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

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.

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...

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? :bonkhead:

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? :banghead:

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.)

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

Great use of confirmation bias.

There's a huge difference in needing to be online where there will be streaming ads that go back to the broadcaster which in turn allows for more content to be hosted (and a bonus to channels that generate enough traffic) and allows for more bands to have a chance at promoting themselves; rather than just having a copy on any sort of portable storage device where you've got unrestricted access.

Do you understand the difference between stealing and sampling?

If I went to the grocery store and they're offering samples of some cake or something. I never planned on buying the cake but since they're giving away small pieces can I just grab a full cake and walk out? Is there really no difference in just taking it (downloading) rather than sampling it (youtube)?

Cheers for noticing my use of confirmation bias.

I buy vinyl when I can and when its in good condition and when my local record store sells the weird, obscure music that I listen to. I do download music "illegally", however I am for downloading music "illegally". To quote John Darnielle, the man who everyone should listen to, "They want to hear your music so bad that they weren't able to stop themselves from stealing it... Your not the victim of anything. You are the beneficiary of someone's love."

You can actually take music from Youtube as well.

YouTube to mp3 Converter

So no, there's not much difference.

PISS OFF. Some entitled brat's love doesn't pay the bills, it doesn't cover the cost of gas to get to a gig, it doesn't pay the loan for the gear, it doesn't generate revenue for whatever group financed the production of the album. If music was a visual rather than aural would any of you think you had the right to just walk away with a painting because 'you really really liked, no! loved it'? REALLY? Think about that for an honest minute.

Better question... why are only 6 of his songs available for free on his own website but I have the option of purchasing singles through the iStore or discs through distributors?


Right, but you're also technically subverting youtube's service by copying what they're broadcasting. Admittedly no one is really going to say anything about it but it's the same deal as the warnings against making unauthorized copies that were printed on CDs back in the day.

Scroll up a little bit about my What-if music was visual. Copying from youtube is the equivalent of walking through a museum and photocopying paintings.

The issue seems to stem from the fact that just because there's no tangible physical mass to music then it's not 'really' theft. PISS. OFF.

Who thinks it isn't theft? I assume everyone on here knows we are stealing the majority of the music we download. The problem comes when you don't have enough money to pay for every single album you want to listen to. I know that whenever I have money I go and buy a few CD's, but I am on benefits at the moment so the likelihood me legally owning every single piece of music I listen to is not great.

I personally buy my music on iTunes because of the user experience and quality of the download.

I used to frequently download free music or do the Youtube thing but its just too time consuming and low quality.

I do still do it on certain songs to see if it is worth actually buying a physical cd or downloading on iTunes.

The music industry business model is changing. I believe the new model will have artists give their best stuff for free on the internet to help expose their brand and image. Once they have loyal fans they can get paid from live concerts, merchandise, etc.

Things are crazy right now and being an affiliate of iTunes, I'm interested in seeing how the new model will affect my business.

Anyways, we will see!

WAHHhhhhh I can't afford everything I want WAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

:(

It seems to me the majority of people trying to justify their piracy DO try to twist the situation around so they don't have to recognize their theft. Your justification falls pretty damn flat when you can still sample just about anything you want to hear, legitmately, for free, by loading up youtube or myspace. So why do you need to have a personal copy rather than using the already available methods?

This magical idea that going to a concert will support the musician and provide them with the riches the label would normally 'steal' from them is bananas as well. Do any of you have any clue to the legitimate costs of putting on a show in your town as opposed to the next town over, as opposed to the next state or province, as opposed to a weekend tour, as opposed to a festival gig?

Guess what? Most concerts barely break even! Especially if you're just an amateur (in which case you're usually losing money). The ones that do turn a big profit... hmmm... run by major promotion companies for well established commercial artists, because they're the only ones who can pull enough people to justify the initial costs of setting up a major event.

I assume you legally own every piece of music you have ever listened to?

The way I treat it is this: I would not buy a piece of artwork to hang in my house before I viewed it, so why would I purchase an album to play in it before hearing it? I will download something exactly once to see if I like it, and if I want to hear it again I will buy it.

ah, but there's an element of gambling there

i do buy stuff which i have no idea of what it sounds like, just that it looked interesting

I used to gamble with my money, and I was disappointed a lot. I'd rather gamble with my time.

i gamble with music

Yes but music isn't an object to be stolen like a painting. Go on google images and look at any image, drag it on to your desktop, is that stealing? Jeff Tweedy (Wilco): "We never could understand what the problem was with people listening to your music. I thought that was the whole point." (I like quotes)

I can sort of see that side of the argument as well, and while I'm not interested in dabbling in the painting metaphor, I've got two questions I'd like to pose:

How is illegal filesharing that different from the function of a public library, wherein any number of people may borrow and read the same book free of charge?

