Do you buy CD's?Music

[smellysocks12]

I don't believe the record industry is only against p2p downloading because of people stealing music, because people also find out about artists because of it and buy their cd's. I'm one of those. I believe the music industry is against illegal downloading because it makes the market and their products transparent. People are able to listen through the entire cd now and they can't get away with albums with only a couple of hits and mostly filler. So after they found out the album is pretty crappy they won't buy it. It makes it harder for them to sell trash to the masses.


This is the only reason why I use illegal download services. The RIAA could bust me for it, but I don't feel morally wrong at all because I buy whatever albums I like and delete the stuff I don't like after giving it a couple of tries. I haven't burned a signle album to cd for years and 95% of the music on my iPod is legally owned by myself.

 

[Silverzone]

But, still. Everyone likes different stuff, so something that you would consider garbadge may be treasures to someone else.

 

[a6m5]

But the ones that sell them for $18 or $20 have a much bigger markup. I know all stores mark things up, I'd have to be an ignorameous to not know that. One reason I buy electronics online is that online stores like newegg tend to have less of a markup than retail stores like CompUSA. (The king of markups...)

A what!? I was being a bit of smarta** in my last post, sorry!

 

[VIPFREAK]

Why does anyone think that the P2P part has anything to do with it? If you get the music dishonestly - record it off of MistaX's radio, get it from some Russian site, etc, IT IS STILL THEFT.

How is some site in Russia "copyright free"? The musicians or companies with rights to the songs still own that copyright, no matter where the file happens to be hosted. It's not like you can mystically make that go away just by changing the location of the server. Now, it may well be harder to prosecute them, but it in now way changes the illegality of it.

All this self-righteous rationalizing is really making me want to puke. I can't believe what some of you brats think you're entitled to do.

So lets see... that would mean you are doing illegal activity recording your t.v. show on Tivo or VCR then. As for the russian site it's still up so I'll continue to use it until they say it's illegal. I don't use it that much anyway.

Well put it this way... if I had to go back to CDs I'd go to a used record store and buy used like I used to rip it and maybe sell it back (that last part I haven't done yet). But if it's underground stuff I'm screwed because I don't think they even have it in CD form.

Here's a thought for all of you:

With such divided opinions here, the only common ground I can see this that all of us would like to be able to sample tracks before we buy a CD. It's only normal for a consumer to evaluate the quality of a product before it is bought. What if there were a website, program etc. that allowed you to download any songs for free, but only listen them to a limited number of times. After maybe 3 plays or so you would have to pay the 99 cents to keep the song. This way you wont have to pay to evaluate the product but it wouldn't be taking anything from the artist. Could this be a legal option? I know I would LOVE a well organized track sampler.

One coming by the former CEO of Grokster... Mashboxx.com

 

[Iceman]

Very interesting, I will be watching this closely 👍

 

[Duke]

So lets see... that would mean you are doing illegal activity recording your t.v. show on Tivo or VCR then.

Uhhhh, NO, because you pay for the cable service which, combined with advertising revenues, means you've paid for the right to watch and record that show. You're allowed to record the show for your own use; you're not allowed to record it and then post it on the internet to be copied for free.

Dear god, this just isn't that hard to understand; how dense can you be... on purpose?

As for the russian site it's still up so I'll continue to use it until they say it's illegal. I don't use it that much anyway.

If it is hosting pirated music files, it's illegal, and it doesn't matter where the server is located. And doing a little theft is still theft. If you only rip off one Big Gulp a week, 7-11 only loses 99 cents... but it's still shoplifting. Your lack of sense astounds me.

Well put it this way... if I had to go back to CDs I'd go to a used record store and buy used like I used to rip it and maybe sell it back (that last part I haven't done yet).

Let's put it this way instead: if you can't steal music by downloading it you'll steal it another way. Don't tapdance around, here; be a man about it and admit you are a thief.

But if it's underground stuff I'm screwed because I don't think they even have it in CD form.

If the band or artist is giving it away, then you're not a thief, and downloading is perfectly acceptable. If the band or artist is selling it and you are stealing the music by downloading from a pirate site, then you are a thief.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Ok, booo hoo... I'm a "thief" but there's 5 million more bigger "thiefs" in front of me.

 

[Duke]

You're still a thief.

 

[Shannon]

• A band, or whoever owns publication rights to the music, must by law pursue people who infringe their copyright. Otherwise there is a very legal risk that they will be considered to have abandoned ownership of the music. Here's an example: You and your neighbor both have side yards that join up against each other. 20 years ago, your neighbor built a fence that's 10 feet inside his property line. He thought that's where the line was, and for those 20 years, you've been mowing the grass and taking care of that 10 feet of property. When he goes to sell his land, guess what? You can now claim it as really yours. Because your neighbor neglected to enforce the ownership of his 10 feet of property, he has now lost it to you. It's called "adverse posession", and copyright law works in a very similar way. If a band does not enforce ownership of their music, they will lose ownership to the public domain. So call them assholes all you want; they are just doing what the law requires them to do to maintain their rights.

Heh. Too bad artists signed to major labels have basically already signed away all ownership to their own material. The material created by the artists isn't the artists' own material, its the label's (and in effect, the RIAA's).

The labels can even tell them what songs to put and not to put on the albums, which songs they think should be changed, and so on. All so they can hit a certain target audience and make more money from sales. How do the artists own any of their music? All the artists own is the 10c or whatever they make from each album sale.

So when you say about the artist's being required to enforce ownership, its not really. Its the labels associated with the RIAA that are enforcing ownership. Artists couldn't care less about the lawsuits. They see P2P as exposure, not theft of income.

I suggest everyone read this article.

 

[rotbarsch1979]

*looks at pile of MP3 CDs*
*looks at 300+ CDs*
*looks at 200+ vinyls*

I downloaded a lot of music when I first got online, which broadened my horizon and taste in music and bought a lot of the stuff I downloaded when I had money again.

Right now I try to buy CDs whenever I can. The music I still d/l is mostly hard to find underground stuff that's either not available here or costs 20-25€+ ($24-$30) in stores. And I don't really understand the *****ing of record companies over here, charging an average of $20 for new CDs, which is just too much.

 

[James2097]

You're still a thief.

Is it still the same product you're stealing though? I would argue the product is considerably inferior to the cd proper. MP3 sounds like crap on a decent hi-fi, and it doesn't last forever- its not a hard copy with nice cover art, case and booklet - part of the product you're getting. Is it any different to taping a song off the radio? Of course technically piracy, but the authorities turned a blind eye... same with those old tape players with high speed dubbing - designed purposefully to encourage the piracy of music! It has always been around and always will. P2P is the same thing, but organised better. Individuals shouldn't be more at fault than in the tape recorder days just because piracy is easier! The people aren't evil, the system of distribution is just flawed, and the record companies need to modernise and recognise what they're doing wrong (throwaway value of much pirated pop / price, distribution model...). They need a better business model than over priced cds (vinyls were comparitively much cheaper back in the day, with more art etc. You got more for you're money..).

With the majority of pop music being complete rubbish anyway (mwahahah hey its ok to be a little opinionated?), it almost legitimises its own worthless, throwaway value. This kind of music fits perfectly with the P2P, MP3 throwaway generation. The real value of the music has simply been regulated by the public!

As most people download the odd song to try a certain artist, the majority of people (that would never commit an ordinary crime, nor shoplift etc) can't all be terrible characters who should have their hands cut off for stealing.
The version of the product they're downloading is more akin to a fuzzy photocopied version of a book thats all on seperate sheets with ink that'll wash off at a moments notice without any cover art or binding to hold it together. I'm not saying it should be deemed worthless, but CDs are so much better than MP3s in my book, that no amount of P2P kiddies will significantly affect sales of good music. Notice the comparitive lack of jazz and classical music on P2P networks... and the overwhelming amount of commercial pop?! People will happily pay for music of quality/value - most people here
have proven that. I know I would feel incredibly guilty about not giving a good artist my money if I love their stuff... I want all the nice cover art, words printed in the booklet etc anyway!

