Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Uberpwn_w00t on November 18, 2008, 01:27:22 AM
-
Okay everybody.
Some guys from a group called SIFE came to my school last week. They did a short presentation on the ethics of downloading music. I am required to write an essay on the subject, and explain my views. I am already pretty heavily set on one side, and I know nothing is going to change my mind now, BUT...
I want to hear what you guys have to say about it.
...Discuss.
-
(http://www.jinx.com/Content/Product/285p_1c_1b.jpg)
-
Its up to the Industry to find a way to adapt to this. Not the consumer.
As it stands now, the industry is attacking the consumers, rather then trying to find a way to adapt to a changing industry.
By attacking the consumers as they have been, they do nothing but aleinate more consumers, and perpetuate more downloading.
Jacking up Product Prices, while Pressing lawsuits to set and example to other consumers, shows that they are not willing to adapt.
-
The fact is, downloading music illegally really does little to affect the industry. Musicians are overpaid for what they do, and this is coming from the lead singer of a band. Popular artists shouldn't be paid as much as they are.
As far as the income argument, think of this. Radio stations still buy singles from the music biz, and how many radio stations are in the U.S. alone? That and outside of online imports that are usually overpriced, it's the only way to get a few bands that aren't big in your country. Not to mention indie bands, rare CD's that aren't in local stores or easy to buy.
Some bands even ENCOURAGE downloading their music, case in point: Lovecraaft, a French death metal band. Before MySpace fucked with the way music was set up, they frequently made their songs available for free download.
Basically? I'm against prohibiting it. Regulate, maybe. Prohibit? No.
-
Definitely agree with you Roland
Regulating, yes. Prohibiting, no
-
I pirate like crazy and find little, if nothing, wrong with it. The difference with me is, if I like something enough, I will go buy it. For the casing, art, and to help the band I like. I don't see the point in illegalizing something like that, though. Because as I see it, music is something you can get everywhere. Illegalize radio stations... illegalize music videos... illegalize all that. If a band wants to garner money, concerts do that just fine. Think classical age, beethoven and all them only profited from holding live concerts. It's not like they did it for the rage of money, as most bands would, these days. Not only did they only profit from concerts, but their music was FAR more detailed and higher in quality then modern bands. It shouldn't take four guys to write most of the **** spewing out of the music industry.
My point is, bands should be playing music for the fame and the passion. Not for the dough. If they want money, CDs aren't the way to go anyway. But like I said, if I really like an album, I'll go out and buy it anyway. It's too damn convenient to have the worlds music at your disposal, to just complain about it...
-
Yeah, the music industry need to adapt.
I mean, you can more or less put a Cd in your computer and after some modifications it's stored there and all your friends can share the songs of great mirth.
Think about those old larger CDs , or the tapes. Good luck pirating them.
Music is made in MP3, which can be downloaded and put on MP3 players.
Now, how am I supposed to get any good music on there if I didn't download it? And on the side, a lot of music doesn't even show up here in Sweden unless I travel to some far-off music store 2 hours away, then there might be a possibility to find it.
And really, sites who say "Pay us and download legally" that's just sad. Who the hell pay for downloading a song when you might as well just do a google search and find it for free.
And besides, just as with games: I only download what I can't find.
-
I find this really funny. We download music and other stuff illegally, and then we try to put the blame for what we're doing on the music companies (or whoever else). The fact is, if WE are downloading THEIR content illegally, it is OUR fault. Think about it, if you made you're own music track or game, and then decided to sell it, you wouldn't be too happy if you lost 50% of you're revenue to people getting you're stuff illegally. Then if you tried to take measures to make it harder for people to use you're stuff illegally, how would you feel if people started basing you for making you're products harder to use (illegally).
We even go as far as to try and justify ourselves by saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I did no harm in downloading it". Thats the same as going to the store and stealing a candy bar saying, "I wasn't going to buy the candy bar, so I might as well steal it".
People spend a lot of time and money making the stuff we just simply download illegally, how is this not morally wrong. What is even worse is when people try to blame the companies or other people for their own illegal actions.
-
dude, thats weak. so weak.
Some companies are adapting to this. (itunes comes to mind)
And some File lawsuits against families whos children download to fill their MP3 players.
If i hear about say, Warner Music Filing suit against a family because of the example mentioned above, I usually decide not to buy the CD.
Sure, its up to the consumer to be ethical about it. Personally I buy albums I like because I want it around. I dont want to re DL it if it gets lost. I buy albums for the Art. To support the group.
As for musicians being overpaid, thats a crock. Some are, yes. Most Professional Musicians Are not. They do things like Play shows at clubs for 500-5000 a pop, which really, dosent cover living expenses and equipment and feed the family, as it were.
Its up to the industry to adapt. Its up to the musicians to Promote and Tour.
Ever notice that since Music Downloading, we get Way more big shows coming to out of the Way venues? Of course not, Because most of you are too young to remember the days when people bought Vinyl and whatnot.
