Who downloads/who does'nt

[Seditious]

EDIT: BTW, listening to a song you youtube is a same kind of "stealing" as downloading it (unless it's an official channel) so that whole "Rate what the person above is listening to" thread should be named "Rate what the person above stole on the internet".

it's amazing the double-standard people have for youtube.

 

[Seditious]

Do you acquire the music files upon listening to the song?

are you saying it's ok to pirate an album as long as you delete it and re-download it all over again the next time you want to hear it, as if it was merely in your Temporary Internet Files?

 

[Seditious]

So basically, you've got no real argument to put forth in defense of filesharing,

I don't have an argument against car theft, all I can say is 'lock your doors if you don't like it, and if you're really fearful of it, sell your car and take public transportation'. I say the same thing of piracy--either take precautions or don't take the risk if it's too much for you.
reminds me of all the whinging idiot 'mom and pop investors'--they ignorantly invest, lose their money, then complain as if they deserve it back, as if their choice to gamble their life savings instead of bank it is any different to the misfortune of other gamblers.
If you don't like what might happen, if you don't like that you might not be rewarded how you like, then don't make music your source of income. You know what you're getting yourself involved in.

 

[Seditious]

Too many people download without the intent of ever buying anything and I think that is the major issue.

unless many of those people would have bought anything (more importantly, the same thing) if there was no filesharing, that's hardly an issue.

I haven't heard x or y famous Metallica album (I know all you Americans have been familiar with them since you were 10 years old...but not everyone has). It will never be played on the radio (which, in any case, I don't listen to), nor on TV (just the occasional 'single'). Unwilling to pillage them thar albums in 56k (downloading) or broadband (streaming)-friendly ways, since they be such scallywags, I can assure you that I will never send any money in their direction. ...if I was to download something of theirs, it wouldn't be the downloading that does any harm to their profits. The downloading would do little more than facilitate my interest (kinda like Dragon's Den--it gives them the opportunity to be heard by someone who might or not might want to spend money, who certainly isn't spending it there while it's unheard). The worst case scenario where downloading is involved, is where I like a song, keep the song, enjoy it, and never give them any money.
As a bitter angry spiteful hateful person, I can appreciate how Metallica would feel about someone being happy thanks to you, but giving you nothing in return, but it's not clear that I'd really feel that much schadenfreude, that much satisfaction to know someone has been prevented from enjoying something free/unexpendable that I want reward for.

 

[fps]

unless many of those people would have bought anything (more importantly, the same thing) if there was no filesharing, that's hardly an issue.

I haven't heard x or y famous Metallica album (I know all you Americans have been familiar with them since you were 10 years old...but not everyone has). It will never be played on the radio (which, in any case, I don't listen to), nor on TV (just the occasional 'single'). Unwilling to pillage them thar albums in 56k (downloading) or broadband (streaming)-friendly ways, since they be such scallywags, I can assure you that I will never send any money in their direction. ...if I was to download something of theirs, it wouldn't be the downloading that does any harm to their profits. The downloading would do little more than facilitate my interest (kinda like Dragon's Den--it gives them the opportunity to be heard by someone who might or not might want to spend money, who certainly isn't spending it there while it's unheard). The worst case scenario where downloading is involved, is where I like a song, keep the song, enjoy it, and never give them any money.
As a bitter angry spiteful hateful person, I can appreciate how Metallica would feel about someone being happy thanks to you, but giving you nothing in return, but it's not clear that I'd really feel that much schadenfreude, that much satisfaction to know someone has been prevented from enjoying something free/unexpendable that I want reward for.

Metallica really aren't the issue, they have more money than God and I BOUGHT St Anger, which immediately entitles me to download one album free of charge. Death Magnetic was good, I'm looking forward to the new one, but I'm quite possibly going to use the money I would have spent on it to buy a smaller band's CD instead, or go to a show. Money is very, very tight for me.

 

[Seditious]

Metallica really aren't the issue, they have more money than God and I BOUGHT St Anger, which immediately entitles me to download one album free of charge.

Metallica don't deserve to be victims of criminal activity any more than any other artist. do they?

 

[Satanstoenail]

Metallica don't deserve to be victims of criminal activity any more than any other artist. do they?

Gosh, what a moral conundrum.

 

[Avigrus]

I admit that i do download, mainly to check out new bands. I also buy a few CDs a week - as many as i can. I have an enormous collection of CDs & records - it's my pride and joy.

They really need to fix the music situation in Aus. The AUD dollar is at roughly $1.04 US and we're still paying $30+ for CDs when i can pick them up on Amazon for around $10. It's a fucking joke. Now Amazon UK has free delivery to Australia - picking up shitloads of bargains on that website.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

are you saying it's ok to pirate an album as long as you delete it and re-download it all over again the next time you want to hear it, as if it was merely in your Temporary Internet Files?

