"Illegal" downloading

[Luc214]

Post your thoughts and opinions about "illegal" downloading, the sob stories the RIAA puts out about how it is making artists destitute, and the often absurd lengths the RIAA goes to to try and end piracy, such as suing the dead, and 12 year old girls.

[bradc1988]

This thread has been done so many times.

[Independent_CA]

I'd download my response to this but the RIAA might sue me...or even worse, I could end up with a corrupted version of it. Wouldn't want that.

[One Groovin Clown]

Not illegal here.

Suckers.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why did you put illegal in quotation marks?

[beso negro]

if you say downloading songs is illegal, then you are also saying that google is illegal.

[Dave de Sylvia]

What.

[PerpetualBurn]

if you say downloading songs is illegal, then you are also saying that google is illegal.

No.

Because one's illegal and the other isn't.

Where the hell do you people get these ideas from?

[beso negro]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=intitle%3A%22index.of%22+%28mp3+%7C+mp4+%29+%22O peth%22++-html&btnG=Google+Search

on page 3:
http://malleus.satanicle.net/o/Opeth_-_Damnation_(2003)/

and just like that i have the entire Damnation album thanks to google

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're still equating breaking the law with being a search engine. Think about that for a bit.

[PerpetualBurn]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=intitle%3A%22index.of%22+%28mp3+%7C+mp4+%29+%22O peth%22++-html&btnG=Google+Search

on page 3:
http://malleus.satanicle.net/o/Opeth_-_Damnation_(2003)/

and just like that i have the entire Damnation album thanks to google

Google's not illegal though. You said it is.

Your usage of a site might be illegal but that you found it through google is completely irrelevant.

[beso negro]

But shouldn't google have to attempt to filter out illegal material like torrent sites and youtube?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why? It's the equivalent of me pointing at a bank and saying "you could rob that if you wanted to."

[Akira]

But shouldn't google have to attempt to filter out illegal material like torrent sites and youtube?

No? That is stupid.

It is pretty much impossible for me to respect people who argue that downloading music is okay. It's not. As a musician, I want to get paid for the work I do.
Don't give me any of those stupid "Well the record companies get most of the money from album sales" arguments. That is a total cop-out. The artists still make money.

Stop being cheap and support the artists who work hard to make music for you to enjoy.

[ChodaBoy]

Agreed. Record companies getting the money is the worst possible arguement, it is a practice which has always been around. People paid for their music decades ago under the same system, nothing has changed. If you download music illegally, nobody gets paid, so you're screwing them over worse than record companies are.

[beso negro]

Why? It's the equivalent of me pointing at a bank and saying "you could rob that if you wanted to."

How about the Perfect10/Google lawsuit? A federal judge ruled that Google violated the copyright of an online pron site by posting thumbnails of the site's photos. (image search)

How is this different than what i did? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230088

[Luc214]

What about the people (such as the younger generation) that don't have jobs and can't afford CDs? Not everyone has generous parents or maybe they're poor.

Is it fair to deprive them of music?

What is illegal is a law that has been decided by the government, the same government that once made alcohol and abortion illegal.

What about a taxation for the right to freely trade music? Not my idea see here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive_keynote/

[dei]

Agreed. Record companies getting the money is the worst possible arguement, it is a practice which has always been around. People paid for their music decades ago under the same system, nothing has changed. If you download music illegally, nobody gets paid, so you're screwing them over worse than record companies are.
People paid for their music decades ago because they didn't have the internet.

[ChodaBoy]

People paid for their music decades ago because they didn't have the internet.

Ok, so now that we do have the internet, we should just take what we want.

[dei]

Until the record companies sell their records for reasonable prices.

[Dave de Sylvia]

How about the Perfect10/Google lawsuit? A federal judge ruled that Google violated the copyright of an online pron site by posting thumbnails of the site's photos. (image search)

How is this different than what i did? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230088
Hosting images on your server is different from not hosting images on your server. If google was hosting copies of Opeth albums on their servers for free download, then they'd be guilty of crimes, but they don't.

Is it fair to deprive them of music?
Is it fair to deprive performers of a fair payment for their work?

[dei]

LOL. Don't artists make very little money from record sales?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Only major label artists, really. Independent contracts tend to be far more favourable to the artist and are often the artist's main source of income.

[ChodaBoy]

dei, You are clearly the owner of an anti-RIAA organisation. Of course record companies take alot of money, but there are alot of people who put together the albums which you hear. Bands sign record contracts knowing exactly how much they are entitled to. If they didnt like it, they would not be putting their signature there - simple.

[Knifeboy]

Bands sign record contracts knowing exactly how much they are entitled to. If they didnt like it, they would not be putting their signature there - simple.

Nah. Record companies make unnecesarilly complicated and bloated contracts to deprive the artist of as much money as legally possible.
.. And sometimes not even legally

Only major label artists, really. Independent contracts tend to be far more favourable to the artist and are often the artist's main source of income.

Not true, look at Victory records

[Surtr]

I've always been stuck on this one.

I download music, but I know if I could, or if it was slightly possible, I'd actually buy the CD's.

The problem is, it's like £10-15 an album or so, depending where you go (Sometimes it's cheaper too) and when you're looking for a job, or just don't have a source of income, or in University trying to pay off all these debts and such, you just don't often have £10-15 to shell out just for a CD, that you can get for free, without feeling as if you've physically stolen it.

That's really the difference, it may still be stealing, but you never really get to hold an actual copy that looks just like a CD you would buy, and so it doesn't feel as if you've stolen the CD, because you don't even have the CD.

But if I could, and I had the money, I'd buy my CD's just because it's so much cooler looking at a big collection of CD's rather than browsing through songs on your computer.

[beso negro]

Hosting images on your server is different from not hosting images on your server. If google was hosting copies of Opeth albums on their servers for free download, then they'd be guilty of crimes, but they don't.

google wasn't hosting those images. they were just directing users to the sites that contained the pictures. Those sites were from russia and china and such.

[italic zero]

they hosted the thumbnails obviously or there wouldn't have been an issue

[beso negro]

listen to the npr broadcast i posted. The russian sites that hosted the stolen images operate under different domains are very hard to track down because their registrations are phoney.

Google and other search engines lead people to these sites and that is what Perfect10 was suing.

[dei]

Only major label artists, really. Independent contracts tend to be far more favourable to the artist and are often the artist's main source of income.

In another thread I said I only purchase CDs from artists on independent labels, and that's one of the reasons why. I like knowing that more money is going to the musicians than there is to the label.

[Dave de Sylvia]

listen to the npr broadcast i posted. The russian sites that hosted the stolen images operate under different domains are very hard to track down because their registrations are phoney.

Google and other search engines lead people to these sites and that is what Perfect10 was suing.
No, Perfect 10 sued because google was hosting its images on its servers. When you do a google image search, the thumbnails which show up are hosted by google.

[beso negro]

well i guess you are right. NPR has failed me

[SugarCoatedSour]

All is legal with me, come my sheep...I shall shepherd a new era.

[Ganondorf]

I don't download music as muc has I used to, I simply can't be bothered, but it's incocieveable that anyone here with a typically ''MX'' musical taste (ie LOTS of bands) dosen't download every once in a while, unless they're rich enough to buy every track they have, which isn't the case for most people.

Also, around 90% of the music I buy is stuff I downloaded first in one form or another, and I can safely say without illegal downloading I would not have bought as much music as I have.

[BridgeToSolace]

Your usage of a site might be illegal but that you found it through google is completely irrelevant.

I'm not saying google is illegal, but if this true then why is the MPA for example suing torrents sites?

Nothing is actually hosted on a torrent site, they're just a way to organize users who share files. Yet a good many get shut down because they're doing something illegal.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You can sue people for anything. Much like the tab sites, the aim was to scare people into shutting down, or making it financially non-viable. Still, there's the notable difference that torrent sites are created with the express purpose of distributing copyrighted material and google was created with the purpose of linking to everything.

[Danger Bird]

I accept that it's wrong, but I don't really care, because I'm a broke kid and albums are damn expensive.

Only major label artists, really. Independent contracts tend to be far more favourable to the artist and are often the artist's main source of income.

I've never heard of an indie label suing somebody for p2p.

[Mr. Ron]

If I can't find the album anywhere, or its out of print, what other option do I have but to download it?

[Knifeboy]

I've never heard of an indie label suing somebody for p2p.

They can't afford it

[Danger Bird]

They don't seem to care too much though, and they seem to do pretty well because everybody feels too guilty to download without buying something.

[Kage]

I no longer buy music that is released by the RIAA. I only buy music from independent labels and from bands themselves at shows or online.

