Black Metal.

[Cythraul]

MY point was that you are not in a position to be stealing anything, whether or not the form of stealing entails any actual tangible loss. And if I recall correctly, stealing falls under the concern of ethics. Taking something to which you do not possess the right of ownership is stealing and unethical, regardless whether or not it is lawful, which answers the next part:

Honestly, I really no longer see how I could convert you to my view of things. Of course stealing falls under the concern of ethics; that is not something I would deny. What I disagree with is the notion that there is really something being stolen here. If I were to go to a record store and take a cd without paying for it, that would be stealing. What exactly am I stealing by downloading an album? Seriously, I'm not stealing a material object. What the hell then am I stealing? An abstract object? Because that's certainly what a song is (and it's what an album is, for that matter). Talk of stealing abstract things like this is so much loose talk. Stealing is wrong precisely because it harms another person. Something can only harm somebody if it actually has an (in principle) observable effect on them. My simple act of downloading an album has no such effect on anybody whatsoever (except for you it seems).

Since when has stealing outside of immediate necessity ever been subject of scrutiny? Do we not condemn stealing? Maybe you don't think it stands up to scrutiny because you have something at stake in it not meeting such standards.

Of course I condemn stealing. However, I think 'stealing' is a loaded term in this context.

Stealing is stealing because one acquires something by unethical means that he does not have any right to possess when such rights are relevant to the discussion, which I think it is fairly obvious that it is in this instance.

Of course, the bolded part is precisely what's at issue here. You seem to suggest that I would be stealing something by downloading, and then you define 'stealing' in terms of unethical acquisition, but precisely what I deny is that there is anything that I am unethically acquiring.

Is it as unethical and morally objectionable as walking into a store and stealing a physical copy of a CD? Perhaps not, but that does not make the act of illegally downloading any less wrong.

I don't know how you're locating an ethical problem here. Honestly, I'm not trying to be an ass. I really do not see it.

Why? In what way is it permissible for you to steal? Simply because there is no tangible loss to the victim?

It's not permissible for me to steal. I just don't think there's anything that I'm stealing.

This can be said for nearly any type of stealing, but that doesn't make it any better. That my stealing a candy bar doesn't lead to further stealing of candy bars does not make my personal act of stealing justifiable.

What I said there is to be interpreted in the context of what I said about any direct, tangible effects on the artist. There are no such effects, but another possible effect of my action is to encourage or help to make possible the perpetuation of something that, taken as a whole, does have a tangible negative effect. I was ruling out that possibility in this case.

Strictly speaking, you are doing something wrong. What is at question here is whether or not you care.

I don't care because I've done nothing wrong.

 

[tagradh]

I download lots.

I buy the albums I think are really good.

 

[Captain.Howdy]

I download lots.

I buy the albums I think are really good.

I do the same...

 

[Cythraul]

Why are you bothering arguing something that has no real practical application? Theories and shit are nice and all, but what does it matter if it doesn't have any real application?

Of course. What's right and wrong for a person to do is, like, totally just irrelevant theory nonsense dude.

 

[challenge_everything]

I'm prepared to go along with Dodens that it's stealing, at least for the sake of argument. But even that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Do you accept that any act which contravenes a law, no matter how unjust the law is, morally wrong?

If the government tries to privatise my local beach and charge me entrance fees, I'm gonna try to circumvent their rules. Likewise if I have to pay for the air I breathe. The definition of what is "property" capable of being stolen is not handed down from high heaven; it's arbitrarily created by capitalist governments to protect big business.

 

[Cythraul]

The definition of what is "property" capable of being stolen is not handed down from high heaven; it's arbitrarily created by capitalist governments to protect big business.

Looks like you and Death Aflame have been hitting the bong together.

 

[Evil?]

Man, no one can "own" anything man.

It's all an illusion dude.

 

[tr00nty]

Man, no one can "own" anything man.

It's all an illusion dude.

I can just imagine you coming back to this forum one day after perhaps losing your house and car due to massive economic collapse.

"What was i thinking?!", you'll say to yourself.

 

[mutantllama]

He was joking around.

 

[Dak]

Dakryn doesn't seem to understand that not all labels are as greedy as big labels, and also doesn't get that not all bands play live shows.

Regardless of how greedy a label is, they really are an outdated form of middleman. Before the internet, besides maybe some word of mouth or a demo tape (which are extremely limited and would take forever to spread to a wide audience), the only method of broad exposure bands had was going through labels.
The internet/downloading is making the labels more and more irrelevant, and they are fighting to maintain their control (ie: their gravy train).

If an artist doesn't want to perform live that is a whole different issue.

