The RIAA, DRM, And the ethics/morality of downloading music.

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[Desimodontidae]

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...

[Uberpwn_w00t]

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.

[Drace]

*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.

[Ben]

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.

[Red Fox]

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?

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

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..

[Dragonium]

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.

[Drace]

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.

[Dragonium]

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.

[Drace]

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.

[Roland_Deschain]

*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.

[Grandy]

I'm sorry guys, refresh my memory.

Anyone here actually bought RPG Maker?

[Roland_Deschain]

I was under the assumption that English versions of 2k and 2k3 didn't exist outside of illegal downloads.

[Drace]

Then you both have conducted illegal actions.