I'm not trying to encourage the downloading of any commercially available song (I fully support good artists to recieve the profits they deserve), but I'm just pointing out some valid reasons why downloading an MP3 is in a totally different (minimal) leaugue of crime than traditional theft... and why most people don't see it as such a big deal.

I also don't care if you download music by artists who are dead (where the record label recieves all profits from sales). I believe maximum profit should go the artists themselves. If the record company creates the artist (eg britney) then maybe that record company IS the artist, and there is no injustice about who gets the profit! By the very commerciality of the music they almost deserve to lose money however. Yes there are distribution costs, manufacturing costs etc, but these aren't worth the customer's dollars alone if the music is rubbish.

I believe people on the whole do have a sense of justice about who profits from music sales, and they will buy CDs from artists that they respect. That is what the poll above has shown without a doubt. P2P piracy is just a protest regarding the real value of much pop music these days. I don't think most would download music often if: A. The music was less throwaway in quality
B. The profits went mainly to the artists.
and
C. The price was fair.
This is precisely what is happening.

It's how economics work for every other product, except music. The market should dictate the relative worth of products. P2P is just a voice of the market. The record companies are frustrated they no longer have a monopoly over the value of their product. MTV and marketing alone cannot sell CDs anymore, because we CAN listen to the music and objectively decide whether we like it... there is nothing wrong with consumers being savvy, and using a try-before-you buy system, if its seen as the norm in society. If the majority of people decide something is okay, then perhaps the law needs modifying...

I'm fine with the idea of consumers deciding the personal value of any product to them, and making a decision whether the price asked is too much for them. Its what everyone does when making a purchasing decision. With most products, if you don't like it, you can take it back for a full refund. Notice in music retailers, they have little signs that say "choose carefully, no refund on CDs"? I know they do in Myers Melbourne. Of course people are going to download a couple of songs from the album to avaluate it before making an uninformed purchase. But the law says this is illegal and you'll get arrested for theft!

Along the lines of the old hi-speed dubbing tape machines, manufacturers of MP3 players etc pretty much condone the whole MP3 download thing (the easiest way to get MP3s is downloading them illegally) by producing players with MASSIVE storage space for thousands and thousands of MP3s (not a format MOST record companies sell music in anyway...) and market them with an expectation you'll fill it up. It doesn't openly condone piracy, but in the same way as dual deck tape players, it pretty much legitimises and encourages piracy among the public. It makes piracy mainstream, and infers its not that bad to do now and then. Individuals that pirate the odd song shouldn't be made accountable entirely for their actions when they're possibly just doing what society expects of them...

People are getting mixed messages (all seemingly valid in the public eye) about the morals and legality of MP3 downloads, of course they're gonna be confused and not know what to do! 💡

 

[Duke]

Heh. Too bad artists signed to major labels have basically already signed away all ownership to their own material. The material created by the artists isn't the artists' own material, its the label's (and in effect, the RIAA's).

Then they signed bad recording contracts. If they didn't write their own songs, then they didn't own them to begin with. And if they did, they aren't so quick to sign away their rights.

Do you think REM didn't retain their rights to, say, Murmur, back when they were an unknown college band? You bet they did. We're not talking about made-for-consumption pop artists who are singing staff writers' music.

The labels can even tell them what songs to put and not to put on the albums, which songs they think should be changed, and so on. All so they can hit a certain target audience and make more money from sales. How do the artists own any of their music? All the artists own is the 10c or whatever they make from each album sale.

Artists own what they agree to retain for what they get paid. If they sell their rights to the record company, they are still getting paid for them. And if they make 10 cents on each albnum sale, I repeat, they signed a bad contract they shouldn't have signed.

So when you say about the artist's being required to enforce ownership, its not really. Its the labels associated with the RIAA that are enforcing ownership.

If they own the rights, correct, they are protecting their property, as they should and must. If the artist owns the rights, they should and must protect their property unless they choose to give away the music themselves.

Artists couldn't care less about the lawsuits. They see P2P as exposure, not theft of income.

Up-and-coming artists do see it as exposure, you're right. In fact nearly all local or regional bands are giving away their songs, if not whole CDs, on their own websites, for just that reason. That's not stealing in any way, and I've said numerous times it isn't.

But downloading or burning bootlegs of commmercial albums is theft, no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves it's not. Full stop.

 

[Duke]

Is it still the same product you're stealing though? I would argue the product is considerably inferior to the cd proper. MP3 sounds like crap on a decent hi-fi, and it doesn't last forever- its not a hard copy with nice cover art, case and booklet

So if I steal a crappy car - say a 5 year old Hyundai, instead of that new BMW - it's not theft, because it's inferior? That makes no sense. It's still theft. Videotaping first-run movies with a handheld camera in the theatre is still theft, even though it's inferior quality. How is this different?

Is it any different to taping a song off the radio? Of course technically piracy, but the authorities turned a blind eye...

NO! Broadcast media is not the same! By recording off the radio or TV, you are exposing yourself to the advertising that pays for the radio to be free to consumers. Or you're paying the subscription fee for non-commercial service. Either way, you're paying for the access to that product, in agreements that filter back to the owners of that product. And even if you record hours worth of music off of the radio, it's still illegal to give it away to other people; it's only for your personal use.

same with those old tape players with high speed dubbing - designed purposefully to encourage the piracy of music! It has always been around and always will. P2P is the same thing, but organised better. Individuals shouldn't be more at fault than in the tape recorder days just because piracy is easier!

Those tape machines can also used to duplicate original tapes made by a musician himself. But who said piracy was OK back then? Nobody! It's not the equipment that's to blame, it's how it's used that's the problem. Piracy was illegal and immoral then, and it still is now.

The people aren't evil, the system of distribution is just flawed, and the record companies need to modernise and recognise what they're doing wrong (throwaway value of much pirated pop / price, distribution model...). They need a better business model than over priced cds (vinyls were comparitively much cheaper back in the day, with more art etc. You got more for you're money..).

Bullcrap! Vinyls were more expensive in real dollars. LPs were anywhere from $8-$12 back in the early '80s when I bought them. According to the CPI inflation calculator, what cost $8 in 1980 would cost $20.32 in 2005. Yet I haven't paid more than $15 for a CD that wasn't a double, ever. Also, vinyl LPs don't sound as anywhere near as good, and they have an extremely short life compared to CDs! So your glory days of vinyl were not so glorious, considering they effective cost double what a new CD costs.

With the majority of pop music being complete rubbish anyway (mwahahah hey its ok to be a little opinionated?), it almost legitimises its own worthless, throwaway value. This kind of music fits perfectly with the P2P, MP3 throwaway generation. The real value of the music has simply been regulated by the public!

The majority of pop music has always been rubbish, everywhere, forever. That's no excuse either.

People are getting mixed messages (all seemingly valid in the public eye) about the morals and legality of MP3 downloads, of course they're gonna be confused and not know what to do! 💡

People are getting mixed messages because they refuse to admit the truth.

I'm done. Justify it to yourselves anyway you wish, but it doesn't change the truth: if you download music and then keep it without buying the album, it's theft. And no matter how many people decide they can get away with it, it's still theft.

 

[VIPFREAK]

You should get a job with the RIAA they'd love you.

 

[Duke]

Nah, I'm no lawyer. I just know what's right and what's wrong.

 

[Event]

So if I steal a crappy car - say a 5 year old Hyundai, instead of that new BMW - it's not theft, because it's inferior? That makes no sense. It's still theft. Videotaping first-run movies with a handheld camera in the theatre is still theft, even though it's inferior quality. How is this different?

Yes, it is theft, like you said, but it's no where near as high degree as stealing a CAR! You're saying that people like me are as bad as people who steal cars, or electronics, or even money. That's blowing things way out of proportion. It's more like stealing grapes at a grocery store. You pick at a grape or two, and then if you really like the grapes, you buy them.

I would thing twice before stealing a car, or even a pop from 7-11. I wouldn't think twice about downloading a song or an album. It's petty theft, not grand theft auto.

 

[VIPFREAK]

I would have said stealing candy at a candy store... the only difference between me an others is that you guys are stealing barrels of it where I'm just taking handfuls.

 

[James2097]

Oh Duke...

If you actually read my post correctly (erm, that would be a 'no')... you would realise:

I never actually encouraged rampant piracy in any way (nor argued that it wasn't theft, something you felt you needed to prove over and over), I was just making a case (in a debating sense) that it wasn't the crime of the century, that its level of criminality isn't on the same page as traditional theft. Of course its still a crime (duh), but its not the same as normal style shop-lifting etc, mainly due to a different (softer) stance on it in society. Of course this public stance doesn't make it legal! (it does make it arguably less morally evil amongst the general public however - hence causing confusion about what they can/can't do...). I'm not out to say whats right or wrong, I'm just explaining how some people (that do pirate) might think about it - purely to fuel debate.

So if I steal a crappy car - say a 5 year old Hyundai, instead of that new BMW - it's not theft, because it's inferior? That makes no sense. It's still theft. Videotaping first-run movies with a handheld camera in the theatre is still theft, even though it's inferior quality. How is this different?

Bad analogy, it misses the point entirely. I was just saying that stealing an MP3 was not equivalent to stealing the CD, and thusly not necessarily hurting CD sales as much as you might think. Of course its still stealing though.

NO! Broadcast media is not the same! By recording off the radio or TV, you are exposing yourself to the advertising that pays for the radio to be free to consumers. Or you're paying the subscription fee for non-commercial service. Either way, you're paying for the access to that product, in agreements that filter back to the owners of that product. And even if you record hours worth of music off of the radio, it's still illegal to give it away to other people; it's only for your personal use.

When did all radio stations have advertisements or subscription fees? Public broadcasting? Australian Triple JJJ? Oh but then you're still paying government tax, so you're still paying for the service... can you get done for piracy if you're on welfare and don't pay tax? It really starts to get tenuous here... your point isn't really important to what I was debating anyway. I was just pointing out that we shouldn't now vilify music pirates any MORE than we did in the past (again I'm not justifying their actions completely, they are still guilty of a crime), just because it is easier to do. There is a PRECEDENT set in society (as opposed to a law) that taping the radio/TV, copying tapes etc is NORMAL. Again, of course its still illegal. Again, just me giving evidence why some people may honestly believe (even wrongly) that its OK to download music a bit...

Those tape machines can also used to duplicate original tapes made by a musician himself. But who said piracy was OK back then? Nobody! It's not the equipment that's to blame, it's how it's used that's the problem. Piracy was illegal and immoral then, and it still is now.

Duh. I agree. The manufacturers DO make products that are seemingly designed to aid piracy (regardless of legal uses they may have originally intended) which DOES make people think its OK to use their dual deck tape machine to hi-speed dub some good old 80s Dire Straits or something...
Does Apple think the average 16 year old iPod owner legally owns enough music to fill up an 80 gig model? Thats a lot of money on CDs. They KNOW a fair proportion of the songs on it will be illegally downloaded, this is how the machines are marketed. X number of songs in your pocket! All my point is, is that over the years hardware manufacturers have made many products that seemingly encourage piracy (no matter how subtley), they admit it goes on, possibly even using this illegal activity to drive hardware sales. Hence more moral confusion amongst many people...

Bullcrap! Vinyls were more expensive in real dollars. LPs were anywhere from $8-$12 back in the early '80s when I bought them. According to the CPI inflation calculator, what cost $8 in 1980 would cost $20.32 in 2005. Yet I haven't paid more than $15 for a CD that wasn't a double, ever. Also, vinyl LPs don't sound as anywhere near as good, and they have an extremely short life compared to CDs! So your glory days of vinyl were not so glorious, considering they effective cost double what a new CD costs.

CDs are generally much cheaper in the states than here in Aus. Vinyls were cheaper back in the day. Ask any old dude from Australia. Sound quality wasn't a percieved problem at the time, and vinyls still sound great through a really good hi-fi, many people (admittedly not me) actually prefer the warmer sound (not as harsh a top end as a CD). They also last fine you look after them properly. CDs are hardly indestructible either, so its a non-issue. Maybe in the states CDs are much cheaper and they are better value for money, but in Aus many feel CDs are overpriced for what you get. I feel my original point is perfectly valid from my perspective.

