Gonna pirate regardless.

oh boy the first sentence FUCKING LOL

this thread is going to be a disaster of misinformation

Aaaaaaaaaand go!

@ theacademy

You are right so I fixed it a bit.

this thread is gonna be so dumb, I can feel it in my bones

pirating obviously decreases album sales and any logical not-trying-to-justify-it-to-themselves person will tell you that. But yes, if albums are leaked then it's possible that it can make people want to buy the album more.

siigghhh

No i mean the first sentence of the paper. He calls music piracy a "black market"

like seriously

edit: ok also the first sentence of the news article

hey acad you wanna come over and smoke a cigarette? I won't tell my mum

trying to cut down but i'll hang and shoot the shit if the invite still stands

brb gonna torrent some assault rifles and human spleens

second hand smoke ftw

edit: to lol for sat

It is actually very interesting that piracy only contributes to a small percentage of hikes in album sales, I really thought it would be much more than just a small fraction.

Also, I find it very interesting that the sales are mostly increased for 'critically acclaimed artists' but that isn't very surprising when sites like sputnikmusic suck the dicks of artists like Drake.

5 pages in this isn't a total waste of time but private trackers = pretty narrow scope

I wonder why anyone would be surprised by this?

Pirating get's the name out, the more people know you, the more you sell.

You could sell 7 album among 10 fans if you don't allow pirating.
But you could sell 17 albums among 50 fans if you allow it.

so wait was there a control?

unless I'm completely misreading this

in this thread: people aren't reading the article and are commenting dumb stuff (see: Evreaia)

oops wrong account

so wait was there a control?

What do you mean by that?

funny and interesting, but not really all that important: the paragraphs about how he assigned genre to each of the 1075 albums

in this thread: people aren't reading the article and are commenting dumb stuff (see: Evreaia)

What he says kinda make sense though, although the article does not support it. Who cares though, artists make
their money through touring, and if piracy helps them get their names out, then it does help artists.

lawl bit torrent.

mediafire that shit.

artists marketing themselves on facebook gets their name out

pirating doesn't

@pentagon yeah but he began with "I wonder why anyone would be surprised by this?" lol

@pcar: no pirating does its share of promotion. The main thing is that it's not black and white... there's a balance and its dependent on so many variables that generalizing about it like that is stupid imo

What do you mean by that?

"so wait was there a control?"

If by 'control' you mean a control group then fucking obviously.... This isn't a literature review :S

ugh^ @fist

@ AnarchistFish

Hammond compared the Bit Torrent traffic data (collection time: 9 months) for certain new albums prior and after their official release with the legitimate sales of those albums after their official release over the same temporal period and calculated the contribution of piracy in the album sales.

Oops, reading the article, nvm

EDIT: There was no control group because it was a literature review. Although, if you want to define the accuracy then you have to check all of the sources that Hammond used.

Voivod: private tracker bit torrent data

@acad: the point is artists don't get venues unless they get people from areas they play in to come out and see them. That happens when artists market themselves effectively on social networking sites.

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

stop trying to justify stealing (copying) another person's intellectual property

ugh^ @fist

actually Voivod: NO

oh my god so much fucking idiocy, and i knew what was gonna happen, and then i let it happen

I can't read the full review because I have my own research to conduct atm on alternative sexuality, gender dysphoria, and dissociative identity disorder, but this is good stuff from what I have read from the introduction.

If anyone wants to take a real crack at this area of research, it would be nice to see more information being posted on sputnikmusic about this sort of stuff.

But hey guys it would be difficult to clear the ethics for something like a study of mediafire because BitTorrent sites like ThePirateBay have original jurisdiction being based from a country in which music downloading for free isn't illegal. Ethics wouldn't bite and mediafire probably wouldn't hand over information. I am not sure what self-incrimination laws are like in the states.

I always knew pirates were nice people, deep inside.