Im gonna full on say DBs argument is BS. And that he would do well getting a job for a record company.
Not to mention, More small and independant bands are getting notoriety and selling the rights to things like TV comercials, and perpetuating ad revenue to TV and Radio Stations.
A professional Musician Should not be in it for "The passion and music". They should be professional About it. And aim to not fail.
Attacking the consumer wont accomplish anything. Im not saying that the downloading is Morally justified (even though I think it is) Im saying that its a consumer trend. Like E books. And its up to the publishers and Professionals to figure out a way to adapt to a changing industry. Music or otherwise.
-
Bands with big names get enough money. There will always be fans who either want to see them live and are willing to pay 20 bucks to 50 bucks an evening a person for them; or fans who want to have their cd's in their collection.
Now I won't deny, I download music. I download loads of music. A really ****ing lot, actually. But there is one type of artist which I rather buy (read: Buy and rip as MP3) than download and that are underground bands. The unknown ones, the ones who people don't pay enough attention too. Names like Metallica, Papa Roach, System of a Down; they can make enough money. I paid 20 euros for my Serj Tankian ticket. My girlfriend and a friend did the same. That's 60 euros from us. And there was a huge crowd. I mean, at least 200.
Now I know, downloading is illegal. But asking 15 to 25 euros for a cd, that's a lot in my opinion. I make 5.50 euro an hour, I like over 200 bands. I need to work two till five hours for something I can listen 30 to 50 minutes to. Worth it? Not really.
My opinion, bands GET enough money and help the underground bands more than the big ones.
-
Gem, Dragonblaze: I agree with you guys to an extent, however until the music biz does something as far as making downloadable songs/cd's cheaper, people with little money really don't have much of a choice.
Oh and as far as downloading music goes, I don't, not illegally anyway. I listen to a lot of indie bands, many of whom have all their songs on the net for free download legally. As for big name bands, I tend to borrow CD's from my friends and put the songs on my computer. Which is illegal for some reason, though I see no harm in it, the CD was still BOUGHT.
And I use OpenPandora for music lately so there's that.
-
I tend to borrow CD's from my friends and put the songs on my computer. Which is illegal for some reason, though I see no harm in it, the CD was still BOUGHT.
What you do is still illegal, using stuff someone else bought for your own goods. It is the exact same thing as downloading. The cds I download have all been bought, otherwise they wouldn't exist.
-
What I'm saying is that they need to invent a new kind of either: filetype or media type.
Just making the new CDs in a different shape and fashion so they won't be plugged into a computer (unless you buy something that's made for that purpose for about 70bucks) would prevent it a lot.
And I mostly download old nostalgia music, music that you probably will only find in one of two options:
Garage sales.
If the band ever decides to make a "greatest hits" album(which is really unthinkable).
But I'd buy a CD if I found something worth buying. But I really don't like much of today's music.
And another thing is that I absolutely doesn't like every single song on an album. I can like about 1-3 songs as most and the other songs are just ***-kissery or crap.
So instead of buying a CD for about 20€ I download that one song that I like.
It's not like I'll put on a CD just to listen to one song.
As for games. Last thing I downloaded was Phantasy star online, and that's because I wanted to get acces to those player-hosted servers since SEGA closed theirs. Before that? Ruins of Azagayle and that's Drakiyth's rpgm game. I usually don't download game. I see that as far more serious than music.
There are large companies behind the bands pulling the strings and making them appear on TV and taking their nice pile of money for themselves.
Games on the other hand, that's professional and passion. I'd never download any of today's games if I wanted it. For example. I'm the only person in my class owning a legal copy of Warcraft III and the frozen throne.
So when the class gets together to play; we can't use the battlenet. Because out of 20 people, only 1 can access it.
And besides, I download Nes, Snes and N64 games. Sometimes PS1 games and that's because you really can't find them any more.
-
We even go as far as to try and justify ourselves by saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I did no harm in downloading it". Thats the same as going to the store and stealing a candy bar saying, "I wasn't going to buy the candy bar, so I might as well steal it".
Nope. There is only one bar. One song is infinitelly reproduced after one recording. If the band had to re-perform the song for each single CD copy, I'd agree with you.
-
To some extent I'm ashamed to say that I honestly don't care too much. I try to put myself in the band's place: I live comfortably, people enjoy my work. It's a touchy subject, and I realize my views are a bit... self-indulgent? Dunno if that'd be the right word to use for it, but hey.
As for games, which Prpl brought up, the only games that I honestly see as worth playing these days are pretty much entirely free-ware or abandon-ware, so I can say that I download the majority of what I play.
-
I've downloaded 23 albums in the last week. I have 5 downloading right now.
You tell me what side I'm on.
-
People who don't like downloading:
- Record companies who want MOAR PROFITZ.
- The RIAA.
