Do you steal music???

[SuperDuck]

I did the Napster thing when it was in full swing - I was on a University network (T1-ish speed) and I would just sit there for hours, nabbing anything I could. It really became habit-forming behaviour, and I'm not exaggerating or joking. Pretty much all of my free time went into it. I'm pretty sure my grades suffered that semester.

I feel better that I stopped doing, if for no other reason that I'm very susceptible to addictive behaviour. (And dropping British "U"s.) But that's just me.

[jade]

I download music.

I usually to shows blind, I've never heard their music before. If it's a fairly big band, I download a few songs before I go, so I know what to expect. If I like them I'll buy the cd + a shirt at the show.

I find the situation to be win-win in my case. I download a few songs for free and then spend money at the show. I usually spent $50+ at the show (ticket+merch). I'm hoping the band will see most of that money.

I dont have any downloading programs on my laptop. I use to have it on my old computer. I'm too scard of all the viruses. I usually check out the band's website for some clips or sites with streaming media.

Support your local canadian band check out: http://www.newmusiccanada.ca

[Schwinn]

I spend a fortune on CDs. Sometimes up to $100 a month which is a lot for me.

I also do occasionally download or "steal" as it's referred to when I hear "of" a band but don't want to waste $18 to find out if they are good.

But I hate those file sharing systems with a passion! They are slow!!! and sometimes the files are CRAP! And it can take YEARS to get something that isn't mainstream.

ITunes? The last time I checked they were $1 a song which is a rip off. Should be more like a quarter IMO.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally Posted by Schwinn

ITunes? The last time I checked they were $1 a song which is a rip off. Should be more like a quarter IMO.

1 dollar a song, 10 dollars an album.(with some exceptions, some are more some are less) song to song, 1 buck might seem like a lot, but for an album, I sure as hell love saving $6-10 on every album I buy.

There is no way it could be $.25, as it is, apple only gets about 4 cents to support the store(payroll for a ton of people, server space, R&D...etc.), the rest goes to the label and taxes, the label then splits the remainder to all the people associated.

I've bought over 500 songs on itunes, did I spend $500? no, not even close. I've probably saved at least $300 buying from iTunes compared to buying from barnes and noble, or borders or the wherehouse, or even amazon.com(well maybe more like $250 compared to amazon)

The 'per song' downloads are really primarily for pop singles and such, you don't buy your albums by the song, you buy them by the album, which is usually *a lot* cheaper than going to the store.

*shrug* I personally hope iTunes gets bigger and bigger, because the bigger it gets, the more the record labels will need to wake up and realize that they're becoming dinosaurs. Online distribution of music is a good thing, it's a great thing, for artists. As long as they are getting something for their work. As it stands, there is no way $.25 per song would adequately compensate anyone.

[msquared]

The real thieves are the record companies. And the sooner that they go under in favor of something more fair to the artist, the consumer, and the advancement of culture, the better.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by msquared

The real thieves are the record companies. And the sooner that they go under in favor of something more fair to the artist, the consumer, and the advancement of culture, the better.

Just because x steals does not mean that when y steals, y is any less of a thief.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by msquared

The real thieves are the record companies. And the sooner that they go under in favor of something more fair to the artist, the consumer, and the advancement of culture, the better.

Why are the record companies thieves? Sure they make millions off of a successful artist, but successful artist make millions too, off of CD's. And when an act bombs does the band lose money?, Do the studio muscians not get paid?, do the raw materials (CD's, Artwork, production cost) not still have to be accounted for ? It's that big mean record company that takes ALL OF THE RISK!!! Sure they get big rewards when it works, but for every big hit, there probably eat twenty money losers, and with downloading it's far worse. I am sick and tiered off people attacking big business like it is inheritantly evil, have they done plenty of things wrong?, of course. But they employ millions of people, Drive most of the worlds econonmy and ironically the places where big business thrives are the places where the standred of living is better, and people are generally better off! I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I buy most of my CD's used or pick and choose off of I tunes, And I don't try to justify my stealing by saying I'm stealing it from bad guys. And by the way, A little business 101, stealing is a cost, And bussiness passes all cost on, in the form of lower wages, less jobs, or higher prices period. So when you STEAL form a record company, either some poor bloke loses his job, or a job is sent to a lower wage country, or I pay more from the product. The CEO is not going to take a pay cut. I GUESS STEALING IS THE NEW MORALITY, NOW ALL WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHO GETS TO PUT TOGETHER THE LIST OF COMPANYS IT'S OK TO STEAL FROM. pretty sad....

[Marcus Willett]

Originally Posted by c-ba55

this free option exists so why bother...

I truly am not trying to bash you (really), but rather to try and understand the mindset/rationalization at work here.

The opportunity exists because (like my movie analogy) someone ELSE paid. The thing...whatever it is; song, CD, movie, taxi ride, oil change...ANYTHING has got to be paid for by someone, or serveral someones. It's free to you only for that reason; someone else paid.