The majority of pop music has always been rubbish, everywhere, forever. That's no excuse either.

I actually mentioned I was just giving MY OPINION about current pop music. And excuse for what? Did you misunderstand my point AGAIN? (erm yes sir!)
When was I arguing it was OK to be a rampant pirate? I'm just discussing the issues, trying to work out (trying to see things from BOTH sides) what factors may have led to such mainstream pirating of music, why a big chunk of society thinks its ok. I'm saying things for the purpose of debate, throwing ideas that may be relevant out there. Please stop inventing things to be reactionary about, Duke. I'm just trying to cover all bases as to why piracy is such a problem... Besides, pop music IS worse nowadays. At least it used to be FUN in the old days, and not about popping caps in people's arses. Its hard to argue that MTV/sampling hasn't made pop music more throwaway in quality. Sure there were crap songs at every point in time, but at least they were performed in real time by a band, the very nature of it being less sterile and pre-fabricated than today. The emphasis of the visual element over the actual music and the sheer vacuousness that pervades much of modern pop really makes me think its crap. If you want to disagree, good on you. Your point wasn't on track with what I'm discussing anyway.

People are getting mixed messages because they refuse to admit the truth.

How can some people refuse to admit the truth if they honestly haven't got a clue they're doing something morally wrong (within their own (and society's) judgement)? There are people like this, believe it or not. Society has dictated that piracy is normal, almost kinda cool in a way. If there wasn't genuine confusion about whether downloading MP3s/Movies was JUST AS BAD as stealing them from a shop (a level of crime that most people would not cross), the government wouldn't need to run ads telling the public this message in cinemas right across Australia.

I'm done. Justify it to yourselves anyway you wish, but it doesn't change the truth: if you download music and then keep it without buying the album, it's theft. And no matter how many people decide they can get away with it, it's still theft.

I never personally justified that pirating music was OK, but was only discussing why it is so prevalent now, and what the recording industry is doing wrong to promote this. Because frankly, I think laws need changing if half a nation would be put in jail tomorrow if there was a huge crackdown on music pirates. That many people can't all be considered criminals, hence its just a problem the people, government and the record companies will have to work through if you want to eliminate piracy. Perhaps a trial period for listening to a song a few times would be a good system, I'm not sure. As we've already proven, most of us only ever use P2P to trial an artist to make an evaluation about their CD. Technically piracy, but also a right as a consumer (if any other product was being sold). Again, I'm not advocating or legitimising piracy, its still and illegal act, but one I feel can be justified under certain (limited) circumstances. Certainly not the ideal situation, I want a piracy free society as much as you.

P.S. The bold text is patronising, considering you constantly misunderstand me.

I think we agree that piracy is bad and we want to eliminate it, but you're seeing it from a really simplistic point of view, where you're either a criminal (and hence evil) or you're not. Many otherwise respectable people from all walks of life/occupations pirate the odd song to evaluate a CD (due to society's acceptance of P2P for that use), are you gonna lock them all up?

 

[Duke]

Yes, it is theft, like you said, but it's no where near as high degree as stealing a CAR! You're saying that people like me are as bad as people who steal cars, or electronics, or even money.

But you ARE stealing money.

I would thing twice before stealing a car, or even a pop from 7-11. I wouldn't think twice about downloading a song or an album. It's petty theft, not grand theft auto.

But it is STILL theft.

And why would you steal an album without thinking about it, but hesitate to steal a pop from 7-11? Because you'd be afraid that the 7-11 clerk would catch you, but you know you probably will get away with stealing the album.

Just because you get away with it doesn't make it legal, or moral. This endless parade of self-justification is disgusting.

 

[Event]

But you ARE stealing money.

But it is STILL theft.

Just because you get away with it doesn't make it legal, or moral. This endless parade of self-justification is disgusting.

