Discussing leaks

[soundave]

Sam, you really have the perfect Avatar for yourself!

 

[Lachybob]

^Haha yeh, i think anyone would be like that if they had to moderate this thing, especially at a time like this

 

[noura]

Sam, you really have the perfect Avatar for yourself!

Lol that's what I thought a few days back.

 

[soundave]

I think (correct me where I'm wrong, I don't want to speak for you) the main difference between soundave's and my reasoning, or rather our view of morality, is that soundave considers something morally wrong if it's a morally neutral choice when there is also a morally "righter" choice to take, while I consider anything that doesn't inflict any harm or has a negative effect to others (which includes both morally neutral and morally right decisions) as not morally wrong. Another difference, which is clear by comparing our answers to the 3rd and last question, is that soundave attaches importance to not taking any actions that would violate a band's wishes about what can and can not be done with their creation, even when the band itself will never notice anything from those actions, and will not be affected by them.

I guess aside from my division of morals in wrong, neutral and right, and soundave's division in just wrong and right, my view of morality is based more on dry logic and analysis of the effects of choices, while soundave's view is based more on feelings and principles. I think soundave believes certain principles should be upheld to be morally right, even if they don't have any effect. For example not downloading the album if the band wouldn't want you to, even if you've already paid for the album, but it hasn't arrived yet, and not downloading a single illegally, even if you could have legally downloaded it before. The only problem with this reasoning is that the band will not be affected by these choices, and so the choices will not cause any moral harm.

In essence, I think that his view of morality is not the best way to analyse the effects of choices, but I do think that it's a very good attitude for a person to have, since every once in a while when you take decisions based on analysis of possible effects, you're going to miss some factor and take a choice that does have negative effects. If, like soundave, you follow your feelings of what is best (granted you're not a psychopath who misses those feelings), or uphold certain rigid principles, you're very unlikely to do something with negative effects for others.

Hope I didn't make too many erroneous suppositions.

I don't think you made too many erroneous suppositions. I try to stick to principles, even when it seems like no one would ever know if I didn't. I've been accused of being idealistic.

One point to consider is that in your system, the person who is making a choice must somehow determine if the action they take will at some time be discovered by the party it might or might not ill affect. I don't know how one can seriously know this with certainty. I know for certain, for example (and not to be inflammatory), that Mike doesn't want me to download and listen to "Coil" yet. I'd rather make my decision based on something I know for certain. Again, I was pretty certain Metallica wouldn't know I'd downloaded their music, and I eventually discovered I was wrong.

Secondly, and it's sort of a minor point of contention, is that just because a product is offered at a particular price point at one point in time does not mean you are guaranteed of obtaining it at that price forever. In our example's instance, because a track was once free, doesn't mean it always will be. It's a promotion used to create buzz. That you could have gotten it for free has no bearing on the present situation.


Otherwise, I think you got it right. I appreciate the thoughtfulness.

 

[Opethian666]

Well, since the original topic doesn't really deserve much discussion anymore, maybe we could use this thread for some ethics/philosophy discussion ( : puppy eyes directed at Samsara : ). I've always missed that on this forum (along with science/religion discussion). I hope Samsara won't take offense at me expressing this opinion (which would be understandable in the current circumstances), and I don't expect respect for it, response to it, or need for an explanation of why you disagree (maybe it's simply because of what the band wants, which would make this whole post look pretty stupid, if that's the case, this might be a good opportunity to point and laugh and vent your frustration ).

I recall an earlier point Samsara made about this obviously being a music forum and that other topics should be discussed in other forums, which is possible even on UM in the philosophy section. A point which I would make is that there is an additional value to be had by discussing such topics with fans of a specific band, especially one like Opeth, since music (certainly when progressive and extreme, and when expressing uncommon nuanced atmospheres associated with emotions, unlikely to be appreciated by a large percentage of a population) is something that is correllated with other interests, world views, ideas etc..., and therefore there is a higher chance of sharing such ideas, interests and world views with fans of the same band.

An additional but overlapping point would be that the UM philosophy section isn't really that active, and not frequented by many Opeth fans.

Again, I don't want to attach any importance to this opinion, and I'm sure you have had enough pointless discussions, I don't expect any response or explanation from you in the case you don't feel the need to give me one. But of course, if you are inclined to do so, go ahead.

P.S. Yes it seems that I am slightly crazy.

 

[Metalstrm]

Well, since the original topic doesn't really deserve much discussion anymore, maybe we could use this thread for some ethics/philosophy discussion ( : puppy eyes directed at Samsara : ). I've always missed that on this forum (along with science/religion discussion). I hope Samsara won't take offense at me expressing this opinion (which would be understandable in the current circumstances), and I don't expect respect for it, response to it, or need for an explanation of why you disagree (maybe it's simply because of what the band wants, which would make this whole post look pretty stupid, if that's the case, this might be a good opportunity to point and laugh and vent your frustration ).

