I am not aware of a situation where illegal downloading is the only option available. There are many websites available when you can have physical cd's shipped pretty much anywhere in the world, even if the cost is tremendous. Are you talking about paid downloads? I'm not arguing against those at all. I agree that most music is pretty overpriced, and that living in a remote area can be a pain when it comes to acquiring music, but how does that justify theft?
I have an opportunity for judging a work before paying for it I choose to do that. You think that me pursuing an avenue open to me is dumb, I've been burnt way too often buying music that sucked for a price that sucked.
I think we're really agreeing here. I meant that if you feel like record companies or artists are charging too much or doing things wrong, then don't pay for it or steal from them.
What if I like something, but not enough to pay an exorbitant price? If I'm not even going to buy something at all (not a potential customer) how is downloading stealing?
Record companies need to start taking responsibility for their own problems. Their 'crisis' is as much to do with out dated pricing structures, terrible artist relations, shocking adaption to new media and unjustified hatred of potential consumers than it is to do with the downloaders.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Should everyone be able to taste test whatever product they want before a purchase, and then decide how much they want to pay, if at all? I don't see how that is even remotely respectful, or how it could work without a large established fan base.
I'm saying I understand why some people choose to taste test (although it's not taste testing, it's a complete evaluation of a work).
I don't really get what you're saying here either. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to decide the value.
Why not?
The artist and the distributors decide the price of the product, and then it's up to you to decide whether it is worth that price based on the information they have given you.
Sometimes it's not worth the bandwidth I spent acquiring it, and that's why I don't buy blindly. I'm not a millionaire and I often need to be careful with how I buy music.
It's a system that works for many, many other products, and definitely works for music as well.
I thought you were arguing that the system isn't going so well because it's failed to keep up with times.
If you have a problem with that system, then maybe you should be encouraging artists to release their music in other ways instead of just stealing from them.
I do. By supporting artists and record labels that use alternative distribution and fairer pricing structures (more for artist). I've said that already.
Right, and it is their decision to put up however much material they want. It is obviously in their best interest to not put up everything for free, as they make less money that way.
Some do, some don't.
If you aren't sure about buying a record from hearing the samples or reading reviews, then you should just not buy it. Stealing it is childish.
You think it's childish, I think it's clever.
Right, and artists decide how much information to release in order to inform and entice people into buying their product. If they haven't done enough for you, then don't support them.
Not that simple.
If you don't have enough information to decide if a record is worth it, then don't buy it.
Or I could download, then make my mind up.
If you feel that artists need to provide all of their content for free to try out first before you decide, then maybe you shouldn't support artists who don't do that.
Then I'd hardly support any artists, which isn't really what I want to do. I want to know those I choose to support are the ones I like the work of the best.
The Rolling Stones barely made any money from record sales in their heyday. Most of their money was royalties and touring. Sometimes 'supporting' the artist through buying a CD is convoluted and is more in support of a record company. Food for thought!
Even that argument doesn't make much sense to me, though. It isn't your right to test drive a product before you buy it. Some people provide that service, some don't. Just because you want to doesn't mean you are entitled to.
In Australia no one has any rights, so that matters not to me. There are many product that can be tried for free first (fruit, cars, computers, musical instruments, etc) certainly not all products, but obviously some.
I agree that ticket prices are too high and that artists are slow to respond to the situation. How does that justify theft again?
It doesn't, I was responding to something outside of 'theft'.
You can say that my analogy is flawed, but you need to provide evidence or reasons as to why or you are just spewing nonsense.
Because your analogy doesn't include the internet at all. It's a viral, modern, invasive, powerful medium. I don't think an analogy can be made for the situation.
The medium does not matter at all. In both situations a person feels entitled to more than a business is willing to provide. In the food situation, it seems ridiculous that a customer is acting that irrationally. Yet in the music one, you still feel entitled. The situations are practically the same, the product in question just changes.
No, the situations aren't the same at all.
Pirating is not a loaded term at all. If an artist is releasing music through paid or free downloads of their own free will then there is no problem, they are just being smart about their business. I fully support artists releasing free stuff and asking people to pay what they want. What I have a problem with is that people seem to feel like all artists should be doing this, and that if they don't then stealing is okay. Stealing is never okay.
No one has expressed anything remotely close to the last sentiment.
We are agreeing here, I think. The evidence that I speak of is my own personal experience, and the postings of other people in various places across the internet. I hear references to these articles about pirating leading to more sales, but I have never seen one. They get brought up often in these arguments, but a legitimate source has never shown it's face.
Perhaps more sales isn't fair. I've named a few artists that tangibly have had status because of the internet (and piracy with that). Certainly there are a great many articles for piracy being a minor factor in a more complex problem of declining music sales.
Invalid Link Removed
Also, even if there was verified significant evidence that pirating helps some artists, how does that make it okay?
No harm, no foul. In my book.
It's still a situation where people feel entitled to something that isn't theirs, and then take it without permission. Just because that person might do the right thing later and pay for it sometimes doesn't in any way justify the earlier actions.
I think it does. Would an artist care if I downloaded their work and bought it later? They're getting the same amount from me, regardless. I'm still supporting the, regardless.
It is ultimately the artist/distributors decision to price their product. If you don't agree, then don't buy it. Trying to justify stealing it doesn't work.
I'm providing a different look at a complex issue, that you seem to want to simplify to stealing vs 'the right thing'. I can't say any issue is that simplistic.
An earlier point you didn't 'get': if people are interested enough in music to download and listen to it than the music has intrinsic value. In other words, as a work, as a piece of art there is public, tangible credibility that the music has.
Now, whether or not those people decide to pay for the work is entirely a different issue. One that's connected to context, society, law, personal values/morals/ethics/history.
I resent your ideas that downloading is simply childish, immature, wrong, unfair and ignorant. It's a tool to be used for a variety of purposes. Some of them are, undoubtedly, all of the above. I know more people who have spent more on music because of downloading (I bought all these CDs, because I felt I owed it to the artist) than people who just take take take and never give.
Considering you seem to rely entirely on personal experience, yet want some convincing evidence of other people's personal experience. Well, I'm not sure, but it seems a little double standardish to me!
