Music downloading is it good or bad?

[Badbird]

The only way you'd bother buying their Cd would probably be if you really thought they should get the support. It's just a waste of money to already have an album, then spend ten bucks on the same one.

Well I think they should get the support they get.

 

[imaeatyoursoul]

i dont like to do it. if i buy something i want to be able to touch it i.e. a cd or vinyl record. but i NEVER illegally download, thats just fucking over the artists.

 

[Vossyrus]

I haven't read any of the other replies yet...

But it's obvious that downloading is bad for the artists. The positives are easily outnumbered by the negatives. The majority of people simply will not buy what they've downloaded, and most people only own a handful of CDs. I download but I buy CDs whenever I can. Fans have a tendency to think that all bands are rich, spoiled rockstars and that's hardly the case, especially in metal.

*Another thing though to keep in mind though: When you buy a used CD on ebay or wherever, you technically aren't supporting the artist aside from being a fan of their music.

...the loudness war is just awful and I already dislike the style that most albums are produced in these days.

 

[Living_Monstrosity]

I have been buying a lot of CD's lately. But for the most part it's downloading.

 

[Rough Divide]

Really its a matter of opinion but like someone mentioned earlier, its only bad if you take the support from a artist that is in the beginning of their career or hasn't sold a whole lot of albums but really it depends on the quantity of people downloading music. Because if one person is pirating music it wont effect them at all, if a hundred thousand or more people are downloading it might effect the artist a little depending on where they are in their career honestly it depends on the artist. And many people have different opinions on the subject not hard to see that, but I will say just because someone doesn't buy their CD doesn't mean they don't appreciate their music nor does it mean they don't respect them.

Because if they didn't appreciate them then why would they download it and keep in on their computer? Some people just like to spend their money on other things, and others like to collect just the way it is, everyone isn't the same if that were true there wouldn't be multiple music genres. Some people just per fer the easy way instead of spending their cash on CDS. Just think about people that love Iron Maiden obviously a great deal of people like them, that's no surprise. But for the really big fans of them that like nearly most of their songs think about how much money people would spend getting all their CDs, it wouldn't be cheap. Not only Iron Maiden though, just using them as an example because a lot of people that are into Metal don't only just like one band so really if everyone spends money on the CDs instead of downloading once in awhile then their losing a lot of money that way. Plus a lot of people can't afford multiple Albums sounds silly but its the truth.

 

[BaNnEdFrOmHeVeN]

well, the only time i download music is when i've heard of a new band that i haven't heard much of but i'm interested in them. then i will download a couple albums and see if i like them and if i do i will buy. and the other times i download are when a band doesn't sell their albums in the U.S. i will download that because i don't want to pay to have it shipped here. what i think is wrong is when people just download full discography's of bands they like and never buy anything from them.

 

[monoxide_child]

at the end of the day, the issue of whether or not the downloads replacing CDs actually affects the individual artists is something that really comes down to how the individual artist spends his/her money

if you decide to live in cheap rent apt instead of mansion
if you decide to drive a kia instead of caddilac
if you decide to eat tuna instead of caviar

then just getting your effin name on the dam contract will actually pay your bills

however, some people get stupid with their money
MC Hammer for example, actually admited that he paid for 100 cars and that were all caddilacs, who the hell's gonna have any money left after that?

i really don't think downloading music really had that much of an impact on musicians

 

[Badbird]

Unless their name is Lars Ulrich

 

[monoxide_child]

Unless their name is Lars Ulrich

 

[Death Aflame]

The real underlying issue here is a normative discussion on copyright. What are its effects? Who controls copyright? Can products of the intellect be considered 'property'?

I tend to fall in the against intellectual property camp, but admittedly it is not something that I have spent much time thinking/reading about.

 

[razoredge]

obviously

 

[Schnappi]

The real underlying issue here is a normative discussion on copyright. What are its effects? Who controls copyright? Can products of the intellect be considered 'property'?

