Do you steal music???

[dancehallclasher]

i steal music. but for pretty much any mp3s i listen to regularly, i buy the CD.

 

[Marcus Willett]

Well, of course. Because try-before-you-buy is the new thievery.

C'mon, now. Nobody ever said that. Let's all keep our facts straight, shall we?

I try before I buy all the time. It's the trying/liking/keeping, but "oh, I'll just skip the buying part, 'cause it's icky" that some object to. Not even really objecting to THAT (for me) as much as don't try to justify it with some sort of BS rationalle. Just admit you're taking something without paying for it. I've done it. It was wrong, and I admit it. And I am trying every day to make myself a better person, the kind of person who won't do it anymore.

 

[Norwegianwood]

Downloading music from people who don't want it freely downloaded or distributed is the same as stealing a CD from a store.

It's not.

You also say that the "sound samples" on amazon.com is there for my enjoyment. Well, tell me, how much more money will the artist loose if I download an entire song from limewire than if I download a sample from Amazon.com? It's like, whenever I download a song from the internet, a certain amount of money is withdrewn from the artists bank account? That's it?

 

[Marcus Willett]

Since when does right or wrong depend on the amount of money lost? Cheating on my wife doesn't cost her any money, oh and as an added bonus she's not out anything either that she wouldn't already have.

Hey....

 

[Norwegianwood]

Since when does right or wrong depend on the amount of money lost? Cheating on my wife doesn't cost her any money, oh and as an added bonus she's not out anything either that she wouldn't already have.

Hey....

Music buisness is about MONEY and money only. If your marriage isn't, I don't see how that have any relevance what so ever. "Isn't stealing a moral issue?" you might say. Off course it is. But why is it? Because someone is losing money. When nobody is losing any money at all, then tell me where does the etics come in?

 

[Norwegianwood]

But I do agree with you though:
The guys who downloads lots of albums from DC as soon as they comes out. Those guys are a threath towards music buisness. No doubt about in my mind about that.
I am, however, 100% certain that I am not a threat to music buisness at all. In fact I hope to be a part of it some day

 

[WalterBush]

The only problem with that is that they ARE losing money--when someone downloads a song, they now have a copy that they didn't pay for. If you hadn't downloaded it, you would've bought the CD, or done without. In one instance, the band gets paid (although more likely that money goes first to pay off the debt they incurred recording it), the publishing company (which if they're smart, is owned by the band) gets paid, the record label (a.k.a. the company who forked over the dough to promote and distribute the band) gets paid, the secretaries who answer the phone at the band's manager's office get paid, etc. What also happens is that the record company knows that this band can be a success, and puts MORE money into promoting the band, lobbies radio stations to put it into their rotation, thus (hopefully) generating more sales, as well as a royalty to the song's copyright holders (ideally, the band again.) The record stores who carry CDs order enough copies to (eventually) cause a second, or third printing. After a while, the band manages make enough money to quit their day jobs (sometimes this only happens after a few albums) and they can concentrate on making music, and not how they're paying this month's rent.

If you DON'T buy the album, most likely the record label decides to cut their losses, and focus their efforts on someone who CAN sell. This is not an ideal system by any stretch, but when someone downloads those tunes, ESPECIALLY those from a little-known band, there's no way for a record company (i.e. the investors, guys with lots of money) to know that a particular band is worthwhile, and thus put their money into recording/promoting them. This is bad.

Besides that, most mp3's. FLAC's, AIFF WAVs, etc sound like crap compared to a proffesionally recorded and mastered CD.
Just my two cents, but I'm not sure anyone's brought that part of it up yet--there's a ton of material to read on this thread.

 

[msquared]

C'mon, now. Nobody ever said that. Let's all keep our facts straight, shall we?

It's been implied in just about every other post in this thread, the way I see it. I am all for everyone keeping their facts straight, and separate from their assumptions.

Not even really objecting to THAT (for me) as much as don't try to justify it with some sort of BS rationalle. Just admit you're taking something without paying for it.

Why is that such a big hangup? Is the thought that if someone couldn't rationalize it that they'd stop doing it or something?

Since when does right or wrong depend on the amount of money lost?

Can you conclusively prove that money is being lost overall? Because you can't prove that it's being lost on an individual basis.