"not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

stop trying to justify stealing (copying) another person's intellectual property"
Cool, do you have any scientific evidence to support that thesis?

lol

i always love how the first thing to toss out is "need scientific evidence" when there's no cohesive argument against a statement

not as bad as political boards, but dear god man

its like he wrote a response to my comment

without reading it

i HATE threads on music piracy because everyone seems to think they can ponder for 10 fucking seconds
and after theyve successfully solved the crisis and have complete understanding of how musicians make
money

@acad: the point is artists don't get venues unless they get people from areas they play in to come out and see
them. That happens when artists market themselves effectively on social networking sites.

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money
toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

stop trying to justify stealing (copying) another person's intellectual property"

@TheFantasticDangler this isn't about how artists make money though, this is about a regression that this guy ran that says something very directly. we should be debating his methodology. not the usual stuff...

- "stop trying to justify stealing (copying) another person's intellectual property""

- "Cool, do you have any scientific evidence to support that thesis?"

What the fuck does that even mean? Are you saying that issue of legal jurisprudence needs to be backed up by scientifically valid information?

UGH that almost never actually happens! Science is only used in the law in criminal cases and even then it has nothing to do with a principle matter, it's for the submission of professional evidence.

in this thread: people aren't reading the article and are commenting dumb stuff (see: Evreaia, Wolfhorde)

lol lets keep a running talley

@acad

I know, I was just speaking generally. So many uneducated, useless opinions being tossed around in threads like these its unbearable.

@Pentagon:

"Its just that I wont go to a concert just because Facebook told me to go"

I think you're looking to argue without understanding what I'm saying. A band that effectively markets themselves will do things to get people to be interested, such as upload a song or two (or even a whole fucking album), in addition to perhaps showing some insight as to their development process, showing support for other artists similar to them, etc.

It's not HEY GUYS I PLAY TOMORROW AT X CUM SEE ME

- "stop trying to justify stealing (copying) another person's intellectual property""

- "Cool, do you have any scientific evidence to support that thesis?"

What the fuck does that even mean? Are you saying that issue of legal jurisprudence needs to be backed up by scientifically valid information?

UGH that almost never actually happens! Science is only used in the law in criminal cases and even then it has nothing to do with a principle matter, it's for the submission of professional evidence.

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

@academy we certainly are going to keep a running tab

and before anyone starts trying to get at me keep in mind that I am a Law & Psychology major, so I may not be an expert but I know what the fuck I am talking about for the most part.

@pcar (read this in a nice, calm voice) why are you talking about facebook and self-promotion in this thread

Context.
"not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise"
This is the point. Generalized vague statements about "majorities" which is something every half-assed presumptuous dickhead can say about next to every kind of hot topic. Who says that these people are a majority? (I know, not mentioned but otherwise it would be an irrelevant point) What majority? And where does that info come from if not from subjective observations? You might be able to guess that "subjective observation" and talking about "majorities" doesn't mix too well.

"I think he was talking about

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise"

See now that is a hypothesis, THAT should be backed up by scientific data.

@eclecticist

im sure you werent trying to be pretentious.....but man....haha

shut up guys I went to uni!

"See now that is a hypothesis, THAT should be backed up by scientific data."
It wouldn't have made too much sense if it would've been about the "justication attempts", would it.

"@eclecticist

im sure you werent trying to be pretentious.....but man....haha"

Not intentionally... but some of these comments are frustrating.
General opinion is fine but shit, there is a lot of crap in the thread.

"It wouldn't have made too much sense if it would've been about the "justication attempts", would it."

What do you mean by that?

@eclecticist

Yeah its cool, I know what you mean.

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

@ wolfhorde - so are you going to use this lack of information to suggest piracy is good or bad to continue pirating? Because people who try to pinpoint ridiculous things in arguments as a means to detract from the point are precisely the kind of people who don't care if the stuff they're stealing will have a negative impact or not

o rite need scientific data sorry

@ theacademy - Why not? I disagree with the sentiment that a paper concluding that piracy is alright for already well-known artists gives justification for all facets of music piracy, and offer up the idea that perhaps it's not the pirates but smart artists who know how to sell themselves that can lead to success.

