Who downloads/who does'nt

[Pitiless Wanderer]

haha this thread is turning into a gem. Some of the analogies are amazing! download mp3s akin to breathing air? shooting a cop? haha

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

"They have the audacity to hope people acquire their music in a legal manner after they spend emotion, stress, creative energy, MONEY and countless hours creating and recording their music? Fuck them, I can get away with it, so why should I?" There, you've been paraphrased.

 

[Seditious]

I think we can all agree that music piracy is not entirely helpful to the musicians or the industry.

I think we can come to more useful conclusions by not maintaining a mere 'musicians' category. I mean, there's a hell of a spectrum, there are artists with many recordings, and artists with none; big names like Radiohead who sometimes put out something free for fans, and obscure names like Senmuth who don't only accept mp3 downloading, but actively upload and link people to their entire discography. I think if we grouped the different attitudes/approaches to getting one's music out there, we might be able to at least say specific and important things about the culture and the technology (like perhaps that it's on the whole harmful to traditionally popular music, and helpful to traditionally unpopular music...if we can get to some sort of less vague conclusions, it might at least result in a fairer treatment of the issue where we don't have to speak of all downloaders as if a criminal is a criminal is a criminal.--if you share Britney Spears albums, you're probably contributing to financial problems more than if you share some 1983 demo of some Finnish Thrash album that had a printing of only 333 copies, and causing even less harm if you merely downloaded it and didn't like it, but hung on to it. -- if all three people went to court, and the papers said 'this pirate had 3,000 illegal albums, that's millions of dollars they've cost the industry', it should be obvious that they're skewing what's really taking place, a bit like seeing doctors in CA who prescribe medical marijuana as no different to some dealer in New York--the act of distribution or of purchasing is the only thing in common, not the harms related to some instances of it.

 

[Seditious]

They are as applicable as someone saying "If he didn't want me to snap his neck, he shouldn't've been standing close enough for me to do so." As a defense for murder I'm court.

it's not a defense for murder, it's a rationale against the expectation of not being murdered.

many insurance claims each year of stolen cars have the owners admitting that they left the keys in their unlocked car. Generally speaking, it goes against your claim to collect insurance if you did nothing sensible and easy to ensure the safety of your property. It amounts to saying 'sucks for you, you shouldn't have been stupid--you're not insured against acts of stupidity', there's an expectation of your not being utterly reckless. I'm not saying 'dressing like that, you deserve to get raped', just that you are culpable for any stupidity that facilitated the crime.

If you don't like what's possible when you do stupid things like leaving yourself or your property or your intellectual property vulnerable, then stop being so stupid, otherwise you have first to blame yourself for making the crime possible. You can blame the criminal for his opportunism after that, if it makes you feel better, but that will never be a solution to your problem. ...deadbolts and double-glazed glass and burglar alarms are doing far more to curb burglaries than prisons are--stop giving people the opportunity to do the profitable criminal action if you want them to stop doing it.

relying on bullshit like morality is the resort of the weak.

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.

which world do you live in?

 

[Seditious]

"They have the audacity to hope people acquire their music in a legal manner after they spend emotion, stress, creative energy, MONEY and countless hours creating and recording their music? Fuck them, I can get away with it, so why should I?" There, you've been paraphrased.

exactly.

if you put a stall of apples outside of your convenience store and don't like the fact that people take one when they walk on by, put the stall inside your fucking store and keep an eye on it, don't whine to me about your own stupidity. You shouldn't invest your money if you're too stupid to know how safe your investment is--put it in the bank and get on with life if you worry about the risks of pursuing a profit.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

A world where "People can do it so its pathetic to consider wrong." doesn't hold any weight in a debate and where statements such as "It's stupid for a band to record music." are simply silly coming from someone on a music board.

 

[Vossyrus]

exactly.

if you put a stall of apples outside of your convenience store and don't like the fact that people take one when they walk on by, put the stall inside your fucking store and keep an eye on it, don't whine to me about your own stupidity. You shouldn't invest your money if you're too stupid to know how safe your investment is--put it in the bank and get on with life if you worry about the risks of pursuing a profit.

By your rationale, it wouldn't make a difference if the bin of apples was inside or outside the store. If I walked into a store and grabbed an apple from one of the bins and then ran out of the store without paying, it would be their fault for having the apples (along with everything else in the store) so readily available and susceptible to theft, right?

Seditious, I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or not but would you honestly prefer it if bands didn't make their music available to the public? They wouldn't have to put in the effort and money into recording and releasing something so they wouldn't have to complain about not being rightfully compensated.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

it's a fictional loss.

This statement alone can allow one to consider all your arguments mute points. A lot of money is spent creating these PRODUCTS, any sort of crime that takes away from being able to profit or recoup from a product brings a loss.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Seditious, I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or not but would you honestly prefer it if bands didn't make their music available to the public?

He wouldn't care. He'd head down to their band practice and sit outside and record the whole thing with a shitty tape deck. Then he'd upload the recording onto the internet. Because he has no morals.

 

[JontRevolting]

 

[Seditious]

A world where "People can do it so its pathetic to consider wrong." doesn't hold any weight in a debate and where statements such as "It's stupid for a band to record music." are simply silly coming from someone on a music board.

straw man quotes are silly anywhere.

 

[Seditious]

By your rationale, it wouldn't make a difference if the bin of apples was inside or outside the store. If I walked into a store and grabbed an apple from one of the bins and then ran out of the store without paying, it would be their fault for having the apples (along with everything else in the store) so readily available and susceptible to theft, right?

only if there wasn't adequate policing of such commerce.
if you don't have security cameras or a justice system where you live, where you go to such stores, then, yes, you're right.

would you honestly prefer it if bands didn't make their music available to the public?

any song made by Stidbtogfrrugoqin from Askvlterstaninberg is already unavailable to this member of the public unless there is a p2p culture I can discover it within. So, without piracy they may as well not bother capturing and duplicating any performance if they feel that people like me failing to give them money is equivalent to their being robbed of what is due in return for all their efforts. ...at least they might go and work in a Nike sweatshop or become an investment banker instead, and, participating in the economy in a way that does reach my part of the world, be of some use to me. If I was deaf, I'd prefer every musician was a painter--the music may as well not exist as far as my selfish wishes are concerned; it doesn't benefit me for them to make music rather than engage in some activity useful to me, so a musician would be just one more person in the world not enriching my life in any way, in such a case.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

straw man quotes are silly anywhere.

If you're incapable of seeing that you have essentialy said both I have no reason to consider a single word you say in debate.

 

[Seditious]

He wouldn't care. He'd head down to their band practice and sit outside and record the whole thing with a shitty tape deck. Then he'd upload the recording onto the internet. Because he has no morals.

soundproof your garage.--if you don't want sex-tapes on youporn.com, close the curtains when you have sex.

 

[Seditious]

If you're incapable of seeing that you have essentialy said both I have no reason to consider a single word you say in debate.

'your painting is blurry' says the man with bad eyesight.

you're stating your [mis]understanding, not my proposition.

 

[Vossyrus]

only if there wasn't adequate policing of such commerce.
if you don't have security cameras or a justice system where you live, where you go to such stores, then, yes, you're right.

It's pretty easy to walk into a store, steal something like an apple and get away with it. It doesn't mean it's right if you can get away with it.

any song made by Stidbtogfrrugoqin from Askvlterstaninberg is already unavailable to this member of the public unless there is a p2p culture I can discover it within. So, without piracy they may as well not bother capturing and duplicating any performance if they feel that people like me failing to give them money is equivalent to their being robbed of what is due in return for all their efforts. ...at least they might go and work in a Nike sweatshop or become an investment banker instead, and, participating in the economy in a way that does reach my part of the world, be of some use to me. If I was deaf, I'd prefer every musician was a painter, the music may as well not exist as far as my selfish wishes are concerned, and it doesn't benefit me for them to make music rather than engage in some activity useful to me, so a musician would be just one more person in the world not enriching my life in any way in such a case.

So basically, you've got no real argument to put forth in defense of filesharing, you're just an incredibly selfish person who's inconsiderate to all others?

I wonder what exactly do you do for a living? Do you feel it's fair if you're not being fully compensated for your work?

 

[Onder]

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.

I remember when downloading wasn't yet so big and easy and I know the ways people have been obtaining music. They were just copying it from each other. That's how I got into metal in the first place, I borrowed some cdrs from my friend's brother, wondering what the heck is blackmetal and being all curious to hear it. Now it's just easier to get it by just clicking the mouse twice on the internet. People say that it got too far but it's the same really, it just allows you to explore more. It wasn't good/legal back then and it's not now, but it allowed so many people to listen to it that it made those artists a true "hit".

Okay, let's imagine that the music industry blob thing actually manages to destroy downloading of music from internet and also erases the copying and all the other options to get music for free. You just wouldn't be able to hear anything you didn't pay for. The so-called music industry would suffer because that would almost entirely eliminate the option to share art, which is so important for musicians to gain listeners. It would put you back to the times when only vinyls were available and let's face it, you could only buy Beatles and some other three bands in your store (along w/ classical music that is irrelevant to my point). Would you like it better?

Now you're in a car w/ someone and he's like "hey, have you heard Antwoord?" and puts it on, then you borrow the cd and then later you recommend it to your friends and this way they make it big and it also actually starts to pay off for them.

Also, I hate J.'s approach to this. I am not justyfying my acts w/ "flawed logic" (why would I do that anyway). I encourage buying music everywhere I go and I buy music myself. This way I just know better which artists truly deserve it in my book, which I consider extremely important nowadays when you go to store and average cd costs 25 usd.

 

[Vossyrus]

Years ago, I had also thought that downloading would lead to a greater amount of exposure for bands which would lead to more album sales and benefit nearly everyone. Especially in regards to metal music, a genre where fans are generally very supportive and are actually really 'into' the music. However, over the years I've become increasingly aware that this just isn't the end result, especially now that filesharing has become incredibly easy. Too many people download without the intent of ever buying anything and I think that is the major issue.

 

[Onder]

Years ago, I had also thought that downloading would lead to a greater amount of exposure for bands which would lead to more album sales and benefit nearly everyone. Especially in regards to metal music, a genre where fans are generally very supportive and are actually really 'into' the music. However, over the years I've become increasingly aware that this just isn't the end result, especially now that filesharing has become incredibly easy. Too many people download without the intent of ever buying anything and I think that is the major issue.

Well there are studies on that. The people who don't buy it after they download wouldn't buy it anyway and those who do - they have better view on what to buy. Album sales are not affected by it in negative way. What more, they even appear to be slightly better because of it.

 

[Vossyrus]

Well there are studies on that. The people who don't buy it after they download wouldn't buy it anyway and those who do - they have better view on what to buy. Album sales are not affected by it in negative way. What more, they even appear to be slightly better because of it.

I'm sure there are many, and likely a lot more, studies to suggest the opposite too. I don't agree that "the people who don't buy it after they download wouldn't buy it anyway" because a lot of the time you have people downloading albums from bands that they are already fans of. Many people these days feel no need to spend their money on music because they can obtain it very easily and for literally nothing. I think that alone is enough of an answer as to why people are likely not going to buy albums even if they like what they hear.