Generally if it wasn't for the p2p "Napster spirit" I would not have even heard of the bands I go on to support through buying albums and attending shows.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well it's not just major labels that are with the RIAA; any independent label that's affiliated with a major label or has chosen to have their releases distributed by the RIAA are part of the machine. Truth be told, independent labels probably benefit on balance from piracy, but only because people actually buy the albums having downloaded them.

[Kage]

Right, I'm careful not to buy an album until I'm sure the label it is released on is not a puppet of the RIAA.

And like you said, those labels benefit from me having downloaded some of their ****.

[Dave de Sylvia]

heh, well there's some perfectly respectable labels on the RIAA but yeah that's probably the best policy

[Kage]

True, but what the RIAA is doing right now just makes me so mad that I've gone on a blanket boycott.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The RIAA is way too far embedded in the system to ever be demolished, but they really are trying their best, aren't they? I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of rival organisation formed in the future, or if "not affiliated with the RIAA" became a widespread rather than an underground slogan.

[Akira]

If I can't find the album anywhere, or its out of print, what other option do I have but to download it?

If it's out of print then go for it, but it is unlikely that there is going to be an in-print album not for sale anywhere, online or offline.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're obviously not a fan of shortlived mid-90s Atlanta funk group The Floyds.

[dei]

They can't afford it

I've been told it's because independent labels benefit from file-sharing.

True, but what the RIAA is doing right now just makes me so mad that I've gone on a blanket boycott.

Yeah, same.

[Knifeboy]

If it's out of print then go for it, but it is unlikely that there is going to be an album not for sale anywhere, online or offline.

Buying cd's used is moronic
I've been told it's because independent labels benefit from file-sharing.


That too.
I should have written "It's not profitable" instead

[Akira]

Buying cd's used is moronic

Um, what?
I meant that if a CD is out of print, feel free to download it...

[Knifeboy]

I'm just saying, in case you were talking about buying used, then it's moronic

Wich was what I got from
"but it is unlikely that there is going to be an album not for sale anywhere, online or offline."

Seeing as there's obviously a ****ton of cd's that are out of print.

[Akira]

But since I already addressed out of print CDs in the first part of my post, I figured that it was obvious that the second half referred to in-print CDs. I'll clarify in the post.
I in no way was telling people to buy used CDs. If an in-print CD is really hard to find, then you can download it. But personally, I would try to find it for sale new somewhere.

[beso negro]

Buying cd's used is moronic

what

[Knifeboy]

Doesn't support the artist in any way

[Charlie Daniels]

I download because personally the $30 a CD retails for in australia is the same price a carton of beer is. So I figuire everytime I download a CD, rather than buy one, I've saved $30 and thus can afford to by a carton of beer? :-S

I mean I'm personally much better off not buying music because that way I save money and can spend it on myself.

[Danish]

Musicians should unionize. The industry sucks them dry.

[Danger Bird]

Doesn't support the artist in any way

What about producers and those other guys who still help bring you the album?

I like to buy vinyl sometimes.

[Akira]

What about producers and those other guys who still help bring you the album?

I like to buy vinyl sometimes.

The point was that when you buy a used CD, your money goes to the person selling the CD, not the label or the artist or anyone.

And Danish, are there not unions for band musicians? Session musicians have unions.

[Danger Bird]

But he said that in reference to his other comment, "Buying CDs is moronic."

[dei]

Buying CDs is ironic.

[Danger Bird]

Buying CDs is iconic.

[Danish]

And Danish, are there not unions for band musicians? Session musicians have unions.

Yea, that makes sense to me. I meant more like actors' unions like ACTRA, which are industry-wide. They probably exist in some countries, but not Canada or the United States to the best of my knowledge.

If you remember back to the whole Napster thing when filesharing first became popular, the industry was in lock-step together against the whole thing, while musicians themselves were far from united on the issue. That sort of cohesion on the part of the industry spoke volumes about whose interests are really at play here.

I have a question for those of you in the US. Can you still download mp3s for free without getting sued? I heard it was getting very difficult...

[Charlie Daniels]

Yea, that makes sense to me. I meant more like actors' unions like ACTRA, which are industry-wide. They probably exist in some countries, but not Canada or the United States to the best of my knowledge.

If you remember back to the whole Napster thing when filesharing first became popular, the industry was in lock-step together against the whole thing, while musicians themselves were far from united on the issue. That sort of cohesion on the part of the industry spoke volumes about whose interests are really at play here.

I have a question for those of you in the US. Can you still download mp3s for free without getting sued? I heard it was getting very difficult...

Yeah you can download mp3s fine.

[Danger Bird]

Yeah it's easy as pie.

[Charlie Daniels]

yeah even my 12 year old sister can download mp3s and then put them on her mp3 so her and her friend can each have one earpiece each and listen to backstreet boys or w/e they listen to together sitting next to each other.

[beso negro]

Doesn't support the artist in any way

i don't care.

imo artists should make money solely on their shows. Records should be only for the people who want a collectible.

I have a question for those of you in the US. Can you still download mp3s for free without getting sued? I heard it was getting very difficult...

look at what i did earlier in the thread.

[Knifeboy]

But he said that in reference to his other comment, "Buying CDs is moronic."

You missed a word

[Danger Bird]

lul sorry didn't see that

[Akira]

i don't care.

imo artists should make money solely on their shows. Records should be only for the people who want a collectible.

You aren't more than a hobbyist musician, are you?

[Dave de Sylvia]

That sort of cohesion on the part of the industry spoke volumes about whose interests are really at play here.
Well record companies are designed primarily to make money. They have to look after their own interests, just like the artists do.

i don't care.

imo artists should make money solely on their shows. Records should be only for the people who want a collectible.
That's not really your choice to make.

[Luc214]

I have a question for those of you in the US. Can you still download mp3s for free without getting sued? I heard it was getting very difficult...

Yeah, the RIAA are only really going after the people who share files, and those who share lots of files at that.

And, if you read the articles about suing, for the most part it's just university students that are using the internet there while the RIAA is monitoring it.

Privacy issues notwithstanding, they're still doing it.

It doesn't mean that they haven't done some really stupid **** though, they've sued a 12 year old girl for having a single mp3 of the theme song from her favorite show on her hard drive, they've sued a family that doesn't even have a computer, and once they sued a 80 something year old woman who had died the previous December.

[Ganondorf]

You aren't more than a hobbyist musician, are you?

Just a question, do you own every single second of music in your posession?

[beso negro]

You aren't more than a hobbyist musician, are you?

i've been in a few bands before but as of now i am only a hobbyist.

You don't think some full-time musicians would agree with me?

[Reaganista]

i support illegal downloading because i hate musicians and dont think they deserve any money

[Danish]

Yeah, the RIAA are only really going after the people who share files, and those who share lots of files at that.

And, if you read the articles about suing, for the most part it's just university students that are using the internet there while the RIAA is monitoring it.

Privacy issues notwithstanding, they're still doing it.

It doesn't mean that they haven't done some really stupid **** though, they've sued a 12 year old girl for having a single mp3 of the theme song from her favorite show on her hard drive, they've sued a family that doesn't even have a computer, and once they sued a 80 something year old woman who had died the previous December.

hehe That's funny!

[PerpetualBurn]

I think downloading illegally is a legitimate protest against extortionate CD prices.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Simple solution. Make all music available for free download but once, every month, each major recording company can capture one person who has pirated one of their artists, and execute them publicly, with the execution on pay-per-view tv. Then their money can come from that, everybody wins.

[Ganondorf]

I think downloading illegally is a legitimate protest against extortionate CD prices.

So would a good protest against car prices be going into car dealerships and stealing them?

[CatfishJones]

i download illegally, but i repay the artists i like by buying merchandise and going to shows.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

No? That is stupid.

It is pretty much impossible for me to respect people who argue that downloading music is okay. It's not. As a musician, I want to get paid for the work I do.
Don't give me any of those stupid "Well the record companies get most of the money from album sales" arguments. That is a total cop-out. The artists still make money.

Stop being cheap and support the artists who work hard to make music for you to enjoy.


Stop being a chode. I have 15+ gigs of music and I'm in college and broke. If CD prices weren't 15-20 bucks I might think about it. Plus, I'll buy the cd if I know I'm for sure going to like it. I wouldn't waste that much money on a cd before listening to some songs. And I'd rather support my bands by seeing them live and/or buying their merch

I <3 downloading (beeng doing it for 6-7 years)

[Knifeboy]

So would a good protest against car prices be going into car dealerships and not buy a car

Yes

[Reaganista]

there's no need to have anywhere near 15gigs of music

[Ganondorf]

That's like saying there's no need to having a million CD's, you could if you wanted to. The amount of CD's isn't the point, it's the principle that I wouldn't be buying half the CD's I have if I didn't ''steal'' from those very same artists in the first place.