Originally Posted by c-ba55

It's more the case that I am only interested in posessing this music at a price at or near zero.

Well, sure. I would like an Avalon U5 at a price near zero as well. And I probably could get it too, as long as someone else would foot the bill. If, for example, I stole one that someone else bought.

Originally Posted by c-ba55

No revenue is being lost. Opportunity cost lost is not theft anyway...

OK. Suppose you invest $100 in the stock market, and through luck and research manage to turn it into $10,000. The day you are planning to sell, I take your physical stock certificates from you and leave you $100, and I get to sell 'em and pocket $9,900. Do you feel ripped-off? After all, you got your $100, and it was only a lost opportunity, not an actual net loss.

Or how about me moving in to my friends house and living in a spare room. Really, all I should have to pay him is the added expenses of more electricity used and water. I shouldn't have to pay rent because he has to pay that mortgage anyway, so there's no net loss to him. Is he gonna feel ripped-off?

The point to me is, if you wanna download songs, go right ahead. If you are OK with it and don't feel like it's stealing, more power to ya. It just annoys me that people tend to have this sense that if they want something, and feel it's just too expensive, then it's perfectly OK to just take it. In what other areas of life is this behavior perfectly acceptable to people?

[Aussiephoenix]

I believe what Bowie said... the only good way to make the money get to the artists themselves, is if we go to their shows. we will only do that if we listen to their stuff, and most of us arent willing to pay the ever increasing prices that the Music Industry charges... they are shooting themselves in the foot with that... we know better and we will do what we must.
as far as the bands that are struggling... well, its a dog eat dog world, and if they cant make the top, then they arent good enough are they?
we cant put EVERYONE on the pedestal...

Still, INternet sharing is also good for those bands that are NOT mainstream, its a great way to make them known... expand their fan base.

Bands should start touring more... so many bands out ther and only the major bands tour? doesnt make sense.

[thomasrhoward]

Originally Posted by Wrong Robot

1 dollar a song, 10 dollars an album.(with some exceptions, some are more some are less) song to song, 1 buck might seem like a lot, but for an album, I sure as hell love saving $6-10 on every album I buy.

I only openned an account with iTunes recently, because I (like a lot of others) like having the liner notes and such. But the other day I was at the store looking at Miles Davis' Bitches Brew. They wanted $25 for the CD! So I went to iTunes. iTunes didn't offer it as an album, but had all of the songs on the album available for download @ $0.99 a song. So, 7 songs $7 (burned to 2 CDs) or $25 at the store. Think I pick iTunes!

-tom

[karrot-x]

Yes, I do it in large quantaties too.

My feeling is to hear the band it's free, to see them it's the $$.

Also I might add that without stealing the music and listening to it online I would have never heard of bands such as Nonpoint, Trivium and Clutch. These are 3 bands that I found just by saying "hey that name sounds cool let me see if they're good." I'm waiting for Trivium and Nonpoint to come to my area so I can see them, they're getting my money then.

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by karrot-x

Yes, I do it in large quantaties too.

My feeling is to hear the band it's free, to see them it's the $$.

Also I might add that without stealing the music and listening to it online I would have never heard of bands such as Nonpoint, Trivium and Clutch. These are 3 bands that I found just by saying "hey that name sounds cool let me see if they're good." I'm waiting for Trivium and Nonpoint to come to my area so I can see them, they're getting my money then.

hey whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better about stealing!

brad cook

[Josh Ryan]

I use iTunes sometimes, but I've found I do like to have the jacket.

[Wrong Robot]

I personally realized that CD cases quickly become paperweights for me. I'll read everything in them, stare at the cover for a minute... then put it on a shelf or on my desk or in a box. Which is another reason I love iTunes. Now, when it comes to vinyl, I love having the actual disc, the cover, the art, the liner notes...etc. but CDs, I typically don't care.

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by Blisshead

I use iTunes sometimes, but I've found I do like to have the jacket.

I like having that too but it wouldn't keep me from doing the mp3 thing if I had an mp3 player.

brad cook

[c-ba55]

Originally Posted by Marcus Willett

I truly am not trying to bash you (really), but rather to try and understand the mindset/rationalization at work here.

The opportunity exists because (like my movie analogy) someone ELSE paid. The thing...whatever it is; song, CD, movie, taxi ride, oil change...ANYTHING has got to be paid for by someone, or serveral someones. It's free to you only for that reason; someone else paid.


Well, sure. I would like an Avalon U5 at a price near zero as well. And I probably could get it too, as long as someone else would foot the bill. If, for example, I stole one that someone else bought.

Physical goods have a substantial marginal cost, and my posessing it means somebody else does not posess it. It is not a comparable situation.

Originally Posted by Marcus Willett

OK. Suppose you invest $100 in the stock market, and through luck and research manage to turn it into $10,000. The day you are planning to sell, I take your physical stock certificates from you and leave you $100, and I get to sell 'em and pocket $9,900. Do you feel ripped-off? After all, you got your $100, and it was only a lost opportunity, not an actual net loss.

