Controversial opinions on metal

[Internally Deformed]

Your incorrect view doesn't change the fact that you're behaving in an entitled manner and stealing something, nor does it change the fact that downloading albums harms independent record labels and artists. It's not really debatable.

People will continue to download music and make up excuses for why they do that instead of buying it, but they won't be able to change reality with their weak justifications for entitlement.

I find it funny that most of the bands I've seen interviewed in recent years on this subject are way more open minded than you are about it. Extreme or experimental acts in particular tend to realise that a lot of listeners would never have even had the chance to broaden their horizons and explore their genre if it wasn't for the increased freedom downloading brings.

 

[Vilden]

I agree that downloading and stealing aren't really comparable most of the time but still, it isn't really as simple as that, what if you download two albums and one is great and the other is pretty good. You decide that the great one is worth buying so you buy it and another different album alltogether. Then you sit at home one day at the computer and listen to that pretty good album, haven't you actively decided to not support that band/label despite using their product?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I agree that downloading and stealing aren't really comparable most of the time but still, it isn't really as simple as that, what if you download two albums and one is great and the other is pretty good. You decide that the great one is worth buying so you buy it and another different album alltogether. Then you sit at home one day at the computer and listen to that pretty good album, haven't you actively decided to not support that band/label despite using their product?

Yes, you have. That's a shitty thing to do for obvious reasons.

 

[CiG]

My opinion on illegal downloading has changed over the years. I care less about it now, though I'm still 100% against it and have never done it myself.

The main issue I have can actually be compared to how I feel about welfare, my disagreement lay more with those that exclusively illegally download music, rather than those that download as a first step in spending actual money on a product, because your ability to exclusively illegally download relies on people like me spending money for music.

Same with employed people putting tax money into the welfare programs, if not for my money you wouldn't even have anything to download, leaving aside a few bedroom music projects giving their stuff away for free.

I fucking hate scabs.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I agree that downloading and stealing aren't really comparable most of the time but still, it isn't really as simple as that, what if you download two albums and one is great and the other is pretty good. You decide that the great one is worth buying so you buy it and another different album alltogether. Then you sit at home one day at the computer and listen to that pretty good album, haven't you actively decided to not support that band/label despite using their product?

The issue, though, is would you definitely have bought that second album if you hadn't had the option to download it? If so you're then depriving the band of their income, but if (as is often the case) you'd never have taken a chance on them without the option to listen in advance, or (equally possible) would never even have heard of them without the increased exposure provided by DLing, it would be hard to argue that you'd actually taken anything from them.

I'll restate my first post: providing the amount you spend on music is consistent with how much you would have spent in the pre-download era, it hurts absolutely no one to download music. Things only get grey when your ability to download affects the amount you spend, which in many cases it does.

 

[Internally Deformed]

My opinion on illegal downloading has changed over the years. I care less about it now, though I'm still 100% against it and have never done it myself.

Given how many obscure bands you post, your record collection must be absolutely colossal. Do you own albums from all the bands you rec, or have you just listened to some of them on youtube or other streaming services?

 

[CiG]

Given how many obscure bands you post, your record collection must be absolutely colossal. Do you own albums from all the bands you rec, or have you just listened to some of them on youtube or other streaming services?

It's a pretty decent collection I guess, though you'll probably notice I mostly post things that aren't black metal or death metal, I sold off a huge chunk of music over the last two years.

Also a lot of my collection is tape these days, vinyl is the minority.

 

[rusty water]

cassette tape?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

It's automatically more ethical to not steal something that doesn't belong to you. That's just reality.

Music doesn't "belong" to anyone.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Music doesn't "belong" to anyone.

No, it definitely belongs to the people who wrote and recorded it, at the very least.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it definitely belongs to the people who wrote and recorded it, at the very least.

For how long?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

what if someone next door heard it?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

For how long?

I'm sure you're being facetious, but this might interest someone here.

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyright-law/copyright-and-public-domain.php

what if someone next door heard it?

Hearing music doesn't diminish someone else's legal ownership of that music, nor does it allow others to legally distribute or reproduce copies of that music without license from the owners of the music itself.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

should they go next door and pay them money since the music they heard doesn't "belong" to them?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So you believe that songs should be treated like physical property and handed down from generation to generation as heirlooms?

If you're talking legally, your point about public broadcast is objectively false. There are many laws dictating how music can be played in public, to what size of an audience, the royalties required to be paid, etc. Playing Kidz Bop 32 at your kid's birthday party probably won't risk a law suit, but it would be illegal to play copyrighted music in public to a large group.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

should they go next door and pay them money since the music they heard doesn't "belong" to them?

No, and no one is advocating for them to do so.

So you believe that songs should be treated like physical property and handed down from generation to generation as heirlooms?

If you're talking legally, your point about public broadcast is objectively false. There are many laws dictating how music can be played in public, to what size of an audience, the royalties required to be paid, etc. Playing Kidz Bop 32 at your kid's birthday party probably won't risk a law suit, but it would be illegal to play copyrighted music in public to a large group.

It doesn't matter what I believe. We are talking about theft and ownership, which is something defined by the law and not my personal opinions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You realize that not all countries treat intellectual property equally, right? Law doesn't define ethics, even though good government in theory strives to make its laws ethical.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Yes, I'm aware. What country do you live in? I have a feeling that it's a country with strong laws about intellectual property ownership. I bet that the vast majority of people posting here are in the same situation.

Also, it's definitely unethical to steal copies of something made through the work of others that is being sold because you don't want to pay for it but you want to have it, especially something that you don't need to survive.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

Playing Kidz Bop 32 at your kid's birthday party probably won't risk a law suit

It should though, albeit for entirely different reasons.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, I'm aware. What country do you live in? I have a feeling that it's a country with strong laws about intellectual property ownership. I bet that the vast majority of people posting here are in the same situation.

Also, it's definitely unethical to steal copies of something made through the work of others that is being sold because you don't want to pay for it but you want to have it, especially something that you don't need to survive.

afaik Canada doesn't even care about personal IP infringement (e.g. individuals pirating games and music for personal use), for one example. You were talking earlier about downloading "rare" music as still being ethically challenging, which I think is questionable because no one would prosecute an infringement there unless a copyright holder wanted to press charges, and since OOP music by definition can't make money for the artist, there would seemingly be no potential financial loss to the artist.