How is purchasing used CDs of any benefit to an artist? If this is the basis by which we gauge something as ethical, then does purchasing used CDs fail the test, seeing as the artist/label receive no compensation for that transaction?

add to that, i'm so far from the country of origin of the artist, i have no idea how much of my money actually trickles down to them, if i'm buying locally-pressed copies

imported CDs, yes, i am paying the artist directly

If I will be asked I would suggest to have it on a physical aspect than to have it on my Computer, In time as I grow old I can let my future son to see what I am talking about than to have it on my computer. Let just say that I have a evidence to make them realize that Im not just telling stories to them. :)

I know you're not interested in the painting thing but just entertain this next bit. You say you wouldn't buy the art without looking at it first, fine, how is that different than sampling the sound of the music on youtube? You don't need to download it. Same as you don't get to take a painting off a wall and make a high-def scan of it so you can hang it up in your hallway first right?

Now these other things are interesting.

On the public library thing, I seem to recall there being some sort of agreement in place between the publishers and whatever governing body handles the funding of the libraries to compensate accordingly. Kind of like how software developers charge differently for an individual vs. commercial license for use of their product. That, or it might be something like a collective union for the authors like SOCAN or ASCAP where the artist gets a royalty each time the book is signed out.

Here's the big thing with the library though, you have to bring the book back. Sure, you could photocopy it so you'd have a personal copy forever, but I'm pretty sure some people will get upset with that.

As for used discs, it's an indirect benefit to the artist. Sure they don't get direct financial benefit, but their material continues to move through more people. The secondary sale helps keep an ancillary distribution business in operation, a business that normally has a direct effect on supporting and boosting groups and artists that are on the verge of stepping up and out of their local stomping grounds. I've never seen a pawn shop / used cd store that didn't have a section for local DIY indie releases. A place like HMV won't bother with someone who isn't associated with an industry body like SOCAN.

----

I think the bigger issue is whether or not modern listeners care to support the arts as opposed to the artists.

I've got to run, so I'm just going to quickly address this part:

1) The sound quality of music on youtube is ****e.
2) The album format is absolutely vital to me and how much I enjoy an artist's work meaning

1. If I use youtube I may not find all the songs in the tracklist.
2. I would have to do a great deal extra work and research to load them and organize them.

3) I hate youtube as a website, and do my very best not to use it in my daily life. Generally if I am sent a youtube link, I will not even click it because I'm so irritated by the loading times, the advertisements, and the video quality.


I always delete the album after I hear it once, to save room on my drive and make temptation inconvenient, so I still don't see the harm.

Agreed on the low quality on youtube, though HD quality is becoming more common. But a low quality replication doesn't change the composition of the music. You're still able to get an idea of what's being offered.

As for the necessity of the album format, that's a personal hangup and hardly a worthy justification. In my eyes that's like expecting to sample something from everything offered in a menu at a restaurant prior to ordering. It just doesn't work like that in my head, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Myself back in the day when it came to downloading tunes, there were 2 main elements that always got added into the search criteria live and b-side. As in material that was normally not made available for large scale commercial release. And at a time before there were tons of online distributors who could accommodate requests for musical imports.

At this point I get the impression that a lot of people are using a lot of personal justifications to absolve themselves of responsibility in this matter. Like my friends who still download everything because their cds were stolen back in the 90s. :banghead: YOU personally might be downloading in a relatively ethical way, but we both know that's not the norm, and unfortunately, until your attitude does become the norm then I think alternatives need to be considered.

To me, streaming media is the best available solution at the moment.

The majority of cds I've been searching for are out of print-and if I do find them on the secondary market they're so overpriced and not worth it. I'm amazed how much material is out of print and the record comanies aren't re-suppling them. It's like the record companies are encouraging the purchases of mp3 albums. Record stores are becomming the thing of the past as technology advances and moving towards an all degital era-whatever if we like it or not. I hate to admit it, but mp3 albums have become easier and more convient to find than searching for the out of print cd. However, everything isn't avaliable in mp3 and/or cd format. As long as cds are still being manufactured I'll be purchasing them. I hope the record companies replace the cds as they become out of print.

I haven't paid for music in YEARS. I don't like it enough to pay for it.
The wife bought some crappy rap (what rap isn't) on Itunes, I spit my coffee all over when I saw the bill for .99 cents.

i'm lazy to go visiting record stores these days

i can get them in my room

Sounds like you're very open-minded.

will be buying some classical CDs, soon, I guess

there's still a Tower with quite a good selection and Naxos prints, my fave label

I can't see why people can't do both downloading and purchasing of records?

I do

What do you mean?

I do too. :beer:

Same here :beer: