Black Metal.

I also do not find it particularly outlandish to do what I want with regards to whimsically listening to music in any form I can get it on at any particular time. I love the quote on this page: "MUSIC WAS MEANT TO BE HEARD"!
 
I think the conclusion here is fair and we can all agree. Now, on a topic related to black metal, I finally got Mayhem-'Live in Liepzig'. Very enjoyable. I've wanted to hear Dead's vocals for some time now. They're not quite as exciting as I'd hear and hoped, but definitely cool.
 
Cythraul said:
Not downloading an album at all and downloading an album because you literally don't have the money to buy it are ethically on a par. The issue really does not arise in this sort of case. If I download an album I am not taking any tangible thing to which a monetary value can be attached. I can only see a problem arising where one has plenty of money yet does not buy any albums. I mean, if I had literally no money to spend on any album am I just supposed to not listen to music or what? Is it wrong for me to accept an album that a friend of mine has copied onto cdr for me? I think you are being incredibly obstinate here.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you're rebutting an argument when I didn't actually make an argument.

First of all, what I said is that I hate "the downloading culture and mentality," which is distinct from this imaginary argument that you and the others have conjured in your own minds.

As far as "ethically on par" goes, are you sure that not stealing an apple and stealing an apple that you wouldn't have bought anyway because you can't afford it are "ethically on par?" I'm pretty sure that stealing something that you wouldn't have bought and not stealing the thing are not moral equivalents. Whether or not something tangible is taken away is irrelevant. What is relevant is the something illegally or unethically gained. But I didn't even make this argument. I also said nothing at all about money. Or supporting artists. Or, well, anything that anybody actually responded to. Which makes me wonder how they responded to these things when they weren't said.

But to go on, if you "literally have no money" then yes, you are, in fact, supposed to continue to refrain from illegally acquiring that which you are not allowed to acquire by given means. Contrary to what V5 seems to believe, for reasons that he assuredly won't be able to explain, art is not above the law, which makes the dubious claim that obtaining art is above the law doubly absurd. "Law and art don't really overlap?" Bullshit. Of course they overlap. And not only do those two overlap, but the act of obtaining art is fully grounded in law, so suggesting that "music is meant to be heard and therefore it is acceptable to obtain music by illegal means" is absurd. With respect to CD-Rs, if I'm not mistaken, the law does not permit burning CD-R copies of albums to be used by other people as a normal CD, i.e. in place of the 'real thing.'

And, yet again, keep in mind that these are not arguments that I actually made, which should have been obvious in retrospect considering that I didn't make any arguments. I also never implied that ideal theory and real fact have to be one in the same, namely that "one should never download," so nobody should be accusing me of this either.

One final thing, however:

For those who claim to use downloading merely to decide whether or not you want to buy an album, how many of you actually delete the illegal files once you make this decision, and how many of you just continue to listen to the illegal files until you finally buy the album 5 years after you decided that you actually wanted to buy it but finally got around to "picking up a real copy?" If you make the claim that you use downloading merely as a means of determining whether or not you want to buy something, then you don't need to have those files once you have reached that decision. In fact, keeping them and continuing to listen to them would be to alter the reason that you claimed for having the files from "I wanted to decide whether or not the album was worth buying" to "I want to listen to the album, but I don't feel like buying a real copy of it right now," which brings us back to the beginning, and to the arguments that were not made. Thank you for your time.

And no, I certainly was not being obstinate.



Also, I may or may not respond to future posts at the moment on this subject. I wasn't planning on having a discussion here. I was only making a passing comment at the time and didn't expect to have my words misconstrued.
 
I buy cds, as well as download.

When I look back I have a lot of fond memories buying CDs, and honestly, I'd prefer it if I didn't download at all. The whole experience of buying a CD, the first listen and enjoying music along with the artwork, and especially waking up the next morning remembering that you've got that CD to look forward to and listen to is a million times better than listening to a bunch of mp3s you just downloaded. Not only that, but I am much more likely spend more time getting into the album and appreciating it than with mp3s.

...but because of downloading I've discovered so many more bands that I probably wouldn't have ever listened to or even heard of, had I not downloaded in the first place - my CD collection would be a fraction of what it is.

That being said, I'm not at all proud of downloading and I think it’s a shame that albums are being leaked up to two months in advance to it’s release date. I really don’t like the whole downloading culture either. The whole, “I’ve got more gigs of music than you! This album just leaked seconds ago, and I’m going to be the very first person to write a review about it on metal-archives!” type stuff.

Now that I have paypal though and can buy online, I am going to download a lot less. The local music shops have a pretty poor to average selection for music so it didn't help when I really wanted to buy cds. I am even considering re-buying a CD player – since mine broke like three years ago - for when I want to listen to my CDs. For whatever reason I don’t like listening to CDs on my computer. Of course I will still use my Zen Vision W, it’s convenient and practical, and I will still rip cds onto my comp for this purpose.