[Tyrant21]

i dont think it's right necessarily, but i do it and wouldnt have money to buy the cds anyways at this point in my life

[RIP Ian Curtis]

This thread is basically people justifing theft. Time to face up guys, it's just stealing.

I'm not saying I don't do it, I do it all the time, because stealing things gets you them for free, and stealing them off the internet makes it harder to get caught and lets my deny it a little bit to myself. Hell, if I could download a car into my room, with a miniscule chance of getting caught and be able to deny to myself it's "real theft", i'd have as many cadillacs as I do mp3s.

[Luc214]

there's no need to have anywhere near 15gigs of music

I have almost 40 and I know a guy who has about 150.

stfu :p

That's like saying there's no need to having a million CD's, you could if you wanted to. The amount of CD's isn't the point, it's the principle that I wouldn't be buying half the CD's I have if I didn't ''steal'' from those very same artists in the first place.

That's kind of my way of thinking. Right now, I don't have a job, and don't get allowance, (16) so I have absolutely no money.

The record labels wouldn't have been gettting any money from me in the first place, because I have no money to give them, so they're not losing any money by me downloading.

It's not like I'm downloading instead of buying, I would buy if I had the money and I have bought CDs when I can.

[Kage]

there's no need to have anywhere near 15gigs of music

15 gigs of music is pretty sparse tbh.

[Misanthropic]

there's no need to have anywhere near 15gigs of music

yeah you made me feel a little guilty with my 82 GB's...

But I do have about like 250-300 real albums, too, many of which I would never have bought if I didn't download the music first.



I don't buy albums from major labels anymore, if there's a major label album I really like, I'll find it used. Just because I won't pay 20 ****ing euros for a cd.

[BridgeToSolace]

This thread is basically people justifing theft. Time to face up guys, it's just stealing.


Well, not really. I'm not taking anything away from an artist, I'm making a copy.

If I make a plaster copy of your house key and then give them back to you, I'm not stealing your key, I'm duplicating it.

Stealing implies taking something. I'm not taking anything from an artist, they still have whatever music/cds that I'm copying. The only difference is that I get to listen to it. There's no lose in this situation, but both the artist and I are winning.

Why? Because I get to listen to music, and they get exposure.

You honestly think that if music downloading was completely halted, CD sales would go up? No way in hell.

(I'm not saying that it's right, though. I just don't particularly care)

[Luc214]

Well, not really. I'm not taking anything away from an artist, I'm making a copy.

If I make a plaster copy of your house key and then give them back to you, I'm not stealing your key, I'm duplicating it.

Stealing implies taking something. I'm not taking anything from an artist, they still have whatever music/cds that I'm copying. The only difference is that I get to listen to it. There's no lose in this situation, but both the artist and I are winning.

Why? Because I get to listen to music, and they get exposure.

You honestly think that if music downloading was completely halted, CD sales would go up? No way in hell.

(I'm not saying that it's right, though. I just don't particularly care)

That's a very interesting logic.

[Akira]

That's a very interesting logic.

It's horrible logic though, because if everyone thought like that then artists wouldn't sell any CDs at all.

[BridgeToSolace]

It's horrible logic though, because if everyone thought like that then artists wouldn't sell any CDs at all.

The logic only works because not everyone uses it :p

[Eliminator]

It's horrible logic..

...if everyone thought like that then artists wouldn't sell any CDs at all.

I agree!

[BridgeToSolace]

I wasn't aware that the only reason to ever buy a CD was to listen to the music.

[Eliminator]

People that download music don't want to own a CD!

[BridgeToSolace]

And some people do want a CD. Like I said, my logic only works because it doesn't apply to everyone.

There are several CDs that I've bought just because I listened to my downloaded version so many times.

[Eliminator]

And some people do want a CD. Bollocks!

[Ganondorf]

So many big bands are being discovered over the net, such as ''The Arctic Monkeys'' that record companies would be hyprocritical going after the very pratice that is now unerathing their new cash cows.

[Luc214]

Bollocks!

No it's not. A lot of CDs that I've downloaded I want to actually own someday.

[BridgeToSolace]

So many big bands are being discovered over the net, such as ''The Arctic Monkeys'' that record companies would be hyprocritical going after the very pratice that is now unerathing their new cash cows.

That's generally through legals means like Myspace streaming, which is entirely different from illegally downloading music.

Although I think the music industry is benefited by downloading more than it's hurt by it. I don't think you can attribute the decrease in sales to downloading.

There's was a study at some big college ( I think Harvard) that said people who download anime illegally on the internet are no more or less likely to actually buy it on DVD than anyone else. I don't see why this would be particularly different.

[Eliminator]

No it's not. A lot of CDs that I've downloaded I want to actually own someday.

You gotta be crazy!

[Luc214]

You gotta be crazy!

Why?

[Eliminator]

You are devoid of morals!

[BridgeToSolace]

Why?

I think the "Bollocks!" post and his most recent post were not entirely serious.

[Luc214]

I think the "Bollocks!" post and his most recent post were not entirely serious.

Elim is never serious.

[BridgeToSolace]

Elim is never serious.

I know.

Then why'd you respond as if he'd made a serious accusation :p

[Ganondorf]

Did Eliminator used to be a Pop Punk forum regular?

[Reaganista]

That's like saying there's no need to having a million CD's, you could if you wanted to. The amount of CD's isn't the point, it's the principle that I wouldn't be buying half the CD's I have if I didn't ''steal'' from those very same artists in the first place.
you can't be entitled to anything for free if you don't need it
15 gigs of music is pretty sparse tbh.
lol people hate you fyi
yeah you made me feel a little guilty with my 82 GB's...

But I do have about like 250-300 real albums, too, many of which I would never have bought if I didn't download the music first.

i never wouldve bought a celica if i didnt steal a camry first man
I have almost 40 and I know a guy who has about 150.
stfu
grats on pretending to like listening to that garbage

[BridgeToSolace]

Did Eliminator used to be a Pop Punk forum regular?

He's more of a current regular than you are, I think.

But I haven't posted in PP for a long time.

i never wouldve bought a celica if i didnt steal a camry first man

How is this logic excused while mine is called horrendous?

Like musicians who say "How would you like it if I stole your car?" in response to people who download music. Wtf? that's totally different.

[Misanthropic]

i never wouldve bought a celica if i didnt steal a camry first man


the correct sceanrio would be as follows: you borrow a camry and then decide you want one too, and then go buy a camry yourself.

[Luc214]

I know.

Then why'd you respond as if he'd made a serious accusation :p

Just curious what he'd say.

[Reaganista]

the correct sceanrio would be as follows: you borrow a camry and then decide you want one too, and then go buy a camry yourself.
if by borrow you mean take against the will of the owner ya

[BridgeToSolace]

if by borrow you mean take against the will of the owner ya

No, because the owner would still have the vehicle. You aren't taking anything from him.

Neither of you have it right :smoke:

My key analogy is still the best one, methinks.

[Reaganista]

You aren't taking anything from him.
of course you are you're taking his/her ****ing songs

[BridgeToSolace]

of course you are you're taking his/her ****ing songs

What has that person lost by me downloading their songs?

I can take your house key, that's stealing. Because now I have your house key and you don't.

Or I can make a plaster mold of your key and then make a duplicate. You still have your key. The only different is that now I have it as well. You have lost nothing.

[Reaganista]

they have lost their right to not give you their songs

[Luc214]

What has that person lost by me downloading their songs?

I can take your house key, that's stealing. Because now I have your house key and you don't.

Or I can make a plaster mold of your key and then make a duplicate. You still have your key. The only different is that now I have it as well. You have lost nothing.

It's stealing money from them because you're copying songs instead of buying the music.

But, as I said, if you would never have bought the music anyway, they're not losing anything.

I listen to some Cannibal Corpse, but I'd never buy a CD from them, I don't like them that much.

[Misanthropic]

But, as I said, if you would never have bought the music anyway, they're not losing anything.


it's this point that reaginista still doesn't agree on.

though i think he's just arguing for the hell of it, as usual.

[BridgeToSolace]

It's stealing money from them because you're copying songs instead of buying the music.

I'm not downloading instead of buying, though.

I wouldn't buy a lot of albums that I download, and I do buy some that I download. I refer back to the harvard study about downloading anime. Sure, it's not the same thing, but I doubt it's so far removed from the general principal. Buying and downloading are not mutually exclusive.

(I know you said something similar to this afterwards. I'm just restating, kinda)

they have lost their right to not give you their songs

But they never did and never have to give me anything. :confused:

[Reaganista]

But they never did and never have to give me anything
because you took them
wtf are you retarded or something

[BridgeToSolace]

because you took them
wtf are you retarded or something

They still have the right not to give me any music.

I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying that downloading music isn't stealing.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You've taken the control they have over their music. The "music is not a physical object therefore it's not really stealing" argument is so retarded it's hard to believe intelligent people would even think of using it. I guess people have to justify their criminality to themselves somehow.

[Akira]

You've taken the control they have over their music. The "music is not a physical object therefore it's not really stealing" argument is so retarded it's hard to believe intelligent people would even think of using it. I guess people have to justify their criminality to themselves somehow.

Seriously. Intellectual property is still property.

[Knifeboy]

No it's not

[ringworm]

im still pissed that napster was shut down back in its hayday

[Kage]

The important thing is that Napster has lived on in so many other ways.

[Akira]

Yeah. Napster left a footprint much more significant that just being a download site. It really paved the way.

[BridgeToSolace]

The "music is not a physical object therefore it's not really stealing" argument is so retarded it's hard to believe intelligent people would even think of using it.

Yeah, that is retarded. Good thing it's not what I'm arguing.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yes it is.

[BridgeToSolace]

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Do I really need to repeat myself for the 4th time so that people can just call me retarded again?

You can steal data. It doesn't need to be physical.

[Eliminator]

They still have the right not to give me any music.

they're not the ones giving you the music

[Akira]

No it isn't.

Do I really need to repeat myself for the 4th time so that people can just call me retarded again?

You can steal data. It doesn't need to be physical.

So you can steal data, but music doesn't count?

[BridgeToSolace]

So you can steal data, but music doesn't count?

You can steal music, but downloading is not stealing.

Have you actually read anything that I've said, dude? You're acting like these are the only three posts I've made in this thread.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No it isn't.

Do I really need to repeat myself for the 4th time so that people can just call me retarded again?

You can steal data. It doesn't need to be physical.
Music is data.

Wait, describe for me an instance of stealing data.

[Akira]

You said that it isn't stealing because you are not actually taking anything from the artist.
I am saying that even though you aren't physically taking anything from the artist, by downloading music that would normally cost money is still stealing.

[Danger Bird]

Here's one: is it illegal to rip a CD from the library?

[Eliminator]

i think it might be legal

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Until the record companies sell their records for reasonable prices.

The same argument goes for any consumer item. What is the difference between d/l ing music illegally and going into a shop and stealing something that you think is not fairly priced? The answer is nothing, except that one is a lot easier to, and yet most people who download music would not dream of stealing things from their local store, although they perhaps would if it were easier. Either way, the possibility for doing something is not an adequate argument for it being an OK thing to do, as it seems to me to involve a fallacious attempt to bridge the is-ought gap.

I think when a musician makes music they want people to listen to it, enjoy it, appreciate it, etc, but I'm fairly sure that in most cases that doesn't extend to people with enough money but who are lazy, and want to download it with 30 other albums at a time so that one of a particular band's songs might get played on shuffle while they are in the shower... Also, this ignores this practicalities of the real world; music as a career is necessarily an economic venture which needs people to buy music in order to sustain it; commercial music needs to make money to survive. People will say that they hate the whole commercial side of music, but I truly think that it is necessary to some degree in the world of music. For example, making money from music has gone hand in hand with the progressive exploration and development of music throughout history. The most obvious example would the the proliferation of professional musicians and people in the music industry (e.g. recording, technology) since the 1950s; this is not just that more people have instruments, but people have the opportunity to dedicate their lives to it - that takes money, one source of which is commercial venture. I very much doubt Beethoven would have composed many of his greatest works were it not for his having contracts from the rich and noble courts and individuals around Europe, and the concert audiences he could command.

The other thing that people perpetually fail to grasp is that money is that, while they realise that money is exchanged for goods and services, these things can take on more than just physical form. Goods include non-material goods such as music, as well as, for example, physical objects such as guitars or cabbages.

[Akira]

Here's one: is it illegal to rip a CD from the library?

I assume so.
I don't have a problem with downloading a CD every now and then, my problem lies with the people who do it a lot and with the people who refuse to acknowledge that there is something inherently amoral about it.

[BridgeToSolace]

Wait, describe for me an instance of stealing data.

Something like Office Space, where the data manifested itself in money later.

Pretty much any way that you can make it so you no longer have the data, and I do have it. It'd probably involve duplicating data, and then deleting the original. I'm not well versed enough in hacking terminology to give it a name.

You said that it isn't stealing because you are not actually taking anything from the artist.
I am saying that even though you aren't physically taking anything from the artist, by downloading music that would normally cost money is still stealing.

And I'm saying because the artist isn't losing anything in the situation, it's not stealing.

[Danger Bird]

The same argument goes for any consumer item. What is the difference between d/l ing music illegally and going into a shop and stealing something that you think is not fairly priced?

The difference is that if you steal from a shop, the shop has one less item.

[Akira]

Something like Office Space, where the data manifested itself in money later.

Pretty much any way that you can make it so you no longer have the data, and I do have it. It'd probably involve duplicating data, and then deleting the original. I'm not well versed enough in hacking terminology to give it a name.



And I'm saying because the artist isn't losing anything in the situation, it's not stealing.

But that is stealing money, not data.

The artist loses potential revenue. As I said before, if everyone thought like you artists wouldn't sell any CDs.

[Eliminator]

bridge said he buys cds though

[Akira]

If he buys CDs then I have no problem with him. But other people think like him and don't buy CDs.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Music is data.

Wait, describe for me an instance of stealing data.

Wait... Oh that's actually fairly easy?

1.)A company develops a new chocolate bar, and a rival company sends an industrial spy to find out how they made it and copy the design.

2.)I hack into a computer on a university network and steal someone's essay. Or I just save it to my file when they're not looking.

3.) I write a really good song, spend a long time perfecting it and performing it, recording it, mixing it, marketing it, someone thinks it is too expensive so decides to take a copy without paying anything for it. We all have to make compromises tbh. I don't buy a BMW, I don't steal one either.

That said, I think it's OK to have some free distribution and sharing of music, but it should not be the major form. It's nice if we can listen to a song a friend wants to show us, but that doesn't mean never paying a cent for music. If you love it so much why do you object so much to paying for it if you can afford it?

Also, consider the simple fact that less illegal downloading=more profit required per unit sold=higher prices. Is this perhaps the reason CD prices have not decreased like most other similar consumer items have in recent times.

Not to mention it is not the basis of a good business climate or economy where investment and effort is rewarded with a lack of protection of property.

[PerpetualBurn]

So would a good protest against car prices be going into car dealerships and stealing them?

If it were done in the same completely non-violent and physically non-threatening way, yes.

[Danger Bird]

Also if you never took anything away from the car dealerships, but rather made a lower fidelity copy of the car and drove that around. Next week on when bad comparisons go wrong!

[Dave de Sylvia]

Something like Office Space, where the data manifested itself in money later.

Pretty much any way that you can make it so you no longer have the data, and I do have it. It'd probably involve duplicating data, and then deleting the original. I'm not well versed enough in hacking terminology to give it a name.
That's stealing, breaking and entering, invasion of privacy and destruction of property. You're going down for a long time.

Either way, it doesn't really add much nuance to your argument.

[BridgeToSolace]

But that is stealing money, not data.

The artist loses potential revenue. As I said before, if everyone thought like you artists wouldn't sell any CDs.

But I'm not in possession of any money that the artist had. The artist has not lost money.

And the artist still has all the potential of revenue he did before.

http://yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/fall2005/downloads.php

People who download movies are just as likely to buy movies as someone who does not download movies. I doubt music is much different.

Only difference is more people are listening to their music. Which is GOOD for the artist.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I assume so.
I don't have a problem with downloading a CD every now and then, my problem lies with the people who do it a lot and with the people who refuse to acknowledge that there is something inherently amoral about it.

Exactly. And also refuse to acknowledge that their actions may have consequences other than for a fat executive at the golf course.

Some of you guys have a majorly sketchy understanding of economics. It does not matter how much stock you have left, but how much you sell, so the artist not losing stock is irrelevent as either way it means they do not earn money from it; they may as well of had something physically stolen as they will not be able to make money from it, or sell it to you again. Stock is only meaningful in terms of potential sales.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

People who download movies are just as likely to buy movies as someone who does not download movies. I doubt music is much different.

Yes, but people will not buy that movie. If I download Star Wars III illegally I am hardly going to go out and buy it in a shop the next week. If I download 20 films I will not go out and buy those 20 films. So it is bad for those films.

I suppose it would be OK if you then went out and bought the same amount. The fact is that record sales (total, inc online music, although this has somewhat slowed it) have been falling since illegal d/l became possible and easy. It is possible that people interact with music and films in differnet ways, somehow, to explain why they might be different.