Do you disagree?

I neither agree nor disagree. Based on that response, I don't think you have read the paper, and I don't want to be mean to you.

not to mention that the vast majority of people who feel they deserve music for free also wouldn't pay money toward that artist anyways, shows or otherwise

acad, have you even read the paper?

yes

sort of doubt that for a variety of reasons

yes, the result for what we do justifies what we do

thank god for these studies

right because my comments have been way off topic, the paper is really all about how bands should market themselves and use social media

so are you this much a moron in real life?

serious question, because I feel like you're a solid 10 years younger than you should be

and yes I'm resorting to personal attacks - it's necessary when dealing with people with that low of an apparent IQ. You're free to prove me wrong though

im kinda blushing that you think im so young!!

you made my day sweetums

well i was once arrested for playing guitar

was caught fingering a minor

acad's avatar is the perfect response to most of these comments

...

you're a full blown tard

> "you're a full blown tard"
> "people steal music because they can"

nigga please get real

I apologize for pointing out those who think piracy is somehow legitimized are wrong, rescind my statements and will enjoy the frivolous pursuit of downloading everything I can because I have a what.cd account

god, you're almost as bad as the retards who pirate video games

"well i was once arrested for playing guitar

was caught fingering a minor"

lol nice red herring after attacking someone

gay thread

red herring isn't exactly the best interpretation of a horrible pun

"red herring isn't exactly the best interpretation of a horrible pun"


...and none of your comments are an accurate interpretation of the literature review or an appropriate response to any of the comments in this thread.

dude you said the majority of people who pirate don't pay for shows...

how else do they go to shows? or do people who pirate not enjoy live music?

I don't think piracy is legitamised but I'm not going to get punished for it so I will carry on enjoying free music

next time try not to make blatantly false sweeping generalisations

guess that's your opinion

or did you not read it either?

@ purpledino - or most people who go to shows buy the music, listen to it legally or follow the artist for other reasons

Good to know, I guess.

You could sell 7 album among 10 fans if you don't allow pirating.
But you could sell 17 albums among 50 fans if you allow it.
^this, fucking this

'piracy increases album sales, albeit by a small percentage and mostly for critically acclaimed artists.'

this hard

You could sell 7 album among 10 fans if you don't allow pirating.
But you could sell 17 albums among 50 fans if you allow it.

On a total of 88 comments, I can hardly count 10-20 posts that are on topic here...

I could be mistaken though...

This is redundant.

or most people who go to shows buy the music, listen to it legally or follow the artist for other reasons

whenever i download an album i enjoy, i try to buy it.
if i don't like it i just delete it

@ purpledino - or most people who go to shows buy the music, listen to it legally or follow the artist for other reasons

You just can't say that. You're just saying your opinion over and over, no facts. It's like your too self-righteous to admit when you are wrong. It's probably the other way around if anything. I think it's justafiable to download an album if I am already giving the band my money for merch and tickets

As an artist myself, I approve this message. All this should be telling you is that bands have to make REALLY good music in order to keep making money. That is a GOOD thing. Most people will buy it if they like it enough. That's what I do and that's what I expect everyone to do with my music.

my only argument for file sharing is that i spend as much money on music as most of my friends who don't pirate. the only difference is that i listen to a lot more music than them. the pirating is more or less unrelated to whether i buy the album. i only buy shit from bands i'm really sure are going to impress. people who don't pirate do the same thing.

"You could sell 7 album among 10 fans if you don't allow pirating.
But you could sell 17 albums among 50 fans if you allow it.
So sales are 70% without pirating and 34% with pirating? Artists sure are lucky to have piracy."

you completly missed the fucking point

So sales are 70% without pirating and 34% with pirating? Artists sure are lucky to have piracy.

Didn't feel like perusing this thread, gonna go ahead and assume that it reeks of dumbassery.

"All this should be telling you is that bands have to make REALLY good music in order to keep making money."

lol

I make 300,000 a year so I don't pirate anything because I hate it when people pirate my music.

cool so pre-release sharing of critically acclaimed artists help sales thank you oh robert hammond assistant professor at north carolina state university

I like getting music, both in physical and digital form.

