"Ethics" of Downloading Music?

When real artists start coming by my city more often and giving me other options I would stop DLing. Also, I can't afford a $20 CD that could be sold for $5 if the gay ass production company didnt squander so much.
 
I do both. Download and pay for music. The music I get is dance music, which has adapted itself wonderfully (note: not iTunes or Napster). The music I can buy online is at a reasonable price (by no means a good price however its a good start) and theres none of that DRM involved.

What grates me is seeing how music companies, even those that release music online, hold back releases from distribution simply because they can make more money from them. So heres where the gripe is, I buy what I can from legit sites, however if it isnt made available I will go and get it for free.

I think the system still defeats itself by clinging to the old models or distribution and copyrights. Whereto from here I don't know?
 
I think for certain types of music and music scenes the ability to download the songs has helped not hindered their ability to get recognition, If I get music I like i'll buy the record so as long as you're still supporting the artists in some way its ok. I don't believe that music is something that should just be shared for its creativity because people spend alot of their life and money into making their music so if it's good they should get something back because otherwise all music will be end up being recycled, mass-produced shit.
 
The whole music piracy scene is basically a recycled circle.

The law lets DJ's play other artists music legally if it's on record. But if the DJ plays music on Burnt CD's then the law will come down hard on his/her back.
Makes no sense whatsoever!
 
Tech Kinetics said:
The whole music piracy scene is basically a recycled circle.

The law lets DJ's play other artists music legally if it's on record. But if the DJ plays music on Burnt CD's then the law will come down hard on his/her back.
Makes no sense whatsoever!
Click to expand...


yes the law does make sense. the djs who get records pay the artist. most people with burnt CDs (though with so many digital downloads available these days its not always true) just download off soulseek and put it on a disc. There is a huge difference there.
 
i feel that when you download, you are sacrificing the quality of the music.

mp3s = compressed = worse quality than cds, or the best, vinyl.

so i dont feel bad when i download, and i still buy music.


i dont get why people would pay for music off the internet though, that just seems stupid. if you are going to spend money you should at least get your dollar's worth.
 
it will never cease to amaze me how metallica, who for decades have allowed any fan with a ticket to record their concerts (audio or video) and trade them freely, are made out to be assholes for the UNPARDONABLE SIN of wanting to have some degree of control over the distribution of their albums. god forbid!
 
Michael...I think its because of the horrible irony of the fact that Metallica's career was essentially 'made' from bootlegs, etc. Then AFTER they gain the recognition, they turn on the fanbase and distribution system that gave them all that they have now.

bootlegs and word of mouth made their careers when they had no radio-play. now that they have afforementioned radio-play......they are somehow hurt by the system that made them? I....and many others...call bullshit on that one.

of course maybe thats just me. :p
 
and in the case of strugglig musicians...maybe I'd understand, but they really need another $10 mil? their 'critically acclaimed' movie not rakin in enough?

they've become mass marketing at its worst when initially they were the antithesis of that. millionares whinin' over another mil.....and record companies trying to cover their losses with failed 'next big hit's.

crap.

for the record...i've always thought Metallica sucked. And I have in excess of 500+ store bought cds...not to mention vinyl....much of it crap.

And considering that the cd industry was found guilty of price-fixing,and yet the price i've paid for their bad judgement in band/music investment has never gone down...yes i feel like I've paid enough. I havent bought but a few cd's in the past 5 yrs. I'll support artists the old-fashioned way....by supporting them live.

I'm tired of the old paradigm of one succesful cd paying for 100 of the labels failures. why should i pay for their piss-poor taste and feeble attempts at marketing crap? Theres a reason why the number of artists is at the moment unparalleled and yet the record industry is complaining of a slump......over-saturation of shit.

when will they learn?
 
Speaking about Music Piracy, I'm going to come down hard on Electronica music based on bad experiences I've had.
Now, this does NOT mean I dislike electronica music! But I just really think people should not pay for CD Mixes.

First of all, there is not enough distrubted copies of older mixes that came out 2 or more years ago. Therefore creating a higher need to find it online.

Another thing, 80% of most electronica DJ's are either:
A) Lazy
B) Charge rediculous Show fees
C) Play other artists records
D) Never tour
 
CDMills said:
Good points all around.
what do you guys think of these new age advanced turntables with mp3 capabilities?

right or wrong?
Click to expand...

more flexibilty is better, and more capability is always good - that's my opinion. and besides, anyone who's into filesharing and audio will most probably be able to convert mp3s to wavs if they wanted anyway - it's pretty simple.

one of my good friends - and an incredible DJ - only plays d/loaded music. i couldn't ethically be happy with doing that, but to be honest most of what he downloads is unreleased free stuff from bedroom producers anyway.

the problem is that i'm a fat steaming bastard of a hypocrite, because i use a fair amount of d/loaded software... i mean, finding £12 for a CD is a LOT easier than finding £300 for ableton or a grand for waves, but still - there's almost no ethical consistency there. my argument is that as soon as i can afford software i will purchase upgrades etc... but basically it's purely hypocritical.
 
ChemicalOne said:
Michael...I think its because of the horrible irony of the fact that Metallica's career was essentially 'made' from bootlegs, etc. Then AFTER they gain the recognition, they turn on the fanbase and distribution system that gave them all that they have now.
Click to expand...

so having all of those live recordings available free means they should have released that album free too? i mean cmon.
 
being floated on peer-2-peer is hardly the same as releasing an album free. thats like saying they released all the previous bootlegs free. releasing an album for free implies that the publisher and artist still assume responsibilty for distribution for no gain. not the case.

just like the previous bootlegs only encouraged their album sales in the long run, it is the great lie of the RIAA that p2p is an entirely negative thing. There is a huge percentage of people who are exposed to singles/music thru p2p, directly or indirectly, that go on to purchase an album/cd legally. otherwise those metallica bootlegs wouldn't have 'made' Metallica. but the simple fact is, tho' the RIAA and Lars like to forget it,those bootlegs translated into album sales. and in p2p they still often do.

wether it's people on dial-up who cant be bothered to download the whole thing, or computer illiterates who heard their friend's 'burned copy'and go buy it, or anything of the like.

but they are so concerned with bleeding every penny they lose sight of the big picture.And of course Lars can maintain such narrow-mindedness now that he's a 'superstar'....all thanks to bootlegs. He now has the name to sell w/o them.....forgetting he wouldnt have that name if not for them. he would be nothing.

hardly the same as giving an album out for free.
:p
 
my stance

I've been thinking allot about this one recently here are some thoughts, specifically relating to dance music.

First and foremost if you do you any form of P2P network you MUST get peer guardian http://www.methlabs.org/ – I can’t stress this enough.

* I've collected a huge amount of dance music over the years the majority has been from kind DJ's who have let me jack in MD player while they are mixing, recorded from the radio 4ZZZ, dubbed on tape from a mate who dubbed the tape from another guy who might have bought the original etc. If I share these mixes am I ripping off the company who pressed the record? or the DJ who put it together? or both? Most of the mixed tapes from back in the day did not include track listings so I'd bet the DJs weren’t paying the royalties in the first place, so can they get mad if I don't pay them royalties?

* When I've found a DJ that I like from getting a copied mix tape has sparked my interest in them and then I have chosen specific parties to go to just to see them play live, therefore contributing to a "crowd" that makes a successful party, which subsequently keeps that DJ getting rebooked for more gigs which in turn keeps them buying new records.

*If a legit CD from that DJ comes out I have always paid for It., based on the boot leg copies that I have heard in the past.

* I am now very label conscious when choosing to buy a CD. If I have $30 in my pocket and find myself torn between a few choices in the music store, I will choose the one from the smaller labels, because I believe (might be totally wrong here) that the artist will see more of the money and the label will put my money to better use as they don't have the huge budgets and inefficiency of the large labels. EG I have a "Shock record in one hand and a Ministry of sound in the other (BMG or EMI or Sony) - no need to guess which one I am putting back on the rack.

* Case point:- I happened to get chatting to a guy in Amsterdam via my P2P client (Shareaza) www.shareaza.com and I directed him to my music site, from which he downloaded some work by aussie DJ's. He was obviously blown away, told his friends about my site and it moved 2GB overnight - Bandwidth I have to pay for. There is no way know, that these people could have ever had the opportunity to hear, let alone pay for this music over the counter. Who knows, but one of them could be or know a promoter and these DJ's suddenly get booked for an international gig... these things do happen. Or if that DJ is touring on their own accord, they will for sure go to see them.

Please read my "toung in cheek" disclaimer on my redesigned site and tell me what you think... am I at risk?

www.6degreeshr.com/music.htm

I am putting the rest of the music back up over the next week as I can now drive cool edit pro sufficiently well enough to make any old tape sound great, subsequently high res mixes will be up soon.
 
ChemicalOne said:
thats like saying they released all the previous bootlegs free.
Click to expand...

they did. you're free to trade them with whoever. you still can. what was that you were trying to say? they gave away a couple thousand hours worth of music for FREE and people are complaining about paying for a cd? GET FUCKING REAL.. complain about who makes money from the cd, complain about the RIAA (you rebel) but for chrissakes at least project your anger that it's a teensy bit harder to not pay for music in the right direction. if they are so concerned with 'squeezing every penny' why did they allow all of that taping? why is it alolowed to share those recordings?

how many artists are there that never gave you anything free? metallica gave away shitloads. they asked people to pay for less than a tenth of what they gave away! what total assholes! how greedy!

why are you mad at them?

be honest now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top