- Lars Ulrich, who is a Danish money troll.
I download occasionally, but if I like the band and want to own the genuine release, I'll buy the CD. I like Opeth. I bought their last album because I wanted to have it in my hands. I even bought the Limited Edition.
Bands who dislike downloading for monetary reasons are deluded, frankly. Bigger bands sell thousands of albums, filesharing does not significantly hurt their profits and probably makes it easier to get more music out. For smaller bands, it's good publicity, and they're not losing a huge portion of their income.
It's the less mainstream bands who are okay with it. John Haughm from Agalloch says the only negative thing about downloading in his view is that it's on a single track basis and the listener doesn't really get the flow or message of the complete album. If ever they have extra stuff or bonus tracks, they put it out on vinyl. Part of me wants vinyl to be the way forward.
It's always going to happen. Cracking down on it is probably just going to make people devise sneakier ways of filesharing.
-
I've downloaded 23 albums in the last week. I have 5 downloading right now.
You tell me what side I'm on.
I knew it! Two or so years of undercover work finally seem worth it!! You're coming with me. This'll learn you to steal music.
-
I pirate like crazy and find little, if nothing, wrong with it.
Well, you know what they say.
"Do what you want cause a pirate is free; you are a pirate!"
From what I've heard, Record Companies make WAY more money than artists do. So we're actually making Record Companies lose profits. Aw... that's so sad! Artists can still make money from live shows. And I'm not sure, but I think they also make money from T-Shirts (with their band name) and such, BUT I could be wrong. Still stands for the shows anyway. And even though a lots of people download music, there are also a lots who will buy the CDs.
I download. Not so much, but I do. Sure, it's stealing. I'm so very sad for the Record Companies, yeah yeah. But if there's a CD I like, I will buy it.
-
Sometimes I download albums, but usually I just youtube songs I want to hear. I'll diownload something if I really like it and want to put it on my MP3 player. And in rare cases I will buy an album if I really want to support the artist, such as with Jason Becker's new album.
-
I download plenty of songs, but like most of you, if I really like a band, I'll go out and pay for their CD and go to shows and whatnot. There are always more pressing moral issues than spreading music around via the internet.
I don't blame the Music Companies for not adapting and not wanting to. Really, I can understand their position. But they've got plenty of money to stay afloat and they will have this money for a long time. So **** 'em.
-
My argument is BS because why? You don't like it that companies file lawsuits against people who steal from them?
So not only do you break the law, you don't buy stuff from companies that go after people who break the law. How do you NOT see something wrong with this?
About the candy bar thing, think about it, do you really think Hershey's would be hurting if you stole one of their candy bars? No, the store wouldn't get hurt from it because its only 50 cents. But imagine half the people who ate hershey's candy bars stole them, then thats when the store and the Hershey's company would feel an affect. Granted you're not "litterally" taking anything when you download music, but people still did spend millions of dollars making the product. And when half the people who listen to the music have obtained it illegally, then the music industry WILL feel the affect.
Bottom line is this, music companies spend huge amounts of money and time making these products, so if we do download their content illegally, we are STEALING from them. If you do not care, that is your own problem, but don't blame your illegal actions on anyone else. There is a law, you break the law, thus it is you're own fault.
-
About the candy bar thing, think about it, do you really think Hershey's would be hurting if you stole one of their candy bars? No, the store wouldn't get hurt from it because its only 50 cents. But imagine half the people who ate hershey's candy bars stole them, then thats when the store and the Hershey's company would feel an affect. Granted you're not "litterally" taking anything when you download music, but people still did spend millions of dollars making the product. And when half the people who listen to the music have obtained it illegally, then the music industry WILL feel the affect.
You still doesn't quite get the idea. It wouldn't be like stealing a candy bar from a store, it'd be like looking at the candy bar, making a clone of the candy bar and then leaving with the clone, not the original candy bar, which would still be in the store and someone else can still buy, and the store won't lose any money over this.
-
Lol, and you still don't get the idea that people DO lose money when you download their content illegally for free, or rather when millions of people of download their product illegally thinking their actions won't affect anyone.
-
I could explain my thoughts on this, but I'd only be restating what a lot of you have said, except for one thing. Singers have talent.
Warning: Possibly me rambling on about something stupid. Avert your eyes.
Talent is bullshit. I'm not gonna pay for something you made just because you were born with the talent to make it. Being born able to sing (along with synthesizers and other bullshit) is not the same someone working physically (with their hands) for seven/eight hours a day, hoping to be thanked. All you're selling me is your voice, which, technically, anybody could do. You just got lucky to have a voice that's tolerable. That's why I don't pirate food, or lawn chairs, or Lucas' bike (anymore). That's because someone actually had to put that **** together with their bare hands. while artists make millions on three-word songs with absolutely no meaning.
-
Lol, and you still don't get the idea that people DO lose money when you download their content illegally for free, or rather when millions of people of download their product illegally thinking their actions won't affect anyone.