I recall an earlier point Samsara made about this obviously being a music forum and that other topics should be discussed in other forums, which is possible even on UM in the philosophy section. A point which I would make is that there is an additional value to be had by discussing such topics with fans of a specific band, especially one like Opeth, since music (certainly when progressive and extreme, and when expressing uncommon nuanced atmospheres associated with emotions, unlikely to be appreciated by a large percentage of a population) is something that is correllated with other interests, world views, ideas etc..., and therefore there is a higher chance of sharing such ideas, interests and world views with fans of the same band.

An additional but overlapping point would be that the UM philosophy section isn't really that active, and not frequented by many Opeth fans.

Again, I don't want to attach any importance to this opinion, and I'm sure you have had enough pointless discussions, I don't expect any response or explanation from you in the case you don't feel the need to give me one. But of course, if you are inclined to do so, go ahead.

P.S. Yes it seems that I am slightly crazy.

I agree. After all, Opeth fans like to think of themselves as enlightened people So why not discuss enlightened subjects (related of course) in the forum. We could find quite a few topics that relate to Opeth. I am surprised, for example, how this thread started with a discussion of leaks and ended with a discussion of morals and ethics. Much better than the typical "use the search button, noob" thread.

 

[soundave]

You guys are my new pals here.

I really miss Derbeder at times like these. He'd have been able to make some good points. In the old days, I think Kenneth would have commented here, and had something worthwhile considering. But, and forgive me if I'm wrong my friend, I think he's sick of these kinds of threads.

I think, btw, that we ARE still on topic.

 

[Lachybob]

This is great, everytime i have something to add to this topic, one of you beat me to it and all im left with to say is im in agreeance with yous. I actually thought this thread would go the way of petty namecalling and 'No, YOUR wrong' arguements, so reading logical arguements and people who agree... well its just a nice change for once. Hell its why i decided to sign up and comment on these forums instead of just lurk around like usual

 

[Frosties]

It would be great if we could expand this forum a bit to discuss other subjects other than music. But I don't see that happenening any time soon and I think the fate of all of those threads will be the same as the Book Thread. Which is a shame, really.

 

[Metalstrm]

Well we could always keep it related to the music. Just as this thread shows. I think...

 

[Opethian666]

I don't think you made too many erroneous suppositions. I try to stick to principles, even when it seems like no one would ever know if I didn't. I've been accused of being idealistic.

There's nothing wrong with idealism if it doesn't harm anyone.

One point to consider is that in your system, the person who is making a choice must somehow determine if the action they take will at some time be discovered by the party it might or might not ill affect. I don't know how one can seriously know this with certainty. I know for certain, for example (and not to be inflammatory), that Mike doesn't want me to download and listen to "Coil" yet. I'd rather make my decision based on something I know for certain. Again, I was pretty certain Metallica wouldn't know I'd downloaded their music, and I eventually discovered I was wrong.

Indeed, that's something I also noted in my post, and is of course a serious drawback, especially if choices are made without sufficient contemplation (which is bound to happen in this modern, stressful world). Concerning the example you gave, my view is that one individual that downloads an already leaked song/album, will not affect the band that made it. I agree that this violates the band's wishes, but from the moment the leak is there, there is nothing that can be done to prevent that violation, and one person refraining from downloading the leak will not really make a difference.

It's the person that is responsible for leaking the music who causes the inevitable to follow, and no matter how many individuals choose not to download the leak, there will be many more who do download it, so the wish of the band can never be realised. I think the only thing that matters to the band is that they can decide who can listen to their creations, and when. This can either be a reality or not, there's not really anything in between, and so differences in the quantity of people that have made it impossible to realise the wish, don't have much effect. From the moment the music has been leaked, the damage has been done, and the exact amount of people that listen to their music in advance of release doesn't really matter. Well that's at least what I think.

Secondly, and it's sort of a minor point of contention, is that just because a product is offered at a particular price point at one point in time does not mean you are guaranteed of obtaining it at that price forever. In our example's instance, because a track was once free, doesn't mean it always will be. It's a promotion used to create buzz. That you could have gotten it for free has no bearing on the present situation.

Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. The fact that the track was at one time downloadable for free, means that it is possible for it to remain free, since I suppose the downloaded song won't suddenly self-destruct mission impossible-style from your hard drive the moment the free download becomes a priced download (although that would be rather cool, maybe with a growled "this song will self-destruct in 5 seconds" and a nice animated explosion in your music player ).

