What percentage of your music has been downloaded?

[IOfTheStorm]

beh calling others " not intelligent" doesnt make YOU intelligent.
Second: If all did the "intelligent" things you say, there wouldnt be any music. Artists would just release a debut, everyone would download it, and no sells would happen. The record company would give the finger to the artist and this would be the new "mp3 oriented reality". Technology is good, unless you are a slave to it. It reminds me a "fight club" quote, "the things you own, end up owning you". You can use the facilities of mp3s to listen to samples etc (as J says), but when you listen music ONLY from mp3s and you dont buy albums, then sorry you DONT LISTEN to music, you are NOT a music listener, neither a music LOVER. When you lose the enthusiam of buying an album, you've lost it.. start knitting. Music copyright laws..technology..cd burners.. WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THESE THINGS? Someone listened to music for his whole life and he buys albums, he doesnt need to bow down to new technology ways, in order to LOVE the music the way he did in all his life.

 

[J.]

Like PJ said, the selling of used CDs is what did the music industry in, not mp3s.

It's just surprising to me that kids these days see mp3 rips as legitimate albums. I guess I'm just old fashioned in wanting kids to get a fucking job to pay for those CDs instead of psuhing a few buttons, and then you've got it.

No matter how you slice it, I will never recognize mp3 rips as actual albums. Nothing compares with having the actual tangible item in your hand. Like I said, mp3s are for losers.

 

[J.]

Someone listened to music for his whole life and he buys albums, he doesnt need to bow down to new technology ways, in order to LOVE the music the way he did in all his life.

I really couldn't have said it better. These mp3 slaves are not music fans. They are just people too lazy to get a job to actual pay for the real thing.

 

[Erik]

I am sorry you are not intelligent enough to embrace a opinion far above your own capacity.

The basic fact is, music copyright law has been far surpassed by technology. This happens quite often in the field of law ( I went to law school)- for instance 100 years ago, in America, you owned the air above your house, with the creation of the airplane this changed.

Today with Cd burners, fileshring software, mp3 software, anyone can spread or download music and other media without paying a copyright fee. Is this so wrong? No. If the music and movie industry wishes to make money as it did in the past, and if lawyers decide copyrights are important, they will either adapt the law- or will improve technology. Before this happens, the music industry doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Copyright law has been surpassed by technology? Sorry, but it is irrelevant to the law whether or not something is easily accomplished. Previously I had to own a fucking CD press to make copies of CD's, today I can do it at home -- IT IS STILL the SAME crime. How about... I can very easily go out on the street and shoot someone. So quite obviously, "the basic fact is, murder law has been far surpassed by weapons technology." You are so annoyingly full of shit. You are far too much of an asshole to buy albums, that's the whole problem here. Don't give me BULLSHIT about "lol it's easy to do so the law is broken."

 

[speed]

You guys are a little naive. Your both giving pathetic moral arguments.

First, the existing copyright laws largely benefit the record companies, not the artists.

Second, nothing in music is all that original- ideas, lyrics, riffs, etc, have all been "stolen" if you will from another band etc without compensation.

Third, one can turn on the radio and listen to all the music one wants to for free- one can copy the music for their own private use. Its an excellent marketing tool- as mp3s could be.

On to Morality: apparently Moses came down with a commandment dont steal music- yet all the musicians played for free back then- music wasnt considered property until this century.

When did the appreciation for music entail the fact that one had to monatarily support the artist? When I listen to Bach played for free by an orchestra in a Cathedral, do I not appreciate it because I am not supporting the artist? Should I run out and buy the orchestra's cd because only then will I love music? This is ridiculous. Libraries, museums, etc, all free, all to encourage art.

Of course in capitalist system, and our current antiquedated music copyright system, artists recieve loyalites etc, and this promotes the creation of music. However, this also leads to artists making music for moneys sake, not music's sake ( see every big name pop and most rap stars- this is the system you are tyring to protect). I think every artist- every person who creates, is first concerned with reaching people in any way possible with their creation. If some can afford to pay- good, if some cant, well they too can enjoy the creation through mp3's or the radio etc. Why is this wrong?

The issue here is not whether buying or downloading music is wrong, its the current coypright system is broken: unfair, ancient, and in need of innovation. By downloading, one is merely reinforcing the need for a better system. And I am not the only one who thinks this, millions and millions of people download music illegally very day.

 

[Nate The Great]

I even buy albums of certain promos I recieve. If the band deserves to be heard, I feel they deserve my money. I could easily just listen to the promo in the cardboard sleeve, but I feel like I want the actual thing. mp3's just don't do it for me.

 

[speed]

I fail to understand your understanding of the law Erik. Poor laws are broken. They then are revised. This is how law works. Law is not absolute, it changes every year, or even every day. Comparing downloading music with homicide is a little ridiculous. Yet even laws on homicide change with the times- ie the issue of insanity and mental retardation- insanity was unknown until the beginning of the century, and gradually worked into every States criminal code.

 

[Erik]

But kindly do shut up. PLEASE REALIZE THIS: A LAW BEING "BROKEN" - AS THE CASE MAY BE - IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR BREAKING IT. Do you comprehend this?

 

[IOfTheStorm]

music wasnt considered property until this century.

omg... I suppose in older times, concerts or operas had free entrance...And musicians played music for free..

When I listen to Bach played for free by an orchestra in a Cathedral, do I not appreciate it because I am not supporting the artist? Should I run out and buy the orchestra's cd because only then will I love music? This is ridiculous. Libraries, museums, etc, all free, all to encourage art.

OMG.. YOU MADE THE ABSOLUTE COMPARISON .. do you realize what you are talking about? .. Do you realize that you comparing supporting the music of an artist who died hundrends of years ago, with supporting the albums an artists releases NOW?

However, this also leads to artists making music for moneys sake, not music's sake ( see every big name pop and most rap stars- this is the system you are tyring to protect). I think every artist- every person who creates, is first concerned with reaching people in any way possible with their creation. If some can afford to pay- good, if some cant, well they too can enjoy the creation through mp3's or the radio etc. Why is this wrong?

Your words are full of great pieces of antithesis. Just look to the first two sentences of the quote above. So the artist cares about money or about his creation reaching more people? And if the first is a reality, why SO many ARTISTS (in the true meaning of the word) playing music that will never grant them loads of money..just what they need. Also yes you almost forgot that sometimes money is not the absolute goal of some bands that eventually made money?
And if the artists "just wants to reach more people with his creation" then why all artists just "give away for free" their albums?.... I cant believe what you say.
And about the "if some can afford" .. PEOPLE WHO HAVE INTERNET AND PC IN THEIR HOMES CAN DEFINETALY AFFORD TO BUY AN ALBUM. They are not "third world country inhabitants" you know..

The issue here is not whether buying or downloading music is wrong, its the current coypright system is broken: unfair, ancient, and in need of innovation. By downloading, one is merely reinforcing the need for a better system. And I am not the only one who thinks this, millions and millions of people download music illegally very day

By downloading you just CUT THE WINGS OF NEW ARTISTS. I said why in my other post. Out of the millions of people who download music illegally every day, few (VERY FEW) are music lovers. And of course i dont give a fuck if millions do that..

 

[Tranquillian]

Since I have so many mp3s I'd like to clarify that most of them are burnt on cds that are never even looked at. I use mp3s to discover new bands and I definitely buy more albums than I can afford (150-200 a year).

 

[MFJ]

I only download live, rare, or free tracks, probably have downloaded about 6 illegal mp3's in the past 8 years or so.

.

 

[speed]

I dont know why I bother but...

Once again the issue is the fact that the current system is broken. When something is broken and a few pathetic draconian punitive lawsuits are the best record companies can do to stem the tide, well the human thing to do is to exploit- its a rational economic decision: If I can download for free, not be charged, and have the knowledge the system is broken and unfair, the law is not viable etc., then I am doing what any smart or rational human being would do.

Erik, please read the last message on the law. Or please talk to any lawyer. Or at least try to understand that Intellectual Property Law is the hottest field going now, as lawyers are scrambling about to fix laws that cannot be enforced, and do not work. I really am not going to waste my time with you.

I Of the Storm, yes you have made many excellent points. I agree with your antithesis comment yet you missed a huge point that you pointed out yourself: Many artists do make music for arts sake, even if they cant make any money from it. WHy is this the case, for many it is because of the structure of the current Copyright system. Their music is not mainstream enough to be picked up- or they dont get lucky and somehow get signed to a major label. Thus, for these artists, it really doesnt matter whether or not you buy their cds.

One would do much more to support these kind of artists, by attending their concerts, in which they make a much larger cut of the earnings, instead of buying cds that only make mainstream bands wealthy, and give smaller artists a mere pittance. I spend my money on concerts, not cds. however personally if the concert was free, Id have no problem seeing the band and downloadng their cd off soulseek.

I am still shocked how many of you see this as a moral issue, when it is mrely a issue of technology and antiquidated law. Surely in five years these huge corportations and their lawmakers will have something better to put in its place. Until then... I and many, many, others will continue downloading.

 

[Erik]

speed:
DOES A BROKEN, OBSOLETE LAW MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO BREAK IT?
DOES A BROKEN, OBSOLETE LAW MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO BREAK IT?
DOES A BROKEN, OBSOLETE LAW MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO BREAK IT?
DOES A BROKEN, OBSOLETE LAW MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO BREAK IT?
DOES A BROKEN, OBSOLETE LAW MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO BREAK IT?

ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER

 

[jimbobhickville]

holy fuck Erik, that was goddamn annoying.

I agree with speed to a certain extent; they system is broken and needs renovation. The flaw in his argument is that even though the record company makes the majority of the cost of CD sales, they are also the ones who determine the touring budget of the band based on those sales. So, not buying CDs means that they'll play fewer concerts and potentially be dropped by their label.

Anyhoo, I have like 12GB of downloaded mp3s of stuff I either want to buy or need to get around to listening to and deciding if I want to buy. I really should clean up the folder; there's a lot of stuff I never listen to and probably never will.