Yes, I KNOW IT'S THEFT! I said that! But you're making it sound like I am as bad as someone who steals cars. I guess it's not moral and I guess I am justifying my actions, but you have to admit, I'm not as bad as a car theif. You're basically calling me a dirty, immoral criminal who should be locked up forever in solitary confinement with the car theives and grand larcenists. I'm admitting that I am a theif and a criminal. Stop using that point, you've trodded that point out countless times in this thread. It is true. Piracy of music is theft. You made your point. But you still seem to think it is as bad as stealing cars!

And if I was stealing money, then I would see that money, but I never see it. If you say that stealing ANYTHING is stealing money, then, yes, I am stealing money. That point could be used for any sort of theft.

[qupte=duke]And why would you steal an album without thinking about it, but hesitate to steal a pop from 7-11? Because you'd be afraid that the 7-11 clerk would catch you, but you know you probably will get away with stealing the album.[/quote]
Yes, that is a factor. There's a much less chance of me being caught this way.

 

[Duke]

So it's acceptable to beat somebody up, since it's not as bad as killing them, right?

For the record, I never said pirating music was as bad as car theft. You're the one who said it wasn't really theft because the quality of what was stolen was not as good as the original CD. I was the one that said that theft is theft and varies only by degree; it has no threshold where it becomes 'not theft' just by the value of what is stolen.

 

[Danoff]

The poll isn't large enough. I do not buy CD's anymore. I get my music exclusively from MP3 downloads - off of itunes.

 

[James2097]

So it's acceptable to beat somebody up, since it's not as bad as killing them, right?

For the record, I never said pirating music was as bad as car theft. You're the one who said it wasn't really theft because the quality of what was stolen was not as good as the original CD. I was the one that said that theft is theft and varies only by degree; it has no threshold where it becomes 'not theft' just by the value of what is stolen.

Duke, cut the badly thought out analogies. There is no other crime (certainly not stealing cars, or beating people up...) thats on the same level of pissyness as downloading a couple of MP3s, so any analogy will not be condusive to your point. Your point is that its still a crime (no matter how small) and that laws should be followed. Yes, this was NEVER in contention by me... but I DO feel that we should be able to discuss why a lot of people have such a minimal sense of guilt when downloading the odd song to try out, how society has changed people's outlook on music piracy. There is no other simlar situation to use for moralising sake. We all know its copyright infringment, but its possibly considered the most minimal of crimes (yes still a crime!!!) possibly less bad (in society's view, not mine - don't misunderstand again...) than a traffic fine.

I assume the second bit was directed just at me.

I NEVER ARGUED MUSIC PIRACY WAS NOT THEFT. DUH! I did make points to say how it was less bad than stealing a CD from a shop, and explained some reasons why it seems to be legitimised in modern society (something we must understand if we're to get a better solution one day), but again, I will ALWAYS hasten to add that it was STILL A CRIME, although a very minimal one. Again, stop crapping on about how its theft. We all know this. Theft is theft is theft! DUH! I am not trying to encourage piracy or condone it (except for evaluation after which you delete the file straight away, or buy the CD). But we DO need to understand why its so prevalent in society and why many people feel OK about doing it. Of course piracy isn't the ideal outcome when all someone wants to do is hear a song to evaluate it, whether they should buy the CD or not... Of course out and out rampant piracy of hundreds of albums (not simply evaluation) is quite bad.

Personally, I've said I only use P2P for evaluating an album (and only if its not on iTunes to demo a snippet - I will take legal means wherever I can...). I feel incredibly guilty if I really LIKE the music and don't then buy the CD. Because I happen to respect what the artists do and that they deserve my money. If I don't like the music then I don't buy the album, and I don't keep the song anyway. This is purely because there is no good legal way to evaluate songs. Yes, even evaluating IS a crime, but its a totally victimless one (no profit reduction) if you do it responsibly like me. Like the music> BUY CD. Hate it? BIN IT! Victimless. In fact it makes me buy MORE cds than I otherwise would, because I know whats good and buying a CD isn't a gamble. Is this evaluating okay in your opinion Duke?