"I make 300,000 a year so I don't pirate anything because I hate it when people pirate my music."

Fuck dude it must suck having so much money and being able to afford physical copies of all of the music that you like. It's a good thing that everyone makes that much money so that they can do the same and not pirate your music!

It's interesting that this came up, as I just got done reading this article which shares a similar topic...

http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/05/21/80-illegal-downloaders-of-all-shall-perish-music-will-be-outed-and-sued-without-bands-permission/

"I make 300,000 a year so I don't pirate anything because I hate it when people pirate my music."

Fuck dude it must suck having so much money and being able to afford physical copies of all of the music that you like. It's a good thing that everyone makes that much money so that they can do the same and not pirate your music!

http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/05/21/80-illegal-downloaders-of-all-shall-perish-music-will-be-outed-and-sued-without-bands-permission/

WOW! 80 people have to pay $150,000 U.S.!! Fuck I am glad to live in Canada :|

My internet says I live in Canada ^_^

Or was it Sweden? I can never remember....

http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/05/21/80-illegal-downloaders-of-all-shall-perish-music-will-be-outed-and-sued-without-bands-permission/

"I thought I said to stop making blatantly false sweeping generalisations"

sigh

i'm sorry to the rest of the earth that people as stupid as you even exist

i guess i just don't understand the drive behind purposefully causing people to not make money on stuff they legally have the right to do

but then again I'm also not a selfish child who thinks he's entitled to everything because the internet exists

please take your life or at least don't breed, for the love of all that is holy

"You just can't say that. You're just saying your opinion over and over, no facts"

And what else is there to state? The only "facts" are from a variety of opinion pieces that can conclude nothing more than already well-established artists perhaps benefit slightly from piracy, although there isn't even enough evidence to suggest this is indeed true.

Yet all you need to do is peruse various boards with piracy as some sort of thread subject to see that people will take anything like that as justification for what they do, and will happily spout off about how they support the band with "merchandise" and "concerts".

That's fucking bullshit. If you liked the artist so much, you wouldn't mind forking over 10 bucks for a digital download of some sort. Or merchandise. Or concerts.

If it's not such a blatant lie that people will generously pay for what they feel is deserving, after pirating it, then why are artists aside from those with top 10 hits living poor? If people actually pay what they owe out of the goodness of their own hearts, then why is it not reflected in reality?

Because you're liars, that's why. For every person who pays money for entertainment, a hundred others won't.

geif scientf c evidnec plZ!!!

On the plus side, those of you who actually aren't miserable human beings, support artists in various ways and abide by the law are awesome people who should continue their practices.

Intense post, pcar. Good luck to whoever you're talking to.

most people on this site still buy music even if they download it at first

Do you have research to back up that claim?

"Do you have research to back up that claim?"

lol I like this guy

"most people on this site still buy music even if they download it at first"

this is simply not true

if i wasn't downloading the music i wouldn't be listening to it at all so what difference does it make

and buying 1 cd to morally justify 100GB of dling doesnt count

Is that info in that Metalsucks article actually serious? Damn.

I still buy a shitload of CDs for the music I enjoy, probably as much as I can afford and certainly no less than I would if I couldn't download. You can't expect people to spend shitloads of money on music they probably won't like.
Youtube doesn't count because it's illegal to upload most stuff to youtube anyway, and streams don't have the same effect cos you have to stay stuck to a computer to listen to them. But if you're gonna listen to a stream, why not download it anyway?

if i wasn't downloading the music i wouldn't be listening to it at all so what difference does it make

pcar are you still trying to tell me that people who pirate music don't buy merch or go to shows?
because so far you have twice failed to acknowledge how wrong you are in that assumption, I would like clarification instead of an overblown, self-righteous rant against my immorality

anarchistfish can you stop speaking for everyone on this site

where in that post was I talking about anyone but myself?

