Paedantic Basterd

Why do you believe you should pay for the packaging, but not the product?

bluesfool

I prefer to purchase a cd opposed to download. But I do both. Lack of funds to support my habit. Althoug I must agree that it's more convient to download than to upload a cd where at times you have to manually label the information. I also buy vinyl lp-you can't beat old school.

Deviouz

I DL tracks and full albums, if it's my fave artist I'll buy their stuff, I do love diggin' in the crates occasionally...

mr dave

So do you mind if I just walk into your house and empty your refrigerator and cupboard because I might be hungry later? The rest of this is not about you specifically.

Quite frankly I've yet to hear any worthwhile justification for pirating music, and that's really what most people who download are doing. The most common one I hear is 'someone stole my cd collection back in the day so that's why I don't buy them anymore and just download everything'. Seriously? If someone steals your lunch does that give a person the right to rob the grocery store? What if you try a new dish and don't like the seasoning? Free meal for a poor decision? What restaurant operates like that?

Yet, due to the fact that for most listeners music isn't 'real' because it's sound as opposed to a physical matter they can touch then it's not 'really' theft. Or the fact that only a small fraction of the money goes back to the artists and the bulk goes to the record label (who paid for the bulk of the album to be created) theft is again justified. Somehow giving the artist nothing as opposed to a teeny tiny bit of anything is a good thing?

But the absolute worst is when that garbage is justified by someone who purports to be a musician. Talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face. Pathetic.

It's not like youtube or myspace don't allow anyone to sample pretty much anything right then and there.

This misnamed clip (she didn't play Woodstock, this is the song Woodstock being performed at The Isle of Wight) really sums up the whole downloading 'scene/movement' for lack of a better terms.



That mouthy guy with the beard who gets pulled off the stage around 1:10-1:30? That's what ANY professional / working musician sees and hears when someone goes off about their 'right' to download music. Her comments at 2 minutes might be 40 years old now but they're still just as relevant. Downloaders are acting like tourists (at a resort without recognizing they're raiding a homeless shelter for food.)

__________________
i am the universe

Urban Hat€monger ?

OK try this one.

You recorded an album 30 years ago. it's not been available since it's original release. Because you signed a records contract you have no rights to it or any say what happens to it. The record company have no interest in re-releasing it because it wouldn't be financially viable to do so, and even if they did the amount of royalties you would receive from it wouldn't stretch to a round of drinks.

People are asking you to be able to hear this album and you find out that it's been posted on somebody's blog.

Are you going to get them to take it down?

__________________

Howard the Duck

uh, artists make only less than 2% of each album sold

they get their money from concerts and merchandise

you're only paying money to record companies

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

mr dave

Interesting scenario. But due to the fact that the label is the one with the rights of ownership they're the only ones who can really approach that blogger with a request to remove the material. The blogger is pretty much irrelevant in my eyes in this example since the artist in question never actually owned the rights to their material.

If I was the one in that situation, I'd be talking to a lawyer to find out what my options are in regards to negotiating the rights to my music back from the label into my personal ownership. At the same time, I've never met a musician who didn't still own a copy of anything they paid to record unless it was lost in a fire or something.

It's also very possible to simply request a rough copy of your album from the label in the case that you want to be able to prove to people you recorded an album 30 years ago. Then there's also the fact that copyrights become public domain after X amount of years if the ownership is not renewed or transferred.

Great use of confirmation bias to justify your personal preference. Again, how is 0% better than 2%? If that record label doesn't recoup its investment in an established artist why the hell would they ever take the risk of investing in an obscure artist? How often do you prefer listening to someone's homemade basement recordings as opposed to a professionally recorded band in a studio?

Simply put, if fans can't find a way to support the industry then the fans themselves are responsible for the decay and decrease in quality presented at the professional level. Without the funding from a major label to provide a musician with the ability to focus on their craft without worrying about balancing a full time job on the side no really good amateur musician will ever even have the opportunity to become a great professional entertainer.

__________________
i am the universe

Goofle

So having no money isn't a legitimate reason for downloading music?

__________________

mr dave

I'd say no. Not when you can hear it for free on youtube or myspace.

__________________
i am the universe

Goofle

That's a baseless argument. You are still not buying it, so it makes no difference if you download it instead of listening on youtube/my space.

__________________