What Grandy means is the following:
A store buys a certain amount of CD's of an artist, in this example, Serj Tankian. Now Serj is a big name and a lot of people like his music. But of these people, a lot also do not have the money or do not wish to spend it on his CD.
The CD's in the store get bought by the people who are willing to buy it in the first place. Stores and record companies know this because it has been like this for ages.
Now let's say there are 100 CD's of Serj in the store. There are 250 fans of Serj. Now of these 250, 50 people are too poor to buy it and don't want to work just for that one CD. Also, 100 people do not wish to own a CD because they'd rather see it live or on TV.
The remaining 100 still buy it, thus still coming up to the expectations. The companies and stores are not losing money because the 100 people who are willing to buy it mostly still do. The 150 people who do not wish to spend money on it, do not. They wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: I know you are not stupid, but I wrote this very simple for everyone to understand.
-
Lol, and you still don't get the idea that people DO lose money when you download their content illegally for free, or rather when millions of people of download their product illegally thinking their actions won't affect anyone.
No they don't.
-
Ok, perfectly good example: At UMO, the college I go to, they KNOW a lot of people illegally download music. So, they have a ~LEGAL~ system set up so college students can download songs for free, with a minor tuition increase for everyone. Why can't music companies be like this? Make more limited editions that have awesome stuff for HARDCORE fans of the band, raise the price on those so they make about the same amount of money, and post a few, not all, but a few of the songs online to download.
Back to the borrowing CD's example: How is it that borrowing a CD to put some songs on my computer to listen to and NOT to sell is illegal? It seriously makes no goddamn sense to me.
-
No they don't.
They kind of do, though.
Imagine you're a baker. You are tasked to make a new cake - in fact, the best cake in the world. So, you slave away, night and day, for many months, perfecting your cake recipe. You go through a lot of ingredients getting it right, and since they're only the best, this costs you a lot of money, not to mention the cost of those long hours working hard. Finally, you get it right. It's fantastic. It's the most fabulous cake in the world. You begin baking cakes following the recipe. Finally, your cakes are ready to be put in cake shops.
At this point, someone (who in my imagination looks like a Spy from Team Fortress 2) comes into your bakery, buys a cake, then steals your recipe, and begins producing his own copies of the cake and handing them out to everyone*. Suddenly everyone has your cakes, and you have made virtually no money for all that hard work. A little tear runs down your cheek.
*Assume that in this analogy the Spy has some way of mass-producing cakes for zero cost to himself. It could happen.
Depending on the size of the band, the amount of money they stand to lose varies, but there is always some impact.
It's like littering. There is the mentality of "ehh, if I drop this sweet wrapper on the floor, it's not going to hurt the environment too much". And that's true. The problem is that everyone has that same mentality, and the problem stacks up until it's a real issue.
Ehh. I can't decide which viewpoint I'm coming from.
-
But that's like techno and rap Ed.
Let's put it this way, some people make way too much money on their music and end up taking drugs and die.
And then on the other hand, we have the good bands who brings joy to the world for 10 years and then disappear into retirement.
But somewhere, I gotta agree with Ed, I wouldn't steal a bike(maybe Lucas' though) but just downloading one song like each 4 month instead of buying a CD (just to listen to that one song) can't affect that incredible much.
Bikes and stuff is expensive and it's matter(only the actual CD and the case is).
But yeah, if you cloned a candy bar from the store and went away, then someone else could buy it.
But what if the next person also clones it and so on?
If everyone clones the candy. It won't get bought, and then It'll go bad and no one will want it. And when no one wants it then the owner of the store won't get profit from the money he spent buying that box of candy bars.
But let's say each candy bar is 1$ and he buys 100 of them. That's 100$ total. he had to pay 20$for the box, 80$ profit.
But if 50% of the people walking into the store decides to clone it?
Then he will only make 50$. And as he paid 20$for the box, he only made a profit of 30$instead of 80$.
And another interesting thing, anyone had video tapes? You could record things from the TV on the tapes.
Wouldn't that be pirating as well? I mean, I record Matrix when it's played on TV and then I can insert the tape and play it again whenever I want instead of buying the movie or hire it. All video players had video recorders as standard right?
And Roland.
Your friend shared his music with you so you could get your own. That's the same thing as piracy.
Someone upload the music. You put it on your computer(download it). But you don't sell it. You just use it for yourself.
The downloading piracy is not about making money. It's about saving money for the people who don't want to pay for it or just can't reach the music they want.
-
Now I know, downloading is illegal. But asking 15 to 25 euros for a cd, that's a lot in my opinion. I make 5.50 euro an hour, I like over 200 bands. I need to work two till five hours for something I can listen 30 to 50 minutes to. Worth it? Not really.
I'm far too lazy to read the rest of this topic but: FLAWED LOGIC
What you're saying here is wrong. It is implying that you'll listen to a song ONCE and only ONCE.