I don't attempt to justify my piracy, though I could try if I so desired. I buy two CD's or more per paycheck, and the amount of music I obtain through the internet has gone down drastically since I got a job.

"most people on this site still buy music even if they download it at first"

"anyone who says that isn't morally justifiable can go fuck themselves"

that wasn't even an argument wtf

Yarrrrr

"most people on this site still buy music even if they download it at first"

"anyone who says that isn't morally justifiable can go fuck themselves"

sif is referring to the tense of the words you use(d), such as most and anyone.

This makes the statements wide and sweeping rather than just your opinion.

the second statement isn't about opinions though..

what are you trying to defend yourself from exactly? you put your false idea on "most people on this
site"'s mouth, and then on the next post make sweeping statements and end it with sth that implies
"you should obviously agree with me and if you dont agree you can go fuck urself"

those damn pirates

been graying black and white issues since the wee 2000s

i bought a lot more albums because i pirated.

yeah cos I've never heard a good argument against that scenario
still don't get what these sweeping statements are, apart from that first one which may have been exaggerated but still applies to quite a few people here

want an example?

"You can't expect people to spend shitloads of money on music they probably won't like."

anyway thank you for reducing "most people" to "quite a few people" thats a good start

"those damn pirates

been graying black and white issues since the wee 2000s"

LOL

how is "people (as individuals) don't enjoy the majority of music" wrong?

i buy like 5 albums to ever 50 i download, but a lot of the stuff i download i would never buy, so the bands arent actually losing money.

...

did you read your post?

Hahaha, man. Thanks for posting this, Voivod.

http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/05/21/80-illegal-downloaders-of-all-shall-perish-music-will-be-outed-and-sued-without-bands-permission/

Speaking of piracy...

"http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/05/21/80-illegal-downloaders-of-all-shall-perish-music-will-be-outed-and-sued-without-bands-permission/

Speaking of piracy..."


What I want to know is how a Panama-based company has the legal authorization to act on the rights of a U.S. based artist upon U.S. citizens.

The case would have to be held in the United States because of original jurisdiction and they would have to base the trial off of U.S.A. common-law jurisprudence and legislation. Which means:

A) The trial is going to be really fucking expensive which is why I can believe that the estimated cost in damaged/trial-fee's per person will amount to $150,000

B) The Panama-based company is going to have to hire lawyers who are licensed to practice in the United States of America

There should be an American-based company other than Nuclear Blast handling this. That is just piss-poor legal management.

I always had a feeling this was the case in some ways. There are still people dedicated to buying physical copies of an album they enjoy. However, I still think it can help much more underground bands aswell. I've seen plenty of young bands gain much more recognition through social media, youtube, and torrenting. In cases where the band makes music a lot of people seem to enjoy, it only helps them more. eventually these bands are able to tour with more recognized bands and get their music out there. This in some way must help increase their record sales.

I'd be fine with releasing stuff for free. Would just want it to be heard.

Well duh

> i buy like 5 albums to ever 50 i download, but a lot of the stuff i download i would never buy, so the bands arent actually losing money.

Same here. It's a convenient way of trying it before you buy it. If I enjoy the music I'll buy it, but I only end up liking maybe 5% of what I download. There are a lot of artists I never would have found if a music blog hadn't posted their album. If piracy wasn't an option you can be sure I wouldn't be throwing away my money on random artists on the off chance that I might like them.

I am a poor high school loser. Therefore piracy.

I buy like 1/10th of 1% of what I pirate. Whether I'd buy albums if piracy didn't exist is up in the air... and a moot point... kinda like this study.

I feel like this study will change nothing at all.

Eminem sold over 20 million copies of one album alone, along with Linkin Park, and this was just 12
years ago.

Now an artist is lucky to sell a million records. You kidding me? Retarded article.

Every album I have as a 5 here I have bought basically.

Gabe's bones must be tingling because this thread has really lured all the idiots and their opinions out.

This thread is just actually mad dumb because this study is faulty. Like, disregarding other people's opinions.

Why pirate when you have bandcamp and youtube?