Oh, and I own almost 700 CDs now, so definitely a lot more than I have downloaded.

 

[lurch70]

Oddly enough, Erik, in another thread where you are selling your CD, you mention that the prices you charge for them is basically breaking even. Then why even bother going through duplication and marketing? Just let people download them.
I am qouting you from another thread:

these are pretty much break-even prices (the way it should be!)

if this is the case, just use the money for CD duplication, get an ad in some metal mag instead .. upload all your songs on the website ... and let everyone download everything. You will certainly get more people to listen to your stuff and spread the word.

What's the difference if you are not really looking to make money?



This was an actual qoute from the singer of Vehemence this last week when I saw them in concert. He said this between songs:

"We have some merchandise for sale here tonight, our new release on CD from MEtal Blade and a bunch fo cool T-Shirts. Forget the CD, we don't get shit from that, Metal Blade does ... so don't buy that one ... get a shirt instead as it helps us pay for living during this tour."

I am not going to lie, I download pretty much the same as I buy. Like someone else said, sometimes I even buy promos that I already own.

The moral is issue of downloading is debateable. The money ends up in the hands of the record company if you buy outright CD's. Bands make probably 80% of their money from touring and merchandise.

I am just surprised at Erik's stance on this as he is normally very outspoken ... as well as J. ... on artists doing things for the sake of art ... and selling out is a major issue with both of them.

Technology is definetelly way ahead of the old and bloated record industry. The problem does not lie with the artist or the consumer but rather with management not wanting to give up their hefty paychecks.

 

[Caelum Adustum]

I would much rather have the actual CDs, LPs or tapes with artwork and all than some MP3 file.

 

[Tranquillian]

What he said.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Good post lurch. I also agree with speed, for the most part.

I need to download before I buy because I buy TOO FUCKING MUCH!!! If I enjoy an album, I do everything in my power to purchase it...but I will but it used if I can get it that way too, which is KIND OF the same. I but so much music that I have to look out for numero uno. My spending habits on music far exceed my budget, to tell you the truth. But I still have over 120GB of music on my computer, many I have the actual copy, many I dont. Like I said, if I like it, I will buy it.

Im just ranting. lol

 

[Papa Josh]

To answer Erik's long, drawn out annoying question.... YES. Otherwise, many homosexuals would be thrown in jail for old sodomy laws that are still on the books.

Just because it's law does not make it right, that just means a majority got their way.

Anyhow, I download entire albums, but I usually go out and get the real thing as well. I'm over wasting money on an album that only has one or two good songs.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Many artists do make music for arts sake, even if they cant make any money from it. WHy is this the case, for many it is because of the structure of the current Copyright system. Their music is not mainstream enough to be picked up- or they dont get lucky and somehow get signed to a major label. Thus, for these artists, it really doesnt matter whether or not you buy their cds.

When an artist who makes music for arts sake releases a debut, he wants to have the chance of releasing MORE albums. Eventually his hard tries will be rewarded with MONEY (of course - he deserves them) and more people listening to his art. When many people that would buy his album, just download it (YOU for example), the album sells less than it deserves. How this artist has the chance to release more albums (more important), and get the attention of more people? How will this musican make his ART "mainstream" (mainstream meaning "more people listening to it), in order to be in a major label etc ? It matters to almost ALL artists to buy their music, if it doesnt (as you say) they would give their cds for free.

One would do much more to support these kind of artists, by attending their concerts, in which they make a much larger cut of the earnings, instead of buying cds that only make mainstream bands wealthy, and give smaller artists a mere pittance. I spend my money on concerts, not cds. however personally if the concert was free, Id have no problem seeing the band and downloadng their cd off soulseek.

This comes as a continuation of the first part of my post. If a band has no sales (because of downloading) then HOW THE BAND WILL GET ON TOUR AND MAKE GIGS? How will they release t-shirts (a great "profit machine" for metal bands). Buying cds makes mainstream bands wealthy..not only mainstream bands. Bands who release self financed albums have no company to take the money, the money --> BAND. The "mere pittance" you mention may be UNBELIEVABLY important to a small (small = non wealthy/mainstream .. small = almost all metal bands) band. I cant imagine what would happen if everyone downloaded the debut Rush released, the mini ep of Queensryche (buy buy EMI concert, and possibly BYE BYE Mindcrime etc) . You get the idea

I am still shocked how many of you see this as a moral issue, when it is mrely a issue of technology and antiquidated law. Surely in five years these huge corportations and their lawmakers will have something better to put in its place. Until then... I and many, many, others will continue downloading.

It is ALSO a moral issue. If you wrote music you wouldnt give it away for free. If you used all your money to pay for a studio, you wouldnt want everyone to download ur demo. And you wouldnt give for nothing, years of practicing, composing and (possibly) licking some big company's ass, in order to have ur ART released.
Apart from a moral issue, it is an issue of .. LISTENING. Seriously how you can listen to mp3s only? Listening to music being in front of a pc ? Do you give that music the attention it deserves in order to fully comprehend it? I cannot get this.