Music is not candy. You listen to it a LOT. You can get hours and hours and hours and hours and hours out of one album alone.
They kind of do, though.
Imagine you're a baker. You are tasked to make a new cake - in fact, the best cake in the world. So, you slave away, night and day, for many months, perfecting your cake recipe. You go through a lot of ingredients getting it right, and since they're only the best, this costs you a lot o money, not to mention the cost of those long hours working hard. Finally, you get it right. It's fantastic. It's the most fabulous cake in the world. You begin baking cakes following the recipe. Finally, your cakes are ready to be put in cake shops.
At this point, someone (who in my imagination looks like a Spy from Team Fortress 2) comes into your bakery, buys a cake, then steals your recipe, and begins producing his own copies of the cake and handing them out to everyone*. Suddenly everyone has your cakes, and you have made virtually no money for all that hard work. A little tear runs down your cheek.
*Assume that in this analogy the Spy has some way of mass-producing cakes for zero cost to himself. It could happen.
Depending on the size of the band, the amount of money they stand to lose varies, but there is always some impact.
It's like littering. There is the mentality of "ehh, if I drop this sweet wrapper on the floor, it's not going to hurt the environment too much". And that's true. The problem is that everyone has that same mentality, and the problem stacks up until it's a real issue.
Ehh. I can't decide which viewpoint I'm coming from.
Oooh I like this analogy too
-
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p69/DragoniumOfTheFire/Analogy.png)
-
And Roland.
Your friend shared his music with you so you could get your own. That's the same thing as piracy.
Someone upload the music. You put it on your computer(download it). But you don't sell it. You just use it for yourself.
Exactly what I meant with that.
Also, Razor, I get your point. But I still find the prices too expensive.
-
Well how much do you pay for games, in comparison to the amount of hours you get out of them?
In before piracy of games
Not that I think any album can match up to Team Fortress 2. That's just one big time-sinkhole...
-
They kind of do, though.
Imagine you're a baker. You are tasked to make a new cake - in fact, the best cake in the world. So, you slave away, night and day, for many months, perfecting your cake recipe. You go through a lot of ingredients getting it right, and since they're only the best, this costs you a lot of money, not to mention the cost of those long hours working hard. Finally, you get it right. It's fantastic. It's the most fabulous cake in the world. You begin baking cakes following the recipe. Finally, your cakes are ready to be put in cake shops.
At this point, someone (who in my imagination looks like a Spy from Team Fortress 2) comes into your bakery, buys a cake, then steals your recipe, and begins producing his own copies of the cake and handing them out to everyone*. Suddenly everyone has your cakes, and you have made virtually no money for all that hard work. A little tear runs down your cheek.
*Assume that in this analogy the Spy has some way of mass-producing cakes for zero cost to himself. It could happen.
Depending on the size of the band, the amount of money they stand to lose varies, but there is always some impact.
It's like littering. There is the mentality of "ehh, if I drop this sweet wrapper on the floor, it's not going to hurt the environment too much". And that's true. The problem is that everyone has that same mentality, and the problem stacks up until it's a real issue.
Ehh. I can't decide which viewpoint I'm coming from.
If it really WERE like this, that'd basically mean the artists would have to perform the song each time they made a CD. Which they don't. As Grandy said.
Though I admit the rest of your argument is true, I'm for making LEGAL free downloading. As in run by the music industry. As long as they got enough sponsors into it, which they would, it'd work out well and they'd still make money out of the deal, and everyone would be happy.
As far as games go, my stance is the same. LEGAL EMULATORS. I have a whole folder dedicated to illegally downloaded NES games because I can't find them ANYWHERE.
-
But what about artists who are ridiculously rich already. Kinda like Lars Ulrich, he wanted a gold-plated shark tank bar installed next to his pool, but because of people downloading his music for free, he had to wait a few months. I mean, why do they really care, they are already set for life.
Then there are those who just want to get their music out, and encourage downloading (I mean hell, I'd be fuckin thrilled if you did a search on Frostwire for some of the songs my band did and got results). But you'd think the really famous people wouldn't care.
-
They kind of do, though.
Imagine you're a baker. You are tasked to make a new cake - in fact, the best cake in the world. So, you slave away, night and day, for many months, perfecting your cake recipe. You go through a lot of ingredients getting it right, and since they're only the best, this costs you a lot of money, not to mention the cost of those long hours working hard. Finally, you get it right. It's fantastic. It's the most fabulous cake in the world. You begin baking cakes following the recipe. Finally, your cakes are ready to be put in cake shops.
At this point, someone (who in my imagination looks like a Spy from Team Fortress 2) comes into your bakery, buys a cake, then steals your recipe, and begins producing his own copies of the cake and handing them out to everyone*. Suddenly everyone has your cakes, and you have made virtually no money for all that hard work. A little tear runs down your cheek.
