Whats happened to Metal??

[Seditious]

I'm not entirely sure how strip clubs work, but I would imagine that strippers actually receive a paycheck, so even barring any other absurdities that come to fruition through this comparison, the fact that strippers are naturally paid for their performances renders the analogy dead on arrival.

that's moot.
all I'm concerned with is that they're doing something without the expectation of me paying them anything. whether or not they have some earlier arrangement with other people is none of my business.

I do find it interesting how you feel it prudent to compare art to prostitution, however, which continues below:

what would you prefer for an analogy of someone complaining about you deriving pleasure from them without them receiving any financial reward they feel they earned?

Whether or not you feel obliged to give a stripper money is your own personal issue. Strippers and artists alike who offer their services for free should be under no pretense of expecting recompense for their generosity, of course, but this was not the issue. The issue was illegal downloading I believe, which is of course not a case of artists providing free access to their works.

they don't like the fact they did, but they did. no different to the old radio/cassette issue--if you put it out there for even a penniless homeless man to enjoy, that's your call.

 

[Dak]

As I stated in the thread on this in the philosopher section, it is irrelevant whether or not the artist put it out for free or not, because you are downloading from someone who paid for said piece of art, and is now distributing it without expecting compensation. The wishes of the artist don't enter into this.

 

[skeptik]

that's moot.
all I'm concerned with is that they're doing something without the expectation of me paying them anything. whether or not they have some earlier arrangement with other people is none of my business.

Of course it's not moot. One performs a service knowing that a paycheck is coming; he or she is in the employ of an establishment. The other has no guarantee of a payday. A band is much more like a business owner than a stripper in that sense. Your concern falls short of the real issue, so it doesn't interest me.

what would you prefer for an analogy of someone complaining about you deriving pleasure from them without them receiving any financial reward they feel they earned?

Essentially anybody who does anything with the expectation of being recompensed monetarily or otherwise for their service is then a prostitute, rendering the word meaningless, so by all means, continually analogize artists with prostitutes.

they don't like the fact they did, but they did. no different to the old radio/cassette issue--if you put it out there for even a penniless homeless man to enjoy, that's your call.

I'm a little confused since you didn't identify your meaning here. Is 'they' "the artist" and is 'did' "offer their services for free should be under no pretense of expecting recompense for their generosity"? If so, who are you to determine whether or not 'they' 'did' or if 'they' dislike the fact that 'they' 'did'? Perhaps they did, and perhaps they did it intentionally and willingly, and that they do like it (like Against Nature for example).

As far as your last claim goes, it ties in to Dakryn's response, so I'll respond to it there.

As I stated in the thread on this in the philosopher section, it is irrelevant whether or not the artist put it out for free or not, because you are downloading from someone who paid for said piece of art, and is now distributing it without expecting compensation. The wishes of the artist don't enter into this.

The problem with your claim is that the 'someone who paid for said piece of art' is not by right allowed to blindly and openly share his purchase. The act of doing so is in fact a direct breach of the responsibility of the consumer with regards to digital media. It is not permissible to make freely available a material that is commercially bound for free attainment to anybody with an internet connection. And even if it were true that it is permissible for a legal consumer to openly share media to a blind audience, it is not true that the illegal consumer shares in that privilege.

 

[Dak]

I am talking of course about morals as opposed to current copyright laws.

 

[The Butt]

Oh hey a downloading debate nobody wants to look at, with Dodens going into SuperXtremeFanaticismMode²

Not like that doesn't happen often

 

[Badbird]

razoredge would love this thread. With his hate for extreme metal, he would love it.

 

[The Butt]

Oh please I hope he doesn't come back.

 

[Badbird]

Oh please I hope he doesn't come back.

He still around. I guess he didn't like the GMD at all.

 

[Inso]

I think artists have the right to expect something in return for the money they've spent and the effort they've put in. Most people who are downloading free music are doing it with a computer and an internet connection that costs money. "Fiscal status" is a blurry line really, it all depends on your priorities. If paying for music is a low priority for you but you're greatly interested in music and have an extensive downloaded collection of albums by bands that aren't perhaps as commercially successful as Metallica, it shows ignorance, a lack of respect and a complete detachment from the realities of the processes involved in keeping art being made. Look at it this way: A painter shows his/her art at a gallery, people can come and look and enjoy it, and if they really like it they can buy it and take it home. This is how the internet should be imo. Browse, listen, but if you really like something, buy it. Give something back for the privilege of being able to enjoy it whenever you please.

I agree with this completely. It just doesn't feel right to enjoy an album without paying for it. I download stuff to test it out but always buy if I like it. People work hard to make this stuff, buying the proper album shows an appreciation for this.