 

[Omni]

Dakryn, you seem to be forgetting something that has already been discussed in this thread already. Not all bands can record their music in a DIY/home environment or afford studio time and other things related to recording, and not all bands can afford to distribute their own music internationally. Labels can provide them with the ability to do these things.

 

[challenge_everything]

Looks like you and Death Aflame have been hitting the bong together.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2004/01waterpriv.htm

Music is just another commodity to be bought, sold and controlled.

 

[challenge_everything]

Dakryn, you seem to be forgetting something that has already been discussed in this thread already. Not all bands can record their music in a DIY/home environment or afford studio time and other things related to recording, and not all bands can afford to distribute their own music internationally. Labels can provide them with the ability to do these things.

I agree with Dakryn that labels are becoming less important, but there is, as you say, still an important role for labels. You start to appreciate it when world class musicians like Elend can't keep producing music because they lack the finances (and the ability to compromise their sound) to do so.

EDIT: Ah shit I only just noticed that you already mentioned Elend's predicament on the previous page. Great minds think alike

 

[skeptik]

I would have to argue that the primary function of stealing, however, is not the removal of one thing from one person, but rather the acquisition of one thing by another person, and this seems to be supported by several of the definition entries in the OED that go back throughout its etymology. Many of them define the term based on the agent and not the victim, such as "To gain by secret or unobtrusive means" or "To derive obscurely and dishonourably" "To take dishonestly or secretly." Of course you can steal intangible objects. To use less controversial examples, when you use somebody else's invention idea, you're stealing. When you plagiarize another person's work, you're stealing. The problem is that your notion of stealing rests entirely on the victim and on a tangible, physical loss, and that does not cover sufficiently the entire set of objects 'things that can be stolen.' I suppose that we have reached a dead end if I can't convince you that downloading is stealing, so this will probably be my last post on the subject.

 

[challenge_everything]

If that post was directed at me, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't deny that downloading is stealing, I was merely pointing out that just because something is against the law it isn't necessarily immoral.

 

[skeptik]

I was responding to Cythraul but didn't feel like quoting his post since I wasn't responding to it point by point. I completely agree with everyone's assertion that just because something is against some law that it is not necessarily unethical or immoral or even a bad thing, which is why I tried to make it pretty clear that my argument was not based on law but rather ethics and that the law merely happened to coincide with the proposition that I put forth in this particular instance.

 

[Dak]

Dakryn, you seem to be forgetting something that has already been discussed in this thread already. Not all bands can record their music in a DIY/home environment or afford studio time and other things related to recording, and not all bands can afford to distribute their own music internationally. Labels can provide them with the ability to do these things.

Well of course an established label provides an easier route for production, but the distribution arguement is flawed. Obviously it may be difficult sans label to sell CD's via Major music stores, but like I said, we are in the internet age now. It's time to think outside the 20th century box.
As far as production, while labels may provide easier access to quality studio equipment and producers, at what cost to the artist in the long run? With the availability of relativily cheap recording software/hardware a band can get do their own production and achieve moderate quality, and then distribute on their own through the internet. If a band becomes a success, then obviously in the future they can finance better and better menas of production themselves instead of selling their
"soul" to the middleman.
Obviously it is a more difficult route, but only because of the accepted norm of the "label system". IMO in the long run you will see more and more artists go without labels as the need for a middleman disappears with increased availability/lower prices of quality DIY recording tools and increasingly prevalent internet distribution.

 

[Zephyrus]

I think the convenience and long-term profits of label contracts outweighs hazarding an independent effort to mass produce and distribute physical albums. Having a website and a Myspace page can't guarantee enough potential customers to make such an investment worthwhile.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Dakryn - Where are you getting at with that argument? Are you condoning the downloading culture just because you believe artists are better off without labels, so they should self-finance and distribute their work?

 

[Dak]

Well in regards to downloading, my stand is that it is a very grey area. It helps the unknown artist out tremendously, yet obviously does nothing for the established artist. So then are we to say it is ok to download an unsigned artist but not a signed artist? Like I said, grey area.
Then factor in that you would be supporting an artist better by attending concerts but downloading their albums etc. (In regards to people with low income who have to make choices as far as how to support an artist.)
I am not referring to a grey area as far as the law goes, but instead an ethically grey area, taking all modern factors into play (or at least all the factors I am currently aware of). Look how much music is up on youtube, I can listen to that for free whenever I want, but if I want to listen to it while not being connected to the internet suddenly it is/is more- wrong? Etc.
All in all, the subject of downloading in regards to ethics is much less cut and dried than Dodens appears to be arguing (unless I am just misunderstanding his point).