The only problem with that is that they ARE losing money--when someone downloads a song, they now have a copy that they didn't pay for. If you hadn't downloaded it, you would've bought the CD, or done without.

I feel that this is a noteworthy distinction. If I wouldn't have bought it in the first place but I download a track because I'm curious, then I find that I like it enough to download the whole CD, then I buy the CD because mp3s aren't convenient or don't sound good enough for me, then the record company just made a sale that they wouldn't have if downloading hadn't been involved. This is what happens with the majority of my friends, both in the US and Europe, who download.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

It's not.

You also say that the "sound samples" on amazon.com is there for my enjoyment. Well, tell me, how much more money will the artist loose if I download an entire song from limewire than if I download a sample from Amazon.com? It's like, whenever I download a song from the internet, a certain amount of money is withdrewn from the artists bank account? That's it?

It is.

It doesn't matter how much or how little money the artist will lose if you download a whole song when they have not given permission to. The song itself is their property, not just the CD; theft is theft, no matter the monetary value. The song is intellectual property, and has inherent value. If the artist gives Amazon.com permission to use a sample thirty seconds, then they can. Download anymore than that which the artist allows you to and you are stealing. It's like if a girl says you can't do more than kiss her on a first date because she's saving herself for marriage. She wouldn't be losing any money by someone taking what she didn't give them permission to-does that make it right? People keep using the music industry as a scapegoat. Those people need to wake up and deal with the fact that they're stealing intellectual property from musicians. Intellectual property has just as much intrinsic value as monetary.

 

[Wrong Robot]

AIFF WAVs, etc sound like crap compared to a proffesionally recorded and mastered CD.

.aiff and .wav is a direct audio rip, no compression, sounds the same as the CD.

 

[Jazzin']

I currently have 660 songs on my computer, I own about 20 albums (CDs), mainly of U2. If I really enjoy the band, I will buy their CDs and go to their concerts, otherwise I'm just going to get it free off of the internet.

 

[msquared]

^ correct. In fact, both formats are capable of better than CD quality.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Ok, here's a question for those who justify their illegal downloads with saying they are doing it just to find out if they like it the promise of purchasing their CD if they like the music: does your PC have absolutely no downloaded songs on it?

If they really believed in their reasoning behind illegally downloading these songs, then they'd have none of those songs on their PC. Either A. they didn't like it, in which case they should delete it, or B. they liked it and went out and purchased the CD, so they'd delete the downloads as they would be obsolete once you own the CD (which could be uploaded onto your PC with better sound quality than most downloads offer).

 

[msquared]

B. they liked it and went out and purchased the CD, so they'd delete the downloads as they would be obsolete once you own the CD (which could be uploaded onto your PC with better sound quality than most downloads offer).

Or C, they deleted it and then ripped a fresh copy of it and put the CD into a closet so they wouldn't scratch it by carrying it all over creation.

Or perhaps D, they bought the CD and never took it out of its plastic. They just shelved it and were fine with the already downloaded mp3s.

People still listen to music as they go about their computing, and it's ludicrous to use actual CDs for that task

People do have iPods too.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Or C, they deleted it and then ripped a fresh copy of it and put the CD into a closet so they wouldn't scratch it by carrying it all over creation.

People do have iPods too.

Which is why I said

(which could be uploaded onto your PC with better sound quality than most downloads offer).

Or perhaps D, they bought the CD and never took it out of its plastic. They just shelved it and were fine with the already downloaded mp3s.

If that's the case, then they can if they choose. They're keeping the stolen material when they have legally purchased material right behind them, which is questionable, and they could have uploaded most likely better quality versions of the songs as people usually don't download .wav files due to size, which is questionable, but hey....

People still listen to music as they go about their computing, and it's ludicrous to use actual CDs for that task

It is? I truly feel sorry for anyone who is so busy or lazy that they can't pop a CD into a CD player. The agony.

 

[Marcus Willett]

"Isn't stealing a moral issue?" you might say. Off course it is. But why is it? Because someone is losing money. When nobody is losing any money at all, then tell me where does the etics come in?

PUH-LEEZ! You ARE kidding right? OK, I've got a comic book my father bought me when I was a kid. It's torn up and worthless...oh wait, lemme correct that. It's not worth any MONEY. You steal it from me? I will happily take my revenge on you with a passion. What kinda person would even THINK for a second that the reason stealing is WRONG is only because of the money involved? Is that the only thing of value in your world, the only thing that would bother you if someone took it?