Hopefully this makes sense in the morning, I'm tired and it's almost 6am. o_O
 
Dodens Grav said:
For those who claim to use downloading merely to decide whether or not you want to buy an album, how many of you actually delete the illegal files once you make this decision, and how many of you just continue to listen to the illegal files until you finally buy the album 5 years after you decided that you actually wanted to buy it but finally got around to "picking up a real copy?" If you make the claim that you use downloading merely as a means of determining whether or not you want to buy something, then you don't need to have those files once you have reached that decision. In fact, keeping them and continuing to listen to them would be to alter the reason that you claimed for having the files from "I wanted to decide whether or not the album was worth buying" to "I want to listen to the album, but I don't feel like buying a real copy of it right now," which brings us back to the beginning, and to the arguments that were not made. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

Even though you claim you did not make an argument, you like being a hardass on this particular subject.

Whether one deletes the files or not is is irrelevant. The law at one point dictated that as long as you had the original medium in your possession, you could make copies of it for your listening pleasure (and yours only). Why would downloading them before and then buying them be any different? I won't deny that I keep my mp3 files on my computer and that's because, like Andy, I like to make playlists of what I want to listen to at the moment and not change CD's at any given time. I only keep my originals to listen to them in the car or my sound system.

Whatever the reasons one may have for downloading, the only thing that matters is that you keep supporting the artists by paying for their hard work.
 
I think you're thinking that I'm against ripping CDs, which I'm not. What I meant there is that if you're downloading only to decide whether or not you want to buy an album, and this is truly the only reason, then once you decide, unless you buy the CD immediately or soon after you decide that you want it, it's good policy to delete the illegal mp3s so that you're not tempted to continue using those mp3s and putting off actually buying it, since you already know that you want it and you already fulfilled the purpose for which you downloaded the mp3s in the first place. A lot of people don't have the willpower to follow through with their claims to only use downloading as a means of deciding and wind up using them as a substitute for the real thing for a considerably elongated period of time. I have no problem whatsoever with ripping your own CDs (I do this all the time), or even keeping the illegal mp3s once you buy it, but if you keep the illegal mp3s, you should make buying the album in question a top priority. I haven't even brought up the issue of sampling albums or bands on myspace, which is much better in my opinion than illegally downloading entire albums, but I understand that there are at least some cases for some people in which listening to two or three songs from an album on myspace is not enough to decide whether or not an album is good enough to buy or bad enough to ignore.
 
Matt, the problem here is you really fucking care too much, and you're being incredibly strict about how the law works regarding piracy. Why the fuck do you care so much? Your large post up there just makes me think you're a huge faggot who jacks off to the law and has no life because he cares enough to think way too in-depth (probably more in-depth than the fucking lawmakers even care to go) about something for which the consequences probably have zero bearing to most people. Not everyone can be a knight templar, br0, and it's time to stop pretending you are tbh. Get over yourself.

edit: Also lawmakers don't care about art. They care about copyrights and money. They don't enforce these rules they've put into place very strictly. If they did, it would be pretty authoritarian, as most people burn CDs for friends or for personal use. It'd be ludicrous to see all the people who burn CD-rs everyday going to jail for their "crime". So you need to draw the line somewhere. Also, as a disclaimer, I'm not sticking up for faggot leeches who don't even know what physical copies of music are; I hate these people more than I hate Matt in this particular instance, with burning fury of ancient gods. That is all.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
Matt, the problem here is you really fucking care too much, and you're being incredibly strict about how the law works regarding piracy. Why the fuck do you care so much? Your large post up there just makes me think you're a huge faggot who jacks off to the law and has no life because he cares enough to think way too in-depth (probably more in-depth than the fucking lawmakers even care to go) about something for which the consequences probably have zero bearing to most people.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that the minority of people who are affected are the same people we care about the most when discussing almost anything on this forum. Lawmakers protect art, or any product, because people ought to be compensated for their hard work. They need to enforce a high standard so that less people are discouraged from falling down the slippery slope that downloading can invite. If you let downloading, less artists will feel the incentive to invest their time and energy in a pursuit that plain devotion cannot sustain.
 
That mention of Cobalt earlier made me go dig up Eater of Birds again, what a sweet album. However I am even more excited for AN's new release. I liked the more death metal style (more... melodic?) of their last one a whole lot

Dodens Grav said:
As far as "ethically on par" goes, are you sure that not stealing an apple and stealing an apple that you wouldn't have bought anyway because you can't afford it are "ethically on par?" I'm pretty sure that stealing something that you wouldn't have bought and not stealing the thing are not moral equivalents. Whether or not something tangible is taken away is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well that's kind of a poor example, for the reason you point out yourself in that last sentence, which is most certainly not irrelevant. The actions here are "not stealing an apple" and "magically creating an exact duplicate of an apple you wouldn't have bought anyway."

I personally think it's obvious that piracy is "theft" in some sense, but the lay of the land these days is such that it's incredibly easy, almost-no-risk theft with a slightly fuzzier ethical connotation, and bands really need to adapt to digital distribution if they're going to be commercially successful.