*Assume that in this analogy the Spy has some way of mass-producing cakes for zero cost to himself. It could happen.
Depending on the size of the band, the amount of money they stand to lose varies, but there is always some impact.
It's like littering. There is the mentality of "ehh, if I drop this sweet wrapper on the floor, it's not going to hurt the environment too much". And that's true. The problem is that everyone has that same mentality, and the problem stacks up until it's a real issue.
Ehh. I can't decide which viewpoint I'm coming from.
Poor slave rockstars who have nothing to eat.
-
If it really WERE like this, that'd basically mean the artists would have to perform the song each time they made a CD. Which they don't. As Grandy said.
The only way THAT would be true is if no one who downloaded music illegally would have bought it legally if they could not have obtained it illegally. And this simply is not the case. There are a lot of people out there who simply download music illegally simply because they can for free.
And seriously, who are we to determin how much these artists make?
-
Uh, no I'm pretty sure the artists don't have to perform each song from a CD again for every CD they intend to make, they just copy it to a different disc and sell those.
I'm not saying I support illegal downloading, I'm just pointing out a flawed analogy.
-
Bands like metallica got their Start and rise to fame from Bootleg music. Bootleg music is nothing new.
And lets not kid ourselves DB, the companies are still drawing in HUGE amounts of money.
By doing things like releasing more limited edition album releases, DVD album packages, more intricate and interactive Album Art, And touring longer and harder to promote album releases they are encouraging the sales.
The average downloader isnt selling copies of the music to his friends. Back in the day, we made mix tapes after borrowing our friends tapes.
Im not "Stealing" ****. Im sampling it. And if i like the taste, I am always sure to buy it.
However, Im not going to pay 25 bucks to hear one song on an album I like and risk the rest of it being crap. Because lets face it, Making music is not hard work (in the traditional sense). Very few musicians face the workplace dangers and hazzards that say, a construction worker or Oilfield worker does. They are never going to have a malpractice suit for a surgery mistake on their hands. So forgive me for thinking that they dont seserve 6,7 or 8 figure a year.
And as I said before, most bands get their start from bootlegging music. So really dude, a great deal of the record companies revenue is coming in because of the stolen music.
I should also Add that the companies are the one who choose the production value, and coose to spen the stupi amounts of money, when cheap recording software exists, that in many cases sounds just as good as any big money release (given that the sound man had a good ear)
I gots buddies in the industry. And they all download the music too man. Its the high ups that are filing suit. Because 3 million copies isnt enough to sell. they want 4 mill. **** that. Im gonna go download some Immortal technique
-
However, Im not going to pay 25 bucks to hear one song on an album I like and risk the rest of it being crap. Because lets face it, Making music is not hard work (in the traditional sense). Very few musicians face the workplace dangers and hazzards that say, a construction worker or Oilfield worker does. They are never going to have a malpractice suit for a surgery mistake on their hands. So forgive me for thinking that they dont seserve 6,7 or 8 figure a year.
Holy crap, I'm starting to go gai for u.
-
I agree with Gem 1000.9828%. Seriously, how is illegal downloading different from listening to OpenPandora? Sure, it won't save music, but srsly.
-
and really, whats the difference between downloading it, and listening to it on lastfm or some such? I dont distribute the music. Most of what I have on my machine is something Ive either Bought, or Paid to see live.
Actually, Everything on my computer Ive Bought or Paid to see live. i HAVE NO REMORSE
-
Here's how I see it. I could jump in the car, drive 15-20 miles to a decent record store, buy a shrink wrapped CD, drive back home, use tire rubber, buy gas, encourage the drilling and manufacturing of plastics and gas, pollute the roads, force the companies to produce another CD for the one I bought, and require the production of more materials to make it, or use the bare minimum amount of electricity.
By downloading music, I save the environment.
-
Here's how I see it. I could jump in the car, drive 15-20 miles to a decent record store, buy a shrink wrapped CD, drive back home, use tire rubber, buy gas, encourage the drilling and manufacturing of plastics and gas, pollute the roads, force the companies to produce another CD for the one I bought, and require the production of more materials to make it, or use the bare minimum amount of electricity.
By downloading music, I save the environment.
Zeek is truly an inspiration to us all. I am humbled by his environment-saving techniques. (Only minor sarcasm there, I seriously never thought of it like that.)
-
Uh, no I'm pretty sure the artists don't have to perform each song from a CD again for every CD they intend to make, they just copy it to a different disc and sell those.
I'm not saying I support illegal downloading, I'm just pointing out a flawed analogy.
*sigh* okay, you just don't get it. say 1,000,000 people want a new CD, then lets say 500,000 of those people download the cd instead of buying it. Do those 500,000 people take away from the companies profit, yes. I cannot see how you could possibly think that this wouldn't be considered stealing. It's a very simply concept. And just because "the artist doesn't have to preform each song from a CD again for every CD" it doesn't mean that illegal downloading isn't taking money away from them.
