Who downloads/who does'nt

[celestialelixir]

My friend buys X album by Y band and rips me a copy. Does that make us thieves? That's ultimately all downloading is: Sharing

 

[Onder]

You people against it really just see it as an "industry", but that view is wrong in case of art. When you are an artist who demands money for his art (as Seditious already said) you have to take the risk that people won't care for it enough to give you the money. It has always been like this with art, long before cds and mp3s. The availability of music on the internet does greater good to artists in general because that brings their art to bigger amount of people of which some may care to pay for it. It goes hand in hand. Of course there is a number of people who just download the music and never think about buying it, but that's the prize for it.

My analogy: I have known most of artistic works by Giger before and most of his paintings and stuff, because their lower-res versions were available on the internet etc., so when he was here in national gallery I went there and paid to see the whole thing. It's so similar with music.

 

[skeptik]

How exactly is digital piracy not theft? Because it makes the people who engage in it feel bad? It is intellectual commercial property whose right to ownership necessitates a transference of funds. It's not akin to stealing a CD, but rather to stealing mp3s, since, you know, you can buy mp3s. Its tangible loss is not obviously a missing product but rather the absence of rightful gain. If you steal cable television, there is no tangible, physical loss, but it's still theft. That's a much more accurate and parallel example of a model whose product is specific, purpose-driven pictures rather than any picture of themselves ever.

Also, Seditious, I don't feel like quoting all of your individual posts, but I find fault in the logic in a lot of your arguments. First off, "heard of" means exactly what you said: "a name, or a name and genre classification, or a name and someone's recommendation". That's what it means to have heard of a band, which is entirely different than having heard a band. You and others were saying that you wouldn't even know the existence of X% of the bands you listen to if illegal downloading didn't exist, which is of course absurd, but evidently you meant to say "heard" and not "heard of". And I generally don't waste my time sampling albums I know I'll probably never have all the time. Why are you incapable of this? Why are so many people incapable of demonstrating any kind of restraint? Why does everybody feel entitled to hear anything they ever want to hear at any time, as if they haven't already downloaded enough music to last them for the rest of their lives? And I'm not sure how your response to my second quote is supposed to contradict my statement, since it sounds like you merely confirmed it: you choose to sample it illegally rather than legally.

Also, you may be unaware of this, but most recording artists conform to the now standard practice of having cover artwork and designing a booklet that corresponds to the music, making the tangible object a holistic work of art that extends beyond the mere sound, so sloughfeg is accurate in describing "the real thing". Some artists engage less in this practice, to the point of merely releasing mp3 files, and some much more, such as releasing their material on more obscure recording formats such as 8-tracks and flexi discs, or making the booklet out of a certain texture or shape relevant to the work as a whole. There are plenty of other examples, of course.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Once again, Onder is correct.

 

[skeptik]

Actually I have to disagree with him. His position is an idealistic rendering of 'the arts' as opposed to the reality in which we live where art production is parallel to commercialism. When we speak of downloading, we're talking about tokens, examples of the real thing, whereas paintings in a gallery are type works, or rather the real thing itself. Paintings and commercially sold musical products are of very different natures, so it's difficult to compare. A better example would probably be something like downloading an artbook of Giger's work rather than merely looking at what I'm assuming are more often than not images that are probably online with the consent of the artist. And to be realistic about the wonders of downloading for artists, let's face it, there are probably as many people who would have bought an album if they couldn't just easily download it and stop worrying about it as there are people who do buy an album because they were able to hear it first. That certainly becomes more and more true with increased popularity.

 

[sevag00]

I download a lot of music.

In Lebanon, we cannot buy metal music, especially death/black metal music, or anything remotely blasphemous.

I have a metal collection of about 40 CD's (Bloodbath, Candlemass, Edge of Sanity, Hypocrisy, Nokturnal Mortum, etc.) but i went through a great deal of trouble to "smuggle" them.

Had it not been for downloading, I would have never discovered 99% of the bands I listen to nowadays.

Self-righteous pricks claim not to download tend to miss a great deal of excellent obscure/underground musical acts, then again, I believe that 90%+ of those self righteous pricks are closet downloaders.

How did you try to smuggle? I can't for the life of me buy or even smuggle cds.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

if it doesn't add up to anything, stop abusing the term 'theft'.

suppose you put up security cameras at the houses of the band members, and at the stores their CDs are in, and you put up firewalls on iTunes and the band website, you keep an eye on everything, ...will you be able to detect digital duplication? can you point to some change in the welfare of the band and say 'here we can see at 00:35GMT someone deprived the band of x amount of money. at 00.34 the band was better off than at 00.36, because of the crime someone out there just committed'?

where is there a financial deprivation, a loss, a consequence like that which can be documented with true 'theft'?

if there isn't one, then just stick to honest arguments, stop acting like it's about a theft, and comment on the societal trend you dislike, speak like a priest or a politician rather than a policeman. yea, there are consequences...paparazzi are a consequence to think of if you want to be famous, and if we can't outlaw the market and the freedoms it survives on, all we can do is say 'well, you're aware it's a problem, and if you choose to seek fame, then you're choosing to accept that sort of problem might be a problem for you'. If someone wants to become a professional musician, they know what the stakes are, and they can decide for themselves if it's worth doing or not. They don't need to ask for the culture to be changed. they're free to not become musicians if they feel like it wouldn't be rewarding enough. social changes always have consequences, but what are these consequences? it seems to be the people behind the artists who rake in millions who complain about the exposure piracy has offered, so maybe as a consequence good musicians would get more recognition and money, and shitty well backed artists would make less, and maybe less people who seek to be pop musicians because it's no longer a good way to make a fortune... presumably you were thinking of consequences far more terrifying than these, but you haven't said.

hell, what do you say of a model who makes money from having her picture taken -- what if I see her in public and duplicate her image via my camera, thereby not needing to buy a magazine, which, if this became a trend, would have consequences for her ability to book photo-shoots. am I a thief? did I steal future income from her? she had some absurd expectation of being given money for her image being duplicated and saved for my private use, and her expectation was thwarted by my access to technology. Should we tell her 'get used to it', or should laws be passed to make what I did illegal so that the law will stand up for her against such horrible robberies, such wicked thievery?

It's theft, plain and simple. You're spewing forth bs filled 'i feel entitled' type points and horrible analogies in order to try and prove otherwise.



If you want to complain that music is an art, and then therefore shouldn't be an industry, fine, but then you really should have next to no desire to listen to this industry fed and financed music, because it wouldn't be available to you AT ALL without the industry.

 

[SkeletonWitch]

How did you try to smuggle? I can't for the life of me buy or even smuggle cds.

I usually "ship" them with friends or relatives coming from abroad.

 

[Vossyrus]

if it doesn't add up to anything, stop abusing the term 'theft'.

suppose you put up security cameras at the houses of the band members, and at the stores their CDs are in, and you put up firewalls on iTunes and the band website, you keep an eye on everything, ...will you be able to detect digital duplication? can you point to some change in the welfare of the band and say 'here we can see at 00:35GMT someone deprived the band of x amount of money. at 00.34 the band was better off than at 00.36, because of the crime someone out there just committed'?

where is there a financial deprivation, a loss, a consequence like that which can be documented with true 'theft'?

if there isn't one, then just stick to honest arguments, stop acting like it's about a theft, and comment on the societal trend you dislike, speak like a priest or a politician rather than a policeman. yea, there are consequences...paparazzi are a consequence to think of if you want to be famous, and if we can't outlaw the market and the freedoms it survives on, all we can do is say 'well, you're aware it's a problem, and if you choose to seek fame, then you're choosing to accept that sort of problem might be a problem for you'. If someone wants to become a professional musician, they know what the stakes are, and they can decide for themselves if it's worth doing or not. They don't need to ask for the culture to be changed. they're free to not become musicians if they feel like it wouldn't be rewarding enough. social changes always have consequences, but what are these consequences? it seems to be the people behind the artists who rake in millions who complain about the exposure piracy has offered, so maybe as a consequence good musicians would get more recognition and money, and shitty well backed artists would make less, and maybe less people who seek to be pop musicians because it's no longer a good way to make a fortune... presumably you were thinking of consequences far more terrifying than these, but you haven't said.

hell, what do you say of a model who makes money from having her picture taken -- what if I see her in public and duplicate her image via my camera, thereby not needing to buy a magazine, which, if this became a trend, would have consequences for her ability to book photo-shoots. am I a thief? did I steal future income from her? she had some absurd expectation of being given money for her image being duplicated and saved for my private use, and her expectation was thwarted by my access to technology. Should we tell her 'get used to it', or should laws be passed to make what I did illegal so that the law will stand up for her against such horrible robberies, such wicked thievery?

Using my previous example, what if your boss said to you that in the next couple of weeks he was going to give you more hours, and possibly even some overtime. You worked these hours and as well as the overtime, as obviously you want/need the money to make a living. Then you got your paycheck and realized you were only compensated for 10% of what you were supposed to get and your boss said "Sorry, I know it's illegal but I couldn't afford to give you much, nevermind getting anything for the overtime. With the way the economy is right now, you should be thankful you're getting something, and that you even have a job. But don't feel bad, we appreciate all the work and effort put in." Your boss technically didn't take anything from you, he just didn't give you what you were expecting to get. Now, it's likely he spent the money on a new TV or something, but really, if he cared about you that much, he would've paid you if he wanted and therefore it's your fault he didn't care enough. Now, suppose that nearly every employer started doing this (without any consequence) and it basically became what most people consider an acceptable practice in today's world, despite still technically being illegal. I guess you'd just get used to it, right?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

IT DOES have consequence for the musicians, financialy, contractually, for booking gigs, etc etc. Your singular theft doesn't add up to anything, no. But millions embrace these ideals and bring a great deal of consequence to the artist. Even used cd stores, while bring no money back to the origins support an the industry over all, and a healthier industry means a healthier environment for the artists.

That argument is just too vague to effect my actions. There's no way I would spend more money at my local record store, I already have a budget. Someday, when I have established my career and have a real salary, I'll download less and buy more.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

That argument is just too vague to effect my actions. There's no way I would spend more money at my local record store, I already have a budget. Someday, when I have established my career and have a real salary, I'll download less and buy more.

No argument would be sufficient in getting people to stop, because at the end of the day its something they're able to get away with so they can splurge elsewhere. Give someone a hand, and they'll take the arm. Then a second arm, then two legs and then a torso. The next hand offered will be ignored and they'll take the body whole, because they're now 'entitled' to such, and it doesn't reap direct consequence to themselves.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

No argument would be sufficient in getting people to stop, because at the end of the day its something they're able to get away with so they can splurge elsewhere. Give someone a hand, and they'll take the arm. Then a second arm, then two legs and then a torso. The next hand offered will be ignored and they'll take the body whole, because they're now 'entitled' to such, and it doesn't reap direct consequence to themselves.

Eh, that's a slippery slope. I don't think it works that way for most lovers of music as demonstrated by the fact that most the people on this site who download also buy CDs or LPs.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

Eh, that's a slippery slope. I don't think it works that way for most lovers of music as demonstrated by the fact that most the people on this site who download also buy CDs or LPs.

They purchase how much in comparison to what they download? Its very applicable, as demonstrated by the many within this thread alone that attempt to argue that its OK for them to download because of 'x' contrived yet flawed theory.

 

[ExhumedKarcass]

I play in bands. I don't download or believe in downloading, at least for free. We have on our bandcamps the availability for people to name their own price on downloads and we find that people who do download tend to leave us a couple bucks and we are thankful for that, but before we even had the album in our hands(and we are by no means well known) our album was on russian download sites and mediafire sites the only people having been in contact with the album being us, the guy who mastered the album, and the pressing company. We still can't figure out how it happened. Stealing albums has gone pretty damn far.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

They purchase how much in comparison to what they download? Its very applicable, as demonstrated by the many within this thread alone that attempt to argue that its OK for them to download because of 'x' contrived yet flawed theory.

I'm sure that varies from person to person. Some people stop buying all together, others download as a "test run" before buying and others download what they can't afford. I guess it all comes down to one's ethical perspective.

I'm taking a consequentialist perspective.

1) Does downloading have a negative consequence on the bands I listen to? No, since I buy only used albums anyway and the stuff I buy new is by favorite bands, which means I buy it right away, which means I would never download it in the first place.

2) Does downloading have a negative impact on my local record store? No, because I have a standard "record store budget" I must stick to.

3) Does downloading have a negative impact on me? No, I get to hear lots of music I otherwise wouldn't hear, so it has a positive impact.

No harm, no foul.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I mostly download, more than I'd like to. I don't have a decent CD player and even the albums I do buy, I still download, because it's more convenient than ripping them myself. So I'm essentially just buying the booklet. Moreover, I'm selfish and greedy and I have no excuse for that.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I think we can all agree that music piracy is not entirely helpful to the musicians or the industry. However, this tough guy posturing that I see from some in this thread is ridiculous. There are far worse things, morally or otherwise, than downloading.

 

[Seditious]

Unless you're talking about bikini models or pornstars.

yea, I was thinking men's magazine models, who are selling no other product than the men's magazine they appear in.

 

[Seditious]

It's not akin to stealing a CD, but rather to stealing mp3s, since, you know, you can buy mp3s. Its tangible loss is not obviously a missing product but rather the absence of rightful gain.

it's a fictional loss.
I can declare that I own the air, and that every time you breath for free instead of paying me the $100-per-litre price, you are stealing from me, but what the fuck is this fiction? surely that's not a market price.
Suppose the law even humored me--I was in some dictatorship nation where I could indeed demand that money as surely as income tax--what would happen?--people would break the law, writ large, and it would be tough luck for me, because it's a stupid law--it cannot be sufficiently enforced, there's no real ownership, it's a phony claim. It would be idiotic for me to complain that people aren't humoring my stupid demand.

if you don't like that people can snap your image, cover your face; if you don't like cassettes dubbing from the radio, don't put your songs on the radio; and if you don't mp3s you can't control, don't record your songs, do performances instead, and dictate whatever 'entry denied to anyone with alcohol or a cellphone camera' policies you like on those who wish to hear your music. If you choose to leave your house unlocked, or to compromise the exclusivity of your performances, that's your choice, you're choosing to be reckless, and whatever imaginary losses you think result from what you imagine undercut your profits come back to your decision to take that risk in hopes of being able to increase your profits. I don't see why a musician should be incapable of appreciating what risks he's undertaking.