However the internet has enabled new bands to gain have much faster exposure around the world which generates interest quickly. How much the extra revenue that would be generated by this greater exposure is offset by all the pirating of their albums that goes on is unknown. Hard to say where the balance lies here.

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

Oh hey a downloading debate nobody wants to look at, with Dodens going into SuperXtremeFanaticismMode²

Not like that doesn't happen often

Better than the erotic male love in the form of album cover posting that takes place in megathreads.

 

[The Butt]

At least album covers are fun to look at

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

OMG YOU POSTED THE ALBUM COVER TO SCREAM BLOODY GORE!!!1!!
LET ME SUCK UR COCK PLZ!

 

[Seditious]

I am talking of course about morals as opposed to current copyright laws.

be gone with your sanity!

 

[Seditious]

It just doesn't feel right to enjoy an album without paying for it.

how does it feel when you buy a second hand album on ebay for a fraction of the price?

how would it feel if you bought one at a yard sale for a nickel?

how would it feel if your friend said 'I don't like this band anymore, do you want my old CDs'?

If you appreciate the band, would you simply refuse to make any of those purchases, preferring to buy an original so that the band actually receives something?

I download stuff to test it out but always buy if I like it. People work hard to make this stuff, buying the proper album shows an appreciation for this.

I don't really get that.
I should think using a 'donate' paypal button on the band's website could show your appreciation, no need to say 'I appreciate plastic, CD format, the arrangement of songs you chose, and your album cover'.

the internet has enabled new bands to gain have much faster exposure around the world which generates interest quickly. How much the extra revenue that would be generated by this greater exposure is offset by all the pirating of their albums that goes on is unknown. Hard to say where the balance lies here.

indeed. without the ability to download, I would have never hunted for all the music I now like. so, in either world--the world of piracy, or the world without--they would receive no money from me (even if I actually had said money). This argument doesn't apply to everyone with their gas-guzzlers and swimming pools, but it's suffice to justify my own behavior.

 

[Seditious]

Essentially anybody who does anything with the expectation of being recompensed monetarily or otherwise for their service is then a prostitute, rendering the word meaningless, so by all means, continually analogize artists with prostitutes.

I expect to be compensated for this conversation, it's my art. Call me what you want, but I'm calling you immoral if I don't get the two grand I feel it's worth.

 

[waif]

A used cd means someone bought it new, so the band did receive money. A used CD can only go through so many people per actual copy sold, whereas with downloading one copy can go to unlimited numbers of people. Thus, the harm to the music industry from the sales of used music is nothing compared to the harm done by downloading.
Besides that, when a band sells you their album, it's yours to do with as you please. If you buy a guitar or a toy or something like that, you have the right to sell that thing to someone else. You don't have the right to make an infinite number of copies and give them away for free; that violates the copyright.

A more interesting dilemma would be: what if a friend lends you his copy of an album to burn?

 

[The Butt]

I expect to be compensated for this conversation, it's my art. Call me what you want, but I'm calling you immoral if I don't get the two grand I feel it's worth.

I am not against downloading, but lol ur dum

 

[skeptik]

I expect to be compensated for this conversation, it's my art. Call me what you want, but I'm calling you immoral if I don't get the two grand I feel it's worth.

I hope that we can agree that, while there is not a currently known universal and fully comprehensive understanding of what constitutes a work of art, we can agree that a typical conversation is not anywhere near close to being one. Nonetheless, you touch on an interesting point regarding the 'meritorious' arts that we sometimes designate to what are actually crafts, and not arts at all, like cooking, auto repair, or even the 'custodial arts'. While we may sometimes meritoriously refer to something like "the culinary arts", it is not, of course, an actual artistic mode of expression per se.

As for Dakryn's post, I was speaking entirely of the moral implications as well regardless of the 'legal' terminology.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Holy shit. I had no idea I started such a debate.

 

[Inso]

A used cd means someone bought it new, so the band did receive money. A used CD can only go through so many people per actual copy sold, whereas with downloading one copy can go to unlimited numbers of people. Thus, the harm to the music industry from the sales of used music is nothing compared to the harm done by downloading.
Besides that, when a band sells you their album, it's yours to do with as you please. If you buy a guitar or a toy or something like that, you have the right to sell that thing to someone else. You don't have the right to make an infinite number of copies and give them away for free; that violates the copyright.

A more interesting dilemma would be: what if a friend lends you his copy of an album to burn?

This. Thanks, couldn't be bothered to type that out lol. Problem with torrent sites and the like is that one person can upload it and then thousands of people can download it straight away and it spreads like that. Granted many of those people may not have bought the album anyway, but still a lot would have if that was the only way to get a permanent, decent sounding copy. A physical copy may be transferred between people but its nothing compared to the effect of piracy over the net.