[Danger Bird]

CDs experienced a boom when they were new and people were replacing their record collections, you couldn't expect sales to be that high forever.

[BridgeToSolace]

Yes, but people will not buy that movie. If I download Star Wars III illegally I am hardly going to go out and buy it in a shop the next week. If I download 20 films I will not go out and buy those 20 films. So it is bad for those films.

Yeah, there were some flaws in the study.

One of the arguments that attempts to discount piracy's negative effects is that pirates value the product very little and thus would not have purchased the product had the option of piracy not been available. In such a case, not only is revenue unaffected, but deadweight loss shrinks as well4. In the survey, respondents were asked the maximum amount of money they were willing to pay to see a cinema released movie, rent a movie, and buy a movie on VHS or DVD. The survey was specifically worded to extract the ex ante valuation of a non-specific movie which the respondent would be willing to see. This information was used as the dependent variable in a regression involving the number of movies the respondent had downloaded in the past 12 months. The regression coefficients for cinema, rental and videos were -0.02489, -0.01616, -0.03288 respectively, none of which are statistically significant. In fact, if we split the sample into only those who did not download anything and the rest, the difference in average willingness to pay for cinema, rental and video between the two groups is only -2%, -8% and -3% respectively.

The natural interpretation of this result is that downloaders value movie products just as highly as non-downloaders. However, this does not mean that movie downloads have a negligible impact on willingness to pay. For the question "what is your maximum willingness to pay for X", I believe that downloaders either assume that they do not already have an illegal copy of X but could attempt to obtain it or assume that piracy is not an option at all. If they assume the former, then the lack of correlation between willingness to pay and movies downloaded is significant since it shows that the option of movie downloads is not an inhibiting factor when deciding to purchase legitimate products.

I suppose it would be OK if you then went out and bought the same amount. The fact is that record sales (total, inc online music, although this has somewhat slowed it) have been falling since illegal d/l became possible and easy. It is possible that people interact with music and films in differnet ways, somehow, to explain why they might be different.

Correlation is not causation. It's irresponsible and dishonest to attribute that to downloading.

Music is different because there's more of a connection between artist and movies. I could care less if Steven Speilburg makes a few more million or never makes another cent in his life, but people actually care a bit more about artists.

If I listen to my downloaded Protest The Hero album religiously, and I go to to see them at a show, I'll buy it at their merch table. Most people I know are like that.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Correlation is not causation. It's irresponsible and dishonest to attribute that to downloading.
So what is the cause?

[BridgeToSolace]

So what is the cause?

CDs experienced a boom when they were new and people were replacing their record collections, you couldn't expect sales to be that high forever.

Not to mention a declining quality in music.

But meh, I'm a 17 year old kid who spends too much time on his computer. It's not my job to know. Does downloading play a part? Sure, but saying it's the only reason is silly.

[Eliminator]

Not to mention a declining quality in music.

um what

[Danger Bird]

It's two words by the way. Danger Bird.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Not to mention a declining quality in music.

But meh, I'm a 17 year old kid who spends too much time on his computer. It's not my job to know. Does downloading play a part? Sure, but saying it's the only reason is silly.
People didn't spend 20 years replacing their record collections, and it definitely doesn't explain why sales of new releases have essentially halved in two years, unless you factor in the masses people who've been replacing the old vinyl copies of Get Rich Or Die Tryin' they lost in 1983.

I honestly can't fathom how anybody could possibly play down the correlation between the massive increase in peoples' access to free music and the massive decrease in sales of the same music.

[BridgeToSolace]

People didn't spend 20 years replacing their record collections, and it definitely doesn't explain why sales of new releases have essentially halved in two years, unless you factor in the masses people who've been replacing the old vinyl copies of Get Rich Or Die Tryin' they lost in 1983.

I honestly can't fathom how anybody could possibly play down the correlation between the massive increase in peoples' access to free music and the massive decrease in sales of the same music.

At least I admitted that I didn't really know the reason.

http://colmsmyth.blogspot.com/2005/11/p2p-and-declining-music-sales-cause.html

From what I read, that's a really good compilation of different ideas and articles and stats and such on the topic.

Excerpt:

According to CRIA, Canadian CD sales in 1999 generated almost $700 million. That figure declined annually, to $690.3 million (2000), $645.8 million (2001), $609.5 million (2002), and $559.7 million (2003). Using CRIA's own numbers and 1999 as a benchmark, the cumulative decline in CD sales revenue in Canada is $294 million. Given that total CD sales revenues during the period totaled $3.2 billion, the percentage decline is a relatively modest 9 per cent.

... DVD sales, which accounted for zero revenue in 1999, but generated nearly $105 million in new revenue from 2000 to 2003. The popularity of DVDs is surely related to the decline in CD sales and the shrinking shelf space allocated to CDs by music retailers. U.S. census data actually indicates that the number of hours people spend listening to music is declining. Its data suggests that people now spend increasing amounts of time talking on cellphones, playing videogames, watching movies or spending time on the Internet.

... Wal-Mart has placed new price pressures on the retail pricing of CDs — capping retail pricing in the United States at $9.72 (U.S.) per CD. The pricing pressure has had a dramatic impact on the revenue generated from each CD sale.

[Eliminator]

ya people are buying more dvds and less cds!

[Luc214]

Yes, but people will not buy that movie. If I download Star Wars III illegally I am hardly going to go out and buy it in a shop the next week. If I download 20 films I will not go out and buy those 20 films. So it is bad for those films.

Wrong because the quality of a dvdrip of a film is always worse.

Plus I like the extra features on DVDs.

[Danger Bird]

You can rip extra features but the quality is an important point.

[Reaganista]

Correlation is not causation
ya but causation is caustion
They still have the right not to give me any music.
no they dont
you took it

[BridgeToSolace]

ya but causation is caustion

It sure is, mate.

But in this instance, file sharing does not cause decreased revenues/cd sales and what not :)

So uh...this correlation is not causation.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

It uses the RIAA's own statistics.

Although that's a little dated, admittedly.

[Charlie Daniels]

I don't understand why people try to deny that they are ripping off people when the download music :-S

I haven't bought a CD in 5 years, and have bought less than 15 in my entire lifetime. However, I have a 60gig mp3 collection and some 300 burnt CD's (from that collection) that I listen to in my car.

To be honest I personally see more benefeit to me personally from spending my money on beer and women and cars than I do buying CD's :-S

I know it's immoral, but I can live with that without kidding myself that it's moral.

[Reaganista]

ile sharing does not cause decreased revenues
yes it does

[CarnageFairy]

I know it's immoral, but I can live with that without kidding myself that it's moral.

This.

Yeah, I know I'm robbing the artist and the label of money, and but then again I don't really care. I feel sorta bad in the case of the former, not so much in the case of the latter.

I like too much music to pay for all of it.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I like too much music to pay for all of it.

But you don't like it enough to pay a little $$ for it. Most people say they like things, believe in things, etc, but at the end of the day don't care/like/etc enough to put their money where there mouth is. Inauthentic it seems to me tbh.

[Charlie Daniels]

But you don't like it enough to pay a little $$ for it. Most people say they like things, believe in things, etc, but at the end of the day don't care/like/etc enough to put their money where there mouth is. Inauthentic it seems to me tbh.
pfft $30aud is not a 'little' amount.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I have no idea about Australian money so I can't really comment on that... but I suppose cds are sometimes very overpriced you are right, but not usually beyond reason, in the UK at least.

Some people buy cars, some use a bicycle and have more money left over to spend on other things. Some smoke and some don't and so have lots of money left for other things.

There are lots of other things far more overpriced anyway.

To be honest, I have quite a few non-bought albums, but I totally reject the argument that people should be able to download illegally without any consequences because it is their right or some other nonsense like that. Rights don't exist outside of laws.

[Charlie Daniels]

Yes I don't think I'm morally entitled to the music or it's legal or i'm helping the industry in anyway. I do it because I'm self-serving and ruthless when it comes to getting what I want.

I too hate people that think what they are doing is morally good.

I don't mind being immoral.

[Danish]

The whole structure of the industry is the problem. Artists should be free to create without having to worry about these things. It'd make for better art, that's for sure.

[bradc1988]

Like always this discussion has come down to the three types of people; the against and the the two types of downloaders who either think it's in their right and justify it or the people who know it's wrong but still do it.

Like always I don't see anything coming out of the discussion and people will always be in one of the three corners.

[Babble]

You aren't more than a hobbyist musician, are you?

I am, and I agree with him.

That could have something to do with the genre I'm in though.

[CarnageFairy]

But you don't like it enough to pay a little $$ for it. Most people say they like things, believe in things, etc, but at the end of the day don't care/like/etc enough to put their money where there mouth is. Inauthentic it seems to me tbh.