If you steal cable television, there is no tangible, physical loss, but it's still theft.

and if a cable company was dismayed by this, they could encrypt their signal, or even just sell up and start over in some industry they are happy to invest in the risks and costs of. Obviously most cable companies feel that the enterprise as currently run reaps enough rewards that they're willing to facilitate such exploitation for the savvy and amoral citizen.

You have the choice to make whatever you think is a good financial decision, whether you're an accountant or a accordionist. If you aren't happy with the music industry as a financial investment, do something else.

it's illegal to shoot a cop, it's harmful to shoot a cop, no one will dispute this, we can set aside all theft/loss/profit shit in such a case. it's harmful, end of story...but for the time being, while cops are getting shot in the line of duty, since I don't want to be shot, I'm going to go ahead and choose not to be a cop--that way I don't have to complain about the way things are. If things change, if what is so clearly wrong and criminal is finally thwarted, then maybe I'll make a career change. Why should we expect musicians are too womanly to choose, and accept the consequences of their choices, similarly?

You and others were saying that you wouldn't even know the existence of X% of the bands you listen to if illegal downloading didn't exist, which is of course absurd, but evidently you meant to say "heard" and not "heard of".

I quite simply would not even have had any of the conversations about entire GENRES (never mind bands) with any of the people on this forum if I didn't have something like the p2p avenue for being introduced to the kind of music popular here (which is what initially brought me here).

I would have heard of Slipknot, and Cradle of Filth--they were on TV. I would have heard of Susperia, and Soulfly, but I wouldn't even know what _countries_ were by the Baltic sea (it was only an interest in regional differences within genres that inspired me to learn a little geography), never mind what unpronounceable-by-me bands hailed from those countries. I would know of Rage Against the Machine but not Vehemence, of Iron Maiden, but not Alestorm--even in nations whose music I would know of I would never be hearing of the bands I might actually like.

And I generally don't waste my time sampling albums I know I'll probably never have all the time. Why are you incapable of this?

I don't understand that sentence.

Why are so many people incapable of demonstrating any kind of restraint?

...in my nation, broadband is capped to various GB-per-month limits, so there's a hell of a lot more restraint here than you might be used to on US college fiber-optic connections.

hell, a month ago I was on 56k -- I had to download (even legal things like podcasts) in advance, in the assumption that some day I might feel like listening to it, and won't feel like waiting 2 hours for the 40mb podcast or 5 hours for the 100mb album.

Why does everybody feel entitled to hear anything they ever want to hear at any time

can't you do that on iTunes?
back when there were CD stores, couldn't you go in, pick up any number of albums, put them in a stereo, and listen freely to as much of it as you wished?
The question should really be 'why should anyone feel that they are no longer entitled--now entitled only to Amazon snippets from the first 30 seconds of a track?'

...as if they haven't already downloaded enough music to last them for the rest of their lives?
.

suppose that they do, what point are you making?--that we could easily go without giving some new artist a chance at winning us over and inspiring us to spend money? how does that help the anti-piracy case?

And I'm not sure how your response to my second quote is supposed to contradict my statement, since it sounds like you merely confirmed it: you choose to sample it illegally rather than legally.

dunno what you're on about. quoting iz teh gud.

Also, you may be unaware of this, but most recording artists conform to the now standard practice of having cover artwork and designing a booklet that corresponds to the music, making the tangible object a holistic work of art that extends beyond the mere sound.

I'm aware of that in the singular case of George Hrab, whose creativity seems to be genuine and only coincidentially beneficial to CD sales, rather than a marketing ploy like you're describing, however, it's irrelevant to me how multi-talented today's musician might aspire to be.

I don't judge a writer by how holistic his book cover pictures are, even if it was indeed he, rather than the publisher, who did the cover. I like him (or not) for what he writes, not his aesthetic with the visual arts.
If some musicians can juggle or draw, I really don't care--it's only music I'm after.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

The problem with your arguments is the fact that they only apply in a world where no morals apply. They are as applicable as someone saying "If he didn't want me to snap his neck, he shouldn't of been standing close enough for me to do so." As a defense for murder I'm court. You have no care for others, and quite frankly would be in a world of hurt if people approached interactions with you as you address downloading.