Now, the problem for my perspective lies in the fact that in the hypothetical situation, you forgot to download it, and it is no longer free. So when looking only at the present situation, it's quite simple, the single has a price, so you should pay it (of course, when nuanced, it depends on whether you would find it worthwhile to pay for the single if an illegal download was not available. If you wouldn't, then it wouldn't affect the band if you downloaded the single illegally).

But when also taking into account the past, there's the fact that if you had remembered, you had downloaded it for free. This, of course, has consequences for the present, because if you had downloaded it, the track would still be free. At that point in my reasoning, I look at which factors decided between the two outcomes which could have arisen in the present, depending on what you did in the past. In essence it is just your memory that "decided" between whether you would have it for free or at a price.

From how the scenario was written I assume it was absolutely the intention to download it for free, but this wasn't possible because of unknown factors that lead to forgetfulness. There are all kinds of factors which could be involved, but remembering or not remembering is definitely not a moral choice in my book, and certainly not a moral choice that has effects for the band. And that is kind of the basis of why I don't find downloading the single illegally morally wrong.

Otherwise, I think you got it right. I appreciate the thoughtfulness.

Thanks, I also appreciate the response. It's always nice to be able to discuss topics like this, and doing it with rational arguments instead of petty ad hominems or baseless assertions (which is pretty much the standard on most forums). That's also the only way anyone can actually learn and benefit from a discussion.

 

[Metalstrm]

Guys, have you seen the Opeth facebook page? It's ridiculous, everyone there is discussing the album leak, on the official facebook.

I really think it's unbelievably shameful.

 

[Lachybob]

^that it is, its an utter disgrace. Cannot believe that some people dont see how its rude to do that either. Its like meeting opeth after a show and go 'hey guys you were great, ive downloaded all your albums, can you sign this opeth shirt i got printed up myself for 10 bucks?'

 

[BefriendedUnit]

Bump.

 

[atropos_project]

I mean, don't you respect Mike? This is his board. He actually pays for it! Forget the question whether or not you should download the stuff illegally for a moment, and think on what Mike said:

"I totally understand how filesharing helped spread our name and I'd never diss it on that basis. From my personal point of view I don't download as I want the actual copy of the album. I could never have a CDR copy in my collection. I'd see the fake spine of the case in the corner of my eye while watching the telly and go..."Fuck that thing!". With my record collecting I've always been purist and that aint gonna change anytime soon.

There's a few things I really don't like about it and that is the "leak" of a new record. That upsets me to no end and I can honestly say I hate it. It's our piece of art/work that WE decide when it's made public, not anyone else. So yeah, when a new album leaks before the release we feel nothing short of ripped off. The people leaking it seem to have the "look what I found...you can thank me later..." type of attitude.

These are rough times for metal bands. The only way to survive is to tour a lot but I'm worried ticket prices will be massively inflated soon because of the album sales going down. Then again, that's just speculations.....

Hope all is well with you guys.
Cheers
Mike"

This is a pretty interesting thread so far, and refreshingly absent from the normal name calling etc that can go on.

There are so many viewpoints to look at this situation with, all with some valid points.

We have the arguement that downloading is not theft as it's merely duplication; to this, I argue that, much like software development, there are costs involved in the creation of a musical product far before the distribution of a given disc comes into play. It's simple enough to realize that tickets are sold to a live show because many folks are involved, folks that are all earning livlihoods from that event... I don't see how anyone ignores this when dealing with cd's.

I tend to think that true fans of any band will eventually want to own actual product, for a variety of reasons. I also feel that the people who refuse to buy discs simply wouldn't bother anyhow *at this point* if downloading was somehow completely removed from the equation.

I also wonder about the pressure and expectations that a label like RR may put on a band like Opeth.. certainly huge sales numbers aren't expected, but I'm sure that there is a "lets sell more than GR on this one" mentality, and that must put the leak issue into the spotlight a bit.

I thought that the way Radiohead handled their latest CD was rather interesting Granted, the situations are apples and oranges, but it makes me wonder how many people still bothered to illegally grab the tracks afterwards.

Secondly, and it's sort of a minor point of contention, is that just because a product is offered at a particular price point at one point in time does not mean you are guaranteed of obtaining it at that price forever. In our example's instance, because a track was once free, doesn't mean it always will be. It's a promotion used to create buzz. That you could have gotten it for free has no bearing on the present situation.

I agree with this... all sorts of merchandise is available for free or lowered prices at various times, but these things fluctuate. You can't walk into a Guitar Center a month after one of their clearance sales and demand the same price, for example.