^Not every band is on bandcamp, not every band offers free stuff on bandcamp.

Also if you're looking for terrible sound quality, then yeah, go for youtube.

I was kinda being rhetorical. When I get free downloads, I get them from some friends because I'm not good with that myself.

Well...that's file sharing for ya :D

This thread is just actually mad dumb because this study is faulty. Like, disregarding other people's opinions.

The thread could be intelligent even when the study is faulty. It's stupid because half the thread commentators saw the words "pirate" and "music" together, and vomited out their personal opinions about the topic.

"This thread is just actually mad dumb"

Lol, that sentence.

"Well...that's file sharing for ya :D"

Exactly. What are friends for?

I agree. Hence, the "disregarding other people's opinions" part.

Arguing about piracy is pointless...nothing will change, a pirate's not gonna just stop pirating music.

"Arguing about piracy is pointless...nothing will change, a pirate's not gonna just stop pirating music."

That's why you don't read the thread except the last 3 responses.

"Gonna pirate regardless [3]" Pretty much.

I agree. Hence, the "disregarding other people's opinions" part.

Arguing about piracy is pointless...nothing will change, a pirate's not gonna just stop pirating music."

yo ho, a pirate's life for me...

Threads like this are always retarded

That article seems very fake.

Surprised nobody has pointed out that the report doesn't say piracy has the effect of increasing sales. It says an album leaking pre-release has the effect of increasing sales. It doesn't account for how the musician reacts to the leak either.

"Surprised nobody has pointed out that the report doesn't say piracy has the effect of increasing sales. It says an album leaking pre-release has the effect of increasing sales. It doesn't account for how the musician reacts to the leak either."

That suggests that people actually took the time to read the article...

Mediafire rules d00d

Actually mediafire kinda sucks now. They nuke links far more frequently since megaupload bit the dust.

UNC > NC State + Duke - Is relevant

mediafire doesnt kill the links if you dont name it NEW DEATHS GRIPS DOWNLOAD HERE FROM MY BLOGSPOT like idiots

why would anybody even pirate death grips

talk about staining the computer forever

so many people not taking in the info, as de sylvia said.

the fact that the report apparently proves that an album sold more or less because it leaked is fallacious; there are no alternate outcomes in equally controlled environments which you can compare. anyway, many artists say taking down leaks/links from blogs during the first few weeks of a release actually help sales (that's the whole motivation behind it).

have a gander and read up all of you militant pirates: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/

the point about society owning all of the art, in a communist way, is very ironic considering the general american phobia of the word.

i feel that any artist should be happy to have fans, to be heard, and appreciated, whether people are buying their product or not. having said that, we need to find some way to help artists make a living, because that means more focus on music, not economics. a balance needs to be struck between openly accessible art and an industry of artists being supported, without the need for big business or purely capital interests at play. funding of the arts needs to be addressed (kudos to alec baldwin).

You can't beat me kid, I'm Alec Baldwin

liledman being the voice of reason as usual

It's actually been ages since I tried to access a mediafire file only for it to have already been deleted. It's become more buggy but that's probably on my end.

Surprised nobody has pointed out that the report doesn't say piracy has the effect of increasing sales. It says an album leaking pre-release has the effect of increasing sales.

"piracy increases album sales, albeit by a small percentage and mostly for critically acclaimed artists."

You've heard it first here, record labels! Now you have no excuse to sign such shit artists.

Should follow it up with this news item:

http://gizmodo.com/5912226/supreme-court-lets-students-675000-file+sharing-fine-stand

This thread made my day. Thanks people and especially thanks to pcar; you sir are one angry little fella.

I usually pirate shit to see if I like the album enough to pay for it or if I already paid for an album and lost it or if it is scratched all to shit from years if overplaying and abuse.
Most of the shit I pirate and don't like gets deleted, not shared- no harm done there because I am not going to be supporting a band I don't like. If I DID already pay for it, why the hell should I have to again? Even if it is my fault that I didn't rip the CD or take good enough care of it, it should still be my right to own the music forever.
Also, the bands I end up enjoying a lot after my piracy previews usually will eventually be on the receiving end of payment for the concert tickets and merch I will purchase if they actually even come to Utah. So, while it may be 'damaging' sales overall, I don't give any shits because I am sick of paying $15 for a shit album that can't even be returned.
This is payback for all the years of overpriced garbage I spent money on as a teenager.

