... She is right.... There is a huge monumental difference to promoting something online through file sharing, and another thing entirely for someone to upload something never intended for file sharing.

[A.E.]

I'm well aware that Beethoven composed Lieder as well, but you were referring to something played by a pianist, which means it wasn't lieder, and thus not a "song." Get your musical terminology right! If you were uploading a Leider of Beethoven's it would have likely been performed by a vocalist and piano accompaniment. And it is still considered classical music btw. Depending on the time frame of the work you are listening to is either the Classical period or Romantic. (oh yeah, since I didn't know what piece you were referring to most of Beethoven's work was Classical, so it is safer to call it that)

As for the copyright, I'll say this again, since you don't seem to understand it. Beethoven's work was never recorded, had it not been for his manuscripts we would never have heard any of it. By your argument, then every artist who does not compose their own work, should not be seeing a penny, because it was written by someone else. Brilliant, let's just destroy one of the foundations of music!

And regarding your comment to shuusgirl... She is right.... There is a huge monumental difference to promoting something online through file sharing, and another thing entirely for someone to upload something never intended for file sharing.

Of course what I tried to upload was a piano solo piece; I only brought lieder into the conversation because of this remark:

DARING to call any one of his masterpieces a "song."

And as I said, I'm not making an argument here (because it's obviously, "Legal" vs. "Illegal")

I was simply expressing how upset I am since UMG has banned the video I uploaded; just because living artists are recording the piece, that shouldn't qualify them as "owners" of the compositions.... oh we're not talking about the composition; the performance is what matters, here I could only be upset about it, there is nothing else I could do...
The only reason why they could get away with that is obviously because Beethoven is dead.......

Anyhow, I appreciate the fact that you gave me a better and more refined understanding of copyright laws; thank you!
Would that, however, change my illicit methods? .......no.

I'm resting assured that you wouldn't take this personally, right!
I like having one of these fairly extended conversations, once in a while

[kyuuketsuki]

Abe, I know it won't... This is all personal opinion, and again I opt for supporting the artists I like. You cannot tell me of the classical music you listen to there isn't a preferred performer of it. And it is that person you should support. 

And for the record, Beethoven still didn't produce "songs." Leider, in my mind is completely different (despite leider being translated to song). Don't ask me why, but to me leider is superior to modern songs.

[A.E.]

Abe, I know it won't... This is all personal opinion, and again I opt for supporting the artists I like. You cannot tell me of the classical music you listen to there isn't a preferred performer of it. And it is that person you should support. 

It is my long-term plan that I get physical copies of the music that I already have; that is, whenever I have both the space and money to build my library!
My favourite performers vary depending on the composer himself: Beethoven—>Kempff; Liszt—>Howard; Chopin—>[abbr=My friend and I always argue about him and Zimerman]Horowitz[/abbr]; Mozart—>Uchida. For the rest, I'm mostly indiscriminate..

And for the record, Beethoven still didn't produce "songs." Leider, in my mind is completely different (despite leider being translated to song). Don't ask me why, but to me leider is superior to modern songs.

Yes, it is a crime to compare a lied to a modern song, but, as you mentioned earlier, a song has voices, and the definition does not arbitrate that it has a decent one, or not.....