Because if you love something it is necessary to spend money on it? Your girlfriend is a lucky gal.

When I find myself in a music store I'll usually pick something up if I have cash, just for the hell of it, so no I don't mind spending a little bit of money on music.

However, I have several thousand dollars worth of music on my computer, which I don't really consider a little bit of money. I realize that this does not make my piracy moral or righteous because it's not like I need this music to survive, I just don't really care. It's a low risk high gain (for someone who likes music) activity.

If stealing everything was this easy I'd never buy anything.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Funny thing is new cd's are cheap as hell and slightly older ones are up 2.3X more. So I doubt d/ling music is detrimental to artists. It's detrimental to the industry and their ability to exploit musicians. For the better I say. Might mean a lot less scenes to get into but it might mean more focus on local acts.

[Dave de Sylvia]

At least I admitted that I didn't really know the reason.
But you seem absurdly confident about what the reason isn't, at the expense of things like reason and logic.

[BridgeToSolace]

But you seem absurdly confident about what the reason isn't, at the expense of things like reason and logic.

You seem to be so utterly confident about what is the reason, that you base things on your limited perceptions and correlations.

But I did a little searching, and it seems to be the general consensus (by people who actually do research) that the IRAA is either full of ****, or that downloading has a negligible impact.

The stuff I've posted has been old, so I guess I'll look specifically for more recent things:

http://www.economics.com.au/?p=644

"downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero."

http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/04/02/harvard_university_r.php

"Downloading and sharing music over the Internet has no effect on the sales of popular CDs, a recent study by researchers at leading universities found Monday."

http://www.recordingreview.com/articles/blogs/80/Evidence-That-Piracy-Is-Not-Responsible-For-RIAA-Sales-Drops.html

Well, it appears that something weird is going on. Even though there is no sign of any dramatic increase in illegal music downloading, it appears the RIAA is still losing sales....lots of sales. How can this be? First quarter albums sales are down 16.6% for the first quarter of 2007 when compared to the first quarter of 2006. Even if we account for downloading (assuming that a cd is worth $10 and downloading a song costs $1), the music industry still brought in 10.3% less than they did last year.

Industry executives attribute the decline to a weak release schedule, the consumer's loss of confidence in the CD and a reduction in store space for the format.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/03/BU249534.DTL&type=tech

Leigh, an independent digital media industry analyst, said the "fear factor" caused usage of file-sharing programs to drop about 22 percent in the seven weeks after the RIAA announced its plans to sue individuals.

Yet Leigh noted industry sales reports show the drop in CD sales accelerated during the same period.

Reason and logic my nuts, sir.

[beso negro]

Well think if we didn't have the internet. would you be buying every album you like? Or would you borrow or burn most of them?

For example: With the internet, one can listen to 100 albums frequently, but he/she might only own 20 of them. If the internet didn't exist, he/she would probably only listen to 50 albums but still own 20.(getting the other 30 from friends or cd burning) So one would be buying the same amount of albums regardless of file sharing.

i'm not sure if that makes sense but it's just a thought. I believe filesharing does hurt the CD sales, but its not a huge problem.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The study is five years old, in which the dynamic has shifted significantly from individual song downloads to album downloads, which the co-author of the report acknowledged in turn would significantly alter the dynamic of the study. It's a useful study but it doesn't negate the effects of downloading on sales of music.

[BridgeToSolace]

The study is five years old, in which the dynamic has shifted significantly from individual song downloads to album downloads, which the co-author of the report acknowledged in turn would significantly alter the dynamic of the study. It's a useful study but it doesn't negate the effects of downloading on sales of music.

Okay, that's one of the studies. I posted 4.

Even if you discount anything written before 2007, there's still...

http://www.economics.com.au/?p=644

and

http://www.recordingreview.com/articles/blogs/80/Evidence-That-Piracy-Is-Not-Responsible-For-RIAA-Sales-Drops.html

Way to ignore the majority of the post, mate.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You posted two links to blogs about the same study (but no link to the actual study), a blog post about a news article which is no longer available and a newspaper article about the decline in sales which actually supports the arguments that piracy is impacting sales.

[BridgeToSolace]

You posted two links to blogs about the same study (but no link to the actual study), a blog post about a news article which is no longer available and a newspaper article about the decline in sales which actually supports the arguments that piracy is impacting sales.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/issues/v115n1/31618/brief/31618.abstract.html

I have no desire to subscribe to the Journal Of Political Economy, so you're gunna have to do with that. Don't be a bitch about it.

Which one said piracy was impacting sales?

[Dave de Sylvia]

The last one.
Meanwhile, he noted record stores report that blank recordable CDs are outselling recorded CDs, a trend that shows computer users are not only downloading songs, but copying and burning CDs.

[BridgeToSolace]

The last one.

The one you said was useful, but old and irrelevant?

I don't see how the quote you specified says anything about piracy negatively impacting the sale of pre-recorded CDs.

Especially considering that Leigh's point is to show a decrease in downloading actually corresponded to an increased rate in lost CD sales.

If anything, it seemed to say that it's POSITIVELY impacting the blank CD business.

And please don't tell me that you're going to completely disregard the JPE article because there isn't a full transcript of it on the interweb. Oh please.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, I said the study was outdated. I was quoting from a news article you posted.

I don't see how the quote you specified says anything about piracy negatively impacting the sale of pre-recorded CDs.
It shows that more people are burning albums.

Especially considering that Leigh's point is to show a decrease in downloading actually corresponded to an increased rate in lost CD sales.
That's consistent with a temporary backlash.

If anything, it seemed to say that it's POSITIVELY impacting the blank CD business.
Right, because people are stealing music in larger quantities.

And please don't tell me that you're going to completely disregard the JPE article because there isn't a full transcript of it on the interweb. Oh please.
I've read it.

[BridgeToSolace]

No, I said the study was outdated. I was quoting from a news article you posted.

The study and the article are both from 2003.

It shows that more people are burning albums.

No wonder, considering that high-end recorder hardware companies at the time were going out of business due to the increasingly cheap alternatives coming out at the time.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/02/07/yamaha-rides-away-from-cd-writers

Or maybe because itunes 4.1, released in october of 2003, added windows support for the previously mac-only service?

No, it MUST ONLY BE ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING RAWR

That's consistent with a temporary backlash.

Why temporary?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9225872/poll_music_buyers_are_dissatisfied

The poll also reveals that record labels that sue file sharers may be targeting their best customers: Downloaders are more likely than other respondents to frequently buy CDs in stores.

Nifty poll by the way. Just a poll though, I guess.

Right, because people are stealing music in larger quantities.

Even though they're using their file-sharing programs 22% less. K.

I've read it.

And no reaction? Nothing?

-

I thought this was an interesting take on downloading music:

Prince’s new album, Planet Earth, was given out for free both at his concert in London and the other week in Britain’s favourite reactionary paper, the Mail on Sunday, dramatically boosting the tabloid’s sales. MOJO magazine notes the record industry’s response:

“Absolutely nuts,” raged HMV boss Simon Fox. “Prince will soon be The Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores,” fumed Paul Quirk of the Entertainment Retailers Association. Even Colombia Records, the major label Prince had contracted to distribute the album worldwide, called the giveaway “ridiculous” and refused to release Planet Earth in the UK.

It’s a lame and spiteful response from an industry that is rapidly being outgrown by its customers and employees.

In Prospect, Robert Sandall, who worked as Virgin’s Director of Communications from 1996-2002, opens with the story of an unnamed band that no longer bothers selling CDs at their concerts, because record sales undermine the far more lucrative business of selling their T-shirts.

The rave metal band, Enter Shikari, whose album Take to the Skies got to number 4 on the British album charts, have not even bothered signing a record deal. Instead, they created their own label and marketed their record by performing 700 gigs and using MySpace. Sandall explains the change that is taking place:

“Groups used to tour, often at a loss, to stimulate sales of their latest album. Now it’s the other way around. Hence the widely reported decision earlier this year by the Crimea, a band previously signed to Warner Bros, to release their new album as a free download. The band explained this not as an anarcho-hippie gesture in support of the principle that music ought to be free, but as a sensible promotional tactic. Their hope is that by disseminating their music online, they will expand their fan base and increase their returns from touring. Having seen the small size of the cheques they got from Warner, they know where not to look for their future income.”

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, it MUST ONLY BE ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING RAWR
I didn't say that, but only a fool would ignore the correlation.

Why temporary?
Because it was taken over a 7 week period, during which time people were temporarily discouraged from downloading and temporarily angry enough to stop buying CDs.