 

[Duke]

Your point is that its still a crime (no matter how small) and that laws should be followed. Yes, this was NEVER in contention by me... but I DO feel that we should be able to discuss why a lot of people have such a minimal sense of guilt when downloading the odd song to try out, how society has changed people's outlook on music piracy. There is no other simlar situation to use for moralising sake. We all know its copyright infringment, but its possibly considered the most minimal of crimes (yes still a crime!!!) possibly less bad (in society's view, not mine - don't misunderstand again...) than a traffic fine.

But that's exactly what I am discussing. Some portion of society - amply represented in this very thread - thinks that downloading music to keep is acceptable. That portion of society is wrong. What's the problem? We're discussing why people have such a minimal sense of guilt - while some actually have a sense of entitlement. Isn't that what the topic has become?

Of course piracy isn't the ideal outcome when all someone wants to do is hear a song to evaluate it, whether they should buy the CD or not... Of course out and out rampant piracy of hundreds of albums (not simply evaluation) is quite bad.

Is this evaluating okay in your opinion Duke?

I said long ago that I didn't have a problem with evaluating by download, provided you actually delete the songs you don't buy, after you decide not to buy them.

 

[James2097]

Fair enough, but do you want to know why some people (whom are otherwise good moral citizens) think its not so bad to download and keep songs? Surely we need to at least hear out some of the arguments they might come up with (before condemning with an emboldened cry of THEIF! ITS AS BAD AS PUNCHING A GRANNY IN THE FACE!), so that a solution can be worked out to make piracy less attractive...

For sure everyone knows its WRONG legally. The copyright act says so. Some seem to think its ok morally however - hence they feel entitled to the music somehow, probably because they have the feeling they are being ripped off by society, that there's some kind of great injustice going on... those people are where the problem lies with me.
I don't so much mind someone who actually feels guilty when pirating (and does so out of neccessity), because if a legal system of evaluating songs (listening to them ALL the way through, not just snippets) was available, they'd probably use it.

Surely its unrealistic (and unjust?) to arrest 75% of the general populace who 'pirate' music to some degree?*

*the indication given from the poll at the top of the page - I know - HARDLY accurate... it would still be a very high percentage however...

 

[Duke]

FSurely we need to at least hear out some of the arguments they might come up with

Haven't bought an album for about 4 years. This p2p thing has made me consume music in a new way, I don't find CD:s attractive as a medium at all anymore. However I would probably buy music online if it was cheaper than it is today and the choises were wider than they currently are.

I am a college student (or will be this fall). I need to pay for tuition and other expenses. I don't have time for a job, because of my studies, so I hagve no spare cash. I love music, and want to hear good new music, but I have no money to buy CDs, so I download them (for free). If I don't download them, I have to listen to the radio, and sit through tons of ads and talk and other songs that are played the crap out of, which really irks me.

Yeah, I buy CDs.
Blank ones.

Hell no! why?? I don't want to have to deal with that ****. Beside I'm a singles collector not albums. And my ass $0.99 is not a rip off for one song.

So, ignoring the "try before I buy" folks, pretty much everybody here just wants something for nothing, and they don't care about anybody else.

Which is bloody rich, since I've argued with a lot of them about economics, and been accused of being an unfeeling monster for not caring about anybody else.

 

[Event]

So, ignoring the "try before I buy" folks, pretty much everybody here just wants something for nothing, and they don't care about anybody else.

Which is bloody rich, since I've argued with a lot of them about economics, and been accused of being an unfeeling monster for not caring about anybody else.

Well, I guess I am a horrible monster with no feelings. Oh well, I've been told that I'm a very nice, snesitive guy IRL, but I guess my actions towards the RIAA show my true feelings.

 

[smellysocks12]

Well, I guess I am a horrible monster with no feelings. Oh well, I've been told that I'm a very nice, snesitive guy IRL, but I guess my actions towards the RIAA show my true feelings.

Not all artists are affiliated with the RIAA... so there goes your theory.

 

[Event]

Not all artists are affiliated with the RIAA... so there goes your theory.

Well, I mainly download stuff that is affiliated with the RIAA... and it's not a theory. It's sarcasm.

 

[HATEKORE]

I only buy SJR cds because no other artist deserves my support for ripping SJR off