And, NO, I didn't read the paper.
I read this article and responded with justification for why I pirate music.

Please analyze me.

If I DID already pay for it, why the hell should I have to again? Even if it is my fault that I didn't rip the CD or take good enough care of it, it should still be my right to own the music forever.

Also, the bands I end up enjoying a lot after my piracy previews usually will eventually be on the receiving end of payment for the concert tickets and merch I will purchase if they actually even come to Utah.

Dave: I DO buy the CDs, dipshit.
Aso: Please expound as to why I'm a fool for thinking my music should expire after purchasing it.

You bought a disc containing the music. You own the disc. You didn't purchase the master recordings of the music to do with as you please. If you lost the disc, you own nothing.

Aso: You're a total ass
So, if I buy digitally and have the music forever on my harddrive our a cloud, you equate that to purchasing the master recordings? Since they can't be lost or damaged in the same way files in a compact disc can?
I guess I just got schooled.

Indeed. I hope you learned something.

Lol, dude. It's the same thing when buying digitally. You own those particular files. Not every copy of the album in every format that exists. If your hard drive or whatever gets wrecked, then you're screwed just the same. Some places let you re-download things, but that's it. If you bought music on iTunes, you can't go on Amazon and be like "uh, my files got deleted so let me download them for free," can you? Nor can you walk into your local store and take a copy of the CD.

Downloads aren't finite, you can't compare illegally downloading to taking CDs.

On a practical level, I don't see what's wrong with just redownloading if you've already paid for the music, which is what paying for downloads and CDs ultimately are.

Just because companies won't let you re-download something you already paid for so they can make even more profit, it doesn't mean their decisions are justified either.
So, I just download these things illegally instead and that is how I justify my own actions. I don't intend to speak for anyone else.

-Without piracy(love the word) I wouldn't have been able to listen to at least half of the music I have in my library.
-Without piracy I wouldn't have known them at all.
-Without piracy I wouldn't have the taste and knowledge of culture I'm so proud of.
-Without piracy I wouldn't play Barry White songs in my head while boning.
-Without piracy I would've continued buying CDs, without realizing only about 5-10% of the price would've gone to the artists. Imagine being in a 5 member band.
-Without piracy I wouldn't have gone to awesome festivals and concerts so that those artists and me are even.
-Without piracy I would regret half of my purchases, then contribute to global warming by setting them on fire.
-Without piracy I wouldn't have access to foreign media that I find interesting.
-Without piracy I would have to watch the foreign media I do have access to in french.
-Without piracy I wouldn't have been encouraged to still buy albums if I see the merit.
-I tried buying without piracy once, and bought a Ramones CD.

Exposure>Album sales.

Well then. Shiver me timbers.

CD righteousness!!

I torrent music and if I like it enough, I go out and buy it.

If it weren't for torrenting, I wouldn't know more than half the bands I listen to.

I would never have bought have the CD's I have if I didn't have Sputnik and torrents

wut wut wut

For those of you that are on universities and campuses and have access to peer reviewed journals, here is a 2008 paper dealing with the subject.



Author: Alessandro Balestrino

Title: It Is A Theft But Not A Crime

Journal: European Journal of Political Economy (Elsevier Editions)

Volume: 24

Year: 2008

Pages: 455-469

Here is another one:



Authors: Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman S. Strumpf

Title: The Effect Of File Sharing On Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis

Journal: Journal of Political Economy (The University Of Chicago Press)

Volume: 115

Year: 2007

Pages: 1-42


link to the full paper: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf

wut

I ish pirate no matter wut

cuz pirates are cool and suffer from scurvy, y'know?

^^^
Yep.

Pirates gonna pirate

The bilgerats!