-
Ok, but who is actually regulating this? What I mean is, who is the middle man that says everyone must pay to hear these songs? What if an artist wants their album to be free? They can't just put an album on the shelves with a big "FREE!!" sign...
-
I finished my essay, guys. Here you go:
Music downloading, both legally and illegally, has been present since the mid-1990s. The advent of Napster marked the start of something that is still happening today. P2P (peer to peer) file sharing is the receiving of files stored on the personal computers of others. P2P works the other way around as well, which means you can store anything you want to a certain place on your computer, and others can download it for free. Whether or not using P2P software should be legal, and/or morally justified, has been debated over and over again.
One common thing you might hear on an anti-piracy advertisement is a comparison between stealing a material object (a bike, or a car) to downloading a song. Whilst stealing a car or a bike is most certainly immoral and wrong, downloading a song is simply not theft. Theft is the act of taking a physical item that is not rightfully yours, and keeping it for yourself. When you download a song via P2P software, you are being given an intangible computer file, that somebody else (who bought the file prior to sharing it) has willingly decided to share with others. There is a clear difference between those two actions, and you’ll find that one is perfectly justifiable.
To prove this point, I will compare P2P file-sharing to another, quite similar form of music sharing. Some libraries offer a service, in which anybody can hand in their used CDs. Those CDs are then put on display, and anybody else can pick them up, check them out, and upload them to their computer. This is, essentially the same idea as P2P file sharing, and it’s perfectly legal.
Either way, artists only get a very small portion of royalties from CD sales. The majority of the profit ends up in the hands of the large, wealthy record label companies. These companies have already signed hundreds of artists, and they certainly have more than enough money to keep themselves together. Besides, the CDs that aren’t being bought… Are not going anywhere. Simple logic. As much as you would like to think that CDs take flight and leave the Earth when they aren’t being purchased… It just doesn’t work like that.
The fact of the matter is: The large record labels are oppressive, greedy, power hungry corporations. They care very little about the artists that actually make their money for them. These are companies that make billions of dollars off of material that could hardly be considered their own. Yet, they band together and accuse us, the consumers, of depriving them? Furthermore, who are they to judge what is morally incorrect? They aren’t the ethics police. No matter how the RIAA will try to convince me that downloading music is wrong, I will not succumb to their flawed campaign. Hence, I will not comply with the RIAA, I will keep every last file that I have downloaded, and I will continue to download music.
Pretty half-assed, considering I had, like 4 days to do it, and I just did it now.
-
*sigh* okay, you just don't get it. say 1,000,000 people want a new CD, then lets say 500,000 of those people download the cd instead of buying it. Do those 500,000 people take away from the companies profit, yes. I cannot see how you could possibly think that this wouldn't be considered stealing. It's a very simply concept. And just because "the artist doesn't have to preform each song from a CD again for every CD" it doesn't mean that illegal downloading isn't taking money away from them.
No, YOU don't get it. Of those 1 million people, the 500 thousand that doesn't buy the CD probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I mean, come on. Not everyone buys what he likes. People are poor, people are too lazy to go to the store, with or without avaible downloading. EVEN IF the CD is nowhere on the internet and none of their friends have it, THEY still WON'T buy it!
I know this because I am one of these people. You might think we live in the perfect world where everyone buys what he likes but that is a total and utter lie and pisses me off. People buy what they want. Not buying a CD but still downloading it still won't affect any profits if these people weren't going to buy it in the first place.
-
You know, back in the day, folks used to record songs from the radio onto a tape and listen to them.
Not much different.
And it wasn't called stealing back then. It was called being a cheapass
And then all of a sudden, its happening online, and with the click of a button, the corporations can count how many times it happens.
And then even more suddenly, filesharing becomes fairly common. And now that they can put a number on it, and attach that number to a hypothetical amount of dollars (the south park internet celebrity episode comes to mind) then its all "JESUS CHRIST GUYS. THIS SONG HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED 500000 TIMES. IF EACH ALBUM COSTS 20 BUCKS, THAT MEANS WERE OUT MILLIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL DOLLARS"
Downloading has done much more good for the music industry then Bad.
Now Mainstream crap bands like metallica and Nickleback ACTUALLY HAVE TO TOUR AND WORK for their money.
They dont talk about the countless indy bands that ALL OF A SUDDEN FOR NO REASON AT ALL are becoming popular and professional because of the internet and its downloading. The record companies are quick to sign deals with bands that are discovered by people downloading things that would have faded into local-scene obscurity if it werent for the advent of filesharing and music downloading...
And Im willing to bet that 9/10 people in the Corporate music industry own ipods or some such.
If downloading music is stealing, then MP3 players are the tools. they are the proverbial slimjims and crowbars, and Walmart is a giant chopshop.
If youre going to call downloading music stealing, then by that logic, MP3 players in general should be Illegal, because there is no way to ensure that the content on them is liscensed.
