Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by 4 stringed fury, Sep 30, 2008.
This post is kinda ironic, in hindsight.
ya it is...
I guess you guys did goad me into trying to rationalise it.
I know its wrong. I know its stealing. I will still do it.
you have the same birthday as me.
A handy guide, hotlinked for your pirated pleasure.
I download albums and it pisses me off. I know I shouldn't but I do it anyway. Meh.
Since dude (OP) did not say what he was talking about originally, and this did not give me any idea what he was talking about, I will abstain from adding my opinion to this.
So it's okay when the record companies do it but not when the public does it?
These threads always seem to go the same way. Still, I'll chip in the same opinions I always do:
Whatever your rationale may be, the fact remains that a musician or group of musicians created music motivated by some combination of artistic expression and financial gain. It's their intellectual property and to take it with no compensation and without their consent is wrong. Period.
But here's the bigger picture for me. In this day and age, you don't need a large record label to commission the production of CDs and distribute them. Some would argue that you don't even need their financial backing for a real studio anymore. But in my mind, what they are needed for is marketing. The ability to "get a name out".
And yet as record companies see their profits shrinking they will gamble less and less on outside the mainstream acts. Instead of big pop acts being the cash cows that allowed them to take chances on smaller acts, they will be the lifeblood that allow them to keep going. Anyone who wants to complain about how bad/bland the majority of pop music is currently just has to wait awhile. It will get worse.
I'm 31. I was in college when Napster was exploding. I also spent seven years teaching high school kids (some of whom had iPods with 10,000 songs they didn't pay for) and have had a life long obsession with music. So I have a pretty good overview of this situation.
First off, the "but I can't afford all the music I want" argument I saw from someone else in this thread doesn't fly. I bought, on average, 3 cds a week when I was 16-21 or so. I lived at Amoeba records, buying used reviewer copies of new albums, doing free record reviews for publications for cds, hell I would even trade our band's cds for cds from other bands I wanted. Even though they're all transferred to mp3 now, I still own between 1600-1700 cds at last count.
Also, the I want to preview it argument is pretty weak. I have a subscription to Rhapsody. $10 or $15 if, like me, you want to put the music on a player rather than just listen at your computer. I can listen to whatever I want, any time I want. If I want the songs permanently, I can buy them at $0.89 a pop. And what if they don't have an album I want? Then I buy it. Problem solved.
I think you're right about one thing. This is a generational divide, but not in the sense that you mean. The divide comes up because we have a younger generation who (1) thinks that everything they do is a choice or a moral ambiguity rather than a black and white, right or wrong matter and (2) don't want to be judged for their actions.
i try not to and haven't in a long time....i big on support artist i enjoy and respect
I don't download music, but I've always had a hard time countering this argument.
Taping radio is legal. By taping a song off the radio, you are costing a record company money they would have gained had you bought the CD. Disregarding quality, I can't seem to find any reason why downloading a song is different enough from taping off the radio to make it illegal.
I support live music.
Technically illegal, but try and stop it. TRY and stop it. I have no doubt record companies will find new sources of revenue, but I wish I was good at statistics to figure out how much "money" this theft is theoretically costing them.
Download whatever you want people.
Technically, taping off the radio falls under the realm of "fair use".
But if you want a simpler explanation, it's about the level of control. The record company released that album for stations to play, often marketing it to make it more likely they'd play it. In turn the radio station plays what will pay their bills, via advertising. In short, there is a distinction in the thinking of record companies between you taping the song they want played to a wide audience and you deciding to make a copy of whatever you want.
At least that's how I see it.
I have never downloaded any music, movies or games.
Between the two great used CD stores in my city and used copies on Amazon, there are ways around paying $20 for a disc.
If I have to learn a new song for a gig, I can usually find multiple versions on YouTube including the music video which usually has the album version on it. Not to mention people will just post the audio of songs sometimes.
Does putting a "technically" in front of "stealing" make people feel better about it or what? Is that one of those rationalization things? If not, what's the point of calling something that's illegal "technically illegal"? Aren't robbery, vandalism, money laundering, rape, etc... all "technically illegal" as well?
Because it's easy nowadays, many guys of my generation do it and don't think it's stealing. It still is, it's just easy, and the Robin Hood-ish arguments are lame.
I'm tired of this debate.
If I half-care about this random already rich group, I won't download their CD because I enjoy listening to it once in a blue moon. I'll sometimes listen to a radio that plays them, or write their name on Last.fm. If my favorite group is already rich and just put out a new CD, good for them, they'll make more money. I'll buy it anyway, because they deserve it.
That made me lol.
That being said. I've never actually downloaded illegally, but I have copied music from people who have, which is just as bad. I think it's a grievous thing to do in a way, and yet I can't stop doing it. My desire to listen to more and more music overpowers the guilt that I feel when I do so.
I try to buy all the music I can, but I think it would be a worse world if people had to put a cap on the amount of music they could listen to, based on their budgets.
I'm not sure what to say.
Wouldn't buying used be even worse the downloading, since not only does the artist make no money on you listening to their music, but someone ELSE is making money off their album?
All, in all, it comes down to economics. Albums are cheaper and cheaper to produce and the supply of music is astronomically high. You could listen to new music every waking minute of your life and never hear the same thing twice. Yet, Inexplicably, the cost of a CD continues to rise. Add to that the fact that everyone with a computer and an internet connection has access to any song they want, for free, and it no longer makes sense to even expect to make money on selling CDs. It's lke selling ice to eskimos. Sure, you can make a law that tells all the eskimos that they have to pay for their ice, but that won't change the reality of the situation. This does not help us to come to a conclusion as to the "right and wrong," but I think it does highlight an obvious flaw in being upset about not being able to make a living off of a product that exists within an EXTREMELY over-saturated market.
To STEAL something an object has to move from one person's possession into another person's possession. NO ONE LOSES when someone downloads an album that they would never have otherwise purchased.
In regards to the "downloading vs stealing a bass" argument:
YES, making an album and making a bass both require someone to spend time, money, and resources to produce BUT when I steal the bass guitar then there is no longer a bass guitar available to be sold, and the person who made the bass guitar are now "out" a bass guitar. OTOH, when I make a copy of a song, the song still exists in it's original form, the person who created the song does not LOSE the song. These are two fundamentally different concepts and insinuating that they are not is disingenuous.