 

[burk48237]

PUH-LEEZ! You ARE kidding right? OK, I've got a comic book my father bought me when I was a kid. It's torn up and worthless...oh wait, lemme correct that. It's not worth any MONEY. You steal it from me? I will happily take my revenge on you with a passion. What kinda person would even THINK for a second that the reason stealing is WRONG is only because of the money involved? Is that the only thing of value in your world, the only thing that would bother you if someone took it?

+ 1
See the upcomming TB companion thread: DO YOU MURDER PEOPLE?
Well it's Ok if they work for big corporations, As long as it dosen't hurt them finnancially, Well noboddys going to miss them if theres a lot of similar people around....................To find out if an argument is illogical just follow it to it's logical conclusion!!!!!!

 

[Marcus Willett]

Why is that such a big hangup? Is the thought that if someone couldn't rationalize it that they'd stop doing it or something?

Because I despise hypocrites. I don't respect a guy more who steals $10 and says "yeah, I stole it, I don't care either" but I DESPISE a guy who steals $5 and tries to give me some BS about how it's OK, or it's justified because "well, he's got more money than me and it's just not fair...blah, blah, blah..." Spare me. Be a man and be accountable for your actions.

Intellectual property has just as much intrinsic value as monetary.

THANK YOU! Here's a concept: money isn't actually worth anything. It's paper, talk to any economist. It's "value" is based on the fact that it can be readily traded for goods and services, but it doesn't have any value on it's own. Sounds like "intrinsic value" depends on what people want. Like good songs...?

Still waiting: Would someone PLEASE explain to me why you or anyone should be entitled to something free of charge?

Bonus material:
"steal: v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals v. t (emphasis mine) To USE, appropriate, or preempt the use of ANOTHER'S IDEA, especially to one's own advantage and WITHOUT CONSENT by the originator."
Omigosh, what will we do...?

 

[bigbeefdog]

It is.

It doesn't matter how much or how little money the artist will lose if you download a whole song when they have not given permission to. The song itself is their property, not just the CD; theft is theft, no matter the monetary value. The song is intellectual property, and has inherent value. If the artist gives Amazon.com permission to use a sample thirty seconds, then they can. Download anymore than that which the artist allows you to and you are stealing. It's like if a girl says you can't do more than kiss her on a first date because she's saving herself for marriage. She wouldn't be losing any money by someone taking what she didn't give them permission to-does that make it right? People keep using the music industry as a scapegoat. Those people need to wake up and deal with the fact that they're stealing intellectual property from musicians. Intellectual property has just as much intrinsic value as monetary.

The logic of this is obvious. But the trouble with these sort of arguments is that they oversimplify what is a *very* complex issue. And part of the reason is that music is distributed in many other ways besides sales.

I have a satellite radio subscription. I also receive 30-40 music channels on my cable TV system. Between the two of them, the majority of the songs I like to listen to can be found in the rotation.

It would be difficult to argue that I'm "stealing" as I listen to them, since I've paid for both subscriptions.

Now, I could very easily connect a recorder to my cable receiver. Shoot a line level output to a minidisc machine, sound card line input, or something like that. Make myself a high-quality copy of the music being broadcast over the cable system, so I can listen to it later. This is, by all accounts I've ever heard, completely legal and ethical, since I paid for the subscription. Same logic as using a VCR.

But if I make that *exact same mix* by downloading MP3 files (even while holding the subscriptions), it's considered theft, and deemed unethical.

This last sentiment is something that I actually agree with, and I purchase all my music on CD.

But it is very confusing to many that the exact same home-made copy, fairly high-quality in both instances, is legal/ethical if made one way (recorded from the cable box), and illegal/unethical if made another way (downloaded).

 

[Marcus Willett]

...the trouble with these sort of arguments is that they oversimplify what is a *very* complex issue...if I make that *exact same mix* by downloading MP3 files (even while holding the subscriptions), it's considered theft, and deemed unethical.

Excellent point, which is why our benchmark should be the principle and not legal or verbal semantics. I loved Clinton, but that whole "well, TECHNICALLY I didn't lie because blah blah blah...". Again, SPARE ME; and while you're at it stop insulting my intelligence. Oh gosh, I guess you check-mated me with that brilliant verbal move (barf).