-
If youre going to call downloading music stealing, then by that logic, MP3 players in general should be Illegal, because there is no way to ensure that the content on them is liscensed.
Isn't that like saying bags should be illegal just becouse the user can store them full of drugs and child porn?
-
You know, back in the day, folks used to record songs from the radio onto a tape and listen to them.
Not much different.
And it wasn't called stealing back then. It was called being a cheapass
I guess this would agreeing with Gemini at some percentage.
But that has always been my argument. I do NOT believe it is UNETHICAL or MORALLY WRONG to download mp3s off the internet. Movies I am more touchy about, however even then, things such as a DVR allows you to record a movie and have it there as long as you want it and see it in two remote clicks.
Although I do understand the difference: What's on TV and on the radio is already paid for by the channel operatives, and it's supposed to bring in even more profit by increasing fanbases, etc. Hence the only difference in doing this ala pirate, is that it isn't paid for from the start, but guess what! It still increases fanbase and DOES bring profit. People fail to realize that when you build a fanbase there's far more things to get than those that are digital.
However one must not be so rash about this. Even you believe there's nothing wrong, those stupid morons of the RIAA and the other scumbags of groups out there pretending they can do some good for this world, will try to hunt you down. It's rather being aware of those pathetic groups than just saying 'imma download me some mp3s.' I have not ever felt guilty or morally degrading after listening to my favorite OSTs through my PCs.
Anyway now adays, I record songs through youtube and other video sites through specialized programs... very "specialized".
...Argggh..
-
No, YOU don't get it. Of those 1 million people, the 500 thousand that doesn't buy the CD probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I mean, come on. Not everyone buys what he likes. People are poor, people are too lazy to go to the store, with or without avaible downloading. EVEN IF the CD is nowhere on the internet and none of their friends have it, THEY still WON'T buy it!
So you're saying that those 500,000 CDs are guaranteed never to be sold? Because that sounds kind of wrong. If a shop has a fixed number of a product in stock, all of them will eventually be sold. Downloading reduces the number that will be sold due to people already having it from the internet.
Whichever side you're on in this argument, for or against, you have to admit that the company does lose money. If they offer a product for a price, and you obtain it without paying that price, you have taken the product but not paid for it. Simple logic.
I'm British, thus I can be a hypocrite whenever I bloody well please.
-
So you're saying that those 500,000 CDs are guaranteed never to be sold? Because that sounds kind of wrong. If a shop has a fixed number of a product in stock, all of them will eventually be sold. Downloading reduces the number that will be sold due to people already having it from the internet.
Whichever side you're on in this argument, for or against, you have to admit that the company does lose money. If they offer a product for a price, and you obtain it without paying that price, you have taken the product but not paid for it. Simple logic.
I'm British, thus I can be a hypocrite whenever I bloody well please.
But I would not have paid for it in the first place. Which money are they losing if I wouldn't have bought it in the first place? I could be perfectly happy with radio stations and MTV and the likes. The only thing with downloading is, is that you are making your personally radio station. I don't pay to listen to radio. They provide me with music they bought. The uploaders provide me with music they bought. Sounds the same to me.
-
Someone would eventually buy it though. They'll produce a set number of albums, say 1 million, and they will all eventually be bought. If everyone is downloading though, those albums will be sold at a much slower rate; thus, over a period of time, the company has lost money.
-
They would eventually have been bought, true. But only by people who are willing to buy it.
Again, I'm taking this back to my point I made before. Not everyone buys everything they like. The CD's in a store are still in a certain amount depending on the consumer, on an estimated base of how much WILL be bought. They are not going to make 5 million copies if they know that only an estimated 2 or 3 million people will buy it.
Of the 1000 copies they make, they expect these 1000 copies to being bought by people who are willing to buy it, not being bought by ANY fan.
-
*sigh* okay, you just don't get it. say 1,000,000 people want a new CD, then lets say 500,000 of those people download the cd instead of buying it. Do those 500,000 people take away from the companies profit, yes. I cannot see how you could possibly think that this wouldn't be considered stealing. It's a very simply concept. And just because "the artist doesn't have to preform each song from a CD again for every CD" it doesn't mean that illegal downloading isn't taking money away from them.
That's... not what I said at all. I never said it wasn't taking money from them, just saying the cake analogy wasn't the best way to put it.
-
I'm sorry guys, refresh my memory.
Anyone here actually bought RPG Maker?
-
I was under the assumption that English versions of 2k and 2k3 didn't exist outside of illegal downloads.
-
Then you both have conducted illegal actions.
-
Yeah thanks to you Japan is now in a recession. D:
-
I'm sorry guys, refresh my memory.
Anyone here actually bought RPG Maker?
Ive bought XP, VX, And Game Maker.
And Each one I bought after Sampling the Illegal Haxxord version.
I would have bought 2k3, if there were a legal english release