Even though they're using their file-sharing programs 22% less. K.
The two paragraphs are unrelated. Use of filesharing programs decreased over a 7 week period; the increase in CD-R sales was absolute.

And no reaction? Nothing?
I already reacted to it. It's a useful study that's out of date. It deals exclusively with a single p2p network and acknowledges that the majority of sharing conducted on this network involved single-song downloads. A large portion of the file-sharing conducted today (and was even then being conducted) is done via Bit Torrent, which the study did not examine.

[BridgeToSolace]

I already reacted to it. It's a useful study that's out of date. It deals exclusively with a single p2p network and acknowledges that the majority of sharing conducted on this network involved single-song downloads. A large portion of the file-sharing conducted today (and was even then being conducted) is done via Bit Torrent, which the study did not examine.

This study?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/issues/v115n1/31618/brief/31618.abstract.html?erFrom=-6851336696159527358Guest

The one done in 2007?

The one that says that there is no statically significant impact?

[hethamulburton]

No? That is stupid.

It is pretty much impossible for me to respect people who argue that downloading music is okay. It's not. As a musician, I want to get paid for the work I do.
Don't give me any of those stupid "Well the record companies get most of the money from album sales" arguments. That is a total cop-out. The artists still make money.

Stop being cheap and support the artists who work hard to make music for you to enjoy.

Well, actually most of the money goes to paying back the companies who helped them put out the CD. Our 'petty' thievery means the artist then has to cut into what gives them the biggest profit-- touring. So, yes it is a problem that needs a bit of fixing.

[Charlie Daniels]

Even though they're using their file-sharing programs 22% less. K.


With the prevelance of rapidshare blogs etc. there became an easier way than using actual programs.

[BridgeToSolace]

With the prevelance of rapidshare blogs etc. there became an easier way than using actual programs.

Rapidshare is a much more recent phenomenon.

The specific stats we were talking about were from bout 5 years ago, and the rapidshare type sites are mostly from the past two years or so.

Rapidshare would slow things down, though. P2P doesn't make you wait twice the amount mb that you download (ei. if I download a 10 mb file, I have to wait for 20 minutes to download something else) like rapidshare does, and you can download more than one file at a time.

[myassitches]

i don't know if this was posted yet, but apparently it's deadly.
http://www.jengajam.com/r/Killed-With-iPod

[BridgeToSolace]

http://hideapod.com/

Much funnier than yours.

[dei]

Rapidshare is a much more recent phenomenon.

The specific stats we were talking about were from bout 5 years ago, and the rapidshare type sites are mostly from the past two years or so.

Rapidshare would slow things down, though. P2P doesn't make you wait twice the amount mb that you download (ei. if I download a 10 mb file, I have to wait for 20 minutes to download something else) like rapidshare does, and you can download more than one file at a time.

I don't think Mediafire has a wait time. Use that one instead.

[BridgeToSolace]

I don't think Mediafire has a wait time. Use that one instead.

I do use it. Rapidshare is probably the worst of all the hosting sites.

But for some reason it's also the most popular.

[italic zero]

it used to be the best

[dei]

I remember when YSI was popular.

[Det_Nosnip]

What about the people (such as the younger generation) that don't have jobs and can't afford CDs? Not everyone has generous parents or maybe they're poor.

What about the people who want Picassos on their walls? What about the people who want to watch movies? What about the people who want Rolexes?


Is it fair to deprive them of music?

Music is a commodity, not a basic means necessity. The government has absolutely no obligation to provide its citizens with free CDs.

What is illegal is a law
LOL!

that has been decided by the government,
Actually that would be, by definition, legal.


the same government that once made alcohol and abortion illegal.

And was fully justified and in its right to do so. Sorry, but that's how representative democracies work.

What about a taxation for the right to freely trade music? Not my idea see here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive_keynote/

Music and art are inherently private endeavors.

[dei]

What about the people who want Picassos on their walls? What about the people who want to watch movies? What about the people who want Rolexes?

What?

[Kage]

Music is a commodity, not a basic means necessity.

I have to argue that. :p

[Dave de Sylvia]

This study?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/issues/v115n1/31618/brief/31618.abstract.html?erFrom=-6851336696159527358Guest

The one done in 2007?

The one that says that there is no statically significant impact?
If you'd actually read the study you'd know that it was conducted in 2002, published in 2004, and reprinted in 2007 with an updated preface.

What is illegal is a law
hahaha I missed this

[Knifeboy]

What about the people who want Picassos on their walls?

They can go buy a printer http://www.groningermuseum.nl/uploads/50hiPicasso.jpg

[Det_Nosnip]

What?

It's really not that complicated...

We(most of us) live in societies featuring a free market, capitalist based economy. Goods are acquired through purchases using legal tenders (cash) acquired through labor or assets. Prices are determined, for the most part, by the aforementioned market.

People who work more or who have more lucrative jobs acquire more cash. People who work are therefore able to afford more luxury items, such as CDs, paintings, tickets to a movie/videos, and/or rolexes. The government has absolutely no obligation to provide these luxury commodities to its citizens for free.

So, in answer to Luc's question: "What about the people (such as the younger generation) that don't have jobs and can't afford CDs?", I would reply: "What about them?"

Not to be callous, but the aforementioned demographic is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Not being able to afford CDs does not warrant stealing them.


I have to argue that.


Well, in the eyes of the law, it is...and unless you want to take the case to the Supreme Court, I'd leave it at that.

Of course, that STILL would not support the idea of free music...because in most Capitalist countries, not even basic necessities are guaranteed!

[Mr. Ron]

They can go buy a printer http://www.groningermuseum.nl/uploads/50hiPicasso.jpg

reported

[Luc214]

Music should not be a luxury item.

[pooble]

in most Capitalist countries, not even basic necessities are guaranteed!

hmm? as far as i know europe, the states and canada all have humongous welfare states.

[Luc214]

Why Nosnip, are you making it seem as though we are saying music is something the government should provide us?

All we are saying is that we should have the right to share it.

[CarnageFairy]

Why should I have the right to share something I didn't create or even pay for?

By that logic I have the right to the computer you're on right now.

Fork it over.

[dei]

I fail to see how downloading music and acquiring a Picasso are the same thing.

[Akira]

It's just the principle that if something is a luxury item and you can't afford it, too bad for you.

[Babble]

are you referring to an actual Picasso or a print?

an actual Picasso would be like wanting the master tapes of a band's recording.

[pooble]

well, i dont really see downloading music as the same thing as taking a picasso. downloading music is nothing more than receiving information on your computer. its essentially a really complicated form of writing something down isnt it? your not taking anyones phsyical property nor ruining property someone else owns.

ive been doing it since napster

[Reaganista]

ya all you're doing is stealing from artists

[hethamulburton]

well, i dont really see downloading music as the same thing as taking a picasso. downloading music is nothing more than receiving information on your computer. its essentially a really complicated form of writing something down isnt it? your not taking anyones phsyical property nor ruining property someone else owns.

ive been doing it since napster

Well, you know, there is a reason artists get upset when you "copy" the files onto your computer... and it's called, you haven't paid for this-- which the act of acquiring a material item, whether data or a tangible object, without legal tender or labor in payment= stealing.

[pooble]

well yea i havent paid for it. it can, potentially, exist in infinite quantities, and by me 'taking' it, it doesnt stop the artist from still owning it.

by complete coincidence i just realized im listening to metallica while typing this.

[hethamulburton]

well yea i havent paid for it. it can, potentially, exist in infinite quantities, and by me 'taking' it, it doesnt stop the artist from still owning it.

by complete coincidence i just realized im listening to metallica while typing this.

I never said it was you stealing ownership. It's that regardless of how it came to you, if you did not shell out at least one penny for it, then by definition it is stealing the property of someone else.

Think about it... 1 megabyte of music is equal to roughly 1 minute of play, now a 40 GB library of stolen music is equal to roughly 40,000 minutes. That's 40,000 minutes of music you stole, 40,000 minutes worth of music these artists should have gotten their due on. And guess who will be breathing down your neck if they catch your IP addresses activity: law enforcement. Depending on your age and library size, or use of the files, they will ask you to clear your hard drive, and will moniter your IP address, or they will force you to pay back the cost of your library, or they will take some other action against you.

And yes, you can get caught, thousands have and thousands more will.

[Knifeboy]

You sound like you're working for the RIAA

[Otherside]

I never said it was you stealing ownership. It's that regardless of how it came to you, if you did not shell out at least one penny for it, then by definition it is stealing the property of someone else.