Not at all what I'm saying. However if you addressed more than one specific statement by itself you would know that.

 

[AchrisK]

Rarely download. I even rarely listen to album tracks before buying an album. I mostly go on written reviews and whatnot. But I am trying to incorporate a little more sampling before buying into my process, in an effort to waste less time.

 

[Satanstoenail]

They really need to fix the music situation in Aus. The AUD dollar is at roughly $1.04 US and we're still paying $30+ for CDs when i can pick them up on Amazon for around $10.

Where are you buying your cds? The only cds I ever see over $30 are rarities/imports and limited pressings.

 

[JontRevolting]

Actual music stores in Australia seem to be among the first casualties of online shopping.Melbourne seems to have pretty competitive prices(around $20 per cd on average),not sure about the rest of the country but down here in Tassie they still try and charge $30 a cd.Already a few music stores here have gone out of business and deservedly so if they think that people are stupid enough to pay theses prices and don't acknowledge that the majority of people now have access to the net and can buy these so called ímports'at less than half the price.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Actually, listening to a song on youtube is just downloading it for a limited amount of time. You can repeat it how many times you like to but isn't it the same as if you kept it then?

Its sort of like checking out a book from the library to BORROW versus taking a book from a bookstore without paying for it.

 

[Onder]

Its sort of like checking out a book from the library to BORROW versus taking a book from a bookstore without paying for it.

You're not taking anything from the bookstore, the book remains there either way, but whatever. I'm not going to continue in this, just saying that this youtube madness over the last few years is just as bad as downloading.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

Actual music stores in Australia seem to be among the first casualties of online shopping.Melbourne seems to have pretty competitive prices(around $20 per cd on average),not sure about the rest of the country but down here in Tassie they still try and charge $30 a cd.Already a few music stores here have gone out of business and deservedly so if they think that people are stupid enough to pay theses prices and don't acknowledge that the majority of people now have access to the net and can buy these so called ímports'at less than half the price.

Haven't been able to find many locations in the states these days either. I know they exist, bit outside of the big retailers cd sections, the stores on the large scale are very seldom and far spread. Hard business to make money out of the last 5 years or so due to both illegal and legal downloading.

 

[Seditious]

Actual music stores in Australia seem to be among the first casualties of online shopping.

same in New Zealand.

and deservedly so if they think that people are stupid enough to pay theses prices and don't acknowledge that the majority of people now have access to the net and can buy these so called ímports'at less than half the price.

I think they do acknowledge it: here, they've raised the issue of being undercut by online sales because of some GST difference, asking that online retailers have imposed on them the same demands, so that IRL stores are able to compete. The IRL shops aren't gouging consumers, they just have a less competitive business model.

 

[Seditious]

Not at all what I'm saying. However if you addressed more than one specific statement by itself you would know that.

what was your point, then?

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

what was your point, then?

It's not a direct parallel to downloading music. One is certainly far more severe than the other, and as stated is transferable in all forms that people take music on the go with them these days, and is constantly used in that manner, where as the other one, as a general rule isn't viewed more than once or twice by a singular person(yes there is the occasional exception) and doesn't hold near the same power as for 'being able to take with you on the go, wherever you go'. There isn't possession of it, trying the argue that temporary internet files is possession of it is silly.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

It's not a direct parallel to downloading music. One is certainly far more severe than the other, and as stated is transferable in all forms that people take music on the go with them these days, and is constantly used in that manner, where as the other one, as a general rule isn't viewed more than once or twice by a singular person(yes there is the occasional exception) and doesn't hold near the same power as for 'being able to take with you on the go, wherever you go'. There isn't possession of it, trying the argue that temporary internet files is possession of it is silly.

That's inaccurate. With my IPod I can get youtube anywhere I have internet access (many restaurants, retail stores, hot spots, cafes, my university etc.) People with smart phones can get internet access everywhere. So its open access all the time, and if one doesn't download but wants to hear a particular song five times in one day, it's not a problem.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

That's inaccurate. With my IPod I can get youtube anywhere I have internet access (many restaurants, retail stores, hot spots, cafes, my university etc.) People with smart phones can get internet access everywhere. So its open access all the time, and if one doesn't download but wants to hear a particular song five times in one day, it's not a problem.

It is available on said devices, however saying its as transferable as downloaded files is just silly. You can't burn it to a disc, nor to music player applications and the like, which are still higher up in usage than youtube apps. With already downloaded music you don't need internet access where you have you device, which yes its readily available, but still semi spacious and the stream times for many locations would straight up be an inconvenience. And once again, you're not in possession of the file.