I tend to fall in the against intellectual property camp, but admittedly it is not something that I have spent much time thinking/reading about.

That is utter bs, and seems pretty marxist in its roots. What gives anyone the right to make claim to anothers creations, it all stems from this egalitarian horse shit nonsense. Nothing in nature is equal, as such, there is no such thing as inherent individual rights. Charles Darwin would punch you in the face.

 

[Oskoreii]

I usually download to make sure it's worth buying. If i download something, and gets addicted to it immediately (like what happened with Insomnium), i purchase at least one album of the artist. however, most albums/songs i download turns out to be shit.

 

[Dak]

I think the elephant in the room that is ignored in debates over downloading is the economics involved. If our monetary system was not as it is (debt based), no one would have a problem buying whatever they felt like buying. But because to buy one thing you want means to do without another, people will naturally gravitate towards anything that allows them to "have their cake and eat it too".

 

[Death Aflame]

That is utter bs, and seems pretty marxist in its roots. What gives anyone the right to make claim to anothers creations, it all stems from this egalitarian horse shit nonsense. Nothing in nature is equal, as such, there is no such thing as inherent individual rights. Charles Darwin would punch you in the face.

Thanks for putting words, assumptions, and ideologies into my mouth.

I was simply asking questions I think ought be considered when discussing products of copyright/intellectual property, such as music.

Speaking of strawmen, I am fairly confident that Darwin was not himself a social darwinist.

 

[Schnappi]

Thanks for putting words, assumptions, and ideologies into my mouth.

I was simply asking questions I think ought be considered when discussing products of copyright/intellectual property, such as music.

Speaking of strawmen, I am fairly confident that Darwin was not himself a social darwinist.

You were not asking questions, you blatantly stated you do not believe in individual ownership.

I tend to fall in the against intellectual property camp

 

[Cythraul]

That is utter bs, and seems pretty marxist in its roots.

You were not asking questions, you blatantly stated you do not believe in individual ownership.

There's nothing Marxist about questioning the legitimacy of a particular form of supposed property. He wasn't questioning the legitimacy of individual private property nor of property as such. The question he raised was whether products of the mind can even be considered property at all. What, exactly, is Marxist about that?

Think before you post.

 

[Dak]

I don't think anyone ever questioned the right to ownership of the product of the mind until we moved into a computer age, because prior to the computer age, any product of the mind inevitably needed physical materials to be duplicated/owned, which people just took for granted and never really questioned the right to the product of the mind.

With the ease of copying reduced to copy/paste/rip, with zero raw materials used (ink,paper, printing press, etc.), there is no longer any physical loss/investment, thus leading people to question the former.

With music specifically, I think the whole purpose of the recorded music should be to get the word out about your band so people come see you perform live. But due to the vampirical nature of corporate types, the recording industry has seen this as a way to make massive amounts of money while sitting on their ass, swindling consumers and musicians alike out of their cash.

When you cut money off from a particular destination, see who hollars and you find out who is really getting it, and very few bands are complaining about downloaders. It's the labels that are complaining. Studios are complaining about ProTools, etc.

Business models change and evolve, and the titans of the old way are always going to try and claw and change laws to keep them on top.

 

[Schnappi]

There's nothing Marxist about questioning the legitimacy of a particular form of supposed property. He wasn't questioning the legitimacy of individual private property nor of property as such. The question he raised was whether products of the mind can even be considered property at all. What, exactly, is Marxist about that?

Think before you post.

Oh ? and where do you draw the line, if you do not claim right of ownership for your own creations than what gives you the right to own anything. Why dont you think about the implications of what you and others say instead of being a smartass.

 

[Cythraul]

Oh ? and where do you draw the line, if you do not claim right of ownership for your own creations than what gives you the right to own anything. Why dont you think about the implications of what you and others say instead of being a smartass.

Nobody is objecting to the right to own one's own creations per se, but rather the right to own an abstract object such as intellectual "property". Get straight about your opponents' arguments before you shoot your mouth off, pal.