That stock has a real market value. This is not a good example of an opportunity cost. A good example would be if I had intended to buy the stocks, but loaned you the $100 that day instead. Should you pay me back $100 or $10,000?

Originally Posted by Marcus Willett

Or how about me moving in to my friends house and living in a spare room. Really, all I should have to pay him is the added expenses of more electricity used and water. I shouldn't have to pay rent because he has to pay that mortgage anyway, so there's no net loss to him. Is he gonna feel ripped-off?

Again, purposely missing the point. Most people value privacy very highly, which you arbitrarily exclude.

Originally Posted by Marcus Willett

The point to me is, if you wanna download songs, go right ahead. If you are OK with it and don't feel like it's stealing, more power to ya. It just annoys me that people tend to have this sense that if they want something, and feel it's just too expensive, then it's perfectly OK to just take it. In what other areas of life is this behavior perfectly acceptable to people?

It is not stealing because nobody in the world has anything less than they had before. That criteria must be met for something to have been stolen.

[Marcus Willett]

Originally Posted by Wrong Robot

...when it comes to vinyl, I love having the actual disc, the cover, the art, the liner notes...

Yeah man, I really miss that about LP's. I'm all for technological advancement, but opening all those Yes albums to see the artwork/photos, etc when I was in high school...sigh...

That's why even with an MP3 player (which is damn convenient, having 300 CD's at my fingertips), I still want the CD for anything I really dig. Must be the collector in me...

[c-ba55]

Originally Posted by Wrong Robot

1 dollar a song, 10 dollars an album.(with some exceptions, some are more some are less) song to song, 1 buck might seem like a lot, but for an album, I sure as hell love saving $6-10 on every album I buy.

There is no way it could be $.25, as it is, apple only gets about 4 cents to support the store(payroll for a ton of people, server space, R&D...etc.), the rest goes to the label and taxes, the label then splits the remainder to all the people associated.

I've bought over 500 songs on itunes, did I spend $500? no, not even close. I've probably saved at least $300 buying from iTunes compared to buying from barnes and noble, or borders or the wherehouse, or even amazon.com(well maybe more like $250 compared to amazon)

The 'per song' downloads are really primarily for pop singles and such, you don't buy your albums by the song, you buy them by the album, which is usually *a lot* cheaper than going to the store.

*shrug* I personally hope iTunes gets bigger and bigger, because the bigger it gets, the more the record labels will need to wake up and realize that they're becoming dinosaurs. Online distribution of music is a good thing, it's a great thing, for artists. As long as they are getting something for their work. As it stands, there is no way $.25 per song would adequately compensate anyone.

I don't consider mp3 copies even remotely comparable in worth to WAV files. So to say you "get" an album for $10 is just wrong to me. You get a crappy, noisy copy of an album that you can only use in certain limited ways.

It certainly could be $.25 per song if that's what the market was willing to pay. How to divvy up that money would work itself out naturally by the laws of capitalism. A lot of entities are currently providing not much value to the process. They would need to adapt or cease to exist.

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by c-ba55

It is not stealing because nobody in the world has anything less than they had before. That criteria must be met for something to have been stolen.

Ok, then...is it counterfeiting? You're making unauthorized copies. Isn't that what counterfeiting is?

brad cook

[Marcus Willett]

Originally Posted by c-ba55

...It is not a comparable situation. It is not stealing because nobody in the world has anything less than they had before. That criteria must be met for something to have been stolen.

That is a rationalization. Someone else did the work to make it a reality, and you didn't, but you still get it. the fact that it's a copy, or that the original is still extant doesn't escape this fact.

Let's go back to the theatre. The movie is running anyway. If you sneak in and don't pay, nobody in the world has anything less than they had before, so it's not stealing? Uh huh. OK, 50% of the patrons do this...stealing? 100%? Well, now there isn't a movie showing for anyone at any price. Forget the word "steal"; it's too easy to have philosophical discussions about the meaning of "is".

Tell me this: Can the product exist at all, unless someone pays for it, either monetarily, or through time and effort (please don't tell me time is not an expense)?

How about this one. You go to Mazzios and order a pizza. Their deal is the 2nd one is half price. You only want one. Guy behind you comes up, and adds his to your order, getting his at half price, and pays you the diff. Nobody has anything less than they had before, you OK with that? If so, lemme know and we can work out a deal that will be great...for me.

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that we are not applying real-world ideas to the digital world. I can make an exact copy, and you still have the original, so what's the loss? OK, PERHAPS it's not "stealing" per se (I maintain it is, but whatever); even if it's not, it's not sustainable. Someone has to pay, you just don't want to be the one...who does? Whether we like it or not, at some point we must all face the fact that with every decision we make, we are either part of the problem or part of the solution. The idea that it's just me and my actions don't make any diff in the larger scheme is BS.

If you take something or copy something without the permission of the creator, even if it's just 1's and 0's, you are still guilty of...well, pick your favorite word, I guess...