Think about it... 1 megabyte of music is equal to roughly 1 minute of play, now a 40 GB library of stolen music is equal to roughly 40,000 minutes. That's 40,000 minutes of music you stole, 40,000 minutes worth of music these artists should have gotten their due on. And guess who will be breathing down your neck if they catch your IP addresses activity: law enforcement. Depending on your age and library size, or use of the files, they will ask you to clear your hard drive, and will moniter your IP address, or they will force you to pay back the cost of your library, or they will take some other action against you.

And yes, you can get caught, thousands have and thousands more will.


:rolleyes:

[DBoons Ghost]

Wow that was a turdly suck up post. Metallica fanboi!

Metallica sucks balls, and it pleases me that I've stolen everything they've ever put out musically purposely because it's Metallica. What band can call themselves artists when they sue 12 year old kids who are broke and can't afford to buy their music. They should be grateful that anyone listens at all. Period. Instead they're consumed by profit. Some artist.


So if my local radio station plays some Metallica, and I record it, did I steal it?

Fine line. I no longer purchase CDs. I steal every bit of music I can especially if one of the big 5 put it out. Even if I don't like it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Metallica sued a 12 year old?

[DBoons Ghost]

Metallica sued a 12 year old?

Well, the first person the RIAA sued after Metallica went ballistic was a 12 year old girl. They sued her for 2500 bucks.

I'll find the story.

[DBoons Ghost]

Here it is. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/

She was the first person named in a 261 person suit. 12 year old girl from NYC. The story was huge here.

[Luc214]

Notice how the RIAA only goes after people who share files on kaaza or limewire?

Interesting to note, and I'm glad I got off Limewire.

[DBoons Ghost]

Notice how the RIAA only goes after people who share files on kaaza or limewire?

Interesting to note, and I'm glad I got off Limewire.

Yeah using either was asking for it.

I was happy with isohunt, but I haven't been there in a while. I think they shut them down as well.

[Luc214]

Yeah using either was asking for it.

I was happy with isohunt, but I haven't been there in a while. I think they shut them down as well.

Isohunt just disabled US access to their trackers.

[pooble]

limewire and kazaa were crap anyway compared to torrents

[Det_Nosnip]

hmm? as far as i know europe, the states and canada all have humongous welfare states.

Still capitalist. Most world economies, including all of Western Europe, feature mixed economies with a free market system and some system of welfare. Getting free doctor visits doesn't mean you don't pay the same $15 (or currency equivalent) for a CD.

[Luc214]

Still capitalist. Most world economies, including all of Western Europe, feature mixed economies with a free market system and some system of welfare. Getting free doctor visits doesn't mean you don't pay the same $15 (or currency equivalent) for a CD.

Except that many CDs, especially new and popular ones, can be easily 20 bucks or even more.

[Det_Nosnip]

Why Nosnip, are you making it seem as though we are saying music is something the government should provide us?
Because you are assuming that the government should give you the right to share music:

All we are saying is that we should have the right to share it.

You are essentially arguing that an artist's private intellectual property (his or her music) should be made public, regardless of the artist's consent. As Carnagefairy put it:


Why should I have the right to share something I didn't create or even pay for?

By that logic I have the right to the computer you're on right now.

Fork it over.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Everywhere I've been in America, catalogue albums are more expensive than new releases. At least for major/large indie ones.

[pooble]

i dont think the price of the CD is really important in this case. if someone is poor enough that 20 dollars is more than what they think they can pay for a CD but 15 dollars is fine, they should probably not be buying any CDs in the first place.

[DBoons Ghost]

"Some like to believe in the freedom of music. But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatters the illusion of integrity"

I will continue to download for free. I'd rather sit in jail then pay them.


Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2289224.stm

It's payback as far as I'm concerned.

[Knifeboy]

supply and demand

it doesn't cost anything to copy the music on a cd, so there's infinite supply, thus the music in itself isn't worth anything :p

[Dave de Sylvia]

"Some like to believe in the freedom of music. But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatters the illusion of integrity"

I will continue to download for free. I'd rather sit in jail then pay them.


Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2289224.stm

It's payback as far as I'm concerned.

Your logic is screwed up. Major labels don't rip anyone off except their artists. And now you do it too!

[DBoons Ghost]

Your logic is screwed up. Major labels don't rip anyone off except their artists. And now you do it too!

Did you read that story?

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, if the customers agreed to pay for the CDs they ripped themselves off. The term "price fixing" cannot logically be applied to luxury items.

[DBoons Ghost]

No, if the customers agreed to pay for the CDs they ripped themselves off. The term "price fixing" cannot logically be applied to luxury items.

That's ridiculous.

A court ruled in favor of the consumer, and the big 5 paid back millions.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Courts make stupid judgements all the time. Private companies are free to make any pricing arrangements they like; if the CDs are too expensive then people shouldn't buy them. Unforunately for the average consumer like you and me, there's millions of people out there who are only too happy to keep the market value unreasonably high.

[Babble]

supply and demand

it doesn't cost anything to copy the music on a cd, so there's infinite supply, thus the music in itself isn't worth anything :p

strange phrasing there

[Reaganista]

Private companies are free to make any pricing arrangements they like
actually
in america
they aren't

[Reaganista]

well yea i havent paid for it. it can, potentially, exist in infinite quantities, and by me 'taking' it, it doesnt stop the artist from still owning it.
yes it does you nitwit if you share it with even one person you completely undermine the artist's ownership of his own work

[hethamulburton]

Wow that was a turdly suck up post. Metallica fanboi!

Metallica sucks balls, and it pleases me that I've stolen everything they've ever put out musically purposely because it's Metallica. What band can call themselves artists when they sue 12 year old kids who are broke and can't afford to buy their music. They should be grateful that anyone listens at all. Period. Instead they're consumed by profit. Some artist.


So if my local radio station plays some Metallica, and I record it, did I steal it?

Fine line. I no longer purchase CDs. I steal every bit of music I can especially if one of the big 5 put it out. Even if I don't like it.


Jeez, so sorry to displease you with my taste in music... how will I ever live knowing you hate Metallica. O, woe is me!!!

And I can't help that I'm right, all you people do is a little :rolleyes: or make fun of my music taste. And since no one offers a respectable rebuttal, I'd say my view wins hands down. :naughty:

:smash: Court adjourned.

:smoke:

[pooble]

i like the first 4 metallica cds. they dont sound like guys id want to hang out with though.

[DBoons Ghost]

Jeez, so sorry to displease you with my taste in music... how will I ever live knowing you hate Metallica. O, woe is me!!!

And I can't help that I'm right, all you people do is a little :rolleyes: or make fun of my music taste. And since no one offers a respectable rebuttal, I'd say my view wins hands down. :naughty:

:smash: Court adjourned.

:smoke:

What did you win?

[hethamulburton]

What did you win?

I don't know, a pet monkey.:confused:

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't know, a pet monkey.:confused:

Pet monkeys can be fun.

I just wanted to point out the discussion was not about simply stating the legalities and moving on.

I would understand the crusade if Metallica released a single that Korn stole and re-recorded, as that is more of a copyright infringement then someone downloading a song or two off of what could be a potentially horrible album.

That's the "scheme" that record companies and bands alike are trying to protect themselves from. They don't care about the stealing. They care about the fact that me as a consumer is tired of buying CDs for 18 bucks that have mayhaps one good song and the rest is tired filler garbage. The filler pop music acts like Britney for example, cannot release a solid album of good songs, but the record company wouldn't make a penny if they released nothing more then a single.

[Danish]

Corporations are in total control of the media, from film to music to tv to newspapers. Something like 95% of all media is owned by 7 corporations.

Another interesting tidbit: the degree of corporate control over media in Canada is ever greater.

[hethamulburton]

Pet monkeys can be fun.

I just wanted to point out the discussion was not about simply stating the legalities and moving on.

I would understand the crusade if Metallica released a single that Korn stole and re-recorded, as that is more of a copyright infringement then someone downloading a song or two off of what could be a potentially horrible album.

That's the "scheme" that record companies and bands alike are trying to protect themselves from. They don't care about the stealing. They care about the fact that me as a consumer is tired of buying CDs for 18 bucks that have mayhaps one good song and the rest is tired filler garbage. The filler pop music acts like Britney for example, cannot release a solid album of good songs, but the record company wouldn't make a penny if they released nothing more then a single.

That's why there are sites that are 99 cents/ song. So you don't waste all your money on the songs you don't like from the album. I understand the plight of "I just wasted my money on this CD and I like only a song or two." It happens to me often... sometimes I don't even like any songs on the CD. But there are plenty of sites out there that offer music by the song. Some are a flat rate fee for a given period of time: a month, six months, a year. In the end, you aren't stealing, there's no danger of *knock* *knock* and o crap, and you don't waste 18 bucks on a CD. Not to mention these sites usually have a better selection than most torrent sites, since someone else has to be sharing the file. Some don't, but when you find one it's all good.