Also I don't know about others who download, but I make an effort to ritualize it as much as possible. It still doesn't approach actually buying a CD, which is much more fun, but I always go out and find some nice coverart on Google, edit the song titles and info so it looks good and such, read a bunch of band interviews, look up the lyrics, etc. before listening.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
Matt, the problem here is you really fucking care too much, and you're being incredibly strict about how the law works regarding piracy. Why the fuck do you care so much? Your large post up there just makes me think you're a huge faggot who jacks off to the law and has no life because he cares enough to think way too in-depth (probably more in-depth than the fucking lawmakers even care to go) about something for which the consequences probably have zero bearing to most people. Not everyone can be a knight templar, br0, and it's time to stop pretending you are tbh. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

You really are a tremendous fucking simpletonSLASHtwit sometimes. The problem is that I care too much? That's not a flaw in my argument. It's a flaw in your ability to debate, which you exhibit constantly. Whenever you're out of ammunition or just give up, you resort to ad hominems. "The law" is also not my basis for reasoning either, but rather supplements it. I "jack off to the law" and have "no life" because I tend to think things through rather than run into walls like a retard...interesting. I'm sorry if my ability and interest in elaborate thought offends you or causes you to feel inferior. As for the last part of this section of your post, you obviously didn't read my entire post, or you would already know why what you said is stupid.

V.V.V.V.V. said:
edit: Also lawmakers don't care about art. They care about copyrights and money. They don't enforce these rules they've put into place very strictly. If they did, it would be pretty authoritarian, as most people burn CDs for friends or for personal use. It'd be ludicrous to see all the people who burn CD-rs everyday going to jail for their "crime". So you need to draw the line somewhere. Also, as a disclaimer, I'm not sticking up for faggot leeches who don't even know what physical copies of music are; I hate these people more than I hate Matt in this particular instance, with burning fury of ancient gods. That is all.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm discussing the concept, the theory behind it, and not the way it works in practice, which is far less interesting and useful for this particular line of discussion. Wherever you "draw the line" is a matter of practice. I'll again reiterate here that the law is not my argument but rather supplements it. If you're just dying to know where I personally "draw the line," I only share music with people that 1) I assume will enjoy the music and 2) will in turn buy it in a timely fashion. If they don't meet this criteria I generally will not provide them with mp3s/CD-Rs.

Actually I'll just go ahead and quote what I said earlier that is relevant here since you seem to have missed it.

I also never implied that ideal theory and real fact have to be one in the same, namely that "one should never download," so nobody should be accusing me of this either.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm not saying that one must adhere strictly to the proposed ideal, but one should at least aspire to it.

S<issors said:
Well that's kind of a poor example, for the reason you point out yourself in that last sentence, which is most certainly not irrelevant. The actions here are "not stealing an apple" and "magically creating an exact duplicate of an apple you wouldn't have bought anyway."
Click to expand...

You can't seriously mean to attack that part of my statement with such a ludicrous enjambment? You left out the essential part of that quote, which was "What is relevant is the something illegally or unethically gained." It's not a poor or inapplicable example because in both instances, you are obtaining something which which you don't have the rights to obtain. Whether or not it's a matter of zero-sum is insignificant in comparison to the mere fact that the item was obtained in a way in an unethical way. It is true that it is a separate degree in that there is no tangible loss to the victim, but that does not escape the issue at all, merely side-stepping. You are still left with the quandary of your means of obtaining the good in question, which I can't imagine how anyone can conceive is less significant than the tangible loss of the apple.

S<issors said:
I personally think it's obvious that piracy is "theft" in some sense, but the lay of the land these days is such that it's incredibly easy, almost-no-risk theft with a slightly fuzzier ethical connotation, and bands really need to adapt to digital distribution if they're going to be commercially successful.
Click to expand...

This is not a matter of (legal) digital distribution, nor is it about "the lay of the land," because neither justifies the means of obtaining the object in question. That it's easy and carries with it minimal risk does not excuse the behavior. The implication that bands need to adapt to digital distribution rests on the premise that downloaders will convert to purchasing the mp3s that they are accustomed to obtaining for free. If you can secure that, then I will agree with you fully, but frankly, if digital distribution became the sole or even primary means of distributing music, then I would wager that the amount of illegal downloaders would increase dramatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Iron Chef Sakai
  • Locked
Do you know any movies with metal soundtracks?
Replies
24
Views
4K
General Metal Discussion
V.V.V.V.V.
V
D
Black Metal In School
Replies
123
Views
4K
General Metal Discussion
VomitBubble
V
Chairman Kaga
Bands, Albums or Songs that got you into Death Metal And/or Black Metal.
Replies
82
Views
3K
General Metal Discussion
Belligerent
B
W
Best Black Metal Album of 2k14
Replies
40
Views
3K
General Metal Discussion
divine_torture
D
T
Top 10 Black Metal Bands
Replies
111
Views
5K
General Metal Discussion
Zephyrus
Zephyrus
Top Bottom
Back